HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix R
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/WA/Auburn/9466A00/Deliverables/Appendices/Appendix_Covers.docx
City of Auburn Comprehensive Water Plan
APPENDIX R
WATER FACILITIES EVALUATION STUDY
12-1360.405 Page 1 of 13 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 4
Date: September 30, 2014
Project: 12-1360.407
To: Robert Elwell, P.E.
Sewer Utility Engineer
Susan Fenhaus, P.E.
Water Utility Engineer
From: Marshall Meyer, P.E.
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
Re: City of Auburn Water Facilities Evaluation Study – Technical Memorandum
No. 4, Task 7 Facility Evaluation Analysis, and Task 8 Documentation and Data
Integration
Purpose
Work performed in Tasks 7 and 8, and summarized in this technical memorandum, use the
facility inspection data gathered in previous tasks to provide a prioritized list of condition
related improvements recommended for the City’s water system facilities. This technical
memorandum also includes a capital maintenance plan, estimated project costs associated
with the improvements specified, and recommendations for future condition assessments.
Introduction and Background
Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc. (MSA) is performing an evaluation of the City of Auburn
Utilities Department’s (City) water supply facilities. The scope of work for this study
includes the following tasks:
Task 1 – Data Gathering
Task 2 – Table Top Review and Initial Assessment
Task 3 – Evaluation Criteria/Rating Model and Inspection Work Plan Development
Task 4 – Assessment and Evaluation Workshop
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 2 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Task 5 – Facility Inspections
Task 6 – Second Tier Facility Inspections
Task 7 – Facility Evaluation Analysis
Task 8 – Documentation and Data Integration
Task 9 – Database Integration (Optional Task)
Project documentation includes the preparation of four Technical Memoranda (TM), with
TM Nos. 1, 2 and 3 complete. A brief summary of each is presented as follows.
TM No. 1 includes documentation of the project start up meeting, data gathering work and a
workshop with City water system operations staff intended to provide additional information
related to the City’s water system facilities. TM No. 1 documented information related to 97
water system facilities in the City and represented the Task 1 deliverable.
TM No. 2 documented preliminary facility assessment work performed including a
comprehensive table top review and assessment of the information that was gathered and
compiled. TM No. 2 documents the assessment of this data to identify facilities for physical
inspection. This memorandum also documented the development of a rating model used to
select City water system facilities for inspection. The model used eight (8) category scores
developed from a review of City data. Each facility was scored and compared to other
facilities and an inspection threshold score. Based on an initial analysis, 40 facilities were
identified for inspection. Following the workshop 40 of the City’s 97 water supply facilities
were selected for physical inspection and evaluation under Task 5.
TM No. 3 documented the results of the physical inspections of facilities. The 40 facilities
selected for inspection were grouped by the following types:
Pump Stations
Treatment Facilities
Reservoirs
Wells
Transmission Mains
Pressure Reducing Stations
Where appropriate, a structural engineer and/or electrical engineer inspected the facilities.
Figure 1 summarizes the progress of work as documented in each TM.
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 3 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Figure 1 | Technical Memorandum Flow Chart
Facility Inspections Summary
Table 1 presents a summary of the inspected facilities. Inspection observations are
summarized by facility type in the following section.
Remaining Design
Life Calculation
Table Criticality
Calculation
Table
Screening Table
Age Function Facility
Type Criticality Remaining
Design Life Documented
History Performance
and Reliability
History
Assign Scores to:
Type Function
Age
Documented History Performance / Reliability
History
Ranking Table
Input Fields
Category Weights
Inspection Threshold Score
Facility Inspection Selection Table
Assign Scores to: Number of ERU’s
Served
Available Redundant Supply
Consequence of Failure
Assign
Scores to:
Building
Pumps
Motors
Others
Life Cycle
Cost
Life Cycle Cost
Calculation Table
Field Inspection Worksheet Scores
Remaining Service
Life Curves
Improvement
Elements with Project
Cost Estimates
Prioritized Recommended Improvement
and Capital Maintenance Plan
Assign Values to:
Maintenance
Costs
Repair Costs
Energy Costs Others
Existing Data TM No. 1
TM No. 2
TM No. 3
TM No. 4
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 4 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Table 1 | Inspected Facilities
Pump Stations Transmission Mains
Academy Pump Station 1 Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main
Academy Pump Station 2 East Valley Highway Transmission
Main
Green River Pump Station Lea Hill Transmission Main
Wilderness Game Farm Park Pump Station Academy Transmission Main
Braunwood Pump Station
Treatment Facilities Pressure Reducing Stations
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control Treatment
Facility
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview
Apts South
Howard Road Corrosion Control
Treatment Facility
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview
Apts North
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower
West Hill Springs Chlorination Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts
Middle
Braunwood Chlorination Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts
Upper
Storage Facilities 110th Pl SE/SE 304th St
Reservoir 1 108th Ave SE/SE 304th St
Reservoir 2 104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek
Upper
Reservoir 8A 47th/Lakeland Hills Way
Reservoir 4A Mill Pond Lp/Mill Pond Dr
Reservoir 4B Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk
Braunwood Reservoir Lakeland Hills Way/51st St
Wells Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr
Well 2 Lea Hill Pump Station
Well 6
Well 4
Well 5
Well 5A
Braunwood Well
Pump Stations
Each pump station inspected contained multiple pumps, and four of the five pump stations
inspected had on-site emergency power generators. Most assets within the pump stations
showed an expected level of aging, but a common observation was an advanced level of
exterior corrosion of the pipes and fittings. It is recommended that the corroded pipes and
fittings be rehabilitated in all five pump stations that were inspected.
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 5 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Pressure Reducing Stations
The pressure reducing stations inspected generally included multiple pressure reducing
valves within each station. A common observation was flooding throughout the pressure
reducing stations as most facilities did not have a sump pump or vault drain. Consequently,
the pipes and valves were heavily corroded due to their intermittent submersion in water. All
of the inspected pressure reducing stations should have the control valves replaced, and 10 of
the 14 inspected stations should have a sump pump or vault drain installed.
Groundwater Wells
The inspected groundwater wells were generally in fair condition. A common observation
was corrosion on the piping inside the well building. It is recommended that the exposed
piping for all of the six inspected wells be rehabilitated. Another common observation found
in most wells was aging motor control centers (MCCs). Four of the six wells inspected have
issues concerning the age and condition of the MCCs and that should be addressed.
Reservoirs
The reservoirs inspected were generally in fair condition and common observations were
related to the tank’s structure. Of the six reservoirs inspected, four of the reservoirs have
failing anchoring systems. Some reservoir’s anchoring bolts are severely corroded and
others do not appear to adhere to seismic codes. Rehabilitation of the foundation anchoring
systems is recommended. One of the inspected concrete reservoir’s exterior walls are in
extremely poor condition and delamination of the protective shotcrete layer is evident. The
exterior walls of this reservoir should be repaired with shotcrete as soon as possible, and the
underlying prestressing wire strand within the exterior walls should also be further inspected
for signs of corrosion.
Treatment Facilities
The inspected treatment facilities were generally in fair condition. Four of the five inspected
treatment facilities will need exposed piping painted along with new pumps within the
coming years. Three of the five inspected facilities will also need new motors and a new
roof.
Second Tier Facility Inspections
A series of additional specialty inspections were performed on a few of the 40 inspected
water system facilities based on findings from the Task 5 inspection work. Specialty
inspections include transmission main condition assessment performed by Echologics and
reservoir structural assessments performed by Peterson Structural Engineers (PSE).
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 6 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Transmission Main Specialty Inspections
Based on the age, number of customers served, and material of the transmission mains
additional inspections were performed to assess their condition. A leak detection and
condition assessment was performed on three transmission mains varying in size and
material. Sections of the mains were selected for assessments based on their representative
age, material and varying native soil conditions. The varying sections of mains and materials
may provide additional insight into the likely condition of other transmission mains within
the City’s water system. Inspections were performed on approximately one mile of each of
the three transmission mains: Lea Hill, Academy and Coal Creek Springs. In addition to
selection based on representative soil conditions, one section of the Coal Creek Springs
transmission main that crosses the White River was selected based on its location. A copy of
the detailed assessment report is included in Appendix A.
Reservoir Structural Specialty Inspections
A strand inspection was performed by PSE on Reservoir 1 to determine the condition of the
exterior wall prestressing strands. A visual inspection and concrete sounding was performed
on the exterior shotcrete layer. The visual inspection is completed to identify efflorescence
which indicates that water is likely under the shotcrete layer and in contact with the
prestressing strands. Concrete sounding is another non-destructive test performed to identify
areas of concern where delamination of the shotcrete layers is suspected. These preliminary
inspections were performed to identify locations for destructive investigations and testing,
which includes removing small areas of the shotcrete layers to expose and visually inspect
the prestressing strands. A copy of the detailed assessment report is included in Appendix A.
Analysis of Findings
Based on facility inspection work completed, inspection scores were assigned for assets such
as pumps, motors, piping, etc. within the water facilities inspected. These inspection scores
indicate the overall condition of the asset ranging in scores from 1 to 10. An inspection score
of 1 indicates the asset is in poor condition and should be replaced or rehabilitated as soon as
possible where a 10 indicates the asset is in very good condition.
During the field evaluations it was evident that there are notable deficiencies at each facility.
Recommended improvements to address these deficiencies are discussed and should be
completed within a short-term timeline. The inspection score assigned to each asset along
with any observed deficiency provided a baseline for determining the schedule of needed
improvements and future maintenance planning.
Recommended Improvements
Recommended improvements for the 40 inspected facilities were assigned based on the
conditions observed during the facility inspection work. The remaining 57 uninspected
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 7 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
facilities were assigned recommendations based on their relation to inspected facilities,
specifically comparing age and structure type.
Where applicable, feasible improvement alternatives were included to address the noted
deficiency so the facility meets performance criteria. In most cases, improvement
alternatives were not feasible or cost effective and were not included as part of the
discussion. The recommended improvements for the 40 inspected water system facilities are
provided in Appendix B. Detailed information for the improvements are included in
Appendix D for the inspected facilities.
Improvement Scheduling
Based on projected end of useful life, available budgets and deficiencies noted, a schedule
for improvements was developed for each inspected facility. Based on City input,
improvements with estimated project costs of over $10,000 were considered “Capital
Improvements” and are summarized in Appendix B. Improvements that have an estimated
project cost of under $10,000 were considered “Maintenance Improvements” rather than
capital improvements to reflect the budget they will likely be funded through. Maintenance
Improvement projects are summarized in Appendix B. The projects were prioritized based
on the importance of the facility to the water system and distributed to balance annual costs
from year to year. A summarized schedule of improvements is included in Appendix B.
Remaining Service Life Curve Development
Remaining service life is the number of years before the assets within a facility approaches
its end of useful life. Based on the physical inspections, curves were developed for the
following asset types: pump, motor, pipe, valve, general electrical equipment, and major
electrical equipment. Given the facility inspection scores, for the 40 inspected facilities,
assigned in Technical Memorandum No. 3, a condition-based remaining service life curve
was created to determine the anticipated useful life remaining for each asset. The curves
were created using the ratio of the actual life of the asset to its estimated design life, and then
was factored in accordance with its importance to the facility. The curve was interpolated
using data from the 40 inspected facilities.
Parabolic curves were developed based on guidelines from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) asset management manuals and customized to match up with the ten-point
scale used for the facility evaluation process. The curves are developed from the following
equation:
ValueOriginalLifeUsefulEst
DatetoLifeScoreLifemaining n _)__.
__(__Re
The generalized curves were created based on the underlying understanding that physical
assets do not generally depreciate linearly with time. An estimated useful life span was
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 8 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
assigned based on engineering experience with similar asset types. The “n” value for the
coefficient was determined based on EPA guidelines and observed conditions during the
inspections. Based on the observed condition of the City’s facilities, a value of 3 was used
for the “n” coefficient.
These curves serve as templates for each asset group and generally represent composites of
the asset components included in a given group. This methodology predicts the decay of the
asset group, helping to estimate the timing of component rehabilitation or replacement
projects that then establishes the long-term maintenance schedule for each facility.
The remaining service life curves developed for each inspected facility are used as a model
for assets within the 57 uninspected facilities of the same type. These assets were charted in
relation to their actual age and respective inspection score to estimate its remaining useful
life. The remaining service life curves for a given asset are shown in Figures 2A through 2F.
The condition depreciation curves were used to estimate the remaining useful service life for
each asset and are used as the basis for timing of the proposed improvements documented in
this technical memorandum.
An asset condition score of 2 was used as the minimum acceptable score for an asset and is
the trigger for determining the timing of refurbishment or replacement of the asset.
Figure 2A | Pump Condition Depreciation Curve
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
Pump Score vs. Age
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 9 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Figure 2B | Motor Condition Depreciation Curve
Figure 2C | Pipe Condition Depreciation Curve
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
Motor Score vs. Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
Piping Score vs. Age
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 10 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Figure 2D | Valve Condition Depreciation Curve
Figure 2E | General Electrical Condition Depreciation Curve
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
Valve Score vs. Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
General Electrical vs. Age
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 11 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Figure 2F | Major Electrical Condition Depreciation Curve
Maintenance Planning
Maintenance planning includes the long-term projects associated with rehabilitating and
replacing certain assets upon completion of the short-term projects. This planning is based
on remaining service life curves for each asset type, developed using raw data from the
inspected facilities, to determine the intervals in which assets should be rehabilitated and or
replaced. This long term maintenance planning was completed for all 97 water system
facilities. Maintenance activities are documented in Appendix B for the inspected facilities
and in Appendix C for the uninspected facilities. Detailed information for the improvements
are included in Appendix D for the inspected facilities.
General Maintenance Improvements
General maintenance improvements are recommended for each facility to create a schedule
of improvements based on the assets’ remaining useful life. The design life of an asset is
based on industry standards and set the baseline to determine the frequency of that asset’s
rehabilitation or replacement.
In conjunction with the above remaining service life curves, general maintenance
improvements are scheduled so that the asset is rehabilitated or replaced before complete
failure. A summary of the maintenance improvements for a given water system facility
along with the frequency of the improvement is provided in Tables 2A through 2E.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sc
o
r
e
Age
Major Electrical vs. Age
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 12 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Table 2A | Summary of General Pump Station Maintenance Improvements
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Table 2B | Summary of General Treatment Facility Maintenance Improvements
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Table 2C | Summary of General Reservoir Maintenance Improvements
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation 20-25
Touch Up Paint/Coat Reservoir 10-15
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Table 2D | Summary of General PRV Maintenance Improvements
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
12-1360.405 Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Page 13 of 13 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\DRAFT Tech Memo 9-30-14 .docx
DRAFT
Table 2E | Summary of General Well Maintenance Improvements
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
General Maintenance Costs
The recommended timing of the capital maintenance plan were based on the inspection
scores and estimated remaining useful life of the assets. The projects were prioritized based
on the importance of the facility to the water system and distributed to balance financial costs
year to year. A summarized schedule of improvements is included in Appendix B.
A summary of the 40 inspected water system facilities including applicable supplementary
investigations, recommended improvements and maintenance plan is included in Appendix
B. The summary of the 57 water system facilities that were not inspected do not include a
description of the recommended improvements, since they were not based on visual
inspections. A summary of the general maintenance improvements for the uninspected
facilities is provided in Appendix C.
Recommended Future Condition Assessment
Based on the observed facility conditions, it is recommended that the following regular
inspections be conducted.
Table 3 | Recommended Inspections
Asset Type Recommended Inspection
Frequency
(years)
Pump Perform pump test 5
Motor Check motor amp draw 5
Reservoir Inspect coating thickness 5
Reservoir Inspect reservoir interior 5
PRV Station Inspect for corrosion and signs of flooding 1
Structure Inspect for cracks in grout (where applicable) 1
Piping Inspect for general coating condition 3
APPENDIX A
SECOND TIER INSPECTION
REPORTS
Consulting Structural Engineers
Portland, Oregon Tacoma, Washington
www.psengineers.com
5319 SW Westgate Dr. Suite 215, Portland, OR 97221 Phone: 503-292-1635
708 Broadway Suite 100 A, Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: 253-830-2140
Marshall Meyer
Murray, Smith & Associates 11/4/13
1145 Broadway Plaza, Suite 1010
Tacoma, WA 98402 File: Pse\12-084-04
Re: City of Auburn Facilities Evaluation Study – Reservoir 1 Strand Inspection Report
Dear Marshall,
On October 24th Erik Peterson of Peterson Structural Engineers (PSE), David Bane of DN
Tanks, met with you and Chris Uber of your firm along with representatives of the City of
Auburn to investigate the prestressing strands in Reservoir 1 as recommended in our 9/9/2013
City of Auburn Facilities Evaluation Study – Visual Observations Report. The purpose of
this investigation was to determine the condition of the prestressing strands in the reservoir
and determine what, if any, course of action needs to be taken by the City to repair or maintain
the reservoir in a safe and operational condition. Initial review of the structure found the
reservoir to currently be in stable condition but with deficiencies that could have a long term
detrimental effect on the reservoir’s performance. Please note that this report is a further
extension of our previous visual observations. To date no analytical load based analysis has
been performed on this structure.
INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
The reservoir investigation began with a thorough inspection of the exterior shotcrete layer.
The inspection was comprised of a visual review and concrete sounding. The visual
inspection was intended to identify the size and extent of cracks in the exterior surface. Where
cracks were found inspectors looked to identify efflorescence (the mineral deposits left by
water seeping from cracks) and staining. At this site, efflorescence meant that water was
likely under the shotcrete layer and in contact with the strands. Staining in the efflorescence
could be an indicator of corrosion in the prestressing strand as the water will carry the
corrosion to the surface as it effloresces. In Picture 1 efflorescence along with staining is
shown.
Sounding was also performed along the surface of the reservoir. Sounding is a non-
destructive inspection method that can be used to identify areas of concern. Sounding, in this
case, works by striking the surface of the reservoir with a steel hammer and listening to the
report. A loud high-tone report due to a hammer strike is consistent with solid concrete layers.
A low, dull, thud sound is associated with potential areas of concern. For this inspection this
could meant delamination of the shotcrete layers which would leave the reservoir open to
water intrusion and eventually corrosion of the prestressing strand.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
2
INSPECTION RESULTS
The review of Reservoir 1 found multiple locations of cracking all along the surface of the
reservoir. A majority of these cracks were minor in nature and are typical for a structure of
this size and age and were not of concern to the investigators. Efflorescence was noted at
approximately 14 larger crack sites around the reservoir. The efflorescence crack locations
ranged from 4 to 8 ft above the earthen berm which rings the reservoir. Only a couple of these
efflorescent sites showed staining. Sounding located the majority of delamination issues to
be near the middle of the exposed section of the reservoir (the 4 to 8 ft zone). The upper and
lower portions of the applied shotcrete layer were found to be intact with one exception
discussed later.
From this review three sites were identified for destructive investigations. Destructive
investigation entails removing small areas of the shotcrete cover layer(s) to expose and
visually inspect the prestressing strands. Inspection areas are then patched with a high
strength patching material. Figure 1 depicts the location of the investigated sites. Picture 2
shows the reservoir access ladder along with the approximate north direction. Sites 1 and 2
(as shown in Pictures 3 and 4) were selected as they are locating along the middle (4 to 8 ft)
band of the reservoir where a majority of delamination issues, as identified by cracks,
efflorescence, and sounding, were found. Site 3 (shown in Picture 5) was selected as one of
the few areas where sounding determined delamination might be occurring toward the top of
the reservoir.
Site 1 Destructive Investigation
Site 1 was located counter-clockwise 20 ft from the western orientation and positioned 8 ft
above the reservoir’s ring berm. Sounding of this site resulted in deep hollow sounds along a
large section of the reservoir’s face and primarily located at the intersection of four large
cracks. No efflorescence bloom or staining were present at the surface of these cracks.
A 9” x 12” cut was made in the reservoir’s shotcrete layer. Although drawings available from
the period of the reservoirs construction indicated the shotcrete cover of the prestressing
strand was in the 1” range, the layer thickness was actually found to be nearer 2-3/4”. Figure
2 depicts the approximate layer thickness found during the investigation while the measured
depth at Site 1 is shown in Picture 6.
Opening up the shotcrete found a triple delamination between the various shotcrete layers and
surface moisture on the exterior of the core wall. Trace deposits of “bond breaker” were found
on the exterior surface of the core wall. Bond breaker is a form release agent that is used to
facilitate the removal of the wood forms used during concrete construction. When not
properly cleaned from the surface, these remnants can result in poor adherence of shotcrete,
which appears to have occurred at this inspection location.
The cracks noticed on the surface of the shotcrete were found to extend down to the core wall
but no further. This indicated cracking was localized in the shotcrete surface and not a result
of a deeper defect propagating out from the interior of the reservoir. The water present on the
core wall was from rain drive and roof drainage (not tank contents) which had infiltrated the
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
3
cracks and was seeping into the interior sections of the shotcrete layers to settle were the inner
shotcrete layer had delaminated from the core wall.
The exposed prestressing strand in this area was a 3/8” diameter galvanized strand spaced at
3-1/2” o.c. The shotcrete cover over the strand in this section was 2-3/8” thick and the
concrete’s strength appeared to be strong for this era of construction as compared to similar
structures. Although moisture was present near the strand the galvanization had prevented
corrosion damage to the strands. However, water between the core wall and inner shotcrete
layer can still cause issues as the freeze-thaw cycle will cause cyclical expansion and
contraction of the shotcrete causing further cracking and weakening.
Site 2 Destructive Investigation
Site 2 was located clockwise 18 ft from the southern orientation and positioned 5 ft above the
Reservoir’s ring berm. Sounding of this site found an area of concern at the junction of a
radial and transverse crack. At the junction of these cracks efflorescence and staining were
found.
A 6” x 5” cut was made in the reservoir and the shotcrete thickness in this area was found to
be 2-1/2”. The measured size and depth of the cut is shown in Picture 7.
A more extensive triple delamination between shotcrete layers was found at Site 2 as
compared to Site 1. As the cut was made the various layers detached along the crack lines.
In Picture 8 the ½” thick finishing layer is shown. The outer shotcrete layer detached in a
similar fashion after further chiseling. In this area the delamination was such that moss was
able to grow between the finishing and outer layers as shown in Picture 9.
The radial surface crack at the site was located directly above one of the strands and extended
down to the strand. The transverse crack appeared to terminate before reaching the core wall.
No surface moisture or bond breaker was found on the exterior surface of the core wall and
the bonding between the inner layer and the core wall was better in this area as compared to
Site 1. The prestressing strands in this area were spaced at 1-1/2” o.c. and showed no
corrosion. The shotcrete cover over the strand in this section was 2-1/8” thick.
While the strand in this area was also in good condition the cracking had allowed water
infiltration. As an example of the problems of freeze-thaw, water near the exterior surface
layers have begun to push the various layers apart as evidenced by space which allowed for
moss growth. The separation of the layers weakens them and opens them up to further water
infiltration and cracking. Although the inner layer and the core wall were well adhered at this
time the radial crack’s propagation to the core wall means that water has already begun to
work its way into the inner layer.
Site 3 Destructive Investigation
Site 3 was located counter-clockwise 10 ft from the eastern orientation and positioned at the
top of the reservoir wall. Sounding of this site located an area of concern for delamination.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
4
This was an anomaly as along the rest of the wall the top portion, when sounded, was found
to be in good condition.
An 8” x 15” cut was made in the shotcrete layer. Since there is no strand at the top of the
reservoir wall the shotcrete begins about 6” below the top of the reservoir wall and gets
thicker towards the base. In this section the shotcrete layer over the strand is 2” thick.
The investigation of this site found the delamination to be due to a grout port under the surface
of the shotcrete layer as shown in Picture 10. This was a localized failure and beyond the
grout port the strand was found to be in good condition with the shotcrete layers well adhered.
No surface moisture was found on the exterior surface of the core wall. The prestressing
strand begins 14” below the top of the wall. No corrosion was found along the strand in this
area.
Site Clean-up
After the inspection was completed the holes were patched with Quikrete® Quick-Setting
Cement. This product is a non-shrink, fast setting cement, with no calcites which could harm
the strands or surrounding concrete. Picture 11 depicts the final patches.
RECOMMENDED COURSE OF REPAIR
The lack of prestressing strand corrosion in the three inspection sites indicates that this
primary element is in good condition. This is an important element of the service life of the
reservoir and indicates a statically stable condition. However, the numerous shotcrete cracks
and delamination areas in the protective shotcrete layers will eventually compromise the
prestressing and lead to an unstable condition. The effects of rain and freeze-thaw events will
continue the process of delamination in the shotcrete therefore prompting a recommendation
to repair and maintain the shotcrete.
In this structure, the best approach to mitigating and repairing the shotcrete condition is to
perform low pressure epoxy injection in the areas of cracking and delamination. Post injection
we recommend the application of a conventional, high quality elastomeric coating on both the
roof as well as the exposed area of the exterior wall. This coating will provide an extra layer
of protection from external intrusion. It will also increase the life of the roof surface as rain
drive in our region is deleterious to the top surface of concrete roof slabs.
The expected cost of the amount of low pressure injection that will be required to seal the
subject areas of the shotcrete could range between $50,000 and $100,000 (further study will
be needed to develop a planning level estimate). This does not include the costs of coating.
Given that the analytical static and seismic capacity of the reservoir system have not yet been
studied or determined, for an investment of this magnitude, we recommend not implementing
such repairs until such time that a more comprehensive structural analysis is performed.
Understanding and accounting for the physical and seismic capacity of the whole reservoir
system prior to implementing repairs is highly recommended. Should internal material
investigations discover additional concerns, or should analytical study determine a lack of
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
5
capacity in the seismic resisting system, implementation of exterior repairs may cause
misdirection of appropriate funds for repairs.
The overall observed condition of the subject reservoir indicates that if the interior conditions
and the analytical capacity are determined to be adequate, the aforementioned repairs being
performed will provide the Owner an additional 30 to 50 years of life cycle. However, all
aspects of the health of the structure must be understood before this final determination can
be made.
Thank you, and please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elias Hahn, P.E., S.E.
Submitted via e-mail: Marshall.Meyer@msa-ep.com
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
6
Figure 1. Schematic of Reservoir 1 with direction points relative to destructive test locations.
Figure 2. Cross-section of Reservoir 1 wall.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
7
Picture 1. Efflorescence and staining found on the surface of the Reservoir’s shotcrete layer.
Picture 2. Northern facing direction of Reservoir 1.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
8
Picture 3. Western facing direction of Reservoir 1 and investigation Site 1.
Picture 4. Southern facing direction of Reservoir 1and investigation Site 2.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
9
Picture 5. Eastern facing direction of Reservoir 1and investigation Site 3.
Picture 6. Site 1 destructive opening.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
10
Picture 7. Site 2 destructive opening.
Picture 8. Failure of shotcrete finishing layer along crack lines.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
11
Picture 9. Moss found between finishing and outer layer of shotcrete.
Picture 10. Site 3 destructive opening.
City of Auburn Facilities Eval. Study – Res 1 Strand Report 11/4/2013
12
Picture 11. Patched openings.
Echologics Reference No.: 42213137
Title: Leak Detection and Condition
Assessment Report
Client: Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
Date: July 16, 2014
CONFIDENTIAL 2 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Executive Summary
Between March 3 and 7, 2014, Echologics, LLC (Echologics) provided leak detection and condition
assessment services for Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) on 2.8 miles of 14” to 24” ductile
iron and concrete composite pipe. The inspection techniques applied were leak detection using the
LeakFinderRT™ correlator, and average minimum wall thickness testing using the ePulse™
(condition assessment) method. This report presents the information gathered from these services
including the location of suspected leaks and the results of the condition assessment.
Echologics provides services that help water departments maximize revenue, return on assets,
and cost reduction by providing them with the information required to properly manage water
transmission and distribution systems. All of this information is gained through non-invasive
technology deployed non-intrusively so that the cost and risk of using other methods can be
avoided.
Echologics’ leak detection survey revealed a potential noise source near or close to the east bank
of the White River crossing. All evidence collected so far suggests that this is a leak. The character
of the noise source is consistent with underwater leaks previously discovered by Echologics.
The ePulse results indicate that the 14” Academy ductile iron main is in poor condition, showing an
average wall thickness loss of 30% or greater. The 20” and 16” Lea Hill ductile iron mains range in
condition between moderate and good. The Coal Creek Springs concrete composite main is in
consistent condition, based on the assumptions for concrete type and pressure class. Consistent
condition generally implies good condition.
CONFIDENTIAL 3 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0 Project Background ................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Leak Detection Result Details .................................................................................................................... 10
Probable Medium Leak on West Bank Of White River ............................................................................ 10
2.2 ePulse Condition assessment .................................................................................................................... 12
Ductile Iron Mains – Lea Hill and Academy .................................................................................................. 12
Concrete Composite Mains – Coal Creek Springs .................................................................................... 14
2.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Modulus of Elasticity ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Unknown Pipe Specifications ............................................................................................................................... 18
Innaccurate Sensor-to-sensor Distance .......................................................................................................... 18
Statistical Variation .................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.0 Discussion and Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 20
Next Steps: Coal Creek Springs Leak .................................................................................................................. 21
Next Steps: ePulse ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Next Steps: General ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A – Detailed Results ...................................................................................................................................... 23
A.1 Site Details ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Site 1: Lea Hill 20” Ductile Iron Main ................................................................................................................ 24
Site 2: Lea Hill 16” Ductile Iron Main ................................................................................................................ 26
Site 3: Academy 14” Ductile Iron Main ............................................................................................................ 27
Site 4: Coal Creek Springs 24” Concrete and Steel Main ...................................................................... 28
A.2 Leak Detection Result Details .......................................................................................................................... 30
CONFIDENTIAL 4 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Probable Medium Leak on West Bank Of White River ............................................................................ 30
A.3 Pipe Property Details ............................................................................................................................................ 32
A.4 ePulse Condition Assessment Result Details .......................................................................................... 34
Site 1: Lea Hill 20” Ductile Iron Main ................................................................................................................ 37
Site 2: Lea Hill 16” Ductile Iron Main ................................................................................................................ 39
Site 3: Academy 14” Ductile Iron Main ............................................................................................................ 40
Site 4: Coal Creek Springs 24” Concrete Composite/Steel Main ....................................................... 42
Appendix B – Interpretation of Results ...................................................................................................................... 46
B.1 Leak Detection ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Leak Noise Discovered (Leak) ............................................................................................................................. 46
Point of Interest (POI) ............................................................................................................................................... 46
No Leak Discovered .................................................................................................................................................. 46
B.2 ePulse Condition Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 47
Qualitative Condition Description Categories ............................................................................................... 47
Distribution of Degradation Within Segments .............................................................................................. 48
Condition Interpretation In Metallic Mains ...................................................................................................... 49
Condition Interpretation In Reinforced Concrete Mains .......................................................................... 53
Condition Interpretation In Asbestos Cement Mains ................................................................................ 54
Appendix C – Sensitivity Analyses and Considerations ................................................................................... 58
Distance Measurement ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Pipe Manufacturing Tolerances ............................................................................................................................... 58
Repair Clamps on Previous Leaks ......................................................................................................................... 58
Modulus of Elasticity ...................................................................................................................................................... 59
Unaccounted for Replacement of Pipe Sections during Repairs ............................................................ 59
Inadequate Correlation Signals ................................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix D – Detailed Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 61
CONFIDENTIAL 5 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
D.1 Leak Detection ......................................................................................................................................................... 61
D.2 ePulse Acoustic Average Wall Thickness or Stiffness Testing ....................................................... 62
Wave Velocity Equation .......................................................................................................................................... 62
Bulk Modulus of Water Calibration .................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix E – Case Study for Concrete Pipe ......................................................................................................... 64
E.1 Middlesex Case Study.......................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix F – Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................. 67
Condition Assessment Specific Terms ............................................................................................................ 68
Leak Detection Specific Terms ............................................................................................................................ 68
CONFIDENTIAL 6 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
1.0 Project Background
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) approached Echologics, LLC (Echologics) to gain
information on critical segments of ductile iron and concrete composite mains owned by the City
of Auburn (Auburn) in order to address their primary objectives:
1. Determine the condition of the water mains surveyed.
2. Locate any leaks on the water mains surveyed.
Four sites were chosen for survey due to their critical nature, as they supply a large percentage
of the city’s water supply. If one of these transmissions mains were to fail and lose pressure, a
large number of residents would be at risk of losing fresh water supply. In addition to this, failure
of these critical mains would incur significant water losses as well as significant repair costs.
To achieve these objectives, Echologics utilized its proprietary LeakFinderRT technology to
locate leaks and ePulse method to determine the current condition of the pipe walls. This report
provides detailed information on how these objectives have been met.
The project included 2.8 miles of 14” to 24” ductile iron, steel and concrete composite mains
spread over four sites as detailed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. Field tests began on March
3, 2014 and required five days to complete.
TABLE 1: SITES SURVEYED
Site Name Diameter Pipe Material Year of
Installation Segments
(inch)
Lea Hill 20 DI 1998 1-11
Lea Hill 16 DI 1998 12-14
Academy 14 DI 1980 15-21
Coal Creek Springs 24 Concrete/Steel 1964 22-33
CONFIDENTIAL 7 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
FIGURE 1: OVERVIEW MAP OF SITE LOCATIONS
The ePulse method combines acoustic data measured in the field with information about a
pipe’s construction to calculate its current structural wall thickness. Structural walls can consist
of multiple materials and represents the composite strength of the pipe wall. The pipe’s material,
diameter, and modulus of elasticity are critical variables in this calculation. The percentage loss
in structural wall thickness is calculated by comparison to the design thickness of the pipe wall.
Incorrect design thicknesses will result in incorrect percentage loss figures, but will not affect
ePulse structural wall thickness measurements. The pipe properties used in this project, which
were obtained from MSA or estimated based on available records of similar pipes tested by
Echologics, are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Echologics estimated the modulus of elasticity
based on project experience. The specification of concrete pipe at Coal Creek Springs was
unavailable, so the generic term concrete composite pipe is used in this report.
CONFIDENTIAL 8 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
TABLE 2: DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROPERTIES
Site Name Segments Pipe
Material
Thickness
Class
Year of
Installation
Internal
Diameter
Original DI
Wall
Thickness
Original
Lining
Thickness
Original
Equivalent
Thickness
(inch) (inch) (inch) (inch)
Lea Hill 20" 1-11 DI 52 1998 20 0.42 0.09 0.47
Lea Hill 16" 12-14 DI 52 1998 16 0.40 0.09 0.45
Academy 15-21 DI 52 1980 14 0.39 0.09 0.43
The equivalent thickness of the ductile iron mains is the combined thickness of the ductile iron
and cement lining, weighted based on the individual material’s elastic moduli.
Little information is known on the Coal Creek Springs concrete composite pipe. As such,
Echologics estimated several properties of the pipe based on previous project experience. Due
to the complexity of the design of concrete cylinder pipes, it is not possible to estimate the
original stiffness. Therefore, a percentage change from original condition is not provided.
The results for concrete pipe are calculated differently than metallic mains. Concrete pipe loses
wall stiffness as it ages, while metallic pipe loses wall thickness. The stiffness of concrete
composite pipes is a function of the entire pipe and all of its components (e.g. steel and
concrete). The ePulse result does not differentiate between degradation of metallic pipe
thickness and concrete pipe stiffness. Furthermore, it is not currently possible to determine
whether losses in stiffness are due to losses in the concrete or steel components of the pipe.
Stiffness is defined as the ability for the pipe wall to resist deformation in the response to an
applied force.
Unfortunately, nominal information about the original concrete composite pipe wall stiffness is
not readily available. The best way to assess concrete composite pipe is to look at the results
statistically and look at how the stiffness changes along the main. Important indicators are:
maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation of stiffness. It is also important to look at
the results relative to each other, where the stiffest segment of pipe was assumed to be in the
best condition, and all other segments were compared to that segment. Table 3 presents the
pipe properties of the concrete composite pipe, including the maximum stiffness found during
the ePulse assessment.
CONFIDENTIAL 9 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
TABLE 3: CONCRETE COMPOSITE PIPE PROPERTIES
Site Segments Pipe
Material
Pressure
Class
Year of
Installation
Internal
Diameter
Maximum
Stiffness
Measured
Maximum
Stiffness
Measured
(inch) (kpsi) (GPa)
Coal Creek Springs 22-28, 31-33 Concrete PC 150 1964 24 6618.3 45.6
Segment 29 and 30 consist partially or completely of steel pipe of unknown specifications. As
such, the specifications for these segments are not shown.
CONFIDENTIAL 10 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
2.0 Results
2.1 LEAK DETECTION RESULT DETAILS
PROBABLE MEDIUM LEAK AT 272’ +/- 10’ EAST OF AIR VALVE ON WEST BANK OF
WHITE RIVER
Site Reference Name: Coal Creek Springs
Leak Size: Medium
Location on network: 272’ east of air valve on west bank of White River
Location on street: White River Crossing
Location notes: In White River, on the east bank
The accuracy of the location of this probable leak is dependent upon the accuracy of the overall
distance measured between the two sensor connection points. If a more accurate distance can
be provided for this crossing, a more accurate location of the probable leak can be determined.
FIGURE 2: OVERVIEW OF LEAK SITE
Air Valve
Blow-off Valve
Probable Leak
Location
Pothole 2
Pothole 1
N
CONFIDENTIAL 11 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Echologics’ leak detection survey revealed a noise source near or close to the east bank of the
White River crossing. All evidence collected suggests that this noise is a leak. The character of
noise source is consistent with underwater leaks previously discovered by Echologics on other
similar sites. However, it should be noted that there is a possibility that this may not be a leak
and is noise caused by turbulent flow from the river. It is also important for the client to
understand the type of failure (joint, split, or pinhole) before repairs begin.
Therefore, the recommendations provided in this report are focused on confirming that the noise
source is due to leakage, and determining what type of failure it is. The recommendations are
as follows:
1. Use flow loggers to confirm and quantify leakage: Insert flow loggers on both sides of the
river to determine how much water is being lost.
2. Use internal CCTV: Insert a camera through the air valve to identify the presence and
location of the leak. It may also be possible to identify the type of failure.
3. Use divers for external inspection: Divers may be used to inspect the exterior of the pipe
surface. They can identify failures and the presence of water flow.
CONFIDENTIAL 12 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
2.2 EPULSE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The ePulseTM results presented below show the percentage loss of wall thickness in comparison
to the nominal (design) thickness for the ductile iron mains, whereas the structural stiffness is
presented for the concrete mains. The remaining service life cannot be provided for the mains
assessed in this project, as the technology is currently only available on asbestos cement (AC)
and cast iron (CI) pipes.
DUCTILE IRON MAINS – LEA HILL AND ACADEMY
Table 4 shows the ePulse measurements of the average minimum structural thickness of the
ductile iron mains. The results are also presented as a percentage change in wall thickness in
comparison to the assumed nominal (design) thickness. Please see Appendix A.4 for more
details of all mains assessed.
TABLE 4: DUCTILE IRON EPULSE CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Segment
# Site Name Distance Internal
Diameter
Pipe
Material
Original Wall
Thickness2
ePulse
Measured
Thickness2
% Change
from
Nominal1
# (ft) (in) (in) (in) %
1 Lea Hill 20" 358 20 DI 0.47 0.41 -13%
2 Lea Hill 20" 237 20 DI 0.47 0.44 -7%
3 Lea Hill 20" 937 20 DI 0.47 0.42 -10%
4 Lea Hill 20" 208 20 DI 0.47 0.37 -20%
5 Lea Hill 20" 467 20 DI 0.47 0.42 -10%
6 Lea Hill 20" 301 20 DI 0.47 0.44 -5%
7 Lea Hill 20" 404 20 DI 0.47 0.41 -13%
8 Lea Hill 20" 342 20 DI 0.47 0.43 -9%
9 Lea Hill 20" 298 20 DI 0.47 0.38 -19%
10 Lea Hill 20" 300 20 DI 0.47 0.40 -14%
11 Lea Hill 20" 248 20 DI 0.47 0.39 -17%
12 Lea Hill 16" 472 16 DI 0.45 0.41 -7%
13 Lea Hill 16" 394 16 DI 0.45 0.45 0%
14 Lea Hill 16" 415 16 DI 0.45 0.38 -14%
15 Academy 14" 565 14 DI 0.43 0.31 -30%
16 Academy 14" 495 14 DI 0.43 0.29 -34%
17 Academy 14" 528 14 DI 0.43 0.30 -30%
18 Academy 14" 599 14 DI 0.43 0.29 -33%
19 Academy 14" 600 14 DI 0.43 0.29 -32%
CONFIDENTIAL 13 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Segment
# Site Name Distance Internal
Diameter
Pipe
Material
Original Wall
Thickness2
ePulse
Measured
Thickness2
% Change
from
Nominal1
# (ft) (in) (in) (in) %
20 Academy 14" 608 14 DI 0.43 0.29 -33%
21 Academy 14" 690 14 DI 0.43 0.30 -31%
Note 1: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
Note 2: May be an Equivalent Thickness as described in Section 1.
The pipes inspected showed varying levels of degradation. Overall, the newer Lea Hill mains
were found to be in better condition than the older Academy main. Figure 3 summarizes the
condition of the ductile iron pipes surveyed, as indicated by pipe wall thickness loss, broken
down by site.
FIGURE 3: DUCTILE IRON THICKNESS LOSS COMPARISON BY SITE
Echologics assumed thickness class 52 for all ductile iron mains, based on available record
information. The percentage change in thickness may not be representative of the pipe wall
loss, as it is dependent on the nominal thickness. However, the remaining thickness has been
measured independently of the nominal thickness.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lea Hill 20"Lea Hill 16"Academy 14"DI Overall
DI Thickness Loss Comparison by Site
Good
Moderate
Poor
CONFIDENTIAL 14 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN, SEGMENTS 1-11
The 20” ductile iron main appears to be in moderate to good condition, with remaining structural
wall thickness ranging from 0.37” to 0.44”. New lined 20” DI of thickness class 52 has an original
wall thickness of 0.47”.
LEA HILL 16” DUCTILE IRON MAIN, SEGMENTS 12-14
The 16” ductile iron main appears to be in moderate to good condition, with remaining structural
wall thickness ranging from 0.38” to 0.45”. New lined 16” DI of thickness class 52 has an original
wall thickness of 0.45”.
ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN, SEGMENTS 15-21
The 14” ductile iron main appears to be in poor condition, with remaining structural wall
thickness ranging from 0.29” to 0.31”. New lined 14” DI of class 52 has an original wall thickness
of 0.43”. This main had the most consistent results in terms of remaining thickness.
It is important to note that since some of the nominal thicknesses were assumed, the
percentage change in thickness may not be representative of the pipe wall loss. The relevant
number is the remaining thickness. This value is measured independently of the nominal
thickness.
CONCRETE COMPOSITE MAINS – COAL CREEK SPRINGS
Echologics tested 12 sections of concrete composite pipe, for a total length of 5,204’. Results
are shown as the average minimum wall stiffness in each section and are expressed in
kilo-pounds per square inch (kpsi) and gigapascals (GPa) in Table 5. The results are also
presented as a percentage change in stiffness in comparison to the stiffest segment (segment
25). The rank column orders pipe sections from best condition (1) to most degraded (10).
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed pipe wall condition assessment results.
TABLE 5: CONCRETE COMPOSITE EPULSE CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Segment
# Site Name Distance Internal
Diameter Pipe Material
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
% Change
from Stiffest
Segment3
Rank
# (ft) (in) (kpsi) (GPa) %
22 Coal Creek Springs 945 24 Concrete 6065.9 41.8 -8% 4
23 Coal Creek Springs 275 24 Concrete 6341.9 43.7 -4% 3
24 Coal Creek Springs 321 24 Concrete 6504.5 44.8 -2% 2
CONFIDENTIAL 15 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Segment
# Site Name Distance Internal
Diameter Pipe Material
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
% Change
from Stiffest
Segment3
Rank
# (ft) (in) (kpsi) (GPa) %
25 Coal Creek Springs 350 24 Concrete 6618.3 45.6 0% 1
26 Coal Creek Springs 261 24 Concrete 6026.6 41.6 -9% 5
27 Coal Creek Springs 410 24 Concrete 5814.2 40.1 -12% 8
28 Coal Creek Springs 328 24 Concrete 5893.9 40.6 -11% 7
294 Coal Creek Springs 501 24 Steel N/A N/A N/A N/A
305 Coal Creek Springs 675 24 Steel/Concrete N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Coal Creek Springs 304 24 Concrete 5123.4 35.3 -23% 10
32 Coal Creek Springs 529 24 Concrete 6007.0 41.4 -9% 6
33 Coal Creek Springs 305 24 Concrete 5566.2 38.4 -16% 9
Note 3: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
Note 4: An accurate distance was unattainable.
Note 5: Result was unattainable due to inconsistent pipe properties.
The results for the Coal Creek Springs main have been ranked from 1 through 10, based on
relative best (1) to worst conditions (10). The results suggest that the main has the highest
stiffness between segment 22 to 28 (west of the White River), with an average stiffness of
6,181 kpsi, and no sections with less than 5,800 kpsi. Segment 31 has the lowest measured
stiffness of 5,123 kpsi. Segments 27, 28, 31, and 33 are below the overall average stiffness of
5,996 kpsi listed in Table 4 below. Segments 24 and 25 appear have the highest stiffness
overall.
TABLE 4: OTHER PARAMETERS
Parameter Segment # Value (kpsi)
Minimum Stiffness 31 5123.4
Maximum Stiffness 25 6618.3
Mean Stiffness N/A 5996.2
Standard Deviation N/A 442.3
Figure 4 is a graph depicting the range of stiffness measurements (x-axis) versus the number of
occurrences (y-axis). The shape of the graph suggests a normal distribution of pipe stiffness
along the main.
CONFIDENTIAL 16 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF STIFFNESS MEASUREMENTS
Figure 5 is a graph with the x-axis indicating the segment number (segment 22 corresponds to
the most northwest segment at the RV park) and the y-axis indicating the measured stiffness in
kpsi. The image provides a representation of how the stiffness varies along the main.
While error was not calculable on this assessment, past experience on a 48” pre-stressed
concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) has indicated an estimated error of 17% of the measured
stiffness. This estimation includes signal processing and mathematical errors, which are within
Echologics control. It does not include uncontrollable errors such as pipe layout discrepancies
or pipe specification errors. This uncontrollable error has been displayed in Figure 5 using error
bars, and has not been calculated in the measured stiffness results shown in Table 5.
0
1
2
3
4
5
>5400 5400-5800 5800-6200 6200-6600 >6000
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
#
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
e
n
c
e
s
)
Stiffness (1,000 psi)
Stiffness Distribution
CONFIDENTIAL 17 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
FIGURE 5: MEASURED STIFFNESS ALONG THE PIPE
Lower stiffness measurements can be attributed to broken pre-stressing wires, as well as
cracking or de-lamination of the cement lining in combination with corrosion of the steel cylinder.
Due to the terrain between the sensor points, accurate distances were not attainable for
segments 22, 25, 29, and 30. When possible, estimates have been made, based on as-built
drawings, sub-foot accurate global positioning system (GPS), surveying measurements and
distances measured on site using a measuring wheel and/or a laser rangefinder. The stiffness
results can be recalculated using updated distances if they become available.
The condition of segments 29 and 30 could not be determined, as an accurate lining thickness
was not attainable. However, leak detection was still performed on these segments.
Results for segment 30 could not be obtained, as it consisted of two distinct pipe materials:
concrete and steel.
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
St
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
1
,
0
0
0
p
s
i
)
Segment #
Measured Stiffness
CONFIDENTIAL 18 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
2.3 LIMITATIONS
There are physical limitations that will impact the accuracy of the final results presented in this
report. There are also limitations in what types of decisions an asset manager may make using
the data presented in this report. This section discusses those limitations and how they may
affect the final result or how an asset manager may use the information. These limitations will
apply to all segments in a site. If any of the information below becomes available for a site, all
results within that site may shift slightly, but will maintain their relative position to other
segments in that site.
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
The modulus of elasticity of the pipe material is one of the factors in the calculation of the
current pipe wall thickness. While Echologics has significant experience estimating the modulus
of elasticity based on the material, age, and region of manufacture, we can improve the
accuracy of the results by testing the actual modulus of elasticity of an exhumed sample of the
pipe wall.
UNKNOWN PIPE SPECIFICATIONS
Actual design wall thicknesses (for ductile iron mains) were not available for comparison to
ePulse measurements. Although reasonable assumptions have been made for original wall
thickness, the percentage loss in wall thickness can be improved if actual design wall thickness
specifications can be provided. MSA may wish to exhume a pipe coupon to verify these
assumptions. For example, if segment 1 was thickness class 53 instead of class 52, the
equivalent nominal thickness would be 0.50” instead of 0.47”, changing the percent change from
nominal from -13% to -19%.
General pipe properties (for concrete composite mains) were not available to properly classify
the Coal Creek Springs main. Although reasonable assumptions have been made, further
recommendations regarding the remediation of the pipe can be suggested if actual pipe
properties can be provided. MSA may wish to exhume a pipe coupon to verify these
assumptions.
INNACCURATE SENSOR-TO-SENSOR DISTANCE
An accurate distance measurement is crucial for an accurate assessment. In general, a 1%
error in distance measurement can result to more than a 2% error in final percentage of wall
CONFIDENTIAL 19 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
thickness lost. Echologics have made reasonable calculations of segment length using a
measuring wheel, laser rangefinder, sub-foot GPS units, and available maps. However, the
uncertainty in these measurements, though minimal, can limit the accuracy of the data. Further
confirmation of the exact length of pipe segment length would improve the accuracy of these
results.
STATISTICAL VARIATION
The values generated by ePulse testing are averaged for a segment of pipe with a length that
ranges between 150’ and 500’. This leads to the possibility that small lengths within the
segment could have severe degradation that will not be shown in the final result. Therefore, it is
important for the reader of this report to understand that the value presented describes the
general condition of the pipe and may not show future potential point failures.
The stiffness or thickness of some segments could not be measured and therefore have a “N/A”
in the results column. This was because of one or more of the following reasons:
There is more than one type of pipe in the segment (i.e. different diameters, different
materials, etc.);
It is not possible to get an accurate distance measurement.
CONFIDENTIAL 20 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
3.0 Discussion and Next Steps
Echologics has provided information to MSA on leak detection and pipe wall condition of
2.8 miles of 14” to 24” ductile iron and concrete composite mains. A summary report was also
supplied to the client upon request regarding the probable leak on the Coal Creek Springs main.
The highlights of the Leak Detection Service are as follows:
Probable leak discovered on Coal Creek Springs main at the river crossing
The highlights of the Condition Assessment Service are as follows:
Lea Hill 16” & 20” ductile iron main is in moderate to good condition
Academy 14” ductile iron main is in poor condition
Coal Creek Springs 24” concrete composite main has little variation in its stiffness
As in other studies, such as the Middlesex case study presented in Appendix E, the relationship
between ePulse measurements and overall pipe condition has been confirmed. To date, the
following relationships have been discovered for concrete composite pipe:
1. Low stiffness correlates well with broken wires
2. Low stiffness correlates well with wires with loss of tension
3. Low stiffness correlates well with locations of previous main breaks
The ePulse technology cannot differentiate between different degradation mechanisms within
the composite pipe wall, it can only measure the overall structural stiffness. If more information
regarding pipe specifications becomes available, Echologics can revise the analysis and provide
more recommendations.
This report is intended to be used as a guide only. All forms of non-destructive testing involve an
inherent level of uncertainty. Such testing is dependent on input parameters, and outputs can be
significantly affected by variation from assumed parameters. This report includes certain
suggestions and recommendations made by Echologics which are based on, among others, (i)
the findings included in the report, (ii) its experience and (iii) an understanding of the client’s
particular requirements. Echologics acknowledges that the client may use this report to consider
potential opportunities for pipeline replacement or rehabilitation; however, Echologics disclaims
any liability that may arise in connection with decisions based on these suggestions or
recommendations or their implementation.
CONFIDENTIAL 21 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
NEXT STEPS: COAL CREEK SPRINGS LEAK
While the Coal Creek Springs noise source is considered a probable leak, it should be noted
that this could be noise caused by turbulent flow from the river. It still needs to be determined if
this pipe is exposed on the river bottom due to erosion. Once turbulent flow from the river has
been ruled out as the noise source, one or more of the following methods are recommended to
confirm the presence and location of the leak:
1. Use flow loggers to confirm and quantify leakage: Insert flow loggers on both sides of the
river to determine how much water is being lost.
2. Use internal CCTV: Insert a camera through the air valve to identify the presence and
location of the leak. It may also be possible to identify the type of failure.
3. Use divers for external inspection: Divers may be used to inspect the exterior of the pipe
surface. They can identify failures and the presence of water flow.
Following this testing, a catastrophic failure analysis is recommended. This will help MSA to
determine the consequences of a catastrophic failure on the Coal Creek Springs main.
NEXT STEPS: EPULSE
The ePulse results can be recalculated to reflect new information if it becomes available.
Specifically, this refers to nominal pipe specifications.
In regards to the concrete composite main, it is very important for the client to first know the
original pipe class and specification, prior to any decision on asset management, further
assessment or rehabilitation. Concrete mains vary widely in design specifications. Each
specification (AWWA C301 through 303) is unique and has its own unique failure mechanisms.
Therefore prior to any next steps it is recommended that further investigation be conducted on
the main to determine the original pipe design specifications.
Verification of the condition of concrete composite mains can be accomplished by a thorough
analysis conducted by Simpson Gumpertz & Hedger (SGH). SGH has significant experience
with complex concrete composite pipe analysis and can provide more precise information on the
level of risk of failure. This approach will include physical testing of the lowest measured pipe
segments, identification of the pipe specification and the use of electromagnetic technology to
identify broken wires, chemical analysis of the mortar coating, and mechanical testing of the
wires and steel cylinder. With this information, the city can more accurately confirm the level of
risk of failure.
CONFIDENTIAL 22 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
NEXT STEPS: GENERAL
Echologics’ condition assessment results are an effective and valuable component of the asset
management process for prioritization of pipeline repair and rehabilitation. Each water network
will have its own dominant degradation mechanism, as well as unique local considerations.
Comparing Echologics’ results with some of the following datasets will allow MSA and Auburn to
direct their rehabilitation efforts in a cost effective manner.
1. Soil Corrosivity. This comparison will help determine if external corrosion due to
aggressive soil is a significant degradation mechanism for these mains. For example, if
corrosive soils are discovered and the main is in poor condition, the degradation is likely
related to soil conditions.
2. Water Aggressiveness. This comparison will reveal whether or not the water is a
mechanism for uniform degradation. For example, aggressive water would suggest that
some of the degradation is caused from the inside of the pipe; this can be assumed to cause
similar degradation rates for similar types of main.
3. Break History. Collating condition assessment results and break history help identify
sections of main that are at increased risk of failure. These factors are not necessarily
related, as it is possible for pipes to have high break rates for reasons other than pipe wall
degradation.
4. Consequence of Failure. Combining condition assessment results with consequence of
failure analysis is used to generate a risk assessment.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or comments regarding this
report.
CONFIDENTIAL 23 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
Appendix A – Detailed Results
This section provides a detailed presentation of the project scope, as well as the data collected
and results obtained during the project. Information presented in the main body of the report
may be repeated here, to allow this appendix to be used as a stand-alone document.
A.1 SITE DETAILS
This project was divided into four sites. An overview map of both sites is shown in Figure A.1-1
below, followed by detailed maps on each of the sites.
FIGURE A.1-1: OVERVIEW MAP OF SITE LOCATIONS
Lea Hill 16” & 20”
Academy
Coal Creek Springs N
CONFIDENTIAL 24 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
SITE 1: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.1-2: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.1-3: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
N
N
N
N
CONFIDENTIAL 25 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
FIGURE A.1-3: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
Segment 8
Segment 9
Segment 10 Segment 11
N
CONFIDENTIAL 26 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
SITE 2: LEA HILL 16” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.1-4: LEA HILL 16” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
N
CONFIDENTIAL 27 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
SITE 3: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.1-5: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.1-6: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
CONFIDENTIAL 28 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
SITE 4: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE AND STEEL MAIN
FIGURE A.1-7: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE MAIN
CONFIDENTIAL 29 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
FIGURE A.1-8: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE AND STEEL MAIN
FIGURE A.1-9: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE MAIN
CONFIDENTIAL 30 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
A.2 LEAK DETECTION RESULT DETAILS
PROBABLE MEDIUM LEAK AT 272’ +/- 10’ EAST OF AIR VALVE ON WEST BANK OF
WHITE RIVER
Site Reference Name: Coal Creek Springs
Leak Size: Medium
Location on network: 272’ east of air valve on west bank of White River
Location on street: White River Crossing
Location notes: In White River, on the east bank
The accuracy of the location of this probable leak is dependent upon the accuracy of the overall
distance measured between the two sensor connection points. If a more accurate distance can
be provided for this crossing, a more accurate location of the probable leak can be determined.
FIGURE 6: OVERVIEW OF LEAK SITE
Echologics’ leak detection survey revealed a noise source near or close to the east bank of the
White River crossing. All evidence collected suggests that this noise is a leak. The character of
noise source is consistent with underwater leaks previously discovered by Echologics on other
Air Valve
Blow-off Valve
Probable Leak
Location
Pothole 2
Pothole 1
N
CONFIDENTIAL 31 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
similar sites. However, it should be noted that there is a possibility that this may not be a leak
and is noise caused by turbulent flow from the river. It is also important for the client to
understand the type of failure (joint, split, or pinhole) before repairs begin.
Therefore, the recommendations provided in this report are focused on confirming that the noise
source is due to leakage, and determining what type of failure it is. The recommendations are
as follows:
1. Use flow loggers to confirm and quantify leakage: Insert flow loggers on both sides of the
river to determine how much water is being lost.
2. Use internal CCTV: Insert a camera through the air valve to identify the presence and
location of the leak. It may also be possible to identify the type of failure.
3. Use divers for external inspection: Divers may be used to inspect the exterior of the pipe
surface. They can identify failures and the presence of water flow.
CONFIDENTIAL 32 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
A.3 PIPE PROPERTY DETAILS
The pipe properties used in this project, which were obtained from MSA, estimated or assumed,
are presented in Tables A.3-1 and A.3-2. Echologics estimated the modulus of elasticity based
on project experience.
TABLE A.3-1: DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROPERTIES
Site Name Segments Pipe
Material
Thickness
Class
Year of
Installation
Internal
Diameter
Nominal Wall
Thickness
Lining
Thickness
Equivalent
Thickness
(inch) (inch) (inch) (inch)
Lea Hill 20" 1-11 DI 52 1998 20 0.42 0.09 0.47
Lea Hill 16" 12-14 DI 52 1998 16 0.40 0.09 0.45
Academy 15-21 DI 52 1980 14 0.39 0.09 0.43
The equivalent thickness is the combined thickness of the ductile iron and cement lining,
weighted based on the individual material’s elastic moduli.
Little information is known on the Coal Creek Springs concrete composite pipe. As such,
Echologics estimated several properties of the pipe based on previous project experience. Due
to the complexity of the design of concrete cylinder pipes, it is not possible to estimate the
nominal stiffness. Therefore, a percentage change from original condition is not provided.
The results for concrete pipe are displayed differently than metallic mains. Concrete pipe loses
wall stiffness as it ages, while metallic pipe loses wall thickness. The stiffness of concrete
composite pipes is a function of the entire pipe and all of its components, and the ePulse result
does not differentiate between degradation modes. Furthermore, it is not currently possible to
determine whether losses in stiffness are due to losses in the concrete or steel components of
the pipe. Stiffness is defined as the ability for the pipe wall to resist deformation in the response
to an applied force.
Unfortunately nominal information about concrete pipe wall stiffness is not readily available.
Therefore best way to assess concrete cylinder pipe is to look at the results statistically and look
at how the stiffness changes along the main. Important indicators are: maximum, minimum,
average and standard deviation of stiffness. It is also important to look at the results relative to
each other, where the stiffest section was assumed to be in the best condition, and all other
CONFIDENTIAL 33 Echologics Ref. No.: 42213137
sections were compared to that section. Table A.3-2 presents the pipe properties of the
concrete composite pipe, including the maximum stiffness found during the ePulse assessment.
TABLE A.3-2: CONCRETE COMPOSITE PIPE PROPERTIES
Site Segments Pipe
Material
Pressure
Class
Year of
Installation
Internal
Diameter
Maximum
Stiffness
Measured
Maximum
Stiffness
Measured
(inch) (kpsi) (GPa)
Coal Creek Springs 22-28, 31-33 Concrete PC 150 1964 24 6618.3 45.6
Segments 29 and 30 consist partially or completely of steel pipe of unknown specifications. As
such, the specifications for these segments are not shown.
CONFIDENTIAL 34 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
A.4 EPULSE CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULT DETAILS
Tables A.4-1 and A.4-2 below present the full results of the ePulse testing for the ductile iron and concrete composite mains
respectively. Detailed results follow for all sites and segments.
TABLE A.4-1: EPULSE DUCTILE IRON PIPE WALL CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULT DETAILS
Segment
# Site Name Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Thickness
Class
Original DI
Wall
Thickness1
ePulse
Measured
Wall
Thickness1
% Change
from
Nominal2
(ft) (°C) (in) (in) %
1 Lea Hill 20" 358 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.41 -13%
2 Lea Hill 20" 237 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.44 -7%
3 Lea Hill 20" 937 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.42 -10%
4 Lea Hill 20" 208 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.37 -20%
5 Lea Hill 20" 467 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.42 -10%
6 Lea Hill 20" 301 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.44 -5%
7 Lea Hill 20" 404 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.41 -13%
8 Lea Hill 20" 342 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.43 -9%
9 Lea Hill 20" 298 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.38 -19%
10 Lea Hill 20" 300 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.40 -14%
11 Lea Hill 20" 248 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.39 -17%
12 Lea Hill 16" 472 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.41 -7%
13 Lea Hill 16" 394 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.45 0%
14 Lea Hill 16" 415 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.38 -14%
15 Academy 14” 565 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.31 -30%
16 Academy 14” 495 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.29 -34%
17 Academy 14” 528 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.30 -30%
CONFIDENTIAL 35 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Segment
# Site Name Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Thickness
Class
Original DI
Wall
Thickness1
ePulse
Measured
Wall
Thickness1
% Change
from
Nominal2
(ft) (°C) (in) (in) %
18 Academy 14” 599 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.29 -33%
19 Academy 14” 600 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.29 -32%
20 Academy 14” 608 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.29 -33%
21 Academy 14” 690 DI 1980 9 52 0.43 0.30 -31%
Note 1: May be an Equivalent Thickness as described in Section 1.
Note 2: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
TABLE A.4-2: EPULSE CONCRETE COMPOSITE PIPE WALL CONDITION ASSESSMENT RESULT DETAILS
Segment
# Site Name Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Pressure
Class
ePulse
Measured
Wall Stiffness
ePulse
Measured
Wall Stiffness
% Change
from Stiffest
Segment3
Rank
(ft) (°C) (kpsi) (GPa) %
22 Coal Creek Springs 945 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6065.9 41.8 -8% 4
23 Coal Creek Springs 275 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6341.9 43.7 -4% 3
24 Coal Creek Springs 321 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6504.5 44.8 -2% 2
25 Coal Creek Springs 350 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6618.3 45.6 0% 1
26 Coal Creek Springs 261 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6026.6 41.6 -9% 5
27 Coal Creek Springs 410 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5814.2 40.1 -12% 8
CONFIDENTIAL 36 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Segment
# Site Name Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Pressure
Class
ePulse
Measured
Wall Stiffness
ePulse
Measured
Wall Stiffness
% Change
from Stiffest
Segment3
Rank
28 Coal Creek Springs 328 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5893.9 40.6 -11% 7
294 Coal Creek Springs 501 Steel 1964 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
305 Coal Creek Springs 675
Steel /
Concrete
Composite
1964 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Coal Creek Springs 304 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5123.4 35.3 -23% 10
32 Coal Creek Springs 529 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6007.0 41.4 -9% 6
33 Coal Creek Springs 305 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5566.2 38.4 -16% 9
Note 3: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
Note 4: An accurate distance was unattainable.
Note 5: Result was unattainable due to inconsistent pipe properties.
CONFIDENTIAL 37 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
SITE 1: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.4-1: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.4-2: LEA HILL 20” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
N
Segment 8
Segment 9
Segment 10 Segment 11
N
CONFIDENTIAL 38 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
No leaks were found on the Lea Hill 20” ductile iron main.
TABLE A.4-3: LEA HILL 20” EPULSE RESULT DETAILS
Segment
#
Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Thickness
Class
Original DI
Wall
Thickness1
ePulse
Measured
Wall
Thickness1
% Change
from
Nominal2
(ft) (°C) (in) (in) %
1 358 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.41 -13%
2 237 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.44 -7%
3 937 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.42 -10%
4 208 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.37 -20%
5 467 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.42 -10%
6 301 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.44 -5%
7 404 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.41 -13%
8 342 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.43 -9%
9 298 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.38 -19%
10 300 DI 1998 9 52 0.47 0.40 -14%
11 248 DI 1998 8 52 0.47 0.39 -17%
Note 1: May be an Equivalent Thickness as described in Section 1.
Note 2: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
The ePulse results show that the 20” ductile iron main appears to be in moderate to good
condition, with remaining structural wall thickness ranging from 0.37” to 0.44”.
CONFIDENTIAL 39 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
SITE 2: LEA HILL 16” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.4-3: LEA HILL 16” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
No leaks were found on the Lea Hill 16” ductile iron main.
TABLE A.4-4: LEA HILL 16” EPULSE RESULT DETAILS
Segment
#
Segment
Length
Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Thickness
Class
Original DI
Wall
Thickness1
ePulse
Measured
Wall
Thickness1
% Change
from
Nominal2
(ft) (°C) (in) (in) %
12 472 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.41 -7%
13 394 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.45 0%
14 415 DI 1998 8 52 0.45 0.38 -14%
Note 1: May be an Equivalent Thickness as described in Section 1.
Note 2: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
The ePulse results show that the 16” ductile iron main appears to be in moderate to good
condition, with remaining structural wall thickness ranging from 0.38 to 0.45 inches.
N
CONFIDENTIAL 40 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
SITE 3: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.4-4: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
FIGURE A.4-5: ACADEMY 14” DUCTILE IRON MAIN
No indication of leaks were found on the Academy 14” ductile iron main.
CONFIDENTIAL 41 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
TABLE A.4-5: ACADEMY EPULSE RESULT DETAILS
Segment
# Distance Pipe
Material
Year of
Installation Temperature Pressure
Class
Nominal
Wall
Thickness1
ePulse
Measured
Thickness1
% Change
from
Nominal2
(ft) (°C) (in) (in) %
15 565 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.31 -30%
16 495 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.29 -34%
17 528 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.30 -30%
18 599 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.29 -33%
19 600 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.29 -32%
20 608 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.29 -33%
21 690 DI 1980 9 PC 52 0.43 0.3 -31%
Note 1: May be an Equivalent Thickness as described in Section 1.
Note 2: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
The ePulse results show that the 14” ductile iron main appears to be in poor condition, with
remaining structural wall thickness ranging from 0.29” to 0.31”. This main had the most
consistent results.
CONFIDENTIAL 42 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
SITE 4: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE/STEEL MAIN
FIGURE A.4-6: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE MAIN
N
CONFIDENTIAL 43 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
FIGURE A.4-7: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE AND STEEL MAIN
FIGURE A.4-8: COAL CREEK SPRINGS 24” CONCRETE COMPOSITE MAIN
N
CONFIDENTIAL 44 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Echologics’ leak detection survey revealed a noise source near or close to the east bank of the
White River crossing. Although this is considered a leak, it should be noted that this could be
noise caused by turbulent flow from the river. It still needs to be determined if this pipe is
exposed on the river bottom due to erosion. For further discussion, refer to Appendix A.2.
TABLE A.4-6: COAL CREEK SPRINGS EPULSE RESULT DETAILS
Segment # Segment
Length Pipe Material Year of
Installation
Water
Temperature
Pressure
Class
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
ePulse
Measured
Stiffness
% Change
from
Stiffest
Segment3
Rank
(ft) (°C) (kpsi) (GPa) %
22 945 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6065.9 41.8 -8% 4
23 275 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6341.9 43.7 -4% 3
24 321 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6504.5 44.8 -2% 2
25 350 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6618.3 45.6 0% 1
26 261 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6026.6 41.6 -9% 5
27 410 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5814.2 40.1 -12% 8
28 328 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5893.9 40.6 -11% 7
294 501 Steel 1964 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
305 675
Steel /
Concrete
Composite
1964 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 304 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5123.4 35.3 -23% 10
32 529 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 6007.0 41.4 -9% 6
33 305 Concrete
Composite 1964 9 PC 150 5566.2 38.4 -16% 9
Note 3: Refer to Table B.2-1 for color code descriptions.
Note 4: An accurate distance was unattainable.
Note 5: Result was unattainable due to inconsistent pipe properties.
The results for the Coal Creek Springs main have been ranked from 1 through 10, based on
relative best (1) to worst (10) conditions. The results suggest that the segments further
CONFIDENTIAL 45 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
northwest along the main are in better condition. However, there is little variance in the condition
along the main on the west side of White River (segments 22-28). Segments 24 and 25 appear
to be in the best condition overall.
Lower stiffness measurements can be attributed to broken pre-stressing wires, as well as
cracking or de-lamination of the cement lining in combination with corrosion of the steel cylinder.
Due to the terrain between the sensor points, accurate distances were not attainable for
segments 22, 25, 29, and 30. When possible, estimates have been made, based on as-built
drawings, sub-foot GPS and surveying measurements and distances measured on site using a
measuring wheel and/or a laser rangefinder. The stiffness results can be recalculated using
updated distances if they become available.
The condition of segments 29 and 30 could not be determined, as an accurate lining thickness
was not attainable. However, leak detection was still performed on these segments.
Results for segment 30 could not be obtained, as it consisted of two distinct pipe materials:
concrete and steel.
CONFIDENTIAL 46 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Appendix B – Interpretation of Results
B.1 LEAK DETECTION
There are three possible results for each leak detection test on a Segment:
Leak Noise Discovered (Leak)
Point of Interest (POI)
No Leak Discovered.
Within all Echologics reports, if no mention is made of leaks on a given Segment, it may be
assumed that the result of the test was “No Leak Discovered”.
LEAK NOISE DISCOVERED (LEAK)
Several criteria must be met for audio recordings in order to provide a positive leak detection
result. A positive comparison of the sound patterns and frequencies detected at both sensors
(correlation), similar noise detected at both sensors (coherence), confirmation at the leak
location through the use of surface mounted microphones to listen to the leak noise through the
ground (ground sounding), and/or visual confirmation of the leak. Alternatively, a leaking hydrant
or valve is characterized by high frequency noise transmitted to the sensor of the respective
channel and can be confirmed through sounding.
POINT OF INTEREST (POI)
A Point of Interest (POI) designation indicates that some, but not all, of the criteria for a positive
leak detection result are met. This could mean that a strong correlation is observed but
coherence is poor, or that there is no confirmation of leak noise through ground sounding the
point of the leak. Although this does not indicate a conclusive leak, it is recommended that the
client perform a secondary investigation to confirm the presence and location of the leak, as
there is evidence of some form of noise inside the pipe.
NO LEAK DISCOVERED
When a negative correlation is matched with poor coherence, it is concluded that no leak was
detected. This indicates that the LeakFinderRT system is not identifying a noise source of any
CONFIDENTIAL 47 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
sort, and that there is no other evidence of leakage. Where possible, leak simulations are
performed to confirm the absence of leaks and to ensure equipment functionality.
B.2 EPULSE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The ePulse condition assessment measures the current average minimum structural thickness
(for asbestos cement or metallic mains) or current average structural stiffness (for reinforced
concrete or plastic mains). Where the original nominal thickness (or stiffness) is available,
results are also presented as a percentage loss, and as a category indicating a qualitative
description of the expected condition of the main.
QUALITATIVE CONDITION DESCRIPTION CATEGORIES
The color-coding and descriptions in Table B.2-1 are used for the results presented in all ePulse
condition assessment reports.
TABLE B.2-1: COLOR CODING AND WALL THICKNESS LOSS QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
Change in
Wall
Thickness
Description Color
Code
Description
Asbestos Cement
Mains Metallic Mains Concrete
Composite Mains
Less than
10% Good Green
Minor levels of
degradation and/or
isolated areas with
minor loss of
structural thickness
Minor levels of
uniform corrosion or
some localized
areas with pitting
corrosion.
Minor levels of
uniform interior or
exterior concrete
degradation or
localized areas with
severe degradation.
Minor possibility of
corrosion of steel
cylinder or
reinforcement.
10% to
30% Moderate Yellow
Considerate levels
degradation and
loss of structural
thickness. Moderate
levels of cement
leeched away from
asbestos matrix.
Considerate levels
of uniform surface
or internal corrosion
and/or localized
areas of pitting
corrosion.
Considerate levels of
degradation and loss
of wall stiffness.
Some corrosion of
steel cylinder and
reinforcement.
CONFIDENTIAL 48 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Change in
Wall
Thickness
Description Color
Code
Description
Asbestos Cement
Mains Metallic Mains Concrete
Composite Mains
Greater
than 30% Poor Red
Significant
degradation and
loss of structural
thickness.
Substantial levels of
cement leeched
away from asbestos
matrix.
Significant uniform
corrosion and/or
numerous areas of
localized pitting
corrosion.
Significant
degradation and loss
of wall stiffness and
corrosion of steel
cylinder and
reinforcement.
These descriptions are based on Echologics’ experience with validation of our results through
exhumation of samples of pipe that we have tested. Following the table, more detail is provided
as to the expected condition of different types of main in each condition category, along with
examples of validation of the ePulse method on each type of main.
DISTRIBUTION OF DEGRADATION WITHIN SEGMENTS
Each ePulse result represents an average pipe wall condition within a Segment between
two sensor attachment points. Pipe wall conditions may vary within a Segment, and the
condition at any one point within the segment may not reflect the average conditions within
that Segment.
The ePulse method tests the average structural thickness of the pipe, which is not the same as
the average thickness of the pipe. The ePulse assessment measures a pipe’s hoop stiffness: its
resistance to axi-symmetric expansion under the tiny pressure variations caused by sound
waves. Material properties are then used to calculate the pipe wall thickness which would
provide exactly this hoop stiffness, which is referred to as the average structural thickness. To
obtain this same value mechanically, you would need to divide a pipe into hoops, measure the
thinnest section of structural material (i.e. graphite, tuberculation product, or asbestos cement
with the calcium leached out would not be counted) around the circumference of each hoop,
and then average these.
For example, any of the following descriptions will hold true for a pipe with a loss of 25%:
1. Circumferentially uniform loss of 25% along the entire Segment.
2. Circumferentially uniform loss of 50% along half of the Segment, but 0% loss along the
other half of the Segment.
CONFIDENTIAL 49 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
3. Loss of 25% at the crown of the pipe along the entire Segment, but 0% loss along any
other point in the circumference along the entire Segment.
These descriptions hold true for asbestos cement, metallic and reinforced concrete mains.
CONDITION INTERPRETATION IN METALLIC MAINS
Metallic pipes are prone to corrosion, both locally, or generalized along the pipe length.
Localized pitting can be caused by highly corrosive soils, stray currents or slightly acidic water.
Examples of various levels of corrosion are presented in Figure B.2-5 below.
Most of the degradation is often caused by a combination of internal corrosion, soil
aggressiveness and coating defects on the surface of the main. If no coating was present upon
installation, then the degradation would be due to soil aggressiveness alone.
For cement mortar lined pipes, areas with higher losses may indicate the lining has been
degraded to the point that the water column is now in contact with the metal, locally accelerating
the degradation rate. This may also suggest that the soil loading conditions were such that the
pipe experienced an over-deflection during its lifetime, causing damage to the interior lining.
When considering the water aggressiveness as a mechanism for corrosion, it can be assumed
that the degradation is relatively uniform across the length of the main. If pipes are unlined
(bare), internal degradation may be attributed to a combination of localized pitting, and the
formation of tuberculation that can also be accompanied by the formation graphitic corrosion
(leaching of iron from the metal matrix).
Localized corrosion is most likely due to isolated mechanisms such as Direct Current corrosion,
or localized aggressive soil conditions. For cement lined pipes, areas with higher losses may
indicate the lining has been degraded to the point that the water column is now in contact with
the metal, locally accelerating the degradation rate.
6INCH CI PIPE WITH 4.2% MEASURED LOSS
CONFIDENTIAL 50 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
FIGURE B.2-5: EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CORROSION IN METALLIC PIPE
Case Study: Validation of ePulse Results on Unlined Metallic Pipes in Hamilton, Canada
A pilot study was undertaken within the City of Hamilton to test Echologics’ condition
assessment technology which relates the structural condition of the pipe to the acoustic wave
speed observed. The model factored in the bulk modulus of the water and the dynamic young’s
modulus of the pipe. Spun cast iron and pit cast iron samples were taken from 8 separate sites
within the city of Hamilton’s water distribution system. The age of the pipes ranged from 45 to
145 years old and was assessed by Correng, a third party materials engineering firm.
The analysis performed by Correng included an assessment of the average thickness,
maximum pit depth, average pit depth, surface area pitted, and average metal loss. Figure B.2-6
below shows the upper and lower bound measurements observed on each sample, as well as
the values calculated with Echologics’ method.
6 INCH CI PIPE WITH 4.2% MEASURED LOSS 6 INCH CI PIPE WITH 47% MEASURED LOSS
6 INCH CI PIPE WITH 10% MEASURED LOSS 18 INCH CI PIPE WITH 18.5% MEASURED LOSS
CONFIDENTIAL 51 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
FIGURE B.2-6: COMPARISON OF THICKNESS MEASURED WITH CALIPERS AND WITH ECHOLOGICS'
METHOD
It can be observed that the measurements performed by Echologics successfully predicted the
condition of the pipe, within the variation observed by Correng, for seven out of the eight
samples taken. All the data collected is subject to the sources of error outlined in Appendix C,
and as such a perfect success rate cannot always be ensured.
Case Study: Validation of ePulse Results on Lined Metallic Mains in Columbus, Ohio
Echologics conducted a pilot condition assessment survey for Malcolm Pirnie/Arcadis on select
sections of distribution pipes in Columbus, Ohio to demonstrate and validate the abilities of the
Echologics condition assessment method. In total ten samples were taken for the purpose of
comparison. Two of the samples were excluded from the comparison. The first sample excluded
was due to it being taken from a section of pipe where a leak was detected, preventing
Echologics from accurately assessing the condition of the pipe. The second sample was
excluded because it was later determined that it was taken from an area where Echologics had
not perform an assessment.
The percentage loss values presented by CTL are calculated by subtracting the deepest
corrosion pit from the average measured wall thickness the percent loss is then calculating the
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Measured
Thickness
(mm)
Sample Number
Measured Thickness
Correng
Lower Bound
Measuremen
t
Correng
Upper Bound
Measuremen
t
Echologics
Measuremen
t
CONFIDENTIAL 52 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
percent loss with respect to the original wall thickness. These values were chosen for the
purpose of comparison because they represent the points in the pipe which would influence the
overall hydrostatic and crush strength of the pipe since they are the thinnest.
Figure B.2-7 below shows the results of the eight tested sections that were not disqualified. One
can observe that for seven of the eight sites the condition of the pipe was characterized
accurately. The results of the assessment performed by Echologics generally appear to be
offset when compared to the results presented by CTL. This may be attributed to variation in the
bulk modulus of the water, deviations from expected pipe properties, or an intrinsic discrepancy
due to the different measurement methods.
FIGURE B.2-7: RESULTS FROM CTL AND ECHOLOGICS
The results presented by Echologics for Sample 1 and Sample 5 show an appreciable deviation
from the results of the analysis performed by CTL. Echologics results indicate the pipe in
Sample 1 to be in moderate condition while the results of the analysis performed by CTL
indicate the pipe to be in poor condition.
One can see from Figure B.2-7, the ePulse method offered by Echologics is able to accurately
characterize the condition of water mains given both the nominal properties and layout of the
pipe are known with adequate certainty.
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Percentage
Loss
Sample Number
Results from CTL and Echologics
CTL
Results
Echologic
s Results
CONFIDENTIAL 53 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
CONDITION INTERPRETATION IN REINFORCED CONCRETE MAINS
The ePulse method provides a result that is an average of remaining composite stiffness across
the length spanned between the two sensor points, minimized around the circumference. The
stiffness is a function of the entire pipe and all of its components, and the result does not
differentiate between degradation modes. Furthermore, it is not currently possible to determine
whether losses in stiffness are due to losses in the concrete or steel components of the pipe.
Several different degradation patterns exist, including pockets of severe degradation as well as
minor levels of uniform degradation of the interior lining. If the interior concrete core is
compromised, the uncoated steel cylinder is much more susceptible to rapid degradation. If the
exterior cement mortar coating is compromised and the reinforcing spirals are exposed, the
spirals will be more likely to suffer from corrosion.
CONFIDENTIAL 54 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
CONDITION INTERPRETATION IN ASBESTOS CEMENT MAINS
As asbestos cement pipes age and degrade, they will not lose actual thickness, but will lose
structural thickness as the calcium leaches out of the asbestos cement matrix. This portion of
the asbestos cement will become soft, and will no longer bear a structural load, and therefore
does not contribute to the structural thickness. The ePulse method measures the remaining
structural thickness (also known as the effective thickness), as illustrated in Figure B.2-1, rather
than the actual physical wall thickness (which will generally remain at the nominal thickness).
FIGURE B.2-1: STRUCTURAL THICKNESS IN ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE
Case Study: Sweetwater Authority
Echologics and MEI-Charlton (MEIC) were engaged by the Sweetwater Authority to assess the
condition of asbestos cement mains in Chula Vista, California. Seven samples were taken and
the mains surveyed ranged from 6 inch to 12 inch in diameter and pressure class 150.
Each firm used its own methods to assess the condition of the water mains. Echologics
employed acoustic based proprietary condition assessment technology and mathematical
formulas to model the critical loads, while MEI-Charlton Inc. examined the extent of cement
leaching in the pipe samples using a phenolphthalein indicator. MEI-Charlton Inc. also
determined the critical loads of the pipe by utilizing V-shaped three-edge bearing test and
hydrostatic strength test in accordance with ASTM C296 and ASTM C500. The results of
CONFIDENTIAL 55 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Echologics thickness measurements and the thickness of the phenolphthalein tests are
summarized below in Figure B.2-2.
Overall, the ePulse results closely matched the average thicknesses shown by the coupon
samples. In all cases, the ePulse results are slightly thinner than those shown in the couple
samples. This is attributed to two main factors:
1) The coupon sample measurements may not have accurately captured the minimum
circumferential thickness.
2) While the phenolphthalein test provides a clear line of “structural” versus “non-structural”
material, it is in fact possible to have partial leaching within the “structural” material. The
ePulse method would capture this, whereas die testing of samples would not.
FIGURE B.2-2: VALIDATION OF EPULSE RESULTS ON ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE
In order to compare the different methods of thickness measurements the minimum thicknesses
provided for MEIC and the thicknesses measured by Echologics were used to estimate the
burst pressure of the pipe. The same assumptions and material properties were used in both
calculations, only the thicknesses were varied. The results of these calculations, along with the
results of the burst strength test are presented below in Figure B.2-3.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
m
)
Sample Number
Thickness Comparison
Echologics
Thickness
MEIC
Thickness
CONFIDENTIAL 56 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
FIGURE B.2-3: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF DETERMINING EFFECTIVE THICKNESS
WITH RESPECT TO BURST STRENGTH
It can be seen from Figure B.2-3 that both the thickness measured by Echologics and the
thickness measured by MEIC were able to characterize the condition of the water mains. It is
worth noting that the ePulse method was notably more accurate when the measured burst
strengths were low (samples 3, 4, and 7), which highlights the predictive power of the method.
The measured thicknesses were also compared against the crush strength of the samples. The
results are shown below in Figure B.2-4. One can observe that both data sets have similar
distributions. Further study is still required to accurately predict the critical crush strength of
pipes given the thickness, loading conditions and material properties.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bu
r
s
t
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(
p
s
i
)
Sample Number
Burst Strength of Pipe Samples
Measured
Burst
Strength
Predicted
Burst
Strength
(Echologics
Thickness)
Predicted
Burst
Strength
(MEIC
Thickness)
CONFIDENTIAL 57 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
FIGURE B.2-4: MEASURED CRUSH STRENGTH VS. CRUSH STRENGTH
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cr
u
s
h
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
(l
b
s
/
f
t
)
Thickness (mm)
Measured Thickness vs. Crush Strength
Echologics
Measured
Thickness vs.
Crush Strength
CONFIDENTIAL 58 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Appendix C – Sensitivity Analyses and Considerations
Echologics is constantly committed to reducing error throughout the assessments. There are
factors that may introduce error into the analysis. These errors may be caused by one or more
of the following: inaccurate distance measurements, variance in manufacturing tolerances,
variance in the modulus of elasticity the material, unknown pipe repairs, or inadequate
correlation signals.
DISTANCE MEASUREMENT
An accurate distance measurement is crucial for an accurate assessment. In general, a 1%
error in distance measurement can result to more than a 2% error in final percentage of wall
thickness lost. For this reason, our preference is to use potholes or in-line valves, as these
provide the most accurate distance measure, since it is a point-to-point measurement. As the
number of bends and/or elevation changes between the sensor connection points increases, so
does the potential error in the distance measurement.
PIPE MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES
Small differences in nominal specifications will occur between pipes due to differences in
manufacturers and tolerances. These differences commonly range from between 5% and 10%
depending on the manufacturer and the material. Furthermore, a contractor may have installed
a pipe that exceeds the minimum specifications. Under these circumstances the measurements
may show a pipe with a wall thickness that is greater than expected. This is particularly true of
older pipes as they tolerances were not adhered to as strictly.
The material properties used for calculations are selected using conservative estimates. This
provides for a worst-case scenario analysis.
REPAIR CLAMPS ON PREVIOUS LEAKS
Acoustic waves are primarily water borne. As such, a small number of repair clamps will have
an insignificant effect on the test results, since the acoustic wave will bypass the clamps.
CONFIDENTIAL 59 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
A change in elastic modulus of 10% will cause a change in the calculated thickness by
approximately 10%. The elastic modulus is known for common materials used in the
manufacturing of pressure pipe, but this value can vary between manufacturers. It is dependent
on the manufacturing process and the quality of the material. The material properties used for
calculations are selected using conservative estimates. This provides for a worst-case scenario
analysis.
UNACCOUNTED FOR REPL ACEMENT OF PIPE SECTIONS DURING
REPAIRS
Acoustic waves propagate differently depending upon the pipe material. This effect remains true
for unaccounted for short pipe replacements with different materials, and can result in significant
error. For example, a new six metre long (~20 feet) ductile iron repair in a 100 metre long (~328
feet) cast iron pipe section of average condition, will produce a small error of +3.5% in
measured wall thickness. However, the same repair made with PVC pipe would produce an
error of -41% in measured wall thickness.
Preferably, pipe sections selected for testing should be free of repaired sections. However, if
this condition does not exist, the impact of the repaired pipe section can be accounted for,
provided accurate information is available for the age, location, length, material type, and class
of the repair pipe section.
INADEQUATE CORRELATION SIGNALS
Inadequate correlation signals, though uncommon, can sometimes occur in the field. The
following are some of the conditions that may cause an inadequate correlation:
1) The presence of plastic repairs in metallic pipes which can cause poor propagation of
sound.
2) Loose or worn components in fittings used for the measurements, such as valve or
hydrant stems.
3) Large air pockets in the pipe which heavily attenuate acoustic signals.
CONFIDENTIAL 60 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
4) Heavily tuberculated pipe, particularly old cast iron or unlined ductile iron pipes, which
can attenuate the acoustic signals to such an extent that a correlation is of very low
quality. For more information, please see Appendix D – Detailed Methodology.
CONFIDENTIAL 61 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Appendix D – Detailed Methodology
D.1 LEAK DETECTION
The leak detection methodology employed is known as the cross-correlation method. A
correlator listens passively for noise created by a leak and if one is detected, uses the time
delay between the two sensors to determine the position of the leak. The following procedure
was used to conduct the leak detection survey:
1. For each location surveyed, the distance between the sensors was measured. An
accurate measurement of the distance between sensors is required to ensure reliable
results. The distance was determined using a measuring wheel, a laser range finder or
drawings provided to Echologics.
2. Sensors were mounted either directly on the pipe or were connected to the water column
with Hydrophones.
3. A correlation measurement was performed without introducing noise (known as a
background recording), and the signal was saved to the computer so that further
analysis could be performed off-site. A preliminary analysis is performed on-site to
determine if any leaks are present.
CONFIDENTIAL 62 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
D.2 EPULSE ACOUSTIC AVERAGE WALL THICKNESS OR STIFFNESS
TESTING
A section of pipe is the length bracketed by two contact points on the main. An out-of-bracket
noise source is located outside of that segment. A known noise source may be used to
determine the acoustic wave velocity in a section of pipe. Knowing the distance between the
sensors, the acoustic wave velocity (v) will be given by v = d/t, where d is the length of pipe
between the sensors, and t is the time taken for the acoustic signal to propagate between the
two sensors.
The following procedure is followed to conduct a pipe integrity data collection survey:
1. A leak detection survey is performed on the length of pipe to check for the presence of
existing leaks. (Described in previous section)
2. A noise source is created “out-of-bracket”. A variety of different noise sources can be
used including an existing leak noise, blow-off noise, pump noise, impulse noise, running
a fire hydrant, and tapping on a fire hydrant or directly on the pipe.
3. A new correlation measurement is performed and stored as a wave file for further
analysis and confirmation off-site. Data is analysed further to obtain an optimum
correlation, ensuring an accurate velocity measurement.
WAVE VELOCITY EQUATION
The general form of the acoustic pipe integrity testing equation is shown below:
√
[ ( ) ( )]
EQUATION 1: WAVE VELOCITY - THICKNESS MODEL
v : measured velocity
v0 : propagation velocity in an infinite body of water
Di : pipe internal diameter
Kl : bulk modulus of the liquid
E : elastic modulus of the pipe wall
tr : residual thickness of the pipe
CONFIDENTIAL 63 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
BULK MODULUS OF WATER CALIBRATION
Different water sources often produce a different bulk modulus of water. The bulk
modulus essentially represents the water’s inherent resistance to compression, and is
impacted by factors like water temperature, dissolved salts and entrained air.
Echologics field specialists calibrate the bulk modulus at each water company’s water
source. This requires performing a single test on a stretch of pipe with a known pipe
wall condition. In practice, this generally means performing an additional test on a new
section of pipe that has been installed within the past few years.
CONFIDENTIAL 64 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Appendix E – Case Study for Concrete Pipe
E.1 MIDDLESEX CASE STUDY
CUSTOMER
Middlesex Water Company (MWC)
PIPE MATERIAL
Pre-Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe (PCCP)
PIPE DIAMETER
20”
SITUATION
Evaluation of LeakFinderRT’s ability to accurately detect leaks and assess the
condition of PCCP water mains.
TECHOLOGY
LeakFinderRT™ Leak Noise Correlator
ePulse Testing Service
BACKGROUND
Middlesex Water Company (MWC) provides water and wastewater services to a
population of over 450,000 in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. As part of its
continued approach to strengthen its water and wastewater infrastructure, MWC’s
RENEW Program is aimed at rehabilitating its aging water mains, valves and fire
hydrants to help ensure the continual delivery of quality water at adequate pressures to
customers throughout its service area.
MWC was evaluating technologies it could use to accurately and efficiently assess
aging water mains comprised of pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) in its
service area. One of the primary technologies included in this evaluation was
Echologics’ proprietary, advanced acoustic-based leak detection and ePulse system,
LeakFinderRT™.
CONFIDENTIAL 65 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
ACTION
MWC owned a 20-inch diameter PCCP water main that was located in Fords, New
Jersey, between Industrial Avenue and King Georges Post Road. MWC contracted
Echologics to assess the structural stiffness of this particular main, while the main was
still in service. The structural stiffness is a good measure of the water main’s ability to
counteract internal pressures. MWC was searching for more cost-effective techniques
to analyze their PCCP mains. MWC also asked CDM Smith Inc. to perform a forensics
analysis on the same water main once it was removed from service. The goal was to
validate Echologics ability to survey large networks of PCCP water mains, and prioritize
pipe segments based on their current structural stiffness.
Echologics used LeakFinderRT to non-invasively survey 343 feet of the 20” PCCP
water main in three sections, while the main was still in service. To conduct the survey,
two surface mounted sensors were attached directly to the crown of the pipe when
testing each section. The leak detection and acoustic pipe condition assessment
method used is based on the “cross correlation method.” This method detects leaks and
assesses the main’s condition by taking a correlation measurement prior to introducing
a noise in the main. Noise is introduced by flowing water from fire hydrants, or
physically tapping on appurtenances such as valves. The acoustic wave velocity of
noise in a section of a main is calculated by dividing the distance between the sensors
by the time it takes for the sound wave to travel from one sensor to the other.
By accurately measuring the acoustic wave velocity, it is possible to calculate the
average structural stiffness of the section of pipe between the two sensors. For metallic
and asbestos cement pipes, average structural stiffness is used to calculate remaining
pipe wall thickness. However, for composite pipe such as PCCP, the same assumptions
used to calculate remaining pipe wall stiffness in single material mains cannot be made.
When assessing pipes of composite materials, all of the components and geometric
properties contribute to the structural stiffness of the pipe to some degree. For this
reason, structural stiffness is a more effective metric for describing the integrity of
composite pipes than wall thickness when the stiffnesses of each material cannot be
individually identified.
CONFIDENTIAL 66 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
RESULTS
According to Echologics’ findings, no leaks were present along the three sections of the
main. However, the survey indicated that the first section of the main was in
“considerably worse condition” than the second and third sections. The structural
integrity of the third section was the best among the three sections, and was arbitrarily
assumed to be 95% of its original composite stiffness for comparative purposes. A pipe
with a lower remaining composite stiffness tends to indicate a pipe in worse condition
than a pipe with a higher remaining composite stiffness. Reduced structural stiffness
may be the result of a loss in tension on the stressing cable from a break or yielding
loss of interior or exterior concrete, which can indicate that the main’s steel cylinder has
been compromised.
After Echologics tested the main, it was removed from service and CDM Smith hired
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger (SGH) to conduct its own assessment of the pipe’s
condition. SGH excavated the pipe, and performed a series of forensics test including
destructive testing. SGH stripped the main of its mortar coating by cutting all pre-
stressing wires longitudinally along the pipe. The extent of “popping” of the mortar
coating and pre-stressing wires was noted; the pre-stressing wires were inspected for
breakage, splices and signs of corrosion, and the steel cylinder was inspected for signs
of corrosion.
The results of SGH’s assessment strongly correlated with Echologics’ findings. SGH
verified that the first section of the main had a much lower stiffness than the two other
sections, indicating that it had the lowest level of structural integrity.
The strong degree of correlation between the two tests validated the reliability of
LeakFinderRT as a technology that MWC could use to accurately and non-invasively
detect leaks and measure the structural integrity of PCCP water mains throughout other
parts of its water system, without requiring the mains to be taken out of service.
CONFIDENTIAL 67 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
Appendix F – Glossary of Terms
SENSOR - Vibration measurement device. Sensors are mounted on pipes and pipe fittings to
capture acoustic signals in the pipe.
COHERENCE - The measure of similar frequencies between
ACOUSTIC WAVE SPEED – The velocity of the sound as it propagates in the pipe. The water
hammer travels this speed through the pipe and water.
ACOUSTIC WAVE – Sound that travels through the pipe and water. This is similar to water
hammer.
IN-BRACKET – A noise source that is between the two sensors deployed by Echologics.
OUT-OF-BRACKET – A noise source that is beyond on of the sensors deployed by Echologics.
BLUE STATION / WHITE STATION – The color of the transmitters that broadcast the signals
measured by the sensors.
SITE – A neighborhood or area that is surveyed.
SEGMENT, OR PIPE SEGMENT – A section of pipe surveyed in one measurement. The
length of the segment is the distance between two sensors.
GPS – Global Positioning System
GIS – Geographic Information System
PCCP – Pre-Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe: Pipe wall construction comprising of a concrete
core, a steel cylinder and pre-stressed high tension wires.
BWP – Bar Wrapped Pipe: Pipe wall construction comprising of a concrete core, a steel cylinder
and reinforcing steel bars.
SCI – Spun Cast Iron: Pipe wall construction comprising of spun cast iron.
PCI – Pit Cast Iron: Pipe wall construction comprising of pit cast iron.
DI – Ductile Iron: Pipe wall construction comprising of ductile iron.
AC – Asbestos Cement: Pipe wall construction comprising of asbestos cement.
STEEL: Pipe wall construction comprising of steel.
CONFIDENTIAL 68 Echologics Ref. NO.: 42213137
CL – Concrete lined: Indicates whether or not a specific pipe type has some form of concrete
lining. This abbreviation will typically follow a pipe type abbreviation Ex: DICL for ductile iron
concrete lined.
CONDITION ASSESSMENT SPECIFIC TERMS
EPULSE (PIPE INTEGRITY TESTING): A test performed by measuring the acoustic wave
speed along a pipe. The result is either presented as average minimum wall thickness or
average minimum wall stiffness along the test section.
AWT - Average Wall Thickness
AWS - Average Wall Stiffness
LEAK DETECTION SPECIFIC TERMS
POI – Point of Interest indicates that there is evidence of some form of noise on the pipe that
will need further investigation to confirm if the noise is produced by a leak.
NO LEAK DISCOVERED – a negative correlation is matched with poor coherence concluding
that no leak was detected.
CORRELATION - The process of comparing two acoustic signals for similarity. LeakFinder
uses correlation to judge the time delay between two signals. This allows LeakFinder to gauge
the location of leaks and the acoustic wave speed of the pipe.
APPENDIX B
CAPITAL MAINTENANCE PLAN –
INSPECTED FACILITIES
DRAFT
Inspected Facility Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Academy Pump Station 1 -$ 1,030,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Academy Pump Station 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Green River Pump Station -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Wilderness Game Farm Park PS 149,000$ -$ -$ 93,000$ -$ -$
Braunwood Pump Station 86,000$ -$ 39,000$ -$ -$
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control -$ -$ 310,000$ -$ -$ -$
Howard Road Corrosion Control -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination 1,395,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
West Hill Springs Chlorination -$ -$ 118,000$ -$ -$ -$
Braunwood Chlorination -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 1 132,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 8A -$ -$ 41,000$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 4A -$ 715,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 4B -$ -$ 558,000$ -$ -$ -$
Braunwood Reservoir 139,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 6 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 5 -$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 5A -$ 140,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Braunwood Well 21,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main 1,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
East Valley Highway Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Academy Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,865,000$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South -$ 41,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North -$ 41,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower -$ 53,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St -$ 27,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper -$ 32,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
47th/Lakeland Hills Way -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mill Pond Lp/Mill Pond Dr -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Pump Station -$ -$ -$ 33,000$ -$ -$
Total 2,976,000$ 2,925,000$ 1,027,000$ 165,000$ -$ 2,865,000$
Prioritized CIP Summary
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility 1
DRAFT
Inspected Facility Name 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Academy Pump Station 1 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$
Academy Pump Station 2 3,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$
Green River Pump Station 1,500$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$
Wilderness Game Farm Park PS 7,000$ -$ -$ 14,500$ -$ -$
Braunwood Pump Station 2,000$ -$ -$ 11,500$ -$ -$
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control 16,500$ -$ -$ 5,000$ -$ -$
Howard Road Corrosion Control -$ -$ -$ 3,000$ -$ -$
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination 14,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
West Hill Springs Chlorination -$ -$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$
Braunwood Chlorination -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 1 10,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 8A 500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 4A -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Reservoir 4B 2,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Braunwood Reservoir 11,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 2 500$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$
Well 6 14,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 4 14,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Well 5 -$ -$ 6,000$ -$ -$ -$
Well 5A 19,000$ -$ -$ 8,500$ -$ -$
Braunwood Well -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ -$
Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
East Valley Highway Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Academy Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South -$ 22,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North 14,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower 19,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
106th Pl SE/Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle 16,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
107th Pl SE Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper -$ 14,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000$
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St 6,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper 31,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
47th/Lakeland Hills Way -$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mill Pond Dr/Mill Pond Lp 3,500$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000$ -$
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk 3,500$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000$ -$
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St 1,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr 3,500$ -$ -$ -$ 4,000$ -$
Lea Hill Pump Station 9,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Sub-Total 229,000$ 41,500$ 11,000$ 42,500$ 42,000$ 4,000$
Maintenance Plan Summary
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility 1
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 1 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
APPENDIX B
Academy Pump Station 1
Academy Pump Station 1 was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code
deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 1: Improve CMU
Walls-Update to be
Reinforced
CMU walls appear to not
be reinforced - seismic
concern N/A $96,000
Option 1: Replace CB
Enclosure Enclosure is corroded 2016 $26,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motors. Given the age
and condition of the pump station, complete replacement of the facility may also be a viable
alternative.
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 2: Construct New
Pump Station
Address structural issues
and anticipated equipment
replacements N/A $1,030,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 2 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Pump 500 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $40,000
New Pump 300 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $56,000
New Motor 50 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $60,000
New Motor 30 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $57,000
Replace Broken
Window
Window was broken at time of
inspection 2015 $1,500
New Floor Drain
Floor drain cover was rusted
and broken 2015 $1,000
Relocate Conduit in
front of Load Center
Conduit location is a clearance
issue and makes operations
and maintenance tasks difficult 2016 $500
Replace T12 Interior
Light Fixture (4 Light
Fixtures)
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $2,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Academy Pump
Station 1. The maintenance improvement, estimated project cost and frequency are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 3 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $27,500 30-40
Replace Piping $15,000 40-45
Paint Structure $5,000 10-15
Replace Motors $37,000 35-40
Replace Pumps $96,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $80,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment $25,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Academy Pump Station 2
Academy Pump Station 2 was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 4 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Academy Pump
Station 2 and the maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in
the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1)
Frequency
(years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $37,500 30-40
Replace Piping $15,000 40-45
Paint Structure $5,000 10-15
Replace Motor $54,000 35-40
Replace Pump $77,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $120,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment $25,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 12" Isolation
Butterfly Valve
General Age and
Condition Decay 2023 $6,500
Replace T12 Interior Light
Fixture (6 Light Fixtures)
Not functioning during
site visit 2015 $3,000
(2) New Pumps 750 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $77,000
(2) New Motors 75 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $174,000
(2) New 3" Deep Well
Pump Control Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $20,000
(2) New 4" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $11,000
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 5 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Green River Pump Station
Green River Pump Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Check thermostat and
heater to make sure they
are functioning properly
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $1,000
Replace T8 Interior Light
Fixture
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $500
(4) New Pump 1170 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2024 $266,000
(4) New Motor 150 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $464,000
(4) New 10" Pump
Control Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $96,000
(4) New 12" Isolation
Gate Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Green River
Pump Station and the maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized
in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 6 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1)
Frequency
(years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $110,000 30-40
Replace Piping $15,000 40-45
Paint Structure $5,000 10-15
Replace Motor $164,000 35-40
Replace Pump $266,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $300,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Wilderness Game Farm Park Pump Station
Wilderness Game Farm Park Pump Station was inspected during the field evaluations and
the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized
in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the
inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as
described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified
because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 7 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement
Estimated Project
Cost(1)
Option 1: New Wood
Door
Door was damaged at
time of inspection 2015 $2,000
Option 1: New Comp
Stick Framed Roof
(Reroofing)
Roof was in poor
condition at time of
inspection 2015 $1,000
Option 1: New Exhaust
Inlet/Louver for Pump
Station
Damaged at time of
inspection 2015 $1,000
Option 1: Install Fencing Facility is not fenced N/A $18,000
Option 1: Foundation
Improvement (Anchor
Building to Foundation)
Structure not anchored
to foundation, appears
to have shifted 2015 $9,000
Option 1: New Wood
Walls
Wood walls are in poor
condition 2015 $13,000
Option 1: Move
Panelboard to Improve
Accessibility When
Vault Open
Access is not possible
when vault is open 2015 $14,000
Option 1: Provide Back-
Up Power Capabilities
No back-up power
capabilities are
provided N/A $60,000
Option 1: Rehabilitate
Aging MCC
General Age and
Condition Decay 2016 $17,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
As an alternative, a new structure could be constructed to address many of the deficiencies
identified. This option is summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 8 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Option 2: Install Fencing Facility is not fenced N/A $18,000
Option 2: Foundation
Improvement (Anchor
Building to Foundation)
Structure not anchored to
foundation, appears to have
shifted 2015 $9,000
Option 2: New Pump
Station Building (Existing
Foundation Retained)
Replace structure to
address anchoring and
foundation concerns 2015 $31,000
Option 2: Move
Panelboard to Improve
Accessibility When Vault
Open
Access is not possible
when vault is open 2016 $14,000
Option 2: Provide Back-
Up Power Capabilities
No back-up power
capabilities are provided N/A $60,000
Option 2: Rehabilitate
Aging MCC
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $17,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor. Given the age
and condition for the pump station, complete replacement of the facility may also be a viable
alternative. The two alternatives are summarized above as Option 1 and Option 2.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 9 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Pump 50 gpm, New
Motor 5 HP, Starters &
Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2028 $18,000
New Pump 1000 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2028 $23,000
New Motor 50 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $52,000
New 2" Pump Check
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $4,000
New 6" Pump Check
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $8,000
New 3" Isolation Gate
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $2,500
Paint Pipe
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $6,000
Install Access Ladder in
Vault
No ladder in vault
currently 2015 $1,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Wilderness Game
Farm Park pump station. The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $14,500 30-40
Replace Piping $15,000 40-45
Paint Structure $5,000 10-15
Replace Motor $20,000 35-40
Replace Pump $32,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $50,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment $1,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 10 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Braunwood Pump Station
Braunwood Pump Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code
deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Pump 115 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2019 $9,000
New Motor 7.5 HP
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $18,000
(3) New 2" Pump Check
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $12,000
Extend pressure relief
down to the ground
Pressure relief valve
discharges to side of
transfer switch, potential
safety issue N/A $2,000
New Comp Stick Framed
Roof (Reroofing)
Roof was in poor condition
at time of inspection 2015 $2,000
Rehabilitate Exterior
CMU Walls
Walls appear to be
unreinforced CMU N/A $86,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 11 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Braunwood Pump
Station. The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the
table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $17,500 30-40
Replace Piping $6,000 40-45
Paint Structure $5,000 10-15
Replace Motor $8,000 35-40
Replace Pump $9,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $10,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment $1,500 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code
deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Repair Leaking Acoustic
Deck/HSS Steel Framing
Roof Observed leak in roof 2015 $50,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 12 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Pump 3,200 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2017 $50,000
New Motor 300 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2017 $210,000
Investigate Anchoring
System on Pumps, etc.
Inspection indicates
anchoring may be
inadequate 2015 $5,000
Investigate Unstable
Power Conditions
Operators report unstable
power that causes false
alarms N/A $5,000
Replace T8 Lamps in
Interior Strip Fixtures
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $500
Replace Emergency
Lights in Chemical Room
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $1,500
Install 24" Flow Meter
Replace existing flow
meter with new flow meter
already at site, reconnect to
existing telemetry sytem N/A $4,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Fulmer Field
Corrosion Control Treatment Facility. The maintenance improvement, project cost and
frequency are summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 13 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $21,000 30-40
Replace Piping $6,000 40-45
Paint equipment $5,000 10-15
Refurbish Blower / Aerator $100,000 30
Refurbish Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers $15,000 15
Replace Motor $60,000 35-40
Replace Pump $50,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $150,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Howard Road Corrosion Control
Howard Road Corrosion Control was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Install Lateral Bracing on
FRP Strippers
No horizontal bracing,
potential seismic risk N/A $20,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 14 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Pump 1800 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $44,000
New Motor 200 HP,
Starters and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $133,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Howard Road
Corrosion Control Treatment Facility. The maintenance improvement, project cost and
frequency are summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $12,000 30-40
Replace Piping $1,000 40-45
Paint equipment $1,000 10-15
Refurbish Blower / Aerator $100,000 30
Refurbish Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers $100,000 15
Replace Motor $33,000 35-40
Replace Pump $44,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $100,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 15 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Investigate increasing size
of Chlorine system,
appears to be undersized
Chlorine cylinders appear
to sweat during operation 2015 $10,000
Replace Conduits Below
Panel-Corroded
Conduits are heavily
corroded 2015 $14,000
Monitor Foundation
Settlement
Differential settling
observed in foundation 2015 $1,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New Steel Door Door is heavily corroded 2017 $1,000
Rehabilitate Weathered
Concrete Slab Roof
General Age and Condition
Decay 2017 $7,000
Rehabilitate CMU Block
Walls-Minor Cracking
Minor cracks observed
during inspection 2015 $6,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor. Given the age
and condition of the treatment facility, complete replacement of the facility may also be a
viable alternative.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 16 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 2: Replace Facility
Differential settling
observed in foundation,
other structural deficiencies 2015 $1,395,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Coal Creek
Springs Chlorination Treatment Facility. The maintenance improvement, project cost and
frequency are summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $500 30-40
Replace Piping $6,000 40-45
Paint equipment $1,000 10-15
Refurbish Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers $25,000 15
Replace Pump and Motor $3,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $3,500 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $5,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
West Hill Springs Chlorination
West Hill Springs Chlorination was inspected during the field evaluations and the following
recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table
below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition
of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in
this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code
deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 17 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 1: New Fascia
Boards
Observed damage during
inspection 2017 $1,000
Option 1: Anchor Wall to
Foundation
Structure is not anchored to
foundation 2017 $20,000
Option 1: New Wood
Frame, 3-tap Composite
Roof
Observed damage during
inspection 2019 $2,000
Option 1: Improve Wood
Frame Exterior
Observed damage during
inspection 2019 $3,000
Option 1: Monitor 6"
Concrete Stem Wall
Foundation
Structure not anchored to
foundation 2019 $5,000
Option 1: Install Fencing
Fence is close to structure,
impedes maintenance and
access N/A $18,000
Option 1: Install New
Vault-Has Large Crack Large crack in vault wall 2019 $60,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Gas Room
Exhaust Fan
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $2,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 18 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor. Given the age
and condition of the treatment facility, complete replacement of the facility may also be a
viable alternative.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 2: New Treatment
Facility Building
Replace structure to repair
damage and address
structural deficiencies 2017 $40,000
Option 2: Install Fencing
Fence is close to structure,
impedes maintenance and
access N/A $18,000
Option 2: Install New
Vault-Has Large Crack Large crack in vault wall 2019 $60,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for West Hill Springs
Chlorination Treatment Facility. The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency
are summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $1,000 30-40
Replace Piping $2,000 40-45
Paint equipment $1,000 10-15
Refurbish Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers $25,000 15
Replace Chlorine Pump $3,000 35-40
Replace MCCs $3,500 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $5,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 19 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Reservoir 1
Reservoir 1 was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Repair Shotcrete
Delamination on Exterior
Tank
Inspection shows
delamination of shotcrete
layers, no corrosion of
prestressing strands
observed. 2019 $132,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Shield Near Top
of Reservoir
Damage/bent shield
observed during inspection. 2015 $8,500
Install Hatch Alarm
No alarm found during
inspection. 2015 $2,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
The recommended improvements do not have feasible alternatives to address deficiencies
and maintain recommended service levels.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 20 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Reservoir 1. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $1,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation $948,000 20
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $5,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Reservoir 8A
Reservoir 8A was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 21 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvement
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Repair Gaps in Roof
Roof plate interior is not
seal welded, rust staining
observed during inspection. 2017 $20,000
Repair Corroded
Reservoir Anchor Nuts
Anchor nuts severely
corroded during inspection. 2017 $11,000
Steel Reservoir Exterior
Epoxy Coating
General Age and Condition
Decay 2022 $150,000
Spot Coating repair near
tank base
Localized coating damage
observed near bottom of
tank during inspection 2015 $10,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Lock on
Reservoir Hatch
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
The recommended improvement does not have feasible alternatives to address deficiencies
and maintain recommended service levels.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 22 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Reservoir 8A.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Replace Valves $1,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation $216,000 20
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $5,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Well 2
Well 2 was inspected during the field evaluations and the observed deficiencies were all
classified as maintenance projects since the costs were under $10,000. A discussion of the
maintenance plan and specialty maintenance projects based on observed deficiencies during
the site visit are provided in the tables below.
Recommended Improvement
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Replace T12 Interior
Light Fixture
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $500
Repair 800 ETI CB-MCC
Not functioning during site
visit 2024 $500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Well 2. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 23 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $20,000 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $36,000 35-40
Replace Pump $35,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $75,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $2,500 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Well 6
Well 6 was inspected during the field evaluations and the observed deficiencies were all
classified as maintenance projects since the costs were under $10,000. A discussion of the
maintenance plan and specialty maintenance projects based on observed deficiencies during
the site visit are provided in the tables below.
Recommended Improvement
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Check anchor bolts on
pump for Well 6 - may be
undersized
Anchorage may be
inadequate based on
inspection 2015 $5,000
Replace T12 Interior
Light Fixture
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $3,000
Repair 600 ETI CB
Starter
Not functioning during site
visit 2024 $500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Well 6. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 24 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $13,000 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $33,000 35-40
Replace Pump $44,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $100,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $2,500 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Well 4
Well 4 was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Repair 120 V
panelboard MCC
Need for repair identified
during inspection 2015 $1,000
Monitor settlement and
foundation issues
Settlement and foundation
issues identified, not
impediments to the operation
or use of the structure for its
intended purpose N/A $7,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 25 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Roof Arch
Shingles
Damage observed during
inspection 2015 $6,500
Replace J Box in Meter
Vault
Heavily corroded at time of
inspection 2015 $500
Repair 120 V
panelboard MCC
Need for repair identified
during inspection 2015 $1,000
New 12" Pump Check
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $26,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
The recommended improvement does not have feasible alternatives to address deficiencies
and maintain recommended service levels.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Well 4. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $17,500 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $90,000 35-40
Replace Pump $98,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $150,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 26 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Well 5
Well 5 was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code deficiency,
“N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 1: Relocate
Electrical and Telemetry
panels to provide adequate
clearances
Clearances in front of
panels do not meet code N/A $27,000
Option 1: Repair Siemens
Sirus Starter Fused Disc
SW-MCC
Poor condition observed
during inspection 2015 $34,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 27 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 8" Pump Check
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $13,000
New 6" Deep Well Pump
Control Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $14,000
New 2 1/2" Pressure
Relief Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $11,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Given the age and condition of the pump station, complete replacement of the facility may be
a viable alternative
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Option 2: New Facility
Building foundation shows
significant differential
settlement, Building is
small and laid out such that
operation and maintenance
tasks are difficult 2015 $600,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Well 5. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 28 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $41,000 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $32,000 35-40
Replace Pump $32,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $100,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity equipment and
include replacement of all assets of that type within the facility.
Well 5A
Well 5A was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are shown in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Repair Roof Anchorage
Roof anchoring appears to
be inadequate based on
inspection 2015 $18,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 29 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Chlorine Injection
Saddle
Heavily corroded at time of
inspection 2015 $5,000
Add dehumidifier to
chlorine solution room to
limit corrosion
Surface corrosion on
equipment appears to be
caused by moisture N/A $5,000
Investigate whether or not
vault has proper drainage
Vault appears to not have a
drain, shows signs of
flooding and contains
electrical equipment N/A $2,000
Replace Phase Loss
Indicator on SQ D
SDSA3650 Surge Arrester
Not functioning during site
visit 2015 $1,000
New Pump 250 gpm
General Age and Condition
Decay 2019 $38,000
New Motor 60 HP, Starters
and Cables
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $84,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Alternative improvements, where applicable include: Rewinding the motor.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Well 5A. The
maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 30 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $10,000 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $39,000 35-40
Replace Pump $38,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $45,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $10,000 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Braunwood Well
Braunwood was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are shown in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Move Well Pump Control
Box to be Accessible
Pump control box not
accessible 2015 to 2016 $21,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for Braunwood Well.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 31 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type
Estimated Project
Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $2,500 30-40
Replace Piping $12,000 40-45
Replace Motor $12,000 35-40
Replace Pump $11,000 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters $10,000 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment $1,500 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main
Coal Creek Springs transmission main was selected to undergo a condition assessment and
leak detection inspection performed by Echologics. The segment of Coal Creek Springs
transmission main that was inspected is made up of 24-inch concrete composite pipe. The
location chosen for inspection was the segment located in the White River crossing. Upon
investigation, there is a possible leak near or close to the east bank of the White River
crossing. Since the potential leak is in the river, it is possible the noise suggesting a leak is
actually turbulent flow form the river. Thus it is recommended to have follow up
investigations to determine whether or not there is a leak.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Install new river crossing
Evidence of leak near river
crossing 2015 $1,300,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Alternatively, the existing main could be lined with either HDPE or CIPP.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 32 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Lea Hill Transmission Main
Lea Hill transmission main was selected to undergo a condition assessment and leak
detection inspection performed by Echologics. The segment of Lea Hill transmission main
that was inspected is made up of 16-inch and 20-inch ductile iron pipe. The location chosen
for inspection was based on corrosive soil properties surrounding the pipe. Based on the
evaluation, the transmission main is in moderate to good condition and the remaining
structural wall thickness is moderately similar to the original wall thickness. Thus from this
evaluation, there are no recommended improvements for this transmission main.
Academy Transmission Main
Academy transmission main was selected to undergo a condition assessment and leak
detection inspection performed by Echologics. The segment of Academy transmission main
that was inspected is made up of 14-inch ductile iron pipe. The location chosen for
inspection was based on corrosive soil properties surrounding the pipe. Based on the
evaluation, the transmission main is in poor condition. Thus the following recommended
improvements are provided in the table bleow.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Replace Approximately
11,300 LF of 14" DI
Transmission Main
Transmission main in poor
condition 2020 $2,865,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Alternatively, the existing main could be lined with either HDPE or CIPP.
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South PRV Station
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South PRV Station was inspected during the field
evaluations and the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies
are summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results
of the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the
equipment as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are
identified because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or
replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 33 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $18,000
Add pressure relief
assembly
Does not meet code
requirements? N/A $-
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest
connecting a drain to the
exist reservoir drains N/A $-
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $32,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North PRV Station
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North PRV Station was inspected during the field
evaluations and the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies
are summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results
of the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the
equipment as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are
identified because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or
replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 34 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $18,000
Add pressure relief
assembly
Does not meet code
requirements? N/A $9,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest drain
to daylight in wooded area N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $24,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower PRV Station
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations
and the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are
summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of
the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment
as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified
because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 35 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $18,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest drain
to daylight across Lea Hill
Road N/A $14,000
Diversion of Storm Pipe ? 2015 $21,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Install Ladder in Vault No access to vault 2015 $2,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 36 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $27,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
106th Pl SE/Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle PRV Station
106th Pl SE/Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle PRV Station was inspected during the
field evaluations and the following recommended improvements to address observed
deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are
based on results of the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining
life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where
improvements are identified because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of
refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $18,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest drain
to daylight across Lea Hill
Road N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 37 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $26,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
107th Pl SE Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper PRV Station
107th Pl SE Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper PRV Station was inspected during the
field evaluations and the following recommended improvements to address observed
deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are
based on results of the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining
life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where
improvements are identified because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of
refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 6" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $13,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest drain
to daylight across Lea Hill
Road N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 38 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Install Ladder in Vault No access to vault 2015 $2,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $6,000 10-15
Replace Valves $25,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St PRV Station
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 39 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 6" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $13,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest drain
to daylight in existing
drainage ditch N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Pressure Gauge
General Age and Condition
Decay 2016 $1,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 40 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $2,000 10-15
Replace Valves $13,000 30-40
Replace Piping $4,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
3.
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St PRV Station
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 6" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and
Condition Decay 2021 $13,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest
drain to daylight N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 41 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Replace Pressure Gauge
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $1,500
Clear Debris Debris found in vault 2015 $1,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $15,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper PRV Station
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper PRV Station was inspected during the field
evaluations and the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies
are summarized in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results
of the inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the
equipment as described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are
identified because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or
replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 42 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $18,000
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code
requirements, suggest
hydraulic sump pump N/A $14,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
3. Add drain improvement assumes 60 linear feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe, creating drain pipe
penetration in vault floor and placing CDF below vault floor at penetration.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Replace Pressure Gauge
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $1,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 43 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $40,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
47th/Lakeland Hills Way PRV Station
47th/Lakeland Hills Way PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 4" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $11,000
New 8" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $18,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 44 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Clear Debris Debris found in vault 2015 $1,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $51,500 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Mill Pond Dr/Mill Pond Lp PRV Station
Mill Pond Dr/Mill Pond Lp PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 45 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 3" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $19,000
New 10" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2023 $23,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Regrout at Manhole Lid
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $3,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $57,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 46 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk PRV Station
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 3" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2030 $37,000
New 10" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2030 $23,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Regrout at Manhole Lid
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $3,500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 47 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $71,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity.
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St PRV Station
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the
following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in
the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections,
condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described
elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a
code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 3" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and
Condition Decay 2030 $37,000
New 10" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and
Condition Decay 2030 $23,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 48 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Fix leaking on 3" valve
(1/2 gpm)
Valve leaking at
approximately 1/2 gpm 2015 $500
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $70,500 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr PRV Station
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and
the following recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized
in the table below. These recommended improvements are based on results of the
inspections, condition of the equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as
described elsewhere in this technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified
because of a code deficiency, “N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 49 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
New 2 1/2" Pressure
Relief Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $11,000
New 3" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $19,000
New 10" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2021 $23,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
Replace Pressure Gauge
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $1,500
Replace Manhole Lid
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $2,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 50 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $64,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
Lea Hill Pump Station PRV Station
PRV Station was inspected during the field evaluations and the following recommended
improvements to address observed deficiencies are summarized in the table below. These
recommended improvements are based on results of the inspections, condition of the
equipment and the estimated remaining life of the equipment as described elsewhere in this
technical memorandum. Where improvements are identified because of a code deficiency,
“N/A” is listed for the year of refurbishment or replacement.
Recommended Improvements
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project
Cost(1)
New 12" Pressure Relief
Valve
General Age and Condition
Decay 2018 $33,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(30%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Improvements are anticipated to require engineering design, or other professional services in addition to
City staff efforts.
Improvements that generally include replacing existing equipment or repairs with an
estimated project cost less than $10,000 are summarized below. The estimated project cost
assumes replacing the existing equipment and does not include change in size or capacity.
The ELA costs associated with these maintenance projects are estimated at 15 percent to
reflect City staff costs with minimal professional services costs. These projects and costs are
summarized in the table below.
Improvement
Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment
or Replacement
Estimated
Project Cost(1)
Regrout at Pipe Inlet
General Age and Condition
Decay 2015 $5,000
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 51 of 51 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix B\Appendix B - Project Sheets for Inspected Facilities.docx
Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this PRV station.
The maintenance improvement, project cost and frequency are summarized in the table
below.
Improvement Type Estimated Project Cost(1) Frequency (years)
Paint Piping $4,000 10-15
Replace Valves $33,000 30-40
Replace Piping $8,000 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated project costs include labor and materials, ELA (Engineering, Legal and Administrative) costs
(15%), contractor overhead and profit allowance (21%) and contingency (35%).
2. Estimated project costs include refurbishment or replacement with same size and capacity
DRAFT
APPENDIX C
CAPITAL MAINTENANCE PLAN –
UNINSPECTED FACILITIES
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 1 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Lea Hill Intertie Pump Station Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1999.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motors 35-40
Replace Pumps 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Lea Hill Pump Station Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1965.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motors 35-40
Replace Pumps 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 2 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Terrace View Pump Station Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2009.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motors 35-40
Replace Pumps 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Lakeland Hills Pump Station Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1989.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motors 35-40
Replace Pumps 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 3 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Academy East Pump Station Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2012.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Motors 35-40
Replace Pumps 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 4 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Well 5A Chlorination Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1992.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Lea Hill Intertie Chlorination Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1998.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 5 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Terrace View Chlorination Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1998.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Well 4 Chlorination Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1985.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 6 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Well 5B Treatment Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1980.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Paint equipment 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Blower / Aerator 30-35
Paint/Coat Clearwell/Tanks/ Towers 20-30
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 7 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Reservoir 8B Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1980.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation 20-25
Touch Up Paint/Coat Reservoir 10-15
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Reservoir 5 Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1981.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation 20-25
Touch Up Paint/Coat Reservoir 10-15
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 8 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Reservoir 5B Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2005.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation 20-25
Touch Up Paint/Coat Reservoir 10-15
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities
Reservoir 6 Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2011.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Reservoir Coating/Rehabilitation 20-25
Touch Up Paint/Coat Reservoir 10-15
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 9 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Well 1 Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1960.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Well 3A Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1983.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 10 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Well 3B Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1984.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Well 5B Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2005.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 11 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Well 7 Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1997.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Paint Structure 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Replace Motor 35-40
Replace Pump 35-40
Replace MCCs/Starters 30-35
Replace Telemetry/Control Equipment 30-35
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 12 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Howard Road CCF PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1985.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Well 4/25th and K St SE PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1987.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
109th Ave SE/SE 298th St PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2010.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 13 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
103rd Ct SE/SE 304th Pl Cobble Creek Lower PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1994.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
108th Ave SE/SE 300th St PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2005.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
27th St. SE Riverwalk Development PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1996.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 14 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Howard Rd/Riverwalk PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2006.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
2003 Auburn Way South PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2006.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
4500 Auburn Way South PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2006.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 15 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Janssen's Addition/6100 Blk Lemon Tree Ln PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1978.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Terrace View Apt #6170 Lower PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2004.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Terrace View Apt #5960 Middle PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2004.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 16 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Terrace View Apt #5810 Upper PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2004.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Alexander Pl SE/Terrace View Dr SE PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2010.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Mill Pond Dr/Oravetz Rd PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1980.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 17 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz Rd PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1990.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
51st St SE/East of Mill Pond Lp PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1993.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Nathan Ave/Highland Dr PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1993.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 18 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
Quincy Ave PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1995.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Lakeland Hills Way/Evergreen PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 1993.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Franklin Ave SE PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2012.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
12-1360.405 Page 19 of 19 Water Facilities Evaluation
September 2014 Appendix C City of Auburn
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\407\Memos\Tech Memo #4\APPENDIX\Appendix C - Project Sheets for Uninspected Facilities.docx
56th St SE PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2012.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
Bennett Ave SE PRV Maintenance Plan
Several recurring maintenance activities/improvements were identified for this facility based
on inspection of other similar facilities. The maintenance improvement, estimated project
cost and frequency are summarized in the table below. This facility was constructed in 2012.
This should be used as the basis for scheduling improvements summarized below.
Improvement Type Frequency (years)
Paint Piping 10-15
Replace Valves 30-40
Replace Piping 40-45
Note:
1. Estimated replacement interval is based on findings from inspected City of Auburn facilities.
DRAFT
APPENDIX D
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 18,000$
Add pressure relief assembly May be desired for system protection N/A 9,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest connecting a drain to the
exist reservoir drains N/A 14,000$
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 18,000$
Add pressure relief assembly May be desired for system protection N/A 9,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight in
wooded area N/A 14,000$
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 18,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight across
Lea Hill Road N/A 14,000$
Diversion of Storm Pipe
Storm drain discharges directly upstream of vault hatch, likely
contributing to vault flooding 2014 21,000$
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 18,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight across
Lea Hill Road N/A 14,000$
New 6" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 13,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight across
Lea Hill Road N/A 14,000$
New 6" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 13,000$
Add drain - flooded
Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight in existing
drainage ditch N/A 14,000$
New 6" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 13,000$
Add drain - flooded Does not meet code requirements, suggest drain to daylight N/A 14,000$
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 18,000$
Add drain - flooded Does not meet code requirements, suggest hydraulic sump pump N/A 14,000$
New 4" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 11,000$
New 8" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 18,000$
New 3" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 19,000$
New 10" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 23,000$
New 3" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 37,000$
New 10" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 23,000$
New 3" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 37,000$
New 10" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 23,000$
New 2 1/2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 11,000$
New 3" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 19,000$
New 10" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 23,000$
Lea Hill Pump Station New 12" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 33,000$ 2018 33,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American
Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
2030 60,000$
2021 53,000$
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St
2021 29,000$
47th/Lakeland Hills Way
2021 27,000$
Mill Pond Dr/Mill Pond Lp
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk
2030
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr
2023 42,000$
60,000$
PRV Station Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North
41,000$
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower
32,000$
107th Pl SE Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper
2016 27,000$
32,000$
53,000$ 2015
106th Pl SE/Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle
2016 27,000$
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper
2015
2016
Inspected PRV Stations
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South
41,000$
2015
2016
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of Refurbishment
or Replacement Item Cost
Year of
Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New 2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 4,500$
New 2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 3,500$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 6,000$
New 8" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 8,000$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 6,000$
New 8" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 8,000$
New 4" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 2,500$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 6,000$
New 8" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 8,000$
Install Ladder in Vault No access to vault3 2014 2,500$
New 2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 4,500$
New 2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 3,500$
New 8" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 8,000$
New 2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 4,500$
New 2" Ball Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 3,500$
New 6" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 4,000$
Install Ladder in Vault No access to vault3 2014 2,500$
New 6" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2020 4,000$ 2020 4,000$
Replace Pressure Gauge General Age and Condition Decay3 2024 1,500$ 2024 2,000$
Replace Pressure Gauge General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 1,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 4,000$
Clear Debris Debris found in vault3 2014 1,000$
New 1 1/2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 4,500$
New 3" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 4,500$
New 10" Isolation Butterfly Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 6,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 4,000$ 2019 4,000$
Regrout at Manhole Lid General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 3,500$ 2015 4,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA)
with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project
costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
2023
Inspected PRV Stations
PRV Station Recommended Capital Maintenance Project Summary
2016
2015
2015
Lea Hill Carriage Square Apts Lower
22,000$
14,000$
19,000$
2015
Mill Pond Dr/Mill Pond Lp
106th Pl SE/Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Middle
107th Pl SE Lea Hill Rd Carriage Square Apts Upper
110th Pl SE/SE 304th St
108th Ave SE/SE 304th St
15,000$
16,000$
14,500$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts North
6,500$
2016
2015
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of Refurbishment
or Replacement Item Cost
Year of
Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Inspected PRV Stations
PRV Station Recommended Capital Maintenance Project Summary
22,000$
105th Pl SE/SE 320th Pl Amberview Apts South
New 1 1/2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 4,500$
New 2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 4,500$
New 1 1/2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 3,500$
New 2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 3,500$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 6,000$
New 8" DI Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 8,000$
Replace Pressure Gauge General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 1,500$
New 1 1/2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 8,500$
New 1 1/2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,500$
New 4" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 4,500$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 6,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 4,000$
Clear Debris Debris found in vault3 2014 1,000$
New 3" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 4,500$
New 10" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 6,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 4,000$ 2019 4,000$
Regrout at Manhole Lid General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 3,500$ 2015 3,500$
New 3" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 4,500$
New 10" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2030 6,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 4,000$ 2022 4,000$
Fix leaking on 3" valve (1/2 gpm)Valve leaking at approximately 1/2 gpm3 2014 1,000$ 2015 1,000$
New 3" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 4,500$
New 10" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,500$
New 10" Isolation Butterfly Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 4,000$ 2019 4,000$
Replace Pressure Gauge General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 1,500$
Replace Manhole Lid General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 2,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 4,000$
Regrout at Pipe Inlet General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 5,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA)
with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project
costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
2015
2015
11,000$
2021
2016
2030
2030
2021
47th/Lakeland Hills Way
Mill Pond Dr/4900 Blk
Lakeland Hills Way/51st St
Lakeland Hills Way/Mill Pond Dr
Lea Hill Pump Station
104th Ave SE/SE 302nd Cobble Creek Upper
3,500$
9,000$
22,500$
5,000$
11,000$
11,000$
31,500$ 2015
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New Pump 500 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 40,000$
New Pump 300 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 56,000$
New Motor 50 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 60,000$
New Motor 30 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 57,000$
Improve CMU Walls-Update to be Reinforced CMU walls appear to not be reinforced - seismic concern N/A 96,000$
Replace CB Enclosure Enclosure is corroded 2016 26,000$
Academy Pump Station 1 -
Full Building Replacement Construct New Pump Station
Address structural issues and anticipated equipment
replacements 2016 1,030,000$ 2016 1,030,000$
New Pump 750 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 77,000$
New Motor 75 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 174,000$
New 3" Deep Well Pump Control Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 20,000$
New 4" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 11,000$
New Pump 1170 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2024 266,000$
New Motor 150 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 464,000$
New 10" Pump Control Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 96,000$
New 12" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 14,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected
accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs,
Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
Academy Pump Station 1
2022 213,000$
282,000$
Academy Pump Station 1
Alternate Option 2016 122,000$
Green River Pump Station
2023 840,000$
Pump Station Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
Inspected Pump Stations
Academy Pump Station 2
2022
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Academy Pump Station 1
213,000$
Pump Station Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
Inspected Pump Stations
New Pump 50 gpm, New Motor 5 HP, Starters & Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2028 18,000$
New Pump 1000 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2028 23,000$
New Motor 50 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 52,000$
Install Fencing Facility is not fenced3 N/A 18,000$
Foundation Improvement (Anchor Building to Foundation)Structure not anchored to foundation, appears to have shifted 2014 9,000$
Option 2: New Pump Station Building (Existing Foundation
Retained)Replace structure to address anchoring and foundation concerns 2014 31,000$
Move Panelboard to Improve Accessibility When Vault Open Access is not possible when vault is open 2016 14,000$
Provide Back-Up Power Capabilities No back-up power capabilities are provided N/A 60,000$
Rehabilitate Aging MCC General Age and Condition Decay 2016 17,000$
New Wood Door Door was damaged at time of inspection3 2014 2,000$
New Comp Stick Framed Roof (Reroofing)Roof was in poor condition at time of inspection3 2014 1,000$
New Exhaust Inlet/Louver for Pump Station Damaged at time of inspection3 2014 1,000$
Install Fencing Facility is not fenced3 N/A 18,000$
Foundation Improvement (Anchor Building to Foundation)Structure not anchored to foundation, appears to have shifted 2014 9,000$
New Wood Walls Wood walls are in poor condition 2014 13,000$
Move Panelboard to Improve Accessibility When Vault Open Access is not possible when vault is open 2014 14,000$
Provide Back-Up Power Capabilities No back-up power capabilities are provided N/A 60,000$
Rehabilitate Aging MCC General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 17,000$
New Pump 115 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 9,000$
New Motor 7.5 HP General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 18,000$
New 2" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 12,000$
Rehabilitate Exterior CMU Walls Walls appear to be unreinforced CMU 2014 86,000$ 2015 86,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected
accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs,
Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
Wilderness Game Farm
Park PS Alternate Option
2015 135,000$
2018 93,000$
Wilderness Game Farm
Park PS
Wilderness Game Farm
Park PS - Full Building
Replacement
149,000$
Braunwood Pump Station
39,000$ 2018
2015
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New 2 1/2" Deep Well Pump Control Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 9,500$
New 1" Air/Vac Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 2,500$
New 6" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 8,000$
New 8" Isolation Butterfly Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 7,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 6,000$ 2019 6,000$
Replace Broken Window Window was broken at time of inspection3 2014 1,500$
New Floor Drain Floor drain cover was rusted and broken3 2014 1,000$
Relocate Conduit in front of Load Center
Conduit location is a clearance issue and makes operations and
maintenance tasks difficult 2016 500$
Replace T12 Interior Light Fixture (4 Light Fixtures)Not functioning during site visit3 2014 2,000$
New 12" Isolation Butterfly Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 6,500$ 2022
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 6,000$ 2019 6,000$
Replace T12 Interior Light Fixture (6 Light Fixtures)Not functioning during site visit3 2014 3,000$ 2015 3,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 6,000$ 2019 6,000$
Check thermostat and heater to make sure they are
functioning properly Not functioning during site visit3 2014 1,000$
Replace T8 Interior Light Fixture Not functioning during site visit3 2014 500$
New 2" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 4,000$
New 6" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 8,000$
New 3" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 2,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 6,000$
Install Access Ladder in Vault No ladder in vault currently3 2014 1,000$
New 1 1/4" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 3,500$
New 2" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 2,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 6,000$
Extend pressure relief down to the ground
Pressure relief valve discharges to side of transfer switch,
potential safety issue3 N/A 2,000$
New Comp Stick Framed Roof (Reroofing)Roof was in poor condition at time of inspection 2015 2,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected
accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs,
Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
Inspected Pump Stations
Pump Station Recommended Capital Maintenance Project Summary
11,500$
2015
Academy Pump
Station 2
Wilderness
Game Farm Park
PS
Braunwood
Pump Station
2018
2015
2018
2015
1,500$
27,500$
5,000$
6,500$
Academy Pump
Station 1
2022
Green River
Pump Station
2015
15,000$
7,000$
4,000$
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Reservoir 1 Repair Shotcrete Delamination on Exterior Tank
Inspection shows delamination of shotcrete layers, no corrosion of
prestressing strands observed.2019 132,000$ 2015 132,000$
Repair Gaps in Roof
Roof plate interior is not seal welded, rust staining observed during
inspection.2017 20,000$
Repair Corroded Reservoir Anchor Nuts Anchor nuts severely corroded during inspection.2017 11,000$
Steel Reservoir Exterior Epoxy Coating General Age and Condition Decay 2022 150,000$ 2022 150,000$
Spot Coating repair near tank base Localized coating damage observed near bottom of tank during inspection 2014 10,000$ 2015 10,000$
Reservoir 4A Seismic Retrofit of Foundation, Interior/exterior reservoir wall coating and re-
weld deficient weld locations along joints
Foundation is cracking due to seismic anchoring; anchors are anticipated to
fail in a brittle manner during seismic event. Repair walls following seismic
retrofit.2016 715,000$ 2016 715,000$
Reservoir 4B Improve Anchorage to Meet Current Code for Ductile Failure Anchors appear to not meet current code 2016 558,000$ 2016 558,000$
Connect to City Water Water system does not have second supply source N/A 1,591,000$ N/A 1,591,000$
Concrete Reservoir Exterior Epoxy Coating Reservoir is not coated N/A 19,000$
Repair Reservoir Foundation (New Reservoir)Differential settlement observed during inspection 2014 120,000$
Notes:
Braunwood Reservoir
1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American
Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
Inspected Reservoirs
Reservoir Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
2017 31,000$
2015 139,000$
Reservoir 8A
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Replace Shield Near Top of Reservoir Damage/bent shield observed during inspection.2014 8,500$
Install Hatch Alarm No alarm found during inspection3 2014 2,000$
Reservoir 8A Replace Lock on Reservoir Hatch Not functioning during site visit3 2014 500$ 2015 500$
Repair Reservoir Roof Remove rust, repair deficiencies and apply a new protective coating3 2024 5,000$
Repair Interior/Exterior Reservoir Walls Remove rust, repair deficiencies and apply a new protective coating3 2024 9,500$
Replace Wire Mesh at Vent Damage observed during inspection3 2014 500$
Replace Top Rail Near Hatch Top rail appears to be damaged at time of inspection3 2014 1,500$
Install Hatch Alarm No alarm found during inspection3 2014 2,000$
Replace Reservoir Hatch Assembly General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 2,000$
Install New Stainless Steel or Aluminum Ladder (For use in Reservoir)Interior ladder is galvanized and corroding3 2014 7,500$
Repair Reservoir Roof
Deterioration observed during inspection, pressure wash interior and
exterior and spray commercial sealant on interior and exterior3 2024 6,000$ 2024 6,000$
Notes:
2024
2015
Reservoir Recommended Capital Maintenance Project Summary
2015Reservoir 1
Reservoir 4B
Reservoir 4A
Braunwood Reservoir
Inspected Reservoirs
2015 11,500$
10,500$
14,500$
2,000$
1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in
accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency
of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Coal Creek Springs
Transmission Main Investigate potential leak near river crossing (24" Concrete/Steel Pipe)Evidence of leak near river crossing 2014 1,300,000$ 2015 1,300,000$
Academy Transmission
Main Replace Approximately 11,300 LF of 14" DI Transmission Main Transmission main in poor condition 2020 2,865,000$ 2020 2,865,000$
Notes:
Transmission Main Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
Inspected Transmission Mains
1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -
30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration
(ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Recommended
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of
Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New Pump 3200 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2017 50,000$
New Motor 300 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2017 210,000$
Repair Leaking Acoustic Deck/HSS Steel Framing Roof Observed leak in roof N/A 50,000$
New Pump 1800 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 44,000$
New Motor 200 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 133,000$
Install Lateral Bracing on FRP Strippers No horizontal bracing, potential seismic risk N/A 20,000$
Investigate increasing size of Chlorine system, appears to be
undersized Chlorine cylinders appear to sweat during operation 2014 10,000$
Replace Conduits Below Panel-Corroded Conduits are heavily corroded 2014 14,000$
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination -
Full Building Replacement Replace Facility Differential settling observed in foundation 2014 1,395,000$ 2015 1,395,000$
New Fascia Boards Observed damage during inspection3 2017 1,000$
Anchor Wall to Foundation Structure is not anchored to foundation 2017 20,000$
New Wood Frame, 3-tap Composite Roof Observed damage during inspection3 2019 2,000$
Improve Wood Frame Exterior Observed damage during inspection 2019 3,000$
Monitor 6" Concrete Stem Wall Foundation Structure not anchored to foundation 2019 5,000$
Install Fencing
Fence is close to structure, impedes maintenance and
access3 N/A 18,000$
Install New Vault-Has Large Crack Large crack in vault wall 2019 60,000$
Option 2: New Treatment Facility Building
Replace structure to repair damage and address structural
deficiencies 2017 40,000$
Install Fencing
Fence is close to structure, impedes maintenance and
access3 N/A 18,000$
Install New Vault-Has Large Crack Large crack in vault wall 2019 60,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected
accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs,
Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
2017 118,000$
Howard Road Corrosion Control
2017
2022
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination -
Alternate Option 2015
West Hill Springs Chlorination -
Alternate Option
West Hill Springs Chlorination - Full
Building Replacement
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control
2017
Inspected Treatment Facilities Recommended Improvements Summary
Treatment Facility Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
197,000$
310,000$
24,000$
109,000$
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Recommended
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of
Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 5,000$ 2018 5,000$
Improve Anchoring System on Pumps, etc.Inspection indicates anchoring may be inadequate 2014 5,000$
Investigate Unstable Power Conditions Operators report unstable power that causes false alarms 2014 5,000$
Replace T8 Lamps in Interior Strip Fixtures Not functioning during site visit3 2014 500$
Replace Emergency Lights in Chemical Room Not functioning during site visit3 2014 1,500$
Install 24" Flow Meter
Replace existing flow meter with new flow meter already at
site, reconnect to existing telemetry sytem3 2014 4,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 1,000$
Replace T8 Lamps in Interior Strip Fixtures Not functioning during site visit3 2014 500$
Replace Emergency Lights in Chemical Room Not functioning during site visit3 2014 1,500$
New Pump and Motor General Age and Condition Decay3 2022 3,000$
New Valves General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2023 1,000$
New Steel Door Door is heavily corroded3 2017 1,000$
Rehabilitate Weathered Concrete Slab Roof General Age and Condition Decay 2017 7,000$
Rehabilitate CMU Block Walls-Minor Cracking Minor cracks observed during inspection 2014 6,500$
New Chlorine Pump General Age and Condition Decay3 2017 3,000$
New Valves General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 1,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay (Pipe in Vault)3 2020 1,000$
Replace Gas Room Exhaust Fan Not functioning during site visit3 2014 2,500$ 2015 2,500$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an
expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include
construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
Inspected Treatment Facilities
Treatment Facility Recommended Capital Maintenance Projects Summary
West Hill Springs Chlorination
2017
Fulmer Field Corrosion Control
Howard Road Corrosion Control
Coal Creek Springs Chlorination
2015
2018
2022
2015 14,500$
4,500$
5,000$
3,000$
16,500$
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
New 12" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 26,000$ 2021 26,000$
Electrical retrofit Electrical components are inconsistent and make repairs more difficult N/A 200,000$ N/A 200,000$
New 8" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 13,000$
New 6" Deep Well Pump Control Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 14,000$
New 2 1/2" Pressure Reducing Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 11,000$
Well 5 - Full Building
Replacement New Facility
Building foundation shows significant differential settlement, Building is
small and laid out such that operation and maintenance tasks are difficult 2014 600,000$ 2015 600,000$
Relocate Electrical and Telemetry panels to provide adequate clearances Clearances in front of panels do not meet code N/A 27,000$
Repair Siemens Sirus Starter Fused Disc SW-MCC Poor condition observed during inspection 2014 34,000$
New Pump 250 gpm General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 38,000$
New Motor 60 HP, Starters and Cables General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 84,000$
Repair Roof Anchorage Roof anchoring appears to be inadequate based on inspection 2014 18,000$
Braunwood Well Move Well Pump Control Box to be Accessible Control box is not easily accessible 2015 to 2016 21,000$ 2015 21,000$
Notes:
Well 4
Inspected Wells
Well Recommended Capital Improvement Projects Summary
Well 5A
2021 38,000$
2015
Well 5
Well 5 - Alternate
Option
2015 140,000$
61,000$
1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in
accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a contingency
of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014
DRAFT
Facility Name Improvement Description Deficiency
Year of
Refurbishment or
Replacement Item Cost
Year of Budgeted
Project Project Cost
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 6,000$ 2019
Replace T12 Interior Light Fixture General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 500$ 2015
Repair 800 ETI CB-MCC Not functioning during site visit3 2024 500$ 2024 500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 6,000$
Check anchor bolts on pump for Well 6 - may be undersized Anchorage may be inadequate based on inspection 2014 5,000$
Replace T12 Interior Light Fixture General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 3,000$
Repair 600 ETI CB Starter Not functioning during site visit3 2024 500$ 2024 500$
New 6" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 8,000$
New 3" Air/Vac Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,000$
New 2" Air/Vac Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,000$
New 12" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,500$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 6,000$
Replace Roof Arch Shingles Damage observed during inspection3 2015 6,500$
Replace J Box in Meter Vault Heavily corroded at time of inspection3 2014 500$
Repair 120 V panelboard MCC Need for repair identified during inspection 2014 1,000$
Monitor settlement and foundation issues
Settlement and foundation issues identified, not
impediments to the operation or use of the structure for
its intended purpose N/A 7,000$ N/A 7,000$
New 8" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2021 3,000$ 2021
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2016 6,000$ 2017
New 4" Pump Check Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 6,000$
New 4" Isolation Gate Valve General Age and Condition Decay3 2018 2,500$
Replace Chlorine Injection Saddle Heavily corroded at time of inspection3 2014 5,000$
Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2014 6,000$
Add dehumidifier to chlorine solution room to limit corrosion
Surface corrosion on equipment appears to be caused by
moisture3 N/A 5,000$
Investigate whether or not vault has proper drainage
Vault appears to not have a drain, shows signs of flooding
and contains electrical equipment N/A 2,000$
Replace Phase Loss Indicator on SQ D SDSA3650 Surge Arrester Not functioning during site visit 2014 1,000$
Braunwod Well Paint Pipe General Age and Condition Decay3 2019 6,000$ 2019 6,000$
Notes:1. All project costs included in this report are based on 2014 planning level cost estimates (ENR CCI value of 10,162 for August 2014, Seattle, WA) with an expected accuracy range of -30% to 50% in
accordance with American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) estimate class 4. All project costs include construction costs, Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs at 30% and a
contingency of 35% in accordance with AACE.
2. Project costs do not include sales tax.
3. Engineering, Legal and Administration (ELA) costs are estimated at 15% for this project due to anticipated minimal engineering costs.
Well Recommended Capital Maintenance Project Summary
2015
2021
2015
2018
Inspected Wells
6,500$
14,000$ Well 6
Well 4
2015 12,000$
Well 5A
17,500$
14,000$
Well 2
9,000$
9,000$
Well 5
K:\TAC_Projects\12\1360 - Auburn Facilities Evaluation\405\Spreadsheets\AM Based Improvements\Improvements by facility.xls 9/29/2014