smithfield water supply board system evaluation … › pdf › water › cip - october 2016 with...

REPORT

Pare Pro jec t No . 03066 .41

SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD

SYSTEM EVALUATION AND MASTER PLAN

VOLUME 3 of 3 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

PREPARED FOR:

Town of Smithfield 3 Spragueville Road Smithfield, RI 02917

PREPARED BY:

Pare Corporation 8 Blackstone Valley Place

Lincoln, RI 02865

O C T O B E R 2 0 1 6

Pare Corporation ‐i‐

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 VOLUME 3 of 3 – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Introduction 3 2 Storage Facilities 4 2.1 Rocky Hill Road Tank 4 2.2 Island Woods Tank 5 2.3 Burlingame Tank 5 3 System Piping 7 3.1 Interconnection with Lincoln 7 3.2 Douglas Pike Water Main 9 3.3 Ridge Road Water Main 10 3.4 Stillwater Road Water Main 11 3.5 George Washington Highway Water Main 11 3.6 Harris Road Water Main 12 4 Pump Stations 13 4.1 Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station 13 4.2 Limerock Booster Pump Station 14 4.3 Davis Booster Pump Station 15 5 Water Supply Sources 16 6 Operation & Maintenance Projects 19 6.1 Pipe Replacement Program 19 6.2 Unidirectional Flushing Program 20 6.3 Valve Operating Program 20 6.4 Meter Replacement Program 20 6.5 Tank Inspection Program 21 6.6 Leak Detection Program 22 6.7 Hydrant Replacement Program 22 6.8 GIS, Mapping, & Asset Management Program 22 7 SCADA System 24 8 Priority Schedule & Costs 25 9 Next Steps 28 APPENDICES Appendix A – CIP System Map Appendix B – CIP Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Appendix C – SWSB Recommended Project Schedule Appendix D – Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation Appendix E – Water Supply System Photography

Pare Corporation ‐ 1 ‐

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Pare would like to thank the following people for their valuable assistance with this project.

Mr. Seth Lemoine –Smithfield Public Works Director / Water Commissioner

Mr. Robert Forrest – Town of Smithfield Water Superintendent


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In support of the Smithfield Water Supply Board’s (SWSB) long-term water system planning, Pare

Corporation (Pare) has prepared this Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the SWSB’s water supply

and distribution system. In an effort to create a more comprehensive accounting of future system

costs, this CIP includes operation and maintenance (O&M) projects to be implemented to ensure a

safe, reliable water supply system. This CIP can be used by the SWSB to budget future capital

expenditures that can be used as a part of a future rate study.

Based on the results of Pare’s previous hydraulic model update and system buildout analysis, water

use in the SWSB could potentially increase to 3.2 million gallons per day (MGD) at full buildout,

which is approximately 1.3 MGD more than is used on maximum summer day basis currently. This

project represents “ultimate buildout”, which represents the SWSB district when it is completely

built out based on the Town’s current zoning plan. This increase in demand would exceed the

system’s current ability to deliver water to its customers through its existing pump stations, possibly

resulting in depleted system storage and a reduction in system fire protection.

The system currently has several important transmission mains that provide the sole source of water

to large areas of the SWSB. A disruption to one of these mains could result in a serious disruption to

service throughout the distribution system. The focus of this CIP includes maintaining existing

infrastructure, establishing long-term infrastructure redundancy, and increasing supply to meet the

projected future demands of the system.


VOLUME 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to assist the SWSB with their long-term water system planning, Pare has prepared this

CIP for the SWSB’s water supply and distribution system. This CIP is Volume 3 of the SWSB’s

System Evaluation and Master Plan (SEMP) project, with the update of the SWSB computerized

hydraulic model and a buildout analysis of the SWSB’s service area previously completed as

Volume 1 and 2 of the SEMP, respectively. Based on the results of the hydraulic model update

and buildout analysis, Pare identified certain system deficiencies that make the system vulnerable

to disruption and may limit future growth. The Town has determined that it is essential to address

these deficiencies to facilitate the growth of the Town while maintaining the water distribution

system’s ability to efficiently and effectively serve the existing customer base. In addition, the

SWSB must address operation and maintenance projects to be implemented to ensure a safe, reliable

water supply system.

The SWSB system consists of approximately 36 miles of water main ranging in size from 6 to 16

inches in diameter. Pipe materials consist of cement-lined cast iron (CI), cement-lined ductile iron

(DI), asbestos cement (AC), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Major infrastructure components

include three (3) storage tanks, three (3) booster pump stations, and interconnections with

neighboring water systems. Neighboring water systems located in the area around the SWSB

include the East Smithfield Water District (ESWD), the Greenville Water District (GWD), the

Providence Water Supply Board (Providence Water), and the Lincoln Water Commission (LWC).

A description of each capital improvement, the resulting system benefit, and Pare’s opinion of

probable construction cost for each improvement are provided in subsequent sections of this

report.


SECTION 2

STORAGE FACILITIES

There are three (3) storage tanks in the system, identified as the Rocky Hill Road tank, the Island

Woods tank, and the Burlingame tank. Pare performed a site visit at each storage tank with

SWSB personnel on November 12, 2015. All three tanks are constructed of steel. A description of

each storage facility and proposed capital improvements associated with these tanks is provided

below.

2.1 Rocky Hill Road Tank

The 1 million gallon (MG) Rocky Hill Road tank was constructed as part of the original system

development in 1964 and its interior and exterior paint, valve vault, pressure sensors, and

telemetry were refurbished to their original manufacturer-supplied conditions in 1997. The most

recent inspection in September 2015 found that the tank requires new interior and exterior

coatings. Interior pitting was reported on the tank due to the coating failure. The concrete

foundation is in fair condition. Spot repairs were recently performed to the asphalt around the

tank.

Pare recently completed an evaluation of this tank for the SWSB based on the significant

deterioration observed at the site (see Appendix D). Pare’s evaluation focused on four potential

improvement/replacement scenarios, including: rehabilitating the existing tank; building a new

tank at another location; demolishing the existing tank with no replacement; and replacing the

existing tank at the same site. The evaluation identified how each scenario would impact system

pressure and fire protection. Based on current system hydraulics, demolition of the existing tank

with no replacement or building a new tank at another location were not viable scenarios due to

fire protection requirements for businesses in the area of the system surrounding the Rocky Hill

Road tank and tank construction constraints surrounding the businesses located along Business

Park Drive (e.g., vicinity to airport, wetlands, etc.). Therefore, in lieu of reinvesting in the 50-

year-old tank with an escalating maintenance cost, Pare recommended building a new tank at the

same location. This evaluation further identified usable storage restrictions under existing

conditions at the tank, limiting the tank operating range to approximately five feet. As a result, it

was recommended that the SWSB implement a pump station interconnection project with the

LWC in conjunction with the installation of an elevated storage tank and pressure reducing valve.


This would allow the SWSB to create a new Rocky Hill Road tank pressure zone served through

a permanent interconnection with the LWC, thereby increasing usable storage and alleviating

pressure concerns while maintaining an adequate volume of storage to be used for fire flow

requirements and emergency conditions in this area of the system.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the SWSB should consider the installation of a new 1 MG

Rocky Hill Road elevated storage tank in lieu of restoring the existing tank (CIP 1). This tank would

be located on Rocky Hill Road at the site of the existing tank. The scope of work associated with

this capital improvement would include the construction of a new 1 MG elevated storage tank,

demolition of the existing 1 MG tank, and site restoration.

CIP 1 also includes the future installation of an emergency interconnection with the LWC (see

Section 3). This project would require the construction of a pump station at the emergency

interconnection to boost the HGL from Lincoln to Smithfield. A pressure-reducing valve (PRV)

would also be implemented as part of this CIP, which would allow the SWSB to create a new Rocky

Hill Road tank pressure zone. This new pressure zone would be served through an interconnection

with the LWC, alleviating many issues the existing Rocky Hill Road tank has with regard to tank

turnover, pressure, and water quality.

2.2 Island Woods Tank

The 4 MG Island Woods Tank was constructed in 1991, largely to serve the commercial zone in

the Douglas Pike (Rt. 7) / George Washington Highway (Rt. 116) area. Recent improvements

include removal of encroaching tree and brush near the chain-link fence surrounding the tank,

replacement of the rusted metal door to the adjacent cinder block storage building, and

replacement of barbed wire atop the chain-link fence. The most recent inspection in September

2015 indicated that the tank has failed interior and exterior coatings that are in need of

replacement. The sump pump and heating unit in the altitude valve vault were replaced in 2012.

The structural integrity of the tank, concrete foundation, on-site piping, fencing, and altitude

valves are all in good condition.

2.3 Burlingame Tank

The 0.3 MG Burlingame Tank was constructed as part of system improvements implemented by

the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1988, but it was not put into service until

1997. The most recent inspection in September 2015 identified a decline in exterior wall and roof


dome film thickness and indicated that the interior coating system has expired. The sealant

applied at the junction of the foundation and tank base was found to be spalling, causing a gap

between the foundation and tank base and allowing moisture to accumulate beneath the tank. This

junction should be resealed with an elastomeric sealant to prevent moisture from accumulating

beneath the tank. The on-site piping, fencing, and altitude valve were reportedly in good

condition. The gravel access roadway was recently graded and improved with a new geotextile

layer and processed gravel as part of the development of GWD’s High Service Tank, which is

located on the same site.


SECTION 3

SYSTEM PIPING

The SWSB system consists of approximately 36 miles of water main ranging in size from 6 to 16

inches in diameter. Pipe materials consist of cement-lined CI, cement-lined DI, AC, and PVC. In

general, the transmission mains are 12-inch and 16-inch pipes that are either cement-lined CI or DI.

Some of the transmission mains date to the origins of the system in the early 1960s, while some

were installed as recently as the 1990s under the EPA system expansion project.

Pare utilized the SWSB’s hydraulic model to evaluate various potential system piping

improvements. The nature of the system improvements that Pare evaluated included a new

interconnection with the LWC and several new transmission mains. The purpose of the system

improvements would be to increase system source capacity and reduce dependency on the

Town’s current sole source of supply, Providence Water, as well as to provide redundancy for

several critical transmission mains in the SWSB system while increasing the transmission

capacity of the system. A description of each distribution system capital improvement is provided

below.

3.1 Interconnection with Lincoln

It is Pare’s understanding that the SWSB and the LWC are moving forward with an

interconnection on George Washington Highway. An emergency interconnection has recently

been installed between the SWSB and the GWD (at the site of the Burlingame Road tank and the

new GWD High Service Area tank). In addition, two (2) interconnections exist between the

SWSB and the ESWD. While these interconnections provide redundancy between the three

systems, they do not provide a truly independent source of supply to the SWSB because GWD

and ESWD both receive their water from Providence Water.

This report focuses solely on the engineering and infrastructure requirements of the potential

future interconnections discussed herein, and does not address the legal or administrative effort

that may be required to implement a new interconnection with LWC.

The need for a new interconnection with LWC arises out of two critical concerns for the SWSB

system infrastructure. Those concerns are the anticipated supply deficit and the high proportion of

critical system water mains. These critical mains are transmission mains (i.e., 12 inches or larger)


that constitute single pathways for water to move throughout the system to and from the storage

tanks.

The most critical system improvement required in the short-term is an increase in or an additional

source of supply to make up a future shortage in supply. Based on the results of Pare’s hydraulic

model update and system buildout analysis, water use may increase in the SWSB to 3.2 MGD at full

buildout, which is approximately 1.3 MG more than is used on maximum summer day basis

currently. The ultimate buildout represents the SWSB district when it is completely built out based

on the Town’s current zoning plan. This increase will exceed the system’s current ability to deliver

water through its main pump station and piping network, which could result in a significant

depletion of system storage and a reduction in system fire protection.

The two most logical solutions to the supply issue are increasing the supply from the existing

connection to Providence Water or constructing a new interconnection with the LWC.

In the long-term, a new interconnection with the LWC would have significant benefits over

increasing the supply from Providence Water. While increasing the supply from Providence

Water could potentially make up the anticipated water supply shortage, it would require

upgrading the Longview and Limerock pump stations to transport water throughout the system.

Major pipe improvements would be required to convey water through inadequate critical

transmission mains. In addition, increasing Providence Water’s supply would continue to expose

the SWSB to the vulnerability associated with a single supply source. A disruption in that source

of supply would result in a significant disruption in service to the entire SWSB.

Moreover, results of recent water quality monitoring rounds have revealed elevated levels of

disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in the SWSB’s water supply, with DBP concentrations in the

SWSB largely dependent on the source water provided from Providence Water. Currently,

Lincoln buys its water from sources other than Providence Water, such as Pawtucket and

Woonsocket. A new interconnection with the LWC would reduce the SWSB’s dependency on

Providence Water, which would in turn reduce the system’s vulnerability to a significant service

disruption and potential water quality issues. In addition, a new interconnection with the LWC

would deliver water directly to customers near the intersection of Routes 116 and 7, which is

where the largest future increase in water demand is projected. Usable water storage may also be

alleviated if the interconnection includes the installation of a PRV at the intersection of Douglas


Pike and George Washington Highway and the deteriorating Rocky Hill Tank is replaced with a

new elevated storage tank designed to optimize usable storage (CIP 1).

After the supply deficit, the most important issue facing the SWSB infrastructure is the high

proportion of critical system water mains. As the system ages, the likelihood of a substantial

water main break among one of these water mains increases. A water main break among these

mains would result in a significant disruption in service to large areas of Town. Of these critical

water mains, the most critical is the 12-inch CI water main on Douglas Pike that is suspended

over the I-295 and Douglas Pike interchange. Given that this section of water main is suspended

over I-295, it would be difficult, costly, and time-consuming to repair if damaged, more so than

other critical system water mains. Therefore, this water main is the most crucial of the critical

system water mains. The Lincoln interconnection (CIP 1) would provide redundancy in the event

of a break along this portion of water main. However, if CIP 1 does not become a permanent

interconnection, then the new water main on Harris Road (CIP 6) becomes increasingly

important. CIP 2 through CIP 5 address other critical system water mains along Douglas Pike

(Smithfield Road in North Providence).

3.2 Douglas Pike Water Main

The Douglas Pike Water Main project consists of installing 4,800 feet of new 12-inch DI water

main along Douglas Pike between North Providence and Smithfield. CIP 2 also includes

connecting the new 12-inch water main to several existing 8-inch mains in North Providence on

Wenscott Lane, Tanglewood Lane, Hawthorne Place, and Calvary Drive.

The primary benefit of CIP 2 is that it would provide a new system loop. Currently, the entire

Smithfield system relies on the single 12-inch CI water main on Ridge Road (Smithfield Road in

North Providence), which makes this water main a critical system component. A water main

break on Ridge Road anywhere between the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and Providence

Water’s Fruit Hill Reservoir would result in a serious water supply disruption, not just to SWSB

customers, but also to some customers in the ESWD that rely on SWSB service.


In addition to providing a new system loop, CIP 2 would reduce the total system friction losses

between the Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station,

reducing the total energy needed to transport water between the two stations. This would reduce

the discharge head required at the Longview Reservoir Pump Station, alleviating some of the high

pressure experienced in North Providence currently.

CIP 2 has at least one significant challenge that makes it more complicated than a typical water

main installation; the approximately 1,500-foot section of Douglas Pike that travels over the

Wenscott Reservoir causeway. It could be difficult to install a water main in the causeway due to

the building material originally used to construct the causeway (i.e., boulders and large stones). In

addition, the high water table beneath the causeway could impact the installation with regard to

trench dewatering. Finally, the causeway is a narrow two-lane road and therefore installing a

water main could cause significant traffic disruptions. Prior to installing CIP 2, SWSB would

likely be required to obtain approval from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation

(RIDOT) because Douglas Pike is a State roadway.

3.3 Ridge Road Water Main

CIP 3 consists of installing approximately 6,900 feet of new 12-inch DI water main on Ridge

Road between Whipple Road and Limerock Road, and north along Limerock Road to the suction

side of the Limerock Booster Pump Station.

The primary benefit of CIP 3 would be the new system loops it would create between Whipple

Road and the Limerock Booster Pump Station. Currently, the 12-inch water main on Douglas

Pike between Whipple Road and the Limerock Booster Pump Station is the sole supply for the

pump station, which makes this water main a critical system component. The addition of a new

12-inch main along Ridge Road would reduce the dependency of the system on Douglas Pike. A

water main break on Douglas Pike could cause a significant disruption to water service

throughout Smithfield.

In addition to providing redundancy in the system, CIP 3 would reduce the total system friction

losses between the Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station and the Limerock Reservoir

Booster Pump Station, thereby reducing the total energy needed to transport water between the

two stations. This would reduce the discharge head required at the Longview Reservoir Pump

Station, alleviating some of the high pressure experienced in North Providence.


3.4 Stillwater Road Water Main

CIP 4 consists of installing approximately 7,700 feet of new 12-inch DI water main on Ridge

Road and Stillwater Road between Limerock Road and Thurber Boulevard. This CIP would

include installing a short section of water main on Limerock Road from the Limerock Booster

Pump Station. This new main would connect to an existing 8-inch water main on Limerock Road

(on the high service side of the pump station) and to an existing 8-inch main on Stillwater Road at

the intersection of Thurber Boulevard.

The new 12-inch transmission main on Ridge Road and Stillwater Road would provide

redundancy for the 12-inch main on Douglas Pike, between Limerock Road and George

Washington Highway. Currently, the water main on Douglas Pike is the sole source of water to

the Rocky Hill and Island Woods tanks. A water main break on Douglas Pike could cause a

significant disruption to water service for the majority of the Town’s users.

Similar to CIP 2 and 3, CIP 4 reduces friction losses between the Limerock Booster Pump Station

and the system storage tanks, resulting in less energy required to transport water between the

station and the tanks. This reduces the discharge head at the Limerock Booster Pump Station,

which would reduce some of the high pressure experienced in this area of the system.

3.5 George Washington Highway Water Main

This George Washington Highway Water Main project consists of installing approximately 4,885

linear feet of 16-inch DI water main along George Washington Highway and Farnum Pike (Rt.

104). The new water main would connect to an existing 8-inch water main on Appian Way and

extend approximately 1,935 feet west toward Farnum Pike. From the intersection of Farnum Pike

and George Washington Highway, the water main would extend approximately 2,950 feet north

to the existing 12-inch PVC water main. The water main would require two bridge crossings,

both over the Woonasquatucket River between the Woonasquatucket Reservoir and the Stillwater

Reservoir. One bridge crossing would be on George Washington Highway and would total

approximately 200 feet. The second bridge crossing would be on Farnum Pike and would total

approximately 60 feet. During reconstruction of this bridge on Farnum Pike, a sleeve was

installed for a future water main.


CIP 5 provides three major benefits to the system. The first benefit is the important system

redundancy it provides. Currently, the water main on Douglas Pike north of George Washington

Highway is the sole source of water supply to the northwestern section of Town. A water main

break or other disruption on Douglas Pike could result in a serious disruption in water service to

this area of Smithfield. The second benefit that this CIP provides is the increased fire protection

to this area of the system. The third benefit is the ability to connect the residences and businesses

located along this proposed water main to the public water supply.

3.6 Harris Road Water Main

The Harris Road Water Main project consists of installing approximately 8,500 feet of new 12-

inch DI water main along Harris Road. This new water main would connect to the 12-inch water

main that is proposed as part of the Oaks at Harris Development. The water main would run

northeast along Harris Road and connect to the existing 12-inch CI water main on George

Washington Highway.

The two primary benefits of CIP 6 would be the additional system redundancy it would provide

between the Limerock Booster Pump Station and the system storage tanks, and the opportunity

for residents living along Harris Road to connect to the public water system. CIP 6 would provide

a redundant route for water to travel between the Rocky Hill tank and the Limerock Booster

Pump Station. It would also provide a redundant means or transporting water between the future

proposed interconnection with the LWC and areas of Town west of Douglas Pike, though this

scenario would require a PRV due to the higher HGL of the proposed Rocky Hill Road tank

pressure zone. Fire protection in this area of Town would also benefit from this CIP and allow for

potential growth to the northern sections of Town, particularly in the future Planned Corporate

and Industrial Zone near the I-295 business park and the North Central Airport.


SECTION 4

PUMP STATIONS

There are three (3) pump stations in the system, identified as the Longview Reservoir Booster

Pump Station, the Limerock Booster Pump Station, and the Davis Booster Pump Station. Pare

performed a site visit at each pump station with SWSB personnel on November 12, 2015. A

description of each pump station and proposed capital improvements associated with these pump

stations is provided below.

4.1 Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station

The Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station is located at the interconnection to Providence

Water. It supplies the part of the system in North Providence and the southeastern part of

Smithfield, as well as the Limerock Booster Pump Station. The Longview Reservoir pump station

is the most critical of the three system pump stations as it is the sole source of supply for the

SWSB. The capacity of the station is approximately 2 MGD.

The station, originally built in 1964, was the only booster station in the system until 1997. As a

result of system improvements by the EPA, the entire station’s piping, equipment, and controls,

excluding the structure, were removed and replaced. The station now consists of three (3) variable

frequency drive (VFD) pumps positioned in parallel and equipped with a natural gas emergency

generator. All three pump motors were replaced in early 2014 and the pumps were checked and

resealed at this time. The pump station is considered to be in good condition.

The total maximum capacity of this station is approximately 1,366 gallons per minute (gpm), or

approximately 1.965 MGD, which is based on a water use agreement between SWSB and

Providence Water. The station is designed to operate with two pumps running while the third is on

standby. As these pumps have VFD motors, they are controlled with the ability to pace pump output

to system demand or to maintain system pressure. The station can operate by modulating pump

speed based on downstream tank levels, which is the station’s normal mode, or by maintaining a

constant discharge pressure range in the system. The station receives water at approximately 13 psi

pressure from Providence Water and boosts the water to a maximum pressure of 120 psi. Aside from

two (2) digital tank water level indicators, this station is equipped with a circular chart with digital

indicator and totalizer for pump station flow, and a digital pump discharge pressure indicator.


4.2 Limerock Booster Pump Station

The Limerock Booster Pump Station supplies the service area in the northeastern portion of

Smithfield, the Island Woods and Rocky Hill storage reservoirs, and the Davis Booster Pump

Station. Water from these two storage tanks is also supplied back through the Limerock Booster

Pump Station through a PRV to supply the area between the Longview and Limerock pump stations.

The Limerock booster pump station has a capacity of approximately 1.3 MGD and supplies water to

the northern section of Smithfield.

The Limerock Booster Pump Station is located on Douglas Pike, just south of Limerock Road. This

station was built in 1997 as part of the EPA system improvements. Like the Longview Reservoir

Booster Pump Station, it is equipped with three (3) VFD pumps positioned in parallel with

emergency power via a natural gas-fired generator. All three pump motors were replaced in spring

2014 and the pumps were checked and resealed at this time. One of the VFD motor controllers was

replaced at this time as well. The pump station is considered to be in good condition.

The pump station is designed to operate with two pumps running simultaneously while the third is

on standby. The variable speed drives allow the station to operate simultaneously with the Longview

Reservoir Booster Pump Station while pacing itself to maintain a constant suction pressure, as both

stations respond to tank levels. These two pump stations are interlocked and controlled through the

system’s telemetry system. Should these pump stations fail to operate in series, significant pressure

issues could develop in the system. Moreover, water hammer is created in the system through a

delay in the starting and stopping of pumps at the Longview and Limerock booster pump stations,

which can result in damage to system infrastructure.

The hydraulic grade of this station’s service area is 521 feet mean sea level (MSL), which is the

overflow elevation of the Rocky Hill and Island Woods storage tanks. A PRV located outside the

Limerock Booster Pump Station allows water from these two storage reservoirs to feed toward the

Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station when the pumps in the Limerock Booster Pump Station

are off. This PRV has an interlock that prevents the PRV from operating when the pump station is in

use. This station is equipped with a digital tank water level indicator, a circular recorder with digital

indicator for suction pressure, and a circular recorder with digital indicator and totalizer for pump

station flow.


4.3 Davis Booster Pump Station

The Davis Booster Pump Station is located on Log Road, just east of Burlingame Road. This pump

station supplies the SWSB’s northwest service area and the Burlingame Tank and has a capacity of

approximately 0.3 MGD. This pump station was also built in 1997 as part of the EPA system

expansion. The station is equipped with two (2) constant speed pumps and an emergency generator

fueled by a propane tank located at the pump station site. The station is designed to operate with one

pump online and the other pump on standby. Normal operation of this station is based on water

levels in the Burlingame Tank. The hydraulic grade of this station’s service area is 577 feet MSL.

This station is equipped with a digital tank level indicator and a circular recorder with digital

indicator and totalizer for station flow.


SECTION 5

WATER SUPPLY SOURCES

There are two active system interconnections between the SWSB and neighboring water systems

that are used on a regular basis. One interconnection, a metered wholesale water connection with

Providence Water at Smithfield Road, functions as the SWSB’s source of supply from the Longview

Reservoir. The existing agreement between SWSB and Providence Water, a letter dated February

10, 1993, entitles SWSB to purchase up to 1.965 MGD through this interconnection. This supply

rate corresponds to the maximum rated pumping capacity of the Longview Reservoir Booster Pump

Station.

The SWSB has two other interconnections with Providence Water, both in North Providence. One

connection is on Hawthorne Street, and one connection is on Locust Avenue. Both connections are

physically closed and intended for use in case of an emergency. Neither interconnection is metered.

The hydraulic grade line of the SWSB is higher than Providence Water, so supply to the SWSB

would require pumping while supply to Providence Water can be done by opening the closed valves

at either interconnection. There are currently no plans to convert either of these interconnections to

normal supply connections.

The SWSB also has two interconnections with the ESWD. One interconnection, on Ridge Road at

Partridge Lane, is actively used for wholesale supply from the SWSB to the ESWD. This

interconnection is metered and serves an isolated area of the ESWD service area. Less than 12

million gallons of water was sold to the ESWD through this interconnection in 2013, and water sales

have followed a downward trend in recent years. A second interconnection, located at Meadow

View Drive, is in place for emergency purposes. It is not typically used nor is it metered.

The SWSB also has an emergency interconnection with the GWD. This interconnection was created

in 2014 as part of the construction of a new storage tank for the GWD, near the SWSB’s

Burlingame Tank. Water can be supplied to either system during an emergency. The SWSB does

not own or operate any independent surface or groundwater supply sources. Instead, the SWSB

purchases all of the water it distributes on a wholesale basis through an interconnection with

Providence Water. This interconnection is at the SWSB’s Longview Reservoir Booster Pump

Station. This interconnection with Providence Water serves as the only permanent active source of


supply. The SWSB does not have any abandoned former supply sources, nor are there any surface

or groundwater supplies believed to be suitable for development by the SWSB.

The SWSB does not own or operate any primary treatment facilities as the sole source of supply of

water to the system is through the interconnection with Providence Water. However, the SWSB

installed a chlorine injection system at the Limerock Booster Pump Station in 2011 to raise the

chlorine residual for parts of the system located farther from the system’s source. The system was

installed due to past exceedances for total coliforms in parts of the SWSB system. The Limerock

Booster Pump Station site was selected following an evaluation of several suitable locations

performed by Pare and the SWSB. The chlorine injection system was reviewed and approved by the

RI Department of Health.

The chlorine injection system has not been used since 2012. There have been no total coliform

exceedances detected in the system during this timeframe. Operational changes to the water level in

the Island Woods Storage Tank has increased turnover and reduced water age, which has likely

contributed to improvements in water quality. The system can be put back into use in the event it is

needed in the future. It was never intended to be a permanent, year-round treatment operation and

was intended to be used only at certain times of the year, primarily in the summer, and as required

based on water quality.

CIP 1 includes a new interconnection with the LWC. The interconnection would be located on

George Washington Highway at the Lincoln/Smithfield town line. The scope of work associated

with this interconnection includes approximately 1,300 linear feet of 12-inch DI water main, a new

booster pump station, and a PRV. A booster pump station would be necessary because the HGL of

the Lincoln system, as determined by the overflow of the nearby Albion Tank, is 426 feet and the

HGL of the SWSB system, as determined by the nearby Island Woods and Rocky Hill tanks, is 521

feet.

The most significant benefit of the proposed interconnection is the additional source of supply it

would provide, which would reduce SWSB’s dependency on Providence Water. The

interconnection would also provide a redundant source of supply if a water main break were to

occur along Douglas Pike, which is currently a critical system main. Other benefits would include a

reduced dependency on the Limerock and Longview Reservoir pump stations, which currently


supply water from Providence Water to various portions of the system and maintain water in the

Island Woods and Rocky Hill tanks. This interconnection would reduce the need to significantly

increase either station’s capacity, and upgrades to either station would be substantially limited to

routine maintenance and regular upgrades, such as pump repair and equipment replacement.

Finally, Pare anticipates that the largest increase in future water use would be in the proposed Rocky

Hill Road tank pressure zone as a result of the newly created Planned Corporate zone in the

northeast corner of Town. An interconnection with Lincoln would directly benefit the customers in

this area of Town because it would provide water directly to the pressure zone with the largest water

demand.


SECTION 6

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

6.1 Pipe Replacement Program

To maintain a properly functioning water system, potable water supply systems must

continuously replace or repair their aging infrastructure, particularly old CI and AC pipes that are

nearing the end of their useful service life. Unlined CI pipe is prone to tuberculation, or internal

corrosion and biofilm contamination that develops as a result of chemical reactions that take place

between the drinking water and the pipe, and external corrosion from reactions with soil and

groundwater. These factors cause capacity and pressure loss and a reduction in material strength,

thereby increasing system pumping costs, pipe leakage, and pipe ruptures, and decreasing water

supply available for fire protection. AC pipe is prone to internal leaching from reactions with

potable water and external leaching from reactions with groundwater. These chemical reactions

result in a reduction in pipe wall thickness, thereby increasing the risk of costly pipe breaks

within the distribution system. The SWSB currently maintains approximately 38,000 feet of CI

pipe and 46,000 feet of AC pipe. Based on past hydrant flow testing performed by Pare and

others, it appears as though the CI pipe in the SWSB system is generally in fair to good condition.

The AC pipe in the system; however, has had a history of significant breaks. Therefore, it

appears as though the more pressing concern in the SWSB system is AC pipe.

It is recommended that the SWSB focus on replacing their existing AC pipe over the next 20 to

30 years. AC pipe is difficult to rehabilitate in-place and is generally replaced rather than

rehabilitated. Based on the amount of AC pipe in the system, it is recommended that SWSB

target 1,500 to 2,300 feet of pipe for replacement each year.

While the CI pipe in the system appears to be in better condition that the AC pipe, it is

recommended the SWSB continue to monitor the condition of the pipe through hydrant flow

testing and period inspections. If and when the condition of the pipe worsens, it is recommended

that this CIP be updated to include a more comprehensive CI replacement or rehabilitation

program.


6.2 Unidirectional Flushing Program

In comparison to a conventional flushing program consisting of opening hydrants to allow water

to discharge until it appears clean, it is recommended that the SWSB implement a unidirectional

flushing program. A unidirectional flushing program consists of closing valves such that water

travels toward the flow hydrant in a single direction. This technique causes higher velocities in

the water main, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the flushing program. A unidirectional

flushing program typically requires shorter flushing durations, which results in less water than a

conventional flushing program. This program should begin at the water source(s) and be

performed from larger to smaller diameter mains as the flushing program progresses through the

system. Benefits of a unidirectional flushing program include removing tuberculation, sediment,

and biofilm within the water main, reducing chlorine demand, and exercising valves.

6.3 Valve Operating Program

The purpose of a valve operating program is to assure reliable operation and maintain water

quality in the SWSB system. AWWA recommends exercising water main line valves for a full

cycle and returned to normal position to prevent buildup of tuberculation or other deposits which

could render the valve inoperable. It is ideal to exercise valves in conjunction with a

unidirectional hydrant flushing program annually or biannually. There are multiple benefits of

fully operational valves. Water main breaks are able to be isolated resulting in lower water loss

and the least possible disruption of service to customers. A valve operating program also allows

for geographic information to be updated if valve locations are unknown. Valve life is extended

and valves are quicker to shut in emergency situations. Moreover, the program identifies which

valves in the system operate properly and which valves require maintenance or replacment,

resulting in more regular maintenance activities and an increase in system reliability.1

6.4 Meter Replacement Program

The SWSB has one master (source) meter, located on the interconnection with Providence Water

at the Longview Reservoir. This meter is a 12-inch Venturi-type meter that was installed in 1997

and tested and calibrated annually, most recently in 2013. It is read weekly and records in gallons.

It is annually checked and calibrated by the SWSB. The SWSB meters 100% of the water

distributed to its customers. The SWSB has upgraded distribution meters throughout the system

to radio-read meters in recent years. A State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan was used in 2012 to

1 Satterfield, Zane, P.E. "Valve Exercising." Tech Brief 7.2 (2007): n. pag. National Environmental Services Center. West Virginia University. Web.


complete the Town’s meter upgrade program. Meter testing and calibration is provided by the

SWSB as requested by the customer. During meter reading and billing cycles, SWSB staff

reviews historical account usage. For inconsistencies in water use, staff interviews the property

owners to determine apparent causes for this variance in use and physically checks meters to

ensure they are registering properly. Maintenance on the meters is generally not performed unless

it can be done so relatively efficiently; otherwise, the meter is replaced with a new meter.

There have typically been between 12 and 15 customers identified as “major users”, defined as

customers that use 3 million gallons annually. These customers are connected through 38 service

connections with meters that range in size from 1-inch to 10-inch. Some major users, such as

Bryant University, Fidelity Investments and Stony Brook Apartments, have several service

connections of varying size.

While the recently-completed meter replacement program is a major step toward minimizing

unaccounted for water, water meters are subject to wear resulting in inaccuracies in flow

measurements. Therefore, funding should be allocated toward meter replacement at areas where

inconsistencies are observed in water usage to optimize revenue recovery in the SWSB’s

distribution system.

6.5 Tank Inspection and Maintenance Program

The SWSB should implement a tank inspection and maintenance program including inspection of

sanitary conditions, coating system conditions, safety and security conditions, structural

conditions, and general details. Sanitary conditions pertain to possible contamination of stored

water. Coating system conditions include interior and exterior paint conditions. Safety and

security conditions pertain to the safety of maintenance workers and inspectors as well as reduced

accessibility to the storage tank by unauthorized individuals. Structural conditions are those that

compromise the structural integrity of the water storage facility. General details include up-to-

date and accurate information on construction features including tank dimensions, overflow

height, overflow pipe size, etc.

Sanitary, safety, security, and structural conditions should be inspected annually. Coating system

conditions should be inspected every two to five years. Cleaning of storage facilities should occur

every two to five years, depending on the amount of silt buildup. Frequency of updating general

details of the storage facility depend on the quality of system records kept. This information


should be physically determined before any major repairs or expansions are performed on the

facility. The storage tank should be drained and disinfected before any inspection occurs unless a

remote-operated vehicle (ROV) is used to perform the inspection. Coating systems should be

reapplied every fifteen years.2

6.6 Leak Detection Program

Water mains, service lines, and valves can fail as they age. The effects of a leaking pipe are

usually not visible aboveground. In addition to water loss, leakage can result in reduced pressure

in the distribution system. Moreover, increasing pressure in the water distribution system to

compensate for this pressure loss will amplify the volume of water lost through leakage. Without

a leak detection program, leaks may only be discovered when they are visible at the surface or

when infrastructure collapses. Therefore, it is recommended that the SWSB implement a leak

detection program. Attaching data loggers and leak noise correlators to hydrants and valves

overnight allows for the detection of leaks through vibrations being recorded in the early hours of

the morning when water flow is minimal. Combining this technique with traditional geophone

surveying on the surface, leak locations are determined. Pipes can then be repaired to prevent

further water loss. It is recommended to repeat a leak detection program every three years.3

6.7 Hydrant Replacement Program

The SWSB should be regularly inspecting their hydrants to determine if each hydrant and

auxiliary valve is functioning and meets fire protections standards. Preventative maintenance

should be performed concurrently with inspections. Inspections and preventative maintenance

should be performed every one to three years. Hydrants failing inspections should be repaired or

replaced as soon as possible.4

6.8 GIS, Mapping, & Asset Management Program

Pare has recently completed the development of a plan and field card database for the SWSB.

This database is the first step toward implementation of a GIS, Mapping, & Asset Management

Program for the SWSB’s water supply system. By mapping the SWSB’s assets in a GIS, the

Town will be able to improve the operation and maintenance of its water supply. For example, the

2 "Water Protection Program." Missouri Department of Natural Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2015. 3 Lahlou, Zacharia M., Ph.D. "Leak Detection and Water Loss Control." Tech Brief (n.d.): n. pag. National Environmental Services Center. West Virginia University. Web. 4 "Sweetwater Authority Fire Hydrant Maintenance Program." ACWA/JPIA(2007): n. pag. Web.


Town may be able to identify the location and water usage patterns of their customers, trends in

water main breaks, and locations of critical system components (e.g., pipes, valves, meters).


SECTION 7

SCADA SYSTEM

Currently, the water level status of all three tanks is continuously transmitted via telemetry to the

pump stations to control pump operations, and also to the Town’s Department of Public Works

building where water levels are recorded on continuous circular charts. The tank level signals

from the Rocky Hill Road Tank and the Island Woods Tank are received at the Longview

Reservoir Booster Pump Station where they are displayed on digital level indicators and used to

control pump operation at the station. These signals are then transmitted to the Limerock Booster

Pump Station to control pump operation at that facility. The programmable logic controller (PLC)

in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station allows the operator to select which tank (i.e., Rocky Hill

Road Tank or Island Woods Tank) will operate the booster stations. The water level from the

Burlingame Tank is received at the Davis Booster Pump Station for operation of that station and

is displayed on a digital level indicator. This signal is transmitted back to the Longview Booster

Pump Station. The Longview Station then transmits the levels of all three storage tanks to the

Department of Public Works for continuous recording on the circular charts.

The system’s existing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is delivered via

a wireline network. The SWSB should consider retrofitting its existing SCADA system for

wireless access and ultimately to transition the system to radio transmission for communication

between the storage tanks and other critical system facilities. This would eliminate existing

issues experienced by the Town with their SCADA system, specifically the system’s unreliability

(e.g., outage from damaged lines) and an escalating cost for operating and maintaining the private

line through its communications provider.


SECTION 8

PRIORITY SCHEDULE & COSTS

The critical system improvements that this plan evaluates include the replacement of the Rocky

Hill Road storage tank, installation of a new interconnection with the Town of Lincoln, and the

installation of new transmission mains. Capital improvements have been divided into three phases

over the next twenty years (i.e., 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and 10-20 years). A priority schedule of

these CIPs is provided below.

0-5 Years

CIP 1: Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs for construction of a new 1 MG

elevated storage tank, demolition of the existing tank 1 MG tank, and site restoration is

approximately $3.5M. This price excludes the cost of lead remediation at the site, if

present. Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to construct an interconnection

with Lincoln, including a new booster pump station, 1,300 feet of pipe along Rt. 116, and

a PRV vault, is $1.6M. A significant portion of this cost is the installation of the booster

pump station.

5-10 Years

CIP 2: Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to install 4,800 feet of new pipe

along Douglas Pike is $1.9M. A significant portion of this cost is associated with the

portion of water main crossing the Wenscott Reservoir causeway.

CIP 3: The water main that is being installed on Ridge Road as part of the High Ridge

Estates development would allow this CIP to be done in two phases, one south of High

Ridge Estates, and one north of High Ridge Estates. Each phase could be completed

independently of the other, which would allow more latitude in scheduling construction.

Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to install 6,900 of new 12-inch DI pipe

along Ridge Road and Limerock Road is $2.3M.


10-20 Years

CIP 4: Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to install 7,700 feet of new 12-inch

DI water main on Ridge Road and Stillwater Road between Limerock Road and Thurber

Boulevard is $2.6M.

CIP 5: Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to install 4,885 feet of 16-inch DI

water main on George Washington Highway and Farnum Pike, including two bridge

crossings over the Woonasquatucket River, is $2.1M.

CIP 6: Pare’s opinion of probable construction costs to install 8,500 feet of new 12-inch

DI pipe along Harris Road is $2.9M.

A system map showing each CIP is provided as Appendix A. Refer to Appendix B for a detailed

breakdown of the opinion of probable construction cost for each CIP.

The SWSB’s existing O&M budget for the water supply system is $1.9M. In an effort to create a

more comprehensive accounting of future system costs, this CIP includes O&M projects to be

implemented to ensure a safe, reliable water supply system. A summary of each O&M project and

its corresponding cost is provided below:

Pipe Replacement Program: The SWSB currently maintains 46,000 feet of AC pipe. To

replace this pipe over the next 20 years, approximately 5% (2,300 feet) of AC pipe should be

replaced in the system each year. To achieve this objective, the SWSB should budget

$750,000 annually for its pipe replacement program.

Unidirectional Flushing Program: The SWSB should budget $7,500 annually for its

unidirectional flushing program, plus a one-time cost of $10,000 to develop the program. It is

assumed that this program will be implemented by SWSB staff.

Valve Operating Program: The SWSB should budget $15,000 annually for its valve

operating program. This cost includes locating, exercising, and performing minor repairs

(e.g., valve cover replacement) at each valve as well as valve replacement for inoperable

valves.


Meter Replacement Program: The SWSB should budget $10,000 annually for its meter

replacement program.

Tank Inspection and Maintenance Program: The SWSB should budget $75,000 annually

for its tank inspection and maintenance program to be set aside for future painting and repairs

to the SWSB’s water storage tanks.

Leak Detection Program: The SWSB should budget $5,000 annually for its leak

detection program.

Hydrant Replacement Program: The SWSB should budget $15,000 annually for its

hydrant replacement program.

GIS, Mapping, & Asset Management Program: The SWSB should budget $50,000 for

startup costs, including purchasing the software and development of the proposed GIS

database, and $5,000 annually for licensing and general maintenance its GIS, mapping, and

asset management program.

In addition to the abovementioned O&M projects, the SWSB should budget $200,000 for

upgrading the SWSB’s SCADA system to radio transmission and hardware upgrades, $150,000

for upgrading/replacing the electrical systems in the Longview and Limerock pump stations, and

$150,000 for replacing the motors and pumps in the Davis pump station. A proposed project

schedule for implementation of these capital improvements and O&M projects is provided in

Appendix C.


SECTION 9

NEXT STEPS

The SWSB system serves an area that is increasing in desirability for development. The Town is

welcoming this development, particularly the large-scale commercial development along Rt. 7

and 116 in the vicinity of I-295. Such development will require improvements to the water

system so that it may provide high-quality water at adequate flow and pressure. This CIP may be

used by the SWSB to budget future capital expenditures that can be used as a part of a future rate

study. Based on Pare’s evaluation of capital improvements in the SWSB’s water supply system,

Pare recommends that the Town move forward with design and permitting for CIP 1 in earnest to

provide source water redundancy, reduce dependency on its critical transmission mains, and

enhance water quality in the SWSB’s water supply system.

It is assumed that SWSB will need to increase water usage rates to pay for the capital

improvements outlined in this report. It is recommended that SWSB conduct a water rate study,

using the information collected in this report, in order to identify what the appropriate future rates

would be to provide sustainable long-term maintenance of the system and investment in new and

upgraded infrastructure.

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX A

CIP System Map

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX B

CIP Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #1(a): Rocky Hill Road Elevated Storage Tank

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPDCapital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total

1. Existing Tank Demolition1 1 50,000.00$ LS 50,000.00$ 2. 1 MG Elevated Storage Tank Construction 1 1,850,000.00$ LS 1,850,000.00$ 3. Foundation Construction 1 175,000.00$ LS 175,000.00$ 4. Mixing System 1 50,000.00$ LS 50,000.00$ 5. Interior Piping, Valves, and Appurtenances 1 75,000.00$ LS 75,000.00$ 6. Interior Electrical 1 50,000.00$ LS 50,000.00$ 7. Exterior Piping, Valves, and Appurtenances 1 75,000.00$ LS 75,000.00$ 8. Exterior Electrical/SCADA 1 25,000.00$ LS 25,000.00$ 9. Rock Removal 200 200.00$ CY 40,000.00$

10. Miscellaneous Site Work 1 75,000.00$ LS 75,000.00$ 11. Site Restoration 1 25,000.00$ LS 25,000.00$

SUBTOTAL 2,440,000.00$ 12. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS 73,000.00$

SUBTOTAL 2,513,000.00$ 13. Engineering Fees (15%) LS 377,000.00$

SUBTOTAL 2,890,000.00$ 14. Contingency (20%) LS 578,000.00$

TOTAL 3,468,000.00$ 1 Price excludes the cost of lead remediation at the site, if present.

CIP #1(a): Rocky Hill Road Elevated Storage Tank

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #1(b): Interconnection with Lincoln Water Commission



1. 12" Water Main Installation 1300 175.00$ LF 227,500.00$ 2. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 150 200.00$ CY 30,000.00$ 3. Pavement Restoration (7" Thick) 350 175.00$ TON 61,250.00$ 4. Traffic Protection 18 500.00$ DAY 9,000.00$ 5. Land Acquisition 0.25 350,000.00$ ACRE 87,500.00$ 6. Pump Station Installation 1 600,000.00$ LS 600,000.00$ 7. PRV Vault Installation 1 100,000.00$ LS 100,000.00$




TOTAL 1,584,000.00$

CIP #1(b): Interconnection with Lincoln Water Commission

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #2: Douglas Pike 12" Water Main



1. 12" Water Main Installation (Roadway) 3050 175.00$ LF 533,750.00$ 2. 12" Water Main Installation (Causeway) 1750 300.00$ LF 525,000.00$ 3. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 540 200.00$ CY 108,000.00$ 4. Pavement Restoration (5" Thick) 920 175.00$ TON 161,000.00$ 5. Traffic Protection 64 500.00$ DAY 32,000.00$




TOTAL 1,933,000.00$

CIP #2: Douglas Pike 12" Water Main

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #3: Ridge Road 12" Water Main



1. 12" Water Main Installation (Roadway) 6900 175.00$ LF 1,207,500.00$ 2. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 770 200.00$ CY 154,000.00$ 3. Pavement Restoration (5" Thick) 1330 175.00$ TON 232,750.00$ 4. Traffic Protection 92 500.00$ DAY 46,000.00$




TOTAL 2,330,000.00$

CIP #3: Ridge Road 12" Water Main

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #4: Stillwater Road 12" Water Main







TOTAL 2,602,000.00$

CIP #4: Stillwater Road 12" Water Main

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #5: George Washington Highway 16" Water Main



1. 16" Water Main Installation (Roadway) 4625 200.00$ LF 925,000.00$ 2. 16" Water Main Installation (Bridge Crossing) 260 750.00$ LF 195,000.00$ 3. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 520 200.00$ CY 104,000.00$ 4. Pavement Restoration (7" Thick) 1250 175.00$ TON 218,750.00$ 5. Traffic Protection 66 500.00$ DAY 33,000.00$




TOTAL 2,098,000.00$

CIP #5: George Washington Highway 16" Water Main

Additional Fees

Opinion of Probable Construction CostCIP #6: Harris Road 12" Water Main







TOTAL 2,872,000.00$

CIP #6: Harris Road 12" Water Main

Additional Fees

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX C

SWSB Recommended Project Schedule

10‐Year 15‐Year 20‐Year2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022‐2026 2027‐2031 2032‐2036

Capital Maintenance and Upgrades 1,162,500$ 802,500$ 902,500$ 952,500$ 2,147,500$ 4,057,500$ 4,457,500$ 5,582,500$ Asbestos Cement Pipe Replacement Program 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,750,000$ Unidirectional Flushing Program 17,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ 37,500$ Valve Operating Program 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ Meter Replacement Program 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Hydrant Replacement 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ GIS, Mapping, and Asset Management Program 55,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ SCADA System Modifications ‐ Wireless Instrumentation 100,000$ SCADA Hardware Upgrades 100,000$ Upgrade/replace electrical systems ‐ Longview P.S., Limerock P.S. 150,000$ Replace motors and pumps ‐ Davis P.S. 150,000$ Tank inspection ‐ Elevated Rocky Hill Tank 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Tank inspection ‐ Island Woods Tank 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Tank inspection ‐ Burlingame Tank 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Tank rehabilitation ‐ Elevated Rocky Hill Tank 75,000$ Tank rehabilitation ‐ Island Woods Tank 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ Tank rehabilitation ‐ Burlingame Tank 300,000$ 300,000$ New System Improvements 100,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 200,000$ 2,700,000$ 3,550,000$ 3,950,000$ 2,400,000$ Pump Station Construction ‐ Lincoln Interconnection P.S. (CIP 1) 100,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ Tank Construction ‐ Elevated Rocky Hill Tank (CIP 1) 200,000$ 2,700,000$ Pipe Installation ‐ Douglas Pike (CIP 2) 1,600,000$ Pipe Installation ‐ Ridge Road (CIP 3) 1,950,000$ Pipe Installation ‐ Stillwater Road (CIP 4) 2,200,000$ Pipe Installation ‐ GW Highway (CIP 5) 1,750,000$ Pipe Installation ‐ Harris Road (CIP 6) 2,400,000$ Subtotal 1,262,500$ 1,402,500$ 1,502,500$ 1,152,500$ 4,847,500$ 7,607,500$ 8,407,500$ 7,982,500$ 20% Contingency 252,500$ 280,500$ 300,500$ 230,500$ 969,500$ 1,521,500$ 1,681,500$ 1,596,500$ TOTAL 1,600,000$ 1,700,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,400,000$ 5,900,000$ 9,200,000$ 10,100,000$ 9,600,000$

SWSBRecommendedProjectSchedule(in2016USD)5‐Year

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX D

Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation

March 11, 2015 Mr. Seth Lemoine Public Works Director – Town of Smithfield 64 Farnum Pike Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917 Re: Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation

Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, Rhode Island PARE Project No. 03066.37 Dear Mr. Lemoine: As requested, Pare Corporation (PARE) has completed the Rocky Hill Road tank evaluation for the Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB). The evaluation was performed utilizing the existing computerized hydraulic model of the SWSB’s water supply and distribution system. Using the hydraulic model, PARE evaluated the water supply system under various tank replacement scenarios. In addition to reviewing system hydraulics, including how each scenario impacts system pressure, fire protection, and emergency conditions, PARE completed a cost-benefit analysis for each scenario to develop a recommendation for the future of the Rocky Hill Road tank. PROJECT BACKGROUND The SWSB has three water storage tanks: the 0.3 MG Burlingame Road tank, the 1.0 MG Rocky Hill Road tank, and the 4.0 MG Island Woods (Alpha) tank. The Rocky Hill Road and Island Woods tanks serve the same service area and have matching overflow elevations (521 ft MSL). The Burlingame tank serves a separate service area and has an overflow elevation of 576 ft MSL. In 2010, the SWSB performed an inspection of all three water storage tanks. The inspection report identified the Rocky Hill Road tank as having significant deterioration, the most significant of the three tanks. The estimated cost to rehabilitate the Rocky Hill Road tank, which includes paint stripping, structural repairs, and surface recoating, is expected to be in excess of $600,000. Furthermore, the tank was repainted in 1997 at a cost of nearly $200,000 and could need repainting 15-20 years after the next rehabilitation. However, there are several options available to the SWSB in lieu of reinvesting in the existing Rocky Hill Road tank, reported to be approximately 50 years of age, which could potentially save the Town money in the long run. PARE’s evaluation focused on four potential improvement/replacement scenarios, including rehabilitating the existing tank. Each scenario is described below.

1. Rehabilitate the existing tank, including complete interior and exterior paint removal and structural repairs;

2. Build a new tank at another suitable location in the system, including the complete demolition and removal of the existing tank;

3. Demolition of the existing tank with no replacement, which means the system would have only two tanks, the Island Woods tank and the Burlingame tank; and

4. Replace the existing tank at the same site, with a new precast concrete storage tank or an elevated tank, if feasible.

DRAFT

Mr. Seth Lemoine (2) March 11, 2015

PARE’s evaluation focused on how each scenario would impact system pressure and fire protection. The project was performed utilizing the SWSB’s existing computerized hydraulic model in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M32 – Distribution Network Analysis for Water Utilities. The evaluation also addressed how each scenario would impact the system’s vulnerability to a disruption in service (i.e., emergency conditions). For each scenario, PARE also prepared an opinion of probable construction costs for the initial construction/replacement/repair, as well as a 50-year life-cycle cost for each option (i.e., maintenance costs). It should be noted that this evaluation excludes the cost of the abatement of lead-based paint, which may exist at the Rocky Hill Road tank site and would need to be addressed in accordance with State and Federal requirements regardless of which scenario is deemed to be most beneficial to the Town. RESULTS Scenario 1: Rehabilitating the Rocky Hill Road tank would result in no change to the existing water supply system pressure, fire protection, or emergency conditions. The tank would maintain the existing 521-foot hydraulic grade line (HGL) for this pressure zone and provide the same volume of water for fire protection and emergency conditions as it does currently. However, rehabilitating the existing tank would do nothing to improve the system’s storage configuration, which has resulted in low tank turnover and high water age. The SWSB system has a significant volume of storage for its size (i.e., 5.3 MG of storage in the system with an average daily demand of less than 1.0 MGD). Due to the storage configuration, only 450,000 gallons is considered usable in the Rocky Hill Road tank pressure zone, which includes 94% of system storage (i.e., storage that is located above an elevation that would provide a minimum of 20 psi to all customers in the system). This usable storage volume is dictated largely by the neighborhood at the base of the Rocky Hill Road tank. A number of those customers are situated at an elevation very similar to the bottom of the tank, which means that these customers receive very low pressure, less than 20 psi when the water level in the tank fluctuates by as little as 5 feet. As a result, the 1.0 MG Rock Hill Road tank has only 125,000 gallons of usable storage, or 12.5 percent of the total tank storage. This low volume of usable storage means that the Rocky Hill Road tank is bound to a very narrow operating range, which results in low turnover of the water in the tank. PARE’s opinion of probable construction costs to rehabilitate the tank, including paint stripping, structural repairs, and surface recoating, is approximately $680,000. In addition, the tank would need repainting and repair of deteriorating structural components over the next 50 years. The 50-year life-cycle costs for this option are estimated to be approximately $2.3M, which includes the initial restoration of the tank. The life-cycle cost could be substantially more due to the uncertainty in the cost of the repair and/or replacement in the future. Scenario 2: Based on the current configuration of storage in the system, it could be beneficial to demolish the tank and build a new tank in a different location in the system that provides more usable storage, specifically between the Longview and Limerock booster pump stations. In addition, if a new tank were situated between the Longview and Limerock booster pump stations, water hammer, which can result in damage to system infrastructure, could be reduced in the system. Water hammer is created in the system through a delay in the starting and stopping of pumps at the Longview and Limerock booster pump stations, which are interlocked and controlled through the system’s telemetry system. A new tank would

DRAFT


allow the two stations to run independently of each other (i.e., remove the interlock) and could substantially reduce water hammer in the system. It is also possible that a new tank at a new location could add to the system’s emergency storage by siting it at a location that maximizes its usable storage. In order to analyze the impact of a new tank situated between the two pumps stations, PARE reviewed static pressures for customers in the area between the two booster pump stations. Elevations in this area range from 200 feet along Bicentennial Way to 378 feet at Dillon Lane. A desired system pressure range of 35 to 90 psi was utilized to develop a target operating range for a hypothetical tank that would serve customers between an elevation range of 200 feet to 378 feet, as identified in the following table.

TABLE 1 Proposed Tank Operating Range

Location Elevation (ft) Hydraulic Grade at 35 psi (ft)

Hydraulic Grade at 90 psi (ft)

Operating Range (ft)

Dillon Lane 378 459 586 459-586 Bicentennial Way 200 281 408 281-408

As indicated in Table 1, a hypothetical tank designed to serve Dillon Lane would need to have an operating range somewhere between 459 and 586 feet to provide suitable pressure to customers in that area. Similarly, a tank designed to serve Bicentennial Way would need to have an operating range somewhere between 281 to 408 feet. As there is no overlap in these two operating ranges, it seems infeasible to provide suitable pressure to both areas from a single tank. For example, to serve Dillon Lane, a new tank could be no lower than 459 feet, to provide 35 psi to customers on Dillon Lane. At the minimum elevation of 459 feet, Bicentennial Way would experience static system pressure of approximately 112 psi, well above 90 psi. Conversely, a tank designed to accommodate Bicentennial Way would require a maximum elevation of 408 feet, which would provide customers on Dillon Lane with only 13 psi, significantly below 35 psi. As such, it appears infeasible to build a new tank between the booster pump stations that could adequately serve the customers in this area of the system. It’s possible that the Town could consider dividing this area into two service areas with two separate tanks, which would address the issue of the widely varying topography. However, this option would result in an overly complex system and would add significant cost to the project. As there doesn’t appear to be a technically feasible or financially viable way to build a single tank to serve this area, PARE did not evaluate this option further and did not prepare an opinion of probable construction costs or perform a life-cycle cost analysis. Scenario 3: Based on a review of the existing model during average day demand (ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and peak hour (PH) demand scenarios, it appears that demolishing the existing tank would have little to no adverse impact on system pressure. However, PARE also modeled how this option would impact fire protection in the water supply system. AWWA M32 dictates that the fire flow at any given point in the system would be the rate of flow of water obtainable at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. This document also requires that all points in the distribution system maintain a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during fire flow conditions. The Smithfield Town Ordinance is

DRAFT


consistent with the AWWA M32 standard and states that the minimum residual pressure at any point in the water distribution system during fire flow conditions shall be 20 psi. Under fire flow conditions, model results indicate that demolition of the existing tank would significantly impact fire protection in this area of the system. Specifically, facilities located along Business Park Drive may no longer be able to meet their fire protection requirements. For example, under existing fire flow conditions Reeb Millwork Corporation, located at 19 Business Park Drive, can obtain approximately 2,400 to 2,500 gpm of fire flow at a residual pressure of 20 psi. With the tank offline, the available fire flow would decrease to approximately 800 gpm. Based on a hydraulic model evaluation prepared by PARE in April 2006 for the proposed RNE facility (now Reeb Millwork Corporation), the facility required 2,000 gpm for fire protection. At 2,000 gpm the model reported a residual pressure of 21 psi, just above the required minimum pressure of 20 psi. With the existing tank offline, the hydraulic model indicates that the residual pressure in the system would fall well below 20 psi at a fire flow of 2,000 gpm, even below 0 psi under certain circumstances. Based on these results, it appears that the existing tank is critical to fire protection in this area of the system. Consequently, demolition of the existing tank with no replacement option is not a viable alternative. Moreover, removing the existing tank from the system with no replacement option would result in a decrease in redundancy in the system – only the Island Woods tank would remain to serve this part of the system. While there appears to be adequate volume in the Island Woods tank, without redundancy this tank would need to remain in service without disruption, which would make maintenance and future repairs difficult. While this option is not recommended, it would be the least expensive option. The cost for this option would likely be in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 for the demolition of the existing tank. Please note that these costs do not include the cost of lead remediation at the site, if present. If lead contamination is present at the site, due to the potential use of lead-based paint on the tank exterior, it would need to be addressed regardless of what option is selected. The cost of lead remediation is highly variable based on the degree of contamination and site constraints, and therefore has not been included in this analysis. Scenario 4: Similar to Scenario 1, demolishing the existing Rocky Hill Road tank and building a new tank at the same location with the same overflow elevation would result in little to no adverse impact on the existing water supply system pressure, fire protection, or emergency conditions. The new tank would maintain the existing 521 ft HGL for this pressure zone and provide the same volume of water for fire protection and emergency conditions as the existing tank. Due to existing topographic constraints, the neighborhood directly abutting the tank will continue to have low water pressure. If the proposed tank could be constructed at a slightly higher HGL, this tank could provide higher pressure to these customers, which would result in an improvement in service in this area. However, if the Rocky Hill Road tank were raised but the Island Woods tank kept at the same elevation as it is now, the Island Woods tank would likely become “locked up”, meaning the pressure in the system would be too high for water to come out of the tank, resulting in essentially stagnant water in the tank. This would result in an increase in water age in the Island Woods tank and a decrease in water quality in the SWSB’s water supply system. Therefore, without making significant changes to how the system is operated, a new tank at this site would need to be built with the same overflow elevation as the existing tank (521 ft MSL). However, the Town could consider building a different style tank than the existing ground storage tank, such as an

DRAFT


elevated storage tank. An elevated tank would provide a greater percentage of usable storage by elevating the entire volume of stored water, although it is unlikely that the entire storage volume would be usable given how small the usable storage range is (approximately 5 feet). For example, a 1.0 MG elevated storage tank with a side wall depth of 30 feet would have approximately 161,000 gallons of usable storage, compared to the current tank’s 125,000 gallons of usable storage. While an elevated storage tank provides a marginal increase in usable storage, the cost of an elevated tank is significantly higher than a ground storage tank with the same volume. Provided in the table below is a comparison of the usable storage provided by different style tanks with 1 million gallons of volume. For comparison purposes, the table also provides the costs for 0.5 million gallon tanks of different styles to show how the cost per gallon of usable storage compares.

TABLE 2 Proposed Tank Usable Storage Cost Estimate

Proposed Tank Cost ($)

Usable Storage Volume

(cf)

Usable Storage Volume

(gal)

Cost/Gallon Usable Storage

($/gal) 0.5 MG Ground $ 1,000,000 6,927 51,816 $ 19.30

0.5 MG Elevated $ 1,500,000 13,210 98,814 $ 15.18

1.0 MG Ground $ 1,500,000 13,670 102,251 $ 14.67

1.0 MG Elevated $ 2,500,000 21,504 160,851 $ 15.54

The tank with the lowest cost per gallon is a 1.0 MG ground storage tank, although it is only slightly less expensive than the cost per gallon for an elevated tank and provides quite a bit less actual usable storage. Should the Town choose to demolish the existing tank and build a new tank with the same volume on the same site, PARE’s opinion of probable construction costs is approximately $1,500,000, which includes a 1.0 MG ground-level prestressed concrete storage tank, site work, electrical, and other miscellaneous costs. As previously mentioned, PARE proposes that the replacement tank be constructed of concrete due to the reduction in maintenance costs over the life of the tank. The 50-year life cycle costs for this option are anticipated to be approximately $2.1M, which includes the initial cost of building the new tank. If the Town were to select an elevated 1.0 MG tank, the total life cycle costs would increase to approximately $2.6M.

DRAFT


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A comparison of each scenario with respect to costs, system pressure, fire protection, and system vulnerability during emergency conditions is provided in the following table.

TABLE 3 Scenario Comparison

Scenario Initial Capital Cost

50-Year Life Cycle Costs

System Pressure Impact

Fire Protection Impact

Emergency Condition Impact

1 $680,000 $ 2.3M None None None

2 N/A N/A None Negative (Adverse) Positive (Beneficial)

3 $80,000 $80,000 None Negative (Adverse) Negative (Adverse)

4 $1.5M to $2.5M $2.1M to $2.6M None None None

Scenario 1: Rehabilitate the existing tank Scenario 2: Demolish the existing tank and build a new tank at another suitable location within the system Scenario 3: Demolish the existing tank without replacing it Scenario 4: Demolish the existing tank and build a new tank at the same location Based on current system hydraulics, demolition of the existing tank without replacement (Scenario 3) or replacing the demolished tank with a new tank in a different location within the system (Scenario 2) are not viable scenarios due to fire protection requirements for businesses in the area of the system surrounding the Rocky Hill Road tank and tank construction constraints surrounding these businesses located along Business Park Drive (e.g., vicinity to airport, wetlands, etc.). Therefore, in lieu of reinvesting in the 50-year-old tank with an escalating maintenance cost (Scenario 1), it appears that building a new tank at the same location is the most cost-effective option for the Town (Scenario 4). Based on the usable storage analysis performed by PARE, replacing the existing tank with a new 1.0 MG ground level storage tank provides the lowest cost per gallon of usable storage. Although the 1.0 MG elevated water storage tank would provide the most usable storage in the tank and enhance water quality through an increased tank turnover rate, the price of the elevated tank would be greater than the ground level storage tank, both in total construction cost and cost per gallon of usable storage. This usable storage could be greatly increased should the Town choose to construct an elevated tank with a higher HGL. Under existing conditions, if the Rocky Hill Road tank were raised but the Island Woods tank kept at the same elevation as it is now, the Island Woods tank would likely become “locked up”, resulting in essentially stagnant water in the tank. However, the SWSB Capital Improvement Plan includes the future installation of an emergency interconnection with the Town of Lincoln Water Commission (LWC). This project would require the construction of a pump station at the emergency interconnection to boost the HGL from Lincoln to Smithfield. In lieu of replacing the existing tank with a new ground level storage tank, PARE recommends the SWSB implement the emergency interconnection project in conjunction with the installation of an elevated storage tank and pressure reducing valve. This would allow the SWSB to create a new Rocky Hill Road tank pressure zone served through a permanent interconnection with the LWC, thereby increasing usable storage and alleviating pressure concerns limited by the HGL of the Island Woods Tank while maintaining an adequate volume of storage to be used for fire flow requirements and emergency conditions in this area of the system. Moreover, adding a

DRAFT


new pressure zone as part of the proposed emergency interconnection project will alleviate many of the issues the existing Rocky Hill Road tank has with turnover, pressure, and water quality. We would be pleased to meet with the Town to discuss the findings of this report at your convenience. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (401) 334-4100. Sincerely, Timothy P. Thies, P.E. Managing Engineer TPT/SPD/abv Enclosures cc: George G. Palmisciano, P.E. – Pare Corporation L:\03066.37 SWSB Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation\REPORTS\Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation.doc

DRAFT

Year Item CostFuture Worth

0 Inspection+Stripping/Repainting + Repairs $681,000 $681,0005

1015 15 Year Maintenance $254,000 $317,559202530 30 Year Maintenance $546,000 $853,442354045 45 Year Maintenance $254,000 $496,37050

Total: $1,735,000 $2,348,371

Future Worth:

Inflation Rate (inf) 1.5%Notes on Welded Steel Tank Maintenance:

15 / 45 Yr. Maintenance Surface Prep / Coat $9.00 /s.f. Inspection Cost $15,000.00

30 Yr. Maintenance Exterior Surface Prep / Paint $17.50 /s.f. Interior Strip / Recoat $15.25 /s.f. Inspection Cost $15,000.00

Surface Area: 11,715 s.f. exterior14,805 s.f. interior

Repairs to Tank: $100,000Retrofit with Mixing System: $75,000Engineering/Permitting Fees for Initial Rehab Work: $75,000

50 Year Future Cost AnalysisExisting 1.0 MG Steel Tank

tFW CC inf)1(*)( +=

DRAFT


0 New Tank Installation $1,500,000 $1,500,0005

1015 15 Year Maintenance $125,000 $156,279202530 30 Year Maintenance $125,000 $195,385354045 45 Year Maintenance $125,000 $244,27750

Total: $1,875,000 $2,095,941

Future Worth:

Inflation Rate (inf) 1.5%Notes on Concrete Tank Maintenance:

50 Year Future Cost Analysis

Mainteance on the tank includes repair of spalled concrete, painting, repair/replacement of metal appurtenances, and inspection.

The initial cost of this option also includes $50,000 for the demolition of the existing tank.

Proposed 1.0 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank

tFW CC inf)1(*)( +=

DRAFT


0 New Tank Installation $2,500,000 $2,500,0005

10 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $5,8031520 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $6,7342530 30 Year Maintenance $25,000 $39,0773540 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $9,0704550 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $10,526

Total: $2,545,000 $2,571,210

Future Worth:

Inflation Rate (inf) 1.5%Notes on Elevated Glass-Fused-to-Steel Tank Maintenance:

50 Year Future Cost AnalysisProposed 1.0 MG Elevated Glass-Fused-to-Steel Tank

Mainteance on the tank includes repair of spalled concrete on pedestal, painting, repair/replacement of metal appurtenances, replacement of cathodic protection, checking and replacement of sealant around bolts and plates, and inspection.

The initial cost of this option also includes $50,000 for the demolition of the existing tank.

tFW CC inf)1(*)( +=

DRAFT

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX E

Water Supply System Photography

Pare Corpporation

WAT

Figure

Figure 2: L

TER SUP

1: Longvie

Longview Em

PPLY SY

w Pump Sta

mergency G

YSTEM P

ation (Photo

Generator (Ph

PHOTO

taken Novem

hoto taken N

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

OGRAPH

mber 12, 20

November 12

al ImprovementWater Supply Smithfield, RI

Project No. 030

HY

15)

2, 2015)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figure

Figure 4: L

3: Limeroc

Limerock Em

ck Pump Sta

mergency G

tion (Photo t

enerator (Ph

taken Novem

hoto taken N

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

mber 12, 201

November 12


Project No. 030

15)

2, 2015)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figu

Figure 6:

ure 5: Davis

: Davis Eme

Pump Statio

ergency Gen

on (Photo tak

nerator (Phot

ken Novemb

to taken Nov

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

ber 12, 2015

vember 12, 2


Project No. 030

5)

2015)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figur

Fig

re 7: Davis

ure 8: Burli

Propane Tan

ingame Tank

nk (Photo tak

k (Photo take

aken Novemb

en Novembe

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

ber 12, 2015

er 12, 2015)


Project No. 030

5)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figure

Figur

9: Burlinga

re 10: Island

ame Valve V

d Woods Tan

Vault (Photo

nk (Photo ta

taken Novem

aken Novemb

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

mber 12, 20

ber 12, 2015


Project No. 030

15)

5)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figure 1

Figu

1: Island W

ure 12: Roc

Woods Valve

cky Hill Tank

Vault (Phot

k (Photo tak

to taken Nov

ken Novembe

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

vember 12, 2

er 12, 2015)


Project No. 030

2015)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

Pare Corpporation

Figure 13: Rocky HHill Valve V

Vault (Photo

taken Nove

CapitaSmithfield

Pare P

ember 12, 20


Project No. 030

015)

ts Plan Board 02917

066.41

smithfield water supply board system evaluation … › pdf › water › cip - october 2016 with...

Documents