Smithfield Water Supply Board Water Supply System Management Plan Volume I

REPORT Pare Project No. 03066.40

SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN VOLUME I

PREPARED FOR:

Town of Smithfield 64 Farnum Pike Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917

PREPARED BY:

Pare Corporation 8 Blackstone Valley Place Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865

FINAL VERSION FEBRUARY 2017

Contents

Executive Summary

Section 1 Statement of Goals ………………………………………………………………….1-1

1.1 General ………………………………………………………………………...1-1 1.2 State Guide Plan Element 721 – Rhode Island Water 2030 …………………..1-2 1.3 RIWRB Strategic Plan ………………………………………………………...1-2 1.4 Comprehensive Plans ………………………………………………………….1-3

Section 2 Water Supply System Description ………………………………………………….2-1

2.1 Legal Structure and Organization…………………………………………….2-1 2.2 System Overview …………………………………………………………….2-4

2.2.1 Water Supply Sources ……………………………………………….2-4

2.3 Infrastructure Components……………………………………………………2-4

2.3.1 Treatment Facilities ………………………………………………….2-4 2.3.2 Storage Facilities …………………………………………………….2-5 2.3.3 Pump Stations ……………………………………………………….2-6 2.3.4 Transmission Mains …………………………………………………2-8

2.4 Interconnections………………………………………………………………2-8 2.5 Service Area ………………………………………………………………….2-9

2.5.1 Geographic Area …………………………………………………….2-9 2.5.2 Present and Historic Water Services ……………………………….2-11 2.5.3 Present Population Served………………………………………….2-11 2.5.4 Population Demographics ………………………………………….2-11

2.6 Source and Distribution Metering …………………………………………..2-12

2.6.1 Master (Source) Meters …………………………………………….2-12 2.6.2 Distribution Meters…………………………………………………2-12

2.7 System Production Data …………………………………………………….2-13

2.8 System Water Use …………………………………………………………..2-13

2.8.1 System-Wide and Per Capita Water Use…………………………...2-13 2.8.2 Water Use by Category …………………………………………….2-14 2.8.3 Major Users ………………………………………………………...2-15 2.8.4 Non-Billed Water and Fire Fighting ……………………………….2-15 2.8.5 Water Conservation Programs ……………………………………..2-16

2.9 Water System Deficiencies and Needed System Improvements……………2-16

Pare Corporation

Section 3 Water Quality Protection Component ………………………………………………3-1

Section 4 Supply Management ………………………………………………………………..4-1

4.1 General ……………………………………………………………………….4-1 4.2 Anticipated Future Demands …………………………………………………4-1

4.2.1 Projected Water Demand ……………………………………………4-1 4.2.2 Population and Economic Impacts on Demand ……………………..4-3 4.2.3 Legal Obligations ……………………………………………………4-3 4.2.4 Category & Subcategory and Major Users Future Demand…………4-4 4.2.5 Non-Account Water Use …………………………………………….4-4 4.2.6 Non-Potable Water Use ……………………………………………..4-5

4.3 Available Water………………………………………………………………4-5 4.4 Alternate Supply ……………………………………………………………...4-6 4.5 Supply Augmentation Studies ………………………………………………..4-6

Section 5 Demand Management ………………………………………………………………5-1

5.1 General ……………………………………………………………………….5-1 5.2 Demand Management Strategy (2012) ………………………………………5-1

5.2.1 Goals…………………………………………………………………5-1 5.2.2 Residential Average Annual Per-Capita Water Use…………………5-2 5.2.3 Efficient Water Use ………………………………………………….5-3 5.2.4 Full Accounting of Non-Billed Water ………………………………5-4 5.2.5 Leakage………………………………………………………………5-4 5.2.6 User Metering and Billing …………………………………………..5-4

5.3 Residential Retrofit Program …………………………………………………5-5 5.4 Major Users Technical Assistance Program………………………………….5-5

Section 6 System Management ………………………………………………………………..6-1

6.1 General ……………………………………………………………………….6-1 6.2 Meter Installation, Maintenance, and Replacement (MIMR) Plan …………..6-1

6.2.1 Maintenance and Replacement Schedule…………….…………….. 6-1 6.2.2 Major User Meters…………………………….…………………… 6-2 6.2.3 System Interconnections/Master Meters…………………………… 6-2

6.3 Leak Detection and Repair Program/Meter Improvement Program….……. 6-2 6.4 Preventative Maintenance Plan……………………………………….……. 6-3

Section 7 Emergency Management……………………………………………………………7-1

Pare Corporation

Section 8 Drought Management ………………………………………………………………8-1

8.1 General ……………………………………………………………………….8-1 8.2 Drought Management Procedures ……………………………………………8-2

Section 9 Plan Implementation………………………………………………… ……………..9-1

9.1 General………………………………………………………………………..9-1

Section 10 Financial Management… ………………………………………………………….10-1

10.1 General………………………………………………………………………10-1

10.2 Current Financial Management Practices ………………………………….10-1

10.2.1 Summary of Operating Income and Expenses ……………………..10-2 10.2.2 Current Water Rate Structure ………………………………………10-3 10.2.3 Frequency of Billing and Collections………………………………10-4

10.3 Future Revenue Sources …………………………………………………….10-4

10.3.1 Town of Smithfield General Obligation Bonds ……………………10-4 10.3.2 Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency ……………………….10-4 10.3.3 Rhode Island Water Resources Board ……………………………..10-4

10.4 Assessment of Rates……………………………. …………………………..10-5

10.5 Billing….……………………………………………………………………10-5

10.5.1 Joint Billing ………………………………………………………...10-6

Section 11 Coordination ………………………………………………………………………11-1

11.1 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ……………………………………11-1

11.1.1 Smithfield Comprehensive Plan ……………………………………11-1 11.1.2 North Providence Comprehensive Plan ……………………………11-2

11.2 Coordination with Other Water Suppliers ………………………………….11-3

11.3 Coordination with Wastewater Collection Systems ………………………...11-4

11.4 Coordination with Local Fire Departments …………………………………11-4

Pare Corporation

List of Figures

Figure

2-1 SWSB Organizational Structure ………………………………………………………2-3

List of Tables

Table

4-1 Anticipated Future Water Demand …………………………………………………….4-2

4-2 Anticipated Future Wholesale & Non-Account Water ………………………………...4-3

8-1 SWSB Drought Conditions Response Actions ………………………………………...8-3

9-1 Implementation Schedule ………………………………………………………………9-2

10-1 SWSB Total Revenue & Expenses (2011-2013) ……………………………………..10-1

Attachments

Attachment No. 1 SWSB Water System

Appendices

Appendix A WSSMP Worksheets Appendix B SWSB Rules & Regulations Appendix C SWSB Wholesale Agreements Appendix D Consumer Confidence Report (2013) Appendix E Operational Evaluation Reports (OERs) Appendix F Hydraulic Model Update/System Buildout Analysis Appendix G Water System Mutual Aid Agreement Appendix H Audited Financial Summary Appendix I Town Planner Coordination Letters Appendix J SWSB Capital Improvement Plan

Pare Corporation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Water Supply System Management Plan (WSSMP) has been prepared as required under Rhode Island General Laws 46-15.3, as amended and titled “The Water Supply System Management Planning Act” (Act). The legislative authority to effectuate the goals and policies of this Act has been conferred to the Rhode Island Water Resources Board (RIWRB). To this end, the RIWRB has promulgated the Rules and Regulations for Water Supply System Management Planning (“Rules”), last revised in October 2002, as amended to implement the provisions of the Act.

The Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB), as a water purveyor supplying over 50 million gallons (MG) of water per year, is responsible for updating its WSSMP every 5 years. This document is the 2015 Update of the WSSMP for the SWSB. The WSSMP has been prepared to be consistent with the goals of the Rules as well as the strategies and goals articulated in the RIWRB’s 2012 Strategic Plan and the RIWRB’s Water Use and Efficiency Rule for Major Water Suppliers. It is also consistent with the goals of State Guide Plan Element No. 721 – RI Water 2030 and the goals stipulated in the Comprehensive Plans for the Towns of Smithfield and North Providence.

Introduction

The SWSB’s primary objective is to operate a water system for the benefit of, and to meet the legitimate needs of, the customers in its service area. In accordance with that objective, the SWSB’s specific goals are to:

1. Promote the efficient use of water through: - conservation and efficient operation of the system in accordance with industry and State standards; and - effective metering and public information programs that encourage water conservation. 2. Comply with all applicable laws and regulations. 3. Protect the integrity of its existing source of supply connection to the Providence Water Supply Board (Providence Water). 4. Cooperate with the overall goals of the Town of Smithfield and the Town of North Providence as outlined in their respective Comprehensive Plans. 5. Provide for service to all locations within its service area. 6. Conform to the overall goals for water suppliers established in State Guide Plan Element No. 721 – Rhode Island Water 2030.

Pare Corporation - i -

Background

The Town of Smithfield, through the SWSB, owns and operates a public water distribution system in a non-exclusive territory, serving portions of the Towns of Smithfield and North Providence. The SWSB was developed from a subsequent Water Supply Commission enacted by the Town of Smithfield. This Commission was authorized and established by Chapter 1676, 1930 Public Laws of Rhode Island with the purpose of developing “an accurate and comprehensive study of the water supply of the Town of Smithfield”. Today, the Town Council acts as the Board of Water Commissioners for the SWSB.

Water system management and day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the Water Commissioner and SWSB staff. Mr. Charles Walsh is the Acting Water Commissioner, as well as Deputy Director of Public Works for the Town of Smithfield. The SWSB has two other full time employees, both identified as “Field Observers”.

The SWSB operates out of the Smithfield DPW facility at the following location:

3 Spragueville Road Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917 Telephone Number: 401-233-1034

The SWSB’s mailing address is at the Smithfield Town Hall, as follows:

64 Farnum Pike Smithfield, RI 02917 General Number: 401-233-1000

General System Description

The SWSB water system consists of approximately 36 miles of distribution and transmission mains supplied by one primary interconnection with Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir in North Providence. The SWSB does not have any of their own sources of supply and does not typically treat wholesale water purchased from Providence Water. Occasionally, chlorine injection is performed to boost chlorine residual.

Pare Corporation - ii -

The SWSB’s Longview Reservoir Pump Station draws water from the interconnection and boosts pressure to raise its hydraulic grade. The Limerock Booster Pump Station works in conjunction with the Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station to boost pressure again to the system’s main pressure zone. Each pump station is rated to approximately 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and both have three variable frequency drive pumps. A third pump station, the Davis Booster Pump Station, raises pressure to meet the hydraulic grade of an isolated section in the northwest part of the service area. This pump station has two constant speed, 150 gallon-per-minute (GPM) pumps.

There are three storage tanks in the system, as follows:

 1.0 MG Rocky Hill Road Tank;  4.0 MG Island Woods Tank; and  300,000 Gallon Burlingame Tank.

All three tanks are of steel construction and require rehabilitation of the interior and exterior coatings. This work, along with the addition of tank mixing systems, is anticipated to be performed in upcoming years.

The SWSB sells water to the East Smithfield Water District (ESWD) system through a wholesale interconnection on Ridge Road in Smithfield. The SWSB also has an emergency interconnection with the ESWD at Meadow View Drive and recently constructed a new emergency interconnection with the Greenville Water District (GWD) at the GWD’s new storage tank in the vicinity of the SWSB’s Burlingame Tank (it is noted that Providence Water has taken over the ESWD system, effective January 2017).

Average Day Demand (ADD) for 2014 was estimated to be 0.89 MGD based on total water use by the retail customer base of 323.22 million gallons. Total wholesale water purchased in 2014 was approximately 364 million gallons, an average of 1.0 MGD. The Maximum Day Demand (MDD) was estimated to be 1.7 MGD using a MDD to ADD peaking factor of 1.9.

Residential average daily per capita water use was estimated to be approximately 41.7 GPCD based on a service area population of 9,260 residents. Residential water use was approximately 44% of the total water use, while the remainder is grouped together and categorized as commercial/industrial. Major Users, customers that use at least 3 million gallons of water annually, represent a large proportion of commercial/industrial water use. There were 12 Major Users in 2014 and as many as 15

Pare Corporation - iii -

customers have qualified as Major Users in the past. Bryant University is the most significant of these major users, and the SWSB will coordinate with them to identify ways they may be able to institute water conservation measures.

There were approximately 1,457 active accounts in 2014, as follows:

 Residential 1,297  Commercial: 142  Industrial: 13  Government: 5  Total: 1,457

All services are metered and the SWSB recently upgraded to system-wide radio-read metering. Major Users are metered and billed monthly while the remaining customer base is metered and billed quarterly.

Anticipated future demands exceed the capacity of the SWSB’s interconnection with Providence Water under maximum demand conditions. While the system has sufficient storage capacity to meet these demands, it may result in depletion of storage for fire-fighting or other emergencies. This has led the SWSB to explore interconnections with other water systems (e.g. emergency interconnection recently established with the GWD and interconnections with the Town of Lincoln are under consideration). The SWSB will also coordinate with Providence Water regarding an increase in the 1.97 mgd of water they are allowed to purchase at the Longview interconnection. It is the SWSB’s understanding that Providence Water is generally supportive of this. This would require piping improvements in the SWSB system and installation of larger pumps at the Longview Booster Pump Station, and possibly also at the Limerock Booster Pump Station, as their maximum pumping rate is set at 1.97 mgd.

The SWSB also recently updated their 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which identifies large scale capital projects that would increase supply in the system. This would be done through a combination of developing new interconnections but also by making piping improvements at critical locations to more efficiently move water throughout the existing system.

Pare Corporation - iv -

The six major capital projects identified in the CIP are as follows:

 CIP No. 1 – New 1 MG storage tank and interconnection with Lincoln Water Commission at George Washington Highway.  CIP No. 2 – Installation of 4,800 linear feet of new water in Douglas Pike  CIP No. 3 – Installation of 6,900 linear feet of new 12-inch DI water main in Ridge Road and Limerock Road  CIP No. 4 – Installation of 7,700 linear feet of new 12-inch DI water main on Ridge Road and Stillwater Road  CIP No. 5 – Installation of 4,885 linear feet of 16-inch DI water main on George Washington Highway and Farnum Pike  CIP No. 6 – Installation of 8,500 linear feet of 12-inch DI water main in Harris Road

The SWSB may pursue other opportunities for increasing supply in the system, and is exploring possible other interconnections with the Lincoln Water Commission, such as one at Twin River Road. The SWSB has met with Lincoln Water and while Lincoln Water is amenable to interconnections between the two systems, the available supply in either system needs to be evaluated further.

Water Quality Protection Component

The SWSB collects the charges associated with the water quality protection program and issues them to Providence Water and the Rhode Island Water Resources Board, as required, in accordance with the Public Drinking Water Protection Program (RIGL 46-15.3). This program distributes funds which are used for land acquisitions and to purchase development rights within the supply watershed areas to help protect water quality.

Water quality in the SWSB system has generally been good and compliant with State Standards. However, a chlorine injection system was installed at the Limerock Pump Station in 2011 to raise chlorine residual in the system due to previous exceedances of total coliforms. This system has only been used on occasion and is intended for seasonal use. Its use has not been required since 2012.

Sampling and analysis performed by the SWSB for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) indicated that the running average TTHM concentration following the 1st Quarter of 2014 was 83.05 mg/L. A violation for TTHMs is triggered when the running average from the previous three quarters of sampling

Pare Corporation - v -

exceeds the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 80 mg/L. The running average increased to 85.5 mg/L following testing done in the 2nd Quarter of 2014, but testing performed for the 3rd Quarter of 2014 resulted in lower concentrations of TTHMs that decreased the running average concentration to below 80 mg/L. The running average TTHM concentration has remained below 80 mg/L since.

The concentrations of TTHMs in the samples collected in the SWSB distribution system were found to be very similar to concentrations in the wholesale water entering the system from the Longview Reservoir. There appears to be relatively little TTHM formation within the SWSB system itself. As such, the SWSB has coordinated with Providence Water and met with them in June 2014 to discuss strategies for lowering TTHM concentrations in the wholesale water sold to the SWSB. Providence Water indicated that they are evaluating water age and mixing at all of their storage facilities in an effort to reduce formation of TTHMs, with the Longview Reservoir being their highest priority. The SWSB is performing a similar evaluation at their three storage facilities and is considering the addition of mixing systems at their storage tanks in the near future.

Anticipated Future Demands

Anticipated future demands were developed based upon several factors, including:

 historic trends for water use;  anticipated population changes;  effects of conservation efforts;  building code changes and efficiency of water using facilities and equipment (both system and user facilities and equipment);  service area zoning and municipal policies; and  known or anticipated major water user considerations.

Table 2 presents anticipated water use in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods with consideration to the factors identified above.

Pare Corporation - vi -

Table 2: Anticipated Future Water Demand

Current 5-Year 20-Year

[2014] Period Period Residential Water Use (mgd) 0.39 0.41 0.46 Comm./Ind. Water Use (mgd) 0.50 0.765 1.257 Average Day Demand (mgd) 0.89 1.175 1.717 Total Demand (MG) 323.22 429 627 Maximum Day Demand (mgd) 1.7 2.35 3.43 MDD to ADD Peak Factor* 1.9 2.0 2.0 * Peaking factor assumed to be 2.0 based on historic water use estimates. AWWA Manual M32 suggests that typical MDD to ADD peaking factors range from 1.2 to 2.5.

Table 2 presents anticipated average and maximum daily water use in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods. Commercial water use projections are consistent with estimates made in a 2007 Buildout Analysis performed by the Town as well as planned expansion and development of the Town’s Planned Corporate District. Residential projections are based on an assumption of an average of 60 new residents in the SWSB service area each year, each using 65 gallons per day on average which is equivalent to the State’s residential per capita water use goal. Actual residential per capita water use is currently less than this, so this may be a conservative approach for projecting future water use. Population growth is based on the assumption that 48 new housing units are constructed in the Town of Smithfield each year and that approximately half of these would be built in the SWSB service area with an average occupancy of 2.5 people per unit. These assumptions have been made based on recent discussions with the Smithfield Town Planner. The MDD has been estimated to be 1.7 mgd in recent years and it has been projected for future years using a MDD to ADD multiplier of 2.0.

Table 3 provides annual water use by retail customers, wholesale water sales to the ESWD, an estimate of non-account water and the total wholesale purchase from Providence Water for the 2014. Projections for the 5-year and 20-year planning periods have also been provided. Estimates for non- account water have bene made assuming it is 8% of total wholesale water purchases for the 5-year and 20-year planning periods, consistent with current estimates.

Pare Corporation - vii -

Table 3: Anticipated Future Wholesale & Non-Account Water

Current 5-Year 20-Year

[2014] Period Period Total Water Use – Retail Base (MG) 323.22 429 627 Wholesale Water Sales to ESWD (MG) 11.26 12 12 Non Account Water (MG) 29.65 35.3 51.1 Total Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) 364.13 476.3 690.1 Average Daily Wholesale 1.0 1.3 1.9 Water Purchases (MG)

Available Water

The SWSB and Providence Water reached an agreement in 1993 that allows the SWSB to purchase up to 1.965 MGD, identified as a “projection of a maximum demand…in the year 2004”. This agreement was reached at the time the SWSB was undergoing the EPA system expansion and performing the system upgrades associated with the Davis Waste Site. Although this was based on a projection for 2004, the estimated MDD has historically been below 1.965 mgd and there is no expiration date identified in the agreement. The SWSB continues to follow this agreement for wholesale water purchases from Providence Water.

Existing infrastructure at the interconnection (i.e. pumps at Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station and transmission piping) is designed for a maximum of 1.965 mgd. However, future maximum day demands are expected to exceed this current limit. Upgrades would be necessary to increase the maximum supply available from this interconnection, in addition to consent from Providence Water. It is the SWSB’s understanding that Providence Water would be amenable to selling more water to the SWSB under this scenario. Also, system modifications such as some of those identified in the CIP may increase the capacity of existing infrastructure by reducing friction losses in the system.

The SWSB does not have access to suitable water supply sources of its own. However, development of alternative sources of supply from other suppliers is possible, such as the Lincoln Water Commission. The SWSB is considering the potential of establishing new emergency interconnections with the Lincoln Water Commission (LWC), which has interconnections with the municipal water systems in Woonsocket, Cumberland, and Pawtucket in addition to their primary connection to

Pare Corporation - viii -

Providence Water. Supply augmentation studies are intended to investigate and recommend alternative water supply sources due to anticipated shortfalls in the quality or quantity of existing supplies. The SWSB has not conducted supply augmentation studies and does not believe they are required at this time.

Demand Management

The Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers, adopted May 16, 2011, established efficient water use targets for major public water suppliers, which includes the SWSB. One of these targets is that residential average per capita water use be no higher than 65 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The average annual per capita water use for Fiscal Year 2014 was approximately 41.7 gpcd and the SWSB has consistently met this target. While many multi-family housing units are not included in this rate because they are metered and billed as commercial customers, the SWSB has a high level of confidence that per capita residential water use still meets the State’s goal even with multi-family housing included. Incorporating the multi-family housing units that also qualify as “Major Users”, residential water use estimated in 2014 would result in approximately 50 gpcd, still well below 65 gpcd.

The SWSB has implemented programs to improve the efficiency of indoor and outdoor water use by its customers, generally in parallel with programs conducted by Providence Water. One such strategy employed by the SWSB has been to offer complimentary retrofit kits to their residential customers. The SWSB has often used mailings and information on their website to educate its customers about efficient water use in the past. Continuing to provide notifications in the annual water bill and on the Town’s website, as well as placing informational door hangers at customer’s homes, conducting public workshops, and soliciting public notices, are all possible methods the SWSB may use to continue educating its customers about efficient water use.

The SWSB’s Demand Management Strategy, prepared in 2012, provided an estimated average leakage rate for 2009-2011 of approximately 6%. Leakage ranged from 3% to 8% during this time period, meeting the State’s 10% goal for leakage. Leakage in the system continues to meet the State’s goal. Non-account water, the majority of which is considered to be leakage, was estimated to be approximately 8.1% in 2014. The SWSB has historically estimated water used by the local fire departments for hydrant flushing and fire-fighting to be approximately 12% of total non-account water, but has found this to be an overestimate. The SWSB recently began coordinating with the Smithfield Fire Department for more accurate estimates of water use for fire-fighting.

Pare Corporation - ix -

Total wholesale water purchased from Providence Water was approximately 364 million gallons for Fiscal Year 2014. This averages 1.0 MGD for the year. The ADD for this time period, based on distribution meter readings, is approximately 0.89 MGD over the entire year while it is approximately 1.0 MGD during the summer months. Demand is somewhat higher in the summer months as it is in most systems, yet the increase in water use in the summer compared to other times of the year is not as severe as in other systems. This is likely due to the fact that the system has a relatively high commercial water demand and that the system’s largest user, Bryant University, has limited enrollment and activity during the summer months

System Management

The major goals of system management include the following:

 Maintaining non-account water use to below 15% of total system demand, in accordance with State Guide Plan Element 721;  Reducing leakage to below 10% of system demand;  Establishing a preventive maintenance program; and  Maintaining compliance with the applicable requirements of the Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers.

All delivered water, excluding leakage and approved non-billed uses (e.g. hydrant flushing, fire- fighting) is metered and billed. Leakage has routinely been calculated below 10% of total water use, in accordance with the Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers. Non-account water has consistently been below 15%, in accordance with State Guide Plan Element 721.

The SWSB meters 100% of the users in the system and this will continue to be their policy. The SWSB recently completed the retrofit and conversion of distribution meters to remote read type meters in accordance with State requirements. Major User meters are read and billed monthly while other meters are read quarterly, complying with RIGL §46-15.3-22.

The SWSB performed a leak detection survey in early 2014, hiring Atlantic States Rural Water and Wastewater Association to perform an acoustic survey of the entire system. The survey was performed after the SWSB noticed an increase in unaccounted water use, and leaks were

Pare Corporation - x -

subsequently repaired. Leakage in the system remains relatively low. The SWSB will continue to monitor leakage and recently purchased its own leak detection device to monitor for leakage between formal leak surveys. The SWSB will perform subsequent leak detection surveys should leakage increase to rates close to or above the State’s 10% goal.

The SWSB maintains an active Preventative Maintenance (PM) Plan. Major infrastructure components in the SWSB system that require ongoing preventative maintenance include the three storage tanks and three pump stations. Pumps and emergency power equipment are inspected and exercised weekly, and the SWSB hires a contractor to perform tank inspections approximately every five years. Additionally, SWSB staff performs routine system maintenance activities on other system components, such as exercising valves and flushing hydrants annually. The SWSB also maintains records of water main breaks in the system, detailing the size of the break, its location, the pipe size and material, and the repair method used.

Emergency Management

An updated Emergency Response Plan was prepared as part of this WSSMP, which generally establishes the following:

 Responsibilities and authority within the SWSB for responding to most probable emergencies;  Most probable causes for emergencies and their potential impacts to the system;  System components that are vulnerable to damage or incapacitation based on the most likely causes for emergency; and  Specific tasks for carrying out functional and constructive solutions based on a review of the potential emergencies and the associated system risks.

Drought Management

Drought is one specific type of emergency that is treated separately, as it can impact the system over an extended period of time. Drought management procedures followed by the SWSB, as outlined in the updated WSSMP, are meant to be consistent with State Guide Plan Element 721 - RI Water 2030 and the requirements of Section 8.09 of the October 2002 Rules and Procedures for Water Supply System Management Planning.

Pare Corporation - xi -

The five phases of drought consistent with the Drought Watch/Warning System of the National Weather Service, are:

 Normal;  Advisory;  Watch;  Warning; and  Emergency.

The SWSB relies solely on Providence Water for water supply and is therefore dependent on Providence Water for drought management at the source. The SWSB works in conjunction with Providence Water on preventive measures and maintenance to aid in drought management.

The ability of the SWSB to withstand a drought is largely dependent upon the water supply demands of Providence Water. The direct effects of drought on the SWSB system potentially include:

 Reduction of available wholesale water from Providence Water;  Reduction of Providence Water’s surface water levels which can adversely impact water quality in addition to water quantity;  Reduction in amount of water that can be sold to the ESWD; and  Reduction of operating income due to reduced delivery of water.

The SWSB has identified four water quantity tiers in its Emergency Response Plan. Water use reductions correspond with Tier 2 - 4 water quantity conditions based on the severity of the drought or emergency, as follows:

1. Tier 1 – 0.9 MGD – Water quantity consistent with normal operating conditions of the water system in regard to the ability to provide potable water for the average day use.

Pare Corporation - xii -

2. Tier 2 – 0.45 MGD 3. Tier 3 – 0.13 MGD 4. Tier 4 – 0.015 MGD

Table 4 shows response actions to be taken by the SWSB corresponding to various stages of drought.

Table 4: Drought Response Actions

Drought Phase SWSB Initial SWSB Response Actions Phase Identification Response RIWRB Coordinate/ Drought Consult with 1. Maintain Operations Normal Steering Providence Water

Committee (DSC) Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate w/ Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts Consult with and State Agencies per Emergency Management RIWRB Providence Water Advisory Plan (EMP) DSC 2. Respond per Tier 1 Water Quantity Condition in accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts Consult with RIWRB and State Agencies per EMP Watch Providence Water DSC 2. Respond per Tier 2 Water Quantity Condition in accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts Consult with RIWRB and State Agencies per EMP Warning Providence Water DSC 2. Respond per Tier 3 Water Quantity Condition in accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts Consult with RIWRB and State Agencies per EMP Emergency Providence Water DSC 2. Respond per Tier 4 Water Quantity Condition in accordance with EMP, as applicable

Implementation and Financial Management

A detailed schedule outlining the individuals responsible, timing, and capital costs associated with recommendations of this WSSMP has been developed and is presented in Table 5. This program has been compiled from the modifications and upgrades identified in the WSSMP. Also, the SWSB completed an update to their 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and the recommendations of

Pare Corporation - xiii -

that plan have been incorporated into this WSSMP. The SWSB also intends on completing a comprehensive rate study now that the update of their 20-year CIP is complete. The SWSB will look to establish water rates that are fair and economical yet adequate for loan repayment associated with these projects. Table 5: Implementation Schedule Estimated Estimated Possible Plan Element or Project Responsible Party Timeframe Cost Funding Source Water System Operational Procedures Institute full-accounting of non- SWSB 2015 N/A N/A billed water (Fire Dept., DPW use) Staff Revise SWSB Rules and SWSB Staff & 2016 N/A N/A Regulations Board of Directors Approach Providence Water SWSB regarding increase in allowable 2016 N/A N/A Director wholesale water purchases Coordinate with Bryant College for possible water conservation SWSB Director 2017 N/A N/A efforts Water System Planning SWSB Staff & General Operating Perform Rate Study Engineering 2017 $20,000 Budget Consultant Infrastructure Rehabilitation Install passive mixing systems at General Operating Outside Contractor 2015-2017 $300,000 each storage tank Budget Rehabilitate exterior/interior tank Drinking Water coatings and perform Outside Contractor 2016-2018 $3,000,000 SRF or Other miscellaneous structural repairs Loan Create system loop at Farnum Drinking Water Pike and George Washington Outside Contractor 2018-2020 $2,000,000 SRF or Other Highway Loan

Pare Corporation - xiv -

Table 5: Implementation Schedule (cont.) 2016 Capital Improvement Plan Projects Estimated Estimated Possible Funding Project Timeframe Cost Source Drinking Water CIP No. 1 – New 1 MG Storage Tank & Interconnection with 2017-2022 $5.1 Million SRF or Other Lincoln Water Commission at George Washington Highway Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 2 – Installation of 4,800 linear feet of new water 2022-2027 $1.9 Million SRF or Other main in Douglas Pike Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 3 – Installation of 6,900 linear feet of new 12-inch DI 2022-2027 $2.3 Million SRF or Other water main in Ridge Road and Limerock Road Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 4 – Installation of 7,700 linear feet of new 12-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.6 Million SRF or Other water main on Ridge Road and Stillwater Road Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 5 – Installation of 4,885 linear feet of 16-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.1 Million SRF or Other water main on George Washington Highway and Farnum Pike Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 6 – Installation of 8,500 linear feet of 12-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.9 Million SRF or Other water main in Harris Road Loan

The SWSB operates in a financially self-supporting manner and establishes water rates to fund operation and maintenance of the system. The SWSB intends on completing a comprehensive rate study now that update of their 20-year CIP is complete. The SWSB will look to establish water rates that are fair and economical yet adequate for loan repayment associated with these projects.

Table 6 summarizes the revenue and expenses for the SWSB for Fiscal Years 2011 - 2013. The SWSB Fiscal Year runs from July 1 through June 30.

Pare Corporation - xv -

Table 6: SWSB Total Revenue & Expenses (2011-2013)

2013 2012 2011 Total Revenues $1,450,424 $1,378,510 $1,399,134 Total Expenses $1,357,436 $1,338,080 $1,335,432 Total Income (Loss) $92,988 $40,430 $63,702

The SWSB uses an inclining block rate schedule based on water usage. Current water rates went into effect in 2010 and represent a 9.9% increase from previous rates. The rate increase was in response to an increase in the wholesale rate charged by Providence Water.

The current rates are as follows:

Tier I (0 – 100,000 gallons annually): $3.20/1,000 gallons Tier II (100,000 – 1,000,000 gallons annually): $3.80/1,000 gallons Tier III (Over 1,000,000 gallons annually): $4.40/1,000 gallons

Effectively, households that practice water conservation can fall into Tier I and pay the lowest rates, while households that use excessive amounts of water will likely be in Tier II. Many large commercial users will fall into Tier III but there is incentive for water conservation among many of the small and medium commercial customers to maintain water use within Tier II. The existing rate structure generally meets the State’s intent for the establishment of water rates that promote water conservation.

Major users are metered and billed monthly, while the rest of the customer base is now metered and billed quarterly.

Coordination

The WSSMP was prepared with consideration to the Comprehensive Plans of the Towns of Smithfield and North Providence. While little future development is anticipated in the part of the SWSB system in North Providence, the Town of Smithfield anticipates increases in residential and commercial development in several parts of the town. This includes areas served by the SWSB, including the Town’s Planned Corporate District along Douglas Pike (Route 7) and George

Pare Corporation - xvi -

Washington Highway (Route 116). Future development expectations have been used to project future water demands.

The SWSB and ESWD had reached a formal, signed agreement to consolidate both water systems into one new water district, entitled the “Smithfield Consolidated Water District”. The SWSB serves a slightly greater population and has approximately 30% higher annual water sales than the ESWD. Currently both systems are supplied entirely through wholesale purchases from Providence Water and they serve customers in both Smithfield and North Providence. Their service territories are immediately adjacent to each other and are already interconnected at Ridge Road. A closed interconnection at Meadow View Drive could also be opened to connect the two service areas. Consolidating the two districts would hope to achieve operational cost savings through shared resources, such as equipment and personnel.

Formation of this district would require an Act of Legislation to be passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly. Legislation was first introduced in the Rhode Island General Assembly in May 2013 and then again in 2014, but in both cases the bill was held for further study. Consolidation of two districts is still under consideration and may be pursued again in the future.

Pare Corporation - xvii -

SECTION 1.0 STATEMENT OF GOALS

1.1 General

The overall goal of this 5-year update to the Water Supply System Management Plan (WSSMP) for the Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) is to provide a document that complies with the provisions of the Water Supply System Management Act. Ultimately, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the past five years in order to establish the water system’s needs in the future. Appendix A includes the worksheets that accompany this WSSMP, with past and current data applicable to the system.

This document is intended to comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the Rules and Procedures for Water Supply System Management Planning, dated October 2002. These rules were promulgated in accordance with Chapter 42-35 pursuant to Chapter 46-15.3 of the Rhode Island General Laws, as amended.

Pare Corporation 1-1

1.2 State Guide Plan Element 721 - Rhode Island Water 2030

Goals and objectives specific to public water suppliers are outlined in State Guide Plan Element 721, Rhode Island Water 2030, and are summarized below. The vision of Rhode Island Water 2030 is “to ensure safe, reliable, ample water supplies to meet the State’s short and long range needs while preserving the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the water resources of the State.” The goals of this WSSMP are consistent with those of Rhode Island Water 2030, as follows:

Integrated Management and Planning Goals

IMP-1: Integrate water resources and supply planning for water systems across intergovernmental and regional jurisdictions.

IMP-2: Ensure the adequate technical, managerial, and financial capacity of water systems.

IMP-3: Manage and plan for water systems that support sustainable, compact land use and concentrate development within the urban service boundary and/or growth centers.

Water Resource Management Goals

WRM-1: Manage and plan for the sustainable water use and development of the water resources of the State.

WRM-2: Protect and preserve the health and ecological functions of the water resources of the State.

WRM-3: Ensure a reasonable supply of quality drinking water for the State.

WRM-4: Ensure the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and essential drinking water resources during water supply emergencies.

1.3 RIWRB Strategic Plan

The Rhode Island Water Resources Board (WRB) established a Strategic Plan in 2012 to articulate a strategy of achieving its primary duty, which is to “…regulate the proper development, protection, conservation and use of the water resources of the State”. These actions form the WRB’s four primary

Pare Corporation 1-2

goals for managing the water resources of the State. The SWSB shares these goals and operates the water system with those in mind. This WSSMP is intended to be consistent with these objectives.

1.4 Comprehensive Plans

Effort has been made in developing this WSSMP to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plans for the Towns of Smithfield and North Providence. As such, the planners from each town were contacted during preparation of this WSSMP to discuss matters that may impact the SWSB. This WSSMP has also been provided to the planners of both communities for their review relative to consistency with their comprehensive plan. Section 11 provides a more detailed discussion of both comprehensive plans as they relate to the SWSB water system.

Pare Corporation 1-3

SECTION 2.0 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1 Legal Structure and Organization

Water system management and day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the Water Commissioner and SWSB staff. Mr. Charles Walsh currently serves as the Acting Water Commissioner, as well as Deputy Director of Public Works for the Town of Smithfield. The SWSB has two other full time employees, both identified as “Field Observers”. Services performed by the Field Observers include:

 Operating and maintaining transmission and distribution mains throughout the system;  Operating and maintaining the system’s storage tanks and pump stations;  Performing emergency repairs to transmission and distribution mains throughout the system;  Installing, repairing, and maintaining meters and hydrants throughout the system;  Performing system-wide meter reading;  Collecting samples for laboratory analysis;  Operating telemetry systems;  Aiding in the design of system expansion or modification;  Inspecting the installation of new water mains, hydrants, and system appurtenances performed by others; and  Enforcing the rules and regulations of the SWSB.

The rules and regulations of the SWSB are included as Appendix B.

The remaining administrative staff shares duties among the Treasurer, Town Engineer, and Public Works Department, as applicable. Also, employees and equipment within the Department of Public Works (DPW) are procured by the SWSB to perform various services and repairs as needed. The staff,

Pare Corporation 2-1

as described above, is of adequate qualifications and experience to effectively and efficiently perform the duties necessary to operate and maintain the water distribution system. Figure 2-1 provides an overall organizational chart of the Town government through its responsibilities within the daily operation of the SWSB.

The SWSB operates out of the Smithfield DPW facility at the following location:

3 Spragueville Road Smithfield, Rhode Island 02917 Telephone Number: 401-233-1034

The SWSB’s mailing address is at the Smithfield Town Hall, as follows:

64 Farnum Pike Smithfield, RI 02917 General Number: 401-233-1000

Pare Corporation 2-2

FIGURE 2-1 SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD ORGANIZATION CHART

Smithfield Water Supply Board (Smithfield Town Council)

Bernard A. Hawkins, President Suzanna L. Alba, Vice President Alberto J. LaGreca, Jr. Maxine Cavanagh Gregory J. Tocco

Town Manager

Dennis Finlay

Acting Water Commissioner

Charles Walsh

Water Field Observer Administrative Assistant

Robert Forrest Denise Lemoi Anthony Antonucci

Pare Corporation 2-3

2.2 System Overview

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 storage tanks, three 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), Greenville Water District (GWD), Providence Water Supply Board (Providence Water), and Lincoln Water Commission (LWC). Attachment No. 1 depicts the service area boundary and the system’s major infrastructure components.

2.2.1 Water Supply Sources 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.

2.3 Infrastructure Components

2.3.1 Treatment Facilities 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 further 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.

Pare Corporation 2-4

future. It was never intended to be a permanent year-round treatment operation and was intended to be used only at certain times of year, primarily in the summer, and as required based on water quality.

2.3.2 Storage Facilities There are three storage tanks in the system, identified as the Rocky Hill Road Tank, Island Woods Tank, and Burlingame Tank. All three tanks are constructed of steel, with reservoir type configurations. Worksheet No. 4 provides data relative to each storage facility, while their locations are depicted on Attachment No. 1.

The water level status of all three is continuously transmitted via telemetry to the pump stations to control pump operations, and also to the Department of Public Works building where their 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 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 Pump Station to control pump operation at that facility. The programmable logic controller (PLC) within the Longview Pump Station allows the operator to select which tank, the 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 Rocky Hill Road Tank was constructed as part of the original system in 1964 and its interior and exterior paint, valve vault, pressure sensors, and telemetry were refurbished to their original equipment manufactured conditions in 1997. The most recent tank inspection performed in May 2010 found that the tank requires new interior and exterior coatings. The tank is in good structural condition aside from interior pitting due to the coating failure. On-site piping, fencing, and altitude valves are also in good condition. The concrete foundation is in fair condition. Spot repairs were recently performed to the asphalt around the tank.

The Island Woods Tank was constructed in 1991, largely to serve the commercial zone in the Douglas Pike (Route 7)/George Washington Highway (Route 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 cinderblock storage building, and replacement of barbed wire atop the chain link fence. The most recent tank inspection performed in May 2010 indicated that the tank has failed interior

Pare Corporation 2-5

and exterior coatings that are in need of replacement. The sump pump and heating unit in the altitude valve vault has been replaced due to deficiencies. The structural integrity of the tank, concrete foundation, on-site piping, fencing, and altitude valves are all in good condition.

The Burlingame Tank was constructed as part of system improvements implemented by the US EPA in 1988, but it was not put into service until 1997. The most recent inspection in May 2010 identified exposed steel and indicated that pitting has occurred on the tank interior. The inspection also found that interior and exterior coatings require replacement. Tank structure and concrete foundation are in good condition, but a portion of grout at the joint between the tank and the foundation has failed. The on-site piping, fencing, and altitude valves are in good condition. The gravel access roadway was recently graded and improved with a new geotextile layer and processed gravel.

2.3.3 Pump Stations The SWSB water supply system includes three booster pumping stations. Worksheet No. 5 provides data relative to each pump station, while their locations are depicted on Attachment No. 1.

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 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 Pump Station through a pressure-reducing valve (PRV) to supply the area between the Longview and Limerock pump stations. The Davis Booster Pump Station supplies the northwest service area in Smithfield and the Burlingame water storage reservoir. Additional information about each pump station follows.

Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station The Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station is located on Smithfield Road in North Providence, just north of Mineral Spring Avenue. This facility is the sole source of supply from Providence Water. This station, originally built in 1964, was the only booster station within 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 re-sealed at this time. The pump station is considered to be in good condition.

Pare Corporation 2-6

The total maximum capacity of this station is 1,366 gpm, or approximately 2 million gallons per day. The station is designed to operate with two pumps running while the third is a 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. Thereby, the station can operate by tank levels, which is its normal mode, or by maintaining a constant discharge pressure range within 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 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.

Limerock Booster Pump Station 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. All three pump motors were replaced in spring 2014 and the pumps were checked and re-sealed 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 up to two (2) pumps running simultaneously while the third is on standby. The variable speed drives allow the station to operate simultaneously with the Longview Booster Pump Station while pacing itself to maintain a constant suction pressure, as both stations respond to tank levels. Aside from this normal operation, the station is capable of operating to maintain a constant suction pressure independent of operations at the Longview Booster Pump Station.

The hydraulic grade of this station’s service area is 521 feet MSL, which is the overflow elevation of the Reservoir Road and Island Woods storage tanks. A PRV, located outside the Limerock Pump Station, allows water from these two storage reservoirs to feed toward the Longview Booster Pump Station when the pumps within the Limerock 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 level indicator, a circular recorder with digital indicator for suction pressure, and a circular recorder with digital indicator and totalizer for pump station flow. It is also equipped with a natural gas emergency generator.

Pare Corporation 2-7

Davis Booster Pump Station The Davis Booster Pump Station is located on Log Road, just east of Burlingame Road. This pump station was also built in 1997 as part of the EPA system expansion. The station is equipped with two constant speed pumps and emergency power. The station is designed to operate with one pump online and the other pump on standby. Normal operation of this station is based upon water levels within 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.

2.3.4 Transmission Mains The “Rules and Regulations for Water Supply Management Planning” define transmission piping as the pipes “required to carry potable water from a water source to or throughout an area served or to be served by a water supply system for the specific purpose of supplying water to support a general population.” Fifteen sections of water main in the SWSB system have been classified as transmission mains. The transmission mains are generally the pipes that form essential hydraulic connections between the storage tanks, pump stations, and critical system interconnections.

The transmission mains are summarized on Worksheet No. 6 and are depicted on Attachment No. 1. In general, the transmission mains are 12-inch and 16-inch pipes that are either cement lined cast iron or ductile iron. 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. Overall, the transmission mains are considered to be in good condition.

2.4 Interconnections

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 of which 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

Pare Corporation 2-8

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 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. At the present time, the ESWD cannot adequately supply SWSB with water under an emergency due to the hydraulic grade differential between the two systems.

The SWSB also has an emergency interconnection with the Greenville Water District (GWD). This interconnection was created in 2014 as part of the construction of a new 1.0 MG storage tank for the GWD, near the SWSB’s Burlingame Tank. Water can be supplied to either system during an emergency. The new GWD 1.0 MG storage tank supplies their high-service area and is supplied by GWD’s Mapleville Road Pump Station. This pump station was upgraded as part of the GWD-SWSB interconnection project and has two 425 gpm pumps. Greenville’s capacity to provide water to the SWSB in an emergency is effectively the pumping rate from this station. Assuming one pump is in operation, the interconnection has the capacity to supply the SWSB with up to 425 gpm or approximately as much as 600,000 gpd.

The system interconnections are shown on Attachment No. 1 and pertinent data is provided on Worksheet No. 7. Current and historic wholesale water purchases from Providence Water are provided on Worksheet Nos. 14 and 15, respectively. Worksheet Nos. 16 and 17 provide current and historic water sales that the SWSB has made to the ESWD. Existing agreements the SWSB has with Providence Water and the ESWD are provided in Appendix C.

2.5 Service Area

2.5.1 Geographic Area The SWSB serves a significant part of the Town of Smithfield as well as a small part of North Providence, as depicted on Attachment No. 1. This map shows the current geographic service area of the supply system and its orientation with neighboring water systems (i.e., East Smithfield Water District, Greenville Water District, and Lincoln Water Commission).

Pare Corporation 2-9

All undeveloped areas within the water service area are eligible to be served, as demand requires. Depending upon the circumstances involved, the SWSB or the property developer may extend existing water mains and associated appurtenances necessary for the adequate supply of water into those areas. Extension of a water distribution line is contingent upon formal approval of the SWSB, and is subject to the hydraulic feasibility of the current system to accommodate any such extensions. In most cases, the new mains would become the property of the SWSB following satisfactory installation, testing and acceptance. New developments are simulated in the SWSB’s computerized hydraulic model to evaluate the ability of the system to supply the required volumes of water to each proposed development under various demand conditions within the service area.

The SWSB service area is at the outer edge of the Urban Services Boundary established in Land Use 2025 for this part of the State. The Urban Services Boundary represents the area that is considered optimal for future state development needs. Development patterns, including critical infrastructure such as potable water, should be contained within this boundary. Expansion of water systems beyond this boundary is discouraged to ensure consistency with the objectives and goals of Land Use 2025.

It appears that the Urban Services Boundary generally follows the infrastructure (i.e., water mains and storage tanks) currently existing in the system, but does not reflect the bounds of the SWSB service area. The SWSB service area extends to the northern Smithfield town line, bordering the Town of North Smithfield, and the town line bordering Gloucester in the northwest corner of Smithfield. Part of these areas outside of the Urban Services Boundary are in areas that the Town of Smithfield has designated as a Planned Corporate District where commercial development would be promoted. This district is along Routes 7 and 116 in Smithfield and would expand upon the growing commercial district that is already present there, while relieving development pressures from other parts of Town. This is discussed further in Section 11.

There continues to be a portion of the service area that depends primarily on private well systems. The majority of these private wells are associated with single-family residences; however, some wells provide water to commercial and industrial facilities within the service area. There are three community public water supplies within the SWSB service area, as follows:

 Herbert Nursing Home, Inc. NAICS 623110 (Nursing Homes)  Nationwide Tractor Trailer Driving School, Inc. NAICS 488490  Just For Kids, Inc., NAICS 624410 (Day Care Centers).

Pare Corporation 2-10

These facilities have not connected to the system due to a lack of need or funding on their part.

2.5.2 Present and Historic Water Services Worksheet No. 8 provides a breakdown of the customer account distribution for calendar years 2005 to 2014. As this worksheet illustrates, the number of services has remained relatively constant in recent years. In 2014, there were 1,457 active services, which include:

 Residential: 1,297  Commercial: 142  Industrial: 13  Governmental: 5  Total: 1,457

Non-residential customers are all grouped and classified as “commercial” customers for billing purposes. The numbers of commercial, industrial, and governmental service connections listed above are estimated based on the total number of non-residential customers in the system.

2.5.3 Present Population Served The previous 5-year WSSMP update provided an estimated population in the SWSB service area of approximately 9,200 residents for the year 2007. While the population in the SWSB service area is believed to have increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, it is believed to have remained relatively constant in recent years. The estimated service area population from 2005 to 2014 is provided on Worksheet No. 8. The population is currently estimated to be approximately 9,260 residents with only a small increase since 2007.

Because the SWSB is one of three water systems that serve customers in the Town of Smithfield, and is one of three water systems that also serve customers in the Town of North Providence, it is difficult to accurately compute the actual population served. The previous WSSMP update used US Census data to estimate 2.40 people per household throughout the SWSB service area. The service area population of 9,200 accounted for this as well, including occupancy at Bryant University and the customers that reside in multi-family housing developments.

2.5.4 Population Demographics Future land use patterns were reviewed in the Comprehensive Plans for both Smithfield and North Providence and their anticipated impacts on demand are discussed in Section 4 of this WSSMP.

Pare Corporation 2-11

Relatively little development is anticipated in North Providence, including the area currently served by the SWSB. The Town’s population has declined in recent years, from 32,411 residents in 2000 to 32,078 residents in 2010, according to US Census Data. This is not the case for the Town of Smithfield, which saw an increase in population from 20,630 residents in the 2000 US Census to 21,430 residents in the 2010 US Census. For comparison, the 1990 US Census estimated population in the Town of Smithfield to be 19,163 residents. The 2014 draft update of the Smithfield Comprehensive Community Plan cites Rhode Island Division of Planning Technical Paper 162, published in April 2014, which projects that the population of Smithfield will increase by 1,793 people by 2030. This will be throughout the entire town, including the SWSB service area. Increased commercial development is also anticipated for the SWSB service area within the Town of Smithfield in coming years. These same projections predict that the population in North Providence will steadily decline between now and 2030.

2.6 Source and Distribution Metering

2.6.1 Master (Source) Meters The SWSB has one master (source) meter, located on the interconnection with Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir. It 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. Worksheet No. 9 provides a summary of pertinent data while its location is shown on Attachment No. 1.

2.6.2 Distribution Meters 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 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. Upon any 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

Pare Corporation 2-12

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. Worksheet No. 10 identifies the major users while Worksheet No. 11 provides a breakdown of their meters and service connections. Major users are generally metered and billed monthly.

2.7 System Production Data

The SWSB does not have any current or historic surface water or groundwater supply sources of its own, and obtains water solely through wholesale purchases from Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir. Worksheet Nos. 12 and No. 13 are not applicable to the SWSB. Worksheet Nos. 14 and 15 provide wholesale water purchases for the current year and last 10 years, respectively. Approximately 364.13 million gallons of wholesale water was purchased in 2014. Wholesale water purchases ranged from 301.5 to 365.2 million gallons annually for the years provided on Worksheet No. 15.

The SWSB sells wholesale water to one customer, the ESWD, through the interconnection on Ridge Road. Wholesale water sales totaled 11.3 million gallons in 2014, as shown on Worksheet No. 16. Historic wholesale water sales over the last 10 years are summarized on Worksheet No. 17, which shows that peak water sales over this time period were 15.37 million gallons, in 2005. Water sales to the ESWD have declined each year since this time.

2.8 System Water Use

2.8.1 System-Wide and Per Capita Water Use Total water use in the SWSB system, taken as the difference between wholesale water purchased from Providence Water and wholesale water sold to ESWD, was approximately 353 million gallons for Fiscal Year 2014. This averages 0.97 million gallons per day (mgd) for the year. The Average Daily Demand (ADD) for this time period, based on distribution meter readings, is approximately 0.89 mgd while it is approximately 1.0 mgd during the summer months.

Worksheet No. 18 presents the ADD on a monthly basis for Fiscal Year 2014. Also provided on this worksheet is the per capita ADD, which was estimated to be approximately 96.0 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) based on a service area population of approximately 9,260. Estimates of the monthly ADD and per capita ADD for residential customers are also presented on Worksheet No. 18. The residential per capita ADD was 41.7 gpcd for the entire year with a peak of 57.1 gpcd in October 2014.

Pare Corporation 2-13

Worksheet No. 19 presents the current and historical ADD and Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for the years 2014 to 2004. The ADD has been estimated to be as high as 0.92 mgd, in Year 2004. The ADD declined from this peak to a low of 0.78 mgd, but is currently on an increasing trend. This is likely due to the economic recovery over the last few years, since so much of the system’s water demand is from the commercial customer base which includes three large users that have experienced continued growth in Smithfield (Bryant University, Fidelity Investments, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals).

The SWSB has historically estimated the MDD in the system to be 1.7 mgd, from data collected in 2004 which is the most current available. Although not a true indication of the MDD, the average daily demand estimated in July 2013 was approximately 1.4 mgd, for comparison. Total water purchases from Providence Water peaked during this month for Fiscal Year 2014, at 42.24 MG. The MDD/ADD peaking factor is approximately 1.9 based on an ADD of 0.89 mgd estimated for Fiscal Year 2014, which is generally consistent with historical estimates of MDD/ADD peaking factors in the SWSB system. The relatively large proportion of commercial water use along with the water use patterns at Bryant University (i.e., far less water use during the summer months) likely keep this factor lower than compared to other water systems.

2.8.2 Water Use by Category Customers in the SWSB system are categorized either as residential or commercial for billing purposes. Industrial and institutional (governmental) water use is accounted for in the commercial customer base. Worksheet No. 20 shows residential and non-residential water use for Fiscal Year 2014.

Worksheet No. 21 presents annual historic water use by category for the period between 2004 and 2013, while Worksheet No. 22 shows the current and historic average daily demand by category for this same time period. Worksheet No. 21 shows that commercial water use has been considerably higher than residential water use since 2004. However, commercial water use has remained relatively constant in the last three years while residential water use has increased, accounting for an overall increasing trend in water use over this time period. The SWSB has noticed an increase in the installation of lawn irrigation systems at residential properties in the service area in recent years. While there currently is no policy toward restricting outdoor water use, this will likely be incorporated into revised Rules and Regulations that the SWSB anticipates developing in upcoming years.

Commercial water use was relatively high from 2007-2008 before a sharp decrease around the time of the economic recession. Overall, the increase in total system water use from 2009 to the present is likely due in part to improving economic conditions.

Pare Corporation 2-14

2.8.3 Major Users Worksheet Nos. 23 and 24 identify the current and historical water use by Major Users, which are retail customers that use more than 3 MG of water per year. The SWSB historically has had as many as 15 Major Users. In 2013, there were 12 Major Users.

The majority of the Major Users use between 3 and 10 MG of water each year. Bryant University is by far the highest user, typically accounting for 50 – 65 MG annually. Collectively, the Major Users comprise approximately 50% of total system demand.

2.8.4 Non-Billed Water and Fire Fighting Non-billed water, also referred to as non-account water, is defined as “the difference between water produced by a supplier and water sold by the same supplier” by RI General Law 46-15.3-4. It represents the system wide loss of water through leaks, under registering meters, or other reasons that have not been metered and billed to the customer base. This typically consists of both authorized and unauthorized uses. Typical examples of authorized non-billed water include fire-fighting, water main flushing, and system maintenance. Unauthorized non-billed water primarily includes leaks, malfunctioning meters, meter pit bypasses, and water theft.

Worksheet No. 25 summarizes non-billed water and water used for fire-fighting from 2005 to 2014. Prior to 2013, water used for fire-fighting purposes was typically assumed to be 12% of total non- account water. This is water used by the fire department for fire-fighting purposes as well as training and hydrant testing. The SWSB coordinates with the Smithfield Fire Department to track water use for fire-fighting purposes.

State Guide Plan 721 – Rhode Island Water 2030 indicates that the goal of 15% non-account water (a.k.a. non-billed water) was changed to 10% as part of the Water Use and Efficiency Act in 2009. However, RI General Law Chapter 46-15.8 states that the target for non-billed water “shall include the goal of reducing leakage to no more than ten percent (10%).” Leakage is a major component of non-billed water but it does not appear that the 10% goal is intended to apply to all non-billed water. The 10% goal for leakage is further enunciated in the 2011 Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers.

The SWSB prepared their Demand Management Strategy in 2012, which provided an estimated average leakage rate for 2009-2011 of approximately 6%. Leakage ranged from 3% to 8% during this

Pare Corporation 2-15

time period, meeting the State’s 10% goal for leakage. Worksheet No. 25 shows that total non- account water continues to meet the State’s 10% goal for leakage.

2.8.5 Water Conservation Programs The SWSB continues to offer water conservation kits, which are advertised on the Town’s website and made available at the Department of Public Works garage during normal business hours. The kits are complimentary. Every annual Consumer Confidence Report also includes a reminder encouraging customers to conserve and use water efficiently. The SWSB also maintains a three-tier inclining block rate structure.

2.9 Water System Deficiencies and Needed System Improvements

The SWSB does not currently have a water supply deficiency, as they obtain all of their supply from Providence Water through a wholesale connection at the Longview Reservoir. The capacity of their interconnection with Providence Water is approximately 1.97 mgd, while the MDD has historically, and currently, been estimated to be approximately 1.7 mgd. New treatment or storage facilities are not believed to be necessary upgrades in the SWSB system at this time due to water supply needs, though infrastructure rehabilitation improvements are proposed at all three of the storage tanks.

Anticipated future demands exceed the capacity of the SWSB’s interconnection with Providence Water under maximum demand conditions, as discussed later in this WSSMP. While the system has sufficient storage capacity to meet these demands, it may result in depletion of storage for fire- fighting or other emergencies. This has led the SWSB to explore interconnections with other water systems (e.g. emergency interconnection recently established with the GWD and interconnections with the Town of Lincoln under consideration). The SWSB will also coordinate with Providence Water regarding an increase in the 1.97 mgd of water they are allowed to purchase at the Longview interconnection. It is the SWSB’s understanding that Providence Water is generally supportive of this. This would require piping improvements in the SWSB system and installation of larger pumps at the Longview Booster Pump Station, and possibly also at the Limerock Booster Pump Station, as their maximum pumping rate is set at 1.97 mgd.

Pare Corporation 2-16

locations to more efficiently move water throughout the existing system. The six major capital projects identified in the CIP are as follows:

The 20-year CIP is provided as an appendix to this WSSMP. The SWSB may pursue other opportunities for increasing supply in the system, and is exploring possible other interconnections with the Lincoln Water Commission, such as one at Twin River Road. The SWSB has met with Lincoln Water and while Lincoln Water is amenable to interconnection between the two systems, the available supply in either system needs to be evaluated further.

Tank rehabilitation and replacement. Each of the storage tanks in the system requires rehabilitation. Specifically, the exterior and interior of all three tanks require painting. Also, the Rocky Hill Road Tank has structural deficiencies to the point where this tank either needs to be repaired or replaced. The need for this work was identified subsequent to the preparation of the 2009 CIP.

A storage evaluation recently performed by Pare suggests that replacement of the Rocky Hill Road Tank with a new elevated tank may improve the amount of system storage that is considered “usable”. Construction of a new, elevated storage tank would require a booster pump station and piping upgrades in addition to constructing the new tank. The SWSB is also considering adding new mixing systems at all three storage tanks as well as retrofitting existing SCADA for wireless access and ultimately to transition to radio transmission for communication between the storage tanks and other critical system facilities.

Pare Corporation 2-17

SECTION 3.0 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION COMPONENT

The WSSMP Rules require a water quality protection component for systems with surface and/or groundwater sources. The SWSB does not have any current or former supply sources, nor is the development of its own source likely.

The SWSB supplies the system entirely using wholesale water purchased from Providence Water. The SWSB collects the charges associated with the water quality protection program and issues them to Providence Water and the Rhode Island Water Resources Board, as required, in accordance with the Public Drinking Water Protection Program (RIGL 46-15.3). This program distributes funds which are used for land acquisitions and to purchase development rights within the supply watershed areas to help protect water quality.

The Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) for 2013 is provided in Appendix D. The CCR shows that the sampling results compiled by Providence Water resulted in a violation of the action level for lead. The SWSB issued a pamphlet to all of its customers regarding the risks of lead in drinking water. No other violations were reported by Providence Water for 2013.

The 2013 CCR also provides the results of water quality testing performed by the SWSB. While there were no violations reported for 2013, two samples were found to exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) of 80 mg/L. A violation for TTHMs is triggered when the running average from the last three quarters of sampling exceeds the MCL. The average concentration following the 4th Quarter of 2013 was 74.25 mg/L.

Testing results from the 1st Quarter of 2014 increased the running average of TTHMs to 83.05 mg/L, resulting in a violation and triggering notification to the customer base. The running average increased to 85.5 mg/L following testing done in the 2nd Quarter of 2014. Most recently, testing results for the 3rd Quarter of 2014 have had lower concentrations of TTHMs which has reduced the running average concentration to below 80 mg/L. Appendix E includes Operational Evaluation Reports (OERs) submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) from the 1st and 2nd Quarters of 2014.

The testing results show that concentrations of TTHMs from samples collected in the SWSB distribution system are very similar to concentrations in the wholesale water entering the system from

Pare Corporation 3-1

the Longview Reservoir. There appears to be relatively little TTHM formation within the SWSB system. As such, the SWSB has coordinated with Providence Water and met with them in June 2014 to discuss strategies for lowering TTHM concentrations in the wholesale water sold to the SWSB. Providence Water indicated that they are evaluating water age and mixing at all of their storage facilities in an effort to reduce formation of TTHMs, with the Longview Reservoir being their highest priority.

The SWSB is doing much the same type of evaluation at their three storage facilities. The storage tanks in the SWSB provide a combined 5.3 MGD of storage. This is a significant storage volume for a system of this size, which has an average day demand of less than 1 MGD. Because the Rocky Hill Road Tank is in need of replacement due to structural deficiencies, the SWSB may consider replacing it with a smaller tank should an evaluation determine that a 1.0 MG tank is not necessary at this part of the system. In addition, the SWSB anticipates adding mixing systems at all three tanks in upcoming years.

Pare Corporation 3-2

SECTION 4.0 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

4.1 General

The objective of the Supply Management section of this WSSMP is to detail and describe the measures necessary for the protection of present and future sources of drinking water supply in adequate quantity and quality to meet existing demand and projected demands for the 5-year and 20-year planning horizons. Anticipated Future Demand and Available Water components of Supply Management are discussed below.

The source of SWSB’s supply is Providence Water. As such, the SWSB is dependent upon Providence Water for source water protection and for the protection of water supply to the SWSB system.

4.2 Anticipated Future Demands

Anticipated future demands are developed based upon several factors, including:

4.2.1 Projected Water Demand Pare performed a Hydraulic Model Update and System Buildout Analysis for the SWSB in February 2007 to estimate water demand under the 5-year, 20-year, and ultimate build-out scenarios, which took into account the factors discussed above. This report is provided in Appendix F. The System Buildout Analysis based future water use projections on an estimated ADD of approximately 0.84 mgd in 2004; however, actual water use suggests that it was 0.92 mgd (refer to Worksheet No. 19). It appears that commercial water use was estimated accurately with this discrepancy attributed to estimated residential water use. The residential water use was reported to be 0.28 mgd in the Buildout Analysis while water use presented on Worksheet No. 19 suggests that it was 0.36 mgd in 2004. Pare Corporation 4-1

The ADD has been estimated at 0.89 mgd in this WSSMP for Fiscal Year 2014, based on residential water use of 0.39 mgd and commercial water use of 0.50 mgd. The Buildout Analysis suggested that water use in the 5-year planning period, approximately in 2012, would have been much higher than it currently is. This analysis was performed at a time when development was progressing rapidly in Smithfield. It was estimated that system-wide water use could increase by as much as 30 percent in the 5-year planning period, based in part on 14 proposed developments that were in various stages of design, planning, and construction that had requested water supply from the SWSB. These developments included residential, commercial, and industrial types of land use. Many of these have not been developed due to the prolonged economic recession that occurred shortly following this analysis.

Table 4-1 presents anticipated average and maximum daily water use in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods. Commercial water use projections are consistent with estimates made in the 2007 Buildout Analysis and plan for expansion and development of the Town’s Planned Corporate District. Residential projections are based on an assumption of an average of 60 new residents in the SWSB service area each year, each using 65 gallons per day on average which is equivalent to the State’s residential per capita water use goal. Actual residential per capita water use is currently less than this. Population growth is based on the assumption that 48 new housing units are constructed in the Town of Smithfield each year and that approximately half of these would be built in the SWSB service area with an average occupancy of 2.5 people per unit. These assumptions have been made based on recent discussions with the Town Planner in Smithfield.

Table 4-1: Anticipated Future Water Demand

Current 5-Year 20-Year

Pare Corporation 4-2

The MDD has historically been estimated to be 1.7 mgd, which is consistent with the estimated MDD provided in the System Buildout Analysis report.

Table 4-2 provides an estimate of annual water use and total wholesale purchases anticipated in the 5- year and 20-year planning periods. This information is also presented on Worksheet No. 27. Estimates for non-account water have also been presented in the table, as well as on Worksheet No. 26. Non-account water has been estimated to be approximately 8% of total wholesale water purchases for the 5-year and 20-year planning periods, consistent with current estimates.

Table 4-2: Anticipated Future Wholesale & Non-Account Water

Current 5-Year 20-Year

[2014] Period Period Total Water Use (MG) 323.22 429 627 Wholesale Water Sales (MG) 11.26 12 12 Non Account Water (MG) 29.65 35.3 51.1 Total Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) 364.13 476.3 690.1

4.2.2 Population and Economic Impacts on Demand The System Buildout Analysis took into account projected increases in population as well as continued commercial and industrial development to estimate future water use. Pare reviewed the Comprehensive Plans for the Town of North Providence and Town of Smithfield and consulted with town planners from both towns in preparing that analysis, in addition to reviewing zoning maps and interviewing SWSB personnel. Since then, projections made by the RIDOA Division of Planning suggest that the population in Smithfield is expected to increase by approximately 1,793 residents by 2030. This will be throughout the Town, in areas served by the SWSB as well as the ESWD and GWD. These projections also estimate that the population will decrease in North Providence over this same time period.

4.2.3 Legal Obligations The SWSB obtains all of its water supply from Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir through direct wholesale purchase. The capacity of the SWSB’s Longview Pump Station is approximately 2 MGD, while the system’s ADD is currently below 1 MGD.

Pare Corporation 4-3

A memorandum of understanding between the SWSB and ESWD from 1997 states that the ESWD finds it necessary to purchase a small portion of its treated water from the SWSB, and that the SWSB agrees to provide “an uninterrupted supply” of water to the ESWD. A copy of this memorandum of understanding is provided in Appendix C. While no minimum or maximum quantities are stipulated, the memorandum states that it shall be as the ESWD “may determine to be necessary” and as the SWSB “is able to provide”. The SWSB currently sells approximately 12 million gallons annually to the ESWD, which is lower than in previous years. The ESWD attributes this to their water conservation initiatives and anticipates that their wholesale water purchases from the SWSB may continue to follow a declining trend.

4.2.4 Category & Subcategory and Major Users Future Demand Future residential and commercial water demands are summarized on Worksheet No. 27 and in Table 4-1, presented earlier in this section.

Worksheet No. 24 shows the historic water use by Major Users over the last ten years. While the amount of water used by some Major Users has increased over this 10-year period, total water use by Major Users has not increased. Water use by Major Users is currently about 50% of total water use in the system.

It is difficult to predict future water use by Major Users because so much of it depends on operations, employment rates, and a number of other factors. Also, future commercial and industrial development will likely include some new users that would qualify as Major Users. As such, the total water use by Major Users has been projected for the 5-year and 20-year planning period, rather than on an individual user basis, on Worksheet No. 28. Total Major User water use for the 5-year and 20-year planning period has been estimated assuming it continues to represent approximately 50% of total water use in the system.

4.2.5 Non-Account Water Use Available data on the historic and current volumes of non-account water is presented in Section 2.8.4 of this WSSMP. Non-account water has generally been low relative to total water use, and has historically met the State’s goal of no more than 15% of total water use. Leakage estimates have met the State’s goal of 10% of total water.

Pare Corporation 4-4

Total non-account water use was approximately 8.1% of total wholesale water purchased in Fiscal Year 2014. This estimate (8.1%) was used to project the total non-account water use in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods presented on Worksheet No. 26.

The SWSB has historically estimated water used by the local fire departments for hydrant flushing and fire-fighting to be approximately 12% of total non-account water. This estimation has been used to estimate future fire-fighting use in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods, as presented on Worksheet No. 26. More recently, the SWSB has begun coordinating with the Smithfield Fire Department and has found that 12% was an overestimate for fire-fighting use.

4.2.6 Non-Potable Water Use Many commercial and industrial facilities may have the potential to utilize non-potable water sources to offset purchasing potable water. While it is not feasible for the SWSB to establish a system-wide or regional system for non-potable water use, some users may investigate the potential of this for their individual facilities. Non-potable water use may already be in place at certain facilities in the system, particularly for irrigation and/or cooling water applications.

4.3 Available Water

The 2012 RI Water Resources Board Strategic Plan estimates that the sustainable water supply for the State’s northern region is 125 mgd, of which Providence accounts for 83 mgd. The SWSB was considered a part of Providence when evaluating water supply and demand in the State’s northern region. Actual and projected future water demand in the SWSB represents a minor fraction of total water demand in the region supplied by Providence Water.

The SWSB and Providence Water reached an agreement in 1993 that allows the SWSB to purchase up to 1.965 MGD, identified as a “projection of a maximum demand…in the year 2004”. This agreement was reached at the time the SWSB was undergoing the EPA system expansion and upgrades associated with the Davis Waste Site. Although this was based on a projection for 2004, the estimated MDD has historically been below 1.965 mgd and there is no expiration date identified in the agreement. The SWSB continues to follow this agreement for wholesale water purchases from Providence Water. Existing infrastructure at the interconnection (i.e. pumps at Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station and transmission piping) is designed for a maximum of 1.965 mgd. Upgrades would be necessary to increase the maximum supply available from this interconnection, in addition

Pare Corporation 4-5

to consent from Providence Water. It is the SWSB’s understanding that Providence Water would be amenable to selling more water to the SWSB under this scenario.

4.4 Alternate Supply

The SWSB does not have access to suitable water supply sources of its own. The source of supply, like many of the surrounding water systems, is Providence Water. Worksheet No. 29 is not applicable to the SWSB. The SWSB is pursuing emergency interconnections with the Lincoln Water Commission (LWC) at this time, which has interconnections with the municipal water systems in Woonsocket, Cumberland, and Pawtucket in addition to their primary connection to Providence Water.

The previous WSSMP projected that the MDD in a 5-year planning period (2012) would be 2.0 mgd. This is essentially equivalent to the SWSB’s allowable demand from their wholesale connection with Providence Water, which was established in 1993 as an estimate of the maximum demand for 2004. It is not believed that the MDD has reached this projected value and it continues to be estimated at 1.7 mgd. With that said, the ADD and MDD is expected to increase in the 5-year and 20-year planning periods. The MDD projected in both the 5-year and 20-year planning periods exceed the capacity of the SWSB’s wholesale connection with Providence Water, as shown on Worksheet No. 29A. In addition to pursuing additional interconnections with other water systems, as noted above, the SWSB may consider making pumping and transmission main upgrades to increase the amount of water available from Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir Booster Pump Station.

4.5 Supply Augmentation Studies

Supply augmentation studies are intended to investigate and recommend alternative water supply sources due to anticipated shortfalls in the quality or quantity of existing supplies. The SWSB has not conducted supply augmentation studies and does not believe they are required at this time, though they recognize the soundness in seeking alternative sources of raw water supply.

Pare Corporation 4-6

SECTION 5.0 DEMAND MANAGEMENT

5.1 General

Demand Management consists of conservation measures which achieve long-term water savings by providing incentives and technical assistance to the customer base as a means of improving efficiency of water use and reducing waste. Such water conservation measures, whereby suppliers and/or local water utilities work to influence water consumption, is the most fundamental approach to water conservation since the ability to conserve water lies primarily with the water user. Consequently, the success of these measures is highly dependent upon consumer participation and cooperation. The SWSB actively promotes a water conservation program by checking meter accuracy and addressing issues such as waste, detection of water leakage, promotion of conservation measures, and peak usage reduction.

5.2 Demand Management Strategy (2012)

The Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers (Act) was enacted in 2011 to establish efficient water use targets for all major water suppliers in Rhode Island. The Act also required that major suppliers complete a demand management strategy (DMS), documenting how they would meet each of the specified goals. The SWSB submitted their DMS in September 2012 and responded to comments from the Water Resources Board in June 2013.

5.2.1 Goals The demand management goals required of major water suppliers identified in the Act includes:

1. Residential average annual water use of 65 gallons per capita per day (gpcd);

2. Efficient outdoor water use;

3. Efficient indoor water use;

4. A full accounting of non-billed water;

5. Leakage of no more than 10%; and

6. Accurate metering and billing. Pare Corporation 5-1

In addition, the Act established required methodologies that must be employed in an effort to meet these goals, including:

 Initiating a program to accomplish 100% metering of all water delivered by December 31, 2012, as specified in R.I. General Laws §46-15.3-22(b).

 Initiating a program for the maintenance and replacement of meters by December 31, 2012, as specified in R.I. General Laws §46-15.3-22(b).

 Initiating a program for installing radio frequency reading systems by December 31, 2012, as specified in R.I. General Laws §46-15.3-22(b).

 Recording metered usage and bill quarterly or more frequently by December 31, 2013, as specified in R.I. General Laws §46-15.3-22(c).

 Educating customers in regards to efficient water use.

 Establishing rate structures that are adequate to fund all water supply costs, are equitable, sensitive to economic impacts, and encourage efficient water use, per R.I. General Laws §39- 15.1-3 or §45-39.1.5 as applicable.

 Implementing leak detection programs in accordance with AWWA standards and initiating a system-wide leak detection program if leakage is more than 10% of the water purchased.

Other optional methods for meeting the efficient water use targets are also discussed in Part 4.0 of the Act. These include billing structures that encourage efficient water use, methods for reducing non- agricultural water use, efficient indoor water use strategies, and methods of improving water use efficiency by major users. The SWSB will employ these optional strategies where they deem appropriate to meet the established targets.

5.2.2 Residential Average Annual Per-Capita Water Use The residential average annual per capita water use in the SWSB system was estimated to be approximately 35 gpcd for the period from 2009 to 2011. These averages were based on total metered residential water use and a residential population of approximately 9,250 people in the service area. More recently, metered residential water use was 140.81 million gallons for 2014, which results in an average annual per capita water use rate of approximately 41.7 gpcd, assuming 9,260 residents. While current and historical metered residential water use meets the State’s goal of 65 gpcd, it is

Pare Corporation 5-2

acknowledged that these rates underestimate actual per capita residential water use as many multi- family housing units are metered and billed as commercial customers. However, the SWSB has a high level of confidence that per capita residential water use still meets the State’s goal even with multi- family housing included. As an example, incorporating the multi-family Major Users listed on Worksheet No. 24 (i.e., North Providence Housing Authority, St. James Townhouses, Brentwood Apartments, Stony Brook Apartment) into residential water use estimated in 2014 would result in approximately 50 gpcd, still well below 65 gpcd.

5.2.3 Efficient Water Use The SWSB has implemented programs to improve the efficiency of indoor and outdoor water use by its customers, generally in parallel with programs conducted by Providence Water. One such strategy employed by the SWSB has been to offer complimentary retrofit kits to their residential customers. This program is discussed in Section 5.3.

The SWSB has often used mailings and information on their website to educate its customers about efficient water use in the past. Continuing to provide notifications in the annual water bill and on the Town’s website, as well as placing informational door hangers at customer’s homes, conducting public workshops, and soliciting public notices, are all possible methods the SWSB may use to continue educating its customers about efficient water use.

The SWSB has not historically imposed water use bans or restrictions in periods of drought or dry weather like some other water suppliers in Rhode Island have done. The SWSB purchases all of its water from Providence Water, so supply management concerns have generally not necessitated such restrictions. While residential water use has met the per capita water use target in recent years, outdoor water use restrictions may be considered in the future if the SWSB observes substantial increases in water demand during peak water use times of the year.

The majority of water use in the SWSB system is attributed to non-residential customers, and there are 12 major users that combine for over 50% of total water use in the system. Of these major users, the three largest are Bryant University, Fidelity Investments, and Alexion Pharmaceutical who collectively account for approximately 90 - 100 million gallons of water use each year. Both Bryant University and Fidelity Investments are believed to place an emphasis on green construction practices and sustainable development, including water conservation wherever possible throughout their campuses. The SWSB may consider promoting green construction and development practices to other major users in the future to enhance efficient water use among the commercial and industrial customer base.

Pare Corporation 5-3

5.2.4 Full Accounting of Non-Billed Water The SWSB has historically estimated water used by the fire department for hydrant flushing and fire- fighting to be 12 percent of total non-billed water though they recently began tracking fire department use with the Smithfield Fire Department. The remaining volume of non-billed water is unaccounted, much of which of which is attributed to leakage. Water theft, meter inaccuracy, and other miscellaneous withdrawals are believed to be relatively minor in the SWSB system. There is also occasional water use associated with catch basin cleaning and street sweeping operations conducted by the Smithfield Department of Public Works.

The SWSB has made efforts to improve their accounting of non-billed water. The SWSB recently began coordinating with the Smithfield Fire Department to track their water use and has contacted the North Providence Fire Department to do the same. They are also tracking water used by the Smithfield DPW, as the day-to-day operations of the SWSB are performed by Smithfield DPW staff.

5.2.5 Leakage Unknown water use was estimated to range from 3% to 8% for the period of 2009 – 2011, as presented in the SWSB’s Demand Management Strategy in 2012. The vast majority of this is attributed to leakage, which averaged 6% and met the State’s 10% target as stipulated by the Act. Non-account water was estimated to be approximately 8.1% in 2014.

5.2.6 User Metering and Billing The SWSB recently retrofitted all residential meters and commercial meters 1-inch and smaller with radio-read type meters through a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan. A loan in the amount of $227,000 was obtained from the RI Clean Water Finance Agency in 2012 for the purchase of 1,200 meters to complete system-wide meter upgrades.

Residential customers have historically been billed semi-annually while most commercial and industrial customers are billed monthly. Since 2015, all residential customers are billed at least quarterly and commercial and industrial customers are billed monthly now that radio-read type meters are predominant in the system.

The SWSB uses a three-tier, inclining block rate structure which links higher water rates to higher water use. This rate structure encourages water conservation while adequately funding the operation and maintenance of the water system. The SWSB most recently raised their water rates in 2010, in

Pare Corporation 5-4

response to an increase in the wholesale water rate imposed by Providence Water. The SWSB will soon be conducting a comprehensive rate structure analysis as part of an update to their 20-year CIP.

5.3 Residential Retrofit Program

The SWSB has offered complimentary retrofit kits to its residential customers since 1998. Each kit contains the following:

 Leak detection tablets;  Water faucet aerator;  Low-flow showerhead;  Toilet tank bag;  Instructions for use and installation; and  Reorder card and survey form.

Kits are still available for interested customers and can be picked up at the Town of Smithfield Department of Public Works facility. While the SWSB continues to promote the program on their website, interest in recent years has generally been low as the majority of interested customers have already participated. Also, all new residential construction and renovation is required to install water conservation devices in accordance with Rhode Island plumbing code standards.

5.4 Major Users Technical Assistance Program

There have typically been about 12 to 15 customers identified as “Major Users” in the SWSB system, which are customers having metered water use exceeding 3.0 million gallons per year. Twelve customers had water use exceeding 3.0 million gallons for 2013. Current and historic water use for Major Users is provided on Worksheet Nos. 23 and 24, respectively. The ESWD is a wholesale customer and not a retail customer so it is not considered a Major User by the SWSB.

For the most part, Major Users in the SWSB system use between 3 and 10 million gallons each year. Notable exceptions to this are Bryant University, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and Fidelity which are often quite higher. Bryant University has enrollment of over 3,000 students and has historically had water use of over 50 million gallons each year, while the latter two have typically had annual water use in the range of 15 to 20 million gallons.

Pare Corporation 5-5

While there is no formal Major Users Technical Assistance Program (MUTAP) in place, the SWSB will provide assistance on efficient water use to its major users using in-house resources, when possible. It is noted that two of the largest users, Bryant University and Fidelity, are believed to have instituted several water conservation initiatives of their own as part of their overall approach to sustainable development throughout their respective campuses. The SWSB will coordinate with Bryant College to identify ways they may be able to institute additional water conservation measures.

Pare Corporation 5-6

SECTION 6.0 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

6.1 General

Water conservation practices involving system management initiatives are directed at improving the efficiency of, and reducing waste in, the production and distribution of water within a supply system. Such practices are necessary to ensure that the physical components of the water system are properly operated and maintained. Goals of system management include the following:

 Maintaining non-account water use to below 15% of the total system demand, in accordance with State Guide Plan Element 721;  Maintaining leakage below 10% of system demand;  Establishing a preventive maintenance program; and,  Maintaining compliance with applicable requirements of the Rules and Procedures Governing the Water Use and Efficiency Act for Major Public Water Suppliers.

6.2 Meter Installation, Maintenance, and Replacement (MIMR) Plan

All delivered water, excluding leakage and approved non-billed uses (e.g. hydrant flushing, fire- fighting) is metered and billed. The SWSB meters 100% of the users in the system and this will continue to be their policy. The SWSB recently completed the retrofit and conversion of distribution meters to remote read type meters in accordance with State requirements. Major User meters are read and billed monthly while other meters are read quarterly.

6.2.1 Maintenance and Replacement Schedule Virtually all of the meters in the system have recently been replaced as part of the system-wide conversion to automatic-read type meters. As such, meter replacement is not anticipated to be a major concern in upcoming years.

Residential meters and small commercial meters 2-inches in size and smaller are expected to have a useful life of approximately 15 years. The SWSB will implement a maintenance plan to test meters as they reach the end of their useful life and to repair or replace malfunctioning meters, as necessary. The maintenance schedule will be such that each meter is tested or replaced no less frequently than

Pare Corporation 6-1

every fifteen (15) years. Larger meters require testing more frequently. Meter testing may also be performed on a case by case basis in response to unexpected meter readings.

The SWSB will continue to use AWWA recommended guidelines as the basis for meter testing, as follows:

Meter Size Testing Frequency 2-inches and smaller Starting at 15 years 3-4 inches Every 7 years 6-inches and larger Every 2 years

6.2.2 Major User Meters There is typically 12 - 15 Major Users in the SWSB system, in addition to the ESWD which is a wholesale customer. Worksheet Nos. 10 and 11 provide information on these Major Users and their meters. Meters for Major Users are tested and calibrated periodically, as needed.

6.2.3 System Interconnections/Master Meters The SWSB has a master meter at their lone source of supply, the interconnection with Providence Water at the Longview Reservoir. This meter is tested and calibrated annually. It is read monthly and the SWSB is billed monthly for water used in the previous month.

The SWSB has a metered wholesale connection with the ESWD. The ESWD owns and maintains this meter.

6.3 Leak Detection and Repair Program/Meter Improvement Program

Leakage in the system remains relatively low, as discussed in Section 5 of this WSSMP. The SWSB will continue to monitor leakage and recently purchased its own leak detection device to monitor for leakage between formal leak surveys. The SWSB will perform subsequent leak detection surveys should leakage increase to rates close to or above the State’s 10% goal.

Pare Corporation 6-2

6.4 Preventative Maintenance Plan

Additionally, SWSB staff performs routine system maintenance activities on other system components, such as exercising valves and flushing hydrants annually. The SWSB also maintains records of water main breaks in the system, detailing the size of the break, its location, the pipe size and material, and the repair method used. Worksheet No. 33 provides an inventory of critical equipment and spare parts that the SWSB retains for system maintenance purposes.

Specific preventative maintenance activities routinely performed by SWSB staff include the following:

Main Valve Maintenance (March – August)  Clean out valve boxes  Exercise valves  Repair valves as required

Hydrant Maintenance (March – September)  Loosen all caps  Flush hydrants  Exercise valves  Clean out side of hydrants  Paint hydrants, as needed  Keep area around hydrants clean and free of snow  Maintain hydrant flaps, where installed on major roadways

Pare Corporation 6-3

Water Storage Tank Maintenance  Burlingame, Island Woods, and Rocky Hill Tanks o Tank inspections – weekly o Cut brush within tank properties – monthly o Overflow tank o Power wash tanks, as required o Inspect chain link fence routinely, repair as required o Inspect SCADA telemetry o Inspect altitude valves and valve vaults o Ensure adequate heat in valve vaults, as necessary

Pump Station Maintenance General maintenance activities at the pump stations include:

 Check each pump station daily and replace charts weekly  Inspect fire alarm and replace batteries, as needed  Startup generators, change fluids, and make minor repairs, as required  Wash floors, grease motors, replace battery in auto-dialers, as needed  Clean filters on electrical panels  Clean all computer boards, as needed  Cut grass, trim shrubs, remove leaves and clean grounds  Repair locks, doors and gates, as required  Paint and repair buildings, as required  Clean gutters, as required

The following details the duties and responsibilities of the water foreman and other SWSB employees:

 Emergency dig safe mark-outs  Set up daily jobs  Daily inspections installing water pipe, making taps, pressure testing, etc.  Repair water main breaks, correct problems at pump stations, tanks, telemetry equipment, etc.  Daily inspection of pump stations  Weekly inspection of storage tanks  Meetings with contractors to review drawings for projects with water connections

Pare Corporation 6-4

 Maintain certificates in order for staff, set up classes, contact hours  Maintain equipment and keeping updated records  Plow streets in winter, plowing at pump stations and shovel out all street hydrants  Repair broken hydrants  Order materials for emergency breaks and new services, meters, etc.  Inspect commercial buildings for proper backflow prevention  Respond to calls for meter replacements and problems with meters  Perform October and April meter readings and repair problem meters  Compile jobs worked with contractors hours worked and prepare invoices  Collect weekly samples, prepare associated paper work and reports  Collect quarterly samples for the health department TTHH’s and HAA5’s samples, reports  Collect lead and copper testing samples, prepare reports  Assist customers with problems or concerns  Set up leak detection  Set up inspection with health department on tanks, pump stations, meter pits, office equipment, etc. and answer questions  Perform all billing for contract work, water services  Flush street hydrants, blow offs, and private hydrant maintenance  Backflow program, meter calibration, etc.  Mow grass at pump stations and tanks  Inspect all new water lines, flush with back flow, pressure testing, chlorinate 24 hours flush, collect samples and deliver them to laboratory  Clean out valve boxes and exercise valves  Perform routine maintenance on all tanks, pump stations, and telemetry equipment  Order all materials for jobs and critical infrastructure  Be available for on call response to emergencies 24-7  Maintenance on hydrants: paint, grease, flush  Assist Town highway department if needed  Set up maintenance programs  Locate valves, hydrants, curb stops, etc.  Run backhoe if needed to repair water main breaks, etc.

Pare Corporation 6-5

SECTION 7.0 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

The Emergency Management section for the SWSB is detailed in Volume II of this WSSMP. The Emergency Management Plan addresses each of the requirements of Section 8.08 – Emergency Management of the October 2002 Rules and Procedures for Water Supply System Management Planning.

The SWSB will look into establishing a reverse phone call or robo-call system for emergency notification, but it is our understanding that the RI Department of Health may be pursuing this on a state-wide level with the RI Emergency Management Agency.

The SWSB recently established a new emergency interconnection with the Greenville Water District (GWD) in the vicinity of the Burlingame Tank. The GWD is supplied entirely as a wholesale customer of Providence Water. The SWSB has also identified possible interconnections with the Lincoln Water Commission that they wish to pursue. The Lincoln Water Commission is also supplied by Providence Water but is connected with the Pawtucket Water Supply Board system as well.

Pare Corporation 7-1

SECTION 8.0 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT

8.1 General

A drought event is not immediate, but occurs over a period of time. Generally, a drought is defined as a continuous period of time in which rainfall is significantly below the norm for a particular area. This period of time could be as short as one summer, or as long as several years. The ability of a water system to withstand a drought is dependent upon the demands for water supply, the size of the storage facilities, and the length of the drought period. The direct effects of drought are:

1. Reduction of available water to meet the demands of the using public. 2. Reduction of surface water levels in the suppliers’ reservoirs. 3. Reduction of operating income due to reduced delivery.

The information contained within this WSSMP is consistent with State Guide Plan Element 721 RI Water 2030 and the requirements of Section 8.09 of the October 2002 Rules and Procedures for Water Supply System Management Planning. The five phases of drought consistent with the Drought Watch/Warning System of the National Weather Service, are:

 Normal;  Advisory;  Watch;  Warning; and  Emergency.

Drought conditions are evaluated on a regional basis across the state and are assigned based on conditions represented by major hydrologic indices, including precipitation, groundwater levels, stream flow, and the Palmer Drought Index. The Rhode Island Water Resources Board and Drought Steering Committee evaluate the major hydrologic indices and adjust drought levels both state-wide and on a regional basis, accordingly. The SWSB does not have their own source of supply so they rely on the Drought Steering Committee and their wholesale provider, Providence Water, to monitor conditions and determine drought phases.

Pare Corporation 8-1

8.2 Drought Management Procedures

Drought management procedures remain generally unchanged from the last WSSMP. The SWSB works in conjunction with Providence Water on preventive measures and maintenance to aid Providence Water in drought management when conditions dictate. Also, the SWSB has coordinated with Providence Water as recently as December 2014 on developing an interrelated drought management plan. The goal of this plan is to understand the specific drought indicators used by Providence Water and the availability of water that can be expected during the five stages of drought outlined above.

The SWSB’s Emergency Management Plan (EMP), provided as Volume II of this WSSMP, contains provisions for addressing drought and a reduction in water quantity. The SWSB’s EMP Volume II identifies drought under the following sections:

1. Section 1 - Risks to Water System, 1.1.7 Drought that identifies and describes drought. 2. Section 3 - Minimum System Operational Requirements, 3.2 Water Quantity Conditions identifies three water quantity conditions with specific volumes: a. Tier 1 Water Quantity Condition Total Minimum Quantity for Tier 1: 0.9 MGD b. Tier 2 Water Quantity Condition Total Minimum Quantity for Tier 2: 0.45 MGD c. Tier 3 Water Quantity Condition Total Minimum Quantity for Tier 3: 0.13 MGD 3. Section 4 - Vulnerability Assessment, Group 5 (Drought) discusses potential impacts on the system and vulnerable components susceptible emergencies involving drought. 4. Section 6 – General Responses discusses response actions during emergency events in which water quantity has been reduced. 5. Section 7 – Specific Disaster/Emergency Responses, Group 5 (Drought) discusses response actions to be taken during drought conditions. 6. Section 8 – Critical Component Responses discusses response actions for specific critical components during a variety of emergency events, including drought. 7. Section 9 – Recovery & Reverse Triggers, discusses identified of the end of an emergency and recovery following emergency events.

Pare Corporation 8-2

Table 8-1 shows the response actions to be taken by the SWSB corresponding to the various stages of drought.

Table 8-1: SWSB Drought Conditions Response Actions

Drought Phase SWSB Initial SWSB Response Actions Phase Identification Response RIWRB Drought Coordinate/ Steering Consult with 1. Maintain Operations Normal Committee Providence (DSC) Water Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate w/ Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts and Consult with State Agencies per Emergency Management Plan RIWRB Advisory Providence (EMP) DSC Water 2. Respond per Tier 1 Water Quantity Condition in accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts RIWRB Consult with and State Agencies per EMP Watch DSC Providence 2. Respond per Tier 2 Water Quantity Condition in Water accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts RIWRB Consult with and State Agencies per EMP Warning DSC Providence 2. Respond per Tier 3 Water Quantity Condition in Water accordance with EMP, as applicable Coordinate/ 1. Coordinate with Mutual Aid Agreement Contacts RIWRB Consult with and State Agencies per EMP Emergency DSC Providence 2. Respond per Tier 4 Water Quantity Condition in Water accordance with EMP, as applicable

The SWSB has emergency interconnections in place with other nearby water systems that also obtain their water from Providence Water. A goal of the SWSB is to create an emergency interconnection with the Lincoln Water Commission, which has interconnections with other water systems that have sources separate from the Scituate Reservoir. This would provide redundancy in supply to the SWSB, though it is acknowledged that all water suppliers in the northern RI region would very likely be impacted similarly during drought conditions.

Pare Corporation 8-3

The SWSB entered into a Water System Mutual Aid Agreement in October 2007 with several neighboring water suppliers which establishes a protocol for “obtaining assistance in the form of personnel, equipment, materials and other associated services” during emergency events. A copy of this agreement is provided in Appendix G. The participating water suppliers are as follows:

. Cumberland Water Department . Lincoln Water Commission . Pawtucket Water Supply Board . East Smithfield Water District . Smithfield Water Supply Board

The SWSB currently uses the following framework to address drought management in relation to the five phases of drought and administers these phases with aid from the Drought Steering Committee and in coordination with Providence Water.

Pare Corporation 8-4

SECTION 9.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

9.1 General

The WSSMP outlines the goals of the Water Supply System Management Planning process for the SWSB, while serving as a guide for the SWSB’s decision-making procedures. This section intends to catalog actions necessary for the implementation of the WSSMP’s recommendations and for identification of the personnel responsible for taking those actions. This Implementation section will therefore serve to link those recommendations resulting from comprehensive study, to policy and financial decisions required for actual improvement of the system.

A schedule outlining the individuals responsible, anticipated timeframe, and approximate costs associated with the recommendations of this plan has been developed and summarized in Table 9-1. The costs to perform the capital improvements listed are approximate at this time and are based solely on a conceptual understanding of the work required for their implementation. Refined cost estimates will be prepared as design of these improvements progresses.

This program has been compiled from the modifications and upgrades identified in Section 2.9 and elsewhere in this WSSMP as well as in the SWSB’s recently updated 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which is provided in Appendix J. For the most part, the capital projects anticipated in upcoming years, including many of those identified in Table 9-1, are outside of the capabilities of the SWSB Operations personnel to perform in-house and will require design, bidding, and selection of a contractor for their implementation.

The estimated costs provided in Table 9-1 are primarily the capital costs for these projects. Increased cost in system operation and maintenance associated with these upgrades is believed negligible and would be funded through the SWSB’s operating budget. Engineering costs are typically funded from the SWSB’s operating budget.

The SWSB intends on completing a comprehensive rate study now that its 20-year CIP has been updated. The SWSB will look to establish water rates that are fair and economical yet adequate for loan repayment associated with these projects.

Pare Corporation 9-1

Table 9-1: Implementation Schedule

Estimated Estimated Possible Plan Element or Project Responsible Party Timeframe Cost Funding Source Water System Operational Procedures Institute full-accounting of non- SWSB 2015 N/A N/A billed water (Fire Dept., DPW use) Staff Revise SWSB Rules and SWSB Staff & 2016 N/A N/A Regulations Board of Directors Approach Providence Water SWSB regarding increase in allowable 2016 N/A N/A Director wholesale water purchases Coordinate with Bryant College for possible water conservation SWSB Director 2017 N/A N/A efforts Water System Planning SWSB Staff & General Operating Perform Rate Study Engineering 2017 $20,000 Budget Consultant Infrastructure Rehabilitation Install passive mixing systems at General Operating Outside Contractor 2015-2017 $300,000 each storage tank Budget Rehabilitate exterior/interior tank Drinking Water coatings and perform Outside Contractor 2016-2018 $3,000,000 SRF or Other miscellaneous structural repairs Loan Create system loop at Farnum Drinking Water Pike and George Washington Outside Contractor 2018-2020 $2,000,000 SRF or Other Highway Loan

Pare Corporation 9-2

Table 9-1: Implementation Schedule (cont.)

2016 Capital Improvement Plan Projects Estimated Estimated Possible Funding Project Timeframe Cost Source Drinking Water CIP No. 1 – New 1 MG Storage Tank & Interconnection with 2017-2022 $5.1 Million SRF or Other Lincoln Water Commission at George Washington Highway Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 2 – Installation of 4,800 linear feet of new water 2022-2027 $1.9 Million SRF or Other main in Douglas Pike Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 3 – Installation of 6,900 linear feet of new 12-inch DI 2022-2027 $2.3 Million SRF or Other water main in Ridge Road and Limerock Road Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 4 – Installation of 7,700 linear feet of new 12-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.6 Million SRF or Other water main on Ridge Road and Stillwater Road Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 5 – Installation of 4,885 linear feet of 16-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.1 Million SRF or Other water main on George Washington Highway and Farnum Pike Loan Drinking Water CIP No. 6 – Installation of 8,500 linear feet of 12-inch DI 2027-2037 $2.9 Million SRF or Other water main in Harris Road Loan

The Capital Improvement Plan recommended a number of operation and maintenance projects that will require funding through SWSB’s operating budget. A future rate study will be performed by SWSB in consideration of these operation and maintenance costs as well as anticipated debt repayment for the capital projects described above. Recommended operation and maintenance projects, as presented in the CIP, are as follows:

 Pipe Replacement Program: Approximately 2,300 feet of AC pipe replacement annually over a 20-year period, at approximately $750,000 per year  Unidirectional Flushing Program: Annual estimated cost of $7,500 in addition to a one- time, $10,000 fee to develop a unidirectional flushing program

Pare Corporation 9-3

 Valve Operating Program: Annual estimated cost of $15,000 to locate and exercise system valves and make minor repairs, as necessary  Meter Replacement Program: Annual budgetary estimate of $10,000 for meter replacements  Tank Inspection and Maintenance Program: Annual budgetary estimate of $75,000 for the cost of routine inspection and maintenance as well as to fund future painting and tank repair projects  Leak Detection Program: Annual estimate of $5,000 to perform leak detection surveys  Hydrant Replacement Program: Annual budgetary estimate of $15,000 to replace damaged hydrants  GIS, Mapping, & Asset Management Program: Establish a GIS asset management database at a startup cost of $50,000 as well as $5,000 annual fee for licensing and general upkeep of the database

Pare Corporation 9-4

SECTION 10.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

10.1 General

The SWSB operates as an Enterprise Fund Agency within the municipal corporation of the Town of Smithfield. The Town has established enterprise funds for operations that are organized to be self- supporting such that the cost of providing services is financed or fully recovered through user charges.

The SWSB operates in a financially self-supporting manner and establishes water rates to fund operation and maintenance of the system. Revenues are from water rates as well as a customer service charge, based on meter size. The SWSB uses an inclining block rate structure, which has been in place for several years.

10.2 Current Financial Management Practices

Table 10-1 summarizes the revenue and expenses for the SWSB over the last three fiscal years. The SWSB Fiscal Year runs from July 1 through June 30.

Table 10-1: SWSB Total Revenue & Expenses (2011-2013)

2013 2012 2011 Total Revenues $1,450,424 $1,378,510 $1,399,134 Total Expenses $1,357,436 $1,338,080 $1,335,432 Total Income (Loss) $92,988 $40,430 $63,702

Pare Corporation 10-1

10.2.1 Summary of Operating Income and Expenses A summary of the operating income and expenses for the three most recent completed fiscal years (i.e., FY 2013, 2012, and 2011) has been prepared in accordance with Worksheet No. 38. A summary of audited expenditures and revenue is provided in Appendix H.

Revenue Annual Water Rate Revenue – Income received from retail and wholesale customers based on metered water consumption. This typically makes up over 95% of total revenue earned by the SWSB.

General Facility Charge Revenue and Special Assessment Revenue – Charges for public and private fire protection.

Special Assessment Revenue – One-time miscellaneous charges, such as connection fees, penalties, etc.

Capital Funds – Funds received from borrowing specifically for capital projects.

Reserve Fund Revenue – Funds transferred from reserve funds that have developed from previous year’s income.

Other Earned Revenue – Funds that are developed from water operations separate from usage fees and assessments. This is typically a relatively small source of revenue for the SWSB.

Other Unearned Revenue – Funds that have been received as interest on short or long term investments.

Expenses Annual Water System Indebtedness – Revenue that has been used for capital improvements.

Debt Service on Bonds – Funds that have been used to pay the principal and interest on outstanding bonds for previously completed capital improvements.

Pare Corporation 10-2

Operation and Maintenance Expenses – Revenue that has been used to pay:

- Salaries and benefits - Materials and supplies - Repair and maintenance - Depreciation - Utilities - Miscellaneous expenses - Administrative expenses

These typically make up between 75% and 80% of total expenses.

Other Expenses – Expenses that do not belong to any of the above categories, including purchased water for resale. This is typically 20% to 25% of total expenses.

10.2.2 Current Water Rate Structure The SWSB uses an inclining block rate schedule based on water usage. Current water rates went into effect in 2010 and represent a 9.9% increase from previous rates. The rate increase was in response to an increase in the wholesale rate charged by Providence Water.

The current rates are as follows:

Tier I (0 – 100,000 gallons annually): $3.20/1,000 gallons Tier II (100,000 – 1,000,000 gallons annually): $3.80/1,000 gallons Tier III (Over 1,000,000 gallons annually): $4.40/1,000 gallons

Pare Corporation 10-3

10.2.3 Frequency of Billing and Collections Major users are metered and billed monthly, while the rest of the customer base is metered and billed quarterly. The SWSB is in compliance with the State’s requirements for metering and billing frequency, now that system meters have been upgraded to automatic read meters. These updated went into effect in 2015.

10.3 Future Revenue Sources

10.3.1 Town of Smithfield General Obligation Bonds The SWSB can finance projects and capital expenses through general obligation bonds. The Town Finance Director and Town Council must evaluate requests for General Obligation debt for future water projects.

10.3.2 Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency The Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency administers the drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program to assist water purveyors in financing improvement projects. Projects are awarded funding based on their ranking on a project priority list, and emphasis is often given to small and disadvantaged water systems. The SWSB has most recently obtained a SRF loan to replace system meters with radio-read type meters. The SWSB may pursue SRF loans in the future for significant capital improvement projects, including those projects identified in Section 9 of this WSSMP.

10.3.3 Rhode Island Water Resources Board The Rhode Island Water Resources Board (RIWRB) periodically has grants available for emergency interconnections between water utilities through its Water Facilities Assistance Grant Program. The SWSB and GWD recently benefited from this program, constructing an emergency interconnection between the two systems at the GWD’s new 1.0 MG storage tank (adjacent to the SWSB’s existing Burlingame Tank). The SWSB will consider grants that might be available from this program in the future, as funding is available, for possible emergency interconnection(s) with the Lincoln Water Commission.

Pare Corporation 10-4

10.4 Assessment of Rates

The Town has a billing frequency, rate structure, and water rates that are designed to:

 Recover all capital and operating costs for complete operation of the water system;  Provide the customer with information on the cost of using water; and  Reimburse the Town for administrative services provided to the SWSB (from other Town departments).

The SWSB, with the assistance of the Town Finance Department, develops an annual budget designed to include all costs of operating the water system and all anticipated revenues, subject to approval by the Town Council. While developing the anticipated revenues, the water rates are evaluated to determine their suitability to sufficiently fund the anticipated costs of the system. Adjustments are made to the rates if necessary to assure that the expected revenue accommodates the operating costs.

The proposed budget is presented to the Town Council for approval. The current adopted rates, as listed previously, were developed on this basis by the SWSB in conjunction with the Town Finance Department. The rates were most recently adjusted in 2010 due to an increase in the wholesale water rates charged by Providence Water.

The SWSB attempts to operate and maintain the water system such that non-account water is maintained at a rate of less than ten (10%) percent. SWSB staff reviews non-account water and takes immediate action to repair leaks, identify inaccurate meters and generally identify all non-accounted for water to meet this goal. The SWSB recognizes the benefits to this, in that reductions in non-account water may have a noticeable impact on the system's operating expenses with virtually no effect to revenues collected from water sales.

10.5 Billing

As previously discussed, residential and small commercial customers are billed quarterly while large users are billed monthly. The SWSB is in compliance with RI General Law §46-15.3-22(c).

Pare Corporation 10-5

10.5.1 Joint Billing Customers of the SWSB system in North Providence are provided sewer service by the Narragansett Bay Commission while customers in Smithfield either have sewer service from the Town or use onsite wastewater treatment systems. Since the service areas of these utilities do not overlap uniformly, joint billing is not seen as a viable option at this time.

Pare Corporation 10-6

SECTION 11.0 COORDINATION

11.1 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans

The SWSB serves customers in the Town of North Providence in addition to Smithfield. As such, the current comprehensive plans for Smithfield and North Providence were both reviewed while updating this WSSMP. This WSSMP is intended to be consistent with the goals and policies of these comprehensive plans.

A copy of the WSSMP has been provided to the municipal planners from both towns for their review to confirm that it is consistent with their comprehensive plan. Letters indicating this WSSMP’s consistency with the comprehensive plans of each town are provided in Appendix I.

11.1.1 Smithfield Comprehensive Plan The current Smithfield Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Rhode Island Department of Administration (RIDOA) in January 2007 and was amended on October 4, 2010. This Plan was developed as the 2006 update to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, which received State approval in April 2001. A draft update to the Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 2014 and is under review by the RIDOA at this time.

The Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan describes Smithfield as a desirable location with a high quality of life, which introduces significant development pressures for the Town. The Plan indicates that the Town has established a well-defined “blueprint” for future development of residential, commercial, and industrial use while ensuring that the rural character of the Town is not compromised. To this end, the Town encourages new residential development in the historical village areas of Smithfield, although new residential development has generally occurred throughout the Town. Recent development in the village areas of Esmond and Georgiaville has primarily been multi- family condominium and apartment style housing while subdivisions of new single-family homes has been more common in the rural parts of the Town. The Esmond and Georgiaville areas are outside the SWSB service area. The Town also encourages Conservation Development as a means of encouraging open space preservation amidst future development.

The Comprehensive Plan projects that the recent trends in new housing construction will continue in the near future, indicating that the Town has abundant land available and is conveniently located

Pare Corporation 11-1

close to major metropolitan areas and transportation routes. A 2001 Buildout Analysis performed by the Town estimated that a total of 4,243 housing units could be added to the 7,396 housing units that existed at the time this analysis was performed. The 2014 draft Comprehensive Plan estimates that 800 housing units have been constructed throughout town since this analysis was completed. According to the Smithfield Town Planner, an annual average of 48 new residential building permit applications have been reviewed and processed in recent years.

The Town established a Planned Corporate District to attract professional office buildings, corporate headquarters, and related commercial services (banks, hotels, etc.). The Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that approximately 1,900 acres of land, generally along Routes 7 and 116, was rezoned to create this district. The creation of this district helps focus this type of development into an area of the Town that is well served by existing facilities and where this type of development already exists, helping to preserve the rural character of other parts of Town.

The Community Services and Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Town operates the SWSB through an enterprise fund and that two other water suppliers, the ESWD and GWD, are independent of the Town and serve the other parts of Smithfield. The Plan states that the water suppliers work collectively to “ensure adequate supply and coverage” throughout the Town. Development proposals in Smithfield that seek access to public water must first obtain approval from the applicable water supplier based on the service territory where their site resides. Proposed developments are evaluated based on both water supply and available system pressure. The Plan further states that “it is the Town’s intent to balance new development with the available and projected water supply.”

11.1.2 North Providence Comprehensive Plan The SWSB serves a very small portion of the Town of North Providence, including customers in the eastern part of the Greystone neighborhood and customers in the western part of the Woodville neighborhood. The North Providence Comprehensive Plan, dated 2013, indicates that approximately 900 customers are served by the SWSB, and the SWSB estimates they have approximately 450 service connections in North Providence. The vast majority of the Town is supplied by the Providence Water Supply Board while the ESWD supplies the remaining part of Greystone, approximately 750 customers.

The Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan shows that existing land use in the portion of Woodville within the SWSB service area is largely developed with single-family residential type use

Pare Corporation 11-2

with lot sizes ranging from 9,000 to 12,000 square feet, which is consistent with projected future land use identified as “medium low density residential”.

While the Greystone neighborhood is also largely developed, a relatively large tract of undeveloped land exists within the SWSB service area in the northeast part of Greystone. This land borders a former landfill and much of it comprises the 36-acre Peter Randall State Reservation, identified as “conservation open space” in the Plan. The remainder of this undeveloped land is identified as “undeveloped/unprotected” and has historically been zoned residential. While past future build-out analyses planned for residential development in these areas, the 2013 Comprehensive Plan recommends that the zoning of these areas be changed from residential to open space to form a buffer between the landfill and existing residential uses.

Based on the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, it does not appear that future development within North Providence will have a major impact on water use in the SWSB system.

The Comprehensive Plan states that “North Providence will promote efficient use of water and implement programs to mitigate the impacts of drought in accordance with State Guide Plan Element 724: Rhode Island Drought Management Plan.” It references the WSSMP of each water system serving the Town, in particular Emergency and Drought Management procedures. The plan also indicates that the Town is pursuing opportunities to establish emergency interconnections between neighboring water suppliers, citing the Town of Lincoln as an example. North Providence is served either directly by Providence Water or by suppliers that purchase their water from Providence Water.

11.2 Coordination with Other Water Suppliers

Recently, the SWSB and ESWD reached a formal, signed agreement to consolidate both water systems into one new water district, entitled the “Smithfield Consolidated Water District”. Currently both systems are supplied entirely through wholesale purchases from Providence Water and both serve customers in Smithfield and North Providence. Their service territories are immediately adjacent to each other and are already interconnected at Ridge Road. A closed interconnection at Meadow View Drive could also be opened to connect the two service areas in a second location. Consolidating the two districts would hope to achieve operational cost savings through shared resources, such as equipment and personnel.

Pare Corporation 11-3

Formation of this district would require an Act of Legislation to be passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly. Legislation was first introduced in the Rhode Island General Assembly in May 2013 and then again in 2014, but in both cases the bill was held for further study. Consolidation of the two water systems remains a future consideration but there currently is no timetable for additional action on this matter at this time.

The Smithfield Comprehensive Plan indicates that the three water suppliers that serve the Town, the SWSB, ESWD, and GWD, work collectively to “ensure adequate supply and coverage”. Also, the SWSB entered into a “Water System Mutual Aid Agreement” with neighboring water suppliers in October 2007 with the purpose of establishing an agreement in which participating agencies can obtain assistance in the event of an emergency. Aid assistance can be in the form of personnel, equipment, materials, and other associated services. Participating water systems in addition to the SWSB include the ESWD, Cumberland Water Department, Lincoln Water District, and Pawtucket Water Supply Board. A copy of this agreement is included in Appendix G.

11.3 Coordination with Wastewater Collection Systems

Approximately 60% of the Town’s homes and businesses, primarily those located in the southern and central parts of Smithfield, are served by the Town’s municipal sewer collection system and wastewater treatment facility. This includes the commercial/industrial areas along Routes 7 and 116. The Smithfield Sewer Authority is managed by the Town Engineer while the Public Works Director acts as the Water Superintendent for the SWSB. Customers in North Providence are served by the Narragansett Bay Commission while rural parts of Smithfield are served by onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Since the Town’s water and sewer systems are operated by different departments, and that multiple sewer agencies serve the SWSB customer base while other customers rely on onsite wastewater treatment systems, joint billing does not appear to be suitable or beneficial for the SWSB at this time.

11.4 Coordination with Local Fire Departments

The SWSB coordinates with the local fire departments in Smithfield and North Providence regarding the location and condition of system components, specifically fire hydrants, critical to fire fighting. The SWSB coordinates with the Smithfield Fire Department to track water used for fire-fighting.

Pare Corporation 11-4

ATTACHMENT NO. 1

SWSB WATER SYSTEM

Pare Corporation TOWN OF SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD

Town of North Smithfield ST-1 Town of Smithfield

T8 ST-2

T11 T7 T12

T10

PS-3

T13

T14 T7 T9 LINCOLN WATER

T14

T15 COMMISSION SMITHFIELD/GREENVILLE INTERCONNECTION [I-6] AT

BURLINGAME TANK FARM T13

T15 Town of Smithfield

Town of Glocester

ST-3

Town of SmithfieldTown of Lincoln T1

PS-2

SMITHFIELD TO EAST SMITHFIELD CONN. (INACTIVE)

EAST SMITHFIELD GREENVILLE WATER DISTRICT T4 WATER DISTRICT T2

T2 SMITHFIELD TO EAST SMITHFIELD CONNECTION [I-4] (ACTIVE) T3

Town of PROVIDENCE TO SMITHFIELD North CONNECTION [I-3] AT HAWTHORNE ST. Providence (INACTIVE) Town of Smithfield PROVIDENCE TO EAST SMITHFIELD WATER DIST. T1 CONNECTION (ACTIVE)

Town of Johnston PROVIDENCE TO GREENVILLE WATER DIST. PS-1 CONNECTION (ACTIVE)

PROVIDENCE TO EAST PROVIDENCE TO SMITHFIELD Town of Scituate SMITHFIELD WATER DIST. CONNECTION [I-1] W/ MASTER METER CONNECTION (ACTIVE) (INACTIVE)

PROVIDENCE TO SMITHFIELD ENGINEERS - SCIENTISTS - PLANNERS 8 BLACKSTONE VALLEY PLACE CONNECTION [I-2] AT BICENTENNIAL WAY LINCOLN, RI 02865 (INACTIVE) 401-334-4100

APPENDIX A

WSSMP WORKSHEETS

No. 1 - Surface Water Supply Description No. 2 - Groundwater Supply Description No. 3 - Treatment Facility Description No. 4 - Storage Facility Description No. 5 - Pump Station Facility Description No. 6 - Transmission System Description No. 7 - Interconnections Description No. 8 - Service Connections and Population Served No. 9 - Master Meter Data No. 10 - Listing of Major Users No. 11 - Major User Meter Data No. 12 - Current Volumes of Water (MG) Withdrawn from Each Supply Source and Total System No. 13 - Historic Volumes of Water (MG) Withdrawn from Each Supply Source and Total System No. 14 - Current Monthly Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) No. 15 - Historic Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) No. 16 - Current Monthly Wholesale Water Sales (MG) No. 17 - Historic Wholesale Water Sales (MG) No. 18 - Current Average Daily Demand (ADD) per System and per Capita (Monthly Basis) No. 19 - Current and Historic Maximum Daily Demand, Peak Hour Demand, Average Daily Demand, Peaking factor (Yearly Basis) No. 20 - Current Water Use (MG) by Category and Sub-Category No. 21 - Historic Water Use (MG) by Category and Sub-Category No. 22 - Current & Historic Average Daily Demand (MG) by Category and Sub-Category No. 23 - Current Water Use (MG) by Major Users No. 24 - Historic Water Use (MG) by Major Users No. 25 - Historic Fire-Fighting and Non-Account Water Use (MG) No. 26 - Current and Projected (5, 20 year) Fire-Fighting and Non-Account Water Use Estimates (MG) No. 27 - Projected Water Use and Demand (MG) by Category and Sub-Category for 5, 20 year Planning Periods No. 28 - Projected Water Use by Current and Potential Major Users (MG) for 5, 20 year Planning Periods No. 29 - Well Data for Available Water Analysis No. 29A - Available Water (MGD) Summary Data No. 30 - Residential Retrofit Program (RRP) Summary No. 31 - Cost Analysis of a Proposed LDR Program No. 32 - Leak Detection Project Summary No. 33 - Critical Spare Parts Inventory No. 34 - Existing Treatment and Treatment Needed to Meet SDWA Requirements No. 35 - Priority Service List No. 36 - Water Supplier Personnel Responsible for Emergency Actions No. 37 - Inventory of Emergency Support and Stand-By Equipment No. 38 - Supplier Revenue and Expenses for the Last Three Years

Pare Corporation WORKSHEET #1: Surface Water Supply Description (Section 8.02 (b)) - (If the supplier has more than three Surface Water Sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Source Name Source Name Source Name N/A

Location (Keyed to Map) DOH PWS ID # Surface Area (Nearest Acre) Intake Size (Nearest In.) Intake Elevation (Nearest 1/100 Ft. - MSL Datum) Total Storage Capacity (Nearest 1/10 MG) Usable Storage Capacity (Nearest 1/10 MG) Watershed Size (Nearest Acre) Legally Imposed Discharge (Nearest 1/10 MGD) Existing Discharge (Nearest 1/10 MGD) Proposed Discharge (Nearest 1/10 MGD) Reservoir Function (Storage or Distribution) Status (Active, Emergency, Abandoned, Temporarily Abandoned)

Status Note (Describe if other than Active)

** Is Storage Curve or Table for each source attached? Yes ____ No ____ WORKSHEET #2: Groundwater Supply Description (Section 8.02 (b) 4) - (If the supplier has more than two wells additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Well ID Well ID N/A

Location (Keyed to Map) DOH PWS ID # Well Type (Gravel Packed, Artesian) Well Depth (Nearest Ft.) Well Diameter (Nearest 1/2") Type of Pump Age of Pump (Nearest Year) Remaining Useful Life of Pump (Nearest Year) Rated Capacity of Pump (Nearest GPM) Size of Pump Discharge (Nearest 1/2") Pump Size (GPM) Column Size (Nearest 1/2") Head (Nearest Ft.) Screen Length (Nearest In.) Top of Screen Depth from Surface (Nearest Ft.) Depth to Suction (Nearest Ft.) Auxiliary Power on Well (Electric,Direct Drive) Slot Size (Nearest 1/16") Date Well Drilled (Mo/Day/Year) Name of Well Driller Well Drilling Method (Cable Tool,Reverse Rotary) Casing Material Well Status (Active, Emergency, Abandoned, Temporarily Abandoned) Status Note (Describe if other than Active) Last Date Redeveloped or Serviced (Mo/Day/Yr)

WORKSHEET #3: Treatment Facility Description (Section 8.02 (c) 1) - (If the supplier has more than three Treatment Facilities additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Treatment Facility ID Treatment Facility ID Treatment Facility ID

Location (Keyed to Map) Limerock Pump Station

Source(s) Treated Longview Reservoir

(wholesale purchases from Providence Water) Design Flow (Nearest 1/10 MGD)

Maximum Flow (Nearest 1/10 MGD) 2.0 MGD (indicating duration) Standby Power (Yes/No) Yes

KW Demand of Facility (Nearest KW)

KW of Standby Generators (Nearest KW) 60 kW

Chemical Feed Equipment (Yes/No) Yes (Chlorine Dosing)

WORKSHEET #4: Storage Facility Description (Section 8.02 (c) 2) - (If the supplier has more than three Storage Facilities additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Storage Facility Name Storage Facility Name Storage Facility Name Rocky Hill Island Woods Burlingame

Location ST1 - Rocky Hill Road ST2 - Alpha Road ST3 - Burlingame Road (Keyed to Map) Storage Facility Type Tank Tank Tank (Tank,Stand Pipe,Clearwell) Total Storage Volume 1,000,000 4,000,000 300,000 (Gallons) Usable Storage Volume 127,000 323,000 98,700 (Gallons) Facility Age 50 (1964) 23 (1991) 26 (1988) (Nearest Year) Facility Condition Fair Fair Fair (New, Good, Fair, Poor) Last Date of Inspection May 2010 May 2010 May 2010 (Mo/Day/Yr) Construction Material Steel Steel Steel (Major) Interior Paint Coating or Lining Epoxy Paint Epoxy Paint Epoxy Paint (Describe) Cathodic Protection No Yes Yes (Yes/No)

WORKSHEET #5: Pump Station Facility Description (Section 8.02 (c) 3) - (If the supplier has more than three Pump Station Facilities additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Pump Station Name Pump Station Name Pump Station Name Longview Reservoir Booster Limerock Road Booster Davis Booster Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station

Location (Keyed to Map) PS1 – Smithfield Road PS2 – Douglas Pike PS3 – Log Road

Type of Pump Station Booster Booster Booster (Booster, Transmission) Number of Pumps in Station 3 3 2

Type of Each Pump and Capacity (or Range for Variable Speed Pumps) (GPM) Pump #1 Centrifugal – 683 GPM Centrifugal – 595 GPM Centrifugal – 150 GPM

Pump #2 Centrifugal – 683 GPM Centrifugal – 595 GPM Centrifugal – 150 GPM

Pump #3 Centrifugal – 683 GPM Centrifugal – 595 GPM

Pump #4

Pump #5

Hydropneumatic Storage Tanks (Yes/No) No No No KW Demand of Facility (Nearest KW) Emergency Power (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Generator Power Rating (Nearest KW) 215 KW 60 KW 35 KW WORKSHEET #6: Transmission System Description (Section 8.02 (c) 4) - (If supplier has more than 15 Transmission Lines additional copies of this table should be made - Transmission lines can be cross-referenced to a map providing sufficient detail to locate start and end points for each line.

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 1 of 3

Transmission Line ID Material1 Age of Line Diameter Sections Total Length General and Line Start-End Points (Nearest Year) (Nearest In.) (Nearest Ft.) (Nearest Ft.) Condition2

T1-Smithfield Rd & Ridge Rd from CLCI 1964 12 7,185 Good Longview PS to Jefferson St

T2-Ridge Rd, Carol Ann Ave, & Whipple Rd from Jefferson St to CLCI 1964 12 7,296 Good Douglas Pike

T3-Jefferson St from Ridge Rd to DI 1975 12 1,918 Good Douglas Pike

T4-Douglas Pike from Jefferson St to DI 1990 12 5,837 Good Whipple Rd

T5-Douglas Pike from Whipple Rd to CLCI 1964 12 6,114 Good Limerock PS

T6-Douglas Pike from Limerock PS to CLCI 1964 12 2,110 Good 7,165 Washington Hwy DI 1997 16 5,055 Good

1 MATERIAL: AC - Asbestos Concrete, CI - Cast Iron, CL - Cement Lined, Cu - Copper, DI - Ductile Iron, Pb - Lead, POLY - Polyethylene, PVC - PVC Plastic, VC - Vitrified Clay, WOOD – Wood

2 CONDITION: NEW, GOOD, FAIR, POOR

WORKSHEET #6: Transmission System Description (Section 8.02 (c) 4) - (If supplier has more than 15 Transmission Lines additional copies of this table should be made - Transmission lines can be cross-referenced to a map providing sufficient detail to locate start and end points for each line.

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 2 of 3

Transmission Line ID Material1 Age of Line Diameter Sections Total Length General and Line Start-End Points (Nearest Year) (Nearest In.) (Nearest Ft.) (Nearest Ft.) Condition2 T7-Washington Hwy, Auxilary Rd, Rocky Hill Rd from Douglas Pike to CLCI 1964 12 8,685 Good Rocky Hill Road Tank T8-Rocky Hill Road & Washington Hwy from Auxilary to dead end at CLCI 1964 & 1969 12 4,159 Good Lincoln town line

T9-Douglas Pike from Washington Hwy to Alpha Rd DI 1997 16 4,338 Good

T10-Alpha Rd from Douglas Pike to Island Woods Tank DI 1994 16 2,696 Good

T11-Douglas Pike from Alpha Rd to Branch Pike DI 1997 16 2,971 Good

T12-Rogler Farm Rd from Douglas DI 1978 12 3,588 Good Pike to Farnum Pike

1 MATERIAL: AC - Asbestos Concrete, CI - Cast Iron, CL - Cement Lined, Cu - Copper, DI - Ductile Iron, Pb - Lead, POLY - Polyethylene, PVC - PVC Plastic, VC - Vitrified Clay, WOOD - Wood

2 CONDITION: NEW, GOOD, FAIR, POOR

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 3 of 3

Transmission Line ID Material1 Age of Line Diameter Sections Total Length General and Line Start-End Points (Nearest Year) (Nearest In.) (Nearest Ft.) (Nearest Ft.) Condition2

T13-Farnum Pike from Rogler Farm Rd to dead-end at Woonasquatucket River PVC 1981 12 5,783 Good

T14-Old Forge Rd & Log Road from DI 1990 12 4,761 Good Farnum Pike to Davis PS

T15-Burlingame Rd from Davis PS to Burlingame Tank DI 1990 12 8,222 Good

1 MATERIAL: AC - Asbestos Concrete, CI - Cast Iron, CL - Cement Lined, Cu - Copper, DI - Ductile Iron, Pb - Lead, POLY - Polyethylene, PVC - PVC Plastic, VC - Vitrified Clay, WOOD – Wood

2 CONDITION: NEW, GOOD, FAIR, POOR WORKSHEET #7: Interconnections Description (Section 8.02 (d)) - (If the supplier has more than two Interconnections additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 1 of 3

Interconnection ID Interconnection ID Longview Reservoir Bicentennial Way

Location (Keyed to Map) I-1 I-2

Supplier Connected To Providence Water Providence Water

Interconnection Valve Location Valve #1 Smithfield Road at Locust Avenue Longview Pump Station Valve #2 Smithfield Road at

Longview Pump Station Valve Ownership

Valve #1 SWSB Providence Water

Valve #2 SWSB

Both (Pumping required for Direction of Flow Receiving (Receiving, Delivering, Both) SWSB to receive)

Type Supply Emergency (Emergency, Supply, Both, Abandoned)

Pressure or Gravity Pressure Pressure

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received 0.90 MGD (for 2013) N/A (Average Daily - MGD)

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received 327.5 MG (for 2013) N/A (Annually - MG) Frequency of Water Delivered/Received (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Annually, or Daily Emergency Emergency Basis) 1.965 (capacity of Longview Transmission Main Capacity (MGD) Pump Station)

Transmission Main Condition Good Good (Good, Fair, Poor)

WORKSHEET #7: Interconnections Description (Section 8.02 (d)) - (If the supplier has more than two Interconnections additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 2 of 3

Interconnection ID Interconnection ID Hawthorne Street Ridge Road

Location (Keyed to Map) I-3 I-4

Supplier Connected To Providence Water ESWD

Interconnection Valve Location Valve #1 Hawthorne Street Ridge Road (Prior to meter)

Valve #2 Ridge Road (After meter)

Valve Ownership

Valve #1 Providence Water SWSB

Valve #2 ESWD

Both (Pumping required for Direction of Flow Delivering (Receiving, Delivering, Both) SWSB to receive)

Type Emergency Supply (to ESWD) (Emergency, Supply, Both, Abandoned)

Pressure or Gravity Pressure Pressure

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received N/A 0.03 MGD (for 2013) (Average Daily - MGD)

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received N/A 11.30 MG (for 2013) (Annually - MG) Frequency of Water Delivered/Received (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Annually, or Emergency Emergency Daily Basis)

Transmission Main Capacity (MGD)

Transmission Main Condition Good Good (Good, Fair, Poor) WORKSHEET #7: Interconnections Description (Section 8.02 (d)) - (If the supplier has more than two Interconnections additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 3 of 3

Interconnection ID Interconnection ID Meadow View Dr., Tank Access Road off of Smithfield Burlingame Road, Smithfield

Location (Keyed to Map) I-5 I-6

Supplier Connected To ESWD Greenville Water District

Interconnection Valve Location Valve #1 Meadow View Drive, Tank Access Road off of Smithfield Burlingame Road, Smithfield

Valve #2

Valve Ownership Valve #1 SWSB / ESWD GWD

Valve #2

Direction of Flow Delivering Both (Receiving, Delivering, Both) Type Emergency Emergency (Emergency, Supply, Both, Abandoned)

Pressure or Gravity Pressure Gravity

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received N/A N/A (Average Daily - MGD)

Quantity of Water Delivered/Received N/A N/A (Annually - MG) Frequency of Water Delivered/Received (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Annually, or Emergency Emergency Emergency Basis)

Transmission Main Capacity (MGD)

Transmission Main Condition Good New (Good, Fair, Poor) WORKSHEET #8: Service Connections and Population Served - Historic, Current, and Projected (Section 8.02 (e) & Section 8.03 (a))

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

# of Service Connections 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Residential 1,297 1,297 1,309 1,305 1,300 1,300 1,244 1,207 1,274 1,254 Commercial 142 142 128 128 128 127 138 138 138* 136* Industrial 13 13 18 18 18 18 18 17 N/A N/A Governmental 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 N/A N/A Other

Total Service Connections 1,457 1,457 1,461 1,457 1,452 1,451 1,406 1,368 1,412 1,390 Number of Metered Services 1,457 1,457 1,461 1,457 1,452 1,451 1,406 1,368 1,412 1,390

% of System Metered 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Total Population Served 9,260 9,260 9,259 9,255 9,255 9,250 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,200

What is the present population eligible to be served (Section 8.02 (e) 3)? 9,260

What is the projected population for the five-year planning period (Section 8.03 (a) 1)? 9,560

What is the projected population for the twenty-year planning period (Section 8.03 (a) 1)? 10,460

* Includes Commercial, Industrial, and Governmental WORKSHEET #9: Master Meter Data (Section 8.02 (f)) - (If the supplier has more than five Master Meters additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

METER ID METER ID METER ID METER ID METER ID Longview Reservoir

Meter Location (Keyed to Map) M-1 Device Type (Venturi, etc.) Venturi Reading Frequency (Daily, etc.) Weekly Recording Register (Dial, etc.) Dial and Digital Totalizer Units of Register Gallons Multiplier (if any) 100 Installation Date May 14, 1997 Size of Meter (Nearest 1/8") 12” Connection Size (Nearest 1/8") 12” Testing Frequency Annually Last Service (Date) Annually / 2013 Last Test/Calibration (Date) Annually / 2013

WORKSHEET #10: Listing of Major Users (Names and Addresses) (Section 8.02 (f) & (h) 3) - (If Supplier has more than 12 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 1 of 2

Major Users Uses of Water Bryant College 1150 Douglas Pike College/Domestic/Landscape Irrigation Smithfield Alexion Pharmaceuticals (Formerly Dow Pharmaceuticals) 100 Beta Road Process and Environmental Controls Smithfield Fidelity Investments 100 Salem Street Commercial Smithfield East Smithfield Water District Ridge Road Wholesale Water Smithfield Heritage Hills Nursing Home 80 Douglas Pike Nursing Home Smithfield Hopkins Manor Ltd. 610 Smithfield Road Nursing Home North Providence B&B Properties (Formerly New England Container) 355 Washington Highway Hotel Smithfield North Providence Housing Authority Sunset Drive Residential Apartments/Condominiums North Providence New England Stone Industries 15 Branch Pike Stone Cutting Smithfield St. James Townhouses 612 Smithfield Road Residential Apartments/Condominiums North Providence American Container Net (Formerly Susse Chalet) 455 Washington Highway Commercial Smithfield Brentwood Apartments 630 Smithfield Road Residential Apartments/Condominiums North Providence

WORKSHEET #10: Listing of Major Users (Names and Addresses) (Section 8.02 (f) & (h) 3) - (If Supplier has more than 12 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 2 of 2

Major Users Uses of Water Douglas Commons Tanglewood Lane Domestic North Providence Stony Brook Apartments Bicentennial Way Residential Apartments/Condominiums North Providence Bacou-Dalloz Eye & Face Protection, Inc. (Formerly Uvex Manufacturing) Manufacturing 10 Thurber Blvd. Smithfield

WORKSHEET #11: Major User Meter Data (Section 8.02 (f)) - (If the supplier has more than 16 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Major User Name1 Installation Reading Units of Multiplier Size Testing Last Test/ Date Frequency Register (if any) (1/8") Frequency Calibration

Bryant College 9/9/81, 6/12/95 Annually, “ 100, 1000, 100 4”, 10”, 2” Monthly

Alexion Pharmaceuticals (Formerly Dow 2/10/94 Monthly “ 100, 1000 8”, 2” Pharmaceuticals)

Fidelity Investments 11/97, 8/00, 7/00, Monthly “ 100 4 – 4”; 5 – 2” 8/00; 4/27/01

East Smithfield Water District 11/8/84 “ “ 1000 6” Yearly 6/8/98

Heritage Hills Nursing Home 4/75 “ “ 10, 100 4”

Hopkins Manor Ltd. 2/17/75 “ “ 100, 1000 8”

B&B Properties (Formerly New England 8/12/70 “ “ 10, 100 3” Container)

No. Providence Housing Authority 7/17/55 Monthly Gal. 100, 1000 6”

New England Stone Industries 9/20/84 Semi-Annually “ 100 4”

St. James Townhouses 4/15/88 “ C.F. 100 4”

American Container Net (Formerly Susse 8/25/88 “ “ 100 2” Chalet)

Brentwood Apartments 6/20/87 “ “ 10, 100 6”, 1.5”

Douglas Commons 12/6/88 Annually “ 100 6”, 2”

Stony Brook Apartments 10/5/97, 1/4/80 Annually Gal. 100 3-2”, 6-1.5”, 4”, 1”

Bacou-Dalloz Eye & Face Protection, Inc. 7/2/80 “ “ 100 2” (Formerly Uvex Manufacturing)

1 Names of Major Users should correspond with Worksheet #10 - Listing of Major Users. The supplier may decide to number Major Users for convenience and easy reporting. WORKSHEET #12: Current Volumes of Water (MG) Withdrawn from Each Supply Source and Total System (Section 8.02 (g) 1) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED CALENDAR YEAR 2013 Source Name J F M A M J J A S O N D TOT

N/A

Totals

WORKSHEET #13: Historic Volumes of Water (MG) Withdrawn from Each Supply Source and Total System (Section 8.02 (g) 1) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Ten Calendar Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Calendar Year) Source Name 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

N/A

Total WORKSHEET #14: Current Monthly Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) (Section 8.02 (g) 2) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2014

Source Name M2013 J2013 J2013 A2013 S2013 O2013 N2013 D2013 J2014 F2014 M2014 A2014 TOT

PWSB – Longview Reservoir 33.56 21.17 42.24 35.41 36.94 32.77 17.88 20.38 31.23 30.72 32.32 29.51 364.13

Totals 33.56 21.17 42.24 35.41 36.94 32.77 17.88 20.38 31.23 30.72 32.32 29.51 364.13

WORKSHEET #15: Historic Wholesale Water Purchases (MG) (Section 8.02 (g) 2) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Ten Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Year) Source Name 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PWSB – Longview Reservoir 364.13 331.11 330.23 311.65 312.66 302.80 365.17 346.07 301.46 330.20

Total 364.13 331.11 330.23 311.65 312.66 302.80 365.17 346.07 301.46 330.20

WORKSHEET #16: Current Monthly Wholesale Water Sales (MG) (Section 8.02 (g) 2) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2014

Source Name M2013 J2013 J2013 A2013 S2013 O2013 N2013 D2013 J2014 F2014 M2014 A2014 TOT

East Smithfield Water District 1.15 1.01 1.33 1.25 0.99 0.99 0.69 0.54 1.08 0.73 0.66 0.84 11.26

Totals 1.15 1.01 1.33 1.25 0.99 0.99 0.69 0.54 1.08 0.73 0.66 0.84 11.26

WORKSHEET #17: Historic Wholesale Water Sales (MG) (Section 8.02 (g) 2) - (If the supplier has more than 15 sources additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Ten Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Year) Source Name 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

East Smithfield Water District 11.26 11.8 11.95 12.47 13.17 13.48 5.69* N/A 15.19 15.37

Total 11.26 11.8 11.95 12.47 13.17 13.48 5.69* N/A 15.19 15.37

* Wholesale water sales for 2008 from August to December. Data from January to August is not available. WORKSHEET #18: Current Average Daily Demand (ADD) per System and per Capita (Monthly Basis) (Section 8.02 (h) 1)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2014

M2013 J2013 J2013 A2013 S2013 O2013 N2013 D2013 J2014 F2014 M2014 A2014 TOT

1 Avg. Daily Water Use 1.045 0.672 1.364 1.102 1.198 1.025 0.573 0.640 0.973 1.071 1.021 0.956 0.97 (MGD) ADD2 (MGD) 0.831 0.667 1.070 0.946 1.089 1.211 0.729 0.664 0.725 0.937 0.840 0.917 0.89

ADD/Capita3 (gpcd) 89.7 72.0 115.6 102.2 117.6 130.8 78.7 71.7 78.3 101.2 90.7 99.0 96.0

ADD Residential (MGD) 0.363 0.241 0.457 0.382 0.413 0.529 0.248 0.276 0.419 0.456 0.434 0.410 0.386

ADD/Capita 39.2 26.0 49.4 41.3 44.6 57.1 26.8 29.8 45.2 49.2 46.9 44.3 41.7 Residential (gpcd)

1 - Based on Monthly Production, Purchase, and Storage Data - (Produced + Purchased + Changes in Storage) / # of Days in Month). Water Purchased from Providence Water – Water Solid to ESWD

2 – Based on Distribution Meter Readings

3 - ADD / Total Population for Last Completed Calendar Year (Worksheet #8)

Calculation Methodology:

The monthly ADD figures presented on this worksheet have been calculated by taking the monthly water use presented on Worksheet No. 20 divided by # of Days in Month.

The figures presented for “ADD/Capita” and “ADD/Capita Residential” are presented in gallons per day per person and are estimated based on a service area population of 9,260 (Worksheet No. 8). WORKSHEET #19: Current and Historic Maximum Daily Demand, Peak Hour Demand, Average Daily Demand, Peaking Factor (Yearly Basis) (Section 8.02 (h) 1)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Last Completed Fiscal Year and Ten Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Fiscal Year) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

MDD1 (mgd) 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.7** 1.69* Peak Hour2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ADD3 (mgd) 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.86 0.92 Peak Factor4 1.91 1.95 1.95 2.07 2.07 2.15 2.18 1.98 1.84

1 - Maximum one day rate of water supplied to the system including changes in storage, including depletion from system storage, experienced in the year not affected by unusual demand conditions, such as drought or a significant temporary increase in demand

2 - Maximum one day rate of water supplied to the system including changes in storage, including depletion from system storage, experienced during the year (if available). This data is not available.

3 - Based on Yearly Production, Purchase, and Storage Data - (Produced + Purchased + Changes in Storage)/ 365 Days

ADD = Wholesale Water Purchased from Providence (WS#15) – Wholesale Water Sold to ESWD (WS#17) / 365 Days

4 - Peak Factor = MDD / ADD

*- PARE Buildout Analysis, most current available data

**- Assumed from 2004/2003 values which were the most current available data WORKSHEET #20: Current Water Use (MG) by Category and Sub-category* (SIC Code) (Section 8.02 (h) 2) - (Fill in available information based upon meter readings - If monthly data is unavailable fill in total column - if SIC information unavailable group data into major categories indicated by shading)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2014

M2013 J2013 J2013 A2013 S2013 O2013 N2013 D2013 J2014 F2014 M2014 A2014 TOT

Residential (Total) 11.24 7.24 14.18 11.85 12.38 16.41 7.43 8.57 12.98 12.78 13.46 12.30 140.81 Single 11.24 7.24 14.18 11.85 12.38 16.41 7.43 8.57 12.98 12.78 13.46 12.30 140.81 Multi ------Commercial (Total) 14.5 12.8 19.0 17.5 20.3 21.1 14.5 12.0 9.5 13.5 12.6 15.2 182.4 01 thru 09 15 thru 17 40 thru 48 50, 51 52 thru 59 60 thru 67 70 thru 89 Industrial (Total) 14 20,22 thru 39 49 Government (Total) 91 thru 97

Totals 25.76 20.01 33.18 29.33 32.67 37.54 21.88 20.58 22.47 26.24 26.04 27.52 323.22

* Commercial water use includes water use by commercial, industrial, government, and other customers. WORKSHEET #21: Historic Water Use (MG) by Category and Sub-category* (SIC Code) (Section 8.02 (h) 2) - (Fill in available information based upon meter readings - if SIC information unavailable group data into major categories indicated by shading)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Ten Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Fiscal Year) 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Residential (Total) 127.20 119.97 121.30 115.73 115.28 163.40 125.53 130.69 134.66 132.96 Single Multi Commercial (Total) 172.16 180.89 180.55 173.99 163.55 202.31 205.21 164.15 171.91 112.89 01 thru 09 15 thru 17 40 thru 48 50, 51 52 thru 59 60 thru 67 70 thru 89 Industrial (Total) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 20,22 thru 39 49 Government (Total) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 91 thru 97

Total 299.36 300.86 301.85 289.72 278.83 365.71 330.74 294.84 306.57 245.85

* - Section 5.00 of the Regulations identifies Sub-Categories (SIC Codes), e.g. Agriculture - Major Groups 01 thru 09. WORKSHEET #22: Current & Historic Average Daily Demand (MG) by Category and Sub-category* (SIC Code) (Section 8.02 (h) 2) - (Fill in available information based upon meter readings - if SIC information unavailable group data into major categories indicated by shading)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

(Last Completed Fiscal Year and Ten Years of Data Prior to Last Completed Fiscal Year) 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Residential (Total) 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.45 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.36

Single

Multi

Commercial (Total) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.55 0.56 0.45 0.47 0.31

01 thru 09

15 thru 17

40 thru 48

50, 51

52 thru 59

60 thru 67

70 thru 89

Industrial (Total) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

20,22 thru 39

Government (Total) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

91 thru 97

Total 0.89 0.88 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.77 1.00 0.91 0.81 0.84 067

* - Section 5.00 of the Regulations identifies Sub-Categories (SIC Codes), e.g. Agriculture - Major Groups 01 thru 09. WORKSHEET #23: Current Water Use by Major Users (MG) (Section 8.02 (h) 3) - (If Supplier has more than 17 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made - If readings are done other than monthly please fill in only total column and provide for example, quarterly data indicating the months covered by the reading. Average data should not be reported!

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Data Provided for Fiscal Year 2013 Major User Name J F M A M J J A S O N D TOT

Bryant College 3.096 5.726 4.136 7.225 4.488 2.574 4.219 4.019 8.212 6.092 5.732 3.448 58.965

Alexion Pharmaceutical (Formerly 1.724 1.803 1.00 1.186 1.147 1.443 1.819 1.738 1.917 1.485 1.980 1.922 19.166 Dow Pharmaceutical)

Fidelity Investments 0.738 0.706 0.795 1.002 2.150 2.517 3.501 2.754 1.756 1.445 1.020 0.652 19.035

East Smithfield Water District 0.932 0.734 0.772 0.902 1.154 1.009 1.334 1.254 0.987 0.994 0.689 0.543 11.304

Heritage Hills Nursing Home 0.270 0.301 0.247 0.284 0.229 0.263 0.293 0.298 0.294 0.249 0.314 0.286 3.328

Hopkins Manor Ltd. 0.592 0.575 0.525 0.641 0.431 0.454 0.504 0.465 0.515 0.413 0.539 0.527 6.181

B & B Properties (Formerly New 0.080 0.091 0.068 0.112 0.082 0.075 0.161 0.176 0.190 0.173 0.068 0.082 1.356 England Container)

No. Providence Housing Authority 0.379 0.368 0.344 0.452 0.351 0.338 0.419 0.354 0.373 0.309 0.321 0.441 4.449

New England Stone Industries ------0.705 ------0.774 ------1.479

St. James Townhouses 0.602 0.503 0.459 0.455 0.382 0.474 0.511 0.540 0.625 0.512 0.217 0.881 6.161

Industrial Container 0.135 0.177 0.142 0.174 0.137 0.126 0.128 0.126 0.155 0.111 0.117 0.079 1.607

Brentwood Apartments 0.698 0.665 0.618 0.588 0.625 0.778 1.079 0.994 1.020 0.872 0.724 0.911 9.569

Douglas Commons ------2.247 ------2.504 ------4.751

Stony Brook Apartments ------3.893 ------4.310 ------8.203

Bacou-Dalloz Eye & Face Protection, ------1.876 ------1.674 ------3.55 Inc. (Formerly Uvex Manufacturing)

Totals 9.246 11.649 9.106 21.742 11.176 10.051 13.965 12.718 16.044 21.917 11.721 9.772 159.104 WORKSHEET #24: Historic Water Use by Major Users (MG) (Section 8.02 (h) 3) - (If Supplier has more than 17 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Major User Name 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Bryant College 58.97 50.04 61.45 66.42 62.53 72.95 81.59 51.71 51.222 48.375

Alexion Pharmaceutical 19.17 19.33 16.56 14.77 10.63 12.25 7.60 1.05 2.575 8.180

Fidelity Investments 18.99 18.33 19.17 20.38 16.86 25.05 30.50 25.69 24.903 22.408

East Smithfield Water District 11.30 11.95 12.47 13.17 13.48 14.27 16.79 15.20 15.373 15.064

Heritage Hills Nursing Home 3.33 3.03 3.06 3.10 3.07 3.33 2.92 3.51 4.113 4.342

Hopkins Manor Ltd. 6.18 6.87 7.27 6.10 5.81 6.15 7.03 7.39 7.545 8.483

B & B Properties 1.36 1.31 1.47 1.08 1.20 1.77 2.28 1.93 2.539 2.091

No. Providence Housing Authority 4.45 3.97 3.67 3.96 3.93 4.26 4.18 4.21 4.109 4.088

New England Stone Industries 1.48 1.88 2.98 2.54 2.75 1.31 1.14 0.921 4.721

St. James Townhouses 6.16 5.08 3.88 3.00 3.09 2.80 3.08 3.69 4.468 4.395

Industrial Container 1.61 1.74 1.85 1.95 2.11 2.23 2.16 2.16 2.237 3.289

Brentwood Apartments 9.57 9.50 8.83 9.03 9.00 9.26 10.64 11.35 12.712 11.502

Douglas Commons 4.75 5.57 4.94 5.34 5.49 6.16 5.21 8.40 7.135 7.928

Stony Brook Apartments 8.20 5.12 8.24 6.52 8.13 8.86 10.99 10.51 7.999 10.521

Bacou-Dalloz Eye & Face Protection, Inc. 3.55 2.85 3.60 2.19 1.88 3.59 3.23 3.24 3.588 2.897 (Formerly Uvex Manufacturing)

Totals 159.07 144.69 158.34 159.99 149.75 175.68 189.51 151.18 151.44 158.28 WORKSHEET #25: Historic Fire Fighting and Non-Account Water Use (MG) (Section 8.02 (h) 5)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Fire Fighting 0.50 2.15 3.52* 1.04* 2.75* 2.88* 1.85* 0.79* 2.84* Total Non-Account 29.65 8.7 29.37 8.63 22.94 23.97 15.43 6.62 23.63 Total Water1 364.13 327.54 330.23 310.48 312.66 302.80 365.17 346.07 301.46 330.20 % Non-Account Water2 8.1 2.7 8.9 2.8 7.3 7.9 4.5 2.2 7.2

1 - Total Water = Total Water Produced + Total Water Purchased

2 - % Non-Account Water = (Total Non-Account/Total Water)

*- Estimates (12% of Total Non-Account)

WORKSHEET #26: Current and Projected (5 and 20 Year) Fire Fighting and Non-Account Water Use Estimates (MG) (Sections 8.02 (h) 5 & 8.03 (d))

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2014 2014 5 Year 20 Year

Fire Fighting 0.50 1.0 2.0

Non-Account Water

Main Flushing/System Maintenance 0.65 0.7 0.7 Storm Drain Flushing 0.3 0.3 0.3 Sewer Cleaning 0.22 0.3 0.3 Street Cleaning 0.07 0.1 0.1 Schools and Other Public Buildings Landscaping in Public Areas Swimming Pools Construction Sites Water Quality and Other Testing Water Main Breaks Other Unmetered Uses Identified Leakage, Theft, Meter Error 14.5 32.9 47.7 Unidentified Leakage, Theft, Meter Error (2014) 13.4

Total Non-Account Water Use 29.65 35.3 51.1

% Non-Account Water* (Total Non-Account/Total Water) 8.1 8.1 8.1 *- % Non-Account Water estimated to be 8.1% for 2014 (29.65 MG / 364.13 MG), which has been used for the 5-year and 20-year projections. Leakage estimated to be 94% of total Non-Account Water, consistent with estimate for 2014. Fire-fighting requirement assumed to increase consistently with future increases in system demand. WORKSHEET #27: Projected Water Use and Demand (MG) by Category and Sub-category (SIC Code) for 5-Year and 20-Year Planning Periods (Section 8.03 (b))

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

5 Year 20 Year Annual Use ADD MDD* Annual Use ADD MDD

Residential (Total) 150 0.41 0.82 168 0.439 0.92 Single Multi Commercial (Total) 279 0.765 1.53 459 1.257 2.51 01 thru 09 15 thru 17 40 thru 48 50, 51 52 thru 59 60 thru 67 70 thru 89 Industrial (Total) Combined with Commercial Combined with Commercial 14 20,22 thru 39 49 Government (Total) 91 thru 97

Totals 429 1.175 2.35 627 1.717 3.43 *MDD to ADD Peaking Factor of 2.0 was utilized. WORKSHEET #28: Projected Water Use by Current and Potential Major Users (MG) for 5-Year and 20-Year Planning Periods (Section 8.03 (b)) - (If Supplier has more than 17 Major Users additional copies of the table should be made - Names of Potential Major users should be indicated by (P) - Name of User) Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board 5-Year 20-Year Major User Name Annual Use ADD MDD Annual Use ADD MDD

Bryant University ------

Alexion Pharmaceutical (Formerly Dow ------Pharmaceutical) Fidelity Investments ------East Smithfield Water District ------Heritage Hills Nursing Home ------Hopkins Manor Ltd. ------

B & B Properties (Formerly New England ------Container) No. Providence Housing Authority ------New England Stone Industries ------St. James Townhouses ------

American Container Net (Formerly Susse ------Chalet Brentwood Apartments ------Douglas Commons ------Stony Brook Apartments ------

Bacou-Dalloz Eye & Face Protection, Inc. ------(Formerly Uvex Manufacturing)

Totals 215 0.6 1.2 314 0.9 1.8 5-Year Total Major User Water Use 50% of Total Projected Water Use in System (429 MG) x 0.5 = 215 MG. MDD to ADD Peak Factor of 2.0 used. 20-Year Total Major User Water Use 50% of Total Projected Water Use (627 MG) x 0.5 = 314 MG. MDD to ADD Peak Factor of 2.0 used. WORKSHEET #29: Well Data for Available Water Analysis (Section 8.04)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Well Name N/A

Well # or Other ID Town USGS Quadrangle Aquifer Well Withdrawing From Name of Original Driller Date of Last Aquifer Test Name of Entity Conducting Last Aquifer Test For Last Aquifer Test a) Pumping Rate (Nearest GPM) b) Duration (Nearest Hr.) c) Pump Capacity (Nearest GPM) d) Yield (Nearest GPM) e) Specific Capacity (GPM/Ft) f) Transmissivity (Ft2/Day) Depth to Bedrock (Nearest Ft.) Aquifer Saturated Thickness-Well Location (Nearest Ft.) Depth from Watertable to Bottom of Well (Nearest Ft.) Watertable Elevation (Nearest Ft.) Ground Elevation (Nearest Ft.) Volume Well is Currently Pumping (Nearest GPM) Well Rating (Nearest GPM) Well Maximum Pumping Rate (Nearest GPM) Number of Observation Wells WORKSHEET #29-A: Available Water (MGD) Summary Data (Section 8.04)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Condition Existing 5-Year Projection 20-Year Projection

Ground Water Capacity(1) N/A N/A N/A

Surface Water(1) (Operational Safe Yield) N/A N/A N/A

Water Purchased From Other 1.97 MGD 1.97 MGD 1.97 MGD Suppliers

Total Available Water(2) 1.97 MGD 1.97 MGD 1.97 MGD

Average Daily Demand(3) 1.0 MGD 1.3 MGD 1.9 MGD

Maximum Daily Demand(3) 1.7 MGD 2.6 MGD 3.8 MGD

Approximate Increase in Available Water Required to N/A 0.6 MGD 1.8 MGD Meet Projected MDD

(1) There are no groundwater or surface water supply sources in the SWSB system.

(2) Total available water is equal to the sum of groundwater capacity + operational safe yield + water purchased from other suppliers. If average daily demand exceeds total available water, identification of additional supply, demand and/or system management measures are to be undertaken and if necessary, the timing and quantity of additional supplies and facilities are to be presented.

(3) The Average and Maximum Daily Demands are based on production, not consumption. As such, non- account water (8.1%) is factored into the projections.

WORKSHEET #30: Residential Retrofit Program (RRP) Summary (Section 8.06 (b)) [REVISED 6/1/93] This worksheet is intended to be used as an outline of the components of the proposed residential retrofit program. See regulations for definition of the multi-residential user category.

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Date: ______

Background Information

Do you have a current or historic residential retrofit program? Single Family: No____ Yes____ If yes, program dates (e.g. 1990 - present): ______Multi-residential: No____ Yes____ If yes, program dates :______Were the retrofit devices analogous to those now required? No____ Yes____ Estimated number of single-family customers retrofitted to date: ______Percentage of single-family customers retrofitted: ______Estimated number of multi-residential customers retrofitted to date: ______Percentage of multi-residential customers retrofitted: ______

Kit Distribution

A. For water suppliers needing new or additional supplies within 5 years: Single-family distribution method: Mailing______Door-to-door delivery______Customer cost: No direct cost______At cost ($______)/kit

Multi-residential distribution: Mailing ______Delivery to landlord/manager______Delivery to individual apartments______Customer cost: No direct cost______At cost ($______)/kit

Note: Attach copy of reorder card(s), survey form(s), and explanation(s) of the need for and cost effectiveness of full compliance with conservation requirements

B. For water suppliers with adequate supplies for at least 5 years: Single-family distribution method: ______Retrofit kit request cards: Mailed______Delivered______Requested kits: Mailed______Delivered______Toll free kit request phone number, included in bill message Requested kits: Mailed______Delivered______Kits directly distributed: Mailed______Delivered______Other method approved by DWSM and described in text of plan

Consumer cost: No direct cost___x___ At cost ($______)/kit

Multi-residential distribution method: ______Retrofit kit request cards: Mailed______Delivered______Requested kits: Mailed______Delivered______Toll free kit request phone number, included in bill message Requested kits: Mailed______Delivered______Kits directly distributed: Mailed______Delivered______Other method approved by DWSM and described in text of plan

Consumer cost: No direct cost______At cost ($______)/kit

Note: Attach copy of reorder card(s), survey form(s), and request card(s) or bill message(s) WORKSHEET #30 (page 2 of 3) [REVISED 6/1/93]

Kit Contents

Device # Model # Vendor or Manufacturer Showerhead _1______Niagara Conservation______Faucet Aerator _2______Niagara Conservation______Toilet Dam _1______Niagara Conservation______Leak Detect. Tablet _0______Other ______

Participating in DWSM-sponsored statewide bid? Yes______No______

Note: Attach copy of illustrated leak detection pamphlet and illustrated installation instructions.

Annual Notification of Achievements

Annual notices to customers will be: Mailed___x__ Delivered______

Installation Reminder Cards

How will customers be reminded (within 30 - 60 days of receiving their kits) of the importance of water conservation and to install the water saving plumbing devices? (check all that apply) ______Installation reminder cards: Mailed______Delivered______Local newspaper(s) ______Telemarketing ______Other (described in text of plan)

Installation Assistance

Will a phone number be provided for customer questions about installation? Single-family: ______800 number to contact: utility______consultant______x __Regular number to contact: utility__x___ consultant______No phone assistance will be offered Multi-residential: ______800 number to contact: utility______consultant______Regular number to contact: utility______consultant______No phone assistance will be offered

Installation assistance will be available to single-family customers: At no direct cost______At cost ($______per ______) Provided by: Utility staff __x __ Contractor (name:______)

How will customers be made aware of installation assistance?___Literature in packet ______

Will installation assistance or demonstrations be offered to multi-residential customers? No__x__ Yes_____ If yes, please describe details in text of plan.

WORKSHEET #30 (page 3 of 3) [REVISED 6/1/93]

Program Evaluation

In addition to the kit survey data, what other information will be collected or tracked?

Single-family customers: ______Number of customers offered kits; number of kit requests; % response ______Number and type of kits supplied; % of customers retrofitted ______Location, address, phone number of residences that received kits ______Date kit sent/delivered or date of installation ______Changes in water consumption (meter tracking for before/after annual water use comparisons) ______Conservation attitudes and utility evaluations, measured by random phone survey ______Other:______

Multi-residential customers: ______Number of customers offered kits; number of multi-kit requests; % response ______Number and type of multi-kits supplied; % of multi-residential customers retrofitted ______Address, phone number of customers that received kits ______Actual addresses of retrofitted buildings ______Description of retrofitted buildings (apartments, condos, hospitals, prisons, etc.) ______Actual number of residential units retrofitted (e.g. number of apartments or prison cells) ______Date kit sent/delivered or date of installation ______Changes in water consumption (meter tracking for before/after annual water use comparisons) ______Conservation attitudes and utility evaluations, measured by random phone survey ______Other:______

Note: Describe the Residential Retrofit Program implementation schedule, the public information and education efforts, and other RRP details in the text of the plan.

Residential Retrofit Program is not active at this time – interested participants have already obtained retrofit kits and conservation fixtures are prevalent in new construction. WORKSHEET #31: Cost Analysis of a Proposed LDR Program (Section 8.07 (b) 2)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Area to be Surveyed

1a. Total miles of main to be surveyed (do not include mileage of service lines) ______1b. Average number of miles to be surveyed per day ______1c. Number of working days needed to complete the survey (line 1a divided by line 1b) ______

Staffing

2a. How many agency staff will be used? ______Staff costs, including wages and benefits: Person 1 $/hour: ______$/day:______Person 2 $/hour: ______$/day: ______TOTAL $/hour: ______$/day: ______

2b. How many consultant staff will be used? ______Consultant costs: Person 1 $/hour: ______$/day: ______Person 2 $/hour: ______$/day: ______TOTAL $/hour: ______$/day: ______

Leak Detection Survey Costs $/day # days Cost Agency crew costs ______Consultant crew costs ______Vehicle costs ______Other daily costs ______Cost of leak detection equipment ______Leak detection team training ______Other costs ______

3. TOTAL LEAK DETECTION COSTS ______

Preparer:______Date:______WORKSHEET #32: Leak Detection Project Summary (Sections 8.07 (b) 2 & 8.07 (b) 3)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Leak Detection Summary

Total number of days leak surveys were conducted ______First survey date ______Last survey date______Number of listening points: meters:______hydrants:______valves:______test rods:______other:______total:______Number of suspected leaks:______Number of pinpointed leaks:______Survey time:______hours Miles of main surveyed:______Pinpointing time:______hours

Average survey rate = miles of main surveyed x 8 = ______miles/day total survey and pinpointing hours

Total number of visible leaks reported from other sources since survey started (not discovered during leak detection surveys):______

Leak Repair Summary

First leak repair made:______Last leak repair made:______

Number of repairs with excavations:______Total water losses from excavated leaks:______Number of repairs without excavations:______Total water losses from nonexcavated leaks:______Total number of repaired leaks (sum):______Total water losses (sum):______gpm

Gallons of water saved per year (Total water losses (gpm) x 525600):______gallons/year

Existing leakage rate:______gallons/day/mile

Complete the following leak repair cost chart:

Materials Labor Equipment Other Total

Excavated leak cost

Unexcavated leak cost

Total Cost

Note: See AWWA Manual 36, "Water Audits and Leak Detection", for a sample Project Summary WORKSHEET #32 (page 2 of 2)

Leak Detection Project Cost-Effectiveness

Step 1. Calculate the value of water recovered from all repaired leaks 1a. Total Water Losses (see above) ______gallons 1b. Total cost per gallon of recoverable leakage (line 4c of the Worksheet #33) $______/gallon 1c. Annual value of water recovered (multiply line 1a by line 1b) $______1d. Two-year value of water recovered (multiply line 1c by 2) $______

Step 2. Determine leak detection survey costs: 2a. Equipment ______2b. Training ______2c. Staff ______2d. Consultants ______2e. Vehicle ______2f. Other ______

2g. Total Cost (sum lines 2a - 2f) $ ______

Step 3. Calculate benefit to cost ratio (divide line 1d by line 2g) ______

Step 4. Average survey cost per mile of main surveyed (divide line 2g by total miles surveyed) $______/mile

Note: See AWWA Manual 36, "Water Audits and Leak Detection", for a sample Benefit-Cost Analysis

Preparer:______Title:______Firm:______Date:______

WORKSHEET #33: Critical Spare Parts Inventory (Section 8.07 (c) 5) - (If supplier has more than 10 critical spare parts please make additional copies of the table)

Critical Spare Parts Manufacturer - Name, Address Distributor - Name, Address, And Phone # & Phone #

See Attached Inventory

SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY INVENTORY: JUNE 30, 2012 4 5/8” x ¾” Dialog Pit meters 2 3/4 “ Badger meters radio read 12 5/8" x 5/8" Badger Dialog meters 8 Radio Orion 5/8 6 3/4" x 3/4" Badger Dialog meters 9 Radio Orion 3/4 4 5/8" x 5/8" Radio Read meters 3 8” x ¾” CC saddles 3 8x1 CC saddles 2 8” x ¾" CC blow-out saddles 3 12" x 1" saddles 1 8” x 2” saddle 1 12” x ¾” saddle 2 ¾” compression corporations 3 ¾” compression curb stops 1 4 ½’ to 5 ½’ curb boxes w/ rods 8 ¾” single meter stops 1 3/4" Wedge Blow Off Assembly 5 5/8” x 5/8” straight check valves 14 5/8” x 5/8” angle single check valves 1 1 ½” 3-pc. union 3 ¾” 3-pc. unions 5 ¾” tail pieces 1 1” x 1” angle stops 8 3/4" x 5/8" copper adapters 5 Remote readers 2 1” straight check valves 15 1” x ¾” angle stops 8 ¾” straight dual check valves 12 3/4" angle dual check valves 4 1” Badger meter 5 Neptune frost bottoms 4 Badger type-A frost bottoms 1 Badger Model 25 frost bottom 1 Mueller D-5 tapping machine (3/4” thru 2” taps) 8 Badger type-SC frost tops 2 1 ½” tie-down straps Assorted water works tools 3 Flashlights 2 8” x 7” PVC to AC repair clamp - solid sleeve 2 8” x 7” repair clamps – wrap around 2 8” x 12” repair clamps – wrap around 1 8” x 8” repair clamp – wrap around AC 1 18v porter cable cordless drill 1 18v Porter cable cordless skill saw 1 18v porter cable cordless flashlight 1 18v porter cable cordless sawsall 2 16” Solid sleeve repair clamps 2 10” Solid sleeve repair clamps 1 20’ length 16” Ductile Iron pipe 2 12” x 10” repair clamps - solid sleeve 2 12” x 7” repair clamps – wrap around 2 12” x 20” repair clamps – wrap around 1 12” x 30” repair clamp – wrap around 2 8” repair clamps - solid sleeve 1 weed wacker 1 honda generator 1 cut of f saw 4 20 ft. lengths 8” PVC pipes 2 Repair seal kits for Limerock 4 hydrant flag markers 2 20 ft lengths 12” PVC pipes 1 20 ft. section 10" PVC pipes 1 Valve boxes (used) 2 Valve box bottoms 2 Ultrasonic locators 1 Versa Probe meter reader 1 Dialog Read-All device 1 Hayes tapping machine- ¾” only 3 Kennedy hydrants (used)- parts only 1 Efco PA 1030 gas-powered 1” pump #452100314 w/ discharge and suction hoses 1 Mueller hydrant-107 replacement 1 B/W Gas alert micro monitor with charger 1 Fisher TW-6 M-Scope serial #27014 1 Hanna H193701 free chlorine meter 1 2” Clean water pump w/ discharge & suction hoses 1 Ray Tec mini temperature reader 1 Air ejector 10 Curb box wrenches- various sizes 3 Valve box cleaning tools 1 Wheeler Model 3890 hydrant pipe cutter 1 20: Extension Ladder 5 Watts pressure reducing units (25-75 psi) 1 Nardalert Microwave Tester s/n 13246 Approx. 20 ft. ¾” Type K copper tubing Approx. 30 ft. 1” Type K copper tubing Approx. 20 ft. 2” PVC tubing 1 75 ft. ROM meter wire 25 Gel cap connections Approx. 100 lead seals 1 Honda 5HP power washer 1 Wagner power paint sprayer 3 12” Repair Clamps 2 12” hymax clamps (replace from water break) 1 12” PVC pipe (replace from water break) 20’ length 1 1 ¼” wrench 2 1” meter badger 1 12” C900 repair clamp 1 Backpack blower 1 Air Conditioner for Longview Pump Station 1 Small power inverter for truck #25 2 Aluminum ladder 7’ for pits 1 18 volt cordless drill 1 Dehumidifier for pump station 1 Reed 601PD Power Drive Tapping Machine Approx. Cost: $29,294 WORKSHEET #34: Existing Treatment and Treatment Needed to Meet SDWA Requirements (Section 8.07 (f)) - (Fill in applicable choices below to complete Worksheet. For each source, identify all existing (E), future (F), or possible (P) treatments needed. Also list the chemical(s) used - e.g. if a supplier uses Alum for Coagulation the response should look like E - Alum. If a supplier has more than 2 treatment facilities additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Treatment Facility Name Treatment Facility Name Limerock Pump Station

Sources Treated Source #1 Wholesale water purchased from Providence Water Source #2 Source #3 Source #4 Source #5 Source #6 Source #7 Source #8 Source #9 Source #10 Aeration Prechlorination Coagulation Sedimentation Iron Removal Mn Removal Fluoridation Disinfection E - Chlorine Corrosion Control Preozonation Filtration VOC Removal THM Removal Other ______WORKSHEET #35: Priority Service List (Section 8.08 (d)) - (if the supplier has more than 6 Priority Users additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Name, Address Reason for Alternative Emergency Action(s) & Phone # Priority Status Source To Be Taken (Yes or No)

Heritage Hills Nursing Home Health Care No Notify ASAP. Have Standby Tankers Available.

Hopkins Manor Ltd. Health Care No Notify ASAP. Have Standby Tankers Available.

East Smithfield Water District Wholesale Residential Demand No Notify ASAP. Have Standby Tankers Available.

Bryant University College w/ Dormitories No Notify ASAP. Have Standby Tankers Available.

LaPerche School Grammar School No Notify ASAP. Close School Temporarily.

WORKSHEET #36: Water Supplier Personnel Responsible for Emergency Actions (Section 8.08 (e)) - (This worksheet is a template and may need to be adapted to the specific supplier's organizational structure and size - the Major Responsibilities column should cross-reference detailed instructions in plan if applicable. This worksheet should be used to describe the responsibilities of each of the supplier's departments for each emergency situation - one sheet for each emergency situation)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Dept. (Keyed to Name Title Work Phone Home Phone Major Responsibility & Organizational Expertise Chart)

MANAGEMENT/ Dennis G. Finlay Town Manager 233-1010 Management ADMINISTRATION Seth Lemoine Water Commissioner & 233-1034 Supervision and coordination Director of Public Works SMITHFIELD Robert Forrest Field Observer 233-1034 Complete operations and repairs of WATER SUPPLY all system components BOARD AND PUBLIC WORKS Anthony Antonucci Field Observer 233-1034 Complete operations and repairs of DEPARTMENT all system components Denise Lemoi Administrative Assistant 233-1034 Coordination 233-1035 ENGINEERING Kevin Cleary, P.E. Town Engineer 233-1041 Provide technical assistance FIRE DEPT. Robert W. Seltzer Chief 949-1330 Emergency/fire/rescue POLICE DEPT. Richard P. St. Sauveur, Jr. Chief 231-2500 Emergency EMERGENCY Todd S. Manni EMA Director 233-1033 Emergency MANAGEMENT WORKSHEET #37: Inventory of Emergency Support and Stand-By Equipment (Section 8.08 (g)) - (if the supplier has more than 7 sources of outside support or stand-by emergency equipment additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 1 of 5

Type of Assistance and/or Company Name and Address Contact Person Required Authorization Equipment to be Provided Phone #

Equipment, Materials and Community Town of Smithfield Seth Lemoine Water Commissioner Support Water Comm. / Dir. of Public Works Director of Public Works 3 Spragueville Road Smithfield, RI 02917 Water Commissioner (401) 233-1034 Management or Engineering Support Town of Smithfield Engineering Kevin Cleary, P.E. Water Commissioner 64 Farnum Pike Town Engineer Smithfield, RI 02828 (401) 233-1041 Emergency Management Agency Director Town of Smithfield Todd S. Manni Water Commissioner 215 Pleasant View Ave. EMA Director Smithfield, RI 02917 (401) 233-1033 State Assistance, Enforcement Assistance Director, Emergency Mgmt. Jamia McDonald Water Commissioner 645 New London Avenue (401) 946-9996 Cranston, RI 002920 Regulatory Assistance RI Water Resources Board Kenneth Burke Water Commissioner rd 1 Capitol Hill, 3 Floor General Manager Providence, RI 02908 (401) 222-4890 Regulatory Assistance Public Utilities Commission Margaret Curran Water Commissioner 89 Jefferson Boulevard Chairperson Warwick, RI 02888 (401) 941-4500 WORKSHEET #37: Inventory of Emergency Support and Stand-By Equipment (Section 8.08 (g)) - (if the supplier has more than 7 sources of outside support or stand-by emergency equipment additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 2 of 5

Type of Assistance and/or Company Name and Address Contact Person Required Authorization Equipment to be Provided Phone #

Regulatory Assistance RIDEM Office of Water Resources Emergency Response: 235 Promenade Street Lynne DeBritto Providence, RI 02908-5767 Administrator Water Commissioner Emergency After hours Division of (401) 222-1360 Ext. 7506 Law enforcement Emergency Response: 401- 222-2284 Water Quality and Regulatory Assistance RI Department of Health June Swallow Office of Drinking Water Quality Chief – Office of Drinking Three Capitol Hill, Cannon Bldg. Water Commissioner Water Quality Providence, RI 02903 (401) 222-6867 Chemical Testing – Lab Service New England Testing Laboratory Richard Warila 1254 Douglas Avenue Water Commissioner North Providence, RI 02904 (401) 353-3420

Electrical Power Supplier National Grid 280 Melrose St. 800-322-3223 Water Commissioner Providence, RI 02907 Pumping Telemetry and Automated Alco Engineering Bill Billings Control Devices 195 Frances Avenue Water Commissioner (401) 467-4448 Cranston, RI 02905 Pumping Control Devices Process Engineers & Constructors Inc. Robert J. Silvia 165 Mill Street Water Commissioner Cranston, RI 02905 (401) 780-0780

WORKSHEET #37: Inventory of Emergency Support and Stand-By Equipment (Section 8.08 (g)) - (if the supplier has more than 7 sources of outside support or stand-by emergency equipment additional copies of the table should be made)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 3 of 5

Type of Assistance and/or Company Name and Address Contact Person Required Authorization Equipment to be Provided Phone #

Telephone Services, Telemetry Equipment New England Communications 223 Pocasset Avenue (401) 944-6660 Water Commissioner Providence, RI O/S Contractor-Waterworks Specialists. A.E. Bragger Construction Co. Virginia Bragger Provide Heavy Equipment and Backup 110 Brownlee Blvd. Labor Warwick, RI 02886 (401) 864-4703 Water Commissioner

O/S Contractor-Waterworks Specialists. Boyle and Fogarty Construction John Fogarty Provide Heavy Equipment and Backup 283 Farnum Pike Water Commissioner Labor Smithfield, RI 02917 (401) 231-0007

Small and Large Water Taps, Main Red Hed Supply Co. Disinfection, and Materials (Pipe, Valves, Water Commissioner Hydrants, etc.) 38 Albion Road (401) 333-1317 Lincoln, RI 02865 Emergency Pumping Equipment, Hoses, Smithfield Fire Dept. Robert W. Seltzer - Fire Chief Trafffic Control Support 607 Farnum Pike (401) 949-1330 Greenville, RI 02828 Water Commissioner North Providence Fire Department Leonard Albanese, Jr. – Chief 1967 Mineral Spring Avenue North Providence, RI 02911 (401 231-8505

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 4 of 5

Type of Assistance and/or Company Name and Address Contact Person Required Authorization Equipment to be Provided Phone #

Traffic Control, Necessary Enforcement Smithfield Police Dept. Richard P. St. Sauveur, Jr. Backup 215 Pleasant View Avenue (401) 231-2500 Smithfield, RI 02917 Water Commissioner North Providence Fire Department Leonard Albanese, Jr. – Chief 1967 Mineral Spring Avenue North Providence, RI 02911 (401 231-8505

Water Tank Trucks Rhode Island National Guard Kevin R. McBride 645 New London Ave. Water Commissioner Cranston, RI 02920 (401) 275-4100 Neighboring Water System – Technical Providence Water Supply Board Ricky Caruolo Assistance & Shared Resources 552 Academy Avenue Acting General Manager Water Commissioner Providence, RI 02908 (401) 521-6300 Neighboring Water System – Technical East Smithfield Water District Mel DeCarvalho Assistance & Shared Resources 307 Waterman Ave. (401) 231-0510 Water Commissioner Esmond, RI 02917 Neighboring Water System - Possible Greenville Water District David M. Powers, Jr. Emergency Connection 630 Putnam Pike (401) 231-1433 Water Commissioner Smithfield, RI 02828 Cell: (401) 741-2890

Neighboring Water System – Technical Lincoln Water Commission Romeo Mendes, P.E. Assistance & Shared Resourses 96 Old River Road Superintendent Lincoln, RI 02864 Water Commissioner (401) 334-6735

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board Page 5 of 5

Type of Assistance and/or Company Name and Address Contact Person Required Authorization Equipment to be Provided Phone #

Public Notices – Public Information Town of Smithfield Bill Pilkington 64 Farnum Pike IT Department Water Commissioner Smithfield, RI 02903 (401) 223-1011 Public Notices – Public Information Providence Journal Co. Newsroom 75 Fountain Street Water Commissioner Providence, RI 02903 (401) 277-7303 Public Notices – Public Information Channel 12 – WPRI (401) 438-7200 25 Catamore Blvd. (401) 438-3310 (Newsroom – Water Commissioner East Providence, RI 02913 off hours) Public Notices – Public Information Channel 10 – WJAR (401) 455-9100 – General 23 Kenney Drive Water Commissioner Cranston, RI 02920 (401) 455-9105 – Newsroom

Public Notices – Public Information Channel 6 - WLNE 10 Orms St. (401) 453-8000 – General Water Commissioner Providence, RI 02904 WORKSHEET #38: Supplier Revenue and Expenses for the Last Three Years (Section 8.10)

Supplier: Smithfield Water Supply Board

Supplier's Fiscal Year Starts July 1

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 Revenue* Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2011

Annual Water Rate Revenue $1,424,433 $1,341,027 $1,364,497 General Facility Charge Revenue Special Assessment Revenue Capital Funds Reserve Fund Revenue Other Earned Revenue $25,991 $37,483 $34,637 Other Unearned Revenue

Totals $1,450,424 $1,378,510 $1,399,134

LAST COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR 2013 Expenses* Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2011

Annual Water System Indebtedness Debt Service on Bonds Operation and Maintenance Expenses $1,055,166 $1,038,080 $1,035,432 Other Expenses $302,270 $300,000 $300,000

Totals $1,357,436 $1,338,080 $1,335,432

* - Financial Management Section of Plan Should Explain Grouping of Figures

APPENDIX B

SWSB RULES & REGULATIONS

Pare Corporation ORDINANCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE TOWN OF SMITHFIELD AS FOLLOWS:

CHAPTER 350

WATER SUPPLY BOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXTENSION OF WATER LINES AND RELATED CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

ARTICLE I

CONSTRUCTION OF WATER LINES AND OTHER WATER CAPITAL EQUIPMENT BY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS

§ 350-1. EXTENSION OF WATER SERVICE.

a) Any person or legal entity developing a subdivision or land development project within the jurisdiction of the Smithfield Water Supply Board (the Board), where water service is available within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of an existing Smithfield Water Supply Board line, shall at the developer’s expense install lines and service stubs in such plat or land development and shall connect the same with the existing water system pursuant to Town-approved plans which must comply with all applicable Smithfield ordinances and Smithfield Water Supply Board rates, rules and regulations in effect at that time.

b) The entire cost of the installation of all water lines and laterals to serve any such subdivision or land development project and any lot thereof, shall be paid by the developer including the cost of engineering review services incurred during the permit review process by the Smithfield Water Supply Board’s personnel and/or its consulting engineers. Said entire cost shall include, but not be limited to, the cost of full engineering services, both preliminary and inspection during the actual installation of such water line project, and the cost of all materials, services, labor, inspection and supplies for constructing and laying out water lines and connecting the same with the Smithfield Water Supply Board water line system. The owner and developer shall indemnify the Town from any loss or damage that may directly or indirectly be occasioned by the installation of said water lines and laterals.

c) If the said owner and developer can prove that said water line extension is impracticable or would render the project financially infeasible, the Smithfield Water Supply Board may waive or modify the extension requirement upon such terms and conditions as it deems to be in the best interests of public health, safety and welfare.

§ 350-2. REQUIRED SUBMISSIONS. a) Said developer shall furnish an original site location plan and two (2) clear prints showing the following:

a) Site location plan(s) with proposed water line horizontal and vertical alignment at 1":40' horizontal and 1”:4' vertical; b) Limits of area measured in acres which could be served by extending the proposed water line; and c) Area in acres of the proposed and future development within the developer's site. b) The size of each drawing shall be 36" wide by 24" high to the trim lines. The horizontal plan scale shall be no greater than 1" = 40' and the profile scale shall be horizontal 1" = 40' and vertical 1": 4'.

The title block is to be placed in the lower right-hand corner of each drawing and shall include: town name, development name, drawing title, name of developer, name of designer, date, scale, sheet number and designer's current Rhode Island Registered P.E. stamp.

Each drawing is to be stamped and signed by a currently-registered Rhode Island Professional Engineer and shall be drawn specifically for the proposed water facilities. Drawings prepared for subdivision approval submission and the like are not acceptable.

Plan review stages for approval are: conceptual plan, hydraulic model, piping and layout. c) The required drawings shall conform to the following design requirements:

Plan – The 40 scale plan(s) shall clearly show all existing and proposed physical data within fifty feet of the project including but not limited to structures; street lines; easement and lot layout; plat and lot numbers; types of paving; utilities; wetlands; any other pertinent topographical features; North arrow; notes, etc.

Profile – The profile shall show the existing underground utility infrastructure size(s), station, depth of cover, shut offs (valves), laterals, hydrants, thrust blocks, etc., all utilities crossing the water line, existing and finished grades and other notes.

Sewer/Water Separation – Where existing conditions do not permit the minimum clearance of water mains both horizontally and vertically, separation of sewers and water mains shall be in accordance with the Rhode Island Water Resources Board guidelines, or as otherwise approved by the Smithfield Water Supply Board.

General – On private property, where a future street is not reasonably contemplated, the minimum depth of cover over all water lines shall be five (5) feet or below the local frost line, whichever is greater. Where existing conditions do not permit, lesser depth of covering using an alternative piping may be considered by the Smithfield Water Supply Board if proper insulation methods are demonstrated.

d) The following notes shall appear on the drawings submitted for each water extension approval.

A. "The developer shall make application for and pay all fees for permitting and inspections required to construct this project."

B. "Prior to receiving authorization to construct, all materials shall meet the standards and receive the written approval, based on manufacturer's drawings and other data, of the Smithfield Water Supply Board or its authorized representative."

C. "Installation of the water line facilities shall be in accordance with the Smithfield Water Supply Board rules, rates and regulations in existence at the time of the approval of the extension request, which may be amended from time to time, and any other applicable Town ordinances, regulations and policies."

D. "All water facilities shall meet testing and cleaning requirements prior to acceptance in accordance with all requirements of the Smithfield Water Supply Board."

E. "Two sets of as-built drawings stamped by a currently-registered Rhode Island Professional Engineer shall be filed with the Smithfield Water Supply Board as a condition for acceptance of the new water facilities."

F. "No flow will be accepted until all the above steps are completed and a Completion Certificate is issued."

e) Said developer shall file two copies of water flow hydraulic modeling calculations which shall be validated by the Town's Water Supply Board Inspector or consulting engineering firm. These calculations shall show the location and number of present and future units on no greater than 40 scale drawings. Water quantities shall be in gallons per minute for both average daily and maximum hourly flows. The calculations shall follow Rhode Island Water Works standards to determine flow calculations.

§ 350-3. LATERALS.

The developer shall install not only the water line in the street but also all building water laterals with lateral shut off valves from the water main to the property line along any route of

2 extension or within the development. The developer shall cap all open ends of the water line and provide exact lateral ties and elevations so that the capped ends will be readily available.

§ 350-4. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS.

The installation of water lines and laterals shall be in accordance with the Town of Smithfield Water Supply Board plan review and any adopted policies and procedures, copies of which may be obtained from the Water Supply Board. Specifications for all special structures and conditions shall be prepared by the developer for the Water Supply Board or its authorized representative's review and approval.

§ 350-5. EASEMENTS.

Where site constraints may prevent installation of the water line within the street, twenty-foot wide easements shall be required and deeded to the Town. The water line shall favor one side of the easement to allow for equipment placement in the event of a repair. The easement shall extend beyond the water line to a public highway. All easements must be readily passable by way of a constructed gravel road for maintenance vehicles and equipment and shall be gated, unless otherwise directed by the Board. No permanent structures shall be built on any easement. The form and location of all easements must be approved in advance of construction by the Smithfield Water Supply Board.

§ 350-6. AS-BUILT PLANS.

Upon completion of construction and prior to acceptance of any water connection, the completed facilities shall be tested by the installer and witnessed and approved by the Smithfield Water Supply Board. All final information shall be corrected and/or added to the original drawings and two complete sets of Mylar reproducible as-built drawings shall be furnished to the Smithfield Water Supply Board. The developer shall also deliver the as-built set of plans in an AutoCAD or ESRI GIS and Adobe electronic formats.

§ 350-7. INSTALLATION.

A road opening permit from either the Smithfield Public Works Department or RI DOT will be required along with the payment of all applicable charges associated with this permit prior to any construction. All construction shall be in accordance with the approved plans and materials, standard specifications and details. Any work not meeting the approved standards shall be immediately removed and replaced at the full cost of the developer. Board approval for installation does not negate the developer’s responsibility to obtain any and all other applicable local, state and federal approvals and permits.

§ 350-8. INSPECTION.

Water main installation testing and chlorination shall be inspected by the Town's consultant and/or Smithfield Water Supply Board Inspector. Forty-eight hour advance notice shall be provided to the Smithfield Water Supply Board for inspection, and all fees shall be paid by the developer.

The applicant for the building permit shall notify the Water Supply Board when the building water connection is ready for inspection and connection to the public water line. A forty-eight hour notice is required for all inspections of the project and all fees shall be paid by the developer.

No water facilities will be approved by the Smithfield Water Supply Board without final inspection and approval by the Town's inspector.

ARTICLE II

TOWN CONSTRUCTION OF WATER LINE EXTENSIONS BY PETITION

§ 350-9. PETITION PROCEDURE.

Town residents may petition the Smithfield Water Supply Board to install water service into an area within the jurisdiction of the Board that has been determined by the Town Engineer and Smithfield Water Supply Board Superintendent as appropriate for a water line extension which will comply with minimum fire flow and pressure requirements. At least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the property owners in the proposed area must sign a formal petition requesting the Town to install the water system and file the petition with the Board. After said petition has been filed, the Town will prepare an estimated cost analysis of said water project, including but not limited to the construction cost, engineering fees, inspection fees, interest rate and an estimated annual assessment based on the payback terms. If at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the property owners in the proposed area agree in writing to the terms of the estimated annual assessment, the Board shall conduct a public hearing on the petition and shall have the final authority to approve, deny, or modify the request.

Construction of said water line extension shall be in accordance with all of the Smithfield Water Supply Board rules and regulations, Town ordinances, as well as all applicable standard specifications and details regarding the installation of public water lines in the Town of Smithfield.

5 ARTICLE III

ASSESSMENT CHARGES

§ 350-10. PETITIONED EXTENSIONS. a) Whenever any water line is constructed by the Town as a result of a petition filed by Town residents, the Board shall direct an assessment to be made upon all lots to which water is made available. Such assessments shall be set at a rate not exceeding actual costs incurred by the Town, including costs for bringing such water line through intersections and across other public properties. The assessment will be prorated over a time period and shall accrue interest at a rate established by the Board. All such assessments shall be effective against such lots as of the time that the water line is made available to such lots. b) Any special assessment arrangements or agreements existing prior to the effective date of this Water Line Extension Ordinance will be governed, reviewed and resolved by separate resolution of the Board.

§ 350-11. EXTENSIONS BY PRIVATE PARTIES. a) Any private owner or developer other than the Town who extends a water line within the jurisdiction of the Smithfield Water Supply Board shall be subject to the assessment charges established by said Water Supply Board, as the same may be amended from time to time. b) The aforesaid assessment charges must be paid in full prior to connection with the Smithfield Water Supply Board water system.

ARTICLE IV

OUT-OF-DISTRICT EXTENSIONS

§ 350-12. OUT OF DISTRICT EXTENSIONS.

Any request for an out-of-district extension into another water district may not be considered by the Board unless it is accompanied by a written denial of service from the water district where the requesting property or properties are located. Any such out-of-district extension may not be considered unless it is accompanied by an executed Inter-Municipal Agreement in a form acceptable to the Board which includes remedies for non-payment of any water charges assessed. No out-of-district extension may be constructed unless it is approved in advance by the Board.

APPENDIX C

SWSB WHOLESALE AGREEMENTS

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX D

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT (2013)

Pare Corporation 2013 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

Smithfield Water Supply Board Esmond, RI PWS ID#1615616

We are very pleased to provide you with this year's Consumer Confidence Report. This report provides you with information on the water and services that we delivered to you in 2013. Included are details about where your water comes from, what it contains, and how it compares to standards set by regulatory agencies.

We want our valued customers to be informed about their water utility. There are no regularly scheduled meetings, therefore; if after reviewing this report you have any questions, or would like to know more about the Smithfield Water Supply Board water system, please call Seth Lemoine, Smithfield Public Works Director, at (401) 233-1034, Monday – Friday from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM.

As you were made aware in last year’s Consumer Confidence Report, the Smithfield Water Supply Board and the East Smithfield Water District signed an agreement and the governing bodies of the two water districts appointed a seven member interim Consolidation Board to investigate the feasibility of consolidating the two water districts. The interim Board recently submitted legislation to the RI General Assembly which outlines the process for consolidation and in part, requires a vote by the rate payers in each respective district. In the next few months, you may receive information relating to this vote.

The Quality of Your Drinking Water Our goal is to provide you with a safe and dependable supply of drinking water. We are committed to ensuring the quality of your water.

The Source of Your Drinking Water We purchase all of our water from the Providence Water Supply Board. Providence draws its water entirely from surface water sources located in the Scituate watershed. The main source of supply for the Providence system is the Scituate Reservoir; which is the terminal reservoir in a network of six reservoirs. The five other secondary reservoirs are: Regulating Reservoir, Barden Reservoir, Ponaganset Reservoir, Westconnaug Reservoir, and Moswansicut Reservoir. This reservoir system is located in a basin area totaling 92.8 sq. miles of mostly rural, forested lands of which Providence Water controls approximately 28% through outright ownership or through past purchase of development rights.

The RI Department of Health, in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, has assessed the threats to Smithfield Water Supply Board’s water supply sources. The assessment considered the intensity of development, the presence of businesses and facilities that use, store or generate potential contaminants, how easily contaminants may move through the soils in the Source Water Protection Area (SWPA), and the sampling history of the water.

Our monitoring program continues to assure that the water delivered to your home is safe to drink. However, the assessment found that the water source is at LOW RISK of contamination. This does NOT mean that the water cannot become contaminated. Protection efforts are necessary to assure continued water quality. The complete Source Water Assessment Report is available from the Smithfield Water Supply Board or the Department of Health at (401) 222-6867.

Why Are There Contaminants in My Drinking Water? Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426- 4791).

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health.

The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity: . Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. . Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. . Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. . Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, and septic systems. . Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

Water Quality Test Results The table below lists all of the drinking water contaminants that were detected through our water quality monitoring and testing. The presence of contaminants in the water does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. Unless otherwise noted, the data presented in this table is from the January – December 2013 monitoring period. For those contaminants that are monitored less frequently the most recent test results are listed.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s) are set at very stringent levels. The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is set at a level where no health effects would be expected, and the MCL is set as close to that as possible, considering available technology and cost of treatment. A person would have to drink 2 liters of water every day, as recommended by health professionals, at the MCL level for a lifetime to have a one-in-a-million chance of having the described health effect.

2013 TEST RESULTS FROM THE PROVIDENCE WATER SUPPLY BOARD Microbial Violation Level Unit MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Contaminants Y/N Detected Measurement

Highest % of 5% of 1 Total Coliform Bacteria N 0.5% positive samples 0 monthly Naturally present in the environment per month samples

2 1.36 Total Organic Carbon (TOC N N/A N/A TT Naturally present in the environment removal ratio) Range:1.26 – 1.58 0.18 3 N NTU N/A TT=<1 Soil runoff Turbidity Range:0.02 – 0.18 Inorganic Violation Level Unit MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Contaminants Y/N Detected Measurement

Erosion of natural deposits; discharge of drilling Barium N 0.008 ppm 2 2 wastes; discharge from metal refineries 0.82 Erosion of natural deposits. Water additive which Fluoride N ppm 4 4 Range 0.55 – 0.82 promotes strong teeth Nitrate (as Nitrogen) Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks, N 0.05 ppm 10 10 (2012) sewage; erosion of natural deposits Corrosion of household plumbing Copper** N 0.04 ppm AL=1.3 AL=1.3 systems; Erosion of natural deposits

5** 3 Corrosion of household plumbing Lead Yes 30 ppb 0 AL=15 systems; Erosion of natural deposits Volatile Organic Violation Level Unit Contaminants/ MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Y/N Detected Measurement Disinfection By-Products

Average 0.39 MRDLG MRDL 4 N ppm Water additive used to control microbes Chlorine Range 0-1.63 4 4

Other Unregulated Violation Unit Contaminants Level Detected MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Y/N Measurement

Hexavalent Chromium N/A 0.13 ppb n/a n/a Erosion of natural deposits

Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from road de-icing Sodium N/A 11.0 ppm n/a n/a operations

Strontium N/A 28 ppb n/a n/a Erosion of natural deposits

Vanadium N/A 0.24 ppb n/a n/a Erosion of natural deposits; Combustion of fossil fuels

** All results are recorded at the 90th percentile for lead and copper. 1 Compliance is based upon the highest quarterly running annual average (RAA) or locational running annual average (LRAA) and the range is based upon the lowest and highest individual measurement. 2 This value refers to the highest monthly percentage of positive samples detected during the year. For 2013, Providence Water collected 2,273 samples for Total Coliform Rule compliance monitoring. One of these samples was positive for total coliform bacteria. None were positive for E. coli bacteria. 3 In order to comply with the EPA standard, the removal ratio must be greater than 1.0. Detected level is the lowest removal ratio per quarter. Range is the lowest and highest removal ratios per month. 4 Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of the water. It is monitored because it is a good indicator of the effectiveness of the filtration system. The average turbidity value for Providence Water for 2013 was <0.10 NTU. 5 For 2013, Providence Water is reporting an exceedance of the lead action level. Although not a SDWA violation, this did trigger a public notification requirement necessitating a pamphlet on the hazards of lead be mailed to all our customers. Infants and children who drink water containing lead in excess of the action level could experience delays in their physical or mental development. Children could show slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TEST RESULTS FROM THE SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD Microbial Violation Unit Level Detected MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Contaminants Y/N Measurement

Total Coliform 0 Highest Monthly 1 N # of Positive 0 Naturally present in the environment Bacteria absent Samples positive Disinfectant Violation Unit Level Detected MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Contaminants Y/N Measurement

Chlorine Average 0.165 MRDLG MRDL N ppm Water additive used to control microbes (2013) Range 0.11 -0.23 4 4

Haloacetic Acids Average 14.55 N ppb 0 60 By-product of water chlorination (HAA) Range 4.4 – 24.7 Total Average 74.25 Trihalomethanes N ppb 0 80 By-product of water chlorination Range 54.7 – 93.8* (TTHM)* Inorganic Violation Level Detected Unit MCLG MCL Likely Source of Contamination Contaminants Y/N 90th Percentile Measurement Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion Copper N 0.02 ppm 1.3 AL=1.3 of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives Corrosion of household plumbing systems, erosion Lead N 3 ppb 0 AL=15 of natural deposits No sampling sites exceeded the copper or lead Action Levels. Infants and young children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than the general population. It is possible that Lead levels at your home may be higher than other homes in the community as a result of materials used in your home's plumbing. If you are concerned about elevated Lead levels in your home's water, you may wish to have your water tested and flush your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using tap water. Additional information is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). * Two water sampling results exceeded the MCL for Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM). Some people who drink water containing TTHM in excess of the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous systems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer. Parts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/L) - One part per million corresponds to one minute in two years or a single penny in $10,000. Parts per billion (ppb) or Micrograms per liter (ug/L) - One part per billion corresponds to one minute in 2,000 years, or a single penny in $10,000,000. Picocuries per liter (pCi/L) - Picocuries per liter is a measure of the radioactivity in water. Action Level (AL) - The concentration of a contaminant which if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) -The MCL is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The MCLG is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal (MRDLG) - The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) - The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Treatment Technique (TT) - A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.

For most people, the health benefits of drinking plenty of water outweigh any possible health risk from these contaminants. However, some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Water Drinking Hotline (800-426-4791).

If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The Smithfield Water District is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

We at the Smithfield Water Supply Board work to provide top quality water to every tap. We encourage all of our customers to conserve and use water efficiently and remind you to help us protect our water sources, which are the heart of our community, our way of life and our children’s future. Please do not hesitate to call our office with any questions.

APPENDIX E

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORTS (OERS)

Pare Corporation

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT

I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Water System Information: PWSID 1615616

PWS Name Smithfield Water Supply Board

PWS Address 64 Farnum Pike City Smithfield State RI Zip Code 02917

B. Report Prepared by: Name Seth Lemoine Title Water Commissioner Date Prepared 1/27/2014 Telephone 401-233-1034 Email [email protected]

II. MONITORING RESULTS A. Provide the compliance monitoring location where the operational evaluation level (OEL) was exceeded (if there was more than one location where the OEL was exceeded, attach an additional copy of Page 1, and complete Items II.A. and II.B. for each additional location).

Stage 2 DBPR Location #2 - Bryant University

Note: The location name or number should correspond to a location name or number in your Stage 2 D/DBPR compliance monitoring plan required under 40 CFR 141.622. B. Monitoring Results for the Location Identified in Item II.A. 1. Check TTHM and/or HAA5 to indicate which result(s) caused the OEL exceedance: TTHM HAA5 2. Enter your results for TTHM and/or HAA5 (whichever you checked above). Quarter Operational Result from Result from Result from 2 Evaluation Value* This Quarter Previous Quarter Quarters Ago A B C D=(2A+B+C)/4 Date sample was collected 11/6/2013 8/7/2013 5/21/2013 TTHM (µg/L) 93.8 95.8 56.5 85.0 HAA5 (µg/L) * The operational evaluation value is calculated by summing the two previous quarters’ TTHM or HAA5 results plus twice the current quarter’s TTHM or HAA5 result and then dividing by four. If the value exceeds 80 µg/L for TTHM or 60 µg/L for HAA5, an OEL exceedance has occurred. III. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION FINDINGS A. Is the Department allowing you to limit the scope of your operational evaluation (see the memorandum attached as Page 3)? Yes No If NO, proceed to Items III.B. through III.E. If YES, you may stop here.

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT (continued) PWSID 1615616

B. Did distribution operational practices—including storage tank operations, excess storage capacity, and distribution system flushing—cause or contribute to your OEL exceedance(s)? Yes No Possibly If YES or POSSIBLY, explain (attach additional pages if necessary).

There are several possible causes for the OEL exceedance. Please see attached pages for additional information.

Note: Refer to Chapter 3 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual.

C. Did treatment operational practices—including treatment changes or problems—cause or contribute to your OEL exceedance(s)? Yes No Possibly If YES or POSSIBLY, explain (attach additional pages if necessary).

No treatment from the SWSB was active in 2013.

Note: Refer to Chapter 4 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual. D. Did source water—including changes in sources or source water quality—cause or contribute to your OEL exceedance(s)? Yes No Possibly If YES or POSSIBLY, explain (attach additional pages if necessary).

Treatment practices from the wholesaler could be a factor. SWSB is considered a consecutive water system as we are a wholesale customer of Prov. Water. Prov. Water has increased their pH to 10.2 which, in accordance with Chapter 4.1 of the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR manual, increases in pH can increase the formation of TTHM. (Appendix A)

Note: Refer to Chapter 5 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual. E. Cause of OEL exceedance could not be determined.

F. List steps that could be considered to minimize future OEL exceedances (attach additional pages if necessary).

See attached sheet for additional information.

G. Attach all data used to determine the cause(s) of the OEL exceedance. Total number of pages submitted 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT Supplemental Information Smithfield Water Supply Board

Section B. Distribution Operational Practices There are several possible causes which may have contributed to the OEL exceedance. Based upon information available during the sampling period, below is a list of possible contributing factors: 1. There was a sudden drop of water consumption during the month of October, just prior to the sampling date. Purchase water from Prov. Water for the month of October was down 45% from the month before which results in longer hydraulic residence time in water mains. (Appendix B) 2. The Bryant University sampling point is within a maintenance building in the western outlying area of the campus. Water from the SWSB main has to travel approximately 3,500 feet through privately owned water lines where it is suspected that there is little consumption through the last sections of this water line. The high hydraulic residence times could contribute to an increase in the formation of TTHMs. 3. Bryant University is fed from a 4 MG water storage tank which, at times, has inadequate turnover and poor mixing. A sudden large draw from this tank could result in seeing higher TTHM levels at the sampling point. A couple adjacent firefighting events occurred within a week or so of sampling and drew considerable amounts of water from the SWBS system which may have contributed to the higher TTHM levels. These events are summarized below and located on the attached Map 2: • 10/27/2013 230 George Washington Highway: Large brush fire • 11/03/2013 970 Douglas Pike: Vehicle Fire

Section F. Minimizing Future OEL Exceedances There are several changes which will occur throughout the next 4 reporting quarters which will affect the contributing factors for TTHM and HAA5 concentrations. 1. Providence Water is under construction for the reconstruction of their filtration plant which is expected to lower the chlorine/disinfection demand while maintaining appropriate free chlorine levels. In addition Prov. Water is also upgrading additional sections of their infrastructure, such as transmission mains which will also lower disinfection demand. 2. SWSB will add three additional sampling points as surveillance quarterly monitoring, not for compliance (Map 1). The addition of these monitoring sites will enable us to better analyze the effects of disinfectant reactions with naturally occurring materials in our system. Results will also enable the SWSB to be proactive in addressing potential issues before there is an exceedance of the DBPR and develop a more specific corrective action plan. • Surveillance Location #1, Longview Pump Station: This is the entry point of wholesale water. The results from this sampling location will show the DPB levels entering our system. (Map 1) • Surveillance Location #2, Bryant University Guard Building. The guard building is located at the entrance to Bryant University just prior to residential dormitories. This location is closest to the residential area of the university and is within close proximity of the SWSB water main. (Map 3) • Surveillance Location #3, Log Road Pump Station. The Log Road Pump Station is located amidst a solely residential area and is in the furthest reaches of the SWSB distribution system. (Map 4) 3. The current two sampling points for the Stage II DBPR as identified on the Initial Disinfection By-Products Rule (IDSE) are not located within residential areas and are at locations in which the SWSB has no jurisdiction as it relates to water quality and flushing programs. The IDSE should be revised to replace current sampling locations with one that will better comply with the Chapter 7.10.3 of the Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Public Drinking Water and the intent of the Stage II DBPR by sampling in residential areas with the highest hydraulic residence time. Below are some details of the current sampling locations: • Stage II DBPR Location #1: 27 Thurber Boulevard: Property is located within a Planned Corporate Zone and is a distribution center business. The facility has a single bathroom which is fed by 600 feet of 2 inch service lateral. It is not practical to flush the line in order to collect a representative sample from the SWSB main. (Map 5) • Stage II DBPR Location #2: Bryant University: Sampling location is in a utility building sink. To collect a representative sample from the SWSB main, water would need to travel through approximately 3,500 feet of private water lines with diameters ranging from 2” to 10”. (Map 3)

SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX A: Providence Water 2013 Testing Results – Longview Pump Station

APPENDIX B: Monthly Water Usage

MAP 1: Smithfield Water Supply Distribution Map with Stage II DBPR Sampling Locations + Surveillance Sample Locations

MAP 2: Firefighting Activity Locations

MAP 3: Stage II DBPR Location #2; Bryant University + Surveillance Sample Location #2

MAP 4: Surveillance Sample Location #3; Log Road Pump Station

MAP 5: Stage II DBPR Location #1; 27 Thurber Boulevard

APPENDIX A MONTHLY WATER USAGE SUMMARY SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY

Chlorine Residual 2013 2012 Purchased MG 2013 Purchased MG SWSB Prov. Water April 25.90 April 33.60 0.17 0.17 May 33.65 May 21.20 0.17 0.14 June 39.30 June 42.40 0.11 0.13 July 43.60 July 35.41 0.18 0.19 August 31.40 August 36.94 0.18 0.14 September 25.80 September 32.80 0.19 0.23 October 20.60 October 17.90 0.21 0.21 November 20.38 0.12 0.08

Chlorine Residual 2013 Bryant 2012 MG Bryant 2013 MG SWSB THHM HAA5 April 6.63 April 7.23 0.14 May 5.41 May 4.49 0.19 56.50 4.40 June 3.61 June 2.57 0.08 July 5.24 July 4.22 0.19 August 5.39 August 4.02 0.07 95.80 22.40 September 7.33 September 8.21 0.20 October 5.84 October 5.09 0.05 November 5.73 0.09 93.80 21.20 APPENDIXB

June 17, 2014

Ms. Amy B. Parmenter Office of Drinking Water Quality Rhode Island Department of Health 3 Capitol Hill Providence, Rhode Island 02908

Re: Stage 2 DBPR Operational Evaluation Report – 1st and 2nd Quarter 2014 Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, Rhode Island PARE Project No.: 03066.39

Dear Ms. Parmenter:

On behalf of the Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB), Pare Corporation (PARE) is hereby submitting this Operational Evaluation Report (OER) to the Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) Office of Drinking Water Quality with respect to the 1st and 2nd Quarter 2014 operational evaluation level exceedances for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) at Compliance Monitoring Sample Location M-2 – Bryant University Utility Building. This OER has been prepared pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (Stage 2 DBPR), specifically 40 CFR §141.626(b). Enclosed for your review are:

1. One (1) copy of the 1st Quarter 2014 RIDOH OER form; and 2. One (1) copy of the 2nd Quarter 2014 RIDOH OER form;

As indicated in the attached OER forms, the SWSB is a consecutive water system that receives all of its finished water from the Providence Water Supply Board (Providence Water) through a direct connection at the Longview Pump Station. In order to more adequately characterize the concentrations of disinfection byproducts throughout the system, the SWSB has incorporated three (3) additional surveillance locations into their quarterly monitoring series beginning in the 1st Quarter 2014, including source water sampling at the Longview Pump Station. The results of the first two sampling rounds of 2014 are clear; TTHM concentrations in the SWSB water supply system are consistent with the source water provided from Providence Water (see Table 1) – there does not appear to be much if any TTHM formation in the SWSB system. Nonetheless, it is ultimately the responsibility of the SWSB to provide its customers with water that meets the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) within its water supply system. Therefore, the SWSB will perform the necessary steps to reduce TTHM levels in its system and minimize future OEL exceedances through the corrective measures described herein.

The State 2 DBPR Consecutive Systems Guidance Manual acknowledges that consecutive systems may have limited control over the quality of water entering the distribution system, with wholesale systems not required to make treatment or operational modifications to reduce DBP concentrations if the wholesale system meets the MCLs. Providence Water’s Philip J. Holton Treatment Plant in Scituate, RI is undergoing major infrastructure upgrades which are expected to lower the chlorine disinfection demand while maintaining appropriate free chlorine levels. In addition, Providence Water is upgrading segments of their Ms. Amy B. Parmenter - RIDOH (2) June 17, 2014

infrastructure (e.g., transmission mains) which will further reduce disinfection demand. On June 6, 2014, the SWSB and PARE personnel met with Providence Water to discuss the water quality issues the SWSB is experiencing in their system and to identify what, if any, corrective actions are being pursued by Providence Water to reduce TTHM concentrations in their system. Providence Water informed us that they are reviewing water age and mixing at all their water storage facilities. Moreover, Providence Water indicated that their Longview Reservoir, located in North Providence adjacent to the SWSB’s Longview Pump Station, is the highest priority in terms of reviewing water age and mixing. Providence Water is considering reducing storage volume, introducing active mixing, or both at this facility. While Providence Water will not have a mixing system installed at the facility by the 3rd Quarter 2014 sampling round, they have indicated that this is a high priority and expect to have a corrective action implemented in the near future. We believe that active mixing or aeration at the Longview Reservoir may be sufficient to address the DBP issue in the SWSB’s distribution system, as even a modest reduction in TTHM concentrations in the source water (i.e., approximately 10 μg/L) would be enough to bring the SWSB into compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR.

However, in order to be proactive about this issue, the SWSB will review tank mixing and possibly aeration system options in all their storage tanks in parallel with the corrective actions proposed by Providence Water. According to the Stage 2 DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual, the operational evaluation for consecutive systems should focus on the distribution system. For consecutive systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, the Stage 2 DBPR recommends hydraulic flow and storage management to control and reduce water age as a best available technology (BAT). EPA-recommended methods for reducing water age include pipe looping, valve management, bypassing oversized pipes, installing a dedicated transmission main, improving tank mixing and turnover, and eliminating excess storage and tanks in series. 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. This is significant volume of storage for a system of this size (i.e., 5.3 MG of storage in the system for an average daily demand of less than 1.0 MGD). In addition, due to the configuration of the storage in the system, a significant portion is considered usable (i.e., storage that is located above an elevation that would provide a minimum of 20 psi to all customers in the system). The SWSB is currently evaluating the feasibility of replacing the Rocky Hill Road tank due to significant deterioration observed during the system’s most recent inspection. As part of any future repair/replacement of the Rocky Hill tank, the SWSB will add some type of mixing or aeration. The SWSB will also evaluate the feasibility and cost of adding mixing or aeration to the system’s other two tanks. It should be recognized that with the configuration of system storage tanks and their relative size and usable volume, mixing and aeration may result in only a minor reduction in TTHM concentrations in the system; however, only a minor reduction would be needed to bring the compliance sample concentrations down to below the MCL. The SWSB will begin the process of evaluating the technical feasibility and cost- effectiveness of adding mixing and/or aeration to the Island Woods and Burlingame tanks.

Unrelated to the remedial measures to be undertaken to alleviate the elevated levels of TTHMs, the SWSB has submitted a Revised Stage 2 DBPR Standard Monitoring Plan to the RIDOH which includes replacing Compliance Monitoring Sample Locations M-1: 27 Thurber Boulevard and M-2: Bryant University Utility Building with Surveillance Locations X-2: Bryant University Guard Building and X-3: Log Road Pump Station. As stated in EPA 815-R-07-014 – Complying with the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule: Small Entity Compliance, high TTHM sites are often located at or before the last group of customers and downstream of storage facilities, especially those with a common inlet and outlet. Moreover, Ms. Amy B. Parmenter - RIDOH (3) June 17, 2014

the EPA document indicates that the compliance monitoring sampling site should not be located at a dead end where there are no customers. Sampling location M-2 is located within a maintenance building at Bryant University in the western outlying area of the campus. In order to collect a representative sample, water from the SWSB main must travel approximately 3,500 feet through privately-owned water lines suspected to have little demand through its final section. This high hydraulic residence time could contribute to an increase in the formation of TTHMs not representative of the SWSB water supply system. In addition, M-2 is located within a Planned Corporate Zone and is a distribution center business. This sampling site is currently approved for Stage 2 DBP sampling due to suspected elevated concentrations of haloacetic acids (HAA5s). However, the facility has a single bathroom which is fed by 600 feet of 2-inch service lateral. It is not practical to flush the line in order to collect a representative sample from the SWSB main. Therefore, the SWSB has prepared a revised Stage 2 DBPR Standard Monitoring Plan to replace the existing compliance monitoring sites with the aforementioned surveillance sampling sites, which are more consistent with the intent of the Stage 2 DBPR.

The SWSB has chosen to replace M-1 with X-2. The surveillance sampling site in located in a guard building at the entrance to Bryant University hydraulically upstream to residential dormitories and fed by an 8-inch private water main. This location is closest to the residential area of the university and is within 900 feet of the SWSB water main, making it a desirable location to collect representative DBP samples due to its location within the water supply system and its proximity to the 4.0 MG Island Woods tank. In addition, the SWSB has selected X-3 to replace M-2. The Log Road Pump Station is located amidst a solely residential area and is in the furthest reaches of the SWSB distribution system. This location is ideal to collect a representative sample of the SWSB water supply in an area with high potential for elevated DBP concentrations due to its high residential time based (i.e., located at the end of the water supply system) and its proximity to the Burlingame Road storage tank. A water age analysis performed by PARE utilizing the SWSB’s existing computerized hydraulic model confirmed these locations to be in areas of high water age where elevated DBP levels are anticipated to be detected.

The SWSB is aware of the importance of protecting public health by limiting exposure to these disinfection byproducts in its drinking water supply and expects to work closely with the RI DOH in the next several months to rectify this issue. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Seth Lemoine or me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Timothy P. Thies, P.E. Managing Engineer

TPT/SPD/abv

Enclosures cc: Seth Lemoine, P.E. – SWSB

L:\03066.39 SWSB OEL Report Assistance\REPORTS\RIDOH OEL Report.doc

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT

I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Water System Information: PWSID 1615616

PWS Name Smithfield Water Supply Board

PWS Address 64 Farnum Pike City Smithfield State RI Zip Code 02917

B. Report Prepared by: Name Seth Lemoine Title Water Commissioner Date Prepared 1/27/2014 Telephone 401-233-1034 Email [email protected]

Stage 2 DBPR Location #2 - Bryant University

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT (continued) PWSID 1615616

There are several possible causes for the OEL exceedance. Please see attached pages for additional information.

Note: Refer to Chapter 3 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual.

No treatment from the SWSB was active in 2013.

Note: Refer to Chapter 5 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual. E. Cause of OEL exceedance could not be determined.

F. List steps that could be considered to minimize future OEL exceedances (attach additional pages if necessary).

See attached sheet for additional information.

G. Attach all data used to determine the cause(s) of the OEL exceedance. Total number of pages submitted 12

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT

I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Water System Information: PWSID 1615616

PWS Name Smithfield Water Supply Board

PWS Address 64 Farnum Pike City Smithfield State RI Zip Code 02917

B. Report Prepared by: Name Seth Lemoine Title Water Commissioner Date Prepared 1/27/2014 Telephone 401-233-1034 Email [email protected]

Stage 2 DBPR Location #2 - Bryant University

OPERATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT (continued) PWSID 1615616

There are several possible causes for the OEL exceedance. Please see attached pages for additional information.

Note: Refer to Chapter 3 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual.

No treatment from the SWSB was active in 2013.

Note: Refer to Chapter 5 in the USEPA’s Stage 2 D/DBPR Operational Evaluation Guidance Manual. E. Cause of OEL exceedance could not be determined.

F. List steps that could be considered to minimize future OEL exceedances (attach additional pages if necessary).

See attached sheet for additional information.

G. Attach all data used to determine the cause(s) of the OEL exceedance. Total number of pages submitted 12

TABLE 1 Stage 2 DBPR Compliance Monitoring Historical Data Summary Table MCL Results (µg/L) Location DBP (µg/L) 2014-Q2 2014-Q1 2013-Q4 2013-Q3 2013-Q2 2013-Q1 2012-Q4 2012-Q3 2012-Q2 M-1: 27 Thurber Blvd. HAA5 60 16.5 12.2 16.8 24.7 4.4 18.2 8.7 24.1 9.3 TTHM 80 76.7 73.1 84.4 86.5 52.3 54.7 71.5 79.1 58.8 M-2: Bryant Univ. Utility Bldg. HAA5 60 19.8 17.8 21.2 22.4 4.4 9.4 6.1 22.0 8.9 TTHM 80 88.5 71.3 93.8 95.8 56.5 57.3 67.9 83.7 63.6 X-1: Longview Pump Station HAA5 60 36.3 18.1 ------TTHM 80 86.2 74.1 ------X-2: Bryant Univ. Guard Bldg. HAA5 60 27.3 18.9 ------TTHM 80 83.7 75.1 ------X-2: Log Road Pump Station HAA5 60 7.2 11.2 ------TTHM 80 85.9 67.5 ------

= MCL Exceedance

APPENDIX F

HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE/SYSTEM BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

Pare Corporation REPORT PARE Project No. 03066.20

SMITHFIELD WATER SUPPLY BOARD SYSTEM EVALUATION AND MASTER PLAN

VOLUME 1 of 3 – HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE

VOLUME 2 of 3 – SYSTEM BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

FOR THE TOWN OF SMITHFIELD Smithfield, Rhode Island

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

VOLUME 1 of 3 – HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE

SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Existing System Demand Evaluation 2

3.0 Load Control Areas 4

4.0 Major Users 8

5.0 Model Calibration 11

6.0 Existing System Evaluation 14 6.1 Hydraulic Evaluation 15 6.2 Supply Evaluation 16 6.3 Fire Flow Analysis 17 6.4 System Evaluation with North Providence 18

VOLUME 2 of 3 – SYSTEM BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE

7.0 Ultimate Buildout 20 7.1 Residential Buildout Analysis 20 7.2 Commercial/Industrial Buildout Analysis 23

8.0 5-Year Buildout 27 8.1 Demand Estimate 27 8.2 Hydraulic Evaluation 30 8.3 Supply Evaluation 32 8.4 Fire Flow Analysis 33

9.0 20-Year Buildout 34 9.1 Demand Estimate 34 9.2 Hydraulic Evaluation 35 9.3 Supply Evaluation 36 9.4 Fire Flow Analysis 37

10.0 Conclusions 39

-i- Pare Corporation

LIST OF TABLES

2-1 SWSB Demand Comparison – 1997 and 2004 3-1 SWSB LCA Water Use Comparison – 1997 and 2004 3-2 Residential vs. Commercial/Industrial Water Use Comparison 4-1 SWSB System Large Users 4-2 Large User vs. Regular Consumer Water Comparison 1997 and 2004 5-1 Hydraulic Model Calibration Results (Field Data vs. Model Data) 6-1 System Evaluation (Existing Conditions) 7-1 Existing and Future Residential Land Use 7-2 Residential Buildout Potential per District as Percentage of Total Buildout Town-wide 7-3 Residential Growth by LCA (Ultimate Buildout) 7-4 Comm./Ind. Growth by LCA (Ultimate Buildout) 7-5 Residential and Comm./Ind. Ultimate Buildout Water Use by LCA 8-1 Recent Proposed Subdivisions and Connections 8-2 System Evaluation (5-year Buildout) 9-1 5-Year, 20-year, and Ultimate Buildout Water Use by LCA 9-2 System Evaluation (20-year Buildout)

APPENDICES

Appendix A SWSB Water Supply, Transmission & Distribution System Map Appendix B Hydraulic Model Node and Pipeline Plan Appendix C Available Fire Flow System Map Appendix D Hydraulic Model Reports (Existing Conditions) Appendix E Hydraulic Model Reports (5-Year Buildout) Appendix F Hydraulic Model Reports (20-Year Buildout)

-ii- Pare Corporation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

 Mr. B. James Suzman – Town of Smithfield Director of Public Works/SWSB Commissioner  Mr. Tony Caito – Water Foreman  Mr. Fred Presley, AICP – Smithfield Town Planner  Ms. Denise Lemoi – Smithfield Department of Public Works Administrative Assistant

-iii- Pare Corporation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PARE updated the Town of Smithfield’s computerized hydraulic model to include the most recent and available (i.e., year 2004) consumer demand data. Since the model was first constructed in 1997, it appears as though water use has risen in the Smithfield Water Supply Board service area by approximately 8 percent, from 777,000 gallons per day (gpd) in 1997 to 840,000 gpd in 2004. Based on our evaluation of pump station and tank chart recorders, it appears as though summer time and peak water use is increasing at a faster rate than average day water use. Since 1997, maximum day water use has increased by 29 percent and peak hour water use has increased by 28 percent. The most significant increase in water use (i.e., 28 percent) occurred in LCA 3, which is primarily commercial and industrial development.

Since 1997, there appears to be a significant increase in the number of system major users, i.e. users who consumer greater than 1 million gallons per year (MGY). The total number of major users since 1997 has increased from 14 to 33. However, while the number of major users has more than doubled (i.e., increased by 240 percent), water use by major user has increased by only 36 percent.

Upon updating the demand information in the hydraulic model, PARE calibrated the model through a series of hydrant flow tests. Field data, in the form of flow and residual pressure measurements, was collected from 7 hydrant flow tests and compared to model simulations. PARE calibrated the pipe roughness coefficients (i.e., C-values) in the model to more accurately simulate field conditions. The results were the model is able to predict field data within 3 percent (i.e., model pressures and field-measured pressures were within ± 3 percent of each other).

After updating and calibrating the model, PARE evaluated the existing system with regard to its ability to serve the current customer base. Based on PARE’s evaluation, it appears as though the system is adequately serving its current customer base without significant deficiencies. It appears as though the system is supplying adequate pressure and fire flow in LCAs 1 through 4. However, three nodes in LCA 5 (out of 40 nodes) routinely experience less than 20 psi, and have little or no fire flow available at a residual pressure of 20 psi. At a residual pressure of 11 psi, which is the lowest pressure routinely experienced in LCA 5, there is approximately 400-500 gpm of fire flow available. That is to say that the fire department could reasonable draw 400-500

-iv- Pare Corporation

gpm from the system without lowering the system pressure below what is experience currently.

In addition, it appears as though the current pump stations have adequate capacity to meet the needs of the system on a maximum day. Currently on a maximum day, Longview Reservoir pump station pumps at approximately 85 percent of its capacity, Limerock booster pump station at 60 percent of its capacity, and Davis booster pump station at 18 percent of its capacity.

The system storage tanks also appear to be meeting the needs of the existing system. The system currently has approximately 2.1 million gallons (MG) of usable storage, or storage that is located above an elevation that would provide a minimum of 20 psi to all the nodes in the system. On an average day, system demand is approximately 0.84 MG, or 40 percent of the system’s usable storage. Accounting for an average fire volume and equalization storage, there appears to be approximately 1.44 MG available for emergency storage, which is equal to approximately 1.7 days of storage assuming an average day demand or 0.9 days assuming a maximum day demand.

After evaluating the existing system, PARE completed a buildout analysis of the SWSB service area. PARE’s buildout analysis focused primarily on the 5-year buildout and the 20-year buildout; however, PARE also estimated the ultimate system-wide buildout, which is the maximum buildout in the system that could be reasonably expected based on current zoning. Based on PARE’s evaluation, it appears as though water use may increase by as much as 30 percent in the next 5 years. This increase includes up to 13 proposed developments and service connections that PARE has evaluated over the last two years but have not been built or have not come on-line as of the date of this report. This increase in water use will have a substantial impact on the system’s ability to supply water. While system pressure will remain similar to the current system pressure, the system pump stations and storage tanks may reach their respective capacities. The Longview Reservoir pump station may reach its capacity (i.e., 2 MG) over the next 5 years and Limerock booster pump station will approach (i.e., within 85 percent) its capacity. On an average day, system demand is approximately 1.1 MG, or 52 percent of the system’s usable storage. Accounting for an average fire volume and equalization storage, there appears to be approximately 1.3 MG available for emergency storage, which is equal to approximately 1.2 days of storage assuming an average day demand or 0.7 days assuming a maximum day demand. PARE’s evaluation indicates that the existing system does not have capacity to meet the water

-v- Pare Corporation

demands after the 20-year buildout scenario. Water use is anticipated to increase by as much as 100 percent (i.e., double) in the next 20 years. After 20 years, system demand on a maximum day will exceed the capacity of the Longview Reservoir and Limerock Road pump stations. The implication for the system is that on a maximum day, the system pump stations will not be able to meet system demand, which will cause the system storage tanks to drain significantly, thereby depleting the usable storage available for fire fighting and emergencies. On an average day, system demand is approximately 1.70 MG, or 81 percent of the system’s usable storage. Accounting for an average fire volume and equalization storage, there appears to be approximately 1.0 MG available for emergency storage, which is equal to approximately 0.6 days of storage assuming an average day demand or 0.3 days assuming a maximum day demand.

Given the results of the existing system evaluation and buildout analysis, it appears as though the system is adequately meeting the needs of the current customer base, but may require substantial upgrades in order to keep pace with the future buildout of the system. PARE recommends that the Town use the next two to three years to evaluate and plan for system upgrades, particularly to the pump stations, in anticipation of a significant increase in system demand.

-vi- Pare Corporation

VOLUME 1 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Smithfield is growing and its water distribution system is feeling the effects of this growth. The Town realizes the existing and potential impact of future growth on its system and desires to perform preliminary planning and engineering to ensure the continued viability of the water system as well as the continued economic development of the Town.

The purpose of this phase of the project was to update the Town of Smithfield’s water distribution system computerized hydraulic model in order that in can continue to be a viable tool for future system-wide planning. Pare Corporation (PARE) created the Town’s computerized hydraulic model and continues to maintain and utilize it for the Town. The model was created in 1997 using Haestad Methods Cybernet software, and has since been updated using Bentley’s (formerly Haestad) WaterCAD v.6.5 software.

The model represents the water distributions system’s major components, such as major water mains (i.e., 6-inch diameter or greater), storage tanks, pump stations, and interconnections. Currently, the system is composed of approximately 36 miles of water main, three elevated storage tanks (Rocky Hill Road – 1 MG, Island Woods – 4 MG, and Burlingame Road – 0.3 MG), three booster pump stations (Longview Reservoir, Limerock Road, and Davis), and two interconnections (both with the East Smithfield Water District).

In addition to updating the hydraulic model, PARE completed a buildout analysis of the Smithfield Water Supply Board’s service area. PARE completed a 5-year, a 20-year, and an ultimate buildout analysis in order estimate short-term and long-term water demand and evaluate the existing system’s ability to meet those demands.

Pare Corporation - 1 -

SECTION 2 EXISTING SYSTEM DEMAND EVALUATION

PARE reviewed the following records as part of the system demand evaluation:

 Longview Reservoir pump station meter records from 2003 and 2004;  Limerock booster pump station meter records from 2003 and 2004;  Davis booster pump station meter records from 2003 and 2004;  Rocky Hill Road, Island Woods, and Burlingame Road tank charts from 2003 and 2004;  Consumer meter records from 2004.

The Longview Reservoir pump station meter records represent the total water purchased from the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB) and therefore represent the total water used by Smithfield consumers, including unmetered and non-account water. PARE took the volume of water metered at Longview for the years 2003 and 2004 and divided by the total number of days of metering to establish the average day demand (ADD) scenario.

To establish the maximum day demand scenario PARE selected the highest single water use day between 2003 and 2004. To identify the highest single day demand, PARE reviewed Longview meter records and selected five individual days in 2003 and 2004 with the longest pump run time. During those five days, one or both of the pumps in the Longview station was running for most of the entire day. PARE then evaluated the change in storage at the Island Woods, Rocky Hill Road, and Burlingame Road storage tanks for each of those five days. PARE used the day with the highest sum of pumping plus change in storage volume as the maximum day demand (MDD) scenario.

PARE established the peak hour (PHD) scenario by reviewing the Longview station records and identifying the single highest sustained pumping rate (i.e., for at least one hour) between 2003 and 2004. PARE then evaluated the tanks charts for that corresponding time frame. The period when both pumps in Longview were running and all three system tanks were draining was considered the PHD scenario.

Pare Corporation - 2 -

The table below summarizes the current (i.e., 2004) water use in Smithfield, as well as the water use in Smithfield when the hydraulic model was constructed in 1997.

TABLE 2-1 SWSB Demand Comparison - 1997 and 2004

1997 2004  Demand Total Volume System Demand Total Volume System Demand

Average Day 777,000 gal 540 gpm 840,000 gal 583 gpm 8%

Maximum Day 1,310,000 gal 910 gpm 1,690,000 gal 1,173 gpm 29%

Peak Hour 78,000 gal 1,300 gpm 100,000 gal 1,660 gpm 28%

Based on PARE’s evaluation, it appears as though water use in Smithfield has increased since 1997 by approximately 8% on an average day. Water use during a maximum day and a peak hour has increased by a greater percentage, approximately 29% and 28%, respectively. Based on these results, it appears as though peak water use and summer time water use is increasing at faster rates than water use during non-peak times.

Pare Corporation - 3 -

SECTION 3.0 LOAD CONTROL AREA

During the 1997 model development, PARE identified five Load Control Areas (LCAs) within the Smithfield system. LCAs are subareas within the system that have unique water use patterns. These areas were originally identified in 1997 by reviewing geographic boundaries, meter records, and land use patterns. As part of the current model update, PARE re-evaluated meter records and address information for users in each LCA. PARE then allocated an appropriate demand to each LCA based on the meter records. The boundaries of each LCA are shown on the attached Node and Pipeline Plan. Each LCA can be characterized generally as follows:

 LCA 1 – Medium to high-density residential development.  LCA 2 – Low to medium-density residential development.  LCA 3 – Low to medium-density residential development with low to medium-density industrial/commercial development.  LCA 4 - Low to medium-density residential development with low to medium-density industrial/commercial development.  LCA 5 – Low-density residential development.

The table below shows the current water usage by LCA, as well as the water usage breakdown in 1997.

TABLE 3-1 SWSB LCA Water Use Comparison - 1997 and 2004

Average Day (GPD) Maximum Day (GPD) LCA  Demand  Demand 1997 2004 1997 2004

1 265,000 263,000 -1% 376,000 530,000 41%

2 163,000 177,000 9% 276,000 356,000 29%

3 249,000 307,000 23% 473,000 618,000 31%

4 57,000 66,000 16% 115,000 132,000 15%

5 43,000 27,000 -37% 73,000 54,000 -26%

TOTAL 777,000 840,000 8% 1,313,000 1,690,000 29%

Pare Corporation - 4 -

The data in the table indicates that there has been a significant increase in water use in LCAs 2, 3, and 4; with the largest average day increase (23 %) in LCA 3 (31 percent on a maximum day). This increase may be a result of the increase in commercial development along George Washington Highway and Douglas Pike.

The data also suggests that water use in LCA 1, which is the portion of the system in North Providence, has remained relatively unchanged with only a slight decrease (1%) since 1997. LCA 1 is primarily apartment complexes, condominiums, and dense single-family homes, with little area for expansion, which may explain its relatively unchanged water use. However, it appears as though maximum day water use in LCA 1 has increased significantly (i.e., 41 percent). This may be a result of more summertime outdoor water use, for example more lawn irrigation in this portion of the system.

It appears as though water use in LCA 5 has decreased significantly. However, LCA 5 is the portion of the system constructed by the EPA during the 1990s. When the model was originally constructed in 1997, there was insufficient data for this portion of the system. Therefore water use was estimated for the purposes of constructing the original hydraulic model. Consequently no trend can be established for LCA 5 at this time. The data only suggests that LCA 5 has not reached the estimated water use that was projected in 1997.

For the current data (i.e., 2004), PARE also compared water use by type, i.e., residential versus commercial/industrial. The table below summarizes water use by type for each LCA.

Pare Corporation - 5 -

TABLE 3-2 Residential vs. Commercial/Industrial Water Use Comparison

Residential Consumers Commercial/Industrial Consumers1 Annual Water Use Avg. Daily Water Annual Water Use Avg. Daily Water LCA Total Annual Water Total Annual Water # of Services per Service Use per Service # of Services per Service Use per Service Use (MGY) Use (MGY) (gal./year) (gpd) (gal./year) (gpd)

1 466 40.9 88,000 241 42 58.5 1,393,000 3,816

2 440 28.1 64,000 175 23 27.01 1,174,000 3,216

3 48 4.1 85,000 233 86 111.72 1,299,000 3,559

4 136 12.6 93,000 255 19 12.10 637,000 1,745

5 134 9.7 72,000 197 1 0.51 506,000 1,386

AVERAGE 80,400 220 AVERAGE 1,001,800 2,745

1 = Commercial and Industrial consumers include large residential complexes such as apartment and condominium buildings that are metered as one unit. East Smithfield Water District's connection is also included in the Commercial/Industrial figure.

Pare Corporation - 6 -

Based on the information in the table, there are approximately 1,224 residential services in Smithfield and 171 commercial/industrial services. Please note that for the purposes of this evaluation, large residential apartment and condominium complexes are considered commercial services; therefore, in LCA 1, most of the commercial/industrial use is by large residential apartment and condominium complexes. The average water use for residential services is approximately 220 gallons per day. The average water use for commercial/industrial services is approximately 2,700 gallons per day. The data suggests that commercial/industrial water use constitutes a large majority (i.e., 70 percent) of town-wide water demand. While the number of residential services is over 7 times greater than commercial/industrial services, residential water use constitutes only approximately 30 percent of the total system water use. The largest discrepancy between residential and commercial/industrial water use is in LCA 3, where residential water use is approximately 4.1 million gallons per year (MGY) and commercial/industrial water use is approximately 112 MGY. Currently, water used by commercial/industrial users in LCA 3 constitutes the largest component (approximately 37 percent) of the total annual water used in Smithfield. It is noted that LCA 3 includes several large water users (refer to Section 4.0), including Bryant College and Fidelity Investments.

Pare Corporation - 7 -

SECTION 4.0 MAJOR USERS

An important component of PARE’s water use evaluation was PARE’s evaluation of major users, or consumers that use over 1 MGY. During the 1997 model development, PARE identified 14 major users. Of those 14, five are no longer major users (. Alpha Beta Technology, Flexicore, New England Container Corporation, Peter Randall Village, and Chalet Susse International) either because they are no longer operating, no longer use over 1 MGY, are being redeveloped into a new use, or are operating under a different name and are accounted for in our new major use list. Therefore, of the 14 original major users, 9 are remaining and are accounted for in the model update. In addition, PARE identified 24 new major users since 1997. The table below is a list of all the system major users and their location. The major users can be identified on the model by their Load Control Point, which is also provided in the table below. Major users that are indicated in bold text are users from the original model development that are still major users.

Pare Corporation - 8 -

TABLE 4-1 SWSB System Large Users Load Control Description Location General Water Usage Point 1A North Providence Housing Authority Sunset Terrace & Sunset Ave. Residential Apts/Condos 1B Oakwood Gardens I Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 1C Oakwood Gardens II Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 1D General Investment & Development Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 1E Fairfield Stoney Brook Bicentennial Way Residential Apts/Condos 1F Douglas Commons Tanglewood Lane Residential Apts/Condos 1G James Fundakowski Stephanie Drive Unknown 1H Hopkins Manor Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 1I Oak Crest Village Condo. Assoc. Oak Park & Forrestwood Drive Residential Apts/Condos 1J Plympton Estates Condominiums Primrose Lane Residential Apts/Condos 1K R & W Realty Tanglewood Lane Residential Apts/Condos 1L Smithfield Court Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 1M St. James Townhouses Smithfield Road Residential Apts/Condos 2A East Smithfield Water District Waterman Avenue Wholesale Connection 2B Heritage Hills Nursing Homes Douglas Pike Nursing Home 2C Point View Properties Douglas Pike Residential Apts/Condos 2D Alpine Motel Douglas Pike Hotel 2E Twelve Acres Douglas Pike Function/Reception Hall 3A New England Stone Industries Branch Pike Stone Cutting 3B Bryant University Douglas Pike College/Domestic 3C Advance Electrical Corporation Appian Way Manufacturing 3D Comfort Inn Suites Douglas Pike Hotel 3E AAI Foster Grant George Washington Highway Domestic 3F Gas Station/Retail 970 Douglas Pike Retail 3G New England Sun Control 20 Thurber Boulevard Manufacturing 3H Fidelity Investments Alpha & Salem Road Office Building 3I JMY Realty Stillwater Road Office Building 3J ACN Providence George Washington Highway Industrial 3K New England Environmental Douglas Pike Manufacturing 3L Smithfield Office Center Douglas Pike Office Building 3M UVEX Safety Manufacturing 10 Thurber Boulevard Manufacturing 4A Bryant University - Rogler Field Rogler Field Landscape Irrigation 4B Complete Realty Service Industrial Drive Office Building

Pare Corporation - 9 -

Based on our evaluation there has been a significant increase in the number of major users since 1997. LCA 1 and LCA 3 have experienced the largest increase in major users, with 9 new major users in LCA 1, and 11 major users in LCA 3. The table below compares major user water use in 1997 and 2004 to water use by regular consumers.

TABLE 4-2 Large User vs. Regular Consumer Water Use Comparison - 1997 and 2004

1997 - Average Day (GPD) 2004 - Average Day (GPD) Large Large Remaining Remaining LCA Large Users Total by LCA User % Large Users Total by LCA User % Consumers Consumers (MGD) (MGD) of Total (MGD) (MGD) of Total (MGD) (MGD)

1 105,000 160,000 265,000 40% 155,000 108,000 263,000 59%

2 62,000 101,000 163,000 38% 65,000 112,000 177,000 37%

3 201,000 48,000 249,000 81% 265,000 42,000 307,000 86%

4 8,000 49,000 57,000 14% 25,000 41,000 66,000 38%

5 0 43,000 43,000 0% 0 27,000 27,000 0%

TOTAL 376,000 401,000 777,000 48% 510,000 330,000 840,000 61%

In 1997, major users consumed approximately 48 percent of the average water demand of the entire system. In 2004, that amount increased to approximately 61 percent, which indicates that a growing number of consumers are using over one million gallons per year. One of the largest increases in major user water use occurred in LCA 1, where major users went from 40 percent to 59 percent of the total water used in that LCA from 1997 to 2004. However, overall water use in that LCA has remained substantially unchanged during that time, which indicates that the way water in that LCA is metered may have changed (i.e., several individual meters are now accounted for as one meter) or many of the current major users may have historically used close to one million gallons per year but have only crossed that threshold recently. LCA 4 has also seen an increase in the amount of water that major users consume relative to the remaining costumers. In 1997, major users consumed approximately 14 percent of the total water in LCA 4. In 2004, that amount increased to 38 percent. Overall water use has increased by approximately 8 percent since 1997 while major user water use has increased by approximately 36 percent. Based on this data, it appears as though water use by major users is increasing at a faster rate than water use by regular consumers.

Pare Corporation - 10 -

SECTION 5.0 MODEL CALIBRATION

Model calibration is performed in order to evaluate the model’s ability to predict system performance. When the model was originally constructed and calibrated in 1997, it was able to predict system performance within 5 percent, which means the system pressure, as predicted by the model, was within 5 percent of the system pressure measured in the field. American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that a hydraulic model be calibrated to within 5 to 10 percent of field-observed data. After inputting the updated user demand information, PARE re-calibrated the model to confirm that the model is still able to reasonably predict system performance. The model was calibrated by collecting flow and pressure information in the field, comparing that information to the model results, and then making minor adjustments to certain model parameters to achieve the desired model accuracy. Given that the model was calibrated when it was first constructed in 1997, only minor adjustments were necessary to achieve the desired 5 percent accuracy.

PARE’s primary source of information for the calibration was obtained through a series of hydrant flow tests performed during the Fall of 2006. PARE personnel, with assistance from SWSB staff, conducted seven C-value tests at various locations within the system. A C-value test consists of opening a fire hydrant and measuring the flow discharging from that hydrant while also measuring the residual pressure at two upstream hydrants. Each C-value test provides three static pressure data points (one data point for each hydrant) and two residual pressure data points (one data point at each of the upstream hydrants) to which the model results can be compared.

PARE inserted a junction node at each hydrant location at which a hydrant flow test was performed. The elevation of each new junction node was set based on USGS topographical quadrangle maps and is accurate within 5 feet. The static pressure measured at 20 of the 21 hydrants was within 5 percent of the pressure predicted by the model. At one hydrant, the static pressure was slightly outside the 5 percent accuracy (i.e., 7 percent).

Initially, the residual pressure at only 7 of the 14 hydrants was within 5 percent of the residual pressure predicted by the model. Based on these results, PARE made minor adjustments to the model. The adjustments PARE made include modifying pipe roughness coefficients (i.e., C – values) and adjusting the discharge pressure of the pressure-reducing valve (PRV) in the

Pare Corporation - 11 -

Limerock booster pump station. From the data PARE collected, it appears as though the actual discharge pressure of the PRV is higher than the pressure set in 1997. PARE confirmed the discharge pressure by installing a pressure gauge on the hydrant outside the Limerock station and measuring system pressure at that hydrant. After adjusting the model input parameters, the model accuracy improved to where 11 of 14 residual pressure values were within 5 percent. The three values outside 5 percent ranged from 6 to 7 percent. On average the model is accurate to 3 percent, which is within the desired accuracy.

Pare Corporation - 12 -

TABLE 5-1 Hydraulic Model Calibration Results (Field Data vs. Model Data)

Field Results Model Results Model Accuracy

Flow Residual Residual Flow Residual Residual C-value Test Location Flow Flow Residual Residual Hydrant Hydrant 1 Hydrant 2 Hydrant Hydrant 1 Hydrant 2 (gpm) Hydrant Hydrant 1 Hydrant 2 (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)

1. Ridge Road J-1288 1,050 J-1290 J-1289 J-1288 J-1290 J-1289 J-1288 J-1290 J-1289 Static 49 68 60 51 66 64 4% 3% 7% Residual 38 60 56 37 60 58 0% 4%

2. Bicentennial Way J-1047 1,500 J-1058 J-1046 J-1047 J-1058 J-1046 J-1047 J-1058 J-1046 Static 122 118 116 129 124 120 6% 5% 3% Residual 82 92 95 75 88 90 4% 5%

3. Westlake and Riverview J-1045 1,430 J-1075 J-1044 J-1045 J-1075 J-1044 J-1045 J-1075 J-1044 Static 114 116 128 110 112 123 4% 3% 4% Residual 68 83 98 68 77 93 7% 5%

4. Latham Farm Road J-1633 1,255 J-1666 J-1632 J-1633 J-1666 J-1632 J-1633 J-1666 J-1632 Static 70 102 108 68 101 108 3% 1% 0% Residual 55 96 103 55 90 98 6% 5%

5. Rogler Farm Road J-1634 1,550 J-1635 J-1636 J-1634 J-1635 J-1636 J-1634 J-1635 J-1636 Static 109 86 62 106 86 64 3% 0% 3% Residual 93 80 58 94 76 55 5% 5%

6. Log Road J-1806 1,250 J-1834 J-1835 J-1806 J-1834 J-1835 J-1806 J-1834 J-1835 Static 76 80 82 74 78 83 3% 3% 1% Residual 61 70 75 61 65 75 7% 0%

7. George Washington Hwy J-1468 1,350 J-1467 J-1466 J-1468 J-1467 J-1466 J-1468 J-1467 J-1466 Static 83 80 61 84 81 62 1% 1% 2%

Residual 68 74 57 77 75 58 1% 2% Average 3% 3% 3%

Pare Corporation - 13 -

SECTION 6.0 EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION

After calibrating the model, PARE used the model to evaluate system performance. PARE evaluated an average day demand scenario, a maximum day demand scenario, a peak hour demand scenario, and a fire flow analysis. PARE evaluated the available pressure throughout the system, as well as the available fire flow. PARE also evaluated the performance of the system booster pumps and the rate at which the system storage tanks either filled or drained during each scenario.

AWWA Document M32 – Distribution Network Analysis for Water Utilities was used as a guideline in performing the hydraulic analysis. This document dictates that the maximum day demands should be afforded through the system’s source capacity, not distribution storage. Distribution storage shall provide the additional peak hour demands and fire flow. This document also 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. Furthermore, this document requires that all points in the distribution system also maintain a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during fire flow conditions.

The results of the hydraulic evaluation are summarized in the table below and the hydraulic model reports are attached as Appendix D.

Pare Corporation - 14 -

Table 6-1 System Evaluation (Existing Conditions) Available Pressure 1 LCA Average Day Maximum Day Peak Hour Available Fire Flow Demand Demand Demand

1 75 - 127 psi 72 - 124 psi 69 - 120 psi 1,700 - 2,100 gpm

2 45 - 144 psi 43 - 135 psi 41 - 134 psi 1,400 - 2,900 gpm

3 26 - 138 psi 26 - 138 psi 26 - 138 psi 1,400 - >5,000 gpm

4 37 - 121 psi 37 - 121 psi 37 - 121 psi 1,000 - 2,500 gpm

5 11 - 133 psi 11 - 133 psi 11 - 133 psi 500 gpm

Tank Fill Rate2 323 gpm -220 gpm -708 gpm

Tank Fill Rate3 747 gpm 271 gpm -160 gpm

1Available fire flow was calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and two pumps running in the Limerock Booster Pump Station

2The tank fill rate is calculated with only one pump running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

3The tank fill rate is calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

6.1 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION

Relative to the AWWA standard, it appears as though LCAs 1 through 4 are operating at adequate pressure during ADD, MD, and PH demand scenarios. The pressure in these LCAs ranges from 26 to 144 psi, with only three nodes (out of 241 nodes) falling below 40 psi on a regular basis. LCA 5 experiences pressure in the range of 11 to 133 psi. Six nodes out of 30 in LCA 5 routinely fall below 40 psi, and three nodes routinely fall below 20 psi. The area of LCA 5 with low pressure is along Burlingame Road in the vicinity of the Burlingame Road Tank. The ground elevation in this portion of Smithfield ranges from 530 to 550 ft MSL. The overflow of the Burlingame Road tank is 577 feet, and therefore the highest elevation that will experience 20 psi static pressure is approximately 530 feet.

AWWA recommends a normal system working pressure of 30 to 90 psi. The overflow elevation of the Island Woods and the Rocky Hill tanks is 521 feet MSL, which means services lower than

Pare Corporation - 15 -

290 feet will experience pressure in excess of 100 psi. There are substantial portions of each LCA that experience pressure in excessive of 100 psi, and almost all of LCA 1 experiences pressure above 100 psi.

6.2 SUPPLY EVALUATION

During an average day demand scenario, the system pumps are able to keep up with system demand, as is evident by the net filling rate of the system storage tanks. On a maximum day when only one pump in the Longview Reservoir pump station and one pump in the Limerock Road booster pump station is pumping, demand outpaces the pump stations’ ability to supply water, as is evident by the net draining rate of the system storage tanks. However, if two pumps are running in each station the system storage tanks fill, indicating that the pump stations are able to meet demand. System storage tanks drain during a peak hour regardless if one pump or two pumps are running in each station.

On a maximum day, system demand (1.7 MG) is approximately 87 percent of the supply limit imposed by the Providence Water Supply Board (PWSB), or 1.965 MGD.

Longview Reservoir 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 Smithfield water district. The capacity of the station is approximately 2 MGD. System demand is approximately 1.7 MG on a maximum day, which is approximately 85 percent of the station’s capacity.

Limerock Booster Pump Station The Limerock booster pump station has a capacity of approximately 1.3 MGD and supplies water to all of LCAs 3 through 5. The maximum day demand for LCAs 3 through 5 is approximately 0.8 MG, or 60 percent of the station’s capacity.

Davis Booster Pump Station The Davis booster pump station serves all of LCA 5 and has a capacity of approximately 0.3 MGD. The maximum day demand of LCA 5 is approximately 54,000 gallons, only 18 percent of the station’s capacity.

Pare Corporation - 16 -

Based on these results, it appears as though the Limerock and Davis booster pump stations have adequate capacity to supply the maximum day demands to their respective LCAs. The Longview Reservoir pump station appears to have adequate capacity to meet the maximum day demand of the system; however, it appears to be approaching its maximum capacity.

System Storage Tank Evaluation The distribution system currently has 5.3 MG of storage capacity in three tanks, the Rocky Hill Road, Island Woods, and Burlingame Road tanks. However, not all of that capacity is usable because a portion each tank is located below an elevation that would provide insufficient pressure (i.e., 20 psi) to the highest nodes in the development. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation the usable storage in the system storage tanks was determined to be approximately 2.1 MG.

Current system demand on an average day is approximately 0.8 MG, or 40 percent of the system’s usable storage volume. On a maximum day, demand is approximately 1.7 MG, or 80 percent of the system’s usable storage volume. Considering an average fire flow volume of 240,000 gallons (i.e., 2,000 gpm for 2 hours) and a typical equalization storage volume of 0.4 MG (i.e., approximately one-half average day demand), there remains approximately 1.4 MG of storage available for an emergency, which is approximately 1.7 days, assuming and average day demand, or 0.9 days, assuming a maximum day demand.

6.3 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS

AWWA recommends that the available fire flow for a non-sprinklered area be no less than 500 gpm at 20-psi residual pressure. The available fire flow in LCAs 1, 2 and 4 ranges from 1,000 gpm to 2,900 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The available fire flow in LCA 3 ranges from 1,400 gpm to over 5,000 gpm. The available fire flow is significantly greater in LCA 3 due to the presence of the two main system storage tanks, which are both located in LCA 3. In general, there appears to be adequate available fire flow in LCAs 1 through 4.

The higher elevation in LCA 5 prohibits the ability to maintain the minimum 20 psi residual pressure in this LCA, with or without a fire flow event. However, if we lower the allowable residual pressure during a fire event to 11 psi, which is the lowest normal operating pressure in

Pare Corporation - 17 -

LCA 5, there appears to be approximately 500 gpm available for fire flow. This indicates that the Fire Department could reasonably pump approximately 500 gpm from system hydrants in LCA 5 without lowering system pressure below what is experienced now.

6.4 EVALUATION WITHOUT NORTH PROVIDENCE

LCA 1 represents a significant portion of the SWSB consumer demand, approximately 30 percent, and is the only LCA located outside of Smithfield (LCA 1 is entirely within North Providence). If Smithfield were to return the customer base in LCA 1 to the PWSB, the SWSB system pressure would not change significantly. All the water for LCAs 2 through 5 would still pass through the Longview Reservoir station and still pass through LCA 1. The only significant change would be relative to the system’s storage capacity and the pump capacity of the Longview station as approximately 30 percent of the system’s total demand would be eliminated. Presumably, the SWSB storage tanks would not serve LCA 1 if PWSB took over that customer base. If that were the case, system demand (for LCAs 2 through 5) would be approximately 0.6 MGD on average and 1.2 MGD on a maximum day, which is approximately 30 percent and 60 percent of the system’s usable storage, respectively. On a maximum day, system demand would represent approximately 60 percent of the pump capacity in the Longview station. Therefore, returning LCA 1 to the PWSB would significantly increase the volume of water available on a maximum day for fire fighting and emergency water use, reduce demand on the pumps in the Longview station, and provide capacity to serve new customers in Smithfield.

Pare Corporation - 18 -

VOLUME 2 SYSTEM BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

PARE used the updated hydraulic model to evaluate three scenarios, 5-year buildout, 20-year buildout, and ultimate buildout. The 5-year buildout scenario represents the water demand and system performance in the near future, and includes all of the proposed developments, both commercial and residential, that PARE has evaluated since 2004, many of which have not been built yet. The 20-year buildout scenario includes all of the developments included as part of the 5-year buildout, as well as a projection of future residential and commercial growth in Town over the next 20 years. The ultimate buildout represents the Smithfield water district when it is completely built out based on the current zoning. For the purposes of this evaluation, and given the information available, PARE estimated the ultimate buildout first, and then evaluated the 5- year and 20-year buildout scenarios as a percentage of the ultimate buildout. For each buildout scenario PARE evaluated an average day demand (ADD), a maximum day demand (MDD), and a peak hour demand (PH), as well as a fire flow analysis.

Pare Corporation - 19 -

SECTION 7.0 ULTIMATE BUILDOUT

The basis of PARE’s ultimate buildout projection is Smithfield’s 2006 Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) and two meetings with the Smithfield Town Planner. In addition, PARE obtained information from the North Providence Town Planner regarding the buildout potential for the portion of SWSB’s service area in North Providence. PARE also reviewed current and future zoning maps for Smithfield in order to evaluate the commercial/industrial buildout potential for Smithfield.

7.1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

The 2006 CCP provides two slightly different estimates of the ultimate residential buildout for Smithfield based on the current zoning of the Town, 4,555 new residential units and 4,243 residential units. For the purposes of this analysis, PARE used the higher of the two numbers to be conservative, 4,555 new units. This number was first evaluated in 2001. Since then, changes in state law regarding affordable housing have been passed, which may increase the density of housing in some areas of Smithfield. Based on conversations with the Town Planner, the ultimate residential buildout may increase by 20 percent as a result of the changes in affordable housing laws. Therefore, PARE used 5,466 new units, or 4,555 units + 20 percent, as our ultimate residential buildout estimate.

PARE’s next step was to allocate a certain percentage of the ultimate buildout number to each of the three water districts in Smithfield (i.e., Smithfield, East Smithfield, and Greenville). PARE reviewed the current land use in each district as well as the future zoning in each district, both provided in Smithfield’s 2006 CCP. PARE subtracted the area of land currently used for residential development from the total area of land zoned residential, thereby establishing the total area of Town that can be developed for future residential development, as demonstrated in the table below.

Pare Corporation - 20 -

Table 7-1 Existing and Future Residential Land Use

Smithfield Future Buildout Current Land Total Zoned Residential Zone Type Potential Use (acres) Area (acres) (acres)

High Multi-Family (R20) 0 61 61

High Single-Family (R20) 560 560 0 . Low 200,000 S.F. (R200) 113 1,831 1,718

Low 80,000 S.F. (R80 - RMED) 956 3,819 2,863

East Smithfield Future Buildout Current Land Total Zoned Residential Zone Type Potential Use (acres) Area (acres) (acres)

High Multi-Family (R20) 0 173 173

High Single-Family (R20) 475 1,022 547

Low 200,000 S.F. (R200) 0 0 0

Low 80,000 S.F. (R80 - RMED) 236 343 107

Greenville Future Buildout Current Land Total Zoned Residential Zone Type Potential Use (acres) Area (acres) (acres)

High Multi-Family (R20) 0 165 165

High Single-Family (R20) 927 1,415 488

Low 200,000 S.F. (R200) 0 34 34

Low 80,000 S.F. (R80 - RMED) 646 2,252 1,606

Based on the date in the table, it appears as though the Smithfield district has the largest area for future residential development, approximately 60 percent of the total residential area in Town. However, a significant portion of that residential area is zoned for low-density development (i.e., minimum lot size of 5 acres). Therefore, to establish a buildout projection that accounts for the differences in zone density, PARE calculated a weighted average for each residential zone based on their relative density, i.e., R80 and R-Med are 2.5 time more dense than R200, and R20 is 10

Pare Corporation - 21 -

times more dense than R200. PARE then calculated the total buildout potential for each water district as a percentage of total buildout, as shown in the table below.

Table 7-2 Residential Buildout Potential per District as Percentage of Total Buildout Town-wide

Smithfield Water East Smithfield Greenville Residential Zone Type TOTAL District Water District Water District

High Multi-Family (R20) 2.2% 6.3% 6.0% 14.5%

High Single-Family (R20) 0.0% 19.9% 17.7% 37.6%

Low 200,000 S.F. (R200) 6.2% 0.0% 0.1% 6.4%

Low 80,000 S.F. (R80 - RMED) 26.0% 1.0% 14.6% 41.6%

TOTAL 34.4% 27.1% 38.4% 100.0%

While Smithfield has approximately 60 percent of the total residentially zoned land area, it constitutes only about 34 percent of the total future residential buildout town-wide, as indicated in the table. Of the total 5,466 future residential service connections in Town, approximately 1,880 are anticipated in the Smithfield water district, based on zoning.

PARE took 1,880 new services in the Smithfield district and used the same methodology to establish the number of new residential services in LCAs 2 through 5 (LCA 1 was evaluated based on information provided by the North Providence Planner). The table below shows the number of new residential services in each LCA at ultimate buildout, as well as the resulting growth.

Pare Corporation - 22 -

TABLE 7-3 Residential Growth by LCA (Ultimate Buildout)

Residential Consumers LCA # of Existing # of New Services % Growth Services

1 466 20 4%

2 440 950 216%

3 48 339 706%

4 136 109 80%

5 134 482 360%

AVERAGE 55%

It appears as though the greatest potential for residential growth in Smithfield is in LCA 3. While LCA 3 has the fewest existing residential services (48), future zoning will allow for up to 339 new services, a 700 percent increase in residential development. Overall, it appears as though residential growth in the Smithfield water district may grow by approximately 55 percent.

7.2 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDOUT ANALYSIS

Given the highly variable nature of commercial and industrial development, it is difficult to predict the number of new commercial/industrial service connections. Therefore, instead of estimating future commercial/industrial water use based on the number of new services, PARE estimated water use based on the land area allocated for future commercial/industrial development. PARE’s first step was to evaluate the area of land in the Smithfield district that is allocated for future commercial/industrial development. PARE evaluated the potential commercial/industrial buildout by reviewing the current land use in Smithfield and comparing that information to the future zoning of Smithfield, as provided in the 2006 CCP.

Pare Corporation - 23 -

The table below identifies the future commercial buildout in each LCA.

TABLE 7-4 Comm./Ind. Growth by LCA (Ultimate Buildout)

Comm/Ind Consumers

LCA Existing Comm/Ind Future Comm/Ind % Growth Land Area (acres) Land Area (acres)

1 0 0 0%

2 127 477 276%

3 342 2,332 582%

4 49 221 351%

5 0 0 0%

AVERAGE 485%

Currently, LCA 3 has the largest commercial/industrial development, based on land area. In addition, LCA 3 has the largest potential for future commercial/industrial development. Based on the data above, LCA 3 could experience a 600 percent increase in commercial/industrial development.

PARE estimated the total current commercial/industrial land use (approximately 518 acres) and the total annual commercial/industrial water use (approximately 146.4 MGY) to establish a per acre water use of 283,000 gallons per year for commercial/industrial users. PARE then applied that water use to the proposed commercial/industrial acreage to estimate future water use by commercial/industrial users.

Table 7-5 illustrates water use at ultimate buildout for both residential and commercial/industrial users

Pare Corporation - 24 -

TABLE 7-5 Residential and Comm./Ind. Ultimate Buildout Water Use by LCA

Total Current Future Residential Development Current Future Commercial/Industrial Development Total Future Future Residential Comm/Ind LCA # of New Future Total Water Use by Water Use Water Use  Residential Total (Current Water Use  Comm/Ind Residential Comm/Ind (Current + LCA (gpd) by LCA (gpd) Water Use (gpd)+ Future) (gpd) (gpd) Water Use (gpd) Services Acreage Future) (gpd) (MGY)

1 108,000 20 4,400 112,400 155,000 0 0 155,000 267,400 98

2 105,000 951 209,000 314,000 72,000 350 271,400 343,400 657,400 240

3 11,000 339 75,000 86,000 296,000 1,990 1,542,900 1,838,900 1,924,900 703

4 33,000 109 24,000 57,000 32,000 172 133,400 165,400 222,400 81

5 26,000 482 106,000 132,000 1,000 0 0 1,000 133,000 49

TOTAL 283,000 1,901 418,000 701,000 556,000 2,512 1,948,000 2,504,000 3,205,000 1,170

Pare Corporation - 25 -

Based on our evaluation of future land use, it appears as though water use in Smithfield may increase by almost 400 percent when the water district reaches its ultimate buildout. Currently water use is approximately 0.8 MGD, and may increase to 3.2 MGD at full buildout. A substantial amount (approximately 65 percent) of the future water use in Town can be attributed to future commercial/industrial development in LCA 3, which may experience an increase in water use of 1.5 MGD.

Pare Corporation - 26 -

SECTION 8.0 5-YEAR BUILDOUT

8.1 DEMAND ESTIMATE

PARE’s 5-year buildout evaluation included two components, evaluating all 14 proposed developments that PARE has reviewed for the Town since 2004, and projecting new development beyond what is currently proposed. Provided in the table below is a list of all 14 developments that PARE has evaluated since 2004.

Pare Corporation - 27 -

Table 8-1 Proposed Connections Estimated Demand Number of Average Peak Description Type LCA Max Day Connections Day Hour (gal./day) (gal./day) (gpm)

Burlingame Road Residential 6 5 1,320 86,300 61.79

Checkerberry Estates Residential 8 5 1,760 14,100 42.0

Bicentennial Way Condos1 Residential (condos) 20 1 4,400 8,400 16.7

High Ridge Estates Residential 36 2 9,720 95,000 283.5

2 Lincoln Business Park Commercial (Office/Retail) 6 3 3,300 10,200 32.4

RNE Facility Industrial 1 3 2,500 3,750 30.0

Dean Estates Residential 12 2 2,640 26,400 26.6

Cedar Forest Residential 6 4 1,320 11,100 26.5

Stillwater Road Residential 18 2 3,960 19,200 19.3

Lariviere Estates Residential 3 5 660 7,900 23.6

Stoneridge Residential 5 2 1,100 11,800 24.4

RI Automall Commercial (Retail) 1 3 1,400 1,700 95.0

Lao Buddist Temple Religious 1 2 9,100 31,500 28.1

Hanton City Gateway Commercial 2 3 13,925 49,350 55.1

TOTAL 57,105 376,700 765

1 Development is in North Providence 2 Development is in Lincoln

Currently, there are approximately 114 new residential service connections proposed in the Smithfield water district. The Smithfield Planner indicated that future residential building permits would be limited to 100 permits per year town-wide. Based on PARE’s evaluation of residential land use in each water district (refer to Table 7-2), approximately 34 of the 100 new building permits per year can be expected in the Smithfield water district. Therefore, it is estimated that in five years Smithfield’s water district will have approximately 170 new residential water services. Twenty of the 114 proposed residential service connections listed above are in North Providence, which means that of the 170 possible future connections, 94 are

Pare Corporation - 28 -

already proposed in Smithfield. Therefore, PARE estimates that there could be approximately 76 new residential service connections in the Smithfield water district beyond what is proposed currently. At an average day demand of 220 gpd, which is the average day demand for residential customers currently, 76 new residential service connections will use approximately 16,700 gpd. With the 114 proposed service connections, residential water use may increase by as much as 43,600 gpd in the next five years. This represents a 15 percent increase in residential water use currently. This also represents 10 percent of the total future residential customers at ultimate buildout.

At this time, there is no projected growth rate for commercial/industrial development as there is for residential development. For the purposes of this evaluation, PARE made the assumption that commercial/industrial growth will occur at approximately the same rate as residential growth. PARE assumed that approximately 9 percent of the total (i.e., ultimate) commercial/industrial development would occur over the next five years. Therefore, PARE assumed that over the next five years, commercial/industrial water use would increase by approximately 175,500 gpd (or 9 percent of 1.95 MGD, refer to Table 9-1). Of that 175,500 gpd, approximately 16,000 gpd is already accounted for in PARE’s recent hydraulic evaluations of proposed developments.

Total water use (i.e., residential and commercial/industrial) may increase by as much as 219,000 gpd over the next five years, a 26 percent increase over current water use. This is a conservative estimate of water use over the next five years. PARE’s estimate of 219,000 gpd represents an average annual increase of approximately 5 percent, which is larger than the rate of increase experienced between 1997 and 2004, which was approximately 2 percent annually.

Pare Corporation - 29 -

8.2 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION

The increased demand generated by the 5-year buildout of the Smithfield water district does not appear to have a significant impact on system pressure in LCAs 1 through 4. (Refer to Table 8-2, below). Pressure in LCAs 1 through 4 ranges from 26 to 142 psi, which is approximately the range of pressure experienced currently. Currently, only six nodes fall below 40 psi on a regular basis. After the 5-year buildout, nine nodes fall below 40 psi; however, the lowest pressure in LCA 1 through 4 remains the same (26 psi). The 5-year buildout has a more significant impact on LCA 5. While the total range of pressure experience after the 5-year buildout remains consistent with the current range (approximately 11 to 133 psi), an increased number of nodes fall below 40 psi and below 20 psi. Currently, 6 nodes fall below 40 psi and 3 nodes fall below 20 psi. After the 5-year buildout, 14 nodes fall below 40 psi and 5 nodes fall below 20 psi. Three of the nodes that fall below 40 psi and one of the nodes that falls below 20 psi are located in the proposed Checkerberry Estates residential development, which at the time of this report is evaluating the possibility of installing a booster pump station to increase pressure in this area.

Pare Corporation - 30 -

Table 8-2 System Evaluation (5-year Buildout)

Available Pressure

1 LCA Average Day Maximum Day Peak Hour Available Fire Flow Demand Demand Demand

1 75 - 127 psi 72 - 123 psi 69 - 120 psi 1,700 - 2,100 gpm

2 45 - 142 psi 43 - 140 psi 41 - 139 psi 1,200 - 2,700 gpm

3 26 - 138 psi 26 - 138 psi 26 - 137 psi 1,300 - >5,000 gpm

4 37 - 121 psi 37 - 121 psi 36 - 120 psi 1,000 - 2,500 gpm

5 11 - 133 psi 11 - 133 psi 11 - 132 psi 400 - 500 gpm

Tank Fill Rate2 169 gpm -412 gpm -1,185 gpm

Tank Fill Rate3 586 gpm 67 gpm -633 gpm

1Available fire flow was calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and two pumps running in the Limerock Booster Pump Station

2The tank fill rate is calculated with only one pump running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

3The tank fill rate is calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

Pare Corporation - 31 -

8.3 SUPPLY EVALUATION

After the 5-year buildout, the system pumps appear to be able to keep up with system demand during an average day scenario, as is evident by the net filling rate of the system storage tanks. On a maximum day when only one pump in the Longview Reservoir pump station and one pump in the Limerock Road booster pump station is pumping, demand outpaces the pump stations’ ability to supply water, as is evident by the net draining rate of the system storage tanks. However, if two pumps are running in each station, the system storage tanks fill, indicating that the pump stations are able to meet demand; however, only marginally as system tanks appear to fill at a rate of only 67 gpm. System storage tanks drain during a peak hour regardless if one pump or two pumps are running in each station. This system operation would satisfactorily meet the AWWA standard.

After the 5-year buildout, the maximum day demand of the system (2 MGD) exceeds the supply limit imposed by the PWSB of 1.965 MG.

Longview Reservoir Pump Station As discussed previously, the Longview Reservoir pump station is the most critical of the three system pump stations and has a capacity of approximately 2 MGD. System demand is estimated at approximately 2 MG on a maximum day, which is 100 percent of the station’s capacity.

Limerock Booster Pump Station LCAs 3 though 5, which are served by the Limerock booster pump station, have a maximum day demand of approximately 1.1 MGD, after the 5-year buildout. This demand represents approximately 84 percent of the station’s capacity.

Davis Booster Pump Station LCA 5, which is served by the Davis booster pump station, has a maximum day demand of approximately 70,000 gallons per day. This demand represents approximately 23 percent of the station’s capacity.

Based on these results, it appears as though the Davis booster pump station will have adequate capacity to meet the maximum day demands of LCA 5 with sufficient excess

Pare Corporation - 32 -

capacity for additional growth. However, the Longview and Limerock pump stations appear to be at or approaching their maximum capacities after 5 years.

System Storage Tank Evaluation After the 5-year buildout, the average day demand of the system is approximately 1.1 MGD, which is approximately 50 percent of the system’s usable storage volume (i.e., 2.1 MG). Considering an average fire flow volume of 240,000 gallons (i.e., 2,000 gpm for 2 hours) and a typical equalization storage volume of 0.6 MG (i.e., approximately one-half average day demand), there remains approximately 1.3 MG of storage available for an emergency, which is approximately 1.2 days, assuming and average day demand, or 0.7 days, assuming a maximum day demand.

8.4 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS

The available fire flow after the 5-year buildout in LCAs 1, 2 and 4 ranges from 1,000 gpm to 2,700 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The available fire flow in LCA 3 ranges from 1,300 gpm to over 5,000 gpm. The range in available fire flow in LCAs 1 through 4 after the 5-year buildout is only slightly lower than what is available currently.

As is the case presently, the higher elevation in LCA 5 prohibits the ability of the system to maintain the minimum 20 psi residual pressure in this LCA, with or without a fire flow event. However, if we lower the allowable residual pressure during a fire event to 11 psi, which is the lowest normal operating pressure in LCA 5, there appears to be approximately 400 to 500 gpm available for fire flow. This indicates that the Fire Department could reasonably pump approximately 500 gpm from system hydrants in LCA 5 without lowering system pressure below what is experienced now.

Pare Corporation - 33 -

SECTION 9.0 20-YEAR BUILDOUT

9.1 DEMAND ESTIMATE

Based on the projection of 100 new building permits per year (34 in the Smithfield water district), PARE estimates that in 20 years the number of residential service connections may increase by approximately 680. At 220 gpd per connection, 680 connections represent approximately 156,000 gpd of residential water use. This represents a 55 percent increase in residential water use currently, and 37 percent of the total future residential water use.

As with the 5-year buildout analysis, PARE assumed that commercial/industrial development would grow at a rate similar to that of residential development. PARE assumed that approximately 37 percent of the projected total future commercial/industrial growth would occur over the next 20 years. This is an increase of approximately 721,000 gpd over the current commercial/industrial water use.

Total water use (i.e., residential and commercial/industrial) may increase by as much as 857,000 gpd over the next 20 years, a 100 percent increase over current water use. Table 9-1 below summarizes the system demand for the 5-year buildout, 20-year buildout, and ultimate buildout.

Pare Corporation - 34 -

TABLE 9-1 5-Year, 20-year, and Ultimate Buildout Water Use by LCA Future Commercial/Industrial Future Residential Development Development Current Current Residential Comm/Ind LCA 5-year 20-year Ultimate Water Use Water Use 5-year 20-year Ultimate Buildout Buildout Buildout (gpd) (gpd) Buildout (gpd) Buildout (gpd) Buildout (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd)

1 108,000 112,400 112,400 112,400 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000

2 105,000 129,100 181,300 314,000 72,000 99,100 169,700 344,100

3 11,000 14,000 38,000 86,000 296,000 464,200 851,400 1,839,700

4 33,000 35,300 42,000 57,000 32,000 45,300 80,000 164,600

5 26,000 35,200 64,900 132,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

TOTAL 283,000 326,000 439,000 701,000 556,000 765,000 1,257,000 2,504,000

9.2 HYDRAULIC EVALUATION

The increased demand generated by the 20-year buildout of the Smithfield water district does not appear to have a significant impact on system pressure in LCAs 1 through 4 (refer to Table 9-2, below). Pressure in LCAs 1 through 4 ranges from 26 to 141 psi, which is approximately the range of pressure experienced currently. Only six nodes fall below 40 psi on a regular basis. After the 20-year buildout, nine nodes fall below 40 psi; however, the lowest pressure in LCA 1 through 4 remains the same (26 psi). The 20-year buildout has a more significant impact on LCA 5. While the total range of pressure experience after the 5-year buildout remains consistent with the current range (approximately 11 to 133 psi), an increased number of nodes fall below 40 psi and 20 psi. Currently, 6 nodes fall below 40 psi and 3 nodes fall below 20 psi. After the 5-year buildout, 14 nodes fall below 40 psi and 5 nodes fall below 20 psi.

It is noted that while the hydraulic model indicates that system pressure after the 20 year buildout will be substantially similar to system pressure now, system pressure may actually be significantly lower than what the model indicates. The increase in system demand anticipated over the 20-year build-out would exceed the capacity of the system pump stations, which would cause the system storage tanks to drain while the pump stations are running, which will in turn

Pare Corporation - 35 -

result in a lower system hydraulic grade line (i.e., system pressure) on a regular basis.

In addition, the booster pumps in the Longview Reservoir pump station and the Limerock Road booster pump station will likely be upgraded (i.e., increased in size) over the next twenty years in order to keep pace with system demand. This will result in a higher pumping rate and higher flow through the system transmission mains, which will cause an increase in pipe friction and a reduction in system pressure.

Table 9-2 System Evaluation (20-year Buildout)

Available Pressure 1 LCA Average Day Maximum Day Peak Hour Available Fire Flow Demand Demand Demand 1 74 - 127 psi 71 - 123 psi 68 - 119 psi 1,700 - 2,000 gpm

2 45 - 141 psi 42 - 139 psi 40 - 137 psi 1,200 - 2,600 gpm

3 26 - 138 psi 26 - 137 psi 25 - 135 psi 1,300 - >5,000 gpm

4 37 - 121 psi 36 - 120 psi 36 - 120 psi 1,000 - 2,400 gpm

5 11 - 133 psi 11 - 132 psi 11 - 132 psi 400 - 500 gpm

Tank Fill Rate2 -263 gpm -1,182 gpm -2,425 gpm

Tank Fill Rate3 164 gpm -695 gpm -1,858 gpm

1Available fire flow was calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and two pumps running in the Limerock Booster Pump Station

2The tank fill rate is calculated with only one pump running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

3The tank fill rate is calculated with two pumps running in the Longview Reservoir Pump Station and the Limerock Booster Pump Station

9.3 SUPPLY EVALUATION

After the 20-year buildout, the system pumps appear to be able to keep up with system demand during an average day scenario when two pumps in Longview and two pumps in Limerock are running. On a maximum day and during a peak hour, system demand outpaces the capacity of the system pump stations, regardless if one or two pumps in Longview and Limerock are running.

Pare Corporation - 36 -

Longview Reservoir Pump Station System demand is estimated at approximately 3.1 MG on a maximum day, which is 160 percent of the Longview reservoir pump station’s maximum capacity.

Limerock Booster Pump Station LCAs 3 though 5, which are served by the Limerock booster pump station, have a maximum day demand of approximately 2 MGD, after the 20-year buildout. This demand represents approximately 160 percent of the Limerock station capacity.

Davis Booster Pump Station LCA 5, which is served by the Davis booster pump station, has a maximum day demand of approximately 120,000 gallons per day. This demand represents approximately 40 percent of the station’s capacity.

Based on these results, it appears as though the Davis booster pump station will have adequate capacity to meet the maximum day demands of LCA 5 after the 20-year buildout with sufficient excess capacity for additional growth. However, system demand exceeds the capacity of the Longview and Limerock pump stations.

System Storage Tank Evaluation After the 20-year buildout, the average day demand of the system is estimated to be 1.7 MG, which is approximately 80 percent of the system’s usable storage volume (i.e., 2.1 MG). Considering an average fire flow volume of 240,000 gallons (i.e., 2,000 gpm for 2 hours) and a typical equalization storage volume of 0.9 MG (i.e., approximately one-half average day demand), there remains approximately 1.0 MG of storage available for an emergency, which is approximately 0.6 days, assuming and average day demand, or 0.3 days, assuming a maximum day demand.

9.4 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS

The available fire flow after the 5-year buildout in LCAs 1, 2 and 4 ranges from 1,000 gpm to 2,600 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The available fire flow in LCA 3 ranges from 1,200 gpm to over 5,000 gpm. The range in available fire flow in LCAs 1 through 4 after the 20-year

Pare Corporation - 37 -

buildout is only slightly lower than what is available currently.

As is the case presently and after the 5-year buildout, the higher elevation in LCA 5 prohibits the ability of the system to maintain the minimum 20 psi residual pressure in this LCA, with or without a fire flow event. However, if we lower the allowable residual pressure during a fire event to 11 psi, which is the lowest normal operating pressure in LCA 5, there appears to be approximately 400 to 500 gpm available for fire flow. This indicates that the Fire Department could reasonably pump approximately 500 gpm from system hydrants in LCA 5 without lowering system pressure below what is experienced now.

Pare Corporation - 38 -

SECTION 10.0 CONCLUSIONS

Existing System Based on PARE’s updated hydraulic model and evaluation of the existing system, it appears as though the SWSB distribution system is currently operating without significant system deficiencies in LCAs 1 through 4. In these LCAs, there appears to be adequate pressure during an average day, maximum day, and peak hour demand scenarios. In addition, the available fire flow in these four LCAs ranges from 1,000 gpm to over 5,000 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi, which exceeds AWWA’s recommended 500 gpm at 20 psi at all points in the distribution system.

The only deficiency in the system is in LCA 5, which routinely experiences low pressure (i.e., below 20 psi). The area of LCA 5 with low pressure is along Burlingame Road in the vicinity of the Burlingame Road Tank. The ground elevation in this portion of Smithfield ranges from 530 to 550 ft MSL. The overflow of the Burlingame Road tank is only 577 feet, and therefore the highest elevation that will experience 20-psi static pressure is 530 feet.

The system booster pump stations appear to be adequately meeting the demand requirement of the system. All three stations have excess capacity relative to the maximum day demand scenario; however, the Longview Reservoir pump station appears to be approaching it maximum capacity.

5-Year Buildout PARE estimates that system-wide water use could increase by as much as 30 percent during the next 5 years. This increase in demand is anticipated to have only a minor impact on system pressure. Currently, in LCAs 1 through 4 system pressure falls below 40 psi at only 6 nodes out of 241. With the increase in demand, system pressure falls below 40 psi at a total of 9 nodes in LCAs 1 through 4. In LCA 5, which routinely experiences low pressure, the increase in system demand has a greater impact on system pressure. The number of nodes that fall below 40 psi increases from 6 to 14 (out of 30) and the number of nodes that fall below 20 psi increases from 3 to 5.

Pare Corporation - 39 -

While the estimated increase in system demand does not appear to have a significant impact on system pressure, it will be problematic for the system pump stations. The increase in demand will be particularly difficult for the Longview reservoir pump station, which may reach its maximum capacity in 5 years. The Limerock booster pump station may approach its maximum capacity, but it appears less likely that it will reach it. Davis booster pump station is the only pump station in the system that appears to have capacity to adequately meet the demand of the system after the 5-year buildout with excess capacity for future development. Based on our evaluation, it appears as though during the next 5 years, the system is going to become increasingly reliant on the storage volume of the Rocky Hill Road and Island Woods storage tanks to meet the demand requirements of the system. An increasing reliance on stored water will result in more frequent depletion of the system storage tanks, which may result in less stored water available during a fire event or an emergency.

20-Year Buildout PARE estimates that system demand will increase by approximately 100 percent, i.e., double, in the next 20 years. As with the 5-year buildout, the model predicts that this increase in demand will not have a significant impact on system pressure. However, the increase in demand will cause a significant depletion in system storage tanks that will result in lower system pressure. In addition, before reaching the 20-year buildout, both the Longview and the Limerock booster pump stations will reach and exceed their respective capacity (while the Davis pump station will remain within its capacity) and will require major upgrades. These upgrades will likely increase the pumping rate of each station, which will result in an increase in flow through system transmission main and a corresponding loss in system pressure.

Recommendations The next two to three years will be a critical time for the SWSB to evaluate and plan for major system upgrades that will increase the capacity of the distribution system to supply water to a growing customer base. PARE recommends that the SWSB have a plan in place for system upgrades that they can begin to implement in the next 5 years. PARE recommends that SWSB evaluate the following: 1. Upgrading the pumps in the Longview Reservoir pump station and the Limerock Road booster pump station. 2. Upgrading or adding transmission mains between the pump stations and the system

Pare Corporation - 40 -

storage tanks in order to reduce pressure loss in the pipes that will result from larger pumps in the Longview and Limerock Road pump stations. 3. Finally, it is critical that the PSWB and the SWSB evaluate the current use limitation imposed by the PWSB of 1.965 MGD. Based on PARE’s evaluation, it appears as though the SWSB may exceed that limitation in the next five years. The Town should consider interconnections with other suppliers, i.e., Lincoln, for source water redundancy, and to reduce the dependency on system transmission mains.

Pare Corporation - 41 -

APPENDIX G

WATER SYSTEM MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX H

AUDITED FINANCIAL SUMMARY

Pare Corporation Department Name: Copy of Water Supply Financials Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island AUDITED FINANCIALS AND BUDGET SUBMISSION Fiscal Year: 2015-2016

FY 2015-2016 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 Town Manager Line Item Audited Audited Audited Audited FY 2014-2015 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 Recommendation Account No. Description Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Appropriation Projected Requested to Council 1-04-093-0101 Water Supply - Salaries & Wages 168,293 195,121 201,261 203,317 171,174 171,174 172,716 171,174 1-04-093-0102 Water Supply - Longevity - - - 14,000 14,000 6,000 6,000 1-04-093-0104 Water Supply - Overtime - - - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 1-04-093-0109 Water Supply - Vacation & Sick (1,362) 6,944 (11,447) 14,985 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 1-04-093-0131 Water Supply - FICA/Social Security Taxes 12,874 14,927 15,363 15,598 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 1-04-093-0133 Water Supply - Blue Cross/Delta Dental 46,743 36,692 28,980 38,766 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 1-04-093-0136 Retirement/Life Insurance 9,842 14,805 19,673 20,050 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 1-04-093-0200 Water Supply - Utilities 93,007 88,404 90,232 95,458 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 1-04-093-0204 Water Supply - Water 603,530 629,363 630,994 711,702 640,000 640,000 640,000 640,000 1-04-093-0502 Water Supply - Testing 2,082 3,059 5,584 4,198 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 1-04-093-0503 Water Supply - Service Fee - Contract Services - - - - 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 1-04-093-0504 Water Supply - Bank Chargers - - 2,270 - - - - - 1-04-093-0505 Water Supply - Transfer To General Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1-04-093-0506 Water Supply - Interest Expense - - 9,587 - - - - - 1-04-093-0507 Water Supply - Taxes 2,008 1,863 1,863 1,926 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 1-04-093-0524 Water Supply - Fuel & Oil 7,393 9,189 9,904 4,660 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1-04-093-0568 Water Supply - Repairs 2,021 2,342 2,723 6,395 9,000 9,000 90,000 90,000 1-04-093-0601 Water Supply - Office Supplies 525 - 154 172 650 650 650 650 1-04-093-0604 Water Supply - Supplies & Maintenance 55,440 27,040 34,550 46,591 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 1-04-093-0607 Water Supply - Professional Fees 20,759 2,400 11,080 19,283 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1-04-093-0771 Water Supply - Miscellaneous 12,276 5,932 4,661 7,143 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1-04-093-0980 Water Supply - Depreciation 79,382 89,688 113,784 146,034 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 1-04-093-0999 Water Supply - Capital Expenditures - - - - 135,000 35,000 50,000 50,000

Expenditure Totals: 1,414,814 1,427,768 1,471,217 1,536,278 1,570,274 1,470,274 1,559,816 1,558,274

Budget 2015-2016 5/6/2015 / 12:54 PM Department Name: Copy of Water Supply Financials Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island AUDITED FINANCIALS AND BUDGET SUBMISSION Fiscal Year: 2015-2016

Revenue Totals: 1,399,133 1,378,510 1,450,424 1,608,202 1,570,274 1,475,000 1,559,816 1,558,274

NET INCOME (15,680) (49,258) (20,793) 71,924 -0- 4,726 -0- -0-

Budget 2015-2016 5/6/2015 / 12:54 PM

APPENDIX I

TOWN PLANNER COORDINATION LETTERS

Pare Corporation TOWN OF STATE OF NORTH PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND

CHARLES LOMBARDI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Mayor AND ZONING

March 26, 2015

Brandon M. Blanchard, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Pare Corporation 8 Blackstone Valley Place Lincoln, RI 02865

Re: Water Supply System Management Plan (WSSMP) Smithfield Water Supply Board

Dear Brandon:

Thank you for the recent opportunity to review the proposed changes to the subject WSSMP. As you know, the Smithfield Water Supply Board provides water service to residences here in North Providence including the eastern Part of the Greystone and western part of the Woodville neighborhoods. As required by the State, the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of North Providence includes a summary of the WSSMP and a commitment to cooperate with the Smithfield Water Supply Board to bring about the mutual goals of the WSSMP and our Comprehensive Plan.

I have reviewed the proposed updates to the WSSMP and find that the WSSMP accurately reflects the content of the Plan with respect to water supply and I therefore conclude that the updates you conveyed to us earlier today are consistent with North Providence Comprehensive Plan. At your request I have also reviewed the water use projections contained in this document. In my opinion the approach used was appropriate, the assumptions were valid and the estimates appear reasonable within that context. Although population in North Providence is expected to increase in some areas, a slight reduction in population is more likely within the areas served by the Smithfield Water Supply Board. North Providence has been slowly losing population overall as the children of our residents mature and leave the community for college or to seek employment and older residents retire, relocating to warmer climates or relocating to “downsize” their living quarters.

North Providence is presently approaching “build-out” with few large tracts of land remaining to be developed. As the WSSMP aptly notes, much of the undeveloped land within the Smithfield Water Supply Board service area of North Providence consists of parkland (Peter Randall Reservation), town owned land (Landfill, DPW, and buffer zones) and wetland. These have very limited development

1951 Mineral Spring Avenue, North Providence, RI 02904 Phone: (401) 233-1419

Letter B. Blanchard - WSSMP 3/26/15 Page 2 of 2 potential such that development in the area in the near future is not likely to result in population gains sufficient to offset the trend of decreasing population described above. Therefore we also concur with the population and water use projections as presented in the WSSMP.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review these draft revisions.

Very truly yours, NORTH PROVIDENCE PLANNING

David R. Westcott, AICP Town Planner

DRW/is cc: Frank Bursie

1951 Mineral Spring Avenue, North Providence, RI 02904 Phone: (401) 233-1419

APPENDIX J

SWSB CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Pare Corporation REPORT Pare Project 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

OCTOBER 2016

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 ‐i‐

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 1 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 2 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 3 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 4 ‐

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 5 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 6 ‐

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)

Pare Corporation ‐ 7 ‐

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 8 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 9 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 10 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 11 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 12 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 13 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 14 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 15 ‐

SECTION 5 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 16 ‐

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 17 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 18 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 19 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 20 ‐

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

Pare Corporation ‐ 21 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 22 ‐

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).

Pare Corporation ‐ 23 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 24 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 25 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 26 ‐

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.

Pare Corporation ‐ 27 ‐

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 ‐ 28 ‐

APPENDIX A

CIP System Map

Pare Corporation

APPENDIX B

CIP Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Pare Corporation Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #1(a): Rocky Hill Road Elevated Storage Tank

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #1(a): Rocky Hill Road Elevated Storage Tank 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 Additional Fees 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. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #1(b): Interconnection with Lincoln Water Commission

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #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 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 1,115,000.00 8. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 33,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,148,000.00 9. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 172,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,320,000.00 10. Contingency (20%) LS $ 264,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,584,000.00 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #2: Douglas Pike 12" Water Main

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #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 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 1,360,000.00 6. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 41,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,401,000.00 7. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 210,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,611,000.00 8. Contingency (20%) LS $ 322,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,933,000.00 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #3: Ridge Road 12" Water Main

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #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 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 1,640,000.00 5. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 49,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,689,000.00 6. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 253,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,942,000.00 7. Contingency (20%) LS $ 388,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,330,000.00 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #4: Stillwater Road 12" Water Main

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #4: Stillwater Road 12" Water Main 1. 12" Water Main Installation (Roadway) 7700 $ 175.00 LF $ 1,347,500.00 2. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 860 $ 200.00 CY $ 172,000.00 3. Pavement Restoration (5" Thick) 1480 $ 175.00 TON $ 259,000.00 4. Traffic Protection 103 $ 500.00 DAY $ 51,500.00 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 1,830,000.00 5. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 55,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,885,000.00 6. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 283,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 2,168,000.00 7. Contingency (20%) LS $ 434,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,602,000.00 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #5: George Washington Highway 16" Water Main

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #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 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 1,476,000.00 6. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 44,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,520,000.00 7. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 228,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,748,000.00 8. Contingency (20%) LS $ 350,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,098,000.00 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost CIP #6: Harris Road 12" Water Main

Smithfield Water Supply Board (SWSB) Prepared By: SPD Capital Improvements Plan Checked By: TPT 03066.41 Date: February 2016

No. Work Item Quantity Unit Price Unit Total CIP #6: Harris Road 12" Water Main 1. 12" Water Main Installation (Roadway) 8500 $ 175.00 LF $ 1,487,500.00 2. Rock Removal (10% Trench Volume) 950 $ 200.00 CY $ 190,000.00 3. Pavement Restoration (5" Thick) 1630 $ 175.00 TON $ 285,250.00 4. Traffic Protection 114 $ 500.00 DAY $ 57,000.00 Additional Fees SUBTOTAL $ 2,020,000.00 5. Mobilization/Demobilization (3%) LS $ 61,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 2,081,000.00 6. Engineering Fees (15%) LS $ 312,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 2,393,000.00 7. Contingency (20%) LS $ 479,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,872,000.00

APPENDIX C

SWSB Recommended Project Schedule

Pare Corporation SWSB Recommended Project Schedule (in 2016 USD)

5‐Year 10‐Year 15‐Year 20‐Year 2017 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

APPENDIX D

Rocky Hill Road Tank Evaluation

Pare Corporation 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 toDRAFT 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. 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 DRAFTrecoating, 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 Mr. Seth Lemoine (3) March 11, 2015

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 Hydraulic Grade at Hydraulic Grade at Operating Range Location Elevation (ft) 35 psi (ft) 90 psi (ft) (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 wouldDRAFT 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 Mr. Seth Lemoine (4) March 11, 2015

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. DRAFT 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 Mr. Seth Lemoine (5) March 11, 2015

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 Usable Storage Usable Storage Cost/Gallon Cost Proposed Tank Volume Volume Usable Storage ($) (cf) (gal) ($/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 maintenanceDRAFT 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.

Mr. Seth Lemoine (6) March 11, 2015

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 System Initial Capital 50-Year Life Fire Protection Emergency Scenario Pressure Cost Cycle Costs Impact Condition Impact 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 increasedDRAFT 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 Mr. Seth Lemoine (7) March 11, 2015

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 DRAFT 50 Year Future Cost Analysis Existing 1.0 MG Steel Tank Future Year Item Cost Worth 0 Inspection+Stripping/Repainting + Repairs $681,000 $681,000 5 10 15 15 Year Maintenance $254,000 $317,559 20 25 30 30 Year Maintenance $546,000 $853,442 35 40 45 45 Year Maintenance $254,000 $496,370 50 Total: $1,735,000 $2,348,371

t Future Worth: FW CC 1(*)( += inf)

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. exterior 14,805 s.f. interior Repairs to Tank: $100,000 Retrofit with Mixing System: $75,000 Engineering/PermittingDRAFT Fees for Initial Rehab Work: $75,000 50 Year Future Cost Analysis Proposed 1.0 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank Future Year Item Cost Worth 0 New Tank Installation $1,500,000 $1,500,000 5 10 15 15 Year Maintenance $125,000 $156,279 20 25 30 30 Year Maintenance $125,000 $195,385 35 40 45 45 Year Maintenance $125,000 $244,277 50 Total: $1,875,000 $2,095,941

t Future Worth: FW CC 1(*)( += inf)

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

DRAFT 50 Year Future Cost Analysis Proposed 1.0 MG Elevated Glass-Fused-to-Steel Tank Future Year Item Cost Worth 0 New Tank Installation $2,500,000 $2,500,000 5 10 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $5,803 15 20 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $6,734 25 30 30 Year Maintenance $25,000 $39,077 35 40 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $9,070 45 50 Cathodic Protection Replacement $5,000 $10,526 Total: $2,545,000 $2,571,210

t Future Worth: FW CC 1(*)( += inf)

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

DRAFT

APPENDIX E

Water Supply System Photography

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PPHOTOOGRAPHY

Figure 1: Longview Pump Station (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Figure 2: Longview Emergency Generator (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 3: Limerock Pump Station (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Figure 4: Limerock Emergency Generator (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 5: Davis Pump Station (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Figure 6: Davis Emergency Generator (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 7: Davis Propane Tank (Photo taakken November 12, 2015)

Figure 8: Burlingame Tank (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 9: Burlingame Valve Vault (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Figure 10: Island Woods Tank (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 11: Island Woods Valve Vault (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Figure 12: Rocky Hill Tank (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation Capital Improvements Plan Smithfield Water Supply Board Smithfield, RI 02917 Pare Project No. 03066.41

Figure 13: Rocky Hill Valve Vault (Photo taken November 12, 2015)

Pare Corporation