Comprehensive Rehabilitation of the St. Joseph Water SystemTown of Saint Joseph, Louisiana
PREPARED FOR: NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESS IONAL ENGINEERS (NSPE)
PRESENTED BY: DAVID A. MARTIN, P.E.
www.hdaviscole.com
‐ Founded in 2006 to serve municipal, governmental, and private sector clients‐ Provide clients across Louisiana with civil and environmental engineering
design consultation services‐ Consulting services span the realm of Civil Engineering and include the
following:• Program & Grant Management (FEMA Disaster Recovery and HMGP)• Water Treatment and Distribution Systems• Roadway and Transportation Projects• Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems• Drainage Collection and Pumping Systems• Structural Design• Construction Inspection and Management• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies• Environmental Documentation & Permitting
New Orleans Office:1340 Poydras Street, Suite 1850
New Orleans, LA 70112Phone: (504) 836‐2020
Chalmette Office:419 W. St. Bernard HwyChalmette, LA 70043
Baton Rouge Office:4137 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 210
Baton Rouge, LA 70816Phone: (225) 612‐9234
The Town of St. Joseph‐ Population of approximately 1,050 persons
• 40% live below the poverty line• Median household income is $16,923/$1,400 per month• 75% African American
‐ Existing potable water system• 50+ years old• Experiencing serious water loss through aging and deteriorating lines
‐ 2013 Administrative Order• Town cited for various violations related to the deterioration of existing water
system
‐ State of Emergency was declared on December 16, 2016after elevated levels of lead were found in the water system
◦ 22% of St. Joseph’s 470 homes tested positive for elevated lead levels.
Mechanical Bar Screen Facility
City Barn Storage Facility
New Drainage Pump and Bridge Crane added under City Barn Project 100‐118
4th Mechanical Bar Screen being added under City Project 100‐118 (A)
Groundwater Data:• Tensas Parish, Louisiana• PWS ID No. 1107004• Hydrologic Unit Code 0806003• Land‐surface elevation of 79.60 ft above
NGVD29• Mississippi River Alluvial Aquifer (112MRVA)
local aquifer• Depth of the well is 110 feet below land surface
Data collected from USGS National Water Information System
State of Existing Water System (Pre‐Construction)
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
• Aging system of 2” – 12” ferrous metal pipes• Non‐functional and inaccurate metering system• Non‐functioning valves• Aging and non‐functioning hydrants• Lead solder & lead service connections
SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS
• Required substantial replacement
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
• 2 functioning wells (one lost during construction)
• Pressure filter with no media• Multiple leaks• Poorly maintained equipment
SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS
• Required substantial rehabilitation and new equipment
Replacement of the Water Distribution System
Replacement of the Water Distribution System
‐ New Distribution Lines • 6” through 12” PVC (C900) • Approximately 13 miles of pipe
‐ New Meters • Automatic meter reading• Approximately 600 meters
‐ New Fire Hydrants• Approximately 80 hydrants
‐ New Valves• Approximately 100 valves
‐ Reconstruction of Sample Stations
Rehabilitation of the Water Treatment Plant
Rehabilitation of the Water Treatment Plant
‐ Rehabilitation of Existing Pressure Filter
‐ Installation of Pre‐Treatment System
‐ Installation of Redundant Pressure Filter
‐ New Disinfection System
‐ New High Service Pumps
‐ Corrosion Inhibitor Equipment
AIS System
• Adapted from mining disposal, but has applications for high iron water treatment
• Consists of a reactor basin (aeration, flocculation) and clarifier
• Involves pH adjustment by aeration and polymer and chemical feed to create activated iron solids and accelerated oxidation of iron
Pressure Filter (Before & After Rehabilitation)
Softener Bank (Before and After Rehabilitation)
Old Well and New Well
St. Joseph Treatment Water Sample (Before and After Rehabilitation)
Corrosion Inhibitor
• Due to corrosivity issues, Town began feeding Zinc Orthophosphate in September 2017.
• Selection of Zinc Orthophosphate driven by local experience and recommendations by EPA
• Zinc Orthophosphate feed will continue after new plant is in full operation
Funding Sources
Source Amount
State Capital Outlay Fund $ 7,800,000.00
Delta Regional Authority $ 600,000.00
Community Water Enrichment Fund (CWEF) $ 250,000.00
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $ 50,000.00
TOTAL $8,700,000.00
Construction
‐ Contract Method:• Procurement contracts for plant equipment• Negotiated contracts for construction
‐ Seven Separate Contracts/ Contractors
‐ Fast Tracked due to December 2016 Emergency Declaration
Construction Challenges
Water Distribution System
• Unforeseen Conditions • Existing utilities couldn’t be located• Existing water system continued to deteriorate• Not all customers could be located• Flushing of lines was impacted by water supply problems• Limited operational support from the Town
Construction Challenges
Water Treatment Plant
• Existing Plant continued to deteriorate•Well failed at the start of construction• Continued supply problems• Need to maintain service of water for fire
Current Status of Construction
• New Plant is Substantially Complete and is making water
• New System is Substantially Complete and final connections and meters are being installed
• Ancillary work continues at the plant
Lessons Learned
• Early involvement of regulatory agencies is vital• They are eager to assist• They are an excellent source of historical data and information• They are open to use of new / emerging technologies
• Funding from multiple agencies / sources is possible• Requires very careful upfront planning on “who is paying for what”
• Differences in “rules” between funding agencies can vary greatly but which planning and early communications these differences can be used to benefit the project as a whole
• All available treatment technologies should be considered• There is no one size fits all solution to water treatment• Most sources will likely require a combination of technologies• Look to neighboring systems to see what they have employed
Lessons Learned
• Early Owner procurement of long lead time equipment• Can dramatically shorten the overall project schedule• Requires very solid, early preliminary engineering work• Requires the use of a formal procurement contract between the Owner and Supplier so that the installing contractor knows exactly what is included and not included
• Emergency Declaration / Alternate Project Delivery• While not applicable in most cases, the Emergency Declaration in this case allowed the project be completed in an unprecedented timeframe for public works construction
• Project operated similar to an industrial type Engineer‐Procure‐Construct (EPC) type project
• EPC should be considered for allowance in public health critical type situations such as domestic water treatment and distribution
Future Outlook/ Recommendations
• Outlook for rural water systems• Stricter standards are taxing rural water system owners• Affordability is a major issue• Grant and capital outlay funding is extremely limited• Most available funding comes through low interest loans
• Third party operations• Third party operators allow for the sharing of expenses between water systems
• Water treatment technology is becoming increasingly complicated and sophisticated allowing for remote monitoring
• Would not necessarily replace water system employees but augment their staff
• Water User Rates• Water rates must be looked at as funding an Enterprise Fund• Water rates must not only support current operations• Water rates must be adequate to fund future replacement of major equipment
• Water rates must be increased over time to track with inflation and increasing regulation
Future Outlook/ Recommendations
• Consolidation/Regionalization of water systems• Consolidation may be a solution in some limited circumstances• Long transmission lines may introduce new problems such as disinfection by‐products (THMs / HAA) and low chlorine residuals
• Politically difficult / unpopular
• Privatization of Water Systems• Removes majority of accountability from elected leaders• Limits availability of capital funding for major works• Generally result in higher user rates (i.e., many public systems are not being operated as Enterprise Funds)
• Removes major source of revenue from rural communities• Is successfully employed throughout the state on both small and large scales
• Public Service Commission (PSC) serves to regulate private system operators. Resulting rates are closest to the “real cost” of providing safe drinking water
Future Outlook/ Recommendations
•What can be done by NSPE?• Advocate for establishment of a means tested grant program either directly through EPA or as a component of the state revolving loan fund programs. This could look like the “green reserve” loan forgiveness program currently in place.
• Draft/support legislation that requires water systems to operate as an Enterprise Fund• Water User Rates should be what is necessary to support current operations and
fund a reserve account for replacement of major equipment• Water User Rates should be tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)• Annual audits required by most states already provides most financial information
required to accomplish
• Keep current standards for drinking water• Recent legislative efforts to make EPA Secondary Drinking Water Standards
mandatory serves only to make struggling water system’s problems worse and more expensive
• At a minimum, exempt smaller water systems from those secondary requirements.
Baton Rouge, LA New Orleans, LA Chalmette, LA
Civil & Environmental Engineering
DAVID A. MARTIN, P.E.VICE PRESIDENT
[email protected](504) 836‐2020
www.hdaviscole.com