Wastewater · Independent meeting report

Kahite pump station report raises questions about the community’s I&I strategy

A resident-prepared review of recent engineering findings, possible tank-replacement work, projected costs, and an alternative storage-tank concept.

  • Meeting: PSAC meeting
  • Meeting date: [Month Day, Year]
  • Published: [Month Day, Year]
  • Updated: [Month Day, Year]
  • Wastewater
  • I&I
  • Kahite
  • Capital planning
Independent resident summary and commentary. This article is not an official Tellico Village POA publication. Readers should review the linked source materials, official minutes, and meeting recordings for the complete record.

Key findings

A recent C2RL report concerning the Kahite pump station indicates that significant inflow and infiltration, commonly called I&I, remains in the wastewater system.

The reported condition appears to persist despite earlier work to repair or replace tank lids in Kahite. According to the available report, C2RL recommends replacing certain larger leaking tanks with new E/One tanks.

Main takeaway Significant I&I reportedly remains, and the community may need to compare several costly, long-term infrastructure options.

Possible tank-replacement methods

Based on the meeting discussion and available materials, replacement could involve one of two general approaches:

  1. Remove the existing tank and install a replacement in the same location.
  2. Pump out and fill the existing tank, excavate a different location, install the replacement tank, and reconnect the home, POA sewer line, and electrical service.

The second approach would appear to require additional excavation and construction. Either method could temporarily interrupt household utility service.

The expected duration of the work, any effect on water or wastewater service, and whether temporary relocation would be necessary should be confirmed by the POA and its engineers before being treated as established facts.

Community-wide cost and schedule

The conclusions discussed in connection with the C2RL report appear similar in some respects to conclusions previously presented by Jacobs Engineering.

Earlier estimates associated with replacing tanks throughout the community reportedly ranged from approximately $40 million to $60 million, with implementation potentially extending over seven to ten years.

These figures should be checked against the applicable engineering documents. Residents should also determine whether the Jacobs and C2RL estimates cover the same number and types of tanks, construction work, contingencies, engineering expenses, and equipment standards.

Alternative storage-tank concept

During the recent PSAC meeting, Gary Zika and Mike Lackey reportedly discussed reconsidering a storage-tank solution at a different location.

Based on figures discussed or previously presented, this approach may have an estimated cost of approximately $7 million to $8 million.

If accurate and technically feasible, that estimate would be substantially lower than the reported cost of a community-wide tank-replacement program.

Cost alone does not establish which option is preferable. Capacity, permitting, environmental requirements, operating expenses, reliability, location, construction risk, and long-term maintenance should also be evaluated.

Results of the current I&I program

Previous discussions indicated that repairing a smaller number of leaking lids might materially reduce the I&I problem.

Since that time, approximately 4,000 lines have reportedly been inspected and more than 500 lids replaced.

The latest findings nevertheless indicate that significant I&I remains. This does not, by itself, establish that the inspection and lid-replacement work provided no benefit.

It does raise an important question about whether that work was sufficient to produce the anticipated system-wide result and whether additional strategies are now necessary.

Questions requiring further investigation

  • Do the C2RL and Jacobs estimates address the same project scope?
  • How many tanks does each estimate assume must be replaced?
  • Do the estimates use comparable equipment, construction, engineering, and contingency assumptions?
  • What measurable reduction in I&I resulted from the inspections and lid replacements completed to date?
  • What are the projected capital and operating costs of the storage-tank alternative?
  • What technical, regulatory, environmental, or site-related risks apply to each option?
  • What effect would each alternative have on property owners, rates, assessments, and household service interruptions?
  • Will the POA publish the underlying data and engineering assumptions so residents can compare the alternatives?

Resident analysis

In the author’s view, the persistence of substantial I&I warrants a transparent comparison of the available alternatives before additional major expenditures are authorized.

That comparison should use consistent assumptions and should include the existing strategy, targeted tank replacement, broader tank replacement, and the proposed storage-tank concept.

This article will be updated as additional documents and verified information become available.