007
j\ ,,,~
.
.tu(~
0cY
PAGGI & MARTIN
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
001
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
9 14-47 1-7 898
R~C~/VEO
JUN t f)
SUP!:: '99~
~ l;;RV1S0i1'
OWN OF W S OFFICE
APPINGER
June 16, 1994
Town Board
Town of Wappinger
P.O. Box 324
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Attention:
Constance O. Smith
Reference:
Groundwater Under the Influence of Surface Water
Hilltop Wellfield
Rockingham Wellfield
Atlas Wellfield
Dear Supervisor Smith and Board Members:
Based upon conversations with New York State Department of Health
staft, this office has scaled down the sampling protocol for Ground
Water Under the Influence analysis at the above referenced wellfields.
The specific components of the revised protocol are outlined in the
enclosed April 27, 1994, memo from Peter J. Paggi to Michael P.
Tremper of Camo Pollution Control, Inc.
The estimated cost to perform the analysis as outlined would be as
follows:
1. Hilltop Wellfield. . . . . . . $ 5,720.00
2. Rockingham Wellfield.. . $ 4,740.00
3. AtlasWellfield.... . $ 4,740.00
The testing proposed for the Hilltop Wellfield is more expensive than the
others because it includes a greater number of wells (ie: 3 at Hilltop vs.
2 at Rockingham and Atlas).
Our previous testing protocols were much more extensive and were
estimated at $34,052.00 for Central Wappinger Water and $31,585.00
for North Wappinger Water.
Please keep in mind that, as per our earlier correspondences, (See o\,Jr
letters of 02/01/93, 03/13/92 and 02/06/92) the deadline for
submission of this information to the Dutchess County Health
Department is June 29, 1994.
Joseph E. Paggi,Jr., P.E.
Ernst Martin. Jr., I'.F., I..S.
ro
~~ prmted on recycled paper
June 16, 1994
Page Two
,Town Board
Town of Wappinger
P.O. Box 324
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Reference:
Constance O. Smith
Groundwater Under the Influence of Surface Water
Hilltop Wellfield
Rockingham Wellfield
Atlas Wellfield
Attention:
Please review the enclosed materials and advise this office as to how
you would like to proceed in this matter.
If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to contact this
office.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
~6J RrIlJ
Peter J. Paggi
PJP:law
Enclosure
cc: Mike Tremper
Albert P. Roberts, Esq.
PAGGI & MARTIN
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
9 14-47 1-7 898
*** M E M 0 RAN DUM ***
"
To: Mike Tremper, Camo Pollution Control
Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E.
From: Peter J. Paggi
Date: April 27, 1994
Re: Ground Water Under the Influence
Proposed Testing Protocol
Hilltop, Rockingham and Atlas Wellfields
RECEIVED
JUN 2 n 199~
SUPERVISOR'
TOWN OF'S OFFICE
WAPPINGER
As per a April 25, 1994, telephone conversation between myself and
Mr. George Stasko of the New York State Department of Health
(N.Y.S.D.O.H.) regarding Ground Water Under the Influence (G.W.U.I.)
testing protocol, please note the following:
1 . The conclusions of some studies submitted to
N.Y.S.D.O.H. have provided interpretations that are
inconsistent with previous assumptions. For instance,
the presence of rotifers, algae and insect parts in
groundwater samples does not necessarily indicate a
surface water intrusion.
2. Water suppliers may attempt to prove there is no
surface water influence solely through the use of
physical characteristics, but the results are
inconclusive at best. Also, use of physical
characteristics to analyze any surface/groundwater
connection must be performed during the correct
season (ie: temperature during the winter and summer;
turbidity and alkalinity during spring, etc.).
3. The N.Y.S.D.O.H. is "learning as they go", and there
have been changes in their methods of interpreting
data during the past few months. Mr. Stasko stated
that the Department will not force any municipality to
filter its supply unless giardia and/or cryptosporidium
is specifically found to be present.
Joseph E. Paggi.Jr.. P.E.
Ernsr Marrin, Jr., r,E., L.S,
ro.
~~ prtnted on recycled paper
Mike Tremper
Joseph E. Paggi
- 2 -
April 27, 1994
4. For these reasons, the best way to go about
complying with the regulation, at this point in time, is
to microscopically test both the source and the
surface water specifically for giardia and/or
cryptosporidium. This testing should be done in
accordance with PWS-42 (ie: filter 500 gallons). By
testing for these two parameters, the laboratory has
something specific to look for. Otherwise, test results
end up being based on the individual lab analyst
examining the sample.
5. The best case scenario would be if the lab found
giardia and/or cryptosporidium in the surface water
but not in the groundwater. This would be considered
conclusive results that no connection exists.
The second best case would be if no giardia and/or
cryptosporidium was found in either the surface or
groundwater. The problem with this result is that it
may not be conclusive.
Obviously, the worst case scenario would be if either
of the parameters was found in the groundwater. If
giardia cysts are found in groundwater it may still be
possible to avoid filtration if we can get 3 log
inactivation via disinfection. If cryptosporidium is
found in the groundwater, then the source must be
filtered or abandoned.
6. Generally, as of this date, it is the Department's
position that if no giardia and/or cryptosporidium is
found in the groundwater, then it is not under the
influence of surface water. For this reason, it is easier
and probably cheaper to just perform the microscopics
for each source and bypass doing extensive physical
characteristic sampling.
7. The N.Y.S.D.O.H. will review each case on its merits.
Since no conclusive protocol has been developed, and
since the regulation wording is vague, it is better to do
a less intense analysis.
Mike Tremper
Joseph E. Paggi
- 3 -
April 27, 1994
A test specifically for giardia and/or cryptosporidium in
both the sources and the surface waters would
provide immediately usable results. An extensive
drawn out physical sampling protocol along with
microscopies would be more expensive and time
consuming, and may prove to be inconclusive any
way. Also, future regulations may require some
analysis of the hydraulic connection between surface
and groundwater.
8. Our recommendations:
a. Microscopically test specifically for giardia and/or
cryptosporidium.
b. Sampling sites should be as follows:
o Hilltop Nos. 1, 3 and 5 plus a surface sample
o Rockingham Nos. 1 and 2 plus a surface
sample
o Atlas Nos. 1 and 2 plus a surface sample
c. This represents 10 samples. Anne Smith
informed me that the analysis would cost
$180.00 each for a total lab fee of $1,800.00
d. Filtering and collecting the samples will be time
consuming and could be expensive. CAMO
should provide estimates to perform this work.
-
e. Any physical data that CAMO may' have, along
with some type of "history of stability" should be
summarized. Again, CAMO should generate a
cost estimate to perform this work.
f. All information should then be submitted to the
Dutchess County Health Department (D.C.H.D.)
for their review and approval. At that point in
time, it would be the responsibility of the
D.C.H.D. and/or the N.Y.S.D.O.H. to determine if
our submittal is sufficient.
Mike Tremper
Joseph E. Paggi
- 4 -
April 27, 1994
Please review this information to see if it meets with your approval.
Once a protocol is agreed upon we should run it by Dan O'Connor for
"technical approval".
Also a cost estimate should be generated for submission to the Town
Board for their authorization.
Please advise me as to how you would like to proceed in this matter.
PJP:law