2012-2192012-219
Resolution Accepting Map, Plan & Report for United Wappinger Water District Filtration
System Improvements and Meadowwood/Route 9 Water Main Loops
At a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County,
New York, held at Town Hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers Falls, New York, on August
13, 2012.
The meeting was called to order by Barbara Gutzler, Supervisor, and upon roll being
called, the following were present:
PRESENT: Supervisor - Barbara Gutzler
Councilmembers - William H. Beale (Arrived at 7:31PM)
Vincent F. Bettina (Arrived at 7:47 PM)
Ismay Czarniecki
Michael Kuzmicz
ABSENT:
The following Resolution was introduced by Councilwoman Czarniecki and seconded by
Councilman Kuzmicz.
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2012 by Resolution 2012-193, the Town Board authorized
Morris Associates PLLC to prepare a Map, Plan and Report for necessary improvements to the
United Wappinger Water District, specifically including improvements necessary to interconnect
the Meadowood Wells to the United Wappinger Water District, to construct a water main loop
that will connect to the recently constructed water main service in the Adams Fairacre Farms
Project located on Old Post Road in the Town of Wappinger as well as to construct the required
filtration systems to the Hilltop Wells and Atlas Wells serving the United Wappinger Water
District; and
WHEREAS, Morris Associates PLLC has prepared the Map, Plan and Report,
authorized by Resolution 2012-193,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. The recitations above set forth are incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set
forth and adopted herein.
2. The Town Board hereby accepts the Map, Plan and Report entitled "United
Wappinger Water District Filtration System Improvements and
Meadowwood/Route 9 Water Main Loops, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess
County, New York" dated August 2012 and hereby directs the Town Clerk to file
a copy of the same in her office in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of
the Town Law.
3. The Town Board hereby directs the Engineer to the Town to prepare a Full
Environmental Assessment Form for the above noted project and submit the same
to the Town Board so that it may review the proposed action under SEQRA and
under WEQRA.
The foregoing was put to a vote which resulted as follows:
BARBARA GUTZLER, SUPERVISOR Voting: AYE
WILLIAM H. BEALE, COUNCILMAN Voting: AYE
VINCENT F. BETTINA, COUNCILMAN Voting: AYE
ISMAY CZARNIECKI, COUNCILWOMAN Voting: AYE
MICHAEL KUZMICZ, COUNCILMAN Voting: AYE
Dated: Wappingers Falls, New York
8/13/2012
The Resolution is hereby duly declared adopted.
CHRISTINE FULTON, TOWN CLERK
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT
FOR
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT
.FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND.
MEADOWWOODlROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER..
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK
AUGUST 2012
MA #W20802.12
PREPARED BY:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
I. SUMMARY 1
1.1 Summary 1
1.2 Recommendations 2
II. INTRODUCTION 3
2.1 Background 3
2.2 Purpose and Scope 3
III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA AND RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS 5
3.1 Service Area Boundary
3.2 Water System Demands
3.3 Recommended Improvements
IV. PROJECT COSTS AND USER COSTS
4.1 Capital and O&M Costs
4.2 User Costs
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -Filtration Feasibility Study
APPENDIX B -Capital Cost Estimates
APPENDIX C -Bond Repayment Schedules
5
5
6
7
7
8
Back Pocket -United Wappinger Water District Map
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 1
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOODIROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
I. SUMMARY
1.1 Summary
This report has been prepared for the United Wappinger Water District
(UWWD) for filtration improvements for the Atlas and Hilltop Well Fields,
water main connections to provide a loop in the Meadowwood area
(Meadowwood Well Loop), and water main connections to provide a loop in
the Route 9 area (Route 9 Loop).
This Map, Plan and Report includes the boundaries and general plan for the
District, a report of existing and future water demands, a report of the
proposed method of operation, and the location of the water system
improvements.
The total estimated capital costs for all of the proposed improvements were
approximately $4,040,000. Based upon the cost analysis presented in the
Map, Plan and Report, the total first year cost increase for a typical single
family home in the UWWD would be approximately $102.00 assuming a 20
year bond and $90.60 assuming a 30 bond.
A summary of the total existing first year costs for a typical single family
home in the UWWD, as well as the total projected first year costs with the
proposed improvements for a typical single family home in the UWWD areas
follows:
20 Year Bond Analysis
Description Capital
Cost
O&M Cost
Total Cost
Existin UWWD Costs $ 128.00 $ 232.50 $ 360.50
Cost Increase -Prop. UWWD $ 53.60 $ 48.40 $ 102.00
Total Costs -Proposed UWWD $ 181.60 $ 280.90 $ 462.50
30 Year Bond Analysis
Description Capital
Cost
O&M Cost
Total Cost
Existin UWWD Costs $ 128.00 $ 232.50 $ 360.50
Cost Increase -Prop. UWWD $ 42.20 $ 48.40 $ 90.60
Total Costs -Proposed UWWD $ 170.20 $ 280.90 $ 451.10
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W W D_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 2
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOODIROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
1.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that the Town Board review and accept the findings in this
Map, Plan and Report for improvements in the District as set forth in Town
Law Section 202-b. The Town Board should determine whether a 20 year or
30 year bond is appropriated for payment of the proposed capital costs.
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W WD_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 3
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOOD/ROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS AUGUST 2012
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
II. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
The original Map, Plan and Report for the United Wappinger Water District
(UWWD) and subsequent extensions are on file with the office of the Town
Clerk. The United Wappinger Water District (UWWD) is a Town Water
District that currently serves approximately 14,000 customers (people) in the
Town of Wappinger. There are three (3) separate water treatment facilities
that supply the UWWD. The Atlas site includes a total of 6 wells, the Hilltop
site includes a total of 4 wells, and the Meadowwood site that includes a total
of 2 wells.
The Meadowwood well field was installed approximately six (6) years ago as
part of the water system extension to serve the Meadowwood subdivision.
Currently, the wells are not utilized as they are connected to the existing
system at a point on Regency Drive that will not support the increased flow of
water. A water main connection from the Meadowwood wells to the water
main installed on Whites Corners Road has been proposed to create a loop
and fully utilize the capacity of the Meadowwood wells.
The Atlas and Hilltop locations have been recently connected by a 16"
transmission line between the facilities. Each facility includes treatment,
consisting of hypochlorite disinfection, along with storage tanks at Hilltop.
The distribution system generally consists mainly of ductile iron water main,
with some transite (asbestos cement) pipe, along with hydrants, valves and
services. All parcels are now metered.
A detailed groundwater analysis for both the Atlas and Hilltop wells were
conducted in 2005 and 2006 by Leggette, Brashears and Graham (LBG).
The report concluded that both well fields have a moderate risk to be under
the influence of surface water. At the Atlas field, the Wappinger Creek is the
potential influence whereas at Hilltop it is the Sprout Creek. Wells
determined to be under the influence of surface water must be treated the
same as a surface water source according to regulations. This means that
filtration of the water becomes necessary. Various filtration alternatives were
reviewed in the May 2011 Filtration Feasibility Study prepared by Morris
Associates. This report recommended the installation of cartridge filtration
units at the Atlas and Hilltop well fields in order to address the treatment
issues associated with groundwater under the influence of surface water.
The Meadowwood well field was installed with a cartridge filtration system.
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W WD_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 4
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOOD/ROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
All of the parcels in the UWWD on the west side of Route 9 in the vicinity of
Old Hopewell Road are served from a single water main that crosses Route 9
near Performance Motors. There is a second crossing of Route 9 near the
Acura dealership and serves Adams Fairacre Farms and Friendly Motorcars.
This water line is terminated on the east side of Route 9. A water main
connection is proposed from the vicinity of Adams Fairacre Farms to the
existing water main in the vicinity of Pavilion Apartments to create a loop for
all parcels connected in the Route 9 area.
2.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this Map, Plan and Report is to describe the additional
components to be provided, along with the estimated increase in capital costs
associated with the completion of these improvements.
In order to develop the above information, this report shall evaluate the
proposed improvements, and provide an analysis of the estimated capital
costs along with long-term financing and bonding requirements.
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_UWWD_loops_filtration_080312. doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 5
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOOD/ROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
III. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
3.1 Service Area Boundary
The existing United Wappinger Water District service area is shown on the
District Map included in the back of this report. There will be no modifications
to the service area as a result of the proposed improvements.
3.2 Water System Capacity Analysis
This section evaluates the existing UWWD water supply capacity, including:
Water System Demands.
2. Adequacy of Existing System.
3.2.1 Water System Demands
The estimated water system demands for the existing UWWD are
as follows:
Total Estimated Average Day Demand = 1.0 MGD
Total Estimated Maximum Day Demand = 1.7 MGD
3.2.2 Adequacy of Existing Systems
Based upon the results of previous capacity studies, the estimated
future average day demand for the current UWWD is approximately
1.23 MGD and the excess capacity within the UWWD is limited by the
available source capacity. The excess capacity within the system that
could support extensions to the existing water system was reported to
be approximately 190,000 gallons per day (GPD) or 0.19 MGD on an
average day basis. The inclusion of the Meadowwood well field would
increase the current excess source capacity to approximately 0.42
MGD on an average day basis, based on the reported capacity of the
Meadowwood wells.
The UWWD has a total of two (2) storage tanks, with reported
operational capacities of 1.1 and 0.6 million gallons (MG). Since the
future average demand of the UWWD is estimated at 1.23 MGD, an
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W WD_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 6
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOODIROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
excess storage capacity of 0.47 MG is available.
The only treatment currently provided at the UWWD consists of
disinfection using sodium hypochlorite. As the chlorination facilities
are sized based upon the well capacities, it will be assumed that the
well capacity is the limiting factor in terms of available treatment
capacity.
In terms of the distribution system, the water distribution piping
consists of water main from 8" to 16" in diameter. In general, adequate
pressures have been reported to be provided throughout the existing
distribution system.
3.3 Recommended Improvements
The proposed filtration improvements, consisting of the installation of
cartridge filtration units at the Atlas and Hilltop well fields, was previously
evaluated in the Filtration Feasibility Study prepared by Morris Associates. A
copy of the study is included in Appendix A of this report.
The proposed water main connection loops for the Meadowwood Well Field
and the Route 9 area are shown on the District Map. This will consist of
approximately 2,650 lineal feet of 8" water main and appurtenances for the
Meadowwood Well Field loop and approximately 4,600 lineal feet of 8" water
main and appurtenances for the Route 9 area loop, matching the size of the
larger existing water main at the proposed connection points.
The proposed improvements are subject to review and approval by the
Health Department. Detailed plans and specifications will need to be
prepared for the proposed improvements in order to obtain Health
Department approval.
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W WD_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 7
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOOD/ROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
IV. PROJECT COSTS AND USER COSTS
4.1 Capital and O&M Costs
The breakdown of capital costs for the proposed improvements are shown in
Appendix B. These costs include all the legal, engineering and other such
administrative costs as weA as the cartridge filtration, pipeline and related that
would be required for construction of the improvements. The total estimated
capital costs for all of the proposed improvements would be approximately
$4,040,000.
The estimated annual payments for the proposed improvements, utilizing a
bonding period of either 20 years or 30 years, are shown in Appendix C of
this report, as prepared by Capital Markets Advisors. The estimated first
year payment would be $268,800 fora 20 year bonding period and $211,500
fora 30 year bonding period. The highest annual estimated payment will be
$268,800 fora 20 year bond and $220,400 fora 30 year bond.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated based on a flatfee of
$47.87 per quarter. This flat fee covers the first 18,700 gallons per quarter
used. An additional $1.20 per 748 gallons used is added to any parcel that
exceeds 18,700 gallons. Utilizing the estimated actual consumption rate of
275 gpd (per previous studies using Town supplied billing information) a
typical single family home has an estimated annual O&M cost of $232.50.
O&M costs for the filtration system improvements will increase as a result of
the operation of cartridge filtration systems. These costs are due to increase
pumping, the cost of cartridge filter replacements and increased labor
involved. Those annual increased costs are estimated to be $125,000 for the
Atlas system and $61,000 for the Hilltop system for a total annual of
$186,000. This would represent an approximate 20.8% increase in the total
O&M costs, as the existing O&M costs for the UWWD is approximately
$894,000. For a typical single family home, the estimated annual O&M cost
would increase from $232.50 to $280.90.
The total O&M costs shown above are for the average daily water demand.
Water usage less than average will result in lower payments and water usage
more than average will result in higher payments.
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W WD_loops_filtration_080312.doc
MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FOR UWWD PAGE 8
FILTRATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND
MEADOWWOOD/ROUTE 9 WATER MAIN LOOPS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER AUGUST 2012
4.2 User Costs
According to information provided by the Town Accountant, the existing debt
payment for the UWWD is approximately $127.95 per benefit unit for 2012
and the total existing number of benefit units in the UWWD is approximately
5010.29. The total first year estimated payments of $268,800 fora 20 year
bonding period and $211,500 fora 30 year bonding period will be assessed
to the 5010.29 existing benefit units for the UWWD. Dividing the first year
estimated payment of $268,800 by the estimated 5010.29 benefit units would
result in a capital cost increase of approximately $53.60 per benefit unit for a
20 year bond. Dividing the first year estimated payment of $211,500 by the
estimated 5010.29 benefit units would result in a capital cost increase of
approximately $42.20 per benefit unit fora 30 year bond. As noted in
Section 4.1, the estimated annual O&M cost for a typical home would
increase by approximately $48.40.
For all of the proposed improvements, the total first year cost increase for a
typical single family home in the UWWD would be approximately $102.00
assuming a 20 year bond and $90.60 assuming a 30 bond.
Based upon the above analysis, the total existing first year cost for a typical
single family home in the UWWD, as well as the projected first year costs
with the proposed improvements for a typical single family home in the
UWWD are as follows:
20 Year Bond Analysis
Description Capital
Cost
O&M Cost
Total Cost
Existing UWWD Costs $ 128.00 $ 232.50 $ 360.50
Cost Increase -Prop. UWWD $ 53.60 $ 48.40 $ 102.00
Total Costs -Proposed UWWD $ 181.60 $ 280.90 $ 462.50
30 Year Bond Analysis
Description Capital
Cost
O&M Cost
Total Cost
Existin UWWD Costs $ 128.00 $ 232.50 $ 360.50
Cost Increase -Prop. UWWD $ 42.20 $ 48.40 $ 90.60
Total Costs -Proposed UWWD $ 170.20 $ 280.90 $ 451.10
E:\documents\T Wappinger\a W2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\W20802.12 MPR
Loops_Filtration\mpr_U W W D_loops_fi Itration_080312.doc
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK
MA #W20802.10
MARCH 2009
REVISED MAY 2011
PREPARED BY:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
[. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 Summary 1
1.2 Recommendations ~
II. INTR ODUCTION 2
2.1 Background 2
2,2 Regulatory Requirements 2
~
2.3 Purpose and Scope 3
111. SYSTEM EVALUATION 4
3.1 Existing and Future Flows 4
3.2 Source Analysis 3
3.3 Treatment Capacity 6
3.3.1 Existing Treatment Facilities 6
3.3.2 Additional Treatment Requirements 6
3.3.3 Operation and Monitoring Requirements 7
3.4 Storage Capacity 7
3.5 Distribution System 7
[V. PRO POSED FILTRATION ALTERNATIVES $
4.1 Cartridge Filtration $
4.1.1 Atlas Well Field g
4.1.2 Hilltop Well Field 9
4.2 Microfiitration 1a
4.2.1 Atlas Well Field 11
4.2.2 Hilltop Well Field 12
4.3 Conventional Filtration 13
4.3.1 Atlas Weft Field 14
4.3.2 Hilltop Well Field 14
4.4 Comparison of Filtration Alternatives 15
V. COST EVALUATION 17
5.1 Capital Costs 17
5.2 Additional Operation and Maintenance Costs 19
5.3 Financing 20
List of Figures, Tables and Appendices:
Figure 2-'[ -Water District Map
Figure 4-1 -Atlas Preliminary Cartridge Filtration Layout
Figure 4-2 -Hilltop Preliminary Cartridge Filtration Layout
Figure 4-3 - Atlas Preliminary Microfiltration Layout
Figure 4-4 -Hilltop Preliminary Microfiltration Layout
Figure 4-5 -Atlas Preliminary Conventional Filtration (Trident) Layout
Figure 4-6 -Hilltop Preliminary Conventional Filtration (Trident) Layout
Table 3-1 -Existing and Projected Demands
Table 5-1- Atlas Water Capital Costs -Cartridge Filtration
Table 5-2- Atlas Water Capita( Costs -Microfiltration
Table 5-3- Atlas Water Capital Costs -Conventional Filtration (Trident)
Table 5-4- Hilltop Water Capital Costs -Cartridge Filtration
Table 5-5- Hilltop Water Capital Costs -Microfiltration
Table 5-6- Hilltop Water Capital Costs -Conventional Filtration (Trident)
Appendix A - Groundwater Under the Influence of Surface Water Study
Appendix B - Groundwater Under the (nfluence of Surface Water Regulations
Appendix C - Existing Water System Information
Appendix D -Cartridge Filtration Manufacturer's Information
Appendix E -Cartridge Filtration Pilot Testing Results
Appendix F -Microfiltration Manufacturer's Information
Appendix G- Conventional Filtration -Trident Package Plant Manufacturer's Information
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Summary
RAGE-1-
REVISED MAY 2011
The United Wappinger Water District (UWWD) is a Town Water District
that currently serves approximately 14,000 customers in the Town of
Wappinger. The water district boundaries and supply well locations are
shown on Figure 2-1. There are two (2) separate water treatment facilities
that supply the UWWD. The Atlas site includes a total of 6 wells, while the
Hilltop site includes a total of 4 wells. The two (2) locations have been
recently connected by a 16" transmission line between the Atlas treatment
facility and the storage tanks in the Hilltop area. Each facility includes
treatment, consisting of hypochlorite disinfection. All parcels are now
metered.
A detailed groundwater analysis far both the Atlas and Hilltop wells were
~! conducted in 2005 and 2006 by Leggette, Brashears and Graham (LBG).
The report concluded that both well fields have a moderate risk to be
under the influence of surface water. At the Atlas field, the Wappinger
Creek is the potential influence whereas at Hilltop it is the Sprout Creek.
WelEs determined to be under the influence of surface water must be
treated the same as a surface water source according to regulations. This
means that filtration of the water becomes necessary.
This report was prepared to outline various options for treatment.
Cartridge Filtration, Microfiltration (MF), and conventional filtration with
dual media filters were investigated. It should be noted that MF and
Conventional Filtration alternatives will produce wastewa#er that must be
disposed of properly. Capital and O&M costs were gathered for the three
options and used as the basis for the recommendations.
The total capital costs were developed in Section V of this report and are
summarized as follows:
Atlas Water System Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
SUBTOTAL ATLAS: $ 771,000 $ 2,647,000 $ 1,980,000
Hilltop Water System Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
SUBTOTAL HILLTOP: $ 688,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 1,491,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $ 1,459,000 $ 4,326,000 $ 3,471,000
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla W20DS1W2D602 United Wapp Watet~Filtration Feasibirrty RepoftlUlhNlfD_Atlas_Hilltop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT
PAGE - 2 -
REVISED MAY 2011
The total O&M casts were also developed in Section V of this report and
are summarized as follows:
Atlas Water S stem . Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
Power -Electric' $ 9,000 $ 37 000 $ 12,000
Backwash Dis /Chem $ - $ 79,500 $ 25,000
Filter Re lacement $ 111,000 $ 1,000 $ -
Maintenance $ 5 000 $ 15,000 $ 60,000
SUBTOTAL ATLAS: $ 125,000 $ 132,500 $ 97,000
Hilltop Water S stem Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
Power - Electrici $ - $ 15,000 $ 1 000
Backwash Dis /Chem.. $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Filter Re lacement $ 56,000 $ 1,000 $ -
Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 60,000
SUBTOTAL HILLTOP: $ 61,000 $ 56,000 $ 86,000
TOTAL 08~M COSTS: $ 186,000 $ 188,500 $ 183,000
!t should be noted that hauling costs were not included in the above O&M
numbers. ff a SPDES permit is not pursued at Atlas, or is otherwise
unattainable, then the O&M costs for the microfiltration and conventional
filtration optioris would increase by approximately $73,000 per year from
the values listed in the above table.
The use of cartridge filtration, microfiltration or conventional filtration will
result in a significant increase in both capital and O&M costs for the
UWWD. Of the three alternatives, the cartridge filtration altemative
appears to have significantly lower capital costs than the other treatment
alternatives and approximately the same O&M costs as for the other
alternatives for both the Atlas and Hilltop water systems. While the
conventional filtration alternative has slightly lower OS~M costs than for
cartridge filtration, this assumes that a SPDES permit can be obtained far
the Atlas facility. If a SPDES permit cannot be obtained at Atlas, than the
cartridge filtration alternative would provide the lowest annual O&M costs.
The cartridge filtration altemative should therefore be further pursued in
order to meet the current regulations for groundwater under the influence
of surface water.
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp Water\Fltration Feasibility Report\I,MNVD Atlas_Hi[ltop_feasrptdoc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 3 -
UNITED WAPPENGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2017
II. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
The United Wappinger Water District (UWWD) is a Town Water District
that currently serves approximately 14,000 customers in the Town of
Wappinger. The water district boundaries and supply well locations are
shown on Figure 2-1. There are two (2) separate water trea#ment facilities
that supply the UWWD. The Atlas site includes a total of 6 wells, while the
Hilltop site includes a total of 4 wells. The two (2) locations have been
recently connected by a 16" transmission line between the Atlas treatment
facility and the storage tanks in the Hilltop area. Each facility includes
treatment, consisting of hypochlorite disinfection. The distribution system
generally consists mainly of ductile iron water main, with some transite
(asbestos cement) pipe, along with hydrants, valves and services. All
parcels are now metered.
Both the Atlas and Hilltop well sites are located close to streams. Any
wells located close to surface water sources have the potential to be
under the direct influence of surface water. Any groundwater source
found to be under the direct influence of surface water is subject to
regulation under the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
A detailed groundwater analysis for bofh the Atlas and Hilltop wells were
conducted in 2005 and 2006 by Leggette, Brashears and Graham (LBG).
A copy of the report analysis appears in Appendix A of this report. The
conclusions of the March 2007 report are that both sites indicate a
potential risk of being under the direct influence of surface water and that
a number of the wells were identified as having moderate risk of being
under the influence of surface water. Based upon the findings in this
report, it appears that both the Atlas and Hilltop well sites will need to
comply with additional regulatory requirements.
2.2
Regulatory Requirements
There are a group of regulations that deal with groundwater under the
influence of surface water sources. These include the Surface Water
Treatment Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
along with the Long Term land Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. A summary of these regulatory requirements appears in
Appendix B of this report.
The Surface Water Treatment Rule, enacted in 1989, seeks to prevent
waterborne diseases caused by viruses, Legionella, and Giardia lamblia.
These disease-causing microbes are present at varying concentrations in
E~\documentsl`r Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WatarlFittra6on Feasibility ReportIUWWD_Atlas_Hilttop_feasrpE.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT
PAGE-4-
REVISED MAY 2D11
most surface waters. The rule requires that water systems filter and
disinfect water from surface water sources to reduce the occurrence of
unsafe levels of these microbes. The Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule, enacted in 1998, improves control of microbial
contaminants, particularly Cryptosporidium, in systems using surface
water, or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, that
serve 10,000 or more persons. This regulation includes specific removal
requirements for Cryptosporidium for systems that filter.
The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, enacted in
2002, extends the Interim standards listed above for systems that serve
less than 10,000 people (Not Applicable for United Wappinger Water
District), while the recently enacted Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule will supplement existing regulations by targeting additional
Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems. This rule
also contains provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water
reservoirs and to ensure that systems maintain microbial protection when
they take steps to decrease the formation of disinfection byproducts that
result from chemical water treatment.
Based upon the above regulations, it appears that the Atlas and Hilltop
water systems will need to consider at a minimum, the addition of filtration
facilities, in order to meet the currenf regulations for groundwater under
the influence of surface water.
2.3 Purpose and Scope
This report wi11 provide alternatives for additional treatment facilities at the
Atlas and Hilltop water systems, in order to comply with the provisions of
the wells being under the direct influence of surface water. This report will
evaluate a number of filtration alternatives in order to meet the additional
requirements, including budgetary costs for each alternative. In addition,
a review of the existing source; treatment, storage and distribution system
capacities will be included in this report.
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla w2D081w2D602 United Wapp WaterlFittration Feasibility ReportlUWWD_Atlas_Hilltop feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 5 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
I11 SYSTEM EVALUATION
A system evaluation has been provided to review the available capacity. and
compliance of the existing United Wappinger Water District (UWWD) with
regulatory requirements. This was performed based upon the current water
system components and operation of the water supply facilities. Existing water
system information appears in Appendix C of this report.
3.1 Existing and Future Flows
Based upon the 2007 and 2008 Monthly Operating Reports far the United
Wappinger Water System appearing in Appendix C, the average daily
demand for the water system was approximately 0.99 million gallons per
day (MGD). The maximum daily demand was also reported to be
approximately 1.70 MGD during this period. This results in a ratio of the
maximum to average daily demand of approximately 1.7.
According to the Dutchess County Department of Planning, the estimated
population for the Town of Wappinger will increase from an estimated
23,202 in 2005 to 26,996 in 2025, which represents an approximate
population increase of 16% over the next 20 years. It wiU be assumed tha#
the estimated water system demands will also increase by 16% over the
next 20 years, resulting in an estimated future average demand of 1.9 5
MGD and future maximum day demand of 1.97 MGD.
As an alternative to population projections, the future flows may be
estimated by reviewing the estimated demands from anticipated
developments within the Town. The 2000 Map, Plan and Report for the
Proposed Wappinger Improvement provides projected flows and these
have been updated based upon available information. A summary of the
projected flows appears in Table 3-1. The results in Table 3-1 project an
estimated future average demand of 1.20 MGD and future maximum day
demand of 2.04 MGD. This method assumes an estimated demand of
320 gallons per day (GPD) per future parcel, assuming that all future
connected parcels are metered and will use water savings factures.
Flow reports for the year 2009 supplied by the Operator indicate these
numbers remain consistent. The only significant addition to the UWWD
since 2009 is the Adams Fairacre Farms site with an estimated 0.025
MGD; so this flow would result in an estimated future average day
demand of 1.23 MGD and future maximum day demand of 2.08 MGD.
3.2 Source Anafysis
The existing Atlas Well Field Water Supply Application {WSA #10,309)
indicates that the total approved well field capacity is approximately 1500
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla W2006UN208D2 United Wapp Water~Filtration Feasibility ReportllJVwVD Atlas_Hlltop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 6 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
gallons per minute (GPM), with approved well capacities of 411 GPM
(Well #99-1), 402 GPM (Well #99-3), 250 GPM (Well #02-4), 300 GPM
(Well #02-5), 350 GPM (Well #02-6) and 200 GPM (Well #02-7). The
1500 GPM well field capacity value appears to have been determined by
taking the best well out of service. Currently, four of the wells are
operated to meet the demands of the water system. Operating just the
Atlas well field could generate up to 2.16 MGD, which is above both the
average and maximum day demands of the water system.
After connection of the Atlas water system, the Hilltop well fields are now
used as a backup water supply. The initial Water Supply Application
i;WSA #7005) consisted of three (3) wells with combined approved
capacities of 800 GPM. The current four (4) wells at Hilltop reportedly can
i produce 800-900 GPM under normal f{ow canditions. It should be noted
that the wells can be significantly impacted by drought conditions. tt is
noted that the combined well field production has been as low as 350
GPM during draught conditions, which was reported to occur during the
summer of 1999. For the purposes of this analysis, the Hilltop well fields
are estimated to provide approximately 350 GPM of system capacity.
In addition to the Atlas and Hilltop wells, there are two (2) additional
approved wells and a separate treatment facility referred to as the
Meadowood Well Field. These wells are approved at 150 GPM each or
for a total of 300 GPM, based upon WSA #10310. Due to the existing
system configuration and impacts to the nearby distribution system, it has
not been recommended to utilize these wells without further modifications
_ to the distribution system. Therefore, this well source will not be included
in the current evaluation, but may be considered in future studies. It
should be Hated that these wells were determined to be under the
influence of surface water and that a cartridge filtration system has been
approved and installed at Meadowood.
Recommended Standards for Water Works (Ten States Standards}
stipulates that the groundwater supply meet the maximum day demand
conditions with the best well out of service. It is estimated that the well
capacity with the best well out of service is 1850 GPM or 2.66 MGD. It is
recommended that a 10% reserve capacity be maintained in the system,
as once the excess capacity is less than 10% of the total capacity,
additional source capacity would be recommended for the water system.
This would reduce the available capacity by 0.26 MGD to 2.40 MGD. As
the estimated future maximum day demand of the system is approximately
2.08 MGD, there is an estimated 0.32 MGD in excess capacity available
for potential expansion based upon the maximum day demands.
If the Meadowood wells were included in the analysis, the well capacity
with the best well out of service would increase to 2150 GPM or 3.10
E:IdotumentslT Wappingerla W20061W20802 United Wapp watetlFiltration Feasibility ReportIUWWD Atlas_f-tilltop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 7 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
MGD. Allowing fora 10°/a reserve capacity would reduce this value to
2.78 MGD and result in an excess maximum day capacity of 0.70 MGD.
3.3 Treatment Capacity
3.3.1 Existing Treatment Facilities
Currently, the only treatment provided at the UWWD consists of
disinfection, in the form of sodium hypochlorite. The ch{orination of
the water is proportional based upon the system flawrate and the
units are sized to meet the approved well capacities.
A CT analysis was performed for the Atlas and Hilltop water
treatment facilities as part of the system improvements completed
in 2003-2004. A copy of .these results is included in Appendix C of
this report. This analysis was perfom~ted to insure that adequate
disinfection contact time was provided between the treatment
facility and the first customer connected in the distribution system.
For the Atlas water system, an 85,000 gallon clearwell at the water
treatment facility, along with an approximate 18,000 foot long 16"
transmission line between the Atlas water treatment facility and the
storage facilities for the system were conservatively reported to
provide the necessary contact time at the peak welt rates of 1500
GPM. For the Hilltop water treatment facility, an approximate 360'
long 5' diameter pressure pipe along with water distribution main
was proposed to provide disinfection contact time at Hilltop.
3.3.2 Additional Treatment Requirements
Based upon the detailed groundwater analysis for both the Atlas
and Hilltop wells appearing in Appendix A of this report, both sites
appear to have a potential risk of being under the direct influence of
surface water. The Surface Water Treatment Rule and Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule requirements would
apply for a groundwater source under the influence of surface
water. These regulations would require a fittration system that
could provide at least 2-log removal of cryptosporidium. In addition,
the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule may
require additional removal of cryptosporidium, depending upon the
levels of cryptosporidium detected in the source water. The
sampling results provided in Appendix A indicated that
cryptosporidium was not detected in any of the wells during the
quarterly monitoring performed in 2005-2006. Based upon these
results, it appears that additional log removal of cryptosporidium will
not be required and that the addition of filtration treatment will allow
the Atlas and Hilltop well sites to comply with all current treatment
E:ldocumentsl7 Wappingerla W2006\W20802 United Wapp Water\Filtratian Feasibility Report\UWWD_Atlas_Hilftop feasrpt_doa
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 8 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
regulations for a groundwater source under the influence of surface
water. Detailed information on filtration alternatives is presented in
Section IV of this report.
3.3.3 Operational and Maintenance Requirements
The addition of filtration facilities at the Atlas and Hi(Itop sites will
result in the need for additional operation and maintenance (O&M)
system requirements at each facility. This will include the need to
continuously monitor, record, and report turbidity levels at each
facility. In addition, a Grade IIA Operator will be required in order to
operate the facilities. Currently a Grade I1B Operator can operate
the facilities. There will be additional O&M requirements depending
upon the type of filtration system implemented. These specific
requirements will be further discussed in Section IV of this report.
3.4 Storage Capacity
The UVW1(D has a total of two (2) storage tanks, with reported capacities
of 1.0 and 0.6 million gallons (MG). The existing 1.0 MG tank is
scheduled to be replaced with a 1.1 MG tank in the near future, resulting
in an estimated future storage capacity of 1.7 MG. Ten States Standards
requires that one days storage (based upon an average day demand} be
provided for the water system. Since the future average demand of the
system is estimated at 1.23 MGD, there will be an estimated excess
storage capacity of 0.47 MG available.
3.5 Distribution System
In terms of the distribution system, the water distribution piping consists of
water main from 4" to 16" in diameter. In order to evaluate the impacts of
any system extensions, site specific hydrant testing will be required for
each separate extension area, since there is currently no water distribution
system model available. In general, adequate pressures have been
reported to be provided throughout the existing distribution system.
In order to consider the use of the Meadowwood wells, distribution system
modifications consisting of providing a looped water main connection for
the wells would be recommended. This would be recommended in order
to protect the existing distribution system near Meadawwood, specifically
within the Rockingham area.
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla W20081WZ0802 United Wapp Water~Fiftratiott Feasibility ReportIUWWD Attas_Hilltap_feasrptdoc
Town of Wappinger F
Item-Description
Existing System Demands
Additional Future Demands
Adams Addifion
Table 3-1
'faw Summary -United Wappinger Water Qistrict
Revised May 2011
Avg_Daily Demand lMGD) Max Daily Demand (MGD)
0.99 9.70
a.21 0.34
D.03 O.D4
Total wlPuture Sys. Demands 1.23 2.08
Source Capac"dY w110% Reserve 1.41 2.40
Excess System Capacity 0.19 0.32
i
MYERS CORNERS B ` ~ -~
WATEROISTR/CT 7 - _
TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE -
--
-
.._ ~
_
AT7.4S rl R - - -
_ -
WELLS - _
NORTHWA~/NGER - -
WATERD/STR/CT _ - - _ ! _ _ _ - .k,;3
~AABERRYHKLS _ - ~ - ~- -
WATER /MPROVEMENTAREA - -
OAKWt70° _ _ _ _ _
~
_
wATERasTR/cr - -
- - -~
I ~-
- -
i
TOWN OF LAGRANGE j
i
_ ~ J.
- - ~ - - _ - _ - a ., _ a~~ A,~ ,.o,,,.,.~., ~,,.,,.. _,..,., .........._.._.... -- - -
_ ~_ _ _ _ - _ PREPARW BYfRfUER/CXP_GYARKASSOGYA7E5
WATCNHJLL
- WATER /MPROVEMENTAREA
- ~ - - ~" AROMOREMLLS REV. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE BV
- _ _ _ _ WATERO/STR/CT
- - - ~~'tJOD1K'~^'~ MORRIS ASSOCIATES, PLLC
_ - - - WATERO/S7R/CT /~Brm~anucor~slarANrs TOWN OF WAPPINGER
- TOWN OF FISHKILL M~GEOFF73Hln[CJ "~~ ~°Id^^^"°~
v~pM1leapak. Hen Ywa 11N1 Natl~orYHen Yak []SN
PNae No. ~ aN-Ntl a 1a1E1 Eb~J[O
~Na maslan-»m ~.ISa amaso TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHE55 COUNTY, NY
DATE SCALE enae®n:JFL FILENa. WATER DISTRICT MAP
JJE W20R02 DWG 1-1
10-12-10 1"=dD00' __... m,_ opt _
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 9 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
IV. PROPOSED FILTRATION ALTERNATIVES
There are a number of technologies available to provide the required treatment removal
for cryptosporidium. The three (3) most commonly used filtration technologies for
.achieving this are: cartridge filtration, microfiltration and conventional filtration, The
technologies available for cryptosporidium treatment are further described in Appendix
B. It should be noted that there are other technologies available for treatment of
cryptosporidium, such as UV disinfection, but UV disinfection would require pre-filtration
based upon New York State Department of Health requirements (PWS-186).
4.1 Cartridge Filtration
Cartridge filtration relies on a simple physical screening process to remove
particles. Small pore size openings prevent passage of contaminants
through the filter. Typical cartridge filters are pressure filters with glass
fiber or ceramic membranes, or strings wrapped around a filter element,
housed in a pressure vessel. The pleating allows for higher surface area
for filtration. These filters are manufactured and supplied by a variety of
companies with different pore size ratings (0.3 to $0 micron} and
materials. These units are very compact and do not require much space.
Cartridge filters can be used for removal of Giardia lamblia and filtration
studies conducted by EPA to determine Cryptosporidium removal using
beads as surrogates showed that cartridge filtration with 2 micron rated
units exhibited log removals of 3.51 and 3.68.
Cartridge filters have been used successfully in water system across the
country for almost twenty (20) years. One Key to success is upfront pilot
testing of the process to ensure adequate removals. Pilot testing prior to
installation of a cartridge filter is recommended to ensure adequate
performance. Cartridge fitters are best suited for systems serving up to
3,300 people; however, cartridge filters are listed as a compliance
technology for larger system sizes.
The New York State Department of Health has previously approved the
use of cartridge filters for groundwater sources under the influence of
surface water at a number of locations, including Dutchess County. The
Meadowood well supply has an approved cartridge filtration system
installed far this water source. Manufacturers' equipment data and
technical information regarding cartridge filtration appears in Appendix D
of this report. A key consideration in the use of cartridge fitters is the
length of time between filter runs. At the end of each fitter run, the
cartridge filters will need to be replaced, so the length of each filter run
and associated annual operating cost for cartridge filter replacement may
very considerably, depending upon the water source.
E:ldocuments\T Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFltration Feasibility Report\WWVD_Atias_HilRop feasrpt_doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -10 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
4.1.1 Afilas Well Field
The 2003 building design improvements for the Atlas well site
included provisions far the future installation of cartridge filter units.
This included both piping connections and building space layout for
the installation of cartridge filter units, as shown in Appendix D.
Recommended Standards for Water Works requires the maximum
filtration rate be achievable with the best filter out of service. Based
upon the manufacturers' design rates appearing in Appendix D and
a total well production rate of 1500 GPM, either 4 filter trains of the
HUR 5x170FL or 3 filter trains of the HUR 8x170FL would be
required for the Atlas well field. Each train would consist of a 5
micron filter unit, followed by a 1 micron absolute filter unit in series.
A common header would be provided to the filter inlet and outlet
connections. The HUR 8x170FL will require a service height of
8.75' and horizontal separation of 3.6' between units, whi{e the
HUR $x170FL will require a service height of 8.25' and horizontal
separation of 3.2' between units. A preliminary layout of a
cartridge filtration system is shown in Figure 4~1.
Pilot testing of the cartridge Etter units was performed at the Atlas
water treatment facility to determine the length of each filter run by
using a small cartridge fitter system. Information on the proposed
pilot testing system along with the pilot test results appear in
Appendix E of this report. The proposed pilot testing consisted of
maintaining a relatively constant flow rate throughout the testing
period until a pressure loss of between 20-30 psi occurred across
the cartridge filter units. The testing at Atlas was conducted
between February 2 -March 3, 2011 and the results indicted that
there were no significant increase in pressure drop across the filters
during the entire length of the testing. Flow rates of 14-16 GPM
were maintained throughout the testing period. Based upon the
results of the analysis in Appendix E, it appears that a filter run time
of at least 4 weeks can be expected for a full sized system at this
site.
4.1.2 Hilltop WeII Field
The existing site plan of the Hilltop well site is shown in Appendix D
of this report. There is an approximate 14'x28' building area that is
currently not in use and would be sufficient to allow for the
instapation of cartridge filter units. It should be noted that this
building area section appears to be at the end of its service Life and
should be replaced in order to house any new facilities. Based
upon the manufacturers' design rates appearing in Appendix D and
E:ldocuments\T Wappingeria W2008\w20802 United Wapp Water\Fttration Feasib7ity ReportlUVWVD Atlas_Hilttop feasrpt.doc
F[LTRATI~N SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 11 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 201'[
the approved total well production rate of 800 GPM, either 3 filter
trains of the HUR 5x170FL or 2 filter trains of the HUR 8x170FL
would be required for the Hilltop well field. Each train would consist
of a 5 micron fitter unit, followed by a 1 micron absolute filter unit in
series. A common header would be provided to the filter inlet and
outlet connections. The HUR 8x170FL will require a service height
of 8.75' and horizontal separation of 3.6' between units, while the
HUR Sx170FL will require a service height of 8.25' and horizontal
separation of 3.2' between units. A preliminary layout of a
cartridge filtration system is shown in Figure 4-1. This will require
that the building components above the foundation are replaced.
Pilot testing of the cartridge filter units was performed at the Hilltop
water treatment facility to determine the length of each filter run by
using a small cartridge filter system. Information on the proposed
pilot testing system along with the pilot test results appear in
Appendix E of this report. The proposed pilot testing consisted of
maintaining a relatively constant flow rate throughout the testing
period until a pressure loss of between 20-30 psi occurred across
the cartridge filter units. The testing at Hilltop was conducted
between ~~=~='-~~ and the results indicted that
there were no significant increase in pressure drop across the filters
during the entire length of the testing. Flow rates of 1416 GPM
were maintained throughout the testing period. Based upon the
results of the analysis in Appendix E, it appears that a filter run time
of at least 4 weeks can be expected for a full sized system at this
site.
4.2 Microfi[tration (MF)
Microfiftration is the one of the latest technologies available for water
treatment. MF units use membranes, which may be manufactured in a
variety of materials depending an the application, to filter out contaminants
beyond what can be achieved in either cartridge or conventional filters
based on vendor and EPA data. In addition to MF, other membrane
processes include: Ultrafiltration (UF), which will remove contaminants
down to approximately 0.01 micron in size which will remove many
viruses, large proteins, colloidal particles, and others in that size range;
Nanofiltration (NF}, which removes dawn to approximately 0001 micron
and removes sugar from water, dyes, and soma larger aqueous salts; and,
Reverse Osmosis {RO), which can remove down to the smallest of
particles, including salt from water (this is the technology used in
desalination plants) and is becoming more popular in households for
under sink applications.
E:ldocumentslT Wappingerla W20081W2D802 United Wapp WaterlFiltration Feasibilrty Report\U4VWD_Atlas_Hlttop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -12 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 201"[
Other advantages of using membranes include:
Pore size can be controlled well beyond what is possible
with the other alternatives discussed in this report.
The pore size is uniform throughout the membrane surface,
allowing for better predictability a# performance.
Use of the technology provides the necessary lag removal to
meet t_T2ESWTR requirements.
Microfiltration can remove contaminants down to approximately 0.1 micron
if needed. However since Cryptosporidium is approximately 3-5 microns
in size, a 1 micron (pore size) membrane was chosen for this application,
which is the same size as utilized in cartridge filtration units. This
membrane size wip also f lter many solids that may otherwise shield
contaminants from disin#ecting agents used downstream of the unit.
Microfiltration units typically achieve greater than 6 log removal of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium based on vendor data. Manufacturer's product
information on microfiltration systems appears in Appendix F of this report.
EPA filtration studies to determine Cryptosporidium removal have been
performed and have concluded that microfiltration received 5.5 log
removal credit. This allows a user of the system to eliminate source water
testing regardless of the quality of the source water.
The operation of the unit is similar to conventional filtration. As the unit
filters, contaminants build up on the membrane requiring more pressure to
force water through. Once this pressure reaches a preset point the unit
enters a reverse filter, or backwash, step. Air is typically introduced as in
conventional filtration to aid in dislodging solids from the membrane
surface during the reverse filter stage.
Unlike conventional filtration, membrane units must also be taken offline
every 30-90 days for chemical cleaning. This is necessary to remove and
destroy bacteria that may be present on the membrane as well as
dissolved inorganic precipitates that are formed during filtration. Gleaning
is typically done with two cleaning agents, one alkaline and one acidic,
with a rinse in between and after completion. Whereas reverse filtration
can be discharged to sewer relatively safety, the chemical cleaning agents
should be sent to a neutralization system prior to being discharged to
sewer, or hauled away.
4.2.1 Atlas We[I Field
A preliminary layout of a microfiltration unit is shown in Figure 4-3.
It appears that there is not enough floor space to accommodate all
E:WocumentslT Wappinger\a w2008\W20802 United Wapp Water\Fiftrefion Feasibility Report\UVJVdD Attas_Hilttop_feasrptdoc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -13 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
the units and ancillary equipment and therefore building
modifications will become necessary. Anew building area of
approximately 1,700 sgft would be required for the microfiltration
system. The MF equipment at this will include two skid mounted
units and ancillary equipment.
The modules holding the membranes are the highest portion of the
system at 10' - 8 3/" so to fit the modules into the building a
minimum ceiling height of 11' is needed. The existing ceiling is too
low and therefore the modules will require building modifications to
install. Each MF skid at this site requires a 460V, 70A electrical
service.
To minimize the amount of backwash water to be disposed of, a
small scavenger unit could be installed onsite. This unit is a
smaller MF unit designed to process the backwash from the main
MF system and process it, sending the filtrate back to the main
system feed tank and sending the reject into waste holding to be
disposed of.
The lack of sewer infrastructure at the site creates a significant
obstacle for this technology. All reverse filter water and chemical
wastewater would need to be held and taken away by a septic
hauler to an approved wastewater treatment facility. Typical costs
for liquid hauling are $20 per 1,000 .gallons. The vendor has
estimated that the base unit will use approximately 67,000 gallons
per day of backwash water that will need to be disposed of, adding
to this option approximately $489,100 per year in additional
operating expense. The use of the scavenger unit reduces the
wastewater to 10,000 gpd which reduce the hauling costs to
$73,000 per year. Therefore the use of a scavenger unit is
recommended for this site as the ROI is less than 1 year. It should
be noted that even $73,000 per year is a high cost, and therefore
hauling does not appear to be cost effective.
Alternatively a small pump station could be placed onsite, either in
the existing building, or outside to convey the wastewater into a
nearby sewer line. A sewer plant is located on New Hackensack
Road adjacent to the subdivision where the treatment plant resides.
A force main could be 'tnstai{ed to run directly to the plant; however
the DEC is currently not allowing the facility to receive wastewater
outside of its current District and therefore this option is not
available at the current time.
Therefore to pursue this option, a State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES~ would be the most cost effective
E:ldocumenfslT Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFiltration Feasibility ReportIUWWD_Atlas_Hilttop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -14 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 201'f
solution as it would allow direct discharge into the Wappinger Creek
downstream of the well field. The DEC could provide no indication
on the level of treatment necessary, as this will likely require mare
extensive testing of the source water coupled with the MF
manufacturer data showing probable backwash concentrations.
However it was indicated that a SPDES is possible, and the
probability of the O&M cast of any pretreatment is less than
$73,000 per year is high. Therefore we recommend attempting to
obtain a SPDES permit for the site.
4.2.2 Hilltop Well Field
There is no existing structure at this site of suffrcient size to house
the treatment units; therefore a new structure would need to be built
for the microfiltration system. Anew building area of approximately
2,000 sgft would be required for the microfiltration system.
Sewer facilities are present adjacent to the site. Therefore only
sewer service connection would be required for backwash disposal.
A sewer capacity analysis would need to be performed to ensure
surcharging of the sewer lines would not occur. The result of this
analysis may affect the estimated disposal costs. The MF unit at
this site requires a 460V, 70A electrical service.
To minimize the amount of backwash water to be disposed of, a
small scavenger unit could be installed onsite_ This unit is a
smaller MF unit designed to process the backwash from the main
MF system and process it, sending the filtrate back to the main
system feed tank and sending the reject into the sewer to be
disposed of.
The vendor has estimated that the base unit will use approximately
36,000 gallons per day of backwash water that will need to be
disposed af. Vendor information reveals that backwash rates could
approach 250 gpm for two minutes, every 20 minutes. This flow
rate based on experience has a high risk of surcharging sewer lines
and/or pump stations. Therefore an equalization tank would be
recommended to minimize this risk. The use of the scavenger unit
reduces the wastewater to 5,000 gpd. The use of a scavenger unit
is however not recommended for this site as the capital and O&M
costs for an equalization tank would be less than the cost of the
unit. A 2,000 gallon equalization tank would be required to hold the
backwash water and reduce the flaw into the sewer to 25 gpm.
This flow would be a constant 24 hour flow and would be controlled
with an electrically actuated control valve.
E:ldocurnentslT Wappingerla W20081W2D802 United Wapp WaterlFltration Feasibility ReportlUVW11D Atlas Hilltop feasrptdoc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT
4.3 Conventional Filtration
PAGE-15-
REVISED MAY 2011
This technology has been in use since the beginning of modem water
treatment in the early 1900's as it continues to be effective. Conventional
filtration involves the use of sand or other fine media to physically remove
contaminants from the water. To filter out dissolved contaminants such as
iron ar manganese, conventional filters are typically preceded by oxidation
to get the contaminants from a dissolved particle to a solid particle and
then flocculation to get the small solid particles to join together to form
bigger solid particles. .
Bacteria such as cryptosporidium are large enough to be filtered out by
canventional filtration provided the media sizes are chosen accordingly.
Information provided by the vendor, as indicated in Appendix G indicates
that an adsorption clarifier filtration system alone can provide the
necessary log removal for cryptosporidium based upon the LT2SWTR
requirements. The adsorption clarifier system has been previously
approved for water systems in New York State under the influence of
surface water and is apre-engineered package treatment facility designed
with a minimal footprint and building space requirements. The preferred
adsorption clarifier system for New York consists of a total of three {3)
treatment trains, with the ability to treat the maximum well capacity with
one fitter out of service.
The adsorption clarifier process is an upflow treatment process that
combines flocculation and clarification in a single unit. This is followed by
mixed media filtration. Mixed media filtration uses a combination of filter
materials from course to fine materials, with the finer materials contributing
to the retention and filtration of cryptosporidium.
Once the pressure reaches a certain point, the filter shuts down and starts
a backwash cycle to remove the accumulated solids- This process
involves using a portion of the treated water and forcing it back through
the media in the opposite direction of nom~al filtration. A backwash fine
located above the media #akes this solids laden backwash water to a
sewer or to further treatment. Since the backwash flows in the opposite
direction, the filter media will be lifted by the water and therefore the
velocity of the water during backwash must be controlled to avoid losing
media.
Most conventional systems, including the adsorption clarifier filtration
system, now utilize compressed air during backwash to scour the media
and dislodge many solids that the water alone would not. Use of this air
scour system also reduces the amount of water used for backwash.
E:ldocumeMslT wappingeila W20081W2D802 United Wapp WaterlFiltration Feasibility Report,UWWD_ABas_Hilftop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -16
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISEQ MAY 2011
4.3.1 Atlas Well Field
For the Atlas Well Field, it is proposed to provide a Trident 1 % TR-
420A stretch unit, which is a three tank unit and can provide
adequate filtration capacity far a total well production rate of 1500
GPM, with a single filter unit out of service. The unit, which is
defined as all 3 tanks along with ancillary equipment, will be
supplied by the same manufacturer.
The filtration unit will occupy a footprint of approximately 40' L by
33' W which includes 3' of space between each unit for piping. The
tanks are 8.5' high requiring a ceiling height of at least 16.5' for
maintenance. Based upon the size and height of the filters, it
appears that a new building addition would need to be constructed
to house the system. The building will need be approximately
1,700 sgft and should aksa provide room for maintenance and
storage.
As with microfiltration, the lack of sewer infrastructure at the site
creates a significant obstacle for this technology. All backwashed
water would need to be held and taken away by a septic hauler to
an approved wastewater treatment facility. Typical costs far liquid
hauling are $20 per 1000 gallons. The vendor has estimated that
approximately 576,400 gallons per month will need to be disposed
of at a 1 week filter run, adding to this option approximately
$138,320 per year in additional operating expense.
To minimize the amount of backwash water to be disposed of, a
small scavenger unit could be installed onsite. This unit is a small
MF unit designed,to process the backwash from the Trident system
and process it, sending the filtrate back to the main system feed
tank and sending the reject into waste holding to be disposed of.
Alternatively a pump station could be placed onsite, either in the
existing building, or outside to convey the backwash water into a
nearby sewer line. A 61,000 gallon holding tank would be required
to hold the backwash water. A sewer plant is located on New
Hackensack Road adjacent to the subdivision where the treatment
plant resides. A force main could be installed to run directly to the
plant; however the DEC is currently not allowing the facility to
receive wastewater outside of its current District.
As with the MF option discussed above, to pursue this option, a
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) would be
the most cost effective solution as it wou{d allow direct discharge
into the Wappinger Creek downstream of the well field. The DEC
E:ldocumentslT Wa~pingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFittration Feasibility ReportIUWWD AtEas_Hilltop_feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER D{STRICT
PAGE-17-
REVISED MAY 2011
could provide no indicafion on the level of treatment necessary, as
this will likely require more extensive testing of the source water
coupled with. manufacturer data showing probable backwash
concentrations. However it was indicated that a SPDES is
possible, and the probability of the O&M cost of any pretreatment is
Tess than $'138,320 per year is high. Therefore we recommend
attempting to obtain a SPDES permit for the site.
4.3.2 Hilltop Well Field
For the Hilltop Well Field, it is proposed to provide a Trident '/ TR-
420A stretch unit, which can provide adequate filtration capacity far
a total well production rate of 800 GPM, with a single filter unit out
of service.
The filtration unit will occupy a footprint of approximately 32.5' by 9'.
There is currently no building on the site adequate to house this
filter unit; therefore a new building would need to be constructed.
The new building would be approximately 2,000 sgft in area.
The backwash flow rates of the
gpm for the unit specked above.
would be highly recommended to
system.
Trident system approach 2,700
Therefore an equalization tank
prevent issues in the collection
Sewer facilities are present adjacent to the site. Therefore a sewer
service connection would be required for backwash disposal. The
unit is anticipated to produce approximately 59,500 gallons per
week of backwash water at 1 week filter run. The backwash
discharge should include the use of a 30,000 gallon equalization
tank to avoid surcharging the sewer lines.
4.4 Comparison of Filtration Aitematives
The use of cartridge filtration, microfiltration ar conventional filtration has
been shown to be able to provide the necessary level of cryptosporidium
log removal for complying with the enhanced surface water treatment rule
for the Atlas and Hilltop well fields. Each filtration alternative has
advantages and disadvantages in terms of implementation.
The main advantages of cartridge filtration are the compact size of the
units and the ability to avoid the need for backwashing of the units. The
main disadvantage of cartridge filtration units are the need to replace the
cartridges when excessive fouling occurs, which is measured by the
EadocumentslT Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFiftration Feasibility ReportlUWVJ[.? Atlas_Hilltop feasrptdoc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -18 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED iVIAY 2011
pressure drop across the units. Cartridge fitter units require a very clean
water quality source in order to effectively operate without excessive
replacement of the cartridge units. For this reason, pilot testing of the
cartridge units were performed at each welt field. The results of the pilot
testing indicated that excessive fouling did not occur at either location and
fitter runs of at least 4 weeks can be anticipated prior to replacement of
the cartridge filters.
The main advantage for the use of microfiltration is the ability to provide
the maximum level of cryptosporidium removal possible, which would be
applicable to any wa#er source regardless of the level of cryptosporidium
present. This type of treatment system will not only meet current
regulations, but could also meet more stringent regulations if required in
the future. Compared with conventional filtration, microfiltration is simpler
to operate and requires fewer chemicals to operate then conventional
filtration. The main disadvantages of microfiltration are the need for
periodic backwash and the need for an occasional chemical cleaning. The
backwash process will require a discharge to a wastewater treatment
facility, while the chemical cleaning will require additional neutralization
treatment systems prior to being discharged to a wastewater treatment
facility. The microfiltration system is also more difficult to operate than a
cartridge filtration system.
A conventional filtration system is most applicable for removal of multiple
contaminants and/or treatment for a water source of varying water quality,
such as a surFace water source. Both the Atlas and f-{illtop well fields
consistently do not have any water quality issues other than surface water
influence, so the only advantage for the use of conventional filtration is
that chemical cleaning of the units is not required, as compared with
micrafiltration. The major disadvantages for conventional filtration are the
need far periodic backwash, the need for greater operational oversight of
the units and the use of a greater number of chemicals than for the other
filtration options.
A cost analysis is presented in Section V of this report and includes both a
capital cost and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost analysis for each
of these filtration alternatives.
E:ltiocumentslT Wappingerla W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFiltration Feasibility ReportIUWWD_Attas_Nilltop_feasrpt.doc
OUTLET PIPING TO GRLOR/NAT/ON ~~ _
PROPOSED 5 MICRON
CARTR/OGEFILTERS /NLETPIPING TO PUMPS '~
..L..
._..__._~ ..x .. ..
~~i _ --wmu +us rm urc ~~ ^ /R 4 -r~ 4'
7 _. i ~u ~ma~+
I
1
~ r
' i I -
~ ~
i~l
'4
w
~'p ~ ~'°@
,...
'1F .__.__........ --~--._.. ---..
1 I ~ ..~_ ____ u.u _._______
_J
PROPOSED IA4/CRON PROPOSED
CARTRIDGE F/LTERS TURBID/METER
1 ST. FLOOR
PUMP HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED BWS7ER PUMPS (2)
'll~l~~ TO G4RTR/OGEF/LTER
PROPOSED 1 M/CRON
CARTRfDGE F/LTERS
EXf.S7~t9i
Cti1/NLINti FEb'!:E
MORRIS ASSOCIATES, PLLC
/ ~ ENCrraEERa+c coruuLrams
fIDWm. ~09la,vkw nve.
iph. n<w YaA I]dDl I NWan, rlm~YmR ~3SJ.
PVSI ~sav ~mNw lsieie~°e,u
~,~ ra xo. NSA miv~.x ~~
DATE SCALE au+EUw'. JFL FILE No.
JJE W20802.10
NOTE
BASE MAP OBTA/NED FROM PROPOSED CLEARWELG AND
PUMPHOUSE PL9N VIEW, PREPAREG BYPAGGI, AZ4RON S
DEL BENEENGINEER/NG, DATED SEPT. 2003.
REQ. No. DESCRIP710N GATE ~Y
ATLAS BUILDING MODIFICATIONS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY
PRELIMINARY
CARTRIDGE FILTRATION LAYOUT
FIGURE 41
PROPOSED 1 MICRON
CARTRIDGE FILTERS
PROPOSED 5MlCRON
CARTR/OGEE/LTERS
REPLACE EY/51iNG 6(J/CD/NG,
ANO FY/STING FOUNOAT/ONAREA
I
V
J
D
TTER
I REV. No. DESCRIVTION I DATE I BV
I
"'~~'NYORRIS ASSOCIATES, PLLC
HILLTOP BUILDING MODIFICATIONS
ENGINEERING CONSl0.7ANiS
/
a ~a~<a:+N«Y~~
a,~d„,.k, Na. r„u ~7b~ I
. le~sl .e~>•,i
~ J9,
"-p
~vo.larq eze-zm
s+es
w
OWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCNESS COUNTY, NY
.roesl.,s.~yez
w .iselem
PRELIMINARY
DATE SCALE ~e=JPI. rl~P"°~ CARTRIDGE FILTRATION LAYOUT
!JE W20602.10 FlGURE 4-2
NEW WASTE NOLD/NG TANI!
U a ~" --+~" I ~'€~ '"°'~.~ [ ter P~X~rr. ~
~. _ I ~~ wu,9~m w~a ~K ~ ~ ~ ~
-' I
~ _ r-?-~
_ I
I , I F
fir' I
I
I
~~ I ~1
~5 i~...A SCAVENGER ~---~
l~~
fi
;t ~ `~R '-~~ PROPOSED
I""'°`"' BU/LO/NG ADD/T/ON
;
i 4 ~_____}; ____~
L J
HOT WATF_R
i.~~' SK/O
NEW DOOR SCAVENGER
I ~ I BREAK TANK
I
NEW /4'
OVERHEAD DOOR
O O
NOTESr
7. BASE MAP OBTA/NED FROM PROPOSED CLEARWELL ANO
PUMPNOUSEPLAN V/EW, PREPARED BYPAGGI, MARTIN & DEL
BENEENG/NEERING DATED SEPT. 2003.
2. EX15T]N6 CLEARtNELLS TO BE UT/Ll7fD.
3 EX/STING GENERATOR SNALL BEAELOGATED TO ACCOMODATE
tM1igSTE HOLO/NG TANK.
4. NORTHARROWAPPROX/MATE.
5 SCAVENGER AND BREAK TANKS ARE OPT/ONAL.
E.`LST71S
NEUTRAL/ZAT/ON
AfR TANK
COMP,
+-- ~~ J~_J RE`I. Na. DE9CRIPTtON DATE BV
+ MORRIS ASSOCIATES, ruc TLAS BUILDING MODIFICATIONS
RELAivsaet::~u - ENGINEEFING CONSUL TAMS A
£,\l::T(TJC rwia<, ~ un m ray
a;aa.~9,
~1zw~
,~
Cl,'.~/,VG'+~1.'i FENCE - f
oneM NO.IsFlSV xwo
an ixai
"'y9nz IFa. n4lsielemaea
'~
"
TOWN OF WAPPINGER OUTCHESS COUNTY, NV
1 ST. FLOOR n
°I
m PRELIMINARY
PUMP
HOUSE FLOOR PLAN DATE SCALE oES ~•~~ JFURPG
~~E FILE NO.
MICROFILTRATION LAYOU
1.1,1-Oy 1•=i0~ ~,. RUB W20B02.10 FIGURE 93
NOTES:
1. &4SE MAP OBTA/NED I77OM PROPOSEC CLEARWELL AND
POMPNOUSE PLAN V/EW, PREPARED BV PAGG/, MARTIN 8 DEC
BENS ENGINEERING, DATED SEPT. 2A~9.
7 EX/STING CLEARWELLS TO BE U77UZED FOR BACKWASH.
3 E.XlS77NG GENERATOR SHALL BE RELOCATED TOACCOMODATE
WASTE HOLD/NG TANK
4. NORTRARROWAPPROa%MATE.
S SOAC'ENGER ANG BREAK TANKS ARE OPTIONAL.
~~~
1 C,'-A4lNL/NKF-NCt ,.
PROPOSED
BU/LD/NGAOO/TION
- .~
NEW DOOR 1
TR/DENTA3 SGn VENGER
NEW 74' LrrP.J
OVERHEAD DOOR -
BLOWER ROOM
SCAVENGER
~~__-__~______.__... _..___-___.___ _~ 6REAX TANK
G.t75T,'!1!i
cxA!NL!.at rE~ac.E - MORRIS
/ ~ ~1 ~FFMO GOMS
ra.le<sj ;i~v~
1 ST. FLOOR ~~~~°",."°
PUMP HOUSE FLOOR PLAN
DATE SCALE
1-1409 1" = 10'
....a
Y.w= g ~ ,
3~~ F _'"~~14. '
~ w
wa ~ ) P B k 4 "' ii{
.... ~~ rt fm~' ! ~~`3.''
'
-_
i
~ i _ _~ -".craw rus m. o
~~w~r. F~~cn~ a ati:+~.a a^wa xr "•- 4
~o.~ mv.n. ame. __. ~
~
~_
- ~ ~
i i
i i i
_
~ r
-~~~ i i
'(Tr~PI ~
RIDENT A7
_x
i i .1 _.__________...__. _...___.__.
<::.s.~"
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE -19 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER D1STR}CT REVISED MAY 2011
V. COST EVALUATION
Cost information for the proposed Improvements is presented in this section based
upon the information developed in this report. Capital cost estimates have been
projected based upon the size and the cost of the required filtration improvements for
each of the considered alternatives. The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) estimates
are based upon the estimated additional costs to operate and maintain the filtration
facilities for each of the considered alternatives.
5.1
5.2
Capital Costs
Separate capital cost estimates have been developed for the Atlas and
Hilltop water systems. For the Atlas cost estimates, all alternatives
include a booster pump and piping connections to the proposed
equipment items. The microfiltration and conventional (Trident) treatment
alternatives for Atlas include costs for building additions and assumes
backwash holding tanks will be required (no discharge). For Hilltop, all
alternatives include building additions along with piping connections to the
proposed equipment. Due to the size of the cartridge filtration units, the
NYSDOH will require supplemental testing andlor full scale testing of a
single cartridge filter unit, which has been included in the cost estimate.
The microfiltration and conventional alternatives for Hilltop include a sewer
connection with a flow equalization tank.
The capital cost components are shown in Tables 5-~ through 5-6 and are
summarized as follows:
Atlas Water System Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
SUBTOTAL ATLAS: $ 771,000 $ 2,647,000 $ '1,980,000
Hitlto Water System Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
SUBTOTAL HILLTOP: $ 688,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 1,491,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $ 1,459,000 $ 4,326,000 $ 3,471,000
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The O&M cost components will vary depending upon which filtration
alternative is pursued. For the cartridge filtration alternative, the main cost
component will be the periodic replacement of cartridge filter units. For
the microfiltration and conventional filtration options, the main cost
components will consist of the backwash disposal and purchase of
E:\documentslT Wappingerla W20081W208~2 United Wapp WaterlFiltration Feasibility Report\U1NwD_Atlas_Hitltop feasrpt.doc
FILTRATION SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY PAGE - 20 -
UNITED WAPPINGER WATER DISTRICT REVISED MAY 2011
chemicals. All of the filtration options will require pumping facilities and
will increase electrical usage and associated costs for power. Separate
08~M cost estimates have been developed for the Atlas and Hilltop water
systems and are summarized as follows:
Atlas Water System Cartridge Microfiltration Conventional
Power -Electric $ 9,000 $ 37 000 $ 12,000
Backwash Dis /Chem $ - $ 79,500 $ 25,000
Filter Re lacement $ 111,000 $ 1,000 $ -
Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 15 000 $ 60 000
SUBTOTAL ATLAS: $ 125,000 $ 132,500 $ 97,000
Hilltop Water System Cartridge Microfittration Conventional
Power - Electrici $ - $ 15,000 $ 1,000
Backwash Dis !Chem $ - $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Filter Re lacement $ 56,000 $ 1,000 $ -
Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 15,000 $ 60,000
SUBTOTAL HILLTOP: $ 61,000 $ 56,000 $ 86,000
TOTAL O&M COSTS: $ 186,000 $ 188,500 $ 183,000
It should be noted that hauling costs were not included in the above 0&M
numbers. If a SPDES permi# is not pursued at Atlas, or is otherwise
unattainable, then the O&M costs for the micrafiltration and conventional
fltration options would increase by approximately $73,000 per year from
the values listed in the above table.
5.3 Cost Comparison of Filtration Alternatives
The use of cartridge filtration, microfiltration or conventional fltration will
result in a significant increase in bath capital and O&M costs far the
UWWD. Of the three alternatives, the cartridge filtration alternative
appears to have significantly lower capital costs than the other treatment
alternatives and approximately the same O&M costs as for the other
altematives for both the Atlas and Hilltop water systems. White the
conventional filtration alternative has slightly lower O&M costs than for
cartridge filtration, this assumes that a SPDES permit can be obtained for
the Atlas facility. If a SPDES permit cannot be obtained at Atlas, than the
cartridge filtration alternative would provide the lowest annual O&M costs.
The cartridge filtration alternative should therefore be further pursued in
order to meet the current regulations for groundwater under the influence
of surface water_
E:ldocumenfs\F Wappinger\a W20081W20802 United Wapp WaterlFiftration Feasbiti[y Report\UVVWD Atlas_Hilftop feasrpt.doc
Table 5-1
TOWN OF WAPPINGER FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -ATLAS WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS -CARTRIDGE FILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
Item
Harmsco Cartridge Filters (HUR 8X170) EA $63,000 6 $378,000
Pumps, Piping and Connections L.S. $63,000 1
1 $63,000
000
$21
Turbidimeters and Computer Monitoring L.S. $21,000
1 ,
000
$35
Harmsco Filter Cartridges (48-5 and 48-1 micron} L.S. $35,000 ,
Subtotal Construction Costs: $497,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $49,700
Total Construction Costs: $546,700
30% Legal, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $164,010
Map, Plan and Report: $10,000
SupplementaVFull Scale Filtration Testing: $50,000
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $770,710
SAY: $77'1,000
i
Table 5-2
TOWN OF WAPPINGER F[LTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -ATLAS WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS - MICROFILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
Item URftS Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
Pall APB System, 1500 gpm Capacity EA $998,000 1 $998,000
-Chemical Feed System
-Compressor
-Hot Water Tank
- Turbidimeters and Controls
- Feed Pumps/Tank
- RF System
Pall AP-3 Stavanger Unit w/Break Tank
EA $315,000 1
$315,000
Building Addition - 1,700 sgft SQFT $260 1,700 $4-42,000
Pumps, Piping and Connections L.S. $47,000 1 $47,000
000
$42
Holding Tank L.S. $42,000 1 ,
1
Subtotal Construction Costs:
$1,844,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $184,400
Total Construction Costs: $2,028,400
30% Legal, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $608,520
Map, Plan and Report $10,000
Total Estimated Capita! Casts: $2,646,920
SAY: 52,647,000
Table 5-3
TOWN OF WAPPINGER FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -ATLAS WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS - TR{DENT FILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
Item
Siemen's Trident 1.5TR420 -1,500 gpm Capacity EA $525,000 1 $525,000
-Blowers
-Turbidimeter and Controls
-Chemical Feed System
Pall AP-3 Stavanger Unit wlBreak Tank EA $315,000 1 $315,000
Pumps, Piping and Connections L.S. $53,000 1 $53,000
Building Modifications -Replacement SQFT $260 1,700 $442,OD0
Holding Tank L.S. $42,000 1 $42,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $1,377,OOD
10% Construction Contingencies: $137,700
Total Construction Costs: $1,514,700
30% Legal, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $454,410
Map, Plan and Report: $1D,000
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $1,979,110
SAY: $1,980,000
Table 5-4
TOWN OF WAPP{LAGER FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -HILLTOP WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS -CARTRIDGE FILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
Item Units Unit Cost Quanti Tota( Cost
Harmsco Cartridge Fitters (HUR 8K170) EA $63,000 4 $252,000
Piping and Connections L.S. $21,OOD 1 $21,000
Turbidimeters and Computer Monitoring L.S. $26,000 1 $26,000
Harmsco Filter Cartridges {32-5 and 32-1 micron) L.S. $23,000 1 $23,000
Building Modifications -Replacement SQFT $260 450 $117,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $439,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $43,900
Total Construction Costs: $482,900
30% Legal, Ad min., Engineering, Contingencies: $144,870
Map, Plan and Report $10,000
Supplemental/Full Scale Filtration Testing: $50,000
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $687,770
SAY: $688,000
Table 5-5
TOWN OF WAPPINGER FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -HILLTOP WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS - MICROFILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
It_ em Un'~ts Unit Cost Quan ' Total Cost
Pall AP-6 System, 800 gpm Capacity EA $578,000 1 $578,000
- Chemical Feed System
- Compressor
- Hot Water Tank
- Turbidimeters and Controls
- Feed PumpsiTank
- RF System
Building Addition -1,600 sgft
Piping and Connections
Equalization TanklSewer Connection
SQFT $260 2,000 $520,D00
L.S. $16,000 1 $16,000
L.S. $53,000 1 $53,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $1,167,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $116,700
Total Construction Costs: $1,283,700
30% Legal, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $385,110
Map, flan and Report $10,D00
Total Estimated Gapital Costs: $1,678,810
SAY: $1,679,000
Table 5-6
TOWN OF WAPPINGER FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS -HILLTOP WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS -TRIDENT FILTRATION SYSTEM
Revised May 2011, ENR = 9030
Item Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
Siemen's Trident TR420 - 800 gpm Capacity EA $420,000 1 $420,000
-B I owers
-Turbidimeter and Controls
-Chemical Feed System
Piping and Connections
Building Modifications -Replacement
Equalization Tank/Sewer Connection
LS. $42,000 1 $42,000
SQFT $260 2,000 $520,000
L.S. $53,000 1 $53,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $1,035,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $103,500
Total Gonstruction Costs: $1,138,500
30% Legal, Admin_, Engineering, Contingencies: $341,550
Map, Plan and Report $10,000
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $1,490,050
SAY: $1,491,000
UWWD -Water District Cost Estimates
March 20, 2012
Water Main Extension Loop from Meadowwood Wells to Develop. -All Angels Hill Rd.
Item Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
8" Main -All Angels Hill Road L.F. $300 1650 $495,000
8" Main -Regency Drive L.F. $200 100 $20,000
8" Main -Off Road L.F. $150 900 $135,000
County Road Crossings EA. $30,000 2 $60,000
Wet Taps EA. $5,000 2 $10,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $720,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $72,000
Total Construction Costs: $792,000
30% Legal , Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $237,600
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $1,029,600
SAY: ~ $1,030,000
Water Main Extension Loop from Route 9 to MacFarland/Carnaby
Item Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
8" Main -Route 9 L.F. $300 1200 $360,000
8" Main - MacFarland Road L.F. $200 3400 $680,000
Wet Taps EA. $5,000 2 $10,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $1,050,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $105,000
Total Construction Costs: $1,155,000
30% Lega l, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $346,500
Total Estimated Capital Costs: $1,501,500
SAY: $1,500,000
Filtration System Upgrades for Atlas and Hilltop Water Systems - 2011 Costs, ENR=9030
Item Units Unit Cost Quanti Total Cost
Atlas Water System
Harmsco Cartridge Filters (HUR 8X170) EA $63,000 6 $378,000
Pumps, Piping and Connections L.S. $63,000 1 $63,000
Turbidimeters and Computer Monitoring L.S. $21,000 1 $21,000
Harmsco Filter Cartridges (48-5/1 micron) L.S. $35,000 1 $35,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $497,000
Hilltop Water System
Harmsco Cartridge Filters (HUR 8X170) EA $63,000 4 $252,000
Piping and Connections L.S. $21,000 1 $21,000
Turbidimeters and Computer Monitoring L.S. $26,000 1 $26,000
Harmsco Filter Cartridges (32-5/1 micron) L.S. $23,000 1 $23,000
Building Modifications -Replacement SQFT $300 450 $135,000
Subtotal Construction Costs: $457,000
10% Construction Contingencies: $95,400
Total Construction Costs: $1,049,400
30% Legal, Admin., Engineering, Contingencies: $314,820
Supplemental/Full Scale Filtration Testing: $100,000
2011 Total Estimated Capital Costs: $1,464,220
2012 Total Estimated Capital Costs (ENR 9268): $1,502,812
SAY: $1,510,000
E:ldocuments\T Wappinger\a W20111W21117 NYCDEP RWBT bypass
tunnel\DEP Water Ext Costs 032012.x1s 3/20/2012
Town of Wappinger
$4,040,000
20 yr Consolidated Schedule +0.25bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+-
D9/ol/2Dlz _ _
09/01/2013 175,000.00 0.500% 93,797.00 268,797.00
09/01/2014 175,000.00 0.660% 92,922.00 267,922.00
09/01/2015 175,000.00 0.850% 91,767.00 266,767.00
09/01/2016 175,000.00 0.990% 90,279.50 265,279.50
09/01 /2017 175,000.00 1.240% 88,547.00 263,547.00
09/01 /2018 175,000.00 1.540% 86,377.00 261,377.00
09/01/2019 185,000.00 1.790% 83,682.00 268,682.00
09/01 /2020 185,000.00 2.040% 8Q,370.50 265,370.50
09/01/2021 190,000.00 2.250% 76,596 50 266,596 50
09/01 /2022 190,000.00 2.400% 72,321.50 262,321.50
09/01/2023 200,000.00 2.570% 67,761.50 267,761.50
09/01 /2024 200,000.00 2.710% 62,621.50 262,621.50
09/01/2025 210,000.00 2.820% 57,201.50 267,201.50
_09/01/2026 215,000.00_____ _ _ 2.910%
! 51,27_9.50 2
66,279.50
09/01/2027 215,000.00 3.000% __
45,023.00 ____
_
260,023.00
09/01/2028 225,000.00 3.080% 38,573.00 263,573.00
09101!2029 230,000.00 3.140% 31,643.00 261,643.00
09/01/2030 240,000.00 3.210% 24,421.00 264,421.00
09/01/2031 250,000.00 3.280% 16,7] 7.00 266,717.00
09/01/2032 255,000.00 3.340% 8,517.00 263,517.00
Total $4,040,000.00 - $1,260,418.00 $5,300,418.00
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $45,305.00
Average Life 11.214 Years
Average Coupon 2.7820726%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)
__ __ 2 7820726%
__
True Interest Cost (TIC) _ __ _
2.7443840%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes _ _ 2.7443840%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC) -----_.-.___~____ 2 7443840%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost _ 2 7820726%
Weighted Average Maturity 11 214 Years
File ~ TOWN OF WAPPINGER 2012.SF ~ 20 yr Consolidated Schedu ~ issue Summary ~ 6/19/2012 ~ 3:04 PM
Town of Wappinger
$4,040,000
30 yr Consolidated Schedule +0.25bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I
09/01/2012 _
09/01/2013 95,000.00 0.500% 116,447.50 211
447
50
09/01/2014 95,000.00 0.660% 1 15,972.50 ,
.
210
972
50
09/01/2015 95,000.00 0.850%
115,345.50 ,
.
210
345
50
09/01/2016 95,000.00 0.990% 114,538.00 ,
.
209
538
00
09/01/2017 95,000.00 1.240%
113,597.50 ,
.
208
597
50
09/01/2018 105,000.00 1.540% 112,419.50 ,
.
217
419
50
09/01/2019 105,000.00 1.790% 110;802-50 ,
.
215
802
50
09/01/2020 105,000.00 2.040% 108,923.00 ,
.
213
923
00
09/01/2021 ______ 105,000.00 2.250% - __
106,781.00 ,
.
211
781
00
09/01/2022 110,000.00 2.400% _
(04,418.50 ,
.
214
418
50
09/01/2023 110,000.00 2.570% 101,778.50 ,
.
2] 1
778
50
09/01/2024 115,000.00 2.710% 98,951.50 ,
.
213
951
50
09/01/2025 120,000.00 2.820% 95,835.00 ,
.
215
835
00
09/01/2026 120,000.00 _ _____ 2.910% 92,451.00 ,
.
212
451
00
09/01/2027 120,000.00 3.000% __ __
88,959.00 ,
.
208
959
00
09/01/2028 135,000.00 3.080% 85,359.00 ,
.
220
359
00
09/01/2029 135,000.00 3.140% 81,201.00 ,
.
216
201
00
09/01/2030 135,000.00 3210%
76,962.00 ,
.
211
962
00
09/01/2031 140,000.00
__ _ . 3.280%
_ _ 72,628.50 ,
.
212
628
50
09/01/2032
145,000.00 a
3.340 /° - ----- - - --._
68,036.50 ,
,
_
213
036
50
09/01/2033 150,000.00 3.410% 63,193.50 ,
.
213
193
50
09/01/2034 160,000.00 3.470% 58,078.50 ,
.
218
078
50
09/01/2035 160,000.00 3.520% 52,526.50 ,
.
212
526
50
09/01/2036 160,000.00 3.570%
46,894.50 ,
.
206
894
50
09/01/2037 175,000.00 3.610% 41,182.50 ,
.
216
182
50
09/01/2038 175,000.00 3.630% 34,865.00 ,
.
209
865
00
09/01/2039 185,000.00 3.640% 28,512.50 ,
.
213
512
50
09/01/2040 190,000.00 3.650% 21,778.50 ,
.
211
778
50
09/01/2041
_ _._..-- 200,000.00 3.660%
_ -_ -- 14,843.50 ,
.
214
843
50
9 01/2042 205,000.00
• 70% -- - - -
7,523.50 ,
-
_ ___ _.
212,523.50
Total $4,040,000.00 - $2,350,806.00 $6,390,806.00
Yield Statistics
Bond Yeaz Dollars
-~ ~
___._
--_--
rage
i e $71,130.00
__.
_
__ ------ - --
Average Coupon 17.606 Yeazs
___ -- 3.3049431
Net Interest Cost (I~]IC)
_ _
True Interest Cost (TIC) - _ 3.3049431
- ----
_ -- _ - -------
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.2524089%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC) - ---- -_--- 3.2524089%
_ - - _ ----
3.2524089%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost
--...--- --
- -----
e~° ted Average Maturity 3.3049431
- __. ------------..._
__ __ 17_606 Years
__-__
File ~ TOWN OF WAPPINGER 2012.SF ~ 3D yr Consolidated Schedu ~ Issue Summary ~ 6/19/2012 ~ 3:03 PM