Richardson Hill Road Water Supply System

Report

Richardson Hill RoadWater Supply System

Amphenol CorporationBendix Connector OperationsSidney, New York

August 1987

OBRIENGGERE

300423

RICHARDSON HILL ROADWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

AMPHENOL CORPORATIONBENOIX CONNECTOR OPERATIONS

SIDNEY, NEW YORK

Prepared by:

O'BRIEN § GERE ENGINEERS, INC.1304 BUCKLEY ROAD

SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13221

300424

ANPHENOL CORPORATIONBENDIX CONNECTOR OPERATIONS


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.01 General1.02 Project Status1.03 Project Activities

SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.01 General2.02 Existing Conditions

SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES

3.01 General3.02 Water Supply Alternatives3.03 Water Supply Source and Bulk Water Hauler3.04 Evaluation of Water Supply Alternatives3.05 Recommended Water Supply Alternatives

SECTION 4 - DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES '

4.01 General4.02 Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives4.03 Recommended Disinfection Alternatives

SECTION 5 - CONCLUSION, SCHEDULE AND RECOMMENDATION

5.01 Conclusion5.02 Project Schedule5.03 Recommendation

33

448911

121214

161818

TABLES

12345

Estimated Water Usage RatesAlternative No. 1Alternative No. 2Alternative No. 3Alternative No.System Costs

Gravity System CostsIndividual Hydropneumatic System CostsCombined Hydropneumatic System Costs

Below-Ground Individual Hydropneumatic

30042^

FIGURES

123

56

APPENDIX

A

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

Location PlanAlternative No. 1 - Gravity System Location PlanAlternative No. 2 - Individual Hydropneumatic System LocationPlanAlternative No. 3 - Combined Hydropneumatic System LocationPlanHydropneumatic System SchematicProject Schedule

Basis of Design

30042G

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.01 General

The Amphenol Corporation, located in Sidney, New York, is presently underUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administrative Orderto provide an EPA-approved water supply system for three residences in theimmediate area of the Richardson Hill Road Landfill site. The residences'original source of water supply was by individual spring fed groundwatersupplies. The Richardson Hill Road Landfill site has been identified bythe USEPA as an abandoned disposal site for which a Remedial Investigation/-Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is to be performed. The Richardson Hill Road Land-fill site is located in Delaware County, New York, approximately 2.5 milessouth-southwest of Sidney Center, New York.

1.02 Project Goals

O'Brien § Gere Engineers, Inc., as a subcontractor to OBG Technical Services,Inc., has been authorized to proceed with a preliminary engineering designof an EPA-approved water supply system for the three part-time residencesof the Richardson Hill Road area as shown on Figure 1. The goal of thisproject is to provide Amphenol Corporation with a conceptual design suffi-ciently detailing the water supply system to enable submittal to USEPA RegionII for approval.

1.03 Project Activities

The project work tasks are divided into the following major areas of activityand are discussed in subsequent sections of the report.

Task No. 1 - Background Review: Obtain relevant site and water supplyinformation from the three residences, such as name andtelephone number of each residence; property or tax mapping,USGS mapping, and/or recent aerial photography of the area;recent well drilling logs and soil boring information;and information on the power and water supply system servic-ing each residence.

300427

Task No. 2 - Site Inspections: Inspect each residence's existing watersupply system and obtain water usage information throughinterviewing each resident.

Task No. 3 - Evaluation of Alternatives: Define and evaluate feasiblewater supply and disinfection alternatives to meet thegoals established by the program.

Task No. 4 - Development of Recommended Alternative: Develop a recom-mended water supply system to meet the objectives and needsdefined in the previous tasks.

Task No. 5 - Report: Preparation of a report presenting a completesummary of all work tasks, the recommended water supplysystem alternative and a project schedule.

300428

SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.01 General

This section presents the data obtained during the background review taskand site inspection of each residence. Also presented is the informationobtained during an interview with one of the three residences pertainingto water usage requirements.

2.02 Existing Conditions

The three residences, as shown on Figure 1, are presently used as part-timeresidences (i.e, camps, summer homes). Upon inspection of each camp, itwas determined that two of the camps are single-family dwellings with a firstand second floor and basement. The third camp is a mobile home trailer witha concrete block foundation addition at one end and a shed-type additionat the other end.

Based on the information obtained, the camps are presently used on the weekendsduring the summer and fall months for vacationing and/or hunting. Each campis provided with a spring-fed supply located remotely from the camp and pipingconnecting the supply to the camp. Currently, Amphenol is furnishing eachcamp with bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Telephone interviews with each resident were performed to obtain water usagerequirements such as number of people at the camp at any one time; lengthof stay; time of year the camp is utilized; number of fixtures within thecamp; etc. Two of the three residents would provide no information, whileone of the residents provided minimal information. The information obtainedwas used in sizing the proposed water supply system and is discussed inSection 3.

300429

SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES

3.01 General

This section presents the evaluation of several water supply alternativesfor the three part-time residents of Richardson Hill Road identified inFigure 1. Because of the seasonal intermittant usage of the facilities bythe resident, a bulk storage-type system was the type of water supply systeminvestigated. Each of the water supply alternatives are evaluated for size,location, maintenance and drainage requirements for non-use periods and costs.The following alternatives are evaluated:

Alternative No. 1 - Gravity SystemAlternative No. 2 - Individual Hydropneumatic SystemAlternative No. 3 - Combined Hydropneumatic SystemsAlternative No. 4 - Below-Ground Individual Hydropneumatic System

This section also presents a discussion on the investigation into the avail-ability of water for the camps from a municipal water source and the avail-ability of a bulk water hauler to provide delivery services to the campson a periodic basis.

3.02 Water Supply Alternatives

Each of the alternatives evaluated consist of a bulk storage tank, piping,valving and a water supply system. The amount of storage required for eachcamp is based on per capita water consumption and the following assumptions:

1. For the single-family dwellings, a maximum of four people would be utiliz-ing the camp at any one time;

2. For the mobile home trailer, a maximum of two peonle would be utilizingthe camp at any one time; and

3. The average length of stay for the camps would be seven days.

Table 1 presents two methods used in determining the per capita water usagerate: Method A - Determination By Fixture and Method B Determination ByEstablishment.

300430

Method A involves obtaining information pertaining to the number and typeof fixtures found in each camp. With the number and type of fixtures known,a water usage rate can be assigned to each fixture. The assigned valuespresented in Method A are typical published values for fixtures in a residen-tial dwelling*. The sum of the fixtures is the per capita water consumptionfor that camp.

The second method, Method B, presented in Table 1 requires a site inspectionof each camp to determine the type of dwelling. Based on the type of dwelling,a water usage rate (per capita per day) can be assigned for that particulardwelling. As previously discussed, two of the camps are considered to besingle-family dwellings; and the third camp is a mobile home trailer. Thevalues presented in Method B are based on published water usage rates forthe type of dwelling2.

As presented in Table 1, the water usage rate as determined by Method A is56 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The water usage rate,as determinedby establishment, is 75 gpcd for each single-family dwelling and 250 gallonsper unit per day for the mobile home trailer. For the purpose of this evalua-tion, the values of 75 gpcd and 250 gallons per unit per day are used asthe water usage rates for each particular camp.

Based on the above water usage rates and the maximum number of people stayingat the camp for seven days, the maximum amount of storage required for thesingle-family dwellings is 2,100 gallons and for the mobile home traileris 1,750 gallons. For the purpose of evaluating each of the alternatives,it is assumed that the size of the storage tank required for each camp willbe 2,000 gallons.

The following presents a discussion of each of the alternatives, with a 2,000-gallon storage capacity required for each camp.

1 Tchobanoglous, George and Schroeder, Edward D.; Water Quality.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Information

Center, Technology Transfer, EPA-625/1-77-009)oOU4 o i

Alternative No. 1 - Gravity System

The gravity system alternative consists of an above-ground storage tankfor all three camps; piping to each camp; valving to allow for maintenanceon the piping system and drainage during the winter months and/or non-useperiods; modifications to each camp's existing plumbing system; an accessroad to provide the water hauler with a means of access to the storagetank; a drainage culvert located adjacent to the access road for tankdrainage; and instrumentation to allow periodic water level readingsof the tank. Based on the 2,000-gallon storage tank requirement foreach camp, a 6,000-gallon storage tank would be required for all threecamps.

In reviewing the most recent USGS maps, it is proposed to locate the6,000-gallon storage tank south of the Richardson Hill Road betweenthe two camps. The topography of the general area will provide enoughdifference in elevation to service each camp with sufficient pressure.

Figure 2 presents a preliminary location plan of the Gravity SystemAlternative. The estimated construction cost associated with this alter-native is $60,500 and is presented in Table 2.

Alternative No. 2 - Individual Hydropneumatic System

The individual hydropneumatic system alternative consists of a separatehydropneumatic system for each camp. The hydropneumatic system willconsist of a 2,000-gallon, above-ground storage tank, a booster pump;a hydropneumatic tank; piping from the storage tank to the hydropneumatictank; valving to allow for maintenance and drainage during the wintermonths and/or non-use periods; instrumentation (i.e, pressure switchesand pressure gauges) and modifications to the camps' existing plumbingand electrical systems. The exact location of the hydropneumatic systemwill be determined during design, but for the purpose of this evaluation,the 2,000-gallon storage tank is proposed to be located adjacent tothe camp to allow easy access for the bulk water hauler. The storagetank will also be located so as to provide easy access to the tank's

30043?

drain valves to allow the tank to be drained during the winter monthsand/or non-use periods.

Figure 3 presents a preliminary location plan of the Individual Hydro-pneumatic System Alternative. The booster pump, the hydropneumatictank and associated piping, valving and instrumentation is proposedto be located in the basement of the camp or in a shed adjacent to thecamp. The equipment located within the camp would be the responsibilityof the resident. The booster pump will require minimal maintenance;in which case, an operation and maintenance manual would be preparedfor each camp. The estimated construction cost associated with thisalternative is $39,400 and is presented in Table 3.

Alternative No. 3 - Combined Hydropneumatic Systems

The combined hydropneumatic systems alternative consists of a singlestorage tank with two individual hydropneumatic systems for the twocamps on the south side of the road and separate storage tank and hydro-pneumatic system for the one camp on the north side of the road. Thecamp on the north side of the road would be provided with the same typeof above-ground storage tank and hydropneumatic system as previouslypresented in Alternative No. 2. The single storage tank and two in-dividual hydropneumatic systems for the other two camps would consistof a 4,000-gallon, above-ground storage tank; two individual boosterpumps; two individual hydropneumatic tanks; separate piping from thestorage tank to the hydropneumatic tank and separate piping from thehydropneumatic tank to each camp; separate valving to allow for main-tenance and drainage during the winter months and/or non-use periods;a drainage culvert located adjacent to the existing driveway for tankdrainage; instrumentation (i.e., pressure switches and pressure gauges);and modification to each camp's existing plumbing and electrical systems.The exact location of the 4,000-gallon storage tank and the two individualhydropneumatic systems will be determined during design but for thepurpose of this evaluation, the 4,000-gallon storage tank and the twoindividual hydropneumatic systems are proposed to be located adjacentto the existing driveway to the camp.

300433

Figure 4 presents a preliminary location plan of the Combined Hydro-pneumatic Systems Alternative. The booster pumps, the hydropneumatictanks and associated piping, valving and instrumentation for the twocamps are proposed to be located within an enclosure for protectionfrom the weather. The booster pump, the hydropneumatic tank and associ-ated piping, valving and instrumentation for the one camp on the northside of the road are proposed to be located in the basement of the camp,as previously discussed in Alternative No. 2. The pumps, the hydro-pneumatic tanks, piping, valving and instrumentation would be the respons-ibility of each resident. The booster pumps will require minimal main-tenance in which case an operation and maintenance manual would be pro-vided for each camp. The estimated construction costs associated withthis alternative is $51,200 and is presented in Table 4.

Alternative No. 4 - Below-rGround Individual Hydropneumatic System

An option to each of the alternatives presented above is to locate thestorage tanks below ground in lieu of above ground. Specifically, Alter-native No. 4 considers the below-ground location of the Individual Hydro-pneumatic Systems described in Alternative No. 2. All components ofthis system would essentially be as described under Alternative No.2. The below-ground storage tank would be located so as to promotedrainage of the tank by gravity during non-use periods. Minor amountsof additional piping may be required to provide for tank drainage andto connect the storage tank to the hydropneumatic equipment. The layoutfor Alternative No. 4 would be the same as that shown in Figure 3 forAlternative No. 2. The estimated construction cost for AlternativeNo. 4 is $51,900 and is presented in Table 5.

5.05 Water Supply Source and Bulk Water Hauler

During the course of the preliminary design, a viable water supply sourceand a bulk water hauler were investigated. Two probable sources of supplyare the Village of Sidney municipal water system and the Amphenol Corporation.

300434

The Village of Sidney would agree to sell water to a bulk hauler from theVillage's water supply system at a cost of $2.78 per 1,000 gallons with aminimum charge of $34.78 per quarter. The Village also stated that a meterconnection point would have to be established for the bulk water hauler.

The other possible source of obtaining municipal water is through a connectionat the Amphenol Corporation facilities. A connection would be provided tothe facilities existing municipal water supply distribution system. In review-ing with the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) in Albany, thepossibility of having Amphenol provide water to the three camps, it was recom-mended that a review of the facilities existing municipal water supply distri-bution system be completed by the local Department of Health to confirm thatno cross-connections exists within the system. After conferring with Mr.Roger France of the local Health Department in Oneonta, he had at that timeno problem in having Amphenol supply the water from the facilities' existingmunicipal water supply distribution system. Presently, Amphenol is beingcharged as a bulk water user at a cost of 45 cents per 1,000 gallons. Thecost of providing water to the three camps on a periodic basis would be in-significant to the cost of water presently used by Amphenol.

Also investigated was the availability of bulk water haulers providing theservice of delivering water to the three camps on Richardson Hill Road ona periodic basis. A list of certified bulk and bottled water facilitiesprepared by the NYSDOH was obtained. Several of the facilities on the listwere bottled water distribution facilities and were not in the business ofhauling bulk water. Two bulk water haulers were found to agree to provideAmphenol Corporation with the service of delivering water to the three camps.Another option would be for Amphenol to obtain the necessary equipment andlicense to haul bulk water themselves.

5.04 Evaluation of Water Supply Alternatives

This section evaluates the four alternatives investigated. The alternativesand their estimated construction are as follows:

300435

Alternative No. 1 - Gravity System $60,500Alternative No. 2 - Individual Hydropneumatic System $39,400Alternative No. 3 - Combined Hydropneumatic Systems $51,200Alternative No. 4 - Below-Ground Individual Hydro-

pneumatic System $51,900

The evaluation is based on locations, maintenance requirements, and estimatedconstruction cost.

The advantage of Alternative No. 1 over Alternatives No. 2 and No. 3 is theminimal operation and maintenance requirements required on the gravity systemdue to the lack of mechanical equipment. Disadvantages of Alternative No. 1include Amphenol's responsibilities for monitoring the level of water inthe storage tank and for periodic maintenance and general upkeep of the storagetank (i.e., painting). Other disadvantages of Alternative No. 1 are thecosts associated in constructing the access road and Amphenol's responsibil-ities of maintaining proper access to the storage tank and general upkeepof the road.

Advantages of Alternative No. 2 include the accessibility of the storagetank to the bulk water hauler and the accessibility of the hydropneumaticequipment to the camp. Both the storage tank and hydropneumatic equipmentwill be so located to eliminate the need of a new access road but still provideeasy access for water deliveries and equipment maintenance by using existingroadways/driveways. Also with Alternative No. 2, locating the hydropneumaticequipment inside the camp, allows the resident easy access for operationand maintenance on the equipment. The periodic maintenance required on theequipment will be similar to the maintenance previously required on the camp'sabandoned water supply system. The resident will also be responsible formonitoring the water level in the storage tank and contacting Amphenol whenmore water is required. A disadvantage of Alternative No. 2 over AlternativeNo. 1 is the mechanical equipment associated with the alternative and theoperation and maintenance required. Amphenol's responsibilities with Alterna-tive No. 2 include the maintenance and general upkeep of the storage tank(i.e., painting) and providing each camp with a sufficient supply of water.

10 300438

A disadvantage with Alternative No. 3 is the remote location of the hydropneu-matic equipment from two of the camps. Each resident would be responsiblefor operating and maintaining its own hydropneumatic equipment. The periodicmaintenance required on the hydropneumatic equipment will be similar to themaintenance required on the camps' existing water supply system. An advantageof Alternative No. 3 is with the two hydropneumatic systems providing aslightly greater system reliability for the two camps by allowing the onesystem to back-up the other system during an equipment failure through apiping modification. The resident on the north side of Richardson Hill Roadwith the individual storage tank will be responsible for monitoring the levelof water in the tank and contacting Amphenol when more water is required.Amphenol's responsibilities with Alternative No. 3 include monitoring thelevel of water in the 4,000-gallon storage tank and periodic maintenanceand general upkeep of the hydropneumatic equipment enclosure and both the4,000- and 2,000-gallon storage tanks (i.e, painting).

The advantages of installing a storage tank below ground under AlternativeNo. 4 include protection against freezing during the colder months and protec-tion against vandalism (i.e., deer hunters). An added advantage of an under-ground storage tank is that this installation provides the residents witha water. supply system that can be used year-round. The disadvantage withan underground installation is the costs associated with excavation and in-stallation of the storage tank and the additional piping and valving required.Another disadvantage is that access for servicing/inspection of the tankis significantly more difficult.

3.05 Recommended Water Supply Alternatives

Based on the above construction costs, the advantages of Alternative No. 2over Alternatives No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4, and the seasonal, non-winter useof the camps, Alternative No. 2 with an above-ground storage tank is therecommended alternative for the proposed water supply system. With the in-dividual hydropneumatic system, the storage tanks are accessible by way ofexisting roadways/driveways and the residents can easily operate and maintainthe hydropneumatic' equipment. Figure 5 presents a schematic of a typicalindividual hydropneumatic system. Appendix A presents a basis of designof the recommended alternative.

30043711

SECTION 4 - DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES

4.01 General

This section presents the evaluation of several disinfection alternativesfor the three part-time residents of Richardson Hill Road. As previouslypresented in Section 3.03, the source of water supplied to the residentsis from a municipal supply which has already been disinfected. The purposeof the disinfection system is to provide initial bacterial kill and to inhibitthe growth of bacteria during non-use periods. Each of the alternativesare evaluated for disinfection capabilities, flexibility of operation, opera-tion and maintenance requirements and costs. The following alternativesare evaluated:

Alternative No. 1 - Ultraviolet Light DisinfectionAlternative No. 2 - ChlorinationAlternative No. 3 - OzonationAlternative No. 4 - Periodic Wasting

4.02 Evaluation of Disinfection Alternatives

As previously mentioned, the water used for the proposed water supply systemis from a municipal source and has already been disinfected via chlorination.The disinfection alternatives evaluated for each camp are intended to provideinitial bacterial kill and to prevent the growth of bacteria during thosetimes when the supply system is not used.

Alternative No. 1 - Ultraviolet Light Disinfection

Disinfection using ultraviolet light is a relatively new technologythat is currently used in a number of applications. Ultraviolet lightdisinfection consists of a reaction module with ultraviolet (UV) lamps,a flow control valve, and an intensity monitor to read UV lamp output.The supply water passes through the reactor module where disinfectionoccurs via the UV lamps in a matter of seconds. The UV lamps requireperiodic cleaning by way of a wiping mechanism provided on the reactor

30043812

module to ensure maximum disinfection. The UV system would be installedbetween the booster pump and the hydropneumatic tank. The cost of in-stalling a UV disinfection system including a flow control valve, in-tensity monitor, piping, valving and electrical wiring is approximately$3,000 per camp for a total cost of $9,000 for all three camps. Anadvantage of UV disinfection is the system's simple operationalrequirements. The UV system also eliminates the need and costs associatedwith the stocking and handling of chemicals.

Alternative No. 2 - Chlorination

Chlorination is the most common means of disinfection. The type ofChlorination system appropriate for a small residential water supplysystem would be a hypochlorite system. The hypochlorite system wouldconsist of a metering pump, piping, valving, and a drum of hypochloritesolution. The metering pump would be interlocked with the booster pumpof the hydropneumatic system so that when the booster pump is activated,the metering pump activates injecting the appropriate amount of hypo-chlorite solution into the water supply system. The cost of installinga hypochlorite system including the metering pump, a drum, piping, valv-ing, and electrical wiring is approximately $800 per camp for a totalcost of $2,400 for all three camps. The disadvantages of the hypochloritesystem is the costs associated with and the handling of hypochloritesolution and the maintenance required for the metering pump.

Alternative No. 3 - Ozonation

The use of ozonation as a disinfectant is currently used at water andwastewater treatment facilities. Ozonation disinfection is not a viablealternative for a small residential water supply system and has notbeen evaluated any further.

Alternative No. 4 - Periodic Wasting

Another alternative investigated to prevent the growth of bacteria isthrough periodic wasting. Periodic wasting consists of wasting the

13 300439

camp's supply of water after a specific length of time. Based on pastusage, it is probable that there may be a situation where residentswould not be occupying the camps for an extended length of time, orthe seven-day supply of water in the storage tank would not be used.In lieu of letting the water sit in the storage tank until there isa demand on the system or the supply is used up, the water in the storagetank would be wasted by the water hauler and a fresh supply delivered,if required. With this alternative, the maximum length of time thatwater would be allowed to be in the storage tank is seven days. Theresidents would be responsible for informing Amphenol Corporation ofthe date they plan on being at the camp and the duration of their stay.Amphenol would be responsible for coordinating those times with thebulk water hauler to allow the hauler to schedule his deliveries.

4.03 Recommended Disinfection Alternative

Disadvantages with Alternative No. 2 is with the operational and maintenancecosts associated with purchasing and handling hypochlorite solution. Alterna-tive No. 3 as previously stated was not evaluated because of ozonation notbeing a viable disinfection alternative for a small residential water supplysystem. The other two alternatives, Alternative Nos. 1 and 4, would providethe necessary disinfection required by the NYSDOH and flexibility in operationto provide each camp with good quality water and prevent the growth of bacteriaduring non-use periods.

The capital cost associated with Alternative No. 1 is substantially higherthan the costs associated with Alternative No. 4. Alternative No. 1 costsinclude the cost of purchasing and installing mechanical equipment at eachcamp. Any costs associated with Alternative No. 4 are included in the costof delivering the water to each camp. A disadvantage of Alternative No.1 over Alternative No. 4 is the periodic maintenance required on the UV system.Periodically to assure proper disinfection (kill depth), the resident willbe responsible to clean the UV lamp via the wiper mechanism provided foron the UV unit. The UV lamp will require replacement approximately everyone to two years, depending on use, at a cost of about $30 per lamp. WithAlternative No. 4 there is no mechanical equipment to operate, maintain or

14 30044C

breakdown. The only responsibility of the resident with Alternative No. 4is to inform Amphenol of the date they plan on being at the camp, the datethey plan on leaving and low water levels. This will allow Amphenol to coor-dinate with the water hauler and schedule deliveries to the camps.

Based on the above costs, the advantages of Alternative No. 4 over AlternativeNo. 1 and the minimal requirements associated with Alternative No. 4 forthe resident, Alternative No. 4 is the recommended alternative for providingthe camps with good quality water and for preventing the growth of bacteriain the water supply system.

30044!15

SECTION 5 - CONCLUSION, SCHEDULE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.01 Conclusion

Amphenol Products, Inc., is currently under USEPA Administrative Order toprovide three part-time camps in the immediate area of the Richardson HillRoad Landfill site with a permanent water supply system.

The water supply alternatives evaluated are the following:

Alternative No. 1 - Gravity SystemAlternative No. 2 - Individual Hydropneumatic SystemAlternative No. 3 - Combined Hydropneumatic SystemAlternative No. 4 - Below-Ground Individual Hydropneumatic System

Alternative No. 1 consists of a single storage tank, piping, valving, anaccess road and instrumentation. The estimated construction cost is $60,500.

Alternative No. 2 consists of individual hydropneumatic systems for eachcamp. The estimated construction cost is $39,400.

Alternative No. 3 consists of a single storage tank with two individual hydro-pneumatic systems for two of the camps and a separate storage tank and hydro-pneumatic system for the other camp. The estimated construction cost is$51,200.

Alternative No. 4 consists of individual hydropneumatic systems for eachcamp with storage tanks located below-grade. The estimated constructioncost is $51,900.

Alternative No. 2 is the recommended alternative for the proposed water supplysystem. The advantages of Alternative No. 2 is the accessibility of thestorage tank and the accessibility of the hydropneumatic equipment to theresidents.

30044216

Also investigated during the preliminary design was a viable source of watersupply and the availability of a bulk water hauler. Based on the cost ofwater, it is recommended that Amphenol be the source of supply. It is alsorecommended that Amphenol either negotiate a contract with one of the twowater haulers to provide the delivery services to the three camps or providethe service themselves.

The disinfection alternatives investigated for the water supply system includethe following:

Alternative No. 1 - Ultraviolet Light DisinfectionAlternative No. 2 - ChlorinationAlternative No. 3 - OzonationAlternative No. 4 - Periodic Wasting

Alternative No. 1 consists of a reaction module, a flow control valve andan intensity monitor. The estimated construction cost is $9,000 for allthree camps.

Alternative No. 2 consists of a metering pump, piping, valving and a drumof hypochlorite solution. The estimated construction cost is $2,400 forall three camps.

Alternative No. 3 - Ozonation was not evaluated.

Alternative No. 4 consists of periodically wasting the supply of water inthe storage tank. The qost of this alternative is included in the cost forhauling water.

Alternatives No. 4 is the recommended alternative for the disinfection systemfor each camp. The advantage of Alternative No. 4 is in the lack of mechanicalequipment associated with the alternative. With Alternative No. 4, the onlyresponsibility of the resident is in contacting Amphenol to inform them ofthe date they plan on being at the camp, the date they plan on leaving andlow water levels.

30044317

5.02 Project Schedule

Based on the recommended water supply alternative in Section 3.05 and therecommended disinfection alternative in Section 4.03, a project schedulefor the proposed water supply system has been developed and is presentedas t-igure 6. As shown in the schedule, final design and turn-key constructioncan be initiated upon regulatory approval. Design of the proposed watersupply system will be completed in approximately four weeks. The designwould consist of a set of design details sufficient to allow the proposedwater supply system to be constructed by OBG Technical Services, Inc. througha concurrent, "turn-key" arrangement. Based on conversations with manufac-turers' representatives, steel storage tanks will take approximately threeweeks for delivery, while the hydropneumatic equipment will take approximatelytwo weeks for delivery.

Construction is expected to take approximately three weeks, after which aweek of start-up services will be required to assure proper installationand operation of the water supply system. Thus, the overall, fast-trackturn-key schedule for design and construction from receipt of formal regulatoryagency approvals is five weeks.

This project schedule is contingent upon approval of the recommendedalternative. Additional time required to perform any further studies orfor regulatory approvals of any additional documentation will also extend

this schedule. Implementation of the project is also contingent upon receiptof approved access agreements with the affected residents.

5.03 Recommendations

The following is a brief summary of the recommendations for the proposedpermanent water supply system:

1. The individual hydropneumatic system, as described, be provided as thewater supply system for each camp.

2. Periodic wasting, as described, be provided as the bacterial control/-disinfection system for each camp.

30044/?18

Amphenol Corporation supplies the water to the camps through their exist-ing plant potable water supply which is from the Village of Sidney watersupply system.Amphenol Corporation negotiate a contract with a bulk water hauler toprovide the delivery services to the camps on a periodic basis, or estab-lish their Gmi delivery capacity.

It is further recommended that Amphenol Corporation approve this report andsubmit to USEPA Region II for their approval. Upon EPA approval, it is alsorecommended that Amphenol proceed with final engineering design with "turn-key"construction.

Respectfully submitted,

O'BRI^J § GERE ENGINEERS, INC." •' '

Thomas A. Jordan, P.E.Vice President

Prepared by:

David G. Van Arnam, P.E.Terrance P. Madden, P.E.Michael J. Massena

O U V *i «i19

300441

Tables

30044C

OBRIENGOEflE

TABLE 1


ESTIMATED WATER USAGE RATES

^Method A - Determination by Fixtures:

Toilet 23 gpcdKitchen sink 4 gpcdBath 20 gpcdDrinking 3 gpcdClothes/House Cleaning 6 gpcd

TOTAL 56 gpcd

2Method B - Determination by Establishment:

Single-Family Dwelling 75 gpcd

Mobile Home Trailer 250 gallons per unit/day

NOTE:

gpcd - gallons per capita per day

1 Tchobanoglous, George and Schroeder, Edward D.; Water Quality.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research InformationCenter, Technology Transfer, EPA-625/1-77-009.

300447

TABLE 2


ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - GRAVITY SYSTEM COSTS

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

1. 6,000-gallon above-ground storage tank (1)

2. Piping

3. Valving

4. Access Road with Drainage Culvert

5. Instrumentation

7. Modifications to Existing Plumbing System

Subtotal

Contingency


EstimatedCost

$ 10,500

15,000

2,000

15,000

1,000

3,000

$ 46,500

$ 14,000

$ 60,500

300448

TABLE 3


ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - INDIVIDUAL HYDROPNEUMATIC SYSTEM COSTS


1. 2,000-gallon above-ground storage tank (3)

2. Booster pump (3)

3. Hydropneumatic tank (3)

4. Piping

5. Valving

6. Instrumentation


8. Modifications to Existing Electrical System

Subtotal

Contingency


EstimatedCost

$ 18,000

1,200

1,200

3,000

900

1,500

3,000

1,500

$ 30,300

$ 9,100

$ 39,400

300449

TABLE 4


ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - COMBINED HYDROPNEUMATIC SYSTEMS


1. Above-Ground Storage Tank

a. 2,000-gallon (1)

b. 4,000-gallon (1)

2. Booster Pumps

a. Individual System

b. Combined System (2)

3. Hydropneumatic Tanks (3)

4. Piping

5. Valving

6. Instrumentation

7. Drainage Culvert

8. Enclosure



Subtotal

Contingency


EstimatedCost

$ 6,000

8,500

400

800

1,200

9,000

1,000

1,500

2,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

$ 39,400

$ 11,800

$ 51,200

30045C

TABLE 5


ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 - BELOW-GROUND INDIVIDUAL HYDROPNEUMATICSYSTEM COSTS


1. 2,000-gallon below-ground storage tank (3)

2. Booster pump (3)

3. Hydropneumatic tank (3)

4. Piping

5. Valving

6. Instrumentation



Subtotal

Contingency


EstimatedCost

$ 26,100

1,200

1,200

4,500

900

1,500

3,000

1,500

$ 39,900

$ 12,000

$ 51,900

30045

Figures

30045? .

QBRIENGGERE

FIGURE I

SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING

POND

I\

ABANDONEDRICHARDSON HILLROAD LANDFILL

MOBILE HOME TRAILER

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING

LOCATION PLAN300453

NOT TO SCALE

B CTBRIENfiGEREENGINEERS INC

FIGURE 2

I SINGLE FAMILY/ DWELLING

MOBILE HOME TRAILER

6000 GAL.STORAGE

/ IACCESSROAD

SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE NO. IGRAVITY SYSTEM 30045'?

NOT TO SCALE

G O-BRIEN&GEREENGINEERS. INC

FIGURE 3

/ SINGLE FAMILY/ DWELLING

MOBILE HOME TRAILER

SINGLE FAMILY1 DWELLING\ 'C2000 GAL.

l STORAGE TANK (TYR)I /

I I ' II i > < , ,

' ' / / ' ' /' I I '

I I I

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 8 NO. 4INDIVIDUAL HYDROPNEUMATIC SYSTEM

30045?NOT TO SCALE

S CTBRIEN&GEREENGINEERS INC

FIGURE 4

2000 GAL.STORAGE TANK

MOBILE HOME TRAILER

/ SINGLE FAMILYf DWELLING l /

DISTRIBUTIONPING (TYP.)

4000 GAL.STORAGE TANK

HYDROPNEUMATICEQUIPMENTENCLOSURE

/SINGLE FAMILI DWELLING\

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

ALTERNATIVE NO. 3COMBINED HYDROPNEUMATIC SYSTEMS

30045CNOT TO SCALE

E O-BRIENfiGEREENGINEERS INC

cFILL PORT

2,000 GALLONSTORAGE TANK

•DRAIN VALVE

RUBBER HOSECONNECTION (TYP.)-

GATE VALVE (TYP.)-

HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK

PRESSURERELIEF VALVE

COMBINATIONSTARTERx

V-PRESSURE SWITCH/ ./PRESSURE GAUGE

WATER GAUGE

TO SYSTEM

TANK DRAIN

COoo£*01

TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL HYDROPNEUMATICSYSTEM SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE

OC3)mui

Figure 6

AMPHENOL CORPORATIONBENDIX CONNECTOR OPERATIONS


PROJECT SCHEDULE

WEEKS

RegulatorySubmittal:

Regulatory Reviewand Approval

- Final Design

Order Major Equipment/Materials

- Construction

- Start-up

00OO

RegulatorySubmittal:

4

WEEKS

CO

3U3O3N3IUBD

seoipueddv

-•-*£<•'!'."

APPENDIX A

BASIS OF DESIGN

300460

APPENDIX A

BASIS OF DESIGNHYDROPNEUMATIC SYSTEM

1. Storage Tank

Type Horizontal, Above-GroundConstruction Welded Steel, 7 GaugeInterior Lining New York State Health Department-

approvedQuantity ; 3Capacity ' 2,000 gallonsSpecial Features Fill Port Vent and Drain Valve

2. Hydropneuinatic System

Hydropneumatic Tank:

Type BladderConstruction SteelQuantity 3Capacity 80 gallons each

Booster Pumps:

Type Horizontal Centrifugal, 3/4 HPQuantity 3Capacity i 15 gpm

300461

Documents

Richardson Hill Road Water Supply System