Maine Water Engineering Report Volume I by Public Affairs Info

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN Volume I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water System Assessment

The Maine Water Company Biddeford & Saco Division October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT SECTION

PAGE NO.

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................ES-1 1.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 1.2

EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER DEMAND ........................................................................................2-1 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.3

Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Historical Population, Water Production and Water-use ................................................................... 2-1 Historical Population ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Historical Water Production ................................................................................................................. 2-1 Historical Water-Use ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 Population and Water Demand Projections........................................................................................ 2-4 Lower Bound Population Projection.................................................................................................... 2-4 Upper Bound Population Projection.................................................................................................... 2-5 Water Demand Projection.................................................................................................................... 2-6 Lower Bound Water Demand Projection Method............................................................................... 2-6 Upper Bound Water Demand Projection Method............................................................................... 2-6 Future Water Demand Summary ........................................................................................................ 2-7

EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 3.6.8 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15

Source Water........................................................................................................................................ 3-2 Treatment Building ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 Intakes .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Intake Room ......................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Low Lift Pump Area.............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Chemical Feed Systems & Areas ....................................................................................................... 3-5 Aluminum Sulfate ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Sodium Aluminate ................................................................................................................................ 3-6 Lime ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Polymer................................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Chlorine................................................................................................................................................. 3-8 Fluoride................................................................................................................................................. 3-8 Ammonia............................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Hexametaphosphate............................................................................................................................ 3-9 Sedimentation Room .........................................................................................................................3-10 Filter Room .........................................................................................................................................3-10 Filter Gallery .......................................................................................................................................3-12 Clearwells ...........................................................................................................................................3-12 High Lift Pump Area...........................................................................................................................3-12 WorkShop Entrance...........................................................................................................................3-13 Abandoned Filter Building..................................................................................................................3-14 Laboratory...........................................................................................................................................3-14 SCADA Room.....................................................................................................................................3-15

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20

Lagoon................................................................................................................................................3-15 Backwash Water Tank.......................................................................................................................3-16 Controls...............................................................................................................................................3-17 Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................................3-17 Flooding Impacts ................................................................................................................................3-18

PROCESS EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.11.1 4.11.2 4.11.3 4.11.4 4.11.5 4.12 4.13

Intakes .................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Low Lift Pumping.................................................................................................................................. 4-2 Coagulation/Flocculation ..................................................................................................................... 4-2 Doses.................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Coagulant Chemical Handling and Storage ....................................................................................... 4-3 Rapid Mix.............................................................................................................................................. 4-4 Flocculation .......................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Sedimentation....................................................................................................................................... 4-5 Sludge Handling ................................................................................................................................... 4-7 Preoxidation.......................................................................................................................................... 4-8 Filter Aid................................................................................................................................................ 4-8 Flow Measurement............................................................................................................................... 4-9 Filtration ................................................................................................................................................ 4-9 Primary Disinfection ...........................................................................................................................4-11 Filtered Water Chemistry Adjustment ...............................................................................................4-12 Chlorine Gas.......................................................................................................................................4-12 Fluoride Addition ................................................................................................................................4-13 Lime Addition......................................................................................................................................4-13 Hexametaphosphate..........................................................................................................................4-15 Ammonia.............................................................................................................................................4-15 High Lift Pumping...............................................................................................................................4-16 Facility and Location Process Challenges........................................................................................4-17

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION ................................................................................................................5-1

IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS................................6-1 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.2.1 6.1.2.2 6.1.2.3 6.1.2.4 6.1.2.5 6.1.2.6 6.1.2.7 6.1.2.8 6.1.2.9 6.1.3 6.1.3.1 6.1.3.2 6.1.3.3 6.1.3.4

Immediate and Short-Term Recommendations ................................................................................. 6-1 Process Recommendations................................................................................................................. 6-2 Health & Safety Recommendations .................................................................................................... 6-4 Lighting ................................................................................................................................................. 6-4 Stairs..................................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Railings/Fall Protection ........................................................................................................................ 6-6 Hoists/Monorail..................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Noise..................................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Electrical .............................................................................................................................................6-10 Heating................................................................................................................................................6-12 Chemical Storage and Handling .......................................................................................................6-13 Code Compliance Review .................................................................................................................6-13 Structural Recommendations ............................................................................................................6-15 Building ...............................................................................................................................................6-15 Brick ...................................................................................................................................................6-17 Windows .............................................................................................................................................6-18 Roof ...................................................................................................................................................6-18

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

6.1.3.5 6.2

Miscellaneous Structural....................................................................................................................6-18 Alternative Recommendations ..........................................................................................................6-19

SUMMARY OF IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS .....7-1

EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.......................................................................................8-1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

Distribution System .............................................................................................................................. 8-1 Service Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 8-2 Water Supply Sources ......................................................................................................................... 8-2 Water Storage Facilities....................................................................................................................... 8-3 Booster Pump Stations ........................................................................................................................ 8-3 Interconnections................................................................................................................................... 8-3

WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE EVALUATION ...............................................................................9-1 9.1 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3 9.3 9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3

General ................................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Water System Demands...................................................................................................................... 9-1 Average Day Demand.......................................................................................................................... 9-1 Maximum Day Demand ....................................................................................................................... 9-1 Peak Hour Demand.............................................................................................................................. 9-1 Adequacy of Existing Water Supply Sources..................................................................................... 9-2 Adequacy of Existing Storage Facilities.............................................................................................. 9-2 Low Service System............................................................................................................................. 9-2 High Service System............................................................................................................................ 9-3 Available Storage Summary................................................................................................................ 9-4

10. HYDRAULIC MODEL VERIFICATION .................................................................................................10-1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5.1 10.5.2 10.6

General ...............................................................................................................................................10-1 Model Development ...........................................................................................................................10-1 Fire Flow and Testing ........................................................................................................................10-1 Demand Allocation .............................................................................................................................10-1 Model Verification...............................................................................................................................10-6 Steady State .......................................................................................................................................10-6 Extended Period Simulation ..............................................................................................................10-6 Water Age...........................................................................................................................................10-7

11. CRITICAL COMPONENT ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................11-1 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.3.1 11.3.2

12. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS ...........................................................12-1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

iii

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

13. IMMEDIATE & SHORT TERM TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................13-1 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.3.1 13.3.2 13.3.3

LIST OF TABLES TABLE

PAGE NO.

Table ES-1: Immediate & Short-Term Treatment System Recommendations Total Costs ............................................ 3 Table ES-2: Immediate & Short-Term Transmission and Distribution System Recommendations Total Costs ............ 5 Table 2-1: Historical Population .......................................................................................................................................2-1 Table 2-2: Historical Yearly Production ...........................................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-3: Historical Peak Week Production...................................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-4: Population Projections ....................................................................................................................................2-5 Table 3-1: Saco River Water Quality Values...................................................................................................................3-2 Table 3-2: Discharge License Requirements ................................................................................................................3-16 Table 3-3: Process Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................3-17 Table 4-1: Sedimentation Process Parameters ..............................................................................................................4-5 Table 6-1: Process Recommendations............................................................................................................................6-2 Table 6-2: Lighting Recommendations ............................................................................................................................6-4 Table 6-3: Stair Recommendations .................................................................................................................................6-5 Table 6-4: Railing/Fall Protection Recommendations.....................................................................................................6-7 Table 6-5: Hoist/Monorail Recommendations .................................................................................................................6-9 Table 6-6: Noise Recommendations..............................................................................................................................6-10 Table 6-7: Electrical Recommendations........................................................................................................................6-11 Table 6-8: Heating Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................6-13 Table 6-9: Code Compliance Recommendations .........................................................................................................6-14 Table 6-10: Building Recommendations........................................................................................................................6-15 Table 6-11: Brick Recommendations.............................................................................................................................6-18 Table 6-12: Roof Recommendations .............................................................................................................................6-18 Table 6-13: Miscellaneous Structural Recommendations ............................................................................................6-19 Table 6-14: Alternative Chemical Storage and Handling Recommendations .............................................................6-20

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-15: Alternative Sedimentation Building Recommendations............................................................................6-24 Table 7-1: Treatment Recommendations Total Costs ....................................................................................................7-1 Table 8-1: Water Main Installation Year by Material .......................................................................................................8-4 Table 8-2: Small Diameter (4-Inch and Less) Water Main Installation Year by Material ..............................................8-2 Table 10-1: Fire Flow Tests May 21, 2013 ....................................................................................................................10-3 Table 10-2: Fire Flow Tests July 2, 2013 ......................................................................................................................10-4 Table 10-3: C-Factor Tests May 21, 2013.....................................................................................................................10-5 Table 10-4: C-Factor Tests July 2, 2013 .......................................................................................................................10-5 Table 11-1: Critical Areas or Customers........................................................................................................................11-2 Table 11-2: Critical Water Mains....................................................................................................................................11-4 Table 12-1: Saco ISO Fire Flow Test Data – November 2012.....................................................................................12-5 Table 13-1: General Operation, Maintenance, and Engineering Recommendations .................................................13-5 Table 13-2: Immediate Recommendations – Water Distribution System....................................................................13-5 Table 13-3: Short-Term – Water Distribution System...................................................................................................13-5

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE

PAGE NO.

Figure 2-1: Historical Per Capita Water Use ...................................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Population Projections of Biddeford, Saco, and OOB Combined ...............................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Biddeford and Saco Water System Demand Projection..............................................................................2-8 Figure 3-1: Original Plant (left); Post 1903 Fire (right)....................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2: Plant after Construction of Sedimentation and Filter Room (left); Plant in 2013 (right) ............................3-3 Figure 3-3: Intake Room (left); Analytical Equipment (right) ..........................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-4: Mezzanine Above Low Lift Pump Area (left); Low Lift Pump #4 (right)......................................................3-5 Figure 3-5: Aluminum Sulfate Bulk Tanks (left); Feed Pumps (right) ............................................................................3-6 Figure 3-6: Sodium Aluminate Bulk Tank (left); Day Tank, Transfer Pump and Feed Pumps (right)..........................3-6 Figure 3-7: Lime Dry Feeders in Garage (left); Mix Tanks (right) ..................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-8: Polymer Portion Containers for Batch Mixing (left); Mix Tanks and Feed Pump (right)............................3-7 Figure 3-9: Chlorine Gas Cylinders on Scales (left); Gas Chlorinators (right) ..............................................................3-8 Figure 3-10: Fluoride Bulk Tanks in Containment (left); Day Tanks and Feed Pumps (right) .....................................3-9 Figure 3-11: Ammonia Cylinder Storage (left); Ammonia Cylinders Online on Scales (right)......................................3-9 Figure 3-12: Hexametaphosphate Bulk Drums (left); Day Tank and Feed Pump (right)............................................3-10 Figure 3-13: Sedimentation Basin Room.......................................................................................................................3-10

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-14: Filter Room.................................................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 3-15: Filter Gallery...............................................................................................................................................3-12 Figure 3-16: High Lift Pump Area...................................................................................................................................3-13 Figure 3-17: Employee Break Area Mezzanine Ships Ladder (left); Hot Air Furnace (right) .....................................3-14 Figure 3-18: Abandoned Filter Building .........................................................................................................................3-14 Figure 3-19: Laboratory ..................................................................................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-20: Lagoon........................................................................................................................................................3-16 Figure 3-21: Backwash Water Tank...............................................................................................................................3-17 Figure 3-22: Past Flooding of Treatment Facilities .......................................................................................................3-19 Figure 8-1: Water Main Diameter Distribution .................................................................................................................8-2 Figure 8-2: Water Main Material Distribution...................................................................................................................8-3 Figure 12-1 Transmission Mains.....................................................................................................................................12-2

APPENDICES Appendix A:

Process Flow Diagram

Appendix B:

Sample Lagoon Layout

Appendix C:

Preliminary Chemical Handling Building Figure

Appendix D:

Immediate & Short-Term Treatment System Recommendations by Priority

Appendix E:

Immediate & Short-Term Treatment System Recommendations by Location

Appendix F:

Water Distribution System Map

Appendix G:

Critical Components Map

Appendix H:

Immediate and Short-Term Distribution System Recommended Improvements Map

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Comprehensive System Facility Plan (CSFP) has been developed to enable The Maine Water Company (“Maine Water”) to make informed decisions on upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco water system. The report is formatted into two volumes. Volume I – Water System Assessment includes the demand projections, existing condition, system evaluation, and immediate and short-term priority improvements which are essential to continued reliable operation of the treatment and distribution system. Volume II – Sustainable Water System Plan includes midterm and long-term priority improvements which address the longer term viability of the existing facility and distribution system as well as evaluate the option of a new treatment facility. An evaluation of the water source and existing treatment facility, and the transmission and distribution system was conducted as part of the CSFP effort. The CSFP considers long-term water use trends, projected populations changes, pending water quality regulations, and the potential role of the Saco River in supplying the anticipated drinking water needs of the Southern Maine region. The document reviews the treatment processes, structural, health and safety and related items at the treatment facility as well as transmission and distribution system capacity, hydraulics and rehabilitation and replacement needs. The CSFP lists deficiencies and gives recommendations for a series of system improvements, which are categorized by immediate, short-term, mid-term, and long-term priority. Source of Supply – Saco River Biddeford and Saco’s water supply is the Saco River. The Saco River has had historically excellent water quality and has ample capacity for the current and projected needs of the water system. The Regional Water System Master Plan Study (2008) for the Southern Maine Regional Water Council estimates that the Saco River can supply as much as 1 billion gallons per day (safe yield) of drinking water or up to 10 times the projected demand for the entire Southern Maine region. The quality and capacity of the Saco River are more than sufficient to meet the needs of the Biddeford and Saco water system, assuming the current water quality level is maintained and there are no diversions or limitations on water withdrawals. The Saco River has been identified as one of only two viable surface water sources that could supply the entire Southern Maine region independently. The quality and capacity of the Saco River make it a highly valuable resource, not just for the Biddeford and Saco system, but for the entire region. It should be noted that utilizing the Saco River to supply substantial quantities of drinking water (more than a 2-3 million gallons per day) to areas outside the current Biddeford and Saco water system boundaries could require extensive distribution system changes and a new or extensively expanded water treatment facility. Current and Projected Water Demands Review of the preceding 30 years of water production data results in historical average day demand of 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and maximum day demand of 10.3 MGD and a peak week daily demand of 9.7 MGD for the Biddeford and Saco water system. The maximum day demand recorded during the review period was 13.1 MGD in 2001, and the maximum peak week average daily demand was 11.2 MGD in August of 2002. Analysis of historic population and water consumption trends, which form the basis for the future water demand projection, resulted in a projected 2050 average day water demand range between 4.5 MGD and 7.1 MGD with a corresponding maximum day water demand range of 8.1 MGD to 12.8 MGD and peak week daily demand of 7.7 MGD to 12.0 MGD. The projections are presented as a range of values which bound the upper and lower anticipated water demands, with the upper bound representing an extremely optimistic prediction and the lower bound representing a very conservative prediction. The range accounts for potential deviations from historical population and water-use trends which are difficult to predict over this extensive planning period. Based on this analysis, it appears the existing treatment facility has the capacity to meet demands to the year 2050; however, as described in the process evaluation sections, modifications to individual treatment processes are necessary to ensure reliability of treatment at higher flow rates.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

ES-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Treatment Plant Process Evaluation and Recommendations The objective of the process evaluation work was to identify area where there are weaknesses at the facility due to aging, failed, or inadequate infrastructure and where there are bottlenecks which may limit the facility from comfortably producing a peak-week average daily demand of 12.0 MGD. Using an average daily demand of 12.0 MGD, based around a peak-week average as opposed to maximum day was determined to be more appropriate for the Biddeford & Saco water system because of the approximately 11 million gallons of system storage which provides a significant buffer to the maximum day water demand of 12.8 MGD. A review of historical records confirms that the maximum day water demand of 12.8 MGD does not occur for multiply day periods. The sedimentation basins were identified as limiting factors to production at higher flow rates. Although the sedimentation basin appears to function fairly well at present flow rates, the basins does not meet typical design standards. At a flow rate of 12.8 MGD, the detention time is half the recommended design standard, the surface loading is almost twice the design standard and the weir overflow rate is more than ten times the recommended standard. Additionally, it was observed that the sedimentation basin water levels are run above the original design elevation. A review of hydraulics indicates an unidentified headloss issue between the outlet of the sedimentation basin and the inlet to the filters. It is recommended that this issue be studied to determine the cause of the headloss. The sludge removal system in the sedimentation basin is beyond its useful life and should be replaced. The lagoon system, which is located inside the 100-year floodplain, also appears to be undersized. The facility is permitted to discharge an average daily flow of 150,000 gallons to the Saco River. Although the backwash and filterto-waste flow rates are undetermined because of a lack of flow monitoring, it is estimated that discharge to the lagoon is greater than 260,000 gallons per day. A new three-cell lagoon system is recommended to better handle wastewater flows, in addition to implementing process improvements to reduce the quantity of water discharging to the lagoon. Process improvements to reduce wastewater flows include optimization of the backwash and filter-towaste sequences by installing flow meters, increasing the target filter-to-waste turbidity value, and automating the switch-over process. The reconfiguration of the lagoon layout would likely require that the filter backwash drainage system be converted to a pumped system. Chemical handling and storage is inadequate, and fails to meet health and safety regulations. The facility currently utilizes chlorine gas, hydrofluorosilicic acid, and aqueous ammonia, which require careful management. It is recommended that the facility convert to use of sodium hypochlorite, sodium fluoride, and ammonium sulfate which are easier to manage and have fewer safety requirements. It is further recommended that the existing chemical handling and storage areas be demolished and a new area constructed. The new area would provide separation of incompatible chemicals, improve health and safety, and provide flood protection. The new area could be part of a new building, where the second story could provide office and administrative space, a new laboratory and bathroom facilities, which would improve working conditions for facility staff and address a number of lingering space issues. Treatment Plant Structural Evaluation and Recommendations The structural components at the treatment facility were generally found to be in fair condition. Although several problem areas have been identified in this report, most of them are minor in nature considering the age of the facility. However, if not properly monitored and addressed in a timely manner, these issues could develop into more serious structural problems in the future. Recommendations include addressing the sedimentation basin building roof, assessments of other areas that appear to be close to the end of their useful life, and replacement of windows and doors, among others. Treatment Plant Health and Safety Recommendations There are many areas in the facility with conditions that do not comply with health and safety requirements. These conditions include code violations related to chemical handling and storage, inadequate lighting, steep and

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

ES-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

unprotected stairways, inadequate railing height, insufficient fall protection, lack of climate control, inadequate electrical systems, and noise levels, among others. Many of these items are categorized as immediate priority in order to bring the treatment facility into compliance with health and safety standards. Treatment Plant Costs Many of the assets in the facility are in dire need of upgrade due to age-related deterioration, obsolescence and changes in health, safety and code requirements. The Immediate Priority Recommendations detailed in the report associated with the treatment facility total $810,000 and the Short-Term Priority Recommendations total $6,310,000. Mid-Term Priority Recommendations and Long-Term Priority Recommendations are discussed in Volume II of this report, along with potential costs for a completely new facility. The cost for each immediate and short-term recommended upgrade is listed in the tables in Section 6. A breakdown of recommendations by priority is located in Appendix D, and a breakdown of recommendations by location in the treatment facility is located in Appendix E.

Table ES-1: Immediate & Short-Term Treatment System Recommendations Total Costs1 Priority

Cost

Immediate Process

$235,000

Structural

$55,000

Health & Safety

$520,000

Short-Term Process

$4,780,000

Structural

$1,420,000

Health & Safety

$100,000

Immediate and Short-Term Subtotal

$7,110,000

Treatment Plant Flooding Risks A significant concern for the long-term viability of the treatment facility is its location within the 100-year floodplain of the Saco River. Although it is reported that many of the building components are protected by berms or are otherwise resistant to flooding, notable exceptions include the original pump building that is now used for chemical handling; the intake room and corridor leading past the low lift pump room stairs; the main entrance corridor which also houses the SCADA system hub; and the courtyard area which houses the #3 underground clearwell. Many other areas could be subject to flooding because of floor drains, manholes, and other breeches through walls and floors. Even if building integrity could be maintained against floodwaters, the facility as it is presently configured could not remain in production during flood conditions since it would not be possible to discharge solids collected from the sedimentation basins or backwash discharged from the filters. In addition, access to the facility would be considerably impacted. This may result in the facility being unable to supply water for periods, which has happened during major flooding events in the past. The location of the facility within the floodplain is a serious threat to its long-term viability on the current site.

Total costs do not include alternative recommendations as described in Section 6.3 nor asbestos survey and abatement costs as described in Sections 6.1.2.9 and the Mid-Term and Long-Term recommendations in Volume II. 1

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

ES-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Alternatives to Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Volume 1 of the CSFP describes issue with the treatment facility and discussed options for mitigation of the most serious issues. Volume 2 explores the option of replacing the existing facility with a new facility and rehabilitating the facility for longer term operation through a series of capital upgrades. Costs are provided for a range of new treatment facility options and for several rehabilitation scenarios. Transmission and Distribution System The Transmission and Distribution System Analysis Report Section of the Comprehensive System Facility Plan (CSFP) has been developed to enable Maine Water to make informed decisions about upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco transmission and distribution system. The Transmission and Distribution System Analysis Report Section evaluates the transmission and distribution system (distribution system for simplicity) relative to its ability to meet current and estimated future demands in regards to service delivery, system storage and hydraulics. It also considers infrastructure degradation and consequence of performance deficiencies in the long-term prioritization of capital recommendations. The analysis was completed in two phases. The first phase included data collection and updating and verifying the existing hydraulic model. After the computer model was verified and considered representative of the existing system, the second phase of the analysis was completed which includes the Transmission and Distribution System Analysis Report Section. Existing and future demand conditions were simulated. As a result of these simulations, distribution system recommendations were prioritized for future implementation. The recommendations are broken down into three components. The first includes general operation, maintenance, engineering recommendations. The second are the prioritized recommendations for system improvements relative to the water distribution system. The final involves recommendations to be considered if an interconnection with Portland Water District is ever established to sell or purchase large amounts of water. General Operation, Maintenance, and Engineering Recommendations The CSFP included a review of key operation and maintenance programs and procedures employed by the Biddeford Saco system, including valve maintenance, meter maintenance, system flushing and leak monitoring. There are suggestions for improvement in each of these areas. Implementing efficient maintenance programs is especially important for the Biddeford & Saco system, because of its age and history of uneven maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement. An important measure of efficiency for a water system is the ratio of water sold to customers versus water produced at the treatment facility. Data collected in the first six months of 2013 indicates that non-revenue water (water produced but not sold through a customer meter) may be as high as 40 percent; 4 times the recommended level specified by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and significantly more than most New England water systems the serve a population over 10,000. The 2013 data strongly suggests the presence of numerous system leaks, inaccurate water meters, or a combination of both. Reducing this figure could increase water sales or reduce production by approximately 1.0 million gallons per day. A review of Biddeford Sacoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water meters reveals an extensive list of installed meters that are near the end of their useful lives. More than 9,000 meters out of almost 16,000 installed in the system are older than 14 years. Studies show that meter accuracy for many types of meters declines significantly after 15 years. Recommendations to address the non-revenue water issue include a system wide leak detection survey for approximately $40,000 and an expanded meter replacement program at $300,000 annually. Meter replacement should target the largest users and oldest meters first. Other general operation, maintenance, and engineer recommendations include implementing a unidirectional flushing plan and a formal hydrant and valve replacement program as is practiced in other Maine Water divisions. Additionally, it is recommended that Maine Water develop a replacement program to address the large number of The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

ES-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

older, smaller diameter (4-inch or less) water mains. It is recommended that Maine Water replace about one mile these mains per year. Finally, Maine Water should continue to utilize the hydraulic model developed as part of this study. Annual costs of the general operation, maintenance and engineer recommendations total $1,480,000. Prioritized Transmission and Distribution System Recommendations The prioritized recommendations are intended to reduce non-revenue water, eliminate insufficient storage, improve system operation, strengthen the transmission capabilities, and mitigate fire flow deficiencies. Hydraulic capacity, municipal and state project coordination, location in proximity to critical users and facilities, and break history were considered when prioritizing water main recommendations. The prioritized recommendation includes immediate, short-term, mid-term, and long-term recommendations. The immediate and short-term recommendations are discussed in Volume I, and the mid-term and long-term recommendations are discussed in Volume II of this report. The Immediate Priority Recommendations detailed in the report associated with the distribution system total $705,000 and the Short-Term Priority Recommendations total $845,000. The immediate and short-term recommendations are discussed further in Section 13 and cost for each recommendation listed in the tables in Section 13.

Table ES-2: Immediate & Short-Term Transmission and Distribution System Recommendations Total Costs Priority

Cost

Immediate

$705,000

Short-Term

$845,000 Immediate and Short-Term Subtotal

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

ES-5

$1,550,000

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Biddeford and Saco water treatment facility provides potable drinking water to residential and business customers in the communities of Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and the Pine Point area of Scarborough. In December 2012, the Biddeford and Saco Water Company was sold to Connecticut Water Company. The system is now managed by The Maine Water Company (“Maine Water”), a subsidiary of Connecticut Water Service Corporation. Maine Water has commissioned the team of Woodard & Curran, Inc. and Tata & Howard, Inc. to conduct a system-wide assessment and develop a Comprehensive System Facility Plan (CSFP). Biddeford and Saco’s water supply is the Saco River. The Saco River has had historically excellent water quality and has ample capacity for the current and projected needs of the water system. The Regional Water System Master Plan Study (2008) for the Southern Maine Regional Water Council estimates that the Saco River can supply as much as 1 billion gallons per day (safe yield) of drinking water or up to 10 times the projected demand for the entire Southern Maine region. With such excellent water quality and extremely high capacity, the Saco River has been identified as one of only two viable surface water sources that could supply the entire region if a single supply is desired. The other major source is Sebago Lake, which is currently Portland Water District’s sole supply. The capacity of Sebago Lake, which also has excellent quality, is estimated to be far lower than the Saco River at between 50 and 200 million gallons per day. The quality and capacity of the Saco River make it a highly valuable resource, not just for the Biddeford and Saco system, but for the entire region. It should be noted that utilizing the Saco River to supply substantial quantities of drinking water (more than a 2-3 million gallons per day) to areas outside the current Biddeford and Saco water system boundaries would require extensive distribution system changes and a new or extensively expanded water treatment facility. In 1973, the Maine Legislature created the Saco River Corridor Commission which regulates land use within 500 feet of the Saco River to ensure the continued excellent water quality of the Saco River. The Commission, the efforts of the Biddeford & Saco Water Company, and the work of the communities along the river have helped manage development, limit discharges and protect water quality. If current trends and protection activities continue it is anticipated that water quality should remain high in the Saco River for many years. This will allow it to remain a key recreational and water quality resource. These activities must continue to be adjusted as it is likely that population growth and urban sprawl will put pressure on the source. The original Biddeford and Saco water treatment facility was constructed in 1884 on the southern bank of the Saco River. The facility was expanded in 1937 to the current capacity of approximately 12 million gallons per day (MGD). Since that time only limited modifications to the treatment process and facility infrastructure have occurred. These additions have included process modifications, chemical changes and filter underdrain enhancements. Many of the assets in the facility are in dire need of upgrade due to age-related deterioration, obsolescence and changes in health, safety and code requirements. Despite these needs, the facility continues to produce excellent quality water that meets or exceeds applicable drinking water standards. The quality of the water is so good that the facility was recognized by the Partnership for Safe Water Program until 2006; a select designation reserved for only a handful of water facilities in the US. The Biddeford and Saco transmission and distribution system includes approximately 250 miles of water mains and approximately 15,700 services. System storage includes a 7.5 million gallon reservoir and three storage tanks of approximately 1 million gallons each. The distribution system is interconnected to the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport & Wells Water District (KKW). The Biddeford and Saco system has supplied water to KKW to assist them in meeting their peak demands in past years. There are hydraulic limitations in the distributions networks of the KKW and Biddeford & Saco that prevent one system from completely supplying the other with their total water requirements. Biddeford and Saco is not interconnected with the Portland Water District (PWD) system, but their distribution The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

1-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

networks are less than 3 miles apart. Exchanging high volumes of water between PWD and Biddeford and Saco would require several miles of new, larger diameter piping. The Biddeford and Saco system demands vary seasonally from an average of about 5 MGD in the off-peak months to 8.5 MGD and sometimes more in the peak months, during the summer. The increase in demand during the peak months is due to an influx of tourists, the presence of seasonal residents, and summer activities such as lawn watering.

1.2 PURPOSE The CSFP was developed to enable Maine Water to make informed decisions about upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco water system. This includes evaluating the ability of the facility and distribution system to continue to reliably produce and distribute water to meet projected water demands. The CSFP identifies system deficiencies and makes recommendations for a series of improvements, which are categorized by immediate, short-term, mid-term, and longterm priority. The CSFP analyzes historic population and water consumption trends to provide predictions of future water demands, evaluates the long term sustainability of the Saco River as the sole source of supply, reviews existing infrastructure and treatment conditions and provides a series of recommended improvements with planning level costs. It will provide a recommended course of action and prioritize the recommended improvements. The report is formatted into two volumes. Volume I â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water System Assessment includes the demand projections, existing condition, system evaluation, and immediate and short-term priority improvements which are essential to continued reliable operation of the treatment and distribution system. Volume II â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sustainable Water System Plan includes mid-term and long-term priority improvements which address the longer term viability of the existing facility and distribution system as well as evaluate the option of a new treatment facility.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

1-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

2. EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER DEMAND 2.1 HISTORICAL POPULATION, WATER PRODUCTION AND WATER-USE Historical population, water production and water-use data from the preceding thirty years was compiled and analyzed for the Biddeford & Saco water system. The objective of the analysis was to identify population and water consumption trends, correlate water production to these trends, and determine the influence of additional factors such as projected growth and increased focus on water conservation measures. The outcome of the analysis forms the basis for the future water demand projection methodology and assumptions.

2.1.1

Historical Population

Historical population data was compiled from US Census Data for the major service communities of the Biddeford and Saco water system, which includes Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and a small portion of Scarborough. The small portion of Scarborough served has been excluded from this analysis as inclusion of the entire population of Scarborough would skew resulting population growth projections. The three remaining communities have seen population growth over the past thirty years, with the exception a slight decline in Old Orchard Beach’s population between 2000 and 2010. Biddeford grew approximately 0.2 percent per year; Saco grew approximately 1 percent per year; and Old Orchard Beach also grew approximately 1 percent per year between 1980 and 2000 and declined approximately 0.2 percent per year between 2000 and 2010.

Table 2-1: Historical Population Average Growth per Year

US Census Data 1980

1990

2000

2010

Biddeford

19,638

20,710

20,942

21,277

0.2%

Saco

12,921

15,181

16,822

18,482

OOB

6,291

7,789

8,856

8,624

1%*

38,850

43,680

46,620

48,383

0.8%

Combined

1980 - 2010

*Note a 0.2% decline per year between 2000 and 2010.

2.1.2

Historical Water Production

Historical water production and water-use data was compiled from Maine Public Utilities Commission Annual Reports for the 1982-2011 review period and from production data provided by Maine Water. The Biddeford and Saco water facility produced 2,041 million gallons (MG) in 2012, which resulted in an average of 5.6 million gallons per day (MGD). From 1982 to 2011, the average yearly production during the review period was 2,028 MG (5.5 MGD) with a maximum yearly production of 2,295 MG (6.3 MGD). Years with a higher-than-average production correspond generally to a similar increase in “unaccounted for” water. Data collected in the first six months of 2013 suggest that non-revenue water (water produced but not sold through a customer meter) may be as high as 40%; approximately twice the figure expected for a system of this size and as much as four times greater than previously reported by the utility. Reducing this figure to industry average could either increase sales or reduce production by approximately 1.0 million gallons per day.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 2-2: Historical Yearly Production Yearly Production Total (MG)

Average Daily Demand (MGD)

2012 Production

2,041

5.6

Average over Review Period

2,028

5.5

Maximum Year over Review Period (1988)

2,295

6.3

The maximum day demand (MDD) reported each year averaged 10.33 MGD over the review period with the maximum year of 13.1 MGD reported in 2001. MDD is highly variable from year to year as it is has the potential to be related to a single day event such as a water main break or fire incident. The MDD is of interest as it is potentially the highest day demand the system can expect to see. Historically, the ratio of MDD to ADD for each year averaged 1.8 over the review period. As the MDD has the potential to be related to a variable single day event, it is prudent to also evaluate the historical peak weeks (seven highest consecutive days of the year) which is likely due to a sustained system demand as opposed to a singular event. With distribution system storage of approximately 10.8 MG, the treatment facility could potentially weather a maximum day demand, but would need to be able to produce at the maximum week average daily demand in order to maintain adequate storage reserves. Between 2001 and 2011, the total water production during each yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s peak week resulted in a maximum production of 78.4 MG in August 2002 with a corresponding average day demand of 11.2 MGD. The average of the peak weeks over this review period resulted in a 9.7 MGD average day demand. The ratio of peak week average day demand to annual ADD averaged 1.7 over the review period.

Table 2-3: Historical Peak Week Production Peak Week Month & Year

Total Production (MG)

Average Day Demand (MGD)

Ratio Peak to Annual ADD

August 2001

72.0

10.3

1.9

August 2002

78.4

11.2

2.0

July 2003

70.0

10.0

1.7

July 2004

69.3

9.9

1.6

July 2005

71.1

10.2

1.8

August 2006

62.9

9.0

1.7

July 2007

62.9

9.0

1.5

July 2008

59.3

8.5

1.4

August 2009

60.9

8.7

1.6

July 2010

69.3

9.9

1.7

July 2011

68.4

9.8

1.7

Average

67.7

9.7

1.7

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

2.1.3

Historical Water-Use

The quantity of residential, commercial and government service connections has steadily grown by approximately 1 percent each per year during the review period, while the number of industrial service connections has remained essentially unchanged. Between 1993 and 2011 metered consumption grew at an average rate of 0.4 percent per year. Residential consumption growth has remained relatively flat with an average growth rate of 0.2 percent per year.2 Commercial consumption grew at an average rate of 1 percent per year. Industrial consumption has continually declined since 2002 at an average rate of 3 percent per year. In 2011, non-revenue water accounted for 19 percent of production, 12 percent of which was “unaccounted for” water. Over the previous five years, non-revenue water averaged 14 percent of production, 7 percent of which was “unaccounted for” water. Data collected in the first six months of 2013 suggest that non-revenue water (water produced but not sold through a customer meter) may be as high as 40%; two times the figure reported in 2011. The percentage of accounted for and unaccounted for, non-revenue water should continue to be tracked carefully as increases can indicate the need for further investigation such as preforming more aggressive leak detection. The ratio of commercial, industrial, and government customer water use to residential consumption has remained approximately 50/50 over the review period. This ratio can be used as a good indicator of future commercial, industrial, and government customer water use. Accounted for non-revenue water has remained at approximately 150 MG a year during the review period and includes water use at the treatment facility, hydrant flushing and fire protection. Unaccounted for water varies from year to year due to leaks, breaks and unmetered customer use. Although future unaccounted for water use is difficult to predict, the historical average of 15 percent of residential consumption will be used to extrapolate demand into the future. The Regional Water System Master Plan Study references a household size of 2.24 persons per household for the Biddeford and Saco water system. Based on this assumption, historical residential service connections, and residential consumption, the per capita water use was estimated. The per capita water use for the Biddeford and Saco water system has declined from 113 gpd per person in 1997 to 97.5 gpd per person in 2011. This decline is likely due to water conservation measures and changes in use patterns, which are common across the country in similar utilities. It is anticipated that this decline will extend into the future, but eventually flatten. Rate increases may exacerbate this trend.

The year 1993 is used as the cut-off date for historical metered consumption since the PUC Reports indicate that there was a meter reading error in the years prior. Data indicates this error is in the range of 140 MG per year. 2

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

115 110 105 100 95 90 2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

85 1997

Gallons Per Day Per Person

Historical Per Capita Water Use

Figure 2-1: Historical Per Capita Water Use The percent of the population served by the utility can be estimated based on the housing density, number of residential service connections and population data. In 2010, approximately 64 percent of the combined population of Biddeford, Saco, and Old Orchard Beach was served by the Biddeford and Saco water system. Although the population of Scarborough has not been included in this analysis, the residential service connections are included in the analysis and have been equally spread over the remaining communities. Historically, the water system has served approximately 60 percent of the combined population of the three communities in which it operates. This percent is likely to decline over the planning period as growth within these communities will likely occur outside of the water service area.

2.2 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Population and water demands have been projected to the year 2050 using the method and assumptions developed through analysis of historical population, water production, and water-use data. The projections are presented as a range of values which bound the upper and lower anticipated population and water demands, with the upper bound representing an optimistic prediction and the lower bound representing a conservative prediction. The range accounts for potential deviations from historical population and water-use trends which are difficult to predict over this extensive planning period. The following section describes the method used to make these projections and provides graphs for comparison with historical data.

2.2.1

Lower Bound Population Projection

The lower bound population projection is based on Maine State Planning Office (MSPO) projections. In February 2013, MSPO released population projections for the years 2015-2030. The projections resulted in a declining population in Biddeford and Old Orchard Beach and a slight growth in Saco’s population as seen below. The MSPO projections are based on York County population projections and the recent historical growth of each town’s share of the York county population. The projections use linear regression analysis to estimate a constant rate of growth for each town’s share of the county population. This growth rate is extrapolated into the future, using county population projections to project the population of each town. To predict the 2050 population, the rate of change between the 2020 and 2030 was extrapolated and results in a lower bound projected 2050 population of 45,656 for Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach combined.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

2.2.2

Upper Bound Population Projection

The upper bound population projections are based on historical US Census data. A geometric projection using the growth rate from 2000 to 2010 US Census data was performed to project the upper bound 2050 population in each community. This results in an upper bound projected combined population of 57,356.

Table 2-4: Population Projections US Census Data

MSPO Projection

Lower Bound Projection

Upper Bound Projection

1980

1990

2000

2010

2030

2050

Biddeford

19,638

20,710

20,942

21,277

20,078

18,712

22,671

Saco

12,921

15,181

16,822

18,482

18,996

19,505

26,930

OOB

6,291

7,789

8,856

8,624

8,113

7,439

7,755

38,850

43,680

46,620

48,383

47,187

45,656

57,356

Combined

The following graph displays historical population data as well as upper and lower bound population projections to the year 2050.

Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach Combined Population Projections 70000 US Census Data

60000

Population

50000 MSPO Projection

40000 30000

Geometric Projection of US Census Data

20000

MSPO Extrapolated Projection

10000 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year

Figure 2-2: Population Projections of Biddeford, Saco, and OOB Combined

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

2.2.3

Water Demand Projection

The predicted 2050 average day demand ranges from a conservative 4.5 MGD to an extremely optimistic 7.1 MGD, which corresponds to a maximum day water demand range of 8.1 MGD to 12.8 MGD and a peak week daily demand range of 7.7 MGD to 12.0 MGD. All of these production levels are currently within the capacity of the water treatment facility, as discussed in subsequent sections.

2.2.4

Lower Bound Water Demand Projection Method

The lower bound water demand corresponding to the average day, maximum day, and peak week daily demand in 2050 has been projected by using the following: 

Lower bound projected population



Extrapolated decline in per capita water use



Constant percent of population served within Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach



Constant ratio of commercial/industrial/government user consumption to residential consumption



Constant volume of accounted for non-revenue water consumption



Constant ratio of “unaccounted for” water to residential consumption



Constant ratio of maximum day to average day



Constant ratio of peak week daily demand to annual average day

The lower bound population projection method has been explained above and results in a lower bound combined population of 45,656 for Biddeford, Saco, and Old Orchard Beach. Per capita water use has declined over the review period. Linear regression was used to extrapolate the decline in per capita water use to 2050 and resulted in 84.1 gpd per person. The 2010 percent of population served within Biddeford, Saco, and Old Orchard Beach at 64 percent will be held through the planning period. Although the percent served is likely to decline over the planning period as previously discussed, holding the 2010 percent served will provide a conservative result. Review of historical data shows that the ratio of water use by commercial, industrial, and government users to residential consumption has remained approximately 50/50 through the review period. The projection assumes this historical ratio will be held through the planning period. The documented accounted for non-revenue water has remained a constant 150 million gallons per year over the review period and the projection assumes this volume will remain constant over the planning period. As it is difficult to predict unaccounted for water which is largely related to variable events such as leaks and unmetered consumer use, the average ratio over the last ten years of unaccounted for water to residential water consumption of 15 percent will be held through the planning period. The maximum day demand is determined using the historical max day to average day demand ratio of 1.8. The peak week day demand is determined using the historical peak week day demand to average day demand ratio of 1.7

2.2.5

Upper Bound Water Demand Projection Method

The upper bound water demand corresponding to the average day and maximum day demand in 2050 has been projected by using the following: 

Upper bound projected population



Constant per capita water use

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013



Constant percent of population served within Biddeford, Saco and Old Orchard Beach



Constant ratio of commercial, industrial and government user consumption to residential consumption



Constant volume of accounted for non-revenue water consumption



Constant ratio of “unaccounted for” water to residential consumption



Constant ratio of maximum day to average day



Constant ratio of peak week daily demand to annual average day

The upper bound population projection method has been explained above and results in an upper bound combined population of 57,356 for Biddeford, Saco, and Old Orchard Beach. Although water use per capita is expected to decline, the upper bound demand assumes a 105.7 gpd per capita water use, which is the current use based on historical trends, will hold constant over the planning period. The percent population served, ratio of commercial/industrial/government user consumption to residential consumption, volume of accounted for non-revenue water, ratio of unaccounted for water to residential consumption, ratio of maximum to average day and ratio of peak week daily to average day demand assumptions are described in lower bound water demand projection method above.

2.3 FUTURE WATER DEMAND SUMMARY The Biddeford and Saco water system can expect the 2050 average day demand to be between 4.5 MGD and 7.1 MGD with a corresponding maximum day water demand range of 8.1 MGD to 12.8 MGD and peak week daily demand of 7.7 MGD to 12.0 MGD. These demands are within the capacity of the existing treatment facility with relatively minor modifications as discussed in subsequent sections. The upper bound calculated using the projection method described above resulted in a 2050 upper average day demand projection of 6.9 MGD. As this value is only slightly below the historical linear regression projection of 7.1 MGD, the upper bound was expanded to encompass this value as the most optimistic future water demand. In comparison, the Regional Water System Master Plan Study predicted a 2050 average day demand of 6.95 MGD and a maximum day demand of 12.78 MGD, which corresponds with the upper bound projection. This upper bound is extremely optimistic as it projects long-term continued population growth which does not account for slowing of growth or the potential population decline as predicted by the State of Maine Planning Office or for the more rapid growth anticipated to occur in areas of the community outside of the water system’s service area. Additionally, the upper bound disregards the historical decline in per capita water use, a trend which is likely to continue due to increased use of low-water fixtures and other water conservation measures. The decline in per capita water use is even more probable if water rates increase over the planning period. All of these factors are captured in the lower bound projection. The lower bound is a conservative projection that assumes a population decline as predicted by the Maine State Planning Office as well as extrapolates the historical decline in per capita water use. The actual demand is anticipated to fall between these bounds. The following graph displays historical data with an associated linear regression trend line and the upper and lower bound projection to the year 2050.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 2-3: Biddeford and Saco Water System Demand Projection

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

2-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Biddeford and Saco water system consists of a Class IV conventional filtration water treatment facility and a Class III distribution system which includes a 7.5 million gallon reservoir and three storage tanks including the Pine Point Tank, the Bradbury Tank and the Forest Street Tank with capacities of 1.0, 1.0 and 1.25 million gallons, respectively. The original facility was constructed in 1884, and in 1936, the facility was upgraded to include the present six filters and two sedimentation basins. In more recent years, there have been improvements to the flocculation system including the replacement of the original over/under flocculator baffles with two stage vertical turbine flocculators, replacement of ineffective sedimentation basin baffling with new baffles, improvement to the filtration system including replacement of filter media and flow control valves, and the replacement of the 1970 vintage Leopold Dual Lateral under drain system with a new perforated plate underdrain system equipped with air scour and filter-to-waste. Other than these upgrades, only minor modifications have been made to the treatment facility since the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. The treatment facility is located within the 100 year flood plain of the Saco River. This is a significant concern for the long-term viability of the treatment facility. It is reported that the majority of the facility has been â&#x20AC;&#x153;flood proofed.â&#x20AC;? Although it is reported that many of the building components are protected by berms or are otherwise resistant to flooding, notable exceptions include the original pump building that is now used for chemical handling; the intake room and corridor leading past the low lift pump room stairs; the main entrance corridor which also houses the SCADA system hub; and the courtyard area which houses the #3 clearwell. Many other areas could be subject to flooding because of floor drains, manholes, and other breeches through walls and floors. The reliability of the flood proofing measures is considered questionable, given the age of the facility and the type of modifications made. Even if building integrity could be maintained against floodwaters, the facility as it is presently configured could not remain in production during flood conditions since it would not be possible to discharge solids collected from the sedimentation basins or backwash discharged from the filters. In addition, access to the facility would be considerably impacted. Although the official design capacity of the original treatment facility was reportedly in the range of 5 to 6 million gallons per day (MGD), the facility has the ability to produce 12 MGD on a sustained basis without redundancy of its major unit processes. At this flow rate, a number of the unit processes are near design maximums with respect to loading rates, velocities, and head loss. In 2011, the facility produced an average of 5 million gallons per day in the off-peak months (January-May, October-December) and an average of 8 million gallons per day in the peak summer months (June-August). The maximum production day in 2011 was 10.8 million gallons. The treatment system consists of a series of treatment processes prior to distribution of finished water. A process flow diagram is provided in Appendix A. Low lift pumps draw raw water from two intakes in the Saco River. Aluminum sulfate and sodium aluminate are added as coagulants prior to the low lift pumps. The low lift pumps provide chemical mixing prior to the water being discharged to two parallel two-cell flocculation basins and then to two parallel sedimentation basins. Settled solids are withdrawn by a traveling siphon manifold and discharged to the onsite lagoon. The settled water flows by gravity to six, dual media filters. Chlorine gas for pre-oxidation and Superfloc N-300 as a non-ionic polymer filter aid are added prior to filtration. The filter backwash is also discharged to the onsite lagoon. The filters discharge by gravity to three clearwells in series. Chlorine gas is added for disinfection prior to the first clearwell. The first two clearwells provide contact time for achieving disinfection CT, and the chlorine residual is measured after the second clearwell.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid is added after the first clearwell. Lime is added for adjustment of the pH just after the point at which the chlorine residual is measured. A proprietary hexametaphosphate product, StilesChem Aquadene SK#7860, is added into the third clearwell as a corrosion inhibitor. Ammonia gas is added just prior to the high lift pumps to convert the remaining free chlorine residual to chloramines. The high lift pumps convey water to the distribution and system storage tanks, which provide system pressure.

3.1 SOURCE WATER The Saco River is the sole source of supply for the Biddeford and Saco water system. The Saco River is a Class A river with a watershed of approximately 1,700 square miles. The Saco River Corridor Act and Performance Standards regulate land use within 500 feet of the Saco River in the State of Maine. This helps to protect the high water quality. Although there are agricultural fields within the watershed, there are no known municipal discharges into the river, and the water quality is excellent. Water from the Saco River is typical of most river water and surface waters throughout Maine. The river provides soft, low alkalinity water with very little buffering capacity. When there is low flow in the Saco River and high temperatures, algae growth upriver imparts a slightly musty order to the water. The musty odor is attributable to high organic concentrations in the raw water. During a storm event, raw water quality changes within two to three hours, increasing total organic carbon levels somewhat. Precipitation will cause a decrease in the raw water pH, creating a need for chemical dosage adjustments. According to the facility operators, it takes two to three days for the raw water quality to return to normal. Although this variability presents some operational challenges, the raw water quality of the Saco River is excellent compared to other river sources. There are no known water quality issues which would preclude continued use of the Saco River as the sole source of supply. The Saco River and Sebago Lake are the two highest capacity water supplies of southern Maine. The Regional Water System Master Plan Study states that the Saco River has the largest yield and is the best opportunity to expand supply in the region. Both the Saco River and Sebago Lake have surplus supply capacity that could be used to supply the entire needs of the region. The report states that the Saco River could serve the entire southern Maine region and still have significant surplus supply. It has been estimated that the Saco River could supply as much as 10 times the total water demand for the Southern Maine region. The 2050 projected maximum daily demand of 12.8 MGD is only a small fraction of the estimated safe yield of the Saco River, which the Regional Water System Master Plan Study indicates is 1.0 billion gallons per day. The quality and capacity of the Saco River are projected to be more than sufficient to meet the needs of the system, assuming the current water quality is maintained and there are no diversions or limitations on water withdrawals.

Table 3-1: Saco River Water Quality Values Characteristic

Average Value

Typical Range

Turbidity (NTU)

3.8

<1.0 to 20

6.5

5.6 to 6.8

Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)

3.87

2.3 to 6.8

Apparent Color (CU)

<40

0 to 130

Alkalinity (mg/l)

<10

UV Absorbance (%)

30-35%

30% to 80% (after a storm)

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Characteristic

Average Value

Typical Range

Temperature (degree F)

Seasonal Range

33 to 80

3.2 TREATMENT BUILDING The existing treatment building consists of structures of various ages and conditions. The original facility was constructed in 1884. The old filter building wing was constructed in 1895 and abandoned in 1930. In 1903, a portion of the roof burned and was replaced. The current sedimentation basin wing and filter room were constructed between 1935 and 1936. The old settling basin building which was part of the original facility has been removed and the foundation was filled in around 1965.

Figure 3-1: Original Plant (left); Post 1903 Fire (right)

Figure 3-2: Plant after Construction of Sedimentation and Filter Room (left); Plant in 2013 (right) 3.3 INTAKES Raw water is withdrawn from the Saco River through two 24â&#x20AC;? diameter intakes located approximately 70 feet from the treatment building and 15 feet below the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surface. The intakes are not screened and are inspected once per year. Coarse bar screens, once present, were reported missing during a recent inspection.

3.4 INTAKE ROOM The intake room, which is adjacent to the low lift pump room, contains raw water analytical equipment and a grated influent pit which is approximately 20 feet deep.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

The raw water is analyzed by a Hach 1720D Turbidimeter and a Chemtrac UV254 Organics Monitor UVM5000. Temperature is measured by a Hach sc100 which is located in the hallway between the intake room and the corrosion control room. Two Chemtrac Streaming Current Monitors SCM 2500 are located in the intake room and are used to monitor the coagulated water from the discharge side of the low lift pumps.

Figure 3-3: Intake Room (left); Analytical Equipment (right) 3.5 LOW LIFT PUMP AREA The low lift pump area is adjacent to the intake room and the sole access is provided by a set of stairs from the mezzanine above. The area contains low lift pumps #4 and #5. Each pump is connected to a single intake and the pumps are alternately operated to draw water from the intakes and discharge to the sedimentation basins. It has been noted that on occasion, the low lift pumps clog due to debris in the raw water. Sodium aluminate and aluminum sulfate are added to the raw water as coagulants prior to the pumps. As the chemicals pass through the pump impellors, the turbulence created by the impellors acts to disperse the coagulants. Although this is not a rapid mix in the typical sense, the mixing provided by the pump impellors has proven reasonably effective. Two recently installed Chemtrac Streaming Current Monitors SCM 2500, which are located in the intake room, sample coagulated water from the discharge of the low lift pumps. These devices are used to monitor the zeta potential, or net particle charge, of the chemically treated water, and operators try to maintain a net zero charge by manually varying the coagulation chemical dosage appropriately. A Sentrol SPD 2000 Streaming Potential Detector located in a hallway between the corrosion control room and the intake room and a Milton Roy Streaming Current Detector SC4200 located within the low lift pump area were replaced by the Chemtracs and are in the process of being installed on the suction side of the low lift pumps prior to chemical addition to monitor raw water zeta potential. Monitoring the streaming current detectors has proven very effective for making timely adjustments in chemical addition. Pump #4 is a newer vertical Flowserve pump installed in 2003 with a Toshiba H-3 variable frequency drive, which is located above on the adjacent mezzanine. Pump #4 is rated for 10,900 gpm at 55 feet of total dynamic head. Pump #5 is a 1955 vintage Warren pump with a 21Âźâ&#x20AC;? impellor and Toshiba H-7 variable frequency drive, which is located on the mezzanine adjacent to the high lift pump area. Pump #5 is rated for 12,000 gpm at 58 feet of total head. Both pumps are run by 200 hp, 3 phase, 460 volts, 60 Hz, 710 RPM motors. Pump #5 motor was rewound in 1997.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-4: Mezzanine Above Low Lift Pump Area (left); Low Lift Pump #4 (right) 3.6 CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS & AREAS The following eight chemicals are currently applied to treat water throughout the treatment facility.

3.6.1



Aluminum Sulfate



Sodium Aluminate



Lime



Polymer (filter aid)



Chlorine



Fluoride



Ammonia



Hexametaphosphate

Aluminum Sulfate

Aluminum sulfate is used as a coagulant to aid in sedimentation. The chemical is stored in two rubber lined concrete bulk tanks in a room which is located adjacent to the lime storage area (garage). Chemical deliveries are transferred to the bulk tanks via a chemical fill line which is accessed from the exterior of the facility. Chemical is added to the suction of the low lift pumps by one of two chemical feed pumps, a Thermo Scientific Master Flex and a Milton Roy, which are alternated and provide redundancy. The chemical usage is monitored by daily readings from site tubes on each tank. The tank levels are recorded by facility operators daily and the usage is calculated based on tank volume.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-5: Aluminum Sulfate Bulk Tanks (left); Feed Pumps (right) 3.6.2

Sodium Aluminate

Sodium aluminate is used as a coagulant to aid in the sedimentation process. The chemical is stored in a large, polyethylene bulk tank located in the chlorine storage room. The tank is double-walled for secondary containment. Chemical deliveries are by split tanker and are transferred to the bulk tank thought a chemical fill line which is accessed from the exterior of the facility. A portion of the bulk tank is wrapped in insulation for temperature control. Chemical is transferred by pump to a 55 gallon day tank and added to the suction of the low lift pumps by one of two Thermo Scientific Masterflex feed pumps, which are located within a containment basin. Chemical usage volume is monitored by recording the chemical level in the day tank using strips of paper that indicate the number of inches of remaining chemical. The feed pump feed rate is recorded two times each day (morning and night). Portable electric heaters are used for area temperature control.

Figure 3-6: Sodium Aluminate Bulk Tank (left); Day Tank, Transfer Pump and Feed Pumps (right) 3.6.3

Lime

Lime is used for pH adjustment. The lime is stored and mixed in the garage building. Hydrated lime is delivered on pallets which contain fifty, 50-pound bags. Approximately ten pallets can be stored in the garage. The bags of lime are manually dumped into one of three dry feeder hoppers. The dry feeder adds the hydrated lime to mixing tanks to create a slurry. The lime slurry is fed by pumps which are located in the adjacent aluminum sulfate room. Lime is The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

added to the process prior to clearwell 3 for pH adjustment as well as added to the filter backwash/sludge removal line prior to discharge to the lagoon. In the past, lime was also added prior to the low lift pumps as well as prior to the sedimentation basin. These feed locations are currently not in use. Chemical usage is monitored by recording the number of bags added to each hopper per day as well as recording the pump feed rates two times per day (morning and night).

Figure 3-7: Lime Dry Feeders in Garage (left); Mix Tanks (right) 3.6.4

Polymer

The Superfloc N-300 polymer is used as a filter aid. The polymer mixing and feed system is located in a room between the sedimentation basin and the abandoned filter building. The chemical is delivered in fifty pound bags. The chemical is manually portioned out by facility staff and mixed in batches in one of two 55 gallon mix tanks. Each tank has a mechanical mixer which is manually operated by facility staff. Polymer is added to the process at the head of the filters by a single Pulsatron feed pump. A portable heater is used for room temperature control.

Figure 3-8: Polymer Portion Containers for Batch Mixing (left); Mix Tanks and Feed Pump (right)

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

3.6.5

Chlorine

Chlorine gas is used for disinfection. The chlorine gas storage and feed system is located in the chlorine room adjacent to the garage. Chlorine is delivered to the facility in one-ton cylinders and transported within the facility by a hoist. Two cylinders are online at a time and are located on individual scales. Each cylinder is controlled by a regulator for automatic switchover. The cylinders are connected to Wallace & Tiernan chlorinators with vacuum eductors. Two feed systems add chlorine to the process before the filters and clearwell #1. The chlorine feed rate is manually controlled by facility staff. The volume of gas consumed is monitored by recording the weight of the active chlorine cylinders twice per day (morning and night).

Figure 3-9: Chlorine Gas Cylinders on Scales (left); Gas Chlorinators (right) 3.6.6

Fluoride

Fluoride (25 percent hydrofluorosilicic acid) is added to the water for the prevention of tooth decay. The fluoride storage and feed system is located in the workshop/employee break room. Fluoride is stored in three 4,000 gallon polyethylene bulk tanks that sit within a concrete containment area. Chemical is delivered by full tanker trucks and is transferred to a bulk tank via a chemical fill line which is accessed from the exterior of the facility. The bulk tanks sit adjacent to and below the employee break/kitchen area. Chemical is transferred by manual pump to two 55 gallon day tanks which sit on scales within a containment basin. Fluoride is added to the treatment process prior to clearwell #3 by one of two LMI chemical feed pumps. The day tanks are filled in the morning and chemical usage is monitored by recording the day tank weight two times per day (morning and night). An emergency eyewash and shower is located near the day tanks.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-10: Fluoride Bulk Tanks in Containment (left); Day Tanks and Feed Pumps (right) 3.6.7

Ammonia

Ammonia is used to create chloramine to provide a disinfection residual within the distribution system. Anhydrous ammonia is delivered in 150-pound cylinders which are stored adjacent to the garage building. The ammonia feed system is located in the workshop entrance room beneath the employee break/kitchen area. Two online cylinders are located on individual scales and ammonia is added to the process prior to the high lift pumps by ammoniators with vacuum eductors. Chemical usage is monitored by recording the cylinder weights two times per day (morning and night). A portable electric heater is used for area temperature control.

Figure 3-11: Ammonia Cylinder Storage (left); Ammonia Cylinders Online on Scales (right) 3.6.8

Hexametaphosphate

StilesChem Aquadene SK#7860 hexametaphosphate is used for corrosion control. The phosphate storage and feed system is located in a room adjacent to the workshop area. Bulk storage is in 55 gallon drums and chemical is The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-9

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

transferred by a drum pump to a day tank. Chemical is added midway along the unbaffled third clearwell tank by a LMI feed pump. The day tank is filled in the morning and chemical usage is monitored by recording the height of the chemical in a site tube at the end of the day. A portable electric heater is used for room temperature control.

Figure 3-12: Hexametaphosphate Bulk Drums (left); Day Tank and Feed Pump (right) 3.7 SEDIMENTATION ROOM Water with treatment chemicals added is conveyed from the low lift pumps to the flocculation basin in the sedimentation room through a 24 inch diameter pipe that was added in the 1970s. A second 20 inch diameter main that was constructed in the 1930s is not currently in use. The water enters two, two-cell flocculation basins which utilize axial impellor mixers to enhance flocculation. The water then flows into two parallel sedimentation basins. The U-shaped basins promote plug-flow and allow for floc settling before the settled water leaves the basins. The water elevation maintained in the sedimentation basins has been increased in recent years in an effort to increase water head over the filters and to increase present peak facility flows. The settled water flows over a weir before being delivered to the filters via a transfer main that varies between 30-inch diameter and 36-inch diameter. Solids that are settled in the sedimentation basin are withdrawn by a traveling siphon manifold for discharge to an unlined lagoon located immediately east of the sedimentation building.

Figure 3-13: Sedimentation Basin Room 3.8 FILTER ROOM There are six dual media filters that are hydraulically linked to each other. Each filter has a surface area of 441 ft2 and can treat approximately 2 MGD at a surface overflow rate of 3.5 gpm/sf. This is the midrange for acceptable loading rates for dual media filters of this type, according to industry standards, and appears to serve the treatment process well. The most recent upgrade to the filters included installation of new sintered cap, low profile composite The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-10

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

underdrains which allow for greater media submergence, more uniform collection of filtered water with reduced risk of short circuiting and more uniform distribution of backwash water to provide improved filter cleaning. Air scour is installed on each filter to improve backwash efficiency. Chlorine gas for pre-oxidation and Superfloc N-300, a non-ionic filter aid, are added prior to filtration. The target chlorine residual ahead of the filters is 0.9 mg/l in off-peak demand winter months and 0.6 mg/l in peak demand summer months. All filters are equipped with on-line turbidity analyzers as required by the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. All six filters are typically in operation unless a unit is taken offline for repairs or backwashing. Plant water production is changed by adjusting filter operating schedules, rather than by taking filters offline. It is normal for five filters to be in production while the sixth is in backwash or “cleanup” mode. Four filters are normally backwashed each day. Individual backwash cycles appear to be dictated by the operation’s shift schedule, rather than by specific set points such as turbidity breakthrough, run time, or a differential pressure. With the operating schedule that the facility typically follows, this generally results in individual filter run times of between 18 and 24 hours, depending on the season. Plant staff will take a filter offline for backwashing out of sequence if its water quality diminishes prematurely. The backwash cycle begins by allowing the filter water level to drain down to approximately three inches above the media surface. Air scour is then initiated for approximately four minutes. Two separate air blowers feed the air scour system. They are operated in rotation with the blower located in the hallway operated for one day and the blower located in the filter gallery operated for two days. The hallway blower is not enclosed in a sound attenuating enclosure. The blower is located in a normally occupied space so this presents at best an annoyance to facility staff and a worst a safety issue. Staff must wear hearing protection as they go about their activities in the filter gallery. The gallery blower is enclosed in a sound attenuating enclosure. Backwash is initiated by manually opening the backwash header valve and allowing water flow to proceed for 4-8 minutes or until the filter is visually observed to clear. The filter is then allowed to filter-to-waste until such time as the individual filter finished water turbidity drops to 0.1 NTU. The facility was equipped with filter-to-waste valves and actuators as part of the 2002 upgrade. These actuators are manually activated by push buttons located in the filter room near each filter control table. The filter is then manually switched back online. A filter will typically run to waste for approximately 30 to 45 minutes before reaching the arbitrary endpoint of 0.1 NTU. Filter backwash water is discharged to the onsite lagoon.

Figure 3-14: Filter Room

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-11

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

3.9 FILTER GALLERY A 30 inch diameter main carries filtered water from the pipe gallery to the first of three clearwells. The filter gallery is accessed by three sets of stairs. Access to the filter gallery for pipe and equipment is extremely limited. Stairways are tight and are provided with very little head room. A removable medallion in the filter room floor, just outside of the laboratory, provides some access for pipes and valves.

Figure 3-15: Filter Gallery 3.10 CLEARWELLS Clearwell #1 is located beneath the western bank of filters and adjacent to the pipe gallery. Filtered water flows through clearwell #1 into clearwell #2, which is a mirror of clearwell #1, located under the eastern bank of filters on the opposite side of the pipe gallery. The two clearwells are hydraulically connected via a 42 inch wide concrete channel at the end of the filter building. A 30 inch gate valve in the middle of the channel allows either clearwell to be isolated. After passing through both clearwells, water flows into clearwell #3 through a 30 inch main. Chlorine gas is added for disinfection prior to the first clearwell. The first two clearwells provide contact time for achieving CT, and the chlorine residual is measured after the second clearwell. A target chlorine residual of 1.8 mg/l is reportedly sought at this location. Fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid is added after the first clearwell. Lime is added for adjustment of the pH just after the point at which the chlorine residual is measured. A proprietary hexametaphosphate product, StilesChem Aquadene SK#7860, is added into the third clearwell as a corrosion inhibitor. The water then passes to the high lift pump area.

3.11 HIGH LIFT PUMP AREA The high lift pump area is adjacent to the workshop entrance room and sole access is by two sets of stairs from a mezzanine above. Three high lift pumps, #1, #2 and #3, are available for pumping treated water into the distribution system. During seasonably high summer flows, pumps #1 and #3 are used simultaneously. During lower production times, such as in the winter, #2 is used and is throttled. Running pumps more efficiently results in overflow of the

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-12

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Pine Point Tank. Pumps #1 and #2 are Worthingtons and are rated for 6,000 gpm at 180 ft. total dynamic head and are run by a 350 hp, 3-phase, 2,300 volts, 60 Hz, 1,170 RPM motor. Pump #2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s motor was last rewound in January of 2008. Pump #3, which was installed in 1998, is an Ingersoll Dresser pump. It is rated for 3,500 gpm at 220 ft. total dynamic head and is run by a 250 hp, 3-phase, 460 volts, 60 Hz, 1,776 rpm motor with a Toshiba H-7 variable frequency drive. Ammonia gas is added just prior to the high lift pumps to convert the remaining free chlorine residual to chloramines. Flow out of the high lift pumping step can follow either or both of two routes, depending on valving.

Figure 3-16: High Lift Pump Area 3.12 WORKSHOP ENTRANCE The workshop entrance is adjacent to the garage and the high lift pump area and contains a furnace, a bathroom, the fluoride storage and feed system, the ammonia feed system, the employee break/kitchen area and a workshop. The break/kitchen area is on an elevated mezzanine above the fluoride and ammonia feed systems. The break/kitchen area is accessed via a non-compliant shipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ladder, which also provides access to the mezzanine above the high lift pump area.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-13

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-17: Employee Break Area Mezzanine Ships Ladder (left); Hot Air Furnace (right) 3.13 ABANDONED FILTER BUILDING The abandoned filter building connects the sedimentation basin wing to the hallway between the corrosion control store room and the intake room. This building was abandoned in the 1930s, but it is still used as an access route by facility staff. The building contains two #2 fuel tanks.

Figure 3-18: Abandoned Filter Building 3.14 LABORATORY The lab is located adjacent to the filter room and is used by facility personnel to monitor and record facility production and chemical residuals.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-14

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-19: Laboratory 3.15 SCADA ROOM The SCADA panel is located in a small room adjacent to the main entrance. A 3 hp and a 5 hp air compressor are located in the space. The room is heated by a portable heater. This room is susceptible to flooding, according to facility staff.

3.16 LAGOON The water generated by filter backwash and the filter-to-waste cycle is the largest waste stream by volume entering the lagoon. Sludge removed from the sedimentation basin is also discharged to the lagoon. It is estimated that between 26,000 and 56,000 gallons of water is used to backwash each filter. Plant staff indicates that four filters are typically backwashed per day. Individual filter-to-waste cycles add approximately 40,000 gallons per filter. This results in approximately 270,000 gallons of backwash and filter-to-waste water discharging to the lagoon each day. Each night, the lagoon supernate (supernatant), is decanted and discharged back to the river through the operation of a manual valve located in the pre-filter chlorination room. Supernate total suspended solids and settleable solids are tested each Sunday. The accumulated lagoon solids are periodically dredged and moved to a second lagoon located to the south side of the sedimentation building for final drying and long term storage. The ability of the lagoon to clarify the combined filter backwash, filter-to-waste and sedimentation basin waste streams prior to releasing decant back to the Saco River is taxed at higher flow rates. The systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and Maine Waste Discharge License were approved in August 2010. The facility is authorized to discharge up to a monthly average flow of 150,000 gpd of filter backwash wastewater to the Saco River. This appears to be less than what could be discharged on an average day, given the present filter backwashing and filter-to-waste schedules, although the actual flow volumes have not been measured. The permit limits are summarized in the table below. In addition to these limits, the facility is required to maintain an Operations and Maintenance Plan and is required to submit a Practical Alternatives Analysis concurrent with submission of permit renewal or modification applications.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-15

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 3-2: Discharge License Requirements Monthly Average

Daily Maximum

Flow

0.150 MGD

When Discharging

TSS

20lbs/day 30 MG/L

40 lbs./day 60 MG/L

1/week

Settleable Solids

0.1 mL/L

1/week

Total Residual Chlorine

1 MG/L

1/week

Total Aluminum

3.3 lbs./day 5.0 MG/L

1/month

6.0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8.5

1/week

Effluent Characteristic

Monitoring Frequency

Figure 3-20: Lagoon 3.17 BACKWASH WATER TANK An elevated, 65,000 gallon storage tank, located immediately west of the lime room and outside the building, stores water from the distribution system for backwashing filters. The system is manually operated by facility personnel during filter backwashing. The process is described as follows: 1. Beginning with the day operations shift, facility operators open either one or two of three possible 2 inch valves located on a crossover manifold between the distribution system and the 18 inch backwash header. This manifold is located in the filter pipe gallery at the base of the spiral staircase at the western edge of the filter gallery near filter #6. The 65,000 gallon backwash tank is allowed to fill for approximately two hours, at which point it will contain approximately 30,000 to 40,000 gallons. 2. The crossover manifold is then closed. 3. At about 11:00 AM, the first of several filter backwashes is initiated. Each filter backwash cycle consumes approximately 20,000 gallons and requires approximately 1.5 hours to fully complete, including the filter-toâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; waste cycle.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-16

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

4. At the end of this cycle the manifold is reopened and the backwash tank is allowed to refill for approximately an hour. 5. The next filter is then backwashed. This cycle is repeated throughout the operating day shift. Four of the 6 filters are backwashed typically in a day. At the end of this shift, any remaining water stored in the backwash tank is drained to waste.

Figure 3-21: Backwash Water Tank 3.18 CONTROLS The facility is essentially manually controlled by facility staff. The facility has a SCADA system which displays continuous data on a computer located in the laboratory; however, data is not recorded. Plant staff adjusts chemical feed pumps, turn on/off low lift and high lift pumps, start the sludge removal system, open and close valves, initiate filter backwash, filter-to-waste, and filter production cycles, as well as take grab samples for monitoring. This set-up makes the facility very labor intensive to operate. The addition of enhanced SCADA control systems and more automation should significantly reduce the labor requirements to operate the facility.

3.19 MONITORING Process monitoring includes the following:

Table 3-3: Process Monitoring Parameter

Sample Location(s)

Method

Frequency

Documentation

Zeta Potential

Discharge of Low Lift Pumps

Streaming Current Detector

Continuous

SCADA Read Only

Turbidity

Intake Room (Raw)

Grab Sample

Every 4 Hours

Log Book

Turbidity

Pre Filters Post Individual Filter Post Combined Filters

Hach 1720D

Continuous

SCADA Read Only

Chlorine Residual

Pre Filters Post Clearwell #2 Post High Lift Pumps

Grab Sample

Hourly

Log Book

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-17

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Parameter

Sample Location(s) Tap in Laboratory

Method

Frequency

Documentation

Temperature

Intake Room (Raw)

sc100

Once per Day

Log Book

Intake Room (Raw)

Grab sample

Every 4 hours

Log Book

Sedimentation Basin Pre Filters Clearwell Tap in Laboratory

Grab sample

Hourly

Log Book

Fluoride

Intake Room (Raw) Tap in Laboratory

Grab Sample

Every 4 Hours

Log Book

Intake Room (Raw)

UV254 Organics Monitor

Continuous

SCADA Read Only

Color

Intake Room (Raw) Sedimentation Basin

Grab Sample

Every 4 Hours

Log Book

Flow Rate

Post High Lift Pump

Venturi

Hourly

Log Book

Each of the two finished water lines contains a venturi flow meter. These are the only flow metering elements within the treatment sequence. Flow measurement occurs prior to the point at which water is drawn off for use as filter backwash. This ensures backwash water is metered along with water that enters the distribution system. Backwash water is included in the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s production total and would count toward the systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unmetered water volume.

3.20 FLOODING IMPACTS The entire treatment facility is located within the 100 year floodplain of the Saco River. In the past, the facility has flooded (see Figure 3-22). Although it is reported that a majority of the facility has been flood proofed to withstand a 100-year flood without losing treatment capabilities, there are multiple floor drains and wall penetrations throughout the facility that must be sealed to prevent inflow of flood waters. In addition, clearwell #3 is not flood proofed, some of the chemical feed systems require temporary emergency modifications in order to maintain continuous service during periods of severe flooding. The lagoon is within the 100-year flood plain and is easily inundated at most high water levels. Many other areas could be subject to flooding because of floor drains, manholes and other breeches through walls and floors. Even if building integrity could be maintained against floodwaters, the facility as it is presently configured could not remain in production during flood conditions since it would not be possible to discharge solids collected from the sedimentation basins or backwash discharged from the filters. In addition, access to the facility would be impacted considerably. This may result in the facility being unable to supply water for periods, which has happened during major flooding events in the past. The location of the facility within the floodplain is a serious threat to its long-term viability on the current site.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-18

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Figure 3-22: Past Flooding of Treatment Facilities

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

3-19

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

4. PROCESS EVALUATION Woodard & Curran completed a treatment option evaluation in 2005 that was commissioned based on a very specific goal: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What changes would be required to increase production capacity to 20 MGD?â&#x20AC;? This study looked at the three fundamental options of building a new facility, building a separate peaking facility while continuing to use the existing facility to capacity, and expanding the existing facility to allow it to produce up to 20 MGD. The option of expanding the existing facility was found to be preferable, both from an economic perspective to achieve the lowest life-cycle cost, and from a risk perspective since the existing methods of treatment were determined to be highly effective on raw water from the Saco River. Recent history has demonstrated, and the current demand analysis in this report suggests, that the presumptive future growth in the service area may have been unrealistically optimistic. It now appears that a treatment facility capable of sustained production of 8 to 12 MGD will be sufficient for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the 2005 report is still relevant, since it evaluated the capacities of the various existing process steps in order to determine what additional capacity needed to be added to achieve the 20 MGD target. The findings were similar to a 2002 Metcalf & Eddy report that examined the same question. This analysis is revisited in this report, with an eye toward identifying which process steps are presently limiting factors to comfortably producing a design period average daily flow (ADF) of 7.1 MGD, a maximum week average daily demand of 12 MGD, and a design period maximum day flow of 12.8 MGD. For most individual process steps, the maximum week average daily demand of 12 MGD will be used. With 10.75 million gallons of storage in the system, the treatment facility can generally get caught up to maximum day consumption when operating at the maximum week daily average. These are good estimates for maximum design flows for the next 20 years. It is important to note that some limitations may be artificially imposed on the facility, the result of historical operation strategies, staffing schedules, and other arbitrary set points, rather than generally accepted engineering design standards for the various processes. As each process step is discussed, additional operational questions and recommendations will be raised.

4.1 INTAKES The facility is supplied by two raw water intake lines in relatively close proximity to one another. The intakes are reported to be at a depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet, supported from the river bottom on wooden piers, and not fitted with intake screens. Each intake is dedicated to one of the two intake pumps, with no ability for crossover provided. Although the intakes were originally fitted with coarse bar screens, these have been reported to be deteriorated or missing in recent inspections. Staff has reported occasional problems with eels and leaves drawn into the system. Modern river intakes are typically fitted with wedge-wire drum screens which minimize the intake velocity through the screen in order to avoid plugging. These screens can be supplied with automated air backwashing systems to clean the screens when headloss increases. We would recommend that such systems be considered here, particularly since each intake is dedicated to a specific intake pump, reducing process flexibility. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report. The present two intakes are in close proximity to one another and at the same river depth. Benefit may be derived from locating intakes at two different depths in order to access raw water with subtly different characteristics and treatability during different seasons and river levels. In addition, the present intakes pass through the headworks sump area and are hard-piped directly to one or the other of the two low lift pumps. In order to provide maximum flexibility for intake selection and pump operation, a raw water wetwell (or pipe crossover and valving network) should be constructed that would allow either intake to feed either low lift pump.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

4.2 LOW LIFT PUMPING Low lift pumping is conducted with two redundant pumps. Pump #4 is a vertical shaft pump that was installed in June, 2003. Pump #5 is a horizontal shaft pump installed in 1955 and has an upgraded motor. The low lift pump system includes two vacuum prime systems that are used to draw intake water at the start of the daily pumping cycle. An evaluation of recent pumping records indicates that when operating independently, pump #4 can deliver 6,600 gpm (9.5 MGD) and pump #5 can operate at 5,880 gpm (8.5 MGD). During cold weather months, either of the pumps can be used individually to produce an average of 4.7 MGD over an average operating day of 14 hours. Both pump motors are rated at 480 volt, 3 phase, 60 Hz. Motor speed is controlled by independent variable speed drives. The motor/pump speed is manually selected at frequencies ranging from approximately 40 Hz to 66 Hz based on the required volume of water needed for the day. It appears, based on power monitoring conducted as part of an energy study conducted in the spring of 2012, that each pump motor draws similar power over its operating range. The low lift pump discharge mains convey flow to the flocculation basins. A 20 inch diameter main was constructed as part of the facility upgrades in the 1930s and a 24 inch diameter pipe was added in the 1970s. These two mains split from a common manifold downstream of the low lift pumps. In recent years, due to concerns with significantly different residence times in the two lines, only the newer 24 inch line has been used. At a design maximum day flow of 12.8 MGD, headloss in the single, newer transmission main is on the order of 5 feet or less, with an additional 8 feet of minor and fitting losses. Total static lift from typical river levels to the currently maintained level in the flocculation basins is approximately 15 to 18 feet. Maximum head in this system can therefore be expected to be somewhat less than 31 feet at the max day design flow. Based on the manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s supplied pump curve, pump #4 has an operating point of 10,900 gpm at a total developed head of 55 feet at the full speed of 700 rpm. Based on pump affinity equations, this pump could produce 12.8 MGD at an operating speed of 570 rpm while still producing sufficient head to overcome system headloss. Pump #5 is similar. With a manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s full speed operating point at 12,000 gpm producing 58 feet of head at 710 rpm, this pump could deliver the 12.8 MGD max day demand at approximately 525 rpm. During the winter months it is estimated that the operating power demand is between 92 hp and 121 hp. In the summer months, it is estimated that the pump motors draw approximately 167 hp. It is estimated that 588,700 kW-hrs. annually are used for low lift pumping. This equates to an annual cost of approximately $71,600 based on 12 cents per kW-hr. Based on process needs over the design period, it appears that the existing low lift pumps are sufficient. An energy audit completed during the summer of 2012 determined that it would not be cost effective to replace the present low lift pumps or their motors based on their current operating points and efficiency.

4.3 COAGULATION/FLOCCULATION 4.3.1

Doses

Aluminum sulfate (alum) and sodium aluminate are added to the raw water at the suction side of the low lift pumps. Recent data show applied doses of alum average 22.6 mg/l during the coldest months and 33.2 mg/l during the summer season, increasing to 43.8 mg/l during the late fall period. Sodium aluminate doses range from an average of 4.48 mg/l during cold water months to an average of 2.66 for warm water periods. Coagulant doses are set through experience and guided by values obtained from a streaming current detector measuring the dosed water. Two streaming current detectors are present, both tapped into essentially the same point in the flow stream, after the low lift pumps and thus, after coagulant addition. One instrument is reported to operate The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

unreliably. The streaming current detector readings are not used to automatically pace the coagulant dose or to trim the dose. As with process control throughout the facility, chemical feed is manually set based on operator experience after referencing collected data. If particle charge is in fact a reliable way of selecting coagulant dose for this water, a better arrangement would be to automate this process, using a pre-coagulant reading to set the initial dose and a post pumping measurement to trim the dose. Typical of Maine surface waters, Saco River water is quite soft, with an alkalinity normally between 5 and 9 mg/l. Raw water pH varies between 6.2 and 6.9. The presence of alkalinity is key to the coagulation process. No lime, soda ash, or caustic soda is currently added by the facility ahead of the flocculation and sedimentation step to provide additional alkalinity. Each 1 mg/l of alum added to the process consumes 0.81 mg/l of natural alkalinity (Ca(HCO3)2) as it forms aluminum hydroxide floc. When alkalinity is gone, floc formation ceases. This would suggest that alum added alone in doses above 6 to 11 mg/l would provide no additional benefit for floc formation. With typical doses of alum in the 20 to 50 mg/l range, an upfront lime dose of between 5 to 14 mg/l would be called for with this water in order to see the coagulation reaction through to completion. In addition to the consumption of alkalinity, pH drops through the alum reaction. The best theoretical pH range for alum coagulation is 5.5 to 7.8. In practice, a pH range of 6.0 to 7.4 is typically seen. Preliminary Rothberg, Tamburini and Winsor (RTW) Model for Corrosion Control and Process Chemistry model runs using the characteristics of Saco River water and the alum dose applied, suggest that pH within the flocculation tanks would drop to below 5.5 with the current alum dosing. With chlorine gas and hydrofluorosilicic acid applied further downstream, filtered water pH ahead of the final lime addition was predicted to drop to 4.6. The facility seems to function acceptably with the low alkalinity, low pH water through the addition of sodium aluminate as a second coagulant. Whereas most aluminum based coagulants are acidic, consume alkalinity, and lower pH, sodium aluminate is a strong caustic and actually adds alkalinity to the process. Each 1 mg/l of sodium aluminate adds approximately 2 mg/l of carbonate alkalinity. With an average of 4.48 mg/l added during cold water periods and 2.66 mg/l during warm water periods, between 5 and 9 mg/l of alkalinity are being added to the process. This essentially doubles the alkalinity of the raw water available for the alum reaction as well as raises the pH somewhat. Even with the level of sodium aluminate being added, sufficient alkalinity is present only for a maximum cold water alum dose of 30 mg/l and a warm water dose of 28 mg/l. During the fall, the facility has applied monthly average alum doses up to almost 44 mg/l. It would seem that a substantial fraction of this seasonally high dose is wasted. Bench top jar testing should be initiated at the facility in order to determine if additional turbidity can be removed when alkalinity is added or if the same effective settling can be achieved at significantly lower coagulant doses. Given that the facility has demonstrated very good performance under a wide variety of raw water conditions using the present alum/sodium aluminate and lime chemistry, there is little urgency to investigate alternative chemical treatment regimens. It may be necessary to investigate the use of PAC as a primary coagulant together with other filter aids if there is a need to minimize sludge production. Such a study would need to consider all seasonal water conditions.

4.3.2

Coagulant Chemical Handling and Storage

Sodium aluminate is stored in a 2,000 gallon cross-linked polyethylene tank located within the chlorine gas store room. At the future design ADF of 7.1 MGD and the maximum dose currently applied, this represents a 90 day supply of chemical. The tank is of dual wall construction to provide chemical containment. The tank sits at a floor elevation approximately 3.5 feet below the 100-year flood elevation. The space is heated using portable electric heaters plugged into extension cords. This is a safety hazard. The day tank, transfer pump, and feed pump are located in a polyethylene containment basin. Sodium aluminate is a strong caustic and should not be stored where it could be exposed to chlorine gas. As part of a larger reconfiguration of the chemical storage space (including present day The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

lime, chlorine, and alum spaces) sodium aluminate should in an independent contained space away from strong oxidizers. Alum is presently stored in two adjacent, rubber lined concrete tanks with a volume of approximately 4,000 gallons each. As noted under the Health & Safety Chemical Storage and Handling recommendations, the tanks are covered with wooden planks of unknown structural capacity. The 8,000 gallon inventory would represent a 46 day supply at the future design ADF and a present annual average applied concentration of 32.3 mg/l. As with other chemical storage spaces, the alum room floor is below the 100-year flood elevation, the room is heated using portable electric space heaters, and the walls and ceiling are exposed fiberglass batt insulation that does not provide a fire rating. This space should be reconstructed as part of an overall chemical storage area reconstruction. Because the alum tanks are concrete, it would be difficult to reconfigure this space and reuse them. An upgrade should assume that new, crosslink polyethylene tanks will be required. Typical 4,000 gallon poly tanks would be approximately 10 feet in diameter and 7 feet in height.

4.3.3

Rapid Mix

The facility does not have a rapid mix chamber at the point of coagulant addition, but relies on the shear created through the low lift pumps to thoroughly mix the two coagulants. In the past, flow downstream from the low lift pumps was split between two pipe lines leading to the flocculation basins. The original facility line, internal to the cluster of buildings, is 20 inch cast iron. It follows a circuitous route through the facility. A newer 24 inch line follows a much more direct path through the original, now demolished, filter building foundation. In past studies there has been significant discussion about the substantially different travel times for water delivered by these two lines. This difference was thought to lead to inconsistencies in contact time and floc formation. In recent years, all facility flow has been directed through the newer, 24 inch line. At typical, single low lift pump outputs of 5,800 to 6,600 gpm, velocity through this line is on the order of 4.0 to 4.7 ft./sec. If the facility were producing at a design max day rate of 12.8 MGD, velocity in this pipe would rise to 6.3 ft./sec. At 260 feet long, this pipe provides approximately one minute of contact time at the design period ADF of 7.1 MGD prior to the chemically treated water being discharged to the flocculation basins. At max day flow, this would be reduced to 40 seconds. Recommended design standards call for the high energy rapid mix step to be completed in 30 seconds or less. With pipe velocities in the range calculated, the transfer pipe line may act to breakup or shear floc that has already begun to form. On the other hand, floc formation in the newly reconfigured flocculation basins appears effective between the inlet side of the first stage and the outlet side of the second stage. Only if a major reworking of the sedimentation building wing were undertaken should the addition of a more formalized rapid mix step and the relocation of coagulant additions be considered.

4.3.4

Flocculation

Flow splitting between the two parallel flocculation/sedimentation trains appears to be very poor. It is difficult to see how an even flow split can be assured given the underground piping configuration at the head of the flocculation basins. Plant staff confirmed that there can be substantial performance differences between the east and west sedimentation basins at higher flows. It was reported that settling performance in the western basin deteriorates first, which is what would be predicted given the inlet piping geometry. Splitting flow evenly between the two floc/sedimentation basin trains should improve overall settling performance and reliability. One possible solution would be to construct a single weir box inside the building at the head of the first flocculation basin and equalize the flow split through the use of adjustable weir gates. Just prior to 2005, the facility reworked the two parallel two-stage flocculation basins, adding axial mixers and end baffle walls. No information on blade diameter, tip speed, or energy transfer was available. The combined volume of

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

the two, two-stage basins is sufficient. With both parallel trains online, design minimum detention times of 30 minutes can be achieved at flows up to 9,000 gpm (13 MGD), however, there would be no unit process redundancy.

4.4 SEDIMENTATION As noted in multiple earlier facility evaluations, particularly Woodard & Curranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2005 report, on paper the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sedimentation basins appear to be a severely limiting process bottleneck. At a 12.8 MGD flow rate with a detention time less than half the recommended design standard of 4 hours, a surface loading rate almost twice the design standard of 0.5 gpm/ft2 for typical basins of this configuration, and a weir overflow rate more than ten times the recommended standard of 0.02 MGD/linear foot, one would expect significant re-suspension of settled floc and the carryover or even scouring of floc at the basin end wall given the weir overflow rate and present water height above the weir. The table below lists the various basin parameters, assuming both basins are online with an even flow split between them:

Table 4-1: Sedimentation Process Parameters Design Standard

Future ADF (7.1 MGD)

Future Max Day (12.8 MGD)

3.4

1.9

0.5

0.93

Weir Loading Rate at Max Flow (gpd/ft.)

20,000

119,127

214,765

Horizontal Velocity at Max Flow (ft./min)

0.5

0.79

1.42

Parameter Detention Time at Max Flow (hrs.) Surface Overflow Rate (SOR) at Max Flow (gpm/ft2)

The sedimentation basins appear to function fairly well at present flow rates, particularly given that the alum-based coagulation reaction is likely cut short by a lack of adequate alkalinity. A sampling of cold water months from 2010 shows that although incoming turbidity can be highly variable, ranging from a low of 1.30 NTU to a high of 96.26 NTU. Settled water turbidity typically averages between 1.5 and 2.25 NTU depending on the month. During high raw water turbidity spikes, carried over floc in the settled water can drive settled water turbidity to over 7 NTU, placing a heavy burden on the filters. Warm water months show a slight improvement, with average monthly settled water turbidities near 1.25 NTU. During the cold weather months, when floc formation is suppressed and settling is more difficult, lower system demand should ensure that the facility is running much below the max week demand of 12 MGD. It was observed that sedimentation basin water levels are run above what was originally intended, even at low facility flow rates. Wall staining suggests that current water levels have been the norm for some time. During facility visits in January and February of 2013, water levels were measured at 22 inches above the sedimentation basin end wall. This is approximately 4 inches higher than the original facility design for maximum flow. Plant staff has indicated that such heights are necessary to ensure proper submergence of the filter media and filter throughput. This practice may be marginally acceptable during the summer high demand period, but should not be part of routine facility operation. These levels are maintained year-round at all flow rates. If this water level is to be maintained, at the very least, the end wall height should be increased through the installation of flash boards. A better solution would be to raise the end wall and install a number of cross launders several feet upstream from the end wall to increase weir length and move the overflow location away from the tank end where upward currents are most likely to carry re-suspended solids up and out of the tank. There are a number of mechanical components associated with the sludge collection manifold that should be raised above the waterline as part of a general upgrade to the sludge collection system. The track that the manifold hangs from and rides along is below the water surface and subject to corrosion and jamming. Given the appearance of the The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

heavy, well formed floc, meeting overall detention time design standards is probably less important than the SOR and forward velocity through the tanks. This makes the system a good candidate for a retrofit using plate settlers, particularly self-cleaning lamella plates set at a 55 degree incline. Such plates can typically increase allowable SOR by a factor of 4, while also helping to limit the short circuiting that is undoubtedly leading to higher horizontal velocities than calculated given the present basin geometry. With the well-formed, heavy floc that was observed during two facility visits at cold water periods, there is likely to be less benefit derived from adding ballasted floc processes such as Actiflo. The same would be true for the addition of Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) units. Improving the characteristics of the existing basins to maximize surface area through the installation of lamella plates, while minimizing short circuiting, density currents, and end wall resuspension of settled solids through the installation of multiple launders back from the tank end are likely to provide the greatest performance increases while not over complicating the settling process. The hydraulic profile for the original 1936 filter design suggests that the 30 inch to 36 inch transfer line between the sedimentation basins and the filters was sufficiently sized to provide only minimal headloss between these two process steps at the then maximum design flow of 10 MGD. Both the sedimentation basin and the filter design maximum water level are given as 109.0 feet on the original upgrade plans. When operated at the 109.0 elevation, the water level in the filters would be approximately two feet above the backwash trough elevation and about one foot below the point at which the filters would overflow onto the facility floor. On the sedimentation basin end, 109.0 is approximately one foot below the divider wall between sedimentation basin #1 and #2. It is approximately 2.5 feet below the point at which the sedimentation basins would overflow onto the facility floor and into the filter room. Thus, there can be a maximum headloss of 2.5 feet between the sedimentation step and the top of the filters at any maximum throughput. A one foot headloss would be much preferable, since it would prevent overtopping the wall between the two basins. Plant staff have reported sedimentation basin overflows onto the facility floor are routine at facility flows over 10 MGD. Plant drawings are somewhat ambiguous as to line sizes and the location of a 30-36 inch pipe diameter transition. However, a detailed hydraulic calculation, using a wide range of Hazen-Williams pipe C-factors, fitting losses, and flow rates suggests that anticipated headloss for this pipe segment should be far less than what has been observed, particularly at flow rates less than 10 MGD. At reasonable C-factors, peak flows of 12.8 MGD should be possible through this line, although the two sedimentation basins would cross-flood one another. This suggests any of a number of possible problems with this line: 

Poor flow splitting between the two sedimentation basins is leading to a gross overloading of the western train (Basin #2) and the resultant overflow of this basin onto the floor. This is unlikely, since the two basins would flood one another first, leading to a re-equalization of flow between the two.



Extremely poor pipe condition (C-factor of <45) causing excessive headloss. This is possible given current information.



Significantly inaccurate facility flow measurement resulting in much higher facility flows than anticipated. This is unlikely to the extent necessary, given pump curve operating points.



Plant not constructed according to drawings, either in terms of elevations or in terms of pipe geometry or size, or changes made after the fact.



A real or perceived need to operate the filters at a water level less than one foot below the point at which the filters themselves would overflow onto the floor.



Throttling of the inlet valve to each filter, either intentionally in an effort to balance the division of flows between filters, or inadvertently due to stuck valves or position stops. This is highly possible, especially given the manual control of individual filters with no individual filter flow measurement devices in place.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Excessive discreet point headloss along the transmission line due to a partially closed valve, blocked fitting, or fouled chemical injection point. This is the most likely scenario; although no main line valves are shown on the design plans.

Given the critical flow-limiting nature of this bottleneck, we recommend that a detailed assessment of this process be undertaken. This would include confirming as-built elevations in the various locations, flow rates, filter operating strategies, and pipe geometry. It may also involve internal pipe inspections. Headloss should be measured at several different flow rates in order to better assess pipe condition.

4.5 SLUDGE HANDLING The existing sedimentation basin sludge collection system consists of a perforated header that moves along the bottom, siphoning solids to the gravity drain system located in the building courtyard. The headers are hung from tracks that are now submerged due to the higher routine basin water levels. The system is drawn along by a cable and electric motor. The support system frequently binds and must be jogged through the use of a manual winch. At the end of their longitudinal basin sweep the upper basin end headers must be hand-cranked back to its starting position. Based on partial drawings of the original basin design, the first half of the sedimentation basin, after the second retrofitted floc tank baffle and before the 180 degree turn, has a tapered floor that is approximately 10 feet wide by 42 feet long. After the turn, the second half of the basin has a floor that is 17 feet wide by 84 feet long. Both sides are equipped with sludge collection manifolds. The floor elevation at its perimeter is at approximately 52.58 feet. The water level in the sedimentation basins is maintained at approximately 68.24 feet. The collection manifold discharges to a waste sewer within the building courtyard that ultimately flows to the sludge lagoon. This system is also used by the filter backwash system. Inverts in the sewer system are at approximately 51.3 feet, while the invert of the filter backwash drain header in the filter pipe gallery is at approximately 51.91 feet. The existing backwash lagoon has an overflow rim elevation close to 55.0 feet, while its bottom is perhaps six to eight feet lower than the rim, depending upon sludge depth (6 feet observed in November, 2012, prior to sludge dredging in late December of that year). This places the bottom of the lagoon between the 47 and 49 foot elevation contours. The controlling factor for this drainage system would be to avoid pressurizing the backwash piping manifold in the filter gallery beneath the filters. The maximum water surface in the sewers and lagoon should be considered to be something less than 51.9 feet to allow for system headloss. This permits approximately 2.5 to 4 feet of water to be held in the lagoon depending on accumulated sludge depth. The lagoon is approximately 50 feet wide by 170 feet long. With a possible water depth of between 2.5 and 4 feet (high end assumes zero accumulated sludge) the lagoon can contain between 127,000 and 286,000 gallons of water. The lagoon is decanted to the river each night. The facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discharge license allows for an average daily discharge of 150,000 gallons. With approximately four filter backwashes per day at an estimated individual filter backwash volume of 26,000 to 56,000 gallons each, plus individual filter-to-waste cycles of approximately 40,000 gallons (filter SOR @ 3.0 gpm/ft2, filter area = 441 ft2, F-T-W duration averaging 30 minutes per staff), the present lagoon is well undersized even without considering the addition of sedimentation basin sludge draw off. The existing lagoon is close to the river bank and has a rim elevation more than six feet below the 100-year flood elevation. Its inadequate size, single cell, unlined construction, and vulnerability to flooding at high river levels make a strong case for the installation of new, adequately sized lagoon system at a higher elevation. A reconfiguration of the lagoon layout would likely require that drainage from the sedimentation basin sludge withdrawal system be separated from the filter backwash and filter-to-waste system. The filter backwash drainage system would need to be converted to a pumped system with any new lagoon water level maintained over

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

approximately 51.5 feet. A sedimentation basin sludge withdrawal system could continue to operate as a gravity siphon system at future lagoon water levels of up to approximately 63.5 feet, depending upon the headloss in the newly designed collection system. The facility yard area to the south side of the sedimentation building could be given over to a new lagoon system. An area of 210 feet by 165 feet, divided into three cells, each 63 feet wide by 165 feet long, 8 feet deep, with internal side slopes of 1:1 and a rim elevation of 62.0 would place the lagoons above the 100-year flood elevation and provide a water volume of 410,000 gallons and 15,000 ft3 of sludge storage per cell. Lagoon water level could range from elevation 56.0 to 62.0, allowing a minimum of 2.7 psi of headloss in a sedimentation basin sludge siphon system. Each cell could be settled for 24 hours while the second active cell was in use. Decant could be removed via gravity using floating suctions or adjustable weirs. Filter backwash and filter-to-waste would have to be re-pumped to reach the new lagoons. Lagoons sized as above would allow for a wasting rate of approximately six percent of the facility flow at a design ADF of 7.1 MGD. Larger basins could be constructed on the site with a higher full level water elevation, however, such higher levels would necessitate the pumping of sedimentation basin underflow as well as filter backwash. Wasting rates for alum-based, conventional filtration facilities can range from two to ten percent of the facility production, depending on raw water quality and chemical dosages. This would suggest individual lagoon volumes of as much as 710,000 gallons, plus sludge storage. Such an individual lagoon cell would be approximately 170 feet by 75 feet, with a water depth of ten feet, two feet of sideboard, and 1:1 side slopes. Sludge storage of upwards of 30,000 ft3 at a depth of four feet could be possible. A sample lagoon layout figure is included in Appendix B. The sedimentation basin collection system could be replaced by a submerged, moving collection header operating under gravity on a simpler track system than the present system. Leopold manufacturers a Clari-Trac collection header that moves along a floor mounted rail. Other manufacturers can provide similar equipment. Alternatively, floating sludge collectors, similar to the existing equipment, could be employed. While the components of floating systems may be easier to access than submerged systems, they can also be more prone to twisting and jamming in the basin than headers operating on bottom mounted tracks.

4.6 PREOXIDATION Free chlorine is added after the sedimentation basins in the 30-inch header to the filters. Preoxidation with chlorine ahead of filtration can help with color removal and with possible taste and odor concerns, as well as improve TOC removal through the filters. Using chlorine as a pre-oxidant on river water is not without risk, since it can lead to disinfection byproducts, particularly the formation of Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) compounds. The settled water TOC average of 1.5 mg/l does not seem to be favoring the formation of DBPs at this facility. DBPs in general, and HAA5 compounds in particular, have been remarkably low in the distribution system. A conversion to chloramines for carrying a system residual likely helps maintain low levels of TTHMs (annual running average of 37.39 ppb in 2011), but HAA5 compounds generally form shortly after the introduction of free chlorine, before the conversion to chloramine. Nonetheless, HAA5 sample sites in 2011 tested between 1.18 and 41 ppb with an annual quarterly running average of 21.88 ppb. If these low levels of disinfection byproducts can be maintained, it may be best not to alter the peroxidation treatment step.

4.7 FILTER AID The facility uses a Kemira Superfloc N-300 non-ionic polyacrylamide polymer as a filter aid. This polymer is NSF certified for application rates up to 1 mg/l. It is typically applied at concentrations up to 0.02 mg/l. The polymer is received dry, is weighed out in 56 gram lots, and is mixed in 55-gallon stock tanks in a room off the sedimentation basin building. This creates a solution of the active polymer that is approximately 0.03 percent by weight. It is injected

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

into the settled water line, just after the settling step. This polymer has been in use for several years. Reports of bench trials on various polymers and the need or benefits of such polymers have not been located.

4.8 FLOW MEASUREMENT The very first location where facility flows are measured is the two venturi meters located on the 20 inch and 24 inch cast iron finished water transmission lines. The venturi meters are located in vaults outside the facility. Flow measurement at these locations does not provide sufficiently accurate feedback for pacing or trimming different chemical additions at various locations along the treatment process. As a result, chemical additions are manually reset when facility flow varies. For chemical flow pacing, a single internal flow measurement is best. A secondary benefit of an additional flow meter is that it provides a check of the output measured by the two venturi meters. This is important to minimize unaccounted for water. A flow measuring device could be installed at or near the location where all flow from the sedimentation basins is pre-chlorinated prior to discharge to the filter influent manifold. This appears to be the most accessible location, one that is located in an area of straight pipe through which all flow must pass. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report. There is no individual filter flow rate monitoring. Individual filters at different points in their production cycle may be passing significantly different flow rates, leading to possible short circuiting or diminished performance. Filter balancing is currently accomplished by manually setting the filter discharge valveâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s percent open position. This is an inferior method of balancing flows. A better method would be to maintain filter to an accepted surface overflow rate (SOR) design range of 2 to 5 gpm/ft2 using flow meters For the existing filters with 441 ft2 of surface area this would result in a maximum flow rate of 2,200 gpm (3.2 MGD per filter). Longer term successful production at reasonable duration run cycles would call for holding the SOR to 3.5 gpm/ft2 or 1,500 gpm (2 MGD per filter). There is presently no means of measuring the actual filter backwash flow that is provided. Backwashing is conducted primarily by experience by manually setting the backwash supply valve. As a result, it is possible to over-expand the media bed or to create uneven cleaning of the media through lower than desirable backwash flow. Automating the backwash system and metering backwash flow to a rate of approximately 15 gpm/ft 2 (6,600 gpm for these filters) should be strongly considered. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report.

4.9 FILTRATION As noted in other report sections, filter operation is largely manual. Filter flow rates are adjusted manually using the outlet valve actuator, typically held to a 35 percent open position at the beginning of a production run and during the filter-to-waste cycle. Filter production run times are largely determined by staffing schedules and revolve around the time required to manually initiate the filling of the elevated backwash tank and backwash four of the active filters in one work shift. This process must be completed during the day shift in order to allow a sufficient quiescent period in the backwash lagoon for settling so that discharge of clarified supernatant can occur during the night shift. After backwash, running the filters to waste is practiced until a turbidity set point of 0.1 NTU is reached. This may require a period of up to 30 to 45 minutes to achieve. The operator must manually check the turbidity reading and switch the filter into production. It would seem that there would be many opportunities to optimize this process step, both to increase filter production and to minimize filter side-stream discharges to the lagoon. Filter runs should be optimized around anticipated turbidity breakthrough or increased headloss set-points (or even run time if it anticipates breakthrough sufficiently) rather than staffing schedules. Automating the various steps in the process would go a long way toward allowing this to happen. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report. One important path to improving filter performance is uncoupling the filter backwash schedule from the lagoon decanting schedule through changes in the lagoon setup, principally through the use of multiple lagoon cells so as to

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-9

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

allow backwash to flow to one while the other is settling. Additionally, the entirely manual nature of the backwash feed system should be addressed. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report. A single 18 inch pipeline both feeds the elevated backwash tank and acts as the filter backwash feed line. The crossover manifold from the distribution system to the backwash line consists of three 2-inch lines with hand operated gate valves on each. These are manually opened and closed between various backwash cycles to allow refilling of the backwash tank. Presumably this is done so as to limit the flow rate back from the distribution system to something far less than the 6,600 gpm that would typically be used during backwashing a filter. Automating this crossover through the use of a pressure sustaining flow control valve (to protect the distribution system from pressure drop, pipe scour, and water hammer) tied into a backwash tank high level set point would allow the backwash tank to fill automatically as well as allow distribution system water to contribute directly to a backwashing filter at times, speeding up the backwash water regeneration cycle. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report. It has been noted in earlier reports that the backwash storage tank is leaking, and for this reason, the tank is drained each day at the end of the dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s series of filter backwashes. The leak appears to be in the tank feed piping at the base of the tank column. This leak has been reported as being significant (at least 30 gpm). To temporarily address this problem, a French drain was installed around the base of the tank piping, with the collected leakage drained to the river. This leak should be repaired before it further undermines the tank. In addition, the tank requires repainting. The tank should be able to remain full (at least when the threat of ice formation is not an issue), so that a filter backwash can be initiated at any time. Individual filters should be interlocked and diverted to standby, so that multiple backwashes cannot be initiated in a simultaneous or overlapping fashion until such time as the elevated tank has refilled and all other active filters are back online. This is not the optimal solution and should be considered a shortterm step. A better option is to configure the backwash system to allow multiple filters to be backwashed simultaneously. Backwashing rates are currently determined by experience, which may not result in optimum bed expansion and uniform cleaning. Flow measurement tied into a rate control valve on the backwash line should be considered in order to achieve a high-rate backwash flow of approximately 15 gpm/ft2 (6,600 gpm) for these filters. Plant written protocol calls for backwashing the filters a duration of 4-8 minutes. Eight minutes at the proper backwash rate would generate approximately 53,000 gallons of backwash per filter. Staff backwash volume estimates, based solely on elevated tank water level changes and time to refill, are that approximately 20,000 gallons per backwash are consumed. This would suggest that the full 15 gpm/ft2 flow rate is not being achieved. The filters were retrofitted within the last nine years with new sintered cap, low profile composite underdrains allowing for increased media depth and for air scour. Air scour was later added. Individual filter turbidity monitoring is used as required by current regulations. These filters represent a recently upgraded strong point in the overall treatment process. They function well on Saco River water and with automation output can likely be increased without reducing finished water quality. After backwash, the filter-to-waste cycle continues until a turbidity of 0.1 NTU is achieved. Observation of continuously monitored turbidity data for an individual filter after backwash as plotted on the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SCADA system suggests that the filter undergoes a uniform, predictable cleanup very shortly after backwash terminates. This suggests that the 0.1 NTU limit on the filter-to-waste cycle is excessively conservative and that it could possibly be set closer to the Long Term 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1-ESWTR) individual filter regulatory limit of 0.5 NTU, significantly shortening the duration of the filter-to-waste cycle. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-10

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

As discussed in the flow measurement section, individual filter flow measurement should be added and used to control filter throughput to somewhere near a 3.5 gpm/ft2 surface loading rate. With improvements to the backwash and filter-to-waste cycles through automation, it should be well within the capacity of the six filters to deliver up to the max day production of 12.8 MG without pressing the SOR much above a 3.5 gpm/ft 2 loading rate. As noted in the section on the sedimentation basins, the hydraulic grade line between the sedimentation basins and the top of the filters appears to be flow-limiting for the overall facility. One factor that may be aggravating this, which has not been confirmed, is the operating water level above the filter media. The original facility design called for a maximum water level above the media that was one foot below the filter walls. This would be approximately two feet above the backwash launders. Having no means for measuring individual filter throughput during changing headloss as the filter media fouls greatly complicates filter operation and the balancing of flows through individual filters. Clean filters may be highly overloaded, while dirty filters may be under performing without operator knowledge. Further investigation into the techniques that the various operators use to balance filter flows in the absence of flow measurement should be conducted. It may turn out that throttling of individual filter inlet or filter outlet valving could be impacting the water levels above the media that operators view as necessary for normal facility production.

4.10 PRIMARY DISINFECTION As a well operated conventional filtration facility, routinely meeting its required percent removal of TOC, the Biddeford and Saco water treatment facility is required to provide an additional 0.5-log control of Giardia lamblia and 2-log virus control through its primary disinfection step. At a typical pH of 6.5, and at the coldest temperature, Saco River water would require a CT of 32 for Giardia lamblia control at current free chlorine dosing rates and a CT of 6 for 2-log virus control. Achieving 4-log virus control would require a CT of 12. Source water testing has shown an average of 0.03 Cryptosporidium oocysts/l, placing this treatment system in the Bin 1 category for the Long Term 2 – Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2–ESWTR) control of Cryptosporidium and thus requiring no additional treatment. With a controlling CT of 32 for Giardia lamblia, and a target measured chlorine residual of 1.8 mg/l after clearwell #2, a total contact time of 18 minutes is required through the first and second clearwells. These two clearwells total 213,300 gallons. A December 2000 Metcalf & Eddy facility evaluation references a tracer study conducted on these clearwells; however, the results of this study could not be located. No reference is made in the 2000 report either to a measured baffling factor or to the type of baffles assumed to be present, but they are reported as baffled tanks. The original 1935 filter construction plans show two parallel longitudinal structural walls within each clearwell. No cross sections illustrate the end conditions of the tanks. It cannot be determined from the drawings if the walls form a serpentine flow path, if the tank inlet piping (centered in the tank end wall) discharges to all three flow channels, or if the tank outlet draws from all three channels. Given the era in which they were constructed, these walls may simply be support structures for the overlying filters, rather than being designed for tank baffling. Assuming adequate baffling, it would be reasonable to expect a baffling factor of 0.5 for these chambers, thus yielding an effective volume of approximately 106,600 gallons. This is sufficient for providing an 18 minute contact time for flow rates only up to 8.5 MGD at the coldest water temperatures. Max daily design flows of 12.8 MGD would be expected to occur during the summer months at warm water temperatures when CT requirements would typically be half the cold water requirement. To achieve the 0.5-log Giardia lamblia credit based on the present monitoring location and applied chlorine concentration at a 12.8 MGD flow, the water temperature would need to be 7° C or greater (CTreq<=22). The third clearwell in series, a 128,000 gallon underground chamber, is not baffled and is presently not considered in CT computations. Should additional CT, or lower free chlorine dosing be desired in the future, it would be possible to baffle this chamber using Hypalon baffles, relocate chlorine residual sampling, finished water pH adjustment, and hexametaphosphate addition downstream from this clearwell and add approximately 10 minutes of contact time at the future max daily flow of 12.8 MGD. This clearwell is not protected from the 100-year flood elevation, although it The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-11

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

could be through sealing the single courtyard penetration at the south side of the building complex and sealing the corridor at the west side of the building near the SCADA terminal room. The details of this recommendation are included in Volume II of this report.

4.11 FILTERED WATER CHEMISTRY ADJUSTMENT Chemicals presently added to the filtered water consist of chlorine gas, hydrofluorosilicic acid, lime, hexametaphosphate, and ammonia gas. Each will be discussed in turn.

4.11.1 Chlorine Gas The facility currently uses chlorine gas as its source of chlorine disinfection. As has been noted elsewhere, the chlorine gas store room is plagued with a number of problems. Among these are: 

The walls and door frames are not air tight



Ton Chlorine cylinders and vacuum chlorinators are co-located in a single room



Ton Chlorine cylinders and sodium aluminate (a strong caustic chemical) are co-located in a single room



There is inadequate active and passive ventilation of the space



There is inadequate heating and lighting of the space given the hazardous nature of the chemical in the space



There is inadequate security and alarming of the space



Space heating through the use of portable electrical heaters is undesirable



The space is located below the 100-year flood elevation.

Recent data indicate that a total applied dose (two locations) of 2.79 mg/l of chlorine is used on an annual average. This translates to a total of 47,500 lbs. of gas per year. Converting to the use of sodium hypochlorite would alleviate the safety concerns of maintaining gas on site and allow for easier flood proofing. A concrete containment wall could be constructed to surround the hypochlorite bulk tanks. At current dosing and production rates, approximately 3,600 gallons per month of 12 percent concentration hypochlorite would be used. Assuming the same dosing concentration at design ADF, approximately 4,600 gallons per month would be consumed, or 150 gallons per day. Design max day consumption would be 270 gallons. For preliminary design, it would be reasonable to consider the addition of two 6,100 gallon vertical, polyethylene tanks, each approximately 12 ft. tall and slightly over 10 ft. in diameter. A 3 foot diameter by 7 foot high 280 gallon day tank would also be necessary. The elevation of the 100-year flood is approximately 3.1 ft. above the current building floor in the vicinity of the workshop and hydrofluorosilicic acid storage areas. Constructing a hypochlorite containment area in the southwestern corner of the building that is 32 ft. by 14 ft., with 3.5 ft. containment walls would protect the hypochlorite area from the 100-year flood and provide a sufficient working area for containing the day tank and pumps. This would displace the workshop and furnace areas, and would necessitate relocation of the fluoride storage area to a location where it could be properly isolated. Situating the hypochlorite storage tanks in this location would facilitate bulk deliveries and shorten transfer piping to an absolute minimum. From a process perspective, the addition of chlorine gas tends to lower pH, addition of hypochlorite tends to raise pH. A conversion to hypochlorite should lower the lime dose necessary to achieve the same finished water pH.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-12

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

4.11.2 Fluoride Addition Fluoride addition is presently conducted through the use of a 25 percent solution of hydrofluorosilicic (sili) acid. In 2012, 82,038 lbs. of sili acid were applied to a total production flow of 2,042 million gallons. Assuming a target concentration of 0.7 mg/l for future production, the design ADF of 7.1 MGD would require 20.8 gpd of sili acid or 650 gallons per month (83,600 lbs./yr.). Max day production of 12.8 MGD would require 37.5 gpd. The present onsite capacity in three bulk storage tanks represents almost six months of product inventory. Since sili acid is a hazardous chemical and is not properly contained and isolated within the facility, a conversion to the use of sodium fluoride mixed at a 4 percent solution through a saturator could be considered as a possible alternative. The design ADF would require the mixing of approximately 100 lbs. per day of sodium fluoride in approximately 300 gallons of water. Max day design would require approximately 180 lbs. per day of chemical in 500 gallons of water. Sodium fluoride saturators are routinely available in sizes up to 300 lbs. per day. A conversion to sodium fluoride would eliminate the hazard associated with the present storage and dosing of sili acid in a space common to an occupied break room, workshop and other chemical handling and storage areas. The room would need to provide for storage of bagged chemical. While properly designed ventilation would be required, sodium fluoride generally does not create significant dust issues. If the use of sili acid is continued, two of the bulk tanks, the day tank and pumps should be relocated to a proper watertight containment area that is not constructed of concrete block. The entire sili acid storage and handling area should be fully enclosed, kept at a negative pressure relative to adjacent areas of the treatment facility, and actively vented outside the building. Since the general area of the treatment facility that receives, stores, and applies chemicals is susceptible to flooding, it may be easier to flood protect a properly modified sili acid storage area than it would a dry chemical handling facility for sodium fluoride. This, together with a comparison of the operational costs of the two chemicals, should be considered. One process advantage to switching to sodium fluoride is that it has no pH impact on the filtered water, whereas sili acid lowers pH. Based on current upfront chemical additions made at the facility, filtered water is calculated to have a low 5 pH prior to lime addition. While low pH is beneficial for chlorine disinfection, this range is lower than it needs to be and serves to increase the lime dose necessary to bring the finished water back to neutral. Switching to sodium fluoride is predicted to reduce the lime dose by 1 to 1.5 mg/l that is necessary to achieve a finished water pH of 7.7. Space and access requirements for the fluoride chemical is dependent upon whether liquid sili acid is retained or a conversion is made to sodium fluoride dry chemical. In either case, a location along an outside building wall is desirable to provide direct exhaust of this space outdoors. If sili acid is retained, a portion of the chlorine gas room now occupied by the sodium aluminate tank could be isolated from the remainder of the chlorine room space, a containment wall constructed to an elevation above the 100-year flood, and the space ventilated through the north building wall. Much of the ceiling and walls in this area has been insulated with fiberglass batts and plastic sheeting. This area should be finished with fiberglass faced panels to maintain a fire rating as well as to ensure that it is isolated from surrounding building spaces. Alternatively, a fluoride chemical handling space (for either sili acid or sodium fluoride) could be part of an integrated solution to chemical handling and flood protection through the construction of a new building. Such a building could be constructed in the area of the present, flat roofed building that houses the lime, alum and chlorine spaces. The floor elevation of such a building could be raised approximately 3.5 feet to bring it above the 100-year flood elevation, while the roof line could be raised to match surrounding structures.

4.11.3 Lime Addition The use of lime as both a means of adding alkalinity to the raw water and to adjust finish water pH while providing a measure of corrosion control has a long successful history at the Biddeford and Saco water treatment facility. As The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-13

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

noted previously, the facility has the ability to add lime ahead of the coagulation/flocculation step, but does not presently choose to do so. Lime is now added only after the point at which the chlorine residual is measured for CT compliance. Saco River raw water is normally low in alkalinity, typically in the 5 to 9 mg/l range. Preliminary water chemistry modeling (using the RTW model for determining optimal water chemistry) suggests that all alkalinity is consumed in the alum coagulation step. It also computes that the filtered water, after undergoing additions of chlorine gas and sili acid, would have a pH of 5.0. The model predicts the current average lime addition after filtration of 9 mg/l would yield water with 12 mg/l of alkalinity and a pH of 7.7. The facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s finished water target pH is in fact 7.7. Based on the literature, pH and alkalinity would seem low for this type of finished water. Many chloraminated water systems find that they must run at significantly higher pH in order to ensure that only mono-chloramine species are present. Chloramine phase diagrams would suggest that as much as 20 percent of the chloramine in the distribution system would be dichloramine at this pH. While dichloramine provides somewhat greater disinfectant value than monochloramine, it also imparts noticeable taste and odor to the water at concentrations less than one-third that of monochloramine. Nonetheless, many systems, including the Portland Water District as well as Biddeford and Saco, run chloraminated systems successfully in this pH range without experiencing taste and odor complaints. A finished water alkalinity of 12 mg/l also appears less than optimal for minimizing the corrosive properties of the water. However, compliance sampling indicates very low lead and copper concentrations in its Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling. Data from 2011 show a 95th percentile value of 4.3 ppb for lead (6.3 ppb max, 1.6 ppb average) versus an action limit of 15 ppb. The 95th percentile copper value was 0.26 ppm (0.36 ppm max, 0.07 ppm average) versus an action limit of 1.8 ppm. The fact that the water appears so non corrosive to lead and copper, and to iron pipe suggests that the finished water pH, alkalinity, and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) are in balance. As noted previously, conversion to sodium fluoride and sodium hypochlorite could result in slightly higher pH filtered water and lessen the needed lime dose. Model results suggest that this change would be on the order of 1 mg/l or about 11 percent. Recent lime use data indicates 158,300 lbs. of bagged lime was used in 2012, a year that saw an average daily flow of 5.6 MGD. This equates to approximately 454 lbs. per day or 17.3 ft3/day at a normal loose density of 25 lbs./ft3. Assuming that the current dose of 9 mg/l is and will remain optimal, design period ADF use would increase to 533 lbs./day (21.3 ft3) with max day consumption at 960 lbs./day (38.4 ft3). The present lime handling and storage areas are very poorly laid out and the equipment and ventilation are entirely inadequate. The feed equipment and storage areas lie below the 100-year flood elevation. The area does not have adequate ventilation, either within the workspace or at the bag dump station. The lime handling area is directly adjacent to other chemical handling, the workshop, and employee occupied areas. It is not sufficiently isolated to prevent fugitive dust from entering these spaces. The lime feed equipment storage hoppers are undersized and therefore require repeated operator attention during the production day. Lime metering equipment is open to the atmosphere at the stock tank and allows additional dusting to occur. Lime solution feed pumps are in an adjacent space, enclosed in the same room as the alum handling equipment. A key improvement would be to install an integrated lime handling system which includes a bag dump station with sufficient capacity to allow multiple dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s storage, a bag house dust collector imposing a negative pressure at the point of bag dumping, a bin vibrator, bin scale, variable speed feed auger, and a stock tank capable of maintaining a constant solution concentration in the 2 to 5 percent range. In order to simplify lime handling by facility personnel, it is advantageous to size storage hopper capacity to allow personnel to develop a routine schedule for adding bagged lime to the system. Plant personnel are more likely to don proper protective gear when lime handling occurs at a single time each week, rather than when simply passing through to add dry lime throughout the work day to an The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-14

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

undersized system. We would recommend that storage hopper volume be sized at 60 cubic feet, approximately three days storage at ADF. The room itself should be fully isolated from adjacent areas, eliminating walk through to other spaces, and should have its own dedicated ventilation. All equipment and stored pallets of dry material should be at an elevation above the 100-year flood, approximately 3.5 feet above the present building floor in this area. Raising the floor in this area would provide the additional benefit of creating a loading dock at the overhead delivery door, allowing direct offloading of palletized lime from delivery trucks. Raising the building floor in this area to this extent would create headroom issues necessitating an increase in the building roof height. This section of the building is comprised of a flat membrane roof overlying wood decking, wood joists and steel structural beams. It may be more cost effective to demolish the existing portion of the building containing the lime handling area, alum area, and chlorine/sodium aluminate areas and construct a new addition with a floor elevation above the 100-year flood level. Adjacent building structures have higher roof elevations. Maine Water may wish to consider converting to receive shipments of lime in bulk and storing it in a lime silo. Full load bulk deliveries are typically 20 tons. This equates to a 75 day supply at design ADF. Bulk storage facilities should be designed with approximately 50 percent excess capacity to allow for receiving full truck loads prior to emptying the system. A 30 ton lime silo would require approximately 2,400 cubic feet of capacity. Such a structure, including a conical bottom sloped at a 60 degree angle and three feet of freeboard, could be 12 feet in diameter and stand 32 feet tall. It could be located immediately to the north of the present lime room, adjacent to the existing backwash storage tank or within a newly constructed building. Converting to bulk storage of lime would also allow for a reduction in the needed lime handling space in either a new or refurbished chemical handling building.

4.11.4 Hexametaphosphate A proprietary hexametaphosphate is added approximately midway along the unbaffled third clearwell tank. The chemical is StilesChem Aquadene SK#7860. The chemical injection port is along the wall in the abandoned filter building and enters the clearwell side wall. The nominal dose was 1.9 mg/l based on pumped flow in 2012. With no provision in place for uniform mixing throughout the tank, the variability in finished water concentration is unknown. A total of 34,919 lbs. were used in 2012. Sodium hexametaphosphate is a sequestering agent that has been shown to be effective in some situations for red water control. It is not typically effective as a lead corrosion inhibitor. In fact, it may actually increase lead solubility. If use of this product is continued through the design period at present concentrations, it should be expected that approximately 3,900 gallons/year will be consumed. Present storage facilities could be protected from flooding through the installation of watertight doors at either side of the room or the storage location could be incorporated into a newly design chemical handling building at an elevation above the flood level.

4.11.5 Ammonia The facility converts its free chlorine residual to a chloramine residual through the addition of nitrogen in the form of ammonia gas injected just prior to the high lift pumps. Anhydrous ammonia gas is received in 150 pound cylinders and stored in a hallway adjacent to the workshop area and lime room entrance. The active tanks, vacuum ammoniator, scale and solution feed pumps are located in an open area immediately beneath the employee break/lunch room mezzanine. Neither of these spaces is properly secured, ventilated, or isolated from other occupied areas or from the chlorine gas storage room. This represents a significant health and safety hazard. The applied ammonia dose averaged approximately 0.46 mg/l in 2012, equating to 8,232 lbs. consumed that year or approximately one cylinder per week. At a typical free chlorine residual of 1.5 mg/l at the point of ammonia application, a 0.46 mg/l dose results in a Cl:N ratio of 3.26:1. Based on the stoichiometry of the chloramine reaction, The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-15

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

this would appear toward the low side of the proper ratio, suggesting the possible overfeed of ammonia with the potential for generating free ammonia in the distribution system and promoting nitrification. As with other chemical feed systems at the facility, the ammonia feed rate is entirely manually controlled and is not tied into a feedback loop from a chlorine residual measurement. This further increases the risk of potential overfeed and nitrification. Widespread nitrification within the distribution system does not appear to be an ongoing problem and, since the system has been chloraminating for many years, the current Cl:N ratio appears to be effective. Any new ammonia dosing system should be trimmed by a chlorine residual measurement obtained in the vicinity of the application point. A system of this size could easily switch to a less hazardous form of ammonia, such as aqueous ammonia or even ammonium sulfate. Other Maine Water facilities use ammonium sulfate with good results. Based on current dosing rates, this facility could expect to use approximately 135 lbs. (3 bags) of dry ammonium sulfate per day at design ADF. At design max day flow rates, 243 lbs. (5 bags) would need to be mixed. When typically mixed at a 12 percent concentration for feeding, this results in a total daily volume of between 136 and 244 gpd. Such a mix and feeding station could be located within a segregated portion of a new lime storage room, particularly if lime handling was converted to bulk storage in a silo. As was proposed in the lime handling section, the dry chemical storage area could be raised approximately 3.5 feet to create both a loading dock and to elevate the storage and mixing area above the 100-year flood elevation. Head room constraints would likely necessitate major building modifications or an entirely new structure.

4.12 HIGH LIFT PUMPING Three high lift pumps are used to transfer production water from clearwell #3 to the distribution system. The suction lines to the pumps are split, with one side feeding pump #1 and the other feeding pumps #2 and #.3. The high lift pump discharge header delivers water to the distribution system through two transmission mains, each with a venturi flow meter instrument. The pump discharge header can be split by valving so that #1 and #3 or #2 and #3 are discharging to different transmission lines. Pumps #1 and #2 are supplied at 2,300 voltage from the motor control center (MCC). Each pump has a manually operated, eleven position switch and resistive load bank. This equipment functions as a manual reduced voltage starter. Plant personnel report that the load bank is not used as a speed control for the motor; although it is possible to control the power delivered to the motor and pump by shunting voltage to through the load bank and dissipating the energy as heat. Operator tests conducted using pump #2 show outputs ranging from 4,979 gpm to 6,695 gpm at load bank settings from position 7 through position 11. Pump #1 is a Worthington 14-LA-3 dating from the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, with a listed operating point of 6,000 gpm at 180 feet of head and a full speed of 1,160 rpm. Its 350 hp motor was last rewound in July of 2007. Pump #2 is a Worthington 12LN-21 dating from the 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, with a listed operating point of 6,000 gpm at 180 feet of head and a full speed of 1,175 rpm. Its 350 hp motor was last rewound in January of 2008. Data compiled over the winter months of 2012 show that this pump averages an output of 5860 gpm, which is very close to the original listed operating point. During the winter months, Pump #2 is the primary high lift pump in use. It appears well matched to the normally set output of low lift pump #5 (set by VFD), slightly less well matched for outputs normally set for low lift pump #4. The present #5/#2 configuration can be used to produce the present off-season flows of 4 to 5 MGD in an 11 to 14 hour operating day. The future 7.1 ADF could be pumped in 20 hours of operation. It appears pump #1 and#2 draw similar power, approximately 335 hp, during winter operations, for 11 to 14 hours. During summer operation, it appears that pump #1 or #2 is operated in a simplex configuration for eight hours and pump #3 is brought online in a duplex configuration for the second eight hours of operation. The power draw is estimated at 335 hp for the first half of the day and 528 hp for the second half of the day. The usual duplex

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-16

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

combination during the months of June, July, and August appears to be #1/#3. This is the easiest pump combination to split between the discharge pipe manifold, directing one pumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s output through each venturi and transmission line. Pump #3 is an Ingersoll-Dresser 200-LNN-400 with a listed operating point of 3,500 gpm at a head of 220 feet at a full speed of 1,776 rpm. It has a 480 volt motor and VFD used for speed control. This pump dates from 1998. Pump #3 is used to provide additional flow during the summer time. Calculations by the previous facility owner suggest that pump #3 will deliver an additional 2,200 gpm to 3,500 gpm to the system when run at 91 percent of full speed or better in conjunction with pump #1. This suggests that it is possible to pump upwards of 9,500 gpm (13.7 MGD) into the distribution system. An energy audit conducted by Woodard & Curran during the summer of 2012 evaluated the cost/benefit of replacing either pump #1 or #2. This study concluded that a replacement of this equipment with a new, low voltage, VFD controlled pump would not be cost effective, having a payback of over 89 years. Pump and/or motor replacement would only make sense if the facility needed to replace the overall medium voltage switchgear due to failure or inability to obtain parts. In 2002, a 750 kVa, medium voltage, emergency electrical generation system was upgraded to replace an aging generator.

4.13 FACILITY AND LOCATION PROCESS CHALLENGES All of the building and accessory structures are located within the 100-year floodplain of the Saco River. Many of the building components are isolated by berms or have other protective measures to guard against the entry of floodwater. Notable exceptions include the original building space, now used for chemical handling, the intake room and corridor leading past the low lift pump room stairs, the main entrance corridor which also houses the SCADA system hub, and the courtyard area which houses the #3 underground clearwell. In addition, many other areas could be subject to flooding due to floor drains, manholes and other piping breeches through walls and floors. Even if building integrity could be maintained against floodwaters, the facility as it is presently configured could not remain in production during flood conditions since it would not be possible to discharge solids collected from the sedimentation basins or backwash discharged from the filters. In addition, access to the facility would be impacted. While many facility assets may be protected during flooding, there is a good chance that the facility would be unable to produce water until flood water receded and any damage could be corrected. This may take a period of days, weeks or months, during which time the facility could not produce regulatory compliant drinking water. During periods when the facility is inoperable, the best means of ensuring continuous water supply to the service communities would be through interconnects with KKW to the south and through a future connection to Portland Water District to the north. This assumes there is sufficient additional capacity to supply the Biddeford & Saco system. As noted in other sections, many of the chemical handling areas could theoretically be protected from the current estimated 100-year flood event by raising the building floor by 3.5 feet in areas where headroom would allow, through the construction of proper chemical containment walls of sufficient height for protecting bulk liquid storage tanks, or through the construction of an integrated chemical handling building at a higher elevation. A sketch of how such a building could be constructed over the footprint of the present lime, alum and chlorine handling areas is located in Appendix C. The building could incorporate a loading dock, and provide access to the existing workshop area and to the mezzanine located above. Floor elevation could be set to provide a sufficient measure of additional flood protection above the 100-year flood for all chemical handling and storage processes. In addition, as detailed in Volume II, a portion of the building could be fitted with a second floor, providing space for lab, office, records storage, bathroom and break areas. Access to the facility would still be problematic and the issue with lagoon flooding would not be resolved. Plant sanitary facilities are entirely inadequate. New bathrooms could be incorporated as part of a newly constructed chemical handling building. The floor elevation of such a building would not only raise these facilities above flood elevation, but would allow for plumbing runs to a sanitary pump station beneath the floor that could serve the facility. The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-17

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

The courtyard and underground clearwell #3 could be protected through sealing and berming the courtyard entrance archway and through sealing and berming the area of the original front entryway. Other areas, while prone to flooding, could be configured such that pumps, equipment and electrical gear are located above anticipated water levels. Access to a flooded facility could be through a new lime/ammonia handling wing, constructed at higher floor elevation, and with a new entry through the back wall of the office area adjacent to the low lift pumps or through the present employee break room mezzanine. Facility wide flood proofing is discussed in Volume II. The existing backwash lagoon would be easily inundated under 100-year of higher flooding conditions, with debris washed into the lagoon and accumulated solids washed out to the river. The existing lagoon should be abandoned and filled, and a new three cell, lined lagoon constructed immediately to the south of the sedimentation building and courtyard entrance. Such a structure could be bermed to an elevation above anticipated 100-year flood levels. Depending upon the design water level in new lagoons, it will be necessary to pump sedimentation basin underflow and filter backwash to the lagoon rather than allowing gravity flow as at present. Construction of three separate cells would allow for alternating active use of two cells, thereby promoting adequate settling prior to supernatant discharge, while the third cell is left idle seasonally for allowing solids drying and removal. The ability to accommodate continuous sedimentation basin sludge withdrawal and filter backwashing at any time without having to schedule such discharges around a settled water decanting schedule would allow facility production to be optimized around longer filter run times based on breakthrough or headloss buildup rather than around staffing schedules. Construction of new, lined lagoons would involve floodplain construction permitting as well as transfer of the discharge permit for the existing lagoon.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

4-18

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

5. STRUCTURAL EVALUATION The structural components at the facility were found to be in generally fair condition for a structure of its age. The structural integrity appears to be intact. The overall condition of exposed-to-view portions of concrete tank structures along with the various building structures were observed to be in fair condition, with no major signs of structural weakness, deterioration, or other significant integrity issues. Although several problem areas have been identified, most of them are minor in nature and, therefore, present no immediate threat to structural integrity. However, if not properly monitored and addressed in a timely manner, these issues could develop into more serious structural problems. Below-water-line portions of concrete tanks were not accessible, and should be inspected when tanks are off line during maintenance to assess the overall condition. Of all the items identified, issues relating to facility safety, structural integrity, and roof leakage, are considered the highest priority. The filter and sedimentation basin roof decks and framing were identified as the most significant structural integrity concerns. The large, exterior brick chimney is also a major concern that should be further investigated to ensure that it is code compliant and that the masonry is not in need of repair. Demolishing this unused structure is the best long-term option. There are many areas throughout the facility where unsafe conditions were observed relative to fall protection. To comply with International Building Code, OSHA Regulations, and industry safety standards, any areas with more than a 4 foot drop (or with the potential for a person to fall into a dangerous condition) require an approved guard system meeting specific load criteria and extending 42 inches above grade. Many areas were in violation of this requirement. Beyond the obvious safety concerns and liability, Maine Water and the facility are at risk for citations and fines should the facility be subject to a safety compliance inspection by a state safety official. Monorail beams and equipment lift hooks may also be subject to citations and fines, if each is not clearly labeled with the appropriate load rating. With respect to building roofing, the timeframe recommended for replacement of the roofs is dependent on performance and observed leakage. The specific age and status of each individual roof section was not clear, and many have reportedly been repaired numerous times. As a result, the recommendations offered in this report call for the older roof systems to be replaced. Although some roofs have been replaced in the past decade, many of them appear to be well over 20 years in age. Maine Water may choose to spot repair problem areas first and defer the costs of complete reroofing; however if that approach is taken, then it is recommended that Maine Water still budget for complete reroofing of the identified areas at some point in the next 5 years. Failure to reroof buildings in a timely manner can result in accelerated durability issues with roof decks and support framing due to increased moisture penetration over time, such as rebar corrosion, expensive concrete and masonry wall repairs, and interior serviceability issues resulting from frequent roof leaks.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

5-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

6. IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS This section identifies Process, Health & Safety and Structural deficiencies at the treatment facility and makes recommendations tied to a set of established investment timeframes based on priorities. The timeframes are assigned to assist the facility in planning and prioritizing repairs and are meant to be used as a guide. Maine Water may choose to alter these priorities consistent with their needs. The Immediate and Short-Term priority deficiencies and recommendations are grouped together, since these items are recommended to be performed or planning to be initiated immediately. These items are organized into tables by common categories (i.e. lighting, electrical, windows). For each issue, the table provides the area where the item is located, the item description, recommendations and associated improvement investment timeframe (priority). Planning level costs, which encompass design, engineering and construction, are included for each recommendation. These items are also organized by priority in Appendix D and by location within the facility in Appendix E. Mid-Term and Long-Term priority recommendations are provided in Volume II of this report. These items are either longer term efficiency improvements or have a more involved scope and require further information and analysis prior to development of detailed costing. Planning level costs are provided using an order-of-magnitude cost range. Many of these upgrades could change significantly, depending upon owner preferences and future changes in the way Maine Water choses to operate the facility after shorter-term recommendations have been implemented. Priority Descriptions are as follows: Immediate: Recommendations that are categorized as an immediate priority are improvements that are required right away to bring the treatment facility into compliance, to meet health and safety standards, to ensure the structural stability of the facilities, and to improve process chemistry and control. These improvements are generally smaller projects that should be implemented within the next 12 months. Short-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as a short-term priority are improvements that are similar to immediate priority improvements, but require a longer planning period prior to construction; although planning for these projects should begin immediately, implementation should occur within 12 to 36 months. Mid-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as a mid-term priority are improvements that, while not essential to implement immediately, must be performed in the next 3 to 7 years to ensure continued compliance and reliability of finished water, provide capacity to meet future predicted demands, optimize operational flexibility and extend the life of the facility. These recommendations are discussed in Volume II of this report. Long-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as long-term priority are improvements that are necessary if the decision were made to continue the use of the existing facility past 7-10 years. These upgrades will improve process efficiencies and ensure adequacy of equipment and facilities. These recommendations are discussed in Volume II of this report.

6.1 IMMEDIATE AND SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Immediate and Short-Term recommendations are grouped together as these timeframes are similar, given that items are recommended to be implemented immediately. A breakdown of recommendations by priority is located in Appendix D, and a breakdown by location within the facility is located in Appendix E. Several Immediate and Short-Term deficiencies listed in the tables below require further evaluation and analysis to determine the extent of the required upgrades. The costs associated with these items includes the estimated cost to implement subsequent upgrades or replacements; however the actual costs may vary based on the outcome of the evaluation and analysis.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

6.1.1

Process Recommendations

The following table summarizes the immediate and short-term process recommendations which are further detailed in Section 4 Process Evaluation. Additional process improvements are recommended in Volume II of this report.

Table 6-1: Process Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intakes

The intakes originally had bar racks that have subsequently deteriorated; they now are open-ended allowing debris into the raw water pumps

Install wedge-wire drum screens with air purge backwash

Short-Term

$96,500

No ability to automatically pace coagulant dose

Newly installed dual Streaming Current Detectors (SCDs) should be tied into a SCADA system; one on the incoming water to set dose and one after low lift pumping to trim dose

Immediate

$5,000

Theoretically inadequate alkalinity in raw water to complete alum reaction

Conduct detailed jar testing through various seasons and river conditions to confirm presence of adequate natural alkalinity. Plan coagulant doses accordingly and adjust with lime as necessary.

Immediate

$10,800

Sedimentation Building

Low sedimentation basin end wall height promotes floc carryover

Raise basin end wall height to above present water levels. Install weir launders across sedimentation basin to greatly increase weir length, minimize end wall scour, and diminish floc carryover.

Short-Term

$120,300

Sedimentation Building

Unbalanced flow splitting between the two floc/sedimentation basin trains

Construct a weir box with adjustable weir gates within the head end of the first flocculation cell

Short-Term

$101,800

Sedimentation Building

Sludge collection system is in disrepair

Install new sludge collection siphon manifold, preferably from a floor mounted track

Short-Term

$267,000

Sedimentation basins are undersized

Retrofit each sedimentation basin with lamella plates or similar technology to improve apparent surface area and diminish shortcircuiting

Short-Term

$144,100

Intake Room

Sedimentation Building

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sludge lagoon is inadequately sized for sedimentation basin underflow and filter backwash and filter-to-waste, and is subject to flooding

Construct a sufficiently sized, 3-cell lagoon system at an elevation that protects it from a 100-year flood. Divide the sedimentation sludge collection piping (to remain gravity) from the filter backwash piping (to be pumped through use of an intermediate pump station constructed in the courtyard).

Short-Term

$2,187,800

Yard

Building courtyard is subject to flooding, inundating decant piping and clearwell #3

Seal the courtyard archway as part of the lagoon yard re-contouring. Replace the wall at the back side of the main building entrance, removing windows and providing gasketed, water tight door.

Short-Term

$44,000

SCADA Room

SCADA junction panel and air compressors subject to flooding

Relocate the SCADA junction panel to a higher area, possibly in the corridor directly above, adjacent to the backwash blower.

Immediate

$20,900

Filter gallery

Individual filter flow rates cannot be monitored for surface loading

Add individual filter flow meters.

Immediate

$57,100

Chemical Feed Building

Chemical storage areas are below flood level and are very poorly configured for incompatible chemical separation

Demolish portion of building and construct a new chemical handling building within the same footprint, at a higher floor elevation. This building could accommodate second floor lab, office, and employee areas to be built out under a separate project.

Short-Term

$672,900

Chemical Feed Building

Chlorine gas is not adequately contained and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert to the use of sodium hypochlorite and provide a proper containment area above flood level

Short-Term

$188,500

Chemical Feed Building

Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not properly contained and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert to the use of sodium fluoride and provide a proper containment area above flood level

Short-Term

$46,900

Chemical Feed building

Anhydrous ammonia is not properly contained, is located below flood level and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert to use of ammonium sulfate and relocate in a dedicated handling space.

Short-Term

$86,400

Chemical Feed Building

Lime addition equipment is inadequate

Convert to lime storage in a bulk silo and relocate lime handling to a new dedicated space

Short-Term

$474,000

Yard

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

General

The SCADA system is currently used as read-only and does not record or control any of the facility's processes.

Recommend network, database, software and hardware upgrades with alarming and reporting and the addition of control and monitoring for all equipment

Short-Term

$308,000

General

All chemical additions are strictly manually controlled and are not paced to flow or trimmed by analyzers

Convert chemical dosing to automatic flow pacing and trim.

Short-Term

$37,900

Yard

Backwash tank supply piping leaks and the tank requires painting

Repair tank so that it can hold backwash water over night.

Immediate

$138,300

6.1.2

Health & Safety Recommendations

Health and Safety deficiencies have been identified and grouped by category. Categories include lighting, stairs, railings/fall protection, hoist/monorail, noise, electrical, heating, chemical storage and handling and code compliance.

6.1.3

Lighting

Lighting deficiencies were generally related to temporary light fixtures and inadequate lighting. Multiple extension cords where identified as being used which is in violation of OSHA regulations regarding the use of flexible extension cords in a permanent manner and feeding of cords through a wall. Illumination standards ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 can be applied to establish a minimum lighting condition adequate for safe work and egress. Areas with deficient lighting conditions are identified in the table below.

Table 6-2: Lighting Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room

A plug in halogen floodlight is the primary light source in this room. These types of light fixtures, though adequate for temporary usage, are not ideal for permanent applications due to potential electrical and fire hazards associated with these units.

Recommend a hardwired lamp for this area.

Immediate

$3,200

Hallway between Corrosion Control Room and Intake Room

The hallway leading from the corrosion control room to the intake room is poorly lit. An extension cord is being used inappropriately to power a small light fixture in the hallway. This extension cord has been daisy chained and fed through a wall into the phosphate room to an outlet.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and existing lighting should be repaired or new fixtures installed to provide adequate illumination.

Immediate

$5,900

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Low Lift Pump Area

Temporary lighting fixtures and flexible extension cords were observed in use in a permanent condition to aid in lighting of the low lift pump area.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and existing lighting should be repaired or new fixtures installed to provide adequate illumination.

Immediate

$8,800

6.1.3.1 Stairs Stair deficiencies are generally related to inadequate railing heights and non-conformance with stair rise and run code requirements. The following table identifies stairs that do not meet code requirements.

Table 6-3: Stair Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room

Exterior door has a 20 inch step up with no stair, which is a code egress issue.

Install code-compliant interior stair with a landing at exit door.

Immediate

$2,200

Low Lift Pump Area

Pump area is accessed by a stair with 7.5 inch risers and 7 inch treads, which does not meet code. The railings on the stairways in this area should be 30 to 34 inches to meet OSHA regulations, this condition was not verified during the walk through, but should be measured to ensure compliance with current safety requirements for standard railings.

It is recommended that the stairs be further evaluated for building code and OSHA regulatory compliance. If deemed deficient, it is recommended that the stairs be replaced or upgraded to meet current requirements.

ShortTerm

$22,000

Filter Gallery Access

The stairs which provide access to the filter gallery are steep and spiral and do not comply with rise/run code requirements. Ornate metal handrails along stairway are only 30 inch high, which does not meet 42 inches required by code.

Railings should be replaced or modified, and stair rise/run should be evaluated for code compliance.

ShortTerm

$17,900

High Lift Pump Area

Current pump area access is using a steep shipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ladder, which does not meet code.

The access ladders should be evaluated for code compliance.

ShortTerm

$6,200

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Workshop Entrance

There is an immediate safety hazard as you enter the building through the large steel double doors. To enter the building, you step up 6 inches, then step down 6 inches onto a 2 ft. concrete landing, then a 9 inch step down, followed by a 3 inch step up. This is unsafe in multiple ways and is a serious tripping hazard, especially for people not familiar with the facility.

This area should be partially demolished and rebuilt with a proper, codecompliant concrete landing and steps.

Immediate

$15,900

6.1.3.2 Railings/Fall Protection Railing/Fall Protection deficiencies are generally related to inadequate railing height or lack of adequate fall protection. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.23 (e)(1) states that the height of the standard rails shall be 42 inches. Many of the railings within the facility were constructed prior to the issue of OSHA standards concerning top rail requirements. The following table identifies railing and fall protection deficiencies.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-4: Railing/Fall Protection Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Low Lift Pump Area

The railings located on the walkway mezzanine above the low lift pump area are approximately 33 inches high from the floor, which are lower than the 42â&#x20AC;? OSHA requirement for a top rail located adjacent to an open sided floor and may be of a height which increase the risk of a fall hazard.

It is recommended that the railings be further evaluated for building code and OSHA regulatory compliance, if deemed deficient, it is recommended that the railings be replaced or upgraded to meet current requirements.

Immediate

$4,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

One section of catwalk had been removed on the north side of the sedimentation room near the flocculation tanks. This condition creates a fall hazard into the water.

This section of catwalk should be properly repaired or guarded against entry to the missing section.

ShortTerm

$16,400

Sedimentation Basin Room

The mixers are mounted in such a way in which the mixer apparatus are put through holes cut out of the decking floor of the catwalks which are built over the sedimentation tanks. There is a 6-10 inch gap on the floor to the water which presents a trip hazard to employees. Four mixers were observed with this condition.

These gaps should be better guarded so as to not create a trip hazard.

ShortTerm

$4,100

Filter Room

There is no fall protection such as a hand guardrail for employees to walk out onto the catwalk/dividers of the 6 filter tanks. There is a fall hazard for an employee to fall into the water without a guard in place. It was verified through employee interview that some work does occur out on the catwalks in this area.

If activities must occur on these catwalks, recommend the installation of guardrails or other fall restraint system along the catwalk areas where employees must conduct work.

Immediate

$76,400

Filter Room

The parapets which run along the perimeter of the filter basins are just 30 inches tall.

It is recommended an additional rail be installed above the parapet to a height of 42 inches to prevent an accidental fall into the water.

Immediate

$12,200

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Filter Gallery

In the gallery area below the filter room are a series of wooden planks which have been fitted to provide a walking surface above the older concrete floor and sumps which are uneven in nature and often collect with water. There are substantial trip and fall hazards in this area, that although are generally less than four feet in height to the next lower level, could produce physical injury to employees.

It is recommended that this planking be reinforced and hand railed or replaced with grating to cover the entire level below and handrail areas where openings would remain.

Immediate

$125,000

Filter Gallery

There is a wooden crossover step (three-four steps high on either side) over a large steel pipe.

It is recommended that handrails be installed to prevent trips and falls when crossing over the step.

Immediate

$4,300

High Lift Pump Area

There are 32 inch wide openings to two ships ladders and a chained opening along the protective handrails at the upper floor level which partially encompasses the high lift pump room. There is about a 15 foot fall from these openings if a fall was to occur.

It is recommended that selfclosing gates be installed at these openings to better prevent a fall potential.

Immediate

$2,000

High Lift Pump Area

The railings located on the walkway mezzanine above the high lift pump area are approximately 31 inches high from the floor and therefore the top rails as currently configured along the mezzanine are shorter than that required by OSHA regulations and may be of a height which increases the risk of a fall hazard.

Immediate

$6,400

High Lift Pump Area

The gate valve platform for the 36 inch effluent line is approximately 4 feet above the floor surface. It is evident that if the valves require actuation, personnel need to stand on the platform. If unguarded, this creates a fall hazard in violation of OSHA rules for general industry when an unguarded edge is greater than four feet higher than the next lower surface.

It is recommended that a protective guardrail system be installed for safe access to the platform, or another acceptable fall restraint system be implemented when an employee accesses this platform.

Immediate

$4,600

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-8

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Workshop Entrance

The ships ladder which provides access to the mezzanine has been recommended to be removed and replaced, however if not removed as recommended, adequate fall protection from the mezzanine level should be in place at the top of the ladder. There was a chain in place, but it does not seem to be in use any longer.

It is recommended that a selfclosing gate be installed at the top of the ladder if it is to remain in place as designed to prevent a fall hazard.

Immediate

$1,000

6.1.3.3 Hoists/Monorail Hoist/monorail deficiencies are generally related to lack of proper labeling or unknown structural capacity. The following table identifies hoist/monorails that require attention.

Table 6-5: Hoist/Monorail Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room

There are two unlabeled monorail beams with no hoist.

Analyze and label monorail beams, or label to not be used as a monorail.

Immediate

$2,500

Low Lift Pump Area

Roof monorail beam mostly concealed by finished plaster ceiling is currently not used due to unknown beam capacity.

Monorail beam should be structurally analyzed (would require partial ceiling demo to get as-built dimensions) and load capacity posted, or labeled to not be used as a monorail.

Immediate

$5,800

High Lift Pump Area

There was a 12,000 pound gantry crane in the high lift pump room which was labeled with the appropriate load rating, as is required per OSHA gantry crane standards; however the monorail beam that the crane is mounted on is not labeled with beam capacity. It was not determined during the safety walkthrough if the crane is still in use for operation or otherwise being maintained by periodic inspections.

It is recommended that this crane be evaluated for use and maintenance, if it is no longer in use it should be tagged out of service, or if in use proper inspection and maintenance should be maintained. The monorail beam should be structurally analyzed and load capacity posted.

Immediate

$2,300

6.1.3.4 Noise Noise deficiencies included work area noise levels above the allowed 85 decibel maximum. In general, it is recommended that engineering controls be applied to reduce noise generation and administrative controls be applied such as designating these areas as hearing protection zone so that occupational exposure to noise by operators is not in excess of 85 decibels. It should be noted that sound levels were assessed using a sound level meter application on a smart phone, and a sound survey with a calibrated sound meter is recommended to fully establish The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-9

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

areas of noise exposure above 85 decibels. The following table identifies areas with noise levels above the maximum allowed.

Table 6-6: Noise Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Low Lift Pump Area

Noise levels in the lift pump room and the hallway to the corrosion inhibition room above exceeded 90 decibels when the lifts pumps and/or the vacuum pump located in the hallway area were in operation.

Recommend applying engineering and administrative controls so that occupational exposure to noise by operators is not in excess of 85 decibels.

Immediate

$1,500

Polymer Room

Noise was recorded at 88 decibels when polymer mixers were engaged.

Recommend applying engineering and administrative controls so that occupational exposure to noise by operators is not in excess of 85 decibels.

Immediate

$1,500

Filter Room

Air blower in corridor is not provided with any sound proofing.

Provide OEM sound attenuating enclosure.

Immediate

$10,700

6.1.3.5 Electrical Various electrical equipment observed throughout the facility is dated and antiquated due to the age of the facility and various upgrades over several decades. During the safety walk, there were indications that some electrical equipment or circuits may be in poor condition or unable to safely hold electrical loads put on them. For example, in the chlorine storage room, there was a written instruction on a disconnect to turn off a portable space heater plugged into a wall prior to turning on an actuator pump or it will trip the circuit. On panel P8 located near the office above the low lift pump area, there was a similar hand written note attached to a circuit breaker warning operators of a condition, and there were instructions taped to a rheostat control for high lift Pump #1 to only apply the hand control in certain settings or risk malfunction. These conditions may pose significant electrical safety and fire hazards to facility staff and the physical facility. It is recommended that the electrical system be evaluated including a review of equipment age, condition, rating and maintenance prior to finalizing future upgrades. Additionally, a power flow evaluation should be performed through metering of the system and comparison with existing and potential future equipment. These recommendations and associated costs are not listed in the table below as the required upgrades and costs will vary significantly depending on the current condition of the electrical system, selected upgrades and codes that will be required to be met for selected upgrades. A facility-wide electrical upgrade is listed with a cost range in the Long-Term Recommendations Section in Volume II of this report. The following table identifies specific electrical deficiencies that require attention.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-10

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-7: Electrical Recommendations3 Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Low Lift Pump Area

A flexible cord is hardwired into low lift pump 4 with the connection points exposed; additionally the flexible cord is not properly protected from damage in the low lift pump area.

This electrical arrangement needs upgrade to meet the installation requirements of OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S for Electrical Systems, also the exposed connections need to be guarded from contact.

Immediate

$3,200

Sedimentation Basin Room

The sweep motors main power cord has weathered and the insulation has pulled back from the connection clamp exposing wires which create a shock hazard.

The power cords to these sweep motors should be repaired to fix this condition, most of the motors observed (4-6) had this deficiency.

Immediate

$4,700

Sedimentation Basin Room

An electrical wire, presumably energized was observed extended from a broken conduit out of the wall which then extends along the wall unguarded along the western wall of the sedimentation room along the catwalk.

This wire should be guarded from exposure or removed if no longer in use.

Immediate

$1,100

Filter Gallery

There are receptacles in place on the filter and turbidimeter boards (6 boards stationed in all) running north to south in the gallery area which are not rated for wet environments of GFCI protected.

It is recommended that the electrical receptacles are evaluated for replacement with equipment rated for moist to wet environments to better protect equipment and guard against electrical shock.

Immediate

$2,000

Filter Gallery

There are a series of flexible extension cords running from the upper level of the filter room which are exposed to damage and being used for permanent application. There are approximately 6 stations observed with this condition.

These cords should be replaced and hard wired and protected from wet conditions.

Immediate

$2,300

Table does not include recommendation to evaluate and upgrade the facility electrical system as a whole and therefore the cost for this recommendation is not captured in the total immediate and short-term cost to upgrade the facility. 3

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-11

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

High Lift Pump Area

There were two extension cords being utilized in a permanent condition in the high lift pump area. One was observed connected from an outlet to the motor area of pump #2 and another was observed in vicinity of a chlorine analyzer.

If these items are intended for permanent means, a permanent wiring configuration should be installed so the use of extension cords on a permanent basis is eliminated.

Immediate

$1,700

General

NFPA 70E is the consensus standard for electrical safety practices, contained within this standard are safe work practice requirements which are considered the norm for the industry and often applied to meet compliance with OSHA safe work practice regulations of OSHA 29 CFR Subpart S. One of the requirements of NFPA 70E is for facilities to conduct an arc flash hazard analysis of its equipment to determine the arc flash boundary, the incident energy at the working distance, and the personal protective equipment that people working within the arc flash boundary on said equipment shall use.

Such services would need to be conducted by a qualified individual as defined within NFPA 70E and per OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.332.

Immediate

$60,500

General

Various emergency lights, the wall mounted lamps designed to illuminate during an emergency or power outage to aid in safe egress, were tested in various areas including the sedimentation room, low lift pump area, lime addition area, among others did not function properly during the test. Wide spread failure of these tests suggest that the emergency light fixtures or system as a whole requires substantial repair.

Evaluation and repair of the emergency light system is recommended.

Immediate

$40,300

6.1.3.6 Heating It was observed in several areas that portable space heaters are being used to aid in the temperature control of work spaces. These heaters are placed in areas and utilized as a permanent means to aid in temperature control when such portable units are not intended for this purpose. It is recommended that a facility-wide heating system, potentially including a boiler and unit heater, be installed. The cost for a facility-wide system is not listed in the table below as the required upgrades and costs will vary depending on the type and extent of system chosen; however a facility-wide HVAC upgrade is listed with a cost range in the Long-Term Recommendations Section in Volume II of this report.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-12

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

The following table identifies specific areas with known heating issues.

Table 6-8: Heating Recommendations Area(s)

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room, Sodium Aluminate Area, Aluminum Sulfate Room, Hexametaphosphate Room, Polymer Room, Ammonia Feed Area, Fluoride Feed Area, Office Room, among potential other rooms/areas.

There appears to be some temperature control issues throughout the facility. To keep the area climate controlled, particularly for warmth in winter months, there were space heaters observed in each of these rooms/areas.

It is recommended that temperature control improvement measures be evaluated for function and repaired or upgraded where necessary.

Immediate

$80,700

6.1.3.7 Chemical Storage and Handling The chemical storage and handling deficiencies span a wide range of issues including storage containers, relation to other chemicals, ventilation, inspection protocols and fire suppression; however the recommendation in Section 6.1 to construction a new chemical handling building will remedy these issues. A comprehensive list of chemical storage and handling deficiencies is located in Section 6.4 Alternative Recommendations. If Maine Water chooses not to move forward with the construction of a new chemical handling building, it is recommended that the deficiencies listed in Section 7.4 be addressed.

6.1.3.8 Code Compliance Review Code compliance deficiencies span a wide range of issues including confined space access, location of employee break room, and fire suppression. Prior to facility improvements and renovations, it is recommended that an asbestos survey and abatement be performed by a certified professional. If asbestos containing material (ACM) is identified and not abated, it is recommended that an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance program be developed to formulate a plan of training, cleaning, work practices and surveillances to maintain the ACM in good condition within buildings to minimize exposure of all building occupants to asbestos fibers. This recommendation and associated costs are not included in the table below and therefore not captured in the total upgrade costs as the cost for abatement will be vary widely and will be directly related to the quantity and location of identified ACM. The following table identifies code compliance deficiencies and makes recommendations. Additional code compliance recommendations are made throughout this report (i.e. railing height code, chemical storage code).

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-13

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-9: Code Compliance Recommendations4 Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room

The intake room contains a permit required space (influent pit), which is approximately 16-20 feet deep. Although entry is not routine, it was verified with facility staff that entry is conducted periodically into this pit. The hatch covers appeared adequate to prevent a fall hazard, but when entry is conducted there are no safe measures available to prevent a fall hazard when the hatches are open. This safety inspection did not include an evaluation of written safety programs and policies or related equipment needed for safe operations such as confined space entry gear.

If confined space entry is conducted periodically by Maine Water staff, a written program, space inventory, employee training, and adequate entry equipment should be provided for the facility to meet compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations for confined space entry under 29 CFR 1910.146.

Immediate

$4,000

Low Lift Pump Area

Low lift pump 4 has an exposed shaft spinning at high speeds. Per OSHA machine guarding regulations, exposed spinning shafts shall be guarded to provide protection against injury.

A guard is recommended to be placed on pump 4 to alleviate this condition

Immediate

$1,200

Workshop Entrance

The break area for the operator crew is located in the workshop on a small mezzanine. The workshop also houses bulk storage (approximately 10,000 gallons) of hydrofluorosilicic acid, and the anhydrous ammonia addition system. These are hazardous chemicals and the break area and rest room should not be located in this area due to the potential for exposure from fugitive fumes or an emergency release.

It is recommended that the break area and rest room be relocated entirely from this space or adequately segregated to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals.

ShortTerm

$31,300

Workshop Entrance

Mezzanine live load is not posted, which is a code violation.

Perform structural analysis and provide signage with posted mezzanine live load capacity.

Immediate

$3,500

Workshop Entrance

Furnace is a few feet from chemical storage area and two oil tanks are nearby, which is a potential code violation. There is no sprinkler system.

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed.

Immediate

$16,500

This table does not include the recommendation for an asbestos survey and abatement and therefore the cost for this recommendation is not capture in the total cost to upgrade the facility. 4

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-14

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

6.1.4

Structural Recommendations

The following tables outline a number of issues identified during the inspection. All recommendations provided below are considered preliminary in nature, and require further evaluation and assessment before more detailed recommendations can be made.

6.1.4.1 Building Building deficiencies include framing, concrete tanks, walkway supports, among others. The following table identifies structural deficiencies related to building structures.

Table 6-10: Building Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing roof deck is 3 inch Tongue & Groove Southern Yellow Pine planking, which have large spans between steel framing. Deck ceiling paint is severely peeling and falling into treated water; paint may contain lead. Wood deck condition is questionable and wood blocking above steel beams is rotten in multiple places. Deck capacity likely would not meet current building code for snow loading.

Wood deck should be closer inspected, but it would likely be recommended that this deck be replaced for both condition and code reasons. The new roof would likely consist of galvanized metal deck, tapered rigid insulation and membrane roofing.

Short-Term

$249,100

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing roof framing consists of steel I-beams, pipe columns bearing on concrete tank walls, and brick exterior walls, with numerous additional suspended loading from hanger rods supporting hung catwalks and submerged process equipment and features. Steel framing paint is peeling and falling into treated water. There is no significant corrosion observed for steel framing members; however, it is likely that some or all of this structure do not meet current building code, especially in regard to lateral stability and integrity as columns have no internal bracing.

During roof deck replacement, a structural analysis of building will likely be required by code. The roof framing, columns, and associated lateral force resisting system may require structural upgrade to meet current code requirements for gravity and/or lateral loads.

Short-Term

$85,000

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-15

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sedimentation Basin Room

Some steel columns appear to be out of plumb. At least one column bearing plate is founded on a concrete wall with a large vertical joint, such that the base plate spans the joint and there is noticeable concrete spalling at the anchor bolts. This joint appears to be much wider than it should be, but has reportedly been checked by engineers several times over the years.

Columns should be checked for plumb and corrected; bracing should be added as required by structural analysis; tank wall joint, spalling, and column base plate shall be repaired and upgraded.

Short-Term

$63,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

In early 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the exterior brick walls were insulated with rigid insulation and wood strapping to minimize icing from occurring on walls. Strapping is reportedly rotten in many locations behind the insulation. Insulation is covered with a paper film that has fallen off in many locations.

Insulation should be stripped off and replaced with new insulation and corrosion-resistant strapping with a more durable interior wall finish for moist conditions, such as fiberglass panels.

Short-Term

$113,700

Steel framing supporting catwalks is at or below water level and constantly exposed to moisture. Steel is corroded and the structural integrity may be compromised. This could be an immediate safety concern due to unknown condition of supporting members.

Tanks should be drained and cleaned, so that all steel framing can be evaluated by a structural engineer to assess condition and integrity, and to identify repair issues. It is likely that catwalks may require replacement with new catwalks and railings to replace the corroded steel; new catwalks would be constructed of corrosion-resistant aluminum and no longer partially suspended from roof framing.

Short-Term

$265,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-16

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sedimentation Basin Room

Concrete tanks were full of water at the time of inspection and could not be inspected. There are reportedly no areas of concrete spalling or exposed rebar; however, some cracking was observed on the tops of concrete walls, which likely extend below water line. The base slab reportedly has some cracking that used to be patched long ago, but has not been patched for many years. There is reported initial settlement of up to 5 inches in northeast corner, but this could not be visually confirmed with the tanks full of water. This tank was reportedly not pile supported like most other facility structures.

Tanks should be drained, cleaned, and inspected by a structural engineer to assess condition and integrity, and to identify repair issues. Possible repairs may include polyurethane crack injection, epoxy crack injection, sealant joint replacement, concrete spall repair, concrete repair of cracks, rebuild of any significantly unsound areas, and/or dealing with any exposed rebar, as necessary.

Short-Term

$234,800

Clearwells

Concrete tanks were full of water at the time of inspection and could not be inspected. There were no obvious signs of damage, cracking, or deterioration above water line, but inspection access was very limited.

Tanks should be drained, cleaned, and inspected by a structural engineer to assess condition and integrity, and to identify repair issues.

Short-Term

$53,100

Exterior Sedimentation Basin

A couple localized areas of concrete foundation wall cracking and spalling was observed (approx. 80 sf) at building expansion joints and at corner of foundation on the north wall and northeast corner.

Any unsound concrete should be demolished and replaced with premium repair mortar and new sealant along joint.

Short-Term

$30,600

6.1.4.2 Brick Short-term recommendations to address brick deficiencies include repairing the exterior chimney. Additional mid-term brick deficiencies including repair of cracks and moisture intrusion are detailed in Volume II of this report.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-17

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-11: Brick Recommendations Area

Exterior Chimney

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Due to challenges with access, inspection of this chimney was beyond the scope of this report. Because of its size and height, the structural integrity of this chimney and the associated masonry should be further evaluated to confirm its structural integrity. It is suspected to be deficient and therefore a price for removal has been given.

A more detailed assessment of the masonry chimney should be performed, This is likely to suggest removal, which has been included as the chosen recommended solution with the applicable cost.

Short-Term

$131,900

6.1.4.3 Windows In general, the windows in the treatment facility are old and in poor condition. Window upgrades are a mid-term priority and are detailed in Volume II of this report.

6.1.4.4 Roof The following table describes roof systems and associated deficiencies and makes short-term recommendations including further investigation. Additional roof recommendations are detailed in Volume II of this report.

Table 6-12: Roof Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sedimentation Basin Room

This roof membrane is over 30 years old, has reported leaks, and has been patched recently.

Replace roof in the next 2 years with a new insulated membrane roof system.

ShortTerm

$125,400

Workshop Entrance

There is a metal ceiling that fully conceals the steel roof framing, so visual inspection of the roof framing condition was not possible.

This area should be partially demolished and inspected to confirm that existing roof framing is in sound condition.

ShortTerm

$56,300

6.1.4.5 Miscellaneous Structural The following table identifies structural deficiencies that did not fall within previous categories. The deficiencies span a range of issues including concrete spalling, corroded pipe supports, painting and concrete containment areas.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-18

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-13: Miscellaneous Structural Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intake Room

There is eight square feet of concrete spalling around grated opening in floor.

It is recommended that the spalled concrete be repaired.

Immediate

$300

Filter Gallery

Several pipe supports in this congested area with large-diameter mechanical piping runs were observed to be very corroded and potentially compromised

Pipe supports should be further evaluated and all compromised supports should be replaced with new supports.

Immediate

$48,300

High Lift Pump Area

Paint on brick walls is peeling and may contain lead.

Paint should be tested for lead and brick repainted.

ShortTerm

$6,800

Abandoned Filter Building

In the old filter building, there are two 250 gallon fuel oil tanks and supply lines which appear to be heavily corroded/rusted. The level indicator displayed that the tank(s) were approximately one quarter full.

The purpose of these fuel tanks was not verified, but it is recommended that these tanks and associated lines be evaluated for structural integrity so the potential for a fuel oil leak is minimized.

Immediate

$5,600

Workshop Entrance

Workshop entrance double door and frame need to be repainted.

Double door and frame should be repainted.

Immediate

$500

Chlorine Injection Room

An old wooden door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

ShortTerm

$3,400

Filter Room Corridor

An old wooden double door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

ShortTerm

$5,700

6.2 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS This section makes recommendations that are alternatives to the Section 6.1 recommendations to construct a new chemical handling building and modify the sedimentation building. The recommendation in Section 6.1 to construct a new chemical handling building corrects many of the deficiencies within the existing chemical handling and feed systems, including lighting and electrical deficiencies in these areas of the building. The following recommendations list these deficiencies in order to fully identify all current issues at the treatment facility. If the new chemical handling building is not constructed, it is recommended that the following deficiencies be remediated. Maine Water may choose to implement some of the following recommendations to improve safety conditions at the facility in the short-term.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-19

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 6-14: Alternative Chemical Storage and Handling Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Aluminum Sulfate Room

Temporary lighting fixtures and flexible extension cords were observed in use in a permanent condition to aid in lighting of the aluminum sulfate room.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and existing lighting should be repaired or new fixtures installed to provide adequate illumination for the space.

Immediate

$3,200

Lime Area

Spotlights have been put in place to illuminate the work areas, in particular at the wet well sumps where the lime is being added. In addition to the existence of these light fixtures, they are being powered via flexible extensions cords in a permanent condition and one cord was observed clipped to the wall.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and a hard wired permanent task and general lighting configuration be established for this space.

Immediate

$4,400

Workshop Entrance

There is a ships ladder used for access to the break area mezzanine, and this is also a primary access route into the facility. The ladder is too steep and does not meet code for rise/run. The steepness of this ladder makes it a dangerous route for emergency egress, coupled with the fact that the ladder egress route exits through the furnace and hydrofluorosilicic acid storage area. Also the top tread of the ladder was cut to allow for connect to the mezzanine and only has a depth of 6 inches, the difference in depth on this step could create a fall hazard, particularly to those not aware of this condition such as visitors.

The application of this ladder should be evaluated. Removal of the ladder and installation of a stairwell is recommended as feasible. So long as this space remains a furnace room and an acid storage area, this area should not be considered a primary egress route for the facility.

ShortTerm

$22,700

Chlorine Room

There are some monorails that are properly labeled, but there is also a hoist suspended from a major steel roof girder; the girder is not posted with a load rating, which is a safety hazard.

The roof girder should be analyzed and posted with a load rating for this hoist, or the hoist shall be removed.

Immediate

$3,300

Aluminum Sulfate Room

Three knife switch style disconnects are secured to the wall in the aluminum sulfate room, these are closely encased in wall insulation. This may represent a fire hazard due to potential for electrical heating or arcing during engagement of the disconnect switch.

It is recommended that sufficient area of the insulation be removed from around this equipment (e.g. 30 inches) to provide mitigation of fire potential.

Immediate

$700

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-20

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Fluoride Feed Area

There is an electrical extension cord being applied for use on a fluoride injection pump in a permanent condition. This condition was observed on the fluoride addition system located under the mezzanine in the workshop.

A hard wired receptacle should be installed to allow for removal of the extension cord condition.

Immediate

$1,200

Aluminum Sulfate Room

Two alum tanks have a wood-framed cover over the top with very little head room above. The condition and load capacity of the tank covers is not known and no load rating is posted, which is a potential safety hazard if maintenance personnel ever walk above tanks. There is no fire wall separation and no sprinkler system.

A detailed review of the condition of the framing and a structural analysis should be performed to confirm the safety of these tank covers.

ShortTerm

$6,400

Sodium Aluminate Area

The sodium aluminate tank is located in the same room as the chlorine canister storage and addition system. Since chlorine is also stored in this space, general segregation of the sodium aluminate from the chlorine storage is also recommended. Sodium aluminate is corrosive to metals; in the event a spill releases sodium aluminate could damage system equipment with metals parts and chlorine cylinders located in the same room which could potentially create a chlorine leak if the cylinders or cylinder valves were compromised.

It is recommended that secondary containment or movement of the tank to another contained location for better segregation practice from chlorine cylinders be implemented.

ShortTerm

$20,900

Lime Area

There are ventilation exhaust hoods in place for the lime addition hoppers to prevent excess lime dust during addition activities, there was no records available which suggested these exhaust hoods were periodically evaluated for efficiency and general operation at the time of the site walk through.

If the hood systems have not been evaluated for flow, capture, and general operation, it is recommended that these systems be evaluated to ensure they are still working as optimally as possible.

ShortTerm

$69,800

Lime Area

There is a properly-labeled, 2-ton monorail; there are many cracks in the concrete floor, but the floor is still functional; multiple pallets of bagged lime are stored in the garage; there is no fire wall separation between garage and chemical storage areas and no sprinkler system.

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed.

ShortTerm

$20,800

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-21

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Chlorine Room

The chlorine storage room currently holds capacity for up to 5 one-ton cylinders which hold chlorine gas. The National Fire Protection Association defines chlorine gas as a toxic gas. Two of these cylinders are connected to a distribution manifold during normal operations for chlorine addition to the water treatment process. During observation of this space it was noted that ventilation systems suitable for protection against a chlorine gas release was not installed (e.g. chlorine is heavier than air and exhaust vents should be installed within 12 inches of the floor per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 55- 2013 edition). Also, the room in general was not designed to provide substantial protection to contain a chlorine leak should one occur, and distribution and control equipment are housed in the same room which is not considered good practice as they would be inaccessible in the event of a chlorine leak. Additionally there is no fire wall separation and no sprinkler system.

If the chlorine system is not converted to sodium hypochlorite as recommended, it is recommended that the chlorine storage room be inspected further and its conditions in particular for storage room design, ventilation and emergency release protection such as the applicability of a treatment system compared against applicable NFPA and other related fire code standards. The City of Biddeford enforces NFPA codes for building practices. Pending a more detailed review of these standards, design improvement recommendations may be made.

ShortTerm

$35,100

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-22

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Chlorine Room

Written programs and inspection protocols were not verified during the site safety inspection walkthrough. Both OSHA and EPA have regulations that require the use of certain management systems for companies that manufacture, store, and use chlorine. Processes containing chlorine at levels of 1,500 pounds or greater are covered by the OSHA PSM Standard. Processes containing chlorine at levels of 2,500 pounds or greater are covered by the EPA RMP Standard. The OSHA PSM Standard requires companies to implement management systems to protect workers at facilities that handle extremely hazardous chemicals, including chlorine7 (29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1910.119). Similarly, the EPA RMP regulation requires companies to develop management systems and assess public risk at facilities that handle specified chemicals including chlorine (40 CFR 68.130).

It is recommended that regulatory requirements concerning the storage and handling of chlorine be verified for compliance.

Immediate

$5,000

Ammonia Area

The anhydrous ammonia cylinder storage area is located in a storage area just outside the furnace room. Along with the storage of anhydrous ammonia cylinders, there have been shelves built above and near the ammonia storage area which house various lubricants, aerosols, and other materials which have flammability characteristics. This is in violation of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.111 (e)(2) which states portable cylinders of ammonia must be stored in an area free of ignitable debris. Additionally, there is no firewall separation or sprinkler system. Although gas detection systems were not evaluated during the walk through, a gas detection system for ammonia is recommended. The system should be maintained in accordance with best practices. If a system is not in place at the facility in a good operational state, such system should be evaluated for installation.

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed and the anhydrous ammonia system should be segregated from other materials.

ShortTerm

$10,100

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-23

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Corrosion Control Room

There are eight 55-gallon drums of corrosion inhibitor stored in this room; there is no fire wall separation and no sprinkler system.

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed.

Immediate

$17,900

Workshop Entrance

Chemical containment walls are 6 feet high and are constructed of CMU. It is very likely that these walls are neither watertight nor structurally adequate to support 6 feet of chemical in the event of a spill. In addition, the access around the tanks is very tight.

The containment area CMU walls should be water tested to ensure it is structurally sound and watertight for containment.

ShortTerm

$24,500

Total Chemical Feed Building Alternative Recommendations

$246,000

Section 6.1 also makes recommendations related to improvements to the sedimentation building. As an alternative to making these individual upgrades, the entire sedimentation building superstructure could be removed and replaced. This alternative and potential superstructure replacement options are listed in Table 6-17. The options include the lowest cost replacement option as well as a full brick facade to match the existing building exterior.

Table 6-15: Alternative Sedimentation Building Recommendations Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Sed Basin

Option 1A - Partial Footprint Replacement with fiber-cement siding: Replace existing building with new wood-framed covering center two tanks only plus a connector to the Filter Building; flat aluminum covers w/hatches over first and fourth tank bays.

Demo existing superstructure; provide new wood building covering center half of existing tank area with gable truss roof, metal roofing, clapboard fibercement siding, and FRP panel wall/ceiling finish. Flat aluminum covers w/hatches and support framing will cover the other half of the tank area.

ShortTerm

$1,403,000

Sed Basin

Option 1B - Partial Footprint Replacement with brick veneer: Same as Option 1A, except provide brick veneer to match existing.

Same as Option 1A, except provide brick veneer to match existing.

ShortTerm

$1,494,000

Sed Basin

Option 2A - Full Footprint Replacement with metal siding: Replace existing building with new metal building of equal size.

Demo existing superstructure; provide new metal building with metal siding on same foundation.

ShortTerm

$1,454,000

Sed Basin

Option 2B â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Full Footprint Replacement with brick veneer: Same as Option 2A, but with brick veneer to match existing.

Same as Option 2A, but with brick veneer to match existing.

ShortTerm

$1,670,000

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6-24

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

7. SUMMARY OF IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS These Immediate and Short-Term treatment recommendations have been developed to enable Maine Water to make informed decisions on upgrades to the Biddeford and Saco water system. Priority descriptions are as follows: Immediate: Recommendations that are categorized as an immediate priority are improvements that are required right away to bring the treatment facility into compliance, to meet health and safety standards, to ensure the structural stability of the facilities, and to improve process chemistry and control. These improvements are generally smaller projects that should be implemented within the next 12 months. Short-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as a short-term priority are improvements that are similar to immediate priority improvements but require a longer planning period prior to construction. Although planning for these projects should begin immediately, implementation should occur within 12 to 36 months. Mid-Term and Long-Term recommendations are detailed in Volume II of this report. The total cost for all immediate and short-term treatment recommendations are listed in Table 7-1. A breakdown of recommendations by priority are located in Appendix D, and a breakdown by location within the facility is located in Appendix E..

Table 7-1: Treatment Recommendations Total Costs5 Priority

Cost

Immediate

$810,000

Short -Term

$6,300,000

Immediate and Short-Term Subtotal

7,110,000

Total costs do not include alternative recommendations as described in Section 6.3 nor asbestos survey and abatement costs as described in Sections 6.1.2.9. 5

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

7-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

8. EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 8.1 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The Biddeford and Saco water distribution system provides water to Biddeford, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and the Pine Point neighborhood in Scarborough. The Maine Water Biddeford and Saco system consist of one surface water supply source, two booster pump stations, two interconnections, four water storage facilities, and one treatment facility. There are approximately 240 miles of water mains. This number was reported in the 2012 Annual Report for Water Utilities provided to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Maine (PUC). There are approximately 200 miles of water main ranging in size from four to 24 inches in diameter. A portion of the small diameter pipes were included in the original existing models. This data was incorporated into the new hydraulic model, but there were several areas that did not account for water mains smaller than four inches. The missing water mains were not added to the hydraulic model, since smaller pipes populate largely non-looped distribution branches and have little impact on overall system hydraulics. Figure 8-1 represents the percentage of each size pipe in the system. The water mains are primarily constructed of unlined cast iron (CI), factory and field cement lined cast iron (CLCI), and ductile iron (DI). A small percentage of the water mains are constructed of asbestos cement (AC), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), and pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP). Figure 8-2 represents the percentage of each type of material in the system. A Water Distribution System Map is in Appendix F. The water industry in the United States followed certain trends over the last century. The installation date of a water main correlates with a specific pipe material that was used during that time, as shown on Table 8-1. For example, up until about the year 1958, unlined cast iron water mains were the predominant pipe material installed in water systems. Factory cement lined cast iron mains were manufactured from the late 1940’s to about the mid 1970’s, when pipe manufacturers switched primarily to factory cement lined ductile iron pipe. Cast iron water mains consist of two types: pit cast and sand spun. Pit cast mains were generally manufactured up to the year 1930 while sand spun mains were generally manufactured between 1930 and 1976. Pit cast mains with diameters between 4-inch and 12-inch do not have a uniform wall thickness but are generally thicker and stronger than spun cast mains. However, pit cast mains in this range of sizes may have “air inclusions” as a result of the manufacturing process. When this occurs, it reduces the overall strength of the main, which makes it more prone to leaks and breaks. Although sand spun mains have a uniform wall thickness, the overall wall thickness was thinner than the pit cast mains. The uniformity provided added strength, however, the thin wall thickness made it more susceptible to corrosion and breaks. Pit cast mains 16-inch diameter and larger have very thick pipe walls and are generally stronger than the thinner walled sand spun cast mains. While the transition to factory cement lined cast iron mains had begun in the late 1940’s, most cast iron water mains that were manufactured were unlined prior to the year 1958. Unlined cast iron mains increased the potential for internal corrosion. By 1958, the majority of cast iron mains manufactured had a factory cement lining. The year 1958 is also when rubber gasket joints were introduced. Prior to this date, joint material was jute (rope type material) packed in place with lead or a lead-sulfur compound, also known as leadite or hydrotite. Leadite type joint materials expand at a different rate than iron due to temperature changes. This can result in longitudinal split main breaks at the pipe bell. Sulfur in the leadite can promote bacteriological corrosion that can lead to circumferential breaks of the spigot end of the pipe.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

20-Inch: 3%

24-Inch: 2%

16-Inch: 6% 4-Inch or Smaller: 22%

12-Inch: 15%

10-Inch: 2% 6-Inch: 12%

8-Inch: 38%

Figure 8-1: Water Main Diameter Distribution

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Unknown Asbestos Cement Cement Lined Cast 1% 2% Iron 12%

Unlined Cast Iron 43%

Ductile Iron 39%

Reinforced Concrete 2%

PVC/HDPE 1%

Figure 8-2: Water Main Material Distribution

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 8-1: Water Main Installation Year by Material Installation Year

Length (ft) Unlined Cast Iron

Cement Lined Cast Iron

Asbestos Cement

PCCP

Ductile Iron

PVC/HDPE

Unknown

Grand Total

Pre 1900

83,420

1900-1909

88,829

1910-1919

46,100

1920-1929

137,434

1930-1939

32,542

1940-1949

33,630

1950-1958

41,691

56,038

22,408

47,691

6,000 14,293

145,951

1970-1979

99,874

1980-1989

137,421

1990-1999

61,525

5,318

66,843

2000-2013

82,924

2,846

85,770

18,108

819

21,809

46,127

414,145

8,983

21,809

1,074,040

1959-1969

Unknown Grand Total

125,236

5,331

463,706

130,567

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

6,422

12,422

22,408

8-4

Woodard & Curran October 2013

Factory lined cast iron was manufactured and installed up until about 1973. Maine Water does not have records differentiating between unlined cast iron and factory cement lined cast iron water main, therefore, it is assumed that factory cement lined cast iron water main was installed between 1958 and 1969. Unlined cast iron (CI) water mains make up approximately 43 percent of the Biddeford and Saco water system and cement lined cast iron water main (CLCI) make up approximately 12 percent of the Biddeford and Saco water system. Between the 1930’s and 1970’s, the water industry also utilized asbestos cement (AC) pipe for their expanding water systems. An advantage of AC pipe is that it resists tuberculation build up, resulting in less system head loss. However, based on the water quality, the structural integrity of AC mains can deteriorate over time, thereby becoming sensitive to pressure fluctuations and/or nearby construction activities. In addition, external influences such as soil type and high groundwater can corrode AC mains, thus reducing the strength further. Approximately one percent of the system consists of AC water mains. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe was first used in the United States in the early 1960s. Due to its resistance to both chemical and electrochemical corrosion, PVC pipe is not damaged by aggressive water or corrosive soils. In addition, the smooth interior of PVC pipe is resistant to tuberculation. The 1994 “Evaluation of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe Performance” by the AWWA Research Foundation, found that utilities have experienced minimal long term problems with PVC pipe. Generally, problems with PVC occurred when the area surrounding the pipe was disturbed after installation of the pipe, indicating that PVC pipe is not as strong as ductile iron when hit by excavation equipment after installation. It should be noted that PVC is a permeable material. Low molecular weight petroleum products and organic solvents can permeate PVC pipe if the contaminants are found in high concentrations in the soil surrounding the pipe. Less than one percent of the system is PVC. Overlapping the manufacture of factory lined cast iron, factory cement lined ductile iron main was manufactured from the 1950’s, and continues to be manufactured today. Most New England water utilities did not begin to install ductile iron pipe until the late 1960’s. Based on system records, cement lined ductile iron water main was installed in the Biddeford and Saco water system in the late 1960s. According to the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA); ductile iron pipe retains all of cast iron's qualities such as machinability and corrosion resistance, but also provides additional strength, toughness, and ductility. Approximately 39 percent of the system consists of cement lined ductile iron water main. Manufacturing of PCCP in the United States began in 1942 and was known as Lined Cylinder Pipe (LCP). LCP, which has the design number SP-5, is constructed by welding steel joint rings to a steel cylinder. The inside of the steel cylinder is then coated with concrete. To provide structural integrity, the outer surface of the steel cylinder is wrapped with pre-stressed high strength steel wire and then coated with cement based mortar. LCP originally ranged in diameter from 16 to 48 inches. The system has over 22,000 feet of PCCP installed in the late 1940’s. Certain classes of PCCP have had catastrophic failures in water systems, caused by the corrosion and subsequent failure of the reinforcing wire. Since these mains are larger in diameter the leaks and breaks can cause property damage and major system interruptions. A portion of the small diameter pipes were included in the original existing models. This data was incorporated into the new hydraulic model and extracted to determine a recommended small diameter water main replacement schedule. In 2012, the system reported to PUC approximately 52 miles of water mains ranging in size from ¾ inch to four inches in diameter. Table 8-2 shows the small diameter installation years, pipe materials used and the number of feet of mains installed per decade. This table includes 4 inch and smaller mains and totals to approximately 205,872 feet or nearly 39 miles. A majority of the smaller diameter pipe was installed prior to 1960 and a majority of the breaks or repairs recorded by Maine Water in recent years have been on pipe 4-inch and smaller and a large majority of these breaks or repairs have been on pipe installed prior to 1960. Of the 39 miles of pipe less than 4 inch diameter, it is recommended that approximately one mile per year be considered for replacement. The exact location and lengths of the mains to be replaced should be evaluated using Maine Water’s Point System Criteria for Replacement of Water Mains. The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 8-2: Small Diameter (4-Inch and Less) Water Main Installation Year by Material Length (ft) Installation Year

Pre 1900

Cast Iron

Copper

Ductile Iron

HDPE/PVC

5,638

1900-1909

Unknown

Grand Total

1,697

7,335

5,312

14,062

14,371

28,911

31,917

18,277

20,726

1910-1919

309

1920-1929

2,809

1930-1939

2,449

1940-1949

940

256

16,989

18,185

1950-1959

4,571

138

18,731

23,440

1960-1969

7,390

600

184

3,481

11,655

1970-1979

10,933

487

5,472

2,603

19,495

1980-1989

315

1,049

18,956

2,409

22,729

272

9,773

197

1990-1999

4,492

5,009

2000-2013

6,618

8,821

Unknown Grand Total

638 35,992

161 2,727

35,883

13,830

15,439 4,696

5,495

117,440

205,872

8.2 SERVICE AREAS The existing water system consists of two service areas: the Low Service System (LSS) and the High Service System (HSS). The service areas are separated by a series of isolation valves throughout the system. The boundary between the LSS and HSS is shown on the Water Distribution System Map. The LSS has a hydraulic grade line elevation (HGL) of approximately 207 feet above mean seal level (MSL). Ground elevations range from sea level to approximately 155 feet above MSL. The LSS constitutes approximately 78 percent of the overall system demands. The HSS has an HGL of approximately 261 feet above MSL and ground elevations range from sea level feet to approximately 190 feet. The HSS constitutes approximately 22 percent of the overall demand.

8.3 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES The Biddeford and Saco system is supplied by the Saco River. The water is currently treated at a water treatment facility located adjacent to the Saco River on South Street in Biddeford. The water supply and water treatment facility is discussed in the Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Source and Treatment Analysis Section. There are three finished water pumps at the water treatment facility. Based on information provided by Maine Water, the water treatment facility typically operates one pump at the water treatment facility under ADD conditions and two pumps during MDD conditions. The facility typically runs from approximately 6:00 am to 3:00 pm during low demand periods and up to 16 hours per day during summer demand periods.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

8.4 WATER STORAGE FACILITIES The distribution system has four water storage facilities. The three water storage facilities in the LSS are the 7.5 million gallon (MG) Reservoir, the 1.0 MG Bradbury Street Tank in Biddeford, and the 1.0 MG Pine Point Tank in Scarborough. The 1.25 MG Forest Street Tank is located in Biddeford in the HSS. The reservoir is a 7.5 MG granite reservoir constructed in 1885 with a base elevation of approximately 187 feet above MSL and an overflow elevation of approximately 207 feet above MSL. The reservoir has a membrane liner and floating cover. The membrane liner and floating cover were both inspected, cleaned, and repaired in May 2013. The reservoir is connected to the treatment facility by a 20 inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1885. It was cement lined in 1969. At the reservoir is a control vault with one 6-inch and one 12-inch diameter motor operated control valves which are used by the water facility operators to throttle flow to the reservoir to allow the other low service tanks at Bradbury Street and Pine Point to fill during normal facility operation. The decision to use these control valves is left entirely to the operator and is not a direct result of system flow or tank level. The Bradbury Street Tank is a riveted steel standpipe constructed by Chicago Bridge and Iron Company (CBI) in 1909 with a base elevation of approximately 158 feet above MSL and an overflow elevation of approximately 207 feet above MSL. The capacity of the Bradbury Street Tank is approximately 1.0 MG. This tank is over 100 years old and would be considered past its useful life. Recommendations involving this tank are discussed in Volume II of this report. The Pine Point Tank is a steel standpipe constructed in 1947 with a base elevation of approximately 127 feet above MSL and an overflow elevation of approximately 207 feet above MSL. The capacity of the Pine Point Tank is approximately 1.0 MG. This tank was inspected in June 2013. The Forest Street Tank is a steel standpipe constructed in 1949 by CBI with a base elevation of approximately 201 feet above MSL and an overflow elevation of approximately 261 feet above MSL. The capacity of the Forest Street Tank is approximately 1.25 MG. There is a vault at the base of the tank with an altitude valve to prevent the tank from overflowing. This tank was inspected in June 2013.

8.5 BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS The distribution system includes two booster pump stations. The Alfred Booster Pump Station (BPS) is located at approximately 474 Alfred Road in Biddeford. This station is approximately two miles from the Forest Street high service storage tank in Biddeford. The Alfred BPS pumps water from the LSS to the HSS. The Alfred BPS has one 75 horsepower (hp) pump and one 100 hp pump. The 75 hp pump is most used most of the time. This BPS is operated based on water levels in the Forest Street Tank. Typically, when the water level in the tank drops to 53 feet, one pump turns on and when the water level in the tank reaches 55 feet, the pump turns off. The second BPS is located at the Bradbury Tank. The Bradbury BPS is a manual station that is used to pump water from the LSS to the HSS if the Alfred BPS is not operational or if additional flow is needed to help fill the Forest Street Tank. The Bradbury BPS has one 15 hp pump.

8.6 INTERCONNECTIONS Maine Water maintains two interconnections with the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, and Wells Water District (KKW). One interconnection is located on Elm Street (Route 1) and the other is located near Bridge Road in the HSS. There is a 0.25 MG riveted 200 foot tall elevated tank built in 1948 with an overflow elevation of approximately 260 feet above MSL near the Bridge Road interconnection. The elevation of 260 feet corresponds to a tank level in the KKW tank of 45 feet as measured by their SCADA system. KKW operates their system to keep this tank between 28 feet and 43 feet in the summer season, which starts in April and between 14 feet and 28 feet in the winter season. The Bridge Road interconnection is separated by a pressure sustaining valve. This valve is designed to maintain a pressure of 84 psi in the Maine Water system. When the line pressure drops below 84 psi the valve will open to allow water from the KKW system to flow into the Maine Water system. This interconnection was constructed in 1998 to The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

improve flows and pressures to the University of New England campus, located near the interconnection. A parallel valve arrangement can also feed water from Maine Water when the pressure on the KKW side drops below 78 psi. Both supply lines are metered. The interconnection at Elm Street is a manually operated valve and was constructed to allow flow from one system to another. In the 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s KKW constructed a booster pump station on the west side of Route 1 called Arundel North, which in an emergency could pump water into the Maine Water HSS with minor pipe modifications although it was designed to pump water from the HSS into the KKW system. This pump station has two pumps rated for about 1,000 gpm each. This station is located about one half mile south of the boundary between Biddeford and Arundel. KKW also recently completed the Arundel South Pump Station, also located on the west side of Route 1 almost four miles south of the Arundel North station. This station has a total of four pumps, all VFD controlled, and a pressure reducing valve (PRV). The station pumps water from the KKW main pressure zone into their Arundel service zone. Two small horsepower pumps are used to maintain pressure in this zone, there is no storage in this zone so at least one of the smaller pumps runs nearly constantly. This station contains two 1000 gpm pumps that are operated manually. The PRV allows water to flow from the Arundel Zone to the main KKW pressure zone. This station as configured could supply water to the HSS in an emergency. It would be also be possible for the Arundel pressure zone to be served from the HSS zone and also supply water through the PRV to the KKW main pressure zone and not use either of the pump stations. The exact quantity of water and pressures that would be provided to the Arundel pressure zone and KWW need to be verified by testing.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

8-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

9. WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE EVALUATION 9.1 GENERAL Distribution storage is provided to meet peak consumer demands such as peak hour demands and to provide a reserve for firefighting. Storage also serves to provide an emergency supply in case of temporary breakdown of pumping facilities and for pressure regulation during periods of fluctuating demand.

9.2 WATER SYSTEM DEMANDS Water demand projections are discussed in the Comprehensive System Facility Plan – Source and Treatment Section. Historical population, water production, and water usage data was considered along with several sets of accepted planning analyses to predict consumption trends. A lower and upper bound population projection was developed. The lower bound projection was based primarily on Maine State Planning Office (MSPO) projections through the year 2030 and past per capita consumption. The upper bound projection was based on historical US Census Data with fixed per capita consumption.

9.2.1

Average Day Demand

Average day demand (ADD) is the total water supplied to a community in one year divided by 365 days. This term is commonly expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD). This demand includes all water used for domestic (residential), commercial, industrial, agricultural, and municipal purposes. The ADD also includes water used for system maintenance such as water main flushing and fire flows and unaccounted-for water attributed to unmetered water uses and system leakage. According to Maine Water’s 2012 Maine Public Utilities Commission annual report, the 2012 ADD was 5.5 MGD. The projected 2050 ADD ranges from 4.5 MGD to 7.1 MGD , as discussed in the Source and Treatment Section of the CSFP.

9.2.2

Maximum Day Demand

Maximum day demand (MDD) is the maximum one-day (24-hour) total quantity of water supplied during a one-year period. This term is typically expressed in MGD. MDD is a critical factor to be considered when determining the adequacy of a water supply system. The distribution system must be capable of meeting maximum day demands with coincident fire demands at a minimum pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi). Estimates of the projected MDD and allowance for the recommended fire flow are used to evaluate or design transmission mains, and pumping and storage facilities. According to Maine Water’s 2012 Maine Public Utilities Commission Annual Report, the 2012 MDD was 10.15 MGD, which occurred on July 19, 2012. The projected MDD can be estimated by the MDD/ADD ratio. The MDD/ADD ratio provides a relationship between the two demands which can be used to estimate future demands. Historical MDD/ADD ratios were used to estimate a projected 2050 MDD ranging from 8.1 to 12.8 MGD. The estimates are described in more detail in the Source and Treatment Section of the CSFP.

9.2.3

Peak Hour Demand

Peak hour demand is the maximum total quantity of water supplied in a single hour over a one-year period typically expressed in MGD. These demands are typically met by distribution water storage facilities. Since system records of peak hourly demands are not available, the peaking factor for the current and projected usage was estimated based on typical historical consumption for communities of similar size. The MDD/ADD ratio for a system can be used to estimate the peak hour/ADD peaking factor. Using a MDD/ADD ratio of 1.8, the corresponding peak hour peaking factor for the system is approximately 2.8. Using the projected ADD, the projected peak hour flow for the year 2050 is estimated to range from 12.6 MGD to 19.9 MGD. The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

9-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

9.3 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SOURCES As discussed in the Source and Treatment Section of the CSFP, all of the supply for the Biddeford and Saco water distribution system comes from the Saco River and is treated at the water treatment facility located in Biddeford. This facility is designed to produce 12 MGD. There is adequate capacity to meet projected demands. However, this is the systems sole supply. As mentioned previously, there are two interconnections with KKW that can supply some water to the Biddeford and Saco, but these cannot supply the full demands of the system during peak months. To provide a backup supply, Maine Water is considering future agreements with Portland Water District (PWD) and KKW to supply water to the Biddeford and Saco system under different operating scenarios.

9.4 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STORAGE FACILITIES There are three components that must be considered for evaluating storage requirements. These components include equalization, fire flow requirements, and emergency storage. The three components of the storage evaluation were calculated under current and future demand conditions. The upper limits of the estimated future demand conditions were utilized for the storage evaluation. Based on 2012 billing data, the LSS represents approximately 78 percent of the total system demands and the HSS represents approximately 22 percent of the total system demands. The current and future demands for the two service areas were calculated using the aforementioned percentages. Equalization storage provides water from the tanks during peak hourly demands in the system. Typically, this quantity is a percentage of the maximum day demands. The percentages can range from fifteen to twenty-five percent, with fifteen percent used for a large system, twenty percent for a mid-sized system and twenty five percent used for a small system. A system is considered small by the EPA if it has less than 3,300 customers, while a system is considered large if it has more than 50,000 customers. The Biddeford Saco system would be considered a medium sized system. As a result, twenty percent of maximum day demand was used for the equalization storage calculations. The fire flow storage component is based on the base fire flow requirement multiplied by the required duration of the flow. The base fire flow is defined as a fire flow indicative of the quantities needed for handling fires in important districts, and usually serves to mitigate some of the higher specific flow. Within the Biddeford Saco system, a base fire flow of 3,500 gpm for three hours was used for the storage evaluation. The emergency storage component is typically equivalent to an ADD. However, if there is emergency power available at the source(s), capable of supplying at least an ADD, the emergency storage component can be waived. The water treatment facility is equipped with emergency power capable of supplying an ADD to the LSS, therefore, the emergency storage component can be waived in the LSS. The Alfred and the Bradbury BPS are the only supplies to the HSS. There is not emergency power available at either booster pump station; therefore, the emergency component was calculated for the HSS. Consideration should be given to providing backup power at the Alfred and the Bradbury BPS. This will reduce storage requirements, eliminating additional water storage that may contribute to degraded water quality. The three components of the storage evaluation were calculated under current and future demand conditions for the LSS and HSS.

9.4.1 

Low Service System Equalization   

Mid-sized system = 20 percent of the Maximum Day Demand LSS Maximum Day Demand in year 2012 = 7.92 MGD LSS Estimated Maximum Day Demand in year 2050 = 9.98 MGD

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

9-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013



 LSS Equalization (2012) = 0.20 x 7.92 = 1.58 million gallons (MG)  LSS Equalization (2050) = 0.20 x 9.98 = 2.00 MG Basic Fire Flow Requirement



 Representative fire flow = 3,500 gpm  Duration of 3 hours or 180 minutes  Basic Fire Flow Requirement = 3,500 gpm x 180 min = 0.63 MG Emergency 

Waived

The total required storage for any given year is the equalization component plus the basic fire flow requirement plus the emergency component. The existing (year 2012) and projected (year 2050) total required storage for the Low Service System is as follows: -

Total LSS Required Storage (2013) = 1.58 + 0.63 = 2.21 MG Total LSS Required Storage (2050) = 2.00 + 0.63 = 2.63 MG

9.4.2 

High Service System Equalization 

Mid-sized System = 20 percent of the Maximum Day Demand

 

HSS Maximum Day Demand in year 2012 = 2.23 MGD HSS Estimated Maximum Day Demand in year 2050 = 2.82 MGD



 HSS Equalization (2012) = 0.20 x 2.23 = 0.45 million gallons (MG)  HSS Equalization (2050) = 0.20 x 2.82 = 0.56 MG Basic Fire Flow Requirement



 Representative fire flow = 3,500 gpm  Duration of 3 hours or 180 minutes  Basic Fire Flow Requirement = 3,500 gpm x 180 min = 0.63 MG Emergency  

HSS Average Day Demand in year 2012 = 1.23 MGD HSS Average Day Demand in year 2050 = 1.56 MGD

 

HSS Emergency (2012) = 1.23 MG HSS Emergency (2050) = 1.56 MG

The total required storage for any given year is the equalization component plus the base fire flow requirement plus the emergency component. Therefore, the existing (year 2012) and projected (year 2050) total required storage for the High Service System is as follows: -

Total HSS Required Storage (2013) = 0.45 + 0.63 + 1.23 = 2.31 MG Total HSS Required Storage (2050) = 0.56 + 0.63 + 1.56 = 2.75 MG

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

9-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

9.4.3

Available Storage Summary

Under existing and projected ADD, MDD, and peak hour demands, a minimum pressure of 35 psi should be maintained throughout the distribution system. A minimum pressure of 20 psi should be maintained under the projected MDD with fire flow. The customer at the highest elevation in the LSS is at an elevation of approximately 150 feet above MSL. The 7.5 MG Reservoir, Pine Point Tank, and Bradbury Tank supply the LSS. To provide a pressure of 20 psi, the tanks can drop to an elevation of approximately 196 feet above MSL. Based on this scenario and the LSS tanks overflow elevation of 207 feet above MSL, there is approximately 4.03 MG of usable storage in the Reservoir, approximately 0.13 MG of usable storage in the Pine Point Tank, and approximately 0.21 MG of usable storage in the Bradbury Tank. The total usable storage in the LSS is approximately 4.37 MG. The total existing required storage in the LSS is approximately 2.21 MG and projected required storage for the design year is approximately 2.63 MG. There is currently a surplus of approximately 2.16 MG in the LSS and a projected surplus of approximately 1.75 MG. The customer at the highest elevation in the HSS is at an elevation of approximately 192 feet above MSL. The Forest Street Tank supplies the HSS. To maintain a pressure of 20 psi, the tank can drop to an elevation of approximately 228 feet. Based on this scenario, there is approximately 0.69 MG of usable storage in the tank. The total existing required storage in the HSS is approximately 2.31 MG and the projected required storage is approximately 2.75 MG. There is a 1.61 MG storage deficit in the HSS and a projected storage deficit of approximately 2.06 MG. If emergency power were to become available at the Alfred BPS, the emergency component could be waived and the existing and projected required storage in the HSS would be reduced to 1.08 MGD and 1.19 MGD, respectively. This would result in an existing storage deficit of approximately 0.39 MGD and a projected storage deficit of approximately 0.50 MGD. Recommendations to address the existing and projected storage deficit are addressed in Section 13 and Volume II of this report.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

9-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

10. HYDRAULIC MODEL VERIFICATION 10.1 GENERAL To evaluate the existing distribution system and to obtain a basis for recommending water infrastructure improvements to the existing system, a comprehensive computer model was utilized. Maine Water will be able to use the updated computer model as a planning tool to assess the potential impact of proposed developments and system improvements prior to their construction. The computer model can also be used to review flow, pressure and potential water quality concerns such as water age. The hydraulic models for the Low and High Service Systems were combined into one hydraulic model and converted into InnovyzeÂŽ InfoWater software. InfoWater allows the user to conduct hydraulic simulations using mathematical algorithms while in an ArcGIS environment. Maine Water has decided to utilize InfoWater software as a standard for the hydraulic models for all of the water systems they operate. The hydraulic model was verified based on fire flow testing and information provided by Maine Water pertaining to the water treatment facility, water storage facilities, and pumping stations. The model includes all pumps, water storage facilities, and all distribution system water mains 4-inch diameter and larger. Only the water mains four inch and larger were included in the hydraulic model, since smaller pipes populate largely non-looped distribution branches and have little impact on overall system hydraulics. Data on water main diameter, material, service area, and installation year has been input into the hydraulic model.

10.2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT The first phase of model verification included updating the hydraulic model. The pre-existing model was originally divided into two models, one for each service area. The two models were combined for this project to make one model of the entire water distribution system. Data from existing AutoCAD and ArcGIS maps on water main diameters, materials, and installation years was used to update and supplement the data already in the hydraulic model. As discussed in Section 2, the water mains are primarily constructed of ductile iron, cement lined cast iron, and unlined cast iron. Maine Water does not have records differentiating between unlined cast iron and factory cement lined cast iron. It was assumed that factory cement lined water mains were installed after 1958.The water main materials and diameters were used to supplement and adjust the C-factors found in the original model. Cement lined and plastic water mains were given higher C-factors and unlined cast iron water mains lower C-factors. Also, larger diameter pipes were assigned incrementally higher C-factors than smaller diameter pipes.

10.3 FIRE FLOW AND TESTING The second phase of model verification was to conduct fire flow testing of the distribution system. Fire flow testing was conducted by Maine Water staff and Tata & Howard at locations throughout the distribution system. Table Nos. 10-1 and 10-2 present the results of the fire flow testing conducted on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013. Pumping rates and tank levels were collected for all pumps and tanks in the system during the testing. C-factor tests were completed at five locations on May 21, 2013 and July 2, 2013. The results of the C-factor testing are shown in Table Nos. 10-3 and 10-4.

10.4 DEMAND ALLOCATION The hydraulic model represents the distribution system with a series of pipe segments and nodes. Demands were allocated to the nearest junctions to represent actual metered demand from 2012 billing data provided by Maine Water. The data included a unique customer identification number, billing address, and service address. Three different data sets were utilized separating the seasonal customers, year round residential customers, and non-residential The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

customers. Non-residential customers are billed monthly, and the remaining users are billed quarterly. The tabular data was organized to obtain estimated annual demand for each meter. The billing addresses were geocoded using ArcGIS software. Some of the addresses were not automatically placed geographically during the address association process. Most of these meters were identified and manually input to ensure that they were properly located and accounted for in the model. Once the location of each meter was determined and demands were placed into a GIS shapefile, demands were then allocated to the junctions in the model using the Demand Allocation Manager in the InfoWater software. The Demand Allocation Manager assigns the water usage associated with each meter to the nearest junction. All demand junctions were assigned a usage type, residential, commercial, or seasonal, which were used to assign typical demand patterns to be utilized during an extended period simulation (EPS). A typical residential demand pattern was used for residential demands and the seasonal demands. Commercial demands were assigned a typical workday pattern, with usage occurring between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Unaccounted-for water consists of unmetered water used for street cleaning, water main flushing, meter losses, unauthorized water uses, firefighting and leakage in the distribution system. This term is typically expressed as a percentage of the total water supplied to the system. Unaccounted-for water can be estimated by taking the difference between the total amount of water supplied and the total water billed and dividing by the total water supplied. This percentage can be adjusted to include any estimated water usages. The reported unaccounted-for water in the system is typically less than 10 percent.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 10-1: Fire Flow Tests May 21, 2013 Residual Hydrant

Flowing Hydrant

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Residual Pressure (psi)

Hydrant

Estimated Flow (gpm)

Estimated Flow at 20 psi (gpm)

B-305

B-304

940

3080

Granite Street at Ben Avenue

B-240

Granite Street

B-239

820

1300

Biddeford

Pool Street

B-183

Pool Street

B-184

420

495

Biddeford

Summer Street at Myrtle Street

B-294

Summer Street at Winter Street

B-295

690

1700

Saco

Camp Ellis Avenue at Main Avenue

S-192

Camp Ellis Avenue at Fore Street

S-191

200

395

Saco

Middle Street at Summer Street

S-112

Middle Street at Elm Street

S-113

840

1520

Saco

1030 Portland Road

S-188

1042 Portland Road

S-190

650

745

Scarborough

12 Pillsbury Drive

SC-48

28 Pillsbury Drive

SC-54

460

440

Old Orchard Beach

East Grand Avenue at Scollard Road

O-65

East Grand Avenue at Mullen Street

O-64

670

1660

Test No.

Town

Biddeford

Location Grayson Street at Booth Street

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-3

Location Grayson Street at Lavoie Street

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 10-2: Fire Flow Tests July 2, 2013 Residual Hydrant

Flowing Hydrant

Hydrant

Estimated Flow (gpm)

Estimated Flow at 20 psi (gpm)

S-308

530

620

Middle Street at Elm Street

S-113

835

1420

Ferry Road at River Lane

S-334

375

365

Hills Beach Road at Old Pool Road

B-189

490

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Residual Pressure (psi)

Test No.

Town

Location

Saco

Buxton Road

S-307

Saco

Middle Street at Summer Street

S-112

Saco

Ferry Road Ferry Lane

S-86

Biddeford

Pool Street

B-184

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-4

Location Buxton Road at Tall Pines Drive

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 10-3: C-Factor Tests May 21, 2013

Existing Pipe Information Test No.

Town

Diameter (in)

Biddeford

Saco

Residual Hydrant No. 1

Residual Hydrant No. 2

Year

Distance (ft)

Location

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Cast Iron

1956

541

Granite Street

B-312

Granite Street at Ben Avenue

B-240

Granite Street

B-239

820

130

Unlined Cast Iron

1928

2870

Portland Road

S-183

1030 Portland Road

S-188

1042 Portland Road

S-190

650

132

Material

Residual Pressure (psi)

Flowing Hydrant

Location

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Residual Pressure (psi)

Location

Hydrant

Estimated Flow (gpm)

Estimated CFactor

Table 10-4: C-Factor Tests July 2, 2013

Existing Pipe Information Test No.

Town

Diameter (in)

Saco

Biddeford

Residual Hydrant No. 1

Residual Hydrant No. 2

Year

Distance (ft)

Location

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Unlined Cast Iron

1909

2,866

Ferry Road at Maple Drive

S-63

Ferry Road at Ferry Lane

S-86

Unlined Cast Iron

1928

1,958

Pool Street

B-180

Pool Street

B-184

Material

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Residual Pressure (psi)

Flowing Hydrant

10-5

Location

Hydrant

Static Pressure (psi)

Residual Pressure (psi)

Hydrant

Estimated Flow (gpm)

Estimated CFactor

Ferry Road at River Lane

S-334

375

Hills Beach Road at Old Pool Road

B-189

490

Location

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

The total water use volume allocated in the GIS shapefile from the billing data does not match the reported 2012 ADD volume. This is due to any unaccounted-for water in the system and water use from any address not automatically placed geographically during the address association process. To compensate for this difference, the demands were multiplied by a factor to evenly distribute the extra water to obtain a total demand equal to the 2012 ADD. An additional demand scenario was created by multiplying the demands by a factor to obtain a total demand equal to the 2012 MDD. Demands identified as seasonal water usage were assigned in the MDD scenario only.

10.5 MODEL VERIFICATION The model was verified during a steady state condition based on fire flow testing and information pertaining to the water treatment facility, storage facilities, and BPS provided by Maine Water.

10.5.1 Steady State The computer model is represented by the node, pipe and tank information. The hydraulic input data provides data on system demands and elevations, as well as length, diameter, and roughness coefficient or C-factor of water mains. The data obtained from the fire flow tests and C-factor tests served as input data for the model verification. This data included pumping rates at the water treatment facility and booster pump station, static and residual pressure readings, and measurement of flows from hydrants. It is important that each simulation reflect actual field conditions at the time of testing. Actual field conditions include current demands on the system and varying flows from each pump station that is online. The computer model is considered verified when the results of the computer runs compare within five percent of the hydraulic data collected from the fire flow tests. After the initial flow testing, problems were identified at several locations including Pine Point in Scarborough and Ferry Road in Saco. Maine Water staff checked for closed and partially closed valves in several areas and performed additional testing to verify tank levels and help identify closed valves. Tata & Howard and Maine Water staff completed additional testing on July 2, 2013 to verify the model in these areas.

10.5.2 Extended Period Simulation Analyzing a system under an extended period simulation (EPS) allows the hydraulic model to account for changes in the distribution system over time. These changes include tank levels, pump controls, and demand variations. EPS requires entering controls for the water treatment facility and booster pump station. Based on information provided by Maine Water, the water treatment facility typically operates one pump at the water treatment facility under ADD conditions and two pumps during MDD conditions. The facility typically runs from approximately 6:00 am to 3:00 pm during low demand periods and up to 16 hours per day during summer demand periods. The Alfred BPS is operated based on water levels in the Forest Street Tank. Typically, when the water level in the tank drops to 53 feet, the pump turns on and when the water level in the tank reaches 55 feet, the pump turns off. The Bradbury BPS is manually operated as needed to help fill the Forest Street Tank. Typical commercial and residential demand patterns were assigned for the different usage types. Residential demands follow a diurnal patter, with peak water uses occurring once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Typical commercial patterns involve most water use occurring during business hours. At the time of this study, Maine Water was unable to obtain data on pumping rates, water levels in the tanks, and control valve operation for a specific period of time. Without the availability of actual system data, the model could not be calibrated under EPS conditions. If actual pumping and tank level data were available, the demand patterns could be adjusted until tank levels in the model matched the actual tank levels.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-6

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

10.6 WATER AGE Because the hydraulic model was not calibrated under EPS conditions, detailed EPS analyses could not be completed in the model. After the EPS calibration is completed the model can be used to simulate water age in the distribution system. High water ages in the water storage tanks and distribution system can be an indicator of potential water quality problems. Also, due to the nature of the Biddeford and Saco water distribution system and the types of demands, water age in the system is different in the summer and winter.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

10-7

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

11. CRITICAL COMPONENT ASSESSMENT 11.1 GENERAL A critical component assessment was performed to evaluate the impact of potential water main failures. The critical component assessment includes identification of critical areas served, critical water mains, and the need for redundant mains. This information will be used when considering the priority of a recommended water main project. A water main recommendation in a critical area or involving a critical water main should be considered before a similar water main project in an area not considered critical. A map depicting critical areas and critical water mains is included in Appendix G.

11.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Critical areas served are locations that require continual water supply for public health, welfare, or financial reasons. Examples of critical service areas include hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and business districts. All water mains within 500 feet of a critical area are considered a critical component. Because water storage tanks, booster pump stations, and sources provide water and maintain pressure to critical service areas, tanks and primary sources are also considered critical components. Therefore, any water main within 500 feet of a water storage tank, booster pump station, or primary source is considered a critical component. Critical water mains are those mains that are the sole transmission main from a source or tank. In addition, main transmission lines that do not have a redundant main are considered critical. The evaluation included a visual review of the water mains leading into and out of the critical areas and the transmission grid and by using InfoWaterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Protector feature.

11.3 CRITICAL COMPONENTS Critical areas served, critical supply mains, and redundant mains were evaluated in the Biddeford Saco water system based on the criteria described above. The following provides a description of the areas that are considered critical components.

11.3.1 Critical Areas Served A list of critical areas served and critical customers was provided by Maine Water. Table 11-1 presents critical components served.

11.3.2 Critical Water Mains Critical water mains were identified based on a review of the distribution system model, and by using InfoWaterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Protector feature. The Protector feature simulates breaks on each pipe in the model. The model calculates if the system can still be served with adequate flow and pressures after a pipe is taken out of service. This feature can identify areas served by multiple mains, but would no longer be able to serve customers if one of the mains were taken out of service. Water mains that cross major highways, major rivers or active railroad tracks are also considered critical because of the difficulty in construction and permitting involved in replacement or rehabilitation of the water main. All water mains that cross the Maine Turnpike and Saco River were considered critical, while only water mains 12-inches and larger that cross the Amtrak Downeaster railroad tracks were considered critical. There are many smaller diameter water mains crossing the active railroad tracks, but the transmission mains 12-inches and larger are considered the most important, as they transport the largest volumes of water to system demands. Table 11-2 lists critical water mains.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

11-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 11-1: Critical Areas or Customers Community

Critical Areas or Customers

Location

Hospitals Biddeford

Southern Maine Medical Center (SMMC)

1 Medical Center Drive

Biddeford

Sea Coast Dentistry

2 Dental Avenue

Biddeford

Wellspring Commons Condo Association

6 Wellspring Road

Biddeford

Quest Diagnostics, Inc.

4 Wellspring Road

Biddeford

Dr. Peter Garramore

480 Alfred Road

Biddeford

SMMC PrimeCare

24 West Cole Road

Biddeford

Biddeford Crossing LLC

113-130 Shops Way

Biddeford

SMMC Diagnostic, Therapy Center, and PrimeCare Physicians

9 Healthcare Drive

Biddeford

Counseling Services

15 Crescent Street

Biddeford

Counseling Services

53 Sullivan Street

Saco

Saco Health Center

13 Industrial Park Road

Saco

Counseling Services

31 Beach Street

Saco

Counseling Services

265 North Street

Saco

Saco Commercial Realty

23 Water Street

Saco

Dr. C. Roger Verrier

339 Main Street

Saco

KT Connel, MD

323 Main Street

Saco

University of New England

655 Main Street

155 Saco Avenue Condo Association

155 Saco Ave

Biddeford

St Andre's Healthcare

407 Pool Street

Biddeford

Southridge Living Center

10 May Street

Biddeford

Medical Care Development

25 Amherst

Biddeford

Biddeford Estates

2 Dartmouth

Biddeford

York Manor

2 Dartmouth

Saco

Wardwell Home

43 Middle Street

Saco

Ferry Road Associates

88 & 100 Harbor Drive

Saco

Winterhaven Living Center

63 Winter Street

Medical/Dental Offices

Old Orchard Beach Assisted Living

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

11-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Community Saco

Critical Areas or Customers

Location

Evergreen Manor

328 North Street

Biddeford

Biddeford High School & Vocational School

20 Maplewood Ave

Biddeford

Intermediate School

335 Hill Street

Biddeford

John F. Kennedy

64 West Street

Biddeford

Primary School

320 Hill Street

Biddeford

Middle School

25 Tiger Drive

Biddeford

St. James

25 Graham Street

Biddeford

University of New England

3 Hills Beach Road

Saco

Thornton Academy

438 Main Street

Saco

C. K. Burns School

135 Middle Street Extension

Saco

Fairfield School

75 Beach Street

Saco

Young School

36 Tasker Street

Saco

Saco Middle School

40 Buxton Rd

Saco

RSU #23 Central Office

90 Beach Street

Old Orchard Beach

Old Orchard Beach High School

40 East Emerson Cummings Boulevard

Old Orchard Beach

Loranger Middle School

148 Saco Avenue

Old Orchard Beach

Jameson School

20 Jameson Hill Road

Scarborough

Blue Point Primary School

174 Pine Point Rd

Biddeford

Maine Cleaners

99 Alfred Street

Biddeford

Maine Cleaners â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Laundromat

420 Alfred St

Saco

Maine Cleaners

30 Hill Spring Rd

Saco

Maine Cleaners

15 Pepperell Square

Saco

Leander Crepeau/Maine Cleaners

4 Scammon Street; Suite 22

Old Orchard Beach

Maine Cleaners

200 Saco Ave

Old Orchard Beach

Michele Trahan/Ocean Suds

109 West Grand Ave

Old Orchard Beach

ET Association, LLC/Radley's

2 Cascade Road

Schools

Laundry Facilities

Water Distribution System Infrastructure Biddeford

Water Treatment Plant

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

457 South Street

11-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Community

Critical Areas or Customers

Location

Biddeford

Alfred Booster Pump Station

474 Alfred Street

Biddeford

Forest Street Tank

57 Forest Street

Biddeford

The Reservoir

441 South Street

Biddeford

Bradbury Tank and Booster Pump Station

115 Bradbury Street

Pine Point Tank

230 Pine Point Road

Saco

Table 11-2: Critical Water Mains Town

Critical Water Mains

Location

Maine Turnpike Crossings Biddeford

16-Inch Transmission Main

Alfred Street

Biddeford

Parallel 16-Inch Transmission Mains

Cross Country from the Reservoir to the Alfred Booster Pump Station

Biddeford

20-Inch Transmission Main

Cross Country from the WTP to the LSS

Saco

16-Inch Transmission Main

Industrial Park Road

Saco

20-Inch Transmission Main

Cross Country from WTP to the LSS

Saco

20-Inch Transmission Main

Main Street

Saco River Crossings Biddeford/ Saco

12-Inch Transmission Main

Main Street

Biddeford/ Saco

16-Inch Transmission Main

Elm Street

Biddeford/ Saco

Parallel 24-Inch Transmission Mains

Cross Country from WTP to LSS

Saco

10-Inch Water Main

Maple Street

Saco

10-Inch Water Main

Main Street

Saco

16-Inch Transmission Main

Elm Street

Biddeford

12-Inch Transmission Main

Alfred Street

Biddeford

16-Inch Transmission Main

Precourt Street

Biddeford

16-Inch Transmission Main

Elm Street

Biddeford

20-Inch Transmission Main

Main Street (Two Crossings)

Old Orchard Beach

12-Inch Transmission Main

Union Avenue

Old Orchard

12-Inch Transmission Main

Temple Avenue

Railroad Crossings

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

11-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Town

Critical Water Mains

Location

Beach Saco

12-Inch Transmission Main

Beach Street

Saco

12-Inch Transmission Main

Main Street

Saco

16-Inch Transmission Main

Industrial Park Road

Saco

24-Inch Transmission Main

Cross Country from WTP to LSS

Scarborough

16-Inch Transmission Main

Pine Point Road

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

11-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

12. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS 12.1 GENERAL A water distribution system must be capable of meeting two criteria to provide adequate service. In general, a minimum pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi) at ground level is required during average day, maximum day, and peak hour demand conditions. During MDD with a coincident fire flow, a minimum pressure of 20 psi is required at ground level throughout the system. In addition, according to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) “Manual of Water Supply Practices: Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems” a system has deficient pipe looping or sizing if the following conditions occur: 

Velocities greater than 5 feet per second (ft/sec)



Headlosses greater than 6 ft per 1,000 feet of water main (ft/1,000 ft)



Large diameter pipes (16-inch diameter or greater) having headlosses great than 2 ft/1,000 ft.

As the velocity in a pipe increases, the risk of potential problems, such as water hammer, increases. Excessive headloss in water main results in wasted energy in the system, due to increased pumping. To evaluate the system’s ability to meet these criteria, hydraulic simulations were run in the model. Any recommendations to improve a deficiency are discussed in Section 13 and Volume II of this report.

12.2 TRANSMISSION The transmission grid of the water system includes large diameter water mains, typically 10-inch diameter and larger. A visual inspection of the system was performed to determine any deficiencies in the transmission grid or any bottle necks where a larger diameter water main reduces to a smaller diameter water main and the increase again. Figure 12-1 highlights the water mains 10-inch diameter or greater. The transmission grid primarily focuses on transporting water from the water treatment facility and booster pump station to the tanks and to system extremities. For the purpose of this study, the transmission from a potential interconnection with the Portland Water District at the end of Portland Road to the water treatment facility and water storage tanks was also considered as part of the transmission grid. The headlosses and velocities in the transmission mains were observed under ADD, MDD, and peak hour demand conditions under existing operating conditions and the water treatment facility and under the condition where the water treatment facility is offline and supply was coming from the proposed interconnection with the Portland Water District.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

12-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Millbrook Rd

n eL dg

Pa rtr i

i n es

P kwy

r sD ma Th o St

lly

Sn o

rth

St te Da

t tS

ch Ri

Vi n

Tiffany Ln Meadow Ln

nC Dr

nR Ne

Duf fy's Way

Old Pool Rd

ge R

le Mi

e Str

t ch

Ro es un Fo rt

O ld

ll R Mi ck d lo

ite P Rd Sea

S pr

yb er ry

Timber P

oint Rd

Water Transmission System Water Distribution System Study Biddeford - Saco Maine Water Company

h Rd

Legend Service Area Boundry

Water Main Diameter

o in t

Sc a

ab e t

Gran

El i z

Shore Rd

t ch

in s

Tow n

ck s

Wa y

nA ve

Gu F ar

Brid

tS es W

Fox

ks D r

i er

Gr en

Av e

Sky O a

Lester B Orcutt Blvd

n Rd

dg s Ln D ay Channel Cove Ln

Benso

te Ya

rsh

rook

id g

in e

e Av

i en

t Sal

Wild b

r et

ill

or ge

Moxie Ln

l Poo

or R

Av e

t Dr

West Ave

ood

Inde b

dD sla n nI Tw i

ck w

r ce

North Ave

an D n oL m e Lo o p R d

Windy Point Ln

sW ay ny

Lewis Ln

ve ha en

Ln pe Ho

wS a lt

Seaside Ave

Wildwood Dr

sW ay

ar d

r Rd nde Th u

Po o

Wa v

el e Ne

Dr Libby

Dr Parkside

Decary Rd

Ball Park Way Ple as an tS t St

nor

r dD

ll A ve t

dA ve

od Wo

Ce da P Un r ok ark ion A Ave ma Av n A e ve ve Re gg Tio i ga Tu o Av n A e Te Win ve is Av mp e le A ona A ve ve

d Ma

l es

Gr a nd

Dr rig o Di tR

Fir st

Dr Dr ld f ie Ry e

dA ve

an er l mb Cu

Av e

S al

Vernon St dd le St

O ld

Ave Saco

ng Sp ri

Pa rk

Fe rr

k li

fie So ld Ln u th ga te Av

Pillsbury Dr

Long Cove

ss R Ro r dD

oo kw St O a

er Ta sk

Fr an

Gr e en

Surf

ite

d ar

L Ferry

Gr an

Pond View Rd

d l an Po rt 5 I-9

al tri us

Rd nd Lu

r eD lin Sk y

Fo re W st St en de ll Av

s Rd

W al n ut Av St e Fo o te Ad St e Sc laid Fe e ho rn o l Rd Pa St rk Av e Bir ch

lA ve

Ind

Morgan Cir

We nd yW Av ay e ew llv i

Hi St Pi ne

Ada

An ge Ch B l ak rs W an e A ay ve t el le W ay

W est Hi Ke m or gh nn e A l an ed v e dS yD M t ay r St El m Lu St nt We Gr St ste ah rn am Av St e Gr Pr ee os nS pe t ct St Ad Hi am ll S sS t Fo t ss St

Ln ge Vil la

Ave

d Pa u sR

Fo s

r ks D l Oa ed r a

ir oC un Br

lA ve

Ln sam B al eW ay el l i ch M

C at h

Cre

av e

R is

Morin S

Winnocks Neck Rd

Av e in

ar t

Rd ar n He d sR k in Jen

r nD Ln

Tall P

Sa ra

Rd ng Sp ri Rd at h He

itte Wh Rd

tty

t ai n

es Jon

T U

St Dr Jasper rry w be Sno

Sm u

er s

r in

in tR d rS t

Bla

sie

Haigis

d n aL to g

eT er

stl

Pay n

d rk R

in rd

Dr Ln t l ey

Rd es lm Ho

Hun

Rd am r nh Bu Rd ill yH ck Ro

Cir vest H ar

oint Rd

Jes

Black P

Cle

W esl

Scale: 1:60,000

Pro ct

Date: July 2013

Fron t

Ocean Park Rd

Av e

y Pl

r ol

B eac h

Wild Dunes Way

Se a

k So

so n

Bo n d

Gr ay

Pau l

th L

us e

g it al

Sm i

Sto c

gho

rt S

St W ood ma I-19 nA 5 v

in s

i Sm

h th w

et i n

ay er W

T U

Pr ec

yr t

t ch

W ac

u ld

t ai

d nR

ar k

rra

ay sW

South St

d Cole R

W at e

Pearl St

d St

Main S

Alfre

e Vin

T U

Gooch St

T U

ve dA

C ap

Lincoln St

Main St

Old Hollis Rd

k Oa

w er

Irving St

t er S

k Rd

St o

l ey

ag e

Bo o m R

Broo

S rth

Mill

C en

rry

Spring Hill Rd

dsi

Sha d

o Wo

o th

Ryan Rd

asa

Pi n

ri D

Rd Co

Ph e

Pin e

d oa

y f lo

ill

tla

n t er

al e

p Sho

So f

k lli

M en

r Po

er d

ll Ta

Ol Cl

Ea Po

Â³

i rP

in g

in t

Fla g

n Rd

sh ar

unty Rd

s te

Old Co

te as

n Pi

t an ns

Orchard St ur ch St

lue

ar m

u Ro

i k en

Mill

u Ro

Phillip St nt Dr Dura

rry

o Simps

d is

r on D

Scottow Hill Rd

t Sargen

y ar

le L

er ce D

e Pn

rso

x to

n Fe

Lincoln R

h ac

ip p

r ee

ere Ln

an Cr

Ash Swamp Rd

ale Rd

ill Rd

e Av o ln y Rd Manson Libb

m Winde

Mast H

al D

oni

erg

Co l

Woodfi eld

z Pla

oo dW

Rid

Municipal Dr

ec h

Co m m

rig

Gle

d Willow

Be ndale Cir

Pioneer Av

ll B

d tu

an Gr

i er r

Wedgewood Wa Dr tso nM ill M Rd cK en ne yR d

10-Inch or Smaller 12-Inch 16-Inch 20-Inch 24-Inch

Figure No.

12-1

12.3 MINIMUM/MAXIMUM PRESSURES During a projected year 2050 ADD and MDD conditions (no coincident fire flow), a minimum pressure of 35 psi is recommended throughout the distribution system at street level. An upper limiting pressure of 120 psi is generally recommended, as older fittings in the system are generally rated at 125 to 150 psi. Pressures above this level can result in increased water use from fixtures and also increased leakage throughout the distribution system. Also, plumbing code states that water heaters in homes can be affected by pressures greater than 80 psi. Under projected ADD and MDD conditions, there are areas currently served that have model pressures less than 35 psi. Typically the low pressures are observed where ground elevations are greater than 115 feet above MSL in the LSS and greater than 170 feet in the HSS. Areas in the HSS that could experience pressures below 35 psi include Waco Drive, Pinewood Circle, Birchwood Lane, Arrowwood Drive, Biolet Lane, and Parker Ridge Road. Waco Drive, Pinewood Circle, Birchwood Lane, and Arrowwood Drive represent a neighborhood of localized high elevations. A small booster pump station could be utilized to raise pressures in this area or individual pumping systems could be recommended to individual customers. The areas in the LSS that could experience pressures below 35 psi include Garden Street, Polar Street, Willey Road, Industrial Park Road, Flagg Pond Road, Hubbard Street, and Applewood Drive. These are localized areas of high elevations. Individual pump systems could be recommended to customers in these areas. Also, areas in the LSS close to the HSS boundary could experience low pressures. The existing location of the isolations valves should be examined to determine if any additional areas in the LSS should be served in the HSS. The area around Buxton Road has a small amount of residential development with high elevations. The existing customers have individual pumping systems installed. There also is an area of higher elevation in the LSS bounded by North Street to the north, Route 95 to the west, Bradley Street to the south, and Tasker Road to the east. The area north of Buxton Road, along the Route 95 corridor is expected to grow in the future. As growth is proposed in this area a high service area should be considered that includes a booster pump station and water storage tank. The water main configuration and elevations in this area should be considered when determining the boundary of a new high service area. Based on the overflow elevation of the water storage tanks and the ground elevation within the system, there are no areas within the Biddeford and Saco distribution system that could experience pressures greater than 120 psi.

12.4 INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE (ISO) FIRE FLOW GUIDELINES The recommended fire flow in any community is established by the ISO. The ISO determines a theoretical flow rate needed to combat a major fire at a specific location; taking into account the building structure, floor area, the building contents, and the availability of fire suppression systems. In general, the flows recommended for proper fire protection are based on maintaining a residual pressure of 20 psi. This residual pressure is considered necessary to maintain a positive pressure in the system to allow continued service to the customers and avoid negative pressures that could introduce groundwater into the system. The Saco system was inspected for fire insurance ratings by the ISO in 2012. The results of the 2012 inspections and fire flow testing are shown in Table 11-1. The testing results did not identify the specific location of the testing hydrant. The estimated recommended fire flows established by ISO varied from 750 to 5,000 gpm at 20 psi pressure. It should be noted that a water system is only required to provide a maximum of 3,500 gpm at any point in the system. Data was provided by Maine Water on estimated needed fire flows in Biddeford and Old Orchard Beach. The data includes an address, building description, and associated data used to estimate the needed fire flow. Maine Water staff believes that this data was provided directly from the ISO. This data was used when evaluating the water distribution system in Biddeford and Old Orchard Beach. The ISO recommended fire flows were simulated on the computer model using 2050 MDD demand conditions and improvements were developed to meet the estimated needed fire flow recommendations for deficient locations. The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

12-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

12.5 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOWS A review of the distribution system was completed to identify other areas with larger buildings not identified in the latest ISO evaluations. Examples include condominiums, apartment complexes, schools, and other commercial or industrial buildings. Recommended flows were estimated for these areas using the ISO published Guide for Determination of Needed Fire Flow, Edition 05-2008. The guide uses factors including building size, material, location, spacing between buildings, building use, and building contents. These factors were estimated based on aerial photos and street level observations. Estimated needed fire flows are for the purpose of this study only, and are not intended to be used for any other purpose. According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the minimum recommended fire flow in residential areas with one and two family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height is based on the distance between buildings. The recommended fire flow in areas with homes more than 100 feet apart is approximately 500 gpm, between 31 feet and 100 feet apart is approximately 750 gpm, between 11 feet and 30 feet is approximately 1,000 feet and 10 feet or less is approximately 1,500 gpm. The residential areas in the Biddeford and Saco system were reviewed to determine the recommended residential flow in different areas. Based on recommendations from Maine Water, the distribution system was evaluated to identify areas in the system where the minimum recommended residential fire flow of 500 gpm while maintaining 20 psi in the system cannot be met. The areas identified include southeastern Biddeford extending along Pool Street beyond Sokokis Road, the Camp Ellis area in Saco, isolated areas on Bonython Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Laurel Avenue, and Moody Street in Saco, ,and downtown Biddeford in the area east of Alfred Street and Main Street extending to the HSS boundary. Priority I recommendations within the water distribution system, specifically improvements 15 through 19 listed in Volume II of this report would remediate the minimum recommended residential fire flow deficiencies in each respective area. To provide the minimum recommended residential fire flows in downtown Biddeford the HSS boundary may be relocated. The HSS relocation will require further investigation to ensure maximum system operation efficiency.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

12-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 12-1: Saco ISO Fire Flow Test Data â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012 Test No.

Location

Static Pressure (psi)

Residual Pressure (psi)

Needed Flow at 20 psi (gpm)

Available Flow at 20 psi (gpm)

Portland Road

2,500

2,100

Main Street

3,500

2,500

Temple Street

2,500

2,400

Central Street

750

900

North Street

4,000

2,400

Old Orchard Road

2,500

1,300

Bayview Road

1,500

2,200

Portland Road

2,500

600

Portland Road near Pine Haven Drive

3,500

1,400

Main Street

2,500

600

Main Street

3,000

2,900

Pepperell Square

3,000

1,900

Lincoln Street

3,500

550

Rotary Drive

500

900

Buxton Road

7,000

300

Bay Avenue

2,500

250

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

12-5

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

13. IMMEDIATE & SHORT TERM TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 GENERAL The following summarizes the findings of the study and presents a prioritized plan for water distribution system recommended improvements and associated costs. The prioritization of improvements allows for constructing the necessary improvements over an extended period of time as funds allow. Immediate and Short-term recommendations are listed in this section while mid-term and long-term recommendations are listed in Volume II of this report. Costs are based on the July 2013 Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index for Boston, MA of 12406.05, and includes costs associated with water services, hydrants, and permanent and temporary trench pavement and includes a 25 percent allowance for engineering and contingencies. Estimates do not include costs for land acquisition, easements, or legal fees. The recommended improvements are described herein and shown on the Recommended Improvements Map provided in Appendix H. The Water Research Association’s (formerly the American Water Works Research Foundation) study on “Cost of Infrastructure Failure,” which was completed in 2002, found that in addition to direct costs paid by water utility ratepayers for water main failures, there are also societal costs, which are paid by the public. Examples of the direct costs include outside contractor costs, engineering costs, police assistance, fire department assistance, electrical, telephone, and gas utility damage costs, landscaping restoration costs, and laboratory costs. Examples of societal costs included the cost of traffic impacts, business customer outage impacts, public health impacts (including loss of life), property damage not covered by direct costs, and the cost of reduced firefighting capability during the failure event. Replacement of one percent of a system each year (a 100 year replacement cycle) is a reasonable guideline based on industry experience and analysis. For the Biddeford and Saco distribution system, this would equate to approximately 12,700 linear feet of water main replacement each year as a guideline. Regular rehabilitation of water mains reduces main failures, leakage, and water quality issues. Water main rehabilitation can also provide socioeconomic benefits by reducing operational costs associated with chemical and energy usage. Rehabilitation or replacement of water mains that are inadequately sized to provide needed fire protection will improve public safety. The hydraulic improvements recommended in this section and within Volume II of this report total 17 miles (90,500 feet) or over 7% of the systems total mileage. The Biddeford Saco water system also has approximately 52 miles of water main 4-inch diameter or less. Much of this water main is older unlined iron water main. There have been a large amount of leaks and breaks on these mains. Studies have shown that a program which focuses on the most problematic pipes will have a better long term result and be more economical. There will be a financial challenge to determine how quickly these improvements can be made and the financial impact on the customers.

13.2 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS To maintain a comprehensive database of the condition of the system, it is recommended that Maine Water create a GIS based water main failure database. The database should include the location of each break recorded with the nearest street address and the properties of the failed main such as diameter, material, joint type, and type of lining. In addition, Maine Water should record the type of failure such as ring crack, lateral split, hole in the pipe, “punky” AC pipe failure, or joint leak. If possible, Maine Water should include the apparent cause of the failure such as frost load, traffic load, direct contractor damage, settlement, water hammer, external soil corrosion, or stray current. This data can be used to create a Water Main Failure Map for identifying areas of concern in the system. The map can be used to easily identify break locations and determine if streets or areas have a higher frequency of failures and to view any patterns in the location of type of failure. The water main failure database will aide Maine Water in making water main rehabilitation and replacement decisions in the future.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

13-1

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

In addition, it is recommended that the Maine Water continue to update their existing database of new or replacement water mains. The database should include water main diameter, material, lining, joint type, soil conditions, date of installation, and as-built schematic drawings. It is recommended that prior to installation of all new ductile iron water mains, Maine Water test the soils in the area of the new main to determine if it has high corrosion potential. If the soil is found to be potentially corrosive, Maine Water should consider wrapping ductile iron water mains with polyethylene to protect against external corrosion. Wrapping is a relatively inexpensive practice that can extend the life of new ductile iron pipe. In addition, wrapping helps to protect the pipe from stray currents that may develop near the main. As discussed in Section 12, there are areas in the LSS with low static pressures due to high ground elevations. Maine Water should consider expanding the HSS to include portions of Downtown Biddeford. Existing static pressures and the location of existing isolation valves and potential isolations valves should be evaluated. Also, as development is proposed along Route 95 and Jenkins Road north of Buxton Road, a new high service area with a booster pump station and water storage should be considered. The boundary of the service area should be evaluated as growth is proposed in the area.

13.3 PRIORITIZATION OF IMPROVEMENTS The recommendations are broken into three components. The first presents general operation, maintenance, and engineering recommendations that Maine Water should complete on a regular basis. These recommendations are listed in Table 13-1 at the end of this Section. The second are the prioritized recommendations for system improvements relative to the water distribution system. These include recommendations intended to eliminate insufficient storage, improve system operation, strengthen the transmission capabilities, and mitigate fire flow deficiencies. The immediate and short-term recommendations are listed in this Section while the mid-term and longterm recommendations as listed in Volume II of this report. The final component, which is also listed in Volume II, involves recommendations to be considered if an interconnection with the Portland Water District is ever established. The water mains hydraulic capacity, location in proximity to critical users and facilities, and break history were considered when prioritizing water main recommendations. The prioritized recommendations are prioritized based on the previously described Priority Descriptions, which are as follows: Immediate: Recommendations that are categorized as an immediate priority are improvements that are required right away to address basic operational practices, service level deficiencies, municipal project coordination needs, health and safety concerns and ensure the structural stability of the distribution facilities. These improvements are projects that should be implemented within the next 12 months. The immediate recommendations are listed in Table 13-2. Short-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as a short-term priority are improvements that are considered critical, have a large impact on water distribution system transmission capabilities, or provide a large improvement to system hydraulics. These recommendations should be implemented within the next five years. The short-term recommendations are listed in Table 13-3. Mid-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as mid-term priority are improvements that, while not essential to implement immediate, should be considered in the next five to ten years to improve the water distribution system. The mid-term recommendations are listed in Volume II of this report. Long-Term: Recommendations that are categorized as long-term priority are improvements that are necessary going forward to provide adequate storage, supply, and recommended fire protection to the system while planning for future growth beyond the next five to ten years. The long-term recommendations are listed in Volume II of this report.

13.3.1 General Operation, Maintenance, and Engineering Recommendations Essential to sound practice is managing non-revenue and un-accounted for water. Water lost to system leaks or inaccurate meters either adds costs or reduces revenue. Based on the 2013 information on water production and The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

13-2

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

sales, it appears that the volume of non-revenue water is excessive. This is likely caused by both faulty meter read information on sales and leakage within the distribution system. For example, based on the age of the existing 7.5 MG reservoir and the nature of the lining system, this tank could be leaking. Further, a leaking lining system could be detrimental to public health and safety. We recommend completing a system wide lead detection test and a leakage test on the reservoir. Current costs for pipeline leak detection ranges from $100 to $200 per mile. We recommend a system wide leak detection survey at a cost of $35,000. The reservoir leakage test would require taking the reservoir out of services for a minimum of 24 hours. Water levels in the tank should be measured throughout the time period to observe any changes. An increase or decrease in the water level would suggest water is flowing through the lining system. The cost associated with the leakage test is approximately $5,000. A review of the age and condition of the water meters in the system suggests an immediate expansion of the meter replacement program. More than 9,000 meters are over 14 years old and most have not been tested recently. The current program replaces approximately 300 meters annually, or approximately 2% of the total number of meters. Current standards established by the Maine PUC requires routine testing of all meters on a schedule established by meter size. Meters larger than 4 inch, for example, must be tested annually. Meters 1 inch and smaller must be tested every 8 years. In Biddeford and Saco, this schedule has not been adhered to in recent years. Accordingly, we recommend an increase in the number of meter replacements completed each year from 300 to 1,500. This will allow the system to replace all of the meters in the system over the next ten years. In conjunction with this meter replacement, Maine Water should deploy AMR technologies as they have in other divisions in order to improve meter read accuracy and reduce meter reading expense. The cost of the expanded meter replacement program is estimated at $300,000 annually. The Biddeford Saco water system has approximately 52 miles of water main 4-inch diameter or less. Much of this water main is older unlined iron water mains. The majority of recorded breaks have occurred on these mains. We recommend that approximately one mile of this small diameter pipe be replaced every year. Information on the material and installation year for most of these mains should be utilized to evaluate which mains should be replaced each year. The location, length, and proximity to fire hydrants should be considered when determining the necessary water main diameter. Water mains on short dead end streets where hydrants are located on the cross streets, smaller diameter water mains would be adequate. An 8-inch diameter water main would be recommended for streets that need fire hydrants. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately one mile of 8-inch diameter water main is between $750,000 and $1,000,000 per year. Maine Water should continue to perform regularly scheduled maintenance programs, including hydrant flushing, inspection and maintenance at the pump station, and meter testing/calibration. An annual unidirectional flushing program should be implemented. A unidirectional flushing program starts at a point of origin, usually a source or tank, and works outward flushing each portion of water main through clean water mains. The cost associated with developing a unidirectional flushing program is approximately $40,000. It is our experience the implementation of a unidirectional flushing program can be time extensive. Also, often discrepancies in mapped valve, hydrant, and water main locations force field changes to be made during implementation. Maine Water should continue the existing replacement program during which hydrants and valves that do not function as intended are identified and replaced. These deficiencies are normally identified through routine operation and during the system-wide flushing program. It is recommended that a formal hydrant and valve maintenance program be developed. This program would assist Maine Water in exercising existing hydrants and valves and documenting hydrants and valves in need of replacement. The program would include summarizing existing maintenance procedures, identifying priority areas, and developing a hydrant and valve maintenance report form for use during the program and for recordkeeping purposes. The latest AWWA guidelines and recommendations would be used to develop a five year valve maintenance program that would include maps showing a sequenced approach by street. By replacing old or broken hydrants, Maine Water will improve fire protection in the system and eliminate potential leaks. Eliminating broken valves in the system will continue to improve the transmission capacity of the The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

13-3

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

system. The cost associated with developing a formal hydrant and valve maintenance program is approximately $5,000. Verification of the model for an extended period simulation (EPS) is recommended. Evaluation under EPS allows the model to account for changes in the distribution system over time. These changes include tank levels, pump controls, and demand variations. The hydraulic model can be used to evaluate water age, determine ideal tank operating ranges, and observe the impact changes to operating conditions and storage and supply locations can have on the distribution system. Completing the EPS verification will require complete access to system SCADA data on flow rates from the water treatment facility and booster pump station and tank levels in the water storage tank. The cost associated with the EPS verification is approximately $15,000. The hydraulic model verified for EPS should be used to perform an evaluation of the HSS. This evaluation should include reviewing the service area boundary, especially in the Downtown Biddeford area, reviewing current operation practices, providing redundant service to the HSS, consider demand projections in the HSS, address potential future growth and needs in the area, and consider the storage deficit in the HSS. To provide redundant storage in the HSS and improve the available flow in the HSS, a new water storage tank is recommended south of West Street and west of Guinea Road. The HSS evaluation should include a review the different tank options, including construction material, locations, size, and operating conditions. The study will evaluate costs, construction feasibility, and operating scenarios. The estimated cost of a HSS evaluation and tank siting study is approximately $80,000.

13.3.2 Immediate Recommendations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water Distribution System A new 12-inch diameter ductile iron water main is recommended on West Street from Forest Street to the existing 12inch diameter water main. Currently the main in this location is 8-inch diameter. This water main will improve transmission from the Forest Street Tank and BPS to the eastern portion of the HSS. The Maine DOT has a 4,700 foot section of the roadway where this main is located scheduled for reconstruction in 2014. It is recommended that the MDOT coordination section be replaced. The estimated probable construction cost of approximately 4,700 linear feet of 12-inch diameter water main is $705,000.

13.3.3 Short-Term Recommendations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water Distribution System The existing Alfred BPS does not have emergency power and based on the current information available, the two existing motors are oversized for the existing pumps. The existing building size and location makes upgrades to the building difficult. We recommend abandoning the existing pump station and constructing a new pump station somewhere between the existing location and the location off Barra Road where the water mains cross from the Reservoir under the Maine Turnpike. The new pump station should be designed to include a new building, new domestic pumps, an emergency generator, and SCADA connectivity to observe flow rates and pressures and allow for the pumps to operate based on the water level in the Forest Street Tank. A new station could also be designed to provide room for additional pumping capacity in the future if Maine Water decides to sell water to the south through an interconnection located in the HSS. Maine Water currently does not own any property in this area. Obtaining property or an easement would have to be considered when determining a location for the pump station. The station should consist of two pumps to each provide approximately 750 gpm at 75 feet total dynamic head (TDH). These pumps would be utilized to fill the HSS tank and provide additional flow to the service area. Based on the storage evaluation, the HSS has a potential future storage deficit of over 2.0 MG. The construction of an emergency generator will allow for the emergency component of the required storage calculation to be waived. This would result in future storage deficit of approximately 0.5 MG. To provide the remaining recommended storage to the HSS, additional storage would be required in the HSS or additional pumping capacity would be necessary at the proposed BPS to help reduce the amount of storage required for fire protection. Two additional pumps are recommended to provide an additional 2,500 gpm to the HSS. The estimated probable construction cost for a new booster pump station is $845,000. This cost does not include costs associated with land acquisition or legal fees.

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

13-4

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Table 13-1: General Operation, Maintenance, and Engineering Recommendations Item No.

Improvement

Estimated Cost

Small Diameter Water Main Replacement Program (approx. 1 mile of main per year)

System Leak Survey and Reservoir Leak Test

Expand Meter Replacement Program

Development of Unidirectional Flushing Plan

Formal hydrant and valve replacement program

EPS Verification

$15,000

HSS Evaluation and Tank Siting Study

$80,000

$1,000,000 per year $40,000 $300,000 $40,000

Total Estimated Cost:

$5,000

$1,480,000 per year

Table 13-2: Immediate Recommendations – Water Distribution System Item No.

Improvement

Estimated Cost

Install 4,700 ft of 12” water main on West St in conjunction with MDOT project

$705,000

Total Estimated Cost:

$705,000

Table 13-3: Short-Term – Water Distribution System Item No. 2

Improvement

Estimated Cost

New Booster Pump Station

$845,000

Short-Term Total Estimated Cost:

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

13-5

$845,000

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

APPENDIX A: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

WOODARD CURRAN

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE LAGOON LAYOUT

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

WOODARD CURRAN

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL HANDLING BUILDING FIGURE

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

WOODARD CURRAN

COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS

41 Hutchins Drive Portland, Maine 04102 800.426.4262 | www.woodardcurran.com

APPENDIX D: IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS BY PRIORITY

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

No ability to automatically pace coagulant dose

Newly installed dual Streaming Current Detectors (SCDs) should be tied into a SCADA system; one on the incoming water to set dose and one after low lift pumping to trim dose

Immediate

$5,000

Intake Room

Theoretically inadequate alkalinity in raw water to complete alum reaction

Conduct detailed jar testing through various seasons and river conditions to confirm presence of adequate natural alkalinity. Plan coagulant doses accordingly and adjust with lime as necessary.

Immediate

$10,800

SCADA Room

SCADA junction panel and air compressors subject to flooding

Relocate the SCADA junction panel to a higher area, possibly in the corridor directly above, adjacent to the backwash blower.

Immediate

$20,900

Filter gallery

Individual filter flow rates cannot be monitored for surface loading

Add individual filter flow meters.

Immediate

$57,100

Yard

Backwash tank supply piping leaks and the tank requires painting

Repair tank so that it can hold backwash water over night.

Immediate

$138,300

Intake Room

Recommend a hard-wired lamp for this area.

Immediate

$3,200

The hallway leading from the corrosion control room to the intake room is poorly lit. An extension cord is Temporary fixtures and extension cords should Hallway between Corrosion Control Room and being used inappropriately to power a small light be removed and existing lighting should be Intake Room fixture in the hallway. This extension cord has been repaired or new fixtures installed to provide daisy chained and fed through a wall into the adequate illumination. phosphate room to an outlet.

Immediate

$5,900

Low Lift Pump Area

Temporary lighting fixtures and flexible extension cords were observed in use in a permanent condition to aid in lighting of the low lift pump area.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and existing lighting should be repaired or new fixtures installed to provide adequate illumination.

Immediate

$8,800

Intake Room

Exterior door has a 20 inch step up with no stair, which is a code egress issue.

Install code-compliant interior stair with a landing at exit door.

Immediate

$2,200

Intake Room

Workshop Entrance

There is an immediate safety hazard as you enter the building through the large steel double doors. To enter the building, you step up 6 inches, then step This area should be partially demolished and down 6 inches onto a 2 ft. concrete landing, then a 9 rebuilt with a proper, code-compliant concrete inch step down, followed by a 3 inch step up. This is landing and steps. unsafe in multiple ways and is a serious tripping hazard, especially for people not familiar with the facility.

Immediate

$15,900

Low Lift Pump Area

The railings located on the walkway mezzanine It is recommended that the railings be further above the low lift pump area are approximately 33 evaluated for building code and OSHA inches high from the floor, which are lower than the regulatory compliance, if deemed deficient, it is 42â&#x20AC;? OSHA requirement for a top rail located recommended that the railings be replaced or adjacent to an open sided floor and may be of a upgraded to meet current requirements. height which increase the risk of a fall hazard.

Immediate

$4,800

Filter Room

There is no fall protection such as a hand guardrail for employees to walk out onto the catwalk/dividers If activities must occur on these catwalks, of the 6 filter tanks. There is a fall hazard for an recommend the installation of guardrails or other employee to fall into the water without a guard in fall restraint system along the catwalk areas place. It was verified through employee interview where employees must conduct work. that some work does occur out on the catwalks in this area.

Immediate

$76,400

Filter Room

The parapets which run along the perimeter of the filter basins are just 30 inches tall.

It is recommended an additional rail be installed above the parapet to a height of 42 inches to prevent an accidental fall into the water.

Immediate

$12,200

Filter Gallery

In the gallery area below the filter room are a series of wooden planks which have been fitted to provide a walking surface above the older concrete floor and It is recommended that this planking be sumps which are uneven in nature and often collect reinforced and hand railed or replaced with with water. There are substantial trip and fall grating to cover the entire level below and hazards in this area, that although are generally less handrail areas where openings would remain. than four feet in height to the next lower level, could produce physical injury to employees.

Immediate

$125,000

Filter Gallery

There is a wooden crossover step (three-four steps high on either side) over a large steel pipe.

It is recommended that handrails be installed to prevent trips and falls when crossing over the step.

Immediate

$4,300

High Lift Pump Area

It is recommended that self-closing gates be installed at these openings to better prevent a fall potential.

Immediate

$2,000

High Lift Pump Area

The railings located on the walkway mezzanine above the high lift pump area are approximately 31 It is recommended that the railings be further inches high from the floor and therefore the top rails evaluated for building code and OSHA as currently configured along the mezzanine are regulatory compliance, if deemed deficient, it is shorter than that required by OSHA regulations and recommended that the railings be replaced or may be of a height which increases the risk of a fall upgraded to meet current requirements. hazard.

Immediate

$6,400

High Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$4,600

Workshop Entrance

The ships ladder which provides access to the mezzanine has been recommended to be removed and replaced, however if not removed as It is recommended that a self-closing gate be recommended, adequate fall protection from the installed at the top of the ladder if it is to remain mezzanine level should be in place at the top of the in place as designed to prevent a fall hazard. ladder. There was a chain in place, but it does not seem to be in use any longer.

Immediate

$1,000

Immediate

$2,500

Immediate

$5,800

Intake Room

Low Lift Pump Area

There are two unlabeled monorail beams with no hoist.

It is recommended that a protective guardrail system be installed for safe access to the platform, or another acceptable fall restraint system be implemented when an employee accesses this platform.

Analyze and label monorail beams, or label to not be used as a monorail.

Monorail beam should be structurally analyzed Roof monorail beam mostly concealed by finished (would require partial ceiling demo to get as-built plaster ceiling is currently not used due to unknown dimensions) and load capacity posted, or beam capacity. labeled to not be used as a monorail.

High Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$2,300

Low Lift Pump Area

Noise levels in the lift pump room and the hallway to Recommend applying engineering and the corrosion inhibition room above exceeded 90 administrative controls so that occupational decibels when the lifts pumps and/or the vacuum exposure to noise by operators is not in excess pump located in the hallway area were in operation. of 85 decibels.

Immediate

$1,500

Polymer Room

Noise was recorded at 88 decibels when polymer mixers were engaged.

Recommend applying engineering and administrative controls so that occupational exposure to noise by operators is not in excess of 85 decibels.

Immediate

$1,500

Filter Room

Air blower in corridor is not provided with any sound proofing.

Provide OEM sound attenuating enclosure.

Immediate

$10,700

Low Lift Pump Area

A flexible cord is hardwired into low lift pump 4 with the connection points exposed; additionally the flexible cord is not properly protected from damage in the low lift pump area.

This electrical arrangement needs upgrade to meet the installation requirements of OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S for Electrical Systems, also the exposed connections need to be guarded from contact.

Immediate

$3,200

Sedimentation Basin Room

The sweep motors main power cord has weathered The power cords to these sweep motors should and the insulation has pulled back from the be repaired to fix this condition, most of the connection clamp exposing wires which create a motors observed (4-6) had this deficiency. shock hazard.

Immediate

$4,700

Sedimentation Basin Room

An electrical wire, presumably energized was observed extended from a broken conduit out of the This wire should be guarded from exposure or wall which then extends along the wall unguarded removed if no longer in use. along the western wall of the sedimentation room along the catwalk.

Immediate

$1,100

Filter Gallery

There are receptacles in place on the filter and turbidimeter boards (6 boards stationed in all) running north to south in the gallery area which are not rated for wet environments of GFCI protected.

It is recommended that the electrical receptacles are evaluated for replacement with equipment rated for moist to wet environments to better protect equipment and guard against electrical shock.

Immediate

$2,000

Filter Gallery

There are a series of flexible extension cords running from the upper level of the filter room which These cords should be replaced and hard wired are exposed to damage and being used for and protected from wet conditions. permanent application. There are approximately 6 stations observed with this condition.

Immediate

$2,300

High Lift Pump Area

There were two extension cords being utilized in a If these items are intended for permanent permanent condition in the high lift pump area. One means, a permanent wiring configuration should was observed connected from an outlet to the motor be installed so the use of extension cords on a area of pump #2 and another was observed in permanent basis is eliminated. vicinity of a chlorine analyzer.

Immediate

$1,700

General

NFPA 70E is the consensus standard for electrical safety practices, contained within this standard are safe work practice requirements which are considered the norm for the industry and often applied to meet compliance with OSHA safe work practice regulations of OSHA 29 CFR Subpart S. Such services would need to be conducted by a One of the requirements of NFPA 70E is for facilities qualified individual as defined within NFPA 70E to conduct an arc flash hazard analysis of its and per OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.332. equipment to determine the arc flash boundary, the incident energy at the working distance, and the personal protective equipment that people working within the arc flash boundary on said equipment shall use.

Immediate

$60,500

Evaluation and repair of the emergency light system is recommended.

Immediate

$40,300

Intake Room, Sodium Aluminate Area, There appears to be some temperature control Aluminum Sulfate Room, Hexametaphosphate issues throughout the plant. To keep the area Room, Polymer Room, Ammonia Feed Area, climate controlled, particularly for warmth in winter Fluoride Feed Area, Office Room, among months, there were space heaters observed in each potential other rooms/areas. of these rooms/areas.

It is recommended that temperature control improvement measures be evaluated for function and repaired or upgraded where necessary.

Immediate

$80,700

Immediate

$4,000

General

Intake Room

The intake room contains a permit required space (influent pit), which is approximately 16-20 feet deep. Although entry is not routine, it was verified If confined space entry is conducted periodically with plant staff that entry is conducted periodically by Maine Water staff, a written program, space into this pit. The hatch covers appeared adequate inventory, employee training, and adequate to prevent a fall hazard, but when entry is conducted entry equipment should be provided for the there are no safe measures available to prevent a facility to meet compliance with Occupational fall hazard when the hatches are open. This safety Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection did not include an evaluation of written regulations for confined space entry under 29 safety programs and policies or related equipment CFR 1910.146. needed for safe operations such as confined space entry gear.

Low Lift Pump Area

Low lift pump 4 has an exposed shaft spinning at high speeds. Per OSHA machine guarding regulations, exposed spinning shafts shall be guarded to provide protection against injury.

A guard is recommended to be placed on pump 4 to alleviate this condition

Immediate

$1,200

Workshop Entrance

Mezzanine live load is not posted, which is a code Perform structural analysis and provide signage violation. with posted mezzanine live load capacity.

Immediate

$3,500

Workshop Entrance

Furnace is a few feet from chemical storage area and two oil tanks are nearby, which is a potential code violation. There is no sprinkler system.

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed.

Immediate

$16,500

Intake Room

There is eight square feet of concrete spalling around grated opening in floor.

It is recommended that the spalled concrete be repaired.

Immediate

$300

Filter Gallery

Several pipe supports in this congested area with large-diameter mechanical piping runs were observed to be very corroded and potentially compromised

Pipe supports should be further evaluated and all compromised supports should be replaced with new supports.

Immediate

$48,300

In the old filter building, there are two 250 gallon fuel The purpose of these fuel tanks was not verified, oil tanks and supply lines which appear to be but it is recommended that these tanks and heavily corroded/rusted. The level indicator associated lines be evaluated for structural displayed that the tank(s) were approximately one integrity so the potential for a fuel oil leak is quarter full. minimized.

Immediate

$5,600

Workshop entrance double door and frame need to be repainted.

Immediate

$500

Abandoned Filter Building

Workshop Entrance

Double door and frame should be repainted.

Area

Item Description

Recommendation

Priority

Cost

Intakes

The intakes originally had bar racks that have subsequently deteriorated; they now are openended allowing debris into the raw water pumps

Install wedge-wire drum screens with air purge backwash

Short-Term

$96,500

Sedimentation Building

Low sedimentation basin end wall height promotes floc carryover

Raise basin end wall height to above present water levels. Install weir launders across sedimentation basin to greatly increase weir length, minimize end wall scour, and diminish floc carryover.

Short-Term

$120,300

Sedimentation Building

Unbalanced flow splitting between the two floc/sedimentation basin trains

Construct a weir box with adjustable weir gates within the head end of the first flocculation cell

Short-Term

$101,800

Sedimentation Building

Sludge collection system is in disrepair

Install new sludge collection siphon manifold, preferably from a floor mounted track

Short-Term

$267,000

Sedimentation Building

Sedimentation basins are undersized

Retrofit each sedimentation basin with lamella plates or similar technology to improve apparent surface area and diminish short-circuiting

Short-Term

$144,100

Yard

Construct a sufficiently sized, 3-cell lagoon system at an elevation that protects it from a 100Sludge lagoon is inadequately sized for year flood. Divide the sedimentation sludge sedimentation basin underflow and filter backwash collection piping (to remain gravity) from the and filter-to-waste, and is subject to flooding filter backwash piping (to be pumped through use of an intermediate pump station constructed in the courtyard).

Short-Term

$2,187,800

Yard

Seal the courtyard archway as part of the lagoon yard re-contouring. Replace the wall at the back Building courtyard is subject to flooding, inundating side of the main building entrance, removing decant piping and clearwell #3 windows and providing gasketed, water tight door.

Short-Term

$44,000

Chemical Feed Building

Demolish portion of building and construct a new chemical handling building within the same Chemical storage areas are below flood level and footprint, at a higher floor elevation. This are very poorly configured for incompatible chemical building could accommodate second floor lab, separation office, and employee areas to be built out under a separate project.

Short-Term

$672,900

Convert to the use of sodium hypochlorite and provide a proper containment area above flood level

Short-Term

$188,500

Chemical Feed Building

Convert to the use of sodium fluoride and Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not properly contained and provide a proper containment area above flood presents a health and safety hazard level

Short-Term

$46,900

Chemical Feed building

Anhydrous ammonia is not properly contained, is located below flood level and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert to use of ammonium sulfate and relocate in a dedicated handling space.

Short-Term

$86,400

Chemical Feed Building

Lime addition equipment is inadequate

Convert to lime storage in a bulk silo and relocate lime handling to a new dedicated space

Short-Term

$474,000

General

Recommend network, database, software and The SCADA system is currently used as read-only hardware upgrades with alarming and reporting and does not record or control any of the plant's and the addition of control and monitoring for all processes. equipment

Short-Term

$308,000

General

All chemical additions are strictly manually controlled and are not paced to flow or trimmed by analyzers

Short-Term

$37,900

Low Lift Pump Area

Pump area is accessed by a stair with 7.5 inch risers and 7 inch treads, which does not meet code. It is recommended that the stairs be further The railings on the stairways in this area should be evaluated for building code and OSHA 30 to 34 inches to meet OSHA regulations, this regulatory compliance. If deemed deficient, it is condition was not verified during the walk through, recommended that the stairs be replaced or but should be measured to ensure compliance with upgraded to meet current requirements. current safety requirements for standard railings.

Short-Term

$22,000

Filter Gallery Access

Railings should be replaced or modified, and stair rise/run should be evaluated for code compliance.

Short-Term

$17,900

High Lift Pump Area

Current pump area access is using a steep shipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ladder, which does not meet code.

The access ladders should be evaluated for code compliance.

Short-Term

$6,200

Sedimentation Basin Room

One section of catwalk had been removed on the north side of the sedimentation room near the flocculation tanks. This condition creates a fall hazard into the water.

This section of catwalk should be properly repaired or guarded against entry to the missing section.

Short-Term

$16,400

Chemical Feed Building

Chlorine gas is not adequately contained and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert chemical dosing to automatic flow pacing and trim.

Sedimentation Basin Room

The mixers are mounted in such a way in which the mixer apparatus are put through holes cut out of the decking floor of the catwalks which are built over the These gaps should be better guarded so as to sedimentation tanks. There is a 6-10 inch gap on not create a trip hazard. the floor to the water which presents a trip hazard to employees. Four mixers were observed with this condition.

Short-Term

$4,100

Workshop Entrance

The break area for the operator crew is located in the workshop on a small mezzanine. The workshop also houses bulk storage (approximately 10,000 It is recommended that the break area and rest gallons) of hydrofluorosilicic acid, and the room be relocated entirely from this space or anhydrous ammonia addition system. These are adequately segregated to prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals and the break area and rest hazardous chemicals. room should not be located in this area due to the potential for exposure from fugitive fumes or an emergency release.

Short-Term

$31,300

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing roof deck is 3 inch Tongue & Groove Southern Yellow Pine planking, which have large Wood deck should be closer inspected, but it spans between steel framing. Deck ceiling paint is would likely be recommended that this deck be severely peeling and falling into treated water; paint replaced for both condition and code reasons. may contain lead. Wood deck condition is The new roof would likely consist of galvanized questionable and wood blocking above steel beams metal deck, tapered rigid insulation and is rotten in multiple places. Deck capacity likely membrane roofing. would not meet current building code for snow loading.

Short-Term

$249,100

Sedimentation Basin Room

Existing roof framing consists of steel I-beams, pipe columns bearing on concrete tank walls, and brick exterior walls, with numerous additional suspended During roof deck replacement, a structural loading from hanger rods supporting hung catwalks analysis of building will likely be required by and submerged process equipment and features. code. The roof framing, columns, and Steel framing paint is peeling and falling into treated associated lateral force resisting system may water. There is no significant corrosion observed for require structural upgrade to meet current code steel framing members; however, it is likely that requirements for gravity and/or lateral loads. some or all of this structure do not meet current building code, especially in regard to lateral stability and integrity as columns have no internal bracing.

Short-Term

$85,000

Sedimentation Basin Room

Some steel columns appear to be out of plumb. At least one column bearing plate is founded on a Columns should be checked for plumb and concrete wall with a large vertical joint, such that the corrected; bracing should be added as required base plate spans the joint and there is noticeable by structural analysis; tank wall joint, spalling, concrete spalling at the anchor bolts. This joint and column base plate shall be repaired and appears to be much wider than it should be, but has upgraded. reportedly been checked by engineers several times over the years.

Short-Term

$63,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

In early 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the exterior brick walls were insulated with rigid insulation and wood strapping to Insulation should be stripped off and replaced minimize icing from occurring on walls. Strapping is with new insulation and corrosion-resistant reportedly rotten in many locations behind the strapping with a more durable interior wall finish insulation. Insulation is covered with a paper film for moist conditions, such as fiberglass panels. that has fallen off in many locations.

Short-Term

$113,700

Sedimentation Basin Room

Tanks should be drained and cleaned, so that all steel framing can be evaluated by a structural Steel framing supporting catwalks is at or below engineer to assess condition and integrity, and water level and constantly exposed to moisture. to identify repair issues. It is likely that catwalks Steel is corroded and the structural integrity may be may require replacement with new catwalks and compromised. This could be an immediate safety railings to replace the corroded steel; new concern due to unknown condition of supporting catwalks would be constructed of corrosionmembers. resistant aluminum and no longer partially suspended from roof framing.

Short-Term

$265,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

Concrete tanks were full of water at the time of inspection and could not be inspected. There are Tanks should be drained, cleaned, and reportedly no areas of concrete spalling or exposed inspected by a structural engineer to assess rebar; however, some cracking was observed on condition and integrity, and to identify repair the tops of concrete walls, which likely extend below issues. Possible repairs may include water line. The base slab reportedly has some polyurethane crack injection, epoxy crack cracking that used to be patched long ago, but has injection, sealant joint replacement, concrete not been patched for many years. There is reported spall repair, concrete repair of cracks, rebuild of initial settlement of up to 5 inches in northeast any significantly unsound areas, and/or dealing corner, but this could not be visually confirmed with with any exposed rebar, as necessary. the tanks full of water. This tank was reportedly not pile supported like most other facility structures.

Short-Term

$234,800

Clearwells

Tanks should be drained, cleaned, and inspected by a structural engineer to assess condition and integrity, and to identify repair issues.

Short-Term

$53,100

Exterior -Sedimentation Basin

Any unsound concrete should be demolished and replaced with premium repair mortar and new sealant along joint.

Short-Term

$30,600

Exterior - Chimney

A more detailed assessment of the masonry chimney should be performed, This is likely to suggest removal, which has

Short-Term

$131,900

Sedimentation Basin Room

This roof membrane is over 30 years old, has reported leaks, and has been patched recently.

Replace roof in the next 2 years with a new insulated membrane roof system.

Short-Term

$125,400

Short-Term

$56,300

Workshop Entrance

There is a metal ceiling that fully conceals the steel This area should be partially demolished and roof framing, so visual inspection of the roof framing inspected to confirm that existing roof framing is condition was not possible. in sound condition.

High Lift Pump Area

Paint on brick walls is peeling and may contain lead.

Paint should be tested for lead and brick repainted.

Short-Term

$6,800

Chlorine Injection Room

An old wooden door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

Short-Term

$3,400

Filter Room Corridor

An old wooden double door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

Short-Term

$5,700

APPENDIX E: IMMEDIATE & SHORT-TERM TREATMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS BY LOCATION

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Area

Priority

Cost

Abandoned Filter Building

Immediate

$5,600

Chemical Feed Building

Short-Term

$672,900

Convert to the use of sodium hypochlorite and provide a proper containment area above flood level

Short-Term

$188,500

Chemical Feed Building

Convert to the use of sodium fluoride and Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not properly contained and provide a proper containment area above flood presents a health and safety hazard level

Short-Term

$46,900

Chemical Feed building

Anhydrous ammonia is not properly contained, is located below flood level and presents a health and safety hazard

Convert to use of ammonium sulfate and relocate in a dedicated handling space.

Short-Term

$86,400

Chemical Feed Building

Lime addition equipment is inadequate

Convert to lime storage in a bulk silo and relocate lime handling to a new dedicated space

Short-Term

$474,000

Chlorine Injection Room

An old wooden door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

Short-Term

$3,400

Clearwells

Tanks should be drained, cleaned, and inspected by a structural engineer to assess condition and integrity, and to identify repair issues.

Short-Term

$53,100

Chemical Feed Building

Item Description

Chlorine gas is not adequately contained and presents a health and safety hazard

Recommendation

Exterior - Chimney

A more detailed assessment of the masonry chimney should be performed, This is likely to suggest removal, which has been included as the chosen recommeded solution with the applicable cost.

Short-Term

$131,900

Exterior -Sedimentation Basin

Any unsound concrete should be demolished and replaced with premium repair mortar and new sealant along joint.

Short-Term

$30,600

Filter gallery

Individual filter flow rates cannot be monitored for surface loading

Add individual filter flow meters.

Immediate

$57,100

Filter Gallery

There is a wooden crossover step (three-four steps high on either side) over a large steel pipe.

It is recommended that handrails be installed to prevent trips and falls when crossing over the step.

Immediate

$4,300

Filter Gallery

There are receptacles in place on the filter and turbidimeter boards (6 boards stationed in all) running north to south in the gallery area which are not rated for wet environments of GFCI protected.

It is recommended that the electrical receptacles are evaluated for replacement with equipment rated for moist to wet environments to better protect equipment and guard against electrical shock.

Immediate

$2,000

Filter Gallery

Immediate

$2,300

Immediate

$48,300

Filter Gallery

Several pipe supports in this congested area with large-diameter mechanical piping runs were observed to be very corroded and potentially compromised

Pipe supports should be further evaluated and all compromised supports should be replaced with new supports.

Immediate

$125,000

Short-Term

$17,900

Filter Room

Immediate

$76,400

Filter Room

The parapets which run along the perimeter of the filter basins are just 30 inches tall.

It is recommended an additional rail be installed above the parapet to a height of 42 inches to prevent an accidental fall into the water.

Immediate

$12,200

Filter Room

Air blower in corridor is not provided with any sound proofing.

Provide OEM sound attenuating enclosure.

Immediate

$10,700

Filter Room Corridor

An old wooden double door is in poor condition.

The door should be replaced with new painted hollow metal door, frame, and hardware

Short-Term

$5,700

General

Short-Term

$308,000

General

All chemical additions are strictly manually controlled and are not paced to flow or trimmed by analyzers

Short-Term

$37,900

Filter Gallery

Filter Gallery Access

Railings should be replaced or modified, and stair rise/run should be evaluated for code compliance.

Convert chemical dosing to automatic flow pacing and trim.

General

NFPA 70E is the consensus standard for electrical safety practices, contained within this standard are safe work practice requirements which are considered the norm for the industry and often applied to meet compliance with OSHA safe work practice regulations of OSHA 29 CFR Subpart S. Such services would need to be conducted by a One of the requirements of NFPA 70E is for facilities qualified individual as defined within NFPA 70E to conduct an arc flash hazard analysis of its and per OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1910.332. equipment to determine the arc flash boundary, the incident energy at the working distance, and the personal protective equipment that people working within the arc flash boundary on said equipment shall use.

Immediate

$60,500

General

Immediate

$40,300

Immediate

$5,900

High Lift Pump Area

Current pump area access is using a steep shipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ladder, which does not meet code.

The access ladders should be evaluated for code compliance.

Short-Term

$6,200

High Lift Pump Area

It is recommended that self-closing gates be installed at these openings to better prevent a fall potential.

Immediate

$2,000

Evaluation and repair of the emergency light system is recommended.

High Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$6,400

High Lift Pump Area

It is recommended that a protective guardrail system be installed for safe access to the platform, or another acceptable fall restraint system be implemented when an employee accesses this platform.

Immediate

$4,600

High Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$2,300

High Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$1,700

High Lift Pump Area

Paint on brick walls is peeling and may contain lead.

Paint should be tested for lead and brick repainted.

Short-Term

$6,800

No ability to automatically pace coagulant dose

Newly installed dual Streaming Current Detectors (SCDs) should be tied into a SCADA system; one on the incoming water to set dose and one after low lift pumping to trim dose

Immediate

$5,000

Intake Room

Theoretically inadequate alkalinity in raw water to complete alum reaction

Conduct detailed jar testing through various seasons and river conditions to confirm presence of adequate natural alkalinity. Plan coagulant doses accordingly and adjust with lime as necessary.

Intake Room

Recommend a hard-wired lamp for this area.

Immediate

$3,200

Intake Room

Exterior door has a 20 inch step up with no stair, which is a code egress issue.

Install code-compliant interior stair with a landing at exit door.

Immediate

$2,200

Intake Room

There are two unlabeled monorail beams with no hoist.

Analyze and label monorail beams, or label to not be used as a monorail.

Immediate

$2,500

Immediate

$4,000

It is recommended that the spalled concrete be repaired.

Immediate

$300

It is recommended that temperature control improvement measures be evaluated for function and repaired or upgraded where necessary.

Immediate

$80,700

Intake Room

Immediate

$10,800

Intakes

The intakes originally had bar racks that have subsequently deteriorated; they now are openended allowing debris into the raw water pumps

Install wedge-wire drum screens with air purge backwash

Short-Term

$96,500

Low Lift Pump Area

Temporary lighting fixtures and flexible extension cords were observed in use in a permanent condition to aid in lighting of the low lift pump area.

Temporary fixtures and extension cords should be removed and existing lighting should be repaired or new fixtures installed to provide adequate illumination.

Immediate

$8,800

Low Lift Pump Area

Short-Term

$22,000

Low Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$4,800

Low Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$5,800

Low Lift Pump Area

Immediate

$1,500

Low Lift Pump Area

A flexible cord is hardwired into low lift pump 4 with the connection points exposed; additionally the flexible cord is not properly protected from damage in the low lift pump area.

This electrical arrangement needs upgrade to meet the installation requirements of OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S for Electrical Systems, also the exposed connections need to be guarded from contact.

Immediate

$3,200

Low Lift Pump Area

Low lift pump 4 has an exposed shaft spinning at high speeds. Per OSHA machine guarding regulations, exposed spinning shafts shall be guarded to provide protection against injury.

A guard is recommended to be placed on pump 4 to alleviate this condition

Immediate

$1,200

Polymer Room

Noise was recorded at 88 decibels when polymer mixers were engaged.

Recommend applying engineering and administrative controls so that occupational exposure to noise by operators is not in excess of 85 decibels.

Immediate

$1,500

SCADA Room

SCADA junction panel and air compressors subject to flooding

Relocate the SCADA junction panel to a higher area, possibly in the corridor directly above, adjacent to the backwash blower.

Immediate

$20,900

Sedimentation Basin Room

One section of catwalk had been removed on the north side of the sedimentation room near the flocculation tanks. This condition creates a fall hazard into the water.

This section of catwalk should be properly repaired or guarded against entry to the missing section.

Short-Term

$16,400

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$4,100

Sedimentation Basin Room

Immediate

$4,700

Sedimentation Basin Room

Immediate

$1,100

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$249,100

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$85,000

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$63,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$113,700

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$265,800

Sedimentation Basin Room

Short-Term

$234,800

This roof membrane is over 30 years old, has reported leaks, and has been patched recently.

Replace roof in the next 2 years with a new insulated membrane roof system.

Short-Term

$125,400

Sedimentation Building

Low sedimentation basin end wall height promotes floc carryover

Raise basin end wall height to above present water levels. Install weir launders across sedimentation basin to greatly increase weir length, minimize end wall scour, and diminish floc carryover.

Short-Term

$120,300

Sedimentation Building

Unbalanced flow splitting between the two floc/sedimentation basin trains

Construct a weir box with adjustable weir gates within the head end of the first flocculation cell

Short-Term

$101,800

Sedimentation Building

Sludge collection system is in disrepair

Install new sludge collection siphon manifold, preferably from a floor mounted track

Short-Term

$267,000

Sedimentation Basin Room

Sedimentation Building

Sedimentation basins are undersized

Retrofit each sedimentation basin with lamella plates or similar technology to improve apparent surface area and diminish short-circuiting

Short-Term

$144,100

Workshop Entrance

Immediate

$15,900

Workshop Entrance

Immediate

$1,000

Workshop Entrance

Short-Term

$31,300

Workshop Entrance

Mezzanine live load is not posted, which is a code Perform structural analysis and provide signage violation. with posted mezzanine live load capacity.

Immediate

$3,500

Workshop Entrance

Furnace is a few feet from chemical storage area and two oil tanks are nearby, which is a potential code violation. There is no sprinkler system.

Immediate

$16,500

A detailed review of code compliance of this area should be performed.

Workshop Entrance

Short-Term

$56,300

Workshop Entrance

Workshop entrance double door and frame need to be repainted.

Immediate

$500

Yard

Short-Term

$2,187,800

Yard

Short-Term

$44,000

Immediate

$138,300

Yard

Backwash tank supply piping leaks and the tank requires painting

Double door and frame should be repainted.

Repair tank so that it can hold backwash water over night.

APPENDIX F: WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAP

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

Dr n

dA ve Co ral bur st L

hla n Hig

r D id e W oo ds

Powd erhor n

Rd ter n

Ea s

n Wo od L

Fiel ds L

Ln en d er B Ri v

berr y Stra w

r as D Tho m

Old Neck

ing

oin

La nd

Bl ac

Se ave y

n dl eL St ad

int

Ho lly

dS for Bic k Rd

s ne Jo

ng Ki

ee Cr

Mas sacr Garr e Ln ison Ln

r ury D Pillsb

Smithers Way

El ev e

nt h

in th

Cr ic

Bi rd

Gr an dA ve

Harmon St

ke tL

est

al Se

k oc

Lib r

ary

t eS

r kD

Re d

Gar

Elm St Pop lar St

den S

Dat

Ave

t St

Ci r

Wav ele

el ot Ca m

St Puff in

wA ve Bir kda le C

Wa y

Gre ena cre ndv Rd iew Dr Oak cre st D Bir r ch Ln

Wi llo

Gra

Mill iken

C At entr Aza lan al lea St tic Par Pie Av k A rce e Ced ve Kin St Old g ar A Bea St Orc ve ch h St Hig Fern ard A ve hla A ve nd C a mp Av e Co m Un ion Bay fort A Ave ve Pea Ave rl A ve

Sea clif f Av Od e ena A Od ve O ess d a A ena A ve ve Reg gio Ave Pav i Trip a Ave ol Tun i Ave is A ve

Fre e

Cry stal

e Ave

Av e

e St

Seas id

Wey mo u San th Ave dpip er R d New Salt Rd Porte r Rd

Av e od nw o

d dR

ood

er W ay

rds W ay

Wildwood Dr

r Ci r

Rich a

Chas es

Thu nde r

od C

th D

Ba y

Vi ew

Seafields Ln

Ply m

Bluewave Ln

Lewis

Meadow Ln

Tiffany Ln

Edgewater Ln

Cir nha ven Gle

tC are arg

Vin e

shwo

D le ap

ve Pond A

Ho pe

Wa y

din

Hidden Farm Rd

ad ehe r bl Ma

Tw in

ma D u s A be Ln Ha ve ley Ci r

Lower Beach Rd Main Ave Riverside Ave

Bay Ave

ly W ay

ph e

r's W

Burleigh Ln

ist o

Cir

Windmill Pt

lL Bra nd

n ak L Red O

n sL

y Sk

Gre

yl e K

Ra ven sw

ve Ln

Dr res

eV iew

res

B Lester

Orcutt

t First S

Blvd

Thi rd S t Fou rth St Fift hS t

lbe Gi

P rt

KKW Interconnection

Ro cky Wa y

Be n

Ln ood

ok D r

nW ay

Br o

Old To wn Rd

Da nde lio

Ca it Dr

Bear R u

te Pe

n Dr

Eliz abe th

de r

Rd g

Ln Sea l

Old

Li ttl e

Kin

gs H

Ic e

Ri ve rR

eR H

ou s

Ln Roc k

Scadlock Mill Rd

Ne ptu n an S e Ln pra yA ve

n eL

Oce

re Sho

r oo

oin ite P Gran

Water Distribution System Maine Water Company Biddeford-Saco

Sea Sp ray D r

Blu e

12-Inch

ce L

10-Inch

t Rd

8-Inch

Spr u

Ri d ge R

Spli t

chin s

Oak

Hut

Bo o

ker

Wa y

Regin a

ay W

rm Fa

e ni

x Fo

Pi ne

r Cu

o rP

De erw

r Bu

Hi gh

For tu

's W ay Sha llow

Bea ch A ve

ock s

one gst Fla

roo k

r aks D

ile

tch

nes R

Sky O

lyn

st D

dw Wil

ree k

Dr Fie ldc re

hir e

re St

Wi ldb

Sa p

x Pond Maddo

Lit tl

Tow R

Leighton Point Ln

Jos h

Brid ge

o l Rd Old Po

Rebecca D

Rd so n

Ch reti en

Gui

nea R

Ka tan

Ca p

Wi ld

an V iew D

ay W

Oce Du sty

Elphis St

Dr ood

Channel Co

ng di

Davis

Orin Ln

n La

Iron Trail Rd

ado

ndg

th en

Eva nthi a

sL Day

Av e

nier Ave

o rb Ha

v Se

Mi sty

ch Rd

Sa lt M

Ge org eto

Sad ie

Hills Bea

Oc ean

Mox ie Ln Dr

g Rd

ar tin

tow

Gree nland

Dr om Fol s

ow ill W

New

Qua

Av e

Rockw ood Dr

nite

Gra

che ne A ve

e Av ze ee Ave r ab ng ve Se Lo n A ve de l A nt Go sa ea Pl

St M

ar sh

ir Cote C

e Br

e Av

ood

Sto n

Rom

Loop Rd

se D

Sabl e

Pap oo

rry L

Wo od D

sa L

Ind e

ter wa

Stone Cliff Rd

as D

ve King A n Ave Sylva Ave Morris ve ark A P Ferry e w Av d Vie Islan e v A Eagle Ave aven Fairh n Ave Beaco ve ise A Sunr Sunset Ave

Ch r

Inn er

res

rr Fe

An ge

Ge lin

Th o

rs B rook

Isla nd

Moo

Ln Lis a

Wo od

Fer ry

Landin g

Isla nd

Sokokis Rd

Pa q

ua ta

ne eP

Cre stwo o

C ng

Da nn

ys Wa y

Bla n

Ave

se Ln

re D

Sevigny

ou Lighth

Bayview Av

Sto n

Ri d ge R Pine tel L n Kris

Mar

Car tie

har Orc Old

Harb or D Sch r oon

Gr e ens

nA ve

Fer nald Fou St rth Ave

Oce ana Ave Win ona O Ave ceana Ave Col by Ave An con a Av e

R Ma andall ine Ave M Con assach Ave nec ticu usetts t Av Ave e

th S t

Som

William St

Tio ga

Hea

Dun

Pine Brook Ter

ers

Oc ean Av e S P a rk A eavie Lak wA eA ve ve ve Bee Cook ma Wood che n la rie Av Ave nd Av e e

Cas co A ve

eA ve

Firs t

Luc ette Ave Lau ren eD r Sha Ede dy Ln nL n

hS Sixt

Spring

ood Av e

et A ve

st A ve

Maplew

yr tl

Fort Hill Ave

Dr Dir igo

lvd

mi t

Sch ool S

Ln Gr ov eA ve

Pa r kA ve

Pi ne Av e Evergreen Ave

For e

Dr ield Rye f

Me lvin

Ave

Runnells Ave

Sm ithw

Ave

gs B

Us en

laid e

Ch arl es

Des

R ill nH

c Way Atlanti

Jor d

Ber nar dA Ma ve rion Ave

Gle

n Law

Ho me Libb y

Mar

Led gem e

i ind W

k ree

eo L

tte Av Pon e der o

te L

min

rk W ay

e Av

Temple Ave

od D

Sum

Bond St

Cal ix

Bris son St Clea ves S t Foo B oisv te S ert S t Ald t Car i ne ll A Ter ve Dub Bro e St wn St Imp Har eria risb l St u rg S Kin t ne Cor y Ave Old tlan Orc dS har t Sta dS ple t sS t

Fox Hill Ln

Poo l

Atl ant ic A ve

ne D

o Sac

eso

Kee

Con erst o

Egret Cv

Decary Rd

ond

Le on

Gre

enfi eld Ln D eb Pris bie cill Av aA e ve Ce S out ntu hga ry te A Dr ve Ran ch Ln

Ray m

Me rril l St Bre ton St

Way Tiger

i dg eR

old Ave

Salt

Cum

Jam

Old

riso n

Har

rso n

nor Ma

ial A ve

Wa y

Pa rk

sid

Mile s Av e Smi th A ve

v Curtis A

Oc ean

ler A v

tos

Mil

es S t

Co lum b

Clea v

e St

Trix Ln Lafa yet te

Oa kS t S Pik e S chool tree S t Ex t t

Vin e

rn S

Gov

F ORD

Hill

Aco

Sum

Cliffo rd St Geor ge St

BIDD E

Wa l nu t St

Ave

Pro sp

Ave

trud e

er R

Mu llen Ave Tra yno r St Rou ssin St

Slyes Hl

Wa t shi ngt on A v Wo od A e ve

te S

yet

ste a

eA ve

y St

Lew is A v

th ia um

Fleetw ood Dr Colony D r

e cel A v

Evans Rd

Mar

Pin e

ood L

Shore Ave

ena d

l Av

Gra

Common St

Be r

Delputt Ln

Pro m

ay S

t Wi nte rS

Hal

School S

Ave

Mo rris on S

Lewis

Lillian Ave

Laf a

Loc ke St We ym out h

gS t

Av e

hS t

Ave

Elm w

yP St

Kin

Wa kef ield

Park

Fr ee

Wate rS

Cha pel S

Fos s

Ver no

r St

ect St

r St

Deering Ave

Sul liva nS t Hig hS t Pik eS t

Ba con S

Oak

tS t Bra cke t

Ave

Front S t

Bri sto l St Tibbetts Ave

Eme ry S t

Fed eral St Jeff erso nS t

Win ter St

Har

Emerson

Ade

Roy al S t

Ma bel

SACO

k St Yor

ms Ada

t St

oe D

aug

Em e

Ro cky led Fr ge esh Dr wa ter D Pin r e eco Av ne D es r harl C

rl St Pea

nn o

She par d

Cha rles

dle

Hig

t ap le S

Go och

Sh a

sesh

Beach St

Ple a

Hor

Mid

Sca m

Cu tts Av Th e orn ton san tS Av t e Sto rer St

Ac ad em

t Ma in S St Un ion

Sum

elan dS t

Wil low Ave Jam es S t

Da yS t Pro spe ct S t

Ave riso n

Har

Cle v

Cro ss S

M t

Gre

en S

ber

Ger

t st S For e

We stla nd We Ave nde ll A ve

Par k

Rid gev iew

ma nS

gS t

Spr in

t Hi ll S

t St orth We nt w

St ham Gra

St Elm

Ny eS

No tt S

St Par k

Av e Ca nta ra

Ma ple St Ca ryn Dr

t st S For e

Bra dbu ry S t Ma yS Birch wood Ln

wo o d Ln Oak

Go oda le A ve

st S Fo re

Dr Sky line

r yD

Me mo

Ken

rial

ned

or e

St erle au Pom

Ave Shel tra Ave Clar Vin e ndo cen Ra n St t Av y S Victo We e stfi ry A t Wi Her eld ve D llet Lib St ring upo t St erty Ave nt A Ave ve Wil Ha son Free rdi Lau St ng St Congress St rier St St Bel Paul St mo nt A ve Hil lsid eA ve Alis on A ve Ro bin Pen We Ci r Lynn Av ny st S Ave e t

Wa y

Bo oth St He we

pl e

an ic S

Wa ter

Bir ch St Por ter St Fall Myr St tle S t Cla rk S t

ers Ba k

en S

St Oa k

pe re ll S Pe p

lan d

Oak

Hu bba rd S

We ston

r P Ave aquin Av e

nne Mc Ke

We stm

Lam

Tra ilsid e

an A ve

ber lan d

ark R

Cum

Lym

Sto c

Sm ith L

Pau l St Lu cill eS t Oli ve St No r ma nS Co t olid ge Av e Tru ma nA ve

Bu rro wS t Lou ise St

an A ve

on Av kA e ve

yth

bu c

Bo n

Ro e

Lab t ont eA Nor ve man Ave Fra Sta nkl cy in S St t

Ave

hee Ma Goo l Fa y rms sefa flowe re D rD r r

r r

od D

eA ve

sid Wo od

Mir

Tas ker S

Cir

and a

St fiel d Gar

ir lC

me Sh ir

Col oni a

Av e Li na

lock

Hem

Oak

t et S Sw e

As pe nD

Dr od

Jun i

per

Ro sew o

Tra in

set V

Ci r Brid le W ay

Goosefa re Ln

Rd Lun d

Dr am gh No ttin

Cir Lali bert e

St Pin e Ln ge Vil la

n Cl iff L n

kL roo rB tch e Th a Dr

nter l Ce Me dica

Driftw

old R

nes Du

Hi ll D Valle Ln

Morg

We ndy

Cir

Do ugl as A ve Hil lvie wA ve

Br end a

Wa yco tt W ay Sheila C ir Bro ok St De arb orn Av e Mt Pl e asa nt S t Hig hlan dS Pin t nac le L n

Ch ico p

ee L

Colton L n

r dge D India n Ri

Alexand er Dr

aks D

Cath edral O

Rd tai n ou n

Eighth St

Dr Che stnu t St

Pine Valley Rd

r r Br i ar D

Wa y

Wil d

nte l Ch a

Bl ue

Ryan Rd

an Cir

r Ro tary D

le W ay

eA ve Bla k

lle Wa y Cot ton wo od D

Mi che

n ie L Jes s

nn in

Arn

Wil d

al P a stri Ind u

rs Wa y An ge Ln Cr yst al

Dr llo w Ho Fo x

r Ne st D Ea gle s Dr

an Sy lv

OL DO

Rd ill s nM ill ike M Ln ter Tr ot Pac er A ve

rk R

lA ve Pa u d Foss R

Dr edge Big L

Ma rin

Sno w

Av e nd Po rtl a

Fier o

r Meserve

I-9 5

Ln ella Isa b

Av e ary M

Cir

lant Dr Cla yt o nD

Gal

ir Bru no C

Dr itte n Wh n

ps Wa y er

Wa y

Sh o

d Ol de

Reef Ln

ars h ad M Ro ter n Ea s Rd Mi lls en Mi llik

H BE AC RD HA

Sn o

SA C d ins R Jen k

Cra nbe rry Ln ll D r

Sm u

tty L

Orchard Hill Rd

Douglas Rd y

r sD Sa nd er om H

Rd Por tlan d

Pine Ledge

r Al ge rD te 1 Ro u

Equestrian Wa

Ma rtin Av Ch e arle sC ir

Susa n

r Waldron D

Ave

leas Sim ple P

Rd arm Ca rte rF d rn R Hea

d th R Hea Kno

Mi ll R

sP oin oo r M Bayberry Ln

Ln St ug a

Ln Sara toga

ure s

Cas tle Ter

Ln ahue Don

d ill R Roc ky H

r il D

Running Tide Dr

tat i

ars h ad M Ro

Rd Landmark

nol

n reek L Moo

ber ry

Rd rle s Ch a

Rd ng Sp ri

ter n

Huntley Dr

ly W ay

n lL Ca rdi na

Co n

D W oo df ie ld Stra w

Payn e

Rd ill H tto w Sc o ebr

ook

Lon gm e a

Sto n

Gol

n's Way McKinno

Pa rk

Pl an

Rd dow

End

Thu rsto n

Ln Eliz abe th

Dr ood Ster ling w

Tra ils

Bro Bo nd Dr ood den w

r ok D Merr ill B ro

Dr Di rig o

d er R Ric k

Ea s

d Ho l me sR ok

Se p

tem

be r

W ay

Labrador Ln

Herit age L n

n dL tP on d ill R Joss H

Tib bet ts

se C

Cra nbe rry Pne s

Kylie Ave

ies Ln Kat

Tr ou

n eL Ma Rub y

r dD Wed gew oo

d Gr an tR

Partr idge Ln

d Dres ser R

Rd om Fr ee d n yL

elo d M

d nR Ha nso Golden Ln

itet a

Rdg

ry nt

try D

oin

Rd ury

Fal c

t as P ail

Cou n

M t Pin

u Co

her

6-Inch

24-Inch

n ry L ctua Rd San o me r low H Wins ay inal W Marg

4-Inch or Smaller

20-Inch

rb nte Ca

ec h

BID DE KE FO NN R EB UN D KP OR T

16-Inch

Verrier Ln

We sley

Water Main Diameter

ins S

nP Ocea

Procto r Rd

Service Area Boundry

Phinneas

Cla rk

Stu art St

Fai rfie ld

BID DE FO AR U N RD DE L

Legend

Ferry R

l St

bou rn

River Sands Dr

tes Ya

Bl ac

l Rd

rcia

Mel

Poo

KKW Interconnection

ital D

Hampton Cir

Old

Morin St

Com

Dig

t Ln

to lic W ay

Su n

Ave

B nue Ave

Ap os

pea u

tR oi n hP

ell A ve

Dr erry wb

o Po

zu llc Ha

Old Alfred Rd

Dra

oin

t Bra dle yS t Dy er S t Tem

Gre

ve yA

Ben Ave

y St

Hu tch

Lan dr

c Bla

Grays L

Woodview Dr

l rP

r Ln

Au tum

yso n

le Fo

Sou th S

Jabez Ln

Gra

Hig

new

Car ver St

e im

t St

Hun

Wynm

k roc

North Ave

our

e rnh Bo

Sno ss Ro

West Ave

ie Letell

y Walk Journe

Pre c

ood r W oor D

wo o d

er lT Rd Va

Arrow

ne Sto

rf Su

s St

ne s

Rd Clearw ater

D ne

ie anv

Little Riv er

n River L

aD nd

Fog g

ent S

Liz o

ay ps W Sho Rd

Wa co D

el av Gr

ard

t ed S

y Wa

Alfr

Alfred Booster Pump Station

Trav er

le A v

Edw

Oceanside

Lin da

ws t Md

Oce

Ctr

Ma son

Ave

t ter S Cen

Cres c

Un ion St Dal e Ci r

eA ve

Ave

lan d

r Te

U T

ins R

ry Fer

er uld Bo

ate w

Wo od

ew Vi

rd G

Bea udo in A ve

e eD as

lC arl

y Ba

n No

C ch esu

nC Va

Ave

Bid def o

Poin

La n

t Ln

e Col

" "

eri

e rri

I-195

Ka van

Ba ll

pr in

e Seasid

r St

har d

Ma cIn

ouse

W ell s

Cu tts S

er D

one D

on D r

Pip

tingh

Ba rra R

pee

ee D

Sho rew o

oin Windy P

Ave rey

var d

Gunstock Rd

Osp

uth S

ts Pi

o Rh

er S

Pine Point Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet

Fer n

Scrimshaw Ln

Yal eS

tmo

Mee

Dar

her st

y Ln

Har

Forest Street Tank Capacity: 1.25 mg Overflow: 261 feet

Bea con

Â³

R er

Abb

Par e

oth

Les sard

Tay lo

g Fog

k Blac

e Th

ve nA

t g St

roo k

McK

D ok

Robert St

et S

de R d

ark

s on

ngb

en D

Lam

yD nc Na

Orc

on ho Sc

n er L cast Lan

Ri v

Thornto n St Spr uce St St M ary St

U T

kl an

Cas ca

ve ur A rth

Cir

South St Chad w ick Pl

Co lon ia

Isl e

lum

e Av

Ro c

ve nA wi

en re

nA ve

e ud la

Ald

Healthcare Dr

De er

p ech Be

Bre ntw ood

try D

ve rve A Rese

G ge

Pine c

ve nA

Ave

Wo od

Diamo nd St Hoo Gooch St per St

Vic tory L

o Br

m Dr O ran McCallu ge

Nas

heel R

e Rd lla Shadage Vi

Buc kth orn C

Che rryf ield

Horseshoe Dr

th Ca

Mo ody

Spr i

U T

An dre

w Smith

No rth

The Reservoir Capacity: 7.5 mg Overflow: 207 feet

e6 enu Av 5 nue Ave 4 ue en Av e3 enu Av

y Ln

Ja y

U T

Circuit St

ne r

rn Ve

Abb

Br oo kL

ay W

Le h

Old Hollis Rd

nt D

Stanle y

a oni Lac

ood

e1 enu Av

Pi n es

Cou n

t ain S

Ln Lilac

rin g

Dr Wil son Dr

St oln Linc t eS

R er

" " "

y wa

Tiger Lily Ln

ok D

his pe

I-1 95

on St

v Ri

Water Treatment Plant

vie

o arbr Ced

Easy

Bradbury Street Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet Par k

Irvin

ir Fa

t k S St Oa nite t S a Gr liss r St B ve St Do ne St n Pi ch a eL Be Ros St y Ba

Lincoln St

m Boo

a Se

ine

Sch op

R tton Stra

rd dfo Bra

ple

Pat o

ma dge Ho

Ber ry

eck Rd

es D

od Go

w Bay

ill Ln

roo

cA Ma

ty R

ay Cl

Indian H

sor

Mi ll B

e Av on bs Ho t e rS Av nte on Ce rm e v Ha e A Av on eg pia ve Or ym ey A Ol Dew

Cou n

t ou

sN Winnock

d Win

Ste e

Jeff rey Ave

New

Col on

s le ab

n rn L

Kennedy Dr Sto rer St

r er D

re D

ale

lante

Jasp

Cap ta

ay W

New

Clo verd

e tux Pau

t Rd

int

Par c

e tin

ty un

Sean Pl

ab nd

Cam i

Chelsea Cir r

Iri s

Sea coa s

s Ca

in eD

n 's ga

Long Cove Dr

Ja sm

D es in

h Coac

C ar

Pin e

SCA RB OL OR DO OU RC GH HA RD BE AC H

t Dr Oakmon

dN Ol

rP ve

ell

ook L

uckle

Spring Hill Rd

D Cori

Au tum

Poin

d Ce

ding R

B rty

ng B r

Boo thb y

iva n

k Blac

tan L an

e Lib

be rly

Su ll

eys Hon

flow

Win di

yA ve

ve C

Farm Sullivan

int

May

Willey Rd

kR r oo

s Ln

Gro

B ks

m lsa Ba

Bu x Ln to

Fawn Dr

Pond View Rd

s ne

n Rd

t Dod

e Tall Pin

ll Ta

Loud e

en S

So fia

Ki m

Bob b

cad Ca s

o lis Al

try Wo ods R

t Rd

n Ba

ros

Wo od D

ter

Os pre

int Po

r nte Hu

Old

m Pri

Ash

Ha v

rn Fe

Spruce Cir

Duns

Pin e

er L

u Ro

Cattail Ln

oin

Pin e

Phe asa n

ounty

Emily Way

P dy

le C

Pkw

ew a

n Sa

iew

field Fair

Lucky Ln

Eas tv

Ave

erce D

OR OU SA GH CO

d anon R

Co un

Comm

Po in

ood

y Libb

rd S r Wa

Bl ue

Wa y

Br id

r dD fiel Rye

Flag Pond Rd

pson Sim

tw Wes

D pal

er R

rch

Car riag e

nici Mu

y Saw

Ch u

e Av

y Ln berr

SCA

ens D

ard ch Or

Du nst an Av e

Que

z Pla

am R Gorh

ie Ell

Mul

Gri ffin

d ok R

od Wo

Wi lso nL

lbro

Leb

Ta ll

a rnh Bu

d ite R

Mil

e Av

guer Mar

ry er eb

ond

v le A

u Bl

e Av

cres

Co lon el

Fla

Old

ve all A Ranw

Nob

ln R

Cir

Ave

o Linc

Prio r

t on ing

Harl ow S

Zachary Ln

d Byr

sh Wa

Fraz ier A

de rso

d ill R

Fe n

Fa rm

g Dr

Ac res

Rd Ash Swamp

in Cross

lan d

r utie Clo

Ed g

Wil dro se

Old C

ate Rd

Ln Windemere

Gr ace

g South

ibby

st H Ma

ee n

son L

rg r

Willowdale Rd

e1 ut

He ath

Av e

Milliken

Man

e Dr Ballantyn

Ev e

oln

ay sW

Esta te

ney

ge id

ree

ay W

Mc Ke n

t oin

rook

R al

dy C

p uth

l Dr hoo y Sc

D ff

ton B

y Ro

Sh a

se Bes

ill eh

Boy n

Lin c

am Ad

s Ro

ent R Sarg

llo Do

evi e

reek Dr

Na tur

ark D

Hidden C

C erry

b Turn

Trad em

eD tiv

d Willowoo

Faw

SA C

ill R

ay W

R od Wo ond

ald ib ch Ar

Wa tso

rty L

Sunrise Dr

ibe

idg

e Ex

Chestnut Dr

SCA

Sa ra

ym Ra

C le

le nda

all L

rn R d

da en Gl Gle

Pat rio tD

Brookview Ct

Sto n

Bro adt u

R ch

Fos s

ise rpr

Kerr y ma n Ci

ine

e Be

al P

diso Ma

te En

Re g

p St

Dr bert Her Dr ant Dur

wn s

hip

h Do

y gy Wa

ng bro

D al ni lo

g orou Scarb

Sp ri

Grasshopper Ln

uth D

L ple

olo Techn

Pilg ri

Plym o

r Ave Pionee

Tim k Dr ber Sa nds D

luff Ln

ay W an

Broo

High B

n Dr

Cart er

Puri ta

d Ro

ma dA ve

o Tw

Lo g

Tap ley

m La

te gh pli

ant Gr

ap Tr

oh rJ pe

r nke

Pkwy

r l Te Hil

Haigis

hL n

li Phil

lli Li

Le a

Ingallsides Dr

R ill

gle r

Br oo

os L Lob

H ell

Fe n

mo Me

tch Mi

h rn Bu

tD ou

Be ave r

He ath

Ba y er L

Br a

ck ett

Po in t

be rry R

Approximate Scale: 1" = 1,500' August 2013

Jo ce ly

APPENDIX G: CRITICAL COMPONENTS MAP

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

hla nd Av e Co ral bur st L

Hig

r D id e W oo ds

n Dr erho r Pow d Ray's Cir

Rd ter n

d tR sP oin

n Wo od L

Fiel ds L

Ln en d er B Ri v

berr y Stra w

r as D

Old Neck

d tR oin kP Bl ac

ng Ki

t dS for Bic k

Smithers Way Harmon St

Se a

N nt h

in th

Cr ic

Bi rd

Gr an dA ve

El ev e

ke tL

est

a Se

o lR

Jo ce ly

Lib r

ary

Gar

Re d

Pop lar St

Ave

den S

St Elm

her

t St

Ci r

Wav ele

el ot Ca m

St Puff in

wA ve Bir kda le C

Wa y

Gre ena cre ndv Rd iew Dr Oak cre st D Bir r ch Ln

Wi llo

Gra

Mill iken

th S t

Fer nald Fou St rth Ave

Firs t

C At entr Aza lan al lea St tic Par Pie Av k A rce e ve Ced Kin St Old g ar A Bea St Orc ve ch h St Fer ard A nA ve Hig ve C a mp hla n Co m Un ion d Ave Bay fort A Ave ve Pea Ave rl A ve

Thi rd

ers

Som

Sea clif f Av Od e ena A Od ve O ess a A dena A ve ve Reg gio Ave Pav i Trip a Ave ol Tun i Ave is A ve Cry stal

e Ave

Av e

St Fre e

Hea

eA ve

Luc ette Ave Lau ren eD Sha r Ede dy Ln nL n

Dun

Seas id

Oce ana Ave Win ona O Ave ceana Ave Col by Ave An con a Av e

e St

et A ve

st A ve

Pine Brook Ter William St

Tio ga

Fort Hill Ave

Dr Dir igo St Spring

Me lvin

Ave

Runnells Ave

Ma y sefa flowe re D r D r r

Oc ean Av e S P a rk A eavie Lak wA eA ve ve ve Bee Cook ma Wood che n la rie Av Ave nd Av e e

For e

Dr ield Rye f

rms l Fa hee Sm ithw

Wey mo u San th Ave dpip er R d New Salt Rd Porte r Rd

d dR

Dr Dr Gr e

rds W ay

Wildwood Dr

r Ci r

Rich a

Chas es

Thu nde r

od C

th D

Ba y

Vi ew

Seafields Ln

Ply m

Bluewave Ln

Lewis

Meadow Ln

Tiffany Ln

Edgewater Ln

Cir nha ven Gle

are arg

Vin e

shwo

D le ap

ve Pond A

Ho pe

Wa y

ou Lighth

din

Hidden Farm Rd

ad ehe r bl Ma

Tw in

ma D u s A be Ln Ha ve ley Ci r

Lower Beach Rd Main Ave Riverside Ave

Bay Ave

ly W ay

Burleigh Ln

r's W ph e ist o Ch r

Kee

Cir

Windmill Pt

n ak L Red O

n sL ar tin St M

y Sk

Gre

yl e

ood Ra ven sw

eV iew

Dr res Ac

res

B Lester

Orcutt

t First S

Blvd

Thi rd S t Fou rth St Fift hS t

lbe Gi

P rt

KKW Interconnection

nes R

ock s

nW ay

Old To wn Rd

Bear R u

r te Pe

n Dr

Eliz abe th Wa y

rm Fa

For tu

de r

Rd g

Sea Sp ray Dr

8-Inch

Blu e

10-Inch

6-Inch

ce L

4-Inch or Smaller

12-Inch

24-Inch

Critical Components Maine Water Company Biddeford-Saco

t Rd

Water Main Diameter

20-Inch

Kin Old

Li ttl e

oin ite P Gran

Critical Area

16-Inch

gs H

Sea l

d Ri ve

Ic e

d eR H

ou s

Ln Roc k Spli t

Scadlock Mill Rd

Ne ptu n an S e Ln pra yA ve

Spr u

Service Area Boundry

Laundry Facilities

chin s

Hut

School

Oce

n eL

r oo

Assisted Living

Ri d ge R

8 7

Oak

Medical Facility

re Sho

Bo o

ker

Regin a

x Fo

Pi ne

r Cu

nd Po

De erw

ay W

Critical Customers

Da nde lio

Hi gh

Bea ch A ve

ok D r Br o

e ni

Legend

Ro cky Wa y

Be n

's W ay Sha llow

st D

r aks D

ile

tch

r Bu

OR T

roo k

ree k

Dr Fie ldc re

Ln ood

one gst Fla

lyn

Sky O

Ca it

EFO

dw Wil

re St

KE NN

Wi ldb

hir e

x Pond Maddo

BID D

Lit tl

Sa p

We sley

Rebecca D

Tow R

Leighton Point Ln

Jos h

Brid ge

o l Rd Old Po

Procto r Rd

Rd so n

Ch reti en

Gui

nea R

Ka tan

Ca p

Wi ld

an V ie

ay W

Oce Du sty

Elphis St

Channel Co ve Ln

ng di

Davis

Orin Ln

n La

Iron Trail Rd

ado

ndg

th en

Eva nthi a

sL Day

Av e

nier Ave

o rb Ha

v Se

Mi sty

ch Rd

Sa lt M

Ge org eto

Fol s

Sad ie

Hills Bea

Oc ean

Mox ie Ln Dr

g Rd

Stone Cliff Rd

tow New

Dr om

ow ill W

Gree nland

nite

Gra

che ne A ve

e Av ze ee Ave r ab ng ve Se Lo n A ve de l A nt Go sa ea Pl

Rockw ood Dr

Bra nd

ir Cote C

ar sh

ood

e Br

e Av

Sto n

Loop Rd

Sabl e

se D

Qua

Pap oo

rry L

Wo od D

sa L

Ind e

ter wa

Bayview Av

as D

ve King A A n ve Sylva Ave Morris ve ark A P Ferry e w Av d Vie Islan e v A Eagle Ave aven Fairh n Ave Beaco ve ise A Sunr Sunset Ave

Inn er

res

rr Fe

An ge

Ge lin

Th o

rs B rook

Isla nd

Moo

Ln Lis a

Wo od

Fer ry

Landin g

Sokokis Rd

Pa q

ua ta

ne eP

Cre stwo o

Isla nd

8 7

Da nn

ys Wa y

Bla n

Ave

se Ln

Slyes Hl

Sto n

Ri d ge R Pine

Mar

Car tie

har Orc Old tel L n

Kris re D Led gem e

C ng

Av e Ch arl es

hS Sixt

Av e

Libb y

Mar

Sevigny

Fleetw ood Dr Colony D r

Des

ood Av e

R Ma andall A ine M ve Con assach Ave nec u ticu setts A t Av e ve

Jor d

Ber nar dA Ma ve rion Ave

te L

Maplew

Cas co A ve

c Way Atlanti

eo L

Ben Ave

i ind W

k ree

Rom

tte Av Pon e der o

Cal ix

Bris son St Clea ves S t Foo B oisv te S ert S t A t ldin Car eT ll A er ve Dub Bro e St wn St Imp Har eria risb l St urg Kin St ne Cor y Ave Old tlan Orc d har St Sta dS ple t sS t

Fox Hill Ln

ne D

Bond St

Liz o

Poo l

Atl ant ic A ve

Ray m

Con erst o

Egret Cv

Decary Rd

ond

Le on

enfi eld Ln D eb Pris bie cill Av aA e ve Ce Sou ntu thg ate ry Ave Dr Ran ch Ln

i dg eR

old Ave

lvd

yr tl

mi t

v Curtis A

eD Pa rk

riso n

Har

R ill nH

nor Ma

ial A ve

Wa y us

sid

gs B

Pi ne Av e Evergreen Ave

n n G n

e Av

Temple Ave

ler A ve

Oak

Mil

es S t

Salt

eso

min

rk W ay

laid e

Sch ool S

Ln Gr ov eA ve

Pa r kA ve

Hill

Sum

Vin e

rn S

Clea v

e St

Co lum b

r St

Aco

Gov

Us en

nw o

nA ve

8 7

F ORD

Trix Ln Lafa yet te

Cliffo rd St Geor ge St

Oa kS t Sch Pik o eS tree ol St t Ex t

Bri sto l St Tibbetts Ave

Cha pel S

Fos s

BIDD E

Sul liva nS t Hig hS t Pik eS t

Ba con S

Old

Gle

Ho me eA ve

ena d

l Av

Law

ste a

Front S t

Wate rS

y St

Eme r

rno

Gre

Dr land

er R

Woo d

e cel A v

ee Cr

Mas sacr Garr e Ln ison Ln

Evans Rd

Mar

int

s ne Jo

ury D Pillsb

Shore Ave

SACO

k St Yor

Me rril l St Bre ton St

Par k

Pro m

y St

Lew is A v

Deering Ave

Hal

Gra

Common St

Av e

ay S

Wil low Ave Jam es S t

School S

th ia um

8 7

Wa kef ield

Ave

Be r

Delputt Ln

Harb or D Sch r oon er W ay

r St

Ave

Pro sp

trud e

o Sac

od D

Sum

Lillian Ave

gS t

Wi nte rS

Loc ke St We ym out hS t Laf aye tte St Wa shi ngt on Av Wo od A e ve

St dle

elan dS t

Kin

Mid hS t

Park

Ade

Roy al S t

Ma bel

tos

rso

Jam

ens

oe D

Mu llen Ave Tra yno r St Rou ssin St

Wa l nu t St

Ave

Mile s Av e Smi th A ve

ood

Ac ad em

nn o

She par d

Cha rles

Un ion

Sh a

sesh

Beach St

8 7

Hor

Oc ean

Go och

G t G

Fr ee

tS t

Gre

Ma in S

t ap le S M

orth

Bra cke t

ect St

Har

Cu tts Av Th e Ple orn asa ton nt Av St e Sto rer St

Fall S

tle S t

n Sum

Cro ss S

Cle v

Hig

Pea rl S

Da yS t Pro spe ct S t

Ave riso n

Har

Gr een

Fed eral St Jeff erso nS t

Win ter St

Ger

t st S For e

We stla nd We Ave nde ll A ve

St Elm

rl S Pea

Ada

t Bra dbu ry S We nt w

en S

t St

Ave

St ham Gra

ber

Sca m

Spr in

t Hi ll S

pl e

an ic S

ma nS

gS t

ec h

Ny eS

Fai rfie ld

Cla rk

Stu art St

No tt S

St Par k

Av e Ca nta ra

Ma ple St Ca ryn Dr

t st S For e

Go oda le A ve

st S Fo re

ve yA

Wa ter

Por ter St

Tra ilsid e

an A ve

Elm w

Ave

Sm ith L

Sto c

ber lan d

ark R

Cum

Lym

Bo n

bu c

ins S

nP Ocea

Pau l St Lu cill eS t Oli ve St No r ma nS Co t olid ge Av e Tru ma nA ve

Bu rro wS t Lou ise St

an A ve

on Av kA e ve

yth

Hu tch

Ro e

St Oa k

pe re ll S Pe p

St lan d

Oak

t Hu bba rd S Sky line

t Ma yS

t Bra dle yS t Dy er S t Tem

Bir ch

Cla rk

Goo

r r

od D

Lab t ont eA Nor ve man Ave F ran Sta klin cy St St

Ave Tra in

r rial

Me mo

Ken

yD ned

or e We stm

sA ve ard Ed w

le Fo

Sou th S

Mt k Ve

Myr

I-195

Mir

Tas ker S

Cir

and a

eA ve

sid Wo od

St fiel d Gar

lock

Hem

ir lC

me Sh ir

Col oni a

Av e Li na

Oak

t et S Sw e

As pe nD

Dr Jun i

per

od Ro sew o

We ston

yD P Ave aquin Av e

nne Mc Ke

Ci r Brid le W ay

Goosefa re Ln

Rd Lun d

Dr am gh No ttin

Cir Lali bert e

St Pin e St erle au Pom

Wa y ers Ba k

t eS Dat d

nes

Hi ll D Valle Ln

Morg

We ndy

Cir

Do ugl as A ve Hil lvie wA ve

Br end a

Wa yco tt W ay Sheila C ir Bro ok St De arb orn Av e Mt Pl e asa nt S t Hig hlan dS Pin t nac le L n

Ln ge Vil la

n Cl iff L n

kL roo rB tch e Th a Dr

nter l Ce Me dica

Pin e

ood L

old R

Du Pine Valley Rd

r r Br i ar D

Wa y

Wil d

nte l Ch a

Bl ue

Ryan Rd

an Cir

r Ro tary D

le W ay

eA ve Bla k

n ee L Ch ico p r dge D India n Ri

Alexand er Dr

aks D

Cath edral O

Rd tai n ou n

Driftw

Eighth St

Arn

Wil d

al P a stri Ind u

rs Wa y An ge r

lle Wa y Cot ton wo od D

Mi che

n ie L Jes s

Running Tide Dr

Rd ing La nd Se ave y

n dl eL St ad

Dr Che stnu t St

Ln ter Tr ot Pac er A ve

rk R

lA ve Pa u

Ln Cr yst al

llo w Ho Fo x

d Ol de

Reef Ln

r Ne st D Ea gle s Dr

an Sy lv

Rd ill s nM ill ike M Cir

Meserve

I-9 5

Ln ella Isa b

Av e ary M d

Foss R

Dr edge Big L

ps Wa y Wa y er Ma rin

nn in

Fier o

lant Dr Cla yt o nD

Gal

ir Bru no C

Dr itte n Wh n tty L Sm u

Sh o

Sno w

Av e nd Po rtl a

Ho lly

Rd Mi lls en Mi llik

H BE AC RD HA OL DO

O SA C d ins R Jen k

Cra nbe rry Ln ll D r

Orchard Hill Rd

ars h ad M Ro ter n

r sD Sa nd er om H

Rd Por tlan d

Pine Ledge

r Al ge rD te 1

Douglas Rd

Ea s

Ma rtin Av Ch e arle sC ir

Ro u

Ave Susa n

r Waldron D

Equestrian Wa

ure leas Sim ple P

Rd rm Fa Ca rte r d rn R Hea

d th R Hea Kno

Tho m

Ln Sara toga

Cas tle Ter

Ln ahue Don

d ill R Roc ky H

r il D

Mi ll R

Dr on

oo r M Bayberry Ln

Ln St ug a

Ea s

tat i

ars h ad M Ro

Rd Landmark

nol

n reek L Moo

ber ry

Rd rle s Ch a

Rd ng Sp ri

ter n

Huntley Dr

ly W ay

n lL Ca rdi na

Co n

D W oo df ie ld Stra w

Payn e

d ill R H tto w Sc o ebr

ook

Lon gm e a

Sto n

Gol

n's Way McKinno

Pa rk

Pl an

Rd dow

End Tra ils

od D r ngw o Ster li

Thu rsto n

Ln Eliz abe th

Bro Bo nd Dr ood den w

r ok D Merr ill B ro

Dr Di rig o

d er R Ric k

Ea s

d Ho l me sR ok

Se p

tem

be r

W ay

Labrador Ln

Herit age L n

n dL tP on d ill R Joss H

Tib bet ts

se C

Cra nbe rry Pne s

Kylie Ave

ies L Kat

Tr ou

n eL Ma Rub y

r dD Wed gew oo

d Gr an tR

Partr idge Ln

d Dres ser R

Rd om Fr ee d n yL

elo d M

d nR Ha nso Golden Ln

itet a Wh

Rdg

ry nt

try D

Rd Ln

u Co

Fal c

t as in Po ail

ury

Verrier Ln

Cou n

M t Pin

rb nte Ca

Ferry R

l St

River Sands Dr

tes Ya

rcia

Sn o

l Rd

KKW Interconnection

ital D

Phinneas

Bl ac

Poo

Com

Dig

bou rn

Old

Morin St

Hampton Cir

er D

aug

Em e

Ro cky led Fr ge esh Dr wa ter Dr Pin e eco Av ne D es r harl C

Mo rris on S

DE L

pea u

Mel

k zu

EFO

Dra

Dr erry wb

o Po

llc Ha

BID D

AR UN

y St

oin

e rri

ve nA

Ave Shel tra Ave Clar Vin e ndo c Ra e n nt A Vic St yS W t ve estf ory t Wi ield Ave Her llet Lib Dup St ring t e S o r Ave nt A t ty A ve ve Wil Ha son Free rdi Congress St L S ng St t aur St ier St Bel Paul St mo nt A ve Hil lsid eA ve Alis on A ve Ro bin Pen We Ci r Lynn Av ny st S Ave e t Ave

Lan dr

North Ave

Grays L

yso n

B nue Ave

set V

ent S

Lam

Gra

e Th

Way Tiger

Car ver St

c Bla

Sno ss Ro

West Ave

r Ln

Au tum

Fog g

t ter S Cen

Cres c

Ma son

Ave

Forest Street Tank Capacity: 1.25 mg Overflow: 261 feet

t St

tR oi n hP

ell A ve

rf Su

our

Hig

new

n ry L ctua Rd San o me r low H Wins Marginal Way

n River L

Pre c

Hun

Wynm

ro ood r W oor D

Oceanside

ie Letell

y Walk Journe

er lT Rd Va

t Ln

ay ps W Sho

Woodview Dr

ie anv

Little Riv er

Lewis

ry Fer

t ed S

y Wa

Alfr

Alfred Booster Pump Station

ne Sto

r Te

Ctr

ew Vi

U T

l rP

t g St

ne s

Rd Clearwater

y Ba

lle S

Ave

Jan e

el av Gr

ard

e Seasid

er uld Bo

ate w

Cu tts S

Un ion St Dal e Ci r

eA ve

8 7

er S t

e im

Oce

t Ln

" "

GGd

rd G

Ave

Su n

Rat hi

e rnh Bo

Ri v

on D r

Ba ll

Ma cIn Ka van

Sho rew o

oin Windy P

pr in

d le R

Edw

nA ve

one D

Ave rey

e eD as

lC arl

Osp

var d

ins R

Fer n

Scrimshaw Ln

Pine c

Pip

ouse

W ell s

pee

ee D

tingh

Ba rra R

McK

Mee

ts ber Ro

Yal eS

uth S

r St

har d

8 7

tmo

y Ln

Har

Dar

Gunstock Rd

Abb

Par e

her st

ws t Md

La n

Emerson

Bea con

yD nc Na

en D

oth

Bid def o

et S

roo k

ark

s on

ngb

U T

Les sard

Tay lo

Â³

R er

D ne

Ald

Lam

n No

v Co ch esu

nC Va

aD nd

lla Vi

en re

South St Chad w ick Pl

Orc

Co lon ia

e Av

kl an

lum

e ud la

Isl e

D ok

Robert St

Cir

Wo od

Diamo nd St Hoo Gooch St per St

8 7 Vic tory L

Ro c

p ech Be

Bre ntw ood

Ave

Irvin

Healthcare Dr

An dre

De er

ve nA wi

G ge

de R d

ve ur A rth

ve rve A Rese

Buc kth orn C

Che rryf ield

Mo ody

eR Shadage

Spr i

U T

Poin

No rth

try D

heel R

y Ln

The Reservoir Capacity: 7.5 mg Overflow: 207 feet

eri

8 7

Cas ca

o Br

m Dr O ran McCallu ge

Nas

w Smith

Abb

Ja y

ts Pi

o Rh

Br oo kL

g Fog

k Blac

er S

Pine Point Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet

ve nA

Old Hollis Rd

Horseshoe Dr

th Ca

" " "

Circuit St

ne r

Mai

n St

ay W

Le h

n er L cast Lan

Stanle y

a oni Lac

R er

BIDD

E F ORD

e6 enu Av 5 nue Ave 4 ue en Av e3 enu Av

Pi n es

Cou n

Thornto n St Spr uce St St M ary St vie

on ho Sc

rin g

Wil son D

St oln Linc t eS on St

v Ri

Water Treatment Plant

Par k

his pe

I-1 95

rn Ve

SACO

ood

e1 enu Av

Easy

Bradbury Street Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet

Tiger Lily Ln

ok D

Lincoln St

m Boo

o arbr Ced

ine

Sch op

d on R

Pat o

ma dge Ho

Ber ry

nt D

tt Stra

od Go

w Bay

ill Ln

roo

cA Ma

ty R

eck Rd

Mi ll B

e Av on bs Ho t e rS Av nte on Ce rm e Ha e Av Av on eg pia ve Or ym ey A Ol Dew

Cou n

ay Cl

Indian H

ple

Jeff rey Ave

New

Col on

s le ab

y wa

Ln Lilac

t k S St Oa nite t S a Gr iss St Bl ver t S Do ine St n h P ac e L Be Ros St y Ba

re D

ale

t ou

sN Winnock

U T Jasp

Cap ta

ay W

New

Clo verd

n rn L

rd dfo Bra

Par c

e tin

ty un

lante

Kennedy Dr Sto rer St

Sea coa s

s Ca

Sean Pl

ir Fa

a Se

Cam i

Chelsea Cir r

e tux Pau

t Rd

in eD

n 's ga

Long Cove Dr

dN Ol

Ja sm

int

SCA RB OL OR DO OU RC GH HA RD BE AC H

t Dr Oakmon

Ste e

ab nd

es D

ook L

Spring Hill Rd

D Cori

Au tum

Poin

C ar

ng B r

Boo thb y

iva n

D es in

h Coac

d Ce

Iri s

l Ln Be l

be rly

Su ll

k Blac

Rd r

Pin e

rty

Win di

yA ve

ve C

uckle

rP ve

r er D

Willey Rd

kR r oo

s Ln

Gro

B ks

m lsa Ba

Bu x Ln to

Fawn Dr

Pond View Rd

s ne

n Rd

e Tall Pin

ll Ta

Loud e

t Dod

So fia

Ki m

Bob b

en S

n Ba

o lis Al

try Wo ods R

t Rd

cad Ca s

ros

Wo od

Spruce Cir

ding R

flow

Old

m Pri

Ash

Ha v

eys Hon

u Ro

Cattail Ln

oin

tan L an

Pin e

int Po

Phe asa n

ounty

Emily Way

rn Fe

int

Duns

r nte Hu

Pkw

Os pre

May

iew

ter

P dy

Eas tv

er L

Farm Sullivan

n Sa

d anon R

field Fair

in t

Ave

erce D

Pin e

sor

Lucky Ln

le C

d Win

SA C

Co un

Comm

Bl ue

ood

y Libb

rd S r Wa

Wa y

Br id

r dD fiel Rye

Flag Pond Rd

pson Sim

tw Wes

D pal

er R

rch

Car riag e

nici Mu

y Saw

ok R

Ch u

e Av

y Ln berr

lbro

ard ch Or

Du nst an Av e

z Pla

am R Gorh

ie Ell

Mul

Mil e

ens D

v le A

Gri ffin

e Lib

Leb

Wi lso nL

Nob

od Wo

d ite R guer Mar

Fa rm

Ta ll

e Av

ew a

Wil dro se

Old C

a rnh Bu

ond

SCA

e Av

r utie Clo

ton

Que

ry er eb

Fla Old

ve all A Ranw

Ave

u Bl

Cir

ee n

ate Rd

ing

Prio r

d Byr

ln R

g South

sh Wa

o Linc

de rso

cres

Co lon el

Zachary Ln

Fe n

e1 ut

Ed g

g Dr

Ac res

ise

d ill R

Fraz ier A

Harl ow S

in Cross

lan d

rpr

Rd Ash Swamp

Ln Windemere

Gr ace

rg r

Willowdale Rd

st H Ma

Av e

ibby

e Dr Ballantyn

son L

ney

oln

He ath

Man

ay sW

Mc Ke n

Ev e

Milliken

t oin

ay W

rook

p uth

ton B

ge id

l Dr hoo y Sc

D ff

Boy n

Lin c

R al

ree

ill eh

dy C

llo Do

evi e

Sh a

am Ad

s Ro

Na tur

ent R Sarg

se Bes

Esta te

reek Dr

ill R

ay W

ark D

Hidden C

C erry

b Turn

SA C

y Ro

ald ib ch Ar

Wa tso

Trad em

eD tiv

d Willowoo

Faw

rty L

Sunrise Dr

ibe

e Ex

Rd od Wo d on

Chestnut Dr

SCA

Sa ra

ym Ra

C le

le nda

all L

rn R

da en Gl Gle

Pat rio tD

Brookview Ct

Sto n

Bro adt u

idg

Fos s

R ch

ine

e Be

Kerr y ma n Ci

diso Ma

te En

al P

Tap ley

D ant Dur

Re g

p St

r rt D erbe

wn s

ple

h Do

hip

y gy Wa

ng bro

g orou Scarb

Sp ri

D al ni lo

uth D

olo Techn

Grasshopper Ln

r Ave Pionee

T ook im ber Dr San ds D

Pilg ri

Plym o

ay W an

r Br

luff Ln

n Dr

Cart e

High B

Puri ta

d Ro

ma dA ve

o Tw

Lo g

ant Gr

ap Tr

oh rJ pe

m La

te gh pli

Pkwy

rH nke

er ill T

Haigis

hL n

li Phil

lli Li

Le a

Ingallsides Dr

R ill

gle r

Br oo

os L Lob

H ell

Fe n

mo Me

tch Mi

h rn

tD ou

Be ave r

He ath

Ba y er L

Br a

ck ett

Po in t

be rry R

Approximate Scale: 1" = 1,500' August 2013

APPENDIX H: IMMEDIATE AND SHORT-TERM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS MAP

The Maine Water Company - Biddeford and Saco (226317) Comprehensive System Facility Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Volume I

Woodard & Curran and Tata & Howard October 2013

hla nd Av e Co ral bur st L

Hig

r D id e W oo ds

orn D r n

n Wo od L

Fiel ds L

Ri v

er B

en d

Tho m

as D

berr y

Stra w

Running Tide Dr

Rd Old Neck

Rd ing

oin

La nd

Bl ac

Se ave y

n dl eL St ad

ng Ki

t dS

U T

Bic k Rd

ee Cr

N nt h

in th

Smithers Way

25. Jones Creek Drive and Avenue 5 New 8-inch Water Main

Harmon St

Cr ic

Bi rd

ke tL

est

al Se

k oc

t eS

den S

Dat

Gar

Elm St Pop lar St d old R

t St

Ci r

Wav ele

el ot Ca m

St Puff in

wA ve Bir kda le C

Wa y

Gra

tos

on D r

min

gs B

lvd

Wesley Ave

Oc ean Av e S Par k A eavie wA v Lak e ve eA ve

28. Eleventh Street New 12-inch Water Main

Tio ga

th S t

Fer nald Fou St rth Ave

29. Bluff Avenue New 12-inch Water Main

Bay Pea Ave Ave rl Ave

Sea clif f Av Od e e Od na Av ess e Reg a Ave gio Av e

Av e

30. Ocean Avenue New 8-inch Water Main

Seasid

Fre e St

ber lan d

Un ion

William St

Cas co A ve

Oce ana Ave Win ona O Ave ceana Ave Col by Tem Ave An pl e c Ave ona Ave

Ran d Ma ine all Ave Ave

31. Smithwheel Road New 8-inch Water Main

Cum

Hea

M yr t Ave Cen le A o c a S At tra ve lan l P tic ark Av Av Evergreen Ave e e

ield

Ro cky led Fr ge esh Dr wa ter D Pin r eco ne D r

St Sch ool St

Ln Gr Pa r ov kA eA ve ve

h St Sixt

Ma nor

Ave

Mill iken

Wey mo u San th Ave dpip er R d New Salt Rd Porte r Rd

yet

te S Wa t shi ngt on A v Wo od A e ve

8. Temple Avenue New 12-inch Water Main

n nA ve

Dr ood Dr ens Gr e

c Way Atlanti

rds W ay

Wildwood Dr

Ln Chas es

th D

Ba y

Vi ew

Seafields Ln

Ply m

Bluewave Ln

Lewis

Meadow Ln

Tiffany Ln

Edgewater Ln

Cir nha ven Gle

od C

D le ap

16. Ferry Road and Lower Beach Road Clean and Line 8-inch Water Main

Wa y ys Wa y

Tw in

ma D u s A be Ln Ha ve ley Ci r

26. Hills Beach Road New 12-inch Water Main

Bay Ave

ist o

ph e

r's W

Burleigh Ln

Ch r

n lL

Res erve

n ak L Red O

Fol som Dr Ge org eto wn Dr

nier Ave Gre

Dr ood Ra ven sw

Dr res

Dr d St fiel Fair

B Lester t First S

Orcutt

Blvd

Thi rd S t Fou rth St Fift hS t

lbe Gi

P rt

KKW Interconnection

dw Wil

Sky O

r aks D one gst Fla

roo k

Dr ok D r

Old To wn Rd

Bear R u

r te Pe

n Dr

Eliz abe th Wa y

de r

Rd g

Old

Li ttl e

Kin

gs H

Sea l

d Ri ve

Ic e

eR H

ou s

Ln Roc k

Oce

Scadlock Mill Rd

Ne ptu n an S e Ln pra yA ve

n eL

r oo

oin ite P Gran

Hydraulic Improvements Maine Water Company Biddeford-Saco

ce L

Blu e

20-Inch

t Rd

Sea Sp ray Dr

Spr u

Ri d ge R

Spli t

chin s

Oak

Hut

rm Fa

y rb Cu

ker

x Fo

Pi ne

Bo o

OR T

Ca it

lyn

Da nde lio

's W ay Sha llow

nW ay

Br o

Hi gh

ay W

EFO

nd Po

De erw

e ni

r Bu

KE NN

BID D

Regin a

Bea ch A ve

Ln ood

st D

hir e

ock s

ree k

Dr Fie ldc re

Ro cky Wa y

Sa p

c ret

nes R

t eS

For tu

Wi ldb

so n Be n

Jos h

x Pond Maddo

Brid ge

Leighton Point Ln

Tow R

Gui

nea R

Ka tan

Ch reti en

o l Rd Old Po

DE L

Ca p

eV iew

Ac Wi ld

res

an V ie

ay W

Davis

Elphis St

Channel Co ve Ln Oce

Du sty

22. Potential HSS Tank Site

ng di

ndg

th en

sL Day

o rb Ha

v Se

U T

y Sk

n La

ado

ch Rd

Eva nthi a

Hills Bea

14. Hills Beach Road New 12-inch Water Main

l Rd

ar tin

Mox ie Ln Dr

Sad ie

Mi sty

St M

13. Pool Street and Newtown Road New 12-inch Water Main

nite

Gra

che ne A ve

Rockw ood Dr

Gree nland

Qua

tow

Dr n

ir Cote C

New

ood

Sto n

Bra nd

n eo L

Loop Rd

Rom

6. West Street New 12-inch Water Main

se D

Pap oo

tte Av e

Sabl e

Bre to

Ind e

rry L

nS t

Wo od D

Cir

Windmill Pt

An ge

as D

ly W ay

res

rr Fe

Kee

Th o

rs B rook

Sokokis Rd

Moo

Isla nd

Fer ry

Landin g

dD Cre stwo o

l ne eP ua ta Pa q

an Lis a

Wo od

Inn er

Isla nd

Da nn

12. Pool Street New 12-inch Water Main

17. Pine Tree, Main, and North Avenues New 8-inch Water Main

ad ehe r bl Ma

Av e

gs din Bla n

C ng

i ind W

k ree

Oc ean

Ln Ho pe

17. Camp Ellis Avenue New 8-inch Water Main

Hidden Farm Rd

th S t

t eS Sto n

r Ci r

Rich a

are arg

Vin e

shwo

Nin

Oc ean

d Ri d ge R Pine Dr

Libb y

Mar

Car tie

dR har Orc Old

Elm w

Fox Hill Ln

Stone Cliff Rd

Law

Egret Cv

Slyes Hl

ste a

Ho me eA ve

ena d

l Av Hal

v Curtis A

Jor d

Ber nar dA Ma ve rion Ave

te L

rso

mi t

Firs t

h Rd naug M Kava acI n

Em e

Us en

laid e

Fort Hill Ave

Atl ant ic A ve

Ray m

Cal ix

Sum

Ede n

Bris son St Clea ves S t Foo B oisv te S ert S t Ald t Car ine ll A Ter ve Dub Bro e St wn St Imp Har eria risb l St u rg S Kin t ne Cor y Ave Old tlan Orc dS har t Sta dS ple t sS t

e Ave

Pip

Wa l nu t St

Ave

Mile s Av e Smi th A ve

Ade

Fer n

Rye f

Rd heel Smith w

Ma Goo y sefa flowe re D r D r r

Tra ilsid e

eD Pa rk

Poo l

old Ave

Lewis

pee

ee D

Dr O ran ge

15. Grand Avenue New 12-inch Water Main

Dir igo

McK

Decary Rd

She ltra Ave Vin cen t Av e Wi llet t St

Har

Emerson

Gre ena cre ndv Rd iew Dr Oak cre st D Bir r ch Ln

Wi llo

nes Du

de R d

Laf a

Wa y

sid

ial A ve

ler A ve

Av e Ch arl es

Des

Cas ca

es S t

Mil

Powd erh

Rd lain ber Ch am

Rd ter n

d tR

d Ol de

Reef Ln

r Ne st D Ea gle s Dr

Hil lsid eA ve Sy lva nR d

for

Dr Che stnu t St

10. Portland Avenue New 8-inch Water Main

Clea v

e St

Co lum b

Gov

Oak

Vin e

rn S

Cliffo rd St

F ORD

Trix Ln Lafa yet te

Aco

BIDD E

ond

Le on

Hill

Ave

enfi eld Ln D eb Pris bie cill Av aA e ve Ce S out ntu hga ry te A Dr ve Ran ch Ln

Gre

y St

Lew is A v

Ge lin

Bon d

Thu nde r

Bri sto l St Tibbetts Ave

Oa kS t S Pik e S chool tree S t Ex t t

Pro sp

Ave

trud e

ay S

Fleetw ood Dr Colony D r

int

s ne Jo

Mas sacr Garr e Ln ison Ln

r ury D Pillsb

Evans Rd

cel A v

tes Ya

Mar

Pin e

ood L

Shore Ave

Pro m

Common St

Deering Ave

Sul liva nS t Hig hS t Pik eS t

riso n

Sum

r St

ect St

Har

Cha pel S

Fos s

Gra

Av e

Ave

Harb or D Sch r oon er W ay

l oo

Wa kef ield

Hig

h Sc

St an le y

Front S t

Wate rS

y St

Ba con S

Ver no

Ave Jam es S t

hS t

Park

Geor ge St

Fed eral St Jeff erso nS t

Loc ke St We ym out h

St dle

Nas

20. Lawn Avenue, Birch Street, and Glenwood Avenue New 8-inch Water Main

SAC O Eme r

kS Yor

r St

gS t

Mid

Sca m

Go och

Kin

Beach St

Fr ee

elan dS t

Wi nte rS

St Un ion

Cle v

ma nS

gS t

No tt S

Ny eS

Par k

Spr in

Cu tts Av T e h Ple orn asa ton nt Av St e Sto rer St

ap le S

tS t Bra cke t

ge Te r

Sum

Cro ss S

M t

en S

Gre

Pau l St Lu cill eS t Oli ve St No r ma nS Co t olid ge Av e Tru ma nA ve

on Av e yth

kA ve

Bo n

bu c

Ro e

St Da yS t Pro spe ct S t

Ave riso n

Har

rl St Pea

Ada

t St orth

Oa k

t Hi ll S

en S

pl e

an ic S

Wa ter

Win ter St

Ger

We stla nd We Ave nde ll A ve

t st S For e Dr

Rid gev iew

nn o

pe re ll S Pe p Av e Ca nta ra

Ma ple St Ca ryn Dr

t st S For e

Bra dbu ry S We nt w St ham Gra

Elm

t yS

Ma in S

r lD

od D

Lab t ont eA Nor ve man Ave Fra Sta nkl cy in S St t

st S Fo re

Dr Sky line

t Ma yS

Birch wood Ln

i dg eR

k Rd n Pa r Ocea

an A ve

Pine L ed

Mir

Tas ker S

Cir

and a

eA ve

sid Wo od

St fiel d Gar

lock

St lan d

Oak

Col oni a

Av e Li na

Hem

ir lC Hu bba rd S

Oak

t et S Sw e

me Sh ir Ave Tra in

wo o d Ln

er R

Wa y

Bo oth St He we

Ci r Brid le W ay

Goosefa re Ln

Rd Lun d

Dr am gh No ttin

Cir Lali bert e

As pe nD

Dr od

per

Jun i

Ro sew o

We ston

Ave or e We stm St erle au Pom

Oak

Par k

ers Ba k

Driftw

Arn

Wil d

Hi ll D

We ndy

St Pin e Bro ok St De arb orn Av e Mt Pl e asa nt S t Hig hlan dS Pin t nac le L n

Ln ge Vil la

n Cl iff L n

kL roo rB tch e Th a

Dr nter l Ce Me dica

Fier o

Pine Valley Rd

r Morg

m McCallu

Valle Ln

r Br i ar D

Wa y

Wil d

nte l Ch a

Bl ue

Ryan Rd

an Cir

r Ro tary D

le W ay

eA ve Bla k

Ch ico p

ee L

Colton L n

r dge D India n Ri

Alexand er Dr

Cath edral O

aks D

Rd tai n ou n

nn in

Eighth St

Ferry R

River Sands Dr

Gr an dA ve

Rd ill s nM ill ike

al P a stri Ind u

rs Wa y An ge r

lle Wa y Cot ton wo od D

Mi che

n ie L Jes s

Ln ter Tr ot Pac er A ve

rk R

lA ve Pa u

Ln Cr yst al

llo w Ho Fo x

Sno w

Av e nd Po rtl a

HA RC

OL DO

Ho lly

Rd Mi lls en Mi llik

H BE AC RD

O SA C

Pine Ledge

r sD Sa nd er om H

Rd Por tlan d r Meserve

Cir

lant Dr Cla yt o nD

Gal I-9 5

Ln ella Isa b

Av e ary M d

Foss R

Dr edge Big L

ps Wa y Wa y er Ma rin

Orchard Hill Rd

ars h ad M Ro ter n

r Al ge rD te 1

Douglas Rd

Ea s

Ma rtin Av Ch e arle sC ir

Ro u

Ave Susa n

r Waldron D

Equestrian Wa

ure leas Sim ple P

Rd rm Fa Ca rte r

ins R Jen k

ir Bru no C

Dr itte n Wh n tty L Sm u

Sh o

Mi ll R

sP oin oo r M Bayberry Ln

Ln St ug a

Ln Sara toga

Cas tle Ter

Ln ahue Don

d rn R Hea d

Cra nbe rry Ln ll D r Kno

r il D

Ea s

tat i

ars h ad M Ro

Rd Landmark

nol

n reek L Moo

Ln ber ry

Rd rle s Ch a

Rd ng Sp ri

d th R

ter n

Huntley Dr

ly W ay

n lL Ca rdi na

Co n

D W oo df ie ld Stra w

Payn e

d ill R H tto w Sc o ebr

ook

Lon gm e a

Sto n

Gol

n's Way McKinno

Pa rk

Pl an

Rd dow

End Tra ils

od D r ngw o Ster li

Thu rsto n

Ln Eliz abe th

Bro Bo nd Dr ood den w

r ok D Merr ill B ro

Dr Di rig o

d er R Ric k d ill R Roc ky H

Hea

Ea s

d Ho l me sR ok

Se p

tem

be r

W ay

Labrador Ln

Herit age L n

n dL tP on d ill R Joss H

Tib bet ts

se C

Cra nbe rry Pne s

Kylie Ave

ies L Kat

Tr ou

n eL Ma Rub y

r dD Wed gew oo

d Gr an tR

Partr idge Ln

d Dres ser R

Rd om Fr ee d n yL

elo d M

d nR Ha nso Golden Ln

itet a

U T

Rdg

try D

Cou n

ry nt

ec h

ce S

kl an

Rd Ln

er D

Isl e

t as in Po ail

ury

Fal c

lle Ga

M t Pin

Ave

16-Inch

24-Inch

Priority 2

u Co

her

12-Inch

Priority 1

n ry L ctua Rd San o me r low H Wins ay inal W Marg

10-Inch

Hydraulic Improvements

bou rn

8-Inch

rb nte Ca

Sn o

re Sho

6-Inch

Mel

Verrier Ln

t St

Lit tl

4-Inch or Smaller

Gre

Bir ch St Por ter St Fall Myr St tle S t Cla rk S t

ber

Sto c

Rebecca D

Water Main Diameter

Phinneas

t Bra dle yS t Dy er S t Tem

Spr u

try D

one D

Ro c

I-195

We sley

Service Area Boundry

Hampton Cir

nA ve

Procto r Rd

Legend

Bl ac

Poo

AR UN

EFO

Iron Trail Rd

BID D

Old

l St

B nue Ave

t Ln

North Ave

rcia

ell A ve

Dr erry wb

Little Riv er

West Ave

KKW Interconnection

ital D

Morin St

Com

Dig

tR oi n hP

to lic W ay

oin

Lam

ss Ro

o Po

k zu

Ap os

pea u

ins R

n River L

llc Ha

Old Alfred Rd

Dra

c Bla

Ben Ave

y St

Woodview Dr

Lan dr

Hig

new

k roc

Grays L

Hun

Wynm

ood r W oor D

Oceanside

l rP

Sno

32. Grand Avenue New 12-inch Water Main

r Ln

Au tum

yso n

Wo od

She par d

Sou th S

Jabez Ln

Gra

er lT Rd Va

r Te

Car ver St

ne Sto

ie anv

El ev e

ry Fer

t St

ew Vi

our

Rd Clearwater

y Ba

ie Letell

y Walk Journe

Pre c

e im

t Ln

ent S

Way Tiger

wo o d

Col on

oin Windy P

Arrow

Ave rey

s St

el av Gr

ard

Osp

e rnh Bo

Oce

BE AC

27. Balsam Lane and Lauren Drive New 8-inch Water Main

Scrimshaw Ln

Wa co D

Edw

y Ln

Trav er

le A v

Abb

set V

Ri v

11. Main Street and North Street New 12-inch Water Main

Clar endo n St Vic We tory stfi Ave Her eld L D St ring ibe upo rty Ave nt A Ave ve Wil Ha s Free on S rdi Lau ng St Congress St t rier St St Bel Paul St mo nt A ve Hil lsid eA ve Alis on A ve Ro bin Pen We Ci r Lynn Av ny st S Ave e t Ra y

Su n

t ter S Cen

Liz o

ay ps W Sho Rd

Ave

Mo ody

Sh a

Cres c

Ma son

Fog g

lan d

New

Alfred Booster Pump Station

y Wa

De er

ouse

Ctr

t ed S Alfr

An dre

Lin da

Bea udo in A ve

lC arl

tingh

er uld Bo

ate w

Cu tts S

Un ion St Dal e Ci r

Wo od

ws t Md

Pi n es

Mee

" "

e Av

t g St

d le R

Ave

et S

s on

3. Abandon Alfred Booster Pump Station

e Seasid

ark

ra Bar

rd G

Dar tmo uth Yal St eS t Par eS t Har var dS t

ien

4. Remove Bradbury Street Tank

en D

Â³

R er

D ne

Cir

err Th

Thornto n St Spr uce St St M ary St

her st

v Co ch esu

nC Va

aD nd

Bre ntw ood

e Av

Ald

en re

Diamo nd St Hoo Gooch St per St

Poin

Ave

South St Chad w ick Pl

Forest Street Tank Capacity: 1.25 mg Overflow: 261 feet

U T 21. and 22. Abandon Existing Reservoir and Construct New LSS Water Storage Tank

e ud la

eD as

eri

rin g

Pine c

3. New Booster Pump Station

Bid def o

e Rd lla Shadage Vi

G ge

y Ln

The Reservoir Capacity: 7.5 mg Overflow: 207 feet

n No

ts Pi

o Rh

Par c

Cou n

19. Jordan Street and Bonython Avenue New 8-inch Water Main

rn Ve

Abb

Ja y

n' ga

ve nA wi

Che rryf ield

Old Hollis Rd

Horseshoe Dr

th Ca

No rth

a oni Lac

on ho Sc

g Fog

k Blac

his pe

ine

31. Smithwheel Road New 8-inch Water Main

7. Lina Avenue and Industrial Park Road New 16-inch Water Main

Buc kth orn C

t ain S

Ln Lilac

n er L cast Lan

Pat o

18. Moody Street New 8-inch Water Main

St oln Linc t eS

R er

" " "

e6 enu Av 5 nue Ave 4 ue en Av e3 enu Av

I-1 95

on St

v Ri

Water Treatment Plant

vie

y wa

Easy

Bradbury Street Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet Par k

Irvin

ok D

Lincoln St

m Boo

nt D

Cap ta

ve nA

o arbr Ced

ay sW

ma dge Ho

Ber ry

d on R

roo

Wil son D

tt Stra

Mi ll B

Sch op

sD ood

ill Ln

She ila C

eck Rd

od Go

w Bay

Indian H

ty R

Hillview Av

t ou

sN Winnock

re D

e Av on bs Ho t e rS Av nte on Ce rm e Ha Av on eg Or

Cou n

ab nd

n rn L

ple

9. Hillview Avenue and Buxton Road New 12-inch Water Main New

lante

e tux Pau

t Rd

rd dfo Bra

Pine Point Tank Capacity: 1.0 mg Overflow: 207 feet

Circuit St

ale

h Coac

OL DO

Clo verd

Poin

SCA

e tin

ty un

Sean Pl

ay Cl

t k S St Oa nite t a sS t s Gr S i Bl ver t S Do ine St n h P ac e L Be Ros St y Ba

Ste e

Chelsea Cir r

D es in

a Se

Cam i

s Ca

in eD

k Blac

er Jasp

Sea coa s

Long Cove Dr

Ja sm

ir Fa

Tiger Lily Ln

Farm Sullivan

int

Kennedy Dr

t Dr Oakmon

dN Ol

ne s

ook L

Spring Hill Rd

D Cori

Au tum

rP ve

Iri s

es D

ng B r

iva n

Pin e

be rly

Boo thb y

Su ll

uckle

Willey Rd

eys Hon

sor

Win di

yA ve

ve C

kR r oo

s Ln

B ks

Gro

Fawn Dr

Pond View Rd

s ne

m lsa Ba

Bu x Ln to

t Dod

e Tall Pin

ll Ta

n Rd

en S

Bob b

Ha v

t Rd

cad Ca s

So fia

Ki m

Loud e

C ar

ding R

r er D

Phe asa n

n Ba

ros

o lis Al

try Wo ods R

Spruce Cir

d Ce

tan L an

int Po

r nte Hu

Old

m Pri

Pin e

Wo od

l Ln Be l

23. Portland Road New 20-inch Water Main

Ash

Duns

24. Cascade Road New 20-inch Water Main

Co un

int

rty

Priority I - Water Storage 1. EPS Verification 2. Leakage Test 3. Construct New Booster Pump Station 4. Demolish Bradbury Tank

rn Fe

flow

24. Portland Road New 20-inch Water Main

u Ro

Cattail Ln

oin

Pkw

ounty

Emily Way

P dy

May

iew

ter

Os pre

Eas tv

er L

n Sa

in t

Lucky Ln

Pin e

e Lib

le C

d Win

SA C

Br id

r dD fiel Rye Po

field Fair

Bl ue

Wa y

Ave

erce D

ens D

Flag Pond Rd

pson Sim

Comm

rch

Car riag e

ood

y Libb

rd S r Wa

SCA

d anon R

Priority II - Water Storage 21. Abandon Existing Reservoir and Construct New LSS Water Storage Tank 22. Tank Siting Study Construct New HSS Water Storage Tank

tw Wes

D pal

er R

Ch u

nici Mu

y Saw

ard ch Or

Du nst an Av e

e Av

y Ln berr

Que

z Pla

am R Gorh

ie Ell

Mul

ok R

Gri ffin

lbro

od Wo

Wi lso nL

Mil

Leb

Ta ll

a rnh Bu

d ite R

e Av

guer Mar

v le A

ry er eb

ond

e Av

u Bl

Nob

cres

Co lon el

Fla

Old

ve all A Ranw

ton

ln R

Cir

Ave

o Linc

Prio r

d Byr

Harl ow S

Zachary Ln

Fa rm

r utie Clo

ew a

Wil dro se

Old C

ate Rd

ing

Fraz ier A

de rso

g South

sh Wa

d ill R

Fe n

e1 ut

Ed g

g Dr

Ac res

Rd Ash Swamp

in Cross

lan d

Ln Windemere

Gr ace

ise

st H Ma

ee n

Willowdale Rd

rg r

Av e

ibby

ney

ay W

Mc Ke n

e Dr Ballantyn

rook

oln

He ath

ill eh

ton B

Ev e

Milliken

t oin

D ff

Boy n

p uth

son L

l Dr hoo y Sc

Man

ree

ay sW

dy C

am Ad

s Ro

Sh a

llo Do

evi e

ge id

Na tur

ent R Sarg

se Bes

Esta te

reek Dr

C erry

ill R

ark D

Hidden C

b Turn

ay W

Lin c

R al

ald ib ch Ar

Wa tso

y Ro

Trad em

Pat rio tD

eD tiv

d Willowoo

Faw

rty L

Sunrise Dr

Rd od Wo d on

Chestnut Dr

ibe

e Ex

idg

Sa ra

ym Ra

C le

le nda

all L

rn R

da en Gl Gle

Brookview Ct

Sto n

Bro adt u

rpr

Kerr y ma n Ci

ine

R ch

Fos s

al P

diso Ma

e Be

Re g

te En

p St

Dr bert Her Dr ant Dur

wn s

h Do

D al ni lo

y gy Wa

ng bro

Grasshopper Ln

uth D

ple

g orou Scarb

Sp ri

Plym o

hip

olo Techn

luff Ln

r Ave Pionee

T ook im ber Dr San ds D

ay W an

r Br

Pilg ri

Cart e

High B

n Dr

d Ro

ma dA ve

Puri ta

o Tw

Lo g

ter

Tap ley

m La

gh pli

ant Gr

ap Tr

oh rJ pe

r nke

Pkwy

r l Te Hil

Haigis

hL n

li Phil

lli Li

Le a

Ingallsides Dr

R ill

gle r

Br oo

os L Lob

H ell

Fe n

mo Me

tch Mi

r Bu

tD ou

Be ave r

He ath

Ba y er L

Br a

ck ett

Po in t

be rry R

Approximate Scale: 1" = 1,500' August 2013

Lib r

Jo ce ly

ary

woodardcurran.com COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS