SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE OF ASSESSMENT “030” IN THE DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF HYDE PARK

ENVIRONMENT RE: RESOLUTION NO. 2025133 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE OF ASSESSMENT "030" IN THE DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF HYDE PARK Legislators D'AQUANNI, PAOLONI, GORMAN, CASWELL, and LAWLER offer the following and move its adoption: WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature, by Chapter 592 of the Laws of 1991 (Section 1142, Public Authorities Law), as part of the creation of the Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority (WWA), established the Dutchess County Water District ("DCWD"), and WHEREAS, the WWA, has presented to this Legislature a notice of project pursuant to Section 1124 of the Public Authorities Law which outlines the WWA's plan to create Zone of Assessment "030" within the DCWD located in the Town of Hyde Park, and WHEREAS, the WWA proposes to provide an interconnection from its existing Hyde Park Regional Water system to the existing South Cross Water distribution system in the Town of Hyde Park, WHEREAS, said notice of project also describes the zone of assessment that will be created which is more particularly described in Attachment A annexed hereto, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing on the establishment of such Zone of Assessment, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Legislature shall conduct a public hearing on the 14 day of October 2025 at 6:30 p.m. in the Chambers of the Dutchess County Legislature, County Office Building, 22 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, New York, on a proposal to establish Zone of Assessment "030" in the Dutchess County Water District located in the Town of Hyde Park as described in Attachment A, annexed hereto, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Legislature shall public notice of said hearing in the official newspapers of the County and shall include therein a description, identifying the areas to be included within the Zone of Assessment "030", the improvements proposed, the maximum amount to be expended for the improvements, the proposed method of assessment of the cost, the estimated cost of hook-up fees, if any, the cost to the typical property or one or two family home, all in accordance with Section 254 of the County Law. CA-096-25; CRC/rjw; G-1217-EE; 08/13/2025; Fiscal Impact: None. STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF DUTCHESS This is to certity that I, the undersigned Clerk of the I egislature of the County of Dutchess, have compared the foregoing resolution with the original resolution now on file in the office of said clerk, and which was adopted by said Legislature on the gih day of September 2025, and that the same is a true and correct transcript of said original resolution and of the whole thereof IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and scal of said Legislature this 8 day of September 2025. PROVEL Sue serena Righliger SUSAN J. SERINO COUNTY EXECUTIVE Date 919/2625 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT NO FISCAL IMPACT PROJECTED APPROPRIATION RESOLUTIONS (To be completed by requesting department) Total Current Year Cost $ Total Current Year Revenue $ and Source Source of County Funds (check one): • Existing Appropriations, Contingency, [Transfer of Existing Appropriations, Additional Appropriations, • Other (explain). Identify Line Items(s): Related Expenses: Nature/Reason: Amount $ Anticipated Savings to County: Net County Cost (this year): Over Five Years: Additional Comments/Explanation: Prepared by: Jonathan Churins, Executive Director, DCWWA Prepared On:08/04/2025 Dut.pdf ASTEWATER AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Sue Serino, County Executive Jonathan Churins, Executive Director fo Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority 1 Lagrange Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 845-486-3601 845-486-3656 FAX [email protected] Resolution Request August 4, 2025 Please find attached a Resolution Request Form and Fiscal Impact Statement. The purpose of the requested resolution is to schedule a public hearing on the creation of County Water District Zone of Assessment "030" (South Cross Water System.) The DCWWA is requesting that the County establish County Water District Zones of Assessment "030" to provide water services within the existing South Cross Water (formerly known as the Golden Meadows development) community. The DCWWA is finalizing an agreement with the current owner, the South Cross Water Company) to acquire the Water System.| The DCWWA proposes to provide an interconnection from its Hyde Park Regional Water System to the existing South Cross water distribution system in the Town of Hyde Park. The interconnection is part of a larger project that connects the Hyde Park Regional and Quaker Hill Water Systems. In the interim, DCWWA will operate South Cross Water as a stand-alone system. A Map, Plan and Report for Zone of Assessment "030" will be submitted for review. The request for resolution is to begin the public hearing procedure for the Zone of Assessment creation. The DCWWA's ability to provide a new water service to this area is contingent on the creation of the Zones of Assessment within the County Water District, encompassing all properties in the System's service area. To create the requested County Water District Zones of Assessment, the Legislature must first adopt a resolution to schedule the required public hearing. Attached, please find Resolution 2024062, which can be used as a template for this requested resolution. Cc: Jason Teed, PE, DCWWA DUTCHESS COUNTY Proposed County Water District Zones of Assessment "030" (South Cross Water System) Hyde Park, NY MAP, PLAN AND REPORT August 2025 Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority Poughkeepsie, NY DUTCHESS COUNTY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 1 of 17 August 2025 PROPOSED COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ZONES OF ASSESSMENT "030" (SOUTH CROSS WATER SYSTEM) MAP, PLAN AND REPORT INTRODUCTION This Map, Plan and Report contains the information required for the formation of the proposed County Water District Zone of Assessment "030" (Zone). The Zone includes an area of approximately sixty-five (65) acres located in the central to north area of the Town of Hyde Park and situated near the intersection of South Cross Road and all parts of the Golden Meadows residential subdivision. All parcels within the proposed Zone are developed with residences, except for two undeveloped parcels, the water supply parcel, and one parcel designated as Police/Fire. Upon successful formation of the proposed Zone by the Dutchess County Legislature, ownership and operation of the South Cross Water System will transfer to the Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority ("DCWWA", "Authority") in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in an agreement between the Authority and the South Cross Road Water Co. ("Owner"). The information provided herein includes the proposed Zone boundaries and a list of the tax parcels that will comprise the future Zone, as well as a description of the current and proposed infrastructure by which potable water will be produced, treated and delivered to customers. In addition, budgetary estimates for the first-year operation and maintenance costs, and capital costs, as well as a cost allocation formula, have been included with this report. The DCWWA will enter a contract (the "Service Agreement") with Dutchess County on behalf of the Zone for the purpose of administering the retail sale of water services to all properties within the proposed Zone, with such service to be provided through the water system facilities as described below. The Authority will administer the Zone pursuant to guidelines established by the Service Agreement and collect water revenues. Water service rates will be set annually by the Authority. HISTORY The South Cross Water System (PWS ID# NY1302802) was originally constructed in the mid-1960s by private developer John Golden. The water system gained its initial approval from the New York States Health Department. For all intents and purposes, the South Cross Water Co. has owned the South Cross Water System since inception. According to the original Filed Maps, it appears that Well number 1 was developed under the original development. Wells number 2 and 3 were developed thereafter. The water is injected with sodium hypochlorite for primary disinfection and an orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor. DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 2 of 17 In April 2023, the South Cross Road Water Co. began to experience infrastructure failure with a major leak in the 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank. The hydropneumatic tank has yet to be repaired or formally replaced. Due to the on-going major leak, Well number 2 suffered a significant decline in source production in 2024 and was hydro-surged in an effort to increase production. An expensive and extensive water treatment improvement is necessary to replace the failed hydropneumatic tank and bring the rest of the facility up to code. In February 2025, the Dutchess County Department of Health ("DOH) issued an approval as a temporary solution, to utilize an undersized hydropneumatic tank in lieu of the larger failed tank on the condition that; the Public Water Supply maintain a higher chlorine residual, and must make a permanent connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System (NY1302796) when it becomes available, with a three-year timetable for re-evaluation. Failure to make a permanent connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System will result in a full water treatment plant upgrade to current standards. The Authority intends to own and operate the entirety of the water system until such a time the interconnection can take place. COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ZONE OF ASSESSMENT "030" The South Cross Water Service Area Zone as provided in Appendix "A" consists of one hundred fifty-one (151) properties including one hundred and forty-two (142) detached single-family residential properties, five (5) multi-family residential properties, two (2) undeveloped properties, one (1) property containing the water supply, and one (1) property used as the Roosevelt Fire District's Fire House Number 5. PHYSICAL FACILITIES Water Supply and Treatment System The South Cross Water System uses groundwater from all three functional wells. All three wells are adjacent to wetlands; however, groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) designation has not been provided. Orthophosphate injection is provided as the first form of treatment, which is a corrosion inhibitor. Sodium hypochlorite is added to the water to provide disinfection. After treatment, water is normally stored in a buried hydropneumatic tank with one wall of the tank exposed in the treatment facility. Due to a major leak, that hydropneumatic tank is offline and a temporary smaller hydropneumatic tank is provided above- ground, in its own temporary housing. Visual observation of the treatment facility infrastructure shows typical wear-and-tear including some corrosion of piping. Water is then sent to the system hydropneumatic tank providing pressure to the entire water distribution system. There are no booster stations within the distribution system. Should the hydropneumatic tanks experience total failure, the water distribution system could not function. Transmission and Distribution The South Cross Water System Zone distribution system includes approximately 10,300 linear DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL. docx, p. 3 of 17 feet of 6-inch asbestos cement (AC) pipe. Some sections of development from the 1970s may have newer material pipe; however, it is unknown at this time. It is believed that service laterals include ¾-inch copper to the single-family residences. There is currently one flushing hydrant located on Golden Way. The water system as originally designed included fire hydrants in the water distribution system; however, construction did not include fire hydrant installation, and the water system does not provide fire protection. On occasion, the water distribution system experiences a leak; however, there has been no indication of a substantial leak in the water distribution system in recent history. SOURCE CAPACITY AND QUALITY EVALUATION The South Cross Water System has three active groundwater supply wells - Wells 1, 2, and 3. The three active wells provide variable quality and currently provide production capability to serve the proposed Zone, due to the temporary connection of an undersized hydropneumatic tank. Water demand use determined via a master water meter, located before the hydropneumatic tank had decreased from approximately 50,000 gallons per day (GPD) to approximately 18,000 GPD by isolating the previously leaking hydropneumatic tank. DOH records indicate in the 2000's that the orthophosphate was introduced as treatment to prevent corrosion of the pipes. In more recent years, the South Cross Water System was subject to administrative enforcement for failure to meet monitoring requirements for newly regulated emerging contaminants. Monitoring by the Owner has illustrated some detections of newly regulated emerging contaminants; however, those values are low in comparison to the maximum contaminant level set forth under Federal and State regulation. The installation date and depths of Wells 1,2 and 3 are unknown at this time; however, it has been noted in the past that all three wells are shallow gravel wells. Historically, shallow gravel wells near wetlands are typically designated as GWUDI; however, no such designation has been provided by the DOH. There have been no recent pump tests completed to determine the actual yield of the wells, and recent operating information has suggested that the actual yields are declining in a typical fashion each seasonal cycle. The hydro-surge of Well 2 is the only known improvement to well production in recent history. According to Ten States Standards, the total developed groundwater source capacity shall equal or exceed the design maximum day demand with the largest producing well out of service. With the isolation of the leaking hydropneumatic tank and decrease in average water demand from approximately 50,000 GPD to 18,000 GPD, the existing wells have a greater probability of meeting design maximum day demand with the largest producing well out of service; however, no formal stabilized well yield test has been conducted There is no designated finished water storage available in the water system as hydropneumatic DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL.docx, p. 4 of 17 tanks providing pressure to water systems cannot be co-designated as finished water storage. On February 24, 2025, the DOH approved the temporary use of a smaller 5,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank in lieu of the failing 10,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank on the premise that, the South Cross Water System must connect to central water should it become available, and should a connection to central water not become available within the next three (3) years, upgrade the existing water treatment plant. Further discussions between the DOH and DCWWA indicated that, should the South Cross Water System decide to upgrade the existing water treatment plant, it will be required to upgrade the system to current standards, which includes additional requirements at a minimum; GWUDI determination using current procedures, providing a minimum one day of finished water storage. FUTURE DEMAND There is the potential for the development of two (2) parcels within the Zone. The estimated future demand for the two vacant parcels is 500 gallons per day. The remainder of the development is entirely developed and cannot be further divided due to the current zoning designation and typical lot size within the development. FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The intention of the Authority is to create the Zone in anticipation that the South Cross Water System will connect to the Quaker Hill Water to Hyde Park Regional Interconnection Water Main. That project has been awarded a combination of grant and loan funding from the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), and administrative steps are underway to begin the procurement process for the design phase of that interconnection. Source and Treatment Improvements The existing wells are functioning to the best of their ability, and the Authority will maintain the wells in a manner that provides sufficient capacity for the water system until such a time the interconnection is made. Distribution System At this time, DCWWA has no plans to make improvements to the distribution system beyond the construction of approximately 850 linear feet of water main needed to tie-in to the Quaker Hills Water - Hyde Park Regional (QHW-HPR) Interconnection Main Project. Future Connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System The Hyde Park Regional Water System of which the Zone will eventually obtain its water from, is sourced from the Hudson River. The system provides a series of treatment including coagulation, flocculation, filtration, disinfection, taste and odor control treatment, and corrosion control treatment before entering the water distribution system. The system can treat a maximum of DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL. docx, p. 5 of 17 two million one-hundred thousand gallons per day (2.1 MGD), with existing daily storage of one and three-quarters of a million gallons (1.75 MG). The QHW-HPR Interconnection main project will provide a tie-in connection for the South Cross Water system at State Route 9G and South Cross Road. An Engineer's Report titled Quaker Hill PFAS Remedy, prepared by Tighe & Bond, last revised June 2024, and included in Appendix "E", provides details including a water main extension from an existing 12-inch diameter water main along Crofton Street to State Route 9G. Once the 12-inch diameter water main has reached State Route 9G, it will travel northbound until Fallkill Road where the main will extend easterly toward North Quaker Lane. Once the water main reaches North Quaker Lane, it will extend southerly toward a public right-of-way that appears to be consistent with a town road extension from Pennington Drive to North Quaker Lane. The main will then extend westerly to the cul-de-sac of Pennington Drive where the main will connect into the existing QHW distribution system. In reference to the above, the South Cross Water system will tie into the QHW-HPR Interconnection Main at South Cross Road, before the water main is extended to Fallkill Road. Additional storage is being provided as part of the QHW-HPR Interconnection project. PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS AND ALLOCATIONS The South Cross Water system currently has no outstanding bonded indebtedness. It is anticipated that additional capital improvements to the system will be required, including the interconnection of the South Cross Water System to the Quaker Hill Water interconnection to address a magnitude of treatment facility deficiencies. There is no projected capital costs nor allocations during the time that the South Cross Water system is owned and operated by the DCWWA as a standalone system. However, once South Cross is connected to DCWWA's Hyde Park Regional (HPR) Water System, the properties within the South Cross Zone will be annually assessed for capital costs related to the construction of the Interconnection Main and for capital costs related to the construction of improvements to the HPR system from which South Cross customers will benefit. For any bonds issued by the Authority, an annualized capital cost, being the cost to pay debt service and associated administrative charges, will be apportioned to Zones of Assessment in a manner proportionate to the benefit to be received by each Zone of Assessment. The capital costs apportioned to each Zone will then be allocated equitably among all parcels within each respective Zone of Assessment through the assignment of benefit units to each parcel. The methodology for the assignment of benefit units is attached in Appendix "C". Future Connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System The interconnection of the South Cross Water System to the Hyde Park Regional Water System is part of a larger project that interconnects the Quaker Hill Water System to the Hyde Park DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL. docx, p. 6 of 17 Regional Water System. In addition, the Quaker Hill Water - Hyde Park Regional Water System Interconnection Main Project will also include the interconnection of the existing Dutchess Estates Water System (which DCWWA intends to acquire from the current owner) as well as the provision of water service to all directly adjacent properties along the projected Interconnection Main route. Proposals to establish a new Zone of Assessment for the Dutchess Estates Water service area, and a new Zone of Assessment (North Park Water) for the properties adjacent to the Interconnection Main route, will be submitted under separate cover. The total cost of the Interconnection Main Project is estimated at $21,875,700. The DCWWA has received grant funding from the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) for up to 70% of the total cost of the project, resulting in a grant fund of $15,312,990. The remaining project balance of $6,562,710 will be paid through a subsidized loan from the NYS EFC issued to the DCWWA, spread over a 30-year period. It is DCWWA's intent that debt service on the loan will be allocated among all Zones of Assessment that are directly serviced by Interconnection Main: the existing Zone of Assessment "U" (Quaker Hills Water System), the proposed Zones of Assessment "030" (South Cross Water System) and the two additional proposed Zones of Assessment described above for the Dutchess Estates Water System and the North Park Water Area, which are currently under development. The Dutchess Estates Water System will connect an existing community to the Interconnection Project while the North Park Water Area will address the properties directly adjacent to the proposed Interconnection Project. Both Zones of Assessment will be submitted under separate cover. In order to provide a water main extension in accordance with the preferred route submitted in the NYS EFC grant request report, a transfer of ownership of existing main is being sought on the property defined as the Crofton Mews. The DCWWA continues to explore different cost-saving designs that make the project financially feasible while remaining in-line with one of the three alternative routes provided in the Engineer's Report titled Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy, prepared by Tighe & Bond, last revised June 2024 included in Appendix "E". In addition, the existing annual debt expenses for the previous improvements to the Hyde Park Regional Water System (HPRWS) will be allocated equitably, through the assignment of benefit units, to each parcel included in the Zone of Assessments that receive water service from the HPRWS and thereby benefit from the funded improvements. This includes; this proposed Zone of Assessment "030", existing Zones of Assessment "A", "B", "C", "D", "I", "L", "R", "U", and "028", proposed new Zones of Assessment "029A" and "029B" (Dutchess Estates Water System), North Park Water Area, and any additional Zones of Assessment that are established along the QHW-HPR Interconnection Main Project. Application of the Benefit Assessment Methodology to the current district parcels results in a total of one-thousand five hundred and forty-six (1,546) benefit units within the proposed Zone. The anticipated capital costs for a typical single-family residence within the South Cross Water System and Zone is approximately four hundred and twenty-seven dollars ($427) should all Zones of Assessment be created along the larger project which interconnects the Quaker Hill Water DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 7 of 17 System to the Hyde Park Regional Water System. For the purposes of creating the Zone, the worst-case scenario of no additional Zones of Assessment are created beyond South Cross Water would translate to an anticipated capital cost for a typical single-family residence of approximately one-thousand three hundred and twenty-three dollars ($1,323). It is anticipated that this expense would appear on the 2030 property tax bill (second year of operation as a consecutive system). To clarify further, the anticipation of this expense occurs at a time when the entirety of the QHW-HPR Interconnection Main project has been completed, and long-term financing has been established. For the purposes of this report, the DCWWA intends to create the Zone as soon as possible, assume ownership of the entirety of the system upon Zone of Assessment creation and execution of contracts with the current owner, and then operate and maintain the system as a standalone system until such time significant construction has been completed that allows potable water to be delivered to the South Cross Water system from the interconnection to the HPR Water System. Appendix "D" shows the typical annual property cost after the Interconnection Main project is complete. The first year will only reflect operating costs of the original system; post-interconnection costs will also include regional system operations and project construction expenses. The methodology for the assignment of benefit units for Zone of Assessment "030" is included as Appendix "C". All benefit units within the Zone will be charged at the same rate. The annual benefit assessment would appear on the respective property owner's yearly property tax bill. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (0&M) COSTS Stand Alone System The 0&M Budget Projection is the total cost to the DCWWA to operate the South Cross Water Distribution System, groundwater withdrawal, chemicals, electricity, alarms, laboratory fees, labor, insurance, typical repairs and other ongoing costs. The DCWWA has developed an O&M budget projection to illustrate estimated First Year costs of the South Cross Water System under Authority ownership, based on the Authority's prior operating expenses and history for comparable size water systems, and possible anticipated repairs to the system. A copy of the O&M budget projection, using 2026 as a base year for demonstration purposes of those First- Year costs, has been included as Appendix "B". The first-year operational cost (2026 dollars) is estimated at $131,986. With 148 connected customers, 2 undeveloped parcels and 1 Police/Fire parcel for a total of one thousand five hundred forty-six (1,546) benefit units in the Zone, and assuming collection of late fees at historical levels, the cost per a typical single family residential customer would be eight hundred and ninety-five dollars per year ($892). Should the system ownership be transferred mid-year, the budget would be pro-rated for the portion of the year DCWWA would own the system. All future O&M system budgets, rates, fees and other charges are reviewed annually and subject to change by the DCWWA Board of Directors. Future Connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL.docx, p. 8 of 17 Once connected to the HPR Water System, the operation and maintenance costs for the Zone of Assessment will be the cost of water produced by the Hyde Park Regional Water System and the Authority's cost to operate, maintain and administer the water main distribution system, as reflected in the annual O&M budget adopted by the Authority. The 2025 adopted Water Rates for the Hyde Park Regional Water System are included in Appendix "B". The rates include a fixed monthly service charge based on the customer connection meter size, and a charge per thousand gallons of metered water use. For a single-family residential parcel in the Zone the estimated annual O&M charge would be approximately eight hundred forty-four dollars ($844); however, O&M costs may vary in escalation until a point the interconnection project is completed. CONNECTION CHARGES For any properties within the proposed Zones of Assessment that are not connected and receiving water service from the South Cross Water System at the time that the Authority acquires the Water System, an "Application for Water Service" and a related fee will be required at the time water service is requested. Generally, for a typical residential connection, the costs for the water meter, plan review and/or inspections, and tap on the main are covered by the Water Service Application (tapping fee) fee which is paid by the property owner to the DCWWA at the time of their request for service. As of the date of this report, the application fee for a standard ¾-inch water service connection is one-thousand one-hundred and fifty dollar ($1,150) per service and is a one-time charge. The cost to install, repair and/or maintain the water service line from the Authority's curb valve to the property owner's house or other structure shall be the sole responsibility of the respective property owner. Annual Cost per a Typical Property - First Year (Standalone) The total annual cost for a typical property in a zone is generally a combination of the long-term capital charges (debt service) and water usage charges. In the proposed Zone, a typical property will be a single-family dwelling unit. Given the assumptions and estimates described above, the projected "First Year" total cost for a typical single-family dwelling in County Water District Zone "030" will be eight hundred and ninety-two dollars ($892). This budget is consistent with the DCWWA operating the water system as a standalone system until such a time the interconnection can be made. A system budget based on these rates will build appropriate fund balances to maintain the public water system in good working order. ##### DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL.docx, p. 9 of 17 APPENDICES Appendix "A" - Description of County District Zone of Assessment "030" (Map & Parcel List) Appendix "B" - Proposed Operation & Maintenance Budget Appendix "C" - Proposed Benefit Assessment Methodology Appendix "D" - Annual Cost per Typical Property - Post-Construction Interconnection Main Project Appendix "E" - Engineer's Report titled Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy, prepared by Tighe & Bond, last revised June 2024 DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL.docx, p. 10 of 17 APPENDIX "A" DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ZONE OF ASSESSMENT "030" South Cross Water System DESCRIPTION OF ZONE (map and parcel listing) The Dutchess County Water District Zone of Assessment "030" shall include all those tax parcels presently indicated on the attached boundary map. These parcels are further described by the following list of tax parcel grid numbers: 6166-02-717703-0000 6166-02-773660-0000 6166-02-768769-0000 6166-02-698790-0000 6166-02-819749-0000 6166-02-852740-0000 6166-02-683732-0000 6166-02-873733-0000 6166-02-688708-0000 6166-02-702729-0000 6166-02-687661-0000 6166-02-837739-0000 6166-02-876774-0000 6166-02-852664-0000 6166-02-816668-0000 6166-02-850780-0000 6166-02-835685-0000 6166-02-749721-0000 6166-02-815657-0000 6166-02-871723-0000 6166-02-836721-0000 6166-02-722681-0000 6166-02-737700-0000 6166-02-813806-0000 6166-02-837615-0000 6166-02-795769-0000 6166-02-793732-0000 6166-02-795653-0000 6166-02-782695-0000 6166-02-688695-0000 6166-02-769747-0000 6166-02-734730-0000 6166-02-685782-0000 6166-02-767683-0000 6166-02-692686-0000 6166-02-701764-0000 6166-02-744650-0000 6166-02-712775-0000 6166-02-748760-0000 6166-02-835790-0000 6166-02-723795-0000 6166-02-847641-0000 6166-02-838695-0000 6166-02-710680-0000 6166-02-775719-0000 6166-02-714741-0000 6166-02-875742-0000 6166-02-846612-0000 6166-02-855684-0000 6166-02-794712-0000 6166-02-767736-0000 6166-02-734720-0000 6166-02-820692-0000 6166-02-680743-0000 6166-02-803749-0000 6166-02-735710-0000 6166-02-784657-0000 6166-02-781745-0000 6166-02-837633-0000 6166-02-714730-0000 6166-02-777765-0000 6166-02-686675-0000 6166-02-854751-0000 6166-02-807625-0000 6166-02-713763-0000 6166-02-705715-0000 6166-02-697752-0000 6166-02-828811-0000 6166-02-863806-0000 6166-02-793642-0000 6166-02-827618-0000 6166-02-829654-0000 6166-02-823636-0000 6166-02-762703-0000 6166-02-813759-0000 6166-02-877763-0000 6166-02-753711-0000 6166-02-808783-0000 DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 11 of 17 6166-02-840813-0000 6166-02-772699-0000 6166-02-733760-0000 6166-02-733750-0000 6166-02-778680-0000 6166-02-748745-0000 6166-02-846790-0000 6166-02-862704-0000 6166-02-869795-0000 6166-02-786765-0000 6166-02-803775-0000 6166-02-830779-0000 6166-02-742662-0000 6166-02-681721-0000 6166-02-682769-0000 6166-02-854674-0000 6166-02-733740-0000 6166-02-752662-0000 6166-02-712752-0000 6166-02-757685-0000 6166-02-752784-0000 6166-02-813729-0000 6166-02-763663-0000 6166-02-853812-0000 6166-02-841705-0000 DCWWA/jwt 6166-02-705702-0000 6166-02-749799-0000 6166-02-833675-0000 6166-02-801732-0000 6166-02-798672-0000 6166-02-769721-0000 6166-02-739786-0000 6166-02-810639-0000 6166-02-710794-0000 6166-02-716717-0000 6166-02-831664-0000 6166-02-787677-0000 6166-02-828770-0000 6166-02-680755-0000 6166-02-877753-0000 6166-02-733770-0000 6166-02-867714-0000 6166-02-839750-0000 6166-02-848721-0000 6166-02-741690-0000 6166-02-860694-0000 6166-02-836761-0000 6166-02-800686-0000 6166-02-877785-0000 6166-02-850654-0000 6166-02-791632-0000 6166-02-855760-0000 6166-02-850730-0000 6166-02-791691-0000 6166-02-819678-0000 6166-02-816738-0000 6166-02-813701-0000 6166-02-817622-0000 6166-02-853771-0000 6166-02-743680-0000 6166-02-820713-0000 6166-02-747733-0000 6166-02-785716-0000 6166-02-699740-0000 6166-02-803707-0000 6166-02-830707-0000 6166-02-760775-0000 6166-02-810793-0000 6166-02-773643-0000 6166-02-725655-0000 6166-02-756647-0000 6166-02-717646-0000 6166-02-782795-0000 South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL. docx, p. 12 of 17 NEW YORK STATE Town of Hyde Pork DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY Zone of Assessment but field erica man require dude train aitor pe aret. 332r3e 15 Grace syrias Anytime Some Medica sCUT ravangain 186.:30 Weaverson: strong tassal 189223 simon A3001s 233/30 21/20% saratan us vaserent 57% -LA607 Musi sinner Cherno Loneline MAIL sisa troy attaire sing unema saive: TALKA: KD s0M2- Zone 030 250 500 Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority 1 LaGrange Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 1,000 Feet Sheet No. 1 of 1 Data Sources: Dutchess County Real Property Tax Service Agenc Prepared by: Dutchess County Department of Planning & Developmen Date: February. 2025 TER AN STEWATER AUTHORIT APPENDIX "B" South Cross Water System County Zone of Assessment "030" Proposed Operation & Maintenance Budget DCWWA 2026 Budget Projection South Cross Water District Beginning Fund Balance Annual Expenses Power/Chemicals Operations ERM Lab/Sampling/Permit Administration Legal/Engineering Insurance Annual Revenues Water Sales/Penalties Transfer from Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $0 $131,986 $10,650 $53,981 $22,740 $5,500 $30,344 $6,365 $2,406 $131,986 $131,986 $0 $0 DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 13 of 17 South Cross Water System County Zone of Assessment "030" Proposed Operation & Maintenance Budget Adopted Water Rate Schedule - Effective January 1, 2025 (Future Connection to Hyde Park Regional Water System) DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL.docx, p. 14 of 17 DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ZONES A & B - HYDE PARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM Adopted Water Rate Schedule - Effective January 1, 2025 WATER CHARGES ARE BILLED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE BILLING CYCLE: Section 1000--Periods end February 28, May 31, August 31, and November 30 Section 2000--Periods end March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 Section 3000--Periods end February 28, May 31, August 31, and November 30 NOTE: *Rates subject to change on January 1, 2026 B. WATER CHARGES 1. Metered Usage Rate: $9.12 per 1,000 gallons + monthly service charge. (All customers subject to monthly service charge regardless of usage). 2. Monthly Service Charge: In addition to the water charges described above, there will be a monthly service charge assessed according to meter/service size as follows: Meter/Service Size: Rate Per Month: 3/4 inch $24.73 1 inch $34.62 1.5 inch $44.51 2 inch $71.70 3 inch $271.98 4 inch $346.15 8 inch $519.23 $717.03 10 inch $890.10 16 inch $1,409.33 3. Domestic Non-metered (Based upon size of connection) + monthly service charge. Meter/Service Size: Rate Per Month: 3/4 inch $114.00 $177.33 1.5 inch $253.33 $380.00 $1,097.77 4 inch 6 inch 10 inch 16 inch $2,195.54 $6,755.51 $13,511.02 $25,333.16 $67,555.09 DCWWA | Hyde Park Water Rates 20255 A&B 1 C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES See following definitions. Charges: Property Transfer Charge - Buyer Property Closing Charge - Seller Inaccessible Meter Charge Meter Re-Read Charge Meter Tampering Charge Returned Check Charge Service Restoration Fee Service Tampering Charge Rates: $60.00 $85.00 $100.00 * $50.00 $50.00 $20.00 $150.00 $50.00 ** *** PAST DUE BILL CHARGE All arrears of water rents, charges and penalties after each due date shall be subject to interest computed at the annual rate of 21% or 5.25% per billing period. RELEVY OF UNPAID BILLS In September/October of each year all accounts in arrears will be referred to the property tax collector for inclusion on the following year's January tax bill. Included in these amounts will be a late charge of up to 4 months for the total amount due. PROPERTY TRANSFER CHARGE - BUYER There will be a charge assessed each time title to a property changes or transfers. The charge will appear on the next scheduled billing of the new property owner. This fee will cover the cost of establishing a new customer account along with preparing pro-rated bills as needed for both the new and former owner. PROPERTY CLOSING CHARGE - SELLER There will be a charge assessed to the current owner each time title to a property changes or transfers. The charge will appear on the final bill due on account and presented at closing of the property. This fee will cover operational and administrative costs incurred during the processing of account closeout. SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHARGE Service charge only for size of service line supplying the fire sprinkler system. INACCESSIBLE METER CHARGE An inaccessible meter charge may be assessed *each month to customers who refuse to allow access to their property for meter installation, who fail to remove obstructions encumbering access to the water meter or its remote read head, and/or who refuse access to their property for an indoor meter reading. MULTIPLE REGISTER METER CHARGE Each register billed for gallonage plus service charge - see above schedule. METER READINGS f there is a meter reading discrepancy between the meter (located inside) versus the emote read head (located outside), it is the meter that has precedence. Meter tampering is unlawful and may result in legal action. DCWWA | Hyde Park Water Rates 20255 A&B 2 L. M. N. 0. METER TAMPERING CHARGE Tampering with meter and meter appurtenances is prohibited. Tampering with meter and meter appurtenances will result in a fine** plus a surcharge for labor and materials for replacing and/or repairing the tampered equipment and shall be imposed on the next water bill. RETURNED CHECK CHARGE There will be a charge for each returned check. The Dutchess County Water and Wastewater Authority (DWWA) reserves the right not to accept checks in the future. RESTORATION OF WATER SERVICE A customer may request water service to be temporarily suspended and shut off at the curb valve. However, the customer will remain financially responsible for all monthly service charges and applicable capital surcharges due per billing cycle while service is suspended Additionally, a service restoration fee upon water turn on will be added to the next billing cycle. SERVICE TAMPERING CHARGE Water service is turned on or off at the curb or the main by the DCWWA. Unauthorized tampered equipment and shall be imposed on the next water bill. DCWWA | Hyde Park Water Rates 20255 A&B 3 APPENDIX "C" South Cross Water System Dutchess County Water District Zones of Assessment "030" Proposed Benefit Assessment Methodology COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ZONES OF ASSESSMENT C, D, H, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U and 028 (Not J or K) PART COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT #1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY DEVELOPED LAND (Use the higher of either LAND USE/WATER USE or ACREAGE) LAND USE/WATER USE RESIDENTIAL FIRST DWELLING UNIT EACH ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL: FIRST 500 GPD WATER USAGE EACH ADDITIONAL 100 GPD ACREAGE FIRST 2 ACRES EACH ADDITIONAL WHOLE ACRE UNDEVELOPED LAND FIRST 2 ACRES EACH ADDITIONAL WHOLE ACRE STATE PARK LANDS FIRST 500 GPD WATER USAGE EACH ADDITIONAL 100 GPD 10 8 20 4 10 2 8 2 20 4 DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL docx, p. 15 of 17 APPENDIX "D" South Cross Water System County Zone of Assessment "030" Annual Cost per Typical Property - Table DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL. docx, p. 16 of 17 SCW Annual Cost per a Typical Property - Assuming full construction of interconnection project completed Worst Case Scenario QHW" Project Cost Allocation HPR Debt Service Allocation" $ 3,101.00 $ $ 151.00 $ O&M $ 844.00 $ Total Cost $ 4,096.00 $ QHW + SCW26 1,323.00 $ 147.00 $ 844.00 $ 2,314.00 $ QHW + SCW + DEWS 872.00 $ 145.00 $ 844.00 $ 1,861.00 $ QHW + SCW+ NPW* 513.00 $ 139.00 $ 844.00 $ 1,496.00 $ ^ QHW is the existing Quaker Hill Water system that assumes no Zones of Assessment created 2QHW+SCW assumes only South Cross Water (SCW) Zone of Assessment is created and benefits from the interconnection project 3 QHW + SCW + DEW assumes only SCW and Dutchess Estates Water (DEW) (under separate cover) are created and benefit from the interconnection project 4 QHW +NPW + SCW assumes only SCW and North Park Water (NPW) (under separate cover) are created and benefit from the interconnection project 5 HPR Debt Service Allocation refers to the debt service shared by all Zones of Assessment that benefit from the Hyde Park Regional Water Treatment Facility and storage tanks 6QHW + NPW + DEW +SCW assumes all of NPW, DEW and SCW (under separate cover) are created and benefit from the interconnection project Best Case Scenario QHW + SCW + DEW + NPW® 427.00 136.00 844.00 1,407.00 APPENDIX "E" South Cross Water System County Zone of Assessment "030" Engineer's Report titled Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy, prepared by Tighe & Bond, last revised June 2024 DCWWA/jwt South Cross Road Water MPR FINAL doex, p. 17 of 17 HYDE PARK MOB MANOR ESTATES: INV 0810664)) KNOTS- LANDING MOBILE HOME PARK (NY 302164) SOUTH CROSSROAD WATER COING (NY1302802) HILL TOP COURT AND SALES (NY1302130) (NY 0016164) (NY0321282) PARTRIDGE GARDEN APARTMENTS -(NY-1303228) Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority Preliminary Engineering Report June 2024 TRE OF MEN DORE CAEL F VALENTIN * 98426 Tighe&Bond 05/31/20244 Services Provided in New York by T&B Engineering and Landscape Architecture, PC 100% Recyciable Table of Contents Tighe&Bond Executive Summary Section 1 Project Background & History 1.1 Introduction ............. 1.2 Site Information........ 1.2.1 Location......... 1.2.2 Geologic Conditions 1.2.3 Surface Water Features.. 1.2.4 Environmental Resources 1.2.5 Environmental Justice Areas & Disadvantaged Communities ......1-4 1.2.6 Floodplain Considerations... 1.3 Ownership & Service Area 1.3.1 Water District Boundaries 1.3.2 Outside Users... 1.3.3 Population Trends 1.3.4 Historical and Projected Water Use Data 1.4 Existing Facilities....... 1.4.1 Location & Layout 1.4.2 General Description & History .. 1.4.3 Present Condition.. 1.4.4 Permit Conditions.. 1.4.5 History of Infrastructure Damage due to Storm/Flood Impacts. 1-17 1.5 1.6 Need For Project....... Capacity Development ..1-1 ..1-1 ..1-1 1-2 ...1-3 ..1-4 1-5 ...1-5 1-6 . 1-6 1-7 ..1-7 ...1-9 ..1-9 1-11 1-13 1-17 1-17 1-19 Section 2 Alternative Analysis 2.1 Alternatives Considered 2.2 Alternative No. 1 - Interconnection to HPRWS 2.2.1 Water Main Sizing .. 2.2.2 Pressure and Pump Station Sizing ....... 2.2.3 Interconnection Route Summary... 2.2.4 Preliminary Interconnection Design ... 2.3 Alternative No. 2 - Replace Water Treatment System 2.3.1 PFAS Treatment... 2.3.2 Pre-filtration..... 2.3.3 Sodium Hypochlorite 2.3.4 Water Storage .. 2.3.5 Spent Backwash Water Management. 2.3.6 Pumping .......... 2.3.7 Instrumentation & Control 2.3.8 Water Treatment Building ..2-1 ...2-1 ..2-4 ...2-5 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-13 2-15 .2-15 2-16 2-17 2-18 2-18 . 2-19 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report Table of Contents Tighe&Bond 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.3.9 Site Improvements 2.3.10 Process Piping... 2.3.11 HVAC, Plumbing, and Electrical 2.3.12 Waste Generation and Removal 2.3.13 GAC Start-up Considerations Alternative No. 3 - No Action. Phase 2 - Quaker Hill Distribution System Improv. Opinion of Probable Cost... 2.6.1 Cost Estimate Approach .. 2.6.2 Total Project Costs ... 2.6.3 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs 2.6.4 Annual Debt Service... Non-Monetary Factors.. Section 3 Summary & Comparison of Alternatives 3.1 3.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis.. Alternative Comparison. Section 4 Recommended Alternative 4.1 Basis of Selection ...... 4.2 Cost Estimate ........... 4.3 Project Schedule ....... 4.4 Next Steps .............. Appendices A B C D E F Photographs of Existing Quaker Hill System Notice of Violation Cost Estimates Capacity Development Program Evaluation Form Smart Growth Assessment Form Engineering Report Certification 2-22 2-24 2-24 2-24 2-25 2-27 2-27 2-28 2-28 2-29 2-29 2-29 .2-31 ...3-1 ...3-1 .4-1 4-1 .4-2 ..4-2 List of Tables Table 1-1 Quaker Hill Water District Demands Table 1-2 Reported Well Capacity Table 1-3 Summary of PFAS Data for Quaker Hill Water System Wells 1 and 2 Table 2-1 Summary of Public Water System Demand Table 2-2 Water Main Sizing Alternatives Table 2-3 Modeled Interconnection Pump Station Sizing for Various Flow C... Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report ii Table of Contents Tighe&Bond Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 2-8 Table 2-9 Table 2-10 Table 2-11 Table 2-12 Table 2-13 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 4-1 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 4-1 Elevation and Modeled Pressure at PWS Connections along Route... Summary of Alternative Interconnection Routes Summary of Adsorptive Media Technologies for PFAS Removal GAC System Design Criteria Alternative No. 1 & 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Phase 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative No. 1 & 2 Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Alternative No. 1 Annual Debt Service Estimate Alternative No. 2 Annual Debt Service Estimate Annual Debt Service Estimate Summary Alternative Life Cycle Cost Analysis Alternative Comparison Summary Recommended Project Costs Quaker Hill Water District Quaker Hill Soil Map Wetlands at Quaker Hill Wellhouse/Treatment Building Town of Hyde Park Potential Environmental Justice Areas Quaker Hill Water District Quaker Hill Water District Daily Demand 2022-2023 Quaker Hill Water District Ownership and Easements Quaker Hill Water Treatment Facilities Existing System Schematic Alternative 1 Interconnection Routes Route A Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure a Quak... Route A and PWSs Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Press... Route C Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure at Quak... Route C and PWSs Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Press... Proposed Process Flow Diagram Preliminary Treatment Building Layout Preliminary Site Layout Project Implementation Schedule Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report lil Executive Summary Tighe&Bond Executive Summary Tighe & Bond has evaluated two alternatives for addressing the recent PFOS MCL eplacement of the existing wellhouse/treatment building with a new system with PFA! reatment. A no-action alternative is also discussed in the report but will not satisfy th Notice of Violation. A summary of the alternatives that will be considered is below: • Alternative No. 1: • Connect the Quaker Hill Water System to the HPRWS (Route B) • Booster pump station at the North Tank site • Abandon the existing Quaker Hill Wellfield and treatment system • Alternative No. 2: Install a new treatment building with deep foundation Install new system components including treatment for PFOS Improvements to existing wells Demolish the existing wellhouse/treatment building Site improvements to protect the new facilities from flooding An opinion of probable project cost was developed for the two alternatives (Section 2.6) and are summarized in Table E-1, detailed opinions of probable cost for each alternative are provided in Appendix C. TABLE E-1 Alternative No. 1 & 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2 Construction Cost $12,881,100 $4,886,000 Engineering (20%) $2,576,300 $977,200 Contingency (30%) $3,864,400 Escalation (4%/year for 3 years) $1,609,900 $1,465,800 $612,000 Opinion of Probable Cost $20,931,700 $7,941,000 A life cycle cost analysis (Section 3.1) was utilized to better compare the two alternatives to de the lowest cast constructions test. vle Ee summate the nets rene alternative each alternative over a 70-year life cycle planning period, which is the anticipated life cycle of the Alternative No. 1 transmission main. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report E-1 Executive Summary Tighe&Bond TABLE E-2 Alternative Life Cycle Cost Analysis Item Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Present Day O&M Cost Present Day Salvage Value Net Present Value of Life Cycle Cost Alt. No. 1 $20,931,700 $112,500 $13,566,900 -$210,400 $34,709,000 Planning Perioc Inflation Rate Discount Rate Alt. No. 2 $7,941,000 $230,800 $27,833,200 -$647,000 $36,421,200 70 years 4.0% 2.5% As shown in Table E-2, Alternative No. 1 is expected to have a lower life cycle cost than Alternative No. 2. Additionally, Alternative No. 1 has the ability to increase the customer base served by connecting other Public Water Systems along the route which could ultimately result in the lowest debt service cost per EDU. Alternative No. 2 has no potential to increase the customer base. Based on the life cycle cost analysis, estimated annual debt service, potential to increase the customer base by interconnecting other public water systems, and non-monetary factors (see Section 2.7), Alternative No. 1 is the recommended alternative. The basis for selection of Alternative No. 1 is as follows: • Lowest life cycle cost • Potential to connect several other PWSs, including PWSs in potential environmental justice areas and disadvantaged communities • Potential for the lowest annual debt service cost per user if all existing PWSs along the proposed route connect to the system • Simpler construction and permitting • Less operation and maintenance • Better public perception It is important to consider that the number of PWSs that have PFAS concerns is based pon data provided by DCDBCH which is relative to the previous MCL of 10 ppt. It i inticipated that additional PWSs may have PFAS concerns when considering the new MC This engineering report has been prepared in anticipation of the pursuit of a low-interest loan or grant. Table E-3 provides the opinion of probable cost for implementation of Alternative No. 1 in a format that is consistent with funding agency requirements. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report E-2 Executive Summary TABLE E-3 Recommended Project Costs Item 1. Construction Costs! a. Contract 1 - General b. Contract 2 - Electrical c. Contract 3 - HVAC d. Contract 4 - Plumbing 2. Engineering Costs a. Planning b. Design c. Construction 3. Other Expenses a. Local Counsel b. Bond Counsel c. Work Force d. Financial Services e. Net Interest f. Miscellaneous 4. Equipment 5. Land Acquisition 6. Project Contingency (30%) 7. Total Project Costs 8. Less Other Sources of Financing 9. Project Costs to be Financed 10. SRF Issuance Costs a. Direct Expense (1%) b. Bond Issuance Charge (0.84%) c. Administrative Fee (1.1%) Total Project Cost Including Financing -Includes an escalation of 4%/year for 3 years Tighe&Bond Cost $14,201,200 $289,800 $0 $0 $62,400 $1,030,500 $1,545,800 $10,200 $43,500 $202,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,864,400 $21,250,700 $0 $21,250,700 $212,600 $178,600 $233,800 $21,875,700 I|tighebond.com\data\Data\Projects\D\D0280 DCWWA\07-On Call\007F Quaker Hill PFAS|Reports\90% Report\Quaker Hill PFAS - 90% Executive Summary.docx Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report E-3 Tighe&Bond Section 1 Project Background & History 1.1 Introduction This report presents an alternatives analysis performed for the Dutchess County Water PFOS) at their Quaker Hill Water System. This evaluation aims to identify the mos ippropriate and cost-effective way (or ways) of addressing the MCL violation in a manne that is protective of public health and in the best interests of the DCWWA and its customers. Tighe & Bond, whose services are provided in New York through T&B Engineering & Landscape Architecture, P.C. (Tighe & Bond), has been engaged by DCWWA to prepare this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) in a format consistent with the New York State Environmental Facility Corporation (EFC) New York State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Engineering Report guidelines. 1.2 Site Information 1.2.1 Location The Quaker Hill Water District (District) is in the eastern extent of the Town of Hyde Park, NY, as shown in Figure 1-1 below. The District serves approximately 109 residential connections located along Quaker Hill Drive and surrounding streets including Pennington Drive, Guerney Drive, Barkley Road, and Shaker Lane. Service Ared Town of Hyde Park FIGURE 1-1 Quaker Hill Water District Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-1 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond The District was formed in 1970 and, after being acquired by the Town of Hyde Park in 1980, underwent significant upgrades including construction of a new treatment building and the addition of Well No. 2. The Water District Advisory Committee was formed in 1988 to assist the Town with effective administration of the District. At present, the District's racilities include two wells, one hydropneumatic tank, and one wellhouse/treatment building. Water is delivered to the distribution system via a series of 6-inch cast iron water mains, totaling approximately 9,500 feet in length. 1.2.2 Geologic Conditions Figure 1-2 shows the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map for the District. The District is largely composed of Nassau, Hoosic, and Natchaug soil types. The existing wellfield and the existing wellhouse/treatment building are within the Natchaug muck soil type as shown in Figure 1-2. Natchaug muck is categorized as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Type B/D and is defined as highly decomposed organic material over loamy glaciofluvial deposits and/or loamy till. Natchaug muck soils are very poorly drained, nearly level soils in low areas or wetlands. The reported depth to bedrock is more than 80-inches and the reported depth to the water table is 0-6 inches. Quaker Hill Wellfield FIGURE 1-2 Quaker Hill Soil Map Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-2 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond A report titled Quaker Hill Water District Pumphouse Building Evaluation by Morris Associates dated April 2010 (2010 Report) provides information about the subsurtace conditions at the Quaker Hill wellfield and welihouse/treatment building site. The report was developed to understand why the wellhouse/treatment building had settled over the years and to recommend improvements for repairing or replacing the wellhouse/treatment building. The 2010 Report references a geotechnical report prepared by Daniel Loucks. Subsurface conditions at the site, based on one boring drilled at the site and documented in the above- referenced geotechnical report, are expected to consist of the following soil stratums: • 0 - 4 feet below ground surface (bgs) - loose to very loose silty sand FILL; • 4 - 14.5 feet bgs - Very soft, black, PEAT; • 14.5 - 41 feet bgs - Loose, native sandy gravel or gravelly sand with minor amounts of silt; • 41 - 43.5 feet bgs - Dense native gravelly sand with silt; and • Refusal at 43.5 feet bgs. In addition to the one test boring near the existing wellhouse/treatment building, the 2010 report describes that two deep test pits were excavated with a backhoe approximately 100 feet west of the existing wellhouse/treatment building. However, the results of these test pits were that the same peat material is present at a depth of approximately 6 feet below grade. 1.2.3 Surface Water Features As shown on Figure 1-3, the existing wellhouse/treatment building parcel is completely within a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulated freshwater wetland (SP-21). Fall Kill Creek flows from north to south through the parcel and there are also federal wetlands around Fall Kill Creek; much of which overlap with the NYSDEC wetlands. Fall Kill Creek is a Class C waterbody. Class C waterbodies are suitable for supporting fisheries and non-contact activities. 7066 Quaker Hill Wellfield Parcel 590048 NYS DEC Fed. NWI 594030% FIGURE 1-3 Wetlands at Quaker Hill Wellhouse/Treatment Building Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-3 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond 1.2.4 Environmental Resources The District was found to be within the NYSDEC rare plants and rare animals check zone as shown on their Environmental Resource Mapping tool. The locations shown in the Environmental Resource Mapper Rare Plants and Rare Animals layer are not precise locations. Rather, they show those generalized areas where New York Natural Heritage has information in its databases regarding rare animals and/or rare plants. These generalized areas show the vicinity of actual, confirmed observations and collections of rare animals and rare plants. The precise locations are not provided by this tool. The Environmental Resource Mapper Tool noted that the District is within the vicinity of Bats which are listed as endangered or threatened. No significant natural communities were noted within the vicinity of the District. 1.2.5 Environmental Justice Areas & Disadvantaged Communities The Quaker Hill Water District is not within a potential environmental justice area (PEJA) according to the NYSDEC info locator mapping tool presented in Figure 1-4. However, an area just north of the Quaker Hill Water District between Route 9G and Fallkill Road is identified as PEJA (purple shading). Some of the public water supply systems (PWSs) discussed later in the report are within this PEJA. DeWint Mills Staatsburg Margaret Lewis Noria State Park C0-4no3 Pleasant Plains Routo 9 Fallkill Road Quaker Hill Water District Hyde Park, FIGURE 1-4 Town of Hyde Park Potential Environmental Justice Areas Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-4 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond The PEJA maps are based on U.S. census block groups that had populations that met or exceeded at least one of the following statistical thresholds: 1. At least 52.42% of the population in an urban area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or 2. At least 26.28% of the population in a rural area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or 3. At least 22.82% of the population in an urban or rural area had household incomes below the federal poverty level. According to the 2014-2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS), conducted by the US Census Bureau, the percentage of the census block group who reported themselves as a minority population is 34.73% and the percentage below the poverty level is 3.82%. Therefore, this portion of Hyde Park is considered a PEJA since more than 26.28% of the population in the rural area reported themselves to be members of minority groups. The percentage of the population below the federal poverty level (3.82%) is less than the statistical threshold (22.82%). The Quaker Hill Water District is not a disadvantaged community (DAC) according to the NYSDEC info locator mapping tool. However, the area west of Route 9G is identified as a DAC (see Figure 2-1). Some of the public water supply systems (PWSs) discussed later in the report are within this DAC area. 1.2.6 Floodplain Considerations The Quaker Hill wellfield and wellhouse/treatment building has experienced flooding in the past, with the most notable flooding event in August 2011 during Hurricane Irene. Reportedly, flood waters rose up to 3 feet above grade in the vicinity of the wellhouse/treatment building, submerging the generator, lifting the propane tank off its support, and entering the wellhouse/treatment building, rendering the system inoperable. Review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) shows that the area is not within a mapped 100-year or 500-year flood area, and therefore, no formal flood elevation exists. As such, we recommend utilizing historical records to provide adequate protection from flooding for any new buildings at the site. Although official measurements were not recorded for the 2011 flooding, District representatives stated that flood waters rose to just below the electrical equipment inside the wellhouse. Based on field measurements, this is approximately 3 feet above the finished floor of the existing wellhouse/treatment building. In accordance with the Recommended Standards for Water Works (10 State Standards), the finished floor of any new building constructed at the site should be located at least 3 feet above the flood of highest record, or approximately six feet above existing grade. 1.3 Ownership & Service Area The Quaker Hill Water District is owned and operated by the DCWWA. DCWWA is an independent public benefit corporation established, at the request of the County of Dutchess, by an act of the State Legislature and governed by an appointed Board of Directors. The mission of DCWWA is to protect and enhance the health, environmental Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-5 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond sustainability, and economic stability of Dutchess County and its residents through the provision of clean drinking water and proper treatment of wastewater. As an owner and operator of water and wastewater systems, DCWWA is committed to the provision of reliable water and wastewater service. DCWWA has a team of professionals including certified water operators who operate the Quaker Hill and Hyde Park systems. 1.3.1 Water District Boundaries The Quaker Hill Water District is approximately 100 acres in size and includes 109 served properties. There is only one vacant parcel within the District that is undeveloped and there are 4 other undevelopable lots. The district delineation is described in the Proposed County Water District Zone of Assessment U Map, Plan, and Report (MP&R) dated February 2015. Figure 1-5 from the MP&R shows the Quaker Hill Water District boundaries. ARE DR Water Treatment Plant Base Service Area Connected ROW FIGURE 1-5 Quaker Hill Water District 1.3.2 Outside Users There are no existing outside users, water purchase contracts, or inter-municipal agreements with the Quaker Hill Water District. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-6 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond 1.3.3 Population Trends The population for the Quaker Hill Water District has been relatively consistent since the ompletion of the residential development in 1970. There is no census data available fo nly the Quaker Hill Water District. The estimated population served by the district is 35C The development is built out and all residences are occupied excluding a single vacant developable parcel. There are no current or anticipated plans to expand the Quaker Hill Water District. Therefore, the population is projected to remain steady over the next 20 years. 1.3.4 Historical and Projected Water Use Data Existing Demands The Quaker Hill Water District has two onsite groundwater wells (Well No. 1 and Well No. 2). One totalizing flow meter measures total flow from the facility; however, no individual flow meter for each well with readout is present to measure and record individual flow production. Since no individual flow data is available, monthly operating reports were reviewed to evaluate well production for the district. Monthly operating reports from January 2022 through November 2023 were evaluated. A summary of wellfield daily demand including data from January 2022 through November 2023 is summarized in Figure 1-6. Quaker Hill Water District Demand 2022-2023 100,000 90,000 90,000 20,000 (pdD) 00.000 District Demand 50,000 40,000 30,000 20.000 pa 1/1/2022 /1/2022 6/30/2022 9/28/2022 12/27/2022 3/27/2023 6/25/2022 Date FIGURE 1-6 Quaker Hill Water District Daily Demand 2022-2023 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 0/23/2023 12/22/2023 1-7 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond As shown in Figure 1-6, daily demand was generally higher in 2023 than it was in 2022. This increased demand was caused by water main breaks in the distribution system, the largest of which was estimated by DCWWA operations staff as 60,000 gpd. There were no major leaks in 2022, therefore, the flow data from 2022 is assumed to be more representative of actual system demands. For this reason, production data from January through December 2022 was used to determine average and maximum day demand. Since there is no flow meter monitoring instantaneous flow from the facility, there are no records for peak hourly demand for the facility. As such, the peak hour demand was estimated using typical peaking factors. Typical peak hour peaking factors (ratio of peak hour demand to average day demand) range from 2 to 7 (Water Treatment, Montgomery, 1985). A summary of this average day demand, maximum day demand, and peak hour demand is provided in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 Quaker Hill Water District Demands Demand Condition (gpd) Average Day Demand 25,000 Maximum Day Demand 56,000 Peak Hour Demand 100,000 1 Based on Peaking Factor of 4.0 x Average Day Demand Demand (9pm) 17 39 69 As shown in Table 1-1, average day demand is 25,000 gpd, or approximately 17 gpm, the maximum day demand during this period was 56,000 gpd (which occurred in June 2022), and the estimate peak hour demand is 4,200 gallons per hour (gph), or approximately 69 gpm. In 2014, as part of the Quaker Hill Water District Evaluation (2014 Report), the demands for the Quaker Hill Water system were based on 2013 production data. Based on 2013 production data, the average day demand was determined to be 24,428 gpd and the maximum day demand was 44,100 gpd. This indicates relatively consistent demands in the Quaker Hill Water District during years with minimal water main breaks. The 2014 Report recommended several steps to address issues in the distribution system including a leak detection program, replacement of meters, installation of backflow preventers, and strategic water main improvements. Although not necessary to address the PFAS violation, we agree that improvements to the water distribution system are important to reduce unaccounted for water and ultimately a more stable water demand. As such, the recommended distribution system improvements for the Quaker Hill Water System are not included in the alternative analysis but are presented as "Phase 2" as discussed in Section 2.5. Further discussion regarding the condition of the existing water mains can be found in section 1.4.2. Fire Flow With no elevated storage, the system is not currently designed to provide fire flow. The 2014 Report estimated ISO needed fire flows of 750 gpm for 2 hours (90,000 gallons) based on the minimum distance of 30-50 feet between existing single-family dwellings. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-8 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond Future Demands The development is built out and all residences are occupied excluding a single vacant but developable parcel. The system has sufficient capacity to serve the additional parcel should it be developed. The District is located in a rural area of Hyde Park, and so there are a limited number of properties that could feasibly connect to the District, therefore, no future demands are anticipated. Unaccounted Water Based on the wide variation in total daily production discussed above, it appears that there has been a significant amount of unaccounted for water throughout the life of the Quaker Hill Water System. The 2014 Report estimated unaccounted for water due to water main breaks and leaks may have exceeded 100% for many months in 2013. However, metering limitations (customers are billed at a flat rate and usage is not metered) make it difficult to estimate what percentage of the demand is unaccounted for water. Adjacent Public Water Systems Several PWSs, the largest of which is the Hyde Park Regional Water System (HPRWS), are located near the Quaker Hill Water District. These systems are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2. Community Involvement DCWWA maintains a website and notification system for alerts and advisories regarding the Quaker Hill Water System. This provides a convenient way of communicating with the users of the Quaker Hill Water System. There have been no major capital improvement projects for the Quaker Hill Water System in many years. It is assumed that the community would be in support of improvements that protect the drinking water system and address the outstanding PFOS MCL violation. There is also potential for enhanced community involvement if the interconnection alternative (see Section 2.2) is selected, offering a resolution for adjacent PWSs with outstanding water quality violations. 1.4 Existing Facilities 1.4.1 Location & Layout The Quaker Hill Water District is accessed from North Quaker Lane in the Town of Hyde Park and serves the residential properties along Quaker Hill Drive, Shaker Lane, Barkley Road, Guerney Drive, and Pennington Drive (see Figure 1-5). The District facilities are located on an approximately 7 acre site, as shown in Figure 1-7 below. Access to the site is via a 20-foot-wide utility easement near the end of Quaker Hill Drive. The access drive is a gravel road approximately 260 feet long that runs between two residential properties. The parcel is 400-feet in diameter centered on one of the wells. The parcel is low-lying and completely within a NYSEC freshwater regulated wetland. Fall Kill Creek runs through the parcel. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-9 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond The electric service for the existing facilities is overhead from the power line that runs in a back lot right of way on the west side of North Quaker Lane. The overhead power lines cross the creek and the wetland, with utility poles located in the wetland. SENACE NOn 35* 19494 83.00 20 foot permanent easement Ang EASEMEN. 240 60 NO EXISTING THERE 2125 150. 59 1.779 191.8% 120.00 50% 30-00 Property Owned by Town -200 foot Ownership Radius ANT 59 120.00 198. 52:32aa"n 239.27 7080 100 3/ 100.3/ 100. 31 100.3/ 30-30:92 100.71 100.3/ 96.70 513-03:004 25%. 28% Permanent easements FIGURE 1-7 Quaker Hill Water District Ownership and Easements The site contains three wells (two active and one abandoned), the wellhouse/treatment building, a buried hydropneumatic tank, security fencing, a generator, and a propane tank. Figure 1-8 shows a general layout of these structures at the site, including: • Wellhouse/Treatment Building with Well No. 1 inside (1) • Well No. 2 (2) - originally designated as Well No. 3 on historical drawings, but was renamed with the abandonment of the original Well No. 2. • Generator (3) • Buried hydropneumatic tank (4) • Propane tank (5) • Test Well No. 3 (abandoned) (6) - Originally designated as Well No. 2 on historical drawings. • Security fencing (7) Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-10 Section 1 Project Background & History • Access drive (8) • Overhead electric service (9) Tighe&Bond 3 G 8 FIGURE 1-8 Quaker Hill Water Treatment Facilities Appendix A contains photographs of the existing facilities. 1.4.2 General Description & History The Quaker Hill Water District source and treatment system includes two wells (Well No. 1 and Well No. 2), a small masonry wellhouse/treatment building, a sodium hypochlorite feed system, and a buried 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank. Figure 1-9 shows a schematic of the existing system. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-11 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond 10.000 GAL HYDROPNELMATIO TANK (BURIED) CHI ORINE 'OSSEN TON (109 CONNECTONS FIGURE 1-9 Existing System Schematic According to available system documentation from the Town of Hyde Park, the Quaker Hill Water Corporation developed the central water system during the period of 1965 to 1970. Due to poor water distribution main installation practices, the water system experienced extensive water main leaks by 1976. District records indicate that the water mains were installed directly on shale, with no gravel bedding. This has resulted in a multitude of ture nature al. it has l rene are it, general, the water mains were not installed to five feet below ground surface, and on average have just over three feet of cover, rendering the piping susceptible to damage from frost. By 1978 the Dutchess County Department of Health assumed operational control of the system from the Quaker Hill Water Corporation. Circa 1980, the Town acquired the water system, forming the Quaker Hill Water District. The water system's sole hydropneumatic tank was replaced around 1998. The New York Department of State awarded the Town of Hyde Park a Local Government Efficiency Grant in 2011. The Grant funds were used for an engineering evaluation and to assess the feasibility of transferring the District's assets and management to DCWWA. In February of 2015, the Town of Hyde Park transferred ownership of eight water and wastewater systems to DCWWA, including the Quaker Hill Water System. As the Quaker Hill Water System is now 54 years old, and with minimal reconstruction projects undertaken under previous ownership, it is generally recognized that most system components are beyond their useful service life. The 2014 Report noted concerns regarding the condition of the wellhouse/treatment building and distribution system and identified several mechanical and safety issues. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-12 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond While the water supply of the District is of adequate quantity, there has been a recent MCL exceedance for PFOS (see Section 1.5 for further discussion). 1.4.3 Present Condition Source Capacity Groundwater Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 are the two sources of water supply for the Quaker is 2019 sanitarv survev, il Water System. Both wells are located within she semes bel Tallated for, follentia Groundwater Under Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI). The first stage of GWUDI testing data collection was conducted from April 2020 to May 2021. DCDBCH representatives reviewed the data and issued an official determination that the Quaker Existing well capacity was estimated as part of the 2014 Report based on historical records and the DCDBCH inspection reports. According to a 1978 report by Morris Associates, Well No. 1 is an 8-inch diameter shallow gravel well, with a safe yield of 220 gpm. The well is approximately 50 feet deep, with a 20 foot deep clay confining layer. Well No. 1 is equipped with a 185 gpm well pump. There are no well construction details for Well No. 2; however, a DCDBCH inspection report from 1983 reports that the well is equipped with a well pump rated for 112 gpm. In both the 1983 and 1984 reports, it was noted that Well No. 2 had not received a completed works approval; we were unable to confirm if this had ever been received. Table 1-2 shows the reported capacity for the two wells based on the most recent water withdrawal reporting forms. TABLE 1-2 Reported Well Capacity Well Capacity (gpm) Well 1 180 Well 2 109 Capacity (gpd) 259,200 157,000 According to 10 States Standards, the total developed groundwater source capacity shall equal or exceed the design maximum day demand with the largest producing well out of service. Since there is no atmospheric storage, the groundwater wells must meet peak hour demand (estimated to be 69 gpm, see Section 1.3.4). The system has had no issues maintaining system pressures, even with the history of water main breaks. With the largest well (Well No. 1) out of service, the firm capacity of the wellfield is 109 gpm, or the reported capacity of Well No. 2. This is greater than the estimated peak hour demand of 69 gpm, therefore, this requirement is satisfied. However, we recommend that District consider yield testing to determine the actual safe yield of the wells, specifically for Well No. 2. The well pump sizes and capacities should also be confirmed. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-13 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond Water Quality Prior to recent regulations requiring public water supplies to test for perfluoroalkyl substances in source waters, Quaker Hill records indicate that concentrations of all regulated contaminants were well below their respective regulatory limits. However, both Quaker Hill source water wells contain perfluoroalkyl concentrations that exceed the EPA's MCL of 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L) or parts per trillion (ppt), and New York State's current MCL of 10 ppt. Section 1.5 provides further discussion regarding the MCL exceedances in the Quaker Hill System. Site/Civil/Security Several low hanging branches were observed along the entrance road. These branches should be trimmed and maintained to ensure continuous access to the site. The grounds surrounding the Quaker Hill Water Wellhouse/treatment building are generally wet and muddy due to their low-lying nature in the wetland. The facility is surrounded by a perimeter fence with barbed wire and is equipped with a manual swing gate at the main entrance. The fence is in fair condition, with several areas of rusting observed. There are no door contacts, security cameras, or security alarms. Safety The Quaker Hill Water System facilities were evaluated for compliance with general health and safety practices as well as OSHA CFR 1910 as part of the 2014 Report. Although OSHA does not have direct jurisdiction over municipality-owned public utilities in New York, the facility is subject to compliance with New York State safety requirements which are very similar to OSHA and must provide a safe working environment for employees, contractors, and visitors at all times. Several of the safety concerns highlighted in the 2014 Report have been addressed since DCWWA took ownership of the system. The following health & safety concern remain: • Eye wash is accomplished through the use of portable bottles. Permanent eye wash/shower stations should be considered in all locations where chemicals are handled and stored. Appropriate signage should be located near all eye wash stations. Structural/ Architectural The existing wellhouse/treatment building is a single story structure with single wythe, 8- inch CMU walls, a concrete slab on grade and timber framed gable roof. The interior dimensions are 14'-9" by 14'-9" with a floor to ceiling height of 7'-10". Overall, the existing wellhouse/treatment building is in poor condition. The building structure has significant structural issues. Occupancy of the building in an earthquake or significant wind or flooding event would be unsafe. Settlement of the building and floor slab has resulted in misalignments of the piping system and cracks in the floor slab leaving the wells vulnerable to contamination. The building has been subjected to flooding (see Section 1.4.5), which has also impacted the life expectancy of the structure and its equipment. Settling of the structure is likely due to poor subsurface ground conditions and the history of the issues are well documented. The architectural components of the building are also in poor condition including the asphalt shingle roofing which is heavily deteriorated and is approaching a failed condition. There is also moderate rust on the hollow metal door and door frame. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-14 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond It is feasible to remove and replace the broken mortar joints. However, since it is likely unreinforced, the repaired masonry system will be susceptible to further cracking of the mortar joints particularly if any further movement of the building occurs. Also, while some of the failed mortar joints have been filled with spray foam insulation, it is likely that other failed joints have allowed moisture to enter into the concrete masonry blocks. Finally, unreinforced masonry does not provide significant lateral load resistance (wind/earthquake), and so the building might be unsafe during these conditions. We recommend demolishing the existing masonry building and replacing it with a new Process/Mechanical Equipment at the Quaker Hill Water District facility varies in age and condition. However, most of the equipment is at or past the end of its useful service life. This section provides an overview of the condition of the process/mechanical equipment including: • Wells & Well Pumps • Process Piping • Hydropneumatic Tank • Chemical Feed System Two wells are currently in place at the site. Well No. 1 is located inside the treatment building. A sleeve was installed in Well No. 1 a few years ago according to DCWWA staff; however, this solution was only intended to be temporary and therefore Well No. 1 needs to be replaced. The new well casing should be extended at least 18 inches above grade, and 3 feet above maximum flood elevation, in accordance with 10 States Standards, and be provided with a lockable, watertight well cap. Well No. 2 is located outside of the fenced area and the grading around Well No. 2 is not graded to allow surface drainage away from the well. We recommend that grading improvements be made to Well No. 2 and the casing should also be extended to 3 feet above the maximum flood elevation. Test Well No. 3 has been abandoned. The motor for Well Pump No. 1, along with the wiring, check valve, and well pipe was replaced in 2023. The age of both well pumps and the motor for Well Pump No. 2 is unknown, and we expect they are past their useful life expectancy. Both well pumps should be replaced and sized for the conditions of the new treatment facility. Well yield testing is also recommended to confirm the safe yield capacity of each well. The piping system inside the building consists of cast iron pipe, isolation valves, a flow totalizer, and chlorine injection point. Overall, the piping is in poor condition. The paint system on the piping has deteriorated, and areas of corrosion were observed. Portions of piping where it interfaces with the floor slab have significant corrosion. Settlement of the building following its construction has resulted in a significant amount of cracks and misalignment of the floor slab. This has resulted in notable pipe alignment issues and stress on the existing piping system joints and restraints. Repairs have been made over the years to account for the misalignment, but these are generally less resilient installation practices and the piping is at risk as the building continues to settle. All piping inside the building should be replaced. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-15 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond Pressure stabilization for the system is achieved using a 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank. The hydropneumatic tank was replaced in approximately 1998 and is past its useful life expectancy. The existing hydropneumatic tank is completely buried, however, according to 10 State Standards, hydropneumatic tanks should be located above normal ground surface and be completely housed. The wellhouse/treatment building houses a sodium hypochlorite chemical feed system. Overall, the feed system is in good condition, with the day tank and metering pump recently replaced. The metering pump is a diaphragm style pump. Based on the typical service life for chemical feed system equipment, the tank and metering pump will be due for replacement in a three to five years. Therefore, it is recommended that the chemical feed svstem be replaced at the time of the treatment building improvements/replacement. The design of the new chemical feed system should include redundant metering pumps and a tank vented to the exterior. Instrumentation & Controls A cellular alarm system at the existing facility notifies operations staff of high and low pressure conditions. This is currently the only alarm system at the facility. Neither well is equipped with level instrumentation, flow meters, or individual pressure alarmeng, Bank evel monitoring, new pump rontras, chlorne rei lew monitoring, and alarms. Electrical and HVAC The existing electrical system at Quaker Hill facility consists of a propane fired engine generator, automatic transfer switch (ATS), main disconnect switch, pump starters, load center, pump control panel and a compressor disconnect switch. Most of the equipment has reached the end of its useful life and shows signs of corrosion. We recommend that the main disconnect switch, starters, pump control panel, compressor disconnect switch and load center be replaced. There is currently no surge protection provided on the well pumps. We recommend that surge protection be provided to protect the well pumps. The generator is a 35 kilowatt propane-fired Katolight generator, located exterior to the building, but within the perimeter fencing system. The ATS is a 100 amp, 240 volt Katolight. Both the generator and ATS appear to be in fair condition, despite having weathered a flooding condition, when both the generator and switch were partially submerged. It is our understanding that most of the critical components in both pieces of equipment were evaluated and/or replaced following the flooding event. Also, the battery and charger were replaced in 2014. However, the generator and ATS are past their anticipated useful life and should be replaced and sized appropriately for the new treatment facility design. Also, the main disconnect switch and ATS installations are in violation of working space requirement of 36 inches (National Electrical Code) for electrical equipment. As a result, the main disconnect should be powered down completely before completing any service work on the switch. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-16 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond The existing exterior light and interior unit heater are original to the facility and should be replaced. In general, wiring, conduit, and receptacles inside the building are in poor condition, and the receptacles are not GFi rated. The overhead electrical service for the wellfield and wellhouse/treatment facility comes from the east, across the wetland. DCWWA staff report that vegetation in the wetland has grown up beneath the electrical service and interfered with the overhead electrical lines. The vegetation has caused disruptions to the electrical service. It is difficult to perform maintenance and trimming of the vegetation beneath the electrical service because it runs through the wetland. Consideration was given to relocating the electrical service to Quaker Hill Road, however the only power available at Quaker Hill Road is single phase and it is a residential dead-end road, which poses significant difficulties to power the station loads. 1.4.4 Permit Conditions The Quaker Hill Water District is subject to a water withdrawal permit. The water withdrawal permit limit for the Quaker Hill Water System is 289 gpm or approximately 416,000 pa. There are no wastes generated as part of operations at the Quaker Hill Water System. 1.4.5 History of Infrastructure Damage due to Storm/Flood Impacts As discussed in Section 1.2.6, the Quaker Hill wellfield and wellhouse/treatment building has experienced flooding in the past, with the most notable flooding event in August 2011 during Hurricane Irene. Reportedly, flood waters rose up to 3 feet above the finished floor elevation of the existing wellhouse/treatment building, submerging the generator, lifting the propane tank off its support, and entering the wellhouse/treatment building, rendering the system inoperable. 1.5 Need For Project On January 17, 2024, DCWWA received a Notice of Violation for exceeding the PFOS MCL (10 ppt) based on an average of the last three samples for Well #2 at the Quaker Hill Estates Water System. A copy of the Notice of Violation is attached as Appendix B. Samples collected since 2021 from Well 1 and Well 2 consistently detected PFOA and PFOS, and concentrations have risen over time. Recent water quality samples collected in late 2023 and early 2024 from both wells at the Quaker Hill Water System range from 3.10 ppt to 13.60 ppt for both PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The current New York State MCL for PFOS and PFOA is 10 ppt. On April 10, 2024, the EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The new rule set a MCL for PFOS and PFOA of 4 ppt and a MCL for PFHXS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX Chemicals) of 10 ppt. In addition, mixtures containing two or more of PHXS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS will be regulated by a calculated Hazard Index (HI) value of 1 (unitless) based on the sum of individual compound's concentrations relative to their reference dose (Equation 1-1). Table 1-3 provides a summary of the raw water sample results for PFAS compounds with current regulatory limits. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report [Equation 1] 1-17 Section 1 Project Background & History Tighe&Bond TABLE 1-3 Summary of PFAS Data for Quaker Hill Water System Wells 1 and 2 Source Well 1 Date 3/29/2024 11/9/2023 10/11/2023 5/18/2023 1/11/2023 11/21/2022 5/17/2022 3/1/2022 12/23/2021 9/21/2021 5/25/2021 2/10/2021 Well 1 Average 3/29/2024 11/9/2023 10/12/2023 5/18/2023 1/11/2023 11/8/2022 8/16/2022 5/17/2022 3/1/2022 12/23/2021 9/21/2021 5/25/2021 2/10/2021 LEGEND: Well 2 Average Exceeds current MCL (4 ppt) PFOA PFOS 3.10 3.70 5.10 7.52 4.90 5.44 4.62 4.40 3.27 2.53 3.54 3.00 3.84 3,55 2.35 2.56 5.42 7.67 4.06 6.02 2.64 PFH×S 0.00 1.27 1.09 1.03 0.99 1.26 1.75 1.12 1.38 0.80 0.69 PFNAR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 3.81 3.70 8.59 10.60 9.81 8.90 6.36 Well 2 5.05 6.72 7.05 5.64 7.45 7.38 1.03 0.00 1.62 1.65 1.46 1.55 1.41 1.14 1.25 1.31 1.39 1.02 1.26 7.17 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 7.26 0.21 1.26 Will require quarterly monitoring PFBS 0.00 3.02 2.72 2.46 2.00 2.38 2.92 2.78 4.70 3.48 1.88 2.58 2.80 4.32 4.26 3.66 4.47 3.54 3.04 4.63 4.99 4.75 4.85 3.56 4.07 GenX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 In addition to the Notice of Violation, sanitary surveys from the DCBCH continually note issues with aging infrastructure. To summarize, the improvement project at the Quaker Hill Water System is needed for the following reasons: • Notice of Violation for MCL PFOS Exceedance • Sanitary Surveys identify issues with the condition of existing equipment • Infrastructure is well past its useful life • Infrastructure is in poor condition • Facilities are subject to flooding • Certain system components do not meet current design standards HI 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.29 0.27 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.22 0.12 0.14 0.16 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-18 Section 1 Project Background & History 1.6 Capacity Development Tighe&Bond financed corrects the technical, managerial, and financial deficiencies. Attached in Appendix D is the completed Capacity Development Program Evaluation Form. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 1-19 Tighe&Bond Section 2 Alternative Analysis 2.1 Alternatives Considered There are two main alternatives to consider for the Quaker Hill Water System including abandonment of the existing wellfield and treatment system and connection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System (HPRWS) or replacement of the existing wellhouse/treatment building with a new system. À summary of the alternatives being considered is below: • Alternative No. 1: • Connect the Quaker Hill Water System to the HPRWS (Route B) • Booster pump station at the North Tank site • Abandon the existing Quaker Hill Wellfield and treatment system • Alternative No. 2: • Install a new treatment building with deep foundation Install new system components including treatment for PFOS Improvements to existing wells Demolish the existing wellhouse/treatment building Site improvements to protect the new facilities from flooding • Alternative No. 3: • No Action A no-action alternative (Alternative No. 3) will be discussed, but given the issues noted ir Section 1.5 of this report, it is not a viable alternative. Rehabilitation of the existinc wellhouse/ treatment building was also considered but found to be infeasible due to the significant settling issues and vulnerability to future flooding. Section 2.5 presents the recommendations for water main improvements in the Quaker Hill Water System. Although not necessary to address the PFAS violation, the water mair improvements should be considered as a second phase to either of the alternatives. A total of 500 feet of water main replacement within the existing Quaker Hill distributior system has been included in each alternative to address the highest priority areas of water main replacement. 2.2 Alternative No. 1 - Interconnection to HPRWS As part of the alternatives analysis to address the PFOS MCL exceedance, the installation of a transmission water main from the HPRWS to replace the impacted water supply for the Quaker Hill Water System was considered. Hydraulic conditions along the alternative interconnection routes were evaluated for water main sizing and the need for pumping and/or pressure reduction. The hydraulic evaluation used both the existing HPRWS hydraulic model (WaterGEMS) and GIS data to develop elevation and pressure profiles along each route. Hydraulic calculations presented utilize the Hazen-Williams equation to calculate headloss, assuming the installed main is cement lined ductile iron pipe with a C-factor of 130 (most conservative in range of values). Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-1 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond The Quaker Hill Water System does not currently provide fire flow. Therefore, the interconnection evaluation considers domestic flows only and recommended sizing does not include fire flow capacity. Three interconnection route alternatives were evaluated: • Route A - Connection to the HPRWS from the 12-inch main in Route 9 at the Prospect Street intersection. (26,300 LF) • Route B - Connection to the HPRWS at the North Storage Tank site via a cross country easement. (25,100 LF) • Route C - Connection to the HPRWS at the North Storage Tank site via Mill Road and Hudson Drive. (35,900 LF) The Route A, Route B, and Route C interconnections are shown in Figure 2-1. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-2 Rumo Station Site (UY7302000) HILL TOP COURT AND SALES ITMENTS, TRIDGE GARDEN RTMENTS 303223) BUGME ROMPAR Y08210260 Quaker Hills Water System Pantain. pumn Statios Site NV280053 LEGEND Surounding PWS ) PWS with PFAS Issues Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA) Approximate Parcel Boundary Tighe&Bond - Proposed Interconnection (Route A) Proposed Interconnection (Route B) Proposed Interconnection (Route C) Existing Quaker Hill Water Main Existing Hyde Park Water Main 1:21,600 :: Town Boundary Disadvantaged Community 900 1,800 FIGURE 2-1 ALTERNATIVE 1 INTERCONNECTION ROUTES Hyde Park - Quaker Hill Interconnection Analysis Hyde Park, New York June 2024 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.2.1 Water Main Sizing Flow from HPRWS to the Quaker Hill Water System was calculated from 2022 daily production in the Quaker Hill system (see Section 1.3.4). Based on 2022 flow data, the maximum day demand of the Quaker Water System is 56,000 gpm (39 gpm) and average day demand is 25,000 gpd (17 gpm). Peak hour demand data for Quaker Hill is unavailable ut estimated to be 4,200 gph (69 gpm). There is potential for connection to additiona PWSs located along each interconnection route. Table 2-1 summarizes the demands for each PWS along the alternative interconnection routes. TABLE 2-1 Summary of Public Water System Demand Max Day Demand? PWS ID NoI PWS Name 1,383,000 gpm Hyde Park Regional (HPRWS) gpd NY1302796 959 NY1302797 Quaker Hill 56,000 39 Route A NY1310664 Hyde Park Mobile Manor Estates 32,000 22 NY1302161 Knots Landing Mobile Home Park 3,400 2 NY1302802 South Crossroad Water Co Inc 74,000 51 NY1321282 Deer Hill Apartments 2,400 2 NY1302130 Hilltop Court and Sales 6,600 5 Route B NY1321980 Country Plaza DC 3,000 NY1316574 Loyal Order Moose #904 Club 1,200 NY1330085 Knights of Columbus - Hyde Park 1,600 NY1302767 Dutchess Estates Inc 64,000 NY1302160 Leigh Manor NY1302158 Ledge Rock Mobile Home Park 2,600 2,800 NY1330402 One Stop Deli 1,600 NY1321926 Thomkins House Apartments 1,200 NY1316165 North Park Elementary School NY1303228 Partridge Garden Apartments 14,200 16,800 NY1316164 Roosevelt High School 49,800 South Crossroad Water CoInc 74,000 NY1321282 Deer Hill Apartments 2,400 NY1302130 Hilltop Court and Sales 6,600 2 1 1 44 2 2 1 1 10 12 35 51 2 5 Route C (All of Route B +) NY1322658 Rock Ledge Plaza 4,200 NY1330622 Lakeview Apartments at Hyde Park 3,600 3 3 Provided by Dutchess County Department of Behavioral and Community Health (DCDBCH) Water system demands were used to calculate the flow along each interconnection route to size the water main for the alternative interconnections. Hydraulic results showed an 8-inch cement lined ductile iron water main is able to maintain reasonable flow velocities Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-4 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond and headloss and is the recommended size to supply domestic flows for all alternatives (Table 2-2). The 8-inch main also provides the shortest residence time to transfer water from the PRWS to Quaker Hill. TABLE 2-2 Water Main Sizing Alternatives Residence Max Velocity (ft/s)! Total Headloss (ft) Time (days)? Quaker Quaker Hill Quaker Hill Quaker Hill Alternative Hill Only + PWSS MDD _ PH Only + PWSs Quaker Hill MDD PH Only Route A 8-inch 0.1 12-inch 0.0 16-inch 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.2 0.6 0.1 5.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 6.3 0.7 11.2 Route B & C3 8-inch 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.6 5.8 20.5 73.6 3.8 12-inch 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 2.3 10.2 8.6 16-inch 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1 0.7 2.5 15.3 1Max Day (MDD) values calculated using on max day flows shown in Table 2-1. Peak hour (PH) values calculated as 2xMDD and assumes all systems experience a simultaneous peak hour. Calculated assuming average day flow in the Quaker Hill PWS and accounts for pipe volume. Does not consider water age entering the interconnection from the HPRWS. 3Values shown are representative of Route C and are conservative for Route B. 2.2.2 Pressure and Pump Station Sizing Operating pressure for each alternative interconnection route was calculated assuming maximum day demand flow and the modeled operating max day hydraulic grade line (HGL) at each alternative connection point to the HPRWS. Route A connects to the existing 12-inch main at the intersection of Route 9 and Prospect Street upstream of the pressure reducing valve (353 ft HGL; 84 psi), Route B connects to an existing 12-inch main near the Loyal Order Moose Club and ultimately at the North Tank Site (354 ft HGL; 44 psi), and Route C connects to the existing 16-inch inlet/outlet main at the North Storage Tank (354 ft HGL; 44 psi). Hydraulic modeling shows that the existing HPRWS is able to supply max day demands to Quaker Hill and the additional PWSs included in Table 2-1 for each route alternative with little to no impact on pressure or velocity in the HPRWS. Elevation and pressure profiles for Route A, Route A with the additional PWSs, Route C, and Route C with the additional PWSs are shown in Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 respectively. Please note that Route B pressure profiles are not presented but are the same as Route C starting at approximately 12,500 LF. Pressure profiles show that pumping will be required to maintain positive pressure along each route. Pump stations were conceptually sited at the former Staatsburg well site parcel at 57 Reservoir Road, Hyde Park, along Route A and at the North Storage Tank parcel at 56 Hudson Drive, Hyde Park, at the beginning of Route B& C. Pressure profiles assuming pumping at these locations are include in Figures 2-2 through 2-5. Each pump station is conceptually sized to boost water to the HGL that will maintain the existing 529 ft nominal HGL in the Quaker Hill Water System. Table 2-3 summarizes the conceptual pump station sizing criteria. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-5 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis 140 120 100 Pressure (psi) 80 20 0 -20 -40 Pump Station Boosting HGL from 353 ft to S30 ft 20 psi COpSi Tighe&Bond 480 360 240 120 Ground Elevation (ft) Distance from Hyde Park System (ft) - Pressure with Pump Station (8-in) ..Pressure without Pump Station (8-in) we Ground Elevation FIGURE 2-2 Route A Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure at Quaker Hill MDD Hyde Park Mobile Manor... South Crossroad Water Co Inc Deer Hill Apartments Knots Landing Mobile Home Park Pump Station Boosting HGL. from 351 ft to 532 ft 140 120 100 80 40 20 - 20 -40 Hilltop Court and Sales 20 psi 480 360 240 Elevation (ft) 120 Ground 1,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 25,000 26,000 Distance from Hyde Park System (ft) ...Pressure with Pamp Station (8-in) PWSs Pressure with Pump Station (8-in) .. Pressure without Pump Station (8-in) _ Ground Elevation FIGURE 2-3 Route A and PWSs Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure at Quaker Hill MDD Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-6 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis 160 140 120 Pump Station Boosting HGL. from 354 ft to 531 ft 2.80 Pressure 40 20 -20 -40 20 psi 0 psi Tighe&Bond 420 360 300 240 180 120 Ground Elevation (ft) 60 14,000 16,000 ,000 ,000 21,000 Distance from Hyde Park System (ft) 26,000 27 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 Pressure without Pump Station (8-in) Pressure with Pump Station (8-in) -m Ground Elevation FIGURE 2-4 Route C Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure at Quaker Hill MDD 160 140 120 100 Pressure (psi) 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 420 Country Plaza DC Knights of Columbus - Thomkins House Apartments Rock Ledge Plaza Hyde Park Leigh Manor Patridge Garden One Stop Deli Apartments f South Crossroa: Pump Station Lakeview Dutchess Estates Water Co inc North Park Boosting HG. fronApartments at inc Elementary School Roosevelt High School 354 ft to 549 ft Loyal Order Hyde Park Moose #904 Ledge Rock Mobile Deer Hill Apartments Club Home Par 360 Hilltop Court and Sales 20 psi 0 psi 300 (ft) 240 tion va 180 B 120 Ground a an one 60 888888888&888 8888888 Distance from Hyde Park System (ft) -Pressure without Pump Station (8-1n)) - Pressure with Pump Station (8-in) PWSs Pressure with Pump Station (8-t0)) - Ground Elevation FIGURE 2-5 Route C and PWSs Elevation Profile and Modeled Operating Pressure at Quaker Hill MDD Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-7 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond TABLE 2-3 Modeled Interconnection Pump Station Sizing for Various Flow Conditions Conceptual Pump Station Sizing Alternative Flow (gpm) TDH (ft) Suction Head Discharge Head (ft) Route A3 ADD - Quaker Hill Only! MDD - Quaker Hill Only! PH - Quaker Hill Only.2 17 39 78 ADD - Quaker Hill + PWSs' MDD - Quaker Hill + PWSs! PH - Quaker Hill + PWSs1,2 242 176 177 183 177 181 201 353 353 350 353 351 342 529 530 533 530 532 543 Route B & C4 ADD - Quaker Hill Only! 17 175 354 MDD - Quaker Hill Only! 39 177 354 PH - Quaker Hill Only1,? 78 181 354 ADD - Quaker Hill + PWSs1 104 180 354 MDD - Quaker Hill + PWSs' 214 195 354 PH - Quaker Hill + PWSs1,2 428 250 353 529 531 535 534 549 603 ADD = Average Day Demand; MDD = Max Day Demand; PH = Peak Hour 2peak Hour demands modeled as 2.0 x MDD. Actual peak hour demands are unknown 3Route A Pump Station modeled at former Staatsburg wellfield site on Reservoir Road (El. 236 ft) 4Route B Pump Station modeled at existing North Storage Tank site (El. 252 ft). Values shown are representative of Route C and are conservative for Route B. A summary of the pressures and elevations of the PWSs along Route A, Route B, and Route C are presented in Table 2-4 below. The table contains elevation, pressure, distance A, Route By and Route C. As scoln in ta be 2-4, the moated pressure at withe or re PWSs is excessive and may require pressure reducing valves at the services. Ouaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-8 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond TABLE 2-4 Elevation and Modeled Pressure at PWS connections along Route A, Route B, and Route C PWS ID PWS Name! Distance from Ground Elevation Pressure No.1 HPRWS (ft) (feet) (psi) Route A NY1310664 NY1302161 NY1302802 NY1321282 NY1302130 NY1302797 Hyde Park Mobile Manor Estates Knots Landing Mobile Home Park South Crossroad Water Co Inc Deer Hill Apartments Hilltop Court and Sales Quaker Hill 11,570 11,900 14,740 15,540 17,660 26,300 261 262 256 291 368 320 117 117 118 103 71 91 Route B & C2 NY1322658 Rock Ledge Plaza 10,020 NY1330622 Lakeview Apartments at Hyde Park 10,510 NY1321980 Country Plaza DC 11,720 NY1316574 Loyal Order Moose #904 Club 12,800 NY1330085 Knights of Columbus - Hyde Park 13,050 NY1302767 Dutchess Estates Inc 14,340 NY1302160 Leigh Manor 16,100 NY1302158 Ledge Rock Mobile Home Park 18,930 NY1330402 One Stop Deli 20,750 NY1321926 Thomkins House Apartments 21,290 NY1316165 North Park Elementary School 21,380 NY1303228 Partridge Garden Apartments 22,410 NY1316164 Roosevelt High School 23,790 NY1302802 South Crossroad Water CoInc 24,310 NY1321282 Deer Hill Apartments 25,010 NY1302130 Hilltop Court and Sales 27,410 NY1302797 Quaker Hill 35,860 237 244 239 237 238 244 238 250 252 247 246 247 251 256 291 368 320 131 128 129 129 129 126 128 122 121 123 123 123 121 119 103 70 91 1 Provided by Dutchess County Department of Behavioral and Community Health (DCDBCH) 2Values shown are representative of Route C and are conservative for Route B. 2.2.3 Interconnection Route Summary The hydraulic evaluation of the interconnection alternatives shows that a new booster ump station will be required for each alternative route, with potential to site the Route / ump station at the former Staatsburg wellfield site and the Route B & C pump station a the existing North Storage Tank site. For each route, 8-inch water mains will be capable of providing domestic supply to the Quaker Hill System with potential for PWSs along the route to connect. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-9 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond Modeling suggests that the HPRWS can provide domestic flows at both connection points with little to no impact on existing system operating conditions. Fire protection is not currently provided in the Quaker Hill System and the interconnection was not sized for fire flow capacity. Table 2-5 summarizes the hydraulic conditions along each route. In general, elevatior along Route A provides more favorable pressure conditions and is shorter resulting ir lower headloss and anticipated lower capital cost. Route B, while longer and having less favorable pressure conditions (high pressure near the HPRWS), provides more opportunity to supply other PWSs, and is considerably shorter than Route C. For this reason, Route B is the recommended route. TABLE 2-5 Summary of Alternative Interconnection Routes Route A Total length (LF) 26,300 Pump station required? Yes Average pressure (psi) 92 Max pressure (psi) 128 Min pressure (ps) 47 No. of additional PWSs that could potentially connect 5 Route B 25,100 Yes 1132 1582 582 14 No. of PWSs w/ PFAS Concerns! 0 Provided by Dutchess County Department of Behavioral and Community Health (DCDBCH) 2Value is representative of Route C and conservative for Route B. Route C 35,860 16 2 It is important to consider that the number of PWSs that have PAS concerns is based upon data provided by DCDBCH which is relative to the previous MCL of 10 ppt. It is anticipated that additional PWSs may have PFAS concerns when considering the new MCL of 4 ppt. 2.2.4 Preliminary Interconnection Design The preliminary design of Alternative No. 1 includes the following design considerations and assumptions: • Route B interconnection layout as shown in Figure 2-1 • 8-inch HDPE DR11 water main (sized for Quaker Hill + PWS domestic flows only, not sized for fire flow) • Water mains installed primarily via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) beneath the paved section of the ROW. Assumed quantities of HDD water main installation through different soil conditions are shown below and have been estimated based on NRCS soil mapping: • 12,740 linear feet through loam soils • 2,530 linear feet through soft rock soils • 9,420 linear feet through hard rock soils • Flushing hydrants every 500 feet • Gate valves every 1,000 feet • No service connections at the other PWSs (Quaker Hill only) • Replacement of 500 feet of water main within the existing Quaker Hill distribution system with new 8-inch HDPE DR11 water main Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-10 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond • Prefabricated booster pump station at the North Tank site Installed on a concrete frost wall with spread footing foundation (assumed no deep foundation is needed) • Shipped fully assembled, factory pre-piped and wired HVAC system included with package Triplex pump arrangement with VFDs, each of the pumps sized for 50% of eak hourly demand of the Quaker Hill System plus a Jockey pump sizec for 40% of the maximum day demand. The pump station will also have provisions and room for future pumps that could be added when other PWSs connect to the system. • Standby generator and ATS included in booster pump station package • Brick exterior finish • New 3 phase electric service at the North Tank site • Minor site grading/access improvements at the booster pump station • Pressure sensor, PLC and cellular radio to relay pressure at Quaker Hill to the booster pump station Other water main materials that could be considered include Class 52 cement lined ductile iron and C900 polyviny| chloride (PVC) DR21 (200 psi) pipe. However, given the long length of water main, limited number of services, and to minimize disturbance and restoration costs, we believe HDPE piping installed via HDD will be the most cost effective option for the interconnection. 2.3 Alternative No. 2 - Replace Water Treatment System As part of the alternatives analysis to address the PFOS MCL exceedance and issues with the existing Quaker Hill facilities, the replacement of the Quaker Hill Water Treatment System was considered. This alternative generally includes the following: • New treatment building on a deep foundation • Pre-filtration system and adsorptive media contactors for removal of PFAS • New atmospheric water storage tanks and service pumps • Spent backwash tank and backwash pumps • Sodium hypochlorite feed system • New well pumps and piping • New instrumentation and controls • New generator and electrical components • HVAC and plumbing in the new treatment building • Site improvements to protect the new facilities from flooding • Demolition of the existing wellhouse/treatment building • Replacement of 500 feet of water main within the existing Quaker Hill distribution system with new 8-inch HDPE DR11 water main More details regarding the individual components are provided in the sub-sections below. A process flow diagram of the proposed system is shown in Figure 2-6. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-11 Building Backwash Recycle Raw Water from Well 1 Raw Water from Well 2 GAC GAC Pre- Filtration Pressure Tanks Distribution Back- Triplex Service Jockey wash Pumps Pump Pump 0880} Water Storage Tank Backwash Tank Overflow to Grade To Waste Run-to-Waste Sodium Hypochlorite Water Storage Tank Overflow to Grade QUAKER HILL PFOS VIOLATION REMEDY HYDE PARK, NY PROPOSED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM DATE: SCALE: FIGURE: JUNE 2024 1" = 40' Tighe&Bond 2-6 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.3.1 PFAS Treatment Treatment strategies for PFAS in drinking water include proven, commercially available technologies as well as emerging technologies. Commercially available technologies that have been demonstrated at full scale to reduce concentrations of PFAS in drinking water include the following: • Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) • Anion Exchange (AIX) resin • Novel Sorbents (e.g., Fluoro-Sorb) • Nanofiltration (NF) and Reverse Osmosis (RO) species once the media has been flushed and conditioned. NF/RO systems utilize membrane filtration to remove all ionic species from the influent flow. While they can be designed with multiple stages to increase permeate recovery, NF/RO systems create a continuous waste stream. This is problematic in unsewered areas such as the Quaker Hill Water System. Additionally, because NF/RO membranes remove ionic species indiscriminately, they often require downstream treatment processes to restore alkalinity and mineral content for corrosion control. They also are prone to fouling and many systems require extensive upstream pre-treatment. For these reasons, NF/RO was eliminated from further consideration as an alternative. GAC and AIX resin are both effective at removing PFAS, but have unique design, operation, and performance characteristics. GAC has been used extensively in drinking water applications for decades and is the most studied and used treatment method for PFAS systems in the United States. With GAC media, PFAS are adsorbed in the pore spaces of the media particles. Since the pore spaces aren't selective, the GAC will adsorb a variety of other contaminants, particularly organic matter, which can reduce its lifespan as adsorption sites become occupied more rapidly. In an ion exchange process, the target contaminant is exchanged with a non-toxic compound on the surface of the resin bead - for PFAS treatment it is chloride ions that are transferred to the treated water. Novel Sorbents have gained more attention in the past 1-2 years as alternatives to GAC or AIX resin. Fluoro-sorb 200, manufactured by Colloid Environmental Technologies Company (CETCO), is a bentonite clay-based product with a surface modification making it effective at PFAS adsorption, while being more resistant to chlorine and other competing organic substances than GAC. Another novel sorbent, DEXSorb, is a corn-based media developed by Cyclopure. Although novel sorbents appear promising, there are relatively few full-scale municipal drinking water applications. A summary of the adsorptive media technologies is provided in Table 2-6. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-13 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond TABLE 2-6 Summary of Adsorptive Media Technologies for PFAS Removal Advantages Considerations • Proven technology at full-scale, many • Larger full scale filters, larger successful installations building footprint • Lower unit-cost basis • Competition from background • Can operate as "filter-adsorber" organics can reduce performance, longevity GAC • Startup requires high rate backwashing, large rinse wate AIX • Breakthrough driven by short chain PFAS • Smaller full-scale filters, smaller building • Removal rate for long chain PFAS footprint molecules is not as efficient • More effective at removal of short-chain compared to other media PFAS than GAC • Presence of DOC and organic • No backwashing - less rinse water material can impact adsorption required for startup/conditioning than of PFAS GAC (requires high-purity source water) • Higher unit-cost basis • Cannot withstand exposure to chlorine or other oxidants • Relatively new media with limited full-scale installations for PFAS removal • Potential for higher PFAS capacity than Novel Sorbents GAC • More resilient to interference from organics and other co-contaminants • Lower Empty Bed Contact Times than GAC • More resilient to chlorine than GAC For the conceptual Quaker Hill PFAS treatment design, we have assumed a GAC system will be used. GAC media is a well-known adsorbent for organics and has been widely applied in water treatment. Although it has the largest footprint requirement due to higher empty bed contact time (EBCT) requirements, the media itself is much cheaper on a unit- cost-basis, and GAC systems are more resilient to fouling because they can be backwashed and employed as "filter-adsorbers" whereby the lead filter protects a polishing vessel from fouling agents. Furthermore, pressure vessels are now being fabricated with underdrains and distributors that make them adaptable to use of multiple media types. Thus, using a GAC system as the model for this alternatives analysis will produce a conservative estimate to which value engineering concepts may be applied in subsequent design phases. Process selection (including GAC media selection) is typically confirmed through demonstration testing (bench or pilot testing) to account for the unique characteristics of the source water. The primary design criteria for GAC contactors are the design flow rate, EBCT - which is the time the water is in contact with the media, and surface loading rate. Backwash loading rates and durations are also important design considerations. The design conditions for the Quaker Hill GAC design are shown in Table 2-7. These design conditions are based on the AWWA WITAF 56 Technical Memorandum and Tighe & Bond's experience. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-14 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond TABLE 2-7 GAC System Design Criteria Component Design Flow Rate Surface Loading Rate Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) No. of Contactors Contactor Type Vessel Configuration Backwash Headspace Backwash Loading Rate Backwash Duration Backwash Frequency No. of Backwash Cycles Stored Value Units 100 gpm 6 gpm/sqft 10 min 2 Pressure Vessel Dual Stage 30% 12 gpm/sqft 20 min TBD 1 cycles Based on the design criteria shown in Table 2-7, the Quaker Hill GAC system would consist of two GAC pressure vessels, each 6 feet in diameter with approximately 10 feet sidewall tank height. Total tank height with floor supports would be approximately 12 feet. Each vessel would contain approximately 135 cubic feet of GAC media. The GAC contactors would be installed in a dual stage arrangement. This arrangement would allow simultaneous production during media replacement and would allow sampling between vessels to monitor breakthrough of the lead vessel. With this arrangement, the lead vessel can remain in service until the media is completely exhausted, leading to high utilization of the adsorbent media. The dual stage arrangement includes built in redundancy as either the lead or lag vessel can be removed from service without reducing the treatment flow rate. Thus, no dedicated redundant vessels would be provided. There will be a valve tree with butterfly valves between the lead and lag contactors. The valves will be manually operated and allow for operators to switch the lead and lag vessels, isolate the lead and lag vessels, run the vessels to waste, and backwash the vessels. 2.3.2 Pre-filtration No raw water sample data was reviewed as part of this conceptual design. However, it has assumed that a pre-filtration system such as a bag filter or cartridge filter system will be installed upstream of the GAC contactors to prevent buildup of particulates which during che final design pase to see the mos appropriate prefigation te be leg. med pre-filtration trains will be installed to allow continuous operation while the filters are being 2.3.3 Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium hypochlorite will be injected into the flow downstream of the GAC contactors for disinfection. For the conceptual design, it has been assumed that a sodium hypochlorite system consisting of the following components will be installed: • HDPE spill containment pallet • Polyethylene (PE) storage tank vented to the exterior • Two diaphragm type chemical metering pumps Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-15 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond • PE injection tubing in a PVC containment pipe w/ retractable injection quill It has been assumed that finished water will be piumbed close to the polyethylene storage tank to allow operators to mix the sodium hypochlorite solution. In addition, a tepid water eyewash/safety shower will also be installed near the sodium hypochlorite equipment. 2.3.4 Water Storage In addition to meeting peak demands, having adequate storage will be important for the new treatment facility since it will provide a source of water to backwash/rinse media. Three are three options for water storage at Quaker Hill: • Replace the existing hydropneumatic tank • Install atmospheric storage with pumps • Install an elevated water storage tank Although 10 State Standards states that hydropneumatic tanks are acceptable for very small water systems (less than 150 living units), large hydropneumatic tanks are generally considered a safety hazard and best engineering practice is to avoid large hydropneumatic tanks in system designs, when feasible. The only property currently owned by the DCWWA that could be used for elevated storage is the treatment facility parcel which has limited room and significant geotechnical challenges. Elevated storage would likely not be cost effective due to the poor subsurface conditions at the site and would also be very visible. Therefore, we recommend that the existing hydropneumatic tank be replaced with new above grade atmospheric storage that meets 10 State Standards. 10 State Standards says that the minimum storage capacity for systems not providing fire protection shall be equal to the average daily consumption (25,000 gpd for Quaker Hill). However, 10 State Standards says that this requirement can be reduced when the source and treatment facilities have sufficient capacity with standby power to supplement peak demands of the system. The proposed system will have standby power and reported capacity with the largest well out of service is 157,000 gpd (see Section 1.4.3). Therefore, the storage for the Quaker Hill Water System could be less than 25,000 gallons per day and still be in compliance with 10 State Standards. As discussed in Section 2.3.5, approximately 5,000 gallons of finished water will be required for a typical backwash and more during initial backwash processing. The backwash volume should be considered in the water storage tank sizing. Tighe & Bond recommends a minimum of 20,000 gallons of storage for the Quaker Hill Water System. We recommend the 20,000 gallons of storage is accomplished by installing two 10,000 gallon polyethylene atmospheric storage tanks. The dimensions of a 10,000 gallon PE storage tank are approximately 11'-10" in diameter and 14'-1" tall. Installing two 10,000 gallon tanks instead of a single 20,000 gallon tank will allow for the building height to be shorter and allow redundancy for when the tanks are eventually replaced. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-16 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond The new atmospheric water storage tanks will be vented, have an overflow to grade, ano have bulkheads for service pump suction piping. All tank appurtenances should be designed in accordance with 10 State Standards. The existing Quaker Hill Water System has been documented to provide treatment to achieve log-4 inactivation with free chlorine based on a peak flow of 60 gpm and naintaining a 0.8 mg/L free residual at the entry point tap. The new system is anticipatec to also achieve log-4 inactivation as there will be more storage, and the atmospheric storage tanks have a higher available volume factor and baffle factor compared to the existing hydropneumatic tank. 2.3.5 Spent Backwash Water Management GAC systems require extensive backwashing and rinsing when virgin media is installed to remove fines and rinse residual metals from the media surfaces (e.g., arsenic and iron). Additionally, systems may require backwashing of the lead filter vessel if there are particulates or mineral concentrations (Fe/Mn) that precipitate out over time causing differential pressure to build. In the past, backwashing of adsorptive media contactors was discouraged because it was believed to disrupt the mass-transfer-zone, mixing "spent" media with "fresh" media and making contaminant breakthrough less predictable. This belief has been found to be invalid and GAC is often used as a filter-adsorber, where backwashing occurs more frequently to prevent differential pressure buildup. For high- purity water sources, the media may only require a low-rate backwash annually or semi- annually to "fluff" the bed. A more thorough review of the raw water quality is necessary to estimate the degree to which backwashing will be required at the Quaker Hill Water System. At a minimum, extensive backwashing will be required any time new media gets installed. As shown in Table 2-7, the anticipated backwash rate of each pressure vessel is as high as 12 gpm/sqft (depending on water temperature). This equates to a backwash flow rate of 236 gpm. Backwashing at 236 gpm for 20 minutes equates to a backwash volume of approximately 4,800 gallons per backwash. The backwash is then followed by rinsing/conditioning step, which is described in more detail in Section 2.3.13. If routine backwashing (say monthly) will be required, integrating a spent backwash water storage tank and recycling system will reduce lost water and simplify operations. Accounting for freeboard within the tank, a nominal spent backwash storage volume of 6,000 gallons is recommended for such a system. We have assumed the spent backwash storage tank will also be a PE tank. The dimensions of a 6,000 gallon PE storage tank are approximately 10'-0" in diameter and 12'-1" tall. In some cases, backwash and rinse water may be directed to a dewatering filter bag where it is allowed to permeate and discharge over the ground surface. This is unlikely to be permitted for Quaker Hill due to its proximity to surface water and wetlands. Therefore, either a permanent spent backwash water tank as described in this section must be installed or operators must coordinate for a frac tank to collect and haul the backwash water away. Note that the backwash water should not have any dissolved PFAS compounds since they will have adsorbed to the media. The fines, however, will need to be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. These can typically be collected as part of the spent media extraction process by the GAC supplier. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-17 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond At present, there are no wastewater regulations for PFAS and most sewered systems allow the discharge from frac tanks into their system as it represents a small fraction of their rated capacity and domestic flows. The spent backwash tank would be vented, have an overflow to grade, a drain valve, and a lid to allow for periodic removal of accumulated media. A submersible pump will be installed inside the spent backwash tank and suspended approximately 18 inches above the bottom. The submersible pump will recycle the decant water to the head of the treatment system. 2.3.6 Pumping he head condition for the well pumps will change since they will no longer be pumping nto the hydropneumatic tank but will be pumping though the pre-filtration system an the GAC vessels to the atmospheric storage tanks. Because of the change in head condition and since the existing well pumps are beyond their useful life, we recommend replacement of the existing well pumps, discharge piping, and electrical wires and controls. New service pumps will be required to pump the water from the atmospheric storage tanks into the distribution system. The pumps will be controlled to maintain pressure within the distribution system. We anticipate the use of two 500 gallon air bladder pressure tanks, triplex service pumps with variable frequency drives (VFDs), and a jockey pump to handle low flow conditions in the system. As discussed in Section 2.3.5, a submersible pump will be installed inside the spent backwash tank and suspended approximately 18-inches above the bottom. The submersible pump will recycle the decant water to the head of the treatment system. 2.3.7 Instrumentation & Control All new instrumentation and controls should be provided for the Quaker Hill Water System. The anticipated new instrumentation includes: • Individual well level monitoring transducers • Individual well flow meters • Pressure gauges/switches to monitor headloss through pre-filtration system and GAC vessels • Water storage tank level sensors • Backwash tank level sensor and backwash flow meter • Sodium hypochlorite tank level sensor • Finished water flow meter • System pressure sensor • Door security switches • Pump controls • Control panel • Chlorine analyzer • Security cameras Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-18 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.3.8 Water Treatment Building Based on the subsurface conditions expected at the site (see Section 1.2.2), the following are critical geotechnical considerations for construction at the site. Additional subsurface explorations are needed as design advances. • Subsurface conditions are unsuitable for support of the proposed treatment building and tank/generator pad on conventional shallow soil-supported foundations. These structures should be supported on deep foundations. The treatment building should be supported on deep foundations with associated pile caps, grade beams and a structural slab. Deep foundations should be piles bearing on the dense gravelly sand with silt or underlying bedrock at around 41 feet bgs. Piles could consist of driven timber piles or steel H-piles, or other suitable pile types. It is expected that the building loads will be relatively low and therefore timber piles are expected to be an effective pile type. • Limited subsurface information and laboratory testing is available for evaluation of the existing organics layer with respect to estimating settlements at the site. However, the available data suggests that compression of the organics on the order of 10 inches could occur as a result of placement of 3 feet of fill across the site for raising site grades. Similarly, placement of 1 foot of fill across the site could result in settlement on the order of 4 inches. Therefore, placement of fill at the site should be minimized to the extent possible. However, since placement of fill at the site will be necessary to provide dry access during a flood event, an approach than can be considered is to surcharge the site with a preload. The preload would generally consist of placement of fill across the site to some elevation above the planned finished grades (fill to 2 feet above the proposed finished grade, for example, settlements resulting from the fill would be monitored, and then once settlement monitoring indicates that settlements reached asymptotic conditions, the additional fill could be removed from the site to the target finished grades. Additional information would be needed to estimate the duration of preloading, but generally it would be expected that the surcharging program would require multiple months to consolidate the organics. It should be expected that long-term settlement from the organics will occur as a result of secondary compression and organics degradation, whether or not additional fill is placed over the site. The magnitude of settlement from secondary compression and organics degradation is not known, but it is anticipated that approximately 1 to 2 inches of settlement would occur over 30 years. • Installation of utilities through areas underlain by organics should consider the effects of long-term settlements. Based on the geotechnical considerations discussed above, we recommend that the new treatment building is supported by a deep foundation bearing on the dense gravelly sand with silt or underlying bedrock at around 41 feet bgs. The deep foundation will be designed to support the new loads inside the water treatment building including the water storage tanks, spent backwash tank, GAC vessels, and the building structure itself. We also recommend that the propane tanks and generator are installed on a concrete pad supported by a deep foundation. Schematic phase design for the treatment building and equipment pad foundations includes the following: Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-19 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond • Timber piles spaced at 9 ft oc (+/-) throughout the treatment building footprint and exterior equipment pad (47 total piles) • Reinforced concrete for pile caps/grade beams, foundation walls, and reinforced • Backfill interior of the building 5 feet in height • Exterior grade beams to 4 feet below exterior grade, consisting of 2.5 ft wide, 2 ft height beams • Exterior walls exposed up to 6 ft above exterior grade, total height 8 ft (6 ft above grade, 2 ft below grade to top of grade beam), 1.5 ft thick • Interior grade beams 2 ft thick, 2.5 ft wide • Slab assumed 12 inches thick • Exterior equipment mat 2.5 feet thick • Volume of soil backfill interior of building to achieve elevated floor slab equal to building footprint × 5 ft fill height (6 ft filling less 1 ft thick slab) We anticipate that the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the new treatment building will be approximately 6 feet above the FFE of the existing treatment building for compliance with 10 State Standards to protect the system from flooding. An aluminum staircase and landing will be provided for access into the building with double man doors. Overhead coiling doors will be located on the west and north sides of the building to facilitate future equipment removal. Removable guardrails will be installed on the interior side of the overhead door openings to meet safety requirements for fall protection. Figure 2-7 shows a conceptual layout of the system components and size of the building. As shown in Figure 2-7, the preliminary building size is 34' X 54' with a 18' side wall height. The building superstructure will consist of concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls with a 4-inch masonry veneer. The cavity walls will be designed and detailed to meet the in- force energy code requirements. A gabled roof will be constructed of timber roof trusses with asphalt shingle roofing. We anticipated one interior room for electrical/controls and storage space. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-20 34'-0" 14' WIDE OVERHEAD DOOR (TYP OF 2) 10,000 GAL WATER STORAGE TANK 500 GAL PRESSURE TANK (TYP OF 2) CONTROL PANEL VI 10,000 GAL WATER STORAGE TANK - JOCKEY PUMP Boog 6,000 GAL SPENT BACKWASH TANK BACKWASH PUMP SERVICE PUMPS (TYP OF 3) EYEWASH/ SAFETY SHOWER ELECTRICAL/CONTROL ROOM • STAIRS AND LANDING - 54'-0" ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 10' SCALE: 1" = 10' 20' : - 12' WIDE OVERHEAD DOOR - REMOVABLE HANDRAIL (TYP) PRE-FILTER (TYP OF 2) GAC GAC GAC CONTACTOR (TYP OF 2) CMU WALLS WITH BRICK VENEER, SIDE WALL HEIGHT 18' CONCRETE SLAB SUPPORTED ON DEEP FOUNDATION, FINISH FLOOR APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET ABOVE EXIST GRADE SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM QUAKER HILL PFOS VIOLATION REMEDY HYDE PARK, NY PRELIMINARY WATER TREATMENT BUILDING LAYOUT DATE: JUNE 2024 SCALE: 1' = 10' Tighe&Bond FIGURE: Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.3.9 Site Improvements Figure 2-8 shows the preliminary site layout. As shown, the proposed building would be located south of the existing wellhouse/treatment building and the generator and propane tank equipment pad would be located west of the existing treatment building. Clearing and grubbing will be required for construction of the building and other site improvements. The existing generator and propane tank will need to be temporarily relocated during construction. The existing treatment building and components will need to be maintained during construction until the new system is commissioned. The new treatment building is to be located far enough from the existing building to provide sufficient room for construction, while also maintaining access to the existing wellhouse/treatment building. The existing hydropneumatic tank, treatment building, and generator/propane tank will be demolished once the new system is commissioned. To provide dry access to the treatment building entrance during a flood event, the access drive approaching the west side of the treatment building will need to be raised approximately 2-3 feet. This will require fill and preloading as discussed in Section 2.3.8. Since the north side of the building does not need to be accessed during a flood event, we anticipate that the grade will slope down to the north to approximately match existing grades. Therefore, the finished floor elevation on the north side of the building will be approximately 5-6 feet above finished grade. This will minimize the amount of fill and preloading that is required. The access drive in the ROW will be widened to a minimum of 15 feet for equipment access. The finished surface for the access drive and area around the treatment building will be paved as shown in Figure 2-8. The generator and propane tank mat will be at grade with individual equipment pads to elevate the generator and propane tanks at least 3 feet above the FFE of the existing water treatment building to protect from flooding. Bollards will be installed to protect the equipment from accidental vehicle strikes. Existing Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 will need to be tied over to the new treatment building one at a time once the new system is ready for start-up. The finished water from the new treatment building will connect to the existing 6-inch water main below the access drive and the old water main going to the existing wellhouse/treatment building will be capped and abandoned. We recommend flexible pipe connections at wall penetrations through the new treatment building foundation due to the potential long term settlement of the fill around the treatment plant as discussed in Section 2.3.8. Other miscellaneous site improvements include the following: • Security fencing and gates • Tree trimming along the access road • Water storage tank overflows and filter-to-waste lines run to a rip rap apron towards Fall Kill Creek • Replace Well No. 1 • Extending the well casing for Well No. 2 with new pitless adapter • Concrete secondary containment pad for spill containment during media changeout Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-22 N OVERHEAD DOORS (TYP OF 3) BOLLARD (TYP) 6" WATER MAIN NEW GENERATOR AND (2) 1,000 GAL PROPANE TANKS ON CONCRETE PAD SUPPORTED BY DEEP FOUNDATION CUT AND CAP EXIST 6" WATER MAIN 6" INSERTION VALVE 6" WET TAP EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN DEMOLISH EXIST BURIED HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK DEMOLISH EXIST FENCE NEW PAVED PARKING- AND SITE ACCESS DEMOLISH EXISTING WELLHOUSE/TREATMENT BUILDING WELL NO. 1 OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SERVICE TEMP RELOCATE EXISTING GENERATOR AND PROPANE TANK DURING CONSTRUCTION, THEN DEMOLISH WELL NO. 2 CONNECT WELL NO. 1 AND WELL NO. 2 TO NEW TREATMENT BUILDING NEW BELOW GRADE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TANK OVERFLOW AND GAC-TO-WASTE ROUTED TO RIP RAP APRON NEAR FALL KILL CREEK CLEAR AND GRUB FOR EXPANDED SITE FOOTPRINT AND TREATMENT BUILDING SECURITY FENCING NEW 34' X 54' CMU TREATMENT BUILDING ON DEEP FOUNDATION, SEE NOTE 1 QUAKER HILL PFOS VIOLATION REMEDY HYDE PARK, NY 40' SCALE: 1" = 40' 80' NOTES 1. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION (FFE) OF NEW TREATMENT BUILDING SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET ABOVE FFE OF EXISTING TREATMENT BUILDING. ACCESS DRIVE SHALL BE RAISED APPROXIMATELY 2-3 FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE ALONG WEST SIDE OF PROPOSED TREATMENT BUILDING TO PROVIDE ACCESS DURING FLOOD EVENT, SLOPE GRADE AWAY FROM NEW TREATMENT BUILDING IN ALL DIRECTIONS TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. PRELIMINARY SITE LAYOUT DATE: JUNE 2024 SCALE: 1" = 40 FIGURE: 2-8 Tighe&Bond Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.3.10 Process Piping The well discharge piping from Well No. 1 and Well No. 2 will enter the new treatment uilding and transition to Schedule 80 PVC piping. It is assumed that all interior proces iping will be Schedule 80 PVC and that the piping will be supported through a combinatio of ground, wall, and overhead supports. The process piping following the service pumps will transition to ductile iron before leaving the building and eventually connecting to the existing 6-inch water main. Sample taps will be installed at various locations in the process piping between the different process components. 2.3.11 HVAC, Plumbing, and Electrical Electric unit heaters will maintain space temperature in the proposed treatment building. A dehumidifier will operate based on incoming water temperature to reduce condensatior on surfaces. The building will be ventilated intermittently with 0.25 cfm/sqft during winter and 1cfm/sqft during summer. A programmable timeclock will enable the system twice daily to flush out potential build-up of chemical fumes. A manual switch allows operation in continuous ventilation mode if needed. The heating system will be sized to maintain space temperature during winter at low airflow operation only. An emergency eyewash and safety shower will be installed near the chemical system. Code requires tempered water for emergency fixtures to be between 60°F and 100°F. A condensing tankless propane fired water heater will provide sufficient water in this temperature range. Propane for the water heater and a standby generator will be stored in two (2) 1000 gallon above ground tanks. The tanks shall be monitored by the supplier to assure fill levels are maintained at 60% during periods below +10°F. This fill level is required to provide sufficient evaporation down to - 5°F. To support the building loads during a loss of normal power, a 60kW propane generator with a 260A ATS and a propane tank will be provided. A new electric service is required for the treatment building. We have assumed that a new underground electric service will be installed for the new building and the old service will be removed. The conduits for the new service will be horizontal directional drilled (HDD) beneath the wetland to avoid the maintenance issues with the existing overhead utilities (see Section 1.4.3). The new electrical service will be a 250A, 208V 3PH to support the mechanical loads, required building HVAC, lights, and receptacles. A new electrical meter, 250A service entrance-rated enclosed circuit breaker, and panelboard will be installed for the building loads. A motor control/SCADA panel will be provided for the new well pumps, treatment system, and associated instrumentation. Motor starter/disconnect will be provided for motor loads not supported from a VFD. 2.3.12 Waste Generation and Removal Exhausted GAC media will be saturated with PFAS. Bulk GAC can be reactivated by the media supplier through thermal treatment at high temperatures to remove and destroy adsorbed contaminants. This reactivation process restores the media's adsorptive capacity. However, this process will not remove all the compounds and will not destroy the PFAS compounds; therefore, reactivation is not appropriate for GAC utilized for PFAS Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-24 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond removal. Thus, the spent GAC from the Quaker Hill Water System will need to be periodically removed and replaced with virgin GAC. Disposal alternatives for spent GAC include disposal by reactivation for industrial reuse (media suppliers may not accept the low volumes of GAC required for small systems) incineration, and landfilling. The cost of each disposal method depends on the proximit to disposal sites and volume of material. Disposal costs can be a significant operation cost for GAC treatment systems. On April 19, 2024, the EPA finalized a rule which designates PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. The designation is expected to limit the disposal sites willing to accept spent GAC media. Many GAC suppliers have incineration/regeneration facilities capable of PFAS destruction and incorporate the cost for disposal in their estimates. We will confirm that unit-cost quotations used for media purchase/replacement reflect the additional expense for disposal. If the quotes do not reflect the disposal cost, we will estimate the cost to dispose at a landfill. There will be a small quantity of GAC that accumulates in the bottom of the spent backwash tank. This media should be removed annually or semi-annually. The pre- filtration filters will need to be changed regularly and properly disposed of. There are no other anticipated waste streams. 2.3.13 GAC Start-up Considerations There are a few aspects of starting up GAC systems that should be discussed, including: • Soaking requirements • Backwash requirements • Forward Flow Media Conditioning • pH Adjustment Period • Arsenic Flush • Disinfection Soaking Requirements When new GAC is added to a vessel it is relatively dry and void spaces and pore spaces are filled with air. Soaking allows the water to diffuse into the voids and pores and displace the entrained air. Because GAC surfaces are hydrophobic, it takes a reasonably long time to wet the carbon pores and displace the air. Soaking times depend on ambient temperatures and specifics of the carbon media but generally soaking requires about 48 to 72 hours. The vessel should be slowly filled in upflow mode to begin the soaking period and then let the water sit in the vessel. Raw water can be used for soaking. Backwash Requirements After soaking, the GAC media needs to be backwashed to displace all the entrapped air, remove carbon fines, and stratify the bed. Stratification allows the larger carbon particles to settle to the bottom of the vessel and provide vertical particle size distribution. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-25 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond Recommended backwash procedures upon start-up vary from vendor to vendor but generally include a slow ramp-up period, a full rate backwash period, and a ramp down period. This initial backwash procedure is longer than the typical operating backwash procedure. The backwash water can be captured in frac tanks and hauled away, captured then recycled, discharged to a pre-treatment and sediment control system for conveyance to ground surface, or a combination thereof. In the treatment system described above, we have assumed a spent backwash storage andred deserter it formed oring water data suggests the desk home e eliminate the spent backwash tank from the design and use the other approaches described above. Forward Flow Media Conditioning GAC media will create high pH conditions and can leach some trace metals (arsenic, iron) for periods after initial soaking. Operators must run the system in forward flow "filter-to- waste" mode at the design flow rate for a significant amount of time until field measurements and/or laboratory samples indicate the water meets drinking water standards. The following sections provide a basis for how to address the two primary parameters of concern - pH and arsenic. pH Adjustment Period The start-up of GAC systems often exhibit unacceptable increases in pH, often above 10 standard units (SU). The pH of the forward flow effluent can be elevated above allowable drinking water standards for 50 to 500 bed volumes. One bed volume for the proposed Quaker Hill GAC vessels is approximately 135 cubic feet or about 1,000 gallons. Therefore, the pH adjustment period for each GAC vessel may take anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 gallons. The pH, while high for drinking water purposes, poses relatively little threat to vegetation and can be discharged to ground where space is available and where permitted to do so. A riprap apron, sediment dewatering bag, or other methods can be used to prevent erosion and limit environmental impacts. We have assumed that a "filter-to-waste" line will discharge to grade at a rip rap apron towards Fall Kill Creek during the pH adjustment period. This outfall will be subject to a NYS DEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, and we have assumed that neutralization will be required before discharging to grade. The filter-to- waste procedure during the pH adjustment period may require a standard operating procedure to waste at a slow flow rate to prevent localized flooding due to the poorly draining nature of the area. If the outfall is not permittable, then frac tanks will need to be used until the pH has required during the pH adjustment period for each vessel. Arsenic Flush Most GAC media contains some arsenic. As such, when GAC media is placed on-line, there is a high likelihood that leachable arsenic present on the activated carbon surface can be transferred to the liquid and end up in the drinking water. Thus, a flush of the GAC to waste is often required. The arsenic levels are usually reduced in a much lower number of Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-26 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond bed volumes (20 to 100 BVs) compared to the number of bed volumes required during the pH adjustment period. Therefore, storing the initial flush (e.g., first 20-50 BVs) with the remaining flushed water can lead to concentrations that fall below enforceable limits This can be achieved through a large frac tank or equalization tank for collecting the first 20-50 BVs of water, then running to ground for the rest of the rinse/conditioning period until pH stabilizes. Alternatively, GAC manufacturers are now producing pre-rinsed products with much lower residual arsenic concentrations to address this problem. These products (e.g., Calgon Filtrasorb®-01) are pre-treated and have effluent arsenic concentrations below 2 ppb immediately upon startup. They do, however, carry a cost-premium over conventional coal-based GAC products. For the operational cost estimate presented in Section 2.6, we have assumed that standard (not pre-rinsed) GAC media will be used and up to three frac tanks will be needed to capture the initial flush. Disinfection Disinfection of empty adsorption vessels, piping, and other equipment should be achieved through chlorination through standard AWWA procedures. After the GAC is installed, soaked, backwashed, and flushed as described above, the system needs to be checked for the presence of bacteria via a rinsing procedure before being placed into service. Rinsing should be performed at the design flow rate that corresponds to an EBCT of 10 minutes. Two bacteriological samples shall be collected from the GAC effluent after the rinsing period. If the vessel fails the bacteriological tests, it will require disinfection using sodium hydroxide. The vessel will need to be retested until disinfection is successful. 2.4 Alternative No. 3 - No Action The "no action" alternative means that no improvements are made at the existing water treatment plant and that no interconnection to the Hyde Park Regional Water System will be installed. The no action alternative is unacceptable as it does not address the notice of violation or public health risks associated with PFAS as noted in Section 1.5 of this report. 2.5 Phase 2 - Quaker Hill Distribution System Improv. Due to the poor water main installation practices including shallow depth of installation and lack of pipe bedding, the Quaker Hill water system continues to experience a significant number of water main failures that are difficult to locate and repair. Based on the reported installation conditions and the history of water main failures, water main As per the 2014 Report, installation of customer water meters to quantify actual customer usage is still recommended and will be useful in determining the actual volume of lost water in the system. Therefore, we recommend the following distribution system improvements are implemented for the Quaker Hill Water system as Phase 2, after the PFAS violation is addressed: Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-27 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond • Installation of new 8" HDPE water mains for the entire system • New flushing hydrants, valves, and air releases • Re-connect all services • Flow meters for each service connection 2.6 Opinion of Probable Cost 2.6.1 Cost Estimate Approach Conceptual opinions of probable costs (OPC) have been prepared for each of the viable alternatives discussed in Section 2.2 and 2.3. The opinion of probable cost includes the following components: 1. Construction Cost: The budgetary cost estimates are based on Class 4 level construction cost estimates, as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International Recommended Practices and Standards. According to AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards, the estimate class designators are labeled Class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, where a Class 5 estimate is based on the lowest level of project definition and a Class 1 estimate is closest to full project definition and maturity. The end usage for a Class 4 estimate is a conceptual study. The expected accuracy range of a Class 4 estimate is between +40% and -25%. The level of project definition for a Class 4 estimate is between 1% and 15%. The costs include overhead and profit, equipment costs, demolition/removal of existing equipment (if applicable), temporary provisions (if applicable), facilities and bypasses (if necessary, to complete the work), property acquisition (if applicable), easements, and costs regarding installation and start- up of improvements. This cost also includes a 5% mobilization/demobilization cost factor, and a contractor general conditions cost factor of 15% of the construction subtotal. The costs are based upon recently completed project bid forms, quotes from equipment manufacturers/vendors, and data contained in R.S. Means Construction Cost Data. 2. Engineering (20%): A 20% contingency has been applied to the estimated construction costs for the engineering fees. The 20% for engineering fees can generally be broken down further as: Engineering Design (8%) and Construction Administration/Observation (12%). 3. Contingency (30%): A 30% general contingency has been applied to the estimated construction costs. This contingency is in-line with the current level of project definition. 4. Escalation (4%/year): A 4% per year cumulative escalation has been applied to the estimated construction costs. This escalation accounts for changes in construction costs from the time this estimate was developed (2024) to the time the project is anticipated to be constructed (2027). 5. Total Project Costs: The total project costs are the sum of the construction costs, engineering costs, contingency, and escalation. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-28 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond 2.6.2 Total Project Costs No. 2. 2% duraled ORCh forpinch at rate are for len appen No. and Alternative TABLE 2-8 Alternative No. 1 & 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Item Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2 Construction Cost $12,881,100 $4,886,000 Engineering (20%) $2,576,300 $977,200 Contingency (30%) $3,864,400 $1,465,800 Escalation (4%/year for 3 years) $1,609,900 $612,000 Opinion of Probable Cost $20,931,700 $7,941,000 Table 2-9 summarizes the opinion of probable cost for the recommended Phase 2 Quaker Hill distribution improvements. Please note that the escalation for the Phase 2 improvements has been escalated to 5 years instead of 3 years as they are expected to be completed after the PFAS violation remedy. The detailed OPC for the recommended Phase 2 improvements is provided in Appendix C. TABLE 2-9 Phase 2 Opinion of Probable Cost Item Construction Cost Engineering (20%) Contingency (30%) Escalation (4%/year for 5 years) Opinion of Probable Cost Cost $6,494,600 $1,299,000 $1,948,400 $1,411,400 $11,153,400 2.6.3 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Table 2-10 presents a summary of the probable annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for Alternative No. 1 and Alternative No. 2. The opinion of probable O&M costs includes the annual operation and maintenance costs for the interconnection and booster pump station for Alternative No. 1 and the new treatment system for Alternative No.2 as well as administrative costs, short-lived assets, and a 30% contingency. These probable annual O&M costs presented in Table 2-10 are in 2024 dollars. A detailed opinion of probable annual O&M costs for each alternative are provided in Appendix C. TABLE 2-10 Alternative No. 1 & 2 Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Cost Alternative Cost Alternative No. 1 $112,500 Alternative No. 2 $230,800 2.6.4 Annual Debt Service Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-29 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond • Have a population of less than 300,000 • Meet at least one of the following criteria: • Have a Medium Household Income (MHI) as defined by the U.S. Census Bure ors emerical auty surved yet, estimate of data less than • If the MHI of the municipality is between 80% and less than 100% of the regionally adjusted statewide MHI, then the poverty rate of the municipality must be greater than the statewide poverty rate of 10.4%, or • At least 50% of the project cost or project scope must serve, protect, or benefit an identified PEJA The population is less than 300,000 and therefore the first criteria is satisfied for both alternatives. The regionally adjusted MHI for Dutchess County is $86,977; 80% of this is $69,582. The Town of Hyde Park MHI (from the 2021 American Community Survey 5-year estimate) is $78,725. Therefore, the MHI is between 80% and 100% of the regionally adjusted statewide MHI. However, the Town of Hyde Park poverty rate is 8% (from the 2021 American Community Survey 5-year estimate) which is less than the statewide poverty rate of 10.4%. Additionally, Alternative No. 2 does not benefit a PEJA. Alternative No. 1 does benefit one PEJA but it is estimated that less than 50% of the project cost/scope would benefit the PEJA. Given the scope of the proposed alternatives, it is likely that the project would not meet hardship financing criteria for disadvantaged communities. However, there are Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (WIIA) grants available for drinking water projects addressing an emerging contaminant above the state determined MCL which may be awarded 70% of the total net eligible project costs with no maximum cap. Therefore, to estimate the annual debt service, we have presented two scenarios: no grant funding and 70% grant funding as shown below in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12. Alternative No. 1 (Table 2-11) also shows the cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) with Quaker Hill users only and assuming all potential PWSs connect to the system. TABLE 2-11 Alternative No. 1 Annual Debt Service Estimate No Grant Funding QHW Users QHW Users & Item Opinion of Probable Cost Only All PWS Users $20,931,700 $20,931,700 Grant Amount $0 Amount to be Financed $20,931,700 $0 $20,931,700 Annual Debt Service Payment? $1,210,482 $1,210,482 Total Number of Potential EDUs3 110 Annual Debt Service per EDU 847 $11,004 $1,429 With 70% Grant Funding' QHW Users QHW Users & Only All PWS Users $20,931,700 $20,931,700 $14,652,200 $14,652,200 $6,279,500 $6,279,500 $363,144 $363,144 110 847 $3,301 $429 *Maximum WIIA Grant amount calculated as 70% of project cost 2Based on a low-interest loan of 4% for 30 years 3No. of EDUS for QHW = No. of services. PWS EDUs based on ADD from DCDBCH divided by 164 gpd/EDU. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-30 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond TABLE 2-12 Alternative No. 2 Annual Debt Service Estimate Item Opinion of Probable Cost Grant Amount Amount to be Financed Annual Debt Service Payment? Total Number of Potential EDUs3 Annual Debt Service Payment per EDU Maximum WITA Grant amount calculated as 70% of project cost 2Based on a low-interest loan of 4% for 30 years 3No. of EDUs for QHW = No. of services. No Grant Funding $7,941,000 $0 $7,941,000 $459,229 110 $4,175 With 70% Grant Funding' $7,941,000 $5,558,700 $2,382,300 $137,769 110 $1,252 Table 2-13 provides a summary of the estimated debt service payment per EDU. As shown in Table 2-13, Alternative No. 1 with 70% grant funding and assuming all PWS users has the potential for the lowest debt service payment per EDU. TABLE 2-13 Annual Debt Service Estimate Summary Item Alternative No. 1 - QHW Users Only Alternative No. 1 - QHW Users + All PWS Users Alternative No. 2 No Grant Funding? $11,004 $1,429 $4,175 70% Grant Funding' $3,3017 $429 $1,252 Maximum WIIA Grant amount calculated as 70% of project cost 2Based on a low-interest loan of 4% for 30 years 2.7 Non-Monetary Factors Non-monetary factors such as environmental impacts, availability for future connections, service for PEJAs & DACs, sustainability considerations, permitting, and public perception for each alternative should also be considered. Each of these items are briefly discussed in this Section. Environmental Impacts Alternative No. 1 is anticipated to have minor environmental impacts since the new water mains will primarily be installed within existing road rights-of-way and the booster pump station will be installed at the North Tank site which is already disturbed. Alternative No. 2 will have more significant environmental impacts due to construction of the new treatment building and site improvements within the wetland. Vegetation will need to be cleared and grubbed within the wetland as well as fill brought into the site. Some wetland area will be lost as a result of this alternative. The tank overflow and filter- to-waste line will also discharge to Fall Kill Creek periodically during operations. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-31 Section 2 Alternatives Analysis Tighe&Bond Availability for Future Connections Alternative No. 1 has the potential to connect 14 other PWSs. Although the other PWSs currently do not have known elevated levels of FAS, it is important to consider that the number of PWSs that have PFAS concerns is based upon data provided by DCDBCH which is relative to the previous MCL of 10 ppt. It is anticipated that additional PWSs may have PFAS concerns when considering the new MCL of 4 ppt. In addition, the DCDBCH has indicated that several of the other PWSs would heavily benefit from connection to the HPRWS due to other issues such as poor water quality, poor system management, system violations, etc. Although there are 14 PWSs currently identified that could potentially connect, the water main covers a significant distance along a developed road (Route 9G) and would provide the opportunity for additional service connections in the future. Alternative No. 2 will serve the Quaker Hill Water System but there are no opportunities for other connections. Service for PEJAs & DACS Alternative No. 1 has the potential to serve the PEJA north of Fall Kill Road (see Section 1.2.5) including one PWS that is within the PEJA which is referred to as Hill Top Court and Sales (NY1302130). Alternative No. 2 does not have the potential to serve any PEJAs. Alternative No. 1 has the potential to serve several PWSs within the disadvantaged community (DAC) including the Loyal Order Moose Club (NY1316574), the North Park Elementary School (NY1316165), the Roosevelt High School (NY1316164), and the South Cross Road Water Co. (NY1302802). Sustainability Considerations Alternative No. 1 is expected to have a lower carbon footprint as compared to Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 1 has less pumps, a smaller building to heat, will have less waste generated (no GAC media waste), etc. Permitting Alternative No. 1 will require local and state highway work permits for installation of the water mains within the public road right-of-way. It will also require a NYSDEC Joint Application Submission for an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit. Alternative No. 2 will require a much more involved permitting process and is anticipated to require a NYSEC Joint Application Submission for an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit and NYS DEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Public Perception We anticipate that Alternative No. 1 may have positive public perception because it has the potential to serve multiple PWSs, has essentially no visible impacts, and would remove the source well supplies which contain unacceptable levels PFAS. Alternative No. 2 may have more public perception challenges, particularly for property owners close to the site where the new, larger treatment building will be visible and there will be more vehicle traffic for operation of the GAC system. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 2-32 Tighe&Bond Section 3 Summary & Comparison of Alternatives 3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis A life cycle cost analysis was utilized to better compare the two alternatives to determine the most cost-effective alternative, rather than just the alternative with the lowest capital construction cost. The net present value was calculated for each alternative as the capital version of Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94). The net present value for each alternative is presented in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 Alternative Life Cycle Cost Analysis Item Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Present Day O&M Cost Present Day Salvage Value Net Present Value of Life Cycle Cost Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 $20,931,700 $7,941,000 $112,500 $230,800 $13,566,900 $27,833,200 -$210,400 -$647,000 $34,709,000 $36,421,200 Planning Period 70 years Inflation Rate 4.0% Discount Rate 2.5% As shown in Table 3-1, Alternative No. 1 is expected to have a lower life cycle cost than Alternative No. 2. Additionally, Alternative No. 1 has the ability to increase the customer base served by connecting other Public Water Systems along the route which coulc ultimately result in the lowest debt service cost per EDU as shown in Table 2-13. Alternative No. 2 has no potential to increase the customer base. 3.2 Alternative Comparison Table 3-2 on the following page provides a summary of the alternatives, identifying major differences, pros, cons, non-monetary factors, and costs. Quaker Hill PAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 3-1 Section 3 Sewer District Delineation TABLE 3-2 Alternative Comparison Summary Item Alternative No. 1 Interconnection with Hyde Description Park Regional Water System • Eliminates PFAS source water Pros : Simity to connect other PWSS : Lower life cycle cost Potential for lower cost per user Cons • Higher Capital Cost Significant portion of main is anticipated to be installed in bedrock Environmental Impacts Future Connections Low Impacts Potential for multiple connections including other PWSs with water quality issues, reducing cost per user Potential to serve one PEJA & four DACS Lower carbon footprint Less permitting Tighe&Bond Alternative No. 2 New Water Treatment Building with GAC System Lower Capital Cost • Constructability challenges in wetland • Risk of site flooding • More operator training required • More extensive maintenance • Higher life cycle cost High Impacts Service for PEJAS & DACs Sustainability Permitting Public Perception Generally Good Capital Cost $20,931,700 Life Cycle Cost $34,709,000 Potential Lowest Annual Cost per EDUT $4292 1 Cost per EDU assumes a 70% WIIA Grant Award for the project 2 Cost assumes all existing PWSs along the proposed route connect to the system No potential for other connections Will not serve any PEJAs or DACS Higher carbon foot print More permitting Potential Visual Impacts and Perceived Water Quality Issues $7,941,000 $36,421,200 $1,252 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 3-2 Tighe&Bond Section 4 Recommended Alternative 4.1 Basis of Selection Based on the life cycle cost analysis, estimated annual debt service, potential to increase the customer base by interconnecting other public water systems, and non-monetary ractors, Alternative No. 1 is the recommended alternative. The basis for selection of Alternative No. 1 is as follows: • Lowest life cycle cost Potential to connect several other PWSs, including PWSs in potential environmental justice areas and disadvantaged communities Potential for the lowest annual debt service cost per user if all existing PWSs along the proposed route connect to the system • Simpler construction and permitting • Less operation and maintenance • Better public perception 4.2 Cost Estimate This engineering report has been prepared in anticipation of the pursuit of a low-interest loan or grant. Table 4-1 provides the opinion of probable cost for implementation of Alternative No. 1 in a format that is consistent with funding agency requirements. TABLE 4-1 Recommended Project Costs Item 1. Construction Costs! a. Contract 1 - General b. Contract 2 - Electrical c. Contract 3 - HVAC d. Contract 4 - Plumbing 2. Engineering Costs a. Planning b. Design c. Construction 3. Other Expenses a. Local Counsel b. Bond Counsel c. Work Force d. Financial Services e. Net Interest f. Miscellaneous 4. Equipment 5. Land Acquisition 6. Project Contingency (30%) Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report Cost $14,201,200 $289,800 $0 $0 $62,400 $1,030,500 $1,545,800 $10,200 $43,500 $202,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,864,400 4-1 Section 8 Proposed Project Tighe&Bond 7. Total Project Costs 8. Less Other Sources of Financing 9. Project Costs to be Financed 10. SRF Issuance Costs a. Direct Expense (1%) b. Bond Issuance Charge (0.84%) c. Administrative Fee (1.1%) Total Project Cost Including Financing Includes an escalation of 4%/year for 3 years $21,250,700 $0 $21,250,700 $212,600 $178,600 $233,800 $21,875,700 4.3 Project Schedule Figure 4-1 presents the anticipated project implementation schedule for the recommended alternative. The project implementation schedule assumes that engineering will commence in Q2 2025 after project funding is secured. Project Implementation Schedule Quaker Hill Water System PFAS Violation Remedy 2024 Task 02 Q3 04 01 02 2025 03 2026 2027 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 03 Q4 Project Funding RFQ for Engineer 30% Design 60% Design 100% Design Regulatory Review and Approval Easement/Permitting Bidding and Award Construction Testing and Start-up FIGURE 4-1 Project Implementation Schedule 4.4 Next Steps The following are the next steps for project implementation of the recommended alternative: 1. Secure Project Funding - As indicated in this report, the cost of the proposed system is substantial. It is recommended that this report is used to apply for inancial assistance for funding the design and construction of the recommende alternative. 2. Engineering & Design: a. Engineering - DCWWA will hire an engineering consultant to design and oversee construction of the recommended alternative Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 4-2 Section 8 Proposed Project Tighe&Bond b. Site Survey - A topographic and boundary survey will be conducted by the engineering consultant. c. Soil Testing - Geotechnical information will be collected. d. Design Phases- Design of the recommended alternative will advance in stages including 30%, 60%, and 100% (permit set) design phases. The engineering consultant will have discussions with regulators during the design. e. Contract Documents - Contract documents appropriate for permitting and construction will be developed and will consist of drawings and specifications for each phase of the design process. Regulatory Review - It is anticipated that the Dutchess County Department of Behavioral and Community Health and New York State Department of Health will need to review and approve the 100% design prior to bidding. g. Bidding - The project will go out to public bid after receiving approval. 3. Easements - Easements must be obtained for water mains. This needs to be completed prior to construction. 4. Permitting - Permits will be required for construction of the water mains. 5. Construction - Construction will be awarded and commence following receipt of reasonable bids. It is anticipated that the construction project will be split into two prime contracts: general construction and electrical construction per Wick's Law. 6. Testing and Start-up - Testing and start-up will begin as construction nears completion. Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report 4-3 Tighe&Bond APPENDIX A Existing Site Photographs Tighe&Bond Photograph 1 Photograph 2 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report A-1 Existing Site Photographs Tighe&Bond Photograph 3 Photograph 4 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report A-2 Existing Site Photographs Tighe&Bond Photograph 5 Photograph 6 Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report A -3 Existing Site Photographs Tighe&Bond Photograph 7 Photograph 8 J: \D\D0280 DCWWA\07-On Call\007F Quaker Hill PFAS|Reports\90% Report\Appendices\Appendix A - Photograph Log.docx Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Preliminary Engineering Report A-4 Tighe&Bond APPENDIX B WILLIAM F.X. O'NEIL COUNTY EXECUTIVE LIVIA SANTIAGO-ROSADO, MD, FACEP COMMISSIONER ANTHONY J. RUGGIERO, MPA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COUNTY OF DUTCHESS DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH January 5, 2024 NOTICE OF VIOLATION New York State Sanitary Code, 10 NYCRR Part 5 RECEIVED JAN 17 2024 DCWWA Michael Keating, DCWWA 1 Lagrange Avenue Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: Quaker Hill Estates - PFOS MCL Violation Federal ID# 1302797 Town of Hyde Park Dear Mr. Keating: Our records indicate that the required Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) sampling collected for the above referenced Public Water Supply (PWS) has resulted in an exceedance of the maximum contaminant level (MCL). Based upon your sample results, the following samples have indicated that you have exceeded the MCL based upon an average of the initial and conformation samples: • Well #2 - 13.55 ng/L PFOS You are hereby requested to hire a NYS licensed Design Professional in order to provide treatment for the above referenced MČL exceedance. Since you already indicated that vou have retained a NYS licensed Professional Engineer, please have the Professional Engineer draft a letter to this department indicating their retained services no later than January 31, 2024. If you have any questions, please contact me at (845) 486-3404. Yours very truly, Senior Public Health Engineer Environmental Health Services cc: PWSID# NY1302797 → File 0120221 James Fouts, Associate Public Health Sanitarian M 85 Civic Center Plaza - Suite 106, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 • (845) 486-3404 ] Millbrook District Office - 131 County House Road, Millbrook, New York 12545 • (845) 677-4001 • Beacon District Office - 223 Main Street, Beacon, New York 12508 • (845) 838-4801 [email protected]. www.dutchessnygov Tighe&Bond APPENDIX C Tighe&Bond ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternative No. 1 - Interconnection to HPRWS Quaker Hill Water System, Hyde Park, NY Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Item Description Clearing and Grubbing in Water Main Easement 8" HDPE Water Main - Loam 8" HDPE Water Main - Boulder/Rocky Soils 8" HDPE Water Main - Bedrock Entry/Exit Pits Excavation & Restoration - Local Road Entry/Exit Pits Excavation & Restoration - State Road Entry/Exit Pits Excavation & Restoration - Cross Country Flushing Hydrant Assembly 8" Mainline Gate Valves w/ Boxes Air Releases Utility Potholing Including Restoration & Traffic Control Pressure Testing & Disinfection Clearing and Grubbing for Booster Pump Station/Parking Rough Grading for Booster Pump Station/Access Drive/Parking Gravel Access Drive/Parking Area Extension New 3 Phase Overhead Electric Service Concrete Frost Wall with Spread Footing Foundation Packaged Booster Pump Station (Inc. Start-up & Training) Install Packaged Booster Pump Station Water Main Connections Electrical Service Connection to Booster Pump Station Final Grading, Mulch & Seed around Booster Pump Station Demolish Existing Quaker Hill Treatment Facility Pressure Monitoring System at Quaker Hill Traffic Control (2%) Mobilization/Demobilization (5%) Contractor General Conditions (15%) Unit Cost Units Quantity Cost $12,000 ACRE 0.5 $125 LF 13,200 $400 LF 2,500 $600 LF 9,400 $5,300 EA 26 $6,000 EA 23 $2,900 EA 3 $8,200 EA 51 $3,200 EA 26 $6,000 EA 11 $5,100 DAY 42 $40,000 LS 1 $214,200 $12,000 ACRE 0.2 $40,000 $1 SF 8,000 $2,400 $50 LE 1,000 $8,000 $5 SF $5,000 4,350 $217,500 $1,500 CY 31 $46,500 $760,000 LS $760,000 $38,000 LS $38,000 $6,500 LS $6,500 $8,000 LS $2 SF $45,000 LS 3,000 $8,000 $6,000 1 $45,000 $32,000 LS 1 $32,000 $188,100 LS 1 $188,100 $529,000 LS 1 $1,586,600 LS 1 $529,000 $1,587,000 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $12,881,100 NOTES: This is an engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC). Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the estimates of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond's professional judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from this estimate of the Probable Construction Cost. Engineering, contingency, and inflation price escalation are not included in this figure. Tighe&Bond ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Alternative No. 2 - Replace Water Treatment System Quaker Hill Water System, Hyde Park, NY Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Item Description Tree Trimming at Access Drive Temporarily Relocate Existing Generator and Propane Tanks Temporarily Maintain Operation of Existing WTP Temporary Water Control Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Clearing and Grubbing General Fill, Overfill 2 Feet for Preload and then Remove aved Access Drive/Parking Area Improvements Concrete Spill Containment Area Bollards Galvanized Security Fencing Galvanized Swing Gate Standby Generator System Propane Tanks, Piping, and Regulators New Well Pumps w/ VFDs, Discharge Pipe, and Wiring Replace Well No. 1 Extend Well No. 2 Casing 6" Water Main, Insertion Valve, Cap Existing 6" Water Main Tank Overflow/Filter-to-Waste Outfall Pipe Rip Rap Apron New Buried HDD Electric Service Conduit Excavation for Building Foundation Timber Piles (for building foundation and generator pad) Reinforced Concrete (for building foundation and generator pad) Concrete Equipment Pads for Propane Tanks and Generator Interior Foundation Backfill Insulated CMU Building with Brick Veneer Timber Roof Trusses and Asphalt Shingle Roof Aluminum Landing/Stairs 14' Wide x 16' Tall Insulated Rollup Door 12' Wide x 14' Tall Insulated Rollup Door Double Man Access Door Interior Walls/Ceiling Removable Handrail Concrete Equipment Pads Prefiltration System GAC Contactors, Valve Tree, Initial Media Fill, Start-up/ Training 10,000 Gallon Water Storage Tank 6,000 Gallon Spent Backwash Tank Triplex Service Pumps w/ VFDs Jockey Pump Backwash Pump Submersible Spent Backwash Pump 500 Gallon Pressure Tank Disinfection System (Tank, Metering Pumps, Containment, Etc.) Interior Process Piping & Supports (Sch. 80 PVC) Process Piping Isolation Valves (Sch. 80 PVC) Building HVAC System (Unit heaters, DHU, Fans, Louvers, Etc.) HVAC Hoist and Monorail System Building Plumbing (Water Heater, Safety Shower, Piping, Etc.) Building Electrical and Controls (Panels, Conduit, Lights, Etc.) Control Panel & Alarm System Inc. Programming Instrumentation Lab Equipment and Misc. Interior Building Supplies Equipment for GAC Media Changeouts Demolish Existing Quaker Hill Treatment Facility 8" HDPE Water Main - Bedrock Entry/Exit Pits Excavation & Restoration - Local Road Flushing Hydrant Assembly 8" Mainline Gate Valves w/ Boxes Mobilization/Demobilization (5%) Contractor General Conditions (15%) Unit Cost Units Quantity $8,000 LS $5,000 LS $20,000 LS $40,000 LS $6,000 LS $12,000 ACRE $100 CY $12 SF $1,500 CY $1,000 EA 740 10,200 64 10 90 14 Cost $8,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40,000 $6,000 $6,000 $74,000 $122,400 $96,000 $10,000 $90, $26, $190, $190 $537 $49 $300 EA $163,000 LS $163,000 $98,000 LS $98,000 $30,000 LS $30,000 $299,000 LS $299,000 $58,000 LS $58,000 $175,000 LS $175,000 $7,500 LS $7,500 $12,000 LS $12,000 $45,000 LS $600 LF 500 $45,000 $300,000 $5,300 EA $21,200 $8,200 EA $16,400 $3,200 EA $6,400 $203,600 LS $203,600 $610,800 LS $610,800 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $4,886,000 NOTES: This is an engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC). Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the estimates of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond's professional judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from this estimate of the Probable Construction Cost. Engineering, contingency, and inflation price escalation are not included in this figure. Tighe&Bond ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Phase 2 - Quaker Hill Distribution System Improvements Quaker Hill Water System, Hyde Park, NY Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Item Description 8" HDPE Water Main - Loam 8" HDPE Water Main - Bedrock Entry/Exit Pits Excavation & Restoration - Local Road Flushing Hydrant Assembly 8" Mainline Gate Valves w/ Boxes Air Releases Utility Potholing Including Restoration & Traffic Control Reconnect Services & Restoration - Local Road Water Meters Pressure Testing & Disinfection Traffic Control (2%) Mobilization/Demobilization (5%) Contractor General Conditions (15%) Unit Cost Units Quantity $125 LF 2,600 $600 LF 6,400 $5,300 EA $8,200 EA 18 18 $3,200 EA $6,000 EA $5,100 DAY $8,900 EA $1,300 EA $10,000 LS $106,500 LS $267,000 LS $798,400 LS Cost 109 109 1 1 $970,100 $141,700 $799,000 $6,494,600 Lup: T. or material, or er market condizon or she Contractor somet, or pring, d hashao the estate of probable constity on costs ar quipment or materials, c nade on the basis of Tighe & Bond's professional judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, tha he bids or the negotiated cost of the Work will not vary from this estimate of the Probable Construction Cost. Engineering, contingency, and inflation price escalation are not included in this figure. Tighe&Bond ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE ANNUAL O&M COST Alternative No. 1 - Interconnection to HPRWS Quaker Hill Water System, Hyde Park, NY Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Item Description Proactive System Maintenance (Daily Check at Booster PS) Scheduled Water Main Flushing Air Release Inspection Residual Monitoring at Quaker Hill Reactive System Maintenance (Water Main Breaks) Water Main Break Repair by Contractor Reactive System Maintenance (Booster PS Component Failure) Booster Pump Station Energy Consumption Standby Generator Fuel Consumption Cellular Service for Alarm System Annual Booster Pump Maintenance Annual Booster PS HVAC System Maintenance Annual Standby Generator Maintenance Annual Booster Pump Station Misc. Maintenance Sampling Supplies Unit Cost Units Quantity Cost $80 HOUR 365 $80 HOUR 16 $80 HOUR 8 $80 HOUR 12 $80 HOUR 32 $12,000 EA $2,500 LS 2 1 $0.25 kwh 24777 $4.50 GAL 650 $100 MONTH $1,500 YEAR $300 YEAR Bill $400 YEAR $600 YEAR Sotal Annual O8M Costs 5S Contingency (30%) $ Administrative, Billing, & Accounting $ Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Cost $500 75,000 22,500 15,000 $112,500 NOTES, a marie on in and prat the Alimate or prost le an a d a cos are rot on the as ale Bonds protestonent ore judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the actual annula O&M costs will not vary from this estimate of the Probable Annual O&M Cost. Tighe&Bond ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE ANNUAL O&M COST Alternative No. 2 - Replace Water Treatment System Quaker Hill Water System, Hyde Park, NY Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Item Description Proactive System Maintenance (daily visit) Pre-Filter Bag Replacement (twice per week) GAC Backwashing (twice per year) Residual Monitoring at Quaker Hill PFAS Sampling Part 5 Sampling Reactive System Maintenance (Component Failure) Spent GAC Media Removal/Disposal & Replace (1 vessel/2 yrs) GAC Media Startup (1 vessel/2 yrs) Spent Backwash Tank Media Removal Annual Jockey Pump Maintenance Annual Service Pump Maintenance Annual Backwash Pump Maintenance Annual Spent Backwash Pump Maintenance Annual Sodium Hypochlorite Metering Pump Maintenance Annual HVAC System Maintenance Annual Standby Generator Maintenance Annual Misc. Building Maintenance Sodium Hypochlorite Quaker Hill System Energy Consumption Standby Generator Fuel Consumption Cellular Service for Alarm System Access Road Maintenance Maintain Vegetation at Outfall Pipe Snow Plowing Sampling Supplies Unit Cost Units Quantity Cost $80 HOUR 730 $80 HOUR 104 $80 HOUR $80 HOUR $600 EA $2,000 LS $7,500 LS $18,200 LS $8,000 LS 1 1 1 $7,500 EA $15,000 $500 YEAR $500 $1,500 YEAR $1,500 $500 YEAR $500 $500 YEAR $500 $400 YEAR $300 YEAR $500 YEAR $800 YEAR $17 GAL $0.25 kWh $3.50 GAL $100 MONTH $600| LS $1,300 LS 1 1 1 1 300 94846 390 12 1 1 $400 $300 $500 $800 $5,100 $23,800 $1,400 $1,200 $600 $400 LS $1,300 $400 $750|YEAR Subtotal Annual O&M Costs $800 Contingency (30%) Administrative, Billing, & Accounting $ $ $ 166,000 49,800 15,000 Opinion of Probable Annual 0&M Cost $230,800 NOTES: This is an engineer's Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Cost. Tighe & Bond has no control over the cost or availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions and that the estimates of probable annual O&M costs are made on the basis of Tighe & Bond's professional judgment and experience. Tighe & Bond makes no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied, that the actual annula O&M costs will not vary from this estimate of the Probable Annual O&M Cost. let Present Value (NPV) for Operational and Maintenance (0&M nflation Rate (% scount Rate (/ annning Period (year Alt No. 1 4.0% 2.5% 70 No. 30 $ $ Cost 112,500 Discount Rate Inflation Rate Annual O&M with Inflation 112,50 Present Vaue 112,500 112,500 117,000 eV for o21 from Yes rough Wear 7o rounded 1, 13,566,900 Alt. No. 2 No. $ $ Cost 230,800.00 Discount Rate Inflation Rate Annual 0&M with Inflation Present Value 230,800.00 0.976 1.040 240,032 220,000 3 230,800 234,178 230,800.00 0.182 14.973 NY for 08M from Year 1 throug, sear 00 % 628,911 27,833,194 NPV for 0&M from Year 1 through Year 70 (rounded) $ 27,833,200 Salvage Value Discount Rate (%) Planning Period (years) Alternative No. 1 Equipment 8" HDPE Water Main Hydrant Assemblies Gate Valves Air Releases Booster Pump Station Pressure Monitoring System at Quak 25% Purchase Price $8,574,500 $418,200 $83,200 $66,000 $798,000 $32,000 Alternative No. 2 Equipment Galvanized Fencing and Gate Standby Generator Propane Tanks Well Pumps 6" Water Main Treatment Building Prefiltration System GAC Contactors 10,000 Gallon WSTs 6,000 Gallon Backwash Tank Triplex Service Pumps w/ VFDs Jockey Pump Backwash Pump Submersible Spent Backwash Pump 500 Gallon Pressure Tank Disinfection System (Tank, Metering Interior Process Piping & Supports ( Process Piping Isolation Valves (Sch. Building HVAC System (Unit heaters HVAC Hoist and Monorail System Purchase Price $33,400 $100,000 $32,000 $60,000 $26,000 $820,000 $44,400 $314,000 $83,800 $24,200 $49,600 $3,800 $10,100 $8,000 $80,000 $26,200 $70,000 $7,200 $163,000 $98,000 $30,000 $299,000 $58,000 $175,000 $300,000 $16,400 $6,400 Useful Life 70 50 40 20 40 10 Useful Life 20 30 15 60 40 60 40 20 20 10 50 ]SL Depreciation Salvage Value at 70 years $122,493 $0 $8,364 -$167,280 $2,080 -$62,400 $3,300 -$165,000 $19,950 -$598,500 $3,200 -$192,000 Salvage Value @ 70 years NPV of Salvage Value @ 70 years SL Depreciation Salvage Value at 70 years $668 -$13,360 $5,000 -$250,000 $1,067 -$42,667 $4,000 -$220,000 $433 -$4,333 $20,500 -$615,000 $740 -$7,400 $7,850 -$235,500 $4,190 $1,210 -$209,500 -$60,500 $3,307 $253 -$181,867 $673 -$13,933 $533 -$37,033 $5,333 -$29,333 -$293,333 $2,620 $1,400 -$157,200 -$28,000 $180 -$5,400 $6,520 -$293,400 $1,225 $12,250 $500 -$5,000 $7,475 -$224,250 $1,933 -$77,333 $11,667 -$641,667 $4,286 $328 -$6,560 $160 -$4,800 Salvage Value @ 70 years NPV of Salvage Value @70 years (rounded) Present Worth $0 -$29,701 -$11,079 -$29,296 -$106,266 -$34,090 -$1,185,200 -$210,400 Present Worth -$2,372 -$44,388 -$7,576 -$39,062 -$769 -$109,195 -$1,314 -$41,814 -$37,197 -$10,742 -$32,291 -$2,474 -$6,575 -$5,208 -$52,082 -$27,911 -$4,972 -$959 382,174 -$888 -$39,816 -$13,731 -$113,930 31150 -$3,645,000 -$647,000 Tighe&Bond APPENDIX D CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL, AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR: COMMUNITY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS SYSTEM NAME: Quaker Hill Estates Water System COUNTY: Dutchess COMPLETED BY: DOWNA PWSID #: 1302797 _DATE: 5/30/2024 Technical Capacity A. System Infrastructure 1. Does the system have as-built plans, drawings, or maps of its facilities including source, treatment, storage, and distribution? Yes No Not Applicable If the system lacks certain plans, please specify: Missing as-built plans of distribution system 2. Does the system have exact location measurements of all main valves and service shut- offs? Yes No Not Applicable 3. Can the system's pumping, storage and distribution facilities meet current normal and peak demands and required distribution pressures? Yes No Not Applicable 4. Does the system have a water conservation plan? Yes No V Not Applicable 5. Are all customers on the water system metered? Yes No Not Applicable 6. Is the system equipped with "master" meters that measure the amount of water the system produces or purchases for each source of water? Yes No Not Applicable B. Source Water Evaluation 1. Does the system have a copy of its Source Water Assessment? Yes No Not Applicable 2. Has a yield analysis been done for the system's source? Yes • No Not Applicable 3. Does the system have a description of the existing source-pumping capacity and the system's raw and finished water storage capacity? Yes No Not Applicable 4. For groundwater systems, does your system have a wellhead protection program in place? No Not Applicable Yes C. Technical Knowledge 1. Has an evaluation of the water system facilities been conducted with respect to its ability to reliably meet current and proposed State and Federal drinking water regulations? V Yes No Not Applicable If system can't meet regulations, please specify: Currently unable to meet PFAS standards, which is the reason for this application. 2. Does the system have monthly water production records or treatment records that show daily and monthly water production for each source used by the system? M Yes No Not Applicable 3. Has an evaluation been conducted to document the condition and remaining service life of existing facilities? Yes No Not Applicable 4. Has the system been cited within the past two years for failing to sample and report test results? Yes V No Not Applicable 5. Has the system been cited within the past two years for operating deficiencies as a result of a sanitary survey or other inspection conducted by the DOH? Yes No Not Applicable 6. If you answered "Yes" to Questions 4 or 5, has corrective action been taken to correct all deficiencies? Yes No Not Applicable D. Certified Operators 1. Does the water system have a certified water operator(s) and designated an operator in responsible charge? Yes No 2. If the water system does not have a state-certified water treatment operator, or lacks the necessary number of operators to safely and reliably operate the system, does the system have a plan to acquire the services of a (additional) state-certified operator? Yes • No Not Applicable Managerial Capacity A. Staffing and Organization 1. What type of training/continuing education did system personnel attend within the last vo years (please specify) ersonnel receive ongoing safety training, continuing education for water licensing, ar cyber security and data management. 2. Who is responsible for policy and operational decisions for the water system (name and title)? Michael J. Keating, Executive Director; Richard Winchester, Director of Operations 3. Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with state regulatory requirements (name and title)? Michael J. Keating, Executive Director; Richard Winchester, Director of Operations 4. Who is responsible for approving expenditures (name and title)? Minagt J. eating, Executive Director, Richard Winchester, Director of Operations; Jonathan Churins, Asset 5. For systems that contract for system operation or management: Does the system have a valid (signed) contract that summarizes the duties and responsibilities the contractor must provide to the system? Yes No Not Applicable B. Ownership system? 1. If the system is under temporary ownership, has a future owner been found for the water Yes No Not Applicable If "Yes", who will the future owner be? 2. For systems that use, but do not own, land or facilities that are essential to water system operation: Is there a valid long-term contract (i.e., lease) between the water system and the owner of the land or facilities essential to the operation of the system? Yes • No Not Applicable 3. For systems with a single proprietor: Does the system have a contingency plan for continuing system operation in the event the owner becomes incapable of carrying out his/her responsibilities? Yes No Not Applicable C. Consolidation/Restructuring 1. Has the system examined the feasibility of: a) Incorporating with an existing water system in the immediate proximity? Yes No Not Applicable b) Selling ownership to an existing water system? Yes No Not Applicable c) Contracting for the management or operation of the system with an existing system or satellite management/operations agency? Yes No Not Applicable D. Emergency/Disaster Response Plans 1. Has the system developed an Emergency Response Plan? Yes No Not Applicable 2. Does the Emergency Response Plan: a) Designate responsible personnel in the event of an emergency? Yes No Not Applicable b) Provide for emergency phone and radio capabilities? Yes No Not Applicable c) Describe public and health department notification procedures? Yes No Not Applicable 3. Does the system have any emergency contract agreements under which it operates (e.g., emergency water interconnections and alternative sources)? Yes No Not Applicable E. Water System Policies 1. Does the system have a written System Operations Manual or Policy? Yes No Not Applicable F. Record Keeping 1. Does the system keep water utility records including: financial, regulatory, facility, operations and maintenance, data quality, Annual Water Quality Reports, and correspondence with the NYS Department of Health and/or local Health Departments (and where appropriate, the NYSPSC)? Yes No Not Applicable Financial Capacity A. Budget Projection - Revenues and Expenses 1. Does the system have a water budget? Yes No Not Applicable 2. Are the system's annual water revenues sufficient to cover the annual water expenses as well as anticipated capital improvements? Yes No Not Applicable 3. Are the system's water rates, when combined with other revenue sources, sufficient to cover all listed expenditures for the water system? Yes No Not Applicable 4. Does the system retain budget information for at least two years? V Yes J No Not Applicable B. Reserves Does the system have a reserve account (or funds within a reserve account) dedicated to: Note: System maintains sufficient fund balance to cover a) and b) below, but does not maintain specific reserve accounts. a) Financing the emergency replacement of critical facilities in the event of their failure? Yes No Not Applicable b) The maintenance of cash flow in the event of an unexpected funding shortfall? Not Applicable Yes V No 2. If the system has a reserve account, how does it determine the amount to put into the account? _ Fixed Amount_ _Other (please specify) Percentage of Revenues. Percentage of Expenses 3. If the system has a reserve account, what type(s) of reserve accounts) does it have? Operation and Maintenance Capital Projects _Debt Service Other (please specify)_ C. Capital Improvement Plan 1. How do you finance operation and maintenance costs (Check all that apply)? VIRates collected from ratepayers _Rental fees Other business revenue -Personal capital _Surcharges _Reserve account _Other (Please specify) 2. How did you finance your LAST major repair or improvement? _Commercial bank loan Bonds DWSRF Other State or federal loan/grant program _Surcharge Personal Capital Reserve Account Revenue from other business Other (Please specify) Paid from system fund balance 3. What options do you have for financing your NEXT major repair or improvement? Commercial bank loan V DWSRF _Surcharge Reserve Account _Other (Please specify) Bonds % Other State or federal loan/grant program Personal Capital Revenue from other business D. Water System Rates 1. Does the water system management review user fee, user charge, or rate system at least once every two years? Yes No Not Applicable 2. What is the frequency of billing (e.g., 12, 6, or 4 times per/year)? _ 4 3. Where applicable, what are the system's water rates? $1,033.40/year 4. What are rates based on? _times/year Capital Improvement Plan and Annual Budget V Annual Budget Only _Cash on Hand _Last year's expenses _Not sure _Other (Please specify_ 5. What was the date of the last rate increase? - 01/01/2024 END OF DOCUMENT Tighe&Bond APPENDIX E NEW YORK Department Environmental OPPORTUNITY. of Health Facilities Corporation Smart Growth Assessment Form This form should be completed by an authorized representative of the applicant, preferably the project engineer or other design professional.' Section 1 - General Applicant and Project Information Applicant: Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority Project No.: D0280-007F Project Name: Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy Is project construction complete? v Yes, date: Ø No Please provide a brief project summary in plain language including the location of the area the project serves: The proposed project involves construction of a 8-inch water main (approximately 25,100 linear feet) and booster ump station to connect the Quaker Hill Estates Water System in Hyde Park, NY to the Hyde Park Regional Water System. The Quaker Hill Estates Water System serves a residential development with 109 service connections. The Quaker Hill Water System is served by two groundwater wells which have an MCL violation for PFAS. Section 2 - Screening Questions A. Prior Approvals 1. Has the project been previously approved for Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) financial assistance? 2. If yes to A(1), what is the project number(s) for the Project No.: prior approval(s)? 3. If yes to A(1), is the scope of the previously-approved project substantially the same as the current project? • Yes 7 No • Yes • No If your responses to A(1) and A(3) are both yes, please proceed to Section 5, Signature. B. New or Expanded Infrastructure 1. Does the project involve the construction or reconstruction of new or expanded infrastructure? Examples of new or expanded infrastructure include, but are not limited to: (i) The addition of new wastewater collection/new water mains or a new wastewater treatment system/water treatment plant where none existed (ii) previously; An increase of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permitted flow capacity for an existing wastewater treatment system; and OR • Yes • No 1 If project construction is complete and the project was not previously financed through EFC, an authorized municipal representative may complete and sign this assessment. Page 1 Effective October 1, 2020 (iii) An increase of the permitted water withdrawal or the permitted flow capacity for the water treatment system such that a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) water withdrawal permit will need to be obtained or modified, or result in the Department of Health (DOH) approving an increase in the capacity of the water treatment plant. If your response to B(1) is no, please proceed to Section 5, Signature. Section 3 -Smart Growth Criteria Your project must be consistent will all relevant Smart Growth criteria. For each question below please provide a response and explanation. 1. Does the project use, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure? V Yes V No Explain your response: The proposed interconnection water and booster pump station will be new. But the source water will be provided by the existing Hyde Park Regional Water System and the Quaker Hill distribution system piping will be reused and eventually replaced (Phase 2). 2. Is the project located in a (1) municipal center, (2) area adjacent to a municipal center, or (3) area designated as a future municipal center, as such terms are defined herein (please select one response)? • Yes, my project is located in a municipal center, which is an area of concentrated and mixed land uses that serves as a center for various activities, including but not limited to: central business districts, main streets, downtown areas, brownfield opportunity areas (see www.dos.ny.gov for more information), downtown areas of local waterfront revitalization program areas (see www.dos.ny.gov for more information), areas of transit-oriented development, environmental justice areas (see www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html for more information), and hardship areas (projects that primarily serve census tracts or block numbering areas with a poverty rate of at least twenty percent according to the latest census data). 4 Yes, my project is located in an area adjacent to a municipal center which has clearly defined borders, is designated for concentrated development in the future in a municipal or regional comprehensive plan, and exhibits strong land use, transportation, infrastructure, and economic connections to an existing municipal center. • Yes, my project is located in an area designated as a future municipal center in a municipal or comprehensive plan and is appropriately zoned in a municipal zoning ordinance • No, my project is not located in a (1) municipal center, (2) area adjacent to a municipal center, or (3) area designated as a future municipal center. Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: The Quaker Hill water system is not in a municipal center. However, the proposed water main will traverse a significant distance along Route 9G which is a commercial area exhibiting strong land use, transportation, infrastructure, and economic connections to the Hyde Park municipal center. The water main will also have the potential to serve several other public water supplies, including one in a potential environmental justice area and a few others in disadvantaged communities. 2 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 3. Is the project located in a developed area or an area designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally-approved comprehensive land use plan, local watertront revitalization plan, and/or brownfield opportunity area plan? VYes UNo Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: The proposed water main will traverse a significant distance along Route 9G which is a commercial area with potential for additional development. This area is part of the East Park Village Center and Neighborhood Core areas as defined in the Town of Hyde Park 4. Does the project protect, preserve, and enhance the State's resources, including surface and groundwater, agricultural land, forests, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and significant historic and archaeological resources? RYes •No Explain your response: The project is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the state's resources. The project also includes demolition of the existing treatment facilities which are located within a wetland. The alternative to this project was to build new facilities at the existing treatment location which would have negative effects on the wetland 5. Does the project foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development, and the integration of all income and age groups? DYes •No Explain your response: The project may encourage development along the Route 9G corridor which is encouraged as part of the Town of Hyde Park Comprehensive Plan. 6. Does the project provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency? •Yes •No ZN/A Explain your response: The project will not have any impact on transportation choices. 7. Does the project involve coordination between State and local government, intermunicipal planning, or regional planning? DYes •No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: Coordination will be required between the Owner, Contractor, NYSEC, DOH, and County Highway Department for review and approval of the proposed plans. 3 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 8. Does the project involve community-based planning and collaboration? DYes •No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: Planning and collaboration will be necessary between DCWWA, the Quaker Hill Water Users, and several other Public Water Supply users that may connect to the system. 9. Does the project support predictability in building and land use codes? DYes •No ON/A Explain your response: The project may encourage development along the Route 9G corridor which is encouraged as part of the Town of Hyde Park Comprehensive Plan and supports the land use codes for this area. 10. Does the project promote sustainability by adopting measures such as green infrastructure techniques, decentralized infrastructure techniques, or energy efficiency measures? VYes •No Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: Yes, the proposed project will consolidate two water systems into one and involves demolition of the existing uaker Hill water treatment facilities. The energy consumption of the proposed project will ultimately be les nan the alternative of replacing the existing treatment system with a new treatment system and large buildin! 11. Does the project mitigate future physical climate risk due to sea-level rise, storm surges, and/or flooding, based on available data predicting the likelihood of future extreme weather events, including hazard risk analysis data, if applicable? MYes vNo Explain your response and reference any applicable plans: The existing Quaker Hill Water system treatment facilities are within a wetland area that has a history of flooding and damage due to flooding. The proposed project involves removal of the existing facilities from the flood area. Section 4 - Miscellaneous 1. Is the project expressly required by a court or administrative consent • Yes • No order? If yes, and you have not previously provided the applicable order to EFC/DOH, please submit it with this form. Section 5 - Signature By signing below, you agree that you are authorized to act on behalf of the applicant and that the information contained in this Smart Growth Assessment is true, correct and complete to the best of your knowledge and belief. Applicant: Dutchess County Water & Wastewater Authority Phone Number: 845-516-5872 Name and Title of Signatory: Daniel Valentine, PE Signature: Ed Vet Date: 5/30/2024 4 of 4 Effective October 1, 2020 Tighe&Bond APPENDIX F Tighe&Bond Engineering Report Certification During the preparation of this Engineering Report, I have studied and evaluated the cost and effectiveness of the processes, materials, techniques, and technologies for carrying out the proposed project or activity for which assistance is being sought from the New York State Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. In my professional opinion, I have recommended for selection, to the maximum extent practicable, a project or activity that maximizes the potential for efficient water use, reuse, recapture, and conservation, and energy conservation, taking into account the cost of constructing the project or activity, the cost of operating and maintaining the project or activity over the life of the project or activity, and the cost of replacing the project and activity. Title of Engineering Report: Date of Report: Professional Engineer's Name: Signature: Quaker Hill PFAS Violation Remedy June 2024 Dainel F. Valentine, PE Date: June 1, 2024 47 West Market Street • Rhinebeck, NY 12572 • Tel 845.516.5800 www.tighebond.com Environment Committee Roll Call District District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook District 3 - LaGrange District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 4 - Hyde Park and Town of Poughkeepsie District 5 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 6 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger District 18 - City of Beacon and Fishkill District 24 - Dover and Pawling Present: Absent: Vacant: 10 2 Resolution: Motion: Name Truitt* Houston* Polasek* Valdés Smith* Atkins* Gorman Lawler D'Aquanni (C) Kaul Paoloni (VC) Page House Total : Abstentions: Yes No Absent Absent 10 Yes 0 No 2025133 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE OF ASSESSMENT "030" IN THE DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF HYDE PARK SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 Roll Call Sheets District Present: Absent: Vacant: District 7 - Hyde Park and Pleasant Valley District 25 - Amenia, Washington, Pleasant Valley & Millbrook District 3 - LaGrange District 16 - Fishkill and Beacon District 9 - City of Poughkeepsie District 1 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 2 - LaGrange, Pleasant Valley & Town of Poughkeepsie District 4 - Hyde Park and Town of Poughkeepsie District 5 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 6 - Town of Poughkeepsie District 8 - City and Town of Poughkeepsie District 10 - City of Poughkeepsie District 11 - Clinton, Pleasant Valley, and Rhinebeck District 12 - East Fishkill District 13 - East Fishkill and Wappinger District 14 - Wappinger and Town of Poughkeepsie District 15 - Wappinger District 17 - Town and Village of Fishkill District 18 - City of Beacon and Fishkill District 19 - North East, Stanford, Pine Plains, Milan & Red Hook District 20 - Red Hook, Tivoli, and Rhinebeck District 21 - East Fishkill District 22 - Beekman and Union Vale District 23 - Pawling, Beekman and East Fishkill 23 2 District 24 - Dover and Pawling Resolution: Motion: Last Name YES, Truitt Houston Polasek Valdés Smith Atkins Gorman Travelpiece Lawler D'Aquanni Kaul Brendli Johnson Kearney Metzger Paoloni Versaci Faust McHoul Page Drago Munn Caswell Garito Rolison House Total : 23 Yes Abstentions: NO Absut Abrent No 2025133 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONE OF ASSESSMENT "030" IN THE DUTCHESS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF HYDE PARK SEPTEMBER 8, 2025