Issues Concerning The New Abstraction Sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale.

Issues concerning the new abstraction sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale
ISSUES CONCERNING THE NEW ABSTRACTION SITES AT BUCKLAND, PRIMROSE AND ELMS VALE
Malcolm A. Sutherland
A report completed on 23 July 2001 at the end of a student internship within Folkestone & Dover Water Services Ltd (later absorbed into Veolia Water) Revised in May 2013
Produced in 2001; reprinted 2013. Copyright of LabSearch, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland
Page 1
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED PUMPING STATIONS 2: ESTIMATING THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3: OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE NEW STATIONS 4: OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF TREATMENT FACILITIES 5: ISSUES CONCERNING THE USL OF PRIMROSE, ELMS VALE AND BUCKLAND 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES AND CONSULTATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Pipe-laying construction costs Appendix 2: Water quality analysis at Primrose Appendix 3: Lower Standen electrical costs Appendix 4: Predicted costs of the groundwater pumping stations
Page 2
Executive Summary
Many of the findings in this report are presumptuous. The aim was to estimate the operational and maintenance costs, and to suggest possible options for how the water from Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland may be distributed. Since this report was prepared prior to a decision being made for cut-backs in abstraction around the upper Dour (and before licenses are granted to these new sources, and before the pumping tests commence), the exact costs and water distribution data are not as yet available. At present, it is anticipated that the licenses granted to Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland Paper Mill bore hole sites will be set at 4 Ml/day, 3Ml/day and 5 Ml/day, respectively. It is anticipated that the Buckland pumping station can produce a maximum output of 9 Mi/day. The operational costs of the stations are predicted to range, from just under 1 pence per cubic metre extracted, to perhaps 4 pence per cubic metre. These are average costs based throughout the year, depending on the power input to the station. Elms Vale will probably cost around 3 pence per cubic metre. Primrose may email similar costs, while Buckland should hopefully cost little more than 2 pence, if the water there-from is transported, either to Dover Intermediate reservoir, or to the Spine Main. The treatment and station maintenance costs are more difficult to predict. There are no definite trends, against which forecast costs correlate well. Presumably, the treatment costs will amount to a few thousand pounds () each year. Pump and station maintenance costs will range from 4000 to 6000 per annum, and should hopefully not exceed this margin as these are new groundwater pumping stations. The water quality of Primrose and Buckland will not require more treatment facilities than the UV and chlorinating methods: no data has yet been provided for Elms Vale though, and its proximity to farmland may pose questions on biological or pesticidal treatment. On average, UV treatment entails annual costs of around 670, although components are replaced either each year, or every year. Chlorinating treatment maintenance will vary, depending on the water output established. Pipeline construction costs for connecting Buckland to Downsgate will probably be around 520,000; for a pipeline to Dover Intermediate reservoir, the costs will be similar. To connect with the Spine Main, the costs are lower (around 400,000). Since no pumping regime could be accurately proposed with the assistance of network modelling, the best option for where the water should be pumped is mainly a concern of proposed reduced abstraction elsewhere, as recommended by the Environment Agency. Possible cut-backs in abstraction around the upper Dour catchment area may amount to between 4 and 5 Ml/day, which would counteract the intended gain of 5 Ml/day as required for overcoming any possible supply/demand deficits in the next few years. However, as many stations do not abstract at their full capacity, and some cannot, there are some cases where increased abstraction can be achieved elsewhere in the FDWS service
Page 3
region. Stations such as Seabrook, Saltwood, Holestone and Bluehouse are mainly dormant, and if the EA licensing restrictions throughout the River Dour catchment area pose concerns, such stations should be reviewed. It is possible to re-vitalise the Holmestones pumping stations full capacity by connecting it to a new pipeline, between Buckland and the Spine Main. No precise pumping regime proposals implies that the optimum arrangement will still need to be addressed, with the use of water network computer modelling to take all factors of the pipeline network into account.
Page 4
Introduction and Objectives
Throughout August, September and October this year, the Folkestone and Dover Water Services company will conduct three separate pumping tests at 3 proposed new borehole sources, which are listed as follows:
Location Elms Vale Proposed daily abstraction 5 Ml per day (depending on the discharge licence Possibly Ml per day 5 Ml per day (up to 6 ml once in full operation Grid reference TR 3040 4115
Primrose Buckland Mill (paper mill which closed in 1999
TR 3056 4232 TR 3031 4296
The outcome from these three tests will be to assess both the capacity of these sources, and their influence on the groundwater distribution beneath the River Dour catchment area. The Environment Agency expressed concern on the impact which additional abstraction would inflict on the River Dour, suggesting that licenses for sources around the upper Dour catchment area would need to be restricted in order to sustain overland flow of groundwater, which the River Dour characterises. A second issue brought about by initiating abstraction from these new sources, is where the new supply water should be distributed; an optimum arrangement for this is determined by financial costs of operation and construction, and by public demand. This report addresses both of these issues by drawing in 3 primary considerations: (1) (2) the possible distribution arrangements, with their associated costs and benefits; deciding on the best option for reducing abstraction in the upper Dour area, both in the best interests of public demand, and the preservation of the River Dour; and, a suppositional view of the additional operational costs brought about by utilising these new resources.
(3)
Page 5
1: Physical and chemical Information on the proposed pumping systems

1.1: The underlying geology of Dover
Dover has been a consistently suitable location for groundwater abstraction. The Cretaceous Chalk (which makes the area famous for its white chalk coastal features) is also highly advantageous for water quality reasons. The micro-physical nature and chemical composition of the chalk enables the rock to act as an effective filter, removing chemical and biological contaminants passing into the lithosphere from the soil. The soil and superficial deposits themselves also naturally remove most pathogens through a gradual degradation process of biological tissue breakdown. The physical nature of the chalk also holds an added benefit, in terms of groundwater abstraction. Particularly beneath the Dour river valley, geophysical data produced in the past showed that the rock is highly fissured. This characteristic enables the abstraction of groundwater, and the renewal of groundwater supplies to proceed rapidly and economically. Four pumping stations are located in Dover, and between them are licensed to provide over 15 ml of water per day. These are soon to be accompanied by two new groundwater pumping stations at Elms Vale and Buckland, and the groundwater licence at Primrose is to be increased.
1.2: Buckland Paper Mill

Buckland Paper Mill, owned by Wiggans Teape, was the last of a long succession of paper mills in Dover which lined the River Dour, which once spanned along four kilometres of riverside from the docks to the artificial lakes (Kearnsey, Kearnsey Manor), which had been engineered for the industry. FDWS have taken an interest in this site for many years, and during the late 1980s, the water company was granted a limited abstraction (shared) licence from the Wiggans Teape company. Circumstances have changed significantly since then. With the recent closure of the mill (which was licensed to abstract up to 15 Ml/day but which seldom utilised more than 3 Ml/day), FDWS will be performing tests for a new bore hole in September (2001). These will not be the first series of tests; another series has been performed (back in January 2001). However, since the 2000/01 winter was unusually wet and groundwater levels were higher as a result, the January data was questionable.
Physical Data The bore hole itself has dimensions of 50 metres depth, and of 600mm diameter. This penetrates into the Middle Chalk, with alluvial deposits towards the surface (to 6 metres depth). The chalk itself comprises the boundary between the Upper and Middle Chalk, with the impermeable Gault Clay in between. However, with the natural groundwater level at 14.5m, this is an unconfined aquifer, and fissure within the rock enhance water entry. The
Page 6
surface of the bore hole is situated at around 17 metres above Ordinance Datum. Figure 1.1 shows the drawdown observed during pumping tests carried out in January (2001). This only covers abstraction up to 5 Ml/day, although it is known that at a 9 Ml/day extraction rate, the drawdown amounts to over 20 metres.
Figure 1.1: results of the Buckland Paper Mill step tests in January 2001
Page 7
Chemical Data Three sets of data from the January pumping tests were analysed. Data from the bore hole used in the same vicinity by FDWS in accordance with Wiggans Teape (four sets) were also selected as a comparison. Both sources are summarised in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 below and over-page, with the highest average value given, in order to isolate any possible contamination. Both sets of data (from two different decades) show that the groundwater at Buckland maintains an excellent standard of cleanliness, and the influx of any hazardous chemicals is not an issue, except for the poly-aromatic hydrocarbon levels recorded during the Buckland tests in January. The Buckland site is located next to 2 petrol stations, and a gas-oil storage tank, but these do not pose any threat to the groundwater quality under normal circumstances.
Table 1.1: results based on the Mid-Kent Water Company, Wiggans Teape well 2 data, 1989 (units for alkalinity, hardness total, chloride, nitrate, sulphate total, calcium total, Mg total, sodium, potassium, nitrite and ammonium in mg/l; units for Fe, manganese in g/l; conductivity in S/cm)
Page 8
Table 1.2: Buckland Paper Mill pumping test: GU Partnership Central Laboratory analysis, January 2001
Page 9
1.3: Primrose Pumping Station

This is located at an altitude of 19 metres above Ordinance datum. The bore hole itself is 42.8 metres deep and 18 inches in diameter. The geology through which the bore hole penetrates is similar to that of Buckland. At present, extraction is licensed to 2.2 Ml/day, and normal groundwater depths approximate at 16 metres below ground level, with an extra 1.8 Ml/day anticipated, this will not change significantly - the change in drawdown between 2 Ml/day and 4 Ml/day is only around 2 metres. The chemical data provided in Appendix 2 show the latest water quality tests taken at the station. There are no levels of contaminants, which arise above any prescribed concentration value (PCV). Primrose station holds an excellent record for water quality.
1.4: Elms Vale Pumping Station

Elms Vale bore hole, examined in November 1998, was originally used for industrial purpose; this is a comparatively small borehole, with a depth of 36.6 metres, and a diameter of 200mm. This is located 30m above ordinance datum. The chalk through which this penetrates is more physically uniform in comparison with Buckland, with some fissures. Groundwater depth is around 30 metres. At present there is no water quality data available for the site, and results concerning this are expected during the pumping tests which will commence in August 2001. The drawdown results are illustrated in Figure 1.2 over-page.
Page 10
Figure 1.2: Elms Vale bore hole test
Page 11
2: Estimating the construction costs

With Buckland pumping station, there are three options for delivery. The most equitable choice in terms of public demand across the water company region is to send water from Buckland to the Spine Main. From there it is transported to the Hills Reservoir, and distributed between Folkestone, and around the Chalksole reservoir zone to compensate for any cut-backs in the Upper Dour sources. There is also the choice of sending the water to Downgate (probably unlikely), or to Dover Intermediate. Even though an optimum arrangement is discussed in Section 4, the pipeline construction costs will address all 3 possibilities. The four probable pipeline routes are shown on Figures 2.2 and 2.3. These are referred to as Routes 1 to 4:
Destination DOWNSGATE Route taken Route 1: Buckland Avenue, Barton Road
DOVER INTERMEDIATE Route 2: Buckland Avenue, Barton Road, Connaught Road SPINE MAIN Route 3: Bunker's Hill road, Beufoy Road, to the roundabout meeting Coombe road, south across Whinless Down to Elms Vale Road Route 4: across the bridge to Grabble Avenue, Hillsode road, through fields towards Beufoy Rd, same course as Route 3 thereafter
SP1NE MAIN
What the costs comprise

Figure 2.1 shows the financial costs incurred during pipe laying. The costs are grouped into seven categories, and these are determined partly by location and pipe diameter. Pipe diameters can vary, but the assumption taken (for the new groundwater pumping stations) is that the water pipes will be around 250mm. (The factors behind the expenditure on materials, installation and common items are therefore fixed.) There are more than two geographical categories; open fields, and public pathways are two other settings. Reinstating costs are around 18, and 47 per metre of pipeline, respectively. Taking the assumption that constant costs apply to all four areas:
Location Urban highway Sub-urban area Public walkway Open road Cost per metre of pipeline 182.19 152.18 166.02 127.73
Page 12
Figure 2.1: water pipe mains laying costs (shading in vertical order as shown on right)
Figure 2.2: Routes 1 (grey) and 2 (black)
Page 13
Figure 2.3: Routes 3 (black) and 4 (grey)
Page 14
The pipe construction costs need only apply to directing water from Buckland and into the network (Primrose already exists, and Elms Vale Laundry bore hole site is situated adjacent to the Spine Main). In terms of optimising the overall costs, four routes have been chosen:
Route 1 2 3 4 Connection To Downsgate To Dover Intermediate To Spine Main To Spine Main Predicted cost () 525,000 470,100 415,300 402,600
An added advantage of connecting Buckland to the Spine Main is the opportunity of connecting Holmestone to the Spine Main. Holmestone pumping station has suffered the ongoing setback of not being used to full capacity due to the narrow pipelines connecting it to the 12" pipeline linking Primrose to Downsgate. Instead of its licensed 3.2 Ml/day output, Holmestone rarely supplies more than 1 Ml per day, when it is actually operating. Pipe bursts have often resulted from the Holmestone input, and an alternative system should be considered. Route 4 includes the cost of joining a new link from Holmestone station onto the Buckland pipe. It turns out that, of all four possible routes, this still proves to save the most money.
Page 15
3: Operational costs of the new stations

3.1: Energy costs associated with abstraction
Excluding the wide range of factors (discussed later), which affect the amount of electrical power needed to sustain delivery of the water from the submersible pump to the reservoir, the main component of energy required for bore hole pumping concerns the height to which the water must be raised. This the Potential Energy can be estimated using a simple calculation:
Two minor physical components are included m the abstraction energy calculation, as this in nature comprises the potential energy, plus Kinetic Energy and Flow Energy. Equations for the latter two forms of energy (in that order) are as follows:
Normally, the pipe diameter within the bore holes ranges between 8 and 10 (or 20.32cm and 25.40cm). The calculations will be based on the assumption that the diameter is an average of these figures. Fourthly, the Friction Energy was included. This does not affect the overall energy significantly, but it is relevant in terms of the pipeline pressure capacity. For example, it would be unwise to deliver the 9 Ml/day equivalent of the Buckland output, to Downsgate reservoir, by connecting Buckland with the mains between Downsgate and Primrose station. The friction pressure is applied in the same manner as the elevation metres head for the flow energy equation.
Page 16
With the total energy value now calculated, it is multiplied by a contingency of +10%, then convened from joules to kilowatts:
It is said that Caprari submersible pumps are to be installed at Elms Vale and Buckland. For these 2 sources, the motor efficiency is likely to be around ( = 80%). The power input is therefore divided by the fraction (8 10). The cable efficiency is another component of electrical energy, although this is usually negligible in comparison to the overall power input required. There is an equation for this. However, (1) the report from which this was taken states that a wide range of parameters must be taken into account prior to calculation; and, (2) it gives a loss of 22W within a 140kW input power. The radius of the cable is another factor, and the voltage and current must be established. It is better to leave this prediction out of the protocol at this stage. For reference though, the equation is given below:
Finally, the power is converted to produce a cost figure. The number of kilowatts required for the pump is multiplied by the kWh price set by the electricity company in question, for each hour of abstraction (Eastern Energy, or nPower).
3.2: How the electricity charging system operates

The nPower company supplements and charges the pumping stations operating above 100 kW. Their charge varies throughout the day and the year:
March to September Hours 07:00 16:30 16:30 18:30 18:30 19:00 19:00 07:00 Weekends (day)
VAT = 17.5%
October to February kW hours () 0.0273 0.3306 0.0273 0.01588 0.016 Hours 07:00 16:30 16:30 18:30 18:30 19:00 19:00 07:00 Weekends (day) kW hours () 0.02235 0.1184 0.03655 0.02235 0.0249
Fossil fuel levy = 0.3%
Climate Change levy = 0.43 to the kWh
Page 17
Eastern Energy is responsible for supplying the <100kW stations. Charge is 5.273 pence per kW hour; VAT is 17.5%.
3.3: Protocol for estimating the costs of Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland
The general public demand for water is between 250 and 300 litres per person per day. This varies considerably throughout the day, but even this variation cannot be accurately quantified using flow archive data alone. These alone also show variations in that demand, both time-wise, and - with the local population served in each area taken into account - the amount being used per average person. There is usually a peak demand dining the morning at around 7am to 10am, a moderate demand during the afternoon, and another peak demand during the evening. This dwindles into the night, reaching a trough during the small hours. In theory, it is easy to predict the hours of abstraction to be during the small hours, and later in the day before 16:30 hours, and occasionally during the evening. To set a given group of hours during each time of the day would prove to be too idealistic. The rate at which a reservoir fills up; the variation in quantities abstracted from pumping stations within the same zone; the diversions of water in or out of the zone; and, the pressure valve involvements play a role in such a prediction. Without a model, these cannot be estimated, and neither can the optimum pumping regime.
Averaging the cost throughout the year Particularly when the station operates at over 100kW, the predicted cost is better to be based on an average, rather than on a presumed time of day. It may be that even during the expensive 1630-1830hrs time gap, the stations may have to be operating. There must be abstraction 24 hours a day to sustain reservoir levels, and it is more likely to come from stations which cost less.
Stations below 100kW The set price is 5.73 pence per kilowatt hour; with VAT added, the total cost is 6.733 pence, per kWh.
Stations above 100kW The working for these stations is provided in Figure 3.1 over-page:
Page 18
Figure 3.1: calculations of operating costs for >100kW groundwater pumping stations NB: Overall Average => ( (3.67pence x 214 days) + (2.70 pence x 171 days) ) 365 days
Page 19
The results below for connections between Elms Vale and/or Buckland to the Spine Main do not include the energy required for transfer to the Hills Reservoir. This is dealt with separately by the Elms Vale booster, which, if the Spine Main was to handle more water, would have to be upgraded to meet the energy required. As seen in Appendix 2, the Spine Main maximum pressure capacity is 160mh, so no more than 28 Ml/day can pass through. No more than 19Ml/day would pass through the Spine Main if both Buckland and Elms Vale, along with the present water diversion to the Hills Reservoir were lo be delivered. No calculation is given for Elms Vale booster as the extra water being transported has not been accurately predicted this will be determined by the final licenses granted to the new stations, plus the restrictions imposed upon those in the Upper Dour catchment area. Predicted power input requirements, and energy costs for the stations:
Route of transport Buckland to Downsgate Reservoir Buckland to Dover Intermed. Reservoir Buckland to the Spine Main Primrose to Downsgate Power required (kW) 133 92 102 113 /m3 0.01556 0.0166 0.0118 0.0296 (4 Ml/day, 24hr period) 0.0109 Annual cost () 28,400 30,300 21,600 32,220
Elms Vale to Spine Main
50*
15,600
*15 hours per day
There is a correlation between the cost and the set abstraction rate throughout the day. The shorter the license lime given, and thus the greater the flow rate, the lower the cost will be as a result.
3.4: Station maintenance costs

This is a more complicated and uncertain source of expenditure upon which to draw an assumption. However, as shown in Figure 3.2, this can run into thousands of pounds (), and so it cannot be ignored. The data is limited (1999-2000, 2000-2001), but there are indicators to suggest that the cost of electrical and pump maintenance bears at least some relation to the age of the station, the number of pumps used, and the output required. The electrical costs and the pump maintenance costs for those two years are provided in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. Recorded electrical costs show slight consistency for around half of the eight pumping stations; although those soared by a factor of over 4 for Primrose and Stonehall stations. By contrast, the pumping costs did not change significantly for any of the stations.
Page 20
Figure 3.2: groundwater pumping station maintenance costs
Figure 3.3: groundwater pumping station electrical costs
Figure 3.4: groundwater station pump maintenance costs ()
Page 21
The age of the pump could relate to cost. According to Figure 3.5, no such correlation is apparent. Figure 3.6 shows a slightly clearer relationship between the pump cost, and the abstraction. If this to be taken seriously, the predicted cost for Buckland could be 4000; for Elms Vale at around 2500, and for Primrose at 3000. These figures are entirely based on the graph alone, and the real outcome is certainly going to differ, probably below these costs as the pumps will be brand new.
Figure 3.5: correlation between the age and the maintenance costs of groundwater pumps
Figure 3.6: correlation between the pump maintenance cost and annual groundwater abstraction
The number of pumps also relates to cost. The data in Figure 3.7 suggests that if one pump was used per station, the actual cost would amount to around 1000, in sharp contradiction to the values implied by Figure 3.6.
Page 22
Figure 3.7: correlation between the number of pumps per station, and pump maintenance costs
One parameter with which some correlation could be made against the electrical cost is the age of the station. It is probable that older installations will require more repairs, but, as seen with the age of the pumps, this is not strictly the case. Nevertheless, Figure 3.8 shows that from starting out to around 20 years of age, the station electrical maintenance costs soar from around 1000 to 2500; with increasing age, the costs level off:
Figure 3.8: correlation between the age of the groundwater pumping station, and electrical maintenance cost
In conclusion, immediate pumping costs for Buckland and Elms Vale may occur at 4000 and 2500 per annum respectively, and their electrical maintenance costs should probably not exceed 1000. Primrose pumping maintenance costs well exceed 5000 at present, with electrical costs of 6000. Both may be expected to rise with increased abstraction.
Page 23
4: Operational and maintenance costs of treatment facilities

A majority of the FDWS pumping stations has the 3 essential treatment instalments for water purification. Chlorinating the water is a legal requirement. Turbidity monitoring, and UV sterilisation will also be installed at Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland. The UV treatment is not seen at every pumping station, although its use is increasing, with new instalments at Kingsdown station. The chlorinating treatment sterilises the water - this anti-bacterial precaution is particularly essential in aborting the presence and spread of cryptosporidium, a faecal coliforminhabiting micro-organism, which is particularly endemic in pastural agricultural areas with intense sheep fanning. The UV treatment is an additional precaution, with its highfrequency rays eliminating any remaining bacteria or other pathogenic micro-organisms, which may have survived the chlorinating treatment. Additional treatment facilities such as pesticide treatment have been installed at Connaught and Lye Oak pumping stations. As agriculture is an intensive industry outside Folkestone and Dover, with both pastoral and arable farming contributing nitrates and phosphates into the soil. The accumulation of these compounds along with agri-chemicals within the groundwater has been thoroughly documented in the last 20 years. Similar to Connaught pumping station, Elms Vale borehole is situated along the boundary of Dover, with agricultural land immediately to the west. Pesticide and nitrate treatment could become an issue mere in the years to come. However, since there is no data on the levels of contaminants in the groundwater at Elms Vale as yet, the present assumption is that Elms Vale will incorporate the 3 principal purification treatment facilities. Prirnrose and Buckland are located further within Dover; it is shown in Appendix 2 that agricultural chemicals and associated biological impurities do not reach dangerous levels at Primrose. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised for a few years that abstraction levels exceeding 5 Ml/day at Buckland could pose other problems. Two petrol stations proximate to the borehole may be a source of hydrocarbon contamination, although this would only become a serious issue, were a spillage to occur. In conclusion the best predictions at this siayc of the operational and maintenance costs of treatment should only be focused on UV, turbidity monitoring, and chlorinating facilities.
4.1: Chlorinating the water

Introduction The apparatus for this step in the treatment process includes the chlorine tanks, an automated chlorine tank switch-over facility, a validation meter, AVC/flow proportional compiler, and a double-validation meter. The chlorine gas injection system comprises the injector, and pump apparatus for passing the chlorine gas through the pressure transition,
Page 24
between that of the chlorine tanks (set at around 1 Bar), and the pressurised water passing out of the bore hole. The switch-over facility consists of pipes connected to the tanks, which are set below atmospheric pressure, and automatically shut off the empty chlorine tank once the pressure therein reaches atmospheric pressure. There are no chlorinating banks into which water can pass (and trickle slowly out the other end as the chlorine disinfects the water, before being dissipated). There is not enough time for this process. Instead, the chlorine gas is injected at a minimum (residual) level of 0.031 mg per litre of water. This is carried out under the assumption that the chlorine "taste" in the water will have winnowed away before it reaches the customer. Operational costs Portacell Ltd supply the meters and validation equipment. These are run constantly at around 500W, even with the pumping and chlorinating equipment on standby. The pumping device particularly for the large abstraction of a possible 9 Ml/day at Buckland is likely to run at around 2.5kW during pumping. The normal layout comprises the injection and pump facilities, plus 2 meters, for double validation. This may be enhanced to include a third meter, allowing for triple validation with the new sources. It is anticipated therefore that, altogether, the entire chlorinating facility will require a power input of (2.5 kW + [3 x 500 W]), or 4 kW during abstraction. During stand-by, this will reduce to 1.5 kW. The calculation will therefore take into account of the average output per day throughout the year, and the maximum output for which the pump has been chosen. For example, with Buckland producing 5 Ml/day, but with its 24-hour output set to 9Ml/day, the calculation will be based on the station operating during an average fraction of the day as five ninths ([5 Ml/day 9 Ml/day] x 24 hours), and 4 ninths of the day when only the meters are operating. All this is shown in detail in Appendix 3. The levels of chlorine injection anticipated cannot be fully addressed until all water quality testing at the new sites (towards the autumn) give a clear indication on how much chlorine is needed. For Primrose, the present injection is around 50 mg/L. For Dover Priory (nearer to Elms Vale), the injection is set at around 35 mg/L. The assumption undertaken in the calculations is that 50 mg/L is applied to the VI:IKT at Primrose and Buckland. For Elms Vale, being adjacent to farmland, a contingency value of an extra 5 mg/L will be added to 35 mg/L.. The outcome in reality may be different in the end though, so these calculations altogether will have a contingency of +10% added on. The chlorinating treatment maintenance costs The maintenance costs comprise both the repairs of the instrumentation, and the periodic replacement of the chlorine tanks. Appendix 3 also has a calculation of how many tanks are required each year for each new groundwater pumping station.
Page 25
Chlorine tanks (supplied by Rhodia Eco Services Ltd) contain almost precisely 33kg of liquefied chlorine gas. Upon reaching atmospheric pressure (at which the release of chlorine is automatically controlled), the remaining chlorine gas is negligible. Each tank costs 28.00. Added onto these costs are repairs. Figure 4.1 shows total chlorinating treatment maintenance costs against the amount being injected into the water. This may not be relevant for predicting what total costs may arise with the new stations. The age of the chlorinating equipment may have been a preferable scale to measure against. (This chlorinating information was not obtainable.) If Figure 4.1 is approximately correct, the maintenance costs of chlorinating treatment at Buckland and Primrose may be around 3000 to 3500, and that at Elms Vale may be around 2000.
Figure 4.1: relationship between chlorine injection and maintenance cost
In reality, the repairs required are difficult to predict as a whole. Equipment malfunction or failure may or may not occur from time to time at the new stations, particularly when they have just been installed. The predicted figures may be referred to as an assumption. Other factors include the age of the chlorinating treatment facilities, the transport and petrol costs, the craftsmen's' wages, and additional fittings.
Page 26
4.2: Turbidity meters

Turbidity can present a problem with the Chalk aquifer groundwater. The hardness of the water (circa 250 mg/L (Ca/Mg)CO3) not only comprises dissolved carbonate salts from within the chalk, but small particles extrapolated through the water into the pumping station can lead to cloudiness of the water. Turbidity monitoring is as important for FDWS as chlorinating the water. The range used for measuring turbidity is with the Formazin turbidity units; 4 units or above is considered unacceptable. Their operation is simple, and their replacement is very infrequent. They operate at an insignificant 12W with a 240V supply, and are run constantly at the pumping stations. Calculating their contribution to the station costs is therefore uncomplicated. Maintenance costs are relatively insignificant.
4.3: UV treatment
The UV treatment facility (illustrated in Figure 4.2) comprises one or two chambers through which water passes. These cylindrical chambers support one or more ultraviolet lightemitting lamps, which are set to emit the energy equivalent of 25mJ of power per square centimetre of chamber wall. Their maintenance is more complicated in comparison to chlorinating water treatment. The measurement taken (in terms of estimating the water quality and UV output) is proportional to three parameters: contact time of the UV light against the chamber wall; the UV dose; and, the UV fluence.
Figure 4.2: schematic layout of a UV treatment facility for groundwater

Page 27
The lamps themselves do not vary by length, although their power input does. They are housed in cork sleeves, which are separately replaced. The UV monitor on the outer wall of the chamber sends signals to the smartbox, which is registered to compare the recorded radiation against the maximum output possible from the lamp. The smanbox interacts both with the monitors, and the inlet valves. The lamps emit a set power (kW) at different stages in their lifetime. This is due to the UV intensity gradually dropping throughout that time, with the power input being stepped up in order to compensate for the radiation decrease. There are 3 step-up stages: the lamps begin at 52% of their full power capacity, then are raised to 68%, then 84%, and finally are set at 100%. Because of this, the power value of the lamp must be averaged to take this into account. During stand-by, the UV treatment will also stop. An automatic wipe-up facility is also included, particularly since the UV monitoring can be affected by chemical impurities in the water, leading to precipitation on the chamber walls by Ca, Mg, Fe and Mn compounds.
4.4: Operating costs

The UV treatment facility incorporates 1 chamber, bearing 1 lamp- For Buckland's maximum abstraction rate of 9 Ml/day (hence a flow rate of 375 m3 per hour), a 5.5kW lamp is needed, which would operate at an average of 3 kW throughout its lifetime. For Elms Vale and Primrose (125m3/hr and 167m3/hr, respectively), the lamp required would be rated at 3.5kW, running at 2.2kW on average. Drellingore and Connaught comprise UV instruments holding two chambers, owing to poorer water quality. The calculations are based on the assumption that this will not have to be applied to Elms Vale, Primrose and Ruckland. As mentioned throughout this report, the actual requirements following test pumping throughout the late summer and autumn may turn out differently.
4.5: Maintenance costs

Referred to as Consumable Items Cost, these will comprise the replacement of 4 separate components - the lamps, the lamp sleeves, the sealant kit, and the wiper service. Lamps will cost 363 to replace for all power ratings; once fitted, they will last for 1 year. Sleeves last 2 or 3 years, and cost 379 to replace. Their average maintenance cost per annum is estimated to be around 125. The sealant kit, which is also replaced every 2 to 3 years, costs 48; the average maintenance cost per annum is around i6. The automatic wipe-up t'.icilhy needs replacing each year, at a cost of 175.
Page 28
In total, the yearly Consumable Items Cost is rated at around 667. This applies for a single operating chamber hosting 1 lamp. In addition to the Consumable Items Costs, there will be transport costs, craftsmen's' wages and FDWS van supply costs. Since only three stations house UV instruments, the total maintenance costs are not only difficult to predict, but the background data is very limited. Drellingore and Connaught are broadly similar, but contain double-chambered versions. Ottinge appears not to have undergone much in the way of repairs. It would be unreasonable to make a guess at the total annual maintenance costs with the current data available. In conclusion, costs during the years when only the lamp and wiper service need replacing, would amount to around 600 in terms of materials. With transport and craftsmen's' costs included, up to 800 is a possibility. The maximum cost for all materials is 965; total costs here may approach 1800. For repairs, the costs could range between 500 and 2000.
Page 29
5: Issues concerning the use of Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland

5.1: Preserving the flow of the River Dour
While development of the new groundwater pumping stations continues, the Folkestone and Dover Water Services company is communicating with the Vivendi Water Partnership and the Environment Agency, in attempts to resolve what licenses will be granted. The latter group has imposed that restrictions in abstraction need to be undertaken along with the additional inputs. The area of most concern is the Upper Dour catchment area. There, it is said that abstraction from the Lye Oak, Drellingore, Lower Standen, Stonehall and Poulton stations is causing the River Dour to dry up periodically, and that continued pumping will eventually threaten the habitats around the Bushy Ruff, Russell Gardens and Kearnsey Manor lakes. Evidence presented in a catchment study of the River Dour (see References), states that the impact of abstraction on the groundwater recharge within the Chalk has been quantified. With around 78,000 cubic metres per day recharge on average throughout the year (around 28.5 million annually), a third of this is given to being extrapolated from the ground and not returned. During "dry" years (for example, 1989) this proportion removed may account for almost half of the year's recharge, as shown in Figure 5.1:
Figure 5.1: groundwater abstraction and natural regeneration rates under the River Dour basin (NB: limited project time and faulty equipment resulted in this poorly printed, scanned image)
Mott MacDonald's hydro-geological modelling software was designed to predict the impact of varying abstraction in the catchment area, on the flow of the Dour. The main conclusion drawn from his study, is the suggestion that seasonal reductions of abstraction from Drellingore and Lower Standen stations of a combined 7000 cubic metres per day. The increased abstraction within Dover will not have the detrimental effects on the River Dour, and these are viewed in his report to be compensation, rather than a gain in the companies' supply. This approach makes the intended gain of 5 Ml/day for FDWS harder to achieve.
Page 30
The River Dour is a unique hydrological feature: whereas nearly all water within the Chalk stays underground, with the exception of prolonged rainfall (producing winterbournes), the River Dour has a more consistent surface run-off. It is a result of the incision of the Chalk geology by glacial run-off during the Ice Ages, where the valleys penetrate the potentiometric surface (surface of the groundwater). The drying up of the River Dour is not a recent phenomenon though. This has always occurred periodically. 10 varying extent along the course of the river. Particularly in the upper valleys (the Alkham and Lydden valleys), the only significant surface run-off occurs during the winter, or during years of exceptionally high rainfall. One consideration upon which the model used was based, was an average ideal flow for the River Dour (natural flow). The aimed optimum flow passing the Grabble Mill is based at 0.1 cubic metres passing each second. Presently, Stonehall Pumping station must augment the Dour, should the levels passing Grabble Mill fall short of 9 Ml/day. The augmentation required reached levels of over 1.5 Ml/day in order to compensate lower flow, highlighting the environmental impact of abstraction, in combination with climate. The hydro-geology of the chalk itself involves rapid transmissivity, in that the movement of water within the rock is rapid. This implies two possibilities. Recharge, although (in terms of borehole drawdown) is stated to be gradual, will continue, regardless of abstraction. On the other hand, the suction of water from the surrounding chalk into the submersible pumps installed around the upper Dour catchment is equally fast, and draw-downs of around 20 to 30 metres at the Lye Oak and Drellingore bore holes is documented. Fissures within the chalk may also allow the pumping process to generate widespread depletion: it is said that the Lye Oak station influences the level of the Kearnsey Manor Lake. Since 1931, its abstraction has been correlated with decreased intermittent surface run-off within the Alkham Valley. Not only is the upper Dour catchment an issue though. Downstream of the former Grabble Mill, decreases in river flow have been recorded, and linked to previous abstraction at the former Buckland Paper Mill. This is a consideration to be made when pumping tests commence at Buckland in September. Despite the evidence pointing to abstraction issued by FDWS contributing to the periodic drying up of the River Dour, background information needed to clarify these claims, such as rainfall, fluvial output and groundwater levels, are limited. MacDonald's model however takes into account a wide range of geophysical, hydrological and bore hole data, and should be taken seriously. An important feature of the River Dour, is the source of the water itself. 98% of the water passing into each section of the stream is immediately derived from within the ground, as opposed to having been transported downstream. This implies (i) any abstraction proximate to the river is likely to impact the Dour (as suggested with the activities of Buckland Paper Mill); and, (ii) that the drying up of the river will be exacerbated by abstraction from the upper catchment, which intrudes with the source of grounds after recharge. This is why, despite the former Buckland Paper Mill having a license of 14 Ml/day abstraction. FDWS will not be given such an allowance. 6 Ml/day on average is probably the most that can be
Page 31
expected there. The target flows for the Grabble Mill site are difficult to achieve without significant re-arrangements being made to the pumping network. 1990, 1996 and 1997 were years in which the river flow rate fell short of the 0.1 m3/s-1 threshold.
Review of possible remedial options The report provides possible remedial options, in light of, with the use of the model, a significant improvement in river flow expected with an equally significant cutback in the Lye Oak and Drellingore abstraction. It is also stated that a more moderate cutback at either of these stations (e.g. 2Ml/day) will not generate nearly as much improvement. Thirdly, the model was used to predict that, with cessation of Lye Oak, the Dour would flow through the whole valley, but with limited output in the upper reaches. This would relate to a cut-back in abstraction of between 3000 and 4000 cubic metres per day. What the report did not take into account though, is the reduced activity at Lye Oak, due to the refurbishments of the cryptosporidium treatment plant therein. Stonehall and Lower Sianden have been run at full capacity throughout the last three years as a result. Furthermore, a more precise suggestion needs to be proposed, rather than simply a seasonal reduction in abstraction around the Upper Dour catchment. 7000 Ml/day cutback may entail around 4000 Ml/day cutback throughout the year on average, but this, like many considerations in this report, is but an assumption.
5.2: Increase in public demand

The suggestion for reducing the abstraction around the upper Dour catchment area has arrived at a time when increased abstraction has become essential. At present the demand for water by FDWS 150,000 customers almost matches the present rate of supply. Had this been a "'dry" year, an overall deficit between supply and demand peak demands in the summer months may have become a potential threat. This level of supply against demand is also known as the hed room, in which surplus and deficit can occur under varying weather conditions. This is illustrated in Figure 5.2, where (with population expected to increase to 170,000 in 2025), the weather conditions further determine the state of supply and demand. The predicted outlook is that the customer population will increase by over 30,000 to reach around 173,000 customers. The rate of increase is assumed to be within 1 Ml/day every five years, but an extra I Ml day may be required during drier years. On average, and particularly in summer, the average daily demand per customer is around 300 litres consumption. Although imprecise, this will be the standard demand figure used here, and is fairly approximate, as shown in Table 5.1.
Page 32
Figure 5.2: predicted balance of supply and demand for water in the FDWS districts under different climatic conditions Table 5.1: water supply and demand in the FDWS districts (2000 figures)
Dover as an abstraction source is vital for areas such as Folkestone and Denge. The water quality problems amongst intensive agriculture around the Romney marsh, and the poorer water quality within the Greensand beneath Folkestone, limit the opportunities for further groundwater resource development there. Figure 5.3 shows that at present, the potential full abstraction is not being met, and there are a number of stations which either operate at limited capacity, or are inactive. The most questionable aspects of this developing deficit centre on the fact that several stations owned by Folkestone and Dover Water Services do not operate at their fullauthorised capacity. Only in ideal circumstances can all the stations supply the maximum amount - water quality deterioration, mechanical faults and local environmental hazards blight each pumping station's performance. In some cases the problem may completely halt production.
Page 33
Figure 5.3: proportion of groundwater output in licensed limits: dark bands indicate the licence levels; light grey bands indicate quantities used (2000 data)
Serious issues such as water quality matter to Ottinge, Denge and Poulton stations. Ottinge, in being proximate to a sewage treatment plant, had to be immediately closed off in the recent event of pollution from the plant which, if drawdown continued, would have percolated into the groundwater. Nevertheless, it is expected that the water quality improvement will resolve this matter within the next few months at most. The water quality problems affecting Denge are a geological consequence The Dungeness shingle, in contrast to the chalk, is far less absorbing in thai it does not behave as a natural filter, and is less effective in removing pathogenic and chemical pollutants. Some wells at Denge have been inactive for many years. The algal bloom, which occurred at the beginning of this month (July 2001), indicates just how vulnerable this region is. Stonehall is situated near a lake in the Alkham Valley. Prolonged abstraction from this well has been known 10 induce The drying up of the lake, particularly during the summer months. Although it is not out of use however, Stonehall station is only used to supplement the river feeding into the lake. Poulton station has experienced regular turbidity problems as recently, and generally remains out of use as tins problem originates from underground, and so cannot be eliminated using surface treatment. In general, Poulton and Stonehall cannot be fully abstracted for distribution purposes
Page 34
neither at present, nor in the near future. Denge is sustainable, albeit problematic. Ottinge will re-commence within the next year. In addition, Lye Oak pumping station is having a pesticide treatment complex installed, although it will also recommence shortly. In all, the amount of water supplied per day from those stations, which may not become readily obtainable, will amount to around 10Ml/day. The remaining circa 27 Ml/day which could be added is less accounted for. In particular, Seabrook, Bluehouse, Connaught and Saltwood could be run at a greater capacity, generating amongst them over 11 Ml/day. With St. Margarets to run at full capacity, and Lye Oak to be started up again soon, the total rebound in supply gener.ued could eclipse the extra supply from Primrose, Buckland and Elms Vale. Nevertheless, it is not that simple. The costs per cubic metre must be considered, and the network has to be reviewed prior to making such a conclusion. This was where the pumping regime network modelling predictions would have helped.
5.2: Costs of the stations

One fact which needs to be taken into account, is that FDWS has been operating the nPower and Eastern Energy systems for only three years. The patterns in cost per cubic metre (in relation to the present tariff system) can only be analysed as far back as 1998. The annual abstraction costs have been fairly constant for most groundwater pumping stations (Figure 5.4). However, the monthly costs tell a different story (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.4: annual electrical costs of the groundwater pumping stations (1, 2, 3 = 1999, 2000, 2001)
Page 35
Figure 5.5: monthly costs of the groundwater pumping stations
Figure 5.6 is taken from the 5M logging records throughout June as tabulated on the MC 2000 Records Program. The period of time represented here is not sufficient enough to reflect the transition in all four parameters throughout the year (particularly during winter when public demand is much lower). Nevertheless, there are still enough indicators that stall any correlation between those, and the eventual charges imposed.
Figure 5.6: groundwater levels (red line), flow rate (blue line) and head pressure (yellow line) at three existing groundwater pumping stations (year 2000 data)
Page 36
The metrics of head pressure is not proportional to the power input costs to the station; what must be taken into consideration here is that the pressure, despite varying groundwater levels throughout the year, will not change significantly, especially when the reservoir is situated at a much greater altitude. The pressure required will obviously relate to the kW ratings of the pumps used. The flow rate, although not given for Kingsdown, appears to reflect the power consumption more accurately, but this is an obvious and expected trend- The groundwater levels are therefore an important issue in terms of the station costs, both in terms of depth, and the extent of drawdown, which can vary through the seasons. Similar trends were analysed with other stations within the vicinity of Dover, in the Downsgate Urban, Dover Intermediate, Chalksole and Hills Reservoir Zones. The station costs vary erratically throughout the months, but this variation only extends across a few peonies to the cubic metre raised. Chapter 3 dealt with the winter and summer charge costs. Any trend in station costs is further obscured by the fact that, despite the likelihood that higher groundwater levels in winter result in less energy being expended in the abstraction process, the electricity companies respond by raising the abstraction cost during this time of year (summer 2001). The print outs in Appendix 4 which correlate the costs per cubic metre raised, with the amount of abstraction - do not give a clear hint that the costs are based on the change in groundwater levels. If this was the case, the abstraction costs around the upper Dour would generally be much greater, as the groundwater depth is greater around the plateau, than above the Dour valley. However, in theory this should be the case. The pumping regime that is practised and which varies from month to month will obscure what patterns exist for the resulting costs of the stations. These will relate to the change and practise in pumping regime more closely than any physical and energy-based factors. Appendix 3 gives the data for Lower Standen. This did not contain the costs per cubic metre raised.
4.4: Where to send the newly abstracted water

The annual costs give a relatively clearer indication. With the exception of Lye Oak and Holmestone, which only operate intermittently at present anyway, the order of stations by increasing cost are: Connaught, Drellingore, Stonehall, Primrose, Broome, St Margarets/Dover Priory/Kingsdown. This raises further questions on whether to send the Buckland water west to the Hills reservoir on behalf of avoiding deficit. Alternatively, sending it east to the Dover/Downsgate reservoirs, may result in the reservoir filling up more quickly, may allow an overall reduction in operational costs, while the water can be partly transported across the Spine Main to Hills Reservoir. This may allow for multi-purpose usage of the water, where it can be used for compensating any lost supply in the Chalksole and Hills Zones with the reduction in licenses around the Upper Dour catchment area. With reference to the network diagrams, this will become essential.
Page 37
Without a pumping regime model, any proposals for where to send the water cannot be accurately founded. Reducing the output within the Chalksole Zone sources The three stations here are Lye Oak, Stonehall and Broome. The first two have been associated with intermittent flows in the River Dour. Lye Oak, once operational, can extract within the 6Ml/day range (abstraction charts) on average. As displayed on the water company network diagram (at the FDWS reception area), this - along with Broome and Stonehall - is more than sufficient for the local population. 9.5Ml/day would pass to the Hills Reservoir. With the Environment Agency probably suggesting an annual reduction of possibly 5Ml/day from among the Upper Dour Sources, this may not present too serious a problem once the new sources commence abtraction. As mentioned during the introduction, the aim is to increase daily abstraction throughout the region by 5Ml/day, in order to cover over 'he headroom supply, in preparation for predicted population increase. Within the Dover area alone, to use the new sources to their full capacity, whilst reducing abstraction in the upper Dour by 4Ml/day, would produce a net gain of 5.8Ml/day. The combined output from Primrose addition, Buckland and Elms Vale amounts to around 9.8Ml/day on average. With Holmestone included, a further 2.3Ml/day being added, the amount reduced around the upper Dour can be raised further. If water from Holmestone were to be diverted into the Spine Main, the increased output from Primrose would be required to compensate for lost production therefrom. The 1.8Ml/day increase would probably be a satisfactory replenishment, instead of the intermittent 1Ml/day input from Holmestone at present. As water is diverted from Downsgate to Dover Intermediate reservoir, and farther transported to the Hills Reservoir presently, this should not be problematic. The most important issue is the reduced output in the Chalksole Zone. The license restriction, if it were to come into effect prior to Lye Oak re-opening, would have to be restricted to Drellingore, Lower Standen and Broome. At most, the Stonehall output could be reduced significantly, with the Broome output of 5 Mi/day sustaining local demand.
Page 38
5: Conclusions and recommendations

Probably the best arrangement for the Buckland source water is to deliver it to the Hills Reservoir, and to reintroduce full capacity to the network via a new pipeline instalment. Dover at present is adequately supplemented with the Downsgate rural and urban sources, and the Dover Intermediate supply. It is assumed that population growth in and around Dover is less than that around the Folkestone and Romney Marsh regions. At present, the new sources will not have to be used to their full capacity, even with reductions being considered with the Upper Dour stations, in the Chalksole and Hills reservoir zones. Once Lye Oak recommences abstraction, the Chalksole Zone should be adequately supplied, and restrictions imposed by the Environment Agency should not have a detrimental effect. In terms of avoiding possible deficit, with consideration of the Dour catchment area alone, the new sources can still be used to attain an overall gain of 5 Mi/day, provided that the restrictions further upstream do not exceed 5 Ml/day. No pumping regime could be proposed though, and this will have to be addressed with the assistance of network modelling. The additional use of pipeline vales, plus altering the power capacity of boosters including Downsgate, Connaught and Elms Vale will need to be carefully considered. Chemical data from Buckland and Primrose suggest that treatment facilities should not extend beyond basic provisions, i.e. UV and chlorinating treatment. Together these will cost between 1000 and 1300 in terms of required maintenance, and possibly a further 3500 in terms of repairs for each station on average. The operational costs have been reviewed in detail, along with full information on the treatment instrumentation. One missing piece of information is the exact power input to the chlorinating pump, although for the abstraction capacity of Primrose and Buckland, 2.5kW is a reasonable assumption to be made. The power inputs to Buckland are predicted to approach or exceed 100 kW, and the same applies IG Primrose with increased output having to be driven uphill to Downsgate. Elm Vale will probably operate at around 50kW. The costs of abstraction for the new stations may range between I pence per cubic metre, and 4 pence. It is estimated that Elms Vale and Primrose are likely to be slightly more expensive than Buckland. If these predicted costs turn out to be correct, Buckland may be a cheaper source of water for transporting to the Hills reservoir, and thus, connecting it to the Spine Main will be advantageous. The pipeline construction costs have also been analysed, although the actual costs are likely to vary. Connecting Buckland to Spine Main, financially, is seen to be the best option. Elms Vale may not require a significant distance in terms of pipeline connection as it is proximate to the Spine Main.
Page 39
As well as carefully addressing the pumping regime, other recommendations include the reintroduction of Holmestone to the network, with a new pipeline leading to the Buckland pipeline going to the Spine Main. Secondly, an exact figure for how much cut-back around the Upper Dour is required, needs to be produced in order for a more informed decision on where to send the new source water, and how much is required in which districts. Finally, as a suggestion, money can be saved or the heating and electrical costs of the new stations if the heating facilities for the chlorinating instruments are replaced with an on-situ heating device which is attached lo the apparatus, instead of an external source, whereby heat and energy efficiency, is lost. This may save hundreds of pounds each year, and should be applied at Primrose, Buckland and Elms Vale, if not elsewhere.
Page 40
References and Consultation
Caprari, 2001. Electric submersible pumps and vertical lineshaft pumps. Chadwick, A; Morfett, J, 1993. Hydraulics in civil and environmental engineering (2nd ed). Chapman & Hall, London Douglas, J.F., 1971. Solutions of problems in fluid mechanics Part I. FDWS, 2000. Annual water resources plan review (September 2000). FDWS, 2000. FDWS Downhole inspection report: Elms Vale Laundry borehole. FDWS, 2000. FDWS final (RSU) mains laying unit costs. AMP 3 infrastructure unit costs. FDWS, 2000. Particular rules of measurement and schedule of work for schedule D: dayworks and emergency works. Mott MacDonald, 2000. Final report: River Dour catchment study. Environment Agency. Vivendi Water Partnership Water Resources Dept, 2001. Buckland Paper Mill Pumping Test (January 2001).
Details concerning the maintenance and operations costs of the UV treatment plants were collected during a visit by Peter Harris (Municipal Sales Manager of Hanovia Ltd). Instrumentation power ratings for chlorine treatment were discussed by Russell Morgan (Portacell) over the telephone. Nick Thomson (Rhodia Eco Services Ltd) provided values for the quantities of chlorine supplied in each tank, in terms of supply and pressure values. Proposed abtraction rates and potential stations for licence reduction were also discussed with Lucy Lytton at Vivendi Water Partnerships offices in Watford.
Page 41
APPENDIX 1: Pipe-laying construction costs
Page 42
APPENDIX 2: Water quality analysis at Primrose
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
APPENDIX 3: Lower Standen electrical costs
Page 46
APPENDIX 4: Predicted costs of the groundwater pumping stations
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54

Issues Concerning The New Abstraction Sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale.

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Issues Concerning The New Abstraction Sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale.

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Issues concerning the new abstraction sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale

Introduction and Objectives

Primrose Buckland Mill (paper mill which closed in 1999

TR 3056 4232 TR 3031 4296

1: Physical and chemical Information on the proposed pumping systems

1.2: Buckland Paper Mill

1.3: Primrose Pumping Station

1.4: Elms Vale Pumping Station

Figure 1.2: Elms Vale bore hole test

2: Estimating the construction costs

What the costs comprise

Figure 2.2: Routes 1 (grey) and 2 (black)

Figure 2.3: Routes 3 (black) and 4 (grey)

3: Operational costs of the new stations

3.2: How the electricity charging system operates

Fossil fuel levy = 0.3%

Climate Change levy = 0.43 to the kWh

Elms Vale to Spine Main

3.4: Station maintenance costs

Figure 3.2: groundwater pumping station maintenance costs

Figure 3.3: groundwater pumping station electrical costs

Figure 3.4: groundwater station pump maintenance costs ()

4: Operational and maintenance costs of treatment facilities

4.1: Chlorinating the water

Figure 4.1: relationship between chlorine injection and maintenance cost

4.2: Turbidity meters

Figure 4.2: schematic layout of a UV treatment facility for groundwater

4.4: Operating costs

4.5: Maintenance costs

5: Issues concerning the use of Primrose, Elms Vale and Buckland

5.2: Increase in public demand

5.2: Costs of the stations

Figure 5.5: monthly costs of the groundwater pumping stations

4.4: Where to send the newly abstracted water

5: Conclusions and recommendations

References and Consultation

APPENDIX 1: Pipe-laying construction costs

APPENDIX 2: Water quality analysis at Primrose

APPENDIX 3: Lower Standen electrical costs

APPENDIX 4: Predicted costs of the groundwater pumping stations

Anda mungkin juga menyukai