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

7/30/2019 Issues concerning the new abstraction sites at Buckland, Primrose and Elms Vale.

1/54

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

Produced in 2001; reprinted 2013. Copyright of LabSearch, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland Page1

ISSUES CONCERNING THE NEW ABSTRACTION SITES ATBUCKLAND, 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


2/54



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


3/54



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 fromPrimrose, 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. Toconnect 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 aresome cases where increased abstraction can be achieved elsewhere in the FDWS service


4/54



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 capacityby 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.


5/54



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 boreholesources, which are listed as follows:

Location Proposed daily abstraction Grid reference

Elms Vale 5 Ml per day (depending on the TR 3040 4115

discharge licence

Primrose Possibly Ml per day TR 3056 4232

Buckland Mill (paper mill 5 Ml per day (up to 6 ml once in TR 3031 4296

which closed in 1999 full operation

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) the possible distribution arrangements, with their associated costs and benefits;

(2) 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,

(3) a suppositional view of the additional operational costs brought about by utilising

these new resources.


6/54



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 at14.5m, this is an unconfined aquifer, and fissure within the rock enhance water entry. The


7/54



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


8/54



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 1.2below and

over-page, with the highest average value given, in order to isolate any possiblecontamination.

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)


9/54



Table 1.2:Buckland Paper Mill pumping test: GU Partnership Central Laboratory analysis, January 2001


10/54



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 anextra 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 2show 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 1.2over-page.


11/54



Figure 1.2: Elms Vale bore hole test


12/54



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, anddistributed 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 Route taken

DOWNSGATE 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

SP1NE MAIN Route 4: across the bridge to Grabble Avenue, Hillsode road, through fields

towards Beufoy Rd, same course as Route 3 thereafter

What the costs comprise

Figure 2.1shows 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 Cost per metre of pipeline

Urban highway 182.19

Sub-urban area 152.18

Public walkway 166.02

Open road 127.73


13/54



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)


14/54



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


15/54



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 Connection Predicted cost ()

1 To Downsgate 525,000

2 To Dover Intermediate 470,100

3 To Spine Main 415,300

4 To Spine Main 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 itto 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.


16/54



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 electricalpower 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.


17/54



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 October to February

Hours kW hours () Hours kW hours ()

07:0016:30 0.0273 07:0016:30 0.02235

16:3018:30 0.3306 16:3018:30 0.1184

18:3019:00 0.0273 18:3019:00 0.03655

19:0007:00 0.01588 19:0007:00 0.02235

Weekends (day) 0.016 Weekends (day) 0.0249

VAT = 17.5% Fossil fuel levy = 0.3% Climate Change levy = 0.43 to the kWh


18/54



Eastern Energy is responsible for supplying the


19/54



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


20/54



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 Power required (kW) /m3 Annual cost ()

Buckland to Downsgate Reservoir 133 0.01556 28,400

Buckland to Dover Intermed. Reservoir 92 0.0166 30,300

Buckland to the Spine Main 102 0.0118 21,600

Primrose to Downsgate 113 0.0296 32,220

(4 Ml/day,

24hr period)

Elms Vale to Spine Main 50* 0.0109 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.


21/54



Figure 3.2:groundwater pumping station maintenance costs

Figure 3.3: groundwater pumping station electrical costs

Figure 3.4: groundwater station pump maintenance costs ()


22/54



The age of the pump could relate to cost. According to Figure 3.5, no such correlation is

apparent. Figure 3.6shows 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 3.7suggests 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.


23/54



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 3.8shows

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.


24/54



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 treatmentis 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 coliform-

inhabiting micro-organism, which is particularly endemic in pastural agricultural areas with

intense sheep fanning. The UV treatment is an additional precaution, with its high-

frequency 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 ElmsVale 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,


25/54



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 otherend 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

deviceparticularly for the large abstraction of a possible 9 Ml/day at Bucklandis 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 35mg/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.


26/54



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 treatmentmaintenance 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.


27/54



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 aschlorinating 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 light-

emitting 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


28/54



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 setpower (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 167m

3/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 separatecomponents - 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.


29/54



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 totalmaintenance 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.


30/54



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 Folkestoneand 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 theimpact 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.


31/54



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 howevertakes 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 willnot be given such an allowance. 6 Ml/day on average is probably the most that can be


32/54



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

-1threshold.

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 150,000customers 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.


33/54



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 furthergroundwater 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 full-

authorised 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.


34/54



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


35/54



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 whichcould 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 n-

Power 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)


36/54



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)


37/54



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 4which 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 3gives 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 willbecome essential.


38/54



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.


39/54



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 costbetween 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.


40/54



As well as carefully addressing the pumping regime, other recommendations include the re-

introduction 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.


41/54



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.


42/54



APPENDIX 1: Pipe-laying construction costs


43/54



APPENDIX 2: Water quality analysis at Primrose


44/54




45/54




46/54



APPENDIX 3: Lower Standen electrical costs


47/54



APPENDIX 4: Predicted costs of the groundwater pumping stations


48/54




49/54




50/54




51/54




52/54




53/54




54/54


Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dr-malcolm-sutherland
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

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

Documents