April 22, 2003

 

Mr. Donald F. DiMartino

Department of Public Works

26 Blackstone Street

Bellingham, MA  02019

 

Re:    Water Supply Maximization Study Report

 

Dear Mr. DiMartino:

 

Dufresne-Henry is pleased to present this report of our study on maximizing the yield from your water supplies. The objective of this project was to determine the maximum supply that each well can provide and present recommendations for the improvements necessary to achieve these yields.

A summary table of the results for each well is given below.

 

Water Supply Capacity Summary Table

 

Pump Station

Current Capacity (gpm)

Short-term Potential Capacity (gpm)

Limiting Parameter

Comments on Well and Pumps

1

200

360

Well

Cleaning required

2

130

250

Wells

Aquafreed or replacement required

3

450

450

None

No improvements required

4

260

360

Well and pump

Cleaning required and pump improvements

5

100

200

Well and pump

Aquafreed or replacement required with pump improvements

7

295

295

None

No improvements required

8

340

470

Pump

Pump improvements

11

150

250

Well

Cleaning required

12

347

347

Pump

No improvements required

 

 

 

 

 

TOTALS

2272 or 3.3 MGD

2982 or 4.3 MGD

Wells and Pumps

4.3 MGD is the maximum pumping capacity if all wells are cleaned and pumps are improved.

 

As presented above, the Bellingham Water Supply system has current pumping capabilities of 3.3 million gallons per day (MGD).  However, the most conservative method of determining maximum water supply capacity is to add up all capabilities and then subtract out the single highest operating capacity source.  In the case of Bellingham, this would result in 2,272 gallons per minute (gpm) minus 450 gpm (Well 3) for a total of 1,822 gpm or 2.6 MGD for a current maximum water supply capacity.


 

If short-term improvements are made such as cleaning of wells as required (including Aquafreed at Wells 2 and 5) and pump improvements, the Bellingham Water Supply system has pumping capabilities of 4.3 million gallons per day (MGD).  The single highest operating capacity source out of service would result in 2,982 gallons per minute (gpm) minus 470 gpm (Well 8) for a total of 2,512 gpm or 3.6 MGD for a potential maximum water supply capacity.

 

Furthermore, our testing indicates that Wells 8 and 12 are capable of supplying significantly more water that their current permit allows.  If increased yield approvals are secured from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for Wells 8 and 12, we estimate a potential capacity of 740 and 880 gpm, respectively from those wells.  If long-term improvements were made such as permit approvals for Wells 8 and 12, the pumping capabilities would be a total of 5.4 million gallons per day (MGD).  The single highest operating capacity source out of service would result in 3,785 gpm minus 880 gpm (Well 12) for a total of 2,905 gpm or 4.2 MGD for a potential maximum water supply capacity.

 

The following paragraphs describe the findings of the field tests and our recommendations. 

 

Well No.1

 

The flow test was performed on June 25, 2002.  The field test pump curve was found to be generally in agreement with the design curve, meaning the pump is performing satisfactorily.  Graphs of the field test pump curve compared to the design curve for all wells tested are appended.  Also appended are the pump specifications from which we obtained the design curves.

 

The 24-hour test was conducted at 180 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 30 gallons per minute per vertical foot (gpm/ft).  The drawdown stabilized quickly with about 10 feet remaining over the top of the screen.  This well typically pumps 200 gpm, which is significantly less than the DEP approved yield of 360.

 

The well cleaning data indicates that the well was last cleaned in August 1993 and the specific capacity was 49.9 gpm/ft.  The specific capacity of 30 gpm/ft obtained during the June 25, 2002 flow test was not the maximum capabilities of this well since there was 10 feet remaining over the top of the screen.  Cleaning is required for this well in order to reestablish a specific capacity of about 50 gpm/ft.

 

·         We recommend cleaning of this well to regain an additional 160 gpm to restore the original yield of 360 gpm and 50 gpm/ft.

 

Well No.2

 

The flow tests were performed on January 2, 2003.  This source consists of Wells 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3, all 6-inch wells, and 2.8.1, an 8-inch well.  The flow test could not be completed because the amount of flow from each well was barely measurable with the instrumentation in the field. 

 

No 24-hour test was conducted.  This source typically pumps 130 gpm, significantly less than the 250 gpm permitted safe yield.  The yield of this source appears to be limited by the wells. 


The well cleaning data indicates that the wells were last cleaned in June 2002 and the specific capacities were 1.8, 2.3, 2.9 and 3.3, respectively.  Past well cleanings in 2000 and 1999 have yielded similar results for specific capacity.  In order to achieve the permitted safe yield of 250 gpm, the specific capacity of each well should average about 3.1 gpm/ft.  Alternative methods of cleaning should be considered for this source, such as Aquafreed.  If this cleaning method is not successful then replacement wells should be considered.

 

·         Alternative cleaning methods are recommended such as Aquafreed to recover the original well yield averaging 3.1 gpm/ft from this group of four wells.

 

·         If the Aquafreed process is not successful then replacement wells should be constructed for 250 gpm.  This work would include a pump test, permitting, engineering and construction of the well and site piping.

 

Well No.3

 

Modifications to Pump Station 3 were completed in February 2003.  Well 3.1 in no longer in use.  Improvements included construction of Well 3.3, installation of VFDs for Wells 3.2 and 3.3 and the installation of new process piping in the pump station.  Construction of Well 3.3 was required since the Aquafreed process performed on Well 3.2 was not successful in restoring specific capacity to the original level of 42.5 gpm/ft. 

 

Wells 3.2 and 3.3 were started up on February 28, 2003.  A pump test was performed on that date.  The capacity of Well 3.3 was determined to be 450 gpm and the level of Well 3.2 stabilized at a capacity of 150 gpm.  The DEP approved yield for this pump station is 450 gpm.  We do not recommend a Withdrawal Permit Amendment from DEP for this pump station since in our judgment, a higher yield is not sustainable.  It is recommended that this facility be operated with only Well 3.3 being pumped a majority of the time.  Well 3.2 can be used as a backup to give Well 3.3 a periodic rest.  The pump test for Well 3.2 was conducted at 150 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 15.0 gpm/ft.  The pump test for Well 3.3 was conducted at 450 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 20.9 gpm/ft.  Modifications will be required to the Corrosion Control Facility which treats Pump Station 3 and Pump Station 4 due to the anticipated increased flow.

 

·         No work is required at this time for this pump station

 

·         The capacity of the Corrosion Control Facility, which serves this pump station and Pump Station 4, should be increased to allow proper treatment of a maximum of 810 gpm (450 gpm from Pump Station 3 and 360 gpm from Pump Station 4).  The improvements would simply include an increased sized day tank and properly sized chemical feed pumps.

 

Well No.4

 

The flow test was performed on January 29, 2002.  The VFD is programmed so that the pump cannot run at 100% capacity (60 Hz) to eliminate the possibility of overpumping this well.  This results in the pump curve to be shifted downward and makes it impossible to evaluate potential wear in the pump. 

 

The 24-hour test was conducted on January 29, 2002 at 210 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 11.7 gpm/ft.  The drawdown stabilized quickly with about 8 feet remaining over the top of the screen.  Using a safety factor of 5 feet over the pump intake, this well should be capable of 350 gpm, about 10 gpm less than the DEP approved yield. Both the pump and the well capabilities therefore limit the yield.


The well cleaning data indicates that the well was last tested in September 1975 and the specific capacity was 10.9 gpm/ft.  An earlier test was conducted on May 8, 1968 resulting in a specific capacity of 27.5 gpm/ft.  The specific capacity of 11.7 gpm/ft obtained during the January 29, 2003 flow test was not the maximum capabilities of this well since there was 8 feet remaining over the top of the screen.  Cleaning is required for this well.

 

·         We recommend cleaning of this well to regain an additional 10 gpm to restore the original yield of 360 gpm and 27.5 gpm/ft.

 

·         Additionally, we recommend that the pump be pulled for inspection of the impellers and/or bowl assemblies with replacement as necessary.

 

·         Finally, the VFD should be reprogrammed to allow the motor to be operated up to 100 % capacity (60Hz) and the speed of the motor should be controlled to maintain a desired level in the well.

 

Well No.5

 

The flow test was performed on January 30, 2002.  The pump curve was found to be shifted downward in relation to the design curve, meaning there is wear in the impellers and/or the bowl assemblies. 

 

The 24-hour test was conducted at 140 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 9.3 gpm/ft.  The water level dropped below the data logger transducer during the test.  The well typically pumps 100 gpm and this is likely to be approximately the current maximum yield of this well.  Both the pump and the well capabilities therefore limit the yield.  With cleaning, it maybe possible to regain the original 200 gpm yield.  Regardless, the pump bowls will need adjustment in order to provide the pressure necessary to deliver any increased rate into the system. 

 

The well cleaning data indicates that the well was last cleaned in March 1987 resulting in a specific capacity of 14.0 gpm/ft.  The specific capacity of 9.3 gpm/ft obtained during the January 30, 2002 flow test was greater than the current maximum output of this well since the level dropped below the data logger transducer.  In order to achieve the permitted safe yield of 200 gpm, the specific capacity of the well should be about 20 gpm/ft.  Since the well cleaning history for this well indicates that only 14.0 gpm/ft is achievable with routine cleaning, we recommend that alternative cleaning be performed at this site.  We recommend that the Aquafreed process be performed to maximize the potential from this source.  The final option to regain the safe yield of 200 gpm would be to permit and construct a replacement well.

 

·         We recommend the Aquafreed cleaning process for this well to regain an additional 100 gpm to restore the original yield of 200 gpm and specific capacity of 20 gpm/ft.

 

·         If the Aquafreed process is not successful then a replacement well should be constructed for 200 gpm.  This work would include a pump test, permitting, engineering and construction of the well and site piping.

 

·         Additionally, we recommend that the pump be pulled for inspection of the impellers and/or bowl assemblies with replacement as necessary.


Well No.7

 

The flow test was performed on February 4, 2002.  The pump curve was found to match the specification curve at the design pressure.  At higher pressures, the pump was performing above the specification, which is not uncommon for quality pumps such as Gould.

 

The well typically pumps 285 gpm and the DEP approved yield is 295 gpm. The 24-hour test was conducted at 300 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 11.8 gpm/ft.  The drawdown stabilized with approximately 5 feet of water remaining over the top of the screen.  

 

The well was cleaned by A&W Artesian Well Co. beginning on March 13, 2003.  The initial specific capacity was reported to be 8.3 gpm/ft and after cleaning and redevelopment the specific capacity was improved to 15.0 gpm/ft.  When the well is placed back in service we anticipate that a pumping rate of 295 gpm will result in a drawdown of 20 feet leaving about 10 feet of water over the top of the well screen.

 

·         No work is recommended for this well at this time.

 

Well No.8

 

The flow test was performed on February 5, 2002.  The pump curve was found to be shifted downward in relation to the design curve, meaning there is wear in the impellers and/or the bowl assemblies.

 

The well typically pumps 340 gpm and the DEP approved yield is 470 gpm. The 24-hour test was conducted at 530 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 31.2 gpm/ft.  The drawdown stabilized with approximately 16 feet of water remaining over the top of the screen.

 

The well was cleaned by A&W Artesian Well Co. beginning on March 21, 2003.  The initial specific capacity was reported to be 26.1 gpm/ft and after cleaning and redevelopment the specific capacity was improved to 37.3 gpm/ft.

 

Using a safety factor of 5 feet over the top of the screen, this well should be capable of 740 gpm.  At this rate, the well could not be operated longer than 15 hours per day without exceeding the approved daily volume. The yield of this well is therefore limited by the pump and by the DEP approved daily volume.

 

Wells 7 and 8 are the source wells for the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located at this site.  The maximum capacity of the WTP is 1,150 gpm (4 filters at 95 ft2/filter and a loading rate of about 3 gpm/ft2).  The maximum capacity of this WTP would not be exceeded even if the approved yield of Well No.8 was increased.

 

·         The first priority improvement to this well is to have the pump pulled for inspection of the impellers and/or bowl assemblies with replacement as necessary to allow pumping at the DEP approved rate of 470 gpm.

 

·         Secondly, the New Source Approval process should be completed through the DEP Water Supply Division in order to increase the yield of this well to 740 gpm.

 


Well No.11

 

The wells were tested individually on June 13, 2002.  This source consists of Wells 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5.  All the pump curves were found to be shifted downward in relation to the design curves, meaning there is wear in the impellers and/or the bowl assemblies.

 

The sum of the yields of the five wells at this source is typically 150 gpm and the DEP approved yield is 250 gpm.  No 24-hour tests were performed, however, the maximum individual well yields are estimated at 40, 50, 50, 10, and 125 gpm for Wells 11.1 through 11.5, respectively.  We recommend that Well 11.4 be abandoned due to its relatively insignificant yield.  With VFDs for each well and new level transducers (to control the speed of the pump in order to maintain a preset level over the pump bowl) this source should be able to produce the DEP approved yield of 250 gpm.

 

The well cleaning data indicates that the wells were last cleaned in April 2002 and the specific capacities were 2.4, 5.5, 4.8, 1.5 and 18.0, respectively.  Past well cleanings in 2000 and 1999 have yielded slightly better results for specific capacity.  In order to achieve the permitted safe yield of 250 gpm, the specific capacity of Well 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 should average about 4.0 gpm/ft and the specific capacity of Well 11.5 should be about 20.0 gpm/ft.  The yield of these wells can be improved with cleaning.

 

·         We recommend abandoning Well No.11-4 since the well yield is insignificant.

 

·         Cleaning of these wells is recommended to regain a specific capacity of about 4.0 gpm/ft in Wells 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 and a specific capacity of about 20.0 gpm/ft in Well 11.5.

 

·         Additionally, we recommend that the pumps be pulled from Wells 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 for inspection of the impellers and/or bowl assemblies with replacement as necessary.  We also recommend that the size of the pump for Well 11.5 be increased to 125 gpm at the required system pressure.

 

·         Finally, VFDs should be installed for the remaining four (4) wells with level transducers in each.

 

Well No.12

 

The flow test was performed on January 31, 2002 The pump curve was found to be shifted downward in relation to the design curve, meaning there is wear in the impellers and/or the bowl assemblies.  A new pump was installed in September 2002 and sized to pump at the DEP approved yield of 347 gpm.

 

The 24-hour test was conducted at 335 gpm resulting in a specific capacity of 41.9 gpm/ft.  The drawdown stabilized with approximately 26 feet of water remaining over the top of the screen.  Using a safety factor of 5 feet over the top of the screen, this well should be capable of 880 gpm.  At this rate, the well could not be operated longer than 9 hours per day without exceeding the approved daily volume. The yield of this well is limited by the pump and the DEP approved yield. 

 

·         The New Source Approval process should be completed through the DEP Water Supply Division in order to increase the yield of this well to 880 gpm.

 


Conclusions and Recommendations

 

Several factors are limiting the maximum available water from the Bellingham sources. These include plugged wells, worn pumps, and DEP approved yields.  The following tables detail the work required in the short-term and the long-term to increase capacity from the water supply wells.

 

Short-Term Improvements

 

Pump Station

Proposed Improvements

Phase 1

Estimated Cost Budget

Phase 2

Estimated Cost Budget

1

Well cleaning (1 well)

$15,000

 

2

Aquafreed process (4 wells)

$60,000

 

2

Well replacement (if necessary)

---------

$140,000

4

Well cleaning (1 well)

$15,000

 

4

Pump improvements

$10,000

 

5

Aquafreed process (1 well)

$20,000

 

5

Well replacement (if necessary)

--------

$120,000

5

Pump improvements

$10,000

 

8

Pump improvements

$10,000

 

11

Well cleaning (4 wells)

$40,000

 

11

Pump improvements

$20,000

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$200,000

$260,000

 

If short-term improvements are made as detailed above, the maximum water supply capacity would increase from a current level of 2.6 MGD to a potential level of 3.6 MGD (conservatively estimated with the highest operating capacity source offline).

 

Long-Term Improvements

 

Pump Station

Proposed Improvements

Estimated Cost Budget

Duration