Representative Town Meeting (RTM) - 244 (05/06/2021)

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD 
WATERFORD, CT 06385
TO: Mr. Robert J. Brule - First Selectman
FROM: Neftali Soto, PE - Chief Engineer
DATE: November 13, 2020
RE: Utility Commission - Capital Improvements Program FY 22-26
Dear First Selectman Brule,
For your consideration, and as requested on your Memorandum of September 28, 2020, the
Utility Commission is pleased to submit two (2) copies of the Capital Improvements Program
submittal.
In summary, the major funding requests for FY 22 are as follows:
e 
Funding for the rehab of the Fargo Lane elevated water tank. A two-year funding
schedule is suggested; however, the Town may want to consider a [one time] loan from
the State of Connecticut Sinking Revolving Fund. Total estimated cost - $1,000,000.
e 
Funding for the replacement and upgrade of the CCTV camera for $120,000.
e 
Funding to provide electric power and a stand-by generator to the Crystal Mall PS. This
will eliminate the current condition on which the Crystal Mall provides both, main and
emergency power to the pumping station. Since this is a [town owned] station, and
since other properties besides the Crystal Mall are served by this station, we have the
ultimate responsibility for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of such station.
Estimated cost - $225,000.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully Submitted for Your Consideration,
eee
Neftali Soto, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Ce: 
Utility Commission 
J
Ms. Kim Allen - Finance Director

Town of Waterford
Utility Commission
Capital Improvements Plan
FY 2022 to FY 2026

SNIGNNA
YAHLO
(8)
“sINvao
aLvisnivesiaas
(2)
_-SONW1¥
CNN
GALVNOISSANN UNO
(9)
GNN4
JONVNALNIV
TV
idvo
YAMaS/L39C0N ALMILN
(2)
ONIONYNid
L830
WYAL
ONOT
ONY
LYOHS
(|
_
ONRUNOTY
NON
8
TWilldVO
OL
Y44SNVUL
(€)
SINSINSAOUdIAI
TWLid
VO
YWSA
LNANYND
(1)
SADYNOS
ONIGNNSA
OL
XS0NI
Na,
000'001'L
$
|
ooo'ose
$
|
o00'Ssze
$
|
o00'sze
$|-
$i
-
$
v
naxx
UOISUDIK
[B13]27
JaMEg
do-09
OL
00009
$
|
00009
$
-
$
¢
UOISSILULUODS]
Sq
19105
opeg
SL
000'S2¢
$
000'00r
$
|
000'SLL
$
-
$
€
quowace|day
sau!
Ja}e\y
yoRag
ainsea|d
vb
000'0eL
$|ooo'se
$
|
oo0've
$
|
oo0'se
$
|
oo0'ze
$
|
oo0'Le
$
z
woweoeidey
sdung
Jepuig)
Eb
o00'0ez
$
|
000'er
$
|
000'ar
$
|
000'9r
$
|
000'9r
$
|
000'Or
$
z
syue}
6e10}$
SBpn|s
dl
MWAIN]
JUaUyLULIOD
00¢'60z
$
|
o0z'6e
$
|
O0r'Or
$
|
OOL'LY
$
|
008'Ly
$
|
o0s'cr
$
z
UOPUOT
MAN
O]
Wud
UORONpaY
USBOjIN
punos
|
7]
jusupUWOD
oco'ssL
$
|
o00'es
$
|
ooo'ee
$
|
ooo'ee
$
|
o00'es
$
|
oo0'es
$
z
WOWD/SASS
aunyng
4)
o00'sz9
$|
-
$|
00°000'S2z
$|ooo00'0se
$$]
-
$|
-
$
€
JoQUOD 
9
UOREB
IN
UOReNTYLY
pue
MOYUy
bE
000'00z'L
$
|
000‘00r
$
|
000‘00r
$
o00'o0r
$|
-
$
€
suogeys
dung
£}
Buiurewey
epeibde
jemed
OL
000'L
LS
$
000'LLS
$
-
$
€
apeibdn
feed
Sd
y0O1g
Aauo}S
6
000'L6r
$
000'L67
$
€
apeibdy
jemed
Sd
PY
SsOlD
8
000'S26
$
|
000‘00¢
$
000'SZr
$
€
siojpely
1D
sewely
‘py
UANeW
ade|doy
Z
000'OLL
$}
$}
-
$
|
000'S8
$
|
000'S8
$}
-
$
b
SISPUUD)
SPI|OS
Joyema}sepy
OUIHU]
9
o00'szz
$}
-
$|
-
$|
-
$}
-
$
|
oa0'sez
$
€
Jomod
Aouabiewa 
99
ule
-
Sd
IeW
eIs9
s
000'0Z1 
$| 
- 
$ | 
00'000'0¢ 
$ | 
o00'oe 
$ | 
000'0e 
$ | 
o00'oe 
$ 
b 
S[2UBd 
JOQUOD 
JO 
YONOY 
- 
Sd Z| 
ddny-ueuuog 
€
000071 
$| 
- 
$} 
- 
$| 
- 
$} 
- 
$ | 
000'0Z1 
$ 
b 
(eyouney 
jeleye7 
9) wawsoRday 
BIEWeD 
ALOO 
b
TVIOL
9TOT-STOT
SZOZ-PTOT
PTZOT-£Z0T
€Z0T-TZ0T
TZOT-1Z07
ALTMORd
vutntn
nv
e
eECWOSa
TO
WE
INOSE”
}WRECRDSH
"|
WEECADEG
T
WEES”
‘ounos
ay
1oarona
caaa
UOISSILUWOY
AWN
(AONTDV/LNGALYV
dad

TOWN OF WATERFORD
CAPITAL PROJECT REQUEST FORM
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY 
CONTACT PERSON
Utility Commission 
Neftali Soto - Chief Engineer
PROJECT NAME 
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
CCTV Camera and Lateral Launching System 
1
The Waterford Utility Commission |is responsible for the operation and maintenance of approximately 145 miles of s sewer pipes, 28
pumping stations, over 3,500 manholes, and 101 individual grinder pumps. In 2011, 
a CCTV system was purchased for the inspection of
our pipes and manholes. This equipment has been our main tool to identify structural deficiencies, illegal discharges, and, most
importantly, identification of inflow and infiltration (I/]) into our collection system. This has resulted in significant operational savings as
well as providing early identification of capital expenditures; furthermore, assuring that our system is reliable, safe, and efficient.
Because of the miles of pipe/customers ratio of our system the identification and mitigation of I/1 is critical, since we pay the City of New
London based on the waste flow send to their plant. Although we have the ability to monitor the main lines and manholes, at this time we
|___ do not have the ability to inspect and monitor lateral services, which represent about 30 miles of pipe. A significant amount of lis the
result of illegal connections, structural deficiencies, and broken laterals, etc. This was a component that we were planning to incorporate
in 2011, but we wanted to justify its need. We indeed need this type of equipment for the full success of the I/I identification program.
Based on our latest conversations and preliminary estimates by the vendor the cost for the lateral launcher upgrade is $110K-$125K.
Inspections are being done with the current equipment; however, the camera/lateral launcher set up is needed to capture a large part of our
infrastructure that we currently we can't.
This equipment is also utilized to assist DPW on the condition of stormwater pipes, as needed. The WPD has also been a beneficiary of
this capability. Old pipes investigations.
D 
i 
JEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGE’
By inspecting the laterals] component of our collection system infrastructure, we can identify and mitigate 1/1, our treatment cost should
be reduced accordingly, the system capacity preserved and, furthermore, early identify conditions that may trigger more expensive capital
repairs.
Service to the whole Waterford Collection System through the Town.
APPROVED
FUNDING TO | FY2022 
FY2023 
FY2024 
FY2025 
FY2026
FUNDING SOURCE 
DATE
Current Year Capital 
$ 
- 
{$120,000
Utility Budget/Sewer Cap Maint Fund
Transfer to CNR 
$ 
-
Short/Long-term Bonds
LoCIP (detail in section 5 above)
CNR Undesignated Fund Balance
Dl 
urp Popol
~
Federal/State Grants (detail in section 5)
Other 
(detai


Waterford 
Utility
Commission 
owns 
and
Provides measurements of pipe
H 
defects & abnormalities without the
operates their or CCTV 
QUES OZII Camera with Laser 
aced to enter the pipeline!
and 
flusher truck. 
As
technology progresses, older camera equipment and software packages are no longer
supported and require replacement. The Utility Commission should be planning on the
need to budget approximately $50,000 every 5 year (not including inflation) to purchase
additional camera equipment and software as well as the purchase newer more efficient
technologies such as a zoom pole camera and CCTV cameras with laser capabilities to
detect pipe abnormalities and spherical distortion such as the QUES OZII. This budget
item is cost effective when compared to the cost of subcontracting out CCTV work. For
example, WUC staff televised approximately 40,000 linear feet of sewer pipe in 2015. If
subcontracted out, this would have cost the WUC between $40,000 and $50,000 for one
single year.
° ‘Sewer Force Main Air Release Valves - The Waterford Utility Commission is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of approximately 12 air release valves
installed at the high points of various sewer force mains in the
collection system. - It is recommended that an initial inventory 
-.. .
and condition assessment of all existing air release valves be
conducted and that the 4 valves be replaced each year. It is also
recommended that an evaluation of the Stoney Brook Pump
Station force main be conducted to determine if an air any air
release valves are required. Regardless of the age of the valves,
yearly 
inspection 
should 
be 
part of the 
WUC’s routine
inspection. Based on an assumed replacement cost of $5,000
gee 
: 
Typical Air Rel. 
Val
for each individual unit, and a cost of $5,000 to evaluate the 
iis
Stoney Brook Pump Station force main, the Utility Commission should be planning on
Project No. 13331A 
1-9 
Wright-Pierce

As with the rest of the collection system, the mechanical, electrical and structural
components of these systems are aging, and it is projected that major components will
need to be replaced over the next 10 to 15 years. Based on an assumed replacement cost
of $2,500 for each individual unit, the Utility Commission should be planning on the
need to budget approximately $338,000 over the next 10 to 15 years (not including
inflation). 
Upon replacement of the remaining 135 stations, this CIP line item will be
phased out.
e 
Sewer Pipe/Manhole Repairs and I/I Remediation - One of the goals of the SSES
program will be to identify sewer improvements and repair needs. This can include a
variety of spot repairs up to full replacement of sewers and manholes. 
Until specific
needs are identified, it is difficult to determine when the repairs will be needed, and what
the cost will be to perform the repairs. One approach to determine the budget costs for
sewer repair over time is to assume that all the sewers will eventually need to be
replaced. 
Sewer replacement costs can vary considerably depending on size, depth,
groundwater elevation and location.
Assuming an overall current average
cost 
of 
$150/foot 
for 
sewer
construction, the 142 miles of sewers
in Waterford have an approximate
replacement 
cost 
value 
of $112
million, 
not 
including 
the 
pump
stations. 
If it is assumed that the
sewers will be gradually replaced
over a period of 500 years, this
would equate to an annual budget of 
Pipe Infiltration
approximately $225,000 per year which could be allocated to sewer repair or replacement
or approximately $3.40 million over 15 years (not including inflation). This line item can
also be used to fund emergency repairs and sewer manhole lining, raising or replacement
as a supplement to repairs that the WUC cannot complete on their own. 
Additional
Project No. 13331A 
1-11 
Wright-Pierce

“The Standard of the Industry”
CUES
LAMPII
Lateral & Mainline Probe
The self-propelled, robust
LAMPII is a CCTV pipeline
inspection tool for identifying
infiltration and inflow, potential
crossbores, pipe defects, and
structural conditions in lateral
services and mainlines. The
LAMPII is able to accomplish
je 
this by utilizing a self-propelled
lateral launcher, transportation
platform, and two cameras,
one for pan/tilt/optical zoom
operations (mainline) and one
for lateral launching. The LAMPII
with the optional Mini Pan &
Tilt Camera will inspect laterals
services and traverse multiple
bends and wyes when deployed
with or against the flow.
LAMPII shown with the optional nin econ
| salesinfo@cuesinc.com

LAMPII Lateral & Mainline Probe
Features & Benefits
Vv
True one-
pass mainline
and lateral
inspection;
Vv
Self-leveling
lateral camera
with built in
sonde.
Vv
Traverse
multiple bends
and wyes with
or against the
“The Standard of the Industry”
CUES
v
“Satie”
Can be added
onto existing
CUES units.
inspect more 
flow.
in less time.
PAN & TILT INSPECTION OF ALL LATERAL CONNECTIONS, WITH
>> 
OR AGAINST THE FLOW! SIMULTANEOUS PAN, TILT & ZOOM
INSPECTION OF MAINLINES!
® 
Easily launches with or against the flow. 
9 Traverses 45 and 90 degree bends in lateral services.
Q 
Inspect mainlines and laterals with one inspection run. 
© 
Fiberglass push cable: up to 150 ft. push cable.
fo) 
Front-mounted pan and tilt / zoom camera (40:1 
© 
Rear tip-up connector.
optical/digital zoom): Completes mainline inspection
| 
and monitors lateral camera; Articulates to facilitate 
QO 
Optional Equipment: mini pan & tilt lateral camera
invert entry; Automatic centering. 
with directional rod for steering; rear-view camera;
high traction steel wheel sets; big pipe package
| 
QO 
Traverse up to 1,000’ of mainline pipe while still being 
available to increase pipe size range to 36".
able to launch into laterals.
| 
© 
Robust 6 wheel drive with single point wheel removal.
| 
QO. 
Self-leveling lateral camera with built in sonde.
|NM 
O 
Can be added onto existing CUES units.
O 
Supplied with 4 sets of wheels for 6”-30” lines.
Product Catalog 
| 
2018
| salesinfo@cuesinc.com

“The Standard of the Industry”
WTRIII Transporter 
|
Wheeled/Tracked Transformer Transporter 
CLES a
ABLE AND VE 
Ey 
ER 
THAT 
¢ 
ERATE

WTRIII Transporter
Features & Benefits
Traverse varying pipe conditions with quick install
of wheels or tracks.
Inspects 6” relined through 30” pipe.
Optional high-traction tracks are available,
easy to install.
Weighted adapters optically center the camera in
each pipe size and increase bottom clearance.
Vv 
Vv
Affordable
and versatile
transformer
transporter that
can operate with
wheels or tracks.
Various wheel
sets and tracks
are available
to maximize
performance.
“The Standard of the Industry”
CUES
© 
Single point removal of wheels.
© Various wheel sets available to maximize
performance in various pipe conditions.
© 
Camera connects directly into transporter with
protective carriage assembly.
© Works with CUES OZIII pan and tilt zoom camera
or CUES OZIII Nite Lite Pan and Tilt Camera.
Vv 
Vv
Save time
with the quick
installation of
wheels or tracks
with single point
removal.
Inspects 6”
relined through
30” pipe.
The CUES WTRIII is an affordable and versatile transformer transporter that can
operate with wheels or tracks. You can transform your transporter to accommodate
< varying pipe conditions!
| salesinfo@cuesinc.com 
Product Catalog 
| 
2018

-_~
TOWN OF WATERFORD
CAPITAL PROJECT REQUEST FORM
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY 
CONTACT PERSON
Utility Commission 
Neftali Soto - Chief Engineer
PROJECT NAME 
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
Fargo Lane (aka Douglas Hill) Water Tank Rehab 
2
The Connecticut Department of Health (CTDOH) requires for water storage tanks to be inspected every ten years. The Town of Waterford
was reminded of this requirement during a sanitary survey conducted by the Connecticut Department of Health about six years ago, and
most recently as part of the MOU related to Waterford's Public Water Supplier status with the CTDOH. Therefore, in order to comply
with CTDOH requirements in 2011 the Utility Commission retained the services of Lenard Engineering, Inc. (LEI) to conduct such
inspection and evaluation on our behalf. A partial copy of this report is submitted as support documentation. Based on the findings of the
LEI report some minor aesthetics and structural repairs, as well as a new interior (wet area) coating and exterior coating are recommended.
During their sanitary survey the Department of Health also determined that the discharge point of the Fargo La. tank overflow pipe had to
be relocated because it cannot discharge inside a catch basin. According to the CTDPH, a back siphoning condition could occur. The tank
is about 116 feet high. The writer explained to the DPH technician that the laws of physics would not allow for such back siphoning to
|—__ occur. However, the DPH did not withdraw their determination. After no success arguing with DOH, the drain was retrofitted and the
overflow drain pipe was daylighted. NOTE: For the rehab of the Fargo La. tank, specifications were already developed by Lenard
Engineering; therefore, this is a "shovel ready" project. Since these specs will be used during the procurement process, they were not
included on this plan. (If needed, I can provide a copy, if requested.). NOTE: The State Dept. of Health Drinking Water Division may
issue a consent order for the Town to fund the rehab of the Fargo tank. A consent order from the State must be avoided at all cost. The
Town may consider funding through the CTDPHS Clean Water Revolving Sinking Fund (CWRSF), long term loan at 2% interest.
Funding for the Fargo Lane tank rehab is critical.
Evaluation was conducted by engineering consultant and recommendations given.
Work will take place at one of the locations where Waterford has its emergency communications system.
: 
€ 
f 
' OPERATING BUDGET (include cost estimate if applica
None. The tank isis oper: rated and maintained by the City of New London under Inter-local agreement.
loan.
See appendix.
APPROVED
FUNDING TO | Fy2022 
| ¥FyY2023 
| Fy2024 | Fy2025 
| Fy2026
FUNDING SOURCE 
DATE
Current Year Capital
Utility Budget/Sewer Cap Maint Fund
Transfer 
to CNR 
$0; $ 
500,000 
|$ 
500,000
Short/Long-term Bonds
LoCIP (detail in section 5 above)
Hilal 
Rlwimpe
CNR Undesignated Fund Balance
~]
Federal/State Grants (detail in section 5)
Other (detail in section 5 above

Condition Inspection Report
for the
750K Gallon Fargo Road Waterspheroid Tank
Waterford Water Pollution Control Authority
December 2011
Prepared for:
Mr. Jim Ericson, PE
Vice President
Lenard Engineering, Inc.
2210 Main Street
P.O. Box 1088
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Prepared by:
Mr. Joe Harris
President
Infrastructure Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 6312
Hamden, CT 06517

M7.
Infrastructure Technologies, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
FINDINGS
Tank Exterior
Tank Interior
Safety Appurtenances
Additional Findings
RECOMMENDATIONS
Exterior
Interior Wet Areas
Interior Dry Areas
Safety Appurtenances
Recommended Protective Coating Systems
DISCUSSION
Condition of Paint
Life Expectancy of Existing Protective Coating Systems
General
Cost Estimate
APPENDIX A — PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B- ROV Video and Video Log

—_
——
i 
__
—_
en 
oe 
a
Co
APPENDIX C — DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX D — OSHA 29CFR1910.23
APPENDIX E — OSHA 29CFR1910.27

INTRODUCTION
On November 29, 2011 ITI conducted a condition inspection of the Fargo Road
Waterspheroid Tank operated by Waterford Water Pollution Control Authority. The
inspection protocol included a full inspection of the tank exterior and an inspection of the
tank interior via ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle). Both the interior and exterior of the
tank were evaluated per AWWA Standard D 101-53 (R1986) “Inspecting and Repairing
Steel Water Tanks, Standpipes, Reservoirs, and Elevated Tanks, for Water Storage”
and the “10 Year Atmospheric Storage Tank Inspection Guidelines” issued by the State
of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Section where possible.
The Fargo Road Waterspheroid Tank was last painted in the 1984 when the tank was
originally built. The current interior protective coating system is unknown but likely a
conventional epoxy and the exterior system is alkyd incorporating a red lead primer.
Tank statistics: The tank is a welded steel structure and is 140 ft. high.
FINDINGS
Exterior:
See TABLE | — Tank Exterior Condition
See Photograph Section
Interior:
See TABLE II - Tank Interior Condition
See ROV Video
Safety Appurtenances:
e 
There is no exterior roof handrail system in place to prevent falls from the tank
roof.
e 
The interior access ladder rungs are 15-1/2 inches from the inside of the side
rails. OHSA 29CFR1910.27 requires the length of rung between the side rails to
be 16-0 inches minimum.
Additional Findings:
e 
The exterior DFT is approximately 9 to 10 mils thick in two coats. This includes a
primer and finish coat.
e 
The adhesion of the topcoat to the prime coat is poor. ASTM D3359 Method A
X-Cut was used to test the coating system adhesion.
e 
There is lead in the primer coat, therefore, exterior repainting strategies must
take into account technologies and methods that will prevent lead paint waste
and dust from leaving the immediate area of the tank. See SSPC Guide 6
(Latest Revision) “Guide for Containing Debris Generated During Paint Removal
Operations’.

i \
RECOMMENDATIONS
Exterior:
The exterior protective coating system has surpassed its service life and should be
replaced.
Interior Wet Areas:
The interior tank lining has surpassed its service life and should be replaced.
Interior Dry Areas:
Interior dry areas exhibiting rust may be locally treated by the strategy of spot repair and
over coat. In addition the dry areas may be pressure washed to remove dirt and grime,
however, care should be taken to cover all electronic equipment if pressure washing is
used in the dry areas of the tank.
Safety Appurtenances:
e 
The center working area of the roof should have a circular hand rail system
installed meeting OSHA 29CFR1910.23 to provide for a safe working area.
e 
Interior access ladders should be modified to provide for a minimum clear length
of rung of 16-0 inches per OSHA 29CFR1910.27.
e 
All Safety-T-Climb rails should be replaced.
Recommended Protective Coating Systems:*
Exterior:
e 
Primer (Conventional Epoxy)
e 
Intermediate Coat (Conventional Epoxy)
e 
Finish Coat ( Two Coats of an Aliphatic Polyurethane)
Interior Wet Areas:
Stripe Coats (Conventional Epoxy)
Prime Coat (Conventional Epoxy)
Finish Coat (100% Volume Solid Epoxy except in vapor phase of tank interior)
In Vapor Phase of Tank Interior — apply three coats of Conventional Epoxy
including Stripe coats. This provides workability around structural beams and
surfaces with edges.
Interior Dry Areas(Spot Repair and Overcoat):
e 
Conventional thin film Epoxy or Moisture Cured Urethanes both in two coats.
*See coating manufactures Product Data Sheets for Dry Film Thickness requirements.

DISCUSSION
Condition of Paint:
«Exterior —
The exterior protective coating system has performed well due to the use of a lead
pigmented primer in 1984. However, normal film degradation and age has lead to the
exposure of the prime coat in many places and checking of the finish coat.
Checking or micro-cracking of the finish coat can been seen by a microscopic
examination. This film failure occurs as coatings become aged and brittle. In the end
micro-cracking leads to paint film undercutting and release from the underlying
substrate. Hence, the areas of the tank where the finish coat has been removed and
the lead primer exposed.
Due to this type of paint film failure the only option for this tank is to completely remove
the existing coating system. Choosing the option of remove and replace will provide for
a paint system that should perform for 15 to 20 years. A painting strategy of spot repair
and overcoat could lead to rapid premature failure of the existing paint film.
* |nterior-
The interior tank lining is failing by a number of causes. They include osmotic blistering,
pin hole porosities, and edge failure to name a few. As a result exposed steel substrate
is corroding which in the long run will lead to structural damage which will require repair.
See the enclosed ROV Video and associated Video Log.
Life Expectancy of the Existing Protective Coating Systems -
«Exterior Protective Coating System-The exterior protective coating system is becoming
unsightly due to the loss of finish coat. However, as long as the red lead primer stays
intact it will continue to protect the tank from corrosion.
«Interior Tank Lining-The interior tank lining has reached its useful life and should be
replaced to prevent structural damage to the tank.

General —
The overcoating of existing paint systems is always problematic. However, certain
parameters have been developed from empirical data that give a structure owner
guidance in selecting an appropriate strategy. TABLE 3 provides guidance in three
categories important to an overcoating strategy. They are degree of protective coating
deterioration, adhesion strength and Dry Film Thickness (DFT). These parameters are
to be judged in the whole as well as independently. A protective coating system can
have low DFT’s but have poor adhesion detrimental to an overcoating strategy.
The assessment of a structure with regards to corrosion damage is one of economics.
From the analysis of cost associated with protective coating projects it has been
determined that above certain limits the repair of protective coating systems is as
expensive as full replacement. In Table 3 an unlikely candidate for repair would have
greater than 17% coating failure. The range for possible candidates is 10%-17%. This
results from factors such as size and complexity of structure as well as the degree of
environmental controls.
DFT is an important parameter as it relates to the build-up of residual stress in a coating
as its’ thickness increases. From TABLE 3 protective coating systems which have
DFT’s greater than 30 mils are not likely candidates for overcoating. This is because
the possibility for premature failure from the application of additional coats of paint is
increased. Although other data should be considered such as adhesion strength and
condition of the existing protective coating system, adhesion or tensile strength is an
important parameter as it provides information on the strength of the existing protective
coating system. Protective coating systems with low adhesion strength are more likely
to fail prematurely from the application of additional coats of paint. The application of
thermal expansion and contraction stresses, from freeze/thaw cycles, adds additional
shear stresses to the coating. Combined with the residual stresses found in coating
systems premature failure can occur within several years.
Protective coating systems exhibiting high adhesive/tensile strengths are more
desirable candidates for overcoating. However, it should be noted that consideration
must be given to the condition of the existing protective coating. That is residual and
cyclic stresses may be approaching the tensile strength of the system any way so that
the addition of more stress may fail the system.
The condition of the existing protective coating system may be the most telling with
regard to expected performance from overcoating. Old coatings systems may be failing
due to their age. This is typically observable as cracks in the coating, delamination,
lifting, etc. Weather the data generated from adhesion test and DFT surveys is within
parameters for overcoating a failing system cannot provide a good base for additional
coats of paint.
Another factor directly affecting the success of overcoating candidates is the presence
of mill scale on the substrate. Mill scale if tightly adherent may provide for adequate
adhesion between the primer and substrate. If the mill scale is not tightly adherent then
premature coating failures are most likely. Although cases exist where tightly adherent
mill scale have proven to be a suitable anchorage’s for primers the probability of
premature failure increases. This is especially true if the DFT of the existing coating
system is high.

Cost Estimate-
To completely repaint the exterior and install a new interior tank lining the cost
per square foot will range between $17.00 to $22.00. At this time | do not see a
reason to completely repaint interior dry areas of the tank. On these surfaces a
spot repair and overcoat strategy is sufficient. This strategy is covered in the
square foot cost presented above.
To modify and install new safety appurtenances the cost estimate is $30,000.00.
Pit filling of corrosion pits deeper than 40% of the base metal thickness in the wet
areas of the tank estimate 100 pits at $50 per pit or $5,000.
Repair of linear welds in wet area of tank 50 LF at $100 per foot or $5,000.

TANK EXTERIOR CONDITION
TABLE |
Component
Exterior Surfaces (Below
Roof)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
None
= Condition of Paint
# Anchor Bolts
= Indications of Leakage
= Ladder
«Ladder Cage
>K<| ><] <
# Metal Condition
= Condition of Overflow
= Condition of Overflow
Screens
><| ><] ><
" Overflow Pipe Air Gap
» Fall Prevention Device
Exterior Roof
# Safety Platforms & Railing
# Paint Condition
» Condition of Vent & Screen
« Condition of Roof Hatch(s)
Miscellaneous
= Concrete
= Moisture Barrier

TANK INTERIOR CONDITION
TABLE Il
Component
Interior Wet Areas
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
None
= Condition of Paint
= Corrosion Damage
= Indications of Leakage
= Ladder
= Condition of Overflow
Interior Roof Area (In
vapor zone)
» Paint Condition
# Corrosion Damage
Miscellaneous
= Shell Hatches
= Cathodic Protection
System
# Aeration System
» Sediment*
= Tank Cleanliness
= Tank Seams (Welded
Steel)
S| ><] ><
Waterford Tank

S[IWI 
O€ < 
Sj 
Q¢-02 
SjIW 
QO? > 
(140) 
SSANMOIHL
isd 
QO€ 
> 
isd 
0O0r-00€ 
Isd 
OOP 
< 
NOISSHQV 
STISNAL
(6see 
Gd WLSVv 
)
a0 
HO 
VO 
gat 
yo 
vl 
dz 
40 
We 
< 
NOISAHQGV 
S3sINy
ALL 
< 
%LL-OL 
%OL 
> 
NOISOYYNOD
ALVGIGNVD
AIAN
SALVGIGNVSD
YIVday
ONILVOS
AAILDOSALOdd
ONILVOO

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DRINKING WATER SECTION
10 YEAR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE TANK INSPECTION GUIDELINES
Effective Date: June 29, 2009
Authority: Section 19-13-B102(f)(5)(C) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) requires
that all atmospheric finished water storage tanks, basins and clearwells be inspected at a minimum of once
every ten years for sanitary conditions and structural integrity. The inspection report shall be retained for
reference and submitted to the department upon request.
Purpose: This document is intended to clarify the requirements of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies (RCSA) Section 19-13-B102 (f)(5)(C) related to the required and recommended componenis of 10
year atmospheric finished water storage tank inspections.
Applicable Regulation: RCSA Section 19-13-B102(f(5)(C).
Definitions: “Atmospheric finished water storage tanks, basins and clearwells” include all finished water
storage facilities of any volume or material that are not pressurized. The term “tank” will be used for the
remainder of this document and includes all finished water atmospheric storage facilities.
Guidelines: The Drinking Water Section (DWS) expects all inspections to minimally incorporate the elements
outlined in the following section to assess “sanitary conditions and structural integrity”:
» 
A qualified inspector should conduct the inspection (refer to Qualifications on last page).
= 
A detailed inspection of all overflows, vents, fill pipes, drain lines, and hatches must be conducted to
ensure that the tank is protected from contamination in accordance with RCSA Section 19-13-
B102(f)(5)(A). An investigation of any other appurtenances associated with the tank must be
performed to ensure that the entrance of contaminants is not possible. This includes, but is not limited
to, cathodic access plates, cell phone towers mounted on tanks, level probe/sensor wiring, site tubes,
etc. The most critical components of a tank inspection are a thorough investigation of the tank vent(s),
overflows, and roof hatches regardless of their inaccessibility.
« 
The exterior of the tank should be inspected for corrosion, cracks, holes, deterioration of paint/exterior
coating, pitting, spalling, etc., that may create the potential for contamination per RCSA Section 19-13-
B102(f)(5)(A) or loss of structural integrity of the tank.
« 
The interior of the tank should be inspected for corrosion, cracks, holes, pitting, spalling etc. that may
create the potential for contamination per RCSA Section 19-13-B102(f)(5)(A) or loss of structural
integrity of the tank. The interior coating of the tank should be analyzed by a qualified individual to
determine its condition and estimated useful life. This analysis should include measurements of the
depth and rate of corrosion of steel tanks. The sediment in the tank should be evaluated, and
removed, as necessary. Under normal conditions, the tank should be emptied for this portion of the
inspection. If the water system is incapable of taking the tank off line, a diver or ROV (remote operated
vehicle) may be used, provided that adequate sanitary procedures are in place to prevent
contamination. In which case, the quality and quantity of water to the system should be maintained
during the tank inspection.
» 
The controls, probes, alarms, sensors, etc. associated with a tank should be inspected and tested to
ensure proper, reliable operation.
rev. 06/18/09 
1 of 3 
10 Year Atmospheric Finished Water
Storage Tank Inspection Guidelines

Q
C
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DRINKING WATER SECTION
10 YEAR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE TANK INSPECTION GUIDELINES
For steel tanks on concrete foundations, an inspection of the juncture between the tank and base
should be performed to ensure structural integrity. 
A check for excessive and/or differential foundation
settlement should be performed.
An inspection of the seams on concrete tanks should be performed to ensure structural integrity.
An assessment of the appropriateness of the volume and detention time of the tank should be
performed. A tank that is too large may cause stagnant water and/or loss of chlorine residual.
Accumulated sediment may consume some or all of the available free chlorine and promote bacteria
growth. An analysis of flow through the tank (turnover) should be performed, including assessments of
any baffles, mechanical mixing systems, or separate inlet/outlets. If none exist, an evaluation should
be conducted to determine if such an installation would be beneficial. The DWS has created Storage
Tank Design And Construction’ Guidelines that may aid in this analysis. The document is available at:
http://ct.gov/dph/.
An analysis of the water quality should be conducted as part of the tank inspection, including test
results for total coliform bacteria, total and free chlorine residual, physical parameters, and volatile
organic chemicals collected from or near the tank.
The tank inspection must include verification that the tank is at least fifty (50) feet from any part of the
nearest subsurface sewage disposal system and twenty-five (25) feet from the nearest watercourse or
storm drain or other source of pollution, in accordance with RCSA Section 19-13-B102(f)(5)(B). Tanks
must be at least fifty (50) feet from the nearest sanitary sewer unless the sewer is constructed in
accordance with the technical standards for subsurface sewage disposal systems pursuant to section
19-13-B103d of the RCSA, in which case it may be no closer than twenty-five (25) feet.
An assessment of any cathodic protection systems, if they are installed, should be performed by an
inspector who has experience with their installation and maintenance. Acceptable certifications include
NACE International’s Cathodic Protection certifications (CP1, CP2, CP3, and CP4) or equivalent.
The tank inspection must include an evaluation of the valves associated with the tank in accordance
with RCSA Section 19-13-B102(q)}. All valves associated with the tank must be regularly exercised to
ensure proper operation.
An assessment of the tank’s vulnerability to tampering, vandalism, terrorism and other security issues
should be performed. This information should be kept secure and need not be provided to the DWS.
Any deficiencies should be addressed. Water systems should regularly assess ways to make security
improvements at or around the tank, including fencing, surveillance, and patrolling. This also includes
an assessment of tank ladders and access to hatches, vents, etc.
In accordance with RCSA Section 19-13-B102(r), the tank inspection should include an assessment of
the operations and maintenance necessary to ensure continued sanitary conditions and structural
integrity, including: necessary repairs, who will perform the repairs, a timetable for the repairs, and a
schedule of the routine maintenance.
Subsequent to emptying the tank and performing an inspection, RCSA Section 19-13-B47 requires that
the tank be effectively disinfected. The disinfection should be in accordance with the latest revision of
AWWA C-652 — Disinfection of Water Storage Facilities. This document also contains information on
rev. 06/18/09 
2 of 3 
10 Year Atmospheric Finished Water
Storage Tank Inspection Guidelines

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DRINKING WATER SECTION
10 YEAR ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE TANK INSPECTION GUIDELINES
the disinfection procedure for inspecting a full tank.
# 
In accordance with RCSA Section 19-13-B102(f)(5)(C), an inspection report must be completed. The
report should include a detailed description of the inspection process, the findings, actions that were
taken as a result of the inspection, and photographs and/or video. The report should also include a
completed checklist that includes a signed acknowledgement of the certification. If the inspection finds
that the tank has deficiencies related to sanitary conditions or structural integrity, a plan of correction
that includes a timetable for repairs of the deficiencies should be included. The DWS may request this
report after completion of the inspection, and it is standard practice to review this document as part of
the routine sanitary survey. It is advisable to submit the report and plan of correction to the DWS any
time deficiencies are found. Please note that RCSA Section 19-13-B102(d)(2) requires DWS approval
before making changes of “sanitary significance”. This would include replacement of, or significant
modifications to, the inspected tank.
Qualifications
The term “qualified” inspector/individual, as used above, includes some or all of the following:
American Petroleum Institute (API) API 653 Certified Tank Inspector;
NACE International Certified Coating Inspector;
A Professional Engineer that has documented experience with atmospheric tank, clearwell and basin
inspections; and/or,
A Certified Operator that has documented experience inspecting atmospheric tanks, clearwells and basins.
Safety
Individuals entering tanks or any other confined space should be compliant with guidelines of the Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (29 CFR - 1910.146). OSHA, in the Dec. 1, 1998 revision to their regulations,
defines a confined space as a space that:
(1) Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work; and
(2) Has limited or restricted means for entry or exit (for example, tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers,
vaults, and pits are spaces that may have limited means of entry.); and,
(3) Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.
The OSHA website should be reviewed for the most recent definitions of confined spaces and associated
precautions.
Inspection Frequency
Although required only once every ten years by regulation, it is strongly recommended that all atmospheric
storage tanks, clearwells and basins be inspected at least once every 3-5 years. It is also strongly
recommended that all storage tanks (hydropneumatic, etc.) be inspected on a 3-5 year frequency. A routine
check of the vents, vent screens, overflow screens, hatches, and drain line screens should be conducted at
least quarterly.
Useful References and Links
American Water Works Association Manual of Water Supply Practices — Steel Water-Storage Tanks (AWWA
M42). Chapter 9 and Appendix C (formerly AWWA D101-53 (R1986)) provide recommendations for the
inspection of steel tanks.
http://www.awwa.org/ 
http://api-ep.api.org/certifications/
http:/Awww.nace.org/nace/index.asp 
http:/Awww.osha.gov/Publications/osha3138.html
http://10statesstandards.com/waterstandards.html
rev. 06/18/09 
3 of 3 
10 Year Atmospheric Finished Water
Storage Tank Inspection Guidelines

TOWN OF WATERFORD
CAPITAL PROJECT REQUEST FORM
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY 
CONTACT PERSON
Utility Commission 
Neftali Soto - Chief Engineer
PROJECT NAME 
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
Retrofit Control Panels - Gorman-Rupp Pumping Stations 
3
‘Among the components of our wastewater collection system, \we have 28 pumping stations that move wastewater generated i in Waterford
to its final destination at the New London treatment plant. Of those 28 stations, when the sewering of the Town of Waterford was
initiated in the early 80s, the town made the wise decision of standardizing the smaller stations (19 of them) as package lift stations
manufactured by the Gorman-Rupp Company. These stations rely on electronic components intended for their safe, reliable, and efficient
operations. Many of these stations are coming into the age that the electronics are becoming obsolete, are no longer or minimally
supported, and are not 100% compatible with the needs for SCADA system. Most of these electronic components are proprietary to the
Gorman-Rupp brand. However, our SCADA consultant together with our in-house electrician are in the process of retrofitting the
control panels of these stations with control panels and an open architecture programming with the ability of developing and expand our
SCADA capabilities. The cost of each station retrofitting is about $9,000.
Some work is being done by our electrician and consultant, but the vast extend of this project and the need to proceed at an accelerated
pace, requires for the total implementation to be funded as a capital item.
(include cost estimate 
if applicable).
Reduce false alarming and the need for outside of working hours responses 
-s by our field staff. Reliability of the alarm system. The ability
of our staff to establish setpoints at a higher degree of confidence.
None.
PROVED”
FUNDING TO | FY2022 
FY2023 
FY2024 
FY2025 
FY2026
FUNDING SOURCE 
DATE
1 
|Current Year Capital 
$ 
- 
|$ 
30,000 | $ 30,000.00 | $ 30,000.00 | $ 30,000.00
2 |Utility Budget/Sewer Cap Maint Fund
3 
|Transfer to CNR 
§ 
-
4 
|Short/Long-term Bonds
5 |LoCIP (detail in section 5 above)
6 [CNR Undesignated Fund Balance
7 
|Federal/State Grants (detail in section 5)
8 
|Other (detail in section 5 above)

U. S. Automation. ..
“One Source for all your Automation Needs”
January 15, 2020
To: 
Town of Waterford, CT.
Mr. Neftali Soto & Mr. Jim Bartelli
Waterford Utility Commission; Chief Engineer
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT. 06385
Attn: Mr. Neftali Soto & Mr. Jim Bartelli
Waterford Utility Commission
Phone: (860) 444-5886
E-Mail: nsoto@waterfordct.org
jbartelli@waterfordct.org
From: 
Andy Sincali & Mark Sawaryn
U.S. Automation, Inc.
Phone: (860) 235-7766
FAX: 
(860) 271-8007
E-Mail: andy.sincali@usautomationcorp.com
Subject: 
U.S. Automation’s Proposal for Multiple Control System Upgrades for the
Cross Road Pump Station and Several Field Instruments Repair/Replacement
located in the Town of Waterford, CT.
Please be advised that this detailed SCADA Upgrade proposal, as prepared by the
dedicated control system engineers of U.S. Automation, is the result of a comprehensive
investigation into the current problems with operation of the Cross Roads Pump Station. To
simplify your review, I have identified each of the recommended SCADA upgrades in order
of their priority (importance) to the Waterford Utility Commission operations.
The existing Cross Road Pump Station control system is an extremely outdated combination
of a custom designed bubbler/pressure level controller with a complex configuration of
hard-wired relays, mechanical timers, overload relays, and varying sizes of across-the-line
motor starters. 
Repair of this antiquated relay logic control system (which has probably
provided more than 15 years of continuous service) could be undertaken but it would be an
exercise in futility since it would be a very short time until another component failed. In
lieu of trying to maintain these outdated relay logic control modules and air bubbler tube
solenoids/compressors; our engineering staff recommends using the installed Allen Bradley
MicroLogix 1400 SCADA PLC with the addition of DI, AI, AO, and relay output modules.
With the exception of a few customized field wiring interfaces, the proposed modifications/
upgrade; including a new Maple Systems HMI display (with user programming) will use
the same control equipment and will be very similar to the upgrades already designed/
installed at the Waterford Village and East Neck Pump Stations.
P. O. Box 555; Quaker Hill, CT. 06375 — Tel: (860) 235-7766 
Fax: (860) 271-8007
© 2006 U.S. Automation, Inc. All rights reserved

U.S. Automation. ...
Page No. 2 of 3
Fortunately, as mentioned previously, the currently installed SCADA Interface PLC is an
Allen Bradley MicroLogix 1400 and with the addition of a few I/O expansion modules and
a new Maple Systems HMI5070L color touchscreen operator display terminal, this SCADA
equipment can be reprogrammed to perform both the pump control and radio SCADA alarm
functions. The new Maple Systems HMI5070L touchscreen operator terminal can be
programmed to improve access to the wet well level, pump functions/setpoints and alarms.
The cost to upgrade this existing PLC and install 
a new Color Touchscreen Operator is
shown below;
Upgrade Existing Allen Bradley MicroLogix 1400 PLC:
The Total Equipment Upgrade Cost; see below: 
$2,500.00
4 Additional I/O Expansion Modules
Add (1) 16pt 24VDC Digital I/O Expansion Module — Model #1762-IQ16
Add (1) 16pt Relay Output I/O Expansion Module 
-- Model #1762-OW16
Add (1) 4pt 4-20mA Analog Input Module 
-- Model #1762-IF4
Add (1) 4pt 4-20mA Analog Output Module 
-- Model #1762-OF4
and a New Maple System CMT-3072;
Add One (1) New Maple System CMT-3072; 7” Color Touchscreen Operator
Display w/EasyAccess 2.0 Software Interface
Total Engineering Labor Cost to create design all of the wiring modifications needed to
transfer all pump station control functions from the hard-wired Relay Logic to the new
Allen Bradley MicroLogix 1400: 
10 man-hours x $75.00/hour = $ 750.00
Total PLC Programming Support Cost to transfer all of the pump control, alarm functions,
and monitoring functions from the existing hard-wired Relay Logic to the Allen Bradley
MicroLogix 1400: 
24 man-hours x $75.00/hour = $ 1,800.00
Program the new Maple Systems CMT-3072 Color Touchscreen Operator Display System
with EasyAccess 2.0 Software includes the Start-up, Programming, and On-Site Testing of
the new HMI 
16 man-hours x $75.00/hour = $ 1,200.00
Miscellaneous Costs, Supervision of the Waterford WUC electrician to insure proper re-
wiring of the 2 control panels; 
—--------- 
16 man-hours x $75.00/hour = $ 1,200.00
Cost Summary:
Total Pump Station PLC & HMI Equipment Cost = $2,500.00
Total SCADA System Engineering & Programming Cost = $4,950.00**
P. O. Box 555; Quaker Hill, CT. 06375 
Tel: (860) 235-7766 
Fax: (860) 271-8007
© 2006 U.S. Automation, Inc. All rights reserved

U.S. Automation...
Page No. 3 of 3
** T believe that the Town of Waterford WUC could cover all or a portion ($3,000.00) of
the Cross Road Pump Station SCADA System Engineering & Programming Upgrade Cost
under U.S. Automation’s existing SCADA Support Contract, but I am not sure if you would
prefer to charge this work under your annual operating/maintenance cost budget or to bill it
as a separate capital expense; Please Advise
Not Included: Assistance of the Waterford WUC Electrician (presumably Eric Williams) is
not included in the above costs, but he will be required during the Cross Road Pump Station
Upgrade; as per our normal practice in other pump station upgrades, Waterford’s electrician
will primarily install/run additional conduits/signal & power wiring between the 2 existing
control panels, to install the new Maple Systems HMI terminal, and to assist in the field
termination of the new MicroLogix PLC I/O modules. 
It is estimated that this electrical
installation support service will require approximately 2-3 man-days of effort.
Optional Field Instruments:
To complete this installation, 2 field devices will be needed as follows:
(1) 4-20 KPSI Wet Well Submersible Pressure/Level Transducers - $995.00 each
0-15 feet measuring range
(3) Dwyer Pressure Switches for Effluent Pump Pressure Alarm - 
$495.00 each
Electronic Unit to Replace Damaged/Failed Equipment
Although this above equipment & field instruments are required for the successful upgrade
of Cross Road Pump Station, our engineers can specify the required items and they can be
ordered/supplied by the Town of Waterford or if desired, these items can by provided by my
staff at U.S. Automation, Inc.
On behalf of U.S. Automation; we are very pleased to offer this Cross Road Pump Station
upgrade proposal for your review/approval. 
If you have any questions regarding this
detailed contract information, please call our representative; Andy Sincali or Ankur Patel/
Samantha Sincali directly on our 24-hr. mobile phone service (860) 235-7766 at your
earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is always a pleasure to
work with you at your various facilities.
Sincerely;
Andy Sincali
Manager of Engineering
U.S. Automation, Inc.
Phone: 
(860) 235-7766
Fax: 
(860) 271-8007
E-Mail: 
andy.sincali@usautomationcorp.com or
sincali@msn.com
P. O. Box 555; Quaker Hill, CT. 06375 
Tel: (860) 235-7766 
Fax: (860) 271-8007
© 2006 U.S. Automation, Inc. All rights reserved

TOWN OF WATERFORD
CAPITAL PROJECT REQUEST FORM
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY 
CONTACT PERSON
Utility Commission 
Neftali Soto - Chief Engineer
PROJECT NAME 
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY
Retrofit Control Panels - Gorman-Rupp Pumping Stations 
3
Among the components of our wastewater collection system, we have 28 pumping stations that: move wastewater generated i in
Waterford to its final destination at the New London treatment plant. Of those 28 stations, when the sewering of the Town of Waterford
was initiated in the early 80s, the town made the wise decision of standardizing the smaller stations (19 of them) as package lift stations
manufactured by the Gorman-Rupp Company. These stations rely on electronic components intended for their safe, reliable, and
efficient operations. Many of these stations are coming into the age that the electronics are becoming obsolete, are no longer or
minimally supported, and are not 100% compatible with the needs for SCADA system. Most of these electronic components are
proprietary to the Gorman-Rupp brand. However, our SCADA consultant together with our in-house electrician are in the process of
retrofitting the control panels of these stations with control panels and an open architecture programming with the ability of developing
and expand our SCADA capabilities. The cost of each station retrofitting is about $9,000.
| 2 [PROJECT STATUS IF IN PROGRESS
Some work is being done by our electrician and