HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application(970) 945-1004
FAX (970) 945-5948
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
118 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
August 24, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean, Planner
Garfield County Building, Planning and Sanitation Dept.
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Town of Carbondale Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dear Mark:
Please find enclosed a site application for wastewater treatment facility for the Town of
Carbondale. This application is being submitted for a plant expansion at the present Town of
Carbondale wastewater treatment facility site. As part of the Colorado Department of Health
application, the County Commissioners are a referral agency. Could you please schedule a
meeting with the Commissioners to discuss the application?
If I can provide any additional comments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
ouis Meyer, P.E.
LM:Ic/93146D03
Enclosure
cc: Charlie Cave
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
SITE APPLICATION
ENGINEERING REPORT
JULY 1995
Prepared for:
Site Application Submission
Prepared By
Schmueser Gonion Meyer, Inc.
118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS, UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS A
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2. SERVICE AREA/POPULATION
2.2 Existing and Proposed EQR's
CHAPTER 3. WASTEWATER FLOWS
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Scope of WWTF Master Plan
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
6-1
2.1 Service Area
3.1 General
3.2 Historical Flow
3.3 Proposed Wastewater Flows
CHAPTER 4. INTERCEPTOR SEWER CAPACITIES
4.1 General
4.2 Existing and Proposed Interceptors
4.3 Highway 133 Interceptor
4.4 Town Interceptor
4.5 Crystal River Interceptor
CHAPTER 5. COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 General
5.2 Capital Improvement Priorities
5.3 Line Improvement Alternatives
CHAPTER 6. WWTF EXISTING CONDITION ANALYSIS
6.1 Description 6-1
6.2 History 6-2
6.3 Site Application 6-3
6.4 Discharge Permit 6-3
6.5 Water Quality Standard 6-6
6.6 201 Plan 6-7
6.7 Plant Capacity 6-9
6.7.1 Pretreatment Facilities 6-9
6.7.2 Aeration Basin 6-9
6.7.3 Secondary Clarification 6-11
7.7.4 Chlorine Contact Tank 6-11
6.7.5 Sludge Digestion 6-11
6.7.6 Treatment Plant Flows 6-13
6.7.7 Plant Physical Condition 6-15
CHAPTER 7. WWTF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 7-1
7.1 Wastewater Treatment Phased Capacity 7-1
7.2 Ultimate Plant Size 7-2
7.3 Capital Improvements Required 7-2
7.3.1 Phase 1 7-3
7.3.2 Phase 2 7-5
7.3.3 Regulatory Requirements 7-5
7.3.4 Project Schedule 7-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Existing EQR's
Table 2.2 Planning Area Summary
Table 3.1 Flows to Wastewater Treatment Facility
Table 4.1 thru 4.7 Wastewater Interceptor Sizing
Table 4.8 thru 4.9 Existing Interceptor Capabilities/Segment
Table 4.10 Colorado Avenue Bypass
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Section D Clay Pipe
Section E Clay Pipe
Section F Clay Pipe
Section G Clay Pipe
Replacement & Improvement Project Summary
LIST OF TABLES
continued
Table 6.1 Effluent Limitations 6-6
Table 6.2 Unit Processes Capacity 6-13
Table 6.3 Inflow and Infiltration 6-14
Table 7.1 New Plant Cost 7-2
Table 7.2 Plant Construction Costs 7-3
Table 7.3 Aerobic Sludge Digestion Expansion
Table 7.4 Pretreatment Facilities
Table 7.5 Blower Addition
Table 7.6 Sludge Thickening
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Wastewater Service Area
Figure 2.2 Wastewater Master Plan
Figure 2.3 201 Planning Area
Figure 2.4 Proposed Land Use District's Study Area 1
Figure 3.1 WWTF Flows
Figure 6.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Figure 6.2 Existing WWTF Capacity Page 6-13a
Figure 7.1 WWTF Growth Rates (with Inflow and Infiltration) Page 7-1 a
Figure 7.2 WWTF Growth Rates (without Inflow and Infiltration) Page 7-1b
Figure 7.3 Project Schedule
[
93146B05.toc
LIST OF ACRONYMS, UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADF Average Daily Flow
BODS Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CDOH Colorado Department of Health
CFS Cubic Feet Per Second
CRMS Colorado Rocky Mountain School
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EQR Equivalent Residential Units
GPCD Gallons Per Capita Day
GPD Gallons Per Day
Hp Horsepower
I&I Inflow and Infiltration
ISDS Individual Sewage Disposal System
MCC Motor Control Center
MLVSS Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
mg/I Milligram per liter
NWCOG Northwest Council of Government
PD Positive Displacement
PVC Polyvinyl Chlorine Pipe
TDH Total Dynamic Head
TOC Town of Carbondale
TSS Total Suspended Solids
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
report\93146acr.nym
[ A 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to serve as the Engineering Report as an attachment to a
Site Application being submitted to the Colorado Department of Health. The Town of
Carbondale (TOC) and outlying areas in the Crystal and Roaring Fork River Valleys are rapidly
growing and will continue to grow in the future. This report will propose a service area which
will coincide with the major growth areas in the two valleys. The Hendrick, Gray Ranch and
CRMS projects, and other presently undeveloped land will impact the TOC and the wastewater
infrastructure. Without this Engineering Report, the Town has no report or blueprint for
Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) capacity and expansion, or for the location and sizes
of interceptor sewers. Further, it is important for the Town to maintain existing investment in
collection lines and WWTF infrastructure even before considering expansion. This report will
address the condition and age of existing collection lines and WWTF infrastructure.
1.2 SCOPE OF WWTF ENGINEERING REPORT
The scope of this report is to evaluate the wastewater service needs for the TOC planning
area. An outline of the scope is more fully described as follows:
1. Determine the long term service area that the TOC should serve.
2. Using the service area described above, determine population projections and
subsequent wastewater flows.
3. Identify the existing interceptor sewers and determine their capacities.
Recommend interceptor sewer improvements necessary to provide service to
future development. Determine the most logical route to serve these
developments, and recommend sizes for those interceptor sewers.
4. Using TV tapes of collection lines prepare a prioritized list of long term
improvements to the collection system.
5. Research the capacity of the existing Carbondale WWTF and the ability of the
1-1
facility to serve the projected flows. Make recommendations necessary to
maintain and expand the WWTF. Determine if the existing site upon which the
plant sits will serve as the ultimate plant site.
6. Provide cost estimates for capital improvements.
End of Chapter 1
1-2
CHAPTER 2. SERVICE AREA/POPULATION
u
CHAPTER 2. SERVICE AREA/POPULATION
The purpose of this section is to discuss the proposed planning area for the TOC. After
the planning area has been identified, the amount of EQR's will be determined.
2.1 SERVICE AREA
A water master report which is being prepared simultaneously with this report, identified
a planning area which will be served with town water. The planning areas identified generally
conform with those identified with Crystal Clear III, Carbondale's Comprehensive Report.
The planning/service area for wastewater treatment will vary slightly from the water
system planning area. First, the areas south of Town along the Crystal River south to Nettle
Creek which were included in the water service area, will not be included in the wastewater
service area. This area consists of large rural lots that are presently served with ISDS's. It
would not be economically feasible to serve these areas with wastewater collection and
treatment. Secondly, a small area included in the Water Engineering Report that is excluded
from this report is a parcel west of the Crystal River and west of the CRMS and Sutank area.
This area would not gravity flow to the WWTF and would have to cross the Crystal River both
of which make it economically infeasible to serve. Finally, land north of County Road 100
within the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River has not been included within the
wastewater service area. Although this land can be developed per County code, Central
wastewater service is not feasible within the floodplain.
Planning area 1 includes the present town limits, CRMS, Sutank, Gray Ranch, the Smith
Parcel, geographically described as that land bordered by the Roaring Fork River on the north,
the Crystal River on the west (except that land within the Gray Ranch west of the river), the
southern boundary of Gray Ranch on the south and the valley floor to the base of White Hill on
the east.
Planning area 2 extends farther to the south in the Crystal River Valley to include the
valley floor and farther to the east to encompass land on the upper mesas including White Hill
and that lower lying land north of County Road 100. Figure 2.1 graphically depicts both service
areas.
The existing wastewater service area also differs from the existing water system service
2-1
area slightly. CRMS and Sutank are not served by the town's wastewater system, but are served
with town water. the Mountain Valley Mobile Home Park is served by the wastewater system
but not the water system. Approximately 57 single family homes along the Crystal River are
served with town water but are on private ISDS's.
The Town of Carbondale must also consider the recommendations in the 201 Facilities
Report when considering wastewater service area. In 1978 the Carbondale Sanitation District
prepared a 201 Report in order to qualify for federal grant monies for the construction of the
present WWTF. The 201 Report is used by the CDOH to report orderly wastewater service for
economic, environmental and water quality issues. Attached as Figure 2.3 is a map showing
the 201 planning area. The planning area, as verbally described in the report, is as follows:
"The designated 201 planning area lies primarily in and to the south of the Town
of Carbondale and encompasses developed areas in the Roaring Fork and Crystal
River Valleys. The area extends from near the confluence of the Crystal River
and Roaring Fork to the Catherine Store and Fish Hatchery areas. The area
defined presents a large inventory of environmental communities and contains all
of the potentially developable area which could be cost effectively treated by the
Carbondale Sanitation District."
The 201 planning area differs from the planning are suggested n this report as follows.
The 201 area is large and includes much of the area outside the valley floor and the floodplain
between County Road 100 and the Roaring Fork. Further, the 201 area also includes significant
areas north of Highway 82, and includes the Ranch at Roaring Fork, Aspen Crystal River
Estates and the Te -Ke -Ki Subdivision. The planning area #2 used in this report, however, is
more inclusive in the Crystal River Valley floor by extending farther to the south.
Despite the fact that the planning areas are different, the area to be served by central
wastewater service is consistent between the two reports. Recommendation in the 201 Report
state that not all the area within the planning area be served with central wastewater service.
The recommendations state:
a. The Carbondale Sanitation District expand their facilities.
2-2
b. The CRMS facility will remain present.
c. Sutank area continue to be monitored for groundwater contamination and central
collection facilities be installed if contamination occurs.
d. The Ranch at Roaring Fork treatment facility remain as present; central collection
and/or treatment facilities for the Roaring Fork Valley not be constructed.
e. Proposed facilities for Crystal River Rearing Ponds be constructed as planned.
f. Any reports for treatment and collection facilities for Te -Ki -Ki and Aspen Crystal
River Estates be carefully reviewed in terms of environmental impacts and
environmental hazards; reports should include analysis of potential problems.
The current report does call for service to the Sutank area. Despite the 201 Report
suggestion that the CRMS plant remain, this report contemplates the elimination of that plant.
The 201 Report does not recommend central wastewater service to the Roaring Fork Valley to
the Catherine's Store which is consistent with this report. The Crystal River Ranch and the
Coryell Ranch (both included in the 201 Report) have, at the urging of the CDOH, been
included in the recently -formed Aspen Glen Water and Sanitation District Service Report as
within the "Wastewater Management Study Service Area".
The only inconsistencies between the two planning areas include the following. The
property north of Highway 82 is included in the 201 Report; the area east of town on the upper
mesas that include Te -Ke -Ki and the Aspen Crystal Estates are included in the 201 Report and
not the planning area of this report.
Finally, the population projection used in the 201 Report for the planning area was 9084
people while this report projects 14,745 persons for a much smaller geographic area.
2.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED EQR'S
In order to identify the wastewater infrastructure necessary to provide service to the
existing and proposed service area, approximate land use patterns and population projections
have been determined. The methodology used in this Engineering Report includes a combination
of:
1. Use of the TOC's Land Use Report "Crystal Clear III".
2-3
2. Extensive field investigation and use of existing aerial photography to determine
the number of existing EQR's.
3. Measure the square footage of commercial and industrial space and use the TOC's
EQR Table to assess EQR's.
4. Count the number of existing multi -family units in each building.
5. Interview schools on number of students in school at one time.
6. Interview Town and County planning staff on future land use patterns.
Using this methodology, the amount of existing EQR's serviced by the Town's
wastewater system is 1719. Table 2.1 shows the breakdown of uses by area in the Town. The
existing EQR's were broken down by area (basin) because of the necessity to size interceptor
sewers. Figure 2.2 graphically shows how these EQR's are distributed.
Based upon interviews with town and county planning staff, the number of additional
EQR's projected for planning Area 1 is 1904. Planning Area 2 will add an additional 590
EQR's. Figure 2.2 also shows the breakdown of proposed EQR's by planning area and basin.
These numbers do not take into consideration any existing inflow and infiltration (I&I) which
will be discussed in the next chapter. The current Garfield County planning Department
"Proposed Land Use Districts Study Area" map for the Carbondale area is shown as Figure 2-4.
Table 2.2 summarizes the amount of EQR's and population equivalents for existing and
proposed planning areas. It is important to note that population equivalents are higher than
actual census population because commercial, industrial and institutional EQR's have been added
to the actual population.
End of Chapter 2
2-4
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXISTING EQR's
-1
0—
W N
J
Q W w
t]
z<
0ci)
• 11.1
U WW
LL Q
O W Z
ZF-
F-
O QX
W
TOTAL
EQR
('
Oo
Lo
r- tf)rcO�toptOcd
in
Lo
V CV f)N
r,...--
CS)
Z
m W
N
z ^
� Cr)
<
iX � M( f
M .w
N
N,
u-)
.4-
co
N
M
N
ZJ
CL
�t•-..a
m W.r
620
0
4021
CO
CO
N
CO
t1)
o_
ti
Z "4
m W
ca ..__i
70
co
co
N
N
co
zCt
6o 0
m
N
co
Z it
¢ Mt 0
W
CO
n—
M
CO
M
co
M
N
co
CO
N-
Z E
< w
Q]
to
,
N
t!)
Z .e
< w
W
co
O
`
,----
to
M
to cc.)
N
to
t
Fii v_ Ci
CCI W
1
co
4
M
N
N
M
ITEM DESCRIPTION
•
Z
W
O
W
(:
LL
C
=
u
—C7) EE
C
OFFICE
RETAIL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SCHOOL
MOTELJHOTEL
RESTURANT
GAS
CAR WASH
LAUNDRY
I N IRSING HOME
I PARK
THEATER
nolo
1TOTAL
—
N
ch
V'
N
CO
1"-
CO
O
N
'1 V'
'
'
TI
O
O
O
O
M
O)
to -
LO
INFILTRATION
co
O
uo
M
O
N
(0
CO
N
Qr (V
J Q Q Z
O Z Z CO
ZZ
z
as
co
N
O
10
O
O
r
O
O
ti
O
K)
M
O
M
O
O
O
O
O)
N
O
CO
O
N
0
(()
0
CO
N
0
z
Lj
O
rn
10
O
10
0
O
r
ns
(0
O
N
r-`
O_
10
tQ►
0
0
CS)
O
to
0)
0
O
1-
O
ti
44 -
to to
(0
0
(O
O
O
v
(0
DESCRIPTION
0)
a
W
O
W
cc
W
W
1-
U
TOTAL FLOW
1
1
•
-.;s-PL,ANNING AREA
P. BOUNDARY •
;-•
32
6 S:4
\ • — '
32
•
COLORADO ROCKY
-..
'MOUNTAIN SCHOOL
REATMENT FACIUTIESata,t4:'
i•••• ,
t• -t-
. X 7493
ts.A.
,•••
4
•/'
•
\ 140
644,.
•
41
/
Th
IF I G t_J FZIE 2-3
11 `...) ) ,\
O O CO L CD O C_O O O O O O U)
N U
CD
L
-
E
N)
Qi
-}J C>
-4--.= _ —
O U (1) -1---• QJ
1— . - -p = U =
-1--, - - CD . - �+---
4.,4_ = Cr) -U - = =
O CD CD • - _ O
-p (::! Cr) CD S= - - O
4--i Qi O Cr) O
i CI) = >- (2 •- . .- -- -- -~
Q) N -0 Cr) -i--, >- U U U U U
U -�-- - N = -- '-- - "- U i
U CI) _a-_,• o -- Q) i i i U
Q. �J a» --� U)— >+f -.-' = CI) CI) X
- • - CI) - = = = _.. = CD cn (1) c O 3 J W Cr)
Cr) CI) Cr) CD '0 - - U s= O U -0 - U �.
-+-' c CD __.= --'•---... O\ Cn\ U — Qn •-
_ _- CD — LD") U U U Q c -4--' U 1-
C...)
C2-
1.-- 0 - - 0 E U CD U Cr)U - - U c O
-}+ = C - -4-� Cl..) L. --1--, >, = -1---•
N > O
CO C) \lS7 - - C Y) ± S= v.) Cn +�
p p7 1 -0 1 �O Q) •— c.) =CD
="-----' z�.� =�� U
_. N— O • W (:: c.� J = c V)
a.>
s✓
1
1
1 1 1
FIGURE 2.4
CHAPTER 3. WASTEWATER FLOWS
CHAPTER 3. WASTEWATER FLOWS
3.1 GENERAL
This chapter will discuss the existing and projected wastewater flows for planning areas
1 and 2. Wastewater flows will be used to determine the capacities of existing and proposed
interceptor sewers and to determine the requirements for wastewater treatment facility
expansions.
3.2 HISTORICAL FLOW
The WWTF must have the ability to treat maximum daily flow from the tributary
regions. Table 3.1 shows the 30 -day average and maximum daily flow for the WWTF influent
and effluent for the years 1994, 1993 and 1992. The 30 day average flow is important because
the Town's Discharge Permit and Site Application are based upon 30 day average flows. The
maximum daily flow is important because the WWTF must be designed to treat the maximum
daily flow into the WWTF. The influent flow is based upon a Parshall flume and continuous
recording meter located in the pretreatment building.
The maximum daily flow to date occurred in June 1994 and was .984 MGD. The 30 day
average flow for June 1994 was 0.53 MGD. Figure 3.1 shows the monthly flows graphically
for the past three years.
The most significant conclusion upon review of this graph is the amount of inflow and
infiltration (I&I). Flows to the WWTF should not have significant seasonal variations. Unlike
water system demand which will vary seasonally because of irrigation demand, WWTF winter
time flows should approximate summer time flows. As evident from this graph, the flows
increase significantly during the irrigation season. The increased flow is due to inflow and
infiltration (I&I). I&I is caused by high groundwater or surface water entering sewerlines. For
the TOC, I&I is most likely due to high groundwater conditions because it is constant during
the irrigation months and does not increase appreciably during a rainfall event.
In 1994 the non -irrigation maximum daily flows averaged 0.377 MGD. In June 1994,
the maximum daily flow was as high as 0.984 MGD or a difference of 0.607 MGD. For the
same time period but for the 30 day average, the average amount of infiltration for June was
0.153 MGD. I&I takes up plant and interceptor sewer capacity. By way of comparison, the
3-1
1
amount of I&I in June for the 30 day average condition equates to 624 EQR's and for the
maximum day condition 2477 EQR's.
Chapter 2 concluded that existing EQR's total 1719. Assuming 3.5 persons per EQR and
70 gallons per person per day (GPCD) this equates to a theoretical flow of 0.42 MGD which
correlates fairly well with the average 1994 wintertime flows of 0.377 MGD. Flows have
increased in the wintertime for the past 3 years as follows:
1992 - 0.323 MGD
1993 - 0.350 MGD
1994 - 0.377 MGD
3.3 PROPOSED WASTEWATER FLOWS
Using the proposed EQR's from Chapter 2, the resultant flows for each planning area
is summarized in Table 2.2. The criteria used to project these flows included 3.5 persons per
EQR and 100 gallons per capita day. The per capita flow of 100 GPCD is a requirement of the
CDOH, and is conservatively higher than the analysis of existing flow of 70 GPCD. 3.5 persons
per unit is also the industry wide standard for municipal planning.
Assuming that I&I is eliminated through line upgrades, the flow for existing and planning
area 1 is 1.27 MGD and for existing and planning areas 1 and 2 is 1.47 MGD. Therefore, if
infiltration is eliminated the ultimate plant size will be 1.47 MGD. It is assumed that with
improved materials and construction techniques, all new collection lines installed in the future
will not have any I&I.
End of Chapter 3
3-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 3.1
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
FLOWS TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
i0
February
0.316
0.59
0.3222
0.363
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
anu
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.379
0.298
0.419
0.672
0.357
0.398
0.28
0.247
0.249
0.248
0.355
0.454
0.32
0.364
0.371
0.322
0.262
0.21
0.2917
0.323
0.298
0.44
0.391
0.273
0.3
0.3804
0.37
0.27
0.29
0.594
0.48
0.899
1.03
0.625
0.643
0.483
0.446
0.502
0.48
0.886
0.792
0.623
0.694
0.563
0.445
0.63
0.4
0.4175
0.44
0.594
0.674
0.4453
0.4453
0.445
0.6256
0.59
0.46
0.64
0.322
0.301
0.412
0.53
0.495
0.468
0.367
0.29
0.304
0.276
0.303
0.393
0.35
0.329
0.299
0.277
0.261
0.265
0.2274
0.233
0.213
0.369
0.3407
0.2976
0.357
0.3127
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.38
Flow Effluent
Flow Effluent
Flow Influent
Flow Influent
30 -day Avg.
Maximum
30 -day Avg.
Maximum Flow
YEAR
MONTH
(MGD)
Flow (MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
i0
February
0.316
0.59
0.3222
0.363
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
anu
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.379
0.298
0.419
0.672
0.357
0.398
0.28
0.247
0.249
0.248
0.355
0.454
0.32
0.364
0.371
0.322
0.262
0.21
0.2917
0.323
0.298
0.44
0.391
0.273
0.3
0.3804
0.37
0.27
0.29
0.594
0.48
0.899
1.03
0.625
0.643
0.483
0.446
0.502
0.48
0.886
0.792
0.623
0.694
0.563
0.445
0.63
0.4
0.4175
0.44
0.594
0.674
0.4453
0.4453
0.445
0.6256
0.59
0.46
0.64
0.322
0.301
0.412
0.53
0.495
0.468
0.367
0.29
0.304
0.276
0.303
0.393
0.35
0.329
0.299
0.277
0.261
0.265
0.2274
0.233
0.213
0.369
0.3407
0.2976
0.357
0.3127
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.38
EFFLUENT MAX
EFFLUENT 30 DAY AVE
INFLUENT MAX
INFLUENT 30 DAY AVE
10
10
(
10
10
CIOIN NI AAOld
FIGURE 3.1
CHAPTER 4. INTERCEPTOR SEWER CAPACITIES
CHAPTER 4. INTERCEPTOR SEWER CAPACITIES
4.1 GENERAL
This chapter will discuss the existing and proposed interceptor sewer capacities and
corridors which currently serve and will be necessary to serve future growth for the TOC. An
interceptor sewer is defined as a sewerline that intercepts collection laterals and carries the
wastewater flow to the WWTF, or to a larger interceptor line. Generally, interceptors do not
have many service taps.
4.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
The existing and proposed interceptor locations are shown in Figure 2.2. Currently, the
Town of Carbondale is served by a single main interceptor sewer located in Highway 133. This
line collects and carries all of the Town's wastewater flow to the WWTF. The town area south
of the railroad tracks and east of Highway 133 is served by a secondary "Town" interceptor
which collects the wastewater flow from this area and carries it to the Highway 133 interceptor.
There has been much planning and discussion in the recent and past years of a Crystal
River interceptor to serve existing and new development west of Highway 133. Developments
such as Crystal Village Filing 5, Crystal Acres, and currently Hendrick Ranch have installed
over -sized lines to accommodate this alignment in the future.
Included in this chapter are several tables which show the current and projected
wastewater flows in the existing and proposed interceptors. It should be noted that the pipe sizes
shown in Tables 4.1 through 4.7 are based on the accepted industry standards for minimum
grades for each pipe size. These tables show the existing and projected EQR's per basin as
delineated in Figure 4.1. The EQR's/wastewater flows are summed downstream to the WWTF.
Tables 4.8 and 4.9 were derived from the previous tables, but show the capacities of each
existing interceptor segment based on actual pipe grades.
4.3 HIGHWAY 133 INTERCEPTOR
The Highway 133 Interceptor is the main interceptor in Town. The interceptor location
and pipe sizes are shown in Figure 2.2. The existing line is in good condition and has the
capacity to serve the projected 1904 EQR's for planning area 1. Improvements to this
4-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
interceptor are not anticipated. However, an extension south of Meadowood Drive may be
necessary to serve development south and east of Highway 133.
Table 4.1 shows the existing and projected future EQR's which contribute to the
wastewater flow in the interceptor without the completion of the Crystal River Interceptor.
Table 4.2 shows the Highway 133 interceptor flows with the completion of the Crystal River
Interceptor. Similarly, Table 4.4 and 4.5 show the Highway 133 flows when including planning
area 2.
Finally, Table 4.8 shows the capacities of individual segments of the Highway 133
interceptor and available EQR's in the interceptor for planning area 1. The addition of planning
area 2 adds a total of 590 EQR's, which the interceptor can adequately carry at 3/4 full.
Therefore, more extensive development of White Hill, the Bottomlands, or south of Town would
need to occur for the Highway 133 Interceptor to require improvement. Also, the Aspen Crystal
River Estates and Te -Ke -Ki, platted but undeveloped subdivisions, lie to the east of planning
area 2. While these areas are not discussed in the Town Crystal Clear III planning Report, they
are considered in the 201 Facilities Report and deserve future consideration beyond the scope
of this report. The construction of the Crystal River Interceptor would retain the excess
Highway 133 capacity for developments such as this east of Town.
4.4 TOWN INTERCEPTOR
The Town Interceptor collects wastewater from the main downtown area, south of
Colorado Avenue and east of Highway 133. The location is shown in Figure 2.2. The line is
10" PVC in Colorado Avenue and Seventh Street, and changes to 8" clay as it begins to head
east behind the post office. The remainder of the line is 8" clay to its upstream end at
Snowmass Drive just south of the White Hill access road.
As will be discussed in the following chapter, the clay portion of this line should be lined
or replaced as part of a pipe replacement program. More urgently, the portion of the line which
is located in the alley from Seventh Street to Third Street should be bypassed by installing a 10"
PVC line from Third Street and the alley north of Main Street to Seventh Street and Colorado
Avenue (see Figure 4.1). Schmueser Gordon Meyer has done preliminary work on this bypass
and a cost estimate is shown in Table 4.10.
The White Hill area is tributary to the Town Interceptor and is accounted for in planning
4-2
area 2. The Town Interceptor, following the projected development in planning area 1, will
have approximately 211 EQR's of capacity available between manholes El and E2. In the event
the White Hill area is developed, the extent of the development will drive the need for
improvements necessary to limit pipe flow to 3/4 full capacity (see Table 4.9).
4.5 CRYSTAL RIVER INTERCEPTOR
The Crystal River interceptor has been the topic of continuing discussions for several
years. The completion of the interceptor will be necessary prior to buildout of the Gray Ranch
property. The interceptor would basically serve the area west of Highway 133 and south of
Main Street including Crystal Village Filing 5, Crystal Acres, the single-family portion of the
Hendrick Ranch and a majority of the developable land south of the Hendrick Ranch and west
of Highway 133. In addition, the Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) and the Sutank
area will have the opportunity to connect to the interceptor.
The area currently developed is collected at the only lift station in Town, located at the
north end of Oak Run Drive. Wastewater is pumped a couple of blocks east where it flows to
Highway 133. There are currently 64 EQR's which the lift station serves. The Hendrick
project will add another 50 EQR's. The existing capacity of the lift station is approximately
230,000 gpd which equates to 156 EQR's. This results in a 42 EQR remaining capacity.
The Gray Ranch development will add 685 EQR's to the lift station and another 200
EQR's will be added if planning area #2 is included. This will exceed the current capacity of
the lift station. Since a gravity interceptor is feasible through the Crystal River corridor, the
completion of the interceptor would avoid the continual maintenance costs of operating a lift
station. The interceptor should be completed prior to housing construction at Gray Ranch.
The proposed route for the Crystal River interceptor is shown in Figure 2.2. The exact
route through Gray Ranch will be partially dependent upon the development report. However,
generally, the line will cross the Crystal River near the area shown and continue north on the
east side of the river and then turn westerly along the river and irrigation ditch. The interceptor
will then follow below the irrigation ditch along the hillside to the soon -completed Hendrick
portion of the line.
The 12" line continues through Hendrick, heading north in Oak Run Road through
Crystal Acres and Crystal Village Filing 5. The lift station will be bypassed and the line will
4-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
continue north along the west side of County Road 106 and through the CRMS property. On
the north side of the CRMS athletic field, the line will turn east and continue along Dolores Way
to a lot line in the Kay PUD and turn northeast across the railroad tracks to the Mountain Valley
Mobile Home Park (MHP).
Through the MHP, the interceptor should be installed adjacent to, or in place of, the
existing collection line for the MHP. The interceptor should tie into existing manhole I6 at the
north end of the MHP. Because of the relatively steep grade down to the plant, the existing line
size will be adequate to carry the flow from planning areas 1 and 2. The interceptor grades are
in the range of 0.25 % to 0.50%.
Previous planning done on interceptor alignments have attempted to incorporate the
Sutank area into a gravity line. However, if the WWTF adds pretreatment processes to a
different location, the headworks of the plant could be moved uphill near manhole I4. The
result of moving the pretreatment facility is not having the ability to serve Sutank by gravity.
The Sutank collection system would then be pumped to the proposed interceptor in County Road
106.
If the WWTF headworks remain in the existing configuration, or moved downstream,
a gravity line may be extended to include Sutank. This alterative is also shown in Figure 2.2.
Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show the tributary flows for the interceptor and that a 12" line size
is adequate for planning areas 1 and 2 respectively.
End of Chapter 4
4-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
z
N
K
0
.-4 W
0
W w
J z
CO
Qcc
W
f" Q
yQ
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
Z
J
W
0
0
0
K
0
0
M
W
0)
X W
(LI a
a
co
N
N
N
to
(0
to
O
O
c0
co
(n
0
N
N
0
3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
[INj
a00)
a0
00
N
V)
(0
0
0
N
CO
N
CO
a0
CO
0)
1/2 FULL
PIPE SIZE
[IN)
V
N
V
N
N
N
N
N
N
0)
N
0
O
0)
CO
O
(0
(D
TOTAL OF EX.&
FUTURE FLOWS
[GPD)
1 2,031,663
a0
0)
.-
O)
co
0)
0)
N
(•-
CO'
M
c)
0
0
CO-
0)
�
M
CO
if)
0
0)
(0
0
CO
t'.
V
0
CO
0)
-
0)
(0
0)
0)
643,738
0)
m
0)
(0
0
(0
c0
OD
(D
(0
n
M
245,000
840,350
c0
M
'OV N
O
0)
«)
ea
.4 -
0
0
FUTURE
FLOW
[GPD]
N.
(Y
0)
842,188
807,275
co
O
0
n
795,025
O
O
^
709,888
In
(n
co
0)
(0
M
21,438
co
M
V
N
654,763
419,563
N
0)
.--
58,800
1.
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
co
co
O
r
M
O)
0)
0)
O)
co
(O
O
M
to
(n
(n
co
O
O
M
(n
CA
(C)
(D
21,4381
0
0)
N
!
O
21,438
N
N
N
t`
19,563
104,125
58,8001
FUTURE
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
M
57
15
tO
0
0)
0)
V
0
0)
•
1 35
0
N
0
In
M
(otc�q
.--
(D
170
m
0)
0
1
CO
(D
3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
(IN]
12
12
r
�
121
1
�
0
10
0)
CO
0)
co
0)
CO
CO
1/2 FULL
PIPE SIZE
[IN]
18
18
a0
00
15
15
�
Ca .N-
10
c0
CO
0)
0)
(o
0)
Z
0)
0
Q.
(!
n
e-.
O
N
.--
V�
M
O
cn
N
S
O
(A
0
CO
0)
W
O
t^{
0)
co
(0
(n
(0)
tM�.
(n
355,250
(n
N
N
in
V
UCl M)
N
a0
n
0
10
V
O
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
M
V
95,550
M
N
M
1,--
CO
0
N
(D
A
n
V
M
(D
40 a0
r
(7
..-.--{
*4)
---0
N
a0p
(O
(0
— N
ri
N
N
0)
. (n
0)
0
(MO
0)
N.
N
(')
V
0
PEAKING
FACTOR
(n
N
(n
N
v)
N
(n
N
0)
N
(n
N
(f)
N
in
N
(n
N
V)
N
(n
N
(n
N
(n
N
(()
N
(4)
N
t1)
N
FLOW PER
PERSON
(G PCD]
70
70
OL
70
OL
O
N
70
0
n
0
4
0
t,-
0
n-
OL
OL
OL
O
n
[
70)
# OF
PERSONS
PER UNIT
(0
0)
0)
ai
U)
Cl
(n
M
(()
Cl
(n
(')
U)
4')
1.0
M
3.51
3.5
(f)
M
(n
M
(n
M
(n
(ry
EXISTING
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
0)
156
u)
m
.-
(O
78
.-O
CO
0)
356
O
04
3651
303
45
74
O
0)
0)
Z Q
co W
co <
(n
(D
O
t`
1...-
^
r�
^
(O
No
:-
J
Q
F.
0
I�
O
N
v
n
co
cl
N
,-
co
,_
N
N
N
N
r\
N
O
V
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.2
WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR SIZING
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
W
1-:
co N Z
X W
W °-
0
N
N
N
V)
O
V)
O
0
0
CO
O
V)
V)
C(
O
3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nM
co
co
co
N
N
N
N
0
0
CO
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
1/2 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nM ,
NN
CO
O
.-
CO
.--
CO
•--
CO
.-
V)
•-
N
•-
0
.-
CO
OL
CO
0)
O
TOTAL OF EX.&
FUTURE FLOWS
[GPD]
0
1-
(.1
N
V
(()
1,479,8001
1,349,338
1,308,913
1,204,175
V)
(�
C)
V)
V
O
O
to
N.
(O
0
O
C)
t-
C)
V
(O
0)
O
CO
(D
0
CO
376,688
245,000
C)
co
CO
0
N
C)
U)
N
`7
0
-
0
FUTURE
FLOW
[GPD]
406,088
392,000
357,088
347,900
CO)
CO
V
1')
C)
N
CO
N
0
N
V)
N
N
(f)
33,6881
COCO
v
N
21,438
204,575
162,925
O
CO
In
0
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
03 00
o
v
.-
Cl
Q)
v
(0
00
r,
0)
C
COC)
o
(0
55,1251
o
o
C)
55,125
21,438
12,250
0
03
v_
N
(
Of)
V)
v
104,125:
58,800
n
La It >
CI D W
LL.
Mc 11--
(7
N
(-
V)
4)
.
(A
0
0)
0)
V
0
0)
N
C)
20
0
V)
C)
"'
0
(D
0)
0
N
C)
O
3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nM
N
N
12
N
N
N
N
O
O
CO
CO
O
O
O
CO
J W
DNE.
W
9_-
'"'"a
co
O
O
O
(A
V)
V)
N
N
0
O
O
CO
O
CO
EXISTING
FLOW
[GPD]
O
03
(
C)
1,087,8001
992,2501
C)
O
(D
Q)
859,3381
855,663
807,888
i588,6131
O
o
C)
- C)
n
N
1 355,250
C)
N
0
N
Cl
N
N
CO
N
CO
O
N
n
1.0
.6
co
V
0
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
tOO
(7
co
V
8
V)
0)
0)
co
N
C)
N
CO
O
V)
(D
C)
h
t`
V
C)
m
OV)
2
tAto
C)
M
•-
218,050
`
223,563
co
V—
N
f`
N
45 3251
O
PEAKING
FACTOR
V)
N
V)
N
V)
N
V)
(V
V)
(V
n.
CV
(V
\(o
N
An
N
a
N
to
N
14)
N
a
N
+n
N
10
N
FLOW PER
PERSON
[GPCD]
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
0
0
70
0
# OF
PERSONS
PER UNIT
N
C)
N
C)
(f)
C)
V)
C)
3.5
V)
M
3.5
V)
C)
N N
C) C)
V)
C)
V)
C)
3.5
V)
C)
V)
0
EXISTING
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
0)
1�
156
N
CO
(D
.-
CO
78
CO
0)
N
N
(0 V)
(f)
C) N
365
239
45
V
1"--
'-.-
0
1855
Q Ix
a31
.-
N
C)
V
N
co
O
N-
nn
co
00
0)
--
TOTAL
1
W
O
2_O
N
Q
n
C)
N
C)
N
.-
W
o)l
W
7 ,i(i)
111
N
.t
q
0
0
-o
o 0.
E
c E
o G
C
O n0
A N
O
C
o .�
(o n
01,1
C/ nC/
W c
co '0
co m
c D_
m
1C
O t0
u
Po
r- 0-
9:1
C D
m
_ N
-
• n
r- m
n N
c
N
CO 0-
Q] d
W
1-
0
0
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.3
WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR SIZING
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
W
F. U) .-7
w z
wCI-
EZ.
.J -
CA
J W
O
CO
m
CO
J
u_ W c
V d
ela
12 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nN]
v)
of
o co
TOTAL OF EX. &
FUTURE FLOWS
[GPD]
co
a)
()
N
a)
co
co
(7
el'
a)
a)
co
N
O)
o
(D
'7
Q
FUTURE
FLOW
[GPD]
COCO
00
(I)
co"
O
N
O
V
(O
N
NI
Q
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
196,000
30,625
419,563
FUTURE
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
0
0
.0
N
(7
(O
O
_Iww 2.!
j D N
ao
CO
w
J LL c,
a
1s.
12 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nM
co
0
a7
EXISTING
FLOW
[GPD]
39,200
8
N
a)
r)
\IIVI<vi �t�
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
I [GPD]
o
39 200
0
V1
(n
N
LZ0
N
N
N
Q
3 a_ EL
VR-VfV11 R/
FLOW PER
PERSON
[GPCD]
O
n
O
70
VVRRIV
# OF
PERSONS
PER UNIT
3.5
3.5
0
O
r-'
LNTJ l HL v R
EXISTING
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
o
c
o
m
z<
TOTAL
5 w
m Q
r
.-
to
'0
N
=
1—
co
a9
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.4
c N
o6
ww
cc 0
U
Z Z
Qa
w
I-
J
< 0
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
1/2 FULL 3/4 FULL EXIST.
PIPE SIZE PIPE SIZE PIPE SIZE
DM PM PN.]
11111
:i:i:i:i:
N
N
N
N
NWcDOOc00Nc0m
N
N
•-
N
N
..-
N
O
N
O
00
.0
N O
N
No
N
N
O
c0
W
W c0
W
c0
TOTAL OF EX.&
FUTURE FLOWS
[GPD]
2,227,663
a0
CO
N
CD
N
O
N
n
Q
MOM
N O
N O
n M
Q Q
01
O 0
N .-
M
(D
N
0)
CO
0
.-
M
(D
r
O
M
CO
N
n
0)
N
N4-
n
0
M
N
n
n
0
oO
Q
O
CO
CD
N
00
`-
O
N
Q
O
O
N
W
M
O
O
N
M
n
O
N
0
N
CD
a)
c0
c0
Q
O
0)
N
N
.-
Q
O
O
FUTURE
FLOW
[GPD]
1,052,275
1,038,188
0
N
n
Q
el
el
1,003,275
994,088
N
N
0
CO
O)
0
0
01
v)
O)
0)
(O
a0
00
N
0
0)
N
N
CO
CO
CV
co
0
N.
0
c0
M
CO
Q
0)
94,938
777,263
I
M N
(0 N
0 0)
v
N CV-
' CO
N
1
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
CO
CO
0
Q
M O
N
a) nv0
�j C'j
W
oO
0)
M
(0
M
N
CV
N
M
0
f''))
128,625
21,438
o
N
0
.N-
0
N
M
?
N
73,500
I 72,275
} 542,063
N
CV
O
0
00
CO
FUTURE
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
M
N
571 220
N
N
0
0)
0)
Q
0
z.74-
N
M
0
N
0
N
M
120
113
885
0
!
96
CO
CO
CV.-
v 3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
DM
IA
N
CO
N N
N
121
N
10
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
•
kl.nww rvv
1/2 FULL
PIPE SIZE
flM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
N
N
N
N
N
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
IAL KIVCK LIIVC
PEAKING FLOW PER EXISTING
FACTOR SEGMENT FLOW
(GPD[ [GPD] _
ii!r
CO
N
0
CO
N
2.5 0
1.031,450
2.5 31,238
1,000,213
co M
N
a00
O
N
N
2
co
W
M
N
N
QO
c0
Q
(n
N
M
(D
11DD
N
N
8
c')
N
355.2501
223.563
O
n
N
M
Q
O
•N-
N
N
CO-
N
N
N
r)
(n
N
N
N
N
N01
CO
CC) C()
(V
N
Q
N
(V
U)
N
(j)
N
N
N
HIGHWAY 133 CO *0UUIt - NU GKTS
EXISTING # OF FLOW PER
# OF EQR's PERSONS PERSON
TRIBUTARY PER UNIT (GPCD1
1
11:1:N
1
I
79 3.5 701
156 3.5 70
01 3.5 70
511 3.5 70
166 3.5 70
6 3.5 701
78 3.5 701
961 3.5 701
251 3.5 70
356 3.5 70
215 3.51 701
365 3.5 70
O
n
N
M
O
O
n
N
M
M
O
co
70
1 70
O
n
70
N
c'7
3.5
(n
0
(n
M
O
N
Q
Q
n
O
m
N
.4.
M
Q
N
(D
O
n
n
r
n
OI
N c0
N O
l
0) r-
J
0
F-
O
N
Q
N
-
N
M
N
p)
W W W
N N
C� N
i-25
I-27
1-40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.5
0
1-
0
W
U
W
z_
CL
w
cc
Q
F-
>-
cC
U
z
0
(n
LL
w
0Q
J
S
J
1—
N
<Y
U
N
z
1-
N
c }
N
°6
w y
U 4
w
zz
n-
< to LL
w O C
I-]_
< U 2
Z
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
w
N Z
X w
wa
0
W
U
:
O
Z
W
0
t0
N
N
N
0
tf)
0
0
CO
CO
CO
0
0
N
O
J W
J N y
LL W
Qa
CC)
0
(O
t!)
N
0
N
N
0
0
(0
00
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
112 FULL
PIPE SIZE
DN
N
N
a0
N
0
CO
N
00
N
N
N
0
CO
0
CO
00
CO
TOTAL OF EX. &
FUTURE FLOWS
[GPD]
1,615,775
1,553,300
134,750
CO
(
0)
N
N
N
.-
V_
N
(O
1,277,675
1,218,875
CO
00
o
.-
V
._
00
CO
(v
r�
n
680,488
450,188
318,500
0
0
4)
C]
1.-
CO
CD
0)
O
N
r)
(o
N
V
O
O
w
f O
30 0_
D ILL �
LL
479,588
o
14)
(0
(0
134,750
430,588
421,400
nN
r)
o
V
363,213
333,200
(D
co
.N�-
00
r-
0
r`O) C1')
0)
v V
0) 0)
73,500'
204,575
162,925
58,800
0
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
o
(0
O
V.
t')
0
V
O
N
r
v
r)
N
N
0)
0
(D
O
(h
55,125
30,013
U)
N
o
w
N
21,438
12,250
0
21,438
O O
O to
1n CO
ri
(0 V
to
C4
v
O
0
0
CO
2
FUTURE
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
C')
N
1.-
(0
O
N
N
0
4)
90
49
0
N
(0 0
CO N
0
12011
68
O
v^-
(0
0)
260
r)
(D
(4
.-
-1 W
J LI
VW G
a.
El:
N
N
0)
N
N
N
N N
0
O
oO W
(0 CD
N O
oO
12 FULL
PIPE SIZE
[IM
CO
CO
W
00
W
(A
N N
N
N
O CO
(0 0)-
(0 0)
00
0
Z
P p p.
0 J 0
R lL --
•
0)
(0
(7
1,087,8001
0
992,2501
r)
O
0)
0)
cam)
C)
o)
N
CO
855,663
807,888
r)
(0
(o
t0
573,300
355,250
223,563
Oi
219,275
N
3
0 C)
N (n
V.
0
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPD]
,
0)
M
po
N
N
0
(')
N
101,675
3,675
47,775
O
(D
O
c')
131,688
223,563
0
146,388
27,5631
N
r)
O
1 Z
( uJ <
p, LL
(0
N
(0
N
(()
N
N
N
V)
N
(t) 47
N N
10
N
(o N
N N
(o (o
N N
N 47
N N
N
N
(0
N
47
N
FLOW PER
PERSON
[GPCD]
70
70
O
t'-
701
O
(0.
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
O
f`
70
s.
# OF
PERSONS
PER UNIT
U)
C)
0
(')
0
r)
N
r)
0
r)
N (o
r) 1')
N
r)
3.5
3.5
4) 0
1') r).
N 0
n 6
N
C)
0
r)
N
r)
EXISTING
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
0)
r--
1561
O
—
N
O
(0
.-
6
78
-
(D
0)
N
N
215
365
O
45
V
r-
0
N
0
C0
z <
QCC
m Q
.-
N
V
(0
V
N tD
O
^
1` r0
h_
,_ CO
0)
O
V -
TE
T
ll -
I—
07
-
O
N
V
7
' r)
(4
r)
N
,-
W
(0 CJ
W W 0
l0
N
r. O
N V
00
0
(Z
r
0
0,
m
0
0
0
C EO
F
c E
C
0
O
o
m m
O
H
w
(0 N
(D
c
c
g
L O
u 0
(0 l0
C
(T O
1` 0
C
0) 0
_ N
n �
CD (n
n
(0 d
Q) d
(4)
H
0
z
TABLE 4.6
TOCSMP3A
a
O
)-
CC a
H
CC
U
z
0
y
K
0
J
5
}
a
O
z
U
co 0
N
O U
o<Z
11-- Z •
w
w _ _
O.
wsz
3w0
two o a
QUU
U
CC
8
E2
}
a
N
N
O
N
N
O
03
03
.5•
W O
oa
cc
O]
F -a
co
co
(o
O
03
03
oo
03
c)
0
0
oi
(A
0
0
N
0
co
O
o
m
co
N
O
O
(U
0
co
co
o)
0
0
N
O
0
N
a }
D w
~ u OD
a O E
0
N
Ul
03
co
03
03
03
CO
co
03
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
you
0
0
N
0
O
(V
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
F-
U
a a
N
w z --
0
(k)a
0w0
3
0
0
0
co 1--
z 2 ZZ
O 0 D
aW
da
0
0
0
V
CO
Z Q
to
CO
h
N
J
O
#
2
1
h
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.7
WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR SIZING
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
EXIST.
PIPE SIZE
fN•1
N
to
3/4 FULL
PIPE SIZE
DN1
co
N
1/2 FULL
PIPE SIZE
nM
V
7
N
N
TOTAL OF EX. &
FUTURE FLOWS
[GM
2,341,588
M
(0
O
r
N
FUTURE
FLOW
[GPDI
O
0
("4
f0
1,527,57
GO
FLOW PER
SEGMENT
[GPDI
0
1,527,575
0
N
m
to
FUTURE
# OF EQR's
TRIBUTARY
a)
W
e-
Y
N
PEAKING FLOW PER EXISTING 1/2 FULL 3/4 FULL
FACTOR SEGMENT FLOW PIPE SIZE PIPE SIZE
[GPDI [GPD1 DNI DNl
N
N
N
03
2
co
N
n
N
r
.co
co
co
NN
t—
40
co
is.
...-
WI
U).
N
N
"a 0o
v) 0
�a
o O0 a 0
e_
m
0
3
0
0
U
LL
N 1--
z 2-
tL 0
Ou)�
C W
a.a
0
0
4-
N
M
0)
z�
40 m
Ql
c
m
0
co
05
c
m
0
N
u
0
60
60
0
L
U
0
0
O
'O
O
E
E
E
0
v
o
c
co
R
a
N
J
V
0
m
U
0
v
0
N
0
"Vi
0
a
0
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TA
c.
8
0
Ir -6
Q <
0
0 Q
Oa
W
m(0(�MM .--co.-74,NNNOmmF,--91NN.MtDcoNN
(N(�
EEE O)Q)coco gr—T. N°2 (MD (On tir) 0 V V V K 0) 0)M OO O O O N NN NN
(NO(0 VM t1)(pN NM0(D M(DM(O OU)O tf)O N(0O W W 000(00(AN0h(0M W M(1) W NN
cv
v'MMWhmONW,-mUI VmNN,r0NV mM V V W V. NM WMUn.-M(0tn VOO
N N 0 0 0 m O m WOV (n In m l- M O V V' cO 0 (n W (V I O U) ('7 O M M M M
N Q > W V V W M M r N N N. - N N W N M N M N m m M M M (n N r N M M N M m M 'V N '-
O W .Z ` r
mmm mmNN(OOtoM mm (.)toMMM(A(n Nmm V V V V V V V• V 00
MV V W W ('� (OWWWW W W W W W W(VNr.- NN•Nr.tet`�`t`f`
NNft`(O()
MMMMMW W(D( WWNI V V V VMMMMMMV Vrr
a
W
N
N
O x
W W
ca
ca
U �
05
Wu
U �
2 M
cu0
1
1
1
1
O a
Q.
0
0
0)
c
0
2
76
0-c
a16
O 43
d N
0_
c
m
n E
acn
a)
(/)
m ,V M N t. W W W W (A (n O (O m (O W (A O ,A p (n V' P. (T N (� �y ,.z} oQ M (h (O (.-) .- 0 0) N r` t- (0 0) h N-
0(D WmM V 0 V VNN (0 W W N7p NON (AN N(V Y)Nmm Nw.-MW MN1.0 (f')
O V0)0 t' -W1 -t'-(0 0)10 0) W(OMQ)v p(O(1)11)0)0W (�cp O 0)0) V(Qp�p�
00 (0 (0 0' (() M M M M M M' 0) W N. (A M 11) 0) V 0) 0 0 M M M (D CJ .-- (V .. 0) M O CD M V N .- (V N
tD MN. -V N- -NOul W m (07p N((��(V7pp NtnzN 0)0)11)(DtiMNn O N
MO(O 0.-10 VNV' VO)00M VM•tW 0)W M1-.00)0)(OW (O (1)t- Oh(O7t M ('7 V(0
M U) (O (MM�Sn (10) C.M(.-�- .-Vn(�- (n W 1 _ O) m h 1(000 (Mt) t MO O) N N ()) yt t` (VNp' CV V (D W t(3)
'WV .V-- (. N- 0) 0) 10 (A U) o CD v 0) CD O ,r N 00) 0 .- 1'- 0) 0) ((D O n (10(1) 0 0 .V- 04 .- (0)0)- 0) 0) 0))-
(n vt O ('7 0) M N (4 N N (V N (V (1) (1) V 1D (1) 0) (V 0) N M (V (O (O N (V fV V (V (V (V (V.-
U1.8(44Q-.-0))0)(°n)fi0)111)`1..-rn'D 0)0rnrn00)('1 0).-('4.-000(iSnw(0.-
gracn�(nc��'i(� grti�D'om� 27NQvgg5 1�)(�)�i�gRv('�571` cp ww
rn��(i o
M(�'0 OV LU E (t) N VO- (07 O^i E M (~4 (V a00 O (WV N O E t6 (O Q� t c0 W nl M (0 I W Q� t(.v�� M (.O� 1(tp)
O t'R) cccos 10.0) s� N_1O W (DNN14.-01-hn�h^,O Q)
V0�ONt�,A IAr a� M1 (Ot� r W(� W(� W NN()1`(ry fV OOO.— VU)
t�OM WtD (O NNNNNN`C:IA t`.-�lA cON�(Q (4rrMf� W tD P�
N co M .-- r .- N .-- r .....
to (0(0(0(0 N mm (O W pN 0�(ys�- V VIA()( ;i7g12 mt0('4.-O0s�NN.
V c0 (O N (1) 11) 0) M M c3) N N V N V 0) 1- fV (0 cV (O M.' fV fV O (V ( 4 N V (.V M m (A 10 (O h (O '.t (1) 0) '•f st
x0(00)0000 o0000.-.-6rr000000(4 c4000N 000000000.--OOrr
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
(1)1.1)00(1)0) W W U) 0 0 (n 0W (W 0 (0 (1) (n 0 11) 1010W U)
(000(1)0(1)Ww()UU0UUU W(1MU WU W U(noo000000000000000000
D D D D D D D D O 0) 0 J)) D D D D D D D 0 0 0:>>>> >:> >>>>>>>>>>>>
CCWWWCCCCECWMCC CCWXWM1YWMWCCW aoan-ao aaaaaaadan-aQ
rrrf- --F- rr►-rrrrrrrrrr►-rf--r
11)(n(n(1)tn(A(A(ntn OM(A W W (A (ndntAMMM LOMMtnUOM MN NNNNNNNNNNNOOO
O
0
a)
U
1)
ems'') .--NM V(0(D1- W 0NNNN NN N N N N M M M 0) 0)0) 07(07) 0")� V V -4 V
TNMv(A(Dr Wrn�
O. - NM Nr U) C- OD m0 Cl CD f1A CO 00 (V MQIn (O(� CO m0 NM V
D:_NM V(n(Dt, Wm____—__ NNNNNNN04
NNMMMM V MMMMM V-'ct"Kt V
Note: Future EQR's assumes construction of Crystal River Interceptor Line
TABLE 4.9
ato
8
ul
c'i
0
r`
lO
M
CC
0
w
Q �m
>
w Q
Q
0<
to
CC 'm
OQ
CC 0
0 x
W
CO
Uv.
cc co
W
�_
U
COCL
0
13 a
d O
d �
(0
CJD
c
E
(0
15
a()
E
2
(' d
O. N
a rn
c
QI N
n E
crM
O
d
U
(U
C
c
O
t -
—t cO 0) M U) N N O 1— N to f� N f`')
'a(O r(�No0 V 00(`7 M(7Q v '0 _
M
U) M M to to to to to Ul Ul
M M M 0)W(C M M CO
(O (9 f O
C1 C1 C1 C1
>. >. >. >.
OD CO CO w
N N
CV
O O O
OCON-N-
U) U) U) IP U)
N (V N N N
"S
(D, - MvN N -N r- CV O N Q0 CO CO Ps MIP U)
N Oto 0(O <t 0001 N- h M(0 0) MMM
v'
:CO CO N- CO N r M N CO CO O U) CD O CO I• Ps
t
M MMMM (D IP U) U)alp N V h (P (P (P OO
OD' 00 W U)
cW Q1,t
CO CO V M N CV N .-..--
f))•, vt` v 0 CO (1) n (P)N(V CO V M NO U) U)
co • O) O CD is CO N Nm 07 (D CO M '.f O 0 co MM
N- N- CO (0 0 N- 0) CO (V r N ti 0) 0)
N r r r
M'•>'O•, Vr Nr O(0O CU Ngf 0. O0M
0' .O 0) ON U)D D O (zOOV)
ON0v CO v CO
• co a) �r(0'(0�0)co�
(f) v
t, CO (o tri tri co- co V Vs CON U) co- r�a0 CO to C(J
CO CO0 O0) ON V 111 ,t h r-. h ry L3 '4-
(02t--wr: r•v CO OM 0 O)OO)rhC)0) CV LO
OD O4 0 htTm (() v ()N
N)
.P-1 0) CO0) OD ((0 t _ 1- — O (Nit, y r 0)CC!r r
n 0 v_ v„
(n t M " o) M 0) 'P v 0
0) v O r N (O 00 ,t ,t
✓ (P U) (P U) (0 UA CD N M CV v Clv N M Ps (O N N N
eO h O N U)OO(r) ODM O U) COM N! OO
•,
07 v UP •t v r� M (D M r CD r v (D t: CD UP v v
} 0 0 0 0 CD C7 C7 O O r r r O p O O O O O
"3.
N
MMCI0)
MCOCOC'OM(OCOMM
o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05#0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-:
w
00 O O O O O; O O
000000000
;0 0 00 0 09- }?-9->->- 9-9->->- a d d
>>>>>>_) g55555:�00
a[Lasn.a0000000000>>>
.
s:
o;r
d000000cowmmmcococoaomCOww
M(0 CO Ps CO CO O
vW(9 N M ‘r U1
W'WwW WWWW , (90 c9(9
'-3 O r
COV U) (O N- N O) ,
CV (V My
wwwWwwwwwww(7C9CD(9
(0 (0 N
v CV N N
Cfp 04 (9 (.9 () (.9 (.9
�• u) n c
(f)(0 NNN
(9 (9 0 (9 C9
construction of Crystal River Interceptor Line
Note: Future EQR's assume
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.10
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
COLORADO AVENUE BYPASS
ascription
cant:
it Price
atat,.Pri.ce;:
Mobilization
L.S.
10" PVC
1735
Limp Sun
Lineal Feet
S 5,000
S 35
Manhole
5
Each
Tie to -Existing Manhole
3
Each
Asphalt
485
Ton
Gravel
1230
Ton
S 2,500
S 500
S 50
S 15
Subtotal
15X Contingency
Total
tables\931460.3/fac
S 5,000
S 60,725
S 12,500
S 1,500
S 24,250
S 18,450
S 122,425
S 18,364
S 140,789
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 CHAPTER 5. COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER 5. COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 GENERAL
This chapter will discuss the condition of and the improvements required for the Town's
wastewater collection system. In order to analyze the Town's collection system, the majority
of the clay pipe in Town was televised. These tapes were reviewed and rated by Town staff.
Tables 5.1 through 5.4 include the proposed improvements, line information, improvement cost,
rating and priority for the lines in the downtown area, Basin 7 (see Figure 4.1). Table 5.5
summarizes the total improvement project and the immediate priorities.
5.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
The tapes of the clay portion of the collection system were reviewed and lines rated by
Town staff. The ratings were based on pipe condition. Cracks, offset joints, missing pipe, and
low spots were noted. The higher the number in the rating column, the worse condition of the
pipe segment. From this rating, three main priorities were identified:
1. The Colorado Avenue bypass.
2. Repairing the area of heavy infiltration (south of Garfield, west of Seventh Street
and northeast of Highway 133).
3. Miscellaneous repairs to defective lines.
The Colorado Avenue bypass would allow the defective existing lines behind the Dinkle
building and post office to become collection laterals rather than key segments of an interceptor.
The condition of these lines, including E12 -E13, are such that they could collapse at any time.
At this point, it's a matter of "when", not "if'. Simply, the expense of the rerouting the sewage
of approximately 600-800 homes and businesses in downtown Carbondale, in the event of a
winter collapse when the ground is frozen, would be enormous. In addition, there will be odor
problems, logistics of above -ground piping, and 24-hour pump monitoring. The importance of
this priority cannot be stressed enough. The estimated cost of this priority is $253,329 and is
summarized in Table 5.5.
Secondly, the area south of Garfield Avenue, west of Seventh Street, and northeast of
Highway 133, has heavy infiltration problems. Infiltration occurs mainly in old clay lines which
have cracked and allow water to seep into the line. Review of the tapes in this area showed
5-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
some pipes flowing full at non -peak use periods. This causes excess treatment costs since the
WWTF is treating groundwater in addition to sewage. Infiltration occurs in summer irrigation
months when the groundwater table is raised due to irrigation. From WWTF records, I&I
account for 100,000 to 200,000 GPD in June and July (30 -day average), a 25% to 50% increase
over average WWTF flows. The cost of this priority is estimated at $262,130 and is
summarized in Table 5.5.
The third priority is to replace miscellaneous lines identified as in poor condition. These
lines are scattered around Town, but provide a starting point for improvements to begin on
replacing or lining all the clay pipe in Town. Each year, the Town should continue an
aggressive replacement schedule to upgrade the remaining clay pipe in Town. The cost of this
priority is estimated at $254,033 and is summarized in Table 5.5.
The Town collection system consists of a total of 18,620 linear feet of clay line. The
above priorities will improve 5796 linear feet of clay line. Therefore, 12,824 linear feet of clay
line will remain, which ultimately needs to be improved to reduce infiltration and limit pipe
failures. The cost to improve the remaining clay pipe is estimated at $1,203,707. This results
in a total cost to improve all clay pipe in Town of $1,973,199.
5.3 LINE IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The decision on the method of improvements needs to be made on a line -by-line basis.
There are three main methods to improve the existing clay lines:
1. Replacement of the line in place.
2. Insituform lining.
3. PVC lining.
The cost of each alternative is dependent on the situation, but in-place replacement is
generally a higher cost than the lining alternatives. Each alternative has a specific application
to which it is best suited.
In-place replacement must be used where a line is in such poor condition that a lining
alternative is not feasible. This would be in cases where the line has settled and does not
provide consistent grade, joints are greatly offset, or the line is collapsing. This is not a feasible
alternative in narrow alleys where nearby buildings prohibit the use of a backhoe or utility
conflicts are prolific.
5-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Insituform is a method of lining the existing line with a new synthetic liner to create a
new watertight seal and smooth invert. The thickness of the lining can be varied to remove
minor inconsistencies in the invert. Insituform also forms around existing service taps. In most
cases, the second taps can be cut out without excavating.
PVC lining of the existing lines is the same concept as Insituform with a different
material. The major difference between the two methods is that individual service taps need to
be excavated and cut out with the PVC lining process. This, again, limits its use in tight
corridors.
End of Chapter 5
5-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 5.1
SECTION D CLAY PIPE
Town of Carbondale Collection System, Replacement & Improvement Project
Rating Priority
00
v
v
0 o a o
Ic c c c m a m
EEE E
w w w w
N N O
c
O '3
O 8
o o a 0
n'
O U
' A A
n o 0 o a o 0 o c o
O C C C O C C C C
D: J J J ccJ J J J J
888888Q88888 8
E 2��°�g'w'g n
.1Tol6.
3p45
NN0(4.-N(V .--MO D
E (MNNNNYINN.r.N (Y
o= $$$$$$$$$$§§§§§§§§H
QQQ Q55� 5�z8§
N
8888888888 8
o (y
_ N h N 1 n N O 1 j N O
n 3 FA���Y BYO R
31 NNNN.-
F N
1.-e,
ZJ
C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y .K H
(e ■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000000 O
BS (0 00 00 ,N
ET
z'(R
;71 o ..e .
yec oaa000,,00d
0
= 00NNn7OO N
AS
a 1 0 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N
1Nfh cso cpCYl O
8=
ow --c r O O
y o °ge gPtOgo0
x 0 0 0 0 To -Z3
CI 2iv2i2Nzt�gEggg
YE ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
—D
= 0�.j2e7
0y�bNNNNb(�jO�j.-
E2 bOe7e�gOgO
0 tl O O b 0 0 0 b 0 0
v= 07000.0.
h
—0 0000000000
kat_ 0000u00000ut5t3>
s0(E(0(-(0(0(0( (0(0
O L5
0 om
00 00000000000000
a (J.
Em
000.00::0:000.
ll
�ry �, cO Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 ( Z 0 Z Z Z Z
V 10
v — o
E i E x 0 0 0 0 0 0
—---EE
E E E E E y
a C9 nn n n n n . i i i n n
W x 0 0 0 0 G o o P E C L° o 0
W W WwWU(9a0_00 9W W
w v_
a '''2'>°-
a ` , ti&i
5_ - as
0 rm-•�
o N� eb hi_,?:10-6-0-
z3
a o 0
!9 oo9(0 00
Z J 90 2_^tv E $OOW W
0
O o} o `°r i!IEc c.. 0 0
J 0 0. 0
W a Z o U t c c T T= n n
m imoO0W<u O<<<ww
u
SW Nmn�tR O^Nt7^NC M
Rating Prortty
2 2 2 g nn
4 4 Y Y
C C
O e
C
C
J -CD
O O O O O
C.13- u u
,m _ A w w
ane an o
C5- -55
888888888888
J W W pJ pJ pJ Kp W Jp pJ pJ pJ
8888 88 X88 (o8 pQ88888 88 8
K �YpY Y1p0 O��f F(V �ytl (�pfV��(yV�01 4.
�.
alllYJJ1 NN NN N NNN .
E
888888888888 8
11.1
4.
228828888888 8
OG 8nN8gillli NNNNNN-:.:-
p
C L
VV VV VV uu uu {u� uu uu uu Uu VV {u�
C Y L L C L L L L L L L L L
mmmm m1f10161mm0] m
8 w ♦ O A� A N � n � n R
Eu
iZ
0
8000000 000.-
w 0 0 0 n 0.0 0 0.0 g 0
a. 8()
tI�-OO nO �A00 olA
L
,N Q 88 ���
) ...i= no Plh -n AnONO f
Ili V E T.-nrig7f cn$oZ
JM UJ Rj onnnnnn000nn
W g00000.0OAO
Q 0 C2 Ea2S gPnhnlQ4.
I—E g n n n n o n n n n n n n
�" ' - j
W E�
;7:? -111.;L:
r z
E0 n n n n n n n o.o n n n
C= N.ann A-000ONCV
gozcsdcggggrN
- p town.... o n n n o
Town of Carbondale Collection System, Replacement & Improvement Protect
24 TTTTTTTTTT T-a-
�a 0030UO0V0Ut3O
n22n2V2VVV
QIP
Eo 8°42
01
8.".mNI.MMCV'InCOVNC4. Y
EZ
tl� ozz�j0(7ZZ0,„
1m0-N� f °A NNNC4
1L W W W W W W W W W W U
TABLE 5.3
SECTION F CLAY PIPE
Town of Carbondale Collection System, Replacement & Improvement ProJeet
0
a
OO
. O
n
O A
c
J
E..
EA
E
$x
Al
8 88 888888888888888 8
t c nn o 55��riviui0001,ggtvuivivi v4,
n�i7i�'icnitnl �i'vv� �owcni a
x ci 66
2 N N N ..... N N N N N NNNN N
C) (V ('1 Nn •- nn a 0 0 (-O
N
00 III 0 0 C O
C C C C C C
J J J J J J J J
88 888 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
A 0 W A W O O O O A A A R A N R
0 00 0 0 0 C 0 0. 0 0 0 0 4, 0 0 0 o E o
0 0 0 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c c
K K K K K K J K .J K K K K K K K K K J J J .J
8888888888888888888888 8
NVONC/0 <tp �17O0 V N(V nN0)�)ONm <O
r N(")NNNa O N r!) Q M!)NM NN r N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (0
8 88 888888888888888 8
§§ §§§§§-----8888§
N MN N NNNNf1NMNNNNNNN t0
N N N N M N N N
........
O
O a
.0 r
c e
mm
0
v
O
Ztq
O
C C C C J
E Y O 15 1Y O O IS
5
C00'm.1
CYLmLOY]1
Y4,0YC7Z5
015 1
11 Y Y Y JC <
U0000UU.c 000L0L0L0L0 O
)--
O N 0v- 4, P) 0 N O 4, 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- 0 0 0 Y) V.
«34!pp70�4, t 4,4, 4,
4)0x( etree xg
.f .7, O CI00 0000000000OO dd5
S= ON.-NOf 6- 0.-0!900NOTNP) .-70
c,. o n.-einoo `f oQQnmac400dNow ari
8S)
S= n i"12. '.0000_ O n.-'; °A. 4, O 46- 00
a2 ��O�b O�nO�O4,4,6-f .id O .4,o f`CD
82 .
_
4)4,4,00004,6-00041.0♦0000000
Em nob+"$gP,-- 4ad' 2ct2
K D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1(p00.t64 (e�e-V 044�016-0�p4,p N�p4,Nl000N^N pn<
v x Ol000 n.4!40.40.4 h n nnn t 2.7,
Ea00000000.00000000430000W
O44, 043 f04, N0 000 v OO 0 0000106-
E� n116n$014,4,n
6-n6n-62nn(22m
K 0 4,4,4,4,4,4,4, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0!00.11170(.4000100,00C1000000
v.
—0 00400000000000000000000
Ea
er
w 0
� m
▪ o
a CO
000000 000 oou00000Uou
004,m0R0000E00(0EM0000
04, 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qtl.geirci4E4FlE§5§)2!0)6)40 MC6)cmvgi
0000000:00: m O e p q q :0000
Z Z Z Z Z Z Zo Z Zoo Z 0000 0 Z Z ZZ
v— u 0 'Ci
o E
.6E0 v v v v o v o' o v v o 0 0 0 0 o EE
4,r, 355Et>3!>Y>c!F>>>>>>„„
• 4,4,4,4,4,acla(5 08aa000000ww
Z 0
W a o r 0 .c2
QQ c 6
U.0 e o �O o $= o4 £ x o c
ZO x �+ 46- U ; � (7 „ , . m .
� (n �� `O p W T T T T T - w
�- r O O £ o 0 0 0 0 0 0--
U S c t Z o Z �,nZrJ rJ<<6<« u o
w 0 0 T U T C C
v v
h ob o�onaoo 2 .0000I6' 00
16-4,46-4,<c�a��a«wFF a �m�
a
46-
U% 0 6- 0 0,- 4V O Y W 0 O n n 0 N 0
.- (V 11 v ri .- � •- f1 f1 f! L'1 C t7 � N �L) C+ C e �
n
60
TABLE 5.4
SECTION G CLAY PIPE
Town of Carbondale Collection System, Replacement b Improvement Protect
0 u a
a
N
a
O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O
C C C C C C C C < !-I-U,
C C C C
` O J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
O V 88 O 88 888 O 0 0 0 O 888
O Q o 0 0
Ja uA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AAAA0 000
a a 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0.0 a 0 a Q a 0 a a a a a
0 0 c c 0 c c c 0 o c o 0 0 o c 0 c 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0
a aJ J a J _ J aa JJ a a aJ a�J ap8J a a W a CC
888888888888888888888p8 8
Q
Q� 2_8�Qog:Wmim45
___„,Y'0n0 V01010101.N_ .04 0,N
E .Nn
Z1 888888888888888888888 8
p»p()
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§n§§
Z N NNNN NNN(V CINNNN N -r4
58888888 888288888888
r2mR.�Rg
N N N
.....
N N N N N N N N N N N N
LO A
LC C 0 .c J
C- Y JC YY JC Y Y YY JC Y YY i' Y X JC Y Y Y Y O O O E E E E E O O 1Q-
0 0 0000000000000C,001.“1000 O
t L L L t L t t t t t. L L t t t t L
1 M O.-0-fW0'-.-.-010-.-0.0000'0 010'00-01'0'
U
EI
zA
xf,00.o.=000.-,d. 00000,--o
e .-
0
ticoone4,.nozna
0 O OW 1010,-01,40
0 0
au)
.o .o noho
ow 000.00
8p e: e:omeao
= 0000000-0000'000)n04010400nN0000
0-473: 222Z2S2Nooi2aaaga2gaaga
E0
�> WOOOOOOOOO000000O000000000
000.0004.-"000n 000p)000) Oq) {(110)0)0004 N)
M 00 r0- n n n n^n 0-e n 0) 0) 0) aND O0O b 040 E 0000)
F,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0- 0 0) 0 n 0 0 n h 0 M) l")'0 4e 0 0 0) 04 t') n n N 0 N N 0
E> nnnn0004000000200)000 00000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 00-0-.-0'0 OOOO N 000010) 0 NNMl70
vX
—O 00000000000004 000000000000
/-
e a u66-6000au1:50-6b ouwooZiol>J>»-C>7
E�?� n9$aE a�; EWAE8aE8
er 000000) ��
w 0
O O)
8
_A
{,
('4nvoi 040401 o ��� pan Pvro ��a � mW
0
N NN f7 N.- .-.-0.- —N Cf N t7 .- O
ao
c O
:ire 00""0""
00:000:00:00::::00
02(§ ZZ00Z000ZZUZZUZZ0ZZiyf700ZZ
act„ oq�>��>33�33M1p3�a333
ee cee AeA A0AAn AeAA
w aa000_ 00aa(�aan_Oawaaa0awaaa
n` "
w v c
a M v 2 £N t
o2 Q N A V O
v v 0 e?
QV
J 0 v 0.v v v= >o n M 0 0 N
2.
Z 3) U WWW'0(2 8,?, w 0 N c St
o A A
i{{nizi)zzzL'Qz:XzLi'' ''zv$vappno
w C€ >.>.€ T T T f v T t' E O O O
0 88. -2,°3°.2.12=15_42=0 -2Z -g:2-7281100.,
0 O pp A (0
LLLL Q QLL QQQLL W LL(n f Q� W O)Z tll�f
IIp (�
1 U) N P N 04 0 0 Q Q w !y N N lV '0 W 0 0- N O V. W
7 (7Uo 000(7oQ00000000000000000
0
F
TABLE 5.5
0
1 O
Z a
w c
2
E
W
> c o
O Q
C E
ad
D
F- m
Z U R
W a
cc
Qa
J T
a
w
CC0
0
0
U
Ta
0
0
a
U
0
F-
r) co 0 o
EvNor
E t
w w Nw
O
CL`
E
O
a
E
E
0
ea
m
O
w
rn
r
r
r-
61) w
CHAPTER 6. WWTF EXISTING CONDITION ANALYSIS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER 6. WWTF EXISTING CONDITION ANALYSIS
This chapter will analyze the existing Carbondale WWTF condition, history and capacity,
both for existing and proposed flows and regulatory requirements.
Before additional growth in Carbondale occurs, improvements must be made to the
WWTF, both to expand capacity and to update improvements that represent deferred
maintenance. Plant flows exceeded capacity in June of 1994. The plant is also showing signs
of age and improvements are required even if the capacity is not increased.
6.1 DESCRIPTION
Carbondale's WWTF is classified as a mechanical secondary treatment plant. The plant
is located on the banks of the Roaring Fork River immediately north of Highway 133. Access
to the site is through the entrance of the Mountain Valley Mobile Horne Park, and adjacent to
the Red Rock Diner. The property consists of approximately 4.2 acres of which only a limited
amount (0.5-1 acre) is buildable for future expansion. The site is constrained by the Roaring
Fork River and floodplain on the north, steep topography to the south, east and west. An issue
which will be raised in this Engineering Report is whether this site should constitute the long
range plant site or if alternative sites exist that are more economically attractive.
The plant consists of the following processes:
• Manually -cleaned bar screen.
• Aerated grit chamber with grit removal via grit pump, and cyclone declassifier.
• Flow measurement with Parshall flume.
• Combination extended air/conventional suspended growth biological treatment
(two basins).
• Aeration supplied by diffused course bubble diffusers and centrifugal blowers.
• Secondary clarification from two circular center feed basins with radial arm
sludge collectors, and periphery weirs.
• Chlorine contact tank with baffled channels.
• Two polishing ponds.
• Effluent outfall to Roaring Fork River.
• Aerobic sludge digestion (two basins with diffused air).
• Sludge disposal through land application.
Figure 2.2 shows the location of the WWTF. Figure 6.1 shows the existing layout and
property boundaries of the facilities. Pictures of the facility are shown in the Appendix.
6-1
1
1
1
1
6.2 HISTORY
The following is a chronology of significant dates in the history of the WWTF:
• Wastewater treatment in the Town of Carbondale prior to 1973, was treated with
aerated lagoons, which were located on the property east and adjacent to Highway
133, and south of the Chamber of Commerce building.
' • In 1973, a 0.276 MGD extended aeration plant was built by the Carbondale
Sanitation District at the present site.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• In 1975, Site Application #1865 was approved for hydraulic capacity of 0.5
MGD.
• An expansion occurred in 1976 to 0.5 MGD primarily due to excess flows due
to inflow and infiltration.
• In 1977, a Site Application was submitted and approved for a plant capacity of
1 MGD. This Site Application lapsed because design drawings were not
submitted to CDOH within one year.
• In 1978, the Town of Carbondale prepared a 201 Facility Report.
• Aerobic sludge capacity expansion was approved by the CDOH in 1981 and
installed in 1982. At the time the digestor capacity was approved, CDOH
erroneously classified the plant capacity at 0.74 MGD. Subsequently, after
realizing that the expansion was only for digestor capacity, CDOH reclassified the
plant capacity at 0.5 MGD hydraulic capacity and 1435 pounds BODS/day organic
capacity.
• In 1988, turbine aerators which provided aeration to the A -basins, were converted
to diffused air with course bubble diffusers and blowers. The blowers, as part
of the 1974 digestor expansion were used to supply air and adequate engineering
calculations were not performed at the time which has left the plant with
inadequate blower capacity.
6-2
1
1
1
• In 1989, the Carbondale Sanitation District was consolidated into the Town of
Carbondale.
• In 1992, calculations were performed to determine actual blower capacity and,
consequently, plant capacity. Recommendations were made on additional blower
capacity, but additional blowers were never added.
• In August of 1993, a discharge permit for a hydraulic capacity of 0.5 MGD was
granted by CDOH.
• In August of 1994, the Town notified the CDOH that the 30 -day flow average for
the month of June, 1994, exceeded the permit capacity of 0.5 MGD. The 30 -day
average flow was 0.53 MGD and the seven-day average flow was 0.98 MGD.
6.3 SITE APPLICATION
Currently, the Town's WWTF holds a Site Application for a plant size of 0.5 MGD.
This Site Application (#1865) was granted to the Carbondale Sanitation District in 1975. The
Site Application is the permit which grants the Town the ability to located a plant at a certain
capacity on this property. In accordance with CRS 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(A), (B), (C), any
improvements to the WWTF which expand the capacity of the WWTF or adds additional
processes not originally permitted will require a modification to an existing Site Application.
A Site Application must first be approved by the local Health Authority, Planning and
Zoning Commission, Town Council, State Geologist and Regional Planning Authority
(NWCOG), before being submitted to the CDOH. The Site Application process can take up to
six months for CDOH review.
In addition to the need for a Site Application for a WWTF, a Site Application will be
required for major interceptor sewers and lift stations which serve more than 2000 GPD. The
proposed Crystal River interceptor will require a Site Application.
6.4 DISCHARGE PERMIT
In addition to a Site Application, a WWTF requires a permit to discharge pollutants to
State waters. This permit is known as a discharge permit or an NPDES Permit (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) which is an EPA permit administered by the CDOH.
6-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
This permit sets the effluent limitations, reporting requirements and many other requirements
and requires re -authorization every five years. This permit is in accordance with provisions of
the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25 -8 -101ST SEQ., SRS 1973, as amended) and the
Federal Water Pollutant Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 12551 ET Seq.; the "ACT").
Currently, the Town is operating under a permit issued in 1993, Permit #CO -0026751.
Any increase in flow above 0.5 MGD will require a new discharge permit. Further, the
discharge permit states,
"Pursuant to Colorado Law, C.R.S. 25-8-501 (5 d & e), the permittee is
required to initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion of the
domestic wastewater treatment works whenever throughput and treatment reaches
eighty (80) percent of design capacity. Whenever ninety-five (95) percent of the
design capacity for throughput and treatment is met, the permittee shall commence
construction of the necessary treatment expansion.
In the case of a domestic wastewater treatment works, which treats
wastewater from users under the permittee's jurisdiction, where construction is
not commenced in accordance with the above paragraph, the permittee shall cease
issuance of building permits within the service area until construction has
commenced. If the permittee's domestic wastewater treatment works serves other
municipalities or connector districts, the permittee shall have made provisions by
contract or otherwise, for the municipalities within the service area to cease
issuance of building permits within such service area until construction has
commenced. Building permits may continue to be issued for any construction
which would not have the effect of increasing the input of sewage to the
wastewater treatment works that is the subject of this permit".
This clause is important because flows have already exceeded the 0.5 MGD and are well
above the 80% criteria. The CDOH recognized that Carbondale was operating on an assumption
that the discharge permit was 0.74 MGD for the last several years, largely on an error made by
CDOH. Nonetheless, CDOH, in the original draft permit, gave the Town a compliance schedule
contained within the discharge permit that states the following:
6-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
"Due to an oversight in the rationale for the previous permit renewal,
higher hydraulic and organic capacities were specified in the permit than had
been originally approved by the Site Application and design review processes.
During the last year, the organic loading exceeded the approved capacity during
May of 1992 and exceeded 80% of this capacity during two other months. Due
to the incorrect capacity being reflected in the permit, the Town may not have
realized that the approved capacity had been exceeded.
In accordance with the following schedule, the Town will be required to
complete an engineering study which identifies: 1) the expected hydraulic and
organic loadings which will result from growth in the current service area, as
well as any expansion to the service area to provide service to outside
development, during the next 20 years; 2) alternatives which are capable of
adequately treating the proposed loadings; and 3) a selected alternative. If the
selected alternative is the use of the current facility's capacity, then a completed
Site application and two complete sets of design documents must accompany the
study. If construction of additional facilities is the selected alternative, then a
completed Site application and a schedule for completion of the design and
construction of such facilities must accompany the study.
90408
Submit an engineering study, site application, and other
documents as described in the above paragraph.
Per us Citation
Parr 1.A.7
Aue bate>_.<
06/30/94
Subsequently, this language was taken out of the permit ultimately granted to the Town.
The effluent limitations authorized under the permit are typical secondary standards and
are as follows:
6-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 6.1
A ,R
LIMIT
ATIONALE;»
Flow, MGD
0.50'
Approved Capacity
BOD5, mg/1
30/45b
State Effluent Regulations
TSS, mg/l
30/45b
State Effluent Regulations
Fecal Coliform, no/100 ml
6,000/12,007
Fecal Coliform Policy
Total Residual Chlorine, mg/I
0.5`
State Effluent Regulations
pH, s.u. (minimum -maximum)
6.0-9.Od
State Effluent Regulations
Oil and grease, mg/1
Salinity
10`
State Effluent Regulations
Report
Salinity Regulations
• = 30 -day average
b = 30 -day average/7-day average
• = Daily Maximum
d = Minimum -Maximum
= 30 -day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean
The Town historically has met all discharge permit effluent limitations with the exception
of exceeding the flow in June of 1994. The increase in flow is largely due to inflow and
infiltration problems.
6.5 WATER QUALITY STANDARD
The Roaring Fork River between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs is classified as
follows:
• Recreation - Class 1 Primary Contact
• Agriculture
• Aquatic Life Class 1 Cold Water
• Domestic Water Supply
• High Quality Class II
The regulations which govern stream standards are The Basic Standards and Methodology
for Surface Water adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission in 1991. The purpose of
this standard is defined in the document as:
"This regulation presents the classification system which establishes beneficial use
6-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
categories, together with basic standards and antidegradation rule, and numeric
table which define the conditions generally necessary to maintain and attain such
beneficial uses. In addition, it establishes procedures for classifying the waters
of the state, for assigning water quality standards by continued review of the
classifications and standards."
The current effluent limitations are outlined in the previous section. It is expected that
these limitations will remain the same in the future with one exception. Ammonia is currently
not an effluent limitation. As development proceeds in the valley, and point and non -point
sources of contaminates increase, including ammonia, the concentration of Ammonia Nitrogen
in the river may match or exceed the numeric limit adopted in the Basic Standards.
It is unclear whether or not or when an ammonia standard will be imposed. If it is
imposed, then the WWTF will have to be modified to add ammonia removal processes. Land
is available for nitrification and denitrification processes at the site of the polishing ponds.
At the present time, High Quality waters are subject to an antidegradation review process
for all wastewater discharges unless the dilution ratio is 100:1 or greater. Carbondale's WWTF
dilution ratio, even at ultimate flow. will be 149:1 and, therefore, an antidegradation is not
required.
1 6.6 201 Report
' In 1978, the Carbondale Sanitation District adopted a Facilities (201) Report. The 201
Report was prepared for the purpose of planning long range WWTF needs in the Service Area
' of Carbondale.
Facility reports were initially authorized under Section 201 of PL 92-500 of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and thus, are frequently called "201 Reports:.
According to an excerpt from the EPA handbook of procedures, a facility report consists of:
1
1
1
1
"Facilities planning consists of those necessary reports and studies which
directly relate to treatment works needed to comply with enforceable requirements
of the Clean Water Act. Facilities planning investigated the need for proposed
facilities through a systematic evaluation of alternatives that are feasible in light
6-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of the unique demographic, topographic, hydrologic and institutional
characteristics of the area, and demonstrated that the selected alternative is cost
effective. The regulations define cost-effective as the most economical means of
meeting the applicable effluent water quality and public health requirements over
the design life of the facility while recognizing the environmental and other non -
monetary considerations."
The 201 Report is important to discuss for wastewater service to Carbondale because it
was and still is used by local entities and the main regulatory agency (CDOH) to report orderly
wastewater service for economic, environmental and water quality issues. As a result of
Carbondale's 201 Report, the current wastewater treatment facility was constructed.
Additional highlights of the 201 Report include:
1. Design population for the Service Area will be 9084 people, with growth rates
at 13 % annually until 1985 and 5% thereafter.
2. The Sutank area will develop to a point where ISDS's will not longer be
adequate, this requiring a central WWTF.
3. The Ranch at Roaring Fork had adequate treatment facilities; the Roaring Fork
Valley does not need central WWTF.
4. The most cost effective WWTF alternative for the Carbondale Sanitation District
is expansion of the activated sludge process and utilization of liquid sludge
handling.
5. The 201 Planning Area lies primarily in and to the south of the Town of
Carbondale, and encompasses developed areas in the Roaring Fork_and Crystal
River Valleys. The area extends from near the confluence of the Crystal River
and Roaring Fork to the Catherine Store and fish hatchery areas.
6. In 1978, the existing flows averaged 180,000 GPD with an estimated population
of 2275 people.
7. The future ultimate design flow was 900,000 GPD.
When the town expands the WWTF requiring a Site Application, the CDOH will use the
201 as a guide for planning area and future flows. The planning areas are similar, however, the
planning area used in this report better matches the land use and growth patterns in 1994 than
6-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
in 1978. The ultimate population equivalent used in this report will be 14,750.
6.7 PLANT CAPACITY
This section will discuss the existing WWTF capacity. The WWTF is comprised of
multiple unit processes with each process rated at different capacities. The existing capacity of
the WWTF will then be that of the unit process with the lowest capacity.
6.7.1 Pretreatment Facilities
The pretreatment facilities comprise the influent bar screen, grit chamber and flow
measurement facilities. CDOH has rated all the plant processes for the present discharge permit.
The bar screen was rated at 0.8 MGD, the grit chamber at 1 MGD and the flow measurement
at 2.53 MGD.
The bar screen capacity is a function of flow velocity through the screen. Industry -wide
standards suggest a velocity of 1 FPS through the screen openings as optimal. Only minor
improvements would be required should capacity increases be required for the bar screen.
The aerated grit chamber is designed to settle out heavy grit particles that should be
removed prior to other process. Grit particles can be abrasive to downstream mechanical
equipment and can deposit in basins causing grit build-up. It is not a critical process to the
overall plant capacity. Based upon industry -wide standards, the grit basin capacity is 0.646
MGD which is less than that stated by CDOH of 1 MGD. The basin has a volume of 1346
gallons with dimensions of 9' long, 4' side, and 5' high. With a three-minute detention time,
the capacity is 0.646 MGD. A second grit chamber could be added in the pretreatment building
to increase capacity.
6.7.2 Aeration Basin
The Carbondale WWTF operates as a suspended growth biological treatment process
which is known as activated sludge. The activated sludge process occurs in a concrete basin
supplied with diffused air. Bacteria oxidize organic material and require oxygen for the reaction
to occur. The WWTF has two aeration basins. The larger basin (Basin B) has a volume of
approximately 262,000 gallons, while the smaller basin (Basin A) has a volume of 175,000
gallons. Volumes in both basins can vary, depending upon the high water elevation. The
6-9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
capacity of the aeration basin is a function of many variables but, to a large degree, is dependent
upon volume, operational mode, and oxygen supplied to the basin. Other factors such as
MLVSS concentration, can affect BOD5 removals but are more operator dependent.
The CDOH has rated the activated sludge process at 0.5 MGD. The activated sludge
process can be operated in several modes. The plant was originally designed to operate in the
extended aeration mode. Typically, this mode required detention times of between 21 and 24
hours. CDOH has rated the plant based upon the extended air mode. Extended aeration is more
typical of smaller plants which receive fluctuating flows. The longer detention times also allow
better ammonia removals. Larger plants typically operate in the conventional activated sludge
mode which requires 6 to 8 hours detention time. The Town of Carbondale operates in between
or in both modes which is very typical of plants of this size. Other plants in the Roaring Fork
and Colorado River Valleys operate between modes.
The decision of which mode to operate in, is largely an operational decision. If the
Town desires to operate in the extended air mode the capacity of the two basins is approximately
0.5 MGD. If the plant is operated in a conventional activated sludge mode, the aeration basin
capacity could be as high as 1.75 MGD.
CDOH has limited plant organic capacity to 1435 pounds of BOD5/day. Based upon an
average influent BOD5 of 300 mg/1, the influent flow would be limited to 0.575 MGD.
Therefore, the hydraulic flow of 0.5 MGD is the limiting factor for the aeration basin.
At the present time with the current discharge permit effluent limitations, the Town could
operate in the conventional mode, provided there is adequate aeration.
The amount of oxygen delivered to the aeration basin can limit capacity. Originally, the
basins were constructed with turbine aerators. The turbines were replaced with diffused aeration
in 1988. Clearly, diffused aeration is much more cost effective for energy conservation.
However, when the conversion was made, additional blower capacity was not provided. One
of the two blowers added as part of the digestor expansion in 1982 is used to supply air.
Positive displacement blowers located in the mechanical room are not rated for adequate total
dynamic head ('1'DH) to be effective with the submerged diffusers. Calculations were performed
in 1992 which suggested that the available air flow from one of the two 75 Hp blowers provided
adequate air for between 0.6 and 0.7 MGD. However, and more importantly, if one of the two
blowers were to fail, adequate backup aeration is not available and is in violation of CDOH
6-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
design criteria requirement of multiple blower capacity sufficient to deliver aeration if blower
units fail. Therefore, additional blower capacity is critical.
6.7.3 Secondary Clarification
Water from the aeration basin flows to the secondary clarifier. The clarifier acts as a
sedimentation process to allow the activated sludge or bacteria to settle to the bottom of the tank
where it is returned to the influent as return sludge or to the digestor as waste sludge.
The WWTF has two clarifiers. CDOH has rated the combined capacity of the two
clarifiers at 1.254 MGD. One clarifier has a diameter of 36 feet while the other clarifier has
a diameter of 40 feet. With a sidewater depth of 10 feet and an overflow rate (SOR) of 600
GPD/SF, the actual capacity is closer to 1.36 MGD. Detention times and weir loadings are well
within industry -wide standards at this flow rate.
6.7.4 Chlorine Contact Tank
Clarified water flows to the chlorine contact tank. Effluent is chlorinated via gas
chlorination and then is detained in the chlorine contact tank for a required period of 30 minutes
to achieve adequate bacterial kill necessary to meet effluent limitations of 6000 per 100 ml fecal
coliform count for 30 -day average.
CDOH has rated the chlorine contact tank at 1 MGD (peak flow). The tank has a
volume of 21,000 gallons based on dimensions of 20 feet long, 20 feet wide and water depth of
7 feet. The basin has three channels, each 6.67 feet wide. CDOH design criteria requires a
length to width ratio of 40:1. The current tank does not meet this and additional baffling should
be considered. Based upon industry -wide standards, the CDOH rating is correct. Further,
because the Town has polishing ponds after the chlorine tank, it could be argued that the ponds
afford additional detention time and, therefore, capacity could be increased.
Gas chlorinators consisting of two 1501b. cylinders are rated for 1 MGD according to
the CDOH.
6.7.5 Sludge Digestion
As sludge accumulates in the secondary clarifier, a certain amount of sludge needs to be
wasted continually. Currently, the WWTF pumps sludge from the clarifier to aerobic digestion.
6-11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sludge (bacteria) are oxidized with the addition of oxygen in the endogenous phase of cell
growth. Digested sludge is then land applied to agricultural field with a liquid sludge truck.
The WWTF has two aerobic digestors. Each tank has a volume of 134,303 gallons based
upon dimensions 51 feet long, 25 feet wide and water depth of 14 feet. Currently, the digestors
are operated in a batch mode alternating between aeration cycles and thickening cycles. at the
time the digestors were designed, the capacity was in excess of 0.75 MGD based upon the
regulations in effect at that time.
In 1993, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division adopted the "Biosolids
Regulation", 4.9.0 (5CCR 1002-19), known as the 503 Regulations. The new regulations have
changed the design criteria and sludge treatment standards. As a result, the capacity of the
existing digestors to meet the new regulations are below 0.5 MGD. The new regulations are
very complicated and compliance can be based upon multiple alternatives.
In general, the 503 Regulations require that, before land applying sludge, the pathogen
levels and vector attraction levels need to meet certain criteria. For instance, the pathogen
criteria can be met with a 40 -day aerobic digestion detention time or by raising the pH via lime
stabilization. Lime stabilization requires minimal capital expenditure if manually applied,
however, the long term materials and labor costs are very high.
In addition to the detention time required for the 503 Regulations, the Town requires
additional sludge storage in the winter time when the sludge cannot be land applied. For
instance, when the road to the land application site is inaccessible, snow depths too deep or if
the frost depth is too deep, sludge cannot be applied and must be stored in the digestor until
conditions improve. This problem is compounded by the fact that the digestion efficiencies
decrease when sludge temperatures drop.
In order to increase plant capacity and comply with the 503 Regulations, a combination
of additional digestor capacity and sludge thickening/dewatering will bring the sludge into
compliance. Mechanical thickening or dewatering will concentrate the sludge from a 1% or 2%
solids content to a 4% solids content, thereby, effectively more than doubling the detention time
in the digestor. Dewatering can be accomplished through belt presses, vacuum filters,
centrifuges and other proprietary processes. Town operational staff has indicated a preference
for centrifuges.
Table 6.2 lists the capacity of the unit processes in the WWTF. The limiting capacity
6-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
in the WWTF is a combination of digestor volume and blower capacity. If the plant is operated
in the extended aeration mode, the plant capacity is only 0.5 MGD limited by aeration basin
capacity. If the plant is operated in the conventional activated sludge mode, plant capacity will
then be limited by the bar screen, grit chamber and chlorine tank. If minor improvements are
accomplished to these processes, plant capacity will then be a function of the secondary clarifier
capacity. If one of the clarifiers is taken off line, then clarifier capacity would only be
approximately 0.7 MGD. plant capacity is graphically depicted in Figure 6-2.
Table 6.2
Unit Processes Capacity
PROCESS
CDOH RATING
[ MGD ]
INDUSTRY -WIDE
STANDARD RATING
[MGD]
Bar Screen
0.8
0.8
Flume
2.53
2.53
Grit
1
0.646
"A" Basin
0.5
1.75
Blower
0.525
0.6
Clarifier
1.254
1.36
Chlorine Contact
1
1
Digestor
No rating
0.14
6.7.6 Treatment Plant Flows
This section will discuss the flows to the WWTF. Table 3.1 shows the flows to the
WWTF for the last three years. Influent flows for the plant are shown for both the 30 -day
average flows and maximum daily flows. The discharge permit bases flow on the 30 -day
average influent flow. Figure 3.1 shows the flows graphically.
As stated previously, the discharge permit allowance of 0.5 MGD was exceeded in June
of 1994 when a 30 -day average flow of 0.53 MGD was recorded. Maximum daily flows have
exceeded 0.5 MGD on many occasions. For instance, in June of 1994, the maximum daily
flows reached 0.984 MGD, and in May of 1994, flows reached 0.799 MGD. As far back as
May 1992, maximum daily flows exceeded 0.5 MGD.
6-13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W> -
J
Q U
0 <
Za.
O <
W
N
fig u-
0
O Z
z�
O W
1-
00
CLARIFIER
1
[a o W ] OVdVO
O
EE
0
w
LL
BAR SCREEN
FIGURE 6.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lagoon facilities with long detention times are capable of treating highly fluctuating
flows. Mechanical plants with detention times less than 24 hours have difficulty with fluctuating
flows. Typically, the problems manifest themselves with elevated effluent BOD5's or TSS. For
the Town of Carbondale, much of the excess flow is due to infiltration which has little or no
organic content and, therefore, effluent limitations for BODS have been met. Further, the
secondary clarifier capacity is above the maximum daily flows so TSS levels have been met.
The most significant conclusion that can be reached from the flow data is the high amount
of inflow and infiltration (I&I). Unlike potable water requirements, wastewater flows should
not fluctuate over the course of the year. The flows for the months of May through August are
significantly higher than the winter time flows. Sources of inflow and infiltration can be many
but, in this case, the source is high groundwater levels due to seasonal high groundwater largely
as a result of flood irrigation practices of the adjoining irrigated agricultural fields. The high
groundwater will infiltrate sewer collection lines (primarily clay tile) through cracks, joints and
breaks in the pipe.
In 1994, the average winter time maximum day flow was 0.377 MGD. The summer time
flows in excess of that amount can be attributed to I&I. The following table shows the amount
of I&I for the summer months of 1994:
TABLE 6.3
AMOUNT OF I&I
MONTH
30 -DAY
AVG. (MGD)
MAXIMUM
DAILY (MGD)
May
0.035
0.422
June
0.153
0.607
July
0.118
0.249
Aug.
0.091
0.217
Infiltration can be viewed in the same perspective as additional flow from growth because
it takes up interceptor sewer and WWTF capacity. By way of example, in June of 1994, the
30 -day average of I&I was 0.153 MGD which equates to 624 EQR's. In other words, the
amount of I&I is equivalent to the amount of growth projected for the Gray Ranch project.
6-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.7.7 Plant Physical Condition
This section will discuss the physical condition of the WWTF. The physical condition
is important, not because it relates to plant capacity but, rather, does have cost and lifetime
implications. A key question to be addressed by the Town is whether the physical condition of
the plant will require enough of an upgrade that may make alternative plant sites more attractive.
The condition of the WWTF has been viewed in the field and operation staff have been
interviewed at length to determine plant condition. Plant condition, unlike plant capacity,
requires a high degree of subjective analysis. The physical condition analysis will also include
problem areas that operators have identified as maintenance problems.
In general, the condition of the plant relative to other plants of a similar size and age is
good with several notable exceptions.
The plant is a mechanical plant and construction consists of concrete basins, masonry
block buildings and mechanical equipment. Concrete and masonry generally have indefinite
lifetimes unlike metal or wood structures and basins, which have limited lifetimes. Buildings
for the digestors and primary treatment structures are less than 15 years old.
The condition of the pretreatment facilities is good. The building is less than five years
old. The grit pump and classifier cyclone are new and in good condition.
The clarifier sludge rakes and drive units are in good condition and have been well
maintained.
The blower and appurtenant items are in good condition, despite the fact that they run
continuously. However, lifetime of blowers are limited and the Town should report on upgrades
even if capacity is not increased.
The course bubble diffusers in the aeration basins and the digestors are relatively new
and are low maintenance items.
The sludge pumps are old but appear to be well maintained. The sludge pumps were
originally installed in 1973.
The problems encountered with the physical condition were notable. The most serious
problem is a settlement problem in the digestor building. Large cracks are evident in the
masonry block building enclosing the concrete digestor buildings.
The preliminary field investigation of observed displacements associated with the cracking
provided evidence of settlement occurring in the northwest corner of the digestor building.
6-15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Further review of construction inspection records indicated a subsoil problem was encountered
during installation of the footings in this area of the building. Based on the construction
inspection records, the final solution to the subsoil problems encountered involved the placement
of 3/4" screened rock prior to the placement of the footings. It is probable that the observed
movement in 1994 is associated with this poor subsoil area.
At the moment, it appears that the settling has manifested itself with the observed damage
in the masonry walls. No other damage other than the masonry wall cracking has been
observed. Interviews with the WWTF operators have determined that the movement seems to
have accelerated in the past four years. If the movement is allowed to persist, significant
problems will likely develop. The worst of these problems could be associated with a total
collapse of the wall currently exhibiting the observed cracking. Other problems, such as
digestor cracking and broken pipes, could develop in the short term.
A second significant problem is the deterioration of the roof of the digestor building.
The rubber membrane has shrunk and coupled with settlement problems of the building has been
displaced from the fastener on the north side of the building. Attempts by staff to re -attach the
membrane have not been successful. Staff has reported that, during times when the wind gusts,
entire sections of the membrane have blown up from the roof.
A third problem is the deterioration of mechanical and electrical equipment in the
aeration building. Heaters, lights and other fixtures have deteriorated due to the moist
atmosphere and presence of hydrogen sulfide gas. These fixtures need to be replaced and a
better HVAC system installed.
A fourth significant problem exists with the polishing ponds. The ponds receive water
from the chlorine tank and discharge water via percolation and surface water to the Roaring Fork
River. The state now requires discharges to groundwater must have a discharge permit to
groundwater. A discharge permit will require monitoring wells and continuous monitoring of
those wells. Alternatively, the ponds could be lined with impervious liners and, thereby, forego
a discharge permit. The ponds can also lead to problems with effluent limitations. Algae grow
in the summer time and will contribute to elevated TSS levels and can lead to high pH levels.
Thus far, the ponds have been well operated by utilizing duck weed which grows on top of the
water blocking sunlight and prohibiting algae growth. The duck weed itself, however, must be
harvested each fall before it dies and contributes BODS to the effluent.
6-16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A final problem encountered at the WWTF is a nuisance foaming problem in the aeration
basin. The biomass in the extended aeration basin process requires a fine balance of various
types of microorganisms, including bacteria and protozoa. The environment must always favor
the growth of microorganisms that settle and thicken well. Carbondale has identified a type of
bacteria known as Nocardia which, at high levels, can create a nuisance foam condition. The
foam can reduce the effective capacity in the aeration basin and creates operational problems.
Nocardia is thought to be caused by high mean cell residence time, low influent BODS
concentrations and high grease concentrations. Any WWTF capital improvements should require
addressing the foaming problem.
Other minor problems include the following:
• The mechanical building which houses the sludge pumps, PD blowers and MCC
panels is located in a low spot with inadequate drainage. At times, drainage
water has overtopped the finished floor.
• Scum removal from the clarifiers is difficult and very labor-intensive.
• Potable water is used for various spray bars in the plant and represent a large
consumer of potable water. Potable water should be replaced with recycled
wastewater.
• Staff has commented that two hydraulic constrictions exist in plant piping, one in
the grit chamber effluent line and the second in the chlorine contact tank effluent
line. Both restrictions back water up in the respective basins.
• Currently, the Town uses 1501b. cylinders for chlorine feed. Present flow rates
required excessive changing of cylinders which suggests a modification to tone
cylinders is warranted.
End of Chapter 6
6-17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER 7. WWTF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
This chapter will discuss the future capital improvements necessary to meet existing
flows, and those from the primary and secondary service areas. Growth rates will be projected
so that the timing of improvements and capital expenditures can be estimated. The maximum
size of facility on the present site will be determined so that the Town can decide if this site will
serve the Town for ultimate buildout. Finally, construction costs will be provided for capital
expenditures.
7.1 Wastewater Treatment Phased Capacity
It has already been established that the present WWTF under the terms of the discharge
permit is already at capacity and requires upgrades. The number of proposed additional EQR's
for Service Area 1 is 1904, and for Service Area 2, 590 EQR's (see Table 2.2). The ultimate
plant capacity, assuming _inflow and infiltration is eliminated, should be approximately 1.475
MGD. Because growth in planning area 1 is better defined at this time and because planning
area 2 is relatively undefined, a first phase plant expansion logically should only include Service
Area 1. The wastewater flows for existing and Service Area 1 are projected to be 1.268 MGD
without inflow and infiltration.
We recommend that the Town of Carbondale aggressively pursue the elimination of
inflow and infiltration. The Phase 1 report addition should be to a capacity of approximately
1.0 MGD and the Phase 2 expansion for 1.5 MGD. Because the existing plant discharge permit
is for 0.5 MGD, a doubling plant capacity to 1 MGD should be considered for the next
expansion and to 1.5 MGD for the second expansion.
Figure 7-1 shows when the plant at a capacity of 1 MGD and 1.5 MGD will be exceeded
at various growth rates assuming that inflow and infiltration is not eliminated. At a 5% growth
rate, demand will reach a 1 MGD capacity plant in the year 2007 and the year 2015 for a 1.5
MGD plant. Conversely if inflow and infiltration is eliminated, demand will reach a 1 MGD
capacity in 2014 and 2022 for a 1.5 MGD plant (see Figure 7-2). The elimination of inflow and
infiltration will push back the plant construction approximately seven years at a 5% growth rate.
7-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O O O O
I� CO d -I CO
FIGURE 7.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
W
< 0
Z
O �
CO i -
CL
v
O °
Z 0
O
H
{
O
FIGURE 7.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.2 Ultimate Plant Size
The ultimate plant size for planning areas 1 and 2 will be 1.475 MGD (this assumes that
I&I will be eliminated). From Figure 6-2, expansion will be required for the pretreatment
facilities, blower capacity, clarifier, chlorine contact and the digestor,. The improvements for
the pretreatment facilities can be done in the existing pretreatment building. Figure 6-1 shows
the footprints for the expanded facilities. Based upon this layout, it is feasible to expand the
WWTF within the constraints of the present site without the acquisition of additional property.
Is it more cost effective to abandon the present site for a new wastewater treatment
facility? Using a rule of thumb of $4.50 per gallon of capacity for new plant construction, a
new 1.5 MGD treatment plant would cost approximately $6.75 million. For cost estimating
purposes only, a potential site exists on the CRMS property at CRMS's present plant site. That
site is approximately 3500 lineal feet west of the TOC WWTF. When adding in interceptor
sewer costs, a lift station and land acquisition costs, a new treatment plant could cost as high
as $7 million.
TABLE 7.1
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
WWTF ENGINEERING REPORT
NEW PLANT COST
1
ITEIvIDESCRIPTION:
Interceptor Sewer
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
3500
UN
2
1.5 MG Treatment Plant
3
Lift Station
LF
LS
LS
UNIT:; PRICE
$ 35
$ 122,500
6,750,000
100,000
100,000
4
Land Acquisition
4.5
AC
25,000
112,500
TOTAL
$7,085,000
7.3 Capital Improvements Required
As stated above, we would recommend that the plant be expanded in two phases to 1
MGD and then to 1.5 MGD. This section will discuss the recommended improvements for each
phase.
7-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.3.1 Phase 1
Phase 1 expansion to 1 MGD is required immediately. Priorities and construction costs
for expansion will be as follows:
TABLE 7.2
DESCRIPTION
Add additional blower capacity for aeration and aerobic digestor processes
$ 98,900
2
Add additional digestor capacity
281,894
3
Add sludge dewatering equipment
219,765
4
Stabilize the settling digestor
(soils report not
available yet)
5
Make minor improvements to the pretreatment facilities
29,785
6
Make minor improvements to the chlorine contact chamber
5,000
7
Improvement to the polishing pond
10,000
8
Replace damaged HVAC equipment in aeration building
25,000
9
Repair roof of digestor and aeration building
5,000
10
20,000
SUBTOTAL
10% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ 695,344
69,534
$ 764,878
See Tables 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 for detailed construction costs.
Priorities to expand the treatment plant include additional blower capacity and additional
digestor capacity. The logical place to expand the digestor capacity is east of the existing
digestor. Additional digestor capacity of 134,000 gallons (equal to one existing tank volume)
would provide 40 days detention time and some additional storage for winter time needs. This
assumes that, at a 1 MGD capacity, approximately 24,0000 GPD of 1% liquid sludge is
produced. After detention time in the first digestor tank, mechanical sludge thickening would
dewater sludge to a 4% sludge before proceeding to the second and third digestor tank.
7-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The building could be expanded to allow for space for the sludge dewatering equipment
and new shop facilities.
As an alternative to expansion of digestor capacity, the Town could consider sludge
dewatering in conjunction with composting. The Pitkin County Landfill has an active
composting program and has taken sludge from other wastewater facilities in the past. The
Town could enter discussions with Pitkin County to take the Town's sludge on a more
permanent basis. The combination of detention time in the Carbondale aerobic digestor and
composting at the landfill should meet the requirements of the 503 regulations. This would
prevent the need for additional digestor capacity. Sludge dewatering equipment and a sludge
cake hauling method would be required. It is beyond the scope of this master report, however,
to determine whether Pitkin County would contract for the sludge on a long-term basis.
Additional blowers could be placed in the present shop area. However, if it is
determined that the blowers are contributing to the settling problem in this building, then other
locations should be considered. Minor improvements would be necessary to the pretreatment
facilities. An additional grit chamber could be added west of the existing grit chamber. A
selector basin which could help solve the foaming problem should be considered in the
pretreatment building.
Internal baffling should be added to the chlorine contact chamber to allow for a 40:1
length to width ratio.
Improvements should be made to the HVAC equipment in the aeration building so that
mechanical and electrical equipment have a longer life time.
The membrane roof should be permanently attached to the north parapet of the building.
It will be necessary to consult with the manufacturer to adequately attach the membrane.
Several improvements can be made to resolve the foaming problem. According to WEF
MOP #8, no single approach or device has been found totally successful in controlling Nocardia
foam. Various approaches that have been successful have included water spray, selectors,
chlorinating the RAS, and mechanical skimming of the mixed liquor in the aeration basin.
Currently, the Town of Carbondale has chlorinated the RAS as one approach with varying
degrees of success. Currently, the WWTF has a small basin in the pretreatment building (the
USFS dump station) that is not being used. This basin could be used for an anaerobic selector
basin. In addition, the concept of spray bars with low chlorine dosage has found to be effective.
7-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The spray bars could be installed with relatively low capital cost.
A mechanically cleaned bar screen should be installed in the pretreatment building, along
with an expanded aerobic grit chamber.
The present non-compliance of the polishing ponds can be addressed either by lining the
ponds with an impervious liner or applying for a groundwater discharge permit. Compliance
with a discharge permit will require the installation of approximately three monitoring wells and
yearly sampling costs of all wells. In addition, the permit will come under review every five
years. The lining option would require a one-time capital cost and will also improve the
operation of the ponds by allowing better operator control and will eliminate the interface with
groundwater.
7.3.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 which will be required in the year 2010 to 2014, depending upon growth rate
and inflow and infiltration, will expand capacity to 1.5 MGD. Priorities for improvements will
be as follows:
Add secondary clarifier.
Add additional digestor capacity.
Add blower capacity.
Add aeration basin capacity.
7.3.3 Regulatory Requirements
This section will discuss the regulatory requirements required to expand the WWTF. It
is extremely important that the Town continue an ongoing dialogue with CDOH on the progress
being made toward compliance.
A Site Application will need to be submitted for a plant capacity of 1 MGD. A Site
Application review and approval from all the various review agencies will take approximately
six months. The earlier in the year the Site Application can be submitted, the quicker the turn-
around from CDOH. An engineering report will need to be submitted with the Site
Application. This report can be used for much of the requirements of the engineering report.
Concurrently with the Site Application, the Town should proceed with an amended
discharge permit. Because a discharge permit was granted in 1994, only an amendment for
additional flow will be required.
7-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upon receipt of the Site Application, the Town should proceed with the preparation of
detailed construction level drawings for the Phase 1 improvements. These drawings must be
submitted for approval to CDOH for reports and specification review. Once CDOH approval
is obtained, construction may proceed.
7.3.4 Project Schedule
Attached as Figure 7-3 is a project schedule which includes the major tasks necessary to
complete Phase 1 of the WWTF. In order to complete the project as soon as possible, we
recommend the submittal of a Site Application to CDOH in February. Based upon past history
for Site Applications, the earliest approval could be granted would be in October. If the Town
then proceeded with the design work, a feasible construction start date would be early 1996.
If design work proceeded concurrently with the Site Application process, then construction could
start in June. The construction schedule allows for a six-month schedule.
report: 93146b05. eng
End of Chapter 7
7-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7.3
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
WVVTF MASTER PLAN
AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION EXPANSION
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Excavation
2000
CY
7
14,000
3
Site Work
1
LS
7,500
7,500
4
Dewatering
1
LS
2,500
2,500
5
Digestor Basin Concrete
175
CY
300
52,500
6
Miscellaneous Etaffles
1
LS
5,000
5,000
7
Sludge Pump
1
EA
10,000
10,000
8
Aeration Piping
1275
LS
15
19,125
9
Miscellaneous Plant Fittings
10
EA
250
2,500
10
Plant Piping
100
LF
.40
4,000
11
Plant Valves
6
EA
500
3,000
12
Building
2000
SF
60
120,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 245,125
CONTINGENCY, 15%
36,769
TOTAL
$ 281,894
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7.4
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
WWTF MASTER PLAN
PRETREATMENT FACILITIES
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Grit Basin Concrete
10
CY
300
3,000
3
Miscellaneous Baffles
1
LS
2,500
2,500
4
Grit Pump
1
EA
7,500
7,500
5
Aeration Piping
40
LS
15
600
6
Miscellaneous Plant Fittings
2
EA
250
500
7
Plant Piping
20
LF
40
800
8
Bar Screen Improvements
1
LS
5,000
5,000
9
Plant Valves
2
EA
500
1,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 25,900
CONTINGENCY, 15%
3,885
TOTAL
$ 29,785
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7.5
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
WWTF MASTER PLAN
BLOWER ADDITION
NO.
rrsTvfnDsocRIroom
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Blowers
2
EA
25.000
50.000
a
Bearing Protection
1
LS
5.0(m
5,000
4
Air Piping
50
LF
30
1.500
5
Air Valves
4
EA
503
2,000
6
Miscellaneous Building Improvements
1
co
5,000
5,000
7
Electric Service
1
LS
5.000
5.000
8
MCC Panel
I
LS
7.500
7.500
9
Blower Appurtenances
l
LS
5.000
5.000
.°`,°�`~,°^"``
SUBTOTAL
$ 86,000
CONTINGENCY, 15%
12.900
TOTAL
S 98,900
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7.6
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
WiVTF MASTER PLAN
SLUDGE THICKENING
NO.
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
2
Centrifuge
1
LS
150,000
150,000
3
Chemical Feed Equipment
1
LS
12,000
12,000
4
Piping
20
LF
30
600
5
Valves
2
EA
500
1,000
6
Miscellaneous Building Improvements
1
LS
2,500
2,500
7
Electric Service
1
LS
5,000
5,000
8
MCC Panel
1
LS
5,000
5,000
9
Sludge Pump
1
LS
10,000
10,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 191,100
•
CONTINGENCY, 15 %
28,665
TOTAL
$ 219,765
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
In
Z
a
w
o
>
0
Z
I-
0
0
I-
n.
at
en
_
--
0
D
a
J
D
Z
D
7-
<
2
Ce
a
a
cow
w
w
Z
Q
0
w
0
>
O
2
t -
O
'AUG !SEP
J
7
Z
7
WORK TASK
'PREPARE SITE APPLICATION
SUBMIT alit APPLICATIUN TU KU-LIsKAL AGENCY'S
SUBMIT SITE APPLICATION TO CDOH
(
-E
E(
.61
yi
.6I•
Yh
=G
be
E7'
Ep
CI
J.IrrniuitAL yr NI I t AYYUIAI IUN
APPROVAL OF DISCHARGE PERMIT
PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
W
W
5ZOc
W
QOtr
00az:
U
*tG
t..h
2
O
H
CS
X
C
rLAN 1 EONS 1 ISUI, I II"
PLANT COMPLETION
1
lik
1
M
7 to (D
i--
W a:
° '.- .--
C u7
ONE -MILE RADIUS MAP
1
\/%
1
,
6/70
I %-
z2
6*,
' 4k
Wail
VENNI 1411
TM II lc NI
Elk
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
SITE APPLICATION FOR WWTF Hill
DIUS LOCATION OF POTABLE WATER WELLS,reotte
•
-0 .
1\ fi%1
4 L ---\-N
SCALE: NONE
KEY — WELLS
4
• / \
PREPARED BY SGIIA
JULY 1995
) 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FIVE -MILE RADIUS MAP
I NM OM I MB
NEI 1111O MN NIB VIII 11 OM INN 11111 11111 MEI 11111
tJ
d
1
\`1
4i
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
SITE APPLICATION FOR WWTF
5 MILE RADIUS SHOWING TREATMENT PLANTS LIFT STATONS ECT
SCALE: NONE
PREPARED BY SGM
JULY 1995
FLOODPLAIN MAPS
KEY TO MAP
500 -Year Flood Boundary
100 -Year Flood Boundary
FLOODWAY FRINGE
100 -Year Flood Boundary
500 -Year Flood Boundary
Approximate 100 -Year
Flood Boundary
Cross Section Line
Elevation Reference Mark
River Mile
FLOODWAY
RM7
x
• M1.5
NOTES TO USER
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections
and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were
based on hydraulic considerations with_regard to requirements
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This map was prepared to facilitate flood plain management
activities only; it may not show all special flood hazard areas
in the community or all planimetric features outside of the flood
plain. Refer to the latest official Flood Insurance Rate Map for
any -additional -areas of special flood hazard.
Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to
scale. Refer to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is
shown at 1/20 inch.
For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map
Panels.
Aa v IVIYVI IjCO / O
8S8 l3NHd SNIOf
01
er
0 411-11161.4VI
A491Aillir
Ar.,,,
iNoppog
0
tn
I I
m
c
J
PINE STREET
0
139
0
BP
0
s
se
-aaX>\\\
r
r
ml
C7
tz O
b7
zz
>orri
tri1
r/Q
CD
0
unz
lD
-4
CD
CD
:03SIA38 dVW
1
958L90Z080
2138WflN 13Ndd-AlIN(1WW00
Illlll
lart
F-4 3
0001
O Z
vir
Ft3 upon
m ..i
0
111
V'1
P
0
0
T
I
T
0
0
0
0
0
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
KEY TO MAP
500 -Year Hood Boundary
100 -Year Flood Boundary {,.
$11.0124
Zone Designations ='
ZONE. B..
100 -Year Flood Boundary
500 -Year Flood Boundary
-ZONE
Base Flood Elevation Line 513
With Elevation In Feet**
Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987)
Where Uniform Within Zone**
Elevation Reference Mark RM7x
Zone D Boundary —
RiverMile *M1.5
**Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLANATION
A- Areas of 100 -year flood; trace—flood-elevations—and
floodJtazard _factors.not..determined.
AO Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by types of
100 -year shallow flooding where depths are between
1.0 •and 3.0 feet; depths are shown, or areas of 100 -
year alluvial fan flooding, depths and velocities shown,
but no flood hazard factors are determined.
AH Areas of 100 -year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
aee detennined.
A1 -A30 Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and
Mod hazard factors determined.
A99 Areas of 100 -year flood- to be protected by flood
protection system under construction; base flood
elevations -and flood hazard factors not determined.
B Areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500 -
year flood; or certain areas subject to 100 -year flood-
ing with average depths less than one (1) foot or where
the contributing drainage area is less than one square
mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
C Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood_ hazards.
✓ Areas of 100 -year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
not determined.
V1 -V30 Areas of 100 -year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
NOTES TO USER
Certain areas not in the special flood hazard areas (zones A and V)
may be protected by flood control structures.
This map is for flood insurance purposes only; it does not neces-
sarily show all areas subject to flooding in the community or
all planimetric features outside special flood hazard areas.
Ad03 M3IA31i
AaVNIWI131.1d'A31:1
AFiVNIL 11 d
m
r
V!
r
c"
--f
m
0
s
-o
ti
0
-4
0
m
CO
CO
m
--t
8S81 l3NVd SWIM'
1 E NM EN NE 11111
1M1 NMI
N
0
Z
m
CO
M 1 I
tzi•
Cr
0
N
0
Z
m
C)
0
Z
m
co
0
Z
m
N
0
Z
m
0
Z
m
CO
60?
N
0
Z
m
n
6072
0
co
co
rn
Q
O W cs
rn�
W of/ 30?1
r
m
2
0
0
0
N
Crl
0
Z
m
0
Z
m
CO
to Dzi
Dzi• Rfi
0
m• v,Z Z
m
0
r
r
c)
0
z
c
m
PINE STREET
N
0
Z
m
co
N0 co
p
CO
' Z
v
v
6085 N
N =:
O
1 I' Z r Fc=' p m
m m o
00 087 Co
n
• H N
to 0 0
2 • Z m
d 0 n
r
r
N
0
Z
m� N
0
6090 . k' N m
CO
6091 ; ✓o
N
0
Z
m
;
m D
m z
>rn
r
z —
m00
X tri
c
� O
D v T
Z ..a
cn
✓ tin
Z
Z
0_
z0� r
O
r
Z o
Yn n
t▪ ri 0
m
a
x y m
a 0-C 3
cA - a
1
1
T
133