Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutJFOCP 2008-08-28aug ENGINEERS, LTD. July 31, 2008 Alin Water Fraser Sanitation District c/o Mr. Joe Fuqua, Superintendent P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: Alkalinity Addition /Denitrification Dear Joe: Per your request, we have predesigned facilities to add alkalinity economically to the Fraser plant. The Fraser plant provides a stabilized effluent, oxidizing ammonia nitrogen in addition to organic carbon. This oxidation, for each mg of ammonia nitrogen, consumes approximately 7.1 mg of alkalinity. (About 50% of this is recovered with the complete denitrification.) High mountain plants, which serve communities having low alkalinity water supplies, frequently need to add alkalinity to both attain nitrification and to produce a pH stable effluent. There are several approaches to alkalinity correction: 1. Add soda ash or caustic soda at the WWTP 2. Add lime at the WWTP 3. Add alkalinity at the water source 4. Biological denitrification. The theoretical ideal solution is No. 3, i.e. each entity to add alkalinity at each water treatment plant. However, it is difficult to add lime at several locations (see comments on Option 1 2, following) and it may be a problem for the JFOC to implement. Further, this method isn't appropriate if high infiltration occurs since infiltration almost always has very low natural alkalinity. At the WWTP, the easiest chemical to feed is soda or caustic. Lime is difficult to handle. However, environmentally, it is much better to add calcium ions to the water, rather than sodium. Further, the cost of lime is less than either sodium compound. McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 2300 15Th Street, Suite 220 Denver, CO 80202 T 303.964.3333 F 303.964.3355 P: \PROJECTS \Fraser San Dist 07- 04 \Corresp\RCM to JF Alkalinity Add- Denitrification.dot Conclusion: It is recommended that a lime feeder be added at the pretreatment building. Because of handling problems with lime, dry lime should be added directly to the sewage influent. The attached preliminary design memorandum with drawing, illustrates the proposed addition, and provides a preliminary level budget. Please call if you need further information. Respectfully submitted, McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 7 Ronald C. Mc Laugh in, P.E, L.S. Enclosures: Memorandum Drawings Laughlin Water ENGINEERS, LTD. PRE DESIGN MEMORANDUM July 25, 2008 TO: Joe Fuqua, Superintendent, Fraser Sanitation District FROM: Jim McLaughlin RE: Dry Chemical Feeder for Alkalinity Control We have completed a preliminary design and budget for the addition of a dry chemical feeder at the pretreatment building. The design uses a 64 cubic foot bulk bag dispensing system. Dry lime would be metered into the aerated grit chamber, which will provide adequate mixing. Metering rates are adjustable and the feed range can be changed using various size metering tubes and screws. Preliminary drawings are attached to this memo. Following is a preliminary cost estimate and recommended budget: Building Cost Door $5,000 Roof 190sf $20.00 $3,800 Concrete 23cy $750.00 $18,000 Excavation $4,000 Apron $3,000 Masonry $8,000 Steel $1,500 Insulation and finish 320sf $25.00 $4,800 Mechanical Cost Equipment $22,000 Installation $6,000 Electrical $12,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $123,600 Engineering and Contingency $31,000 Recommended Budget $154,600 In addition, a 4000 pound fork lift will be needed to handle the bulk bags. P:\PROJECTS\Fraser San Dist 07-04 \Corresp \Dry Chemical Feeder.doc Laughlin Rincon Project Title Task rr /6 CI e Ca O H` (41 .1 I /V ,fel-doi A 9c-/e7,07 w f) pe e Air 0 r 6 /1 4 6crf 1.4.4'fz seide _90h i7 Project No I -42 1 4 477 Date /5 2/ 'OS By pA. Checked 413 o 4 45 77 August 8, 2008 JFOC Nancy Anderson PO Box 89 Fraser, CO. 80442 Dear Nancy, Sincerely, R Kirk Klancke Manager CC Drew Matteson Bruce Hutchins Jon Westerlund My Board of Directors is hoping to be able to discuss all of the possible options concerning the low alkalinity levels at the treatment plant at the August 28, 2008 meeting. The options that Ron Mclaughlin put on the table in his February 11, 2008 letter were: 1) Raise the PH by adding soda ash. 2) Raise the PH by adding lime. 3) Work with the existing alkalinity in the influent by improving the biological. de- nitrification process in the plant. Ron proposed in his February 11, 2007 letter to provide information on all three of these options for a cost of $2K to $3K. To help with the decision making process we are requesting that Ron complete his proposal in time for the August 28 JFOC meeting by providing the cost estimate to improve the de- nitrification in the plant through the biological process. We also hope to discuss other possible options that are not listed in the Mclaughlin proposal. These options would be: 1) Raise the PH of the water at the water treatment plants. 2) Take aggressive steps to minimize the infiltration that is lowering the PH of the influent to the plant. 3) Investigate the use of magnesium hydroxide as an option for adding alkalinity at the treatment plant. Besides having Ron prepare a cost estimate f0vr improving the biological Cie nitrification process it would be good to have him at the August JFOC meeting to discuss all of the possible options. P. O. Box 1390 601 Park Place Fraser, CO 80442 (970) 726 -8691 Fax (970) 726 -9627 To: Kirk Klancke Re: Alkalinity Issues Dear Kirk, I dropped off all the paper work you requested on August 5 2008, and if you had any questions to please call, in reading the letter you dropped off on August 8th it appears there is a misunderstanding on how the nitrification process works. I am available to attend your next board meeting and explain the issues and the process. The explanation or answers to your first three questions are as follows: 1. Raise the pH by adding soda ash. Soda ash is made with sodium i.e. salt, and salt is not very healthy to the stream nor wildlife. 2. Raise the pH by adding lime. Lime is made with calcium, which is not as harmful as salt. For this reason, the estimate in McLaughlin's report is for a Dry Chemical Feeder. 3. Work with the existing alkalinity in the influent by improving the biological de- nitrification process in the plant. As stated at past JFOC meetings, the current influent does not contain enough alkalinity for the nitrification process, The process requires seven milligrams of alkalinity per each milligram of ammonia removed or converted by the biological process. The bio mass must complete the nitrification process before de- nitrification process can begin. The answers to your last three options are as follows: 1. Raise the pH of the water at the water treatment plants. When the pH and alkalinity issues started you commented that Winter Park Ranch's water system did not have a pH problem and that chemical additions or treatments were not necessary in your district. Currently, the Town of Fraser is the only water provider performing corrosion control, which in turn raises the pH. 2. Take aggressive steps to minimize the infiltration that is lowering the pH of the influent to the plant. Although, alkalinity and pH issues occur year round and not only during infiltration periods, all districts should still be aggressively minimizing infiltration flows. 3. Investigate the use of magnesium hydroxide as an option for adding alkalinity at the treatment plant. Magnesium hydroxide costs $1.09 per pound where lime costs about $0.07 per pound in bulk. Lime also helps with flocculation and coagulation by improving settling. McLaughlin's proposal also contained the cost estimate for new aeration equipment. The reason for this new smaller blower is to assist de- nitrification through the biological process, as the existing blowers produce too much air to control de- nitrification in the basins. FRASER SANITATION DISTRICT Zee Joe Fuqua Superintendent Upper Fraser Valley Treatment Plant. cc: Drew Matteson Bruce Hutchins Jon Westerlund Nancy Anderson 9 Aug 2008 CD a h -,-i Influent WPW FSD Influent Influent MGD Flow Flow Jan -05 AVG. 0.623 0.294 0.194 0.135 Feb -05 AVG. 0.652 0.297 0.188 0.167 Mar -05 AVG. ammommilamalsom 0.732 0.279 0.202 0.251 Jun -05 AVG. 0.899 0.376 0.205 0.319 Jul -05 AVG. 0.692 0.271 0.199 0.222 Aug -05 AVG. 0.617 0.241 0.189 0.188 Sep -05 AVG. 0.509 0.191 0.172 0.146 Oct -05 AVG. 0.574 0.185 0.210 0.180 Nov -05 AVG. 0.672 0.202 0.249 0.220 Dec -05 AVG. 0.773 0.250 0.216 0.307 Jan -06 AVG. 0.748 0.260 0.198 0.291 Feb -06 AVG. 0.753 0.258 0.193 0.302 Mar -06 AVG. ammismommossom 0.924 0.304 0.216 0.404 Jun -06 AVG. 0.747 0.241 0.176 0.330 Jul -06 AVG. 0.786 0.262 0.201 0.324 Aug -06 AVG. 0.641 0.279 0.199 0.164 Sep -06 AVG. 0.586 0.276 0.188 0.122 Oct -06 AVG. 0.500 0.228 0.141 0.131 Nov -06 AVG. 0.563 0.247 0.163 0.153 Dec -06 AVG. 0.665 0.303 0.189 0.173 Jan -07 AVG. 0.656 0.284 0.185 0.187 Feb -07 AVG. 0.673 0.295 0.180 0.198 Mar -07 AVG. IMMEARMOMMUMUM 1.115 0.492 0.215 0.409 Jun -07 AVG. 0.779 0.323 0.152 0.304 Jul -07 AVG. 0.707 0.298 0.158 0.251 Aug -07 AVG. 0.607 0.268 0.160 0.179 Sep -07 AVG. 0.540 0.227 0.173 0.140 Oct -07 AVG. 0.498 0.171 0.143 0.184 Nov -07 AVG. 0.489 0.151 0.144 0.194 Dec -07 AVG. 0.618 0.232 0.189 0.197 Jan -08 AVG. 0.645 0.257 0.197 0.191 Feb -08 AVG. 0.627 0.248 0.196 0.182 Mar -08 AVG. 0.726 0.297 0.222 0.208 Jun -08 AVG. 0.961 0.500 0.200 0.261 Jul -08 AVG. o. CL w 0 0 _J ul >- 060 z w w x CL -1 m m z E ca LL 0 LLJ ul oo Vw, 2 FE Z UJ LU CL X UJ YJ N 4 IL M 50 00LL M w m mw Z Ul Z LL Co 0 E 0 42 14 va 0 k A Ea a T 2! A ij U) z W Lu _j w h m LU mm 4 01 U) 4 C6 LU Q ui U. LL 0 z w LL 0 Z 0 K z p W CFEL 4c Z cc 0 4L) a IL X ca Z Ul tt R a. z LU z w P x z iW- zs­ 0 Z z W jr LU W Q 0 LU uj COC Nti 0 a. I 0 rC LU IC IC LU CL =iz Lu_ 0 Z Lli (Do l t= >.' to Z 0 E 2__ m z 0 3m 00 tti Ir C O z O m 2 cc z p" k LU LU P z z z w ul 'm Lu LMU _j W Lu W j ul Uj u ILJ m m CC m m CC 's im aL a ut, CL Uj M +teaX cn LU IL U) cn w 0� 0) r 9 M U) w LU w < LU < LLJW Wm It cc Q LU LU w LUcc z 0 ul m n cl w 9t CL z 0 L I c L w 0 ul >- w z 0 w w x CL -1 m m z LLJ Z UJ LU X UJ YJ N 4 IL M 50 00LL M w m mw Z LL Co E r 42 14 va k A Ea a T 2! A ij U) z W Lu _j w h m LU mm 4 01 U) 4 C6 LU Q ui U. LL 0 z w LL 0 Z 0 K z p W CFEL 4c Z cc 0 4L) a IL X z W Ul tt R a. z LU z w z L I c L -i W IL CLq dN d ad w � H fl a ul5. U- Q L3 _ CC q LL 0o Z lu _q o .3 z CD F m o r Z i' F- w w .��. ac s ZO. x w w Z Lu O Wa min W C9 �O p LU 4 Ir 4 ¢ � IL G W 4 x w[ O ui cc ¢ W ¢ x IL LL OC T (3p FW IE :3Z r u,tc ir Z. 80 0 W L5�ts m A d q F Z C H F m V 0Z - e a J� w a W d. Z s=::'E 3` 5.2 E �� ., 9W a La Cc �C U'�.6ECg p� i3 WIr Z W W Z W Z W Z W W Z W Z W Z W Z W Ctac2 Z ix W d-11�:_iL W lal a W z a M W IL W` O W L71 W� �,W ,�W o ❑ it ir W q ( U? q fl, ( {t1 } tt3 to fit, ! ' Q w W , W #tJ W W W W W W W LL � }. q Sa W R U. p Z z U IW- o ui xZ rr M ti W a. Z LU ccW a N p a Q v W x G cc IL a.Q Z M . W q LU Z w J M N 1- W aw z q O 0 > > 0 c rL (1) w LL JF .6 cn E CO 6:2 kL 0 c Z U) w LL 0 k % M cc w CL 0 0 0 X z ui w 0 U) z 0 uj U) O 0. w �j Z uj <LU wo mo W > CLi m w (30 Z UJ x z J LU — cr cc rj 0 ul ul Q o ui Y e, ILg Z w IL m 00 Q Q,, I t W m It cc cl 2 U. Z OCLO LL C3 0 w cc LU W it 00 cc t ztz >- t 0 cc ctj LU 2,® Im 0 -K f (a UJ 2 z 0 'E 'E il a ta R CC w U L w z r3 z 0 2 x 0 U- E� w to ui z w tu LU LU z w z LU z E= E z w _j CL w LLI Ul 2 ie w r-- I w w uj ui ui Ul w w -i s v tr m CL r. ul m Cc 2 (z tc IL CC m cc It CL cc uj x Ut cr m W cc cc ft m W 4 (1) �f w I 43 (n U) 4( w IL 2 U) w a :) W ul :3 w R — M 4 cn W f s w ui LU w LCJ w LU U, < w w LLI w A w ul 0 ill M LL z < —0 w 3, 0 w Z 0 U P ui z p co w ir x E LU (L 4 Z LU LU w I 0 a ':_ IL X u Ir z W ZL < < CL CL z di z w w J (j) c z 0 I.— z c LU L) uj L LU < 0 a. z -C c L MEMORANDUM To: Joint Facility Operating Committee Members From: Nancy Anderson, Utilities/District Administrator Fraser Sanitation District Re: 2009 Plant Operations and Maintenance Budget Date: August 28, 2008 Attached is the proposed operations and maintenance budget for the Joint Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant for the year 2009. Budget changes from the budget year 2008 include the following: splitting the $300,000 in capital projects ($200,000 for the SBR, and $100,000 for the soda ash treatment building) between 2008 and 2009, $40,000 for engineering expenses anticipating the additional costs related to a soda ash treatment building and the aeration equipment, $80,000 for chemicals to control alkalinity, $40,000 has been proposed in plant maintenance which includes a service agreement for the SCADA system and replacement parts for the submerged turbine, capital purchases includes a blade, bucket, fuel pump and tires for the loader, Mountain Parks Electric, Public Service and Parker Ag (sludge removal) have indicated a possible 10% rate increase, other line items have been increased as needed for normal cost of living adjustments. The percentages used to determine each partner's share have been based upon the most recent "Summary of EQR Surveys The budgeted amount for the Capital Expense Reserve Fund does not change for 2009 based on the Capital Reserve Study. These funds are being held in a separate high interest savings account at COLOTRUST specifically for the JFOC. The balance in the Operations and Maintenance Reserve Fund (checking account) will be reviewed at year end. By mutual agreement, these funds have been deposited at the Grand Mountain Bank for the JFOC checking account which is used to pay the operations and maintenance expenses. Each month the partners are billed for their share of expenses. When payment is made by the partners, those funds are deposited directly into that account. The 2009 budget has been drafted to reflect the facilities' expenditure history and specific additions outlined above, realizing that only the actual expenses are billed to the partners. The budget document will be reviewed during the September 18 meeting. Robin, Joe and Nancy will be available to address any questions or concerns. Thank you. co 0 0 co co H 0 N f3) M 7 O O r) n 0 0) N O O 0o 0 L() 0 O N et O O n CO CO N N 0 0 L!) O O Lf) N (0 0 O N r (O 0 0 0 Ln N O O O L() N N O 0 00 M o (0 U 2 C o as C To m co O w O o c 2 02= .c (o U SU_ o M 1) co co it) O Lf) to Lf) N fA O N (O N n M O N O) (0 (O T to m I co w zi w 0. X w 1- a J 0. 0 0 co a0 co N 0 N 0 0 N O 0 N 10 0) M r n. 0 0 0 M O O O cis n 0) N LO N 0 0 0 0 r 0) N LO N 0 0 O 0 co L() M 0 0 0 N O O O Lf) O 0 CD r 0 N 0 0 0 O O O O L() N 0 CO N co O) oo oo N 0 0 0 N 10 O O O N 0 0 0 0 O M O 0 0 0 Lf) N O O N Ln N CO O O N 1 O 0 0 0 L() N O O O N O O co 0 O N Ln 0 0 0 O 0 O L() N O co 0 O r- un rn 0 0 0 N O O 0 N CO O N 0 0 0 O O 0 r CO 10 rn vr 0 0 N O 0 N CO CO O O 0 0 0 LO T O O 10 O O N co O O M N O (o 0 0 O 0 a O O O 0 Ln O O) CO O) 0o 0 0 O O O O n r O M N O co (0 0 0 O N N O O O N N O (0 O 0 0 O O O O L() 0 0 Lf) d' O O d' LO CO LO C O O co co O) O co co ce 0 0 0 1 T O O O L() 00 N 0 0 0 0 O) O O O 0) CD 0 N 0 0 O O O Co O) co 0 0 N O N co 00 0 0 L() n O 0 M CO co N N 0 0 0 r O O O O co co N O N 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O L() co. O 0 N 0) O O n co 0 0 0 O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O: 00 0 0 000 000000000000 00`0_ O 0 0 r *-00 0 0 0 0 0 M r (0 0 n 0 0 0 0 d0) d n NON 0 N-ML0(Od'L0(0 0(00 CV*- r T O 0 O O 0 CO O cv d' L() 0 M 0 0 0 Lf) r O O O O O M n ONO 0 0 n LO d' O O M 0 0 r 0 00 O Lf) O Lf) 0 0 00 0 0 (OOMNd'NM O)0)1 (Od'd'n0NMMLoo)M 00 W M 00)C0 CO CO (0 'r M O O O O M M 0) CO M n d' ,c6 N N r LO r O) 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTr 000 LC)OOOON Lf) OOLoL0000.at L0000 06 LOON-. 01(0001- N- N n d' O O) r N M r O O r r N N N r T N r N 0) C 0) O J oS (0 0 0) N 0)0 C _F- Q w Rf 0 EL co co o v 0 76 c w N Q N H off c w ca U a) m a) :C a a a) 0- N c off N= a N U C a) W U c c C w i N a) m` m N (A 8 y a C O C t w L- (A S 2 m 5 o c m a) O W n a) as C co C_ c p. EEs T fl. C e7 N a) 13 N O 7 c (U CIS 0 o- O a) a) (S a) a) J u imEmE�Owm 00 wi -o.Jm CL{ 0 z (0 (n co co w was aC iC w a C 2 tj 0d o J U C as a) .0 y C Q. ID 0(003 2000M (C M CO O N CO Ln f: n d 0 O O N. Ln O O 10 0) 10 O) N O O L() co L() 2 0 0 0. 1�- N M N N 0 N rn tt N CD CD 0) N 0 0 O co 0 0 O N. 0 co co N r O CO O Ln O 0 0 co O N 0 O co (O N M N M co O O N uo co N O 00Lf)M 00000). 0 (0 N (O: 0) (O (O E N N .d 00 LO OONM O O n CO=.. 16-4=1.6W n N O N) co o n O M fro CID n co 10 co yr 10 (O O 10 co n 0 0 O 0 0= (1 01 O; o 0] 1.0 01 O O' N O; L0 ECD C� o a) 141 0) a) (0'Q1 Eclat a) 24t Y: 0`0 0 0) O O N 0) N O 0 coo O) O M r co O O M co O Lf) O N 0 N w cc 1- F z w 0. w J 1- 0 U O E La THE PLANT Total and Estimated 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Equipment Number 2004 cost 2% Additional multiplied life in years Install factor installation by number use minimum 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PRE TREATMENT Hibbon Blowers 2 $10,000 2000 $24,000 10 Grit equipment 1 $24,602 $24,602 10 Grit pumps 2 $6,782 $13,564 5 7 $16,955 Bar Screens 1 $73,167 $73,167 15 -20 SECONDARY BUILDING Basin Diffusers Trn $88,180 $88,180 10 Sludge Zone Mixers $3,570 $14,280 5 10 $17,850 Recycle Pumps $9,729 $38,916 5 10 $48,645 RAS Scum pumps $20,258 $60,774 5 10 $75,968 WAS pumps 1 $27,713 $27,713 5 10 $34,641 Clariflocculator 2 $105,696 $211,392 20+ Floating Covers 1 $68,238 $68,238 2 5 $75,062 $85,298 Spencer Blowers 2 $121,500 $243,000 20+ SLUDGE HANDLING Hibbon blowers 3 $26,463 3000 $88,389 10 Submerged Turbine 2 $57,200 10000 $134,400 15 -20 Centrifuge 1 $293,700 50000 $343,700 15 Grinder Pumps 2 $16,867 $33,734 7 10 $45,541 Polymer System 1 $23,154 $23,154 20+ HVAC SYSTEM Total system 1 $320,520 $320,520 On going $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $8,000 150 gal water heaters 3 $3,060 $9,180 8 WATER SYSTEM Pumps 4 $3,000 500 $14,000 5 10 $17,500 UV SYSTEM Bulbs 60 $200 $12,000 2 4 $13,200 $14,400 $16,200 Ballast cards 30 $1,200 $36,000 2 4 $39,600 $43,200 $48,600 Glass covers 30 $150 $4,500 2 4 $4,950 $5,400 $6,075 OTHER ROOF 1 $192,000 $192,000 25 30 PAINT EXTERIOR 1 $200,000 $200,000 8 12 EXTERIOR CONCRETE 1 $300,000 $300,000 25 35 TOTAL PER YEAR $132,812 $5,000 $68,000 $301,856 $5,000 $124,416 CUMULATIVE TOTAL $132,812 $137,812 $205,812 $507,668 $512,668 $637,084 ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION $360,000 8360,000 $360,000 $360,000 $360,000 $360,000 NET CASH FLOW $227,188 $582,188 $874,188 $932,332 $1,287,332 $1,522,916 JOINT FACILITIES WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPITAL RESERVE PLAN 2004 EXPENDITURES: Secondary Treatment Rebuild anoix zone mixers Sludge Handling Submerged Turbine Soft Start-hold over from construction Water System Repair non potable water UV System Bulbs Compressor replacement 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 7,155 4,329 2,673 1,264 1,875 $7,155 $10,141 Y co rncnv 0; NI-0 fw COON 4 V N O 0 O N O U E 0 0 O V O N L X_ N E C) X 3 .c 0 E v m 0 t d a a 0 0 0 m m o c 0 0 m E 0 a E =E c m gk mm w E z t 6= T N Z O N W e0 o O `m d U 0 W 0) o) 16000 619'0£8 Z4L'9£18 199'188 1 490'099 909'ES18 006'919 999908 000'0£9 000'109 901'01$ 000'16$ 1 000'005'9 1 000'9199 000'0949 00900 993'499 000'008 L$ 901 900 8$ %001( 5000 400'64$ 000'84$ BZLY0$ 099 809 0909119 $77,832 $121,548 481'094$ 904'999 000'984$ 9L1 "9019 811'9119 800'94$ 000'0£$ 000'809 000'40$ 1 000'6$ 000'0L$ '04'810'0$ 181'8169 000908'13 E 2'106'99 %9LI 6100 040 8019 101009 $154,315 924,990 199091.9 001 999 948,498 118'6119 000'900$ 9601,475 959,035 590'919 000 Oa 009'439 000' 109 918'1$ 000'099 000'08£$ 909'180'0$ 161.17E11.9 000908'19 6089069$ 909 I 4100 £06'9£$ 000 9E9 94£909 OZ4'109 010'001$ 191'469 4LE'899 $41,570 190'0019 599'ZE IS 000'01$ 000'13$ 000'819 091'9$ 000'49$ $782,734 161'914'1$ 000990$ £00'408'19 %S4 01.00 000'89 1 000689 109'808'19 000'09£$ 698'140'1$ %04[ 0100 0E9'969 098'019 000'8$ 000983$ 980'9609 91,033,469 $360,000 $1,486,531 %9£[ 1100 I L49'S4$ 000'89 000'919 91099 009'84$ 914 401$ 916'009'19 000'09E9 480 1E98 %0EI 0100 000'98 000 9$ ZEE'180'1$ 000'09£9 899 %93 6000 S96 91$ 896'91$ 949'84$ 149'409 1 ..860'98$ 000'9$ 009 998 1069 $507,668 $360,000 $932,332 %001 8000 000'99 00 818 004'9$ 000'649 000899 881 5189 000'09£$ 018'9009 %91 1000 000'98 000 5$ 681'0899 0009969 ZL81619 %0 9003 I 090919 00.$ 096'4$ 009'609 011.6 881'1009 000'09E9 Z18'Z£L9 Pelewgs91 wnwlulw esn sreA u! 6111 00 00-91 L 9 OL -9 01 O 1 -9 01 -9 O3 O 1-9 OZ S-Z 00-91 01 01 -L +91 00 01-9 4-Z.. 7 NN OE 93 90 90 31 -8 13111 0.1. multi lied by number 309'438 000'409 191'618 499'018 080 41$ 081'88$ LL' 09$ 916'869 Z6E 110$ ELL 1Z$ '.,000'640$ 8E0'998 001/4E19 68£'889 o 491'008 081'69 1 O09'0069 000'41$ 000. 009'49 000969 000'0618 000'0069 000'0008 Additional installation 0000 I 00001 000E 00009 009 1 2004 cost 2% Install factor 009'408 000919 $6 782 973 167 0L9'6$ 081'688 890'009 601'68 9699019 011 1 009'4319 800'89$ 000'198 094'909 $293,700 $16,867 591008 090'69 00990£9 000'69 0008 0919 000'18 1 000'3619 000'000$ 000'0008 JegwnN NeNe el a{ MeNeN ONI—Ne eV, cr 1 09 I0E OE Equipment Hibbon Blowers Grit equipment Grit pumps Bar Screens Basin Diffusers Sludge Zone Mixers Recycle Pumps RAS Scum pumps WAS pumps Clariflocculalor Floating Covers Spencer Blowers Hibbon blowers Submerged Turbine Centrifuge Grinder Pumps Polymer System Total system 150 gal water heaters sdwnd sgin8, Ballast cards Glass covers dOOli PAINT EXTERIOR EXTERIOR CONCRETE THE PLANT PRE TREATMENT SECONDARY BUILDING SLUDGE HANDLING HVAC SYSTEM 'WATER SYSTEM UV SYSTEM 83111O TOTAL PER YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION NET CASH FLOW Y co rncnv 0; NI-0 fw COON 4 V N O 0 O N O U E 0 0 O V O N L X_ N E C) X 3 .c 0 E v m 0 t d a a 0 0 0 m m o c 0 0 m E 0 a E =E c m gk mm w E z t 6= T N Z O N W e0 o O `m d U 0 W 0) o) Laughlin Water ENGINEERS, LTD. July 31, 2008 Fraser Sanitation District c/o Mr. Joe Fuqua, Superintendent P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: SITE APPLICATION ACCELERATED AERATED LAGOON Dear Joe: Furnished attached are five copies of the Amendment of an with accompanying supporting letters. This should be signed by Drew, as District President, at the be forwarded to the listed entities for review and signature. consecutively or you can send separate sets to each and pages. greiW Ronald C. McLaughlin, P.E. Enclosure: Site Application (5 sets) cc: John Walker, Attorney Existing Site Application, together bottom of page 3. It then needs to Note: you can route one copy then just combine all signature Comments: 1. Management Agency I think this is the Fraser Sanitation District on behalf of JFOC. 2, 3. Fraser only Town within three miles; plus Grand County. 4. If Grand County has Health Department, then send one to them, 5. I think NWCOG is 208 Agency for Grand County (might check with Lurline). 6. No other Federal Agencies. Please cal if you have questions. Very truly yours, McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 2300 15th Street, Suite 220 Denver, CO 80202 T 303.964.3333 F 303.964.3355 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246 -1530 (303) 692-3574 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SITE LOCATION APPROVAL (Section 22. 8( 2)( a), (b)(i)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi),(c),(d), and (e) Regulation No. 22) Applicant: Fraser Sanitation District Address: P.O. Box 120, 153 Fraser Ave. City, State, zip: Fraser, CO. 80442 Email Address frasersan Primary Contact (for project inquiries): Joe Fuqua, Superintendent Consulting Engineer: Ronald J. McLaughlin Address: 2300 15` Street, #220 City, State, zip: Denver, CO. 80202 Email Address timm@mweltd.com Phone: 970 -531 -1230 Phone: 970 531 1230 Phone: 303 964 -3333 Site Approval Number: 4589 Site Approval Date: March8, 2002, September 21,2005 (amendment) 2. Permitted treatment plant capacity: Requested treatment capacity: Hydraulic: 2.0 MGD gal/day Hydraulic: 2.499 MGD gal/day (maximum monthly average) Organic: 4170 lb. /day lbs. BOD /day Organic: 5,600 lb. /day lbs. BOD /day If an increase in rated capacity of the treatment plant is being requested, include an engineering evaluation of the plant's treatment capacity as well as its ability to meet all applicable effluent limitations at the higher rated capacity. 3. Current treatment process: Pretreatment, activated sludge, clarification, disinfection Proposed treatment process modifications: Rehabilitate accelerated lagoon, parallel to existing process 4. Current type of discharge: Surface discharge to watercourse (list receiving watercourse) Fraser River Subsurface disposal: Land Application: Evaporation: Evapo- transpiration: WQCD -3d (Revised 6/06) Page 1 of 3 Other: (List) click here and type Proposed type of discharge: Surface discharge to watercourse (list receiving watercourse) Fraser River State water quality classification of proposed receiving watercourse: Aq Life, Cold 1, Recreation la Water Supply Agriculture Subsurface disposal: Land Application: Evaporation: Evapo- transpiration: Other: (List) click here and type 5. Current location of discharge (stream segment and legal description): SE 1/4, NE1 /4, Sec. 18,T 1S, R 7W Proposed location of discharge (stream segment and legal description): Segment 10 6. Please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your amendment request: The accelerated Lagoon has been permitted previously at .7MGD. This amendment requests the permitted capacity for the Lagoon to be .499 MGD (after rehabilitation). The 2002 Approved letter and subsequent coorespondence is attached. B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency, send the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review. click here and type WQCD -3d (Revised 6/06) Page 2 of 3 C. Request submitted to the following governmental entities: The application shall be forwarded to the planning agency of the city, town, or county in whose jurisdiction(s) the treatment works is to be located and to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the area in which the facilities are to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. Please list below those entities to whom copies of this application have been provided as well as the date on which the application was transmitted to each entity. These entities shall be allowed 15 working days from receipt of the request to comment directly to the Water Quality Control Division. If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303) 692 -3574. Entity Agency Name Date Sent 1. Management Agency: (If different from entities listed below) 2. County: (If site is outside located in an unincorporated area of the County) 3. City or Town: (If site is located within 3 miles of the boundaries of a City or Town) 4. Local Health Authority: 5. 208 Planning Agency: 6. Other State or Federal Agencies: (If facility would be located adjacent any land owned or managed by state or federal agency) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works Date August 2008 Drew Matteson Signature of Applicant* Typed Name and Title *The applicant must sign this form. The Consulting Engineer cannot sign this form. WQCD -3d (Revised 6/06) Page 3 of 3 OM Mar, Jr., Governor James grin. t✓KCCadiiVe Director Dedi ,ted to ttsatecffnti and freor'iwing Ina health and envi orrrn n1 of the people of Ctriorndo Cherry Creak Dr. S. Denvvr, Coiorado m2484 saa Phone 1) t TDD Line (30) tr'91 -77OQ 1,ccatioe in Glendale. Womb httpti!WWw.OdpheAtata.CO.Us Steamboat Springs Area Office 410 South. Lincoha Avenue, Suite A-5 Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 Phone: 97 -879- 7479. FAX: 970- 871M194 March rew,pokt @state,co.us 11, 2008 Ron Anderson Fraser Sanitation District PO x 89 Fraser, CO 80442 Subject: Compliance Inspection of Wastewater Treatment Facility (CD?S No. CO-0040142) and Jzcsv1ds Ismer:ti i1 Use A )...or` .ion site; Fraser Sarutation District; land CouritY Dear Mr. Arden: This letter serves to report the results of the compliance inspection conducted by the Enghnee r g Sect ion of the Water Quality Control Division "the Division on the above-referenced facility On February 19, 2008. The assistance °f Joe Fuqua was very helpful and greatly appreciated. I have enulased a copy of the inspection reports for your records. DOMESTIf WASTEWATER SYSTEM, Violations During the inspection, no violations of your discharge permit' were noted. Permit Issues These items may assist the Division during the next discharge renewal or to provide clarification for an endment to the cunt& permit. During the inspection, we oboe ved the following facility conditions that are not amorately represented in the permit: 1. The plant is using caustic soda as a feed to maintahi 'am sty dining nitrification. if t practice is to continue, itt should be gated firto the permit. Alkalinity addition does appear teary, based on review of ant alkalinity anti limited denitrinoation. e During t inspection Eat-rep or ted compliance data contained in your diselia.rge monkoring reports (DMR) were reviewed/discussed from January 2007 to January 2008 and no violations or issues w discovered. rted Data Review Labortitary SS:vicas Ddlslon 8100 Lowry I Wvd. Denver, Coiotadn 8=30 -695 =303) 892^..809b STATE OF COLD Colorado Dopermte; o Health d1MM GSA t2Z969ZLOL6 try :EZ 800Z/5Z/t0 Page 2 O t h e r U� n�lR owing a um The following are observations, crow, and/or recommendations ns o y and require tie written response on your part. The recommendations wffi enable y cur system to better conform to mineable design criteria or other in.dustry standards: 1. It was noted that you are studying soda ash as a re-plowmen for the onus& used at the hdworks. While this chemical is safer than handling sodium hydroxide. ii Iias its own set of feeding difficulties. You may want to contact Dale filer at the Copper Mountain Mew District at 970 968 -2B9OE He bas an existing soda ash dry feeder that he no longer uses. He has switched to magnesium hydroxide. 2. it was also noted that the plant is i✓nited in their ability to denitrify. Durbig our discussion, Mr. Fuqua and I both commented on what might needed to allow the plant to denitrify. Mixhig With no anion in the sludge reaeration zone might be a possibility. Further discussion with the pima engineer would be required to pursue this option further. 3_ Your engineer sent a letter to this office recently stating that the "Accelerated Ativated" lagoon train was to be rehabilitated. The letter suggested that the rehab would not require site approval. That is 'Meowed based on the site approval letter dated September 21, 2005 that de-rated the facility to 2.0 MGD. Site approval and design review for This project is required. 1 will zuspoed to your engineer to elm y this situation and include you on the copy list. 4. The testing performed on the old lagoon indicates that biosolids 'have been adequately removed_ A closes plan must be submitted diet addresses the wing items require by the proposed Lagoou Decontraissionheg Policy. 1 have attaalied a copy of the policy so that you can prepare the fit B10 0 j►� E OStIZATI N t S:` CT The facility was inspected t e confirm its complemee with the biosolids beneficial use autimeization requirements, Finings of the inspection are noted below: No vktlations were noted during the inspection_ The facility appears to be in fall compliance with the biosolids bent -vial use authorization, iqUirenients. Comments And Itecommrnsintions The following are comments and/or recommendations only and. require no written response on your pant. The recommendations will enable your system to better cones to applicable design criteria or other industry mss: 80 BJdd L The biosolids dated at the tacitly from the old lagoons appear to meet Clare A pia. Reminders Soniaairy sewer overflows (SSO) and any other spills are required by law to be reported to the Department within 24 lours of discovery_ The ms's 24 hour tole number for spill reporting is 8775184608 d1MM asd tZ9693L0L6 l :EI 8003/9Z/170 NW 3 Construction of interceptor sewers, stations, 4 trealment piontA, including modification/expansion of existing facilities, requires site and design approval Most, rogulations, guidance documents, and forms are available via Internet on the Department's website, Please link to www.cdphe_state,co,us/wq for further information. You can link directly to the Engineering Section's webpages at -tv crin tec Attached to this letter you will find a Customer Satisfaction. Survey, We would greatly appreeiate it if you would take a few momes to complete this surveY Ta—vi eturn it to us. Sivply fill out the fouu, fold it according to the directions and drop it in the mail The postage is already paid! If you have any questions, please contact me at 970-879-7479. 'thank you for your time and cooperation Sincerely, Andy Poirot, District Engineer Engineering Section. Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Encl.: osolids Inspection Form CDT'S Facility Inspection report Sanitary Sewer Overflow Evaluation Form Draft Lagoon Demmnissioning Policy Customer Satisfaction Survey 60 3Ed Lurline Unarkrbrink Clorani Grand County Manager Scott Pengon, Grand County Sanitarian igglie Simpson, Cetalti Seetion, WOCD-Denver/Fik Kenan Diker, Blosolids Program, WQCD-Denver Lee Hanley, US EPA 8ENF-T Tom &Wier, WOCD-Grandfunetion ditelM GSA 039693L0L6 VG:EI 800Z/S3/170 4300 Cherry Creak Dr. 8, Denver, Colorado 60246 -1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 TDD Line (303) 891 -7700 Looated in Glendale, Colorado http: /www.cdphe.state.ca.us September 21, 2005 Ronald Anderson, President Fraser Sanitation District FO Box 120 Fraser, Colorado 80442 Re: Site Application Amendment Approval #4589 Grand County Dear Mr. Anderson: 60 39'd Laboratory Services Division 3100 Lowry Blvd, Denver. Colorado 80230.6828 (303) 692 -3090 d1MM GSA STATE OF COLO Sill Owens, Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Colorado Department of Public Re 1th and Envitotmican The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed and evaluated your site application amendment and supporting documentatidn to reduce the wastewater treatment plant capacity located in the Southeast 1/4, Northeast x/4, Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 75 West, serving the Fraser Sanitation District, the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District, and the Grand County Water and Sanitation District and discharge to the Fraser River. We find your application to be in conformance with the Water Quality Control Commission's "Regulations for the Site Application Process Therefore, the site application is approved with the following conditions listed. below. 1. Based upon application information, the treatment plant design will be for: Hydraulic Design Capacity 2.0 MGD ;40 Organic Capacity w- 4,170 lbs. BOD5 Treatment processes to be used Pretreatment, nitrification in dual activated sludge basins with clarilflocculators followed by UV disinfection. Design for values in excess of those contained in the condition above, or failure to comply with any other conditions contained herein, will render this approval void and another site application will have to be processed. 2. All other conditions and limitations of the Division's approval of the Fraser Sanitation District #4589 shall remain in effect and are hereby incorporated as conditions of this amendment. tZ969ZLOL6 129:61 8003 /9Z /b0 Fraser Sanitation District Site Application Amendment #4589 In accordance with Colorado Water Quality Control Commission regulations, this ap to appeal as stated under Section 22.3 (15) of "Site Application and Design Approva Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works This approval does not relieve the owner from compliance with all Federal, State, or prior to construction nor from responsibility for proper engineering, construction, an facility. Attached to this letter you will fmd a Customer Satisfaction Survey. We would gre you would take a few moments to complete this survey and return it to us. Simply fold it according to the directions and drop it in the mail. The postage is already pat your time. Sincerely, Steven H. Gunderson Director Water Quality Control Division SHG :rkk Enclosure cc: Robert J. Anderson, P.E., ASCG Inc. 12596 W. Bayaud Averi e, Suite 200, Lakewood, Colorado 80228 w /survey 1 Northwest Regional Council of Governments Grand County Andy Poirot, District Engineer, WQCD Kent Kuster, Environmental Protection Specialist, WQCD rbval is subject Regulations for ocal regulations operation of the ly appreciate it if 1 out the form, Thank you for STATE OF COLD Blll Owens. Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedkwedt painting and Improving i helnahk and edvlromenr oh. peopleofeolorado Steamboat Springs Office 410 S. Lincoln Ave., Ste A-5 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487 -5006 Phone: (970) 879.7479 FAX: (970) 871 .0194 http:/lwww.cdphe.staiaco.u January 25, 2005 Robert J, Anderson, PE ASCG Inc. 12596 W. Bayaud Ave, Suite 2Q0 Lakewood, CO 80228 RE: Recent Letter to Mark Pifher Regarding Fraser SD Expansion Dear Mr. Anderson: Colorado t Public lielath and Environment In response to your letter of January 21, 2005 to Mark Pifher regarding the site approval of the Fraser SD wastewater plant, I would like to offer the following comments: 1. Your letter cannot serve as a site application amendment request. The proper forms must be filled out appropriately and sent to pertinent review agencies for their comments. This must be done before sending the site application amendment our website at: h site application amendment ac package to our office. The original our Denver office with a cpo �6e with original signatures should be sent to Kent Duster forms and guidance can be found in our Guidance Document for site s office. All the required c a n be found on our which can ://www.cd phe .state.co.us/w /tech/techhom.html. 2. If you desire to receive approval for 2.499 MGD now, the equipment must be your inst assure that your facility can process 2.499 MGD. It is not the ulled pmeto when the facility reaches 80% of 2.0 MOD. If you would like acceptable maintain the 2.499 MG t capacity, a compliance schedule could be added to y en MGD equipment must be added, but it does to document when the provide a regulatory deadline that you must meet. 3. I recommend reducing the site approval capacity to 2.0 MGD. This would allow for plenty of capacity now and would expedite the issuance of a for this facility (with no compliance schedule for construction). You could still go ahead and seal the SBR basin and be able to use it for emergency storage. When you reach 80% of ca aci site application for expansion to 2.499 or even 2.7 MGD and then i install the you ro d file a equipment. pp priate I believe item 3 provides the best solution to your needs at the current time. Please contact me here in the Steamboat Office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Andy Poirot, P,E, District Engineer Water Quality Control Division, Technical Services Unit Cc; Dent I(uster, WQCD- Denver Lynn Kimble, WQCD Denver Tom Schaffer, WQCD -Grand Junction Alison Naschak, Fraser SD Joe Fuqua, Fraser SD Bruce Hutchins, Grand County 1 W &SD Kirk Klancke, Winter Park West W &SD Mr. Mark Pifher Colorado m rtment of Public Health Environment Water Quality Protection Section/Permits Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 -1530 90 S0tid June 29.2004 RE: Fraser Sa `I' on District, Grand County No. 1 Water and District, and Wiinter Park West Water and Sanitation Dlatrtct Consul Wastewater Treatment Plant nsion Site Application Requirements, Dear Mr. r bnneers an ASCG Company r, 1 On behalf of the Re er Senifaliori Dished and JFOC, I ern provkleet this response.to requkern•ents et the urtinal,Site Appecafien. M per the Site 'the dated 8v (attached), the is't ,y 6 1 end 7 of the reprinted "6_ Ely June 30, 2004, the applicant shall SIESTA plans for modification of the existing accelerated lagoon including a new decant structure or other means of preventing the discharge of welds into a blended effluent' `T. By June 30, 2004, the applicant shall submit a written report addressing the ability c f any ba keeagoon receiving less man secondary breated wastewater to meet tine requked 1x10 CM/Sec seepage standard. Item 6 has been submitted and reviewed by Andy Poirot of the CDPHE Steamboat Springs +office. >n regards to item 7, we had originally planned on conducting a leak test for the existing aceelerated lagoon (Sequencing Batch Reactor) concrete basin in June of this year and submit the results ed this time. However, Joe Fuqua TP Superintendent) and Andy Poirot (CDPHE) +discussed this pun and there was a concern that the curm+ent ekeiated groundwater levels may impact the test rte. Thereecete the basin test has been delayed to this Fall, September 2004, when the groundwater levels are loW and the test wit be more indicetive of the actual basin integrity. The test resells will be summarized and presented to CDPHE. If the test results indicate the basin is leaking, a plan for repair will also be provided_ The test results and, if needed, a plan for repair will be provided to CDPHE no later than November 2004. if repairs are needed, these repairs will be implemented in 2005. I have discussed and confirmed this plan with Andy Poirot. q) PA11)681138-0121Fraser WWTP Exp. consnco,mstACDPHEM r.aoo 12596 WEST DAVID AVE. /200' fAKEWOOD, CCXc* 00 X28 lime; 303.459.5550 Nic 303490.9765 d1MM GSA 1Z969ZL0L6 05 :ET 8002/9Z/b0 ZO 39Vd June 29, 2004 Fraser Sanitation District Au; Ron Anderson 153 Fraser AvelP.O. Box 89 Fraser, CO 80442 R:. Fraser S Grand County No. I Water tatd S and Winter West Water and S Tr t E 1 11 2.0 MGD Ad Dear 1;ton! As at the Ione IFOC 1 have eoutacted ppm cetticern th construction schedule for the SBR Issiprovernents. The Site Applic' dice includes the following Ointment: 'This site application will expire cue year finan the duteof this Ietter if the conatraction of the project has not commenced by that date" The construction of ihe Platt Evasion communed within the specified one-year tone frame. ...However, the question the '.31 basis howtontis the$itc ,ApOlicationvproValvalid (1.0144413rie coMploste the SBR iimProvements in 2005 :and still be in unconlancewith the Site .tiOntatiols)- I Posed this quotation to Andy Poirot with CDPHII. Andy has indicated that as long as there is a clear plan and sehohde fix tbe STIR Improvements. the Improvements can be comploted in 2005 and still be in accordance with the approved Site Application #4589. However, if the District decides, to not pram the Improvements needed to modify the basin into a functioning SBR, we will need to apply for a Site Application amendment to document that change and.hencethe final, permit would be for a 2.0 IVICII) pmt as apposed to a 2.499 MOD Facility. Let me know *Tyco have any questions. We can discuss this in weater detail at the District or HOC Board Meeting. I I an ASCG Company 124allatS r SUPAIVIS cc: Winter Park West Water Sanitation District/Kirk Klancke Grand County 1 Water Sanitation District/Bruce Hutchins Lazier And McGowan, John D 'Walker Fraser Sanitation District/ Joe Fuqua A n d rew Poitou, tDPIXE Steamboat Sprinp Lynn Kin' CDPHE Denver Watt:T Control Division Permits Unit 0 960,66-012Wraser WWI? )121.p. ContinACevregeW3RCorm462904doe 12596VVEST eitiN10 Avt, 200 vA1ON0o0, =DRAW a022 Phone: 303.458.5550 o XIG480.9760 diMM GSA VnG9LOL6 179:ET 8130Z/9Z/t0 Sill Owens, Governor Jane E. Horton, Executiva Director Dedicated to protecting and improving tire health and enVi onfi,ent of the ,people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory and gadiation SeMc Division Denver, Colorado 80245.130 $100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 592 -2000 Denver, Colorado $0230 -6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692 -3090 Located In Glendale, Colorado htt Viwww cdphe.state.[t.vs 141axch 8, 2002 Ron Anderson., President Fraser Sanitation District P.O_ Btnt 120 153 ?x ser Avenue 1'raser, CO 80442 Re: Site Application 045$0 Grand County Dear Mr. A ndecreen: The Water Quality Control Division has reviewed and evaluated your site application and supporting documentation for construction of a wastewater treatment fglty to to locate.d in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, T1S, R15W, to serve the Fraser Sanitation District, the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District; and the Grand County Watt and Sanitation District No, 1, and to discharge to the Purser Raver. Prior to the operation Of the expanded facility, a discharge permit will be rem which will specify the fins€ cnziditions and limitations of the operations of the facility. Enclosed is an application for the permit We fund your applirRfiou to be in confornstace with the Water Quality Control Commission's "Regulation? far the Site Application Pros Therefore, the site application is approved with the following conditions listed below. 1. Based upon application infonuation, the system. design will be for Average Daily Plow Capttty —2,70 tngd Organic Loading Capacity 5,600 lbs. BOD3/day Treatment Processes to be used Nitrifying activated sludge, accelerated aeration lagoon, clarification, ae obie sludge digest n and ultraviolet disinfection 2. Preliminary Extent Parameter Values_ 130% 30/45 '(30 -day/7 -day average) Suspended Solids 30/45u>g/1(30 day'17 average) Fecal Co a-- 4301860 #1100 mi 0 day geometric u ean) Total Ammonia xn.,+gfi as N (30 day h ?'age) Jan., 8.50 May 3.15 Sep —1.70 Peb. -M 8.40 Jae 330 Oct. 1.40 Mar. 4.50 Jrniy 2.25 Nov. L80 Apr. -.1.50 Aug. --1,80 Dec. —10.0 Values based ou previously calculated Preliminary Effluent Unita (PEL *sY for 1.10 rogd facility at the Fraser Sanitation Dxtriot Wastewater Treatment Facility sate, t esig for values in excess of tb.ose contained in co>ulitiota,51 and 2 above, or fait= to comply any act conditions contained herein, will render this approval void and another site applicatieo.will have to be processed. b0 3 Jdd STATE OF COLO d1MM GSA bZ969ZL0L6 t9 :61 8003/9Z/t, Neon Anderson, President Fraser Sanitation District March S, 2002 Page 2 of t �u accordance with Colorado Water qty Control Commission regulations, tris approval is subject to appeal es stated trader Section 22.8 (7) of "Regulations for the Site Applica1io Process". This approval does not relieve the owner from cosnplisnce 'c h all local regulations prior to conimnotion nor fawn respoi ibility for proper engineering, constatotion, and operaticn of the Way_ Sincerely, 3. This site approval will eirpire one year from the date of this letter lithe construction of the project has not commenced by that date. If expiation occurs, you aunt apply for a new site approval. Constrootion is defined as entering into a contract for the erection or physical placement of maincials, equipment, piping, earthwork, ar buildings that are to be a part of a domestic wastewater treatment works. 4. The design (construction plans and specifications) for the treatment works =lathe approved by the Division prior to commencement of construction and 'ad r<orastactioat then& orders init Ming variances from the approved plans and specifications east be approved by the 1 ivision- The applicants registered a ter moat famish a statement prior to the comrnenzexnent of op ration staling that the facilities were constntcted ire eoafonosance with approved plan, specifications, tmd Shang ordcjS. 5. 7anc 30, 2004, the applicant shrub sift plans for modification of the existing accel0rated lagoon htckoding a new decant structure or other means ofpo venting the discharge of solids into a blended effluent_ 7. By Imo 30, 2004, the applicant shall sand' a written report addressing the ability of any basin/lagoon receiving less than secondary treated wastewater to meet the required 1x10' cmisee Seepage standard. David Rona Director Water Quality Control Division JDN :ttb cc: Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District Attn. Gary Cooper Gad County Water and Sanitation D No. 1- -Attn. Bruce Ibitebias Grand City Board of County Commissioners Attn. Duane Dailey Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Attu_ Robert 1 ay "'NMoLartglilin Water &ginoere, Ltd. Attn. Robert Anderson, P.E. Thomas Brett, Eirvirouraental Protection Sf ecialia WQCD Jim Cimbrilo, District Ron mot, WQCD- Steamboat Springs Susan Nachtrieb, Permits Unit Manager, WQCD Bill Mane, "Upper Colorado Watershed Coordinator, WQCD Plant operator Certification Board, CDPl 50 3J'd d1MM QS.d V39693L0L6 129a8Z 8003f9Zlb0 HUDSON'S BAY CENTRE 1 600 STOUT STREET, SUITE 1 700 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 MAIN LINE: 303.893.1815 FACSIMILE: 303.893.1829 CARVER SCHWARZ MCNAB BAILEY, LLC MEMORANDUM To: Bruce Hutchins, Mike Wageck, Joe Fuqua and Kirk Klancke Date: August 8, 2008 Re: Summary of Upper Colorado River Basin Triennial Review The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize for you and your Boards the results of the recently completed triennial review of the Water Quality Control Commission's WQCC's) Regulation 33, which establishes the stream classifications and water quality standards for the Upper Colorado River Basin. Both the stream classifications (i.e., aquatic life, recreation, water supply and agriculture) and water quality standards are set on a stream segment basis. Prior to the triennial review, the Fraser River was a single segment from the headwaters to the confluence with the Colorado River (Segment 10). In the triennial review, the WQCC re- issues the Regulation 33 tables setting forth the segments, stream classifications and numeric water quality standards for various physical and biological, inorganic and metals parameters. The WQCC also issues a Statement of Basis and Purpose, which narratively explains the reasons for the WQCC's determination. The four Upper Fraser water and sanitation districts participated in the triennial review proceeding primarily because of concerns related to the temperature standard. The Temperature Standard Prior to the Triennial Review DAVID A. BAILEY dbailey @cksmb.com 303.893.1827 As a result of its revision of the temperature standard in January 2007, the WQCC had established a default temperature standard of 17° C in the summer and 9° C in the winter. The WQCC also determined, however, that this standard could be modified on a segment -by- segment basis as part of successive triennial review proceedings. The Upper Colorado (Reg 33) and Lower Colorado (Reg 37) triennial reviews were the first triennial reviews after the 2007 rulemaking on the temperature standard. 1 Oa Mainstem of the Fraser River from the source to a point immediately below the Rendezvous Bridge. All tributaries to the Fraser River, including wetlands, from the source to the confluence with the Colorado River, except for those tributaries included in Segment 9. 10b Mainstem of the Fraser River from a point immediately below the Rendezvous Bridge to a point immediately below the Hammond Ditch. 10c Mainstem of the Fraser River from a point immediately below the Hammond Ditch to the confluence with the Colorado River. Key Facts Related to the Fraser River Segmentation of the Fraser River as a single segment was unrealistic given the elevation and geographic differences (i.e., from a woody overstory to the open meadow to the canyon) between the upper and lower reaches of the Fraser River. The temperature in the Fraser River ranges from very cold to cold to cool in a downstream direction. This transition is also reflected in the fish community with brook trout in the upper reaches and a mixed cold water fishery in the lower reaches of both game (rainbow and brown trout) and non -game (sculpin, suckers) species. The temperature of the discharge from the WPWSD wastewater treatment plant is consistently below 10° C (and much colder than this in the winter) and, therefore, could meet the WQCC's default temperature standard on a year -round basis. Based on very limited data, the discharge from the consolidated plant ranges from 8- 11 C in the winter and to a maximum of about 16° C in the summer. Neither the WPWSD plant nor the consolidated WWTP contribute to exceedances of the temperature standard for the Fraser River. Results of the Triennial Review Segmentation The districts and the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) agreed that a single segment for the Fraser River was inappropriate. It was important to the WQCD to divide the segments into "distinct segments at specific landmarks and hydrologic breaks that represent shifs in floodplain characteristics." Reg. 33 Statement of Basis and Purpose for the Fraser River. Following negotiations, the parties decided on the following segmentation: Therefore, the WPWSD wastewater treatment plan is in segment 10a, and the consolidated WWTP is in segment 10c. The Rendezvous Bridge is located roughly at the former confluence of Leland Creek and the Fraser River (because of the Rendezvous Cornerstone development, this confluence does not really exist anymore). 2 Stream Temperature Standards For segment 10a, the WQCC adopted the temperature standards associated with "Cold Stream Tier I," which are primarily intended to accommodate the presence of brook trout. The temperature standards for "CS -I" are: June September October -May Maximum Weekly Average Temperature Daily Maximum 17.0° C 21.2° C 9.0° C 13.0° C Because of the presence of different fish species (e.g., brown trout, rainbow trout, sculpin) in segments 10b and 10c, the temperature standards are referred to as "Cold Stream Tier II" or "CS -II." The temperature standards for CS -II are: Maximum Weekly Average Temperature Daily Maximum April October 18.2° C 23.8° C October -May 9.0° C 13.0° C Even though the classifications and standards for the two lower segments are the same, the Statement of Basis and Purpose recognizes that the "stream's physical and biological characteristics are substantially different." The Statement of Basis and Purpose also states: The existing temperature data demonstrate a small number of exceedances of the CS -II TVS [table value standards] in segment 10b and numerous exceedances of the CS -II TVS in segment 10c, causing uncertainty regarding attainment of the CS-II TVS in these segments. The data indicate no significant effect of discharges of municipal effluent on stream temperature. The Commission intends to revisit the temperature standards for segments 10b and 10c in 2013 [the next triennial review].' It is anticipated that the ongoing biological and temperature monitoring will provide information to lessen the uncertainties regarding the appropriate long -term stream classifications and temperature standards. Although the Statement is not specific on this issue, both the WQCC and the WQCD recognize that the temperature of the Fraser River in the summer is due to transbasin and in -basin diversions of water out of the river. 1 The term "triennial review" (which is taken from the federal Clean Water Act) implies review of the stream classifications and water quality standards every three years; however, the WQCC starts the rulemaking process within three years of the preceding triennial review, but does not hold a rulemaking hearing until five years after the preceding triennial review hearing. Hence, the next triennial review for Regulation 33 will be in 2013. 3 Temporary Modification The WQCC's temporary modification regulation states that a temporary modification is appropriate: [W]here there is significant uncertainty regarding the appropriate long -term underlying standard e.g. due to the need for additional information regarding the extent to which existing quality is the result of natural or irreversible human induced conditions or regarding the level of water quality necessary to protect current and /or future uses and the adoption of a temporary modification recognizes current conditions while providing an opportunity to resolve the uncertainty. WQCC Regulation 31.7(3). The districts originally requested a temporary modification of the temperature standard for segment 10c of the Fraser River, not because the districts' discharges were contributing to exceedances of the temperature standard for the Fraser, but to regulatorily recognize that "human- induced conditions" were significantly affecting the ability of the river to meet the temperature standard. Notwithstanding the plain language of the temporary modification regulation, the WQCD prefers to administer temporary modifications only where a permitted discharge (like the districts' wastewater treatment plants) cannot comply with effluent limitations or stream standards. Therefore, the WQCD opposed inclusion of any temporary modification for segment 10c. Ultimately, the districts withdrew their request for a temporary modification in exchange for inclusion of statements in the Statement of Basis and Purpose that: (1) the Fraser River was a transitional stream in which stream temperature increased in a downstream direction; (2) recognized that the districts' discharges did not contribute to exceedances of the temperature standard; and (3) recognized that stream classifications and temperature standards may need to be revised in the future to reflect actual conditions on the river. Future Steps The primary steps the districts should take between now and the next triennial review are to obtain a better database of both instream temperatures and the temperature of the discharge from the two plants. The districts should also conduct biological monitoring on a periodic basis (maybe every other year). Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. 4 aughlin Water ENGINEERS, LTD. July 31, 2008 Fraser Sanitation District c/o Mr. Joe Fuqua, Superintendent P.O. Box 120 153 Fraser Avenue Fraser, Colorado 80442 RE: WWTP Aeration Equipment Dear Joe: During our field trip to the plant we discussed aeration problems and all concluded that the addition of a small blower would be beneficial. The addition of a smaller blower would have two principal advantages: 1. You could better control (reduce) Dissolved Oxygen before the anoxic basin. During low demand periods, even with their turndown capabilities, the large blowers increase the D.O. level, thus impeding subsequent denitrification. 2. The smaller blower would be adequate during low flow periods and thus reduce power consumption. For plants serving recreational areas, we have found that even when max day loads approach plant capacity there will be long periods of very low flows. To optimize plant operation and reduce power consumption, the operator should have an unusually wide range of aeration capacity. The smaller blower would be installed adjacent to the existing blowers, at a previously designated location. We have contacted Spencer Turbine (manufacturer of the existing blowers) and received a quotation from them (attached). The District should budget approximately $180,000 (using a variable frequency drive) for this installation. We recommend that the District authorize purchase and installation of this improvement. We are probably legally required to prepare a bid package and competitively bid the installation. Very truly yours, McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. Ronald C. McLaughlin, P.E. L.S. Enclosure: Spencer Quotation McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. 2300 15 Street, Suite 220 Denver, CO 80202 T 303.964.3333 F 303.964.3355 P: \PROJECTS\Fraser San Dist 07- 04 \Corresp \RCM to JF re-WWTP Aeration Equip.dot Sfm° 9892 Spencer Budget Quotation To: McLaughlin Engineers Attn: Jim McLaughlin From: Bill Percival Date: 7/25/08 Re: Spencer Power Mizer Blower for Fraser, CO Spencer Quote No.: WW9708018 Bill Percival Sr. Sales Application Engineer Municipal Sales Department The Spencer Turbine Co. 600 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095 Phone: (860)- 688 8361x331 Fax: (860)- 688 -0098 Email: wpercival @spencer- air.com Thank you for your request for a budget quotation. I hope the following is useful to you. Requirement: 800 scfm -0 567 icfm at 7.2 psig. inlet conditions are 80 °F 10.703 psia, RH 36 Selection: Spencer Power Mizer high efficiency cast iron multi -stage centrifugal blower, model number CS2106T1. Curve and Dimensions, (use CS210), are attached. Scope of Supply: Qty. (1) Spencer Power Mizer Blower, model no. CS2106T1IA1 with coupling and guard, mounted on common base. Oil lubricated bearings are equipped with temperature and vibration sensors wired to base mounted junction box. 60HP 460V ODP premium efficient motor, VFD- compatible with winding RTDs is also included. Qty. (1) Control/Protection panel with PLC in a NEMA 12 enclosure. Qty. (1) Modification of existing MCP to incorporate staging and control of new blower Qty. (1) 60 HP VFD, 18- Pulse, NEMA 1 enclosure Qty. (1) Blower Flow Meter Qty. (1) 8" Inlet Filter Silencer, cartridge type Qty. (1) 8" Inlet Expansion Joint, single arch Qty. (1) 8" Discharge Expansion Joint, single arch Qty. (1) 8" Check Valve Qty. (1) Blower Inlet Temperature Sensor Qty. (1) CT Qty. (1) ASME PTC10 code test, (constant speed) Freight Startup Assistance Installation check, startup, aeration system tuning and training,. Budget Price: The price for this equipment is $130, 650.00 Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything else I can do for you. Thanks and Regards, Series 2500 Dimensions Inches Dimensions are approximate (mm) and intended for reference only. Model No. CS22 CS23 CS24 CS25 CS26 CS27 CS28 CS29 CS210 No. of Stages 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6" INLET 1.00 (25.4) KORFUND PAD Dimensions 8 5" OUTLET Weight without motor inches mm inches mm lb kg 12.00 305 59 1499 913 414 15.25 387 67 1702 1101 499 18.50 470 67 1702 1290 585 21.85 565 76 1930 1478 670 25.00 635 76 1930 1667 756 28.25 718 84 2134 1855 841 31.50 800 84 2134 2044 927 34.75 883 94 2388 2232 1012 38.00 965 94 2388 2421 1098 Direction of Rotation c 20.50 (521) 35.25 (895) 6 (152 30.875_ (784) 14.375 11.50 (365) (292) 24.5 (622) 28.75 (730) *May vary depending on motor size For Customer Approval Certified Correct Date: Signed: Customer Name: Customer Order No.: Project Name: Sales Order No.: The Spencer manufactures and markets a complete line of multi -stage centrifugal blowers and exhausters with cast or fabricated construction. For selection assistance, contact your local Spencer representative or The Spencer Turbine Company at marketing @spencer air.com. Blowers Vacuum Systems with an Engineering Edge Turbine Company, 600 Day Hill Road, Windsor, CT 06095 -4706 TEL 800 232 -4321 0 860 688 -8361 o FAX 860 688 -0098 o www.spencerturbine.com Bulletin No. TDS -815.1 Copyright ©2007 The Spencer Turbine Company 0907KBA Materials of Construction Casing and heads: cast iron Class 30 Tie rods: zinc plated 1035 steel Interstage sealing: silicone rubber Shaft: AISI 1144 carbon steel Impellers: ASTM A319 cast aluminum Base: A36 structural steel Finish: epoxy primer with urethane topcoat Base pads: 1" thick cork and synthetic rubber Performance Range Series 2500 Blowers Performance at Standard Density (Air at 68 °F, Relative Humidity of 36 Inlet Pressure 14.7 psia) 3550 rpm FLOW RATE (Ms/hr) 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 340 680 1019 1359 1699 2039 2379 200 400 600 800 1000 FLOW RATE (icfm) 1200 2718 110.3 96.5 82.7 68.9 55.1 41.4 27 6 13.8 0 1400 1600 The Spencer Turbine Company, 600 Day Hill Road, Windsor, CT USA 06095 rower Mizer® Series 2500 Cast Blowers Exhausters Rugged multi stage. blowers for .heavy -duty applications Continuing the more than 100 -year tradition of Spencer innovation in air and gas handling equipment, the Power Mizer Series 2500 combines practicality and performance in multi -stage centrifugal blowers and exhausters. Based on modem engineering concepts and newly developed casting techniques, these blowers were designed and rigorously tested in the laboratory to confirm their functionality and reliability. With their rugged cast components, Series 2500 blowers are suitable for the most severe applications from sulphur recovery and wastewater treatment aeration to felt dewatering in the pulp and paper industry. Corrosion resistant coatings and special materials available. Technical Data Number of stages: 2 -10 Operating speed: 3550 rpm Casing design pressure: 25 psig Inlet connection: 6" (152mm) flange 1251b/1501b ANSI drilled and tapped (5" drilling available) Outlet connection: 5" (127mm) flange 1251b/1501b ANSI drilled and tapped Seals: labyrinth (single carbon ring available) Bearings: 6310/6310 ball, minimum L10 bearing life of ten years per AFBMA Lubrication: grease (standard) or oil (optional) Drains are 3/8 NPT with plugs Impeller diameter: 22" (559mm) Impeller tip speed: 341 ft/sec (113 m /sec) First critical speed: 4150 rpm for maximum number of stages Vibration: .19 in /sec maximum Accessories Full line of standard and custom electrical control panels for packaged systems -UL and CUL listed available. Dissolved oxygen control system Flexible sleeve connectors and expansion joints Filters and silencers Butterfly valves and check valves Note: Spencer reserves the right to make design improvements and /or change dimensions without notice. o TEL 800 232 -4321 0 860 -688 -8361 s www.spencerturbine.com A O 0 O O O O CO O O O O N O O O 0 O O N W A CT CO V CO CO O PRESSURE PSIG CO CO CO CO CT V CT CO CO 0 0) 13 71 E N HORSEPOWER O O O O O O O CO CO O O W m 0 N 1G N Cn 0 2 N (D L O 3 tD v CD A N Y O 0 Sv O o m 09 Q C CD (D O CD C 2, CD CD i3/ 0) 3 CD O 0 a, 3 CD p ii® CD it