The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About931276.tiff RESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, CONCERNING SITE APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF WINDSOR AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has received a Site Application from the Town of Windsor, concerning improvements to an existing wastewater treatment facility located on the following described parcel of land, to-wit: Part of the Si of Section 34, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the regulations for site applications for improvements to an existing wastewater treatment facility require review of the site application by the Board of County Commissioners, and further, that various local and State agencies be given the opportunity to review and comment on said site application, and WHEREAS, the site application from the Town of Windsor was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for review and comment, a copy of said application being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, after study and review, the Board finds that said site application is compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and that it is in the best interest of Weld County to recommend approval of said application for the following reasons: 1. Said site application is consistent with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Wastewater treatment facilities are covered under the definition of Utility Service Facilities and are a use allowed by right in the I-1 (Industrial) Zone District. 2. Said site application is consistent with Public Facility and Service Goals and Policies and the Industrial Goals and Policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this facility is appropriately located in relation to surrounding land uses, and that the requirements of the State Health Department will insure that necessary environmental standards are met. 3. The Weld County Health Department and North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association have reviewed this request and expressed no objections to the proposed improvements. PL0079 �y 931276 Pw f> "9 1 , A /IL; uI v 1 RE: SITE APPLICATION - TOWN OF WINDSOR PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the site application submitted by the Town of Windsor be, and hereby is, recommended favorably to the Colorado Department of Health as being compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chairman be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said site application. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of December, A.D. , 1993. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 1 G4.1? WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board ( .PL�j.� �c !yam x �7iLCi (�/p �� y7� q Const ceLr e t, ,Chairman BY: L_Jll{,CW,), k- / ktC'xl�ci bue v Deputy Jerk to the Board W. Webster, Pro em/ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' / dXx eor e#,K. Baxte • Co n y Attorney Dal,, K. all Barbara J. Kirkmeye 931276 • C. If the faciliLy will be located on or adjacent to a sit, that is owned or managed by a Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application. D. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call 320-8333, Extension 5272. Recommend Recommend No pate Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative 1. Management Agency 2. Local Government: Cities or Towns (If site is inside boundary or within three 45/9 / // 3- mfrs) and Sanitation Distr ts. 3. 9/5 /L. X II� ,�� A Bbard o County Comm ssioners /.24i0k • 4. <<�7/�3 X �ty. eona Lon Hea th 't oriiiiiity. &RRD op; we LDi 5. CLty/ aunty-P an ut o y 6. VVVVV Council of Governments/Regional Planning 7. State Geologist (For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. Applications for treatment plants require all signatures.) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed. DATE iI-if%- / Thomas R. Jones, Mayor '" Signature et .licant TYPED NAME • 3- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 9312'76 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Tom Rulon that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: NAME: Town of Windsor ADDRESS: 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO 80550 REQUEST: Site application for improvements to existing wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The S2 of Section 34, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of Kodak of Colorado plant, east of State Highway 257. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: This proposal is consistent with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Wastewater treatment facilities are covered under the definition of Utility Service Facilities and are a use allowed by right in the I-1 (Industrial) zone district. This proposal is consistent with Public Facility and Service goals and policies and the Industrial goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this facility is appropriately located in relation to surrounding land uses, and that the requirements of the State Health Department will insure that necessary environmental standards are met. The Weld County Health Department and North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association have reviewed this request and expressed no objections to the proposed improvements. Motion seconded by Ron Sommer. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Ron Sommer Tom Rulon Juliette Kroekel Marie Koolstra Shirley Camenisch Judy Yamaguchi 931276 RESOLUTION, Town of Windsor Page 2 The Chairperson declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on December 7, 1993. ed the 7th Decembe , 19 aryn F. Ruff Secretary 931276 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 7 , 1993 Page 5 Ron Sommer moved Case Number Z-485, Michael and Pamela Guttersen, be continued until December 21, 1993, to allow the applicant adequate time to prepare based on information received at a late date from the Colorado Geological Survey. Marie Koolstra seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Ron Sommer - yes; Tom Rulon - yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Shirley Camenisch - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes. Motion carried unanimously. Site Plan application for Windsor Waste Water Treatment Facility. Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works, Town of Windsor gave an overview of the existing wastewater treatment facility installed in 1970. They want to increase treatment capacity by installing an area lagoon. The Chairperson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Shirley Camenisch moved the Site Plan application for Windsor Waste Water Treatment Facility be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission' s recommendation for approval. Tom Rulon seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Ron Sommer - yes; Tom Rulon - yes; Juliette Kroekel - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Shirley Camenisch - yes; Judy Yamaguchi - yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1034 APPLICANT: Steven M. London REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for two communication towers over 70 feet in height in the A (Agricultural) zone district. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 14, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 3/4 miles east of I-25 and 1/4 mile north of Weld County Road 32. Steven London, applicant, explained he holds the highest class amateur radio operation license available. He owns 40 acres and wants to pursue his interest in farming, raising llamas, and amateur radio operation. There is currently one tower on the property and he wants to increase the height and also install 931276 DATE: December 7, 1993 NAME: Town of Windsor ADDRESS: 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO 80550 ill [-, REQUEST: Site application for improvements to existing wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The S2 of Section 34, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of Kodak of Colorado plant, east of State Highway 257. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: This proposal is consistent with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Wastewater treatment facilities are covered under the definition of Utility Service Facilities and are a use allowed by right in the I-1 (Industrial) zone district. This proposal is consistent with Public Facility and Service goals and policies and the Industrial goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this facility is appropriately located in relation to surrounding land uses, and that the requirements of the State Health Department will insure that necessary environmental standards are met. The Weld County Health Department and North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association have reviewed this request and expressed no objections to the proposed improvements. 9312'76 DEC 0 2 3993 itomaTig7" MEMORAnDUM �-� 'fit 4e N!nt'!Planning VineTo Gloria Dunn, Planning Date December 1, 1993 COLORADO Jeff Stoll, Director, Environmental Health I , From Subject: Windsor Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan The staff has reviewed the application for expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Windsor. We find no conflicts with our interests. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 353-0635. 931276 ft tit mEmoRAnDum k DEC: 0 ` 1993 � — wale flaunt;Planning WilkTo Gloria Dunn, Planning Date December 1, 1993 COLORADO Jeff Stoll, Director, Environmental Health , From Subject: Windsor Wastewater Treatment Facility Plan The staff has reviewed the application for expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Windsor. We find no conflicts with our interests. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 353-0635. 931276 . -; ,.::74 rif Ai riq '4. -?'-f • 'C't ✓, M i IV •f ►' t.4 re I+f n A' , 'k ` DATE: December 7, 1993 sag ti I j a NAME: Town of Windsor ADDRESS: 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO 80550 REQUEST: Site application for improvements to existing wastewater treatment facility. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The S2 of Section 34, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of Kodak of Colorado plant, east of State Highway 257. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: This proposal is consistent with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Wastewater treatment facilities are covered under the definition of Utility Service Facilities and are a use allowed by right in the I-1 (Industrial) zone district. This proposal is consistent with Public Facility and Service goals and policies and the Industrial goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this facility is appropriately located in relation to surrounding land uses, and that the requirements of the State Health Department will insure that necessary environmental standards are met. - The Weld County Health Department and North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association have reviewed this request and expressed no objections to the proposed improvements. 931276 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO OCTOBER, 1993 931276 TABLE OF CONTENTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO Section Item Page Introduction 1-1 General I-1 Description of Existing Facilities 1-2 Existing Treatment System 1-2 Present Discharge Permit I-5 Existing Plant Capacity 1-7 II Wastewater Quality and Quantity II-1 Influent Characteristics II-1 Infiltration/Inflow 11-2 Influent Pollutant Loadings 11-13 Summary 11-14 III Wastewater Management Alternatives III-1 Effluent Requirements III-1 Alternatives for Evaluation 111-2 Ammonia Removal III-2 Other Concerns III-4 Description of Alternatives III-6 Alternative 1 - Existing Lagoon No. 1 Followed by Submerged Biological III-6 Alternative 2 - Existing Lagoon System Modification Using Ringlace Technology for Ammonia Removal III-10 Alternative 3 - Activated Sludge Process Using Oxidation Ditch III-13 Alternative 4 - Activated Sludge Process Using Earth Basin Extended Aeration III-16 Alternative 5 - Export All Flows to the Greeley Wastewater Treatment Facility .III-19 9314276 IV Summary of Alternatives and Recommendations IV-1 Cost Summary IV-1 Recommendation IV-2 Waste Load Allocation, Cost Sharing and Rates IV-2 Implementation of the Proposed Alternative IV-2 Sequence of Activities IV-4 V Implementation of Proposed Alternative V-1 Project Schedule V-1 Institutional Agreements V-1 Project Finances V-1 Plant Operation and Staffing V-2 Tables II-1 Wastewater Characteristics April 1990 - April 1993 II-1 II-2 Infiltration / Inflow II-4 II-3 Pollutant Concentrations Concurrent with 1 .5 MGD Flow II-14 III-1 Estimated Costs Lagoon/SBC Alternative III-10 III-2 Estimated Costs Ringlace Alternative III-13 III-3 Estimated Costs Oxidation Ditch Alternative III-16 III-4 Estimated Costs Earth Basin Activated Sludge III-19 III-5 Estimated Costs Greeley Interceptor Alternative III-21 IV-1 Summary of Estimated Costs IV-1 IV-2 Wastewater Utility Cashflow IV-4 931276 Figures Figure I-1 Existing Winsor Wastewater Treatment Plant 1-3 Figure 1-2 Existing Facility Process Schematic 1-5 Figure 11-1 Infiltration / Inflow Trend 11-6 Figure 11-2 Seasonal Infiltration / Inflow 11-7 Figure 11-3 Projected Infiltration / Inflow II-8 Figure 11-4 Wastewater Flow @ 2% Growth 11-11 Figure II-5 Wastewater Flow @ 2% Growth + I/I 11-1 2 Figure 11-6 Wastewater Flow @ 2% Growth + Reduced I/I 11-13 Figure III-1 Service Areas 111-5 Figure III-2 Alternative 1 - Existing Lagoon No. 1 Followed by Submerged Biological Contactors I11-7 Figure 111-3 Alternative 2 - Existing Lagoon Upgrade Using Ringlace III-1 2 Figure 111-4 Alternative 3 - Existing Lagoon No. 1 Followed by Oxidation Ditch Activated Sludge III-15 Figure 111-5 Alternative 4 - Existing Lagoon No. 1 Converted to Earth Basin Extended Aeration Activated Sludge III-18 Figure IV-1 Conceptual Treatment Facility Layout Earth Basin Activated Sludge Process IV-5 Figure IV-2 Floodplain at Windsor and Kodak Treatment Plants IV-6 931276 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Windsor has been required by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) to upgrade its wastewater treatment facility in both hydraulic and nitrification capacity. The existing facility, with a current permitted capacity of 1 .0 mgd, requires expansion to meet short and long term growth in the town's service areas. The currently accepted NFRWQPA Areawide Water Quality Management Plan calls for expansion of the existing facility to a capacity of 1 .3 MCD. RTW's study of the plant capacity in accordance with current population projections would require a 1 .5 mgd facility and significant infiltration and inflow reduction to be adequate through 2010. This engineering study has evaluated the capabilities of the existing facility and several treatment alternatives including exporting wastewater flows to another municipalities's plant for treatment. The alternatives have been evaluated on the basis of present worth costs of capital and O&M, institutional and other constraints, as well as reliability and performance potential. The recommended alternative proposes improvement and reuse of much of the existing lagoon facility with the installation of diffused aeration, clarification, and sludge treatment to provide the additional BOD removal and ammonia control required by the anticipated discharge limits. This system can reduce ammonia discharge to 1 .0 mg/L and can be credited toward improved discharge levels from the Kodak treatment facility. It also has the flexibility to remove nitrates (denitrify) from the effluent. The capital costs of the alternative are estimated at $ 2.94 million. Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at the current flow are estimated at $145,500 for the plant only. To recoup these plant costs plus administrative, collection system and pumping station costs revenues from service fees must increase at approximately the rate of inflation plus 3% each year from 1995 through 2000. The compliance schedule imposed by CDH requires that this study and a completed site application be submitted for local and regional review by November 1 , 1993. Facility improvements must be designed by July 31,1994 and be operating by June 1 , 1996. The completed site application is included as Appendix D of this report. 921276 SECTION I INTRODUCTION GENERAL The Town of Windsor, Colorado owns a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) located adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River, less than a mile outside the town's southern boundary. Due to aeration limitations, the facility's capacity was recently downgraded by CDH to 1 .0 million gallons per day (MGD) and present flows have been approaching the permitted plant capacity. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission's currently approved North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) records the facility planning which proposes expanding the Windsor treatment plant to 1 .3 MGD capacity. Although expansion of the existing facility is consistent with the current 208 plan, the Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Division (CDH) has also requested an evaluation of other combined treatment or regionalization alternatives as part of the site application engineering study. In addition, stream standards for ammonia and the results of effluent toxicity testing have led to discharge limits for ammonia which are not being met by the current treatment facility. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to analyze and evaluate reasonable alternatives for treatment of the wastewater flows generated by Windsor to meet discharge limits established by CDH. Additional consideration will be given to combining Windsor's treatment efforts with those of the industrial wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) located within the Windsor service area and discharging approximately 300 yards downstream from the Windsor plant. This report will provide much of the necessary information for the Site Application to CDH. The treatment alternatives which were to be initially considered in this report are: 1 . Expansion of the existing plant to at least 1 .3 MGD with process improvements required by the Department of Health for nitrification. Evaluate opportunities for cost savings through cooperation with Kodak's industrial wastewater program. 2. Replace the existing facility with another biological system that meets the future effluent requirements for nitrification. Also evaluate the opportunity for Kodak participation in this option. I-1 931276 3. Abandon both the existing Windsor and Kodak treatment facilities and pipe all wastewater from the Windsor Sanitation District treatment area for treatment at the expanded facility proposed at the City of Greeley. This alternate requires the construction of a gravity interceptor sewer from both the Windsor and Kodak plants to the Greeley Wastewater Treatment Facility. 4. Pump some or all the wastewater flow from the Windsor Sanitation District to a plant proposed for the City of Fort Collins on the rise west of the Cache La Poudre River, near the Ptarmigan development. Upon studying the initial treatment options with the compliance schedule set by CDH, the chance of implementing a regionalization application with a new Fort Collins plant will not be feasible in the time frame established. Although this option is similar to the Greeley interceptor in total pipe distance, it cannot be constructed as a gravity sewer and will require a pump station and force main. Since the Fort Collins treatment plant option has not been planned to the equivalent level of the Greeley option, there is little chance of facilities being available to accept flows from Windsor in the next few years. Alternative 4 as described above will therefore not be examined further in this study. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES Existing Treatment System The treatment plant site is owned by the Town of Windsor and includes approximately 50 acres, of which approximately 12 acres are used for the existing lagoons, berms, buildings, access road, and appurtenant facilities. Only this acreage presently used for treatment facilities is above the 100-year floodplain. There is approximately 27 acres of open ground west of the facility and the remaining 11 acres is on the south and east portions of the property that borders and includes a section of the Cache La Poudre River. A site plan of the existing facility is attached in Figure -1. The existing Windsor plant was constructed in the early 1970's, aeration additions and the chlorination building and contact pipe were added in the early 1980's. One full- time employee presently operates and maintains the plant. It currently serves all of the Town of Windsor's approximately 5,200 residents, the pretreated industrial flow from Metal Container Corporation (MCC) and the domestic wastewater from Kodak's plant. Kodak operates their own lagoon system for treating their separate industrial — process wastewater flow. Their industrial facility's discharge point is only a few hundred feet downstream from Windsor's. Kodak is not annexed 1-2 931276 - r INFLUENT FORCE MAIN r 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 if: f .1 Vt Ilis 1LAGOON NO 1 _ I i - _ - Wir� CONTROL I - - - - . - BLDG BLOWER BLDG 4 FENCE - NO 1 LAGOON NO 2 / . AD 8' CESS /I 1 CELL NO 2 / 1 / / vFLOATING DIVIDER WALL / / / 4r / ill I CELL NO 3J77I / P , Nji--1 - / / CHLORINE -"\-- OPEN DITCH - /�-�-- _- BUILDING _ . it......------' CHLORINE �ECHLO�INATION BOX CONTACT PIPE 7 FIGURE I- 1 EXISTING WINDSOR WASTEWATER 1 TREATMENT FACILITY Rothberg, Tamburini & Tumor, Inc. -- ) 91276 to the Town of Windsor, but a contract for treatment of their domestic wastewater was written in 1971 and ran through 1991 . Currently, Windsor continues to treat Kodak's domestic wastewater by an unwritten understanding. The Windsor plant is a three-stage aerated lagoon system consisting of the following major facilities: Description Number Size or Capacity Lagoon No.1 - Cell No.1 1 1 .90 acres, surface area Surface Aerated 4.5 MG volume 9' depth Lagoon No.2 - Cell No.2 1 4.20 acres, surface area Diffused Aeration 10.0 MG volume 8' depth Lagoon No.2 - Cell No.3 1 1 .47 acres, surface area Settling Pond 3.4 MG volume 8' depth Chlorine Contact 1 24,233 gal -volume in pipe flowing full - 60" RCP,165LF The existing facility is shown in a schematic diagram on Figure 1-2. All wastewater from the town is collected and transmitted to the WWTF by gravity through a single interceptor sewer. MCC has a separate pump station which discharges into the interceptor. Kodak's domestic wastewater flows by gravity directly into the pump _ station. Prior to the wetwell, the pump station has a manually operated bar screen. Large solids are raked from this screen daily. The wastewater flow is conveyed directly from the pump station into the treatment lagoons through a forcemain using three 600 gpm centrifugal pumps each at 10 hp. Lagoon No.1 is aerated with three 10 hp mechanical surface aerators. The second lagoon is partitioned into two cells by a floating divider wall. Effluent flow from Lagoon No.1 is routed to Lagoon No.2 in a 12" transfer pipe. Cell No.2 of this lagoon, where flow from the first lagoon enters, is further aerated with submerged coarse bubble INKA diffusers. Air is supplied by a single 50 hp blower. After the partition wall, Cell No.3 of the second lagoon is used as a settling zone. Clarified effluent from Cell No.3 overflows at the south end of the lagoon through a dual 12" pipe outlet structure to the disinfection process. 1-4 931276 in la g 0 atS NUJ Z O N O xi J ii. Q O Z J .-.. �--� an J §_ W W J Q -4 U Q w j m U V)") iti W U O O] W Ic rn En - U mc CD o � ` Q a c, x -- N I.1.5. -I .-7 O OZ 0_ CJ U co U GQ z Kli1/4Z E: b � i CDw P �pc, < W - _ o N U cn Z - 0 cc CV% I W m U 1-4 V) O N W OF U C HI W w i- Z 9:i3 296/ Effluent from the settling zone is measured by an in-line propeller meter before being disinfected with chlorine gas (Cl2). Contact time is provided in a length of 60" reinforced concrete pipe is designed to flow full, and is used as a chlorine contact chamber. At the outfall from the 60" pipe, the effluent is dechlorinated in a box structure using sulphur dioxide gas (SO2). The effluent then flows a short distance through an open ditch before reaching the Cache La Poudre River. Present Discharge Permit The Town of Windsor's wastewater treatment plant discharges under Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit System Number CO-0020320. The current permit became effective on January 1, 1992 and will expire on December 31, 1996. In this permit, the design capacity of the plant was rated at 1 .0 MGD, and is limited by aeration capacity. Additional information on how the capacity of the plant was determined by the permit writer is included on pages 12-14 of the Rationale section of the permit in Appendix A. CDH put the town on a compliance schedule because the current daily average flow is well over 80% of the 1 .0 MGD capacity. In addition to the capacity limit, the permit also includes seasonal limits on ammonia. Concern over ammonia levels in the effluent also exists because of its apparent effect on Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests performed during 1992. Early WET tests failed and the cause of failure was assumed to be the high concentrations of unionized ammonia. Further tests proved that ammonia was the cause of the failures and is the source of toxicity. In addition to the ammonia limits set for this stream segment, CDH also produced limits for selenium, cyanide, mercury, and aluminum. The limit and monitoring requirement for selenium was recently dropped, but limits on the other three parameters remain in effect. 1-6 9a1276 The present requirements in the discharge permit are based on an average effluent flow of 1 .0 MGD and are summarized as follows: GENERAL DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AT 1.0 MGD PERMIT NO. CO-0020320 Maximum Concentrations (Maximum Mass) Effluent Parameter 30 day avg 7 day avg Daily Max BOD 5, mg/L (lbs/day) 30 (250) 45 (375) N/A Total Suspended Solids, mg/L (lbs/day) 75 (626) 110 (938) N/A _ Fecal Coliforms, Number/100 ml 6000 12000 N/A Total Residual Chlorine, mg/L N/A N/A 0.01 pH Standard Units Shall remain between 6.5 and 9.0 Oil and Grease Shall not exceed 10 mg/L in any grab sample nor shall there be a visible sheen Cyanide, WAD, mg/L (lbs/day) 0.03(0.25) N/A N/A Aluminum, PD, ug/L (lbs/day) 347(2.9) N/A 2783(23.2) Mercury, Total 0.059 ug/L (lbs/day) (.00049) N/A 9.2(0.077) The discharge limits for ammonia were recalculated by CDH in 1992 using the Colorado Ammonia Model and modified the projection stated on the permit. CDH made assumptions of flow from the Windsor plant of 1 .3 MGD and 1 .7 MGD from the Kodak plant and low flow in the river as reported from upstream gauges. These limits, and were found to be more restrictive than the previous permitted limits for 1-7 931276 ammonia. These revised values are as follows: AMMONIA DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS AT 1.3 MGD TOTAL AMMONIA AS N Month Limit (mg/L) Month Limit(mg/L) Month Limit (mg/L) Jan. 59.4 May 11 .6 Sep. 13.3 Feb. 36.1 Jun. 7.8 Oct. 19.6 Mar. 10.0 Jul. 7.7 Nov. 29.1 Apr. 10.0 Aug. 7.9 Dec. 49.5 These and the limits for several other parameters which are sensitive to flow will likely be revised for the future flow from the Windsor facility. Existing Plant Performance Comparisons of influent and effluent data for BOD, TSS, and ammonia, the standard forms for the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation and a similar evaluation by CDH are all attached to this report as Appendix B. Influent BOD was reduced to an average effluent concentration of 22 mg/L. However, three incidents of effluent containing more than 30 mg/L were reported for the effluent BOD values. The maximum effluent TSS was 49 mg/L, well below the 30 day average limit of 75 mg/L. Effluent ammonia was as high as 12 mg/L with an average of 9 mg/L. The overall performance of the facility is typical of a lagoon system with relatively good BOD reduction but ineffective ammonia removal. The projected ammonia limits will cause problems in meeting regulated discharge levels. Existing Plant Capacity Plant capacity is limited by either the hydraulic capacity of the structures, i.e. the amount of wastewater that can physically flow into and through the plant, the biological capacity, or other limiting discharge requirements, mainly ammonia limits. The lower of the capacity flow numbers is considered to be the plant's capacity. The hydraulic capacity of the existing Windsor lagoons are sized well in excess of 1 .5 MGD for detention. The main pump station requires increased wetwell capacity or variable speed pumps to handle the peak influent flows. The chlorine contact 1-8 921216 chamber is undersized as well and could not handle a daily peak flow. The biological (BOD removal) capacity is the amount of wastewater, at design waste strength, that can be treated to meet effluent criteria. The existing lagoon system is limited by aeration facilities to 1 .0 MGD, but these requirements are easily met by upgrading the aerators. The ammonia removal capacity of the plant is considered to be the most important factor because of the permit's new discharge limits on ammonia to meet stream quality standards and toxicity. The ammonia removal capacity of the plant is practically non-existent due to the nature of the plant design, where an extended aeration lagoon process removes minimal ammonia from the wastewater. This issue will be the driving force behind the improvements to the Windsor facility and will be discussed in more detail in the following section. 1-9 9Z 1276 SECTION II WASTEWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS The most important influent characteristics at the Windsor WWTF are BOD, TSS and nitrogen concentrations. BOD is a measure of the quantity of the organic wastes in the influent. Over the three year period from April 1990 to April 1993, the influent BOD averaged 219 mg/L. This is slightly higher than would normally be expected for domestic wastewater but is within reason. The influent TSS (total suspended solids), at an average concentration of 177 mg/L also is in normal bounds. Over this same period, no measurements were made for any form of influent nitrogen. However, effluent ammonia nitrogen was monitored for most months and averaged 10 mg/L. Since little, if any, ammonia removal normally occurs in lagoon systems, the effluent ammonia concentration would be expected to be nearly the same as the influent ammonia concentration. However, the 10 mg/L average ammonia nitrogen in the effluent is well below the values normally seen for this parameter in domestic wastewater. Table II-1 summarizes the wastewater characteristics including observed average, maximum, and minimum values. TABLE II-1 Wastewater Characteristics April 1990 - April 1993 Average Maximum Minimum Parameter mg/L mg/L mg/L Influent BOD 219 285 153 Influent TSS 177 267 119 Effluent Ammonia 10 13 4 as N As a check on nitrogen concentration, two samples of influent were tested to determine their TKN concentrations. TKN was used since it includes both ammonia and organic nitrogen which may be converted to ammonia in the treatment process. These samples, obtained on June 7 and June 14, 1993 respectively were found to include TKN at 15.5 and 16.0 mg/L. Ammonia nitrogen was at or below 10.5 mg/L in both samples. These results confirm that the influent nitrogen concentrations in the II-1 931276 influent to the Windsor WWTF are much lower than is usual for domestic wastewater. Influent and effluent sampling results from January 1991 are included in Appendix B for reference. Results from April 1990 through March 1991 are presented in the discharge permit rationale, Appendix A. Infiltration/Inflow Lower than normal pollutant concentrations usually indicate a wastewater diluted by extraneous water entering the sewer system. This excess portion of the flow is known as infiltration and/or inflow (I/I). Although only influent nitrogen was in the low range, other indicators were evaluated to determine if I/I is a problem in the Windsor system. The recorded flows in the Windsor interceptor were compared with winter water usage records for the town. For January and February of 1991, 1992, and 1993 water usage averaged 0.56 MGD. The variation was from a low of 0.54 MGD to a high of 0.57 MGD with no identifiable pattern of change. If winter water usage is taken as indicative of year round water consumption exclusive of irrigation, it should approximate the quantity of water contributed to the sewer system for treatment. When the 0.56 MGD average water usage is subtracted from the 0.77 MGD average flow in the Windsor interceptor over the same three year period, approximately 0.21 MGD remains. This excess may be I/I. Other indicators of I/I include skewed peak to average and low to average flow ratios. The Windsor interceptor flow meter includes a continuous charting function which produces a record of instantaneous peak and low flows. The charts from key months between December 1990 and May 1993 were examined to identify the peak and low flows. The highest ratio of peak to average flow during this period is approximately 1 .51. A peak to average ratio of over 3.0 would be more typical for a community of this size. This tends to indicate that the average flow is unnaturally high due to the presence of a base flow of I/I which does not vary through the day. The low to average ratio supports this conclusion. The lowest ratio observed was 0.54. A value of 0.3 is more typical. Again, a base flow of I/I in the sewer at all times of the day would raise this ratio to abnormal levels. Finally, per capita flow values can be used to judge whether I/I is significant in the system. In Windsor, the only industrial facility that contributes significant wastewater to the interceptor sewer is the MCC plant. Subtracting their average water usage from the metered interceptor flow should leave only the residential/commercial flow from the town. This averaged 0.74 MGD for 1991 and 1992. With a population estimated at 5200, this yields an average flow of over 142 gallons per capita per day. Again, this is well above the 80-100 gpcd which is normally experienced. 11-2 931276 Based on this evidence, it was concluded that an I/I problem exists and the BOD and TSS concentrations have appeared normal due to significant contributions by an unknown non-residential source. The existence of such a source has been confirmed to some degree since the BOD concentration has dropped to approximately 140 mg/L after the recent shutdown of a commercial laundry facility. However, the contribution of the laundry was never determined independent of other flows and only a few months of data have been collected without the laundry in operation. This does not provide sufficient basis for revising the BOD values already discussed. Subtracting the average winter water use from the Windsor interceptor flows for each month gives an estimate of the I/I for the month. These I/I estimates as well as the flow data used in their derivation and discussed above are included in Table 11-2. When the Ill values from January 1991 through April 1993 are plotted, an overall increasing trend can be observed as depicted in Figure II-1. The variations along the trend line appear to be seasonal impacts and when plotted on a twelve month base as shown in Figure 11-2 may provide some information as to the nature of the I/I. Based on the limited data available, the I/I appears to be lowest in the winter months with a distinct jump in warmer weather. Also, comparing the winter period for each of the three years the trend to increasing Ill is clear. A best fit line has been developed from the data available to project 1/1 into the future. The regression analysis shows that if the current trend continues, I/I would be expected to increase from near 0.3 MCD today to over 1 MCD by 2010. However, given a 50% reduction in I/i and the same reduction in I/I growth rate, the 2010 Ill level is projected at just over 0.5 MCD. Both projections are shown graphically in Figure 11-3. Based on these preliminary findings, an I/I study is recommended for the Windsor system. The study should further quantify the 1/1 in the system and determine the significant sources and locations of the extraneous flows. A cost effectiveness evaluation should be completed for each identified source to estimate the gallons of flow eliminated for each dollar spent on repairs. Then, the repairs can be targeted at those sources where the greatest flow can be eliminated for the lowest cost. Also, collection system repair costs can be compared with the cost of treating the excess flow to find the breakpoint at which treatment is less costly than sewer repair. Flow Projections Growth in both population and industrial/commercial activities produces increased water demand and wastewater flow. As described above, the water demand curve for the Town of Windsor was essentially flat for the period from January 1991 through February 1993. The growth in wastewater flows was entirely due to increased 1/1 over this period. However, the population of Windsor is expected to continue growing at 11-3 901276 O n m mLn Lin V) to in 8 b• r) 0 0 0 0 0 J > > w K T M ‘0 '0 N 003 o 0 0 0 6 O ZLLO0 O z `1: v v PO3 Ln Ui Q < oO r r d U Z u LO co o CO � 3YB r 0 0 Ll'Sx 0 o r r � w Q > Lad r N N N Z < O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O - NZ ")cz u- - Z -iO �r CO f- O 0 0 N 0 0 0N 0 - ce LL > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J U S LL N 1/40 t0 ' 7 en m M N O N 1/40 rO O N 7 N co N N N N r N N N N N N N O O 66 66660666666666 O Q w V) N in 7 )n d00 0 O O O O LLJ Q Q M N N N O Cr, V a, m l0 m Ni N l0 10 M 0 rN O N N N N k.c N N N N N N N N N m m m m 3 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O > U Z Z w c.9-- a > Z J U o_ h > U z m ni o! } Z O ¢ > ≥ Q N O LL.to Q LL Q > ≥ L" < w m rn > m rn 931276 Oa �* o cc 'n cc _ oQ3 0 0 0 0 O J 0 W K In 033O a a Ln en 47 0 0 0 0c 6 Z J J < 3 W 0 K X03 a U, < 00 r r r a U Z J LL - ¢ 3 n 10 u, co 03YQ^ N N Ql r r rO r 0 00 Lt J W J Ol u1 m en mtM cc CO Cl CO 7 < 0 I. I. 1. 1. 1N, N- N. N. N. I. 10 f. z > 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O W3U LOS LL 3 N- CO N. 0 LO 10 LO In i0 O in N. `n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O — 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 W > U U < O N- V VI rn V M H en 0 en M N N N N N N N N r cO N w 1 V O O O O O O O O O O O O < W cn lO cO N- V LO In In In u, vl w j 0 6 6 6 6 6 Q < ce co CO 0 Cl 0 O, Cl cC 01 n CO CO CO CO N. CO N. CO N. CO cO 1. O O j 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O — 3 < LL H U a G w z w Q 0 Z U < ti O Z 0 Q W < < ee en W Ql } Ql r 912'76 I \ ■ - 2 I ■ - U- i--4 1 ■ - 7 2 ■ - 0 I - Z o 5 - • \ - co I i ■ i ■ ti 1 ■ 1 — 2 • l - ¢ m ■ — 2 R — I — U- 2 0 TT ^ VI F ■ — 0 ■ ' — Z — Ill — o •~ • \ — CD p ta c� \ ■ - -) C I* raw - `■ - 2•_ \ W � rah co ic3N to O p _ O p d p O p O 41 Q eW L J 901276 ( r O _ T w a r M MOO : g) ill, I ; Z 3 )4 I l_ o c co E-q bb i. / o D P4) N a \7 - � o -) \ IES 1 Zill C .° is \ as 1 �. Is - 1 - c e / : / / cc cv: a + - a_ a o Ct a) CI)' - 1' 'I/ ■ - a 2 N I ni 4. 4 - w W / Z U' + �i a , - U) co in N LoT U) O r O Co. p N O O o O C101/1CO O 931276 e Or N 1 O t 1 0 \ -o I— cc _ 0 = C _ N \ w o) .- \ J U O 11 o H 1 O��./ cr 14 1 _ O 0 N 1 1 3= — 1 I O N : 1 1 Ct O it O Liz 1 I-I CS 1 CO c r 11 a _ I1 11 M co rn r-i I r W ig La) — rn N r co co NO r r O O O O - \ GM \ J 921276 an average rate of about 2% per year through the period of this study. This population growth rate matches that actually experienced from 1980 to 1990 and has been used as the basis for other regional planning work. The current Windsor water use (exclusive of irrigation) averages 0.56 MGD. Without I/I it is assumed that the Windsor interceptor flow would be approximately the same as the water use. In addition to the Windsor interceptor flow, domestic wastewater generated by the employees at the Kodak production facility is also treated at the Windsor WWTF. Although the Kodak flow is not independently metered, both flows are included in the total flow metered at the discharge of the Windsor pump station. Based on this metering, the current average flow at Kodak is calculated to be approximately 0.14 MGD. Appendix C includes the population and flow projections for Windsor and Kodak assuming 2% growth for each. The appendix also includes the projected I/I component of the flow at both the current level and growth rate and reduced to 50% of the current by system repairs. This information is also presented graphically in Figures 11-4 through 11-6. Figure 11-4 shows the growth of three different flows over time. None of the flows depicted in Figure 11-4 include any I/I component. At the bottom of the chart is the domestic flow from the Windsor interceptor at a 2% annual growth rate. Another flow shown on the chart is the total flow into the treatment facility assuming the Kodak flow remains flat (no growth) at 0.14 MGD. Jim Chudd, of Kodak Environmental Services, has stated that they do not expect to increase the number of employees in the foreseeable future. The final flow projection is for the total flow assuming 2% growth for both Windsor and Kodak. Figure 11-5 shows the same three flows but includes I/I at its current level and growth rate. The last figure, Figure 11-6, shows these flows but with Ill at 50% of the current level and growing at only half the current rate. Based on the information presented in these figures, a flow was selected for planning a system capacity upgrade. Although the town was originally planning an upgrade to the 1 .3 MGD level, this capacity may be consumed by the growth in Ill in just a few years if Ill is not controlled. With 50% I/I reduction, 1 .3 MGD would be adequate to treat all flows through approximately 2005. To allow more time for I/I reduction to be achieved, an upgrade to 1 .5 MGD is recommended. This planning level is sufficient to handle the current level and growth in Ill until approximately 2002. If I/I is reduced 50%, a system planned for 1 .5 MGD would provide sufficient capacity for all flows until approximately 2010. Therefore, assuming I/I is addressed, the recommended 1 .5 MGD capacity provides for a planning horizon of approximately 15 years. 11-9 931276 r — O ♦ 11 0 N _ }1 ¢ 2 — \ p 00tg . 13• N Y - a �r • ti N tC 13 is N • \ • N bA O Rte. _ 1 ,y o v N = o y N • i N • _ O • y NO N O \4 LL 1 N - o ,� 1\IIN Pro l — co - co co is T z cs _ - co ili . a is T , 4\11 Ia 0a Hr� T cc t0 N O T F� O O O O -- ` 4JW V_ J 9.1276 I o 1 o N 1 i 1 Y '- O _co C y Y o 1 .a _ N 023 1 .. s 1 J FO-- S E-- .i 1 i I -c—, 1 Tt-II c9 E--, 1 0." o O 1 N = e 1 tim N�1 1 O / _ N V v a N _ 0 11 @ 4 0 © — L.- N km CD 48 1 Lo ao Ct I _ ° 41) al 1 r CA CC O) 1 1 r �I P� 4I - It O (& U) N U) r U) o r N r O aoW J - \ 9J127 6 if or + 1 N e 1 41 1. _ 1 F di I- >. C .E \ l. 1•" = co it t - N l!1+ - o H U N z en - 73 Q�� s CC Pc - N = n ; 2 cm Tk 0 _ o 0 1 ccvv N N '� Ua 1 - O - a w L 1 6i �\ ct c� o_ 1 cz lii T 1 L . co Z 0 C N T CO CO V N O T T T a O O O - aOw l J 921276 Influent Pollutant Loadings Since I/I is such an important and changing component in the Windsor WWTF influent, the concentration of the pollutants in the influent is highly variable. The concentrations which have been documented over the last few years should not be used directly for planning projections but may provide a basis for those projections. Pollutant concentrations are a function of the pollutant loading and the wastewater flow. The loading is dependant on the tributary population while the flow is more highly impacted by I/I which is unrelated to population. Therefore, the growth in pollutant loading should be projected based on population growth and the concentration then estimated based on independent flow projections. The flow projections have been discussed and presented in graphical form above. The pollutant loads will be developed here. The population which was contributing pollutants to the Windsor WWTF is most accurately known for 1990, the most recent census year. In that year the town's population was 5062 persons. The number of Kodak employees in that year was reported as 2116 for billing purposes. By assuming that the pollutant load contributed by each Kodak employee is approximately half of that contributed by each resident, the Kodak employees can be considered as the equivalent of another 1058 residents for a total equivalent population of 6120. When the monthly BOD and ammonia concentrations for that year are multiplied by the monthly flows and units converted, the monthly BOD and ammonia loads are found. For 1990, the peak monthly BOD load was 1958 Ib/d while the average was 1530 lb/d. This yields peak and average BOD contributions of 0.320 Ib/d and 0.250 Ib/d for each population equivalent respectively. For ammonia nitrogen the peak month load was 86 Ib/d while the average was 67 Ib/d for population equivalent contributions of 0.014 Ib/d and 0.011 ►b/d respectively. Using the factors derived above for peak and average month BOD and ammonia, corresponding concentrations can be calculated for each parameter given the appropriate flow. Table 11-3 was constructed assuming that both Kodak and Windsor grow at 2% per year and includes estimates for both 50% I/I reduction and no I/I reduction. If growth at Kodak is assumed to be flat, the concentrations would be lower but only by 2 or 3%. More complete information and background on these estimates is included in Appendix C. 11-13 91276 TABLE 11-3 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS CONCURRENT WITH 1.5 MGD FLOW Without I/I Reduction With 50% I/I Reduction Year 2002 2010 Peak Month BOD 200 mg/L 234 mg/L Average Month BOD 157 mg/L 183 mg/L Peak Month Ammonia 9 mg/L 10 mg/L Nitrogen Average Month 7 mg/L 8 mg/L Ammonia-Nitrogen Given these pollutant concentrations, values can be selected for planning purposes. At the planning flow of 1 .5 MGD, the higher concentrations occur under the scenario where I/I has been removed and the waste is more highly concentrated. This results in a peak month BOD of 234 mg/L and ammonia nitrogen of 10 mg/L. Since these values have been derived from a limited database, some conservatism will be applied and planning values of 250 mg/L and 11 mg/L selected for BOD and ammonia nitrogen respectively. At 1 .5 MGD, these planning level concentrations correspond to a BOD loading of 3128 Ib/d and an ammonia nitrogen loading of 138 lb/d. SUMMARY Planning values have been selected for the key parameters to determine treatment requirements. For flow, 1 .5 MGD will be used. The current flow is approximately 1 .0 MGD and is expected to grow to 1 .5 MGD by 2002 if I/I is not reduced. With a 50% reduction in I/I and its growth rate, 1 .5 MGD will not be exceeded until approximately 2010. Peak and average values for BOD will be 250 mg/L and 190 mg/L. For ammonia nitrogen 11 mg/L and 8 mg/L will be used for the peak and average. These are slightly lower than the current 5% exceedance values of 278 mg/L for BOD and 13 mg/L for ammonia nitrogen derived from a statistical analysis of performance data (Appendix C). However, a system which can handle 1 .5 MGD at the planning concentrations will have no trouble with 1 .0 MGD at the current concentrations. 11-14 931276 SECTION III WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS The Windsor plant discharges to Segment 12 of the Cache La Poudre River approximately 8,000 feet downstream from the crossing with State Route 257. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission classifies each stream segment according to the uses for which it is presently suitable or is intended to become suitable. Segment 12 is presently classified for Recreation Class 2, Aquatic Life Class 2 Warm Water, and Agriculture. These designations are for surface waters intended for fishing and other streamside activities but which do not include the physical habitat, flows or other factors necessary to sustain sensitive aquatic life. The stream is also intended for use as an irrigation source or as drinking water for livestock. In order to maintain water quality at levels commensurate with the intended uses, numeric standards have been assigned. These standards apply to the water in the river and are used in numerical water quality models along with estimates of river and effluent flows to determine effluent quality limits which will insure that the stream standards are not violated. Since the Windsor WWTF discharge and the Kodak industrial wastewater treatment facility discharge near one another and within the same stream segment, they have been considered as a single discharge in the water quality modeling used to establish limits for key effluent parameters. As described in the introduction, the effluent ammonia limits developed using this procedure place the greatest demands on the Windsor WWTF. The CDH has issued seasonal ammonia limits based on modeling using the recorded low flows in the river, the permitted Kodak flow (which varies seasonally up to 1 .7 MGD) and an assumed flow of 1 .3 MGD for the Windsor WWTF discharge. Based on this modeling, the limit drops to 10.0 mg/L in March and April, is slightly higher in May and then varies between 7.7 mg/L and 7.9 mg/L through June, July , and August. In September the limit increases to 13.3 mg/L and then to 19.6 mg/L in October. For the remainder of the year, the limit is well above the design influent ammonia nitrogen concentration and is not permit compliance concern. Since the design flow for the Windsor upgrade is 1 .5 MGD and the Kodak industrial flows may vary from those currently permitted, model results at other flow rates were requested from CDH to see their impact on effluent limits. CDH has not been able to replicate the modeling assumptions which produced the above limits for the 1 .3 MGD Windsor discharge and so has not been able to provide comparable limits at other flows. This inability to reproduce the current limits has been explained based on a difference in III-1 931276 decay rates which are derived from site specific in-stream parameters. As an example, in the critical month of March, the current permit includes a limit of 10.0 mg/L for ammonia nitrogen while the most recent modeling produced a limit of 21 .4 mg/L. This extreme sensitivity to the model user's assumptions and the input data quality can be one basis for negotiation in the final permitting process. The modeler's assumptions should be carefully documented, investigated and addressed to firmly establish that the discharge limits in the final permit are those necessary to maintain stream water quality above the established standards and not are excessively restrictive. The most recent modeling effort has, however, given an indication of the impact of increasing or decreasing effluent flows. If flows are decreased to 80% of those modeled at Kodak's seasonally permitted levels (up to 1 .7 MGD) and 1 .3 MGD for Windsor, the allowable effluent ammonia nitrogen concentrations increase between 8% and 17%. In March and April this corresponds to a limit of 10.8 mg/L rather than 10.0 mg/L. On the other hand, increasing the flow by 10% to allow for a Windsor flow of approximately 1 .5 MGD with no change in Kodak's permitted flows results in allowable ammonia nitrogen concentrations 7% to 10% lower than those in the current permit. This corresponds to a limit of 9.0 mg/L in March and 7.1 mg/L in July. ALTERNATIVES FOR EVALUATION Ammonia Removal The alternatives for meeting the anticipated ammonia nitrogen discharge limits fall into three major groups: direct ammonia removal, conversion of ammonia to nitrate, and transfer of the wastewater for treatment at an existing facility already in compliance with all discharge requirements. Direct ammonia removal involves processes which physically remove ammonia or encourage chemical reactions to produce compounds other than nitrate and nitrite. Air stripping, breakpoint chlorination, and selective ion exchange fall within this category. Air stripping requires a major adjustment to the pH of the wastewater and large amounts of air. This air flow often creates freezing and other problems in cold climate areas and so is rarely applied. Breakpoint chlorination has a troubled history in Colorado. The City of Longmont operated a breakpoint facility in the 1980s but suffered a catastrophe when the dechlorination system failed and the highly chlorinated effluent was discharged into the receiving stream causing a massive fish kill. Chlorinating at the levels required to reach the ammonia removal breakpoint also dramatically raises the chloride and total dissolved solids levels in the effluent and may violate state standards. These problems make it extremely unlikely that breakpoint chlorination would be approved by CDH as the primary means of ammonia removal. III-2 31276 The process is also quite costly to operate due to the high consumption of purchased chemicals. Ion exchange has been used for ammonia removal but is extremely complex and produces acid wastes. This process has found few applications and is not suitable for use at a facility of this size. Many biological processes exist to convert ammonia to nitrite and nitrite to nitrate. These processes are known as nitrification processes. Denitrification processes are often coupled with nitrification processes to convert the nitrate in the nitrified wastewater to nitrogen gas. To nitrify, the wastewater must be introduced into an environment with a sufficient quantity of oxygen and a good population of nitrifying microorganisms. Since these organisms are slow growing, they tend to be washed out of the aerated zones of lagoon type treatment facilities before they can develop in the numbers needed for effective ammonia removal. Nitrification is usually achieved with either a fixed growth system where the nitrifiers are attached to a surface in the flow or a suspended growth system like that in a lagoon but where the organisms are separated and recycled back into the treatment zones to develop the required population. Of the many factors affecting the nitrification process, temperature is critical. As the organisms are exposed to colder temperatures, their ability to convert ammonia is hindered. Since ammonia removal is required in the Spring when wastewater temperatures are cold, temperature is an important consideration in both process selection and sizing. The most commonly applied fixed growth systems for nitrification are the trickling filter and the rotating biological contactor (RBC). In the trickling filter process wastewater is distributed over the surface of a column of media on which microorganisms are attached. The wastewater trickles down through the media bringing the pollutants into contact with the organisms while still allowing airflow through the column. For nitrification a deep column, often called a biotower, is required and air may need to be forced through the system with large fans to provide sufficient oxygen. In the RBC process, the wastewater flows perpendicular to a series of horizontal rotating shafts with attached plastic media discs. The organisms grow on the media discs and the rotation brings them into alternating contact with the wastewater organics and the air above. The two processes are very similar in concept with the biotower being oriented vertically while the RBC process is oriented horizontally. Due to this height difference, the RBC process can often be employed without additional pumping while pumping is essential to bringing the wastewater onto the biotower. Also, the RBC process tends to retain more heat and is easier to cover for additional heat retention. _ If additional aeration is needed for the RBC process it is usually provided as compressed air directly into the wastewater which does not tend to lower its temperature. For these reasons, the RBC process will be evaluated to determine the suitability of fixed film nitrification for the Windsor WWTF. An innovative process III-3 931276 combining fixed growth media with the current lagoon system will also be considered. Suspended growth nitrification is a form of the activated sludge process. The key components of the activated sludge process are the aeration basin , the clarifier, and sludge recycle equipment. The microorganisms which metabolize pollutants in the aeration basin are settled in the clarifier and recirculated back to the aeration basin to maintain a sufficient treatment population. A well known process variation capable of ammonia removal is the oxidation ditch. It has been applied at small facilities for many years and can be operated for BOD removal, ammonia removal, or complete nitrogen removal. Since lagoons already exist at the Windsor WWTF, an activated sludge process using the existing earthen lagoon volume as aeration basin but with the addition of clarification and activated sludge recycle will also be considered. Shutdown of the Windsor WWTF and treatment of the town's wastewater at another facility has also been considered. The service area of the Windsor Sanitation District and other nearby districts are shown on Figure III-1 . There are a number of other districts in the area, but the City of Fort Collins and the City of Greeley offer the greatest potential for regional alternatives. Fort Collins is planning a facility near the Ptarmigan development but their timing will be inadequate for the schedule with which Windsor must comply. In addition it is located at a higher elevation than the current Windsor WWTF and would require additional pumping of the entire wastewater flow to reach the site. Greeley is planning an expansion of their facility and been actively seeking participation by both Windsor and Kodak. The facility can be reached by gravity and will have sufficient capacity available. Based on these issues, the Greeley alternative was selected as the offsite treatment alternative for further consideration. Other Concerns In addition to ammonia removal, other areas of the Windsor system must be addressed for their ability to handle the 1 .5 MGD average flow which is targeted for planning. The interceptor sewer which delivers wastewater to the lift station from all sources but Kodak generally has a capacity ranging from 4 to 6 MGD but is limited to approximately 1 .8 MGD at its lower end. This is insufficient to gravity flow the expected peak flows and should be investigated further. The pump station wetwell has a working volume of only about 650 gallons. This requires an excellent match between pumping rate and influent rate to prevent too frequent starting of the pumps. Increased wetwell volume, variable speed drive or other control schemes should be considered as improvements over the current start/stop levels. III-4 901276 ♦ A yam. r II. _ 1■P ■I..�.aol.®, `1,' c l :�� /I',,uouiEEO =s Trelor it y� t , _ .�f� ��. n �Ival■r.®rumor �+s , in L./ �\ \ ��t ill i Se r.. ,\1i�� GPI • 11 =5O I [�JIl1-L'4 1'VP Fi 9'� PIC AS r4 2i . ea A F- a r 1 .4,E �� 5eR�2 I qtE 3 7 o �'i elf CC ' y-.1 q l yam- "iUtiLcJI f_ : .,:;?.. TI pp.rani IlltraN gi . - • tiz agrAiwaThimir -am .,,, _.± , , .: 7-4 ls.....kii az to-ci.;A TiL p4 •• a* o _, y � > 145 . .I .... . c • iii 10 . • L. rahil ' w ; J 11;o �} o to . 4c1) r. 3I��1rAni31 S3 R • .... .. . . . , . ..• —'7. p If � - , ■' V rn ,..... allial' idtri ..:: ...Erne ,)3 . I; gel • --- - i ( -A/ _lA Ili I...4 _ oll . .CI13M - • . 7 0� iar ;g E %1/ W 0 1� m Ya Y Also, a grit removal process should be considered as an upgrade to the pump station to reduce wear on the impellers and on equipment in the WWTF. Finally, the current chlorine contact volume cannot provide the required contact time at peak flow: This volume should be increased to achieve at least 30 minutes of contact at peak hour flow. At a peaking factor of 2.5 over the planning flow of 1 .5 MGD average, a total contact volume of approximately 80,000 gallons is required. This is most economically achieved by constructing a baffled concrete tank at the end of the 60" pipe now used for contact. Description of Alternatives Using the selection criteria discussed above, the following major alternatives have been evaluated for the total present worth of capital improvements with the annual cost of operation and maintenance of all facilities downstream of existing lift station. Maintenance of the collection system and other operation items are not included in the O&M cost figure. Alternative 1 - Existing Lagoon Followed by Submerged Biological Contactors (SBC) There are a few process alternatives for treatment of 1 .5 MGD at Windsor that will achieve nitrification with some continued use of the aerated lagoon system. One option provides some mechanical treatment along with continued use of much of the existing lagoon system. Adding a rotating biological contactor (RBC) system to provide the additional BOD removal and the ammonia conversion required is a potentially effective option. The contactor media discs provides additional surface area for microorganisms to fix to the media thus increasing the total biomass in the system, producing more bioorganisms to work on the ammonia removal process. The shafts containing the discs are rotated mechanically and the media is half exposed to air thus aerating the biomass. Recent modifications of the standard RBC system includes submerging the discs to over three-quarter depth and blowing compressed air at the shafts from submerged headers to aerate and rotate them. The submerged biological contactor (SBC) can save considerable treatment space by allowing for over twice as much surface area per shaft. The aeration is by forced air so that the dissolved oxygen concentration is increased. Radial air passages assure that no section of the media will not be aerated and the bacteria forced to go to anaerobic digestion. The forced air also controls the thickness of the biomass by stripping off excess thus lessening the concern for structural overload and hydraulic drag on the shafts. 111-6 9u1276 The submerged biological contactor (SBC) requires a 75 hp blower with an operating horsepower of 72 hp and a backup blower installed. This system uses 16 hp more than the individual RBC's motors, but there are several operating advantages to the SBC system over the standard RBC system. Since the SBC uses forced air to rotate all the shafts using one blower instead of sixteen individual motors, there is less mechanical maintenance involved. This motor maintenance can be performed in one remote blower building location without having to enter the contactor enclosures. There is also a backup blower installed into the system, where the RBC motors do not have backup motors. The SBC has variable speed capacity with a forced air system which can be used to optimize energy consumption over the yearly operation and meet changing effluent limitations. The SBC facility is shown schematically in Figure III-2. It is possible that the RBC basins can be constructed in a small part of Cell No. 2, allowing for the existing system to operate during construction. Flow will be diverted into the SBC basin after aeration in Lagoon No. 1 lowers the BOD to more favorable levels. The SBC effluent will flow into a mechanical clarifier for polishing effluent and settling the biomass sloughed off from the contactors. This system will be considered a mechanical plant and will require more stringent suspended solid removal than the existing lagoon facility. Sludge form the clarifier can be wasted in the remaining Cell No. 3 of Lagoon 2 with continued aeration for long term digestion and decanting clear water back to the head end of the facility. The kinetics equation discussed earlier in this sections predicts that the first lagoon will reduce influent BOD from the design concentration of 250 mg/L to 165 mg/L with existing aeration capacity. The SBC would then need to treat the wastewater for both remaining BOD and any ammonia removal. The pretreatment achieved by the first lagoon cell, however, will significantly reduce the BOD loadings thus lessening SBC size requirements and allowing for more efficient ammonia removal. SBC sizing requires 2,100,000 sq ft of disk media, resulting in a seven shaft contactor. The SBC shafts do not need to be housed in a building. There are several covering options with individual fiberglass covers being the most preferable to minimize heat loss and keep operators out of the process, also lessening ventilation requirements. Another small building will be constructed to serve as a housing for the new blowers and controls and as additional space for laboratory and/or maintenance facilities. The advantage of this system is mainly the ability to utilize some of the existing facilities and still get the ammonia removal required. The small size of the existing facilities have advantages for construction staging and maintenance. Another advantage is the sludge pumping and piping will be less than activated sludge processes because no recycling of sludge is required. Aerobic sludge digestion can 111-7 901276 in ti cL w o o b- o Q A aS Z (w U A .0 N an Q O m ,.a a E-. 44 m v).c.,) Ld c`+ tab 1. 1 o - J z zz a 00 N U C. 1 H CD1/4 0 z ZZ � � zc 00 � � I - 0) a CDXCXch PO _J cn Q W CS U w 00 l A 0 N 00 0 fil O U 0 9 A CD K411.1/4 d zW x kel � r 44 PC amb � wN CV ll LLI m CY ci % 1 -.1 1....1 N w CY 0 w O U O- CC w I- z take place in the existing Cell No. 3 with modifications to have a permanent berm where the existing divider wall is presently located and to relocate the INKA diffused air system from existing Cell No. 2. The main disadvantage to this option is its high equipment cost. Other disadvantages of this alternative are related to the common problems of rotating biological contactors in operation today. Excessive biomass growth, distribution between units and flexibility during organic and hydraulic variation, low temperature operations and adequate dissolved oxygen levels are all concerns. However, the modifications made in the submerged biological contactor seem to have addressed most of these concerns. Denitrification will also be difficult with the attached growth systems but can be performed by adjusting the aeration rate to allow for minimal rotation and some anoxic conditions. This option also requires mechanical clarification with sludge production and storage which adds costs compared to options that continue as a lagoon system. The estimated capital and present worth of the operation and maintenance costs for the SBC alternative are presented in Table III-1 . Operations and maintenance of this facility will increase over the requirements for the existing facilities due to increased aeration requirements. Operation difficulty will not increase appreciably and sludge hauling will continue to be an infrequent event. III-9 931276 TABLE III-1 ESTIMATED COSTS LAGOON/SBC ALTERNATIVE Item Capital Cost Pump and Blower Building $ 120,000 SBC's w/aeration and Covers 1,268,000 Clarifiers 278,000 Sludge Pumps 23,000 Sludge Aeration & Decant 165,000 Piping And Mechanical 240,000 Electrical & Controls 320,000 Bank Protection & Sludge Removal 112,000 Chlorination Improvements 30,000 Subtotal $2,556,000 Contingencies 511,000 Contractor's Overhead & Profit 460,000 Total Construction $3,527,000 Engineering 705,000 Estimated Total Capital Costs $4,232,000 Annual O & M $139,500/year Present Worth of 0 & M (20 yrs @ 6%) $1,600,000 Total Present Worth Cost of Facility $5,832,000 Alternative 2 - Existing Lagoon System Modification Using Ringlace Technology for Ammonia Removal Another process alternative for ammonia removal at the Windsor plant that includes the continued use of the aerated lagoon system would be to incorporate the attached growth media called "Ringlace" into the second lagoon. "Ringlace" is a new technology on the U.S. market with only one installation presently operating in U.S., but many applications have been successful in Germany and Japan. The suspended rope-like media improves the conditions for growth of the slime forming autotrophic bacteria III-10 931276 that are required to convert ammonia to nitrate and also allows for growth of higher developed organisms (metazoa) that can help remove excess sludge. This new fixed biomass method significantly increases the total biomass in the system, allowing more bioorganisms to work on the ammonia removal process. Figure III-3 is a schematic of this process alternative. The "Ringlace" flexible media consists of strands of individual loops of polyvinyl chloridene (PVCE) which are supported on racks. These racks could be placed directly into the existing lagoon. These racks of media would have to be installed in Lagoon No. 2 so that significant BOD reduction can occur in the first lagoon and nitrification can be achieved more readily by the autotrophs without excessive completion from the heterotrophs. Additional aeration would be required for this process to remove ammonia as well as remaining BOD. An aeration system similar to the earth basin extended aeration alternative can be used alternating the line of aeration with racks of the attached growth media. This system will require two 30 hp blowers operating at 48 hp. The advantages of the "Ringlace" option are mostly cost related. Since this alternative is mainly just a modification of the existing lagoon facility there is no need to provide the removal required for mechanical plants. The TSS can remain at 45 mg/L and will not require additional clarification or sludge handling beyond that provided for by Cell No. 3 in the existing system. Therefore the facility modifications are minimized. Since this is would be a new application of this technology, we should also require pilot participation and guaranteed performance from the manufacturer. The disadvantages of the "Ringlace" system is the fact that there are no proven installations in lagoon systems. Windsor is on too strict of a compliance schedule to deal with pilot studies, and the potential for changing treatment methods would not be favorable to the Department of Health. III-11 931276 n ci w -g C) ti 1 o Zlin 3 NwZU 11 as %; pcnO Q � � cb o°ov. ZLZi F--- JU' OZ Z p—i CD Z Vo.o..l J � � H Z - IO Lil P W C -J ~ a as U --.•••'CC wwm W EI U a tab aJE Cb a o z m 0 0 _._ N 0 U i Z W Z z .� U O Et O N O „,.,-L-a P-72 cn Q U >< 1±,. w W c \ U LLi Q L U O11 O 41 U go I:4 b W CDw a - CD 01 LZ % UD I m ) O Fool 1• 11 (_Cn ~ 0 w O F— N N CL W — CC O Ui H-- Z ;MI z Qai476 TABLE III-2 ESTIMATED COSTS RINGLACE ALTERNATIVE Item Capital Cost Blower Building $ 75,000 Ringlace Racks 950,000 Added Aeration in Lagoon 2 375,000 Bank Protection & Sludge Removal 175,000 Piping & Mechanical 129,000 Electrical And Control Mods. 241,000 Chlorine Contact Mods. 30,000 Subtotal $1,975,000 Contingencies 395,000 Contractors Overhead & Profit 356,000 Total Construction $2,726,000 Engineering 546,000 Estimated Total Capital Costs $3,272,000 Annual O & M $124,500/year Present Worth of O & M (20 yrs @ 6%) 1 ,428,000 Total Present Worth Cost of Facility $4,700,000 Alternative 3 - Activated Sludge Process using Oxidation Ditch The activated sludge type of biological treatment process provides the same type of treatment which occurs in the aerated lagoon, however, the process allows for control of the key process factors of oxygen concentration and microorganism concentration. This control allows for development of large populations of organisms which can rapidly convert BOD and ammonia. The rapidly increasing population of — microorganisms, however, must be controlled to a specific concentration which requires daily "wasting" of excess organisms from the system, resulting in generation of sludges. These sludges cannot be stored within the treatment system and must be disposed. A number of activated sludge aeration process alternatives are available III-13 921276 with the economics depending on plant flow and on sludge disposal costs. A variation on the activated sludge process is a form known as extended aeration. Extended aeration activated sludge processes have the advantage of producing reduced quantities of sludge , as compared to conventional activated sludge processes. Extended air processes also readily nitrify during a large part of the year. An oxidation ditch is an extended aeration activated sludge process which has the further advantage of being a less operator intensive process. The facilities have proven to operate well in cold climate non-housed operation. The facility is shown schematically in Figure III-4 and would consist of two parallel oxidation ditches and two 40 foot diameter clarifiers. The estimated costs of this option are presented in Table III-3. The system would not utilize Lagoon 1 as a pretreatment primary clarification facility since algae from the plant influent lagoon would not settle well with the activated sludge. The plant influent would flow to one of two parallel oxidation ditches, sized at 970,000 gallons each. Each ditch would include approximately 75 hp of aeration and mixing. Ditch effluent would flow to one of two parallel clarifiers, sized at 1250 sq ft each. The facility would have a return activated sludge pumping system with a firm capacity of 1000 gpm with sludge waste from the return line. Clarifier effluent would continue to be chlorinated and dechlorinated prior to discharge. Waste sludge would be stored and further digested in an earthen treatment basin reusing the existing cell No. 2 aeration system. Ultimate sludge disposal has been based on contract hauling at a quoted rate of$0.06/gallon. Sludge disposal costs are included in the O & M cost shown in Table III-3, and are estimated at $30,000/year. III-14 931276 r1 _ cs ccw 0 i 1 o � Pr 0 ZO 0 J .� _ Q N U m as 0 0 0 a H 0 0 394fiS zws Th fll3N o a 1 ch � Q ) C7w U P E" E"IWb cLo 2 01E o - A I- Z a CJ � O Q 1-1-I % N ZCLUJ a rz mN 0 a Hp o a w I CC CD CC > - a ¢ '_' f-r _ J. -, U Cr (n NW O W C I- 144.1 w 921276 TABLE 11I-3 ESTIMATED COSTS OXIDATION DITCH ALTERNATIVE Item Capital Cost Oxidation Ditch (2 ea) $715,000 Clarifiers 278,000 Sludge Pumps 59,000 Pump/Blower Building 150,000 Sludge Aeration & Decant 165,000 Bank Protection & Sludge Removal 112,000 Chlorination Improvements 30,000 Piping & Mechanical 302,000 Electrical & Controls 453.000 Subtotal $2,264,000 Contingency 453,000 Contractor's Overhead & Profit 408 O00 Total Construction $3,125,000 Engineering 625.000 Estimated Total Capital Costs $3,750,000 Annual O & M $ 145,500/year Present Worth of O & M (20 yr @ 6%) $1,669,000 Total Present Worth Cost of Facility $5,419,000 Alternative 4 - Activated Sludge Process Using Earth Basin Extended Aeration In addition to the oxidation ditch process previously discussed, there are other process alternatives which employ extended air activated sludge. Of these alternatives there is a relatively new (in the United States) adaptation of the process which employs earthen basins (lagoons) and clarifier for sludge separation and recycle. A schematic of the process is shown in Figure III-5. The application of the process for the Windsor III-16 931276 Plant would require that Lagoon No. 1 be divided into two by placing an earth dike across the width of the lagoon at approximately one-half its length. Each half of the lagoon would become an activated sludge basin. A pair of standard concrete clarifiers would also be constructed. The wastewater would enter the activated sludge ponds where it will be aerated by fine bubble floating aeration chains. The activated sludge mixed liquor will flow into the clarifier for solids separation. A portion of the clarifier under flow sludge will be returned to the activated sludge pond (RAS) and a portion of the sludge solids will be wasted (WAS) with the quantities determined based on maintaining a mixed liquor suspended solids concentration of approximately 2000 mg/L. The WAS will be stored, treated and thickened in an aerated earthen basin. Sludge disposal will be required only very infrequently. Under design year conditions, approximately 1200 lbs of sludge will be produced per day. If Cell No. 3 is used for sludge treatment and decanting, sludge disposal will be required only every 5 to 10 years. The extended aeration system would require approximately 2550 scfm of air which will be provided by 150 HP of blower capacity. The estimated capital, operation, and maintenance costs for this alternative are summarized in Table 111-4. Because of the long hydraulic retention time, complete nitrification will occur throughout most of the year and the ammonia limitation will be met III-17 931276 ' 1 ci F } c o - cc w W O Ls o O CD a F AS � U W .0 - w C) A O * Lab W O oo°8°wo I O Lwi. ° i_ Cw7 H aow o N Q ooi254 I/ —' \< ix cn cn z z - o N ww J Kah1/4. T IA Uz � A o ' F z _ z � - zW w H N O < < N z Ito < W % w CCD Ls H Q w > 1I CO _ � ~ Cf) CC C. w Cn 0 CL OO w O SY LU 11 I— w z i 921276 TABLE III-4 ESTIMATED COSTS EARTH BASIN ACTIVATED SLUDGE Item Capital Cost Lagoon No. 1 Improvements $371,000 Clarifiers 278,000 Sludge Pumps 59,000 Pump/Blower Building 150,000 Sludge Aeration & Decant 165,000 Bank Protection & Sludge Removal 130,000 Chlorination Improvements 30,000 Piping & Mechanical 237,000 Electrical & Controls $355,000 Subtotal $1,775,000 Contingencies 355,000 Contractor's Overhead & Profit 320,000 Total Construction $2,450,000 Engineering 490,000 Estimated Total Capital Costs $2,940,000 Annual 0 & M $145,500/year Present Worth of 0 & M (20 yrs @ 6%) $1,669,000 Total Present Worth Cost of Facility $4,609,000 Alternative 5 - Export All Flows to the Greeley Wastewater Treatment Facility The four alternatives for ammonia removal and capacity upgrade for the Windsor WWTF have estimated capital costs ranging from $2.94 million to $4.23 million. Kodak will also be required to meet similar ammonia limits. There is an opportunity to combine flows from both Windsor and Kodak plants and convey them to the existing interceptor sewer in 59th Ave in Greeley via a 30,000 feet long gravity pipeline. This pipeline has had preliminary design funded by Greeley to determine the feasibility of a gravity system. This interceptor design relies on flows from both Windsor and Kodak to provide sufficient flushing velocities in the 30" and 36" pipe. - III-19 931276 used to avoid the need for pumping. This pipeline has been estimated to cost $3,350,000, with significant costs for rock excavation and dewatering. The plan at this point is to have a cost sharing agreement based on flow ultimately contributed to the interceptor with design and construction contracts through Greeley using their state revolving fund. Windsor would contribute the 1 .5 MGD with Kodak and Greeley combining to share approximately the same amount. Thus Windsor would be required to fund half of the capital cost or $1,700,000. In order for Windsor to have flows treated at the existing Greeley facility, a plant investment fee would be required. This fee charges new customers for existing capacity at the plant that has been previously paid for by others. The Greeley impact fee is presently based on an equivalent water tap size and Greeley has stated that the entire existing Windsor flow would be considered as one new tap. If this rate schedule is used the impact fee for the existing Windsor customers would be approximately $350,000, or equivalent to a 12" water main connection for up to 1 .5 MGD of flow. While this calculation of the required plant investment fee follows the specifics of the fee structure currently in place, it may not be appropriate for use on a scale as large as that being considered here. The planned upgrade of the existing Greeley WWTF from 12 MGD to 16 MGD is currently estimated to cost $8 million. This gives a capital cost of approximately $2 per gallon of additional capacity. The capital costs of the treatment options at the Windsor WWTF ranges from $1 .96 per gallon to $2.82 per gallon so the Greeley plant upgrade capital cost if on the low end of this range. However, if Windsor is assessed their share of the upgrade costs at $2/gallon for 1 .5 MGD of capacity, the plant investment fee will total $3,000,000. This is more than eight times the investment fee calculated based on equivalent water main size. Unless the cost of plant capacity at Greeley is significantly less than $2/gallon or the capacity used by Windsor is subsidized by Greeley's connectors the upgrade cost passed on to Windsor must total near $3 million. User fees for treatment at the Greeley plant are based on their current rate of $1 .00/1000 gallons. At the current Windsor WWTF flow of 1 .0 MGD, this totals approximately $365,000 annually. Since direct O&M costs cannot be much different than those for the Windsor treatment options, it is clear that this fee includes a significant quantity of debt service also. III-20 91276 A cost summary for treatment at the Greeley WWTF is presented below. Figures are given for both quoted costs specific to Greeley's current fee structure and for costs based on more direct assumptions for payback of costs. Both ways of evaluating the costs for this option are approximately equal when compared on the 20 year present worth basis. TABLE III-5 ESTIMATED COSTS GREELEY INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE Quoted Direct Item Capital Cost Capital Cost Windsor Share of Interceptor Construction $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Demolition of the Windsor Plant 200,000 200,000 Initial Plant Investment Fee 350,000 3,000,000 Estimated Total Capital Cost $2,250,000 $4,900,000 Annual O&M (quoted) 365,000/year (assumed) 145,500/year Present Worth of O&M (20 years @ 6%) 4,187,000 $1,669,000 Estimated Total Present Worth Cost $6,440,000 $6,569,000 III-21 9312'76 SECTION IV SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS COST SUMMARY The various costs associated with each of the alternatives are summarized in Table IV-1 below. TABLE IV-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS 20 Year Present Alternative Capital Annual O&M Worth Cost 1 : Lagoon/RBC $4,232,000 $139,500 $5,832,000 2: Lagoon/Ringlace $3,272,000 $124,500 $4,700,000 3: Activated Sludge/ Oxidation Ditch $3,750,000 $145,500 $5,419,000 4 Activated Sludge/ Earth Basin Extended Aeration $2,940,000 $145,500 $4,609,000 5: Greeley $4,900,000 $145,000 $6,569,000 Interceptor* ($2,250,000) ($365,000) ($6,440,000) * Values in ( ) based on Greeley quote RECOMMENDATION RTW recommends Alternative No. 4 for the expansion and upgrade of the Windsor wastewater treatment facility. This option divides Lagoon No. 1 into two earth basins which are used with new clarifiers to operate the extended aeration activated sludge process. It has the lowest overall cost as measured by present worth and the most flexibility of the alternatives discussed. The extended aeration process achieves nitrification in the aeration basins and has the potential for denitrification by modifying the aeration times and cycling anoxic zones into the basins. Denitrification can be used immediately for operational and operating cost benefits and may be able to meet IV-1 9:;;1276 requirements for nitrate removal if they are applied in the future. This option also makes good use of existing facilities since Lagoon No. 1, Cell No. 3, and the Inka grid aeration system are all reused. The "Ringlace" alternative (No. 2) was cost competitive, mainly because it modified the existing facilities the least amount and had lower operational costs than the mechanical systems, but this technology is not yet proven in lagoons. The piloting which would be needed to confirm the feasibility of this application would be too time consuming to suit the present compliance schedule. Alternative No.1, which uses the submerged biological contactor to treat for ammonia after the existing Lagoon No.1 has removed substantial BOD, is too costly because the equipment is relatively expensive and mechanical clarification is still required in the process. Sludge recycle is not required but sludge wasting and treatment still involves modifications to existing facilities. The oxidation ditch alternative (No. 3) makes the least use of existing facilities. This plant would essentially replace the existing lagoon system with an entirely mechanical plant. Due mostly to this fact, the oxidation ditch alternative has both higher construction cost and operation and maintenance expenditures. The final alternative of sending all wastewater to the Greeley facility for treatment is not only more expensive, but it also offers other challenges due to institutional problems than do alternatives where the existing facility is upgraded. The capital costs mainly include the interceptor pipeline, but the user fees charged to Windsor pay debt service as well as O&M and will probably rise to cover the increased debt incurred for the plant expansion. The user fees result in the highest annual cost and present worth cost of all the alternatives. WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION, COST SHARING AND RATES As a biological nitrification process, the recommended earth basin activated sludge alternative will remove ammonia nitrogen to levels well below those required under the anticipated discharge permit. This occurs because nitrification is somewhat of an all or nothing type process. Once nitrification is achieved, it is extremely difficult to control it to a specific level. Rather, ammonia nitrogen will be removed to the limits of the system. With the large treatment volume and improved heat retention without surface aeration or Lagoon No. 2, the effluent ammonia concentration is expected to be below 1 mg/L for each of the critical months March through October. __ IV-2 931276 This higher than required level of ammonia removal may present opportunities for cost sharing with Kodak. CDH currently applies the results of the ammonia model equally to both the Windsor WWTF and the Kodak industrial treatment facility giving them the same limit for effluent ammonia nitrogen. If both facilities pursue biological nitrification to meet their permits, a significant quantity of ammonia will be removed above what is required. However, it may be possible to negotiate a more beneficial allocation of the total ammonia wasteload so that total treatment costs for both entities are minimized. Wasteload includes both effluent flow and concentration. For example, the estimated July ammonia nitrogen limit is based on a Kodak flow of 1 .7 MGD and a Windsor flow of 1 .5 MGD each at the same 7.1 mg/L. If Windsor's 1 .5 MGD is always below 1 mg/L, Kodak's effluent ammonia nitrogen could be as high as 12.5 mg/L while still maintaining the same wasteload on the stream. Since the treatment to lower effluent levels does not add to Windsor's costs once they have committed to biological nitrification, it is not possible for Kodak to remove the same amount of ammonia any more economically. In this example, it would be in Kodak's economic interest to strike an agreement with Windsor whereby Windsor would request a 1 mg/L ammonia limit from CDH. This would require a financial incentive from Kodak to Windsor and CDH cooperation to reissue the Kodak permit with a 12.5 mg/L ammonia nitrogen limit. CDH has indicated that they approve of this approach to economically achieving clean water goals. Of course, this plan assumes that Kodak can achieve any additional ammonia reductions required to reach 12.5 mg/L using seasonal pretreatment or other means to avoid an upgrade similar to that required at Windsor's WWTF. Also, if Kodak can reduce its permitted flow below the seasonal valves now allowed, the allowable ammonia limit could go significantly higher. While the reverse, Kodak providing excess treatment and being compensated by Windsor, is possible it is not practical since Windsor must commit to a treatment alternative by December 31, 1993 and Kodak will not complete their wastewater treatment study until some time in 1994. Without financial participation by Kodak, the rates charged for wastewater treatment in Windsor must be adjusted to include 100% of the additional O&M as well as debt service on the capital cost. The 20 year present worth of these costs is $4,609,000. This includes the salary for a plant operator and all costs downstream of the pump station. Table IV-2 shows the town's current administrative, collection system and pump station costs added to the above to determine the required increase in revenues to finance the project over its life. As indicated, revenues from service fees must increase at the rate of inflation plus 3% from 1995 through 2000 to maintain a positive cash flow. 9a1276 N. 0 CV O 0 ON iO 0 t0 CO Vi 0 0 co n1 co O to O t- n 0 V O ? O O N O tD N in V -. in s ey- rW s in in in in in btD to Qt O O O a9 O N CA oi co N N M - co en Cn O en en O O M Cl O 1/46 Oj N N CO O to tr co t- to to up V N en r CO N to 7s A to w w w w w w S CO to O o to n 0 N 0 V 00 CO Cl to to 1/40 0 . 1/40 O to O N O tD co O M O R CO O to o to - Cl N C R.-atM ^ 7 N to i 1/46 MIA- O r N in O 7 tl9 to W v1 a N in to S in O in to in O N - O to J M N n to to O N 0 t0 0 n O en 1/40 en W O t0 0 n to 0 to 0 en in _, T ((//�� 0"., O O W coO cc -0 o t0 0 to t0 CO - Lri Cfl CA in ei �.\/ N to litVT to. to a in to Hi W co C E > -J 2 J_ r-4 en W Cl O Ol 0 0 Cl � 10 0 in O n N N J D Ql Cl 0 to O V ` N O 10 O Cl 7 N CO M tb tot n V U M to 7 to n M 7 Q ee a to V V to C Cl r N V CO - I-- W w r w w y w w �' �' w �' w 'CC3 W Z - H N O to to O O m O 0 N 0 N N Cl O Cl N O Nen 0 O to 0 toO 3 Cl O O N O m To O O t0 o t0 Cl co co ,- J to a N to 0� 6 Of in 7 Cl C N N N CO 00 N r- N 7 C en to in to Vi Vi to to to td to to Vi to '0 C ? to to to t0 O 0 0 O O 7 V0 at co Cl l Co an 0 w S 0 0 t0 t0 Ot O to 000 to 0 0 O K t ro to 00 t\ t- M OS on COCOW C N O to O C L- Eo s en fn Hi Ct to t/i Vi V) Vl bef tet 013 A - v > T O To v, c _ C O d to v � E j s n an c v E O c a C N U v > > v LA 0 0 O 8 a = tr_ a, 3 > U G to _ E w c o E -9 -c A A ea a c 3 3 2 > .c ; u , a; 2E c L til E W I tali a d H te I- 91276 .— OO o 0 'OV 0 COco r O 01 7 O on Nto Vi 0 N 01 In V'N O N. N: In 03 vj t+1 OJ N O, 0 7 7 1 NN 5 en N N W N S S S S N in 0 0 0 0 0in rn O M try .4-- O N cc 0 to n N I/1 1� M L':: N �n OJ 0 N on in w N M Vl N a. to to NVi S S LO S V co O ON V1 Or 0 m N S 0 0 in t 00N Q1 Ln O V 03 0 N t0 OC0 n 01 to n N N N. 0 N N CI b9 s to S in Vi zp d T s Oin C O 7 O a U. N O w m O coIn re) 0 S 0 In rn O I O in on M O N N O pei ;v4 Vi M W Vi O O s R N N C_ S. ..J _ , O 00 O in O O O in N W �' O c Vi en O a, r N Va V. O T V CO ,..i N 0 1� �- M Co01 CO V O .- O3 N M N M - � W r, N In In e ~ E 3 w - W 41 M O O N O N 4 a, p p (n O O w V 0 N Ol .- Vi b9 0 ON N 01 O 1/40 Ql O iO i In O in t0 Ir n N ,c1:- ID N N O C Ni" N N M ' N 7 T O rW S NM. S 0) S S S S W N V 2 O 41 N S N 0 O w N 0 0 0 i CO 0 N N c N In 03 Ncl- O^ C M O en In in 0 t0 V N N en en W M to to fd S S to C o CD aD M G1 A O A in p r C 0 C Q) z ? CL tO • . _ c ,n E EE 0 h e O °� g�� cv Q. Gam) IA. y 3 j C > N >411 N C O C] w v . -0o 0 cc ° E a ` _ x 3 3 C C �O d Z j 1C U >- G) 2 C N E z X2, W ii �i d d is OC (i S O d c F- QC V a IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE The proposed alternative ( No. 4) includes the construction of extended aeration activated sludge earth basins in the existing Lagoon No. 1 and addition of clarifiers with sludge pumping and treatment facilities in existing Lagoon No. 2. A conceptual site plan has been attached as Figure IV-1 . All new structures will be constructed within the existing plant area so as to be protected from and remain operational during the 100-year flood shown in Figure IV-2. Some existing berming will be removed in the proposed alternative. No new staff will be required since the extended aeration can be handled by the single full time Class A wastewater operator now running the lagoon WWTF. This assessment is based on our experience with a similar size and type of facility operating near Monument, Colorado. Sequence of Activities The site application process and both the design and construction phases for the recommended alternative have a rigid compliance schedule according to the existing permit. Highlights of this schedule are as follows: Site Application to State Geologist and Regional Health Departments for Review and Comment October 31, 1993 Site Application to CDH December 31, 1993 Submit Design Documents for CDH Approval July 31, 1994 Commence Construction of Facility September 30, 1994 Complete Construction March 31 ,1996 IV-6 921276 NEW DISTRIBUTION PIPING INFLUENT FORCE MAIN 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 11 1 1 1 1 1i I i - - --' - , BASIN BASIN ' NO. 1 ' NO. 2 EXISTING i NEW �--, CONTROL I „.BLOWER ' BLDG AND PUMPING oil BLDG REMOVE BLOWER BLDG NO.1 FENCE S ? 2 NEW CLARIFIERS / / /1 EXISTING ROAD TO REMAIN / , I 1 / / A./ _ / Al CELL NO 3 •/ Q0J�� I (SLUDGE / � / NI TREATMENT) ��/ / QV. I \' - \I- -CHLORINE `- OPEN DITCH - - BUILDING _1 - V --- --- - - R i CHLORINE /REMOVE DECHLORINATION BOX, ADD CHLORINE CONTACT CONTACT CHAMBER WITH DECHLORINATION POINT PIPE / CONCEPTUAL TREATMENT FACILITY LAYOUT 1 FIGURE IV- 1 EARTH BASIN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS Rothberg, Tamburini & Tiinsor, Inc. — f 931276 � C ---L-2,,‘„:- 1 7' 1.` Ae - a ;yr1 CJ W 2-. N kit Z Z u) Y.. ..'WSy - CO Cr; �jyj �.1 •p N rF7ay a z § y LT-1 ear v % I yr r �O • r ry m 3 mt.' / sLL aW ° a� U ci .� . w O W i!_. .. Z 0 co--' = N z__ _ 0 111 d' ' �uw iZ\ _, , ` W z � N� � Z J TTT: IW°J �v q O O sa h rzil jl6 + -cc o,7 Iii s ft - ...n r' c� aJ 4k;14; 6 APPENDIX A DISCHARGE PERMIT 921276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 SU1MARY OF RATIONALE TOWN OF WINDSOR -- PERMIT NUMBER CO-0020320, WELD COUNTY CONTENTS PAGE I. TYPE 1 II. FACILITY INFORMATION 1 III. RECEIVING STREAM 2 IV. SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION 9 V. FACILITY EVALUATION 9 VI. PERFORMANCE HISTORY 14 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 15 VIII. CHANGES MADE AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE 32 I. TYPE OF PERMIT: Third Renewal II. FACILITY INFORMATION: A. Facility Type: Domestic - Major Municipal Lacoon System Fee Category: Category 20, Subcategory 5 Category Flow Range: 1,000,000 to 1,999,999 gpd Annual Fee: 51,466 B. Legal Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works Town of Windsor 301 Walnut St. Windsor, CO 80550 (303) 585-7476 C. Facility Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works Town of Windsor 301 Walnut St. Windsor, CO 80550 (303) 686-7476 D. Facility Location: SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec. 34, T6N, R67W E. Discharge Point: 001A to the Cache La Poudre River 901276 COLuRADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (cDPS) AMENDMENT NO.1 -SUMMARY OF RATIONALE TOWN OF WINDSOR CDPS PERMIT NUMBER CO-0020320, WELD COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS li it I. TYPE OF PERMIT I IL FACILITY INFORMATION I IIL PURPOSE FOR MODIFICATION 1 L TYPE OF PERMIT Minor Modification IL FACILITY INFORMATION A. Facility Type: Domestic -Major Municipal Lagoon System Fee Category: Category 20, Subcategory 5 Category Flow Range: 1,000,000 to 1,999,999 gpd Annual Fee: 51,466 B. Legal Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works Town of Windsor 301 Walnut Sr. Windsor, CO 80550 (303) 686-7476 C. Facility Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works Town of Windsor 301 Walnut Sr. Windsor, CO 80550 (303) 666-7476 D. Facility Location: SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec. 34, T6.V, R67W E. Discharge Point: 0014 to the Cache La Poudre River III. PURPOSE FOR MODIFICATION In a letter dated February 6, 1993, the Town requested that it be allowed to perform chronic WET tests using a single species, having completed one year of testing using nao species. This request is reasonable and the permit will be accordingly modified. Since fathead minnows have been shown to be more sensitive to the testing than Ceriodaphnia, sp., the single species testing will be done using fathead minnows. Rich Horstmann February 18, 1993 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT c HEALTH, Water Quality Control -'vision Rationale - Page 2. :rmit No. CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STRE?.M: A. Identification, Classification and Standards 1. Identification: Discharges to the Cache La Poudre River, tributary to the South Platte River, segment 12 of the Cache La Poudre River sub-basin of the South Platte River basin. It should be noted that the Eastman Kodak Colorado Division facility discharges to the same segment of the Cache La Poudre River, just downstream of the Town of Windsor discharge. 2. Classification: This stream segment is classified for the following — uses: Recreation, Class 2; Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Warm) ; Agriculture 3. Numeric Standards: The following numeric standards which have been assigned in accordance with the above classifications will be used to develop effluent limitations. Physical and Biolocical D.O. = 5.0 mg/1 pH = 6.5 - 9.0 s.u. Fecal Coliforms = 2000/100 ml Inorcanic Unionized AMmonia (NH3 ) , chronic = 0.10 mg/1 Acute = 0. c2/?T/rP /2 Residual Chlorine (Cl, ) = 0.003- mg/1 cyanide (free) = 0.005 mg/1 Sulfide as H2S = 0.002 mg/1 undis Boron (B) = 0.75 mg/1 - Nitrite (NO2 ) = 2.7 mg/1 Metals For segment 12 of the Cache La Poudre River, acute and chronic Table Value Standards (TVS) for metals have been adopted, referring to — Table III of the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters. The numerical values for some of these standards depends upon the hardness of the receiving water/effluent mixture below the discharge point. All of these type of standards are associated with the protection of the aquatic life use classification. Metals standards which are not hardness-dependent may be associated with either the protection of the aquatic life use classification, or the protection of the agricultural use classification. Hardness independent standards for the protection of agricultural uses are listed in Table III-1. All standards in this category are based upon total recoverable concentrations, and are applied as 30-day averages. 9u31276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Slater Quality Control r+ision Rationale - Page 3. Permit No. CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STREAM: A. Identification, Classification and Standards 3. Numeric Standards Metals - cont'd Table III-1 Agricultural Use Metals Standards - Total Recoverable Concentrations (ug/l) Arsenic 100 Lead 100 _ 3eryllium 100 Manganese 200 Cadmium 10 Nickel 200 Cr III 100 Selenium 20 Cr VI 100 Copper 200 Zinc 2QQQ Hardness-independent standards for the protection of the '^_at life use classification are listed in Table 111-2. -These c standardsa are all based upon dissolved concentrations, for i except `-- iron and selenium, which are based total recoverable e _upon concentrations. Both acute and chronic standards have beenadopted. Table ----2 1' Hardness-Independent Aquatic Life Metals Use Standards - Dissolved Concentrations Unless Otherwise S_ecif_ed (ug/1) - Metal Acute Standard Chronic Standard Aluminum 750 87 Arsenic 360 150 Cr VI 16 11 Iron TR n/a 1000 Manganese n/a 1000 Mercury 2.4 0.01 (Final Residual Value) Selenium TR 20 5 Thallium n/a 15 TR - Total. Recoverable In order to determine the appropriate hardness values to use for the calculation of hardness-dependent metals standards, data that has been collected by Eastman Kodak was reviewed. • 931276 COLORADO DEPARTM7NT r HEALTH, Water Quality Control vision Rationale- Page 4 . _ arnit No. CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STREAM: A. Identification, Classification and Standards 3. Numeric Standards: Metals (cort'd) Hardness data collected at the Law Ditch monitoring station, which is the closest station downstream of both the Windsor and Kodak discharges, was correlated with flow measurements made at the Staff Gage monitoring station, which is located above both discharges. A total of 51 data pairs were used in the regression, for a period extending from 1980 to 1933. The resulting - _e°on equation and associated statistics were then used to predict the lower 95th percent confidence interval hardness that would exist below the two discharges during both chronic and acute low-flow conditions above the discharges. The resulting monthly hardness values, which correspond to each — respective monthly low-flow (discussed in section III. 3. ) , are listed in Table -3. b_=v e II:-3 "Hardness Values Used in the Calculation of Hardness-Dependent _ Metals Sta.,,:,-.__s for the Cache La Poudre River Below Both the Windsor and Kodak Discharges (mg/1 as CaC03 ) -- Month Chronic Acute Month Chronic Acute Jan 728 771 Jul 734 823 — Feb 723 771 Aug 734 828 Mar 771 823 Sep 764 814 Apr 771 328 Oct 764 814 May 771 823 Nov 764 814 -- Jun 734 323 Dec 723 771 The original data used and associated calculations made in the determination cf these hardness values are available from the Water Quality Control Division. The resulting calculated metals standards are shown in Table III-4. _ 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control vision 17 Rationale - Page 5. .ermit o., CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STREAM: A. Identification, Classification and Standards 3. Numeric Standards: Metals (cont'd) Table III-4 Hardness-Dependent Metals Standards for the Cache La Poudre River Below Both the Windsor and Kodak Discharges, Dissolved Concentrations (ug/l) Metal Criteria Dec-Feb Mar-May Jun-Aug Sep-Nov Cadmium Acute 98.9 107.2 107.2 105.1 Chronic 5.39 5.64 5.42 5.60 Cr III Acute 9254 9812 9812 96-5 Chronic 1052 1103 1059 1095 C---. Acute 122 130 130 128 _. Chronic 64.5 67.7 64.9 67.2 Lead Acute 2596 2914 2914 22834 Chronic 64.3 70.3 65.5 69.4 Nickel Acute 4356 4600 4600 4540 Chronic 432 451 435 443 Silver Acute 68.1 77.1 77.1 74.8 Chronic 9.7 10.8 9.9 10.6 Zinc Acute 661 702 702 692 Chronic 570 598 574 594 • • Allowable Instr=_a:, Total Ammonia In order to protect the instream standard for un-ionized ammonia, effluent limitations for total ammonia were calculated. To do so, two simultaneous processes were considered: 1) the reduction in total ammonia through nitrification, and 2) the increase in % un-ionized ammonia caused by recovery of the instream pH below the discharge point. 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C EALTH, Water Quality Control vision Rationale - Page 6. Permit No. CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STREAM: — A. Identification, Classification and Standards • 3. Numeric Standards Allowable Instream Total Ammonia - cont'd Also, the discharge from Eastman Kodak, which is just downstream from the Town of Windsor, was accounted for by treating the two discharges as one combined flow. • Instream p8 recovery and ammonia decay were simulated using the Colorado Ammonia Model, which also accounts for the diurnal variation of stream pH and temperature. The model calculates monthly values of maximum allowable instream total ammonia that will Protect the instream un-ionized ammonia standard and locates the point on the stream were such values are at a minimum - which is the "critical point". The resulting maximum allowable _.._cream total ammonia values at the critical point, along with the location of the critical point, are 1 ted in Table Il_ S. Table 111-5 Allowable Instream Total Ammonia at the Critical Point (mg/1) and Location of Critical Point (River Miles below Combined Discharge) chronic chronic Acute Acute Allowable Critical Point Allowable Critical Point Month Ammonia (moil) Location (RN) A., onia (ma/1) Location (RN) Jan 12.9 0.5 8.5 1.0 Feb 10.3 0.5 12.0 0.5 Mar 2.7 1. 5 3.0 2.5 Apr 2.7 1.5 2.5 3.0 May 1.5 1.0 6.2 1.5 Jun 1.0 2. 5 2.4 3.0 Jul 1.0 2.0 1.3 4.5 Aug 1.2 1.5 - 9.3 1.0 Sep 4.9 0.5 7.9 1.0 Oct 7.6 0. 5 11.3 0. 5 Nov 9.1 0.5 11.4 0. 5 Dec 16.3 0. 5 12.8 0. 5 Effluent limitations based upon the allowable instream total ammonia concentrations listed in Table 111-5, and which account for ammonia decay between the combined Windsor/Kodak discharges and the critical point, are discussed in section VII.C. • 921276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C °:EALTH, Water Quality Control +isicn Rationale - Page 7. .ermit No. CO-0020320 III. RECEIVING STREAM: 3. Receiving Water Data 1. Quality - Water quality data for the Cache La Pcudre River are available from State water quality monitoring station number 126, located approximately 8 miles upstream of the discharge point. Data from this station for the period from January, 1985 thru April, 1990 are listed in Table 1II-6. • --- Table II1-6 - Water Quality Data From Monitoring Station 126 No. of Mean/Median* Parameter Samples Geometric Mean** Min./Max. Temperature, °F 115 55.7 32.0/73.0 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1 114 11.3 4.6/15.0 tH cu 115 7.9 * 6.3/9.1 _ Fecal Coliform, #1100 ml 113 117 ** 1.0/9,300 Ammonia, Total, mg/1 as N 115 0.62 0.000/4.5 Ammonia, Un-ionized, mg/1 as N 115 0.010 0.000/0. 11 _. NO2 + NO3 , Total as N, my-/1 40 2.7 0. 30/4. 6 Total Hardness, mg/l as CaC03 115 603 _6/270 Sulfate, mg/1 as SO4 43 724 .2/1,200 Arsenic, Dissolved, ug/1 17 0.000/0.000 * 0.000/0.000 Arsenic, Total, ug/l 23 4.4/0.000 * 0.000/101 Cadmium, Dissolved, ug/1 33 0.049/0.000 * 0.000/1.00 _ • Cadmium, Tot. Rec. , ug/1 82 0.008/0.000 * 0.000/0.34 Dissolved, 1. 5 0.000 * 0.000/15.0 Chromium, c_v_d uc/1 17 / Chromium, Total, ug/1 24 0.33/0.000 * 0.000/3. 0 Cooper, Dissolved, ug/1 1 0.O00/0.000 * 0.000/0.000 Copper, Tot. Rec. , ug/1 35 1.697/0.000 * 0.000/11.0 Iron, Dissolved, ug/1 33 36.7/0.000 * 0.000/1001 8 iron, Tot. Rec. , uc/1 53 382/260 * 0.000 3'500 - Lead, Dissolved, ug/1 1 0.000/0.000 * 0.000/0.000 Lead, Tot. Rec. , ug/l 52 0.154/0.000 * 0.000/8.0 Manganese, Dissolved, ug/1 33 55.1/60.0 * 0.000/170 -_ Manganese, Tot. Rec. , cc/1 83 - 67.2/60.0 * 0.000/360 • Mercury, Total, ug/1 1 0.000/0.000 * 0.000/0.000 Nickel, Dissolved, ug/1 17 7.6/0.000 * 0.000/130 Nickel, Tot. Rec. , ug/1 25 9.8/0.000 * 0.000/220 Silver, Dissolved, ug/1 1 0.000/0.000 * 0.000/0.000 Silver, Tot. Rec. , ug/1 11 0.094/0.000 * 0.000/0.490 Zinc, Dissolved, ug/1 33 2.7/0.000 * 0.000/20.0 Zinc, Tot. Rec. , ug/1 83 7.3/0.000 * 0.'000/380 Note: Concentrations equal to 0.000 ug/1 indicate results were lower than the _. detection limit - 9127S COLORADO DEPARTMENT / HEALTH, Water Quality Control .vision Rationale - Page 8. rermit No. CO-00203220 III. RECEIVING STREAM: 3. Receiving Water Data 1. Duality - Cont'd Additional background metals data submitted by Eastman Kodak will be used. The data was. collected upstream of the Windsor and Kodak discharges at the Staff Gage monitoring station located just upstream of the Windsor and Kodak discharges, during 19888 and 1989. Data for only these years were selected as earlier data did not specify whether dissolved cr total concentrations were measured. The resulting data is shown in Table I1I-7. Table 1I1-7 Water Quality Data From Staff Gage Monitoring Station (from Kodak) Parameter a Obs Avg Median ax n Aluminum Diss, ug/1 7 39.77 34.00 60.00 0.00 Arsenic Diss, ug/1 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cadmium Dias, ug/1 15 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 Diss, ug/1 15 2.07 0.00 9. 00 0.00 Cr3 Diss, ug/1 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cr6 Diss, ug/1 14 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 Tot Cr Diss, ug/1 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 :non Tot, ug/1 13 1829.80 560.00 7550.00 138.00 Lead Diss, ug/1 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manganese Tot, uc/1 8 146.13 153.50 265.00 41.00 Diss, ug/1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nickel Diss, ug/1 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selenium Diss, ug/1 7 3.40 5.00 7.00 0.00 Silver Diss, uc/1 14 0.46 0.17 2.30 0.00 Zinc Diss, ug/l 25 4.95 0.00 '_5.00 0.00 Note: zero indicates "less than detection limit" 2. 9uantjty, Acute and Chronic Low Flows - T-he flows which will be used to calculate acute and chronic effluent limitations are the one day in three year low flow (1E3) and the 30 day in three year low flow (30E3) respectively. These flows have been estimated for the Cache La Poudre above the Windsor and Eastman Kodak discharge points by Kodak and the Water Quality Control Division, as shown in Table 111-8. Table III-8 Cache La Poudre Low-Flows C,-05 Jan Feb Mar Aor Mav Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30E3 26 26 19 19 19 25 25 25 20 20 20 26 1E3 19 19 11 11 11 12 12 12 14 14 14 19 912'76 COLORADO DEPARTMENT H'ALTH, Water Quality Control vision Rationale - Page 9. rercit No. Cc-0020320 IV. SERVICE AREA AND POPULATION: A. Service Area and, Connector Districts The service area for the Town of Windsor is shown in figure 1 of the permit. _The service area includes the Town of Windsor, and the Metal Container Corporation (MCC) and Eastman Kodak manufacturing plants. Only the domestic wastewater from the Kodak plant is treated at the Windsor facility. The industrial wastewater from the Kodak manufacturing plant is treated at the company's own facility. 3. Population Projections Table IV-1 shows the population projections which were provided by the permittee. Table IV-1 -- Population Projections Year Permanent Residents 1990 5,730 2000 5,550 2005 9,100 V. FACILITIES EVALUATION A. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Some infiltration/inflow does appear to occur during the spring runoff season. At this time, the amount of I/I occurring is not adversely affecting the performance of the treatment system. 3. Lift Stations There are two lift stations in the service area - one for the Metal container Corporation plant, which pumps MCC flows to the main lift station; and the main "-lift station, which pumps the total combined flow to the treatment lagoons. The capacities of the lift stations are shown in Table V.-1. Table V.-1 Lift Stations % Capacity Pump Existing Average/ (peak flow/ Station #/Name Capacity (gpm) Peak Flows (MGD) firm capacity) 1) Metal Container 2 pumps @ 350 gpm 0.10/.14 27.8 % Corporation _. 2) Main 2 pumps @ 1,500 gpm 0.95/1.3 60.2 •% 921276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT r"- HEALTH, Water Quality Control vision Rationale - Page 10. :emit No. co-0020320 V. FACILITIES EVALUATION C. Treatment Facility 1. Description and History of Existing Treatment Facility.. A flow diagram of the existing facility is shown in figure 2 of the permit. The facility consists of a magnetic in-line influent flew meter located in the main lift station, a `par screen, two lagoons, aeration equipment and chlorination/dechlor_nation equipment. The lagoons are operated in series. The first lagoon is aerated with three surface mechanical aerators. The second lagoon is partitioned into two sections by a floating divider wall. One section of the lagoon, where flaw from the first lagoon enters, is aerated with '.:_ parf ' ned section of the submerged coarse bubble diffusers. ^ - _ second lagoon is used as a settling zone. Effluent from the settling zone is chlorinated and flow is measured by an in-line propeller meter. The effluent then enters a 60" diameter, 150 foot long reinforced concrete pipe leading from the _ chlorine building to the receiving steam. The pipe is designed to flow full, and is used as a chlorine contact chamber. At the outfall from the 60" pipe, the effluent is dechlorinated. The effluent flows a short distance through a small ditch before reaching the =-=`v`ng stream. 2. Catacity Evaluation - The Division's evaluation of the capacity of the treatment facility is on file and is summarized in Table V-2. Table V-2 -- Evaluation of Treatment Facility Unit Process Capacity Unit Process Features/Description Hydraulic/Organic Influent Flow Meter in-line magnetic flow meter, 2.2 MGD capacity based on lift station peak c=t c.ty Aerated Lagoons - a) Detention Time Lagoon #1: volume = 4.8 MG; 1.0 MOD detention time = 4.8 days at 1094 lbs EOD5/day 91) 1.0 MGD; % removal based on detention time = 61 % ; SODS removal capacity listed is based uaon influent = 215 mg/1 and detention time only • 901276 e —. • COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control Jision Rationale - Page 11. Permit No. CO-0020320 • V. FACILITIES EVALUATION iI C. Treatment Facility /A - 2. Capacity Evaluation - cont'd. Table V-2 -- Evaluation of Treatment Facility Unit Process Capacity Unit Process Features/Description Hydraulic/Organic Lagoon F2: aerated vol. = 9.9 1.0 MGD 4'>iA volt {3 M67 MG; detention time = 9.8 days 805 lbs at 1.0 MGD; % removal based on detention time = 77 % ; • SOD5 removal capacity listed is based upon influent = 125 mg/1 and detention time only b) Aeration Lagoon three 10 hp 498 `_s SOD-/ ay Provided surface mechanical aerators; firm Capacity; _. shown capacity based upon 747 lbs BGDS/daV 1.45 lbs 02/ht-hr transferred, • peak capacity 1.4 lbs 02/lb SODS required . - .._ Lagoon .=2. 4,700 scfm inka 1, 383 lbs SOD 5 /day grid d1"-eed e' rc-- System; shown capacity based upon 0.0143 lbs O2/ft3 , 2% transfer efficiency, 1.4 lbs 02/15 SODS required Settling Cell volume = 3.4 MC; 1.0 MGD (Polishing Pond) detention time = 3.4 days @ 1.0 MGD, which satisfies S day maximum criteria _. Chlorine Contact Basin 50" pipe, 150 ft long, pipe 1. 1 MGD (peak flow) flows full; capacity based upon ' detention time = 30 minutes; l:w ratio = 30:1 Effluent Flow Meter in-line propeller meter at not known point of chlorination 3. Discussion of Capacity - The capacity evaluation was first performed starting with the previously permitted loading of 1.5 MGD and 3,128 lbs BOD5 /day (250 mg/1 influent concentration) . Under these conditions, the predicted BGDS removal in the first _ cell, based upon detention time and Division design criteria, was 1,564 lbs SODS/day, which exceeds the 747 lbs 8O05/day peak removal capacity provided by the three surface mechanical aerators. 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT t HEALTH, Water Quality Control .vision Rationale - Page 12. Permit No. CO-0020320 V. FACILITIES EVALUATION C. Treatment Facility • 3. Discussion of Capacity - cont'd Assuming that the more limiting removal of 747 lbs 30D5/day would be achieved in the first cell, the predicted removal in the second cell, based on detention time, was 1, 643 lbs RODS/day. This exceeds the removal capacity of 1,383 lbs RODS /day Provided by the diffused air system. These results indicate that the capacity of the lagoon system is actually less than the previously permitted loadings. In order to determine the lagoon capacities listed in Table V-2, 30D5 removal was iteratively modelled, successively reducing the design flow, until a flow was found that produced a maximum calculated effluent concentration of 30 mg/1, and also satisfied the - _ rement that the combined removal for both lagoons be a minimum of 85%. Two influent SODS conce.. _._ions were selected for the modelling - 250 mg/1 and 215 c/1. The 215 mg/1 concentration is equal to the average influent con..c.. _aticn over the last 12 months cf data that has been entered into the EPA Permit Compliance System. This concentration may be somewhat low, considering the fact that influent concentrations near 250 mg/1 have occasionally been measured. However, there is some un..c_ _a_nty about how representative the measured concentrations are, since the permittee has been collecting grab samples. In order to provide additional reliability, the new permit will specify that composite samples be collected. The iterative calculations were performed using the following steps: 1) a design flow was assumed 2) the detention time in each cell was calculated 3) Division design criteria was used to determine the % removal in each cell corresponding to the calculated detention times 4) the RODS mass removed in cell 01, based upon detention time, was calculated. 5) the effluent concentration for cell 01 based upon detention time removal capacity, was calculated. 6) the effluent concentration for cell 01, based upon the maximum aeration BOD5 removal capacity of 747 lbs BOD5/day, was calculated. 7) the two cell 01 effluent concentrations calculated in steps 5) and 6) were compared, and the greater of the two was used as the limiting cell #1 effluent concentration. 9127E COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Rationale - Page 13. Quality Control vision Permit No. CO-00020320 V. FACILITIES EVALUATION C. Treatment Facility 3. Discussion of Capacity - cont'd 8) the limiting cell #1 effluent concentration was used as the influent concentration for cell #2 9) steps 4) thru 7) were repeated for cell #2, using the maximum aeration 3OD5 removal capacity of 1,383 lbs bOD da• 10) if the effluent concentration from cell #2 was greater than 30 mg/1, or if the overall removal for both cells was less than _ 85%, the design flow was reduced, and the procedure was repeated starting with step 1) . Using the above procedure, and an influent SODS concentration of 215 mg/1, the highest design g flow which produced a final concentration less than 30 mg/1 and eat an overall removal cf at least 85% was 1.0 MGD, which is the capacity listed in Table V-2. -- Using an influent s� �...; h cf 250 g, allowable design flow was 0.9 MCD. the resulting maximum As discussed in section VI of this rationale, the 1.0 M- is reasonable, effluent OD capacity _e, as erxr_eat 30D5co^.ce.^.rratcens have been as high as 30 mg/1 at flows of only 0.3 MGD. - _.. The capacities determined by the above by the amount of aeration the f 1-c procedure are limited mainly in � cell. Evaluation of system's capacity based upon ' - dic oocn detentirn time alone, indicates the plant should be able to treat 1.3 MGD at an influent concentration of 250 mg/1 SODS , or 1.4 MGD at an influent concentration of 215 mg/1 SODS . Additional aeration would be required in order to raise the syste m's capacity to these levels. Based upon the above considerations, this permit renewal will — specify a hydraulic loading limit of 1.0 MGD. The organic loading limit will be based upon the hydraulic loading limit of 1.0 MGD and the assumed influent concentration of 215 mg/1, and is equal to 1,793 lbs5OD5 /day• This is approximately equal to the loading that would correspond to 85% removal and the sum of the limiting organic removal capacities for the two aerated cells. For cell #1, the limiting capacity is equal to the aeration removal capacity of 747 lbs SODS /day. For cell #2, the limiting capacity is that based upon detention time and corresponding predicted 77% removal rate. Using the cell #1 effluent concentration of 125.4 mo/l SODS , the removal in cell #2 would be 805 lbs SODS /day. Therefore, the total organic removal limit would be equal to 747+805 = 1,552 lbs E0D5 /day. 931276 coLOR::DO DEPARTMENT r- HEALTH, Water Quality Control .vision Rationale - Page 14. :ermit No. CO-0020320 V. FACILITIES EVALUATION C. Treatment Facility 3. Discussion of Capacity - cont'd This is close to 85% removal of the calculated loading of 1,793 lbs SODS/day = 0.85*1,793 = 1,524 lbs BODE/day. • Since the existing loading to the plant has reached 80% of the loading limits that will be included in the new permit, the permittee will be required to perform preliminary planning for expansion of facilities. This is discussed further in section VII — cf this rationale. D. Sludge Treatment and Disposal Since the treatment facility consists of aerated lagoons, sludge removal will probably be infrequent (once every 5 to 10 years) and only — take place if the ponds are drained and cleaned. If sludge is removed from the lagoons for any reason it must be disposed of in accordance with local, State and Federal regulations. VI. r:RFCF.=NCE HISTORY A. Monitoring Data 1. Table VI-1 summarizes the effluent data reported on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's) from April, 1990 to March, 1991. Table VI-1 -- Self-Monitoring Results — No. of Samples Reported Previous No. of Parameter or Reporting Concentrations Permit Limit Periods Avg/ Min/ Max Limit Excursions Flow, MGD 12 0.79/0.76/0.84 1. 5 0 Influent SODS , mg/1 12 215/1S3/248 N/A N/A Influent BOD5 , lb/day 12 1,413/1,175/1, 613 3, 128 0 Effuent SODS , mg/1 12 21.7/15.0/30.0 30 0 SOD5 , % Removal 12 89.7/83.5/92.0 85% minimum 1 Influent TSS, mg/1 12 201/166/267 N/A N/A Effluent TSS, mg/1 12 21.4/12.0/41.0 75 0 Fecal Coliform, No./100 ml 12 169/63/370 6,000 0 Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 12 k0.02/k0.02/k0.02 0.014 0 Oil and Grease, mg/1 12 None Detected 10 0 pH, s.u. 12 7.7 */7.2/8.5 6. 5-9.0 0 Totalrmmonia, mg/1 as N 12 10.0/5.0/13.0 N/A N/A median of all retorted values is indicates "less -than" • 9,31276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT - ' HEALTH, Water Quality Control -"visio:: Rationale - Page 15. Permit No. CO-0020320 VI. PERFORMANCE HISTORY A. Monitoring Data _. 2. As discussed in section VII, monthly ammonia data will be compared against calculated ammonia limits. Data for the April, 1990 to March, 1991 period is shown in Table VI-2. Table VI-2 -- Monthly Effluent Total Ammonia Self-Monitoring Results, mg/1 as N Apr 8 Aug 8 Dec 13 May 13 Sep 9 Jan 11 — Jun 11 Oct 5 Feb 11 Jul 12.4 Nov 11 Mar 3 3. State sampling results for the Town of Windsor for 1990 (latest available data) are shown in Table VI-3. Table VI-3 -- State Sampling Results Date Sa....._ed E meter Ei2F/90 _Ii__/E0 Flow, MGD 0.55 0.75 Temp, °F 53.3 _1. 3 tH, su 7.5 7.5 Dissolved Oxygen, me/1 6.9 9.2 _. Oil and Grease, mg/1 ..10 ,.:0 Residual Chlorine, me/1 k0.o0 :_0.00 Fecal Coliform, #7100 ml k2 49 -. SODS , mg/1 14 22 TSS, mg/1 u10 _3 3. Compliance With Terms and Conditions of Previous Permdt As the data in Tables VI-1 and VI-2 indicate, the face ' : has been in continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit over the period examined, with the exception of one minor failure to meet the 85% SODS removal requirement. However, the data shows that hydraulic and organic loadings have reached and exceeded EC% of the 1.0 MGD and 1,793 lbs 30D5/day respective capacities. Since e`F'"ent BOD5 concentrations have been as high as 30 mg/1, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the facility's actual capacity is close to the calculated 1.0 MGD and 1,793 lbs BOD5/day capacities. Also, as discussed in section VII. , measured ammonia concentrations are very close to or exceed calculated ammonia effluent limitations. Accordingly, a compliance schedule will be included in the permit — recuired preliminary planning for expansion of the facility. Specific requirements are listed in section VII of this rationale. 921276 rCLORADO DEPARTMENT 0 .=_,..T3, Water Quality Control i_Jision Rationale - Page 16. omit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT A. Effluent Limitations -- The following limits will apply and are discussed in Sections VII-B and VII-C. Table VII-1 -- Effluent Limits Based on Desicn Flow of 1.0 MOD) Parameter Limit_ait Rationale Flow, MOD 1.0 a Design Capacity SOD , me 1 (lb/day) 5 / 3C/45 (25C/375) b State Effluent Regulations TSS, mg/1 (lb/day) 75/1'_0(526/935)5 State Effluent Regulations Fecal Coliforn, 6,030/12,000 e State Effluent Policy No./100 ml Total Residual 0.01 c Water Quality Standards Chlorine, mg/1 p3, s.u. 6. 5-?.0 d Water Quality Standards Oil and Grease, mg/l 10 o State Effluent la s Biomonitoring - Acute see Sec. VII.D.3. Permit Regulations 3icmcrito__ng - Chronic see Sec. VII.D.3. Permit ReCU__..ig.`..., Arsenic, TR, U 1 (lb/day) Monitor O. - WQ S (- / - ) ..__.. ']ly IWM, is S Cadmium, PD, ug/l ('_c/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Chromium, Total, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Copper, PD, g/1. (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS iron, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Lead, PD, uc/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Manganese, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM , WQS Nickel, TR, ug/l (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Silver, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor - Only :W M, WQS Zinc, PD, ug/l (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS Total Phenols, me/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only IWM, WQS a 30-day average b 30-day average/7-day average c Instantaneous Maximum a Instantaneous Minimum - Instantaneous Maximum e 30-day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean IWM, WQS monitoring for this parameter is required to satisfy Industrial Waste Management conditions listed in the permit. The monitoring will also provide assurance that Water Quality Standards that have been adopted for the parameter are being maintained. 901276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control .vision Rationale - 'Page 17 rermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT A. Effluent Limitations - ccnt'd • Table VII-1 -- Effluent Limits (Based on Design Flow of 1.0 MGD) Parameter Limit Rationale Interim Limits - Thru May 31, 1994 Total Ammonia as N, mg/1 (lbs/day) September thru February N/A N/A — March Thru August Monitor Only Water Quality Standards Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable, mg/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only g Water Quality Standards Aluminum, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only Water 4/ ( / z') Quality Standards Mercury, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only Water Quality Standards Selenium, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) Monitor Only Water Quality Standards Final Limits - _ecinninc June 1, 1994 Total Ammonia as N, mg/1 (lbs/day) September thru February N/A N/A March 19.9 (166) a Water Quality Standards April 19.9 (166) a Water Quality Standards May 24.3 (203) a Water Quality Standards June 10.0 (83.4) a Water Quality Standards July 10.2 (85.1) a Water Quality Standards — August 11.1 (92.6) a Water Quality Standards Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable, mg/1 (lb/day) 0:03 (0.25) g Water Quality Standards Aluminum, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) 347/2,783 (2.9/23.2) f Water Quality Standards Mercury, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) 0.059/9.2(0.00049/0.077)f Water Quality Standards Selenium, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) 5.0/53 (0.042/0.53) f Water Quality Standards f 30-day average/maximum daily average g Weak Acid Dissociable, as measured by ASTM analytical procedure D2036-81, Method C, with lower limit of quantification = 0.030 mg/1 _ 91276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C.27- ..EALT1?, Water Quality Control ;.vision Rationale - Page IS. ermit No. Co-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT 3. Calculation of Water Quality Eased Effluent Limitations A mass balance equation was used to determine the effluent concentrations that would not violate the allowable in-stream concentrations defined by the WQ standards (except in the case of pH, where the limits are set directly from stream standards or effluent regulations without using a mass balance approach) . The mass balance equation is: M3Q3 - M1Q1 MZ = Q2 Where: Q� = Upstream low flew (1E3 or 30E2) from Part :11.3.2 Q2 = Average daily e"'-ent flow (design capacity) Q3 = Combined downstream flow (Q1 + Q2 ) MI = Upstream background pollutant concentration from III.3. 1 M = U-1. Maximum allowable effluent pollutant concentration Z calculated using mass balance equation M3 = Maximum downstream allowable pollutant (stream standard) A summary of the mass balance calculations (if any) are shown and discussed in VII.C. C. Discussion of r"''Font Limitations 1. SOD5 and TSS - SOD and TSS limits are taken from State Effluent Regulations. No dissolved oxygen problems are expected due to this discharge. Water quality monitoring downstream of the discharge point indicates oxygen levels remain above the sta...a_d of 5.0 mg/l. 2. tH and Oil and Ere=-se - These parameters are limited by Water Quality Standards and State Effluent Regulations, respectively. 3. Pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards - The parameters shown in Table VII-2, along with ammonia and metals, are limited by the Water Quality Standards for the receiving stream. The mass balance equation shown in VII-3, was used to calculate the allowable effluent limitations that would not cause the water quality standards for the parameters listed in in Table VII-2 to be violated. These limitations are shown as the values for M2 in the table. 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT O= HEALTH, Water Quality Control fl vision -- Rationale - Page 19. ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. Pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards (cont'd) The values for Q1 , upstream receiving water flow, were taken from section 1II.5.2. of this rationale and are shown below. The value for Q2 , the plant design flow, is equal to the combined flow from the Windsor and Eastman Kodak facilities (1.0 MGD for Windsor, 1.7 MGD for Kodak) . Q3 is the sum of Q) and Q2 . Chronic flows will apply to the calculation of fecal coliform and cyanide limits, while acute flows apply to the calculation of total residual chlorine limits. Acute (1E3) Chronic (30E3) Q) 11 cfs 19. cfs Q2 4.2 cfs 4.2 cfs Q3 15.2 cfs 23.2 cfs Values for M1 and M3 vary depending on the applicable water quality standard (M3 ) and the background stream quality data (M) ) . These values are also shown in Table VII-2 along with the calculated effluent limitations (M2 ) . Table VII-2 -- Summary of Mass Balance Calculations P=r= eter Pollutant Fecal Total Free Concentration Coliform Residual Chlorine Cyanide mg/1 No./100 ml mg/1 mg/1 M) 117 0.000 0.000 M3 2,000 0.003 0.005 M2 10,741 0.011 0.028 The calculated effluent limit (MZ ) in table VII-2 for fecal coliform bacteria is greater than that allowed by the State effluent policy, which allows a maximum of 6,000 organisms per 100 ml (30-day geometric mean) and 12,000 organisms per 100 ml (7-day geometric mean) . Therefore, the 6,000/12,000 limit specified in the State effluent policy will be applied. The calculated effluent limit for total residual chlorine is less than that allowed by the State Regulations for Effluent Limitations, which is a maximum of 0.5 mg/1 (daily maximum) . Therefore, the limit will be set at the value calculated (rounded to 0.01 mg/l). 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C :EALTH, Water Quality Control •ision Rationale - Page 20. .ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards (cont'd) Even though non-domestic contributions are limited and discharge of cyanide from any industrial or commercial contributor has not been specifically identified, monitoring for cyanide is required for compliance with permit conditions related to industrial waste management. Since monitoring will be required, and the calculated limit is very low, a limit for weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide will be included in the permit, set at the method detection limit of 0.03 mg/l. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) analytical procedure D2036-81, Method C will be specified as the analytical Procedure to be used. WAD cyanide was chosen due to the fact that there is no reliable method of measuring free cyanide in a chlorinated effluent and weak acid dissociable cyanides are the species most likely to indicate the presence cf free cyanide. . Since the lower limit of antificat_cn for the the analysis described above is 0.03 mg/1 and the e___t:ent limitation specified will Ce 0.03 mg/1, there will be reasonable assurance that the 0.005 mg/1 free cyanide stream standard will not be violated as long as the effluent limitation is not violated. • Since there is no data indicating the presence of cyanide in the effluent, and the calculated effluent limitation may reed to be revised if the design capacity of the treatment plant is inc--===d, the limit will not become effective until after any facility expansion work has been completed. But, since the final design capacity is not known, the limit listed in the permit at this time will be based upon the existing design capacity of 1.0 MCD. Should the design capacity of the plant be increased, the permit may be amended to revise the effluent limit. Provided sampling provisions included in the permit's industrial waste management conditions are followed, the results obtained in compliance with the routine effluent monitoring requirements of the permit may be used to satisfy the industrial waste management monitoring requirements. For ammonia, the Colorado Ammonia model was used to determine effluent limitations for the combined Windsor/Kodak discharge which would protect the instream chronic and acute unionized ammonia standard. As described in section III. of this rationale, the model determines the location along the stream where unionized ammonia concentrations will be the greatest. Then, incorporating predicted ammonia decay, the model calculates the effluent limitations that would be required 'to maintain the instream standards. These resulting limitations are listed in Table VII-3. 9t2. 1276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C— HEALTH, Water Quality Control rision Rationale - Page 21. _ ermit No. Co-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. Pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards (cont'd) -- Since the design capacity of the treatment system has been revised from 1.5 MGD in the previous permit to 1.0 MGD in this renewal, and the Town of Windsor must initiate planning for expansion, results are shown for both a 1.5 and 1.0 MGD Windsor effluent flew. Table VII-3 Total Ammonia Effluent Limitations, mg/1 as N - Concentrations Apply to Both Windsor and Kodak Discharges 1.0 MGD Windsor Plant ?low 1 5 MGD Windsor 7tow Chronic Total Acute Total Chronic Total Acute Total Ammonia Limit Ammonia Limit - Month (mc/ Ammonia Limit Ammonia Limit 1) (moil) (mc/1) r- c/ i Jan 107 57 Feb 86 75 91 49 Mar 19.9 17 74 67 Apr19.9 15 17.1 16.2 May 24.3 31 17.1 13.7 Jun 10.0 16. 5 20.9 27.4 Jul 10.2 15 9.1 15.0 Aug 11.1 45 8.8 13. 6 Sep 32 39 9.9 40 Oct 49 c 28.0 46 Nov 59 59 54 43 48 Dec 130 78 51 48 116 70 Comparing the ammonia limitations listed in Table VII-3 with the self-monitoring data submitted by the permittee listed in Table VI-2, the only limits which come close to measured values are those for March thru August, with June'thru August being of particular concern. The facility may not be able to comply with for these three months. p Y limitations Since the permittee will be required to initiate planning for expansion of the facility, and the treatment capacity of the wastewater facility may change, ammonia limits will not be effective until after expansion planning and any associated construction is completed. Until then, only monitoring will be required, for the period March thru August. For metals, the mass balance equation shown in section VII.B. was used to calculate metals effluent limits which would protect the • standards discussed in section III.B. 901276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Ccntro. ivision Rationale - Page 22. Permit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. Pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards (cont'd) Monthly limits were calculated. Since the final limits were fairly consistent between months, only the most stringent monthly limit _ will be discussed in this rationale. The most stringent monthly limit for each metal is listed in Table VII-4. Again, the listed limits apply to both the Windsor and Kodak discharges. Limits have been calculated for both a 1.5 and 1.0 MGD Windsor effluent flow. • Table VII-4 Most Stringent Monthly Metals Effluent Limitation, ug/1 - Limitations Apply to Both Windsor and Kodak Discharges _ Most Stringent Most Stringent Monthly Limit For Monthly Limit Given WWI.? Flow Given WWTP Flow Metal Criteria 1.5 MG) 1.0 MGD Metal Criteria 1.5 MG) 1. 0 MG) Aluminum AQL Acute 2444 2783 Lead AQL Acute 9806 11185 AQL Chronic 304 347 AQL Chronic 358 414 AG 509 590 Arsenic AQL Acute 1212 1382 AQL Chronic 763 S85 Manganese AQL Chronic 4459 5151 AG 509. 590 AG 390 428 Cadmium AQL Acute 361 412 Mercury AQL Acute 8.08 9.21 AQL Chronic 28.7 33.3 AQL Chronic 0.51 0.59 AG 50.9 59.0 AQL FRV 0.051 . 0.059 Cr III AQL Acute 33023 37665 Nickel AQL Acute 15481 17657 AQL Chronic 5610 6511 AQL Chronic 2296 2665 AG 509 590 AG 1017 1181 Cr VI AQL Acute 53.8 61.4 Selenium AQL Acute * 55 63 AQL Chronic 55.9 64.9 AQL Chronic* 5.00 5.00 AG 509 590 AG 81.3 93.5 Copper AQL Acute 438 499 Silver AQL Acute 259 295 AQL Chronic 345 400 AQL Chronic 53.9 62.3 AG 1017 1181 Zinc AQL Acute 2363 2695 Iron AQL Chronic* 2798 3157 AQL Chronic 3044 3533 AQL Aquatic Life Use - Limit is based on Potentially Dissolved concentrations unless otherwise noted. AG Agricultural Use - Limit is based on Total Recoverable concentrations unless otherwise noted. * Total Recoverable concentrations 921276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT O' HEALTH, :...ter Quality Control 'ision Rationale - Pace 23. ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. Pollutants Limited by Water (Duality Standards (cont'd) For the majority of the metals listed in Table VII-4, the calculated effluent limitations are greater than concentrations that would be expected in the effluent. For aluminum, mercury and selenium, however, the limits are low enough to be of concern. Aluminum is of concern due to the Metal Container Corporation flow --- to the treatment plant. While no specific sources of mercury or selenium have been identified, the calculated effluent limits are so low that any introduction to the treatment system could result in a violation of stream standards. Therefore, for aluminum, mercury, and selenium, limits will be included in the permit. However, as was done for ammonia the limits will not become ____,.__-✓e until any required facility expansion has been completed. In order to comply with standard industrial waste man- conditions, annual monitoring is required for all the-:metals listed Table VII-4, except l _, std T � aluminum. With the addition cf aluminum, the monitoring done in order to satisfy the waste management recuirements will be considered sufficient to provide assurance that stream standards are being maintained. However, in order to utilize the metals monitoring for purposes sampling be performed both �.,ling must perfcr-eg as specified in the industrial waste management provisions cf the permit. ___.. Since stream standards for some metals, such as aluminum and mercury, are based upon corresponding concentrations, and correpcndig effluent limitations are therefore applied as potentially dissolved - concentrations, monitoring for metals with only dissolved standards - aluminum, mercury, silver and zinc, will be done using potentially dissolved analyses. Monitoring for metals with only total recoverable sta..,:c �s - iron and selenium, will be done using total recoverable analyses. For metals with both types of standards, monitoring will be based upon the type with the most stringent calculated effluent limitation. The fact that measured total recoverable concentrations will probably be higher than potentially dissolved concentrations must be taken into consideration in determining which type of limit is probably more stringent. The result of the comparison between limitations is that for cadmium, copper and lead, monitoring will be done using potentially dissolved concentrations. For arsenic, manganese and nickel, total recoverable analyses will he used. 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT C MEALTH, Water Quality Control risio❑ Rationale - Page 24. ,.ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT C. Discussion of Effluent Limitations 3. Pollutants Limited by Water Quality Standards (cont'd) For hexavalent chromium, potentially dissolved analyses cannot be performed, as the acidification of the sample will convert hexavalent chromium to the trivalent species. Therefore, dissolved concentrations would need to be measured. The maximum holding time for dissolved hexavalent chromium samples is 24 hours. Since it may be difficult for the Town to have samples analyzed within 24 hours of their collection, total chromium monitoring will be performed. Should significant concentrations of total chromium be detected, the permit will be amended to include monitoring for hexavalent chromium. It will be noted in the permit that all the metals analyses described above may be used to satisfy the industrial waste management monitoring requirements, which are base., unon total metal concentrations, provided that sampling is performed in accordance with provisions included in the in : al waste mana gement conditions. Since the calculated effluent limits for hardness-dependent metals are higher than expected effluent conc=...potions, and flow and hardness data below the Windsor and Kodak d° scharces will likely continue to be collected by the Kodak company, no effluent or instream hardness sampling or st_eam_-_w measurement re Cuirements will be included in the permit. Should future metals sampling indicate effluent concentrations for • hardness-dependent metals are high enough to be of concern, and instream flow-hardness data be determined to be inadequate, flow-hardness monitoring may be added to the permit. With respect to total phenols, no limit will apply to this parameter, but annual monitoring will be required in order to comply with industrial waste management requirements. • 921276 CC?OHA io DEPARTMENT M HEALTH, Water Quality Control nivision Rationale - Page 25. ?ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT D. Monitoring 1. Influent and Effluent Monitoring - Influent and effluent monitoring will be required as shown in Table VII-5. Refer to the permit for locations of monitoring points. Table VII-5 -- Influent and Effluent Monitoring Requirements -- Measurement Parameter Frequency Sample Type Point 3002 - Influent Prior Enterino Lacoon #1 _ Flow, MGD Continuous Recorder SODS , mg/1 (lb/day) Weekly Composite Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 Weekly Composite Point 00_A - D_scharc-e to the Cache La Poudre River _. Flow, MGD Continuous Rec__2c� SODS , mg/1 (lb/day) Weekly Grab _. Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 (lb/day) Weekly Grab Fecal Coliform, No./100 ml Weekly Grab Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 5 times/week Grab -- oH s.u. 5 times/week Grab Oil and Grease, mg/1 5 times/week Visual a Total Ammonia as N, mg/1 (lb/day) September thru February N/A N/A March thru August Weekly Grab 3icmonitoring, Acute See Sec. VII.D.3 3iomonitoring, Chronic See Sec. VII.D.3 --- (cont'd) a If a visible sheen is noted, a grab sample shall be collected and analyzed for oil and grease. The results are to be reported on the DNB under parameter 00556. 93127g COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Centro: ivision Rationale - Page 26. Permit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT • D. Monitoring 1. Influent and Effluent Monitoring (cont'd) Table VII-3 -- Influent and Effluent Monitoring Requirements Measurement Parameter Frequency Sample Type Point 001A - Discharce to the Cache La Poudre River (cont'd) Cyanide, WAD, mg/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab * Aluminum, PD, uc/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab Arsenic, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab * _ Cadmium, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab Chromium, Total, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Crab Copper, PD, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab * Iron, _R, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab ' Lead, PD, uc/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab * Manganese, TR, ug/1 (lbjday) Annual Grab * Mercury, ?D, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab Nickel, TR, ug/1 (1h/day) : -ual Grab Selenium, TR, ug/1 ('_b/day) Annual Grab Sil.er, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Grab Zinc, PD, ug/1 (lb/day) Annual Grab Total Phenols, mg/1 (_b/day) Annual Grab . Analytical results may be used for compliance with industrial waste management requirements, provided sampling provisions included in the permit industrial waste management conditions are followed. WAD Weak Acid Dissociable, as measured by ASTM analytical procedure D2036-81, Method C, with lower limit of quantification = 0.030 mg/1 PD Potentially Dissolved D Dissolved TR Total Recoverable 2. Pretreatment - The Town of Windsor has not implemented an approved pretreatment program. However, one categorical industry - Metal Container Corporation (MCC) , is within the Town's service area and is subject to standards promulgated and enforced by the EPA. The MCC has in the past, during the initial start-up of the plant, exceeded standards, but appears to now be in compliance. Only general industrial waste management conditions will be included in the Town of Windsor permit. 9 ,1276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control a;vision Rationale - Page 27. ermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT D. Monitoring 3. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing For this facility, acute and chronic WET testing are rewired. (See Parts I.A and I.3 of the permit. ) Purpose of WET Testinc: Section 6.9.7 of the "Regulations fcr the State Discharge Permit System", passed by the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) , has established the use of WET testing as a method for identifying and controlling toxic discharges from wastewater treatment facilities. WET testing is being utilized as a means to ensure that there are no discharges "in amounts, concentrations or combinations which are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life" as required by Section 3. 1.11 (1) (d) of the "Basic Standards and Methodologies". Chemical analysis of effluent has provided only a partial evaluation of the potential impact a discharge could have on the receiving stream. Also, chemical analysis cannot evaluate the synergistic cr antagonistic effect of compounds. There are also compounds for _ which an accurate or re^rodu^'w'= method of chemical analysis•:s:s has not yet been developed, as wall as compounds which are just beginning to be evaluated for toxic effects. WET testing will provide a more comprehensive means of evaluating the toxicity of a discharge tha n could otherwise currently be accomplised. Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) : As a condition of the permit, the permittee will be required to conduct routine monitoring for acute toxicity. An unacceptable level of acute toxicity occurs when 1) there is a statistically significant difference in the mortality _ (at the 95% confidence level) observed, for Ceriodenh-:ia sp. (water flea) and fathead minnows, between the control and any effluent concentration less than or equal to the Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) or 2) a species mortality in any dilution of effluent (including 100% effluent) exceeds 50%. The IWC is determined using the following ecuation: IWC = (Facility Flow (F?)/(Stream Low Flow (annual) + FF) ) X 100% The flows and corresponding IWC for the appropriate discharge point are: Discharge Point Stream Low Flow 1.:,3 ( '" ) Facility Flow IWC 001 . 11 cfs 1.0 MGD (1.55 cfs) 12.3 % In order to determine if the discharge causes or has the reasonable potential to cause interference with attainment of applicable water quality classifications or standards, monitoring for WET is being required. 921276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control vision Rationale - Page 28. Permit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT D. Monitoring 3. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing - (Continued) If an unacceptable level of acute toxicity is identified, the permittee is required to conduct a toxicity incident response and identify a control program to eliminate that toxicity, as identified in Part I.3. of the permit. Additionally, the permit may be modified to incorporate an acute toxicity limit, as provided in regulation. The determination as to whether cr not an individual facility must conduct chronic WET testing is dependent upon the ratio of the chronic stream low flow (30E3) to the design flow of• the wastewater treatment plant and the classification of the receiving stream. If the ratio is less than 19:1, and the discharge may affect the aquatic life use of the receiving stream, chronic WET testing is included as a permit requirement. in this case, the ratio is exactly 19.0: 1.0. Also, the Kodak -- discharge immediately downstream cf the Windsor discharge 1.. ..====s the likelihood of chronic toxicity in the stream downstream cf the two discharges. Therefore, chronic WET testing is required. Such testing shall be semi-annually, with two species for the -c _=r, and with only the most sensitive species during years two and three. After the third year of monitoring, the chronic testing requirement ends unless applicable regulations are adopted and the permit is modified for such new requirements. The permit has already been conditioned for termination of chronic monitoring =--__ 3 years. A written re-pest from the permittee, however, will be required before relieffrom two species testing will be allowed. The permittee should read the WET testing sections of Part I.A. and 1.3. of the permit carefully, and should note that the test methods for the toxicity tests are described in detail in the Division guidance document, Guidelines for Conducting Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests. This document should be read thoroughly prior to commencing the required WET testing, to ensure that the permittee is aware of the various test conditions that could affect the test results (e.g. , sample holding time) . The permittee should be aware that some of the conditions outlined above may be subject to change if the facility experiences a change in discharge, as outlined in Part II.A.1 of the permit. Such changes shall be reported to the Division immediately. • • • 9212'76 COLORADO DEPARTMENT 0--iEALTA, Water Quality Control r ision Rationale - Pace 29. rmit No. CO-0020320 • VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT E. Reporting 1. Discharge Monitoring Reoort - The permittee must submit a Discharge — Monitoring Report (DMR) monthly to the Division. This report will contain the test results for parameters shown in Table VII-2 and Part I, Section 3 of the permit. The DMR form shall be completed and submitted in accordance with Part I, Section B.2 of the permit. 2. Annual Reoort - The permittee will be required to submit an annual report which summarizes the past year's operating history of the WWTF and relevant appurtenances. An outline of the topics to be covered in the report is included in Part I, Section D.3 of the permit. 3. Soecial Retorts - Special reports are required in the event of a spill, bypass, or other noncompliance. Please refer to Part I, Section D.4 of the permit for reporting requirements. F. Additional Terms and Conditions 1. Sicnatory Requirements - Signatory requirements for reports and submittals are discussed in Part I, Section D.1 of the permit. 2. Ccmt_iance 'Sch>.,"1es The capacity evaluation and performance history data presented in • this rationale indicate both hydraulic and organic loadings to the facility have reached 8C% of the capacities determined in section V. of this rationale. 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. Therefore, the following compliance schedule for initiating engineering and financial planning for expansion will be included in the permit. While loading to the wastewater treatment plant has not reached 95% of the capacities identified in this rationale, and construction of facilities is therefore not required to satisfy the hydraulic or organic expansion requirements of C.R.S. 25-8-501 (5 d & e), it may — -not be possible for the permittee to meet ammonia limitations without some facility expansion. Also, the Town has indicated, during the public notice period for �- the permit, that it intends to add aeration to the first lagoon in order to increase the facility's capacity. • 9212'76 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control ivision Rationale - Page 30. Permit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT F. Additional Terms and Conditions 2. Compliance Schedules - cont'd Therefore, the schedule will include provisions for the submittal of application for site approval for facility expansion and for the construction of new facilities. Limits for ammonia, cyanide and several metals will become effective after the construction completion date included in the schedule. The extent to which the facility must be expanded will depend upon the results of the preliminary engineering/financial planning report done as part of the site application process, and the permittee's selection of alternatives that will meet both short-term and long-term needs. Should it be determined that the existing facility _ will be able to remain below the 95%-of-capacity limit mentioned above for the life of the renewal permit, and also meet the final ammonia limits listed in this rationale and the renewal permit beginning on the effective date shown, the permit may he amended to remove the submittal of plans and specifications and construction related items from the compliance schedule. — Permit Code -vent C _ ' -n Due Date 00999 Submit progress report on site application Part I.A.7 2/29/92 and/or engineering/financial planning for expansion. Include a summary cf actions taken to-date, and proposed upcoming actions. 01099 Submit site application for increasing the Part I.A.7 6/30/92 facility's capacity. Specific requirements for application will be determined as part of the application process, but a preliminary engineering/financial planning report for , expansion of facilities may be required, and should include the following: a) Projected hydraulic and organic loadings to the treatment plant over the life of the facility. b) A discussion of any coordination that has been done with Eastman Kodak, related to acceptance of waste flows, stream sampling, or insuring that the combined discharges from the two facilities will not result in a violation of stream standards. cont'd J6�`u1 276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT ( HEALTH, Water Quality Control 'ision Rationale - Page 31. dermit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT F. Additional Terms and Conditions 2. Compliance Schedules - cont'd _ Permit Code Event Citation Due Date _. c) A summary of the effluent limitations that must be met and treatment capabilities that the plant must provide. This may be broken into short-term and long-term requirements. d) Alternatives for providing the required treatment capabilities, both short-term and long-term. e) A comparison of the identified alternatives, including costs. f) Plans for financing the most cost-effective alternative(s) . 01799 Submit plans and sper' >4cations for facility Part I.A.7 12/30/92 expansion. * NOTE * The permittee may submit a request for amendment of the permit to increase hydraulic and organic loading limits after site approval for expansion of facilities has been granted and after a final construction schedule has been developed. 03099 Commence construction of facility expansion Part I.A.7 6/30/93 and submit written notification that construction has begun. 04599 Complete construction of facility expansion Part I.A.7 4/30/94 and submit written notification that construction has been completed. 05699 Begin compliance with final ammonia, cyanide Part I.A.7 6/1/94 and metals limitations. Submit written notification that the facility will be operated in order to comply with the final limitations. 931276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH, Water Quality Control ^ivision Rationale - Page 32. Permit No. CO-0020320 VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PERMIT G. Reopener, Permit Renewal and Fee Information 1. The permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for reasons outlined in Part II, section 3.8 of the permit. 2. Requirements for permit renewal are discussed in Part II, Section 3.11 of the permit. 3. Permit fee recuirements are outlined in Part II, Section 3.13 of the permit. An annual fee must be paid to the Water Quality Control Division to maintain the status of your permit. Rich Forstmann June 14, 1991 VIII. CHANGES MADE AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE The Town of Windsor submitted comments mainly related to the reduced capacity specified in the renewal permit (1.0 MOD versus 1.5 MOD in the previous permit) . The Town proposed that a schedule for installing additional aeration be included in the permit, and that a final capacity of 1.3 MOD be specified. The 1.3 MOD capacity is based upon the capacity evaluation that was done for the permit renewal, and was discussed in further detail in a letter to the Town, dated September 20, 1991. After discussing the Town's proposal with other Division personnel, it was determined that the addition of aeration would require site approval, and that inclusion of a compliance schedule that included a final capacity of 1.3 MOD to become effective on a specific date would not be appropriate. Instead, it was decided that the permit would be modified to include a compliance schedule requirement for applying for site approval and that compliance dates would be extended, with the final ammonia, cyanide and ammonia limits becoming effective June 1, 1994. The permit compliance schedule will also indicate that the Town should apply for amendment of the permit to increase the hydraulic and organic loading limits as soon as site approval is granted for whatever facility modifications the Town determines are appropriate, and after a final construction schedule is available. The rationale and the permit will also be modified to eliminate acute ammonia limits, as the acute ammonia stream standard has been determined to be not effective at this time. Chronic limits will be specified with three significant figures. 9;:',12'76 COLORADO DEPARTMENT o' HEALTH, Water Quality Control 'ision Rationale - Page 33. ermit No. CO-0020320 VIII. CHANGES MADE AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE Also, acute and chronic testing requirements and associated permit language has been slightly modified to correspond with recently adopted regulations. In order to incorporate these changes, and correct the expected effective dates for the permit, pages 17, 27, 29, 30, and 31 of the rationale, and pages 1, lb, lc, ld, le, li and lk thru lo of the permit will be modified. Rich Horstmann 11/22/91 921276 STATE C ' COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH �� - Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and ��i\ environment of the people of Colorado ; «�* 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building .re�a, Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue - Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80220-3716 (303)691-4700 Roy Romer Governor February 12, 1993 Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPH Executive Director Mr. Dennis Markham Treatment Plant Operator Town of Windsor 301 Walnut Street Windsor, CO 80550 RE: WET Testing/Preliminary Effluent Limits Town of Windsor CDPS NO: CO-0020320 Larimer County Dear Mr. Markham: We have reviewed the Town's WET testing results for the fourth quarter of 1992. WET testing as required by the permit was performed and the results indicate significant toxicity in the raw effluent. In addition, we noted that WET tests were performed on two samples of zeolite filtered effluent, one of which had been "spiked" with ammonia such that the concentration was approximately equal to that ' in the raw effluent. The test on the "spiked" zeolite-filtered sample exhibited significant toxicity and the test on the zeolite filtered sample exhibited minimal toxicity. The Town is currently under a schedule of compliance for construction of facilities which are capable of meeting final ammonia limits and they have completed a preliminary toxicity investigation which showed that the toxicity was due to ammonia. The results of the three tests that were performed during last December continue to confirm that the toxicity is being caused by high concentrations of unionized ammonia. Therefore, we will consider the compliance schedule to be a control plan for the purposes of Part I.B.9 of the permit and we will not require the Town to conduct any accelerated testing as a result of the latest WET test failure. Furthermore, as long as the testing protocol (raw effluent-zeolite filtered-zeolite filtered and "spiked") which was used in December is followed in future tests, and the results indicate that ammonia is the cause of the toxicity, then accelerated testing will not be required. 921276 February 12, 1993 Mr. Dennis Markham Treatment Plant Operator Town of Windsor Page 2 We have also completed our determination of preliminary effluent limits for ammonia at a discharge flow of 1.3 MGD, as requested in your letter of November, 1992, and the 30-day average limits are as follows: Month Limit (mg/I) Jan. 59.4 Feb. 36.1 Mar. 10.0 Apr. 10.0 May 11.6 June 7.8 July 7.7 Aug. 7.9 Sept. 13.3 Oct. — 19.6 Nov. 29.1 Dec. 49.5 Please call me at 692-3591, if you have any questions. Sincerely, pa ai(mai, David A. Akers Senior Professional Engineer Permits and Enforcement Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION cc: Tom Bennett, Groundwater Planning and Standards, WQCD Local Health Department Victor Sainz, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD Ginny Torrez, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD MS-3 file DAA/dc 9;3127S — COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East Ilth Avenue — Denver, Colorado 80220 • AMENDMENT NO. 3-SUMMARY OF RATIONALE TOWN OF WINDSOR PERMIT NUMBER CO-0020320, WELD COUNTY CONTENTS PAGE L PERMIT TYPE I IL FACILITY INFORMATION 1 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 2 I. TYPE OF PERMIT Amendment — 1I. FACILITYINFORMA77ON.• A. Facility Type: Domestic -Major Municipal Lagoon System Fee Category: Category 20, Subcategory 5 • Category Flow Range: 1,000,000 to 1,999,999 gpd Annual Fee: $1,466 B. Legal Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works • Town of Windsor 301 Walnut St. Windsor, CO 80550 (303)686-7476 C Facility Contact: Dennis Wagner, Director of Public Works Town of Windsor 301 Walnut St. Windsor, CO 80550 (303) 686-7476 D. Facility Location: SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Sec. 34, T6N, R67W E. Discharge Point: 001A to the Cache La Poudre River 9312176 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division • Rationale - Page 2. Permit No. CO-0020320 III. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT': • In a letter dated August 16, 1993, the town requested that their permit be amended to revise the compliance schedule for expansion of the capacity of their wastewater treatment facility and to extend the date for compliance with final limits for total ammonia, cyanide, and certain metals. They have proposed that the schedule be extended to June of 1996 in recognition of the fact that an activated sludge process will probably be required to meet the ammonia limits. The following discussion is a summary of the events which have led up to the town's request. As required by item 7.b)of the compliance schedule on page Id of their permit the town, using in-house resources, developed and submitted a site application on August 3, 1992. However, the application did not address the proposed facility's ability to meet effluent limits for total ammonia at the requested capacity of 1.3 MGD. The division developed monthly effluent limits for total ammonia, which go as low as 7.7 mg/1 during July, and sent them to the town on February 12, 1993. This limit is less than the minimum monthly limit which is contained in the permit(10.Omg/l in June)and is potentially lower than that which a lagoon facility can meet. After receiving the revised limits, the town realized that their plan to increase the capacity of the existing lagoon facility would have to be re-evaluated. After a short delay, they contracted with a consulting engineer with a goal of completing a preliminary engineering report by the end of September. The plan will analyze various treatment options as well as "off-site"treatment by other entities. Since the town was proceeding in good faith using their own employees and did not realize the potential impact that the revised limits would have on their proposal, the division feels that their request to extend the compliance schedule is reasonable. The permit will be amended to extend the schedule as well as the effective date for final limits. The revised compliance schedule is shown below. Permit Code Event Citation Due Date 01099 Submit a site application and a preliminary Part LA.7 12/31/93 engineering report white includes a selected alternative which will provide for expansion of the capacity of the treatment facility as well as having the ability to meet the revised ammonia limits described in the division's letter of February 12, 1993. (continued) 901275 • — COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division Rationale- Page 3. Permit No. CO-0020320 III. PURPOSE OFAMENDMENT.• (Continued) Permit Code &mit Citation Due Date . The report shall include the following: a) Projected hydraulic and organic loadings to the treatment plant over the life of the facility. b) A discussion of any coordination that has been done with Eastman Kodak, related to acceptance of waste flows, stream sampling, • or insuring that the combined discharges from the two facilities will not result in a violation of stream standards. c) A summary of the effluent limitations that must be met and treatment capabilities that the plant must be able to provide. d) Alternatives for providing the required treatment capability. e) A comparison of the capability and cost of each alternative. j) Plans for financing the selected alternative. 01799 Submit plans and specifications for facility Part I.A.7 7/31/94 expansion. 03099 Commence construction of facility expansion Pan LA.7 9/30/94 and submit written notification that construction has begun. -- 04599 Complete construction of facility expansion and Pan LA.7 3/31/96 submit written notification that construction has been completed. • 05699 Begin compliance with final ammonia, cyanide Pan LA.7 5/31/96 and metals limitations. Submit written notification that this has been done. 931276 • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Water Quality Control Division Rationale- Page 4. Permit No. CO-0020320 III. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: (Continued) ' The schedule provides for an eighteen-month construction period as opposed to the ten-month period in the original schedule. This extension is based on the probability that a different treatment process will be required to meet the ammonia limits. If the preliminary engineering report Identifies a selected alternative that allows for an upgrade of the existing facility, then the permit will be amended to revise the schedule to require the construction to be completed in a shover period. The limits for selenium have been recalculated to reflect the adopted standards for segment 12 of the Cache La Poudre basin of 17ug/l(chronic)and 135 ugh!(acute)rather than the "proposed"standards of 5 ugh and 20 ug/i, respectively, which were assumed to be imminent at the time the permit was issued in 1991. These calculations were done using the annual 1E3 and 30E3 flows of 11 cfs and 19 _ cfs, respectively, and the median background concentration of S ugR from Table 111-7 of the rationale ' for the town's permit. The limits were determined to be 71.3 ug/l(30-day avg.)and 475 ugR (1-day avg.). The town has analytical results for one sample which was below a detection limit of 6 ug/l. Due to the fact that there are no known contributors of selenium to the town's collection system and • the one result is far below the calculated limits, the limit and the monitoring requirement for selenium will be deleted. The final date for compliance with the limits for cyanide, mercury and aluminum will also be extended. However, in order to be consistent with the stream standards for segment 12,the limit for mercury will be changed from the "potentially dissolved"species to the "total"species. The division has determined that this extension is appropriate as the results of the annual sampling indicated that the concentrations of cyanide and mercury were below their respective detection limits and the results for aluminum were 150 ugn which is 43% of the proposed limit of 347 ugR. Also, the limits will have to be recalculated at the higher design flow and it makes sense to allow the town to gather a reasonable amount of data to determine whether additional industrial/commercial source controls are necessary. In order to insure that an adequate database is developed, the monitoring frequency for these parameters will be increased to quarterly. Finally, the division recently adopted a policy which limits to 400 ugR the hardness value which is used to calculate table value standards. The standards and revised limits will be calculated using the 400 ug/l value once the final design flow for the town's facility is known. Pages lc, Id, le, and Ij will be revised as aresult of this amendment. • Dave Akers September 7, 1993 921276 Penn 'art I Page lc of 23 Permit No. CO-0020230 A. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 5. Effluent Limitations - cont'd Effluent Parameter pjscharge Limitations Maximum Concentrations (Maximum Mass) 30-Day Ave, 7-Day Ave. Max. Daily Avg, _ Arsenic, TR, ugh' (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Cadmium, PD, ugh (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Chromium,Total, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ _ Copper, PD, ug/l (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Iron, TR, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Lead, PD, ug/l (lb/day) MIA N/A Report e/ Manganese, TR, ug/1 (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Nickel, TR, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Silver, PD, ug/l (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Zinc, PD, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Total Phenols, mg/1 (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ Interim Limits -Thru May 31. 1996 Total Ammonia as N, mg/I (lb/day) September thru February N/A N/A N/A __ March thru August Report a/ N/A Report e/ Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable, mg/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report dm/ . Aluminum, PD, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A - Report e/ Mercury, Total, ug/I (lb/day) N/A N/A Report e/ • Final Limits - Beginning June 1. 1996. _ Total Ammonia as N, mg/I (lb/day) - September thru February N/A N/A N/A March 19.9 (166) a/ N/A Report e/ April 19.9 (166) a/ N/A Report e/ May 24.3 (203) a/ N/A Report e/ June 10.0 (83.4) a/ N/A Report e/ July 10.2 (85.1) a/ N/A Report e/ August 11.1 (92.6) a/ N/A Report e/ Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable, mg/I (lb/day) 0.03 (0.25) a/m/ N/A N/A Aluminum, PD, ug/I (lb/day) 347 (2.9) a/ N/A 2,783 (23.2) e/ Mercury, Total, ug/l (lb/day) 0.059 (0.00049) a/ N/A 9.2 (0.077) e/ PD - Potentially Dissolved, see footnote L/ TR - Total Recoverable Amended Effective 9=1276 Per Part I Pagt. 4 of 23 Permit No. CO-0020230 A. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 6. Percentage Removal Requirements BOD3 and TSS Limitations) In addition to the concentration limitations on BOD5 indicated above, the arithmetic mean of the BOD5 concentrations for effluent samples collected during the calendar month shall demonstrate a minimum of eighty-five percent (85%) removal of BOD5, as measured by dividing the respective difference between the mean influent and effluent concentrations for the calendar month by the respective mean influent concentration for the calendar month, and multiplying the quotient by 100. 7. Compliance Schedule a) Submit, by December 31, 1993, a site application and a preliminary engineering report for increasing the facility's capacity. The preliminary engineering/financial planning report for expansion of facilities shall include the following: i) projected hydraulic and organic loadings to the treatment plant, including infiltration/inflow, over the life of the facility. • ii) a discussion of any coordination that has been done with Eastman Kodak related to acceptance of waste flows, stream sampling, or insuring that the combined discharges from the two facilities will not result in a violation of stream standards. iii) a summary of the effluent limitations that must be met and treatment capabilities that the plant must provide. iv) alternatives for providing the required treatment capability. v) a comparison of the capability and cost of the identified alternatives. vi) plans for financing the selected alternative. b) submit by July 31, 1994, plans and specifications for facility expansion consistent with the approved site application. Amended Effective 921276 Permit, Part I Page le of 23 Permit No. CO-0020230 A. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 6. Compliance Schedule - cont'd c) by September 30, 1994, commence construction of facility expansion and submit, by the same date, written notification that construction has begun. d) by March 31, 1996, complete construction of facility expansion and submit written notification that construction has been completed. e) beginning June 1, 1996, compliance with final limits for total ammonia, WAD cyanide, potentially dissolved aluminum and total mercury will be required as reflected on page lc. Progress reports must be submitted for tasks identified in the above schedule. Refer to PART I; Section D, Reporting Requirements for further details. 8. Industrial Waste Management a) The permittee has the responsibility to protect the domestic wastewater treatment works (DWTW) from any contributing discharges which would inhibit, interfere, or otherwise be incompatible with operation of the treatment works including the use or disposal of municipal sludge. b) Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.5) developed pursuant to Section 307 of the Act required that under no circumstances shall the permittee allow the introduction of the following pollutants to the waste treatment system from any source of nondomestic discharge: (i) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the treatment facility, including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than sixty (60) degree Centigrade (140 degrees Fahrenheit) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21; (ii) Pollutants which will cause discharges with a pH of lower than 5.0 s.u., unless the works are specifically designed to accommodate such discharges; (iii) Solids or viscous pollutants n amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the facility, or other interference with the operation of the facility; (iv) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (e.g., BOD), released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause interference with any treatment process at the facility; Amended Effective 3;21276 Permit--Part I Page if 23 Permit No. CO-002O230 B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2. Effluent Parameters - cont'd Effluent Parameter Frequency j/ Sample Type IJ Cyanide, WAD, mg/I (lb/day) Quarterly Grab min/ Aluminum, PD, ug/I (lb/day) Quarterly Grab k/L/n/ Arsenic, TR, ugh! (lb/day) Annual Grab k/Lin/ Cadmium, PD, ugh (Ib/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Chromium, Total, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Copper, PD, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Iron, TR, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Lead, PD, ugh! (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L ii/ Manganese, TR, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Mercury, Total, ug/I (lb/day) Quarterly Grab k/L/n/ Nickel, TR, ug/l (Ib/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Silver, PD, ug/I (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/n/ Zinc, PD, ug/l (lb/day) Annual Grab k/L/nl — Total Phenols, mg/I (lb/day) Annual Grab n/ Self-monitoring samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s): 00IA, following dechlorination and prior to entering the Cache La Poudre River. 3. Sludge Parameters If sludge disposal is required, the permittee shall monitor sludge quality and quantity as follows. Results of monitoring shall be included in the Annual Report (see Part I, Section D.3). - Sludge Parameter Frequency j/ Sample Type f/ Total Solids, % dry weight Per Haul Event Sludge Composite Volatile Solids, % of Total Solids Per Haul Event Sludge Composite Volume of Sludge Disposed of, gals/day Per Haul Day Measured Dry Weight of Sludge Disposed of, lbs/day Per Haul Day Calculated Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken after the sludge has been digested and/or dewatered (or otherwise stabilized) but prior to transport or disposal. All samples shall be representative of the sludge stream being sampled. Amended Effective 912'7Ei 111/ Z// 111.1 10. J3 ,]b,]-rn/-rLiiU Lull WULU WULL I RUL oL STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4.s w. Qadrabd to protecting and impnwi the health and ,. •','' envinanrnent of the'maple of Colon I p( % Y. 4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Lmbaatary Building ,'I Omar,Colorado 60222-1 SMO 4210 E.11th Avenue Phone 003)692-2000 Denver,Colored°e0220-3716 003)691-4700 Roy Manor Gwa ar Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPH September 27, 1993 Edmaeln.°i n'"' Sean Scums RTW 1600 Stout St, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Ammonia Limits for the Town of Windsor, CDI'S Permit No. CO-0020320 Dear Mr. Scums; I attempted to duplicate the Colorado Ammonia Model results obtained by Dave Akers for the 1.3 MGD Windsor flow,using the same input values for effluent flow,pH, and temperature, and stream low-flows that were used in the original model. My results were not very close to Dave's, probably due to the use of different decay rate, or other parameters related to site-specific chemical characteristics of the stream. Still, It may be possible to use the comparison of the results I obtained for various flowrates to project what _ limits might bo if identical model inputs had been used. These results arc listed the last three columns of the following table. Month Original limits Attempted Limits Based On Limits Based On Based Upon Duplication of 1.3 Multiplying Effluent Multiplying Effluent 1.3 MOD MOD Limits Flow by 1.1 Flow by 0.8 (Plus Kodak Flow) (Including Kodak) (Including Kodak) Jan 84.1 101.1 90.3 118.R Feb 54.2 60.5 54.1 71.1 Mar 13.1 21.4 19.3 s 23.2 Apr 13.0 21.3 19.4 23.1 May 14.7 19.7 18 23.0 Jun 10.9 21.5 19.8 24.2 Jul 10.2 20.5 18.8 23.3 Aug 10.5 20.4 18.8 23.9 Sep 12.9 19.7 18.3 22.0 Oct 19.5 38.5 35.4 43.5 Nov 41.5 52.4 48.1 60.8 Doc 67.2 99.1 88.1 117.2 9w1276 rJ/ Zit 1JJJ 10. 00 JtJJ (CL U3JG l.0 1 WU UI) W0Y0,l, I HVL VJ September 27, 1993 Sun Scums' Palm 2 Hopefully, these results will be satisfactory until Dave returns in November, Sincerel Rich Hotatmann Professional Engineer Permits and Enforcement Section Water Quality Control Division xc Dave Akers, WQCD MS-S Pile 931276 APPENDIX B OPERATIONAL DATA AND FACILITY EVALUATIONS 921276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q N 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N t tit en N N. N N- N N N P N N to N N wU b CO N N CO N 0 0 N CO. O CO en n en P OD N CO N P 0 b > 'Q N n h lD N l0 l0 l0 in b n 00 h n h l0 l0 lD l0 b n h w 0 J J Y p yy pp p p p y>• �.� V H O 0 O0 ,4 O O 0 Q Q 8 b 0 tO_ 1p 1p N 8 VU > Z N 0 V P N N `� NN en N — J O Vf L, 5 ) -” Y n Ni. O t/1 N N O P VI n n M1 N n S W a l d < NO d en en n < Y In to in O O O O < F W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CO N N N N N N N N Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O II" K � 000000000060000a4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 NO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — DQ 0 0 LL = W U . — - O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Q in Q 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 0 N 0 0 FL, _f in CO N r 0 t- < CO en N N h 0 N in N G en n U O LL LL W F- < Z Z r r CO COr P O P P 0 P N P P N P 0 N CO b ZZI W v O O r 6,-4 -CZ -> n CO r P r r N In N O to r P O -S 0 Y n n — Z O V N N `t ? r r r N N r r r Y N Ni n 4 LLti , LL, 1- o 0 en 0 n en N 0 in enr NI'r r n CO b r V03 CO r CO tC 0 b _ D Z > a en N en en N r N . . . . . N CO CO N Co r N r N N CA D < V Q J 0 w o - Q O H N N 0 b r O N N O < 0 O N n r O O r N P N P r N J Z > r N N N N r r r r r N r r r r r r N r r r r N Q p < U z Lch i_ y, - 0 Z H p g I— Z U in Vl Y tO K N < r ^ n tO n CO N P b to 0 N N it in en In Z CO b in to b N in N 0 r CO 0 N N r 0 > N 00 T N r CO < u N N N N N N N N N N N N r r N N N N N N N — W J 0 O. zm - O . P O O N N d tO co en in P 0 in in N 0 P 0 en 0 P CO < O O O O O 029220 O r oat 0— 0 > 0 O O o O o 6060000666666066660 Y K n N N N 0 P Y P OO to CO N N to to en 0 N tO en 0 r P — 0 3 V n n N n n b N t\ N. n n n n n n 00 CO t CM 0 00 CO 0 m n 66666066666666666o660006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 > (.) Z .-1 .. u_- Q en CO N ND in r O 0 0 N en 0 0 P 0 0 tO OO In 0 •0 Y en N CO P P OD P P CO 00 CO CO CO b P CO O O Cl., P P 7 O P P P O 0 do 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r o 0 o r r 0 0 0 -iLL N 00 0 N P N n to b r CO N r r to b 0 0 N. D O Q 0 N N Y N n CO 0 COpO 0 CO CO N N OO N N W P P P P P P P P P CO 6o0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 O F LL — I ~ Z co 6' J' Z O O0 w U O V Q m < 0. < WU Q U O g LL < < I^ 0 z O f < f < I^ 0 z o R' N P P >- 3J1276 ® � q \ 5 ° N. 2 -O " Q3 §fI % E \ _ �� \ \ S § VI 2 / G g 2 7 q 0 q 7 O 2\ d o d o o 0 O Zit 2 � O F- 0 O O 0 O O co \ R « Ilk - < z2 f I- .... - ° z2 / � -J LL b22 # 2 u - n N. i CO - R D < \ 2vI @I � \Q / A a N. n - N LU kQ _ _ N. _$ _ D < 0 U- - \ 0 / / \ NI a \ § � / § < / 0\ § \ \ § § § \ . VI § > a 0 § o § o up \ o za < f 4 / 0 7 0 0 o ) \ / o o 2aZ Q3 F G $ Q O N. CO } § < i o e o a o } 0 7 7. \Z = 0 & ± # I < \ el 9.21276 Zo -2 5(p- p� Client Name: Town of Windsor Project No. : 1054-001 Sample Name: Influent Sample Matrix: Wastewater Sample No. : 930614-1436 Sample Date: 06/14/93 DATE OF PARAMETER CONCENTRATION ANALYST ANALYSIS INORGANICS Alkalinity-Total/Caic Carb 253 CST 06/23/93 Ammonia as N 10.5 ECM 06/22/93 TEN as N 15.5 ECM 06/22/93 All values are reported in parts per million (ppm) unless otherwise noted. Post-It"brand lax transmittal memo 7871 I+erpeges• Se�con SCAJCus Front r >� n r kntim Co. Y ro Rik)W , .ni of W.J�x.'-- Dept. �I I Phone#la'S!o Z.144— IZ.144Fen BI-O��y ZJ 'v(04e_ Fine (p$6P-1t4 .O • mint ENYRONMINIAL CONSULTANTS.IC JUL-12-1993 09 17 3036867478 P.01 90.:12'76 client Name: Town of Windsor Project No. : 1054- 1-0117-- Sample Name: Influent Sample Matrix: Wastewater Sample No. : 930607-1316 Sample Date: 06/07/93 DATE OF PARAMETER CONCENTRATION ANALYST ANALYSIS INORGANICS Alkalinity--Total/Cale Carb 205 CST 06/10/93 Ammonia as N 4.0 EGM 06/10/93 - TKN as N 16.0 EGM 06/10/93 A11.values are reported in parts per million (ppm) unless otherwise noted. Post-It's brand lax transmittal memo 7671 tot paeef ' J To • Co. R7-(A) "foul LIP._ Oxpl. Phone Y Fax* Fax# f- .�-OCo,�`/ radk 57Ft1MRt ErWRONA.4114TAI CONAiQAN1S,INC. JUN-17-1993 G_q:E�3 3036667478 P.01 901276 SZD-2tsd>- a, - prb AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES YEAR MONTH INF P EFF TEMP e TEMP DEGREES C DEGREES C DEGREES C 1991 JAN 12. 00 2.00 FEB 13. 00 5. 00 8. 00 MAR 14. 00 8. 00 APR 17.00 11.00 14. 00 MAY 17. 00 17. 00 18. 00 JUN 20. 00 22. 00 - JUL 21.00 24.00 20. 00 AUG 21. 00 23.00 22. 00 SEP 20. 00 20.00 OCT 21. 00 14. 00 NOV 17. 00 6.00 DEC 14. 00 4. 00 1992 JAN 12. 00 3. 00 6. 00 FEB 13. 00 6.00 MAR 13. 00 9. 00 APR 14. 00 14.00 MAY 17. 00 18. 00 - JUN 18. 00 21.00 JUL 20.00 23. 00 AUG 19. 00 21. 00 21. 00 SEP 19. 00 18.00 OCT 15.00 12. 00 NOV 14. 00 7. 00 DEC 13. 00 3. 00 6. 00 — 1993 JAN 9. 00 2.00. FEB 9. 00 4. 00 7, 00 MAR 10. 00 7. 00 APR 12. 00 12.00 19. 00 — MAY 18. 00 17.00 Post.r.brand fax transrc ttal memo 7671 #of;Ca I. / — cro f/ To &tl i 7 L ,Co. p ono Dem. / Fa ' gjZS-O 4 7 JUN-04-1993 15:03 3036867478 P.001 921276 DUI ._.J UU ir..L aw vv •.a\iL•,,.. .v.r.• .•....a. '. — ?O_21 ElL-. --ice 1991 WATER USAGE(MG) _��.....,. QTY. QTY. L _ FROM FROM CUSTOMER FCLWD NWCWO USAGE JAN '1 0.00 0.27~ 0.66 'JAN 2 0.58 0.27 0.54 JAN 3 0.02 0.27 Q.66 JAN ,4 0.64r 0.27 0.53 JAN 5 0.00 0,27 0.64 JAN 6 0.60 0.27 - 0.52 JAN .7_ 0.00 _ 0,27 0.64 JAN 8 0 64 0.26 - 0.53 JAN 9 -0.00 0.28 _ --I 0.64 - - _ _ — — JAN 110 0.61 0.26 0.50 —"--r- `TAN 11 0.00 0.27 0.64 Pest K,.txand(ax transmittal memo7611 K�op�es . JAN 12 0.61 0,27 0.50 '°'" JAN 13 0.00 0.27 0.64 T ca JAN 17i 0.66 0.27 0.55 a. - phone A JAN 15 0.00 0.27, 0.62 Dept• JAN 16 0.57^~4 26 0.53 e525-_, Fes`" JAN 17 0.00 0.26 0.57 JAN 18 0,62 _ 0.26 — 0.58 JAN 19 0.00 0.27 0.44 JAN 20 0.51 0.26 0.56 JAN 21 0.00 0.28 0.61 -- JAN 22 0.62 0.26 0.54 JAN 23 0.00 0.26 0.57 JAN 24 0.55 0.26 0.51 - JAN 25 0.00 0.26 0.59 JAN 26 0.57 0.26 0.50 JAN 27 0.00 - -6 -©.26 0.57 JAN 28 0.60 r 0.26 ... 0.55 JAN 29 0.00 0.26 0.61 JAN 30 0.60 0.25 0.54 ��- ' . 5"T I JAN 31 0.00 0.25 0.56 11 - FEB ,1 0.61 0.25 0.56 FEB 2 0.00 0.25 0.51 FEB 3 0.58 0.25 0.53 FEB 4 0.00 0.25 .- 0.62 _ FEB 5 0.64 0.25 0.54 FEB 6 0.00 0.26 0.61 FEB 7 0.60 0.26 0.53 FEB 8 0.00 0.26 0.56 FEB 9 0.62 0.25 0.55 FEB 10 0.00 0.26 0.58 _.. 'FEB 111 0.62 0.26 0.55 FEB 12 0.00 0.26 0.58 -FEB 13 0.61 0.25 0.55 r•.r,l JUL-28-1993 10:46 3036867478 9a1276 1991 WATER USAGE (MG) OTY. QTY, FROM FROM CUSTOMER FCLWD NWCWD USAGE FEB 14 0.00 0.25 0.56 FEB 15 0.58 0.25 0.48 FEB 16 0.00 0.25 0.60 FEB 17 0.61 0.25 0.51 FEB 18 0.00_ 0.25 0,60 FEB 19 0.65 0,25 0,57 FEB 20 0.00 -_ 0.25 0.60 FEB 21 0.02 0.25 0.51 FEB 22 0.88 0.25 0_57 FEB 23 0.00 0.26 0.58 FEB 24 0.66 _ 0.26 0.54 FEB 25 0.00 0.26 0.63 FEB 26 0.00 0.26 0.54 FEB 27 0,95 0.23 0,56 `„ FEB 28 0.00 0.23 0.60 IS-72_ 9' ' ' d 3036867478 JUL-28-1993 10:47 1 .0 9a1276 1992 WATER USAGE BMW OW. Mont', CITY. _Month's ACTUAL Manth's __ FROM Tatar from FROM Tor*from CUSTOMER Toro/Gust FCLWO FCYWD NWCWO NWCWD USAGE Dsaga JAN 1 0.56 0.27 0.50 - JAN 2 0,22 0.27 0,49 JAN 3 0.28 0-27 0.55 JAN 4 0.22 0.29 0,67 - JAN 5 0.00 0.28 0.41 JAN 6 0.56 0.28 0.67 JAN 7 0.00 0.28 0,55 JAN 8 0.40 0.28 0.50 JAN 9 _- 0.00 0.28 0.57 JAN 10 0,50 0.28 0.42 JAN 11 0,28 0.30 0.58 JAN 12 i 0.00 0.30 0.65 JAN 13 0.50 , 0.30 0.45 JAN 14 0.00 0.30 0.60 JAI! 15 0.50 0.30 __. 0.50 JAN 16 0.00 0.30 0.80 JAN 17 ' 0.45 0.30 __ 0.44 JAN 18 0.00 0.29 0.56 JAN 19 0.50 0.29 0,53 JAN _20 0.00 0.29 0.57' JAN 21 0.50 0.29 0.51 - JAN 22 0.00 0.29 0.60 JAN 23 0.45 0.29 0.43 JAN 24 0.00 0.29 0.60 JAN 25 0.48 0.29 0.48 JAN 26 0 00 0-29 0.56 JAN 27 0.53 0.29 0.56 JAN 28 0.00 0.29 0-60 JAN 29 0.50 0.30 0.48 JAN 30 0.00 0.30 0.47 � , ,3`f C 4 I ai JAN 31 0.00 7,43 0.30 8.97 0.65 16.73 - FEB 1 0.62 0.30 0.43 FEB 2 0.00 0.29 0.60 FEB 3 0.56 0.29 0.54 -- - FEB 4 0.30 0.29 0.55 FEB 5 0.21 0.29 0.55 FEB 6 _ 0.00 0.29 0.60 FEB 17 ' 0.52. 0.29 0.46 _ FEB IB 0.001 0.29 0.55 FEB 9 0.49' 0.29 0.52 FEB 10 0.001 0.29 0.60 _ FEB 11 0.54 0.29 0.53 FEB 12 0.00 0.30 0.58 FEB 13 0.21 0.30 0.53 JUI -M- 14x+3 1 ri:.27 3036967479 P.03 3t-°' ,r 16 .iVL LV JJ .YLL lJ J♦ Y1 LI1vU V IVrv.i ll..a.a. / .«r . . � . 1992 WATER USAGE (MW QTY. Manta QM', Month's ACTUAL Month's FROM Total from FROM Total from CUSTOMER Toral Cost. FCLWD FCL WO NWCWD NWCWD USAGE Usage,w FEB 14 0,49 0.30 0.48 FEB 15 0.00 0.29 0.55 FEB 16 0.52 0.29 0.55 _ FEB 17 0.00 0.29 0.55' FEB 18 0.53 0.29 0.56 FEB 19 0.00 0.29 0.60 - FEB 20 0.49 0.29 0.48 FEB 2.1 0.00 0.29 0.60 FEB 22 0.50 0.29 -_-_--- 0.48 MR 23 0.00 0.29 0.60 FEB 24 0.54 0.29 0.53 FEB 25 0.00 0,29 0.60 FEB 26 0.49 0.31 0.53 - FEB 27 0.00 0.31 0.59 FEB 28 0.50 0.31 0,48 FEB 29 0.00 7.51 0.30 8.52 0.61 15.83 t.S'/ / JUL-20-1993 10:40 303GEG747R F'.04 9a1276 _ 1993 WATER USAGE (MG1 __ CITY. Months CITY. Month's ACTUAL Month a _ -- FROM rota/from FROM Total from CUSTOMER Ford Cost. FCLWD FCLWD NWCWD AJWCWD USAGE Usage JAN 1 0.60 0.28 0.49 JAN 2 0.00 - 0.27 .... __ 0.54 JAN 3 0.58 0.27 0.59 ___,__ _ JAN 4 0.00 0.27 -- 0.71 - JAN 5 0.63 0.27 0.55 JAN 6 0.12' 0.28 0.71 -_ JAN 7 0.53 __- 0.28 0.63 _JAN 8 0.54 0.28 0.59 _ _ 0.28 JAN 9 0.00- ... .. JAN 10 0.61 - - -0.28 M 0.S4 --T. JAN 11 0.00 0.28 0.63 _- - JAN _12 0,58 0.28 0.51 JAN 13 0.00 0.28 - 0.63 _JAN 14 0.56 0.28 0.50 _ JAN 15' 0.00 0.28 0.63 JAN 16 -- - 0.57 0.28 0.50 JAN 17 0.00 0,28 0.63 JAN 18 y _ 0.58- 0.28 0.51 _ ..___. .. - - - - - - - - - JAN 19 0.00 0.28 0.63 _..._. JAN 20 0.20 0.36 - 0.60 � 0.50 ---- JAN_ 21 0.18 0.36 _ JAN 22 �__. 0,17 0.38 - --- - - ..0.48 JAN 23 ___0.16. _ 0.41 0.53 JAN 24 0.00 0.41 0.63 JAN 25 0.00 0.41 0.36 - ------- JAN 26 0.00 - 0.41 0.54 JAN 27 0.42 0.40 0.46 -- JAN 28 0.00 0.40 0.60 � -----_.._- -�_- 0.40 0.41 JAN 29_ 0•.^----.....-- -...._.... .. 0.57 JAN 30 0.00 0.40 _ JAN 31 0.28 _7.58 0.40 10.00 -0.49 17.36 (1),50/A1.1 FEB 1 0.00 ._. .._. _ 0.40- - 0.66 FEB 2 0.32 0.40 0.45 FEB 3 0.00_.___ .. 0-40 0.62 FEB 4 0.24 . _ .-.__-. _ 0.40 0,49 - FEB 5 0.00 0.40 0.60 FEB 6 0.26' 0.40 0.42 FEB 7-- 0.06 0.40 _._ 0.54 FEB 8 _ 0.26 _ 0.40 0-58 FEB 9 -- -0.00 FEB 10 0.32 0.38 0.48 FEB 11 0.00 0.38 0.56 --, FEB 12 0.28 0.38 0.48 FEB 13 0.00 0.39 _ . 0.61 JUL-28-1993 1©:48 3036867478 F'.115 9312"76 - 1993 WATER USAGE !MG) OTT. Month's CITY.. Monts T _ ACTUAL Month's _ FROM Total from FROM Tonal from CUSTOMER r'otal Cyst _ FCLWD-- . FCLWD NWCWO NWCWO USAGE Usage FEB 14 0.31 0.39 0.48 FEB 15 0.00 0.39 - 0.56 FEB 16 0.33 0.39 0.52 FEB 17 0.00 0,39 0.58 FEB 18 0.30 0.39 0.48 _ FEB 19 0.00 0.39 0,63 - FEB 20 0.29 0.39 0.42 FEB 21 0.00 0.39 0.59 FEB 22 0.31 0.39 0.50 T FEB 23 0.00 0.39 _ 0.65 FEB 24 0.31 0.40 0.45 FEB 25 0.00 0.40 0,64 FEB 26 0.00 0.40 0.51 FEB 27 0.39 ---- _---_-- 0.39 _ 0.48 FEB 28 0.00 4.28 0.39 11.41 0.61 15.69 4'. 5(0/61 JUL-28-1993 10:49 3036067479 rfic, 921276 -111-- - (z0-2154 - - CM 7 =' /ft3'f ' WATER AND SEWER USAGE FOR METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION TOTAL WATER WATER FOR USAGE IRRIGATION NET WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SEWER 1': (cubic feet) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) (gallons) FEE January 1992 258,000 0 258,000 1,929,840 $1,930 February 1992 238,000 0 238,000 1,780,240 51,780 March 1992 285,700 0 285,700 2,137,036 82,137 April 1992 247,700 0 247,700 1,852,796 51,853 May 1992 330,700 94,600 236,100 1,766,028 81,766 ° June 1992 468,300 205,900 262,400 1,962,752 31,963 July 1992 477,400 174,600 302,800 2,264,944 32,265 k— August 1992 380,800 110,200 270,600 2,024,088 $2,024 September 1992 433,100 124,600 308,500 2,307,580 82,308 October 1992 470,300 160,500 309,800 2,317,304 32,317 November 1992 381,900 0 381,900 2,856,612 82,857 December 1992 235,100 0 235,100 1,758,548 81,759 January 1993 229,800 0 229,800 1,718,904 51,891 i February 1993 243,500 0 243,500 1,821,380 $2,004 March 1993 2241 /OO O 224/0o /1416p, Z(o8 _85 April 1993 254, ZOO 4/00 2.52 /00 , 6893,18h ` 667,3_ May 1993 3/2,4b0, 39 /p O► 273, 300 2T044, 2S4 2, 2 4S, June 1993 SRS 56O /63, 3O!) 282/ 247 7,//O/856 2, 32z July 1993 August 1993 September 1993 October 1993 November 1993 December 1993illi January 1994 February 1994 March 1994 April 1994 May 1994 June 1994if July 1994 August 1994 September 1994 October 1994 November 1994 December 1994 I Page 1 MCC.XLS ' 931276 II_ Stabilization Pond Major Unit Process Evaluation Worksheet This worksheet is used to evaluate the capability of existing major unit processes, i.e.. aerator, secondary clarifier, and sludge handling system. Key loading and process parameters are compared with standard values and point scores are assigned. These points are subsequently compared with expected point scores for Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 facilities, and a determination of the plant Type is made. Instructions for use: • Proceed through the steps contained in this worksheet in order. • Use actual values in lieu of calculations if such data are available and appear reliable. e.g., waste sludge volume. • When assigning points, interpolate and use the nearest whole number. • Minimum and maximum point values are indicated - do not exceed the range illustrated. Aerobic Cc Mc D 22(0. /(_ 30Ds Pond Facilities �J Calculate Total BODs Loading: Total BODs Loading = Average Daily BODs Loading Total Surface Area of All Ponds Total BODs Loading = ( ` 88 5 lb/d) = 249 lb BODs/aGd ( -7 . 57 ac) Determine Total BOD5 Loading Point Score: Total BOD5 Loading (lb/acid) 250 200 150 100 50 I l l l II I I I 1 1 1 1 1 -10 -5 0 8 16 Points Total BOD5 Loading Point Score = - 90 • 901276 Determine Detention Time Point Score: Detention Time (days) 10 15 17,9 40 -5 0 5 Points Detention Time Point Score I 11 Determine Number of Ponds in Series Point Score: Number of Ponds in Lines ll 1 2 �3J -10 0 10 ,{{� Number of Ponds in Series Point Score = Y 12 Determine Length-to-Width Ratio Point Score: Len th-to-Width Ratio Points 3.9 >2 2 1.5-2 0 -ti L 'V z- ' T 3 <1.5 -2 — LINgpw\ " 3 (P. E5 E5 Length-to-Width Ratio Point Score = DeterminAhortiCircuiting Ratio Point Score: Inlet to Outlet Distance z4t( ft) S) Pond#1 = .i Maximum Pond Dimension —ON ft) Inlet to Outlet Distance 37 tb( ft) Pond#2 = =LK,(ti.):1 Maximum Pond Dimension 535 6( ft) Average Short Average =(/). 14:1 Circuiting Ratio Points >0.75 2 0 <0.5 -2 Short Circuiting Point Score = y O 921276 • Calculate Oxygen Availability: - Mechanical Ae. in Systems If data are not available on oxygen transfer capacity, calculate it as Wire Horsepower (Appendix F) times Actual Oxygen Transfer Rate (Appendix E). ( 31* \(I) hp)x( �/ lb/hp-hr)x 24 = 3 lo8 lb O2/d > Zig `b/') %nip x . I, f (b/lnp-t^rx24 = 1(080 tbac/A Diffused v Aeration Systems If data are not available on oxygen transfer capacity, calculate an actual oxygenation rate (Section 2.3.3.1). See--Slier—hed CAC-0\a4iovvs lb O2/d Oxygen Transfer Capacity Oxygen Availability 8OO5 Loading to Aerator ( 3cH lb/d) (� Oxygen Availability = = lb O2/lb BOD5 ( \ gc,�L- lb/d) Determine Oxygen Availability Point Score: Oxygen Availability (lb O2/lb BOD5) 0.8 1.0 12 1.5I 2.0 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I ] 1 1 1 1 -10 -5 0 5 10 —. Points Oxygen Availability Point Score = S,E) 15 Calculate Mixing Energy: Total Energy in Primary Pond' Mixing Energy= Primary Pond Volume 'Total energy includes energy used for aeration and mixing ( JY' hp) _ G. (c2 hp/106 gal Mixing Energy= 4, s3 106 gal) • 921;7£ Determine Mixing r rgy Point Score: Mixing Energy (hp/106 gal) 5 10 15 I + I I 1 • 0 3 5 Points Mixing Energy Point Score = 16 Determine Operational Flexibility Point Score: Points Flexibility to Operate in Series and Parallel 3 X No Flexibility to Operate in Series and Parallel 0 Operational Flexibility Point Score = 17 Determine Variable Level Draw-Off Point Score: Points Variable Level Draw-Off Available 3 Variable Level Draw-Off Not Available -3 Variable Level Draw-Oil Point Score = 2D 0 Add Scores 10 through 18 to Obtain Total Score Aerobic Pond Facilities Total Score = 'S CI Determine Whether POTW is Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3: Points Required Score Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Aerobic Pond Facilities )0.5(19) >20 5-20 <5 POTW is Type 2- 4r Identification of a POTW as Type 2 represents a situation where the marginal capacity of major unit processes will potentially prohibit the ability to achieve the desired performance level. For Type 2 facilities, implementation of a CCP will lead to improved performance but may not achieve required performance levels without facility modifications to the major treatment units. 9;31276 aY p t1P�( oV1 t 3. CIb7NP- Wr - a -p , scp _ * Ss C14.-1 C14.-1 — 13. 4 vv,', /t-- @ Z°G - S .T) /( - P= 12.3 G14n (`a = 11 ‘SS /C- Z°L -1.52_ / L-2, 2\°0 v,A4\/ L— z - �jGSs r - G L (T-2P) T AoRL (3)(0.90) 1(:15 3 /(0.90) c ,1`I I \'95z4 AoRZ= 1 ..5z % / NP-Wr AORz,= I ,8S 1.\07 ww- Inn — U5 ACA-Z-; I ,c) I b� i P- Vvr 931276 3DR z , 9 ib/ HP - kr- ot SS = 13 .84 /1- 2, 2°C-2 5 wq / L t Z \°C . r c �a V-) = isnl , . 1C vv.°, /L .- - 1 /- C - d " - ' ACJ1< ( (z,cp) — �0C< = 1 , 38 lb /+II - <_ , 931276 7010A) Or E,41/ojo2 D16 e-d f1/T?2v#i�:2. i 'N")O i on c'u r I .P L,L 1f,ScP .: .. _. 77/E (1160a/1/4-' - 57f ��^ ► DELL N° 2 -7> D/ d is �k ' 2z/ifpc . /S 21 z. G ) C 1/L-0)2/4,472,0A.., 6o'" /2o' p/ i/C, S _ . 0/1l-/ii9PA, J _pa is c//9r7e47)n-, Op . K J 9A r c) &S./.6.0v -tOu1. = /. S 114 0 (Oz. 9 PL�1.,, ,i ) ) 574,-, . 006 - I-6413 . c 3, 127 df f Sir/)97 C-LS?i n'?Te 0 . 2 So Jl ) - Th'eS w- j) 04. )/yO, /J))3 _ . 0. 9 rr 4, 0 MIG,_.Der,. 464. :. ..2 033 14. 300r/vdf ( 22w "'w /e) - 3/ ._ '/ 0 ///P e—,70c a1 I,.. ... D./-/P -J.:l_'kfl - P 1.46 S7f is'-1 . (-Orr"-, 0 CflPil0i77 de D 0/4.3 -4/Oz /II oe 4,7 DO SC F C A( Wi1',.Vf, ro Hq/l�f PCi)pr 2 -1,04? S ) - , 9212'78 I II �� 2/ lill MiS -704a > -7 S -ix' ?tit PLIOC Sf J i 2 Ono ill u Li clati06 c Tar) M !ii .E?",ar 70 I Zv 27/C:. De n j 'fit ii A •�?c� j LvJ 1, Jam`-7/f i iill )) il L.-S-0 A A? 5.7XJ l, lAl a-1?-1?-1 6� /-�11� � G!>:v,J-t12_. � e:0'71114:1 An/ pE'Zv-v1 ,vEEar. Iii III - . LS c�/ U/ :>C/� e 70� !li CtZ L Pr A Pot ,ff-,/n,� S�LU,v � iii 2 I� %�/L Uu� l i Ut _' �I GO.�is i7-rte 2/3 0 r7-- L �ICvv.�/ A/o ` ji ii ��t.iStr, �a �Ccz � a s 1/3 car,fi/�ZT Tr1c` ty c, Dti) o . ,i - +l s) 4/IG00N A.? '3 / . I _ II ii VOL c <L.. d? Mc-/ PI ili _ !;I6) X, O DOti tie 2: ili (/QL ! 1 C�ZL )4° -: I UOL= r/8. 2 dcLI)4ivc, f04.10 ;� (h) L 4.¢ P14 •;! ;ii iii • 931276 3� ,.: 7) C f/G.JL7.tr& cat,' CT C N0 CZ J; ' 60" x /?.U ' LO,vA . SdA/S POL. L . - k/DL 2 3S & /L3 O , (924- CAC 23 parpopi4 di) L Cv /-7PUP9 7WtJ f. CELL N0 CASSum6 :Fe i...1-0&‘)/)1/41 c, C / 725"i'/) ) - S / Z ELL-1/471.0.4 s,Jae) /c a = I. 024 Tw = so c. C - Tw- T2.O = — l S • TS _ Tin , O 7t, IQ 71 E = 3. 1 1S `) 1 . 3 mA.b 1,64.0 a (.pLeZi�ir) _ 4. c) DFlL/s 9 0,el1S Mc,b LJii3 - I., ALL CALLtJ TIJti' WILL R, P.eZ1=tT4w1 & [2S THE 1 - 3 VC, 0 tf1 tn+-)CA i1 E cQ �1SZ �7L -DA S 1., A P?I_I c.A-T72)4 . ?.a0c . ve = t. Co ca. S°C KC. _ 0 . 4Z I + (4Cie) 921276 li / ;; W i U DC S °C w-i tii Cif 20°C i1! Lc 2So Lc c-o II 1 + � 4z(a �) 1 + D. 6( 3.1 Lc, 98 r^5 Lc = 7 8 , u tL' I ^ 2 70 'C !II Liz le* Lc. _7 d' • 14 .41 (b.11) 1 t a. L ( G .?l ) mc = 3 . 38 Dn- 7S 1 .3 lAe-.6) L c = 2 6 ^�"5 /.e Lc _ PP PP 1t AZ( 3.'A) i 0 . 6 (3.322) PP wj lZ2 u�oQI &I.1 Ape -n-1t ot.JveS Gt1SL 9 :1276 57 O><V Ev.' r?aM Da TS . . . A0C'. c /1Cid4l. f-fleST-t:Z. Q.A7E. #/HR 5T0/W.2lc /( LLj 1 .4Z # O-T._ / H rvt)os C T4;t vA,.t.E wn, A,-JO L2,y "01O.1 H )211-HANN 1?: Hit LC}TC: . TO -n-'e Tow,: °11Zol%1 ) • Chi . NO ( - c..Li c s C S-00-4,t 4C4 4 /1-0e. = .4l10 /H &Ms 2,570- 9i) A-O : l• 4. 11Jt/ 6101 (2S-0 -7s ) X /...3N7h0rJ' 34 19MA0 x1,3 /"6Dr ? 3/J fi "de, 0 - = 2 3D7 # 02 /047 = Z� 6 i i =//Oz /O'1 /O 9 X41 DZ / t,e cc 0 Q _ S T flu 1'L 0x`cA,EX, -,? S r zt/ /Nti IAELAV\ P-"C-AL ,1E'?/1T021 = 0. 5S e 7. S27 �— = n c� /L = 0. °I S V?) (C s to — C e or-zo Co = 2 . 0 —Y+-u/.e Cs.uSL J p C swaa•c = 7. S C$ 9. z r � /C 1 vDC _ _ .°) to Ozl.N e Svc? Ir 07 l HC - JcrSxlol) —. 2.v .gn 7.5 — � ass rL• 1,029 o.a'S ot { UL4o 0.7006 1 -- i : ii X12 N /8) z, fida / He Sot _ Z 3O -# az/ y-e . GI III ICI 6/ iCCieII _ .'-/v t __ II C Il I II jar I i t.1 i'i_:','_ `; e C. S rL'1 04 e.:-.: 2..0 'c i. it A-c)(2. _ L4(g8- 11 )Xd.3 r 1. 7)4 A'&Q : J.4(78 -I s)„1.3 1 34 I 1 I+ ;; f1i72 _ I, 3 2,0 -tl oz/ Oa/ A- = ,I. S a :/v,t / Oft y SS tivzf kW 4-0 41Uz/ lie ii I,I Iii SOC - SS dfvL /Ne hoe : SQ *r), ✓ye• ICI oes J.5SY/0. 1 Z .J t.oui L 0.8S10.gSy7• $ - 1 i,b4° l L - ,; q.z o. ,00� ai. z i 'ii Iii = I o 4- =11-O2 t il e. soil _ 8z+- 32 / Me hi iii . • i !ll '', co" Ptit-) u_l G\ SLi= VIA E-DCA I?•LV ;i ,,I iii (i. £.) ( I . J4a) r,I PI li ,I WrIe;E a t) = 1 •v4 a. ill'!i T. E . TDT L .l--T-fitiC I ,v c1 . o. oz v a /. Ii Acc.o,(7i I.Ic,, -ro SNd.A — t,,.0- rr�. SPec» . dG+=+- . = 4, 10o 1 S T;a Wil s C., I•u (1.4y jl-lc_ DO 0.1A-Oa III UJr kir,=NL St/rlttl L"c iji 5c�1 diet / doe S Ctw^ = 6'4 :1O2//« �'�; O.Di s 1.044- •7.J: Y i. 0'1,-u• ;II ,Ii ,G r ui = 4 c1 R4 SC r= t c 'I.1 o o SC.1 w1 9.w129R — • ` -02.0 � ►4 Y 'vn o,•.; 4:-.> 4, 7 U o S Gt_• -i - A cC-bl'. 6 C., TO 7l-FC (J�'c ,-9vc.?u��• SP tS. _ -\ k m E. ?'to Iii D cO .A-EEA-TZO r.Y _TS E. cif() ?`U S 47 r f:P 1 71-1-e C,/1 L c_� --Tc-O Zhu Q. A Ct?AIL0 ti w . I;. i C. .1. Iii �.1 921276 8/ • .,, L1 LSE. ?ow zEU to-y-4 Q 39-A LLo tkq (.1)O..0 ma )S = 3. v # 02 Hp- N2 C&L [l)i uTL S °C rcJ AH t"? 2.v °C .•..RDWE2. CEW`0 = .l 1 z &OzI NP. ?t vew,O 2.3-O or / HQ 3 }4UL 11-0-we • 3 , Oz ��_1�.� 2 , (00 HP PLAY !) " 77 1-//) E0sO _Ty i-k-fh i OfocE0 a M (�,l.aut gtr. (30 not) . HlP' -TS -Pi 4etEl403 ! ceu Q.° i cU 1 LL b-f"I ua L mac, ,-I 4-e9 A ItO c c-'9n 4o,%"t .. J �,_ T>.it U1i Ulm Z S -J-0/4. ... Fib E--1) =, TN;S (-4-111-1- . IJ-OT (3E !1) C- l !E .T71' f N _ A- et /c or /I (S-a-*JT / 7 H-1 _EVl 'J00-- . Ls" c-- a 0-OM--/t1 71-1-1-1T- DOE i S '-11' A-AM/ 7-1,0)-211L /I-d aiz v.` , 4)-1 f ili L L L'3 Cie.t- D r T)c c)L24A-)-L. , L.O A-r) / ,.,4 ; II; I !I' 91 ' 6 9/ N� + x , K J'i Qc z4)v, 2.s '-lE,a.;s . &n A JOti' 4-e2A5ZJp. Pvtc/1-2L et-2)a/ i'-ETD ,'-O ,vim 4 7a 6 f/l/•arc, I CJflL ( li — i' ?Lao - 4 Hr) ( Q . g MC. ) (�I . Z N� 11 I I ?I) P P = cv i-1 J' C q,4 M 4 = 2 °l 14 p K.t Pu\ oar ( t.mwez Coo r-1 n ] Z clHP (124:1-1,21 0 . • II �. I : l ail III iil , ICI ri • III ''I ICI - 921276 APPENDIX C DATA USED IN PROJECTIONS 931276 :Of? z, e, a e e n O, . 09 d°g? 8 a a r d . 9 g8 3 ®s age 0 0 0 0 0 z E a a 4 a 4 a a o o a p. �s _ V1 V c Z . O 5� a a a a s ., s a a a a < 5 a = a 8 0 g o Z � e P a .. a a a a _ a a a a a a U Zpl ,. - e . a a r. 7 .. o e a a U ' Z 1°g1' _ o ..a .. .. 2 .. es - a a + a : a .i Q - , 2. 0 7 7S2 3 o c r e _ F; Ei a S C F F R 8 : — ,. 1 a s g L d a a 7 8 1 .. U- 0 W ; s P, e P 0 a a q _ e o n o e a 0000 -e e Cd g 8 8 o o a o 0 0 0 0 o c a o o a o a S "z l V 5 O o o 0 o 0 U0 0 o a e a - 0 0 0 0 0 - .00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B i 8 8 8 e 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 - a Y1 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fi e e e e e e o 0 o e e 0 0 0 0 3 V 8 a a � a P a k. a § e o S k' g g x x i i § a o AZ ae a° a� ae aeM ae ae ae ae ae * N Q a� a° aC , ae aC ae ae Le ).00) en ID N NCO r 7 N 7 r. O M lD M ,Cr Cr, N N c0 Li N N N M M M 7 7 N N N N tD LO LD r` f� n O w } V Q W m U O X w d N N N N r r r r r O O O 0, 0) CT CM C 01 0,, 0, CO CO Q z � O � zw L.1.1 (3 Q lL Ce LL f w z Y r N M 7 N L0 N. W 01 0 rN M 7 Lc, '.D N. CO C 0 r N M 7 N r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N Z l.L 7 N N N —OLJ N N M M M 7 7 O N N W tD t0 N. N- co co a) Cr, 01 Z COLJJ by m U V oX w Z O r O CO N. n n n 7 Cl N tD N N 7 7 M N . r O G1 7 7 M M M N N N N N N r r r r r r (N r r r r r r Z W Z CC U IL- u- < U w 0 M r r O W N. L0 LD 7 M N r O O C CD N N. 40 N N 7 en O M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N J z Zv J Q w (4, O CO N lD CO O .7 r r r O N 7 7 7 n (71 N N. N. r c0 N. r 01 N \ N N N N r F- U Z � > z a Le") r'. 7 V' -r 7 7 7 O N N N. tJ t0 CO n N LD m N C+ N M Cb n '.0 N N 7 7 7 7 N N N r r r r C Q 0 Ci 00 m N n en N N N N Ni N N N N N N N N N Ni N N Ni N Z z � U 9 1276 1/ UW 'L..-a = A -a- I I Ic T -7,L�- ill I T Ir - � I I I --- --7-I -i- - I i I I `- : 1 I in TITTjl I11 111 Ill- .--1 --I II I I I�I II Ti ' I , T 7j, I r I I { p o illl II 1 I I I , I ' I. I I I ' I — o I ' I ' I t I ' ii a) a' m N ( a - o m o I I — .. I I I I IIII I 1 I — 1 II m p/ II I I ' III Vl in-`MI I I I I I_I ' I I III I1-11 1 I 1 1 I Y 'iF— O ' III 1 ' I _ I L W " I II 11 ,. ID' JO ‘11 S o I Fill ' N J / I i ;K' 0 X C �' 1 Nin 'O" i _ 3p � X +c ? o { 1 I I III IIII I rx II en II II II I I kill f 11I n 00 �/-7� 1 I ,U '�u.i./ O / I ''� I I I I p i L a do x / I II II I 12 a' I Lo I 4 ! / -Lill I a a I I II II II '1 II I II ] IV m t IIII I/ 1 I ll " ill 1 �.+_I I T III ;- III 1 - 1 1 --tom -- — .,L --- I ch 1 1 : �-y I I i t - -�- -� � � - I Y' Ili 1 I I ' _I I : ��, o IIII I i III I ! i II HI IIII III I I I It III m � I I III N Cr' 1 ' 1 _ m 11 I {r' t !Tt IF I III I II o m ----- —� - -+ _ , 1 I 'Tr -+-'11- 1T?- o -I1 ' In O II - I I " ll : 7i 1Hi I II O II -r j 1 1- ._ __-�'_._ I- t +l — - _-.f.._ 1 -7-_ rn I II ' I I I . I IIiF i I1 T I � I '. o rn o d1 9 .< (Ni `- -�` -1/ v v411 l- k I -'HN = • 9i.:1 2'76 APPENDIX D SITE APPLICATION 9a1276 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 • APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF: A) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS (INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS, OUTFALL SEWERS, AND LIFT STATIONS) OVER 2,000 GPD CAPACITY. B) INTERCEPTORS (IF REQUIRED BY C.R.S. 25-8-702 (3)) APPLICANT: Town of Windsor ADDRESS: 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO 80550 PHONE: (303) 686-7476 Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: Rothberg, Tamburini & Winsor, Inc. 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202 PHONE: ( 303) 825-5999 A. Summary of information regarding new sewage treatment plant: 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) SE 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 34 Township T6N , Range R67W Weld County. 2. . Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Processes Used earth basin ex- tended aeration activated sludge w/ mechanical clarifiers, chlorination, dechlori- nation. Hydraulic 1 .5 MGD Organic 3128 138 lbs NH3-N/day gal/day lbs. BOD5/day Present PE 6622 Design PE 9272 X Domestic 90 X Industrial 10 3. Location of facility: Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 5—mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes. (Figure III-1 ) (b) 1-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. (Figure D-1 ) 4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse Cache la Poudre Subsurface disposal N/A Land N/A ( 100%) Evaporation N/A Other N/A State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s) Class 2 Recreation, Class 2 Wat'm Water Aquatic Life, and Agriculture. Proposed Eriluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards Section, WQCD: BODS 30/45 mg/1 SS 30/45 mg/1 Fecal Coliform6000/120A00 ml Total Residual Chlorine ' 0.01 mg/1 Ammonia 7, 1 mg/1 =ROUX min. seasonal 5. Will a State or Federal grant' be sought to finance any portion of this project? No 6. Present zoning of site area? FA, Industrial Zoning with a 1-mile radius of site? PA Industrial 7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? No domestic intakes between site and confluence with South (Name of Supply) Platte River 13 miles downstream. (Address of Supply) What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? Jones Ditch, 10,000 ft. downstream (Name of User) William Jones Irrigation Co. , Greeley, CO (Address of User) • -1- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 9;11276 8. Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? Town of w;nri C/nr 9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? mnwn rif Windsor (Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.) 10. Estimated project cost: $2.94 million Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Town of Windsor 11. Names and addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility site. City of Greeley Hill & Park Sanitation District South Ft. Collins San. Dist. (Attach a separate sheet of paper it necessary.) 12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? yes If so, what precautions are being taken? Access road and lagoons have been raised above flood hazard level. Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other Agency? FEMA &. CWCB (Agency Name) If so, what is that designation? Zone C, minimal flooding over 500 yr. 13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your application for site approval. This project will convert the existing aerated lagoon facility into an earth basin activated sLildee plant to provide ammonia removal as required to meet current surface water quality and effluent toxicity standards. Facility capacity will also be increased to provide for future growth. B. Information regarding lift stations: N/A 1. The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the following additional load: Peak Hydraulic (MOD) P.E. to be served 2. Is the site located in a 100 year flood plain? If yes, on a separate sheet of paper describe the protective measures to be taken. 3. Describe emergency system in case of station and/or power failure. 4. Name and address of facility providing treatment: 5. The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the treatment plant to % of hydraulic and X of organic capacity and agrees to treat this wastewater? Yes No (Treatment Agency)- _ Date Signature and Title • -2- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 9L'1Z76 • C. 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. D. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or 208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call 320-8333, Extension 5272. Recommend Recommend No Date Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative 1. Management Agency 2. Local Government: Cities or Towns (If site is inside boundary or within three miles) and Sanitation Districts. 3. Board of County Commissioners 4. Local Health Authority 5. • City/County Planning Authority 6. Council of Governments/Regional Planning 7. State Geologist (For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. Applications for treatment plants require all signatures.) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed. DATE / � Thomas R. Jones, Mayor /7-7 / Signature of scant TYPED NAME • • -3- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 9sy1it;p76 2 i ?z_oc., a / ,i : ii �� i l_ �n��^a o :g C / Y vs 9 , I 1 • yen' f./) \ 0 A.o\ ',/°��'� ..ate` \.,��otse mil / tCJ yE O Ls. ` G�( '.." ✓'may i \ 1/ a .. r 5 aF i N 61 =-y� °�° ,��`r� -s`" ;SK� 4) ?;1\ •i 1 ( Tr //* __ ' — 'IV,' o ri �,� .ri r9 i o Ulii La sa° a1� Zr-- :i!.. G °n �,' k i 1 , — c�2F� u Al II O' r �'O r t '.. J Vn \ ro / 4- W a � , > ./ / K----____x o g -.2.4?-4.;24 c O 1 P _ ..f Il mg //� oAk • A • �-}-II ta!Z" C QIg m Zsj n M Act, Z W co x W.4 d 4 M °1 1 0 CRA3 _ N O F— MIA— 1-1 a L . 0 — a_ krr w V) \ ) q � � v a0 J . � m/ . /�. POTABLE WATER WELLS REGISTERED WITH CO DIV. WATER RESOURCES 1 . Permit No. 35526; Eastman Kodak Co., Windsor, Co; permit issued 6/26/89; municipal and other uses 2. Applied for permit 11/16/90; Eastman Kodak Co., Windsor, CO; municipal & other uses 3. Permit No. 173537; Eastman Kodak Co., Windsor, CO; permit issued 6/10/93; municipal & other uses. 4. Applied for permit 11/16/90; Eastman Kodak Co., Windsor, CO; municipal & other uses 5. Permit No. 173538; Eastman Kodak Co., Windsor, CO; permit issued 6/10/93; municipal & other uses 6. Permit No. 11456; H. V. Crumley, Windsor, CO; first used 5/25/62; domestic use 7. Permit No. 82024; H. V. Crumley, Windsor, CO; permit issued 12/4/75; domestic & livestock uses 8. Permit No. 124556; R. R. Anderson, Windsor, CO; permit issued 1 '2/4/81 ; commercial use 9. Permit No. 147259; R. R. Anderson, Windsor, CO; permit issued 1/16/87; commercial use 9C:1276 I , - ¢q•Pr- •t setts ♦..•+.+r" 0/ 4 MAY 141970 a b. ......____-1$47.110--m-- f...•.,•$..et I I DEED - P • • O 1970 — .-4 THIS DEED, made this 1st day of Kay . ,- r— between EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, a corporation duly organized and ..n existing under and by virtue of the laws of the s municipal tate .of e Po'New_ Jersey, of the first part, and TOWN OF WINDSOR, - .-• ration, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the "' laws of the State of Colorado, of the second part; N WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, for • e and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and o valuable consideration, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt where- of is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained — sold and conveyed and by these presents does grant, bargain sell, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, its :4 successors and assigns forever all the following described lot ,. ii or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Weld. . — and State of Colorado, to-wit: • A tract of land actuated in the S 1/2 of Section 34, - I Township 6 Nortt 'r-Range 67- West of the 6th F,H., t ' being more part'_ siy_descHibed as follows: u•' . Considering the S wth line 'of laid Section 34 as bearing S 84' lt1732.P5W and with-All bearings . contained herein • e1ative'thetato. Beginning at the S 1/4 Cornew6 f said Section 34, said B 1/4 • ._ Corner being the point of beginning; thence S 84' 16' 32" W, 438.07 feet; thence N 00' 00' 00" E, 1180.00 feet; thence S 90' 00' 00" E, 1890.53 feet.; . thence S 00' 00';' 00" W, 990.49 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 34; thence S 84 16' 32" W. and along said Section line 1461.93 - - feet to the point of beginning. _ _ Together with all and singular the hereditamente and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion _ and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents , issues and profits - thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said . premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto -- the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns for- ever. - - And the said party of the first part, for itself and • v its successors covenants and agrees to and with the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the above bar- gained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said • party of the second part, its successors and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the - _ whole or any part thereof, by, through, or under the said party of the first part, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND, except the - — general property taxes and any and all district assessments for -_- for 1970 and for subsequent years.. - •1 a°` 625 • - . - 15471'70 ,1 A"a. - IN WITNESS WH ;� the said party of theft part s caused its corporatism to be hereunto subsctekby it, i • Preaident,and its retary,al toe beay andey r Ced, , - „attested by its Vii' — abode written. i EASTMAN KODAK Cam i..Sa7Jarseq co ` n, i Aa\� rt' �' moo'•;. V tresident •W o: • - - ecretags,;_ i - STATE OF NEll YORK 9 : — COUhZY OF HONROt.. The forego tment vas acknowled& ere this /____ day of , 1970, by ,r <i' 4gcti _ and SUi/.;e as sec rf I./try . of Eastman Kodak Comps New Jersey corporation. WIThTSS my i+ia*d official seal. `' • . to• a.� ***".1/2.11.--• ••0 _.. • Hy co®isafgkir _�" a ti!,'1• de a.. a' (Notarial Seal)• . ss �s Ir TYPE OF DEED DATE BOOK PAGE RECEPTION # Warranty May 01, 1970 625 15+7170 0 DESCRIPTION: Parcel of land in the South 1/2 of Sec 34, T 6 N, R 67 W; P.O.B. the South 1/4 Corner of said Section; thence S 84°16'32" W along the South line of Sec 34 438.07' ; thence N 0°00'00" E 1180'; thence S 90° E 1890.53'; thence S 0° W 990.49' to the South line of said Section; thence 1461.93' along the Section line to the P.O.B. • • - y .�` I.� i r a ` I ,• .: I 5 06-04 c `?9c:a-9 I • • • 41 Q- � 0®I , 3 2 2 r1 (1) J a 1 vl } ll 3 \ i HI 0 t i d • 'o �� r a3 in 9 i --_.--. . Li o 00 0O E.-• _ I I c9o. o V4 • I‘n I ole : / - . 931276 a Hello