HomeMy WebLinkAbout971968.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO, CONCERNING SITE APPLICATION OF TOWN OF BERTHOUD AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIR 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 Berthoud, P.O.
Box 1229, Berthoud, Colorado 80513, concerning the capital improvements (digester, lift
station and force main/trunk sewer main) to the wastewater treatment plant. located on the
following described parcel of land, to -wit:
SE%, SW%, Section 19, Township 4 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
WHEREAS, the regulations for site applications for capital improvements (digester, lift
station and force main/trunk sewer main) to the wastewater treatment plant 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 Berthoud 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 not in
conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and that it is in the best interest of Weld
County to recommend approval of said application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the site application submitted by the Town of Berthoud be, and
hereby is, recommended favorably to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, thereby indicating the Board finds no conflict with the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said site application.
971968
PL0079
SITE APPLICATION - TOWN OF BERTHOUD
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 10th day of September, A.D., 1997.
ATTEST: GAG
Weld Cou ty Clerk to the Board
BY `mil /.vn Al/t/.//
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APPRO AST• SRM:
ounty Attor
y
Dale K. Hall
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD UNTY, CODO
eorge'E. Baxter, Chair
tzia
;ess�ance L. Harbert, 1,C2
-Tern,
EXCUSED
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
W. H. Webster
w2
971968
PL0079
a
IMISS
MSS
MININSIESealegemar
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
July 7, 1997
Town of Berthoud
Ms. Anna Lenahan, Administrator
P.O. Box 1229
Berthoud, CO 80513
2420 Alcott Street, Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 458-5550
Facsimile (303) 480-9766
mwe@ecentral.com
RE: Site Application - New VVWTP (Digester and Lift Station)
Dear Ms. Lenahan:
RONALDC MCLAUGHLIN
LEO Rf. EISEL
HALFORD E ERICK-FON
WILLIAM R KENDALL
RALPH L TOREN
TERRENCEP. KENYON
RICHARD MMUGHLIN
RONALD MCLAUGHLIN
GERALD L LAMB
GENE A BURRELL
MICHAEL E MERCER
JOHN M. PFLAUM
MICHAEL R GALGZZI
SCOTT E. LEHMAN
BRIANS KOLSIAD
O. DEAN DEROSIER
EDWARD D BAIN
BRIANE CHEV ALTER
DANIEL F. BLAHA
LEANDER L L'RMY
DANIEL M PETRAM ALA
RONALD D LUCERO
Submitted attached is the complete Application for Site Approval for capital improvements (digester, lift
station, and trunk sewer/force main) to the new Wastewater Treatment Plant Site.
The engineering basis for the Application is furnished in two Preliminary Engineering Reports. The basic
report, dated July 1997, submitted herewith, is tailored to provide the ancillary information required to
support the site application. Other preliminary engineering was completed earlier, and was presented
earlier in our May, 1996, Wastewater Master Plan Update, which (to avoid duplication) is attached as
Appendix A.
The site application, with supporting reports, should be submitted initially to:
• The Berthoud Board of Trustees
• Weld County: Planning Commission; Health Department; Commissioners
• North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association
• Colorado State Geologist
After review by the above agencies, the site application should be forwarded to the Colorado Water Quality
Control Division.
We will be available for discussion and/or to provide additional information to any of the above review
agencies.
Ve y uls��
Christo er K. Gulden
Enclosures
d/C91,14-4-•
Ronald C. McLaughlin
P:\1992\92-008\00600\wp j wAL7-7.WPD
971963
.NTRO
'MPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN WATER RIGHTS AND RESOURCES WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IRRIGATION HYDROGEOLOGY STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMENT AND REUSE FIRE PROTECTION WATER BASED RECREATION SPECIALTY HYDRAULICS RATE STUDIES AND UTILITIES ECONOMICS
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
Building B, Suite BP30
"-'00 Cherry Creek Drive South
_aver, Colorado 80222-1530
APPLICANT: Town
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1229 Berthoud, Colorado 80513: 328 Massachusetts Ave. PHONE:
Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: McLaughlin Water Engineers. Ltd.
APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVALFOR CONSTRUCTION OREXPANSION OF:
A) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS (INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS,
SEWERS, AND LIFT STATIONS) OVER 2,000 GPD CAPACITY. '^ B) INTERCEPTORS (IF REQUIRED BY C.R.S. 25-8-703 (3)) any A 1tj01P
`4of Berthoud��I/`ar` N '
(970) 532-2643
2420 Alcott Street, Denver. CO 80211 PHONE: (303) 458-5550
Summary of information regarding new sewage treatment nlytl:
1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) SE
Township 4 N , Range 68 W.
1,
SW 'k Section fl
Weld County.
2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Processes Used Aerobic Sludge Digester Sludge Thickening.
Return Flow/Sewage Lift Pump Station. Trunk Sewer. Force Main
Hydraulic 900 000 Organic 1 300
gal/day lbs. BOD5/day
Present PE 6.300 Design PE 7.000+ % Domestic 99+ % Industrial 1-
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.
(b) 1 -mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography.
4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse Little Thompson River
Subsurface disposal N/A Land N/A
Evaporation N/A Other N/A
State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s)
Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards
Section, WQCD: BODS N/A mg/I SS N/A mg/I Fecal Coliform N/A /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine N/A mg/I Ammonia N/A Other
5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this project? Unknown
6. Present zoning of site area? None
Zoning with a 1 -mile radius of site? Mixed
7. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake?
There are none.
(Name of Supply)
92-008.006
(Address of Supply)
-1-
WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83)
371968
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion:
No Change
(Name of User)
(Address of User)
8. Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? The Town of Berthoud
9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? The Town of Berthoud
(Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site).
10. Estimated Project cost: 52.000.000
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? The Applicant
11. Name and addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within 5 miles downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility
site.
None
(Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.)
12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area? Some of the .Site is.
If so, what precautions are being taken? Facilities ar€.1.9 be constructed on portions Qfjhe sije that are out of the
100 -year flood .plain.
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other Agency?
No. (See attached flood plain report)
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation?
13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your
application for site approval.
The proposed facilities provides sludge processing and is the first phase in a program to strattgically relocate the regional
plant processes at a new site which will permit economical gravity service to the majority of the service area.
B. Information regarding lift stations:
1. The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the following additional load:
Peak Hydraulic (MGD) 0.15 P.E. to be served 400 (Lift Station is temporary)
2. Is the site located in a 100 year flood plain? No
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. Generator with on -site source of fuel.
4. Name and address of facility providing treatment: Town of Berthoud Wastewater Treatment Plant
5. The proposed lift station when fully developed will increase the loading of the treatment plant to 80 % of hydraulic and 80 %
of organic capacity and Applicant agrees to treat this wastewater? Yes X No
Date Signature and Title
92-00A.CO6
-2-
WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83)
971968
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 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.
1.
2.
Recommend Recommend No
DateApproval Disapproval Comment
3. 11/P/9% t/
4. 5775f(-±
5.
7.
Sigttptuye pf RwreL native
Management Agency
Local Government: Cities or Towns (If site is
inside boundary or within three miles) and Sani-
tationpistricts.
Board of C untyCommissioners
lb/ z`
al Health Authority
City/county Planning Authority
Council of Governments/Regional Planning
State Geologist
;For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. Applications for treatment plants require all signatures.)
certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and
lave posted the site in accordanre with the regulations. An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is
Inclosed.
92-008.906
-3-
WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83)
971968
ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPI ICATION
accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b), and (c), and the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Works," the Water Quality Control Division must determine that each site location is consistent with the long-range, comprehensive planning
for the area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed she will be managed to minimize the potential adverse impacts on water
quality, and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible.
In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic wastewater treatment works to supply
an engineering report describing the project and showing the applicant's capabilities to manage and operate the facility over the life of the
project to determine the potential adverse impacts on water quality. The report shall be considered the culmination of the planning process
and as a minimum shall address the following:
Service area definition including existing population and population projections, flow/loading projections, and relationship to other water
and wastewater treatment plants in the area.
Proposed effluent limitations as developed in coordination with the Planning and Standards Section of the Division. (Allow minimum four
weeks processing time.)
Analysis of existing facilities including performance of those facilities.
Analysis of treatment alternatives considered.
Flood plain and natural hazard analysis.
Detailed description of selected alternatives including legal description of the site, treatment system description, design capacities, and
operational staffing needs.
Legal arrangements showing control of site for the project life.
Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or covenant terms for all users which will be finalized to accomplish acceptable waste
treatment.
Management capabilities for controlling the wastewater throughout and treatment within the capacity limitations of the proposed treatment
works, i.e., user contracts, operating agreements, pretreatment requirements.
Financial system which has been developed to provide for necessary capital and continued operation, maintenance, and replacement through
the life of the project. This would include, for example, anticipated fee structure. '.
Implementation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and estimated start-up date.
Depending on the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In such cases, simply indicate on the
application form the non applicability of those.
9z-005.006
-4-
WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83)
971969
ENGINEERING REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
AND APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL
for the
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
July 1997
971968
ENGINEERING REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
for the
TOWN OF BERTHOUD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND 1
PURPOSE 2
SECTION II - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PAST CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS 3
PROCESS ANALYSIS 3
TABLE HI -A 4
EXISTING PLANT COMPONENTS AND PROCESS LOADING - EXISTING DESIGN
OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS 5
OTHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 5
POTABLE WATER FACILITIES 5
SECTION III - DESIGN BASIS
POPULATION AND PLANT LOADING PROJECTIONS 6
SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES 7
LIFT STATION/RETURN FLOW PUMP STATION 8
TRUNK SEWER AND SLUDGE CONVEYANCE PIPELINE 8
SECTION IV - LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER AND PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY
STREAM QUALITY 9
PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY/DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 9
SECTION V - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
SERVICE AREA 10
PLANT SITE 10
TRUNK SEWER AND RETURN FLOW FORCE MAIN 11
SECTION VI - INITIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
12
92-008.006
971968
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
SECTION VI - NATURAL HAZARD ANALYSIS
FLOOD PLAIN 13
OTHER HAZARDS 13
SECTION VIII - MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 14
LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 14
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 14
MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES 14
FINANCIAL SYSTEM 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - WASTEWATER TREATMENT MASTER PLAN UPDATE
APPENDIX B - POTABLE WATER WELLS
APPENDIX C - BERTHOUD WWTP COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
APPENDIX D - FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS REPORT
92-008.006
971968
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Town of Berthoud manages and operates the Berthoud Wastewater Treatment Plant and the
gravity collection system, which extends throughout the Town and further north covering the
Campion area. The Town has maintained responsibility for the system since its origins in the early
1900s. Responsibility for the northern portion of the collection system was added due to the
disbanding of the South Loveland Sanitation District.
The treatment plant provides secondary treatment for all sewage collected; to the effluent
discharges into No Name Creek. The plant is expected to be at 95% of present design capacity
before the year 2010 and is currently overloaded with regard to waste sludge processing capacity.
Therefore, preliminary design of new sludge processing facilities is concurrently initiated with the
site application, and planning for an expansion is needed to stay within the terms of the discharge
permit.
The Wastewater Service Area Plan for the Town of Berthoud (Engineering Professionals Inc.,
December 1985) identified an ultimate service area for Berthoud. This area covered approximately
35 square miles with an estimated a build -out population of 70,000. The Plan identified a new
regional plant site with an ultimate capacity of 9 MGD. The Plan recognized the regional treatment
value that would occur by moving the plant site further down gradient in the service area,
maximizing gravity collection potential and providing long term water quality planning.
An update to the 1985 Plan was prepared in 1996 (McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., May 1996).
Conclusions of the Update identified the immediate need for waste sludge processing capacity and
provided an initial capital improvement program. The program also identified candidate locations
for a new regional plant site. Initial treatment infrastructure at the new site was determined to
comprise of an aerobic digester and return flow pump station, with site layout considerations for
the ultimate location of the regional treatment facility. It was noted that existing WWTP treatment
capacity would be beyond design limits in the near -future, and a second phase to the program
would include building new secondary treatment facilities at the new site, when development and
growth warrant such action.
Recent development around Berthoud has occurred in areas not serviceable through gravity
collection. Further, urban growth planning has revised the sanitary service area to include regions
92-008.006
971968
that are outside of the gravity collection envelope relative to the existing treatment plant location.
Therefore, to minimize the number of several sewage lift stations, the new treatment plant site has
been predesigned to collect raw sewage flows and serve as an interim regional lift station. Pumped
flows are to be treated at the existing WWTP until second phase improvements are made at the
new regional WWTP site.
Based on the two studies, Berthoud has acquired property to serve as the new WWTP site. The
site is well situated near the Little Thompson River, located 1'/z miles east of the existing plant.
Flood plain analysis and soils investigation concluded that the site is not at risk from natural
hazards.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the report is to present an analysis of the existing plant and service demands from
the Town. Also, the report provides the basis for design of the needed improvements to the system
that include a phased relocation of treatment facilities to a new regional plant site and the addition
of a lift station for residentially developing areas, and waste sludge digester. The report is intended
to accompany an Application for Site Approval to be submitted to the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
2
92-008.006.
971.968
SECTION II - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PAST CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
The majority of the existing units now in service were constructed in 1972. Following is a
chronologic summary of the development of the plant within the past three decades.
The principle plant units were constructed in 1972 (Nelson -Haley -Patterson & Quirk, dated
December 1971). The facility replaced a small, old primary treatment plant with an extended
aeration secondary sewage treatment process. New units include a grit chamber, oxidation ditch,
clarifier, chlorine contact chamber, sludge beds and control building. Plant capacity is rated at
0.901 MGD.
An aerobic digester was added in 1980 (McCarty -Hurst & Associates, dated June 1980). The
contract provided a single tank aerobic digester and two small sludge drying beds.
A boat clarifier was added to the oxidation ditch in 1990 to add capacity for peaking hydraulic loads.
The existing plant has functioned well (in terms of meeting permitted effluent criteria), with the
exception of the digester, which is hydraulically and organically overloaded. The digester cannot
produce a stabilized sludge meeting the new 503 regulations.
The result is costly in that large volumes of low solids waste sludge must be hauled off for both
treatment and disposal.
PROCESS ANALYSIS
The plant is of a secondary plant with disinfection. The secondary plant is extended aeration
activated sludge. Disinfection can be accomplished by chlorination just before discharge to the
chlorine contact chamber. Design loadings for the existing processes are given in Table II -A which
provides design criteria.
3
92-008.006
971968
TABLE II -A
EXISTING PLANT COMPONENTS AND PROCESS LOADINGS - EXISTING DESIGN
Process/Component/Loading
N° Design Criteria
Preliminary Treatment
1.8 MGD
nominal
Flow split box/grit chamber
1 ea 4 MGD 2 desired
Parshall Flume: 12" x 36" 1 ea 7.4 MGD @ 24" ±10
accuracy
Screen: 114" opening motor operated/1-
1 /4"opening manual by-pass screen 3/4"
1 ea 1" to 1 -
Secondary Treatment
Oxidation ditch: Volume =
1 ea 0.84 MG 2 desired
Detention time @ 0.9 MGD
22.4 hr 20-30 hr
Organic loading @ 1300 ppd B0D 11.6 #/1000cf <40
Secondary clarifier: 55" diameter, volume = 1 ea 0.124 MG >1
Surface overflow rate @ 0.9 MGD
379 gpd/sf <600
Max. hydraulic loading based on surface 3.32 MGD
overflow rate
Detention time @ 0.9 MGD
3.3 hr 1-4
Side water depth
7 ft >10
Disinfection
C12 contact chamber; volume 20,000 gal
Length/width ratio
64 >40
Detention time @ 0.9 MGD
32 min >30
Sludge Handling
Sludge drying beds 2 ea 3200 sf
Aerobic digestion detention time using a WAS 1 ea 7 days
flow rate of 1830 gpd: volume = 65,000 gal
Max water depth 17.75 ft
Volume available for decanting 47,132 gal
4
92-008.006
971968
Process/Component/Loading
Ns Design Criteria
Total volume 65,000 gal
Sludge Removal
Hauling contract with Liquid Waste
Management
OVERALL PLANT PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive Performance Evaluation was conducted for the wastewater treatment plant in
May 1996. The evaluation was conducted by an EPA 104(g)(1) Outreach trainer from the
Environmental Science Department, Red Rocks Community College. A copy of the evaluation is
attached (Appendix C).
OTHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
There are three other wastewater treatment facilities in the service area; Riverglenn, Western
MiniNaquero, and Berthoud Estates. All of these facilities are of the small aerated lagoon type,
and are managed/maintained through home ownership associations. None of the facilities are
close enough to the new WWTP site, from an economic and topographical stand point, for
consideration to be connected to the new system at this time. However, they are located within
the designated service area of the new plant, and it is anticipated that, in the future, these plants
will be abandoned, with service consolidated at the proposed regional facility.
POTABLE WATER FACILITIES
There will be no discharge from the new site during the first phase of the program. Ultimately,
effluent from the new WWTP will discharge into the Little Thompson River, as it currently does
from the existing plant 1% miles upstream. There are no diversions downstream for drinking water
purposes on the Little Thompson River downstream of the new site's future outfall location.
5
92.008.006
971969
SECTION III - DESIGN BASIS
POPULATION AND PLANT LOADING PROJECTIONS
Population projections given in the "208" plan by NFRWQPA have been updated (1997)and are
presented in Table III -A. Employment and number of day visitors were not provided in the plan.
The existing system currently has 2283 taps. About 93% of the taps are residential, and the
remainder are businesses/commercial and limited industrial sources.
Table III -A
Existing
Service Area Population 119971 2000 2005 2010
5,740 6,181 6,990
Year at
Existing 80% 90%
Capacities pesign Capacity Load Design Design
Flow (MGD) .904 .73 1997 2005
Organic (lbs./day BOD5) 1300 900 1997 2005
Table III -A also includes total load projections of the Town growth and the addition of flows from
the lift station. Design loads from the area served by the lift station are 150 taps initially, and 400
taps at 2005. Sanitary flows from the services are, respectively, 37,500 gpd and 100,000 gpd.
It shows that flows to the plant are expected to be at the 95% design level before 2005.
Noteworthy to the above projections - is the amount of infiltration/inflow (I/I) in Berthoud's
collection system. Analysis in the 1996 Master Plan Update approximated a fixed allowance for
I/I of about 400,000 gpd as a reasonable practical assumption. Berthoud has, and continues to
repair/maintain the aged collection system. However, the remaining available capacity, as
displayed above, will be valid only if continued I/I reduction is sought through corrective work.
Organic loading to the plant has been averaged at 0.56 # BOD5/day/tap. Influent sampling
methods at the plant are not composited on a flow proportioned basis, yet due to the slightly low
percentage of commercial taps in the system, the average appears reasonable, and is
recommended for design purposes.
6
92-008.006
971968
SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
The existing aerobic digester is grossly undersized. Since it is planned to construct the regional
plant at the new site, it would be unwise to invest in permanent type facilities at the existing plant.
It is, therefore, proposed to construct the new sludge handling facilities at the future regional plant
site.
New facilities at the regional plant site are described following.
Aerobic sludge digestion with one tank, covered and insulated, having a 50 -foot inside
diameter and 20 -foot side water depth; providing about 300,000 gallons.
Anticipated sludge quantities (peak month design basis):
Biological sludge (WAS) - 1340 pounds solids per day; 1072 pounds per day volatile.
Digested sludge solids of 1018 pounds per day: based on 40% VSS reduction.
Dissolved oxygen requirement of 36 pounds per hour based on 2 pounds oxygen per pound
of VSS destroyed.
Aeration to be supplied to digester by fine bubble flexible membrane diffusers.
Clean water transfer efficiency of 35%.
• Field transfer efficiency of 15% based on alpha of 0.60, sludge temperature of 20°C, and
0.5 mg/I minimum residual.
Actual air requirements of 1278 SCFM at 4925' site elevation and 100°F max inlet air
temperature.
• Ancillary mixing and scum/foam re -entrainment provided by 5 Hp mixer with draft tube.
• Aerated waste sludge receiving basin providing about 15,000 gallons capacity to feed the
centrifuge in a thickening mode
• A grinder pump to deliver WAS (Waste Activated Sludge) (or WDS (Waste Digested
Sludge)) to the centrifuge: approximately 70 -100 gpm.
7
92-008O06
971969
• A sludge centrifuge designed for either thickening or dewatering use. Thickened sludge to
be approximately 4.5% solids
LIFT STATION/RETURN FLOW PUMP STATION
• Wet well having about 10,000 gallons operating volume, equipped with two 150 gpm
sewage lift pumps.
• Aerated grit chamber and bar screen.
• 4" HDPE or PVC force main to existing WWfP.
TRUNK SEWER AND SLUDGE CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
• 24" PVC sewer - Note that this sewer will initially carry the dilute WAS to County Line Road,
where a separate 6" HDPE sludge line will carry waste to the digester - and the 24" used
to carry sewage to the lift station.
8
92-008.006
971968
SECTION IV - LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER AND PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY
STREAM QUALITY
The existing effluent, and future effluent from the new WWTP site, discharges into the Little
Thompson River. This reach of stream progresses through primarily farmland for approximately
11 miles through the Town of Johnstown, before connecting with the Big Thompson River.
PLANT EFFLUENT QUALITY/DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
A copy of Berthoud's Discharge Permit is attached to this report, including the latest discharge
application. There should be no revisions as a result of the site application since the discharge
point is to be the same, as well as permitted capacity.
9
92-008.006
97196g
SECTION V - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
SERVICE AREA
The Town of Berthoud service area is within the planning area of the North Front Range Water
Quality Planning Association (NFRWQPA). Existing service area boundaries are those defined
in the Wastewater Service Area Plan (Engineering Professionals Inc., December 1985), covering
an area of approximately 35 square miles. The 1985 Area Plan presents analyses of Berthoud
ultimate growth area land use and unincorporated Larimer County proposed service area land use
summaries. Projected wastewater flows were determined from this analysis.
Since the 1985 Area Plan, Berthoud has experienced growth both inside and outside of the Town
growth area. Furthermore, Berthoud has annexed property to the east of the service area along
Highway 56, out to the intersection of Interstate 25 and Hwy. 56 (approx. 4 miles). Currently,
Berthoud is engaged in annexation procedures for a two square mile area surrounding the
intersection. It is anticipated that primarily commercial development and minor residential
development will occur there.
As a result of residential development near Berthoud, but just outside of the existing service area,
and from the 1-25 annexation area, the service area has recently been enlarged and is currently
in the amendment process with NFRWQPA. A map (Dwg. V -A) of proposed service area
additions is included with this report.
PLANT SITE
The existing WWTP site is not strategically located to receive a majority of flow from the service
area by gravity. The available site area is limited, and does not provide sufficient area for
expansion. Further, the present plant facility was not planned for expansion - and the process
used is not conducive to enlargement.
As presented addressed in the 1985 Area Plan, a new sub -regional plant, better located with
respect to the natural drainage collection of the service area, should be acquired. The Area Plan
indicated a proposed plant location on the north bank of the Little Thompson River, just east of
the Larimer County boundary. MWE field investigation indicated that this specific location did not
provide adequate usable area.
The 1996 Master Plan Update identified four candidate site locations, all of which were in the
10
971968
92008.006
proximity of the site indicated in the 1985 Area Plan, near the Little Thompson River. Flood plain
analysis was conducted, and concluded that three of the sites were at risk.
After negotiations with land owner, Berthoud acquired a 10 acre site located 1% miles form the
existing site and is'/ mile east of the Larimer)Weld County line (SE %, SW''/ Section 19, Weld
Co.). The site was not one of the candidate sites identified in the 1996 Update, yet it is well
situated on the south side of the Little Thompson River, and is strategically located to serve a large
natural drainage collection area. The majority of the site is above the 100 -year flood plain level.
The land use surrounding the site is predominately farmland. There are 4 scattered single family
dwellings and barns near the site, the closest being approximately 1,100 feet, all other being a
minimum of 2,500 feet away.
Access to the site is uninhibited, with and existing unimproved roadway approaching from the west,
and feasiblely, access could be provided from the south.
TRUNK SEWER AND RETURN FLOW FORCE MAIN
Preliminary design of the initial phase of the system includes a trunk sewer and return flow force
main to be routed from the existing plant to the new plant site. A gravity sludge conveyance
pipeline is also required along part of the alignment. Installation of the trunk sewer is to ultimately
serve the existing collection system to the new site, the lower reach will initially collect sanitary
flows from newly developed area to the east of Berthoud.
The alignment of the pipelines are also shown on drawing V -A. The layout requires approximately
10,000 l.f. of 24" trunk sewer, 3,120 l.f. of 6" sludge conveyance (both gravity flow) and 8750 l.f.
of 4" force main. Probable connections to the trunk sewer, from new east Berthoud development
will occur along 6C Road, and on County Line Road.
Berthoud has obtained a thirty foot wide easement extending from the west side of the new site
towards the existing site access road, which is to serve as a utility corridor.
11
92-008.006
9'71.969
SECTION VI - INITIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
New WWTP site master planning is shown on Drawing VI -A. Initial phase capital improvements
are shown therein.
The following figures present estimated construction costs (1997 dollars) for the proposed
improvement program.
Item
Sludge treatment facilities
0.3 MG Digester,
Centrifuge, pumps,
Wet well, Oper. Bldg.
(at new plant site)
24" trunk sewer (1.9 mi.)
4" HDPE force main(1.62 mi.)
6" HDPE sludge line (0.59 mi.)
Improvements at existing STP
Total construction cost estimate
estimated Cost (1997)
$950,000
$1,100,000
$50,000
$2,100,000
The minor improvements planned for the existing WWTP are to maximize its useful life and to
accommodate process modifications created from the addition of the improvements listed above.
12
971.968
92-009.006
SECTION VI - NATURAL HAZARD ANALYSIS
FLOOD PLAIN
A copy of the Flood plain Analysis Report (McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., February 1997) is
attached to the report. Summarizing the Report; the hydraulic analysis shows that the 100 -year
flow [Little Thompson River] is largely confined to the immediate channel area. All bridges have
adequate capacity for the 100 -year flow except the 6C Road bridge, where some road overtopping
would occur. The resultant shallow overflow north of 6C Road would re-enter the channel
upstream of the County Line Road bridge, as shown on the drawing. The analysis shows that the
proposed wastewater treatment plant site is largely unaffected by the 100 -year Flood plain.
OTHER HAZARDS
There are no other known natural hazzards.
13
92-008.006
971968
SECTION VIII - MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
It is Berthoud's intent to have new facilities available and in service as rapidly as the program will
allow. As was discussed in the evaluation of the existing plant, there is an immediate need for
sludge processing capacity. Additionally, service from the lift station is expected to be operational
as shown on the attached project schedule. This will allow Berthoud to meet its goals of providing
timely service.
LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS
The new VWVTP site is owned by the Town of Berthoud. Required easements for the trunk sewer
alignment are being pursued.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The Town of Berthoud is responsible for providing design and construction of facilities that will meet
the requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
The Town of Berthoud manages and is responsible for the operation and maintenance of all
treatment facilities and collection system components. A copy of Ordinance N° 708 regarding
wastewater line extensions is attached.
FINANCIAL SYSTEM
A copy of Berthoud's proposed project financing is attached.
14
971968
92-008.006
05/22/1997 08:06 19705323534 BERTHOUD PD
PAGE 02
MEMORANDIM
May 20, 1997
To: Mayor Richard Strachan
Board of Trustees
Prom: Anna M. Lenahan, Administrator
Re: Water/Wastewater/Drainage Projects
Please review the following estimated cost proposed financing for
the water/wastewater/drainage projects:
Water
Raw water line from Carter Lake
Reservoir bypass line
Water Treatment Plant Expansion
Add filters 3 & 4
Drainage project
Drainage to Bacon
Total cost
Wastewater
Sludge treatment facility
24" trunk sewer/4" DIP force
1-25 lift station/force main
Improvement to WWTP
Total Cost
$1,009,000
186,000
1,800,000
325,000
591,449
600,000
$4,511,449
$850,000
main 780,000
1,500,000
50.000
$3,180,000
Cash
$1,000,000
Bonding
$1,009,000
186,000
800,000
325,000
400,000 191,449
600,000
$1,400,000 $3,320,000
Cash Bonding
600,000
250,000
780,000
1,500,000
50,000
$600,000 $2,580,000
971.96.q
ORDINANCE NO. 708
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN
OF BERTHOUD, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, CONCERNING THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER LINE EXTENSION POLICY, AMENDING TITLE 21.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF BERTHOUD,
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO:
21-1-101. Introduction.
(1) Statement of Purpose. It is the purpose of this policy to provide a fair and
equitable distribution of the costs of installing water and wastewater lines to all the parties
benefiting from their installation. This policy covers most cases, but a recognition is made
that special cases may occur. When special cases do occur, deviations may be made from the
specifics of the policy, provided the final arrangements maintain this fair and equitable intent.
Such arrangements can be made through the mutual consent of the Town Administrator and
the developer of the property. Such arrangements shall be contained in a development
agreement executed by the developer and the Town. This ordinance shall be interpreted and
enforced to ensure that a development will pay all direct costs and their proportionate share of
indirect costs.
(2) Definitions.
(a) "Town" means the Town of Berthoud, Colorado.
(b) "Development" means the creation of two or more parcels of land.
(c) "Developer" means the subdivision developer, parcel owner or any other
party or parties within the Town's urban service area.
(d) "Property" means the subdivision, parcel, lot, tract or any other described
piece of land for which the water or wastewater line is being installed.
(e) "Utility Superintendent" means the Superintendent of the Town of
Berthoud Water or Wastewater Department.
(3) Line Installation Policy. In order to facilitate the orderly continuation of the
Town's water distribution and wastewater collection systems, water and wastewater mains
shall be installed to the furthest point or points of a property. The developer shall install
lines on more than one side of the property and/or through more than one internal easement
or right-of-way if it is determined that those lines are needed to provide service to other
properties beyond the subject property.
1
971968
(4) All mains which are necessary for the service to or within a property or as
required above, shall be installed at the cost of the developer, except for the following
conditions:
(a) Mains larger than those required to serve the property but required by the
Town shall be subject to the provisions of 21-1-102, below.
(5) Prior to construction, plans and specifications for the water and wastewater
systems to be installed shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Administrator after
consultation with the appropriate engineering and other appropriate staff,
(6) The developer shall be responsible for payment of the Town's review, inspection
and associated costs. Such costs shall be in accordance with the actual costs. Payment of
such costs shall be made prior to acceptance by the Town of the improvements by the Town.
(7) Upon completion of the work and written acceptance by the Town the water
distribution and wastewater collection systems shall become the property of the Town.
(a) The Town shall own and maintain the water mains, water main
appurtenances, and fire hydrants and appurtenances therein. The property
owner shall maintain the service line attachment to the main line, meter,
meter pit, vaults and all other appurtenances from the main line. For fire
service lines the Town's ownership ends at the valve on the main or the point
of connection to the last domestic service off the line.
(b) The Town shall own and maintain the wastewater mains, manholes and
regional wastewater lift stations. The property owner shall maintain the
wastewater service line and attachment to the main line. Where a lift station is
built to provide service to a specific development or area the Town may either
establish a special monthly assessment to cover maintenance, overhead and
depreciation or require a property owner's association to cover these costs.
(8) All workmanship and materials shall be warranted in writing by the developer
against any defects for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Town. Any
repair or reconstruction performed during such warranty period as a result of defects in
material and/or workmanship shall be warranted for a period of one year from the acceptance
of such repair or reconstruction by the Town.
(9) Properties which are served by private lines that were not constructed according
to Town approved plans and specifications shall have mains complying to Town standards
installed and extended to serve the property. The cost thereof shall be paid by the owners
served, or assessed against the owners in accordance with applicable laws.
2
97196--
(10) No mains shall be extended outside the Urban Service Area, except as may be
necessary to serve the property within the Town or upgrade service to existing customers,
without the prior express written consent and approval of the Board of Trustees.
21-1-102. Reimbursement Policy and Procedure
(1) Reimbursement for Line Extension Through Undeveloped Property. In
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan development is encouraged in areas directly adjacent
to the Town. In the event a development is not located adjacent to the Town a developer
may find it necessary to install a water or wastewater lines through undeveloped property to
obtain service. Such person may request the establishment of a reimbursement agreement to
recover a portion of the line installation costs from subsequent future development along the
line.
(a) The establishment of a reimbursement agreement is optional and must be
requested by the developer prior to construction of the line.
(b) The developer shall obtain three independent written quotes or bids for
the line. The lowest bid shall be the basis for establishing a reimbursable
amount, regardless of whether the low bidder performs the work or not. The
quotes or bids shall be obtained for doing the work in a reasonable but not an
accelerated time period.
(c) The reimbursable amount shall not be increased or decreased to reflect
fluctuations in construction costs and shall not be increased for interest nor
decreased for depreciation. The date of the construction quote or bid shall
establish the initial index value.
(d) The reimbursement agreement shall expire after a period of ten (10) years
from the acceptance of the line unless extended in writing by the Board of
Trustees.
(e) Reimbursement payments shall be due and payable prior to the installation
of any service or line extension to the undeveloped parcel.
(f) If the line is installed through or adjacent to more than one property, the
future developers shall pay for their proportional share based on the usage of
the line generated through their property.
(2) Reimbursement for Line Extension Through Previously Developed Areas. A
developer may find it necessary to replace an existing undersized or otherwise inadequate line
to obtain service. The developer may be eligible to establish a reimbursement agreement in
the following cases:
3
971968
(a) If a property adjacent to the replacement line had a tap on the original
undersized line and is later subdivided the developer of this second property
shall reimburse the original developer an amount determined pursuant to the
provisions of this ordinance. To be eligible for such reimbursement the
developer must establish a reimbursement agreement as provided in
Section (1).
(b) If the line to be replaced is in such a condition or configuration that it
would in the opinion of the Town Administrator be eligible for replacement,
the Town may pay the portion of the cost that it would incur to replace or
upgrade the line as calculated, subject to fund availability. Such Town
participation shall be administered in accordance with Section (3).
(3) Reimbursement for Major Structures. A developer may find it necessary to install
a major structure to obtain water or wastewater service. The developer may be eligible to
establish a reimbursement agreement.
(a) A reimbursement agreement may be established if the major structure is a
component of the water distribution or wastewater collection system that will
bring direct benefits to an identifiable area. Examples are:
1. Wastewater lift stations
2. Water booster pump stations
3. River or highway crossings
(b) The cost of the utility line or structure required by the project itself shall
be paid by the Developer. The cost of the remainder of the utility line required
by the Town shall be paid by the Town.
(c) To be eligible for reimbursement, the developer shall establish a
reimbursement agreement as provided in Section (2).
21-1-103. Line Oversizing Policy
(1) General. The purpose of the line oversizing policy is to enable a developer to
recover the costs incurred to install an oversized water or wastewater line. The "oversized"
portion is the difference between the line size required by the property and the line size
required by the Town to meet future growth demands. The developer is required to bear the
full costs for installing 8" wastewater lines, or larger if required to serve that development,
and for installing all water lines 6" in diameter, or larger if required to serve that
development.
97196e
(2) Line Sizing. The actual size of the water or wastewater line required shall be
initially established by the developer with supporting documentation to verify that the sizes of
the water or wastewater lines or both, meet the Town's specifications. Final evaluation and
design shall be determined by the Town. Criteria to be used for this determination shall
include, but shall not be limited to the following:
(a) Utility Master Plan requirements.
(b) Potential future demand on the water or wastewater system as related to
the proposed development.
(c) Hydraulic design criteria of the water or wastewater system.
(3) Town Participation in Oversizing Project. The Town may require a developer to
install an oversized water or wastewater line. If an oversized line is required, the Town will
participate in the project costs if the oversizing is required to provide service to the Town's
existing customers.
(4) Developer Reimbursement. When the Town requires a developer to oversize
either water or wastewater lines to meet the needs of anticipated development the developer
may request the Town to enter into a reimbursement agreement. The agreement may provide
that the developer will be reimbursed the cost of the required oversizing from future
developments which make use of the oversizing. The reimbursement agreement shall expire
upon repayment to the developer of the oversizing costs or the expiration of 10 years from
the completion of the installation.
(5) Determination of Eligible Project Costs.
(a) Only those components of the water or wastewater line project that are
specifically related to the oversizing shall be included for oversizing
participation. Eligible costs include those costs to furnish and install the
oversized pipe, fittings, valves and service saddles. The costs for design,
installation, service lines, manholes, surface repairs and connected lines and
appurtenances are not eligible. Wastewater manholes will be included if larger
than a 4 -foot diameter manhole is needed because of the wastewater line size.
(b) Construction Quotes. If the developer is aware that there will be
oversizing required and that the cost of the oversizing is less than $5,000, the
developer shall obtain a minimum of three written quotes from qualified
contractors for construction of the oversized line. The quotations shall be
based on construction of the line in a reasonable but not an accelerated time
period. The Town and the developer shall agree on a reasonable time frame to
be included in the request for quotations. The lowest quote shall be the basis
for determining eligible oversizing costs.
5
971968
(c) Competitive Bids. If the cost of the oversizing is estimated to be greater
than $5,000, the developer shall obtain competitive bids for the construction of
the oversized line, in accordance with the State laws and Town procedures for
capital projects. The bids shall be based on construction of the line in a
reasonable but not an accelerated time period. The Town and the developer
shall agree on a reasonable time frame to be included in the request for
quotations. The Town and the developer have the right to reject any and all
bids, for cause.
(d) Determination of Final Costs. The developer's engineer shall submit to the
Town a summary of the final eligible project costs. The final costs shall be
based on the lower of the actual installation costs or the bid received for the
project.
(6) Water and Wastewater Development Agreement. If the Town agrees to
participate in an oversizing project the developer shall prepare a Water and Wastewater
Development Agreement which will include:
(a) An estimate of the oversized line project costs, prepared by a Professional
Engineer. Itemization of the cost estimate shall be attached to the agreement.
(b) Distribution of project costs between the Town and the developer.
(c) Time schedule or phasing plan(s) which the developer agrees to comply
with.
(d) Any reimbursement agreements between the developer and future
developers along the oversized line.
(e) The Water and Wastewater Development Agreement shall be reviewed and
signed by the Utility Superintendent, the Town Attorney, and the Developer.
21-1-104. Effective Date:
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Berthoud herewith fords, determines and
designates that this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after
publication.
At its meeting July 26, 1994, a public hearing was set by the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Berthoud for its meeting held on the 9th day of August, 1994. After the public
hearing, the Ordinance was read, passed and ordered published by the Board of Trustees at its
meeting this 9th day of August, 1994.
971968
TOWN OF BERTHOUD:
chard Strachan
Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary K. Cow in
Town Clerk
Published: 8-11-94
7
971.9+'
APPENDIX A
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(MWE, May 1996)
971968
(9016)
WAS
us
A
TIVIEWS
DATE
WN 0OP L3 MOM
971968
MOM 3S
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
2420 Alcott Street, Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 458-5550
Facsimile (303) 480-9766
103060,1344 ® compuserve.com
May 17, 1996
Mr. Richard Strachan, Mayor
Board of Trustees
% Anna Lenahan, Manager
P.O. Box 1229
Berthoud, Colorado 80513
RE: Letter of Transmittal — Wastewater Treatment Master Plan Update
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Submitted enclosed is our Master Plan update for the Berthoud wastewater treatment facilities.
RONALD MELAUGHLIN
LEON ELSE:
HALFORD E ERICKSON
WILLIAM R KENDALL
RALPH L TOREN
TERRENCEP KENYON
RICHARD E MCLAUGHLIN
RONALDI MCLAUGHLIN
GENE A BURRELL
MICHAEL E MERCER
)OHN N PPLAUM
MICHAEL R GALUZZI
SCOTT E LEHMAN
BRIAN S KOLST AD
G DEAN DEROSIER
EDWARD D BAIN
BRIAN I CHEVALIER
DANIEL F. ELAHA
). HAROLD ROBERTS
LEANDER L URN,'
DANIEL N. PETRAMALA
RONALD D LUCERO
A proposed initial capital improvements program has been developed; it resolves the immediate problem
of inadequate sludge treatment capacity — and also provides additional wastewater flow treatment capacity
so that the present plant can be utilized for a few more years. All major investment should be made at
the proposed permanent regional plant site, located about L/ -mile downstream.
We will be available to review this report with you at your request.
Respectfully su
Ronald C.
Enclosures
ASPEN, CO,
?PO 7a -E920
OF60e
Christopher K. Gulden
971968 RCM:d92-008.003P/RCM•J
PHOENIX, AZ
(6021248-7702
DMPLETE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN WATER RIGHTS AND RESOURCES WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IRRIGATION FOUNTAINS STORM DRAINAGE AND FOOD CONTROL
WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMENT ANIREUSE FIRE PROTECTION WATER BASEDRECREATION SPECIALTY HYDRAULICS RATE STUDIES AND UTILITIES ECONOMICS
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Regional wastewater master planning has been previously undertaken by the Town. The Wastewater
Service Area Plan, by the Engineering Professionals, Inc. dated December 1995, defined Berthoud's
future service area. The Plan also predesigned a trunk sewer network that would collect sanitary sewage
flows from development in the service area. In addition to the designated service area, Berthoud treats,
by contract, wastes from the South Loveland Sanitation District.
The Plan was adopted by the Town as a master plan guideline for the sanitary sewage (wastewater)
utility. As recommended by the Plan "...this study should be amended as development warrants."
The Wastewater Service Area Plan concluded that significant expansion of capacity could not take place
at the existing plant site; also that the existing site is not strategically located to serve the proposed service
area by gravity.
New State/Federal regulations regarding sewage sludge treatment and disposal (the "503 Regulations")
became effective in 1995. Preliminary plant evaluation by MWE personnel indicated that the existing
sludge facilities are inadequate, and that near -future capital improvements will be needed.
The Town is experiencing continuing growth. Some older sewers have had heavy inflow/infiltration (I/I)
problems. During wet periods, actual flows have exceeded nominal plant capacity. Even considering
only average loads, the plant capacity would have to be increased within a few years.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to formulate an optimum plan for the next phase of treatment improvements.
Specifically, to be resolved are:
a. Revised estimates of ultimate and 10 -year to 20 -year growth projections.
b. Select the best regional plant site to be acquired.
92. 8.003P:SrP-RPT
971968
c. Define, at a conceptual level, the components to be included in an initial phase Capital
Improvement Program — probably consisting of:
• plant site acquisition
• trunk sewer from present plant to new site
• required sludge treatment improvements for existing and design period loads
• additional capacity needed for near -future growth
92-008.003P:SrP-RPP
I-2
971968
SECTION II
DESIGN FLOWS
SERVICE AREA
The proposed study/service area was established in the 1985 Report, as shown on Figure 2 of that report.
Except for area in Weld County, this is slightly smaller, but nearly coincidental with the "Berthoud
Planning Area" as presented in the Town of Berthoud Land Use Plan, prepared by BHA Design, Inc.,
dated May 1994.
The Land Use Plan also defines an Urban Growth Management Area — which represents areas thought
to develop in the next 10 to 20 years. It is probable that most of the trunk/collection sewers constructed
in the next 20 years will be to serve this area.
PRESENT LOADS
Existing customers include:
156 Business/Commercial taps in Berthoud
1422 Residential taps in Berthoud
1578 Total Sewer Customers in Berthoud
6 Business/Church taps in South Loveland District
579 Residential taps in South Loveland District
585 Total Sewer Customers in South Loveland District
Sewage flows have been erratic, primarily due to infiltration problems in both the older area of Berthoud
and in the South Loveland District.
From present population estimates in Berthoud (3800), it is reasonable to use a design value of 2.8
persons per residential tap. Normal design sewage loads per residential tap would then be:
210 gpd/tap
0.56 lb BOD5/day/tap
92-008.003P:STP-RPT
971968
Since the commercial component is not large nor unusual, the assumption of similar loads from
commercial taps will result in only minor error. Accordingly, predicted present design sanitary sewage
flows for 2163 taps is 454,000 gpd and 1211 lbs BODS/day.
Flow records of February and March, 1996, show a low influent flow of 363,000 gpd. The average for
February was 490,000 gpd, and most day's flows were in this range. For practical purposes, base unit
sewage flow of 230 gpd/tap can be used. BODS measurements indicate variable, but lower strength
wastes than predicted above. However, BODS measurements are tabulated from randomly collected
samples, and not proportionately composited; it is therefore recommended that the 0.56 lb/day BODS unit
load be retained for design purposes.
Reported influent flows have been over 1.0 MGD during wet weather (1.21 MGD in May 1983, per 1985
Area Plan). However, infiltration/inflow (I/I) is expected to be reduced significantly due to corrective
work in Berthoud and South Loveland. Further installation of new sewers should be conducted so as to
result in negligible incremental infiltration.
PROJECTED LOADS
Based on the above, information from the Area Plan, and our plant capacity analyses (see later), a fixed
allowance for I/I of about 400,000 gpd is a reasonable practical assumption.
Berthoud planning information is that a 21 %/year annual growth rate is a best estimate for the next few
years.
Service area growth projections made in the 1985 Area Plan indicate an ultimate service area population
of about 70,000 people, with a predicted maximum daily flow of about 9 MGD. It is our opinion that
the actual flows will be less because:
• water availability may limit total development.
• recent emphasis on water conserving fixtures will reduce unit flows, as compared to those
experienced in 1985.
• saturation buildout of all of the service area is unlikely within a reasonable planning period (say
100 years).
92-O38.003P:STP-RPT
II -2
971968
Recommended design criteria for use at this time include:
Year
1996
2000
2010
Ultimate
92-008.003P:SIP-RPT
Daily
Sanitary
Sewage
Flows
490,000 gpd
540,000 gpd
700,000 gpd
11-3
Maximum
Acceptable
I/I
400,000 gpd
350,000 gpd
300,000 gpd
890,
Nominal
Design
Flows
pd
,000 gpd
1,000,000 gpd
971968
SECTION III
PLANT SITE SELECTION
GENERAL
The existing site is not strategically located to receive a majority of flow from the service area by gravity.
The available site area is limited , and does not provide sufficient area for expansion. Further, the
present plant facility was not planned for expansion — and the process used is not conducive to
enlargement.
As stated in the 1985 Area Plan, it can be concluded that a new site should be acquired for a Berthoud
area sub -regional scale plant.
The Area Plan indicated a proposed plant location on the north bank of the Little Thompson River, just
east of the Latimer County boundary. However, our field investigation indicated that this specific
location did not provide a good site.
Four alternative sites were located by field reconnaissance. These are identified on the attached map and
described below.
ALTERNATIVE PLANT SITES
Four additional sites were investigated as possible candidate locations for relocating the plant facility.
Site name, boundary, and features are provided as follows:
Site N2 1 - This is the site indicated in the 1985 Area Plan. It is located in Weld County, just
north of the Little Thompson River. Field check indicated minimal land availability without
extensive excavation.
Site N2 2 (Carol Property) - Area bounded by Weld County Road i to the west, County Road 6C
to the north, farmland to the east and south; site is in Section 19 on the Berthoud U.S.G.S. map,
entirely inside Weld County. The site is on large flat area, and is presently used as farm land.
No existing structures are on the privately owned property. Approximate site elevation - 4930
feet.
92-008.003P:STP-RPr
971968
Site N2 3 (Kraft Property) - Area bounded by Weld County Road on the east, and County
Road 6C on the south, the Little Thompson River on the north and west; site is in Section 24 on
the Berthoud U.S.G.S. map, entirely inside Larimer County. The site is located on a flat area,
and is a privately own property used as farmland, with a house in the northeast corner.
Approximate site elevation - 4935 feet.
Site N2 4 (Sullivan Property) - Area bounded by Weld County Road on the east; County Road 6C
on the north; the Little Thompson River on the west; and adjacent farmland on the south. The
site is in Section 24 on the Berthoud U.S.G.S. map, entirely inside Larimer County. The site
is a predominately flat privately owned farm, with a house and two barns in the center.
Approximate site elevation - 4935 feet.
Site N2 5 (Beefus Property) - Area bounded by County Road 6C on the north and the Little
Thompson River on the east and south; site is in Section 24 on the Berthoud U.S.G.S. map,
entirely inside Larimer County. The site is predominately farmland with a mild pitch to the
southeast, and has no structures on the property. Approximate elevation - 4950 feet.
PRELIMINARY SITE SELECTION
All five sites are located near or adjacent to the Little Thompson River. Flood plain location became an
immediate issue. The four new sites were initially chosen through topographical rationale, which
attempted to maximize the gravity sewer collection area for a new plant location in conjunction with the
Town of Berthoud growth Area Plan.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, June 1977, Flood Plain Study on the Little
Thomson River was reviewed. The accuracy of the study may be reduced due to additional
development/urbanization of Little Thompson River drainage basin area since the time of the study.
However, additional or more recent flood plain analysis was not justified due to the findings in the Corps
of Engineers study. The study also includes 500 year Flood Plain delineation, but this is not usually a
consideration for the site selection.
The Corps of Engineers study terminated along the Little Thompson River at the Weld County line.
Approximation of the flood plain location just inside Weld County was inferred from the area topography.
Of the five candidate sites, only Site N2 1 and Site N2 5 (Beefus property) were not located in the 100 year
Flood Plain. This is shown on the attached map. Site N2 2 (Carol property), although not in the study area
92-008.003P:STP-RPT
111-2
9719£8
of the Flood Plain analysis, would clearly be in the 100 -year boundary due to the mean elevation of the
site.
In addition to being above the flood plain, Site N2 5 (Beefus property) has the following additional
qualities:
► Close to existing STP (approximately 1 mile) - minimizes new trunk sewer length.
► North of the Little Thompson River - eliminates sewer line crossing of River.
► Close to Little Thompson River - minimizes plant outfall capital costs
► No existing structures on property
► Adequate area - suitable for expandable plant, possibility for on -site beneficial reuse.
► Regional location - ability, at some point in the future, to receive sewage flow from three near -by
lagoon type STPs (River Glenn, Berthoud Estates, Vaquero & Western Mini), as well as nearly
all of the study area, by gravity flow.
Further analysis of the Beefus property should include subsurface conditions. A geotechnical soils
investigation and report would provide further STP site feasibility information.
92{g8.003P:SrP-RPF
III -3
971.968
SECTION IV
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL
The wastewater master plan is a guideline for the long-term development of the wastewater utility system.
However, this system is intended to serve a large area which will be developed over many years — and,
for economic reasons, must be constructed in phases as needed.
Ideally, to minimize the risk of over -building and to reduce the time related costs of investment (i.e.
interest and depreciation), the facilities should be constructed in discrete practical increments, keeping
pace with the development rate.
The intent of this report is to develop preliminary designs and a budget for Phase 1 of the improvement
program. Conclusions from analyses and review of the Master Plan, which affect identification of
Phase 1 include:
1. The existing plant site is not well suited nor adequate for use as a regional site for the Berthoud
service area. The permanent plant should be developed and expanded at a different site;
therefore, no significant capital investment should be made at the existing location.
2. The existing plant has capacity to handle approximately 0.8 MGD of normal strength sanitary
sewerage plus some infiltration, provided minor treatment improvements are made to existing
plant. Although the plant has been overloaded hydraulically, rehabilitation of the sewer system
should be able to reduce infiltration inflows so that the main processes of the existing plant have
sufficient capacity for a few more years (approximately 10 years at a 2.5 percent per year
compounded growth rate).
3. The weak link of the existing plant is the sludge treatment and disposal facilities. The existing
sludge digester is totally inadequate and there are no sludge thickening or dewatering facilities
with the exception of small sand drying beds.
4. There is an imminent proposed development to the east which would require pumping of collected
sewage to the existing plant site.
92408.003P:STP-RPr
971968
PROPOSED PHASE 1 PROGRAM
The following capital improvements are recommended to be included in the Phase 1 Program, which is
intended to resolve existing problems and to be carried out in the 1996-1997 time frame. A schematic
is enclosed for illustrative purposes.
1. Acquire Site for New Regional Plant
It is proposed to acquire an approximate 15 -acre plant site. The best location is alternative N2 5
which is shown on the attached map. The location of this site appears to be ideal; and it is in
keeping with the intent of the 1985 Plan.
2. Construct An Aerobic Sludge Digester at the New Regional Plant Site
This digester would be located and sized so as to be part of the permanent ultimate treatment
facility. In addition it is proposed to install a centrifuge in conjunction with the digestion facility.
The initial centrifuge would be piped and designed to serve two functions i.e. (a) thicken waste
activated sludge before digestion, and (b) dewater waste digested sludge before beneficial use type
land application. The digester should be sized to be compatible with a treatment plant capacity
of approximately 1.0 MGD. Multiple digesters would be planned as the plant is expanded
beyond that rate. The digester should be designed to permit possible conversion to the anaerobic
process in the future.
3. Connecting Pipelines
Construct a 24- inch trunk sewer leading from near the existing plant site to the new plant site,
approximately 2,930 lineal feet. This sewer should probably be sized at the ultimate projected
capacity as shown by the master plan; however, its Phase 1 use would be merely to transport
waste activated sludge from the plant to the new site, and therefore it could be installed at a much
smaller size, if so dictated by availability of capital. Parallel to the trunk sewer would be
constructed a 4 -inch force main. This force main would be utilized during Phase 1 to transmit
centrate and wastes from the new plant site back to the existing plant for treatment.
4. Lift Station/Wet Well
A pumping station should be constructed at the permanent plant site for interim use. This station
would be used to pump centrate and supernatant from the centrifuge and digester back to the
existing plant for treatment. It could also be used to pump waste from the east side of Town
development areas which would be delivered to the new site by gravity. The pump station would
return the flows to the existing plant site through the 4 -inch force main described in item 3 above.
92-008.W3P:STP-RPT
IV -2
971968
5. Existing Plant Upgrade
It is our opinion that the existing plant can be upgraded for additional capacity and reliability at
minimal cost by converting either the existing primary clarifier or the digester for use as a sludge
reaeration basin. This would require the installation of aeration equipment in the basin, with
piping connections so that return activated sludge can be directed to this basin prior to returning
to the oxidation ditch. Although resulting actual capacity should be verified by field testing, it
is probable that this improvement will increase the plant capacity to approximately 0.7 MGD of
sanitary sewage. These improvements will reduce the potential of odors at the existing plant site
both by increasing biological treatment efficiency and oxygen transfer capacity; and due to the
fact that no sludge will be treated at this site.
Refer to the enclosed preliminary work schedule for time relations to the above described
improvements.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
The following cost estimates are based on preliminary designs and are intended to be adequate for policy
determination and preliminary budgeting only. We have provided approximate costs for the physical
facilities. To this must be added the acquisition cost of the plant site; it is recommended that an appraiser
be retained for that purpose, and to assist with acquisition procedures.
1. NEW TRUNK SEWER AND FORCE MAIN
A useful life cost analysis for sizing the trunk sewer:
Pipe Size Installation Design Design Years*
Diameter Cost Estimate Peak Flow Flow Of
(Inches) Per (L.F.) (MGD) (MGD) Service
15" $40 2.11 0.84 7
18" $48 3.4 1.36 12
21" $55 5.1 2.04 43
24" $63 7.9 3.16 60
*Years of service based on existing STP flow rate of 0.7 MGD and Town growth rate of 244%
92-008.003P:SrP-RPT
IV -3
971968
It is recommended that a 24 -inch trunk sewer be installed as to comply with standard design
criteria, in terms of number of useful service years. The actual useful life of the sewer will
depend upon regional growth of the area.
The 1985 Area Plan Report, with the new STP being located at Site N2 1, planned to convey future
sewage flows from the Champion area and new development areas northwest, north, northeast,
and east of Berthoud — all towards the eastern edge of the total growth plan area. With the new
STP site location (Site N9 5), it is recommended that sewage collection master planning be
re-evaluated for the above mentioned areas.
To minimize initial capital costs, a 6 -inch gravity sewer could be selected to convey sludge from
the existing STP to the new trunk sewer.
As part of the initial phase capital improvements, a 4 -inch force main is required to transfer
centrate, generated by the sludge dewatering facility, back to the existing STP.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
a. 24 -Inch PVC Trunk Sewer
b. 6 -Inch PVC Conveyance Sewer
c. 4 -Inch DIP Force Main
d. Manholes (9)
$ Installed
$185,000
60,000
80,000
20,000
2. SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY
Initial phase capital improvements include:
► Covered, insulated, 300,000 gallon aerobic digester, with aeration equipment, sludge
pump, and process piping.
► Heated sludge thickening and dewatering building complete with centrifuge, truck bay,
operations room, and polymer feed system.
► Concrete wet well pump station with 2 submersible return flow pumps.
► Concrete aerated sludge receiving tank with aeration equipment, sludge grinder and lift
pump.
92.008.003P:SIP-RPr
IV -5
9'71.968
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: $850,000
3. EXISTING STP IMPROVEMENTS/MODIFICATIONS
a. Conversion of old primary clarifier to sludge reaeration basin - to include aeration
equipment and yard piping.
b. Conversion of existing sludge digester to aerated sludge holding tank - to include
replacement of aeration equipment.
COST ESTIMATE: $50,000
4. POWER UTILITIES BROUGHT TO NEW PLANT SITE
Quote from Poudre Valley REA - Electricity
Public Service Company Natural Gas (Limited supply within '/ mile)
SUMMARY
$15,000
N/A
As the Town of Berthoud continues to experience population growth, the capacity of the sewage treatment
plant will rapidly approach design limits. The plant is currently overloaded as to the ability to process
sludge. In addition, the plant site is not well located to collect sewage flows by gravity from planned
development areas.
As provided in the 1985 Area Plan Report, a new plant site was selected and sewer trunks master -planned
relative to that location. This Master Plan Update re-examines the site location, along with four others,
and concluded that site N2 5 (Beefus Property) is best suited for locating new sewage treatment processes.
Additional site surveying and geotechnical investigation is needed to conclude this selection.
A phased build-up plan is suggested for capital improvements at the new site. Phase 1 includes:
1) construction of a sludge process facility at the new plant site, 2) trunk sewer and force main pipelines
installed to connect the existing and new site, 3) improvements/upgrades made to the existing plant
processes.
92. 8.003P:STP-RPr
IV -6
971968
The preliminary estimate for the capital budget for the recommended initial phase is:
24" trunk sewer
4" force main
Site Application
Sludge treatment facilities (at new plant site)
Improvements to existing plant
Subtotal, Estimated Construction Costs
Add 25% for contingencies, engineering, and miscellaneous
Total Estimated Project Budget*
*Plus land acquisition costs (not estimated herein)
$ 205,000
80,000
10,000
850,000
50.000
$1,195,000
299 000
$1,494,000
With a normal growth rate, it is probable that the existing plant, modified as proposed herein, will have
adequate capacity for 5 to 10 more years.
92-006.003P:STP-RPT
IV -7
971.968
APPENDIX B
POTABLE WATER WELLS
(State Engineers Office)
971968
REPORT DATE 06/30/97
PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M
6649R 1 62 WILSON CHAS W BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1
119G 1 62 SCHMECHEL DOUGLAS 19993 WELD CNTY RD 5 BERTHOUD, CO 90513
NP 09/25/90 4 G C GW
10570F 1 62 CARROLL HALLEY & MARY F RT 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 03/24/66
10649F 1 62 CARROLL MARY F & HALLEY RT 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 03/28/66
11060R 1 62 CARROLL HALLEY & MARY F RI 1 BOX 23 BERTHOUD, CO 90513
4 1 09/11/36 360.00 43 10 NWNE 30 4 N 68 W S
11060R R 1 62 CARROLL HALLEY & MARY FERN 19858 WCR N1 BERTHOUD. CO 80513
NP 04/16/93 4 1 GW 300.00 40 7 0143N,26305 NWNE 30 4 N 58 W S
,
10650F 1 62 CARROLL HALLEY & MARY E RI 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 04/06/66 1000.00 42 7 NWNW 30 .4 N 6E W S
161668 1 62 MACDONALD SAM 19417 WCR 3 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
NP 07/17/91 AS 05/28/92 4 8 GW .5.00 22 19805,0375E NESE 30 4 N 6E W S
161668 A 1 62 MACDONALD SAM 19417 WCR 3 BERTHOUD. CO 80513
NP 07/17/91 WA 4 8 GW 5.00 150 12 1980S.0200E NESE 3C4 4 N 68 W S
135343 1 62 REINKING R 0 LONGMONT, CO 80501
NP 04/13/84 4 89 SWSE 31 4 N 66 W S
500.00 35 14 NESW 26 4 N 68 W S
200 0500E,0050N NENE 29+ 4 N 68 W S
600.00 43 7 NWNE 30 4 N 68 W S
400.00 41 7 NWNE 30 4 N 66 W S
971%8
REPORT DATE 06/30/97
PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS
COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES OTRS SC SHIP RANGE M
1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P
10797 1 62 WAGNER C 0 WESTERN SPG, IL 00000
4 9 03/08/62
91404VE 1 62 STARCK ROBERT 21746 WD CO RD 13 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
AV 10/02/91 4 9 GW 2S00S,1400W NESW 18 4 N 68 ,+f 5
.60483 1 62 STARCK ROBERT P 21746 WD CO RD 13 BERTHOUD. CO 80513
NP 06/07191 AB 09/20/91 4 9 L OW 25.00 240 15 25005,1400$ NESW 18 4 N 68 W S
60483 A 1 62 STARK ROBERT P 21746 WCR 13 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
NP 11/01/91 WA 4 9 L OW 20.00 240 12 2500S,1450W NESW 18 4 N 68 W S
4639 1 62 COOK ROBERT R F D BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 8 10/21/59 6.00 77 19 SW$W 18 4 N 68 W S
10709R 1 62 CARROLL MARY F & HALLEY RT 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 400.00 46 15 NWSE 19 4 N 68 W S
20385F 1 62 SULLIVAN TIMOTHY ROUTE 1 BOX 40 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 07/11/77 14.00 200.00 46 8 00305,2620E SWSE 19 4 N 68 W S
10708R 1 62 CARROLL MARY F & HALLEY RT 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 400.00 46 15 NESW 19 4 N 66 W S
36243 1 62 OLSON GARETH R 6840 S HARRISON ST LITTLETON, CO 80122-2052
NP 02/22/95 4 9 L OW, 24005,06505 NESE 20 4 N 58 W S
33442 A 1 62 SCHAAL D BERTHOUD, CO 80513
NP 09/01/77 4 8 11/15/85 SWSW 20 4 N 68 W S
1954R R I 62 SCHAAL DALE & MAX RT 1 BOX 84 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
NP 12/02/91 SP 07/22/92 4 1 OW 250.00 51 12 07005,0840w SWSW 20 4 N 68 W S
"'54R 1 62 SCHAAL DALE H & MAX N RT 1 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 1 02/08/78 210.00 175.00 47 15 0700$,0460W SWSW 20 4 N 68 W S
.1875 1 62 SCHAAL DALE RT. 1, BOX 84 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 8 03/19/76 1.00 15.00 50 13 0325S,1215W SWSW 20 4 N 68 W S
3442 1 62 SCHAAL DALE & MAX RT. 1, BOX 84 BERTHOUD, CO 80513
4 8 08/09/77 1.00 20.00 45 10 02145,0096W SWSW 20 4 N 68 W S
1371 R 1 62 RAINBOWS END R SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251
NP 08/10178 4 1 NWSW 21 4 N 68 W S
7.00 43 NENW 17 4 N 68 W S
971968
REPORT DATE 06/30/97 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRA AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M
154204 1 35 LINK DICK 2702 W EISENHOWER BLVD LOVELAND, CO 80537
NP 05/15/89 4 9
5122 1 35 APPLEBY H A LOVELAND, CO 80537
4 8 02/16/60
102637 1 35 GOULD MARGARET T 2520 ELDRIDGE CIR GOLDEN, CO 80401
NS
4 89 02/13/79
GW 2.00 300 15 0300S,2100W SESW 12 4 N 69 W S
1.00 81 6 SESW 13 4 N 59 W 5
GW 1.00 430 20 0800N,0100W NWNW 14 4 N 69 W zS
971268
REPORT DATE 07/02/97 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M
107396 1 35 BROWER LLOYD V JR 222 MINNIE ILA LN BERTHOUD, CO 80206
NP 04/04/79 4 H
1 35 LEWIS STAN BOULDER, CO 80301
AP 06/09/86 AU 07/23/86 4 B
10.00 380 28 2456S,1835E NWSE 24 4 N 69 W S
OW NWSE 24 4 N 69 W S
83647 1 35 DEVRIES RICHARD RT 4 BOX 108 LONGMONT, CO 80501
NP 04/14/76 4 H 05/19/76 1100 15.00 50 27 2100S,2130E NWSE 24 4 N 69 W S
88446 1 35 DIEPERSLOOT PETE J & IDA M 333 MINNIELLA LN RR2 BERTHOUD, CO 80513 LOT 2 DIEPERSLOOT EXEMPTION
NP 01/31/77 4 H 04/30/77 2.00 50 20 1700S,2230E NWSE 24 4 N 69 W S
92471 1 35 SCHRA MARVIN D 247 MINNIE ILLA LN BERTHOUD, CO 80513
NP 07/28/77 4 H 11/24/77 8.00 80 16 2300S,2350E NWSE 24 4 N 69 W S
971968
APPENDIX C
BERTHOUD WWTP
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Environmental Science Department
Red Rocks Community College
May 1996)
971968
THE CITY OF
BERTHOUD, COLORADO
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
MAY, 1996
971968
Berthoud, Colorado
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
May, 1996
INTRODUCTION
A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) was conducted for the
wastewater treatment plant of the City of Berthoud, on the 9th, 10th, and 13th of
May, 1996. The evaluation was conducted by an EPA 104(g)(1) Outreach Trainer
from the Environmental Science Department, Red Rocks Community College.
Comprehensive Performance Evaluations are conducted on wastewater
treatment facilities as a means of assessing whether factors associated with the
administration, design, operation, or maintenance are affecting the optimal
performance of the facility as related to effluent quality. The CPE is a
performance evaluation tool used by the Water Quality Division to periodically
assess the capability of wastewater treatment plants in Colorado. The CPE is
based on the EPA Handbook: Retrofitting POTWs.
The CPE is the first step in a two step process and is conducted to provide
information for POTW administrators to make decisions regarding efforts
necessary to improve performance. The primary objective is to determine if
significant improvements in treatment can be achieved without major capital
expenditures. The objective is accomplished by assessing the capability of major
unit processes and by identifying and prioritizing those factors that limit
performance and which can be corrected to improve performance.
The second step of the process is called a Composit Correction Program (CCP)
and represents the performance improvement phase. It is a systematic approach
to eliminating those factors that inhibit performance in existing POTWs. The CCP
focuses on optimizing the capability of existing facilities to perform better.
Evaluation of Major Unit Processes
Major unit processes are evaluated to assess their potential to achieve desired
performance levels. If the CPE indicates that the major unit processes are
adequate or potentially adequate, a major plant expansion or upgrade may not be
necessary and a properly conducted CCP should be implemented to achieve
optimum performance. If, on the other hand, the CPE shows that major unit
processes are inadequate, owners should consider modifications of these
processes as the focus for achieving desired performance.
Results of evaluation of major unit processes can be summarized by
categorization of plant type, as illustrated below.
971968
t
Type 1 plants are those POTWs where a CPE shows that current performance
difficulties are not caused by limitations in the size or capabilities of the existing
major unit processes.
Type 2 plants are those POTWs where a CPE represents a situation where the
marginal capacity of major unit processes will potentially prohibit the ability to
achieve the desired performance level.
Type 3 plants are those POTWs in which existing major unit processes are
inadequate. Although other limiting factors may exist such as the operators'
process control capability or the administration's unfamiliarity with plant needs,
performance cannot be expected to improve significantly until physical limitations
of major unit processes are eliminated.
Performance - Limiting Factors
In almost all CPEs, several factors are identified as limiting performance. After
these factors have been identified, they are prioritized as to their adverse effect
on achieving desired plant performance. The purposes of this prioritization are to
establish the sequence and/or emphasis of the follow-up activities necessary to ,
achieve compliance. If the highest ranking factors (i.e., those having the most
negative impact on performance) are related to physical limitations in unit process
capacity, initial corrective actions are directed toward defining plant modifications
and obtaining administrative funding for their implementation. If the highest
ranking factors are process control orientated, the initial emphasis of follow-up
activities would be directed toward plant -specific operator training.
The classification system for prioritizing performance -limiting factors are listed
below.
Rating Adverse Effects of Factor on Plant Performance
A Major effect on long-term repetitive basis
B Minimum effect on routine basis or major effect on
a periodic basis
C Minor effect
Factors that are assigned an "A" are the major problems that cause performance
deficiency.
Factors that are assigned a "B" routinely contribute to poor plant performance but
are not major problems.
971968
9-
Factors that are assigned a "C" can be shown to contribute to a performance
problem, but their effect is minor.
FACILITY INFORMATION
Berthoud's wastewater treatment facility is an extended aeration activated sludge
process utilizing an oxidation ditch design. (See Figure 1) This facility is designed
for an average daily flow of 900,000 gal/day and a hydraulic detention time of 21
hours. The influent sewage is primarily domestic with some industry(restaurants,
various businesses) and is transmitted to the facility through a collection system
that has three(3) lift stations. The effluent from the plant discharges into No Name
Creek and is required to meet national secondary treatment standards.
The Berthoud facility consist of the following:
Headworks; Parshal Flume
Influent flow meter
Flow totalizer
Grit & Screen
Secondary
Final Clarifier
Disinfection
Biosolids
Oxidation Ditch
Uniflow type
Contact Basin
Aerobic Digester
Milltronics (sonar)
Foxboro Digital with chart recorder
Hycor Helisieve, HLS 300
.9MGD with four brush rotors, fine
bubble diffusers, boat clarifier rated at
.4MGD,and D.O. probe
Circular with mechanical scrapers
to hopper, centrifugal RAS/WAS
pumps, flow totalizer with chart
Baffled tank configuration, 20,000ga1s.
65,000 gallon, coarse bubble diffused,
decant to ox ditch, waste to drying bed
or tanker for disposal
The Berthoud facility is located south-east of town and discharges the effluent
through a pipe into No Name Creek.
rfi Sonic Flow Meter
Parshal Fkane and
Helisieve Screen
Aerobic Digester
65,000 gals
Sludge Hauler
Drying Beds
two 11 ft Rotors,
15hp. ee.
RAS valve
to ditch
Oxidation Ditch
794,000 gals
Design: 900,000 geliday
1,300 lb.BOD1day
Boat iffier
400,000
Magnetic
Flow Meter
WAS valve
to dig.
Effluent
Sample Point
NPDES 001A
y
otcrS
15hp. ea.,
66-91 rpm,
Varidrive
Office, Lao,
Ras/Was
Amps.
Final Clarifier
120,000 gals
Chlorine
Contact Tank
NO NAME CREEK
irrigation ditch
Berthoud Wastewater Treatment Plant
Figure 1
971968
The Berthoud facility is required to meet the following secondary treatment
standards:
*BOD5 30 mg/I monthly avg.; 45 mg/I weekly avg.
TSS 30 mg/I monthly avg.; 45 mg/I weekly avg.
*Fecal 2000/100 ml monthly avg.; 4000/100 ml weekly avg.
Coliform
*Maximum total residual chlorine(TRC)/day = Not greater than .5 mg/I
The pH maintained between 6.5 and 9.0 standard units
85% removal of BODs and TSS
In addition to these limits, the sampling program shall include the following:
instantaneous influent flow sampling, daily max/monthly avg.
BODs grab,monthly
TSS grab, monthly
fecal coliform grab, monthly
pH grab,monthly
total residual chlorine(TRC) grab, daily
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Plant performance is based upon the previous 14 months data (February 1995 -
March 1996) generated by the plant's sampling and testing program. These data
are used to represent the current operational performance relative to optimum
capability. The CPE seeks to establish the plant's ability to handle current loading
and to effectively remove solids from the influent wastewater stream.
Influent Load Balance
Hydraulic: Analysis shows 140 gallons per person per day is flowing into
the treatment plant based on the population of 4200 persons. This is
significantly higher than the per capita rate of 100gal/person/day standard
This would indicate a possible infiltration/inflow problem, or influent meter
calibration.
971968
Organic: The per capita organic loading to the plant is 0,199 pounds per
person per day based on a population of 4200 and is within the 0.20 pound
per person per day standard.
Sludge Production Ratio
The total calculated BOD mass to be removed from the plant a day is 1043
lb/day. The calculated total sludge mass to be removed is 678 lb/day
based on typical sludge production of .65 lb TSS/lb BOD removed. The
recorded total sludge mass removed is 383 lb/day. This calculates to be a
sludge production of .37 lb TSS/Ib BOD removed, and is greater than the
plus or minus 15% allowed. This would indicate that the Berthoud WVVTP
is not wasting enough sludge and could cause performance problems.
UNIT PROCESS EVALUATION
Major unit process are evaluated to asses their potential to achieve desired
performance levels. If major unit processes are found to be adequate, major plant
expansion or upgrades may not be necessary. A properly conducted Composite
Correction Program (CCP) can be implemented to achieve optimum performance.
A CPE, however, may also indicate the need for major unit modification, if they
are found to be inadequate.
The Berthoud treatment plant unit processes were evaluated with respect to their
capability to handle current loadings and to assess their potential capability. The
current organic loading to the system was projected at all flow rates based on
current influent BOD loadings with a per capita contribution of (.199 lbs.
BOD/day/person) from the population connected to the sewer system. The ability
of the facility to handle the current loadings was assessed and the plant was
categorized Type 1, 2, or 3 as described below:
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Unit processes are adequate
Unit processes are marginal
Unit processes are inadequate
The results of the unit process evaluation for Berthoud WWTP indicated that the
facility is a Type 3.
The factor that rated the plant a Type 3 was the aerobic digester. The volume of
the aerobic digester (65,000 gals) would not provide minimum hydraulic detention
time(HDT) of 15 days. The calculations showed that Berthoud's HDT was only
5.1 days, this is inadequate for the reduction of solids and costly for hauling
sludge.
971968
PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL GRAPH
To assess the plants capability relative to various loadings a performance
potential graph was used. The assessed capability of the plant to meet desired
performance is depicted in Figure 2. The major treatment units and evaluation
parameters are listed on the left, and a range of evaluated influent flows are listed
across the top. The vertical broken lines depict both the current and the design
flows to the facility. The shaded bars depict the evaluation team's rated
capabilities of the plant units. When interpreting the graph it is important to
remember that the projected capability represents the evaluation team's judgment
concerning performance capability taking both design and operational parameters
into account. This is not an engineering evaluation.
PERFORMANCE - LIMITING FACTORS
During the evaluation, potential performance -limiting factors in the areas of
design, administration, operation, and maintenance were assessed. The factors
identified were classified A, B, or C as follows:
A -
B -
C -
Major effect on short-term repetitive basis
Minimal effect on a routine basis, or major effect on a periodic basis
Minor effect
The following A, B, and C factors were identified during the evaluation and related
to achieving constant effluent compliance.
(A) Design - Unit Inadequacy - Sludge Treatment
(A) Operation - Applications of concepts and testing to process control
(A) Testing - Performance monitoring
(B) Design - Secondary - Process flexibility
(B) Operation - Testing - Process control testing
(NR) Design - Plant loading - Infiltration/Inflow
POTENTIAL "A" FACTORS:
DESIGN - Unit Inadequacy - Sludge Treatment
The evaluation indicates that the type, size, shape of the sludge treatment
process hinders sludge wasting capability and treatment such that performance is
adversely affected. The aerobic digester is projected to be only capable of
providing marginal treatment.
OPERATION - Application of concepts and testing to process control
971968
1
BERTHOUD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL GRAPH
Wastewater Flow, MGD
UNIT PROCESS 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0,9 1.0
i
Oxidation Ditch
Detention Time, hr. 95.3 47.6 31.8 23.8 21.0 19.0
(1)
Organic Loading
lb BOD/day
1,000 cu ft
(2)
Oxygen Available
lb O2/lb BOD
(3)
Final Clarifier
Overflow Rate
gal/day/sq ft
(4)
Sludge Handling
and disposal
Digester
Detention Time,
days
15 day min
(5)
2.7 5.5 8.2 10.9 12.2 13.6
5.6
2.8
1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1
84 168 253 367 379 421
15.3
7.7 5.1
(1) Ox Ditch Vol. _ .794 MG
(2) Design BOD/day = 173 mg/I, Current @ 164 mg9
(3) Rotors rated @ 1.7 lb 02/ft-hr, 44 feet of rotors
(4) Clarifier surface area, 2375 sq ft
(5) Sludge volume, .65 lb TSSAb BOD x factor of 125
Figure 2
Current Flow
(.592 MGD)
Design Flow
( .900 MGD)
8
The evaluation indicates the staff is deficient in their knowledge of wastewater
treatment and/or interpretation of process control testing such that improper
process control adjustments are made.
The estimated reported secondary sludge wasting of 383 lb/day is less than the
projected wasting required of 678 lb/day. Projections are based on a typical
sludge production rate of 0.65 lb TSS per lb BOD removed.
The hydraulic loading reported, 592,000 gal/day, is at least 30% greater than
420,000 gal/day projected flow. This projection is based on a population of 4,200
assuming a 100 gallons per capita per day usage.
This may be due to:
- industrial contributions
- infiltration / inflow
- meter calibration problems
The current DO monitoring does not appear to be conducted in a manner that
provides accurate results.
OPERATION - Testing - Performance Monitoring
The sludge accountability analysis indicates an excess of sludge produced
beyond that indicated by the recorded wasting. This can indicate problems in
performance monitoring.
POTENTIAL "B" FACTORS:
DESIGN - Secondary - Process Flexibility
There is a lack of operational flexibility in the aeration basin( e. g., ability to utilize
step feed or contact stabilization mode does not exist ). These options are not
available with oxidation ditches.
OPERATIONAL - Testing _ Process Control Testing
This POTW is considered a small sized facility. Process control testing should be
performed a minimum of 3 times/week. This requirement is currently being done
daily but the operators are not doing the test needed for specific process control
parameters. The lack of timeliness in performing the following process control
test, or their absence altogether, causes improper operational control decisions to
be made.
Test - - Current frequency
F/M - food to microorganism ratio -- test available but not performed
Sludge residence time — test available but not performed
Microscopic examination — test available but not performed
971968
9
Total system mass -- test available but not performed
Sludge wasting volume — test available but not performed
Mass control -- test available but not performed
MCRT mean cell residence time — test available but not performed
NOT RATED FACTORS:
DESIGN - Plant Loading - Infiltration / Inflow
The presence of excess infiltration or inflow may cause degraded process
performance because the plant cannot handle the extra flow.
NOTE: This factor may be symptomatic of underlying problems. Additional
investigation may be necessary to determine other underlying factors prior to
citation of Infiltration/Inflow as a factor limiting performance.
(Typically, this factor is NOT cited, since it can be quite expensive to correct.
The 592,000 gal/day average reported flow is at least 30% greater than 420,000
gal/day projected flow. This projection is based on a population of 4,200
assuming a 100 gallons per capita per day usage.
This may be due to:
- industrial contributions
- infiltration/inflow or
- meter calibration problems
The installation of an intrachannel clarifier( boat clarifier ) in 1988 helped the
hydraulic loading of the oxidation ditch during high flow periods. This device
reduces the solids washing out of the final during the high flow periods.
CHARTS and GRAPHS
The following charts and graphs depict:
- Influent Flows
- Influent BOD and TSS
- Effluent BOD and TSS
- Calculated and recorded sludge production
- Per capita flow to current influent flow
371.968
10
971968
t
971968 I�
971968 i s
971968
w
N
971968 15
SUMMARY
CCP for Berthoud WWTP
The CPE conducted for the Berthoud WWTP indicated several performance -
limiting factors. The primary factor was the aerobic digester design ( not enough
volume to provide the minimum HDT of 15 days ), which the administration was
already aware of and are in the process of addressing this problem.
The other factors are associated with process control and laboratory testing for
process control. The staff at the facility do some laboratory testing for the daily
permit parameters, and need to do specific testing for solids management.
A major concern of this evaluator was if an appropriate dissolved oxygen level is
being maintained in the oxidation ditch and if the point of D.O. measurement for
control represents the D.O. profile of the oxidation ditch.
The blower for the aerobic digester runs only 50% of the time, this does not
provide enough D.O. in the digester to allow the biomass to progress to the
endogenous respiration phase, causing cellular breakdown and a reduction of
solids which enhances water and solids separation.
The main concern of the administration was the seasonal scum and foam build up
on the oxidation ditch and the odor associated with it. The above performance -
limiting factors would cause this type of problem. The records of the facility for the
last 14 months indicated no permit violations, this indicates that the staff at this
facility is doing a good job, they just need some process training to fine tune their
skills.
On the following page is the concern/action summary used to indicate the
concerns and the actions needed to be accomplished, personnel assigned to the
actions and the dates the actions are scheduled to begin. The facility and
administration personnel assigned to these actions will be responsible for their
completion at some time in the future and will be discussed and assigned at the
exit meeting.
971968
lb
DATE CONCERNS ( ACTION SUMMARY
No. Concern
Action Who Start Done
1 Sludge handling Aerobic digester - not enough
capacity - build new digester
2 Oxygen probe Does not reflect accurate
D.O. profile in oxidation
ditch - move to a better
location
3 Process control Mixed liquor volatile solids
testing for solids management
Run MLSS and MLVSS before
wasting is done
4 Process control Microscopic examination of
MLSS on a weekly basis and
record microorganism pre -
'dominance
5 Process control Trending of key process
control parameters - F/M ratio,
MLSS, MLVSS, influent flow,
calculated solids, wasted solids,
microorganism predominance
6 Aerobicdigester Dissolved oxygen - run daily
D. 0., record and trend
7 Aerobicdigester Oxygen requirements - run
specific oxygen utilization test
record and trend
8 Aerobicdigester Suspended solids - run spin,
record and trend
9 Aerobicdigester Sludge retention time - calculate
from waste added and solids
withdrawal
971968
{
APPENDIX D
FLOOD PLAIN ANALYSIS REPORT
LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER
AT PROPOSED WWTP SITE
(MWE, February 1997)
971968
p
p
p
p
F
I
R
R
I
I
FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS REPORT
LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER
AT
PROPOSED WWTP SITE
Prepared for
Town of Berthoud
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
2420 Alcott Street
Denver, Colorado 80211
February 1997
92-008.003D
971968
INTRODUCTION
This study was authorized by the Town of Berthoud in order to assess the 100 -year floodplain along the
Little Thompson River in the vicinity of a proposed site for a new wastewater treatment facility for the
Town.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in Section 19, Township 4 North, Range 68 West in unincorporated Weld
County, Colorado (Figure 1). The plant site is proposed to occupy approximately 10 acres of the Lewis
property located in the southwest corner of Section 19. Upon favorable assessment of the site with regard
to elevation, soils conditions and floodplain, the Town may proceed with acquisition of the property for
the plant.
I'
L
I
FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
The Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS computer model was used to calculate the 100 -year flood elevations
along the Little Thompson River within Section 19, beginning at the bridge at 3 Road and extending
upstream through the bridge at County Line Road and terminating at the bridge at 6C Road. The drawing
in the pocket at the back of this report shows the topography surveyed on January 1997, existing roads,
the proposed WWTP site, the Little Thompson River and the 100 -year floodplain. Eight cross sections
were field surveyed and used to calculate floodplain elevations for the 100 -year flow of 7,200 cfs. Peak
flow data was obtained from a June 1977 study of the Little Thompson River by the Corps of Engineers.
Complete HEC-RAS files and other supporting data are contained in the Appendix.
SUMMARY
The hydraulic analysis shows that the 100 -year flow is largely confined to the immediate channel area.
All bridges have adequate capacity for the 100 -year flow except the 6C Road bridge, where some road
overtopping would occur. The resultant shallow overflow north of 6C Road would re-enter the channel
upstream of the County Line Road bridge, as shown on the drawing.
The analysis shows that the proposed wastewater treatment plant site is largely unaffected by the 100 -year
floodplain, and it is recommended that the Town, proceed with acquisition of the site.
Respectfully submitted,
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
r)11 P
John M. Pflaum, P.E.
t.;,. Nr�
•
:y cD 14526 X. ::
J
,OI L
C'L t`,
92-008.003D:ANALRPr
971968
Project Title
Subject
13er7'r+eva Wi9T'P
.7 ti MAID
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
a�Yu n
Project No. 42 •00 P.Ct ?D Date fan I di
Designed JM P Page 1 0 1
FFGUQE i
[— l
JJ,',./"N..
.1
/
„
Mr•
Y"
i
/-
to
_
';;j" _.
tea"
•
-f�
t �ia\
'ma
. \fir
/
/,
C.
V 1 .f
7.11,r...-2.---
:
:�..
j��
�i,...
��
_
J
-jam ,
"d 1 r
--
r s6-�
l
-
--
,k;
\�
_
L,�
1
1,/ ICI N'TY_ MAP
SCALE to 4eee l
971968
pia
IIIIIDe
COLORADO
NAME: Town of Berthoud
j REQUEST:
DATE: September 2, 1997
Site application for capital improvements (digester, lift station, and force
main/trunk sewer main) to the wastewater treatment plant. The improvements
will be located at a new site, where eventually the entire treatment plant will be
located.
ENGINEER: McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., Denver, Colorado
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 19, Township 4 North, Range 68 West.
The site is located in the unincorporated part of Weld County.
LOCATION: The new facility will be located south of Colorado Highway 56 and east of
WCR 1.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1) The Town of Berthoud has had difficulty managing its sludge because the existing
aerobic digester is undersized.
2) The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association approved the plan on August
21, 1997.
3) The request complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is
listed as a Use by Right under Section 31.2.12 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
tj\811
971968
Hello