Full Text
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN (HAL Project No.: 026.34.100) OCTOBER 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City Wastewater Collection System Master Plan MURRAY CITY CORPORATION WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN (HAL Project No.: 026.34.100) Steven C. Jones, P.E. Project Engineer Approved by: _ Gregory J. Poole, P.E. Project Manager October 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City i Wastewater Collection System Master Pl an ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Successful completion of this study was made possible by the c ooperation and assistance of many individuals. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the following Murray City personnel: Mayor Daniel Snarr City Council Jeff Dredge Robert Robertson Jim Brass Patricia Griffiths Krista Dunn City Staff Doug Hill, Director of Public Services Anne vonWeller, Deputy Director of Public Services Danny Astill, Water Superintendent Mark Ackerman, Field Supervisor ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City ii Wastewater Collection System Master Pl an TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i TABLE OF ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES iv I INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE SCOPE RELATED STUDIES II EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICE AREA II-1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM II-1 III FLOW MONITORING COLLECTION AREAS III-1 FLOW MONITORING III-1 IV FLOW CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY DAILY FLOW VARIATION ANNUAL FLOW VARIATION LONG TERM FLOW VARIATION INFILTRATION EXTRAORDINARY UNIT V WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS PLANNING PERIOD FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR MURRAY ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City iii Wastewater Collection System Master Pl an TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER TITLE PAGE VI WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MODEL SELECTION VI-1 SYSTEM LAYOUT MODELING CRITERIA VI-1 MODEL CALIBRATION VI-1 MODELING EXISTING DEFICIENCIES FUTURE DEFICIENCIES VI-4 VII SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES & IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM AGING PIPELINE DEFICIENCIES VII-1 COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES VII-2 VIII RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ACCURACY OF COST VIII-1 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES VIII-2 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS VIII-2 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS VIII-3 CMOM REQUIREMENTS VIII-3 ELLIMINATE UNNESSARY WASTEWATER VIII-5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS VIII-5 REFERENCES APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY B FLOW MONITORING DATA C FLOW PROJECTIONS D SEWERCAD MODEL E WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS F ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES H COST ESTIMATES ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City iv Wastewater Collection System Master Pl an LIST OF TABLES NO. TITLE PAGE II-1 Existing Murray City Wastewater Pump II-1 V-1 Unit Wastewater Flow Projection by Zone Type V-2 Flow Projections VI-1 Modeling Criteria VI-2 Model VI-3 Model Scenarios VI-5 Existing Deficiencies VI-6 Future Deficiencies VIII-1 Recommended Improvements VIII-3 LIST OF FIGURES ON OR AFTER NO. TITLE PAGE II-1 Existing Murray City Wastewater Collection System II-1 III-1 Collection Areas & Flow Monitoring Locations III-1 III-2 Typical Flow Meter Installation III-2 V-1 IV-1 Peaking Factor Comparison IV-2 Residential Hydrograph IV-3 IV-3 Nonresidential Hydrograph IV-4 IV-4 Annual Flow Variation IV-5 Long Term Flow Variation IV-6 IV-6 Typical Dry Weather Wastewater Flows IV-6 Wastewater Flows during a Period of High Inflow VI-1 Deficiencies ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City I-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Murray City (the City) is an established City in the middle of the Salt Lake Valley . Murray City’s wastewater is currently conveyed to the Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility. The City’s future growth is expected to come mostly through redevelopment in mixed -use zones. The most recent wastewater collection system master plan was completed for Murray by Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. during 1999. PURPOSE The purpose of this master plan is to update the 1999 Master Plan, and to provide direction to Murray City for decisions that will be made during the next 10 to 20 years, to help the City ensure the wastewater collection system can convey existing and projected flows. The results of this study are limited by the accuracy of the development projections and other assumptions used in preparing the study. It is expected that the City will review and update this master plan every 5-10 years, or more frequently if the assumptions included in this effort change significantly. SCOPE The scope of this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan includes the following: 1. Obtain and review wastewater collection system data and information, review City staff goals for the project, and establish project management protocol, 2. Develop a flow monitoring plan and collect flow monitoring data that can be used in calibration of the updated model and to update loading data, 3. Update system operation criteria and loading requirements , 4. Convert the existing wastewater collection system model into SewerCAD. Update and calibrate the model to existing conditions, 5. Use the model to determine existing and future deficiencies in the wastewater collection system, 6. Develop and screen alternative solutions to existing and future deficiencies in the wastewater collection system, 7. Work with City staff to develop an implementation plan that will help guide the City to meet the wastewater collection system needs , 8. Prepare a master plan report, 9. Assist City staff with a presentation of the study report to City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City I-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan AUTHORIZATION The City of Murray selected Hansen, Allen, & Luce, Inc. (HAL) during April 2009 to complete a master plan of the City’s wastewater collection system. Work began on the master plan that same month. RELATED STUDIES Previous related studies completed for Murray City include the following: Master Plan – Wastewater System Master Plan – Hansen, Allen & Luce – 1999 ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City II-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER II EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM SERVICE AREA This master plan is a study of Murray City’s wastewater collection system. The study are a includes primarily the area within the municipal boundaries of the City except for an annexation area on the east side that is served by another sewer district . The overall area served by Murray City is shown on Figure II-1. EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Information describing the Murray City wastewater collection system was provided by Murray City. The City also provided current wastewater collection system geographic information system (GIS) data which included information on pipelines, manholes and pump stations. The existing Murray City wastewater collection system consists of over 1 25 miles of pipeline, over 2,600 manholes and several pump stations as shown on Figure II-1. The pipe sizes range from 6-inch diameter to 48-inch diameter. The majority of the pipes in the system are less than 1 5- inches in diameter. Several pipe materials are found within the system including : concrete, reinforced concrete, PVC, HDPE, clay, asbestos cement, and tile. Much of the wastewater generated in the study area flows by gravity to the treatment facility . However, some low areas in the City require pumping. Table II-1 summarizes the existing wastewater pump stations. TABLE II-1 EXISTING WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS IDENTIFICATION LOCATION PUMPS Cimarron 6425 South Murray Park Avenue 3 – 9 HP, Variable Speed Fairborne 242 East Detroiter Avenue 2 – 7 HP, Variable Speed Riverside 4645 South 500 West 2 – 15 HP, Variable Speed Walden Glen 1070 West 5400 South 2 – 7.5 HP ---PAGE BREAK--- ³ Legend MURRAY CITY Wastewater Collection System Master Plan EXISTING SYSTEM FIGURE II-I Feet 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Lift Station Sewer Included in Model 8 10 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 42 48 Service Area 8-inch and Smaller Not in Model Manhole Included in Model ! ! ! ! Fairborne Lift Station Riverside Lift Station Walden Glen Lift Station Cimarron Lift Station State Street State Street 700 West 300 West Murray Parkway Ave Riverside Dr State Street 5400 South 5300 South Winchester St 5900 South 6100 South 4500 South 4800 South I-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City III-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER III FLOW MONITORING COLLECTION AREAS A collection area is defined as a geographic area that contributes flow to a common point in the collection system. Other factors considered in the delineation of collection areas may include land use, age of the collection system, pipe material and groundwater elevation. The collection areas to be used in this master planning effort were first delineated for the previous master plan. HAL then refined those areas based on parcel maps and updated sewer mapping provided by the City. Site visits were completed by HAL and the City to verify some of the locations of manholes and pipeline sizes. The delineated collection areas are shown on Figure III-1. FLOW MONITORING The purpose of flow monitoring is to obtain flow data at several locations throughout a city to provide the basis for flow characterization, constructing a model, and calibrating the model to real values. Flow monitoring sites for this master plan were selected by the City and HAL to provide representative data to achieve the stated purposes . Selected flow monitoring locations are shown on Figure III-1. The monitoring was accomplished using American Sigma 950 Flow Meters owned by the City. The Sigma 950 determines average flow velocity and flow depth. The flow rate Q is calculated based on the equation Q = VA, where V is the velocity and A is the flow area calculated from the measured depth of flow and the d iameter of the pipe. A typical meter installation is shown on Figure III-2. The Sigma 950 includes a data logger and a sensor connected by an air tube. The sensor is attached to a ring that is inserted in the pipe. The ring is adjusted to fit against the inner walls of the pipe with the pressure sensor located at the flow line of the pipe. The flow meters were installed at each site for at least one week. The recorded flow data for the 11 monitoring locations are located in Appendix B. ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I-215S EB I-15 NB I-215S WB I-15 SB 600 200 300 MAIN 700 FASHION 6000 MURRAY MT VERNON 6400 900 4500 1300 CENTER 5000 300 200 700 SITE 3 SITE 7 SITE 2 SITE 5 SITE 6 SITE 8 SITE 4 SITE 11 SITE 10 ³ Legend MURRAY CITY Wastewater Collection System Master Plan COLLECTION AREAS & FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS FIGURE III-I Feet 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Lift Station Sewer Pipelines Flow Monitoring Site ! ! ! ! Fairborne Lift Station Riverside Lift Station Walden Glen Lift Station Cimarron Lift Station State Street Collection Areas Manhole with Sewer Load in Model ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City III-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FIGURE III-2 TYPICAL FLOW METER INSTALLATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER IV FLOW CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY The purpose of flow characterization is to determine the flow patterns and variations that may be experienced by a collection system so t hat pipelines and pump stations can be evaluated and sized appropriately. The methodology used in this master planning effort included evaluation of the following wastewater flow characteristics: Daily Flow Variation Annual Flow Variation Long Term Flow Variation Infiltration Inflow Extraordinary Flows Unit Flows DAILY FLOW VARIATION Flow in a wastewater collection system var ies continuously throughout the day. In Murray the minimum hourly flow generally occurs during the early morning between midnight and 6:00 AM. Maximum or peak hourly flow typically occurs during the morning between 8:00 AM and noon or in the evening between 6:00 and 9:00 PM. Two methods commonly used to characterize daily flow variation include the use of: peaking factors; and, flow hydrographs. Both methods were employed for this master planning effort. Peaking factors were used to determine whether Murray’s daily flow variation was comparable to other similar entities in the State. Flow hydrographs were used to quantify daily flow variations in the model. Peaking Factors The peaking factor is the ratio between the peak hourly flow and the average daily flow . Flow monitoring data obtained during this study were evaluated to determine the peak hourly flow and the average daily flow at each flow monitoring site. The peak hourly flow was then divided by the average daily flow to determine a peaking factor at each location. These values were then plotted on a log-log graph with the average daily flow in million gallons per day (MGD) plotted on the X-axis and the peaking factor plotted on the Y -axis. A line was then fit to the data to develop an equation for a peaking factor. The data, best -fit line, and accompanying equation for the line are illustra ted on Figure IV-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan The peaking factors developed for Murray City were compared to peaking factors developed during other recent HAL master planning efforts for Logan City, Springville City, Orem City and Granger-Hunter Improvement District as shown on Figure IV The differences between communities noted on Figure IV -1 can be explained by a variety of factors, including variations in infiltration and water use patterns. The Murray City peaking factors compare favorably with those for the other Utah communities. FIGURE IV-1 PEAKING FACTOR COMPARISON 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 0.01 0.1 1 10 Average Daily Flow (MGD) Peaking Factor Murray City Meas ured Peaking Factors Murray City (bes t fit line) S pringville City City of Orem Granger-Hunter Improvement Dis trict Hydrographs A second approach to characterizing daily flow variations utilizes wastewater diurnal flow curves or hydrographs. First, a collection area with consistent land use is selected. Second, representative flow data is collected from the area. Third, a hydrograph is developed, which represents the typical flow variation during a 24 hour period for the selected collection area. This hydrograph is then applied to other collection areas with similar l and use patterns throughout the study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-3 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Residential For this master plan, a hydrograph for residential areas was developed based on the flow measurements made at Site 10. This site was chosen because it had only residential flows, and because there was little known infiltration in the area. Weekday and weekend hydrographs were compared to determine the worst case condition. The weekday hydrograph was selected for the model because it displayed a higher peak than the weekend condition. The design residential diurnal flow curve (hydrograph) is shown on Figure IV-2. FIGURE IV-2 RESIDENTIAL HYDROGRAPH 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 Time Flow Factor (Unitless) Non-Residential Hydrographs for non-residential areas typically differ from residential hydrographs. As directed by the City, HAL applied the same non -residential hydrograph used in the 1999 Master Plan which compared well with the 2009 nonresidential flow data . The smoothed nonresidential diurnal hydrograph is shown on Figure IV ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FIGURE IV-3 NONRESIDENTIAL HYDROGRAPH 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00 Time Use of Hydrographs The residential and non-residential hydrographs were used to model flow conditions in the SewerCAD model. The model conjunctively uses both hydrographs in each collection area to develop residential and non-residential flows. ANNUAL FLOW VARIATION Average wastewater flows in Murray vary only about 10 percent throughout the year. Factors that could potentially cause variation may include changes in infiltration and changes in water use patterns. The average flow as recorded at the treatment facility from 1999 to 2009 is shown on Figure IV-4. The winter and spring time average daily flow is approximately 4.2, while the corresponding flow during the summer and fall is approximately 3.9. Summer and fall flows are lower than winter and spring flows most likely due to increased inflow from precipitation during the winter and spring in the Service Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-5 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FIGURE IV-4 ANNUAL FLOW VARIATION (2000-2009) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Average Daily Flow (MGD) LONG TERM FLOW VARIATION Average annual wastewater flows usually vary somewhat from year to year, although the variation between years does not typically have extreme variations. The most predictable changes in average annual flows are typically associated with changes in population. Long term flow variations may also be caused by changes in weather patterns which may last several years. The wastewater flow history for the Service Area since 2000 is shown on Figure IV-5. Changes in weather patterns can result in changes in infil tration and water use patterns. Decreased precipitation results in lower groundwater levels and less infiltration. Water conservation measures implemented during droughts result in reduction in both indoor and outdoor water use. A reduction in indoor use results in less domestic wastewater. A reduct ion in outside use for watering lawns and gardens may lead to lowering of the groundwater table and less infiltration. Utah experienced a significant drought during the years 199 8 through 2003. Even though it appears Murray City does not have an infiltra tion problem, wastewater flows during these years do appear to have slight indications of drought. Wet springs of 2005 and 2006 show up in the wastewater flow indicating a clear end to the affect of the drought on Murray City’s wastewater flow. Populatio n growth has been relatively flat for the past 10 years which has resulted in a relatively flat growth in wastewater flow. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-6 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FIGURE IV-5 LONG TERM FLOW VARIATION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jun 2000 Jun 2001 Jun 2002 Jun 2003 Jun 2004 Jun 2005 Jun 2006 Jun 2007 Jun 2008 Jun 2009 Year Average F low (MGD) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Service Area Population (x 10,000) and Annual Precipitation (inches) Average Was tew ater Flow Precipitation S ervice Area Population Linear (S ervice Area Population) P o pulatio n Gro wth T rend INFILTRATION Infiltration is defined as groundwater which enters a sewer system through pipe joints, cracks in the pipe, and leaks in manholes or building connections. Infiltration rates typically fluctuate throughout the year depending on the level of groundwater. Some cities, particularly in the western United States where irrigation is commonly practiced, are subject to significant increases in infiltration during the irrigation season. Sewers constructed near irrigation canals and rivers or streams are particularly prone to infiltration. Even though Murray City has several canals and streams, there appears to be minimal infiltration. INFLOW Inflow is defined as surface water that enters a sewer system (including building connections) through roof leaders, cellar, foundation, yard, and area drains, cooling water discharges, manhole covers, cross connections from storm drains, etc. To evaluate inflow in the Murray City sewer system, wastewater flow records were reviewed from time periods of a major storm event and time periods with no precipitation. Figu re IV-6 shows a time period with little or no precipitation. Figure IV-7 is a time period during which a major precipitation event occurred . ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-7 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FIGURE IV-6 TYPICAL DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER FLOWS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 Time Wastewater Flow (MGD) FIGURE IV-7 WASTEWATER FLOWS DURING A PERIOD OF HIGH INFLOW 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 Time Wastewater Flow (MGD) 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 Incremental Rainfall (inches) Wastewater Flow Rainfall ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City IV-8 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan During the dry weather time period daily peaks reached about 4.5 MGD. During the time period when a major precipitation event occurred, the daily peak reached 4.5 MGD before the storm started but then peaked at 6.0 MGD during the several days of storminess. Further evaluation of the data indicated that the longer duration/higher volume storms, which usually occur during the winter and spring, can have a significant effect on peak flows at the treatment facility. Summer storms, which usually are of a shorter duration and less volume, did not appear to significantly affect the peak flows at the treatment facility. After analyzing the flow data and after discussions with City pers onnel, it was decided that a 1.3 MGD inflow event on top of the dry weather d iurnal curve would represent the design flow for the model. EXTRAORDINARY FLOWS Extraordinary flows may include flow anomalies such as the “Superbowl Sunday halftime flush,” and holidays such as Thanksgiving. Evaluation of the timing and magnitude of t hese extraordinary flows indicated that none of the reasonably predictable extraordinary flows exceeded the typical peak flow with inflow during a storm event . Therefore, when considering extraordinary flows, no special adjustments to the model w ere required to accurately represent the projected peak flow situation for Murray. UNIT FLOWS Residential Residential wastewater flows are those flows discharged by the plumbing system of a typical residence. Residential wastewater consists of the discharges fr om sinks, bathtubs, showers, and toilets. Residential winter time drinking water meter data by location was available for Murray City. City wide winter time drinking water use matched very closely with city wide wastewater flow data. Using average winte r water use by meter location provides an accurate and simple way to quantify wastewater flow. Typical residential wastewater flow can vary significantly and the water meter data captures these variations well. The diurnal residential wastewater hydrograph was applied to the average winter water use to generate the design wastewater flows in the model. Non-Residential Commercial, institutional and industrial (hereafter referred to as non -residential) wastewater flows typically vary from residential flows both in terms of quantity and diurnal pattern. Fo r this master plan, the non-residential wastewater flows were developed the same way residential wastewater flows were developed based on winter water meter data provided by Murray City. Daily flow variation was defined by applying the non-residential hydrograph to the average winter water use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City V-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER V WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS PLANNING PERIOD Murray City selected a planning perio d of 20 years for the master planning effort. Years analyzed included 2009 for existing conditions and 2029 for future conditions. To be conservative it was assumed the City would reach the full development potential of the existing City Zoning by 2029. FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR MURRAY CITY The City instructed HAL to base the wastewater flow projecti ons on current zoning. Average winter water use per acre in developed areas of a zoning type was projected to undeveloped areas of the same zoning type. The only zone that was not calculated using winter water use was the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The Mixed Use Overlay Zone is a redevelopment zone that includes areas that are already developed. City personnel requested that 175 gpd per unit at 50 units per acre be assumed to calculate the projected future wastewater flow. This density and wastewater flow assumption is consistent with previous studies and sewer designs. The future wastewater flow used for each zone is indicated in Table V-1. A map showing the current City Zoning and Mixed Use Overl ay Zone is provided as Figure V-1. TABLE V-1 UNIT WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION BY ZONE TYPE ZONE TYPE Average Wastewater Flow (gpd/acre) Residential 604 Commercial 567 Mixed Use Overlay 8,750 Table V-2 shows the existing and future Average Daily flow and Peak Daily Flow generated by the model using the design average daily flow and hydrographs. T he sewers are sized with the Peak Daily flow plus a significant inflow event which is also shown in Table V-2 for existing and future conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- ³ Legend MURRAY CITY Wastewater Collection System Master Plan ZONING FIGURE V-I Feet 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Service Area State Street 700 West 300 West Murray Parkway Ave Riverside Dr State Street 5400 South 5300 South Winchester St 5900 South 6100 South 4500 South 4800 South Cemetery Commercial Retail Industrial Medical Office Parks and Open Space Public Quasi-Public (Chruches, Schools, Covt.) Residential Multi-Family High Density Residential Multi-Family Meduim Density Residential Multi-Family Low Density Residential Single Family Meduim Density Residential Single Family Low Density Mixed Use Overlay ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City V-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan TABLE V-2 FLOW PROJECTIONS Modeled Projected Flow (MGD) Year 2009 Year 2029 Annual Average Daily Flow 3.9 6.7 Annual Average Peak Daily Flow 4.9 8.5 Peak Daily Flow with Inflow 6.2 9.8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VI-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER VI WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MODEL SELECTION The previous model used in the 1999 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was a customized model developed by HAL that integrated GIS data and a wastewater collection system model. It was decided by City personnel to use SewerC AD for the 2009 Master Plan because of its simplicity, backwater calculation and pipe profile capabilities, and because HAL already owns the software. SYSTEM LAYOUT The layout of the wastewater collection system was provided by Murray City based on wastewater collection system inventory GIS data . A map of the Murray City wastewater collection system, as included in the model, is shown on Figure II-1. The SewerCAD files are on a CD in Appendix C. The data were imported into the SewerCAD model from GIS S hapefiles. Only the main collection pipelines receiving flow from the identified collection areas (see Figure III-1) were included in the model. MODELING CRITERIA A range of potential modeling criteria and values were suggested by HAL and reviewed by Murray City. The criteria and values adopted for this modeling effort are included in Table VI-1 on the following page. MODEL CALIBRATION Model calibration includes comparing flows calculated by the model with actual flows measured in the collection system, followed by making adjustments to the model to better reflect measured flows. Average daily and peak hourly flows were computed within SewerCAD at the selected flow monitoring sites. As discussed in Chapter III, flow data observations were available at each of the flow monitoring sites and the total wastewater flow. Calibration results between measured flows at the main Murray City Meter and the flows generated in the model are shown in Table V-2. Modeled flows were calibrated to 3 to 4 percent higher than measured flows to provide for conservative flows, as recommended by City personnel. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VI-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan TABLE VI-I MODELING CRITERIA CRITERIA VALUE OR ASSUMPTION Residential Unit Flows Measured from winter water use data for each parcel . Non-residential Unit Flows Non-residential includes commercial, industrial and institutional. Measured from winter water use data for each parcel. Daily Flow Variation Residential – Flow Hydrographs developed from flow monitoring . Non-residential – Flow Hydrographs developed from flow monitoring. Annual Flow Variation Peak month flow conditions (spring). Flow data obtained from the City and from Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility. Infiltration Assumed to be minor, included with inflow. Inflow 1.3 MGD during significant precipitation event s. Extraordinary Flows Magnitude and timing of extraordinary flows did not justify adjustment to modeled peak flows (Murray inflow event governs) Model Calibration Plus or minus 10% of measured flows. Calibrated to average daily flow of 3.9 MGD and peak hourly flow of 4.9 MGD (representative of dry weather peak hourly flow during flow monitoring period). Planning Period 20 year (Existing = 2009 / Future = 2029 ) Land Use & Population Projections Provided by Murray City. Wastewater Flow Projections Murray City Residential – based on metered winter water use and current zoning. Murray City Non-Residential – based on metered winter water use and current zoning. Pipe Roughness Coefficient - Gravity Sewer - n = 0.013 / Force Main - C = 130 Minimum Slope = Utah State Standard s Minimum Velocity = 2.0 fps for all pipe diameters. Maximum Flow occurs at d/D = 0.93 (all pipe diameters). Recommended Maximum d/D = 0.70 for pipe diameters 12 inches and greater. Recommended Maximum d/D = 0.50 for pipe diameters less than 12 inches. Pump Stations Constant speed pump station – Discharge equal to firm or rated capacity (capacity with largest pump not operating). Variable speed pump station – Discharge equal to incoming flow ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VI-3 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan TABLE VI-2 MODEL CALIBRATION Measured Flow (MGD) Modeled Flow (MGD) PERCENT DIFFERENCE Average Daily Flow 3.8 3.9 3 Peak Daily Flow 4.7 4.9 4 Peak Daily Flow with Inflow 6.0 6.2 3 MODEL SCENARIOS Three modeling scenarios were developed and e valuated for the Murray City wastewater collection system as shown in Table VI-3. TABLE VI-3 MODEL SCENARIOS SCENARIO DESCRIPTION Existing The Existing scenario was used to identify deficiencies in the wastewa ter collection system under 2009 development conditions, and to establish a baseline for evaluation of future conditions. Future The Future scenario was used to identify deficiencies in the wastewater collection system under 2029 development conditions. Master Plan This scenario was used to verify the effectiveness of the capital improvements recommended in Chapter VIII. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES Deficiencies identified in the Existing Scenario model are shown summarized in Table VI Pipe capacity deficiencies are shown on Figure VI-1. Existing pump station deficiencies are also listed in Table VI-5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VI-4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan TABLE VI-5 EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ID LOCATION DEFICIENCY PRIORITY 1 State Street from 5770 South to Umbra Lane Existing modeled peak flow surcharges in the existing 12- inch diameter pipe. 1 2 State Street from 6100 South to 5770 South Existing modeled peak flow reaches a d/D of 65% in the existing 10-inch diameter pipe. (Projected future peak flow reaches a d/D of 67% in the existing pipe) 2 3 Edison Avenue from State Street to Main Street Existing modeled peak flow reaches a d/D of 60% in the existing 10-inch diameter pipe. (Projected future peak flow reaches a d/D of 65% in the existing pipe) 3 4 Riverside Pump Station When pumps shut down, City personnel have less than 15 minutes before flooding occurs 4 FUTURE DEFICIENCIES The deficiencies identified in the Future Scenario model are predicted problems that will occur if development occurs as projected by the City. Deficiencies identified in the Future Scenario model are shown on Figure VI-1 and summarized in Table VI-6. All of the previously identified Existing Deficiencies are also deficiencies in 2029. TABLE VI-6 FUTURE DEFICIENCIES (In Addition to those Identified in Table VI ID LOCATION DEFICIENCY PRIORITY 5 300 West from 5800 South to 5600 South Projected future peak flow reaches a d/D of 66% in the existing 10-inch pipe. The 10-inch pipeline reduces down from a 12-inch diameter pipeline 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ³ Legend MURRAY CITY Wastewater Collection System Master Plan DEFECIENCIES FIGURE VI-I Feet 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Lift Station Sewer Pipelines Manhole ! ! ! ! Fairborne Lift Station Riverside Lift Station Walden Glen Lift Station Cimarron Lift Station Service Area Deficiency State Street 3 4 2 1 1 5 700 West 300 West Murray Parkway Ave Riverside Dr State Street 5400 South 5300 South Winchester St 5900 South 6100 South 4500 South 4800 South ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VII-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER VII SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES & IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM AGING The older portions of the Murray City sewer system are approximately 100 years old. The typical design life for a sanitary sewer is between 50 and 100 years. Factors affecting design life may include pipe material, soil conditions and quality of construction. Because of the variability of these factors, it is difficult to determine the condition of the wastewater collection system based on age alone. Murray City has an Asset Management program completing a detailed condition assessment of each line owned by the City using videoing equipment. As deficiencies are located, localized repairs, replaceme nt or other necessary maintenance is being completed. We recommended that the City continue their Asset Management program. PIPELINE DEFICIENCIES The following improvement alternatives are typically considered when addressing pipeline deficiencies. Cleaning In some reaches, the slope of the pipe is insufficient to provide adequate velocity to prevent deposition of solids. Solids deposition lessens pipe capacity. Several locations in Murray City are relatively flat where sewers have slopes less tha n ideal to keep sediments from depositing in the pipe. The City has indicated that there are low velocity problems in several locations throughout the City. Sewers with maintenance problems that currently are being cleaned regularly by the City are included in the Wastewater Collection System Maintenance Problems listed in Appendix D. Replacement Sewers or Bypass Sewers Historically, where pipe capacity has been identified as being insufficient, the typical solution has been to provide additional capacity by either replacing the existing sewer with a larger sewer, or constructing a parallel or bypass sewer to provide the required additional capacity. While replacement of an existing sewer may be appropriate when the existing sewer is structurally inadequate, construction of a bypass or parallel sewer to supplement the capacity of the existing sewer is generally the le ss expensive alternative. Re-routing Flows Re-routing some or all of the flow from an overloaded sewer, to a nearby sewer with exce ss capacity, may provide a cost-effective solution in some situations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VII-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Alternative Construction Technologies Within the last few years, several alternative technologies have become more popular when sewers need to be replaced, when pipeline capacity needs to be increased or when there are significant constraints to more conventional construction methods. Typical alternative technologies include: New Construction Steered Auger Boring (Directional Boring) Micro-tunneling (Used by Murray City on 1800 South with good results) Rehabilitation Cured-in-Place Slip Lining Pipe Bursting Pipe Eating Thermoforming A description of these alternative construction technologies is included in Appendix E. COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Sewers For purposes of this report, all sewer improvements were assumed to be open -cut to provide conservative cost estimates for budgeting purposes. Replacement sewers, bypass or parallel sewers and re-routing of flow were discussed with the City and recommendations were made on a case by case basis. Pump Stations The preferred alternative for replacing the Riverside Pump Station is to relay pipelines to be able to avoid a pump station altogether. Future Considerations During design of the recommended improvement s, the City will again compare improvement alternatives, and will decide on the most cost -effective and appropriate improvement method at that time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VIII-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CHAPTER VIII RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ACCURACY OF COST ESTIMATES When considering cost estimates, there are several levels or degrees of accuracy, depending on the purpose of the estimate and the percentage of detailed design that has been completed. The following levels of accuracy are typical: Type of Estimate Accuracy Master Plan -50% to +50% Preliminary Design -30% to +30% Final Design or Bid -10% to +10% For example, at the master plan level (or conceptual or feasibility design level), if a project is estimated to cost $1,000,000, then the accuracy or reliability of the cost estimate would typically be expected to range between approximately $500,000 and $1,500,000. While this may not seem very accurate, the purpose of master planning is to develop general sizing, location, cost and scheduling infor mation on a number of individual projects that may be designed and constructed over a period of many years. Master planning also typically includes the selection of common design criteria to help ensure uniformity and compatibility among future individual projects. Details such as the exact capacity of individual projects, the level of redundancy, the location of facilities, the alignment and depth of pipelines, the extent of utility conflicts, the cost of land and easements, the construction methodology, the types of equipment and material to be used, the time of construction, interest and inflation rates, permitting requirements, etc., are typically developed during the more detailed levels of design. At the preliminary design level, some of the aforementioned information will have been developed. Major design decisions such as the size of facilities, selection of facility sites, pipeline alignments and depths, and the selection of the types of equipment and material to be used during construction, will typically have been made. At this level of design the accuracy of the cost estimate for the same $1,000,000 project would typically be expected to range between approximately $700,000 and $1,300,000. After the project has been completely designed, a nd is ready to bid, all design plans and technical specifications will have been completed and nearly all of the significant details about the project should be known. At this level of design, the accuracy of the cost estimate for the same $1,000,000 proj ect would typically be expected to range between approximately $900,000 and $1,100,000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VIII-2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan PROJECT COST ESTIMATES As discussed in Chapter VII, for cost estimating purposes it was assumed that sewer improvements would be completed utilizing conventi onal (open-cut) construction. Typical representative unit costs were used to develop the project construction cost estimates. Sources of typical unit costs included HAL’s bid tabulation records for similar recent projects in Utah, and the RS Means 2009 Heavy Construction Cost Index. Murray City provided cost estimates for select projects. Project cost estimates and related material are included in Appendix F. RECOMMENDED IMPROVENT PROJECTS Development of the recommended improvement proje cts includes consideration of a number of factors including the following: Input by City sewer system operation personnel regarding their experience with , and opinions regarding, the deficiency and potential solutions. Input from City management regarding a wide range of issues including: development schedules, budgeting issues, coordination with other public works projects, etc. Priority indicated by the consulting engineer’s modeling efforts. Consulting engineer’s project cost estimates. Table VIII-1 identifies the recommended improvement projects to correct deficiencies in the wastewater collection system and the estimated cost associated with each project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VIII-3 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan TABLE VIII-1 RECOMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS ID LOCATION SOLUTION COST 1 State Street from 5770 South to Umbra Lane Construct a 15-inch diameter bypass sewer from 100 East 5770 South to 235 East 5600 South for a total length of 2,000 feet. $564,000 2 State Street from 6100 South to 5770 South Monitor. Upsize 2,700 feet of sewer from 10-inch to 12-inch diameter sewer if necessary. $714,000 3 Edison Avenue from State Street to Main Street Monitor. Upsize 1,000 feet of sewer from 10-inch to 12-inch diameter sewer if necessary. $265,000 4 Riverside Pump Station Replace the need for a pump station by relaying and upsizing sewer. Replace 18-inch diameter sewer in Riverside Drive from 4800 South to Cherry Street with 2,000 feet of 24-inch diameter sewer. Replace 27-inch diameter sewer in Riverside Drive from Cherry Street to 4500 South with 650 feet of 36-inch diameter sewer. $983,000 5 300 West from 5800 South to 5600 South Monitor. Upsize 1,900 feet of sewer from 10-inch to 12-inch diameter sewer if necessary. $503,000 Notes: Project ID, Location, Deficiency and Priority from Chapter VI. All costs include 35% for engineering, administrative costs, and contingencies. Costs are shown in 200 9 dollars. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROBL EMS Wastewater collection system maintenance problems identified by City personnel are listed in Appendix D. These are sewers with flat slopes that need clean ing regularly, sewers with root problems, old sewers that need to be replace d, sewers with grease problems, and sewers with other maintenance issues. Costs for maintenance and replacement of these sewe rs should be included in the sewer budget. CMOM REQUIREMENTS The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to clarify and expand permit requirements under the Clean Water Act for municipal sanitary sewer collection systems in order to reduce sanitary sewer overflows. The proposed requirements are referred to as ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VIII-4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan capacity, management, operation and maintenance requirements or CMOM. Every collection system owner (whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or not) will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The owner must provide adequate capacity to convey base and peak flows, develop a plan to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows, and develop a preventative maintenance management program for the collection system. CMOM is intended to provide a more efficient approach to controlling sanitary sewer overflows through an increased focus on system planning. The proposed rule would establish standard permit conditions for inclusion in existing NPDES permits and a means of regulating satellite systems (wastewater collection systems that do not treat their own wastewater). The conditions would include: Capacity, management, operation and maintenance requirements A prohibition on discharges Reporting, public notice, and record keeping for discharges. The EPA believes that this increased investment will lower O&M costs, reduce the occurrence of sewer overflows and provide a health benefit to the public community. If an overflow occurs, the Owner will be required to: Implement a documented overflow response plan which includes public and regulatory notification Notify the public that could be affected Make available a summary of their CMOM program, related audit activities, and results to interested parties. Collection system owners should anticipate investment costs to manage and implement the CMOM program, both in terms of additional re sources and capital improvements. CMOM programs are developed, managed, maintained, and administered by collection system owners. The first step is to perform an internal CMOM audit to identify the and deficiencies of the organization. Depending on these results, owners may need to modify their O&M procedures, or implement condition assessment and hydraulic analysis programs to restore or improve capacity. The State of Utah Water Quality Board is currently working on developing a Utah Sanitary S ewer Management Program (USMP) to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) by giving added emphasis to collection system maintenance, collection system analysis and program documentation. The USMP is intended to meet the forthcoming CMOM requirements of the EPA. The USMP prohibits SSOs, outlines enforcement and guidelines for reporting SSOs when they occur. It requires all public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems in Utah to enroll for coverage with the Utah State Division of Water Quality (DEQ) under the USMP. The enrollees are required to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system to help reduce and prevent SSOs as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur. Enrollees must pr epare, submit, and certify this Sewer ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City VIII-5 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan System Management Plan (SSMP) to the DEQ within the time period specified in the USMP after its adoption. Enrollees must then take all feasible steps to comply with the conditions of the USMP and follow their own SSMP including: report SSOs, submit an annual report as part of the Utah Municipal Wastewater Planning Program , and resubmit an updated SSMP at least every five years. ELIMINATE UNNESSARY WASTEWATER One way to increase capacity in the wastewater collection s ystem is to identify and eliminate the unnecessary generation of wastewater. For example, City personnel are aware of sump pumps that discharge into the sewer are being used by homeowners in a few areas of the City to remove groundwater from underneath homes. Working with these homeowner s to use another discharge rather than the sewer could make an impact on peak flows during an inflow event. Also, the City should continue to identify other sources of wastewater collection system inflow and remedy them by using solid manhole lids, and sealing manholes and pipes that have high inflow and infiltration rates. Another example of how to eliminate unnecessary wastewater would be to offer incentives to homeowners for replacing older water wasting fixtures and appliances with new water efficient models. Not only do efficient fixtures and appliances save drinking water, they also reduce wastewater flow. It is recommended that the City Wastewater and Water departments work together to offer incentives for insta lling water wise fixtures and appliances . SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Include the recommended improvement projects to solve existing and future issues in the Capital Facilities Plan. 2. Continue monitoring for maintenance and sewer pipe condition issues, and continue an asset management plan to repair and replace deficient sewers. 3. Work to conform to the proposed Utah Sanitary Sewer Management Plan to minimize sewer overflows. 4. Continue to identify sources of inflow and infiltration into the wastewater col lection system and continue to work on eliminating or reducing points of inflow and infiltration. 5. Work with the Water Department to offer incentives for installing water wise fixture s. ---PAGE BREAK--- Murray City R-1 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan REFERENCES Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2000. City of Orem – Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Midvale, Utah. Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2006. Springville City – Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Midvale, Utah. Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2006. Granger-Hunter Improvement District – Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Midvale, Utah Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 1999. Murray City – Wastewater System Master Plan. Midvale, Utah. Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2006. Bid Tabulation Records. Midvale, Utah. Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2007 . Logan City – Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Midvale, Utah Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2009 . Personal Communication with Murray City Personnel. Najafi, Mohammad, Ph.D., P.E. 2005. Trenchless Technology – Pipeline and Utility Design, Construction and Renewal. Water Environment Federation Press. Alexandria, Virginia. RS Means, Inc. 2009. Heavy Construction Cost Data. Kingston, MA. Utah Climate Center Website. 2009 . http://climate.usu.edu/. Precipitation data for Murray Utah through August 2009. Utah Division of Water Quality. 2006. R317-3 Design Requirements for Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Systems . Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Salt Lake City, Utah. Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF). 1982. WPCF Manual of Practice No.FD-5 Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction . Washington, D.C. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ---PAGE BREAK--- HAL STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS WASTEWATER COLLECTION MASTER P LANNING PROJECTS BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CMOM Capacity, Management, Operation and M aintenance d/D Ratio of Flow Depth to Pipe Diameter DWQ Utah Division of Water Quality ERC Equivalent Residential Connection (or ERU / Equivalent Residential Un it) fps Foot (Feet) per Second ft Foot(Feet ) GIS Geographic Information System gpad Gallons per Acre per Day gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day gpd/conn Gallons per Day per Connection gpm Gallons per Minute hp Horsepower I/I Infiltration / Inflow in Inch (Inches) MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/L Milligrams per Liter NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PS Pump Station SS Sanitary Sewer SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflows TSS Total Suspended Solids USMP Utah Sanitary Sewer Management Program WEF Water Environment Federation WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Yr Year ---PAGE BREAK--- HAL STANDARD GLOSSARY WASTEWATER COLLECTION MASTER PLANNING PROJECTS Collection Area - The land area contributing flow to a portion of a sewer system which drains to a common manhole. Design Life - The length of time that the structural integrity or mechanical reliability of a sanitary sewer system component will be adequate. Equivalent Population - The population after adjustment has been made to account for commercial, institutional or industrial development which may contribute more or less flow or loading than typical residential development. Equivalent Residential Connection - A unit representing the number of people, volume of flow, or pounds of loading for a typical residence. Also referred to as Equivalent Residential Unit. Flow, Average Daily - The average flowrate occurring during a 24 -hour period. Also, the total flow past a point over a period of time divided by the number of days in that period of time. May be used to estimate or determine pumping, chemical and related operation costs over a period of time, typically a year. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Average - The average flowrate occurring during a month. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Average Annual - The average flowrate occurring during a year. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Extraordinary - Flow resulting from an unusual event such as the Superbo wl Sunday Half Time Flush, or holidays such as Thanksgiving. May produce the Maximum Hourly Flow during a given year. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Maximum Daily - Typically the maximum representative dry weather Average Daily Flow occurring during an extended high flow period. May be used for sizing and rating wastewater treatment facilities, sizing equalization basins, etc. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Maximum Hourly - The maximum dry weather flowrate occurring during a 24 -hour period. Typically used for sizing flow meters, sewers, wet wells, pump stations and chemical feed systems. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Also referred to as Peak Hourly Flow. Flow, Maximum Instantaneous - A high short-duration flowrate typically associated w ith large amounts of inflow resulting from a storm or snowmelt event. Used for sizing overflow and bypass facilities. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Also referred to as Peak Instantaneous Flow. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flow, Maximum - The Average Daily Flow occurring du ring the maximum flow month of the year. Typically used for characterizing annual flow variations caused by seasonal changes in Infiltration, or seasonal changes in commercial, institutional or industrial activities. Usually expressed as MGD. Flow, Minimum Daily - Typically the minimum representative Average Daily Flow occurring during an extended low flow period. Associated with determining minimum flow velocities required in sewers to prevent sedimentation. Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Minimum Hourly - The minimum flowrate occurring during a 24 -hour period. Typically used for sizing flow meters, pump stations and chemical feed systems . Usually expressed as MGD or gpm. Flow, Per Capita - The Average Day Flow divided by the population or equiva lent population contributing to the flow. May or may not include allowances for infiltration, inflow, etc. Usually expressed as gpcd. Infiltration - Groundwater that enters a sewer system, including building connections, through defective pipes, pipe joints, manhole walls, etc. Inflow - Surface water that enters a sewer system, including building connections, through roof leaders, cellar, foundation, yard, and area drains, cooling water discharges, manhole covers, cross connections from storm drains, etc. Inverted Siphon - A sewer crossing beneath a valley or water course, which flows full because its profile is below the hydraulic grade line. Also referred to as a Depressed Sewer. Manhole - A conduit extending from the ground surface to a sewer, typica lly large enough to allow a man to have access for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, flow measurement, etc. Peaking Factor- Typically the Maximum Hourly Flow divided by the Average Daily Flow. Planning Period - The length of time that the capacity o f a sanitary sewer system or system component will be adequate. Sometimes referred to as Design Period. Pump Station - A mechanical facility used to lift wastewater from one elevation to another, or to increase the pressure for introduction into a force m ain. May also be referred to as a lift station. Rainfall Responsive Infiltration - The increased infiltration that occurs in the few days following a rainfall event. Also referred to as Rainfall Induced Infiltration. Sanitary Sewer System - See Wastewater Collection System. Sedimentation - The collection of grit, etc. in pipelines where the vel ocity or flow conditions are not adequate to keep the material in suspension. ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Area - Typically the land area within the boundaries of the entity or entit ies that participate in the ownership, planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a sewer system. Sewage - See Wastewater. Sewage, Domestic - Sewage that originates in the sanitary conveniences of a residential, commercial, institutional or industrial facility. Also referred to as Domestic Wastewater. Sewage, Industrial - Sewage that originates in commercial or industrial processes associated with food processing, manufacturing, printing, etc. Also referred to as Industrial Wastewater. Sewer - A closed pipe or conduit used for conveying sewage. Sewer, Building - A sewer connecting a single house or building to a common sewer, usually a collector sewer. Also referred to as a House Sewer, Building Connection, or Service Connection. Sewer, Collector - The first common sewer in a wastewater collection system. Conveys wastewater from Building Sewers to a Main Sewer. Sewer, Common - A public sewer in which all abutting properties have equal right of use, typically located in a street or easement. Sewer, Force Main - A sewer which conveys wastewater under pressure from a pump station. Sewer, Gravity - A sewer which conveys wastewater in a descending gradient by the force of gravity. Sewer, Interceptor - A large sewer that conveys wastewater from a number of main sewers to a treatment facility. Also referred to as an Outlet Sewer. Sewer, Main - A sewer that conveys wastewater from a number of collector sewers to an interceptor sewer. Also referred to as a Trunk Sewer. Sewer, Outfall - A sewer that conveys wastewater from a treatment facility to a point of final disposal. Sewer, Relief - A sewer that has been constructed to relieve an existing sewer of inadequate capacity. Sometimes referred to as a Parallel or Bypass Sewer. Sewer, Sanitary - A sewer that conveys predominantly domestic sewage, some industrial sewage, and excludes so far as possible, storm water and ground water. Storm Drain - A sewer which conveys storm water, snowmelt and other surface water, but excludes wastewater. Also referred to as a Storm Sewer. ---PAGE BREAK--- Storm Water - Surface water associated with precipitation, snowmelt, etc. Also referred to as Storm Drainage or Storm Runoff. Surcharge - Flow condition where the flow depth exceeds the pipe diameter (d/D is greater than 1.00). Wastewater - Water which is used for domestic, commercial, institutional or industrial purposes, and is subsequently discharged into a sewer. Also referred to as Sewage. Wastewater Collection System - The combination of pipelines, pump stations and appurtenances that convey wastewater from its point of origin to a wastewater treatment facility or other point of disposal. Also referred to as a Sanitary Sewer System. Wastewater Treatment Facility - A facility utilizing a combination of physical, chemic al and/or biological processes to remove contaminants or alter the objectionable characteristics of wastewater. Also referred to as a Sewage Treatment Plant or Water Reclamation Facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B FLOW MONITORING DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 1 Site Location: Cimarron Lift Station Diameter: 8 in Max Flow: 704.9 gpm Min Flow: 0.0 gpm Avg Flow: 126.7 gpm Peaking Factor: 5.56 Site 1 Flow Monitoring 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/25 3/26 3/27 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 2 Site Location: 5390 S 1070 W Diameter: 24 in Max Flow: 997.6 gpm Min Flow: 161.7 gpm Avg Flow: 566.7 gpm Peaking Factor: 1.76 Site 2 Flow Monitoring (5390 S 1070 W) 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/25 3/26 3/27 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 3 Site Location: 4314 S 300 W Diameter: 24 in Max Flow: 530.0 gpm Min Flow: 251.1 gpm Avg Flow: 382.8 gpm Peaking Factor: 1.38 Site 3 Flow Monitoring (4314 S 300 W) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/25 3/26 3/27 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 4 Site Location: 6100 S 90 E Diameter: 10 in Max Flow: 377.1 gpm Min Flow: 38.2 gpm Avg Flow: 214.3 gpm Peaking Factor: 1.76 Site 4 Flow Monitoring (6100 S 90 E) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 5 Site Location: 125 E 5770 S Diameter: 12 in Max Flow: 403.2 gpm Min Flow: 86.5 gpm Avg Flow: 239.1 gpm Peaking Factor: 1.69 Site 5 Flow Monitoring (125 E 5770 S) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 6 Site Location: 5600 S 100 E Diameter: 12 in Max Flow: 516.5 gpm Min Flow: 28.2 gpm Avg Flow: 254.3 gpm Peaking Factor: 2.03 Site 6 Flow Monitoring (5600 S 100 E) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 7 Site Location: 200 W 4500 S Frontage Rd Diameter: 8 in Max Flow: 225.0 gpm Min Flow: 5.0 gpm Avg Flow: 53.8.1 gpm Peaking Factor: 4.18 Site 7 Flow Monitoring 0 50 100 150 200 250 4/27 4/29 5/1 5/3 5/5 5/7 5/9 5/11 5/13 5/15 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 8 Site Location: Three Fountains Diameter: 8 in Max Flow: 222.5 gpm Min Flow: 10.4 gpm Avg Flow: 68.1 gpm Peaking Factor: 3.27 Site 8 Flow Monitoring 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 4/27 4/29 5/1 5/3 5/5 5/7 5/9 5/11 5/13 5/15 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 9 Site Location: 5300 S Alpine Drive Diameter: 8 in Max Flow: 91.0 gpm Min Flow: 0.0 gpm Avg Flow: 40.6 gpm Peaking Factor: 2.24 Site 9 Flow Monitoring 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4/27 4/29 5/1 5/3 5/5 5/7 5/9 5/11 5/13 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 10 Site Location: IMC Hospital 1 Diameter: 24 in Max Flow: 1997.3 gpm Min Flow: 750.0 gpm Avg Flow: 1,024.8 gpm Peaking Factor: 1.95 Site 10 Flow Monitoring (Upstream of Hospital) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 5/22 5/23 5/24 5/25 5/26 5/27 5/28 5/29 5/30 5/31 6/1 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE 11 Site Location: IMC Hospital 2 Diameter: 24 in Max Flow: 36866.8 gpm Min Flow: 250.0 gpm Avg Flow: 1,295.3 gpm Peaking Factor: 2.85 Site 11 Flow Monitoring 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 6/17 6/18 6/19 6/20 6/21 6/22 6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 Date and Time Flow (gpm) ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C SEWERCAD MODEL ---PAGE BREAK--- See Disk ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS PROBLEM Length PROPOSED UNIT TOTAL NUMBER (feet) ACTION COST COST 318 4800 S 496 E 70022 8 $ 3.00 $ [PHONE REDACTED] S 518 E 70023 8 $ 3.00 $ 1,[PHONE REDACTED] Hamblin St 120168 8 $ 3.00 $ [PHONE REDACTED] Hamblin St 120170 8 $ 3.00 $ 836 171 Spurrier and Wilson 130119 8 $ 3.00 $ [PHONE REDACTED] S Kenwood 180377 8 $ 3.00 $ [PHONE REDACTED] S Kenwood 180378 8 $ 3.00 $ [PHONE REDACTED] S Kenwood 180382 8 $ 3.00 $ 1,151 249 36 W Creek Dr 240039 8 $ 3.00 $ 747 14 222 1136 W Walden Park Dr 140207 10 Too flat; weekly clean; solid deposition; low flow $ 3.00 $ 665 16 184 932 W Walden Meadows Dr 140259 8 Flat; Weekly clean $ 3.00 $ 551 18 174 Hacyon and Murray Parkway 110010 10 Halcyon & Murray Parkway; flat; 2/month cleaning $ 3.00 $ 523 22 55 5680 S State St 180101 8 Flat; grease and motor oil; May be related to #20 (Wendy's) $ 3.00 $ 164 22 203 5670 S State St 180102 8 Flat; grease and motor oil; May be related to #20 (Wendy's) $ 3.00 $ 608 22 232 5650 S State St 180153 8 Flat; grease and motor oil; May be related to #20 (Wendy's) $ 3.00 $ 697 24 193 Betty Gene 240072 8 Flat; repaired once; 2/month cleaning; not enough slope $ 3.00 $ 578 28 163 5374 S Alpine Dr 70242 8 Clean 2/month; Flat; $ 3.00 $ 490 1 328 Larry H. Miller Lexus 180147 10 "Belly; 10"" line; Clean weekly" Replace sewer $ 186.00 $ 60,943 $ 82,273 360 60024 8 $ 173.00 $ 62,279 109 60025 8 $ 173.00 $ 18,866 212 60114 8 $ 173.00 $ 36,647 123 60115 8 $ 173.00 $ 21,197 199 60045 8 Flowlines do not match Cottonwood; Mtn View Atwood - siphon $ 173.00 $ 34,506 82 60046 8 Flowlines do not match Cottonwood; Mtn View Atwood - siphon $ 173.00 $ 14,152 5 290 Old Artic Circle 60106 8 Regal; blockage due to belly and grease; Arctic Circle - no grease trap Replace sewer $ 173.00 $ 50,141 $ 50,141 7 309 The Willows 70069 8 The Willows off 5600 S; flat or belly - grease; weekly cleaning Replace sewer $ 173.00 $ 53,537 $ 72,274 8 349 Wagon Master 80049 8 Wagon Master; Heavy grease w/ flat line; could fix w/ wye connection Replace sewer $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 $ 3,375 9 585 Fashon Place 190033 8 Fashion Place; frequent build up - solids & rags; need MH repair Replace sewer $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 $ 3,375 15 258 Anderson 130136 8 Belly; May be privatly owned Replace sewer $ 173.00 $ 44,553 $ 60,147 326 60076 10 $ 186.00 $ 60,561 218 60077 10 $ 186.00 $ 40,496 286 60096 10 $ 186.00 $ 53,184 346 60097 10 $ 186.00 $ 64,264 281 60101 10 $ 186.00 $ 52,273 343 60123 10 $ 186.00 $ 63,881 322 70046 10 $ 186.00 $ 59,801 301 70048 10 $ 186.00 $ 56,006 391 70050 10 $ 186.00 $ 72,663 19 345 Utahna and 300W 130097 0 Big belly; under tracks; weekly clean; Casing size? Replace sewer $ 186.00 $ 64,170 $ 86,630 20 551 Wendy's 180191 8 Wendy's outfall; 10" comes in with large flow; Try sending all flow to north 21 166 300 W Riley Ln 120181 12 MH is not formed correctly; line rises up before discharging into MH Replace sewer $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 $ 3,375 23 173 180344 8 Capacity; causes backup; too flat; Could re-lay the pipe Replace sewer $ 173.00 $ 29,879 $ 40,336 226 130131 8 $ 173.00 $ 39,053 207 180016 8 $ 173.00 $ 35,785 441 10017 8 $ 173.00 $ 76,240 359 10018 8 $ 173.00 $ 62,103 348 10019 8 $ 173.00 $ 60,204 303 10020 8 $ 173.00 $ 52,488 372 10021 8 $ 173.00 $ 64,375 313 10022 8 $ 173.00 $ 54,063 437 10073 8 $ 173.00 $ 75,625 320 120071 15 $ 209.00 $ 66,848 343 120075 15 $ 209.00 $ 71,598 2 3 17 27 29 30 Belly; Grease; Frequent cleaning Address Taps from laterals catch on machinery Constant High Infiltration High Infiltration Old clay pipe w/ redwood slats; Weekly clean; Poor access and condition 4763 to 4883 S and State St 4664 to 4790 S Boxelder St 4994 4962 S 300W Atwood and Mt View Murray Manner Pipe ID Diameter Problem Description Root problems Root treatment COST WITH CONTINGENCY $ 186,903 $ 600,883 $ 101,032 $ 706,225 $ 65,688 $ 187,636 $ 11,246 $ 6,969 Replace sewer Replace sewer Replace sewer Maintenance Replace sewer Replace sewer Replace sewer ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 5 TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGIES TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGIES OVERVIEW Trenchless technologies are divided into two main categories, construction methods and renewal methods. Construction methods involve installation of a new pipeline, while renewal methods involve rehabilitating existing pipelines. The various technologies used in gravity flow applications on small to mid-size pipe diameters are briefly described in the following sections. NEW PIPE CONSTRUCTION Steered Auger Boring (Directional Boring) Steered auger boring is a method of installing a steel casing pipe where it crosses a road, highway, or railroad track. This process simultaneously jacks a steel casing from a drive pit through the earth while removing the spoil inside the encasement by means of a rotating flight auger. The auger is a flighted tube having couplings at each end that transmit torque to the cutting head from the power source located in the bore pit and transfers spoil back to the machine. The casing supports the soil around it as spoil is being removed. Usually, after installation of the casing, a product pipe is installed and the annular space is filled with grout. Microtunneling Microtunneling boring machines are mainly used for installation of a gravity pipeline for wastewater or storm drain. These machines are laser-guided, remotely controlled, and permit accurate monitoring and adjusting of the alignment and grade as the work proceeds so that the pipe can be installed on a precise line and grade. Microtunneling is not commonly used in Utah. PIPE RENEWAL Cured-In-Place The cured-in-place process involves the insertion of a resin-impregnated fabric tube into an existing pipe by the use of water or air inversion or winching. Usually, the fabric is polyester felt material, fiberglass reinforced, or similar. Normally, water or air is used for the inversion process with hot water or steam used for the curing process. The pliable nature of the resin-saturated fabric prior to curing allows installation around curves, filling of cracks, bridging of gaps, and maneuvering through pipe defects. The cured-in-place process can be applied for structural and non-structural purposes. Additionally, systems using felt impregnated polyester resin or fiberglass provide very good corrosion resistance. The cured-in-place process also has excellent strength, and can be designed as a stand-alone system to sustain entire loading on an existing pipe. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 5 Advantages • Grouting is not normally required. • No joints, so very smooth interior improves hydraulic capacity. • Conforms to non-circular shapes, bends, and deformations. • Can be inserted via existing manholes or through minor excavations. Limitations • The tube or hose must be custom-constructed for each project. • The existing flow must be rerouted during the installation process. • Sealing may be required at liner pipe ends to prevent infiltration. • The amount and type of resin is a contractor’s function, so specifications and inspection are required to ensure proper resin quality and handling. • The curing process must be carefully monitored, inspected, and tested. • Chemical contaminants are introduced into the curing water during the curing process that cannot be discharged into the environment. Discharging the curing water to a POTW is acceptable. • Obstructions in the existing pipeline inhibit the lining process. • The cost of the cured-in-place process is relatively expensive. Slip Lining Slip lining is mainly used for structural applications when the existing pipe does not have joint settlements or misalignments. In this method, a new pipeline of smaller diameter is inserted into the existing pipeline and usually the annulus space between the existing pipe and new pipe is grouted. Advantages • No specialized equipment is required. • The same jacking pipes and fittings, as used in other trenchless construction methods, may be used. • It is a conceptually simple technique. • It can be used for structural and non-structural applications. • The existing flow can be maintained (live insertion) during the installation process. Limitations • Less hydraulic capacity, due to smaller diameter, than the original larger pipeline had when it was new. • Pit excavation is required. • Grouting is generally required. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 5 Pipe Bursting Pipe bursting is considered when the capacity of an existing pipeline is determined to be inadequate. Pipe bursting uses a hammer to break the old pipe and force particles into the surrounding soil while a new pipe is simultaneously pulled and/or pushed in its place. Advantages • It can be used on a wide range of existing pipe materials and diameters. • The new pipeline can be larger than the existing pipeline if there is enough cover. • The existing pipeline serves as a guide to for the new pipeline. Limitations • Drive and reception excavations are required. • Above-ground working space is required for ancillary construction equipment. • Laterals must be replaced by open excavations. • The existing flow must be rerouted during the installation process. • Ground movement and vibration could damage nearby facilities. Pipe Eating Pipe eating is considered when the capacity of an existing pipeline is determined to be inadequate. Pipe eating is performed using a boring machine. In this method, the old pipe is broken into small pieces and taken out by means of slurry or auger. Advantages • It can be used on a wide range of existing pipe materials and diameters. • The new pipeline can be larger than the existing pipeline if there is enough cover. • The existing pipeline serves as a guide to for the new pipeline. Limitations • Drive and reception excavations are required. • Above-ground working space is required for ancillary construction equipment. • Laterals must be replaced by open excavations. • The existing flow must be rerouted during the installation process. Thermoforming Thermoforming involves inserting a folded (for reduced cross section) pipeline into an existing pipeline and subsequently heating the inserted pipeline to conform to the existing pipeline dimensions. The inserted folded pipeline is made of either polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 5 Advantages • Very smooth interior improves hydraulic capacity. • Few field joints, so construction is faster. • It is a chemically-inert process. • It solves corrosion problems. • It controls groundwater infiltration, product exfiltration, and root intrusion. • The new pipe is structurally-independent. • Installation can be accomplished via existing manholes. • It can be used on large radius bends. • Internal lateral connections are possible Limitations • A large above-ground working space is required for laying out the string of butt- fused pipeline. • The existing flow must be rerouted during the installation process. • For water mains, valves and connections usually require excavation. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS OF TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY # Minimizes the need to disturb the existing environment, traffic, or congested living and working areas. # Uses predetermined paths provided by existing piping, thereby reducing the steering and control problems associated with open-cut. # Requires less space underground, thereby minimizing chances of interfering with existing utilities or abandoned pipelines. # Provides the opportunity to upsize a pipeline (within technology limits) without open trench construction. # Requires less-exposed working area, and therefore, is safer for both workers and the community # Eliminates the need for spoil removal and minimize damage to the pavement (the life expectancy of pavements have been observed to be reduced by up to 60 percent with open-cut repairs), and disturbance to other utilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 5 TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGIES Method Diameter Range (in) Maximum Installation (ft) Pipe Material Accuracy 1 (in) Estimated Cost2 ($/in-ft) New Pipe Construction Steered Auger Boring 4 to 60 600 Steel ± 12 15.00 Microtunneling 6 to 136 500 to 1,500 RCP, GRP, VCP, DIP, Steel, PCP ± 1 20.00 Pipe Renewal Cured-In-Place 4 to 108 3,000 All Not Applicable 10.00 Slip Lining 4 to 63 1,000 PE, PP, PE/EPDM, PVC Not Applicable 7.00 Pipe Bursting 4 to 48 1,500 PE, PP, PVC, GRP Not Applicable 8.00 Pipe Eating 4 to 36 300 PE, PP, PVC, GRP Not Applicable 8.00 Thermoform 4 to 30 1,500 HDPE, PVC Not Applicable 8.00 1. RCP = Reinforced Concrete Pipe GRP= Glass Reinforced Plastic VCP=Vitrified Clay Pipe DIP=Ductile Iron Pipe PCP=Polymer Concrete Pipe PE=Polyethylene PP=Polypropylene EPDM=Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer PVC=Polyvinyl Chloride HDPE=High Density Polyethylene 2. These costs might vary ± 50 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F COST ESTIMATES ---PAGE BREAK--- RECOMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS COST ESTIMATES Notes: * Total costs include 35% for engineering, administrative costs, and contingencies. Costs are shown in 2009 dollars. ID LOCATION LENGTH (ft) DIAMETER (in) UNIT COST TOTAL COST * 1 State Street from 5770 South to Umbra Lane 2,000 15 $209 $564,000 2 State Street from 6100 South to 5770 South 2,700 12 $196 $714,000 3 Edison Avenue from State Street to Main Street 1,000 12 $196 $265,000 2,000 24 $257 4 Riverside Pump Station 650 36 $330 $983,000 5 300 West from 5800 South to 5600 South 1,900 12 $196 $503,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- AVERAGE SEWER PIPE COST PER FOOT Diameter (in) Diameter (ft) Outside Diameter (ft) Pipe Material & Installation Excavation Imported Bedding Installed Hauling Excess Native Mat'l Trench Backfill Installed Trench Box per Day Average Daily Output Trench Box Cost Top Trench Width (ft) Road Repair Width (ft) Asphalt Cost Manhole Cost Trench Dewatering Total Cost per Foot of Pipe Cost Out of Street 4 0.3 0.39 4.74 8.42 10.15 16.45 53.50 202.65 190 1.07 5.19 9.19 33.56 12.93 13.86 155 130 6 0.5 0.58 6.15 8.94 11.63 17.48 55.98 202.65 190 1.07 5.38 9.38 34.17 12.93 14.39 163 138 8 0.7 0.78 9.20 9.48 13.13 18.54 58.47 202.65 190 1.07 5.58 9.58 34.78 12.93 14.92 173 147 10 0.8 0.97 13.75 10.04 14.67 19.62 60.96 202.65 130 1.56 5.77 9.77 35.39 12.93 17.58 186 161 12 1.0 1.17 15.20 10.61 16.22 20.73 63.45 202.65 115 1.76 5.97 9.97 36.00 12.93 18.99 196 170 15 1.3 1.46 16.70 11.49 18.61 22.45 67.18 202.65 100 2.03 6.26 10.26 36.91 12.93 20.94 209 183 18 1.5 1.75 20.00 12.40 21.05 24.23 70.91 202.65 94 2.16 6.55 10.55 37.83 12.93 22.29 224 197 21 1.8 2.04 25.50 13.34 23.56 26.08 74.64 202.65 88 2.30 6.84 10.84 38.74 12.93 23.72 241 214 24 2.0 2.33 30.50 14.32 26.12 27.98 78.37 202.65 88 2.30 7.13 11.13 39.66 12.93 24.52 257 229 30 2.5 2.92 44.00 16.36 31.42 31.98 85.84 202.65 72 2.81 7.72 11.72 41.49 14.61 28.33 297 269 36 3.0 3.50 54.00 18.54 36.96 36.23 93.30 202.65 72 2.81 8.30 12.30 43.31 14.61 29.92 330 301 Reference: 2008 RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Assumptions: Costs: Y Total Import Trench Backfill? (Y/N) $ 43.62 /CY Import Trench Backfill - use Imported Select Fill y Dewatering? (Y/N) $ 43.62 /CY Imported Select Fill - pg 224-225: Sand, dead or bank w/ hauling (20 CY, 5 mi) and compaction. ($21.00/LCY + $7.10/LCY)*1.39 LCY/ECY + $4.56/ECY Y Manholes? (Y/N) $ 5.05 /CY Excavation - pg 210 (Item 1375): 10-14 ft deep, 1 CY excavator, Trench Box. One side of street C&G is regraded (30' street). $ 28.21 /SY 4" Asphalt Pavement - pg 259-260,225: 9" Bank Run GravelBase Course ($9.15/SY), 2" Binder ($7.30/SY), 2" Wear ($8.20/SY [4"=$15.65/SY]) and Hauling ($7.10/LCY * 1.39LCY/ECY * 0 10 v :1h trench side slope (use trench boxes) $ 2.38 /LF 4" Asphalt cutting - pg 36: Saw cutting asphalt up to 3" deep ($1.60/LF), each additional inch of depth ($0.78/LF) 10 ' average depth to top of pipe $ 2,586.00 /EA 4' Manhole (for pipes 2.5' diameter) - pg 318: Precast 8' deep ($2,050/ea), each add'l foot of depth ($268/VLF) 0.33 ' thick asphalt road covering $ 2,921.00 /EA 5' Manhole (for pipes > 2.5' and 3.5') - pg 318: Precast 8' deep ($2,325/ea), each add'l foot of depth ($298/VLF) 0.75 ' thick untreated base course $ 4,460.00 /EA 6' Manhole (for pipes > 3.5' and 4.5') - pg 318: Precast 8' deep ($3,550/ea), each add'l foot of depth ($455/VLF) 200 ' Average distance between manholes $ 5,000.00 /EA Manholes (for pipes > 4.5') 3 + Outside Diameter = Bottom trench width $ 202.65 /day Trench Box deep, 16' x pg 245) 1 ' bedding over pipe $ 9.87 /CY Hauling - pg 225: 20 CY dump truck, 5 mile round trip and conversion from loose to compacted volume. $7.10/LCY * 1.39 LCY/ECY 0.5 ' bedding under pipe $ 73.50 /CY Stabilization Gravel - pg 224-225: Bank Run Gravel ($42.50/LCY * 1.39 LCY/ECY) plus compaction ($4.56/ECY) and hauling ($7.10/LCY * 1.39 LCY/ECY) $ 880.00 /day Dewatering - pg 221: 4" diaphram pump, 8 hrs attended ($770/day). Second pump ($110/day) NOTES: Assumes PVC SDR 35 for 4" to 24" (pg. 308) and HDPE Type S (pg. 307) for 30" and larger. 7' deep trench box (16' x - on page 245 Backfill Material & Installation assumes in street. For out of street unit costs, the backfill material cost has been added in place of base course and asphalt. Dewatering assumes 1' stabilization gravel at the bottom of the trench plus dewatering pumps Conversion from loose to compacted volumes assumes 125 PCF for compacted density and 90 PCF for loose density. Or (125 PCF/ECY)/(90 PCF/LCY) = 1.39 LCY/ECY Conversion from cubic yards to square yards for hauling of asphalt paving assumed a total thickness of 13". 3 ft x 3 ft x (13 in)/(12 in/ft) = 0.361 CY/SY Abbreviations: VLF vertical lineal foot PCF pounds per cubic foot LCY loose cubic yard ECY embankment cubic yard