Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
24-827
RESOLUTION NO. 24-827 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ADOPTING THE CITY OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, Water Utilities presented the Wastewater Master Plan to City Council and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Master Plan serves as a guide that allows Denton Water Utilities to maintain, operate, and expand wastewater infrastructure to meet community needs; and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Master Plan benefits the City of Denton and its residents by ensuring efficient and sustainable management of wastewater, protecting public health and safety, and providing a robust plan for constructing wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure for the population growth projected over the next 25 years; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the Wastewater Master Plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES : SECTION 1: The recitals in the preamble of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated into the body of this Resolution as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: The City of Denton Wastewater Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A“ and incorporated herein, is hereby adopted by the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 3: The Wastewater Master Plan attached in Exhibit “A“ shall be filed with the City Secretary. SECTION 4: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. The motion to approve this Resolution was made by by Jo_ H'l\ a- J tSr InK bcc [and seconded _; the Resolution was passed and approved by the following vote A- OJ: Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mayor Gerard Hudspeth: Vicki Byrd, District 1 : ,/ W/ „/Brian Beck, District 2: Paul Meltzer, District 3 :,/ Joe Holland, District 4:/ r/Brandon Chase McGee, At Large Place 5 : r• H f hI t r F b q b + r r b 1 P & F / Chris Watts, At Large Place 6:J PASSED AND APPROVED this the _L day of 2024. – - / #‘ GERARD HUDSPETH, MAYOR ArrEST: LAUREN THODEN, CITY SECRETARY BY: e#aWLbh hR APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MACK REINWAND, CITY ATTORNEY . AS r= q PREPARED FOR bEC PREPARED BY Kimley »> Horn Expect More Expercnce Better lkUIU: 2023 NOVEMBER 2023 hI I ( 1 CITY OF DENTON Prepared By: Kimley »>Horn Texas Board of Professional Engineers Firm Registration Number: F-928 11/27/2023 11/27/2023 11/27/2023 11 Denton Wastewater Master Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2.Wastewater Conveyance Master Plan 1.3.Water Reclamation Plants Master Plan 12 1.4.Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan 15 2 Introduction ....................18 2.1 Objective 2.2.Scope of Wastewater Master Plan,.. 19 2.3.Study Area Boundary Planning Periods2.4.. 21 2.5.Definitions and Abbreviations ...... 21 2.6.Design Criteria 24 3 Wastewater Conveyance Master Plan ......................... 25 3. 1 Existing Wastewater System Growth Projections and Future Land Use 26 3.2.34 3.3.Wastewater Flow Projections 44 3.4.ExistIng Wastewater System AnalysIs ...... 49 3.5.Future System MI lifi 1+58 4 Water Reclamation Plants Master Plan ....................... 64 4.1.Existing Water Reclamation Plants.65 4,2.Regulatory Review .69 4.3.Design Flows and Loading Conditions, Treatment Process. . 75 4.4.. 83 4.5.Facilities Site Development 86 5 Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan ...........••••Bl•••l•J•• n 98 5. 1 Capital Improvement Plan 99 5.2, 5.3. Conveyance Phasing Methodology CIP Per Basin 104 104 5.4.Conveyance Future CIP 114 Appendix A Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Appendix B Pump Performance Testing Beaver Creek Lift Station Pecan Creek Basin – Bent Oaks Creek Lift Station Cooper Creek Creek Lift Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan Hobson Lift Station Lakeview Ranch Trinity Lift Station Pecan Creek Basin - Preserve Lift Station Pecan Creek Basin - Southfork Lift Station Pecan Creek Basin – Vacation Village Lift Station Appendix C Known Development Information Appendix D Wet Weather Hydrographs Cooper Basin Hickory Basin Pecan Basin Denton Wastewater Master Plan List of Tables Table 1.1 – Planning Periods Table 1 .2 – Projected Flow per Basin, Table 1 .3 – Water Reclamation Plant RequIred Capacity. Table 1.4 – WRP 25-Year Project Costs Table 1.5 – 5-Year CIP Projects Table 1.6 – 10-Year CIP Projects Table 1.7 – 25-Year CIP Projects Table 2.1 – Planning Periods , Table 2.2 –WWMP Abbreviations Table 3.1 – Wholesale Meters TabEe 3.2 – Existing Lift Station Summary Table 3.3 – Under Design Lift Station Summary Table 3.4 – Historical Population Growth Rate Table 3,5 – Existing Land Use Categories Table 3.6 – Known Developments CumulatIve Unit Phasing , Table 3.7 – Future Land Use Category DescrIptions Table 3.8 – 25-Year Developed Acreage. Table 3.9 – Historical Rainfall and Wastewater Flow Table 3.10 – Future Land Use Loading Factors Table 3.11 – Projected Per Capita Flow Table 3.12 – Projected Flow per Basin , Table 3.13 – Temporary Flow Monitoring Average Dry Weather Flow Table 3.14 – Rainfall Summary Table 3.15 – Wet Weather Flow Monitoring Results , Table 3.16 – RDll per Linear Foot Table 3.17 – 5-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Abandonments Table 3.18 – 10-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Table 3,19 – 25-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Table 4.1 – Pecan Creek WRP Discharge Permit Limits , Table 4.2 – Clear Creek WRP Discharge Permit Limits Table 4.3 – Robson Ranch WRP Discharge Permit Limits , Table 4.4 – City of Denton Wastewater Collection Customers . Table 4,5 – Water Reclamation Plant Projected Flow , Table 4,6 – Historical Concentration Rates. Table 4.7 – Pecan Creek WRP Project Costs , 10 13 14 15 16 17 21 23 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 43 44 46 46 47 51 53 54 55 62 62 63 . 70 70 .71 . 77 78 ,. 82 92 Abandonments, Abandonments Denton Wastewater Master Plan Table 4.8 – Clear Creek WF3P Project Costs........... . Table 4.9 – Hickory Creek WRP Project Costs Table 5.1 – 5-Year CIP Projects Table 5.2 – 10-Year CtP Projects Table 5.3 – 25-Year CIP Projects 100 102 List of Figures Figure 1 .1 – Population Growth Rates for the 5, 10, and 25-Year Planning Periods, Figure 1 .2 – Projected Flow per Basin Figure 1 .3 – WRP Locations... Figure 3.1 – Existing System Schematic Figure 3.2 – Population Growth Rate ..... Figure 3.3 – Historical Rainfall and Wastewater Flow ..... . Figure 3.4 – Projected Flow per Basin Figure 3.5 – 5-Year Schematica•••••a•••a••• aa••••a••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••a•••• 41 ................................. 59 Figure 3.6 – 10-Year Schematic Figure 3.7 – 25-Year Schematic•••••HH••••••• ••••••B•••a••••••••• •••••••••••a••••a• •a••••••••••••••• a••••••••••••• Figure 4.1 – Pecan Creek WRP Influent Flow Figure 4.2 – BOD5 Influent Loading Rates ......... Figure 4.3 – TSS Influent Loading Rates ••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••• a•••••••••••••a••••• •••••••••••••••••••• &TT Figure 4.4– NH3 Influent Loading Rates Figure 4.5 – Phosphorus Influent Loading Rates.................. Figure 4.6 – Future Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Needs: Pecan Creek WRP. . Figure 4.7 – Future Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Needs: Clear Creek WRP...... . Figure 4.8 – Future Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Needs: Hickory Creek WRP .. 61 ............. 75 76 79 80 81 List of Exhibits Exhibit A – Study Area ......................... Exhibit B – Existing System ...... Exhibit C – Existing Land Use Exhibit D – Known Exhibit E – Future Land Use Exhibit F – Growth and Phasir Exhibit G – Manhole Survey Exhibit. 20 38 40 42 50 Developments Denton Wastewater Master Plan 4 Exhibit H – Flow MonItoring Basins Exhibit I – WRP Locations ExhIbit J – TCEQ Coordination Discharge Locations. Exhibit K – Existing Pecan Creek WFRP Exhibit L – Pecan Creek WRP Future Site Layout Exhibit M – Pecan Creek WRP Future Composting Layout ExhIbit N – Clear Creek WRP Future Layout. Exhibit O – Clear Creek WRP Future Overall Layout. Exhibit P – Hickory Creek WRP Future Layout. Exhibit Q – Capital Improvement Plan ExhibIt R – Clear Creek CIP Projects. Exhibit S – Cooper Creek CiP Projects Exhibit T – Pecan Creek CIP Projects Exhibit U – Lakeview Ranch CIP Projects . Exhibit V – Hickory Creek CIP Projects Exhibit W – Future CIP Projects 73 87 89 91 93 94 .. 96 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 F H• aHH I Denton Wastewater Master PIm 5 SUMMARY Denton Wastewater Master Plan 1.1. INTRODUCTION The Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) and the underlytng hydraulic model serve as the basis for the planning, design, construction, and financing of the wastewater infrastructure for the City of Denton. The primary goal of the WWMP was to develop a plan for City of Denton (City) to provide systematic upgrades and expansions of the wastewater system to serve all future developments within the Study Area. A secondary goal of the WWMP was to identify existing capacity deficiencies within the system and provide recommended upgrades. The significant scope elements of this project are as follows: 1. Existing land use and future land use determination in coordination with City Planning Department 2. Population and growth projections in coordination with City Planning Department 3. Temporary wastewater flow and rainfall monitoring 4. Historical customer water use and basin wastewater flow analysis 5. Manhole surveys and lift station pump performance testing 6. Existing hydraulic model creation and calibration 7. Existing wastewater system anaEysis and deficiency identification 8. Future wastewater flow projections through the 5-Year, 10-Year, and 25-Year planning periods 9. Identify necessary improvements to Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to serve the future wastewater flow projections 10. Identify additional Water Reclamation Plants needed to serve future wastewater flow projections 11, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) deveEopment for the 5-Year, 10-Year, and 25-Year planning periods Kirnley-Horn and the City selected the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods for analysis and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP.) See Table 1 .1 for a description of each planning period. Table 1 .1 - Planning Periods Description Represents present day to the next 5 years, Projects in this category are recommended to serve known incoming single and multi-phase developments or to remedy existing deficiencies. City staff are aware of these projects and are actively planning designing, and determining financing Represents 5 years through 10 years. Projects in this category are recommended to serve continuing multi-phase developments or projected growth within the City Represents 10 years through 25 years, Projects in this category are recommended to serve continuing multi-phase developments or projected growth within the City Denton Wastewater Master Plan 7 1.2.1. EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM The City operates two water reclamation plants, the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant that serves most of the City and the Robson Ranch WRP that serves the Robson Ranch residential development. The City maintains approximately 550 miles of gravity wastewater lines, ranging in size from 4-inch to 84-inch. The City operates a total of thirty-one (31) lift stations, three (3) peak flow basins, and approximately 26 miles of force mains, ralging in size from 3-inch to 30-inch. The City is comprised of six (6) wastewater basins: • • • • • • Clear Creek Milam Creek Cooper Creek Pecan Creek Lakeview Ranch Hickory Creek it should be noted that the Milam Creek Basin is incorporated into the Clear Creek Basin in the future system (see Section 3.1.1.2). Refer to Exhibit B – Existing System for an overview of the City’s existing wastewater system. 2.2. GROWTH Pi :CYIONS AND FI LAND USE Based on known incoming developments, including Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) identified in Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) 2, a compound annual growth rate of 8.1 % is projected over the next 5 years. Kimley-Horn worked with the City to establish a 3.5% growth rate for the 10-year planning period and 2.0% growth rate for the 25-year perIod that account for the known multi-phase developments, MUDs, and additional growth throughout the City (Figure 1 .1). 400,000 330.000 300.000 230 000 2(D,CK)0 130.000 100,000 201 0 2015 2020 2025 20:O n135 X)40 Year 2045 Paso Figure 1 .1 – Population Growth Rates for the 5, 10, and 25-Year Planning Periods Denton Wastewater Master Plan 8 All single-phase known developments were assumed to fully develop within the 5-year planning period, while the known multi-phase developments and MUDs developed according to the 5-year phasing plans provided by developers. For the 10-year planning period, known multi-phase developments and MUDs were developed according to the 10- year phasing plans provided by developers, with additional growth allocated to areas identified by the City until the 3.5% growth rate was achieved. For the 25-year planning period, known multi-phase developments and MUDs were developed according to the 25- year phasing plans provided by developers, with additional growth allocated to areas identified by the City until the 2.0% growth rate was achieved. The locations of the identified growth areas for the planning periods are shown in Exhibit F – Growth and Phasing. The future land use, identifled in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, was then applied to the identified growth areas for the 5, 10 and 25-year planning periods. The Future Land Use is shown in Exhibit E – Future Land Use. 2.3. WASr15i ZF nui DDR IFCT iag.:ttIBg I Wastewater flow projections were determined based on the future land use and established Eoading factors per land use type. Projected average and peak wastewater low per basin, along with total developed residential and non-residential acreage, is summarized in Table 1.2 Denton Wastewater Master Plan Table 1 .2 - Projected Flow per Basin .e Residential (Acres) INlr•1HI h Acronan Averaae Dav Flow (MGD) Peak Wet D Weathnr Flow Eq (e Clear Creek:: Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3,300 1 ,800 6,600 r Flows 0.0 1.9 3.5 1 ,400 700 3,800 0,0 6,5 16.5 0.4 48.0 71 .4 N/A 3,4 4.7 4,0 6.0 1,100 5, IOO 17,900 200 5,800 11,900 0. 1 8.0 13.5 F FEC8FrlbS 0.9 2.4 6.7 0.4 Clear Creek3'4 Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3,600 2, IOO 8,700 1 ,200 2,000 900 4,900 300 3.6 8.2 31 .5 1.6 53.4 98.3 4.0 3.4 4.7 4.0 6.05,400 21 ,000 5,600 13,700 10-Year Wastewater F 8.9 19.3 0 1.8 2.2 9.9 Clear Creek4 Cooper Creek Hickory Creek5 Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3,700 1 ,800 10,500 2,600 900 5,900 7.2 7.6 49.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0 1,100 5,500 22,600 400 5,600 15,400 0.5 2.0 54.6 120.9 9.1 23.5 25-Year Wastewater Flows 3.6 2.5 16.0 0.9 Clear Creek Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 4,400 1 ,900 1 4,000 1 ,400 3,500 1 ,000 8,300 500 14.4 9.0 80.0 4.0 3.6 5.0 4,0 6.0 3.6 55.8 162.8 5,600 27,300 5,800 19,100 9.3 32.3 1 Peak wet weather flow based on a 5-year, 24-hOur storm event for existing infrastructure (see SeCa'OII 2.6.aand peaking factor of 4 for future infragtructure (see Section 3.3.a - - ’ 2All existing developed areas in the Clear Creek Basin are currently on septic since there is no exjstinginfrastructur-e in the Clear Creek Basin (see Section 3.1.1.V ' ' - 3Flow from the Milam Creek Basin transfers from the Pecan Creek Basin to the Clear Creek Basin in the 5- year planning period (see Section 3.1.1.a 4Fjow from the Cooper Creek Basin transfers to the Clear Creek Basin in the 5-year and 10-year planningpericxls (see Section'3.1.1.a ' ' ' - Denton Wastewater Master Plan 10 5Flow from proposed MUDs not incorporated into the Hickory Creek Basin until the 10-year planning period (see Section 3.3.a Projected average wastewater flow per basin is illustrated in Figure 1 .2. 18 2022 2027 2032 2007 Ckx>per Hick+xy Creek Creek Figure 1 .2 – Projected Flow per Basin 2042 Lake\My Ranch 2047 Pecan Creek Denton Wastewater Master Plan 11 1.3.1. WATER RECLAMATiON PLANTS LOCAT16N According to projected 3-month average maximum flows shown in Table 1 .3, the existing Pecan Creek WRP will need to increase in capacity to treat the projected wastewater flows from the Pecan Creek, Cooper Creek, and Lakeview Ranch basins. An additionai WRP, Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant, is needed to treat the projected wastewater flows from the Clear Creek Basin. The Hickory Creek Basin will require a new WRP, Hickory Creek Water Reclamation Plant, to treat the projected wastewater flows. The existing Robson Ranch Water Reclamation Plant will be decommissioned soon and is not part of the long-term plan. The location of these WRPs are shown in Figure 1 .3 –WRP Locations below. /' // ,/ f/ / \ RP I f I !'j J:I:;;- I:HI J .,///// i: Jn ! Hickory ! _.++J--- : I f B : F Existing Robso, Ranch WRP LJ)V / r ; } Fl–l / Figure 1 .3 - WRP Locations Denton Wastewater Master Plan 12 I 2. WATER R££i*:*yAT10N PLANT PIt ii;iiig The table below shows the flow rates for each proposed WRP and the required capacities for the 5, 10, and 25-year planning period. Table 1 .3 - Water Reclamation Plant Required Capacity WRP Required Capacity (MGD Pecan Creek CI mr Creek c 21.0 0.0 0.0 Pecan Creek CI mr Creek Hickory Creek Pecan Creek CI mr Creek Hickory Creek Design for expansion is requirui for this phase due to TCEQ 75/90 rule. 2Flows for Pecan Creek WRP are shown as the maximum flow projectu] for Pecan Creek just prior tO Hickory Creek WRP being online. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 13 1.3.3. WATER RECLAMATiOI PLANT PRBJECTS The proposed WRP projects are summarized below in terms of their total project cost. Project costs are a planning level opinion of probable constructIon cost based on 2023- dollar amounts. Table 1 .4 - WRP 25-Year Project Costs Project Name Pe@ ek V\glgBMMai®a IEt; Pecan Creek WRP 5.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 26 MGD Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Plant Pecan Creek WRP 4.0 MGD MBR- Hickory Clear WRP 10.0 MGD MBR Plant Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Expansion to 5.0 MGD Hickory Creek WRP 10.0 MGD MBR n to 20.0 MGD WRP Project Total: $56,260,000 $120,000,000 $1 18,800,000 $1 05,000,000 $448,600,000 $98,800, 000 $396, 600,000 $1 ,344,060,000 1 Project included tO meet permit final phase capacity. Project not included in CIP liSt per conveyance findings. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 14 The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is divided into three sections: 5-Year, 10-Year, and 25- Year. All proposed projects are shown in Exhibit Q – Capital Improvement Plan. The project priority, name, and total cost is listed in Tables 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 for the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods, respectively. Table 1.5 – 5-Ymr CIP Projects Project Name BMJ%+=g $120,000,000 C Peca We MB@ Pecan Creek WRP 5.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 26 MGD Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Plant Clear Creek Interceptor Roark Branch Interceptor Cole Ranch Interceptor North Cole Ranch Sewer Line Legends Sewer Line Robson Ranch Sewer Line Robson West Lift Station Milarn Creek Sewer Line Ganzer Rd Sewer Line North Masch Sewer Line Masch Sewer Line Replacement North Loop 288 Sewer Line Mingo Road Sewer Line Lakeview Interceptor Replacement 3 4 $118, 800,000 $89,440,000 $35,320,000 $53 ,340,000 $7,310,000 $32 ,080,000 $5, 800,000 $12, 100,000 $1 3.750,000 $2 ,530,000 $8, 680,000 $5 ,560,000 $7 ,980, 000 $4,380,000 $4, 560,000 $8,300, 000 $2, 960,000 $5, 820,000 $9, 500,000 $1 ,270,000 $3,620,000 $23,400, 000 10 11 12 13 Lakeview South Lift Station Grissom Sewer Line19 20 Lakeview Ranch Sewer Line United Copper Sewer Line Granada Sewer Line Dry Fork Sewer Line Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin Improvements Cooper Creek Sewer Line Replacement Pecan Creek Interceptor Replacement Beaver Creek Sewer Line $3,590,000 $3 ,890,000 $2,910,000 $6, 890,000 $650,040,000 North Milam Sewer Line 5-Ymr Projects Sub-Total: Denton Wastewater Master Plan 15 Table 1 .6 – 10-Year CIP Projects Proiect Name Hickory-@@P 10.0 MGD MBR Pla Stark Farms Sewer Line C Wolfe Road Interceptor TN Skiles Road Interceptor Ponder Sewer Line South Hickory Creek Sewer Line Wolf Branch Sewer Line Sanctuary Sewer Line Meadows Sewer Line Cole Ranch West Sewer Line Roark Branch North Sewer Line Hunter Ranch North Sewer Line Hunter Ranch East Sewer Line Hunter Ranch South Sewer Line East Clear Creek Sewer Line East Milam Sewer Line 10-Year Projects Sub-Total: Project Cost 4 $1 , 340, 000 $1 8, 120,000 $1 4,420,000 $5,230,000 $22 ,580,000 $1 8,040,000 $4,280,000 $2, 130,000 $4,280,000 $1 ,660,000 $2 ,330,000 $3,460,000 $3,930,000 $3, 170,000 $2,920,000 $556,490,000 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 16 Table 1 .7 – 25-Year CIP Projects IBJ Proiect Name Hi[!©r -;kWRP l©am[gEla[gla Expansion to 20.0 MGD Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Expansion to 5.0 M(SD Hickory Creek Interceptor Parallel Cole Ranch interceptor Parallel East McKinney Street Sewer Line Lakeview North Lift Station North Trinity Road Sewer Line Timber Branch Sewer Line Cooper Creek Lift Station Upgrades Florence Road Sewer Line Hunter Ranch West Sewer Line North Robson Ranch Sewer Une Roark Branch West Sewer Line Roark Branch South Sewer Line Roark Branch East Sewer Line Cole Ranch South Sewer Line Lovers Lane Sewer Line North TN Skiles Road Sewer Line South Clear Creek Sewer Line Hog Branch Sewer Line 25-Year Projects Sub-Total: $396 , 600, 000 46 47 48 49 50 $98,800, 000 $1 2,060,000 $1 7,730,000 $3, 180,000 $6,700, 000 $2 ,620,000 $3,250,000 $180,000 $1 3,560,000 $2 , 970, 000 $2, 340,000 $920,000 $1 , 1 40,000 $1 ,340,000 $2,910,000 $4, 500,000 $2 , 280,000 $5, 640,000 $2, 680,000 $581 ,400,000 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Individual project descriptions and detailed costs have been included in Appendix A – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs. The opinion of probable costs for each capital project assumes no design completed, are based on 2023 dollars, and does not include annual construction cost increases. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 17 Denton Wastewater Master Plan The primary goal of the Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) was to develop a plan for the City of Denton (City) to provide systematic upgrades and expansions of the wastewater system to serve all future developments within the Study Area. A secondary goal of the WWMP was to identify existing capacity deficiencies within the system and provide recommended upgrades The scope of the study was to create and calibrate a hydraulic model of the existing wastewater system, analyze the existing system for deficiencies, and to make recommendations to serve projected development through the 25-year planning period. The significant scope elements of this project are as follows: 1.Existing land use and future land use determination in with City Planning 2. PopulatIon and growth projections in coordination with City Planning Department 3, Temporary wastewater low and rainfail monitoring 4. HistoricaE customer water usage and basin wastewater flow analysis 5. Manhole surveys and lift station pump performance testing 6. Existing hydraulic model creation and calibration 7. Existing wastewater system analysis and deficiency identification 8, Future wastewater flow projections through the 5-Year, 10-Year, and planning periods 9. Identify necessary improvements to Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) to serve the future wastewater flow projections Edentify additional Water Reclamation Plants needed to serve future flow projections 10 11. Capital Improvement Plan development for the 5-Year, 10-Year, and planning periods 25-Year 25-Year 2.3. STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Kimley- Horn worked with City staff to determine the study area for the WWMP. The Study Area largely extends to the City's existing 5-mile ETJ boundary, with a few exceptions (see Exhibit A – Study Area). The Study Area is approximately 121,000 acres (1 89 square miles) and includes approximately 56,300 acres (88 square miles) within the City’s current City limits The Study Area limits were extended beyond the existing service area boundary, particularly in primarily undeveloped wastewater basins such as Hickory Creek and Clear Creek, to better prepare for and incorporate planned Municipai Utility Districts (MUDs) into the City’s overall wastewater plan. See Section 3.2.3 for further discussion on the planned MUDs. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 19 Excluding from study area due to topography. Area indtxled in Sanger’s CCN. :::\:IEt::::--,-"'-' ::} Excltxling from 1:?'iI Background D•ta LEGEND O „'. ELfr] aUra </1 ] One%LnK (J] rrJBHmaV a : : n H8 s11E1Br IF U S&By 1B:Ar)aBy ;BUBBa: arca CITY OF DENTON 6 Kimley »>Horn fDEiMini WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN A STUDY AREA In B 5,000 FEET Nanrrdb•r 20Z3 2.4. PLANNING PERIODS Kimley-Horn and the CIty selected the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods for analysis and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). See Tablo 2.1 for a description of each planning period, Table 2.1 - Planning Periods CIP Year Description Represents present day to the next 5 years. Projects in this category are recommended to serve known incoming single and multi-phase developments or to remedy existing deficiencies. City staff are aware of these projects and are actively planning, designing, and determining financing Represents 5 years through 10 years. Projects in this mtegory are recommended to serve continuing multi-phase developments or projected growth within the City Represents 10 years through 25 years. Projects in this categO f are recommended to serve continuing multi-phase developments or projected growth within the City, Due to the expansive undeveloped area within the Hickory Creek and Clear Creek Basins, significant growth is expected beyond the 25-year planning period before build-out of the Study Area occurs. CIP projects are sized for the 25-year planning period, but additional easements are recommended for any project expected to serve development beyond the 25-year planning period, This methodology and project-specific details can be found in Section 5.2. 2.5. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS The following terms are used throughout the WWMP report. The definitions may provide the reader with a better understanding of the subtle differences between several of these terms Average Day Flow (ADF) – Annual wastewater flow in the system divided by the number of days in a year, The average daily wastewater flow is the average wastewater flow a system experiences over a one-day period. Typically measured in units of Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) Capital Improvemutt Plan (CIR – Recommended improvements to the wastewate collection system based on population and wastewater How projections through the 25-year planning period, Denton Wastewater Master Plan 21 Flow ([XschanIe) – Volume of wastewater discharged into the system for a given time period, typically measured in units of Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) or Gallons Per Minute (gpm) Diurnal Curve – A graph depicting wastewater flow over a 24-hour period with wastewater flow plotted on the y-axis and time plotted on the x-axis. Dry Weather – A period of time during which no rainfall occurs. No rainfall influenced inflow and infiltration into the sewer system is expected during this time. Firm Rrmping C)gpaciV – The total pumping capacity that a lift station can deliver with the largest pump out of service. Inflow – Stormwater that enters the sewer system from direct connections to the sewer system, such as household gutters. Infiltration – Stormwater that enters the sewer system through cracked or leaky pipes and rnanholes. Peaking F@,tQr – A factor applied to the average day flow to determine wet weather flow conditions. Total Pumping c)apaaN – The total pumping capacity that a lift station can deliver with all pumps in service. Wet Weather – A period of time during which rainfall occurs. Rainfall-influenced inflow and infiltration into the sewer system is expected during this time. Refer to Table 2,2 for abbreviations frequently used in this report. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 22 I Table 2.2 – WWMP Abbreviations :e ADF BOD CBOD CIP COD DO EPA [rJ GIS GPD v Filow Biochemical Oxygen Demand Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand Capital Improvement Plan Chemical Oxygen Demand Dissolved Oxygen Environmental Protection Agency Extra Territorial Jurisdiction Geographic Information System Gallons Per Day Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line (Feet) Linear Feet Lift Station Membrane Bioreactor MilIIon Gallons Million Gallons Per Day Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Ammonia Nitrogen Nutrient Criteria Development Work Plan National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Phosphorus Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid Perfluorooctanoic Acid Texas Administrative Codes Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Total Suspended Solids UEtraviolet Waste Activated Sludge Water Reclamation Plant Wastewater Master Plan gprn HGL LF LS MBR MG MGD MLSS NH3 NCDWP NPDES OPCC P PFAS PFOS PFOA TAC TCEQ TPDES TSS UV WAS WRP WWMP Denton Wastewater Master Plan 23 2.6. DESIGN CRITERIA 2.6.1 INfRASTRUCTURE DF::g&N CRITERIA Kimley-Horn worked with the City to establish design criteria for analysis of the existing conveyance and treatment systems and for design of future infrastructure. Wastewater Loading Citeda – By land use type, as discussed in Section 3.3.2. Wet Wea#ler Design Storm – 5-year, 24-hour storm, as discussed in Section 2.6.2. Wet Weather Pmking Factor – Caiibrated peaking factors are utilized for the existing system, as discussed in Section 3.4.3.2. A 4.0 peaking factor is utilized for future development, as discussed in Section 3.3.2. Lie §tetiQn$ – Lift station sizing to be in in accordance with TAC 30 5217.59 - 5217.63, administered by TCEQ. Force Mains – Force main sizing to be in in accordance with TAC 30 5217.67, administered by TCEQ. Collection Line$ – Peak low must not exceed 80% of pipe capacity. Pipe slope and velocities to be in accordance with TAC 30 9217.53, administered by TCEQ. Water F\eclem8tiQn Plant Infll,lent Loading CrtteHa – based on historical data analysis, as discussed in Section 4.3.2.2. Water Reclamation Plants – Water Reclamation Plant sizing to be in accordance with TAC 30 9217, administered by the TCEQ. 2.6.2. DES ISH STORM Infrastructure is sized to accommodate peak flow. Peak low conditions occur during wet weather events, with the observed peak flow typically increasing with the intensity and duration of the storm. A design storm must be selected to evaluate both the existing system for deficiencies and future expansions of the system. A design storm is defined in terms of the theoretical probability of occurrence on a yearly basis (a 5-year storm will theoretically occur once every five years) and the duration of the storm event. Kimley-Horn worked with City staff to select the 5-year, 24-hour storm event as the design storm. The selected 5-year, 24-hour design storm produces suffIcient peak flows to ensure infrastructure is sized to reduce the risk of overflows without being oversized. Selecting an unreasonably large design storm can lead to excessively sized infrastructure and result in maintenance issues during dry periods. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 24 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE MASTER PLAN Denton Wastewater Master Plan The City maintains approximately 550 miles of gravity wastewater lines, ranging in size from 4-inch to 84-inch. The City operates a total of thirty-one (31) lift stations, three (3) peak flow pump stations, and approximately 26 miles of force mains, ranging in size from 3-inch to 30-inch. The existing lift stations are further discussed in Section 3.1.3. The City is comprised of six (6) wastewater basins: Clear Creek Milarn Creek Cooper Creek Pecan Creek Lakeview Ranch Hickory Creek The existIng infrastructure within each wastewater basin is discussed in Section 3.1.1. Refer to Exhibit B – Existing System for an overview of the City’s existing system and Figure 3.1 for how flow is routed from the wastewater basins to the WRPs. The City owns and operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the 21 MGD Pecan Creek WRP that serves most of the City and the 0.8 MGD Robson Ranch WRP that serves the Robson Ranch residential development. See Section 4.1.1 for further discussion on the existing WRPs. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 26 : \ -\ { \-– .-. :# 9hnrl ndptFaT Ra-,Till@ n•anl (1 \-t' T=:- ;} Jr-A J Ib I \’' :L& :::: IT$f;I rT:y ::' I {:::U.==N::: ;i- i :"{:Ji---',:S:J +} I=Jgl > Ital B[a[HnD \- \ + bb *\:b\ ;! ) JI '- Background Data ! T O : r ::: + EPI Wan Redamdbn nant E]s Uk Stztbn ==== Force Hair E]I WInk# Rnmue Helen HI Urdu Duqn Ln Saban Urdu Design nene MakI [ P P h :: 1C1hhd r 1(nEA:#1 CaD+U Geek [ ] HUrOn= bkPrlaHUrM Hlam Creek E=naRamd .:. -\:: + Lake CRy LImIt <P 0 1h g r C F41V L 1 m! ETJ Bar+daw MaIner nan Study Bound•ry CITY OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN EXISTING SYSTEM EXHIBIT mley »>HornKi nIk map product is for hfUTnabn purpose arwl have ben armand ar•iFFIIta ter-bg a utgheefm, $rnrv€rhg RtrPwu R 1:TJ:lieS;:;::1:;:::=;£=:tcYaIIl d pnWty bwnd•rin BBtMRIH U 4v500 FEn February 2084 g 3.1.1. WASTE%V&T;$ BASINS 3.1.1.1. Clear Creek Basin The Clear Creek Basin extends north of Loop 288 to Ray Roberts Lake. The basin is approximately 39,400 acres (61 square miles). Of the total 39,400 acres, 4,900 acres are developed but are on septIc. Significant growth is expected in the Clear Creek Basin because it is largely undeveloped. The City owns the property and has acquired an effluent discharge permit for a future WRP, however, there is no existing wastewater infrastructure in the Ctear Creek Basin. A gravity main and new Clear Creek WRP is proposed in the Clear Creek Basin to accommodate development. Once the proposed infrastructure is constructed, aIE existing and future flow from the Milam Creek Basin and some existing flow from the Cooper Creek Basin will be incorporated into the Clear Creek Basin (see Sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.1.3 below). See Section 5.3.1 for further discussion on CIP projects in the Clear Creek Basin . 3.1.1.2. Milam Creek Basin The Milam Creek Basin serves the northwest part of the City along 1-35. The basin is approximately 2,600 acres (4 square miles). Of the total 2,600 acres, 600 acres are developed and generate an average daily How of 0.2 MGD, Growth in the basin is primarily driven by commercial and industrial developments along 1-35. Based on the natural topography, the Miiam Creek Basin flows east and is part of the Clear Creek Basin. However, there is no existing wastewater infrastructure in the Clear Creek Basin. The Milam Creek Basin flow is therefore pumped south into the Pecan Creek Basin through a series of lift stations. Tbese lift stations will eventually be abandoned by a gravity interceptor to convey flow to the future Clear Creek WRP, incorporating the Milam Creek Basin into the Clear Creek Basin. TYre Milam Creek Basin is therefore not distinguished from the Clear Creek Basin in the future system analysis. 3.1.1.3. Cooper Creek Basin The Cooper Creek Basin serves the northeast part of the City. The basin is approximately 3,900 acres (6 square miles). Of the 3,900 acres, 2,300 acres are developed and generate an average daily flow of 1 .9 MGD. There are multiple developments that couEd flow by gravity into the Clear Creek Basin that are currently pumped into the Cooper Creek Basin. Flow from these developments will eventually be conveyed to the future Clear Creek WRP within the Clear Creek Basin. Infrastructure in the Cooper Creek Basin consists of a large interceptor along Cooper Creek that conveys gravity flow from collector lines in the Cooper Creek Basin to the Cooper Creek LS. The Cooper Creek LS pumps flow to the Pecan Creek Basin and eventually to the Pecan Creek WRP. Significant growth is not expected in the Cooper Creek Basin because it is largely developed. See Section 5.3.2 for further discussion on CIP projects. 3.1.1.4. Pecan Creek Basin The Pecan Creek Basin serves the central and historical part of the City. The basin is approximately 14,300 acres (22 square miles). Of the 14,300 acres, 10,300 acres are developed and generate an average daily flow of 7.8 MGD, As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, all flow from existing developments in the Milam Creek Basin is currently pumped into the Denton Wastewater Master Plan 29 upstream portion of the Pecan Creek Basin. Flow from these developments will eventually be diverted to the future Clear Creek WRP within the Clear Creek Basin. Infrastructure in the basin consists of a large interceptor along Pecan Creek that conveys gravity flow from collector lines to the Pecan Creek WRP. Signiflcant growth is not expected in the Pecan Creek Basin because it is largely developed. See Section 5.3.3 for further discussion on CIP projects. 3.1.1.5. Lakeview Ranch Basin The Lakeview Ranch Basin serves the east part of the City and borders Lake Lewisville. The basin is approximately 3,700 acres (6 square miles). Of the total 3,700 acres, 1 ,300 acres are developed and generate an average daily flow of 0.1 MGD. Infrastructure in the basin consists of various lift stations that pump flow to the Pecan Creek WRP. Growth will be driven by new development. See Section 5.3.4 for further discussion on CIP projects. 3.1.1.6. Hickory Creek Basin The Hickory Creek Basin serves the west part of the City. The basin is approximately 57,100 acres (95 square miles). Of the total 57,000 acres, 10,400 acres are developed and generate an approximate average daily flow of 3.5 MGD. Infrastructure in the basin consists of a large interceptor along Hickory Creek that conveys gravity flow from collector lines to the Hickory Creek Lift Station (LS). The Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin is also situated along the Hickory Creek Interceptor and serves to dampen or detain peak flows in the interceptor during wet weather events. The Hickory Creek LS pumps flow to the Pecan Creek Basin and eventually to the Pecan Creek WRP. A significant portion of flow currently conveyed to the Hickory LS will eventually be treated at the Hickory Creek WRP instead of being conveyed downstream. The Robson Ranch WRP is also in the Hickory Creek Basin and serves the Robson Ranch residential development. The Robson Ranch WRP will eventuaily be decommissioned, and the flow from the Robson Ranch residential development will be conveyed to the future Hickory Creek WRP. The Hickory Creek Basin is largely undeveloped. Growth will primarily be driven by the timing and phasing of proposed multi-phase developments and Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs). See Section 5.3.5 for further discussion on CIP projects. 3.1.2. WH{3LESALE CUSTOMER§ The City provides wholesale wastewater services to four entities: • City of P<rum • City of Argyle • City of Corinth • Lake Cities Municipal Utility Authority (LCMUA) The locations of these meters are shown on Exhibit B – Existing System. Table 3.1 sumrnarizes the contracted amount, historical average dry weather flows, and basin for each entity. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 30 Table 3.1 – Wholesale Meters Wholesale Meter Contracted Amount P<rum Argyle LCMUA Corinth Not Listed 0.50 MGD 100 SF Homes Not Listed Hickory Creek Hickory Creek Pecan Creek Pecan Creek 1 LCMUA and Corinth enter Denton system at the same location 3.1.3 STATIONS The City owns and operates thirty-one (31) lift stations. Kimley-Horn performed pump performance testing and condition assessments on eight (8) lift stations as a part of the WWMP. The results of the pump performance tests were included in the hydraulic model See Appendix B – Pump Performance Testing for the results of the tests. The flrm capacity, number of pumps, and force main diameter of each lift station are listed in Table 3.2. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 31 Table 3.2 – Existing Lift Station Summary F Main Siz (in) 8 Lift Station OT Palrrl•: elrl©{e Beaver Creek1 Cooper Creek1 SouthFork MHP1 Stark Farms United Copper Aldi Camping World Hickory Creek Lexington Park Masch Branch Robson Ranch East Robson Southwest Vintage Grissom Lakeview Ranch Trinity1 Vacation Village1 Barrow Bent Oaks, Border-Cowboy Denton West Good Sam Granada Hobson1 Oakmont ll Preserve1 Sundown Teasley Trails Union 76 Vista del Arroyo Wirnbleton 510 5,620 200 425 200 40 250 7,600 20 140 1 ,400 1 ,480 510 540 0.74 8.10 0,29 0.61 0.29 0.06 0.36 11.0 0.03 0.20 2.02 2.12 0.73 0.78 Cooper 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 3 6 24/30 2 2 10 12 8 10 Hickory Lakeview 230 0.33 260 1 ,000 190 250 1,115 550 550 2,570 50 2,090 600 215 450 230 50 0.37 1.44 0.28 0.36 1.61 0.79 0.79 3.69 0.07 3.00 0.86 0.31 0.65 0.32 0.07 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 16 6 4 8 4 10 10 Pecan IUstd pump capacity from pump pertormance testing results (see Appendk B. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 32 Additionally, five (5) lift stations are currently under design. The 5-year planning period and beyond account for the flow from these lift stations. The proposed firm capacity of each lift station is listed in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 – Under Design Lift Station Summary Lift Station Firm Capacity (MGD) 0.38 0.54 0.20 Agave Ranch Stuart Ridge West Stuart Ridge East Legends Ranch Ganzer 266 375 1 36 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 3.2. GROWIH PROJECTIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE 'TH3.2.1. HiSTORiCAL PCPiiLAT10N GRay, The City has experienced modest yet steady growth, sustaining a 1.70% compound annual growth rate over the last ten years (Fable 3.4). Table 3.4 – Historical Population Growth Rate ComYearPopulation M l04:MB IMg 201 2 106,217 201 3 108,327 201 4 110,245 1.77% 112,163 1.74% 201 6 114,081 1.71 % 201 7 1.68%115,999 117,917 1.65%201 8 2019 119,835 1.63% 2020 121 ,753 1.60% 123,671 Average annual growth rate, North Central Texas Council of mr (NCTCOG) Denton Wastewater Master Plan 34 3.2.? £XiSTINGLANn Existing land use was provided by the City. Of the total 121,000 acres in the Study Area, 29,820 acres, or approximately 25% of the available area, are currently developed. Existing land use is shown in Exhibit C – Existing Land Use and summarized in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 – Existing Land Use Categories Existing Land Use Category Res{# Residential – Multi-Family Commercial Government Public nstitutional Religious Airport Industrial Parks and Open Space AcreagenII 2, 640 3, 150 1 ,820 130 1 ,600 370 690 1 ,260 2 ,890 29,820 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 35 X}\) }}:!I(B el• 4 Sh+dy ghent ' ,! } -\, LEGEND ExIstIng Und Uu= Nme =qanmnH = Hud = P a= P&b HUOpenSHH = huBdmH R+aHHNH b+FaM= ReBUS= R+u+dId UH may = Aon= and = h&md CITY OF DENTON Kimley »>Horn WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN EXISTING LAND USETd’kjwini 1-' a 4500 FEFr nIk RW wdud bbl mW net ban been Rnaredh#nbe nInbbbbr b++ aHbueM& e daUIBet BOmbed ©lnIHHrRSonlVOn 3.2.3. g ii;!By BEVEL6PMF P{ ;',: dNa MUDS The City provided land use type, density, and phasing (if available) for ail incoming known developments within the City Limits, including the larger multi-phase developments. DeveEopers provided land use type, density, and phasing for any incoming Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) identified beyond the City Limits. All incoming known developments are shown in Exhibit D – Known Developments, All available development and phasing information is provided in Appendix C – Known Development Information. The phasing information for the larger multi-phase developments and the MUDs is listed in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 - Known Developments Cumulative Unit Phasing Development ®lnter-C@ Legends Hickory Creek Astra Churchil Meadows Ponder Farms Sanctuary nIaI IMeIM 1 ,820 1 ,836 1 ,836 0 5,400 1 ,6210 2,0755251 ,400 1 ,830 1 ,8301 ,330 525 1 ,000 2,500 0 1 ,3860 0 6460 2,220 2,820 2.820 405405 0 0 Multi-Phase Development Stonehill Tabor Webster Meadows Young Tracts Denton Wastewater Master Plan 37 :„..i };L' / : F b / r b h f i = '\ TI r::bI:IT:IT:::T::IIII =-„ + ' ~;L.- J.!: \ :’:::';a:’::I-?t’=;'<.;'>C'F:- tire:Ix:i rT;–-- LJ: ! r i : J ! – '.\ $H, '/if:; I ; ) J I+ nbUP r.f,gl : a \tSR: T--= :),:+'','--J-,'}+HK\e I :T: ill / I fI11/: ’~~ _hI ' a::n-n‘r =. i\.\.;'; 1,,.„-/1 } li ri:L+ }} C/J Bin rn • A + a• : = (++n J . ;i ' ': B qP ,- ' (-: $+:: ;1 + + 4 :[ i +: :'It;;; ' - PI’ r–––--–!"““!‘ It''T V Nvaiar; J ===n=l• bn=F•,=h L i r ;a1 ;qL+ : i 4IB [ i ;';::':: $ Li - :- I-Bit - ’ : :;/ ?J I LP Background Date Find [ T= 1.4n8nrCr+•k [ ] HdmOnk E]uwnw Rma Hlbm CreekE] P+GUn+a T naunH= +HHyGFOek= HUm {hM nDp d C/) Lan<;] agu...t <JIB aNrcqbmR =gJ FrJbUnaU B:: = : nUHPU mWbHW Cnek CITY OF DENTON 8 Kimley »>Horn DSIKainiWASTEWATER MASTER PLAN KNOWN DEVELOPMENTS IH B 4,500 FEFr d PXIpaq bourdHkh B3 :=:HT:HumE: ===r=:i=:==33A::::U! ?idlilhill;}jT::SItEi={};::::Navomb•r aoa 3,2.4. FU?Iii LAN8 USE Kimley-Horn utilized the future land use categories identified in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. A brief description of each future land use type is provided in Table 3.7 Table 3.7 - Future Land Use Category Descriptions Low Residential Description 4 Residential Units/Acre Moderate Residential 10 Residential Units/Acre Master Plan Community Large-scale developments wIth a mixture of residential and non-residential land use as determined by the developer Combination of residential and non-residential land use specific to Downtown area Combination of high density residential and non-residential land uses Primarily commercial land use with residential land usecomDlernen Primarily low and high-density residential land use with complementary non-residential land use UNT Campus and surrounding residential land use Downtown Denton Regional Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood / University CompatibiEity Business Innovation Primarily office and commercial land use Light industrial land use like manufacturing and warehousing Combination of light and heavy Industriai land use Light Industrial Industriai Commerce The future land use was only adjusted from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan if it was an incoming known development and updated land use information was provided. Exhibit E – Future Land Use shows the distribution of future land use within the Study Area, Denton Wastewater Master Plan 39 TT-T::" __ [+: I:. iSH !–i.,%;i: ::'??,+’;N LEGEND EiBITIng Land Use= URdU+ = q,Hmmm = RUN [ IEW n PMa and Open sw = InsULOmd RUaMH-anpINa© BHS nMSnRm HMFEW KIElrn =QWHnM = hand =@NnUn©HDHUU =RWdh#haHn n WbmaH NIbH Unn Wn+$WHOm= nWmnHnnNnn = UaWPnQmMr Law RuB•nnI = ra1:W = HM n 1ba 1 IncAr8#t•l Cormnno _ N•+8hnttamFwnr•rtl LION Indus:InI CITY OF DENTON Kimley +>Horn bEjiaiIJ WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE IH a 49500 FEEt :::bnFhW::pRUnE=::n=rd he IIIO& engbuubae 9uur•u pupqal= it 2. B. GR8WTH PRt13= ii[INS AND PHAS Population growth rates were determined for the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods. For the 5-year period, Kimley-Horn determined an 8.1 % compound annual growth rate based on the unit counts provided by the known developments (Section 3.2.3). Kimley-Horn worked with the City to establish a 3.5% growth rate for the 10-year planning period and a 2.0% growth rate for the 25-year period that account for the known multi-phase developments and additional growth throughout the City (Figure 3.2). 400,000 350,000 300,000 CQ S 250,000g 200,000 150.000 100.000 2010 201 S 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year 2(Yt5 2050 Figure 3.2 – Population Growth Rate All single-phase known developments were assumed to fully develop within the 5-year planning period, while the known multi-phase developments and MUDs developed according to the 5-year phasing provided by developers (Table 3.6). For the 10-year planning period, known multi-phase developments and MUDS were developed according to the 10-year phasing provided by developers, with additional growth allocated to areas identified by the City until the 3.5% growth rate was achieved. For the 25-year planning period, known multi-phase developments and MUDS were developed according to the 25- year phasing provided by developers, with additional growth allocated to areas identified by the City until the 2.0% growth rate was achieved. The locations of the identified growth areas for the planning periods are shown in Exhibit F – Growth and Phasing. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 41 /' L, I / -\ }IJ ?t -":IT;l e 4 l=\t ??; LEGEND Malor Wastewater BasIns E]aHrOB+t:.:-;==: :, T:=T+ [=Kenyan =UkWWW RanCh E:PHnOM GeHf Cr=k O n-a-- url J INBWmry 1 S YeR Gre#MAru Growth and Ptnsl I == = a U a $1E)e r 1FM S&Idy 1B:NrIdery E A 1 0 Ye ar MMhM X11ewv1 DeUpwngH be SnmnHS +nnnn@H+++n+B&Hr +-n-BH-a CITY OF DENTON B Kimley »>Horn FB'©wml WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN GROWrH AND PHASING In n 49500 FEEt NavBfnb•r 202n The future land use identified in Section 3.2.4 was then applied to the growth areas within each planning period to determine the total developed acreage per land use type. If a parcel with an existing land use was not projected to redevelop, the existing land use was kept. The total acreage per land use type projected to develop within the next 25 years is listed in Table 3.8. Table 3.8 – 25-Year Developed Acr%ge e §mlly Residential - Multi-Family and eao EMII 2,640 2, 890 1 ,890 150 1 ,600 370 690 1 ,260 2,930 7,530 830 4,980 0 180 430 70 0 Commercial Government Existing (Non- redevelop) Public Institutional ReIIgious Airport Industrial Parks and Open Space Low Residential Moderate Residential Master Plan Community Downtown Denton Regional Mixed Use Future Comrnunity MIxed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Neighborhood / Universjty Compatibility Area Business Innovation 900 2,200 1 ,090 46,370 Light Industrial Industrial Commerce Total: Denton Wastewater Magter Plan 43 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS 3.3.1 .HiSTCRieAL WASTEWATER FLOWS All the City's existing wastewater flow, including wholesaie customers, is treated at the Pecan Creek WRP except for low from the Robson Ranch development. Flow from the Robson Ranch development is treated at the Robson Ranch WRP. Wastewater flow can vary significantly with rainfall. The City’s historical flow and total rainfall depth per year is listed in Table 3.9 and illustrated in Figure 3.3. Table 3.9 - Historical Rainfall and Wastewater Flow Rainfall On) Average Day Flow (MGD) 201 1 2012 201 3 201 4 201 5 2016 201 7 201 8 201 9 2020 2021 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 44 201 1 201 2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201 8 201 9 2020 2021 Historical Rainfall Wastewater Flow Figure 3,3 – Historical Rainfall and Wastewater Flow 3.3.2. WASTEWATER LBABING CRITEiiIA Customer water meter billing data was provided by the City for 2020 and 2021 . Water use during the winter months was assumed to be almost exclusively translated to flows. Water billing data from December 2020 – February 2021 was therefore utilized as the baseline wastewater How for the hydraulic model and analysis, City flow meters at the Pecan Creek WRP, and the Hickory Creek, Cooper Creek, and Lakeview Ranch lift stations were utilized to verify the caiculated baseline wastewater flow aligned with observed flow for the same time period. wastewater The customer water billing data was associated with an address to geographically locate each account in the City and associate each account with an existing land use category. The customer billing data was input into the hydraulic model at the appropriate location and was used to develop an average wastewater flow by land use type for future hydraulic modeling loading and analysis. See Table 3.10 for a summary of wastewater loading factors by future land use type. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 45 Table 3.10 - Future Land Use Loading Factors Future Land Use Category no lential Moderate Residential Master Plan Communi' Downtown Denton Regional Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use 1 Business Innovation Light Industrial Industrial Commerce 800 2 ,000 850 2,210 2,015 1 ,515 3,215 2,220 800 500 1 ,000 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 A peaking of 4.0 is utilized for future loading to be consistent with the City’s design criteria and ensure uniformity between loading projections performed by developers and analysis performed by the City. It should be noted that a peaking of 4.0 is not apptied uniformly across 24 hours for analysis in the extended period model. To allow for routing in the collection system and consequently not oversizing infrastructure, the hydraulic model utilized a typical wastewater diurnal curve for future development with a 4.0 peaking factor at the same time as the peak of the design storm. 3.3.3 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS Wastewater flow projections were made for the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods, utilizing the growth projections as discussed in Section 3.2,5 and loading factors from Table 3.10. As discussed in Section 3.2.5, the phasing provided by the developers for the proposed MUDs was incorporated into the 5-, 10-, and 25-year projected population growth and developed future land use. However, the MUDs are anticipated to provide their own wastewater service for the first 5 years. The anticipated flow from MUDs is therefore not incorporated into the City system until the 10-year planning period. The projected total average flow and resulting per capita flow for the 5- , 10-, and 25-year planning periods is listed in Table 3.11. The average flow per capita varies slightly per planning period based on the ratio of developed residential to non-residential land use. Table 3.11 - Projected Per Capita Flow Planning Period Population Average Day Flow (MGD) Overall Average Day Per Capita Flow (GPCPD 89 87 89 90 [M 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year EMI18881 223 ,600 265,600 357,400 M 19.3 23.5 32.3 The projected average and peak flow per basin for each planning period, along with the total residential and non-residential acreage, is listed in Table 3.12. The projected average flow per basin is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 46 Table 3.12 - Projected Flow per Basin CResidential Acreage (Acres) ri- Residential Acreage (Acres) Average (MG Dnv Flow D Peaking 0 IB rnIB(NI N/A 3.4 4.7 4.0 6.0 Clear Creek2 Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3,300 1 ,800 6,600 + 1 ,400 700 3,800 File;mg 0.0 1.9 3.5 0.0 6.5 16.5 0.4 48.0 71 .4 1 ,100 200 0.1 5, 100 17,900 5,800 11 ,900 8.0 13.5 0 0.9 2.4 6.7 5-Year Wastewater F Clear Creek3’4 Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3, 600 2, 100 8,700 2,000 900 4,900 3.6 8.2 31 .5 1.6 53.4 98.3 4.0 3.4 4.7 4.0 6.0 1 ,200 300 0.4 8.9 19.3 IU- y(eaF VV©S{©W61ltteIr FIOWS 1.8 2.2 9.9 5,400 21 ,000 5, 600 13,700 r Clear Creek4 Cooper Creek Hickory Creek5 Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 3,700 1 ,800 10,500 2,600 900 5,900 7.2 7.6 49.5 4.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 6.0 1 ,100 5,500 22,600 400 0.5 2.0 54.6 120.9 5,600 15,400 9.1 23.5 25-Year Wastewater Flows1 3.6 1 2.5 16.0 Clear Creek Cooper Creek Hickory Creek Lakeview Ranch Pecan Creek Total 4,400 1 ,900 14,000 3,500 1 ,000 8,300 14.4 9.0 80.0 4.0 3.6 5.0 4.0 6.0 1 ,400 5 ,600 27,300 500 0.9 9.3 32.3 3.6 55.8 162.8 5,800 19, 100 1 Peak wet weather How based on a 5-year, 25-hour storm event for existing infrastructure (see Section 2.6.a and peaking factor of 4 for future infrastructure (see Section 3.3.a 2All existing developed areas in the Clear Creek Basin are currently on septic since there is no existing infrastructur-e in the Clear Creek Basin (see Section 3.1.1. 1) 3Flow from the Milam Creek Basin transfers from the Pecan Creek Basin tO the Clear Creek Basin in the 5- year planning period (see Section 3.1.1.a 4Flow from the Cooper Creek Basin transfers to the Clear Creek Basin in the 5-year and 10-year planning periods (see Section 3.1.1.3) Denton Wastewater Master Plan 47 I 5Flow horn proposed MUDs not incorporated into the Hickory Creek Basin una the 10-year planning period(see Section 3.3. a - ' ' ' - ‘ 18 16 14 12 a g g i < 2022 2027 2032 (#{}{}[)er Greek Hickay Creek 2037 2042 La <edew Rory# 2C47 Pecan Creek Figure 3.4 – Projected Flow per Basin Denton Wastewater Master Plan 48 3.4. HISTING WAI SY:rsls 3,&I HY8RAgl iC }8EL€R£ATi8N To evaluate the existing wastewater system, Kimley-Horn built the City’s hydraulic model utilizing SewerGEMSTM. The hydraulic model consists of all collection and conveyance wastewater lines that are 6-inches and greater. Although not typical to model lines smaller than 10-inch or 12-inch, the City requested utilizing all wastewater lines to properly identify deficiencies along key collection lines and to route peak wet weather flows more accurately through the system. Survey was collected on approximately 1,100 manholes in the system. See Exhibit G – Manhole Survey Exhibit for an illustration of the surveyed manhotes. Additionally, pump performance testing and condition assessment was conducted on eight (8) lift stations. The results of the pump performance tests were included in the hydraulic model. See Appendix B - Pump Performance Testing for the results of the tests The data source hierarchy of most trustworthy to least trustworthy, in order, consisted of field survey, record drawings, GIS information, and previous hydraulic model. Manhole invert elevations were interpolated where appropriate utilizing survey information. Most collection system lines, 10-inches and below, were assumed to have a TCEQ minimum pipe slope or a slope the same as the topographic surface slope. Physical model information sources utilized include the following: • • • Pipe data: pipe length, location, and diameter. o Obtained from field survey, record drawings, GIS information, and previous hydraulic model. Manhole data: rim. diameter. and invert elevations o Obtained from field survey, record drawings, GIS information, previous hydraulic model, and topographic surface. Lift Station data: wet well dimensions, pump curves, number of pumps, and force main sizes o Obtained from pump performance testing, record drawings, City data, and GIS information. The model used lidar data from the Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS) for the topographic surface. On average, TNRIS elevation data is within approximately five (5) feet of accuracy. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 49 I:I • #r +: : F niKrum !Hi IsH;:::+ ''._/0 M }:: i:j. i Lake i \[<-g! X+: Jo; \ \!-:\}'h < =?>;:'.:$ \i '\ %, _. {{ {_F/?## lq –-- i:- Background Data e Suneyd HmtnIH ExIstIng Infrast ructu re LEGEND Eg WHeReamam Phat D;\ \? ? L; \ \ a Ln SBUon rg,a:) '- Kimley B>Horn 7)E£Kixl CITY OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Tlrlb map Fqduct blot hlorrvbabn prulrplrnu ard ;::L:: :HiIWw:orr+: ::IIrk1;11 :TIliT:11:1mBa:I A:O;mH n nHI G MANHOLE SURVEY EXHIBIT 1-' B 3,500 FEEt 3.4,2. T£MP8RARy i:i8W M8NIT8R18G The data collected during flow monitoring was utilized to establish baseline wastewater flows during dry periods and evaluate the effects of rainfall on the collection system. The results of the dry weather and wet weather monitoring are utilized for establishing existing and future loading criteria and for calibration of the wastewater hydraulic model. Temporary wastewater flow monitoring was conducted between September 2021 – January 2022 utElizing thirteen (1 3) flow meters and three (3) rain gauges. See Exhibit H – Flow Monitoring Basins for the locations of the flow meters, rain gauges, and temporary flow monitoring basins. Table 3.13 summarizes the average dry weather flow and resulting dry weather peaking factor recorded at each flow meter. Table 3.13– Temporary Flow M@litoHng Average Dry Weather Flow Basin Average Dry Weather Flow (MGD) Dry Weather Peak Flow (MGD) Dry Weather Peaking Factor H==SEa1 CD-C2-177 CE-CI -283 HF-AI -006 HG-AI -016 HH-AI -010 HI-AI -036 HN-AI -092 PD-DI -124 PH-AI -027 PG-FI -058 PH-EI -855 PL-Ml-G96 1g!!!!!!!i Cooper Cooper Hickory Hickory Hickory Hickory Hickory Pecan Pecan Pecan Pecan 1 ,46 0.17 0.66 2.33 0.43 1.81 1 ,97 0.23 0.87 2.81 0.59 2.09 1.43 0.44 1 .98 5.97 1.58 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 51 r--i-:;~:' T i f : f LEG mh D ltnstl E'] wa„ R„bma,„ Ih.t m LR SWon ==== R>tteH•h Ea WInkuk Rwmue Mars HctHYLS WRPSOUBI =UP nHI n PS = HIPHM CIPr OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN FLOW MONITORING BASINS Q 3,500 FEFr FdHwlry 2024 1 mley »>Horn Thb mO pmdtra Blw h$wmahnlwrp4uuatul IInn!:ifIT:BamBI::=IIm;=: Ki d pnpHHty boilndBrli h- bg.L u.Sheerbn .r sr-eyevI pUPHU it wnared ul+ahhrim Hbihmni Flow Meters P2 and P3 were installed on the parallel 36-inch and 30-inch mains in the Pecan Basin (see Exhibit H – Flow Monitoring Basins). Both meters recorded unusually high average and peak flows that may result from significant inflow and infiltration or may simply be due to measurement errors. Kimley-Horn recommends the City install Smart Meters in this location to investigate the validity of the recorded average and peak flows from Flow Meters P2 and P3. The flow monitoring captured four (4) storms of significance, defined as storms having greater than 0.1 inches of total rainfall. Table 3.14 summarizes the storms captured. A 5- year, 24-hour design storm with a precipitation total of 4.5 inches was selected by KimEey-Horn and the City (Section 2.6.2). None of the captured storm events were equal to or greater than the design storm. See Section 3.4.3 for further discussion on hydraulic model calibration. Table 3.14 – Rainfall Summary RG-01 Rain Total (in) RG-03 Rain Total (in) Storm Event October 13, 2021 October 27, 2021 November 2, 2021 November 1 0, 2021 <2-Year, 24-Hr <2-Year, 6-Hr <2-Year, 24-Hr <2-Year, 1-Hr Groundwater or stormwater entering the wastewater collection system during wet weather events is termed inflow and inflltration Q&l): • • Inflow is defined as the water entering the collection system and service lines from direct surface connections such as roof drains, yard drains, holes in manhole covers, etc. Infiltration is defined as the water entering the collectIon system and private service lines from the ground, through defective pipe joints, broken pipes, cracks in manhole walls, and defective pipe-to-pipe and pipe-to-manhole connections. l&l flows are almost always responsible for the peak flow rates experienced in wastewater systems. Significant l&F creates excessive peak flows and can overwhelm a system due to the dramatic increase in total volume entering the system during the wet weather event. l&l significance is typically measured by the average dry wastewater flow to 2-hour wet weather wastewater flow peaking factor. Peaking factors will vary depending on the size and extents of the wastewater collection system. More extensive wastewater collection systems will typically have lower peaking factors as longer and larger collection piping will attenuate the wet weather storm. Peaking factors of 3.0 - 4.0 or less are normal and typically considered acceptable, Peaking factors greater than 5.0 are typical for older systems and indicate significant l&l in the system. Denton Wastewater Magter Plan 53 Sources of l&I are difficult to locate and costly to fix. However, there are several advantages of reducing l&l, including: • Increases available system capacity by decreasing the amount of extraneous flow transported by the collection system. • Decreases operation and maintenance costs at the WRP. • Decreases the frequency of lift station pumping, saving on electric,iv costs ald wear and tear on the pumps. • Reduces potential for future illegal overlows (overflows are costly to clean up and the TCEQ could levy fines). l&l is quantified in gallons by a term called rainfall dependent inHow and infiltration (RDll). RDll estimates the additional flow that entered the wastewater system during the storm event. This is accomplished by subtracting the average dry wastewater flow from measured wastewater flows during the rainfall event on a 5-minute time interval. Table 3.15 surnrnarizes the results of the wet weather temporary flow monitoring, the average dry to 2- hour wet weather peaking factor, and RDll flow for the observed storm events. Table 3.15 – Wet Weather Flow Monitoring Results D ow (MGD W Weath Peak Flow (MG /- FH18'1 lr Weath Peakir Fac 2-Hot Jr Wa er D e .eD 10/1 3/2021 11 /02/2021 11/1 0/2021 10/1 3/2021 11 /02/2021 11/10/2021 10/1 3/2021 11 /02/2021 11/1 0/2021 10/1 3/2021 10/27/2021 11/02/2021 10/1 3/2021 10/27/2021 11/02/2021 10/1 3/2021 10/27/2021 11/02/2021 10/1 3/2021 10/27/2021 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.17 0.17 0.17 2.98 3.01 3.18 0.71 0.93 0.73 1.47 1.46 1.46 4.23 3.75 4.68 0.84 0.74 1.03 3.47 3.01 3.60 2.57 2.41 2.0 2.0 2.2 4.3 5.7 4.4 C1 C2Cooper 0.66 0.66 0.66 2.33 2.33 2.33 0.43 0.43 0.43 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.17 1.17 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 C3 H1 H2 H3 H4 Hickory Denton Wastewater Master Plan 54 To further analyze RDll wastewater flows, the lows have been normalized to the length of pipe in the contributing basins. Additionally, because customer meter service connections are also a significant contributor of RDll, the number of customer service connections are provided. Table 3.16 summarizes the RDll normalized by the linear footage of gravity lines per basin for the observed storm with the greatest total depth (1 0/1 3/2021). Table 3.16 – RDll per Linear Foot O c Pecan 1.35 464, 100 635,500 654, 100 1.01 2.16 2.06 mIll 6,300 7, 100 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 55 For Flow Monitoring Basins with significant peaking factors and normalized RDll flows, it is recommended that additionai l&l identification and remediation be undertaken. Suggestions for identification include: • Flow monitoring of smaller sub-basins using City owned SmartCovers. • Smoke testing • Camering of wastewater lines General suggestions for remediation include: • • • • • Replacing clay tile sewer lines. Replacing or rehabilitating brick manholes. Identifying and disconnecting stormwater connections to the wastewater system. Providing caps for customer service line clean-outs. Continuing to install rain dishes in manholes. 3.4.3. HYDRAULICMODELCALIBRATION 3.4.3.1. Dry Weather Calibration Utilizing the temporary flow monitoring data, the average dry weather flow was analyzed to obtain a dry weather diurnal curve for each of the thirteen (1 3) temporary flow monitoring basins. Flow data collected during or immediately after a wet weather event was excluded from the dry weather analysis. The objective of dry weather caiibration is for the model output diurnal curve to match the diurnal curve measured by the flow meter for each flow basin. The appropriate diurnal curve was applied to each flow input in the model for the thirteen (1 3) temporary flow monitoring basins. The model was then run for 72 hours to compare the model output diurnal curve with the curve measured by the flow meter. 3.4.3.2. Wet Weather Calibration A wet weather hydrograph for each storm was determined for the thirteen (1 3) flow basins utilizing the temporary flow monitoring data. The objective of wet weather calibration is to make the model output for the storm event match the hydrograph measured by the flow meter for each basin during the corresponding storm event. For wet weather events, the model hydrograph is determined by adding the additional flow entering the system during the rainfall event to the average dry diurnai curve. The model was calibrated utilizing the storm events listed in Table 3.15. The RTK hydrograph method was used to model the additional storrnwater flow that entered the system during rainfall events. The RTK hydrograph method applies flow in addition to the dry weather flow to reflect the inflow and infiltration entering the system during the rainfall event. The RTK method is comprised of three different parameters (R, T, and K) that are iteratively modified to calibrate the model. R represents the quantity of the water entering the system, T represents the time to peak of the hydrograph, and K represents the ratio of the rising leg of the hydrograph to the receding leg of the hydrograph . Typically, three unique RTK hydrographs and factors are utilized to model the rainfall event. The first set of R, T, and K factors represent rapid inflow of storm water into the system. This is typically from direct storm connections, such as drain or gutter pipes, to the astewater system. The second set of factors represent a combination of inflow and infiltration into the system. The third set of factors represent infiltration into the system. Infiltration into a wastewater system can last between several hours to several days as Denton Wastewater Master Plan 56 unique characteristics that affect l&l such as the number of pipes, pipe diameters, pipe age, pipe material, groundwater table, soil type, etc. , and consequently each basin has a unique set of R, T, and K factors. For each temporary flow monitoring basin, unique R, T, and K values were applied in the model to simulate the observed wet weather events. The model was then run for 72 hours for each storm to compare the model output with the hydrograph measured by the flow meter. For each flow basin, the R, T, and K values were then iteratively modified until the model output hydrograph approximately matched the measured hydrograph for the observed wet weather events. See Appendix D - Wet Weather Hydrographs for each flow meter’s RTK hydrograph. Denton Wastewater Master Plan To accommodate significant projected development in the Clear Creek and Hickory Creek Basins, WRPs are recommended in both the Clear Creek and Hickory Creek Basins (see Chapter 4). Future conveyance infrastructure conveys flow to the proposed Hickory Creek and Clear Creek WRPs, and existing Pecan Creek WRP. Future conveyance infrastructure was sized to serve new development and alleviate existing deficiencies in the wastewater system. The hydraulic model was setup with the 5-year, 10-year, and 25-year scenarios in accordance with the planned CIP. The hydraulic model was loaded with wastewater flows in accordance with the growth and loading criteria as described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 and analyzed in accordance with the design criteria as described in Section 2.6. 3.5.1. PROPOSED WASTEWATER SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS The proposed infrastructure in the 5-Year CIP that will produce systematic changes to the Denton Wastewater System includes construction of the Clear Creek WRP Phase 1 , Clear Creek Interceptor, the Roark Branch and Cole Ranch Interceptors, and a regional lift station In the Lakeview Ranch Basin. Construction of the Clear Creek WRP will relieve flow on the Pecan Creek WRP. The Clear Creek WRP Phase 1 is discussed in detail in Section 4.5.2 Figure 3.5 provides a schematic of major systematic changes in the 5-Year CIP. The proposed infrastructure in the 10-Year CIP that will produce systematic changes to the Denton Wastewater System includes construction of the Hickory Creek WRP Phase 1 and construction of additiona] gravity interceptors to serve MUDs. Construction of the Hickory Creek WRP, discussed in detail in Section 4.5.3, will relieve flow on the Pecan Creek WRP. The 10-Year CIP also includes severai smaller proposed gravity mains that will allow for the abandonment of multiple existing lift stations in the Cooper Creek Basin. Figure 3.6 provides a schematic of major systematic changes in the 10-Year CIP./ The proposed infrastructure in the 25-Year CIP that will produce systematic changes to the Denton Wastewater System includes construction of parallel interceptors in the Hickory Basin and a regiona] lift station in the Lakeview Ranch Basin. Figure 3.7 provides a schematic of major systematic changes in the 25-Year CIP. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 58 F a E COa C0 raECD CJ;Inalac a g b il ea)E a !! al g T r) a) aEa)3Ca) alac a) CD 83£ B E rd an aA3a) tHrD B a PaE a ac B C rdan 30LLJ£ rDa)a laa)C0laC rD JO <a) on le CQ M#) gE-1 C '(aE 8 3LL A I I aa Fag Ln a@m X = C10a gala) E)a) rc r) a)aE a)3Ca)iac a) 10 8 0J= B a rdani CD3E g B Pa E ea ! ! C'a ang 3a LL a)a Je CO Ta)C0UCru JQ < a)on le B +i Ea 8g j g a C) 8 >0pI ~©mTTx•= :al &_J - .}{Kgs < a COa C 0 To E CD T) a)acI CD B 6 EL gEC a g IHf CO B T in a) $ E a)3Ca) >ala( a) Toii0£ B E E)on a Toi g b-RE N QC B BC0laC(a JO < ng \t (0i a)e C IDE a) E) £A aa CDg Lnr\1 3.5.2. LIFT STATIONS Of the thirty-one (31) existing lift stations, twelve (1 2) are anticipated to be abandoned within the 5-year planning period and an additional one (1) within the 10-year planning period. Of the ive (5) lift stations currently under design, two (2) are anticipated to be abandoned within the 5-year planning period and three (3) within the 10-year planning period. Two (2) lift stations are proposed in the 5-year planning period and one (1) in the 25-year planning period. Tables 3.17, 3.18, and 3.19 list proposed lift stations or lift station abandonments in the 5-, 10- , and 25-year planning periods, respectively. Table 3.17 – 5-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Abandonments 0 27 27 21 Notes Beaver Creek SouthFork MHP Abandon in 5-Year Cooper Abandon in 5-Year United Copper Abandon in 5-Year Legends 8 13 9 10 5 19 20 18 11 11 Under Design, Abandon in 5-Year Masch Branch Robson Ranch East Abandon in 5-Year Hickory Abandon in 5-Year Robson West Proposed in 5-Year Abandon in 5-YearVintage Grissom Abandon in 5-Year Lakeview Lakeview Ranch Trinity Abandon in 5-Year Lakeview South Proposed in 5-Year Abandon in 5-YearBarrow Border-Cowboy Abandon in 5-Year Pecan Ganzer 4 22 11 Under Design, Repurpose in 5-Year Granada Union 76 Abandon in 5-Year Abandon in 5-Year Table 3.18 – 10-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Abandonments Agave Ranch UncMr Mn Abandon in 10-Year Stark Farms Cooper Abandon in 10-Year Under Design Abandon in 10-Year Under Design Abandon in 10-Year Denton Wastewater Master Plan 62 Table 3.19 - 25-Year Proposed Lift Stations and Abandonments rEE.ct Lakeview North 50 Proposed in 25-Year The construction of the future Hickory Creek and Clear Creek WRPs, in addition to proposed conveyance infrastructure, allows for the abandonment of multiple lift stations. The future Hickory Creek and Clear Creek WRPs are further discussed in Chapter 4. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 63 WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS MASTER PLAN Denton Wastewater Master Plan 4.1. EXISTING WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS AT4.1.1 I ER RECLAMATION PLANTS The City of Denton owns and operates two WRPs–the 21 MGD Pecan Creek WRP and the 0.8 MGD Robson Ranch WRP. Robson Ranch WRP only serves the Robson Ranch residential development and eventually will be decommissioned. The rest of the City is currently served by the Pecan Creek WRP. The City's overall wastewater production is collected in three (3) wastewater basins: Pecan Creek, Clear Creek, and Hickory Creek. The City will continue to use the existing Pecan Creek WRP and construct two new WRPs to serve growth in the Clear Creek and Hickory Creek wastewater basins. The existing and proposed WRPs can be seen on Exhibit I – WRP Locations. The following sections discuss each WRP location. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 65 Proposed Clear Creek WRP [ Bac ground Data LEGEND [ ] Q=D+ L= HUnrrCra E=Uk#HUM FIm..+ O '-“''-"--"" GoopuCr+ 14ben Cnn rs ,db iT. c .!':,,I,',-:i-,+:::IiI:.::.]';II:{IIli:I'I;!;,itI;}li'::iiili'Iht:;iI‘-'\ $;'-,"'- : / CITY OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WATER RECLAMATION PLANT LOCATIONS ••mley »>HornKi IHb9+Hqbner+'bH-rn7h9nrpoB & ::: =?bnP::= =:# :nT=:=:::=:a=;£or'Hiya:=nA:=cumIn EU! I BE©HeXl 4.1.1.1. Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant The Pecan Creek Water WRP was constructed in 1961 and is the primary WRP within the City of Denton. The facIlity is located at 1 100 South Mayhill Road, Denton, TX 76208 and is currently permitted and designed to treat 21 .0 MGD annual average flow and 46.0 MGD two-hour peak How. The Pecan Creek WRP is permitted through the TCEQ under permit number WQ001 0027003, which has gone through a major amendment set to expire July 21 , 2028. The major amendment authorizes an annual average flow of 21.0 MGD in the interim I phase, 26.0 MGD in the interim II phase, and 30.0 MGD in the final phase. The amended final permit phase maximizes the capacity of the receiving stream. Any additional flow beyond 30.0 MGD must be discharged at a different location. Section 4.2.2. discusses additional receiving streams. The Pecan Creek WRP holds an authorization for Type I and Type II reclaimed water under Authorization No. R10027003 dated November 1 9, 2008. The Pecan Creek WRP utilizes a combination of biologIcal, chemical, and physIcal treatment processes to treat raw wastewater. Liquid treatment processes include coarse screening, grit removal, primary clarifiers, aeration basins, final clarifiers, disc fllters, and ultraviolet disinfection, Solids are sent to an anerobic digester before being dewatered by a belt press, composted, and then utilized for the City’s Dyno Dirt beneficial reuse program. Biogas is captured from the anaerobic digesters and used to aid in powering the Pecan Creek WRP, while excess biogas is lared. The Pecan Creek WRP is currently in the process of being expanded, by the City of Denton, to a total flow of 26.0 MGD. The expansion wiIE include a new headworks facility, 5 MGD additional treatment train, new UV disinfection , and new solids handling. 4.1.1.2. Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant The City previously purchased land and permitted the Clear Creek WRP. However, there is no existing wastewater infrastructure in the Clear Creek wastewater basin. The permitted location is 1,200 feet east of Farm-to-Market Road 428 and north of Hartlee Field Road in Denton, TX. The Clear Creek WRP is permitted through the TCEQ under permit number WQ00144160C)I , which is set to expire April 5, 2027. The permit is authorized for an annual average flow of 0,95 MGD and a two-hour peak flow of 3.80 MGD. A permit amendment is being prepared to maximize the ability to discharge effluent into Clear Creek and align with future wastewater flows. 4.1.1.3. Hickory Creek Water Reclamation Plant The Hickory Creek WRP is a future facility planned to serve the Hickory Creek wastewater basin. KimEey-Horn and the City evaluated properties for the future Hickory Creek WRP location. The City ultimately purchased approximately 300 acres and is currently developing a permit application for the facility. The facility will be located at 215 E McKinney Street, Denton, TX 76201 . 4.1.1.4. Robson Ranch Water Reclamation Plant The Robson Ranch WRP was constructed in 2000 and serves the Robson Ranch residential development. The plant is located at 5495 South Florance Road, Northlake, 76247 and is currently permitted and designed to treat 0.8 MGD annual average flow and 3.20 MGD two-hour peak flow. The Robson Ranch WRP is permitted through the TCEQ under permit number WQ001 0027004, which is set to expire June 7, 2028. The Robson Ranch WRP holds an authorization for Type 1 and Type II reclaimed water under Denton Wastewater Master Plan 67 Authorization No. R10027004 dated November 19, 2008. The Robson Ranch WRP eventually will be decommissioned by the City of Denton. The Robson Ranch WRP utilizes a combination of biological, chemical, and physical treatment processes to effectively treat the raw wastewater. Liquid treatment facilities include coarse screening, equalization basins, sequencing batch reactors, traveling bridge filters, and ultraviolet disinfection. Solids are thickened within on-site aerobic digesters. The remainder of the document will focus on the utilization of the Pecan Creek WRP, Clear Creek WRP, and Hickory Creek WRP to serve the City's future needs. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 68 4.2. REGULATORY REVIEW The City has obtained Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) discharge permits for Pecan Creek WRP and Clear Creek WRP. Tbe Pecan Creek WRP amendment maximizes the amount of flow that can be discharged to the creek at 30 MGD and is sufftcient to serve the flows in the Pecan Creek wastewater basin beyond the 25-year estimated flow rates. The Clear Creek WRP discharge permit needs to be expanded to serve the future flows and the Hickory Creek WRP location needs to obtain a discharge permit. As the City seeks to obtain new and amended permits, understanding the assirnilative capacity of each discharge stream and the impact of potential future regulations are Important considerations for the future WRPs. 4.2.1. CURRFfq7 REQUIREMENTS 4.2.1.1. Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant The Pecan Creek WRP TPDES permit has gone through a mdor amendment to expand the ability of the facility to discharge flow to Pecan Creek. The amended permit includes three phases: Interim I – 21 MGD, Interim II – 26 MGD, and Final – 30 MGD. The discharge limitations for Pecan Creek WRP under its current discharge permit are listed in Table 4.1. The draft permit suggests adding seasonal limits for CBOD, and TSS and load-based limits for CBOD5. The permit is currently under TCEQ review. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 69 Table 4.1 – Pecan Creek WRP Discharge Permtt Limits Effluent Characteristic Daily Average mg/L (lb/day) 7-day Average rna 11 Daily Max mg/L 17 Single Grab mc m8 Total Suspended Solids aM 15 (2627) Total Dissolved Solids NH3-N April to October NH3-N November to March 3 (525) 0.5 (88) N/A Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Orth- Phosphorus E co//, colony forming units or most probable number per 100 ml N/A 399 N/A126 4.2.1.2. Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant The discharge limitations for Clear Creek WRP under its current discharge permit (0.95 MGD) are listed in Table 4.2. Clear Creek Basin is expected to receive an ADF of 3.6 MGD within the next 25 years based on Table 3.12. The City is currently preparing an amendment to the permit to increase the amount of low able to be discharged into the receiving stream to meet or exceed the required flow. Table 4.2 – Clear Creek WRP Discharge Permit Limits Effluent Characteristic Daily Average mg/L (lb/day) W 7-day Average rT1 Daily Max mg/L Single Grab rna 3 (24) 1 (7.9) 126 Total Phosphorus E coli , colony forming units or most probable number per 100 ml Denton Wastewater Master Plan 70 4.2.1.3. Robson Ranch Water Rt 'lamation Plant The discharge limitation for Robson Ranch WRP under its current discharge permit are listed in Table 4.3. Bre facility eventually will be decommissioned, however, could be used as an additional outfall location if required in the future. Table 4.3 – Robson Ranch WRP Discharge Permit Limits Daily Average mg/L (lb/day) 5 (33) 7-day Average 1T1 Daily Max mg/L 20 =Fmony forming unIts or most probable number per 100 ml 4.2,2 }agED PR£LI hI!!!:\::iV £:fFLU£NT l! gp;*::i The future effluent requirements in each of the TPDES permits will impact design decisions for the WRPs and determine if multiple outfaIE locations are needed to discharge the WRPs flow to receiving streams. Kimley-Horn and the City coordinated with TCEQ to help determine preliminary effluent flow rates and constituent concentrations, Kimley-Horn provided multiple outfall Eocations to TCEQ for each WRP. If the outfall at the WRP could not support future flows, then the alternative outfall locatIons could be considered. The TCEQ conducted stream modeling at each location to determine preliminary maximum discharge flow. ne results for each discharge point are shown in Exhibit J - TCEQ Coordination Discharge Locations. 4.2.2.1. Pecan Creek Basin The permitted discharge flow provided by the TCEQ at the Pecan Creek WRP existing discharge point is 30 MGD. The Pecan Creek WRP lies adjacent to Pecan Creek and is currently used as the plant’s outfall location. The plant is projected to receive a maxirnurn of 21.7 MGD over the next 25 years. The current permit amendment will provide adequate flow to meet the demand. 4.2.2.2. Clear Creek Basin The preliminary allowable discharge flow provided by the TCEQ at the Clear Creek WRP discharge point is 6.5 MGD. The proposed Clear Creek WRP win be adjacent to Clear Creek and the creek is proposed to be used as the plant’s primary outfall location. The plant is projected to receive 3.6 MGD in the next 25 years according to Table 4.5. The plant will be designed to fall within the expected proposed effluent limitations at the Clear Creek WRP discharge point. Any treated effluent over 6.5 MGD will be required to discharge at a Denton Wastewater Master Plan 71 different outfall location. Other potential discharges in the Clear Creek basin include a preliminary discharge amount of 8 MGD, 12 MGD, and 3.5 MGD. 4.2.2.3. Hickory Creek Basin The preliminary allowable discharge flow provided by the TCEQ at the Hickory Creek WRP discharge point is 6 MGD. The proposed Hickory Creek WRP will be adjacent to Hickory Creek and the creek will be used as the plant’s primary outfall location. Per Table 4.5 Hickory Creek WRP is projected to receive 15.2 MGD in the next 25 years and the permit will address the average annual flow in its upcoming interim phasing. Any treated effluent over 6 MGD will be required to discharge at a different outfall location. Other potential discharges in the Hickory Creek basin include a preliminary discharge amount of 5 MGD, 8 MGD, and 20.5 MGD. These aiternative locations are located approximately 5 to 8 miles away from the Hickory Creek WRP and would require an effluent pump station and transmission main to convey treated effluent to these outfalls. 4.2.2.4. Other Locations The preliminary allowable discharge flow provided by the TCEQ at Lake Lewisville is 25 MGD. The preliminary allowable discharge low at Lake Ray Roberts is 18 MGD. These discharge locations could be utilized if locations within the basins become insufficient or if flows are reevaluated in the future. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 72 CBOQ 5.0 nBa NH&M 13 nW Da 6D mOn 18 MGD 8 MGD C800E 5.0 mMNH:W 1.0 mM \\’ OO: 6.O mg 12 MGD GBOD: 5.0 mOn NB& 1.0 nM DOh 6.0 mga nn ! W e n } : ii ICLEAR q 3.5 MMI CBOOL$Omgn NH&N: 1 0 NM DO: 6.0 ITV )r£t£ M ;!i= ,NHBN:l.OnU4 \\by f hrt'F x; DO: 8.0 mM. I fH-III RIght nBdHrLam PhNOm) OLA 75:J C#yUM <Jr] aPM nURa nJbU+y e : UHbrPhn3Edy CITY OF DENTON WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Kimley »> Horn JBiIEimTCEQ COORDINATION DISCHARGE LOCATIONS I- • 4,SOO nrr Tt+snmpruhxtbhr b&nndHnnFnBHdrrWndhgnbeatnDnsl Iner he sang: bbg£#q-eF'W-9rw+gnrW RMWTp;L!=Ho!=r= 4.2.3. POTENTiAL F13§: ii€GULATORY CHINGES This section explores possible future regulatory changes that could affect permit discharge limitations for existing or new discharge points in Denton. 4.2.3.1. Phosphorus The TCEQ adopted the Nutrient Criteria Development Work Plan (NCDWP) for the State of Texas on August 20, 2014. This document outlines the process for conducting and evaluating additional studies to develop numerical nutrient criteria for freshwater water bodies throughout Texas. General strategies to develop nutrient criteria include “developing criteria or screening levels for phosphorus and nitrogen based on statistically defined effect levels (stressor response relationships) in historical data for indicators such as chlorophyll a, extent of attached algae, daily dissolved oxygen flux, indices of biotic integrity for fish and benthic macroinvertebrates'’. Total phosphorus limits are already present in the City of Denton and given further numerical nutrient studies being conducted in the future, it is expected that all existing and new discharge locations within the City will have a total phosphorus limit of at least 0.5 mg/L. WRP designs will need to incorporate biological nutrient removal or chemical precipitation of phosphorus to meet the expected permit limits. 4.2.3.2. Total Nitrogen The Pecan Creek WRP TPDES permit currently requires a daily report of the max total nitrogen discharge concentration. Given further numericai nutrient studies will be conducted, the State of Texas may gravitate towards requiring total nitrogen discharge limits by water body type. If total nitrogen limits are implemented, future designs will need to include means of denitrifying through biological nutrient removal or denitrification filters to meet permit limitations. 4.2.3.3. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Discharge limitations for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have not been set for discharges in Texas as of August 2023. In December 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring program guidelines to states with regards to WRPs where PFAS are expected or suspected to be present in wastewater discharges using EPA's recently published Analytical Method 1633, which covers 40 unique PFAS compounds. The new guidance recommends the full suite of permitting approaches that EPA will use in federally-issued permits. Due to these guidelines, Texas could potentially implement PFAS monitoring and discharge permit limits for all existing and future City of Denton WRPs. The EPA is expected to finalize a risk assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) in biosolids in December of 2024. Biosolids from WRFs can contain PFAS. When spread on agricultural fields, the PFAS can contaminate crops, livestock, and potentially surflcial aquifers. The risk assessment will serve as the basis for determining whether regulation of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids is aPProPiiate . Kimley-Horn recommends monitoring the regulatory requirements as they develop and to be prepared to address PFAS accordingly. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 74 3,ISTING Fia%vs AND LOADING’ This section discusses the existing influent flows and loadings that have been experienced in 2017-2021. The historical data has been analyzed for future flow and loading projection purposes, 4.3.1.1. Influent Wastewater Flows and Loadings The historical flows were reported from the Pecan Creek WRP and serve as a representation of influent wastewater between 2017-2021 . Each year experienced wet weather months that contributed to the influent flows. TCEQ evaluates flow rates based on three-month consecutive flow rate averages. To be consistent with the regulatory assessment of flow, the flow rate data shown in Figure 4.1, Pecan Creek WRP Influent Flow, is representing the rnaxirnurn three-month consecutive averages for each year. The daily flow averaged throughout the last 5 years was 15.23 MGD. The maximum daily flow that occurred in the last 5 years was 36.59 MGD on March 19th, 2020. 20 15 18.01 1 7.09 a 2017 2018 2021 Figure 4.1 – Pecan Creek WRP Influ WIt Flow InfEuent water quality information is important to understand because it has a direct impact on the WF3P’s ability to meet regulatory effluent standards. The effluent parameters established in the TPDES permit are CBOD, TSS, NH„ and Phosphorus. The influent loadings shown are collected from the raw sewage entering the Pecan Creek WRP. The loading rates reflect characteristics of wastewater that have been regulated as part of the plant’s discharge permit. All loading rates are presented in pounds per day abs/d). The average of each influent parameter's largest three months per year is shown from 2017- 2021 . Figure 4.2 through Figure 4.5 summarizes historical raw nutrient and organic loadings Denton Wastewater Master Plan 75 50 49.4 48.8 : 49.3 46.2 45.440 40 38.6 38.3 { 3763535.6 30 25 20 15 10 5 a)laC Eg30JC C g JB a)C 10 CD0-J a+n\ LUWe C/) BlaC3£ C b JO a)C R0-J dahl BHa 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year Figure 4.2 - BOD, Influent Loading Rates Figure 4.4 - NH3 Influent Loading Rates 150 30 a) B 120a)D0L 9 ()r- In C/)aCP a)CVca -J C/) B P3C C g JO a)C (J CO0-J +HUbS H 25 20 P II 11 201 7 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year Figure 4.3 – TSS Influent Loading Rates Figure 4.5 – Phosphorus Influent Loading Rates 4.3.1.2. Industrial Contributions The City of Denton has 400 industrial customers that contribute to the total influent at Pecan Creek WRP. The City is responsible for identifying industrial contributions to the plant and evaluating if the plant needs to implement pretreatment processes before discharging into the collection system. Compliance on pollutant limits is monitored by the City’s Pretreatment Program Division of the Environmental Services Department. Table 4.4 summarizes the City’s customers and their contribution to the collection system according to the May 2022 Audit of Wastewater System Operations: Reclamation. Since the historical loading data was sampled at Pecan Creek WRP, projected loadings were assumed to account for industrial contributors as treated by the City’s pretreatment program. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 76 Table 4.4 – City of Denton Wastewater Collection Customers Annual Customer Type Customer Count Contribution MG IIKeIB1 CommerciaE 3,800 Industrial 400 Wholesale 4 4.3.2,ENT Fi'80JECTEB INFLU DWS AND L8A£3§8 gS 4.3.2.1. Influent Flow Projections The City's projected influent flows are based on growth rates established by the City and Kirnley-Horn . Summarized in Table 3.12, wastewater flow projections are presented for five basins within the City of Denton. ProjectIons were made using wastewater loading by land use loading factors from Table 3.10. Future development indicates a required increase in wastewater service throughout each basin. Each basin’s projected flow will be directed to one of the three WRPs throughout the City of Denton, as shown in Exhibit I - WRP Locations. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 77 The increased flows will be served by three WRPs, each serving their respective wastewater basins. Table 4.5 shows the flow rates for each WRP and the required capacities for the 5-, 10- , and 25-year planning period. Table 4.5 - Water Reclamation Plant Projected Flow 3-Month AverageWRPMaximum Flow (MGD) FlowsExisM Pecan Creek 16.8 Clmr Crmk 0.0 Hickory Creek 0.0 Flows5-Ymr W Pecan Crwk 21 ,7 Clmr Creek 1.5 Creek 0.051 10-Year Wastewater Flows 25.02 2.11 Hickory Creek 8.71 Flows25-Year Pecan Creek 17.7 CI ur Crwk 4.1 15.2Hickory Creek 'Design for expansion is required for this phase due to TCEQ 21.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 2.5 10.0 26.0 5.0 20.0 75/90 ru/e 2Flows for Pecan Creek WRP are shown as the maximum flow projected for Pecan Creek just prior to Hickory Creek WRP being online. Additional Standard Permit Conditions for Waste Discharge Permits, TAC Rule 305.126, has established a 75/90 rule addressing future planning for WRPs. When a WRP reaches 75% of the permitted average daily low for three consecutive months, the permit holder must begin engineering and financial planning to expand. When a WRP reaches 90% of the permitted average daily flow for three consecutive months, the permit holder must obtain authorization for construction on the expansion needed. Figures 4.6 to Figure 4.8 show Pecan Creek WRP, Clear Creek WRP, and Hickory Creek WRP projected annual flows for the next 25 years. Ttre projected annual flows provide indications of when each facility will reach 75% and 90% of average daily flow. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 78 Figure 4.6 - Future Water Roclamatim Plant Capacity Needs: Pecan Creek WRP Average Day Flow (MGa) Ln 0 ingU)CH 2047 2046 2045 2C44 2Cq3 2C42 2041 ll• 2C'40 2039 2C'38 2C'37 2036 2035 2034 2ce3 2Cl32 2031 2C'30 =W••l• ”29 g g 2 c1 2 8 B B ! i 2 C1 2 7 # 1(g fw 2026 i ! !E £!! g g 2C'25 2024TaB 2ce3 2C'22 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 79 Figure 4.7 - Future Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Needs: Average Day Flow {MGD) Cr)r\J Clear Creek WRP 2047 2a4e 2045 2ai4 2a+3 2a42 2041 204C 2039 2038 2037 2036 2035 @ 2034 2033 2082 2031 203C 2029 i ! ! ! ! !!!! ! a a dea3 E [3 [ SC g a) ;g ; 2025 it 8 g) <} { 3 S : 9022 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 80 Figure 4.8 – Future Water Reclamation Plant Capacity Needs: Hickory Creek WRP Average Day Fk>w CRAB)) CD0Lf)al 2047 2045 2044 2043 2042 a)41 2040 2039 2038 2037 2036 2035 2034 2033 2032 2031 2030 g 2029 2028 2027 2026 e g qb E3 E E<Et g C) 2025 g : 2024 ! !i : 2022 gT >8 gI g I Denton Wastewater Master Plan 81 By 2023, Pecan Creek WRP is projected to receive an average 3-month maximum flow of 16.9 MGD which is above 75% of the design flow. In order to comply with TCEQ rules and serve future flow rates, Pecan Creek WRP is currently undergoing a 5 MGD expansion. The expansion will utilize the original north and south plants to maximize the existing infrastructure until flow can be distributed to Clear Creek WRP or Hickory Creek WRP. By 2028, Clear Creek WRP is required to serve the Clear Creek wastewater basin growth. In 25 years, the projected Clear Creek WRP 3-month average max flow is 4.1 MGD, as shown in Table 4.5. By 2033, Hickory Creek WRP will be required to serve the growth in the Hickory Creek wastewater basin. In the next 25 years, the projected Hickory Creek WRP 3-month average max flow is 15.2 MGD, as shown in Table 4.5. Once both Clear Creek WRP and Hickory Creek WRP are operational, some of the flow going to Pecan Creek WRP will be diverted to the new plants, and the City will be able to abandon several lift stations. The projected Pecan Creek WRP 3-month average maximum flow is 17.7 MGD in the next 25 years, as shown in Table 4.5. The reduced flows will provide the City flexibility to determine whether or not to use the 1960s water reclamation plant or use the additional capacity to serve growth up to buildout for the wastewater basin. 4.3.2.2. Influent Loading Rates The historical raw nutrient and organic loadings are summarized in Figure 4.2 through Figure 4.5. The influent loading rates from these figures along with the concentrations are relatively constant over the five-year period collected. The existing Pecan Creek WRP influent sampling is affected by recycle streams sent to the head of the plant. Waste activated sludge, belt press supernatant, and other process streams are impacting the influent sampling. The average concentration rates measured are shown in Table 4.6. Additional sampling of true raw wastewater should be conducted to develop future influent design parameters Table 4.6 - Historical Concentration Rates m 9/ 1 ) 1:$ 1 r 3 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 82 TREATMENT PROCESS Treatment process selection is important for allocating appropriate space for WRP expansion and site plannIng. This section discusses the main treatment processes that are considered for the future of each WRP. As the City grows, maintaining process consistency between WRPs will beneflt the City. Having knowledge of operations and maintenance components between the different WRP locations will allow for the process to be more transferrable. In addition, parts and services can be more consistent between the WRPs. The City would like to maintain process consistency where possible for future planning. Not all processes will be identical between the different WRP locations, but maintaining similar unit processes and equipment will benefit the City’s ability to operate and maintain each of the WRPs. Tbe following section discusses each treatment process for master planning and developing each facility’s future site plans 4,4,1, PR£l IW1}3;aiv TREATMENT Proper preliminary treatment is essential to maintaining downstream treatment processes long-term. Coarse screening, grit removal, and fine screening slow the buildup of rags and grit throughout other treatment processes. The existing Pecan Creek WRP preliminary treatment units do not effectively remove preliminary waste and has operational issues with downstream units building up with grit and rags. Proper preEirninary treatment will need to be implemented on future projects. Coarse screening removes large debris such as sticks, leaves, and rags from the influent wastewater. Coarse screens, typically made of metal bars or mesh, prevent these larger objects from entering the treatment system. Grit consists of small, dense, inorganic particles such as sand, gravel, and mineral fragments. Grit removal typically involves vortex separator or grit chambers to settle and remove these particles. Fine screens are employed to capture small, suspended solids and organic matter that may still be present after coarse screening and grit removal. These screens consist of fine mesh or perforated plated that can capturethis smaEler matter, Coarse screening, grit removal, and Ine screening during all future desIgn efforts. are recommended for implementation 4,4,2. PRIMABy {REATME Primary treatment includes the use of primary clariflers to settle out suspended material. Primary clarifiers reduce BOD and TSS that can be settled alkowing for downstream processes to be sized smaller. In the existing Pecan Creek WRP, primary ctarifiers are used. A couple drawbacks of including primary clarifiers are they can be a main contributor to odors and may inhibit the biological nutrient process by removing BOD that is crucial for nutrient removal downstream. Chemical addition to a biological nutrient removal system can be added to supplement the nutrient removal process. Future facility planning efforts have included the use of primary clarifiers. During design, the City can decide whether the primary clarifiers should be included in the WRPs or if the space can be utilized for other processes Denton Wastewater Master Plan 83 4.4.3. SEGa Big&fIY TREATMENT The City of Denton and Kimley-Horn compared conventional activated sludge treatment versus membrane bioreactor technology to be recommended at the WRPs throughout the City 4.4.3.1. Conventional Activated Sludge Technology The existing Pecan Creek WRP uses conventional activated sludge treatment units with secondary clarifiers. The aeration basins contain an anoxic selector to help prevent the growth of filamentous bacteria. Conventional activated sludge technology relies on gravity for settling sludge and requires a relatively large footprint due to the need for secondary clanflers and mixed liquor concentrations. Effluent quality from conventional activated sludge may require the use of tertiary filtration to meet permit limits. 4.4.1.2. Membrane Bioreactor Technology Membrane Bioreactor treatment is an advanced wastewater treatment technology that combines biological treatment with membrane filtration. In MBR systems, microorganisms break down organic matter during the biological treatment phase, while specialized membranes act as barriers to separate treated water from solids and microorganisms. Primary clarifiers may be required in conjunction with MBR technology depending on the specific membrane manufacturer. MBR technology results in high-quality effluent with respect to suspended solids, bacteria, and pathogens. MBR technology offers compact design options that ailow for efficient use of land and potential reuse options in the future due to the high-quality effluent produced. The treatment technology is less prone to plant upsets due to the physical barrier created by the membranes. MBR technology is the preferred treatment technology because of its ability to provide consistent effluent quality, reduced footprint requirements, and high-quality effluent that opens up possibilities for beneficial reuse. 4.4.3. DISINFECTION The City currently uses ultraviolet disinfection, a method that reduces reliance on disinfectant chemicals like chlorine and reduces the hazards of storing bulk chemicals such as gas chlorine and sulfur dioxide. Instead of chemicals, UV technology uses energy to power UV bulbs that transmit germicidal light waves. UV technology is incorporated into the future WRPs. Careful consideration should be given to the type of UV configuration to provide the City with the best technology to meet their needs. Additionally, UV disinfection requirements may be reduced due to the high quaiity of MBR effluent. The TCEQ is in the process of reviewing rule changes that discuss the reduced dosing requirements for MBRs with UV disinfection. This could further reduce disinfection energy costs. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 84 4,Z,i. 5uLIBS HANBLII The City currently uses solids thickening, anaerobic digestion, dewatering and composting to produce a Class A biosolid that is sold as Dyno Dirt. The Pecan Creek WRP accepts organic waste from mulching and tree trimming from around the City. The mulched material is mixed with sludge to create Dyno Dirt. The City would like to continue to beneficially reuse solids at their WRPs. The Pecan Creek WRP will continue to maintain solids thickening, anaerobic digestion, dewatering and composting on site. The City would like to evaluate alternative mechanical dewatering options during design. Although the City currently uses and has had positive experiences with the belt press, they would like to evaluate the best solution for their WRPs, Clear Creek WRP and Hickory Creek WRP are not expected to accept organic waste similar to Pecan Creek WRP. However, the City would like to continue to beneflcially reuse produced solids. Furthermore, the City has interest from surrounding communities and regional wastewater providers to take their solids. Technologies like sludge drying are efficient ways to treat sludge and produce Class A biosolids and are proposed for future WRPs Denton Wastewater Master Plan 85 4.5. FACILITIES SITE DEVELOPMENT 4.5 PECAN CREEK BASiN The Pecan Creek WRP, as shown in Exhibit K – Existing Pecan Creek WRP, has an existing 9.45 MGD north conventional activated sludge train and an existing 1 1 .55 MGD south conventiona] activated sludge train. The Pecan Creek WRP is currently undergoing a 5.0 MGD expansion to bring the flow capacity to 26.0 MGD. A condition assessment project is also underway at the plant to catalog and provide remain, replace, or upgrade recommendations for the existing aging infrastructure. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 86 alP=qnFuILa ta6i{k/xiitiij NV-Id u31svm U]IVAA31SVAA NOIN3a iNrld NOllvmvloaN U]IVAA >133UO NVO 3d 9NllSIX3 : + b gig3 :? !!gO : : :::• {r! ! ;}Jig + a 4.5.1.1. Site Layout and Phasing Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant The proposed expansion is located directly south of the existing treatment trains. The location was determined to be favorable due to its proximity to the north and south treatment trains that are currently in operation. Pre land that was selected falls within the City’s property boundary and does not interfere with the adjacent landfill property. According to the permit, the future site expansion is planned to be implemented in two phases. Phase I assumes implementation within five years of a new 75 MGD Headworks Facility, and a 5 MGD MBR treatment train. Phase II assumes implementation either to serve buildout flows within the Pecan Creek wastewater basin or to replace the existing 1960s north treatment plant. Exhibit L – Pecan Creek WRP Future Site Layout, shows the proposed units discussed in the next section in association with their build phase. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 88 Treatment Process Pre treatment technologies that were described in Section 4.4. are recommended for the Pecan Creek WRP expansion. During Phase I of the plant construction, the primary clarifiers and an MBR system will be sized to operate at 5 MGD. Additionally, new solids handling and a UV system will be sized for the full 26 MGD flow. The Headworks Facility Project is assumed to serve the build-out of the plant and will be implemented as part of Phase I of the plant expansion. Ttle Headworks Facility will be located south of the existing treatment trains in proximity to the proposed MBR systems, and the existing headworks facility will be decommissioned. As part of the new expansion, the new UV disinfection and anaerobic digesters go into operation and the existing UV disinfection system and anaerobic digesters will be decommissioned. Phase II unit expansions have been allocated for the available areas on the site. The Pecan Creek WRP has a belt press as their method of solids dewatering for their 9.45 MGD and 1 1 .55 MGD treatment trains. The belt press building, sludge holding basin, heat exchanger building, DAF units, and gravity thickeners will be decommissioned and demolished as part of the facility expansion. The current belt press building will be replaced by a new solids handling building and a solids dewatering technology once evaluated and chosen as part of the Pecan Creek WRP Phase I expansion. The potential dewatering options are detailed in Section 4.4. Biosolids Processing The existing composting facility produces Class A Biosolids by using anaerobic digesters and composting. The solids produced from anaerobic digestion will be dewatered and combined with organic material to form windrows. The windrows will get put into static piles where the curing process is completed. The biosolids will then undergo screening to filter the product to be sold. The resulting compost will be sold as Dyno Dirt from the City of Denton A portion of the existing composting facility is located on property that is allocated for the landfill expansion. The City owns and operates the adjacent landfill and has a Memo of Understanding that states by 2030 the existing composting must be relocated. Along with a new solids handling facility, the Pecan Creek WRP will need a new layout for their composting area outside of the landfill boundary. The orientation of the composting processes will be decided depending on which road access is utilized as the landfill expansion occurs for Dyno Dirt sales. Composting layout locations across Pecan Creek and to the east of the storm basin were considered. To avoid hauling or pumping sludge as well as potential run off to Pecan Creek, the redesign of the composting area uses available space to the north and south of where it currently functions. Assuming solids production will follow a similar trend as the projected influent, the recommended space for windrow composting is shown in Exhibit M – Pemn Creek WRP Future Composting Layout. Further analysis is recommended to accurately size the facility. Solids drying options have been identIfied and presented in Section 4.4.. These can be evaluated as an alternative to save space. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 90 :H=qHMU ti16Fik/f5jiilj NV-Id u31svm U]IVAA]ISVAA NOIN la lrlOArl 9Nlisodmoo ]urllnJ INrld NOllvmvloaN U31VAA >1]3UO NV03d q t- Sanitary Sewer System ModIfications There are five sanitary sewer interceptors that contribute to the plant’s influent flow. The interceptors are proposed to be replaced by interceptors from the north and south that will meet and flow into the new headworks facility. Final discharge piping will lead the treated effluent from UV disinfection to the discharge point along Pecan Creek. The proposed layout of the sanitary sewer modifications can be found in Exhibit L - Pecan Creek WRP Future Layout 4.5.1.2. Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant Projects The Pecan Creek WRP modiflcations discussed in the previous sections are summarized in Table 4.7 in terms of their project cost. Project costs are an OPCC and based on the dollar amounts from 2023. Table 4.7 - Pecan Crook WRP Project Costs Project Name 4.:3.2. CLEAR CREEK BASIN 4.5.2.1. Site Layout and Phasing Clear Creek Reclamation Plant The Clear Creek WRP is recommended to be an additional reclamation plant based on the projected influent flows within Clear Creek basin. The Clear Creek WRP property is already owned by the City of Denton and holds a discharge permit. Dre plant location is advantageous because it is located at the northern end of the property, near the Clear Creek discharge point. The property allows for expansion south towards the front of the property, as shown in Exhibit O – Clear Creek WRP Future Overall Layout. Currently, the Clear Creek WRP site does not have wastewater infrastructure. The future site expansion is planned based on the projected flows to be implemented in two phases. Phase I assumes implementation within five years of a 2.5 MGD MBR treatment train and Phase II assumes implementation within 25 years of a 2.5 MGD expansion to 5 MGD. Exhibit N – Clear Creek WRP Future Layout shows the proposed units discussed in the next section, corresponding with their build phase. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 92 Nrld u]isvm U31VAA31SVAA NOIN3aalaN&f5ju iS lrlOArl ]unlnJ INrld NOlivmrl03u U]IVAA >13380 dV110 :;\'g q +T r dUb } ,:*.b; ,+* q + +i ' ’: ';}.* T-’ '’' -+L;#:- I + + Ib ++ Eg:;;j:II + gb\8: 7@g t q XSII & aJ ' .+ + 9 1,}’‘ J \ + I ++ + ,++ \##I :'. '{ ,-A. : + IP } #:- ..\A bI t +++t Sr .-A : : : : 1 : L i : : : = '\- * (abj{&fjnII Nrld u31svm U31VAA31SVAA NOIN3a lnoAv-1 llVU3AO 3unlnJ ALlllOVJ NOllvmvloaN U31VAA >1=3UO UV310 .';;:;::’::Tg g IF’: .-~ 1,\t\\ iI:+? , , _\$C@:=- 1--:V/ ' F=? f JI q jI; !? F; F p bFH+ {[A :! P 1{\ :4:; 4: :;iI P if IBn : i i Treatment Process The treatment technologies that were described in Section 4.4. are recommended for the Clear Creek WRP. During Phase I of the plant construction, coarse screens, grit chambers, fine screens, primary clarifiers, an MBR system, UV disinfection, solids thickening, anaerobic digesters, dewatering and drying will be sized to operate at 2.5 MGD. The selection of a solids dewatering technology, and solids drying will be chosen as part of the Clear Creek WRP design . Solids drying, as described in Section 4.4.4, is recommended to maximize space within the property. Phase II of the expansion will allow for the allocation of the 2.5 MGD unit expansions within the site’s available area. 4.5.2.2. Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant Projects The Clear Creek WRP project are summarized in Table 4.8. Project costs are an OPCC and based on the dollar amounts from 2023. Table 4.8 – Clear Creek WRP Project Costs Project Name &S,3. HItKORY C;i;gil ;;'€§!§ 4.5.3.1. Site Layout and Phasing Hickory Creek Water Reclamation Plant The Hickory Creek WRP property is owned by the City of Denton and is recommended to be an additional reclamation plant based on the projected influent flows within the Hickory Creek basin. Part of the planned layout for the Hickory Creek WRP is within a school owned property. The City is in negotiations to purchase the school property after the 2025 school year. The plant location is advantageous because it is located south of the existing Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin and along the Hickory Creek discharge point. The Hickory Creek WRP site does not have wastewater infrastructure or a discharge permit. According to the projected flows, the future site expansion will be implemented in two phases. Phase I assumes implementation within 10 years of a 10 M(SD MBR treatment train. Phase II assumes implementation within 25 years of a 10 M(aD expansion to 20 MGD. Exhibit P - Hickory Creek WRP Future Layout, shows the proposed units discussed in the next section in association with their build phase. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 95 Nrld u=lsvm U31VAA31SVAA NOIN3a lnoAv-i 3UIIlnJ INVId NOllvmvload U31V/V\ >laIHO AUO>131H T::11::::1:han UJOH@ Aaltulj = {[[: :i J + !) \Be + t +T V+4 : f 1 1 { •Ti$ { e ; a 8 e T 1 Tr ! ! i •H r p / r ! ! ! ! ( i I- - TIN INfIrm T"I;;(='r nh–:';. I+ . i I 'iP 's a 'i sa ? ax 9 E e g 1~ I I I O E g gE /\ i I I 6 B I I I, f iii Treatment Process Selections The treatment technologies described in Section 4.4. are recommended for the Hickory Creek WRP. During Phase I of the plant expansion, coarse screens, grit chambers, fine screens, primary clarifiers, an MBR system, UV disinfection, thickening, anaerobic digesters, dewatering, and drying will be sized to operate at 10 MGD. The selection of a solids dewatering technology, and solids drying will be chosen as part of the Hickory Creek WRP design. Solids drying, as described in Section 4.4.4, is recommended to maximize space within the property. Phase II of the expansion will allow for the allocation of 10 MGD unit expansions within the site’s available area. 4.5.3.2. Hickory Creek Water Reclamation Plant Projects The Hickory Creek WRP modifications elaborated on in the previous sections are summarized in Table 4.9 in terms of their project cost. Project costs are an OPCC and based on the dollar amounts from 2023. Table 4.9 - Hickory Creek WRP Project Costs Project CostProject Name == 1&B@MaZEXeRBma:a $44@2.oo Hickory Creek WRP 10.0 MGD MBR Expansion to11120 MGD $845,200,000Hickory Creek WRP Projects Total Denton Wastewater Master Plan 97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Denton Wastewater Master Plan The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is divided into three sections: 5-Year, 10-Year, and 25- Year. Projects shown may need to be accelerated or deferred depending on newly proposed developments or the overall growth rate experienced in each basin. The methodology for project phasing and timing is discussed in Section 5.2. The proposed projects per basin are discussed in Sections 5.3.1 – 5.3.5. All proposed projects are shown in Exhibit Q - Capital Improvement Plan. ne project priority, name, and total cost is listed in Tables 5,1, 5.2, and 5.3 for the 5, 10 and 25-year planning periods, respectively. For each project, individual project descriptions and detailed costs have been included in Appendix A - Opinion of Probable Cwlstruction Costs. The opinion of probable costs for each capital project assumes no design completed, is based on dollar amounts from 2023, and does not include annual construction cost increases. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 99 Table 5.1 – 5-Ymr CIP Projects Olect NO Project Name Cg Peca @ Pecan Creek WRP 5.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 26 MGD Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Plant Clear Creek Interceptor ) Cole Ranch Interceptor North Cole Ranch Sewer Line Legends Sewer Line [$5 2 3 4 6 7 8 8 $89,440,000 $35,320,000 $53 ,340,000 $7,310,000 3 $5, 800,000 $1 2 , 100,000 $1 3,750,000 $2, 530,000 $8, 680,000 $5,560,000 $7,980,000 $4,380.000 $4, 560,000 $8, 300,000 $2, 960,000 $5.820,000 $9,500,000 $1 ,270,000 $3,620,000 $23,400,000 Robson Ranch Sewer Line 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Robson West Lift Station Milam Creek Sewer Line a North Masch Sewer Line Masch Sewer Line Replacement North Loop 288 Sewer Line Mingo Road Sewer Line Lakeview Interceptor Replacement Lakeview South Lift Station Grissom Sewer Line Lakeview Ranch Sewer Line United Copper Sewer Line Granada Sewer Line Dry Fork Sewer Line Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin Improvements Cooper Creek Sewer Line Replacement Pecan Creek Interceptor Replacement Beaver Creek Sewer Line North Milam Sewer Line 5-Ymr Projects SuE>Total: 25 26 27 28 $3, 590,000 $3, 890,000 $2,910,000 $6,890,000 $650,040,000 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 100 Table 5.2 – 10-Year CIP Projects Project No,Proiect Name 29 FFWcreek vt/ Stark Farms Sewer Line30 31 C Wolfe Road Interceptor TN Skiles Road Interceptor Ponder Sewer Line South Hickory Creek Sewer Line 35 Wolf Branch Sewer Line 36 Sanctuary Sewer Line 37 Meadows Sewer Line Cole Ranch West Sewer Line38 Roark Branch North Sewer Line39 Hunter Ranch North Sewer Line Hunter Ranch East Sewer Line Hunter Ranch South Sewer Line42 East Clear Creek Sewer Line43 East Mi Iam Sewer Line44 10-Year Projects Sub-Total : Project Cost $448,600,000 $1 ,340,000 $1 8, 120,000 $1 4,420,000 $5, 230,000 $22 ,580,000 $1 8,040,000 $4, 280,000 $2 , 130,000 $4, 280,000 $1 ,660,000 $2 ,330,000 $3 ,460,000 $3, 930,000 $3, 170,000 $2, 920,000 $556,490,000 J Denton Wastewater Master Plan 101 Table 5.3 – 25-Year CIP Projects } Project N-e- 45 46 Project Name Hickory Creek WRP 10.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 20.0 MGD Clear Creek WRP 2.5 MGD MBR Expansion to 5.0 MGD Hickory Creek Interceptor Parallel Cole Ranch Interceptor Parallel East McKinney Street Sewer Line Lakeview North Lift Station North Trinity Road Sewer Line Timber Branch Sewer Line Cooper Creek Lift Station Upgrades Florence Road Sewer Line Hunter Ranch West Sewer Line North Robson Ranch Sewer Line Roark Branch West Sewer Line Roark Branch South Sewer Line Roark Branch East Sewer Line Cole Ranch South Sewer Line Lovers Lane Sewer Line North IN Skiles Road Sewer Line South Clear Creek Sewer Line r 25-Year Projects Suk>Total: $396,600,000 Fr(8)11tH( =1 k Jf ISII $98,800,000 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 $1 2,060,000 $1 7,730,000 $3, 180,000 $6,700,000 $2, 620,000 $3,250,000 $1 80,000 $13,560,000 $2, 970,000 $2, 340,000 $920,000 $1 , 140,000 $1 ,340,000 $2,91 0,000 $4,500,000 $2, 280,000 $5, 640,000 $2,680,000 $581 ,400,000 Denton Wastewater Master Plan 102 .-'ll:llC B iq Tea:/ Lak• LEGEND Ex]stlnq Infrastructure ==== Force nbl E T:E E:==b1AAEiEm 1F b1mEp 1(WILp) 1(11r=mEI E =tege TBnIB 10.Year CIP PmI•cls a Pnop$nd Let Meon =[ ::1:::: IT:!IE:: Nh1BH11H:1AI X• K- A Under Dean Rowe Nah Ahand&rhnd U hopoged WVtBr RoduHUm PbR (WEP) PtQH•dSeHULbK B & tXt Sta6on to be Nnrdolnd n Under Drurbn LXt nRba b be AlnrdHnd £JITJ CqLmX <Jr] aM+r%nmR dll nJ bW+rF IrB:: :IT;ann+ [] Cher an( Cnek C//> UU C+$get CImk [] HUrOn E]uuvnNRmaE] PnmOHk 5-Year CIP Pr04•cts© mPHnGHNMHXWTU n Run LR SBUn [0]( & LR SW+nbbe Abuand l+9818god Sewer Law==••ll• >=N K =::HMHnm • Urdu Dhl UR sun bb• Abn+end nIHlt Uodu Dledgn FHce8•nb b•Ahed$,nd a w +tHhedbNBOBnPbM(WRP}B Water ned•maOrI Ibm (WW)Andarker 25oYear CIP ProInRS a Pm#BSd Ln SUtbnan ExLRSUUeaBbeAbmdHnd PIQH60dSewuLP}• )=C ===mAU+on CITY OF DENTON a mley »>Horn ;!II=d:TS:::A:: in:::I Ki =7J=£=i7ii:e=,':£=:';=£:=cY£1 ;f=:iF bo:rdlXHUl: re I Ein WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN a BF©KeXl CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1-' a 4)500 FEn Constructing a line size sufficient to serve the build-out of the service area could create maintenance and odor issues in the initial phases of development, and construction of a line size sufficient to serve only the first several years could necessitate construction of another line within the near future. To avoid this, parallel lines were used in the CIP to avoid potential over and under-sizing of infrastructure. For basins that have minimal acreage available for development (Pecan Creek, Cooper Creek, Lakeview Ranch), proposed lines have been sized to serve the build-out of the area they serve. For basins that have significant acreage available for development (Hickory Creek, Clear Creek), the following methodology was utilized: • • For a 25-year scenario required line size less than 24-inch, if the project was required to be built in the 5-year or 10-year CIP then the line size required during the 25-year planning scenario was recommended for the 5-year or 10-year CIP. For a 25-year scenario required line size greater than or equal to 24-inch, parallel pipes were recommended. The first pipe was sized to accommodate the 10-year scenario planned low and the second pipe was sized to accommodate the 25-year planned flow in conjunction with the first pipe. Because build-out of the Study Area will occur beyond the 25-year year planning period, easement recommendations have been provided to ailow for future para]leI or upsizing on a per-project basis (see Appendix A - Opinion of Probable Construction Costs). 5.3.1. £LE XR CREEK BASII Proposed infrastructure in the Clear Creek Basin, including the Clear Creek Interceptor and Clear Creek WRP allows for the abandonment of multiple lift stations and to provide service to existing and future development in the Clear Creek Basin. The proposed Clear Creek WRP is discussed in detail in Section 4.5.2. All proposed projects for the Clear Creek Basin are shown in Exhibit R – Clear Creek CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 104 } { } } { } {g00E Ej;; ;## Fit:ill:Hi :i r :i; • jj jijgi!!};i11.'!'i.gII'}•: gIl li i@bee$ f== Fi auaTIal tI 'gjgiiji!!ii iii g;f Ii;iii iii;i \ 5.32. C00PER CR££i< f§ASIN Proposed projects in the Cooper Creek Basin are characterized by minor upgrades to remedy existing capacity issues and collection lines along Loop 288 for new development Because the Cooper Creek Basin is almost fully developed, all lines have been sized to serve the build-out development of the area they serve. All proposed projects for the Cooper Creek Basin are shown in Exhibit S – Cooper Creek CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 106 : Ibn B: gIag) g ga nwa = aMa all aN SNll IOO ia, i gE ii iH !!: gaUl ia ahn C) EIU IUa C)a IU ahaaU Z gZIUa IL0 [ C) Je gE 5 e Iii: „gjli?iiii iii;;Til; iT:ijl g g i Iior .;I}i 'I*.:} ."<: i i ;}'. I:>i g ='}§Gil 5.3,3. PECAN CREEK EtSI iI Proposed projects in the Pecan Creek Basin are characterized by upgrades to remedy existing capacity issues and capacity expansions at the Pecan Creek WRP. The capacity expansions at the Pecan Creek WRP are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.1 . Notable future changes to the capacity of conveyance in the Pecan Creek Basin include a reduction in future flow with the construction of the Clear Creek WRP in the 5-year period and the Hickory Creek WRP in the 10-year period. All proposed projects for the Pecan Creek Basin are shown in Exhibit T– Pemn Cr®k CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 108 !!gi ii A aSunt:)= /A\ &S \,//,a !i q:1q&q 3i ni JM I B • 8 IBi F);\{iT I_; ii ]iii:iii;iii, i g:T Tiii'igig : 1L FUl=-g sun-r l& +E :\{a giGI 5.3.4. LAKEVIEW RANCH BASIN Proposed projects in the Lakeview Ranch Basin are characterized by interceptor lines and two proposed regional lift stations that will serve future development and allow for the abandonment of smaller existing lift stations. All proposed projects for the Lakeview Ranch Basin are shown in Exhibit U – Lakeview Ranch CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 110 Lg i ahi gE ii :h !!! gU IU 8aa ahUna = C)ZiinB > IU E 3 /+ Z gZ IUa ILa [ a Aaw { T:a a\1 WU •e I d,Ba .INIUI C/\–IT /\\31A3>fVI SNI (9g) p \h A x= = =B) ;1[B{a Q( i - ::: j ii) .Jk;'-.1TH \ ! aa IsUl EHI lae) 8 Ri++'*-T q;;g g iIt::i } i f g ! ! ii al a !!!if i A CD LU !!!!; igl„l! g:! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! \>£&iI?q?:'i:[] n! l RU HICKORY CREEK gAS Proposed projects in the Hickory Creek Basin are characterized by interceptor lines to serve new development and construction of the new Hickory Creek WRP. The proposed Hickory Creek WRP is discussed in detail in Section 4.5.3. As detailed in Section 3.3.3, proposed projects are not phased to serve any of the proposed MUDs until the 10-year planning period. All proposed projects for the Hickory Creek Basin are shown in Exhibit V – Hickory Creek CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master Plan 112 IEE=+,Bj rT + = ! !:n ={} > CL6= 6\ &I E\? Z 3a, aHIh gE aIU !!IUb !!! PaIUiaa==a EIU IUa C) i g C)••Hl•E Z gZ IUa ILa [ C) /f‘;$ I IL_ i IHI iRjRg B‘ i g ! i!!ig F j } • f il !!!!:1 OE El ]iii:if iii!!i: g;Ti&iii:i as The scope of the WWMP was to outline projects to serve the 5, 10, and 25-year planning periods. However, the alignments of proposed sewer lines to serve the build-out of the Study Area Boundary were also identified. The alignments of the Future CIP Projects, in conjunction with the 5, 10, and 25-year CIP Projects, are shown in Exhibit W – Future CIP Projects. Denton Wastewater Master PIm 1 1 4 { x +T:: /q :::• +? I := == y:IIfT A/TIFf• LEGEND ExIstIng hfnstructun FRI wu RuIRn•tho nK (WRP) lta UR %ibna OWHSbngenM -='- ==mURnMS 10.Year CIP Prefects a Pnp$=d Ut SaO8n )=( ==P=tB:Anna al UrgeD+nUR nbabbeAb•n4ond Xb X Utde DIe+n Fue Nah B be Ab•ryjoned a hqpo.d WbOB &KbHnOBn rbIR amtr) PIx>pondSHM [0]8 EL SUdan Alh•raone£ O „-a U'"- (fIl QBWQLnH GooDe Creek [ ] PHnOM Frn•k <SJ HJBWMW ICB : • ::i=1:11 n 1SIIncIy E] Chr aWk E]#OOVO•U [ ]LAIHWWM SoYur CIP Projects e medIa anon Sbngp Tale • hqoIHe# LIt SHen -= PFeBo+edSeHULne B EBLRSUUonbbeAbHdund } =C :==== =E=e1E=== A11nE)N!III [Jd Under De+n Ln StatIon b be Abadornd H' XUn4u Inn Fg#oe Url AhuidmBd a hB,Id Wtter Xo,hHnabn Pba(WRO BJ bl WaH RedbmHenPbN Cmp) b be an4oned 25-Y•ar CIP Pro}ects Pn#HHledSeHU • PMI#nd LR sauen B & LRSHonbbeAhndondFeweR+dn >HI++ bb Force H•hb b•Nl•n4ofnd Future CIP Projects • Proposed SenBLbK a Pnp09ad LIt SOOon U•Hl••== mM Q I" a 4,500 FEFr CITY OF DENTON imley »>Horn Tt\b map poduct is for hformRbn purIMnlu andhave been eruarnd uatTFLErnPV $Q'rbg+a.gheerhg,.rswv€yhq ptrnab it :::iTbUT;;iT:aanp::=mT£J==:==I K d nF#vI bwnderluTJf!!mxl WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN W FUTURE CIP PROJECTS FdHllHy 2084 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS Denton Wastewater Master Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 PCWRP Headworks Facility PCWRP 5.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 26 MGD CCWRP 2.5 MGD MBR Plant Clear Creek Interceptor Roark Branch Interceptor Cole Ranch Interceptor North Cole Ranch Sewer Line Legends Sewer Line Robson Ranch Sewer Line Robson West 5.5 MGD Lift Station Milam Creek Sewer Line Ganzer Rd Sewer Line North Masch Sewer Line Masch Sewer Line Replacement North Loop 288 Sewer Line Mingo Road Sewer Line Lakeview Interceptor Replacement Lakeview South Lift Station Grissom Sewer Line Lakeview Ranch Sewer Line United Copper Sewer Line Granada Sewer Line Dry Fork Sewer Line Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin Improvements Cooper Creek Sewer Line Replacement Pecan Creek Interceptor Replacement Beaver Creek Sewer Line North Milam Sewer Line HCWRP 10.0 MGD MBR Plant Stark Farms Sewer Line C Wolfe Road Interceptor TN Skiles Road Interceptor Ponder Sewer Line South Hickory Creek Sewer Line Wolf Branch Sewer Line Sanctuary Sewer Line $56,260,000 $120.000,000 $1 18,800,000 $89,443,000 $35,323,300 $53.341 ,900 87,31 1 ,200 $32,082,200 $5.798,900 $2.816,300 $13,751.400 $2,526,800 $8,6&4,500 $5,557,600 $7,978,400 $4,380,200 $4,558,000 $8.300,000 $2,955,300 $5.816,900 $9,497,600 $1.268,400 $3,617,200 818,450,000 $3,586,100 $3,892,900 $2,912,200 $6,892,000 W8.600,000 $1 .340,100 $18.119,400 $14,423,400 $5,233,500 $22,576,700 $18,041 ,000 $4,284,700 $2.133.600 $4.276,100 $1,661 ,700 $2.333,800 $3,463.500 $3,930,500 $3.173,600 $2.920,700 $396,600,000 $98,800,000 $12.060,800 $1 7,728,800 $3.180,600 $6,700,000 $2.624,800 $3.250,800 $180,000 $13.556,500 $2,966,800 $2,338,200 $923,300 $1.141 ,300 $1.337.500 $2,909,900 $4,504,700 $2,281 ,100 $5, 642,900 $2,675,700 $1 ,773.718,300 Cole Ranch West Sewer Line Roark Branch North Sewer Line Hunter Ranch North Sewer Line Hunter Ranch East Sewer Line Hunter Ranch South Sewer Line East Clear Creek Sewer Line East Milam Sewer Line HCWRP 10.0 MGD MBR Expansion to 20.0 MGD CCWRP 2.5 MGD MBR Expansion to 5.0 MGD Hickory Creek Interceptor Parallel Cole Ranch Interceptor Parallel East McKinney Street Sewer Line Lnkeview North Lift Station North Trinity Road Sewer Line Timber Branch Sewer Line Cooper Creek Lift Station Upgrades Florence Road Sewer Line Hunter Ranch West Sewer Line North Robson Ranch Sewer Line Roark Branch West Sewer Line Roark Branch South Sewer Line Roark Branch East Sewer Line Cole Ranch South Sewer Line Lovers Lane Sewer Line North TN Skiles Road Sewer Line South Clear Creek Sewer Line Hog Branch Sewer Line Basis for Cost Projection al No Dalgn Corrpleed O hdintnay DesV1 Q final DBgI Projects Total: Mobilization Under $1,000,000 Sub-Total $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 Greater than $5,000,000 $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000 Width (ft Traffic Rural, through fields, not along roads, minor road crossings. Along roads, likely lane closures. Complete road closures, reroutes, flaggers $ 25,000 $ 35,000 $ 50,000 Miscellaneous Under $1,000,000 Sub-Total $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 Greater than $3,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 175,000 $ 250,000 Allowance Under $1,000,000 Sub-Total $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 Greater than $3,000,000 $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ 300,000 Erosion Control Base, plus $10,000/mile $ 5,000 Easement Acquisition 21 - 36" Diameter Single Proposed >36" Diameter Single Proposed $15/sqft $15/sqft $15/sqft $15/sqft $15/sqft 35 45 40 45 100 0 0 0 21- 36" Diameter Existing Parallel >36" Diameter Existing Parallel Proposed Parallel - Phase 1 Proposed Parallel - Phase 2 Below 21" Replacement Manholes 4' Manhole (<12") 5' Manhole (15"- 27") 6’ Manhole (>30") $ $ $ 10,000 15,000 25,000 3 500 500 500 Hydromulch Repair 40 12Pavement Repair S 150 Sewer Line Trench Safety 3 250,000 500,000 500,000 Bypass Pumping 21 - 36" Diameter Existing Parallel >36" Diameter Existing Parallel Existing Replacement $ $ $ orn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Client : roject: No. 11/ Scity ofm;Date : Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked061024054 PCWRP Headworks Facili r !works facility to remove large debris from the treatment plant How Unit Unit Price Item CostItem No.Item n LSmAm $ aim$2.090,000 $ 12,500,000Electrical$ 12,500,0002 $ 12,500,000LSSite Civil $12,500,0003 LS $ 14,590,000$ 14,590,000Treatment4 e :otal : a 25c70 $ 10,420,000Rg A Preliminary $ 4,160,000Fessional Services },+/-)10c70 Final $ 56,260,000otal : a abig iIi;ii£p£Ms ih ive==;F;==+;Engineer hai no control over tAI cost ot tddlng or market conditions, Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this tIme and represent nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guaranteSH is, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Copy of Denton_Treatment_OPCC.xlsx rn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable Construction Cost IClient : No.: 2 City of Denton Date Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Checked B\ PCWRP 5.0 MGD MBR ion to 26 MGD Expansion of Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant to add a 5 MGD membrane bioreactor treatment train, solids handling improvements, and UV dIsinfection improvements to expand the capacity of the plant from 21 MGD to 26 MGD Unit PriceUnit Item C8stite;i Descriiiate–m hoI LS Mm©mJIMl LSElectrical $ 26.670,000$ 26.670,0002 LS $ 26,6701ooo ll $ 26,670,000Site Civil3 ,ooo II $ 31,200,000LSTreatment$ 314 8aMb:ion: $ 22,230,00025c70+/-)J /O,+1 8,880,000a10c70 otal $120,000,000Final no;ml ;ii:iFiTineri JS met cled herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posais, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesVB1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCCK)opy of Denton_Treatment_OPCC.xlsx rn & Associates, Inc Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Client: ect: No. 3 Date :City of Denton Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked061024054 mVMBR Ptant &iFutilizing membrane bioreactor technology tem No Unit PriceItem Desert Unit Item Coston®$ 4„'M©EZHHmm $4,400,000 LSElectrical $ 26,400,000, 000$ 26, $ 26,400.000LSSite Civil $26,400,000 LS $ 30,800,000Treatment$30,800, 000 btota I : $lo,+l‘25cyo ,000,000 10c70 $ 8,800,000 $118,800,000otal 8qiipmerit, dr bver iii; Iii;i=Ti;;i =>mat rovided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW Utilities\061024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Copy of Denton_Treatment_OPCC.xlsx & Associates, Inc.E©Union of Probable 7DateClient : Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master PlanProject: Checked B061024054 ANo.: Clear Creek in4 or The Clear Creek interceptor flows west to east across the Clear Creek Basin to the proposed Clear Creek WRP, allowing for the abandonment of multiple lift stations. It is sized to accommodate the projected 25-year flow, prImarily from proposed development ar period Unit Price Item CostItem Descri QuantIty UnitItem No Citv of Denton aIr)ng I-IS in thp Milam CrPek arPa. OPCC inclrides nurchase of IOO’ easement to accomodate a future oarallel olanned bevond the 2S- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 27" Sanitary Sewer 30" Sanitary Sewer 36" Sanitary Sewer 42" Sanitary Sewer l36" Bore and Steel Casing l48" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair 1 Pavement Repair l5' Manhole l6' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 16,300 6,300 4, 100 12,700 250 450 39,400 393,200 5,300 33 46 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 25,000 250 , 000 300.000 79,600 375 400 425 450 1 ,250 1 ,500 3 3 150 15.000 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ H3®n© ®m® 25.000 250,000 300, 000 79,600 6,112,500 2,520,000 1 ,742, 500 5,715,000 312, 500 675,000 118,200 1 ,179,600 795, 000 489,000 1 , 155,000T;i;iiFt;iF m) No Chsign (l>mpleted Preliminary [>sign Final Design IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%.+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 7 $ 5,442,225 $ 3,265,335 $ 58,966,500 $ 89,442,960 tiiii;i=oFiii of dete;rAining j;ice; iRb ;dr coTii;iIFIJIeitRi;;i s no control over herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that Fptnions of probable costs 0 K:\FTW_UtiliMsV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC_2.xJsx & Associates, Inc.IIon of Probable in Cos 11Lte Prepared By: Py}/{ 1g! .er Master Plan Checked 5 Roa–r-k ii;i t=or The Roark Branch Interceptor flows west to east to the proposed Hickory Creek WRP, allowing for the abandonment of Vintage Lift Station. It will not be paralled in the future and is therefore sized to a le buildout now of the service area. Service area includes the pro Id Hunter Ranch development and the Robson Ranch development. ltein CostUnitUnit PriceItem DescriptionItem No i a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I Traffic Control 1 1 1 1 1 3,700 4, 100 3,500 12,500 50 50 1 ,000 24,200 98.600 3.300 7 40 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 300, 000 25,000 250,000 300, 000 50,800 375 400 425 450 1 ,250 1 ,350 1 ,500 3 3 150 15.000 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ED)l@] 25,000 250.000 300.000 50,800 1 ,387, 500 1 ,640,000 1.487, 500 5,625,000 62.500 67, 500 1 ,500,000 72,600 295.800 495,000 11 1.000 1 ,005,000 I Allowance Erosion Control 27" Sanitary Sewer 30" Sanitary Sewer 36" Sanitary Sewer 42" Sanitary Sewer l36" Bore and Steel Casing l42" Bore and Steel Casing l48" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l5' Manhole l6' Manhole Fsi;FEIiT No Chsign Cbmpletai Fsubtota jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 6 Preliminary [>sign Final Duign $ 3,668,800 $ 2,201,280 $ 14,778,000 $ 35,323,280 tiHIT;iii;T=;tTJ&TaliaiF iocontFol iJirth8cos£8f Ial;br, rFI;teri£h £;juipii8nt, oF over i8terrr;iAg J;iietoro Jer cornpetittve the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee-Mb]‘ posaEs, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. ding or market conditions, Oninions of nrobable costs orovided herein are based on the information known to Engjneer at this time and reores.nrl*t K:\FTW_UtilttiesKB 1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx Horn & Associat nc.f@ 3inion of Probable Construction of Denton 1)Date : ton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: Checked B A Cole Ranch Inter6 The Cole Ranch Interceptor flows southeast to the Hickory Creek Interceptor. It is sized to :e the projected 10-year Howr) InclUding flow from the proposed Cole development and the proposed MUDs (see Section 2.5.3), A 30" paraIEel is proposed in the 25- year planning period (Project 48). Should the City choose not to accomodate MUDs in the ICFyear, a 30" could be constructed in the 5- year and a 42" parallel in the 25-year >CC includes purchase of ICXy easement to accomodate the 25-year parallel. 0 0 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 iteril Descri n lumtv 1 1 1 1 1 2,700 19,700 100 600 22,300 222,400 3.000 45 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price lierh-fos£ ITrafnc Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 36" Sanitary Sewer 42" Sanitary Sewer l42" Bore and Steel Casing l48" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair Pavement Repair l6' Manhole M3 25.000 250, 000 300,000 47, 200 425 450 1 ,350 1 ,500 3 3 150 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 25,000 250.000 300 , 000 47.200 1 , 147,500 8,865,000 135.000 900, 000 66.900 667,200 450.000 1.120.000a FEet== &No S& M [] Preliminary Design Final Design Eubtota IConUng. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 2 $ 3,568,450 $ 2,141,070 $ 33.358.500 $ 53,341 ,820 EmiT o i ;auip4ient, b; o iii the ContractoF ii meltidA a;{;briining prices or ovbi air;petiiivecostFOr, mat idding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesV>61024054_Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPec.xlsx Kimley-Horn &Inc.of Probable Construction CIty of DentoiClient:11/223te Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By:roiect : 061024054No.A 7 North dol;18ict;TwH ii The North Cole Ranch Sewer Line flows south to the Cole Ranch Interceptor. It is sized to accommodate t in the year, a 15" could be constructed in the 5-year to accomodate now from Legends and a 30" parallel in the 25-year. Purchase of :e a future parallel planned beyond the 25-yearICXy easement is included to lriod Item CostItem Description Unit PriceUnituanti - I D 0 including flow from the nrooosed Legends develooment and the nronosed MUDs. Sholild the Citv choose not to arrnmndatpm D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 36" Sanitary Sewer l42" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l6' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 2.600 200 2,600 25. 100 400 5 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ EIIIII]III ]I 25,000 250,000 300, 000 9,900 425 1 ,350 3 3 150 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i $ $ $ $ KllIIrIIl] 25.000 250,000 300.000 9,900 1 ,105,000 270.000 7.800 75.300 60.000 130,000 for Cist P & a No Design Completui m) Preliminary Chsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 2.533,000 633,250 379,950 3,765,000 7,311,200 mo TiEiiamme='3MiF )’S m 0 inicns of probable costs provided herein are based on the informatIon known to Engineer at this time and represent desIgn professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs will not varY from its opinions of probable costs 0 K:\FTW_UtilttiesK)61024054_Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx <imley-Horn & Associates, Inc.[9 rinian of Probable Construction D :@ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer 124" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 2.400 13.000 450 15.300 152.400 2,100 5 26 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ y@=®®’®Y®] 25,000 250 , 000 300, 000 34,000 250 265 850 3 3 150 10.000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 25,000 250.000 300.000 34.000 600.000 3,445.000 382, 500 45,900 457.200 315,000 48.000 390, 000 Tic & H NojBm§ompleam ©R) TaI: Preliminary Design Final Design ]Conting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 5 $ 1,648,150 $ 988,890 $ 22,852,500 $ 32,082,140 r TiFF;;iiT;;Iequipment, or over imIFiaaFiii;fimmate nIV the Engineer's judgment as a desIgn professtona1 farrliliar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. idcling or market conditions. C)ninian'; of nrnhahln costs nrnvidPd hPrPin arp ha carl nn tho infnrm2tir\n knr,\A,rt to FnoinoPr nt thic timo and ran,Dear,t K:\FTW_UtilttiesV)61024054_Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Semr OPCC.xlsx Horn & Associates, inc.0 Drlion of Probable Construction City of Dentoi Ite : Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan 54 9 Robson Ranch Sewer UniTao rTevelopment toRe-msUi;k> the abandonment of the Robson Ranch East Lift Station. It is sized to accommodate buildout flow of the service area. D 11/22/ i AWS a 0610240 allowing for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lilization I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer 21" Sanitary Sewer 27" Sanitary Sewer 130" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair l4' Manhole k Manhole Item Description a Unituant 1 1 1 1 1 100 100 3,500 900 50 4,600 16,900 0 9 nB LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF SY EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price In$1@l@1@] 25,000 250,000 300,000 13.700 250 265 325 375 1.000 3 3 10,000 15.000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ SI $ $ $ $ liH5©m® 25,000 250 , 000 300, 000 13,700 25,000 26,500 1 ,137,500 337, 500 50,000 13,800 50.700 2,000 135,000 mr Jb )r, ha££ria ls: ihe En£inbg Fh no control o CeF the cost-ipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive Unions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this Ome and representidding or market conditions nIV the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs No CHsign Cbmpleted ®LR£i; Preliminary [>sign Final Design IConHng. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15 cyo .2 .'5 1 6.700 629, 175 377, 505 2,275,500 5,798,880 0 K:\FTW UtilitiesV)61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer_OPCC.xlsx Horn and Associates, Inc.of Probable Construction Cost R City of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan 61024054 Date : Prepared By: Checked B tIe:Robson West Lift Station Description Robson West 5.5 MGD Lift Station Robson West 24-Inch Force Main $ $ $ 13,700 Total : Basis for Cost Proiection: I [] Preliminary Design D Final Design This total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition. equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitiveEngineer has no control over the cost }r, materi adding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the bn industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Horn and Associates, Inc,0 3inion of Probable Construction Client: roject: KHA No. : 20 City ot EMI Jr:Date Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 61024054 Checked Robson West 5.5 MGD LifTitm Fl The Robson West Uf&] MMe;;mma o MaIn the service area. Robson WRP. Both the lift station and forcemain are sized to accommodate bulldout flow from existing and orooosed develooment withirl T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 @ 12,400 GPM Submersible Pumps l20" pc 250 DIP Wetwell Piping l24" ASTM F679 PSI 15 PVC Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut 120" PC 250 DIP Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut l4" PVC Drain l20" PIug Valve l20" Swing Check Valve l6" Air Release 20" Gate Valve 20" Quick Connect l20" Coupling Adaptor IDI Fittings l6' Diameter Standard Manhole l6' Extra Depth Standard Manhole jwetwell Epoxy Liner I Odor Control Unit and Controller System 14' Cast-in-Place Concrete Wet Well I Discharge Piping Valve Vault Double Leaf Aluminum Hatches I Flow Meter Manhole and Strap-On Meter l20' Concrete Driveway ITxDOT Item 247 Flexible Base, Grade A, Type 1 FCast-in-Place Concrete (Slab-on-Grade) IHydromulch Control Panel Shelter 8' Chain Link Fence 24' Chain Link Gate FGrading/Site Restoration Erosion Control / SWPPP ITrench Safety I 3 80 20 80 8 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 rs EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA TONS EA VF VF LS LS LS EA LS SY SY CY SY LS LS EA LS LS LS T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ mI mo 225, 000 225 300 275 40 30,000 20,000 7,500 15,000 10,000 7,500 12,500 15,000 1 ,000 750 35,000 750 , 000 250,000 50,000 40,000 150 80 150 10 7,500 25,000 10,000 75, 000 25,000 25,000 ML T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $'' mo 675,000 18,000 6,000 22,000 320 90,000 60,000 22,500 15,000 10,000 15,000 25,000 15,000 20,000 22,500 35,000 750, 000 250, 000 100.000 40,000 112,500 40,000 30,000 15,000 7,500 25,000 20,000 75, 000 25,000 25, 000 2 20 30 1 2 1 750 500 200 1500 1 1 2 Kimley-Horn and Associat [@ linton of Probable Construction Cost Client: Project: <HA No 10 Date 7 Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked B61024054 Robson West 5.5 MGD Lift Station The Robson West Lift Station pumps flow west to east to the proposed Robson Ranch Sewer Line, allowing for the abandonment of the Robson WRP. Both the lift station and forcemain are sIzed to accommodate buildout flow from existing and proposed development within the service area. UnittIonuanti Cost Citv of Denton a T 2 3 4 5 6 7 e e EquIpment I Automatic Transfer Switch I Standby Diesel Generator I Pump Control Panel IscADA Equipment Instrumentation, and Programming Miscellaneous Electrical Items I Electrical Service Provider Allowance a 7 1 LS LS LS LS LS LS LS T $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 75.000 500,000 200,000 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 75,000 500, 000 200,000 125, 000 75.000 25, 000 lx9B29xPm© 125,000 75,000 25,000 FebTr =Rama n:-giFtno iT To-inD D No Design Completed Conting. (%, +/-)25 8 $ 963,680 This total does not reflect engineering or technIcal services, or land and easement acquIsition. Final Design etmateria-ii;iimrM-iTiF'he En 'S me ng ces or over corn orno 3inions af probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the EngIneer'sconditions as a design professional familiar wIth the constructIon industry. Tbe Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual 'obable costswill not from its opinions of 0 orn and Associates, Inc.0 rirtion of Probable Construction atv of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan Date : Prepared By: 61024054 Robson West 24-Inch Force Main Line No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Description Eg Unit PriceUnit I Mobilization I Site Clearing l24' HDPE DIPS DR Il Force Main by Open Cut 24" HDPE DIPS DR 11 Force Main Carrier Pipe 136" Steel Casing Pipe by Auger Bore 124" Plug Valve l6" Combination Air Release Valve w/ Vault ITrench Safety I Erosion Control / swppp Hydromulch I Topsoil rs LS LF LF LF EA EA LF LS SY CY i $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 50,000 275 225 1.000 35,000 20,000 5 15,000 10 25 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i 100,000 50,000 3,437,500 270, 000 1 ,200, 000 140, 000 40,000 62,500 15,000 420, 000 60,000 7 1 ,505,000 F#;IiI.1.1.1. 1 12500 1200 1200 4 2 12500 1 42000 2400 e ml = Conting. (% tmaNo DesIgn Completed [] Prdiminary [ksign [.] Final Deggn IThis total does not reflect engineering or technical services, +/-)25 or land and easement acquisition. )0'S moverii:or overThenoUor Unions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent onlybidding or market conditions the Engineer's judgment as a design professIonal familiar with the construction industry The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids lor actual costs will not vary from its opInIons of probable costs. 0 le CIIent: roject: KHA No 11 City of Denton 11/22/:Ite : 3nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked AW Milam Creek Sewer Line The Milarn Creek Sewer Line flows north to the Ganzer Lift Station (under design), allowing for the abandoment of the Border Cowboy Union 76, and Barrow Lift Stations. It is sized to accommodate buildout flow from existing and proposed development within t:he service area D D (9) T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 lobin£ation I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer 21" Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer 36" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing 130" Bore and Steel Casing 142" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole l6' Manhole ii8hbhFiiXii Quanti'Unit 1 1 1 1 1 2, 100 1 ,300 4,000 3,800 500 550 150 350 11 ,900 26, 100 3,200 4 18 1 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item Cost K3%@l@A$1@] 35.000 250.000 300,000 27, 500 250 290 325 350 425 850 1.000 1 ,350 3 3 150 10,000 15.000 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ i 3 35.000 250.000 300.000 27.500 525.000 377,000 1.300,000 1 ,330.000 212,500 467, 500 150,000 472, 500 35,700 78,300 480,000 42,000 273,000 25,000 Cost Projecti Design COmpleted Elm No Preliminary Design Final Design jconung. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 $ 1.670,250 $ 1,002,150 $ 4,398,000 $ 13,751,400 mgb I ii:ITFbinsT;;ii >or,0 IIly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs wiN not vary from its opinions of probable costs bidding nr markpt conditions. nnininnq nf nrnh2hlP rnqtq nrnvidPd hQrPin arp h2qpd nn thp infnrm2tirtn knnwn tn Fnainoor at thjq timn and ronrpLm K:\FTW_UtilttiesVB1024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx Horn & AssocIates, Inc.ion of Probable Construction Cos K::fhT: 12 City of Denton Ite : 'nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 AV Garner Rd Sewer UnI The Ganzer Rd Sewer Une flows south to the Ganzer Lift Station (under design). It is sized to accommodate builtlout flow from exm bment within the service areaId devand UnitItem Descri Unit PriceQuantity Item Costn D FB T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lobilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhol 1 1 1 1 1 3.500 100 3,500 10,900 1 ,400 7 nB LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IEllgIII 35.000 175,000 150,000 11 ,600 250 850 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ iHIXlloo] 35,000 175,000 150,000 11 .600 875,000 85.000 10,500 32.700 210,000 b==ifFin U ML Preliminary Chsign Final Design No Design Cl>mpleted IConting. (%.+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25cyo 15c70 I $ $ $ $ 1 ,804,800 451 ,200 270.720 iJi;M:–oTi;;almRi-Gmi lbrmihn£n> ce; ir over compeli iiA0 herein are based on the informatIon known to Engineer at this time and represent the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee thaI pintons of probable costs. 2.526.720 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC_2.xlsx r n & Associates, Inc.lion of Probable Constructione 11/2Date: Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked B'A North Masch=mr The North Masch Sewer Line flows south to the Hickory Creek Interceptor. It is sized to accommor north of 31develotent occu Citv of Denton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,a Unit Unit–> FILeItem D liem C-ostnJana I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole [5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 3, 100 6,600 5.000 450 14,600 58,400 2,000 6 23 nLBS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA !A ?' $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 35,000 250,000 300.000 32,700 250 265 290 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ S H3©M© 35.000 250,000 300,000 32,700 775 , 000 1 ,749,000 1 ,450.000 382.500 43.800 175,200 300,000 62.000 348, 000heaT B fI e BiZTiEgao r S me':ermining prices or over competitive0 nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No Design Completed FLtm Preliminary Design Final Design jconung. (%,+/-) IProFessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acx]uisition otal : 25t70 15c70 6,203,200 1.550, 800 930,480 8,684,480 idding or market conditions. Onininns of nrobahle costs nrnvided herein are based on the information known to Engjneer at this tim? and ronresent K:\FTW_UtilitiosKBI 024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton_SewerOPCC.xlsx Horn & Associates, Inc.fg rinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Denton 11/5Date Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked A Masch Sewer Une Replacement The Masch Sewer Line ReplaGear = recommended as a 5-year project because the manho Ies along the project alignment are surcharing in the 5-year scenario. In£talling a Ik Rows is recommended to ensure rter in this area to refine ent Item Descriptio HeUnit PriceUnit Traffic Control 1 1 1 1 1 1.700 7,100 150 8,800 35,200 1 ,200 18 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY LA 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IHlIIga 35,000 250,000 300.000 21 ,700 265 290 850 3 3 150 15,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mo 35.000 250.000 300.000 21.700 450.500 2,059,000 127.500 26,400 105,600 180,000 264 , 000 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I Allowance Erosion Control 15" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair LManhote $ i;its for Cost Projel:tion:$ B 25c70 $ 15c70 [] Final Des©n II $$ mI iam;of determi bling prices ib aber co AMaFor, h£teri iG eqLipment, b; ave; th& &TRi;;ii;;ii;cost o 0 icIding or market conditions Unions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantemat roposats, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. No CHsign Cbmpleted Preliminary CXsign IConHng. (%,+/-) IProfessionat Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : Eubtota I :9 $ 992,425 595.455 5.557.580 0 K:\FTW UtilitiesK)61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx Klmley-Horn & Associa nc.0 3inion of Probable Construction Cos Client: Project: KHA No.: 15 City of Denton ite : Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked B'AWS/T061024054 North 288 Sewer Line0 The North Loop 288 Sewer Line is sized to accommodate flow from the Agave Ranch, Stark Farms, Stuart Ridge East, and Stuart RIdge Le buildout gravity How of the service area once the flow from the liftWest Lift Stations (all under design). it is also sized to stations is re-routed to the Clear Creek Interceptor (see Project 43) D Item No, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Item Desc a r 1 1 1 1 1 5.000 2,300 2,650 7 ,200 19,200 3,900 10 5 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item Cost I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole Ms 35,000 250,000 300,000 18.600 250 265 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ MI 35.000 250.000 300.000 18.600 1 ,250.000 609.500 2.252.500 21.600 57,600 585.000 100,000 69,000 a on: T Mri O azT;;iiiL 3no control over the cost o lor, mat 'ided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at thIs time and represent with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that its opinions of probable costs. [i;ii=: No Design Cl>mpleted Preliminary CHsign ;onting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 6 1 ,424,700 854.820 Final Design 7,978,320 K:\FTW UtilitiesV>61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx orn &0 Union of Probable Construction Cos Client:City of Denton ate Project:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054HA No Checked Road Sewer andf6Min R I is sized to serve development along Loop 288. Item DescriptionItem No uantity UnitHlnFmmHn !B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 1 1 1 1 1 4.600 1 ,300 4,600 16,400 1.300 9 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair Pavement Repair IUM] 35,000 175,000 150,000 13,700 250 850 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ $ $ $ M1 35.000 175.000 150.000 13.700 1 , 150,000 1 ,105.000 13.800 49,200 195,000 92,000$$14a m In: aa- a RT I 7iii;iiiiN ) bidding or market conditions.linions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that osals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs [Subtota I No EXsign (bmpletui PrelimInary [Xsign Final Design jconung. (%.+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition -otal : 25c70 15 cyo 3, 128,700 782, 175 469, 305 4,380, 180 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesVB1024054DentonWWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable Construction City of DentonClient:Date Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master PlanProject Checked B0654KHA No.: :or ReplacementLakeview The Lakeview Interceptor Replacement is a replacement of the existing 15" and 21" to from existi development wIthin the Lakeview Ranch Basin.and UnitmtItem DescriptionItem No 0240 0 Le the projected buildout flow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 400 3,200 1 ,100 100 4,600 18,400 700 7 2 1 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price itn ITrafnc Control E Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 24" Sanitary Sewer 27" Sanitary Sewer 30" Sanitary Sewer l36" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l5' Manhole l6' Manhole iass Pumpin(B' lalx9LeM 25,000 175.000 150,000 13.700 350 375 400 1 ,250 3 3 150 15,000 25,000 500, 000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i $ $ $ $ Ml®I©l©] 25,000 175,000 150,000 13,700 140.000 1 ,200,000 440.000 125,000 13,800 55,200 105,000 108,000 55,000 500.000 On No m) )nting. (%, +/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition Total : 25cyo 15t70 2 Preliminary [Hsign Final Design 813,925 488,355 7giLTim)I ne: in IndustrY. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee thatnly the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the roposals, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 4.557.980 ding nr markpt rnnditinnq. Onininnq nf nrrrhahle costs nrnvidPd her?in are based on the information known to Engjneer at this time and reDresent K:\FTW UtilttiesKB1024054 Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC_2.xlsx Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.a in of Probable on ly of Denton Project: Denton Wastewater Master Plan KHA No.: 61024054 iI Date Prepared By: rr/22/2023 Cl Title: 'riority Lakeview South Lift Station Total Lakeview South 5.2 MGD Lift Station Lakeview South Force Main $4.200.000 $4, 100,000 $8,300,000 7,800 e No Design Completed Final Design This total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition costR3:68:mM/no;Tail;c; the information known to Engineer at thts time and represent only The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals and Associat nc.0 3inion of Probable ConstructIon Client: jproject:KHA No.: 18 City of Denton 7/3Date Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 61024054 LakevIew South 5.2 MGD Lift Station The Lakeview South Lift Station pumps flow to the proposed Lakeview interceptor. It will serve as a regional lift statIon for the southeriM of the Lakeview Ranch Basin. Both the lift station and force main are sized to accommodate butldout flow from existing and proposed deveEopment within the service area UnitQuant Unit Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 12,200 GPM Submersible Pumps 18" PC 250 DIP Wetwell Piping l24" ASTM F679 PSI 15 PVC Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut 18" PC 250 DIP Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut 14" pvc Drain on 1 3 80 20 80 8 3 3 3 rs EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA TONS EA VF VF LS LS LS EA LS SY SY CY SY LS LS EA LS LS LS T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ mI 200 ,,M 200,000 200 250 250 40 25,000 15,000 5,000 10,000 7,500 4,000 10,000 15,000 1.000 750 35,000 500,000 200,000 50, 000 40,000 150 80 150 10 7,500 25,000 10,000 75,000 25,000 25,000mT g' $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T 200,000 600, 000 16,000 5,000 20,000 320 75.000 45, 000 15,000 10,000 7,500 8,000 20,000 15.000 20,000 22,500 35,000 500,000 200,000 100,000 40,000 112,500 40,000 30,000 15,000 7.500 25,000 20,000 75,000 25,000 25,000 2 18" Plug Valve 118" Swing Check Valve 14" Air Release 18" Gate Valve 18" Quick Connect 18" Coupling Adaptor IDI Fittings l6' Diameter Standard Manhole l6' Extra Depth Standard Manhole jwetwell Epoxy Liner I Odor Control Unit and Controller System 14' Cast-in-Place Concrete Wet Well I Discharge Piping Valve Vault Double Leaf Aluminum Hatches I Flow Meter Manhole and Strap-On Meter l20' Concrete Driveway ITxDOT Item 247 Flexible Base, Grade A, Type 1 I Cast-in-Place Concrete (Slab-on-Grade) Hydromulch I Control Panel Shelter l8' Chain Link Fence l24' Chain Link Gate I Grading/Site Restoration Erosion Control / SWPPP I Trench Safet 2 2 20 30 1 1 1 2 1 750 500 200 1500 2 1 1 Horn and Associates, Inc.0 rinion of Probable Construction 7/31Date:City of DentonClient : Prepared By:Iect:nton Wastewater Master Plan Checked61024054No Lak8view SOLa 5l-MGD Lift Station18 development within the service area Unit Price CostDescri D The Lakeview South Lift Station oumos flow to the oroDOsed Lakeview InterceDtor. It will serve as a regjonal lift station for the southern half of tho lakeviPW Ranrh Raqjn_ Both the lift station and force main are sized to accommodate buildout flow from existing and oronosed Qua ntitv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IdHL81mM I Automatic Transfer Switch I Standby Diesel Generator Pump Control Panel I SCADA Equipment, Instrumentation, and Programming IMiscellaneous Electrical Items Electrical Service Provider Allowance Electrical. Instrumentation. and SCADA 1 1 1 rs LS LS LS LS LS LS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E2§Xgl@IiI 75,000 500 , 000 200 , 000 125,000 75,000 ?5,000 i $ $ $ $ $ $ T M2 75,000 500,000 200,000 125,000 75,000 25,000 ner a MmM I Contlng (% +/-)[] Prelimlnary EHs ign H Total: [] Final Design IThis total does not reflect engIneering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition. Subtota 25 3 $ 850,680 $ 4,200,000 Feteor over m-emenoover Unions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this tIme and represent onlyding or market conditions Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the industry' The EngIneer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, ion oosts will not vary from its opEnions of probable costs.actual constrl a Kimlev-Horn and Associates, Inc.[Cg rinior! of Probable Construction Client: Project: KHA No.: 18 City of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan Date : Prepared By: 61024054 Lakeview South Force Main 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lobilization Site Clearing 116" Force Main by Open Cut 116" Force Main Carrier Pipe 130" Steel Casing Pipe by Auger Bore 120" Plug Valve 14" Combination Air Release Valve ITrench Safety Erosion Control / SWPPP Hydromulch I Topsoil LS LS LF LF LF EA EA LF LS SY CY oiMml $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 75,000 30,000 250 200 750 25.000 15,000 15,000 10 25 5 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T IMiIIIiI 30, 000 1.800, 000 120,000 750, 000 100.000 30,000 36,000 15,000 240,000 35,000 3,231 ,000 7200 600 1000 4 2 7200 24000 1400 a -giFt;ima No Chslgn Cbmpleted Continl Total : (%, +/-:25 869,000 1 [] naiminary Deggn [] Final Des©n This total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition. n O Gm/B )lg bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent onjy Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals. bids or actual costs will not vary from lts opinions of probable costs. Horn & Associates, Inc.Ki 0 Union of Probable Construction Cos City of DentonClient :11/22/:Ite : :nton Wastewater Master PlanProject:Prepared By: KHA No,54 Checked AWSfrc[, Grissom Sewer Line19 The Grissom Sewer Line flows east to the proposed Lakeview South Lift Station, allowing fo Station. It is sized to late but within the service area. Item Descri Quan UnitItem No.Unit Price Item =[MS mme D 0610240 D a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manholl 1 1 1 1 1 2,000 2,700 100 4,700 18.800 700 4 5 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IM5@l@IiI 25,000 175,000 150,000 13,900 250 265 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ $ $ S IEIlaIII] 25.000 175,000 150.000 13,900 500.000 715,500 85,000 14, 100 56,400 105,000 40,000 81 ,000 is Da @)oX No [>sign Ck3mpleta! Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition [Total : 25c70 15c70 1 527,725 316,635 Eigir;airE is ii c8itrol over th& East of i;k;8(h£ieii bIs, ;q£libmei(or ovei the Contractor’; ;nbtiods o-I iI c8mpetiGh 3inions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and representbidding or market conditions jonly the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional famiIIar with the construction }ndustry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 2,955,260 0 K:\FTWUtilitiesK)61024054Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton SewerOPCC2.xlsx Kimley & Associates, Inc,(G)3inion of Probable in Cost Client: KHA No 20 City of Denton Ite 3nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 AU Lakeview Ranch Sewer LIne The Lakeview Ranch Sewer Line flows southeast to the Lakeview South Lift Station, a11owing for the abandonment of the Lakeview Ranch TrinitY Lift Station, it is sized to serve the buitdout flow from development occuring in the northwest portion of the Lakeview D D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lobilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing 130" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole I am Dis a Unitrant T 1 1 1 1 600 3,900 150 50 4.600 13,400 700 1 8 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EAU $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item Coi m5 25,000 250,000 300,000 13,700 250 350 850 1.000 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ im 25,000 250.000 300.000 13,700 150,000 1 ,365,000 127, 500 50,000 13,800 40,200 105,000 12,000 117,000mam iF ;ubtotal : ;onting. (%,+/.) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement A(xluisition ITotal: 25c70 15c70 7 Prelimirnry CHsign Final CHsign 679, 800 407, 880 2,010,000 5,816,880 ETgi;;77l=;aLI F)rices or over competitlve jonEy the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that saIs, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. ding or market conditions. Oninions nf nrobahlo rnqtq nrnvidod hPrPin arp haqPd nrl tho infnrm2tinn knr,\A/n tn FnoinDa, at thic ti,no and ,an,Dean+ K:\FTW_UtilttiesKB1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton_So%r_OPCC 2.xJsx Kiml lrn & Associates, Inc.[9 3inion of Probable Construction Cos Client:Date 02: Prepared By:?nton Wastewater Master Plan Checked11024054 A 21 tmd Copper Sewer Line The United Copper Sewer Line flows southeast to the proposed Lakeview Ranch Sewer Line, allowing for the abandonment of the United Copper Lift Station. It is sized to accommodate buildout flow from development occuring in the northwest portion of the keview Ranch Basin iUnit PriceQuantityItem Descri UnitItem No n Citv of Denton D a 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lobilization [ Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing l30" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety [Hydromulch Repair F Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 2.400 2,900 5, 100 200 100 10,300 17,600 1 ,400 5 16 ma LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ apwIlt] 25,000 250,000 300,000 24,500 250 265 350 850 1 ,000 3 3 150 10,000 5,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 300.000 25,000 250.000 300, 000 24,500 600,000 768.500 1 ,785.000 170.000 100.000 30.900 52.800 210.000 48.000 me Fia D ML $ 240.000 No EXsign Cl>mpleted Preliminary [hsign IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%, +/-) IEasement Acquisition ETotal : 25c70 150/, $ $ $ $ $ 4,904, 70.@; 1 ,226, 175 735,705 2,631 , 000 9,497,580 Final Design lor, materials, 8qJi£lment, oR over the Contractor's mett;ids of cielgimining pric8g db ;;;i18MtitiveT mM only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posaEs, bIds, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. bidding nr markpt rnnditinnq nninirlnq nf nrnhahlP rnqtq nrnvidod hPrPin arp haqPd nrl thp infnrmatinrl knnwn tn FngjnPPr at this timp and rPnrPdll• K:\FTW UtilitiesVB1024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC_2.xlsx Horn & Asso.Inc.[•3inion of Probable Construction Client :City of Denton roject:Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054HA No. Granada Sewer Line22 Granada Sewer Item DescriptionItem ho. Date Prepared By: Checked ICI) the aband UnitQuantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1.500 150 1.500 5.400 400 3 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Item CostUn I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 124" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole m/M 35.000 100,000 75.000 7,800 250 850 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ $ m78liIBI 35,000 100,000 75,000 7,800 375,000 127, 500 4,500 16,200 60.000 30,000 Tsa;Fans n: & D D FRI==TarFaiRs ii >C ) nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that }n costs will not vary from ks opinions of probable costs.roposals, bids, or actual O M) Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 906185IiI 226 , 500 135,900 1 ,268.400 icIding or markpt conditions, Oninirlns nf nrnbahlo costs nrnvidPd hPrPin ara haqPd nn thp infrlrmatinn knnwn tn FngjnPPr at thjq timp and rPnrPqPnt K:\FTW_UtilttiesV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\11.OPCC\DentonSewerOPCC.xlsx lorn & Associates, Inc.Kim linkon of Probable Fn Cost CitY of Denton ite : Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: Checked14054 23 Fork Sewer Lin: accommodate existing and development. Unit PriceItem No Item Description uantitV Unit ItemHl• F©a a D The Drv Fork Sewer Line flows qnlrthwest into the Hickorv CrPnk Int?rrPntnr_ it qervnq to relieve thp IR" qPWPr lino to thp Past to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a I Traffic Control Miscellaneous I Allowance 1 Erosion Control 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing E Sewer Line Trench Safety EHydrornulch Repair I Pavement Repair l5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 4.600 400 4.600 16,400 1 ,300 9 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ llg©X@l@la 25.000 175,000 150,000 13.700 290 850 3 3 150 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ KHiXi)H 25,000 175.000 150,000 13.700 1 ,334, 000 340.000 13,800 49,200 195.000 38.000 ms GFosTFo on: B Ti tiEntno control over Mali;a I '=mJ Dicost O ’S m idding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nIV the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposats, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No Qs Eu btota 3 $ $ $ $ 2,583,700 645.925 387.555Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 3,617,180 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer_OPCC.xlsx Kim Il and Associates, Inc,ia Union of Probable Construction City of Denton Date: Project:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: KHA No Creek Peak Flow Basin Improvements24H The Hickory Creek Peak Flow Basin Improvements include modifications to the existing weir structure and installation of a sem storage tank to accommodate projected peak flow from existing and proposed development. Descril Unit Price Civil g 61024054 6.5 MG I Quantitv I Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control / SWPPP 16.5 MG Prestressed Concrete Storage Tank 124" Gate Valve & Vault l24" Sanitary Sewer 130" Sanitary Sewer I Site Work I Weir Adjustment9 1 1 1 1 1 1 800 100 1 1 rs LS LS LS EA EA LF LF LS LS 4 $ 500,000 $ 300.000 $ 50.000 $16.000,000 $ 80,000 $ 350 $ 400 $ 600.000 $ 200.000 i $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T 400, 000 500,000 300,000 50, 000 16,000, 000 80,000 280,000 40,000 600,000 200,00018M Horn and Associates, Inc.lion of Probable Construction City of Denton 11/22/2023Date Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan EKM 61024054 Checked Cred pa;k--iii; iis-i-rii AiMeme-nts24 The HickorY CreekTe;aim ItS include modifications to the existIng weir structure and installation of a seconcm-h-(i storage tank to accommodate projected peak flow from exIsting and proposed development } Line No. 1 Description UnitquarK Unit Price Cost 1 4 Electrical, Instrumentation, and SCADA Idl<qMi'll:<=lq.u11.If,Te:nt SCADA Equipment, Instrumentation, and Programming Miscellaneous Electrical Items Electrical Service Provider Allowance $ $ $ $ HIlIEI 125,000 75,000 25, 000 $ $ $ $ T 20,000 125,000 75, 000 25,000 245,000Feimr mL-m) e n:xmmEE] [] Final DesIgn Km)6 4,705,000 Preliminary Design Total : IThis total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquIsition. iia tractovere COSt el or overno 'S me ces or over competier lg or nditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the informatIon known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgmU professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual costs will not vary th0 costs. & Associatl nc.0 Union of Probable Construction Cos Client :ACity of Denton Date Project:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 06KHA No.:A Creek Sewer Line Replacement25 The Cooper Creek Sewer Line Rl is a replacement of the existing 12" line. It is led as a 5-year project because the line is su rcharging in the 5-year scenario. The replacement is primarily recommended to alleviate an existing deficiency but is sized to accomodate buildout flow from ex lment within the service area. Installing a smart meter in this area toand i mrUnit –Iiim ebsttterFii= 0240 T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I Traffic Control Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing 130" Bore and Steel Casing 1 Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole >ass Pumpin( 1 1 1 1 1 400 2,300 1.000 100 100 3.700 14,800 500 1 7 1 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5 yIyA@l@1 35,000 175,000 150,000 12,000 250 290 350 850 1 ,000 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 500,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ IE5@l@i@jg] 35.000 175.000 150.000 12,000 100,000 667.000 350.000 85.000 100.000 11, 100 44,400 75,000 8,000 99,000 500, 000ii;;iiFm naaa mm No Preliminary CXsign Final Design jconung. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-} IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 2,561,50d 640,375 384, 225 mr r =rno control over t mr=ToT8RB)'te herein are based on the informatIon known to Engineer at this Ome and representof in industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee thatthe pinions of probable costs. 3,586,100 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\DentonSewerOPCC 2.xlsx Horn & Associates, Inc.E©3inion of Probable Construction Client: Project: No.: 26 1 1 / 2 2 / 2?i; DateCii;8ii£Aii Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked061024054 A ltor RePecan Creek Inte ment led as a 5-year project because theroMeo nent is a replacement of the existing 21" line. It is line is surcharging in the 5-year scenario. The replacement is primarily recommended to alleviate an existing deficiency but is sized to accomodate buiidout flow from existing and proposed development within the service area.installing a smart meter in thIs area to refine peak flows is recommended to ensure replacement is required. Item D mts 1 1 1 1 1 3,600 3,600 16,000 7 1 Unit® LS LS LS LF SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item Cost Traffic Control Miscellaneous Allowance Erosion Control 36" Sanitary Sewer Sewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair 6' Manhole Bypass Pumpin! Earl!IOl 25,000 175,000 150.000 11 ,800 425 3 3 25,000 500,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ lg9mg 25.000 175,000 150,000 11 ,800 1 ,530,000 10.800 48.000 180.000 500,000 $a No Cbma $15c70Preliminary Design $T Final Design $ determining prices or over;iii=> mejuiF;Aed, oFoveithe Contractor's me'matecost Ono conteer over bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nly the Engineer's ]udgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable co_sts. IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%.+/-) IEasement Acquisition !Total: 2,780,600 695, 150 417.090 3,892,840 K:\FTW UtilttiesVB1024054DentonWWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\DentonSewer_OPCC_2.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.fg Union of Probable Construction Client: Project: KHA No. 27 City of Denton Date Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked A'n Beaver Creek Sewer Line The Beaver Creek Sewer Line flows north to the proposed Clear Creek Interceptor, allowing for the abandonment of the Beaver Creek, Lift Stations.West (under dSouthfork, and Stuart Rt Unit Unit Priceitem D&scR-i3tion me iyan rr/22/2023 T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lobilization I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole a 1 1 1 1 1 5,100 100 6.200 27,600 10 DLBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY IA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5@l@Ayn 25.000 175.000 150.000 16,700 250 850 3 3 10.000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ liH59I®l®]@ 25,000 175.000 150,000 16,700 1 ,275, 000 85,000 18.600 82.800 102,000 a Eection:m]a D mo-mIr;R;S–iJiiii >bor, materover t cost o equipment, or over 'S me ing or market conditions.linions af probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the constructIon industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, ML No CHsign Ck>mpletu! Preliminary CHsign Final Duign jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acx;uisition otal : 25c70 15c70 2,080, 100 520,025 312,015 2.912.140 0 K:\FTW_UtilttiesVB1024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx -Horn & Associates, Inc.0 )inion of Probable Construction 1 1 /mliiite: 'nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: ilC324C)54 Checked B A North Milarre The North Milam Sewer Line Flows east to the proposed Clear Cr> oposed development within the service area. Item Description Unit Unit PriceQuantity Item Cost Citv of Denton D a b) T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lobilization FTraffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair 5 1 1 1 1 1 10,200 400 10.200 36.300 2,800 20 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ EMI] 35,000 250, 000 300,000 24,300 290 850 3 3 150 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ IEIla)] 35.000 250,000 300.000 24, 300 2.958,000 340,000 30.600 108,900 420.000 306.000ManIi;am-sTFm:M) $15.000 11 s No [hsign Cbmpletai Preliminary CHsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/.) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 4,9@@ 1 ,230,700 738,420 mEI!mr 3materials, equiprrtent, or over the Contractor's me'no control over biddIng or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bIds, or actuaE construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 6,891.920 K:\FTW_UtilitiesVB1024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx mIley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable ConstructIon Cost Client: Project; HA No 29 DateCity of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: Checked061024054 HCWRP 10.0 MGD MBR Plant Plant new design utilizing membrane bioreactor technology10.0 MGD Hickory Creek Water Unit Trimi;h-iiiiia tem CostQuantityItem No. LS MsM© Drl $ LS ,ooo II $ 99.690,0002$ 99 Site Civil $ 9916901ooo 11 $ 99,690,0003 LS $ 116,300.000 11 $116,300,000Treatment4;m)$332,300.000 $ 83,070,00025% 10%Services (%,+/'$ 33.230,000a otal 5448,600,000rlFinal r m);;;iiiiFi;TJitTai;FMrcosteeroverno cone or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided hereIn are based on the information known to Engineer at this tIme and represent the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that Is, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesW1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCCK)opy of Denton_Treatment_OPCC.xlsx Horn & Associates, Inc.0 Union of Probable Construction Cost City of tie-niii ate 3nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: i1024054 Checked B Stark Farms Sewer Line The Stark Farms Sewer Line flows north to the proposed Clear Creek Interceptor, allowing for the 'nt of the Staa Stuart Ridge East Oft Stations (both under design). The proposed sewer line will serve existing and proposed development. D 0 D Item No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )ilization I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety rdromulch Repair l4' Manhole Item Descri FrI 1 1 1 1 1 1.700 100 7.300 32,500 3 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SYU T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price mITIIa 25.000 100,000 75,000 18,800 250 850 3 3 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ $ mlall 25.000 100,000 75.000 18,800 425.000 85,000 21 ,900 97,500 34,000 B£sis for Cost pF8jb;tiax: llaa ML No [Xsign Cbmpleted Preliminary CBsign IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25 cyo 15cyo 239,300 143,580 957.200 Final Duign T r i-;T;Ri;iml ;iii;eicorr;pe+iti Q8 eer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that s, or actuaE construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 1 ,340.080 rket conditions. Oninions nf nrohahle costs nrnvided herein are based on the infnrmatirin knr)wn tn FngjnPPr at this time and rpnrpm,T: K:\FTW UtilitiesV)61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx Horn & Associates, Inc.0 3inion of Probable Construction Client:11/22/20Date : Denton Wastewater Master Planlea:Prepared By: 061024054KHA No.AV 31 C Wolfe Road Interce The C Wolfe Road Interceptor flows east to the proposed Cole Ranch lnterceptor. it is:;;mmiRbZmy; eriod lumCoa IItem No.lterrib–eaLrip iM duariiii+–Unit Price Citv of Denton flow from Drc)nosed MUDs_ OPCC inclIIdPS nIJrrhaqo nf 1 no’ PaqPmPnt tn arrnmrINato a fI ltllro narallPl nlar,nod hD„nnd tho 7E;_„a2, T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 36" Sanitary Sewer l42" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l6' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 7,400 200 7,400 73,500 1 ,000 15 ULHS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 25.000 250, 000 300, 000 19,000 425 1 ,350 3 3 150 25,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 25.000 250,000 300, 000 19,000 3, 145,000 270,000 22.200 220.500 150,000 370,000iiToTra :r No Design Completed [gil= Preliminary [ksign Rnal Design jconung. (%,+/-) IProfessianal Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal: 25c70 15c70 $ 1,267,925 $ 760,755 5,071,700 I e ) nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professiona1 familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. $ 11,019.000 $ 18,119,380 Diddine or market conditions. ODinions of ornhahle costs nrnvirInd hPrPin arp haqPd nn thp infnrmatinn knn\A,II tr, FnainDnr at thi, ti,no and ,an,a,nnt K:\FTW_UtilitbsV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCCE)enton Sewr OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.:®3inion of Probable Construction Co City of Denton 11/227Date Prepared By::nton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Checked B'A TN Skiles iii;iT£Moem D a year flow from orooosed MUDs. OPCC includes ourchase of ICD’ easement to accomodate a future oarallel Dlanned bevond the 25- Item No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lobilization I Traffic Control IMiscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 36" Sanitary Sewer l42" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair Pavement Repair l6' Manhole Item Descri a 1 1 1 1 1 5,800 100 5,800 58,000 800 12 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY EA 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price Item Cost ByjIne ]I 25,000 250,000 300,000 16,000 425 1 ,3503 3 150 25,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ mI 25.000 250.000 300,000 16,000 2,465, 000 135.000 17.400 174.000 120.000 290 , 000 e ann No Design Cbmpleted ML Preliminary CXsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/.) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 $ 4,092,400 $ 1,023,100 $ 613,860 $ 8,694,000 $ 14,423,360 co£t of libaI,m£teri;ls,biuiilTma or ave> the Contractor's me-mI +i;i;=m;;7;=T'ibF compeiiiCb tdding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent [only the Engineer’s judgment as a design professional famiIIar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee tba! costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costsposais, bids, or actual K:\FTW_UtilitiesK>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx mIl iorn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of PrababEe Construction roject: No.: 33 City of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Ponder Sewer Line 'r Une flows northlThe P to th TtaA besTri n raffic ate Prepared By: [[i Item No-. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cluant Unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,300 8,000 150 9,300 41 ,400 3 16 nLHS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ iJnl t–irfcb RMrdas HE5W] 25, 000 250,000 300,000 22,600 250 265 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ m5 25,000 250.000 300,000 22,600 325, 000 2.120.000 127,500 27,900 124.200 26,000 240,000 )US I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole moms B aU No cMmm© FFtHe ml Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%, +/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition Total : 25c70 15c70 3,738,200 934,550 560,730 , 11-ETla=i8–;iFMr av T=a–J;IT -m)T;iT;FTAai;iiit-mTa Is of determining prices or over competitiveor, mat ray the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 5,233,480 idding or market conditions. Ooinions of orobable costs nrnvided hPrPin arp haqPd nn tho infnrm2tir,rI knr,wn tn FnainDD, at thic +ima and ,an,Am K:\FIW_UdlttbsW61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewlr OPCC.xlsx .e 'ject : HA No 34 City of Denton Date ?nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: Checked Creek Sewer LineSouth The South Hickory Creek Sewer Line flows south to the proposed TN Skiles Road Interceptor and serves proposed MUDs, urchase of 100' easement to accomodate a future raiiel FIIned b 'ar periodthe Quantity UnitItem Description Unit Price D 061024054 [@ 3CC includes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ITraffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 18" Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing l30" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair 5' Manhol€ 1 1 1 1 1 2.000 7.900 50 400 9.800 86,700 2.700 20 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF SY SY !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ MI 25,000 250,000 300, 000 23,600 290 350 850 1 ,000 3 3 150 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 KlnlrIIl] 25.000 250.000 300.000 23.600 580.000 2,765,000 42.500 400,000 29.400 260, 100 405, 000 297.000 Ba;FiFe D D No CHsign Completed M) Preliminary CHsign Final Design jconbng. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 $ 1,419,400 $ 851 ,640 $ 14,628,000 $ 22,576,640 6 tiRiF;iii?;irB of determining prices or oveniMr provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that its opinions of probable costs. 0 K:\FTW UtilttiesV)61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\DentonSewer_OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.[9 3lnion of Probable Client : Denton Wastewater Master Planect : <HA No.:061024054 Wolf B===wTr-mr35 If Bra LilThe EWS Item l5escriItem No: =FU Citv of Denton Date Prepared 8y: Checked B' 11/22/ i A 0 In or Jana Unit Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lobilization I Traffic Control F Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer 21 " Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing 130" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repairl4' Manhole 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 5 ,400 14,300 6,200 750 100 25,800 21 ,700 3,500 11 41 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA IA -;' $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E3L©49X©i©D© 25,000 250,000 300,000 53.900 250 290 325 850 1 ,000 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 ItemT $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 25,000 250,000 300.000 53,900 1 ,350,000 4, 147,000 2,015,000 637, 500 100,000 77,400 65. 100 525,000 108,000 615,000 -=Iff-iTE-o=;ection: @C [] Preliminary Designa jconung. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : M) 25c70 15cyo 5 $ 2,642,225 $ 1,585,335 $ 3,244.500 $ 18,040,960 Final Design ERa;iii -FiiFr-;iii?=riaHIFi-;=raml TaiiF rno control over nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costs. idrling nr markpt conditions_ Cinininnq rIf nrrlhahlP rnqtq nrnvidPd hnrnin arp haqPd nrl tho infrlrmatinn knnwn trl FnainPPr at thjq timo and rPnrPqPnt K:\FTW_UtilttiesVB1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx <i iorn & Associates, Inc.[q ]triton or rroDaDI'e Lonstruc'Tion LOSt Client:City of Denton Date Prepared By:3nton Wastewater Master Plan Checked3102'54 36 Sewer Une The Sanctuary Sewer lposed Sout_ uanti'Unit PriceItem DescriptionItem No.Unit [me mmi D 0 11/22n2 13 A0 Sewer Line and serves nrr>nosed MUDs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 re 1 1 1 1 1 6.200 1 ,900 150 8,000 35,600 12 4 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ EMI] 25,000 175, 000 150,000 20,200 250 290 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ e I Traffic Control Rm5 25,000 175,000 150,000 20,200 1 ,550.000 551 ,000 127,500 24,000 106,800 124.000 57,000 I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole I a B 8 Contractor’s methods of determiningMIIT;inn;iT;;-iiiiibIiiaiiieduipmeni: ori;eraover linions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and representding or market conditions. the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar wIth the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that Is, bids, or actual construction costs wiN not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No [Xsign Cbmpleted EnToX Preliminary CHsign Final Design jconong. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition 'otal : 25cyo 15c70 3,060,500 765.125 459,075 4,284,700 0 K:\FTW UtilitiesV>61024054 DentonWWM P\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC .xlsx rn & Asso Inc.Eq 3inion of Probable Construction D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lobilization I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing [ Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole_ 1 1 1 1 1 2.800 150 2,800 10,600600 6 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ lIH5K©n8©] 25.000 175, 000 150.000 10,300 250 850 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ $ !iE5©I®m© 25,000 175,000 150.000 10,300 700,000 127,500 8,400 31.800 90,000 56,000 No DesIgn Com71a PreIIminary [Hsign Final Duign m) jconting. (%.+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acxluisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 9 381 ,000 228,600 2,133,600 K:\FTW_UtilitbsK>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\DentonSewer OPCC.xlsx .e.3iniorl of Probable Construction Cos City of Denton Date : Prepared ByDenton Wastewater Master Plan Checked B31024054 A 38 Cole Ranch West Sewer Line t Sewer Line flows northeast to the proposed Cole) r m nt . Unit PriceIt ion Quantity UnitItemItem No Item 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lobilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12'’ Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ! Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repairl4' Manhole 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 4,900 3,500 50 8,300 36,900 10 7 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ HI1l)1l] 25.000 175.000 150.000 20,700 250 265 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ tHiXitiiI 25.000 175.000 150.000 20.700 1 ,225,000 927, 500 42,500 24,900 110.700 98,000 105,000 No [Xsign Completed [] Preliminary Eesign [] Final Design tiFdiTHE on: al mbm: IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/.) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25 cyo 15cyo 0 763, 575 458.145 c ;'&if a;t;rriih iJ> ici;ari;bFEomj;;iiiivaI ly the EngIneer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual constructIon costs wiN not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. 4.276,020 ing nr market conditions. Oninir>nq of nrnhahle costs nrnvided hPrPin arp baqPd nn thp information known to FngjnPer at this time and rPnrfM K:\FTWUtilitiesV)61024054 DentonWWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer_OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.[•3inion of Probable Construction 11nt :Lte 'nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 1024054 AU 39 Roark Branch North Sewer Line The Roark Branch North Sewer Line flows southeast to the proposed Roark Branch Interceptor and serves the proposed Hunter Ranch development . D () Citv of Denton D T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repairl4' Manhole 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 1.100 1.300 150 2,300 9,200 400 2 3 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA IA -: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ WI@l@] 25.000 100.000 75.000 9,400 250 265 850 3 3 150 10.000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ $ $ S m7@1849] 25,000 100,000 75,000 9,400 275, 000 344.500 127,500 6,900 27,600 60, 000 22,000 39,000 No Dms -=Be mM) jI: Preliminary CXsign Final Duign >nting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 [xIimID] 296,725 178,035 1 ,661 ,660 C K:\FTW_UtilitiesV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\11.OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx ’e: nt : roiect : No. City of Denton 3nton Wastewater Master PlanD Date : Prepared By: Checked B Hunter Ra£Rc bir;h–giG;FLI;i The Hunter Ranch NortRSewer Une flows southeast to the propbsed development . Item D Roark Branch Interceptor and serves the proposed Hunter Ranch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UnitQuant 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,500 2,000 100 4,500 20,000 3 4 nB LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA !A 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price iMlg®t 25.000 175,000 150,000 13,500 250 265 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $T $ $ $ $ Item I Traffic Control IMiscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing [Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole laTe31l] 25.000 175.000 150,000 13.500 375.000 530.000 85.000 13.500 60.000 30,000 60,000 for dist Pic &No MMITltRI Bubtota Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement A(xluisition ITotal : 25cyo 15c70 1 ,667.000 416.750 250.050 over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or overlhe coB )tngineer has io c8nt adding or market conditions 3inions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at thIs time and represent nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposa is, bids, or actual construction costs will not varY from its opinions of probable costs. 2.333.800 0 K:\FTW UtilitiesV>61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, inc.fg 3lnion of Probable n CitY of Denton 11/2t:Date Prepared By:Wastewater Master Plan JB Checked B)54 A Hunter Ranch East Sewer Une41 The Hunter Ranch East Sewer Liner rr zn; d I I ()'nt . Cluanti Unit PriceUnittem No -Ge ti;itemn D C) T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ITrafnc Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer ISewer Line Trench Safety [Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 6.100 8,400 33,600 1 ,200 12 DLBs LS LS LS LS LF LF SY SY LA § $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IH5@W] 25.000 175,000 150,000 20, 900 250 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ liE5©n©©]@ 25,000 175,000 150,000 20.900 1 ,525,000 25,200 100,800 180,000 122,000iT;&iiia D >-;oToTrbTBi81a rneer 3inions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and representdding or market conditions the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that oposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No EXsign Completed ML Preliminary [hsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acx;uisition otal : 25c70 15c70 2,473,900 618.475 371 ,085 3,463,460 0 K:\FIW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx Horn & Associates, inc‘Opinion of Probable ConstructIon Cost City of D= Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Hunter Ranch South Sewer Line The Hunter Ranch South Sewer Line flows southeast to an existing 18" Une D It serves the proposed Hunter Ranch development. Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lobilization I Traffic Control Item Description Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 2.300 2,700 550 10,800 43,200 1 ,500 5 5 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Item Co itUnit Price IEW] 35,000 175,000 150,000 25,500 250 265 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IEIlaIII] 35.000 175.000 150,000 25.500 575,000 715,500 467, 500 32.400 129.600 225,000 46.000 81 ,000 )US I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole a B M B No Design Completed ML Preliminary Design Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition Total : 25 cyo 15c70 2,807,500 701 ,875 421 ,125 I determining prices or over combaT;L m==cost o idding or market conditions.blnions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent Eonly the Engineer's judgment as a design professIonal familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantgU roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 3,930.500 0 K:\FTW_UtilttiesK)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx © Client : Project: KHA No. 43 11/22/2?::I City of Denton te: Prepared By:3nton Wastewater Master Plan Checked B2405406 A East Clear Creek Sewer Une The East Clear Creek Sewer Line flows northeast to the proposed Clear Creek Interceptor, allowing for the abandonment of the Agave development.andRanch Lift It servesdes OP Unit Item Costrn D () D Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lilization I Traffic Control Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 15" Sanitary Sewer ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l5' Manhole Item Descri 1 1 1 1 1 4,500 11 ,500 46.000 1 ,600 9 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF SY SY !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5@1%@D] 25,000 175,000 150,000 26,800 265 3 3 150 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IM5 ©m© 25,000 175,000 150,000 26.800 1 , 192,500 34,500 138,000 240, 000 135.000 Basis for Cost ProiectionA 11 r lammiTIii;tims determining prices or over competitiveover:S me 'ided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this tIme and represent with the in industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that its opinions of probable costs. MmT No CXsign Cl>mpleted Preliminary tHsign Final Design IConting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/.) IEasement Acquisition ;Total : 25c70 15c70 2,266.800 566,700 340,020 3,173,520 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\11.OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC_2.xlsx Kimley-Horn & AssocIates, Inc.[f Dtriton aT ProDaDle construction LOS Client:Ci G-of Denton Date Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked B061024054KHA No.: East Milam Sewer Line44 Id Clear Creek InterceptoWa Ham Sewer Line flows north to 1 lpment . Quan Unit Unit PriceItem No Item Descri EntH 11/22/2M AWS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 2,000 2.800 150 4,800 21 ,400 4 6 IM LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA EA 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 150 ,.O'OO._ 25.000 175,000 150,000 14, 1 00 250 265 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 Item Cost I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ $ $ $ MI 25,000 175,000 150.000 14, 100 500,000 742,000 127,500 14,400 64, 200 40.000 84,000 ms iirW .ion: MI Da =+la[iii;bi;l;:£;idiiiibii,aFb vir tha Cont f;;;ii;I rcostno control over the Eng}neer's judgment as a design professional famIliar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that oposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. m) No Chsign (1>mpleted Preliminary [ksign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25cyo 15c70 2,086,200 521 ,550 312,930 2,920,680 or market conditions. Oninionq of nrnhable costs nrovided herein are based on the information known to Engjneer at this time and rPnreqent K:\FTW UtilitiesK)61024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\DentonSewer_OPCC_2.xlsx mley-Horn & AssocIates, Inc.Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Client: ect : No 45 CitY of Denton 11/2Date Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked AKK nsion to 20.0 MGDHCWRP 10.0 MGD MBR Expansion of Hickory Creek Water Reclamation Plant to add a the plant from 10 MGD to 20 MGD. Lh iIItem No.Item Descril;tion MPic–e Item CostQuant Mm)MI LS $ 14,700,ODDS Mi Electrical LS2 140.000 ll $ 88,140,000$ Site Civil LS3 $ 88.140.000 11 $ 88,140,000 $ 102,800,000 11 $102,800,000LSTreatment4 dr ic-st Projection:otal:$293,780, 000 25c70 $ 73,450,000'/o,+l -[d] Professional Services (%,+/-)$ 29.370,00010c70 otal $396,600,000Final I I over the cost miFeIT;mmiit-;iFi;iF MoHr no m);;eTi==;;;ilano con 0 dding or market conditions. OpinIons of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and reEIM y the Engineer's }udgment as a design professional familiar wIth the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that Is, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Copy of Denton_Treabnent_OPCC.Hsx lorn & Associates, inc.of Probable ConStrUCtIOn Cost City of Denton Date fi/–2 Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked At cc\MpI:5 MaD TR lnsion to 5.0 MGD o e bioreactor treatment traln to expand the cap,& t . ., - the plant from 2.5 MGD to 5 MGD Item No Item Descri UnitQuant Unit Price Item Costn [B[mmMl [®$@BIll@$3,660.000 Electrical LS2 $ 21,960,000$21 ,960,000 Site Civil LS3 $ 21,960,00021,960,000$ Treatment4 LS $25.620,000 $ 25,620,000ibmection:ItaI: +/.25c70 $ 18.300,0007 Services (%,+/-=10c70 $ 7,300,000 Final otal $ 98,800 aliGiiiIi, or oveit iib e8;;{>;ctor's meiET-;iii;-b–;gMleno delermining pFiii;bEI ver comjieteerno con idding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posa is, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs K:\FTW_UtilitiesKB 1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Copy of Denton_Treatment_OPCC.xlsx & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable n City of Denton UDatet: !nton Wastewater Master Planroject:Prepared By: No 061024054 A Creek Interceptor Parallel47Hi The Hickory Creek Interceptor Parallel is size hr Hickory Interc'ction with the exist or ltemb8scri Unittterri No:Unit Item Costn D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 42" Sanitary Sewer 48" Sanitary Sewer l48" Bore and Steel Casing 1 Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l6' Manhole Bypass Pumpin! 1 1 1 1 1 6.200 300 400 6,500 29. 100 900 13 1 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ U3%PM] 25.000 250,000 300,000 17,300 450 500 1 ,500 3 3 150 25,000 500,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3©l®®M 25,000 250 , 000 300, 000 17,300 2,790.000 150.000 600.000 19,500 87, 300 135,000 325, 000 500,000 mr J Rr NoiMe m© !gtme M) Preliminary Design Final Design >nting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal: 25c70 15c70 4 $ 1,374,775 $ 824,865 $ 4,362,000 $ 12,060,740 I amaliF:iliZaML ;ii;i tiifi;iiiFiTri 3over dding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent nly the EngIneer’s judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that asa is, bids, or actual bn costs wIll not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilttbsV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx rn & Associates, Inc.0 3tnion of Probable Construction Client:City of Denton 11/23te : 3nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By:A w s /F{7: :Checked Cole Ranch Interceptor Parallel48 The Cole Ranch Interceptor Parallel is sized to accommodate the projected 25.year flow in conjunction with the Cole Fr included for the proposed Cole Ranch Interceptor Parallel. eCluantItem DescriptionItem No Unit Price D 0 [[B) 31024C)54 f Protect 61, The C)PiC'C tor Proiect 6 incltides nurchase ot IfX3' easem?nt to accommodate narallel linPq_ Fasement jq thorPfnrp nntI T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >ilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 30" Sanitary Sewer l36" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair [ Pavement Repair l6' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 22,400 700 22,400 89,600 3.000 45 rg LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY EA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ HoHlllln 25,000 250,000 300,000 47,400 400 1 ,250 3 3 150 25,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Hl311IIII 25.000 250.000 300.000 47.400 960.000 875.000 67.200 268.800 450.000 120,000 8 &e-;iIi; a 0 nB No [hsign (bmpletal m) jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 1 25c70 15c70 6 Preliminary Chsign Final Design $ 1,899,510 $ $ 17,728,760 $ 3,165,850 TJ me ;nl or over the Contractor’siMod;if dete£mining prices or ave;a-ii;iFa;i are based on the information known to Engineer at thIs time and represent nstruction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposais, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesK)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx orn & Associa nc.ECg Union of Probable Construction City of Denton 11/22jctient;Ite: :nton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By:Project: KHA No.06 24054 Checked AWS East M Street Sewer Line49 The East Mckinney Street Sewer Line flows south to the proposed Lakeview Ranch Interceptor. It is sized to accomodate the builtIout flow from the Lakeview North Lift Station. Unitliem No Unit Pricelie–rfI D–eIMo i Item Cost= D a D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 15" Sanitary Sewer 21 " Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety rdromulch Repair [5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 2,000 1 ,600 3.600 6,000 7 lms LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5@1%@l@] 25.000 175,000 150,000 11 ,800 265 325 3 3 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i $ $ $ $ K5©I©=86] 25,000 175,000 150.000 11 ,800 530, 000 520,000 10,800 18,000 108,000mia;EMm jconting. (%,+/-)EF r-] u RiFf;iT====ii;TiiBTaiaim>no control over the cost o mateer bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent jonly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposaEs, bIds, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. ML No CHsign Cl>mpleted Preliminary [hsign IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 1 ,698,600 424,650 254,790 802,500 3,180,540 Final Design K:\FTW_UtilttiesV)61024054_Denton WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Client Project KHA No.: City of Denton Denton Wastewater Master Plan Date Prepared By: Checked B61024054 Priority Lakeview North Lift Station Project DenI on LF TotalLe Lakeview North 1.9 MGD Lift Station Lakeview North 12-Inch Force Main $2, 100,000 $4,600,000 $6,700,000 12,000 Total : e NoIr?:!!iIEB! [] Preliminary Design [] Final Deggn This total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition. MIX&over 0 equip or over S me Snoglneer m to Engineer at this time and represent only15. Opinions of probable costs provIded herein are based on the information kridding or market condit r industry The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals.familiar with the constructEngineer's judgment as a design vary from ItS opinions of probable costs.or actual 0 osts will no 0 0 e DClient:City of Denton 7ite: Project:Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Checked BNo61024054 50 Lakeview North 1.9 MGD Lift Station The Lakeview North Lift Station pumps flow to the proposed East Mckinney Street Sewer Line. It will serve as a regional lift station for the northern haW of the Lakeview Ranch Basin. Both the lift station and forcemaln are sized to accommodate buildout flow from existing and development within the service area.ro a 1:scription CivilFM D a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 lilization 11,300 GPM Submersible Pumps 112" pc 350 DIP Wetwell Piping l18" ASTM F679 ps1 15 pvc Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut 112" pc 250 DIP Sanitary Sewer by Open Cut 14" pvc Drain 12" Plug Valve 12" Swing Check Valve 13" Air Release 12" Gate Valve 12" Quick Connect 1 2" Coupling Adaptor IDI Fittings 5' Diameter Standard Manhole l5' Extra Depth Standard Manhole jwetwell Epoxy Liner I Odor Control Unit and Controller System 12' Cast-in-Place Concrete Wet Well Discharge Piping Valve Vault Double Leaf Aluminum Hatches I Flow Meter Manhole and Strap-On Meter l20' Concrete Driveway ITxDOT Item 247 Flexible Base, Grade A. Type 1 I Cast-in-Place Concrete (Slab-on-Grade) IHydromulch I Control Panel Shelter l8' Chain Link Fence l24' Chain Link Gate I Grading/Site Restoration Erosion Control / SWPPP ITrench Safety I 2 80 20 80 8 2 2 2 rs EA LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA TONS EA VF VF LS LS LS EA LS SY SY CY SY LS LS EA LS LS LS T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ mI Moo 75,000 150 200 200 40 15,000 10,000 2,000 3.000 2,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 750 500 25,000 250,000 100,000 30,000 30.000 150 80 150 10 7.500 25,000 10,000 50,000 15,000 15,000 ml T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 M1 boo 150,000 12,000 4,000 16,000 320 30,000 20,000 4,000 3.000 2,000 8,000 10,000 10.000 15,000 15,000 25,000 250,000 100,000 60.000 30,000 75,000 16,000 15.000 10,000 7.500 25,000 20,000 50,000 15,000 15.000 1 2 2 20 30 1 1 2 1 500 200 100 1000 1 2 1 1 1 mley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Opinion of Eb Ie Construction Client: roject: <HA No.: 50 City of 7/31/ iite : Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 61024054 Checked Lakeview North 1.9 MGD-RsliGo The Lakeview North Lift Station pump> SKi1 m development within the service arean 0-Unit Pricemr Cost D D a northern half of the Lakeview Ranch Basin. Both the lift station and forcemain are sized to accommodate bllildnIJt flow from Pxjqtinp gIn Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Electrical, Instrurient-ation, and SCADA Fe=c=–s=;;MjFpiiF I Automatic Transfer Switch [ Standby Diesel Generator I Pump Control Panel IscADA Equipment, Instrumentation, and Programming Miscellaneous Electrical Items Electrical Service Provider Allowance 1 1 1 rs LS LS LS LS LS LS I $ $ $ $ $ $ 20,000 40,000 200,000 150.000 75,000 50,000 15,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $I no 40,000 200,000 150,000 75,000 50,000 15,000noEi;;iiiTaF=LiMo Basis for cost-im No CHsign Cbmpleted [] Preliminary Design [] Final DesIgn This total does not reflect engineering or technical se,„ices, or land and easement acq„isition. Conting. (%, +l-', Total : hinoi 25 6 $ 437, 180 k _- -Bm R3mmtTiiT;> formation known to Engineer at this Nme and represent The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that Kimley-Horn and Associates, tna a UnIon of Probable Construction Client: Project: KHA No SO Denton Wastewater Master Plan 61024054 Lakeview North 12-Inch Force Main City of Denton 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 11 000 1000 1000 5 3 11 000 1 37000 2100 ML Conting. (%, +/-) Total : Cost rs I LS $ LF $ LF $ $ EA $ EA $ LF $ LS $ $ CY $ I Site Clearing 12" HDPE DIPS DR 13.5 Force Main 12" HDPE DIPS DR 13.5 Force Main 124" Steel Casing Pipe by Auger Bore 12" Plug Valve 13" Combination Air Release Valve ITrench-bafety Erosion Control / SWPPP IHydromulch– I Topsoil 75,000– 30,000 206 150 660 15,000 15,000 5 15,000 10 25 75 , o66- 30,000 2.200,000 150,000 600,000 75.000 45,000 55.000 15,000 370,000 52.500 3 by 0 Carrier Pi LF BisMoiC–isi-hi In : [] Preliminary Usign [] Final Chsign ITbis total does not reflect engineering or technical services, or land and easement acquisition. 25 i $i 932,500 Vno con eq or over or over or rket conditions 2inlons of probable costs provIded herein are based on the informatIon known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's ment as a desIgn familiar with the constructIon industry The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bIdS, or actual cong will not vary from its opinions of probable costs 0 Horn & Associa nc.[@ rinion of Probable Construction Cos CIIent;City of-Denton 11/22/2023Date : 'nton Wastewater Master PlanProject:Prepared By: 061024054HA No.A 51 North Trinitymweriin; 'ment within the service area.and proposedfrom Unit Unit PricerantItem No.Item Costtem = D The North Trinitv Road Sewer Line flows south to the orooosed Lakeview North Lift Station and is sized to accommodate buildout all• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a ITrafnc Control ! Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 15" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Une Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,400 2,300 100 3,600 14,400 500 7 m LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IEaIDID 25,000 175,000 150,000 11 ,800 265 290 850 3 3 150 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ 15raBBi] 25,000 175,000 150,000 11 ,800 371 ,000 667.000 85,000 10.800 43.200 75,000 111 ,000 ML No EXsign Cbmpleted Preliminary [Hsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 1 ,874,800 468.700 281.220 iIi–C=iirBl-iiii iiFoII equipm8F;i:ohithe Coit££i{or’s me'mfTa=niiM;emm;i3iRaT;iT&R==T mat only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar wIth the construction industry. The EngIneer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bIds, or actual constructIon costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. 2.624.720 dine or market conditions. Ooinions of orobable costs orovided herein are based on the information known to Engjneer at this time and renresent K:\FTW Utilities\CB1024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx <tmiey-Horn & Associa nc.nion of Probable Construction 11/22/2023Client:City of Denton Date roJect:Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054No.:Checked B'AV 52 Timber Branch Sewer Line The Timber Branch Sewer Line flows east to the proposed North Trinity Road Sewer Line and is sized to accommodate buildout flow from existing and propl Id development within the service area. Item Descri Unit PriieUnitItem No Item CostrantonmT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety [Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,100 3,900 200 5,000 20,000 700 2 8 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA IA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5@1%@M 35,000 175,000 150,000 14,500 250 265 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IM5 ®T®n© 35.000 175,000 150,000 14.500 275,000 1 ,033.500 170,000 15,000 60,000 105,000 22.000 117,000l5'iI;r n:M)Fa No Design C1)mpleted Prelimirnly Cksign jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 2,322,000 580,500 348 , 300 Final Design 3,250,800 C K:\FTW_UtilttiesVBI 024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\11.OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC2.xlsx Horn and Associates, Inc.m of Probable Construction Cost0 Project: No.: 53 City ofbenton 8/15/202: Date : Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By 61024054 Checked B'TO/A Creek CRmIDCoo es mmne–er pty slot at the Cooper Creek Lift Station. Installation of a fourth pump increases the firm capacity of the lift station to accommodate the projected 25-year flow due to proposed develo ion Unit mr ie-Cost Civil U;1IIllcTiFlbH.III:dUnn M sgMmI m) : t=r r T e W noM for Cost Projection h m [] Prdimlnary Hsbn [] Final Design total does not reflect en ineering or technical service:or land and easement ira:dr bver the Contracto d8termining pFI be;ii &;ir iiA&itit ive 'rein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent e construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. imley-Horn & Associates, Inc,0 3tnion of Probable Construction Client: :nton Wastewater Master Planect: 061024054HA No 54 Florence Road Sewer Line The Florence Road Sewer LIne flows south to the proposed Robson West Lift and proposed develo ent within the service area Item No Item D Citv of Denton D Prepared By: Checked By: D ,0 Station. It is sized to accomrrtodate buildout flow from i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 1 1 1 17,800 2,800 1 ,600 1 ,300 350 50 23,400 9,900 3,200 36 11 nLHS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF SY SY EA LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ M3 35,000 250,000 300.000 49,300 250 290 325 350 850 1 ,000 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T tteh Cost I Traffic Control Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 18" Sanitary Sewer 21 " Sanitary Sewer 24" Sanitary Sewer 124" Bore and Steel Casing l30" Bore and Steel Casing ISewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair Pavement Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole M3 35.000 250,000 300.000 49,300 4,450,000 812,000 520,000 455,000 297 , 500 50,000 70,200 29,700 480.000 356.000 171 .000 No CHsign Completed [] Preliminary CBsign Final Design mFRiiTii a IConbng. (%,+/.) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement AcquisitIon otal : [==i 25c70 15c70 $ 2,156,425 $ 1.293,855 $ 1.480,500 $ 13,556,480 8.62M8': D L ==T;r is-i r JRT=-i-iF;;=m ing or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the Information known to Engineer at this time and represent nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposais, bids, or actuaE construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. K:\FTW_UtilitiesV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc,0 3inion of Probable Construction City of Denton 3te Prepared By-Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 AV HCI>iterma al-w-ist ie;b-r-[iFi; The Hunter Ranch West Sewer Une flows north to the proposed Roark Branch interceptor and serves the proposed Hunter Ranch eveiopmen Quantity Unit PriceItem Description Unit Item Cost D 11/22/2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhol€ 1 1 1 1 1 5,600 5,600 24,900 11 m LS LS LS LS LF LF SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IM(gja 25.000 175,000 150,000 15,600 250 3 3 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ IEllull 25,000 175,000 150,000 15,600 1 ,400,000 16,800 74,700 1 no '&sB: a a No Design Cbmpletai M) Preliminary Design Final Design jconbng. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 2.119, 100 529,775 317,865 Endbe;ibs nb cantiol over the cast matehats; 8iij>£riit, or over the C8n+raci8==th8c!;o+ determIning prices or 8vercirridM;i ly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids. or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 2.966.740 or market rnnditinnq_ f3nininnq rIf nrrlhahlP costs nrnvidPd hPrPin ara haqPd nn thp infnrmatinn knnwn tn FnPinPPr at this timp and rPnrPqPnt K:\FTW_UtilitiesK)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.0 3inion of Probable Construction Client :City of Denton Wastewater Master Plan 34 56 North Robson Ranch Sewer Line The North Robson Ranch Sewer Line flows southeast development . :IOIIlt©o Item DHI Date : Prepared By: 11/22/20 AWS/T0 to the proposed Robson Ranch Sewer Une and serves the proposed Robson Ranch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety rdromulch Repair l4' Manhole Quanti'Unit PriceUn 1 1 1 1 1 3.600 150 3,600 16,000 7 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY IA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IE5@l@l@l@] 25.000 175,000 150,000 11 ,800 250 850 3 3 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ IM5©l©l©] 25,000 175,000 150.000 11 ,800 900, 000 127,500 10,800 48.000 72,000 -a on: B Dn LFEr;e-r-Fai;;;im>m7i8miIM;no control ovme ; nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that costs wIll not vary from its opinions of probable costs.roposals, bids, or actual No [ksign Cbmpletui ML Preliminary [Hsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acxluisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 1.670, 100 417, 525 250,515 2.338.140 idding nr market conditions. Onininnq nf nrnhahlP costs nrnvidPd hPrPin arp haqPr! on thp infrlrmatinn knnwn tn FnPinPPr at thjq timp 2nd rPnrp cant K:\FTW_UtiltUesVB1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.0 3inion of Probable ConstructIon nt roject: <HA No 57 ate Prepared By:?nton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Robmibi;FnViHem The Roark Branch West Sewer Une flows north to the proposed Roark Branch Interceptor and semen Hunter Ranch developmen uantityItem Description Unit Citv of Denton D B)iO Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a I Traffic Control 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 6,000 26.700 2 m LS LS LS LS LF LF SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ mIlje] 25,000 100,000 75.000 16,400 250 3 3 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ S M!I]I 25,000 100,000 75.000 16,400 250,000 18.000 80, 1 00 I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer ISewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair b' Manhole $20,000bme; a requipment, or over t o imatcost Ort Unions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that costs win not vary from its opinions of probable costsoposals, bids. or actual No DesIgn Completed ml 659,500 164,875 98,925Prelimirury CHsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 923.300 0 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx :e ent : ect No 58 Date Prepared By:Denton Wastewater Master Plan 061024054 Roark Branch South Sewer Line The Roark Branch South Sewer Line fFows north to the proposed Roark Branch Interceptor and serves the Hunter Ranch development. UnitItem Description Quanl Citv of Denton ;e) Item No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,800 2,700 12,000 4 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF SY LA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price %7©T©jg 25,000 100,000 75.000 10, 100 250 3 3 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ item Cost B/Eli]iIi] 25,000 100,000 75,000 10, 1 00 450,000 8,100 36,000 36,000 Projection: & B R r no Min-iii'aiieTTr over or overT;;;B-tiF\=’S met 0 inions of probable costs provided herein are based on the known to Engineer at this time and represent design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No CHsign Cbmpletui M) Prelimirnry Chsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15cyo 815,@iI 203 , 800 122,280 1 ,141 ,280 0 K:\FTW_Utilities\CBI 024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\DentonSewer OPCC.xlsx Kiml born & Associates, Eoc.0 31nion of Probable Construction t:Ite: Prepared By:Wastewater Master Plan 34 59 Roark Branch Ea;{–SiG;FaX: The Roark Branch East Sewer Line flows north to the proposed Roark Branch Interceptor and serves the Hunter Ranch development. Item Description Quantity UnitItem No Citv of Denton 0 D T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [IEaMme I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair 1 Pavement Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,700 5,700 22,800 800 3 lms LS LS LS LS LF LF SY SY !A S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Unit Price 75, M 25,000 100,000 75,000 15,800 250 3 3 150 10,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $T $ $ $ $ Item Cost mIIII] 25.000 100.000 75.000 15.800 425.000 17, 1 00 68.400 120,000 34,000 asis for Cost Proiecti8 Ii: & B D No CXsign Cbmpleted mR;a Preliminary [>sign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15cyo 955,300 238,825 143,295 mI iost i+Tab8r, ri;ibrial£= Jijment, or over Coritract8r's ri;{i;8dsbf a8 larA j£iie; 8ibveF;oA Jetili Qeno CO over ding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and rep@ nly the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that posals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 1.337.420 K:\FTW Utilities\061024054 Denton WWMP\TECH\11-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx .Horn & Associates, Inc.0 Union of Probable n City of Denton ite : Prepared By:'nton Wastewater Master Plan i1024054 60 Cole Ranch South Sewer Line The Cote Ranch South Sewer Line flows north to the proposed Cole Ranch Interceptor and serves the proposed Cole Ranch development . ra-rilimItem DItem No.n liEMIMIMI D n D T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 4,600 100 6,600 26,400 900 9 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY SY LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IH5@X@:©l©] 25,000 175,000 150.000 17,500 250 850 3 3 150 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ $ e I Traffic Control M1 25.000 175.000 150.000 17.500 1 ,150,000 85.000 19.800 79,200 135.000 92,000 I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety I Hydromulch Repair I Pavement Repair l4' Manhole IsmD;FeaTiF a a It equipment, or over the Contractor's metI}bor, mat 3cost the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No Design Cbmpleted M) Preliminary Design final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25 cyo 15c70 2,078,500 519,625 311 ,775 2.909,900 idding nr markpt conditions_ C>nininnq nf nrnhahlo rnqtq nrnvidod horPin aro haqPd nn thp information known to FnPinPPr at this timp and ronrPqnnt K:\FTW_Utiliti8sVB1024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer OPCC.xlsx -Horn & Associates, Inc.Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ! lobilization Traffic Control Miscellaneous Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer 24" Bore and Steel Casing Sewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair Pavement Repair 4' Manhole 5' Manhc 1 1 1 1 1 4,800 3,000 100 7,800 27,800 2,100 10 6 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY SY EA LA T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IEIElIIe] 35,000 175,000 150,000 19,800 250 265 850 3 3 150 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ S a{5;©m© 35.000 175,000 150.000 19,800 1.200.000 795,000 85,000 23,400 83,400 315,000 96,000 90,000 No CHsign C6mpletul }Subtota I : Preliminary [>sign Final Design ;onting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%, +/-) IEasement Acquisition otal : 25c70 15c70 Bn2 ]MB]BI 804,400 482,640 4,504,640 O K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer_OPCC.xlsx @ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I Traffic Control Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 3,900 3,900 17,400 8 LS LS LS LS LS LF LF SY EA $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 150,000 25,000 175,000 150,000 12,400 250 3 3 10,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $I $ $ $ $ 150,000 25.000 175,000 150,000 12,400 975, 000 11 ,700 52,200 78,000 No Design Cbmpletui ML Preliminary [>sign Final Duign ;onting. (%.+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition Total : 25c70 15c70 1 ,629, 300 407, 325 244, 395 2,281 ,020 K:\FTW_UtilitiesV)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1.OPCC\Denton_Sewer_OPCC.xlsx orn & Associates, Inc.linion of Probable Construction City of Denton Date: Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 061024054 Checked South aea=rFek-iiiinBr The South Clear Creek Sewer Une flows northeast to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lobilization I Traffic Control 1 Miscellaneous I Allowance Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer l24" Bore and Steel Casing I Sewer Line Trench Safety IHydromulch Repair l4' Manhole l5' Manhole Item Desc n Quart'Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 1 1 1 1 7,600 2,600 350 10, 100 44,900 15 5 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF LF SY EA !A T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ IEII!ifI]I 25,000 250,000 300, 000 24, 1 00 250 265 850 3 3 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i $ $ $ $ liE5bl®Iblb1 25,000 250.000 300.000 24. 1 00 1.900.000 689.000 297.500 30.300 134.700 152,000 78,000 b;sisf or Cost i on: A [1 Engineer his bi8i8ntrbl oveii ile cost of la ;;;iii;E:;;jilprngn£ Ib;iii;iiie Contractor's ri8thods of determiili& abies or cveFin'M IV the Engineer's judgment as a design professionaE familiar with the construction ind.st,y. The Er,gir,eer can.at ,.d does not guarantee that 'posais, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. No Chsign Cnmpleted ml Preliminary [Hsign Final Design jconting. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : 25c70 15c70 4,030,600 1 ,007,650 604, 590 5,642.840 ding or market conditions. C3nininn'; of nrnhahlP rnqtq nrnvirIpd hPrain ara tIncaa nn tha infnrmatinn brIn\A,n tn Fr,ainaQr at thic ti,r,a and Far,,A,ant K:\FTW_UtilitiesV>61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton_Sewer OPCC 2.xlsx mley-Horn &Inc.In of Probable Construction0 Client:City of 11/22/20Datenton Denton Wastewater Master Plan Prepared By: 1024054 A 64 Branch Sewer LineH r ==-iI;F;To Item No quantity Unit meUnit Price D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I Traffic Control I Miscellaneous I Allowance I Erosion Control 12" Sanitary Sewer 15" Sanitary Sewer I Sewer Line Trench Safety Hydromulch Repair l4' Manhole 5' Manhole 1 1 1 1 1 3,900 900 4,800 21 ,400 8 2 IBs LS LS LS LS LF LF LF SY EA !A '? $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ liH5©I©T©I©] 25.000 175,000 150,000 14, 100 250 265 3 3 10,000 15,000 T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $i $ $ $ $ M@] 25,000 175,000 150.000 14, 1 00 975, 000 238.500 14.400 64.200 78.000 27,000 I a Prdirninary Eesign D jconbng. (%,+/-) IProfessional Services (%,+/-) IEasement Acquisition ITotal : ML 25c70 15c70 1 477,800 286,680 Final Design MI I m 3 m;iniiaiii-iT;ino control over t cost nIV the Engineer's judgment as a design professionat familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that roposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 2.675.680 idding or market conditions. C)nininnq nf nrr)hahlP costs nrnvidPd hProin arp haqPd nn thp infnrmatinn knnwn tn FngjnPPr at thjq timp and rPnrPqPnt K:\FTW_UtilttiesK)61024054_Denton_WWMP\TECH\1 1-OPCC\Denton Sewer OPCC.xlsx PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTING Denton Wastewater Master Plan Pump Station Evaluation Report Beaver Creek Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley '»Horn Evaluation Date: December 9, 2021 Report Date: July 8, 2022 Version 1 Revision History Version Publish Date Description 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimtey-Horn Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................................iv ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... iv 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE INFORMATION.......,...................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP...........,....2 2 GENERAL PHOTOS.......................................................................................................4 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................5 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS ......................................,.....6 3.2 3.3 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 7 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ....................................................................................... 9 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS...................................................................................10 4.1 PUMP #1....................... 4.2 PUMP #2........... 4.3 PUMPs #1 and #2 ......... 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY ........................................... 21 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES .........22 5 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 6.1 Overall Recommendations.............................................................. 6.2 Miscellaneous Recommendations................................................... 7 ATrACHMENTS ............................................................................... Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1................................................................................................. Test Data Graphs ATTACHMENT 2......................................................................Supplementary Pump Information ATTACHMENT 3................................................................................................. Record Drawings ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF Phase Alternating Current PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Water Surface Elevation Wire To Water Wet Well Year Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point V VFD WSE VVIW WW Yr Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes:Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted an evaluation of the pump station consisting of pump performance testing and condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducted using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number:Beaver Creek Date of Evaluation:12/9/2021 Address:905 Keystone Court, Denton, TX Coordinates:33.268676, -97.124194 Fluid Conveyed:Wastewater Station Style:Submersible 2Number of Pumps:Number of Pump Slots:2 Pump Type:Submersible Wet Well Material:Fiberglass 10’ DiameterWet Well Dimension: Flow Meter Type:Unknown 2018year of Construction / Rehabilitation :Based on:[ZDesign []Field Test BOther BasinlZone:Cooper Creek Firm Capacity:514 GPM / 0.74 MGD I Based on:DDesign EField Test []Other Discharge Description :8-inch ductile iron, air release/vacuum valve, 8-inch swing check valve, 8- inch plug valve Force Main Description :8-inch, 3,620 LF Class 150 PVC force main discharging to a manhole Electrical Service:277 /480 Wye Site Generator:Generac, 150 KW, natural gas Bypass Ability:Quick connect and check valve installed in valve vault Odor Control :Carbon drum and blower Miscellaneous Features: Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP F+•{und be St4twinbUd LIR St•Inn a mE s 1Ea 1EA:n GravIty MaInCXtt•r LrR Stathn B 4--la Eg hnHyQwnHLn$hBon PiNeS+ aNDed LMSfMan+ IZ - &4- B Force MaIn I ) iF./ '\#B 8bn; db U al A 1B r. I bb IA a Pi;: Beaver Creek LIft Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan Lift Station Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 e r ,W@mMV Fiqure 1.2 - Site Aerial Legend 1-Permanent Generator 2-Motor Control and Electrical 3-Flow Meter 4-Valve Vault 5-Wet Well 6-Odor Control 7-Transformer Beaver Creek . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 GENERAL PHOTOS &!iM& Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Photo 2.2 - Interior Pump Station Photos Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical. Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Blank 0 Score Description Not Applicable Component doesn’t exist but is applicable Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear damage and corrosion. Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil - Other Condition Photos 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 Quick connect in valve vault Fiberglass wet well Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Description Bolts 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Major corrosion in wet well and valve vaultFittings Hardware Piping – Suction Piping – Discharge Pumps Valves – Check Valves - Isolation Valves – Other Ventilation Mechanical - Other Condition Photos / : }r ,Bp 4 t+B• {rI Major bolt corrosIon • corrosion Photo 3.1 - Wet Well Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Major bolt corrosion corrosion Photo 3.2 - Valve Vault Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other Condition Photos 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11% 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data Parameter Measurement Method Primary Secondary Flow Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)On-Site Flow Meter Pressure Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK)Liquid Filled Pressure Gauge Wet Well Level Volts Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Amps Power Factor Current Transducers (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC N/APower Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK) Rotational Speed N/A N/A Input Frequency Frequency Meter (XAK-PACK) Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods N/A 0 Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump design characteristics. Parameter Value Flygt NP 3153 HT Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd. Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Submersible 10.87 591 81 897 640 66% 57% Unknown 1800 1760 3 ATL 460 20 1.15 26 88% Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt lting PtMfg. Starter Eff. @ Op Table 4.2 - Pump #I Design Characteristics 100% Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 200 180 160 140 120 IILL\=+ T 100IDa) = 80 60 40 20 0 r IUU7’at 90% aC 509'>LH 40% 60% 0 + 200 Pump Curve Test Points 400 Flow(GPM) 600 • ---. Eq. Affinity Curve M M M System CurveX wrwEff • MFG Hyd Eff 0% 800 1000 + Design Points 0 MFGWTWEff 50 45 40 35 30 : 25 = C/) 20 % 15 10 5 0 1000 25 20 aPHnHLa =\===+ b 15 B08 10C/)L=0IE 5 0 m • a 0 200 [] Inp HP 400 600 Flow (GPM)• Output HP +NPSHr Table 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs 800 • NPSHa Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Below is a summary of the pump performance characteristics. Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Units GPM Lower Limit Test Value 514 Upper Limit I Comment Ft 90 %55% HP 21.4 Average Current Draw (FSFO)Amps FPS 23.2 Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt111 7 7 115% 110% 5% FPS 3.3 %80%80% %90%87% -5%-0.7% Ft % 0 -5% -5% 37.7 -3% 0% 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 1808 Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Hz 0/0 '1 0%4.3% %-10%1.0% 3.9%Current Imbalance 0/0 -10% Motor FLA %-50% 50% 89.% 107%Motor Load Motor Slip Speed 1752 1760 Vibration In/Sec 1 -5Surge Vibration Cavitation Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score la a)a a)inJQ0 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 2 Table 4.4 - Pump #1 Test Summary Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Pump #1 - Test Comments 1 Pump output is 87% of the design flow rate. The pump is operating on the manufacturer’s curve but operating to the left of the design point. This feature is indicative of the system curve being steeper or having more friction in the system than accounted for in the original design. The C- factor, or Manning's roughness, is well below what is expected for a relatively new PVC force main. A high C-factor could indicate a of buildup of sediment in the force main or air pockets in the line restricting the effective pipe diameter. 2. The discharge pressure of the pump slightly decreases with pump runtime. This could indicate air being purged from the line, increasing the effective pipe diameter, and reducing the pump discharge pressure. We recommend ensuring all air release valves are operational and that air release valves are installed at all high points. 3. The pump is performing below the intended design point. We recommend reviewing existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the pump or modifying impeller if necessary Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump design characteristics. Parameter Units Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Flygt NP 3153 HT Submersible Inches 10.87 GPM 591 Ft 81 897Hours GPM 630 0/0 66% %56% Ft Unknown RPM 1800 RPM 1760 No 3 ATL 460Volts HP 20 1.15 26Amps 88%0/0 %100% Characteristics %f Prr Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 Beaver Creek . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 200 180 160 / 100% / 90% 80% 20 10% 0 0 + 0% 1000200400 Fiow(GPM) 600 ----' Eq. Affinity Curve M M wSystem Curve X WTW Eff • MFG Hyd Eff 800 Pump Curve Test Points + Design Points O MFGWTW Eff 25 50 20 ===bfI IE b 15 B0 gl 10 0= 5 n gb 45 40 35 30 Pb==F# 25 =C/) 20 g 15 IS 10 5 0 1000 0 0 200 [] Inp HP 400 Flow(GPM) 600 • Output HP -+NPSHr Table 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 800 • NPSHa Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Below is a summary of the pump performance characteristics. Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units GPM Lower Limit Test Value Upper Limit I Comment 510 90Ft Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) 0/0 54% HP 21.6 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Amps 23.3 FPS 2 7 7 115% 110% 50/o N/A 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 1808 FPS 3.3 81 %0/0 80% 11:i Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve %90%86% o/8 -5%-0.5c70 NPSHa Ft 37.2 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt 0/0 Hz -5% -5% -3% Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance {')% V -10%4 3% 0/0 -1 0%1.1 % Current Imbalance -10%3.4% Motor FLA -50%89.8% Motor Load 50%108% Motor Slip Speed RPM 1752 1760 Vibration Surge Vibration Cavitation In/Sec 1 -5 laa a (b U)Ja0 1 -5 1 -5 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 Leaks 1 -5 Exterior Condition 1 -5 Overall Score 1 -5 2 Table 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Pump #2 - Test Comments Pump output is 86% of the design flow rate. The pump is operating on the manufacturer’s curve but operating to the left of the design point. This feature is indicative of the system curve being steeper or having more friction in the system than accounted for in the original design. The C- factor, or Manning's roughness, is well below what is expected for a relatively new PVC force main. A high C-factor could indicate a of buildup of sediment in the force main or air pockets in the line restricting the effective pipe diameter. 2. The discharge pressure of the pump slightly decreases with pump runtime. This could indicate the air being purged from the line, increasing the effective pipe diameter, and reducing the pump discharge pressure. We recommend ensuring all air release valves are operational and that air release valves are installed at all high points. 3. The pump is performing below the intended design point. We recommend reviewing existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the pump or modifying impeller if necessary U Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel. 160 -ettt /It 140 120 100 IBLLnWHPIO 80rDa) = 60 4/t– 818, 98 /a 0 0 -h 800600 Flow (GPM) Assumed Parallel Pump Curve w w wSystem Curve + Design Points Table 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph 200 L 400 [i 1000 a 1200 Test Points+ Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Lower Limit Upper Limit Table 4.9 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Pump #1 & #2 - Test Comments 1 Average output of Pumps #1 & #2 running in parallel is 81% of the design flow rate. The system curve tested is steeper or has more friction in the system than accounted for in the original design. The C-factor, or Manning’s roughness, is well below what is expected for a relatively new PVC force main. A high C-factor could indicate a of build-up of sediment in the force main or of air pockets in the line restricting the effective pipe diameter. 2. The discharge pressure of the pump slightly decreases with pump runtime. This could indicate the air being purged from the line, increasing the effective pipe diameter, and reducing the pump discharge pressure. We recommend ensuring all air release valves are operational and the air release valves are installed at all high points 3 4 We recommend reviewing the existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrade the pumps if necessary. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to zero psi. (See ATTACHMENT 1 - GRAPHS PUMPS #1 & 2). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed on the downstream side of the check valve to mitigate vacuum pressures. We recommended installing combination air release valves on the downstream side of the check valves, a Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The measured system curve does not match the design curve. According to the Engineering Design Report, the static head used to design the force main was 60.7 Ft, and a lower head loss was likely also used during the original design. The static head used to develop the measured system curve was 40.9 Ft The discharge pressure in the force main reached 0 PSI following the shutdown of Pumps #1 and #2 running in parallel. We recommend installing air vacuum valves downstream of the check valve. There are three signs that cause us to suspect air pockets in the force main. 1. Pressure Measurements and Force Main Profile - There could be intermediate high points without air vacuum valves or with malfunctioning air vacuum valves. This is likely contributing to an increased head loss due to air pockets creating a decrease in pipe cross-sectional area. 2. Decreasing Discharqe Pressure - The discharge pressure of the pump slightly decreases with pump runtime. This could be indicative of the air being purged from the line, increasing the effective pipe diameter, and reducing the pump discharge pressure 3. High C-Factor - A high C-factor could be indicative of sediment buildup in the force main or air pockets in the line restricting the effective pipe diameter. We recommend ensuring there are working air vacuum valves at high points along the force main. Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES Below is a summary of the data show in Figure 4.1 - Pump and System Curves. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. 250 200 daHnn+B 11n== lars g 150U'i COaa loo a g1- 50 591, 81 818, 98 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 w w wSystem Curve #1 Measured Flow (GPM) System Curve #2 Design Avg Operating Point • Operating Points - in Parallel+ Design Point - One Pump + Design Point - in Parallel • Operating Points Diameter In 8.28 8.28 Calculated Based On Test Data Engineering Design Report Figure 4.1 - Pump and System Curves Beaver Creek . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part 1, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: 5217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: < 50 50 - 100 > 100 Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 10 15 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T * Q) / (4 * 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 514 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 and Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 6 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 20 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (6 min x 514 gpm) / (4 - 7.48) = 103.8 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump Off Elev. - Pump On Elev.) * (Wet Well Diameter2 * Tr/4) Pump Off Elev. = 3.0 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 6.5 (ft.) Wet Well Diameter = 10.0 (ft.) Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (6.5’ – 3.0’) * ((10 ft)2 * Tr/4) = 274.9 ft3 The lift station DOES provide the minimum wet well volume. Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 5217.67(a) Velocities - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Beaver Creek has two (2) pumps. Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 514 GPM (maximum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Force Main Radius = 4.14-inch = 0.345 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (514 / 448.83) / (TT * (0.345)2) = 3.06 feet per second The lift station DOES provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 6 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform gular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years Level 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening !rform gular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years.conditions, Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin Level 3 1 planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without Level 4 1 replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Bolts/Fittings – The bolts and fittings within the wet well and valve vault are corroded requiring replacement. 2 TVSS - There is no TVSS on site. We recommend installing a TVSS. 3. Force Main – There are signs of trapped air in the force main. We recommend replacing malfunctioning air vacuum valves and installing air vacuum valves at high points in the force main 4. Capacity – The station is performing below the intended design. We recommend reviewing existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the pump or modifying impeller if necessary. Beaver Creek . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Beaver Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report June 2022 aa)DE : 1e<aB bBU)a E3a a)3inin t)a C0 T)3 C/) I WV SP:It a) 3q/)V)a)a a) no rDaC)cn ;5 IWV SE:IT 30 LL a) Ei-la rDUC eua C a catH g caaBaat/l Ul a) Ei- + Ha= /a$ >a) •HllnHl•ll E•n•Hla bZ al >al--1 I a aa 10 U q asr afrI ahI 0HI 0 UCa) bOa),J(b) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) 3rnssard a8reqrsla aa) 8< g •• N Oq-I N aa6 IODe J JaMOd a E3a 106 srd r\I6 0d WV SP:It WV St:IT Cb,0 = /ab >a) E \+ •l•l•Hll• •U••= 00fr) 0 Ln(\I 0ar\I 0 Lnel 00pI 0 Ln 0 WV gZ:IT (N-1) srIOA sdtuv Eaa a)rv CabI (B3a >IU aa ++ (Bd=1U) VIv- } H g=In C q) Ea C) 10I U C0 10 A B5 I (SdI) ualre,qIA a E3a atd aad bd tO n + m6 d 6 d N d6 d 0 00pIal 00 DOel (WdU) paadS leuollqoU00 LnHI 00alel 0aan a010 a0cr)0 g:0al a) La0 = ===13aldud30WV St:11 aBaala) La0 = al dUI3 C El 3 OF t) LL I q) WV St:11 I laa) a)al C/) aC0 b=1 10 6 ac H0 = 4Re >a) E IHllllll•ll• •n•Hla bZ S8fri9friR OR 8 R g R :i 0 UCa) hDa)-JraMOd3sr OH (ZH) AruanbarJ }ndul taaa)ac Car (S3 is LUaaA (B+1tri a)(\u in 111g=la Ca) EaO(aS < 08 00 00 00N 00 10 (Wd9) "all 00 Ln 00qr 0afr) 06al oR 0qr (ISd) aJnssaJd uoIpnS a E3a a cr) 0 (XI 0HI 0 md SC:ZI g3 U)trI ga C0 a nUr O C/) I KId ST:ZI a) 3 C/)t/)a)\,a gb 10aL) C/)n Wd SO:ZI I 30 U- a) EFla (aUC CDa C a 7) euLU a) rDC B0Et/l ii Ei- + H0= /al >a) E =1== •n••l• bZ > a) a),J I a n N O n q 0st 0frI 0(\I 0 1-1 0 WV St:IT C)C gb a)J(y) IaAa1 IIaM raM (ISd) unssard a8req3sla 1:aa d)ac CaH IS3 rB >IU aa +- bBU) la C q)EEO10 a a ••• JOj3eJ JaMOd a E3a r\1,1 0.i aad 10d qr6 ChI6 0d Wd SZ:ZI Wd ST:CT INa = /A\ >a) E bZ ••H••Hll• == 0alHI 00T-I 0a-a 8 ?0r\1 0 WV SP:It DCa)hD a)I (N-1) slloA sdtuV a ;a C0 raIn LUJO5 I (SdI) 'lolre'qIA (HdU) p33dS leuolreioU a Eaa and aad Nd O n q m6 d d d N #6 d 00oH 00 aael 00InHI 0a (XIel 0 8: 0 8 aacr)0 md gZ:ZI gal a) el0 = 30 d==13al + Wd St:ZI I g0ala) el0= +13alC Wd SO:ZI ai Or 1)LL I I laa)a)al C/) CDC0+=Fto0 nc aL=0 = /Ab >a)BHll•Hl•ll E n=•HllU\/ 0b 010 0 br) aqF arn 0 n\1 0HI 0 WV St:11 UCa)hDa)I raMOdasJOH (ZH) AruanbarJ lndul Caaq)ac aaHI (B3d >IU Ca ++ (B+1 Ul (1) tO I eq) EJeO g< It U)al E3a IN a E =a 00a) a000 00N 0 8 tWd9) MaII aa Ln 0aq+ 0acr) aart oR aqr (ISd) aJnssaJd uoIpnS afrI 0all apI 0 WV ST:IT mv SO:IT WV SS:01 WV SP:01 WV St:01 WV SZ:01 WV ST:01 g3tntrI ga e0 7)3 C/) I a) 3C/) cr) a) & a) go CDaUtna I 30 LL a) Ei-la IDUCcaa C a B) (aUl a) CD C30I C/1al Ei- + H0 = dIe>a) bZ HI•lll•l• E•H•HlIB a) >I I a aa 10 Ln sr 0sr a en anJ 0pI 0 C)ea) aDa) I(4) IaAa1 II,MIaM (ISd) anssard a8reqxla taaa) nc C0 : a(S3 gIU CaA ISth CDC\I Uk= : Cr)(U Ca) E =C) 10 < IE It inal E3a r ••• JopeJ JaMOd a Eaa (XI,1 0 ,1 aad 10d q+d (Nd 0d IN0= 4b &aHll•ll•IH E•n•Hla bZ (N-1) silo/\sdtuv Caa q)ac Ca a a IS3n•Hl•l g 111 aaH ISU) a)Eal 10 (b e a) EEO 10El < SHlaC10 +E trialE3a He C0 10 nr B5 I (SdI) 'laneJqIA 8T-Ial 00 aa•=I (WdU) paadS Ieualleroy a E3a an6 aa6 b6 O n q Md 6 d 6 hI6 pI6 0 00 LnpI 00allpI aa aT) 08 00frI 0 r)B0ala)inb = anIJal30 !!aala)U)b = AHI3ale >,Oea)3 CF a) LE I laq)a)al C/) Tue0H= 10a ac m0 = /a >a) 1 1 1 H : I E•U•Hll•'\/ Uea)no a),JraMOdasroH(ZH) A3uanbuJ )ndul TRANSMiTrAL DATE : TO : March 14, 2017 Reymar Construction REFERENCE: Beaver Creek Lift Station WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING: [] Submittals (0) Hard Copies and (0) Electronic Copy E] For Approval [] For Record-signed terms & conditions [] Revised for Resubmission, (0) copies each for submersible pumps [] Approved as Submitted [] Approved as Noted [] Rejected [] Revise and Resubmit o copies for approval E] Operation and Maintenance Manuals [] Please return (0) copies of the reviewed submittal, stamped with approval to proceed as submitted; or noting any changes and/or discrepancies to the address listed below, Xylem Water Solutions, Inc. Flygt Products 2400 Tarpley Road Carrollton. TX 75006 Office: (972) 418-2400 Fax: (972) 416-9570 TEST REPORT PRODUCT Serial No, 3153. 185 Base module 053 1710022 No. 703 20 09 curve No. 63- 462-00-6050 Motor 164 Imp.diam/Blade angle 276 Water tempo C 21 TEST RESULTS Pump total head H (n) Volume rate of flow Q (USGpm) Motor input power P (kW) Voltage U(V) 459 454 454 455 451 Current 1 (A) Overall efficiency Tl (%) 143.48 122.23 103.42 83.13 54.44 0.0 1 92.9 405.5 596.9 964.0 10.64 11.78 13.81 14.21 17.28 18.7 20.0 22.4 23.1 26.9 0.00 37.76 57.30 65.89 57.28 Accepted after HI Grade 3B E„„„„, LS21 17-Of-30 21:53 Sweden ORDERNR 952143 POS 1 PLOTTED TEST RESULTS Measured poInt += Q/H X Q/P Duty point Q = Q/H Calculated point : X = Q/ETA overall n = Q/P 1 A= Q/ETA overall TOTAL HEAD Duty point : Q = 591.00 H = 81.0 E= P= INPUT POWER (R)(kW) (ch) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 200 400 600 11 800 1000 1200 0 (USGPM) FLOW TEST REPORT PRODUCT me 3153. 185 a 053 Voltage (V) 460 Water temp ' C 21 1710023 mpeller No. 703 20 09 Performma ce curve No. 63- 462-00-6050 he/type 164 e 276 TEST RESULTS Pump total head H (ft) D=e rate of flow Q (USGpm) Mo'® er P (kW) Voltage U(V) 461 460 458 457 453 Current I (A) Overall efficiency Tl (%) 142.30 121.59 92.80 78.99 55.06 0.0 192.1 485.0 655.1 963.8 10.52 1 1 .79 13.48 14.72 17.23 18.6 20.0 22.1 23.8 26.8 0.00 37.38 63.00 66.30 58.12 Accepted after HI Grade 3B e Em„-b.da LS21 17-01-30 21:40 Sweden ORDERNR 952143 POS 1 PLOTTED TEST RESULTS Measured poInt += Q/H Duty poInt Q/PX <> = Q/H Calculated point : X = Q/ETA overall n = Q/P 1 A = Q/ETA overall TOTAL HEAD Duty point : Q = 591.00 H = 81.0 E= INPUT POWER (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 200 400 600 12 800 1000 1200 0 (USGPM)FLOW BEAVER CREEK LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report May 2016 TBPE, Firm Registration # 470 1 TBPLS, Firm Registration # 10028800 !TBPG, FIrm RegIstration #50351 Id El:f:aviaN B+4 BEAVER CREEK LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report May 2016 BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report 1.SEWER SYSTEM INFORMATION Introduction The Beaver Creek project is a single-family residential development located within Denton, Texas. The subdivision is located northeast and adjacent to the intersection formed by Loop 288 and Stuart Road. Current overall development plans for the Beaver Creek development consists of an area of approximately 98.2 acres which contains 337 residential lots. In addition, approximately 68.4 acres of offsite property that is currently planned for future residential (52.4 acres) and commercial (16 acres) use will have sanitary sewer flows that will be transmitted to the Beaver Creek development. In total, the sanitary sewer flow generated by the Beaver Creek development and the offsite properties is estimated to be approximately 190,375 gallons per day (gpd). It is proposed to convey this flow to one (1) onsite lift station located along the northern boundary of the development. Proposed Sewer System It is proposed to construct a sanitary sewer lift station and force main to convey flow from the proposed development. The lift station will have a duplex submersible pump system that will transmit flow through an 8-inch PVC C-900 (Class 150) force main. After leaving the lift station the proposed 8-inch force main will continue to the east within unnamed proposed street (presently described as “Street E”) until it reaches Stuart Rd. Then the alignment will turn south, continuing along Stuart Rd, where it will tie into an existing manhole just south of Loop 288. 11.PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS Average Dry Weather Flow Average daily flows generated from the Beaver Creek development were estimated based on a residential average flow of 100 gallons per person per day and a factor of 3.2 persons per lot. Therefore, with a proposed lot count of 337 lots, the onsite sanitary sewer average daily flow is calculated below: W:Vxojects\7cXN)8ulaword\Report\160407a1 .doc 1 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report 337 lots x 3.2 persons/lot x 100 gallons/person = 107,400 gallons per day ( 107,900 gallons per day for design purposes) In order to estimate the contributing sanitary sewer flow from the future offsite residential development, the planned acreage was multiplied by a factor of 12.8 persons/acre with a design flow of 100 gallons per person. Therefore the future offsite residential sanitary sewer flow can be estimated below: 52.4 acres x 12.8 persons/acre x 100 gallons/person/day = 67,072 gallons (67,100 gallons per day for design purposes) The proposed sanitary sewer flow contribution from offsite commercial area was estimated by multiplying the planned acreage by a factor of 12.8 persons per acre with a design flow of 75 gallons per person. Therefore the future offsite commercial sanitary sewer flow can be estimated below: 16 acres x 12.8 persons/acre x 75 gallons/person/day = 15,360 gallons per day (15,375 gallons per day for design purposes) The sum of the proposed flows estimated previously results is on average daily design flow of 1 90,375 gallons/day, or 133 gallons per minute (gpm). Peak Wet Weather Flow In order to determine peak flows for the collection system, a peaking factor of 4 (per City of Denton was applied to the average daily flow. This yields a peak wet weather flow of 532 gr)m. W:\projects\700\08\02\Word\Report\160407al .doc 2 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIrr STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Minimum Dry Weather Flow This minimum dry weather flow is used to determine the maximum detention time in the wet well. The formula used for computing the minimum dry weather flow is: MDWF = 0.2 x (0.0144 x ADF)o'198 x ADF, (source: San Antonio Water System Lift Station Design and Construction Guidelines, 2012) where: N4DWF ADF minimum dry weather flow, gallons per minute average dry weather flow, gallons per minute Using the above equation and an average dry weather flow of 133 gpd gives a value of 30 gpm for the minimum dry weather flow. Minimum Pump Requirements For lift stations that service two or more equivalent dwelling units, a minimum of two pumps is required. Since only two pumps will be installed in the proposed lift station, each pump must be capable of handling the peak wet weather flow at the required total dynamic head. The total dynamic head (TDH) can be described by the following equation: TDH = H, + Lf + LM where: H, Lf LM static head loss due to friction in the force main pipe minor loss in the force main pipe W:\projects\700V)8\02\Word\R8pon\16040781 .doc 3 PAP&DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report The static head can be described by the following equation: H, = EH - EL where: EH = maximum elevation of the proposed force main, feet ELI = low water elevation of the wetwell, feet (all pumps off) The frictional losses (LD in the fo equatIon: rce main pipe can be described by the following ',='*(HI where L = length of force main, feet Q = flow, cubic feet per second C = Hazen-Williams factor of the pipe D = diameter of the force main, feet The losses due to friction are computed using C value of 100 and 140. The minor losses in the force main pipe can be described by the followin where : K V g headloss coefficient for the minor losses „'-"““'„"[#],'„''„,'„„. gravitational constant (32.2 ft2/sec) 4 N Ifi) iI::: IiJIIL L !!K!IIIIb I IINI W:\>roj WB\700\08\02\Word\R8port\160407a1 . doc BEAVER CREEK - Lirr STATION AND FORCE MAIN EngIneering Design Report 41A See Table 1 below for the K value calculations. Thus, the equation for determining TDH can be written as follows: Using the C value, the TDH is determined. Table 2 contains the remaining variables from the TDH equation and the resulting TDH values. The flow (Q) to be used in these equations is determined using pump curves selected for the conditions in this lift station. A Q value of 591 gallons per minute (1.317 cubic feet per second) was selected. Table 1 – K Value Calculations Minor Loss Item Discharge Into Manhole 90'’ Bend 45Q Bend Gate Valve and Plug Valves Gate Valve W:WeagW(Xh08\02\WortIVReportH604CY781 .dcx:5 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSA BEAVER CREEK - LIrr STATION AND FORCE MAIN EngIneering DesIgn Report ++ & Table 2 – TDH Equation Variable Eh (ft) ELI (ft) L (R) Q (cfs) C D (ft)+ K TDH -Interior diameter of PVC pipe. Variables and Values 656.70 596.01 3,620 1.317 100 and 140 0.69 8.8 81 Using the information above, each pump shall be required to be capable of transmitting a minimum flow of 591 gallons per minute and overcoming a total design head of 81 feet. Appendix B contains pump curves and supporting information for a Xylem Pump, model NP3153 HT3. Appendix B also contains a graph of the system curve and the proposed pump curve. The system curve was generated using the TDH equation and flow ranging from 500 gpm to 600 gpm. The pump curve is based on the information supplied by Xylem for the NP3 153 HT3 pump with a 276 mm impeller and a 20 horsepower motor. The intersection of these curves indicates the operating point of the pump: 591 gpm at 81 feet of TDH (with one pump operating). Should the water level in the wetwell reach the design setting where both pumps are to operate concurrently in order to drawdown the water level, the combined flow of the two pumps is approximated to be 785 gpm at a TDH of 98 feet. WVmjwtsu<mv>avwxcARqat\16040781 .doc 6 1111 Ifi CBIIEII!K:11111 1 N BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) NPSH calculations are not critical for submersible pumps. Since the Beaver Creek Lift Station will use two (2) Xylem Submersible, Non-Clog NP 3153 pumps, NPSH calculations are not required. Velocity in Force Main The force mains proposed for this project are 8-inch PVC C-900 force main with a minimum working pressure rating of 150 PSI. The velocity (v) in the force main can be described by the following equation: ,=g A := where: Q A flow in the force main, cubic feet per second area of the force main jn(D/2)2], square feet For the proposed 8-inch (PVC) force mains, the inner diameter is 8.28 inches, and the cross-section area of each pipe is 0.374 square feet. Converting the anticipated pump flow from the Xylem pump mentioned previously, a flow of 591 gpm to cubic feet per second results in a flow of 1.317 cfs [591 gpm / (7.480519 gallons/cubic foot x 60 seconds/minute)]. This yields a velocity in the force main of 3.52 feet per second. According to TCEQ guidelines a velocity of 3 to 5 feet per second is acceptable. Surge Pressures Surge pressures in a force main system are the result of a sudden change in liquid velocity. This can be caused by the pump suddenly starting or stopping or a valve in the system being quickly closed. As the fluid suddenly starts or stops, a shock wave is created in the force main. The velocity of that wave can be described by the following equatIon: W:\proJeas\70(A08\02\Word\Repor016Ma7a1 .doc 7 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - Lirr STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Equation 1 4660 ’– n V 1 +h Where: a k d E wave velocity, feet per second fluid bulk modulus (300,000 psi for water), pounds per square inch pipe ID, inches modulus of elasticity of the pipe (400,000 psi for PVC pipe), pounds per square inch wall thickness, inchest The maximum pressure surge may be calculated using Equation 2 below: Equation 2 P = & Where: V g P maximum velocity change, feet per second gravitational constant (32.2 ff/sec) pressure surge, pounds per square inch Using a pipe diameter (d) of 8.28 inches and wall thickness (t) of 0.362 inches and solving for wave velocity (a) yields : a = , 4660 = 1.093.68ft/sec :1 1 (300,000 psi)(8.28 in) (400,000 psi)(0.362 in) W:\proJects\700\08\02\Word\Report\160407a1 .doc 8 PAP&DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Inserting this value into Equation 2 along with a maximum velocity change (V) of 3.52 R/s (assuming instantaneous stoppage of flow) yields: P = =51.8psi(2.3 1)(32.2)it/sec - Based on the normal operating pressure of approximately 35 psi (total operating head of 81 ft x 0.4329 psi/ft), the system may be subjected to a maximum pressure of approximately 86.8 psi (35 psi normal pressure + 51.8 psi surge pressure). The force main is rated at 150 psi and therefore appears capable of containing the surge pressures within the system. Storage Requirements The required wet well volume (volume between the "First Pump On" Elevation and the "All Pumps OfF' Elevation) is governed by TCEQ Regulations (Chapter 3 17.3 (b)(4)(B)) which states that submersible pump cycle time, based on peak flow, for pumps with motors less than 50 horsepower, must equal or exceed 6 minutes. However, the City of Denton requires the cycle time to be 10 minutes. This rule can be described by the following equation: v, = (Q+ T)/4 Where V, is the required volume in gallons, Q is the pump now in GPM, and T is 10 minutes (per City of Denton) for submersible pumps with a motor less than 50 horsepower. Using the proposed discharge flow (Q) condition of 591 gpm, the required volume in gallons for a ten-minute run time for the Beaver Creek Lift Station wetwell is 1,477.5 W:\projects\700\08\02\Word\Report\160407a1 .doc 9 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report gallons. Using a 10-foot diameter wetwell gives a necessary depth of 2.51 feet between the “First Pump On” and the “All Pumps Off’ elevations. An emergency power generator will be installed at the lift station; however, the wetwell will have emergency storage capability between the “first pump on” elevation, and the spill elevation (elevation 614,65). Emergency storage will be designed for a 60-minute power outage which is greater than the minimurn amount of time required in the TCEQ’s Regulations (217.63(d)(1)(A)). Emergency storage within the wetwell can be calculated using the following equation. Vs (gal) = ADF # 1 hr storage Vs (gal) = 7,980 gallons Using the average dry weather flow (ADF) of 133 gr)m, the 1-hour volume is 7,980 gallons. Using a 10-foot diameter wetwell gives a necessary depth of approximately 13.6 feet between the “First Pump On” and the spill level elevation. For this project the spill elevation (top of manhole) is the manhole immediately upstream of the wetwell (614.65). Therefore, in order to effectively contain one hour of the average daily flow within the 10-foot wetwell, the difference in elevation between the “First Pump On” elevation and ELEV 614.’65 must be greater than 13.6. For this project the lead pump initiates operation at elevation 598.52. The evaluation of available emergency storage depth is shown below. Available Storage Depth = ELEV 614.65 ’ – ELEV 598.52’ = 16. 13’ Required 1-hr Storage Depth = 13.6’ The available storage depth is greater than the 1-hr required storage depth by 2.53’ (equal to approximate surplus volume of 1 ,486 gallons). W:Vlrojocts\700K>8\02\Word\Report\1604a7al , doc 10 PAP&DAWSON ENGINEERSd BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report +4 4 Buoyancy Calculations The SAWS Lift Station Guidelines (Rule J.2.C.9) require that a buoyancy check be completed for all wet wells. It must be shown that the combined weight of the wetwell, pumps and concrete slabs is greater than the maximum buoyancy force that the system can encounter. The force of buoyancy (FB) can be described by the following equation: FB = 1b1% n ( ; ) d where: Wc, D d specific weight of water (approximately 62.4 lbs/ff) diameter of the wet well, feet empty depth of the wet well, feet. The empty depth of the wet well can be determined by subtracting the "All Pumps OfF' Elevation from the top elevation of the wet well. This will give the maximum possible volume of the empty wet well and therefore yields the largest possible buoyancy force that the system could be subject to. See Table 3 below for the calculation of the buoyancy force that the lift station could be subject to. Table 3 – Buoyancy Force Calculation maMe units' 62.4) 596.01All Pumps Off Elevation (R) 618.80Top of Wet well Elevation (a) 10Wet well Diameter (ft) 111,691Buoyancy Force (Ib) WW®ts\700K>8vlaword\RqxxlslKHa7al.an 11 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN EngIneerIng Design Report The lift station is comprised of several components whose weight will counteract the buoyancy force calculated in Table 3 above. These components are the weight of the concrete slabs that constitute the top and bottom of the wet well; the weight of the fiberglass wet well, the weight of the stored sewage, the weight of soil above the foundation of the wet well, etc. See Table 4 for calculations of these weights and the total weight of the lift station. Table 4 – Lift Station Item {units) Top Wet well Slab Length (ft) Top Wet well Slab Width (ft) Top Slab Thickness (in) Bottom Slab Length and Width (ft) Bottom Slab Thickness (in) Electrical Panel Pad Length (R) Electrical Panel Pad Width (ft) Electrical Panel Thickness (in) e T Total Weight of Concrete Slabs (Ib) Wet well Depth (ft) Wet well Unit Weight (lb/ft of depth) Weight of Wet well (Ib) All Pumps Off Elevation (ft) Wet well Invert Elevation (R) Wet well Diameter (ft) > 5 Weight of Stored Sewage (Ib) Weight Calculation Valueh=n= 20 140 1 6,565 W:Wect8\7CXN>8K)2\Wwd\Report\16049hl .doc 12 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIrr STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report lb tem (units Volume of Soil Above Bottom Slab ( Specific Weight of Soil (lb/ Specific Weight of Water (lb/ft Weight of Saturated Soil (Ib) Total Lift Station Weight (Ib) The buoyancy force was calculated in Table 3 to be approximately 111,691 pounds. The total lift station weight was calculated in Table 4 to be approximately 215,564 pounds. It appears that the lift station will not float in the event that it is submerged. Detention Times and Cycle Times The amount of time that sewage is detained in the wet well is important for several reasons. In order to avoid a septic situation, the waste must be removed in a reasonable amount of time. The detention times must be computed for Average Dry Weather Flow, Maximum Wet Weather Flow and Minimum Dry Weather Flow. The detention time (Td) can be computed as follows: T' =++d) where: i Q V, inflow outflow from the wetwell volume of the wetwell between First Pump On and All Pumps Off The volume (V,) of the wetwell (between the "All Pumps Off' Elevation and the "First Pump On" Elevation) is 1,477.50 gallons as calculated in the Storage Requirements W\xoJnx8\700U)8V)2\wwd\Rqxx61604a7a1.doc 13 PAPE.DAWSON ENGINEERSA BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report section of this report. The outflow (Q) from the wet well is 591 gpm per the operating point of the pump. Average Dry Weather Flow Using an inflow (i) value of 133 gallons per minute for the Average Dry Weather Flow and the known parameters from the detention time equation shown above yields a detention time (Td) of 14 minutes. Peak Wet Weather Flow Using an inflow (i) value of 532 gallons per minute for the Peak Wet Weather Flow and the known parameters from the detention time equation shown previously yields a detention time (Td) of approximately 28 minutes. Minimum Dry Weather Flo\v Using an inflow value of 30 gallons per minute (ultimate build-out conditions) for the Minimum Dry Weather Flow and the known parameters from the detention time equation shown above yields a detention time (Td) of approximately 52 minutes. Note that this value represents the maximum detention time. Since the maximum detention time does not exceed 180 minutes, odor control measures are not necessary. However, at the request of the City of Denton a 300 cfm Purafil Odor Control drum scrubber will be included in the design. ’[pta I C' IC/c' Times The two proposed pumps in Beaver Creek Lift Station will alternate starts to equalize the wear on the two pumps (Pump A and Pump B). Therefore, under normal operation, the cycle time of Pump A can be described as the time that Pump A runs, plus the time that it takes for the lift station to fill again, plus the time for Pump B to empty the lift station, plus the time that it takes for the lift station to fill to the "First Pump On" elevation again. W:\xojects\700W8\02\Word\Report\160407a1 .doc 14 PAPE.DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - Lirr STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report The cycle time can be determined by the following equation: 1rc = + 1A i where: T, V, total cycle time, minutes storage volume in the lift station (volume between the "All Pumps OfF’ Elevation and "First Pump On" Elevation), gallons inflow into the lift station, gallons per minute rate of outflow from the lift station, gallons per minute.Q Flow i (gp"1)Q (gp,")V, (gal) 1 ,477.50 133 591Average Dry Weather 591532Peak Wet Weather 1 ,477.50 30 591Minimum Dry Weather 1 ,477.50 Table 5 - Cycle Times Calculations Force Main Flush Time The force main flush time (FT) was calculated for the proposed lift station. In order to calculate FT, the wetwell filling time (WWFT), pump run time (PRT), and wetwell detention time (WWDT) was also calculated. The calculations are shown below. The parameters for these equations are as follows: D = wetwell diameter, in feet Ah,b,# = distance tntween lead pump on and all pumps off, in feet Qi = Average Daily Inflow, in gpm Q, = Pumped flow, in gpm L = Force Main lengths, in feet v = Force main velocity, in feet per second W:Weds\7tXN)8\oawudYRqxx61604cY7al .an 15 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSA BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Wetwell Filling Time: WWFT = 7.484 1 11 D2 (Ah,„„,a where, 4Ql Where D = 10’ Ah,„,_„ff = 2.5 1 ’ Qi = 133 gpm WWFT = 1 1.11 minutes Pump Run Time: PRT = 7.4841 Fl D2 {Ah,„,,„a) where, 4 (Qo – g/) Where D = 10’ Ah,„,_„fT= 2.51 ’ Qi = 133 gpm go = 591 gpm PRT = 3.23 minutes Wetwell Detention Time; where WWDT = WWFT + PRT WWDT = 14.34 minutes Flushing Cycles; where L = 3,620 ft V = 3.52 fps FC = L/60v(PRT) FC = 5.31 cycles FCw = 5 FCD = 0.31 W:\proJects\700\0802\Word\ReportH6CH07a1 .doc 16 PAP&DAWSON ENGINEERSA BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report Flushing Time; where FT = (FC,„)(WWDT) + (FCd)(PRT) FT = (5)(14.34) + (0.31)(3.23) FT = 72.68 minutes The results are summarized in Table 6 below. Table 6 – Average Flush Wetwell Diameter, feet Dh.„_„#, feet Average Daily Flow, gpm Pumped Flow, gpm Force Main Length, feet Flow velocity in FM, fps Average WWFT, mins Average PRT, mins Average WWDT, mins Average FC cycles Average FT, mins Results From the Design Calculations: 1. Average Daily Flow: 133 gpm 2. Peak Wet Weather Flow: 532 gpm 3. Volume of Retention Chamber: 1,477.50 gallons 4. Static Head: 61 ’ 5. Total Dynamic Head: 81 ’ 6. Net Positive Suction Head: Not applicable for submersible pumps 7. Allowable Pump : Flygt (Xylem) NP 3 1 53 HT3, 276 mm impeIler, 591 gpm W:\proJectsW00\08\02\Word\Repod\16(H07a1 .doc 17 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERSN BEAVER CREEK - LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN Engineering Design Report 8.Total Cycle Times: Minimum Dry Weather Flow Total Cycle Time = 104 minutes, 3.23 minutes ON Time, 100.77 minutes OFF Time Average Dry Weather Flow Total Cycle Time = 27 minutes, 3.23 minutes ON Time, 23.77 minutes OFF Time Total Detention Times: Minimum Dry Weather Flow = 52 minutes Peak Wet Weather Flow = 28 minutes Average Dry Weather Flow = 14 minutes Size and Length of Force Main: 8” C900 PVC, Class 150, 3,620 feet in length Velocity Maintained in Force Main: 3.52 ft/s 9. 10. 11. W:\projects\700\08\02\Word\Report\16040731 . doc 18 I111 g:} [ IIIiII!H: :11111 1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Location Map +44 T, [15]6 RdF If / ( \ \ I [Mg gb A \pH i tg '.\ r \ gl :', i ''b\ +al [In]] CHI dlb W Windsor Or P o3a 1: IE {b (al8 g y' ! E M£Knney St + V (288) ):q k : Et : A? r E E K #1 aEFiWg oN CHECKED KK DRAWN al 1 IDea WLan +lo 1 HN AMrowo. BIAS HIll I Mac: alaJ?sHOP,„„. 1 Of 1 1 LOCATION MAP - N. T.S. I „.JGy&PaTHZb£'m=' APPENDIX B Pump Curve and Supporting Information iI 0001 096 006 098 008 OS£ gD r.. al gg ggO OOL \Aqj> INBQ a,i 'Ui ali g,Ul OS9 CD g g EII0 E o09 Ogg 009 OSt HI aNin OOt OO£ OSZ 091 001 Og 00NHRHI 0IfIHI 0HI•nnI 0 ;1 8 0b 0tri 0 Cr) (W) p'3H ++t 0001 096 006 OS8 008 Og£ OO£ 099 009 OSS 009 OSt 00+ OgC OO£ OgZ OOZ 091 001 09 0 0fr) gg g:g gig 6 &o O E a\ga 858iQ a, EAh Aaa a g>iVI E #1: !i p=\ E t: g R R = 8 g (U) p'aH PI •••=I HIHI 0trI xylem :+ NP 3153 HT 3- 462 TechnIcal specIfIcatIon 70.1 /krf•: Phtun n8ht not correspond to the eun8nt eonfigur8tian. General Patented self cl08nlng 80ml4pen ch8nnel fmI>oIler, Ideal for pumpIng Ih waste water appIIcatIons. PossIble to be upgraded wIth GuIde+he for even better cloggIng resIstance. Modular based desIgn wIth high 8daptatlon grade. Impeller Im pellet materIal DIscharge Flange DIameterInlet dlarnotor Irnpelbr diam©t8rNurnber of blades ais g.P."1.1 Guy east Iron3 15/16 Inch 3 IS/16 Inch 276 mm 2WabC pn Chave ISO Installation: P .SemI p•nnen•nt, W•t Motor + S&ator v adant FrequencyRated voltage Number of balesPhases Rated powerRated current StartIng currentRat•d ipeedPower factor 1/1 Leed3/4 Load1/2 Load Motor N3153.181 I60 Hz460 V43 = 20 hp26 A157 A 1760 rpm 21.184AA.W 20hp 0.83 0.78 0.67 Efflcbney1/1 Load3/4 Load 1/2 Load 87.5 %88.5 % 87.5 % Con6guraUon 'i Project Pro)Ht 10 Created by Cnatwl on aol 645.17 Last updel8 xylern ++4 NP 3153 HT 3- 462 Ar&r> Performance curve Motor anhaa8 Flange [X8mot8rInl•t dl6meter - Impeller dIameterNumber of blades Pump 3 15/16 Inch 100 mm 107/f 2 Motor # Stator valiant FnquenqRat8d voltage Number of polesPha©8 Rated paunrRated wrr8nt Starting wrnnt Rated q>oed hBI 53.181I 80 Fb 460 V 4 & 20 hp26 A 157 A 1760 rpm 21-1 &4AA-W20hp Power factor 1/1 Load 3/4 Load 1/2 L08d 0.83 0.78 0.87 Efndon cv1/1 Load 3/4 Load 1/2 Load 87.6 % 88.5 % 87.5 % In]4H8d 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 82.3 R 70.1 12 276mm [aiM 60 ]Total efndonq 69.8 % I 61.6 % I62 276mm M-(FI? rP 17 hp tha SRm IB JPowor Input p1 12 8 4 NPS H.values In 1 162 276mm 30 20 10 100 W&. pn b=nrFPTnoTTaT–}Ul8 di _g.p.m. 500 800 700 13.8 ft 200 300 400 800 800 IO'OO 1100 12’00 [US g.p.m.] arwlSO PIM Pm#ed ID CHa•d by Created on 201645.17 Last upd8te xylern +14 NP 3153 HT 3- 462 agr &> Duty AnalysIs tRl'w 140 136 132 128 124 : 1 20 116 112 I08 104 100- 96 92 88 84 80 78 72 ] 68 64 60 56 52 48 1 98.8 ft /70.1 40 : 36 32: 28 24 20 16: 12 8 4 12 276mm [Pump 1]482 276,ih Pump r+2] 778.4 US g.p.m. 800400 WU. U}GUn Inn if IndIvIdual pump 1200 18bo 2000 IUS g.p.n1.] Ctw9BO ;#!i 1 / 1 ToIIBI Flew Hud 380U80 em O&BR sha Bowe Flow Hnd l&BIp 778U8g am noR 8h8ft power Pump m. MtV lags Sp•dBe•nngy HP8Hn 568HA#W8MG 13.18 Pmjad PmI@t ID Crnted by Cr8alod on 201845.17 xylern ++i NP 3153 HT 3- 462 I!i&> VFD Curve 1 1 I I l 11 11 10 10 IRI IHead 90 7: 1' 60 50 45 70.1 30 25- 1 11 276mrn 311 A. JO Hl Emclency iTotaf aMd8nw 49 hz:' +9~Rl dO tO - 45 tl 10 Shaft power P2 Power Input P1l ; iTgnR tFI) 55 HI 53 Hz 12 4 bIg NPSH-values 12 278mm 0 Prqoct 100 200 300 400 500 860 760 860 960 1000 IIO a ' 1200 [US g.p.m. I Gun no WeI ID Cnated by t Cr88tal on 201645.17 Lat upd8taI xylem :+ NP 3153 HT 3- 462 VFD Analy8l• [Head 1 141 136 132 128 I 1 111 11 1 104 86 92 88 98.8 R 76 7: 68 64 ’01 7{ 56 48 44 7 36 32 fn. I I '62 276mm iP-umd Ii 462 276rih [Pump 1+21 I }i 12- : J. IIZ i+o Hz ) Hz -40 Hz 0 460 860 1200 16l00 2000 IUS g-p.-1.] CuvelSO Pump• rg;IiI: 1 / 1 1 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 1 OObb6Sbb 80bb 45bb 40 lb Frequaloy Flew 900y9g am 98,88911 USd.b.m 8588a8us j.b.rn 7518121USI jm 6&dR Hnd 8haR pew•r Flow 7pllgO am ga8R821 USI.b.m &BR4@USd.hm TallaHusi jun O&4R Hud SluR powv HINd off.8pnIHeenBBy 999 IPaBPI) 166 Ft)nBIi) oas%00.1 %MI % 38% 86BMlaJ8 MO lai R617 WWUS MG 11.4 R Ul WWUSMQ IORUl WWW SMG agdR NPBHn Pro}e&t 1 HubeR ID Created by Last updala 201645.17 xylem qtI NP 3153 HT 3- 462 Dlmen•lonal drawIng XIr&> 4g (N)RFrbBr PaNT) I11FJ 1 gbl Bn + T arawn 1 y; d,i Z as HM"A ;qJ aHq (a) wv [Z]–[Z] } IWW WlnrrpIDsdl tHI “ ;rIK :-uSB :"081013 ;B' –– T"FMIi mD i 11 + DiuEKiaiTOBaBCFGL[EBiFB nt Fjy AurocAD W\WING Pr%.I Created on , Last upd8 le 201645.17 T::a; iial\DQHeTTt=1:TH===:II:16::: aNI Ol OO'OO+0 VIS - lunoo ]NOISAly ]lIJOUd aNV Nrld 9NIAVd SH33N19N3 SVX ll 'NOIN lae-Hd 'ya IUO HIAVIa iii:;; gjg iiigiglgjg gig!!!!1I i ; ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! i : ! ! i; g 1 g ! ! : ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! iii!!!!!!! gig:iii!!!!! gig!!g E 5 B*!!!!!! i Eg 9 : !! H=qI \ \ Pump Station Evaluation Report Pecan Creek Basin – Bent Oaks Lift Station Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley '»Horn Evaluation Date: February 9, 2023 Report Date: March 15, 2023 Version 1 Publish Date 1 Description 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 Table 0.1 - Revision History Table 0.2 - Previous Evaluation History This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn. Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachments ............................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 Site Information ......................1 1.2 Site Map.................................. General Photos..............................................................................................................4 2 2 3 Condition Assessment..................................................................................................7 3.1 Civil Components ................. Mechanical Components .... . , ...........8 3.2 10 3.3 Electrical Components .......... . Pump Performance Tests ...........................................................................................14 4.1 Pump #1....................................................................................................................... 15 Pump #2....................................................................................................................... 19 Pumps #1 and #2 ......................................................................................................... 23 Hydraulics Summary. ............ System Curves . . . . , Pipeline Velocities System Pressures – Pump #1 System Pressures - Pump #2..................... System Pressures – Pump #1 & Pump #2 .................................................................... 27 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Review.............................................28 12 4 4.2 4.3 4.4 24 4.5 24 4.6 25 4.7 26 4.8 26 4.9 5 6 Recommendations ......................................................................................................30 Overall Recommendations............................................................................................ 30 Miscellaneous Recommendations................................................................................. 31 6.1 6.2 7 Attachments.................................................................................................................32 Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1...................................................................................................... Test Data Graphs Attachment 2...........................................................................Supplementary Pump Information Attachment 3...................................................................................................... Record Drawings Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS V VFD VVIW WW Yr Phase Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes: Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. evaluated the pump station through pump performance testing and a condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducting using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number:Bent Oaks Date of Evaluation :2/9/2023 Address :3833 Teasley, Denton, TX 33.172615, -97. 1 1 3259Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed : Station Style: Number of Pumps: Wastewater Submersible 2 Number of Pump Slots:2 Pump Type: Wet Well Material Submersible Steel w/ Protective Coating Wet Well Dimension 5.5-Foot Diameter Flow Meter Type: Year of Construction / Rehabilitation : Basin/Zone: None Circa 1984 Based on:ERecord Drawings aField Observation D Other Pecan Creek Basin Firm Capacity (Design): Firm Capacity (Test): Unknown 191 GPM / 0.28 MGD 4-inch check valve, 4-inch gate valve, 4-inch 90-degree bend, 4-inch cross, 4-inch x 6-inch reducer, 6-inch force main 6-inch, 1,350 LF FM of ductlle iron pipe discharging to a manhole 240/480 Wye No Generator on Site, MTS Installed Bypass Present, MTS Present Not Present Discharge Description : Force Main Description: Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability Odor Control Miscellaneous Features:N/A Bent Oaks . Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 1.2 SITE MAP jb : tI r.I ## =& Gbq !BE \rf a9 4 if B]]&++ Bent Oaks Lift Station LIft StatIon AssessmentsDenton Wastewater Master Plan Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Figure 1.2 - Site Aerial Legend 1-Motor Control Center 2-Valve Vault 3-Teasley Road 4-lnfluent Manhole 5-Bent Oaks Drive Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 GENERAL PHOTOS :::i;=i }{??&g Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Photo 2.2 – Interior Wet Well Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 photo 2.3 – Valve Vault Photo 2.4 - Lowest Influent Pipe Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 2.5 – Highest Influent Pipe Photo 2.6 - Motor Control Center and Wet Well Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Score Description Blank i Not Applicable 0 1 2 3 4 5 Component doesn't exist but is applicable. Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low. Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear, damage and corrosion . Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion. Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure. Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed. Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Bent Oaks . Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component i Score I Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security 4 3 3 3 No driveway directly to station 8-foot wooden fence Submersible wet well with limited access. Working area around the wet well and valve vault is very tight. Access to electrical panels requires standing on wet well which has lid braces compromised by corrosion Serviceability 5 Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil Other 3 3 4 4 5 3 Valve vault has significant corrosion on steel lid and standing water Valve vault has gaps at penetration locations Wet well lids have major corrosion, braces have completely rusted away Table 3.2 - Civil Components Condition Scores Civil Condition Photos Photo 3.1 – Valve Vault bS Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 3.2 – Wet Well Lid Brace Major Corrosion and Delamination of Liner Photo 3.3 - Wet Well Lid Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Component Score 1 Description Bolts Fittings Hardware Piping – Suction Piping – Discharge Pumps Valves – Check Valves – Isolation Valves – Other Ventilation Mechanical - Other 3 3 3 0 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 Table 3.3 - Mechanical Components Condition Scores Photos Major pitting on wet well discharge lines Highly corroded ventilation on wet well Mechanical Condition I A Photo 3.4 – Discharge Lines Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 photo 3.5 – Wet Well Ventilation Penetration Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Component I Score ! Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 4 4 0 3 3 4 3 3 3 Exposed conduit Corrosion present and unorganized conduits Not present, quick connect installed Corrosion present and unorganized conduits Table 3.4 - Electrical Components Condition Scores PhotosElectrical Condition Photo 3.6 – Control Panel Conduit Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 3.7 - RTU Panel thAt'> L Photo 3.8 – Motor Control Center Bent Oaks . Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11% 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data Parameter Flow Measurement Method Primary Secondary Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Liquid Filled Pressure GaugePressurePressure Transducer (XAK-PACK) Wet Well Level Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Volts Amps Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Fluke 376FCCurrent Transducers (XAK-PACK) Power Factor Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK)N/A Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Units Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Hydromatic S4NX750FC Pump Style Solids Handling Submersible Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No 7.50 Unknown Unknown Unknown 459.5 Unknown 34.65 Unknown 1800 1750 3 ATL 230/460 7.5 1.2 25.2/12.6 77.0Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Table 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics 100.0 Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 (Southern Pump) Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% dR >, 50% : '6 E 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 300 350 400 WTW Eff • MFG HpI Eff C MFGWIW Eff 0 m 100 150 200 250 Flow {GPM) Pump Curve ----- Eq. AffinityCurw n-nnSystem Curve + Test Points x 0 50 a trIP HP 100 150 200 250 300 Flow (GPM) • Output HP C NPSHr Table 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs 350 • NPSHa 400 Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit ! Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) GPM 191 Ft 40.2 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) %26.4% HP 7.4 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa Amps 10.6 FPS 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FPS 4.9 80%42% 90%Unknown 2 3 4 -5%4.2% N/A 36.9 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt 0/0 -5%-31.1 % Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance %-5%0% %-1 0%3.3% 1.4% 3.1 % %-10% -1 0%Current Imbalance 'yo Motor FLA 50%84.0% Motor Load 50%99.1 % Surge Vibration 1 -5 5 la Q)a G)in JQ0 Cavitation 1 -5 1 -5 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 3 Table 4.4 - Pump #1 Test Summary Bent Oaks . Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Pump #1 - Test Comments 1 The pump is operating at approximately 42% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2. The capacity design point is unable to be determined based off the information provided by the City and available information found on site. 3. Pump impeller appears to be either different, reduced diameter impeller or the impeller and/or volute are severely worn. Determine the installed diameter and obtain an updated pump curve if necessary. 4. The tested WTW efficiency of 26.4% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump. 5 Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. d Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Hydromat ic S4NX750FC Solids Handling SubmersiblePump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft 7.50 Unknown Unknown Unknown 459.5 Unknown 38.12 Unknown 1800 1750 3 ATL 230/460 7.5 1.2 25.2/12.6 77.0 Hours GPM % 0/0 Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP Amps 0/0 0/0 Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Table 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics 100.0 !!? r i Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 (Northern Pump) Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 0 m m 150 200 250 m m 400 Flow (CPM) Pump CUlve -'-'''-'Eq.AffinityCurve •'-''''nSystem CUIve + TeSt PoInts X WTW Eff e MFG HWl Eff C MFG WTW Eff 15 12 a=9 g g6 0I 3 0 0 q m IB 50 a Inp HP 150 200 250 Flow {GPM) • Output HP o NPSHr Table 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 100 350 400 e NPSHa Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Parameter Units i Lower Limit i Test Value Upper Limit ! Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) GPM 228 Ft 47.2 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) 0/0 34.2% HP 8.0 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa Amps 10.5 FPS 7 7 115% 110% 50/b N/A 5% 50/8 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FPS 5.8 %80%50%1 2 3 %90%Unknown %-5%2.5% Ft 36.7 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt %-5%-11 % Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance 0/0 -5%0% %-1 0%3.5% % 0/0 -1 0% -10% 1.5% 5.8%Current Imbalance Motor FLA 50%83.7% Motor Load 50%106.8%4 5Surge Vibration 1 -5 1 -5 la q)a 0)Ul JQ0 Cavitation Mechanical Noise Leaks 1 -5 1 -5 3 31 -5 Exterior Condition Overall Score 1 -5 1 -5 3 Table 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Pump #2 - Test Comments 1 The pump is operating at approximately 51% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2. The capacity design point is unable to be determined based off the information provided by the City and available information found on site. 3. The tested WTW efficiency of 34.2% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump. 4. The motor load value is greater than 100% of the rated motor horsepower. The motor can operate up to 120% of its rated value with a service factor of 1 .2. However, running the motor for extended periods of time above 100% of the rated horsepower will cause overheating and permanent damage 5 Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 90 10096 80 70 60 90% 80% 70% 60% 'NR > 5(7% : '0E 4D% 50 & la 8 = 40 30 20 10 30% 20% 10% 0 m 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Flow (GPM) Pump Curve Para llel Pump - ''--' Eq. Affinity Curve w w w System Curve + Test Points Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel. Figure 4.1 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Test Value } Upper Limit GPM 254.6 Ft 49.1 Table 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of 191 GPM and a tested total capacity of 255 GPM The system does have concerning negative surges following pump shutdown. 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES 100 80 : B g B E }a E 60 40 20 0 0 m 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Flow (GPM) n ne System Curve #1 Measured System Curve #2 Design • Operating Poi nts 8 Avg Operating Point Below is a summary of the data shown in Figure 4.2 - System Hydraulic Information. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. CuIve Name System Curve #1 System Curve #2 Figure 4.2 – System Hydraulic Information Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.6 PIPELINE VELOCITIES Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities displays the velocities in each known diameter of the pressurized conveyance system. The Average Test Output Velocity represents the velocity generated by the average pumping rate produced by testing. The Station Firm Capacity Velocity represents the velocity based on the station's firm capacity (output with the largest pump out of service). The color gradient represents ranges of acceptable to problematic velocities. Red areas of operation are problematic and green areas of operation are acceptable. Dia (in) 6.0 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fluid Velocity (FPS) 11 12 13 14 15 A Average Test Output A Station Firm Capacity Figure 4.3 – Pipe Velocities Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.7 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. W The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 14.1 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 10.1 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 14.1 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault. Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 4.8 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #2 Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 17.1 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 13.0 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 17.1 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.9 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 & PUMP #2 Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #l and Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 - Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 17.4 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 13.9 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 17.4 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault. Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #l and Pump #2 Further Surge Related Actions Perform extended period digital surge monitoring Perform calibrated surge modeling Revise operating scheme to reduce surge potential Evaluate piping system for pressure capacity and likelihood of failure Install physical surge mitigation strategiesJ No further action e Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas CommissIon on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 - Environmental Quality, Part I, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: 5217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: Pump Horsepower (hp) < 50 50 - 100 > 100 Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 10 15 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula V = (T ' Q) / (4 * 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 228 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 or Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 6 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 7.5 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (6 min x 228GPM) / (4 * 7.48) = 45.72 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Elev.) * (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 3.5 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 5.5 (ft.) Wet Well Dimensions = 5.5' Diameter Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (5.5' – 3.5’) * ((5.5'/2)A2 * Tr) = 47.52 ft3 The lift station DOES provide the minimum wet well volume. U Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 5217.67(a) VelocitIes - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Bent Oaks has two (2) pumps. Force Main Diameter = 6 inches. Force Main Velocity = (Q/a8.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 191 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Largest Force Main Radius = 3.0-inch = 0.25 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr ' R2) = (191 / 448.83) / (Tr ' (0.25)2) = 2.17 feet per second The lift station DOES NOT provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 Pump Performance Tests for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Overall She Rating I Score ! Description 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years. 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 6.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years +3 Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete. Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until replacement is complete. 4 While the station is still functioning, there are a number of items that should be corrected such as no direct driveway access, surcharging gravity lines during normal operation, limited space for pump maintenance, unfavorable location of wet well relative to motor control center, hazardous condition of wet well lid, valve vault significant corrosion with standing water, valve vault penetration gaps, riser piping corrosion, and ventilation severely corroded inside wet well. Due to these items, the overall age and condition of the site, and the pump performance it is recommended that the station be replaced The following page has several miscellaneous recommendations if the station is to remain in place and in service Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Serviceability- Serviceability is limited due to restricted access to the submersible pump. We recommend considering a different style station when rehabilitating or replacing the site 2 Inlet Pipes – The inlet pipes to the wet well are surcharged during normal operations. 3. Structures – The discharge pipe penetrations in the valve vault have large voids in the concrete structure surrounding the penetrations. We recommend patching these void locations. 4. Wet Well – The wet well entrance and bracing is severely corroded. We recommend replacing the entrance and reinforce the bracing. We also recommended replacing the discharge piping inside the wet well and coat/paint as appropriate to protect from future corrosion. We also recommend repainting the walls of the wet well. 5. Panels – There is minor corrosion in the RTU panel and major clutter in the motor control center panel. We recommend cleaning both panels before corrosion progresses, evaluate the source of corrosion, and reorganize the wiring, 6. Conduit – We recommend that all electrical power wires on site be properly placed inside conduits to reduce safety risks. 7. Air Release/Vacuum Valve - We recommend taking further hammer mitigation strategies as necessary such as installing a vacuum valve in the valve vault. We also recommend cleaning or replacing the ventilation of the wet well. 8. Pumps – Pump are performing significantly below the best efficiency point. We recommend the installation of new pumps to achieve a more efficient pump with a greater flow rate. Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Bent Oaks - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 E { noIG aa 1 a tB3 (B > LU Ca : a ISth Ca)EIO 10Z< U a E 3a (Wd9) MOll Wd 01:E Wd 60:E md 80:E a) to a Wd 10:E md 90:E Wd SO:E a S %= =n•Hl•IHll•I I F El 30 I U- aL)3T EIDb- He > -g C) CQ D V)fa a) Ei-la CDDC10 ar C b ii LU a) CDC30E V)a) Ei- + Hq0 = /4\ > aJ E bZ =n•Hll• •n•Hll• 10anaab Ln a(\I aaq-I 10HI qrpI allpI apI 00 10 qr RIO (U) IaAa1 IIaM iaM (ISd) unssad a8req=sla } { a$6 aa : a (B3 gIN Ca: HaUl Ca) EIO 10a U a E3a 0 tI and 00d b O n + fr)6 d d d d JOPeJ JaMOd N d Od 6 d md 01:E C) U-a md 60:E on LI-a < U-a md 80:E (J ELE < I4 PHd 10:E if ; \md 90:E ELE<( Qa G bIa = dAb >a) E •ll•=n BU•Hl• bZ <( t/)al E <( Ln qr cn rg pIO OF) OOh LOLa qr fr) (NpI 0000000000000 bb bbb bbb NbairNrg (N (XI thIng CbI exIt\lOI al (XI (XI (\lOg (N-1) srIOA sduv i { aq96 aa a B IS = rB >IU Ca: aatri C a) EEO(U+1a U a E =a Wd 01:E md 60:E Wd 80:E LL Wd tO:E Wd 90:E Wd SO:E G) 3ar\ a) a = 3al30 aBaa a) r)a = 3alC Cba = /A\ >a) E n•Hl•lIB nn•Hll• bZ 0FI a)aa N O n +fr)al FI a a0 T-1 aan a00 0b 0tO 0Ln 0qF afr)0hI 0pI 0 raMOdasJOH (ZH) AruanbaJ )ndul & :aa) E a (Wd9) MO11 Wd 01:t Wd 10:t md 90:+ Wd SO:t mdto:t o goCDa bi Wd gO:+ a a) 3V) iimd Zo:t & I Wd tO:t rya VV• I/ md 65:E a) Wd 8S:E .gh- ECDDC md ZS:E = C a tX Wd 9S:E E g10 aB Wd SS:E 2 C/) iiEi-+ ;0 =6>a)•ll•Hl•l•l E•=••Hl•\? OOO tO q egO COLD ergoNd pI d T-Id (ISd) arnssard 38reqrsla(y) laAa1 IIaM IaM Ca: a IS3a > ILI Ca a aatri e a)EEO10 a a E3a 0 tI an oad 6 b O n + md d d d d IOU)eJ JaMOd N d Od d d C) U-a aD LLa (J 0 > < U-a an a > C) Fi E < < g0 >V)aE < INa =C /a\ >a)UK E RU•Hll• bZ < V)alE < LORIN) RIFle a\ OOh caLf) st COOI pIOoooooo00000–oN NhS bANK bS(XI (\Ihl rg al rbI OgC\lOg (Nrg Og IN (No-Ing IN-1) ,rIaA sdtuV Ca: a IS3 (S > Ul Ca : aa U) ( a) EEO 10 a a E3a Wd 01:+ Wd 60:+ Wd 80:+ md 10:+ md 90:+ INd SO:t md tO:P md ZO:+ md 10:+ Wd 00:+ Wd 6S:E Wd 85:E md £S:E Wd gS:E Wd SS:E a)B0a a) a = 3al30 I b30a a) 6]E 3alC Gb=0 = dIe >a) G \+B=••ll• 0pI a OO b O n + m N T-1 O 00T-I 0art 000 0b 8 0Ln 0qr 0fr)0r\I 0pI 0 JaMOdasroH (ZH) AruanbarJ lndul 1£aaq)al CaH (S3a > LU Ca n n bsU) U)Ea LU CD I C a) E = O } a E3a (Wd9) Mali 3a ml I a)(J3laV)e cab ma >I C)E0 rD 3 a) Ei-U IDlaa rD a) C a Mr rDLU gID aB0£ V) a; Ei- + CL=0 = dIe >a)=n•HlIH Ean•Hll•\f 0T-I an 00 N tO Ln qr m N pI 0 ahI 00q-I 10e-I qFHI allT-I 0HI aa 10 qF al 0 (y) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssard a8req3sla li { ag(b CaU (B3 (B >hI Ca: aaU) Ca) EEC)(a 4HIHla a a E3a 0 ,1 a OOd d b tO n + md d d d d JopeJ JaMOd N A Od d d CJ U-a U-a 0 > C) <( U-a rJ0 > an (J EL E < I < C/) 0 >C/)al E<( C L=a = /A\ >al a•HIH•ll• Eau•Hll• bZ <( EL E < I br) qr fr) Pg pIO ODeoN tO Ln NFer) al pIOoooooooooooo bb bbb ANN NR{\log (\Irq (XI (\1 FUry rg (NOUN eq nIc\log €N-1) silaA sdtuV Cab eu = M > ILI aaWa U) e q) EEO 10q U a E3a Wd as:E Wd SP:E Wd Of:E gr Wd St:E Wd OE:E Wd SZ:E Wd OZ;E a) ga a) IJ0 = 3al30 I t)30a a) ina = DalC IN0 =/a\ > aJ g bZ HI Ruffin a q=1 al 00 b 10 Ln q+fr)HI el 0 00el 0a)a 00 ab a10 aLn 0sr 0 cr) 0r\I 0pI 0 raMOdauoH (IH) AruanbarJ lndul PENTAI R :B=;;m, D,fault&Pump Performance Datasheet Encompass 2.0 - 22.4.2 Item Number / Tags Service Quantity Quote number 001 1 1092604 Size Stages Based on curve number 1 SUB S E AH 00005 B 4 Rev 2016-01 -14 : 21 Feb 2023 8:56 AM Hydromatic - S4N/S4NX Date last saved Operating Conditions Flow, rated Differential head / pressure, rated (requested) Differential head / pressure, rated (actual) Suction pressure, rated / max NPSH available, rated Site Supply Frequency Performance 459.5 USgpm : 33.63 ft : 33.63 R 0.00 / 0.00 psi.g Ample 60 Hz Liquid Liquid type Additional liquid description Solids diameter, max Solids diameter limit Solids concentration, by volume Temperature, max Fluid density, rated / max Viscosity, rated Vapor pressure, rated Material Water 0.00 in 3.00 in 0.00 % 68.00 deg F 1,000 / 1 .000 SG 1.00 cP 0.34 psi.a Speed criteria Speed, rated Impeller diameter, rated Impeller diameter, maximum Impeller diameter, minimum Efficiency NPSH required / margin required nq (imp. eye flow) / S (imp. eye flow) MInimum Continuous Stable Flow Head, maximum, rated diameter Head rise to shutoff Flow, best eff. point Flow ratio, rated / BEP Diameter ratio (rated / max) Head ratio (rated dia / max dia) Cq/Ch/Ce/Cn [ANSI/HI 9.6.7-2010] Selection status Synchronous 1750 rpm 7.50 in : 8.00 in : 5.50 in : 65.28 yo - / 0.00 ft 43 / - Metric units 91.00 USgpm 60.11 ft 78.72 % 459.5 USgpm 100.00 c70 93.75 c70 : 80.56 c70 : 1.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 : Acceptable Material selected Pressure Data Standard Maximum working pressure Maximum allowable working pressure Maximum allowable suction pressure Hydrostatic test pressure Driver & Power Data (@Max density) 26.02 psi.g N/A : N/A : N/A Driver sizing specification Margin over specification Service factor Power, hydraulic Power, rated Power, maximum, rated diameter Minimum recommended motor rating Rated power 0.00 c70 1.00 3.90 hp 5.98 hp : 6.21 hp : 7.50 hp / 5.59 kW Minimum Continuous Stable Flow Preferred operating region Flow - USgpm & PENTAIR PENTAIR-GBU PHONE: . FAX Section SOLIDS HANDLING Page 314 Electrical Data – S4N/S4NS/S4NX MODEL: S4N, S4NS & S4NX–Solids Handling Sewage Pumps R.P.M MOTOR TYPE MOTOR DESIGN NEMA TYPE GENERAL INSULATION CLASS STATOR WINDING CLASS MAXIMUM STATOR TEMPERATURE MOTOR PROTECTION 1750 ENCLOSED, OIL COOLED INDUCTION, VFD SUITABLE B(3g) L(la) F F 311'F(155') BI-METALLIC, TEMPERATURE SENSITIVE DISC, SIZED TO OPEN AT 120'C AND AUTOMATICALLY RESET @ 90-65'C DIFFERENTIAL, ONE IN SINGLE PHASE, TWO IN THREE PHASE 230VAC115VAC24VDCHEAT 5AM PS 5API PS 5AMPSSENSOR SEAL FAIL 300VAC 5mA 110% ELECTRICAL RATINGS VOLTAGE TOLERANCE at b /ff/f=,:=/f=,g• e /'g£/gg/g£/f;/gk/fk/fk/ 2 2 3 3 [f 5 230 200 230 460 575 230 200 230 460 575 230 200 230 460 575 200 230 460 575 1 3 1 3 1 3 K L 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 12.8 7.8 6.8 3.4 2.7 17.1 10.9 9.5 4.8 3.8 29.5 17.6 14.8 8.8 7.7 3.8 3.1 20 12.8 11.1 5.6 4.5 34.2 20.6 72 51 54 27 18 106 86 52 26 25 153 140 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.6 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 10.1 8.3 8.3 4.5 16.6 18.4 21.5 21.5 17.9 24.4 30.9 20.7 20.7 25.1 35.2 50.4 49.7 49.3 44.8 65.1 65.3 65.3 74.6 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.9 3.8 3.8[IiI 3.8 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.1 10.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 .63 .74 .67 .73 –FliT .79 -:Ej–rM .54 .63 .57 .64 .60 .72 n8 T1 a5 .73 1 .70 .79 1 .76 1 .70 1 .59 K K M n6 n8 a5 =o I : .72 1 .70 a6 .79 1 .77 .83 1 .82 1 .80 1 .72 ] K H M n8 T4 7n mn1 7.6 8.9 .80 1 .78 1 .73 1 .62 K K a6 m2mn2mn1 al 45 181 164 82 75 T/I 3 1.2 78 78 1 .76 71 .76 1 .72 1 .66 1 .56 L & PENTAIR HYDROMATIC © 2018 Pentair plc. isC)Z a 1; !He ;I ; 3: i IiIC/): 1: SgI g i g iH g aa Z i ZIiii g Ea ; i ! ! ! i ! f: :§§ q: a- a ::USaF5 : :MUl:'(;„ ::li A g 2l- ! !!! ! ! i : : IB : g ;W 0 i g :. gg ! !W : J f 6 acg : [q1 gI; igi iFa i i !I Z a C)0 Lncn qa aD Fc ga n I : I : li? ! 1:8;E.i i) 8 :i:1 > 1-' : ;; i7); i : it iII !!!!li g !dr= i+. gil BBI O: 1 IB 'r eD ; Fi UBIg o < a i Egi, :§EICD a on: BEla ongZi 44 iIi Q hI f : : : $ C) Z aE rE IFI : 3 ; cE) i ! Hi HI } # ! It i ! i tt 'ON 133HS 335 VIS 3Nll HalVHU3A3S NVS tI'ON 133HS 335 UlIH oo+r VIS ;,F l b IO : a { . It i 1 :1 : ]> :r}/{ 1: g aLa 4%k) I 3 :: gig On:! Z Z hIgE 8 <a Ul le <0}-Z hI eD m BE li:;I-\(\tJ{\ at6/ a :Q:J A jy : Id :I iii !: gi,ii; n: n \:ZI'ON 133HS 339 N==T ZION 133HS IIS ! 4)gil a al A; ;sgi a a is Z ;9 3 '(ag}:$; i ! Ldl $ Pump Station Evaluation Report Cooper Creek Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley »>Horn Evaluation Date: December 10, 2021 Report Date: March 10, 2022 Version 1 Revision History Version Publish Date Description 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Table of Contents ATrACFiMENTS........................................................................................................................ iv ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................iv 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE INFORMATION...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP.............................................,......2 2 GENERAL PHOTOS .............................................................................-.........................4 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................8 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS .................................................................................................... 9 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS .................................................................................... 11 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ..................................................................................... 13 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS...................................................................................14 4.1 PUMP #1...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 PUMP #2...................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 PLJMP #3......................................................................................................................21 4.4 PUMPs #1 and #2 ........................................................................................................ 24 4.5 PUMPs #1, #2, and #3.................................................................................................. 26 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 284.6 4.7 SYSTEM CURVES....................................................................................................... 28 5 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW.............................29 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................31 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 31 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 32 7 ATrACHMENTS ...........................................................................................................33 Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 ATTACHMENTS ABBREVIATIONS ATTACHMENT 1................................................................................................. Test Data Graphs ATTACHMENT 2......................................................................Supplementary Pump Information a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT RPM Phase Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes: Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute TDH TVSS V VFD Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted an evaluation of the pump station consisting of pump performance testing and condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducted using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps’ performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number: Date of Evaluation: Address : Cooper Creek 12/1 0/2021 1201 N Mayhill Rd, Denton, TX 33.227985, -97.083482 Wastewater Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed: Station Style: Number of Pumps: Pump Type: Wet Well Material: Wet Well Dimensions: Flow Meter Type: Year of Construction / Rehabilitation : Basin/Zone: Firm Capacity: Discharge Description : Submersible 3 Submersible Number of Pump Slots:4 Coated concrete 16’ x 16' Ultrasonic Clamp-On Meter 2004 Based on:IBDesign []Field Test []Other Cooper Creek 5622 GPM / 8.1 MGD I Based on: 1 []Design EField Test aother 90' bend, 16” check valve, 16“ gate valve, 16” DIP 24-inch, 194 LF DIP transitioning to 24-inch, 2,893 LF PVC FM, transitioning to 16-inch 37 LF PVC FM, discharging to a manhole 277 /480 Wye Not present, MTS only Not present Not present Force Main Description: Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability: Odor Control: Miscellaneous Features: Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP Road Rtwr/SVeamMb8h B f-la PhmUy CbHd Llnl 61Bhm PwUFy OwnHl taFt SIB'b1cn + 17.8r + Forn Main FI a IOO aaa 400 Feet 1 Inch • 400 bd Kimley »>Horn Cooper Creek LIft Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan - LIft StatIon Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map ;iI Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 + Li nt= R B / r e Figure 1.2 - Site Aerial Legend 1 - Transformer 2- Electrical Building 3- Flow Meter 4-Wet Well 5-Valve Vault Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 GENERAL PHOTOS Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Photo 2.2 - Interior Wet Well Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Photo 2.3 - Influent Line and Wet Well E -} . .$ . .:W.b } ; # : : : q I Photo 2.4 - Influent Line Penetration Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Photo 2.5 - Discharge Piping and Wet Well Photo 2.6 - Interior Valve Vault Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Photo 2.7 – Electrical Room Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical. Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Figure 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Blank 0 Score Description Not Applicable Component doesn't exist but is applicable Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear damage and corrosion. Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high Figure 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil - Other I 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 Standing water in valve vault, evidence of leaking in flow meter vault Major wall corrosion Condition Photos !{} T+/ Ph+ • + ./ap Photo 3.1 - Wet Well Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Standing water, no floor drain observed Photo 3.2 - Valve Vault Evidence of leaking Photo 3.3 – Meter Vault Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Component Score Description Bolts Fittings Hardware Piping - Suction Piping - Discharge Pumps Valves - Check Valves – Isolation 4 4 4 0 3 3 4 4 4 4 Major corrosion in valve vault Major corrosion in valve vault Major corrosion in valve vault Major corrosion Major corrosion Major corrosion on air release valve piping, air release valves discharge into valve vault Major corrosion on opening and screen Valves - Other Ventilation Mechanical - Other Condition Photos Major isolation valve corrosion F• ? f1 a: L:f't+',E Major hardware corrosionb Major check valve corrosion F ,“Major bolt corrosion J Major fitting corrosion i Photo 3.4 – Valve Vault Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 corrosion Major bolt corrosion Major check valve corrosion Photo 3.5 – Valve Vault Major corrosion Photo 3.6 - Wet Well Vent Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Component Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 4 3 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 Major corrosion MTS only Condition Photos Major corrosion Photo 3.8 - Conduit Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Figure 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method, Measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method, if possible. See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11%. 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data. Parameter Measurement Primary Level Transducer (XAK-PACK) Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK) Level Transducer (XAK-PACK) 'Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK) Current Transducers (XAK-PACK) Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK) Frequency Meter (XAK-PACK) Method Secondary On-Site Flow Meter c Fluke 376FC Fluke 376FC N/A N/A N/A Flow Pressure Wet Well Level Volts Amps Power Factor Rotational Speed Input Frequency Figure 4.1 - Measurement Methods Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd. Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Figure 4.2 - Pump #l Design Characteristics Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 200 180 160 140 120 a R looa)= 80 60 40 20 0 IUU70 au /O IU /q 60% anU beSUnPP a 50% 8'0 ELH 40% Sti?6 LV/O IV/O 0% 4000 4500 + Design Points O MFGWTW Eff 45 40 35 30 _W 2 5 = 20 t:Z 15 10 5 0 4000 4500 • NPSHa 0 + 500 Pump Curve Test Points 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 _Flow (GPM) --.•-.. Eq. Affinity Curve ' wb wSystem Curve X WIWE# 8 MFG Hyd Eff 3500 90 80 '_. 70a = 60 g 50a 40 a) g 30= 20 10 0 !]a • 0 500 1000 a Inp HP 1500 2000 2500 3000 Flow (GPM)• Output HP O NPSHr Figure 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs 3500 Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Parameter Units GPM Ft % HP Lower Limit Test Value 3,010 64.9 64% 77.6 78.7 Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance Amps FPS FPS % 0/0 % 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% Unknown 1203 2 80% 4.2 116% 90% -5% Unknown -5.5% 41.4 -3% 0% -3% 3.1 % 6.9% 68.4% 86.3% 2 Ft o/6 0/0 % % % 0/0 % % In/Sec Unknown -5% -5% -1 0% -10% -10% -50% 50% 1182 Motor FLA Motor Load Motor Slip Speed Vibration 0 Surge Vibration Cavitation Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition 1 -5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ga) ta JQ0 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 2 1 -5 1 -5 Overall Score 1-5 1 - 1 2 Figure 4.4 - Pump #1 Test Summary Pump #1 - Test Comments 1. Pump #1 is operating at 116% of the BEP flow. Operating at this point for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure, 2. The output head of Pump #1 is 5.5% below the rated output head for this pump and impeller. This performance degradation could be indicative of impeller wear or pump performance issues. Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 0/0 Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Figure 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Charactbristics Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 200 180 160 140 120 annb +LL T 100 CDa) = 80 60 40 20 0 t 100% k 90% 80% 70% 60% be >C) 50% 8 ' a iF LU 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 + 500 Pump Curve Test Points 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Flow (GPM) • ---' Eq. Affinity Curve M w w System Curve X wr\N E# • MFG Hyd Eff 3500 0% 4000 4500 + Design Pointsa MFGWTWEff 90 80 P_+ 70a = 60 L= g 50 a 40 a) g 30= 20 10 0 0 soo loc)o 150c) 20Fqgw (Gpa)OO 3000 3500a Inp HP • Output HP -+NPSHr Figure 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 4000 4500 • NPSHa Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Parameter Units GPM Ft Lower Limit Test Value Upper Limit [ Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) 3343 65.5 0/0 66% HP 84.9 Amps 84.8 FPS 2 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 50/o 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% Unknown 1 ,203 FPS 4.7 BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve 0/0 0/0 80% 90% 129% 11! Unknown OA -5%-1 . 0% NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Ft 0/0 Unknown -5% 42.6 0% Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) %-5%0% -10%-3.3% Voltage Imbalance qIn -10%3.0% Current Imbalance Motor FLA %-10% -50% 7.0% 73.7%0/0 Motor Load %50% 1,182 94.3% Motor Slip Speed RPM Vibration Surge Vibration In/Sec 0.0 1 -5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 la a)a 0) Jg0 1 -5 Cavitation 1 -5 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 2 Leaks 1 -5 Exterior Condition 1 -5 Overall Score 1-5 1 - 1 2 Figure 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Pump #2 - Test Comments 1. Pump #2 is operating at 134% of the BEP How. Operating at this point for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. The pump is operating along the manufacturer’s pump curve, Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4.3 PUMP #3 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Units Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter EfF. @ Operating Pt Figure 4.8 - Pump #3 Design Characteristics Photo 4.3 - Pump #3 Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 200 180 160 100% 90% 80% T 100 aB= aiR alanis aIBanaiR an ainaIBalIBan UBUBq•Bane•BaIBa•Bq•buIB rJ 40 1 lb./, 20 1 \q./a 500 Pump Curve + Test Points 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Flow (GPM) • ---- Eq. Affinity Curve w w w System Curve X WIWE# • MFG Hyd Eff 0% 4000 4500 + Design Points O MFGWTW Eff 100 90 88m 45 40 80 $ 70 b 60 g 508 40 le: 30 20 q====P 35 la 30 25 L= 20 bC 15 Z aHen 10 5 0 4500 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Flow (GPM) a Inp HP • Output HP C NPSHr Figure 4.9 - Pump #3 Test Results Graphs 4000 • NPSHa Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units GPM Ft Lower Limit Test Value 3,535 65.8 Upper Limit I Comment Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) %67% HP Amps FPS 89. 1 101.2 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 50/o 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% Unknown 1 ,203 FPS BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt % 80%136% 90%Unknown %-5%1.0% Ft 0/0 Unknown 43.1 -5%-2% Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance 0/0 -5%0% -10%-3% o/8 -1 0%3% Current Imbalance 0/0 -1 0%5% Motor FLA -50%88% Motor Load 50%99% Motor Slip Speed RPM 1 , 182 Vibration Surge Vibration In/Sec 0 0 1 -5 1 -5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 la a)a q) U)Ja0 3 Cavitation 1 -5 3 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 3 Leaks Exterior Condition 1 -5 3 1 -5 Overall Score 1-5 1 - 1 3 Figure 4.10 - Pump #4 Test Summary Pump #3 - Test Comments 1. Pump #3 is operating at 136% of the BEP flow. Operating at this point for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. The pump is operating slightly above the manufacturer’s pump curve, 2. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to zero psi or below zero psi (See ATTACHMENT 1 GRAPHS PUMP #3). The air release/vacuum valves should be regularly checked to ensure they are operational. Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4.4 PUMPS #1 AND #2 Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps, Pump #1 and Pump #2, running in parallel. 200 K)0% 180 90% 160 80% 140 70% 120 + LLX=PPD 100 IDa)]1 80 60% 50% 40% 60 we ww nw won non 40 aIBan BIB 30% 20% 20 10% 0%0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 Flow (GPM) Single Pump Curve M M wSystem Cufve ' + Design Points + Test Points Two Pumps Running in Parallel Figure 4.11 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit ! Comment GPM 5,550 Ft 71.3 Figure 4.12 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summaly Pump #1  - Test Comments 1 The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to zero psi or below zero psi (See ATTACHMENT 1 GRAPHS PUMPS #1 and #2). The air release/vacuum valves should be regularly checked to ensure they are operational. Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 't.a rulVlrD ++ 1 , +Z, f\INL/ #O Below is a summary of the performance test results with all three pumps running in parallel. 200 100% 180 90% 160 80% 140 70% 120 ++=\ +LLb==+ u 100 CDa)= 80 60% 50% 40% 60 30% 40 20% 20 10% (11) nHIIILLILILIUULIL JLILILILILILLILILIHILLIhlILILILIbl10 % 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 Flow (GPM) Single Pump Curve M MWSystem Curve - + 'Test Points –-- 3 Pumps Running in Parallel Figure 4.13 - Pump #1 , #2, & #3 Test Results Graph Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit I Comment GPM 7,822 Ft 80.6 Figure 4.14 - Pump #1, #2, & #3 Test Summary Pump #1 , #2, & #3 - Test Comments 1. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to zero psi or below zero psi (See ATTACHMENT I GRAPHS PUMPS #1, #2, and #3). The air release/vacuum valves should be regularly checked to ensure they are operational. Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 4.6 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of approximately 5,622 GPM and a tested total capacity of 7,822 GPM. The force main appears to perform with slightly more static head and friction loss than anticipated compared to the theoretical hydraulics. The system does have surges following shutdown of Pump #3 and multiple pumps running in parallel. 4.7 SYSTEM CURVES Below is a summary of the data show in Figure 4.15 - Pump and System Curves. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. 120 100 allnb:aLLqUUP IR 80q)= C)'E 60 IBC R R 40+1a}- aPOB 411peloellenaIBanaHaBeIneRonglenasPen 20 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 M M wSystem Curve #1 Measured • Single Pump Operating Points Flow (GPM) www System CuIve #2 Theoretical • Pump #1 & #2 Running Parallel Figure 4.15 - Pump and System Curves Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 TEXAS coR/IhnlSSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part I, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meet the minimum TCEQ requirements: §217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: Pump Horsepower (hp) < 50 50 - 100 > 100 Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 10 15 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T * Q) / (4 ' 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 3,652 GPM (maximum measured individual output flow of Pump #1 , Pump #2, and Pump #3) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 10 min (Pump #1, Pump #2, and Pump #3 have 90 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (10 min x 3,652 GPM) / (4 ' 7.48) = 1,220.6 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Bev.) * (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 4.0 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 8.0 (ft.) Wet Well Dimensions = 16.0'-0'’ x 16’-0” Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (8.0’ - 4.0’) ' (16.0'-0” x 16.0’-0”) = 1,024.0 ft3 The lift station [DES NOT provide the minimum wet well volume. a Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 5217.67(a) Velocities - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Cooper Creek has three (3) pumps. Force Main Velocity = (Q / 448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 2,902 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 , Pump #2, and Pump #3 measured individual output flow) R = Force Main Radius = 12-inch = 1.0 ft 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (2,902 / 448.83) / (n * (1.0)2) = 2.06 feet per second The lift station [DES provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. It is unknown if multiple pumps are run each day in order to achieve the required flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater. 0 Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 6 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Level 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform gular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years Level 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening gular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 yearsconditions, p orrrl Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin Level 3 1 planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without Level 4 1 replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete. Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Wet Well – The wet well walls and the hatch opening are corroded, the concrete liner behind the discharge piping at the bottom of the wet well has failed, and concrete degradation is occurring. We recommend cleaning the wet well and applying a corrosion-resistant liner. 2. Valve Vault – There is standing water in the valve vault, no floor drain was observed, and air release valves discharge directly onto the wall of the valve vault. We recommend installing a floor drain, piping air release valve discharges to the floor drain, and installing an additional air vent or a forced air system to remove the moisture contributing to the hardware corrosion. 3. Bolts/Fittinqs/Hardware - The bolts, fittings, and hardware within the valve vault are corroded requiring replacement. 4. Check Valves - There is major corrosion on the check valves within the valve vault. We recommend cleaning and painting or replacing the valves as needed. 5. Isolation Valves – There is major corrosion on the isolation valves within the valve vault. We recommend cleaning and painting or replacing the valves as needed. 6 7 Wet Well Vent – There is major corrosion on the wet well vent opening and screen. We recommend replacing the components. Conduits – There is major corrosion on a conduit joint. We recommend replacing the corroded parts of the conduit. 8 TCEQ Review – We recommended increasing the pump on elevation by 0.5' and decreasing the pump off elevation by 0.5’ to achieve the required cycle time. Before adjusting the elevations, verify increasing the pump on elevation will not surcharge the incoming gravity line. We also recommend confirming multiple pumps run per day to achieve the minimum required flushing velocity of 5.0 fps. All three pumps at the station need to run to achieve at least 5.0 fps in the force main Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Cooper Creek - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2022 Eaa a) De aa FrI (B3a > LU ea+= bsU) IfIx- in 1:=In C q)EIO } U a E3a 000an 00a00 80b a8tO (Wd9) MaIIa8 Ln Q00qr 000 fr) 0a0nI 0a0pI o9 0cr) (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnS 0r\I 0e-I 0 g3 a)triga C0 nUrOa C/) IWV gP:01 mv 9€:01 WV 9Z:01 mv 91:01 WV 90:01 a)3 r/ia)a a)hD caa C)cnh I 30 11 I d > al Ia) Ei- ID IDlaC CDa C a 7)(aLU gCDe B0£t/lii Ei- + GL=0= gb &r= E•n•H•• bZ IEa) >C II II 00T-1 10HI qrHI r\1T-I 0FI 00 U sr fbI 00qr 0frI anI 0rl 0 C)C a)eDa) Ity) IaAa1 IIaM IaM llSd) arnssard a8req3sla Eaa G)ac CaH (B3 IS >IU CaA aU) aIx- } I}la C q) E = O g < L •• JopeJ JaMOd a E3a all q : 0,1 aa6 10d qrd rNd ad WV 99:01 WV 9€:01 WV gZ:01 WV 9t:01 WV 90:01 B=--:0= 4s >a) G \/ nIHHlIH=•l •=HlIH a0 cr) a Lnr\I 00(N 0 Lnrl 00HI a Lr)ORpI a0e-I aaa a10 8 a ChI 0 laC a)aD a),J(N-1) gIjDA sdtuV Caa G)fY Ca a b (Sa rs > LU Ca : aa 10 aIx- } H}In C a) EE O & I C0qI= CO J=5(SdI) LIOjreJqIA (WdU} p'adS leuolrnoU a E3a a ao6 d bd O n q md d 6 d r\I6 HId 0 000 r\1 00aaHI 0010e-I 00srHI 8(NT-I 80el 0aaa 0010 00qr a6 (XI 0 mv 9V:01 IAIV 9Z:01 F+0 = dAb>a)yUn E •U•HlIH bZ 0afbI 0 aapI a10q-I 0qrFI 0 ndpI 00TaI 0 ao 8 0qF 0 r\1 0 00HI 8:0ao 0N 8 0Ln 0sr 0fr)0 (XI WV 90:01 0 T-1 0 UC a)no a)-JraMOdasroH(ZH) A3uanbarJ }ndul taaa)ac Cah IS3 a > IUaaH IS+1 10 (v) tO I Ca) EEO $ U +E U)al Eaa P a E3a a0aan a0a 00 aO0N a8tO €Wd9) MOII 0a0Ln 0a0qF 80frI Q 8rg 000HI og a cr) (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnS 0r\I apI 0 mv Ot:IT a) 3inin a)a C0 t)3 C/) I a) 51/)tna) a a) go COa C)V) iS I WV 8t:IT 3a LL a) >al-J Ia) Ei-la fUUC 10 a) C a id LU a)ae30£V) ii E jM + eL=0= /ae >a) 6==••l•ll •=••ll•\+ bI a >C iI I I UCa) noa),J(b) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnss3rd a8reqrsla taa G)rY CahI! (Ba TB > LUaa : aaU) C)(u I Ca)EEO & U +E Ulal E3a r ••• JopeJ JaMOd a Eaa r\I %1 0 \1 aad 10d sr6 (N6 0d WV Of:It WV 6Z:IT WV 81:IT mv 10:iT INa= 4} >a) gn•ll•Hll•l• Bn•HlIH bZ g E g (Nl) srIa/\sdtuv Eaaq)ac CaF: (S3 isIU Ca t=aatri triEal 10 (b ea)E =Ocaa < Si laC 10 +F a)al E3a q= CanlP LUJO5 I (SdI) uaII.JqIA (WdU) paadS IBUOlleIca a E3a an6 aa6 bd U n q m6 d d d hId HI6 0 a00al 8aaHI 8 10pI 00 Stel 8alpI 80HI a8 08 00q+ 06al 0 WV OF:11 !!0a Q)in a = j aHI3al 0 I g0a q) Laa = anHl3alC a Ia9 I LL laa) a)al U) caC0 •qHIP lu0 QC I H0= dIe & bZ Rllll•Hll• E•u•Bile y y y g 3 8 Rl 00gg 8 R 8 S $ 8 Rl 0 0SpI WV 9S:01 UCa)hAa),JJaMOd a£loH (ZH) A:uanbaH ;ndul aa) C<a : a aU) (Wd9) MaII a E3a 000an 00000 80N 0aa10 000 Ln 000sr 0Q0fn 000 HI 000el o9 afrI (ISd) aJnssaJd uoIpnS 0all 0HI 0 Wd Ot:ZI Wd OZ:ZI md ol:el md oo:eT PNV OS:IT WV Ot: it g3inUlgaa0 Oa C/) n=r I a)b3trIt/)a)a a)hO COa C)VI A I B0 LL I a) > a)I Ia) Ei-U IDlaC COa) C a BaCOLU gID C3QE V) ii Ei- + aL=0= 4b & E nlllll•Hn •=iia bZ q=al >C I I II 00q-I 10FI srFI r\1FI 0FI 00 10 sr r\I 00qr 0frI 0(N 0FI 0 UC a)noa) Ity) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssard a8req=sla taa a)rY CaH (B3a >IU aa a BaUl la Cq) E =O10I U ••• JopeJ JaMOd a E3a al ,1 0.i aa6 10d q+6 nJd ad Wd OE:ZI Wd OZ:ZI md ol:eT Wd 00:ZI WV OS:IT WV OP:IT a= dAS >a) g bZ BIHll•HlIHl• •n•HH• y y g 0 aalHI a0HI 0aa a10 ! ar\I 0 Ua a)hOa)-1 IN-1) slloA sdtuV Caa 4)a Ca a B eg3 rB > ILI C a : A LBUl la Ca) EEO 10S < L C0 HUn LUJO5(SdI) LIOjreJqIA (WdU) paadS Ie.IQIIeraU a E3a a 00 bd 6 d O n q md d d d (Nd HId 0 80(\I 8 aaHI 8 tOHI 8qr q-1 8 r\1pI grl I 0 8 08 00hI 0 PHd at:zI PHd OZ:ZI md 00:ZI WV OS:tl Cb,0 = dAb >a) E \? =n•Hl•• •=•grrH 00pI 0an 0 aa 0b 010 0LA 0qr 0fr)a r\1 0pI 0 mY OP:11 (jCa)hDa),JraMOdasioH(ZH) A3uanbarJ lndul taa G) ac CaH eg3 rB > IN Ca : aa U) ajCr) :g= 1?la C a) E =O 10S < a E =a a00 art aa0aa aQ0b 0a0 10 (Wd9) Mali aa0Ln 80qa 000frI Q00nI 000HI o8 0en (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnSa(XI apI 0 gatriinga C0 •nlPO3U) md 9V:ZI a) 3 V)VIa)a a)hO euE C)V)A B0rl IWd gE:ZI a) a > -J a) Ei-la alaC 10a) C a idUl a) rD C gE V)a) Ei- + aL=0 = /ae &allIHIHln E•H•Hla bZ al >C I II I md 9Z:ZI UCa) DO -S(#) IaAa1 IIaM iaM (ISd) unssard a8req3sla IE: 1(? a 8< ;a ••• fbI,1 0,1 aa6 JO}9eJ JaMOd a E3a 10d qFd r\Id 0d Wd 9t:ZI Wd 9E:Zt H0= /at & E bZ =lP •n•HlIH 0 8 a El0gR0 B g qF;1 Wd 9Z:ZI (NI) silaA sdtuV Eaaq)ac Ca IS3 gIU aaA aU) lner) } H:qIn r HEq)E=C)10 1: < e0 JO5 += LU I (SdI) 'IQ! IeJqIA (WdU) paadS Ieualrel.U a E3a and aa6 b6 tO n + md d d d (XId pId 0 000al a0aaHI 00 10HI 8qrpI 8HIHI gHI 0000 08 00qr 00all 0 g:0ala) LO0 = dnHl3al30Wd 99:ZI I g0ala) La0 = analbalC aCa)3 OFg LL I la q)a)al C/) C10 0 j•IHln to a Q( H0= 4Ab &alll••Hll• E n•Hll• bZ 00 (XI ' 11 1"ll&1'l11'll'TTaEF-TzaF-=!-1- FFVUT777Tin0 aaHI a 10pI 0qrq-1 ar\Irl a6pI 000 010 aqr 0 (N 0 0aHI 0at a o-a 0b 8 atri aq+0 en 0 (XII 0 HI 0 Wd 9Z:ZI UC gba)-JiaMOdauoH(ZH) A3uanbarJ lndul Eaa 4)ac Ca : a (B3 IS > LU Ca H R LB U) U)Cr) lb= : (+)CO ea) ECO ca1: < (\i +E +E al E3a r in a E3a Q00an 000aa 0O0N 00atO (Wd9) M.II a 8 Ln a00qr a00 fr) 000al 0a0pI o8 0 fr) (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnS 0 Og 0!-1 0 Wd 00:1 Wd 6S:ZI Wd 89:ZI Wd IS:Ct md 9S:ZI Wd SS:ZI Wd PS:ZI Wd ES:ZI Wd ZS:ZI Wd IS:ZI g3tritn 9a C0 C)a C/) •HIP I a)b3 r/ia)q:a a) DO eua C)cnr\ B0 11 I a >a)I Ia) EFla (alaC CDa)Ca rdLU gCD C30E C/1 iiEi- + aLu0= dAb & E l•llIHl••l• •U•Hll• bZ Ca) >C I I II 00pI 10 r+ srFI r\Ix-I 0FI OO O + N 00qr 0frI 0 fbI 0T-I 0 C)C a)ana) I(y) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) 3rnssard 3818915la Caa q)ac Ca a B IS3 rs >IU aa: n LBU) C)to C q)EaO10I Sir inal E3a qPIt •• rg qi 0 .1 aad JopeJ JaMOd a E3a 10d q+d ChId 06 Wd 00:1 md 65:ZI Wd 8S:ZI Wd ZS:ZI Wd gS:ZI Wd SS:ZI Wd PS:ZI Wd Es:el Wd ZS:ZI Wd IS:ZI H0= dIe >al E bZ l•l••l•ll• •n•Hl• 00 cr) a LnhI a6r\1 a Lnrl 00HI 0Ln ORHI 00pI 8 8 aqr arg 0 IUea)baa)ItN-r) UloA sdurV taa G) ac Ca a B (S3a > IU Ca a B aU) a)F) Jiw : (ba I C a) E =O g U (\i +E # aE3a P in gn CD IE5 I (SdI) 'lOneJqIA (WdU) paadS leL'olreroU a E3a an6 ao6 N6 tO n + md 6 d 6 (\Id pI 6 0 000al 00aaq=1 8 10HI 8\JHI 8(\IpI 80HI a0 aa 08 0 ? 00 r\1 0 md 00:1 Wd 6S:ZI Wd 85:ZI Wd IS:ZI md 95:ZI md SS:ZI Wd PS:ZI md ES:ZI Wd ZS:ZI Wd IS:ZI t)30ala) U) 6 = 3alJ0 duI g0ala) a)b = UnI3alC a a)3 Br LL I e la a)a)al C/) (UC0+= CD 0 QC Aa= 4\ & 6 bZ U •=Hll• I El 0E g g E g g 8 g g 0 an 0ao 0b 010 0Ln a -J 0frI 0 ChI 0HI 0 C)Ca)ana) IJaMOdasroH(ZHI AruanbarJ ]ndul ISd e gO td U) la+r\Ir td O + e3 1 HI 20 1- U) 1-IL l nIHl•H• g •Hl•HHHll $ uS CD LU> ac3 C) [.;-..-..i - - R . :-i 8 ! \!'-''-' i'''i'g e):<;jill III::::::::::::::::::;:\-.. i\-.i In CvS :8 qF I- jF ...g. i.:l....;....... i.,.. Ja< LLII = LU !i CD eda 10al api CDE qral aS 10 fgr•• #a aP B aa (D nq 0 .gj. ..‘ == . gj. . . Q:W: g ! • ;Q: N Oil-n LU IU DCO ac IUa ' ' "! " ' 'I+" -©\": a : E:r: jT:g! jT: F'' i '--'' 'i' ''g'ig' . ;\-'i .-..-;...:,\..}.,.J,_,...i....,.i.....: U)fi Cy 10 el T....{\.;.......i L- t•• #a••qS••g•••+•al Z-.....!......i.....,!...\\.....;3a in P0O 8 r .......:....... i....,.;......}_. . \\ ! gO0 P r Ind tD CD a(\Ir la aP PP P inar aaP Q ainI Ula)aa)U) DO Q DO U)b ab U)10 a10 InIn av3H OiwvNAa IVIOI =;Wl-'ER '=?,CEF. L : FI iI fill fiN PVI l\BtT MaIl: :: / stem ilce.la ': iI !•Vr{ :\;1 (.B Haln IC ir, Total £.aLlvul','IIt L£nac!'1 :75(3 fl SR. aLl; _, Ti. bi. f { r = n= = =b 4 : • = = = = = = = = = = = : = = = = n= = = = = = = =1 = ; iI : LiE = = = = = IT +:i=:=:• f = +B B = = = = 1 : C = 100 : i C : i?3 ! ! n n n-••+nalbubnnb+• ab +• qB + + +' an abn ab UU+n+B+-•' +b++•n" +-b+• Hehe Un He +, UHF= = ==np n+ =, a Wn q,nV ++ ++ q& = n++ qb en : : Q : : }lead Las : TtiII : i Head Loss : TON i ; f gRaII li { ft 1 : ( Ft ) t ! ( ft ) ? i:ft } In •+ + + Ar e+ br H + + q + + + + + n n+ a+ n = b+ + + T + bORne POP PUn BMW nWa W = = + + + W Been He 1 +Pq+ ! ! Q : : C , 00 : sa , 00 : : 0.00 : 58 . on : :: : 250 : t O - ?? : 58.29 1 : 0rl2:3 : 38 , i'D : :: } 500 : : 1.63 : 59.03 : : O, 74 : se , 7+ i ; : : 750 : : 7 - 1 S i ac. le : : IPS& : 59„ ba : :! : 1000 ! ! 1 72 : 61.72 : : 2_63 : 60. as i :: [ 1250 : : 5.63 : 63.83 : : 4.01 : $2.OJ I i : : 1500 : : 7888 : t-5 , 38 : : r) .. 43 : 63 , &3 : : : : 1750 : : 10 - 4 q : a$ 149 : : 7 , 49 : 65 , 48 : i : : 2000 ; : 15.43 : 71.43 ! : 9.58 : 61_SB : : : : ? ?SD : : IC. . ?1 : 71 , ?1 ; : I1 , 92 1 69 , 92 i :! ! :EGO ! : 20 q 31 : 78.31 : : 14 _ 49 : 72 , IT ! } : : 2750 : : 24 P 23 t 82 , 23 : : 17 , 29 F 75 , 29 : : : : 3000 : : 28.46 { aG,46 : : 20,31 1 78.,31 : : : : 3?SG : : 33l01 : 91, 01 : : 23 , 55 : 81, St : : 1 : : 5300 : : 37 n 87 : 95 n 87 1 : 27 , 02 : es , 02 : i: 1 3750 : : 43 - 03 : 101.03 : : 30 , 70 : 89 „ 70 : i : : 4000 : : 48.49 : 106,49 : : 34.60 : 92_ 51) : : : : 'i ?50 : : 54.2& t 1 12 , 26 : : 38 , 71 : 96, 71 : :; : 4300 : I EIC; nB:2 t 118.32 ! : 43_ 03 : lol, as ! ! : i i ? 50 : i aD H 67 : 124 , 67 i : 1 7.56 : IOS , 56 : :: : 5000 : : 73 T :1 ! 1=1 A 31 1 : 52 x 30 i 110 , 30 ; } : : 1’250 : : 80 - 24 : J.38 f 24 : : 57 , 25 : 115 „ 25 : ': : 5580 t : :37 - 44 : i.45 + 46 ii 62 p 40 } 120 ,40 : { ! i £750 ! ; 94 r 91 : 152 , $ 7 : : 67 , 75 1 12S „ 75 : : : : 6000 : : l02 , 76 } L60. /6 : : 73.31 ! !31„ 31 : iI &25a { : 1:0,83 t 16$.83 ! : 79.C7 : 137.,07 : 1 ! 1 6 S00 : : 119.18 : 177. La : : 85, CS : i43.as : :: : 6750 1 : 127,SJ : 183.81 } : 91.18 : 149„ If: it : i 7000 : : late 71 : 154 , 71 : : 97 , 53 i tSS , ')3 : : n 4 F = = ; = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = II 11 •ne•j• n• n + = == +V W n+ VW•Palb qH +•maUIngn•gr•q•P owt)el" Cree:1 LIft ILltlolt ;'uoa:i CUI' vee 1111 IIII PUnD I Bnp=grp + + nn+ One A =+l••• - O qI•Hll• n = q+ dIN qb en SU + +• + e=+ + + ae+ == •• W• q•ll•• + + q=U• •ll•nW• +n =e• bn We IfII f:lunl£1 Z ItIt Puma 3+I I : : rDn 1 PT! ! : Q : Eff ! BHP : : Q : Eff li {ft) : : : (t;pn 1 1 f b '! : f lb ) i : [grIm 1 : ( % ): 8 HP : : a ; : f'lb) ; t (apm 3 : F.ff 1 BHP : ft ) : CIb 3 : : fI 1111 1111 1 i11 11It 11It11St11tIItItelIt11It 1111 11 1 : 1111tIIt ';0 sIS 6U ( ISI TO 75 Rf) 85 C'1) 95 100 IOS 1 111 Il S 120 I II aI I t I q It I I II II II I I I I I : I I I I 22 24 26 28 30 33 35 37 Zr? 41 43 4(1 4 a SO 52 1111 11It 1111 11IIItIftI11 1111 11It 1111 11!! 11II 11II 11It 1111 11It I I I I I I I I I I ItI I I I I T I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I 11 11 11It 1111 1111 1111 11If ItiI 1111 1111tI 11It11ItII 1111 111111 11 ItII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I ; I I I I I I I!! 11 11II11It11tIIIItII 11It 1111ItliIt 11 11II 11II 1111 11 11 11 11 I I I I II II II I t I + I I IIII 9 I I I I I I i IlII I I I I I I I III I I I I : I I I I 2260 :J ac 2060 1950 1800 1460 1460 1270 1000 ?’!S 350 bq , 96 72.44 75.95 78 , &? ? ? e 14 79 . 2? 77 . 26 74 . 40 bb ,1 :3 54 , 99 :34..76 4? 49 48 47 46 45 43 41 38 35 28 + tO In•n + 2200 2080 1960 1840 1690 14 80 1300 1050 800 4.60 150 72.30 7 (1 , 69 77 a 42 78 ,35 77 , 27 76 , 53 7 S , 24 eD . 8e 62 , 46 45n69 18..17 SO 48 48 4:i 47 44 42 38 34 28 24 220(J 20:30 1960 1840 r69t1 143C3 1 =100 1050 1100 460 130 72 , &D 7 S . 69 77 ,1 42:8 : 3 :7.27 } 6..53 75.24 a-) eg!, 02 „ 46 4 S 1, 6'> 18 „ 17 SC: iS 48 4 :i 47 44 4: 38 34 le 24 I t :II 11II 11IIt I I II e 1111 1111 I1 1 I I t The same as oulllp Z,8o-Ll1 Pumps are the {same model. I CdDope ;" Creek Lift Station C;ombine€! Pump Curves =+•O•B•u•lIB•q•now\nnHbu•n IUb•4•,4bnb•b••ua+q•r&ubb4rba+4•n=b=•• b+ H+ n + We - =+ n += en nb == % + q=+ += naB UP gpS •USP nlp +en qpnlrBql•rgn •b4S••U•bS8'q#++••IAS&•W• u#n•+n4bbrbbn••l•• all••„• ll•n ItIt 11 11 Pumps l&2 if Pump$ 2 &3 ItIt +n lneOn .+=qnUnn OP HRT PUlnD3 Irt13 11 ; } TDH : psi i : Q ): : tft ) : i : C aPm 3 : E'f'f (B) : BHP : : Q i : f lb) : } (g9m} i Eff ( B) : OHP : i Q :i ( IIII : : lynn } i Fff ( Ii ) : BHP ! ! i ( lb ) ; i (B 1It 1111 11It 1111ItIt 1111 11 11It!!111111111: I •11It 11It 11It I St) SS C() 65 70 IS gO 8 J SO 9 fr I DOlas 110 I, I :- J 20 I t III I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I tI i I I I I I 22 24 2 6 28 30 33 bS 37 39 41 43 4 f. 48 50 52 1111 11 1111 1111 1111it 11 11 11It 1111II1111II 1111 1111 111111 11 11It a 0 2260 436(1 4140 3910 St)40 ;350 294 o 2570 2050 1525 8 LD isa a I I I I I I I I I I t I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i a a 49 99 9& 95 94 92 EsT 83 7 d 69 36 24. O 11 11It 11 1111 11 11 11II 1111 11It1111 11IIItIt 1111 11It II 11 111111 0 a 0 44CJ0 4 160 3920 3680 3380 2960 ?&00 2100 1 cac) 929 300 a I I II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I a 0 a 100 96 96 95 94 88 83 76 68 56 Ji-8 O ItIt 11ItIIIt11 1111It 11ItItIt11 11II;tIIII 1111 11 11ItIt1111 II11 O a 2260 43(IO 4140 3910 364.0 3350 294.0 2570 2050 1525 31e 150 a I I I I I II I : I I I I I ! I I I I II I I I ! I I I !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I 0 a 49 99 96 o r) I?ii 92 37 83 76 aq 56 24 a It11 11II 11It 11Pt 11leIIII11 1 1 11 tI II1 1 IIIIt11 1111 ItIIItIt 69 , 96 72 . 3? 76 , 32 78 . 04 78 .. 7.4 1 \3 .. 25 7'S . 89 74 . 82 66 . 19 58 . (17 40..22 ie , 17 72.30 76 „ 69 7 ? „ 42 73 , 35 77 „ 27 76.53 7 S , 24 $9 , 86 62 .,46 .iS . 6-? 18 , I? 69 , 96 71 nB: 76 . 32 78 k 04 78 .. 7.i 78 „ 25 I tI „ $ ? 74 , 82 68 „ 19 58 , &? 40 „ ?: 18 , 1? (= =x:DeF C# reejq Lift ='tatior1 ConlbirlecI llUHll) Curves +-nB•=l•HW• = HIP =+ Un lb + + w +b ++ qH=• nq On+ OP ••• enB n+ •+-•+ HP bnln•oBnnb •+• IbSBIb an glb d.q•bU-41b dn IIn+ llg••t=r SPr qIn =n Inn +HrqPbqnn WP • • qR VV l= qb •dHtnU•+ n+ qbo• Ut +• WUt n+• n an llb+ I I 11Iq PUnlus= lg,2&3 ItII ; : TON : psI : : G :i : (ft ) : : : (gpa ) :Eff : BHP fR > i CIb ) 1111 1111 1;! 1 1111It11ItII 11II 11It 1111 1111 11It 1111 1111It11 1111ItIt 11 11 SO : 22 : : 55 : 24 : : 60 : 26 : : 65 ? 28 iI la 1 30 { }IS : 33 iI 80 1 35 : : 83 1 37 : : 90 : 39 : i 95 : 41 } ; 100 : 43 : : 105 : 4G : : 48 : : 30 : : 52 { } ; at 0: 2260 : 6560 ; r..220 : 5870 : 0 : : ali49 + 1 149 : : 144 : : 143 : : 141 ! ! 139 : 1 131 : : 124 ; } 114 : : 103 ! ! 84 : i48 itall 69 , 96 : 72 , as : 76.44 : 11 , 83 : 5481) : saiD : 4420 : 387 Cl : 3100 : 2325 : 78 B 61 : 77 , 92 : 'ib . Tl : 74.94 ! 68.75 : 59..92 i 42 . 05 : 18, 17 ! ! tO 215 1 3.20 : 1270 : 300 : I ID I I FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO. r -- PUMP NO. <aBba t??Lq:I___ STA6€S I .____ _ __ __ _JIZ£-FICVR€_dHIS4' laB:36– T£sTec> +MsaC. ,a ' /&'4X . . . nEFeRENc£ iau+is_ __ PLorr€o Mee?f 4 - h :.dC _._ . . . DRivEn /zac IUPCLL£R 744 Jay+ _____ , TOTAL SUCTION 8, // n.MAXIMUM ON TEST IMP. DIA R P. M./ 7621 _ iF:: q: ,r=4 d: : :.jnT:: I;.T."i.'} B::=!. . 1;': =::t : t:! :.._ i : .-: .: ;== ' : -: :: 1 .. ' : :: _.=== : ' i --, =. gH: +flat==}. liZ=::-E Tjff ::HERliT --' -ii : . : ' -:' ! i .n+ :. IT::Wife !bT+t–FI.-–TLr:-+: FLaT;;:::}--..8qAk+lORS£ :paw£n ::' ;.. I: :'.H==:::-f ++n= IF= FtP:i::.:I.: :.-IFI: ::i==:==: : : ' : i . ’ " .' . :'--;:.::!-.:: E-::.;---I'I .:::'-=.-ptR-fI =b :it;}.'; A.==i=',q=}:=1 ' :: 1::: -• . ::t - .: - ' '. : : F :=e.:= i::::HII :a-•L;gui+== ,f :::a: TFI. -'! == : 1:' :'\' I-: : :. : ' ' '-::';::i:.:-: : '-– W B & d n•H i====qHll•••l• =U• T+J I+ +1,i W•a===n =b:J :: - ii =i:tt: :P ;ti _-J::tIll;}=;:Er* :[+J‘ gag_ur?:=#}:f::}:;; =pp, T..+–.. i-o-- t .- r . BTE; IF:::;l;;;+Tl-J' :=bqbl !::Jl: :P:1:::I ,i:iii- L: :-n•n•nq IGf ;} annUns in 1 Hen PApH=BM;H#:!H=n;:'£sHBlgIl=F=! I MaII''=n :=: fi ::alI! B1 ====n•Hj•H H anIInen hIbaZn=n====rfIT =b : rtl:LiTt;th i B& a == ;-.TIFF;kpH Til it :-:= f :+=+rVHd %•annlln SHen=aLT :-'n, } '_B; 1 : . • b1 : ,+bI+,,F:f_LL'–=-}:– - IT–'+-.__--bi= = 1 LB 0 IBnewa==+wn+ lihitin# it:'-.-:i : : :;!iPR:hI=#:::I=St=IBgiIL=!Fi:i" iESluLLI==HEaRT:+Fm+H+A==n==§!WHeBHBHg=$?:::/$.ilgila=:MfgTlaBK:#Rna%In;t:HiitiL: :H+jbdhaf:=teL:# l=-"=F lifE:i:iBigE31W8P©rRaw IW&B% iTIT+–;1:: t:it: y . . t :;:'.WI':- I::: y====F:':: ! '.F :t -=>1==i-==i:E E -U i ,glZaJJ < C M EIIM U: tJ={ Jj :U ( q 'FB FR.FtH La-A h r l-FH=OT MBe •Hn R+ +WHHHen 8 : i n In:ai Beennb Ie;un &bww ; p =n =j l I=.:.i; __ _._I = r+ %@ ; P+B',lnglgi H•nn IT: Le Bynrr Ur .:'I 1333 NI av3H IVIOI ' l’/\lKt};Xl\ Kb, NI\JKbl1, it \ ,U, PUMr NO..K& e/. oZ ; TESTED N4d aCC 8/OId& PLorr£a /##era 8l1+l44 TOTAL SUCTION I n. '4 . SVAG£s / RerEn€b+ez mUd:I nnlVER Mr& F-44XIMUM ON TEST slz£–r16unE dnS+/38\34 IMPELLER r& C /3 K/ IMP DIA RPMeabu H;:: i - : -:: ' ' ’ : : ' ' : q• - g • ?: - ;'.::: - - n++• ;I : .lil.:- i. ' :I ',' .:.V -. .: : ' .EFFICIENdELhI a H•l•!H•ll• = Hung b+ nP=•b=• w ' .q : 1t : e : 3 : : : : + :4 : a : : : : n & ! ! ! & B b s : + r n B e v ) lee Ii : : : + iIInen le n=-•Ur•i==H i='::;'::. : ' . '0 - : . . : . i . . . BRAKE HaRH•+n +n••al••=••gqnl• tAE: p 4 ups : + e p { ' n n + t T B na + + I a ••hF , i -Il-f=-:}.-A-2'T : :: : "' " [ – ' . . ' c' " : ':’' :. ::' '*';i!!;#:: – i- ' : : i : + + r 1 8 ; B + + : + n = = 1 + 1 8 : + + : T + T : T :: + ' t=• t •• + + P• n ' n + !P•rh• HB : M: w +r r • : p + ! • :+ 1 t : a: : : : : 1 B 1 + ; B ; p T : rb : o : + : : : : : : + ; ;-: : :+== + == B : ': : , , + - ' .: + H : + 4, R : ' : ’ BIn : ' : , . ’ .: : ;.: Iii:{ i,' ::. iT::{ I.,- .::: i. ;–:- :: '--T'f!': i==+++ 1: 1 i ' ' ', • '- n , , 1- =• ' :J_ i - - i ::.-.–_ ::! "'---'-:;-T' ’' -' :- '-'T--f -:-!:: , ::,I_ , :_ = ..__ . . ' _ + _++ + i• • . I. a ' • + + 1 e pt nrel }=;IT!={+::•n,:::ri,1•: ' 'I & i n '. ' i 'i-• ! ==, T-:–-::_ i :_. I ... I._.t :__. .J „ , It_ ’_: :_nEW W Xb :{!:;="'Jf :+ : : e - {' i . . .+ ' -. .: • ' IIe ! • .= v +-III 'pan { sep 1 +11=nnngl I I ) j::-::="-1----- 1'. """ ""-' :::- '.-::"" '==. t" : q : J.:: . I:,- jI:.:{. : i_ . }. . / ;...-:t:::: i annanSUnIn++H=• t i :pb i n= _ _ _Q l===' -- t\t ' ::: _=’ = = = ::iE POW:R BB weMFa in 1 na"- ='r II -:Mann i , . . , .== n=( t !nTl: :#:if =F:=;1= :'“! ::-' . i. '.::' :; ;=e : :: i: n: ' I .’ : : : : : : '_ ?' _, '•:• - ',, J'::':t";:.j'n :.'. I ' ' :{ " : , '-”.I= ._ 1==. I ; La : jill;:• [ .= ; i : _ : : : _ .. i :. n•Hlbq MHH1•l• a Bb & B i n BBq one aM i T::::=====H I B . nB 'W : WHen ' ; -' -- t–li I q•UPIP• :!! ! i!!:fi ! !!j : . !!! IS : :: '. i .’'i'i n : + +r [ f nn=Ubdn••UIL= A : w p + 1 1 p : + r 1 + 1p 1 4N q 1 1 4 B + + + ; 4 = =ni : 1 1 ; } :T o n : e : q: ; : n r T R p a ne: : a : ba ; }} }i; } } H =& ! }:#:ajl I I } ---: .--\:::::i;- I;:bd lad !- R e • aab + \ n + ene T - n l:: :'; r.:ii::-;;i ----:i:--' a\:t:iiil T-=RaFT ji-iIigil,I=,_i,;}=:}{,T \!! I .: :i"i:. T:::: ' ; j.: :'::::i=Tao'-T!=;T' . . : .- T:: t +: : : : B }: : : n =+ ! ! ! ! ! a : : • : 8 ; 'P1••IF =•HandelPPP;' t: :': i::' . ' ._, ' -: I:' .+I +n• += I : . i ::='H= + V a 1333 NI OV3H IVIQI 'i Pump Station Evaluation Report Hobson Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley »>Horn Evaluation Date: December 10, 2021 Report Date: July 13, 2022 Version 1 Revision History Version Publish Date 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Table of Contents ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................................ iv ABBREVIATIONS .........................................,....,...........................,..........................................iv 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE INFORMATION......................................... 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP................... 2 GENERAL PHOTOS.......................................................................................................4 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................8 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS .................................................................................................... 9 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS.................................................................................... 12 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ............................................................................ 14 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS...................................................................................16 4.1 PLJMP #1...................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 PUMP #2...................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2.................................................................................................... 23 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 25 SYSTEM CURVES....................................................................................................... 25 4.4 4.5 5 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW.............................26 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................28 6. 1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 28 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 28 7 ATrACFIMENTS ...........................................................................................................30 Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1................................................................................................. Test Data Graphs ATTACHMENT 2......................................................................Supplementary Pump Information ATTACHMENT 3................................................................................................. Record Drawings ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF Phase PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of RIse Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point V VFD Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes:Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted an evaluation of the pump station consisting of pump performance testing and condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducted using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number:Hobson 12/10/2021Date of Evaluation : Address:600 Hobson Lane, Denton, TX Coordinates:33.175860, -97.126418 Fluid Conveyed:Wastewater Station Style:Submersible Number of Pumps:2 Number of Pump Slots:3 Pump Type:Submersible ConcreteWet Well Material Wet Well Dimension 14'-1 1 ” x 10’4” Flow Meter Type:Not present. Circa 1984Year of Construction / Rehabilitation :Based on:[]Record Drawings []Field Observation [X Other – Contract 9351 Basin/Zone:Pecan Creek Firm Capacity:i:6£ GPM /3'69 Based on: DDesign NField Test nother Base elbow, 12” riser, 12” 90' bend, 12” horizontal spool, 12” swing check valve, 12” plug valve 4,223 LF of 16-inch concrete style cylinder, 12" ductile iran, and 12” PVC discharging to a manhole Discharge Description : Force Main Description: Electrical Service:240/480 Delta Site Generator:Not present, MTS only Bypass Ability Quick connect, 8” check valve, 8“ gate valve installed in valve vault Odor Control Not present Miscellaneous Features: Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP Hear Feefund UR Staten Ro•dI Ln SUOon CHuf UR slatEin Otavtty HaIn PhvabbOwa+dLa%bon Prrvdely Owned U Sletnn S ITnIKO + Force U•ln &:#\{_.' ‘ t \ n :I nd; 4 ! ( IT@: a- Feet1 Ml • soa bet 25250 500a Bent OaksLift Station d Kimley '»Horn Hobson LIft StatIon Denton Wastewater Master Plan - LIft Station Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 e + Figure 1.2 - Site Aerial Legend 1-Motor Control Center 2-Wet Well 3-Valve Vault Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 n \ n hIlIHIB B) 1\ I DInI fIT flllW Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Photo 2.2 - Interior Wet Well -IXL-A a f: 9 p +it ? iI Photo 2.3 - Interior Wet Well and Discharge Piping Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Photo 2.4 - Interior Wet Well and Discharge Piping Th q:P + + + nr anraI rS PhdB],2.5 - IEMr ll Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 a \+ T : + =+ ah 4 V• B Al1: +J\drB + +.r-aB Photo 2.6 - Valve Vault Hobson . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Figure 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Score Description Not Applicable Component doesn’t exist but is applicable Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear damage and corrosion Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high Figure 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component Score Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability 2 2 3 2 4 5 3 4 3 4 Limited mobility and fall hazards on wet well top and OHP Wet well raised, site/grade is in a floodplain, FFE is 3' below 100- year floodplain Flood Site Structures Evidence of l&l and standing water in valve vault, concrete floor of valve vault is spalling Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil - Other Major corrosion within wet well Condition Photos Wet well vent cover failure Trip hazard Photo 3.1 - Wet Well Slab a Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ====H= Photo 3.2 - Valve Vault and drain appear inadequate for conveying water BhP + +Lms:ieg\ \:K1 S I /' qd+ '+m e n c e o f s t a n d 1 n g water and soil accumulation= Photo 3.3 - Valve Vault Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 . q 'S:rp-:'FE!_ a+ ++=Tr:Severe concrete degradation Valve vault drain flap valve normally open C + Severe corrosion Photo 3.4 - Wet Well Wall Hobson . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Component Description Bolts Fittings Hardware Piping - Suction Piping - Discharge Pumps Valves - Check Valves – Isolation Valves - Other Ventilation Mechanical - Other 4 4 4 0 4 3 3 4 4 Major corrosion in wet well and electrical panels Major corrosion in wet well Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Major corrosion in valve vault Major corrosion in valve vault on plug valve body Poor ventilation in wet well and valve vault Condition Photos 1 + Major discharge pIpe corrosion Major discharge pIpe corrosion rrp Major fitting corrosion Major isolation valve corrosion Photo 3.4 - Valve Vault Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Major discharge pIpe corrosion + corrosion ?t.\! _\ ie TH Concrete spalling f Photo 3.6 - Wet Well Discharge Piping Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Component Score Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 3 5 0 0 3 5 2 0 4 Severe corrosion at bottom of the panel Site lighting not installed Severe corrosion on transformer, corrosion debris buildup Aged wiring Condition Photos Photo 3.7 - Control Panel Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Severe corrosion Photo 3.8 - Transformer Major corrosion Corrosion debris .+Y }f;i kJ&\ iixaM: Photo 3.9 - Transformer Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS4 Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Figure 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method. See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11%. 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data. Parameter Measurement Method Primary Level Transducer (XAK-PACK) Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK)Liquid Level Transducer (XAK-PACK) Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK) Current Transducers (XAK-PACK) Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK) N/A Frequency Meter (XAK-PACK) Secondary N/A Filled Pressure Gauge N/A Fluke 376FC Fluke 376FC N/A N/A N/A Flow Pressure Wet Well Level Volts Amps Power Factor Rotational Speed Input Frequency Figure 4.1 - Measurement Methods Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Hydromatic S8L12500M4-4 Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Submersible 14x1 3 3,000 110 4,628 Unknown Unknown 88 Unknown 1 ,750 1 ,800 3 ATL 460 125 1.00 160 86% Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % 0/0 Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Figure 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics 100% Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 If / aaaan b q ifqIbeqbnB/q+\ _FI, qbqb a qbqb 11 dP apalsO 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 Flow (GPM) Pump CUIve .....•.•- Eq. Affinity Curve alp an BSystem Curve + Design Points + Test POintS X WTW Eff e MFa WTW Eff 150 125 a =100 a) g 75al a) g 50= 25 0 0 150 125 100 II LL 75 =C/)a 50 2 25 \n•nP a a e 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 Flow (GPM)a Inp HP • Output HP O NPSHr • NPSHa Figure 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs 0 Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Units 1 Lower Limit I Test Value G -2 116.4 Upper Limit ! Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa 121.5 156.6Amps FPS FPS lg3in(Bq)E -5% 0 -5% -10% -3.8% 38.7 40% 0% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance -5% '1 0% '1 0% -50% 50% 0 -3.8% 0.4% 0.6% 97.8% 97.2% Motor FLA 105% UnknownMotor Load Motor Slip Speed Vibration 0/0 In/Sec Surge Vibration Cavitation Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score Figure 4.4 - Pump #1 Test Summary 2 Pump #l - Test Comments 1. Pump #1 is operating at 86% of the BEP flow. Operating at this point for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. The pump is performing below the intended design. We recommend reviewing the existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the pump or modifying the impeller if necessary. 2. The manufacturer's wire-to-water efficiency information provided does not appear to be accurate or relevant for these pumps. 3. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI for several seconds (See ATTACHMENT 1 - GRAPHS). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed in the valve vault. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Hydromatic S8L12500M44 Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No Submersible 14x1 3 3,000 110 9,251 Unknown Unknown 88% Unknown 1 ,750 1 ,800 3 ATL 460 125 1.00 160 86% Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Figure 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics 100% Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 200 180 160 140 120 g D 100IDa) = 80 60 40 20 0 0 250 500 Pump Curve + Test Points 125 100an\a= qnnUnPb 75 30 B 50L=0= 25 0 0 250 500 a Inp 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Xo > C) 50% 8 ’C) iF LU 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3000, 110 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 Flow (GPM) • -- -. - . Eq. Affinity Curve w w M System Curve X \ArrwEff -•+MFG urrwEff 3000 3250 3500 3750 + Design Points 125 100 anIh75 E qU==P =C/) 50 S 25 ..„,,„,.,.;.,,,,io 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 • NPSHa a a O ; , , , , i , , , , I , , , , r , , , , i , , 11 ; , 1 1’ooo 1’250 1’500 ti,T (%By) 2’250 2’500 2’750 • Output HP o NPSHr Figure 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 750 HP Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Lower Limit Test Value Upper Limit I Comment GPM 2,565 116.3 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO)110.4 Average Current Draw (FSFO)Amps FPS 128.6 Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) HI Average Output (FSFO) lgBi Affinity Law Eq. Curve gI NPqH, S WIW Eff @ Operating Pt 2 2 90% -50/o 0 -5% -5% '10c70 '1 0% '1 0% '50% 50% FPS 4%5% N/A 50/8 5% 38.1 -28% Input Frequency 0% Input Voltage (L-L)-3.1 % 1.3% 0.4% 80.4% 88.4% 10c70 10% 10% Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance Motor FLA 105% UnknownMotor Load o/8 Motor Slip Speed RPM Vibration In/Sec Surge Vibration Cavitation Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score 2 Figure 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Pump #2 - Test Comments 1, Pump #2 is operating at 86% of the BEP flow. Operating at this point for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. The pump is performing below the intended design. We recommend reviewing the existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the pump or modifying the impelter if necessary. 2. The manufacturer’s wire-to-water efficiency information provided does not appear to be accurate or relevant for these pumps. 3. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI for several seconds (See ATTACHMENT 1 - GRAPHS). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed in the valve vault. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel 200 180 160 140 120 ,aHnnl + LLqUUP D 100 CDa) = 80 4a deeP 60 + + + + 40 ] 20 , 1.,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,: 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 Flow (GPM) Two Pumps Running in Parallel ----' Eq. Affinity Curve M M M System Curve + Design Points + Test Points Single Pump Curve Figure 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Upper Limit CommentTest Value GPM 3,046 Ft 136.3 110c7090%59%1% Figure 4.9 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Pump #1 & #2 - Test Comments 1. The pump system is performing well below the intended design of approximately 5,140 gpm at a C-factor of 120. We recommend reviewing the existing and projected average and peak daily ftow for this station and upgrading the station if necessary. 2. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI for several seconds (See ATTACHMENT 1 - GRAPHS). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed in the valve vault. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of approximately 2,565 GPM and a tested total capacity of 3,046 GPM. The system does have surges following pump shutdown. Without air release/vacuum valves, the system could be at risk of pipe rupture. The force main is exhibiting a C-factor higher than expected for the given pipe material (See SECTION 4.5 - SYSTEM CURVES). 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES Below is a summary of the data shown in Figure 4.10 - Pump and System Curves. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. 5140, 128 0 1000 2000 3000 Flow (GPM) 4000 5000 6000 M M eSwtern Curve #1 Measured + Design Points • Operating Points - Single Pump • OperatIng R)ints - Pl & P2 Parallel Design CUIve - C-Factor 120 Diameter In 16” / 12 16” / 12 Calculated Based On Test Data Available GIS and record datadrawi Figure 4.10 - Pump and System Curves Hobson . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part I, Chapter 217 - Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: 5217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: power < 50 50 - 100 > 100 Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 70 15 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T - Q) / (4 * 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 2,580 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 and Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 15 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 125 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (15 min x 2,580 GPM) / (4 - 7.48) = 1,293.4 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Elev.) * (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 3.5 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 9.0 (ft.) Wet Well Dimensions = 14’-1 1 ” x 10’+” Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (9.0’ – 3.5’) - ((14’-11 ” * 10’-4”) = 847.8 ft3 The lift station DOES NOT provide the minimum wet well volume. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 5217.67(a) VelocitIes - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Hobson has two (2) pumps. Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 2,565 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Largest Force Main Radius = 8.0-inch = 0.67 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (2,565 / 448.83) / (n * (0.67)2) = 4.05 feet per second The lift station DOES provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS for pump specific recommendations In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Level 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years. Level 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin Level 3 1 planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without Level 4 1 replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Serviceability - There is decreased space to work and there are fall hazards without faII protection around the wet well and OHP. We recommend installing fall protection equipment and considering a layout with additional space when the site needs to be rehabilitated or replaced. 2 Valve Vault – There are signs of l&1, signs of standing water, the drain and slope of the valve vault appear inadequate to convey flow, and there is moisture buildup causing major corrosion on the hardware and valves within the valve vault. We recommend sealing the valve vault hatch, installing a new floor drain, and installing an additional air vent or a forced-air system to remove moisture 3. Wet Well - The concrete inside the wet well shows signs of spalling and exposed aggregate. We recommend cleaning the wet well and applying a corrosion-resistant liner. 4. Bolts - There is major bolt corrosion in the wet well and electrical panels. We recommend replacing the bolts. 5. Fittinqs - There is major fitting corrosion in the wet well and valve vault. We recommend replacing the fittings. 6. Hardware - There is major hardware corrosion in the wet well. We recommend replacing the hardware, 7 Discharqe Pipinq – The discharge piping within the valve vault is corroded requiring replacement. 8. Check Valves – There is major corrosion on the check valve weights. We recommend cleaning and painting or replacing the valves as needed. 6 Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 9 Isolation Valves – There is major corrosion on the isolation valves. We recommend cleaning and painting or replacing the valves as needed. 10. Wet Well Vent – There are significant signs of corrosion within the wet well. A lack of ventilation contributes to the increased rate of corrosion. We recommend installing a wet well vent to allow air displacement into and out of the wet well structure. 11. Control Panel – There is severe corrosion at the bottom of the control panel. We recommend cleaning the panel and replacing it if necessary. 12. Transformer - There is severe corrosion on the transformer causing a buildup of corrosion debris posing an arc flash/fire risk in the panel. We recommend replacing the transformer and cleaning the panel of debris. 13. TVSS- There is no TVSS on site. We recommend installing a TVSS 14. Wirinq – The wiring is showing signs of aging. We recommend replacing any wires that are compromised and regularly assessing the condition of the remaining wires. 15. Surqe – Following the shutdown of Pump #1, Pump #2, and Pumps #1 & #2 running in parallel, the force main pressure went to 0 PSI. We recommend installing air release/vacuum valves downstream of the check valve when the site needs to be rehabilitated or replaced 16. TCEQ Review – it does not appear possible to change the pump set points sufficiently to increase the cycle time without surcharging the incoming gravity line. We recommend reviewing the pump cycle time when the site needs to be rehabilitated or replaced. 17. Capacity – The pump system output flow is performing below the intended design. We recommend reviewing the existing and projected average and peak daily flow for this station and upgrading the station if necessary. Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank a Hobson - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Caa q) De Ca B = IS3a > IUea: aain U)x- :in !In Ca)EEO 10I a (Wd9) MDII a E3a 0aaIn a0 Lnqr aa0sr 0a Lnfr) 00a fr) 8 LnnI a 8N a0LnpI 0aaHI aaLn o8 0aa aN (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnSa100Lnaqrafr)0 ChI apI Wd 9S:Z Wd 6P:Z hId Zt:Z Wd SE:Z md 8Z:Z Wd It;Z 0 a t)3a) in9a C0 a) nO3 I a) 3 C/)V)a)L=a a) ED 10EL)V)R I 30 LL I -1 a) >al Ia) Ei-U caUC CD a) C aM CDLU al rDe 30aVI VIa) Ei- + Ma= dAb>a) \? HI••Hll• E•=••ll• t a) >C I I I I 0T-I ao 00a)a o-a 0N 8 0 Ln aqr 0fr)a ChI L)Ca) hDa)I(#) IaAa1 IIaM raM (ISd) arnssard 38181l15la taaq)ac aa a B (S3 TB >IU aa: a a CD tax- g= H11:Wla Ca) EEO CO & L ••• IODe J JaMOd a E3a 10 .1 qr ,1 r\1,1 0 %1 aa6 10d ed (XI6 06 md 95:Z Wd GP:Z Wd ZV:Z Wd St:Z Wd 8Z:Z Wd IZ:Z Cb,a= dll >a) E \d nll•l•Hll• •n••ll• 00Ln 0triqr 0 Lnfr) 00fr) 0 Ln (XI a LnHI 06e-I 0 Ln o8 bCeffI OU)Lrtalfr)frI nobEn(NHI Ln r\1pI Lr10NLn trIO(\I DC a) DOI (N-1) srIaA sdtuV Eaaq) ac Ca a B IS3 rB >IU Ca tHe atri a)x= :gn :nIn e a) E JC C) (a < IE C0 rUG (U B5 I (SdI) 'lalruqIA (Hdd) paadS lel'olrBroU a E =a a OO6 d b6 O n + m6 d d d (\Id HId 0 00srHI 8alT-I gHI 00 aa aa 10 00qr 00al 0 g0ala) U) b= duIaal a0 I !!0al a)trI B]: UnI3alC >, C)Ca) = OFg LL I laa) q)al CD aC0 n=10anc HIa=6 >a)Hl•l=Hl• Ea=•l• bZ I 0 LnfrI 00 cr) a Lnal a6fbI 0 Lnrl 00pI 0Ln 0 L;Ca) hDa)IJaMOdauoH(IH) A3uanbaJ )ndul Eaae)ac Ca: a (Bad > LU Ca a B aUl In C a) EaO &r + (Wd9) MDII (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnSa E3a 80Ln 00Lnq a 8\J 00 Lnfr) a0a fr) 00 LnnI 000rg 00 LnpI 0 8HI 00 Ln o8 0ao 0b 010 0 Ln a (1 0 fr) 0 (N 0q-1 0 g3Ulcr)a) ae0 niH C)3 C/) I a) 3V)trI a) & a)rIO COEC)triA Wd 6£ iE I B0 LL I Wd OE:E a) >a)-J Ia) Ei-la &laCca F)Ct) tXrDLU a) rD C gE VIa) Ei- Ma= /a & E•U•HlIH bZ C + al > I I I I 0q-I 00 o8: 8 R 8 R $ 8 Fl Wd IZ:E UC a) noa),-1(y) IaAa1 IIaM taM (ISd) arnssard a8req3sla 1:aa q) ac aa a b IS3 rB > LU Ca: aaU) la C a) EEO 10 a •• 10.i qr,1 ChI.i JopeJ JaMOd a E3a 0.1 aa6 10d qrd r\I6 0d md 8t;E Wd 6€:E Wd 08:E rd0= dAS >a)n•llllllll• E•u•Rin bZ a0 Ln a Lnqr 00qr a Lnfr) 00cr) a Ln ChI aa (XI 0 LnHI a Ln 0 00qr LnbfrI 0LnfrI :: iS QUItrialr\1 tH 8hI LnNr+ 0 LnHI Ln fbIHI 00HI Lnb $:Ln r\1 0 Wd IZ:E laCa) hea)-J (N-1) slloA sdtuV taaa)ac Ca B H a (gaa > LUaa : aa CD In C a) EE C) CO a U ghr LaJO5 I (SdI) L101 IeJqIA (WdU) paadS leuolruoU a E3a ond aad bd tO n + md d 6 d N dd 6 80:8(\I•=I 000HI 0a aa 0010 a6q 00al 0 IAId 89:E F)B0ala) U)a= 0 Uniaal3 I Wd 6E:E g:0al q)Ul b = al a,HI3 C >, C)Ca)3cr g LL IAd 08:E I laa)a)al C/) CD nc (aC0he 0 b:0= 'al >a) g bZ l•=ll•Hll• •n••IB Wd IZ:E UCa) gc)JaMOdasroH (ZH) A3uanbarJ lndul E0a a)rY CaH (B3nn•Hl•d >IU aa +W ain (I1)tO C q) EEOi U +b inal E3a P a00Ln aaLnsr 80qr a0Lnfr) (Wd9) MO11 a Eaa 0a0frI 00 Lnal a00al a0LnpI a00pI aaLn o8 0aa ab (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnS 010 0 Ln 0 q+acr)0al aHI a gain U)9a C0 OUrO3 C/) a) 3VI V)al L=a a) to caE C)cnr\ Wd IT:E I 30 LL Wd 10:E -1 a) > a) Ia) Ei-U (alaC eua C a TI 10LU al rDe30EVI VI a) Ei- + R=J:0= /a >a)••lll•ln E•=='\/ ta) >C I I I I Uea) noaJI(q) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssud a8req3sla taa q) ac Ca a a (S3 TB >IU Ca : naUl UlEal LU(9 C a) EaO 10 a glae CO +E trial Eaa r •• JopeJ JaMOd a Eaa 10 ,1 qF qI r\I .1 0 ,1 aad LO6 qrd nI6 06 Wd IT:E Wd TO:E CL=0= dAi> a) \? BIBll••ll• E•=•riB 0 Lnqr 00qr 0 Lnfr) 00 fr) 0 Lnr\1 00 r\1 0 LnHI 00pI 0 Ln 0 y LnbfrI QUILf)(\Ifr)frI 0 Lr)(\I Lnr\1(\1 Eg BELnN 0 La Ln(XI 0 Wd IS:Z laCa)hD a)-J (N-1) SIjQA sdtuv Eaa G)ac aa +1 (B3 d >IU CaHIain C) to I C Q) EEO g < U +b tf)al E3a P C0 !HIP 10B5(SdI) ualreJqIA (WdU) pa3dS leuolleroy a E3a an6 aad bd O n e m6 d d d N A6 d o g0ala) e/0 = dUal3ald=HI30 md It:E g:0ala) ela = al +13 C C?C q)a OFg LL Wd TO:E I la a)a)al C/) 0ac toC0h• 10W0= /ae & bZ nH•Hln• E•=nHl• I ab 010 0 Lr) 0 q+ afrI ar\1 0pI 0 Wd IS:Z UCa)aDa)JraMOdaaoH(ZH) AruanbuJ )ndul Ttl qtDONadP a)in U) 10 ISd B iB g # 8 alF)U)r)ael 10 T\lo N 8: -1 \ 8 o6 '1, :a):a ; $ ali :a:W:Z , , , ; Ill , _ ,;E N:0 d:0 v C/) LUza3 : i 1- b Eza aal N a uS 10b tri a qi Heaaar b Eal (9 b a (SE '\ .\\;\ : NF) q- Q Fi tn on0 ][ aZ< L \ 3a 00 aD (\i \\ \\ Qti qr q+ r a r abP 0If)P g 8 a g 8 8Pa & P P P Pfu) a-wH 5lWviIAa rVroI 8 ab aa10 b,bsaA LIFT STATION NAME \\$-\S- \SO MH IDENTIFIER: th.SX \S Gc'1,5 InFluent Pipe invert [tev. Ipaq .ba bo3 boB .aa Alarm on ELev. Other ALarm R,eSd Lag pump on ELev, F\$3• SO Lead pumps on Elev. SSb.aa 534 115 All pumps oFf [lev. ; eaT ’+J;ICeD I,,iF'T STijl 1£JF-! Fo; '=t H& 1 jl Svt.tam ;•:I:lU•.,! '=;;:i• FC i" ;)i- ce Pidli1 lc.tal EquIvalent !_erlqth StatIC l_lf•il in 4100 ft $8 ft I III 100 : 'ana ab LIla : : I 1 :II f; ! ;!DnI : : 1 11 1111 He atI Loss ( ft ) : TFiH : : Head Loss : TON ! ! i t ft ) i ; tft 1 : t ft 'i } ; H HIb nI•+ +T+ •PHl•IBURUi•q•l• ++PL 1 : 1 :II I II I IIIII li B 1 1 : C = '}a baD 750 1000 .250 LS 00 IT :f) :claD 22 1: 0 ?500 2 Fsa sac)a 32eD 33CJ0 : / SD X-00l:; +2:0 4 sac! + 750 soDa 1250 530C ->1 ;0 60 acP 62SC 6:DC i:7 -30 7009 11 IItIIIIIIIIt 11II 1111It 11 11 11 1111It++ 11 O DO 0 , 31 1 , 1 ?I : B : / 4 n : r & B IS 8 „ a: 11.47 J 4 1, &9 18 ,27 22 . 20 26 , 49 if I „ IZ 36 F+ 09 41.40 'iT .CIS S 3 , D ? 59 ,b 32 as . ?i 12 . it? t:,0 , IS :37 .7: qS , 6\:1 105.83 11 / T :IS 121 _ 17 130 , 30 139_ 73 149.47 I I I I I I I I I I ! I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IB & b . CJO &S , Sl C 9 , It; Ff) . 39 72..07 ;4 - 15 la , e : 79 HiT 82 , &? 36 „ 2 7 gG , ?C 94 ,il 99, 1: 104 , 09 1 0 : 1. 4' a IIS_05 17 ) „ 02 12 7 Tl 52 133 „ C4 140 _ 39 I'ii , IS IS! . 73 la3 , C:I 1 711 g 3 laD , as 18? . 1: 198 h 30 20 ? B :'3 21 1. 4'7 tIitIItI 111:: 1It! 1el: 1II! 111tIel i IItIIIt 11It+1 li1+ItIIIt11 +:It11tIII Cl. Gi) 1l422 O . 8:: 1 1 , FD 2 .. S)0 '+ _ 39 a , IS 3 , IS IO,48 IB .. 0: 1 :/ H 8 + li3 . 90 2? „ ?a : Sn To 29 „ :l4 33 , 57 37 ,P 8:: 42, 32 4 / . 05 52 „ 00 S ? „ la ez a 53 6 si „ ?? 74.33 sa „ 1 :1 E 6 „ 43 92 , 96 ? 9 , St; 106 . $4 I I I t II I I B t i I I t II II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I II IItI I I I &e , 00 &BR 2+ aG „ ac &T. ?13 70 . gt; :2 39 7 4 , iS 78 , 13 78, 48 BI . fi 3 a:P 84 BC , c;l0 TCI . 20 9:I , 7 S 97 . 54 Le.1 , 57 It)5 .. 83 110 , 32 :Llb , 03 1:D .rJa Ii’S J : 130 , I- ? :1.36 . 22 142 _ 08 143 , IS 154 , +5 160..96 IC 7 . by r 74 „ 6,4 ItIt 11el If 11ItI eII 1111 1111 It tJIl t I tItItIS11IIIt I 11 11II 11 11IIIf11 jIIt 11 11 11It I ! IIIfIIIt I \l II 11el 1111 i I I 11I II I 1 :t:I1!ItItIt ItIB 11IIIIIIIt11 11'1 11If 11 11 II'1II11 11BIItleIt11It it ItII 1111 1 :tI tI 11 I I t 1 11IIIt III IIt11 11 11 ItIt 11II 1111It11IIIIItItIfII 11It 11 I 11IIII11 11Be I //o bse//S, 3,913 cf ./C'’ Zone,,k <4; J,, A&, #,„. 7/Ya 4/7.a 8/4o„,P 59 go 4£A, day +C,+., sql 4: t S /d . CS +DO a : /;IHad a /+y abi;oU doc. C 428 , z 4 az. 7 Z 67. EJ- I. r. #,> hI La /&- tflew o ++ f#2 + d!I+ a IV + 3(936 VC/ XVI 3 _ 79 +aa /o 3 +/ 3 ) lb'; ._. n'a„..,._,;. +;, C@.,. Le.?q LI / DO Use 6% fC st,t. cr/ Use .1+ v Inn O +Q ,gpl)o 1 S O 9@ \qcfe\,R. Jq - '-r I ' itIt • q ii On nn be ' OW q•P •n•.nHer• + qIn We = n+UV =OUr M••=•W WU=++n t'I.=b sort L:.ft $tatioll FunD Curves Itle 1111 BuIID I 1111 F'unlo 2++11It IB•#bb+l•bab qb Ug HIb b •hnHnq•nbna•nee =+ O + aBn FIUB Fl 3 I I ! : 1 DH : PSi ! : Q : Eff+ : HF1 1 : Q : Eff t : HP : : a } Efl + : HiP 1 !' : : Ft ) ! : : (gDR ) { ( t ) } ! ! I qpR.1 : i. R : : : : i q131l1 : th ) ' : : U ++UV +Ben 1111tI1:IIII 11 1111 1119III 11It 11II 11II 1111 1111 1111 11IT 11 11 91i I cia ias 14 Cl 115 120 I?S 130 135 140 14 S 1 SQ ISS 160 las I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I 4L 43 46 48 SO 52 54 56 5l9 61 as 65 67 a9 72 It 11IIel 1111 1111It 11 11 1111 11 :: 1111 11It 11 11 11II11It 1111 1111 I I I I I I I I II I I I II I I ! I I II I I I I I I I I } las : 103 : 102 : 100 : 98 : qb : 94 : 90 : 87 : 83 : 79i 74 : 66 I ===M 11 11IV11 11It 11 11 11It 1111 1111 1111111111 11It11It11 1111 1111 11It 3650 : 4 25 3250 3050 2f17S 2680 2500 2275 207 S 1875 167.5 1450 1100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 87 , 88 38,2-,•' 88.61 88 H 67 89.00 88.22 87 , 83 86 , 27 $4 ..42 32 „ al 80.40 77 . 31 67.42 : -+-+t 105 : 103 : 102 1 looi 98 9 a1 94 : 901 87 83 ; 79 : 741 66 I +–+ 11 11 11I 1111ItIttI11 11 11 11It 1111 1 :111111 11If 1111It;1 1111 1111 I 1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I t I I I I i I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 11 11 11II 11ItItII\t111111 11It 11 111:It 11tI 11II 11tI 1111IIIt 3650 :425 3250 3050 2875 2630 2500 2275 2C175 187.13 1675 r450 1100 f.7.88 88 .. 27 88.61 88 . 67 89, DO 88.22 87.88 86.27 84.42 82.81 80 , 40 77.31 67.42 + This effIciency is wire tc water, ## This pump is the sama a8 pump 1, There is a &lot fOI- putIn 3 .. It Il(i) SQn Lift Station Combined Pump Curves IfIt 11 1111It It11 11tI 11II 11II 1111It 1111 11II 1111 t: 1111IttIIt 11 1111 11'1 n=grn• ItII Pump l&2 1111 11 11 11IS 11It 11IttIIt 11 11 1111 1111 1111II11 1111It11 11It11 1111II 1111 11II TI)Ii ( ft ) ; psi ! ! Q : Eff 8 : i : C.gpa) : f % ) I I I ! IIP 95 100 105 1 10 1.1 S 120 125 130 135 140 IdS 150 155 If/0 165 I II I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 41 43 46 48 SO 52 54 56 59 61 63 65 a7 69 72 If11 11It 11It11It 11It 1111 11It 11 1111 11ItIt 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 0 73CJ0 6850 6500 6100 5750 5360 5000 45:.a 4150 3750 3350 7900 7200 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIII I I I I II 87 . 88 88.27 88 . 61 88 . 67 89 . oa 88 . 22 til . 88 86.27 84 + 42 82 + 31 80.40 77 . 31 bI . 42 I I I 1 I I I I II I I I I II t It I II I III III I a 210 206 204 200 196 192 187 180 374 166 158 147 ] 32 D +Pa Wen +•nan ' Ju it won .e 1 eg ,& rSa IV\ gejPa L e +as o q eg SPB a e• +! !a 1 ab eOIn +r ++B \* p it ! gli::i;1;:'%!!.::I::giF{::iiiIiI?]In+ •i•==a=•::i alba+ ag=lh aAl n==qi;:{ix ilP :K==F={!IT::Bl I= f+= =a B O n •nHmnUp > == = : + W + T: & 1:iS H t+1 t In 4 L +=asHhH):; HeIS) 8-+ ++ ++ na+ . He qwnn•JM w n= w e p w 1 9.e . e w h w a +4 + iw ++A• Lw + v +, =new, 8.++;-wid–=== w ban + aT OdOan,HBe a en , e :: , ,nO+ =a one + 1 : ii nHl$b3EIH hIP Ii;I !•= = = =+= P iBf :e i;•Ua•••: :+ Wq UP B+un d IB OWn X 4= ++ n An +og•n•Inn+ 1 == = I a q :n= aHlnnannB n Une=+ nIna In :: : is anIn on1 tiIq =ln==Hl•IB +++all•b•lIBa•gll• r E; : a PS li:+=(=;=fJPJ{=== = =!:::: : :: ::'- I ,=p=,IT :Un:win; ::=: ::Hi e : : : : q11EI== + =P t = = = = ==fI === n Be =A' --i:IT-;::== = = ===..=' : r -_:= : ::== ==== aPS BaniF :: :W' 1===== = U"•H := = { C # F:-b :::=b h ,=W lo Hi ,., w WOO , , e :+ + e on+ + ' na _nw +,++T+ - e' ' n + p , ' _ + + +OP o n o OR e I b ' v + b+ == inn , + 11, a ., aJ w+ + LOW ; ;i–, -, T = : i , Ii: - I , A+ i , . .,+ , .. .: + , . nZ _,,: -.=,,., , _+= =F : P HUI ++ =:== id= 4•=• dOBSON LIFT SfA TIGhl FoI'cc Fi';Irb Sv st,yIII I-load Cul v=:: Force tlaln Total Eauiv&lent Lerwtrl StatIC Lift 16 in 3950 ft $ 7 ft II F 11II C:100 it :: CT 1 : 11 ! ! ! ! Q + ! Head I_cns : TDI'l: : f glam 3 : : ( ft ) : f ft )it Head L'xs : Tt3H ii (ft) : (ft ) It11IIIt 1+11It 11 11 11It 11IItI11 1111It11 11 11 11TI liIt 1111IIIfIt 1:It 11It11 11 1111 11 1111It 1111 1111 }111ItIt 11II 11tI11 11 1111ItIt a 250 500 750 1000 1250 1300 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 :$2 50 33C30 3750 4000 42 SC) 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 0000 6250 $500 6750 7000 IIII 1111 11It 11ItIt 11 11 11ItII 11ISItII 11II 1111 11 11 11 11IttI 11 11 11 11 11II 11ItIt11 1111ItItIt11II11 11111111ItItItIt 11 11 1111 0.00 a,67 2.40 5..09 B , 6? J, 3 , 11 18 , 38 24 . 45 31, 31 ,38 , 94 47 P 3:1 58.47 a6 . 34 76 . 94 88 , za 100 . 29 113..02 126 , 43 140 , 57 ISS , 37 1?0 , Bd 167 , 01 203 , 84 221 , 33 239 . 48 258.29 277 , 75 297 . 36 31$ . al I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I + I I I I I t ! II t I I t I I I I I I a ? . 00 67 A 67 69 , 40 72 , 09 75 h 67 80 . 11 as . =IS -?1.43 98 . 31 105..94 114 , 3:I 123 . 47 133 , 34 14.3 . 94 155 , 26 167 , 29 180.0? 193 H 45 207 , 57 222 . 37 237 , 86 254 ,1 01 27(1 „ 84 288 , 33 306 , 48 325 . 29 344 . 75 364 n 86 385 . al 11 11It11 11 11 1111 11 11tI11 1111 1111 ItII 11II 1111 11It 11 11 11tI 1111 It 1111It 11IttI 11IttI 11ItItIt 11II 11II 1111 11It 1111 11II 1111 0.00 0.47 ln71 S . 6 IS 6.19 9,35 13 , 11 1 7 , 44 22 h 34 27 . 78 33 , 77 40.28 47 b 33 54 . t39 e.2.97 71.55 80 „ &3 90 . 21 100.29 110.85 121 , a 9 133 . 4: 14 SH 43 157..91 170 , S& J.84 . 27 198„le 212 „ 50 227 , 31 67.00 67.47 68 .. 71 70 . 63 73 . 19 76 „ 35 80.11 84..44 89 , 34 124 , 78 IOO . 7'., 107 . 23 114 . 33 121 , Btfl 129..97 1.38.55 147 , 63 157 , 21 167.29 177.85 188 „ gq 200 „ 42 2:12 , 43 224 # 9 L 237 , 86 251 , 27 265 ,IC 279 . 50 2q4 _31 1111It 11 11 11 11It 1 :11tIIt11 11 1111It11 11 11IIIIItII 1111 1111 1111 11IIIIIt 111\ 1111 11II 1111ItIt 11tI 1111 11I I 11tIIt11 11ItIt11 I + II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I + I I + I I I I I + I 1 I I I I I t I I I I \ I I nc < B Cd[-.L- Va 1: ::::: 1: a) gIEE IS 1 1: : 1: :Z = = HI ! ! u)n' 'rH- nJ i = 1EIe II := = !=C)nb 9 V) Z :b : 5== (J ,S4a nd0 > < E 0 r\n==1 nc <= C) ==1 nc :C/) = nHoZ Z0++b4b C/) C/) <C >< Edb (J'Zni cn nd Ed CdZni Q Z Ed C)ZH b, :1 D(nZ0 bh+1a In Cr)a b Q < nd b Z0 CJ ;)[S( r / r rn 2b .OUnb S ft= cr) 0 ++ nuJ =rx\J ZI /. IP-\\JL ;( [y]a + GOaHIba Z dJ n C/)rT: ndh +1 '£ < rTl rTl hin\\J >b nn•ll•l Z0V\ an0 : G/) EdJ n= Ab+-D g &E +i Ear Z : 1g 8 : : ! ! i : # /--\ X E J tri La b J b rTl /R JrTl ==•Hl• -/.in\\J C/) n==I '/. a. nd Q PT} ed a b7 <h C/) C/) C/)+r 'C' : nUnIn , in\ > <In\n=InI fI ad < on >b bnJ CL C nc0 bQ ad rVl PPP I \iRa n I .p \C Z b a :\ a in( Hal iiI gg 83 i al a ;ii I \ r i kI < a20 S $ia Q: Z9 ! 1 Ea) g ;BJ By bS ggi b Kg i ! ! PL 4g Iii Iii i I ! !! ! ! i } ! i ! ! & c + g [, a b&I /gIIUl I, IT ba:} IiI @@ID.0 A;-IiITIIT: IT:::Ai i t { p r = & H R I + i : q+ • :+\: 1n b : i n _!--};::j:-)! no eD 11 ii00+St 00 +SOI Hi!:-III:;,: A:1IiI;i ==#1 :: + =;}II:I !!!bjr+ I /'- , D:T'';$ fiT,? StX;i g!1 1rF+ A :+Hf:L:\T: d?}#;BeHeI:T-=bfI }§§ iF?:++1g©'l:?'':::::'::$ BIll@ r@}{}@ 1[+!i!:I:! LUC)ac S ;R! Ss &Iji. i ! ! hdit}{'::i Ft,'litT??i-:' 4 !'.1g C i:{$ I' Itij! :1Li Fi 00 +09 +; t+:{:HP Li::i:IF::=;;;).Fjr # t R= ; +=g:::'}[';:-$?:=iN I:::bl-IF lg:-II:'i l•rhrPla I: - Li:.f-;id:+f @ ZI gf 0 10 reIII C CLA i • & } -e Pump Station Evaluation Report Lakeview Ranch Trinity Prepared For: DENTON Prepared by: Kimley »>Horn Evaluation Date: December 9, 2021 Report Date: July 14, 2022 Version 1 Revision History Version PubIIsh Date 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Table of Contents ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................................ iv ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... iv 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 1.1 SITE INFORMATION........................................................,............................................. 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................... 2 GENERAL PHOTOS.......................................................................................................4 CONDITION ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................5 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS .................................................................................................... 6 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS ...................................................................................... 8 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS ..................................................................................... 10 2 3 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS......,..12 4. 1 PUMP #1............................... PUMP #2.................... PUMPs #1 and #2 SYSTEM CURVES ..... .. 13 16 19 ,.. 19 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW.............................22 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................23 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 23 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS .... . .23 6 ATrACHMENTS ...........................................................................................................247 Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMEFfr 1................................................................................................. Test Data Graphs ATTACHMENT 2......................................................................Supplementary Pump Information ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT Phase RPM TDH TVSS Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line V VFD wrw WW Yr Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours: Minutes: Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted an evaluation of the pump station consisting of pump performance testing and condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducted using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps’ performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number: Date of Evaluation : Lakeview Ranch Trinity 12/9/2021 Address: Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed: Station Style: Number of Pumps: Pump Type: Wet Well Material: 265 N Trinity Road, Denton, TX 33.215944, -97.058363 Wastewater Submersible 2 Number of Pump Slots:2 Submersible Concrete 10’ x 9’Wet Well Dimension: Flow Meter Type: Year of Construction / Rehabilitation : Unknown 1998 Lakeview / Cooper 232 bPM / o.33 MGD [ Based on: 1 DDesign EField Test []Other 6-inch ductile iron, 6-inch swing check valve, 6-inch plug valve 6-inch, 2,525 LF PVC FM discharging to a manhole 277/480 Wye No generator on site Not present Not present Manual hookup for generator on site – MTS is non-compliant Basin/Zone: Firm Capacity: Discharge Description: Force Main Description : Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability: Odor Control: I Features: Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 1.2 SITE LOCATION MAP LakevIew Ranch Lift StatIon Denton Wastewater Master Plan - Lift Station Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Figure 1.2 - Site Aerial Legend 1 -Transformer 2-Motor Control 3-Wet Well 4-Valve Vault Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 2 GENERAL PHOTOS ab Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Photo 2.2 - Interior Pump Station Photos Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station EvaluatIon Report July 2022 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical. Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference Condition Score Score Description Not Applicable Component doesn’t exist but is applicable Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear damage and corrosion Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component Score Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil - Other Condition Photos 2 2 0 2 3 l 3 3 4 4 Leaking within the wet well Major corrosion on wet well top photo 3.1 - Wet Well Joints i Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Photo 3.2 - Wet Well Top Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Bolts 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 Fittings Hardware Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Piping – Suction Piping – Discharge Pumps Valves – Check Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Valves – Isolation Valves – Other Ventilation Mechanical - Other Condition Photos Major discharge pIpe corrosion corrosion P Photo 3.3 - Wet Well Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 IS Photo 3.4 – Wet Well Major discharge pIpe corrosion i corrosion a Photo 3.5 - Valve Vault Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Description Conduits 4 3 0 2 3 4 3 0 3 3 Incorrect material. no air break Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels Major corrosion RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other Condition Photos No air break, incorrect materia {+g+g!: + Photo 3.6 - Conduit L a k e v i e w R a n c h T r i n i V = P u m P g aU o n E v a 1 u a t iS : IF By Major corrosion photo 3.7 - Panel Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method. See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11%. 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data. Parameter Measurement Method Primary Secondary N/AFlowLevel Transducer (XAK-PACK) Pressure Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK)Liquid Filled Pressure Gauge Wet Well Level Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Volts Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Amps Power Factor Current Transducers (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC N/APower Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK) Rotational Speed N/A N/A Input Frequency Frequency Meter (XAK-PACK) Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods N/A Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Units Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Flygt CP31 27 Submersible Unknown 300 61 5694 500 59% 46% 12 Unknown Unknown 3 Unknown 480 23 Unknown Unknown 86% 100% Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Table 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 200 180 160 140 120 anIBnl +LL BURnPP T 100 COa) = 80 60 40 20 0 100% 90% 80% 70% -da\ C) 50% 8'0 iELU 40% q=OP> 60% +n\ 30% 20% 10% 0 + 100 Pump Curve Test Points 200 300 400 500 600 Flow (GPM) • ---. Eq. Affinity Curve M M wSystem Curve X WIW Eff • MFG Hyd Eff 700 0% 800 900 + Design Points .•+ MFG WTW Eff 60 50 40 E 30 = C/)aZ20 10 0 900 30 25 anna= 20 a g 15ala) : 10= 5 0 100 200 a Inp HP 300 400 500 600 Flow (GPM)• Output HP C NPSHr 700 800 • NPSHa Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Units GPM Ft Lower Limit Test Value Upper Limit I Comment 232 107.9 0/0 27% HP 23.6 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) Amps 25.3 FPS 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 100/o 10% 105% 115% Unknown N/A FPS 2.6 BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt 0/0 0/0 80% 90% Unknown Unknown aIR -5% N/A Unknown Ft 40.3 %-5%Unknown Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Hz -5%0% %-10%0.8% Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance 0/0 -10%0.8% %-1 0%4.8% Motor FLA Motor Load %-50%Unknown 0/0 50%102.7% Motor Slip Speed 0/0 Unknown Unknown Vibration Surge Vibration Cavitation In/Sec N/A 1 -5 2 la Q) 2 G)inJa0 1 -5 1 -5 Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 Overall Score 31 -5 Table 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Summary Pump #1 - Test Comments 1 Based on the testing results, we do not believe the supplemental data shown in Attachment 2 - Supplementary Pump Information is the accurate information for this pump. Without current pump information, many of the tested parameters could not be compared. We recommend pulling the pumps for additional information. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI (See Attachment 1 - Graphs). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed on the downstream side of the check valve to mitigate vacuum pressures. We recommended installing combination air release valves on the downstream side of the check valves 2 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results Parameter Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Table 4.4 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 6 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 200 180 160 140 120 IE R looa)= 80 60 40 20 0 I / /II / / / / 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% it > 50% :C) tE LU 40% 300, 61 30% 20% 10% 0 + 100 Pump Curve Test Points 200 300 400 500 600 Flow (GPM) • ---' Eq. Affinity Curve w w wSystem Curve X wrwEff • MFG Hyd Eff 700 0% 800 900 + Design Points MFG WTW Eff 60 50 40 rlq==P 30 =C/)a 20 Z 10 0 800 900 • NPSHa 25 20 M = b 15 B0 g- 10 6= 5 0 0 100 200 D Inp HP 300 400 500 600 Flow (GPM)• Output HP O NPSHr 700 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Parameter Units GPM Ft Lower Limit Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) 263 115.4 38%Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) % HP 20.1 Amps 22.2 Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa WTW Eff @ Operating Pt FPS 2 7 7 115% FPS c70 % 80%Unknown 90% -5c70 Unknown Unknown 110% 5% Unknown 50/8 5% 10c70 10% 10% 105c70 115% Unknown N/A 0/0 Ft 0/0 Unknown -5c70 -5c70 -10% -10c70 -10% -50c70 50c70 40.2 Unknown Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Hz 00/o V 0.5% 0.9%% Current Imbalance %4.6% Motor FLA %Unknown Motor Load %87.4% Motor Slip Speed RPM Unknown N/A Unknown Vibration In/Sec Surge 1 -5 2 BI Cavitation a iI Mechanical Noise gI Leaks Exterior Condition Vibration 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 Overall Score 31 -5 Table 4.5 - Pump #2 Test Summary Pump #2 - Test Comments 1 Based on the testing results, we do not believe the supplemental data shown in Attachment 2 – Supplementary Pump Information is the accurate information for this pump. Without current pump information, many of the tested parameters could not be compared. We recommend pulling the pumps for additional information. The surge following pump shut down caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI (See Attachment 1 - Graphs). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed on the downstream side of the check valve to mitigate vacuum pressures. We recommended installing combination air release valves on the downstream side of the check valves. 2 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) Average Output (FSFO) Test Value 285 118.9 3.2 Unknown Upper Limit i Comment Table 4.6 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Pump #1 & #2 - Test Comments 1.Based on the testing results, we do not believe the supplemental data shown in Attachment 2 - Supplementary Pump Information is the accurate information for this pump. Without current pump information, many of the tested parameters could not be compared. We recommend pulling the pumps for additional information. The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI (See Attachment 1 - Graphs). Air release/vacuum valves are not installed on the downstream side of the check valve to mitigate vacuum pressures. We recommended installing combination air release valves on the downstream side of the check valves. 2 4.4 SYSTEM CURVES Below is a summary of the data shown in System Curve Characteristics CUIve Name CUIve Type 2,525System Curve #1 Measured System Curve #2 2,525Design Calculated Based On Test Data Available GIS and record drawing data Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 250 200 Tn=Pt 150=U B 100 : }i asaIBanalPaIBaIBan as61189118 n w w o M 1 n w n o n 50 300. 61 0 m 100 150 200 Flow (aPM) M n e System Curve #1 Measured System Curve #2 Design 0 250 300 350 400 + Design k)ints • Operating Points Length, Hazen-Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. Table 4.7 - System Curves 0 Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 250 200 TOn=P B It La E g B g 150 100 aIBan naB an O Vb Ub w e w w w I w w o u n 50 300, 61 0 0 SO 100 ISO 200 Flow {GPM) 250 300 350 400 M nB System Curve #1 Measured System Curve #2 Design +Design R)ints a Operating Points Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part I, Chapter 217 - Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: 5217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T ' Q) / (4 * 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 263 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 and Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 6 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 23 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (6 min x 263 GPM) / (4 * 7.48) = 52.7 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump Off Elev. - Pump On Elev.) - (Wet Well Diameter2 * Tr/4) Pump Off Elev. = 9.0 ft. Pump On Elev. = 5.5 ft. Wet Well Diameter = 10.0 ft. x 9.0 ft. Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (9.0 ft. - 5.5 ft.) ' (10.0 ft. - 9.0 ft.) = 315.0 ft3 The lift station DOES provide the minimum wet well volume. §21 7.67(a) VelocItIes - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (v * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 263 GPM (maximum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Force Main Radius = 3.0-inch = 0.25 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr - R2) = (263 / #18.83) / (Tr ' (0.25)2) = 2.98 feet per second The lift station DOES provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. Lakeview Ranch Trinity . Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 6 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform gular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components.in Level 3 1 planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without Level 4 1 replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Joints - The joints within the wet well are leaking. We recommend pressure grouting the leaking joints 2. Wet Well – The wet well concrete is corroded. We recommend applying a corrosion-resistant liner 3 Fittinqs – The fittings within the wet well and valve vault are corroded. We recommend cleaning and painting before corrosion progresses and the components need to be replaced. 4 Discharqe Pipinq – The discharge piping within the wet well is corroded requiring replacement 5. Conduits – The electrical conduit is an incorrect material and does not have air breaks. We recommend replacing the conduit with PVC-coated RGS inside the explosion zone and installing air breaks 6. Panels – There is major corrosion in the panels. We recommend assessing the structural integrity of the panel and repairing or replacing as necessary 7. Pumps – We do not believe the supplemental data shown in ATTACHMENT 2 – Supplementary Pump Information is the accurate information for this pump. We recommend pulling the pumps and updating pump information as necessary 8. Surqe - The surge following pump shutdown caused the discharge pressure to drop to 0 PSI (See Attachment 1 - Graphs). We recommended installing combination air release valves on the downstream side of the check valves Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank ed Lakeview Ranch Trinity - Pump Station Evaluation Report July 2022 Eaaa)ac Ca a a eg3 rB > LU Ca: B IS US tI)x- } I !lal Ca) E£O 10 q U o o o = d 1S1 M:1 J o ( 1 S d ) 11:} 1 n s S 11:1 J (1 u 1c) ! DnSR R R R n S R o8 R 9 g R S oa E3a g3tria) a)a C0 7)3 C/) a) 3VI V)a) r\ a)no (aE C)V)A I md 99:Z 30 LL I > a) a),J md iS:Z a) EFla (aTC CD a) Caa CDLU a) CD C30aV) C/)a) Ei-It H0= /ae >a) ••IBIHHHl•l E•n•Hll•V a) +a) E I III o8 0 Ln 0qr 0frI 0 fbI 0FI Q Wd 99:Z UC a)no -S(y) IaAa1 IIaM iaM (ISd) arnssard a8reqrsla Iaa q)ac Ca R n a (q3 TB >IU Cah= LBtri VIv- li= gela Ca) EEO10iE < U •B• a E3a 0.i a aa6 d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO a q6 d d crt6 N d Od d d Wd TO:E Wd 9S:Z Wd IS:Z H0 = dAY >a) G \/ =n•n••l •n••lu Wd 9t;Z a 800 (NI) gIjDA sdtuV Eaa 4)ac Cab ISa g LU aaHaUl tax- &B I11:=la ia) EEO(a = < C0 + COB5 I (SdI) uolleJq IA (HdU) paadS le11QjteroU a E3a and aa6 bd tO n + md d 6 d r\Id pId 0 a00(\1 00 aaT-I 0010q-I 8\IHI 8(XIHI 86HI 0 gg 0 8 0 8 00r\I 0 a30ala)U)b = UnI3al a0 IAd TO:E !!0QLa) U)b = C anI3al Wd 9S:Z >, Ca)3 OF g) LL I C) INd IS:Z laa)a)al C/) toC0hp CD 0 Q( =0= 4lb &nlllll••l• E•n•HlIH bZ I 8 S R S S:0 0OpI 0 an 0 00 0N 8 0Ln a\l 0fr)0(N 0FI 0 Wd 9V:Z C)C a)hOa) IJaMOdasioH(ZH) AruanbarJ Indul aa) C<a : a ISina Eaa QLnfr) a0frI aLnal (Wd9) M.U a0r\I aLnrl a0HI 0 Ln o8 aLn (ISd) aJnssaJd uo InnS 0qr 0cr)0al aT-I a ga 10in gaea t)3U) a) 3VI C/) a) a a) ED(aaC)trI IS I 30 LL I a) >a),.J a) Ei-la rDU C CD a) C a rdLU g10a Ba =V) V) a) Ei= + Cb0 = /ae >a) BRin=H E•n•Hla bZ a + a) E I II 1 UCa) noG)J(4) IaAa1 IIaM laM (ISd) unss3rd a8reqrsla t=aaa)ac Ca Bi a (S3== g 111 Ca: a (S: B US CDC\I B= 111:nIn Ca) ECO(aA < •• a Eaa 0,1 a aad d Nd JO}9eJ JaMOd tO n qd 6 d fr)6 N d Od d 6 IN0 = dAb >a)•IBlll••ll E•u••lia \/(N-1) srIaA sdwv taa e) De aa a B ISa rB > LU Ca bBU) tOCN in 1111:=IOL C a) EaO 10 a C0•nlP LUJO5(SdI) L.OjreJqIA (HdU) paadS leuolruDd a E3a an6 aa6 bd tO n q md 6 d d r\Id HId 0 000 (XI 00aapI 0010pI 00qrHI 00hIpI 000pI aa 00 a0 10 aaq+ a0al 0 Wd 9y IE md 9E:E INd 9Z:E Wd 9t:E Wd 90:E md 99:Z Wd 99:Z Wd 9£:Z Wd 9Z;Z Wd 9t:Z Wd 90:Z Wd 9S:1 LE F+0 = //lb & i bZ l•Hllln•= •n••ln 00el 0 an a 00 0b 010 0Ln ? 0frI 0al aHI 0 L)ea)hD a)IraMOdasr OH (ZH) A3uanb3rJ lndul Eaa 4)ac Ca a B (B3a > ILIaa H a LBU) a)(\1 abn :(bto e a) EEO £ < +t tnalE3a He a E3a 0 Lnfr) 00frI 0 Lnall (Wd9) MO11 00 rN 0LnT-I 00T-I 0Ln o8 0Ln (ISd) aJnssaJd uaIDnS 0qr 0fr)0(N 0HI 0 a)3ininga C0t)3U) Wd gE:Z md 9Z;Z KId 91:Z Wd 90:Z md 9S IT 0 P-a qb a) 3 V)trIa)L,a a) to caa C)trIa I 30 LL q:il--==--.--:I a) >a)-J Ia)Ei-la COlaC eua) C a idUl a) CD C gE VI al Ei-jt U0=/a & g bZ nunin •U•HlIH L=a) a) E aHI II I I 00 o8 0Ln 0-J 0frI 0(\I ael C)Ca) noa),.J (4) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssard a8req3sla taa q) ac aa a B eg3 TB > IU Ca a Batri CDC\It= : (1)tO C a) EE C) 10+1 a a +F inal E3a r •• a E3a 0 qi a OO6 d bd JopeJ Ja/nodtO a qd d d end N d Od d d Wd 9Z:Z Wd 91:Z Wd 90:Z A0 = dAb >a) E gHHHIHl•n •n••lnV 00all 0 aa•=I a 10•=I 0qrHI 0hIHI 00HI 0aa a10 0qr 0al 0 Wd 99:1 TC a)hOa),J(NI) srIaA sdtuv 1:aaG) ac Ca a B (S3 TB > ILI Ca: 1 LBUl (1)tO Ca) EEC) COS < It inal E3a r C0 BIS10 Ja5 I (SdI) uo!+eJqIA (WdU) paadS leuoltHOU a E3a an6 aad b6 tO a q m6 d d d N Ad d 0 80fbI 00 aapI a0 10pI 00qrpI 00 ChIHI 80HI 00aa 0010 a0qr 00r\I 0 g0al a)trI b = aUnI3al b0Wd 9£:Z I !!0al a) er0 = bd==I alC Wd 9Z:Z Wd 91;Z Wd 90:Z Wd 95:1 aCa)3 OF a) IE laa) a)al C/) 10C0 aPr 106 DC aL=0 = dAb & BH•HIHl•IHI E•=Hl• bZ 00q=1 0 an 0 aa 0b 010 0 Ln 0 q+0fr)0fbI aq-I 0 UC gba)-J iaMOdasioH (ZH) A3uanbarJ lndul BILL OF MATERIAL DENTON, TEXAS LAKEVIEW RANCH LIFT STATION 2 +4“ CP3127/483/10BHP/ 230V/3 Phase Pumps to provide 300 GPM at 61Ft. T.D.H. with: 2 n 2 n 2- 2- 2 B 2 a 2- Safety Chain Hook - Stainless Steel 4” Discharge Connection Power Cable X 50 Ft. each Kellum Cable Grips Upper Guide Bar Bracket - Stainless Steel Intermediate Guide Bar Bracket . Stainless Steel 3/16” Lift Chain X 35’ each . Stainless Steel }} 2 n 2 n 1- 1 n 1- 6” HDL Ball Check Valves 30” X 48“ 300 PSF Aluminum Access Cover Cable Holder - Stainless Steel ENM10/60Ft. Liquid Level Sensor Duplex Control Panel - NEMA 4 Enclosure - Ultrasonic Level Control with Low Float Back Up 1-Start Up Inspection NOTE: 1. 2. 3. No 4” X 6” Reducers provided. No Anchor Bolts, Gate Valves, or Stainless Steel Guide Pipe is provided. No Scada System or Flow Recorder is provided. J A CONFIG. CP/@ p T–T–-aNFJ C-3127 SEC TION 3 PAGE 27 Ritm£ 3 483 Impeller 6/94 2/96 90 a 8 !) B 8 BE g g gi 11 a) 80 70 60 h LULL g=Jac E 60 50 50 40 h LUIL ac= gZ +Hlnhb be\=BIIP 1)Z LU C)aLL LU O::D $a> 11 40 30 30 20 20 NPSHN 10 10 0 200 400 600 800 0 FLOW GPM Pump Station Evaluation Report Pecan Creek Basin - Preserve Lift Station Prepared For: bENTON Prepared By: Kimley »>Horn Evaluation Date: November 9, 2022 Report Date: January 23, 2023 Version Publish Date Description 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 Table 0.1 - Revision History Table 0.2 - Previous Evaluation History This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn. Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachments ............................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 Site Information . .,...... 1 1.2 SiteMap......................................................................................................................... 2 General Photos..............................................................................................................42 3 Condition Assessment..................................................................................................6 3.1 Civil Components ........................................................................................................... 7 Mechanical Components ................................................................................................ 93.2 3.3 Electrical Components.................................................................................................. 12 Pump Performance Tests ...........................................................................................14 Pump #1....................................................................................................................... 15 Pump #2....................................................................................................................... 19 Pump #1 and Pump #2 ................................................................................................. 23 Hydraulics Summary..................................................................................................... 24 System Curves ............................................................................................................. 24 Pipeline Velocities ........................................................................................................ 25 System Pressures – Pump #1....................................................................................... 25 System Pressures – Pump #2....................................................................................... 26 System Pressures – Pump #1 & Pump #2 .................................................................... 26 Texas C:omission on Environmental Quality Review ................................................28 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 6 Recommendations .......................................................................................................30 6.1 Overall Recommendations............................................................................................ 30 Miscellaneous Recommendations................................................................................. 316.2 7 Attachments.................................................................................................................32 Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1...................................................................................................... Test Data Graphs Attachment 2...........................................................................Supplementary Pump Information Attachment 3...................................................................................................... Record Drawings Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS V VFD VWW WW Yr Phase Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes: Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. evaluated the pump station through pump performance testing and a condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducting using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number: Date of Evaluation : Address: Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed: Station Style: Number of Pumps: Pump Type: Wet Well Material Wet Well Dimension Flow Meter Type: year of Construction / Rehabilitation : Basin/Zone: Firm Capacity (Design): Firm Capacity (Test): Discharge Description: Force Main Description: Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability Odor Control Miscellaneous Features: Preserve 11/9/2022 3901 Lakeview Boulevard, Denton, TX 33. 1 74423, -97.059749 Wastewater Submersible 2 Number of Pump Slots:3 Submersible Concrete, No Protective Coating Present 9.0’ x 14.5’ Ultrasonic Endress Hauser W-CL-1 F-L-B 2000 Based on: RE:hc:rd Drawings EIField Obsewation Pecan Creek Basin 2,600 GPM / 3.7 MGD 2,091 GPM / 3.0 MGD 10” Check Valve, 10” Plug Valve, 10” 90' Bend, 16“x10" Cross 8,210 LF of 16-inch DR-18 PVC FM discharging to a manhole 271 '/480 Wye Not Present, Quick Connect Installed Quick Connect Present on Slot #3 in valve vault Not Present N/A Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 1.2 SITE MAP LeggEd El Twt,dUR SbS,„ – Ra-1 nu – Riwr/StreanNVa8h[B URSBbm –>- £lOMawbnw#HMdn Eg Prtvab+y 1ChHA!!II(j L tf1[ 11SIILIII!I M + Innfewa Br drn -J ClassIc USed Car • PrIvate UK Sb,tk,n 0 aD 500 1.000n==r d I heh = it)tX) feet ,4 Kimley '»Horn Southfork LIft Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan . Lift Station Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 LaRawww1 Figure 1.2 - Site Aerial a+J I Legend 1-Motor Control Center 2-Wet Well 3-Valve Vault 4-Flow Meter Manhole 5-lnfluent Gravity Manhole 6-Transformer Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 GENERAL PHOTOS Photo 2.1 - Site Photo Photo 2.2 - Site Photo Preserve . Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Photo 2.3 - Interior Wet Well Photo 2.4 – Valve Vault Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station’s major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical. Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Score Description Blank Not Applicable 0 1 2 3 4 5 Component doesn't exist but is applicable. Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low. Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear, damage and corrosion . Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion. Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure. Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed. Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component I Score : Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints Wet Well Civil Other 2 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 Driveway with locked gate. Small truck turn around present. Low spot on-site, buildup of dirt on site in low spot. Quick Connect in valve vault present. 6’ chain link fence with 3-strand barbed wire. Gate with chain and lock Site lighting only present around motor control center. Wet pit difficult to access. Not within floodway but within 100-YR Zone AE floodplain. Wet well hatch is within the 100-YR floodplain. High moisture content in valve vault, standing water. Exposed aggregate. Table 3.2 - Civil Components Condition Scores Civil Condition Photos Buildup of dirt Photo 3.1 - Site Drainage Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Photo 3.2 – Valve Vault r=mMn ValgEM[!allURE Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Component I Score 1 Description Bolts Fittings Hardware Piping – Suction Piping - Discharge Pumps Valves – Check Valves - Isolation Valves - Other Ventilation Mechanical – Other 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Major corrosion in wet well and valve vault Major corrosion Pump 2 guide rail joint loose Surge buster, loud slam on pump off Major pipe corrosion Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Major pipe corrosIon corrosion b Photo 3.5 - Wet Well Discharge Pipe RWto 3.6 – Val,@/ W[$§ischa@e Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 IiI+g Major pipe corrosIon Major bolt corrosion 4 Photo 3.7 - Wet Well Vent Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Score 1 Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 No generator, quick connect installed Moisture and debris buildup, minor corrosion at bottom of the panel Table 3.4 - Electrical Components Condition Scores PhotosElectrical Condition [@MtM©Mma B Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Debris buildup Photo 3.9 – Panels Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method. See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are t1%. 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data Parameter Flow Measurement Method Primary Secondary On Site Flow MeterLevel Transducer (XAK-PACK) Pressure Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK)Liquid Filled Pressure Gauge Wet Well Level Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Volts Amps Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Fluke 376FCCurrent Transducers (XAK-PACK) Power Factor Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK)N/A Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value Pump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Pentair/Hydromatic S8LX12500FC Submersible/Non-Clog 13.375Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM 0/0 0/0 Ft RPM RPM No 2,600 123 9277 3,015 72.0% 61.3% Unknown 1800 1750 3 ATLMotor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP 460 125 1.20 172 Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt 87% Table 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% g > 50.0% : UE 40.0% 30.096 20.0% 10.096 0.0% 3500 4000 + Design Points n•HH MFG WTW Eff r u 1(X) U = 80 20 0 500 Pump Curve + Test Points 0 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Flow (GPM) ----. Eq. Affinity Curw n n nSystem Curve x WIW Eff e MFG Hyd Eff 140 120 100 nl = g 8 o860 b][ 40 20 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Flow (GPM) Olnp HP • Output HP @ NPSHa Table 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit ! Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) GPM 2,175 114.4 52% 121.2 129.9 Ft 0/0 HP Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) Amps FPS 2 2 80% 90% -5% N/A -5% -5% -10% -10% -10% 50% 50% 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 50/a 10% 10% 10% 105% 100% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FPS 8.9 72% 84% -6.2% 48.2 -1 7% 0% -3.1 % 0.8% 2.7% 75.5% 97% 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Summary 11: BEP Comparison (FSFO)0/0 2 3 4 5 Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve 0/0 % NPSHa Ft WTW Eff @ Operating Pt % Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance Hz 0/0 % 'yo Motor FLA % Motor Load Surge Vibration 0/0 1 -5 6 la G) a G)tn JQ0 Cavitation 1 -5 1 -5 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 Leaks Exterior Condition 1 -5 1 -5 Overall Score 1 -5 Table 4.4 - Pump#1 Test Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Pump #1 - Test Comments We recommend confirming the pump information and curves represent what is currently in service at the station. If the data and curve shown in Attachment 2 – Supplementary Pump Information are accurate, the following comments apply. 1. Discharge velocity through the 10” discharge piping is above the recommended upper limit. Operation in this range results in high head loss and increased wear inside piping and appurtenances. Consider revising piping size to obtain between 2 and 7 FPS. 2.The pump is operating at approximately 72% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable or an area of recommended operation is not given. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 3.The capacity design point, from the original manufacturer pump performance curves, is 2,600 GPM. The pump is operating at 84% of the capacity design point during normal operation. This is not an indication of the operation of the pump relative to the best efficiency point, as discussed in Comment 2, but highlights the discrepancy between actual pump output and what pumping capacity is available on paper, 4. Pump impeller appears to be either a different, reduced diameter impeller or the impeller and/or volute are severely worn. Determine the installed diameter and obtain an updated pump curve if necessary. 5. The tested WTW efficiency of 52% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump. 6 Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown; however, the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve on the force main becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results Parameter Units Value PentairPump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeiler Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases S8LX12500FC Submersible/Non-Clog 13.375Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % % Ft RPM RPM No 2,600 123 6049 3,015 72.0% 61.0% Unknown 1800 1750 3 ATLMotor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP 460 125 1.20 172 Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt 87% Table 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics 100% Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 200 100% 180 160 90% 80% 140 70% 2600, 123 120 60% n 100 8][ X C)ELU 50% : 80 40% 60 30% 20%40 20 10% 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Flow {GPM) '--''-'' Eq. Affinity Curve •ll'aneSystem CUrve X wr\N E# 6 MFG HydE# 3500 0% 4000 Pump Curve + Test F\Jints + Design Points 3 MFGWrw EK 140 120 100a = ! “ 8 60= a1 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Flow (GPM) 2500 3000 3500 4000 a Inp HP • Output HP a NPSHr Table 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs e NPSHa Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit ! Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) GPM 2,091 112.3Ft 0/0 52% 116.2HP Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Amps 133.1 FPS 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 50/8 50/o 10% 10% 10% 105% 100% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FPS 8.6 Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa 0/0 80%69%2 3 4 5 %90%80% OA -5% N/A -7.5% Ft 47.9 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance %-5% -5% -1 8% Hz 0% V -10%-2.9% 0/0 -10% -1 0% 0.5% 2.3%Current Imbalance % Motor FLA 0/0 50%77.4% Motor Load 0/0 50%92.9% Surge Vibration 1 -5 1 -5 6 laq)aq)inJa0 Cavitation 1 -5 Mechanical Noise Leaks 1 -5 Exterior Condition 1 -5 1 -5 3 Overall Score 31 -5 Table 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Pump #2 - Test Comments We recommend confirming the pump information and curves represent what is currently in service at the station. If the data and curve shown in Attachment 2 – Supplementary Pump Information are accurate, the following comments apply 1. Discharge velocity through the 10” discharge piping is above the recommended upper limit. Operation in this range results in high head loss and increased wear inside piping and appurtenances. Consider revising piping size to obtain between 2 and 7 FPS. 2.The pump is operating at approximately 69% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable or an area of recommended operation is not given. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 3.The capacity design point, from the original manufacturer pump performance curves, is 2,600 GPM. The pump is operating at 80% of the capacity design point during normal operation. This is not an indication of the operation of the pump relative to the best efficiency point, as discussed in Comment 2, but highlights the discrepancy between actual pump output and what pumping capacity is available on paper. 4. Pump impeller appears to be either a different, reduced diameter impeller or the impeller and/or volute are severely worn. Determine the installed diameter and obtain an updated pump curve if necessary. 5. The tested WTW efficiency of 51% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump 6 Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown; however, the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve on the force main becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.3 PUMP #1 AND PUMP #2 220 200 180 160 140 120i IU as= 100 80 60 40 a 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Flow (CPM) Single Pump Curve %--'•' Eq. Affinity Curve np nB wSystem Curve + Test Points Two Pumps Running in Parallel Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel. Figure 4.1 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Test Value 2,452 133.5 Comment Table 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of approximately 2,091 GPM and a tested total capacity of 2,452 GPM. The system does have high surges following pump shutdown. 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES Fbw [CPM) M M n System Curve #1 Measured Systen Curve #2 Design + DuignPoinB • Operating Points -Pl&P2 Parallel • Operating Points -SinglePump Below is a summary of the data shown in Figure 4.2 – System Hydraulic Information. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 CUIve Name CUIve Type Measured Design Calculated Based On System Curve #1 System Curve #2 Test Data Design Operating Condition Figure 4.2 - System Hydraulic Information Preserve . Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.6 FORCE MAIN VELOCITIES Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities displays the velocities in each known diameter of the pressurized conveyance system. The Average Test Output Velocity represents the velocity generated by the average pumping rate produced by testing. The Station Firm Capacity Velocity represents the velocity based on Dia (in) 16.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Force Main Fluid Velocity (FPS) 11 12 13 14 15 the station’s firm capacity (output with the largest pump out of service). The color gradient represents ranges of acceptable to problematic velocities. Red areas of operation are problematic and green areas of operation are acceptable Ex Average Test Output A Station Firm Capacity Figure 4.3 – Pipe Velocities 4.7 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 • Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge- related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 56 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 57.9 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 57.9 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the valve vault. Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.8 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #2 Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge- Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 53 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 58 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 58 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the valve vault. Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 4.9 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 & PUMP #2 Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 and Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions, Preserve . Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 56.5 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 58.6 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 58.6 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the valve vault. Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 and Pump #2 Further Surge Related Actions Perform extended period digital surge monitoring Perform calibrated surge modeling Revise operating scheme to reduce surge potential Evaluate piping system for pressure capacity and likelihood of failure Install physical surge mitigation strategies No further action Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 TEXAS COMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part 1, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: §217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: Pump Horsepower (hp) < 50 Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 50 - 100 > 100 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T ’ Q) / (4 ' 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 2,175 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 and Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 15 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 125 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (15 min x 2, 175 GPM) / (4 - 7.48) = 1,090.4 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Elev.) ' (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 5.0 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 9.0 (ft.)Wet Well Dimensions = 14'-6” x 9’-0" Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (9.0’ – 5.0’) * (14'-6" * 9’-0”) = 522.0 ft3 The lift station [DES NOT provide the minimum wet well volume. 6 Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 S21 7.67(a) Velocities - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Preserve has two (2) pumps. Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr - R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 2,091 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Largest Force Main Radius = 16.0-inch, DR-18 = 1.28 ft. ZH8.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (2,091 / 448.83) / (Tr * (1.28)2) = 3.62 feet per second The lift station DOES provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. a Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 Pump Performance Tests for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Site Rating Score 1 Description 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years +2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years 3 Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete. Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete. 4 0 Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Drainaqe – There is a buildup of dirt on site. We recommend regrading and adding crushed stone to provide positive drainage. 2. Floodproof – The site is currently located in the 100-year flood zone AE based on the FEMA Flood Map. We recommend protecting all components, including electrical, from flooding in accordance with Federal, State, and Local Government regulations. 3. Structures – There is a high moisture content and standing water in the valve vault. We recommend installing ventilation to allow air flow into and out of the valve vault and sealing any leaks in the hatch and/or pipe components. 4. Bolts/Fittings/Hardware - There is major corrosion in the wet well and the valve vault. We recommend replacing the components. 5. Discharqe Pipinq – There is major corrosion on the discharge piping within the wet well and valve vault. We recommend replacing the piping. 6. Pumps – Pump #2’s guide rail joint is loose, and the pumps are operating at, what appears to be, a reduced impeller condition. We recommend repairing the guide rail and confirming the type of pumps and impellers on site. 7. Check Valves – Both check valves slam loudly upon pump shutdown. We recommend investigating the cause of the slam, replacing or repairing the check valve, or taking further hammer mitigation strategies as necessary such as installing a vacuum valve in the valve vault 8 Ventilation – There is major corrosion on the wet well vent. We recommend replacing the vent 9. Panels – There is moisture and a buildup of debris in the panels posing an arch flash/fire risk. We recommend sealing leaks and cleaning the panel of dirt and debris 10. TCEQ – Workinq Volume – We recommended adjusting the pump set points to achieve the required working volume. 8.25’ between pump on and off is needed to achieve the required working volume. Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Preserve - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 E { aq96 aa a B (Sa rs > LU aa : a ISUl I a) EJCO 10 a (Wd9) Mali a E3a Wd 6£:Z Wd 9£:Z B0 LL aLI3laVIC \al a C9 LU 3 >al,J C) Wd OE:Z a) Ei-U rDDC CDa C a ar CDLU a) rD C B0£C/) a3 Ei- It GL=a = dIe &=n•Hll• E•=•Hl•\? 0b 010 0tri 0sr 0fr)0r\1 0pI 0 Wd ZZ:Z (W) IaAa1 IIaM iaM (ISd) anssard a8ieq=sla Sggil g:(b CaPI (B = (B >IU aa = aina E3a e a) EE C) 10 = < U 0 ,1 and 00d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO n +d d d cr)d ald A Od d Wd 6E:Z C) VI 6 > an VI g Wd EE:Z < VI I g Wd OE:Z IN0 = dIe>a) E ==•Hll• Rn•Hll•\f 00qr 0Lnfr) 00frI 0 Lnal 00 na a LnpI aQT-I 0Ln 0 Wd ZZ:Z tN-1) srI.A sdtuV IE =; aeg(b CaA ‘ ISa d> LU aar LBth Ca) EEC)10 a U a E3a Wd 6E:Z Wd 98:Z a) B0a a)V) B = 3al a0 aB0a a) 0 = 3alC md OE:Z M0 = dIe & E •IHI R=•ll• bZ 00T-1 0an 000 0b 010 0 Ln 9 0fr)0r\I 0!-1 0 Wd ZZ:Z raMOdasroH (ZH) A3uanbarJ tndul E { o416 aa a a (B = gIUaa a Bath Cq)EEQ 10U< (Wd9} MOII a Eaa 3aa tJC)3D E(a1- aJ >I LI C0 V)(a 3 a) Ei- IU alaC 10 a)ea id LLI a) 10 e3aa t/) a) Ei- + Ci=,0 = 43, >a) l•lllllllIH E•n••H•\d 0b 010 0 Ln 0sr a cr)0r\I 0FI a (U) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) unssad a8lequ!(] Ca a a (Sa (S > LU Ca a B LUUl Ca) E£O 10a U al Eaa 0 ,1 a OOd d b6 JopeJ JaMOd tO a qd d d frId N A Od d d CJ U-a C) 0 > U-a LLa < aD 10 0 > C) t/lal E<( < 0 > I V)alE < EL Ea( < C Lu0= Pgl >a) •lIHllllllll Enn•Hl•V IN-1) srIQA sdtuV taaa)ac Caa n (B = g IU aa a BaU) tnaal 10 (b I Ca) E =C)10U < a a E3a Wd 6S:Z Wd gS:Z Wd ES;Z Wd as:c g Wd LP:Z Wd W:Z Wd It:Z a)3aa a) B = 3a 30 a ga a) a = 3ala Cb0 = el >a) E \d nlllllllll• an•Hll• 00T-I a an 000 0b a10 0tri 0q+0 fr) 0 OII a HI 0 raModasioH (ZH) A3uanbarJ ]ndul taa a)fY Ca +ia3a > IU Ca a B LBU)a Eaa UlEal 10 (3 I C a) EI C) & U (Wd9) MOII Wd 9Z:E Wd EZ:E Wd OZ:E ["''=:=g al i Wd Pt;E Wd It;E Wd 80:E Wd SO:E B0 U- aC)3laV)C COb- a) > 0 La D a)-J C) C a) Ei-U IDlaa CDa C a cdLU a) CD C30£C/) C/) a) Ei- + I0= dIe >a) bZ Hl•lIHHH•l EannliB 0b 010 0 Ln a (1 a fr) 0 nJ 0T-I 0 (y) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssard aDeq 3sla i { aegG Ca a a eua g IU aaBaU) Ca) EE O(aUnIa a a E3a a q : and 00d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO U qd d d cr)d N A Od d d C) V) 6 > an V) 0 > <( 6 > C L=0 = dIe >a)=n•Hl• E nnnHll•\d tN-1) sil.A sduV Ca : a (S3••Hll• eu >hI Ca : B bBU) Ca) EE C)10iI a Eaa Wd gZ:E Wd £Z:E Wd OZ:E Wd IT:E iF Wd Pt:E Wd It:E Wd 80:E Wd SO;E G)B0a a) 6 = 3a 30 a30a a) S/) 6 = F3alC CL=a= oII & E \? HllIHll••• Hn••Hl• 00HI 0a)000 ab 0Lb 0Ln 0q+afrI 0r\I 0q=1 0 raMOdasr OH (ZHI AruanbarJ lndul SMPCO Linda . City df Denton H20gtimize ven 6.04 02/23/oo PUMP DATA SHEET HYDROMATIC Selection file: (untRIed} Catalog: HYDR060,MPC v 2Curve: $8L1750 In PoInt Flow: 2600 US gpmHead: 123 ft Pump: NCLOG3 -1800 SIze: S8US8LX Speed: 1750 rpm Dia: 13.375 in Ns: – Fluid: Water Temperature: 60 'F SG: 1 VIscosIty: 1.122 cP Vapor pressure: 0,2568 psIa Atm pressure: 14.7 psiaLimits: Temperature: 140 'F Pressure: 125 psig SpecIfic Speed: Sphere size: 4 in Power: – bhp Nss: –. NPSHa: – ft Piping:System: – Suction: – in Discharge: – inDimensions:Suction: -- in Discharge: 8 in Motoc 125 hp Speed: 1800 Frame: 444T NEMA Standard TEFC Enclosure sized for Max Power on Design Curve • Data Point –ft 200Flow: 2600 US gpm Head: 123 ft F/ll Eff: 72%160 -74 Power lll bhp NPSHr: - ft 120 72 • DesIgn Curve '-80 40 ,utoff Head: 164 ft a Shutoff dP: 71.2 psi Min Flow: 965 US gpm BEP: 73% eff @ 3015 US gpm NOL Pwc 123 bhp @ 3533 US gpm o1 N P S H r 160 lb h 80 iP • Max CUIve - Max Pwr: 156 bhp @ 3526 US gpm 6 nmm'ms -- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION -- Flow US gpm Speed rpm 1 750 1750 1750 1750 1750 Head R I09 123 136 147 154 Pump c7oeff 73 72 70 63 46 Power bhp 118 111 103 91 .2 88.4 NPSHr a Motor Motor %eff kW Hrs/yr Cost /kWh 3120 2600 2080 1560 1040 I • Company Name: erith Pump Company Pn8act Name: Authu NaIrn: Betty Jo Fwga son Date Created; 4£28/2000 If) HYDROI£ATIO. PENTAIR PUMP GROUP tI, ELECTRICAL DATA SHEEr FOR MODEL $8LX12500FC Non4;1og 8" Size -S8LX MQFIC warFarE a nD a f7TI [6 w(IMUM araFro TaTamB][sIgBnR)M)Br m ltically reset @ 3G35' C Differential, One in Single Phase. Twoin Three Phase Ms m Re It KaTEiR:map ;1 88LX1260DFC Page 4 Secdon NOH<ICH Page 513 Dated SEPTEMBER 1993 6", 8", and 12" NON-CLOG EXPLOSION PROOF SUBMERSIBLE SEWAGE PUMPS 1.01 GENERAL A Contractor shall nlrnish all laba, natuial8, egdpmeat and iiwidental3 nquired to provide clog 9ubmerdble centrifugal sewage pump(s) as wwi&ed herein JL 11 ( ) [1B B. (OPTIONAL) Pump shall in equipped with saiJess steel nameplate, guting the unit is accQad hr use in NEC class 1, division 1, group C, D hazardous locadans with third party, Factory Mutual, approval. 2.01 OPERATING coNDrrioNS J!I!IL =2bE :IIVr1: :[];:::iL t S IF1LJIII:: = lie=) IAw;t= =%bHs and=; purnp efncienw of n ,% and maximum input KW of /D a. g _„ KW. TIle pump shall be capable of handling a y " spherical salicl The pump shall be non-ovnloading throughout the endre range of opuatioa with-out employing service factor. The pump shall reserve a minirnurn $uviec factor of 1.20. Tbc performance curve submitted for approval shall state in addition to head and capadv pcrfomlanw, the pump eFniuley, solid handling capability, and reflect mom service facmr. 3.01 CONSTRUCTION A The pump shall be a centrifugal, aon4log, solids handling, sutxnergble, wastewater type, model 5 gl as manufauured by AllmrdHydn)made Puarps. The pump value, mata and seal housing shall be high qualiry gray cast iron, AgITM AJ+8, Class 30. Tbc pump discharge shall be fitted with a " sandard ASA 125 lb. flan©, faced and drilled. All exBma] madng parts shall be machined and Buna N Rubber O.ring sealed on a beveLed edge. All mating surfaces shall be flame proof joints with special labytinth joint to prevent a flame or span to travel to the media being pumped. Gaskets shall not be accephble. All fastenas exposed to the pumped liquids shall be 300 series stainless steel 3.02 ELECTRICAL POWER CORD A. Electdcal Power mId shall tn water resistant 600V, 60'’C. minimum, and applied dependent on amp draw for size B. The pump shall be triple FraMed witb acompnssian fittbrg and two epoxy potted areas at the power cord entry to the pump. A 3eparadon between dIe juncdon box areas of dIe pump and the motor by a stator lead sealing gland or terminal board shall not be acwptable. C. The power cable entry into the card cap assembly shall Smt tn made with a mmpnssion fitting. Each individual lead shall be 3uipped down to bare wire at staggered intervals, and each strand shall be individually sepwatecl This area of the cord cap shall then be filled with an epoxy compound Ex>tting which will prevent water contamination to gahr entry even in the event of wit:king or capillary attnctioa. D. The power cord leads shall then be connected to the motor leads with exaa heavy connectors having brass inwIt8 with a saewed wire to wire conrncdo& raGel alan a terminal board dat allows for pwsib Ie leaks. E. The connec6oa box wirin8 shall be sepuated from the motor housing wiring by suipplng each lead down to bare wire, at staggered innwals, and $eparrting each strand. This area shall be filled with an epoxy compound potting. fiberglass terminal boards which are subject to heat hague and cracking, and whiCh may lead to possible leaks shall not be acceptable F. The card cap assembly where bolted to the connection box assembly and the connccdon box assembly where bolted to the motor housing shall each be sea]ed with a Bum N Rubber O-ring on a beveled edge to assure proper scaling. q AURORA PUMPA UNIT OF G6NBH AL SIaN AL HYDROMATIC" PUMPS qttion NaH:ioG PHd 514 D,t,d WlIMIER 1993 i 3.af ( I' } MOTOR A The 8tatar, rotor and bearings 8baU be mounted in a sealed subrnudble type bawhrg. TIn lator windings 8han have Class F insulation, (155'C. or 311'’F.), and a dielwaic oil SEed maRX, NEMA B design (3 pha8e), NEMA L design, (single phase). Buause air-filled motors do not dissipate heat as efficiently as oil-611ed motw3, air. aRea desigm shall not tn aaepubl€. The pump and nur shall tn sp%iBcally designed so thai they may be operated partially dry or completely 9ubaw8ed inthe liquid tnia8 pumpe£l The pImp shall not require cooling w&@rjwke8;IMendenae upon, or use of, water j&ckeu for 5upplemmta! cooling shall not in uupUble. Sums shall be suwely held in place with a rww%bIc end ring and threaded fastams so they may in easily removed in the field without the ugo of beat m & Hess. St&hIS held by a heat shrink at shan not tn acceptable. Stators must be capable of being !epaked or nwound by local moM suvice nation Units which nquin service only by the fa€my shall not tH @aptable, No special tools 8hall be required for pump and moor di$©wmbly. D. Pump shall be equipped with heat season. The Ieat salsar(s) (mlc on single phan, two on three phase) shaD be a low rwistwxw, bI-meal disc that is kmpemtwe sensitive. It (they) shall be mounted dbectly in the swat and sized to open at 12CFC or 130'C, and auumadcaIly twat at 3eb35'c differential. The sensor shall be connected in sedu with the motor starter coil so that the starter is nipped if a heat SenSOr opens. The motor starter shall be aluipEnd with overload heaters (2.1og on gaBle phase: 3-leg on thru phase) w all numal overloads are protected by external heater block, 3.04 BEARINGS AND SHAFI A. An upper radial bearing and a lower thrust bearing shall be nquirea These shall be heavy xIuw single law ball bearings which are pemanantly lubricated by the didl@Bic oil which fills the motor b9using, Double row. seded gnase packed tnarings shall not be aaepmble Bearings which nquin !ubdcadan according to a prescribed schodule shall not be acceptable. The upper radial tnaring shall have a minimum B- IQ life at the speci£ed condition of 394hWD_ hours and the lower thrust bearing shall have a minimum B-10 life at the specifIed conditiun af nsEL hours. Bearings shan be locally available. B. The shaft shall be inactlined &am a solid 303 &tainles s steel and be a design which is of large qiameter with minimum overhang to reduce shgft defIecHoIl aId prolong bearing life. b f 3.05 SEALS A, The pump shall have two meehanieal seals, mounted in tandem, with an oil chamber between the seals. John Crane Type 21, BFICI, seals shall be used with the rotating seal faces Mag carbon and the stationary seal face8 to be ceramic. IIIe lower seal shall be replaceable without disassembly of the seal chamber and without the use of special tool$.'Pump•.out vans shall be present on the backside oftbeimpe11er to keep contaminants out of the seal are! Units which require the use of tungst&a4ubkle seals or foreign manufulwed seals shall not be acceptable. Seals shall be locally available. B, The pump shall & equipped with a 300 series suinlas steel shaft sleeve under the lower seal for added protection to reduce costly shaR work in the event of suI failure, The sleeve shall be keyed to the shaft and "Cy' ringed to prevent leakage under the sleeve Units which do not include a stainless steel shaft sleeve shall not be considered equal nor acceptable. C. The purnp shall be equipped with a seal leak detecdon probe and warning system. This shall be designed to alert rnainturance personnel of lower seal failwe without havbrg to take the unit out of service Rx inspection or nquirin8 access for checking seal cham hr oil level and consistency. D. ThIn shall tn an elunic probe or $eal failure sensor installed in the seal chamber between the two tandem mechanical seals. If the lower seal fails, contaminants which entu the seal chamtzr shall be detected by the sensor and send a signal to operate the specified warning device. I & Units equipped with opFnsed mechanical seals shall Int be accepuble.\\ , n. HYDROHATie’"' PUMPS A UNITtyjREeFl:aLtAIT (aS Section NON'CUB Page 51 S Oated SEFIEHBER 1993 I I I 3.06 IMPELLER A- .LrWller 6ball tn af the twovane. enclosed nornlaggiq design and have pdrnpout varies on the aunt ald backside af the impelln to IRwan grit wI otin aIatuials Bum conndn8 h an seal arez Siltgb vane design imlnUers which cmot be easily trimmed and which do not maintain balance with wear causing shaft dance_ tioas and nduc&lg seal and bearing life are not acceptable. Im£n11u shall not require coa6ng. Because most imln11er coatings do notrwaia beyond the very early life of the impellu, e£6dwcy and othulntfarmaru# dan submitted shall tn based on petfamaace with an uncoated impUer. Attempts D improve c£Eciency by aoa&B hlnller shall not tn @apbble. B. bnpllus shall tn hydraulically and sadally balanced. The tolaarxie values shall be as listed tnlaw accoMh8 to the Internadonal Standard C)rBaniadon grade 6.3 for rotors in rigid barnes. The toluanw is to be spUr equally between the two balaix;e planes which are the two irupellu $hrauds. MI 1150 870 Tolerance oRa%;ii=weight,ai-iii 026 in.oz./lb. af inlzll ar .03 in , oz./lb. of C The impellu shall be threaded sha or tapered shaft and key cbiven. A 3CX) sedw stainless sul washer and impella bolt shall be used to fasun the imp€11u n the shaft. Sbraght cnd shafts for attachment of the impeUer shall not be acceptable. 3.07 CASING A. The using shall tn of the end sucdon volute type-having sufficient strength and thickness to withsund all saess and stI&in hom service at full operadng pressure and load. The casing shall be of the centerUne discharge type equipped with an automatic pipe coupling urangemau for ease afiwtalladon and piping alignment. The desip shall be such that the pumps will be automatically connected to the discharge piping when lowered into poddan with the guide rail8. The %siag shall & accurately uwhined and band for register fits with the 5ucdon and aasing COvers. B. A volute case wearing daB shall be prnvided to minimim impeUer wear. The ww ring shall be alloy 230 brass, AJfFWJt3 and held by 3CX) suies sniraess steel fasteners. The wear ring shall tn easily replaceable in the field. Wear rings of any other material shall not tn acwpable. 3.08 PAINTING A The pump &hall be painted after a8sembly, but tnfore tesdng with an all:yd air dried enamel. The paint shall tx applied in one coat with a minimum mil thickness of 3 to 4 mUs. 3.09 SERVICEABILITY A- The complete routing assembly sEga tn cap8bJe af being removed aam the volute without di8trubing tbc suction piping, discharge piping, and value. The mocor housing, seal housing will seal plate and impeIIe: sCh attached to the shaft shall & capable of being lifted out of the volute case from the top as one assembly. 3.10 SUPPORT A, Though the pump may not require feel b SUPP>It the unit while installed, the pulp volutn must have feet to support the unit when removed for 8uvin. Units which do not have feet upon which the unit can be supported wha removed for service shall not be acceptable. 4.01 TESTING ) A. Cammacial bes dIg shall be nquind ard include the following: 1. The pump shall be visually inspected to confirm that it is built in accordaaa with the sp voltage, phase and hertz. ::frI as to HP, q AURORA PUMPA UNIT OF GBNER AL SIGNAL HYDROMATIC"" PUMPS B. a) B (\I iib !!'y IiI: ?’>gf= JaX: ,-'}'._;'&l= 1: 3 BfilliCH =–:' tx-:=--" ;';----'’"''----'’ \ ! HIiL r r r / / Ff • • I ++\ $ ita\'I'l 'IgI :;::,; I I'Ii 00306 IBagnVV ig i :; !!! : &1:1'1ol ! Hib=1; [iT;Iv :§€}i iiI}# f ; i ii Mi Wii$ H f $3 gil i§gk 8U)i :;. g g 8 e 8 gg BEgi\a 111l1 Ql i Igbt=1; q={LLI !itil $ ii ! III I !!' gla\O rs:9' X g 8 ;gFr; e 8 8 8Eg: 1:1:1 ,Ig IiiBig A !!!! 'n Ul B ;,1 t) H'\\\ q atOkg 8 :?IIf; :===< b/ \D WU : JV r& e(+ :i g g gE[:b, Ig iihl =1; H={ iIi} j§ gIg i gig i ;gilli i I ' IiI: i \O B ; ! ! ! i niHitf# -R } gB gE yigi ST;) B< b/\D 1l1l1 ali lili= M::LLI @lili IB ;..HillI i iIIO 1:11i \D OCOO+£SBSnWHH 3r gg !!! !!!E In LCFg i :; gg\n Jib = REIQ I:1lilLLI lllilil $ tIlII a g a i i i gFi oo'oabs9 IIU agWqV if : Fa br81 r q $ !!\a I:1'E 'Ii Hi IiI=1; $1 =11 E:ig; oovaFPZ nSallIBPHIBI OOVW$9 nS 3qrwv}a WI rAI qFr I g!!1Is gg;F ! I bt:i=1'1 g OOVWFL nSguHVBPX IF } are B R I ! ; 5i ! ! ! ! !!t 11 ;[ 11 11 : : q M 'III ! !! ! ! i ; ii gil % / yIa, :g gg 1=1,let g E: !! ii ' tiF‘\D Tag E i IE1111H E:HE gii : @;JA::I 9 / iT::\l FPI $ ;:; 1! ! \O Q RD gi ;; 1! ! \D e i g dad dd gg g ! !i i i ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! uN dVd + N doi g g g !; el Pump Station Evaluation Report Pecan Creek Basin - Southfork Lift Station Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley '»Horn Evaluation Date: November 9, 2022 Report Date: January 23, 2023 Version 1 Description 1 See Cover Original/Version 1 Table 0.1 - Revision History Table 0.2 Previous Evaluation History This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn. Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachments ............................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 Site Information .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Map......................................................................................................................... 2 General Photos..............................................................................................................4 Condition Assessment..................................................................................................8 3.1 Civil Components ........................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Mechanical Components .............................................................................................. 12 3.3 Electrical Components.................................................................................................. 13 Pump Performance Tests ...........................................................................................15 4.1 Pump #1....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Pump #2....................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Pumps #1 and #2 ......................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Hydraulics Summary..................................................................................................... 25 4.5 System Curves ............................................................................................................. 25 4.6 Pipeline Velocities ........................................................................................................ 26 4.7 System Pressures – Pump #1....................................................................................... 27 4.8 System Pressures – Pump #2....................................................................................... 27 4.9 System Pressures – Pump #1 & Pump #2 .................................................................... 28 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Review.............................................29 Recommendations ......................................................................................................31 6.1 Overall Recommendations............................................................................................ 31 6.2 Miscellaneous Recommendations................................................................................. 32 Attachments.................................................................................................................33 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1...................................................................................................... Test Data Graphs Attachment 2...........................................................................Supplementary Pump Information Attachment 3................................................................................ Wet Well Elevation Information Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS V VFD VVIW WW Yr Phase Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours:Minutes:Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. evaluated the pump station through pump performance testing and a condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducting using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number: Date of Evaluation : Address: Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed: Station Style: Number of Pumps: Pump Type: Wet Well Material Wet Well Dimension Flow Meter Type: Year of Construction / Rehabilitation: Basin/Zone: Firm Capacity (Design): Firm Capacity (Test): Discharge Description : Force Main Description: Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability Odor Control Miscellaneous Features: Southfork 11/9/2022 267 Laurel Lane, Denton, TX 33.274333, -97. 121611 Wastewater Wet Pit / Dry Pit 2 Number of Pump Slots:2 Submersible Concrete, No Protective Coating Present 6-Foot Diameter Ultrasonic Meter Circa 1990 Based on:HRecord Drawings []Field Observation n Other Pecan Creek Basin 250 GPM / 0.36 MGD 203 GPM / 0.29 MGD 4-inch check valve, 4-inch gate valve, 4-inch discharge lines tee into a 6- inch pipe 6-inch, 5,473 LF FM of unknown material discharging to a manhole 120/240 Delta High Leg No Generator on Site, MTS Installed No Bypass Ability, MTS Present Not Present N/A Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 1.2 SITE MAP Southfork LIft Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan . LIft StatIon Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 in 3 Figure 1 .2 - Site Aerial Legend 1-Wet Well Rim 2-Dry Pit Access Hatch 3-Flow Meter Manhole 4-Motor Control Center 5-Transformer Pole Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 GENERAL PHOTOS %; ,tri , . ); Photo 2.1 - Site Photo I } =+& Photo 2.2 - Wet Well Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Photo 2.3 - Dry Pit Entrance Photo 2.4 - Pump #2 Pump & Suction Piping Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Photo 2.5 - Pump #2 Discharge Photo 2.6 - Pump #l Suction Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Photo 2.7 – Pump #1 Discharge Photo 2.8 – Flow Meter Manhole Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station's major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical. Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Score Description Blank Not Applicable 0 1 2 3 4 5 Component doesn’t exist but is applicable. Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low. Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear, damage and corrosion . Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion. Component may have minorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure. Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionality and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed. Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions '+'Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component I Score ! Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penet rations/Joints Wet Well Civil Other 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 No access driveway or designated parking Signs of erosion No bypass available, MTS present No fence. All control panels are locked. Dry pit and wet well are difficult to service Site is located in Zone A floodplain General signs of deterioration Concrete cracking, major corrosion at dry pit entrance, standing water in flow meter vault Major corrosion on wet well entrance and exposed aggregate on wet well walls Table 3.2 - Civil Components Condition Scores Civil Condition Photos HiiiB-:Concrete Slab Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Major corrosion k '>PM&M&?' /:Wt ' - ,aex Photo 3.2 – Dry Pit Entrance Photo 3.3 - Flow Meter Vault Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Major corrosion Photo 3.4 - Wet Well Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Ca Score 1 Description Bolts $ 3 Fittings ; 3 Hardware 1 3 Piping – Suction 1 3 Piping – Discharge i 3 Pumps 1 4 Valves - Check 1 3 Valves – Isolation 1 3 Valves – Other 1 3 Ventilation ] 3 Mechanical – Other 1 3 Mite 3.3 - Mechanical Components Condition Scores Mechanical Condition Photos Pump 1 has a loud bearing noise and minor corrosion Photo 3.5 – Pump #1 Suction Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Component I Score 1 Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 3 3 0 3 3 4 3 3 3 Not present, quick connect installed Major corrosion in Flow Meter Panel and RTU Panel Table 3.4 - Electrical Components Condition Scores PhotosElectrical Condition Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 e P VT 11 8 aH Major corrosion Pho TMm Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method. See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11% 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data Parameter Flow Measurement Method Primary N/ALevel Transducer (XAK-PACK) Secondary Pressure Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK)Liquid Filled Pressure Gauge Wet Well Level Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Volts Amps Voltage Probes (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Fluke 376FCCurrent Transducers (XAK-PACK) Power Factor Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK)N/A Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value PentairPump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases 5432B Solids Handling 11.30 250 Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % % Ft RPM RPM No 123 10624 653 44.96 36.40 Off the Curve 1800 1750 Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA ATL Volts HP 230/460 20 1.15 53.0/26.5 Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt 88.5 Table 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics 100.0 Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 (Southern Pump) Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 200 180 160 140 120 ICD.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% li > 50.(M Ea) E 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1000 + Design Points O MFGWTW Eff 80 60 40 20 0 Flow (GPM) ----• Eq. AffinitY Curve n n' nSystem Curve X wrwEff e MFGtlyd EH Pump CUIve + Test Points 50 45 40 35a = 30 g 2 5 g 200 1 IS 10 5 0 0 200 a Inp HP Flow (GPM) 400 600 • Output HP O NPSHr NPS Ha• 800 1000 Table 4.3 - Pump #1 Test Results Graphs Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) GPM 216 Ft 123.3 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 105% 115% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) %36.3% HP 18.7 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Amps 37.4 FPS 5.5 Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa FPS 5.5 80%33% 90%87%2 -5%-1 .0% N/A 43.3 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) -5c70 -0.1 % Hz -5%0% 0/0 -10%11 . 1 %3 4 5 Motor FLA 50%70.6% Motor Load Surge Vibration 50%93.5% 1 -5 la Q)aq)inJO0 Cavitation 1 -5 1 -5 Mechanical Noise 1 -5 Leaks Exterior Condition 1 -5 1 -5 1 Overall Score 41 -5 Table 4.4 - Pump #1 Test Summary Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Pump #1 - Test Comments The pump is operating at approximately 33% of the best efficiency point during normal operation Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2 The capacity design point, from the pump tag, is 250 GPM. The pump is operating at 87% of the capacity design point during normal operation. This is not an indication of the operation of the pump relative to the best efficiency point, as discussed in Comment 1, but highlights the discrepancy between actual pump output and what pumping capacity is available on paper. 3,Input voltage deviates more than 10% of the nominal value. This can lead to overheating in the motor. Review electrical system for potential causes and consult electrical provider as necessary. Monitor voltage and motor condition regularly. 4.Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. 5. Bearing in the motor was emitting mechanical noise during operation, consider servicing in the near future. 6. Considerable exterior corrosion was observed on the outside of the volute, suction, and discharge of the pump. 7. Due to the comments above regarding the pump output and the reported frequency maintenance required, this overall condition of the pump and pumping system is a 4. While the pump is still operational, replacement of the pump and pumping system is recommended to achieve optimal performance and reliability. Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Value PentairPump Manufacturer Pump Model Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases 5432B Solids Handling 11.30 250 123 18937 653 44.96 34.70 Off the Curve 1800 1750 3 Inches GPM Ft Hours GPM % % Ft RPM RPM No Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Volts HP 230/460 20 1.15 53/26.5 88.5Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfg. Starter Eff. @ Operating Pt Table 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 (Northern Pump) a Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 200 180 160 140 120 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 80 60 40 20 0 Pump Curve + Test PoInts 40.0% 30.0% 20.O% 10.0% 0.0% 1000 + Design Points MFa WTW Eff Flow (CPM) ---- ' Eq . Affinity Curve walpeSystem Corn X wrw E# 6 MFG HPI Eff 200 o Inp HP 100 400 500 600 700 Flow (GPM) • Output HP o NPSHr Table 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 300 900 @ NPSHa Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 'arameter Units I Lower Limit 1 Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO)GPM 203 Average TDH (FSFO)Ft 121.2 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) 33.1 % HP 19.0 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO)3 Amps FPS 43.5 5.2 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 105% 115% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 la g in 81 Average Output (FSFO) El Affinity Law Eq. Curve FPS % 5.2 80%31 c70 90% -5% 81 %2 3 4 5 0/0 -2.00/o NPSHa 0 43.0 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt -5%-5.6% Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Hz -5%0% V -1 0%11.1 % Motor FLA 50% 50% 82.1 % 94.8%Motor Load Surge Vibration 1 -5 1 -5 la Q) a G)inJa0 Cavitation Mechanical Noise 1 -5 1 -5 1 Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score 1 -5 1 -5 1 1 -5 4 Table 4.7 - Pump #2 Test Summary Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Pump #2 - Test Comments The pump is operating at approximately 31% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2.The capacity design point, from the original manufacturer pump performance curves, is 250 GPM The pump is operating at 81% of the capacity design point during normal operation. This is not an indication of the operation of the pump relative to the best efficiency point, as discussed in Comment 1, but highlights the discrepancy between actual pump output and what pumping capacity is available on paper. 3. WTW efficiency deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point 4. Input voltage deviates more than 10% of the nominal value. This can lead to overheating in the motor. Review the electrical system for potential causes and consuFt with the electrical provider as necessary. Monitor voltage and motor condition regularly 5.Zero pressure values were observed during pump shutdown, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. This can cause severe damage to the force main piping or complete pipe failure if an air release valve becomes clogged. Consider installing air release valves in the valve vault. 6 Leaking was observed at the joint where the volute and motor flange connect. 7. Major exterior corrosion was observed on the outside of the volute where leaking wastewater occurs 8. Due to the comments above regarding the pump output and the reported frequency maintenance required, this overall condition of the pump and pumping system is a 4. While the pump is still operational, replacement of the pump and pumping system is recommended to achieve optimal performance and reliability Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 Flow (GPM) Single Pump Curve -....... Eq. Affinity Curve an u' uSystem Curve + Single-Pump Design Points + Test Points Parallel Pump Curw Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel. Figure 4.1 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit I Comment GPM 227.2 Ft 129.2 Table 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Pump #1 & #2 - Test Comments 1. Pump operation indicates potential minor wear on the impeller. Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4,4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of 203 GPM and a tested total capacity of 227 GPM The system does have concerning negative surges following pump shutdown. 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES qPdPdPdPdPdIP dedpPa gP SIP BIP 0 SO 100 150 200 Flow (CPM) 250 300 350 w w w System Curve #1 Measured System Curve #2 Design A Avg Operating Point + Design Points • Operating Points - Single Pump • Operating Points . Pl & P2 Parallel Below is a summary of the data shown in Figure 4.2 - System Hydraulic Information. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference. Figure 4.2 - System Hydraulic Information Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.6 PIPELINE VELOCITIES Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities displays the velocities in each known diameter of the pressurized conveyance system. The Average Test Output Velocity represents the velocity generated by the average pumping rate produced by testing. The Station Firm Capacity Velocity represents the velocity based on the station’s firm capacity (output with the largest pump out of service). The color gradient represents ranges of acceptable to problematic velocities. Red areas of operation are problematic and green areas of operation are acceptable. Dia n [ 6.0 1 20 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Force Main Fluid Velocity (FPS) 11 12 13 14 15 A Average Test Output A Station Firm Capacity Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.7 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #l shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2- second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 53.6 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 43 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 53.6 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault. Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 4.8 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #2 Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 - Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 53.4 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 47 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 53.4 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault, Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 4.9 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 & PUMP #2 Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 and Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 55.5 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 0 PSI, however the actual pressure may have dropped below 0 PSI and was unable to be measured. The maximum pressure was approximately 53 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 55.5 PSI. It is likely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present in the flow meter vault. Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 and Pump #2 Further Surge Related Actions Perform extended period digital surge monitoring Perform calibrated surge modeling Revise operating scheme to reduce surge potential Evaluate piping system for pressure capacity and likelihood of failure J Install physical surge mitigation strategies No further action Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions 6 Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part I, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: §217.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table power Minimum Cycle Times (min) 6 70 15 Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T * Q) / (4 - 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 203 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 and Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 6 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 20 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (6 min x 203GPM) / (4 * 7.48) = 40.71 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Elev.) * (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 3.5 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 8.5 (ft.) Wet Well Dimensions = 6’ Diameter Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (8.5’ – 3.5’) * ((6.0’/2)A2 * Tr) = 141.37 ft3 The lift station DOES provide the minimum wet well volume. Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 5217.67(a) Velocities - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily. Southfork has two (2) pumps. Force Main Velocity = (Q/ZH8.83) / A = Q / (Tr ' R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 203 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Largest Force Main Radius = 3.0-inch = 0.25 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (203 / #18.83) / (Tr * (0.25)2) = 2.30 feet per second The lift station DOES NOT provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. 0 Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 Pump Performance Tests for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6. 1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Site Rating ! Score ! Description 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years. 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 5.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years 3 Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete. +Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until replacement is complete. 4 While the station is still functioning, there are a number of items that should be corrected such as no driveway access, limited truck access to site for major maintenance, proximity to homes, lack of security fence, lift station in the floodplain, surcharging gravity lines during normal operation, and confined space access for pump maintenance. Due to these items, the overall age and condition of the site, and the pump performance it is recommended that the station be replaced. Below are several miscellaneous recommendations if the station is to remain in place and in service. Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Access - There is no access driveway leading to the site. We recommend installing an access drive 2. Drainage - There are signs of ponding and erosion on the site. We recommend regrading and adding crushed stone to provide positive drainage. 3. Bypass Pumpinq – There is currently no way to bypass the wet well. We recommend installing a bypass riser connection on the force main in the flow meter vault. 4.Security – There is no fence on site. We recommend installing a fence with a lockable gate. 5. Serviceability- Serviceability is limited due to restricted access to the dry pit. We recommend considering a different style station when rehabilitating or replacing the site. 6. Floodplain - The site is currently located in the 100-year flood zone AE based on FEMA Flood Maps. We recommend protecting all components, including electrical, from flooding in accordance with Federal, State, and Local Government regulations. 7 Inlet Pipes – The inlet pipes to the wet well are surcharged during normal operations. 8. Structures – The concrete base has settled and cracked, there is major corrosion on the dry pit entrance, and the flow meter vault is flooded. We recommend sealing the concrete cracks and evaluating for structural integrity, replacing the dry pit entrance, and sealing leaks and installing a drain or sump pump to prevent future flooding in the flow meter vault. 9 Wet Well – The wet well entrance is severely corroded. We recommend replacing the entrance. 10. Pumps – Pump #1 has a loud bearing. We recommend repairing or replacing the component. 11. Panels – There is major corrosion in the flow meter panel and major corrosion and clutter in the RTU panel. We recommend cleaning both panels before corrosion progresses and evaluating the source of corrosion. 12. Air Release/Vacuum Valve – We recommend taking further hammer mitigation strategies as necessary such as installing a vacuum valve in the flow meter vault. Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Southfork - Pump Station Evaluation Report January 2023 Eaaq)ac Ca: a IS3a > IU Ca H a ain U)=al LU CD I Ca) EEO # a E =a (Wd9) MO11 Wd 60:ZI Wd 90:ZI md EO:ZI Wd 00:ZI g WV IS:IT WV PS:IT WV IS:IT Si a 3a LL a)3 E Ba El bJ3Tt/)Cg I C)E l 3 --1 a a) Ei-D faUC ca ar C a rdLU a) rDC B0£C/) a; Ei- + ;0 = 4\ & bZ HBll•ll•IIII Ean•Hll• ty) IaAa1 II,M r3M (ISd) unssud a8reqrsla Caaa ac Ca: a IS3 (S > 111 Ca: b aU) UlEal La(9 I C a) ErO 10 a : a Eaa 0 ,1 a OOd d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO U +d d 6 cr)d (\Id d Od d C) V) 0 > on V) 0 > < 0 > a L=0 = dIe >a) U•HIHll• Eau•Hl• bZ (N-1) srI% any b : a R & Paa Eaa Wd 60:ZI Wd 90:ZI md tO:ZI 8 U-Wd 00:ZI WV ZS:It WV PS:It WV IS:It d3aa a) a = 3al30 aB0a a) :/)a = +3alC ;0 = /4, & E bZ =n•Hll• •n•Hla 0arl 0al 000 0b 010 aLn asr 0fr)ar\I 0T-1 0 raMOdasr OH {zH) A3uanbuJ ]ndul taaq)al Ca R & (S3a >IU Ca : aaUl tnaal 10 (b I I a) E =Oi a a E3a (Wd9) MaII Wd 6Z:ZI Wd 9Z:ZI Wd EZ;ZI G) a Wd OZ:ZI a md iT:ZI Wd VI:ZI Wd IT:ZI 30 LL aaE 30 LL i3TV)C ba: C) C C/) LU 3 a a) Ei-U CDlaa CD ar C a Mdca LU a) ca C B0£ C/) a; Ei- C L=0 = 4:i &•lln•Hl• E•n•Hll•\,? 010 0Ln 0qr 0fn 0r\I 0FI 0 ty) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) anssard a8reqrsla 3 : a H R ga E =a 0 a 00Pi d d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO n +d d d fr)d N A Od d d (J LLa LL & C) V) 0 > < LLa an VI g EL E<( C) < JC:0 > aa F; E <( <( V)al E <( W0 = 41 >a)=n== E•n•Hll• bZ tN-1) srIaA sdtuV CaU (S3 (S > LU Ca: aaU) Ca) EEO CD = < a E3a Wd 6Z:ZI Wd 9Z:ZI Wd EZ:ZI Wd OZ:ZI PHd it:ZI Wd Pt;ZI Wd IT:CT a)B0a a) a = 3al30 a ga a) if:0 = +13QC I a SnH0 = dIe > aJ E bZ I R=•ll• 00•-I 0an 000 aN 010 0Ln 0qF 0fr)0r\1 0FI 0 JaMOdasr OH (ZH) AruanbarJ tndul taaG) De aa fWl IS3 Ts > LU CaA IS+Jin triJCal LU CD I rHa)E=C) & a E =a (Wd9) MOII Wd 60:1 Wd tO:I Wd SO:t md tO:I Wd TO:I md 65:ZI Wd IS:ZI Wd SS:ZI g) md ES:ZI a a) Wd IS:ZI a Wd 6P:ZI md It:ZI Wd SP:ZI Wd Et:ZI Wd It:ZI Wd 6£:ZI Wd It:ZI Wd St:ZI md EE:ZI Wd IE:ZI at Ei- E CDlaC CDa C a idLU a) CD eB0a t/)a) Ei- + M0 = /a\ >a)B•Hlllllll• E•=•ll• bZ 0 tO 0 Ln 0sr 0fr)0N 0pI 0 ty) IaAa1 IIaM ;3M (ISd) unssud a8reqrs!(I 8: a ;aa E =a 0 ,1 and 006 Nd JO}3eJ JaMOd to a qd d 6 fr)d N !-l Od d d Wd 60:1 md 10:1 Wd SO:I md tO:I KId tO:I KId 6S:ZI INd £S;ZI 1/Hd SS:ZI md ES:ZI Wd IS:ZI md 69:ZI md iP:ZI Wd St:ZI U\Id EP:ZI + tIS md TV:ZI hId 6E:ZI KId ZE:ZI I/Vd SE:ZI INd EE:ZI Wd IE:ZI 00Elqr U LLa on LLa <( LLa (J V)al E <( EL E<( GO CL=0 = 4:1 > aJ EV •HlIHIHIR •n•gila <( C/)al E<( (N-1) SIlaA sdtuV i {&B Ca : a(q = R > LU Can a ISin C q) EaO 10 R a E3a Wd 60:1 Wd 10:1 Wd SO:I md tO:I Wd TO:I md 69:ZI md ZS:ZI md SS:ZI md Eg:ZI iF md IS:ZI Lt Wd 6t:ZI Wd It:ZI Wd SP:CT md Et:ZI Wd IP:ZI Wd 6£:ZI Wd ZE:ZI Wd SE:eT Wd EE;ZI md IE:ZI a)B0a a) a = 3al 30 I a 30a a) a = 3alC C0 = dAb & E \f Hll•n•Hl• Rn•HlIH a0HI 0an 000 ab 0 10 0 Ln 0qF 0fr)0al aHI raMOdasr OH (ZH) A3uanbaJ }ndul $ PENTAIR Customer Project name Pentair Default Pump Performance Datasheet Encompass 2.0 - 22.4.1 Item Number / Tags Service Quantity Quote number : 001 :1 : 996865 Size Stages Based on curve number Date last saved : 4" 5433K 1 : 4-54x3K-1 800-T4CI AA Rev 161028 : 21 Dec 2022 4:28 PM Operating Conditions Flow, rated Differential head / pressure, rated (requested) Differential head / pressure, rated (actual) Suction pressure, rated / max NPSH available, rated Site Supply Frequency Performance Speed criteria Speed, rated Impeller diameter, rated Impeller diameter, maximum Impeller diameter, minimum Efficiency NPSH required / margin required nq (imp. eye flow) / S (imp. eye flow) Minimum Continuous Stable Flow Head, maximum, rated diameter Head rise to shutoff Flow, best eff. point Flow ratio, rated / BEP Diameter ratio (rated / max) Head ratio (rated dia / max dia) Cq/Ch/Ce/Cn [ANSI/HI 9.6.7-2010] Selection status 250.0 USgpm : 123.0 ft 123.0 ft : 0.00 / 0.00 psi.g : Ample : 60 Hz Liquid Liquid type Additional liquid description Solids diameter, max Solids diameter limit Solids concentration, by volume Temperature, max Fluid density, rated / max Viscosity, rated Vapor pressure, rated Material Water 0.00 in 3.00 in 0.00 % : 68.00 deg F 1.000 / 1 .000 SG : 1.00 cP : 0.34 psi.a : Synchronous : 1750 rpm : 11.30 in : 12.00 in : 9.00 in : 44.96 (yo : - / 0.00 ft : 27 / 78 Metric units : 88.00 USgpm : 148.3 ft : 20.53 c70 : 653.0 USgpm 38.29 % 94.17c70 87.19 % 1.00 / 1 .00 / 1 .00 / 1.00 Acceptable Material selected Pressure Data : Cast Iron Maximum working pressure Maximum allowable working pressure Maximum allowable suction pressure Hydrostatic test pressure Driver & Power Data (@Max density) : 64.18 psi.g 85.00 psi.g N/A 125.0 psi.g Driver sizing specification Margin over specification Service factor Power, hydraulic Power, rated Power, maximum, rated diameter Minimum recommended motor rating Max Power 0.00 % 1.00 7.77 hp 17.27 hp 24.87 hp 30.00 hp / 22.37 kW 200 180 12,00 in 160 140 120HE IIFHi 100 80 60 40 20 32 24 16 8a 0 IE 40 20 -100 Minimum Continuous Stable Flow • Max allowable flow regIon Flow - USgpm 800 900 1 ,000 1, 100 1 ,200 $ PENTAIR ODESSA PUMPS - ODESSA TX ODESSA. TX PHONE: . FAX: PH B UP 4 P P +• + h+&VO g\g ( a: Ulaaca Ul =bZa V) E < &iI.1 an'( re < > aZ <J <a Ula 10 a 0 aa elU >BIU aUi > BUt) a b) B > aiaa < AU > a h 8b elelU2bi V)Za ;aZaU C)Z ; < ac LUaa >a aUbel Ub;! UlqI T b > < B ISiVI a 4 UI deAR56UfOJO Ia glurk @e) = !JIB < >ah in aU !Ia a 3a ! 1 b b I 2 a ;1 : UUh2 <B <a IS Li a }\ I U > i, ba da J <i Ua J <a: IUZIN tS > B ZU b b RB J\) a:'lai.gl' U b <a :e 'dli .gl \ ; b UIUI P]4 >0E laB < El I elZ < Ja 8 <a :3 le \ a >B ; <baB B0b aJ tg U Na Uaa (9i 7 U: g 11- E g 1Q aZ ,1 < LI I ID A i I I [{,/: Fr F:Ii at Ula Dea Ba : I g V)b ac <a HIJ Ea < a < > aI J < C) E 4/) .Q 0 02 aaa : )ZIa ala > BIU aU It b'e UU BiU > \Pa& > lb E -1:>a aUhelUb Ula iUa 8 dII > a0 VIa83B 8 = > 0. V)Za A aZ0 ,D1 O2 ; < DeUlL0 ;! e) qBUZbi Tb > <aU del a < hII nJSOnO130 Rd0 iSliErub IR+)li aU !Ia a liI ba J 2a bUa el laah2 < B <D IS I2a O WtH > \N >i CI ia -rID bUlb '©,I i VI g g i i J <a( LUZla CS a e;Na lga:o hHID Ca 1iB > i HkE U BI F3Ua :e> al B 11 ; Uli > B e ba a. ! 20FB PP UinIUai3n -1 6 2 < a a 23 b \ J lg ; <adJ3a Ue2iI a UN a -'nHIB !Sea+b+Lb LIS;\ \\di+++ LIFT STATION NAME .C:E 'Lq : + b3 . MH IDENTIfIER: A+d+' 918.7+ OVqrC t+hI out FnFtuent nin laverr Etev. Alun m etev. J C+her nuR ' Leg oas an Elev =n_ L+ad panOS an tIe All p OOPS OFF ney • Bl.bS bd+,.. qs .SL q2.rt q3. Iq 87. II XJcc GCe +b 3.4and' bId beI\ Le,a ?u„,p b,J : L46 Pump Odi IC. ll + q3.&4 BIS ' +' VB' bl q.s' + f3' &q 3 .g ’ t $3.b'i ?,„Vb 64; Hi,h bell AIM" / to.BD f g3 . (,g e qB . &q Pump Station Evaluation Report Pecan Creek Basin – Vacation Village Lift Station Prepared For: DENTON Prepared By: Kimley »>Horn Evaluation Date: February 9, 2022 Report Date: March 16, 2023 Version 1 Description I See Cover Original/Version 1 Table 0.1 - Revision History Table 0.2 - Previous Evaluation History This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service1 is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn. Pump Station EvaluatIon Report March 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachments ............................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 Site Information .... . 1.2 Site Map General Photos................................................................................................... Condition Assessment 3. 1 Civil Components . 3.2 Mechanical Components .. . 3.3 Electrical Components Pump Performance Tests . 4.1 Pump #1 .............................. 4.2 Pump #2.............., 4.3 Pumps #1 and #2 . 4.4 Hydraulics Summary. ........... 4.5 System Curves . ... . 4.6 Pipeline Velocities 4.7 System Pressures – Pump #1. .. , 4.8 System Pressures – Pump #2....................... 4.9 System Pressures – Pump #1 & Pump #2 .... Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Review.................................... Recommendations ............................................................................................. 6.1 Overall Recommendations. . .. . ... . .. . .. .. . . . .. 6.2 Miscellaneous Recommendations Attachments........................................................................................................ 2 3 18 .. 22 26 .. 27 27 28 28 29 ,.. 29 5 6 7 Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1...................................................................................................... Test Data Graphs Attachment 2...........................................................................Supplementary Pump Information Attachment 3...................................................................................................Record Information Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ABBREVIATIONS a AC ADD ADF ARR ATL Avg BEP CL Disch ETM FLA FM Ft FPS FSFO Gal GPM HGL HP Hrs H:M:S Hz In Invln KWH L L1, L2, L3 MSL MTBF N P PCL PCP PF PSI PT RPM TDH TVSS V VFD vrrw WW Yr Phase Alternating Current Automated Draw Down Average Daily Flow Automated Rate of Rise Across The Line Average Best Efficiency Point Center Line Discharge Elapsed Time Meter Full Load Amps Force Main Feet Feet Per Second Full Speed Full Open Gallons Gallons Per Minute Hydraulic Grade Line Horsepower Hours Hours: Minutes:Seconds Hertz Inches Invert in Kilowatt-Hours Length Leg 1, 2 & 3 or Length 1, 2 & 3 Mean Sea Level Mean Time Between Failures Neutral Pump Pump Center Line Pump Control Panel Power Factor Pounds Per Square Inch Point Revolutions Per Minute Total Dynamic Head Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor Volts Variable Frequency Drive Wire To Water Wet Well Year Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. evaluated the pump station through pump performance testing and a condition assessment. This report summarizes the data and results of that evaluation. The performance tests were conducting using the XAK-PACK pump performance monitoring device. The following pages provide summaries of the data collected and notes about the pumps' performance. 1.1 SITE INFORMATION Site Name/Number: Date of Evaluation: Address: Coordinates: Fluid Conveyed: Station Style: Number of Pumps: Pump Type: Wet Well Material Wet Well Dimension Flow Meter Type: Year of Construction / Rehabilitation : Basin/Zone: Firm Capacity (Design): Firm Capacity (Test): Discharge Description : Force Main Description: Electrical Service: Site Generator: Bypass Ability Odor Control Miscellaneous Features: Vacation Village 2/9/2023 5200 Lakeshore Lane #8, Denton, TX 33.195539, -97.045877 Wastewater Suction Lift 2 Number of Pump Slots: 2 Self-Priming Solids Handling Concrete, No Protective Coating Present 6-Foot Diameter Endress Hauser Prosonic 91. Not operational at time of test. Circa 1991 Based on: :::hc:rd Drawings EIField Obsewation Pecan Creek Basin Unknown 256 GPM / 0.37 MGD 6-inch 90 Degree Bend, 6-inch check valve, 6-inch Gate Valve, 6-inch x 8- inch Reducer, 8-inch discharge line 8-inch, 6,941 LF FM of cast iron discharging to a manhole 240/480 Corner Ground Delta No Generator on Site, MTS Installed Bypass Connection Installed on Pump #1. MTS Present Deodorizer Block N/A Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 1.2 SITE MAP Tested Lift Staticn a L1H111 S111b111 11jkC) n a=HPrivately Owned UR Statim R + ie i :i b I + \V IH nr\ b L'P1+“ tiW.0000250500 mAI irBh Road RM rash slCbinctr Wastewater I:iI;,' i VacatIon Wllage LIft Station Denton Wastewater Master Plan . LIft StatIon Assessments Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 P S I 6 IE@i@&EA;_br .?gq'J$x+}:i. S Figure 1.1 - Site Aerial Legend 1-lnfluent Manhole 2-Lift Station Structure 3-Access Road 4-Lake Shores Lane Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 GENERAL PHOTOS Photo 2.1 - Site Photo nd 111& T++= +f/ J photo 2.2 - Site Photo Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ff;/++=r if Photo 2.3 – Wet Well Photo 2.4 – Pump #1 & Piping Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 2.5 – Pump #2 and Piping Photo 2.6 - Force Main Piping Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 2.7 - Quick Connect Bypass Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 CONDITION ASSESSMENT A condition assessment was conducted of all the pump station's major components. The condition assessment consisted of onsite observations and digital photography. A summary of the assessment is provided in the tables below and is broken into three major categories: civil, mechanical, and electrical Each major category is made up of multiple components. Each component was given a condition score of 0 to 5. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions provides a description of what each condition score represents. Scores are representative of the worst condition observed at the pump station for a component type. In some cases, multiple items may be represented on a single line and will be indicated as such in the description. Where available, photos are provided for items with a score greater than or equal to 4 or if an item requires a visual reference. Condition Score Score Description Blank Not Applicable 0 1 2 3 4 5 Component doesn’t exist but is applicable. Component is like new showing no signs of wear or damage. Fully functional. The likelihood of failure is very low. Component is fully functional, lightly used with minimal signs of wear, damage and corrosion . Component has moderate signs of wear, damage, and corrosion. Component may have rninorly reduced functionality and does not appear to be in danger of failure. Component has significant signs of wear, damage, or corrosion. Component has limited functionaIIty and appears to be in danger of failure if issues are not addressed. Component is in imminent danger of failure, functionality is reduced to marginal levels, or is completely non-functional. The likelihood of failure is extremely high. Table 3.1 - Condition Assessment Score Descriptions Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 3.1 CIVIL COMPONENTS Component I Score 1 Description Access Drainage Bypass Pumping Security Serviceability Flood Site Structures Penetrations/Joints 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 4 5 4 No access driveway or designated parking Signs of erosion No fence. Door is locked with intrusion detection. All control panels are locked. Dry pit and wet well are difficult to service, hazardous workspace Site is located in Zone AE floodplain Structural cracking in CMU blocks and building slab Gaps witnessed at force main wall penetration and suction line penetration to the wet well Major corrosion witnessed on lid and walls of the wet well. Concrete aggregate exposedWet Well Civil Other Table 3.2 - Civil Components Condition Scores Civil Condition Photos Photo 3.1 - Site Access Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 a Photo 3.2 – Building Foundation Photo 3.3 - Hazardous Workspace Area Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 / photo 3.4 - Flood Zone AE Photo 3.5 – Building Deterioration Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 3.6 – Building Deterioration Photo 3.7 – Wet Well Deterioration Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Photo 3.8 – Force Main Penetration Gap Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 3.2 MECHANICAL COMPONENTS Component Bolts 3 Fittings } 4 Hardware 1 3 Piping – Suction 1 3 Piping – Discharge i 4 Pumps i 5 Valves – Check 1 3 Valves – Isolation 1 3 Valves - Other i 3 Ventilation : 3 Mechanical – Other 1 3 Table 3.3 - Mechanical Components Condition Scores Mechanical Condition Photos Score 1 Description Major corrosion on ductile iron fittings Major corrosion Major cavitation, major corrosion, major vibration, Pump #2 is missingan anchor bolt. Photo 3.7 – Pump #2 Discharge Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ;T.\ Photo 3.8 - Fittings and Discharge Line Photo 3.9 – Pump #2 Support Structure Vacation Village - Pump Station Eva]uation Report March 2023 3.3 ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS Component 1 Score } Description Conduits Control Panel Generator Lighting Motor Starters Panels RTU TVSS Wiring Electrical - Other 3 3 0 3 3 4 3 3 3 Not present, quick connect installed Major corrosion in Motor Control Center Table 3.4 - Electrical Components Condition Scores PhotosElectrical Condition Photo 3.10 – Motor Control Center Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 b PUMP PERFORMANCE TESTS Pump performance tests were conducted on the pumps utilizing the measurement tools detailed below. Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods describes the measurements taken during the test and the measurement method. Some measurements were confirmed utilizing a secondary measurement method See Attachment 1 for graphs of the digitally recorded data. For each test, note the following: 1. Common accuracies for measurements of flow, pressure, voltage and current are 11%. 2. Friction loss is calculated using the Hazen-Williams formula and the Bernoulli equation. Piping characteristics are based on best available data. Parameter Measurement Method Primary Secondary Flow Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Pressure Pressure Transducer (XAK-PACK) : Liquid Filled Pressure Gauge Wet Well Level Volts Level Transducer (XAK-PACK)N/A Fluke 376FCVoltage Probes (XAK-PACK) Amps Power Factor Current Transducers (XAK-PACK)Fluke 376FC Power Factor Monitor (XAK-PACK)N/A Vibration Rotation Single Axis Vibration Sensor (XAK-PACK) I N/A Handheld Tachometer i N/A Table 4.1 - Measurement Methods Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.1 PUMP #1 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results. Parameter Units Pump Manufacturer Pump Model P06LB-12F Self- Priming Solids Handling 12.375 Pump Style Pump Impetler Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Speed* Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Inches GPM Ft Hours RPM GPM 0/0 0/0 Ft RPM RPM No Unknown Unknown Unknown 1579 Unknown 1.150 24.0 3.0 1800 1775 3 ATL 230/460 40 1.15 96.0/48.0 94. 1 Volts HP Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt Mfa. Starter Eff Operating Pt 100.0 Pump is pulley driven Table 4.2 - Pump #1 Design Characteristics Photo 4.1 - Pump #1 (Northern Pump) Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 200 100% 90% 80% eaa /a 70% 60% :8 50% g•BU• aIBan elo ap no =P 30% 20% 0% 180 160 140 120 n ltDIDO:[ 80 + dIPgPdIPaPdP dIPdIP+PgIBB qjP HPanglpdln M = = n + + + + + +60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 m m 300 Flow (GPM) ----. Eq. Affinity CUIve alP aIR wSystem Curve x WTW Eff .--hMFG Hyd Eff 350 m 450 Pump CUIW (1579 RPM) + Test Points + DesIgn F\)ints u-nh MFG wrw EK 0 50 100 150 200 250 Flow (CPM) • Output HP 300 o N15Hr 350 400 e NPSHa 450 a Inp HP Table 4.3 – Pump #1 Test Results Graphs Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit i Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) GPM 256 Ft 97.1 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) 0/0 21.9% HP 29.0 Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) Amps 33.3 FPS 2 2 80% 90% -5% 2 -5% -5% -10c70 -10c70 -10c70 50c70 50% 1770 2.9 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 1805 FPS 2.9 0/0 22% 11g Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve NPSHa 0/0 Unknown 2 3 4 0/0 -8.5% Ft 16.8 WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance 0/0 Hz -9.4% 0% %-5% 0/0 2.5% Current Imbalance 0/0 6.8% Motor FLA %69.3% Motor Load %72.4% Motor Slip Speed RPM 1790 1579Pump Speed RPM Surge Vibration Cavitation 1 -5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 laa a a) U)Ja0 1 -5 5 6 7 8 1 -5 Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score 1 -5 1 1 #1 Test 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 Table 4.4 - Pump Summary Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Pump #1 - Test Comments 1.The pump is operating at approximately 22% of the best efficiency point during normal operation, Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2. The design capacity point is unable to be determined based off the information provided by the City and available information found on site 3. Pump impeller appears to be either different, reduced diameter impeller or the impeller and/or volute are severely worn. Determine the installed diameter and obtain an updated pump curve if necessary. 4. The tested WTW efficiency of 21.9% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump. 5. Vibrations were measured to be 0.28 – 0.3 inches which is approximately double the Hydraulic Institute maximum vibration value for this size of pump of 0.15 inches. 6 Cavitation was noted during pump operation from the pump volute. 7 Audible mechanical noises were noted during testing of the pump. 8. Considerable exterior corrosion was observed on the outside of the volute, suction, and discharge of the pump. 9. Due to the comments above regarding the pump output and the reported frequency maintenance required, this overall condition of the pump and pumping system is a 5. While the pump is still operational, replacement of the pump and pumping system is recommended to achieve optimal performance and reliability. Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.2 PUMP #2 Below is a summary of the pump characteristics and performance test results Parameter Value RC Worst CoPump Manufacturer Pump Model P06LB-12F Self- Priming Solids Handling 12.375 Pump Style Pump Impeller Dia Pump Rated Capacity Pump Rated Head Pump ETM Pump Speed* Pump Flow @ BEP Design Curve Pump Hyd Eff @ Design Pt Pump WTW Eff @ Operating Pt Pump NPSHr @ Operating Pt Motor Synchronous Speed Motor Rated Speed Motor No. Phases Motor Starters Motor Rated Voltage Motor Rated Horsepower Motor Service Factor Motor FLA Inches GPM Ft Hours RPM GPM 0/0 % Ft RPM RPM No Unknown Unknown Unknown 1575 1 , 150 Unknown 26.5 3.0 1800 1765 3 ATL 230/460 40 1.15 96.0/48.0 94.1 Volts HP Amps 0/0 Mfg. Motor Eff. @ Operating Pt PtMfa. Starter Eff. @ Operat Pump is pulley driven Table 4.5 - Pump #2 Design Characteristics Photo 4.2 - Pump #2 (Southern Pump) Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 200 180 160 140 120 ZE ; IOO10q)1[ 80 60 40 20 0 0 m 100 Pump Curve (1575 RPM) + Test Poi nts 100% 90% 80% 7096 60% re > 50% :a [ 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 350 400 450 + Design Points a MFGWTWER 150 200 250 300 Flow (CPM) --..-. Eq. AffInity Curve an aIn MSystem Curve X MW EH .-,-+MFG Hyd Eff 0 SO O InI> HP 100 Flow (aPM) 200 250 300 • Output HP O NPSHr Table 4.6 - Pump #2 Test Results Graphs 150 400 • NPSHa Vacation Village - Pump Station Evduation Report March 2023 Parameter Units I Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit I Comment Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) GPM Ft 0/0 HP Amps FPS FPS % % % Ft 0/0 Hz V 0/0 0/0 % % RPM RPM 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 1 -5 4.7 - Pump 281 101 .4 24.4% 29.8 33.2 3.2 3.2 24% Unknown a.0% 16.0 -8.8% 0% -0.4% 7.7% 9.4% 69.3% 98.0% 1787 1575 4 Average WTW Efficiency (FSFO) Average Input HP (FSFO) Average Current Draw (FSFO) Suction Velocity (FSFO) Discharge Velocity (FSFO) BEP Comparison (FSFO) 2 2 80% 90% -5cyo 3 -5% -5% -10% -10% -1 0% 50% 50% 1758 7 7 115% 110% 5% N/A 5% 50/8 10% 10% 10% 105% 115% 1807 Average Output (FSFO) Affinity Law Eq. Curve 2 3 4 NPSHa WTW Eff @ OF)erating Pt Input Frequency Input Voltage (L-L) Voltage Imbalance Current Imbalance Motor FLA Motor Load Motor Slip Speed Pump Speed Surge Vibration Cavitation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 la g 8Ja0 5 5 1 1 4 3 1 1 4 5 #2 Test Summary 5 6 7 8 Mechanical Noise Leaks Exterior Condition Overall Score Table Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Pump #2 - Test Comments 1 The pump is operating at approximately 24% of the best efficiency point during normal operation. Normal operation is with 1 pump on in the station. Pumps are typically recommended to operate within the manufacturer defined acceptable operation region or within 80% to 115% of the best efficiency point if the manufacturer data is unavailable. Operating outside the given window for long periods of time may lead to excessive maintenance or premature pump failure. 2. The design capacity point is unable to be determined based off the information provided by the Cityand available information found on site. 3. Pump impeller appears to be either different, reduced diameter impeller or the impeller and/or volute are severely worn. Determine the installed diameter and obtain an updated pump curve if necessary. 4. The tested WTW efficiency of 24.4% deviates greater than 5% from the manufacturer WTW efficiency at the operating point observed. This can lead to excessive energy use and longer run times for the pump. 5. Vibrations were measured to be 0.25 – 0.8 inches which is double or greater than the Hydraulic Institute maximum vibration value for this size of pump of 0.15 inches. Pump #2 has a missing anchor bolt. 6 Cavitation was noted during pump operation from audible noises emitted from the pump volute, 7 Audible mechanical noises were noted during testing of the pump. 8. Considerable exterior corrosion was observed on the outside of the volute, suction, and discharge of the pump. 9. Due to the comments above regarding the pump output and the reported frequency maintenance required, this overall condition of the pump and pumping system is a 5. While the pump is still operational, replacement of the pump and pumping system is recommended to achieve optimal performance and reliability. Vacation Village . Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.3 PUMPS #1 AND #2 200 180 160 140 120 a; 1(X> E1 80 60 ---–---–----–--–---–---–––------#e / 40 20 a 0 m 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 Flow (GPM) Pump Curve Para llel Pumps ----. Eq. Affinity Curve 400 450 m 550 m M M MSystem Curve + Test Points Below is a summary of the performance test results with both pumps running in parallel. Figure 4.1 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Results Graph Parameter Average Output (FSFO) Average TDH (FSFO) Units Lower Limit I Test Value Upper Limit I Comment GPM 302 Ft 102.6 Table 4.8 - Pump #1 & #2 Test Summary Pump #1 & #2 - Test Comments 1. Pump operation indicates potential major wear on the impellers. Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.4 HYDRAULICS SUMMARY The pumping system has a tested firm capacity of 256 GPM and a tested total capacity of 302 GPM. The pumps are running on the far left side of the pump curve due to the nature of the system curve. If the pumps continue to run at this operating point, the pump will experience long term damage, 4.5 SYSTEM CURVES qIn gIjesellPullb aIBan aB aileen OB UBHIb nlP qIn 0 SO 100 150 200 250 300 Flow (GPM) 350 400 450 500 w w e System Curve #1 Measured • Opuating Points B Avg Operating Poi nt Below is a summary of the data shown in Figure 4.2 – System Hydraulic Information. Length, Hazen- Williams (Hz-Wm), and diameter are approximated based on the best available information and fit to the data. System Curve Characteristics are intended to be for reference, Figure 4.2 – System Hydraulic Information *The inside diameter of the pipe is assumed to be cement lined cast iron Class 56. There is concern the inside diameter of the pipe has been reduced due to corrosion build up that is reflected in the roughness factor Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.6 PIPELINE VELOCiTIES Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities displays the velocities in each known diameter of the pressurized conveyance system. The Average Test Output Velocity represents the velocity generated by the average pumping rate produced by testing. The Station Firm Capacity Velocity represents the velocity based on the station’s firm capacity (output with the largest pump out of service). The color gradient represents ranges of acceptable to problematic velocities. Red areas of operation are problematic and green areas of operation are acceptable. Dia In) 8.0 50 6 732 8 14 151312111049 Fluid Velocity (FPS) A Average Test Output A Station Firm Capacity Figure 4.3 - Pipe Velocities 4.7 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 - Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. SO 45 40 3S 30 25 20 15 10 S 0 The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 37.1 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the Figure 4.4 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 observed minimum pressure was 2,7 PSI. The maximum pressure was approximately 35.4 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 34.4 PSI. It is unlikely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present inside the lift station. IS Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 4.8 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #2 Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2- second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Sulge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. ; i The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 38.3 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 1.6 PSI. The maximum pressure was approximately 37.2 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 36.7 PSI. It is unlikely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present inside the lift station Figure 4.5 - Pressure Cycle Pump #2 4.9 SYSTEM PRESSURES – PUMP #1 & PUMP #2 Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #l and Pump #2 shows a typical single-pump pressure cycle measured during testing. The pressure data captured for this test is limited to 2-second intervals which may not have captured the entire range of actual pressures. The complete log of pressure readings is provided in Attachment 1 – Test Data Graphs. For more accurate surge data, a surge monitoring device should be used to capture pressure at shorter time intervals over a longer period of time. Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions provides a list of recommended surge-related actions. The pressure transducer used for measuring pressures has a range of 0 to 200 PSI. Pump startup produced an upsurge of approximately 38.6 PSI. Upon pump shut down, the observed minimum pressure was 3.6 PSI. The maximum pressure was approximately 37.9 PSI creating a total observed pressure range of 35.0 PSI. It is unlikely that the minimum pressure produced on each pump shut down cycle was less than 0 PSI. There is no air release or vacuum valve present inside the lift station Figure 4.6 - Pressure Cycle Pump #1 and Pump #2 Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 Further Surge Related Actions [P Perform calibrated surge modeling [t Evaluate piping system for pressure capacity and likelihood of failure Install physical surge mitigation strategies No further action Table 4.9 - Further Surge-Related Actions Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is charged with establishing statewide design criteria for wastewater collection systems. These design criteria are presented and enforced in the Texas Administrative Code under Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part 1, Chapter 217 – Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems, as adopted in December 2015. The following sections contain pertinent excerpts from the TCEQ regulations and evaluation of whether the lift station meets the minimum TCEQ requirements: §21 7.61 (b)(7,8) - A pump must run continuously during the pump cycle time, which begins when the pump is activated by the pump controls. Pump cycle time, based on peak flow, must equal or exceed those in the following table: Minimum Wet Well Volume shall be based on the following formula: V = (T * Q) / (4 * 7.48) V = Working Volume (ft3) Q = Pump Capacity (GPM) = 281 GPM (maximum measured output flow of Pump #1 or Pump #2) T = Cycle Time (Minutes) = 6 min (Pump #1 and Pump #2 have 40 HP motors) 7.48 = conversion factor in gallons / cubic foot Minimum Wet Well Volume (V) = (6 min x 281 GPM) / (4 * 7.48) = 56.35 ft3 Provided Wet Well Volume = (Pump On Elev. - Pump Off Elev.) * (Wet Well Area) Pump Off Elev. = 5.5 (ft.) Pump On Elev. = 9.0 (ft.) Wet Well Dimensions = 6' Diameter Provided Wet Well Volume (V) = (9.0’ - 5.5’) * ((6.0’/2)A2 * Tr) = 98.96 ft3 The lift station DOES provide the minimum wet well volume. Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 5217.67(a) VelocitIes - For a lift station with two pumps, the minimum velocity is 3.0 feet per second with one pump in operation. For a lift station with three or more pumps: (A) the minimum velocity in a force main is 2.0 feet per second with only the smallest pump operating at full speed; and (B) a minimum flushing velocity of 5.0 feet per second or greater must occur in a force main at least twice daily Vacation Village has two (2) pumps. Force Main Diameter = 8 inches. Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) Q = Pump Capacity = 256 GPM (minimum of Pump #1 and Pump #2 measured output flow) R = Largest Force Main Radius = 4.0-inch = 0.33 ft. 448.83 = conversion factor in gallons per minute / cubic foot per second Force Main Velocity = (Q/448.83) / A = Q / (Tr * R2) = (256 / 448.83) / (Tr * (0.33)2) = 1.67 feet per second The lift station DOES NOT provide the minimum velocity for one pump in operation. Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are a result of the findings of this evaluation and should be considered for implementation. See Section 4 Pump Performance Tests for pump specific recommendations. In addition to the recommendations below, this site should/ be considered for the following overall planning and budgeting activities. 6.1 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Site Rating 1 Score i Description 1 No recommendations currently. Monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 2-5 years. 2 Complete recommendations listed in Section 6.2, monitor station for worsening conditions, perform regular O&M, reassess condition in 1-3 years 3 Station requires improvements beyond replacement of individual components. Begin planning and budgeting for a major rehabilitation. Place under regular observation until rehabilitation is complete +Station does not appear to be brought into conformance with standards without replacement. Begin planning and budgeting for a station replacement. Place under regular observation until replacement is complete. 4 While the station is still functioning, there are a number of items that should be corrected such as no driveway access, limited truck access to site for major maintenance, lift station in the floodplain, surcharging gravity lines during normal operation, and major corrosion/deterioration of the several components of the lift station. Due to these items, the overall age and condition of the site, and the pump performance it is recommended that the station be replaced. The following page has several miscellaneous recommendations if the station is to remain in place and in service VacatIon Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 6.2 MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Access – There is no access driveway leading to the site. We recommend installing an access drive 2. Drainaqe - There are signs of pending and erosion on the site. We recommend regrading and adding crushed stone to provide positive drainage. 3. Serviceability- Sewiceability is limited due to restricted and hazardous workspace in the lift station building. The wet well lid is located in the workspace of the pumps and creates a high risk for a worker to fall into the wet well. We recommend considering a different style station when rehabilitating or replacing the site. 4. Floodplain - The site is currently located in the 100-year flood zone AE based on FEMA Flood Maps. We recommend protecting all components, including electrical, from flooding in accordance with Federal, State, and Local Government regulations 5. Inlet Pipes – The inlet pipes to the wet well are surcharged during normal operations. We recommended considering a redesign if replacing the site 6 Structures – The concrete base has settled and cracked, there is major corrosion in the wet well, wet well lid, pipes, fittings, and pumps. Holes/gaps exist at the suction piping and force main penetration locations. It is likely that hydrogen-sulfide gas is escaping from the wet well and entering into the lift station building contributing to corrosion. We recommend sealing the concrete cracks and penetration locations then evaluate for structural integrity. We recommend sealing any cracks formed on the walls of the lift station and filling any voids beneath the foundation of the building 7. Wet Well – The wet well entrance and walls are severely corroded. We recommend replacing the entrance and coating the walls of the wet well 8 Pumps – Pump #1 and Pump #2 both emitted audible cavitation while running. Pump #2 motor is missing an anchor bolt. Pump #2 is not bolted to the foundation of the lift station. Both pumps experience vibration levels double or more than the maximum recommended limit from the Hydraulic Institute. Both pumps have severe exterior corrosion. Both pumps are running inefficiently and far to the left on the curve, this will cause severe damage to the pump long term We recommend replacing both pumps. 9. Panels – There is major corrosion and debris in the motor control center. We recommend cleaning the panel before corrosion progresses and evaluating the source of corrosion Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 ATTACHMENTS This page is left intentionally blank Vacation Village - Pump Station Evaluation Report March 2023 li { IB& aa = IS3a > LU Ca : a LS U) e a) E£O & a E3a 00qr a Lnfr) 00fr) 0 Ln(N (Wd9) Mali0aal 0LnpI 00pI 0 Ln 0 B0U- I a C)3laC/)C \al a) >a),.JU EQ La 3 a) Ei-IO CDlaa rD ar C a) 7)IDLU a) rDC B0£C/) a; Ei- + HI0 = dIe &•Hll•l•l• E•n•Hll•\,P 0r\1 00rl 10q-I qrFI rNT-I 0FI aa 10 st N O {y) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) anssard a8req3sla E { o626 Ca = (S3 (B >IU Ca = ISin t-a)EEO 10 a a E3a 0 .1 and 00d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO U +6 d d cr)d r\1d A O6 d Wd 01:ZI Wd 60:ZI Wd 80:ZI Wd tO:ZI Wd 90:ZI Wd SO:ZI md tO:ZI Wd EO:ZI Wd tO:ZI Wd TO:ZI Wd 00:ZI C) LLa on LLa C) VI 0 > I <( LLa • aa VI 0 > C) V)al E < < > I 0 on Fi E<( I . Jh St fBa = dAb > aJ E bZ •l•H•Hl• RUffin < EL E < 0pI Ln 00 Ln 0alqr 0 00qr aNqr 010qr 0LnqF 0 Ln Lnqr 0qr Lf)fr)0cr)Lnall afbI LnHI apI n O (N-1) qloA sdulV CaA (S === (B >IU Ca: H (S:1 V) Ca) EJ=O 10 a U (sdD LIOjrEJqIA a E3a bd 10d Lnd qFd fr)6 r\Id !-1d a Wd 01:ZI Wd 60:ZI Wd 80:ZI Wd 10:ZI md 90:ZI md SO:ZI Wd tO:ZI I/Hd EO:ZI Wd za:zi md TO:ZT md 00:ZI C0 to JO5 • a30a a)VI 6 = +3al 30 tI B0a a) BIE 3alC F+0 = 6\ >a) \? ==Bin E•=••ll• 00!-1 0an 000 0N 010 0Ln aqr 0fr)0r\1 0HI 0 raMOdasJOH (ZH) A3uanbarJ )ndul E { a$6 ea : a tB3 g LU aa: aaU) r Ca) EaQ 10E < nHl a E3a (Wd9) MQII Wd Ot:1 Wd SO:I Wd 00:1 El Wd OS:ZI Wd St:ZI Wd OF:ZI 30rl a)L)alat/)Cfab- a) C0 fU 3 >a)I C) a) Ei-U CDlaC COae a La CD LU g 10 CBaa 1/) a; Ei- + Cb0= dAb >a) E \? •Hll•ll•l• Rn••ll• 0fbI 00rl 10FI qFHI alel aHI ao 10 q nI O 0Ln Lnq aqr Lncr)afrI LnnI 0r\I LaHI aq-I Ln 0 (y) I'Aa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) anssud a8req=sla Ca = (B3== (B > LU Ca a aa U) Ca) EEO(a a U a Eaa 0,1 a 006 d b6 J033eJ JaMOd tO n q6 d d fr)d (\1d A O6 d md 01:1 IAd SO:T md 00:1 IAd SS:ZI Wd OS:ZI 1/Hd SP:CT Wd OP:ZI U-a (J LLa + (J V) 0 > I 56J \ B. \ larE if\ <( U-a cn 0 > I on (J aE<( 0 > < cr)al E <( ;0 = 4\ > aJ gll•Hl•HIHllll Ruffin bZ <( gl E<( I 0 LnLa 00 Ln 0 LnqF 00qr 0Lnfr) 0a fr) 0Ln b/? g R R K) R Lnx-I 0T-I Ln 0 (N-1) srIO/\sduV b : a a B g (SdD UD! IeJqIAa E3a and 00d bd tO n + md d d 6 N rld d o Wd 01:T Wd SO:1 Wd 00:1 md SS:ZI Wd OS:ZI Wd SP:el I/Hd OF:ZI C0 ToB 5 • a Baa a)VI 6 = 3al 30 I a 30a al a = 3alC B0 = dAb >a) E bZ =nHlln RUffin 00pI aan 0aa ab 010 aLn asr 0frI ar\I 0HI a raMOdasroH (ZH) A3uanbuJ }ndul E { giG CaW eu3== (B > LU Ca : a LBth Ca) EEO ca = < L a E3a 0aqr 0Lnfr) 00frI 0Ln (XI (Wd9) MQII 00r\I 0LnpI 0apI 0trI 0 Wd gZ:ZI Wd SZ:ZI md VZ:ZI md EZ:ZI Wd ZZ:ZI Wd IZ:ZI a) go md OZ: md 61:ZtT PHd 8T:Zt Wd 41:ZI Wd 9t:ZI Wd St:ZI Wd VI:ZI Wd ET:ZI B0 LL a)a3laV)C \al a) >C),J C)C0a) La 3 a) Ei-T raUC CD a/ C a) ID LLI a) CO C B0£ 1/)a) EF + He0 = /ae & bZ w•n=I E•n•Hll• 0r\I 00FI 10pI qr HI (XIT-1 aFI 00 10 qr fbI 0 0 Ln LnqF 0qF Lncr) 0 cr)Lnr\1 0r\I LnpI 0FI Ln 0 (y) IaAa1 IIaM IaM (ISd) arnssard a8req3sla taa Q)ac ea +1 eua d > LU Cat= IS+1tri triEal LU CD I eq) EEO LU < a E =a 0 a 00d d d bd JopeJ JaMOd tO a qd d d fr)d ald pI 0d d C) LI-a an a (J 0 > < LLa aD C/) 0 > C) EL E < < rJ0 > I V)a E < ;a = 6\ > aJ •Hll•HlIB ERuffin bZ < VIal E < 00 Ln Lna)qr 0alqr Ln00qr 0 00qF Lnbqr 0bqF 0 Ln LnqF 0qr Lncr)0fr)LnCq 0al LnpI 0FI Ln a tN-1) srIQA sdtuV { { &B Ca: 1 (B3== IS > IU aaF £BU) aa) E JCC) 10S < a (sdD LIOjreJqIA a E3a md 9Z:ZI md SZ:ZI md tZ:ZI md EZ:ZI md ZZ:ZI 1/Hd IZ:ZI Wd OZ:ZI : LL Wd 61:ZI Wd 81:ZI md IT:ZI Wd 91:ZI Wd ST:ZI md PT:ZI Wd El:ZI 0 C0 To B5 • a30a a)V) a]: 3al 30 a 30a a) B = 3alC I Cb0= /ab >a) E =Hl•HIll •n•Rin bZ 00T-I 0on 000 0b 010 0Ln 0qr 0fr)a (XI 0FI JaMOdasr OH (ZH) AruanbarJ )ndul d:a 2 auDIO( [ E E E g g g g g gfl PPP qP PPa II II H H 1 II II II Hey coe Into beDf)aAZ6a2 C) @ 111a $El£aIab Sa C) I gl tna Eaa g g > NI aa(-1 aITg ! ! a } iII ii $aJIL in CO!!!E: ---nIHl• nra nr = =m Jlili:::galj•Bax ' : '/H4 CD APPENDIX KNOWN DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION Project Name of Known Development Unit Count Single or Multi Family Project Description lst Ponder Estates Preliminary Plat for a warehouse development situated on 18.661 ac., generally located South of E. University Dr. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. 380 - Mayhill Industrial Final Plat for 3 single-family residential lots situated on 5 ac., generally located South of Country Club Rd. and East of FM 1830. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted. 4B Ranch Lots 1-3, Blk. A (ETJ} 3 S Plat Extension for 252 detached single-family lots and 18 common area lots situated on 92.058 ac., generally located North of Hartlee Field Rd. and East of Sherman Dr. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with Residential 2 (R2) and Residential 3 (R3) overlay Agave Ranch (PP19-0023) Final Plat for 252 single-family detached residential lots and 18 common area lots situated on 92.058 ac., generally located North of Hartlee Field Rd. and East of Sherman Dr. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with Residential 2 (R2) and Residential 3 (R3) Agave Ranch Phase 1 252 S Airport Road Addition, Block A, Lot 1 Final Plat for a warehouse development situated on 7 ac., generally located North of Airport Rd. and West of Precision Dr. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for a warehouse development on 7 ac., generally located North of Airport Rd. and West of Precision Dr. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Airport Road Development Alex Robertson Addition Final Replat for a self storage facility situated on 5. 195 ac., generally located North of Jim Christal Rd. and West of 1-35W. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Platted as All Storage Denton Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. All Storage Denton Lot IR & 2, Blk. 1 Amending Final Plat for a multifamily residential development situated on 11.307 ac., generally located South of Loop 288 and East of Sherman Dr. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Alta Sherman Station, Lot 1, Blk. A Final Replat for a medical clinic situated on 6.345 ac., generally located Northeast of 1-35E and North of Med Park Dr. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. Apex Health and Rehabilitation Preliminary Plat for a single-family residential development situated on 7.138 ac., generally located South and West of Audra Ln. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with overlay conditions of Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Audra Lane Estates 33 S Final Plat for 33 single-family detached residential lots situated on 7.14 ac., generally located South of Mingo Rd. and East ofAudra Ln. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) & Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Audra Lane Estates 33 S Preliminary Plat for 25 single-family residential detached lots and 1 park dedication lot situated on 10.39 ac., generally located South of Audra Ln. and West of Barbara St. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) and Residential 4 (R4). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for an auto parts retail store situated on 19.6 ac., generally located at the Northeast corner of N. Loop 288 and E. McKinney St. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Audra Oaks, Ph. 2B - 1550 Audra Ln 25 S Autozone - 100 N Loop 288 Bernard Street Addition Final Plat for a 396 unit multifamily residential development situated on 96.484 ac., generally located South of Spencer Rd. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. BIRCHWAY DENTON II A LOT 1, BLOCK 1 (NAME CHANGE) Preliminary Plat for an equipment sales, outdoor storage, and display development situated on 17.916 ac., generally located North of W. Oak St. and West of N. I- 35. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Blue Horseshoe Addition, Block A, Lot 1 - 3705 N. 1-35 Final Plat for a cold storage warehouse development situated on 33.41 ac., generally located North of Corbin Rd. and West of 1-35W. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted Preliminary Plat for a cold storage warehouse development situated on 33.41 ac., generally located North of Corbin Rd. and West of 1-35W. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. BP Chill Storage - Industrial Building BP Chill Storage Lot 1, Blk. A Brazeel Addition Burger Road Addition Caliber Collision Final Plat for 103 single-family detached lots and 2 common area lots situated on 32.218 ac., generally located South of Vintage Blvd. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Cambridge Brook Phase 2 103 S Request for Plat Extension for 410 single-family attached residential lots, 44 common area lots, and 1 commercial lot situated on 33.9 ac., generally located North of Pockrus Page and East of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Partially platted Carmel Villas Preliminary Plat Extension 410 S Preliminary Plat for Cole Ranch Master Planned Community situated on 720 ac., generally located North of FM 2499 and West of 1-35W. Zoned Master Planned Community (MPC). Not Platted. Cole Ranch Phase 1 Cope Addition Denton Plat Extension for 73 single-family detached residential lots and 2 common area lots situated on 35.521 ac., generally located South of Regency Ct. and East of Country Club Rd. Zoned: Residential 3 (R3). Platted as Country Club Road Estates Addition. Country Club Road Estates 73 S Amending Final Plat for 7 lots to extend lot depth to preserve trees situated on 2.598 ac., generally located North of W. Ryan Rd. and East of Country Club Rd. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Platted as Country Club Road Estates Addition, Phase 1. Final Plat for 6 single-family detached residential lots situated on 4.7 ac., generally located South of Brush Creek Rd. and East of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Not Platted. Country Club Road Estates Addition, Block H, Lots 1-7 Country Club Village Phase 3A, Lots 1-6, Blk A 6 S Final Plat for 172 single-family residential lots and 2 common area lots situated on 42.831 ac., generally located South of Johnson Ln. and East of John Paine Rd Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Country Lakes;Bonh Phase 6A- 256 S Final Plat for 84 single-family detached residential lots and 4 common area lots situated on 19.491 ac., generally located South of Johnson Ln. and East of Old John Paine Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Country Lakes North, PH 5B Preliminary Plat for a warehouse/distribution center development situated on 10 ac., generally located North of Jim Christal Rd. and East of N. Western Blvd. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Not Platted. Cowboy Distribution - 4350 Jim Christal Rd. Final Plat for 15 single-family detached residential lots situated on 66.5 ac., generally located North of E. Hickory Hill Rd. and West ofFincher Rd. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted Creekview Ranch, PH 1 15 S Final Replat for 2 single-family detached residential lots situated on 2.057 ac., Creekview Ranch Phase 1, Lots 1- 15, Block A. Generally located North of E. Hickory Hill Rd. and West of Fincher Rd. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Creekview Ranch, PH 2, Lots 1- 2, Blk A Final Replat for 2 single-family detached residential lots situated on 2.057 ac., Creekview Ranch Phase 1, Lots 1- 15, Block A. Generally located North of E. Hickory Hill Rd. and West of Fincher Rd. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Creekview Ranch, PH 2, Lots 1- 2, Blk A Preliminary Plat for a 314 unit multifamily residential development situated on 32.117 ac., generally located South of N. Elm St. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. CTC at Elm - Lot 1, Blk. 1- Ph. 2 Final Plat for a 314 unit multifamily residential development situated on 32.117 ac., generally located South of N. Elm St. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. CTC at Elm, PH 2, Block 1, Lot 1 Preliminary Plat for a 314 unit multifamily residential development situated on 32.117 ac., generally located South of N. Elm St. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. CTC Elm - Lot 1, Block 1 314 M Preliminary Plat for 51 single-family residential lots and 7 common area lots situated on 13.471 ac., generally located South of Hickory Creek Rd. and West of S. FM 2499. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. Cyrene At Hickory Creek Addition Lots 1-51, Blk I 51 S Denton 35 Exchange - Industrial Warehouse/Distribution Preliminary Plat for an industrial warehouse/distribution development situated on 20.3 ac., generally located North of Barthold Rd. and West of N. 1-35. Zoned: General Office (GO). Not Platted. Final Plat for an industrial warehouse situated on 25 ac., generally located North of Jim Christal Rd. and West of N. Western Blvd. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. Final Plat for a warehouse development situated on 90.436 ac., generally located South of Jim Christal Rd. and East of Masch Branch Rd. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. Denton Exeter Addition No. 2, Lots 1 and 2, Blk. A Denton Exeter Addition No. 3, Block A, L Final Plat for 276 multifamily residential dwelling units situated on 16.012 ac., generally located North of Duchess and West of S. Loop 288. Dr. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC) with Specific-Use Permit (SUP) for multifamily. Not Platted. Final Plat for an industrial warehouse development situated on 117.059 ac., generally located South of FM 1173 and West of 1-35N. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for an industrial warehouse development situated on 117.059 ac., generally located South of FM 1173 and West ofl-35N. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Denton Grove 276 M Denton ICC-35, S 1-35E - Loop 288 Denton ICC-35, S 1-35E -Loop 288 - Denton Commerce Center Final Plat for a medical clinic situated on 1.202 ac., generally located North of Hickory Creek Rd. and West of Teasley Ln. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Denton Texas Medical Clinic Preliminary Plat for a commercial, retail, and professional office development situated on 12.77 ac., generally located at the Northwest corner of Teasley Ln. and Ryan Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD), Mixed Use Neighborhood (MN) with a Specific-Use P Denton West Joint Venture Addition, Blk A, Lots IA-IB, 2A- 2F Development Plat for Hunter Ranch Master Planned Community situated on 2,322 ac., generally located South of FM 2499 and East of Old John Paine Rd. Zoned: Master Planned Community (MPC). Not Platted. District Trailer on Hunter Ranch Property Final Plat for 56 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on 18.83 ac., generally located South of Duchess Dr. and West of Loop 288. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Eagle Cove 56 S Final Replat for 84 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on 23.59 ac., generally located South of Willowwood St. and West of McCormick St. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4). Not Platted. Eagle Creek - Phase 2B 115 S Final Replat for 84 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on 23.59 ac., generally located South of Willowwood St. and West of McCormick St. Zoned: Residential 4 {R4). Not Platted. Eagle Creek - Phase 2B 115 S Amending Final Plat for part of Lots 6-10, Block 2, Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 5, and being all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, situated on 22.442 ac., generally located at the corner of Laurel St. and Highland Park Rd. Zoned: Residential 4 (Fi4). Not Plat Eagle Creek, PH IA 41 S Amending Final Plat for part of Lots 6-10, Block 2, Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 5, and being all of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, situated on 22.442 ac., generally located North of Roselawn Dr. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Residential 4 (Fi4). Not Platt Eagle Creek, PH IB 46 S Amending Final Plat for Lot 2-7, Block F of the Eagle Creek PH IB Addition, situated on 24.893 ac., generally located North of Roselawn Dr. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Residential 4 (Fi4). Platted as Eagle Creek PH IB Addition. Eagle Creek, PH IB 46 S Final Replat for 261 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on a 32.18 ac., generally located North of Roselawn Dr. and East of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 4 (Fi4). Not Platted. Eagle Creek, PH 4 143 S Amending Final Plat for 213 single-family detached residential lots and 5 common area lots situated on 50.775 ac., generally located North of Roselawn Dr. and East of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4). Eagle Creek, PH 4 94 S Amending Final Plat for 261 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on 32.18 ac., generally located North of Roselawn Dr. and East of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4). Not Platted. Eagle Creek, PH 4 (Upland Habitat) Final Plat for a commercial development situated on 6.44 ac., generally located North of Pine Hills Ln. and East of FM 2499. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with Mixed- Use Neighborhood (MN) overlay conditions. Not Platted. East Addition-Nowlin Rd. FM 2499 Preliminary Plat for 135 single-family detached residential lots, 7 common area lots and 1 private street lot situated on 32.853 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Final Plat for 1 private street lot situated on 1.9828 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Ed Robson Blvd. Ed Robson Blvd Final Plat for a triplex and fourplex residential development situated on 34.768 ac., generally located South ofAudra Ln. and East of Mockingbird Ln. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. Final Replat for a triplex and fourplex residential development situated on 41.112 ac., generally located South ofAudra Ln. and West of N. Loop 288. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Platted as Eden Village Cottage Homes, Block A-M. Eden Village Blks A-L Eden Village Cottage Homes - Lot XR, Block H Preliminary Plat for a 396 unit multifamily residential development situated on 96.484 ac., generally located South of Spencer Rd. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Elan Denton - Phase 2A, Lotl, Blk I 396 M Elderly Housing Preliminary Plat for a warehouse development situated on 90.436 ac., generally located South of Jim Christal Rd. and East of Masch Branch Rd. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. Exeter Martino Property Westpark, PH 3 Preliminary Plat for a multifamily residential development situated on 22.5 ac., generally located North of E. McKinney St. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Forest Crossing, PH 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & IX Preliminary Plat for an industrial development situated on 11.74 ac., generally located South of E. University Dr. and East and West of Geesling Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI) and Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Geesling & 380 Industrial Lot 1, Blk. A Preliminary Plat for East Tract Lot 1, Block A situated on 12.696 ac., generally located South of E. University Dr. and East ofGeesling Rd. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6). West Tract Lot 1, Block A situated on 25.139 ac., generally located South of US 380 an Geesling Road Industrial Final Plat for 8 fourplex detached lots and 2 common area lots situated on 4 ac., generally located on the North of Windsor Dr. and West of Stuart Rd. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6) & Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. Grey Wolf Circle - Grey Wolf Addition Preliminary Plat for 35 single-family residential lots and 1 common area lot, situated on 8 ac., generally located North of Smith St. and West of Duncan St. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Habitat Village 35 S Final Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block A of the Haddad Addition, situated on 5.76 ac., generally located North of West Ryan Rd. and West of Country Club Rd. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Platted as Haddad Addition, Block A, Lots I & 2. Preliminary Plat for a self-service storage development situated on 10.4 ac., generally located South of Hickory Creek Rd. and West of Teasley Ln. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Platted as Hickory Creek Center Addition, Block A, Lot CV4. Final Plat for 17 single-family detached residential lots situated on 20 ac., generally located South of Country Club Rd. and West of Hilltop Rd. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted. Haddad Addition, Block A, Lot 1-10 Hickory Creek Center Addition Lot 4, Blk. A Hilltop Road Estates, Lots 1-17, Blk. A 17 S Preliminary Plat for multifamily, fourplex, and single- family detached residential development situated on 13.46 ac., generally located South of Holland Dr. and East of N. Loop 288. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN), Residential 7 (R7) and Residential 4 Holland Addition - 3760 Holland Ln. Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 of Hunter Ranch Master Planned Community situated on 3,167 ac., generally located South of FM 2499 and East of Old John Paine Rd. Zoned: Master Planned Community (MPC). Not Platted. Hunter Ranch Phase 1 Preliminary Plat for Lot 1. Block A of the 1-35 Warehouse Addition situated on 23.623 ac., generally located North of Barthold Rd. and West of 1-35N. Zoned: General Office (GO). Not Platted. 1-35 Cold Storage Final Plat for a cold storage warehouse situated on 23.623 ac., generally located North of Barthold Rd. and West of 1-35N. Zoned: General Office (GO). Not Platted. 1-35 Cold Storage Preliminary Plat for a single-family residential development situated on 100.2 ac., generally located East of Loop 288 and North of Kings Row. Zoned: Residential 4 (Fi4) and Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. King's Way 328 Lots, 21 Open Spaces Preliminary Plat for a single-family residential development situated on 100.2 ac., generally located East of Loop 288 and North of Kings Row. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4) and Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. King's Way 328 Lots, 21 Open Spaces Final Plat for 132 single family residential lots and 4 common area lots situated on 43.635 ac., generally located North of Riney Rd. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Kings Ridge Estates Ph. 2 132 S Preliminary Plat for a 325 unit multifamily residential development situated on 9.079 ac., generally located South of E. Sycamore St. and West of Bradshaw St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Lang Railyard - 325 Units - 618 E. Sycamore St. 325 M Final Plat for a 325 unit multifamily residential development situated on 9.079 ac., generally located South of E. Sycamore St. and West of Bradshaw St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Lang Railyard Phase 1, Block 1, Lot 1 Preliminary Plat for 264 unit multifamily residential development situated on 16.11 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and East of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. L e g a c y M u 1 ! ! aaJTJip I I D e n t o n L o t 2 6 4 M Final Plat for a 264 unit multifamily residential development situated on 16.11 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and East of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for a single-family and multifamily residential development situated on 344 ac., generally located North of W. University Dr. and West of Thomas J. Egan Rd. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2) and ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted. Legacy Mu t{.aBTJ I I Denton Lot 264 M Legends Ranch - Golden Hoof Dr. Final Replat for a 280 unit multifamily residential development situated on 11.42 ac., generally located North of Londonderry Ln. and East of Sam Bass Blvd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Platted as ASC/MOB Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 and Londonderry A Londonderry Multifamily 280 M Final Plat for Love’s Travel Stop situated on 18.55 ac., generally located South of Barthold Rd. and West of 1-35. Zoned: General Office (GO). Platted as Love's Travel Stop Addition, Block A, Lot 1 and Block B, Lot 1. Love's Travel Stop Addition, Block A, Lot IR Final Plat for a multifamily residential development situated on 155.254 ac., generally located North of Ganzer Rd. and West of N. 1-35. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted Luxe Addition Preliminary Plat for 4 industrial buildings situated on 17.535 ac., generally located North of W. University Dr. and West of Masch Branch Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for 4 industrial buildings situated on 17.535 ac., generally located North of W. University Dr. and West of Masch Branch Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. M-380 Addition, Block A, Lots 1- 4 M-380 Addition, Block A, Lots 1. 4 Maple Leaf House Plat Extension for a 307 unit multifamily residential development situated on 10.2 ac., generally located South of N. Elm St. and East of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. Mark at Denton Ph 11 307 M Preliminary Plat for 3 industrial warehouse buildings situated on 2.9 ac., generally located North of Jim Christal Rd. and East of N. Masch Branch Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for 360 multifamily units situated on 32.633 ac., generally located West of Mayhill Rd. and East of Brinker Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Masch Branch Industrial Lot 1, Block A Mayhill Rd Multifamily 360 M Preliminary Plat for a 232 unit multifamily residential development with retail situated on 7.5 ac., generally located South of 1-35E and East of Lillian Miller Pkwy. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Millennium Crest, Block A, Lot 1 Final Plat for a professional office/medical clinic development situated on 2.634 ac., generally located South of E. Mission St. and East of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Mission Street Offices Addition - Ph. 2 Lots 5-12, Blk. A Preliminary Plat for a professional office/medical clinic development situated on 2.634 ac., generally located South of E. Mission St. and East of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned : Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Mission Street Offices, PH 2 Final Plat for 149 multifamily residential dwelling units and 1 common area lot situated on 9.916 ac., generally located South of Mingo Rd. and West of Mockingbird Ln. Zoned: Residential 7 (R7). Not Platted. Mockingbird Multifamily 149 M Final Replat for a self-storage facility situated on 3.64 ac., generally located East of Sherman Dr. and South of N. Loop 288. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Platted as Block A, Lot SR of the Northgate Addition. Northgate Addition, Block A, Lot 5R Final Plat for 39 single-family residential lots and 1 common area lot situated on 14.775 ac., generally located South of Loop 288 and West of N. Locust St. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4). Not Platted. Northpointe Phase 6 39 S Preliminary Plat for a 126 unit duplex residential development situated on 21.013 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and West of S. Loop 288. Zoned: Planned Development with Residential 7 overlay conditions (PD-R7) and Residential 4 (R4). No I Oak Vista Add. Lots 1-32 Blk A, 1-7 Blk B, 1-26 Blk C, 2 X 126 M Old North Park Phase II-A Paage Crossing Lots IR, 2R & 3, Bk. A Preliminary Plat for 4 industrial buildings situated on 56.238 ac., generally located North of Mingo Rd. and East of Loop 288. Zoned : Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Final Plat for an industrial warehouse development situated on 55 ac., generally located North of Mingo Rd. and East of Loop 288. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Platted as Nazarene Church Addition, Block 1, Lot 2. Paage Crossing, Block A, Lots IR, 2R, 3 - 3183 Mingo Rd. Preliminary Plat for 156 single-family residential lots and 5 common area lots situated on 62.397 ac., generally located North of Hickory Creek Rd. and West of Settlers Creek Rd. Zoned: Rural Residential (RR). Not Platted. Parkside 156 Single-family Residential Lots 156 S Preliminary Plat for a 285 unit multifamily residential development situated on 11.12 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and East of S. Woodrow Ln. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Pathway Woodrow Lane Multifamily 285 M Preliminary Plat for a 216 unit multifamily residential development situated on 9.43 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and East of S. Loop 288. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Pebblebrook Parkside Lot 1, Blk. 1 216 M Final Plat for a 216 unit multifamily residential development situated on 9.43 ac., generally located South of E. McKinney St. and East of S. Loop 288. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Pebblebrook Parkside Lot 1, Blk. 1 216 M Preliminary Plat for a general office and indoor recreation development situated on 5.43 ac., generally located South of Duchess Dr. and West of S. Loop 288. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Pecan Creek Business Park Lots 3-7, Blk B Final Plat for an office and indoor recreation development situated on 5.4 ac., generally located South of Duchess Dr. and West of Loop 288. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Pecan Creek Business Park, Block B, Lots 3-7 - Cheer Gym Final Plat for a 195 unit multifamily residential development situated on 17.9 ac., generally located South of W. Windsor Dr. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned : Residential 3 (R3). Not Platted. Perch Denton Addition Lot 1, Blk A Preliminary Plat for a 195 unit multifamily residential development situated on 17.9 ac., generally located South of W. Windsor Dr. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned : Residential 3 (R3). Not Platted. Perch Denton Addition Lot 41, Blk. F Amending Final Plat for 21 single-family detached residential lots situated on 7.139 ac., generally located South of Edwards Rd. and West of Lakeview Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Platted as Preserve at Pecan Creek Section J and K Addition, Bloc Preserve at Pecan Creek Section J and K Addition Final Plat for 21 single-family detached lots situated on 7.139 ac., generally located South of Edwards Rd. and West of Lakeview Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Final Plat for a professional office development with accessory outdoor storage and equipment repair situated on 30 ac., generally located North of Barthold Rd. and West of 1-35N. Zoned: General Office (GO). Not Platted Preliminary Plat for a professional office development with accessory outdoor storage and equipment repair situated on 30 ac., generally located North of Barthold Rd. and West of 1-35N. Zoned: General Office (GO). Not Platted Final Replat for a religious assembly from 1 lot into 2 lots situated on 10.11 ac., generally located South of Teasley Ln. and West of Pennsylvania Dr. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Platted as Denton Catholic Addition, Block A, Lot IA 1 Preserve at Pecan Creek Sections J&K Fin 21 S Primoris Services Corporation Addition Primoris Services Corporation Addition, Project Transferred to MP22- 0016 Prominence Square, Block A, Lots 1-11 Preliminary Plat for a 360 unit multifamily residential development situated on 22.608 ac., generally located North of Prominence Pkwy. and East of Loop 288. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Prose Prominence Lot 1-2, Blk. A 360 M Final Plat for a 360 unit multifamily residential development situated on 22.608 ac., generally located North of Prominence Pkwy. and East of Loop 288. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Prose Prominence Lot 1, Blk. A Final Plat for a retail development situated on 54.26 ac., generally located South of W. University Dr. and East of Heritage Trl. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay (RRO). Platted as Rayzor Ranch East Addition, Block A, Lot 1. Rayzor Ranch Addition, Block A, Lot 1 and Lot 10-R3 Final Replat for Lots 4R-1, Block A of the Rayzor Ranch East addition, situated on 11.107 ac., generally located North of Crescent St. and East of Eastpark Blvd. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay District (RRO). Platted as Rayzor Ranch East Block A, Lot 4. Rayzor Ranch East Amending Final Plat to revise property lines between 2 lots situated on 8 ac., generally located South of Panhandle St. and West of N. Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay(RRO). Platted as Rayzor Ranch East, Block D, Lot IR and 2R Final Plat for a 322 unit multifamily residential development situated on 5.9 ac., generally located North of Panhandle St. and East of Heritage Trl. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay District (RRO). Platted as Rayzor Ranch East, Block E, Lots 1 and 2. Final Replat for a medical clinic on Lot 1, Block 4 of Rayzor Ranch South situated on 3.679 ac., generally located North of Scripture St. and East of 1-35N. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay (RRO). Rayzor Ranch East, Block D, Lots IR and 2R Rayzor Ranch East, Lot 1 & 2, Blk E 322 IVI Rayzor Ranch South, BL 4, LTS IR & 2R Request for Plat Extension for The Residences at Rayzor Ranch Preliminary Plat (PP18-0010) comprising of 65 single-family detached residential lots, 215 single-family attached lots and 31 open spaces situated on 40 ac., generally located West of Bonnie B Residences at Rayzor Ranch PP 18-0010 Final Replat for Lot 7R, Block A of the Robson Ranch Golf Course A Ph 1 Addition situated on 32.734 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Gardenia Dr. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Robson Ranch Golf Course A Replat to create two lots for a community entry monument situated on .997 ac., generally located North of Robson Ranch Rd. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Platted as Ed Robson Boulevard, Block A, Lot 2-X. Robson Ranch Lot 2-X Entry Monument Preliminary Plat for a single family residential detached development situated on 21.9 ac., generally located North of Banded Iron Ln. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Robson Ranch Parcel 6.2 Final Plat for 65 single-family residential detached lots and 4 common area lots situated on 21.9 ac., generally located North of Banded Iron Ln. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Robson Ranch Parcel 6.2 Preliminary Plat for 135 single-family detached residential lots, 7 common area lots and 1 private street lot situated on 44.903 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Final Plat for 135 single-family detached residential lots, 7 common area lots, and 1 private street lot situated on 44.903 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Robson Ranch Unit - 27 286 S Robson Ranch Unit - 27 286 S Robson Ranch Unit 17-3 Robson Ranch Unit 18-2a Preliminary Plat for 86 single-family detached residential lots, 4 common area lots and 1 private street lot situated on 32.853 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Final Plat for 86 single-family detached residential lots, 4 common area lots and 1 private street lot situated on 32.853 ac., generally located North of Crestview Dr. and East of Ed Robson Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Robson Ranch Unit 26 Robson Ranch Unit 26 Final Plat for 132 single-family residential lots and 4 common area lots situated on 43.635 ac., generally located North of Riney Rd. and West of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Sagebrook Phase 1 132 S Final Plat for 16 single-family detached residential lots situated on 3.328 ac., generally located South ofAllred Rd. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Sagebrook Phase 2A Service King Sherman Village Addition Lot 1, Blk. A Singing Oaks Addition (Transferred From PP21-0026) Singing Oaks Addition(Latest review transferred to PP22- 0016 Preliminary Plat for a street extension situated on 30.445 ac., generally located North of Paisley St. and West of S. Loop 288. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Not Platted. Amending Final Plat for lots 7A and 8A-1 of the Solar Way Addition, situated on 2.091 ac., generally located North of Solar Way and West Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block A of the SP Denton 1 Addition situated on 44.089 ac., generally located North of Airport Rd. and West of Western Blvd. Zoned : Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. Final Plat for a warehouse/distribution center situated on 44.089 ac., generally located North of Airport Rd. and West of Western Blvd. Zoned: Heavy Industrial (Hl). Not Platted. Solar Way Addition Lots 7A and 8A Blk A SP Denton 1 Addition, PH 2 SP Denton 1 Addition, PH 2, Block A, Lots 1 and 2 Starbucks - 1205 W. University Dr. Preliminary Plat for a restaurant situated on 1.535 ac., generally located South of University Dr. and West of Fulton St. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Final Plat for an automotive repair and restaurant with drive-through situated on 1.535 ac., generally located South of University Dr. and West of Fulton St. Zoned : Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. Starbucks & Brakes Plus Final Plat for 120 single-family detached residential lots and 3 common area lots situated on 25.602 ac., generally located North of Long Rd. and West of Sherman Dr. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with overlay conditions of Residential 6 (R6). Not Platt Stark Farms Phase 3 244 S Final Plat for 124 single-family detached residential lots and 8 common area lots situated on 29.677 ac., generally located North of Long Rd. and East of Stuart Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Stark Farms, PH 2 Final Plat for 4 single-family detached residential lots situated on 4.23 ac., generally located South of Winston Dr. and East of State School Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. State School Addition - Block A, Lots 1-4 Preliminary Plat for 4 single-family detached residential lots situated on 4.23ac., generally located South of Winston Dr. and East of State School Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. State School Estates 4 S Final Plat for 225 single-family residential lots situated on 50.65 ac., generally located North of Loop 288 and West of E. Sherman Dr. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted. Stuart Ridge, Phase 2, 225 Lots, 9 Com. Areas, 1 Lift Stat. 225 S Final Plat for a 120 unit townhome residential development situated on 14.43 ac., generally located South of Spencer Rd. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Summerwell Denton lIB, PH 2B, Block 1, Lot 1 (Elan Denton) 120 M Preliminary Plat for a 120 unit townhome residential development situated on 14.43 ac., generally located South of Spencer Rd. and West of Mayhill Rd. Zoned: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN). Not Platted. Summerwell Denton Phase IIB , Block 1, Lot 1 (Elan Denton) Final Replat from three existing lots to two lots situated on 10 ac., generally located South of U niversity Dr. and East of N. Trinity Rd. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2) and ETJ – Division 1. Platted as Texas 380 RV Addition, Block A, Lot 1 (N PT), 380 RV A Texas RV Addition, Block A, Lot 1-R and Lot 2 Development Plat for Camp at Cole Ranch situated on 19 ac., generally located South of Tom Cole Rd. and East of C. Wolfe Rd. Zoned: Master Planned Community (MPC). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for a manufactured home community situated on 125.01 ac., generally located North of Ganzer Rd. and East of FM 156. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted Final Plat for 21 single-family detached lots and 73 single- family attached lots, with 1 common area lot, situated on 12.95 ac., generally located North of U.S. Hwy. 380 and West of Nacogdoches. Zoned: Rayzor Ranch Overlay District (RRO). Not Platted. The Camp at Cole Ranch The Reserve on Ganzer Rd The Residence at Rayzor Ranch Ph 2 94 S Final Plat for The Woodlands at McKinney Street for a manufactured home development situated on 120 ac., generally located North of McKinney St. and West of S. Trinity Rd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) with Residential 6 (R6) overlay condition and a Sp The Woodlands at McKinney Preliminary Plat for 6 residential lots and 1 common area lot for the The Woodlands on McKinney Street situated on 7.073 ac., generally located North of McKinney St. and West of South Trinity Rd. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6) overlay condition and a Specific The Woodlands on McKinney Street, BL A, LTs 1-6 Preliminary Plat for an industrial warehouse development situated on 8.903 ac., generally located North of E. University Dr. and East ofGeesling Rd. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Transpere Warehouse/Office - 4101 E. University Dr. Preliminary Plat for 3 commercial storage buildings situated on 5.892 ac., generally located North of E. University Dr. and East of Spring Valley Dr. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI) with a Specific Use Permit (S) S21-0008. Not Platted. U-Haul Mini Storage U-Haul Mini Storage DDC 2002 Preliminary Plat for a light industrial development situated on 35 ac., generally located South of N. 1-35E and East of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Urban Logistics 35 Urban Logistics Addition Lots 1- 4, Blk. 4 Final Plat for a light industrial development situated on 35 ac., generally located South of N. 1-35E and East of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Light Industrial (LI). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for a 232 unit multifamily residential development situated on 21.8 ac., generally located North of W. Windsor St. and East of Bonnie Brae St. Zoned: Residential 2 (R2). Not Platted. Urbana Bonnie Brae Addition, ___232Lot 1, Blk. A M Final Replat for Lot 1, Block A of the Five Ten Villas Addition, situated on 6.452 ac., generally located North of Lindsey St. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Villas Addition Preliminary Plat for a 240 unit multifamily residential development situated on 12 ac., generally located South of Vintage Blvd. and East of 1-35W. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Vintage Ranch Addition Lot 1, Blk I 240 IVI Final Plat for a 240 unit multifamily residential development situated on 12 ac., generally located South of Vintage Blvd. and East of 1-35W. Zoned: Planned Development (PD). Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for 123 single-family detached residential lots and 7 common area lots situated on 51.808 ac., generally located South of Vintage Blvd. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted Vintage Ranch Addition, Block 1, Lot 1 Vintage Village 123 S Final Plat for 123 single-family detached residential lots and 7 common area lots situated on 51.808 ac., generally located South of Vintage Blvd. and West of Fort Worth Dr. Zoned: Residential 6 (R6). Not Platted. Vintage Village Blks A thru H (Ph. 1) Vista Verde 79 S Amending Final Plat for 79 single-family attached residential lots and 7 common area lots situated on 8.882 ac., generally located North of San Jacinto Blvd. and West of Colorado Blvd. Zoned: Planned Development (PD) and Residential 7 (R7). Platted as VI Vista Verde - 1930 Colorado Blvd Amending Final Plat for Lot 1, Block 1 of Westdale Carriage Square Addition situated on 4.012 ac., generally located South of W. Eagle Dr. and East of S. Avenue C. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Final Replat for a 266 unit multifamily residential development situated on 3.347 ac., generally located North of N. 1-35E and East of Avenue C. Zoned: Mixed- Use Regional (MR). Platted as Westdale Carriage Square Addition, Lot 2. Preliminary Plat for a 126 unit multifamily residential development situated on 6.324 ac., generally located North of FM 1173 and West of 1-35. Zoned: Mixed-Use Regional (MR). Not Platted. Amending Final Plat to abandon a utility and access easement situated on .29 ac., generally located North of Willowwood St. and West of McCormick St. Zoned: Residential 3 (R3). Platted as Alyssa and David Addition, Block A, Lot 3. Amending Final Plat to abandon a utility and access easement situated on .29 ac., generally located North of Willowwood St. and West of McCormick St. Zoned: Residential 3 (R3). Platted as Alyssa and David Addition, Block A, Lot 3. Westdale - Carriage Square Westdale Carriage Square Addition, Block 1, Lot 2R 266 M Westview Heights at Denton - 6405 N 1-35 126 M Willowwood - 1514 Willowwood St. Willowwood - 1514 Willowwood St. Amending Final Plat to relocate common lot line between two platted residential lots situated on 0.172 ac., generally located North of Willowwood St. and West of Highland Park Rd. Zoned: Residential 3 (R3). Platted as Willowwood, Block A, Lot IR and Will Willowwood Addition - Lot IR- A and 3-A, Block A, Preliminary Plat for 152 single-family residential lots and 4 common area lots, situated on 42.966 ac., generally located South of Silver Dome Rd. and West of Cooper Creek Rd. Zoned: Residential 4 (R4). Platted as Nazarene Church Addition, Block 1, Lot 2 Windsor Oaks Phase 2 152 S Woodland Hills Plant #2 - 2995 Hartlee Field Rd. Final Plat for basic utilities situated on 3 ac., generally located North of Hartlee Field Rd. and East of E. Sherman Dr. Zoned: ETJ - Division 1. Not Platted. Preliminary Plat for 3 commercial lots situated on 6.838 ac., generally located North of Hickory Creek Rd. and West ofTeasley Ln. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. YOLO First Addition - Lot 1,2 YOLO First Addition Lot 1, Blk. A Final Plat for 3 commercial lots situated on 6.838 ac., generally located North of Hickory Creek Rd. and West of Teasley Ln. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. YOLO First Addition, Lot 2, Blk A Final Plat for a auto wash situated on 0.888 ac., generally located West of Teasley Ln. and Northwest of Hickory Creek Rd. Zoned: Suburban Corridor (SC). Not Platted. ____.,J[ APPENDIX WET WEATHER HYRDOGRAPHS Cooper Basin - Flow Meter Cl 10/12 2,400 2,000 1,600 1,200 800 400 0 88dN 00 Lnt-I(\t\(NpI abpI 0fr)NelHI\OU T-I\0 T-I 00Orr)oNpIT-I T-IFIRIf\1\\-\ngc\IpIt-IBaT-IPI 00 La T-I q-I (\1\\r\IFIa T-I 0fr) F(pI T-Ir\I\\nI T-I\\0Ft 006 (\1 t-Ir\I\alf-Ia T-1 0fri r\I(N HI(\I\\.r\It-I ahT-I 00\I R-I (\1\\fr)pI a- T-I 0fr) fr) T-1elfr)T-l ahpI 00 10 HIHI\fr)FI a- T-I 0fr) o6 q-1 QIfr)t-I\-b0FI 00,it-I T-1r\I\fr)T-I a-T-I 0fr) fri HI pIr\I-\fr)pI\\0t-I 00tdHI pIr\1\\fr) HI a-pI 0fr) 00 x-I T-I O\I\\.fr)FI\0FI 00 IIny q-1r\I C}; bx-I 0fr) cr)r\1 q-1r\I\fr)T-IaT-I 00 r\1 x-I(N\qFt-I\0pI 0fr) \J 1-1r\I\ipI 00b HI r\1--\qFI ah T-I 00fr)0a: /\idel(\It-I f-I 0frI\iFI pIr\I\qFhI\0pI 00F\ T-I FI(\I iF T-Ia T-I afr)a) t-1 T-I(N\\qrFI\\0FI 00 r\1r\1 T-1 r\1\S\at-I T-IT-I QLOI(\KNiT!:I0 0-T-IT-I Model '- „'Flow Meter 11/02 2,400 2,000 1,600 1,200 800 400 0 000 FI S iTT-I 0fr) r\I t-In\I\\pI\\t-It-I 00 Ln T-Ir\I\FI\FIq-I 0fr) N x-I r\1 q)iTT-I 88 00 Lf)x-I l-I nd\s-I\\HI T-1 oF\iFIx-I 0cr) NpI T-IfN\\T-I-\FI T-1 00ar\1 !-1r\1\\FI !ITT-I 0fr)r\Ir\I HIr\I\HI\T-Iel 00 ,1 T-1 T-I 0fr) fri HI(\I\\(\I\\.pIpI a0 10f-I pIf-I 00fr)0 CdF-idT-Ingpl pIT-IFI 0fr) fr)pIpIPg-\,0\1\T-Iq-I 00 10T-I T-Ir\I\(N\ T-1x-I 0fr) 00T-I T-i pI T-I 00,ir\I T-In\I\al\HIHI 0 fr) Cr) rN HIPg\ ()1FIx-I 0O nJ T-I el fr)pIpI 0fr) '.J pIr\1\fr)\pIpI 00 N t-Ir\I\\ fr)FIFI 00fr)0 00Fr)0 0 fr) anpI pI nd\ !!)T-I T-I 00 r\Ir\I t-Ir\1\\ 53Pt HIFI(!!!HI !-I-\\\\I-IT-IFIPl a;Adelr\IT-I T-IT-1el T-IT-ICNc\I x-IT-I +Nf-IT-I Model a1= 1 RA 1 1 H 11:B F 1 () \q\N1 1\n e t e r 11/10 2,600 2,200 1,800 1,400 1,000 600 200 0a6 pIr\1\g:T-1r-I 0 fr)r\i pI t-IHI 00 Fi e-Ir\1\\an\X,pIT-I 0fr) N HI bT-IFI 000 T-It-Ini\a)\\e-IpI 0fr)r\IHI HIr\I\ g) q-Ix-l 00 Lr)HI pInI aT\ T-Irl 0cr)bFI T-I{\I\elq-I!-1 000(\I T-Ir\I\X Q:FIFI 0fr)nir\I T-Ir\I\ SpI 00\1 HIr\1\\0pI\\FIT-I 0fr) fr)pInI\0-!-1\pIT-I 0a td !-1r\I 8- T-I\hHIT-I 0fr) 00 HI (10pI\pIHI 00\IpI T-Ir\IaT-I\\pIT-I 0al fr)pI t-Ir\I\0HI\HIFI 00 10 T-I T-Ial\\0-FI\\T-I T-I 0fr) o6pI !-1 {\1\0 !-1\\T-I!-1 00 ,1(\I T-Ir\1-\0T-I\f-It-I 0fr) fr)(\1 T-I{\I ahel\\pIpI aa nJ T-InI\\FIPi\FI T-I 00cno 0fr) art T-I(\I-\.FIr-I\T-IpI NrR 00 OgpI t-Ial\\pIpI\\x-1q-I 0fr)\it-I fMIr\1\FIT-I\XT-IHI 00 NFI FI(\I;}x-I\ T-It-I 00fr)0all\iT-lOIq-IpI CNC\1q\\\T-It-IpIt-I\\-\pIT-IHIFI pIt-I S S =t==pIpIT-le-I Model -”---’ Flow Meter Cooper Basin - Flow Meter C2 10/12 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Model '- ' =-Flow Meter 11/02 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Model --–,Flow Meter 11/10 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Model '-–--'Flow Meter Cooper Basin - Flow Meter C3 10/12 1,200 1,400 1,000 800 400 600 200 0 00(5 T-Ial\(NT-I\0T-I 0fr)al HI(N\Xr\1a\0q-I 00 Ln FI(\1\(\IpI\X0 T-I 0 fr) N t-IHI\r\I T-I a-pI 006t-I pIal\rgT-I\0pI 0fr) r\1f-I T-Ir\I\\fbIT-I B-q-I 00 LnT-I FIr\1\\.r\1HIaT-I afr) [< T-1 T-Ir\I\r\Iq-I\0Ft 006r\IpIal\nJt-I\\0t-I 0fr)rgHIFI(N AT T-IaFI 00 II FI(\I\fr) T-1 abT-I 0fr) fr)pIal\fr)HIa\ T-I 00 cdFI{\a\fr) T-I\0 T-I 0fr) DOf-I(\I\Xfr)pI\\0-T-I 00 ,1f-I T-Ir\1-\.fr)q-I\\0 T-I 0fr) fr)el pI(\I\fr)pI\0pI 00 td T-I T-Ir\I\\fr) T-I\0 T-I 0fr) 00pIpI r\1\\fr) T-I a- r-I Q0 ,1al T-Ir\I\hfr)pI\h0 q-I 0fr) fr)(\1el r\1\fr)T-I\0t-I 00 r\I HI{\I\srT-I\X0pI 0fr) -.J q-I r\1\\q-F-I ah q-1 00r\ T-I(\I\qFIaFI 0fr) aFi T-I(\I\qrFI\0pI 00 (N T-I FI(\I PrFI aht-I 0 cr) \J r-I T-Ind iFpIa T-I 00r\ f-1 T-I(\I PrFI\\.0 q-I 0fr) a)pI T-1(\I\qFT-I\\0 x-I 00 {\1r\1 T-I (\1\\qE-I\\,0pI Model m- 'Flow Meter 11/02 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00 C)pIrN iT\pIpI 0 cr) r\iFIn\I iT iT T-1 00 Ln f-InI--\T-I-\.HIpI 00cr)0hISdf-1(\IT-I pIT-IFI 0fr)r\I T-I T-Ir\I\\T-I\XpIpI a0 F)HIpIr\I\pI\T-It-I 0 cr)N T-I T-I r\1 < q-IT-I 00cir\1pI (XI\\x-I;} T-1 0 fr) r\I(\1 E-IhI\\FI\\T-1FI 00 ,1 T-1al\r-IpIpI 0cr) fr) T-I (\1--\.r\1\XT-IT-I 00 10el{\I'\.(\I FITpI 00fr10oo;idT-IhI1-1 T-IPIF-I 0fr) Cr)pI HInJ\\al;iT-I 00 InT-I T-1r\I\\r\1\HIT-I 0fr) 00 q-1 T-Ir\I\\!!!T-It-I 00 ,1(\1t-Ir\I\\ (1FIt-I 0fr) fr)r\IFI n\1 ;\TiT q-1 00 nJFI(\I\\fr)iTpI 0fr)a' HIr\I\\fr)\\T-I T-I 0aN t-I(N f:$pIHI 0fr) OF) q-In\I T-I 00 egT-I T-I (XIX\.fr)\t-lx-I 0fr) -,JHIpIr\I\\atT-It-I 00NT-I T-1r\I\ !!)pIt-I 0 Cr) artHI pI nd\\fr)\T-I q-I 00 ng(N T-Ir\I\\fr)\\T-IT-I Model --=“’-Flow Meter 11/10 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 400 600 200 0 a06 T-I(\I\ g)!-1 q-I 0 Cr) r\IFl el Q)t-Iel 00 Ln x-I(N aT\\T-IpI 0fr) N t-InI\elFlpI 000T-I T-Ira\ g)FI q-1 0fr) r\IHI t-Ir\I-\,elf-I T-I 00 Ln q-I T-Ir\I-\.an\\T-I T-I 0fr)bHIt-Ir\I\ g) T-IT-I 00ar\IFInJ\Xg)pI T-1 0fr) r\Ir\It-Ir\I\\an fITFl 00\Ir-Ir\I a- x-I\\t-IT-I 0fr) fr) T-Ind\0HI\T-I T-I 00 cd T-Ir\IX\0-T-I\q-I T-I 0fr) 00pI r\1a !-1 iTpI 00\I T-If-I(\I\\0q-I\\.x-I T-1 0fr) fr)elFIr\I\0t-I\\T-IpI 00 10FIFtr\I a-T-I;} q-I 0fr) 00T-It-Ir\1\X,0-pI\pIpI 00 tI CbI T-I r\1\h0 T-I\\.T-1t-I 0fr) fr)(\Irl rN\0pI\\FIx-I 00 r\If-Ind\t-IpI\FI T-I 0 cr) -JpIr\I\\HIx-I\FIFI 00 F( r-Ir\I\\T-IFI\HIT-I 0fr)a) T-I(N\Ffx-I\HIpI 00 r\I T-1 HI OJq\t-I T-I !ITx-I 0fr) \JT-If-Ir\1\XT-I T-1\pIFI 00Nt-I T-Ir\I\T-I T-I\T-I T-I 00fr)0 dpIQ!!!x-I T-I-q-IFf\X--\pIT-IFIT-I one\iTHeN Model ---*--Flow Meter Hickory Basin - Flow Meter Hl 10/12 3,200 2,800 2,400 2,000 1,600 1,200 800 00000Orr) Off) 0aN CfiN 6Hq-Id dPI{\I (N (\ItNT-I\\ \\ x\ \ nIal- al- C\I N ;-\pIT-I FIT-Ingas eggs !-1 0 fr) nlpI T-1(\1\r\IpI-\.0 T=1 00 Lnrl q-Ir\I\h.r\1pI-'\apI 0fr)NHI T-1r\IX\.(NpI ahx-I 00Orr)dAInIna 00 ,1 T-I {\1'-\fr) qUI\0HI 0fr) fr) HIr\1\fr)pI\X0pI 00 CD T-Ir\1-\fr)FI ahFI 0fr) 00 t=1(N\Xcr)T-I aNpI 00,ipI pIr\I\fr) T-I\-h0-pI 0frI cr)FI FI(\I\\cr)-T-I\\0pI 00 10el FIr\1\fr) e-I\h0pI 0fr) 66pIatfbI\\fr) tUIXX.0 HI 00 .1 r\I pInI\fr)pI'-\0HI afr)frI(N pIr\I'-\fr)pI-\.0HI 00 Cqrl (XI+ T-1 ahT-I 0fr) '.J FI (N\q qUI\0pI 00b t-I (XI\q!-1n-\a T-I 0fr) an pI O\I\\q 1=1\0HI 888cHeNpI +IT-I 00fr)0 efFI(bInd;ifiTHIFIahab+IT-1 FIT-leIour\lol\.bb\ \\q qr qq=1 e-IPI\.b --\ \\000FI pIT-I T-IPIal(\1\\--\eRrHIV-I Bba-pIg-I arINT-If\I Model -=- Flow Meter 11/02 3,200 2,800 2,400 2,000 1,600 1,200 800 00 C)FI{\I iTr-I--\0FI 0fr) r\1rl {\1\alT-I'\.0 q-1 00 Ln T-InIq\.rNT-In\.0 HI 0fr)b q-Ial\r\1 x-I''\0pI 00 C) T-1 T=1 n\I-\(\IpI anx-I afr) & q-1 t-I r\1-\.r\IpI-\0-pI 00 LnpI pI (N\nIpI\\0pI 0fr)brl T-1 r\1\r\1FI\X0pI 000HI q=1 n\I'\.r\I T-I\0 x-I 0 fr) nI r\1 T-Ind\\(\1pI\0pI 00 ,1 pI{\I-\.fT)rl ahpI 0 fr) fr) t-Ial\h,fr)pIaFI 00 10 T-I r\1\fr) T-1\.b0!-1 0fr) 66 pI r\1q\,fr)e-I\\0HI 000Orr) 0HaiG;T-Id FI 0fr) 66pIFI (\1\\fr)t-I aNpI a0 .1(XI HI (\1\Xfr)pI\X0-T-I 0fr) frIr\IFI(N\Xfr) T-I\apI 00 nJpInI-\, Sr q\,0pI 0fr)\I !HIr\I'\.q\ I\0q-I 00N pIr\I'\. +\I\0!MI 0fr)a) t-Ir\1-\qr\I-\.0HI T-It-IPI (\1 rbI Cq\-b -\ \Xcarr) fr)E-I pIT-Ib\ \\ \\000pIT-IT-1 00Orr);\ivdpI a0R T-IpIalaT-l\\0 T-I 0fr) art T-I q-1r\1+ T-I-\0 r-I 0a r\1 r\1 qUIr\I +-pI'\,0FI x-IT-1nI(\1-\-\eRrx-IT-I ahabpIT-I Model c= - Flow Meter Hickory Basin - Flow Meter H2 10/12 800 600 700 400 300 500 200 100 0 006 pIrg\\nIpIapI Ln HI r\i pIr\I\XHIT-I a\q-I a Lf)\r T-Ial\(\1T-I\\0pI Ln T-Ib pIr\I\\{\1T-I\0 q-I aiN THT-Ir\IT-I;}{}T-INB::I!-10T-I aLf)qQ aLf)rOLf) + CdpIT-I aLf)r\Istcnt-iPIngt-IpIr\If\I\\\\r\IrqT-IPIaB-T-tt-I 0pI6 FI(\I\\fr)T-I\0x-l Lf) fr) (N T-I S q-1 ahx-I Q0 LnpI(\I\\fr)q-1 ahT-I Lf)r\1N q-Ir\1\fr) q-I\\0pI t-IpI!!e:r\1 r\r b ST-IpI aLf)Lr)pIa)(\idT-I S a b :FI 0qr FI T-I(\1\fr)pI\aFI Ln0N T-1 T-1r\I\cr) t-1\0 T-I 0fr)a) x-I FIr\I\fr) HIapI LnLr) ,1r\I E-1r\I\\ff) T-I abT-I aLf)(\IstdI\iT-IPInIc\i\\\\VHFpIT-I\\\\00t-IT-I 0FI Lr; q-Ir\I+T-I ahpI LOOfr)0NddT-Ir\IT-I;\el SRFIO!-1 Lnal 0,1 T-IFIal iF T-I ahHI 0 Ln \J T-IpIr\I;- q-I a- T-I Lf)0rIseba;FIT-IFIT-Ir\Irq-\-\SS-\\\00t-IT-I Lr)0 alfN pIr\I+t-1aFI Model -'A-- Flow Meter 10/27 800 700 600 400 500 300 200 100 0 000pIr\I car\I a-pI Lr)r\I r\I E-1{\I\\10(N-'\.O T-l 0Lr) \JFI nd\10 {}10 HI Lr)0e-IStbar) FIt-I(\If\I Lib:ar\IfNBB-T-IR-I Ln0 niT-I HI(N\10 el0pI OLDfr)Lr)+CdT-IT-t OK)r\Istaif:iq-tO,IFIt-I(!!!tOLDCIal00T-IpI 0f-I0 elnI Rbal a-FI Lr)fr)(\i T-lr\I FITDJ a-FI 00 Ln T-Ial\\N (110q-1 LOOrgu)Nd!-IT-Inlrq FCRxr\Irq 8-bbq-IT-I Ln 0 Ln,-1 qF 0 aLf)t/IT-1afr)a) T-I !-1r\I FC ST-I +NpIT-I BRI Lnqr\IpIr\I-\, CO-r\IapI 0T-I Ln T-Ial;ar\I a- T-I Lnfr)bpIr\I\00 el0t-I Fic; OqrqT-If\IeliBNfl!:l8ON T-I 0q ar)pI FI(\I\\00-{\I\\0-\ I N + NpIT-IT-I Ln0 r\1 (XI e-Ir\I &b SpI aLf)OCN dpIOUr\I LbbCa S ST-IpI T-1 !-IT-I S S S(TIClet000T-IT-IFI T-IE-I(\1(N&:a(XI(N 8xBbpIT-I dRt-IT-I T-IT-I(\If\1\\\\0000 b bT-IT-I Model '---'„Flow Meter 11/02 700 800 600 400 500 300 200 100 0 00d pIr\I-\.T-I\q-It-I r\t+T-IT-Ir\Ini\\\\T-IPI\\\\PIe-Ic-IpI LOOoqLr)LrtOpIsabar;FIT-ICNr\I t-IpI tr)0 r\1 T-1 T-Ir\I\\FI\FI T-I 0fr)\I HI t-Ir\:--\ !-1-\\FIFI cr) Lf) cdx-I T-Ir\I\\HI\XT-Ix-I 0r\Ia)t-I T-I r\1\1-1\\.elt-I Lnqr\InJ pInI-\pI\pI q-I 0T-I0 FI (\1b\elt-IT-I Lr)fr) r\i q-I r\1-\.(N iTT-l 8 Ln q-Ir\I\(N\\HIT-I Lr)(\IN T-Ir\I\ ()1q-I T-I 0 Lf)a) pInI'\.r\I\f-I T-I Lr)q-I a\I T-1 T-I (\1--\(\I\\. T-1el g \IF-IpI(\I\ !=. T-IpI Ln0NT-I T-I (1q.I-IT-I 0fr) a)T-I FIr\I\.r\1\t-IT-I Lf)Lf) IIng t-lr\I\r\I\\T-I T-I 0 r\16 T-Ir\I\(rtr-IT-I Lnq r\1 q-I (\1\\ fr)FIpI 0 T-I Lr) pInJ-\.fr)\\T-I-pI Lnfr)N T-I(\I\\fr)\pIT-I dAIpIT-IFIx-I pIT-IFIT-1 aLf)Or\I 0Lr) S e-I r\1-\.fr)\\elt-I LnFIbT-I t-I(\I\fr)'-\.FI x-I SiR: q-IT-1 FIT-I OLDRFa Model -–Flow Meter Hickory Basin - Flow Meter H3 10/12 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 00 C) pIr\I\(NFI\\0-FI 0ff) (N pI n\1-\,alt-IX\0t-I 8 L7) T-I ndn\.r\I x-I’\,0pI 0cr)A q-I Oil--\(\1FI-\.0FI 000q-I T-Ir\I-\.r\1HI ahFI 0fr) (\1T-I T-I{\I ;\TpI\\0el 00orr)00 r\I pI (\1-\.qFpI\\0pI R 88888 Sig = = :: :ISS giRI(-yr\,If-gT-IT-IT-IT-IPI\,. \\ \\ r\itN tN nd nl SSS :F + -+ + aas gEtS SSSIpI pIT-iT-IpI CribT-IPI 000nI q-Ir\I-\.fbIrlapI 0cr) (\Ir\I q-I (XI fRIpI\0pI 8 ,1 pInI'\.fr)T-In\.0pI 0cr) fr)FI ChI\fr) T-I\\0FI 00 10 q-Ir\Iq\cr)elapI T-Irlairy\'\RIO\1club00pI1-1 dieddelr\IT-I = S 13=t+10pI 00A)0 0fr) fr)pI T-I fbI''\fr) !-1''\0pI 00 CDrl T-InJ\Xfr) T-I\\apI 0fr) 66 T-I e-Ir\1\\cr)pIapI 00 ,1 r\1 x-I(\1 ;TpI\0pI 0fr) cr)r\I FIr\I\Xfr)HI'-\0q-I Model '=-='-L'Flow Meter 11/02 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 0 cr)b q-IpIr\1n\,pI\\pIpI 00orr)000(\IFInI\\pI'\t-1t-I 0cr) alnI HIPa\.bpIh\.pIpI 00 ,1rlr\I\\r\1\XelpI 0al cr) e-I r\1n-\ r\1\X!-1pI 00 10FIr\I\\r\I--\, T-IT-l 0fr) 66pIal-\nI'\.FIpI 00 .1T-I T-I CN\\nI\\FIpI 0fr) Fr) T-I q-I (\1\h.(\I\XpIpI 00Orr)00 .1ng x-InJ\\r\1'-\pIpI 0fr) inr\1 T-Ir\I\h.fbI\XT-Iq-I 00 r\1 pI(\I\XfrI\bb T-IpI 00fr)0 0fr) an pIPa-\.fr)'-\FIT-I 00 r\1el q-I (\1\Xfr)-\,pIpI 00frtO 00cr)0 dAIT-IPI6101-'\'\T-Irl-\-\cITIpIT-I 00 Cr) T-Ir\I-\.pI\x-IHI 0ff)ApIr\I\T-I\-bpIrl 000el T-Ir\IX\ T-I\hT-I HI 0 cr) nIFI T-+al\\pI'\.pIpI 00 Lnel T-Ir\1-\.pI\XpIel (660q-IpI T-IT-I(\1(N ;aRT::T=FIT-1 +NFIT-1r\Ina aT$x-jq-1t-jq-I +bq-IpIpIT-I(\1(\I PT;T;IT!ITpIT-I artnIrlr\IT-jq-IFar\I\\q\!!){r)pIT-IHI!-I Model -== -- Flow Meter Hickory Basin - Flow Meter H4 10/12 2.000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00(5 q-Ir\1\{\IT-I\\Oq-I 0fr) ny pIr\I\\r\IT-I\0pI 00 Lr) FI{\1\\r\IpI\0t-I 0 fr)b FI(N\r\IpI\h0 T-I a0 OT-I T-1HI\\.rgFI\0pI afr) ngFI FIr\I\r\IpI\0 T-1 00 LnpI HIr\I\ r\1pI\0T-I 0fr) NT-I FIr\1\Xr\1T-I\\0-pI 006n\1 pInI-\,ng T-1 ahT-I 0 cr)rgal T-Ir\i\Xr\1T-IaT-I 00 ,1 t-1 r\1\fr)FI ah x=1 0fr) fr)t-Ial\\fr)x-I\0pI 00td FInJ\fr)T-I\0T-I 0fr) 00 q-1hI\ff)HI\X0 T-I 00\I T-1 T-I (\1\\fr)q-I ah x-I afr) fr)T-I e-I (\1\\fr)q-I\\0t-I 00 CdFI t-Ir\I\fr)T-I\0q-I 0fr) 00t-1 x-InI\fr)x-IapI 0a\Ial T-1r\I\\fr)T-I ahpI 0fr) fr) (\1 T-Ir\1\\fr)pI a- T-1 00 r\i pI {\1\qF-T-IaT-I 0 cr) -J !-1 0\1\qFpI\0pI 00NpI(N\qFT-I\0 T-1 0 fr) an q-I(\i\qrq-I ahHI 00 r\IFI HIfN arHI aN T-I 0 fr) S T-IhI\\qFI\0 T-1 00bpI FI(\t\XqF\I\0 f-1 0fr) a)T-I T-I r\1\\qrq-I\\0 T-I 00 r\Ir\1 FIr\I\\sr-r-I\X0-el Model • -Flow Meter 11/02 2,000 1,600 1,800 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00 C) T-I(N\ q-1\t-IT-I 0fr) r\1 FIng iT tITFI 00 Ln T-Ir\1\\q-I-\.q-IFI 0cr)bpI {\1\\el\\.x-1HI 000T-I T-Ir\I\1-1\pIT-I 0fr) r\IelpIr\I\T-I-\T-IFI 00 LnpI T-Ir\1\\T-I\\FIx-I 0fr)N T-I !-1r\I--\T-I\q-IF-I 00 C; r\1 T-Ir\I\pI\\x-It-I 0fr) r\Ir\I T-Ir\I\T-I\pIT-I 00 ,1 T-InI iT\pIel 0fr) fr) T-I(\I'-\.(\1;}x-I 00 10 HIr\I\\{\1-\. T-1t-I aff) 60 pI{\I--\r\I\X T-1T-I 00 ,1T-I T-Ir\I\Xelq-I T-I 0fr) fr)T-I FIr\1\\r\1\pI q-I 00 10pI pIr\I $T-IpI 0fr) 00 T-1 q-Ir\I\\.{\1iT T-I 00 .1(\I t-Ir\1-\.r\i\\FIT-I 0fr) fr){\I pInd\el HI!-1 00 Pg pI(N\ (e.pIpI 0fr) 'JpIr\I\ !!!T-IT-I a0N T-InJ;i\XT-IT-f 0fr) ar) x-IPq\\fr)\ q-1 T-1 00NT-I pI(XI\!!!q-I x-l 0fr) \JT-l q-Ir\I f:$x-I T-I 00r\ q-IpIr\I\\fr)\Xr-IFI 0fr) a;t-It-InJ\\fr)\Xq-1q-I 00 DJ(\I T-Ir\I\\ ct)HIT-I Model –’-'Flow Meter 11/10 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00(5 T-I O\I\ g)T-If-I 0fr)r\I x-1(\1 $pIFI 00 Ln x-Ir\I dR\FIFI 0 fr) N t-l(\I aT\\T-IT-I 006t-I pIal\\ g:T-1 q-I 0fr) r\1f-I T-I(N\X g)q-I T-I 00 LnpI elr\1 aT\pIFI 0fr)b T-I HIr\I aT\FI T-I 00d(\I T-Ir\I\Xar)\e-IFI 0fr) r\I n\I qUI(\I\ g)f-I T-1 00\I pI(\I\0pI\\T-Ix-I 0fr) fr) T-InI\X0T-I\T-IHI Q0 10 pIr\I ah!! q-IT-I 0fr) DO !-1r\1aT-I\pIFI 00 ,1pI T-Ir\I-\.0 !-1-\.x-It-I 0fr) fr)el el(N\0FI\\T-I T-I 00 10T-I T-Ir\I\0 t=1\\FIT-I 0fr) 00t-I s-Ir\I\X0 q-I\q-IT-I 00 ,1(\1 FI(N asT-I T:iT-I 0fr) cr)r\I T-Ir\I aht-I\\T-IpI a0 nI t-I {\1\\t-IFI\\el!-1 0 cr) \J T-I{\I\XT-IpI\T-Iq-1 00N q-Ir\I\XpIT-I\Flq-I 0fr) ar) f-1r\1 iTpI\T-IT-I 00 r\1x-I T-l r\1-\.pIHI\\.T-IpI 0fr) *JT-I HI r\1\FI T-I\XT-I T-I 00 NT-I f-Ial\x-IpI\FIe-I 0cr) atF-I T-Ir\I\t-1T-t\t-IHI 00 r\1r\I el OJ\pIt-I\X T-1T-I Model -Flow Meter Hickory Basin - Flow Meter H5 10/12 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00Orr)000orr) 0CfiN 6FIT-InIT-IT-IT-1(\if\inI\\ \\ -\r\log n\1pIT-IpIBba- apI pIT-I 00 LnpIrN\.nn\IHI\.b0pI 0Cr) FxpIal\fbI !-1\h0 T-I 00Orr)afr)frI(N FI(\I\\fr)q-I-\,0el 00 Cqrlel\q T-I\0pI afr) \J T-I(\1\q T-Ibbq0 XMI 00b T-IhI\\q T-1ael 0fr) artpIr\1 arrl as T-I 00 n\IpI T-I (XIb\.qq-I\\0T-t 0fr) (1tIpIr\I'\.qrt-I ahpI 00NelpIr\I+T-I\0-pI 0frI artFIFI Pq\qFFI\\0-pI 00N{\Iel r\1 ?1T-I a- q-I dAI 00 Cd T-1 T-1r\1'\.fr)q-1 anT-I O0 ,1r\I pIna\Xfr)pIapI dogpIT-I 0fr) rg(\1 x-Ir\i-\.nIf-I a- !HI 00 ,1pI(\I\fr)pI\0pI 0fr) fr) pIal\\ cr) T-1\h0FI 00 Cd pInI\fr)e-I\0T-I afr) 66 T-I nJ\fr)T-I\0 qUI 00,1 pI T-1(N\\fr) q=1-\.0pI 0 fr) Fr) T-I q-Ir\1q\.fr) q-I\\0 x-I 0fr) 66 T-IpIal\Xfr)pI aNHI pIT-Inlcxl-\\\HIFIpIT-I ahabq-IpI T-IPIr\InI\\\\rungx-IT-I\-\00dpI Model – Flow Meter 11/02 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 00ocn 00 10FI pIr\I\Xal-\ T-IT-I 0fr) 60pI rleN\-b(\I\n x-1pI 00 .1(\1 pIr\1-\, (VbpIT-I 0fr) fr)r\I FIrN\\Pq'\.pI q-I 00N q-I(\I\\fr)\\ T-IpI 0fr) (JelCq\bfr) iTx-l 0Ob FI(XI c}I\q-IFI 0 cr) art s-Ial c}I\ T-IpI 00 r\IFI pI n\Iq-\fr)\h T-Ix-I 0 fr) \JHI T-Ir\I\fr)-\t-IT-I 00bq-I T-Ir\1\fr)\ !-1 T-1 00cr)0 Of\I 00Orr)Lflbq-IT-Ir\lol-\\\q-IpI-\\\q-IT-1q-IT-I 00ocn pIt-Ir\log;ItIT'\\XT-IPIT-IPI dr\IT-IT-I 00 LnpI T-Ir\I\\.rl\E-I q-I 0 cr) NpI pI (XI\XpI\ !-1 q-1 a0 C)n\1FIr\I\XT-1\ht-IpI afr) r\I(\I T-In\1\\E-I\ !-1pI 00 ,1FInJ\r\1--\FIpI 0fr) cr) T-I(N\r\Ib\HI T-I 00 10 q-I(\1\\(N--\pIpI 0ff) 60 pInI'\.N\\pI T-1 00 ,1 q=1 T-Ial\\(N-\,t-I q-I 0fr) fr)t-I x-IPg\X,al\ T-IT-I E-It-1RInd\\\XT-IPI\\\X!-IpIpIT-I pIT-Ifqnl-'\\h.!!)!!)FIT-Iq-IT-1 arialpIC\I Model ----=Flow Meter Pecan Basin - Flow Meter P2 & Flow Meter P3 10/12 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 000 q-I n\1\\r\Icl0 T-I 0fr) DJf-I(N\\r\1pI\0el 00 Ln T-I Pq\r\1pI\0pI hd df-Ir\IT-I;TelT-If\Iah!!x-lOT-I 00cr>O 0fr) Pa T-1 T-Ir\I\\(\IFI\\0pI 00 LnFIpIr\I\(NHI\0 q-I 00cr)0 00enGbdT-lOI 0fr) fr) T-1(\1 C}; T-Ia !-1 00 10 q-I(\1 C}; T-I ahHI 0 cr) o6 el(\I\\fr) x-I ah T-I 00 ,1FI FIr\I\fr)pI\\0T-I 0fr) fr)T-l elr\I\Xfr)pI\X0q-I 00 G T-1 T-I(N\Xfr)T-I\0T-I 0fr) 00T-I FI(\I\\fr)T-Iac-I 00\Ir\I elO\I\Xfr)q-I ah T-1 0cr) fr)nJ T-I(\1\\cr) !-1 ahe-I 00Orr)00 Fx e-I(N\\qFq-1\0T-I 00fr)0a;XI dT-I(\IpI;FeI T-I 0fr) \1pI pI (\1a q-1 ah T-I 00ocn 00 nIr\1 pIr\I\\qpI\\0 T-I dpInI(\I\\\\(Nrl!-IT-IX\\\00T-IT-I r\IT-irNIdT-1(\I S in SgFt Pq+q-It-Ir\1(\1++T-IPI 8-ahT-IPI bar;T-IT-Iq-IT-Ir\If\i++T-IPIaabq-IpI Model -–Flow Meter 11/10 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 006 FI fN\\a)\pIFI 0N) r\I t-InI\a)\\!-1pI 00 tf) T-Ini\\.a)\\pIpI 0fr)b T-IhI\\g)FIT-I 000 HI HI (XI\ g)pIt-I (NLn!-It-IpIT-Ir\If\IaT&\\\XT-IT-IpIT-I 00M)0 0fr)b !-1FIr\I aT iTT-I 00a(\IFI(\I\ aFl-\FtpI r\IT-1 r\ITdt-tna!!BbaIr-I\X-\pIT-IpIT-I 00fr)0 0fr)ff) T-Ir\I\\0q-I\h.T-If-I 00 cd T-Ir\1\\0 T-1\\FIFl eaT-I dPIr\IT-IBIll 00cno 0fr) fr)pI t-Ir\I a-HI\T-IT-I 00 10HI pI (N ahT-I\\elf-I 0fr) COe-I t-I{\I ahI-I\\T-IT-I 00 ,1(\1 t-I(N ahPt\T-IFI 0fr) fr)(\1 t-IDJ\0pI\FIf-I 00 r\I t-InI\t-IpI\\q-IT-I 0fr) *Jt-Ir\I\t-It-I-\,r-1T-I 00b f-Ir\I\\T-IpI\\T-IT-I 0fr)a)pIrg iTFI\\q-IFI 00Orr)00N e-I f-InI\FIt-I\FI T-I r\IVT-IPI P>8 T-IT-InlnJ-\-'\T-IT-IT-tFl\\\XpIT-1pIT-I pIT-1aIr\I\\\\t-It-1T-IT-I\\\\dpIT-IT-I a)(\iT-If\I pI Model --*,-' Flow Meter Pecan Basin - Flow Meter P4 10/12 4,200 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 2,200 1,800 1,400 1,000 006 FIHI\(\1T-I\0pI 0fr)al e-Ir\I\(\1T-I\0Pt aa Ln q-1(\I\(NpI\0pI 0fr)A e-1nI\\r\1pI a-T-I 000 T-I T-Ial\\FaFI-\.0!-1 0fr) Pg T-I T-I(\I\h.(\1 T-1-\.0 q-1 a0 LnpI T-1r\1n\.naT-I ahq-I 0fr)b T-1 T-I{\1\\nI T-1 a-pI 000 (\1pIal\\.allT-Ia qUI 0 Of)rg(N T-Ir\In\.r\IT-IapI 00 ,1pI {\1;;HI\hOpI 0fr) fr) T-I ChI\hfr)HI\0pI 00 CdpIal\cr) T-I\0el 0fr) 66 HI nJ\Xcr) T-1\0 T-I 00Orr)a0 Cdq-I T-IhI-\.fr)FIb\.0r-I q:j&;T-Irl 0fr) 66pI T-I r\1X\fr)T-Ib\.0pI 00; 1nI T-Ir\1'\.fr)T-I a- T-I 0fr) fr){\1 T-Ir\I-\.fr)pI ahpI 00 (\1pI(XI\q T-I\0 T-l 0fr) (1 q-Ir\1-\, S\0pI 00b q-lr\I\qe-I\b0rl 0fr) an e-I (\1\qFT-I\0FI a0 r\1pI pInd\\ + x-I'\,0 T-l 0fr) -J T-1 FIHI\q tI\0t-I a0NHI T-Ir\I\qF x-I\0pI 00cno pIT-Ir\1(\I\\-\HIfr)pIT-1-'\\\00e-IT-I T-letr\leN--\\qqT-IPI\\'\00t-IT-I a)(NT-IfXI Model ' ---'Flow Meter 10/27 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 2,200 1,800 1,400 1,000 000 pIr\I--\ 10el0T-I 0fr) fN t-Ir\I-\.10r\I--\QT-I 00 Ln T-1nI''\10r\I\\0T-I 0ff)b q-Ir\I'\.10r\1q\.0T-I 000 T-I T-1(N Cb-{\I a- T-1 0 fr) Al q-1 x-1nI Gbn\1 ahT-I 00 a)t-I T-Ir\1 la{\1 ahpI 0fr)NpI T-Ir\I Ci-(\1ax-I 000 r\1pI(\1-\,tO-r\I\X0pI 0fr) (\Ir\IFInJ\10{\1\0pI 00 ,1 T-I Pa-\,Nr\1=\,0T-I 0fr) cr) T-I(\I\br\1\X0 q-1 00 LDpI n\1\b(N\0 T-I 0fr) DOpIr\I\h.b(\I\\0t-I 00 .1FI T-I(N\b(N\0t-I 0cr) fr)pIpIHI\\N QI0T-I 00 10T-I q-I(\I FCr\1 ahq-I 0fr) 66T-I T-I (\1 r=-r\I abpI 00 .1r\1 T-1al itbal\X0-T-I 0fr) frI n\1 T-I n\1 it-{\1\X0- T-+ 00 nJ pIr\I''\00(\1\\0T-I 0 fr) \I pIr\1'\, 'aor\1\0q-I 00b pIr\I\00{\1-\,0T-I 0 fr) a) FIr\1-\, GO (XIn\.0rl 00 r\IpI T-Irgn\,aa Q!0pI 0fr)\Irl HIr\1\00el0HI 00b x-IpI(N\00a\0pI 0fr)a) T-I x-Ir\:\00!!!0pI 00{\Ir\I T-1hI\00 (Nb0 q-I Model '- ;= 'Flow Meter 11/10 5,400 5.000 4,600 4.200 3.800 3,400 3,000 2,600 2,200 1,800 1,400 1,000 00 6 T-Ir\I'\.anShEr-IFI 0fr) nI T-I (\1-\.art-\h,T-IT-I 00 Ln pI nJ aRT-\,T-I T-1 0cr)b T-I r\1\ ar)-\-Lq-IpI 00 OpI t-Ir\IU-\ g)FIHI 0fr) NFI q-1HI''\g\FIHI 00 LnpI T-1r\I'\, g)T-IpI afr)bpI pIr\I'\,qIT-Irl 006(\I pIn\I--\ gIIpI T-I 0fr) rg{\1 T-Ir\I\ srIe-I T-I a0\I T-I (N'\.0T-I\Xt-I T-I 0fr) al HI{\I a-el\XrlpI 00 10 t-Ir\I a- T-1\b T-I T-I air-IHPIr\!1-1 esq\bT-IpIx\HIFI T-I 00cr)0 0fr) fr)pIFI (\1\0-e-I-\,T-I T-I 00 10elpI r\1\\0-T-IX\T-I T-I 0fr) 00Pl T-IHIn\0t-I\\pI T-I 00Orr)00FIt-I nd-\.x-IT-I\\ T-1T-I pIer)O\lOg 0fr) \J T-Ir\I\XpIpI\XpIT-I 00ApInI\HIpIb\,FIq-I 0fr) anpIr\I\he-1q-1\FIpI 00 r\1 T-1 T-I(XI\\T-IpI\T-IpI 0fr) \J\ -I T-Ir\I\XFIHI\XpIFl 00NpI !-1Og\\pIpI\XT-1pI 0fr) an fMI T=1al--\pIT-I-\. E-IFI a0al r\1 HI(\I'\.pI!-1\\T-IpI T-le-IRICH''\\X00HIFI-'\-'\pIT-IFIR-I Model '='–=’Flow Meter Pecan Basin - Flow Meter p5 10/12 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 400 600 200 0 006 T-Ial\\r\1 T-I\\O q-I 0fr) hI HI (\I\r\IpI\0 T-I 00 Ln FI r\1'\(\I q-1\0 q-I 0fr) N t-Ir\i\nJ!-1\0pI 006FI pIr\1\nJrlapI 0fr)njHIpIfN\\(\IT-I aht-I 00 LnpI q-I(\I\\r\1pI\\0q-I 0fr) F( q-I T-Ir\I\\nJpI\\0pI 006 (\1pIal\\r\IpI\0FI Ofr) r\d(\If-Ina\\r\1 T-I\\0 T-1 00 ,1 e-Ir\1\\fr) T-1\0pI 0fr) fr) E-Ir\1 C};HI ahr-I 00 10 FIr\I\\fr)pI\X0- T-1 0fr) 66 T-Ir\I\fr)FI a- T-I 00 StHI HI(\1\\ fr) T-1\0t-I 0fr) cr)t-I q-I(N\\fr)HI-\.0T-I 00 10 T-1 FI(N\\fr)e-I\0-FI 0fr) 00 T-It-Ir\I\\.fr)t-I aht-I 00 ,1nI T-InI\\fr)T-I\\0 T-I 0 fr) frI{\I pIr\I-\.fr)pI\0 T-I 00 r\1 FI(\I\q x-1\0x-I 0 fr) \I pIr\I\ :\0pI 00b T-1r\I\q T-1 ahFI 0 cr) a; FInI iFFI ab HI 00 (\1T-I T-I(\I\\qT-I\\.0 T-1 0fr) \IFI FIr\1\qrFI\\0pI 00bx-I HIr\I\ Sr\0T-I 0frI aFlT-I T-IhI+t-I a-F-I 00 r\ihI T-I(Nn\.srT-Iaq-I Model –,Flow Meter 10/27 1,200 1,400 1,000 800 400 600 200 0 or\ipIt-1r\log CJTi-{\Irq abB-T-IT-I 00ON)00 Ln T-Ir\i\10 ()10 q-I 0 fr)b T-I(\I\10 (10el 000pI T-Ir\1 ca(N\0pI 0fr) r\iT-IFIr\I Ci-r\1aT-I 00 LnpI T-Ir\1 Gbn\I\\0T-I 0fr)NpI q-I r\1 ca S F-1 006 fbI T-Ir\I\in QI0T-I 0fr)hI r\1Fl(\I\10a\0t-I 8 ,1 T-I nJ\\br\I\0 T-I 0fr)ff; T-Ir\I\\br\I\\0T-I 00 10 pI(\I Rbr\: ahFI 0fr) CO x-Ir\1 Fix(N abHI 00Orr) T-ICr)T-IT-I 8 10T-I T-1 r\1;: QI0 x-I 0fr) o6T-I q-Ir\1 FCr\I ahT-I 00 ,1r\I T-InI F:nI ahpI 0fr) frir\I T-I(\1 F: bFI 00 ON q-I (\1\\00r\I'\.0 q-I 0N) \I T-Ini\00 q.0FI 00b T-I nJ\\ 00(Nn\.0 T-I 0 fr) a) T-I (N\00(\1\0T-i 00 r\I T-I pI(\I &(\I ah T-I 0fr) \Jt-I q-I(\I di(\Ia x-I 00NF-I t-I (N\\GO Sf-l 0fr) a) T-1pI nd\00 t\10 T-I 8 r\IOJf-Ir\I-\DO el0 T-I T-IPI6161\\-\Nb C:ICh\100pIT-I Model • - --Flow Meter 11/10 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 400 600 200 0 000 q-I(\1\g)FIFt 0fr) alpIr\I\\art\\ T-It-l 00 La T-1r\I aT\ !-1FI 0 cr)r\ T-I Pq aT;ir-I 000Ptt-Ir\Iq'\ar)\pIx-I 0ff) r\IFI pIr\1\X g)f-Ix-I 00 LnT-I x-InJ\ g) q-Iq-I 0 cr)NpI FIr\I\ g) q-IT-I 000{\I pIal\Xg)pIpI 0fr) r\1nJ q-Ir\1\\a)\t-Ie-I T-lCr)PIPlr\1(\1aBbx-IpI--\\\FIT-IpIT-1 SR 00 10 T-InJ\0 x-I\T-Iq-I 0fr) 00FI{\I\\0FI\FI T-I 00 ,1T-I pIr\IaT-I\\ T-IT-I 0fr) fr)T-I !-+r\1 a-pI\\T-I- T-I 00 cd q-1 T-ir\I abf-I\\T-Iq-I afr) 00 HI t-Ial\h0FI\T-IFI 00,1r\I !-1r\1\.\0q-I\pIHI 0fr) fr)r\I q-Ir\I\,0q-I\\T-If-I 00r\i x-Ir\I !ITx-I\ T-IFI 0fr) \J T-I(\I\q-I (1!-1FI 00b q-Ir\1'\.T-IT-I-\.pIpI 0fr) art x-Ir\1\pI q-I\\t-IT-I 00 r\Iq-It-Ir\I\x-lpI\\FI T-I 0fr)\Iq-I x-Ir\IX\.HIT-I\\ x-IpI 00NpI FInI\h T-1t-I\ !-1q-I 0fr) artf-I pIr\1\X, T-1pI\\x-I- T-I 00 r\Ir\I T-Ir\I'\.T-IT-I\X T-1pI Model ' HnFlow Meter