The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStrand report 060507 Sewer board meeting (2) City of Jeffersonville Summary of Ongoing Public Works Projects Strand Associates, Inc. June 5, 2007 1. Long Term CSO Control Plan Revisions & Consent Decree Negotiations (5.944.029't 030) · Early Action Projects - EPA and IDEM concurrence with early action projects has been received. Sewer Board should proceed with any EAP not tied to PER approval. · Gantt Chart - EP A review/Revisions to L TCP Gantt Chart BLA is providing routine updates to the schedule. Monthly review of Gantt chart is recommended. · EPA/DOJ/IDEM - Meeting held 5/15. Next meeting to be scheduled. 2. Preliminary Engineering Report - IDEM review continues. 3. CMC Pump Station Final Design/Bidding/Construction · Bids were received May 29. A separate report will be submitted on the review of bids. · Task order for Strand is recommended for bidding and construction phase services. JTL will provide construction observation. A recommendation will be sent bye-mail before the meeting. 4. CSS Flow Metering Construction (5.944.031) · Meter and telog installation is complete. · Meter programming and start-up was complete on May 22. A separate memo was sent to Board (attached). A few adjustments will be required. · Telog training is scheduled for June 12. · The new server/computer/firewall is now in place. · The City may benefit from a short-term contract with an outside company to provide additional training and assistance during this critical time of data collection. The above referenced memo suggested weekly expenses of $1500 would cover a company like Hydromax to perform that service. Duration of effort could be kept to 4-6 weeks. 5. Local Limits Evaluation (5.944.032) · Data evaluation has begun. · Discussing Water Quality Standards and recent change of the outfall designation with IDEM. · On target to meet September deadline. Respectfully Submitted, STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC. //vtJ Mark A. Sneve, P.E I have attached our [mancial progress through April 30. Sl STRAND ASBOClATE-S INC. ~.~ :--..,,: .(~ ~ 1-': F: ~ ,';I: ~:: MAS:das\S~\05\90 1-950\944\024\ Wrd\Sewer Bd Exec Sum\2006\JefiSewerBdExecSum060507.doc/05/29/07 , ,'\, S! STRAND AssocrATES. lNC.... ENGINEE~G D Information Only MEMORANDUM ~ Project Specific 5944031 D Policy Memo - File With TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jeffersonville Sewer Board, Jolm Hall (JTL Observer), & EMC Jolm Herriford & Mark Sneve May 23, 2007 City of Jeffersonville CSO Flow Meter Update On May 22, 2007, the contractor (Aqua Utilities), Malcolm Robertson (Sigma flow meter representative), two representatives from Hydromax USA (hired by Malcolm for support), Mike Griffin (EMC), Michael Meyer (EMC), Jolm Hall (JTL observer), and Jolm Herriford (Strand engineer) conducted field visits to check the installation at each of the CSO flow metering sites. The purpose of the field visits were to (1) set up each flow meter to begin data collection, (2) verify the proper installation and calibration of each flow meter, and (3) conduct training on the Sigma flow metering software. Training on the Telog cell phone telemetry software is scheduled for June 12. All eleven (ten eso flow meters and the 96...inch outfall flow meter) were successfully set up to begin data collection. Set up included programming the sewer diameters, programming data collection parameters (level, velocity, and flow rate), programming the data collection interval (5-minutes), and turning the meters on. Several issues were identified while verifying the proper installation and calibration of the flow meters. . The meter on CSO 006 (Riverpointe) was offset 6 inches from the sewer invert because of sediment in the bottom of the sewer. It was recommended that the sediment be removed and the meter be installed at the sewer invert so that lowest measurable flows may be obtained. . Review of the installation pictures identified several transducer/probe cables that were not sufficiently tied off to the mounting rings. The cables should be sufficiently tied to the mounting rings to minimize debris collection and minimize hydraulic disturbance. It was recommended all of the cables be verified for proper tie off except where verifiable by the installation pictures. . The meter on the 96-inch outfall (Cane Run) was measuring negative velocities and is suspected of being installed backwards.. Unfortunately, the individual from Aqua Utilities who actually installed the meters was not present during the field visit and therefore could not answer specific installation questions. It was recommended that all meters be verified to be pointing in the upstream direction. Data from the first overflow event may be necessary in order to confirm. \\saitou I \ V 011 \SDA T A \05\901--950\944\031 \ Wrd\Field CSO FM Visit Memo 052307.doc i '" Page 2 [Date] . Aqua Utilities indicated all of the meters were calibrated to a zero depth at atmospheric pressure prior to installation. This technique was approved by Malcolm. However, half of the meters were measuring flow depths as high as 24 inches during initial set up, which was highly unlikely especially given the dry conditions. These meters were recalibrated to 0 inches of flow depth without knowledge of possible standing water. It was recommended that all meters be verified for proper flow depth calibration. . The meter on CSO 013 (Graham) was installed in the wrong location (downstream of a stormwater connection). It was recommended that the meter be moved to upstream of the stormwater cormection so only CSO flow is measured. . The mounting of the flow meters and telemetry units could be improved upon. The flow meters and telemetry units were tied together making changing of the batteries difficult or impossible. Several of the flow meters and telemetry units were mounted far from the street surface making routine maintenance more difficult. Loose wires could be found at most sites. It was recommended that all of the flow meters and telemetry units be remounted in such a way as to better allow for the changing of batteries. The training of the Sigma flow metering software was attempted back at the WWTP after the field visits using a spare flow meter brought by Hydromax~ The Sigma software was installed on the new flow metering laptop. There was a problem with either the spare flow meter or the cOlUlection cable adaptor and no training was given. The laptop was handed over to EMC. The Sigma flow metering training should be rescheduled to coincide with the future Telog cell phone telemetry training The system should be completely operational before the Telog cell phone telemetry software training (currently scheduled for June 12) is conducted. EMC has been trained to change the batteries and should begin changing the batteries in both the flow meters and telemetry units every two - three weeks (Malcolm's recommendation). Expected battery usage is 572 ($3,500) per year. Frequency can be adjusted with experience. This system will require a dedicated effort by EMC to maintain. The quality of the data obtained from open channel flow meters is dependent on the experience of the maintenance personnel, the persistence of the field crews regarding the maintenance, and the quality of the maintenance. It is recommended Confined Space entries be made at each site every week to inspect, clean, and perform additional maintenance as necessary on each meter. Inspection frequency may be reduced over time as the system demonstrates successful operation. The City of Jeffersonville may consider hiring experience personnel to initially assist EMC in maintaining the meters. The City and EMC would benefit from the additional training. If the city retained a company (like Hydromax) to assist with the transition of this system to EMC, weekly costs would be about $1500~ Costs could be reduced based on the duration of their assignment. Given EPA's expectation regarding collecting good flow data and updating the LTCP, it may be money well spent. {InitialsJ\\sailou 1 \ Voll \SDA T A \05\901--950\944\031 \ Wrd\FieId CSO FM Visit Memo 052307.doc\052307 sa. STRAND ASSOC!A"l"ea.INc' ~ ~ I : Q ~ .'\l '" F. R ~-:;. en t w s p:: ~ r:j~ ~~ ~ (/J~ ~U) ~~ )-4~ u~ 0)000oi ~~ <00 Ow ~j ~~ o rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f-4~ i=.~ t:.'$. I.I'l tl'l o ct) zf-l ~...... N ~ ~~ ~~ ~O .c.cu ~~~ Ie:;:;" CO ~ Il"l 111 9""1 o U"') ~Z~ ",C"i <oriN T'""'" Co() r- 0 ~~~ N~ 1"'-.. ~o~ Ie aNN ZO ~ l- O~~ u =: tA- (Ao (Ao V> ~C\ c:o L.f"l. t'-U"') O..q-- ~Q r--:~ }!:j~ ("I) v ~~ ('I) r- ~ ~ -'-:N' ~ foo4~ (A. V)o. (A< c,.q. ~~~ N I)J t C'i"l .....:;V;,....:: ~ fJ'JU.cz=.....:i 00 rt"'l 500; N ('o.t "d" oo~ ~~~~ "T""" ...... t- ~ 0 (1)0 Vi' (/)- en (Ao ~ .~ E3~ ..,0 ~ o.w It'') co N ~u c\ ot:fo::i C\ I--l ~~ T""" ("f11"'- ~o N C'\ \Cl .q-", >- C 6 t"j'" i"') r- N~ CQ~ (1)0 V) V>(I)o~ ~~~ N ...... 00 .,....l P t-C\ 000 ~ ~~ 0\0 'l""""'I \:::l OO~ ~ U"} 0'1 l.J1 b ~~O T'"""'~ N cO 0 ~ E-- ~ ~ (Ao (Ao ~ (I) !~ 00 0000 T""" 00 C"I. 0- T""" oo::tLO 0 rt'l~ N~ ~ rt'l c::o ~~ (A. bQ< (Ao U). ~f-l T'""'" ~ >.0 co N 00 , ~S~Ci} ......:r--: u-i u 0- ~ C\ r- ~O~~ c:o \0 I"C") 'V~ C'f 00'" ~~~~ N (I) <no V)- (I)- t~ ~Z o r- ~o o r- I-c~ o "T""'" C'\o Lri'-..6 ~O ZO N ('I"} ~~ O~ (I) V> (Ao(Ao. u t ~~ %~ ~ .f ~~ ::J ::J ::J ::J 0 0 0 0 :I::I: O:::I: 0 u ~ a v. o c c .c:z:: 0 0 ~ . t:i ".c t:: 'J:l U "C ~ e t; u to:: 4..." >:.) aJ c:: v. c:: Z o c ~ "~ '.0 0 ~ Q) ~U ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ u .. -.I u.. Q "'0 l-oI ~ o t! c:: I: ~ IU ] ~ ~~ tn U :::: ~ c:: ~ 0 f-+..9 I U ~u.. ~O 00 ~ en en U"J U'::I U uu o . U"'l ~ o "T""'" ~~ N N ("("l <"'l 0 0 00 ~ ~ ~~ f-lO ~ ~ ~';' tf.l ~ U') L.O t.f'1 It'l r- o ~ ........... N N -.... U"l ~ ! 1C 2- ~ ~ 'ti .2. l I ~ I ~ i i . City of JeffersonviUe CSO L TCP and Consent Decree Negootiatjons Strand Associates Project Status TASK Status as of 4/30/2007 Strand Associates -Actual Hours Fee Expenses separate Strand Associates - Budget Hours Fee Strand Associates DID of bud !;let Spent Hours Fee PHASE A .. L TCP REVISIONS Revise and Supplement Public Particioation Consideration of Sensitive Areas Monitoring Program Collection System Characterization and Modeling Receiving Stream Modeling CSOOP UJHlates (Annually) Alternative Analysis Implementation Schedule/Financial Capability Anah L TCP Modifications Early Action Proiects Meetings Items outside of the initial ScoDe (1) 8th & Oh io Flooding Evaluation Ealv Action Pro.iect Information to lTL Public notification Program Flood PS info for EPA SUBTOTAL PHASE A LABOR Expenses TOTAL PHASE A PHASE B.. CONSENT DECREE NEGOTIATIONS Consent Decree labor Expenses TOTAL PHASE B TOTAL:{ESrr.MA ."Ef)}:EE..~~Phiise.A :andiB.~:;: ><: (1) Total for additional services performed 2L75 15.00 63.75 18.50 7.00 23.75 16~50 174.75 174.75 $ 1 807.61 18wOO 22.00 153.00 20.00 215.00 21.00 lS2~OO 0.00 222.00 0.00 892.00 892.00 304 64 5.00 o o o 304.00 $ 36,177 $ 6,583 340/0 42010 68DIo DOlo 00/0 560 00/0 7.50 $ $ $ $ $ 1 625.59 $ $ 1,766 2081 0010 5010 00/0 290/0 200/0 19010 19 olD . . .. .:..;.233~50:.:. ::.$22;442~41...: .~:":.":. .:.1~196~D.O :.~ :..$:;.~. :..118,856;:. "~~:;...:".:<20Plo 27010 450/0 78010 00/0 DOlo DOlo 00/0 60/0 DOlo 290/a 210/0 160/0 130/0 150/0 ...: ~:_':~~;190/o~: ~ ~~~Y~ip:r9J~~lt9~fuI~~~:Q:~':uhQ~.:lh~~~~)f.i~.:.$Jp.Io~q:q~"t~~i~~~~Jij2h~~~~:~.~tY)_~~~;~~~~9.H?~~~.J~yJ6~:.~s:~w~~H~~:~.f.dXt~~.*~;~~j):~~~~j!:~~~~:~~jh~~.t~:r~:~;~p.a~~~;U~~~)}mll~~;~j~:~Hrm 788.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ $ 122.20 1.00 0.00 $ 5; 0.00 $ 6 690.93 $ 1 913.78 $ 551.83 $ 2,023.63 $ 1 474.22 $ 16,998.59 $ 1,502.35 $16,998~59 58]5 $ 4,921.88 $ 521.94 58.75 $ 5,443.82 65.75 $ 5; 963.46 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 12,968 1,992 19,042 2133 12,589 $ 22,965 $ $ $ $ $ 82,679.00 $ 8268 $ 82,679 $ 31,177 $ 4 000