Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City of Casselberry - Facility Plan -1985 01 11
CASSELBERRY AND WINTcR SPRINGS FACILITY PLAN JANUARY 1985 Conklin, Porter & Holmes - Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Sanford, Florida 32772-1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Summary 1,2 Conclusions 1.3 Recommendations 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background 2.2 Purpose 2. 3 Scope 3.0 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 3,1 General 3.2 Orlando Easterly Study Area ".0 CURRENT SITUATION 4.1 General 4,2 Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems 4.2.1 Iron Bridge Regional Facility 4.2.2 Winter Springs West 4. 2.3 Winter Springs East 4,2,4 Orange County - Easterly Subregional Facilities 4.2. 5 Cit- of Casselberry 4.2.6 Arbor Ridge PUD 4. 2. 7 Consumer Utilities 4.2.8 Fairway Mobile Home Park 4.2.9 Park Manor Estates 4,2,10 Starlight Ranch MHP 4. 2, 1 1 University of Central Florida 4.2.1 2 University Shores Subdivision 4.2.13 NTC Annex, McCoy 4.2.14 College Heights 4.2.15 Orlando Southeasterly 4.3 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis 4.4 Performance of Existing Systems 4.4.1 Effects of I/I 4.4,2 Effects of Industrial Discharges 4. 4. 3 Onsite System 4,4.4 Public Health Hazard 5.0 FUTURE SITUATION 5.1 Planning Period 5.2 Land Use Projections 5.3 Population Projections 5.4 Projected Wastewater Flogs 1 1 2 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 13 14 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 2n 21 22 22 22 22 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 36 6.1 General 36 6.2 Development of Alternatives 38 6.2.6 The "No Action" Alternative 38 6.2.2 Alternative I - Regional Facility -- 1 P1 ant 41 6.2.3 Alternative II W Regional and Subregional Facilities - 4 Plants 42 6.2.4 Alternative III - Regional Facility and Other Facilities - 8 Plants 43 6.2.5 Alternative IV - Regional Facility, Orlando Conserve I, Orange County Easterly, Seminole County Dyke Road, Winter Springs West, and Casselberry 45 6.2.6 Alternative I - Regional Facility, Orlando Conserve I, Orange County Easterly, Seminole County Dyke Road and Casselberry 46 6.2.7 Alternative VI - Regional Facility, Orlando Conserve I, Orange County Easterly Seminole County Dyke Road and Winter Springs 47 6.2.8 Alternative VII -- Regional Facility, Orlando Conserve I, Orange County Easterly Seminole County Dyke Road and Casselberry 47 6.2.9 Alternative VIII - Regional Facility, Orlando Conserve I. Orange County Easterly Seminole County Dyke Road, Winter Springs and Cassel berry 47 6.2.10 Alternative IX - Regional Facility, Orange Conserve I, Orange County Easterly, Seminole County Dyke Road, Winter Springs and Casselberry 48 7.0 PLAN SELECTION 74 7.1 General 74 7.2 Alternatives 74 7.3 Public Participation 74 7.4 Di scussi on of Al ternati ves 75 7.4.1 Alternative I 75 7.4.2 Alternative 11 75 7.4.3 Alternative III 77 7.4.4 Alternatives IV thru IX 78 7.4.5 Flexibility 78 7.4.6 Impl e€aentabi 1 i ty 79 7.4. 7 Environmental 79 7.5 Discussion of the Northerly Interceptor Design 80 7.6 Reasons for Selection 80 8.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN 82 8.1 Preliminary Design 82 8.2 Winter Springs gest 82 W1 8.2.1 Filter Design - Winter Springs West 88 8.2.1 .1 Filter Flows 88 6.2.1.2 Reliability Class 88 8.2.1.3 Filtration and Waste Treatment Regui rements 91 8.2.1 .4 Filter Selection 92 8. 2.2 Site 16 Effluent Disposal Site 93 8. 2.3 Disinfection - Winter Springs West 94 8.2.4 Sludge Dewatering Facilities 95 8. 2.5 Alum Feed System 95 8. 2.6 Effluent Force Main Design 96 8.3 Casselberry 98 8.3.1 Filter Design -a Casselberry 102 8. 3.2 Percolation Pond Design 103 8.3.3 Golf Course Design 103 8. 3.4 Disinfection - Cassel berry 103 8. 3.5 Alum Feed System 1.06 8. 3.6 Effluent Holding Pond Design 107 8.3.7 Effluent Farce Main Design 109 8.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 109 8.5 Impacts of Construction and Operation of Facilities 109 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ill 9.1 General 111 9,2 Institutional Responsibilities 111 9.3 Implementation 112 9. 3.1 General 113 9. 3.2 Implementation Schedule 113 9.3.2.1 Construction 113 9.3.2.2 Casselberry 113 9.3.2. 3 Winter Springs 118 9.3.2.4 Elimination of Private Facilities 115 9.4 Management 115 9.4.1 Existing Management Systems 115 9.4.1.1 General 115 9.4.1.2 Casselberry 117 9.4.1 .3 Winter Springs 117 9.4.1.4 Other Agencies 118 9.4.2 Proposed Management Responsibilities 118 9,5 Financial Feasibility 118 9. 5.1 Source of Funds 119 9.5.2 Funding for Winter Springs 120 9.5.3 Funding for Casselberry 120 9.5.4 Design and Construction 122 9.5.5 Local Share for Minter Springs and Casselberry 122 9.5.6 User Casts a City of Winter Springs 123 9.5.7 User Casts - City of Casselberry 124 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4-1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 11 5-1 Population Projections 23 5-2 Projected Wastewater Flows 25 5-3 Population Data by Traffic Zone 26 6-1 Cost Effective Synopsis 39 6-2 Alternative Synopsis 40 6-3 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative II 58 6-4 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative III 60 6-5 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative IV 62 6-6 Present forth Analysis - Alternative V 64 6-7 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative VI 66 6-8 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative VII 68 6-9 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative VIII 70 6-10 Present Worth Analysis - Alternative IX 72 7-1 Environmental Considerations 76 8-1 Winter Springs WWTP Data 84 8-2 Shallow Sed Design Data 89 8-3 Casselberry WWTP Data 100 8-4 Casselberry Golf Course Estimated Disposal Capacity 104 9-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants to Remain in Service 116 9-2 Winter Springs - Summary of Funding Sources for 121 Selected Plan 9-3 Casselberry - Summary of Funding Sources for 121 Selected Plan 9--4 Winter Springs - User Charges 125 9-5 Costs of Suer Service per Household 126 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 4-1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Location 12 6-1 Map of Alternative I 49 6-2 Map of Alternative II 50 6-�31 Map of Alternative III 51 6-4 Map of Alternative I_ V 52 6-5 Map of Alternative V 53 6-6 Map of Alternative V I 54 6-7 Map of Alternative VII 55 6-8 Map of Alternative VIII 56 6-9 Map of Alternative IX 57 8-1 Winter Springs WWTP Flow Diagram 83 8-2 Winter Springs WWTP Site Layout 85 8-3 Big Cypress Golf Course Irrigation Modification 87 8-4 Shallow Bed Filter 90 8-5 Casselberry Effluent Force Main 97 8-6 Casselberry 'WWTP Flow Diagram 99 8-7 Casselberry WWTP Site Layout 1 01 8-8 Casselberry Golf Course Preliminary Irrigation Desi g 1 05 8-9 Effluent Holding Pond Design 108 8-10 Casselberry Effluent Force Main 110 9-1 Construction Schedule 114 LIST OF APPENDICES APPPMD Tv A Public Nearing Documentation B Financial Capability Documentation C Statements from Other Agencies D-1 Site Specific Study - Casselberry D-2 Site Specific Study - Winter Springs E Sludge Management - Winter Springs 1.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 SUMMARY This 201 Facilities Plan Modification has been prepared to d6velop.the most cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable plan for wastewater management for the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area. Various alternatives for wastewater treatment and effluent disposal and varying number of facilities were investigated with respect to costs, environmental impacts, and implementation considerations. Preliminary engineering and implementation aspects of the selected plan have also been presented. Site Specific Studies for the City of Casselberry and the City of Winter Springs are attached in the appendices of this document. They present the necessary hydrogeological and soils information for evaluation of the effluent disposal sites. Also contained in the appendices is a sludge management report for the City of Winter Springs. 1 . 2. CONCLUSIONS The existing needs and demands for wastewater treatment capacity are not being met by the current 201 Facilities Plan. Local funding has been used and is currently being used to build large facilities that are not in the approved 201 Facilities Plan. These facilities are the Orange County Easterly Subregional facility currently treating 6.0 MGD with plans for expansion to 12.0 MGD and the Orlando Conserve I facility which is designed for 7.5 MGD. The City of Orlando has a preliminary engineering plan for a 16 MGD expansion of Iran Bridge. The DER will not allow an increase in the waste load allocation to the Little Econolockhatchee River. Therefore, the City is investigating the use of wetlands for effluent disposal. This disposal method 1 is presently unproven and considered experimental under the current DER regulations. New regulations for wetlands disposal are currently being formulated by the DER that will better define the use and restrictions of wetlands for disposal purposes. The recommended plan described in Sections 6, i, and 8 will provide the agencies in the 201 Planning Area with th6 flexibility they need to provide wastewater treatment services to their constituents. It is a cost-effective plan utilizing existing wastewater treatment facilities and providing effluent re -use by means of spray irrigation on golf courses. Irpl ementati on of the recommended plan can be easily accomplished because these various agencies have staff and management available. Also the planning, design and construction completion time of the recommended plan is shorter than that required for a major expansion of the Iron Bridge AWTP. 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that this 201 Modification be approved and implemented. The Cities of Casselberry and Winter Springs, who are the main subjects of this modification, should proceed with implementation of their part of the plan and continue their efforts for a State Grant. They should make arrangements for the local share of this funding and initiate final engineering when the plan has been approved. The implementation of this plan is not intended to redirect or restrict the City of Orlando in any way from ex andira the Tron Bridge AWTP further than shown in this modification. Should the City of Orlando decide that future growth and needs of the total potential service area of the plant are greater than those shown in this modification, the city may in the future choose to modify the 201 Facilities Plan in order to qualify for State or Federal funds. If they plan a larger capacity plant or F construct the improvements they contemplate with the assistance and cooperation of other local governments, they may implement their plan with State or Federal funds with a properly approved 201 Modification or they may implement their plan with all local funding. 3 2. 0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACKGROUND The Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan was prepared and adOpted.in duly 1977 for the Orlando Easterly Area which includes portions of the City of Orlando, the City of`Winter Springs, the City of Casselberry, the City of Maitland, the City of Oviedo, the City of Winter Park, and portions of Seminole and Orange Counties. The study was performed under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant number C120399022. The Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan called for the construction and implementation of a regional ;wastewater treatment facility at a location known as Iron Bridge as the most cost effective and environmentally sound means of providing wastewater, treatment, and disposal in the planning area. Other plants in the study area were required by the Plan to eventually be consolidated into the regional system and flows seat to the Iron Bridge plant with the exception of Seminole County's Dyke Road plant as described below. Subsequently an AWT Facility was constructed at Iron Bridge, which discharges into the Little Econlockhatchee River. A wastewater transmission authority conveying wastes from the northerly communities (South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority) was called for in the Plan and was empowered by a special act of the legislature. The SSNOWTA was formed and constructed a transmission system to carry wastewater from the member communities to Iron Bridge. In addition, the approved 201 Plan and the legislative act forming the SSNOWTA allowed the Seminole 4 County treatment plant at Dyke Road to stay in service with its own plant and separate land spreading effluent disposal facility as long as its flow did not exceed 1.0 MGD. The Iron Bridge facility is presently basically at its first phase capacity of 24 MGD and the City of Orlando is inv'estigating modifications to get the plant to perform as intended by the original design, a re -rating of the facilities, as well as an expansion. The meed for additional wastewater treatment facilities for the northerly communities of Casselberry and Winter Springs are not being met by the regional facilities at the present time. 2.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to modify the existing Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan for the Winter Springs West and Casselberry Sub Planning Areas and to make the necessary accompanying adjustments to the total Orlando Easterly 201 Plan. modifications to the Facilities Plan will be based on the most cost effective and implementable plan for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. The alternatives section of this document will present proposed alternatives evaluated on a cost effective basis. Data from the current approved 201 Facilities Plan will be utilized thereby eliminating the need for a completely revised plan. This data consists of current and projected population studies, wastewater flogs, treatment facilities, and systems performance. 2.3 SCOPE This document addresses the changes which have occurred since the original 201 Facilities Plan was prepared and approved. It addresses a number of alternatives in light of the current and future situation within the 201 study area. It evaluates these alternatives on a cost effective basis and proposes a management system for providing adequate wastewater treatment for the 201 study area. In addition, preliminary design and implementation details are provided for the selected plan. 0 3.0 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 3.1 GENERAL A major consideration for all wastewater treatment facilities is the discharge criteria and restrictions. The discharge criteria and the effluent disposal method are interdependent., -Discharge criteria are more stringent for surface discharge system and are based on a wasteload allocation for the stream or surface water receiving the discharge. These more stringent criteria generally require more extensive and expensive wastewater treatment and in some cases zero discharge of pollutants is allowed. The various methods of land application of effluent generally require less wastewater treatment because the soil and vegetation provides additional treatment after application before the water reaches the groundwater resource. Effluent limitations for discharge to surface waters and land application systems are imposed by various regulatory agencies at the local, State and/or Federal levels. The EPA establishes effluent limitations for discharge to surface waters on a national basis through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (PDES) program. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ( FDER ) is responsible for establishing requirements for facilities within the State of Florida through its classification of surface waters, wasteload allocations, permitting, and other regulations. When a disposal method such as deep well injection or land application by means of spray irrigation or percolation/evaporation ponds is utilized, a minimum of secondary treatment must be provided. Secondary treatment is defined as 90 percent removal of BODS and 7 suspended solids, or concentrations less than 20 mg/l in the off 1 uent, wh i chewer if s more stri rigent. If public access to the land application site is not restricted, filtration and high level disinfection must be provided to ensure adequate disinfection for the protection of public health. 3.2 ORLANDO EASTERLY STUDY AREA The iron Bridge Regional facility discharges to the Little Econlockhatchee River and operates on an NPDES permit and wasteload allocation. The permit limitations for the effluent discharge from the Iron Bridge Facility are 5 mg/1 BODS; 5 mg/l TSS, 3 ma/1 Nitrate and 1 mg/l Phosphorus. Generally, all existing plants and potential discharge locations within the Orlando Easterly 201 planning area have zero discharge capability with the exception of the Iron Bridge plant discharging to the Little Econlockhatchee. Subsequent water quality and other studies have shorn that additional discharge above the 24 MGD of an advanced wastewater treatment waste at Iron Bridoe to the Little Econlockhatchee would not be acceptable from a water quality standpoint. The Orange County sub regional plant located south of Iron Bridge off the Alafaya Trail was not called for in the 201 Plan. It was allowed to temporarily discharge to the Little Econlockhatchee, but the plan is to remove its discharge from the river when the Curtis Stanton coal fired power plant becomes available for accepting treated effluent. The Winter Springs West system and the Casselberry system are therefore in a zero discharge area. The proposed systems for these two communities supplementing the Iron Bridge system, will provide zero discharge via land application. Other disposal methods are discussed in Section 4.0 under the discussion of the existing facilities. .00 4.1 GENERAL The Facilities Plan for the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area was approved by the various governmental entities. The plan completed by the City of Orlando and the northerly coffimuni ti es has provided an Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) facility at Iron Bridge Road. Included is a Crane Strand/Iron Bridge Road interceptor system with tie-in points located throughout the network for the southerly portion and a northerly interceptor and transmission system for the northern communities (SSNOWTA). Currently, the Iron Bridge Road facility is designed to handle 24 MGD of wastewater flows providing 5, 5, 3, 1 treatment quality. However, various operational problems have surfaced since the plant has been in operation resulting in the effluent not meeting the permit criteria. In addition, the plant is very near its treatment capacity. The result has been a moratorium restricting new wastewater hookup permits until the plant is modified and/or expanded. The proposed facility expansion will increase the flow capacity 16 MGD with an estimated cost of approximately $61 million for treatment and effluent disposal as provided by the City of Orlando Engineering Consultant. Some areas, such as Linter Springs area, that were to be tied into the Iron Bridge Facilities in accordance with the 201 Facilities Plan have not been connected and would need to have a portion of this expanded flow allocated for their use or an alternate solution found. Casselberry is approaching its committed capacity at Iron Bridge and badly needs additional wastewater treatment capacity as do other governmental entities such as Winter Park, Maitland, Seminole and Orange Counties. we The future of the Iron Bridge Facility is currently unpredictable. To date, numerous lawsuits are pending against the designers and builders of the Iron Bridge plant. Recent modifications to the facility in order to meet State effluent requirements have proved very costly. 4,2 EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS This inventory of the existing wastewater treatment system consists of the most recent available information on all municipally and privately owned domestic and industrial facilities. Information was obtained from the existing 201 facilities plan, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, system owners and the municipalities in the planning area. A brief description is presented for all facilities designed for a capacity of 100,000 gpd or greater. All facilities are summarized in Table 4-1. The location of each facility is shown in Figure 4-1 . 4.2.1 IRON BRIDGE REGIONAL FACILITY The Iron Bridge Regional Facility provides AWT treatment for 24 MGD of wastewater. The system includes secondary treatment with de -nitrification and tertiary filtration. Current operational problems have prevented the plant from meeting the effluent criteria established for the Little Econ River. Plans for expansion are currently under way and have been previously discussed in this report. IN 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. 31. 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. TAB[[ 4-1 EX157IMG WASTEWA1ER TREATMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE ORLANOD EASTERLY 701 FACILI71E5 PLAN Design Floe, Average Flow Treatment Fac 111t (MGD) Arbor Ridge 0.?830 0.0620 Big ECON MHP 0.0060 0,0016 Big Oaks MHP 0.0150 0.0080 Csmelot East MHPO 0.00350 0.0200 Casselberry, City of 0,1750 0.1750 Cheney Elementary School 0.0100 0.0002 College Heights MHP 0.2500 0.0160 Colony East Subdivision 0.1500 0.0200 Columbia Elementary School 0.0080 0.0028 Conserve 1 - Orlando 7.5000 Under Constr, Ccnsumer UtiI,, ,Se^. Co. Dyke Rd.) 1.0000 0.800 Conway Twin Theater 0,0050 0.0054 Eastland Shopping Center 0,0150 0.0080 Fairway Market 0.0050 0.0090 Fairway MMP 0.1500 0.0774 Goodwill Industries 0.0060 0.0011 High Point of Orlando 0,1500 0.0200 Iron Bridge AWTP (City of Or)ando) 24.0000 22.3400 Lake Downey MHP 0.0150 0,0057 Lake Fairview Manor Apartments 0.0050 D.0030 Lake Fredrica 0.0600 0.0490 Lutheran Haven Old Folks Home 010300 0.0300 McDonalds Restaurant 0,0025 0.0009 FITC Annex 1.2000 0.9000 Orange County Subregional 6.0000 2.7000 Oviedo Inn Restaurant 0.0103 0.0030 Oviedo Jr. d Sr. High School 0.0210 O.D010 Palm Valley MHP 0.1000 0.0450 Park Manor Estates 0.3500 0.2240 Pershing Elementary School 0.0100 0.0610 Pine hollow MHP 0.0090 0,0060 Pine Isles MHA 0.0130 0,0100 Pinewood MHP 0,0050 0.0040 Red Bug Elementary School 0.0075 0.0050 Seminole Park Fairgrounds 0.0250 0,0070 Seminole Utilities Company 1.0000 0.4200 (Winter Springs East) Shadowhills MHP 0.0800 0.0720 Starlight Ranch MHP 0,1200 0.1090 Sutton Ridge P.U,D. 0.0700 Not Avail. Town S Country MHP 0.100 0.0083 University of Central Florida 0,5000 0.2500 University Park Jr, A Elem. School 0.0340 0.0068 University Park Highlands 0.0300 0.0150 University Shores S/D 0.2750 0.0900 University South Partnership 0,1000 Not Avail. University village MHP 0.0400 0.0240 Winn pixie 0.01?0 0,0060 Winter Park, City of Closed - Open Mid 1985 Winter Springs, City of 0,9500 0.7000 TOTAL FLOWS 31.5660 26.6800 Ole V p E iOka 0 ego Lou Q? Q0020p fte es t0' -woo. conkun, n Porter and Holmes erscPEeRs. sac(qpR. im x iu Ibr gYKF-i aw cao.rm®n m� :9 El � Na�Epii Orly®s aae�bibd 04meset e mat Ittrad ffi 1 i L®ka a!li�a� E.P�a a ® rg � 1G61lot May IF -141A w{a of part Lou Q? Q0020p fte es t0' -woo. conkun, n Porter and Holmes erscPEeRs. sac(qpR. im x iu Ibr gYKF-i aw cao.rm®n m� :9 El 30 NO Orly®s aae�bibd 04meset e Ea ffi � i v owl a ® rg � 12 s r Y Eailw i�� p�6F� �®W 30 ORLANDO 201 PLANNING AREA EXISTING FACILITIES FIGURE 4-1 ai�raoa�a � aae�bibd 04meset e Ea � o v a ® rg � 12 ORLANDO 201 PLANNING AREA EXISTING FACILITIES FIGURE 4-1 The existing Winter Springs West wastewater treatment system consists of one wastewater treatment plant and nine operating lift stations. The facility is currently permitted for an effluent disposal capacity of 0.95 MGD by the FDER. This disposalcapacity is based on the golf course system disposing of 0.75 MGD. It has been determined that the golf course can utilize on an average daily basis, approximately 0.25 MGD. The spray irrigation site can dispose of approximately 0.25 MGD. New rapid rate infiltration basins are under construction to replace the lost capacity on the golf course and to ensure an effluent disposal capacity of approximately 0.95 MGD., The wastewater treatment facility is a 1.7 MGD field erected activated sludge plant. Under current operating criteria, the clarifier would be rated for 1 . 5 MGD thereby limiting the plant to 1.5 MGD treatment capacity. Present land spreading requirements require tertiary filtration and high level disinfection for public access areas such as golf courses unless the effluent contains less than 5 mg/l TSS which the plant currently achieves while operating in the extended aeration node, The Winter Springs West facility uses the Big Cypress Golf course for effluent land spreading. FDER has indicated that plant modifications, i.e., filtration, may be required to continue application on the golfcourse when the permit is renewed after its September 1985 expiration date. Expansion of the effluent disposal system above 0.95 MGD to about las MGD will be accomplished by developers providing a "take back" of effluent Bows generated by their project. Additional growth will require the connection at a later phase 13 to the SSNOWTR system for treatment at Iron Bridge of all flows above about 1.5 MGD. The City of Winter Springs Water and Sever Department has implemented a water conservation program and encourages the wise use of water. 4.2.3 MINTER SPRINGS EAST Winter Springs East is presently served by Seminole Utilities. The Seminole Utilities facility is an activated sludge process using holding ponds and land spreading on Tuscawilla Golf Course for effluent disposal. Design flow capacity is 1,000 000 gpd. Daily average flow is 420,000 gpd. 4.2.4 ORANGE COUNTY - EASTERLY SUBREGIONAL FACILITIES Orange County currently operates a wastewater treatment facility in the easterly portion of the County known as the Easterly Subregional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The present design capacity is 6.0 MGD and utilizes the Bardenpho treatment process. The effluent, from the facility i s disposed of by two methods. Two and one-half MGD is to be disposed in Rapid Infiltration Basins and three and one-half MGD is to be discharged to the Little Econ River. The discharge to the Little Econ River will be eliminated when the Curtis Stanton Coal coal-fired electrical generation plant is completed because this plant will utilize the effluent for cooling water. The wastewater treatment facility is within the Orlando Easterly 201 Facility Plan area. It will also serve areas outside of the .201 Study area in the future. Orange County plans to add a 6.0 14 MGD expansion in 1986-87 and anticipates an ultimate build -out capacity of 24 MGD. This plant serves part of the original iron Bridge service area as well as additional service territory. This will accordingly reduce the population and flow to be served by Iron Bridge. 4.2..5 CITY OF CASSFLBFRRY The City of Casselberry has a commitment at Iron Bridge of 2.81 MGD which has basically been used up and the City is in need of additional wastewater treatment and effluent disposal capacity. The City of Casselberry wastewater treatment facility is a secondary wastewater treatment facility with daily flows averaging 175,000 GPD and an effluent disposal permitted capacity of 175,000 GPD. The design capacity is 1.5 MGD based on biological capability of the facility as a secondary plant. The facility currently utilizes land spreading in percolation ponds for effluent disposal. The City anticipates expansion of the percolation ponds to provide 250,000 gpd of effluent disposal and the addition of a golf course irrigation system to dispose of an additional 0350,000 gpd and the addition of tertiary treatment to public access standards for golf course disposal. The City anticipates utilizing this facility to process in excess of 0.60 MGD and to continue to send additional flows to Iron Bridge. The expansion of the effluent disposal system and the addition of filters and high level disinfection will occur in two phases. The first phase will consist of disposal for 0.60 MGD and the second phase will be implemented by acquiring effluent disposal sites via private developers through take -back agreements. The City has implemented a water conservation program. 15 The Arbor Ridge PUD wastewater treatment facility is designed to handle flows of 230,000 gpd. It is an activated sludge plant utilizing percolation ponds for effluent disposal. The facility is developer -owned with daily flows averaging 77,000 gpd. 4.2.7 CONSUMER UTILITIES (Seminole County - Dyke Road) Consumer Utilities is owned and operated by Seminole County. Consumer Utilities uses a Sanitaire Complete Mix facility with percolation ponds and land spreading for effluent disposal. The design capacity of the facility is 1,000,000 gpd, and.the daily floats average 800,000 gpd. Seminole County anticipates expansion of this facility to 1.3 MGD by utilizing a golf course in the vicinity of the treatment facility. They are currently looking for additional effluent disposal capacity. This would include the use of developer take -back agreements for effluent disposal. The County has playas for developer take -back agreements to provide additional effluent disposal for an expansion to 3.0 MGD. 4.2.8 FAIRWAY MOBILE HOME PARK The Fairway Mobile Home Park facility is an American Enviroport Contact Stabilization facility. Filtration of the effluent is provided prior to disposal by means of land spreading. The design capacity is 150,000 gpd with an average daily flow of 77,000 gpd. 16 4.2.9 PARK MANOR ESTATES Park Manor Estates currently uses an extended air treatment system with an emergency holding pond. The system is designed for flows of 350,000 gpd with daily flows averaging 215,000 gpd. Park Manor is planning to upgrade the system by fall 1985. The upgraded system will have a design flog of 350,000 gpd employing tertiary treatment via filtration. The''planned treatment process is a modified activated sludge process .. utilizing EPA Class II reliability. The upgraded facility will operate under a temporary FDER consent order. Effluent will then be allowed to discharge into a tributary of the Little Econol ockahatchee River (Econ) for a limited ti rye period. 4.2.10 STARLIGHT RANCH MHP The Starlight Ranch facility is an extended aeration process using percolation ponds for effluent disposal. Design flow capacity is 120,000 gpd, daily average flow is 109,000 gpd. 4.2.11 UNIVERSITY OE CENTRI AL L0RIDA The University wastewater treatment facility is an extended aeration process with a design flow of 500,000 gpd, Average daily flow is 250,000 gpd. Effluent disposal utilizes holding ponds before land spreading. 4.2.12 UNIVERSITY SHORES SUBDIVISION The University Shores wastQwater treatment Dlant has a new 1.0 MGD facility onenina in January 1985 in addition to the existing facility. The desion flow capacity of the existina facilitv is 275.000 and with current averaoe dailv flows of 200.000 qPd. 17 Effluent disposal is by means of discharge to the Little Econolockahatchee (Econ) river. The FDER local office has stated that this discharge may not be allowed when the permit is renewed. This subdivision has a 1.0 MGD facility under construction with disposal by means of percolation ponds and spray irrigation. 4.2.13 NTC ANNEX, McCOY The NTC Annex wastewater treatment facility is a trickling filter process with a design flow capability of 1.2 MGD. The plant utilizes hyacinth ponds prior to discharge into a drainage ditch that flows to Boggy Creek. The Navy anticipates connection to the new facility (Conserve I) planned by the City of Orlando (described in Section b), which will not in effect remove this plant from the revised Orlando Easterly (Iron Bridge) service area. As an alternate, the Navy would utilize spray irrigation on the golf course and other recreational facilities within the compound, Sludge is disposed of as a liquid out of the digester and taken to another facility or can be dried on sand drying beds and taken to a landfill. 4.2.14 COLLEGE HEIGHTS The College Heights facility is an Activated Sludge/Extended Air facility with a design capacity of 250,000 gpd. Effluent disposal is by means of percolation ponds. Average daily flows are 47,000 gpd. 18 4.2.15 ORLANDO SOUTHEASTERLY (Conserve I) The City of Orlando presently has a new wastewater treatment facility under construction next to the Orlando International Airport. This facility is designed for a flow of 7.5 MGD. Initially, the plant will treat approximately 4 MGD. The effluent disposal design is based on rapid infiltration bassi ns. The sludge disposal design is based on mechanical -dewatering equipment with the cake disposed of in a sanitary landfill. 4.3 INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS The City of Winter Springs received notification from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) that the infiltration/inflow for Minter Springs was not considered excessive. The approval was for the area known as Minter Springs West. A copy of the DER letter and analysis is attached in the Appendices. The other systems in the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning area were previously approved. The City of Casselberry anticipates final approval by DER prior to the target date of its previous SSSS work and concurrent test and seal program that has been...completed by the City by the DER. 4.4 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING SYSTEMS The performance of each major facilities is discussed below. The design capacity and existing flows are shown previously in Table 4-1. The various locations of all the facilities are shown previously on Figure 4-1. The smaller facilities will be �] area. We received 185 responses to this questionnaire with only 12 individuals reporting problems either past or present with their septic systems, The Seminole County Health Department was contacted to determine if any record of septic tank problems or failures existed for the area in question. No major=:septic tank problems could be documented for this area. 4.4.4 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD No public health hazards in the Casselberry and Winter Springs West sub areas within the 201 Planning area could be fully documented. 21 5.0 FUTURE SITUATION 5.1 PLANNING PERIOD The planning period shall be a 20 -year design application beginning with the year 1995. The design years modeled for an economic cost analysis will be confined to 1985 and 2305 for a cost comparison of the proposed alternatives. 5.2 LAND USE PROJECTIONS The land use projections will remain as discussed in the existing 201 Facilities Plan. 5.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS The population projections will remain as approved in the existing 201 Facilities Plan incorporating the traffic zone analysis from the existing 201 planning area as previously utilized. Data f or the design year 2005 is added by using the previous population increase trends through design year 2000. The 2005 design population is increased based on these trends. Data is presented in the following Table 5--1. 5.4 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS The projected wastewater flours are based on the per capita population projections found in the original 201 Facilities Plan Plan of 100 gpcd. For the design year of 2005, the same 22 TABLE 5-1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS ORLANDO EASTERLY PLANNING AREA TRAFFIC ZONE ANALYSIS Sub -Area 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 City of Orlando 115,031 120,458 124,789 129,112 133,282 Winter Springs €4,673 19,383 24,088 29,239 34,149 Casselberry 26,137 31,255 38,246 41,944 47,456 Ort. Southeasterly 44,843 47,647 50,572 53,501 56,432 Orange Co. Subregional 56,702 66,174 76,151 86,132 96,015 Seminole County 18,862 22,302 25,678 29,342 33,037 Oviedo 6,299 7,874 9,557 11,164 12,836 Winter Park 42,342 44,939 46,590 48,305 49,787 Maitland 10,701 11,598 12,290 12,985 13,671 AREA TOTAL 335,590 371,630 408,070 441,724 476,6165 CASSELBERRY AND WINTER SPRINGS SLBSERVICE AREA Winter Springs West Winter Springs East Casselberry Phase I Service Area Casselberry Phase II Service Area Casselberry I B Within City 10,742 13,057 15,372 18,063 20,963 3,931 6,326 8,716 11,176 13,186 5,020 5,497 9,733 11,036 12,183 21,117 25,758 28,513 30,908 35,273 23 generation method was applied and the flows were extrapolated based on the prior 5 -gear period. Table 5-2 lists the projected wastewater flows for the entire previous 201 planning area. Table 5-3 provides a breakdown of the various traffic zones used for each sub area listed on Table 5-2. We have provided separate totals for the Orange County Easterly sub -regional service area and for the Orlando Southeasterly (Conserve 1) facility. These two areas remain constant throughout the various alternatives and were separated to provide a clearer picture of the needs within the Orlando Easterly 201 facilities planning area. The populations"cnd flows for each sub area were generated by using the figures within the approved 201 facilities plans. The figures generally outlined a number of sub areas and showed each traffic zone. We overlayed the sub areas as described within this report to obtain the populations shown in the various tables. 2 TABLE 5-2 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS (MGD) Sub -Area City of Orlando Winter Spri ngs Casselberry Ori. Southeasterly Orange Co. Subregional Seminole County Oviedo Winter Park Maitland AREA TOTAL 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 11.5 12.0 12.5 12.9 13.3 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.1 3.8 4.2 4.7 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7 6.6 7.6 8.6 9.6 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.3 .6 .8 1.0 1.1 1.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.8 5.0 1.1 1 .1 6 1.23 1.3 1.4 33.6 36.96 40.83 44.1 47.6 -CASSELBERRY AND WINTER SPRINGS SUBSERVICE AREAS Winter Springs West 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 Winter Springs East 0.4 0.6 0,9 1.1 1,3 Casselberry Phase I Service Area 0.5 0.55 Casselberry Phase 11 Service Area 1.0 1.1 1.2 Casselberry IB Service Area within City 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.5 25 TABLE 5-] POPULATION PRU][[7ION3 SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF ORLANDO --------------------------------------------- TRAFFIC 1985 2990 1995 2000 2005 ZONE 176 1725 1908 1993 2078 2163 178 2702 2927 2998 3068 3138 1 0 0 0 0 0 180 538 552 552 552 552 181 2812 2904 2904 2904 2904 ^ 182 2364 2382 2460 2538 2616 183 648 705 742 779 816 186 2435 2491 2528 2565 2602 207 3012 3081 3118 3155 3192 208 2458 2527 2565 2603 2641 223 583 622 636 649 661 225 2184 2211 2251 2291 2321 226 1302 1383 2436 1490 1544 227 9 9 9 9 9 228 21 21 21 21 21 229 1672 1705 1713 1721 1728 230 142 142 142 142 142 231'1 60 60 60 60 60 231.2 0 0 0 0 0 232 757 809 809 809 809 233 1583 1583 1586 1588 1560 234 811 811 811 811 811 235 129 129 129 129 129 236 789 802 838 874 910 237 1485 1502 1572 1642 1712 238 2084 2105 2142 2180 2220 239 962 991 1030 1069 1108 240 618 659 692 724 756 241 2409 2410 2442 2475 2518 242 2947 2970 3005 3040 3075 243 880 10B9 1315 1541 1767 244 538 551 563 576 590 245 1199 1308 1395 1483 1571 248 1408 1421 1458 1491 1521 250.1 208 262 280 298 316 300 610 673 683 693 703 304 250 240 234 228 222 305 1866 1877 1910 1942 1974 306.1 687 692 697 702 707 306.2 650 682 702 721 740 307 193 160 130 99 69 309.1 532 482 407 332 257 312.1 160 158 158 158 108 312.2 14 11 8 5 2 312.3 53 44 38 32 26 313.1 41 33 30 28 26 313.2 391 541 541 541 541 313.3 10 7 7 7 7 313.4 488 802 802 802 802 314.1 324 357 394 432 480 28 314.2 614 635 778 921 1064 314.3 1518 1609 1744 1978 2012 TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED) POPULATTON PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF ORLANDO � TRAFFIC ZONE 1985 1990 11905 2080 2O0 5 '-''- 315.1 284 307 331 .7. 381 315.2 1435 1530 1585 1620 315.3 982 1047 1201 1355 1505 316 2534 2691 2774 2856 2938 317 24()8 2538 2610 2681 2741 318 0 0 0 0 0 319 0 0 0 0 0 320 5 5 5 5 5 321 1755 1851 1970 2090 2110 322 28 16 11 6 1 323 5 2 2 2 2 342 2375 2392 2392 2392 2392 343 2594 2746 2746 2746 2746 344 2730 2730 2730 2730 2730 345 3163 3163 3163 3163 3163 346 556 557 560 562 564 347 2491 2616 2618 2621 2625 348 3012 3015 3029 3O44 3059 349.l 1755 l771 1910 2050 2190 349.2 452 447 447 447 447 350 515 520 536 552 568 351 310 262 232 201 170 367 2617 2627 2710 2794 287B 36B 50 50 5O 50 50 370 4435 4 04 4939 5175 5411 371 2394 2394 2394 2394 2394 37 i918 1918 1918 1918 373 26462973 3209 3445 3681 374 4303 4383 4383 4383 4383 375'1 361O 3959 4270 4580 4890 375.2 1377 1705 2102 2499 2896 376 1935 2333 2784 3234 3684 381 39�7 4354 4758 5161 5564 384 3130 3254 3313 3372 3431 385 1452 1619 1704 1788 1872 TOTAL 115031 120458 124789 129112 1332B2 27 ' ' TABLE 5~3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS - - TRAFFIC 1985 19P0 1995 2000 200�-- � � ZONE �..... ... ����������������������������������������� 59 80 80 80 80 B0 64 3500 4200 4900 5647 6397 65 1223 1723 2220 2720 3220 '5*91 1020 1030 1038 1046 1056 93.2 1950 2150 2350 2587 2637 94 24�0 3500 4600 6000 7400 96 4500 �7(�0 8900 11l59 13359 TOTAL 14673 19383 24088 29239 34149 28 ' TABLE 5^3 (CONTINUED) ' POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC 70VE BREAKDOWN CITY OF CA3SELBERRY TRAFFlC 1�85 1990 1995 2000 2005 3ONE ....... ~ _..... ..... _________________________________________ 89 30 30 30 30 30 90 1700 2300 2900 3648 4248 92 1404 1610 1830 2076 2376 93.1 2815 3130 3445 3752 4052 95 800 1150 1500 1991 2500 106.1 4350 4700 5000 5279 5629 106.2 1850 1800 1760 1738 1718' 108.l 236 350 470 594 624 108.2 0 0 0 0 0 .5*91 1020 1030 1038 1046 1056 .5*140 2900 3750 4600 5598 6598 '5*159 2650 2825 3000 3184 3367 107.1 0 0 0 0 0 .5*109'2 1675 1925 1975 2125 22�5 107.2 7 5 3 0 0 105 --------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________TOTAL 4700 6750 8800 10883 12983 TOTAL 26137 31255 38346 41944 47456 29 ` ' TABLE 5~3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN ORLANDO SOUTHEASTERLY TRAFFIC 1985 1990 1995 20O0 2005 ZONE � _..... ... _____ 219 ..... ___--- 2772 ---------- 2774 __________________ 2957 3139 7 3321 221 7079 7079 7079 7079 7079 222 2420 2508 2550 2593 2637 324 18 9 6 4 2 325 580 580 580 580 580 326 1282 1316 1316 1316 1316 338 3936 4385 4630 4876 5122 339 3036 3070 3288 3507 3726 340 2791 3112 3360 3608 3856 341.1 1O41 1083 1083 1083 1083 341.2 2659 2659 2659 26Er9 2659 377 5O57 578 3 6326 8 670 7414 379 4020 4718 5366 6013 6660 380 364 470 536 602 668 38Z 1004 1207 1496 1785 2075 383 2327 2432 2878 3325 3772 403 0 0 0 0 0 404.1 1 1 1 1 1 404.2 0 0 0 0 0 405 3973 3973 3973 3�Y73 3973 417 483 488 488 488 488 TOTAL 44843 47�47 50572 53501 56432 30 TAB[[ 5~3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN ORANGE CO. EASTERLY 3UBREGIONAL __..... ..... _____.... TRAFFIC .... ______________________________________ 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ZONE 378 2980 3192 3404 3615 3826, 148 760 845 919 993 1067 149 394 394 394 394 394 150 927 1154 1418 1681 1944 151 1008 1533 1997 2461 2924 152 1977 2289 2628 2967 3306 153 1022 1499 2009 2529 3049 154 1572 2011 2453 2895 3337 156 1042 1325 1570 1816 2061 157 1190 1698 2213 2728 32473 158 6248 6960 7584 8208 8932 160 3823 3830 4324 4818 5312 161 2312 2820 3260 3703 4149 162 2139 2704 3194 3685 4174 213 2031 237B 2762 3145 352B 214 774 973 1214 1456 1698 215 1685 1834 2106 2379 2652 216 1341 1567 1763 1959 2155 217.1 2304 3040 3671 4301 4931 217'2 1327 1511 1646 1781 1916 218 246 274 296 318 340 220 301 301 301 301 301 327 1520 1824 2001 2178 2256 328 4545 4748 4955 5162 5369 329 2339 2503 2595 2687 2780 330 2821 3641 4537 5434 6331 331 2658 3014 3365 3716 4067 332 1856 2210 2758 3306 3854 333 486 642 8D4 966 1128 334 128 142 159 176 193 335 234 291 341 391 441 336 606 719 794 868 942 337 -------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________TOTAL 2106 2318 2716 3115 3515 TOTAL 56702 66174 76151 86132 96015 31 POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN SEM}ND[E COUNTY -------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________TRAFFIC TRAFFIC 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ZONE -------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________60 60 55 55 55 55 5's� 61 22 22 22 22 22 62 140 14() 140 140 140 109.1 2180 2230 2280 2309 2349 .5*109.2 1675 1825 1975 2125 2275 109.3 1440 1630 1815 2007 2207 110.1 685 685 685 685 685 110'2 450 625 800 1010 1220 139 2300 2608 2900 3272 3644 .5*140 2900 3750 4600 5598 6598 141 900 1250 1600 1970 2360 142 363 363 363 363 363 155 102 102 102 102 102 .5*159 2650 2825 3000 3184 3367 104 -------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________TOTAL 3000 4200 5350 6500 760) TOTAL 18862 22302 25687 29342 33037 32 ' TABLE 5~3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF OVIEDO TFAFFIC 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Z[)NE � ..... ..... ..... ... _____ .... .... ___ 58 ..... ..... 105 ..... .... _..... ..... ________________________ 105 105 105 105 97 1084 1403 1722 2043 2368 98 860 970 1080 1176 1276 101 697 804 929 1057 1207 102 861 1220 1579 1936 2313 103 720 900 1070 1225 1395 143 138 138 138 138 138 144 190 190 190 190 1N0 145 1150 1550 2050 2500 2958 146 242 242 242 242 242 99 _____________________________________________ 252 352 452 552 652 TOTAL 6299 7874 9557 11164 12836 33 TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF WINTER PARK . TRAFFIC 19R5 1990 ... .... .... ��������������� 1995 2000 200� ZONE � _... ..... ..... .... ... ___ 164.1 .... ..... __________________________________ 1386 1386 1386 1386 1386 164'2 3151 3158 3252 3346 3440 163 4529 4692 4892 5092 5292 165 3122 3903 3909 3915 3921 166 5300 5900 6500 7165 7865 167.1 2561 2568 2574 2580 2586 168 2827 2855 2886 2%7 2948 169 1258 1280 1298 1317 1337 170 1092 1275 1343 1411 1479 171.1 670 684 696 709 729 171.2 862 883 906 930 �55 171.3 19 19 19 19 19 172.1 124 124 124 124 124 172.2 216 216 216 216 216 173 1092 11Q4 1264 1344 1424 174 0 0 0 0 O 175.1 1123 1165 1178 1190 1203 175.2 1002 1079 1159 1239 1319 209 954 968 980 993 1006 210 3297 3353 3366 3378 3390 211 1601 1981 2295 2608 2621 212 3327 3327 3327 3327 3327 .67*138.2 2081 2162 2216 2267 2340 .5*167.2 748 777 804 832 860 _... ........ _____________________________________ TOTAL 42342 44939 46590 49305 49787 34 TABLE 5-3 (CONTINUED) POPULATION PROJECTIONS SUB -AREA TRAFFIC ZONE BREAKDOWN CITY OF MAITLAND � 7�AFFIC ������������������������������� 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 ZONE __________________________________ ------------------------------------- 133 133 1688 1998 2194 2391 2588 135 2089 2272 2422 2571 2721 136 800 898 992 1086 1180 137 2171 2269 2369 2469 2569 138'1 2161 2302 2401 2499 259� .33*138.2 1044 1082 1108 1137 1154 .5*167.2 --------------------------------------------- 748 777 804 832 860 TOTAL 10701 11598 12290 12985 13671' 35 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 GENERAL The purpose of the alternatives section is to define and evaluate the cost-effective feasible alternatives for wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal, and sludge treatment and disposal within the Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Planning Area as stated in the existing Facilities Plan. Each alternative was evaluated on a cost basis only for the needs of the service area for the year 2006. Any excess capacity that would be provided by the facilities actually being planned by Orlando or others is not included in the cost estivate. The expansion of the regional facilities will be analyzed with respect to alternatives involving the existing wastewater treatment facilities on a present worth cost-effective basis. Any analysis of the alternatives calling for expansion of existing treatment facilities will be based on expansion of the facilities with zero discharge effluent disposal and excess flows routed to the Iron Bridge AWTP, incorporating the Northerly and Iron Bridge Road/Crane Strand interceptor systems. Capital costs for treatment of flows will be based on the EPA publication, "innovate and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual" using a uniform method to evaluate each of the proposed alternatives. The necessary costs for tying these facilities into the interceptor system will be added to the treatment capital costs. 36 As has been previously described, Orange County has constructed a major sub regional plant of 5.0 MGD capacity south of Iron Bridge adjacent to Alafaya Trail within the original 201 planning area and plans to expand that plant as needed to serve a portion of the original planning area, plus a service area beyond the limits of the 201 to the east as growth requires. Because this major facility is in existance and Orange County has designated its service area and plans to expand it as needed to serve a portion of the original Orlando Easterly 201 Planning area, we will consider this facility as a constant present worth cost solution for all action alternatives. Similarly, Orlando has its Conserve I, Phase I, project of 7.5 MGD at the McCoy Orlando Jetport under construction. This new facility located within the original Orlando Easterly 201 planning area will also be considered as a constant present worth cost in all action alternatives. The City of Orlando has designated the planning and service area for Conserve I shown herein which will be accepted as a given constant solution for purposes of this study. Within the legislative act for the creation of the South Seminole North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority, Seminole County was granted the right to continue operating their Dyke Road facility up to 1 MGD. This has been held as a minimum size throughout all the alternatives and it will remain in service indefinitely. No cost is involved with leaving this facility at 1 MGD. The implementation of this plan is not intended to redirect or restrict the City of Orlando in any. way from expanding the Iron Bridge AWTP further than shown in this modification. Should the City decide that future growth and needs of the total potential service area of the plant are greater than those shown in this modification, the City may choose to modify the 201 Facilities Flan in order to qualify for State or Federal funding or construct the improvements with the assistance and cooperation of other local governments with all local funding. 37 A summary of the present worth cost is listed in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 contains a synopsis of plant size within each alternative. A cost effective present worth analysis for each alternative is contained at the end of this section in Table 6--3 through 6-10. 6.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 6.2.1 THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE Federal regulations require that the "No Action" Alternative be evaluated in the facility plan. In some planning areas it may be possible that the existing facilities are sufficient to serve the needs of the area for the 20 -year planning period --assuming optimum utilization or minor modification of these facilities. This situation does not exist in the current Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area. The current approved Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan incorporates a regionalization concept in which smaller municipal facilities would be phased out and a large regi octal system woul d be erpl Dyed for the entire planning area. Currently a moratorium exists at the regional facility due to inability to meet current discharge requirements and inability to expand the treatment facility as contemplated in the original 201 thereby limiting the growth of the planning area. The area is experiencing rapid growth and possible environmental damage could result. The population projection for this study area is approximately 476,665 persons by the year 2005, which would require treatment facilities of 48 MGD. The total design capacity of the 49 existing wastewater treatment facilities equals 44.8 MGD. The required sewage capacity is 3.2 MGD greater than the existing capacity. The existing capacity is inadequate to serve the needs of the community. A wastewater plan that provides the most economical method of serving future wastewater demands while proving to have the least adverse impacts on the environment is required. The "No 9.9 TABLE 6-1 COST EFFECTIVE SYNOPSIS Alternate Number PW Cost Ranking Alternate 1 -- -- Alternate 2 42,960,728 8 Alternate 3 25,739,852 1 Alternate 4 26,789,418 2 Alternate 5 29,814,196 6 Alternate 6 29,516,090 5 Alternate 7 29,673,513 7 Alternate 8 27,882,318 3 Alternate 9 28,637,637 4 i w TABLE 6-2 ALTERNATIVE SYNOPSIS (Facility Size) Seminole Alternate I.B. Orl. SE Org. Co. E Court Cass. WS West W. Park WS East I 23.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 II 7.8 5.6 9.6 1.0 0 0 0 0 III 3.05 5.6 9.6 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.75 1.0 IV 5.1 5.6 9.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 0 0 V 6.6 5.6 9.6 1.0 1.2 0 0 0 VI 6.3 5.6 9.6 1.0 0 1.5 0 0 VII 6.7 5.6 9.6 1.0 0.175 0.95 0 0 VIII 6.85 5.6 9.6 1.0 0 0.95 0 0 Ix 7.6 5.6 9.6 1.0 0.175 0 0 0 5.7 _ _ _ 5.6 _ _ 9.6 _ _ _-1,O__ __.1.2_ _ 0.95 _ .0 _ 0 AI 6e1____ _e6 _ __ _g,6__ 1.0 0.175 1.5 0 0 These figures represent the required expansion of the Iron Bridge AWTP to meet the requirements of each alternative for the year 2005. 40 Action" Alternative is not considered a viable alternative for the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area. 6.2.2 ALTERNATIVE I - REGIONAL FACILITY - 1 PLANT This alternative evaluates the continuation of the use of only the Iron Bridge regional plant as batically proposed in the adopted original 201 Facilities Plan. The single plant alternative must be capable of serving the entire area as described in the original 201 Facility Plan. For the design year 2005, this amn-urts to approximately 48 Mrn, The present facility treat's 24 MGD. This would require slightly more than a doubling of the existing facilities. Water quality studies have shown that expansion of the plant even with an advanced wastewater treatment discharge would not be allowed. The City of Orlando is currently considering a wetlands discharge for a 16 MGD expansion, which is not near the size required to serve the whole planning area. The boundaries of the regional facility and the plant location are shown in Figure 6-1. The City of Orlando and Orange County have already implemented plans to provide new facilities within the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area. Other governmental agencies such as Seminole County, Casselberry, Winter Springs and others within the 201 Planning Area also have fac i i ti es operating within the planning area or are contemplating re -opening facilities and/or expanding existing operating facilities. Also, there are several large private utilities in the service area which are operating facilities with adequate treatment and disposal. Because of these new facilities (primarily Orange County Subregional and Orlando Conserve I), some of which are 100% locally funded, we believe that the regional concept with one plant is no longer a viable and implementable alternative. Therefore, no further evaluation was made of this alternative. 41 6.2.3 ALTERNATIVE,11 - REGIONAL AND SUBR_EGIONAL FACILITIES - 4 PLANTS This alternative would provide for the continued use of the Iron Bridge Facility and the two new subregional facilities of Orlando and Orange County plus the existing Consumers Utilities 1.OMGD Plant of Seminole County which by the special act of the legislation forming the SSNOWTA is allowed to continue to operate. The service areas of each facility are shown in Figure 6-2. TFre 'Uran9e County Easterly Suue9i oval Plant is p reacrt l " designed to treat 6.0 MGD with future plans for expansion to 12.0 MGD, The required wastewater treatment capacity for the year 2005 for the part of the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area served by this plant is 9.6 MGD. This facility would adequately Meet the needs of its service area within the Orlando Easterly Planning Area. The Orlando project, known as Conserve ? would service the southern portion of the Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities planning area. The proposed capacity of this facility is 7.5 MGD. The service area within the Orlando Eastery 201 requires a wastewater treatment capacity of 5.6 MGD for the year 2005. This facility would adequately meet the needs of its service area within the Orlando Easterly Planning area. The Iron Bridge facility presently has a design capacity of 24 MGD. The City of Orlando is planning a 16 -MGD expansion . This would provide a total wastewater treatment and disposal capacity 42 at Iron Bridge of 4Q MGD. The Orlando Easterly service area (atter deducting for the area served by the Orange County and Orlando Subregional Plants and the Seminole County facility) would require"a wastewater treatment capacity of 31.8 MGC] for the year 2005. The expanded Iron Bridge plant would adequately meet the needs of its service area. The cost analysis is based on a need of 7.8 MGD as previously mentiongd in the general section. 6.2.4 ALTERNATIVE III - REGIONAL FACILITY AND OTHER FACILITIES - 8 PLANTS This alternative would provide wastewater treatment by the use of the Iron Bridge facilities, the Orlando Southeasterly facilities, the Orange County Easterly Subregional facilities, the Winter Springs West facilities, tze Winter Springs East facilities, the Casselberry facilities, the Winter Park facilities, and the Seminole County facilities. Figure 6-3 shoves the service areas of these facilities. Incorporation of this alternative would utilize the existing facilities with modification to provide added wastewater treatment capacity for each respective service area. Excess flows would be routed to the Iron Bridge facility and reduced expansion of this facility would be provided. The Orange County Easterly Subregional Plan is presently designed to treat 6.0 MGD with plans for expansion to 12.0 MGD. The required wastewater treatment capacity for the year 2005 for this portion of the Easterly Area is 9.6 MGD. 43 i The Casselberry System is capable of biologic II treating 1.5 MGD. The effluent disposal capacity Planned 1 .5 MGD. Excess flows of 3.2 MGD would be routed to the existing Iron Bridge AWTP providing the required capacity of 3.8 MGD for the phase I portion of the proposed project up to 1995. Additional effluent disposal sites will be found and the system expanded to 1.2 MGD in 1995. The excess flows of 3.5 MGD would be routed to the existing Iron Bridge AWTP providing the required capacity of 4.7 MGD for the design year 2005. The City of Winter Park proposes the re -opening of its easterly wastewater treatment system which :;ill. provide 0.75MGD of effluent disposal capacity and will begin operation in mi d-1 985. Excess flows of 4.25 MGD would be routed to the existing Iron Bridge facility to provide the required 5.0 MGD treatment capacity for the design year 2005. The Winter Springs West facility would be upgraded from a 0.9 MGD treatment plant to a capacity of 1 . 5 MGD. Excess flow of 0.50 MGD would be routed to the Iron Bridge facility to provide the planned 2.1 MGD capacity needed for the design year 2005. The Winter Springs East facility has a wastewater treatment capacity of 1.0 MGD with the same amount of effluent disposal capacity. Excess flows of 0.3 MGD would be routed to the Iron Bridge facility to provide the planned 1.3 MGD needed for the design year 2005. Seminole County is presently providing a treatment capacity of 1.0 MGD at the Consumers Plant. Modification of the plant and effluent disposal system will provide a treatment capacity of 1.3 MGD. Excess flows of 2.0 MGD would be routed to Iron Bridge to provide the 3.3 MGD capacity needed for the design year 2005. 44 The Orlando Southeasterly, known as Conserve I, would service the southern portion of the Orlando 201 facilities planning area. The required capacity is 5.6 MGD for the planning year 2005. The proposed capacity for this wastewater treatment facility is 7.5 MGD. The Iron Bridge facility would be receiving flows from the remainder of the service area not served by the Orlando Conserve I, the Orange County Sub Regional, Winter Springs West and East, Casselberry, Winter Park, and Seminole County plants. The required capacity is 27.05 MGD for the year 2005. The Iron Bridge plant ant would d be expanded by 3.05 MGD to meet the future flow requirements for the year 2005. Currently the facility is designed for 24 MGD. 6.2.5 ALTERNATIVE IV w REGIONAL FACILITY, ORLANDO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SEMINOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD, LINTER SPRINGS WEST, AND GASSELBERRY (6 Plants) This alternative would provide wastewater treatment by use of the above mentioned facilities. These facilities have definite implementable plans for the future service of the 201 Study Areas discussed previously in this report. Implementation of this alternative would use the existing facilities of Casselberry and Winter Springs rather than tie these facilities totally into Iron Bridge. The Orange County Easterly Facility, Orlando Conserve I facility and Seminole County Dyke Road facility will remain as described in Alternative II and the General Section. The service areas of each facility are shown in Figure 6-4. The Casselberry Wastewater Treatment facility is capable of biologically treating 1.5 iTIGD. The anticipated effluent disposal capacity for Phase I is 0.6 MGD. Excess flows of 3.2 from the Casselberry system will be routed to the existing Iron Bridge AWTP to provide the required capacity of 3.8 MGD for tete design year 1995. The Phase II program will increase the effluent disposal capacity to 1.2 MGD and excess flows:of 3.5 MGD will be routed to the existing Iron Bridge AWTP to provide the required capacity of 4.7 MGD for the design.year 2005. This plan would adequately meet the needs of the planning area. Thaa Wi ntnr 'Znri nnc West facility Would be upgraded from a 0-95 GD treatment facility to a capacity of 1.5 MGD._ Excess flows of 0.60 MGD from the Winter Springs West system will be routed to the existing Iron Bridge facility to provide the required capacity of 2.1 MGD for the design year 2005. This plan would adequately meet the needs of the planning area. The Iron Bridge facility would require an expansion of 5.1 MGD to serve the needs of the remaining area not served by the above mentioned facilities. This would require a total treatment plant capacity of 29.1 MGD at the Iron Bridge facility. 6.2.6 ALTERNATIVE V - REGIONAL FACILITY, ORLANDO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SE INOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD AND CASSELBERRY (5 Plants) This alternative is the same as Alternative IV, without the City of Winter Springs West. Implementation of this plan would require that the City of Winter Springs be tied into Iron Bridge. An expansion of the Iron Bridge facility of 6.6 MGD would be required. This would yield a total treatment plant capacity of 30.6 MGD at the Iron Bridge Facilities. Figure 6-5 shows the service areas of these facilities. 46 6.2.7 ALTERNATIVE VI- REGIONAL FACILITY ORLA.PO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SEMINOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD AND WINTER SPRINGS (5 Plants) This alternative is the same as Alternative IV without the City of Casselberry. Implementation of this plan would require that the total flow from Casselberry be routed to Iron Bridge. An expansion of the iron Bridge facility of 6. 3 MGD wool rd be required. This would yield a total treatment plant capacity of 30.3 MGD at the Iron Bridge Facilities. Figure 6-6 shows the service area of these facilities 6.2.8 ALTERNATIVE VII - REGIONAL FACILITY, ORLANDO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SEMINOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD, WINTER SPRINGS AND CASSELBERRY (6 Plants) This alternative is a sizing modification of Alternative IV. Implementation of this alternative would involve leaving the Winter Springs West facility, at its permitted capacity of 0.95 MGD and routing the excess flows to Iron Bridge. The Casselberry treatment facilities would remain at the permitted capacity of 0.175 MGD and the excess flows routed to Iron Bridge as presently occurs. The Iran Bridge facilities would be expanded by 6.7 MGD for a total capacity of 30.7 MGD. The service area of each facility are shown in Figure 6-7. 6. 2.9 ALTERNATIVE VIII - REGIONAL FACILITY, ORLANDO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SEMINOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD, WINTER SPRINGS AND CASSELBERRY (6 Plants) This alternative utilizes the three larger facilities and allows the continued operation of the Winter Springs facility at its permitted capacity of 0.95 MGD and an expansion of the 47 Casselberry facility to 1.2 MGD. All excess flows from these two areas would be routed to Iron Bridge. The Iron Bridge facilities would be expanded by 6.7 MGD for a total capacity of 29.7 MGD, Figure 6-8 shows the service areas for each facility. 6..2.10 ALTERNATIVE IX- REGIONAL FACILITY, ORLANDO CONSERVE I, ORANGE COUNTY EASTERLY, SEMINOLE COUNTY DYKE ROAD, WINTER SPRINGS AND CASSELBERRY (6 Plants) This alternative utilizes the four larger facilities and allows the rnntinnAd nnaratinn of the Casselberry facility at its permitted capacity of 0.175 MGD and the expansion of the Winter Springs facility to 1.5 MGD. All excess flows from these two areas would be routed to Iron Bridge. The Iron Bridge facility would be expanded by 6.1 MGD for a total capacity of 30.1 MGD. The service areas for each facility are shorn in Figure 6-9. 50 Lake e aka U&CO L&ks Jess®� s g EW W— bw wc�aaa+ an+� ake am W e • aTifolk, irt Y e so Owl@;" sa�fvav Gaya@sa ORLANDO W 201 PLANNING AREA 49 Fi um 6-1 ALTERM ATIVE COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE II 7.8 MGD Expansion of Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Cl ari f i cati on 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification 5. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 10. Sludge Holding Tanks 11. Sludge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station 7.8 MGD TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 15,000' FM @ 24`° ($40/LF) Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL 11 T U C D Tie -In Winter Springs East Tie -In Winter Springs West OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL 58 Construction Cast 1 50,000 400,000 4,500,000 750,000 ]�5�0'� , [0� 0 0 800,000 25,000 400,000 90,000 40,000 � ryry0 , (0'� (0� 0 90, 0100 200,000 600,000 1,300,000 600,000 9,855,000 $16,568,000 $ 1,660,000 1,320,000 1 , 828,000 320,000 �} Q(� ( 828� ,000 $21,696,000 $ 600,000 975,000 0 & M Cost 23,000 38,000 /70,000 40, 000 225,000 1,000 20,000 55,000 45,000 30,000 60,000 1 00, 000 20,000 �J727 -,-UFO $ 1,222,000 $ 1 '000 $ 575,000 $ 1,000 $ 300,000 535,000 0 O $24,106,400 $ 2,412,000 3,615,000 6, 7,000 $30,134,000 $ 22,000 22,500 T___4_4, 500 $ 1,949,000 $ 1,949,000 TABLE 6-3 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE II SALVAGE PW Process 16,568,000 x .33 = 5,467,440 Effluent Oisp. EM 600,000 x .60 = 360,000 Misc. Pump Stations 250,000 x .33 = 82,500 Interceptors 385,000 x .60 = 231,000 Other Pfants 0 x .33 = - 0 - ,10, 94 PW O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION 1,949,000 x 9.732 = 18,967,668 O & M - EXISTING EA TI TTrES I TILIZEO 0 x 9.732 = 0 M� 30,134,000 + 18,967,668 + 0 - 6,140,940 = $42,960,728 TABLE 6-4 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE III 3.05 MGD Expansion of Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary,. Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification 5. Denite 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening edge Hol di ng Tanks 11a Sludge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 15,000` FM @ 8" {$20/LF} Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL Tie -In WS West at 0.6 MGD Tie -In WS East at 0.3 MGD Casselberry Improvements Phase I Upgrade Seminole County Upgrade Winter Park Upgrade Winter Springs West OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL 0 Construction Cost $ 80,000 200,000 1,500,000 400,000 400,000 10,000 250,OOD 23,000 50,000 7V, VVV 400,000 600,000 300,0003O $ 7,234,000 723,00j0� 579,000 579,000 362,000 9,477,000 300,000 381 „250 0 & M Cost $ 1 0, 000 9,000 30,000 20,000 100,000 600 10,000 25,000 3,000 1 0, 000 40,000 55,000 1 0, 000 22,0 542,360 500 $ 681,250 $ 500 $ 268,000 212,000 1,435,000 1,825,000 1,575,000 1 , 1 06, 350 $16,579,000 $ 1,658,000 2,487,000 $ 4,145,000 $20,724,000 21 , 300 22,000 36,800 60,000 24,000 92,900 $ 800,000 TABLE 6--4 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE III OTHER Casselberry Phase II including Engr. & Construction 368,750 SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Disp. FM Pump Stations Interceptors Other Plants Casselberry Phase II 9,477,000 x .33 = 300,000 x .60 50,000 x .33 430,000 x .60 5,941,350 x .33 5,941,350 x . 1 5 PW O&M NEW CONSTRUCTION 800,000 x 9.732 W $7,785,600 0 & M _ EXISTING FACILITIES UTILIZED 273,250 x 9.732 = $2,659,269 P.W. CASSELDERRY PHASE II 368,750 x .4579 = 168,850 1 6, 035 $ 3,127,410 1 80, 000 1 6, 500 258,000 1,960,645 55,312 T-5,597, 8 6 7 P. W. 20,724,000 + 7,785,600 + 2,659,269 + 168,850 W 5,597,867 = 25,739,852 61 TABLE -5 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE IV 5.1 MGD Expansion at Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification 5. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 10. Sludge Holding Tanks 11. Sludge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Pi p i ng @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISP0SAL 15,000' FM @ 20" ($35/LF) Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL ATLI�7D WS Upgrade 0.55 Casselberry Improvements Tie -In WS West Tie -In WS East OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL. OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL. 62 Construction Cost $ 1 00, 000 280,000��}} 2,800,000 530,000 538,000 1 6, 000 275,000 26,000 58,000 113,000 450,000 788,000 400,000 --- $10,716,000 1,072,000 857,000 857, 000 536,000 $14,038,000 525,000 637,500 0 & M Cost 1 6, 000 1 8, 000 44,000 28,000 iO6,u00 800 1 3, 500 36,000 3,400 18,000 47,000 71 , 000 14,000 1,000 $ 1 , l 62,500 $ 1 , 000 $ 1,106,350 1,435,000 268,000 300,000 3,1093350 $18,309,850 $ 1,830,985 2,746,478 TT, , 463 $ 92,930 36,800 21 g 300 22,000 $ 1 73,030 873,030 $22,887,313 $ 873,030 TABLE 6-5 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE IV OTHER: Casselberry Phase II {including Engr. and Construction SALVAGE PW Process E-ff 1 uent Disp. FMMisc. Pump Stations Interceptors Other Plants Casselberry Prase 11 PW O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION 14,038,000 x .33 = 525,000 x .60 75,000 x o33 = 493,000 x .60 2,541,350 x .33 368,750 x .15 368,750 16,035 873,030 x 9.732 = 8,496,329 0 & M - EXISTING FACILITIES UTILIZED 143,750 x 9.732 = 1,398,975 Pik CASSEL3ERRY PHASE II 368,750 x .4579 = 168,850 niI r. W. 4,632,540 31 51000 24,750 295,800 838,645 55,313 (/p} c 6, . 0 48 22,887,313 + 168,850 + 8,496,328 + 1,398,975 - 6,162,048 = 26,789,418 M TABLE 6-6 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE V 7.6 MGR Expansion of Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification 5. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 1 0. Sl udg4 Bv1 di 11 Tank 11. Sludge Recovery 12. Fi 1 trati on 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL. ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT UISPOSAL 15,000' FM @ 24" ($40/LF) Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL Tie -In Upgrade Casselberry 0.6 MGD Phase I Tie -In Winter Springs West Tie -In Winter Srrings East OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL PHASE I 64 Construction Cost 1 20, 000 360,000,: 4,000,000'` 650,000 675,000 20,000 300,000 30,000 75,000 1 30, 000 500,000 970,000 480,000 $13,971,000 $ 1,397,100 1 117,680 1,117,680 698,550 w , , .... , , - . .. $18,302,010 600,000 900,000 $ 1,500,000 0 & M Cost 21 , 500 26,000 55,000 '� /� (} 36,000 110,000 1,000 17,000 47,000 3,9f0�0 53,000 87,000 T__499, ^^��,18, 500 " "y , 900 $ 840,438 1 , 000 $ 1 '000 $ 1,435,000 $ 36,800 535,000 300,000 2,270,000 $22,072,010 $ 2,207,201 3,310,802 5,518,003 $27,590,013 21 , 300 22,000 $121539 $ 921 , 538 $ 921 , 538 TABLE 6-6 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE V PRASE II CASSELBERRY (Includes Engr. and Construction) @ 0.60 368,750 SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Oi sp. FM Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Phase II Process Other Plants 18,302,010 x .33 = 600,000 x .60 250,000 x .33 585,000 x .60 368,750 x .15 = 1,435,000 x .33 = PW O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION 921,538 x 9.732 = 8,968,408 0 & M EXISTING FACILITIES UTILIZED 49,600 x 9.732 = $482,700 P.W. PHASE II 368,750 x 4579 = 168,850 16,035 $.,, 6, 039, 663 360,000py(q 82,500 351 , 000 55,312 473,550 ,306,713 �7, K9O, u13 8,968,408 + 482,200 + 168,850 7,3060,713 = 00,062 29,814,196 65 TABLE 6-7 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE VI 6.3 MGD Expansion at Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC`s 4. Final Clarification 5. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 10. Sludge Hold i ng Tanks 11. S1 edge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUEIIT DuISPVSAL 15,000' FM @ 24" ($40/LF) Land Casts 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL R Upgrade Winter Springs Tie --In Winter Springs East Tie -In Winter Springs West OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL 66 Construction Cost 1115,0}00 340,000 3,800,000 620,000 650,000 1 9, 000 - 300,000 30,000 75,000 1 ?r nAO 500,000 950,000 475,000 $13,450,000 1,345,000 1}076,000 1,076,000 673,000 W .1 . , -3. .... .. $17,620,000 $ 600,000 787,000 $ 1,387,500 1,106,350 $ 300,000 268,000 674,350 0 & M Cost 211 , pO [O�ink 26,000 55,000 q5 , 0(0� (0� 34,000 1 25,000 1,000 16,500 45,000 3,800 24,500 51 '500 85,000 1 7, 500 850,000 $ 6,000 $ 1 , 000 92,930 $ 22,000 21 , 300 1 36, 230 $20,681,850 $ 981,230 $ 2,068,185 3,102,278 9,170,463 $25,852,313 $ 987,230 SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Disp. EM Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Other Plants PW 0&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION COSI' ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE VI 17,670,000 x .33 600,000 x .60 = 75,000 x .33 = 493,000 x .60 = 1 ,106`. 350 x .33 = 987,230 x 9,732 = 9,607,722 0 & M - EXISTING FACILITIES UTILT7ED 95,150 x 9. 732 = 91 6, 300 5,814,600 360,000 24,750 295,800 365,095 6,86U-,245 25,852,313 + 9,607,722 + 916,300 - 6,860,245 = $29,516,090 67 SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Di sp. FPS Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Other Plants PW O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION TABLE 6-7 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE 17,670,000 x .33 600,000 x .60 75,000 x .33 T 493,000 x .60 = 1,106,350 x .33 = 987,230 x 9.732 = 9,607,722 0 & M - EXISTING ,FACILITIES UTILIZED 95, 1 50 x 9. 732 = 91 6, 300 5,814,600 360,000 (24,750 ] 4 , {7] 5 0'� 295,800 365,095 6,860,245 25,852,313 + 9,607,722 + 916,300 - 6,860,245 = $29,516,090 67 COST ESTIMATE 6.7 MGD Expansion of Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification 5. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 10. Sludge Holding Tanks 11. Sl udge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station 7.8 MGD TOTAL E GR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 15,000' FM @ 24" ($40/LF) Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL OTHER Tie -In Winter Springs East @ 1 . 3 MGD Tie -In Winter Springs West @ 1.15 MGD Winter Springs Upgrade OTHER. SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL 19 Construction Cost 1 20,000 370,000 4,100,000 660,000 675,000 //0 22,000 j� //2�� , 0(0� /0�y 30,000 30,000 77,000 1 35, 000 500,000 975,000 500,000 $ 8,464,00C $14,230,000 $ 1,420,000 1,138,000 1 138,000 712,000 $182638,000 600,000 837.000 0 & M Cost 21,500 26,500 57,500 36,000 112,000 1,000 1 7,000 47,000 3,900 25;000 53,000 87,000 1 8, 500 S06,000 $ 850,000 1,000 $ 1,437,500 $ 1,000 $ 300,000 294,800 650,500 1 20,800 $21,320,300 $ 2,132,030 3,1989045 5,330,075 $26,650,375 $ 22,000 21 , 300 74,000 �17,OOG $ 969,000 SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Di spo FM Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Other P1'ants PW 0&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION TABLE 6-8 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE VII 18,638,000 x .33 = 600,000 x .60 = 75,000 x .33 = 51 9, 800 x .60 = 650,000 x .33 969,000 x 9.732 = 9,430,388 0 & M - EXISTING FACILITIES UTILIZED 67,250 x 9.732 = 654,500 P. W. 6,150,540 360,000 24,750 311 ,880 21 4, 500 .W ,06 ,6l - $26,650,375 + 9,430,308 + 654,500 - 7,061,670 = $29,673,513 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE VIII 5.7 MGD Expansion of Iron Bridge COMPONENT COSTS 1. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification J e D g e i i i L e 6. C12 Contact 7. Post Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 1g_ Sludge Holding Taroks 11. Sludge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 Piping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 15,000' FM @ 24" ($40/LF) Land Costs 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL OTHER Winter Springs West Upgrade Casselberry Improvements Tie -In Winter Springs West @ 1 .1 5 MGD Tie -In Winter Springs East OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTRL GRAND TOTAL Construction Cost $ 106,000 295,000 3,100,000 (y /y (� 560,000 582,000 1 6, 000 287,000 28,000 66,000 114,000 475,000 857,000 425,000 $ 1 ,1 62, 000 930,000 930,000 581 , 000 $15,222,000 3 600,000 71 2. 500 0 & M Cost 18,000 j '� (� (} 22,000 48,000 30,000 123,000 900 1 4, 500 40,000 3,600 21 , /000 g 49,000 77,000 15$500 500 62 M 778,000 1 , 000 $ 1,312,500 $ 1,000 650,000 $ 1,435,000 294,800 300,000 ,68,0000 $19,214,000 1 , 921 , 000 2,882,000 4, 03,000 74,000 $ 30,800 21 , 300 22,000 148,000 927,100 $24,017,000 $ 927,100 TABLE 6-9 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE VIII OTHER Casselberry Phase II (including Engr. and Construction) 368,750 SALVAGE P Process Effluent Disp. FM Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Casselberry Phase II Other Plants Pkv O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION 15,222,000 x .33 600,000 x .60 75,000 x .33 = 51 9, 800 x .60 368,750 x .15 2,085,000 x .33 927,100 x 9.732 = 9,022,537 O & M m EXISTING FACILITIES UTILIZED 116,850 x 9.732 = 1 , 1 37, 537 PW CASSELBERRY PHASE II 368,750 X e4579 = 1680850 16,035 '$ 5,023,260 360,000 24,750 311 , 880 55,313 688,050 S6,463, 3 24,017,000 + 9,022,537 + 1,137,184 + 168,850 - 6,463,253 = $27,882,31 71 TABLE 6-10 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE IX 6.1 MGD Expansion of Iron Bridge Construction COMPONENT COSTS Cost 4. Pretreatment 2. Primary Clarification 3. RBC's 4. Final Clarification S. Deni to 6. C12 Contact 7. Past Aeration 8. Polymer Addition 9. Gravity Thickening 1O. Sludge Holding Tans ll. Sludge Recovery 12. Filtration 13. Effluent Lift Station TOTAL ENGR. 2475 TOTAL ENGR. 4161 NONCOMPOENNT COSTS Pi ping @ 10% Electrical @ 8% Instrument @ 8% Site Prep. @ 5% TOTAL PROCESS SUBTOTAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL 16,000' FM @ 24" ($40/LF) Land Casts 125 Ac/MGD @ 1000 $/Ac EFFLUENT SUBTOTAL F i '. Tie -In Winter Springs East @ 1.3 MGD Tie -In Winter Springs West @ 0.6 MGD Upgrade Winter Springs Wiest OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL OTHER RELATED COSTS Engr. & Construction Supervision @ 10% Contingencies @ 15% SUTBOTAL GRAND TOTAL 72 11 2,00( 3 0y ry 310,000 ,400,000 590,000 625,000 1 6, 000 300,000 30,000 73,000 115,000 500,000 925,000 450,000 $ 7 , 446 WO $12,518,000 $ 1,252,000 1 '001 g 000 1 '001 , 000 626,000 $io,39o,000 $ 600,000 762,500 $ 1,362,500 $ 300,000 268,000 1,106,350 1 , 674,350 $19,434,850 $ 1,943,485 2,915,227 X711 2 0 & M Cast 20,500 25,500 52,500 32,000 1 40, 000 1,000 16,000 43,000 3,700 24,000 51 0080 83,000 1 700 509,000 856,000 1 , 000 1 , 000 $ 22,000 21 s 300 92,930 6,000 $ 993,000 $24,293,562 $ 993,000 TABLE 6-10 (Continued) COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE IX (CONTINUED) SALVAGE PW Process Effluent Disp. FM Misc. Pump Stations Interceptors Other Plants PW O&M - NEW CONSTRUCTION 16,398,000 x .33 600,000 x .60 = 75,000 x .33 = 493,000 x .60 = 1,106,350 x .33 = 993,000 x 9.732 = 9,663,876 0 A M _ FxrSTINr_, FACiiITIES UTILIZED 1 1 6, 850 x 9 732 = 1 ,1 37,1 84 P. W. $ 5,411,340 360,000 24 y (� 295,800 365.095 6,456,m 24,293,562 + 9,663,876 + 1,137,184 - 6,456,985 = $ 28,637,637 73 7.0 PLAN SELECTION 7.1 GENERAL The approach to select the wastewater management plan for the Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Planning Area was developed,., based on a cost effective analysis, cost-effective use of existing facilities, environmental impact on the area and input from the public. The proposed method of disposal for the smaller facilities within the 201 planning area is zero discharge via land application. 7.2 ALTERNATIVES The alternatives are more fully described and discussed in Section 6. 7.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public hearings are planned in Casselberry and Winter Springs. The cities of Casselberry and Winter Springs were chosen because they were the communities proposing a change to the 201 plan and the plan proposed affected the residents directly because of modifications to these systems. Input is being solicited and received from SSNOWTA and its member communities as well as from the City of Orlando. 74 Copies of the minutes from the public hearings armee attached in the Appendices. 7.4 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES An evaluation of the general environmental impacts areshown in Table 7-1. The degree of treatment and construction varies very little between alternatives. 7.4.1 ALTERNATIVE I The alternative of one single regional facility was determined to not be implementable because of the recent construction of two major facilities within the Easterly 201 Planning Area. These facilities are the orlando Conserve I facility (7.5 MGD) and the Orange County Easterly Subregional facility (6.0 MGD). Another factor preventing the total implementation of this plan is that Seminole County was allowed by the special legislation creating SSNOWTA to operate the Dyke Road facility up to 1.0 MGD. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 7.4.2 ALTERNATIVE II This alternative is the alternative currently being promoted for long-range implementation within the orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan. The major disadvantage to this alternative is 75 IAPi F i-1 ENVIRONMENIA,L C{INSIURATIW A€TERNAIIVES II « IX Impacts Comnec t A. Natural Environment 1. Atmosphere a. Climate b. Air Quality c, Poi se d. Odor 2. Land a. Topography b. Geology C. Soils d. Suitability of Use e. Plants f. Animals No change No change No appreciable noise Some odor will be evident due to landspreading of effluent No effect landspreading will have an effect on the surface geology The impact on the soils will he to provide a better growth environment Land suitability will be greater for agriculture Benefits plants Increased habitat or preservation. Species may change 3. Wetlands a. Flooding The expansion of Iron Bridge is b. Physical Alterations designed for wetlands discharge. c. Plants Additional waters to wetlands may d. An4amsl have a deteF713ertal effect. The larger the expansion, the more effect the discharge will have. 4. Surface Waters No additional surface water discharge is proposed. 5. Groundwater a. Quantity Landspreading will increase the groundwater quantity b. Quality Groundwater quality will be effected, but effluent will be controlled to 1='mit the effect. B. Man -Made Environment 1. Land Use 2. Transportation 3. Resource and Energy Use a. Construction Mtls b. Construction 4. Aesthetics Land use will remain unchanged throughout all the alternatives. No impact is anticipated with any of the alternatives. Use of construction materials will be greater for the new construction required for the Iron Bridge expansion. The larger the expansion the greater the affect. Aesthetics will be enchanted by limiting the number of facilities. 76 the exp rasion of the Iran Bridge facilities. The proposed expansion includes the use of wetlands for effluent disposal which is presently considered an experimental disposal method. The use of wetlands as an effluent disposal method is covered by Chapter 17-4 of the Florida Administrative Code. Currently wetlands disposal is permitted by the issuance of an exemption for the.experimental use of low-energy water and wastewater recycling. The maximum exemption period is presently -five (5) years and the discharger must affirmatively demonstrate that the wetlands ecosystem may reasonably be expected to assimilate the waste discharge without significant adverse impact on the biological community within the receiving maters. Changes in the rules are proposed and may be implemented in the future. Also many of the communities in the northern section of the Orlando Easterly 201 area have had to limit development because capacity is not available at the Iran Bridge facility. 7.4.3 ALTERNATIVE III This alternative requires the smallest expansion of the Iron Bridge facilities because it utilizes many of the existing facilities within the 201 Study Area. By utilizing these existing facilities, it would delay the expansion of Iron Bridge to a later date and allow more study time for effluent disposal alternatives. It is an economical solution to the wastewater treatment requirements because it utilizes many existing facilities which have sunk costs. It provides a good environmental solution by utilizing landspreading of effluent. Spray irrigation on golf courses with effluent replaces and limits the depletion of the groundwater aquifer. 77 7.4.4 ALTERNATIVES IV THRU IX These alternatives utilize the four main wastewater treatment facilities that will remain in service in the Orlando Easterly 201 Study area because of size and local funding or legislative act. The variables within the alternatives is the size or use of the Casselberry and WinterSprings West facilities. These alternatives have the advantages of Alternative III, but are based on implementable and preliminary design facilities for Winter Springs and Casselberry and eliminate the proposed facilities for Seminole County, Winter Park, and Winter Springs East. They were structured in this manner to determine if the Winter Springs West and Casselberry alternatives were cost effective to implement should the other projects not be constructed as planned. Also these alternatives were structured to determine if Winter Springs or Casselberry could stand alone as cost effective alternatives. Alternative VII is an alternative that leaves Casselberry and Winter Springs West at their present permitted capacity. This alternative would require the least amount of capital improvements to the Casselberry and Winter Springs systems. It would also involve the least amount of changes to the existing treatment and disposal systems within the 201 Study Area. 7.4.5 FLEXIBILITY Alternative III offers the most flexibility to the communities and agencies within the 201 Study Area. It allows for the various communities to treat some of the wastewater generated within their service area and route the remaining flows to the regional facility. It also allows for irrigation of golf courses within the area rather than depleting the groundwater aquifer. Alternatives IV thru IX offers this flexibility to the cities of i ester Spr i ngss and masse l berry. 7.4.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY Alternative III is the easiest alternative to implement because it requires the least amount of construction and design. Alternative II is, in effect, already being implemented by the various agencies in the 201 Study Area. However, this program is not keeping pace with the needs of area and changes are required. Alternatives IV thru IX could easily be implemented to serve the needs of the area. Adequate treatment and disposal systems are planned and could be constructed within a reasonable time frame. 7.4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL The various alternatives represent very little change environmentally within the 201 Study Area. The landspreading of effluent throughout the 201 Study Area on various golf courses has the advantage of not concentrating the effluent impact on one site. The proposed wetlands discharge for the Iron Bridge facilities is yet unproven and the environmental impact is undetermined. This is the most questionable environmental condition within the proposed plans. The larger the expansion at Iron Bridge, the larger the quantity of discharge to the wetlands. From an environmental standpoint the best solution is Alternative III which requires the smallest expansion of Iron Bridge. W7 7. 5 DISCUSSION OF THE NORTHERLY INTERCEPTOR -DESIGN The original 201 discusses the design of the northerly interceptor system in Appendix VIII -D. Winter Springs West was slated to be tied -in by 1985 and Winter Springs East by 1995. The Summary and Conclusions section of the above mentioned appendix states that the interceptor was designed for a capacity of 18.5 MGD average daily flows. The northerly communities of Winter Springs, Casselberry, Maitland and Winter Park and Seminole County will generate flows of 19 MGD by the year 2005. If each agency implements the programs as outlined in the alternatives section, the total flow routed to the Iron Bridge facilities would be 14.15 MGD by the year 2005. Winter Springs West represents only 8 percent of the total intercepter flow for the year 2005. The Casselberry flow of 1.2 MGD represents only 6 percent of the total intercepter flow for the year 2005. The total Casselberry flow for 2005 of 4.7 MGD represents 25 percent of the total intercepter flow for the year 2005. 7.6 REASONS FOR SELECTION Alternative III was selected for implementation because it was the most cost effective solution for the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area. The local agencies within this 201 Planning Area have implemented portions of this plan with local funding. This alternative is in line with the current plans of each agency within the 201 study area. In order for these agencies to qualify for Federal or State grants, they would only need a brief modification to the 201 Facilities Plan describing environmental assessment of sites, detailed preliminary engineering and site specific studies. 80 This alternative requires the smallest expansion of the Iron Bridge facilities. By implementing this program, the City of Orlando would have more time to investigate expansion alternatives and develop a cost effective program to expand. Some of the Cities within the 201 Planning area have had to impose sewer connection moratoriums because capacity is not available at the Iron Bridge AWTP. With the current growth in the Orlando area, they cannot wait for an approved expansion and construction program for Iron Bridge AWTP. They need to have wastewater treatment capacity as soon as possible. This program would provide a shorter design and construction time frame and provide these agencies with the flexibility that they need. It is important to note that should Winter Park and Seminole County not implement their proposed programs, the expansion of the Casselberry and Winter Springs facilities is more cost effective than routing these flows to Iron Bridge AWTP and expanding that facility. The implementation of this plan is not intended to redirect or restrict the City of Orlando in any way from expanding the Iron Bridge AWTP further than shown in this modification. Should the City decide that future growth and needs of the total potential service area of the plant are greater than those shown in this modification, the City may choose to modify the 201 Facilities Plan in order to qualify for State or Federal funding or construct the improvements with the assistance and cooperation of other local governments with all local funding. M. 8.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN 8.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN This 201 Modification will address the preliminary design for the Cities of Winter Springs (West facility) and Casselberry only. The preliminary design of the• recommended plan includes expansion or use of existing wastewater treatment facilities. For the most hart, collection and transmission facilities are already in place and require only slight modification to implement the plan. 8.2 WINTER SPRINGS WEST Figure 8-1 shows the schematic flow diagram for Winter Springs West and Table 8-1 shows the unit processes and sizes including the proposed items. Figure 8--2 shows the plant site layout. Existing flows are about 0.8 MGD and the total needs for year 2005 are 2.1 MGD. Excess flows above the 1.5 MGD capacity of the Winter Springs West facility will be sent to the SSNOWTA system and on to Iron Bridge for treatment. The City of Winter Springs has instituted a program where developers are required to provide deeded effluent disposal sites to the City for a minimum of their future needed capacity. The City presently has two developer agreements that include disposal sites: One for 330,000 gpd and another for 150,000 gpd which will bring the total effluent disposal capacity to 1.38 MGD. is WINTER SPRINGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM INFLUENT 83 CONKLIN, PORTER ;, WASTE SLUDGE AND SCUM IGiti S`' DRIED ON SITE 0 SLUDGE TABLE 8-1 WINTER SPRINGS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Existing Facilities) rv=� Design Rated l-a-r--i-f- -er - Si z Criteria CaPac Clarifier 2,827 SF SDR M 530 GPD/SF 1.5 MGD Aeration 28,572 CF F/M = 0.15 1.7 MGD Reaeration 57,145 CF 1.7 MCD Digester 51,192 CF 2 CF/Capita 2.6 MGD Chlorine Contact 4,667 CF 15 min. contact 1.5 MGD at peak Sludge Drying Beds 12,000 SF 2 SF/Capita 0.6 MGD 0 rAim— wavo 09 ,c'PC T I / C AIL � ER The effluent sprayed on the Big Cypress Golf Course is not currently filtered prior to applications Currently the plant meets the FDER standards for public access criteria while operating in the extended air node. However, the increased flow to the plant will most likely decrease the effluent water quality and fiitrateon will be required to provide continuous high level treatment for compliance with the regulations-. The DER regulations require a minimum of three (3) days storage at the maximum daily flow to allow for wet periods when land application via the spray irrigation sites is limited. A water balance analysis has shown that 9.5 days of storage is needed. The present holding pond storage equals approximately 2.9 million gallons and is equivalent to approximately 5.8 days of storage for the spray irrigation system. Additional storage of approximately 1.5 million gallons is currently under construction on the wastewater treatment plant site. The storage capacity is based on a water balance analysis performed by the former owners that indicated that 9.5 days of storage was needed. Storage will not be required to operate the percolation pond systems. Effluent has been sprayed on the Big Cypress Golf Course for many years. The golf course system as currently configured is capable of disposing of 250,000 gpd on an average daily basis. Several of the holes on the golf course could dispose of more effluent because they have better soil characteristics for effluent disposal. It is possible to dispose of an additional 50,000 gpd by the addition of irrigation heads and controllers on these holes. A preliminary design of the irrigation modification is shown in Figure 8-3. The City also leases a non-public access spray irrigation site known as Site 16 which is discussed in section 8.2.2 herein. Attached in the Appendices are soils reports for the golf course and Site 16. co JEW ==I ox 0011 IL j: .J,g 00 OC w Ici OL 49 >.z 00 a L- During the purchase negotiations, it became apparent that more disposal capacity was required. Percolation ponds capable of disposing of .40 MGD were designed by the former owners and are presently under construction. The City decided to fund this project immediately because of the urgent need for effluent disposal capacity. 8.2.1 FILTER DESIGN - WINTER SPRINGS WEST The effluent disposal system uses a common holding pond prior to distribution. Therefore effluent filtration will be provided for the total plant flow of 1.5 MGD. Effluent filters should be suitable for secondary treated wastewater and be a proven design with similar satisfactory operating systems in use. Table 8-2 illustrates the design data requirements for shallow bed filters. Figure 8-4 shows a typical shallow bed filter. 8.2.1.1 FILTER FLOWS The scope of the project calls for a 1.5 PGD average daily flow design. Dual filters were chosen to provide the necessary system backup. Two 9` X 40` filters will be utilized. The maximum surface loading rate with both filters in service at peak flow is 3.60 gpm/square foot and at ADF the flow rate with the return flow is 1.50 gpm/square foot. With one filter out of service at ADF, the loading rate is 2.90 gpm/square foot. 8.2.1.2 RELIABILITY CLASS EPA Class 1 reliability, filtration system backup, was chosen because of the zero discharge limitations of this area. Degraded effluent discharge would have an adverse effect on the 88 TABLE 8-2 SHALLOW BED DESIGN DATA Type of Filter Shallow Bed, Automatic Backwash Depth, Dual Media 8 inches sand 8 inches anthracite Maximum surface loading at 1-3 gpm per square foot 24-hour average flow with one unit of service Pretreatment requirements Coagulation and flocculation following biological treatment. Typical performance Filtration following secondary biological treatment and coagulation and flocculation will produce effluent with 5 mg/l suspended solids or less. Class i Reliability There shall be a sufficient number of units of size, such that with the largest flow capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design flow capacity of at least 75 percent of the total design flow to that unit operation. 7-1 A 0 m do c 0 911 c a 11 E CL A so > CL a, 0 oCL w 40 •°� c e CL Ar 45 n va is 75 OL C7 ca ` 40CL C receiving eters and the public access irrigated areas. It is required by FDER to treat public access areas to a greater level than secondary treatment. Class II and III criteria do not have a requirement for filter backup. Class I reliability allows a set -back reduction around shallow groundwater supply wells to 100 feet rather than 500 feet. 8.2.1.3 FILTRATION AND WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS In order to meet the effluent requirements of FDER 17-6, filtration is required. The 5 mg/1 Total Suspended Solids is a stringent requirement to accomplish virus removal in the effluent and to provide better clarification to allow more effective disinfection. The following criteria is from the FDER land application manual, 1983 edition. "For all slow -rate systems involving irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries, public parks, landscaped areas, and other areas intended to be accessible to the public, waste treatment more stringent than secondary shall result in an effluent prior to the land application containing: 1. Not more than the concentration set for DOD (and TSS) via secondary treatment criteria; and 2. not more than 5 mg/l TSS and no detectable fecal coliforms (high-level disinfection criteria) . Effluent limitations shall generally be met after disinfection and before discharge to holding ponds or effluent disposal systems; however where additional removal of TSS for virus 91 control is involved (as per 2, above'), reasonable assurances shall be provided such that the TSS limitation will be achieved prior to disinfection regardless of the actual effluent compliance monitoring location. Public access area may include private property that is not open to the public at large, but which is intended for frequent use by many persons." 8.2.1.4 FILTER SELECTION The most effective and reliable filters are the products of maufacturers, each of which have their own particular design features. Each of these products require the design of a structure (tankage) within which the filtering media and equipment are placed. It is therefore necessary to examine the various products available and select a type around which the design is developed. It is desirable to select a type such that a structure can be designed that will fit the systems of several manufacturers. The available options are 1) the shallow bed traveling bridge (ABW) filter, 2) conventional sands 3) pulse mix, 4) nixed media, and 5) pressure filters. The ABW filter has been selected because of the following advantages: 1. Lower initial capital cost. 2. Lower operation and maintenance costs. .5. Proven sysa�f� wb Gmany d�€sick CFE tvEiS. 4. Low headloss. 5. Non-proprietary. JEA Adequate suspended solids removals are regularly achieved at many sewage treatment plants across the United States. The design is based on 2-9' X 40' filters for a total surface area of 720 square foot. This provides a filtration loading rate of less than 1.45 Spm/square foot at average daily flow. This is.under the 39pm/ft maximum loading rate recommended for a shallow bed filter. The Hydroclear Type„ shallow bed filter (pulse mix) is an entirely satisfactory filter but has a higher capital cost and fewer manufacturers can supply the system. The conventional type filter such as Leopold or Neptune have a higher initial cost and a costly operation and maintenance cost due to a higher backwash requirement, 8.2.2 SITE 16 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SITE Site 16 is being leased for the purpose of effulent, disposal by means of spray irrigation and contains approximately 37.3 acres. The City of linter Springs proposes the purchase of this property for long term disposal. Land for effluent disposal is difficult to obtain in the Minter Springs area and generally much more expensive per acre than shown below. The lease calls for an inital fee of $2,800.00 per month for one year. This is based on 1 2% of the property value of approximately $277,725.00. After the first year, the property value will be re-evaluated and a neva monthly lease payment will be negotiated. The City has a two-year option purchase price of $7,500.00 per acre commencing October 5, 1984. a] By utilizing the DER approved rate of 8.125 percent for present north cost effective analysis, the present worth of the lease payments equals $331,660.72. The purchase of this property at $277,500 would be the most cost effective solution. 8.2.3 DISINFECTION - WINTER SPRINGS WEST The criteria from Ten State Standards for chlorine contact chamber design is listed below 1. Contact Period: "For a chlorination system, a minimum contact period of 15 minutes at peak hourly flow or maximum rate of numpage shall be provided after thorough nixing. Consideration should be given to running a field tracer study to assure adequate contact time." 2. Contact Tank: The chlorine contact tank should be constructed so as to reduce short circuiting of flow to a practical minimum. "Over -and -under" or "end -around" baffling shall be provided to minimize short-circuiting. Long, narrow sections with length to width ratios of 10;1 or more will provide a distribution of residence time with a model value of approximately 70 percent of the computed volumetric detention period. M A ratio of 40:1 is recommended for total length vs. channel width. Several long excursions are much preferred to a number of short channels. Dr. Flora Mae Wellings has indicated that a 30 minute detention time at peak flow is required to adequately destroy Viruses for public access application. We will utilize this criteria in our design. For Winter Springs, a tank subdivided into two tank sections will be utilized so that with one section down, the system will be capable of adequate chlorination for the ADF. A 30 minute minimum detention time at peak flow with a 2.5 multiplier of the ADF with a 5 foot wide and 5 foot deep channel would require a total tank length of 420 feet. Six passes with 70 foot lengths would meet the criteria above and provide adequate distribution of chlorine. With one tank out of service at ADF, the detention time would be 38 minutes. 8.2.4 S�JDOE DEWATERING FACILITIES The sludge drying beds at the Winter Springs West facility are inadequate to meet the needs of the wastewater treatment facility. At times, wet sludge must be removed from the beds so that digested sludge can be disposed of from the wastewater treatment plant. A complete engineering report is contained in the appendices. 8.2.5 ALUM FEED SYSTEM An alum feed system will be designed to provide coagulation and flocculation of suspended solids in the wastewater treatment plant effluent prior to filtration. It is proposed that the existing chlorine contact chamber will be converted to a mixing flocculation tank where the addition of alum will take place. This tank will provide over 30 minutes of detention time. W 8.2.6 EFFLUENT FORCE- MAIN DESIGN Three alternatives exist for an effluent transmission force main to the irrigation site'at the Big Cypress golf course. These alternatives are summarized below. The proposed line routes are shown in Figure 8--5. Alternative l Alternative l consists of 2600 L.F. of 6.0" effluent force main. Effluent transmission would originate at the Winter Springs wastewater treatment facility. Two 10 Hp submersible turbine pumps -- one used as a backup -- located at the treatment plant site supply the needed head. The line would then run east across the Big Cypress Golf Course ending at the irrigation site. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 consists of 4400 L.F. of 8.0 inch force main. This line would tie into an existing force main in route to Site 16. The tie-in point would be along S.P. 434 and the effluent line thea would continue north along Sheoah Blvd. to the Big Cypress Golf Course irrigation site. Pumps at the wastewater facility would be up -graded to 40 horsepower, submersible turbine units. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 consists of 6800 L.F. of 6" effluent force main. Effluent transmission would originate at the Winter Springs wastewater treatment facility. Two 30 Hp submersible turbine pumps -- one used as a back-up -- would supply the needed head. The line would run north along the power easement to the edge of the golf course, turn east and run to Sheoah Blvd. The line then runs south along Sheoah Blvd. to the Big Cypress golf course ending at the irrigation site. 6. 4 fc79?*rut a 15fi' 1,_ - { iclwtnt � � � 4Vnll � i "n• r � F f;; ;7eia�xr wt=ll ake�pw Ruth, 16 }, 'rte g „_ ® •5�1rr",' d i } �44 1 d , '`� r r ) , a,I i • 1 1 r.r- E 6.rf � i i r �� C•s p"` / 'I�/,' _ 1: ` � r r �lp 1. _ iP y ,/� .l✓1LRE pA avr 17 f ��Gri' f V •� e , l �eC`.S� �r` d'd : �J i.+�_ ;'I � it J; ,•- ''�,� tag, � .aeC/tNA�� f B 6 7 O , m i � _ 3 �YS41, '�Ye•Bair-r.1 � �� � 1 r�� �/ �T� ���• • a�a La Vii, 1� 10 ag s Lake 60 sLa1ceQ �} .� �.r •, ,� �I. / _La une Wildmere Iy 60 q .• E �_ Z, '—T IN G. i FW �1 f _Lake 55 -"w- "a r , iiI t�. ,� t • ,», a ! 7,._ WA 64 ake (S. K ai t h r y ?i 52 Lake f -it in Griff • � i �. � � _. SerYl�uo#e P t� ��.. � 6s f Rzcew�v ¢keQlS p `tel. a.� \ `'p ` r ;�. rc Mosuls s qra-.''',,A •;� ��"_ �� • �_ 'C�)� /. r) ei ��\ , �� - `^°�- J.-' oil % •�`: �`�_� c ice• Laked i — _ "; f, ° +,,. i � ,�orrcord� t � � rpt �, -:-� . .• - �� Park [n ss ke f� ; 'y s e4n9 "tte� ) J..' Lost "ke Y sa Lake �� /, :• �'� e°�\ y f % ti< �..:. ' a x Golf Co S ,si •1/ / } J `�~� EFFLUENT FORCE N r CONK LI , PORTER and HOLMES ENG. IN ALTERNATIVES°� 97 Alternative 1 was eliminated because an easement was not available. Alternative 2 was chosen because of the shorter route available to the Dayron percolation pond site. Alternative 2 would require the least capital cost to implement. Operation and Maintenance costs would be less because of the shorter lire configuration. It should be noted that the 40 horsepower motors shown in Alternative 2 would also serve the other disposal sites. 8.3 CASSELBERRY Figure 8-6 shows the schematic flow diagram for the Casselberry wastewater treatment facilities and Figure 8-7 shows the plant site layout. Table 8-3 lists the design parameters and sizing for this facility. The treatment facilities which have a capacity slightly in excess of 1.5 MGD will not require expansion to meet the needs of this service area because additional flogs can be routed to the iron Bridge facilities. The immediate program consists of increasing their land disposal system to 0.60 MGD capacity, providing tertiary filtration and other ancillary improvements. The long-term program is to locate additional effluent disposal sites to utilize the existing treatment plant capacity up to over 1.2 MGD. The City of Casselberry is proposing the addition of two percolation ponds and holding ponds adjacent to the existing percolation ponds. A site specific study has been performed on this area and the site has the capability of disposing of 0.475 MGD. The report is attached in the appendices. The present percolation ponds provide approximately 0.175 MGD of effluent disposal. The Casselberry Golf Course is proposed for effluent disposal and is capable of providing effluent disposal for .350 MGD based on the soils report attached in the appendices. Modifications are required on the golf course to provide a 0 `;` DIAGRAM INFLUENT SUPERNATANT LA-ERATION __J= WASTE SLUDGE' RETORN SLUDGEL i AND S'CUP SEDIMENTATION+� CHLORINECHLORINE D CONTACT R Unit Surge Tanks FABLE 8-3 CASSELBERRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Existing Facilities) Size Design Criteria Out of service (available for use as Aeration 59,850 CF; 447,678 Gal. Clarifier 2376 SF Surface Area 25,565 CF Volume 55' Diameter; 10`9" SWD Chlorine Contact Chamber Polishing Ponds 132,964 CF; 3.05 Ac -Ft. 25,925 SF Surface Area 5.26 Ft. Avg. Depth Aerobic Digesters 32,250 CF Sludge Drying 12,909 SF Beds 100 needed as flows & peaks increase) F/M = 0.15 SOR = 730 GPD/SF Min. of 30 minutes contact @ A.D.F. Currently not in use 2 CF/Capita 2 SF/Capita Rated Capacity 1.7 MGD 1.5 MGD 1.7 MGD 1.6 MGD 0.65 MGD 0 0 ARILCrl�-q'P better distribution of water and provide more coverage: Also tertiary filtration and high level disinfection will be required on the WWTP discharge prior to disposal on the golf course. The filtration and disinfection system will be designed to allow for an expansion of the facilities to 1.5 MGD in approximately 1995, 8.3.1 FILTER DESIGN - CAS5ELBERRY Effluent filtration will be provided for the total flow of 0.6 MGD in the first phase. The design data is, shown in Table 8®2. The filters for Casselberry have been designed to provide 100% back-up for Phase I of construction. This yields an actual ADF capacity of 0.8 MGI} utilizing Class I reliability requirements. By adding an identical filter in 1995, the rated ADF capacity will be 1.5 MGD with a back-up of 1.2 MGD by using two filters with one out of service, which is greater than the 75% requirement. Dual filters were chosen to provide the necessary back-up required for public access criteria and Class I reliability. This is not the most economical design but assures that the required treatment is achieved at all times. Two 9 foot by 20 foot filters will be provided, The maximum surface loading rate with both filters in service at peak flow is 2.89 gpm/per square foot and the surface loading rate at ADF including the return flow is 1.20 gpm/per square foot. With one filter out of service at ADF the surface loading rate is 2.4 gpm/per square foot, By adding a third filter, for the proposed n v h ei r s on f o r f 1, o .a rates o f Z 5 M G rl A rl V' t h e peak i n s A 44 , Ov a t e v^ "aa .� i V[ , a a a s ' a U 4.� V 7 1. d i° UR+ PiUa , is 114 VC. P, 9 iia Ci 7 ti � i a W is 4.8 gpm per square foot, the ADF loading rate is 1.93 gpm per square foot and the loading rate with one filter out of service at ADF is 2.89 gpm per square foot. General design criteria are discussed in Section 8.2.1 as part of the Winter Springs discussion. 102 8.3.2 PERCOLATION POND DESIGN The design of the percolation ponds is discussed in the soils report. The design criteria are as follows: Inside slope - 2:1 Outside slope - 3. 5 :1 Top of Berm - 8 foot wide Minimum freeboard - 4.0 feet Maximum water depth p- 1.0 feet The new percolation ponds will each have the capability of disposing of 0.075 MGD. 8.3.3 GOLF COURSE DESIGN The golf course currently has a manual irrigation system on holes 1 through 9 and ars automatic system on holes 10 through 18. Holes 1 through 9 will be reconstructed wi tip an automatic irrigation system. The existing main line down the middle of the fairways will be utilized plus a looped feeder line will be added around the golf course perimeter to provide water to new heads along the rough area of the golf course. Table 8-4 shows the amount of area to be irrigated per each hole and the estimated amount of disposal per hole. No revisions to the automatic system or holes 10-18 are anticipated at this time. A copy of the golf course layout is enclosed in map pocket A. A preliminary design of the golf course irrigation system is shown in Figure 8-8. 8.3.4 DISINFECTION ® CASSELBERRY The criteria from Ten State Standards for chlorine contact chamber design is listed below: 103 TABLE 8-4 CASSELBERRY GOLF COURSE ESTIMATED DISPOSAL CAPACITY Hale # Acreage 1 3.97 2 1.56 3 5.52 4 4.07 5 5.85 6 2.92 7 2.81 8 5.99 9 2.84 10 3.69 11 2.19 12 3.37 13 5.01 14 1.49 15 5.63 16 4.02 17 1.23 18 2.34 Driving 1.6 Range Inches Per 1.75 2.5 2.0 1.0 1,5 3.0 3.5 2.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.30 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 104 26,950 15,130 42,820 15,790 34,040 33,980 38,150 58,090 5,510 2,120 2,120 6,540 5,830 17,340 32,760 23,390 2,385 2,270 1,550 350,000 co 9 to LLI \t s l Q 4y 7 Lo f(jf •fin q Y W n t o I i Q I V V®® 4 0 I I a _ R —. — — mrv- .OA'. --1 N La 1 , Contact period: "For a chlorination system➢ a minimum contact period of 15 minutes at peak hourly flow or maximum rate of pumpage shall be provided after thorough mixing. Consideration should be given to running a field tracer study to assure adequate contact time." 2. Contact lank: The chlorine contact tank should be constructed so as to reduce short circuiting of flow to a practical minimum. "Over -and -under" or "end -around" baffling shall be provided to minimize short-circuiting. Long, narrow sections with length to width ratios of 10:1 or more will provide a distributions of residence time with a model value of approximately 70 percent of the computed volumetric detention period. A ratio of 40.1 is recommended for total length vs. channel width. Several long excursions are much preferred to a number of short channels. Or. Flora Mae Welling has indicated that a 30 minute detention time at peak flow is required to adequately destroy viruses for public access application. We will utilize this criteria in our design. 8.3.5 ALUM FEED SYSTEM An alum feed system will be designed to provide coagulation and flocculation of suspended solids in the wastewater treatment plant effluent prior to filtration. It is proposed that the existing chlorine contact chamber will be converted to a mixing flocculation tank where the addition of alum will take place. This tank will provide over 30 minutes of detention time. 106 For Casselberry, a tank subdivided into two tank sections will be utilized so that with one section dower, the system will be capable of adequate chlorination for the ADF. The chlorine contact chamber has been sized to match the size of the effluent filters so that three tanks, two of which will be constructed initially and the last one in 1995, can provide a 30 minute detention time at peak flows using a 2. 5 multi pl i er for 1. 5 MGD ADF. A 30 minute detention time at peak flow with a -5 foot wide and 5 foot deep channel would require a total tank length of 180 feet. Nine passes with 46.57 foot lengths would meet the criteria and provide adequate distribution of chlorine. Initially six passes would be constructed. By utilizing the two tanks Initially constructed, the detention time, for Phase I flows of 0.60 MGD ADF would be 50 minutes at peak flows. At the build out of the facility, the detention time at peak flow rate would be 30 minutes and at ADF with one tank out of service would be 38 minutes. 8.3.6 EFFLUENT HOLDING POND DESIGN An effluent storage pond will be required to hold treated effluent during adverse weather conditions. The pond will also provide flow equalization to reduce subsequent pumping requirements and to allow for maintenance and harvesting. Appendix A contains an analysis for the storage size ;with 9.5 days o f 111 ow r eternt ion required. Th i s r-eten-C i on i s approximately 3,325,000 gallons. Storage is provided via a 500,000 gallon prestressed concrete tank and a holding pond with a capacity of 2,825,000 gallons. The new holding pond will be constructed from one of two existing effluent percolation ponds located near the treatment plant site. The percolation pond will be modified to provide the required storage and a lining will be used to prevent measurable seepage of effluent. Figure 8-9 shows the basic design of the pond. 107 58.0 57.0 cn 56.0 © 55.0 4 54.0 53.0 ui i 52.0 51.0 50.0 PROPOSED EFFLUENT HOLDING OD DESIGN B g 2 2. 5 15 EL. 57.5 CONKLIN, PORTER and HOLMES ENG. INC. 108 15 BEIM EL, 54.5 EXISTING GRADE VARIES 49=53' The prestressed concrete holding tare will be placed on the golf course site in a discreet location. The hooding tank will receive effluent pumped directly from the proposed holding pond. 8.3.7 EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN DESIGN Effluent transmission to the golf course holding tank will be provided via 12,000 L.F. of 8 -inch force main originating at the proposed effluent holding pnnd: The fnrce main is designed to provide a capacity of 975 GPM, sufficient to supply 350,000 gallons of effluent to the 0.5 MG holding tank in about='6 hours. A pumping station will be located at the holding pond site. Two (2) 7.5 horsepower submersible turbine pumps - one used as a backup - will supply the required head needed for effluent transmission. A diagram of the proposed effluent route is shown in Figure 8-10. 8.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The site specific study prepared by Casselberry discussed resources for this proposal. The tinter Springs proposal to use existing facilities eliminates the need for discussion of resources. 8.5 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES Construction impacts of the Casselberry proposal includes Mork on the Casselberry golf course. It is necessary to install an irrigation system on the course for land spreading of the effluent. Winter Springs will use existing facilities. The construction onsite consists of treatment plant modifications, which will not have any significant impact offsite. 109 Jrrn f7d J, &.°�, !t� ►� " A �, .Fn {f� d •�h i r °�rk� ' ! •, ° � •�... .s ; �1 � .•a.`l �` r{ti `. wde�.e'�'.l•�+.` lsuq•ti I /� � } �,.. •e VE. Ali ' ` - LakcJoke dOLA _.H. Q i N y W '1'�� i � it ! I .e�� s i`•, .,,�° f ` ` 4 IL 0 IN i. is I f J ,. /. '.rh — r (F' i � Awe,°•, • + .A ° 1 ' ` j 92 op �`. � �l� � ` !'" � � .� s, �� ./Il i, � ,� `tom •-^--�•. f �'Y r.�' � 1.• . 4 r , � ':�-. � }f i• � �' �' 1 B�rr�f 1;v°ap'!t a�;�/ :.. f i i � �•'�'"� � "+ '.p � � 1 r. ' . ,, -( « S C'jti ••. �, (.��' lis ��( �."I.l-� ++ / L f — ti------....._ '-�� X77`•.?. �- ¢� El Pdrkln�:� a •Yv• r e a „ a Ilfcc ��< Mirza 'tt 1 Y Lake it.'1� �q 54 i r' r•' 9F#f 1 60 a' - r, it U., TAX 61All �s dim 1 -if r rw: r Leh Y lo roe �r pp r Y . . � f all �j4, -----1d— 60 _. FIGURE PROPOSED EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN CON GLIM PORTER and HOL ES ENGANC. 110 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT 9.1 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to define the agencies responsible for implementation of the Modified Orlando Easterly 201 Facilities Plan and to provide guidelines for implementing, managing and financing the Proposed facilities. rection 204 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1973 (PL 92-500) states that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not approve any grant or any treatment works unless it is first determined that the applicant has l egal , institutional, management and financial capabilities to ensure adequate construction, operation and maintenance of treatment works throughout the applicants` jurisdiction. These requirements of the responsible implementing agencies are discussed in this section. 9.2 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Public Law 92-500 encourages the planning and construction of regional wastewater treatment systems and the consolidation of responsibilities for their operation and management. This is not interpreted to mean that a single authority must be designated or formed to implement the plan. It is, however, required tht the institutional responsibilities for carrying out the plan be adequately defined so as to eliminate uncoordinated planning and unnecessary duplication of effort. The management agencies rust have adequate authority to: 1. Construct, operate and maintain wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal systems. 2. Incur short and long term indebtedness. IIl 3. Impose and enforce suer use and industrial wast6 ordinances 4. Impose and collect uniform user charges for wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal 5. Enter into intergovernmental agreements. 5. Apply for and arrept Federal or State grants. In general, the cities will have financial, construction and operational responsibilities for the existing and proposed collection, transmission and treatment systems within the City limits. Seminole and Orange Counties will have the responsibility for collection, transmission and treatment systems in the unincorporated areas of the planning area. The South Seminole North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority uthoriityhasresponsibility esponsibilityand j ndjuri sdi cti onoverthe northerly interceptor which collects flow and routes them to Iron Bridge Regional Facilities. 9.3 IMPLEMENTATION 9.3.1 GENERAL Adoption and agreement - Local governments have adopted the Original Orlando Easterly 201 Plan dated duly 1977. The plan proposed herein should be adopted by the Cities and approved by the SSNOWTA and the City of Orlando so that the plan can be implemented in 1985. No intergovernmental agreements are necessary to implement the proposed facility construction. The implementation of this plane is not intended to redirect or restrict the City of Orlando in any way from expanding the Iron Bridge AWTP further than shown in this modification. Should the City decide that future growth and needs of the total potential service area of the plant are greater than those shown in this modification, the City may choose to modify the 201 Facilities 121K Plan`in order to qualify for State or Federal funding or construct the improvements with the assistance and cooperation of other local governments with all local funding. 9a 3.2. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 9.3.2.E CONSTRUCTION Con s Lr{[. LiVFI V LIIC Ea�.tF1L1es recommended y he p an wj [ require a coordinated and cooperative effort between the designated management agencies. The construction of facilities for the Cities of Winter Springs and Casselberry service area which is part of the 201 Area, will begin in 1986. 9.3.2.2 CASSELBERRY Assuming grant award funding to be provided as early as July 1985, a generalized schedule is presented as follows. Engineering planning design and permitting for the Casselberry modifications is projected as a nine-month endeavor commencing with a grant offer. An extended construction period of up to 18 months has been projected to account for bidding and bid evaluation, grant paperwork, and actual construction of the improvements. A bar chart showing a more detailed breakdown is presented in Figure 9-1. Total time to completion and start-up is projected at 27 months. 9.3.2.3 WINTER SPRINGS The City of Winter Springs has the capability to begin immediate implementation of the construction program upon receipt of a design and contraction grant. The Engineering planning, design and permitting is projected as a nine-month endeavor. The filters are the longest lead item used in the project and an 18 month construction schedule is anticipated. A bar chart is presented in Figure 9-1. 113 ons' AT)r 3Nnr AvVv 8dv 8vvv X33 Z2 NVr 99 03O AON i0o id3S 0nH Alnr DNnr A H IN udb avw 83 98 NVP se 030 AON .LOO id3S Dnd Ainr 99 3Nnr 9.3.2.4 ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE FACILITIES It is recommended by this pian to serve the public by regional and subregional facilities. The plants to remain in service are listed in Table 9-1. All other plants are to be phased out of service and the flows brought into the regional or subregional facilities as development makes it feasible to extend the collection/transmission system. 9.4 MANAGEMENT 9.4.1 EXISTING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 9.4.1.1 GENERAL The existing wastewater systems in the Orlando Easterly 201 Planning Area are owned by the various governmental agencies, and private individuals and corporations. The private systems are either package plants serving small subdivisions, mobile home aurka, and businesses or franchises treating the :=as to from designated service areas.. The designated service areas are delineated by a franchise contract granted by the Public Service Commission to the franchise owner. The Alternative Cost Analysis completed as a part of this Modified 201 study evaluated a consolidated regional system against subregional faci l i ties both large and sral l . The analysis as presented i n Section 6.0 demonstrates that it is more cost effective to combine the existing package and small franchise systems into regional or subregional treatment facilities. The plants that are designated in this plan to provide service are shown in Table 9-1. The owners of the designated plants have the experience and will provide the needed management required under this Modified 201 Facility Plan. In addition, the SSNOWTA will provide management for the transmission system from the Northerly Communities. 115 TABLE 9-1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS TO REMAIN IN SERVICE 116 Current Proposed Capacity Capacity Facility ;MGD; (MGD)— Iron Bridge Facilities 24.0 40.0 Seminole County Consumers Plant 1.0 1.3 Orange County Easterly Subregional 6.0 24.0 Linter Springs West 0.9 1.5 Winter Springs East 0.4 1.0 Casselberry 0.175 1.2 Winter Park 0.0 0.75 Orlando Southeasterly Conserve I 0.0 7,5 116 9.4.1.2 CASSELBERRY The City of Casselberry has a utilities director and a water and wastewater management system with adequate personnel for the collection and treatment of wastewater. The current classification of the wastewater treatment facilities, Level II -B facility, with the proposed facilities additions will not change with the proposed facilities additions and therefore additional personnel tail l not be requi Ned. A t nvol T T -R facility requires a Class B lead operator and a Class C operator for 7 days a week for 8 hours per day be available at the facility. The golf course irrigation system will be operated and Maintained by the golf course superintendent and his staff. Additional training will be provided for these personnel to acquaint them with the practice of effluent disposal by means of irrigation. 9.4.1.3 WINTER SPRINGS The City of Winter Springs has a water and sewer department and management system to operate the present facilities owned by Winter Springs. The City is currently looking for a Utilities Director having an Acting Director of the facilities at the present time. The facilities are presently classified as a Level III --C facility. After the f acl 11 ty reaches 1 . 0 MCD, 1 t wl1 l be classified as a Level II -B facility. This classification requires a Class B lead operator and a Class C operator be available 7 days a week for 8 hours per day. The City of Winter Springs has adequately trained and licensed personnel to meet this requirement. However, an additional operator would be required to fill in at a starting entry level position. The City of Winter Springs has adequate personnel and management to maintain and operate a wastewater treatment facility. 117 9.4.1.4 OTHER AGENCIES All other systems within the Modified 201 Study Area are owned and operated by governmental agencies. They have sufficient manpower and management to provide capable service to customers on their service area as described by this plan. They have not been addressed individually at this time because this 201 Modification is specifically for the Cities of Casselberry and Wi nter Spri ngs. 9.4.2 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Seven service areas have been delineated by the Alternative Cost Analysis to be the most cost effective boundaries for wastewater collection and treatment in the Modified 201 planning area. No changes in the existing management system is required. 9.5 FINANCIAL. FEASIBILITY The Financial Feasibility section is presented to accomplish two major purposes. The first purpose is to document the "financial feasibility " of the project. The second purpose is to outline the development of sewer systems with rate structures and regulations suitable to the Environmental Protection Agency, namely, "Preliminary User Charge Systems." At the time of the completion of the modified 201 Facilities Plan, actual construction and related costs of the proposed wastewater facilities cannot be finalized. The only figures available are estimates. Therefore, the numbers and projections presented here are subject to change until final cost figures become available. 118 It would not be reasonable to complete an in-depth rate study at this time, because of the preliminary nature of the construction costs available and keeping in mind that the costs involved would not be passed on to the sewer system customers for at least two more years. Over such a span of time, it is likely that not only will the anticipated construction costs change, but also the revenues, expenses, and debt service which affect any existing sewer rates. This study will review the additional financial impact resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed wastewater facilities. In other words, only the estimated expense of operating the proposed facilities will be explored. This study, covers only the improvements for Casselberry and Winter Springs. 9. 5.1 SOURCE OF FUNDS It is anticipated that the Cities of Minter Springs and Casselberry will request supplemental funding for implementation of this plan through the State Construction Grants Program. The overall plan will be split into separate projects for Casselberry and Winter Springs. The projects for Winter Springs include the following: ® Purchase of Site 16. Expansion of the Dig Cypress Golf Course Irrigation System # Upgrade of the pump station to the percolation ponds and construction of a force main rerouting. 8 Addition of Tertiary Filtration. s Upgrading the Sludge Disposal System. 0 Addition of high level disinfection. The projects for Casselberry include the following: Construction of irrigation system for Casselberry Golf Course. 119 Construction of holding pohd and pumping facilities for the irrigation system. & Construction of plant improvements. 4 Addition of tertiary filters. 0 Addition of high level disinfection. 0 Construction of percolation ponds. All of these projects are for varying existing needs of the area. Certain items will be constructed for future expansion but these additional costs will be covered by local funding. Table 9-2 shows the various projects and funding sources for the City of Winter Springs. Table 9-3 presents the sane information for the City of Casselberry. 9.5.2 FUNDING FOR WINTER SPRINGS The expansion of the Big Cypress Golf Course irrigation system and the purchase of Site 16 are for existing needs of the Winter Springs West service area. Therefore, the funding is based on 55% of the preliminary construction cost of $430,000. The effluent filtration, the high level disinfection and the sludge dewatering will be sized for the 1.5 MGD capacity of the facility. The eligible costs are based on target date flows of 1.07 MGD. Therefore, 0.85 divided by 1.5 = 71.3` of the total project cost is grant eligible based on existing needs. 113111114MM141 eI The preliminary construction costs for Phase I of the Casselberry project are for the existing needs of the service area. Therefore, an eligibility determination was not performed. 120 TABLE 9-2 WINTER SPRINGS SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES FOR SELECTED PLAN Project Capital Cost State Share Golf Courses Site 16 $ 477,630 $ 262,697 Purchase, Pump Station and Force Main Tertiary Filtration, High 882,920 346,288 Level Disinfection, Sludge Rehabilitation Local Share $214,933 536,682 $1,360,550 $ 608,9.35 $731,615 TABLE 9-3 CASSELBERRY SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES FOR SELECTED PLAN 121 Local Project Capital Cast State Share Share Golf Course System, Holding $ 975,000 $ 536,250 $438,750 Pond, Forcemain, etc. Plant Improvements 375,000 206,250 168,750 Tertiary Filtration and 293,750 161,560 132,190 High Level Disinfection Percolation Ponds 150,000 82,500 67,500 $1,793,750 $ 986,560 $807,190 121 9.5.4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Funding for the design and construction of the proposed facilities will be requested through an application for a Step 2 + 3 grant from the State Small Communities Trust Fund. 9,5.5 LOCAL SHARE FOR WINTERSPRINGS AND CASSELBERRY Financing of the local share for the Cities of Winter Springs and Casselberry will be from Revenue Bonds, current capital improvement accounts, and connection fees. An important aspect of the State program ;s the establishment of a revenue generation system. Under the State program, this system includes the user charge system and the capital improvement account. The purpose of the capital improvement account is to accumulate the future value of the amount by the end of the design period. Annual deposits into the account are required as calculated by the following formula: D=G1+ DL (3 + ~)HDCV -i where D = The total yearly deposit Grant amount DL = Design life i n years i = Annual inflation rate which is set at 7.8% Although annual deposits into the account as a minimum are required, funds may be withdrawn at any time and utilized only for capital improvements to the system. This fund could therefore be utilized to help finance the expansion of the treatment plant. By coordinating implementation of the various projects to first serve the immediate needs, costs to the public can be minimized. 122 The approval of the revenue generation system is not required on a Step 2 + 3 grant until a grant payment is requested or construction begun. 9.5.6 !USER COSTS - CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS A preliminary user cost was developed from the preliminary engineering design described in this report. Step I requirements require that the costs be stated in terms of a cost per household. The following assumptions were rude for this analysis: 1. The state share was the maximum available based on existing capacity. Reserve capacity is not fundable. 2. The 1985 population for Winter Springs West is 1 0, 742 and was the basis for existing capacity. 3. Costs and rates are in present dollars. 4. The State grant is based on 55% funding of eligible costs. 5. The number of customers for 1987, the year of implementation, is 3,817. 6. The capital required for the local share is funded by the Capital Improvements Account aria connection fees. The City of Winter Springs recently purchased their facility from a private owner. The City has an outstanding debt service which amounts to $417,540 which inclues the 25% coverage required by the bond issue. The estimated O&M costs are $639,230 and the revenue generation system will require 0 funding of $60,900. This totals approximately $1,117,670. We used the existing facility base facility charge of $6.53/customer and totals $24,925. The total revenue required 123 Revised 1/11/85 equals $1,092,745 for tide year 1987. It is estimated that a rate of $3.14/1000 gallons will be required. Table 9-4 shows the present and projected costs for various consumption rates within the City of Winter Springs. 9.5.7 USER COSTS - CITY OF CASSELBERRY A preliminary user cost was developed from the preliminary eng neerrng design described in this report. Step I requirements require that the costs be stated in terms of a cost per household. The following assumptions were made for this analysis° 1. The State share was the maximum available based on existing capacity. Reserve capacity is not fundable. 2. The 1985 population for the Phase I portion of the project i s 5020. 3. Costs and rates projected are in present dollars. 4. The State grant is based on 55% funding of eligible costs. 5. The number of additional customers for the year of implementation is 1 21 4. 6. the capital required for the local share is funded by connection fees generated by freeing up capacity from the Iron Bridge system. The City of Casselberry has projected revenues of $2,908,789 for 1987, the year of implementation. The estimated expenses for 1987 is $2,785,039. Adequate revenue will be available to support the project. No user charge increase is anticipated 124 Revised 1/11/85 TABLE 9-4 WINTER SPRINGS USER CHARGES 1987 Usage Current Projected (gai Granth Cost Cost 69000 21.77 25.37 8,000 26.85 31.65 10,000 31.93 37.93 Note: The average household uses 8000 gallons per month 125 Revised 1/11/85 PUBLIC HEAPING DOCUMENTATION based on present day dollars for the proposed projects covered by the State Grant Program. Table 9-5 shows the current costs for various consumption rates within the City of Casselberry. TABLE 9-5 COSTS OF SEWER SERVICE PER HOUSEHOLD Current Current Usage Cost Cost (qaj_/i�o.) (Inside City) (Outside City) 6,000 $ 16.2-2 $ 17.86 8,000 $ 1 9.1 6 $ 21.10 1 0, 000 $ 22.10 $ 24.34 126 Revised 1/11/85