HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsMEMORANDUM
TO Robed Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers, via: rabonfdlnmeneineer.com V
FROM: Erika Bridges, EIT, Development Review Engineer
SUBJECT: CREEK MEADOWS CASTLEGATE 2 SANITARY SWRU
See below list of Engineering Comments for your project.
Li.[HIiL39:iN[KrZ]W'uL9.16'L`[3'i
1. Section 2.1 - Sanitary Sewer Demands. A City authorized study of the Creek Meadows Lift
Station(CMLS) was performed in May 2010 by Mitchell and Morgan Engineers. In the
report, the projected peak demand (using PF=3) for Creek Meadows at build -out is larger
than what is currently submitted Please verify projected flows.
2. Section 2.1- Sanitary Sewer Demands : Please include a table within the report that depicts
the 'plat phasing' at which future lift station improvements be required.
3. Section 2.1 - Sanitary Sewer Demands : Can TABLE 1 be broken down to depict all
projected Flow into the Creek Meadows Lift Station only?
4. Secured 3.2-Wet Well Storage. If using the minimum twenty -minute storage time, per
TCEQ 217, please verify that no power outages longer than 20-minutes were encountered
at the lift station during the last 24 months.
5. Section 3.2- Wet Well Storage. Please include calculationslevaluations using TCEQ 217
Eqn C.5 to verify minimum wet well volume requirements.
S. Section 32- Wet Well Storage: To which upstream manhole was 'line -storage" counted as
available line storage? Please verify that no 01 will occur if the wet well volume is used
during a power outage.
]. Section 3.2-Wet Well Storage: The'2010 M&M Creek Meadows Lift Station Repots
indicated that a sister wet well would be need at the build -out of the CMLS. Please verity
that TCEQ storage requirements are satisfied.
8. Section 3.2- Pumping Requirements. Please include analyses that verify the CGII
proposed pumping configuration can hydraulically perform tithe proposed builFout" Creek
Meadows Lift Station Is pumping simultaneously... (Le. -can the CCII lift station overcome
the build -out TDH CALLS conditions in the proposed 10" force main)
9. Section 3.2- Force Main Velocities: Because of future maintenance concerns, the City is
currently not amenable to TCEQ variances on minimum required force main velocities.
Because of this, please Include provisionslphasinglother parallel force mains that will meet
the minimum TCEQ requirements.
10. Sheet S-04: A section of the proposed force main looks to cross a proposed pontl. Will this
pond be filled with water or will it act as a detention basin? If a water surface elevation is
maintained, this proposed line will need to be relocated.
11. Sheet S-04 — Force main tie -on detail: Will the existing 6" force main, that ties -into the back-
side of Castlegate, be capped? Should a "wye" be used instead with a different valve
configuration?
Reviewed by: Stephen Maldonado, Jr./Erika Bridges/Danielle Sigh Date: 8/16/13
PC: Dos Dorado Development, LLC, via fax: 979.690.1041
P&DS Project No. 12-00500263