My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 06 30 SP
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 06 30 SP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:23 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 11:47:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/30/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 06 30 SP
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Special Meeting, City Council <br />June 30, 1984 Minutes <br />Page 2 <br />however, due to key components/materials delayed and on back-order, <br />it will not be completed until mid-August, with the very final in <br />October. Louisville's 2 filter plants cannot produce treated water <br />at the levels designed. The design capacity of the north treatment <br />plant is 5.5 MGD provided adequately sized pretreatment and optimum <br />filter runs over :several maximum days. However, staff has concluded <br />from our own anaylsis that due to additional hydraulic constrictions <br />limiting plant #1 quite seriously, the maximum gross production <br />capability is 3.2 MGD. 'rhe backwash process uses 0.20 to 0.60 MG <br />which reduces our "net" production for public use. Backwash under <br />peaking conditions, at flows under 2.5MGD requires 200,000 gallons, <br />more or less. With the 'reduced pretreatment detentions under peak <br />loadings, the dirtier filter runs will often require up to 600,000 <br />gallons per day. This is an 18% backwash consumption versus normal <br />5% t:o 7%. Therefore a gross production of 3.2MGD will net 2.7 MGD <br />after backwash. Any sustained demands cannot be met, and drafting <br />of t:he 3 MG storage tank results. <br />Kasch continued that the plant's limitations were not discovered <br />prior to our investigations, because 1) a belief that the pre- <br />treatment was the major and sole problem; 2) No real demand to <br />investigate the total plant hydraulics since all major components are <br />sizE~d for ultimate capacity, and; 3) Sketchy recordkeeping and data <br />prior to late 1983, and not having the demands to push the plant to <br />its limit. <br />Obviously from the attached production/demand chart, the hydraulic <br />improvements significantly double tli~ production from Plant #1. <br />The hydraulic improvements by themselves would not increase total <br />production without the pretreatment. One is dependent upon the other <br />and they should be viewed as one project, therefore, staff presents <br />Fast; Track #1 and Fast Track #2, for your approval as follows: <br />Fast; Track #1 1) New backwash pump system, vault, electrical, etc. <br />2) Yard piping modifications to facilitate Plant #1 <br />hydraulics. Total cost $130,000 <br />Fasi; Track #2 1) Plant #1 piping and metering improvements. <br />2) Expanded chemical pacing capabilities. <br />Total cost $35,000. <br />Phase I Howard Berry Plant is currently in Engineering, and will be <br />"on--line" for load season, 1986. <br />Mayor asked if after the filter plant work is completed, would we <br />be up to capacity? <br />Bill Schuler, Rocky Mountain Consutants, answered yes, it should be <br />full capacity. <br />Council members asked Schuler and Klee questions pertaining to the <br />memorandums sent from RMC concerning different numbers of MGD. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.