Está en la página 1de 168

City of Derby, CONNECTICUT

Water Pollution Control


Authority

Ansonia Derby Interconnection


Feasibility Study
Mr. John Saccu, Chairman
Mr. Lindsay King, WPCF Superintendent

Water Pollution Control Authority


Mr. Richard Bartholomew
Ms. Carolyn Duhaime
Ms. Marcy McGuire, Administrator

Mr. Robert Miani


Mr. James Gildea

April 2014

Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.


273 Dividend Road
Rocky Hill, CT 06067

www.westonandsampson.com
Tel: 860-513-1473
Fax: 860-513-1483

City of Derby, Connecticut

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

2.

REGIONALIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 1-2


1.1

REGIONALIZATION WITH TOWN OF ORANGE ................................................................................... 1-2

1.2

REGIONALIZATION WITH TOWN OF SEYMOUR ................................................................................. 1-2

1.3

REGIONALIZATION WITH THE TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE ..................................................................... 1-3

1.4

REGIONALIZATION WITH THE CITY OF SHELTON .............................................................................. 1-3

1.5

REGIONALIZATION WITH CITY OF ANSONIA ..................................................................................... 1-3

1.5.1

Flow Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5.2

Storage Analysis ................................................................................................................ 1-7

ANSONIA DERBY INTERCONNECTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 2-1


2.1

ALTERNATIVE 1 - ELIMINATION OF THE DERBY WPCF WITH PUMPING OF FLOWS TO THE ANSONIA

WPCF 2-1
2.2

ALTERNATIVE 2 - ELIMINATION OF THE DERBY WPCF WITH PUMPING OF FLOWS TO THE ANSONIA

WPCF AND ANSONIA WPCF EFFLUENT PIPED TO THE DERBY WPCF OUTFALL .......................................... 2-2
2.3

ALTERNATIVE 3 - ELIMINATION OF THE DERBY WPCF WITH PUMPING OF FLOWS BETWEEN THE

ANSONIA WPCF AND SHELTON WPCF ..................................................................................................... 2-3


2.4

ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED BY THE CITY OF ANSONIA ......................................... 2-3

2.4.1

Option 1 Storage at Derby WPCF and Off-Peak Pumping to Ansonia ........................... 2-4

2.4.2

Option 2 Storage at Derby WPCF and Off-Peak Pumping to Ansonia and Additional

Storage within a 15-inch RCP sewer. ................................................................................................ 2-5


2.4.3

Option 3 Storage and Pumping at Derby WPCF with conveyance to the Ansonia WPCF

Influent Pumping Station via a 15-inch RCP interceptor.................................................................... 2-5

3.

2.5

PARTIAL TURNAROUND PROJECT ................................................................................................ 2-6

2.6

FOUNTAIN LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK ................................................................................................ 2-7

2.7

ALTERNATIVES SCORING MATRIX FOR ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC FACTORS........................... 2-7

RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................................................ 3-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Ansonia and Derby WWTF Peak Flows ................................................................................... 1-4
Table 1-2: Current Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows ................................................ 1-6
Table 1-3: 20-Year Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows ............................................... 1-6
Table 1-4: Required Storage Volumes At Various Pumping Rates ........................................................... 1-7
Table 2-1: Off Peak Storage and Pumping Analysis ................................................................................ 2-4
Table 2-2: Matrix Analysis Interconnection/Regionalization Recommendation Matrix .......................... 2-8

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

City of Derby, Connecticut

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1A

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection Force Main

Figure 2-1B

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection Force Main

Figure 2-2A

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection Force Main

Figure 2-2B

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection WWTF Upgrades

Figure 2-3

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection East Derby Pump Station

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A

Regionalization Letters

Appendix B

Ansonia WPCF UV Hydrualic Failure Information

Appendix C

Storage Analysis Data and Results

Appendix D

Ansonia-Derby Interconnection Opinion of Probable Costs

Appendix E

Ansonia Interconnection Alternatives UIC Reports

Appendix F

Ansonia Derby Interconnection Meeting Minutes 3-12-2012

Appendix G

Ansonia Derby DEEP Interconnection Meeting Minutes 10-15-2012

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

ii

City of Derby, Connecticut

1. REGIONALIZATION
One of the potential ways to meet wastewater needs in an area is to regionalize the utilities with
an adjacent community. The Derby WPCA requested information from neighboring communities
in regards to plans for potential interconnections with the City that would help alleviate capacity
and/or cost issues in that community. The Derby WPCA sent letters to the towns of Orange,
Seymour, and Woodbridge and to the cities of Ansonia and Shelton to investigate the possible
solutions for the regions wastewater needs. Copies of the letters and the community responses
are included in Appendix A. This information is necessary to help set forth guidance for
accommodating the next 20 years of wastewater growth and development within the City. The
Derby WPCF has a permitted capacity of 3.50 MGD and experiences an annual average daily
flow (ADF) of approximately 1.60 MGD.
1.1

Regionalization with Town of Orange

The Derby WPCA has an agreement with the Town of Orange to serve 142 parcels within the
Field Stone Village Subdivision. Of these 142 parcels, 16 have been built and are currently
connected to the system. The agreement between the Derby WPCA and the Town of Orange
includes a maximum average daily flow allocation of 30,000 gallons per day (gpd) with a peak
instantaneous flow of 120,000 gpd. It is assumed that the subdivision will be fully developed
and contributing its maximum average daily flow within the 20-year planning period.
1.2

Regionalization with Town of Seymour

In 2008 a developer, acting through the Town of Seymour, expressed an interest in connecting
a proposed subdivision to the Derby WPCAs collection system along Route 34/Roosevelt Drive.
In 2011 the Town of Seymour indicated its interest in providing sanitary sewer service to the
residents along the entire Route 34/Roosevelt Drive corridor north from the Derby city line to the
line with the Town of Oxford. The proposed sewer service area includes approximately 1,820
acres, 1,100 acres of which are currently developed. The total ADF as estimated by the Town
of Seymour is approximately 500,000 gpd. It estimated that only a portion of the total build-out
will be completed during the 20-year planning period. Based on discussions with the Derby
WPCA and City officials an allocation of 140,000 gpd will be reserved for the Town of Seymour.
A draft agreement between the two communities was prepared in 2012, however to date it has
not been executed.

As part of the agreement the Town of Seymour will be allowed to

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-2

City of Derby, Connecticut

interconnect with the Derby WPCA collection system via an 8-inch forcemain connection but the
allowable pumping rate shall not exceed 800 gpm.
1.3

Regionalization with the Town of Woodbridge

The Town of Woodbridge has expressed no interest in regionalization with the Derby WPCA.
The town is currently a member community of the Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control
Authority. As a member of the GNHWPCA, the towns wastewater is treated at the East Shore
Water Pollution Control Facility located in the City of New Haven. As such, no flow allocation
has been provided for the Town of Woodbridge.
1.4

Regionalization with the City of Shelton

The City of Shelton recently completed a major upgrade and capacity expansion to its WPCF
and does not have capacity issues within its system. The Derby WPCA expressed an interest in
connecting to the City of Shelton collection system for wastewater treatment and disposal since
the two WPCF sites are located on opposite sides of the Housatonic River at the Route 8
crossing (Commodore Isaac Hull Memorial Bridge).

The City of Shelton has indicated on

several occasions that it is not interested in receiving and treating flows from the Derby WPCA
at the City of Shelton WPCF.
1.5

Regionalization with City of Ansonia

The City of Ansonia expressed an interest in interconnecting the City of Derby wastewater
collection system for wastewater treatment and disposal at the Ansonia WPCF since the two
WPCF sites are located approximately 1.5 miles from each other along the Naugatuck River
and the City of Ansonia recently completed a major upgrade of its WPCF, which is permitted for
an annual average flow of 3.5 MGD. Based on the information provided in its 2004 Wastewater
Facilities Plan (prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee) the Ansonia WPCF, is anticipated to
have an annual average flow surplus of approximately 1.3 MGD in 2025, based on the proposed
build out (0.4 MGD).

Based on an Analysis Report completed by United International

Corporation (UIC) on behalf of the City of Ansonia, the Ansonia WPCF has a permitted annual
average design capacity of 3.5 MGD and a peak design hydraulic capacity of 12.0 MGD.
Discussions with Ansonia WPCF staff and a review of the failure associated with Module #1 of
the UV system in 2011 indicates a hydraulic bottleneck occurs somewhere between the UV
system and the effluent discharge to the Naugatuck River. Based on a discussion with Ansonia

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-3

City of Derby, Connecticut

WPCF staff, the actual peak hydraulic capacity of the Ansonia WPCF is approximately 7.0
MGD. The Ansonia WPCF staff came to this conclusion based on the manual influent pumping
operations which must be utilized during high flow periods to prevent the system from flooding
into the UV system. A review of the Ansonia MOR data, specifically February 2013, indicates
an instantaneous maximum peak flow of 6.9 MGD.

A copy of the United International

Corporation report as well as the information associated with the failure of Module #1 of the UV
system is included in Appendix B. It appears that the Ansonia WPCF needs to modify the
WPCF to increase the hydraulic capacity to 12.0 MGD as noted in the Wastewater Facilities
plan.
Several options for regionalization were investigated as part of this Wastewater Facilities Plan
for conveying the flows from the City of Derby to the City of Ansonia WPCF for treatment and
disposal. The regionalization alternatives investigated include the following alternatives:

Conversion of the Derby WPCF to a pumping station with all flows pumped to Ansonia.

Review of interconnection alternatives prepared and presented by UIC on behalf of the


City of Ansonia

Complete a turnaround project for East Derby to the Ansonia collection system.

Connect the Fountain Lake Industrial Park expansion to the Ansonia collection system.

1.5.1

Flow Analysis

To determine the sizing for the viability of the interconnection, a peak flow analysis of the
wastewater flows at both the Derby and Ansonia WPCFs was conducted. The reported peak
monthly flows experienced at the Ansonia WPCF and the Derby WPCF from January 2009 to
October 2010 are presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Ansonia and Derby WWTF Peak Flows
Month

Ansonia Peak
Flow (MGD)

Derby Peak
Flow (MGD)

Total Peak
Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Excess Capacity
(7 MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Excess Capacity
(12 MGD)

Jan 2009

2.7

4.1

6.8

0.2

5.2

Feb 2009

2.4

3.6

7.0

5.0

Mar 2009

3.1

3.4

6.5

0.5

5.5

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-4

City of Derby, Connecticut

Month

Ansonia Peak
Flow (MGD)

Derby Peak
Flow (MGD)

Total Peak
Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Excess Capacity
(7 MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Excess Capacity
(12 MGD)

Apr 2009

2.7

6.4

9.1

-2.1

2.9

May 2009

2.2

7.5

9.7

-2.7

2.3

Jun 2009

2.4

8.9

11.3

-4.3

0.7

Jul 2009

1.7

9.8

11.5

-4.5

0.5

Aug 2009

2.0

7.0

9.0

-2

3.0

Sept 2009

1.5

3.4

4.9

2.1

7.1

Oct 2009

2.2

8.1

10.3

-3.3

1.7

Nov 2009

2.0

7.3

9.3

-2.3

2.7

Dec 2009

2.1

7.4

9.5

-2.5

2.5

Jan 2010

1.5

6.4

7.9

-0.9

4.1

Feb 2010

4.2

>10.0

14.2

-7.2

-2.2

Mar 2010

10.5

>10.0

20.5

-13.5

-8.5

Apr 2010

8.9

>10.0

18.9

-11.9

-6.9

May 2010

5.2

7.1

12.3

-5.3

-0.3

Jun 2010

1.8

5.7

7.5

-0.5

4.5

Jul 2010

1.7

7.8

9.5

-2.5

2.5

Aug 2010

2.0

7.5

9.5

-2.5

2.5

Sept 2010

1.6

8.1

9.7

-2.7

2.3

Oct 2010

2.2

9.3

11.5

-4.5

0.5

AVG

3.0

7.6

10.3

-3.3

1.7

To determine the feasibility of interconnecting the two communities based on both the current
and the 20-year flow conditions, an analysis for the combination of flows from both communities
at the Ansonia WPCF was completed for the current flows as well as the 20-year build out flows.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-5

City of Derby, Connecticut

The 20-year build out flows for Ansonia were obtained from information provided within the City
of Ansonias 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan. The information provided in the plan indicates
that additional flows from the City of Derby were neither anticipated nor accounted for as part of
the Wastewater Facilities Plan, nor were additional flows from Derby included in the subsequent
upgrades to the Ansonia WPCF. The combination of the current flows and the 20-year build out
flows are presented in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3.
Table 1-2: Current Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows
Current Flow
Condition

Ansonia
Flow (MGD)

Derby Flow
(MGD)

Total Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Capacity (MGD)

Ansonia WWTF
Excess Capacity
(MGD)

Annual
Average

1.8

1.6

3.4

3.5

0.10

Peak Day

10.5

10.0

20.5

7/12

-13/-8.5

Table 1-3: 20-Year Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows
20-Year Flow
Condition

Ansonia
Flow (MGD)

Derby Flow
(MGD)

Total Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WPCF
Capacity (MGD)

Ansonia WWTF
Excess Capacity
(MGD)

Annual
Average

2.2

2.4

4.6

3.5

-1.10

Peak Day

7.4

9.5

16.9

7/12

-9.9/-4.90

As shown in Table 1-2, the Ansonia WPCF provides adequate capacity to treat the current
combined annual average flows from both communities. However it does not have capacity to
treat the current combined peak flows from both communities. In addition, the information
presented in Table 1-3 indicates that the Ansonia WPCF does not provide adequate capacity to
treat the combined annual average and/or the combined peak flows from both communities
based on the 20-year build out flows presented in each communitys wastewater facilities plan.
In order to facilitate a possible interconnection between the City of Ansonia and the City of
Derby, the following would need to occur:

Derby would need to aggressively begin removing I/I. In previous reports, Ansonia has
indicated that Derby needs to reduce the annual I/I component to no greater than 0.50

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-6

City of Derby, Connecticut

MGD. This will require the removal of approximately 10 MGD of I/I from the system.
This would require the removal of both cost effective and non-cost effective I/I and may
still not be attainable as the system continues to age.

Ansonia would need to continue removing I/I. Ansonia has recently completed several
I/I remediation projects. Ansonia would need to continue removing I/I, this would require
the removal of both cost effective and non-cost effective I/I.

Ansonia would need to upgrade the WPCF to expand capacity. The Ansonia WPCF
does not have adequate capacity for the combined flows from both communities and
would be beyond the statutory 90% flow capacity threshold on an annual average basis
upon completion of the interconnection. Failure to upgrade the WPCF would limit the
growth and economic development in both communities.

A regional WPCA would need to be created. Each community would relinquish sole
control of its wastewater system. A regional WPCA board comprising members from
each community would be created with each community having an equal say. At a
meeting with CT DEEP, the City of Ansonia has indicated that they are not in favor of a
regional WPCA and that City of Derby would be deemed a paying customer.

1.5.2

Storage Analysis

To determine the storage volume required for the City of Derby, the reported Derby WPCF flow
records for 2011 were analyzed. Using the reported Derby WPCF effluent flows, a required
storage volume could be calculated based on a given pumping rate. The required storage
volumes, shown in the Table 1-4, are the result of a two week period in March 2011 during
which three storms occurred. The first storm in March 2011 included an equivalent rainfall of
5.75 inches, which includes snow melt and is slightly higher than a 10-year return interval storm.
Two smaller storms followed within two weeks after the first storm. The results of the storage
analysis are presented below in Table 1-4 and the charts and raw data for the analysis are
included in Appendix C.
Table 1-4: Required Storage Volumes At Various Pumping Rates
Derby Pumping
Rate (gpm)

Derby Pumping
Rate (MGD)

Ansonia WPCF Peak


Capacity MGD

Storage Volume MG
(7 MGD / 12 MGD Capacity)

3,000

4.3

7 / 12

13.1 / 8.1

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-7

City of Derby, Connecticut

Derby Pumping
Rate (gpm)

Derby Pumping
Rate (MGD)

Ansonia WPCF Peak


Capacity MGD

Storage Volume MG
(7 MGD / 12 MGD Capacity)

4,000

5.8

7 / 12

11.5 / 3.5

5,000

7.2

7 / 12

6.8 / 1.8

6,000

8.6

7 / 12

5.72 / 0.72

7,000

10.1

7 / 12

5.0 / 0

Since the Ansonia WPCF can be upgrades to attain its design peak hydraulic design capacity of
12.0 MGD and the 20-year design peak flow for the City of Ansonia is anticipated to be 7.4
MGD, the maximum pumping rate that could be used by the City of Derby is 3,200 gpm or 4.6
MGD. Based on the storage analysis presented in Table 1-4, the City of Derby would be
required to store approximately 8,000,000 gallons (assuming the Ansonia WPCF increases the
hydraulic actual peak capacity to the design of 12 MGD) of raw wastewater for storms similar to
those that occurred in March 2011 or storms greater than the 10-year return interval storm
event. Based on the flows experienced at the Derby WPCF over this time period and the
allowable pumping rate, it would take approximately two weeks to pump all of the stored
wastewater volume to the Ansonia WPCF for treatment. The rainfall amount for a 100-year
return interval storm event is 9.4 inches, which would result in an even greater required storage
volume or a higher pumping rate to prevent a bypass or an overflow.
The interconnection concept is not feasible at this time due to the excessive storage volumes
required (8 to 13 million gallons). The City of Derby has indicated that the interconnection
concept will not be feasible until the required storage volume is reduced to 1 million gallons or
less due to odor concerns as well as operations and maintenance concerns associated with the
storage facility. This can be accomplished by a combination of the following:

Reduction of I/I from Derby

Reduction of I/I from Ansonia

Upgrades and expansion of the Ansonia WPCF

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

1-8

City of Derby, Connecticut

2. Ansonia Derby Interconnection Alternatives


2.1

Alternative 1 - Elimination of the Derby WPCF with pumping of flows to the Ansonia
WPCF

Alternative 1 diverts flow from the Derby WPCF to the Ansonia WPCF via a new interconnecting
pumping station and force main. Based on discussions with the City of Ansonia, the City of
Derby would need to provide fine screening and grit removal before the interconnection
pumping station since it would function as a satellite headworks for the Ansonia WPCF. To
facilitate operations during construction as well as the fine screening and grit removal systems,
the influent pump station at the Derby WPCF would need to be replaced with a new larger
pumping station, this would also allow for the screening and grit removal systems to be provided
before the wastewater pumps .

After passing through the screening and grit removal systems

Derbys wastewater would be pumped directly into the primary settling tanks at the Ansonia
WPCF. Two four-million gallon storage tanks would need to be installed at the Derby WPCF
(See Section 1.5.1) to accommodate peak flows. Conceptual layouts for the pump station and
force main are shown on Figures 2-1A and 2-1B.
The results of the conceptual interconnection analysis were based on an allowable pumping
rate of 3,200 gpm, which was dictated by the City of Ansonia. The City of Ansonia noted that
the flows from the City of Ansonia combined with the pumping rate from the City of Derby could
not exceed the Ansonia WPCF design hydraulic capacity. An upgrade to the Ansonia WPCF
would be needed in order to increase the current hydraulic capacity (7 MGD) to the design
hydraulic capacity (12 MGD). To achieve the required cleansing velocities while reducing the
friction head within allowable values, a 16-inch diameter force main is recommended. Due to
constructability and underground utility corridor issues, the best force main route from the Derby
WPCF to the Ansonia WPCF is approximately 9,000 linear feet. Based on the static head,
allowable pumping rate, pipe diameter and length of the force main, the wastewater pumps
would pump against approximately 75 feet of total dynamic head.

Conceptual estimates

indicate that this would require four 100-horsepower variable speed drypit style wastewater
pumps operating in parallel. Each of the pumps would be provided with a dedicated VFD to
allow for flow fluctuations between the normal and the I/I induced peak flows. To prevent
overflows during events greater than the 10-year storm, Derby will either have to pump at rates
higher than 3,200 gpm or provide greater than 8 million gallons of storage. As previously noted,

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-1

City of Derby, Connecticut

this alternative is only feasible when the required storage volume is reduced to less than 1
million gallons. Until such time this alternative cannot be implemented.
The preliminary opinion of probable costs for interconnection with the City of Ansonia is
approximately $40,000,000, which includes design and a planning-level contingency.
breakdown of the project costs is included in Appendix D.

NOTEWELL: The opinion of

probable costs does not include any upgrades to expand the capacity of the Ansonia WPCF or
any of the costs associated with the removal I/I.
If the WPCA were to proceed with the Interconnection, the WPCA estimates that the annual
cost of maintaining the collection system and wastewater pumping stations is $1,860,000. A
breakdown of the annual cost of maintaining the collection system and wastewater pumping
stations is included in Appendix D. This annual cost does not include any existing or future
capital debt service or wastewater disposal fees to the City of Ansonia.
Interconnection with the City of Ansonia is not practical under todays conditions. Until the
required storage volume can be reduced to less than 1 million gallons for a 100-year storm
event, the Interconnection with the City of Ansonia is not viable.
2.2

Alternative 2 - Elimination of the Derby WPCF with pumping of flows to the Ansonia
WPCF and Ansonia WPCF Effluent piped to the Derby WPCF outfall

Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 with the exception that the effluent from the Ansonia
WPCF is returned via gravity to the current Derby WPCF outfall to the Housatonic River. The
required effluent piping sizing was requested from the City of Ansonia on numerous occasions
and has not been provided. Since no sizing information has been provided, a 36-inch effluent
discharge was assumed. This pipe size was assumed since the pipe size from the secondary
clarifiers to the UV system was increased from 20-inches to 36-inches as part of the recent
upgrades to the Ansonia WPCF. The pipe from the UV system to the effluent discharge was not
upgraded and is 20-inches. In addition to the requirements of Alternative #1, this alternative
also requires approximately 9,000 linear feet of 36-inch piping to return the effluent from the
Ansonia WPCF to the current Derby WPCF outfall. Conceptual layouts for the pump station,
force main and effluent piping to the Housatonic River are shown on Figures 1-2A and 1-2B.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-2

City of Derby, Connecticut

The preliminary opinion of probable costs for interconnection with the City of Ansonia is
approximately $50,000,000 which includes design and a planning level contingency.

breakdown of the project costs is included in Appendix D. NOTEWELL: The opinion of


probable costs does not include any upgrades to expand the permitted capacity of the Ansonia
WPCF or any of the costs associated with the removal I/I.
If the WPCA were to proceed with the Interconnection, the WPCA estimates that the annual
cost of maintaining the collection system and wastewater pumping stations is $1,860,000. This
annual cost does not include any existing or future capital debt service or wastewater disposal
fees to the City of Ansonia.
2.3

Alternative 3 - Elimination of the Derby WPCF with pumping of flows between the
Ansonia WPCF and Shelton WPCF

As noted in Section 1.4 the City of Shelton has expressed no interest in regionalization with the
City of Derby. The City of Shelton recently completed a major upgrade and capacity expansion
to its WPCF and does not have capacity issues within its system. The City of Derby expressed
an interest in interconnecting with the City of Shelton for wastewater treatment and disposal at
the Shelton WPCF. The City of Shelton and the City of Derby WPCF sites are located on
opposite sides of the Housatonic River at its intersection with Route 8. The City of Shelton has
noted on numerous occasions that it is not interested in receiving and treating flows from the
City of Derby.
Since the City of Shelton is not interested in interconnecting with the City of Derby this
alternative is not viable and was eliminated from consideration.
2.4

Alternative 4 Alternatives Presented by the City of Ansonia

The following Interconnection alternatives were presented to the City of Derby by the City of
Ansonia through a study conducted by United International Corporation (UIC now Prime
Engineering). Additional Interconnection Alternatives were also discussed in detail by Ansonia
Mayor James Della Volpe in a press release from September 2013 during his re-election
campaign. A copy of the press release and alternatives are provided in Appendix E.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-3

City of Derby, Connecticut

2.4.1

Option 1 Storage at Derby WPCF and Off-Peak Pumping to Ansonia

Under Option #1, which was prepared and proposed by UIC on behalf of the City of Ansonia,
the City of Derby would utilize the existing WPCF for preliminary and primary treatment and the
storage of up to 2.0 million gallons of wastewater per day.

The storage volume would

encompass the total volume of the City of Derby WPCF aeration basins and secondary
clarifiers. The wastewater would be pumped to the Ansonia WPCF via a 6-inch forcemain from
12 am to 5 am at a rate of 235 gallons per minute. An evaluation of storage and pumping based
on the information provided under this option for a seven-day period is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Off Peak Storage and Pumping Analysis

Day

Volume Pumped
to Ansonia
(Gallons)

Volume Stored at
the Derby WPCF
(Gallons)

Overflow Volume to
be Treated Onsite
(Gallons)

Derby Daily
Wastewater
Volume (Gallons)

70,500

1,529,500

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,059,000

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,529,500

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,529,500

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,529,500

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,529,500

1,600,000

70,500

2,000,000

1,529,500

1,600,000

Total

493,500

Note 1

8,706,500

11,200,000

1 The storage volume of the Derby WPCF is completely utilized within the first two days. Since the storage is never emptied the
tanks would remain at 2.0 million gallons until being emptied.

The option presented by the City of Ansonia only accounts for the average daily flow and does
not take into account peak/variable flows. On average, the Derby WPCF currently treats 1.6
MGD which is equivalent to 1,111 gpm. Under this scenario, only 70,500 gallons per day would
be sent to the Ansonia WPCF for treatment. The remaining flow would have to treated at the
Derby WPCF, thus the regional concept is not feasible as presented by this alternative, and was
eliminated from further consideration.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-4

City of Derby, Connecticut

2.4.2

Option 2 Storage at Derby WPCF and Off-Peak Pumping to Ansonia and Additional
Storage within a 15-inch RCP sewer.

Option #2, which was prepared and proposed by UIC on behalf of the City of Ansonia, is similar
to Option #1 with the exception that the 6 forcemain is replaced with a 15-inch RCP gravity
sewer from the Derby WPCF to the Ansonia WPCF. Under this scenario, a second pumping
station is provided at the Ansonia WPCF to lift the flows into the primary settling tanks. The 15inch RCP gravity sewer provides an additional storage volume of approximately 74,000 gallons
after the 2.0 million gallons of storage at the Derby WPCF. Based on the information depicted
on existing plans the Derby WPCF is at a site elevation of approximately 10 feet with an influent
24-inch gravity sewer at an elevation of -4.6 feet. The Ansonia WPCF is at a site elevation of
approximately 23 feet with an influent 27-inch gravity sewer at an elevation of 3.5 feet. The
proposed gravity sewer would have to be installed against grade by a minimum of 13 feet for a
distance of approximately 9,000 feet. Like Option #1, Option #2 is not feasible for the reasons
outlined in Option #1 and was eliminated from consideration.
2.4.3

Option 3 Storage and Pumping at Derby WPCF with conveyance to the Ansonia
WPCF Influent Pumping Station via a 15-inch RCP interceptor.

Option #3, which was prepared and proposed by UIC on behalf of the City of Ansonia, is similar
to Option #2 with the exception of the following:

The use of the Derby WPCF for preliminary and primary treatment has been eliminated.

The Derby WPCF Influent Pumping Station is used for pumping of wastewater to
Ansonia,

The 15-inch RCP gravity sewer connects to the Ansonia WPCF influent pumping station
wetwell rather than the primary settling tanks,

Three sewer interceptor layouts were provided. The costs for the interceptor layouts
ranged from $8.9 to $5.7 million.

Since proposed pumping information was not provided, a flow and storage analysis for this
alternative could not completed. It should be noted that the cost estimates for each layout
included two (2) packaged pumping stations, neither of which were noted in the discussion of
each option. The City of Derby has noted on numerous occasions to the City of Ansonia that if
the interconnection were to happen a new pumping station would be provided.

Due to

construction staging and redevelopment requirements for the Derby WPCF Site, the City of

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-5

City of Derby, Connecticut

Derby will not re-use the existing influent pumping station under any interconnection. This
alternative does not include the screening and grit removal systems at the Derby site as
previously required by Ansonia. Also, as noted in the analysis of Option #2, the information
depicted on existing plans, the Derby and Ansonia WPCFs are at elevations that do not support
the installation of a gravity interconnection.
Options #1 and #2, as described above, were discussed at a joint meeting between the City of
Ansonia and City of Derby which was held on March 12, 2012 at the City Hall of Ansonia. At
this meeting, the City of Derby WPCA noted that each of these options was not viable for the
reasons noted above. The City of Derby also requested information including an acceptable
pumping rate, the capital connection fee, and the anticipated user fee structure from the City of
Ansonia. To date, this information has not been provided to the City of Derby WPCA. A copy of
the meeting minutes from this meeting are provided in Appendix F.
Option #3, was presented to the public on September 3, 2013 by Ansonia Mayor James Della
Volpe as part of a press conference during his re-election campaign. Since no pumping/storage
information was provided, an analysis of this alternative could not be completed. Due to the
discrepancies between the write-up of Option #3 and the cost estimates, it appears as through
Option #3 is Option #2 with several different interceptor sewer routes.
None of the alternatives presented by the City of Ansonia appear to be viable. In addition to the
information provided above, each of the options from the City of Ansonia assumes that the City
of Derby will remove unrealistically high quantities of I/I, thus reducing the annual average daily
flow from 1.6 MGD to 1.2 MGD and the peak flow from 10.0 MGD to 3.2 MGD. Each of the
options presented by the City of Ansonia assume that the Derby collection system has a
combined I/I of 1.4 MGD which is cited from a 2007 I/I study, prepared by Milone and
MacBroom. However, that 2007 I/I study was focused on only the Hawthorne Avenue area and
not the entire collection system. The systemwide I/I value based on actual flow metering data
exceeds 10 MGD.
2.5

Partial Turnaround Project

Portions of the Derby collection system are located adjacent to the Ansonia collection system,
making it possible to divert flows from these areas to Ansonias collection system. As part of the

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-6

City of Derby, Connecticut

future planned upgrades to the collection system, Derby plans to eliminate the inverted siphon
and trunk line that conveys flow from East Derby under the Naugatuck River to the Derby
WPCF. These pipelines present hydraulic restriction points and are maintenance intensive due
to access and flood plain issues. These issues can all be alleviated by installing a new pump
station and force main to eliminate the inverted siphon and trunk line. The new force main route
could be laid out to discharge to Ansonia rather than the Derby WPCF. The peak flow measured
during the flow metering program in East Derby was 4.82 MGD. By installing the force main
from the proposed station to the Ansonia WPCF, a regional solution can be made without
exceeding the peak hydraulic capacities at either WPCF. Approximately 0.22 MGD of peak I/I
would need to be removed from East Derby for this alternative to be effective. The proposed
force main route and pump station location can be seen on Figure 1-3.
In discussions with the City of Derby, the financial impacts to the WPCA associated with
maintaining the system and the WPCF while losing half of the flow would be unsustainable. The
City of Derby WPCA noted that only interconnection options which eliminated the operations of
the WPCF would be considered. As such this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
2.6

Fountain Lake Industrial Park

Over the course of the planning period it is expected that the Fountain Lake Industrial Park will
be expanded from its current location in Ansonia into Derby. Average daily flows of up to
348,500 gpd at maximum build-out have been projected for the industrial park. Over the
planning period it is expected that approximately 25% of the industrial park will be occupied and
contribute an average daily flows of 87,125 gpd. Based on the recommendations in Derbys
Conservation and Development Plan the flows from the Fountain Lake Industrial Park should be
directed to the Ansonia collection system.
2.7

Alternatives Scoring Matrix for Economic and Non-Economic Factors

A summary of the interconnection alternatives recommendation matrix analysis for


recommendation of a preferred regionalization option is provided in Table 2-2. As noted above
since the Shelton is not interested in interconnection and the options provided by the City of
Ansonia are not viable they are not been included in the matrix analysis.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-7

City of Derby, Connecticut

Table 2-2: Matrix Analysis Interconnection/Regionalization Recommendation Matrix


Alternative #1
Pump to Ansonia
(Section 8.5.3.1)

Alternative #2 Pump to Ansonia


36-inch effluent to Housatonic
River (Section 8.5.3.2)

Fountain Lake
(Section 8.5.5)

Flow Feasibility

Concept Feasibility

Ansonia WPCF
Upgrades required
for 20-year + peak
flows

Eliminates Ansonia
Effluent
Phosphorous
Requirements

Required Army Corp


/ Rail Permitting
Issues

Required
Connecticut DOT
Permitting Issues

Derbys Ability to
Control Costs

Reduced Derby
Staffing

Ability to Implement
Planned Growth

Allows for ReDevelopment of


Derby WPCF Site

Requires less than 1


MGD in Storage at
Derby PS Site

Criteria

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-8

City of Derby, Connecticut

Criteria

Alternative #1
Pump to Ansonia
(Section 8.5.3.1)

Alternative #2 Pump to Ansonia


36-inch effluent to Housatonic
River (Section 8.5.3.2)

Fountain Lake
(Section 8.5.5)

Requires more than


1 MGD of I/I
Removal by Derby

Addresses Future
NPDES Permit
Requirements

Total

28

30

51

The ranking criteria range from 5 being excellent to 1 being poor. The interconnection with the
City of Ansonia through the Fountain Lake Industrial Park Development alternative has the
highest overall ranking, and is the only alternative that is feasible at this time.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

2-9

City of Derby, Connecticut

3. Recommendation
Based on the analysis and discussion above, it is recommended that the City of Derby meet its
wastewater needs by maintaining operations of the Derby WPCF.

The Derby WPCF has

capacity to accept additional flow from the Towns of Orange and Seymour. The amount of
additional flow the WPCF can accept will increase after the implementation of an annual I/I
removal program as described earlier in the report. Derby should also pursue regional solutions
with Ansonia as described in the Derby Conservation and Development Plan by directing all
future flows from the Fountain Lake Industrial Park to the Ansonia collection system.
Other options for regionalization with the City of Ansonia do not appear to be an effective
solution at this time due to the limited capacity at the Ansonia WPCF to handle the I/I induced
fluctuation in flows in the Derby collection system or the 20-year planning flows from both
communities. The viability of the interconnection should be assessed again within the next 10
to 15 years, prior to the Phase II upgrades to the Derby WPCF noted herein. Prior to the reassessment of the interconnection viability the following actions need to be taken by both
communities:

The City of Ansonia must assess the upgrades need to the Ansonia WPCF to increase
the permitted capacity to allow for planned growth / economic development within both
the City of Ansonia and the City of Derby.

The City of Derby must begin a I/I removal program to reduce the peak I/I flow from the
Derby collection system.

The City of Derby met with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(CTDEEP), City of Ansonia, UIC, HDR Engineering, Inc., and Weston & Sampson Engineers,
Inc. on October 15, 2012 at the CTDEEP offices to discuss the status of the interconnection
analysis and its feasibility. At the meeting the following was recognized by all parties:

The interconnection was currently not feasible,

The interconnection would take a minimum of 15 to 20 years to implement.

The City of Derby collection system contains excessive infiltration and inflow volumes
and is in the process of conducting an SSES,

The goal of any I/I project is to remove 50% of the I/I but realistically only 30% of it can
typically be removed,

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

3-1

City of Derby, Connecticut

Ansonia was not interested in creating a regional WPCA with a WPCA board consisting
of members from both communities, and

The Derby WPCA would be responsible for maintaining its collection system and would
be a paying customer to the Ansonia WPCA.

At the conclusion of the meeting CTDEEP recommended that the Derby and Ansonia WPCAs
develop subcommittees to keep open lines of communication regarding the possibility of
regionalizing their wastewater services at some point in the future.

CTDEEP also

recommended that the subcommittees meet annually to discuss the status of each system, I/I
removal and to keep lines of communication open regarding the possibility of an
interconnection. A copy of the meeting minutes is provided in Appendix G.

Derby-Ansonia Feasibility Study


April 2014

3-2

APPENDIX A
Regionalization Letters

APPENDIX B
UV System Hydraulic Issues

APPENDIX C
Storage Analysis Data and Results

PUMPING RATES
3,000 GPM (4.32 MGD)
4,000 GPM (5.76 MGD)
5,000 GPM (7.20 MGD)
6,000 GPM (8.64 MGD)
7,000 GPM (10.08 MGD)
TOTAL DAILY FLOW

*DATA TAKEN FROM FLOW CHARTS


PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF DERBY

FLOW RATE (MGD)

10

Dec-11

Nov-11

12

Oct-11

Sep-11

14

Aug-11

Jul-11

16

Jun-11

May-11

18

Apr-11

Mar-11

20

Feb-11

10

Jan-11

MILLIONS OF GALLONS STORED

EQUALIZATION STORAGE EVALUATION - 10 MGD MAX FLOW

2011 FLOW DATA


DERBY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DERBY, CT
PUMP RATE
REQUIRED
STORAGE (GAL)

REQUIRED STORAGE (GAL)


3,000
4,000
5,000

6,000

7,000

8,027,500 3,410,000 1,766,667

715,833

APPENDIX D
Ansonia Derby Interconnection Opinion of Probable Costs

Derby / Ansonia Regionalization Interconnection


Drypit Wastewater Pumping Station and Forcemain
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Quantity Unit

Unit Cost

Description

Cost

Forcemain
9,000
2,200
2,000
2
10
1
2,000
7,000
7,000
24,000
2,000
1
1
1

LF
CY
CY
EA
EA
LS
LF
LF
LF
SY
HR
LS
LS
LS

$250
$100
$75
$500,000
$15,000
$500,000
$10
$25
$45
$20
$65
$100,000
$250,000
$420,000

Forcemain
Rock Excavation
Unsutiable Material
Forcemain Railroad Pipe Jacking
Forcemain Structures
Ansonia WPCF Primary Clarifier Interconnection Structure
Cross Country Area Restoration
Temporary Pavement
Permanent Pavement
Milling and Overlay Pavement (1 1/2")
Traffic Control Allowance
Concrete Road Base Allowance
Dewatering
Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Forcemain Subtotal

$2,250,000
$220,000
$150,000
$1,000,000
$150,000
$500,000
$20,000
$175,000
$315,000
$480,000
$130,000
$100,000
$250,000
$420,000
$6,160,000

Wastewater Pumping Station


4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2,000
6,000
1,000
9,000
1
1
1
1

EA
LS
LS
LS
LS
EA
EA
LS
CY
SF
SY
CY
LS
LS
LS
LS

$60,000
$200,000
$500,000
$350,000
$200,000
$350,000
$450,000
$500,000
$1,000
$250
$45
$75
$500,000
$250,000
$500,000
$620,000

Drypit Wastewater Pumps


Backup Generator
Electrical System
Instrumentation Control System
Process Piping
Fine Screen
Grit Removal System
Equipment Installation
Cast In place Concrete Drypit/Wetpit (40ft deep)
Pumping Station CMU Operations Building
Paving
Excavation
Support of Excavation
Dewatering
Site Modifications, Utilities, Piping Modifications
Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Pumping Station Subtotal

$240,000
$200,000
$500,000
$350,000
$200,000
$350,000
$450,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$45,000
$675,000
$500,000
$250,000
$500,000
$620,000
$8,880,000

Wastewater Storage
2
1

EA
LS

$4,000,000
$600,000

4 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank w/ Mixing/ Odor Control


Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Wastewater Storage Subtotal

$8,000,000
$600,000
$8,600,000

WPCF Demolition
1

LS

$3,500,000

Demolition and Removal (existing WPCF)

$3,500,000

Derby / Ansonia Regionalization Interconnection


Drypit Wastewater Pumping Station and Forcemain
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Quantity Unit
1

LS

Unit Cost
$263,000

Description

Cost

Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)

$263,000
WPCF Demolition Subtotal

OPC Construction Sub Total


Contingency (20%)
Engineering and Implmentation (20%)
OPC Project Cost
NOTE:

$3,763,000
$27,410,000
$5,482,000
$5,482,000
$38,374,000

This OPC does not include mitigation costs for identification and removal Inflow & Infiltration

This OPC does not include the costs associated with the connection fee to the Ansonia WPCF

This OPC does not include costs for additional upgrades which will be required to the Ansonia WPCF

Derby / Ansonia Regionalization Interconnection


Drypit Wastewater Pumping Station, Forcemain and WPCF Effluent Relocation
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Quantity Unit

Unit Cost

Description

Cost

Forcemain
9,000
2,200
2,000
2
10
1
2,000
7,000
7,000
24,000
2,000
1
1
1

LF
CY
CY
EA
EA
LS
LF
LF
LF
SY
HR
LS
LS
LS

$250
$100
$75
$500,000
$15,000
$500,000
$10
$25
$45
$20
$65
$75,000
$200,000
$410,000

Forcemain
Rock Excavation
Unsutiable Material
Forcemain Railroad Pipe Jacking
Forcemain Structures
Ansonia WPCF Primary Clarifier Interconnection Structure
Cross Country Area Restoration
Temporary Pavement
Permanent Pavement
Milling and Overlay Pavement (1 1/2")
Traffic Control Allowance
Concrete Road Base Allowance
Dewatering
Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Forcemain Subtotal

$2,250,000
$220,000
$150,000
$1,000,000
$150,000
$500,000
$20,000
$175,000
$315,000
$480,000
$130,000
$75,000
$200,000
$410,000
$6,075,000

Ansonia WPCF Effluent Modifications


10,000
2,200
2,000
2
1
1
1,000
3,500
3,500
12,000
2,000
1
1
1

LF
CY
CY
EA
EA
LS
LF
LF
LF
SY
HR
LS
LS
LS

$425
$100
$75
$500,000
$500,000
$300,000
$10
$25
$45
$20
$65
$75,000
$200,000
$540,000

36" PVC
Rock Excavation
Unsutiable Material
Railroad Pipe Jacking
Flood Dike Pipe Jacking
Derby WPCF Effluent Interconnection Structure
Cross Country Area Restoration
Temporary Pavement
Permanent Pavement
Milling and Overlay Pavement (1 1/2")
Traffic Control Allowance
Concrete Road Base Allowance
Dewatering
Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Effluent Modificaitons Subtotal

$4,250,000
$220,000
$150,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$300,000
$10,000
$87,500
$157,500
$240,000
$130,000
$75,000
$200,000
$540,000
$7,860,000

Wastewater Storage
2
1

EA
LS

$4,000,000
$600,000

4 MG Prestressed Concrete Tank w/ Mixing/ Odor Control


Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
Wastewater Storage Subtotal

$8,000,000
$600,000
$8,600,000

WPCF Demolition
1
1

LS
LS

$3,500,000
$263,000

Demolition and Removal (existing WPCF)


Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)
WPCF Demolition Subtotal

$3,500,000
$263,000
$3,763,000

Derby / Ansonia Regionalization Interconnection


Drypit Wastewater Pumping Station, Forcemain and WPCF Effluent Relocation
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Quantity Unit

Unit Cost

Description

Cost

Wastewater Pumping Station


4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2,000
6,000
1,000
9,000
1
1
1
1

EA
LS
LS
LS
LS
EA
EA
LS
CY
SF
SY
CY
LS
LS
LS
LS

$60,000
$200,000
$500,000
$350,000
$200,000
$350,000
$450,000
$500,000
$1,000
$250
$45
$75
$500,000
$250,000
$500,000
$620,000

Drypit Wastewater Pumps


Backup Generator
Electrical System
Instrumentation Control System
Process Piping
Fine Screen
Grit Removal System
Equipment Installation
Cast In place Concrete Drypit/Wetpit (40ft deep)
Pumping Station CMU Operations Building
Paving
Excavation
Support of Excavation
Dewatering
Site Modifications, Utilities, Piping Modifications
Contractor Bonds & Insurance (7.5%)

$240,000
$200,000
$500,000
$350,000
$200,000
$350,000
$450,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$45,000
$675,000
$500,000
$250,000
$500,000
$620,000

Pumping Station Subtotal


OPC Construction Sub Total
Contingency (20%)
Engineering and Implmentation (20%)
OPC Project Cost
NOTE:

$8,880,000
$35,180,000
$7,036,000
$7,036,000
$49,252,000

This OPC does not include mitigation costs for identification and removal Inflow & Infiltration

This OPC does not include the costs associated with the connection fee to the Ansonia WPCF

This OPC does not include costs for additional upgrades which will be required to the Ansonia WPCF

City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority


Estimated System Maintenance Budget - Ansonia Interconnection
Office Accounts
2600-270-0270 Social Security Taxes
6200-110-0110 Office Wages
6200-110-0112 Employee Secretarial
6200-110-0110 Part Time Wages
6200-150-0150 Office Instruction
6200-150-0152 Accounting
6200-150-0153 Computer Service
6200-160-0161 Town Clerk
6200-160-0162 Atty Sheriff Title Search
6200-160-0163 Med/Life/Worker Comp Ins
6200-270-0270 Insurance
6200-270-0271 Postage/Printing
6200-270-0272 Birmingham Billing
6200-320-0320 Business Forms
6200-330-0330 Office Supplies
6200-640-0640 Retiree Medical

Office Accounts
$56,008
$71,667
$1,400
$30,000
$945
$9,500
$2,500
$2,600
$2,500
$270,000
$28,200
$5,500
$3,200
$2,713
$1,000
$6,584

Office Accounts Total


Plant Accounts
6200-110-0111

6200-120-0120
6200-150-0151
6200-160-0164
6200-220-0220
6200-230-0230
6200-230-0232
6200-400-0430
6200-400-0432
6200-400-0434
6200-400-0435
6200-440-0440
6200-460-0461
6200-480-0484
6200-490-0498
6200-480-0495

$494,317
System Operations Accounts

Superintendent
Mechanic
Grade 2
Grade 2
Grade 2
Overtime Wages
Operator Instruction
Vehicle Maintenance
Electric
Gas Heat
Water
Special Clothing
Pest Control
Collection System Maintenance
Collection System Rehabilitation
Pump Station Maintenance
BFI Rags Grit Grease
General Engineer Costs
Working Balance
Vehicle Replacement

$88,297
$64,180
$60,383
$60,383
$60,383
$60,000
$3,000
$10,000
$70,000
$14,000
$1,200
$3,000
$550
$275,000
$200,000
$165,000
$4,500
$60,000
$85,000
$75,009

Operations Accounts Total

$1,359,885

Grand Total

$1,854,202

APPENDIX E
Ansonia Interconnection Alternatives UIC Reports

APPENDIX E
UIC City of Ansonia Interconnection Report
Interconnection Option #1 through #3

ANALYSIS REPORT
DERBY WPCF, DERBY, CT
The City of Derby, CT has expressed a need to adequately treat the sanitary flows generated
within the sewer system limits without expending a large amount of funds on upgrading the
existing Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). In doing so, the City must look at several
options for handling not only the existing sanitary flows, but flows that are projected to increase
over the next twenty years. For the purposes of this report, the option of transferring the Citys
wastewater flows to the Ansonia WPCF will be analyzed.
The primary concern will be the capacity of the Ansonia WPCF to handle the increased flows
from Derby. The Ansonia facility is permitted to handle and treat a design flow of 3.5 million
gallons per day (MGD), with a peak capacity of 7.0 MGD. The Derby WPCF has a design
capacity of 3.5 MGD with a peak flow capacity of 9.1 MGD. Both facilities daily flow records
over a three-year period were analyzed to determine an average daily flow and a maximum
daily flow. This information is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Daily Flows from Plant Data
Derby WPCF design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacity 9.1 MGD*
Year
2009
2010
2011

Average Daily Flow (MGD)


2.21
3.01
2.91

Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)


6.41
8.08
5.30

*Data taken from Facilities Planning Study, 1997.

Ansonia WPCF design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacity 7.0 MGD
Year
2009
2010
2011

Average Daily Flow (MGD)


1.72
2.25
1.80

Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)


5.08
5.73
3.50

As can be seen, the maximum daily flows from Derby WPCF, in addition to the Ansonia flows,
will exceed the Ansonia WPCF peak flow capacity. Therefore, the flows from Derby must be
restricted in some manner so as not to exceed the capacity of the Ansonia facility. This can be
accomplished by releasing the flows from Derby at a controlled rate which will not adversely
affect the treatment capacity at Ansonia. There are several options to consider:
Option #1: Store the Derby sanitary flows at the Derby WPCF and pump them through a
force main to Ansonia at a controlled rate. The existing treatment structures would be used
as storage/equalization basins. Storing the sanitary sewage at Derby would entail removing
the treatment equipment from the existing Primary Settling tanks, Aeration Basins, and
Clarifiers and using these structures strictly for storage/equalization. Two (2) Primary
Settling Tanks have a combined volume of 215,424 gallons, 3 Aeration Basins have a
combined volume of 1.34 million gallons (MG), and 2 Clarifiers have a combined volume
of 423,000 gallons. The total volume of daily sewage that can be stored is nearly 2 million
gallons. Attachment 1 presents an overhead image of the existing WPCF showing the
locations of these structures. Some form of primary treatment, such as bar screens or
comminutors, would be required to prevent the entry of larger solids through the
equalization facilities. This treatment is capable of removing approximately 60% of the
1

solids in the influent stream. The sewage could then be pumped via force main at a
controlled rate to the Ansonia facility. The length of the force main, approximately 8,000
linear feet between the facilities, would require sewage lift stations along the route to
maintain system pressure. A 6-inch, poly-vinyl chloride force main could pump the sewage
to Ansonia and release the flows at approximately 235 gallons per minute. The pumping
from Derby could be timed such that during low treatment flow periods, 12AM to 5AM for
example, the Ansonia WPCF would not be overburdened by the additional sewage flows in
terms of capacities and biological loadings.
Option #2: Install a sewer connector between the Derby and Ansonia WPCFs. A 15-inch
or larger reinforced concrete sewer interconnect of approximately 8,000 linear feet could
serve as a storage facility, storing at least 74,000 gallons of sewage until it can be released
into the Ansonia facility. The flow would be a controlled release to minimize the influent
affect on the Ansonia facility. This option could reduce the need to store as much flow in
the Derby facility and allow some form of primary treatment, such as settling, to occur
before the flows are pumped to Ansonia. The Primary Settling Tanks can remove as much
as 65% of suspended solids in the influent. In doing so, the treatment load at Ansonia could
be reduced. The interconnect system may require a pumping station at the Derby WPCF to
pump the sewage through the interconnect, with lift stations to maintain the flow within the
pipe. An alternative would be to install a pump station to pump the sewage from the Derby
facility, install the interconnect with sufficient slope to maintain flow, and construct a lift
station just prior to the Ansonia facility to pump flows into that WPCF.
Each of the previous options is based on the assumption that infiltration and inflow into the
Derby sewer system contributes to the maximum daily flow rate. Infiltration into a sanitary
sewer system occurs when rainfall events introduce storm water into the system through
deficiencies in piping, structures, and connections. Inflow into a sanitary system is due to
improper connections of roof drains, yard drains, etc., that are connected to the sanitary
system. Inflow connections introduce storm water into the sanitary system that should
otherwise be directed through the storm sewer systems. In many municipalities across the
country, these connections are illegal. An infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis is discussed later
in this report. Option #3 addresses the actions necessary to reduce I/I in the Derby system.
Option #3: To reduce I/I in the Derby sanitary system and thus reduce the maximum flows
that occur during wet weather events, the entire sanitary sewer system should be replaced or
lined with cured-in-place (CIP) pipe linings. The areas of the sanitary system that have not
been studied should be included in a broad program using closed-circuit televising (CCTV),
smoke testing, and dye testing to identify sources of inflow and infiltration. CCTV will
identify those segments of sewer pipe and structures (e.g. manholes) that must be replaced
due to condition, and those segments that are candidates for CIP lining. Both methods will
significantly reduce infiltration into the system. Smoke and dye testing will identify
sources of inflow that should be removed from the sanitary system. A comprehensive
program to eliminate I/I sources would reduce the maximum flows in the system by at least
60%. Once the flows have been significantly reduced, then an analysis of the total flows
required to be treated by the WCPF will be significantly low.
Implementing a comprehensive I/I reduction program, removing inflow sources and
replacing and/or rehabilitating the system piping, will reduce the capacity required for
storage/equalization and reduce the sanitary flows to Ansonia WPCF. Other advantages
include reduced capacity loads on Ansonia WPCF with reduced operating, maintenance,
and replacement costs at both WPCFs.

Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
The City of Derby has previously conducted I/I studies in some portions of the city to
determine the sources of I/I and the effects on the existing sanitary sewer system. These
studies have shown that there is a direct contribution from I/I to sanitary flows in the
system. The studies have identified direct sources of inflow within the system resulting
from roof and yard drain connections. CCTV in these areas has identified pipe segments
and structures in poor condition that allow infiltration. A wastewater flow analysis
completed by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., in September, 2011, showed a peak
combined inflow of 9-10 MGD and a peak infiltration rate of 3-3.5 MGD. A 60% reduction
of these figures would result in a projected peak infiltration of 1.4 MGD and peak inflow of
4 MGD. This memorandum is included as Attachment 2.
Reducing the inflow figures to nearly zero by eliminating all sources of inflow would
greatly improve the minimum flow rates that would need to be sent to the Ansonia WPCF.
This would result in the following:
1.
2.

A reduction in the minimum required and peak required treatment capacities at


Ansonia WPCF.
A reduction in the untreated flows to Derby WPCF equalization basins, thereby
reducing the required operating and maintenance costs for the City of Derby.

A comparison was made between the peak flows to Derby WPCF and historical rainfall
data for the same period to see if a correlation could be established between high peak flows
and above normal rainfall events. This correlation is useful in supporting the previous
studies conclusions that I/I into Derbys wastewater sewers is contributing to high peak
flows to the plant. For the months analyzed where the plants peak flow capacities were
exceeded, rainfall records show that for June and July 2009, and March 2010, the rainfall
totals exceeded the area averages by over 50%. The high rainfall amounts might indicate
that high I/I rates were a contributing factor in the plants peak capacity being overtaxed.
Attachment 3 presents the correlation data between average WPCF plant inflow data and
rainfall amounts for Derby.
An I/I study produced for the City of Derby in 2007 showed that I/I volumes into the
sanitary sewer system can be as high as 1.4 MGD. Reducing 60% of the I/I into the system
would result in average daily flows approaching 1.2 MGD and peak flows nearing 3.2
MGD. It is our understanding that the City of Derby is currently conducting another I/I
study of the sanitary sewer system. Once the results of that study are published, the
correlations between sanitary flows and rainfall events can then be reevaluated and more
accurate measurements of average and peak flows can be obtained.
Projected Growth
A Technical Memorandum issued by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., September, 2011,
to the City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority, analyzed projected wastewater
flows through 2020. The memorandum looked at sewer billing records from 2006 to 2010
to determine the existing sanitary flow rates. The memorandum then analyzed future flow
rates from 3 categories of parcels that are projected by the City for
development/redevelopment. The parcels were further categorized as either inside or
outside the sewer limits. The memorandum is included as Attachment 2.
The projected growth as stated in the document through 2020 shows an increase of 0.77
MGD in average daily flows. The billing record review shows an average daily flow of
1.61 MGD. The projected average daily flow for the year 2020, should all of the
3

development/redevelopment occur as planned, will be 2.38 MGD. Any improvements or


modifications required to direct sanitary flows to the Ansonia WPCF must include the
projected sanitary flows in the design to provide sufficient capacity for growth.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The flow data from the two WPCFs indicates that, if the flow from Derby is taken to
Ansonia without a controlled equalization process and flow rate, the combined flow for 180
consecutive days will exceed 90% of the present average design flow rate of Ansonia
WPCF. This will trigger a requirement for the Ansonia WPCF as stated below:
Section 4(L) of Ansonia WPCFs NPDES Permit issued on June 27, 2001states:
When the arithmetic mean of the average daily flow from the POTW for the previous 180
days exceeds 90% of the design flow rate, the permittee shall develop and submit for the
review of the Commissioner within one year, a plan to accommodate future increases in
flow to the plant. This plan shall include a schedule for completing any recommended
improvements and a plan for financing the improvements.
Additionally, the treatment processes at the Ansonia facility may not be able to support
untreated sanitary flows from Derby. Therefore, a process step of equalization, along with
primary treatment, must be instituted to allow the processes at Ansonia to effectively treat
the increased sanitary flow. Using the existing treatment structures as storage/equalization
basins, while removing all treatment equipment from these structures, will allow the City of
Derby to appreciably reduce operating costs for this facility. Although minimum operations
would still be required at Derby WPCF, for example, monitoring of pumping and screening
operations, the City of Derby can budget for lower operating costs and lower maintenance
costs for this plant.
An active program to reduce the I/I contributing to the Derby sanitary sewer system should
be implemented throughout the entire system. This program could reduce the I/I
contributions by at least 60%, thereby significantly reducing the flows from the City of
Derby to the Ansonia WPCF.
Feasibility Study
If the project as described is approved, the City of Derby should initiate and complete a
comprehensive feasibility study, or a preliminary engineering report, to analyze each option
as presented for practicality, cost/benefit, constructability, and socio-economic impact. The
purpose of such a study is to analyze all options to determine the best in terms of how much
will it cost to construct, what will be the long term benefits, how will the option affect
future growth, and which will provide the best results. In order to accomplish such a study,
the data collection effort should include the following:
1. Site investigation. Site investigations will include a site visit by the design team,
interviews with personnel familiar with the project, and an understanding by the design
team of the clients requirements. The site visit will provide the design team with an
assessment of the existing conditions for each option, the limitations and constraints of
each option, valuable information from the owners/operators of each WPCF, and
background information to provide an overall scope of the project design. Site
investigation will also include:
geotechnical investigations to determine the composition and stability of the
existing soils,
topographic surveys to provide a visual picture of the land surface, existing utilities,
structures, appurtenances, and other possible impediments to each option,
right-of-way and utility easement surveys,
4

obtaining and reviewing existing utility plans,


closed-circuit televising of existing sewer segments,
manhole and structure investigations,
smoke and dye testing.

2. Environmental investigation. The environmental phase of the feasibility study will


address cultural, historic, and environmental factors in the design process. Following
the guidelines as set forth in the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA), each
option will be assessed as to its impact on local and state environmental, archeological,
cultural, and historical assets for both the City of Derby and City of Ansonia. CEPA
provides for specific guidance on for conducting Environmental Impact Evaluations
(EIE), which are investigative documents that look at how the project will affect the
local and state environmental resources, air and water quality, noise, socio-economic
assets, historical/archeological and national landmarks, and cultural impacts. The EIE
process also provides the public with a vehicle for commenting on the project and
having their concerns taken in account prior to construction. The Consultant should
research all available federal, state, and local regulatory data concerning both WPCFs
operations, permitting, violations, and corrective actions, if taken.
3. Concept design investigation. The concept design investigation phase begins with a
detailed analysis of all available historical documentation, plant flow data, treatment
and laboratory data, as-built drawings, previous studies, and engineering reports
concerning the existing facilities. At this stage of the feasibility study each option is
thoroughly examined in regards to size, equipment, location, materials, constructability,
and probable cost estimates.
4. Report phase, conclusions/recommendations. Once the design investigation is complete,
all the data collected will be compiled and designed into a feasibility report for
presentation to the client. The report will detail all actions taken from each
investigation phase and present findings and conclusions, and a preferred option, giving
the relevant justification for and against each option. The preferred option will be
recommended based on costs, benefits, ease of construction, limited impact on the
community and environmental resources, and value.

Att (3):

1. Figure 1. Aerial View of Derby WPCF


2. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Wastewater Facilities Plan, Weston &
Sampson Engineers, Inc., September, 2011.
3. Data Correlation Table for Rainfall and I/I, Derby WPCF

List of References
1. Technical Memorandum to the City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority,
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., Sept. 2011.
2. Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 2009 through February 2011,
Derby WPCF, City of Derby, Conn.
3. Sanitary Sewer System Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, Hawthorne Avenue Watershed.
Milone & MacBroom, Inc., MMI #2165-01-12, July 2007.
4. Facilities Plan, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sanitary Sewerage System. City of
Derby, Connecticut Water Pollution Control Authority, Semi-Final Draft. Cascio
Bechir Engineers. July 1997.
5. Construction Plans. City of Derby, Alterations and Additions to the Water Pollution
Control Plant Pump Stations and Sanitary Sewerage System. Cascio Bechir Engineers.
August, 1998.
6. Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 2009 through April 2011,
Ansonia WPCF, City of Ansonia, Conn.

Attachment 1
Figure 1. Aerial View of Derby WPCF

AERATION BASINS

PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS

CLARIFIERS

Attachment 2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Wastewater Facilities Plan, Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.,
September, 2011.

Attachment 3
Data Correlation Table for Rainfall and I/I, Derby WPCF

DerbyWPCFFlowandRainfallData
Mon/Yr

Max

Flow(MGD)
Min

Jan09
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09
Aug09
Sep09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09
YrAvg

4.10
3.60
3.40
6.40
7.50
8.90
9.80
7.00
3.40
8.10
7.30
7.40
6.41

0.80
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.50
0.80
0.90
0.69

1.72
1.77
2.40
2.10
1.98
3.09
2.57
2.25
1.47
2.31
1.92
2.93
2.21

1.74
1.05
1.41
2.79
3.95
6.57
6.22
4.17
2.07
6.65
2.22
5.37

Jan10
Feb10
Mar10
Apr10
May10
Jun10
Jul10
Aug10
Sep10
Oct10
Nov10
Dec10
YrAvg

6.40
10.00
10.00
10.00
7.10
5.70
7.80
7.50
8.10
9.30
7.30
7.70
8.08

0.80
0.80
1.30
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.70
0.70
1.00
0.62

2.44
4.69
8.10
6.10
1.54
1.28
1.35
1.41
1.88
2.42
2.38
2.54
3.01

2.75
3.24
8.39
1.16
2.69
3.46
4.82
4.1
2.5
5.87
3.29
4.94

Jan11
Feb11
YrAvg

3.10
7.50
5.30

0.90
0.80
0.85

2.04
3.78
2.91

3.3**
3.67**

Design
Avg

6.59

0.72

2.71

Avg

Rainfall
inches*

*takenfromNCDCrainfalldata
forStevensenDamraingage5.5mi.WNWofDerby/Ansonia

ExceedsDerbyWPCFdesignflowcapacityof3.5MGD(1997)
ExceedsDerbyWPCFpeakflowcapacityof9.1MGD(1997)

RainfallMonthlyTotals

Mon/Yr

inches*

Jan09
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09
Aug09
Sep09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09

1.74
1.05
1.41
2.79
3.95
6.57
6.22
4.17
2.07
6.65
2.22
5.37

Jan10
Feb10
Mar10
Apr10
May10
Jun10
Jul10
Aug10
Sep10
Oct10
Nov10
Dec10

2.75
3.24
8.39
1.16
2.69
3.46
4.82
4.1
2.5
5.87
3.29
4.94

Jan11
Feb11

3.3**
3.67**

*takenfromNCDCrainfalldata
forStevensenDamraingage5.5mi.WNWofDerby/Ansonia

ExceedsDerbyWPCFdesignflowcapacityof3.5MGD
ExceedsDerbyWPCFpeakflowcapacityof9.1MGD
SeeTable1.DerbyWPCFFlowDataTable

**RegionalClimateCenterstatetotals

APPENDIX E
UIC City of Ansonia Interconnection Press Release
Interconnection Option #4

STATEMENT OF MAYOR DELLA VOLPE - SEPTEMBER 5, 2013

I am announcing today my plan to call upon the State of Connecticut and the City of Derby to
work with Ansonia in creating a regional wastewater treatment system that will protect our
environment and save millions of dollars for our ratepayers in both communities.
Within the last few years, Ansonia successfully completed a $50 million upgrade to its water
treatment facility that eliminated excessive pollutant emissions into the Naugatuck River. These
emissions eventually made their way into the Naugatuck river then to the Housatonic and finally
to Long Island Sound. Along the way, they caused harm to fish and wildlife and reduced the
quality of our environment. The Ansonia plant had long exceeded its expected life span and we
were under an order from the state to compete the expensive upgrade which we did. Each
household unit is paying $270 annually to pay down the bonds needed to repay the State of
Connecticut over a 20 year period. Businesses are paying a greater cost for their share of the
bonds.
It is very likely that Derby may be required to undergo a similar challenge in the coming years at
a great cost to the hard working people in that community. I have asked our engineers to examine
the possibility of using the Ansonia treatment facility for the wastewater flows in both
communities.
Their preliminary analysis indicates that this could be accomplished with certain flow mitigation
procedures for infiltration and inflow I/I in derby and the construction of a pumping station and
8000 linear foot pipe carrying the flow from Derby to Ansonia.
The Ansonia wastewater treatment facility has a design flow of 3.5 million gallons per day with
a peak capacity of 7.0 million gallons per day (MGD).
During the 3 years from 2009 through 2011 Ansonias average daily flow (ADF) ranged from
1.72 MGD to 2.25 MGD while Derbys ranged from 2.21 MGD to 3.01 MGD. The maximum
flows were 8.08 in Derby and 5.73 in Ansonia which would overburden the Ansonia plant on
maximum flow days.

However, a good portion of the Derby maximum flow is due to particular challenges with
infiltration and inflow I/I which could be mitigated by at least 60% with a successful remediation
program.
Upon completion of such a program, the State of Connecticut could create financial incentives
for the two towns to hook up their systems so that the necessity of eventually rebuilding or
building a brand new plant in Derby could be avoided. Instead, by using a combination of I/I
mitigation in Derby, storage of flow at the Derby plant and controlled flow timing during the late
evening or early morning hours, the flow from that city could be treated n Ansonia.
This could create enormous benefits for the residential and business ratepayers in both
communities:

The staffs and workers of both WPCAs could be protected with job security and through
the use of eventual retirement attrition savings could be realized over the long term
Each community would retain its separate functions of rate setting and collections and
Derby could make semiannual payments to the Ansonia WPCA for use of its treatment
facility
The people of Derby would avoid the long term cost of building a new plant and the
people of Ansonia could see their $270 annual capital fee reduced by as much as 50%
Our environment and rivers would be protected for generations by the elimination of
harmful water pollution
The approach could serve as the model for future collaboration in two small neighboring
communities that are attempting to reinvent their local economies for a brighter future
The State of Connecticut could use this approach in smart regionalism to save millions of
dollars in bonding costs for our two communities while using it as a model for similar
approaches elsewhere in the future.

I call upon the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), with the
encouragement of our two legislators, Senator Crisco and Representative Gentile, to immediately
begin a comprehensive feasibility study to carefully examine this proposal with an eye to the
economic and environmental benefits to our region and state.
The feasibility study would consider both economic and non-economic factors in arriving at the
most desirable alternative for implementation. A present worth economic analysis would be
performed as part of the evaluation. The economic analysis would incorporate capital, operation
and maintenance cost estimates developed for each alternative.
By working together as neighboring communities with a long history of cooperation and with the
state, we could use smart regionalism to protect our future and reduce the cost of living and
doing business in each of our communities.
Thank you very much.

ANSONIA-DERBY INTERCONNECTOR

Preliminary Analysis

A.

Ansonia-Derby Interconnector
As shown on the attached map, the following three alternative routes were analyzed for
routing the interconnector. Each route connects the ef{luent from the Influent Pump
Station of the Derby V/ater Pollution Control Facility (V/PCF) to the wet well of the
Influent Pump Station at the Ansonia \I"PCF. 'Ihe proposed routes of the server
interconnector are presented as follows:

#l: The route for Option #1 proceeds &orn the Derby W?CF Influent Punp
northo crossing unclemeaih the existing railroad immediately north of the WPCF,
continuing north along the east side of Caroline St., crossing under Main St., then
continuing norlh along Caroline St. until turning northeast at Cottage St. From this
point, the route continues through a vegetated area untii reaching Route B, rvhere it
will cross under this road, then continue norlheast along the west side of Pershing
Dr. until r'eaehing the Ansonia llv?CF, r,''here it will turn east, crossing under
Option

Pershing Dr. and then under another railroad, and conlinuing to the ilfluent *'et

well for Aasonia WWTP. The route will take the sewer through

several

commercial/industrial areas with paved parking areas. The sewer is to be iS-inch


reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with an approximate length of 8,000 linear feet

(LF).
Option #2: The rsute for Opticn #2 proeeeds from the Derby WPCF Influent Pump
east, crossing under Route 8, then continuing east uritil turning north approximately
550 feet east of the WPCF. The route crosses under an existing railroad, contiluing
ncrth through a vegetated area, crossing under Main St. east of the intersection with
Route 8, then conlinues north, following an existing railroad, crossing underneath
Division St., continuing to the Ansonia W"CF, This se:*er route will pass through
several commereiallindustrial areas with par,ed parking lots, and may require rightof-way acaess ficm fhe or*'ner of the existing railroad. The se*'er is to be i5-ineh
RCP with an approxirxate length of 8,000 LF.
Option #3: The route for Option #3 proceeds east from the Derby WPCF Influent
Pump, crossing under Route 8, continuing east approximateiy 800 feet until turning
north. The route crosses under an existing milroad, proceeds north crossing under

Main St. west of the intersection with Derby Ave., then continues nonh follorving
the Derby Greenway to Division St.. crosses under Division St." then proeeeds
along N. Division St. until turning west into Ansonia WPCF. This route takes the
sewer through predominately vegetated area until reaching the Divisicn St.
crossing, then the route encounters an industrial area west of N. Division St" The
sewer is to be 1 5-inch RCP installed at an approximate length of 8,500 LF.
Parametric Constructicn Cosf Estirnates

#l: The preliminary cost estimate for Option #1. including materials, labor,
and contingencies is $8,900,000.
Option

Option #2: The prelimilary cost estimate for Option #2, including materials, labor,
and contingencies is $7.300,000.
Option #3: The preliminary cost estimale for Option #3, including materials, labor,
and contingencies is $5,700,000-

B.

Water Pollution Control Facilify (WPCF) Flow Data Analysis


The influent flor,r.s to l)erby and Ansonia WPCFs rvere provided for the time period
January ?009 to February 201 1. The monthly average flows from the limited data were
analyzed and are presented as fsllows:

Derby WPCF
Year

design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacify 9.1 MGD*

Average Daily Flow' (MGD)

2009
2010
201 I

2.21
3.01
2.91

Maxirnum Daily Fiow {MGD)

6.4i
8.08
5.30

*Data taken from Faoilities Pianning Study, 1997.

ln the analysis period, the 1VPCF exceeded its peak flow capacity 5 times, July ?009,
February 2010, March 20i0, April 2010" and October ?010. reaching a high peak flou'
of 10 MGD for the three months February to April 2010. The plant exceeded its design
florr capacity 4 times. Februarv ?010, March 2010, April 2010, and F'ebruary 201 1.
Ansonia WPCF
Year

design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacit-v 7.0 MGD

Average Daily Fiow (MCD)

Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)

2009

1.72

5.08

l0
201 l

2.25

5.73

1.80

3.50

20

In the analysis period, the WPCF exceeded its peak flow capacity 4 times, June 2009,
July 2009, ]v{arch ?010, and April 2010. The plant exceeded its design {low capacity in
March 2010.

C.

lnfilfratian/Inflow (I/I)
A comparison was made belween the peak flows to Derby WPCF and historical rainfall
data for the same period to see if a correlation could be established between high peak

flows and above normal rainfal] eyents. This correlation rvould be useful in
determining if infiltrationjinflow into Dertry's u'aste*,ater sewers is eontributing to high
peak flows to the plant. For lhe months analyzed where the plant's peak florv capacities
r.vere exceeded, rainfall records shorv that for June and July 2009, aad March 2010, the
rainfail totals exceeded the arca averages by over 509/o. The high minfull amounts
might indicate that high I/I rates were a contribuling factor in the plant's peak capacify
being overtaxed. Table 1 provides the average WPCF plant inflow data and rainfall
amounts for Derby.

An Ir'I sfudy produced for &e City of Derby inZAAT shorred that I/I volumes into the
sanitary sewer system can be as high as 1.4 MGD. Reducing 60% of the I/l into the
system s'ould resu! b average daily flows approaching 1.2 MGD and peak flows
nearing 3.2 MGD. lt is our understandilg that the City of Derby is currently
conducting an I/I study of the sanitary sewer systern. Once the results of that study are
published, the correlations between sanitary florvs and rainfall events can then be
reevaluated and more accurats measurements of average and peak flows can be
obtained.

The same comparison rvas performed for the Ansonia WPCF and found that high
rainfall arnounts and runoff during the months lhe plant exceeded its design and peak
flow capaciry could have been a contributing factor. However, the incidents of
exceeding the plant's capacities are fewer, srrggesting thal lll through the Ansonia
server system may be less prevalent. Table 2 provides the average plant

inflow data and

rainfall amounts for Ansonia.


A program that actively targets I/l reduction would reduce the florvs from Derbrv to the
Ansonia W.PCF to voiurnes that might allorv the Ansoaia WPCF to safely treat Derby's
waste',rrater without requiring an upgrade in plant capacitr at Ansonia.
D.

Con clusions/Recom mendstions

The above flow data from the two WPCFs indicates that, if the flow from Derby is
taken to Ansonia, the combined flow for 180 consecutive days will exceed 90% of the
present ayerage design flow rate of Ansonia WPCF. This will trigger a requirement for
the Ansonia W?Cfr as stated below:
Section 4(L) of Ansonia WFCF's NPDES Permit issued on lane27,2001states:
When the arithmetie nzean of the sverage dailj, Jlow fram the POTW Jbr the
previaus 180 days exeeeds 90% of the design jla** rate, tke permittee sleall
det'elop and submit for lfze review of lhe Connnissianer rqitllin one ),eqr, a plan
to qccommodatefuture incresses inflow to the planr. This plan shall include a

schedule for completing any recammended imptovewents and a plan


fn anc ing the imprav e m e nts.

for

Without an active program to reduce the III conkibuting to the Derby sanitary sewer
systefir, the combined present :lverage daily flows from Derby and Ansonia could
exceed rhe current average daily heatment capacig of 3.5 MGD for the Ansonia
WPCF. This *'ould result in the City of Ansonia exceeding its NPDES Permit 1i-eirs
and require plans fur future upgrades of the WPCF to be submitted.
an active progrcm to reduce the I{ though the Derby sewsr system is completed, the
average flows can be reduced by as much as 607o, bringing the total flows through the

lf

proposed sewer interconnect within the design and peak flow capacities at Ansonia
WPCF.

E.

List of References

l.

Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 20S9 through February 2011,
Derby WPCF, City of Derby, Conn.

2.

Sanitary Sewer System Infilrratian/Inflow Analysis, Haytthorne Avenue Watershed.


Milone & MacBroom. Lnc., MMI +t2165-01-12, July 2007.

3.

Facilities Plan, Wastew*ter Tratffient Plsnt and. Sanitary Eewerage S1xtern. Cig of
Derby, Connecticut Water Pollution Confrol Authoriry*, Semi-Final Drafi. Cascio
Bechir Engineers. July' i997.

4-

Construction Plans. Ci*, af Derby, AJterqtions and Additians to th,e Wafer Pallution
Control P[ant Pump Statians and Sanitary Sewerage System. Cascio Bechir Engireers.
August, 1998.

5.

Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 2009 through April 2011,
Ansonia WPCF, City of Ansonia, Conn.

6.

I;acilities Planning Study, Cily of Ansonia, Connecticut Water Pollution Control


Authority. United International Corporation. Jul;r 20S4"

7.

Seuter System Evslusti{}n Sarve!, Pkase

Water Pollution Control

I stzd Ph#se -II City of Ansonia, Connecticut


Authoritl. United Intemational Corporation. June 2000.

8.

Infiltration/Infiov, Study.

Cif of Ansonia, Connecticut Water Follution Control


Authority. United Intemational Corporation. September 1 996.

9.

Consfruction Plans. C/ry of Ansania, Connecticut, Water Pollutian Control Facility


Upgrode. Camp, Drssser &McKee, Inc. November 7A07.

&i

34
a9
(.'o

5(,
n>
di -1

.g

>o
'Ee
6'i

6x
;o
o3 q
gE
-gx
6E

(f4J

^9q
[[
utJ
dd

ut

F3

S";
Gir

&g
oo
ao
EU C}
{J
o{}
u!
EU

qm

=a$
dE0
(s

6l:

JE

{3

UA
Zc
oc
sE

(t
.E

'.WIC

ila;,i

j':kt

Eo
j{(/'
TEL

(f

t:.-

,,:a..

:i:'t;ifr
"F:,'st
?'))'-3,

t")ry.

-9
tl
TJ

3
!L

E
E
*i F
o

df,

*xt !f, F{
m N r..
-il oj"q:t"{
-iHN F"
q
: i.l c'r-i q
t+ F..
e
..i ct ".1
.,; h
-l
'ri
E
" "!-r*iut

r.o N r,a F* or <r


-,;ffi"d!o,
{*ffi.".,q di
<q
Ne
+ Il
,'i c
*ri "i
+
+a

IL xl>

co rf d
d or:.0.:6: <l oo rn f{ o0 N
$,:.9:bi:.:*I. tn f.J rfi {f eO qf cn 4 O

:lco, r{
sf
(f,;rl\::
g}

f,,

ni,,r-i.,

r.;

osaaa(}OClq]9013r!
oo 6 m F\ lfl ff| d e{

(>Qtn
f! co oQ

f\
l'r

o o
O
r.f} rn
r.. ri

(rt

"iffiFi

;:

r! F* O O oO Ol f'- tn
N i{ (\l (n r{
f- F + i{ C'r O r/r (\l q rA Or Ol a.l
r{ r{ ft,1 t\, Fl dl f! a! Fl 6l t'l a! (|l

a
<cC)craooQO()(}(t(}O$l
a \ oq oqq\
\ q q u"ioqol q
<>oooGoooooclc(5
==
Bt

tr

..r";.'

x
E
Z

i-ffi,F
(f o
<l o
o o e{
./l o165o
q o
q cr
q o
n
c89:Q
I .1 n q q
<f nt ro r.c' F oO t{irF F. ro CO l.- F* (O

"#

s8ts38ER8883Ey
EpsFgE=ss59E$

r..i,

..dri,:tri',

.i .i .i .i -i c'i 6i {.i rd
ar}

F* l.- t3 is

ci .i ct a cr ci d ct ct d .i ct

#Hj,

t::

O co
o4#<r.+-aEHo
O O c) A'dio
<f FHa1#tj}J,.-{t Fr l-. co rn r{ t fir cfi t*. c)

.;ffiN

ui t'r i

dffix

ffiif'"g''l'
;*]
s33ggssFg333y

ci {t

ni

ct

'i
cxt d

EE$
EFSFgE!ggsgEi =3y

r-"

rn

hO bo
'a>
o<
f]

4*

e
Aa

NV
-O
ER
Eo
s(9

ni2
o;

>o

'->
G'qX
6:i
OF

c
T

gU

o3
*o
CG
M-

flJ

3
z
3

o, cJ
:cl
&
IL
(J(J
c-a

m
N

33

n
N

I.t

*rri
Ga'

,g
qc .g
oo
gc

gB

t6

$
l:

robg

UE
flG

50
=3
ois

LJA
V
q(J
{]C

lB

';

gc

u{,
E$
Qf
L>

;a

{,

cl.
ac

ro

t:
c

la

**

',X

"5

or
=5
r*
*+

OU
)2q

-s
LL

?-d
OQ
{r0
utj
up

t&

IJ

6-

3
,g

o
v,
c

{
.i

!f, rn Fl ('r
f\, (3 ig f..

t!6
*il

.i 'i r; ti

or(.oc{-.^r*ol\t
(O
$ eO t: -l CO r! Cn

Ff--lnFlF.
*1eqf.g"?

!.r)

c"l
../i

qt N rs r\,t

ni.ri+$e"lu^i

rJr

di cf

I I
1I
;; |-* F- H
;Hi;

OJ

r!

F.

hn

r{

a
t5

Sc

;x
e
lt*

ff} a! .{ S1 nI f!
f-. t3 r{ rl {1 l.^ <f,
fa {n,.$ d rn tfl cf () fi tn' m (0 t\

n'i*.ir',i

j.i-i.'i.i-i;.i.i

aQO<)Oc)C)OOOOO00
tn00ljlosfLnNN()oooro

ci ct ct j d d ci ci d ct ci ct ct

tffid

X
rS

:#;Effii4
oo
o o
o o o,%i+:bi:c)
o
q o
q c)
q o
g
\tn ."1
4
\e#*mgqq
n
.f
rn '1
rt
rit
rn
<l
ft1
< rjt
I :xF;f"i.,
Ffj'4Wg

"ffi+ffi

i sBsBSesBssBhy

(OOOooOnl

C)Cf,
^ ^ ^Ln
q sq q !q cy! q
..{
I 9
I Ia "'J
* nir*,.ryi..i "j 'j .j '.fl
.j 9
ri

C)OlnOr{
q c oq q
q
*i e'i:.*::n}
r'i

rC)(trO()(f,C)OO^^^(n

{SOC()enr{
o()l'latl)(g

-i

i* oor\aqqqq=H=og
.i;ddddcicil4l6

rt

i"i&s#

g.#'"E'R

";ffi:ri
*i .;f1

oR
fid;,"i,'i
3 3 R (]
41,i
+4Q

393S33e333339

S EPs"egEESSSSEi EfigFgE!sssgEi

Ot

r"ri

{idcicict

Oc)O()lJ-l
rn rtl 6 E) r\l
dr aY! F. lt U1

fr:
tn

.-r *{ -! eJ
dF{-e{>

bs

EIS<**
-nr:{

rJt

ll! tro
';>

0J<

{3

TRIC CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Phasa:

Projectl

Date: May 27,2011

Preliminary

Derby-A nsonia Sewer lntereonnect

Prepared

by:

Ansonia, Conn,

Prime Engineedng & Architecture, lnc"


3000 Corporate Exchange Dr.
Columbus, Ohio 43231

PRIME Project No. C1100242E

Option #1
er Pipe
Ls-inch RCP Pipe
renctrlng, 4' wide
ll, Gravel,4'wide

fill, Satis{actory Fill, 4' wide

Unit
LF
LF
{Y
cY

Unit Cost 5
38.5
23,5
6.25
17.25

Sub Total, Sewer Pipe

Quantity Amount

8,000 $
8,000 $
11,000 $
11,00c $
$

388,080.00
234,880.00
86,625-00
15s-925,00
867.510.00

Work
avement Removal and Replacement
oadway Crossing, Jack & Bore
ilway Crossing, Jack & Bore
egetated Areas, Replacement, Seeding & Sodding
tifity Relocation
sement, ROW Acquisition
raffic Control
emporary fencing, signage, traiters

SY
LF

424

LF

525

Acre

?,200
L00,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
100,000

Iq
LS
LS

IC

I(

ition

24,000

400
200

21 1,680.00

132.330,00

1,386.00

-L

100,000.00

00,00c.00

00,000.00

50,000.00

100,000.00

3,063,366.00

Sub Total, Site Work

umping Equipment
rimary Purnp, Derby WPCF, 30Hp @ 70 ft of head
ackaged Lift Station
Sub Total. Pumping Equipment

ea

125.000
1,000,000

315,000.00

2,520,000.00

2,835,000.00

Sub Total, Materials, Equipment, and Site Work

6,765,876.00

Contingency @ 15%
Cantingency @ 5%
sub Total, Contingency
al Requirements @ 10% of Construction Cost
its {EPA, State, local)

2,268,000.00

1,014,881.40

338,293.80

1,353,1 75.20

676,587.60

50,000

otal lstimated Frobable Construction Costs

50,oao.00
8,845,638.80

sAY 58,900,000

costs are extrapolated from RS Means 2010 cost data and adjusted for 201L costs by 5%.

PARAMETRIC CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Date: May 77,201L

Preliminary

Phase:

Derby-Ansonia Sewer lnterconnect


Ansonia, Conn.

Project:

Prepared

by:

Prime Engineering & Archilecture, lnc.

3000 Corporate Exchange Dr.


Columbus. Ohio 43231

PRIME Project No. Cl1002-02E

Option #2

Unit
LF
LF
cY
cY

Pipe
3.5-inch RCP Pipe

g,4'wide
ll, Gravel,4'wide
kfill, Satisfactory Fill, 4' wide

Unit Cost

38.5
23.5
6.25
L3..25

Sub Total, Sewer Pipe

Quantity Amount

8,000 $
8,000 $
11.000 $
11,000 $
$

388,080.00
236,880.00
86,625.00
155,925.00
867,510.00

Site Work

avement Removal and Replacement


Roadway Crossing, Jack & Eore

5Y

75

LF

42A

Railway Crossing, Jack & Bore

Itr

525
2,200
100,000

Areas, Replacement, Seeding & Sodding

Utility Relocation

Acre
L5

Easement, ROW Acquisition


Traffic Control
emporary fencing, signage, trailers
Demolition

100,000
100,000
50,000
100,000

LS
LS

L5
LS

11,200

Sub Total, Site Work

Pumping Equipment
Primary Pump, Derby WPCF, 30Hp @ 70 ft of head
ackaged Lift Station

125,000
1,000,000

ea
ea

Sub Total, Pumping Equipment


Sub Total, Materials, Equipment, and Site

107o

LS

158,760.00
132,300.00
1,940.40
100,000.00
100,000.00
1

00,000.00
50,000.00

00,000.00

1,801,400.40

2,520,000.00

2,835,000.00

31 5,000.00

5,503,910.40

of Construction Cost

local)

1,058,400.00

Work

Contingencv @ 15%
Contingency @ 5%
Sub Total. Contingency
al Requirements @
(FPA,State,

300 I
200 $
0.7 $
l.$
1$
1$
1$
L$

50,000

btal Estimated Probable Construction Costs

825,586.56

27 s,195.52

1,100,782.08

550,391.04

50,000.00

7,205,083.52

sAY 57,300,000

nit costs are extrapolated from

RS

Means 2010 cost daia and adjusted for 2011 costs by 5%.

PARAMETRIC CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Project:

Date: May 27,2071

Preliminary

Phase:

Derby-Ansonia Sewer lnterconnect


Ansonia, Conn.

Prepared

by:

Prime Engineering & Architecture, lnc.


3000 Corporate Exchaoge Dr.
Columbus, Ohio 43231

PRIME Project No. C11002-02E

Option #3
Sewer Pipe
1"5-inch RCP Pipe

Trenching. 4' wide


BacHill, Gravel, 4' wide
Backfi ll, Satisfactory Fill, 4' wide
Sub Total, Sewer Pipe

Unit
LF
LF
cY
cY

Unit Cost

27

23.5
6.2s
1L.75

Quantity Amount

8,500 $
8,500 $
12,500 $
12,500 $
$

28e,170.00
251,685.00
e8,437.50
177,187.50
816,480.00

Site Work

Pavement Removal and Replacement


Roadway Crossing, lack & Bore
Railway Crossing, Jack & Bore

Vegetated Areas, Replacement. Seeding & Sodding


Utility Relocation

SY

75

400

LF

470

300

LF

525

100

Acre

2,240

LS

100,000
100,000
100,000
s0,000
50,000

Fasement, ROW Acquisition


Traffic Control
emporary fencing, signage, trailers

L5

Demolition

L5

LS

lc

Sub Total, Site

1
1

Work

Pumping Equipment
Primary Pump, Derby WPCF, 30Hp @ 70 ft of head
Packaged Lift Station
Sub Total, Pumping Equipment

125.000
r.,000,000

ea
ea

Sub Total, Materials, Equipment, and Site

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

37,800.00
158,760.00
65,150.00
5,544.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
s0,000.00
50,000.00

m8,254.00

315,000.00
2,520,000.00
2,835,000.00

Work

4,319,734.00

647,960.10

Design Contingency @ 15%

struction Contingency @ 5%

Sub Total. Contingency

neral Requlrements @ 10% of Construction Cost

431,973.40

50,000

Perrnits {EPA, state, local)

215,986.70
863,946.80

otal Estimated Probable Construction Costs

50,000.00
5,665,654.20

sAY s5,700,000

Unit costs are extrapolated from

RS

Means 2010 cost data and adjusted for 2011 costs by 5%.

CIry
ANSONIA
'ffi{W1ffi
OF

iffi&
$trd

pg4piyy6y

CROSSING

ffi
RA]LWAY
CftOSSING

I[,i
Y
{

O
.:a
6N?

i5

PROPOSED INIERCONHTCT ROUT:S

)Rll\dEKrc3Si*hx
H,*rffi&E

DERBY-ANS0NIA SFTVER INTERC0NNECT

Pnsorea

er lql!r!.L

APPENDIX F
City of Ansonia / City of Derby Joint Meetings
March 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes
PROJECT:

Derby / Ansonia Interconnection Analysis Coordination

DATE:

March 14, 2012

TIME:

3:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m.

LOCATION:

City of Ansonia City Hall

ATTENDEES:
Mayor Anthony Staffieri, City of Derby
Ron Sill, City of Derby
Joseph Coppola, City of Derby
Lindsay King, City of Derby
Daniel Lawrence, Weston & Sampson
Anthony DeSimone, Weston & Sampson
Mayor James Della Volpe, City of Ansonia
Gary Merlone, City of Ansonia
Stephen Blume, City of Ansonia
Eileen Krugel, City of Ansonia
Peter Georgetti, UIC
Jay Jayanthan, UIC
Charles Corson UIC
Sindhu Natarajan, UIC
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
A. Attachment A Past Meeting Minutes
B. Attachment B Analysis Report Prepared by UIC on behalf of Analysis
MEETING MINUTES:
A. The meeting opened up with introductions by all parties. The meeting was called
for by the City of Derby to begin the discussions for the potential interconnection
with the City of Ansonia for treatment of wastewater from the City of Derby at the
City of Ansonias Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).
B. Weston and Sampson noted that they had been attempting for approximately three
months to schedule a meeting with CDM to discuss the potential Ansonia Derby
Interconnection. In April 2011, Weston & Sampson, CDM, and the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) met at the DEEP offices to
discuss the project. CDM was representing Ansonia at the meeting with DEEP.
Representatives from Ansonia indicated that they did not know about the meeting.

Page 1

Meeting Minutes
C. Weston & Sampson noted that at the meeting with DEEP, CDM noted that minor
upgrades to the Ansonia WPCF would most likely need to be completed to
eliminate hydraulic bottle necks and allow Derby to connect to the Ansonia WPCF.
CDM also noted that even with these upgrades Derby would still have to equalize
some of the flows. Representatives from Ansonia noted that they had just
completed the WPCF upgrade and did not expect to expand the WPCF again to
accept flows from Derby. UIC noted that Weston & Sampson had been talking to
the wrong consultant and that CDM was not the consultant for the City of Ansonia.
D. Weston & Sampson asked UIC to explain the analysis report which was prepared
for the City of Ansonia with regards to the potential interconnection. A copy of the
report had been provided to Mayor Staffieri who forwarded a copy to the WPCA.
A copy of the report is attached for reference in Attachment B.
E. UIC opened the discussion of the possible interconnection noting that the City of
Ansonia could take and treat all of the wastewater generated by the City of Derby as
noted by the flows on presented on Table of the Analysis Report. Weston &
Sampson noted that the analysis appeared to be performed for what was perceived
to be the current flows from both facilities and did not include Derbys additional
flows from growth and economic development. Weston & Sampson and Mr.
Lindsay King noted that the flows provided in the Analysis Report are not correct.
The Derby WPCF currently does 1.60 million gallons per day (MGD) on an annual
average.
F. UIC noted that they did not have any of the Derby flow data when they performed
their analysis.
G. The alternatives that were noted in the analysis report were discussed. Items that
were discussed included the following:
a. UIC assumed that the Derby would utilize the existing tankage at the WPCF
for equalization and pump to Ansonia at a controlled rate. Weston & Sampson
noted that if Derby were to shut down the WPCF and pump to Ansonia the
City of Derby wants to demolish the WPCF and utilize the property as part of
the main street re-development. Any equalization would be placed
underground and the pumping station moved to allow for economic
development of the site.
b. UIC assumed that the Derby pumping station to Ansonia would have some sort
of preliminary treatment as well as some sort of primary treatment. Weston &
Sampson noted that Derby intended to provide preliminary treatment at the
pumping station (screening and grit removal) and that flows would be pumped
into the Ansonia primary clarifiers thus bypassing the Ansonia WPCF
headworks which may have hydraulic bottle necks. However primary
treatment would not be provided since it would require double pumping,
facility operations and processing and disposal of primary sludge.
c. UIC discussed Option # 1, which included Ansonia accepting all of the Derby
flow by construction a sewer pump station and a 6-inch forcemain. The pump
station would pump off peak at 235 gallons per minute (gpm) so the Ansonia

Page 2

Meeting Minutes
WPCF would not be overloaded. Weston & Sampson noted that 235 gallons
gpm pumped continuously is only equal to 340,000 gallons per day (gpd). The
Derby WPCF does on average 1.60 MGD which is equal to 1,112 gpm with
peak flows during storms exceeding 10 MGD which is equal to 6,945 gpm.
What would happen to the remainder of the flow? UIC noted that the flow
would be equalized and stated that the alternative was concept plan. Weston &
Sampson again asked what would happen to the remainder of the flow?
Weston & Sampson has assumed that CT DEEP will not allow any overflows
under any conditions. UIC again noted that Derby could equalize the flow.
Weston and Sampson noted that Derby is anticipating pumping at least the
average day flow to Ansonia and possibly storing the remainder during peak
events. Ideally Derby would pump 7,000 to 9,000 gpm to Ansonia during peak
conditions. During wet weather events Derbys WPCF maxes out at 10 MGD
and can see sustained daily flows (two to four consecutive days) of 7 to 9
MGD. Weston & Sampson noted that Derby would like to know what peak
pumping rate could be accepted by the Ansonia facility. This would allow
Weston & Sampson to continue to work on the evaluation of the alternative to
pump to Ansonia.
d. UIC noted that Derby could remove up to 60% of the infiltration and inflow
(I/I) and thus have less equalization capacity and utilize a lower pumping rate
to Ansonia. Weston & Sampson noted that removing 60% of I/I would be very
costly and would take more than 5 years to complete. The City of Derby and
Weston & Sampson are working on the I/I issues within the sewer collection
system. Removal of 60% of I/I from a system is a high removal rate.
Typically systems see only 30 to 40% reduction in I/I. Even if I/I were
removed Derby would still likely have a peak flow of 4 to 5 MGD under peak
wet weather events.
H. After the options were discussed Weston & Sampson noted that the City of Derby
had already contracted with Weston & Sampson to conduct the interconnection
analysis as part of their Wastewater Facilities Planning process. The conceptual
analysis of the interconnection was specifically requested by CT DEEP to evaluate
the costs of upgrading the Derby WPCF versus interconnecting with the City of
Ansonia.
I. Weston & Sampson noted that they are approximately 80% complete on the Derby
Wastewater
Facilities
plan
and
have
established
storm
threshold/pumping/equalization curves in anticipation for how much peak flow
Ansonia can accept.
J. UIC noted that they do not have any of the Derby flow data and as such cannot
perform an analysis of the interconnection. Weston & Sampson responded that all
Ansonia needs to provide is the amount of peak flow they can take so that the
interconnection/storage analysis for Derby can be completed. UIC responded that
they cannot complete an analysis of the interconnection without the Derby flow
data. Again Weston & Sampson noted that UIC does not need this information to
complete how much peak capacity remains in the Ansonia WPCF, this information
can be calculated by a statistical review of the Ansonia WPCF DMRs. UIC noted
Page 3

Meeting Minutes
that they have not done any of this analysis because they were waiting for the
Valley Council of Governments to obtain a grant for the preliminary design of the
interconnection for both communities. Once this grant was obtained UIC would
complete the analysis of the interconnection for both communities. Weston &
Sampson noted that Derby had contracted with Weston & Sampson in 2010 to
complete this analysis. All that Derby needs from Ansonia is what the peak
remaining capacity at the Ansonia facility is. Is it 3,500 gpm? 4,000 gpm? 4,500
gpm? UIC noted that they did not know this information and again requested the
Derby flow data.
K. A representative of the Ansonia noted that Ansonia would not do any analysis on
the interconnection since it would be a significant cost to Ansonia. This is why
Ansonia was working VCOG to get a grant for the interconnection analysis.
Ansonia would then complete the analysis with the funding obtained from VCOG
on behalf of both communities.
L. Mayor Staffieri interjected that all parties should meet again in 30 days after
Ansonia has completed the analysis of its data so that the conceptual
interconnection analysis by Derby could move forward. Mayor Della Volpe agreed
with Mayor Staffieri. All parties present also agreed. It was also agreed that Mr.
DeSimone of Weston & Sampson and Mr. Georgetti of UIC would coordinate the
next meeting date. The next meeting would be a technical working meeting on the
flow data and storage requirements. Both the City of Derby and the City of
Ansonia would bring the appropriate information to the meeting for a discussion of
how the flows would work between the Derby WPCF and the Ansonia WPCF.
Weston & Sampson will send a memorandum to UIC prior to the meeting to
establish what data is needed from the City of Ansonia and what data would be
provided by the City of Derby.
M. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Note to Attendees:
Weston & Sampson believes these minutes accurately reflect the general content of what transpired at this meeting, but
do not represent a verbatim recording. If there are any omissions or corrections, please contact Weston & Sampson.
Unless notified in writing to the contrary within 7 days, we will assume that all in attendance concur with the accuracy.
Prepared by:
cc:

Anthony DeSimone / Daniel Lawrence Weston & Sampson


All present

Please submit any corrections or changes that you would like incorporated into these meeting minutes by no later than
Wednesday March 28, 2012. Please e-mail corrections to desimona@wseinc.com.

Page 4

Attachment A

Meeting Minutes
PROJECT:

Derby / Ansonia Interconnection Analysis Coordination

DATE:

August 10, 2010

TIME:

10:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

LOCATION:

CT DEPs Office at 79 Elm Street

ATTENDEES:
Denis Greci, CTDEP
Joe Higgins, CTDEP
Stela Marusin, CTDEP
Steve Seigal, CDM (representing Ansonia)
Chris Wester, Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. (representing Derby)
Dan Lawrence, Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. (representing Derby)
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
A. Attachment A Ansonia WPCF Flow Data provided by CDM
MEETING MINUTES:
A. Mr. Seigal provided a summary of the flows to the Ansonia WWTF, which are
summarized below:
a. Design Capacity of 3.5 MGD.
b. Peak Design Flow of 12 MGD, with limitations related to the disinfection
system.
c. Present system flows are summarized on the attached document provided by
CDM.
B. Mr. Seigal explained that the Ansonia is presently about 99% sewered. During the
previous planning CDM had questioned whether Ansonia wanted to lower their
design flows. Ansonia decided to hold their permitted flow of 3.5 MGD as their
design flow.
C. Mr. Seigal indicated that Ansonia is interested in accepting flows from Derby to
offset the financial impact of the recent upgrade to the WWTF on Ansonias users.
Mr. Seigal suggested this could be done by a pump station and force main to direct
flow from Derby to Ansonia WWTF.
D. Mr. Wester provided a summary of Derbys WWTF flows, which are summarized
below:
a. Design Capacity of 3.5 MGD.
b. Annual Average Daily Flow of 1.6 MGD.
c. Peak Design Flow of 10 MGD. The influent pump station limits the peak flow
to the WWTF. Actual peak flows to the WWTF could be 10 to 13 MGD.

Page 1

Meeting Minutes

E. A general discussion was held on the possibility of eliminating the Derby WWTF
and pumping flows to the Ansonia WWTF. The following comments were
provided at the meeting:
a. CTDEP indicated that they would not object to Ansonia accepting the flow
from Derby if the Ansonia WWTF could handle the additional flows.
Upgrades could be completed at the Ansonia WWTF, if needed. CTDEP also
stated that Ansonia and Derby would need to agree on the concepts to move
this forward. During the preparation of the Derby Wastewater Facility Plan,
Derby can review the costs associated with pumping to the Ansonia WWTF
and the costs associated with upgrading the Derby WWTF. Ansonia would
have to provide the financial impacts to Derby for treating the Derby
wastewater at the Ansonia WWTF. Weston & Sampson agreed to review this
with the Derby WPCA.
b. CTDEP indicated that an updated evaluation of the Ansonia WWTF would be
needed to verify the capacity of the WWTF and what additional loading the
facility could handle with and without upgrades for both the current and
planned flows from both communities. CDM agreed to discuss this with the
Ansonia WPCA.
c. In combining the flows into the Ansonia WWTF consideration should be given
to using either the outfall from the Ansonia WWTF or piping the effluent from
Ansonia to the outfall from the Derby WWTF. Phosphorus removal would not
be required if the outfall from the Derby facility were to be used. The need to
pump the effluent from the Ansonia WWTF may not be needed since the
Ansonia WWTF is approximately 15 to 20 feet higher than the Derby WWTF.
d. CTDEP suggested that Derby talk with Shelton to see if any flow can be
diverted to the Shelton system. This could be useful if all the flows cannot be
sent to Ansonia. Weston & Sampson agreed to review this with the Derby
WPCA. Weston & Sampson noted that they would also be sending letters to
the surrounding communities to see if they were interested in sending any
flows to Derby.
e. Mr. Seigal indicated that Ansonia could not accept the peak flows from Derby.
Derby would need to store peak flows and pump at a lower / controlled rate.
The exact rate and amount of storage would be determined by Weston &
Sampson during the development of the Derby Wastewater Facility Plan. Mr.
Siegal noted that the Ansonia would provide Weston & Sampson with a peak
flow pumping rate that could be accepted under all conditions at the Ansonia
WWTF.
F. A general discussion on how Ansonia and Derby would work together was held
with a couple possibilities suggested:

Page 2

Meeting Minutes
a. Derby could be a customer of Ansonia and receive bills on flows pumped to
Ansonia.
b. Ansonia and Derby could become a regional facility. This would be similar to
Colchester/East Hampton Joint Facilities.
G. All agreed that this discussion would need the involvement of Ansonia and Derby
and would take some time to sort out if any of the possible options would make
sense for both communities.
H. CTDEP requested that Weston & Sampson speak with Derby and submit a
modified scope of services, costs, and related forms to include the evaluation of the
interconnection with the elimination of the Derby WWTF and pumping to the
Ansonia WWTF and/or Shelton WWTF into the Wastewater Facility Planning
Project as an additional alternative.
I. The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Note to Attendees:
Weston & Sampson believes these minutes accurately reflect the general content of what transpired at this meeting, but
do not represent a verbatim recording. If there are any omissions or corrections, please contact Weston & Sampson.
Unless notified in writing to the contrary within 7 days, we will assume that all in attendance concur with the accuracy.
Prepared by:
cc:

Daniel Lawrence Weston & Sampson


All present

Please submit any corrections or changes that you would like incorporated into these meeting minutes by no later than
Tuesday August 17, 2010. Please e-mail corrections to lawrencd@wseinc.com.

Page 3

Attachment B

ANALYSIS REPORT
DERBY WPCF, DERBY, CT
The City of Derby, CT has expressed a need to adequately treat the sanitary flows generated
within the sewer system limits without expending a large amount of funds on upgrading the
existing Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). In doing so, the City must look at several
options for handling not only the existing sanitary flows, but flows that are projected to increase
over the next twenty years. For the purposes of this report, the option of transferring the Citys
wastewater flows to the Ansonia WPCF will be analyzed.
The primary concern will be the capacity of the Ansonia WPCF to handle the increased flows
from Derby. The Ansonia facility is permitted to handle and treat a design flow of 3.5 million
gallons per day (MGD), with a peak capacity of 7.0 MGD. The Derby WPCF has a design
capacity of 3.5 MGD with a peak flow capacity of 9.1 MGD. Both facilities daily flow records
over a three-year period were analyzed to determine an average daily flow and a maximum
daily flow. This information is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Daily Flows from Plant Data
Derby WPCF design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacity 9.1 MGD*
Year
2009
2010
2011

Average Daily Flow (MGD)


2.21
3.01
2.91

Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)


6.41
8.08
5.30

*Data taken from Facilities Planning Study, 1997.

Ansonia WPCF design flow capacity 3.5 MGD, peak flow capacity 7.0 MGD
Year
2009
2010
2011

Average Daily Flow (MGD)


1.72
2.25
1.80

Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)


5.08
5.73
3.50

As can be seen, the maximum daily flows from Derby WPCF, in addition to the Ansonia flows,
will exceed the Ansonia WPCF peak flow capacity. Therefore, the flows from Derby must be
restricted in some manner so as not to exceed the capacity of the Ansonia facility. This can be
accomplished by releasing the flows from Derby at a controlled rate which will not adversely
affect the treatment capacity at Ansonia. There are several options to consider:
Option #1: Store the Derby sanitary flows at the Derby WPCF and pump them through a
force main to Ansonia at a controlled rate. The existing treatment structures would be used
as storage/equalization basins. Storing the sanitary sewage at Derby would entail removing
the treatment equipment from the existing Primary Settling tanks, Aeration Basins, and
Clarifiers and using these structures strictly for storage/equalization. Two (2) Primary
Settling Tanks have a combined volume of 215,424 gallons, 3 Aeration Basins have a
combined volume of 1.34 million gallons (MG), and 2 Clarifiers have a combined volume
of 423,000 gallons. The total volume of daily sewage that can be stored is nearly 2 million
gallons. Attachment 1 presents an overhead image of the existing WPCF showing the
locations of these structures. Some form of primary treatment, such as bar screens or
comminutors, would be required to prevent the entry of larger solids through the
equalization facilities. This treatment is capable of removing approximately 60% of the
1

solids in the influent stream. The sewage could then be pumped via force main at a
controlled rate to the Ansonia facility. The length of the force main, approximately 8,000
linear feet between the facilities, would require sewage lift stations along the route to
maintain system pressure. A 6-inch, poly-vinyl chloride force main could pump the sewage
to Ansonia and release the flows at approximately 235 gallons per minute. The pumping
from Derby could be timed such that during low treatment flow periods, 12AM to 5AM for
example, the Ansonia WPCF would not be overburdened by the additional sewage flows in
terms of capacities and biological loadings.
Option #2: Install a sewer connector between the Derby and Ansonia WPCFs. A 15-inch
or larger reinforced concrete sewer interconnect of approximately 8,000 linear feet could
serve as a storage facility, storing at least 74,000 gallons of sewage until it can be released
into the Ansonia facility. The flow would be a controlled release to minimize the influent
affect on the Ansonia facility. This option could reduce the need to store as much flow in
the Derby facility and allow some form of primary treatment, such as settling, to occur
before the flows are pumped to Ansonia. The Primary Settling Tanks can remove as much
as 65% of suspended solids in the influent. In doing so, the treatment load at Ansonia could
be reduced. The interconnect system may require a pumping station at the Derby WPCF to
pump the sewage through the interconnect, with lift stations to maintain the flow within the
pipe. An alternative would be to install a pump station to pump the sewage from the Derby
facility, install the interconnect with sufficient slope to maintain flow, and construct a lift
station just prior to the Ansonia facility to pump flows into that WPCF.
Each of the previous options is based on the assumption that infiltration and inflow into the
Derby sewer system contributes to the maximum daily flow rate. Infiltration into a sanitary
sewer system occurs when rainfall events introduce storm water into the system through
deficiencies in piping, structures, and connections. Inflow into a sanitary system is due to
improper connections of roof drains, yard drains, etc., that are connected to the sanitary
system. Inflow connections introduce storm water into the sanitary system that should
otherwise be directed through the storm sewer systems. In many municipalities across the
country, these connections are illegal. An infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis is discussed later
in this report. Option #3 addresses the actions necessary to reduce I/I in the Derby system.
Option #3: To reduce I/I in the Derby sanitary system and thus reduce the maximum flows
that occur during wet weather events, the entire sanitary sewer system should be replaced or
lined with cured-in-place (CIP) pipe linings. The areas of the sanitary system that have not
been studied should be included in a broad program using closed-circuit televising (CCTV),
smoke testing, and dye testing to identify sources of inflow and infiltration. CCTV will
identify those segments of sewer pipe and structures (e.g. manholes) that must be replaced
due to condition, and those segments that are candidates for CIP lining. Both methods will
significantly reduce infiltration into the system. Smoke and dye testing will identify
sources of inflow that should be removed from the sanitary system. A comprehensive
program to eliminate I/I sources would reduce the maximum flows in the system by at least
60%. Once the flows have been significantly reduced, then an analysis of the total flows
required to be treated by the WCPF will be significantly low.
Implementing a comprehensive I/I reduction program, removing inflow sources and
replacing and/or rehabilitating the system piping, will reduce the capacity required for
storage/equalization and reduce the sanitary flows to Ansonia WPCF. Other advantages
include reduced capacity loads on Ansonia WPCF with reduced operating, maintenance,
and replacement costs at both WPCFs.

Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
The City of Derby has previously conducted I/I studies in some portions of the city to
determine the sources of I/I and the effects on the existing sanitary sewer system. These
studies have shown that there is a direct contribution from I/I to sanitary flows in the
system. The studies have identified direct sources of inflow within the system resulting
from roof and yard drain connections. CCTV in these areas has identified pipe segments
and structures in poor condition that allow infiltration. A wastewater flow analysis
completed by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., in September, 2011, showed a peak
combined inflow of 9-10 MGD and a peak infiltration rate of 3-3.5 MGD. A 60% reduction
of these figures would result in a projected peak infiltration of 1.4 MGD and peak inflow of
4 MGD. This memorandum is included as Attachment 2.
Reducing the inflow figures to nearly zero by eliminating all sources of inflow would
greatly improve the minimum flow rates that would need to be sent to the Ansonia WPCF.
This would result in the following:
1.
2.

A reduction in the minimum required and peak required treatment capacities at


Ansonia WPCF.
A reduction in the untreated flows to Derby WPCF equalization basins, thereby
reducing the required operating and maintenance costs for the City of Derby.

A comparison was made between the peak flows to Derby WPCF and historical rainfall
data for the same period to see if a correlation could be established between high peak flows
and above normal rainfall events. This correlation is useful in supporting the previous
studies conclusions that I/I into Derbys wastewater sewers is contributing to high peak
flows to the plant. For the months analyzed where the plants peak flow capacities were
exceeded, rainfall records show that for June and July 2009, and March 2010, the rainfall
totals exceeded the area averages by over 50%. The high rainfall amounts might indicate
that high I/I rates were a contributing factor in the plants peak capacity being overtaxed.
Attachment 3 presents the correlation data between average WPCF plant inflow data and
rainfall amounts for Derby.
An I/I study produced for the City of Derby in 2007 showed that I/I volumes into the
sanitary sewer system can be as high as 1.4 MGD. Reducing 60% of the I/I into the system
would result in average daily flows approaching 1.2 MGD and peak flows nearing 3.2
MGD. It is our understanding that the City of Derby is currently conducting another I/I
study of the sanitary sewer system. Once the results of that study are published, the
correlations between sanitary flows and rainfall events can then be reevaluated and more
accurate measurements of average and peak flows can be obtained.
Projected Growth
A Technical Memorandum issued by Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., September, 2011,
to the City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority, analyzed projected wastewater
flows through 2020. The memorandum looked at sewer billing records from 2006 to 2010
to determine the existing sanitary flow rates. The memorandum then analyzed future flow
rates from 3 categories of parcels that are projected by the City for
development/redevelopment. The parcels were further categorized as either inside or
outside the sewer limits. The memorandum is included as Attachment 2.
The projected growth as stated in the document through 2020 shows an increase of 0.77
MGD in average daily flows. The billing record review shows an average daily flow of
1.61 MGD. The projected average daily flow for the year 2020, should all of the
3

development/redevelopment occur as planned, will be 2.38 MGD. Any improvements or


modifications required to direct sanitary flows to the Ansonia WPCF must include the
projected sanitary flows in the design to provide sufficient capacity for growth.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The flow data from the two WPCFs indicates that, if the flow from Derby is taken to
Ansonia without a controlled equalization process and flow rate, the combined flow for 180
consecutive days will exceed 90% of the present average design flow rate of Ansonia
WPCF. This will trigger a requirement for the Ansonia WPCF as stated below:
Section 4(L) of Ansonia WPCFs NPDES Permit issued on June 27, 2001states:
When the arithmetic mean of the average daily flow from the POTW for the previous 180
days exceeds 90% of the design flow rate, the permittee shall develop and submit for the
review of the Commissioner within one year, a plan to accommodate future increases in
flow to the plant. This plan shall include a schedule for completing any recommended
improvements and a plan for financing the improvements.
Additionally, the treatment processes at the Ansonia facility may not be able to support
untreated sanitary flows from Derby. Therefore, a process step of equalization, along with
primary treatment, must be instituted to allow the processes at Ansonia to effectively treat
the increased sanitary flow. Using the existing treatment structures as storage/equalization
basins, while removing all treatment equipment from these structures, will allow the City of
Derby to appreciably reduce operating costs for this facility. Although minimum operations
would still be required at Derby WPCF, for example, monitoring of pumping and screening
operations, the City of Derby can budget for lower operating costs and lower maintenance
costs for this plant.
An active program to reduce the I/I contributing to the Derby sanitary sewer system should
be implemented throughout the entire system. This program could reduce the I/I
contributions by at least 60%, thereby significantly reducing the flows from the City of
Derby to the Ansonia WPCF.
Feasibility Study
If the project as described is approved, the City of Derby should initiate and complete a
comprehensive feasibility study, or a preliminary engineering report, to analyze each option
as presented for practicality, cost/benefit, constructability, and socio-economic impact. The
purpose of such a study is to analyze all options to determine the best in terms of how much
will it cost to construct, what will be the long term benefits, how will the option affect
future growth, and which will provide the best results. In order to accomplish such a study,
the data collection effort should include the following:
1. Site investigation. Site investigations will include a site visit by the design team,
interviews with personnel familiar with the project, and an understanding by the design
team of the clients requirements. The site visit will provide the design team with an
assessment of the existing conditions for each option, the limitations and constraints of
each option, valuable information from the owners/operators of each WPCF, and
background information to provide an overall scope of the project design. Site
investigation will also include:
geotechnical investigations to determine the composition and stability of the
existing soils,
topographic surveys to provide a visual picture of the land surface, existing utilities,
structures, appurtenances, and other possible impediments to each option,
right-of-way and utility easement surveys,
4

obtaining and reviewing existing utility plans,


closed-circuit televising of existing sewer segments,
manhole and structure investigations,
smoke and dye testing.

2. Environmental investigation. The environmental phase of the feasibility study will


address cultural, historic, and environmental factors in the design process. Following
the guidelines as set forth in the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA), each
option will be assessed as to its impact on local and state environmental, archeological,
cultural, and historical assets for both the City of Derby and City of Ansonia. CEPA
provides for specific guidance on for conducting Environmental Impact Evaluations
(EIE), which are investigative documents that look at how the project will affect the
local and state environmental resources, air and water quality, noise, socio-economic
assets, historical/archeological and national landmarks, and cultural impacts. The EIE
process also provides the public with a vehicle for commenting on the project and
having their concerns taken in account prior to construction. The Consultant should
research all available federal, state, and local regulatory data concerning both WPCFs
operations, permitting, violations, and corrective actions, if taken.
3. Concept design investigation. The concept design investigation phase begins with a
detailed analysis of all available historical documentation, plant flow data, treatment
and laboratory data, as-built drawings, previous studies, and engineering reports
concerning the existing facilities. At this stage of the feasibility study each option is
thoroughly examined in regards to size, equipment, location, materials, constructability,
and probable cost estimates.
4. Report phase, conclusions/recommendations. Once the design investigation is complete,
all the data collected will be compiled and designed into a feasibility report for
presentation to the client. The report will detail all actions taken from each
investigation phase and present findings and conclusions, and a preferred option, giving
the relevant justification for and against each option. The preferred option will be
recommended based on costs, benefits, ease of construction, limited impact on the
community and environmental resources, and value.

Att (3):

1. Figure 1. Aerial View of Derby WPCF


2. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Wastewater Facilities Plan, Weston &
Sampson Engineers, Inc., September, 2011.
3. Data Correlation Table for Rainfall and I/I, Derby WPCF

List of References
1. Technical Memorandum to the City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority,
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., Sept. 2011.
2. Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 2009 through February 2011,
Derby WPCF, City of Derby, Conn.
3. Sanitary Sewer System Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, Hawthorne Avenue Watershed.
Milone & MacBroom, Inc., MMI #2165-01-12, July 2007.
4. Facilities Plan, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Sanitary Sewerage System. City of
Derby, Connecticut Water Pollution Control Authority, Semi-Final Draft. Cascio
Bechir Engineers. July 1997.
5. Construction Plans. City of Derby, Alterations and Additions to the Water Pollution
Control Plant Pump Stations and Sanitary Sewerage System. Cascio Bechir Engineers.
August, 1998.
6. Influent and Effluent Qualitative Data Sheets, January 2009 through April 2011,
Ansonia WPCF, City of Ansonia, Conn.

Attachment 1
Figure 1. Aerial View of Derby WPCF

AERATION BASINS

PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS

CLARIFIERS

Attachment 2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Wastewater Facilities Plan, Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.,
September, 2011.

Attachment 3
Data Correlation Table for Rainfall and I/I, Derby WPCF

DerbyWPCFFlowandRainfallData
Mon/Yr

Max

Flow(MGD)
Min

Jan09
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09
Aug09
Sep09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09
YrAvg

4.10
3.60
3.40
6.40
7.50
8.90
9.80
7.00
3.40
8.10
7.30
7.40
6.41

0.80
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.50
0.80
0.90
0.69

1.72
1.77
2.40
2.10
1.98
3.09
2.57
2.25
1.47
2.31
1.92
2.93
2.21

1.74
1.05
1.41
2.79
3.95
6.57
6.22
4.17
2.07
6.65
2.22
5.37

Jan10
Feb10
Mar10
Apr10
May10
Jun10
Jul10
Aug10
Sep10
Oct10
Nov10
Dec10
YrAvg

6.40
10.00
10.00
10.00
7.10
5.70
7.80
7.50
8.10
9.30
7.30
7.70
8.08

0.80
0.80
1.30
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.70
0.70
1.00
0.62

2.44
4.69
8.10
6.10
1.54
1.28
1.35
1.41
1.88
2.42
2.38
2.54
3.01

2.75
3.24
8.39
1.16
2.69
3.46
4.82
4.1
2.5
5.87
3.29
4.94

Jan11
Feb11
YrAvg

3.10
7.50
5.30

0.90
0.80
0.85

2.04
3.78
2.91

3.3**
3.67**

Design
Avg

6.59

0.72

2.71

Avg

Rainfall
inches*

*takenfromNCDCrainfalldata
forStevensenDamraingage5.5mi.WNWofDerby/Ansonia

ExceedsDerbyWPCFdesignflowcapacityof3.5MGD(1997)
ExceedsDerbyWPCFpeakflowcapacityof9.1MGD(1997)

RainfallMonthlyTotals

Mon/Yr

inches*

Jan09
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09
Aug09
Sep09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09

1.74
1.05
1.41
2.79
3.95
6.57
6.22
4.17
2.07
6.65
2.22
5.37

Jan10
Feb10
Mar10
Apr10
May10
Jun10
Jul10
Aug10
Sep10
Oct10
Nov10
Dec10

2.75
3.24
8.39
1.16
2.69
3.46
4.82
4.1
2.5
5.87
3.29
4.94

Jan11
Feb11

3.3**
3.67**

*takenfromNCDCrainfalldata
forStevensenDamraingage5.5mi.WNWofDerby/Ansonia

ExceedsDerbyWPCFdesignflowcapacityof3.5MGD
ExceedsDerbyWPCFpeakflowcapacityof9.1MGD
SeeTable1.DerbyWPCFFlowDataTable

**RegionalClimateCenterstatetotals

APPENDIX F
City of Ansonia / City of Derby Joint Meetings
October 15, 2012 Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes
MUNCIPALITY:

City of Derby Water Pollution Control Authority

DATE:

October 15, 2012

TIME:

9:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m.

LOCATION:

Connecticut DEEP Offices Room 2A

ATTENDEES:
Lindsay King, City of Derby
Brain Capozzi, City of Ansonia
Joe Maffeo, City of Ansonia
Jim Della Volpe, City of Ansonia (Mayor)
Howard Madigosky, City of Ansonia
Jay Jayanthan, United International Corporation
David Kozman, HDR
Sindhu Natarajan, United International Corporation
Peter Georgetti, United International Corporation
Dennis Greci, CT DEEP
Stela Marusin, CT DEEP
Joseph Higgins, CT DEEP
Daniel Lawrence, Weston & Sampson
Anthony DeSimone, Weston & Sampson
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
A. Meeting Handouts
MEETING MINUTES:
A. The meeting opened up with introductions by all parties and moved onto the
discussions of the possible Derby-Ansonia Interconnection. Weston & Sampson
and Derby noted that they were unaware that the City of Ansonia was invited to the
meeting. Derby noted that if they had been informed that the City of Ansonia was
attending the meeting they would have had members of the WPCA and possibly
Mayor Staffieri attend the meeting as well.
B. The 20-year flows for the City of Derby were discussed. It was noted that under
the current flows from both communities there would be a flow deficit of 8.5 million
gallons and under the 20-year flow conditions there would be a deficit of 4.9 million
gallons. This value assumes that Ansonia will be able to remove approximately
3.0 million gallons of peak I&I as reported in their wastewater facilities plan.
C. It was noted that approximately 8.0 million gallons of storage would be required at
the Derby WPCF site to make the interconnection feasible unless Ansonia
upgraded the WPCF to increase the peak hydraulic capacity. Derby indicated that

Page 1

Meeting Minutes
it would be willing to provide screenings and grit removal at the interconnection
pumping station.
D. It was noted that Derby is in the process of conducting an SSES study to identify
how much of the peak I&I can be removed and what are the associated costs. It
was agreed by all parties that the goal of SSES studies is to remove 50% of the I&I
but realistically only 30% of the I&I can typically be removed.
E. HDR asked the following questions to the City of Derby:
1.

How are peak flows handled at the WPCF? Derby responded that the
WPCF process is modified to operate in a Step Feed mode. Utilizing this
mode of operation allows the WPCF to treat the peak flows without
overloading the secondary clarifiers. Many treatment facilities within the
country operate in this manner.

2.

Is the City of Derby permitted to overflow the WPCF? No overflows are


currently permitted at the Derby WPCF. DEEP acknowledged that the
WPCF does not have any permitted overflows and flows must remain in the
system/be treated under all conditions.

3.

What is the capacity of the influent pumping station at the WPCF? The
influent pumping station has a capacity of 10.0 MGD.

4.

Would the City of Derby consider keeping the WPCF and treating excess
flows during heavy events? Derby noted that if the interconnection were to
occur the Derby WPCF would be eliminated/demolished and underground
storage facilities (approximately 8.0 MGD) would be provided to store the
excess I&I. Realistically Derby would prefer to utilize approximately 1.0
MGD of storage due to operational and odor concerns. To utilize 1.0 MGD
of storage Derby would need to reduce its I&I significantly and Ansonia
would need to increase the Ansonia WPCF peak hydraulic capacity.

5.

Once the I&I is identified will both public and private sources of I&I be
removed? Both public and private sources will be identified and the cost
effective I&I will be targeted for removal. The infiltration is not as much of a
concern as the inflow. During rain events the response time at the WPCF
is on the order of minutes and becomes a lag issue. During heavy events
the inflow can lag in the system for days.

F. The timetable for the I&I removal was discussed. Ansonia noted that they had
completed several major lining projects over the past few years. Derby noted that
I&I removal would be a priority, however the WPCA budget currently funds the
collection system so the I&I removal would have to be balance with other needs
and available funding.
G. It was agreed by all parties that it was not realistic to assume that Derby would be
able to remove enough I&I over the next 10 years to reduce the storage volume
from 8 to 1 million gallons. Derby noted that a realistic timetable could be
established once the SSES was completed in 2014, but for the current purposes
the interconnection was not feasible within the next 10 years and the Derby WPCA

Page 2

Meeting Minutes
has more pressing needs, mostly notably the Roosevelt Drive Wastewater
Pumping Station and the Headworks/Solids Handling Systems at the WPCF. This
pumping station currently overflows during peak events and the City is in the
process of replacing the station. The Headworks and Solids Handling Systems at
the WPCF are over 30 years old and in need of replacement so that the WPCF can
continue to maintain compliance with its effluent requirements.
H. The possibility of shedding a portion of the flow from Derby to Ansonia was
discussed. The following two options were noted:

I.

1.

Fountain Lake Expansion - Approximately 90,000 gpd (per the City of


Derby Economic Development Office) of additional flow. The OPM has this
flow planned to go to Ansonia. This project is anticipated within the next 10
to 15 years.

2.

East Derby Pumping Station Currently a siphon station off of Route 34


that accepts 1/3 of all flow in the City. The City is planning to replace the
siphon with a Pumping Station in the next 10 to 15 years to improve the
collection system hydraulics in the event that I&I remediation is not cost
effective.

Derby noted that the cost implications to operating and maintaining the collection
system were too substantial to consider shedding a major portion of the flow.
From Derbys perspective the interconnection is an all or nothing scenario.

J. The Derby Wastewater Facilities Planning project was discussed. It was noted
that an I&I metering program was conducted as part of the WWFP and the
impacted sections of the collection system were noted. These areas are being
investigated as part of the SSES.
K. The Derby WPCF analysis as part of the WWPF was discussed. No major
process improvements were necessary within the next 10 years. The Derby
WPCF is currently operating within all of its permitted parameters. Improvements
need to be made to the influent pumping station, headworks facilities, and the
solids handling facilities. These improvements need to be implemented within the
next 3 years due to the age and condition of the equipment.
L. Derby asked Ansonia if they would consider increasing the capacity at the Ansonia
WPCF to accept the flows from Derby. Ansonia has never provided Derby with a
value as to how much flow it can accept. Based on the review of the DMRs there
is a substantial flow deficit at the Ansonia WPCF when both facilities are
combined.
M. Derby also noted that the cost sharing implications of the interconnection have
never been provided. Ansonia noted that Derby should consider that they would
be a customer to Ansonia. Derby noted that the cost sharing and user cost
implications information still needs to be provided so that the cost implications to
the Derby users can be identified.
N. Derby noted that they are done with their WWFP and would not be conducting
anymore analysis on the interconnection. Ansonia needs to investigate the

Page 3

Meeting Minutes
possibility of expanding the Ansonia WPCF. Based on the DMRs the Ansonia
WPCF does not have the capacity for the interconnection. Derby does not want to
limit the potential economic development in the City due to insufficient capacity at
the Ansonia WPCF. Flexibility for future flows from Derby would need to be
provided.
O. The possibility of forming a regional WPCF similar to the GNWPCA was discussed.
DEEP noted that if the two communities formed a regional WPCF DEEP would
provide an additional 5% of grant money for regionalization capital projects.
Ansonia noted that they would prefer to have Derby as a customer and not a
member of a regional WPCA.
P. DEEP noted that Ansonia needs to decide what it wants to do for its end of the
interconnection analysis. Derby has invested a substantial amount of time and
funds into the interconnection analysis as part of its WWFP. To keep the
interconnection from becoming a dead-end issue, Ansonia needs to evaluate its
WPCF and the cost sharing implications. Ansonia needs to provide how much flow
Derby can send both now and in the future after process modifications have been
made. Ansonia also needs to provide the cost sharing and cost implications with
Derby so that Derby can assess the financial impacts on its rate payers from the
interconnection.
Q. Mr. Greci from DEEP closed the meeting by noting that Derby could finalize and
submit the WWFP with the Derby-Ansonia Interconnection to be consisted at a
future date outside of the WWFP. Mr. Greci also instructed Derby to include in the
regionalization portion of the WWFP a recommendation that both Derby and
Ansonias WPCAs would form a subcommittee which would meet annually to
discuss each other status, systems and the possibility of the interconnection. Mr.
Greci stressed the need for both communities to maintain and keep lines of
communication open.
Note to Attendees:
Weston & Sampson believes these minutes accurately reflect the general content of what transpired at this
meeting, but do not represent a verbatim recording. If there are any omissions or corrections, please contact
Weston & Sampson. Unless notified in writing to the contrary within 7 days, we will assume that all in
attendance concur with the accuracy.
Prepared by:
cc:

Anthony DeSimone Weston & Sampson


All present

Please submit any corrections or changes that you would like incorporated into these meeting minutes by no
later than December 18, 2012. Please e-mail corrections to desimona@wseinc.com.

Page 4

City of Derby, Connecticut

Table 8-1: Ansonia and Derby WWTF Peak Flows


Month

Ansonia Peak
Flow (MGD)

Derby Peak
Flow (MGD)

Total Peak
Flow (MGD)

Ansonia WPCF Excess


Capacity (MGD)

January 2009

2.7

4.1

6.8

5.2

February 2009

2.4

3.6

7.0

5.0

March 2009

3.1

3.4

6.5

5.5

April 2009

2.7

6.4

9.1

2.9

May 2009

2.2

7.5

9.7

2.3

June 2009

2.4

8.9

11.3

0.7

July 2009

1.7

9.8

11.5

0.5

August 2009

2.0

7.0

9.0

3.0

September 2009

1.5

3.4

4.9

7.1

October 2009

2.2

8.1

10.3

1.7

November 2009

2.0

7.3

9.3

2.7

December 2009

2.1

7.4

9.5

2.5

January 2010

1.5

6.4

7.9

4.1

February 2010

4.2

>10.0

14.2

-2.2

March 2010

10.5

>10.0

20.5

-8.5

April 2010

8.9

>10.0

18.9

-6.9

May 2010

5.2

7.1

12.3

-0.3

June 2010

1.8

5.7

7.5

4.5

July 2010

1.7

7.8

9.5

2.5

August 2010

2.0

7.5

9.5

2.5

September 2010

1.6

8.1

9.7

2.3

October 2010

2.2

9.3

11.5

0.5

AVERAGE

3.0

7.2

10.3

1.7

Wastewater Facilities Plan


August 2012

City of Derby, Connecticut

Table 8-2: Current Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows
Flow Condition

Ansonia
Flow (MGD)

Derby Flow
(MGD)

Total Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WWTF
Excess Capacity
(MGD)

Annual
Average

1.8

1.6

3.4

0.10

Maximum Day

10.5

10.0

20.5

-8.5

Table 8-3: 20-Year Flow Conditions Ansonia and Derby combined Flows
Flow Condition

Ansonia
Flow (MGD)

Derby Flow
(MGD)

Total Flow
(MGD)

Ansonia WWTF
Excess Capacity
(MGD)

Annual
Average

2.2

2.4

4.6

-1.10

Maximum Day

7.4

9.5

16.9

-4.90

Table 8-4: Required Storage Volumes


Pumping Rate (gpm)

Pumping Rate (MGD)

Storage Volume (gal.)

3,000

4.3

8,027,500

4,000

5.8

3,410,000

5,000

7.2

1,766,667

6,000

8.6

715,833

7,000

10.1

Wastewater Facilities Plan


August 2012