DDW-2024-011800

J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Foothills Project Review
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 11:29 AM
To: Ryker Ogden <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rianna Howard <[e-mail]>, Curtis Nielson <[e-mail]>, Kjori Shelley
<[e-mail]>
Ryker,
Thanks for sending this.
I have a few questions as I just perused the drawings and submission
1) Regarding the location, elevation, and hydraulic modeling related to this new tan,. In the Master Plan that was
completed in 2023, the modeling scenarios for Peak Day Demand (required minimum pressure of 40 psi) and Peak
Instantaneous Demand (required minimum pressure of 30 psi) only showed figures that showed < 40 psi at the tank site
and <120 psi at other points in the system, but didn't really give tabular output of the pressures for those scenarios. Now
that a new tank is being proposed, has this been remodeled based on a new elevation and if it is similar, can you provide
the actual model output table pressures to ensure this water system meets those requirements?
2) The drawings do not appear to include a full tank design, just a basic civil layout and a cross section. For a full tank
review, you should review R309-545 attached and ensure all of the appropriate design details and information are
included in the plans, which may entail:
Ladder details (exterior and interior)
Safety railings
Hatch details
Slopes for roof and floor for drainage
air vents
Overflow design, outfall and discharge details and location
Even if this is going to be a separate contractor, you should review those plans to ensure they fully meet the requirements
of R309-545 and they also need to be submitted to me.
3) The temporary tank needs to also show similar details as described above and it needs to be certified to be
ANSI/NSF61 certified for drinking water.
4) Plans that are submitted for review should be final and ready for bidding/construction which also means they should be
stamped by a Licensed Professional Engineer.
These are just the major items I noticed that were missing in the plans which I need before I can complete a full plan
review of this project.
Paul
[Quoted text hidden]
--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770
8/14/24, 9:55 AM State of Utah Mail - Foothills Project Review
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6080233973045038239&simpl=msg-a:r-608023397304503…1/2
DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
DDW R309-545.docx
48K
8/14/24, 9:55 AM State of Utah Mail - Foothills Project Review
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6080233973045038239&simpl=msg-a:r-608023397304503…2/2
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Foothills Water Users Project - Review comments - Water system 11099, Plan Review
File #13213
1 message
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:43 AM
To: Rianna Howard <[e-mail]>, Steve Brown <[e-mail]>, Ryker Ogden
<[e-mail]>, Curtis Nielson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kjori Shelley <[e-mail]>
Rianna, Ryker, and Curtis,
After I sent my comment this morning (which I have included here as well) about the tank design, I decided to go ahead
and review the plans as they currently are. That way you can work on addressing all of the plan revisions. Below are my
full review comments for this project:
1) Regarding the response to Item No. 2, I am not able to complete a full review of the tank portion
of the plans until the full tank design is designed by a licensed professional engineer and submitted
for review. In other words, since the tank replacement really is the main element of this project, I
cannot prepare a plan approval letter simply based on a specification listing the requirements to a
design subcontractor. The full design will have to be submitted. There have been other projects over
the years that use a subcontractor for the design of a bolted steel tank, and those design drawings
become a part of the submission to DDW for review and approval.

2) The hydraulic model for fire flow scenario shows 0 (zero) psi at the required fire flow for nodes
J5-J10. 20 psi is the required minimum pressure for fire flow plus peak day demand, not zero psi. Is
this correct? You should show what fire flow can be obtained at the minimum required pressure of 20
psi and if it is less than what the fire authority would require, we need documentation from them that
it is still adequate to meet their fire flow requirement.

3) The temporary tank submission didn’t really show any of their details regarding screens, venting,
hatch type (shoebox lid) etc. We just need to make sure the tank is protected from potential sanitary
defects while it is being used. I realize this will likely be a rental, but we just want to protect the
water system while construction is taking place and these tanks are being used. I think this is
something we can address as construction starts.

4) Sheet C500, equipment Item C (flow meter) was not labeled on the proposed well house design.

5) It appears that the well pumps to the tanks through the distribution system, without having a
separate transmission line? You call out an “air release” valve Item E on Sheet C500, which refers to
detail 3 on Sheet C801, but this is not the correct type of air release/vacuum valve (described below
in the rule citation). The mushroom style air release valve you show is only for gravity flow situations
and is just a screening mechanism that is connected to an actual air/vac valve. The correct type is
similar to the air release valve you show on sheet C800, detail 15. That being the case, the following
applies and should be part of the proposed well house design:
(v) where a well pumps directly into a distribution system, must be equipped with an airrelease vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve, with exhaust/relief pipingterminating in a down-turned position at least six inches above the well house floor andcovered with a No. 14 mesh corrosion resistant screen. An air release vacuum relief valve isnot required if the specific proposed wellhead valve and piping design includes provisions forpumping to waste all trapped air before water is introduced into the distribution system;
8/20/24, 11:44 AM State of Utah Mail - Foothills Water Users Project - Review comments - Water system 11099, Plan Review File #13213
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-575199035924195506&simpl=msg-a:r1547666706110772…1/2

6) The proposed well house should meet the following with regards to drainage. The floor appears
to be recessed below the footings for the proposed well house:
(b) Floor Drain.
Where a well house is constructed, the floor surface shall be at least six inches above the final
ground elevation and shall be sloped to provide drainage. A "drain-to-daylight" shall be
provided unless highly impractical.

7) You show the well casing extending 12 inches above the well house floor, which appears to be a
recessed floor that they already have. The 12 inches only applies if this is a finished floor (described
in comment 5 above), that already is raised up 6 inches above finished grade. So, in reality, the
casing should be 18 inches above natural grade (12 inches above a finished well house floor) as
shown in the rule below:

(a) Casing Projection Above Floor.

The permanent casing for all ground water wells shall project at least 12 inches above the
pump house floor or concrete apron surface and at least 18 inches above the final ground
surface.

8) It appears that on Sheet C801, detail 2, that a well casing air vent is planned to be installed. This
detail should be called out also on Sheet C500, on the new well head so that it can be installed at the
time of the well head modification.
Let me know if you have any questions
Paul
--
J. Paul Wright, P.E. | District Engineer | Southwest Utah District
435.986.2590 (office) | 435.680.0163 (cell) | 435.986.2595 (fax)
620 S 400 E #400, St. George, UT 84770
DEQ WEBSITE
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
8/20/24, 11:44 AM State of Utah Mail - Foothills Water Users Project - Review comments - Water system 11099, Plan Review File #13213
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-575199035924195506&simpl=msg-a:r1547666706110772…2/2