DDW-2024-007355

J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>
Big Plains SSD transmission , possible amended file #13389 - review comments
1 message
J. Paul Wright <[e-mail]>Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 9:02 AM
To: Nathan Wallentine <[e-mail]>, Michael Grange <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Marty ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>, Anthony Jones <[e-mail]>, Brie Thompson
<[e-mail]>, Dave Jessop <[e-mail]>
Nathan,
I am just getting around to finishing up my review of these plans. I am also checking with Michael Grange on the funding
side of things because I know they will require a bid package with all of the funding required sections, before the approval
letter can go out. That was not part of your submission to me, but MIchael will want to see that, I am pretty sure. As far as
specifications go, normally that would be part of the bid package, but you have included the necessary water line
installation details in the drawings.
In your email to me upon submission of the plans, you mentioned that the project is mostly similar to Project File #13389
that was approved in June 2023. Upon looking at that approval letter, we approved 2,120 LF of 3-inch HDPE and 2,590
LF of 4-inch, with the intent of tying together all of the wells in Cedar Point and conveying them directly to 1 MG tank.
This newer project , Phase 1, has 5,245 LF of 8-inch PVC C900 pipe and 1,300 LF of 4-inch PVC C900. So there is
about 1,800 LF more of pipe in this project.
Since this new project (Phase 1) is essentially the same, we may just use the same project file number and under Cedar
Point (27089) rather than Apple Valley (27069). We will just call it an amended plan approval and tie the funding to this
project number and other future phases as well (under different project files).
A couple of questions:
1) Is this new version of the project intended to tie all of the Cedar Point wells together and still have them conveyed
directly to the tank? Will that be how the pipeline gets used at first or will the wells continue to pump to the tank through
the existing distribution system?
2) Will the main transmission line from Apple Valley (27069) tie directly to this line so it can also be conveyed to the 1 MG
tank when it is completed?
3) Because of the water quality issues with the Cedar Point wells, to be able to use them in the future, treatment will be
required for the high radionuclides, turbidity, and other contaminants. If the intent of this water line is to provide some sort
of blending, it has already been discussed that blending is not a treatment option for turbidity, iron, and manganese. Is
this line intended to allow for blending? If so, this might not be the correct approach, especially since we had discussed
that all the wells might need to be conveyed separately to their own treatment plant (in the future) before being conveyed
to the 1 MG tank. I am just trying to understand the concept of this.
4) The wash crossing detail on Sheet WTR2 needs to include the following. Items (C) and (D) appear to missing from the
detail
(i) When crossing water courses that are greater than 15 feet in width, the following
shall be provided:

(A) Pipe with joints shall be of special construction, having restrained joints
for joints within the surface water course and flexible restrained joints at both
edges of the water course.
(B) Isolating valves shall be provided on both sides of the water crossing at
locations not subject to high ground water or flooding, so that the section can
be isolated for testing or repair.
4/23/24, 9:02 AM State of Utah Mail - Big Plains SSD transmission , possible amended file #13389 - review comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r1835874114408061284&simpl=msg-a:r7695582177750356…1/3
(C) A means shall be provided, such as a sampling tap, not subject to
flooding, to allow for representative water quality testing on the upstream
and downstream side of the crossing.
(D) A means shall be provided to pressure test the underground water
crossing pipe.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Paul
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:12 AM Nathan Wallentine <[e-mail]> wrote:
Paul, please see the link below for phase one of the pipeline connecting Apple Valley and Cedar Point for your review.
These plans are largely similar to the plans previously approved but with additional piping to the west and increased
pipe sizes. Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Thanks,

-Nate

Apple Valley Pipeline Phase I 3.27.24 - Stamped.pdf
NATHAN WALLENTINE, P.E.
Project Manager
[e-mail]
11 North 300 West, Washington, UT 84780
TEL [phone]   CELL 801.425.3561
sunrise-eng.com
--
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
4/23/24, 9:02 AM State of Utah Mail - Big Plains SSD transmission , possible amended file #13389 - review comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r1835874114408061284&simpl=msg-a:r7695582177750356…2/3
Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah GRAMA requirements.
4/23/24, 9:02 AM State of Utah Mail - Big Plains SSD transmission , possible amended file #13389 - review comments
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f3bcb897f8&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r1835874114408061284&simpl=msg-a:r7695582177750356…3/3