HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - 8104 EPIC POOL REPAIR DESIGNADDENDUM NO. 1
SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Description of BID 8104: EPIC Pool Repair Design
OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) April 21, 2015
To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above,
the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this
addendum:
Exhibit 1 – EPIC Assessment Report
Please contact John Stephen, CPPO, LEED AP, Senior Buyer at (970) 221-6777 with any
questions regarding this addendum.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT
ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN
RECEIVED.
Financial Services
Purchasing Division
215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6775
970.221.6707
fcgov.com/purchasing
EDORA POOL &
NATATORIUM ASSESSMENT
Dated:
April 2, 2015
Prepared for the:
Prepared Jointly by:
Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative ......... Architects and Aquatic Consultants
The Ballard Group ........................ Mechanical Engineers
Martin / Martin ............................ Structural Engineers
Ballard*King ................................. Operational Consultants
Compiled and Edited by
Donaldo H. Visani, Sr. Principal and Architect with Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative
OHSLON LAVOIE
COLLABORA TIVE
616 East Speer Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80203
303.294.9244
EXHIBIT 1 - EPIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 2 of 42
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 2
II. GENERAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3
A. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
B. SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
C. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
D. SITE VISITS/TESTING/INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................ 5
III. POOL & POOL SYSTEMS EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 6
A. DETAILED SYSTEM EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................... 6
B. ENERGY SAVINGS/ADVANTAGES ............................................................................................................................ 16
IV. HVAC EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................................... 20
A. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................... 20
B. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
C. EXISTING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................... 20
D. SYSTEM EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................. 21
E. SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 24
V. EXISTING STRUCTURE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 32
VI. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................. 33
A. SUMMARY REVIEW FOR EPIC FACILITY ASSESSMENT............................................................................................. 33
B. RECREATION STAFF ................................................................................................................................................. 33
C. SWIM ORGANIZATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 34
D. STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
VII. COST OPINIONS AND PRIORITIZATION ............................................................................................................. 36
VIII. SUPPORTING DATA .......................................................................................................................................... 38
A. STANDARDS/CODES ................................................................................................................................................ 38
B. SMOKE TESTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 38
C. ATTACHMENTS (DVD) ............................................................................................................................................. 38
D. RECORD NOTES FROM INTITIAL OBSERVATION PERFORMED ON AUGUST 16, 2012: ............................................ 39
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 3 of 42
II. GENERAL BACKGROUND
A. SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins, Operation Services Department, enlisted Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative (OLC) and its team of
consultants to evaluate the existing Edora Pool and Ice Center (EPIC) indoor swimming pool facility for structural
integrity, equipment operational integrity, and operational efficiencies. This undertaking is to presented to the City to
understand any current deficiencies in pool water system and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) design
for the facility, how these deficiencies can be corrected, and budget costs for the purposed items.
Discussion of Scope, Methodology and Visits
Architectural, Structural, Aquatic, Mechanical and Operational Evaluations
B. SCOPE
1. INTENT
In addition the intent of this report is to:
1. Identify where the infrastructure needs to be to meet current pool standards and attain an equivalent of a
recently built pool energy and operational model
2. Define the “standards” used and why these are used.
3. Address Indoor Air Quality and water quality issues that have been documented about the facility from users
and City Staff. These issues range from questionable air flow at the surface level of the pool, fresh air volumes,
excessive heat in bleachers, water turnover rate, and water distribution to the main pool.
2. SCOPE
The scope identified the following parameters
1. Site Audit:
a. Facility structure and equipment assessment – pool water side and HVAC
b. Pool structure and design – settling of pool shell, use of movable bulkhead, swim meet setup process,
traffic patterns, and pool as it relates to balance of the building.
c. Pool code compliance. Insure standards are clearly defined by pool code matrix or chart
d. Operational/maintenance staffing Efficiencies and Plan
e. Current maintenance needs/future maintenance needs or upgrades
f. Analysis of bather loads, swim meet needs (bleacher loads), with emphasis on how best to meet the
needs of various swim groups and clientele.
g. Video‐taped smoke and dye test of air flow patterns (natatorium) and water circulation patterns
(main pool only) using current operational parameters.
h. Air flow issues, design deficiencies, HVAC analysis, values at approximately 20” off the main pool
water surface (chloramine removal potential).
i. Water flow/turnover issues, design deficiencies, chemical delivery system, filtration, and pool
equipment analysis (pumps, filters, heat exchangers, manifolds, etc.).
2. Deliverables:
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 4 of 42
a. Provide a written narrative of current conditions
b. Provide a report a with preliminary budget and breakout of costs for each system (HVAC, Pool
structure, and water quality).
c. Prioritize each repair activity as it pertains to cost, effectiveness in solving existing issues, and energy
saving potential.
d. Clearly define “design standards used” and how they address resolving of issues reported on.
C. METHODOLOGY
1. INFORMATION GATHERING
1. Find most current drawings
2. Review existing data/information
3. Identify city goals and parameters
4. Detailed site inspection by all professionals
5. Define Step 2 tasks and schedule
2. TEST AND ANALYSIS
1. Maintenance Program Review:
a. Maintenance recommendation/prioritization
i. Conduct meeting between user groups, recreation staff and facilities.
ii. Review and assess program and special events requirements
b. Develop maintenance standards
i. Operating structure and parameters
ii. Philosophy of operation
iii. Priorities of response
iv. Water temp standards
v. Special event set up
2. Occupancy Analysis
a. Meet requirements
b. Code requirements
3. Architectural
a. Building Envelope Analysis
i. Exterior wall
ii. Interior surfaces
iii. Deck equipment
b. Accessibility Code compliance
c. Interior finish conditions
4. Aquatics
a. Shell review
b. Mechanical and Treatment Systems
c. Deck equipment
d. Bulkheads
e. Accessories
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 5 of 42
5. HVAC
a. Energy Efficiency
b. Evaluate the existing system based on new code requirements, energy efficiency requirements and
natatorium design criteria.
c. Recommendations to increase the total natatorium airflow, quantities required and system changes
to accommodate.
d. Recommendations to increase the ventilation airflow provided to the natatorium during all modes of
operation, airflow quantities required and system modifications.
e. Recommendation for immediate chloramines mitigation.
f. Provide for low return near the pool deck.
g. Separate the spectator area space conditioning from the natatorium by providing a new dedicated air
handling unit for the spectators.
h. Explore possibilities for a fast chloramines removal system near the pool surface.
i. Provide exhaust fan modulation for space pressure control.
j. Relocate purge exhaust fan outlets.
k. Address any plumbing improvements and code deficiencies.
6. Structural
a. Pool Shell
b. Structural Integrity of Envelope
3. STEP 3: PREPARE REPORTS
1. Synthesize results
2. Define options and budgets (apples to apples)
3. Prepare Report
4. Submit Final Report
D. SITE VISITS/TESTING/INTERVIEWS
1. August 16,2012: Site visit to inspect empty pool shells
2. August 22, 2012: Site visit to inspect facility and pools systems
3. October 14, 2012: On‐site walk‐through and facility maintenance staff interviews
4. October 17, 2012: Pool operations interview via conference call
5. October 23, 2012: On‐site facility maintenance staff interviews
6. October 23, 2012: Pool Users Interview via conference call
7. November 05, 2012: Site visit to inspect pool equipment mechanical room
8. November 18, 2012: Smoke testing of pool natatorium
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 6 of 42
III. POOL & POOL SYSTEMS EVALUATION
This Section Prepared by Aldo Coronado, Aquatic Director, OLC Aquatics
A. DETAILED SYSTEM EVALUATION
After the initial evaluation and observation, OLC performed a detailed analysis based on existing equipment,
documentation and stakeholder interviews. A detailed evaluation of each pool follows:
1. LAP POOL SYSTEM
The lap pool system has been reviewed and changed over the years that there is new equipment change from year to
year to keep up with the demand of maintenance. There has been in the past things like the pump changed and few
valves here and there but there is always the constant maintaining as required just to keep up and so the pool is not
down as often or for too long. The following is the current design of the 50 meter pool and its components:
Table 1: Lap Pool Design
Area: 13,036 SF
Perimeter: 508’‐8”
Depths: 3’‐6” to 13’‐6” (at drains)
Volume: 500,000 gallons
GPM: 1300 GPM (at time of site visit)
Turnover Time: 6.41 Hours (at time of site visit)
Line Sizes: 10” intake, 8” discharge
Balance Tank: 20.0’ x 11.0’ x 9.25’ x 7.48 Gal/CF = 15,222 Gallon capacity, more than 1 Gal/SF of pool
surface
Pump: Bell & Gossett, 4VE model, 40 HP, 230‐460V, 3Φ
Filter: (3) Stark Sand Filters, S Series, 42x120, 35 SF each = 105 SF total, 12.38 GPM/SF filtration
rate
Heater: Alfa Laval, M10 –MFG frame and plate heat exchanger, new
Temperature: 83° F
Chlorination: BecSys 5 chemical controller with Regal gas chlorine with solenoids, Pennwalt scale
pH Control: CO2 controller and large MVE Carbomizer bulk tank
Ultra Violet: Siemens, Barrier, three lamps, flow rated at 313 GPM max flow?
Auto Fill: AquatiControl, model 800R sensing from the surge tank
A) SHELL INTEGRITY
The auto‐fill controller in place is one we often specify and it is a very good unit. However, the auto‐fill is constantly
feeding (releasing) water. This means that there is water loss even when no one is in the water. The constant filling
usually means one of two things: the sensor is going bad or there may be a leak somewhere. Note that the amount of
time the unit is on is not due to water surface evaporation. What we would recommend is that a bucket test be done
on the pool. The process is to have a bucket filled with water to 3” from the top, mark it on the inside of the bucket,
and set it beside the pool. The environment of the pool needs to be the same as if the pool were open typically. The
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 7 of 42
pool system is to be shut off and filled to where the water level is just above the lip of the pool. After the tank and the
pool balance equally mark the level on the side of the pool. The water in the bucket and the pool water surface should
evaporate at the same rate. This should be left alone for at least 24 hours to see how much water maybe lost. If they
evaporate at different rates then there is a possible leak in the pool. In talking with maintenance staff it seems that it is
likely occurring now. We recommend that a bucket test or some similar test be performed to see if there is a leak.
Since this pool is tiled and there have been problems in the past with the finish grout and joints then this should be
investigated.
B) CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The lap pool circulation pump is largely inadequate by OLC pool standards, and barely inadequate by the SCPR
requirements.
1. Drain Location: The drains are located in the correct location for a lap pool. No modifications are required.
2. Drain and Gutter Capacities: Per SCPR requirements, the gutter and drain systems individually are required to
handle at least 100% of the design rate of the required GPM of the circulation system. In this pool, both the
the gutter and the main drain empty via gravity and not direct suction. In Colorado, unlike some states, there
is no balancing requirement between the amount drained via the gutter vs. the main drain (for example, a
ratio of 80% gutter to 20% main drain). So in this case, no modifications are required. However, if desired, it
would be hard to achieve these flow ratios unless direct suction was introduced into the system at the main
drain or have balancing valves to slow down to drain flow and push more to the gutter. The gutter would also
have to handle the flow once it is balanced. The advantage to adding this system is that swimmers have less
resistance in the water.
3. Turnover Rate: The flow of the pool is just over the 6 hour, SCPR code‐required minimum turnover rate. Even
if it were right at the code ‐required minimum, that still would not be an adequate turnover rate for a well‐
functioning circulation system. The problem is that when the filter is dirty the flow is reduced to a point
where the flow would no longer would meet code minimum. It is better to increase the turnover period to at
least 5 hours to make sure it can still meet the turnover required by code even when the filter is dirty. The
change is not an easy one. It will require a plumbing change within the pool’s circulation system from the
current 10” on the intake side to 12” and from the current 8” on the discharge side to a 10” line. Along with
that are valves, filter loop, heating loop, and any sensing equipment that must be inline of the system. This
could be a complete re‐plumbing of the entire circulation system.
4. Code Applicability: We are not aware that any pool has been grandfathered on this requirement solely based
on when the pool was built. However, any currently anticipated adjustments to the pool would usually trigger
a requirement to bring the pool up to current codes. If there isn't a major change in the pool construction or
circulation then this would not be the case. It is uncknown what the enforcement requirements will be upon
adoption of the new SCPR codes (scheduled to come out this year) or the MAHC code (no schedule).
5. We would also recommend that the pump be placed on a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) so not to have the
demand load every time the system is shut down and turned back on. Also this VFD will only use the required
electrical load as needed for the pool and not at full power at all times and thus save energy by not always
using the full amps demanded of the pump.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 8 of 42
C) GUTTER
The gutter system and the drain empty into the balance tank by gravity and in order to be a true surge tank valves
would have to be added inline from the main drain line and a float valve would have to be installed to work with the
surge that goes into the gutter. This is a more efficient skimming system since it is constant. Currently the system has
to wait until someone is in the water displacing water to create the skimming surge. The valves also have to be checked
to make sure they are still in working order. If not, they will have to be replaced. This issue can be easily addressed
when a new gutter is installed.
The gutter dropouts and the inlets are made of metal and some of the inlets are missing parts. Metal inlets and
dropouts are not used in the market anymore and most if not all of those still available are made of plastic or PVC.
There is concern whether or not the inlets are flowing as they are supposed to. It is hard to figure how much the inlets
flow and there isn’t a guaranteed way or apparatus that can be used to check the flow consistently. The inlets closest
to the main branch going out to the pool may flow more if some of the inlets are rusted or clogged and not flowing as
they should. The standard design assumption is that there is a complete loop around the pool for the inlets and the
water recirculation is consistent throughout the pool if they all flow as they should and are not clogged. However, if
some do have less flow than others then there may be an unbalance in the circulation that could meant that there is a
chemical treatment unbalance as well. To be certain that the pool circulation is balanced, the plumbing loop needs to
be redone to make sure that nothing is clogged and flow is consistent.
D) PIPING
The plumbing connections and valves and how they were installed is a concern, given the many many times the
impellers have been changed. The reason this occurs is that there is wear and tear on the pump impellers due to the
location in the system where the fittings and valves are located near the pumps. A The typical plumbing fittings inline
with a pump needs to be five times the distance minimum from the intake connection of the pump so as not to
cavitate. The same applies for the discharge. Another requirement is that there should be no transitions from smaller
plumbing to larger plumbing . The current check valve looks smaller than the actual circulation plumbing and thus
violates this rule. Check valves should be at least one size larger than attached piping in order to reduce cavitation. In
addition all check valves should be locate as recommended by the manufacturer. This same applies to valves before
and after the pump. Plumbing also should run in as straight a runs as possible so not to cause unwanted friction in the
circulation line.
E) FILTRATION SYSTEM
The pool’s filter system has sufficient capacity to handle the current flow and may be able to be reused in an upgraded
system. Its capacity can handle up 2100 GPM @ 20 GPM/SF which is usually its commercial rating. We recommend that
the filter not exceed 16 GPM/SF making the capacity 1680 GPM which would meet the 5 hour turnover. The only
problem we see with the filters is that they have been there possibly since the pool was built and there isn’t a visible
tag to verify that these filters are the correct model listed above.
Typically each tank is rated at 15 GPM/SF (minimum) to backwash and get the debris to disperse in the water and out
of the tank. Each tank has 35 SF of filtering surface giving a minimum flow requirement of 525 GPM per tank. The flow
needs to be 3 x 525 GPM = 1575 GPM to have enough flow to backwash all three tanks at the same time. Currently if
the tanks are not backwashed individually they are not meeting the minimum flow for backwash. Which means they
probably have not been backwashed properly due to the limiting flow.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 9 of 42
We would recommend replacing this filtration system with a regenerative filter system. The manufacturer we would
recommend is the Neptune Benson Defender. This system will reduce the use of water, chemicals, and power. This
pool is a perfect candidate for this system since it is the largest pool in the facility and it uses water from all pools as it
is backwashed. We understand that this same filter is in use at another of the facilities operated by the City and its staff
is knowledgeable with the system. So the learning curve for maintaining this type of system would be negligible. The
advantage here is that the system is automatic and it wastes less water, chemicals, and power than compared to a
typical sand system. In addition there is the real advantage of cleaner water down to 1 micron of filtration. In addition,
there is sufficient floor space in the mechanical room to handle this system.
F) HEATING SYSTEM
The heat exchanger is in good shape and was changed out recently from a shell and tube to a frame and plate system.
This system is adequate as installed and be brought on line after the repairs/improvements.
Although, the City of Fort Collins has programmed the exchanger controls (via Johnson Controls) to correct this
problem, we still think it is a good idea to verify that the solenoid valve at the heat exchanger turns off when there is
no flow on the pool circulation side. This prevents overheating of the plumbing. Normally a valve on the hot side of
the exchanger is closed when there is no flow. However, when there is flow, the valve should open for heating.
The heating loop should be closed down during the backwash cycle and care should be taken that it not be accidentally
left open or on.
G) SANITATION SYSTEM
The chemical equipment currently in place is one of the better brands on the market, but it is not being utilized to its
full extent. The chemical controller is internet‐capable and thus can be accessible from anywhere. Thus maintenance
staff should be able to be easily informed of alarms or problems. However, we understand that the systems are
connected but only to one computer that may or not be sending emails or texts to the correct person or persons. The
BecSys 5 chemical controller can control temperature, auto fill, flow, valves, chemical levels, pressure build up in
pumps or filters, and much more. It will also give a real time reading of how the system is keeping up with the pool
system as a whole. It can also keep records of times when events occur within the pool system. This would be an
advantage in responding to events better, but would also backup information on any computer so that anyone can
check on the status of the pool and not require that someone be present during an event or at the current sole
terminal.
The chemicals that are used in this pool are sufficient to maintain chemical balance. Recently, incoming water has had
more chlorine product which raises the pH of the water. The result is that more CO2 is required than was previously
used. The answer to help this fluctuating state of incoming water is to install an acid/CO2 switchover system. We
understand that the City of Fort Collins is in the process of installing the acid/CO2 switch over systems currently on all
three pools.
When the fresh incoming water has a higher pH then the system needs, it can be switched over to acid which is a
stronger pH balancer and thus will bring down the pH. The switch is available from the BecSys representative and so is
the acid. Both can be obtained quickly so that the facility is not ordering CO2 every few days.
Theoretically, the use of chlorine gas for treatment of pools, which is in place currently, is the most efficient way to
provide sanitizer to a pool since it is 100% chlorine and it is fed directly into the pool. The problem with that type of
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 10 of 42
treatment is that it is dangerous to handle. People have to be trained to change the tanks and know what to do if
someone were to get gassed when handling the tanks or changing them even when using a breathing apparatus with a
tank and mask. This type of pool chlorination system has increasingly been removed from pools all over the state and
has been replaced with other types of chlorination systems. This is not a code issue but a safety issue and changing out
this type of a system is an operational issue which we recommend.
The ultra violet (UV) system installed is a good system and we would recommend it be checked to make sure that it is
the correct unit for the flow of the pool. It is labeled to flow a maximum of 313 GPM. It should be rated to handle the
entire flow to make sure it treats the entire flow. Siemens should verify that the unit is rated for the entire flow.
Testing of the facility for chloramines should be done both when no one is in the pool and at the busiest time. This way
the facility will know if it is truly working correctly and taking care of the chloramines. By comparing both tests it should
be known whether or not the capacity of the unit is correct or if it is not large enough.
H) ADA
The pool is greater than 300 linear feet of perimeter and a second means of access is required. The ramp meets the
requirement for the first accessible point of entry (including length and slope). For the second required accessible
point of entry, there is an existing movable lift that is shared between all pools. Thus, it appears that this pool is
accessible per ADA. However, this would be true only if the lift was purchased before March 15, 2012. This is the
Department of Justice's cutoff date for allowing shared lifts between pools. After that date, if a lift is required then it
must be fixed to that pool.
I) CREATING A "FASTER" POOL
An item for consideration along with the maintenance issues is the performance of the pool. The pool design is
considered "slow" for competitions. Several items are preventing it from being faster than equivalent pools in the area.
The gutter system is one because it is both a tiled system and also a very shallow gutter depth. This doesn't allow the
pool to achieve wave control and pool flow good which is one of the major factors for being a fast pool. Depth and lane
widths are other factors. However, not much can be done to it unless there is a major renovation that changes depths
and widens the lanes (and consequently reduces the number of lanes). Other issues that should be addressed to bring
this pool up to par for competitions are chemical balance, temperature, and how the swimmer "feels" in the pool
environment (issues addressed in the HVAC and Facility sections). These are fixes that can be done and it will more
than likely meet the requirements of the competitors and teams using the pool. This pool is not a fast pool is due to
how the water evacuates into the tank back at the equipment room and how deep the pool is for wave reverb.
To meet today’s standards for a competition pool the perimeter gutter needs to not only skim the surface of the pool
but also take out any water that is pushed into it by the competitors during competition and get it out to the tank as
fast as possible. The tank should be considered a surge tank and not just a balance tank. The tank should have some
capacity for any water going into the gutter to be evacuated as fast as possible and not have it bounce or splash back at
the competitors on the two side lanes of the racing course. Also having the flow evacuate at the surface will help the
competitors swim a little quicker and with less resistance. In this case, the pool system should compensate with an
equivalent flow of water back into the pool equivalent to the displaced water. Inlets should be located lower than the
gutter lip, at a minimum 2’‐6” to 3’‐0” below, but possibly lower on the wall or even have them at the floor of the pool.
That further away from the face of the swimmer that these inlets are the less water circulation resistance is working
against them.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 11 of 42
In summary, in order for this pool to compete with surrounding area pools when seeking to host meets, we would
recommend changing the gutter, inlet locations and the circulation system.
Of these the most pressing is the gutter. The tile lining the gutter has had the grout wash away and this exposes the
underlying concrete. There does not appear to be any waterproofing under it. This means that the only line of
waterproofing the pool has is the tile and grout. When the grout is washed away there is the real possibility of water
penetrating through the concrete shell, soaking the concrete like a sponge and ultimately dissipating through the
surrounding soil. The absence of waterproofing under the tile could be a reason why the auto fill is running constantly
during the day. We recommend changing this gutter to a stainless steel gutter that can flow faster than the current
gutter, contain pool water and can also be designed to support the bulkheads on its gutter lip.
2. THERAPY POOL SYSTEM
The Therapy Pool system has had its share of problems in the past. A major renovation was done due to a leak that
was discovered. Areas have been patched and fixed where plumbing was rerouted through the shell at the level of the
bench. This was done in order not to avoid having to break the deck to install plumbing. However, overall, the surface
of the pool looks good. The following is the current design of the Therapy Pool and its components:
Table 2: Therapy Pool Design
Area: 780 SF
Perimeter: 112’‐0”
Depths: 3’‐0” to 4’‐2” (at drains)
Volume: 20,000 gallons
GPM: 260 GPM (at time of site visit)
Turnover Time: 1.28 Hours (at time of site visit)
Line Sizes: 4” intake, 3” discharge
Balance Tank: 8.5’ x 3.5’ x 9.25’ x 7.48 Gal/CF = 2,058 Gallon capacity, more than 1 Gal/SF of pool
surface
Circulation Pump: Gould, G& L model, 7.5 HP, 230‐460V, 3Φ, 4” intake, 3” discharge
Jet Pump: Gould, G& L model, 5 HP, 230‐460V, 3Φ, 4” intake, 3” discharge
Jet Blower: Fuji Ring Compressor, 2.5 HP, 208‐240/460V, 3 Φ
Filter: (2) Pentair, Sand Filters, TR‐140, 7.06 SF each = 14.12 SF total, 18.42 GPM/SF filtration
rate
Heater: Alfa Laval, M6 –MFG frame and plate heat exchanger, new
Temperature: 92° F
Chlorination: BecSys 5 chemical controller with Regal gas chlorine with solenoids, Pennwalt scale
pH Control: CO2 controller and large MVE Carbo‐Mizer bulk tank
Ultra Violet: Siemens, Barrier, two lamps, flow rated at 300 GPM max flow
Auto Fill: Manual feed into the surge tank
A) POOL SHELL INTEGRITY
During our interviews, it was suggested that this pool is leaking but as of yet there is no proof to whether or not that is
true. This comment was based on observations that the pool level was down in the on several mornings. This was
based off the level of water being below the lip of the gutter. Since there is no direct evidence that there is a leak, it
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 12 of 42
should be tested using the bucket test mentioned in the lap pool assessment. If the test does not indicate a leak, an
auto fill should be added to the tank similar to the one in the lap pool. This way the balance of the pool water level is
always met. If a leak is discovered, then it is possible that the shell is not holding water or there is a leak in the piping.
At this point we recommend that a leak detection company be enlisted to find it.
Note that transferring water from the Lap Pool to the Therapy Pool to replace evaporated or leaking water it is not
permitted by SCPR and is not good practice. However, it is acceptable to use Lap Pool water when completely refilling
the Therapy Pool as a quick way of refilling the pool with tempered water.
B) CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The pool circulation pump seems to be adequate, but there are a lot of sections that have been patched together over
the years with multiple fittings that may allow the water flow to cavitate the pump. This could be a problematic for the
impellers since they might get pitted. The installed impellers may have scars in the shape of waves, striations, or divots
(golf ball‐like indentations) on the impeller. This is due to the flow being unbalanced and indicates that cavitation has
been occurring. The various random fittings and splices should be changed out and new ones installed to make sure the
impellers last longer. The flow of the pool has a very good turnover rate and is below OLC's design standard maximum
of two hours for this pool.
The velocity of the plumbing needs to be adjusted to meet code requirements of a maximum of 7 FT/S for the intake
and a maximum of 10 FT/S for the discharge. On the intake side the 4" pipe intakes 260 GPM at 6.55 FT/S and thus is
under the code maximum. However, on the discharge side, the 3” pipe discharges 260 GPM at 11.28 FT/S thus exceeds
the code maximum. This velocity also means that there is too much friction in the system making the pump work a
little harder. The larger velocity can also wash away sand in the filter during the backwashing cycle or possibly allow
sand into the pool. The entire system's main discharge should be at least 4” to reduce problems with the flow to save
on the pump and the filters’ pressure. However, we would recommend that, when replacing the intake, the size of
pipe be 6” so as to allow a larger buffer and not to be on the higher end of the allowed intake. Even though the pump
has a smaller intake and discharge connection transitioning right out of the pump, this change will help reduce the
friction and cavitation on the pump.
We are concerned with the plumbing connections and valves and how the equipment is installed. For example, the
impellers have been changed numerous times for the lap pool, due to ill‐fitting piping. The same could be happening at
this pool if it is similarly plumbed. Although it is good that the wet end of the pump is stainless steel, it should be noted
that stainless steel won't last if the pump is cavitating continuously. Only time will tell if stainless steel impellers will
hold up under current conditions, effect of chemicals when the acid switchover is connected and current flow due to
plumbing. We recommend that plumbing fittings in front of a pump's intake connection should be at a minimum a
distance of five times the diameter of the pipe so not to cavitate. This holds true as well for the discharge. Also, piping
on the intake side of a check valve should be no larger than the check valve. This does not seem to be the case at the
current check valve whose size looks smaller than the actual circulation piping. It is preferable that check valves be at
least one size larger than the intake piping to reduce cavitation. Also we recommend that the discharge side be the at
least the same size as the check valve and that they be installed per the manufacturer's recommendations. Re‐
plumbing this system will ensure the longevity of the system.
C) GUTTER
The gutter system and the drain empty into the balance tank by gravity. Just like the lap pool, in order to be a true
surge tank there should be additional valves added inline off the main drain line and an added float valve to work in
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 13 of 42
conjunction with the surge that goes into the gutter. It is not as critical for this pool to become a true surge tank, as it
is for the lap pool, and thus this change is optional. However, it would still be advantageous for this pool in that during
large or active classes the water will skim faster and will not have as much turbulence and bubbles. The clarity of the
water would improve, reducing cloudiness. The valves also should be inspected to make sure they are still in working
order and if not then they will have to be replaced. The gutter on this pool should be re‐grouted or waterproofed
(especially given the potential for water leakage there) but there isn’t a need to change this gutter since it isn’t used as
a competition pool. Aesthetically, it might be preferable to match the lap pool gutter system.
The gutter dropouts and the inlets are made of metal and some of the inlets have missing parts similar to those in the
lap pool. If the pool is found to be leaking, then replacing the gutter should be considered along with the inlet
replacement. If a stainless steel gutter is installed, then the old inlet loop can be capped and abandoned and allow the
circulation to occur via the gutter.
D) FILTRATION SYSTEM
The pool’s filter system is barely within the 15 GPM/SF and 20 GPM/SF filter allowance for the currently installed sand
filters installed. Its capacity can handle up 282 GPM @ 20 GPM/SF (max.) which is usually what they are rated at
commercially. At 260 GPM combined filter rate for the system is 18.41 GPM/SF which means that the filter will reach
its maximum pressure very quickly and backwash will have to be done. It may have to be done more often than not due
to the system being on the higher end of filtration rate. We would recommend that this system have another filter to
get better filtration. Adding the other filter the filtration rate would be 12.27 GPM/SF. This is a better cleaning rate and
it will help clean the pool faster. Also the change in the plumbing would allow more flow into the filter system and that
would also help filter and treat the pool faster.
E) HEATING SYSTEM
Same as Heating System for Lap Pool above.
F) SANITATION SYSTEM
The issue here is the same as with the Lap Pool with respect to the installed BecSys 5 system and taking advantage of
its capabilities. Refer to the Sanitation System section under the Lap Pool above.
This pool is one of the most active pools and has a large bather load during the day, making UV a good solution for this
pool. The ultra violet (UV) system in place is a good system and the capacity of the unit is more than what is needed for
the pool. It is labeled to flow at a maximum of 300 GPM. If the system ends up having additional flow due to changes in
the plumbing system then it should be verified that the new maximum flow is also treated 100% with UV.
There is no auto‐fill on this system. Since there is no tank to connect to, an auto‐fill system might be possible through
one of the skimmers. Or the existing vacuum line could be reused as a sensing well, once disconnected from the
suction side of the pump.
Confirm the possibility that water loss is occurring with a bucket test then apply the appropriate corrective measures
for this pool. Manual filling can take some time to balance chemically and it would be easier and a more consistent
approach to sanitation if an auto‐fill system were installed.
G) ADA
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 14 of 42
This pool only requires on access point. The current movable lift shared between all pools serves as that access point.
See also ADA note for Lap Pool above.
3. KIDS' POOL SYSTEM:
As previously mentioned, we would recommend this pool be identified as something other than "wading". For the
purposes of this report we are using the term "Kid’s Pool". Since this pool per code is really nothing more than a
regular pool, the required changes to the circulation equipment, depths, and ADA access necessary if it were a wading
pool do not apply.
A) POOL SHELL INTEGRITY
The Kid's Pool system looks have the one shell that is in very good shape. This would also depend on the use of the pool
and its bather load for what it is used for. The pool tile and shell circulation seems to be in very good shape. There is
one area on the north end that looks to have some tile problems on the deck but that might have happened when the
Therapy Pool when the leak happened. The surface looks good and there are very few things that need to have done to
it.
Table 3: Kid's Pool Design
Area: 1,227 SF
Perimeter: 126’‐0”
Depths: 1’‐0” to 3’‐2” (at drains)
Volume: 20,000 gallons
GPM: 245 GPM (at time of site visit)
Turnover Time: 1.36 Hours (at time of site visit)
Line Sizes: 4” drain intake, 4” skimmer intake, 3” discharge
Balance Tank: No tank
Circulation Pump: Gould, G& L model, 7.5 HP, 230‐460V, 3Φ
Filter: (2) Pentair, Sand Filters, TR‐140, 7.06 SF each = 14.12 SF total, 17.35 GPM/SF filtration
rate
Heater: Alfa Laval, M3 –MFG frame and plate heat exchanger, new
Temperature: 87° F
Chlorination: BecSys 5 chemical controller with Regal gas chlorine with solenoids, Pennwalt scale
pH Control: CO2 controller and large MVE Carbomizer bulk tank
Ultra Violet: Siemens, Barrier, two lamps, flow rated at 180 GPM max flow
Auto Fill: Manual feed into the pool
B) CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The existing pool pump is a 7.5 HP pump but the measured flow of 245 GPM is very low for that size of a pump. For a
7.5 HP pump we usually see flows around 350 GPM. It could be that the impeller is small and at the lower end of the
pump curve. Nevertheless, a 7.5 HP pump for this system is too large. The Therapy and Kid's pool can easily run on a 5
HP pump at that same rate of around 260 GPM using a higher efficiency pump with a larger impeller depending on the
headloss in the system. There could be some power savings to the system if the pump were changed to a 5 HP with the
same flow for both pools. The pump is just drawing too much power and it doesn’t need to.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 15 of 42
The velocity of water through the system needs to change. Code allows a maximum of 7 FT/S for intake and a
maximum of 10 FT/S for discharge. On the intake side, the 4” pipe intakes 245 GPM at 6.17 FT/S and it is under the
code maximum. On the discharge side, the 3” pipe discharges 245 GPM at 10.63 FT/S and thus exceeds the maximum
rate allowed by code. This velocity is too high. The discharge pipe should be changed to at least a 4” pipe in order to
reduce friction in the line, help the system work better and meet code. However, OLC would recommend that the
intake side be at least 6” so not to be on the higher end of the allowed intake. Even though the pump has a smaller
intake and the discharge connection transitions right out of the pump, this is the best way to help reduce the friction
and cavitation on the pump.
There also looks to be a vacuum line or small wall drain in the Kid's Pool. This is not something that we would
recommend for this type of pool. The odds that a child might get caught in it by suction are much greater in a shallow
pool than it would be in a deeper pool. This should be sealed.
C) SKIMMERS
The pool is a skimmer pool and the only thing we would recommend is making sure the baskets are always present and
if the skimmer needs a weir it also be installed. This is necessary not only for skimming the pool but for safety reasons,
preventing children from reaching into the throat of the skimmer and gettin stuck.
D) PIPING SYSTEM
The inlets are made of metal and some of the inlets are missing parts like the Lap Pool. If the pool is renovated at any
time then we would recommend changing the metal plumbing at the shell, including the inlets.
The plumbing connections and valves are in the same condition as the other two pools. As mentioned before, the
typical plumbing fittings in front of a pump need to be five times the distance minimum from the intake connection of
the pump so as to not cavitate. The same rule applies to the discharge. Also transitions from smaller plumbing to
larger plumbing are not a good practice. This occurs at the check valve which looks smaller than the actual circulation
plumbing. Re‐plumbing this system will ensure the longevity of the system.
E) FILTRATION
The pool’s filter system is barely within the 15 GPM/SF and 20 GPM/SF filter allowance for the sand filters installed. Its
capacity can handle up 282 GPM @ 20 GPM/SF (max.) which is usually what they are rated at commercially. At 245
GPM combined filter rate for the system is 17.35 GPM/SF which means that the filter is in similar condition to the
Therapy Pool. Adding the other filter the filtration rate would be 11.57 GPM/SF. This is a better cleaning rate and it will
help clean the pool faster. Also the change in the plumbing would allow more flow into the filter system and that would
also help filter and treat the pool faster.
F) HEATING
Same as Heating System for Lap Pool above.
G) SANITATION
The chemical equipment is the BecSys 5 but it is not being utilized to its full extent. Connect the equipment to exterior
access for the maintenance person(s) on site. Do not just have one person being alerted so that if that person is gone
someone else is alerted and can do something if needed on the pools. The real time reading is a good way for tracking
problems and make adjustments as needed. The chemicals that are used in this pool are sufficient to operate the
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 16 of 42
chemical balance but recent incoming water has more chlorine product raising the pH of the water and the result is
using more CO2 than previously used. Use the acid to CO2 switch to this system to balance the pool as needed.
The use of chlorine gas is for treatment of pools is the best way due to it being 100% chlorine that is fed into the pool.
The danger to this chemical is mentioned previously and there just needs to be care in changing the tanks and handling
that chemical.
The ultra violet (UV) system needs to be verified that it can handle the flow of the pool. It is labeled to flow a maximum
of 180 GPM. Currently the pool flow exceeds the maximum flow of the unit. The unit should be able to flow at 100% of
the circulation. This is the pool where UV is a standard since kids will actively use this pool and since they at times have
diapers under their swim suits. The possibly of having cryptosporidium or something else in the pool is more likely to
happen in this pool due to the younger bather use. We recommend that this pool have the UV verified according to the
pool flow and it may need to be changed if it doesn’t flow at 100%.
There is not auto‐fill on this system. Since the other pools are recommend to run a bucket test run the same test with
this pool to see if the shell and plumbing is sound. We would recommend having an auto‐fill on this pool. This will also
relieve some of the time for maintenance so not to add chemicals after filling the pool in the morning when needed.
H) ADA REQUIREMENTS
As previously mentioned, since this pool is not a wading pool the stricter code requirements for ramping and railings do
not apply. The use of the movable accessibility lift suffices to meet ADA requirements for access. However, if the pool
were to converted to a wading pool then a ramp that lead to the deepest part of the pool would have to be put in
place. One option to consider is to make this pool more attractive by adding some type of spray or squirting features
to enhance the pool. This pool would benefit from these features, especially if other changes are required to the shell.
B. ENERGY SAVINGS/ADVANTAGES
VFD (Variable Frequency Drive)
• Energy efficiency, only use the amount of power needed to operate the pump and not at full power all the
time
• Cycle pool pump to flow lower when no one is in the pool, if allowed by Health Department
• Saves wear and tear on pump
• Longer pump life
Regenerative Filters:
• Uses less water compared to backwashing (only uses water in the tank)
• Uses less power/energy compared to backwashing
• Uses less chemicals, since only a little bit of water is lost compared to backwashing.
• Uses less heat, since only a little bit of new, fresh water needs to be heated
• Filters also clean to a smaller micron compared to sand filtration
Heat Recovery: Use the pool air system to heat the pool using heat recovery
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 17 of 42
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 18 of 42
`
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 19 of 42
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 20 of 42
IV. HVAC EVALUATION
This Section Prepared by Peter Failla, Mechanical Engineer, The Ballard Group
The following report is intended to fulfill The City of Ft. Collin’s request for an efficiency study of the EDORA Ice & Pool
Center. The report includes an analysis of the existing mechanical systems, a code compliance study,
recommendations for improvements to the correct any deficiencies and a cost analysis for the recommended
mechanical modifications.
A. BACKGROUND
The Edora Pool and Ice Center’s (EPIC) Natatorium is 28,000 square feet with three bodies of water; lap pool, Therapy
Pool & Kid's Pool, and a spectator seating area. There have been numerous and ongoing complaints/concerns about
the indoor air quality including hot and stuffy in the seating area, loud destratification fans, lack of airflow, chloramines
build up at the pool surface and a lack of ventilation air. These concerns negatively affect the experience at EPIC for
athletes, coaches and spectators alike. The following assessment will identify deficiencies in the operation and design
of the current mechanical systems as well as how this facility’s mechanical systems can be improved to meet the
current standards for a healthy, competitive and efficient Natatorium.
B. METHODOLOGY
The design of mechanical systems serving a Natatorium has received much attention within the HVAC industry and
professional organizations. However, there are few standards that have resulted from this attention and the governing
codes, in this engineer’s opinion, do not provide adequate requirements for this industry to follow. In turn these codes
do not assure a comfortable and healthy natatorium environment. For this reason The Ballard Group’s 30 years of
experience in Natatorium design and resultant design standards will be the basis for this assessment.
The International Mechanical Code (IMC) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air‐conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) guidelines have all been incorporated into the standards for this assessment. There is also a new
code that is currently being drafted named the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC). This code will make significant
improvements to the current IMC requirements and ASHRAE guidelines for ventilation in a Natatorium. The adoption
of this code will also validate many of The Ballard Group’s current design standards, as used for this assessment. It is
important to note that the MAHC has not yet been released or adopted.
C. EXISTING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
The Natatorium is currently served by one (1) Air Handling Unit (AHU‐1) with a centrifugal supply fan, hot water
heating coil and mixed air dampers. This AHU currently provides 40,000 CFM of supply air through floor grilles along
the south and west exterior walls and one exposed spiral duct with supply grilles in the Kid's Pool and Therapy Pool
areas. Return air is drawn through grilles in the ceiling above the spectator area. Two (2) large roof mounted fans
exhaust 34,000 CFM (total) of natatorium air through these same grilles above the spectator area. Several
destratification fans have been added near the ceiling in the space between the spectators and the lap pool edge.
These fans deliver recirculated natatorium air to the pool surface in an effort to remove chloramines.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 21 of 42
D. SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Ballard Group’s design standards for a Natatorium have been developed over the 30 years and nearly 200
Natatorium designs that we have been fortunate to be a part of. Our design standards are always improving as
technology and expectations evolve. These standards are what will be used to evaluate the current systems at EPIC.
The key criteria considered for a well designed and maintained Competition Natatorium are discussed below.
Opportunities to address any deficiencies noted will be discussed in subsequent sections.
1. TOTAL AIR FLOW RATE
Providing the correct total supply air flow rate (recirculated and ventilation air) to a natatorium is essential. Air
movement in a natatorium helps to provide good indoor air quality by limiting areas of stagnant air. The ASHRAE
recommendations call for 4‐8 air changes per hour depending on the natatorium’s use. Some portion of this air flow
will be fresh ventilation air. Ventilation air flow is discussed in the next section. Our recommendation for total airflow
is 5.0 ‐ 6.0 air changes per hour. The low end of this range is used for very large volume spaces such as the lap pool
area. These air flow rates have proven to provide for good indoor air quality while limiting drafts and operating costs.
For the EPIC natatorium this equates to 63,000 CFM for all areas. The current system was designed to deliver 45,000
CFM; however, after a testing and balancing effort performed in March 2011, the system was only delivering 40,000
CFM. This equates to 3.3 air changes per hour, which falls short of ASHRAE’s minimum recommendation and well short
of our recommendation of 5.0‐6.0 air changes per hour. See Table 4, below, for a comparison of the recommended
and current airflow rates for the various areas of the EPIC natatorium.
Table 4: EPIC NATATORIUM AIRFLOW COMPARISON
WATER BODY
VOLUME OF
NATATORIUM
LOCATION
RECOMMENDED
TOTAL AIRFLOW
RECOMMENDED
TOTAL AIRFLOW
RATE
CURRENT
TOTAL
AIRFLOW
CURRENT
TOTAL AIR
FLOW RATE
LAP POOL 60,1281 50,107 5.0 29,900 3.0
LEISURE POOL 59,776 5,978 6.0 10,100 10.1
SPECTATOR
SEATING 68,680 6,868 6.0 0 0.0
TOTAL
NATATORIUM 729,737 62,952 5.2 40,000 3.3
2. VENTILATION AIR QUANTITY
The ventilation air quantity is important because fresh ventilation air is what will dilute and replace the unwanted
chloramines laden air in the natatorium environment. The International Mechanical Code requires that a minimum of
0.48 CFM per square foot of pool and deck area be provided as fresh ventilation air. However, this quantity of
ventilation air has not resulted in the indoor air quality we strive for. The Ballard Group has determined that a more
appropriate minimum ventilation air flow rate is 1.5 air changes per hour for the total natatorium volume. This
ventilation rate will then be modulated up to as much as 3.0 air changes per hour, or more, depending upon the
dehumidification needs of the natatorium. The MAHC will be improving upon the IMC requirements and requiring
maximum ventilation rates that fall more in line with our current design standards.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 22 of 42
The current system is providing a minimum of 8,000 CFM of ventilation air. This equates to 0.35 CFM per square foot
or 0.66 air changes per hour. This ventilation rate is held constant unless the unit is switched into “purge mode” which
will index the AHU to 100% outside air for a period of time. This ventilation rate does not meet our design standards
nor does it meet the IMC requirements. The ventilation air quantities recommended for this facility are listed in Table
5 below.
Table 5: EPIC NATATORIUM VENTILATION COMPARISON
CALCULATION
METHODOLOGY
MINIMUM
VENTILATION
MINIMUM
VENTILATION
RATE
MAXIMUM
VENTILATION
MAXIMUM
VENTILATION
RATE
IMC 2009 13546 1.11 AC/HR NOTE: 1 NOTE: 1
MAHC NOTE: 2 NOTE: 2 27,000 2.22 AC/HR
PROPOSED 18,250 1.50 AC/HR 36,500 3.00 AC/HR
CURRENT DESIGN 8,000* 0.66 AC/HR 40,000 3.29 AC/HR
Note 1: IMC does not address maximum ventilation rates.
Note 2: MAHC does not address minimum ventilation rates.
*As indicated by the facility staff.
3. AIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The current air distribution system delivers the majority of the 40,000 CFM of supply air through floor grilles served by
an underground concrete duct. These grilles are located on the south and west exterior walls. A portion of the air is
supplied through an exposed spiral duct located at the ceiling of the Kid's Pool and Therapy Pool area. All of the
return/exhaust air is taken from the ceiling above the spectator area. The supply air located at the exterior walls and
delivered vertically up is ideal because the warm air will protect the exterior walls from forming condensation.
However; chloramines that off‐gas from the pool surface create a “chloramines bubble” that lingers near the pool
surface. This happens because chloramines are heavier than air. In order to break up this bubble you need to draw air
across the pool surface or supply air to the pool surface. EPIC’s lack of low return/exhaust near the pool deck causes a
situation where the chloramines laden air stagnates at the pool surface, forming and maintaining the chloramines
bubble. Studies suggest that this harmful air, located in the breathing zone, can be harmful to young athletes and
creates a less competitive environment for mature athletes. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the current airflow
pattern.
Destratification fans (“Air Pear fans”) have been added along the north edge of the Natatorium to direct air at the pool
surface and facilitate breaking up the chloramines bubble. Patrons report that the use of these fans is somewhat
affective in improving the air quality; however, the fans do not relieve the poor air quality issues all together. These
fans are also quite loud and cannot be used during certain events due to communication issues with the athletes. See
Figure 2 for the affect on the airflow pattern when these fans are in use.
4. NATATORIUM DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE CONTROL
It is important at all times to maintain the Natatorium at a negative pressure when compared to the adjacent spaces
(Lobby) and the outdoors. The current system does not incorporate any differential pressure control. The two relief
fans located above the spectator area are controlled on/off depending upon the system’s operational mode (minimum
or 100% outside air). The test & balance report from March 2011 indicates that the natatorium was positively
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 23 of 42
pressurized when compared to both the lobby and the outdoors. This positive pressure can eventually lead to
premature deterioration of building components such as the roof structure and exterior walls, as well as causing
chlorine odors to migrate to other areas of the facility. The building shell deterioration can be caused by the humid
chlorine laden natatorium air being driven to the outdoors, through the building envelope, where it can condense on
building components. This condensation not only can cause water damage and freeze thaw damage but it is corrosive
in nature and can attack some of the building components.
Figure 1: CURRENT AIRFLOW PATTERN
Figure 2: AIRFLOW EFFECTS OF FANS
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 24 of 42
5. SPECTATOR VIEWING AREA
The warm and humid natatorium environment is not a comfortable place for spectators. While bathers are typically
comfortable with an 82 degree space temperature fully clothed spectators would prefer a lower temperature with less
humidity. This always creates a challenge in a competition pool environment. The spectator area should be provided
with its own dehumidification system to promote a separation between the pool environment and the spectator
environment.
At EPIC the spectator environment is included in the pool environmental control. Along with not having a separate
dehumidification system the spectator area does not have any supply air devices serving it. All of the return/exhaust
air is pulled through ceiling grilles located directly above the spectator area. The lack of supply air, and the fresh
ventilation air associated with it, and the fact that the spectators are fully clothed leads to very poor indoor air quality
in the spectator area.
E. SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
1. SUPPLY AIR
The existing AHU is delivering 40.000 CFM or 3.3 air changes per hour. This leaves a total shortage of about 23,000
CFM. To make up for this shortage I recommend adding two new pool dehumidification units to supplement the
existing AHU. One unit shall serve the Lap Pool area (PDU‐1) and the other shall be dedicated for the Spectator Seating
area (PDU‐2).
Both systems shall incorporate a plate style, all aluminum, air‐to‐air heat exchanger. This type of heat exchanger has
proven to provide good energy savings with very low maintenance. When the systems filters, upstream of the heat
exchanger, are maintained clogging of the heat exchanger has not been an issue in the past. The controls shall be
packaged, stand‐alone style to allow for simple and reliable operation.
1. PDU‐1 (Direct drive supply and exhaust fans with VFD, Packaged Controls)
a. 16,000 CFM
b. 700 MBH Input Gas Fired Heating
c. 15 TON Integral DX Cooling (Sensible cooling for space temperature control only. Sized to condition 50%
outside air)
d. Air‐to‐Air aluminum heat exchanger
2. PDU‐2(Direct drive supply and exhaust fans with VFD, Packaged Controls, 100% outside air)
a. 7,000 CFM
b. 450 MBH Input Gas Fired Heating
c. 15 TON Integral DX Cooling (Sensible cooling for space temperature control only. Sized to condition 100%
outside air)
d. Air‐to‐Air aluminum heat exchanger
PDU‐1 shall be located on the low roof just east of column line 11. The supply duct can be routed through the vertical
wall and serve the lap pool area with and exposed spiral duct along the inside of this wall separating the Therapy Pool
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 25 of 42
area and the Lap Pool area. The return will be routed to a location near the pool deck. This proposed routing will limit
the quantity of ductwork required to accommodate the required airflow provided by PDU‐1.
PDU‐2 shall be located on the high roof above the spectator area. The supply will be exposed just below the ceiling at
the south end of seating (front row). Return will be pulled from the existing ceiling plenum.
An in depth structural analysis will need to be performed to determine where the units can be located and if the
masonry wall can be penetrated. Please see Figure 3 below for the proposed locations.
Figure 3: Aerial View HVAC OPTION ONE
2. VENTILATION AIR
As discussed earlier, the ventilation air quantity being delivered during normal modes of operation do not meet the
code requirements and fall far short of this assessments recommendations. The ventilation air quantity can be
increased by utilizing the two new PDUs and increasing the outside airflow quantity being delivered by the existing
AHU. The proposed minimum and maximum ventilation airflows for each piece of equipment are listed below. PDU‐2
serving the spectator area will provide 100% outside air to meet the required ventilation rates for all of the spectators.
However, in order to conserve energy this unit will typically operate at partial capacity by reducing the total airflow via
a supply fan and exhaust fan VFD. When there is an event the unit can be indexed to 100% of its capacity.
1. PDU‐1 Ventilation Rate
a. Minimum – 4,000 CFM
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 26 of 42
b. Maximum – 8,000 CFM
2. PDU‐2 Ventilation Rate
a. Minimum – 3,000 CFM
b. Maximum – 7,000 CFM
3. Existing AHU Ventilation Rate
a. Minimum ‐ 12,500 CFM
b. Maximum – 25,000 CFM
3. AIR DISTRIBUTION
In order to ensure the proper indoor air quality is achieved a well designed air distribution system is a must for both
supply and return/exhaust air. Low return/exhaust to capture the chloramines at their source is the key. Being that
EPIC is an existing facility achieving this low return/exhaust presents a challenge. It is also important in a competition
pool to separate the spectator environment from the pool environment. Both of these items can be addressed as
described below.
1. Low Return/Exhaust can be achieved in two ways:
a. Create a low exhaust extraction system along the south wall. This can be achieved by extending the
stainless steel floor boxes used for supply up to the bottom of the windows and adding another box
with openings in the front for exhaust. These boxes can be fed from ductwork routed high in the
space, from a roof or sidewall mounted chemical exhaust fan, and down next to the columns to the
floor boxes. The floor boxes will be positioned between the columns so that the deck space from the
face of the existing colmns to the pool edge is maintained. This fan will operate 24/7/365. Please see
Figure 3 above for the proposed location of the roof mounted fan. If a sidewall fan is used it would
be located either on the south or west wall. This sidewall fan would be fairly large so the roof
mounted location would be more likely.
b. Create a low return/exhaust from the new PDU‐1. The most likely option for creating a low return is
to remodel the existing Men’s toilet room, losing a fixture and creating a low return in the north wall
of the Therapy Pool area. At this time the toilet room can be remodeled to include an ADA toilet
stall. However, a suitable location will need to be further explored.
2. To further improve the airflow at the pool surface without creating uncomfortable drafts I recommend adding
two large ceiling fans above the pool surface. These fans will have variable frequency drives (VFD) to allow for
the facility to change the air speed at the pool surface. These fans are very quiet and move large volumes of
air at very low speeds. With the use of the VFD, these fans can be optimized to provide the 30 foot per minute
air velocity at the pool surface limiting the evaporation rate and drafts while breaking up the chloramines
bubble. The fans will be located above the pool surface and will be inaccessible for maintenance. Fortunately
the VFD can be remotely mounted and a fan motor requiring no lubrication is available so there should be no
ordinary maintenance needs.
The importance of removing chloramines from the pool surface to promote a healthy, comfortable and
competitive environment cannot be stressed enough. See Figure 4 below for a representation of how the
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 27 of 42
natatorium airflow can be positively affected by implementing the items above. Compare this to Figures 1 & 2 to
see the improvement.
4. NATATORIUM PRESSURE CONTROL
To control the differential pressure in the natatorium, VFDs will be added to the existing relief fans above the
spectator area and the two new PDUs will be provided with exhaust fan VFDs. It may be necessary to replace the
west most existing relief fan as the motor may not be suitable for VFD operation. This will be evaluated at the time
of design but should be planned for during budgeting. The existing relief fans and PDU‐1’s exhaust fan shall
modulate speeds to maintain common natatorium differential pressure setpoints. PDU‐2 shall maintain an
independent differential pressure setpoint for the spectator area. These setpoints are as follows:
1. Existing AHU & PDU‐1
a. Natatorium‐to‐Adjacent space – (‐0.05” w.c.)
i. Shall be sensed between the natatorium and lobby.
b. Natatorium‐to‐Outdoors – (‐0.02” w.c.)
i. Natatorium sensor shall be high in the space to limit stack affect. Stack affect is the
difference in space pressure from the pool deck to the roof. This is cause by the air
temperature differential between outdoor and indoors and is most drastic during the
cold winter months. Stack affect can cause there to be a negative differential pressure,
between the natatorium and outdoors, at the pool deck while there is a positive
differential pressure at the roof deck.
2. PDU‐2
a. Natatorium‐to‐Outdoors – (‐0.02” w.c.)
i. Natatorium sensor shall be placed high at the spectator area ceiling.
Figure 4: AIRFLOW AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 28 of 42
5. SMOKE TEST EVALUATION
On November 18, 2012 a smoke test was performed to help evaluate the current airflow patterns in the EPIC
natatorium. Smoke was generated within the air handler and supplied through the grilles served by AHU‐1.
Unfortunately, the relief fans did not energize and the AHU was indexed to 100% outside air. This caused the room to
become pressurized and filled with smoke as there was no return/relief path to evaluate the entire system operation.
However, at the beginning of the test, before the room filled with smoke, you could see how the air rises from the floor
grilles, hugs the wall and collects at the ceiling. There is little to no air movement across the pool surface. Once the
relief fans were energized it was evident that the majority of the airflow was high in the space and it gathered in the
spectator area. All of the findings from this smoke test confirmed what was anticipated from this system assessment.
The images below show how the smoke is more concentrated in the spectator area and how it rises along the wall and
up to the ceiling. The final image shows how the air near the surface of the water is clear as there is little air
movement at the surface. This is where the “Chloramines Bubble” forms and where the athletes are breathing the
heaviest.
Figure 5 ‐ Smoke Concentrated in Spectator Area
Figure 6– Smoke Being Supplied From Floor Grille
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 29 of 42
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 30 of 42
Figure 7 – Smoke Gathering at Ceiling
Figure 8– Clear Air at Surface of Water
6. ENERGY SAVINGS
As the majority of the HVAC related system recommendations is to provide new, supplemental Pool Dehumidification
Units the energy efficient measures will be focused on these pieces of equipment. Each PDU will be provided with an
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 31 of 42
air‐to‐air heat exchanger which will recover up to 75% of the energy from the air being exhausted from the natatorium.
This heat exchanger type has proven to be the most efficient and reliable system for pools. The large diameter paddle
fans will also help to make all of the systems (including the existing AHU‐1) more efficient by preventing the
stratification of warm air at the ceiling. This will reduce the energy required to heat the natatorium by reducing the air
temperature difference from pool deck to ceiling (which can be as great as 40 degrees) and keeping the volume of the
natatorium as close to one temperature as possible.
7. CONCLUSION
The assessment of the mechanical systems serving the natatorium at EPIC shows that there are several deficiencies
associated with the current system. The natatoriums patrons have expressed complaints that are typical for systems
with these deficiencies. It is unfortunate that the systems have been designed in such a way that the natatoriums
indoor air quality is negatively affected. However, as discussed above, there are some great solutions to each of these
deficiencies.
I strongly suggest that the solutions provided be considered and implemented by the City of Fort Collins. The Edora
Pool & Ice Center’s natatorium is a beautiful facility for aquatics athletics and recreation. Provided with the proper
indoor air quality, this venue can be a premier location for events, practices and recreation alike.
Attached to this document is a cost analysis for the various proposed action items below. The list below is prioritized
to help aid in the decision making process. However, many of these items are nearly as important as the next and all of
them are essential to provide the healthy, comfortable and competitive environment patrons are looking for.
Please note that there is currently no cost effective means of measuring chloramines levels in the air. Because of this,
the success of the ventilation system is judged primarily by the occupants comfort.
8. PRIORTIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are in order of priority the recommendations (marked with the "H" prefix in the attached cost analysis):
1. Large paddle fans to break‐up the “Chloramines Bubble”.
2. Increase the ventilation air flow rate from AHU‐1 and Control modifications to AHU‐1’s outside air
dampers.
3. VFD operation of relief fans for space pressure control.
4. Chloramines extraction system along south wall.
5. Spectator PDU‐2.
6. Supplement the undersized AHU‐1 with the new PDU‐1. Remodel the men’s toilet room to provide for
the low return/exhaust at the same time.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 32 of 42
V. EXISTING STRUCTURE EVALUATION
This Section Prepared by Dave Wittman, Structural Engineer, Martin/Martin
The existing roof structure was analyzed and it has only enough capacity for the existing dead loads and snow loads.
New structure would be needed to support the proposed equipment.
On the low roof this new structure could be beams or joists. Both would need to be spliced for ease of installation. The
existing ceiling would need to be removed and any conduit or piping would need to be temporarily removed or
relocated to allow the installation of the new structure.
On the high roof the new structure would be long‐span joists. Again, the ceiling, conduit and piping would need to be
temporarily removed or relocated to allow the installation of the new structure.
It may be possible to hoist the new structure into place utilizing the existing joists. Another way to install the new
structure is to cut holes in the roof and hoist the new joists up using a crane parked outside the building. The joists can
be temporarily supported on rollers which will allow the joists halves to be rolled into final position and joined
together. The joist bearings would be slightly smaller than the existing joist bearings, the joists jacked would be jacked
into final position and shims added to maintain the correct elevation. This helps to preload the new joists so that they
share the existing load.
No weights were given for the new relief and exhaust fans but if they are 250 pounds or less, they can be supported on
the existing structure.
If the proposed HVAC units were put on the low roof to the north of the pool there could be some significant savings
because the area is more accessible and the impacted area is smaller. Another option is to locate HVAC units on site to
the west or south of the natatorium
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 33 of 42
VI. OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
Prepared by Jeff King, President of Ballard*King and Associates
A. SUMMARY REVIEW FOR EPIC FACILITY ASSESSMENT
The City of Fort Collins Facility Study of EPIC included the opportunity to engage key stakeholders to gather input on
maintenance and air quality of EPIC. The key stakeholders included members of the Recreation Staff, representatives
from local swim organizations served by EPIC and City Facilities Staff that have been maintaining EPIC. There was not a
specific agenda with these meetings but rather open discussions pertaining to maintenance of EPIC. Many of these
discussions blended into on‐going maintenance issues and pointed to the need to explore alternative methods and
communication processes. Over the course of discussion there are some key elements that surfaced that are
highlighted below.
B. RECREATION STAFF
Staff raised issues about the responsiveness of facilities and feels at times that EPIC is treated like any other City facility
or office. The reality is EPIC, and the other City recreation facilities, are different from a vast majority of City buildings in
that recreation is one of the few services the City provides where that residents have a choice on who their provider is.
Recreation facilities rely on quality program and facilities to attract participation and revenue needed since Recreation
is not funded 100% with General Fund Tax support. These facilities and programs are market driven and represent
discretionary operations that cannot afford delays in responding to maintenance needs/request. The responsiveness to
maintenance request at EPIC has been more inconsistent and challenging since some staff turnover has occurred within
the Facilities Department and is understandable given the fact that Facilities is currently understaffed.
The scheduling of the maintenance staff is a contributing factor to communication and response issues. Currently the
primary maintenance coverage occurs from 3:30am to noon Monday through Friday. On one hand this facilitates
completing some maintenance tasks before the EPIC opens but on the other hand maintenance staff support is not
available during the prime operating hours of 3pm to 8pm daily and on weekends. There is a no overtime policy in an
effort to curb personnel cost in Facilities that is understandable and necessary to control cost. The expectation for
scheduling maintenance staff should be changing when the department is back to being fully staffed. Maintenance
staff schedules could, and should be adjusted to meet on‐going operation needs, special program requirements, and
events to avoid creating an overtime issue to support activities at EPIC. The bottom line is that the EPIC needs more
facility support on location and responsive to maintenance request at EPIC.
Mechanical breakdowns and failures are enviable but strategic planning could reduce down time significantly. The City
operates several pools that all have chlorine pumps and it makes sense to have a pump in inventory for replacement
parts on hand to minimize the impact for emergency failures occur.
Communication has been, and continues to be an issue between Facilities and Recreation. It is strongly recommended
that regularly scheduled meetings occur between Facilities and Recreation at least monthly and preferably every two
weeks. This will be an opportunity for Facilities to understand what events and programs are upcoming that will impact
maintenance while allowing the Facilities staff to update the Recreation staff as to projects and on‐going maintenance
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 34 of 42
being completed. It should be noted that having regular staff meetings will not eliminate the need and importance of
daily communication amongst City staff.
C. SWIM ORGANIZATIONS
The High School Coach reported that the air quality seems to be worse in the morning than later in the day. He and
members of the swim team report a swimmers “hack” from being in the pool for prolonged periods of time. In fairness,
the swim coach has not had a practice or swim meet since the air handling ductwork system was cleaned. The air fans
seem to help with air quality but require operating at a high speed to function properly and the noised emitted from
the fans creates some problems for communication on deck between coaches and athletes.
The FAST coach confirmed that the air quality has improved with the UV installation and duck cleaning that occurred.
Both the high school and age group coaches praised the City for the cleanliness of locker rooms and pool deck. Water
temperature and clarity also received praise from the competitive swimmers. However, many swimmers reported
upper respiratory problems and asthmatic conditions aggravated and exasperated by the air quality of EPIC during the
2011/2012 season. Air temperature is an issue during large swim events. The combination of water temp, air temp and
the body heat from spectators create an environment that is uncomfortable to spectators during major events.
The bulkhead has become a liability waiting to happen. The buoyancy tubes do not work correctly which exasperates
the process for moving the bulkhead. The City has realized the bulkhead is a problem and has several incidents of
worker comp situations that led to the policy of not allowing staff to move the bulkheads. FAST has taken on this
responsibility and report that the bulkheads are becoming increasingly difficult to move. The Stark bulkhead system is
the same bulkheads that were installed when the pool was built in 1987 and could well have reached their useful life
expectancy. The bulkhead system should be assessed by an outside professional to inspect the integrity of the steel
frame work and condition of the buoyancy tube system. This information is critical to determine the remaining life
expectancy of the bulkhead system and the appropriate course of action for the City.
D. STANDARDS
The following maintenance practices and recommendations should help define some of the elements as part
of standard operating procedure.
It was agreed upon the pool temperature of 82 degrees in the competitive pool is a temperature everyone can live with
and represents a happy median for competitive swimmers and recreation users alike. Upon request from the host
organization, the City lowers the pool temperature to 78 degrees to meet the competitive swimming needs for hosting
an event. Events that require a lower pool water temperature should be confined to events that attract more than 400
athletes as minimum criteria.
Maintenance coverage should be occurring seven days per week at EPIC. Unlike other City buildings that are closed in
the evenings and weekends, EPIC is not only open during these time but receives the largest share of participation
during evenings and weekend times. The maintenance scheduling issue is expected to improve when Facilities is fully
staffed.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 35 of 42
In addition, strategies should be explored in an effort to expand maintenance capacity and quality through a
combination of the following:
Improved staff productivity
Increased staff strengths and training
Reduction of non‐productive time
Possible use of contracted services
In closing, the Recreation Staff expressed their appreciation for the efforts of Facilities staff during the understaffed
period and reinforced the importance of having full engagement from Facilities to help Recreation reach its objectives
in meeting community driven expectations.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 36 of 42
VII. COST OPINIONS AND PRIORITIZATION
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 37 of 42
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 38 of 42
VIII. SUPPORTING DATA
A. STANDARDS/CODES
1. State of Colorado pool regulations (5 CCR 1003‐5, SWIMMING POOLS AND MINERAL BATHS ) [SCPR]
2. USA Swimming 2012 Rule Book [SWIM12]
3. Model Health Aquatic Code (Proposed, not adopted by any jurisdiction), [MAHC]
4. Current City of Fort Collins Building Codes
a. 2009 International Codes (IBC, IMC, IPC, etc.) with amendments
b. Accessibility: CRS 9‐5, ANSI 117.1‐2004 and 2012 ADA
5. ASHRAE:
a. Standard 62
b. HVAC Systems and Equipment 2012 – 25.5
c. HVAC Applications 2011 – 5.6
d. 90.1 (energy standards)
6. 2010 ADA Standards For Accessible Design, September 15, 2010 [ADA]
7. Amendment of Americans With Disabilities Act Title II and Title III Regulations: Extend Compliance Date for
Certain Requirements Related to Existing Pools and Spas Provided by State and Local Governments and by
Public Accommodations HTML | PDF, 30174–30180 [2012–12365]
B. SMOKE TESTING
A smoke test was performed by Air‐Right, Inc. under the observation of The Ballard Group on November 18th, 2012.
Testing consisted of placing a thermal generator in the supply air stream with the Air Handler Unit (AHU) de‐energized
to allow a sufficient buildup of smoke‐like aerosol. The AHU was energized and the return air path from the supply to
the return in the auditorium was video recorded. The thermal generator used is commonly used in HEPA filter leak
testing for large air handlers. The aerosol used was ATI PAO‐4. The ATI PAO‐4 aerosol does not leave a residue and is
effectively removed within 24 hours of normal operation of the AHU.
This testing session was attended by
1. Tim Toppings, Air‐Right
2. Matt Doll, The Ballard Group
3. Steve Strickland, CIty of Fort Collins
C. ATTACHMENTS (DVD)
The following documentation is provided in the attached DVD. This documentation is available for download from
Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative. Please call 303.294.9244 for download information or for additional copies of the DVD.
1. "Fort Collins Natatorium and Ice Arena", Hastings + Chivetta Architects, Planners, Record Drawings from
February 6, 1987, 71 documents in PDF format
2. Photos and Videos taken on site dated:
a. May 14, 2012: General, pre‐contract walkthrough
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 39 of 42
b. August 16, 2012: Site visit to inspect empty pool shells
c. August 22, 2012: Site visit to inspect facility and pools systems
d. November 5, 2012: Site visit to inspect pool mechanical equipment
e. November 18, 2012: Video of Smoke Analysis
3. Code Comparison in PDF and XLSX formats
4. Cost Analysis in PDF and XLSX formats
5. Resumes for the following individuals.
a. Architect: Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative Donaldo Visani
b. Aquatic Consultant Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative Aldo Coronado
c. The Ballard Group Mechanical Engineering Peter Failla
d. Marti/Martin Structural Engineering Dave Wittman
e. Ballard*King Operational Consultant Jeff King
f. Air‐Testing, Inc. Smoke Testing Tim Topping
D. RECORD NOTES FROM INTITIAL OBSERVATION PERFORMED ON AUGUST 16, 2012:
The first formal inspection of the EDORA pools by Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative (Aldo Coronado and occurred on August
16, 2012, during a yearly planned shutdown of the facility and emptying of the pools. The pool shells were being
repaired and reviewed for finishes and for any mechanical items that may need to be changed or repaired for the year.
The inspection of the shells was significant because of the age of the shell. In addition, certain issues were discovered
while we had full access to the entirety of the existing shell in all the pools. In the following report, we will discuss each
of the pools and the our site observations. We will also address other items that were discussed in separate meetings
with stakeholders.
A) LAP POOL:
First, we inspected the 50 Meter, 10 lane pool that was built in the 80’s. Since its construction the pool has gone
through various fixes here and there with only repairs on most items except for the starter platforms, which have been
replaced since the originals were installed. The pools are shut down every year for about a week or two at the end of
the summer to do the maintenance of the shell items. This also allows maintenance of those items that may be
required in the mechanical room.
SHELL: The shell still looks in good shape and solid in most areas. There is an area in the transition from the shallow to
the deep end where the tile was being redone and the grout was being replaced. It looks to be due to the expansion
joint in the floor that may have leaked into the tile base on each side and needed to be addressed at some point in the
past. The contractor doing these repairs apparently covered the joint with tile. But it appears that the sealant was not
cured properly. The curing of most expansion material needs a few days to cure. If not, when it gets wet it will not set
up and separate from the sides of the concrete. If there is any movement in the floor at the joint the tile will then just
pop off and there will be the possibility of losing the joint covering and water over time. If this joint is addressed year
after year then it could be an area of water loss for the pool.
TILING: The floor and wall tile of the lap pool looks to be in good shape for about 90% of the shell but there are areas in
the gutter areas that need to be addressed. There are some gutter tiles at the lip to the backside that have grout
missing. Water can travel back through the gutter not only on the vertical but directly through the horizontal tile that
has also has no grout. These areas are places were the pool can lose water through the concrete. On the back side of
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 40 of 42
those areas there are typically signs of tile cracking or popping off on the deck or the deck sinking. If the pool is losing
water this is could be a contributor to loss of water.
GUTTER: The gutter has been repaired over the years due to the weight of the bulkheads sitting on the 2” gutter lip.
There was a stainless steel rail that caps the old tiled lip that is helping support the bulkhead. The reason for the rail to
be there is to offset the crushing of the tiled lip when the bulkhead is moved. The rail is surviving but the tiled structure
under the rail is still being crushed. There is tile that is cracked under the rail and the weight of the bulkhead has also
unleveled the rail where the gutter doesn’t evenly skim the water’s surface. The rail is not sufficient to hold the weight
of the bulkhead and the lip is too thin and doesn’t have enough support for the bulkheads. It was discussed a couple of
times after this site observation that the bulkheads were never to sit on the lip of the gutter. The bulkheads were
designed to sit on the deck and they were adjusted to sit on the lip so as to not block the deck with the supports.
Typically the bulkheads that sit on a concrete gutter lip are at least 4” to 6” wide and have enough steel in the base of
the lip to support the bulkhead. They may also have pin points that mark the areas of where the bulkhead can sit and
these are recommended to be stainless steel. Since the gutter is bearing only on a 2” lip, the weight of bulkhead is too
much for the lip. A possibility is to replace the existing system with a stainless steel gutter that typically has a similar
size of lip for a hand grip and but also a bulkhead sitting or rolling area. The current rail is not a long‐term solution to
the problem since it needs to be supported from underneath and into the concrete wall. Currently it will always crush
the grout or tile underneath.
BULKHEAD: The bulkheads are a big concern from a facility and operational standpoint. Current operational
requirements do not allow anyone to move the bulkhead unless they are at least 18 years of age and sign a waiver to
move the bulkhead. These bulkheads were built on site when the pool was first built. However, in order to
compensate for the adjustment of sitting the bulkhead on the gutter lip (mentioned above) there were more interior
adjustments to the bulkhead. Supports were added to the interior of the bulkhead. These supports, or braces, filled in
the open spaces that existed to allow water through the bulkhead as it is being moved. Since this adjustment, the
moving of the bulkhead has been very difficult. The air chambers that allow the bulkheads to be more buoyant and
assist in reducing the weight and drag through the water now are filled and do not hold air. In order to move the
bulkhead operators have to drag the bulkhead through the water. Plowing the water out of the way to the desired
position desired takes time and force. The wheels and supports at the ends of the bulkheads that sit on the rail are
severely rusted and need maintenance or should be replaced. We are not sure if the end supports will last very long
and there is a possibility that the bulkhead may tip into the pool.
STARTER PLATFORMS: There was an accident that had happened during a practice where someone had fallen off the
starter platform because the supports on one of the platforms were apparently loose. All the starter platforms on the
bulkhead have been changed as of last year. Since that incident happened there have been adjustments and re‐welding
done on the anchors to stabilize the platforms. This may be a continuing problem that will need to be fixed every year
along with the bulkhead supports. These items need to be addressed immediately due to the age of the bulkhead, its
condition and potential for injury. If the bulkhead is replaced then the starter platforms need to be inspected to see if
they are still in good shape and not rusting.
DIVING BOARDS: The diving boards look to be in need of paint and repair. The rails look to be in need of rust removal
as do some of the bolts. The fulcrum needs to be addressed on all the boards and so do the bolts on them. There was
discussion as to whether or not the boards would stay or be removed. There was discussion of removing at least the 3
meter board but leaving the 1 meter boards so that the dive team could use them for diving lessons. Most facilities that
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 41 of 42
have diving have only the 1 meter boards and it would be good for the facility to at least keep the two 1 meter boards.
We would recommend removing the 3 meter board if not used for competition or practice.
POOL DRAINS: The drain to the pool has been reconstructed to meet the Virginia Graeme Baker Act. The drains should
be adjusted for flow and also for changes to the circulation. The circulation should be addressed if the current
circulation system doesn’t meet a 6 hour turnover rate. There may be a possibility to install drains on the side wall to
help with the required circulation if the circulation is a consideration for change. Along with the drain system the inlets
look like they are missing most internal components. Those inlets should be either changed or find out if those parts
still exist and install them in the existing fittings. Brass fittings are hard to come by but there may be a chance that the
current inlets can fit in the existing fittings.
ADA REQUIREMENTS: The last items that will have to be addressed are the ADA requirements for this pool. The ramp
has to be checked to see if it meets the current regulations for the runs and the slope. The pool also is greater than 300
linear feet of perimeter and a second means of access is required. There are choices to this second means of access. It
can be a lift or another ramp for this pool. The ADA regulations prefer that the second form of access be different from
the first access installed.
B) THERAPY POOL:
The Therapy Pool shell looks to be in good shape and the grout looks clean. It has had a leak in the past and the jet area
was rebuilt to have the plumbing installed for that area in the bench. There are some areas where you can see some
reduction, or erosion, in the grout. This reduction in grout will need to be repaired to prevent potential leaking. We
recommend a bucket test and a pressure test be made to this pool’s plumbing system so that we can verify that the
plumbing is still in good condition and not leaking. We would also recommend the air line be checked to see if it is
liquid tight and if it can keep pressure. Some of the floor areas feel a little rough but that can be addressed by grinding
these down.
C) KID'S POOL:
The Kid's pool shell is in good shape but there looks to be some deck movement on the north side. We are not sure if it
was due to the line break of the Therapy Pool. We would recommend a plumbing or bucket test to this pool to see if it
is losing any water. The surface looks good and we didn’t see any need to resurface the pool and it looks to be changed
not too long ago or at least re‐grouted.
This pool is not technically a "wading pool" as it sometimes seems to be called. If this were to be a wading pool, this
pool would not meet the new ADA requirements. All wading pools must have a 1:20 maximum slope from the
shallowest to the deepest part of the pool, unless a code complaint railing is provided in which case they can slope to a
1:12 maximum slope. There isn’t a need for a rail down to that lowest point as long as it slopes to a maximum depth of
two feet per the requirements of the ADA. This pool is thus a traditional skimmer pool and called "Kid's Pool" in this
report.
The equalizers for the skimmers need to be checked to make sure they meet the Virginia Graeme Baker Act (VGBA). If
the equalizers do not have a VGBA rated grate on it then they should be disabled and capped off at the interior of the
pool.
D) GENERAL TESTING FOR ALL POOLS:
We recommend the following tests or procedures be performed for each of the pools.
April 2, 2015
EDORA Pool & Natatorium Assessment
Page 42 of 42
1. A pressure test to see if the plumbing systems can hold pressure.
2. Verify that the velocities on the installed grating meet the State of Colorado and or VGBA grate velocities
requirements. Since some of this equipment has changed most likely after the VGBA‐compliant grates were
installed, the grates' compliance should be verified with the flows for the new equipment.
3. A bucket test (see description below) to see if any of them are leaking through the shell. If the bucket test fails
for any of the pools then a leak detection company should be hired to find the leak.