TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Nutrient ... · 2014-05-23 · 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary

1

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates PREPARED FOR: Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL

DATE: January 11, 2012

1. IntroductionThe Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) commissioned the Preliminary Nutrient Removal Cost Estimates Study to establish an understanding of the economic impacts at the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant (NSWWTP) to meet potential new nutrient limits. Lower nutrient limits are anticipated because of recent administrative rule revisions and/or the Rock River total maximum daily load, which will require MMSD to reduce their total phosphorus effluent concentrations and loads further. In addition, MMSD is also anticipating future regulations at the state or federal levels addressing nitrogen that will require MMSD to reduce effluent nitrogen. Hence, as a prudent course of regulatory management, MMSD is engaging in this assessment of cost impacts due to potential lower discharge limits for nutrients.

Treatment facility upgrade requirements were evaluated for a range of potential nutrient effluent limits. Evaluating the range of potential nutrient effluent limits will allow MMSD to determine whether there is a “knee of curve” with respect to treatment technologies. Table 1 presents the nine different scenarios covering the range of effluent total phosphorus and total nitrogen effluent limits that were evaluated in this study.

TABLE 1 Nutrient Discharge Limit Scenarios for Treated Effluent

Scenario Total Phosphorus, mg/L Total Nitrogen, mg/L

1 0.225 2 None 1

2 0.130 2 None 1

3 0.075 3 None 1

4 0.225 2 10 2

5 0.130 2 10 2

6 0.075 3 10 2

7 0.225 2 3 2

8 0.130 2 3 2

9 0.075 3 3 2

1 Existing ammonia limits apply 2 Monthly average concentrations 3 Annual average concentrations

NSWWTP PRELIMINARY NUTRIENT REMOVAL COST ESTIMATES

2

The approach to meeting the primary objectives of this study can be summarized as follows:

1. Develop a list of process alternatives to meet the nutrient limits of each scenario presented in Table 1 and screen them based on pros and cons to select a single alternative for each scenario.

2. Using a process model, determine the required sizes of tanks and process equipment, chemical usage, and other operating requirements to achieve the target effluent phosphorus and nitrogen limits.

3. Estimate capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and life cycle costs that would result from the implementation of the selected process upgrade for each of the nine nutrient effluent limit scenarios.

2. Facility OverviewAccording to the Master Plan, the NSWWTP has a rated average flow capacity of 57 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak flow capacity of 140 MGD. The facility is divided into two complexes, East and West, with approximately 45 percent of the flow going to the East and 55 percent of the flow going to the West complex. The liquid treatment process includes preliminary treatment with screening and grit removal, primary clarification, nitrifying activated sludge treatment incorporating biological phosphorus removal, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, excess flow storage, and effluent pumping. The solids treatment process includes primary and waste activated sludge (WAS) thickeners, an acid gas temperature phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) process designed to produce Class A biosolids, and digested biosolids thickening and dewatering. In addition, the facility is currently installing a struvite harvesting system by Ostara and an associated WAS phosphorus stripping system as part of the 11th addition modifications.

There are fourteen primary clarifiers in the East Complex and five primary clarifiers in the West Complex. The clarifiers are rectangular units with chain and flight sludge removal mechanisms. Settled primary sludge is pumped to gravity thickeners for thickening before being anaerobically digested.

Biological treatment of the primary effluent occurs in the aeration tanks. There are eighteen aeration tanks in the East Complex and twelve in the West Complex. The aeration tanks are configured such that each group of three aeration tanks functions as one three-pass serpentine flow pattern treatment unit. The existing secondary treatment is an enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) system with two process configurations being utilized – the University of Cape Town (UCT) process except without nitrified mixed liquor recycle, which is utilized for the majority of the plant, and the anaerobic/aerobic (A/O) process, which is utilized in a small portion of the East plant. The UCT process consists of anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones. Influent wastewater enters the anaerobic zone, and is then combined with recycled mixed liquor from the anoxic zone. Mixed liquor then flows into the anoxic zone where it combines with return activated sludge (RAS) from the secondary clarifiers. The mixed liquor then proceeds into the aerobic zone for further treatment. In the A/O process, the anoxic zone is eliminated and RAS is combined with the influent wastewater in the anaerobic zone. Following the anaerobic zone, the mixed liquor flows to the aerobic zone for EBPR.

Effluent from the aeration tanks flows to circular secondary clarifiers for settling. There are eleven secondary clarifiers in the East Complex and eight in the West Complex. The effluent


3

from the secondary clarifiers flows to UV disinfection facilities before being discharged either to the Badfish Creek or the Badger Mill Creek.

After the 11th addition modifications, WAS from the secondary clarifiers will be sent to phosphorus release tanks prior to thickening. The thickened WAS is sent to an advanced anaerobic digestion process along with thickened primary sludge, while the filtrate from the WAS thickening will be diverted to a struvite recovery process. Anaerobically digested biosolids will be thickened using gravity belt thickeners or dewatered using centrifuges and then used beneficially for land application (Metrogro) or as a soil amendment in a distribution and marketing program (MetroMix).

Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow diagram of the treatment facility. This diagram includes the phosphorus release tanks and the struvite harvesting system that are currently under construction for the 11 addition modifications. Figure 2 shows a site plan of the existing facility and Table 2 provides a summary of the major existing unit processes at NSWWTP.


4

FIGURE 1 Simplified Process Flow Diagram of NSWWTP

Figure 2 Existing Site Plan NSWWTP


6

TABLE 2 Summary of Major Unit Processes at NSWWTP

Unit Process East Complex West Complex Details

Primary Clarifiers 2 @ 85-ft x 31-ft and 10-ft SWD 2 @ 101-ft x 31-ft and 10-ft SWD 10 @ 88-ft x 33.5-ft and 10-ft SWD

5 @ 100-ft x 40-ft and 8-ft SWD

All primary clarifiers are rectangular

Aeration Tanks A/O process configuration – 2.876 MG Modified UCT process configuration – 9.292 MG

Modified UCT process configuration –

11.729 MG

Three pass tanks

Secondary Clarifiers 2 @ 70-ft dia and 12.5-ft SWD 4 @ 85-ft dia and 12.5-ft SWD 4 @ 105-ft dia and 12-ft SWD 1 @ 105+-ft dia and 12-ft SWD

8 @ 116-ft dia and 13-ft SWD

All secondary clarifiers are circular

Anaerobic Digesters1 Acid Digesters – 0.76 MG East Complex Digesters – 5.42 MG and, West Complex Digesters – 1.976 MG

Advanced anaerobic digestion – Multistage

acid gas TPAD

Phosphorus Release Tanks1 2 tanks @ 300,000 gallons each

Struvite Harvesting Facility Ostara’s proprietary PearlTM 2000

SWD = sidewater depth Note: 1 Planned for the 11th Addition

3. Nutrient Removal Alternatives Development, Screening and SelectionA nutrient removal alternatives matrix was prepared to capture an array of viable approaches to meet the range of nutrient limits shown in Table 1 (see Appendix A). This matrix considered biological and chemical phosphorus removal approaches, different configurations for biological nitrogen control, and tertiary solids, phosphorus, and nitrogen removal technologies. The alternatives matrix illustrates that there are several strategies for controlling nutrient limits, however, each comes with its pros and cons. The pros and cons, including the ability of the alternative to reliably meet the target effluent nutrient limits were identified for each alternative. Preliminary capital cost estimates were identified for several key unit processes to facilitate comparison of alternatives. A preliminary ranking of the top three treatment alternatives was developed for each treatment limit scenario. CH2M HILL conducted a workshop with MMSD on July 15, 2011 during which the alternatives for each treatment limit scenario were discussed in detail. During the workshop, the preliminary rankings were revised to reflect the consensus of the workshop participants on the top three ranked alternatives for each treatment limit scenario. Although the top three alternatives were ranked, the primary goal of the workshop was to identify the best (i.e., the number 1 ranked) alternative for each treatment scenario for subsequent modeling and detailed cost estimating. The final rankings including those selected as the number 1 ranked alternative for subsequent detailed process modeling and cost estimating are presented in the right column of Appendix A.


7

4. Data Evaluation and Modeling Process UpgradesThe selected alternatives for meeting the different scenarios of nutrient limits were analyzed using the following stepwise approach:

Step 1. Review, compile, and summarize the unit processes and process performance data provided by NSWWTP.

Step 2. Develop and calibrate a base model of the existing facility with planned 11th addition modifications using the unit process sizing and performance data.

Step 3. Create a process model for each nutrient limit scenario by modify the base model to incorporate unit process additions or upgrades. Each model was run at the design year flows and loads to establish unit process sizing and operating requirements.

Step 4. Develop capital, O&M, and life cycle costs for each upgrade developed in Step 3.

Step 5. Estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the operations of these process upgrades, including additional power and chemical usage, biosolids handling and management, and wastewater treatment.

Step 6. Identify and compare ancillary benefits between the selected alternatives with respect so such things as removal of chemicals of emerging concern (CEC), mercury, and disinfection.

All process modeling for NSWWTP was done using CH2M HILL’s Pro2D whole plant simulator. This tool provided a flexible and robust modeling approach for characterizing, sizing, and predicting treatment plant performance. Pro2D was used to calculate and document all process sizing and operational information related to the evaluation of treatment plant upgrades. The Pro2D activated sludge model uses the International Water Association’s ASM2d model. Because a 20-year planning period from 2015 to 2035 was selected by MMSD, the Pro2D modeling to size facilities was conducted using flow and load estimates for year 2035. MMSD provided the flows and loads for year 2015 and 2035 corresponding to the start and end of the 20-year planning period. Appendix B provides details of the Pro2D models for each scenario including, mass balances. A second model, PClarifier, was used to provide detailed modeling of secondary clarifier performance and capacity using state-point analysis. The sizing and operational information from Pro2D was then input into CH2M HILL’s cost estimating software package, CH2M HILL Parametric Estimating System (CPES) to develop capital, O&M, and life cycle cost estimates for each treatment limit scenario.

Nutrient Upgrade ApproachesThe following paragraphs provide details of the process upgrades that were selected for meeting the nine nutrient effluent limit scenarios presented in Table 1. Because of potential concerns with ferric chloride fouling the UV disinfection quartz sleeves, modeling and cost estimating were based on alum as the metal salt in all nine scenarios.

Scenario 1: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.225 mg/L on a Monthly Average Basis (No Total Nitrogen Limit, Only Existing Ammonia Limits) The effluent limit for this scenario is 0.225 mg/L total phosphorus on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.11 mg/L total phosphorus was selected to achieve the limit reliably. With its existing infrastructure and secondary treatment process configuration, NSWWTP is able to


8

achieve approximately 0.3 mg/L total phosphorus effluent concentration on average. To meet the target effluent concentration, deep bed granular media filters were selected with a metal salt storage and addition system ahead of it. The filters will provide particulate phosphorus removal from the secondary effluent to achieve the desired nutrient limit. The process modeling for this scenario indicated metal salts would not be required to meet the limit. This is consistent with the fact that current average effluent total phosphorus concentration is only about 0.075 above the limit and about 0.2 above the target. However, experience dictates that a stand-by metal salt addition facility should be constructed, even if not typically needed, to meet this low of a limit reliably. It was assumed that the secondary effluent from the clarifiers will need to be pumped to the filters, thus, a pump station was also selected. In addition, the filtration system included backwash pumps and a backwash equalization basin.

For this study, the secondary effluent pump station and the filtration system was sized to handle a maximum flowrate of 79 MGD based on effluent pumping capacity to Badfish Creek and Badger Mill Creek. At this flowrate, a total of 12 filters (10 active and 2 stand-by), each 5-ft deep with anthracite as the media and an individual area of 1100-sq ft was required. Two active and one stand-by 650 HP pumps were included to pump the secondary effluent to the filters. The metal salt storage facility was sized to receive full tank truck deliveries and to provide 30 days storage capacity. The resulting facility consists of six chemical tanks of 12-ft diameter and 12-ft height with six metering pumps.

Figure 3 presents a simplified process flow diagram for this alternative, with the upgrades indicated in red, and a preliminary layout of the facilities on the site plan is shown in Figure 4.


9

FIGURE 3 Modifications to NSWWTP for Scenario 1 Nutrient Control

Figure 4 Preliminary Layout of Facilities for Scenario 1 - NSWWTP


11

Scenario 2: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.130 mg/L on a Monthly Average Basis (No Total Nitrogen Limit, Only Existing Ammonia Limits) The effluent limit for this scenario is 0.13 mg/L total phosphorus on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.07 mg/L total phosphorus was selected to achieve the limit reliably. The inclusion of the secondary effluent pump station, the granular media filtration system and the metal salt storage and feed facility as described in Scenario 1 will allow achieving the target effluent total phosphorus concentration. However, the process modeling indicated that continuous addition of metal salts ahead of the filters would be required for this alternative. Since no new process units are added to this scenario, the process flow diagram for this approach will be the same as presented in Figure 3 and the layout will be same as Figure 4. The cost difference compared to Scenario 1 will be additional operation cost associated with chemical addition.

Scenario 3: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.075 mg/L on an Annual Average Basis (No Total Nitrogen Limit, Only Existing Ammonia Limits) The effluent limit for this scenario is 0.075 mg/L total phosphorus on an annual average basis. A target of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus was selected to achieve the limit reliably. This alternative includes the treatment processes for phosphorus control from Scenarios 1 and 2 and includes a second feed point for metal salt addition, rapid mix system, polymer storage and feed facility, flocculation basin, and lamella clarifiers. . Lamella clarifiers were selected as they are less expensive and have a smaller footprint when compared to conventional tertiary clarifiers. The lamella clarifiers, rapid mix system and the flocculation basins were sized to handle a maximum flowrate of 79 MGD consistent with Scenarios 1 and 2. A plate hydraulic rate of 0.30 gpm/sq-ft was assumed for sizing the clarifiers, which resulted in a total required area of approximately 19,500 sq-ft. Both the rapid mix and the flocculation system consist of four active trains plus a standby train. The trains for the rapid mix system are 62-ft x 39-ft each and the flocculation basin trains are 57-ft x 91-ft each.

Figure 5 provides a simplified process flow diagram of this scenario with the upgrades indicated in red, and a preliminary layout of the facilities is shown in Figure 6.


12




14

Scenario 4: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.225 mg/L and Total Nitrogen limit of 10.0 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.225 mg/L total phosphorus and 10 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.11 mg/L total phosphorus and 7 to 8 mg/L total nitrogen were selected to achieve the limits reliably. The approach taken to meet the total phosphorus limit will be the same as Scenario 1.

In order to meet the 10 mg/L total nitrogen limit, process modeling indicated that modification of the existing secondary treatment process will be sufficient and the addition of extra tank volume will not be required. The combined anoxic volume of the existing modified UCT process in the East and West complex will need to be expanded to 7.35 MG by decreasing the existing aerobic volume. This will be achieved by adding baffle walls and mixers. Mixed liquor recirculation pumps and pipes will need to be added to recycle the nitrate-rich mixed liquor from the last aerobic zone to the anoxic zone for denitrification. The addition of an external carbon source is required to the anoxic zone for denitrification, thus a methanol storage and feed facility was modeled. There are alternative external carbon sources to methanol that could be evaluated should a biological nitrogen removal process be designed for NSWWTP, but methanol was used for modeling and cost estimating because it has been used the most and because modeling of methanol for biological nitrogen removal is well established. Similarly, the existing A/O process will be converted to a modified UCT process by adding an anoxic volume of 0.84 MG from the existing aerobic volume, mixed liquor recirculation pumps and pipes, and a methanol feed system.

Figure 7 provides a simplified process flow diagram of this scenario with the upgrades indicated in red. The preliminary layout of the facilities will be same as shown in Figure 4.


15


HEADWORKS

BIOSOLIDS TO LAND APPLICATION

RAS

WAS

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE

GRAVITY THICKENERS

PRIMARY CLARIFIERS

ANAEROBIC ANOXIC

M M

AEROBIC

ANAEROBIC

M

MODIFIED UCT PROCESS SECONDARY

CLARIFIERS

ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION

ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS

ANAEROBIC RECYCLE

PHOSPHORUS RELEASE TANK

STRUVITE RECOVERY

STRUVITE PELLETS

GRAVITY BELT THICKENERS

AEROBIC

Metal-salt addition

DEEP BED GRANULAR

MEDIA FILTERS

SECONDARY EFFLUENT

PUMP STATION

NITRATE-RICH MIXED LIQUOR RECIRC

M

ANOXIC

M

SECONDARY CLARIFIERS

RAS

GRAVITY BELT THICKENERS


16

Scenario 5: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.130 mg/L and Total Nitrogen Limit of 10.0 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.130 mg/L total phosphorus and 10 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.07 mg/L total phosphorus and 7 to 8 mg/L total nitrogen were selected to achieve the limits reliably. The approach for meeting the total phosphorus and nitrogen limits of this scenario combines the upgrades presented for Scenario 2 and Scenario 4 respectively. Since the approach for this scenario is essentially the same as that of Scenario 4 with a minor operational change, the process flow diagram and the preliminary layout will be the same as shown in Figures 7 and 4, respectively.

Scenario 6: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.075 mg/L on an Annual Average Basis and Total Nitrogen Limit of 10.0 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.075 mg/L total phosphorus on an annual average basis and 10 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus and 7 to 8 mg/L total nitrogen were selected to achieve the limits reliably. The nutrient limits of Scenario 6 will be achieved by combining the process upgrades for total phosphorus control presented in Scenario 3 and the upgrades for total nitrogen control presented in Scenario 4.

A simplified process flow diagram of this scenario is provided in Figure 8 with the upgrades indicated in red and the preliminary layout of the facilities will be same as shown in Figure 6.


17



18

Scenario 7: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.225 mg/L and Total Nitrogen Limit of 3 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.225 mg/L total phosphorus and 3 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.11 mg/L total phosphorus and 2 mg/L total nitrogen was selected to achieve the limits reliably. The approach for meeting a total phosphorus concentration of 0.225 mg/L for this scenario will be the same as Scenario 1.

To meet the low total nitrogen effluent concentration of 3 mg/L, the existing secondary treatment process (both the modified UCT and the A/O process) will need to be modified to a 5-stage Bardenpho process with the addition of new aeration tank volume, mixed liquor recirculation system and a methanol storage and feed facility. In a 5-stage Bardenpho process, the primary effluent is mixed with the RAS in an anaerobic zone for phosphorus release. Following this, the mixed liquor enters an anoxic zone where it is mixed with nitrates recycled from the aerobic zone for denitrification. The mixed liquor then enters the aerobic zone for nitrification, BOD removal, and phosphorus uptake. Following this, the mixed liquor enters a second anoxic zone, where residual nitrate is denitrified. The final stage of the Bardenpho process is a reaeration zone where the nitrogen gas is stripped off and the dissolved oxygen concentration in the mixed liquor is increased to prevent phosphorus from being released in the secondary clarifiers.

Existing anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones will need to be modified using new baffle walls and mixers to accommodate the increased anaerobic and anoxic volumes. An additional 4 MG of aeration tank volume will be needed along with mixed liquor recirculation system, and secondary clarification capacity. For the purpose of this study, two treatment tanks were sized with a volume of 2 MG each. Each tank was 215-ft length x 76-ft width x 16.5-ft sidewater depth (SWD). Two blowers of 8,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) capacity each were sized to meet the aeration demands. The secondary clarifier was sized at 105-ft diameter. A RAS/WAS pump station was also included. Based on process modeling, an external carbon source will need to be added at both the anoxic zones for denitrification, thus a methanol storage and feed facility was included.

Due to limitations in space availability around the existing aeration tanks, it was decided that the new 4 MG tank and the new clarifier would fit best at a remote location west of the existing MetroGro storage tanks (see Figure 9). To accommodate this, two rectangular primary clarifiers, each of 128-ft length x 30-ft width x 14-ft SWD were also included for this scenario. Costs were also included for yard piping to and from the remote location.

Figure 9 provides a simplified process flow diagram of this scenario with the upgrades indicated in red. A site plan showing the location of the remote facility west of the MetroGro storage tanks with the new primary clarifiers, aeration tanks and secondary clarifier is shown in Figure 10.


19

FIGURE 9 Modifications to NSWWTP for Scenario 7 Nutrient Control (both modified UCT and A/O process are shown as a single bioreactor for simplicity)



21

Scenario 8: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.130 mg/L and Total Nitrogen Limit of 3 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.130 mg/L total phosphorus and 3 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.07 mg/L total phosphorus and 2 mg/L total nitrogen was selected to achieve the limits reliably. As an alternative to expanding secondary treatment in a remote location west of the MetroGro Tanks, MMSD selected a different approach for Scenario 8.

The approach for meeting a total phosphorus concentration of 0.130 mg/L for secondary effluent from the modified existing aeration tanks in this scenario will be the same as Scenario 2.

The modifications to the existing aeration tanks to convert them to a 5-stage Bardenpho process for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal are the same as for Scenario 7.

However, rather than building conventional secondary treatment to provide the additional aeration tank volume required due to the conversion of existing aerobic volume to additional anoxic volume, a new membrane bioreactor (MBR) also configured as a 5-stage Bardenpho process was evaluated. This bioreactor will consist of an anaerobic zone followed by an anoxic, an aerobic, and a post-anoxic zone similar to Scenario 7 but the final aerobic stage will be a membrane tank. A metal salt feed point will be added ahead of the membranes to implement chemical phosphorus removal polishing.

Process modeling indicated that the membrane tank be sized for a maximum month flow of 9.20 MGD with three active and one stand-by air scour blowers at 2,000 scfm each. The bioreactor upstream of the membrane tanks was 140-ft length x 80-ft width x 16.5-ft SWD. It was determined that the existing blower has enough capacity to handle the aeration demands of this new tank.

Figure 11 provides a simplified process flow diagram of this scenario with the upgrades indicated in red. Since the footprint of the MBR is small, it will fit near the existing aeration tanks. Therefore, the MBR is shown in the site plan in Figure 12.


22




24

Scenario 9: Total Phosphorus Limit of 0.075 mg/L on an Annual Average Basis and Total Nitrogen Limit of 3 mg/L on a Monthly Average BasisThe effluent limits for this scenario are 0.075 mg/L total phosphorus on an annual average basis and 3 mg/L total nitrogen on a monthly average basis. A target of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus and 2 mg/L total nitrogen was selected to achieve the limits reliably. The nutrient limits of Scenario 9 will be achieved by combining the process upgrades for total phosphorus control presented in Scenario 3 and the upgrades for total nitrogen control presented in Scenario 7.

Figure 13 provides a simplified process flow diagram of this scenario with the upgrades indicated in red. A site plan showing the location of the remote facility west of the MetroGro storage tanks with the new primary clarifiers, aeration tanks and secondary clarifier is shown in Figure 14.

Modeling Results Discussion The modeling indicated potential interference with enhanced biological phosphorus removal in all scenarios requiring metal salt addition even if the metal salt was dosed to filtration or tertiary clarification downstream of secondary treatment. The potential interference occurred from recycle associated with filter backwash or tertiary clarifier underflow, which contains residual metal salts. Real-world operating experience has demonstrated that there can be a balancing act between maintaining enhanced biological phosphorus removal and chemical phosphorus removal. This experience has indicated that at low chemical doses the two phosphorus removal processes can be maintained; however, at higher metal salt concentrations in the secondary process or at too low of an influent phosphorus concentration to secondary treatment (i.e., from removing too much phosphorus chemically upstream of secondary treatment), enhanced biological phosphorus removal can be lost. Testing would be required to determine whether this is a significant issue for the NSWWTP to meet low effluent phosphorus limits.

The additional anoxic volume required with the 5-stage Bardenpho process to meet the target total nitrogen limit of 3 mg/L resulted in the total solids retention time (SRT) increasing to 15 days. The modeling did not indicate that this negatively affected biological phosphorus removal. However, the modeling did indicate that the second anoxic zone near the end of the aeration tank resulted in some secondary release of phosphorus that was not fully consumed in the final aerobic zone. This resulted in the need for a higher metal salt dose to achieve the target effluent phosphorus concentration. This could exacerbate the potential interference with enhanced biological phosphorus removal noted above.

In addition to requiring more metal salt use, removing phosphorus chemically rather than biologically impacts the Ostara struvite harvesting process by reducing the amount of phosphorus recovered there. A reduction in phosphorus recovered in the Ostara process will result in a commensurate increase in the phosphorus in the Metrogro and Metromix.

The modeling also indicated that filtration was required to reliably meet a total nitrogen effluent limit of 3 mg/L (i.e., for Scenarios 7, 8, and 9). A target of 2 mg/L effluent total nitrogen was assumed in order to reliably meet a total nitrogen effluent limit of 3 mg/L. The modeling indicated that the lowest achievable effluent total nitrogen concentrations with filtration were 2.4 mg/L for Scenario 7, 2.2 mg/L for Scenario 8, and 2.3 mg/L for Scenario 9. Therefore, the target of 2.0 mg/L could not be met, but there was an approximate 0.6 to 0.8 mg/L margin of


25

safety below an effluent limit of 3 mg/L. Without filtration, the effluent total nitrogen was predicted to be 3.0 mg/L for Scenario 7, 2.8 mg/L for Scenario 8, and 2.6 mg/L for Scenario 9, thereby leaving very little to no margin of safety below an effluent limit of 3 mg/L. Therefore, based on the modeling, filtration was required for all three assumed phosphorus effluent limits and for a 3 mg/L total nitrogen effluent limit. Based on the modeling, which was conducted without specialized influent and effluent characterization, there was approximately 1 mg/L of nonbiodegradable dissolved organic nitrogen. This agrees with the average value determined by University of Wisconsin research work conducted by Dae Wook Kang and Daniel Noguera over a 2-year period. Values varied between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L, with lower values associated with adding alum for phosphorus removal. If this value were higher than 1 mg/L, then the margin of safety for meeting a 3 mg/L total nitrogen effluent limit would be even less. This indicates the importance of characterizing dissolved organic nitrogen in the NSWWTP, which could impact the ability to meet a 3 mg/L total nitrogen effluent limit.


26

FIGURE 13 Modifications to NSWWTP for Scenario 9 Nutrient Control (both modified UCT and A/O process are shown as a single bioreactor for simplicity)



28

5. Capital Cost EstimatesThis section discusses the approach and tool used for estimating capital cost and summarizes the capital cost results for implementing the nine scenarios of nutrient control.

Budget-level cost estimates were developed for upgrading NSWWTP with the above mentioned process alternatives to meet the nine different scenarios of nutrient limits shown in Table 1. The following markups were used to estimate capital costs for each scenario:

Contractor overhead: 10 percent of the construction cost Contractor profits: 5 percent of the construction cost Contractor mobilization, bonds, and insurance: 5 percent of the construction cost Contingency: 25 percent

All estimates were prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International. The estimates are defined as Class 4 estimates.

Conceptual-level cost estimates were prepared from each scenario using CPES. CPES is a proprietary tool developed by CH2M HILL, capable of producing parametric facility designs. The tool allows users to select modules such as a pump station, an aeration tank, or a clarifier and input details or design criteria. Design criteria can vary from flow or loading rates to the desired days of storage, diameter, and number of chemical storage tanks. In the case of items such as the aeration tanks and clarifiers, the basic volumes or surface areas determined from the Pro2D modeling are further defined to detail out tank dimensions. Once all pertinent design criteria have been entered into CPES, material quantities and facility dimensions are calculated. The calculations include estimates of wall thickness, slab thickness, and unit process or building footprints to develop quantities of such things as concrete and excavation. All materials, equipment, and construction activities required to estimate costs are included. Material costs are applied to the estimated quantities. The material costs are updated in CPES at least once a year. Costs are escalated to a user-defined date based on historical cost trends. For the MMSD project, the costs were escalated from the last material cost update to December 31, 2011.

Table 3 presents a summary of the major facility upgrade components identified for meeting the nine nutrient control scenarios. Table 4 presents a summary of the capital cost estimate for each scenario. Detailed breakdown of the capital costs for each scenario is provided in Appendix C.


29

TABLE 3Major Facility Upgrade Summary

FacilitiesScenarios

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility X X X X X X X X X

Secondary Effluent Pump Station X X X X X X X X X

Granular Media Filters X X X X X X X X X

Backwash Pumps X X X X X X X X X

Backwash Equalization X X X X X X X X X

Rapid Mix System ---- ---- X ---- ---- X ---- ---- X

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility ---- ---- X ---- ---- X ---- ---- X

Flocculation Basin ---- ---- X ---- ---- X ---- ---- X

Lamella Clarifiers ---- ---- X ---- ---- X ---- ---- X

Existing tank modifications for biological nutrient removal, including baffle walls, mixers and mixed liquor recycle pumps

---- ---- ---- X X X X X X

Methanol Storage Facility ---- ---- ---- X X X X X X

New Tanks ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X X X

Blowers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ---- X

Secondary Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ---- X

RAS & WAS Pump Station ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ---- X

MBR Facility ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ----

Yard piping associated with a remote location

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ---- X

Primary clarifiers, excavation to allow gravity flow to remote location, and flow splitting and junction boxes

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X ---- X


30

TABLE 4 Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Cost Summary

Facilities Markups

Scenario 1 TP Limit =

0.225 mg/L P1

TP Target = 0.11 mg/L P


0.130 mg/L P1



0.075 mg/L P1


Scenario 4 Scenario 1 TP Plus

TN Limit = 10 mg/L N

TN Target = 7-8 mg/L N







Scenario 7 Scenario 1 TP Plus Conventional BNR

Act. Sludge TN Limit = 3 mg/L N

TN Target = 2 mg/L N


MBR BNR Act. SludgeTN Limit = 3 mg/L N





Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,310,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,310,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,310,000

Secondary Effluent Pump Station $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $5,870,000 $4,930,000 $5,870,000

Granular Media Filters $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $17,010,000 $14,960,000 $17,010,000

Backwash Pumps $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $2,090,000 $1,940,000 $2,090,000

Backwash Equalization $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,600,000 $1,730,000

Rapid Mix System ---- ---- $2,020,000 ---- ---- $2,020,000 ---- ---- $2,020,000

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility ---- ---- $550,000 ---- ---- $550,000 ---- ---- $550,000

Flocculation Basin ---- ---- $4,100,000 ---- ---- $4,100,000 ---- ---- $4,100,000

Lamella Clarifiers ---- ---- $7,670,000 ---- ---- $7,670,000 ---- ---- $7,670,000

Existing basin modification for BNR, includes baffle walls, mixers and mixed liquor recycle pumps

---- ---- ---- $3,580,000 $3,580,000 $3,580,000 $3,560,000 $3,560,000 $3,560,000

Methanol Storage Facility ---- ---- ---- $990,000 $990,000 $990,000 $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $2,870,000

New Basins ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $6,260,000 $3,130,000 $6,260,000

Blowers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $1,890,000 ---- $1,890,000

Secondary Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $2,900,000 ---- $2,900,000

RAS and WAS Pump Station ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $2,220,000 ---- $2,220,000

MBR Facility ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $15,610,000 ----

Remote Location Adders for Options 7-9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Yard Piping ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $880,000 ---- $880,000

Excavation, Primary Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $3,820,000 ---- $3,820,000

Flow Splitting and Junction Boxes ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $300,000 ---- $300,000

Subtotal $27,920,000 $27,920,000 $42,350,000 $32,490,000 $32,490,000 $46,920,000 $52,620,000 $49,820,000 $67,050,000


31

TABLE 4 Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Cost Summary

Facilities Markups


0.225 mg/L P1



0.130 mg/L P1



0.075 mg/L P1















MBR BNR Act. SludgeTN Limit = 3 mg/L N





Demolition $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

Overall Sitework2 3.15% - 3.18%

$880,000 $880,000 $1,340,000 $1,030,000 $1,030,000 $1,490,000 $1,520,000 $1,580,000 $1,980,000

Plant Computer System2 1.42% - 1.43%

$400,000 $400,000 $610,000 $470,000 $470,000 $670,000 $690,000 $720,000 $900,000

Yard Electrical2 4.27% - 4.28%

$1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,810,000 $1,390,000 $1,390,000 $2,010,000 $2,060,000 $2,140,000 $2,670,000

Yard Piping2 5.53% - 5.63%

$1,550,000 $1,550,000 $2,370,000 $1,810,000 $1,810,000 $2,630,000 $2,630,000 $2,790,000 $3,500,000

Subtotal $32,250,000 $32,250,000 $48,780,000 $37,490,000 $37,490,000 $54,020,000 $59,820,000 $57,350,000 $76,400,000

Contractor Markups

Overhead 10.0% $3,230,000 $3,230,000 $4,880,000 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $5,410,000 $6,000,000 $5,740,000 $7,660,000

Profit 5.0% $1,780,000 $1,780,000 $2,690,000 $2,070,000 $2,070,000 $2,980,000 $3,310,000 $3,160,000 $4,230,000

Mob/Bonds/Insurance 5.0% $1,870,000 $1,870,000 $2,820,000 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 $3,130,000 $3,460,000 $3,320,000 $4,420,000

Contingency 25.0% $9,790,000 $9,790,000 $14,800,000 $11,370,000 $11,370,000 $16,390,000 $18,160,000 $17,400,000 $23,170,000

Escalation 2.8% $1,370,000 $1,370,000 $2,080,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $2,300,000 $2,560,000 $2,440,000 $3,270,000

Total Construction Cost $50,290,000 $50,290,000 $76,050,000 $58,450,000 $58,450,000 $84,230,000 $93,310,000 $89,410,000 $119,150,000

Non-Construction Costs

Permitting 2% $1,010,000 $1,010,000 $1,530,000 $1,170,000 $1,170,000 $1,690,000 $1,720,000 $1,790,000 $2,240,000

Engineering 8% $4,030,000 $4,030,000 $6,090,000 $4,680,000 $4,680,000 $6,740,000 $6,850,000 $7,160,000 $8,920,000

Services During Construction 8% $4,030,000 $4,030,000 $6,090,000 $4,680,000 $4,680,000 $6,740,000 $6,850,000 $7,160,000 $8,920,000

Commissioning and Startup 2% $1,010,000 $1,010,000 $1,530,000 $1,170,000 $1,170,000 $1,690,000 $1,720,000 $1,790,000 $2,240,000

Total Non-Construction Cost $10,080,000 $10,080,000 $15,240,000 $11,700,000 $11,700,000 $16,860,000 $17,140,000 $17,900,000 $22,320,000

Total Project Capital Cost $60,370,000 $60,370,000 $91,290,000 $70,150,000 $70,150,000 $101,090,000 $110,450,000 $107,310,000 $141,470,000

Notes: 1. The TP effluent limit in Scenarios 1 and 2 are assumed to be monthly phosphorus limits while the TP effluent limit in Scenario 3 is assumed to be an annual phosphorus limit. 2. The percent mark-ups vary slightly with the complexity of the scenario.

BNR = biological nutrient removal N = nitrogen P = phosphorus TN = total nitrogen TP = total phosphorus


32

6. O&M and Life Cycle Cost EstimatesThe O&M and life cycle costs associated with the selected process upgrades for meeting each scenario of nutrient control were also generated using CPES. The life cycle module imports data from the parametric facility design and capital cost modules to produce a summary of costs and resource consumption associated with the O&M of the proposed facility. Resource consumption such as energy, fuel, chemicals, and replacement of consumable materials are calculated on an annual basis within the life cycle tool. This is also used to quantify the carbon footprint associated with O&M activities at the facility.

In order to approximate the average life cycle costs, Pro2D model runs and CPES calculations were conducted using the flows and loads at the midpoint of the 20-year planning period to determine electrical demand, chemical usage, and solids production. Because a planning period of years 2015 to 2035 was selected by MMSD year 2025 was the midpoint. Because the purpose of the study was to determine the net effect of meeting stricter nutrient limits, a Pro2D model run was conducted for a base case condition representing the NSWWTP after the 11th Addition in addition to a model run for each scenario. The net difference versus the base case was then used to estimate the incremental O&M costs for each scenario. O&M cost estimates for each upgrades included the following components:

Labor Power costs for the major mechanized process equipments and buildings Chemical consumption costs: metal salt, methanol and polymer Biosolids processing Maintenance and repair of major mechanized process equipments

Table 5 provides the unit costs and other inputs that were used to estimate the O&M and life cycle cost.

TABLE 5 Inputs for O&M and Life Cycle Costs Estimate

Parameter Value

Annual Discount Rate (%) 4.125

Number of Years 20

Annual Inflation Rate (%) 01

Power ($/kWh) 0.10562

Alum ($/dry ton) 590

Polymer ($/dry ton) 5,250

Methanol ($/gal) 1.71

Biosolids processing ($/dry ton) 515

Labor rate ($/hour) 38.46 1 Selected by MMSD 2 This includes an assumed 2% inflation rate above general inflation from the current unit cost of $0.08/kWh to year 2025

Table 6 summarizes the O&M and life cycle cost for each scenario. Tables 7 to 15 present a more detailed breakdown of the O&M costs.


33

TABLE 6 NSWWTP O&M and Life Cycle Summary

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Capital Cost Including

Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost

Life Cycle Cost (NPV) Rounded to the nearest

$10,000


Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost


$10,000

Capital CostIncluding

Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost

Life Cycle Cost (NPV)

Rounded to the nearest $10,000


Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost


$10,000


Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost


$10,000

Granular Media Filter $26,520,000 $58,448 $27,310,000 $26,520,000 $58,448 $27,310,000 $26,520,000 $58,437 $27,300,000 $26,520,000 $58,434 $27,300,000 $26,520,000 $58,434 $27,300,000

Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility $1,910,000 $9,797 $2,110,000 $1,910,000 $424,764 $7,620,000 $2,030,000 $888,201 $13,970,000 $1,910,000 $9,796 $2,110,000 $1,910,000 $424,763 $7,620,000

Backwash Pumps $3,260,000 $38,134 $3,770,000 $3,260,000 $38,134 $3,770,000 $3,260,000 $38,132 $3,770,000 $3,260,000 $38,131 $3,770,000 $3,260,000 $38,131 $3,770,000

Backwash Equalization Tanks $2,690,000 $52,861 $3,400,000 $2,690,000 $52,861 $3,400,000 $2,690,000 $52,859 $3,400,000 $2,690,000 $52,860 $3,400,000 $2,690,000 $52,860 $3,400,000

Secondary Effluent Pump Station $9,150,000 $579,471 $16,940,000 $9,150,000 $579,471 $16,940,000 $9,150,000 $579,466 $16,940,000 $9,150,000 $579,465 $16,940,000 $9,150,000 $579,465 $16,940,000

Lamella Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $11,960,000 $74,643 $12,950,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Rapid Mix System ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $3,160,000 $30,307 $3,550,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Flocculation Basin ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $6,390,000 $29,702 $6,780,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Methanol Storage and Feed Facility ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $1,550,000 $166,677 $3,790,000 $1,550,000 $166,677 $3,790,000

Existing Basins Mixers and Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $5,570,000 $613,823 $13,820,000 $5,570,000 $613,823 $13,820,000

New Basins Mixers and Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Blowers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Membrane Bioreactors ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $860,000 $394,213 $6,150,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Secondary Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

RAS / WAS Pumps ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Primary Clarifiers, Yard Piping, and Flow Split

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Biosolids Processing ---- $13,173 $180,000 ---- $92,005 $1,240,000 ---- $175,647 $2,370,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- $38,684 $520,000

Miscellaneous site, plant computer system, yard piping and electrical

$6,760,000 $24,560 $7,090,000 $6,760,000 $24,560 $7,090,000 $10,030,000 $37,339 $10,530,000 $7,800,000 $28,609 $8,180,000 $7,800,000 $28,609 $8,180,000

Plant Labor ---- $40,000 $540,000 ---- $40,000 $540,000 $80,000 $1,080,000 ---- $40,000 $540,000 ---- $40,000 $540,000

SUBTOTAL $50,290,000 $816,444 $61,340,000 $50,290,000 $1,310,243 $67,910,000 $76,050,000 $2,438,947 $108,790,000 $58,450,000 $1,587,795 $79,850,000 $58,450,000 $2,041,446 $85,880,000

Permitting $1,010,000 ---- ---- $1,010,000 ---- ---- $1,530,000 ---- ---- $1,170,000 ---- ---- $1,170,000 ---- ----

Engineering $4,030,000 ---- ---- $4,030,000 ---- ---- $6,090,000 ---- ---- $4,680,000 ---- ---- $4,680,000 ---- ----

Services During Construction $4,030,000 ---- ---- $4,030,000 ---- ---- $6,090,000 ---- ---- $4,680,000 ---- ---- $4,680,000 ---- ----

Commissioning and Startup $1,010,000 ---- ---- $1,010,000 ---- ---- $1,530,000 ---- ---- $1,170,000 ---- ---- $1,170,000 ---- ----

TOTAL $60,370,000 $816,444 $71,420,000 $60,370,000 $1,310,243 $77,990,000 $91,290,000 $2,438,947 $124,030,000 $70,150,000 $1,587,795 $91,550,000 $70,150,000 $2,041,446 $97,580,000


34

TABLE 6 NSWWTP O&M and Life Cycle Summary

Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9

Capital Cost Including Contractor

Markups Annual O&M

Cost




Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost




Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost




Contractor Markups

Annual O&M Cost



Granular Media Filter $26,520,000 $58,441 $27,280,000 $26,520,000 $58,438 $27,300,000 $23,330,000 $50,021 $24,000,000 $26,510,000 $58,433 $27,300,000

Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility $2,030,000 $888,202 $13,970,000 $1,910,000 $9,796 $2,110,000 $1,910,000 $424,763 $7,620,000 $2,030,000 $888,201 $13,970,000

Backwash Pumps $3,260,000 $38,133 $3,770,000 $3,260,000 $37,023 $3,770,000 $3,020,000 $34,908 $3,490,000 $3,260,000 $38,131 $3,770,000

Backwash Equalization Tanks $2,690,000 $52,860 $3,400,000 $2,690,000 $52,523 $3,400,000 $2,490,000 $42,369 $3,060,000 $2,690,000 $52,859 $3,400,000

Secondary Effluent Pump Station $9,150,000 $579,468 $16,940,000 $9,150,000 $579,466 $16,940,000 $7,680,000 $479,989 $14,130,000 $9,150,000 $579,464 $16,940,000

Lamella Clarifiers $11,960,000 $74,649 $12,950,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $11,950,000 $74,637 $12,950,000

Rapid Mix System $3,160,000 $30,307 $3,550,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $3,160,000 $30,306 $3,550,000

Flocculation Basin $6,390,000 $29,703 $6,780,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $6,390,000 $29,700 $6,780,000

Methanol Storage and Feed Facility $1,550,000 $166,678 $3,790,000 $4,470,000 $1,946,227 $30,630,000 $4,470,000 $1,946,227 $30,630,000 $4,470,000 $1,946,226 $30,630,000


$5,570,000 $613,826 $13,820,000 $5,550,000 $457,990 $11,700,000 $5,550,000 $457,990 $11,700,000 $5,550,000 $457,986 $11,700,000


---- ---- ---- $9,760,000 $119,276 $11,360,000 $4,870,000 $41,832 $5,440,000 $9,760,000 $119,275 $11,360,000

Blowers ---- ---- ---- $2,940,000 $222,327 $5,930,000 $2,940,000 $222,162 $5,930,000

Membrane Bioreactors ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $24,350,000 $745,178 $34,350,000 ---- ---- ----

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility $860,000 $394,213 6150000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $860,000 $394,214 $6,150,000

Secondary Clarifiers ---- ---- ---- $4,530,000 $11,367 $4,680,000 ---- ---- ---- $4,530,000 $11,366 $4,680,000

RAS / WAS Pumps ---- ---- ---- $3,470,000 $27,365 $3,840,000 ---- ---- ---- $3,470,000 $27,365 $3,840,000

Primary Clarifiers, Yard Piping, and Flow Split ---- ---- ---- $7,800,000 $22,044 $8,110,000 ---- ---- ---- $7,800,000 $22,044 $8,110,000

Biosolids Processing ---- $60,640 $820,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,185 $680,000 ---- $87,823 $1,190,000


$11,090,000 $41,398 $11,630,000 $11,260,000 $37,259 $12,120,000 $11,740,000 $44,042 $12,340,000 $14,630,000 $50,431 $14,070,000

Plant Labor $80,000 $1,080,000 $80,000 $1,080,000 $80,000 $1,080,000 $80,000 $1,080,000

SUBTOTAL $84,230,000 $3,108,518 $125,930,000 $93,310,000 $3,661,101 $142,970,000 $89,410,000 $4,397,504 $148,520,000 $119,150,000 $5,170,625 $187,400,000

Permitting $1,690,000 ---- ---- $1,720,000 ---- ---- $1,790,000 ---- ---- $2,240,000 ---- ----

Engineering $6,740,000 ---- ---- $6,850,000 ---- ---- $7,160,000 ---- ---- $8,920,000 ---- ----

Services During Construction $6,740,000 ---- ---- $6,850,000 ---- ---- $7,160,000 ---- ---- $8,920,000 ---- ----

Commissioning & Startup $1,690,000 ---- ---- $1,720,000 ---- ---- $1,790,000 ---- ---- $2,240,000 ---- ----

TOTAL $101,090,000 $3,108,518 $142,790,000 $110,450,000 $3,661,101 $160,110,000 $107,310,000 $4,397,504 $166,420,000 $141,470,000 $5,170,625 $209,720,000


35

TABLE 7 Detailed O&M Costs for Scenario 1

Facilities Labor Equipment Power

Building Electrical Chemicals Sludge

Processing Repair and

Maintenance Total

Granular Media Filter ---- $8,038 $1,767 ---- ---- $48,643 $58,448

Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility

---- ---- $5,904 ---- ---- $3,893 $9,797

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,274 $38,134

Backwash Equalization Tanks

---- $50,344 $165 ---- ---- $2,352 $52,861

Secondary Effluent Pump Station

---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,032 $579,471

Biosolids Processing ---- ---- ---- ---- $13,173 ---- $13,173


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $24,560 $24,560

Plant Labor $40,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $40,000

Total O&M Costs $40,000 $629,932 $22,585 $0 $13,173 $110,754 $816,444

Percent of Total O&M Cost

4.9 77.2 2.8 0.0 1.6 13.6 100.0





Maintenance Total



---- $5,500 $5,904 $409,467 $3,893 $424,764

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,274 $38,134


---- $50,344 $165 ---- ---- $2,352 $52,861


---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,032 $579,471



---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $24,560 $24,560

Plant Labor $40,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $40,000

Total O&M Costs $40,000 $635,432 $22,585 $409,467 $92,005 $110,754 $1,310,243


3.1 48.5 1.7 31.3 7.0 8.5 100.0


36





Maintenance Total



---- $7,615 $5,965 $870,171 ---- $4,450 $888,201

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,272 $38,132


---- $50,344 $165 ---- ---- $2,351 $52,859

Lamella Clarifiers ---- $3,384 ---- ---- ---- $71,259 $74,643

Rapid Mix System ---- $21,153 $4,932 ---- ---- $4,222 $30,307

Flocculation Basin ---- $13,538 $178 ---- ---- $15,987 $29,702


---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,027 $579,466

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility

---- $2,538 $3,463 $387,152 ---- $1,060 $394,213



---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $37,339 $37,339

Plant Labor $80,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $80,000

Total O&M Costs $80,000 $678,160 $31,218 $1,257,323 $175,647 $216,599 $2,438,947


3.3 27.8 1.3 51.6 7.2 8.9 100.0





Maintenance Total



---- ---- $5,904 ---- ---- $3,892 $9,796

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,271 $38,131

Backwash Equalization Tanks ---- $50,344 $165 ---- ---- $2,351 $52,860


---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,026 $579,465


---- $592,280 ---- ---- ---- $21,543 $613,823

Methanol Storage and Feed Facility

---- $5,077 $6,368 $152,810 ---- $2,422 $166,677

Biosolids Processing ---- ---- ---- ---- $0 ---- $0


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $28,609 $28,609

Plant Labor $40,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $40,000

Total O&M Costs $40,000 $1,227,289 $28,953 $152,810 $0 $138,743 $1,587,795

Percent of Total O&M Cost 2.5 77.3 1.8 9.6 0.0 8.7 100.0


37





Maintenance Total



---- $5,500 $5,904 $409,467 ---- $3,892 $424,763

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,271 $38,131



---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,026 $579,465


---- $592,280 ---- ---- ---- $21,543 $613,823


---- $5,077 $6,368 $152,810 ---- $2,422 $166,677


Miscellaneous Site, plant computer system, yard piping and electrical

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $28,609 $28,609

Plant Labor $40,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $40,000

Total O&M Costs $40,000 $1,232,789 $28,953 $562,277 $38,684 $138,743 $2,041,446






Maintenance Total


Metal salt storage and feed facility

---- $7,615 $5,965 $870,171 ---- $4,451 $888,202

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,272 $38,132



Rapid Mix System ---- $21,153 $4,932 ---- ---- $4,222 $30,307



---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,029 $579,468

Polymer storage and feed facility

---- $2,538 $3,463 $387,152 ---- $1,060 $394,213


---- $592,280 ---- ---- ---- $21,546 $613,826


---- $5,077 $6,368 $152,810 ---- $2,423 $166,678



---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $41,398 $41,398

Plant Labor $80,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $80,000

Total O&M Costs $80,000 $1,275,517 $37,587 $1,410,133 $60,640 $244,641 $3,108,518



38





Maintenance Total


Metal Salt Storage and Feed Facility ---- ---- $5,904 $0 ---- $3,892 $9,796

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,109 ---- ---- $7,646 $37,023


Secondary Effluent Pump Station ---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,027 $579,466

Methanol Storage and Feed Facility ---- $9,307 $14,386 $1,909,866 ---- $12,667 $1,946,227


---- $439,979 ---- ---- ---- $18,011 $457,990


---- $107,456 ---- ---- ---- $11,820 $119,276

Blowers ---- $211,528 $3,628 ---- ---- $7,171 $222,327

Secondary Clarifiers ---- $3,808 ---- ---- ---- $7,559 $11,367

RAS / WAS Pumps ---- $20,307 ---- ---- ---- $7,058 $27,365

Primary Clarifiers ---- $8,884 $266 ---- ---- $12,894 $22,044

Biosolids Processing ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $0

Miscellaneous Site, plant computer system, yard piping and electrical

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $37,259 $37,259

Plant Labor $80,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $80,000

Total O&M costs $80,000 $1,431,202 $40,382 $1,909,866 $0 $199,651 $3,661,101

Percent of total O&M cost 2.2 39.1 1.1 52.2 0.0 5.5 100.0




ProcessingSpecialty

Items Repair and

Maintenance Total

Granular Media Filter

---- $6,769 $1,665 ---- ---- $41,587 $50,021


---- $5,500 $5,904 $409,467 ---- $3,892 $424,763

Backwash Pumps ---- $21,153 $6,109 ---- ---- $7,646 $34,908


---- $40,190 $165 ---- ---- $2,014 $42,369


---- $453,940 $6,853 ---- ---- $19,196 $479,989


---- $9,307 $14,386 $1,909,866 ---- $12,667 $1,946,227


---- $439,979 ---- ---- ---- $18,011 $457,990


---- $30,037 ---- ---- ---- $11,795 $41,832

MembraneBioreactors

---- $152,724 $17,805 $254,008 ---- $161,072 $159,569 $745,178


39




ProcessingSpecialty

Items Repair and

Maintenance Total

BiosolidsProcessing

---- ---- ---- ---- $50,185 ---- $50,185


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $44,042 $44,042

Plant Labor $80,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $80,000

Total O&M costs $80,000 $1,159,600 $52,887 $2,573,341 $50,185 $320,419 $4,397,504

Percent of total O&M cost

1.8 26.4 1.2 58.5 1.1 7.3 96.3





Maintenance Total



---- $7,615 $5,965 $870,171 ---- $4,450 $888,201

Backwash Pumps ---- $23,268 $6,592 ---- ---- $8,271 $38,131



Rapid Mix System ---- $21,153 $4,932 ---- ---- $4,221 $30,306



---- $548,282 $8,157 ---- ---- $23,025 $579,464


---- $9,307 $14,386 $1,909,866 ---- $12,666 $1,946,226


---- $439,979 ---- ---- ---- $18,007 $457,986


---- $107,456 ---- ---- ---- $11,819 $119,275

Blowers ---- $211,528 $3,463 ---- ---- $7,171 $222,162

Polymer Storage and Feed Facility

---- $2,538 $3,463 $387,152 ---- $1,060 $394,214

Secondary Clarifiers ---- $3,808 ---- ---- ---- $7,559 $11,366

RAS / WAS Pumps ---- $20,307 ---- ---- ---- $7,058 $27,365

Primary Clarifiers ---- $8,884 $266 ---- ---- $12,894 $22,044


Miscellaneous Site, Plant computer system, Yard piping and Electrical

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $50,431 $50,431

Plant Labor $80,000 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $80,000

Total O&M costs $80,000 $1,479,430 $49,335 $3,167,190 $87,823 $306,848 $5,170,625

Percent of total O&M cost 1.5 28.6 1.0 61.3 1.7 5.9 100.0


40

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operating the selected process upgrades for meeting the nine scenarios of nutrient limits were calculated using the GHG calculation module, also developed by CH2M HILL. The GHG emission estimates represent the increase over baseline emissions from the existing NSWWTP with planned 11th addition modifications. Both the parametric facility design and life cycle analysis modules in CPES (explained in previous sections) are linked to the GHG calculation module. Thus, the values obtained from the parametric facility design and life cycle modules are directly imported into the GHG module so that emissions from O&M can be quantified. As described for the O&M cost estimating, the GHG emission estimates represent the net increase associated with the nutrient limit scenarios and not the total NSWWTP GHG emissions. GHG emissions from the following sources were estimated for operating the facility:

Power usage Chemical production and transportation Biosolids hauling and land application Process emissions from wastewater treatment

As with the O&M cost estimates, GHG estimates are based on year 2025 because this is the midpoint, which approximates the average, of the selected 20-year planning period. In order to compare emissions from different sources, all emissions were converted to carbon dioxide equivalents or CO2e because this is an international standard. The two factors below in Table 16 are the global warming potentials (GWP) for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). By multiplying each gas by its GWP, that gas was converted to CO2e.

TABLE 16 Global Warming Potential

Gas Global Warming Potential (GWP)

CO2 1

CH4 21

N2O 310

Source: California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.0, April 2008

Both direct and indirect emissions as well as optional indirect emissions were estimated. Direct emissions are GHG sources that the entity directly owns or controls. These emissions are put into four categories: stationary combustion, mobile combustion, process-related, and fugitive emissions. Indirect emissions are a result of the purchase and consumption of electricity. Although these emissions are outside the organization’s boundary, most reporting protocols require quantification of these emissions in order to provide incentives for energy efficiency and conservation. All transportation associated with hauling and delivery of materials is categorized as optional indirect emissions.

Table 17 describes the emission factors for mobile combustion emissions that were used for this study.


41

TABLE 17 Emission Factors for Mobile Combustion

Item Value

CO2 Emission Factor (lbs/gal) 21.958

CH4 Emission Factor (tons/mile) 5.51X10-6

N2O Emission Factor (tons/mile) 6.61X10-6

Source: California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.0, April 2008

The purchase of electricity must be considered when accounting for the GHG emissions of a facility under most globally accepted reporting protocols. To determine the total CO2e from the purchase of electricity, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) eGRID data that averages emission factors for 26 sub regions across the United States were used. Table 18 presents the emission factors used in this study.

TABLE 18 Emission Factors for Electrical Consumption

Emission Factor Value (lbs/MWh)

CO2 1363.00

CH4 0.0196

N2O 0.0298

Source: Environmental Protection Agency Climate Leaders, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Guidance Module, Indirect Emissions from Purchases/Sales of Electricity and Steam, June 2008.

Table 19 provides a summary of the net increase in GHG emissions associated with operations to meet the nine nutrient limit scenarios.

It should be noted that although Scenario 1, 4 and 7 have the same total phosphorus limits, the higher SRT required for meeting the total nitrogen limits while minimizing additional aeration tank volume resulted in a model prediction of no net increase in solids production versus the base case. This is why the estimated GHG emissions from biosolids transportation and land application are noted as zero for Scenarios 4 and 7 and why they are lower in Scenarios 5, 6, 8, and 9 compared to Scenarios 2 and 3.


42

TABLE 19GHG Emissions Estimates for the Nine Scenarios of Nutrient Limits

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Scenario 9

Annual emissions from electrical usage, tons CO2e/year

5,861 5,861 6,338 11,220 11,220 11,697 12,864 10,848 13,715

Annual emissions from chemical usage, tons CO2e/year (includes production and transportation)

0 222 738 209 431 841 2,508 3,009 3,249

Annual emissions from biosolids transportation and land application, tons CO2e/year

14 102 194 0 44 70 0 60 98

Annual process emissions from wastewater treatment process, tons CO2e/year

0 0 0 673 673 673 673 673 673

Total 5,875 6,185 7,270 12,102 12,368 13,281 16,045 14,590 17,753

8. Ancillary Benefits Comparison between Scenarios The removal efficiencies of CECs during wastewater treatment are complex. More than 85,000 compounds with highly diverse physical-chemical characteristics (i.e., polarity, molecular weight, solubility, pKa, etc.) were identified as CECs (Snyder et.al. 2007). Physical-chemical properties of CECs were found as the main factor that dictates their removal efficiencies. Complete physical-chemical properties of most CECs are unfortunately unknown which makes evaluating the fate of most CECs during wastewater treatment a difficult task. Recent research has focused on 50 to 80 CECs that are frequently detected in wastewater effluents with known physical-chemical properties. Because Henry’s coefficient is relatively low for nearly all CECs, volatilization has very little or no impact for the removal of the CECs. Recent research indicates that two major mechanisms play key roles for the removal of the CECs during activated sludge treatment.

1. Biodegradation/biotransformation 2. Sorption/adsorption

Biodegradation/BiotransformationBecause CECs usually are insufficient in concentration (as low as few ng/L), to provide a primary substrate for the growth of microorganisms, CECs are cometabolized. SRT and temperature are the primary parameters that influence biodegradation of the CECs. Studies have shown that activated sludge systems with longer SRTs (i.e., more than 8 days) remove greater amounts of CECs than at shorter SRT (i.e., less than 2 days) (Ternes and Joss, 2006). Increased CEC removal efficiencies were observed as SRT increased from 1 day to 12 days. Between 12 days and 25 days SRT, the removal efficiencies of the majority of CECs were unchanged but slight improvements were observed on removal efficiencies of slowly biodegradable compounds such as TCEP and musk ketone (Stephenson and Oppenheimer (2007).

In another study, a clear relationship was not found between CEC removal and SRT, but one facility having the longest SRT and employing nitrification and denitrification, as well as


43

biological phosphorus removal, achieved the highest removal of EDCs among all the plants (Drewes et al., 2006). Nitrifying bacteria can transform ethynylestradiol into daughter compounds due to the cometabolic activity of ammonia monooxygenase (AMO) that can concurrently degrade ethynylestradiol and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) (Yi and Harper, 2007). Since nitrifiers are slow-growing autotrophic bacteria, this finding might support the benefit of long SRTs on the removal of CECs in the activated sludge system.

In this evaluation, Scenarios 1 through 3 provide a total SRT of 10 to 11 days and Scenarios 4 through 9 provide a total SRT of 15 days to achieve biological nitrogen removal. The SRT is adequate to effectively remove biodegradable CECs (i.e., acetaminophen, DEET, 17- alpha-estradiol) in all nine scenarios. Because the SRT values are very similar to current operation for Scenarios 1 through 3, Scenarios 1 through 3 would not be expected to biodegrade more CECs than current conditions. On the other hand, longer SRTs (15 days) employed in Scenarios 4 through 9 are expected to enhance removal of slowly biodegradable CECs (i.e., TECP, triclosan, etc.) compared with current operating conditions and Scenarios 1 through 3.

Certain CECs (i.e., sulfamethoxazole, diclofenac, and propyphenazone) can be effectively removed under anaerobic/anoxic conditions compared with fully aerobic conditions (Grady et al. 1999, Williams et al. 2009, Hai et al. 2011). Diverse redox conditions (oxic to anoxic) maintained in riverbank filtration studies improved the removal efficiencies for tested CECs (Drewes et al. 2009). Incorporating anoxic zones to meet a TN limit is expected to improve CEC removal efficiencies (Scenarios 4 through 9). Scenarios 7 through 9 utilize a two stage anoxic process with methanol addition to meet a stringent effluent TN limit of 3 mg/L. Increased anoxic SRT might provide an additional means for transformation and removal of CECs that are better removed in anoxic conditions. Sorption/AdsorptionCECs with a high octonal water partition coefficient (log Kow greater than 3) (i.e., 17-a estradiol, 17b-estradiol, fluoxetine, gemfibrozil) can be adsorbed by the MLSS sludge and can be removed during solids removal processes (i.e., sedimentation and filtration). Takigami et al., 2000 showed that sorption of CECs on colloidal organic material was important for removal of hormones using a conventional-activated sludge system. Takigami reported that hormones can be adsorbed onto biosolids, as the primary removal mechanism, with the 17b-estradiol concentration of the biosolids being three orders of magnitude greater than the secondary effluent concentration. However, the operating SRT was relatively short (as low as 2 days) thereby minimizing the biodegradation/biotransformation removal mechanism. Most naturally occurring hormones can be removed efficiently (that is, 90 percent or higher) using conventional-activated sludge and MBR systems (Holbrook et al, 2002). Because the highest estrogenic activity was found in the digested biosolids, it is suggested that these compounds sorb to suspended solids before significant biodegradation occurs (Holbrook et al., 2002. Holbrook et.al. also reported higher removal of diclofenac, indomethacin, and some other acidic PhACs (clofibric acid, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and gemfibrozil) during conventional-activated sludge and MBR treatment in acidic operating conditions. It was postulated that this was due to their increased hydrophobicity at acidic pH which resulted in adsorption of these compounds on to the sludge particles.

The literature concured that MBR and conventional-activated sludge systems operated under identical SRT and temperature perform similarly for removal of majority of trace contaminants (WERF, 2011). Conversely, it was found that CECs with a high octanol-water partition


44

coefficient (log Kow greater than 3 to 5) (i.e., 17-a estradiol, 17b-estradiol, fluoxetine, and gemfibrozil) (Holbrook et al., 2002; Mansell et al., 2005, Erdal et.al. 2009) can be more effectively removed in MBR systems than conventional-activated sludge systems. Conventional-activated sludge systems select for microorganisms that are well flocculated. MBRs, on the other hand, retain all microorganisms and small flocs regardless of their settling properties. Therefore, MBRs generate smaller flocs. Additionally, MBR flocs are subjected to erosion because of a higher MLSS concentration and increased shear (Schwarz et al. 2006). The smaller floc sizes and particle diameters in MBRs enhance adsorption of hydrophobic compounds (reflected in high Kow) onto MBR MLSS. Because membranes used in MBR systems are very effective barriers to the particles, the trace contaminants adsorbed by the MLSS can be effectively removed in the MBR systems. This explains why MBR exhibits better removal efficiencies than conventional-activated sludge for the removal of hydrophobic compounds (i.e., fluoxetine, Triclosan) under identical SRTs.

Activated sludge systems are generally very ineffective for removal of CECs that are nonbiodegradable and having logKow (less than 1) such as Diclofenac, Iopromide, X-ray contrast media.

In Scenario 8, a small portion of wastewater is treated through MBR, which will enhance removal of hydrophobic CECs (log Kow greater than 3), such as 17-alpha estradiol, 17-beta-estradiol, fluoxetine, and gemfibrozil. The research conducted by Snyder et al. (2007) has shown that coagulation, flocculation, and settling contribute removal of CECs with high log Kow and high dipole moment and zeta potential due to sorption to particles and electrostatic interaction. Scenarios 3, 6, and 9 incorporate coagulation, flocculation, and settling that might enhance removal of certain CECs (log Kow>3 ). In addition, coagulation, flocculation, and settling enhance removal of many metals, including mercury.

All nine scenarios have UV disinfection, which has been found to be ineffective for the removal of most CECs at typical disinfection doses (i.e., 100 mJ/cm2 or less) used in wastewater applications (Snyder, 2007). Therefore, very little or no impact of UV disinfection on the CEC removal is expected. The literature shows that UV disinfection is able to remove compounds (i.e., nitrosamines) with high photocathalitic-oxidation capability. This is not likely relevant at the NSWWTP because none of the process scenarios can generate nitrosamines, which are disinfection byproducts that occur when chlorine reacts with ammonia containing compounds.

A secondary benefit of membrane filtration, evaluated for Scenario 8 but equally applicable if membranes were used for Scenario 7 and 9, is improved removal of pathogens. Fecal coliform counts may be 10 to 20 for membranes without disinfection. Although membrane pores are not small enough to remove viruses, viruses tend to adhere to solids and therefore only the percent that are free floating would be small enough to pass through. In addition to free-floating viruses passing through membrane pores, it is possible for membrane integrity to be compromised due to factors such as fiber breakage or O-ring leakage. To provide a secondary barrier against pathogens, typically one would still have to disinfect unless it could be proven to the regulator through analyses that disinfection is not needed.

9. ReferencesDrewes, J. E.; Hemming, J.; Schauer, J. J.; Sonzogni, W. (2006) Removal of Endocrine isrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Processes. Water Environ. Res.


45

Erdal, U. G.; Shyamasundar, V.; Schimmoller, L.; Daigger, G. T. (2009) Linear and Non-Linear Models to Predict Removal Efficiencies of Compounds of Emerging Concern (CECs) During Wastewater Treatment. Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Orlando, Florida, Oct 10–14; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

Grady, L. C. P.; Daigger, G. T.; Lim, H. C. (1999) Biological Wastewater Treatment, 2nd ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York.Mansell, B.; Peterson, J.; Tang, C.; Horvath, R. W.; Stahl, J. F. (2005) Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Piloting at a Water Reclamation Plant in Los Angeles County. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference [CD-ROM]; Washington, D.C., Oct 29–Nov 2; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.

Holbrook, R. D.; Novak, J. T.; Grizzard, T. J.; Love, N. G. (2002) Estrogen Receptor Agonist Fate During Wastewater and Biosolids Treatment Process: A Mass Balance Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 4533-4539.

Snyder, S. A.; Wert, E. C.; Lei, H. D.; Westerhoff, P.; Yoon, Y. (2007) Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes. American Waterworks Association Research Foundation.

Stephenson, R.; Oppenheimer, J. (2007) Fate of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products through Municipal Wastewater Treatment Processes. Water Environ. Res.

Takigami, H.; Taniguchi, N.; Matsuda, T.; Yamada, M. (2000) The Fate and Behavior of Human Estrogens in a Night Soil Treatment Process. Water Sci. Technol., 42, No. 7-8, 45-51.

Ternes, T. A.: Joss, A. (2006) Human Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Fragrances; The Challenge of Micropollutants in Urban Water Management. IWA Publishing: London, England.

Water Environment Federation (2006) Membrane Bioreactors; WEF Manual of Practice 36. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Yi, T.; Harper, W.F. Jr. (2007) The Link between Nitrification and Biotransformation of 17 -Ethinylestradiol. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, No. 12, 4311-4316.

Appendix A

NSWWTP Treatment Alternatives Evaluation for Nine Combinations of Phosphorus and

Nitrogen Effluent Limits

NUTRIENT LIMITTREATMENT

ALTERNATIVEOPTION

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

ROUGH CAPITAL COST @ 79 MGD

(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL

RANKING

A

Add metal salts at secondary clarifiers 1. Minimal new infrastructure.2. Minimal modifications required to the existing facility.3. Low capital cost investment.

1. Effluent soluble orthophosphate is already <0.1 mg/L. 2. Full scale performance unproven at target effluent concentration (reduced reliability). Fraction of P in solids becomes a limiting factor at achieving limit. 3. Metal salts will increase O&M costs.4. More sludge production compared to biological phosphorus removal.5. Chemical handling.6. Requires accurate control system for dosing metal salts. Overdosing can impair biological phosphorus removal.7. Alum can reduce availability of phosphorus in land applied solids thereby reducing phosphorus fertilizer value. However, this can be an advantage if available P exceeds required P for agriculture.8. Alum generally decreases dewaterability of sludge.

B

Ferment primary sludge in the existing gravity thickeners to generate volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and reroute existing supernatant piping to feed into anaerobic basins to enhance EBPR. Include the addition of metal salts at secondary clarifiers.

1. Minimal new infrastructure.2. Minimal modifications required to the existing facility.3. VFAs will enhance the existing biological phosphorus removal process. Thus, less metal salt will be required.4. Less sludge production than Option 1A. 5. Lower metal salt requirement should minimize potential interference with biological phosphorus removal.6. Low capital cost investment.

1. Effluent soluble orthophosphate is already <0.1 mg/L. 2. Full scale performance unproven at target effluent concentration (reduced reliability). Fraction of P in solids becomes a limiting factor at achieving limit. 3. Same metal salt related disadvantages as Option 1A but several to a lesser extent because of lower metal salt use. 4. Requires operation of an additional fermentation process. 5. Odor control required for fermentation process.6. Need to handle sludge carefully to minimize secondary release of phosphorus.7. May need sidestream treatment to reduce phosphorus load in recycle stream.

C

Add deep bed granular media filtration system after the secondary clarifiers with metal salt addition upstream of the granular media filters. (Note 2)

1. Can reliably achieve effluent target phosphorus concentrations.2. Relatively simple and proven unit process for phosphorus removal at target effluent concentration.3. Used in many wastewater treatment plants.4. Improved effluent quality for some other contaminants due to lower TSS and colloidal matter in effluent (e.g., marginal improvement for mercury or chemicals of emerging concerns (CECs) that are associated with solids but no benefit for soluble mercury or CECs).

1. Significant capital cost compared to Options 1A and 1B2. Additional pumping because of filtration. 3. Granular media filters have large footprint.4. Same metal salt related disadvantages as Option 1A but several to a lesser extent because of lower metal salt use. 5. Lower effluent TSS also increases sludge production.

$35.6 Million for granular media filters only. Does not include metal salt

addition system.

1

D

Add tertiary membrane filtration with metal salt addition upstream of membranes (Note 2)

1. Can reliably achieve effluent target phosphorus concentrations.2. Smaller footprint compared to granular media filters.3. Used in at least a half dozen WWTPs in US. 4. Improved effluent quality for some other contaminants due to lower TSS and colloidal matter in effluent (e.g., marginal improvement for mercury or CECs that are associated with solids but no benefit for soluble mercury or CECs). Membrane will be marginally better than deep bed granular media filtration due to even lower effluent TSS and colloidal matter. 5. Because of solids loading capability, will not require upstream tertiary clarifier if effluent P limits become stricter in the future.

1. Significant capital cost compared to Options 1A and 1B2. Higher capital cost compared to granular media filters.3. Additional pumping step (permeate).4. Same metal salt related disadvantages as Option 1A but several to a lesser extent because of lower metal salt use. 5. Lower effluent TSS also increases sludge production. 6. Aeration cost to agitate solids off of membranes results in net higher electrical cost for membranes v. granular media filtration.

$79.8 Million for tertiary membranes only. Does not include metal salt

addition system.

3(Note 3)

TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION

1(TP = 0.225 mg/L* +

nitrification)*monthly average Target

0.11 mg/L P

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District - Nine Spring Wastewater Treatment PlantTreatment Alternatives for Nine Combinations of Phosphorus and Nitrogen Effluent Limits

App-A 1 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL

RANKINGTREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION


E

Hybrid membrane bioreactors (MBR) with metal salt addition, integrated with conventional activated sludge with metal salt addition to secondary clarifiers and the addition of deep bed granular media filtration after them. 2/3rds flow through MBR plant and 1/3rd flow through conventional activated sludge plant with secondary clarifiers. MBRs sized to handle average flow (will have a 1.5 typical peaking factor capacity above sizing). Operate conventional plant at lower SRT. MBR WAS seeds conventional activated sludge all the time to maintain nitrifier population. Peak flows in excess of MBR capacity all absorbed in conventional activated sludge plant. Used in Beijing China.

1. Similar advantages as tertiary membrane filtration process.2. MBRs result in efficient use of existing aeration tanks because aeration tanks are operated at a higher MLSS.3. Less membranes required than conversion of entire plant to MBR thereby significantly reducing cost versus a full MBR conversion.

1. MBRs are expensive infrastructure2. Will have additional operation and maintenance needs for the membranes.3. Membrane fouling can be a challenge.4. Requires operation of two parallel activated sludge processes.5. Lower peaking factor v. secondary clarifiers. 6. New concept with limited implementation.

F

Actiflo with metal salt addition (and polymer).Used in 84 MGD average flow Onondaga County WWTP (Syracuse, New York) to get below 0.1 mg/L.

1. Smaller footprint compared to granular media filters2. Less capital cost intensive than granular media filters3. Provides necessary pretreatment to filtration if P limit gets stricter in the future. 4. Excellent chemical conditioning which is critical to incorporating the sand into chemical floc results in excellent P removal.

1. Same metal salt disadvantages as Option 1A. 2. More dependent on optimizing coagulation and flocculation than deep bed granular media filtration or membrane options. 3. Limited experience v. effluent filtration for P removal.

$21.3 Million 2

G

Blue Water Technologies, Inc. Blue PRO® sand filtration with continuously regenerated hydrous ferric oxide coating for adsorptive phosphorus removal. (Note 2)

1. Manufacturer claims 30% lower metal salt use.2. Continuous flow - no interruption for backwash or changing media3. Manufacturer claims simpler operation than filtration requiring batch backwashing.

1. Largest installation for phosphorus removal is 4.3 mgd for a 0.07 mg/L effluent P limit in Massachusetts. 2. Unless a means of scaling up the process is developed by the manufacturer, the number of filter units that would be required for Madison would be very large. Would be a mechanical nightmare. 3. Proprietary process.

App-A 2 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



A

Add deep bed granular media filtration after the secondary clarifiers with metal salt addition upstream of the granular media filters

1. Same advantages as Option 1C. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 1C. 2. Requires accurate control system for dosing metal salts. Overdosing at secondary clarifiers can impair biological phosphorus removal.

$35.6 Million for granular media filters only. Does not include metal salt

addition system.

1

B

Add tertiary membrane filtration with metal salt addition upstream of membranes

1. Same advantages as 1D. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 1D. $79.8 Million for tertiary membranes only. Does not include metal salt

addition system.

2(Note 3)

C

Ferment primary sludge in the existing gravity thickeners to generate volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and reroute existing supernatant piping to feed into anaerobic basins to enhance EBPR. Add deep bed granular media filtration with upstream metal salts addition.

1. Same filtration advantages as Option 1C.2. VFAs will enhance the existing biological phosphorus removal process. Thus, less metal salt will be required.2. Less sludge production than options relying solely on metal salts to lower soluble P. 3. Lower metal salt requirement should minimize potential interference with biological phosphorus removal.

1. Same filtration disadvantages as Options 1C and 2A.2. Same disadvantages as Option 1B except can more reliably meet effluent limit.3. Already consistently at <0.1 mg/L soluble P from Bio-P4. Stealing VFAs from advanced digestion.

$35.6 Million for granular media filters only. Does

not include piping modification and metal

salt addition system cost.

D

See Nutrient Limit 1 Treatment Option E hybrid MBR and conventional activated sludge plus add granular media filtration with metal salt addition upstream of the granular media filters downstream of conventional activated sludge.

1. Same advantages as Option 1E. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 1E.

E

Add MBR with metal salt addition to handle the entire plant capacity

1. Similar advantages as hybrid MBR Option 1E but higher capital to convert entire plant. 2. Plant performance and capacity no longer dependent on sludge settleability.

1. Abandons use of existing secondary clarifiers. 2. Significantly higher capital cost than hybrid MBR Option.

F

Blue Water Technologies, Inc. Blue PRO® sand filtration with continuously regenerated hydrous ferric oxide coating for adsorptive phosphorus removal.

1. Same advantages as Option 1G. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 1G.

A

Add conventional tertiary clarifier followed by a deep bed granular media filtration system with provisions for metal salts addition upstream of each. The tertiary clarification is required to reduce the solids loading to filtration.

1. Proven combination for meeting very low effluent P concentrations.

1. Conventional tertiary clarifiers require large footprint.2. Same disadvantages as Option 1C except with tertiary clarifier and filtration downstream of well performing Bio-P no metal salt addition will be required to secondary process. 3. Tertiary clarifiers are an extra unit process to operate and maintain.

$59.3 Million for clarifiers and filters. Does not include the metal salt addition

system

B

Add plate settler tertiary clarifier followed by a deep bed granular media filtration system with provisions for metal salts addition upstream of each. The tertiary clarification is required to reduce the solids loading to filtration.

1. Same proven concept as Option 3A but with a smaller footprint and lower cost.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 1C except with tertiary clarifier and filtration downstream of well performing Bio-P no metal salt addition will be required to secondary process. 2. Tertiary clarifiers are an extra unit process to operate and maintain.

$55.4 Million for clarifiers and filters.

Does not include rapid mix and flocculation. Does not include the metal salt addition

system.

1

C

Add an ACTIFLO type clarifier followed by a deep bed granular media filtration with provisions for metal salts addition ahead of each. The tertiary clarification is required to reduce the solids loading to filtration.

1. Smaller footprint than Option 3A or 3B due to sand ballast. 2. Dedicated rapid mix, coagulation, and flocculation zones to optimize phosphorus removal, colloidal removal, and TSS removal upstream of filtration may provide added reliability.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 1C except with Actiflo and filtration downstream of well performing Bio-P no metal salt addition will be required to secondary process. 2. ACTIFLO is an extra unit process to operate and maintain. 3. Same disadvantages as Option 1F.

$56.9 Million. Does not include the metal salt

addition system

2(Note 4)

2(TP = 0.130 mg/L* +

nitrification)*monthly average Target

0.07 mg/L P

3(TP = 0.075 mg/L* +

nitrification)*annual average Target 0.05

mg/L P

App-A 3 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



D

Ferment primary sludge in the existing gravity thickeners to generate volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and reroute existing supernatant piping to feed into anaerobic basins to enhance EBPR. Add tertiary clarifiers (conventional, plate settler, or ACTIFLO) with metal salt addition. Add a deep bed granular media filtration system with provisions for metal salts addition ahead of it.

1. Same as 3A or 3B but lower metal salt use. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 3A or 3B. 2. Same disadvantages as Option 1B except can more reliably meet effluent limit.

E

See Nutrient Limit 1Treatment Alternative E hybrid MBR and conventional activated sludge plus add granular media filtration downstream of conventional activated sludge.

1. Same advantages as Option 1E.2. Does not require tertiary clarification because membranes can handle the higher solids loading and the blended effluent can meet the P limit.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 1E.

F

Add MBR with metal salt addition to handle the entire plant capacity

1. Same advantages as Option 2E. 2. Does not require tertiary clarification because membranes can handle the higher solids loading.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 2E.

G

Tertiary Clarifier (Cheapest of A, B, or C) and Blue Water Technologies, Inc. Blue PRO® Combined sand filtration with continuously regenerated hydrous ferric oxide coating for adsorptive phosphorus removal.

1. Same advantages as Option 1G. 1. Same disadvantages as Option 1G.

H

Add tertiary membrane filtration with metal salt addition upstream of membranes.

1. Same advantages as 1D. 2. Does not require upstream tertiary clarification because of high solids loading capacity of membranes.3. At same chemical dose as Options 3A, 3B, and 3C the effluent P may be 0.02 mg/L less due to better colloidal removal. Alternatively, may be able to operate with slightly lower chemical dosing.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 1D. $79.8 Million for tertiary membranes only. Does not include metal salt

addition system.

3(Note 3)

App-A 4 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



A

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Increase anoxic zones if necessary and add external carbon source to the existing anoxic zones if carbon limited. Add additional tanks as necessary for lost aerobic volume.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration (will be confirmed with modeling if selected).2. Relatively simple and proven unit process for TN removal.3. Used in many wastewater treatment plants. 4. Minimal new infrastructure.5. Minimal modifications required to the existing facility.6. Relatively low capital cost investment.7. Denitrification in the activated sludge process recovers alkalinity and reduces oxygen demand in subsequent aerobic zones.

1. If additional anoxic volume is required then plant capacity will decrease due to lost aerobic volume. 2. If external carbon source is required, additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. If external carbon source is required, will result in increased O&M costs.4. If external carbon source is required, requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

1

B

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Convert part of the existing aerobic basin volume to anoxic zone and convert part of the remaining aerobic basin volume to an aerated IFAS system to offset lost aerobic volume. The IFAS zones would be in the middle third or further downstream because preferable to be downstream of soluble BOD uptake. Add external carbon source to the anoxic zones if carbon limited.

1. Same advantages as 4A except added capital cost for IFAS.2. Maintains plant capacity by offsetting additional anoxic volume (if required) with IFAS in aerobic zones.3. Additional IFAS media can be added and additional portions of aerobic volume converted to IFAS to increase plant capacity as loads increase to the plant.

1. IFAS will increase capital cost.2. IFAS will require compartmentalizing part of aerobic volume. 3. IFAS addition to long plug flow reactors may require reconfiguring flow pattern from lengthwise to crosswise in IFAS zones to not exceed allowable cross sectional velocity. 4. IFAS zones typically operated at D.O. of 4-6 mg/L because it is a fixed film process that is diffusion limited thereby reducing oxygen transfer efficiency = higher electric cost. 5. Proven large scale IFAS systems use medium to coarse bubble diffusers (must be robust since buried in IFAS media when tank drained) thereby reducing oxygen transfer efficiency = higher electric cost.

3

C

See Nutrient Limit 1 Treatment Alternative E Hybrid MBR and Conventional Activated Sludge + add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from aerobic basins to anoxic basins in both the conventional and MBR trains. Add external carbon source to the anoxic zones if carbon limited.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration (will be confirmed with modeling if selected).2. Same advantages as Option 1E.3. Membrane filtration removes most of the particulate organic nitrogen.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 1E.2. If external carbon source is required, additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. If external carbon source is required, will result in increased O&M costs.4. If external carbon source is required, requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

D

Add MBR for biological nitrogen removal to handle the entire plant capacity. Add external carbon source to the anoxic zones if carbon limited.

1. Will reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration.2. Same advantages as Option 2E.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 2E.2. If external carbon source is required, additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. If external carbon source is required, will result in increased O&M costs.4. If external carbon source is required, requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

4(TP = 0.225 mg/L* & TN =

10 mg/L*)*monthly average Target

0.11 mg/L P Target 7-8 mg/L TN

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed h

ere

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

1 Ph

osph

orus

rem

oval

opt

ions

App-A 5 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



E

Retrofit the existing basin configuration for step feeding with anoxic zones at each step feed point to increase the inventory in the existing basins to get the added anoxic SRT without needing additional tank volume. Add external carbon source to the anoxic zones if carbon limited.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration (will be confirmed with modeling if selected).2. Maintains plant capacity with step feed by increasing mixed liquor inventory without increasing solids loading rate to secondary clarifiers.3. Step feed is used in many wastewater treatment plants.4. Eliminates need for mixed liquor recycle. 5. Denitrification in the activated sludge process recovers alkalinity and reduces oxygen demand in subsequent aerobic zones.6. Can increase biomass inventory by 25% to 33% thereby eliminating need for additional tanks.

1. Requires primary effluent piping modifications if existing facilities do not have step feed capabilities. 2. Requires additional anoxic and anaerobic zones at new step feed points. 3. If external carbon source is required, additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.4. If external carbon source is required, will result in increased O&M costs.5. If external carbon source is required, requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon.

F

Add anoxic zone downstream of main nitrification zone, with small downstream aerobic zone, and feed supplemental carbon source such as methanol. Add additional tanks as necessary for lost aerobic volume.

1. May require less total anoxic volume than Option 4A. 2. May eliminate need for mixed liquor recycle.3. If modeling indicates this option is not sufficient to meet target effluent TN concentration then could be used in conjunction with 4A but potentially with a lower mixed liquor recycle rate and less total anoxic volume.

1. Plant capacity will decrease due to lost aerobic volume.2. External carbon source requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. If mixed liquor recycle is required, additional pumping cost (but possibly less than Option 4A).

2

G

Implement nitrogen removal such as Anammox® on thickening and dewatering filtrate/centrate recycle. Under construction at Alexandria, VA.

1. Small footprint2. Less energy consumption3. Does not require external carbon source4. Reduces TN loading to secondary treatment process5. Can be used in combination with other options. 6. Reduced ammonia recycle will increase reliability of meeting TN limit, potentially reduce average effluent TN, reduce aeration cost, and reduce alkalinity consumption.

1. Relatively new process. 2. A sensitive process and can be subject to upsets.3. Requires seeding of Anammox bacteria, otherwise startup is extremely slow4. Not needed to meet TN limit.

(Note 5)

H

Add a treatment wetland 1. Low energy and external chemical requirement2. Natural treatment process3. Aesthetically pleasing.4. Can provide ancillary benefits to native wildlife habitats, such as birds.

1. Requires large footprint. 10-20 or 30 acres/MGD. 80 MGD = 1600 acres.

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed h

ere

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

1 Ph

osph

orus

rem

oval

opt

ions

App-A 6 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



A Same as 4A for N Removal Same as 4A for N Removal Same as 4A for N Removal 1

B Same as 4B for N Removal Same as 4B for N Removal Same as 4B for N Removal

C Same as 4C for N Removal Same as 4C for N Removal Same as 4C for N Removal

D Same as 4D for N Removal Same as 4D for N Removal Same as 4D for N Removal

E Same as 4E for N Removal Same as 4E for N Removal Same as 4E for N Removal

F Same as 4F for N Removal Same as 4F for N Removal Same as 4F for N Removal

G Same as 4G for N Removal Same as 4G for N Removal Same as 4G for N Removal

H Same as 4H for N Removal Same as 4H for N Removal Same as 4H for N Removal

A Same as 4A for N Removal Same as 4A for N Removal Same as 4A for N Removal 1

B Same as 4B for N Removal Same as 4B for N Removal Same as 4B for N Removal

C Same as 4C for N Removal Same as 4C for N Removal Same as 4C for N Removal

D Same as 4D for N Removal Same as 4D for N Removal Same as 4D for N Removal

E Same as 4E for N Removal Same as 4E for N Removal Same as 4E for N Removal

F Same as 4F for N Removal Same as 4F for N Removal Same as 4F for N Removal

G Same as 4G for N Removal Same as 4G for N Removal Same as 4G for N Removal

H Same as 4H for N Removal Same as 4H for N Removal Same as 4H for N Removal

A

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Add additional upstream end anoxic zones if necessary. Add an additional anoxic zone near end of aeration tank with small aerobic zone downstream. Add external carbon source for feed to anoxic zones. Add additional tanks as necessary for lost aerobic volume. RAS can go directly to anaerobic zone since fully denitrified eliminating one recycle and due to higher MLSS in anaerobic zone that zone can get smaller.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration.2. Proven unit process for TN removal, used in several other wastewater treatment plants around the world.3. Denitrification in the activated sludge process recovers alkalinity and reduces oxygen demand in subsequent aerobic zones.

1. Will require additional space.2. External carbon source requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

1

B

Same as 7A but convert part of the remaining aerobic basin volume to aerated IFAS system to offset lost aerobic volume same as 4B.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration.2.Maintains plant capacity by offsetting additional anoxic volume with IFAS in aerobic zones rather than adding additional tanks. 3. Additional IFAS media can be added and additional portions of aerobic volume converted to IFAS to increase plant capacity as loads increase to the plant. 4. Maintains existing secondary treatment footprint.5. Denitrification in the activated sludge process recovers alkalinity and reduces oxygen demand in subsequent aerobic zones.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 4B.2. External carbon source requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

3

7(TP = 0.225 mg/L* & TN = 3

mg/L*)*monthly average Target

0.11 mg/L P Target 2 mg/L TN

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pr

esen

ted

here

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

2 Ph

osph

orus

re

mov

al o

ptio

ns

6(TP = 0.075 mg/L* & TN =

10 mg/L**)*annual average

**monthly average Target 0.05 mg/L P Target 7-8 mg/L

TN

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pr

esen

ted

here

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

3 Ph

osph

orus

re

mov

al o

ptio

ns

5(TP = 0.130 mg/L* & TN =

10 mg/L*)*monthly average Target

0.07 mg/L P Target 7-8 mg/L TN

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed h

ere

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt

Lim

it 1

Phos

phor

us re

mov

al o

ptio

ns

App-A 7 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



C

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Add a post denitrification filter with external carbon source. The denitrification filter would also provide granular media filtration for TP polishing. Provide phosphoric acid feed paced in conjunction with external carbon source to avoid being phosphorus limited while still meeting effluent P limit.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration.2. Maintains plant capacity without needing additional aeration tank volume. 3. Eliminates the need for separate granular media filters because it can perform TN removal along with suspended solids removal.

1. Additional biological process to operate and maintain. 2. External carbon source and phosphoric acid requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source and phosphoric acid will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source and phosphoric acid requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost. 6. Combining the filtration step for P removal with TN removal where phosphoric acid is required to prevent a P nutrient deficiency for denitrification reduces reliability at meeting P limit.

D

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Add a Moving Bed Bioreactor (MBBR) system for denitrification. Provide phosphoric acid feed paced in conjunction with external carbon source to avoid being phosphorus limited while still meeting effluent P limit. The denitrification would be installed prior to granular media filters for TP polishing if that is selected for TP removal to avoid a phosphorus limitation in the denitrification process.

1. Expected to reliably achieve target TN concentration.2. Maintains plant capacity without needing additional aeration tank volume. 3. Suspected to be slightly lower cost than a denitrification filter for TN removal.

1. Additional biological process to operate and maintain. 2. External carbon source and phosphoric acid requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source and phosphoric acid will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source and phosphoric acid requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

2

E

Install a MBR with 5 stage BNR configuration with external carbon source.

1. Expected to reliably achieve effluent target TN concentration.2. Same advantages as 4E.

1. Same disadvantages as 2E. 2. External carbon source requires additional chemical storage and feed system to operate and maintain.3. External carbon source will result in increased O&M costs.4. External carbon source requires accurate control systems for dosing carbon. 5. Additional mixed liquor recirculation pumping cost.

F

In combination with any of the above nitrogen removal alternatives, implement nitrogen removal such as Anammox® on thickening and dewatering filtrate/centrate recycle.

1. Same advantages as 4G. 1. Same disadvantages as 4G. (Note 5)

G

In combination with any of the above nitrogen removal alternatives, implement wetlands nitrogen removal on thickening and dewatering filtrate/centrate recycle.

1. Same advantages as 4H. 1. Requires large footprint.

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed h

ere

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

1 Ph

osph

orus

rem

oval

opt

ions

App-A 8 of 9


ALTERNATIVEOPTION



(Note 1)

WORKSHOP 1 FINAL



A Same as 7A for N Removal Same as 7A for N Removal Same as 7A for N Removal 1B Same as 7B for N Removal Same as 7B for N Removal Same as 7B for N Removal 3

C

Add a mixed liquor recirculation system to transfer nitrified mixed liquor from end of aerobic zone to anoxic zones. Add a post denitrification filter with external carbon source. Provide phosphoric acid feed paced in conjunction with external carbon source to avoid being phosphorus limited while still meeting effluent P limit. The denitrification would be installed prior to granular media filters for TP polishing if that is selected for TP removal to avoid a phosphorus limitation in the denitrification process.

1. Same advantages as Option 7C except separate granular media filtration is required for P removal.

1. Same disadvantages as Option 7C.

D Same as 7D for N Removal Same as 7D for N Removal Same as 7D for N Removal 2E Same as 7E for N Removal Same as 7E for N Removal Same as 7E for N RemovalF Same as 7F for N Removal Same as 7F for N Removal Same as 7F for N RemovalG Same as 7GF for N Removal Same as 7GF for N Removal Same as 7GF for N Removal

ASame as 7A for N Removal Same as 7A for N Removal Same as 7A for N Removal 1

BSame as 7B for N Removal Same as 7B for N Removal Same as 7B for N Removal 3

CSame as 8C for N Removal Same as 8C for N Removal Same as 8C for N Removal

DSame as 7D for N Removal Same as 7D for N Removal Same as 7D for N Removal 2

ESame as 7E for N Removal Same as 7E for N Removal Same as 7E for N Removal

FSame as 7F for N Removal Same as 7F for N Removal Same as 7F for N Removal

GSame as 7G for N Removal Same as 7G for N Removal Same as 7G for N Removal

Notes:

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed h

ere

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt L

imit

2 Ph

osph

orus

re

mov

al o

ptio

ns

9(TP = 0.075 mg/L* & TN = 3

mg/L**)*annual average

**monthly average Target 0.05 mg/L P Target 2 mg/L

TN

Nitr

ogen

Rem

oval

opt

ions

pre

sent

ed

here

will

be

com

bine

d w

ith N

utrie

nt

Lim

it 3

Phos

phor

us re

mov

al o

ptio

ns

8(TP = 0.130 mg/L* & TN = 3

mg/L*)*monthly average Target

0.07 mg/L P Target 2 mg/L TN

App-A 9 of 9

Appendix B PRO2D Modeling Details

Plant Model Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 3:10 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION1.xlsm

Facility Operating ParametersItem Value ValueInfluent Wastewater (Metric) (Metric) (Metric=US*k) (US) (US)

Flow m3/day MG/dayDesign Average 243,782 3,785.44 64.40Design Diurnal Peak 299,050 3,785.44 79.00Design Peaking Factor for WW Diurnal flow 1.2 1.00 1.2Design Peaking Factor for WW Diurnal loads 1.4 1.00 1.4

Carbonaceous Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5)Design Average Concentration mg/L 290 1.00 mg/L 290Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 70,780 0.45 lb/day 156,043Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 99,091 0.45 lb/day 218,460

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Design Average Concentration mg/L 309 1.00 mg/L 309Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 75,209 0.45 lb/day 165,809Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 105,293 0.45 lb/day 232,133

Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)Percent VSS % 88% 1.00 % 88%Design Average Concentration mg/L 271 1.00 mg/L 271Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 66,184 0.45 lb/day 145,912Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 92,658 0.45 lb/day 204,277

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN as N)Design Average Concentration mg/L 48 1.00 mg/L 48Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 11,727 0.45 lb/day 25,853Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 16,417 0.45 lb/day 36,194

Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N as N)Design Average Concentration mg/L 30 1.00 mg/L 30Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 7,271 0.45 lb/day 16,029Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 10,179 0.45 lb/day 22,440

Total Phosphorus (as P)Design Average Concentration mg/L 6 1.00 mg/L 6Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 1,412 0.45 lb/day 3,113Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 1,977 0.45 lb/day 4,358

Alkalinity (as CaCO3)Design Average Concentration mg/L 250 1.00 mg/L 250Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 60,942 0.45 lb/day 134,355Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 85,319 0.45 lb/day 188,096

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)Design Average Concentration mg/L 6 1.00 mg/L 6Design Average Mass Loading kg/day 1,463 0.45 lb/day 3,225Design Diurnal Peak Mass Loading kg/day 2,048 0.45 lb/day 4,514

Chemical Addition:Select the Metal Salt (if used) Alum 3

Wastewater TemperatureRaw Sewage Temperature oC 12 1.00 oC 12Plant Elevation meters 259 3.28 feet 850Ambient Atmospheric Pressure kPa 99 6.89 psia 14.3

Primary Clarifiers: MainPrimary Clarifiers? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 5,668 0.09 ft2 61,012Overflow Rate m/day 0.04 gpd-sq.ft.

Average 45 0.04 1,104Diurnal Peak 61 0.04 1,491

Chemical Compound Applied to Primary Influen No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 5,126 0.45 lb/day 11,301Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.00 1.00 0.00Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 90% 1.00 90%Percent Removal of Colloidal Matter 33% 33%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 65% 1.00 65%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 50% 1.00 50%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 65% 1.00 65%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 50% 1.00 50%Percent BOD5 Removal 45% 1.00 45%Primary Effluent mg/L mg/L

TSS 124 124TP 4.00 4.00OP 2.72 2.72

Primary Sludge Concentration mg/L 45,000 1.00 mg/L 45,000Flow Splitter: PBNR

Splitter Influent Flow m3/day 255,008 3,785 MGD 67.37Flow Splits

PBNR Splitter Effluent (SplitE) PBNRAOEAST % 10% % 10%PBNR Splitter Effluent (SplitE) PBNRUCT % 90% % 90%

Biological Process - PBNR: AOEASTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 10.62 1.00 days 10.62System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20

Plant Model Page - 1 of 4Version 10.02

This document is the property of CH2M HILL, Inc.The expression of the information contained in this

document is protected under U.S. copyright law.


Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRT min) days 2.99 1.00 days 2.99Aerobic SRT days 8.85 1.00 8.85Nitrification Safety Factor 2.96 1.00 2.96DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130Biosolids Production Rates

Net Yield (mg TSS/mg BOD5) mg/mg 0.60 1.00 lb/lb 0.60Volatile Fraction % 78% 1.00 % 78%Active Fraction % 53% 1.00 % 53%Nitrifier Fraction % 6% 1.00 % 6%Nitrogen Content, N/VSS % 6% 1.00 % 6%Phosphorus Content, P/VSS % 4% 1.00 % 4%

Process Oxygen Requirements - Minus MBR Tank (if used)Carbonaceous AOR/BOD5 - wt/wt kg/kg 1.21 1.00 lb/lb 1.21Total AOR/BOD% - wt/wt kg/kg 2.00 1.00 lb/lb 2.00AOR (wt/day) kg/day lb/day

Average 8,525 0.45 18,795Diurnal Peak 24,711 0.45 54,480

AOR mg/L-hr mg/L-hrAverage 33 1.00 33Diurnal Peak 95 1.00 95

Bioreactor With Secondary Clarifier 1Total Bioreactor Volume m3 10,887 3,785.44 MG 2.876HRT hr 10.25 1.00 hr 10.25% non-aerobic % 17% 1.00 17%% aerobic % 83% 1.00 83%Average MLSS Concentration mg/L 2,753 1.00 mg/L 2,753

Bioreactor ClarifierTotal Area m2 1,242 0.09 sq.ft. 13,370Overflow Rate m/day gpd-sq.ft.

Average 21 0.04 504Diurnal Peak 28 0.04 680

Effluent TSS mg/L mg/LAverage 5 1.00 5Diurnal Peak 20 1.00 20

Underflow Rate Average Flow Ratio % 70% 1.00 70%Average Rate m/day 14 0.04 gpd-sq.ft. 353Peak Flow Ratio % 50% 1.00 50%Peak Rate m/day 14 0.04 gpd-sq.ft. 340

Solids Loading Rate kg/m2-day 4.88 lb/day-sq.ft.Average 96 4.88 20Diurnal Peak 114 4.88 23

Limiting Solids Loading Rate kg/m2-day 228 4.88 lb/day-sq.ft. 47Return sludge rate at which limiting solids rate can be achieved

RAS Flow Rate m3/day 26,202 3,785.00 MGD 6.92Percent of Influent to Bioreactor % 103% % 103%

RAS Concentration mg/L mg/LAverage 6,487 1.00 6,487Diurnal Peak 8,260 1.00 8,260

Chemical Compound Applied before Secondary Clarifier 3Chemical Added? NoChemical Type Alum 1.00 AlumChemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 91 0.45 lb/day 200Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L N/A 1.00 mg/L N/AMolar Ratio Dosage Applied (M+:PO4-P) 10 1.00 N/AEffluent PO4-P kg/day 1 0.45 lb/day N/AEffluent PO4-P mg/L 0.04 1.00 mg/L N/A

Biological Process - PBNR: UCTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 10.10 1.00 days 10.10System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRT min) days 2.99 1.00 days 2.99Aerobic SRT days 8.33 1.00 8.33Nitrification Safety Factor 2.78 1.00 2.78DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130Biosolids Production Rates



















Filters: GMFFilters? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 1,022 0.09 ft2 11,000Hydraulic Loading Rate m/day 0.04 gpm/ft2

Average 238 58.67 4.06Diurnal Peak 321 58.67 5.47

Solids Loading Rate kg/m2-day lb/day-sq.ft.Average 2.52 0.04 0.11Diurnal Peak 6.58 0.04 0.28

Filter Run Time hr 24 1.00 hr 24Instantaneous Backwash Rate m/hr 49 2.44 gpm/ft2 20Duration of Backwash Flow minutes 10 1.00 minutes 10Backwash Operating Time (%cycle) % 0.69% 1.00 % 0.69%Backwash Flow Rate m3/day 8,327 3,785.00 MGD 2.20Ratio of Backwash Production to Filter Influent % 3.3% 1.00 % 3.3%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 80% 1.00 80%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 80% 1.00 80%Effluent TSS at Average Conditions mg/L 2.1 1.00 mg/L 2.1Effluent TSS at Peak Conditions mg/L 4.1 1.00 mg/L 4.1Chemical Compound Applied to Filter Influent No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 5,031.54 0.45 lb/day 11,092.71Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.00 1.00 0.00Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 80% 1.00 80%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 80% 1.00 80%Backwash Concentration mg/L 247 1.00 mg/L 247

Biological Process - PBNR: PO4_WASTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 1.00 1.00 days 1.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRT min) days -23.36 1.00 days -23.36Aerobic SRT days 0.00 1.00 0.00Nitrification Safety Factor 0.00 1.00 0.00DO mg/L 0.00 1.00 mg/L 0.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 120 1.00 mL/g 120





Biosolids Production RatesNet Yield (mg TSS/mg BOD5) mg/mg 0.00 1.00 lb/lb 0.00Volatile Fraction % 82% 1.00 % 82%Active Fraction % 51% 1.00 % 51%Nitrifier Fraction % 2% 1.00 % 2%Nitrogen Content, N/VSS % 6% 1.00 % 6%Phosphorus Content, P/VSS % 2% 1.00 % 2%


Average 0 0.45 0Diurnal Peak 10,842 0.45 23,903


Bioreactor No Solids Separation 3Total Bioreactor Volume m3 2,271 3,785.44 MG 0.60HRT hr 15.89 1.00 hr 15.89% non-aerobic % 100% 1.00 100%% aerobic % 0% 1.00 0%Average MLSS Concentration mg/L 7,228 1.00 mg/L 7,228

Primary Sludge Thickening: GravityPrimary Sludge Thickener? Yes TRUESolids Capture % 85% 1.00 % 85%Thickened Sludge Concentration mg/L 55,000 1.00 mg/L 55,000Belt Wash Water Flow Rate m3/hr 0 0.23 gpm 0Hours/Day of Operation 8 1.00 8Days/Week of Operation 7 1.00 7Fermentation Occurring? No FALSE

Conversion Efficiency of VSS to VFAs kg VFAs/kg VSS 0.15 1.00 lbs VFAs/lbs V 0.15Elutriate VFA Production kg VFA COD/d 0 0.45 lbs VFA COD/d 0

WAS Thickening: GBTWAS Thickener? Yes TRUESolids Capture % 95% 1.00 % 95%Thickened Sludge Concentration mg/L 41,000 1.00 mg/L 41,000Belt Wash Water Flow Rate m3/hr 0 0.23 gpm 0Hours/Day of Operation 8 1.00 8Days/Week of Operation 7 1.00 7

ADM Digester Model MesoAnaerobic Treatment Type Digester TRUEIs this Unit Process in Service? Yes TRUETotal Digester Volume m3 30,874 3,785.00 MG 8.157Percent of Volume that is Active % 0.8 1.00 % 0.8Total HRT days 17 1.00 days 17Total SRT days 17 1.00 days 17Digester Elevation meters 259 3.28 feet 850Digester Digester Feed pH 7.00 7.00Volatile Solids Loading - wt VSS/vol-day kg/m3-day 2.55 16.06 lb/ft3-day 0.16Volatile Solids Reduction % 65% 1.00 % 65%Recuperative Thickening Hours/Day of Operation 8 1.00 8Recuperative Thickening Days/Week of Operation 7 1.00 7Percent P Released that is Precipitated as Struvite % 27% 1.00 % 27%Methane Production m3/day 20,349 0.03 ft3/day 719,063Digester Gas Methane Content % 41% 1.00 % 41%Digester Gas Production m3/day 49,366 0.03 ft3/day 1,744,377Digester Gas Production (vol/wt volatile solids destroyed) m3/kg 1.20 0.06 ft3/lb 19

Dewatering: BFPDewatering? Yes TRUESolids Capture % 90% 1.00 % 90%Dewatered Sludge Concentration % 5% 1.00 % 5%Belt Wash Water Flow Rate m3/hr 0 0.23 gpm 0Hours/Day of Operation 8 1.00 8Days/Week of Operation 7 1.00 7

General Node: StruviteIs the General Node in Service? Yes TRUE

Magnesium Hydroxide kg/day 1,089 0.45359 lb/day 2400Reactor pH 8 8Influent OP mg/L 6 mg/L 6Effluent OP mg/L 6 mg/L 6OP Removal % 81% % 81%




Mass Balance (U.S.) Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 3:14 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION1.xlsm

Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)

MainRecycleInfluent(RecyI)

MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined

RecycleEffluent(RecyE)

MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)

PBNRSplitterInfluent(SplitI)

PBNRSplitterEffluent(SplitE)

PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

PBNRCombinedDischarge

GMFGranular

Media FilterInfluent(GMFI)

GMFGranular

Media FilterEffluent(GMFE)

PlantEffluent

(PLE)

MainPrimarySludge(PSD)

AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS

WASCombinedDischarge

PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,309,268 67,709,268 67,709,268 67,365,364 67,365,364 6,736,536 60,628,828 6,736,536 11,452,112 6,626,708 60,628,828 103,069,007 59,832,443 66,459,151 66,459,151 64,259,276 64,259,276 343,903 109,828 796,385 906,214 906,214 906,214Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 16,062 172,106 172,106 94,137 94,137 9,414 84,723 9,414 95,656 165 84,723 1,096,811 2,616 2,781 2,781 1,904 1,904 77,969 2,173 20,154 22,328 22,328 21,109COD (lbs/day) 314,540 314,540 43,458 357,999 357,999 197,819 197,819 19,782 178,037 19,782 301,383 1,917 178,037 3,433,605 19,552 21,469 21,469 15,471 15,471 160,180 6,476 59,584 66,061 66,061 65,055TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 32,885 198,696 198,696 69,544 69,544 6,954 62,589 6,954 261,514 549 62,589 2,968,175 5,127 5,676 5,676 1,135 1,135 129,152 5,674 51,995 57,669 57,669 54,664VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 27,861 173,775 173,775 60,937 60,937 6,094 54,843 6,094 214,501 472 54,843 2,443,999 4,423 4,895 4,895 979 979 112,838 4,632 42,611 47,243 47,243 44,946TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,953 30,806 30,806 25,394 25,394 2,539 22,854 2,539 17,438 116 22,854 198,764 1,096 1,212 1,212 858 858 5,413 374 3,441 3,815 3,815 3,803NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,247 19,276 19,276 19,178 19,178 1,918 17,260 1,918 10 6 17,260 49 29 34 34 33 33 98 0 0 0 0 320NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 413 413 413 411 411 41 370 41 1,955 1,131 370 19,524 11,334 12,465 12,465 12,053 12,053 2 19 151 169 169 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 649 3,762 3,762 2,251 2,251 225 2,026 225 9,406 19 2,026 104,973 168 187 187 48 48 1,340 207 1,864 2,071 2,071 1,158Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 23,959 158,314 158,314 157,510 157,510 15,751 141,759 15,751 10,558 6,110 141,759 88,091 51,138 57,247 57,247 55,352 55,352 804 101 681 782 782 2,281H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 113 3,337 3,337 3,320 3,320 332 2,988 332 0 0 2,988 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 582 305 305 167 167 167 167 167 1,001 3 167 1,275 5 5 5 4 3.55 27,166 2,371 3,032 2,952 2,952 2,791COD (mg/L) 585 585 1,574 634 634 352 352 352 352 352 3,153 35 352 3,992 39 39 39 29 28.85 55,811 7,066 8,965 8,735 8,735 8,602TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,191 352 352 124 124 124 124 124 2,736 10 124 3,451 10 10 10 2 2.12 45,000 6,190 7,823 7,625 7,625 7,228VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,009 308 308 108 108 108 108 108 2,244 4 108 2,841 4 9 9 2 1.83 39,316 5,054 6,411 6,247 6,247 5,943TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 179 55 55 45 45 45 45 45 182 2 45 231 2 2 2 2 1.60 1,886 408 518 504 504 503NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 118 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 34 0 0 0 0 42NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 1 23 23 22 22 22 22.47 1 20 23 22 22 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 24 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 98 0 4 122 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.09 467 226 281 274 274 153Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 868 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 110 110 280 102 102 103 103 103 103 280 110 102 103 103 302H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Mass Balance (U.S.) Page - 1 of 2Version 10.02




ConstituentFlow (gallons/day)Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day)COD (lbs/day)TSS (lbs/day)VSS (lbs/day)TKN (lbs/day)NH3-N (lbs-N/day)NO3-N (lbs-N/day)TP (lbs-P/day)Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3)H2S (lbs/day)Temperature (oC)BOD5 (mg/L)COD (mg/L)TSS (mg/L)VSS (mg/L)TKN (mg-N/L)NH3-N (mg-N/L)NO3-N (mg-N/L)TP (mg-P/L)Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)H2S (mg/L)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

GravityPrimarySludge

ThickenerInfluent(PSTI)

GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS

ThickenerInfluent(TWASI)

GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)

SludgeCombinedDischarge

MesoAnaerobicDigesterInfluent(AnDI)

MesoAnaerobicDigesterEffluent(AnDE)

BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)

StruviteCombinedDischarge

StruviteGeneralResidual

(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)


ThickeningRecycle(PSTR)

GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)

FLTCombinedDischarge

StruviteGeneralInfluent(BWI)

StruviteGeneralEffluent(BWE)

RecyCombinedDischarge

906,214 343,903 239,169 906,214 151,770 390,940 390,940 385,070 385,070 134,553 134,854 301 134,854 2,199,875 104,734 754,443 250,517 1,004,960 1,004,960 1,004,659 3,309,26821,109 77,969 66,233 21,109 19,042 85,274 85,274 12,329 12,329 10,728 10,772 44 10,772 868 11,737 1,902 1,600 3,502 3,502 3,458 16,06265,055 160,180 136,065 65,055 60,144 196,209 196,209 63,774 63,774 55,340 55,340 0 55,340 5,998 24,115 4,911 8,434 13,345 13,345 13,345 43,45854,664 129,152 109,779 54,664 51,931 161,710 161,710 62,384 62,384 56,146 60,422 4,276 60,422 4,541 19,373 2,733 6,238 8,972 8,972 8,972 32,88544,946 112,838 95,912 44,946 42,698 138,611 138,611 47,723 47,723 42,950 42,950 0 42,950 3,916 16,926 2,247 4,772 7,020 7,020 7,020 27,8613,803 5,413 4,583 3,803 3,355 7,938 7,938 7,903 7,903 4,337 4,582 245 4,582 354 830 448 3,566 4,014 4,014 3,770 4,953

320 98 68 320 54 122 122 4,909 4,909 1,715 1,716 1 1,716 1 30 266 3,194 3,460 3,460 3,216 3,2470 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 413 1 0 0 0 0 0 413

1,158 1,340 1,135 1,158 1,088 2,223 2,223 2,205 2,205 1,431 1,971 540 1,971 138 205 70 775 845 845 306 6492,281 804 559 2,281 382 941 941 30,619 30,619 10,699 10,699 0 10,699 1,895 245 1,899 19,920 21,819 21,819 21,819 23,959

0 17 12 0 0 12 12 166 166 58 58 0 58 0 5 0 108 108 108 108 11312 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 23 55 12 12 12 55 23 23 23 15

2,791 27,166 33,183 2,791 15,034 26,137 26,137 3,836 3,836 9,554 9,572 17,466 9,572 47 13,428 302 765 418 418 412 5828,602 55,811 68,169 8,602 47,485 60,139 60,139 19,845 19,845 49,283 49,172 0 49,172 327 27,590 780 4,034 1,591 1,591 1,592 1,5747,228 45,000 55,000 7,228 41,000 49,565 49,565 19,412 19,412 50,000 53,688 1,700,000 53,688 247 22,164 434 2,984 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,1915,943 39,316 48,052 5,943 33,711 42,485 42,485 14,850 14,850 38,249 38,164 0 38,164 213 19,364 357 2,283 837 837 837 1,009

503 1,886 2,296 503 2,649 2,433 2,433 2,459 2,459 3,862 4,071 97,448 4,071 19 949 71 1,706 479 479 450 17942 34 34 42 42 37 37 1,528 1,528 1,528 1,525 384 1,525 0 34 42 1,528 413 413 384 1180 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 15

153 467 568 153 859 681 681 686 686 1,274 1,751 214,661 1,751 8 235 11 370 101 101 36 24302 280 280 302 302 289 289 9,528 9,528 9,528 9,507 0 9,507 103 280 302 9,528 2,602 2,602 2,602 868

0 6 6 0 0 4 4 52 52 52 51 0 51 0 6 0 52 13 13 13 4



















Chemical Compound Applied to Primary Influent No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 5,127 0.45 lb/day 11,302Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.52 1.00 0.52Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 90% 1.00 90%Percent Removal of Colloidal Matter 33% 33%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 65% 1.00 65%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 50% 1.00 50%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 65% 1.00 65%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 50% 1.00 50%Percent BOD5 Removal 45% 1.00 45%Primary Effluent mg/L mg/L

TSS 126 126TP 3.38 3.38OP 1.63 1.63




Biological Process - PBNR: AOEASTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 10.62 1.00 days 10.62System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 2.99 1.00 days 2.99Aerobic SRT days 8.85 1.00 8.85Nitrification Safety Factor 2.96 1.00 2.96





DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130Biosolids Production Rates















Biological Process - PBNR: UCTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 10.10 1.00 days 10.10System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 3.06 1.00 days 3.06Aerobic SRT days 8.33 1.00 8.33Nitrification Safety Factor 2.72 1.00 2.72DO mg/L 1.83 1.00 mg/L 1.83Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130Biosolids Production Rates





Bioreactor With Secondary Clarifier 1





Total Bioreactor Volume m3 79,583 3,785.44 MG 21.02HRT hr 8.32 1.00 hr 8.32% non-aerobic % 18% 1.00 18%% aerobic % 82% 1.00 82%Average MLSS Concentration mg/L 3,226 1.00 mg/L 3,226









Chemical Compound Applied before Secondary Clarifier 3Chemical Added? NoChemical Type Alum 1.00 AlumChemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 2,041 0.45 lb/day 4500Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L N/A 1.00 mg/L N/AMolar Ratio Dosage Applied (M+:PO4-P) 1 1.00 N/AEffluent PO4-P kg/day 26 0.45 lb/day N/AEffluent PO4-P mg/L 0.11 1.00 mg/L N/A




Filter Run Time hr 24 1.00 hr 24Instantaneous Backwash Rate m/hr 49 2.44 gpm/ft2 20Duration of Backwash Flow minutes 10 1.00 minutes 10Backwash Operating Time (%cycle) % 0.69% 1.00 % 0.69%Backwash Flow Rate m3/day 8,327 3,785.00 MGD 2.20Ratio of Backwash Production to Filter Influent % 3.3% 1.00 % 3.3%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 80% 1.00 80%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 80% 1.00 80%Effluent TSS at Average Conditions mg/L 2.1 1.00 mg/L 2.1Effluent TSS at Peak Conditions mg/L 4.1 1.00 mg/L 4.1Chemical Compound Applied to Filter Influent Yes TRUE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 15 1.00 mg/L 15Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 3,773.44 0.45 lb/day 8,319.05Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 8.88 1.00 8.88Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 86% 1.00 86%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 83% 1.00 83%Backwash Concentration mg/L 375 1.00 mg/L 375

Biological Process - PBNR: PO4_WASTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 1.00 1.00 days 1.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days -23.36 1.00 days -23.36Aerobic SRT days 0.00 1.00 0.00Nitrification Safety Factor 0.00 1.00 0.00DO mg/L 0.00 1.00 mg/L 0.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 120 1.00 mL/g 120Biosolids Production Rates


Process Oxygen Requirements - Minus MBR Tank (if used)





Carbonaceous AOR/BOD5 - wt/wt kg/kg 0.03 1.00 lb/lb 0.03Total AOR/BOD% - wt/wt kg/kg 0.00 1.00 lb/lb 0.00AOR (wt/day) kg/day lb/day





Conversion Efficiency of VSS to VFAs kg VFAs/kg VSS 0.15 1.00 lbs VFAs/lbs V 0.15Elutriate VFA Production kg VFA COD/d 0 0.45 lbs VFA COD/ 0



Alum Addition: DUMMYAlum Addition? No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 29.15 0.45 lb/day 64.27Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.35 1.00 0.35Effluent Ortho-Phosphate mg/L 248.83 mg/L 248.83Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Percent Removal of Colloidal Matter 33% 33%



Magnesium Hydroxide kg/day 1,089 0.45359 lb/day 2400Reactor pH 8.2 8Influent OP mg/L 6 mg/L 6Effluent OP mg/L 6 mg/L 6OP Removal % 82% % 82%





Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombinedRecycleEffluent(RecyE)

MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,314,959 67,714,959 67,714,959 67,361,971 67,361,971 6,736,197 60,625,774 6,736,197 11,451,535 6,626,489 60,625,774 103,063,816 59,828,750 66,455,238 66,455,238 64,255,364 64,255,364 352,988 109,708 797,024 906,733 906,733 906,733 906,733 352,988Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 17,653 173,698 173,698 95,366 95,366 9,537 85,829 9,537 94,846 148 85,829 1,107,238 1,638 1,786 1,786 853 853 78,332 2,153 20,381 22,535 22,535 21,695 21,695 78,332COD (lbs/day) 314,540 314,540 46,287 360,827 360,827 199,822 199,822 19,982 179,840 19,982 290,384 1,868 179,840 3,397,378 17,545 19,413 19,413 13,080 13,080 161,005 6,218 59,066 65,284 65,284 64,632 64,632 161,005TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 35,844 201,655 201,655 70,579 70,579 7,058 63,521 7,058 247,427 551 63,521 2,906,952 5,079 5,630 5,630 1,126 1,126 132,564 5,345 50,960 56,305 56,305 51,892 51,892 132,564VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 28,736 174,650 174,650 60,682 60,682 6,068 54,614 6,068 206,993 478 54,614 2,422,609 4,405 4,883 4,883 788 788 113,566 4,454 42,297 46,751 46,751 42,547 42,547 113,566TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,993 30,846 30,846 25,396 25,396 2,540 22,857 2,540 16,780 113 22,857 196,711 1,026 1,140 1,140 764 764 5,449 358 3,411 3,769 3,769 3,760 3,760 5,449NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,273 19,302 19,302 19,202 19,202 1,920 17,281 1,920 10 6 17,281 43 25 31 31 30 30 101 0 0 0 0 373 373 101NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 408 408 408 405 405 41 365 41 1,963 1,136 365 19,200 11,146 12,281 12,281 11,875 11,875 2 19 148 167 167 0 0 2TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 794 3,907 3,907 1,899 1,899 190 1,709 190 6,851 43 1,709 86,077 197 239 239 47 47 1,841 148 1,518 1,666 1,666 1,103 1,103 1,841Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,223 155,577 155,577 154,766 154,766 15,477 139,290 15,477 10,273 5,944 139,290 87,337 50,700 56,644 56,644 50,941 50,941 811 98 675 774 774 19 19 811H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 110 3,335 3,335 3,317 3,317 332 2,986 332 0 0 2,986 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17Temperature (oC) 12 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 638 307 307 170 170 170 170 170 992 3 170 1,287 3 3 3 2 2 26,591 2,352 3,064 2,978 2,978 2,867 2,867 26,591COD (mg/L) 585 585 1,673 639 639 355 355 355 355 355 3,038 34 355 3,950 35 35 35 24 24 54,655 6,791 8,880 8,627 8,627 8,541 8,541 54,655TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,296 357 357 126 126 126 126 126 2,589 10 126 3,380 10 10 10 2 2 45,000 5,838 7,661 7,441 7,441 6,858 6,858 45,000VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,039 309 309 108 108 108 108 108 2,166 4 108 2,817 4 9 9 1 1 38,551 4,861 6,354 6,178 6,178 5,623 5,623 38,551TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 180 55 55 45 45 45 45 45 176 2 45 229 2 2 2 1 1 1,850 391 513 498 498 497 497 1,850NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 118 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0.050 0.050 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 34 0 0 0 0 49 49 34NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 21 1 22 22 22 22 22 22 1 20 22 22 22 0 0 1TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 29 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 72 1 3 100 0.394 0.431 0.431 0.087 0.09 625 162 228 220 220 146 146 625Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 767 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 107 107 275 102 102 102 102 95 95 275 107 102 102 102 3 3 275H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6






GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




DUMMYMetal

AdditionInfluent

(MetalInf)

DUMMYMetal

AdditionEffluent

(MetalEff)

BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)


StruviteGeneralResidual(BWR)

Biosolids to Disposal

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





245,487 906,733 144,075 389,562 389,562 385,044 385,044 385,044 385,044 139,883 140,118 235 140,118 2,199,875 107,501 762,658 245,162 1,007,819 1,007,819 1,007,584 3,314,95966,539 21,695 18,128 84,666 84,666 12,061 12,061 12,061 12,061 10,498 10,504 5 10,504 922 11,793 3,380 1,563 4,943 4,943 4,938 17,653

136,762 64,632 57,136 193,898 193,898 63,305 63,305 63,305 63,305 55,090 55,090 0 55,090 6,333 24,243 7,496 8,215 15,711 15,711 15,711 46,287112,679 51,892 49,298 161,977 161,977 64,380 64,380 64,855 64,855 58,370 61,707 3,337 61,707 6,879 19,885 2,595 6,486 9,080 9,080 9,080 35,84496,531 42,547 40,419 136,950 136,950 47,714 47,714 47,586 47,586 42,827 42,827 0 42,827 4,815 17,035 2,127 4,759 6,886 6,886 6,886 28,7364,614 3,760 3,267 7,881 7,881 7,856 7,856 7,856 7,856 4,377 4,568 191 4,568 375 836 493 3,479 3,972 3,972 3,782 4,993

70 373 59 129 129 4,898 4,898 4,898 4,898 1,779 1,780 1 1,780 1 31 313 3,119 3,432 3,432 3,242 3,2731 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 1 0 0 0 0 0 408

1,564 1,103 1,046 2,610 2,610 2,599 2,599 2,599 2,599 1,910 2,331 421 2,331 192 277 57 689 746 746 325 794564 19 3 567 567 30,180 30,180 30,180 30,180 10,964 10,964 0 10,964 1,744 247 16 19,216 19,232 19,232 19,232 21,22312 0 0 12 12 165 165 165 165 60 60 0 60 0 5 0 105 105 105 105 11012 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 55 55 23 55 12 12 12 55 23 23 23 15

32,478 2,867 15,076 26,042 26,042 3,753 3,753 3,753 3,753 8,993 8,982 2,592 8,982 50 13,145 531 764 588 588 587 63866,755 8,541 47,519 59,641 59,641 19,700 19,700 19,700 19,700 47,190 47,111 0 47,111 345 27,022 1,178 4,015 1,868 1,868 1,868 1,67355,000 6,858 41,000 49,822 49,822 20,035 20,035 20,183 20,183 50,000 52,770 1,700,000 52,770 375 22,164 408 3,170 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,29647,118 5,623 33,616 42,124 42,124 14,849 14,849 14,809 14,809 36,686 36,625 0 36,625 262 18,988 334 2,326 819 819 819 1,0392,252 497 2,717 2,424 2,424 2,445 2,445 2,445 2,445 3,749 3,907 97,450 3,907 20 931 77 1,701 472 472 450 180

34 49 49 40 40 1,524 1,524 1,524 1,524 1,524 1,522 386 1,522 0 34 49 1,524 408 408 386 1181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 15

763 146 870 803 803 809 809 809 809 1,636 1,994 214,656 1,994 10 309 9 337 89 89 39 29275 3 3 174 174 9,392 9,392 9,392 9,392 9,392 9,376 0 9,376 95 275 3 9,392 2,287 2,287 2,287 767

6 0 0 4 4 51 51 51 51 51 51 0 51 0 6 0 51 12 12 12 4




















TSS 126 126TP 3.21 3.21OP 1.30 1.30




Biological Process - PBNR: AOEASTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 10.62 1.00 days 10.62System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 3.00 1.00 days 3.00Aerobic SRT days 8.85 1.00 8.85Nitrification Safety Factor 2.95 1.00 2.95DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130






































Tertiary Clarifiers: LAMELLATertiary Clarifers? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 1,816 0.09 ft2 19,550Overflow Rate m/day 0.04 gpd-sq.ft.



Chemical Compound Applied to Tertiary Influent Yes TRUE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 17 1.00 mg/L 17Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 4,277.16 0.45 lb/day 9,429.58Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 7.55 1.00 7.55Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effluent Ortho-Phosphate Concentration mg/L 0.21 1.00 mg/L 0.21Tertiary Sludge Concentration mg/L 10,000 1.00 mg/L 10,000




Filter Run Time hr 24 1.00 hr 24Instantaneous Backwash Rate m/hr 49 2.44 gpm/ft2 20Duration of Backwash Flow minutes 10 1.00 minutes 10Backwash Operating Time (%cycle) % 0.69% 1.00 % 0.69%Backwash Flow Rate m3/day 8,327 3,785.00 MGD 2.20Ratio of Backwash Production to Filter Influent % 3.3% 1.00 % 3.3%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 80% 1.00 80%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 80% 1.00 80%Effluent TSS at Average Conditions mg/L 1.0 1.00 mg/L 1.0Effluent TSS at Peak Conditions mg/L 2.1 1.00 mg/L 2.1Chemical Compound Applied to Filter Influent Yes TRUE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 3 1.00 mg/L 3Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 754.04 0.45 lb/day 1,662.38Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 8.74 1.00 8.74Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 83% 1.00 83%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 80% 1.00 80%Backwash Concentration mg/L 146 1.00 mg/L 146

Biological Process - PBNR: PO4_WASTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 1.00 1.00 days 1.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days -23.38 1.00 days -23.38Aerobic SRT days 0.00 1.00 0.00Nitrification Safety Factor 0.00 1.00 0.00DO mg/L 0.00 1.00 mg/L 0.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12





SVI mL/g 120 1.00 mL/g 120Biosolids Production Rates












Magnesium Hydroxide kg/day 1,089 0.45359 lb/day 2400Reactor pH 8.1 8.1Influent OP mg/L 7 mg/L 7Effluent OP mg/L 7 mg/L 7OP Removal % 76% % 76%





Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombinedRecycleEffluent(RecyE)

MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


LAMELLATertiaryClarifierInfluent

(TCI)

LAMELLATertiaryClarifierEffluent(TCE)

GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,327,439 67,727,439 67,727,439 67,370,757 67,370,757 6,737,076 60,633,681 6,737,076 11,453,029 6,627,332 60,633,681 103,077,258 59,837,277 66,464,609 66,464,609 66,398,233 66,398,233 64,198,359 64,198,359 356,682 109,744 796,404 906,148 906,148 906,148Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 18,007 174,052 174,052 95,580 95,580 9,558 86,022 9,558 95,479 150 86,022 1,101,466 1,504 1,653 1,653 930 930 616 616 78,472 2,168 20,259 22,427 22,427 21,578COD (lbs/day) 314,540 314,540 46,680 361,220 361,220 199,808 199,808 19,981 179,828 19,981 291,695 1,813 179,828 3,308,244 16,819 18,633 18,633 14,076 14,076 11,800 11,800 161,412 6,262 57,438 63,701 63,701 63,070TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 37,160 202,970 202,970 71,040 71,040 7,104 63,936 7,104 249,714 541 63,936 2,825,640 5,035 5,576 5,576 2,773 2,773 555 555 133,951 5,408 49,459 54,868 54,868 49,946VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 29,244 175,158 175,158 60,665 60,665 6,067 54,599 6,067 208,261 468 54,599 2,364,706 4,374 4,842 4,842 1,883 1,883 349 349 113,947 4,493 41,231 45,724 45,724 40,879TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,259 30,112 30,112 24,647 24,647 2,465 22,183 2,465 16,860 111 22,183 191,370 995 1,105 1,105 835 835 700 700 5,465 361 3,314 3,674 3,674 3,664NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 2,546 18,575 18,575 18,477 18,477 1,848 16,630 1,848 10 6 16,630 46 27 33 33 32 32 31 31 98 0 0 0 0 411NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 403 403 403 401 401 40 361 40 1,888 1,092 361 18,448 10,710 11,802 11,802 11,790 11,790 11,400 11,400 2 18 142 160 160 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 874 3,987 3,987 1,803 1,803 180 1,623 180 7,107 27 1,623 79,406 239 266 266 102 102 29 29 2,015 154 1,394 1,549 1,549 1,059Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 14,906 149,260 149,260 148,474 148,474 14,847 133,627 14,847 9,980 5,775 133,627 84,528 49,069 54,844 54,844 50,377 50,377 47,914 47,914 786 96 653 749 749 19H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 86 3,310 3,310 3,293 3,293 329 2,964 329 0 0 2,964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 648 308 308 170 170 170 170 170 999 3 170 1,280 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 26,362 2,367 3,048 2,966 2,966 2,853COD (mg/L) 585 585 1,681 639 639 355 355 355 355 355 3,052 33 355 3,846 34 34 34 25 25 22 22 54,225 6,838 8,642 8,423 8,423 8,340TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,338 359 359 126 126 126 126 126 2,613 10 126 3,285 10 10 10 5 5 1 1 45,000 5,905 7,442 7,255 7,255 6,605VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,053 310 310 108 108 108 108 108 2,179 4 108 2,749 4 9 9 3 3 1 1 38,280 4,894 6,186 6,046 6,046 5,406TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 153 53 53 44 44 44 44 44 176 2 44 222 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1,836 394 499 486 486 484NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 92 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 33 0 0 0 0 54NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 1 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 1 20 21 21 21 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 31 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 74 0 3 92 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.05 677 169 210 205 205 140Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 537 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 104 104 264 98 98 99 99 91 91 89 89 264 104 98 99 99 3H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0






PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)




LAMELLATertiarySludge(TSD)

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





906,148 356,682 248,056 906,148 138,673 386,729 386,729 322,442 322,442 137,153 137,354 201 137,354 66,376 2,199,875 108,626 767,475 185,289 952,764 952,764 952,562 3,327,43921,578 78,472 66,657 21,578 17,605 84,261 84,261 11,486 11,486 10,080 10,080 0 10,080 711 313 11,815 3,763 1,406 5,168 5,168 5,168 18,00763,070 161,412 137,106 63,070 54,955 192,062 192,062 61,083 61,083 53,655 53,655 0 53,655 4,557 2,275 24,305 8,115 7,427 15,542 15,542 15,542 46,68049,946 133,951 113,858 49,946 47,449 161,308 161,308 63,589 63,589 57,230 60,089 2,859 60,089 5,539 2,671 20,093 2,497 6,359 8,856 8,856 8,856 37,16040,879 113,947 96,855 40,879 38,835 135,690 135,690 46,655 46,655 41,990 41,990 0 41,990 3,761 1,681 17,092 2,044 4,666 6,709 6,709 6,709 29,2443,664 5,465 4,627 3,664 3,143 7,771 7,771 6,899 6,899 4,239 4,403 164 4,403 270 135 838 520 2,659 3,180 3,180 3,016 4,259

411 98 68 411 63 131 131 4,056 4,056 1,725 1,726 1 1,726 0 1 30 348 2,331 2,679 2,679 2,515 2,5460 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 391 1 0 0 0 0 0 403

1,059 2,015 1,712 1,059 998 2,710 2,710 2,508 2,508 1,873 2,234 361 2,234 163 73 303 61 635 696 696 335 87419 786 547 19 3 550 550 22,550 22,550 9,592 9,592 0 9,592 50 1,642 239 16 12,958 12,974 12,974 12,974 14,9060 17 12 0 0 12 12 140 140 60 60 0 60 0 0 5 0 81 81 81 81 86

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 20 55 12 12 12 12 55 20 20 20 152,853 26,362 32,199 2,853 15,212 26,108 26,108 4,268 4,268 8,807 8,794 4 8,794 1,283 17 13,033 587 909 650 650 650 6488,340 54,225 66,230 8,340 47,486 59,509 59,509 22,699 22,699 46,877 46,808 0 46,808 8,227 124 26,811 1,267 4,803 1,955 1,955 1,955 1,6816,605 45,000 55,000 6,605 41,000 49,980 49,980 23,631 23,631 50,000 52,420 1,700,000 52,420 10,000 146 22,164 390 4,112 1,114 1,114 1,114 1,3385,406 38,280 46,786 5,406 33,557 42,042 42,042 17,338 17,338 36,685 36,631 0 36,631 6,790 92 18,854 319 3,017 844 844 844 1,053

484 1,836 2,235 484 2,716 2,408 2,408 2,564 2,564 3,704 3,841 97,381 3,841 488 7 924 81 1,720 400 400 379 15354 33 33 54 54 41 41 1,507 1,507 1,507 1,505 316 1,505 0 0 33 54 1,507 337 337 316 920 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 15

140 677 827 140 862 840 840 932 932 1,637 1,949 214,660 1,949 295 4 334 10 411 88 88 42 313 264 264 3 3 170 170 8,380 8,380 8,380 8,368 0 8,368 91 89 264 3 8,380 1,632 1,632 1,632 5370 6 6 0 0 4 4 52 52 52 52 0 52 0 0 6 0 52 10 10 10 3




Plant Model Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 3:42 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION4.WO INCR CAPACITY.xlsm
















TSS 124 124TP 3.76 3.76OP 2.32 2.32































































Magnesium Hydroxide kg/day 998 0.45359 lb/day 2200Reactor pH 7.8 7.8Influent OP mg/L 8 mg/L 8Effluent OP mg/L 8 mg/L 8OP Removal % 90% % 90%




Mass Balance (U.S.) Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 3:44 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION4.WO INCR CAPACITY.xlsm

Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined


MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent

(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,079,963 67,479,963 67,479,963 67,092,133 67,092,133 6,709,213 60,382,920 6,709,213 11,405,690 6,637,196 60,382,920 102,651,163 59,858,046 66,495,242 66,495,242 64,295,367 64,295,367 387,830 72,044 525,074 597,118 597,118 597,118Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 16,229 172,274 172,274 95,177 95,177 9,518 85,660 9,518 108,982 139 85,660 1,197,662 1,409 1,547 1,547 783 783 77,096 1,644 14,678 16,323 16,323 15,370COD (lbs/day) 317,187 317,187 42,991 360,178 360,178 200,692 200,692 20,069 180,623 20,069 377,532 1,819 180,623 4,154,864 16,709 18,528 18,528 12,978 12,978 159,486 5,372 47,999 53,371 53,371 53,086TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 32,540 198,350 198,350 69,423 69,423 6,942 62,480 6,942 336,404 519 62,480 3,722,597 4,697 5,216 5,216 1,043 1,043 129,466 4,836 43,447 48,283 48,283 43,424VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 26,938 172,851 172,851 60,408 60,408 6,041 54,367 6,041 269,999 440 54,367 2,974,357 3,975 4,415 4,415 804 804 112,298 3,858 34,492 38,350 38,350 35,190TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,570 30,423 30,423 25,086 25,086 2,509 22,577 2,509 21,628 122 22,577 237,672 1,022 1,144 1,144 816 816 5,337 306 2,736 3,042 3,042 3,029NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 2,980 19,009 19,009 18,900 18,900 1,890 17,010 1,890 29 17 17,010 119 69 86 86 83 83 109 0 1 1 1 348NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 112 112 112 111 111 11 100 11 582 338 100 5,198 3,031 3,370 3,370 3,258 3,258 1 4 26 30 30 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 672 3,785 3,785 2,108 2,108 211 1,897 211 12,625 27 1,897 143,246 199 226 226 58 58 1,509 184 1,700 1,884 1,884 1,286Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 22,320 156,675 156,675 155,774 155,774 15,577 140,197 15,577 15,420 8,973 140,197 138,306 80,649 89,622 89,622 85,414 85,414 900 97 707 805 805 12H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 108 3,332 3,332 3,313 3,313 331 2,982 331 0 0 2,982 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 631 306 306 170 170 170 170 170 1,145 3 170 1,398 3 3 3 1 1.46 23,820 2,735 3,350 3,275 3,275 3,084COD (mg/L) 590 590 1,673 640 640 358 358 358 358 358 3,966 33 358 4,850 33 33 33 24 24.19 49,275 8,934 10,954 10,710 10,710 10,653TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,266 352 352 124 124 124 124 124 3,534 9 124 4,345 9 9 9 2 1.94 40,000 8,044 9,915 9,689 9,689 8,714VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,048 307 307 108 108 108 108 108 2,837 4 108 3,472 4 8 8 1 1.50 34,696 6,416 7,870 7,696 7,696 7,062TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 178 54 54 45 45 45 45 45 227 2 45 277 2 2 2 2 1.52 1,649 510 624 610 610 608NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 116 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 34 0 0 0 0 70NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.11 6.11 0.20 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 0 6 6 6 6 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 26 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 133 0 4 167 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.11 466 306 388 378 378 258Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 868 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 162 162 278 161 161 162 162 159 159 278 162 161 162 162 3H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0






PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)



(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





597,118 387,830 239,749 597,118 120,562 360,312 360,312 384,352 384,352 128,411 128,899 489 128,899 2,199,875 148,081 476,556 255,941 732,497 732,497 732,008 3,079,96315,370 77,096 65,459 15,370 12,718 78,177 78,177 11,552 11,552 10,034 10,072 39 10,072 742 11,637 2,371 1,518 3,889 3,889 3,850 16,22953,086 159,486 135,409 53,086 47,425 182,834 182,834 59,476 59,476 51,773 51,773 0 51,773 5,550 24,077 5,661 7,703 13,364 13,364 13,364 42,99143,424 129,466 110,046 43,424 41,252 151,298 151,298 59,536 59,536 53,583 60,519 6,936 60,519 4,995 19,420 2,171 5,954 8,125 8,125 8,125 32,54035,190 112,298 95,453 35,190 33,431 128,884 128,884 44,822 44,822 40,340 40,340 0 40,340 3,851 16,845 1,760 4,482 6,242 6,242 6,242 26,9383,029 5,337 4,507 3,029 2,610 7,117 7,117 7,362 7,362 3,974 4,372 398 4,372 329 830 419 3,388 3,807 3,807 3,411 4,570

348 109 68 348 70 138 138 4,586 4,586 1,532 1,534 2 1,534 3 42 278 3,054 3,332 3,332 2,936 2,9800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 112

1,286 1,509 1,275 1,286 926 2,201 2,201 2,276 2,276 1,489 2,365 876 2,365 167 234 360 787 1,146 1,146 272 67212 900 557 12 3 559 559 28,599 28,599 9,555 9,555 0 9,555 2,922 344 10 19,044 19,054 19,054 19,054 22,3200 19 12 0 0 12 12 151 151 50 50 0 50 0 7 0 100 100 100 100 108

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 27 55 12 12 12 55 27 27 27 163,084 23,820 32,716 3,084 12,640 25,999 25,999 3,601 3,601 9,363 9,363 9,546 9,363 40 9,416 596 711 636 636 630 631

10,653 49,275 67,676 10,653 47,135 60,803 60,803 18,542 18,542 48,311 48,128 0 48,128 302 19,483 1,423 3,606 2,186 2,186 2,188 1,6738,714 40,000 55,000 8,714 41,000 50,316 50,316 18,561 18,561 50,000 56,258 1,700,000 56,258 272 15,714 546 2,787 1,329 1,329 1,330 1,2667,062 34,696 47,707 7,062 33,226 42,862 42,862 13,974 13,974 37,643 37,500 0 37,500 210 13,631 442 2,098 1,021 1,021 1,022 1,048

608 1,649 2,252 608 2,594 2,367 2,367 2,295 2,295 3,708 4,064 97,545 4,064 18 672 105 1,586 623 623 558 17870 34 34 70 70 46 46 1,430 1,430 1,430 1,426 481 1,426 0 34 70 1,430 545 545 481 1160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

258 466 637 258 920 732 732 710 710 1,390 2,199 214,662 2,199 9 189 90 368 187 187 44 263 278 278 3 3 186 186 8,916 8,916 8,916 8,882 0 8,882 159 278 3 8,916 3,117 3,117 3,119 8680 6 6 0 0 4 4 47 47 47 47 0 47 0 6 0 47 16 16 16 4




















TSS 125 125TP 3.45 3.45OP 1.82 1.82











































Chemical Compound Applied before Secondary Clarifier 3Chemical Added? NoChemical Type Alum 1.00 AlumChemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 2,268 0.45 lb/day 5000Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L N/A 1.00 mg/L N/AMolar Ratio Dosage Applied (M+:PO4-P) 2 1.00 N/AEffluent PO4-P kg/day 15 0.45 lb/day N/AEffluent PO4-P mg/L 0.06 1.00 mg/L N/A







Process Oxygen Requirements - Minus MBR Tank (if used)





Carbonaceous AOR/BOD5 - wt/wt kg/kg 0.02 1.00 lb/lb 0.02Total AOR/BOD% - wt/wt kg/kg 0.00 1.00 lb/lb 0.00AOR (wt/day) kg/day lb/day
















Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined


MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent

(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,076,862 67,476,862 67,476,862 67,084,537 67,084,537 6,708,454 60,376,083 6,708,454 11,404,398 6,636,426 60,376,083 102,639,542 59,851,173 66,487,598 66,487,598 64,287,724 64,287,724 392,325 72,055 525,111 597,166 597,166 597,166Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 16,581 172,625 172,625 95,368 95,368 9,537 85,832 9,537 109,413 140 85,832 1,201,589 1,453 1,593 1,593 804 804 77,257 1,651 14,728 16,380 16,380 15,541COD (lbs/day) 317,187 317,187 43,672 360,858 360,858 200,992 200,992 20,099 180,893 20,099 378,747 1,818 180,893 4,166,981 16,751 18,569 18,569 12,862 12,862 159,866 5,391 48,149 53,539 53,539 53,256TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 33,830 199,641 199,641 69,874 69,874 6,987 62,887 6,987 335,795 520 62,887 3,712,303 4,703 5,223 5,223 1,045 1,045 130,966 4,828 43,322 48,150 48,150 44,028VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 27,335 173,249 173,249 60,298 60,298 6,030 54,268 6,030 270,881 442 54,268 2,983,054 3,992 4,434 4,434 752 752 112,627 3,872 34,599 38,471 38,471 34,869TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,695 30,548 30,548 25,194 25,194 2,519 22,675 2,519 21,700 122 22,675 238,377 1,024 1,146 1,146 808 808 5,354 308 2,744 3,052 3,052 3,038NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,098 19,127 19,127 19,016 19,016 1,902 17,114 1,902 29 17 17,114 120 70 87 87 84 84 111 0 1 1 1 348NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 112 112 112 111 111 11 100 11 582 339 100 5,190 3,026 3,365 3,365 3,254 3,254 1 4 26 30 30 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 683 3,796 3,796 1,929 1,929 193 1,736 193 11,666 23 1,736 131,881 177 201 201 39 39 1,702 170 1,561 1,730 1,730 895Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,520 155,875 155,875 154,969 154,969 15,497 139,472 15,497 15,262 8,881 139,472 136,932 79,848 88,729 88,729 82,905 82,905 906 96 701 797 797 12H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 108 3,332 3,332 3,313 3,313 331 2,982 331 0 0 2,982 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 646 307 307 170 170 170 170 170 1,150 3 170 1,403 3 3 3 1 1.50 23,596 2,746 3,361 3,287 3,287 3,118COD (mg/L) 590 590 1,701 641 641 359 359 359 359 359 3,979 33 359 4,865 34 33 33 24 23.97 48,827 8,964 10,987 10,743 10,743 10,686TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,317 355 355 125 125 125 125 125 3,528 9 125 4,334 9 9 9 2 1.95 40,000 8,028 9,886 9,662 9,662 8,834VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,065 308 308 108 108 108 108 108 2,846 4 108 3,483 4 8 8 1 1.40 34,399 6,437 7,893 7,719 7,719 6,997TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 183 54 54 45 45 45 45 45 228 2 45 278 2 2 2 2 1.51 1,635 512 626 612 612 610NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 121 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 34 0 0 0 0 70NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.12 6.12 0.20 6.06 6.06 6.07 6.07 6.07 6.07 0 6 6 6 6 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 27 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 123 0 3 154 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.07 520 282 356 347 347 180Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 838 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 160 160 277 160 160 160 160 155 155 277 160 160 160 160 3H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0






PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)



(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





597,166 392,325 242,528 597,166 122,241 364,769 364,769 384,451 384,451 131,883 132,186 303 132,186 2,199,875 149,797 474,925 252,568 727,493 727,493 727,191 3,076,86215,541 77,257 65,595 15,541 12,587 78,182 78,182 11,484 11,484 9,980 10,005 25 10,005 767 11,662 2,673 1,505 4,177 4,177 4,152 16,58153,256 159,866 135,729 53,256 47,055 182,785 182,785 59,211 59,211 51,584 51,584 0 51,584 5,707 24,137 6,201 7,627 13,828 13,828 13,828 43,67244,028 130,966 111,321 44,028 41,827 153,148 153,148 61,146 61,146 55,032 59,327 4,296 59,327 5,869 19,645 2,201 6,115 8,316 8,316 8,316 33,83034,869 112,627 95,733 34,869 33,126 128,859 128,859 44,705 44,705 40,235 40,235 0 40,235 4,227 16,894 1,743 4,471 6,214 6,214 6,214 27,3353,038 5,354 4,520 3,038 2,619 7,140 7,140 7,343 7,343 3,993 4,239 247 4,239 338 833 419 3,350 3,769 3,769 3,524 4,695

348 111 69 348 71 140 140 4,598 4,598 1,577 1,579 1 1,579 3 42 277 3,021 3,298 3,298 3,053 3,0980 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 112

895 1,702 1,441 895 842 2,283 2,283 2,339 2,339 1,590 2,132 542 2,132 161 260 54 750 803 803 262 68312 906 560 12 3 563 563 27,897 27,897 9,570 9,570 0 9,570 2,837 346 10 18,327 18,337 18,337 18,337 21,5200 19 12 0 0 12 12 153 153 52 52 0 52 0 7 0 100 100 100 100 108

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 27 55 12 12 12 55 27 27 27 163,118 23,596 32,408 3,118 12,338 25,682 25,682 3,579 3,579 9,067 9,069 9,855 9,069 42 9,329 674 714 688 688 684 646

10,686 48,827 67,059 10,686 46,125 60,044 60,044 18,455 18,455 46,868 46,761 0 46,761 311 19,307 1,564 3,618 2,278 2,278 2,278 1,7018,834 40,000 55,000 8,834 41,000 50,308 50,308 19,058 19,058 50,000 53,780 1,700,000 53,780 320 15,714 555 2,901 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,3176,997 34,399 47,298 6,997 32,471 42,329 42,329 13,934 13,934 36,556 36,472 0 36,472 230 13,514 440 2,121 1,023 1,023 1,024 1,065

610 1,635 2,233 610 2,568 2,345 2,345 2,289 2,289 3,628 3,843 97,568 3,843 18 667 106 1,589 621 621 581 18370 34 34 70 70 46 46 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,431 503 1,431 0 34 70 1,433 543 543 503 1210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

180 520 712 180 825 750 750 729 729 1,444 1,933 214,658 1,933 9 208 14 356 132 132 43 273 277 277 3 3 185 185 8,695 8,695 8,695 8,675 0 8,675 155 277 3 8,695 3,020 3,020 3,022 8380 6 6 0 0 4 4 48 48 48 47 0 47 0 6 0 48 17 17 17 4




















TSS 125 125TP 3.50 3.50OP 1.89 1.89




Biological Process - PBNR: AOEASTTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 15.00 1.00 days 15.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 2.99 1.00 days 2.99Aerobic SRT days 8.53 1.00 8.53Nitrification Safety Factor 2.85 1.00 2.85DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130






































Tertiary Clarifiers: LAMELLATertiary Clarifers? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 1,816 0.09 ft2 19,550Overflow Rate m/day 0.04 gpd-sq.ft.








Biological Process - PBNR: PO4_WASTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 1.00 1.00 days 1.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days -23.36 1.00 days -23.36Aerobic SRT days 0.00 1.00 0.00Nitrification Safety Factor 0.00 1.00 0.00DO mg/L 0.00 1.00 mg/L 0.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12





SVI mL/g 120 1.00 mL/g 120Biosolids Production Rates












Magnesium Hydroxide kg/day 998 0.45359 lb/day 2200Reactor pH 7.8 7.8Influent OP mg/L 8 mg/L 8Effluent OP mg/L 8 mg/L 8OP Removal % 87% % 87%





Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined


MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


LAMELLATertiaryClarifierInfluent

(TCI)

LAMELLATertiaryClarifierEffluent(TCE)

GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent

(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,113,493 67,513,493 67,513,493 67,120,678 67,120,678 6,712,068 60,408,610 6,712,068 11,410,542 6,640,034 60,408,610 102,694,838 59,883,656 66,523,691 66,523,691 66,487,025 66,487,025 64,287,151 64,287,151 392,814 72,060 525,154 597,215Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 16,603 172,648 172,648 95,356 95,356 9,536 85,820 9,536 109,456 141 85,820 1,201,866 1,463 1,604 1,604 1,123 1,123 746 746 77,292 1,651 14,725 16,376COD (lbs/day) 317,187 317,187 44,140 361,327 361,327 201,134 201,134 20,113 181,021 20,113 379,611 1,817 181,021 4,175,879 16,759 18,576 18,576 15,315 15,315 12,398 12,398 160,193 5,404 48,265 53,670TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 34,185 199,996 199,996 69,999 69,999 7,000 62,999 7,000 336,921 517 62,999 3,724,565 4,680 5,197 5,197 2,776 2,776 555 555 131,130 4,845 43,476 48,321VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 27,694 173,608 173,608 60,449 60,449 6,045 54,404 6,045 271,501 439 54,404 2,989,450 3,969 4,408 4,408 2,192 2,192 374 374 112,852 3,882 34,683 38,565TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,711 30,564 30,564 25,190 25,190 2,519 22,671 2,519 21,748 121 22,671 238,877 1,020 1,140 1,140 948 948 775 775 5,374 308 2,751 3,059NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,081 19,110 19,110 18,998 18,998 1,900 17,099 1,900 28 16 17,099 113 66 82 82 82 82 79 79 111 0 1 1NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 113 113 113 113 113 11 101 11 583 339 101 5,187 3,025 3,364 3,364 3,362 3,362 3,251 3,251 1 4 26 30TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 709 3,822 3,822 1,961 1,961 196 1,764 196 11,855 24 1,764 134,055 179 203 203 109 109 24 24 1,694 173 1,587 1,760Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,683 156,038 156,038 155,130 155,130 15,513 139,617 15,513 15,284 8,894 139,617 137,172 79,988 88,882 88,882 87,772 87,772 83,287 83,287 908 97 701 798H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 108 3,332 3,332 3,313 3,313 331 2,982 331 0 0 2,982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 639 306 306 170 170 170 170 170 1,149 3 170 1,402 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 23,577 2,746 3,360 3,286COD (mg/L) 590 590 1,699 641 641 359 359 359 359 359 3,986 33 359 4,872 34 33 33 28 28 23 23 48,865 8,987 11,013 10,768TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,316 355 355 125 125 125 125 125 3,538 9 125 4,346 9 9 9 5 5 1 1 40,000 8,056 9,920 9,695VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,066 308 308 108 108 108 108 108 2,851 4 108 3,488 4 8 8 4 4 1 1 34,425 6,453 7,912 7,738TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 181 54 54 45 45 45 45 45 228 2 45 279 2 2 2 2 2 1 1.44 1,639 513 628 614NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 119 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 34 0 0 0NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.06 0 6 6 6TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 27 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 124 0 3 156 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.05 517 287 362 353Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 834 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 161 161 277 160 160 160 160 158 158 155 155 277 161 160 160H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0






PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)



(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

LAMELLATertiarySludge(TSD)

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





597,215 597,214 597,214 392,814 242,831 597,214 122,451 365,281 365,281 384,463 384,463 131,932 132,258 326 132,258 36,666 2,199,875 149,984 474,764 252,531 727,295 727,295 726,969 3,113,49316,376 15,519 15,519 77,292 65,625 15,519 12,618 78,242 78,242 11,511 11,511 10,003 10,030 27 10,030 459 377 11,667 2,620 1,508 4,128 4,128 4,101 16,60353,670 53,381 53,381 160,193 136,007 53,381 47,267 183,274 183,274 59,441 59,441 51,779 51,779 0 51,779 3,261 2,917 24,186 6,114 7,662 13,776 13,776 13,776 44,14048,321 44,104 44,104 131,130 111,460 44,104 41,898 153,359 153,359 61,169 61,169 55,052 59,681 4,629 59,681 3,060 3,134 19,669 2,205 6,117 8,322 8,322 8,322 34,18538,565 35,035 35,035 112,852 95,924 35,035 33,283 129,207 129,207 44,867 44,867 40,380 40,380 0 40,380 2,416 2,111 16,928 1,752 4,487 6,238 6,238 6,238 27,6943,059 3,044 3,044 5,374 4,537 3,044 2,627 7,164 7,164 7,363 7,363 4,007 4,273 266 4,273 192 173 836 418 3,356 3,773 3,773 3,509 4,711

1 346 346 111 69 346 71 140 140 4,604 4,604 1,580 1,581 1 1,581 0 3 42 275 3,024 3,300 3,300 3,036 3,08130 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 113

1,760 955 955 1,694 1,435 955 857 2,292 2,292 2,347 2,347 1,590 2,175 584 2,175 94 85 260 98 757 854 854 271 709798 12 12 908 561 12 3 564 564 28,055 28,055 9,627 9,627 0 9,627 48 2,850 347 10 18,428 18,438 18,438 18,438 21,683

0 0 0 19 12 0 0 12 12 153 153 52 52 0 52 0 0 7 0 100 100 100 100 10812 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 27 55 12 12 12 12 55 27 27 27 16

3,286 3,114 3,114 23,577 32,383 3,114 12,347 25,666 25,666 3,588 3,588 9,085 9,087 9,952 9,087 1,499 21 9,321 661 715 680 680 676 63910,768 10,710 10,710 48,865 67,113 10,710 46,253 60,120 60,120 18,526 18,526 47,028 46,912 0 46,912 10,657 159 19,323 1,543 3,636 2,270 2,270 2,271 1,6999,695 8,849 8,849 40,000 55,000 8,849 41,000 50,307 50,307 19,064 19,064 50,000 54,070 1,700,000 54,070 10,000 171 15,714 557 2,902 1,371 1,371 1,372 1,3167,738 7,029 7,029 34,425 47,334 7,029 32,569 42,384 42,384 13,984 13,984 36,675 36,584 0 36,584 7,897 115 13,524 442 2,129 1,028 1,028 1,028 1,066

614 611 611 1,639 2,239 611 2,570 2,350 2,350 2,295 2,295 3,639 3,871 97,565 3,871 627 9 668 105 1,592 622 622 578 1810 70 70 34 34 70 70 46 46 1,435 1,435 1,435 1,433 500 1,433 0 0 34 70 1,435 544 544 500 1196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

353 192 192 517 708 192 839 752 752 732 732 1,445 1,970 214,660 1,970 306 5 208 25 359 141 141 45 27160 3 3 277 277 3 3 185 185 8,744 8,744 8,744 8,722 0 8,722 158 155 277 3 8,744 3,038 3,038 3,039 834

0 0 0 6 6 0 0 4 4 48 48 48 48 0 48 0 0 6 0 48 17 17 17 4




Plant Model Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 4:19 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION7.CONVENTIONAL.xlsm
















TSS 126 126TP 3.34 3.34OP 1.51 1.51



































































Mass Balance (U.S.) Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 4:21 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION7.CONVENTIONAL.xlsm

Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined


MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent

(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,198,132 67,598,132 67,598,132 67,199,422 67,199,422 6,719,942 60,479,480 6,719,942 11,424,252 6,643,286 60,479,480 102,818,016 59,813,317 66,456,603 66,456,603 64,256,729 64,256,729 398,710 77,006 669,063 746,069 746,069 746,069Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 18,218 174,262 174,262 97,768 97,768 9,777 87,991 9,777 132,399 285 87,991 1,229,688 2,421 2,706 2,706 1,769 1,769 76,495 2,128 19,096 21,224 21,224 20,378COD (lbs/day) 321,424 321,424 47,885 369,308 369,308 208,300 208,300 20,830 187,470 20,830 427,255 2,082 187,470 3,972,387 18,492 20,574 20,574 14,593 14,593 161,009 6,548 58,798 65,346 65,346 65,144TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 36,336 202,146 202,146 70,751 70,751 7,075 63,676 7,075 365,284 517 63,676 3,397,148 4,658 5,175 5,175 1,035 1,035 133,098 5,640 50,651 56,291 56,291 50,318VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 28,701 174,614 174,614 60,598 60,598 6,060 54,538 6,060 305,043 447 54,538 2,836,964 4,031 4,478 4,478 672 672 113,557 4,694 42,158 46,853 46,853 41,030TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,838 30,691 30,691 25,341 25,341 2,534 22,807 2,534 24,626 113 22,807 228,952 1,014 1,126 1,126 776 776 5,350 377 3,381 3,758 3,758 3,748NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,180 19,209 19,209 19,096 19,096 1,910 17,186 1,910 4 2 17,186 38 22 24 24 24 24 113 0 0 0 0 495NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 16 16 16 16 16 2 15 2 78 45 15 771 449 494 494 478 478 0 1 5 5 5 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 857 3,970 3,970 1,874 1,874 187 1,686 187 10,209 30 1,686 94,816 274 304 304 62 62 1,929 158 1,416 1,574 1,574 1,053Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,920 156,274 156,274 155,353 155,353 15,535 139,817 15,535 18,300 10,641 139,817 163,794 95,286 105,927 105,927 98,033 98,033 922 123 1,066 1,189 1,189 16H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 109 3,334 3,334 3,314 3,314 331 2,983 331 0 0 2,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 683 309 309 174 174 174 174 174 1,389 5 174 1,433 5 5 5 3 3.30 22,989 3,312 3,420 3,409 3,409 3,273COD (mg/L) 598 598 1,794 655 655 371 371 371 371 371 4,481 38 371 4,629 37 37 37 27 27.21 48,388 10,189 10,530 10,495 10,495 10,463TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,361 358 358 126 126 126 126 126 3,831 9 126 3,959 9 9 9 2 1.93 40,000 8,776 9,071 9,041 9,041 8,081VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,075 310 310 108 108 108 108 108 3,199 4 108 3,306 4 8 8 1 1.25 34,127 7,293 7,539 7,525 7,525 6,590TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 181 54 54 45 45 45 45 45 258 2 45 267 2 2 2 1 1.45 1,608 586 606 604 604 602NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 119 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0.04 0.04 34 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 34 0 0 0 0 79NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82 0.82 0.03 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0 1 1 1 1 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 32 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 107 1 3 110 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.12 0.12 580 246 254 253 253 169Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 821 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 192 192 277 191 191 191 191 183 183 277 192 191 191 191 3H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0






PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)



(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





746,069 398,710 246,475 746,069 139,704 386,179 386,179 384,971 384,971 145,043 145,313 271 145,313 2,199,875 152,235 606,365 239,929 846,294 846,294 846,023 3,198,13220,378 76,495 64,942 20,378 15,455 80,397 80,397 11,315 11,315 9,849 9,849 0 9,849 898 11,553 4,301 1,467 5,768 5,768 5,768 18,21865,144 161,009 136,689 65,144 55,696 192,385 192,385 65,206 65,206 57,070 57,070 0 57,070 5,981 24,320 9,448 8,136 17,584 17,584 17,584 47,88550,318 133,098 113,133 50,318 47,802 160,935 160,935 67,248 67,248 60,523 64,363 3,840 64,363 7,131 19,965 2,516 6,725 9,241 9,241 9,241 36,33641,030 113,557 96,523 41,030 38,979 135,502 135,502 49,850 49,850 44,865 44,865 0 44,865 4,631 17,033 2,052 4,985 7,037 7,037 7,037 28,7013,748 5,350 4,517 3,748 3,176 7,692 7,692 7,697 7,697 4,396 4,616 220 4,616 350 834 572 3,301 3,873 3,873 3,654 4,838

495 113 70 495 93 163 163 4,739 4,739 1,785 1,786 1 1,786 1 43 402 2,953 3,355 3,355 3,136 3,1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16

1,053 1,929 1,638 1,053 999 2,637 2,637 2,636 2,636 1,879 2,364 485 2,364 241 290 54 757 810 810 325 85716 922 570 16 3 573 573 29,201 29,201 11,002 11,002 0 11,002 3,356 352 13 18,199 18,212 18,212 18,212 21,9200 20 12 0 0 12 12 163 163 61 61 0 61 0 8 0 102 102 102 102 109

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 24 55 12 12 12 55 24 24 24 153,273 22,989 31,572 3,273 13,256 24,946 24,946 3,522 3,522 8,136 8,121 0 8,121 49 9,093 850 733 817 817 817 683

10,463 48,388 66,452 10,463 47,771 59,694 59,694 20,296 20,296 47,148 47,060 0 47,060 326 19,143 1,867 4,063 2,490 2,490 2,490 1,7948,081 40,000 55,000 8,081 41,000 49,935 49,935 20,931 20,931 50,000 53,073 1,700,000 53,073 388 15,714 497 3,358 1,308 1,308 1,309 1,3616,590 34,127 46,925 6,590 33,432 42,044 42,044 15,516 15,516 37,065 36,996 0 36,996 252 13,407 405 2,490 996 996 997 1,075

602 1,608 2,196 602 2,724 2,387 2,387 2,396 2,396 3,632 3,807 97,509 3,807 19 656 113 1,649 548 548 517 18179 34 34 79 79 50 50 1,475 1,475 1,475 1,473 444 1,473 0 34 79 1,475 475 475 444 1190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

169 580 796 169 857 818 818 820 820 1,552 1,949 214,660 1,949 13 229 11 378 115 115 46 323 277 277 3 3 178 178 9,089 9,089 9,089 9,072 0 9,072 183 277 3 9,089 2,579 2,579 2,579 8210 6 6 0 0 4 4 51 51 51 51 0 51 0 6 0 51 14 14 14 4




Plant Model Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 4:25 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION8.MBR.xlsm













Flow Splitter: PCSPLTSplitter Influent Flow m3/day 254,629 3,785 MGD 67.27Flow Splits

PCSPLT Splitter Effluent (SplitE) PCMain % 86% % 86%PCSPLT Splitter Effluent (SplitE) PCMBR % 14% % 14.28%


Average 38 0.04 939Diurnal Peak 52 0.04 1,280


TSS 126 126TP 3.16 3.16OP 1.26 1.26

Primary Sludge Concentration mg/L 40,000 1.00 mg/L 40,000Biological Process - PBNR: UCT

Total SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 15.00 1.00 days 15.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 2.99 1.00 days 2.99Aerobic SRT days 9.03 1.00 9.03Nitrification Safety Factor 3.01 1.00 3.01DO mg/L 2.00 1.00 mg/L 2.00Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130



















Primary Clarifiers: MBRPrimary Clarifiers? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 740 0.09 ft2 7,964Overflow Rate m/day 0.04 gpd-sq.ft.


Chemical Compound Applied to Primary Influent No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 727 0.45 lb/day 1,603Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.74 1.00 0.74Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 90% 1.00 90%Percent Removal of Colloidal Matter 33% 33%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 60% 1.00 60%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 50% 1.00 50%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 60% 1.00 60%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 50% 1.00 50%Percent BOD5 Removal 42% 1.00 42%Primary Effluent mg/L mg/L

TSS 144 144TP 3.43 3.43OP 1.26 1.26

Primary Sludge Concentration mg/L 40,000 1.00 mg/L 40,000Filters: GMF

Filters? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 873 0.09 ft2 9,400Hydraulic Loading Rate m/day 0.04 gpm/ft2


Solids Loading Rate kg/m2-day lb/day-sq.ft.Average 4.08 0.04 0.17





Diurnal Peak 8.33 0.04 0.35Filter Run Time hr 24 1.00 hr 24Instantaneous Backwash Rate m/hr 49 2.44 gpm/ft2 20Duration of Backwash Flow minutes 10 1.00 minutes 10Backwash Operating Time (%cycle) % 0.69% 1.00 % 0.69%Backwash Flow Rate m3/day 7,116 3,785.00 MGD 1.88Ratio of Backwash Production to Filter Influent % 3.3% 1.00 % 3.3%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 80% 1.00 80%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 80% 1.00 80%Effluent TSS at Average Conditions mg/L 1.9 1.00 mg/L 1.9Effluent TSS at Peak Conditions mg/L 4.1 1.00 mg/L 4.1Chemical Compound Applied to Filter Influent Yes TRUE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 25 1.00 mg/L 25Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 5,365.57 0.45 lb/day 11,829.13Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 9.14 1.00 9.14Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 89% 1.00 89%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 84% 1.00 84%Backwash Concentration mg/L 443 1.00 mg/L 443

Biological Process - PBNR: MBRTotal SRT (anaerobic + anoxic + aerobic) days 15.00 1.00 days 15.00System pH 7.20 1.00 7.20Nitrifier Minimum Aerobic SRT (SRTmin) days 2.96 1.00 days 2.96Aerobic SRT days 9.55 1.00 9.55Nitrification Safety Factor 3.23 1.00 3.23DO mg/L 2.11 1.00 mg/L 2.11Temperature in the Biological Process oC 12 1.00 oC 12SVI mL/g 130 1.00 mL/g 130Biosolids Production Rates





Bioreactor Membrane Bioreactor 2Total Bioreactor Volume m3 8,328 3,785.44 MG 2.20HRT hr 5.53 1.00 hr 5.53% non-aerobic % 36% 1.00 36%% aerobic % 64% 1.00 64%Average MLSS Concentration mg/L 8,254 1.00 mg/L 8,254

Membrane Performance GE/ZenonCalculate Based on Flux or # of Modules? Flux lmh 17 1.70 gph 10Design Membrane Net Flux Rate lmh 17.0 1.70 gfd 10Minimum Required Membrane Area m2 87,805 10.76 ft2 945,099Membrane Module Area m2 32 10.76 ft2 340Number of Modules 2,780 2,780Air Rate per Module Nm3/hr 20 1.70 11.80Percent of Time Membrane Air Scour is on 25% 25%Total Membrane Air Scour Rate Nm3/hr 13,935 1.70 scfm 8,201Force MBR DO to Match Air Rate? YesEffluent TSS mg/L mg/L

Average 1.0 1.00 1.0Diurnal Peak 1.0 1.00 1.0

Chemical Compound Applied in Bioreactor 3Chemical Added? YesChemical Type Alum 1.00 AlumChemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 907 0.45 lb/day 2000Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 25 1.00 mg/L 25Molar Ratio Dosage Applied (M+:PO4-P) 3 1.00 3.07Effluent PO4-P kg/day 0 0.45 lb/day 1Effluent PO4-P mg/L 0.01 1.00 mg/L 0.01


Net Yield (mg TSS/mg BOD5) mg/mg 0.00 1.00 lb/lb 0.00Volatile Fraction % 80% 1.00 % 80%





Active Fraction % 38% 1.00 % 38%Nitrifier Fraction % 2% 1.00 % 2%Nitrogen Content, N/VSS % 5% 1.00 % 5%Phosphorus Content, P/VSS % 1% 1.00 % 1%









Alum Addition: DUMMYAlum Addition? No FALSE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 20 1.00 mg/L 20Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 29.13 0.45 lb/day 64.22Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 0.48 1.00 0.48Effluent Ortho-Phosphate mg/L 185.92 mg/L 185.92Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Percent Removal of Colloidal Matter 33% 33%


General Node: StruviteIs the General Node in Service? Yes TRUEMagnesium Hydroxide kg/day 1,089 0.45359 lb/day 2400Reactor pH 8.1 8.1Influent OP mg/L 9 mg/L 9Effluent OP mg/L 9 mg/L 9OP Removal % 84% % 84%




Mass Balance (U.S.) Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 4:36 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION8.MBR.xlsm

Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

CombinedRecycleEffluent(RecyE)

PCSPLTSplitterInfluent(SplitI)

SplitterEffluent(SplitE)PCMain

SplitterEffluent(SplitE)PCMBR

MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

SecondaryClarifierInfluent

(SI)

SecondaryClarifierEffluent

(SE)

MBRPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MBRPrimaryEffluent

(PE)

GranularMedia Filter

Influent(GMFI)

GranularMedia Filter

Effluent(GMFE)

MBRBioreactor

Influent(BI)


(SI)


(SE)

EEFLUENTCombinedDischarge

PlantEffluent(PLE)


UCTWAS

MBRPrimarySludge(PSD)

MBRWAS


PSLUDGECombinedDischarge

PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)


(SI)


(SE)Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 2,865,440 67,265,436 67,265,436 57,659,931 9,605,504 57,659,931 57,318,392 57,318,392 97,444,366 56,696,941 9,605,504 9,552,919 56,696,941 54,817,048 9,552,919 9,450,133 9,450,949 64,267,997 64,267,997 341,540 624,551 52,585 103,638 728,188 394,124 728,188 728,189 728,189Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 18,155 174,200 174,200 149,324 24,876 149,324 82,149 82,149 1,087,239 2,138 24,876 14,534 2,138 1,336 14,534 323,829 1,304 2,640 2,640 67,174 16,634 10,341 3,551 20,185 77,516 20,185 19,341 19,341COD (lbs/day) 313,441 313,441 45,802 359,243 359,243 307,943 51,300 307,943 170,759 170,759 3,475,855 16,916 51,300 30,181 16,916 11,750 30,181 1,004,088 4,422 16,172 16,172 137,184 50,392 21,119 10,500 60,892 158,303 60,892 60,690 60,690TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 35,788 201,599 201,599 172,811 28,788 172,811 60,484 60,484 3,010,519 4,454 28,788 11,515 4,454 891 11,515 914,045 479 1,370 1,370 114,013 44,019 17,554 9,624 53,643 131,567 53,643 47,985 47,985VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 27,726 173,640 173,640 148,844 24,796 148,844 51,569 51,569 2,487,722 3,835 24,796 9,815 3,835 550 9,815 735,784 424 974 974 96,820 36,221 14,905 7,709 43,930 111,725 43,930 38,204 38,204TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,794 30,647 30,647 26,271 4,376 26,271 21,629 21,629 200,021 941 4,376 3,662 941 637 3,662 57,764 203 840 840 4,641 2,892 715 603 3,495 5,356 3,495 3,485 3,485NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,206 19,235 19,235 16,488 2,747 16,488 16,390 16,390 44 26 2,747 2,732 26 25 2,732 41 41 65 65 98 0 15 0 1 113 1 465 465NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 13 13 13 11 2 11 11 11 653 380 2 2 380 368 2 76 76 444 444 0 4 0 1 5 0 5 0 0TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 809 3,922 3,922 3,362 560 3,362 1,513 1,513 87,109 241 560 274 241 40 274 24,813 13 53 53 1,709 1,279 263 262 1,541 1,972 1,541 974 974Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,037 155,392 155,392 133,202 22,190 133,202 132,413 132,413 154,068 89,643 22,190 22,068 89,643 81,258 22,068 14,647 14,649 95,907 95,907 789 987 121 161 1,148 910 1,148 15 15H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 107 3,331 3,331 2,855 476 2,855 2,838 2,838 0 0 476 473 0 0 473 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 0 0 20 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 759 310 310 310 310 310 172 172 1,337 5 310 182 5 3 182 4,106 17 5 5 23,567 3,191 23,565 4,106 3,322 23,567 3,322 3,183 3,183COD (mg/L) 583 583 1,915 640 640 640 640 640 357 357 4,274 36 640 379 36 26 379 12,732 56 30 30 48,129 9,668 48,124 12,140 10,020 48,129 10,020 9,987 9,987TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,497 359 359 359 359 359 126 126 3,702 9 359 144 9 2 144 11,590 6 3 3 40,000 8,445 40,000 11,127 8,827 40,000 8,827 7,896 7,896VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,159 309 309 309 309 309 108 108 3,059 4 309 123 4 1 123 9,330 1 2 2 33,968 6,933 33,964 8,684 7,229 33,967 7,229 6,287 6,287TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 200 55 55 55 55 55 45 45 246 2 55 46 2 1 46 732 3 2 1.57 1,628 555 1,628 697 575 1,628 575 574 574NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 134 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 34 0 0 34 1 1 0 0.12 34 0 34 1 0 34 0 77 77NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.83 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 34 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 107 0.51 7 3 1 0 3 315 0.16 0.10 0.10 600 245 599 303 254 600 254 160 160Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 880 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 189 189 277 277 189 178 277 186 186 179 179 277 189 277 186 189 277 189 3 3H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0


This document is the property of CH2M HILL, Inc.The expression of the information contained in thi


Mass Balance (U.S.) Pro2D Process Design System 1/9/2012 4:36 PMPRO2D 10 02.NSWWTP.Max Month Condition.OPTION8.MBR.xlsm


PrimarySludge

ThickenerInfluent

ThickenedPrimarySludge(PST)

WASThickener

Influent(TWASI)

GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)


AnaerobicDigesterInfluent(AnDI)

AnaerobicDigesterEffluent(AnDE)

MetalAdditionInfluent

(MetalInf)

MetalAdditionEffluent

(MetalEff)

BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)




GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)

PrimarySludge

ThickeningRecycle

WASThickening

Recycle(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





394,124 243,640 728,189 133,227 376,868 376,868 384,740 384,740 384,740 384,740 144,462 144,638 175 144,638 1,879,893 150,484 594,961 240,277 835,238 835,238 835,063 2,865,44077,516 65,814 19,341 14,794 80,608 80,608 11,398 11,398 11,398 11,398 9,915 9,915 0 9,915 781 11,701 4,190 1,483 5,673 5,673 5,673 18,155

158,303 134,402 60,690 51,760 186,162 186,162 62,543 62,543 62,543 62,543 54,738 54,738 0 54,738 5,166 23,902 8,930 7,805 16,735 16,735 16,735 45,802131,567 111,832 47,985 45,586 157,418 157,418 66,162 66,162 66,979 66,979 60,281 62,767 2,486 62,767 6,956 19,735 2,399 6,698 9,097 9,097 9,097 35,788111,725 94,966 38,204 36,294 131,260 131,260 47,817 47,817 47,597 47,597 42,837 42,837 0 42,837 4,298 16,759 1,910 4,760 6,670 6,670 6,670 27,726

5,356 4,522 3,485 2,947 7,469 7,469 7,561 7,561 7,561 7,561 4,301 4,443 143 4,443 303 834 538 3,260 3,799 3,799 3,657 4,794113 70 465 85 155 155 4,682 4,682 4,682 4,682 1,758 1,759 1 1,759 1 43 380 2,924 3,304 3,304 3,162 3,206

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 131,972 1,675 974 924 2,600 2,600 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,621 2,046 2,360 314 2,360 201 297 50 575 625 625 311 809

910 563 15 3 566 566 28,647 28,647 28,647 28,647 10,756 10,756 0 10,756 2,787 348 12 17,891 17,903 17,903 17,903 21,03720 12 0 0 12 12 159 159 159 159 60 60 0 60 0 7 0 99 99 99 99 10712 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 55 55 24 55 12 12 12 55 24 24 24 16

23,567 32,368 3,183 13,305 25,629 25,629 3,550 3,550 3,550 3,550 8,224 8,214 0 8,214 50 9,317 844 739 814 814 814 75948,129 66,100 9,987 46,553 59,190 59,190 19,479 19,479 19,479 19,479 45,403 45,348 0 45,348 329 19,032 1,798 3,892 2,401 2,401 2,401 1,91540,000 55,000 7,896 41,000 50,051 50,051 20,606 20,606 20,860 20,860 50,000 51,999 1,700,000 51,999 443 15,714 483 3,340 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,49733,967 46,705 6,287 32,643 41,734 41,734 14,892 14,892 14,824 14,824 35,531 35,488 0 35,488 274 13,344 385 2,374 957 957 957 1,1591,628 2,224 574 2,650 2,375 2,375 2,355 2,355 2,355 2,355 3,567 3,681 97,518 3,681 19 664 108 1,626 545 545 525 200

34 34 77 77 49 49 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,458 1,457 454 1,457 0 34 77 1,458 474 474 454 1340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

600 824 160 831 827 827 816 816 816 816 1,697 1,955 214,654 1,955 13 236 10 287 90 90 45 34277 277 3 3 180 180 8,922 8,922 8,922 8,922 8,922 8,911 0 8,911 178 277 3 8,922 2,568 2,568 2,569 880

6 6 0 0 4 4 49 49 49 49 49 49 0 49 0 6 0 49 14 14 14 4


This document is the property of CH2M HILL, Inc.The expression of the information contained in thi


















TSS 126 126TP 3.22 3.22OP 1.34 1.34












































Tertiary Clarifiers: TERCLRTertiary Clarifers? Yes TRUETotal Area m2 1,812 0.09 ft2 19,500Overflow Rate m/day 0.04 gpd-sq.ft.







Filter Run Time hr 24 1.00 hr 24Instantaneous Backwash Rate m/hr 49 2.44 gpm/ft2 20Duration of Backwash Flow minutes 10 1.00 minutes 10Backwash Operating Time (%cycle) % 0.69% 1.00 % 0.69%Backwash Flow Rate m3/day 8,327 3,785.00 MGD 2.20Ratio of Backwash Production to Filter Influent % 3.3% 1.00 % 3.3%TSS Removal Efficiency at Average Conditions 80% 1.00 80%TSS Removal Efficiency at Diurnal Peak Conditions 80% 1.00 80%Effluent TSS at Average Conditions mg/L 1.0 1.00 mg/L 1.0Effluent TSS at Peak Conditions mg/L 2.1 1.00 mg/L 2.1Chemical Compound Applied to Filter Influent Yes TRUE 3Chemical Formula Al2(SO4)3*14H20 1.00 Al2(SO4)3*14H20Chemical Dosage (mg chemical/L treated) mg/L 3 1.00 mg/L 3Chemical Dosage (as chemical) kg/day 754.67 0.45 lb/day 1,663.78Molar Ratio of Metal to Phosphate 9.36 1.00 9.36Percent of Soluble P that is ortho-P 100% 1.00 100%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Average Conditions(%) 83% 1.00 83%Effective TSS Removal with Chemical Addition - Peak Conditions(%) 81% 1.00 81%Backwash Concentration mg/L 146 1.00 mg/L 146
















General Node: StruviteIs the General Node in Service? Yes TRUEMagnesium Hydroxide kg/day 1,089 0.45359 lb/day 2400Reactor pH 7.85 7.85Influent OP mg/L 10 mg/L 10Effluent OP mg/L 10 mg/L 10OP Removal % 82% % 82%





Constituent

RawWastewater

(RW)


MainRecycledStream

(Recycle)

MainCombined


MainPrimaryInfluent

(PI)

MainPrimaryEffluent

(PE)



PBNRAOEAST


PBNRUCT

AOEASTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

AOEASTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)

UCTBioreactor

Influent(BI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

UCTSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)


TERCLRTertiaryClarifierInfluent

(TCI)

TERCLRTertiaryClarifierEffluent(TCE)

GMFGranular


GMFGranular


PlantEffluent

(PLE)


AOEASTWAS

UCTWAS


Flow (gallons/day) 64,400,000 64,400,000 3,256,940 67,656,938 67,656,938 67,256,214 67,256,214 6,725,621 60,530,592 6,725,621 11,433,906 6,648,961 60,530,592 102,904,907 59,864,397 66,513,358 66,513,358 66,453,934 66,453,934 64,254,060 64,254,060 400,724 77,010 669,095 746,105Carbonaceous BOD5 (lbs/day) 156,044 156,044 18,281 174,326 174,326 97,735 97,735 9,773 87,961 9,773 132,414 290 87,961 1,229,946 2,453 2,743 2,743 2,085 2,085 1,742 1,742 76,591 2,127 19,085 21,211COD (lbs/day) 321,424 321,424 48,352 369,776 369,776 208,356 208,356 20,836 187,520 20,836 427,970 2,092 187,520 3,979,592 18,558 20,650 20,650 16,598 16,598 14,252 14,252 161,420 6,555 58,867 65,422TSS (lbs/day) 165,811 165,811 36,993 202,804 202,804 70,981 70,981 7,098 63,883 7,098 366,458 516 63,883 3,408,379 4,656 5,172 5,172 2,775 2,775 555 555 133,770 5,655 50,789 56,444VSS (lbs/day) 145,913 145,913 29,170 175,083 175,083 60,670 60,670 6,067 54,603 6,067 305,787 446 54,603 2,844,345 4,026 4,473 4,473 1,878 1,878 349 349 113,887 4,703 42,243 46,946TKN (lbs/day) 25,853 25,853 4,853 30,706 30,706 25,334 25,334 2,533 22,801 2,533 24,668 113 22,801 229,377 1,016 1,129 1,129 890 890 754 754 5,372 377 3,386 3,763NH3-N (lbs-N/day) 16,029 16,029 3,167 19,196 19,196 19,082 19,082 1,908 17,174 1,908 4 2 17,174 39 23 25 25 25 25 24 24 114 0 0 0NO3-N (lbs-N/day) 0 0 17 17 17 17 17 2 15 2 80 46 15 786 458 504 504 503 503 487 487 0 1 5 5TP (lbs-P/day) 3,113 3,113 840 3,954 3,954 1,805 1,805 180 1,624 180 10,185 23 1,624 94,555 217 241 241 99 99 27 27 1,981 158 1,412 1,570Alkalinity (lbs/day as CaCO3) 134,355 134,355 21,927 156,281 156,281 155,355 155,355 15,536 139,820 15,536 18,286 10,633 139,820 163,666 95,212 105,845 105,845 101,568 101,568 97,410 97,410 926 123 1,064 1,187H2S (lbs/day) 3,225 3,225 109 3,334 3,334 3,314 3,314 331 2,983 331 0 0 2,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0Temperature (oC) 12 12 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12BOD5 (mg/L) 290 290 673 309 309 174 174 174 174 174 1,388 5 174 1,432 5 5 5 4 4 3 3.2 22,902 3,309 3,418 3,407COD (mg/L) 598 598 1,779 655 655 371 371 371 371 371 4,485 38 371 4,634 37 37 37 30 30 27 26.6 48,268 10,199 10,542 10,507TSS (mg/L) 309 309 1,361 359 359 126 126 126 126 126 3,840 9 126 3,969 9 9 9 5 5 1 1.0 40,000 8,799 9,096 9,065VSS (mg/L) 271 271 1,073 310 310 108 108 108 108 108 3,205 4 108 3,312 4 8 8 3 3 1 0.6 34,055 7,301 7,547 7,540TKN (mg-N/L) 48.10 48 179 54 54 45 45 45 45 45 259 2 45 267 2 2 2 2 2 1 1.4 1,606 587 606 604NH3-N (mg-N/L) 29.82 30 117 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 34 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.0 34 0 0 0NO3-N (mg-N/L) 0.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0 1 1 1TP (mg-P/L) 5.79 6 31 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 107 0 3 110 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.05 592 245 253 252Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 250 250 807 277 277 277 277 277 277 277 192 192 277 191 191 191 191 183 183 182 181.7 277 192 191 191H2S (mg/L) 6.00 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 0 0 0






PO4_WASBioreactor

Influent(BI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierInfluent

(SI)

PO4_WASSecondary

ClarifierEffluent

(SE)



GravityThickened

PrimarySludge(PST)

GBTWAS


GBTThickened

WAS(TWAS)




BFPDewatering

Influent(DWI)

BFPDewatered

Sludge(DWE)



(BWR)Biosolids to

Disposal

TERCLRTertiarySludge(TSD)

GMFFilter

Backwash(BW)



GBTWAS

ThickeningRecycle

(TWASR)

BFPDewatering

Recycle(DWR)





746,105 746,105 746,105 400,724 247,721 746,105 140,144 387,865 387,865 385,015 385,015 146,069 146,340 271 146,340 59,424 2,199,875 153,004 605,961 238,946 844,908 844,908 844,637 3,256,94021,211 20,362 20,362 76,591 65,023 20,362 15,453 80,476 80,476 11,323 11,323 9,857 9,857 0 9,857 618 343 11,568 4,287 1,466 5,753 5,753 5,753 18,28165,422 65,211 65,211 161,420 137,037 65,211 55,784 192,821 192,821 65,329 65,329 57,184 57,184 0 57,184 4,052 2,346 24,383 9,427 8,145 17,572 17,572 17,572 48,35256,444 50,476 50,476 133,770 113,705 50,476 47,952 161,657 161,657 67,723 67,723 60,951 64,794 3,843 64,794 4,959 2,672 20,066 2,524 6,772 9,296 9,296 9,296 36,99346,946 41,096 41,096 113,887 96,804 41,096 39,041 135,845 135,845 49,977 49,977 44,979 44,979 0 44,979 3,356 1,678 17,083 2,055 4,998 7,052 7,052 7,052 29,1703,763 3,751 3,751 5,372 4,535 3,751 3,181 7,716 7,716 7,705 7,705 4,414 4,635 220 4,635 239 136 837 570 3,291 3,861 3,861 3,641 4,853

0 492 492 114 70 492 92 163 163 4,741 4,741 1,799 1,800 1 1,800 0 1 43 400 2,942 3,342 3,342 3,123 3,1675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

1,570 1,057 1,057 1,981 1,683 1,057 1,001 2,684 2,684 2,678 2,678 1,919 2,404 485 2,404 142 71 298 56 759 815 815 330 8401,187 16 16 926 572 16 3 575 575 29,220 29,220 11,086 11,086 0 11,086 91 3,335 353 13 18,135 18,147 18,147 18,147 21,927

0 0 0 20 12 0 0 12 12 164 164 62 62 0 62 0 0 8 0 102 102 102 102 10912 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 24 55 12 12 12 12 55 24 24 24 15

3,407 3,270 3,270 22,902 31,452 3,270 13,213 24,862 24,862 3,524 3,524 8,086 8,071 0 8,071 1,246 19 9,059 848 735 816 816 816 67310,507 10,473 10,473 48,268 66,286 10,473 47,696 59,569 59,569 20,332 20,332 46,910 46,823 0 46,823 8,170 128 19,095 1,864 4,085 2,492 2,492 2,493 1,7799,065 8,107 8,107 40,000 55,000 8,107 41,000 49,941 49,941 21,077 21,077 50,000 53,054 1,700,000 53,054 10,000 146 15,714 499 3,396 1,318 1,318 1,319 1,3617,540 6,600 6,600 34,055 46,825 6,600 33,381 41,967 41,967 15,554 15,554 36,898 36,830 0 36,830 6,768 91 13,379 406 2,506 1,000 1,000 1,001 1,073

604 602 602 1,606 2,194 602 2,720 2,384 2,384 2,398 2,398 3,621 3,795 97,508 3,795 482 7 655 113 1,650 548 548 517 1790 79 79 34 34 79 79 50 50 1,476 1,476 1,476 1,474 443 1,474 0 0 34 79 1,476 474 474 443 1171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

252 170 170 592 814 170 856 829 829 834 834 1,574 1,969 214,660 1,969 286 4 233 11 381 116 116 47 31191 3 3 277 277 3 3 178 178 9,094 9,094 9,094 9,077 0 9,077 183 182 277 3 9,094 2,574 2,574 2,574 807

0 0 0 6 6 0 0 4 4 51 51 51 51 0 51 0 0 6 0 51 14 14 14 4




Appendix C

Capital Cost Details

11/16/20117:37 PM

Printed by:

Round to Nearest: 1$ 0Project Name:Project Number:Project Manager:Estimator:Project Description:Project Location (City):Project Location (State):Project Location (Country):Construction Start Date:Construction Duration (months): Mid-Point of Construction:

Item Is This Facility Included in Project? (Yes or No)

SCOPE OF PROJECT 01 General Requirements

02Sitework

03Concrete

04 Masonry 05 Metals 06 Wood & Plastic

07 Thermal & Moisture Protection

08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings

13 Special Construction

14 Conveying Systems

15Mechanical

16Electrical

Other Total Cost Percent of Total Cost

Yes Filters: GMF $478,344 $6,971,112 $189,312 $239,407 $0 $0 $0 $496,176 $0 $4,864,254 $0 $2,684,110 $25,028 $7,118,785 $579,052 $1,163,207 $24,808,785 51%Yes Liquid Chemical: METALSLTS $11,948 $145,787 $632,339 $13,515 $0 $0 $0 $35,584 $0 $389,322 $0 $190,031 $0 $88,499 $155,783 $116,385 $1,779,193 4%Yes Filter BW PS: BCKWASH $24,831 $522,083 $0 $16,705 $0 $0 $0 $60,837 $0 $827,361 $0 $243,347 $0 $760,459 $456,275 $129,938 $3,041,835 6%Yes Surge Basin-Decanter: BCKWSH $91,964 $1,121,041 $17,570 $51,704 $0 $0 $10,431 $50,316 $0 $235,169 $0 $202,999 $0 $236,915 $191,322 $306,378 $2,515,811 5%

Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,304 $706,738 $873,615 $25,321 $0 $0 $0 $171,159 $0 $2,303,216 $0 $684,638 $0 $2,139,493 $1,283,696 $160,793 $8,557,973 18%

Additional Project Costs:Standard Items $1,721,519 $583,566 $2,261,318 $1,750,698 $6,317,101 12.9%User Defined Items $0 $0 0.0%

13 General Requirements (Mob, Bonds, Insurance)

$1,870,000 $1,870,000 3.8%

SUBTOTAL - Construction Cost (before Escalation)

$1,870,000 $2,537,910 $9,466,761 $1,712,836 $346,652 $0 $0 $10,431 $814,072 $0 $8,619,322 $0 $4,588,691 $25,028 $12,605,469 $4,416,826 $1,876,701 $48,890,698 100.0%

ESCALATION TO MID-POINT OF CONSTRUCTION

$52,360 $71,061 $265,069 $47,959 $9,706 $0 $0 $292 $22,794 $0 $241,341 $0 $128,483 $701 $352,953 $123,671 $52,548 $1,368,940 2.8%

TOTAL - Construction Cost (including Escalation)

$1,922,360 $2,608,971 $9,731,830 $1,760,795 $356,358 $0 $0 $10,723 $836,866 $0 $8,860,663 $0 $4,717,174 $25,729 $12,958,422 $4,540,497 $1,929,249 $50,259,639 102.8%

TOTAL - Construction Cost (including Escalation & Location Adjustment Factor)

$1,922,360 $2,608,971 $9,731,830 $1,760,795 $356,358 $0 $0 $10,723 $836,866 $0 $8,860,663 $0 $4,717,174 $25,729 $12,958,422 $4,540,497 $1,929,249 $50,259,639 102.8%

Percent of Total Cost 3.8% 5.2% 19.4% 3.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 9.4% 0.1% 25.8% 9.0% 3.8% 100.0%

C H2M HILL P arametric Cost E stimating S ystem (CPES)COST SUMMARY MATRIX REPORT(Costs Include Contractor Markups)

OPTION 1Tania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.NSWWTP.OPTION1

File Version:3/1/2011 11:00:00 PM Page 1 of 1

11/16/20117:39 PM

Printed by: tdatta




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,304 $706,738 $873,615 $25,321 $0 $0 $0 $171,159 $0 $2,303,216 $0 $684,638 $0 $2,139,493 $1,283,696 $160,793 $8,557,973 18%



$1,870,000 $1,870,000 3.8%


$1,870,000 $2,537,910 $9,466,761 $1,712,836 $346,652 $0 $0 $10,431 $814,072 $0 $8,619,322 $0 $4,588,691 $25,028 $12,605,469 $4,416,826 $1,876,701 $48,890,698 100.0%


$52,360 $71,061 $265,069 $47,959 $9,706 $0 $0 $292 $22,794 $0 $241,341 $0 $128,483 $701 $352,953 $123,671 $52,548 $1,368,940 2.8%


$1,922,360 $2,608,971 $9,731,830 $1,760,795 $356,358 $0 $0 $10,723 $836,866 $0 $8,860,663 $0 $4,717,174 $25,729 $12,958,422 $4,540,497 $1,929,249 $50,259,639 102.8%


$1,922,360 $2,608,971 $9,731,830 $1,760,795 $356,358 $0 $0 $10,723 $836,866 $0 $8,860,663 $0 $4,717,174 $25,729 $12,958,422 $4,540,497 $1,929,249 $50,259,639 102.8%


5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011


OPTION 2Tania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

To Summary Sheet



11/17/201110:14 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes Lamella Clarifier: LAMELLA $233,945 $2,290,361 $0 $110,414 $17,293 $0 $0 $223,487 $0 $7,125,856 $0 $311,172 $0 $380,874 $324,259 $156,704 $11,174,365 15%Yes Inline Rapid Mix: RPDMIX $21,470 $80,748 $528,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,650 $0 $422,179 $0 $505,537 $108,945 $882,028 $230,243 $94,542 $2,932,490 4%Yes Flocculation: FLOCULTN $300,343 $2,817,825 $19,107 $230,472 $20,102 $0 $13,314 $119,316 $0 $1,598,659 $0 $199,599 $0 $119,316 $354,423 $173,342 $5,965,819 8%Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,257 $706,581 $873,420 $25,315 $0 $0 $0 $171,121 $0 $2,302,703 $0 $684,485 $0 $2,139,016 $1,283,410 $160,757 $8,556,066 12%Yes Liquid Chemical: POLYMER $8,445 $58,766 $370,879 $13,512 $0 $0 $0 $15,927 $0 $105,966 $0 $83,689 $0 $40,985 $15,927 $82,264 $796,362 1%



$2,820,000 $2,820,000 3.8%


$2,820,000 $3,772,622 $14,714,680 $2,637,128 $700,973 $37,395 $0 $23,742 $1,233,637 $0 $17,925,850 $0 $6,024,407 $133,967 $15,231,500 $6,240,423 $2,384,338 $73,880,666 100.0%


$78,960 $105,633 $412,011 $73,840 $19,627 $1,047 $0 $665 $34,542 $0 $501,924 $0 $168,683 $3,751 $426,482 $174,732 $66,761 $2,068,659 2.8%


$2,898,960 $3,878,255 $15,126,691 $2,710,968 $720,600 $38,442 $0 $24,407 $1,268,179 $0 $18,427,774 $0 $6,193,090 $137,718 $15,657,982 $6,415,155 $2,451,099 $75,949,321 102.8%


$2,898,960 $3,878,255 $15,126,691 $2,710,968 $720,600 $38,442 $0 $24,407 $1,268,179 $0 $18,427,774 $0 $6,193,090 $137,718 $15,657,982 $6,415,155 $2,451,099 $75,949,321 102.8%



OPTION 3Tania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011

To Summary Sheet


File Version:3/2/2011 Page 1 of 1

11/17/201110:16 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $296,578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,152 $0 $2,154,260 $0 $208,303 $0 $2,235,980 $208,303 $0 $5,207,575 9%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $15,580 $102,966 $681,895 $13,511 $0 $0 $0 $28,854 $0 $242,235 $0 $147,803 $0 $74,107 $135,753 $0 $1,442,703 3%Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,247 $706,548 $873,380 $25,314 $0 $0 $0 $171,113 $0 $2,302,597 $0 $684,454 $0 $2,138,918 $1,283,351 $160,750 $8,555,671 15%



$2,170,000 $2,170,000 3.8%


$2,170,000 $2,771,586 $9,863,758 $2,394,271 $360,069 $0 $0 $10,428 $946,858 $0 $11,013,499 $0 $5,045,658 $25,021 $15,291,380 $5,036,814 $1,876,197 $56,805,538 100.0%


$60,760 $77,604 $276,185 $67,040 $10,082 $0 $0 $292 $26,512 $0 $308,378 $0 $141,278 $701 $428,159 $141,031 $52,534 $1,590,555 2.8%


$2,230,760 $2,849,190 $10,139,943 $2,461,311 $370,151 $0 $0 $10,720 $973,370 $0 $11,321,877 $0 $5,186,936 $25,722 $15,719,539 $5,177,845 $1,928,731 $58,396,094 102.8%


$2,230,760 $2,849,190 $10,139,943 $2,461,311 $370,151 $0 $0 $10,720 $973,370 $0 $11,321,877 $0 $5,186,936 $25,722 $15,719,539 $5,177,845 $1,928,731 $58,396,094 102.8%


5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011


OPTION 4 Tania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

To Summary Sheet



11/17/201110:18 AM

Printed by: tdatta




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $296,578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,152 $0 $2,154,260 $0 $208,303 $0 $2,235,980 $208,303 $0 $5,207,575 9%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $15,580 $102,966 $681,895 $13,511 $0 $0 $0 $28,854 $0 $242,235 $0 $147,803 $0 $74,107 $135,753 $0 $1,442,703 3%Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,247 $706,548 $873,380 $25,314 $0 $0 $0 $171,113 $0 $2,302,597 $0 $684,454 $0 $2,138,918 $1,283,351 $160,750 $8,555,671 15%



$2,170,000 $2,170,000 3.8%


$2,170,000 $2,771,586 $9,863,758 $2,394,271 $360,069 $0 $0 $10,428 $946,858 $0 $11,013,499 $0 $5,045,658 $25,021 $15,291,380 $5,036,814 $1,876,197 $56,805,538 100.0%


$60,760 $77,604 $276,185 $67,040 $10,082 $0 $0 $292 $26,512 $0 $308,378 $0 $141,278 $701 $428,159 $141,031 $52,534 $1,590,555 2.8%


$2,230,760 $2,849,190 $10,139,943 $2,461,311 $370,151 $0 $0 $10,720 $973,370 $0 $11,321,877 $0 $5,186,936 $25,722 $15,719,539 $5,177,845 $1,928,731 $58,396,094 102.8%


$2,230,760 $2,849,190 $10,139,943 $2,461,311 $370,151 $0 $0 $10,720 $973,370 $0 $11,321,877 $0 $5,186,936 $25,722 $15,719,539 $5,177,845 $1,928,731 $58,396,094 102.8%



OPTION 5 Tania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011

To Summary Sheet



11/17/201110:20 AM

Printed by: tdatta




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes Lamella Clarifier: LAMELLA $233,966 $2,290,564 $0 $110,424 $17,295 $0 $0 $223,507 $0 $7,126,488 $0 $311,199 $0 $380,908 $324,288 $156,718 $11,175,356 14%Yes Inline Rapid Mix: RPDMIX $21,471 $80,755 $528,196 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,655 $0 $422,217 $0 $505,582 $108,955 $882,106 $230,264 $94,551 $2,932,751 4%Yes Flocculation: FLOCULTN $300,370 $2,818,075 $19,109 $230,493 $20,104 $0 $13,315 $119,327 $0 $1,598,801 $0 $199,616 $0 $119,327 $354,455 $173,357 $5,966,349 7%Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,276 $706,644 $873,498 $25,317 $0 $0 $0 $171,136 $0 $2,302,907 $0 $684,546 $0 $2,139,206 $1,283,524 $160,771 $8,556,825 10%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $15,582 $102,980 $681,987 $13,513 $0 $0 $0 $28,858 $0 $242,267 $0 $147,823 $0 $74,117 $135,772 $0 $1,442,897 2%Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $296,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,166 $0 $2,154,551 $0 $208,331 $0 $2,236,281 $208,331 $0 $5,208,278 6%Yes Liquid Chemical: Polymer $8,446 $58,772 $370,912 $13,513 $0 $0 $0 $15,929 $0 $105,976 $0 $83,696 $0 $40,988 $15,929 $82,272 $796,432 1%



$3,130,000 $3,130,000 3.8%


$3,130,000 $4,007,347 $15,115,583 $3,319,350 $714,548 $37,399 $0 $23,744 $1,366,772 $0 $20,324,260 $0 $6,468,616 $133,979 $17,922,518 $6,876,825 $2,384,551 $81,825,488 100.0%


$87,640 $112,206 $423,236 $92,942 $20,007 $1,047 $0 $665 $38,270 $0 $569,079 $0 $181,121 $3,751 $501,831 $192,551 $66,767 $2,291,114 2.8%


$3,217,640 $4,119,553 $15,538,819 $3,412,292 $734,555 $38,446 $0 $24,409 $1,405,042 $0 $20,893,339 $0 $6,649,737 $137,730 $18,424,349 $7,069,376 $2,451,318 $84,116,606 102.8%


$3,217,640 $4,119,553 $15,538,819 $3,412,292 $734,555 $38,446 $0 $24,409 $1,405,042 $0 $20,893,339 $0 $6,649,737 $137,730 $18,424,349 $7,069,376 $2,451,318 $84,116,606 102.8%


5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011


OPTION 6 TRADITIONALTania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

To Summary Sheet



11/17/201110:23 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16 Electrical Other Total Cost Percent of Total Cost


Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,261 $706,593 $873,435 $25,315 $0 $0 $0 $171,124 $0 $2,302,742 $0 $684,497 $0 $2,139,053 $1,283,432 $160,760 $8,556,211 12%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $34,980 $332,231 $1,540,601 $13,512 $0 $0 $0 $83,608 $0 $1,266,741 $0 $437,943 $0 $206,789 $263,980 $0 $4,180,384 6%Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $889,789 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,723 $0 $1,801,102 $0 $207,446 $0 $1,976,646 $207,446 $0 $5,186,153 7%Yes Aeration Basin: AERATION $959,924 $3,882,365 $20,649 $494,849 $0 $0 $1,373 $182,523 $0 $1,182,012 $0 $667,932 $0 $1,261,473 $473,056 $0 $9,126,157 12%Yes Blowers: BLOWER $17,849 $45,892 $388,609 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,914 $0 $717,135 $0 $286,003 $8,336 $860,146 $366,797 $0 $2,745,680 4%



$2,830,000 $2,830,000 3.8%


$2,830,000 $4,235,692 $14,615,089 $3,662,343 $854,941 $0 $0 $11,801 $1,238,673 $0 $13,584,536 $0 $6,493,380 $33,359 $18,060,233 $6,646,123 $1,876,315 $74,142,482 100.0%


$79,240 $118,599 $409,222 $102,546 $23,938 $0 $0 $330 $34,683 $0 $380,367 $0 $181,815 $934 $505,687 $186,091 $52,537 $2,075,990 2.8%


$2,909,240 $4,354,291 $15,024,311 $3,764,889 $878,879 $0 $0 $12,131 $1,273,356 $0 $13,964,903 $0 $6,675,195 $34,293 $18,565,920 $6,832,214 $1,928,852 $76,218,475 102.8%


$2,909,240 $4,354,291 $15,024,311 $3,764,889 $878,879 $0 $0 $12,131 $1,273,356 $0 $13,964,903 $0 $6,675,195 $34,293 $18,565,920 $6,832,214 $1,928,852 $76,218,475 102.8%



OPTION 7 CONVENTIONALTania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.NSWWTP.OPTION7.CONVENTIONAL


11/17/201110:25 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $176,805 $602,261 $733,826 $23,397 $0 $0 $0 $143,640 $0 $1,919,645 $0 $574,560 $0 $1,795,499 $1,077,300 $135,064 $7,181,998 8%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $34,979 $332,225 $1,540,573 $13,512 $0 $0 $0 $83,606 $0 $1,266,717 $0 $437,935 $0 $206,785 $263,975 $0 $4,180,308 5%Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $889,773 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,721 $0 $1,801,069 $0 $207,442 $0 $1,976,610 $207,442 $0 $5,186,058 6%Yes MBR: MBR $148,739 $634,431 $1,906,739 $33,561 $0 $0 $14,135 $455,315 $0 $15,956,852 $0 $606,555 $94,766 $2,192,832 $721,813 $0 $22,765,738 26%Yes Aeration Basin: BIORCTS $362,096 $1,421,549 $19,107 $174,491 $0 $0 $1,373 $91,099 $0 $1,179,460 $0 $449,372 $0 $534,202 $322,198 $0 $4,554,946 5%No Blowers: BNRBlowers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%

Additional Project Costs:Standard Items $2,742,145 $1,050,183 $4,069,459 $3,121,378 $10,983,165 12.6%User Defined Items $0 $0 0.0%


$3,320,000 $3,320,000 3.8%


$3,320,000 $3,988,384 $11,639,978 $5,034,986 $538,389 $0 $0 $25,936 $1,452,383 $0 $27,637,685 $0 $6,328,504 $118,081 $18,190,608 $6,996,355 $1,651,046 $86,922,335 100.0%


$92,960 $111,675 $325,919 $140,980 $15,075 $0 $0 $726 $40,667 $0 $773,855 $0 $177,198 $3,306 $509,337 $195,898 $46,229 $2,433,825 2.8%


$3,412,960 $4,100,059 $11,965,897 $5,175,966 $553,464 $0 $0 $26,662 $1,493,050 $0 $28,411,540 $0 $6,505,702 $121,387 $18,699,945 $7,192,253 $1,697,275 $89,356,160 102.8%


$3,412,960 $4,100,059 $11,965,897 $5,175,966 $553,464 $0 $0 $26,662 $1,493,050 $0 $28,411,540 $0 $6,505,702 $121,387 $18,699,945 $7,192,253 $1,697,275 $89,356,160 102.8%


5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011


OPTION 8 MBRTania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.NSWWTP.OPTION8.MBR


11/17/201110:26 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical



Yes Lamella Clarifier: LAMELLA $233,928 $2,290,198 $0 $110,406 $17,292 $0 $0 $223,471 $0 $7,125,350 $0 $311,150 $0 $380,847 $324,236 $156,693 $11,173,571 11%Yes Inline Rapid Mix: RPDMIX $21,468 $80,742 $528,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,646 $0 $422,149 $0 $505,501 $108,937 $881,965 $230,227 $94,536 $2,932,282 3%Yes Flocculation: FLOCULTN $300,322 $2,817,624 $19,106 $230,456 $20,101 $0 $13,313 $119,308 $0 $1,598,545 $0 $199,585 $0 $119,308 $354,398 $173,330 $5,965,396 6%Yes In-Plant PS: SECEFF $209,242 $706,531 $873,358 $25,313 $0 $0 $0 $171,109 $0 $2,302,540 $0 $684,437 $0 $2,138,864 $1,283,319 $160,746 $8,555,458 9%Yes Liquid Chemical: METHANOL $34,977 $332,201 $1,540,465 $13,511 $0 $0 $0 $83,600 $0 $1,266,629 $0 $437,905 $0 $206,771 $263,957 $0 $4,180,016 4%Yes U.D. Facility: BASINCONV $0 $889,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,714 $0 $1,800,943 $0 $207,428 $0 $1,976,472 $207,428 $0 $5,185,696 5%Yes Aeration Basin: AERATION $959,840 $3,882,023 $20,647 $494,806 $0 $0 $1,373 $182,507 $0 $1,181,908 $0 $667,874 $0 $1,261,362 $473,015 $0 $9,125,354 9%Yes Blowers: BLOWER $17,847 $45,888 $388,575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,909 $0 $717,072 $0 $285,978 $8,335 $860,070 $366,764 $0 $2,745,438 3%Yes Liquid Chemical: Polymer $8,445 $58,762 $370,853 $13,511 $0 $0 $0 $15,926 $0 $105,959 $0 $83,683 $0 $40,982 $15,926 $82,259 $796,305 1%

Additional Project Costs:Standard Items $3,091,990 $1,195,958 $4,681,740 $3,558,706 $12,528,394 12.6%User Defined Items $0 $0 0.0%


$3,790,000 $3,790,000 3.8%


$3,790,000 $5,485,091 $19,863,456 $4,586,627 $1,209,240 $37,393 $0 $25,114 $1,658,281 $0 $22,891,131 $0 $7,929,446 $142,292 $20,760,223 $8,469,991 $2,384,171 $99,232,452 100.0%


$106,120 $153,583 $556,177 $128,426 $33,859 $1,047 $0 $703 $46,432 $0 $640,952 $0 $222,024 $3,984 $581,286 $237,160 $66,757 $2,778,509 2.8%


$3,896,120 $5,638,674 $20,419,633 $4,715,053 $1,243,099 $38,440 $0 $25,817 $1,704,713 $0 $23,532,083 $0 $8,151,470 $146,276 $21,341,509 $8,707,151 $2,450,928 $102,010,965 102.8%


$3,896,120 $5,638,674 $20,419,633 $4,715,053 $1,243,099 $38,440 $0 $25,817 $1,704,713 $0 $23,532,083 $0 $8,151,470 $146,276 $21,341,509 $8,707,151 $2,450,928 $102,010,965 102.8%


5Dec/2011

MadisonWISCONSIN

USA2011


OPTION 9 CONVENTIONALTania Datta

Nine Springs WWTP

Jim Fisher

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.NSWWTP.OPTION9.CONVENTIONAL


11/17/201110:28 AM

Printed by:




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical


Yes Yard Piping: YARDPIP $1,278,064 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,278,064 17%Yes Flow Splitting: SPLTBOX $23,399 $287,682 $0 $21,148 $0 $0 $10,433 $8,591 $0 $11,323 $0 $0 $0 $66,956 $0 $0 $429,532 6%Yes Rect PC: Excavation $349,518 $1,324,644 $28,617 $262,376 $0 $0 $0 $111,612 $0 $1,289,379 $0 $223,225 $0 $300,482 $353,032 $1,337,733 $5,580,616 73%

Additional Project Costs:Standard Items $14,631 $0 $0 $0 $14,631 0.2%User Defined Items $0 $0 0.0%


$290,000 $290,000 3.8%


$290,000 $1,665,612 $1,612,326 $28,617 $283,524 $0 $0 $10,433 $120,203 $0 $1,300,702 $0 $223,225 $0 $367,438 $353,032 $1,337,733 $7,592,843 100.0%


$8,120 $46,637 $45,145 $801 $7,939 $0 $0 $292 $3,366 $0 $36,420 $0 $6,250 $0 $10,288 $9,885 $37,457 $212,600 2.8%


$298,120 $1,712,249 $1,657,471 $29,418 $291,463 $0 $0 $10,725 $123,569 $0 $1,337,122 $0 $229,475 $0 $377,726 $362,917 $1,375,190 $7,805,445 102.8%


$298,120 $1,712,249 $1,657,471 $29,418 $291,463 $0 $0 $10,725 $123,569 $0 $1,337,122 $0 $229,475 $0 $377,726 $362,917 $1,375,190 $7,805,445 102.8%



Cost Adders Associated w/ Remote Tania Datta

NSWWTP

Jim Fisher

4Dec/2011

DefaultN/A

2011

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.RemoteLocationCostAdders


11/17/201110:30 AM

Printed by: tdatta




02Sitework

03Concrete



08 Doors & Windows

09Finishes

10Specialties

11Equipment

12Furnishings



15Mechanical

16Electrical


Yes Round SC: SECCLRF $515,349 $1,179,862 $0 $258,084 $0 $0 $0 $84,587 $0 $755,866 $0 $169,175 $0 $460,177 $169,175 $637,089 $4,229,363 47%Yes RAS WAS PS: RASWAS $196,824 $369,107 $0 $629,406 $0 $0 $0 $64,726 $0 $705,812 $0 $427,515 $8,099 $564,094 $270,706 $0 $3,236,288 36%

Additional Project Costs:Standard Items $233,741 $116,871 $423,656 $336,003 $1,110,271 12.5%User Defined Items $0 $0 0.0%


$340,000 $340,000 3.8%


$340,000 $945,914 $1,548,969 $0 $887,490 $0 $0 $0 $149,313 $0 $1,461,678 $0 $713,561 $8,099 $1,447,927 $775,884 $637,089 $8,915,922 100.0%


$9,520 $26,486 $43,371 $0 $24,850 $0 $0 $0 $4,181 $0 $40,927 $0 $19,980 $227 $40,542 $21,725 $17,838 $249,646 2.8%


$349,520 $972,400 $1,592,340 $0 $912,340 $0 $0 $0 $153,494 $0 $1,502,605 $0 $733,541 $8,326 $1,488,469 $797,609 $654,927 $9,165,570 102.8%


$349,520 $972,400 $1,592,340 $0 $912,340 $0 $0 $0 $153,494 $0 $1,502,605 $0 $733,541 $8,326 $1,488,469 $797,609 $654,927 $9,165,570 102.8%



SC and YARD PIPE for West to Tania Datta

NSWWTP

Jim Fisher

4Dec/2011

DefaultN/A

2011

To Summary Sheet

All Rights Owned by CH2M HILL /All Rights Reserved.CPES.SecClr


Documents

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Nutrient ... · 2014-05-23 · 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary