Document Whitefish_doc_050c182d67

CITY OF WHITEFISH 2016 WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT ` OCTOBER 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF WHITEFISH 2016 WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 2 BASIS OF PLANNING CHAPTER 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CHAPTER 4 WASTEWATER SYSTEM NEEDS, ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 5 OTHER NUTRIENT REDUCTION OPTIONS CHAPTER 6 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION APPENDICES APPENDIX A MPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT APPENDIX B WHITEFISH FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEY APPENDIX C DEQ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER APPENDIX D COST TABLES APPENDIX E DEQ BASE NUMERIC STANDARDS GUIDANCE APPENDIX F LAND APPLICATION DESIGN CRITERIA AND COSTS APPENDIX G EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RATE STUDY, CITY CIP APPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX I PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 6 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 Chapter 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction This executive summary briefly describes the chapter contents for the City of Whitefish 2016 Wastewater Systems Improvements Project - Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), conclusions and recommendations arising from this document. The primary impetus behind the project pertains to new wastewater treatment standards implemented by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through the latest discharge permit issued to the City in 2015. New requirements for removal of ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorous were included in the new permit. The lagoon system, originally constructed in 1979, has served the City well but is approaching the end of its useful design life. The existing treatment facility cannot be made to meet the new standards without major reconstruction. This engineering study considered alternatives to address the existing permit as well as position the City for anticipated new limits that have been proposed by the DEQ for the next 5 and 10 years respectively, as the discharge permit is renewed. In development of treatment alternatives, the re-purposing of existing plant components that were constructed more recently than the lagoons was stressed to optimize the value of the earlier investment. Outside of this planning document, a Nutrient Reduction and Trading Plan was recently prepared by Robert Peccia and Associates in conjunction with Anderson-Montgomery to consider non-plant options for nutrient reduction, such as storm water control or reduction of wastewater discharge volume through irrigation. These alternate measures for nutrient reduction were brought forth to this engineering report and are discussed in Chapter 5. 1.2 Basis of Planning Determination of the usage of the wastewater system is dependent on land use, population density, the magnitude and type of commercial and industrial activity to be served, the condition of the existing system and regulatory requirements. The area studied in this document was established through meetings with the City Public Works and Planning Staff by examination of property ownership, zoning, planning jurisdiction and environmental conditions. The study area boundary, as decided by the planning team, is similar to the boundary used in a previous Wastewater PER prepared in 2008, with updates in 2014. Estimates of population were developed using 2000 census data and 2010 census data and reflect a lower growth rate than that experienced in the area in earlier planning documents, when growth rates were high during the housing boom in early 2000. In reviewing the 2010 Census, it shows that the City of Whitefish’s growth for the 2000-2010 period was 26.33% or a 2.37% average annual growth. Historically, the City has had an average annual growth of 1.75% over the last 40 years. Also, the 2010 Census projected an average annual growth rate of 1.9% between 2005 and 2025 for Flathead County. Based on review of a more current historical growth rate in the community plus consideration of the 2010 census data, it was decided to use an average annual growth rate of 1.9% for the 20 year planning period. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 2 Theoretical build-out assumes that all developable land within the study area will be developed, giving a maximum density for the study area. Table 1.1 summarizes the current and predicted study area population as well the population projected to be connected to the sewer utility in the same area. Table 1.1 Predicted Study Area Population 2015 2025 2035 Ultimate Build-out Existing and Proposed Sewer Service Planning Area Population 11,661 14,076 16,992 36,929 Existing and Proposed Sewer Service Area Connected Population 8,033 9,697 11,705 36,929 The City of Whitefish had an estimated population of 6,984 in 2015, obviously less than the connected population identified in the table above. To effectively conduct facilities planning it is necessary to set a potential service area boundary, which may not reflect the boundaries of the City proper. The service area is the projected area in which municipal services can or may be extended depending upon needs and demand. Criteria examined in setting the potential service area boundary included environmental factors, public health protection, groundwater quality protection, surface water quality protection, land use planning and growth management, cost of service, the political environment and geophysical characteristics. The boundary for the proposed future wastewater service area was based on examination of the criteria described above, meetings and discussions with City staff, and comparison of predicted population growth with the capability of the proposed service area to accommodate the predicted growth. These predictions are based on presumption that growth will occur in the Whitefish area at a relatively modest rate, similar to long-term community growth rates. These population values will be used in subsequent chapters of this report to predict demand on the wastewater system and to evaluate existing unit processes. 1.3 Wastewater Loads and Characteristics flow and organic loading data was evaluated for a three year period, from 2012 through 2014. Based on this data, the average waste strength and flow is as follows: BOD5 297 mg/l TSS 239 mg/l Phosphorous 6 mg/l Ammonia 25 mg/l Average Daily Flow per capita 128.7 gpcd Average Daily Flow per capita 154.5 gpcd (wet weather) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 3 Earlier data was not used to prepare the estimates above in that a project was completed in 2012 to remove clear water from the sewer system, effectively resulting in a stronger waste strength. Waste strength has increased significantly, almost 49% stronger in the concentration of BOD5, since the last PER prepared in 2008. This increase in wastewater concentration reflects the ongoing efforts of the City to remove infiltration and inflow (I/I) of clear water from the collection system. The organic (BOD5) and solids load is higher than is typically found at 0.32 lbs/capita for BOD5 and 0.256 lbs/capita for TSS. The service area includes facilities that support the tourism trade with a relatively higher number of hotels and restaurants than is typical for a town of this population. The regional hospital also is a significant contributor to load. These facilities are not included in the connected population figure, so the use of higher per capita loads provide for the inclusion of these facilities in the treatment plant loads. Reduction of I/I allows for reduced sizing of new wastewater treatment unit processes and a corresponding savings in cost. Additionally, the biological treatment processes used in wastewater plants function more effectively if waste strength is not diluted with clear water. Project Design Criteria are developed in a PER to evaluate treatment alternatives, size unit processes, prepare preliminary design drawings and prepare estimates of cost. The design criteria for this project are shown in the table below: Table 1.2 CITY OF WHITEFISH WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN CRITERIA 2013 2015 2020 2025 2035 Planning Area 11,230 11,661 12,812 14,076 16,992 Connected Pop. 7,736 8,033 8,826 9,697 11,705 Qavg 0.996 1.034 1.136 1.248 1.507 Qwet weather (6 month period) 1.195 1.241 1.363 1.498 1.808 Q Max Day 4.266 4.342 4.355 4.530 AVG BOD (lbs/day) 2467.8 2562.5 2815.4 3093.3 3734.0 MAX BOD 3289.6 3415.8 3753.0 4123.4 4977.4 TSS (lbs/day) 1980.4 2056.4 2259.4 2482.4 2996.5 Ammonia (lbs/day) 25.03 mg/l Avg Conc. 208.9 216.9 238.3 261.8 316.0 Total P (lbs/day) 6.0 mg/l Avg Conc. 49.83 51.74 56.85 62.46 75.40 TKN Avg 41.4 mg/l Alkalinity 265.6 mg/l Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Avg Influent Temp (oC) 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.2 9.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 4 1.4 Existing Wastewater Treatment and Collection 1.4.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant The existing wastewater treatment facilities consist of 3 partially mixed aerated lagoons for biological treatment with the discharge from the lagoon system flowing to a flocculating clarifier where alum and polymers are added to precipitate phosphorus. Flow to the lagoons is screened by a perforated mechanical screening system. Design capacity for the lagoons, built in 1979, is 1.25 MGD based on average daily flow. New pretreatment facilities and a second, redundant flocculating clarifier were constructed in 2008-09. A temporary disinfection system using sodium hypochlorite and chlorine neutralization was constructed in 2012. More specific design criteria for the existing facilities are as follows: Pretreatment Facilities Perforated Plate Mechanical Bar Screen 6.0 MGD Peak Capacity Manual Bar Screen 9.0 MGD Peak Capacity Screenings Washer/Compactor 6.0 MGD Peak Capacity Odor Control Biofilter 1.4 CFM/SF New Natural Gas Auxiliary Generator 150 KW Bypass Pumping Capability for Existing Lift Station Aerated Lagoon System Cell #1 Cell#2 Cell#3 Volume to 15’ depth) 16.97 MG 8.52 MG 8.52 MG Detention Time @ 1.25 MGD 13.6 days 6.8 days 6.8 days Sludge Storage to 2” depth) 260,200 cf 124,900 cf 124,900cf Surface Area 4.93 acres 2.55 acres 2.55 acres Advanced Treatment Facilities Existing Flocculating Clarifier 1.8 MGD ADF Design Capacity New Flocculating Clarifier 2.33 MGD ADF Design Capacity New Mechanical Mixer for New Clarifier Redundant Alum and Polymer Feed Systems for Both Clarifiers New Natural Gas Auxiliary Generator 150 KW The treatment system has consistently met the requirements of previous MPDES discharge permits regarding effluent quality. While the existing system is sized sufficiently to handle future growth, the age of the system and the inability of the treatment plant to remove nutrients and ammonia results in a need to look at a major upgrade or replacement of many of the existing facility’s components. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 5 1.5 Regulations Water pollution degrades surface and ground waters, potentially making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities. Accordingly, the State and Federal regulatory agencies have passed statutes with the intent of maintaining and restoring the beneficial uses of State waters. As authorized by the Clean Water Act and the Montana Water Quality Act, the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the State. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has adopted water quality standards that govern the discharge of wastewater which would cause a new or increased source of pollution to state waters. The Department also administers the MPDES program which authorizes and regulates all discharges to State surface waters. The Department develops design standards applicable to the design and construction of public water supply and wastewater systems. Presently the treated wastewater from the Whitefish wastewater system is discharged directly into the Whitefish River, via an effluent diffuser. The Whitefish River flows southerly from Whitefish Lake to join the Stillwater River near U.S. Highway 2 east of Kalispell. The river then flows a short distance to Flathead Lake. The MPDES discharge permit is the primary mechanism whereby the DEQ regulates the quality of the effluent discharge of wastewater from the wastewater system to the Whitefish River. The discharge permit established criteria for implementing the National Secondary Treatment Standards, Montana Water Quality Standards, the recently adopted numeric nutrient standards and Non-degradation based load limits. Current Compliance - The existing facilities cannot consistently meet the new standards for ammonia and will have difficulty in meeting the limits for total nitrogen as the system adds additional users. In review of 6 years of effluent data for 2010 through 2015 eighteen violations of the load limits in the current discharge permit for Total Nitrogen were noted. During the same period, several violations of the ammonia limit were shown for each year, primarily when the lagoons were not nitrifying. Ammonia values for the five year period are under the permit limit of 9.6 mg/l for a 1-2 month period, typically during July and August. Additionally, a number of exceedances of the E. Coli bacteria limits were noted in the period of record considered. Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous – The current permit contains new limits for nutrients based on the numeric nutrient standards recently adopted by the DEQ. The DEQ anticipates a process that will “ratchet down” effluent standards via the variance process until the final water quality standards are met. The following schedule indicates the process contemplated by the DEQ to reduce nutrient concentrations in the discharge. The schedule for systems with flows greater than 1.0 MGD is applicable to Whitefish. Facilities > 1 MGD: A. Current general variance: 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L -per statute B. Next permit years): 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L C. Next permit: 8 mg TN/L, 0.5 mg TP/L D. Next permit: Under Development ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 6 2. Facilities < 1 MGD: A. Current general variance) 15 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L -per statute B. Next permit years): 12 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L C. Next permit: 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L D. Next permit: 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L Variances from Nutrient Standards – The numeric nutrient standards as described above are very low in comparison to conventional available treatment technologies and approach the limits of technology. While smaller systems can address the limits by curtailing their discharge through the use of land application of treated effluent, larger systems generally cannot install land application systems in a cost-effective manner. The DEQ concluded that treatment of wastewater to base numeric nutrient standards would result in substantial and widespread economic impacts on a statewide basis and developed a procedure to grant a variance from the criteria. A permittee who meets the end-of-pipe treatment requirements provided in the table below may apply for and the Department shall approve a general nutrient standards variance. The Department will process the general variance request through the discharge permit, and include information on the period of the variance and the interim requirements. The general variance may be established for a period not to exceed 20 years. A compliance schedule to meet the treatment requirements as shown may be granted on a case-by-case basis. General Variance End-Of-Pipe Treatment Requirements Discharger Category Total P (mg/L) Total N (mg/L) ≥ 1.0 million gallons per day 1 10 < 1.0 million gallons per day 2 15 Lagoons not designed to actively Maintain current performance remove nutrients If a low-cost technological innovation for lowering nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in effluent were to become widely available in the near future, the Department could make more stringent the concentrations shown in the Table above. Permittees receiving a general variance are required to evaluate current facility operations in order to optimize nutrient reduction with existing infrastructure and shall analyze cost-effective methods of reducing nutrient loading including nutrient trading, land application and improved facilities operation. Whitefish received a General Variance in their latest discharge permit for the discharge category being greater than 1.0 MGD, resulting in a Total P limit of 1.0 mg/l and a Total N limit of 10 mg/l. These limits were used to calculate allowable loads of total nitrogen and phosphorous in the permit, effective July 1st through September 30th of each year. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 7 1.6 Recommendations for Wastewater Improvements A systematic analysis of the existing wastewater treatment facilities was completed in this planning document, considering waste loads from existing sources and anticipated loads for a 20 year planning period. In Chapter 4, several wastewater treatment alternatives were developed to address new regulatory standards as described in the previous section. The continued use or repurposing of existing plant facilities with remaining useful design life was stressed in the development of treatment alternatives. Sustainable treatment technologies are recommended for incorporation into the design and construction of new unit treatment processes. Energy efficiency should be prime consideration in the selection of specific pumping, mixing and aeration equipment. Treatment processes employing proven technologies capable of meeting existing and anticipated regulatory standards should be utilized. Both initial capital and long-term operating costs should be considered when identifying the apparent best treatment option for the City. 1.6.1 Summary Recommendations for Wastewater Improvements The recommended project includes replacement of the existing secondary treatment plant with a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) capable of removing ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorous to fully comply with the requirements of the current MPDES discharge permit. Furthermore, the plant will be capable of meeting anticipated more restrictive nutrient standards proposed by the DEQ in the next two discharge permit cycles (5 and 10 years hence). Pretreatment of the wastewater will be provided by the existing perforated screen plus grit removal capability added by a new unit process. A four cell sequencing batch reactor will be constructed within the third lagoon cell whereas the existing lagoon cells will be retained for treatment during construction. Use of 4 cells allows continuous discharge from the system, eliminating the need for a post treatment flow equalization basin. Biosolids from the SBR plant will be discharged to an aerobic digester for further stabilization. The existing flocculating clarifier will be converted to a covered aerobic digester. After stabilization, biosolids will be sent to the existing drying beds for further dewatering and long-term storage. Periodically the solids can be removed for disposal at the landfill or land application. While not an immediate plan (or need), a small composting operation could be constructed on site within one of the old treatment cells utilizing biosolids and wood waste to generate compost. Disinfection of the treated effluent would be provided by ultraviolet disinfection. Chapter 4 provides a complete description of the recommended alternative, including drawings. The estimated costs for the project are $17,366,666 including costs for construction (with a 3% inflation factor for construction in 2019), engineering, administration and a 15% contingency. Annual costs for operating the entire facility are estimated to be $780,480, which roughly equates to a $440,000 cost increase over the current operational cost. Detailed cost estimates for this option are included in Appendix D. 1.6.2 Funding Strategy and User Costs A project budget strategy has been prepared which anticipates grant funding from the TSEP and DNRC programs matched by a SRF loan, including forgiving principal of the loan in the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 8 amount of $500,000. An alternative or supplement to the SRF loan is being investigated utilizing a Rural Development Loan and Grant combination. Whitefish, primarily due to its population, is eligible for RD funding but is not a good candidate for the limited funds. Initial project planning is proceeding without an assumption of obtaining an RD grant. Table 1.3 provides the project budget using the identified funding program sources, amounts applied for and the ultimate user rate impacts based on an “Equivalent Dwelling Unit” calculation. If grants are obtained for the amounts listed, the average residential wastewater user rate will increase to an estimated rate of $76.28. It should be noted that the construction costs in the proposed project were inflated by a 3% annual inflationary increase for a three year period to reflect anticipated costs increases in the construction industry. Project Phasing – Project phasing may be necessary due to the high cost of the project, limited grant assistance and the associated high user costs. However the compliance schedule with the regulatory agency requires compliance by 2021. It may be appropriate to phase components of the plant that could be deferred without impacting compliance with the mandated schedule. 1.6.3 Affordability Analysis According to the 2010 Census data, the City of Whitefish has a Median Household Income (MHI) of $ 43,117 with 40.98% considered “low to moderate” income, and a 17.3% poverty rate. Using the “Target Rate” concept used by the funding agencies, the current procedure would use a multiplier of 2.3% x MHI to determine what is considered to be a target combined water/sewer rate. For Whitefish, the combined water/sewer target rate would be calculated as follows: $43,117 x 0.023 ÷ 12 months = $82.64/month Current average combined water rates in Whitefish are $90.10, which is in excess of the target water/sewer rate. Estimated increase for the proposed project will equate to a $25 to $30/month per EDU, depending on the loan term and grant amount. The projected water and sewer rate when the project is implemented is estimated to be $127.03 which would be 154% of the target water and sewer rate. For the target sewer rate alone, currently $32.34, the new predicted sewer rate of $76.28 would be 236% of the target rate. This affordability analysis indicates that increased costs, even with grants and low interest loans, are high and will impose a financial burden on wastewater system users in the City. Those families with incomes below the median household income, especially those with poverty status, will be particularly stressed by the increase in costs. The availability of low income housing has been demonstrated to be a significant problem in Whitefish and the raising of sewer rates will undoubtedly impact rental property and resultant rental rates, further affecting the affordability of housing. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 9 Table 1.3 PROJECT BUDGET FORM Preliminary Project Budget May 3, 2016 Administrative/ Finance Costs Source: RRGL Source: TSEP SRF SRF Forgiven Principal Total: Professional Services- Project/Grant Administration $5,000 $15,000 $48,000 $68,000 Legal Costs $70,000 $70,000 Audit Fees Travel & Training $5,000 $5,000 Loan Reserves $520,000 $520,000 Interim Interest Bond Counsel & Related costs $50,000 $50,000 ADMIN/FINANCE COSTS: $5,000 $15,000 $693,000 $0 $713,000 Prel. Engineer (Geotech) $35,000 $35,000 Engineering/Arch. Design $485,000 $510,000 $995,000 Construction Engr. Services $1,040,200 $1,040,200 Construction $120,000 $250,000 $11,783,466 $500,000 $12,653,466 Contingency $1,930,000 $1,930,000 ACTIVITY COSTS $120,000 $735,000 $15,298,666 $500,000 $16,653,666 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $125,000 $750,000 $15,991,666 $500,000 $17,366,666 Completed by: Scott Anderson Estimated Loan Amount $15,991,666 CRF 2.5% Interest, 20 year term 0.0641 # EDUs 4862 EUAC $1,025,066 EUAC w 10% Coverage $1,127,572 Cost $93,964.36 Cost per EDU $19.33 Whitefish 2016 Wastewater System Improvements Construction Cost increased by 3.0% inflation, 3 years Determination of Estimated Debt Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 1 – Executive Summary Page 10 1.7 Implementation Schedule The following schedule provides an achievable timeline for implementation of the needed wastewater improvements, presuming that affordable project financing can be obtained. This schedule is required to be met as per a regulatory action issued by the DEQ. Task Date of Completion Complete Facilities Planning (PER) Oct 1 2016 Submit Design Plans to DEQ February 1 2018 Construction Completion May 1 2021 Achieve Compliance Nov 1 2021 Annual Progress Reports January 2016-2021 1.8 Public Participation A project meeting was held with the City staff to discuss the project on September 23, 2015. A Whitefish Council work session, with the inclusion of the public, was held November 16, 2015 to discuss the planning process and potential treatment options. A public hearing was held April 18, 2016 to further discuss the project and associated environmental impacts identified through the public review. Notice of the hearing was included in the local paper. A copy of the slides presented at the presentation is included in the appendices of this document. A final decision regarding the environmental Assessment was made by the City Council on May 2, 2016. The City also participates with the Whitefish Community Wastewater Committee which discusses local wastewater issues pertaining primarily to Whitefish Lake. This discussion often incorporates comments regarding the City’s wastewater treatment and collection system, system needs and regulatory requirements. An additional public meeting was held August 29, 2016 to allow for further discussion and exchange of information regarding the proposed new wastewater treatment facilities recommended in the draft Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) prepared for the City of Whitefish. ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 6 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 Chapter 2 Basis of Planning 2.1 Introduction To plan for future wastewater facility needs, it is necessary to estimate existing and future wastewater flows and loads. Determination of the hydraulic and organic loading to the wastewater system is dependent on several factors including land use, population density, the magnitude and type of commercial and industrial activity in the area to be served, visiting population and employment impacts, the condition of the existing system and regulatory requirements. Physical and environmental features of the study area will have an effect on where growth occurs within the planning area. The purpose of this chapter is to identify current wastewater system loads and project future conditions as defined by projected population growth and restrictive features of the planning area. Environmental conditions will be considered. 2.2 Study Area Description 2.2.1 Introduction Wastewater flow generation for the future is determined, in part, by the size and the land use of the area to be served. The physical characteristics of the area to be served, such as topography, geology, and geographical location, greatly influence the type of land use and in turn the population density as well as commercial and industrial activity within the area. The planning investigation examines the physical characteristics of the study area, population densities, and land use that dictate water or wastewater service requirements in the future. The study area is then analyzed and a service area delineated based on the physical and economic feasibility of providing services. 2.2.2 Study Area Boundary Development In development of wastewater planning documents in 2006 and 2008, meetings were held with staff from the city of Whitefish Public Works Department and the Tri-City Planning Office to discuss establishment of the study area boundary. Additional meetings were held between Whitefish Public Works and Planning Departments in 2013 to assess study and planning area boundaries as well as population projections. Property ownership, zoning, planning jurisdiction and environmental conditions were analyzed as well as development trends and a study area boundary established. The study area boundary, as decided by the planning team, follows the proposed Whitefish planning jurisdiction. Figure 2.1 depicts the Whitefish Wastewater Facilities Plan Study Area including parcel information and City limits. Figure 2.2 depicts the physical characteristics of the Whitefish area including topography, wetlands, and hydric soils. 2.2.3 Study Area Description The study area is bounded by the north border of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Township 31N, Range 22W; the west border of Sections 5, 8, 15, 22, 27, and 34 of Township 31N, Range 22W and Sections 11, 13, 24, 25, and 36 of Township 30N, Range 22W; the south border of ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 2 Sections 11 and 13 of Township 30N, Range 22W and Sections 16, 17, and 18 of Township 30N, Range 21W; and the east border of Sections 32, 29, 20, 16, 9, and 4 of Township 30N, Range 21W, and Sections 33, 28, 21, 17, 7 and 6 of Township 31N, Range 21W. The boundary of the study area follows the boundary of the proposed Whitefish planning jurisdiction. The northwestern quadrant of the study area is comprised of Whitefish Lake and is characterized by steep forested hills. It is bounded in large part by state lands. The northeastern quadrant of the study area (north of the BNSF railroad tracks and east of Whitefish Lake) contains Big Mountain ski area, the Iron Horse and Northwoods Subdivisions and a nature conservancy. The area is characterized by forested hills to the north and swampy flat ground with some wetlands in the sections just north of the railroad tracks. There is a significant amount of developable property along the Big Mountain Road route. This area also contains part of the Haskill Creek drainage which is one of the main water supplies for the City of Whitefish. The southern half of the study area is dissected by the Whitefish River, with several small lakes and wetlands to the southeast. The southern half of the study area contains the majority of the developable property within the study area. 2.3 Environmental Attributes of the Study Area The environmental features of the planning area impact the extension of infrastructure into undeveloped areas and can also affect the construction practices used to install new facilities. Sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands or open spaces will redirect development into areas more suitable for residential or commercial utilization. The following summary of the environmental characteristics of the planning area provides a general background on the natural features that exist in proximity to the City of Whitefish. 2.3.1 Geology and Soils The geology of the Study Area is comprised of uplifted ancient sediments that created mountains, glacial deposits, and subsequently weather erosion of exposed materials. Materials likely to be encountered include glacial deposits, alluvium and Precambrian sedimentary rock of the Belt series. Glacial deposits consisting of lacustrine silt, clay, gravel, glacial drift, and alluvial fan materials cover the majority of the Study Area. These materials may be found in the level to gently rolling terrain that exists across much of the upper Flathead Valley. Alluvium is found along streams and bordering the Whitefish River. The alluvium typically consists of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles eroded from bedrock or glacial outwash deposits. The Belt series sedimentary rocks (typically limestones, dolomites, and argillites) underlie the Flathead Valley and form the mountains that surround the Study Area. Several faults cross the planning area. The Whitefish and Faults are northwest to southeast trending faults that occur on the east and west sides, respectively, of Whitefish Lake. The Elk Divide Fault is southwest to northeast trending fault located south of Whitefish lake. The Study area is located in a relatively active seismic zone and has a moderate potential for experiencing a large damaging earthquake. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 3 Several groups of soils dominate the planning area including the Whitefish association; Half association; Creston-Flathead-Blanchard, Mires-Blanchard association, and Half Moon-Haskill association. These soils are generally deep, well drained, and have textures ranging from loamy to sandy or gravelly. Soils in the planning area were developed in glacial till, outwash, or alluvium under forest or grass cover. With the exception of Whitefish soils, which are found on moderate to steep terrain, most soils occur on level to gently sloping lands. Soils information suggests that a large portion of the planning area south and east of Whitefish Lake has soils with limitations for septic systems. The Half Moon silt loam soils, which cover most of the immediate Whitefish area, have severe restrictions for septic systems due to slow permeability. Excessive slopes, shallow bedrock, and shallow groundwater may limit the use of conventional septic systems on lands north of the City to the east and west of Whitefish Lake. 2.3.2 Surface Water The Study Area is located in the Upper Flathead River Basin. Major surface waters include Whitefish Lake, Blanchard Lake, the Whitefish River and its tributaries. Whitefish Lake encompasses a surface area of five square miles and is up to 220 feet deep. It is 5.7 miles long and 1.4 miles wide and has approximately 15 miles of shoreline. It is used primarily for recreation and is a major source of drinking water for the City of Whitefish. Water quality in Whitefish Lake is characterized by low hardness and negligible iron, manganese, and dissolved minerals. It is consistent in seasonal water quality, other than potential algae blooms. The Whitefish River flows southerly from Whitefish Lake to join the Stillwater River near U.S. Highway 2 east of Kalispell. The river then flows a short distance to Flathead Lake. The Whitefish River and Flathead Lake are both TMDL listed bodies of water. Major tributaries of the Whitefish River include Haskill Creek, Walker Creek, and Trumbull Creek. Haskill Creek is a major source of drinking water for the City of Whitefish. Water quality in Haskill Creek is generally quite high and is low in turbidity, hardness, and dissolved inorganics. Seasonal runoff, from snowmelt or thunderstorms, can increase turbidity temporarily. 2.3.2.1 Upper Whitefish River Whitefish Area Water Resources Report: A Status of The Whitefish Lake Watershed and Surrounding Area, 2015 published by the Whitefish Lake Institute provides the following information specific to the upper Whitefish River: 1. Background “The uppermost reach of the Whitefish River flows from the Whitefish Lake outlet for approximately 2.5 miles through Whitefish City limits. After city limits, it transitions through a private property mix of residential and agricultural use until the Highway 40 Bridge. Beyond the Highway 40 Bridge is outside the scope of this study. Whitefish Lake buffers the discharge conveyed to the Whitefish River during the peak of the hydrograph and during storm events. Relyea (2005) reports that this buffering effect yields less erosional and depositional activity resulting in less floodplain development along the main channel. In other words, the water in the channel tends to stay in the channel with little lateral exchange. In ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 4 addition, the buffering effect of Whitefish Lake and the low valley gradient make this river susceptible to impacts from increased sediment loading from its inability to transport material. By 1987, the Landsat image shows that the upper Whitefish River had extensive urban and agriculture use, with an expansion of urban area and a decrease of agricultural area by 2011.” 2. Biological Resources Fisheries “MFISH reports brook trout, bull trout, rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, largescale sucker, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, northern pike, northern pikeminnow, peamouth chub, redside shiner, and slimy sculpin in the Whitefish River based on professional judgment. A genetic sample targeting westslope cutthroat trout in 2001 showed 98.20% rainbow trout and 1.8% westslope cutthroat trout from a sample of 15 fish.” Macroinvertebrates “In 2015, only 4 mayfly taxa, dominated by the baetid Acerpenna pygmaea (40 specimens, 8.1% of the assemblage) were found at this site. The biotic index value (7.02) was elevated above expectations and the highest of any site in this study. Tolerant organisms composed 40.2% of the assemblage and only 1 sensitive taxon, the chironomid, Heterotrissocladius sp., represented by 1 specimen, was collected. Collectors were 81.3% of the functional feeding composition of the assemblage. The dominance of the filterer and gatherer functional feeding groups and the elevated biotic index suggest that water quality is impaired at this site and the impairment may result from nutrient enrichment. The high relative abundance of hemoglobin-bearingorganisms including several hemoglobin-bearing midges Microtendipes sp. Ablabesmyia sp. suggests that hypoxic substrates may be present at this site. There was no evidence of metals contamination. No cold stenotherm taxa were collected at this site. The temperature preference of the assemblage was 18.3 the highest among all the sites. There were 3 caddisfly taxa and only 3 “clinger” taxa found in the sample, suggesting that fine sediment limits colonization in this reach. The FSBI (3.57) indicated an assemblage with moderate tolerance to fine sediment deposition. The data indicated that in-stream habitats were intact and probably diverse because taxa richness was moderately high (37). No stonefly taxa were found in this sample indicating impacts to channel morphology and stream banks. Only 1 long-lived taxon was collected, indicating that scour, toxic inputs, and thermal extremes could not be ruled out as impacts in this reach. The functional feeding groups were dominated by gatherers (62.9%) and filterers (18.7%) suggesting the importance of fine particulate organic matter to the energy flow of the system.” 3. Habitat “No habitat information exists for this stream. However, the river is low gradient with high amounts of fine sediment.” 4. Water Chemistry “From the lake outlet to the end of the project area, the Whitefish River is subject to inputs from groundwater, tributaries, storm water and the City of Whitefish Sewage Treatment Plant point discharge. This sampling site is near the outlet of Whitefish Lake, to account for lake export. WLI started collecting water chemistry information on Whitefish River in 2009. Whitefish River water ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 5 chemistry summary figures for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Total Organic Carbon, and Total Suspended Solids can be found in Chapter XXII Addendum C Water Chemistry and Temperature Information. Results for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen fall within the Montana Wadeable Streams and Rivers Nutrient Criteria. of the WLI sampling location on the Whitefish River, Relyea (2005) reported that the Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Plant during the 2003/4 water year discharged between 0.5 to 4% of the total discharge of the river. The report noted the disproportionately high degree of influence this effluent has on the river can be explained by the oligotrophic nature of the river source. The WWTP is a secondary treatment plant with a tertiary treatment process to remove phosphorus through the use of a flocculating clarifier. Some practical improvements are possible to upgrade the existing system to a tertiary treatment capable of removing both phosphorus and nitrogen. Land application of a portion of the plant’s effluent flow may also be viable. In 2007, WLI presented information to the Whitefish City Council from independent testing related to the release of petroleum products into the Whitefish River via a series of seeps along the shoreline near Town Pump. In that presentation, the chemical analysis of benzene leaking into the Whitefish River was shown to be 39 times the Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water. That presentation prompted an August 13th, 2007 letter from the City Council to DEQ urging prompt attention to this issue. DEQ’s response was that they have known about this problem since January 2003. The DEQ letter states that “although there have been delays in investigating the cause of the seep and designing corrective measures, this work is progressing at an acceptable rate.” Full remediation is still pending for this site.” 5. Water Temperature “2014 continuous temperature data for the upper Whitefish River can be found in Chapter XXII Addendum C of the Water Resources Report. Water temperature for this year peaked on August 6-7th at 75°F. Water temperature data from 2009-2013 often show temperatures in the 70s°F which can stress salmonid species and life stages. The Upper Whitefish River temperature is affected by the release of warm epilimnetic water from Whitefish Lake.” 6. Groundwater Resources and Quality “The Flathead Valley is underlain by extensive groundwater aquifers which supply much of the water used by residences, agriculture, and industry. The aquifers can be categorized into three major types: shallow aquifers in sands and gravels (found at depths of less than 250 feet); deeper, artesian aquifers in unconsolidated sands and gravels (found at depths from 250 to 500 feet); and deep bedrock aquifers. The shallow and deeper sand and gravel aquifers have been widely tapped for domestic and agricultural uses. Precipitation, infiltration from streamflow during spring runoff, and percolation of irrigation water are the main sources of recharge for the shallow aquifers and deeper artesian aquifers. The bedrock aquifers are less important as water sources in the planning area since yields are not as significant as in shallower aquifers, and development of these sources has been less. Groundwater chemistry varies in the aquifers but generally is of good quality. The groundwater in the planning area often has a tendency to be "hard" due to the limestone bedrock and glacial deposits derived from the similar bedrock materials. Groundwater in the planning area may also be relatively high in iron and/or manganese content. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 6 In the immediate Whitefish area, several glacial moraines create significant variability in groundwater aquifers. Formations are discontinuous and convoluted in the shallower regions, based on well logs. Appreciable differences in types and extent of water bearing strata are encountered. Water quality in the sands and gravels is also sporadic, with hardness, iron, and/or manganese often present at nuisance levels. Contact with diverse mineral deposits is theorized as a cause for reduced quality. Shallow groundwater within the municipal area is, at least seasonally, very close to the surface. The railroad tracks bisect a large, relatively flat, low lying area of the community, and groundwater depths there are only one to three feet. A perusal of well logs in and around Whitefish indicates considerable variability in groundwater depth. On higher land north of Woodland Place (two blocks north of the railroad) groundwater depths increase to 30 to 50 feet. In proximity to the lake, groundwater depths are predictably shallow and tied to the surface water elevation.” 2.3.3 Groundwater Groundwater in the Study Area often has a tendency to be “hard” due to limestone bedrock and glacial deposits and may also be relatively high in iron and/or manganese content. Groundwater aquifers in the immediate Whitefish area are significantly variable due to several glacial moraines. Formations are discontinuous in the shallower regions, based on well logs. A study of groundwater alternatives completed as part of the 1996 Water Master Plan Update concluded that an adequate supply of quality groundwater would be difficult to obtain for use in serving the City of Whitefish public water system. This study led to the construction of a surface water treatment plant to treat Whitefish Lake and Haskill Creek supplies. 2.3.4 Floodplains Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps show in the Study Area the existence of 100-year floodplain along the Whitefish River. This floodplain exists in a narrow band (100 – 200 feet wide) that parallel’s the river channel. Floodplains associated with smaller tributary streams are restricted to or closely follow the permanent stream channel. Narrow floodplains also exist along the shores of Whitefish Lake. Figure 2.3 provides a floodplain map developed by FEMA. 2.3.5 Biological Environment Vegetation in the Study Area is categorized by agriculture, coniferous forest, deciduous woodlands, and riparian zone vegetation. Agricultural lands, located predominantly to the south and east of Whitefish, are used to grow wheat, barley, oats, rye, and hay. They are also used for pasture. Plants associated with pasture land are various clovers, timothy, fescue and bluegrass. Vegetation in riparian zones along the Whitefish River and in wetlands typically consists of cottonwoods, willows, alders, and dogwoods with an understory of numerous forbs and grasses. Deciduous woodlands may be found in upland and riparian areas and often contain vegetation similar to that found in riparian zones. Upland areas may contain aspen, larch and sometimes cottonwood. The understory vegetation in deciduous woodlands may also include various shrubs. Coniferous forest is scattered throughout the Study Area. Species common to these areas are white spruce, Douglas-fir, lodge pole pine, with an understory of grasses and shrubs. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 7 2.3.6 Wildlife and Important Habitat The Study Area supports a variety of wildlife species. Increased human development has placed considerable pressure on habitat in the Study Area. Table 2-1 summarizes common wildlife resources and associated habitats in the Study Area. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks has mapped critical habitats for several wildlife species in the Whitefish Study Area. According to this mapping, winter range for White-tailed Deer, Mule Deer, and Elk exists along the south and west edges of the Study Area and north of the upper half of Whitefish Lake. Winter range is considered critical for these species. Important habitats for terrestrial furbearers (Marten, Fisher, Wolverine, and Lynx) are located in the upland areas to the west, north and northeast of Whitefish Lake. These species make use of a variety of habitats during the year and are considered to be a sensitive wildlife species in the greater Whitefish area. The lakes and riparian areas found in the planning area provide potential nesting habitat for a wide variety of waterfowl. Whitefish Lake contains six species of trout, kokanee salmon, and fifteen other species of fish. Swift Creek, a major tributary of Whitefish Lake, is rated as a high priority fishery resource according to a ranking system established by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Lazy Creek, Haskill Creek, and the Whitefish River are rated as moderate fishery resources. Use of the Whitefish River by fish is limited due to the high amount of sediment present in the stream. However, this stream serves as migration route for bull and west slope cutthroat trout moving between tributaries of the rivers and Flathead Lake. Threatened or endangered species that would be expected to be encountered in the Study Area include the Bald Eagle and the Grizzly Bear. A travel corridor for the threatened grizzly bear is known to occur in the Haskill Basin area northeast of Whitefish. There have been increased sightings and encounters with grizzly bears in recent years. This increase is thought to be due to a combination of increased development in bear habitat, recent forest fires, and drought causing bears to look to lower lying lands and human resources such as garbage, pet food, and bird feeders for food. Table 2.1 Wildlife Resources in the Whitefish Area Wildlife Group Common Representative Species Associated Habitats Large Mammals White-tailed Deer Mule Deer Elk Moose Coniferous forest Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Small Mammals Deer Mouse Skunk Raccoon Weasel Coniferous forest Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Urban/developed Lands Furbearers Coyote Wolverine Beaver Fisher Muskrat Lynx Marten Coniferous forest Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Urban/developed Lands ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 8 Waterfowl Canada Goose Mallard Redheads Goldeneye Wood Duck Widgeon Merganser Teal Lesser Scaup Red-necked Grebe Riparian Wetlands Aquatic Upland Game Birds Turkeys Ring-neck Pheasants Hungarian Partridge Coniferous forest Riparian Agricultural Lands Raptors Osprey Red-tailed Hawk American Kestrel Swainson’s Hawk Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Songbirds/passerine Yellow Warbler Vesper Sparrow Meadowlark Eastern Kingbird Black-billed Magpie Coniferous forest Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Urban/developed Lands Wetlands Reptiles/Amphibians Common Garter Snake Bull Snake Painted Turtle Leopard Frog Deciduous Woodlands Riparian Agricultural Lands Wetlands Urban/developed Lands 2.3.7 Wetlands Wetlands are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and work in wetlands may require coordination with both federal and state water quality agencies and the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are important and sensitive environmental areas that serve many beneficial functions including ground water recharge, flood control, filtering of surface water runoff, and providing essential wildlife habitat. Figure 2.2 shows areas of known wetlands within the Study Area. It should be noted that there are likely other wetlands within the Study Area that are not necessarily identified on this planning- level figure. It is recommended that the City conduct a more detailed identification and mapping of wetland areas in and around Whitefish. 2.4 Land Use Planning 2.4.1 2007 Whitefish City County Growth Policy The long range planning master document for the Whitefish area is the 2007 Whitefish City- County Growth Policy. This Growth Policy has been prepared and adopted under the authority of and in accordance with Part 6, Chapter 1, Title 76, Montana Code Annotated (MCA). A Growth Policy is required by Montana law for any local subdivision regulations. The purpose of this document is to set forth a broad body of public policy that is founded in a community vision, and that addresses growth and development issues through the various topic areas ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 9 (elements) of natural resources, economic development, land use, community facilities, housing, and transportation. This document contains community goals, and policies and recommended actions for achieving those goals. The final element, Implementation/Intergovernmental Coordination, sets forth the manner in which the Growth Policy is to be implemented. While the Growth Policy itself does not enact regulations or establish programs, it provides the legal and rational basis, or “nexus” for regulatory or programmatic measures to implement the Growth Policy. Wastewater Collection and Treatment - Chapter Four of the Growth Policy discusses wastewater treatment, with excerpts from this section as follows: “The collection, treatment, and disposal of municipal wastewater is one of the most important and complex services that any city can provide. Protecting public health is the primary goal. Failing septic systems, or placing septic systems in areas unsuitable for their proper operation, can result in a public health risk through contamination of surface and groundwater. The Flathead County Health Department is responsible for issuing permits for septic systems. Permits are issued based on tests to determine suitable soils, appropriate lot size, and development density. Generally, a minimum lot size of one acre is required for a septic system. Contamination of Whitefish Lake from numerous older septic systems is a concern to the City of Whitefish and many area residents. This risk of contamination will only grow as more long vacant lots around the lake are built upon. On average, wastewater flows to the City of Whitefish system are .75 million gallons daily (mgd), with higher flow events in the spring due to infiltration of snowmelt into the system. The general trend since 1996 has been that wastewater flows are declining even as the population grows. This too is primarily due to better system maintenance and improvements that have reduced clear water flows to the system. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Goals: 1. Continue to provide cost-effective and efficient wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal that protects the public health and does not compromise the environment. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Policies: 1. Through the Land Use Element of this Growth Policy and land development regulations, direct growth to areas of the community already served by municipal sewers. 2. New sewer main extensions to serve new development shall be made in compliance with the City’s Wastewater Utility Plan, including both location and routing of new mains and main line capacities to account for future development. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Recommended Actions: 1. New developments within the Jurisdictional Area which propose on-site sewage disposal shall submit contingency plans for eventual connection to the municipal wastewater system. 2. Continue to work with the Whitefish County Water and Sewer District and the Big Mountain Sewer District to develop and implement long range wastewater management plans for the urbanizing areas of the Planning Jurisdictional Area, including those areas around Whitefish Lake where much of the new construction continues to rely on individual sewage disposal systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 10 3. Work with the Flathead County Health Department to prepare a public education program on the proper operation, life expectancy, and potential pollution problems associated with individual on site disposal systems. 4. Work with the Flathead County Health Department and the Whitefish Lake Institute to monitor existing on-site sewage disposal systems around Whitefish lake to detect failed systems, and devise a plan for corrective action. 5. Study the feasibility of extending sewer mains to serve lakefront properties.” 2.4.2 Whitefish 2015 Downtown Business District Master Plan This Plan identifies opportunities to increase the vitality of the downtown business district. The plan outlines the components that will make this vision a reality. It builds upon existing assets and historic character, capitalizes on significant land uses and features the natural environment. It also sets out a realistic action plan for implementation that public officials, private investors and the community can follow. The 2015 Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan updates the adopted 2006 Whitefish Downtown Business District Master Plan. The intent of this plan is to: 1. Build upon Central Avenue private development stimulated by considerable public investment that was prescribed in the 2006 plan 2. Set forth a new implementation strategy for public projects that will stimulate significant private investment and identify project phasing for priority projects 3. Emphasize the importance of providing essential retail parking 4. Ensure retail tenant recruitment within the City Hall parking structure 5. Address the Whitefish City-County Growth Policy and the State of Montana Growth Policy requirements 6. Strengthen the connection between commercial parcels along Wisconsin Avenue and north of the rail yard with the downtown core 7. Provide additional design detail for the Whitefish Promenade 2.4.3 2015 Highway 93 West Corridor Land Use Plan The 2007 City of Whitefish Growth Policy recommends a corridor plan be formulated and adopted for US Highway 93 West with specific goals, policies, and recommended actions for the area that consider land use, scale, transportation function and modes, noise, screening, landscaping, and urban design. The corridor is the site of the Montana Department of Transportation US Highway 93 West three-phase road widening project to provide major infrastructure improvements. In addition to widening the road, the project includes curbs, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, and utility improvements dramatically affecting the corridor by improving traffic flow for auto, bike, and pedestrian access and improves landscaping in the corridor. These improvements also improve access and circulation. Construction of phase I began in the summer of 2013. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 11 2.4.4 2009 Whitefish Transportation Plan This Transportation Plan is intended to help guide decisions about the future of the Whitefish area transportation system. The Plan describes the existing system and identifies large and small improvements for the transportation network. The recommendations made in this document cover all modes of transportation, including travel by private vehicle, public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle modes. Recommended projects are intended to help relieve existing problems and prepare the Whitefish transportation system to meet future needs. The development and implementation of a Transportation Plan is a good tool for managing growth and accommodating development needs. Not only do Transportation Plans provide analysis and mitigation for the existing transportation system, it also provides an opportunity to “look into the ball” to try and predict future growth – where it is likely to happen, when it is likely to happen, and how much of it is likely to occur. More importantly, by predicting this growth the community can be primed to deal with it before infrastructure problems become apparent. By identifying transportation system needs early on, planners and community leaders can begin to plan and implement infrastructure improvements important to the efficient operation and maintenance of the transportation system. 2.4.5 City of Whitefish 2009 Extension of Services Plan This document is intended to be used as a guide for the provision of city services to those areas of the city not served at this time and for territories to be annexed into the city. This Plan satisfies the requirements of M.C.A. 7-2-4731 and 7-2-4732. 2.4.6 South Whitefish Transportation Planning Project Adopted in October 1999, this plan addresses street realignment and planning in neighborhoods in the South Whitefish area. 2.5 Population, Growth and Service Area Delineation 2.5.1 Introduction The Whitefish WWTP planning area consists of the City of Whitefish and Flathead County areas surrounding the City which fall within Whitefish's planning jurisdictional area. In 2010, the date of the most recent U.S. Census, the City of Whitefish had a population of 6,357. This made Whitefish the second largest city in Flathead County and accounted for about 7% of the total population of the county. The 2010 Median Household Income in Whitefish is $43,117, less than the state MHI of $46,230. Whitefish is located at 48°14′42″N 114°20′24″W at an altitude of 3,028 feet (923 The town is located on the western side of the continental divide, near Glacier National Park. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 11.80 square miles of which, 6.43 square miles is land and 5.37 square miles is water. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 12 2.5.2 Existing Population and Current Trends Current population data is required for analysis and modeling of the existing wastewater system. It is also important to understand trends in population for the study area in order to predict future population and its need for wastewater treatment. Table 2.2 summarizes the trend in population growth for the City of Whitefish. Table 2.2 – Whitefish Population Trends and Existing Population 1990 a 2000 b 2010 c 2015 d City of Whitefish Population 4,368 5,032 6,357 6,984 a 1990 Census Data b 2000 Census Data c 2010 Census Data d Estimated 1.9 % Annual Growth Rate The City of Whitefish population grew at a rate of 1.4% per year from 1990 to 2000 and approximately 2.37% from 2000 to 2010. The Study area population grew at a rate of 4% per year from 1990 to 2000. The data indicates that the City of Whitefish, through both infill and annexation, is capturing more of the Study Area population growth than it historically did from 1990 to 2000. In early 2013, AMCE/RPA met with John Wilson of the Whitefish Public Works Department and Dave Taylor of the Planning Department to prepare updated estimates of population growth that can be projected for the City of Whitefish planning area plus anticipated wastewater sewer service areas. The 2008 City of Whitefish Wastewater System PER was reviewed regarding the growth projections that were utilized in that planning document, noting that the City was experiencing a period of rapid growth at that time. Shortly thereafter growth rates rapidly declined with a flat or negative growth rate observed. In reviewing the 2010 Census, it shows that the City of Whitefish’s growth for the 2000-2010 period was 26.33% or 2.37% average annual growth. Historically, the City has had an average annual growth of 1.75% over the last 40 years. Also, the Census projected an average annual growth rate of 1.9% between 2005 and 2025 for Flathead County. Based on review of a more current historical growth rate in the community plus consideration of the 2010 census data, it was decided to use an average annual growth rate of 1.9% for the 20 year planning period. In order to accurately plan for future facilities and understand the condition of existing utilities quantifying total existing population is only the first step. It is also important to understand where that population resides today and where it is likely to reside in the future. To facilitate distribution of population, the study area was broken into sub-areas called analysis zones. Analysis zones are areas that have similar land use or are bordered by geophysical features that are likely to promote a certain type of land use. For previous plans, 2000 census data, data from the City of Whitefish Residential Construction, Land Subdivision and Annexation Report, and population distribution data developed in a workshop with the City of Whitefish, Tri-City Planning, WGM Group, County Planning, Montana Department of Transportation, and HDR staff were used to distribute population throughout the Study Area by analysis zone. Economic and population growth in the Whitefish area in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s was dependent on traditional industries like forestry, agriculture, and mining. During that period interest in recreation and retirement has steadily grown. Today the main drivers for economic growth in the Whitefish area are tourism, recreation, retirement, second home market, and ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 13 some influx of people who telecommute or live in Whitefish and own business interests elsewhere. The City of Whitefish is a resort community offering both summer and winter opportunity for recreation. This characteristic results in significant seasonal fluctuations in water demand due to fluctuations in visiting population. Some of this fluctuation is due to residences that are second homes and are not occupied year-round. Another component of this fluctuation is caused by seasonal fluctuations in tourism. These factors also result in some fluctuation in employment. It is important to understand the trend in this fluctuation in order to set per capita demand factors appropriately and in turn accurately predict future demand on the system. One method of gauging this trend is to examine the trend in resort taxes collected by the City of Whitefish. Figure 2.4 is a graph of total resort tax revenue collected per month for motels, bars & restaurants, and retail for Fiscal years 2008 through 2015. The trend in resort tax revenue shows that there is an increase in consumer use of motels, bars & restaurants, and retail in the summer months (June through September). It also shows that there has been a steady growth in resort tax revenue over time. In FY16, starting July 1, 2015, the City’s Resort Tax increased from 2% to 3% with the additional 1% going to fund the debt service requirements for the acquisition of the Haskill Basin Conservation Easement. The seasonal variation in tax revenues will be taken into consideration when analyzing per capita usage and projecting future demand based on per capita demand factors. Figure 2.4 – Resort Tax Revenue 2.5.3 Service Area Delineation Definition of the study area and in turn the potential service area is necessary so that utility planning can be conducted. Setting the potential service area boundary may be controversial because of implications of inclusion or exclusion. Inclusion may imply to some that utility services will be available. Other implications include annexation, cost of service, and configuration of infrastructure. Exclusion may have implications for the potential for service, and therefore, the viability of land for future development. The service area is the projected area in which municipal services can or may be extended depending upon needs and demand. In prior planning documents, the delineation of service area was looked at in great detail considering a logical extension of City services. This process was reviewed recently and it was ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 14 concluded that the service area would be retained as it was depicted in the prior documents, shown as the attached Figure 2.5 of the 2008 Wastewater PER. The table below shows the revised growth projections (1.9% annual) and how it impacts future estimated service area population. The second table which follows is excerpted from the 2008 PER and provides a comparison regarding the differences in growth (although the planning years are different). Table 2.3 2016 Predicted Wastewater Service Area Population 2015 2025 2035 Ultimate Build-out Existing and Proposed Sewer Service Planning Area Population 11,661 14,076 16,992 36,929 Existing and Proposed Sewer Service Area Connected Population 8,033 9,697 11,705 36,929 Table 2.4 - Predicted Wastewater Service Area Population from 2008 PER 2008 2018 2028 Ultimate Build-out Proposed Sewer Service Planning Area Population 10,221 13,109 17,580 36,929 Proposed Sewer Service Area Connected Population 7,041 10,638 14,297 36,929 As shown, the lower rate of growth has a significant impact on the service area population in the later years of the 20 year planning period. The revised growth projections, plus a limited allowance for unplanned growth, will be utilized to develop flow and load projections for planning for new wastewater facilities in subsequent chapters of this document. 2.6 Wastewater Loads and Characteristics 2.6.1 Current Flow flow data was evaluated for a five year period, from 2010 through 2015 which is depicted in Figure 2.6 below, showing variation in flow and the average for the year. It can be surmised that the high flows in March and April reflect influx of infiltration and inflow as clear water flows into the system through precipitation events and snow melt. High flows in June and July likely reflect an influx of tourists which peak in the summer months. An infiltration and inflow mitigation project is currently underway in Whitefish with construction planned for the summer and fall of 2016. The project will consist of the rehabilitation of approximately 6,960 lineal feet of 10”, 8” and 6” sanitary sewer with the use of cured in place epoxy lining, replacement of 110 lineal feet of 8.0” sewer and rehabilitation of 39 manholes plus work on 39 manhole chimneys. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 15 Upon completion of this project, flow and load conditions should be reassessed to determine the benefit of this project in reducing clear water flow to the sanitary sewer as well as a potential increase in waste strength. 2.6.2 Existing Load to Plant flow and organic loading data was evaluated for a three year period, from 2012 through 2014. Based on this data, the average waste strength and flow is as follows: BOD5 297 mg/l TSS 239 mg/l Phosphorous 6 mg/l Ammonia 25 mg/l Average Daily Flow per capita 128.7 gpcd Average Daily Flow per capita 154.5 gpcd (wet weather) An infiltration and inflow reduction project was completed in 2011; consequently data after this period was utilized. The organic loading in Whitefish continues to indicate increasing strength ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 16 in the concentration of the waste. This may be due to infiltration and inflow reduction as well as possible higher strength waste originating from commercial/industrial users such as breweries, restaurants, hospitals and nursing homes. Additionally, another I/I project will be completed in 2016 which may further concentrate the waste. Further analysis of waste loading should be completed before design work is initiated on new improvements. The following Figure 2.7 provides 6 years of data regarding influent loading. The graph indicates a general trend towards increasing waste concentration except possibly during the wetter months when weather conditions may have more influence on waste concentration. 2.6.3 Future Load Predictions and Project Design Criteria Given the proposed growth in the sewer service area as well as the general population growth that is anticipated, flows and loads to the wastewater plant will increase significantly over the next 20 years. Utilizing the information presented above, the increase in flow and waste loads are predicted as follows to establish planning level design criteria. This information will be used to evaluate the existing facilities and plan for needed system improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 17 2.7 Regulatory Considerations 2.7.1 General This section of the report will consider regulatory factors that will govern the required treatment performance of improvements to the Whitefish wastewater treatment facilities including discharge to the receiving stream as well as disposal of produced biosolids. Background material on the development of water quality standards as incorporated into the City’s discharge permit will be provided. Enforcement activities applicable to the City of Whitefish will be considered. 2.7.2 MPDES Discharge Permit The Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) discharge permit is the primary mechanism whereby the MDEQ regulates the quality of the effluent discharge of wastewater from the City’s wastewater system to the Whitefish River. The discharge permit establishes criteria for implementing the National Secondary Treatment Standards, Montana Water Quality Standards (WQS), including the numeric nutrient standards and non-degradation based load limits. The Federal Secondary Standards establish minimum levels of treatment based on available and achievable water treatment technologies. Levels of water quality that are Table 2.5 CITY OF WHITEFISH WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN CRITERIA 2013 2015 2020 2025 2035 Planning Area 11,230 11,661 12,812 14,076 16,992 Connected Pop. 7,736 8,033 8,826 9,697 11,705 Qavg 0.996 1.034 1.136 1.248 1.507 Qwet weather (6 month period) 1.195 1.241 1.363 1.498 1.808 Q Max Day 4.266 4.342 4.355 4.530 AVG BOD (lbs/day) 2467.8 2562.5 2815.4 3093.3 3734.0 MAX BOD 3289.6 3415.8 3753.0 4123.4 4977.4 TSS (lbs/day) 1980.4 2056.4 2259.4 2482.4 2996.5 Ammonia (lbs/day) 25.03 mg/l Avg Conc. 208.9 216.9 238.3 261.8 316.0 Total P (lbs/day) 6.0 mg/l Avg Conc. 49.83 51.74 56.85 62.46 75.40 TKN Avg 41.4 mg/l Alkalinity 265.6 mg/l Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Avg Influent Temp (oC) 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.2 9.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 18 required to maintain beneficial uses of state surface waters are set forth in the Water Quality Standards. The goal of the Permits program is to control point source discharges of wastewater such that water quality in state surface water is protected. Each MPDES permit issued is designed to protect the state surface water quality at the point of discharge as well as or basin-wide pollution issues. Existing discharge permits are to be reissued on a five year cycle. The current discharge permit is included in Appendix A. The current permit, issued on June 9, 2015, established the following effluent standards shown in the table below. The standards in this permit are similar to those established in the previous discharge permit with the exception of new limits included for total nitrogen, ammonia and aluminum. Current Compliance - The existing facilities cannot consistently meet the new standards for ammonia and will have difficulty in meeting the limits for total nitrogen as the system adds additional users. In review of 6 years of effluent data for 2010 through 2015 (see Appendix A) eighteen violations of the load limits in the current discharge permit for Total Nitrogen were noted. During the same period, several violations of the ammonia limit were shown for each year, primarily when the lagoons were not nitrifying. Ammonia values for the period are only below the limit of 9.6 mg/l for a 1-2 month period typically during July and August. Additionally, a number of exceedances of the E. Coli bacteria limits were noted in the period of record considered. Aluminum – The existing facilities should be able to meet the new aluminum standard, although high alum usage could potentially raise levels at or near the limit. Future treatment processes that employ biological nutrient removal should lower residual aluminum concentrations in the effluent. Parameter Units Maximum Daily Limit mg/L lb/day % Removal mg/L lb/day % Removal pH SU E. coli Bacteria - summer cfu/100 mL 252 E. coli Bacteria -winter cfu/100 mL 1260 Total Residual Chlorine mg/L 0.019 Ammonia, Total as N mg/L 17.7 Total Nitrogen (TN) - summer Total Nitrogen - non-summer mg/L lb/day Aluminum, dissolved µg/L 325 Average Limit Average Weekly Limit 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) 30 45 313 676 85% Table 2.6 CITY OF WHITEFISH MPDES EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS Effective August 1, 2015 Expires July 31, 2020 126 630 0.011 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 45 313 676 85% Total Phosphorus (TP) -year-round 1.0 10.4 113 9.6 lb/day 176 273 6.0 -9.0 Escherichia coli coli) - winter is November 1 through March 31; summer is April 1 through October 31. Report geometric mean if more than one sample is collected during the reporting period. Analytical results less than 0.1 mg/l will be considered in compliance with the chlorine limit. Nutrient summer limits effective July 1st - September 30th non-summer limits effective year round other than this timeframe. Dissolved aluminum effluent limits take effect July1, 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 19 2.7.3 Future Effluent Standards Ammonia – Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued new aquatic life guidelines concerning the discharge of ammonia into waterbodies containing freshwater mussels (2013 US EPA Ammonia Criteria). Discussion with the DEQ has indicated that they have not yet adopted the new ammonia standards and had no immediate plans to do so. Nonetheless, these new standards will likely be adopted by DEQ at some point in the future. The state may be considering a variance process where compliance with the standard may pose an economic hardship. Additionally, the presence or absence of freshwater mussels may have some bearing on the application of the new criteria. Scientifically-defensible documentation of the presence or absence of mussel populations in a river system or stream reach could potentially save or cost a municipality or corporation millions of dollars in order for their effluent to achieve the more stringent 2013 ammonia standards. Given this possibility, Anderson-Montgomery contracted with a statewide expert in the subject of aquatic habit for freshwater mussels to complete a survey of the Whitefish River, from the discharge from the City’s wastewater plant. The survey for freshwater mussels was completed in July 2014 by David Stagliano, an aquatic biologist with Morrison- Maierle, Inc. His conclusions are, as follows: “Based on this biologist’s professional experience of the habitat requirements of the western pearlshell mussel, pertinent database and literature searches, and findings from recent site surveys, the current condition of the Whitefish River above and below the WWTP project site lacks suitable habitat to support this species, and the proposed project area is determined to be absent of any mussel populations. Historical occurrences are equally unlikely.” The complete survey can be found in Appendix B. Consideration of treatment options should include review of capability to meet the more stringent ammonia standards. Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous – The current permit contains new limits for nutrients based on the numeric nutrient standards recently adopted by the DEQ. These limits are based on a general variance to the standards, discussed in more detail in Section 2.7.5 below. The DEQ anticipates a process that will “ratchet down” effluent standards via the variance process until the final water quality standards are met. The following schedule indicates the process contemplated by the DEQ to reduce nutrient concentrations in the discharge. The schedule for systems with flows greater than 1.0 MGD is applicable to Whitefish. Facilities > 1 MGD: A. Current general variance: 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L -per statute B. Next permit years): 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L C. Next permit: 8 mg TN/L, 0.5 mg TP/L D. Next permit: Under Development 2. Facilities < 1 MGD: A. Current general variance) 15 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L -per statute B. Next permit years): 12 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L C. Next permit: 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L D. Next permit: 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 20 3. Lagoons not designed to actively remove nutrients: A. Current general variance: Maintain current lagoon performance, start nutrient monitoring - per statute B. Next permit years): Implement BMPs identified during optimization study Treatment options to be evaluated will focus compliance with the nutrient standards for the next two permit cycles with the potential to add additional unit processes in the future to comply with more restrictive future standards. 2.7.4 Impairment of Beneficial Uses and the Restoration Process The DEQ monitors water quality in the state’s water bodies and prepares a biennial report indicating the status of water quality. The condition and trends of Montana’s streams and lakes, contaminates found in groundwater and the safety of drinking water are considered. The report includes a listing of impaired waters and potential causes of impairment, referred to as the state’s 303(d) list. A process is developed to reduce identified discharge of pollutants in a given stream with the intent of restoring beneficial uses. A calculation process called total maximum daily load (TMDL) is used to allocate pollutant discharge levels among the various dischargers. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive from all sources combined and still meet its water quality standards support its beneficial uses). The extent of the allocation process is sufficiently large as required to restore a reach of stream, often looked at on a drainage-wide basin basis. The water quality planning process that includes TMDL development may take two to five years to complete and often will address multiple types of pollutant impairment, organized into groups. The most common pollutant groups in Montana are: sediment, nutrients, metals, temperature, pathogens, and salinity. Montana’s Draft 2016 Water Quality Integrated Report provides the following information regarding impairment of the Whitefish River: Flathead – Stillwater TMDL Planning Area Whitefish River, Whitefish Lake to mouth (Stillwater River) Cause of Impairment Potential Source Oil and Grease Accidental release/Spill PCB in Water Column Industrial Point Source Discharge Whitefish River Temperature TMDL - The Whitefish River was previously listed as impaired for temperature and a TMDL process was completed by the DEQ in 2014. DEQ determined that temperature impairs aquatic life in the Whitefish River. Historic removal of riparian vegetation, which is important for regulating stream temperature by providing shade, is the primary cause of impairment. Water quality restoration goals focus on improving riparian shade; however, maintaining stable stream channel morphology and instream flow conditions during the hottest months of the summer are also important for meeting the The "Flathead - Stillwater Planning Area Nutrient, Sediment, and Temperature and Water Quality Improvement Plan," approved by EPA on December 17, 2014, included an ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 21 evaluation of temperature impacts from point and nonpoint sources on the Whitefish River, including the WWTP. Based on the treatment plant’s maximum recorded effluent temperature of 74.8°F and average daily design flow of 1.8 mgd, the discharge was shown to cause temperature increases less than the 0.5°F allowed. The conclusion from the TMDL was that “maintaining operation of this facility at current levels would appear to cause no significant increase in Whitefish River temperatures.” Flathead Lake TMDL – The Whitefish River, via the Stillwater River, is a significant contributing stream to Flathead Lake and the discharge from the Whitefish wastewater plant ultimately enters the lake. Flathead Lake has long been considered an outstanding water resource of international importance. However, despite basin wide efforts to reduce nutrient loading phosphate detergent ban, increased municipal sewerage treatment efficiency, etc.) there has been a downward trend in water quality since 1977. Flathead Lake is listed on historical 303(d) lists as impaired for the beneficial use of aquatic life support, with the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous considered as the primary pollutant of concern. The 2001 “Nutrient Management Plan & Total Maximum Daily Load for Flathead Lake, Montana” prepared by the DEQ established a TMDL seeking a15 percent reduction in man- caused nitrogen and phosphorus loads, plus a 10 percent margin of safety is proposed as the TMDL. The margin of safety has been included to account for projected future increases in point source loads attributable to increased wastewater flows and a continuing upward trend in population growth in the unincorporated areas of the basin. This initial allocation goal was considered to be Phase I of a two-step approach. The Management Plan indicated that “in 1983 the Water Quality Bureau of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (the predecessor to DEQ) estimated that point sources were discharging 45,760 pounds of phosphorous into Flathead Lake each year. The bureau predicted that, unchecked, the load would increase to 91,740 pounds by 2000. Even with treatment, it was estimated that municipal sewage plants would discharge 15,400 pounds of phosphorous into the lake in 2000 (DHES, 1983). In 1984 the Water Quality Bureau established a 1.0 milligram per liter limit on phosphorous discharges from municipal point sources in the Flathead Basin. Between 1984 and 2000 all the municipalities in the watershed replaced or upgraded their sewage treatment facilities. All plants now have phosphorous removal systems. Local residents have also helped reduce loads by using low or no phosphate products. As a result of these efforts, the phosphorous load from permitted point sources in 2000 was just 2,329 pounds—15 percent of the most optimistic prediction 17 years earlier. No comparable limits were established for nitrogen discharges at that time. In the 1980s it was assumed that phosphorous availability was the determining factor in aquatic plant growth. Subsequent research has shown that nitrogen also plays an important role (Steg). The nitrogen limits contained in municipal permits are based on Montana’s Non-degradation Rules (ARM 17.30.700). These limits are not tailored for Flathead Lake’s specific water quality concerns. In 2000 municipal point sources discharged 56 metric tons of Total Nitrogen. Several of the treatment plants in the Flathead drainage basin have since installed nitrogen removal capacity in their treatment facilities.” ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 22 Refinement of the waste load allocations for nutrients will be considered under Phase II of the Flathead Lake TMDL, which has not been completed. DEQ and EPA were under a court order to complete the above before the end of calendar year 2014, as per an amended judgment to a TMDL lawsuit. Completing Phase II of the Flathead Lake nutrient was not a requirement of the court order. In order to focus staff resources on those that had to be completed by the end of 2014, DEQ and EPA decided to postpone the completion of the nutrient for Flathead Lake until after 2014. Recent discussion with DEQ (Yashin) indicated that the Phase II Flathead Lake TMDL will now be postponed until new water quality standards are developed for the lake. The work on new standards is underway and should be completed within the year. The impact of future waste load allocations of nutrients from point sources prescribed under the Phase II Flathead Lake TMDL is unknown at this time. 2.7.5 Numeric Nutrient Standards Most of Montana’s water quality criteria are numeric which provide precise, measurable concentrations of pollutants that if exceeded would harm intended uses of the receiving stream. Montana’s numeric water quality criteria are published in Circular DEQ-7 and Circular DEQ- 12A. The nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations provided in Circular 12A, adopted in 2014, have been set at levels that will protect beneficial uses and prevent exceedance of other surface water quality standards which are commonly linked to nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The circular contains the base numeric nutrient standards for Montana’s wadeable streams are grouped by ecoregion, with following standards applicable to Whitefish: Ecoregion - Northern Rockies Period When Criteria Apply - July 1 to September 3 Nutrient Limits - Total Phosphorus 25 µg/L Total Nitrogen 275 µg/L When a discharge permit is reissued, the permit writer considers if the authorized discharge creates a reasonable potential that the standards may be violated and, if so, sets criteria to insure that the standards will be met. When developing permit limits for base numeric nutrient standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, the critical low-flow for the design of disposal systems shall be based on the seasonal 14Q5 of the receiving water. The DEQ will use an average limit (AML) only, using methods appropriate for criterion continuous concentrations chronic concentrations). Permit limits will be established using a value corresponding to the 95th percentile probability distribution of the effluent. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations of the receiving waterbody upstream of the discharge may be characterized using other frequency distribution percentiles. Variances from Nutrient Standards – The numeric nutrient standards as described above are very low in comparison to conventional available treatment technologies and approach the limits of technology. While smaller systems can address the limits by curtailing their discharge through the use of land application of treated effluent, most larger systems cannot install land application systems in a cost-effective manner. The DEQ concluded that treatment of wastewater to base numeric nutrient standards would result in substantial and widespread economic impacts on a statewide basis and developed a procedure, described in Circular 12 B, to grant a variance from the criteria. A permittee who meets the end-of-pipe treatment ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 23 requirements provided in the table below may apply for and the Department shall approve a general nutrient standards variance. The Department will process the general variance request through the discharge permit, and include information on the period of the variance and the interim requirements. A person may apply for a general variance for either total phosphorus or total nitrogen, or both. The general variance may be established for a period not to exceed 20 years. A compliance schedule to meet the treatment requirements as shown may be granted on a case-by-case basis. General Variance End-Of-Pipe Treatment Requirements Discharger Category Total P (mg/L) Total N (mg/L) ≥ 1.0 million gallons per day 1 10 < 1.0 million gallons per day 2 15 Lagoons not designed to actively Maintain current performance remove nutrients The Department must review the general variance treatment requirements every 3 years to assure that the justification for their adoption remains valid. The review may not take place before June 1, 2016, and must occur triennially thereafter. The purpose of the review is to determine whether there is new information that supports modifying revising the interim effluent treatment requirements) or deleting terminating the variance. If a low-cost technological innovation for lowering nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in effluent were to become widely available in the near future, the Department could make more stringent the concentrations shown in the Table above. Permittees receiving a general variance are required to evaluate current facility operations in order to optimize nutrient reduction with existing infrastructure and shall analyze cost-effective methods of reducing nutrient loading including nutrient trading, land application and improved facilities operation. Whitefish received a General Variance in their latest discharge permit for the discharge category being greater than 1.0 MGD, resulting in a Total P limit of 1.0 mg/l and a Total N limit of 10 mg/l. These limits were used to calculate allowable loads of total nitrogen and phosphorous in the permit, effective July 1 through September 30 of each year. Individual Variance Based on Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts - Montana law allows for the granting of nutrient standards variances based on the particular economic and financial situation of a permittee (§75-5-313 MCA). Individual nutrient standards variances (“individual variances”) may be granted on a case-by-case basis because the attainment of the base numeric nutrient standards is precluded due to economic impacts, limits of technology, or both. In general, individual variances are intended for permittees who would have financial difficulties meeting the general variance concentrations and are seeking individual nitrogen and phosphorus permit limits tailored to their specific economic situation. Individual variances may be established for a period not to exceed 20 years and must be reviewed by the Department every three years to ensure that their justification remains valid. Unlike the general variances discussed above, the DEQ will only grant an individual variance to a permittee after the permittee has shown the extent of the adverse economic impacts that would be incurred from meeting the standards. A permittee must also demonstrate that there are ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 24 no reasonable alternatives (including but not limited to trading, compliance schedules, reuse, recharge, and land application) that would allow compliance with the base numeric nutrient standards. If no reasonable alternatives exist, then an individual variance is justifiable and becomes effective and may be incorporated into a permit. Like any variance, individual variances must be adopted as revisions to Montana’s standards and submitted to EPA for approval. This type of individual variance will often be based on the economic status of the community by demonstration of substantial and widespread economic impacts. At each triennial review the DEQ will consider if the basic economic status of a community granted an individual variance has changed. If new, low-cost nutrient removal technologies have become widely available, or if the economic status of the community has sharply improved, the basis of the variance may no longer be justified. In such cases the DEQ will discuss with the permittee the options going forward, including but not limited to a permit compliance schedule, trading, reuse, recharge, land application, or a general variance. 2.7.6 Non-degradation Based Limits The previous permit for Whitefish included provisions for BOD5, TSS, Total P and Total N average annual load limits imposed to implement the Non-degradation provisions of the Montana Water Quality Act. With the exception of Total N limit in the summertime, these non- degradation limits were carried over into the new permit. The intent of the non-degradation rules is to limit pollutant loads at a pre-existing level to maintain or improve the quality of Montana’s waters. The Non-degradation Rules apply to new or increased sources of pollution. These rules prohibit significant increases in discharge of toxic and deleterious materials to state waters, unless it is affirmatively demonstrated to the DEQ that a change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development and will not preclude present and anticipated use of these waters. Typically, loads in existence or the design capacity of the system in existence in April of 1993 are used as a baseline to establish the load limits. If water quality standards require pollutant loads to be less than the non-degradation based loads to maintain or restore an impaired water, the water quality based loads will preempt the non-degradation load limits. This will be the case with the numeric nutrient standards. As a facility grows beyond the non- degradation based design capacity of the plant, higher removal efficiencies will be needed to maintain compliance. 2.7.7 Municipal Sewage Sludge Disposal – 40 CFR Parts 503 and 257 Any sludge disposal program where the sludge is going to be land-filled, land applied or composted must meet the requirements found in Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503 (land application and composting) or Part 257 (land-filling). The rules under Part 503 include specific limitations on the concentration of heavy metals and pathogens that sludge may contain in order to be beneficially reused. Part 503 also includes requirements for stabilizing or isolating the sludge in order to prevent odors and the spread of disease. For sludge that is to be disposed at a licensed landfill, Part 257 requires that it be a “non-liquid” and “non-hazardous” material. These characteristics are determined through physical and chemical testing procedures or, in some cases, by a “non-hazardous” certification. Sludge disposal alternatives considered in this plan will anticipate strict compliance with applicable regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 25 Whitefish currently generates a biological/chemical sludge mixture via wasting from the flocculating clarifier where alum is added to precipitate phosphorous. The solids are pumped to dewatering beds located north of the clarifier where additional reduction in water content and volume occurs. The beds are located in the old lagoon cells which have a clay liner. An underdrain is located in the center of the beds which returns filtrate to the raw wastewater pump station. In previous planning efforts, a need was identified for applying for and receiving a General Permit from the EPA for disposal of sludge. A “Notice of Intent” seeking to allow the City’s disposal practices to be authorized under the General Sludge Disposal Permit was prepared by Anderson-Montgomery in 2006 and the General Permit was received by the City in 2007 authorizing the current method of sludge disposal. The permit expired in 2012. In discussion (3-29-16) with Bob Brobst of the EPA, it was learned that the EPA Region VIII no longer issues general permits and the rules are now “self-implementing”. According to Mr. Brobst, as long as the solids remain on the drying beds they are considered to be in treatment and do not require a disposal permit. If and when the material is removed for final disposal, the Part 503 requirements for disposal of wastewater biosolids must be met. 2.7.8 DEQ Administrative Order on Consent In October of 2012, the DEQ and the City agreed to conditions outlined in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), issued by the DEQ in response to wastewater system compliance issues associated with a series of effluent standards violations, failure of the required Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing and minor occurrences of sewage overflows to state waters. The AOC is included in Appendix C. The AOC required several actions to be completed including the following:  Submission of an Optimization Plan with the intent of improving treatment performance of existing facilities through improved aeration and mixing  Submission of a Capacity, Management Operation Management Plan (CMOM) to address sewer overflows  Within 90 days of renewal of the MPDES discharge permit, submit a Compliance Plan outlining steps to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit  Compliance Schedule for completion of key tasks as necessary to achieve compliance  Annual progress reports The Optimization Plan and CMOM were submitted to the DEQ as required. The MPDES discharge permit was renewed in August of 2015 and the Compliance Plan was prepared and submitted in October of 2015. The Compliance Plan included the following schedule as shown below. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 26 COMPLIANCE PLAN Required of the City of Whitefish under Administrative Order on Consent (Consent Order), Docket No. WQ-1 1-21 (MPDES Permit No.MT0020184, FID #2068) Project Scope: Planning, design, construction and startup of the required improvements for the City of Whitefish wastewater treatment facilities that are necessary to bring the plant into compliance with the ammonia and whole effluent toxicity requirements in the MPDES Permit and applicable nutrient standards, including applicable general or individual variances as granted by the MDEQ. Task Date of Completion Complete Facilities Planning (PER) Oct 1 2016 Submit Design Plans to DEQ February 1 2018 Construction Completion* May 1 2021 Achieve Compliance Nov 1 2021 Annual Progress Reports January 2016-2021 * Note that some unit processes not directly related to compliance with the AOC may be phased for construction into 2022-23, potentially including long-term solids handling and UV disinfection 2.7.9 Conclusions Existing and new regulatory requirements will have a profound impact on capability of the existing Whitefish wastewater treatment plant to comply with the recently issued MPDES discharge permit and anticipated future requirements. A detailed assessment of each of the unit processes in the existing plant will be made in the next chapter to determine how they can be utilized or upgraded to meet the permit requirements. General conclusions regarding how current and potential regulatory issues might impact the City of Whitefish include the following:  Ammonia, nitrogen and E. Coli standards in the current discharge permit are frequently being violated  Numeric nutrient standards will likely become more restrictive in the future. To the extent known, planning for the more restrictive permits limitations should be initiated.  Ammonia standards will change and could become more restrictive in the future  The impact of the Flathead Lake Phase II TMDL upon the City of Whitefish is unknown but could require further reduction of nutrients  The TMDL for temperature in the Whitefish River does not appear to pertain to the Whitefish wastewater discharge ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Facilities Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 2 – Basis of Planning Page 27  The potential benefit of an individual variance from the numeric nutrient standards should be evaluated  The DEQ Administrative Order on Consent requires compliance with the MPDES discharge permit by November 1, 2021. ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 5 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 Chapter 3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 3.1 Introduction This section of the Preliminary Engineering Report provides a systematic analysis of the existing Whitefish wastewater treatment system, giving consideration to existing and potential design flows and loads. Deficiencies will be identified with further analysis of alternatives provided in subsequent chapters. The ability of existing unit processes to comply with projected flows, loads and the recently issued MPDES discharge permit will be evaluated, including consideration of new wastewater effluent standards including the new numeric nutrient goals. 3.2 Evaluation Goals An engineering evaluation of a wastewater treatment facility is generally recommended to identify the limitations of the existing system and identify approaches to correction, as well as define the capacity of the treatment facility. Regulatory action by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality has mandated that the City of Whitefish complete a planning process to develop viable options for upgrading the existing wastewater facilities to enable compliance with the discharge permit issued by the regulatory agency. This effort must be followed by project design and construction of facilities achieving compliance. Limited funds are available for construction of additional facilities to accommodate new growth and development in the Whitefish area as well as comply with regulatory standards. Before making capital investments, it is to fully define the capacity available in the existing treatment plant and develop a plan to maximize its use. 3.3 Existing Treatment Facilities, Loading and Regulatory Standards 3.3.1 General Description The existing wastewater treatment facilities consist of 3 partially-mixed aerated lagoons for biological treatment with the discharge from the lagoon system flowing to a flocculating clarifier where alum and polymers are added to precipitate phosphorus. Raw wastewater passes through a perforated plate screen prior to pumping to the influent structure for the lagoon system. Figure 3.1 provides a schematic view of the existing treatment facilities. Design capacity for the lagoons, built in 1979, is 1.25 MGD based on average daily flow. The original flocculating clarifier and ancillary equipment have a design capacity of 1.8 MGD. The lagoons were upgraded in 2002 with sludge removal from Cell new aeration diffusers in all three cells, a fabric curtain in Cell improved influent structure, new blowers and aeration piping. The facilities were again ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 2 upgraded in 2008-09 with construction of a new, redundant flocculating clarifier, a new headworks building with mechanical perforated plate screen, odor control biofilter, new polymer and alum feed equipment and improvements to the plant’s electrical system including two new auxiliary generators. More specific design criteria for the existing unit processes at the plant are as follows: Pretreatment Facilities Perforated Plate Mechanical Bar Screen 6.0 MGD Peak Capacity 1.0 MGD ADF Capacity Manual Bar Screen 9.0 MGD Peak Capacity Screenings Washer/Compactor 6.0 MGD Peak Capacity Odor Control Biofilter 1.4 CFM/SF New Natural Gas Auxiliary Generator 150 KW Bypass Pumping Capability for Existing Lift Station Aerated Lagoon System Cell #1 Cell#2 Cell#3 Volume to 15’ depth) 16.97 MG 8.52 MG 8.52 MG Detention Time @ 1.25 MGD 13.6 days 6.8 days 6.8 days Sludge Storage to 2’ depth) 260,200 cf 124,900 cf 124,900cf Surface Area 4.93 acres 2.55 acres 2.55 acres Advanced Treatment Facilities Original Flocculating Clarifier 1.8 MGD ADF Design Capacity New Flocculating Clarifier 2.33 MGD ADF Design Capacity New Mechanical Mixer for New Clarifier Redundant Alum and Polymer Feed Systems for Both Clarifiers New Natural Gas Auxiliary Generator 150 KW 3.3.2 Organic and Hydraulic System Loads Current System Loading – Annual daily flows to the existing facility in 2015 averaged 0.956 MGD whereas the average daily maximum hydraulic loading for the year, occurring in March of 2015, was 3.839 MGD. It should be noted that the higher flow events can be sustained for a number of days generally occurring in late spring and early summer. Infiltration and inflow associated with snowmelt, sump pumps, precipitation events and high groundwater have been identified as the cause of the sustained flows. The following Table 3.1 summarizes annual average and maximum organic and hydraulic loading to the plant for 2015. As noted in the table, the highest peak sustained flow occurred in March, measured at 1.833 MGD. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 3 flow and organic loading data was evaluated for a three year period, from 2012 through 2014. Based on this data, the average waste strength and flow is as follows: BOD5 297 mg/l TSS 239 mg/l Phosphorous 6 mg/l Ammonia 25 mg/l Average Daily Flow per capita 128.7 gpcd Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. 0.888 1.611 1.833 1.016 0.738 0.879 0.865 0.843 0.762 0.637 0.640 0.760 0.956 MGD Max 1.265 2.676 3.839 1.492 1.024 1.334 0.991 1.002 1.009 0.724 0.878 0.973 3.839 MGD Total 27.52 45.11 56.83 30.48 22.87 26.37 26.82 26.15 22.86 19.74 19.20 23.57 347.5 MG Avg. 0.917 1.718 1.766 1.007 0.681 0.841 0.823 0.773 0.728 0.588 0.668 0.722 0.936 MGD Max 1.095 2.688 2.795 1.483 0.750 1.317 0.899 0.870 0.751 1.044 0.811 0.957 2.795 MGD Total 28.43 48.12 54.75 30.21 21.11 25.24 25.50 23.97 21.84 18.24 20.04 22.39 339.8 MG Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. BOD5 291 196 161 253 328 403 332 316 366 340 310 343 303 mg/L TSS 208 112 86 201 241 351 309 259 314 281 298 282 245 mg/L Ammonia 30 17 16 19 27 31 41 38 31 33 31 30 29 mg/L TKN 44 30 25 31 45 48.15 60.34 47.40 46.76 51.73 49.43 48.38 44 mg/L Alkalinity 284 306 306 300 276 288 296 268 265 258 262 269 281 mg/L Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. pH 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.3 7.1 7.2 7 mg/L D.O. 1.4 3.5 6.1 5.6 3.5 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.7 5.6 8.5 6.8 4 mg/L Temp. 0.4 3.0 4.0 11.0 15.7 21.3 22.5 21.2 16.1 12.7 6.1 0.8 11 mg/L Chlorine <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.008 mg/L BOD5 44 15 9 7 6 9 8 8 8 4 5 8 11 mg/L TSS 32 9 5 6 8 6 9 9 7 5 7 10 9 mg/L E-Coli 12 579 435 18 1 2 6 19 14 110 21 2 102 mg/L Ammonia 18.4 14.0 12.9 13.0 12.3 22.8 24.8 19.2 20.2 0.8 14.7 17.9 16 mg/L #3 Ammonia 26 23 20 14 26 38 23 19 21 2 16 28 21 mg/L N+N 0.18 0.17 0.54 0.31 0.28 0.69 1.98 2.19 12.18 29.43 15.75 2.19 5 mg/L TKN 21.6 16.6 19.0 15.6 14.1 25.1 27.5 23.2 23.2 2.7 18.1 23.3 19 mg/L Total N 21.8 16.7 19.6 16.0 14.3 25.7 29.4 25.3 35.4 32.1 33.8 25.5 25 mg/L Lbs T N 166.9 240.2 288.5 134.1 81.5 180.8 202.3 163.6 215.2 157.7 188.6 153.6 Total P 1.46 0.68 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.72 0.74 0.63 0.30 0.59 0.85 1 mg/L Ortho P 1.05 0.60 0.62 0.60 1.02 0.87 0.55 0.67 0.44 0.24 0.50 0.93 1 mg/L Aluminum 50 60 50 90 60 50 40 30 40 <10 30 34 49 mg/L O&G 2 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 1 mg/L TDS 324 472 429 408 mg/L Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. BOD5 758 252 255 94 55 87 65 74 85 36 33 59 154 Lbs TSS 401 171 157 65 91 58 80 72 52 36 46 71 108 Lbs BOD5 328 202 134 61 34 68 61 55 52 21 27 53 91 Lbs TSS 235 118 73 53 49 40 62 63 47 25 39 61 72 Lbs Total N 167 240 288 134 81 181 202 163 215 157 188 153 181 Lbs Total P 11.1 9.8 7.3 4.6 3.3 4.4 4.9 4.7 3.8 1.5 3.3 5.1 5 Lbs Table 3.1 City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Plant Data NPDES 2015 WWTP Average Analytical Data AVG 2015 MT0020184 Influent Flow Effluent Flow Influent Avg. Analysis (mg/L) Effluent Average Analysis (mg/L) E-Coli = Maximum Analysis (mpn/100 ml) Wk. Max. Loading Weekly Maximum Loading in Pounds per Day Month Avg. Loading Average Loading in Pounds per Day ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 4 Average Daily Flow per capita 154.5 gpcd (wet weather) Design Loading for Existing Treatment System - The design capacity of the lagoon system was established during construction of the 1978 improvements at a design flow of 1.25 MGD with capacity to serve a population of 10,000 persons. The 1987 improvements to the system, including the construction of a flocculating clarifier for reduction of phosphorus, were built for a design capacity of 1.8 MGD. More recent improvements to the lagoon system including a new aeration system, hydraulic structures and the ability to store wastewater during high flow periods may bring the effective hydraulic design capacity of the lagoon system closer to the capacity of the flocculating clarifier. The following organic loads were utilized when designing the 2008 improvements: BOD5 2297 lbs/day TSS 2447 lbs/day Design Flow 1.8 MGD average daily flow The existing facilities should have functional capacity to treat average daily flows up to 1.8 MGD with the capability to handle higher flows with the new clarifier, up to 2.3 MGD. The 2008 improvements removed a hydraulic restriction to the existing clarifier, allowing more flow through the unit process. If necessary, both clarifiers could be operated in parallel for a significantly higher flow handling capacity. However, at some elevated flow level, the aerated lagoons would limit the treatment capacity of the overall treatment system. Also regulatory standards may preclude sustained loads associated with a flow rate of 1.8 MGD, particularly given the fact that the non-degradation based load limits were calculated using a flow of 1.25 MGD. Note that the non-degradation regulatory standards apply to effluent loads. Anticipated influent loads must be considered for planning purposes with the understanding that regulatory standards will limit effluent loads thereby requiring additional levels of treatment and pollutant removal. Year 2035 Design Loading – The following table, extracted from the previous chapter, indicates the projected hydraulic and organic loading for the wastewater treatment facility for the design year of 2035. This data will be used to evaluate existing facilities as well as proposed improvements that may be required for the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 5 3.4 Unit Process Evaluation 3.4.1 General This section of the PER provides a detailed process by process analysis of the existing wastewater treatment facilities from the plant’s pretreatment facilities , main lift station, through the treatment plant to the effluent discharge structure located in the Whitefish River. Sidestream processes will also be evaluated. The basis for the information presented below is drawn from the prior engineering reports prepared by the consultant, site visits and interviews with the staff of the Public Works Department. 3.4.2 Lift Pumps and Pretreatment Pretreatment - A new screening building was installed in the 2008-09 facilities upgrade, located on the northwest corner of the plant site. An Andritz Aqua-Screen Model 600x520x6 perforated plate screen with 6 mm openings (.25 inch) was installed, including a washer-compactor unit to handle removed screenings. The screen was located in a one room block building which includes an air collection system which draws air from the building and pumps it up to a biofilter located on the hilltop just east of the Table 3.2 CITY OF WHITEFISH WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN CRITERIA 2013 2015 2020 2025 2035 Planning Area 11,230 11,661 12,812 14,076 16,992 Connected Pop. 7,736 8,033 8,826 9,697 11,705 Qavg 0.996 1.034 1.136 1.248 1.507 Qwet weather (6 month period) 1.195 1.241 1.363 1.498 1.808 Q Max Day 4.266 4.342 4.355 4.530 AVG BOD (lbs/day) 2467.8 2562.5 2815.4 3093.3 3734.0 MAX BOD 3289.6 3415.8 3753.0 4123.4 4977.4 TSS (lbs/day) 1980.4 2056.4 2259.4 2482.4 2996.5 Ammonia (lbs/day) 25.03 mg/l Avg Conc. 208.9 216.9 238.3 261.8 316.0 Total P (lbs/day) 6.0 mg/l Avg Conc. 49.83 51.74 56.85 62.46 75.40 TKN Avg 41.4 mg/l Alkalinity 265.6 mg/l Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Avg Influent Temp 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.2 9.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 6 screen facility. Odors have not been a problem with the screening facility and the biofilter has not been used. The solids are then dewatered to a dryness suitable for disposal at a sanitary landfill, equivalent to the Paint Filter Test level of dryness (no free water). Screened material is removed to the landfill generally once per week. Screened solids are produced at a rate of about 3.5 to 6.0 cubic feet per day, generally increasing proportionately with flow volume. Flow to the screen building comes primarily from a 30” gravity line that flows along the Whitefish River southerly to the structure. Additionally, a forcemain from the River Lakes area was diverted from the lagoons to the screen building in 2015 to insure that all wastewater going to the plant has been screened. A channel parallels the perforated screen installation where a manually cleaned bar screen is located. As needed, a second mechanical screen could be located in this channel. The discharge from the screen facility flows by gravity to the main pump station where it is pumped to the first cell of the treatment lagoons. A 3,000 gallon sump was constructed within the screen building adjacent to the gravity main flowing to the pump station. This sump was installed to allow use of a trash pump to pump around the main pump station into a connection port installed on the forcemain. Previous to installation of this bypass system, there was no means to isolate the pump station for maintenance or repair. Identified Deficiencies – There are no apparent deficiencies in the operation or performance of the screening facility. The system is rated for an average design flow of 1.0 MGD with a peak flow of 6.0 MGD. While peak flows have not reached 6.0 MGD in recent years, the system has experienced sustained peak flow events in excess of 1.0 MGD with no reduction in performance. Depending on the success of infiltration and inflow mitigation efforts, a reduction in peak flow events can be anticipated. Review of the system with the manufacturer of the perforated plate screen indicated that it was their belief that the system should function well within the anticipated design average daily and peak flows. A second screen can be installed in the future in the bypass channel. Main Plant Lift Station- This lift station, constructed in 1987, pumps all of the City’s wastewater into the treatment system. The lift station is located approximately 1,700’ north of the lagoon inlet structure, along the east bank of the Whitefish River. A 30” RCP concrete pipe flows into the lift station from the screening building whereas the pumps discharge into a 16” force main, which directs flow into the lagoon system. The pump station has three 60-hp suction lift pumps with the original 1987 installation using Crown pumps. These have since been replaced by Gorman-Rupp Model T10A60-B 10” x 10” self-priming pumping units. The measured outputs (2005) of these pumps are as follows: Pump #1 - 2500 gpm Pump #2 - 2500 gpm Pump #3 - 2500 gpm Headworks Screen, Washer & Compactor ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 7 Annual high flow events due to intense rains and/or rapid snowmelt have resulted in the need to operate two pumps in parallel, with the third pump as a backup. The current pumping arrangement appears to provide adequate redundancy, provision of handling peak flow with one pump on standby. Maximum daily flow during the period 2010 through 2015 was 4.029 MGD or 2800 gpm. With the City’s ongoing efforts to reduce I/I in the system, peak flows have generally been diminishing. The Main Lift Station was constructed with three levels including the wetwell on the bottom, the middle level where the pumping units are located and the upper level which houses the controls and emergency generator set. The main 30" gravity sewage line enters the structure on the north side of the building. Wetwell access is provided via a covered hatch located in the lower level of the structure which enters the wetwell from the side. Due to the configuration of the wetwell, there is no safe access for cleaning, maintenance and repair of the interior structure during operation and the pump station would need to be bypassed to allow proper access. During the 2008-09 project, the pump station was taken out of service and the wetwell cleaned and inspected. No major concrete or metal corrosion was evident during the inspection and the facility was found to be in relatively good shape, given the age. The 2008-09 upgrades to the main lift station included removal of the old diesel generator and installation of a natural gas generator located outside of the pump station building, within a block enclosure for sound attenuation. A new roof for the lift station was included under the last project. Paving of the road to the lift station to facilitate year round access to the existing and new facilities was also constructed. Identified Deficiencies – Plant staff have indicated that, given the age of much of the equipment in the pump station, partial renovation of pumping equipment, valves, electrical components, drives and controls is warranted. While almost 30 years old, the building’s structural components should have useful life remaining. 3.4.3 Secondary and Advanced Treatment System General Description - The existing wastewater treatment facilities consist of 3 aerated lagoon cells for biological treatment with the discharge from the lagoon system flowing to a flocculating clarifier where alum and polymers are added to precipitate phosphorus. A curtain was installed in Cell #1 to simulate division of the large lagoon cell into two cells, improve process treatment kinetics and performance. The lagoon system is a partially-mixed aerated lagoon with supplemental air provided to support the biological processes through the use of submerged fine bubble diffusers. Sufficient mixing energy is Main Lift Station Wet Well ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 8 provided to disperse oxygen in the upper part of the lagoon as needed to support aerobic and facultative microorganisms. Solids enter the lagoon system through the deposition of settleable solids which are a component of the raw wastewater or through the settling of biomass which grows in the lagoon system. Previously, settled solids from the flocculating clarifier were returned to the lagoon system but this practice has been discontinued. A major upgrade to the lagoon system was completed in 2003 where sludge was removed from the first treatment cell, the aeration system replaced, improvements made to the lagoon influent structure and a new control system added to the main lift station located on site. The entire site was fenced with a secure chainlink fence. These improvements allow the effective treatment capacity of the lagoon system to exceed 1.25 MGD, approaching the greater capacity of the flocculating clarifier. The 2008-09 plant improvements included a second flocculating clarifier complete with an independent chemical feed system. An auxiliary generator was installed to insure reliable power is available for the phosphorous removal facilities. No improvements to the lagoon system were made during the last plant upgrade in 2008. Influent Structures - Flow is pumped to the lagoon system, entering through a concrete discharge structure modified in 2003. A meter manhole was placed just ahead of the inlet structure where a magnetic flow meter measures influent flows to the lagoon. The flow transmitter is located in the blower building and a SCADA system allows flow data to be monitored on the computer located in the control building. A new bypass was installed to bypass flows around the influent structure to Cell An older bypass line exists whereby flow can be diverted at the inlet structure to Cell if necessary. The influent structure was constructed by modifying the original structure. Due to the difficulties in draining the existing lagoon to work on the influent structure, the underwater discharge ramp of the original system was left in place. The connection of the discharge ramp (or splash pad) to the portion of the concrete structure located on top of the dike is cracked and could potentially break off and slide into the bottom of the lagoon system. Aerated Lagoon System – Tapered aeration is provided to the three lagoon cells through a submerged aeration system which discharges air at the bottom of the cell to submerged fine bubble diffusers. Air is supplied with three 60-hp Suterbuilt positive displacement blowers located in a separate blower building; each blower capable of provided 1210 scfm of air at 7.5 PSI. The aeration system utilizes new ductile iron piping with 10” air header to Cell #1 and 8” header to Cells #2 and Valved 6” and 4” floating PE laterals provide air to the submerged diffuser units. Fine bubble Parkson Biolac Membrane Biofuser diffusers are used to disperse air to the lagoon contents. The number of diffuser units is as follows: Cell #1 56 units Cell #2 24 units Cell #3 20 units The variable speed drives allow the blowers to be turned down to better match oxygen demands. The system has been functioning well with the use of two blowers running at a reduced speed, requiring approximately 45 to 55 horsepower which is significantly less power than the previous aeration system required. Additionally, an air flow meter monitors air flow in the primary air header and this information can be used to control the blowers to optimize aeration. Noise attenuation materials were installed in the blower ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 9 room during the 2003 project to reduce ambient noise levels. When operating, a harmonic oscillation of air passing through the blower intake filters has created a noise outside of the blower building that has led to complaints from nearby neighbors. The lagoon piping allows for parallel and series operation as well as cell bypassing, if needed. Additionally, piping modifications were made in November of 1996 to allow the passage and/or retention of flows that exceed the design capacity of the existing piping, primarily the line feeding the flocculating clarifier. High flows, typically during storm events, can be diverted from the lagoon system into an existing phase isolation pond where it can be fed back into the raw sewage lift station. From this point, the stored flow will be returned for processing at the head end of the lagoon system. The 2008 project added additional hydraulic and treatment capacity in the advanced treatment system to handle flows greater than 1.8 MGD for limited periods, such as during the high flow events. It is estimated that about 2.88 MGD can now pass through the treatment system without diversion to the overflow ponds. It should be noted that a partial blockage has occurred in the hydraulic transfer structure between Cell #1 and Cell Staff has attempted to eliminate the blockage with limited success. Diffuser Problems – Since installation, the membrane diffusers have had ongoing problems with accumulation of rags on the diffuser units, allowing entrapment of air which then floats the diffuser to the water surface of the lagoon. The floating diffuser, without the water pressure head against the diffuser membrane, allows excess discharge of air. The plant operators have isolated banks of diffusers that have rag accumulation until the material could be removed. Removal requires accessing the diffuser with a floating platform and manually cleaning off the rags, generally a cumbersome and messy job. To address the problem, the perforated screen was installed in 2008 to remove the rags. This 2008 screening facility accepted flow from all of the City’s users except an area south of the treatment plant (River Lakes) that pumped directly into the lagoons via a separate forcemain. This area serves a hospital and retirement homes and could be discharging a disproportionate amount of paper and cloth products that will eventually become rags. To address this problem, the River Lakes forcemain was diverted from the lagoon influent structure to the perforated screen facility in a project that was completed in 2015. While all of the incoming flow is now being screened, the residual accumulation of rags will continue to cause problems until the material is removed or breaks down. The malfunctioning aeration equipment limits the ability of the system to provide sufficient air for the biological demands of the system. Rags on Removed Diffuser ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 10 The membranes on the diffuser units have a 5 to 7 year estimated design life. Given their installation in 2003, the membranes should be replaced. This also requires use of the barge to pull each diffuser, disassembly and membrane replacement. Performance – Since the upgrade of the lagoon aeration system in 2003, the performance of the system has improved and positive dissolved oxygen levels have generally been maintained. BOD5 and TSS removal in the lagoon system plus polishing with the flocculating clarifier has been very good with only one excursion noted for the period from 2010 through 2015. Periodic odors have occurred, primarily in the spring during turnover. The lagoons are not effective for converting ammonia to nitrates. Process Limitations – The existing lagoon system including earthwork, liner, discharge structures and piping which are 34 years old, are near the end of the typical design life for these components. Erosion of the riprap protecting the lagoon liner is becoming evident along the water line in the cells. The liner used in the lagoon would not meet current DEQ standards. The lagoons are not capable of meeting anticipated effluent standards for ammonia and nitrogen. The existing lagoon system cannot consistently remove ammonia on a year-round basis. The partially mixed aerated lagoon system, while effective for meeting secondary treatment standards, is limited in capability for provision of treatment performance considered as “advanced”. Advanced treatment might include nutrient removal, reduction of ammonia and polishing of effluent BOD5 or TSS concentrations below 20 mg/l. The aerated lagoon, with hydraulic detention times in the range of 30 to 40 days, experiences significant temperature losses in the winter time which reduce the performance of the biological processes. The nitrification process whereby ammonia is converted to nitrate nitrogen is typically present in aerated lagoons in the warmer months but will be lost in the wintertime. Nitrifying microorganisms, nitrosomonas and nitrobacter, are very sensitive to temperature and as the ambient heat is lost in an aerated lagoon system during Montana winters, these bacteria effectively cease to function. The inability to settle, recycle and concentrate solids in an aerated lagoon also limits the performance of the system, particularly in creating an environment which will support biological nitrogen or phosphorous removal. Longer detention times in aerated lagoons also encourage the growth of algae which can add to BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations. The Whitefish lagoon system, in combination with the flocculating clarifier, has consistently produced high quality effluent generally much better than “typical” lagoon effluent. Additionally, limited available oxygen in the lagoon system may reduce the rate of nitrification in the lagoon system. The following Figure 3.2 shows the performance of the lagoon system in converting ammonia to nitrate over the last six years, with the current ammonia limit in the discharge permit noted. The graph demonstrates that ammonia removal is only achieved now in the plant during the summer months when water temperature favorably supports nitrifying bacteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 11 Advanced Treatment -After receiving secondary treatment in the lagoon system, the wastewater is discharged to one of two flocculating clarifiers where alum and polymers are added to precipitate phosphorus. The older clarifier, not presently in service, is a covered 65’ diameter Westech concrete circular clarifier, 12’ sidewall depth with a volume of 318,000 gallons. The process is covered with an aluminum dome to allow for good performance during cold weather, without freezing. Design overflow rates at 1.8 MGD are 540 gallons per day per square foot. The process was installed in 1987 and included solids handling facilities and a control building. Alum and polymers are added to the effluent stream from the aerated lagoons by injection of the chemicals into a 12” flash mixer, prior to discharge to the flocculating clarifier. Typically, 200 to 250 mg/l alum is added to the flow stream, significantly greater than stoichiometric amounts. While the center well of the clarifier was designed to promote flocculation, the influent piping to the structure, just of the flash mixer, may be detrimental to the formation of good floc structure. High velocities in the piping exceed recommended values and the turbulence may be shearing the floc. A second redundant flocculating clarifier was constructed in 2008-09. This clarifier is rated for 2.3 MGD, is 75’ in diameter and is 14’ in depth. Similar to the existing clarifier, ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 12 the new unit is covered with an aluminum dome. New chemical mixing and pumping equipment were included in the new clarifier project including a mechanical mixer rather than a static mixer. The new mixing equipment should allow more efficient use of alum, presuming better mixing. The alum and polymer feed pumps will be set up to be flow paced under the current project. The operators have been working to reduce alum usage and have been able to get successful phosphorous removal with alum dosages under 200 mg/l, except in cold weather where reduced water temperatures appears to inhibit the settling process. Originally, the solids from the flocculating clarifier were to be dewatered through the use of a belt filter press located in the control building. The dewatered sludge would be land applied or hauled to a local compost facility. The unique biological-chemical sludge did not dewater well on the belt filter press, particularly in the winter. The poor dewatering characteristics of the sludge resulted in the need to rely on the return of alum sludge to the lagoon cells as an interim measure to maintain treatment performance. This practice resulted in a large build-up of sludge in the first aerated lagoon cell. In 1998, improvements were made to allow the year-round pumping capability of alum sludge drawn from the flocculating clarifier (or storage) directly to augmented sand drying beds, located on site. This improvement has been successful in providing a reliable system for disposal and dewatering of the alum sludge. A sludge storage basin was located within the control building to store sludge if severe weather limits use of the drying beds. The belt filter press was removed. Solids from the new clarifier are periodically wasted to the sludge drying beds. Performance- The flocculating clarifier has been very effective in removal of phosphorus from the effluent stream and the plant has shown consistent permit compliance. Prior to the 2003 plant upgrade, the effluent quality from the aerated lagoons was generally poor in terms of BOD5 and TSS concentrations, in excess of the discharge permit. The flocculating clarifier is very effective in polishing the effluent from the secondary system, allowing compliance with the BOD5 and TSS limits of the discharge permit. Effluent quality is assessed through samples which are collected from the outfall line that conveys treated effluent from the wastewater plant to the Whitefish River. Process Limitations- With the duplicate clarifier and chemical feed equipment, the plant has significant capacity to treat flows with the addition of chemicals and clarification. Estimated physical treatment capacity up to 4 MGD should be possible for short periods although at some sustained flow condition above 1.8 MGD, the performance of the lagoon system will deteriorate, shifting more load to the flocculating clarifier system. The hydraulic capacity of the newer clarifier is 2.3 MGD. While the flocculating clarifiers have been proven to be effective for polishing the effluent BOD5 and TSS as well as precipitation of phosphorous, the unit process provides little benefit for removal of nitrogen and ammonia. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 13 3.4.4 Disinfection The Whitefish treatment facility had what was considered to be temporary disinfection facilities installed in the main control building in 2011 utilizing sodium hypochlorite and sodium biosulfite for dechlorination. The equipment was considered to be temporary in the sense that a new treatment plant was anticipated for the future and permanent disinfection equipment would be a component of that project. Prior planning work recommended the use of ultraviolet disinfection equipment for the purpose of providing a long-term means of effluent disinfection. At present, the chlorine solution is injected into the transfer line flowing from the lagoons into the flocculating clarifier, just ahead of the flow meter and chemical mixing equipment located on this conduit. The hydraulic residence time in the clarifier provides the contact time needed for the disinfection process. It was noted that the injection quill for the chlorine injection has created hydraulic anomalies which impact the flow meter located immediately of the injection point. This flow meter is used for flow paced equipment such as the chemical feed pumps and the lack of stable flow measurement has adversely impacted this function. The City has been using an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) meter to assist with control of the chlorine disinfection system. ORP is an indicator of the ability of a solution to oxidize and is directly related to the concentration of the oxidizing agent, in this case free and combined chlorine. The city has had mixed success with chlorine effectiveness treating their effluent and purchased an ORP meter to help fine tune and optimize the disinfection process. The ORP of the effluent entering and leaving the clarifier is very low, < 300 millivolts and generally around 200-230 millivolts. Based on discussion with the plant operators, they had been utilizing about 7-9.5 gallons of sodium hypochlorite solution per 1 MGD of flow. Based on a 12.5% solution, this equates to a chlorine dosage of about 1.1 mg/l applied to the discharge from the aerated lagoon system to the flocculating clarifier, which is a low dosage rate. It was suggested that an increase in chlorine dosage may help get more reliable results in bacterial kill and allow for a better use of the ORP equipment. Peristaltic pumps (Thermo Scientific) are used to pump the chlorine solution from the solution tanks to the injection point. Sodium biosulfite is pumped using Milton Roy positive displacement pumps, drawing solution from the solution tanks and discharging into a manhole of the clarifier discharge. Staff checks chlorine levels in the next manhole to monitor effectiveness of the dechlorination agent. The current discharge permit also requires that E.Coli concentrations are reduced to 630 cfu/100ml for the average limit and 1,260 for the maximum daily limit during the winter and 126 cfu/100ml for the average limit and 252 for the maximum daily limit during the summer. Summer is April 1 through October 31. The previous permit required that these limits be met by July1, 2011. An analysis of the data since July 1, 2011 indicates that 15 excursions from the more restrictive standards have occurred and more can be anticipated in the future. As detention times in the lagoons decrease with additional flow and waste concentrations increase with I/I reduction, an increase in bacteria concentrations can be anticipated. Any changes in the secondary ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 14 treatment process, such as a mechanical treatment plant, would impact bacteria concentrations, likely increasing the numbers that pass through the system. For these reasons, planning for construction of new disinfection facilities will be included in this planning document. Process Limitations- The disinfection system was installed as a temporary system until the plant was upgraded and as such, should be replaced. Equipment should be reused were feasible. Effluent Diffuser - Effluent from the plant is discharged to the Whitefish River via an 18 foot long - 12" diameter cast iron pipe installed along the bottom of the waterway, spanning just over ½ of the width of the stream. The diffuser has 1⅝” holes placed on alternating sides of the pipe, 90º off vertical, on 12” centers. The City staff has occasionally blown out the diffuser to reduce solids accumulation. The diffuser has been beneficial when calculating effluent standards in the discharge permit in that DEQ has acknowledged benefit of a diffuser in promoting good mixing through the entire width of the river. 3.4.5 Solids Handling The Whitefish wastewater treatment facility presents a unique combination of an aerated lagoon system plus a flocculating clarifier, a collection of treatment processes not commonly used together. The generation of solids in the overall treatment system consists of incoming biological and inert solids, growth of biomass in the lagoons and the chemical-biological sludge that precipitates out of the flocculating clarifier. Sludge which is generated in the lagoon system is either stored on the bottom of the aerated cells or removed via suspended solids in the effluent. The sludge stored in the cells must eventually be removed. The removal of the large accumulation of biological and chemical sludge from the first aerated lagoon cell was a major component of the 2003 upgrade project. An estimated volume of 11 to 13 million gallons of sludge slurry was pumped from the cell and deposited in a sludge drying bed, constructed on site. Sludge was not removed from Cell #2 or #3 during the project. The need for future sludge removal can be anticipated in a 10 to 20 year time frame or during a project upgrade. Typically the removal of sludge from a lagoon system occurs in combination with other needed improvements, such as a major upgrade to the system. Effluent from the lagoon system flows through the flocculating clarifier where alum and polymers are added to promote phosphorus removal. The chemicals aid in the coagulation of particles in the clarifier, helping to remove dissolved and suspended constituents. The solids stream from the flocculating clarifier is pumped to sand drying beds and retained in place. The liquid volume in 2004 was 1.29 million gallons with an average solids concentration of 2.3%. Sludge production in 2004 was 124.8 dry tons per year. The projected production in 2016 is estimated at 1.66 million gallons per year or about 160 tons on a dry weight basis. The sludge has not been analyzed recently for metals or pathogens. The sludge appears to dewater very well on the drying beds, leaving a dry and fine grained granulated material as the end product. Each of the three beds has an under drain which collects water which filters through the bed. The filtrate is returned ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 15 to the raw sewage pump station which pumps the liquid back through the treatment system. Some “musty” odors occur during pumping to the beds which dissipate quickly. Given the rate of accumulation on the drying beds, removal of dried solids will not be required for several years to come. The drying beds were designed to function year round. Solids can be retained within the flocculating clarifier for several days. Daily wasting is not needed in the manner required in a typical activated sludge system. The accumulation of sludge to date in the drying beds is minimal based on visual observation, estimated by City staff to be 6” to 1.0’ at the most. The beds would appear to have significant volume to hold additional solids at the current rate of sludge generation. However, the City should strive to retain adequate space at the wastewater plant for future solids handling/disposal needs. The sludge which was removed from Cell #1 during the 2003 construction project was left in the northernmost drying bed for long-term treatment. This bed could be reclaimed for use as a drying bed with removal and disposal of the dried sludge. Sufficient area is available nearby to allow for disposal. The accumulated solids could also be spread onsite and incorporated into the soil at an agronomic application rate, depending on the amount of nutrients and metals in the sludge. This sludge is similar in appearance to the sludge coming from the flocculating clarifier. Process Limitations – The solids handling system associated with the existing treatment plant is functioning well and has ample capacity for additional sludge disposal, up to the design capacity of the existing treatment system. Eventually the accumulated solids must be removed from the system to maintain sufficient working volume in the beds to allow for solids dewatering. Similarly the lagoon solids placed in the third cell should be removed in the future to allow for additional capacity to handle waste solids from the flocculating clarifier. As noted in the previous chapter, final disposal of accumulated biosolids must be completed in accordance with the Federal Part 503 regulations. The probable final point would likely be the local landfill. The existing solids handling system will be considered for use with future plant improvements. 3.4.4 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Needs The summary of needs identified in the evaluation of each unit process that is part of the existing Whitefish wastewater plant includes the following: 1. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement between the City of Whitefish and the MDEQ, the City must initiate and complete construction of facilities to meet the standards of the recently issued discharge permit which include new limits for ammonia, total nitrogen and aluminum. Without major upgrades or replacement, the current secondary/advance treatment unit processes cannot comply with the effluent standards in the discharge permit. 2. The existing pretreatment screen has sufficient capacity for future design loads. Some treatment technologies may require fining screening. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 16 3. The existing main pump station should be upgraded with new pumps, valves, controls, drives and electrical system improvements. 4. Disinfection facilities, currently installed on a temporary basis, should be upgraded. 5. The existing solids drying beds can be a viable component in plans for biosolids drying and disposal in the future. Accumulated solids should be periodically removed and disposed of in accordance with the Federal Part 503 Biosolids disposal regulations. 3.5 Wastewater Collection System This planning document is intended to focus on the Whitefish wastewater treatment plant. Separate studies, as recent as 2014, have been completed evaluating the City’s wastewater collection system and lift station. Consequently, only limited information on the wastewater collection system is provided in this document, primarily for background. 3.5.1 Background According to available documentation and City staff testimony, the City began collecting sanitary wastewater around 1911. At that time, the City passed an ordinance (Ord. 82, 12-7-1911) which required that there be constructed two sewer systems, one system for storm water runoff and one for sanitary sewage. The sanitary system that was constructed utilized 8" diameter clay tile pipe to collect wastewater from area residents and convey it to several large septic tanks located throughout town. Based on discussions with Public Works staff that are knowledgeable in system history, the City likely installed the early segments of sanitary sewer without the use of joint gasket material in order to intercept and lower the groundwater table. The additional clear water was also thought to be a benefit by enhancing solids flushing velocities. Closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection of some older portions of sanitary sewer indicates that either the gasket material is deteriorated or was never installed. Once the wastewater and groundwater was collected, it was directed to large concrete septic tanks for primary treatment and then discharged to drainfields on the banks of the Whitefish River. It is likely that these systems were hydrologically connected to the river itself. In 1962, the City constructed the first centralized treatment system located at the current wastewater treatment plant site. Along with this treatment lagoon system, the City also constructed a 12" diameter interceptor along the northeast bank of the river to collect wastewater from the various cluster systems in town. At this point, the septic tanks and drainfields were abandoned in place. The collection system continued to grow with the community by extending clay pipe sewer mains into developing areas and upsizing existing interceptors to handle the added demand. In 1973, the City allowed the use of PVC pipe for sanitary sewer extensions and largely discontinued the use of clay pipe. However, over 12 miles of the original vitrified clay pipe system is still in use today. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 17 The present-day wastewater collection system in Whitefish consists of approximately 45.7 miles of conventional gravity sewer mains, 16 raw wastewater lift stations and forcemains of various capacity, a series of 13 grinder pumps installations serving from 1 to 20 residences each and, four septic tank effluent pump or “STEP” systems serving individual areas on the east and west shores of Whitefish Lake. Due to historic and ongoing problems with maintenance and access, the City has dis-allowed the installation of any more of these grinder pump and STEP systems. The collection system delivers raw wastewater to the main sewage lift station and then on to the aerated lagoon treatment system with chemical phosphorous removal for discharge to the Whitefish River. Each of the collection system components was evaluated with respect to condition and dependability as well as capacity to handle existing and projected wastewater flows. 3.5.2 Regulatory Issues The City has been required to address problems associated with sewer overflows, leading to enforcement activity put forth by the DEQ, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. These actions have led to a series of sewer system evaluations followed by construction projects. These projects have resulted in an investment of millions of dollars into the City’s collection system and lift stations. A portion of this work is described below. 3.5.3 Collection System Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) Investigations In 1999, the City continued its efforts to improve its wastewater system by completing the Infiltration and Inflow Investigation for the City of Whitefish. This document identified significant problems with specific portions of the City’s sewage collection system including: direct inflow through numerous roof drains and catch basins, and significant infiltration. In January 2006, the City completed a follow-up study of clear water inputs into the collection system titled City of Whitefish – Sanitary Sewer Infiltration Mitigation Study, prepared by Anderson-Montgomery Consulting Engineers. A project that evolved from this study included the rehabilitation of several downtown sanitary sewers that had problems with excessive infiltration and inflow as well as poor structural integrity. CIP liner was generally used for this project. In April of 2014, the City prepared the Preliminary Engineering Report - 2014 Infiltration & Inflow Mitigation Project authored by Anderson-Montgomery. This report considered work completed in 2012 to reduce I/I and made further assessment of needs. Projects evolved which primarily looked at manhole work in known problem areas and continuation of sewer rehabilitation or replacement in priority areas. A project, funded with DNRC –RRGL and MDOC – TSEP grant funds with SRF loan funds is scheduled for the summer of 2016 to further address sources of clearwater entering the collection system. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 18 3.5.4 Gravity Collection System Whitefish’s gravity sewer mains range in diameter from a minimum of 8" in the upper reaches of each drainage basin, to a maximum of 30" for the main trunk line along the east side of the Whitefish River. Total length of gravity collection sewer in Whitefish is approximately 45.7 miles with the following for each diameter of pipe: Pipe Diameter (in.) Total Length (ft.) (miles) %-age of total system 30" 2,714 0.51 1.1% 27" 3,129 0.59 1.3% 18" 9,029 1.71 3.7% 15" 4,497 0.85 1.9% 12" 15,795 2.99 6.5% 10" 22,674 4.29 9.4% 8" 181,656 34.40 75.3% 6" 1,550 0.29 0.6% 4" 185 0.04 0.1% TOTAL 241,229 lineal feet For the purposes of comparison between collection systems and federal guidelines for infiltration and inflow, it is typical practice to determine the total “inch-diameter-miles” of pipeline in the entire collection system. Using figures from the table immediately above, a total of 431 inch-diameter-miles of pipe can be derived. This is done by summating the products of all the various pipe diameters and their corresponding length in miles. Materials of construction include clay tile in the older parts of town. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), cast iron and concrete have been used in more recent construction, and there is also some asbestos cement pipe primarily used for the larger diameter trunk lines and main line leading to the Main Lift Station. Of the estimated 45.7 total miles of pipe in the Whitefish system, the following list shows the estimated pipe of each type of material. Pipe Material Total Length (ft.) Percentage of total system Clay tile 63,800 26% PVC 172,453 71% Cast Iron 220 Concrete 2929 1% Asb. Cement 1,945 1% As noted by the list, a significant amount of the gravity collection system is made up of vitrified clay pipe which was installed during construction of the original collection and discharge system in the early 1900’s. Vitrified clay was the standard sewage piping material used until the early 1970’s when PVC pipe began to be widely used. The clay pipe segments used in Whitefish’s system are a nominal length of 3 feet including the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 3– Existing Wastewater Facilities Page 19 bell, resulting in a pipe joint every 2.7 feet. This means the average block of clay pipe has over 140 joints. The total number of clay pipe joints in the Whitefish system is estimated at over 23,600. Clay pipe joint gasket material (if utilized) was typically a wax or petroleum-based mastic compound with adhesive and water sealing characteristics. With the average age of the clay pipe in Whitefish of approximately 60 years and the harsh environment, any joint sealing material that may have been used has likely experienced significant deterioration. This is evident from the television inspections that the City has conducted on approximately 23,000 lineal feet of clay pipe within the system (1998 through 2005). Some of the most pressing problems are: numerous crushed and collapsed sections, circumferential and longitudinal cracks, alignment and grade problems, root intrusions, infiltration and manhole defects. These problems are not uncommon in collections systems that are approaching 100 years of age. Some of the newer sections of Whitefish’s collection system also exhibit problems including offset joints, sags, infiltration and numerous protruding taps. These are typically from poor installation practices, inadequate bedding or possibly ground movement. There are several sewage collection systems in the northern part of the City (Cedar Estates, Mountain View, Sun Crest, Crestwood and Mountain Harbor) as well as numerous points in the Riverside development directly south and across the river from the wastewater plant, that exhibited significant infiltration through pipe joints, service taps and manholes. Once the sewer infrastructure is installed in new developments and is accepted by the City, it is very difficult to address defects and I&I issues. To preclude the acceptance of sub-standard sewer infrastructure, it is recommended that the City provide for vigorous inspection of construction as well as post-construction CCTV inspection of the piping and manholes to insure system integrity. The main 30” outfall to the wastewater plant is located primarily along the banks of the Whitefish River. Access to this line is difficult and some sections of the line have been affected by unstable slope conditions, causing some movement of the outfall line. A trail has been proposed that will follow much of the outfall line. The City should make sure that this trail can be used for vehicular access to the outfall to allow for needed maintenance. Slope stability should be evaluated also when the trail is constructed to limit any further settlement problems. The City should pursue the acquisition of easements to access this sewer interceptor along its entire length for the purposes of maintenance and repair. 3.5.5 Lift Stations The City of Whitefish has 20 raw wastewater lift stations, 71 individual and two centralized septic-tank-effluent-pump (STEP) or grinder pump stations and 73,136 lineal feet of forcemain ranging from 1½" to 16". Other than the lift station on the plant site, the lift stations on the collection system were not evaluated in this planning document and more information is available with earlier planning work as referenced earlier within this section. ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 6 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 Chapter 4 Wastewater System Needs, Alternative Analysis and Recommendations 4.1 Introduction This chapter will identify feasible capital improvement projects to address Whitefish’s wastewater system needs, provide preliminary cost estimates with descriptive drawings and recommend a prioritization strategy for those projects. 4.1 Public Health and Environmental Need of the Whitefish Treatment System The Whitefish wastewater plant has satisfied the conditions of the previous wastewater discharge permits but is not able to comply with the conditions of the new permit. The ammonia standards included in the discharge permit are written to prevent toxicity to aquatic organisms in the Whitefish River. Indirectly, preventing toxicity in the river and the associated issues is of benefit to the health and welfare of the public as a whole particularly given the importance of water quality in the Flathead Basin. Additionally, the City must comply with numeric nutrient standards for total nitrogen and total phosphorous. While compliance with the phosphorous standards has been provided, the existing plant cannot meet the new standards for total nitrogen. The City of Whitefish and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality have agreed to implement improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment plant as set forth in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Failure to comply with the MPDES discharge permit or conditions established in the AOC will result in enforcement action by the DEQ, likely including monetary fines 4.2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Plant Needs The information below summarizes the identified needs for improvements to the Whitefish wastewater treatment facility, including the main lift station located at the treatment plant. The summary of needs identified in the evaluation of each unit process that is part of the existing Whitefish wastewater plant includes the following: 1. In accordance with the Administrative Order on Consent WQ-11-21 (AOC) between the City of Whitefish and the MDEQ, the City must initiate and complete construction of facilities to meet the standards of the recently issued discharge permit which include new limits for ammonia, total nitrogen and aluminum. Without major upgrades or replacement, the current secondary/advance treatment unit processes cannot comply with the effluent standards in the discharge permit. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 2 2. The existing pretreatment screen has sufficient capacity for future design loads. Some treatment technologies may require fine screening which would require a retrofit of the screen facility. 3. The existing main pump station should be upgraded with new pumps, valves, controls, drives and electrical system improvements. 4. Disinfection facilities, currently installed on a temporary basis, should be upgraded. 5. The existing solids drying beds can be a viable component in plans for biosolids drying and disposal in the future. Accumulated solids should be periodically removed and disposed of in accordance with the Federal Part 503 Biosolids disposal regulations. 6. Issues with odors and noise associated with the existing system should be addressed when considering new treatment technologies. The following analysis of major unit process summarizes deficiencies and identifies alternatives that will be evaluated. More detail on the unit processes was provided previously in Chapter 3. 4.2.1 Pretreatment and Pump Station The existing pretreatment screening and dewatering facility are located on the northwest corner of the plant site and receive all of the community’s wastewater. The main lift station is located just south of the pretreatment building, immediately adjacent to the banks of the Whitefish River. The pretreatment facility is relatively new and will function adequately with other improvements that will be evaluated for upgrading the Whitefish treatment system. The main lift station will require improvements including replacement of pumps, valves and controls. These improvements will be a common component of all treatment alternatives that will be considered. 4.2.2 Aerated Lagoons The existing 3-cell aerated lagoon system cannot meet the permit requirements for reduction of ammonia and total nitrogen. The existing lagoons are over 30 years old, are near the end of their useful life and do not meet current design standards. The option of continued use of the aerated lagoons for meeting the current and anticipated permit standards is not viable. Options to upgrade the system will be considered including advanced lagoon systems, oxidation ditch, sequencing batch reactor (SBR), membrane bioreactor (MBR) and a lagoon upgrade option that would remove ammonia but not total nitrogen. This last option would require an individual variance from the nutrient standards as described in Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance, July 2014. These options will be developed and screened with the intent of eliminating those options not considered to be viable for detailed analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 3 4.2.3 Flocculating Clarifiers These unit processes have been effective in reducing phosphorous levels in the effluent below the standard of 1.0 mg/l. The largest clarifier, built in 2008, is presently on line whereas the older clarifier would require renovation of the scraper and drive to use effectively. Both structures have inherent value and remaining useful life. The new clarifier was equipped with piping which was stubbed out past the foundation for the purpose of recycling mixed liquor, allowing conversion of the clarifier to a conventional secondary clarifier with return or wasting of activated sludge. In development of alternatives, these structures will be considered for use as secondary clarifiers, flocculating clarifiers, equalization basins or solids storage and stabilization. 4.2.4 Disinfection Prior planning work completed in the 2008 Whitefish Wastewater System PER regarding installation of disinfection facilities recommended construction of a new ultraviolet disinfection system to enable compliance with new bacterial standards that was included in the previous MPDES discharge permit. As proposed, this system included a new building housing the disinfection facilities, located on the west side of the treatment plant grounds located along the outfall line to the river. This type of disinfection was previously selected due to costs and operational concerns regarding the safety of a chlorine disinfection process. UV disinfection works effectively on high quality effluent and allows use of a simple flow through channel rather than a much large contact basin as required for a chlorine-based system. The City in 2012 elected to install temporary disinfection facilities with the thought that the new treatment system, when selected, may uniquely impact the design of UV system designed for a 20 year planning period. Additionally, chlorination equipment used in the temporary facilities could be “repurposed” in the new treatment plant, possibly for process control of adverse foaming or sludge bulking conditions. UV disinfection unit processes will be included as a common component used in conjunction with the new treatment facilities. 4.2.5 Solids Handling The existing solids handling system utilizing multiple biosolids dewatering beds is functioning well and has ample capacity for additional sludge disposal up to the design capacity of the existing treatment system. Eventually the accumulated solids must be removed from the system to maintain sufficient working volume in the beds to allow for solids dewatering. In the future, the lagoon solids previously placed in the third drying ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 4 bed in 2004 should be removed to allow for additional capacity for new treatment facilities. Changes in the wastewater system to an activated sludge system would likely increase sludge production. Preliminary assessment of the sludge drying beds indicates that they will readily accept the anticipated sludge production from a mechanical wastewater treatment plant. More frequent removal of accumulated sludge would increase the handling capacity of the drying beds. Sludge stabilization would be required with an activated sludge treatment system. Decanting surface flow from the sludge storage basin would allow the thickening of the retained sludge volume. Any future designs utilizing the existing drying beds must be cognizant of odor potential. The appropriate Biosolids Disposal General Permit, MTG-650059, was obtained from the EPA on February 22, 2008 with the permit remaining in effect until October 19, 2012. EPA has indicated that they no longer permit these types of disposal system and the rules governing disposal are self-implementing. The existing sludge drying process will be incorporated into treatment alternatives evaluated. The available methods for final disposal of dried solids as they are removed from the drying beds will be evaluated. 4.3 Screening of Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives 4.3.1 General Approach Several treatment alternatives will initially be considered to insure that the most viable, cost-effective and environmentally sound options have been considered. The initial group of alternatives will be screened to eliminate those options which do not merit further evaluation. Lagoon-based options, similar to the existing plant, will be considered as will mechanical plants based on utilization of concrete basins and more complex unit processes. Screening these options for additional consideration or exclusion will be based on the following criteria, applied in an objective manner:  Capital and Operating Costs  Mechanical and Operational Complexity  Use of Proven Technology  Future Expansion Capability  Capacity to Remove Pollutants to Lower Levels  Cold Weather Operation  Odor Potential and Aesthetics 4.3.2 Advanced Lagoon Options Advanced Lagoon Systems – Two lagoon based options were evaluated, with each proposal capable of meeting the proposed effluent standards for Whitefish. Lagoon treatment technologies are evolving with capabilities for ammonia and nutrient removal. As these systems become more complex, they approach more traditional mechanical plants in complexity. A third option was considered which would not have capability for removal of nitrogen and would therefore require a variance from the regulatory standards. The third option was developed to determine the financial benefit, if any, of obtaining a ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 5 variance from the DEQ base numeric nutrient standards. These options are described as follows: LAGOON OPTION 1 - Parkson Biolac® Advanced Lagoon System This alternative consists of a lagoon-based, quasi-activated sludge treatment system sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average annual flowrate of 1.51 MGD and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD with grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. The system as proposed will remove ammonia down to permit limits and provide biological nutrient removal. The Parkson's Biolac® Wastewater Treatment System uses low-loaded activated sludge technology, moving aeration chains that suspend submerged fine-bubble diffusers, and a simple basin construction. The Biolac System features the BioFlex® Piping System and BioFuser® Aeration Units. The moving aeration chains improve mixing efficiency. The Biolac System mixes the aeration volumes associated with 30-70 day sludge age treatment. An aerobic selector basin and a fermenter are included with this option to create favorable conditions for biological removal of nutrients. The major treatment elements of the Biolac® Alternative include:  Headworks – The existing screen system would be used, followed by upgraded raw sewage pumping and grit removal. Influent vortex-type grit system is proposed that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger-conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal.  Bio-P Basin – Preceding the Biolac® treatment basin, a 52' square by 15' deep Bio-P basin will provide anaerobic selection of phosphorous-reducing microbes that will condition the influent wastewater for enhanced phosphorous removal.  Biolac® Treatment Cell – The principal treatment component will be a single- basin, complete mix, quasi-activated sludge process using extended retention of biological solids to create well-stabilized solids and provide nutrient removal capability.  Clarification – Secondary clarification will be accomplished through conversion of both existing flocculating clarifiers to secondary clarifiers. The Parkson company has an in basin clarifier which was considered but not selected due to concerns with clarifier performance. Additionally, utilizing the existing clarifiers provided a cost savings.  Sludge Stabilization Basin – Sludge stabilization will be accomplished by construction of a 100'x75' basin with a membrane liner and aeration diffusers. The stabilized sludge will be discharged to the existing sludge drying beds.  Fermenter Basin – A 100,000 gallon concrete tank will allow anaerobic fermentation of WAS and provide short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCVFA’s) necessary for denitrification. Use of a fermenter is a new concept with Biolac.  Aeration Equipment – The existing blower building will be expanded to house four new 100 HP blower assemblies for the Biolac® cell and three 150 HP ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 6 blowers for the sludge stabilization basin. High efficiency blowers will be utilized.  UV Disinfection and Administration Building – A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit, effluent magnetic flow meter, laboratory, auto-sampler, system controls and administration facilities. Biolac systems have been constructed in Montana and have been effective for removal of ammonia, including good cold weather performance. The capability of the system to remove total nitrogen and total phosphorus is through the addition of relatively new technology in the fermenter and Bio-P cell, employing treatment technologies that have been proven to be effective. This system is not covered to minimize heat loss. Capability to optimize the operation to achieve lower pollutant levels is limited although filtration could be added in the future. It should be noted that the existing aerated lagoons utilize Parkson Biolac fine bubble aerators which have been problematic in regards to fouling with rags. Good pretreatment should address this problem. Figure 4.1 provides a plan view of this alternative. Estimated construction costs are $15,914,650 and annual operating costs are $642,400 with a net present worth of $23,512,010 utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. Appendix D provides detailed cost estimates for all treatment options. LAGOON OPTION 2 - Environmental Dynamics International - Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Lagoon The Intermittently Decanted Extended Aeration Lagoon, or IDEAL, consists of an EDI floating lateral aeration system with Magnum fine bubble diffusers, two chains of BioReef BioCurtain, a static decanter with flow control valves, an overflow pipe with Storm Mode™, process controls and a blower package. Two cells are provided for process redundancy. The system has a hydraulic detention time of 2 days and an estimated solids retention time of 50 days. The process, as originally presented, has no active sludge management. The “front-of-plant treatment” in the IDEAL system provides several benefits, as claimed by the manufacturer. First, the warmest water in the winter is found in the first cell where the bulk of treatment occurs. By performing treatment in the first cell the need for thermal covers is reduced. Second, by removing ammonia at the front of the plant the system can utilize the influent carbon for denitrification, which provides oxygen and alkalinity recovery. Lastly, because the sludge is retained in the first cell there is no need to operate and maintain sludge return pumps. The existing larger flocculating clarifier would be used with this system to provide further phosphorous removal. The older clarifier would be converted to a flow equalization basin. The unit processes for pretreatment and disinfection as proposed for the Biolac option would be utilized with this alternative also. Figure 4.2 provides a plan view of this alternative. Note that AMCE added capability to remove and waste or recycle sludge from the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 7 While EDI aeration systems have been used in Montana, the IDEAL system is a relatively new concept with limited operational experience throughout the US. Estimated construction costs for this alternative are $ 12,477,180 and annual operating costs are $ 525,250 with a net present worth of $18,778,770, utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. LAGOON OPTION 3 – Aerated Lagoon, No Total N Removal This option utilizes conventional technology to implement a three cell lagoon system which includes one complete mix cell followed by two partially mixed cells, with a quiescent zone prior to discharge, as shown on Figure 4.3. The secondary effluent passes through a nitrification cell to insure complete nitrification of ammonia, then flows into the existing flocculating clarifier for removal of phosphorous. To promote ammonia removal in cold weather, each cell will be covered to retain heat. Active sludge removal is not provided in the system thereby the periodic pumping of solids from Cells 2 and 3 will be required every 10 years or so. The unit processes for pretreatment, disinfection and pumping improvements as proposed for the other lagoon options would be utilized with this alternative also. This option, as presented, does not have the capability to remove nitrogen as per the discharge permit. Limits for ammonia and total phosphorous can be met with this technology. An individual variance from the numeric nutrient standards as allowed in DEQ Circular 12B, Nutrient Standards Variances, will be required. Language in the Circular states the following: Montana law allows for the granting of nutrient standards variances based on the particular economic and financial situation of a permittee (§75-5-313(1), MCA). Individual nutrient standards variances (“individual variances”) may be granted on a case-by-case basis because the attainment of the base numeric nutrient standards is precluded due to economic impacts, limits of technology, or both. Individual variances discussed in this section are generally intended for permittees who would have financial difficulties meeting the general variance concentrations and are seeking individual nitrogen and phosphorus permit limits tailored to their specific economic situation. Like the general variance in Section 2.0, individual variances may be established for a period not to exceed 20 years and must be reviewed by the Department every three years to ensure that their justification remains valid. Unlike the general variances discussed in Section 2.0, the Department will only grant an individual variance to a permittee after the permittee has made a demonstration to the Department that meeting the underlying standards would require water quality-based controls that result in substantial and widespread social and economic impacts. The variance application will identify the lowest effluent concentration that is feasible based on achieving the highest attainable condition. A permittee, using the assessment process referred to above, must also demonstrate to the Department that there are no reasonable alternatives including, but not limited to, trading, compliance schedules, reuse, recharge, and land application that would allow compliance ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 8 with the base numeric nutrient standards. If no reasonable alternatives exist, then an individual variance is justifiable and becomes effective and may be incorporated into a permit following the Department’s formal rulemaking process. The process for seeking a variance are included in the Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance, Version 1.0 2014. The Guidance has been included in Appendix E. An initial analysis of the potential for obtaining the variance was completed by AMCE/RPA with the initial conclusions made that Whitefish may qualify. Consequently, to assess the financial benefit of not having to build facilities to remove Total Nitrogen, this Lagoon Option 3 was developed to determine the savings, if any, that could be obtained by building a less complex lagoon system. This option is similar to the existing system with upgrades using a complete mix cell and covers to promote ammonia removal. The new lagoon cells in this option would be lined with a liner. Estimated construction costs for this alternative are $13,000,800 and annual operating costs are $ 493,100 with a net present worth of $19,034,042, utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. 4.3.3 Screening of Advanced Lagoon Options The three options were screened for further consideration. The first two options will meet the current permit requirements, with the general variance for Total Nitrogen. As limits become more restrictive in the future, lagoon based options may have difficulty in consistently achieving lower effluent standards primarily due to influences of temperature loss upon biological treatment processes as well as limits of process control. The third option cannot meet existing permit requirements unless an individual variance is granted by the DEQ. The process of determining eligibility for an individual variance could be costly and the outcome is unknown. More importantly, the costs for Option 3 remain high primarily because of the necessary improvements to meet the ammonia standard, which is not eligible for a variance. Consequently, there is no purpose in seeking an individual economic variance if there is no financial benefit. The following Table 4.1 provides an analysis of the advanced lagoon options based on criteria set forth in Section 4.3.1, where the numeric point system used to evaluate options is based on a lower number indicating better attributes. This analysis indicates that the Biolac option is the best advanced lagoon option with the 3-Cell Lagoon system a close second. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 9 However, the second ranked option cannot meet the current permit requirements without the granting of a request for an individual economic variance. The primary concern with the IDEAL system is that the technology is not yet fully proven and the management of solids for removal or recycle not clearly defined by the manufacturer. Given these conclusions, the Biolac Advanced Lagoon alternative (Option 1) will be further considered for comparison with mechanical treatment options. 4.3.4 Mechanical Treatment Plants A mechanical treatment plant provides several advantages over a lagoon based system, which become more evident for communities with larger populations. Generally the expected performance capability of a mechanical plant will be better for reduction of conventional pollutants and nutrients. Given the projected regulatory goal of a staged reduction of effluent standards over time, a mechanical plant should be better suited to meet more restrictive regulatory standards as they are mandated. Closer control and automation of unit processes are possible. Because the hydraulic detention times are significantly less in a mechanical plant versus a lagoon, tanks are smaller and the overall facilities in a mechanical plant are smaller requiring less commitment of land. Mechanical plants may have a lower potential for odors primarily because of their relatively small size, allowing better collection and treatment of odors. A significant benefit in colder climates, mechanical plants are capable of retaining heat better than a lagoon system with a large surface area. All of the biological processes utilized in a wastewater plant for pollutant removal function better and more efficiently in warmer temperatures. A mechanical plant will require more energy, operation and maintenance than a lagoon based system. The systems are significantly more mechanically complex and require a more knowledgeable operator with a higher degree of operator certification. Compliance monitoring and process control of mechanical plants requires more analytical capability Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Biolac Ideal 3-Cell Capital and Operating Costs (NPW) 3 1 2 Mechanical and Operational Complexity 2 3 2 Use of Proven Technology 1 3 1 Future Expansion Capability 2 3 3 Capacity to Remove Pollutants to Lower Levels 1 3 3 Cold Weather Operation 2 3 1 Odor Potential and Aesthetics 2 3 2 Total 13 19 14 Rank 1 3 2 Screening of Advanced Lagoon Options Table 4.1 City of Whitefish PER ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 10 and operator skill to complete. Typically a mechanical plant is more susceptible to upsets due to discharges of toxic compounds and is less capable of handling wide variations in flow. Given the size of Whitefish, anticipated growth and projected regulatory standards, a mechanical plant may be a good solution for the City’s need to upgrade existing plant facilities. The following three types of mechanical plants were initially considered, including several variations of each type.  Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)  Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)  Oxidation Ditch Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) – SBRs are a variation of the activated-sludge process. They differ from activated-sludge plants because they combine all of the treatment steps in a single basin, whereas conventional activated sludge facilities rely on multiple basins. According to a 1999 U.S. EPA report, an SBR is no more than an activated-sludge plant that operates in time rather than space. The operation of an SBR is based on a fill-and-draw principle, which generally consists of five steps: fill, react, settle, decant, and idle. These steps can be altered for different operational applications. SBR facilities commonly consist of two or more basins that operate in parallel. Systems that operate under continuous flow conditions are also utilized. In this modified version of the SBR, raw wastewater enters each basin on a continuous basis. The influent flows into the separate chamber, which has inlets to the react basin at the bottom of the tank to control the entrance speed so as not to agitate the settled solids. Continuous-flow systems are not true batch reactions because influent is constantly entering the basin. Multiple basins will reduce significant fluctuation in the discharge amount approaching continuous flow. This will benefit sizing of processes such as disinfection. Membrane Bioreactor – The term membrane bioreactor (MBR) is generally used to define wastewater treatment processes where a semi-permeable membrane is integrated with a biological process, typically an activated sludge system. While the activated sludge process uses a secondary clarifier for solid/liquid separation, an MBR uses a membrane for this function. This provides a number of advantages relating to process control and produced water quality. It is possible to operate MBR processes at higher mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations compared to conventional activated sludge systems, thus reducing the reactor volume to achieve the same loading rate. MBR plants can produce very high quality effluent. The MBR flow through the membrane inevitably decreases with filtration time. This is due to the deposition of soluble and particulate materials onto and into the membrane. MBR facilities are generally mechanically complex. Replacement of the membranes is a significant operational expense. Oxidation Ditch – An oxidation ditch is a modified activated sludge biological treatment process utilizing long solids retention times (SRT) to remove biodegradable organics. Generally an oxidation ditch is a plug flow system operating in the extended aeration mode. Typical oxidation ditch treatment systems consist of a single or multichannel ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 11 configuration within a ring, oval, or horseshoe-shaped basin, with the provision of horizontally or vertically mounted aerators. These aerators are responsible for facilitating circulation and aeration in the ditch, although aeration can be provided through other means. Through variation in aeration and mixing, environmental conditions can be created in a ditch that can nitrify ammonia and biologically remove nitrogen and phosphorous. This technology, though requiring more land compared with conventional treatment facilities, is shown to be highly effective in small to medium sized systems. These three types of mechanical treatment plants are considered in detail for the City of Whitefish, with variations of each type considering specific site conditions, as follows: 4.3.5 Mechanical Treatment Alternatives Considered MECHANICAL TREATMENT OPTION 1 – Sequencing Batch Reactor with Aerobic Sludge Digestion and Drying Beds This alternative consists of a four-basin sequencing batch reactor (SBR) sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average annual flowrate of 1.51 MGD, wet weather flow of 1.8 MGD and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD with grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. The entire proposed SBR system could be fit within the footprint of existing treatment Cell The sequencing batch reactor layout is shown in Figure 4.4. The major treatment elements of the SBR Alternative include:  Headworks – The existing screen system would be used, followed by upgraded raw sewage pumping and grit removal. Influent vortex-type grit system is proposed that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger-conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal.  Chemical Feed System – A chemical feed system that will be capable of dosing the influent wastewater with alum (if necessary) in order to provide for enhanced phosphorous removal in the SBR basins.  Sequencing Batch Reactor – The principal treatment component will be a four- basin sequencing batch reactor with BNR capability. Each basin will be approximately 5,800 ft2 in surface area, 18' deep with a volume of 0.87 MG. Each basin will have five complete cycles per day at average daily flow (1.51 MGD) for a cycle time of 4.8 hours. Design will be based on peak month flow, estimated to be approximately the same as expected wet weather flow, 1.91 MGD. The entire facility will have a hydraulic detention time of 1.1 days, solids retention time of 17.7 days.  Existing Clarifiers/Sludge Digestion – Sludge digestion will be accomplished by conversion of the existing 75' diameter flocculating clarifier to an aerobic digester. This existing circular concrete basin will provide 2.3 days of aerated retention time (without thickening) at ADF. After stabilization, the digested biosolids will be sent to the existing drying beds for extended treatment and drying. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 12  Aeration and SBR Process Equipment – The existing blower building will be expanded to house four new 125 HP SBR blowers as well as adding three 75 HP blowers for the aerobic digester conversion.  UV Disinfection and Administration Building – A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house: an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit; effluent magnetic flow meter; laboratory; auto-sampler; system controls and administration facilities. Estimated construction costs for the SBR alternative are $15,984,739 and annual operating costs are $ 784,480 with a net present worth of $24,491,416 utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. Appendix D provides detailed cost estimates for all treatment options. MECHANICAL TREATMENT OPTION 2 -Membrane Bioreactor with Flow Equalization, Aerobic Sludge Digestion and Drying Beds This alternative consists of a four-basin membrane bioreactor (MBR) with a membrane sludge thickening basin sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average flowrate of 1.51 MGD, 1.8 MGD wet weather and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD with grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. The entire proposed MBR system could be fit within the footprint of existing treatment Cell Flow equalization prior to the MBR would be accomplished by installing an earthen dike across the first 1/3 of aeration basin one and creating a 2 million gallon equalization basin. Various combinations of treatment equipment that could be paired with the MBR alternative were considered including: 1. MBR Treatment System with Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Mechanical Sludge Dewatering, and No Flow Equalization Basin 2. MBR Treatment System with Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Retaining the Existing Sludge Drying Beds for Sludge Dewatering, and No Flow Equalization 3. MBR Treatment System with Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Mechanical Sludge Dewatering, and Flow Equalization Basin 4. MBR Treatment System with Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Retaining the Existing Sludge Drying Beds for Sludge Dewatering, and Flow Equalization The alternative that was selected for further evaluation was Number 4, MBR Treatment System with Aerobic Sludge Digesters, Retaining the Existing Sludge Drying Beds for Sludge Dewatering, and Flow Equalization. It was selected because:  It had the lowest capital cost  Allows the City to retain their investment in the existing drying beds  The flow equalization basin will eliminate surges and reduce the cost of the MBR system. A portion of existing cell one can be re-used for the flow equalization basin. The MBR layout is shown in Figure 4.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 13 The major treatment elements of the MBR Alternative include:  Headworks. Influent vortex-type grit system that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger- conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal. The existing influent screens would have to be modified to reduce their opening size to 2-3 mm. A finer screen and grit removal is required to protect the membranes.  Chemical Feed System. A chemical feed system that will be capable of dosing the influent wastewater with alum (if necessary) in order to provide for enhanced phosphorous removal in the MBR basins.  Four-basin MBR. The MBR system will consist of four basins: o Anaerobic Basin – for biological phosphorus removal o Anoxic Basin – for biological nitrogen removal o Pre-Aeration Basin – for BOD removal, ammonia removal (nitrification) and biological phosphorus removal o MBR Basin – for BOD, TSS removal and chemical phosphorus removal if needed. Raw wastewater enters the anaerobic basin where mixers keep the wastewater in suspension. Oxygen levels drop in this basin causing the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and other fermentation products by facultative bacteria. The VFA’s are taken up by phosphorus storing bacterial which break down the VFA’s and release stored phosphorus to produce energy for metabolism. The anaerobic basin receives a recycle stream that is pumped from the anoxic basin at a flow rate equal to the influent flow rate. This recycle stream helps to maintain anaerobic conditions in the anaerobic basin. From the anaerobic basin the wastewater enters the anoxic basin where denitrifying bacteria convert nitrates in the wastewater to oxygen and nitrogen gas. The nitrogen gas is discharged to the atmosphere. Nitrate rich effluent is recycled from the aerobic basin into the anoxic basin by pumping at a flow rate of around three times the influent flow rate. Submersible mixers in the anoxic basin keep solids in the wastewater from settling out. From the anoxic basin the wastewater enters the pre-aeration basin where fine bubble diffusers aerate the wastewater supplying oxygen that allows aerobic bacteria to biodegrade organics (BOD) in the effluent and allows nitrifying bacteria to convert ammonia to nitrate. The nitrates are recycled to the anoxic basin for conversion to nitrogen gas and oxygen as described above. In the pre- aeration basin the phosphorus storing bacteria take up more phosphorus than what they excreted in the anoxic basin producing a net phosphorus removal from the wastewater. From the pre-aeration basin wastewater enters the membrane basin where banks of membranes filter the wastewater removing suspended solids and any remaining particulate material. Membrane diffusers provide additional oxygen, keep the wastewater in suspension, provide for additional BOD removal and are ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 14 used to air scrub the membranes. If alum or other coagulants are fed ahead of the membrane basin, the membranes can provide for additional chemical phosphorus removal to very low levels. The membranes act like a physical strainer capable of removing very small particles including bacteria, some viruses, coagulated phosphorus and particulate material. Mixed liquor suspended solid concentrations can vary from 5,000 to 13,000 mg/l providing the ability to withstand influent load fluctuations. Filtered effluent from the membrane basin will flow to the UV disinfection system and ultimately discharge to the Whitefish River.  Membrane Sludge Thickening Basin. Mixed Liquor from the membrane basin will be periodically wasted to the Membrane Sludge Thickening Basin where the mixed liquor will be filtered and the solids thickened from a 1% solids concentration to 3% solids. This thickening process will significantly reduce the required aerobic digester volume saving capital cost.  Aerobic Digesters. This alternative assumes that two new covered aerobic digesters would be constructed for sludge stabilization. The digesters will be equipped with: aeration diffusers for mixing and aeration; supernatant decant; scum/grease removal, and; high-level emergency overflow in accordance with DEQ-2 requirements. Estimated construction costs for the MBR alternative are $ 22,392,080 and annual operating costs are $ 1,161,725 with a net present worth of $ 36,209,935, utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. MECHANICAL TREATMENT OPTION 3 - Oxidation Ditch with Sludge Thickening, Aerobic Sludge Digestion, Rehabilitation of the Existing Clarifiers and Drying Beds This alternative consists of an oxidation ditch, sludge thickening, and aerobic digestion. The existing clarifiers would be rehabilitated and the existing sludge drying beds would be utilized. All components would be sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average flowrate of 1.51 MGD, 1.8 MGD wet weather and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD. Other system components would include grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. Various combinations of treatment equipment that could be paired with the Oxidation Ditch were considered including: 1. Oxidation ditch with one new clarifier (replacing the old 65 ft clarifier), modifying the existing 75 ft clarifier, and mechanical dewatering. 2. Oxidation ditch with one new clarifier (replacing the old 65 ft clarifier), modifying the existing 75 ft clarifier, sludge thickening (to reduce digester size) and mechanical dewatering. 3. Oxidation ditch, rehabilitation of both existing clarifiers (no new clarifiers), no mechanical sludge thickening or dewatering (use existing drying beds). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 15 4. Oxidation ditch, rehabilitation of both existing clarifiers, mechanical sludge thickening, and using the existing sludge drying beds for sludge dewatering. Number #4 was selected as the combination to evaluate in detail because it has the lowest capital cost and allows the City to retain the use and investment in the existing clarifiers and sludge drying beds. The Oxidation Ditch layout is shown in Figure 4.6. The major treatment elements of the Oxidation Ditch Alternative include:  Headworks. Influent vortex-type grit system that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger- conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal. The existing influent screens would not have to be modified.  Chemical Feed System. A chemical feed system that will be capable of dosing the influent wastewater with alum (if necessary) in order to provide for enhanced phosphorous removal in the clarifiers.  Oxidation Ditch with BNR. The Oxidation Ditch system will consist of the following basins: o Four Anaerobic Basins – for biological phosphorus removal o Two Train Oxidation Ditch – for BOD removal, phosphorus removal, and nitrogen removal (anoxic zones created in the ditch). The system will consist of two oxidation ditches with external anaerobic tanks. The external anaerobic tanks will be equipped with submersible mixers that will operate continuously. The anaerobic tanks perform Bio-P functions (release of phosphorus as orthophosphate) and will also have the side benefit of acting as a selector tank (for inhibiting filament growth). The oxidation ditches will be equipped with horizontal rotor aerators and submersible mixers. The rotors and mixers alternate on and off through alternating timed cycles (aerobic/anoxic) to allow for nitrification and de-nitrification.  Existing Clarifiers/Sludge Thickening. Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditches would flow to one of the two existing clarifiers. Clarified effluent will be disinfected with the UV disinfection system and discharged. Sludge from the clarifiers will be recycled back to the head end of the plant or wasted to the sludge thickener (disk thickening system) for further solids reduction and then to the aerobic digesters.  Aerobic Digesters. This alternative assumes that two new covered aerobic digesters would be constructed for sludge stabilization. The digesters will be equipped with: aeration diffusers for mixing and aeration; supernatant decant; scum/grease removal, and; high-level emergency overflow in accordance with DEQ-2 requirements.  UV Disinfection and Administration building. A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house: an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit; effluent ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 16 magnetic flow meter; laboratory; auto-sampler; system controls and administration facilities. Estimated construction costs for the Oxidation Ditch alternative are $ 21,356,130 and annual operating costs are $ 927,990 with a net present worth of $ 31,023,170 utilizing a 4.0% present worth factor. 4.3.6 Screening of Mechanical Treatment Plant Options The three options were screened for further consideration. Table 4.2 provides a summary of capital and operating costs for the alternatives. As shown, capital costs are significantly less for the SBR alternative, primarily due to capability of this option to best use existing site facilities, less concrete than the ditch option and less mechanical equipment than the MBR option. Operating costs are also less for the SBR generally because it uses less power than the other options. Staffing requirements for all three options are similar. To further evaluate the alternatives, the criteria used to review the lagoon alternatives was applied to the mechanical options, as shown below. The conclusions of this analysis, including the review of these options by the City Public Works staff, indicated that the SBR alternative and the Oxidation Ditch will be further reviewed in the final evaluation of alternatives. These options will also be compared against the Biolac Advanced Lagoon system for a complete analysis of alternatives. Table 4.2 Cost Summary Table for Mechanical Treatment Plants Type of Mechanical Plant Capital Cost Annual O&M Net Present Worth Sequencing Batch Reactor $15,984,739 $784,485 $24,491,416 MBR $22,392,082 $1,161,725 $36,209,935 Oxidation Ditch $21,356,130 $927,990 $31,023,170 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 SBR MBR O-Ditch Capital and Operating Costs (NPW) 1 3 2 Mechanical and Operational Complexity 2 3 2 Use of Proven Technology 1 2 1 Future Expansion Capability 1 2 3 Capacity to Remove Pollutants to Lower Levels 2 1 2 Cold Weather Operation 1 1 2 Odor Potential and Aesthetics 1 1 2 Total 9 13 14 Rank 1 2 3 Table 4.3 City of Whitefish PER Screening of Mechanical Treatment Options ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 17 The MBR plant, while capable of producing a high quality effluent, has greater capital and operating costs than the other options, resulting in a significantly greater present worth cost. Replacement of the membranes in the MBR option, as required on a periodic basis, can be quite expensive. Both the oxidation ditch and the SBR plant employ technologies with many years of operating experience, including good performance in cold climates. 4.4 Review of Screened Wastewater Treatment Plant Alternatives 4.4.1 Alternative Evaluation After initial screening as previously discussed, the following alternatives will be further evaluated to determine the most cost-effective and environmentally sound treatment alternative.  Biolac Advanced Lagoon System  Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)  Oxidation Ditch This section of the PER will assess the alternatives identified previously, resulting in identification of the most cost-effective and environmentally sound option. Input from the City staff and City officials, the system users, the DEQ and funding agencies will all factor into final selection. This section will present an objective methodology for comparing the social-economic impacts of the treatment alternatives with each other to determine which will be recommended for implementation. This information coupled with the net present worth analysis will be utilized to make recommendations to the City, who will make the final decision regarding the selection of alternatives to implement. Where applicable, the “No Action” alternative was discussed for each system component. Generally the problems prompting the preparing of a PER and grant applications are severe enough the option of no action is not an acceptable approach. Present Worth Analysis – In previous sections, estimated construction costs were developed including engineering, contingencies and salvage values. The salvage value reflects the estimated value of the facilities that have a usable life greater than twenty years. To perform a present worth analysis, the salvage value is brought back to "present" value using the appropriate economic calculations. For example, a water treatment system estimated to have a salvage value of $500,000 in the year 2036 is worth $155,900 in today's dollars utilizing a discount rate of 6.0%. In the cost analysis, salvage values are considered an asset rather than an expense; therefore, they are subtracted from the present worth cost of the project. Operation and maintenance expenses are estimated on an annual basis. These annual costs are then brought back to a present worth using a capital recovery factor at a given interest rate and term. These costs are added to the capital costs of the project, allowing a comparison of total "present worth" of the alternatives to determine the least expensive ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 18 alternative over the life of the facility. This approach addresses problems that might occur with an alternative that might have a low initial cost but high operational expense. The present worth analysis is meaningful when comparing alternatives which are similar in scope and function. Some project components have no alternatives that provide meaningful comparisons, such as replacement of existing water lines in the same available right of way. Either the line is replaced or the no action alternative selected for implementation. 4.4.2 Detailed Description of Alternatives A complete description of the three screened alternatives is provided in the following section. Design criteria for these options are the same as previously discussed. 4.4.2.1 BioLac® Lagoon Treatment System Using Existing Clarifier with Aerated Sludge Storage and Drying Beds Description: This alternative consists of a lagoon-based, quasi-activated sludge treatment system sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average flowrate of 1.51 MGD, wet weather flow of 1.81 MGD and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD including new grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection equipment. The entire proposed BioLac® system could be fit within the footprint of existing treatment Cell excluding disinfection. The Biolac® Alternative layout was shown previously in Figure 4.1. The major treatment elements of the Biolac® Alternative include:  Influent Screening and Pumping - The existing influent screens would not need to be modified.  Headworks – Influent vortex-type grit system that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger- conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal.  Bio-P Basin – Preceding the Biolac® treatment basin, a 52' square by 15' deep Bio-P basin will provide anaerobic selection of phosphorous-reducing microbes that will condition the influent wastewater for enhanced phosphorous removal. The Bio-P basin will have a single 10hp floating mixer to provide complete mixing without aeration.  Biolac® Treatment Cell – The principal treatment component will be a single- basin, complete mix, quasi-activated sludge process using extended retention of biological solids to create well-stabilized solids and provide nutrient removal capability. The basin will be approximately 59,200 ft2 in surface area, 10½' deep with a volume of 3.49 MG, providing an hydraulic retention time of 2.3 days and solids retention time of 60 days at average daily flow (1.51 MGD). Design F/M ratio is 0.0535 and MLSS is 3,200 mg/l. The Biolac® aeration system will be capable of delivering 5,403 lb.O2 per day to remove an average of 4,828 lb/day of BOD5, and 612 lb/day of ammonia. Equipment will include: 22 individually- controlled aeration headers with Wave Oxidation® capacity; 374 diffuser assemblies with 1,122 fine-bubble diffusers; a diffuser retrieval system; four 75 HP positive displacement blower assemblies; level sensors; dissolved oxygen ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 19 probes, and; a complete control system. The sinuous action of the aeration headers moving perpendicular to the flow path creates dynamic aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic zones within the Biolac® basin and allows for biological nitrification/denitrification and recovery of O2 and alkalinity.  Clarification – Secondary clarification will be accomplished through conversion of both existing flocculating clarifiers to secondary clarifiers. The older (65' diameter) clarifier would be re-furbished while Cell #3 is being drained and prepared for the Biolac® treatment cell. The newer (75' diameter) clarifier would be converted after the Biolac® treatment cell is operational. After conversion, the (75' diameter) clarifier would be utilized as the normal secondary clarifier and the other would act as a back-up when needed. The work will likely require use of a crane to remove the dome and access the equipment.  Sludge Stabilization – Sludge stabilization will be accomplished by construction of a 100'x75' basin with membrane liner and aeration diffusers. This sludge stabilization basin will provide 11 days of aerated retention time (without thickening) at ADF. A single aerated sludge storage basin is adequate since the facility will have the option of conveying WAS directly to the sludge drying beds for dewatering. The aerated storage basin will be equipped with: aeration diffusers for mixing and aeration; supernatant decant; scum/grease removal, and; high-level emergency overflow in accordance with DEQ-2 requirements. Stabilized solids will be pumped to the existing drying beds (4.3 total acres) for further dewatering and volatile solids destruction. Ultimate sludge disposal will be either to the local land fill or possibly to the local composting facility in Olney, MT. A building would be constructed to house the digested sludge pumping equipment.  Fermenter – A 100,000 gallon concrete tank will allow anaerobic fermentation of WAS and provide short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCVFA’s) necessary for denitrification. The fermenter will include one 5 HP floating mixer, cover and pumps to move the SCVFA’s to the de-gritted influent prior to introduction into the Bio-P basin. Note that fermenters typically are used to ferment primary solids rather than WAS.  Aeration and Biolac® Process Equipment – The existing blower building will be expanded to house four new 100 HP blower assemblies for the Biolac® cell as well as adding three 150 HP blowers for the aerated sludge storage basin. Approximately 800 ft2 of floor space will be added to the existing building to accommodate the additional blowers, piping, motor controls and appurtenant equipment.  UV Disinfection and Administration Building – A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house: an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit; effluent magnetic flow meter; laboratory; auto-sampler; system controls and administration facilities. The disinfection unit will provide a minimum 15 mJ/cm2 dose of 253.7 nm UV light to treated effluent and will be equipped with: 42 high intensity/low pressure lamps; dose-pacing controls; automated lamp wiping; module lifting system; transmittance monitor; UV intensity sensors, and; level control weir. UV energy required for Biolac® will be higher than for mechanical treatment alternatives due to higher TSS levels expected in ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 20 the effluent. The office and laboratory for the plant’s operators will be relocated to the new administration building.  Interim Treatment During Construction – Existing lagoon cells #1 and #2 and the newer flocculating clarifier will remain in operation during construction of the Biolac® lagoon and supporting unit processes. Once the Biolac® improvements are completed and on-line, cells #1 and #2 will be drained, undergo sludge removal and the dikes will be re-contoured to accommodate a new facility access road. Sludge from cells #1 and #2 will be pumped to the furthest north drying bed for dewatering. Advantages of the Biolac Treatment Process:  Footprint fits within that of existing treatment cell allowing the City to maintain the maximum amount of treatment capability while the new improvements are being implemented.  All aeration equipment is accessible for repair/maintenance without the need to drain the Biolac® treatment cell.  Maximizing the use of existing infrastructure with the use of the main lift station and screen, both flocculating clarifier basins, blower building, sludge pumps and sludge drying beds.  Good effluent quality: o BOD5 < 10 mg/l o TSS < 15 mg/l o NH3 ≤ 1 mg/l o TN ≤ 8 mg/l o TP ≤ 1 mg/l. Can be enhanced with chemical addition.  TN and TP removal through biological processes.  Technology that has demonstrated performance in cold climates. Several installations in Montana providing good removal of ammonia and conventional pollutants. The additional of the biological nutrient removal processes does not have much actual operating experience.  Capable of handling variable loadings and flows.  Lagoon-based technology with long retention time can accommodate significant fluctuations in influent flowrate.  Relatively low overall O&M costs compared to strictly mechanical treatment alternatives. O2 recovered from de-nitrification can significantly reduce aeration power costs.  Shallower basin depths will reduce groundwater issues during construction. Disadvantages:  Longer retention times coupled with seasonal infiltration & inflow results in low treatment temperatures in the winter/spring. This can inhibit nitrification and jeopardize compliance with the ammonia and TN limitations.  Higher estimated capital costs than SBR. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 21  Not easily expandable – would require addition of more Biolac® cells. Not particularly adaptable to meet more stringent future nutrient regulations.  Biological nutrient removal aspects are not well-proven. Environmental Impacts: Anticipated long-term environmental impacts for the Biolac® with aerobic sludge stabilization and drying bed storage include: Adverse:  Fermentation of WAS has the potential to create odors.  Increased overall O&M costs associated with more FTE’s, maintenance, spare parts, etc. Beneficial:  Possibly lower power consumption than the current system. O2 scavenged from de-nitrification could reduce overall oxygen demand.  The City’s effluent will receive a higher level of treatment prior to being discharged into the Whitefish River; reduced ammonia and nutrient levels in the treated effluent will result in enhanced instream water quality with a reduction in the incidence of nuisance algae growth.  This alternative may also be coupled with controlled irrigation of adjacent areas, further reducing pollutant discharges to the Whitefish River and providing beneficial reuse of the City’s treated effluent.  Reduced chemical usage over current operation using alum and polymers for flocculating clarifier. Operation and Maintenance – Operation of the pretreatment and pumping equipment will include daily checks on the equipment, adjustment as needed, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, removal and disposal of accumulated materials to the landfill, lubrication, general cleaning, oversight of control system and emergency operations. While not utilized at present, the odor control biofilter, if used, requires operation of a blower, injection of supplemental water during dry weather and periodic replacement of the filter media. The secondary treatment process will require daily checks, adjustment of cycle times and aeration, process control testing, collection and testing (or delivery to lab) of compliance samples, adjustment of system controls, lubrication of blowers and miscellaneous equipment, adjustment of chemical feed rates, periodic replacement or cleaning of diffusers, general cleaning and system oversight. Solids handling equipment includes blowers that will require maintenance, scheduling of decant back to headworks, wasting of sludge to the sludge drying beds, general maintenance and cleaning of equipment and disposal to drying beds. Periodically, the drying beds will require removal of dried solids, testing and final disposal which could include onsite disposal, removal to the landfill, used for composting or as a general soil amendment. The detailed cost tables in the Appendices provide cost estimates for labor, power, chemicals and other operational costs. UV Disinfection System Operation – This effort will include daily checks on the system, periodic replacement of the UV tubes, cleaning of the UV channels and general performance monitoring of the system. Most UV systems of this size utilize a mechanical ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 22 cleaning system which utilizes a cleaning fluid and squeegees to keep the tubes clean. The cleaning system will require periodic servicing. The light sensor which measure UV transmittance will require cleaning. Alarms are provided on the system if a power failure occurs or if transmittance of light from the UV tubes drops below a specific set point. Lights must be replaced every 12,000 hours or when performance deteriorates. If a bank of lights is removed from a channel, a hoist system should be used or two operators and a support rack. Land Requirements- All elements of the Biolac® system alternative can fit into the footprint of the existing lagoon system’s Cell #3 as shown by the schematic, with the exception of disinfection, which is located on the west side of the site. This property is owned by the City and no additional land acquisition is necessary. With the Biolac® lagoon’s relatively small footprint, the opportunities for on-site land application of treated effluent are possible. Construction Issues – The primary construction issues involved with the Biolac® alternative are related to working within the footprint of the existing facility and also with groundwater. It is known that the existing lagoon cells are clay-lined over alluvial material. Draining Cell #3 while the other two cells are in operation will tend to create a hydraulic gradient toward the drained cell and increasing the volume of leakage from the operating cells #1 and During construction of the Biolac® basins (including Bio-P), it will be necessary to provide adequate de-watering to allow installation of the membrane liner and subgrade cushion. Over-excavation and import of granular soils may be necessary if unsuitable soils are encountered below the Biolac® floor elevation. Maintaining adequate treatment will be necessary during construction of the new facility. It is anticipated that Cell #3 would be isolated by directing Cell #2 effluent directly to the flocculating clarifier. Once isolated, Cell #3 liquid would be pumped to the beginning of Cell Cell #3 solids would be pumped to the furthest north drying bed (similar to the operation conducted in 2002 for Cell Once completely cleaned, work could then be undertaken in Cell #3 for construction of the grit removal, flow measurement, chemical feed, Biolac®, fermenter, blower building and site re-contouring. When these improvements are complete, the Biolac® could be put online and Cells #1 and #2 could be de-commissioned by pumping the liquids to the Biolac® treatment cell. Accumulated solids could be pumped to the existing drying beds or could wait for completion of the aerated sludge stabilization basin. While Cell #3 is being drained, the existing 65' diameter clarifier could be re-furbished for secondary clarification and then put on-line while the 75' diameter flocculating clarifier is being converted to a secondary clarifier. After Cells #1 and #2 are drained and cleaned, the dikes could be re-contoured to allow for expanded use of their footprint. Sustainability Considerations- Energy efficient motors would be specified for high horsepower applications including the blowers, mixers, and high horsepower pumps. Ramped soft starters or variable speed drives will be specified for high horsepower pumps, mixers and blowers to maximize energy efficiency, prolong motor life and to minimize the costs due to high inrush power demand. Real-time DO probes and controls will be installed in the Biolac® basin to optimize oxygen concentrations and the BNR process which will allow for more efficient blower and equipment operation saving ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 23 energy. Land application of a portion of the treatment plant’s effluent could be accomplished on adjacent areas that are suitable for land application. Estimated Costs- Engineer’s unit price estimate of cost to implement the Biolac® alternative is provided in Appendix D. Table 4.4 below provides a summary of costs taken from the unit price cost estimate. This table provides the engineer’s estimate of capital costs including contingency, design, engineer’s bidding/construction inspection costs and estimated salvage value at the 20-year design life. Annual operation and maintenance costs include operational labor, electrical power; self-monitoring; chemicals, repair/replacement and spare parts. These estimates will be used to compare net-present worth of each alternative. Table 4.4 Cost Summary for Biolac® Alternative Total Capital Cost $15,914,648 Total Annual O&M Cost $642,400 20-Year Salvage Value $2,481,200 Present Worth of Alternative $23,512,010 4.4.2.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor with Aerobic Sludge Digestion and Drying Beds Description: This alternative consists of a four-basin sequencing batch reactor (SBR) sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average flowrate of 1.51 MGD, 1.81 MGD wet weather and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD with grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. The entire proposed SBR system could be fit within the footprint of existing treatment cell The sequencing batch reactor layout was shown previously on Figure 4.4. The alternative shown reflects the Sanitaire layout, although basin/unit process sizing and equipment packages are similar with other SBR manufacturers’. The major treatment elements of the SBR Alternative include:  Headworks – Influent vortex-type grit system that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger- conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal. The existing influent screens would not need to be modified  Chemical Feed System – A chemical feed system that will be capable of dosing the influent wastewater with alum (if necessary) in order to provide for enhanced phosphorous removal in the SBR basins. This system will back up the biological nutrient removal process in the SBR.  Sequencing Batch Reactor – The principal treatment component will be a four- basin sequencing batch reactor with BNR capability. Each basin will be ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 24 approximately 3,600 ft2 in surface area, 15½' deep with a volume of 0.42 MG. Each basin will have five complete cycles per day at average daily flow (1.51 MGD) for a cycle time of 4.8 hours. The entire facility will have a hydraulic detention time of 1.1 days, solids retention time of 17.7 days. The SBR’s aeration system will be capable of delivering 7,060 lb.O2 per day to treat an average of 3,734 lb/day of BOD5, and 316 lb/day of ammonia. Equipment will include: one electrically-actuated inlet valve, one 15 HP submersible mixer, one 3 HP submersible transfer pump, 25 fine-bubble diffusers and a floating decanter per basin; diffuser retrieval system; five 75 HP positive displacement blower assemblies; level sensors; dissolved oxygen probes, and; a complete control system. WAS will be predominantly pumped to aerobic digestion for further stabilization with the option of going to the existing sludge drying beds under exigent conditions. The equipment package provided is based on one specific manufacturer’s design, other SBR designs are possible and should be considered in the design phase. An example of type of SBR design is shown below.  Existing Clarifiers/Sludge Digestion – Sludge digestion will be accomplished by conversion of the existing 75' diameter flocculating clarifier to an aerobic digester. This existing circular concrete basin will provide 2.3 days of aerated retention time (without thickening) at ADF. A single aerobic digester is adequate since the facility will have the option of conveying WAS directly to the sludge drying beds for dewatering. The digester will be equipped with: aeration diffusers for mixing and aeration; supernatant decant; scum/grease removal, and; high-level emergency overflow in accordance with DEQ-2 requirements. Stabilized solids will be pumped to the existing drying beds (4.3 total acres) for further dewatering and volatile solids destruction. Ultimate sludge disposal will be either to the local land fill or possibly to the local composting facility in Olney, MT. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 25  Aeration and SBR Process Equipment – The existing blower building will be expanded to house four new 125 HP SBR blowers as well as adding three 75 HP blowers for the aerobic digester conversion. Approximately 800 ft2 of floor space will be added to the existing building to accommodate the additional blowers, piping, motor controls and appurtenant equipment.  UV Disinfection and Administration Building – A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house: an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit; effluent magnetic flow meter; laboratory; auto-sampler; system controls and administration facilities. The disinfection unit will provide a minimum 15 mJ/cm2 dose of 253.7 nm UV light to treated effluent and will be equipped with: 36 high intensity/low pressure lamps; dose-pacing controls; automated lamp wiping; module lifting system; transmittance monitor; UV intensity sensors, and; level control weir.  Interim Treatment – Existing lagoon cells #1 and #2 will remain in operation during construction of the SBR and supporting unit processes. Once the SBR improvements are completed and on-line, cells #1 and #2 will be drained, undergo sludge removal and the dikes will be re-contoured to accommodate a new facility access road. Sludge from cells #1 and #2 will be pumped to the furthest north drying bed for dewatering. Advantages of SBR:  Small footprint which can easily fit within that of existing treatment cell allowing the City to maintain the maximum amount of treatment capability while the new improvements are being implemented.  Maximizing the use of existing infrastructure with the use of the main lift station and screen, newer flocculating clarifier basin, blower building, sludge pumps and sludge drying beds.  Excellent effluent quality: o BOD5 < 10 mg/l o TSS < 10 mg/l o NH3 ≤ 2 mg/l o TN ≤ 10 mg/l o TP ≤ 1 mg/l. Can be enhanced with chemical addition.  TN and TP removal through biological processes. Can be enhanced with filtration for future limitations.  Reliable, proven technology that has demonstrated performance in cold climates. Several installations in Montana.  Capable of handling variable loadings and flows.  Overall Net Present Worth is among the lowest for all alternatives considered and Capital Costs are lowest for all the mechanical options.  Easily expandable with the common-wall construction of additional basins and SBR assemblies. Adaptable to meet future nutrient regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 26  SBR can be programmed to automatically advance the treatment cycles in response to flow fluctuations, I&I response and dry weather flows. Redundancy in treatment basins allows one basin to be taken out of service while still maintaining adequate treatment capacity with the remaining basins. Dis-Advantages:  Higher overall annual O&M costs than Biolac alternative.  More complex mechanically than the existing system  Will require more operator skill to operate Environmental Impacts: Anticipated long-term environmental impacts for the SBR with aerobic sludge digestion and drying bed storage include: Adverse:  Higher power consumption than the current system.  Increased overall O&M costs associated with more FTE’s, power, maintenance, spare parts, etc. Beneficial:  The City’s effluent will receive a higher level of treatment prior to being discharged into the Whitefish River; reduced ammonia and nutrient levels in the treated effluent will result in enhanced instream water quality with a reduction in the incidence of nuisance algae growth.  This alternative may also be coupled with controlled irrigation of adjacent areas, further reducing pollutant discharges to the Whitefish River and providing beneficial reuse of the City’s treated effluent.  Reduced alum usage in order to achieve greater phosphorous removal. Operation and Maintenance – Operation of the Pretreatment and Pumping equipment will include daily checks on the equipment, adjustment as needed, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, removal and disposal of accumulated materials to the landfill, lubrication, general cleaning, oversight of control system and emergency operations. While not utilized at present, the odor control biofilter, if used, requires operation of a blower, injection of supplemental water during dry weather and periodic replacement of the filter media. The Secondary treatment process will require daily checks, adjustment of cycle times and aeration, process control testing, collection and testing (or delivery to lab) of compliance samples, adjustment of system controls, lubrication of blowers and miscellaneous equipment, adjustment of chemical feed rates, periodic replacement or cleaning of diffusers, general cleaning and system oversight. Solids handling equipment includes blowers that will require maintenance, scheduling of decant back to headworks, wasting of sludge to the sludge drying beds, general maintenance and cleaning of equipment and disposal to drying beds. Periodically, the drying beds will require removal of dried solids, testing and final disposal which could include onsite disposal, removal to the landfill, used for composting or as a general soil amendment. The detailed cost tables ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 27 in the Appendices provide cost estimates for labor, power, chemicals and other operational costs. UV Disinfection System Operation – This effort will include daily checks on the system, periodic replacement of the UV tubes, cleaning of the UV channels and general performance monitoring of the system. Most UV systems of this size utilize a mechanical cleaning system which utilizes a cleaning fluid and squeegees to keep the tubes clean. The cleaning system will require periodic servicing. The light sensor which measure UV transmittance will require cleaning. Alarms are provided on the system if a power failure occurs or if transmittance of light from the UV tubes drops below a specific set point. Lights must be replaced every 12,000 hours or when performance deteriorates. If a bank of lights is removed from a channel, a hoist system should be used or two operators and a support rack. Land Requirements- All elements of the SBR system alternative, excluding disinfection, can easily fit into the footprint of the existing lagoons system’s Cell #3 as shown by the schematic. This land is owned by the City and no additional land acquisition is necessary. With the SBR’s relatively small footprint, the opportunities for on-site land application of treated effluent are maximized. Construction Issues – The primary construction issues involved with the Sequencing Batch Reactor alternative are related to working within the footprint of the existing facility and also with groundwater. It is known that the existing lagoon cells are clay- lined over alluvial material. Draining Cell #3 while the other two cells are in operation will tend to create a hydraulic gradient toward the drained cell and increasing the volume of leakage from the operating cells #1 and During construction of the SBR basins, it will be necessary to provide adequate de-watering to allow forming of the concrete sub- structure and assuring that soil bearing capacities are not exceeded. Over-excavation and import of granular soils may be necessary if unsuitable soils are encountered below the SBR. Maintaining adequate treatment will be necessary during construction of the new facility. It is anticipated that Cell #3 would be isolated by directing Cell #2 effluent directly to the flocculating clarifier. Once isolated, Cell #3 liquid would be pumped to the beginning of Cell Cell #3 solids would be pumped to the furthest north drying bed (similar to the operation conducted in 2002 for Cell Once completely cleaned, work could then be undertaken in Cell #3 for construction of the grit removal, flow measurement, chemical feed, SBR, blower building and re-contouring. When these improvements are complete, the SBR could be put online and Cells #1 and #2 could be de-commissioned by pumping the liquids to the SBR. Solids could be pumped to the drying beds or could wait for completion of the digester. The flocculating clarifier could then be converted to an aerobic digester. After Cells #1 and #2 are drained and cleaned, the dikes could be re- contoured to allow for expanded use of their footprint. Sustainability Considerations- Energy efficient motors would be specified for high horsepower applications including the blowers, mixers, and high horsepower pumps. Ramped soft starters or variable speed drives will be specified for high horsepower ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 28 pumps, mixers and blowers to maximize energy efficiency, prolong motor life and to minimize the costs due to high inrush power demand. Real-time DO probes, pH sensors and controls will be installed in the reactor basins to optimize oxygen concentrations and the BNR process which will allow for more efficient blower and equipment operation saving energy. Land application of a portion of the treatment plant’s effluent could be accomplished on adjacent areas that are suitable for land application. Estimated Costs: Engineer’s unit price estimate of cost to implement the Sequencing Batch Reactor alternative is provided in Appendix D. Table 4.5 below provides a summary of the engineer’s estimate of present-day capital costs including construction costs; contingency; design, bidding and construction inspection costs, and; estimated salvage value at the 20-year design life. Annual operation and maintenance costs include operational labor; electrical power; self-monitoring; chemicals; repair/replacement and spare parts. These estimates will be used to compare net-present worth of each alternative later in this chapter. Table 4.5 Cost Summary for SBR Alternative Total Capital Cost $15,984,740 Total Annual O&M Cost $ 780,480 20-Year Salvage Value $4,601,475 Present Worth of Alternative $24,491,416 4.4.2.3 Oxidation Ditch with Sludge Thickening, Aerobic Sludge Digestion, Rehabilitation of the Existing Clarifiers and Drying Beds Description This alternative consists of an oxidation ditch, sludge thickening, and aerobic digestion. The existing clarifiers would be rehabilitated and the existing sludge drying beds would be utilized. All components would be sized to treat the City’s projected 2035 design average flowrate of 1.51 MGD, 1.81 MGD wet weather flow and its maximum daily flowrate of 4.53 MGD. Other system components would include grit removal, solids handling and effluent disinfection. Various combinations of treatment equipment that could be paired with the Oxidation Ditch were considered including: 1. Oxidation ditch with one new clarifier (replacing the old 65 ft clarifier), modifying the existing 75 ft clarifier, and mechanical dewatering. 2. Oxidation ditch with one new clarifier (replacing the old 65 ft clarifier), modifying the existing 75 ft clarifier, sludge thickening (to reduce digester size) and mechanical dewatering. 3. Oxidation ditch, rehabilitation of both existing clarifiers (no new clarifiers), no mechanical sludge thickening or dewatering (use existing drying beds). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 29 4. Oxidation ditch, rehabilitation of both existing clarifiers, mechanical sludge thickening, and using the existing sludge drying beds for sludge dewatering. The fourth option was selected as the combination to evaluate in detail because it has the lowest capital cost and allows the City to retain the use and investment in the existing clarifiers and sludge drying beds. The Oxidation Ditch layout was shown previously in Figure 4.6. The major treatment elements of the Oxidation Ditch Alternative include:  Headworks. Influent vortex-type grit system that will remove 90% of 200µm and larger grit. The grit system will wash and compact the material for auger- conveyance to a wheeled dumpster and landfill disposal. The existing influent screens would not have to be modified.  Chemical Feed System. A chemical feed system that will be capable of dosing the influent wastewater with alum (if necessary) in order to provide for enhanced phosphorous removal in the clarifiers.  Oxidation Ditch with BNR. The Oxidation Ditch system will consist of the following basins: o Four Anaerobic Basins – for biological phosphorus removal o Two Train Oxidation Ditch – for BOD removal, phosphorus removal, and nitrogen removal (anoxic zones created in the ditch).  The system will consist of two oxidation ditches with external anaerobic tanks. The external anaerobic tanks will be equipped with submersible mixers that will operate continuously. The anaerobic tanks perform Bio-P functions (release of phosphorus as orthophosphate) and will also have the side benefit of acting as a selector tank (for inhibiting filament growth). The oxidation ditches will be equipped with horizontal rotor aerators and submersible mixers. The rotors and mixers alternate on and off through alternating timed cycles (aerobic/anoxic) to allow for nitrification and de-nitrification. During the aerobic cycles the rotors will be in operation with the submersibles turned off. The rotors will provide the required oxygen transfer for BOD removal and for nitrification. The rotors will be controlled by VFDs in conjunction with a D.O. control loop for process optimization and energy efficiency. The uptake of excess orthophosphate will also occur during the aerobic cycle. The anoxic cycle will begin operation after the aerobic cycle based on timed sequence. During the anoxic cycle the rotors will turn off and the mixers will turn on. The mixers will provide complete mixing of the oxidation ditch during the anoxic cycle. As the D.O. depletes, the bacteria will begin to de-nitrify by using the nitrates produced from nitrification for BOD removal. De-nitrification is critical to the proper function of Bio-P removal (high nitrate levels will inhibit phosphorus release in the anaerobic tank). The contents of the oxidation ditches flow into the final clarifiers where the solids are allowed to settle and the clear liquid will flow over the effluent weirs. The settled solids in the bottom of the tank will be pumped back into the oxidation ditches as returned activated sludge (RAS) to maintain the population of bacteria. The return activated sludge can either be pumped into the anaerobic basins ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 30 (typical operation) or into the ditches. The orthophosphate taken up in the aerobic cycled is concentrated in the settled sludge as the clear liquid that overflows the weirs and will have a low concentration of phosphorus. Phosphorus is removed from the system in the waste activated sludge. If alum or other coagulants are fed into the ditch, the clarifiers can provide additional chemical phosphorus removal. Treated effluent from the oxidation ditches will flow to the clarifiers. The settled sludge from the clarifiers will be returned to the ditch as activated sludge and typically enter the anaerobic basins with the raw influent wastewater. Periodically sludge will be wasted from the clarifiers to the aerobic digesters. Clarified effluent will flow to the UV disinfection system and ultimate discharge to the Whitefish River.  Existing Clarifiers/Sludge Thickening. Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditches would flow to one of the two existing clarifiers. Clarified effluent will be disinfected with the UV disinfection system and discharged. Sludge from the clarifiers will be recycled back to the head end of the plant or wasted to the sludge thickener (disk thickening system) for further solids reduction and then to the aerobic digesters. The thickening system will dewater the sludge to a 4% solids concentration, reducing the size required for the aerobic digesters. A building to house the thickening equipment would be constructed next to the aerobic digesters. Minor modifications to the existing 75 ft. clarifier currently being used for phosphorus removal will have to be made to accommodate the increased volume of waste activated sludge. Modifications to the existing 65 ft. clarifier that is not currently in use will be more extensive including installing a new cover, drives, sweeps, electrical upgrades and HVAC upgrades. Splitting flow to clarifiers of two different sizes can be problematic.  Aerobic Digesters. This alternative assumes that two new covered aerobic digesters would be constructed for sludge stabilization. The digesters will be equipped with: aeration diffusers for mixing and aeration; supernatant decant; scum/grease removal, and; high-level emergency overflow in accordance with DEQ-2 requirements. Stabilized solids will be pumped to the existing drying beds (4.3 total acres) for further dewatering and volatile solids destruction. Ultimate sludge disposal will be either to the local land fill or possibly to the local composting facility. A building would be constructed to house pumping equipment and possibly the blower equipment (costs assume reuse of the existing blower building).  Process Equipment. Process equipment will include the items listed in the O&M Cost Estimate in Appendix D.  UV Disinfection and Administration building. A 4,000 ft2 building will be constructed to house: an open-channel ultra-violet disinfection unit; effluent magnetic flow meter; laboratory; auto-sampler; system controls and administration facilities. The disinfection unit will provide a minimum 15 mJ/cm2 dose of 253.7 nm UV light to treated effluent and will be equipped with: 36 high intensity/low pressure lamps; dose-pacing controls; automated lamp wiping; ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 31 module lifting system; transmittance monitor; UV intensity sensors, and; level control weir. Maintenance of Plant Operations – Once the Oxidation Ditch improvements are completed and on-line, cells #1 and #2 will be drained, undergo sludge removal and the dikes will be re-contoured to accommodate a new facility access road. Advantages of Oxidation Ditch:  Facilities can easily fit within that of existing treatment cell allowing the City to maintain the maximum amount of treatment capability while the new improvements are being implemented.  Making use of existing infrastructure with the use of the main lift station and screen, blower building, and sludge drying beds.  Excellent effluent quality : o BOD5 < 10 mg/l o TSS < 10 mg/l o NH3 ≤ 1 mg/l summer, 4 mg/l winter o TN ≤ 10 mg/l o TP ≤ 1 mg/l. Can be enhanced with chemical addition to < .3 mg/l.  TN and TP removal through biological processes. Can be enhanced with filtration for future limitations.  Reliable, proven technology that has demonstrated performance in cold climates. Several installations in Montana.  Capable of handling variable loadings and flows. Dis-Advantages:  Higher overall annual O&M costs than the existing system, but comparable to other mechanical treatment alternatives.  Capital cost and present worth higher than the other alternatives  Physically, the largest mechanical system evaluated Environmental Impacts - Anticipated long-term environmental impacts for the Oxidation Ditch with aerobic sludge digestion and drying bed storage include: Adverse:  Higher power consumption than the current system.  Increased overall O&M costs associated with more FTE’s, power, maintenance, spare parts, etc. Beneficial:  The City’s effluent will receive a higher level of treatment prior to being discharged into the Whitefish River; reduced ammonia and nutrient levels in the treated effluent will result in enhanced instream water quality with a reduction in the incidence of nuisance algae growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 32  This alternative may also be coupled with controlled irrigation of adjacent areas suitable for land application, further reducing pollutant discharges to the Whitefish River and providing beneficial reuse of the City’s treated effluent.  Reduced alum usage in order to achieve greater phosphorous removal. Operation and Maintenance – Operation of the Pretreatment and Pumping equipment will include daily checks on the equipment, adjustment as needed, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, removal and disposal of accumulated materials to the landfill, lubrication, general cleaning, oversight of control system and emergency operations. While not utilized at present, the odor control biofilter, if used, requires operation of a blower, injection of supplemental water during dry weather and periodic replacement of the filter media. The Secondary treatment process will require daily checks, adjustment of cycle times and aeration, process control testing, collection and testing (or delivery to lab) of compliance samples, adjustment of system controls, lubrication of blowers and miscellaneous equipment, adjustment of chemical feed rates, periodic replacement or cleaning of diffusers, general cleaning and system oversight. Solids handling equipment includes blowers that will require maintenance, scheduling of decant back to headworks, wasting of sludge to the sludge drying beds, general maintenance and cleaning of equipment and disposal to drying beds. Periodically, the drying beds will require removal of dried solids, testing and final disposal which could include onsite disposal, removal to the landfill, used for composting or as a general soil amendment. The detailed cost tables in the Appendices provide cost estimates for labor, power, chemicals and other operational costs. UV Disinfection System Operation – This effort will include daily checks on the system, periodic replacement of the UV tubes, cleaning of the UV channels and general performance monitoring of the system. Most UV systems of this size utilize a mechanical cleaning system which utilizes a cleaning fluid and squeegees to keep the tubes clean. The cleaning system will require periodic servicing. The light sensor which measure UV transmittance will require cleaning. Alarms are provided on the system if a power failure occurs or if transmittance of light from the UV tubes drops below a specific set point. Lights must be replaced every 12,000 hours or when performance deteriorates. If a bank of lights is removed from a channel, a hoist system should be used or two operators and a support rack. Land Requirements- The Oxidation Ditch system can easily fit into the foot print of the existing lagoon system. This land is owned by the City and no additional land acquisition is required. The ditch system will take up less of the City owned property expanding the opportunity for on-site land application of some of the treated effluent. Construction Issues – The primary construction issues involved with the ditch alternative are related to working within the footprint of the existing facility and also with groundwater. It is known that the existing lagoon cells are clay-lined over alluvial material. Draining Cell #3 while the other two cells are in operation will tend to create a hydraulic gradient toward the drained cell and increasing the volume of leakage from the operating cells #1 and During construction of the ditch basins, it will be necessary to provide adequate de-watering to allow forming of the concrete sub-structure and assuring ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 33 that soil bearing capacities are not exceeded. Over-excavation and import of granular soils may be necessary if unsuitable soils are encountered below the ditch basins. Maintaining adequate treatment will be necessary during construction of the new facility. It is anticipated that Cell #3 would be isolated by directing Cell #2 effluent directly to the flocculating clarifier. Once isolated, Cell #3 liquid would be pumped to the beginning of Cell Cell #3 solids would be pumped to the furthest north drying bed (similar to the operation conducted in 2002 for Cell Once completely cleaned, work could then be undertaken in Cell #3 for construction of the grit removal, flow measurement, chemical feed, oxidation ditch, blower building and re-contouring. When these improvements are complete, the new oxidation ditch could be put online and Cells #1 and #2 could be de- commissioned by pumping the liquids to the oxidation ditch. Solids could be pumped to the drying beds or could wait for completion of the digester. After Cells #1 and #2 are drained and cleaned, the dikes could be re-contoured to allow for expanded use of their footprint. Sustainability Considerations- Energy efficient motors would be specified for high horsepower motors including the blowers, ditch rotors, and high horsepower pumps. Ramp starters or variable speed drives will be specified for high horsepower pumps, ditch rotors and the blowers to maximize energy efficiency and to avoid the demand charges of starting high horsepower motors. Probes and controls will be installed in the reaction basins to optimize oxygen concentrations and the BNR process which will allow for more efficient blower and equipment operation saving energy. Land application of a portion of the treatment plant’s effluent could be accomplished on adjacent areas that are suitable for land application. Estimated Costs – Engineer’s detailed unit price estimate of cost to implement the Oxidation Ditch alternative are provided in Appendix D. Table 4.6 below provides a summary of the engineer’s estimate of capital costs including contingency, design, bidding and construction inspection costs, and estimated salvage value at the 20-year design life. Annual operation and maintenance costs including operational labor, power, self-monitoring, chemicals, repair/replacement and spare parts are estimated as well. These estimates will be used to compare net-present worth of the alternatives. Table 4.6 Cost Summary for Oxidation Ditch Alternative Total Capital Cost $21,356,133 Total Annual O&M Cost $928,000 20 Year Salvage Value $6,451,440 Present Worth of Alternative $31,023,170 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 34 4.4.3 Evaluation of Alternatives The following Table 4.7 provides a comparison of capital and operating costs for the three final options considered. The present worth cost provides a summary of the capital costs, present value of operating costs with the present worth of the salvage value deducted. Present worth can be considered as a more representative number of the true value of the costs of each alternative. As noted, the Biolac system and the SBR have similar capital costs whereas the Oxidation Ditch is significantly greater. Similar comparisons can be made for the present worth values for each alternative with some variation in the present values of the Biolac system and the SBR due to the lower operating costs of the SBR. The treatment alternatives were ranked utilizing the criteria used in the earlier screening process, with the addition of three additional factors, as described in Table 4.8 below. Alternative Capital Cost Annual O&M 20-Year NPW Annual O&M Salvage Value 20-Year NPW Salvage Value Overall 20-Year Net Present Worth Biolac w/ Existing Clarifier $15,914,648 $642,369 $8,729,790 $2,481,218 $1,132,428 $23,512,010 Sequencing Batch Reactor $15,984,739 $780,485 $10,606,791 $4,601,475 $2,100,113 $24,491,416 Oxidation Ditch $21,356,133 $927,996 $12,611,472 $6,451,438 $2,944,436 $31,023,169 Net Present Worth Comparison Table Table 4-7 City of Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Biolac SBR O-Ditch Capital Costs 1 1 3 Operating Costs 1 2 3 Mechanical and Operational Complexity 1 1 1 Use of Proven Technology 2 1 1 Future Expansion Capability 3 1 2 Capacity to Remove Pollutants to Lower Levels 3 1 1 Cold Weather Operation 2 1 1 Odor Potential and Aesthetics 2 1 2 Environmental Impacts 1 1 1 Ease of Implementation 1 1 2 Public Acceptance 1 1 1 Total 18 12 18 Rank 3 1 2 Table 4.8 City of Whitefish PER Ranking of Three Screened Alternatives ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 4– Alternative Analysis and Recommendations Page 35 Discussion – The first two factors reflect the capital and operating costs for each option, with the oxidation ditch reflecting the highest capital and operating costs. Complexity of the treatment alternatives is relatively similar. The Biolac option was scored lower for proven technology primarily due to the use of a fermenter, a process that can be problematic with odors and has not be fully tested with the lagoon based system. The Biolac system is also more difficult to expand with an earthen structure. Lack of close operational control, limited solids management and the limits of proven technology also result in a reduced score for the Biolac in the system’s capacity to reduce pollutants to a lower level. Cold weather operation is similar for the three options although the large surface area of the Biolac reduced the score on this item. The SBR was scored better for aesthetics, primarily due to the systems relatively small size. Environmental impacts of each alternative are similar as is the ease of implementation. A Public Meeting was held to discuss the treatment options and the draft PER made available to the public. No adverse comments were received by the public. One city councilman indicated that the carbon footprint of the treatment alternatives should be a factor in the selection process. The Mayor further indicated that odor potential of treatment options should be a consideration. The process indicates that the SBR facility is the best alternative for the City of Whitefish. The SBR plant, with good operation, can meet existing and the proposed permit limits suggested for the next permitting cycle. Use of chemicals will allow for improved phosphorous removal required for the more restrictive permit standards. Ultimately, filtration of the treated effluent may be necessary to meet more restrictive standards in the future. 4.6 Recommended Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 4.6.1 Summary of Recommendations After review of the planning document by the Whitefish Public Works Department, the City Council and the Public, it was concluded that the Sequencing Batch Reactor was the most cost-effective and environmentally sound treatment alternative. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing secondary treatment plant with a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) capable of removing ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorous to fully comply with the requirements of the current MPDES discharge permit. Furthermore, the plant will be capable of meeting anticipated more restrictive nutrient standards proposed by the DEQ in the next two discharge permit cycles (5 and 10 years hence). The estimated costs for the project are $17,366,666 including costs for construction (with a 3% inflation factor presuming construction in 2019), engineering, administration and a 15% contingency. Annual costs for operating the entire facility are estimated to be $780,480, which roughly equates to a $440,000 cost increase over the current operational cost. Detailed cost estimates for this option are included in Appendix D. Chapter 6 will consider an implementation strategy to develop this option. ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 6 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 Chapter 5 Other Nutrient Reduction Options 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Nutrient Reduction Outside of the Treatment Plant The City of Whitefish is currently investigating means to reduce nutrients through methods other than removal in a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Nutrient reduction could include reduction at the source, removal of alternate sources such as stormwater, agricultural runoff or wood smoke, land application of wastewater in lieu of discharge, upstream controls such as improved management (or elimination) of septic systems and other options involving the concept of nutrient trading. The City of Whitefish has obtained a grant from the Montana DNRC to prepare a Nutrient Reduction Plan which is being prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates in conjunction with Anderson-Montgomery Consulting Engineers. The Executive Summary from this plan is included below. 5.1.2 Executive Summary for City of Whitefish Nutrient Trading Plan The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) defines nutrient trading as a market-based approach to achieving water quality standards in which a point source (such as the Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Plant) purchases pollutant reduction credits from another point source or a nonpoint source in the applicable trading region that are then used to meet the source’s pollutant discharge obligations. To be creditable to the source purchaser, the credits must reflect an actual, pollutant load differential below the credit seller’s baseline. Under certain circumstances, a point source buyer may have to purchase more than one pound of pollutant reduction to equal a pound discharged at its outfall. In simpler terms, if the City can find means to reduce nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus) from other sources they can obtain a “nutrient credit” that in effect increases the nutrient loading limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in the City’s current discharge permit. Potential nutrient trading sources in the Whitefish Area include:  Land application of effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant.  Residential on-site septic systems.  Runoff from agricultural land  Stormwater runoff from the City’s stormwater collection system.  Golf course runoff.  Smoke from woodstoves. 5.1.3 Initial Investigative and Sampling Efforts In order to make an initial determination as to whether or not there are potential nutrient trading sources near the Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), an initial sampling plan was developed to screen for the presence of nutrients in the City’s ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 2 stormwater discharges and at or near the mouth of nearby tributary streams that flow into the Whitefish River. The table below taken from Chapter 1 of the Plan summarizes the sampling points. The current in-stream nutrient standards for the Northern Rockies Ecoregion (as defined in Circular DEQ 12-A) are 0.275 mg/l TN and 0.025 mg/l TP. These standards are in effect from July 1st to September 30th of each year and were used as an initial gauge for the significance of the initial sampling results. The limited sampling that was completed in 2014 indicated three areas or sources where nutrient concentrations exceeded the numeric nutrient instream standards for the Northern Rockies Ecoregion. They were Cow Creek, Walker Creek and stormwater runoff from the City of Whitefish. Cow Creek receives multiple discharges from the City’s storm drainage system and livestock are wintered just to the east of the creek in the Creek View Drive area. Livestock (cattle) were noted on Walker Creek near the Dillon Road Crossing and could be contributing to the nutrient loading in the creek. Nutrients detected in the urban stormwater runoff can be attributed to sources such as lawn fertilizer, pet waste, and particulate material. Based on the sampling results and on the ground investigations the conclusion was made that the Cow and Walker Creek drainages and the City’s stormwater effluent have a potential for generating nutrient trading credits. In addition to the above sources other potential sources of nutrient credits were investigated in the nutrient trading plan including:  Golf Course Runoff  Agricultural Runoff  Lawn Fertilizers  Areas with onsite septic tanks  Smoke from woodstoves TABLE 5.1 Sampling Points Sample Location Sample Type Whitefish River Outfall Storm Water Riverside Pond Storm Water Hamilton/Baker Outfall Storm Water Spruce Court Outfall Storm Water Mouth of Cow Creek Surface Water Swift Creek at Delrey Surface Water Swift Creek at Olney Surface Water Haskill Creek Near Mouth Surface Water Viking Creek Near Mouth Surface Water Walker Creek Near Mouth Surface Water Whitefish River at Columbia Bridge Surface Water Whitefish River at JP Road Surface Water Whitefish River at Highway 40 Surface Water Whitefish River at Lake Outlet Surface Water ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 3  Land Application (irrigation) of the Effluent from the Whitefish Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 5.1.4 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL NUTRIENT TRADING SOURCES The table below taken from Chapter 3 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of potential nutrient trading sources: TABLE 5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages Of Nutrient Trading Sources Potential Trading Source Advantages Disadvantages or Issues Land Application of WWTP Effluent  Long-term source of credits.  Most credits available of any of the sources.  City would have direct control of the irrigation system.  Quantity of available credits easy to document  Amount of credit will not vary unless irrigated volume reduced or increased.  Cost to implement is very high with the exception of irrigating on City property around the plant.  Multiple irrigation sites would be needed. Would have purchase multiple sites or enter into multiple lease agreements.  Clay soils in the area may pose challenges.  Extensive piping system is required to serve multiple irrigation sites.  Credits available only during irrigation season unless total retention/storage is provided. Residential On-Site Septic Systems  Moderate amount of potential credits available.  Long-term source of credits.  Amount of credit will not vary.  Cost per pound of credit is very high.  Septic systems that connect to the City’s collection system will increase the lbs/day loading to the WWTP by at least twice the lbs/day of credits generated.  Converting septic systems to a central or individual level two advanced treatment systems would require a significant monitoring effort by the City to validate and maintain the credits. Runoff from Agricultural Land  Moderate to low amount of potential credits available  Cost per pound of credit generated is reasonable  Not a long-term source of trading credits (land use or ownership can change).  Requires landowner cooperation.  BMP’s will require a management and maintenance effort by the City to document and validate credits. Storm water  Cost per pound of credit generated is reasonable  Amount of potential credits available is low. Golf Courses  Not likely to provide a significant amount of trading credits.  Would have to enter into an agreement with the golf course owners for management of BMP’s  May not be a long term source if golf course closes, changes ownership or management practices. Urban Runoff (Lawn Fertilizer)  Cost to implement fertilizer management programs and/or implementing ordinances to require fertilizers with slow release nitrogen and low or zero phosphorus should be reasonable.  May be difficult to document the effect of implementing management BMP’s and fertilizer ordinances.  Depends upon public participation and results may vary from year to year.  Would have to document by sampling runoff on a yearly basis.  Magnitude of trading credits unknown. Other states have not noticed marked decrease in nutrient pollution. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 4 The table below also taken from Chapter 3 of the Nutrient Plan summarizes an estimate of potential trading credits that may be available from the various sources that were evaluated in this document. Sources that did not show initial promise are not included in this table. These estimates are very preliminary and are subject to many factors as discussed in this document. The table also provides a range of estimated costs to generate the estimated nitrogen trading credits based on the preliminary analyses provided in Chapter 2 of the Plan. These cost estimates are provided in dollars/pound/day, in other words the cost to produce a pound per day of nitrogen credit. The costs to produce a pound per day of phosphorus credit are not provided but would be significantly higher because the number of phosphorus credits generated from each source is much lower than the pounds per day of nitrogen credit generated. The estimates are provided are preliminary and would have to be fined tuned for each actual trading source that is pursued. For comparison purposes the cost and amount of credits that would be generated by adding nutrient removal to a new mechanical treatment plant is included in the table. Smoke from Woodstoves  Likely not a significant source of trading credits  Would be hard to manage and document.  Pollution control devices on woodstoves don’t typically target nutrients. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 5 TABLE 5.3 Estimate of Nutrient Credits Generated From Various Sources and Cost/Day/Lb of Credit Generated Trading Source Estimate of Total Available TN Credits (lbs/day) Estimate of Total Available TP Credits (lbs/day) Estimated Capital Cost for BMP or Credit Generation Cost per One Pound of TN Credit Generated per Day Notes Onsite Land Application at the WWTP Property Up to 22 Up to 0.5 $1.0 million $45,000 Assumes 20 Acres Available for Irrigation at WWTP Site. Available credits will decrease and cost per credit will increase if a mechanical plant with BNR is constructed, due to lower nutrient concentration in the effluent. Land Application Offsite from the WWTP Up to 192 currently Up to 276 by end of 20-yr planning period Up to 4.2 currently Up to 6 by end of planning period $10 million - $73 million $36,000-$237,000 Cost and credits dependent upon volume of wastewater land applied. Connect on-site septic systems to City collection system or convert to advanced treatment 14-24 (Potential for area around Whitefish lake and upper Whitefish River.) 0.6-1.8 (Potential for area around Whitefish lake and upper Whitefish River.) Varies Varies Capital costs and cost per pound per day of credit for site specific examples are provided in table 2-13. Connect 100 generic lots with on-site septic systems to City collection system or convert to advanced treatment 3.8 to 6.3 0-0.5 $4.1million - $5.3 million for 100 generic lots $650,000 to 1.4 million for 100 generic lots Range of costs and generated credits based on either connecting to sewer system or installing advanced treatment. Less credits are generated for advanced treatment. Agricultural Runoff 8 (Based on three areas with significant concentrations of livestock.) 2 (Based on three areas with significant concentrations of livestock.) Varies with BMP implemented. $90,000 to $108,000 (For three site specific examples evaluated.) Varies with BMP implemented. $ 34,000 to $38,000 (Based on three areas with significant concentrations of livestock) Total available credits may increase if other areas are identified. Stormwater 0.4 to 4.0 0.08 to 0.80 Varies with BMP implemented and drainage area. Varies with BMP implemented and drainage area. Stormwater estimates for generic 5 acre drainage area 0.003 to 0.007 0.0009 to 0.002 $25,000 to $ 223,000 $3.8 million - $42 million Costs vary with type of BMP implemented. See Table 2021 Install Mechanical Treatment with Biological Nutrient Removal at the Whitefish WWTP 109 Based on current flow (1.0 MGD). 163 Based on 20-yr planning period flow 2.1 Based on current flow. 3.1 Based on 20-yr flow $1,600,000 To add BNR to Mechanical Treatment Plant $14,700 (current) $ 9.815 (20-yr) Assumes BNR would increase current TP removal rate by 50% and produce 10 mg/l TN in WWTP effluent. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 6 5.1.5 Need for Nutrient Trading Credits The table below summarizes the current nitrogen and phosphorus loading limits in the City’s discharge permit that expires in July of 2020. The table also includes the current and projected 20-year nutrient effluent loadings with an estimate of the credits that will be needed over the planning period in order to comply with the current discharge permit. TABLE 5.4 Current Nutrient Loading Limits with Current and 20-Year Estimated WWTP Effluent Nutrient Loads Nutrient Current Permit Effluent Limit (lbs/day) Current WWTP Average Effluent Load (lbs/day) Estimated 20-yr WWTP Average Effluent Load (at 1.5 MGD) (lbs/day) Current Credits Needed (Average) (lbs/day) Credits Needed at End of 20- Year Planning Period (Avg. (lbs/day) Nitrogen Summer Non-Summer 176 273 184 184 276 276 8 0 100 3 Phosphorus Year Around 10.4 4.5 6.75 0 0 The treatment plant effluent loadings in the above table are based on the performance of the City’s existing aerated lagoons. At current treatment levels, there will be no need to obtain phosphorus credits during the planning period unless the effluent limits in the City’s discharge permit are lowered during the 20-year planning period. The existing WWTP will not be able to meet the current and 20-year summertime permit effluent limit of 176 lbs per day for total nitrogen and it will not be able to meet the non-summertime permit effluent limit by the end of the 20-year planning period. Currently, the existing treatment plant will exceed the nitrogen loading limit in its discharge permit by up to 8 lbs per day and this number will increase to 100 lbs per day by the end of the planning period. The estimated credits that will be needed at the end of the planning period will likely decrease or may not be needed if the City constructs a treatment process that is more efficient at removing nitrogen (and phosphorus) than the existing aerated lagoons. If nutrient trading is implemented, the first order of priority would be to obtain nitrogen trading credits in the summer months. 5.1.6 Feasible Options for Nutrient Trading There is one trading option that would be able to provide the 100 lbs/day of nitrogen credits needed at the end to the planning period; land application of a significant portion of the treated wastewater effluent from the WWTP. The construction of a mechanical plant with nutrient removal would also allow the City to meet the requirements of its ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 7 discharge permit. Constructing a new WWTP is not nutrient trading. Although, there is a limited potential that the City could sell credits to another entity in the future if a new WWTP is constructed that removes more lbs/day of nitrogen and phosphorus than is required by the discharge permit for the plant. The remaining sources listed in Table 5.2 (stormwater, septic tanks and agricultural runoff) even if combined would likely not be able to generate the needed 100 lbs/day of nitrogen credits in the summer months at the end of the planning period without upgrading City’s WWTP. In the short-term installing an irrigation system to irrigate effluent on the City’s property combined with trading credits from other sources would allow the City to meet the nitrogen effluent limits for a portion of the planning period 10 years). Other options include:  Credits from recent and future stormwater improvements. The amount of potential credits from stormwater improvements is limited (estimated at 0.4 to 4 lbs/day of total nitrogen). However, it may be possible to obtain credits for recently completed and future stormwater improvements such as detention basins and groundwater infiltrators. These credits could be documented by sampling and banked for future use. It is likely not cost effective to install stormwater treatment just for obtaining nutrient credits because of the small amount of credits available, but credits should be documented and banked for improvements that are being completed for other reasons. These credits could be used if future discharge permit nutrient limits become more stringent in the future.  Credits from On-Site Septic Systems. In general it would not be cost effective to obtain nutrient trading credits by sewering areas with on-site septic systems and connecting to the City’s sewer system or by providing some type of advanced treatment system for the on-site systems. The costs are very high for obtaining the credits from septic systems as illustrated in Table 5.3. Also, if the on-site systems are connected to the City sewer system the additional nutrient load in lbs/day to the City’s treatment system would be at least twice the amount of nutrient credits in lbs/day that could be generated (due to the trading ratios that de-rate the credits as discussed later in this document). However, if there are areas adjacent to the City’s collection system that are going to be connected for other reasons, the credits should be documented and banked for future use in case future discharge permits tighten the effluent limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. 5.1.7 Viable Nutrient Trading or Reduction Options In order to determine if a particular method of reduction is viable for nutrient trading the following criteria should be examined:  Capital cost for implementing BMP’s or improvements to generate credits.  Cost per pound per day of nutrient credit generated.  Quantity of credits available from the source. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 8  Practicality of maintaining and documenting the quantity of credits generated.  Whether the credits are long or short term.  Manpower effort and cost required to maintain and operate BMP’s. Based on these criteria and the analysis in this document the most cost effective and practical options for generating nutrient credits or meeting the requirements of the City’s discharge permit would be: 1. Adding nutrient removal to the proposed mechanical treatment plant. 2. Installing BMP’s to reduce nutrients in agricultural runoff. 3. Irrigation of WWTP effluent. These options are discussed in more detail below. 1. Adding BNR to the Proposed Mechanical Treatment Plant - This source does not generate credits by “trading” in the traditional manner with other sources of nutrient pollution. It consists of constructing a new treatment plant with nutrient removal capability. The cost per pound per day of credit that is presented in Table 3-2 of the Nutrient Plan was based on the cost to add nutrient removal to some type of mechanical treatment plant such as a traditional activated sludge plant, oxidation ditch, MBR or SBR. It assumes that the plant is going to be constructed as a replacement to the existing aerated lagoons. This source of “credits” is discussed here because it appears to be the most cost effective means of meeting the current discharge permit’s nitrogen and phosphorus limits. Also, it is capable of generating trading credits in excess of what is required to meet the current discharge permit which could be sold to other point source dischargers if they exist. In-plant nutrient removal options are discussed in detail in the prior chapter of this document. 2. Installing BMP’s to Reduce Nutrients in Agricultural Runoff - This source would not likely generate a significant quantity of credits. However the cost to implement BMP’s to remove nutrients from agricultural runoff is lower than most of the other options. This may not be a reliable long-term source of nutrient trading credits if land ownership changes or if land management practices change. Therefore, this may be a good option if the nutrient limits in future discharge permits are lowered further and credits are needed to comply with the permit in the short-term until treatment upgrades can be completed. Other sources that were evaluated that were not as cost effective, posed management or documentation problems or that did not generate a significant number of credits included:  Connecting on-site septic systems to the City’s collection system or converting them to advanced treatment. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 9  Adding BMP’s for nutrient removal to existing stormwater discharges (unless they are being done for other reasons then the credits should be banked for future use).  Off-site land application of large volumes of wastewater effluent.  Runoff from golf courses.  Runoff from urban lawns.  Woodsmoke. 3. Irrigation of WWTP Effluent - Land application can be used to reduce the nutrient loading from the existing or new wastewater treatment plant. A nutrient credit would be applied to the City’s nitrogen and phosphorus loading limits in its wastewater discharge permit. One pound per day of nitrogen and phosphorus credit would be given for each pound per day of credit that was land applied. Credits would only be given for the months that irrigation occurs (May-Sept.) unless a large storage lagoon is constructed to store wastewater that is discharged during the remainder of the year. Land applying a portion or all of the effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment system could partially or totally eliminate the need to construct a treatment system with nutrient removal. In order to land apply wastewater effluent it must be treated to meet at least secondary effluent standards for BOD, and TSS and must meet total coliform limits. The degree of treatment required and the coliform limits that must be met are based on the crop that is irrigated with the treated wastewater. The table in the design criteria section summarizes MDEQ’s land application requirements for various types of crops. The City’s current discharge permit has nutrient loading limits for nitrogen and phosphorous. The limits for nitrogen are more stringent in the summer months from July 1st to September 30th of each year as summarized in the table below. The table also includes current and projected design loadings in the wastewater treatment plant effluent (assuming treatment efficiency does not change): A number of conclusions can be made from the above table:  Based on current and estimated design phosphorus loads in the treatment plant effluent, phosphorus effluent loads will not exceed discharge permit loading limits over the 20-year planning period. TABLE 5.5 Permit Nutrient Limits and Current WWTP Nutrient Loadings NUTRIENT SUMMER LOADING LIMITS (July 1st To Sept. 30th) NON SUMMER LOADING LIMITS CURRENT AVERAGE LOAD (From Discharge Permit Fact Sheet) ESTIMATED AVERAGE LOAD IN 2035 (Assuming current effluent TN & TP concentrations) Nitrogen 176 lbs./day 273 lbs./day 184 lbs./day 276 lbs./day Phosphorus 10.4 lbs./day 10.4 lbs./day 4.5 lbs./day 6.75 lbs./day ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 10  The average current effluent nitrogen load (184 lbs. /day) will exceed the new summertime nitrogen loading limit of 176 lbs. /day by an average of 8 lbs. /day.  The average effluent nitrogen load will exceed the new non-summertime nitrogen loading limit of 273 lbs./day near the end of the 20-year planning period by an estimated average of 3 lbs./day (unless a new treatment plant with nutrient removal is constructed).  The effluent nitrogen load will have to be reduced by 100 lbs./day to meet the summertime nitrogen loading limits and by 3 lbs./day to meet the non- summertime nitrogen loading limits near the end of the 20-year planning period The Nutrient Trading Plan evaluates land application as a source of nutrient trading credits in detail. In this document four alternatives were considered for land application: 1. Alternative One: Land Apply a Portion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Effluent on City Owned Property at the WWTP (see limitations discussed below). 2. Alternative Two: Land Apply All of the WWTP Effluent During the Summer Months (Mid-May to Mid-September; approx. 120 days), Continue Discharging the Remainder of the Year. 3. Alternative Three: Construct a Storage Lagoon and Land Apply All of the WWTP Effluent During the Summer Months, Totally Eliminating the Discharge From the WWTP. 4. Alternative Four: Land Apply to Meet Summer Nitrogen Limits for 20-year Planning Period (100 lbs. of credit required by end of planning period). Out of these four alternatives only Alternative One was deemed a viable alternative for nutrient trading. The other alternatives were eliminated at this point in time for the following reasons:  Based on NRCS soils data ⅓ to ½ of the area in the Whitefish Valley is rated as “very limited” for the disposal of wastewater by irrigation, the remainder of the area is ranked as “somewhat limited”. This is due to a number of factors including high clay content, high water table, and slopes too steep for irrigation. The most significant factor is the clay content of the local soils. Clay soils can become impermeable after extended periods of irrigation due to sodium and other dissolved solids in the wastewater. Much of the land in the Whitefish near the Whitefish WWTP is classified by the NRCS as unsuitable for the land application of wastewater due the high clay content of the soil and high groundwater in certain areas.  The area around the WWTP is heavily populated and large blocks of suitable land for irrigation are limited. It would likely not be possible to find enough suitable land for the alternatives with the higher acreage requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 11  Required buffer zones around irrigation sites further complicate finding large blocks of suitable land.  Alternatives Two, Three and Four would require 130 to 1200 acres of land for irrigation and off season storage to be viable.  Due to the lack of large blocks of suitable land, multiple irrigation sites and a complex piping system would be required.  The clay content of the soils could cause a site to fail over time if the soils is not periodically conditioned and maintained.  Capital costs ranged from $5.7 million for Alternative Four to $72.8 million for alternative Three. Construction of a new WWTP for ammonia removal would still be required for Alternatives Two and Four. Figure 5.1 shows potential sites with suitable soils for land application (per the NRCS soils maps) of wastewater. This figure illustrates problem of finding large blocks of suitable land. Alternative One was deemed viable for the following reasons:  The City already owns the land and can manage it properly for land application.  The soils appear to be somewhat suitable for land application, although a thorough soils investigation would be required to determine its actual suitability.  Could be used in the future if nutrient limits in the City’s discharge permit are reduced further supplementing the treatment efficiency of a new WWTP during the summer months when the nitrogen loading limits are the most stringent.  It is the least costly of all of the land application alternatives that were evaluated. The City owns approximately 40 acres of land around the wastewater treatment plant. This alternative consists of the construction of a land application system that would land apply treated effluent on suitable ground owned by the City at and adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant. This alternative would be utilized to supplement the disposal of treated effluent from either the existing aerated lagoon system or the preferred mechanical treatment plant alternative (the SBR system). Approximately half of this area (20 acres) is covered by a dense growth of various types of trees and shrubs including Engelmann Spruce, Douglas Fir, Western Larch, Lodgepole Pine and Sub- Alpine Fir. This area also contains a popular public walking/biking trail. A preliminary site survey of this area estimated approximately 292 trees per acre of the various types listed above, with the predominate species being Engelmann Spruce (152 trees per acre) and Douglas Fir (81 trees per acre). Discussions with a local landscaping firm and RPA’s Landscape Architecture Division staff indicated that irrigation of this heavily forested area may be detrimental to the existing trees and in fact may kill the trees, especially if drip or subsurface irrigation is used. The potential issue is the clay content of the local soils. If the clays are prone to swelling when they become saturated, the soil permeability will decrease preventing enough water from reaching the root zone of the trees. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 12 For the forested 20 acres, further study will be required to determine if any irrigation can occur without harming the existing tree growth. It may be possible to install some type of limited irrigation system, however a detailed soil study should be completed and an agronomist or forestry expert should be consulted before any irrigation is attempted in this area. The density of the existing trees and vegetation would also make installing an irrigation system a challenge and add to installation costs. If spray irrigation is used to irrigate this area the effluent would have to be filtered to meet Class A requirements due to public accessibility. Therefore, from a practical standpoint only 20 acres may be available for irrigation which would limit the irrigation volume to approximately 0.12 MGD. This area lies adjacent to the existing sludge drying beds and aerated lagoons. See Figure 5.2. This area could be irrigated with hand lines or wheel lines. A center pivot is probably not suitable because of the shape and size of the remaining areas. The effluent would have to meet at least Class C or D requirements (If public access is not allowed). However, the current WWTP effluent should meet Class B requirements because it is oxidized, settled and disinfected (see Table 5.6) A pump station will have to be constructed to pump the treated effluent through the irrigation system. A small surge/storage basin may be warranted to even out peaks in the effluent flow and because continuous and/or daily irrigation may not be possible. MDEQ requires a minimum resting period of 3 days for TABLE 5.6 MDEQ Land Application Requirements Class of Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements and Treatment Standards Allowable Uses Notes A Must be oxidized, coagulated, filtered and disinfected. BOD and TSS < 10 mg/l. Median number of total coliforms < 2.2 CFU/100 mls Spray, drip or subsurface irrigation of nonfood crops and food crops. Landscape irrigation of restricted and unrestricted access areas B Must be oxidized, settled, and disinfected. BOD and TSS < 10 mg/l. Median number of total coliforms < 2.2 CFU/100 mls Same as Class A except not allowed for food root crops or landscape irrigation of unrestricted areas. C Must be oxidized, settled and disinfected. Median number of total coliforms < 23 CFU/100 mls Spray, drip or subsurface irrigation of nonfood crops. Only spray irrigation of food crops. Only landscape Irrigation of restricted access areas D Must be oxidized and settled. Spray irrigation of tress and fodder, fiber and seed crops. Drip or subsurface irrigation of nonfood crops. Disinfection not generally required unless in close proximity to public access or habitation. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 13 every one day of irrigation. The existing lagoons would serve this purpose at present. However, if a new mechanical plant is constructed, a small surge/storage basin will have to be included with this alternative. The clay soils also pose a challenge for this area and the soils may have to be periodically amended with gypsum to maintain the permeability of the soils. A detailed soils evaluation should be completed prior to designing and implementing this alternative to insure that it is viable. The cost estimate for this alternative assumes that only 20 acres of the existing WWTP site is suitable for irrigation. Design Criteria. Design criteria for determining application rates for this alternative are provided in the Appendix F. MDEQ Circular 2 requirements for land application of wastewater effluent will be followed as applicable. Appendix F, taken from the Nutrient Reduction Plan (copy available upon request) contains land application design criteria for two crops; alfalfa and poplar trees. Poplar trees were evaluated because they have a much higher evapotranspiration rate than other crops. Currently the City of Missoula Montana is using poplar trees to dispose of a portion of its wastewater effluent. DEQ Circular 2 requires that two land application rates be calculated using soil permeability as one parameter and nitrogen loading (based on crop nitrogen uptake) as the other parameter. The allowable application rate is the lower of the two calculated rates. The rate calculated by soil permeability is directly affected by the soils infiltration rate at the irrigation site(s). The Nitrogen loading rate must be calculated to insure that all of the applied nitrogen is taken up by the crop to prevent groundwater contamination. The soils in the Whitefish area and near the existing wastewater treatment plant typically have a high clay content and low infiltration rate. As can be seen from the calculations in Appendix A (available on request), the estimated hydraulic loading rate of 26.7 inches per year is significantly less than the nitrogen irrigation loading rates calculated for alfalfa (38.16 inches) and poplar trees ( 170 inches per year). Therefore, the hydraulic loading rate controls. Because of the low hydraulic loading rate, the high evapotranspiration (ET) rate of poplars and other crops with high ET rates cannot be taken advantage of. Environmental Impacts- There are no adverse long-term environmental impacts associated with this alternative. The degree of treatment that will be provided to the wastewater should minimize odors and pathogens will be inactivated with disinfection. There are long-term benefits associated with this alternative. A portion of the treated wastewater from the WWTP will be re-used for the production of a crop (likely hay) and will not be discharged into the Whitefish River. The required buffer zones will be implemented protecting public health and safety. Periodic conditioning of the clay soils may be required to maintain their permeability. Land Requirements- The land that will be irrigated is already owned by the City. No additional land will have to be purchased. The land will be put to beneficial use by raising some type of crop. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 5– Other Nutrient Reduction Options Page 14 Construction Issues- There are no significant construction issues associated with this alternative. Sustainability Considerations -Energy efficient motors would be specified for the pumps for the irrigation system. Land application provides for beneficial re-use of the treated wastewater to raise a marketable crop. Estimated Costs - Engineer’s unit price estimate of cost to implement this land application alternative are provided in Appendix F. The Summary Table 5.7 provides the engineer’s estimate of: construction costs; contingency; design, bidding and construction inspection costs, and; estimated salvage value at the 20-year design life. Operation and maintenance costs including: operational labor; power; repair/replacement, and; spare parts are estimated as well. Table 5.7 Cost Summary for On-Site Land Application Alternative Total Capital Cost $ 969,700 Total Annual O&M Cost $ 15,890 Present Worth of Alternative $1,159,000 Cost-Effectiveness of Land Application – As noted in Table 5.3, the cost for land application of wastewater on the treatment plant site, while significantly less than off-site land application, is still significantly greater than nutrient removal utilizing the BNR capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. However, in the future, more restrictive standards may require a tertiary treatment process be installed at the plant to meet lower nutrient effluent criteria. At this juncture, land application may become cost-effective. Additionally the concept of land application allows for nutrient reuse rather than nutrient disposal, presenting an environmental benefit not available from the option of stream discharge. The growth of trees on site would also serve to tie up CO2, potentially off- setting the carbon production associated with the wastewater treatment plant. ---PAGE BREAK--- W H I T E F I S H 2 0 1 6 W A S T E W A T E R P E R Page 1 of 11 Chapter 6 Project Implementation 6.1 Institutional Responsibility 6.1.1 Introduction The City of Whitefish has the necessary legal authority and financial capability to construct and operate the existing and proposed wastewater facilities. The City officials recognize the need to upgrade and expand the wastewater system as regulatory standards require new or more stringent levels of treatment. This engineering report identified needed wastewater treatment facilities and developed treatment alternatives, leading to a recommended option. The wastewater collection system was not evaluated but was previously considered in a similar planning document prepared in 2014. This chapter of the report will evaluate the financial impacts of the proposed project and identify methods to finance needed improvements. A proposed project budget was provided. Project sustainability is considered in this section. 6.1.2 Financial Status The wastewater system is an enterprise fund operated by the City of Whitefish with a substantial operating budget for revenues and expenditures. Current annual revenues are estimated to be $2,421,500 for 2016 and O&M costs are budgeted at $ 1,887,877. There are 3,880 equivalent resident dwelling units providing approximately 73% of the annual revenue. The City has eight existing loans with Montana State Revolving Loan (SRF) and enjoys a good status with this funding agency. A rate study for the Whitefish water and wastewater system was completed in March 2016 by AE2S/Nexus. While the study was completed prior to the completion of this PER, preliminary results for project costs were factored into the rate analysis. The Executive Summary from the Wastewater Utility Financial Plan and Rate Study is included in Appendix G. It should be noted that the Whitefish City Council is still reviewing the rate study and should adopt the document in the near future. 6.2 Project Recommendations 6.2.1 Project Description The proposed project includes replacement of the existing secondary treatment plant with a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) capable of removing ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorous to fully comply with the requirements of the current MPDES discharge permit. Furthermore, the plant should be capable of meeting anticipated more restrictive nutrient standards proposed by the DEQ in the next two discharge permit cycles (5 and 10 years hence). Pretreatment of the wastewater will be provided by the existing perforated screen plus grit removal capability added by a new unit process. A four cell sequencing batch reactor will be constructed within the third lagoon cell whereas the existing lagoon cells will be retained for treatment during construction. Use of 4 cells allows continuous discharge from the system, eliminating the need ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 2 for a post treatment flow equalization basin. Biosolids from the SBR plant will be discharged to an aerobic digester for further stabilization. The existing flocculating clarifier will be converted to a covered aerobic digester. After stabilization, biosolids will be sent to the existing drying beds for further dewatering and long-term storage. Periodically the solids can be removed for disposal at the landfill or land application. While not an immediate plan (or need), a small composting operation could be constructed on site within one of the old treatment cells utilizing biosolids and wood waste to generate compost. Disinfection of the treated effluent would be provided by ultraviolet disinfection. Chapter 4 provides a complete description of the recommended alternative, including drawings. Figure 6.1 provides a perspective drawing of how the new treatment plant would appear on the site. Variations of SBR facilities are available from manufacturers with the primary differences related to the decanter, type of aeration device and control system. The aeration systems can range to fine bubble diffusers to coarse bubble jet aeration, each with unique characteristics in energy efficiency and O&M requirements. Appendix J contains design reports from four different types of manufacturers typifying the how each company designs and assembles their equipment packages. Cost estimates in this report were based on the Sanitaire ICEAS SBR system utilizing 4 basins. However, this should not be construed as a recommendation for this type of system. The procurement process used to select an equipment package should include consideration of energy efficiency, O&M requirements, availability of support, references, number of operational systems, etc. to insure that the optimal facility is built addressing the needs for the City of Whitefish. Often equipment will be pre-purchased with a separate procurement process with the final plant design then based on the specific installation requirements for the selected supplier. After equipment selection and final design, the project would be bid to obtain a General Contractor to complete site work and install the equipment. Pre-purchase equipment could include the grit removal system, the SBR equipment, aerobic digester aeration and the UV disinfection equipment. The estimated costs for the project are $17,366,666 including costs for construction (with a 3% inflation factor for construction in 2019), engineering, administration and a 15% contingency. Annual costs for operating the entire facility are estimated to be $780,480, which roughly equates to a $440,000 cost increase over the current operational cost. Detailed cost estimates for this option are included in Appendix D. 6.2.2 Environmental Impacts Environmental impacts associated with this alternative are expected to be positive. An environmental review of the alternative using the environmental checklist was completed and is included in Appendix H. Comments from agencies with environmental authority will be included in the appendix also, when received. The project will fit entirely within the constraints of the existing treatment site thereby limiting new land resource utilization. Odor potential for this system should be less than the existing lagoon system, which has had periodic odor problems. Of the three primary alternatives reviewed, the SBR option has the least power requirement and carbon footprint. Construction related impacts such as noise, dust, runoff, etc. will be controlled by specifications in the contract documents, including use of the appropriate construction permits. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 3 6.2.3 Sustainability Considerations Greenhouse Gases - Wastewater treatment plants generate greenhouse gases in the biological treatment processes including production of N20, CH3 and CO2. The relative amounts of these gasses are a function of the type of treatment process utilized and the degree of pollutant removal whereby higher removal rates generally equate to a high gas production rate. Additionally, the input of energy and chemicals as required to operate unit processes in a treatment plant add to the overall carbon footprint of the facility. Mechanical wastewater plants require relatively high amounts of energy to function and this component of the operating process will usually be the primary contributor of greenhouse gasses. Evaluations of wastewater plants have concluded that of the overall emissions from a SBR treatment plant, almost 95% of the greenhouse gas produced in the treatment process is derived from the generation of energy used to power the treatment plant unit processes. The City of Whitefish obtains power from the Flathead Electric Coop who derives their electrical energy from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). BPA indicates on their website that 83% of their energy is derived from hydropower sources. The generation of electricity from hydropower has a very low carbon footprint relative to the other sources of power generation, consequently, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the Whitefish wastewater treatment plant. The use of high efficiency blowers and aeration equipment will also reduce the generation of greenhouse gases. If the City elects to land apply treated effluent or set up a modest biosolids composting operation, a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be anticipated. The current Whitefish treatment system uses a significant amount of alum and polymers for the removal of phosphorous through precipitation in the flocculating clarifier. The proposed treatment facilities will utilize a biological nutrient removal process for removal of nitrogen and phosphorous, obviating the need to use chemicals. The carbon requirement for the production and delivery of chemicals will be significantly reduced with the new treatment plant. Of the three treatment alternatives evaluated, the selected SBR option utilizes the least amount of energy on an annual basis, further reducing the carbon footprint of this option. Energy Efficiency – The design of the plant will include the consideration of high efficiency blowers and aeration devices with good oxygen transfer efficiency. The plant will be well insulated to reduce heat loss and promote optimal performance of the biological treatment processes. Good control capacity and variable speed drives are effective in effectively utilizing aeration and pumping devices without overuse. The BNR process is inherently efficient in that the generation of nitrates can provide a source of oxygen for microorganisms through denitrification, in lieu of supplemental aeration. The process of biological nutrient removal will also greatly reduce the use of alum and polymers to precipitate phosphorous from the plant flow stream. Production of these chemicals can be energy intensive. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 4 6.3 Financial Assistance Programs and Funding Strategy 6.3.1 Local Revenues Local revenues that support capital improvements generally come in the form of user charges associated with rates assessed for use of the water and sewer system or general funds. General funds revenues include taxes, special fees, grants, interest earnings and other sources of assistance. System reserves should be generated from user charges to replace or offset the costs of water or sewer system components, particularly equipment items with limited design life. Revenues should also be adequate to support a sound maintenance program sufficient to optimize the design life of existing capital improvements and defer the need for premature replacement. Local revenues in the form of user charges, assessments or special fees can be used to support the incurrence of debt as required to pay for capital improvements with significant cost. System development, connection or impact fees are often charged by communities for new users of an existing capital improvement. The fees are based on the proportionate share of the “general benefit” of facilities that are utilized by the new user. It should be noted that the 2005 Legislature passed SB 185 which defined criteria for assessment and use of impact fees. Impact fees cannot be used for replacement of existing structures unless portions of the replacement facilities are also required to serve new development. The legislation calls for defined procedure that must be established by the local government for assessment of impact fees. In order to insure that local revenues are spent on the highest priority infrastructure needs, the City undertook a utility master planning effort in 2005 which concluded in 2006. The City’s water, wastewater and storm water systems were evaluated and a Capital Improvements Plan was established based on the findings of the Utility Master Plan(s). The City of Whitefish engages in regular capital improvement planning for their utilities. A copy of the current Wastewater System CIP is included in Appendix G with the Rate Study excerpt. 6.3.2 Financing with Loan Funds Although grant assistance is generally sought, very rarely does a municipality implement significant improvements to their infrastructure systems without borrowing some portion of the project costs. Most financial assistance programs require some type of local match for grant funds. Communities have three primary mechanisms by which Montana Statutes allow the incurrence of and securing of debt, with the fourth being the resort tax which is utilized by the City of Whitefish. The SRF program and a more traditional issuance of debt through the public bond markets both rely on the following methods to secure debt: GO Bonds - This type of debt requires an election and approval by 60% or more if 30% turnout and approval by 50% or more if 40% turnout of the electorate. There is a debt limitation based on taxable value of property. This type of financing does not require a debt reserve placed on deposit or the collection of debt coverage. The rate of charges is based on taxable value of the property and all property owners would pay the tax, whether connected to the new utility or not. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 5 Revenue Bonds - This type of debt is secured by the pledging of user charges. This type of debt generally requires the collection of coverage which means that 10-25% of the annual debt service must be collected and that one principal and interest payment must be placed in reserve. The rates and charges for revenue bonds would apply only to connected users and would be based on actual use although recent legislation allowed revenue bonds to be supported by an assessment placed upon measurable property values such as square footage. These bonds, in some cases, can be backed by the general obligation of the taxpayers (i.e. “double barreled bonds). Special Improvement Districts - Available to cities, districts and counties, this type of financial district can be created by a local government for the purpose of building a water, sewer or road systems within the community. A specific process must be followed to create the district and the process can be stopped by a protest of 75% or more of the property owners, unless overridden by the majority of the council. All properties in the district benefited by the improvements will be assessed for costs. Portions of the assessment go into a revolving fund to act as security for the debt. Resort Tax- The City of Whitefish is presently collecting a local option resort tax, as allowed by Montana statute. While this tax could be used to help finance water or wastewater system improvements, the local authorities have indicated that the primary use of the tax revenues will be for replacement of City streets. When replacing a City street, the project scope often includes upgrades to water, sewer or storm drain systems located beneath the roadway, as needed prior to replacement of the street surface. It is not likely that Whitefish’s resort tax revenues would be utilized for the capital improvements projects anticipated in this PER. 6.3.3 Financial Assistance with Federal & State Grants or Low Interest Loans Montana Treasure State Endowment Program - The Treasure State Endowment Program is a state-funded grant and loan program designed to assist cities, districts, and counties in financing wastewater systems, drinking water systems, sanitary or storm sewer systems, solid waste disposal and separation systems, and bridges. The MDOC has estimated between $3M and $17M dollars will be available for public facility projects in 2017, depending upon the legislative budgetary process. Individual grant amounts from this program are capped at $750,000 and generally require a 50% match. Projects submitted for assistance by this program would be due in May of 2016 and require legislative approval, the earliest coming in spring of 2009. Grant funds would not be available until July of 2017 at the earliest. The City of Whitefish is preparing to submit a TSEP application in May 2016 for this project. DNRC Water Development Grant and Loan Program - This grant and loan program is administered by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The DNRC grants are limited to $125,000. Projects that conserve or reuse natural resources or promote the sound use of water tend to do well in competing for these grant funds. Applications to this program will not be received until May of 2016, on the same schedule as TSEP grants. The City of Whitefish is preparing to submit a DNRC application on that schedule. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 6 USDA Rural Development Program (RD) -The RD loan and grant program is administered by the Rural Utilities Services of the US Department of Agriculture, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). RD has grants and loans available with the mixture of the two dependent on the community’s residential income and target user rates. Loan terms for as much as 40 years are possible. Water and sewer systems in smaller communities often are funded with financial assistance from this program. At this point, the City of Whitefish has contacted the RD program and has received an initial determination that the project would be eligible for financial assistance, primarily in the form of loan funding. The population size of Whitefish reduces the benefit available from the RD program, which focuses on small communities. Montana Wastewater and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Programs - These funding sources can provide low interest loans generally below market rates. Effectively the reduced interest cost equates to a grant component in a combined funding package. Loan rates are as low as 2.5% for needy communities and terms can be as long as 30 years for qualifying “hardship” communities. These two programs can loan money for drinking water and wastewater improvement projects. Other types of water pollution control projects have been funded with the wastewater SRF program. For high cost projects in needy communities, the SRF program can forgive principal on some loans, essentially equating to a grant. Forgiven principal can be in an amount up to $500,000. CDBG (Community Development Block Grant Program) -This grant program is administered by the Montana Department of Commerce. All CDBG applications must document that at least 51 percent of the non-administrative funds requested for a CDBG project are clearly designed to meet the needs for low and moderate-income families. The CDBG program estimates that they will have $3.0 to $3.4 million available in 2016 for public facility projects with a maximum of $500,000 per project. Having a high percentage of low and moderate-income people in the community and the presence of a high potential health threat helps a community compete for a CDBG grant. Good local involvement in the planning process also helps grant competitiveness. Applications are made to this program on an annual basis. Planning grants for engineering and grant preparation expenses are also available from the CDBG Program. The City of Whitefish does not anticipate submitting a CDBG application due to candidacy concerns. Intercap Loan Program - The Montana Board of Investments of the MDOC administers this loan program which is available to communities for paying for capital improvements. The INTERCAP Program is a low cost, variable-rate program that lends money to Montana local governments, state agencies and the university system for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition and installation of equipment or personal and real property and infrastructure improvements. The Board of Investments issues tax-exempt bonds and loans the proceeds to eligible borrowers. In addition to long-term financing, INTERCAP is an excellent source for interim financing. The loan term is up to 10 years or the useful life of the project. The funding is always available and is not subject to a funding cycle. Maximum loan amount per project depends on the borrower’s legal debt authority. The City may utilize INTERCAP funds in the event that TSEP and/or DNRC funds are received in order to expedite design on ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 7 the wastewater improvements under this Facilities Plan. Project Eligibility includes the following: Real property improvements New and used equipment of all kinds New and used vehicles of all kinds Water, wastewater, and solid waste projects Preliminary engineering and grant writing work Interim financing for construction or cash-flow loans Energy retrofit projects 100% financing acceptable, equity or matching money not required 6.3.4 Funding Strategy and User Costs A project budget strategy has been prepared which anticipates grant funding from the TSEP and DNRC programs matched by a SRF loan, including forgiving principal of the loan in the amount of $500,000. An alternative or supplement to the SRF loan is being investigated utilizing a Rural Development Loan and Grant combination. Whitefish, primarily due to its population is eligible for RD funding but is not a good candidate for the limited funds. Initial project planning is proceeding without an assumption of obtaining an RD grant. Table 6.1 provides the project budget using the identified funding program sources, amounts applied for and the ultimate user rate impacts based on an “Equivalent Dwelling Unit” calculation. If grants are obtained for the amounts listed, the average residential wastewater user rate will increase an estimated $19.33 for debt and $7.53 for O&M cost above the current charges. It should be noted that the construction costs in the proposed project were inflated by a 3% annual inflationary increase for a three year period to reflect anticipated costs increases in the construction industry. Project Phasing – Project phasing may be necessary due to the high cost of the project, limited grant assistance and the associated high user costs. However the compliance schedule with the regulatory agency requires compliance by 2021. It may be appropriate to phase components of the plant that could be deferred without impacting compliance with the mandated schedule. Items that could be deferred include construction of the Disinfection/Administration building and the upgrading of the raw sewage lift pumps. This work is estimated to cost about $2,062,000 and could be deferred until additional TSEP or DNRC grant funding became available in a future grant cycle where application is made in 2018 with funds available in 2019. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 8 Table 6.1 PROJECT BUDGET Preliminary Project Budget May 3, 2016 Administrative/ Finance Costs Source: RRGL Source: TSEP SRF SRF Forgiven Principal Total: Professional Services- Project/Grant Administration $5,000 $15,000 $48,000 $68,000 Legal Costs $70,000 $70,000 Audit Fees Travel & Training $5,000 $5,000 Loan Reserves $520,000 $520,000 Interim Interest Bond Counsel & Related costs $50,000 $50,000 ADMIN/FINANCE COSTS: $5,000 $15,000 $693,000 $0 $713,000 Prel. Engineer (Geotech) $35,000 $35,000 Engineering/Arch. Design $485,000 $510,000 $995,000 Construction Engr. Services $1,040,200 $1,040,200 Construction $120,000 $250,000 $11,783,466 $500,000 $12,653,466 Contingency $1,930,000 $1,930,000 ACTIVITY COSTS $120,000 $735,000 $15,298,666 $500,000 $16,653,666 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $125,000 $750,000 $15,991,666 $500,000 $17,366,666 Completed by: Scott Anderson Estimated Loan Amount $15,991,666 CRF 2.5% Interest, 20 year term 0.0641 # EDUs 4862 EUAC $1,025,066 EUAC w 10% Coverage $1,127,572 Cost $93,964.36 Cost per EDU $19.33 Whitefish 2016 Wastewater System Improvements Construction Cost increased by 3.0% inflation, 3 years Determination of Estimated Debt Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 9 6.3.5 Short-lived Assets Project funding agencies are asking that potential grantees and loan recipients develop reserve/replacement funds to address equipment that has a limited life and would require replacement through a means other than long-term capital financing. The specific item, design life and replacement cost should be identified to determine annual cost to collect to fund the replacement of the asset. The following table was developed for the new components proposed under this project and do not include existing equipment. Annual cost is the cost total divided by the anticipated design life. 6.3.6 Affordability Analysis According to the 2010 Census data, the City of Whitefish has a Median Household Income (MHI) of $ 43,117 with 40.98% considered “low to moderate” income, and a 17.3% poverty rate. Using the “Target Rate” concept used by the funding agencies, the current procedure would use a multiplier of 2.3% x MHI to determine what is considered to be a target combined water/sewer rate. Annual Period Contribution 1 - 5 Years $2,080.00 5 - 10 Years $9,100.00 10 - 15 Years $7,200.00 Total Annual Contribution $18,400.00 Total 1 to 5 Years Contributions UV Lamps $10,400.00 Total $10,400.00 6-10 Years Diffuser Replacement with Rings $21,000.00 Blowers $50,000.00 Instrumentation $20,000.00 Total $91,000.00 11-15 Years Grit Pumps $20,000.00 Chemical Feed $20,000.00 SBR Pumping $30,000.00 SBR Mixers $18,000.00 Control Upgrade $20,000.00 Total $108,000.00 WHITEFISH WASTEWATER SYSTEM SCHEDULE OF SHORT LIVED ASSETS Budget-15 year Period Table 6.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Whitefish Preliminary Engineering Report Chapter 6– Project Implementation Page 10 For Whitefish, the combined water/sewer target rate would be calculated as follows: $43,117 x 0.023 ÷ 12 months = $82.64/month Current average combined water rates in Whitefish are $90.10, which is in excess of the target water/sewer rate. Estimated increase for the proposed project will equate to a $25 to $30/month per EDU, depending on the loan term and grant amount. It is estimated that the final water and sewer cost, when the project is complete, will be 153% of the target rate. This affordability analysis indicates that increased costs, even with grants and low interest loans, are high and will impose a financial burden on wastewater system users in the City. Those families with incomes below the median household income, especially those with poverty status, will be particularly stressed by the increase costs. The availability of low income housing has been demonstrated to be a significant problem in Whitefish and the raising of sewer rates will undoubtedly impact rental property and resultant rental rates, further affecting the affordability of housing. 6.4 Implementation Schedule The following schedule provides an achievable timeline for implementation of the needed wastewater improvements, presuming that affordable project financing can be obtained. This schedule is required to be met as per a regulatory action issued by the DEQ. Task Date of Completion Complete Facilities Planning (PER) Oct 1 2016 Submit Design Plans to DEQ February 1 2018 Construction Completion May 1 2021 Achieve Compliance Nov 1 2021 Annual Progress Reports January 2016-2021 6.5 Public Participation A project meeting was held with the City staff to discuss the project on September 23, 2015. A Whitefish Council work session, with the inclusion of the public, was held November 16, 2015 to discuss the planning process and potential treatment options. A public hearing was held April 18, 2016 to further discuss the project and associated environmental impacts identified through the public review. Notice of the hearing was included in the local paper. A copy of the slides presented at the City Wastewater Workshop and the Wastewater System Public Hearing are included in Appendix I. A final decision regarding approval of the environmental Assessment was made by City Council on May 2, 2016. An additional public meeting was held August 29, 2016 to allow for further discussion and exchange of information regarding the proposed new wastewater treatment facilities recommended in the draft Preliminary Engineering Report ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX J SBR DESIGN REPORTS AQUA AEROBICS FLUIDYNE SANITAIRE ICEAS PARKSON ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Manufacturer’s Design Report Aqua A SBR ---PAGE BREAK--- PROCESS DESIGN REPORT Designed By: Aaron Xu on Friday, August 14, 2015 Design#: 141346 Option: Preliminary Design SBR The enclosed information is based on preliminary data which we have received from you. There may be factors unknown to us which would alter the enclosed recommendation. These recommendations are based on models and assumptions widely used in the industry. While we attempt to keep these current, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for their validity or any risks associated with their use. Also, because of the various factors stated above, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. assumes no responsibility for any liability resulting from any use made by you of the enclosed recommendations. Copyright 2015, Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc WHITEFISH MT ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Notes Pre-SBR - Neutralization is recommended/required ahead of the SBR if the pH is expected to fall outside of 6.5-8.5 for significant durations. - Coarse solids removal/reduction is recommended prior to the SBR. - Elevated concentration of Hydrogen Sulfide can be detrimental to both civil and mechanical structures. If anaerobic conditions exist in the collection system, steps should be taken to eliminate Hydrogen Sulfide prior to the treatment system. SBR - The maximum flow, as shown on the design, has been assumed as a hydraulic maximum and does not represent an additional organic load. - The decanter performance is based upon a free-air discharge following the valve and immediately adjacent to the basin. Actual decanter performance depends upon the complete installation including specific liquid and piping elevations and any associated field piping losses to the final point of discharge. Modification of the high water level, low water level, centerline of discharge, and / or cycle structure may be required to achieve discharge of full batch volume based on actual site installation specifics. Aeration - The aeration system has been designed to provide 1.25 lbs. O2/lb. BOD5 applied and 4.6 lbs. O2/lb. TKN applied at the design average loading conditions. Digester - A supernatant return device is recommended in the digester, and shall be provided by others. - The digester will share a common standby blower with the SBR. Process/Site - An elevation of 3,000 ft has been assumed, as displayed on the design. - The winter wastewater temperature has been given, and summer wastewater and ambient temperatures have been assumed, as displayed on the design. - The anticipated effluent total nitrogen requirement is predicated upon an influent waste temperature of 10° C or greater. While lower temperatures may be acceptable for a short-term duration, nitrification and denitrification below 10° C can be unpredictable, requiring special operator attention. - Sufficient alkalinity is required for nitrification, as approximately 7.1 mg alkalinity (as CaCO3) is required for every mg of NH3-N nitrified. If the raw water alkalinity cannot support this consumption, while maintaining a residual concentration of 50 mg/l, supplemental alkalinity shall be provided (by others). - To achieve the effluent average total phosphorus limit, the biological process and chemical feed systems need to be designed to facilitate optimum performance. - A minimum of twelve (12) daily composite samples per month (both influent and effluent) shall be obtained for total phosphorus analysis. - Chemical feed lines (i.e. metal salts) shall be furnished to each reactor, aerobic digester and dewatering supernatant streams as necessary. - pH monitoring of the upstream biological reactor is required when adding metal salts. Anticipated - The effluent Total Nitrogen (TN) limit of 10 mg/l is assumed to be comprised of 2 mg/l organic nitrogen, 6 mg/l Nox-N, and 2 mg/l NH3-N. 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 2 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- - In order to meet the required Total Nitrogen limit, strict operator attention will be necessary for process and operational control. It is also recommended that provisions be made for supplemental carbon source addition in order to facilitate denitrification. (by others) Post-SBR - Post-Equalization basin, by others, follows the AquaSBR. Equipment - The basin dimensions reported on the design have been assumed based upon the required volumes and assumed basin geometry. Actual basin geometry may be circular, square, rectangular or sloped with construction materials including concrete, steel or earthen. - Rectangular or sloped basin construction with length to width ratios greater than 1.5:1 may require alterations in the equipment recommendation. - The basins are not included. Basins and basin modification shall be provided by others. - Influent is assumed to enter the reactor above the waterline, located appropriately to avoid proximity to the decanter, splashing or direct discharge in the immediate vicinity of other equipment. - If the influent is to be located submerged below the waterline, adequate hydraulic capacity shall be made in the headworks to prevent backflow from one reactor to the other during transition of influent. - A minimum freeboard of 2.0 ft. is recommended for diffused aeration. - Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. is familiar with various “Buy American” Acts (i.e. AIS, ARRA, Federal FAR 52.225, EXIM Bank, USAid, PA Steel Products Act, etc.). As the project develops Aqua-Aerobic Systems can work with you to ensure full compliance of our goods with various Buy American provisions if they are applicable/required for the project. When applicable, please provide us with the specifics of the project’s “Buy American” provisions. 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 3 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR - Sequencing Batch Reactor - Design Summary DESIGN INFLUENT CONDITIONS Avg. Design Flow Max Design Flow = 5705 m3/day = 17148 m3/day = 1.507 MGD = 4.53 MGD DESIGN PARAMETERS Influent mg/l Required mg/l Anticipated mg/l Effluent Bio/Chem Oxygen Demand: 297 30 30 BOD5 BOD5 BOD5 Total Suspended Solids: 239 TSS 30 30 TSS TSS TKN 41.40 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Total Nitrogen: 10 TN TN 10 Phosphorus: Total P 6 Total P 1 Total P 1 SITE CONDITIONS Maximum Minimum Design Elevation (MSL) Ambient Air Temperatures: Influent Waste Temperatures: 75 F 23.9 C 20 F -6.7 C 75 F 23.9 C 3,000 ft 68 F 20.0 C 48 F 9.0 C 68 F 20.0 C 914.4 m SBR BASIN DESIGN VALUES Water Depth Basin Vol./Basin No./Basin Geometry: Min Min = 12.6 ft = (3.8 m) = 0.682 MG = (2,581.5 m³) = 2 Square Basin(s) Freeboard: Avg Avg = 15.4 ft = (4.7 m) = 0.833 MG = (3,152.0 m³) = 2.0 ft = (0.6 m) Length of Basin: = 85.0 ft = (25.9 m) Max = 21.0 ft = (6.4 m) Max = 1.135 MG = (4,296.4 m³) Width of Basin: = 85.0 ft = (25.9 m) Number of Cycles: = 5 per Day/Basin (advances cycles beyond MDF) Cycle Duration: = 4.8 Hours/Cycle Food/Mass (F/M) ratio: = 0.073 lbs. BOD5/lb. MLSS-Day MLSS Concentration: = 4500 mg/l @ Min. Water Depth Hydraulic Retention Time: = 1.105 Days @ Avg. Water Depth Solids Retention Time: = 17.8 Days Est. Net Sludge Yield: = 0.670 lbs. WAS/lb. BOD5 Est. Dry Solids Produced: = 2502.6 lbs. WAS/Day Est. Solids Flow Rate: = 300 GPM (30008 GAL/Day) = (1135.2 kg/Day) = (113.6 m³/Day) = 8389.0 GPM (as avg. from high to low water level) = (529.2 l/sec) Decant Flow Rate @ MDF: LWL to CenterLine Discharge: = 3.3 ft = (1.0 m) = 4.60 = 1.25 Lbs. O2/lb. BOD5 Lbs. O2/lb. TKN Actual Oxygen Required: = 7060 lbs./Day = (3202.2 kg/Day) Air Flowrate/Basin: = 2555 SCFM = (72.4 Sm3/min) Max. Discharge Pressure: = 10.7 PSIG = (74 KPA) Avg. Power Required: = 2240.8 KW-Hrs/Day 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 4 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- Aerobic Digester - Design Summary AEROBIC DIGESTER DESIGN PARAMETERS Sludge Flowrate to the Digester Inlet Sludge Concentration Solids Loading to the Digester Inlet Volatile Solids Fraction = 29,987.7 gal/day = 1.00% = 2,501.0 lb/day AEROBIC DIGESTER BASIN DESIGN VALUES No./Basin Geometry: = 1 Rectangular Basin(s) = (113.5 m³/day) = (1,134.4 kg/day) = 75.0% Length of Basin: = 85 ft = (25.9 m) Width of Basin: = 30 ft = (9.1 m) Min. Water Depth: = (4.5 m) = 14.7 ft Min. Basin Vol. Basin: = 280,387.8 gal = (1,061.5 m³) Max. Water Depth: = 21 ft = (6.4 m) Max. Basin Vol. Basin: = 400,553.9 gal = (1,516.4 m³) AEROBIC DIGESTER PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS = 26.7 days = 20 C = 40% = 2% = 2.00 lbs O2 per lb VSS Destroyed = 100.0% = 1,500.1 lb/day = (680.4 kg/day) = 64.3% = 1,750.9 lb/day = (794.2 kg/day) = 10,497.0 gal/day = (39.74 m³/day) = 120,166.2 gal/basin = (454.88 m³/basin) Solids Retention Time: Digester Design Temperature: Volatile Solids Destruction: Digester Solids Concentration: Oxygen Supplied for Digestion: Oxygen Distribution Per Basin: Actual Oxygen Required: Volatile Percentage After Digestion: Estimated Dry Solids to be Removed: Volume of Solids to be Removed: Estimated Supernatant Volume: Assumed Supernatant Duration: = 180 minutes Calculated Supernatant Flow: = 667.6 gpm = (42.1 l/sec) The Volatile Solids Destruction listed above shall be used for determination of the oxygen demand during summer conditions. It should be noted that the actual VSS destruction will be dependant upon digester inlet condition, temperature, and operating conditions. The Digester Solids Concentration is reflected as an average concentration, assuming the operations include frequent settling and supernating practices. 1. 2. AEROBIC DIGESTER EQUIPMENT CRITERIA SCFM Required for O2 Demand: = 740/basin = (1,257 m³/hr/basin) Mixing Energy with Diffusers (Coarse): = 30 SCFM/1000 ft³ SCFM Required to Mix: = 1,607 SCFM/basin = (2,729 Nm³/hr/basin) Max. Discharge Pressure: = 9.67 PSIG = (66.70 KPA) Max. Flow Rate Required Basin: = 300 gpm = (1.136 m³/min) Avg. Power Required: = 1,346.75 kW-hr/day 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 5 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- Equipment Summary AquaSBR Influent Valves 2 Influent Valve(s) will be provided as follows: - 16 inch electrically operated plug valve(s). Mixers 2 AquaDDM Direct Drive Mixer(s) will be provided as follows: - 30 HP Aqua-Aerobic Systems Endura Series Model FSS DDM Mixer(s). Mixer Mooring 2 Mixer Cable Mooring System(s) consisting of: - #6 AWG-four conductor electrical service cable(s). - Aerial support tie(s). - Electrical cable strain relief grip(s), 2 eye, wire mesh. - 304 stainless steel cable. - Maintenance mooring cable loop(s). - Stainless steel mooring spring(s). Decanters 2 Decanter Assembly(ies) consisting of: - 16X12 Decanter(s) with fiberglass float, 304 stainless steel weir, galvanized restrained mooring frame, and painted steel power section with #14-10 conductor power cable and #16-9 conductor signal cable. - Decant pipe(s). - Galvanized mooring post(s). - Galvanized steel dewatering support post(s). - Galvanized steel top mooring post supports. - Galvanized steel bottom mooring post supports. - 20 inch electrically operated butterfly valve(s). Transfer Pumps/Valves 2 Submersible Pump Assembly(ies) consisting of the following items: - 3 HP Submersible Pump(s) with painted cast iron pump housing, discharge elbow, and multi-conductor electrical cable. - Manual plug valve(s). - 3 inch diameter swing check valve. - Galvanized steel slide rail assembly(ies). - 304 stainless steel intermediate support(s). Retrievable Fine Bubble Diffusers 18 Retrievable Fine Bubble Diffuser Assembly(ies) consisting of: - 25 diffuser tubes consisting of two flexible EPDM porous membrane sheaths mounted on a rigid support pipe with 304 stainless steel band clamps. - 304 stainless steel manifold weldment. - 304 stainless steel leveling angles. - 304 stainless steel leveling studs. - Galvanized vertical support beam. - Galvanized vertical air column assembly. - Galvanized upper vertical beam and pulley assembly. - Galvanized top support bracket. - 3" EPDM flexible air line with ny-glass quick disconnect end fittings. - Galvanized threaded flange. 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 6 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- - 3" manual isolation butterfly valve with cast iron body, EPDM seat, aluminum bronze disk and one-piece steel shaft. - Ny-glass quick disconnect cam lock adapter. - 304 stainless steel adhesive anchors. - Brace angles. 1 Diffuser Electric Winch(es) will be provided as follows: - Portable electric winch. Positive Displacement Blowers 2 Positive Displacement Blower Package(s), with each package consisting of: - ROOTS 616 Positive Displacement Blower Package with common base, V-belt drive, enclosed drive guard, pressure gauge, pressure relief valve, and vibration pads. - 304 stainless steel anchors. - 125 HP motor with slide base. - Blower startup by the blower packager is included. - Inlet filter and inlet silencer. - Discharge silencer, check valve, manual butterfly isolation valve, and flexible discharge connector. Air Valves 2 Air Control Valve(s) will be provided as follows: - 10 inch electrically operated butterfly valve(s) with actuator. Level Sensor Assemblies 2 Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) each consisting of: - Submersible pressure transducer(s). - Mounting bracket weldment(s). - Transducer mounting pipe weldment(s). - 304 stainless steel anchors. 2 Level Sensor Assembly(ies) will be provided as follows: - Float switch(es). - Float switch mounting bracket(s). - 304 stainless steel anchors. Instrumentation 2 Dissolved Oxygen Assembly(ies) consisting of: - Thermo Fisher RDO dissolved oxygen probe with electric cable. Probe includes stainless steel stationary bracket and retrievable pole probe mounting assembly. One probe per basin. - Thermo Fisher AV38 controller and display module(s). AquaSBR: Aerobic Digester Transfer Pumps/Valves 1 Submersible Pump Assembly(ies) consisting of the following items: - 3 HP Submersible Pump(s) with painted cast iron pump housing, discharge elbow, and multi-conductor electrical cable. - Manual plug valve(s). - 3 inch diameter swing check valve. - Galvanized steel slide rail assembly(ies). - 304 stainless steel intermediate support(s). Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffusers 1 Aqua-Aerobic's Fixed Coarse Bubble Diffuser System(s) consisting of the following components: - PVC diffuser(s). - 10" Schedule 40 galvanized steel riser pipe(s). 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 7 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- - 304 stainless steel anchors. Positive Displacement Blowers 2 Positive Displacement Blower Package(s), with each package consisting of: - ROOTS 715J Positive Displacement Blower Package with common base, V-belt drive, enclosed drive guard, pressure gauge, pressure relief valve, and vibration pads. - 304 stainless steel anchors. - 125 HP motor with slide base. - Blower startup by the blower packager is included. - Inlet filter and inlet silencer. - Discharge silencer, check valve, manual butterfly isolation valve, and flexible discharge connector. Level Sensor Assemblies 1 Sensor installation(s) consisting of: - Submersible pressure transducer(s). - Stainless steel sensor guide rail weldment(s). - PVC sensor mounting pipe(s). - Top support(s). - Stainless steel anchor kit(s). 1 Level Sensor Assembly(ies) will be provided as follows: - Float switch(es). - Float switch mounting bracket(s). - 304 stainless steel anchors. Controls Controls wo/Starters 1 Controls Package(s) will be provided as follows: - NEMA 12 panel enclosure suitable for indoor installation and constructed of painted steel. - Fuse(s) and fuse block(s). - Allen Bradley 1769-L30ER Compactlogix integral programmable controller. - Operator interface(s). - Remote Access Ethernet Modem. 08/14/2015 11:28:09AM Page 8 of 8 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc CONFIDENTIAL WHITEFISH MT / Design#: 141346 ---PAGE BREAK--- Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Operational Description Phase Descriptions for Diffused Aeration Mix Fill Phase Prior to the start of the Mix Fill phase, the reactor contents exist in a stratified condition. The bottom portion of the reactor consists of settled sludge, and the top portion consists of a clear supernatant. At this point in time, the reactor has recently completed a Decant cycle, and the overall water depth is equal to the minimum side water depth (SWD). The reactor environment has been "conditioned" by events that occurred during the prior cycle. First, the reactor environment has been conditioned by the termination of flow (and associated organic loading) to the reactor as the React Fill phase was completed. Second, the completion of the React phase provided the opportunity for the wastewater contaminants in the reactor to be "polished off". Third, the absence of mixing and aeration during the Settle, Decant, Idle and Waste Sludge phases further conditioned the reactor environment. Typically, the settled sludge zone will contain the majority of the microbial life. This microbial life continues a certain level of respiration and effectively depletes this settled sludge zone of any dissolved oxygen The supernatant layer above the settled sludge zone represents a significant fraction (typically 50 % to 70 of the reactor volume. Since the majority of the microbial life has settled to the bottom of the reactor, the relative effect of microbial respiration in the supernatant layer (compared to the sludge mass layer) is generally reduced. Therefore, the D.O. concentration in the supernatant layer typically ranges from 0.50 to 1.5 mg/l prior to the start of the Mix Fill phase. The water in the supernatant layer is generally of reasonably good quality with respect to the concentration of specific wastewater parameters. Residual soluble levels of organic material (as determined by a BOD5 measurement) are present in concentrations at or below the anticipated effluent value. Total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (Tot-N) and total phosphorus (Total P) are also present in concentrations at or below the anticipated effluent concentrations. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 2 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. As the Mix Fill phase of operation begins, wastewater flow is initiated to the reactor and the AquaDDM mixer is turned on. At this point, the AquaDDM begins mixing the reactor while the air supply system remains off and is not providing oxygen to the reactor. The stratified condition of the reactor that existed in the preceding phases is now converted to a completely mixed condition. The settled biomass is now resuspended and combined with the previously isolated supernatant layer and the raw wastewater entering the reactor. A schematic of this phase of operation, along with its associated process and mechanical considerations, is shown in Figure 1. Mix Fill Phase (Figure 1) Process Considerations Mechanical Considerations Zero or Near Zero D.O. Mixer Operating Complete Mix Conditions Influent Valve Open/Transfer Pump Operating Denitrification Aeration System Off Phosphorus Release Sludge Pump Off Sludge Conditioning Decant Weir Closed Filamentous Control As raw wastewater continues to flow into the reactor, the completely mixed condition results in the dispersal of the microbial life and incoming wastewater throughout the reactor. The residual level of D.O. that existed in the supernatant layer is rapidly depleted as a result of microbial respiration being effective throughout the entire reactor volume. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 3 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. As raw wastewater enters the reactor, the amount of organic material (as measured by the soluble BOD5 concentration) present in the reactor increases. Since an aerobic phase has not yet been initiated in this cycle, biological degradation of the organic material in the influent wastewater is limited. The concentration of Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) in the reactor also increases. The TKN consists of organic nitrogen (Org-N) and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N). By the process of hydrolysis (with or without oxygen present), the majority of the organic nitrogen is converted to ammonia nitrogen. The ammonia nitrogen must then be oxidized by the nitrification process. In the presence of oxygen, the nitrification process converts the ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N). However, since an aerobic phase has not yet been initiated, active nitrification is not occurring. Due to the absence of D.O. in the reactor, denitrification is capable of occurring during the Mix Fill phase. As a result, the residual level of nitrate nitrogen that previously existed in the supernatant layer is depleted to a near-zero concentration level. The denitrification process converts the nitrate nitrogen to nitrogen gas (N2), and the nitrogen gas is subsequently released to the atmosphere. The Mix Fill phase, in combination with the "non-aerated" periods during the React Fill and React phases, can be effective in producing an extremely low NO3-N concentration in the system effluent. However, since the nitrogen that enters the reactor is generally not in the form of NO3-N, the amount of denitrification that occurs during the Mix Fill phase is limited to the residual NO3-N from the previous cycle. Before the nitrogen in the influent can be denitrified, it must first be nitrified during the aerated periods of the React Fill and React phases. Therefore, a relatively small fraction of the total nitrogen removal requirement is accomplished during the Mix Fill phase. At the start of the Mix Fill phase, the effective mixing of the biomass with the influent wastewater in an anoxic environment results in a substantial release of phosphorus from the cell mass to the liquid medium. This phosphorus is now distributed throughout the entire reactor volume. A typical monitoring program would indicate a steady increase in the concentration of phosphorus during the Mix Fill phase. The rate of this increase is significantly greater than what could be attributed to the contribution of phosphorus present in the raw wastewater. The use of anoxic conditioning of the sludge mass can be highly effective with respect to improved settling characteristics and controlling the predominance of filamentous organisms in the treatment system. The Mix Fill phase of operation readily creates an anoxic condition throughout the entire reactor. A treatment cycle structure which incorporates this repetitive phase of operation can be effective in avoiding or controlling the predominance of filamentous populations in the reactor. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 4 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. In summary, the Mix Fill phase of operation is characterized by a completely mixed anoxic environment in the reactor. The reactor contains a uniform blend of raw influent wastewater, previously settled biomass, and supernatant from the previous cycle. The environment is classified as anoxic with D.O. concentrations at or near zero. Effluent quality parameters will provide the system operator with a basis for determining the necessity of adjusting the specific duration of this phase of operation. In essence, this phase is utilized for denitrification, biological phosphorus release, and anoxic conditioning of the sludge mass. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 5 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. React Fill Phase During the React Fill phase of operation, wastewater continues to enter the reactor, and the air supply system begins delivering oxygen to the reactor. The AquaDDM mixer continues to operate, and the completely mixed environment is maintained. The introduction of oxygen converts the reactor from an anoxic environment to an aerobic environment. Since the AquaSBR was designed to achieve nitrification and denitrification, the aeration system is cycled on and off during the React Fill phase. This alternately creates aerobic and anoxic conditions. Refer to “AquaSBR Description of Operation” for the specific aeration cycle times. Nitrification occurs during the aerated periods of operation, and denitrification occurs during the non-aerated periods of operation. Although BOD5 reduction normally occurs under aerobic and anoxic conditions, the rate of BOD5 reduction is much greater during the aerated periods of operation. A schematic of the React Fill phase of operation is shown in Figure 2. React Fill Phase (Figure 2) Process Considerations Mechanical Considerations Alternating Aerobic/Anoxic Conditions Mixer Operating Complete Mix Conditions Influent Valve Open/Transfer Pump Operating BOD5 Reduction Aeration System On/Off Nitrification/Denitrification Sludge Pump Off Phosphorus Uptake Decant Weir Closed ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 6 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. The wastewater that has entered (and continues to enter) the reactor represents a certain potential oxygen demand. The oxygen demand is due to the aerobic metabolism of the organic constituents (i.e. BOD5 reduction) and the nitrification of NH3-N. The aeration system has been sized to meet this oxygen demand. The dissolved oxygen concentration profile in the reactor will normally reveal a pattern of increasing D.O. concentration during the aerated periods, followed by decreasing D.O. concentration (to near-zero) during the non-aerated periods. In other words, the D.O. concentration will reach a peak value at the end of each aeration period. The repetitive on/off cycling of the air supply will also produce a pattern of increasing peak D.O. concentration with each successive aerated period. This is the result of the system achieving an ever-increasing degree of treatment as this phase progresses. As the degree of treatment increases, a steady decline in the oxygen uptake rate (OUR) of the biomass will result. The exact magnitude of this decline will be affected by the loading to the system and the duration of each of the individual phases of a complete treatment cycle. The concentration of total nitrogen present in the reactor will steadily decline as the React Fill phase is completed. The nitrification and denitrification processes typically reduce total nitrogen concentrations in the reactor as the raw waste flow continues to enter the reactor with additional nitrogen. In other words, the rates of nitrification and denitrification are typically more than sufficient to offset the rate of nitrogen entering the reactor. Nitrification is a two-step process involving two individual groups of microorganisms, namely Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter. This process does not remove nitrogen from the wastewater. It merely converts it from one form of nitrogen to another form of nitrogen. In the presence of oxygen, ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) is first converted to nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N) by the Nitrosomonas. The nitrite nitrogen is then converted to nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) by the Nitrobacter. Since the Nitrobacter are generally much faster "workers" than the Nitrosomonas, the NO2-N concentration in the reactor is usually negligible. Nitrogen is actually removed from the wastewater by the denitrification process. Denitrification is performed by a broad range of microorganisms, collectively known as "heterotrophs", that are present in most wastewater treatment systems. In the absence of oxygen, these heterotrophs convert nitrate nitrogen to nitrogen gas (N2). The nitrogen gas is subsequently released from the reactor into the atmosphere. The amount of soluble organic material (as evidenced by the BOD5 concentration) in the reactor will typically decrease during the React Fill phase. During this phase, biological oxidation occurs simultaneously with the addition of organic material to the reactor. The decline in BOD5 concentration will closely parallel the pattern observed for the total nitrogen concentration. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 7 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. During the initial period of the React Fill phase, the onset of aerobic conditions in the reactor allows the microorganisms to "take in" phosphorus. Therefore, the phosphorus that was previously released into solution (during the Mix Fill phase) is now taken back into the cell mass. The phosphorus present in the influent is also taken in by the biomass. Since the microorganisms were previously "depleted" of phosphorus, they have a tendency to take in more phosphorus than the amount that is necessary to meet their nutritional requirements. The term used to describe this phenomenon is "enhanced biological phosphorus removal". The anoxic periods during the React Fill and React phases are not long enough to allow a re-release of phosphorus from the biomass into the liquid medium. Therefore, the effluent from the reactor will contain a low concentration of total phosphorus. Effluent quality parameters will provide the operator with a basis for determining the necessity of adjusting the duration of the React Fill phase and/or the aeration on/off cycle structure. In summary, the React Fill phase features a reactor that is always in a completely mixed condition that alternates between an aerobic and anoxic environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 8 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. React Phase During the React phase of operation, wastewater is not entering the reactor. The AquaDDM mixer continues to operate and completely mix the reactor, and the aeration system continues to be cycled on and off. This alternately creates aerobic and anoxic conditions. A schematic of this phase is shown in Figure 3. React Phase (Figure 3) Process Considerations Mechanical Considerations Alternating Aerobic/Anoxic Conditions Mixer Operating Complete Mix Conditions Influent Valve Closed/Transfer Pump Off “Polishing Off” BOD5 and Total N Aeration System On/Off Sludge Pump Off Decant Weir Closed The importance of this phase should be recognized by the operator with respect to the "opportunity" that this phase provides to "reduce the concentration levels of all wastewater parameters without the influence of additional wastewater entering the reactor." In effect, the React phase provides a period of time in which wastewater contaminants are "polished off" to the desired or required concentration levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 9 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. A profile of the soluble BOD5 concentration in a reactor, as aeration phases occur, indicates a general decline in the amount of organic material present. The initiation of aeration at the start of the React Fill phase results in a gradual decline in BOD5 concentration. By comparison, the rate of decline in the React phase (with the absence of any additional influent wastewater entering the reactor) is dramatically increased. In summary, the React phase features a reactor that is always in a completely mixed condition which alternates between an aerobic and an anoxic environment. The absence of flow and organic loading provides a unique opportunity to "polish off" wastewater contaminants. This results in a reduction of organic material (BOD5) and total nitrogen present in the reactor to very low effluent concentrations. Since the majority of the biological phosphorus removal normally will have already taken place during the React Fill phase, the React phase does not have a major effect on the effluent total phosphorus concentration. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 10 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Settle Phase During the Settle phase, wastewater is not entering the reactor. Also, the AquaDDM mixer and the aeration system are both turned "off". The absence of flow, mixing, and aeration activity produces an ideal quiescent environment in the reactor for solids-liquid separation. Figure 4 shows the related process and mechanical considerations for this phase of operation. Settle Phase (Figure 4) Process Considerations Mechanical Considerations Quiescent Conditions Mixer Off Static Clarifier Influent Valve Closed/Transfer Pump Off Settling Biomass Aeration System Off Sludge Pump Off Decant Weir Closed At this point in time, the preceding phases have accomplished all of the process objectives related to the reduction of organic compounds (BOD5), total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The reactor acts as a "static clarifier" as opposed to a "flow- through clarifier". Since there is no flow entering or exiting the reactor, the settling of solids is simply not affected by system hydraulics. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 11 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Furthermore, sludge is removed from the reactor by a stationary sludge pump after the completion of the Settle phase. Therefore, settling is not affected by any type of stirring action caused by a mechanical sludge collector. Such an ideal quiescent settling environment is unique to SBR systems. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 12 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Decant Phase Following the treatment of a batch of wastewater and the subsequent solids-liquid separation achieved during the Settle phase, it is then necessary to remove approximately the same volume of liquid that entered the reactor during the Mix Fill and React Fill phases of operation. The AquaSBR accomplishes the removal of treated effluent with one or more floating decanters, which remain in the reactor at all times. The decanters are installed in a manner that permits them to rise and descend with the reactor water level during the Fill and Draw modes of operation. Each decanter unit features an outlet weir and discharge system that incorporates a positive seal prohibiting the entry of mixed liquor suspended solids during the mixed and aerated phases of operation. At the completion of the Settle phase, an electrical signal from the system control panel initiates the opening of the decant weir and the effluent discharge valve. The configuration of a weir suspended below a floating structure provides an effluent withdrawal point that is located just below the surface of the reactor. The positioning of this withdrawal point provides effluent from the uppermost region of the stratified reactor without allowing any surface scum or foam to be drawn into the effluent. The vertical distance from the top of the settled sludge layer to the effluent withdrawal point is also maximized. As the Decant phase progresses, the decanter units maintain this optimum position of effluent withdrawal by simply floating on the surface and descending with the reactor water level. The Decant phase of operation is terminated at the predetermined minimum reactor water level that is controlled by a level sensor system. An electrical signal, prompted by the attainment of the minimum reactor water level, reverses the position of the decanter components by closing the effluent valve and sealing the decant weir against the bottom of the float structure. A schematic of the AquaSBR during this phase is shown in Figure 5. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 13 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Decant/Idle/Sludge Waste Phase (Figure 5) Process Considerations Mechanical Considerations Quiescent Conditions Mixer Off Removing "Clear" Supernatant Influent Valve Closed/Transfer Pump Off Continue Settling Aeration System Off Removing Excess Biomass Sludge Pump On Decant Weir Open Once the reactor has been decanted to the design minimum side water depth (SWD), the Decant phase is automatically terminated. At this point, the decant valve and weir are automatically closed. If the minimum SWD is attained before the end of the programmed duration of this phase, the remaining time is utilized as the Idle phase. Recognize that the time dedicated to the Decant phase represents an extension of the total time during which solids-liquid separation occurs in each reactor. After the completion of the Settle phase, the mixer and aeration system are still inoperative and the quiescent conditions are maintained in the reactor as the Decant phase is initiated. The settled sludge mass is typically well below the reactor surface water level as the Decant phase starts, and sedimentation continues throughout the Decant phase. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 14 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Idle Phase The Idle phase in an AquaSBR is a variable time period. The exact duration of the Idle phase is dependent upon specific hydraulic aspects of the treatment system. The AquaSBR system is designed on the basis of two distinct volume increments in each reactor. These two volume increments are defined as the "react volume" and the "maximum decant volume". The react volume is the volume present in a reactor at the predetermined minimum reactor side water depth (SWD). The maximum decant volume is the volume represented by the difference between the minimum and maximum side water depths. The maximum decant volume is established in the design as the reactor volume required to receive the maximum design flow sustained throughout a single treatment cycle. The decanter is appropriately sized (in terms of the decant weir diameter and the outlet piping and valving) to discharge the maximum decant volume over the entire duration of the Decant phase. At system flow rates significantly less than the design maximum value, each reactor will receive less than the maximum decant volume. However, the effluent will still be decanted at approximately the design discharge flow rate. The volume received in one cycle (at less than the maximum design flow rate) will therefore be discharged over a time period that is less than the programmed duration of the Decant phase. The minimum water level sensor will terminate the decant cycle at the pre-set minimum SWD, regardless of the volume received per treatment cycle during the Fill phases of operation. At this point, the timer within the AquaSBR control system will continue to operate for the entire programmed duration of the Decant phase. The Idle phase is then the resultant time increment between the time of decant termination by the level sensor and the termination of the programmed duration of the Decant phase. As the description implies, the reactor simply remains in an idle mode with all mechanical systems being inoperative. With respect to process considerations, the reactor is in a stratified condition and wastewater is not entering the reactor. Process and mechanical considerations of the AquaSBR during this phase of operation are shown in Figure 6. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 15 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Idle Phase (Figure 6) Process Consideration Mechanical Considerations Quiescent Conditions Mixer Off Influent Valve Closed/Transfer Pump Off Aeration System Off Sludge Pump Off Decant Weir Closed In summary, a description of the Idle phase is dependent upon related factors that affect this phase of operation. It is a necessary phase of operation when a treatment system is required to treat variable hydraulic loading rates on a pre-set time cycle basis of operation. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Operational Description Page 16 of 16 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Waste Sludge Phase AquaSBR systems, like other activated sludge process variations, are dependent upon the development of a mixed culture of bacteria and other microbial life forms to accomplish treatment objectives. As a result of the biological degradation of organic matter and the accumulation of inert material present in most wastewaters, it is necessary to discharge certain quantities of solids from the reactors in order to maintain an appropriate concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the reactor, and to control the sludge age. This phase of operation within the treat- ment cycle is designed as a time increment that occurs simultaneously with the Decant/Idle phase. The programmable logic controller (PLC) is programmed to initiate the Waste Sludge phase during the final minutes of the Decant/Idle phase. At this time, the reactor is in a stratified condition, and one or more solids handling pumps are removing settled sludge from the bottom of the reactor. Since waste sludge solids concentration levels are typically in the range of 0.75% to 1.25%, the sludge remains in a fluid condition throughout a typical waste sludge pumping cycle. Waste Sludge Phase (Figure 7) ---PAGE BREAK--- Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages The AquaSBR System: Sequencing Batch Reactor systems represent a variation of the activated sludge process. Like any other activated sludge process, the AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor system works by developing a mixed culture of bacteria, which is effective in removing BOD, COD and nutrients found in wastewater. The AquaSBR can treat a wide range of domestic and industrial wastewaters, at flows ranging from a few hundred cubic meters to thousands of cubic meters per day. Because the AquaSBR operates in a true batch treatment mode, optimum effluent quality is obtained during each cycle. Only a fraction of the total reactor volume, typically 1/6th, is introduced into the reactor each cycle. This raw flow combines with the acclimated biomass, which remains in the reactor at all times. The ratio of raw flow to biomass is a key factor in obtaining desired effluent quality results in a sequencing batch reactor system. Since only a small amount of sludge is wasted each cycle, the quality of the biomass is always maintained. A true batch reactor system, like the AquaSBR, does not allow influent wastewater to enter the sequencing batch reactor during final react, settle and decant phases, thereby assuring an excellent quality of final effluent. The AquaSBR System Advantages: The AquaSBR is operated in a true batch reactor treatment mode, which does not allow wastewater to enter the reactor during the React, Settle and Decant phases. The system:  Tolerates variable hydraulic loads – mixed liquor solids cannot be washed out by hydraulic surges since effluent withdrawal is typically accomplished in a separate phase following the termination of flow to each reactor.  Tolerates variable organic loads – each influent liquid batch is diluted with the reactor contents from the previous cycle.  Controls filamentous growth – filamentous organisms are controlled by creating an anoxic condition during the initial fill phase. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 2 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.  Provides ideal quiescent settling – since there is no flow during settling, and no mechanical sludge collection device stirring the basin, ideal quiescent settling conditions exist. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 3 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. The AquaSBR Process Features: Peak Design Flow The AquaSBR maintains predetermined cycle times, even at peak daily flow conditions. Cycle integrity is maintained at all flows up to and equal to maximum design flows. There is no cycle advancement up to the maximum design flow which eliminates the possibility of filling and decanting at the same time. Cycle advancement reduces the treatment time and the ability to meet the effluent objectives and filling and decanting is similar to clarifier washout where solids in the basin are carried out through the discharge along with raw sewage as it enters the basin. Separation of Aeration & Mixing Aeration – Aeration will be provided by a Diffused aeration system or Aqua-Jet aerators. Mixing – The separation of aeration from mixing is essential to the success of a sequencing batch reactor system especially for nutrient removal applications. The floating direct drive AquaDDM mixer provides a powerful downflow discharge for maximum solids suspension and aeration enhancement throughout the basin. Mixing efficiency can be double that of jet mixers or submerged horizontal mixers. The use of the AquaDDM mixer enables the AquaSBR to be operated for nutrient removal and to control filamentous organisms by providing a mixed, non-aerated anoxic environment during selected phases of operation. Aeration cycling during the reaction period without the loss of a completely mixed basin alternates the basin environment between aerobic and anoxic conditions essential for nutrient removal. The entire basin is used as an anoxic reactor maximizing the efficiency of the system. Separate zones sectioned off using baffles or walls or separate basins are not required. In addition, the need for recycle pumping (RAS) and the difficulties associated with controlling RAS pumps and rates are eliminated. Retrievable & Accessible Components The AquaSBR is designed to minimize operation and maintenance. The majority of the components in the AquaSBR design are accessible from the side of the tank. If total accessibility without tank dewatering is required, this can be obtained by using a retrievable diffuser option, which is an available option. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 4 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Aqua-Aerobic Decanter System This positively sealed effluent decanter system incorporates several mechanical design features and a mode of operation that results in optimum performance. This design assures that sub-surface withdrawal of supernatant will always be extracted from the reactor at an adequate depth, and within the diameter of the floating structure, to avoid drawing surface material into the effluent flow. At no time does the decanter have to pass through the reactor water surface where scum and floating material can accumulate. The need to eliminate the layer of scum sometimes found on the surface of activated sludge systems is not crucial to a clear discharge from the Aqua-Aerobic decanter. The float of the decanter prevents any floating material from entering the central chamber of the unit, so there is no impact of any floating material. In addition, the design decanter entrance velocities prohibit the entrainment of surface liquid. Therefore, the need for additional equipment to remove scum is not required. Aqua-Aerobic Manufactured All critical components of the AquaSBR are designed and manufactured by Aqua- Aerobic Systems, Inc., a leader in the wastewater treatment industry for more than 35 years. Consistent Effluent Quality The use of microprocessors allow the operator to adjust time and/or aeration and mixing based on organic loads and flow conditions to achieve required results. PLC-Based Control System The AquaSBR control system is a timer-based system with level overrides. This system provides control, sequence monitoring, and annunciation capabilities, and is designed to focus on an operating strategy to optimize the biological treatment process, while minimizing required operator attention. Operation & Process Description The AquaSBR acts as an equalization basin, aeration basin, and clarifier within a single reactor. The termination of flow during the treatment process provides perfectly quiescent settling conditions in the reactor, and permits even very fine particles to settle. Each reactor maintains its own treatment regime and all phases of treatment occur in each reactor for the full cycle time at flow up to the maximum design flow. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 5 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Fill Phases 1. Mixed Fill – Influent enters the AquaSBR reactor. Complete mix of the reactor contents is achieved without the use of aeration. This phase assists in control of filamentous organisms and biomass conditioning. The entire basin is used and no RAS required. 2. React Fill – Influent flow continues under mixed and aerated conditions. Aeration may be intermittent to promote aerobic or anoxic conditions. Nitrification and denitrification can be achieved. The separation of aeration and mixing allows energy control and anoxic conditions without the loss of a completely mixed system. Non-Fill Phases 1. React – Influent flow is terminated, while mixing and aeration continue. Intermittent operation of the aeration system may continue to complete the nitrification/denitrification process, or to conserve energy. 2. Settle – Mixing and aeration cease. Solids/Liquid separation takes place under perfectly quiescent conditions. 3. Decant/Sludge Waste – The mixer and aeration system remain off and, at this time, the decantable volume is removed by means of subsurface withdrawal. The reactor is immediately ready to receive the next batch of raw influent. A small amount of sludge is wasted each cycle. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 6 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Process and Mechanical Advantages The AquaSBR System supplied by Aqua-Aerobic Systems exhibits significant process and mechanical advantages offering mechanical reliability and overall flexibility for the AquaSBR System. The major areas where the AquaSBR System is superior are described below. Decanter and Decant System Design The AquaSBR employs a floating decanter which is provided with a circular stainless steel weir to minimize overflow velocities. The major advantages of the decanter and decant system are as follows: A. The reduced flow velocities result in reduced carryover of suspended solids to units when compared to fixed decanter system or an adjustable decant pipe. In addition, the positive seal between the weir and float assembly assures no leakage during non-decant periods. B. Carryover of floatable materials during the decant cycle is virtually eliminated due to the submerged weir and the float assembly which maximizes the separation between the water surface and the discharge entrance point. Utilization of a fixed decanter or decanter which is lowered into the basin at the start of the decant cycle can result in the carryover of floatables to units. Other SBR systems may provide for a skimming tank upstream of the SBR basin to entrap floatables, or decant the initial flow back to the plant headworks, thereby increasing the solids and organic loading and complicating the control system. C. The AquaSBR System is provided with an electrically operated control valve on the decant line to throttle the initial decant flow to acceptable levels, thereby eliminating the possibility of high flow velocities disturbing the settled sludge blanket. This valve also serves as a backup to the positive seal on the decanter in the unlikely event of a decanter malfunction. D. The decanter is provided with a single motor actuator with only one moving part. This is the most mechanically reliable decanter currently manufactured. Freezing problems are eliminated, as the entire weir assembly is submerged, whereas the use of a removable decanter during extended periods of cold weather can result in icing and freezing problems. Complicated control equipment such as inverters are not required. Aqua MixAir® Aeration System The AquaSBR System is provided with a downdraft mixer to allow separation of the power required for mixing and oxygen transfer. The major advantages of the Aqua MixAir® Aeration System are as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 7 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. A. The AquaSBR basin is operated in a completely mixed mode, thereby providing increased process reliability and flexibility when compared to plug flow systems. Complete mix systems provide stable operation over a wide range of organic and hydraulic loadings due to the ability of the influent load to be dispersed uniformly throughout the tank. B. Utilization of the mixer provides for higher basin MLSS concentrations to be maintained, thereby resulting in reduced waste sludge quantities due to the lower food-to-microorganism ratio maintained. The higher solids levels also provide for a greater quantity of biomass which is available to absorb higher organic loadings. Operation of the AquaSBR System at these higher MLSS concentrations offers increased design flexibility and conservatism. C. A significant savings in power costs may be expected due to the ability of the Aqua MixAir Aeration System to maintain solids in suspension during periods of low organic loading, as the air blowers may be throttled to levels normally below those required to maintain solids in suspension. D. Air flow rates may be varied to match oxygen demand, thereby eliminating the potential for over-aeration of the mixed liquor, which can result in problems with sludge settleability and the carryover of suspended solids to units. In addition to this important process advantage, the MixAir system will reduce annual power costs as discussed above. The MixAir concept is particularly advantageous for projects where low flows are anticipated in the early years of operation, where significant over-aeration could occur with conventional aeration systems. E. The most important factor involved with the consistently successful operation of the SBR process is the ability to mix the basin efficiently, thereby assuring uniform organic and dissolved oxygen concentrations are maintained throughout the basin. The AquaDDM mixer supplied with the AquaSBR System provides for entrained flow rates up to 35 times greater than direct pumping rates, thereby ensuring a completely mixed basin at all times. Systems relying on diffused aeration or jet aeration systems for mixing are far less efficient in terms of mixing capabilities, flexibility and power requirements. F. During periods when the AquaDDM mixer is in operation, floatable materials and scum are directed into the flow path and re-entrained into the mixed liquor. G. Depending upon the type and arrangement of the aeration piping and diffusers, oxygen transfer rates may be enhanced up to 25 percent over comparable diffused air systems when the AquaDDM mixer is employed, resulting in a further reduction of annual power costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 8 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. H. Anoxic conditions which develop during the Mixed Fill cycle using the AquaDDM mixer without aeration have been demonstrated to markedly reduce the potential for the proliferation of filamentous organisms which adversely affect sludge settling characteristics. Other SBR Systems either provide for Mixed Fill cycles with reduced airflow rates which still adds oxygen to the system, separate anoxic “zones” with inadequate mixing and recycle or inefficient jet mixing systems. These approaches will not provide the same reliability and flexibility in controlling filamentous bacteria. I. During operation in the nitrification/denitrification mode where the aeration blowers may be cycled to maintain optimum process conditions, the AquaDDM mixer has been demonstrated to reduce by up to 75 percent the time required to bring the basin dissolved oxygen concentration back to operating levels when compared to an aeration system not using the AquaDDM mixer. Similar performance has also been experienced at the end of the Mixed Fill Cycle or after a long idle period. This rapid oxygen level recovery period assures optimum treatment by allowing essentially the entire React Fill and React cycles to be provided with adequate dissolved oxygen levels. Low-Load System Design Where effluent limits dictate, the AquaSBR System may be designed for a low food- to-microorganism ratio and high mixed liquor concentration to achieve biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Specific advantages of the low-load design include: A. Increased process reliability and flexibility due to high MLSS concentrations, as previously discussed. B. The AquaDDM mixer provides the capability to manipulate the reactor environment during appropriate phases of a treatment cycle to achieve biological removal of phosphorus and nitrogen. C. The inherent design of the AquaSBR low-load system provides for some degree of denitrification during the Mixed Fill cycle when anoxic conditions are developed. During the React Fill and React periods, the use of the MixAir system allow environment manipulation and flexibility for the formation nitrates through nitrification and the removal of nitrates through denitrification. D. No license fees or royalties of any kind are charged by Aqua-Aerobic Systems for the use of Aqua-Aerobic Systems’ low-load biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal system. ---PAGE BREAK--- AquaSBR® Sequencing Batch Reactor Advantages Page 9 of 9 August 14, 2015 Copyright 2015 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. E. The AquaSBR System design provides for adequate basin volume to store the maximum design flow rate during the time that the other basin is completing the React, Settle, and Decant phases of operation. This design basis assures that treatment cycle times are not shortened unless the maximum design flow to the system is exceeded. This assures the absolute highest quality effluent is produced over a wide range of flow and loading conditions. In contrast, other SBR system suppliers may provide a reduced basin volume, with cycle times shortened when peak flow rates exceed average levels. F. The AquaSBR System is controlled by an operator-friendly microprocessor control system, in which the process variables may be easily changed to match flow or loading conditions. Time control of the operating cycle duration is provided to maximize operating efficiency, with float switches provided in the AquaSBR basin to override the time controls in the event peak flow rates are exceed for extended periods of time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Qty Unit Service Required Cost/Unit 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 2 SBR P.D. Blower* Oil Change 4/year 50.00 $ 400.00 $ 2 SBR P.D. Blower* Replace Inlet Air Filter Elements: One/6 months 80.00 $ 320.00 $ 2 SBR P.D. Blower* Belt replacement: One/5 years 236.00 $ 472.00 $ 2 SBR P.D. Blower* P.D. Blower repair kit: One/5 Years 1,135.00 $ 2,270.00 $ 2 SBR Decanter Replace:Actuator,Capacitor,Limit Switch/3 years 719.00 $ 1,438.00 $ 2 SBR D.O. Sensors Replace: sensor head one/year 126.00 $ 252.00 $ 900 SBR FB Diff. Membranes 25% Diffuser membrane replacement/5 years 31.00 $ 6,975.00 $ 2 SBR Sludge Pump Repair kit 451.00 $ 902.00 $ 1 Stand-by P.D. Blower* Oil Change 4/year 50.00 $ 200.00 $ 1 Stand-by P.D. Blower* Replace Inlet Air Filter Elements: One/6 months 80.00 $ 160.00 $ 1 Stand-by P.D. Blower* Belt replacement: One/5 years 236.00 $ 236.00 $ 1 Stand-by P.D. Blower* P.D. Blower repair kit: One/5 Years 2,941.00 $ 2,941.00 $ 1 Controller Replace Relays, Switches, Fuses /Year 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 1 Controller Replace Microprocessor Battery One/3 Years 26.00 $ 26.00 $ 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year EQUIPMENT TOTALS: 1,382.00 $ 1,464.00 $ 13,796.00 $ Power Costs of all equipment as proposed: 2,241 = Kilowatt hours/day Estimated $/kwhr 0.08 $ 65,431 $ Estimated General Operation & Maintenance*** 34.9 = Man Hours/week for Process Testing 6 = Man Hours/week for General Plant Cleanup and Routine Maintenance Notes * Stand-by blower unit included in estimate for budget purposes. Maintenance costs of stand-by unit may be reduced based upon the actual hours of operation. This is based upon operation at 100% of design conditions. ***The values listed are for estimating purposes only. The actual amount of operator attention provided will be dependent upon local requirements and the size of the staff available for testing. All estimates are based upon equipment maintenance and operation in accordance with the O & M instructions provided by Aqua-Aerobic Systems. They are based on typical SBR Installations with a normal preventative maintenance schedule for the equipment. The actual maintenance man hours required for each project will vary depending upon site and climate conditions, which may alter the frequency of the maintenance schedule. Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs for Whitefish MT 113827 Design No. 141346 dated 08-17-2015 Copyright 2014 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Qty Unit Service Required Cost/Unit 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 1 Digester P.D. Blower* Oil Change 4/year 50.00 $ 200.00 $ 1 Digester P.D. Blower* Replace Inlet Air Filter Elements: One/6 months 80.00 $ 160.00 $ 1 Digester P.D. Blower* Belt replacement: One/5 years 236.00 $ 236.00 $ 1 Digester P.D. Blower* P.D. Blower repair kit: One/5 Years 2,941.00 $ 2,941.00 $ 1 Digester Sludge Pump Repair kit 451.00 $ 451.00 $ 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year EQUIPMENT TOTALS: 360.00 $ - $ 3,628.00 $ Power Costs of all equipment as proposed: 1,347 = Kilowatt hours/day Estimated $/kwhr 0.08 $ 39,325 $ Notes * Stand-by blower unit included in estimate for budget purposes. Maintenance costs of stand-by unit may be reduced based upon the actual hours of operation. This is based upon operation at 100% of design conditions. All estimates are based upon equipment maintenance and operation in accordance with the O & M instructions provided by Aqua-Aerobic Systems. They are based on typical SBR Installations with a normal preventative maintenance schedule for the equipment. The actual maintenance man hours required for each project will vary depending upon site and climate conditions, which may alter the frequency of the maintenance schedule. Estimated Operation & Maintenance Costs for Whitefish MT 113827 Design No. 141346 dated 08-17-2015 Copyright 2014 Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Manufacturer’s Design Report Fluidyne SBR ---PAGE BREAK--- PROPOSAL FLUIDYNE CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE COMPANY) AGREES TO SELL TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PURCHASER AGREES TO BUY AND ACCEPT FROM THE COMPANY, THE ITEM DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROJECT: Whitefish, Montana Sequencing Batch Reactor PROPOSAL NO.: DATE WRITTEN: FLC 032916 April 8, 2016 WRITTEN BY: ERICK MANDT FLUIDYNE CORPORATION CEDAR FALLS, IOWA 525 St. Johns Ave. STE D Billings, MT 59102 Ben Lewis [EMAIL REDACTED] 406‐969‐2022 406‐850‐0030 Cell, 303/380‐0664 fax CORPORATION 5436 Nordic Drive, Suite D Cedar Falls, IA 50613 Phone: (319) 266-9967 Fax: (319) 277-6034 http://www.fluidynecorp.com FLUIDYNE ---PAGE BREAK--- FLUIDYNE CORPORATION 5436 Nordic Drive, Suite D CEDAR FALLS, IOWA 50613 PROPOSAL NO.: FLC 032916 PROJECT: Whitefish,Montana DATE: April 8, 2016 (319) 266-9967 Fluidyne is pleased to submit our proposal for the supply of our Sequencing Batch Reactor Equipment for the Whitefish, Montana Wastewater Treatment Plant. Fluidyne has based their design on the following influent information: The required average effluent limits are: 2013 2015 2020 2025 2035 Planning Area 11,230 11,661 12,812 14,076 16,992 Connected Pop. 7,736 8,033 8,826 9,697 11,705 Ultimate Buildout - 36,929 Qavg (mgd) 0.996 1.034 1.136 1.248 1.507 Qwet weather 1.195 1.241 1.363 1.498 1.808 Qmax day 4.266 4.342 4.355 4.53 AVG BOD (lbs/day) 2467.8 2562.5 2815.4 3093.3 3734.0 MAX BOD 3289.6 3415.8 3753.0 4123.4 4977.4 TSS (lbs/day) 1980.4 2056.4 2259.4 2482.4 2996.5 Ammonia (lbs/day) 208.9 216.9 238.3 261.8 316.0 Phosphorous (lbs/day) 49.83 51.74 56.85 62.46 75.40 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Avg Influent Temp 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.2 9.2 Avg Alkalinity 266 mg/l CITY OF WHITEFISH MPDES Permit MT #0020184 Wastewater Effluent Standards (effective Aug 1, 2015) Parameter Units Avg. Month Avg. Week Max Day 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/L 30 45 lb/day 313 676 % Removal 85% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 30 45 lb/day 313 676 % Removal 85% pH SU 6.0 -9.0 Ammonia, Total as N mg/L 9.6 17.7 Total Nitrogen- summer lb/day 176 ---PAGE BREAK--- Performance assumes proper operation and maintenance. Chemical additional provided by others will be required for the phosphorous requirement. Fluidyne has looked at both a two tank and three tank SBR. Both options are presented below: OPTION # 1 - Two Tank SBR - Each tank at 140’ X 55’ X 20’ SWD. Fluidyne proposes to supply the following equipment: Influent Control Valves and Actuators Two 12” Diameter DeZURIK Flanged Eccentric Plug Valve Model PEC, Cast Iron body, bonnet and plug, NBR stem packing, Cr Plug Facing with AUMA Electric Actuator, 120 VAC single phase, NEMA 4X/6. With integral AUMA Matic Motor Controls. Influent Diffuser Baffles: Two Fluidyne model# FID-24 304 Stainless Steel Influent Baffles with flanged connection to the vertical tank wall. Jet Aeration Two 47 HP Submersible Jet Motive/Recirculation Pumps with Class 1, Division 1, 460/3/60 explosion proof motor and 49’ of power cable. Accessories include a straight through discharge connection fitting, lifting bail, stainless steel grab link lifting assembly, 2” diameter stainless steel guide rails, and seal failure module to be mounted in the SBR control panel. One Shelf Spare 47 HP Submersible Jet Motive/Recirculation Pump with 49’ of power cable. Two Fluidyne model# BDM2JA28 Jet Aeration Headers including all in-basin liquid piping, submerged air piping and standard stainless steel supports. Air piping to terminate with a flange connection just above top water level to mate to the contractor supplied air distribution piping. Liquid piping to terminate with a flange connection to mate to the jet mixing pump discharge connection. The jet aeration and mixing manifold including the nozzle assemblies are fabricated out of minimum schedule 10 304 stainless steel. Total Nitrogen- winter lb/day 273 Total Phosphorus (TP) -year-round mg/L 1.0 lb/day 10.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Two 8” Diameter Pneumatic Backflush Systems including 8” diameter 304 stainless steel riser piping with flange connections, riser pipe supports and 8” manually operated DeZURIK back-flush plug valve. One Lot 304 Stainless Steel Anchor bolts for all in-basin supplied supports. Decanting Two Fluidyne model #DSED-20 Decanters fabricated out of 304 stainless steel with all in-basin piping and supports. Decanter to terminate with a 16” flange connection to mate to the tank wall spool flange. Two 1” Electric Operated Decant Vent Valves in NEMA 4 Weatherproof Enclosure. Two 16” Diameter DeZURIK Effluent Control Flanged AWWA Butterfly Valve, AWWA, Class 150B, Cast Iron Body & Disc, 304 SS Shaft 315 SS disc edge, with AUMA Electric Actuator, 120 VAC single phase, NEM 4X/6, with integral AUMA Matic Motor Controls. Waste Activated Sludge Pumping. Two 5 HP Submersible Waste Sludge Pumps with Class 1, Division 1, 460/3/60 explosion proof motor and 49’ of power cable. Accessories include an elbow discharge connection fitting, lifting bail, stainless steel grab link lifting assembly, 2” diameter stainless steel guide rails, and seal failure module to be mounted in the SBR control panel. Positive Displacement Blowers Three 75 HP Positive Displacement Blower packages with premium efficiency motor, v-belt drive, automatic belt tensioner, belt guard, vibration isolators, oil drains, inlet filter/silencer, discharge silencer, pressure relief valve, check valve, lifting lugs, sound enclosure, ventilating fan, fabricated steel base, and oil level monitor. One blower package is a spare. Controls: One SBR Control Panel housed in NEMA 12 enclosure as follows: SBR Control Panel Enclosure: NEMA 12 Painted Steel Approx. size: 60”H x 36”W x 12”D, Single Door, 3-pt Latch Floor Mounted with 12” Leg Stand Kit Service Voltage: 120Vac, 1-Phase ---PAGE BREAK--- UL 508A Listed Containing the following Equipment: 1-Pole 15A Circuit Breakers UPS/Control Power, Valve Power, DO Analyzer Power, Convenience Receptacle Interior Light Fixture with door activated switch 120vac Surge Arrestor for UPS/Control Power Circuit Grace Port Door mount Ethernet Port and Convenience Receptacle UPS Receptacle 1000VA UPS 24Vdc Power Supply Allen Bradley 1769-L33ER CompactLogix Processor Allen Bradley 1769-PA4 Rack Power Supply Allen Bradley 1769-IA16 120vac Input Modules Allen Bradley 1769-OW16 Relay Output Modules Allen Bradley 1769-IF8 Analog Input Module Allen Bradley 1769-ECR Rack End Cap Allen Bradley PanelView Plus 6 1000, 10” Color Touch Screen Phoenix 5-port Ethernet Switch Alarm Strobe Light (Mounted on top of enclosure) Door Mounted Pilot Devices (22mm Devices) Alarm Acknowledge Pushbutton On – Off - Auto 3-position Selector Switches (10) Open – Auto – Close 3-position Selector Switches Green Pilot Lights (Running) (10) Blue Pilot Lights (Valve Closed) (10) White Pilot Lights (Valve Open) Overtemp/Seal Fail Pump Modules Dual-Channel Intrinsically Safe Barrier for float switches Analog Signal Intrinsically Safe Barrier 700-HA32A1-3 relays with bases. (lot) Miscellaneous Materials, Terminal Blocks, and Fuses Blocks as required (lot) Engraved Name Plates as required. Instrumentation: One YSI System 2020 XT - 20 Channel Terminal/Controller with 3 Current Outputs, 3 Relay outputs, complete with power supply 100-240 VAC & USB interface. 5 IQ Sensor Net Connections with passive Junction Box IQ with 4 IQ Sensor Net Connections and IQ Sun Shield, and rail mounting kit. Two Optical DO Sensor for IQ System, 0-20.00 mg/l with required SACIQ cable assembly and handrail mounting kit. Two Suspended Solids Sensor for IQ System, with required SACIQ cable assembly and adaptor. One unit to be mounted in each SBR basin. ---PAGE BREAK--- Two Submersible Level Transducers with 30’ of cable for 4-20 mA signal. Two High Water Level Float Level Sensors with support bracket. One is for each SBR. The price for this equipment including freight and service is $_685,000_ OPTION # 2 – Three Tank SBR - Each tank at 102’ X 50’ X 20’ SWD. Fluidyne proposes to supply the following equipment: Influent Control Valves and Actuators Three 12” Diameter DeZURIK Flanged Eccentric Plug Valve Model PEC, Cast Iron body, bonnet and plug, NBR stem packing, Cr Plug Facing with AUMA Electric Actuator, 120 VAC single phase, NEMA 4X/6. With integral AUMA Matic Motor Controls. Influent Diffuser Baffles: Three Fluidyne model# FID-24 304 Stainless Steel Influent Baffles with flanged connection to the vertical tank wall. Jet Aeration Three 28 HP Submersible Jet Motive/Recirculation Pumps with Class 1, Division 1, 460/3/60 explosion proof motor and 49’ of power cable. Accessories include a straight through discharge connection fitting, lifting bail, stainless steel grab link lifting assembly, 2” diameter stainless steel guide rails, and seal failure module to be mounted in the SBR control panel. One Shelf Spare 28 HP Submersible Jet Motive/Recirculation Pump with 49’ of power cable. Three Fluidyne model# BDM2JA20 Jet Aeration Headers including all in- basin liquid piping, submerged air piping and standard stainless steel supports. Air piping to terminate with a flange connection just above top water level to mate to the contractor supplied air distribution piping. Liquid piping to terminate with a flange connection to mate to the jet mixing pump discharge connection. The jet aeration and mixing manifold including the nozzle assemblies are fabricated out of minimum schedule 10 304 stainless steel. ---PAGE BREAK--- Three 6” Diameter Pneumatic Backflush Systems including 6” diameter 304 stainless steel riser piping with flange connections, riser pipe supports and 6” manually operated DeZURIK back-flush plug valve. One Lot 304 Stainless Steel Anchor bolts for all in-basin supplied supports. Decanting Three Fluidyne model #DSED-15 Decanters fabricated out of 304 stainless steel with all in-basin piping and supports. Decanter to terminate with a 16” flange connection to mate to the tank wall spool flange. Three 1” Electric Operated Decant Vent Valves in NEMA 4 Weatherproof Enclosure. Six 12” Diameter DeZURIK Effluent Control Flanged AWWA Butterfly Valve, AWWA, Class 150B, Cast Iron Body & Disc, 304 SS Shaft 316 SS disc edge, with AUMA Electric Actuator, 120 VAC single phase, NEM 4X/6, with integral AUMA Matic Motor Controls. Waste Activated Sludge Pumping. Three 3 HP Submersible Waste Sludge Pumps with Class 1, Division 1, 460/3/60 explosion proof motor and 49’ of power cable. Accessories include an elbow discharge connection fitting, lifting bail, stainless steel grab link lifting assembly, 2” diameter stainless steel guide rails, and seal failure module to be mounted in the SBR control panel. Positive Displacement Blowers Four 50 HP Positive Displacement Blower packages with premium efficiency motor, v-belt drive, automatic belt tensioner, belt guard, vibration isolators, oil drains, inlet filter/silencer, discharge silencer, pressure relief valve, check valve, lifting lugs, sound enclosure, ventilating fan, fabricated steel base, and oil level monitor. One blower package is a spare. Controls: One SBR Control Panel housed in NEMA 12 enclosure as follows: SBR Control Panel Enclosure: NEMA 12 Painted Steel Approx. size: 72”H x 36”W x 12”D, Single Door, 3-pt Latch Floor Mounted with 12” Leg Stand Kit Service Voltage: 120Vac, 1-Phase, UL 508A Listed ---PAGE BREAK--- Containing the following Equipment: 1-Pole 15A Circuit Breakers UPS/Control Power, Valve Power, DO Analyzer Power, Convenience Receptacle Interior Light Fixture with door activated switch 120vac Surge Arrestor for UPS/Control Power Circuit Grace Port Door mount Ethernet Port and Convenience Receptacle UPS Receptacle 1000VA UPS 24Vdc Power Supply Allen Bradley 1769-L33ER CompactLogix Processor Allen Bradley 1769-PA4 Rack Power Supply Allen Bradley 1769-IA16 120vac Input Modules Allen Bradley 1769-OW16 Relay Output Modules Allen Bradley 1769-IF8 Analog Input Module Allen Bradley 1769-ECR Rack End Cap Allen Bradley PanelView Plus 6 1000, 10” Color Touch Screen Phoenix 5-port Ethernet Switch Alarm Strobe Light (Mounted on top of enclosure) Door Mounted Pilot Devices (22mm Devices) Alarm Acknowledge Pushbutton On – Off - Auto 3-position Selector Switches (15) Open – Auto – Close 3-position Selector Switches Green Pilot Lights (Running) (10) Blue Pilot Lights (Valve Closed) (10) White Pilot Lights (Valve Open) Overtemp/Seal Fail Pump Modules Dual-Channel Intrinsically Safe Barrier for float switches Analog Signal Intrinsically Safe Barrier 700-HA32A1-3 relays with bases. (lot) Miscellaneous Materials, Terminal Blocks, and Fuses Blocks as required (lot) Engraved Name Plates as required. Instrumentation: One YSI System 2020 XT - 20 Channel Terminal/Controller with 3 Current Outputs, 6 Relay outputs, complete with power supply 100-240 VAC & USB interface. 5 IQ Sensor Net Connections with passive Junction Box IQ with 4 IQ Sensor Net Connections and IQ Sun Shield, and rail mounting kit. Three Optical DO Sensor for IQ System, 0-20.00 mg/l with required SACIQ cable assembly and handrail mounting kit. Three Suspended Solids Sensor for IQ System, with required SACIQ cable assembly and adaptor. One unit to be mounted in each SBR basin. Three Submersible Level Transducers with 30’ of cable for 4-20 mA signal. ---PAGE BREAK--- Three High Water Level Float Level Sensors with support bracket. One is for each SBR. The price for this equipment including freight and service is $ 785,000. CLARIFICATIONS: Fluidyne assumes the wastewater is non-toxic and readily bio-degradable with sufficient alkalinity and sufficient carbon to nitrogen ratio. SERVICE: Service is included in the amount of ten man-days (10) days provided in four trips for the SBR system start-up. Blower start-up service is provided in the amount of two days provided in one trip including travel and living expenses. Additional service would be extra at a rate of $1000/day plus travel and living expense. EXCLUSIONS: Not furnished by Fluidyne are the following; pre-treatment including grit removal or screening; concrete tanks; any pipe, supports, fittings or valves except those specifically included above; influent control valves; out of basin or interconnecting piping, valving or supports; influent pumps; pre- treatment; effluent equalization; effluent pumps and controls; disinfection; sludge handling equipment; chemical feed equipment; chemicals; generator; SCADA; motor starters; VFDs, chemical feed equipment; any remote panels, disconnects or junction boxes; cabling other than standard that come with equipment; conduit; walkway; hand-railing; grating; access hatches; vents; mounting piping and supports for instrumentation; sludge disposal or handling equipment; electrical and mechanical installation labor; off-loading of equipment; jobsite testing; jobsite storage; taxes; duties; insurance and other items not specifically mentioned in the body of this proposal. SHIPMENT: The price quoted is based on a target shipment date of 14 to 18 weeks after receipt of approved drawings. TAXES: Any applicable duties, sales, use, excise or similar taxes are not included in the quoted price. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Warranties shall apply only when payments are made in full and according to the following schedule: 100% Net 30 days from shipment. Unless other terms are specified, all payments shall be in United States Dollars and pro rata payments shall become due as deliveries are made. If date of delivery is delayed by purchaser, date of readiness for delivery shall be deemed ---PAGE BREAK--- date of delivery for payment purposes. If purchaser delays manufacture, a payment shall be made based on the purchase price and percentage of completion; balance payable in accordance with the terms stated. If, at any time in Company’s judgment, purchaser may be or maybe become unable or unwilling to meet the terms specified, Company may require satisfactory assurances or full or partial payment as a condition of commencing or continuing manufacture; or in advance of shipment, if it shipment has been made, recover the product(s) from the carrier. DURATION: This proposal shall remain in effect for 60 days after proposal date, unless changed in the interim upon written notice. FLUIDYNE CORPORATION TERMS OF SALE The conditions stated below shall constitute a part of the agreement resulting from the acceptance of an order for the whole or any part of the equipment covered by this quotation. 1. ACCEPTANCE: All orders shall be made out to Fluidyne Corp., 5436 Nordic Drive, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613, and shall be subject to acceptance by Fluidyne. Orders may not be canceled without Fluidyne’s written consent, and then only on terms indemnifying Fluidyne against loss. Fluidyne reserves the right to correct any typographical or clerical errors in the proposal, pricing, or specification. Acceptance of any contract by Fluidyne shall be contingent upon credit approval. Performance shall be subject to strikes, fires, accidents, or curtailments in manufacturing or due to delays unavoidable or beyond the control of Fluidyne. No direct or liquidated damages or penalties shall be accepted. Receipt of the original copy of this proposal, signed by the purchaser, shall constitute a purchase order. The drawings and bulletin illustrations submitted with this proposal shall be general type, arrangement and approximate dimensions of the equipment to be furnished. Fluidyne reserves the right to alter such details in design or arrangement of its equipment, which in its judgment would constitute an improvement in construction, application or operation. Fluidyne shall forward all necessary engineering information for installation of its equipment to the purchaser upon receipt of this accepted proposal. Any changes in equipment, arrangement of equipment, or application of equipment requested by purchaser after acceptance of proposal will be made at purchaser's expense. 2. TAXES The prices quoted are subject to any addition, which may be necessary to cover any tax charge now existing or hereafter imposed by Federal, State, or Municipal authorities upon equipment or services herein described or the production, sale, distribution or delivery thereof, or upon any feature of this transaction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. BINDING RESPONSIBILITIES: Sales representatives are not authorized to bind us. Typographical errors are not binding. 4. CANCELLATION: After acceptance, an order shall not be subject to cancellation unless cancellation charges are borne by the Purchaser for work done by the Seller up to the time of receipt of cancellation notice; nor shall such orders be subject to change unless price increases are born by the Purchaser. 5. SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY: All deliveries quoted are estimates based on Fluidyne's best judgment at the time of this proposal, but shipment on these dates is not guaranteed. Deliveries are figured from date of receipt in Cedar Falls, Iowa of approved order and technical data. Fluidyne will not accept any claims caused by delay in shipment or delivery. It is further understood that storage charges of 1 percent per month will apply commencing 30 days from date of equipment completion if purchaser asks the delivery be delayed after production is started. Billing will be made at time of completion of equipment and paid per standard terms. 6. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Terms of payment are 10% with order, 20% upon approval of shop drawings, 50% Net 30 days from receipt of the equipment, 15% upon notice of substantial completion of the construction contractor, not to exceed 180 days from shipment whichever occurs first and final 5% net 45 days after operation by the buyer or notice of substantial completion whichever occurs first, not to exceed 270 days from shipment, unless stipulated otherwise in the body of this proposal. Accounts not paid on net cash due date bear interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per month not to exceed the maximum permissible by law. Title shall not pass to purchaser or end user until all payments including final payment and any retention for all goods and services have been received in full by Fluidyne. 7. INSTALLATION AND INITIAL OPERATION: All equipment shall be installed by and at the expense of the Purchaser unless otherwise stipulated. The Seller will furnish at its option, engineers to supervise the installation and starting up of the equipment. Field service will be provided by a factory-trained representative at a per diem rate of plus travel and expenses on any additional period not stated in this contract. 8. WARRANTY: Fluidyne warrants the SBR equipment proposed and described herein against defects in material and workmanship under normal use for a period of one year after date of start-up, not to exceed eighteen months from date of shipment. This warranty is valid provided that the installation operation and maintenance of the equipment is made in accordance with Fluidyne's instructions. The purchaser ---PAGE BREAK--- must give written notice of any equipment defects to Fluidyne. Under the warranty, Fluidyne will replace or repair the defective equipment, F.O.B its factory any part or parts returned to it, which examination shall show to have failed under normal use and service by the user within the above time frame. Qualified Fluidyne personnel or its agents must perform all startup service, or this warranty is void. THIS IS FLUIDYNE'S SOLE WARRANTY. FLUIDYNE MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED: ALL IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED WARRANTY MADE BY ANY PERSON, AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE WHICH EXCEEDS FLUIDYNE'S AFOREMENTIONED OBLIGATION ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED BY FLUIDYNE AND EXCLUDED FROM THIS WARRANTY. 9. PATENTS: The equipment provided by Fluidyne may be covered by patents pending or issued. Fluidyne grants the right to use this equipment with further charges. Fluidyne does not grant rights to use, royalties, or protection against patent litigation arising from use of this equipment in patented processes controlled by others unless otherwise listed above. 10. CHANGE ORDERS: Any change orders shall be mutually agreeable between buyer and seller. 11. LIABILITY: In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for anticipated profits or for incidental, special, indirect, punitive or consequential damages under any circumstances. A party’s liability on any claim of any kind for any loss or damage arising out of, connected with, or resulting from this Agreement or from the performance or breach thereof shall, in no case, exceed the price allocable to the Equipment or the Services or any unit thereof which gives rise to the claim. Neither Buyer nor Seller shall be liable for penalties of any description. 12. PRICING Fluidyne pricing is based on these terms of sale. No monies have been included for acceptance of different, additional or modified terms of sale. SUBMITED BY: FLUIDYNE CORPORATION DATE: April 8, 2016 PROJECT: Whitefish, MT ACCEPTED BY: (Sign and Title) (Company Name) DATED: ---PAGE BREAK--- ISAM™ CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Whitefish SBR ENGINEER: PROJECT 032116 SBR DATE & TIME: 3/29/2016 16:10 SBR SBR SBR Average Max Wet Load Weather INFLUENT CONDITIONS Flow (m3/d) 5704 5704 6843 Flow (mgd) 1.507 1.507 1.808 Flow(gpm) 1047 1047 1256 BOD (mg/l) 297 396 248 (lb/d) 3734 4977 3734 TSS (mg/l) 239 239 199 (lb/d) 2998 2998 2998 NH3 (mg/l) 25 25 21 (lb/d) 317 317 317 OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS Pounds TKN required for 187 249 187 Pounds of NO3-N produced 130 68 130 Pounds O2 recovered/pound NO3-N reduced 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pound of Oxygen/ pound of BOD 1.1 1.1 1.1 Pound of Oxygen/pound of TKN 4.6 4.6 4.6 Actual Oxygen Demand (lb 02/d) Total 4446 5651 4446 Alpha 0.9 0.9 0.9 Beta 0.95 0.95 0.95 Theta 1.024 1.024 1.024 Operating Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 2 2 2 Clean Water oxygen sat. at op. temp (mg/l) 11.3 11.3 11.3 Clean Water oxygen sat. at std. temp (mg/l) 9.09 9.09 9.09 Clean water 02 sat, std temp,mid depth(mg/l) 11.76 11.76 11.76 Std. condition ambient pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7 Oper. condition ambient pressure (psia) 13.24 13.24 13.24 Wastewater temperature 10 10 10 SOR/AOR ratio 1.58 1.58 1.58 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/d) total 7007 8907 7007 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/hr) 584 582 584 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/hr/tank) 292 291 292 Specific oxygenation rate (mg/l-hr) 30 30 30 Pounds of oxygen/pound of air 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clean water efficiency 25.5 25.5 25.5 Pounds of air/cubic foot of air 0.075 0.075 0.075 Aeration hours per day 12.00 15.30 12.00 Air flow rate (scfm/tank) 1106 1103 1106 Air pressure losses (lines and nozzle) 0.66 0.66 0.66 Maximum air pressure (psig) 8.45 8.45 8.45 Average air pressure (psig) 7.64 7.64 7.64 NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION Required alkalinity for nitrification (mg/l) 74 39 62 Alkalinity recovered, denitrification (mg/l) 31 16 26 Net alkalinity required (mg/l) 43 22 36 Mixed liquor temperature, C 10 10 10 ML dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 2 2 2 Max. nitrifier growth rate, day-1 0.175 0.175 0.175 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT: Whitefish SBR Minimum SRT required for nitrification, days 5.73 5.73 5.73 Actual SBR SRT, days 27.90 20.81 27.90 Total SRT, days 27.90 20.81 27.90 Kn, half velocity constant (mg/l) 0.22 0.22 0.22 Design growth rate for heterotrophs/nitrifiers 0.0358 0.0480 0.0358 Projected effluent soluble NH3-N, mg/l 0.06 0.09 0.06 Specific utilization rate, lbs BOD5/lb 0.16 0.18 0.16 lbs. required for BOD & NH3 removal 23923 27919 23923 (mg/l) 2450 2450 2450 Tank volume req. for BOD & NH3 removal (MG 1.17 1.37 1.17 Denitrification rate (g/g/day) 0.034 0.034 0.034 lbs required for denitrification 3875 2023 3875 Tank volume required for NO3 removal (MG) 0.19 0.10 0.19 Total tank volume required (MG) 1.36 1.47 1.36 SBR/SAM™ TANK CONFIGURATION No. of SBR tanks 2 2 2 Length SBR (ft) 140 140 140 Length SAM™ (ft) 0 0 0 Width (ft) 55 55 55 Bottom water level (ft) 16.25 16.25 16.25 Top water level (ft) 20 20 20 No. Decanters/tank 2 2 2 SBR Tankage Volume @ TWL(MG) 2.3038 2.3038 2.3038 SBR HRT (hrs) 36.69 36.69 30.58 SAM™ Tankage Volume 0.000 0.000 0.000 SAM HRT (hrs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 SBR+SAM Tankage Volume @ TWL(MG) 2.30 2.30 2.30 Anoxic/Aerobic HRT (hrs) 36.69 36.69 30.58 ISAM™ tankage volume (MG) 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total HRT (hrs) 36.69 36.69 30.58 CYCLE TIMES/CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Total decant volume (cubic feet) 57,750 57,750 57,750 Total decant volume (gallons) 431,970 431,970 431,970 Decant volume per tank (gallons) 215,985 215,985 215,985 Number of cycles per day/tank 3.49 3.49 4.19 Total time per cycle (minutes) 413 413 344 Fill rate (gpm) 1047 1047 1256 Fill time (minutes) SBR 206 206 172 Feed rate (gpm) 1047 1047 1256 React Period available (minutes) 125 125 91 Settle period (minutes) 45 45 45 Decant fill (minutes) 0 0 0 Average decant rate (gpm/ft decanter) 100 100 100 Decanter length (feet) 60 60 60 Decanting time (minutes) 36 36 36 Idle time (minutes) 0 0 0 Total decantable volume (gallons) 215985 215985 215985 Maximum aeration period available (hours/day 19.29 19.29 18.35 EQUIPMENT SELECTION Air flow per nozzle (scfm) 45 45 45 Number of nozzles required (per tank) 24.58 24.51 24.58 Number of nozzles provided (per tank) 28 28 28 Actual airflow per nozzle (scfm) 39.51 39.39 39.51 Blower capacity required (scfm) 1106 1103 1106 Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT: Whitefish SBR Blower capacity provided (scfm) 1100 1100 1100 POWER CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS Pump efficiency 0.77 0.77 0.77 Blower efficiency 0.65 0.65 0.65 Pump horsepower, BHP/tank 32 32 32 Mixing BHP/MG 28 28 28 Blower horsepower, BHP/tank 65 65 65 Total horsepower, BHP/tank 97 97 97 Aeration BHP/MG 84 84 84 Total design equivalent horsepower, BHP 97 123 97 SLUDGE PRODUCTION Sludge Yield Factor 0.66 0.66 0.66 Net Sludge Yield (lbs/d) 2411 3231 2411 Settled Sludge Concentration 0.9 0.9 0.9 Settled Sludge (gpd) 32117 43047 32117 MLSS (mg/l) @ TWL 3500 3500 3500 Sludge inventory total (lbs) 67249 67249 67249 Sludge inventory in SBR (lbs) 67249 67249 67249 SRT ( 1/days ) 27.90 20.81 27.90 SRT in SBR ( 1/days ) 27.90 20.81 27.90 F/M 0.06 0.07 0.06 SVI (ml/g) 150 150 150 Sludge blanket level (ft) 10.52 10.52 10.52 Organic loading (lbs BOD/1000 ft3) 12.12 16.16 12.12 1. Oxic sludge age 8 to 15 days at 20 Deg C 13.95 13.27 13.95 1. Oxic sludge age 8 to 15 days at 20 Deg C 13.95 13.27 13.95 2. F/M 0.05 to 1.0 (assume 0.1) at design avg 0.06 0.07 0.06 3. MLSS 2000 to 4000 mg/l 3500 3500 3500 4. Org. load avg. at BWL 15 lbs BOD/d/1000ft3 14.9 5. Minimum 2 basins 2 2 2 6. Service w/o capacity reduction yes yes yes 7. Flow thru with 1 basin out of service yes yes yes 8. Minimum BWL > 12 ft 16.25 16.25 16.25 9. Min Settle time >20 minutes 45 45 45 10. Min freeboard 36 inches 36 36 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ISAM™ CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Whitefish SBR ENGINEER: PROJECT 032116 SBR DATE & TIME: 3/29/2016 16:24 SBR SBR SBR Average Max Wet Load Weather INFLUENT CONDITIONS Flow (m3/d) 5704 5704 6843 Flow (mgd) 1.507 1.507 1.808 Flow(gpm) 1047 1047 1256 BOD (mg/l) 297 396 248 (lb/d) 3734 4977 3734 TSS (mg/l) 239 239 199 (lb/d) 2998 2998 2998 NH3 (mg/l) 25 25 21 (lb/d) 317 317 317 OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS Pounds TKN required for 187 249 187 Pounds of NO3-N produced 130 68 130 Pounds O2 recovered/pound NO3-N reduced 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pound of Oxygen/ pound of BOD 1.1 1.1 1.1 Pound of Oxygen/pound of TKN 4.6 4.6 4.6 Actual Oxygen Demand (lb 02/d) Total 4446 5651 4446 Alpha 0.9 0.9 0.9 Beta 0.95 0.95 0.95 Theta 1.024 1.024 1.024 Operating Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 2 2 2 Clean Water oxygen sat. at op. temp (mg/l) 11.3 11.3 11.3 Clean Water oxygen sat. at std. temp (mg/l) 9.09 9.09 9.09 Clean water 02 sat, std temp,mid depth(mg/l) 11.76 11.76 11.76 Std. condition ambient pressure (psia) 14.7 14.7 14.7 Oper. condition ambient pressure (psia) 13.24 13.24 13.24 Wastewater temperature 10 10 10 SOR/AOR ratio 1.58 1.58 1.58 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/d) total 7007 8907 7007 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/hr) 584 582 584 Standard Oxygen Demand (lb 02/hr/tank) 195 194 195 Specific oxygenation rate (mg/l-hr) 31 31 31 Pounds of oxygen/pound of air 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clean water efficiency 25.5 25.5 25.5 Pounds of air/cubic foot of air 0.075 0.075 0.075 Aeration hours per day 12.00 15.30 12.00 Air flow rate (scfm/tank) 737 735 737 Air pressure losses (lines and nozzle) 0.66 0.66 0.66 Maximum air pressure (psig) 8.45 8.45 8.45 Average air pressure (psig) 7.64 7.64 7.64 NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION Required alkalinity for nitrification (mg/l) 74 39 62 Alkalinity recovered, denitrification (mg/l) 31 16 26 Net alkalinity required (mg/l) 43 22 36 Mixed liquor temperature, C 10 10 10 ML dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 2 2 2 Max. nitrifier growth rate, day-1 0.175 0.175 0.175 Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT: Whitefish SBR Minimum SRT required for nitrification, days 5.73 5.73 5.73 Actual SBR SRT, days 27.71 20.68 27.71 Total SRT, days 27.71 20.68 27.71 Kn, half velocity constant (mg/l) 0.22 0.22 0.22 Design growth rate for heterotrophs/nitrifiers 0.0361 0.0484 0.0361 Projected effluent soluble NH3-N, mg/l 0.06 0.09 0.06 Specific utilization rate, lbs BOD5/lb 0.16 0.18 0.16 lbs. required for BOD & NH3 removal 23857 27829 23857 (mg/l) 2450 2450 2450 Tank volume req. for BOD & NH3 removal (MG 1.17 1.36 1.17 Denitrification rate (g/g/day) 0.034 0.034 0.034 lbs required for denitrification 3875 2023 3875 Tank volume required for NO3 removal (MG) 0.19 0.10 0.19 Total tank volume required (MG) 1.36 1.46 1.36 SBR/SAM™ TANK CONFIGURATION No. of SBR tanks 3 3 3 Length SBR (ft) 102 102 102 Length SAM™ (ft) 0 0 0 Width (ft) 50 50 50 Bottom water level (ft) 16.25 16.25 16.25 Top water level (ft) 20 20 20 No. Decanters/tank 2 2 2 SBR Tankage Volume @ TWL(MG) 2.2889 2.2889 2.2889 SBR HRT (hrs) 36.45 36.45 30.38 SAM™ Tankage Volume 0.000 0.000 0.000 SAM HRT (hrs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 SBR+SAM Tankage Volume @ TWL(MG) 2.29 2.29 2.29 Anoxic/Aerobic HRT (hrs) 36.45 36.45 30.38 ISAM™ tankage volume (MG) 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total HRT (hrs) 36.45 36.45 30.38 CYCLE TIMES/CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Total decant volume (cubic feet) 57,375 57,375 57,375 Total decant volume (gallons) 429,165 429,165 429,165 Decant volume per tank (gallons) 143,055 143,055 143,055 Number of cycles per day/tank 3.51 3.51 4.21 Total time per cycle (minutes) 410 410 342 Fill rate (gpm) 1047 1047 1256 Fill time (minutes) SBR 137 137 114 Feed rate (gpm) 1047 1047 1256 React Period available (minutes) 193 193 147 Settle period (minutes) 45 45 45 Decant fill (minutes) 0 0 0 Average decant rate (gpm/ft decanter) 100 100 100 Decanter length (feet) 40 40 40 Decanting time (minutes) 36 36 36 Idle time (minutes) 0 0 0 Total decantable volume (gallons) 143055 143055 143055 Maximum aeration period available (hours/day 19.27 19.27 18.33 EQUIPMENT SELECTION Air flow per nozzle (scfm) 45 45 45 Number of nozzles required (per tank) 16.39 16.34 16.39 Number of nozzles provided (per tank) 20 20 20 Actual airflow per nozzle (scfm) 36.87 36.76 36.87 Blower capacity required (scfm) 737 735 737 Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT: Whitefish SBR Blower capacity provided (scfm) 1100 1100 1100 POWER CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS Pump efficiency 0.77 0.77 0.77 Blower efficiency 0.65 0.65 0.65 Pump horsepower, BHP/tank 23 23 23 Mixing BHP/MG 30 30 30 Blower horsepower, BHP/tank 43 43 43 Total horsepower, BHP/tank 66 66 66 Aeration BHP/MG 87 86 87 Total design equivalent horsepower, BHP 99 126 99 SLUDGE PRODUCTION Sludge Yield Factor 0.66 0.66 0.66 Net Sludge Yield (lbs/d) 2411 3231 2411 Settled Sludge Concentration 0.9 0.9 0.9 Settled Sludge (gpd) 32121 43051 32121 MLSS (mg/l) @ TWL 3500 3500 3500 Sludge inventory total (lbs) 66812 66812 66812 Sludge inventory in SBR (lbs) 66812 66812 66812 SRT ( 1/days ) 27.71 20.68 27.71 SRT in SBR ( 1/days ) 27.71 20.68 27.71 F/M 0.06 0.07 0.06 SVI (ml/g) 150 150 150 Sludge blanket level (ft) 10.52 10.52 10.52 Organic loading (lbs BOD/1000 ft3) 12.20 16.26 12.20 1. Oxic sludge age 8 to 15 days at 20 Deg C 13.86 13.18 13.86 1. Oxic sludge age 8 to 15 days at 20 Deg C 13.86 13.18 13.86 2. F/M 0.05 to 1.0 (assume 0.1) at design avg 0.06 0.07 0.06 3. MLSS 2000 to 4000 mg/l 3500 3500 3500 4. Org. load avg. at BWL 15 lbs BOD/d/1000ft3 15.0 5. Minimum 2 basins 2 2 2 6. Service w/o capacity reduction yes yes yes 7. Flow thru with 1 basin out of service yes yes yes 8. Minimum BWL > 12 ft 16.25 16.25 16.25 9. Min Settle time >20 minutes 45 45 45 10. Min freeboard 36 inches 36 36 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Manufacturer’s Design Report Sanitaire SBR ---PAGE BREAK--- Sanitaire ICEAS Advanced SBR TM ---PAGE BREAK--- The ICEAS SBR is designed to reduce complexity of operation. Unlike conventional activated sludge plants, there is no need for primary or secondary settlement tanks or return sludge pumps. All treatment is done in a single basin. Continuous inflow distributes variations in flows and loads evenly across all basins - simplifying day to day operations and operational changes as well as accommodating single basin operation for low flow and maintenance conditions. The intelligently designed process control system with simple, intuitive time-based control and trending capability provide a full system overview, making it easy to optimize plant performance, predict maintenance and reduce operating costs – taking the complexity out of SBRs. The ICEAS SBR can handle flows from 25,000 GPD to over 100 MGD. It can be designed to accommodate up to six times av- erage daily flow while assuring high effluent quality across the entire flow range with the unique basin design and actively controlled decanter. Sanitaire’s proprietary Sludge Inventory Management System (SIMS) automatically maintains the preset solids retention time, resulting in reliable settling characteris- tics and effluent quality, all while reducing operator attention requirements. The ICEAS process also effectively removes nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater through biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. Harnessing a simple and reliable solution for quality water The Sanitaire ICEAS Advanced SBR is a continuous flow biological treatment system that provides multiple advantages over conventional activated sludge and other SBRs by bringing together process, aeration, decanting and control in a single treatment tank. It is fully automated and includes a completely integrated process design consisting of the aeration system, blowers, pumps, mixers, effluent decanters, monitoring and control equipment and comprehensive process control system. Simplifying operations for reliable results ---PAGE BREAK--- Designed with life-time efficiency in mind Sanitaire is focused on producing cost-saving water technologies that use less energy throughout the lifetime of the project by not only using highly efficient aeration grids and blower technology but also cutting edge controls and instrumentation which use innovative algorithms to control the aeration and process, minimizing energy use by up to 50%. Using Sanitaire’s continuous inflow distribution technology, the peak load is spread across all basins simplifying operation and saving up to 30% on the footprint. Continuous inflow also reduces up-front capital expenditure by requiring less equipment, and provides for reduced construction costs. With almost 1000 installations, our experienced design team can put together an optimized, flexible solution to meet not only your current needs but also provide the expandability to meet your future emerging requirements. A partner from start to finish Xylem products have been helping to solve water and wastewater challenges for decades. With a broad portfolio of advanced solutions and technologies, we apply our process capability, engineering expertise and regulatory insight to help design systems that are right for you. As your single source provider, we work to reduce your risks by providing equipment-control integration, and the support needed to ensure a successful installation and ownership. Xylem stands behind our solutions with both equipment warranties and process performance guarantees. 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 1 Blowers 2 Pre-react 3 Mixer 4 Aeration 5 WAS Pump 6 Decanter 7 Process control Sanitaire ICEAS SBR has proven performance in nearly 1,000 treatment system installations worldwide. ICEAS products: Sanitaire Silver Series aeration system, compact mixers, submersible N-Pumps, Sanitaire decanters, ICEAS control systems. The ICEAS phases With its continuous flow process, Sanitaire ICEAS SBR features three distinct treatment phases: React phase: Screened and de-gritted waste- water flows continuously into the pre-react zone and enters the main react zone through submerged ports in the non-hydrostatic baffle wall. Biological oxidation and reduction occur through aeration, anoxic and anaerobic sequences within the react phase to predictively achieve the desired treatment. Settle phase: Basin agitation from the react phase (i.e. aeration and mixing) is stopped to allow the solids to settle to the bottom of the basin. Raw wastewater continues to flow into the pre-react zone while the main react zone settles. As the solids settle, a clear layer of water develops on top of the basin. Decant phase: The decanter descends gradually downward to draw off the clarified supernatant. Wastewater continues to flow into the pre-react zone as the treated and clarified effluent is decanted from the main react zone at a con- stant rate. Waste activated sludge is typically removed from the basin during this phase. ---PAGE BREAK--- Sanitaire Products 9333 North 49th Street Brown Deer, WI 53223 Tel +1.[PHONE REDACTED] Fax +1.[PHONE REDACTED] www.sanitaire.com/us Xylem I'zīl mI 1) The tissue in plants that brings water upward from the roots; 2) a leading global water technology company. We’re 12,000 people unified in a common purpose: creating innovative solutions to meet our world’s water needs. Developing new technologies that will improve the way water is used, conserved, and re-used in the future is central to our work. We move, treat, analyze, and return water to the environment, and we help people use water efficiently, in their homes, buildings, factories and farms. In more than 150 countries, we have strong, long-standing relationships with customers who know us for our powerful combination of leading product brands and applications expertise, backed by a legacy of innovation. For more information on how Xylem can help you, go to www.xyleminc.com Xylem, Inc. 14125 South Bridge Circle Charlotte, NC 28273 Tel [PHONE REDACTED] Fax [PHONE REDACTED] www.xyleminc.com Sanitaire is a trademark of Xylem Inc. or one of its subsidiaries. © 2012 Xylem, Inc. JAN 2012 e SB008-1710 • Sanitaire ICEAS™ Advanced SBR Brochure • 05/2013 • US ---PAGE BREAK--- BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AND THE ABJ PROCESS INTRODUCTION This Biological Treatment and ABJ Process section begins with a general discussion regarding the philosophy and principles of biological treatment. The following discussions include a summary of both the conventional activated sludge process and conventional SBR technology. The final discussion focuses specifically on the ABJ ICEAS process; it’s features, benefits and differences from conventional processes. PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT Biological treatment is achieved by creating an environment suitable for the survival and reproduction of various bacterial cultures and exposing them to organic substances present in the wastewater. This is a natural process that also occurs in any natural body of water. The activated sludge process that is used for treatment of wastewater originating from domestic and industrial sources is a biological system. It is designed to optimize the efficiency or the degree of treatment that occurs in a natural body of water. In order to understand the activated sludge process, it is of paramount importance to be familiar with the principles of biological treatment. MEASUREMENT OF ORGANIC MATTER The organic strength of the wastewater is measured experimentally using various test procedures such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODU), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Of these, BOD5 is the most commonly used parameter. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD5) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) is a measurement of the amount of oxygen demand exerted by microorganisms to oxidize the organics present in wastewater during a 5-day test period. The task of biological treatment is to reduce the oxygen demand exerted by the microorganisms to a level that will have no significant impact on the receiving stream. The BOD removal process is illustrated by the following equation: Bacteria BOD5 + O2 New Cells + CO2 + H2O + Nutrients + Energy Nutrients NUTRIENTS 1 Nitrogen and phosphorus serve as essential nutrients in the growth of living organisms including human beings, plants and microorganisms. High concentrations of these nutrients discharged into receiving water bodies can result in eutrophication. Controlled discharge of these nutrients necessitates their removal during treatment of the wastewater. The forms, in which these nutrients exist in the wastewater and how they are removed during wastewater treatment, are described below. ---PAGE BREAK--- NITROGEN The sources of nitrogen in domestic wastewater are urea, feces and other organic material. Inorganic nitrogen is a combination of ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is a combination of ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen. BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN REMOVAL This process can be divided into two steps: 1. Nitrification - ammonia nitrogen is converted to nitrate by bacteria in the presence of oxygen 2. Denitrification - nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas in the absence of oxygen. Since biological denitrification is performed only on the nitrate ion, nitrification is essential for complete nitrogen removal. NITRIFICATION In biological nitrification, two sequential reactions occur: 1. Conversion of ammonia to nitrite by Nitrosomonas organisms Ammonia Nitrogen + 1.5 O2 Nitrite + H2O + Loss of Alkalinity 2. Conversion of nitrite to nitrate by Nitrobacter organisms Nitrite Nitrogen + 0.5 O2 Nitrate Nitrogen The overall nitrification reaction can be expressed as: Ammonia Nitrogen + 2 O2 Nitrate Nitrogen + H2O +Loss of Alkalinity DENITRIFICATION In the biological denitrification process, nitrates are converted to nitrogen gas. The gas is ultimately released to the atmosphere. In contrast to nitrification, biological denitrification occurs in the absence of oxygen and uses organic compounds present in wastewater as a source of carbon. Energy is obtained by oxidizing the organic substrates. During denitrification, nitrate acts as an electron acceptor in the absence of free oxygen. The overall denitrification reaction is expressed in Equation 5. Nitrate Nitrogen + Organic Carbon Nitrogen Gas + Gain of Alkalinity BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL Phosphorus exists in the forms of orthophosphate, polyphosphate and organic phosphates in wastewater. The major sources of phosphorus in domestic wastewater are human excrement, laundry detergents and water treatment chemicals. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- In biological treatment, the phosphorus in wastewater is removed through incorporation into the cell tissue of microorganisms during BOD removal. This two step process is described in Figure 1: 1. Certain microorganisms, when subjected to anaerobic (absence of oxygen and nitrates) conditions, assimilate and store fermentation products produced by other facultative bacteria. These microorganisms derive energy for this assimilation from stored polyphosphates, which are hydrolyzed to liberate energy. The free phosphorus that results from the hydrolysis reaction is released to the mixed liquor. 2. These same microorganisms, when subsequently exposed to aerobic conditions, consume both phosphorus (which is used for cell and stored as polyphosphates) and oxygen to metabolize the previously stored substrate for energy production and cell The organisms take up the phosphorus in excess to remedy their phosphorus-starved condition. That is, they take in more phosphorus than they previously released. The phosphorus is removed from the system during the normal sludge wasting procedure. 3 Figure 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS A typical conventional activated sludge process as shown in Figure 2, consists of separate tanks to accomplish unit processes of primary clarification, BOD removal and secondary clarification with recycle pumping and piping. Figure 2 PRIMARY CLARIFIER The wastewater from the plant headworks is received in the primary clarifier. The primary clarifier is typically equipped with a sludge collection mechanism and an effluent overflow weir. In this unit process, solids (or sludge) with a higher density settles to the bottom of the clarifier and partially treated primary effluent is discharged over the weirs to the aeration basin. The sludge settled in the primary clarifier is sent to the sludge handling facilities. AERATION BASIN The aeration basin is typically equipped with diffusers installed on the floor of the basin. The blowers located in a building near the basins are used to supply the air to the basins via the diffusers. The effluent received from the primary clarifier is continuously mixed and aerated in this basin with return sludge resulting in the oxidation of the BOD. The combination of treated water and sludge from the aeration basin (“mixed liquor”) is discharged to the secondary clarifier. SECONDARY CLARIFIER The mixed liquor discharge from the aeration basin enters the secondary clarifier through the feed well. Similar to the primary clarification, the liquid solids separation occur in the clarifier where sludge is settled to the bottom and the treated effluent is discharged over the weirs to the facilities. A major portion of the sludge that settled in the secondary clarifier is recycled back as return “activated sludge” to the aeration basin and the remainder is wasted to the sludge handling facilities. Additional tanks are added to the unit processes discussed above to create the aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic environments required for biological nitrogen and phosphorous removal. The principle of the conventional activated sludge process discussed above is being used for wastewater treatment in various forms and operational methodologies. One of these variations is the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process. 4 Typical Conventional Activated Sludge Process Primary Clarifier Influent Primary Effluent Aeration Mixed Liquor Return Activated Sludge Secondary Clarifier Effluent Waste Sludge ---PAGE BREAK--- CONVENTIONAL SBR The Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) process is a variant of the Activated Sludge process. It uses the fill and draw principal in which unit processes occur sequentially on a cyclical basis. The SBR process eliminates the need for primary and secondary clarifiers. A typical SBR cycle consists of the following phases as illustrated in Figure 3: Fill: Raw wastewater that has been screened and degritted flows into the basin and mixes with the mixed liquor settled during the previous phase. After the fill phase, the influent valve is closed and the influent is routed to the other basin. React: The basin is aerated and biological oxidation takes place similar to the aeration basin in the conventional activated sludge process. Settle: Aeration is stopped and the solids settle to the bottom of the basin leaving the clear water on the top. Draw: The clear water is discharged using a decant mechanism. Idle: Sludge is wasted from the bottom of the basin using pumps. Figure 3 At the end of the idle phase, the cycle begins again with the fill phase. The SBR carries out the functions of primary clarification, aeration and secondary clarification in one basin. 5 SBR Fill and Draw Basic Theory 3. Settle 4. Draw Effluent 2. React TWL 1. Fill (Aerated or Unaerated) Screened and Degritted Influent 5. Idle Waste Sludge ---PAGE BREAK--- In the conventional activated sludge process, various unit processes such as primary clarification, aeration and secondary clarification are carried out in separate basins. These “trains” of unit processes generally occupy a significant land area as compared to an SBR. In the conventional activated sludge process, a limited amount of flexibility can be exercised by adjusting the rate of return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) or through varying the rate of air introduced in the aeration basin. In an SBR, the same unit processes that are carried out in the conventional activated sludge process occur sequentially in one basin. As a result, the “footprint” of a SBR is typically much smaller than that of a conventional activated sludge plant. The SBR process is automated through the use of a control system ranging in sophistication from simple timers to PLC or PC based systems. The control system automatically coordinates equipment operation through various phases of the SBR cycle. This feature offers a high degree of flexibility allowing adaptation of the process cycle to meet the changing influent conditions through simple changes in control setpoints. This difference in system configuration gives the SBR system several advantages over the conventional activated sludge process including: LOWER CAPITAL COST ƒ No primary or secondary clarifiers and accompanying pumping systems are needed ƒ Requires smaller footprint ƒ Simpler and faster installation ƒ Lower construction costs ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE ƒ Low sludge volume ƒ Enhanced nutrient removal ƒ Quick response to changing influent conditions ƒ No washout of activated sludge during peak storm flows LOWER OPERATING COST ƒ Reduced power ƒ Reduced maintenance ƒ Nutrient removal without costly chemicals DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ƒ Easily expandable ƒ Hydraulic peaks easily accommodated ƒ Handles shock loads without degradation of final effluent quality ƒ Control system provides high flexibility 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- While the conventional SBR system has many advantages, it does have some shortcomings. These include: ƒ It must be designed with a minimum of either two reactors, (see Figure 4) or an equalization/storage tank in conjunction with a single reactor. These configurations are required to allow continuous acceptance and treatment of the influent. During the react, settle and decant phases of the cycle, flow is diverted to the other basin or to the storage tank. Figure 4 ƒ When conventional SBR systems are considered for smaller treatment plant applications, two basin designs are typically evaluated. However, due to the batch nature of the process, one basin can not be readily taken out of service for maintenance purposes. In addition, a single tank operational mode cannot be easily utilized for low flow situations. ƒ For most municipal treatment facilities and some industrial applications, flow and loadings to a plant vary according to a diurnal cycle. With a conventional SBR system, this results in unequal mass and hydraulic loadings to each reactor in a multi-reactor facility. The loadings to a specific reactor are dependent on when it is receiving flow during the diurnal flow variation. The variation in loadings causes differences in the biomass and oxygen demand of the individual reactors. This complicates the operational control of the treatment plant resulting in the need for additional testing, a more intensive instrumentation/control system and greater operator attention to the system. ƒ The batch treatment approach of conventional SBRs typically incorporates a water level based control system. That is, the duration of the daily process cycles are subject to change based on the specific inflow to a reactor. Since diurnal flow variations occur, the cycling results in different actual aeration times for the biological reactions. This can lead to difficulty in controlling the process and cycling/switchover of the blowers. ƒ For Biological Nutrient Removal systems, a continuous carbon source is beneficial in maintaining consistent performance. Organic compounds in the raw influent to such secondary treatment systems are typically used as the source of the carbon. Conventional SBR systems however periodically interrupt this food source especially during the react phase. This lowers the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus and may necessitate expensive chemical additions to enhance biological nutrient removal. 7 x x Closed Open Effluent Influent Screening Grit Removal SBR #1 SBR #2 Conventional SBR Batch Mode ---PAGE BREAK--- ABJ® ICEAS PROCESS The ABJ ICEAS process is a modification and enhancement of the superior technology of the conventional SBR. ICEAS, an acronym for Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System, allows continuous inflow of wastewater to the basin. Influent flow to the ICEAS basin is not interrupted during the settle and decant phases or at any time during the operating cycle. A typical ICEAS process consists of the following time-based phases as illustrated in Figure 5: Aerate: Raw wastewater from screening and grit removal flows into the basin and mixes with the mixed liquor. The basin is aerated while filling and biological oxidation takes place simultaneously. Settle: Aeration is stopped and the solids settle to the bottom of the basin leaving clear water on top. The basin continuously receives the influent. Decant: The clear water is discharged from the top of the basin, while the basin continuously receives the influent. Typically, sludge is wasted during this phase of the cycle. Figure 5 Influent is received continuously during all phases of the cycle, including settle and decant. This allows the ICEAS process to be controlled on a time, rather than flow basis and ensures equal loading and flow to all basins. Use of a time-based control system in the ABJ ICEAS process facilitates simple changes to the process control program. The duration of each cycle and segment of each operating cycle are the same among all basins in a time-based system. Therefore, changes to the process are made simply by changing the duration of individual segments. In a flow-based conventional SBR, cycle times and individual segments of each cycle may be different among basins due to diurnal flow variations. Thus, it is not possible to simply affect a change to the entire system. In essence, separate control must be maintained over each basin in the SBR system. 8 3. Decant 1. Aerate Continuous Flow of Screened and Degritted Influent 2. Settle Treated Effluent Waste Sludge ICEAS Operating Cycle ---PAGE BREAK--- Single basin operation is also possible in the ICEAS process. The process does not require automatic influent control valves or an additional basin to hold diverted flow. This eliminates the need for designated fill and idle phases resulting in smaller basins. The ICEAS process can be designed to accommodate peak flows up to 6 times the average flow to the plant. This flexibility is facilitated by the ability of the ICEAS to accommodate influent during all phases of the cycle. Peak flows are spread evenly among all operating basins. Typically, a separate cycle with a shorter duration is used to accomplish this flexibility. ICEAS BASIN The ICEAS basin is divided into two zones, the pre-react zone and the main react zone as shown in Figure 6. A non-hydrostatic baffle wall with openings at the bottom is constructed to divide the ICEAS basin into the two zones. The influent flows continuously into the pre-react zone and is directed down through engineered orifice openings at the bottom of the baffle wall into the main react zone. The pre-react wall baffles the incoming flow and prevents short-circuiting. The volume of the pre-react zone is typically 10 to 15 percent of the total basin volume. Figure 6 BIOLOGICAL SELECTOR The pre-react zone also provides pre-treatment of the wastewater before it enters the main react zone. Since influent flows continuously into the pre-react zone, a high concentration of soluble BOD is available to the microorganisms in a relatively small basin volume. This situation creates a high “Food to Microorganisms” (F:M) ratio. The high F:M ratio encourages the maximum bio- sorption of food by the microorganisms. The pre-react zone therefore acts as a biological selector encouraging the proliferation of the most desirable organisms. The presence of the biological selector at the front end of the ICEAS basin minimizes the growth of filamentous bacteria that cause sludge bulking and poor settling. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- ICEAS BASIN SIZING BASINS Typically, concrete basins are used. However, in some cases, steel is used depending on the cost evaluation of the plant construction. The number of basins used in the ICEAS process is a function of flow and loading to the plant and the guidelines established by individual Government Agencies. Sanitaire has experience in designing systems built using a single basin to a multitude of parallel basins. The continuous flow feature of the ICEAS process facilitates single basin system design and operation without the need for influent flow equalization or a second basin. BASIN HYDRAULICS Time based cycles are used in sizing the ICEAS process. A normal cycle is designed to handle the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) and Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) to the plant. A storm cycle is used to handle the storm flows. The storm cycle operates with a shorter duration compared to the normal cycle so that higher flows can be processed by the system. Typically, the ICEAS process can be designed to handle 3 to 6 times the average flow conditions. The maximum volume required for the average, peak and storm flows are determined based on the cycle times. This volume is the total flow received by the basin from the start of the cycle until the beginning of the decant phase and is defined as basin “Drawdown”. The basin drawdown extends from the designated Top Water Level (TWL) to the Bottom Water Level (BWL). The ability to accommodate a Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) of 6 times the ADWF is due to many ICEAS concepts. The ability to have a special “storm” cycle with decanter speed control is very important. This cannot be achieved with conventional SBRs using fixed or floating decanters. SBR’s with floating decanters are usually limited to a PWWF of 3 times the ADWF. PROCESS KINETICS The influent BOD and ammonia loadings determine the mass of biomass required in the basin. Typically, F:M ratios are used in determining the mass of the biomass for a given BOD loading in conjunction with minimum sludge age requirements for the nitrification process. The typical Food:Microorganism (F:M) ratios used in design of the ICEAS process are in the range of 0.05 to 0.12 lb. BOD/lb. MLSS/day. The Sludge Volume Index (SVI) is used to determine the volume occupied by the calculated mass of biomass in the basin. The Typical SVI value used in the design of the ICEAS process is in the range of 150 to 200 ml/g. In each cycle, a measured amount of sludge is wasted. This allows the ICEAS process to operate in a steady state condition maintaining a desired Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) concentration and Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT) or Sludge Age (SA). BUFFER ZONE The design volume of the basin is based on a combination of the volume required for the hydraulics based on the peak wet weather flow conditions and the volume occupied by the sludge. A “Buffer Zone” is included in the design as a safety factor to ensure the ICEAS process’s ability to withstand the unusual flows and loadings that are typical in wastewater treatment plants. This zone is typically a minimum of three feet deep, extending from the top of sludge blanket to the BWL after decanting. BASIN DIMENSIONS 10 The basin depth is a combination of the sludge blanket, the buffer zone and the drawdown as shown in Figure 7. The basin area is calculated using a designated TWL. Typically, the length and ---PAGE BREAK--- width of the basin is calculated such that, a L:W ratio of 3:1 is maintained. This ratio creates a plug flow pattern in the ICEAS basin. Figure 7 ICEAS PROCESS DESIGN & OPERATION The ICEAS process offers the following design options to maximize the flexibility of the plant operation and to meet its discharge permit requirements. ICEAS-NIT Process Designed for the Removal of: ƒ BOD ƒ TSS ƒ Ammonia and Total Nitrogen (Partial Denitrification) Typically Used for: ƒ Municipal Wastewater ƒ Industrial Wastewater Nitrification and BOD removal is accomplished in the ICEAS process during the aeration phase of the cycle as shown in Figure 8. The ICEAS basin is designed with F:M ratios and sludge ages suitable to maintain sufficient MLSS in the basin and to achieve the required degree of nitrification based on the temperature range and pH of the influent wastewater. The blowers and aeration system are designed to ensure a sufficient supply of oxygen as required for the process. A typical operating cycle for a two-(2) basin ICEAS-NIT process is shown in Figure 9. The first half of the cycle is continuously aerated to achieve BOD removal and nitrification. After the aeration phase, the system enters a settling phase where liquid/solids separation occurs. The system then enters the decant phase, where treated effluent is decanted from the basin. The duration of the aeration phase in the four-hour cycle allows one blower to provide air to two basins using motorized air control valves. When Basin #1 is in the aeration phase, Basin #2 is in the settle or decant phase. When Basin #2 is in the aeration phase, Basin #1 is in the settle or decant phase. The 3-hour storm cycle for the same application is shown in Figure 10. It is of interest to note that the overall aeration, settle and decant times per day remain the same as the normal cycle. It is only the duration per cycle that is changed to accommodate higher flows to the plant. SBR systems using fixed or floating type decanters cannot offer this flexibility without affecting the overall duration of the aeration and settle phases on a daily basis. 11 Buffer Zone Drawdown Sludge Blanket ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 8 12 Figure 9 Basin 1 Basin 2 Normal Cycle Operational Sequence of ICEAS-NIT Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Air Settle Decant Hours Figure 10 Basin 1 Basin 2 Storm Cycle Operational Sequence of the ICEAS-NIT Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Air Settle Decant Hours ---PAGE BREAK--- Cycle bar charts depicting the normal and storm cycles for the ICEAS-NIT process using four basins are shown in Figures 11 and 12. The control system provides the flexibility of changing blower run time proportional to the influent flow and loading to the plant. Additional controls such as dissolved oxygen probes in the ICEAS basin with blower output control can be provided. 13 Normal Cycle Operational Sequence of ICEAS-NIT Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Air Settle Decant Hours Figure 11 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Storm Cycle Operational Sequence of the ICEAS-NIT Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Air Settle Decant Hours Figure 12 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- ICEAS-NDN PROCESS: BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL (BNR) Designed for the Removal of: ƒ BOD ƒ TSS ƒ Ammonia ƒ Total Nitrogen ƒ Total Phosphorous Typically Used for: ƒ Municipal Wastewater ƒ Industrial Wastewater Biological nutrient removal is accomplished in the ICEAS-NDN process by incorporating alternating phases of oxic-anoxic/anaerobic (air on-air off) conditions in the cycle as shown in Figure 13. The ICEAS basin is sized to ensure complete nitrification, denitrification and to maximize the total biological phosphorus removal. Typical normal and storm cycles using 2 basins for the ICEAS-NDN process are shown in Figure 14 and 15. The aerobic phases promote BOD removal, nitrification and phosphorus uptake. The anoxic/anaerobic (air off) phases promote denitrification and phosphorus release. Nitrification rates and sludge age requirements for the nitrification process are calculated based on the temperature range and pH of the influent wastewater. The degree of denitrification and phosphorus removal achieved by the ICEAS-NDN process is dependant on the influent BOD/TN and BOD/TP ratios. The typical blower control for the ICEAS- NDN process involves a D.O. control system with blower output control. Figure 13 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Normal Cycle Operational Sequence of ICEAS-NDN Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Air-off Air-on Settle Decant Hours Figure 14 Basin 1 Basin 2 Storm Cycle Operational Sequence of the ICEAS-NDN Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Air-off Air-on Settle Decant Hours Figure 15 Basin 1 Basin 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- The cycle charts for the ICEAS-NDN process operating in normal and storm cycles using four basins are shown in Figures 16 and 17. 16 Normal Cycle Operational Sequence for the ICEAS-NDN Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Air-on Air-off Settle Decant Hours Figure 16 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Storm Cycle Operational Sequence of the ICEAS-NDN Process 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Air-on Air-off Settle Decant Hours Figure 17 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXPANSION POTENTIAL The ICEAS process design allows simplified expansion because each basin forms a modular treatment unit. The ICEAS process is ideal for a growing community requiring wastewater treatment. The installation shown in Figure 18 is a facility designed for an ultimate flow of 2.0 MGD. During Phase-I, the plant was built with a design capacity of 0.25 MGD using two basins. It was expanded to 0.5 MGD in Phase-II by adding one additional basin with a capacity of 0.25 MGD. In serving the growth of the community, the plant was expanded again in Phase-III through the addition of one basin with 0.5 MGD capacity bringing the overall capacity to 1.0 MGD. This plant will continue to expand in the future. It is of interest to note that all the basins have been built with common wall construction. This is achieved by maintaining the same length for all tanks and increasing the width appropriately. The blower equipment is also sized proportionately to the capacity of each basin such that the same blowers are used before and after expansion. Figure 18 Phased Expansion of the ICEAS-NDN Process for a Growing Community 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- GENERAL ADVANTAGES OF THE ABJ ICEAS PROCESS COMPARED TO BATCH SYSTEMS ƒ Proven process which enhances the standard SBR system through strategic cost, operating and biological advantages ƒ Continuous inflow provides equal loading and flow to all basins, simplifying operation and process control. It enables single basin operation for maintenance and low flow conditions. ƒ Incorporates a time, not flow-based control system that enables a constant relationship between aeration, settling and decanting. Provides the same aeration time per day regardless of the cycle time. BIOLOGICAL AND PROCESS ADVANTAGES Biological Effluent Quality ƒ Proven effluent quality below 10 mg/l BOD5 and TSS ƒ Proven nutrient removal quality below 1 mg/l Ammonia-N, 1 mg/l total phosphorus and 5 mg/l total nitrogen ƒ Low volume of highly stabilized sludge – dewaters easily ƒ Pre-react Zone ƒ Enhances bacterial growth with good settling characteristics while minimizing the formation of filamentous organisms ƒ Allows continuous operation without short-circuiting ƒ Enhances nutrient removal ƒ Confines floating material for manual removal ƒ No chemicals/filters required ƒ Suitable for municipal/industrial wastewater treatment Hydraulic and Organic Loading ƒ Can be designed to accommodate hydraulic peaks up to 6 times average design flow without sludge washout ƒ No separate influent equalization basin needed, redundant tankage eliminated ƒ Automatic activation of storm cycle during storm flows ƒ Equal loading to all basins at all times ƒ Easily expandable for future needs (modular system) EQUIPMENT DESIGN ADVANTAGES Decanter Design ƒ Easy to install ƒ Easy accessibility from basin walkway ƒ In “Park Position,” acts as safety overflow weir ƒ Stainless steel design – robust/corrosion resistant ƒ Prolonged life ƒ No flexible, costly, high maintenance knee joints, as needed for floating decanters ƒ No submerged valves or orifices, which are prone to plugging 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Electrical Design ƒ In-house electrical engineers to coordinate control requirements with biological functions to maximize flexibility with ease of maintenance ƒ Control system designed to suit overall plant control needs ƒ Modem to facilitate fault-finding ƒ SCADA system for remote access COST ADVANTAGES ƒ Reduced capital cost when designed as an ICEAS continuous flow process ƒ Up to 30% less basin volume to achieve same operating performance as an SBR ƒ Less Concrete ƒ Less Excavation ƒ Smaller Land Area ƒ If others size basins as an SBR, then operating the process as an ICEAS will allow up to 30% greater flow Reduced Operating Cost ƒ No supplemental mixing required for aeration system ƒ Proven D.O. control system for optimizing energy usage ƒ Ultra high efficient SANITAIRE® Fine Bubble Aeration minimizes energy used for aeration Reduced Installation Cost ƒ No influent or effluent control valves ƒ No retrievable equipment required ƒ Decanter easy to install Reduced Maintenance Cost ƒ No influent or effluent control valves ƒ Continuous flow enables shut down of one basin to facilitate maintenance of equipment when required ƒ Retrievable aeration facilities not required ƒ Decanter easy to service from walkway 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT Inherent flexibility gained through automated control systems and adaptability to high flow and loading fluctuations make SBR systems well suited for the treatment of wastewater originating from industrial facilities. ABJ SBR and the ICEAS process technology are applicable for both pre- treatment and complete secondary treatment. ABJ SBR and ICEAS technology have been applied in the treatment of several types of industrial effluent including: Pulp and Paper Meat Packaging Pharmaceutical Food Processing Dairy Industry Textile Bottling Plants Chemical & Agricultural Products FGD SANITAIRE® Fine and Coarse Bubble Aeration systems are tailored specifically for each application to sustain the performance and longevity of the diffusers. Special supports and piping fixtures are used to provide redundancy, thus eliminating the need to take tanks out of service for maintenance. The decanter mechanisms are constructed completely of 304L or 316L stainless steel to provide maintenance free operation in corrosive environments. The ergonomic and robust system design facilitates a simple process with minimal mechanical and electrical components. In addition, the state of the art control system design with SCADA runs the process with minimal input from the plant operators. Typical plant profiles are included for your review. ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Name: Whitefish, MT Sanitaire Number: 25730-15A ICEAS 4-Basin NDNP Normal Cycle 288 mins (4.8 hours) Basin #1 Basin #2 Basin #3 Basin #4 Notes: Each basin fills continuously over entire cycle. Basins #1 and #2 share blowers and Basins #3 and #4 share blowers. "Air Off" periods that do not overlap with the other basin can be aerated if needed. "Air On" periods in the react phase are programmable from 0 to 24 minutes. Chemical addition should be made at the beginning of the last air period to allow for mixing. Sludge wasting occurs during the decant phase, pump run time is programmable. AIR ON (0-24 min) SETTLE (48 min) 96 AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) AIR OFF (24 min Mix) 288/0 AIR ON (0-24 min) 24 48 288/0 216 72 96 120 144 AIR ON (0-24 min) AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) SETTLE (48 min) DECANT (72 min) 120 **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) 144 144 168 288/0 216 AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) 0 24 48 72 **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) 96 168 120 168 168 216 216 288 48 72 96 120 144 DECANT (72 min) SETTLE (48 min) AIR ON (0-24 min) 24 AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) 72 AIR OFF (24 min Mix) 144 AIR ON (0-24 min) 24 48 DECANT (72 min) SETTLE (48 min) DECANT (72 min) AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) AIR ON (0-24 min) 72 216 Recommended Chemical Addition Points if Needed. 4-basin 3/5/2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Name: Whitefish, MT Sanitaire Number: 25730-15A ICEAS 4-Basin NDNP High Flow Mode 216 mins (3.6 hours) Basin #1 Basin #2 Basin #3 Basin #4 Notes: Each basin fills continuously over entire cycle. Basins #1 and #2 share blowers and Basins #3 and #4 share blowers. "Air Off" periods that do not overlap with the other basin can be aerated if needed. "Air On" periods in the react phase are programmable from 0 to 18 minutes. Sludge wasting occurs during the decant phase, pump run time is programmable. 54 54 36 72 90 108 AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) 18 **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) DECANT (54 min) 54 216/ 0 162 AIR OFF (18 min Mix) 162 216/ 0 18 36 54 216/ 0 90 126 AIR ON (0-18 min) SETTLE (36 min) 18 AIR ON (0-18 min) AIR ON (0-18 min) **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) AIR OFF (18 min Mix) SETTLE (36 min) 108 AIR ON (0-18 min) DECANT (54 min) 162 72 **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) 0 72 90 54 SETTLE (36 min) 126 162 AIR ON (0-18 min) 108 36 72 90 18 AIR ON (0-18 min) AIR ON (0-18 min) **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) SETTLE (36 min) DECANT (54 min) 108 216 AIR ON (0-18 min) 108 126 162 36 126 **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) DECANT (54 min) AIR OFF (18 min Mix) AIR ON (0-18 min) **AIR OFF (18 min Mix) 4-basin 3/5/2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN PROPOSAL Whitefish, MT Sanitaire #25730‐15 Table A: INFLUENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND SITE CONDITIONS Average Dry Weather Flow 1,507,000 GPD Max. 4.8‐Hour Cycle Flow 3,450,000 GPD Max. 3.6 Hour Cycle Flow 4,600,000 GPD BOD5 (20°C) 300 mg/l BOD5 (20°C) (Max. Day used for Design) 3,771 lb/day Suspended Solids 240 mg/l TKN 42 mg/l Total Phosphorus 6 mg/l Max Wastewater Temperature 15 °C Min Wastewater Temperature 5 °C Ambient Air Temperature 20 ‐ 90 °F Site Elevation 6,820 ft Table B: ICEAS® EFFLUENT QUALITY AVERAGE) BOD5 (20°C) 30 mg/l (10/10/1 : BOD/TSS/NH3‐N Anticipated) Suspended Solids 30 mg/l NH3-N 9 mg/l TN 10 mg/l Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/l *Chemical P‐Removal Recommended as BackUp Table C: ICEAS PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA F / M 0.039 lb BOD5/ lb MLSS / day SVI (after 30 minutes settling) 150 ml/g MLSS at Bottom Water Level 5,298 mg/l Waste Sludge Produced (Approx.) 2,387 lb/day Volume of Sludge Produced (Approx., 0.85% solids) 33,700 GPD Normal Decant Rate 2,396 GPM Peak Decant Rate 3,194 GPM Hydraulic Retention Time 1.59 Days Sludge Age 38.3 Days Alkalinity 148 mg/l Bold, italicized text indicate assumptions made by Sanitaire CYCLE AIR‐OFF AIR‐ON SETTLE DECANT TOTAL Normal 72 min 48 min 72 min 4.8 hour Storm 54 min 36 min 54 min 3.6 hour 96 min 72 min 1 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table D: KEY ICEAS DESIGN DETAILS Number of ICEAS Basins 4 Top Water Level 18.0 ft Basin Width (Inside) 40.0 ft Basin Length (Inside) 126.0 ft Bottom Water Level 14.5 ft ICEAS EQUIPMENT Motor HP No. Req. Decanter Mechanism 17.5 1 /Basin 4 Decanter Drive Unit 1/2 4 ICEAS Blower 1,440 SCFM 8.5 PSIG 125 3 ICEAS Fine Bubble Aeration System 4 Air Control Valve 10 " 4 Waste Sludge Pump 169 GPM 3.0 4 Submersible Mixer 15.0 4 ICEAS Controls 1 ICEAS POWER REQUIREMENTS (At Average Aeration Depth) Kwh/Day Decant Drive Unit 0.4 BHP 4 run @ 6 Hrs/day 7.2 ICEAS Air Blowers 105.0 BHP 2 run* @ 16 Hrs/day 2,506.6 ICEAS Air Blowers 92.8 BHP run** @ Hrs/day Waste Sludge Pump 2.4 BHP 4 run @ 0.8 Hrs/day 6.0 Submersible Mixer 12.0 BHP 4 run @ 6 Hrs/day 214.8 KWH/DAY 2,734.6 AVERAGE KWH/HR 113.94 * Shared ICEAS Blowers (1‐Duty Blower for a Pair of Basin & 1‐Common Standby) Dedicated ICEAS Blowers ' Weir length 2 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL SANITAIRE ICEAS Detailed Design Calculations BOD Removal, Nitrification, and De‐Nitrification Process SANITAIRE Project #25730‐15 Whitefish, MT Design Parameters A. Flow Average Daily Flow 1,507,000 GPD Peak Dry Weather Flow 3,450,000 GPD Max. 4.8‐Hr Cycle Flow Peak Wet Weather Flow 4,600,000 GPD Max. 3.6‐Hr Cycle Flow B. Treatment Influent Quality BOD5 (20°C), mg/l 300 Suspended Solids, mg/l 240 TKN, mg/l 42 NH3‐N, mg/l 0 TN, mg/l 10 Phosphorus 6 C. Environment Alkalinity (Minimum Requirement) 150 mg/l Max Wastewater Temperature 15 °C Min Wastewater Temperature 5 °C Ambient Air Temperature 20 ‐ 90 °F Site Elevation 6,820 ft D. ICEAS Process Design Criteria F / M 0.039 BOD5 / MLSS / day SVI (after 30 minutes settling) 150 ml/g Number of ICEAS Basins 4 Top Water Level 18 ft E. Cycle Timing Normal Storm Air‐On min 96 72 Air‐Off min 72 54 Settle min 48 36 Decant min 72 54 Total hrs 4.8 3.6 Effluent Requirement 10 10 1 1 3 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL F. Detailed Calculations Mass of Biomass where: BODL = BOD Load (lb/day/basin) Q = Average Dry Weather Flow per basin (gal/day) BODin = Influent BOD concentration (mg/l) 1,000,000 = Conversion (l/mg) 8.34 = Conversion (lb/gal) Mass of Biomass where: BMOB = Mass of Biomass (lb/day/basin) F / M = Food to Microorganism ratio (day‐1) Volume of Biomass where: Vbio = Volume of Biomass (ft³/basin) SVI = Sludge Volume Index (ft³/lb) Q x BODin x 8.34 376,750 x 300 x 8.34 1,000,000 1,000,000 BODL = = = 943 lb/day/basin Vbio= BMOB x SVI = 24,043 x 2.4 = 57,704 ft³/basin BODL 943 F / M 0.0392 BMOB = = = 24,043 lb/basin 4 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Maximum Volume Above Bottom Water Level Peak Dry Weather Flow: where: = Maximum Volume Above BWL at Peak Dry Weather Flow (ft³/basin) PDWF = Peak Dry Weather Flow (gal/day) NCT = Normal Cycle Time (hr/cycle) NDT = Decant Time (hr/cycle) 7.48 = Conversion (gal/ft³) 24 = Conversion (hours/day) Peak Wet Weather Flow: where: = Maximum Volume Above BWL at Peak Wet Weather (Storm) Flow (ft³/basin) PWWF = Peak Wet Weather Flow (gal/day) SCT = Storm Cycle Time (hr/cycle) SDT = Storm Decant Time (hr/cycle) MVAB (Maximum Volume Above Bottom Water Level) is larger of Peak Dry Weather and Peak Wet Weather Calculation Decant Rates Peak Dry Weather Flow: where: PDR = Normal Decant Rate (gal/min) NDT = Normal Decant Time (min/cycle) 1440 = Conversion (min/day) Peak Wet Weather Flow: where: PWR = Peak Decant Rate (gal/min) SDT = Storm Decant Time (min/cycle) PDWF x (NCT ‐ NDT) 862,500 x (4.8 ‐ 1.20) 24 x 7.48 24 x 7.48 = = = 17,296 ft³/basin PWWF x ( SCT ‐ SDT) 1,150,000 x (3.6 ‐ 0.90) 24 x 7.48 24 x 7.48 = = = 17,296 ft³/basin MVAB x 7.48 PDWF 17,296 x 7.48 862,500 NDT 1,440 72.0 1,440 PDR = + = + = 2,396 gal/min MVAB x 7.48 PWWF 17,296 x 7.48 1,150,000 SDT 1,440 54.0 1,440 PWR = + = + = 3,194 gal/min MVAB = 17,296 ft³/basin 5 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Decanter Sizing Peak Dry Weather Flow: where: DLa = Decanter Length for Average Dry Weather Flow (ft) 20 = Weir Loading Rate (ft³/min/ft of decanter weir) Peak Wet Weather Flow: where: DLp = Decanter Length for Peak Wet Weather (Storm) Flow (ft) 25 = Weir Loading Rate (ft³/min/ft of decanter weir) Basin Working Volume where: BWV = Basin Working Volume (ft³/basin) Vc = Volume of chemical sludge due to Phosphorus removal (ft³/basin) (Please refer to phosphorus removal calculation.) Basin Area where: BA = Basin Area (ft²) TWL = Top Water Level (ft) BZ = Buffer Zone (ft) (Safety Factor) Sludge Depth where: SD = Sludge Depth (ft) PDR 2,396 Weir Loading Rate x 7.48 20 x 7.48 DLa = = = 16.01 ft PWR 3,194 Weir Loading Rate x 7.48 25 x 7.48 DLp = = = 17.08 ft BWV = MVAB + Vbio = 17,296 + 57,704 = 75,000 ft³/basin BWV 75,000 TWL ‐ BZ 18.0 ‐ 3.0 BA = = = 5,000 ft²/basin Vbio 57,704 BA 5,000 SD = = = 11.54 ft Design Decanter Length = 17.5 ft 6 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Decanter Draw Down where: DD = Draw Down (ft) Bottom Water Level where: BWL = Bottom Water Level (ft) Vd = Depth of Chemical Sludge for Phosporus precipitation (ft) Top Water Level where: TWL = Top Water Level (ft) Hydraulic Retention Time where: HRT = Hydraulic Retention Time (days) MAFD = Maximum Average Flow Depth (ft) QT = Fill Rate at Average Dry Weather Flow (gal/day) FT = Fill Time at Average Dry Weather Flow (mins) MVAB 17,296 BA 5,000 DD = = = 3.46 ft BWL = SD + BZ = 11.54 + 3.00 = 14.54 ft TWL = BWL + DD = 14.54 + 3.46 = 18.00 ft BA x MAFD x 7.48 QT HRT = Q x [(NCT x 60) ‐ NDT] 376,750 x [(4.8 x 60) ‐ 72.0] BA x 1,440 x 7.48 5,000 x 1,440 x 7.48 MAFD = + BWL = + 14.54 = 16.05 ft 5,000 x 16.05 x 7.48 376,750 HRT = = 1.59 days 7 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL MLSS Concentration at Bottom Water Level where: MLSS = Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids concentration at Bottom Water Level (mg/l) 62.42/1E+06 = Conversion (lb/mg x l/ft³) CA = Area Increment due to chemical sludge (ft²/basin) Mass of Sludge Produced (Lawrence‐McCarty Equation as presented in WEF MOP/8 4th Edition, pg 11‐11, Eqn. 11.7) where: ΔM = Mass of Sludge Produced (lb/day/basin) Y = Volatile cell yield (VSS/BOD removed) q = Arrhenius Temperature Correction Factor B = Decay Rate (day‐1) BODout = Anticipated Effluent BOD (mg/l) SRT = Solids Retention Time (days) Zio = Influent nonvolatile suspended solids (mg/l) Zno = Influent volatile nonbiodegradable solids (mg/l) T = Minimum Wastewater Temperature Mbio x 1,000,000 24,043 x 1,000,000 BWL x BA x 62.42 14.54 x 5,000 x 62.42 MLSS = = = 5,298 mg/l Y x (BODin ‐ BODout) Q x 8.34 1 + (B x θ (T‐20) x SRT) 1,000,000 ΔM = ( + Zio + Zno ) x 0.6 x (300 ‐ 10.0) 3.8E+05 x 8.34 1 + (0.07 x 1.04 (5‐20) x 38.3) 1,000,000 ΔM = ( + 96.0 + 24.0 ) x = 597 lb/day/basin 8 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Volume of Sludge Produced where: Vws = Volume of Waste Sludge (gal/day/basin) SFws = Solids Fraction in Waste Sludge 8.34 = Density (lb/gal) Csludge = Mass of chemical sludge produced (lb/day/basin) (Please refer to phosphorus removal calculation) Observed Yield Factor where: Yobs = Observed Yield Factor (lb/day MLSS/lb/day BODremoved) Mean Cell Residence Time where: MCRT = Mean Cell Residence Time (days) TESS = Anticipated Effluent Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) = Conversion (lb/mg x l/gal) 8.34E‐06 ΔM 597 SFws x 8.34 0.0085 x 8.34 Vws = = = 8,417 gal/day/basin Mbio ΔM + ‐ Vws) x TESS x 8.34 / 1E+06) MCRT = 24,043 597 + ((376,750 ‐ 8,417) x 10.0 x 8.34 / 1,000,000) MCRT = = 38.3 days ΔM 597 MLSS BODL 943 BOD Yobs = = = 0.63 9 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Sludge Age for Nitrification Refer to Metcalf and Eddy, Edition IV pages 614 and 705 Constants and Temperature Corrections: Base Value Theta Symbol 0.75 1.07 μnm(T) 0.74 1.053 Kn(T) 0.08 1.04 Kdn(T) 2 DO 0.5 Ko 5 T 1.5 SF Calculations: Design sludge age adequate for nitrification. where: μnm(T) = Maximum Temperature Corrected Nitrifier Growth Rate (days‐1) μn = Specific Nitrifier Growth Rate at Temperature, DO, and Effluent NH3 (g/g‐days) SRTmin = Minimum Sludge age required for Nitrification (days) SRTaerobic = Design Aerobic Sludge Age (days) SF = Safety Factor SRToverall = Sludge Age accounting for entire ICEAS cycle (days) TA = Aeration Time (hrs/day) TENH3 = Anticipated Effluent Ammonia (mg/l) Coefficient Temperature Corrected Maximum Specific Growth Rate of Nitrifying bacteria, g VSS/g VSS.day 0.272 Half‐Velocity constant for nitrifiers 0.341 Nitrifier decay rate 0.044 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 2 Half‐Velocity Constant for Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 0.5 Minimum Water Temperature, °C 5 Safety Factor 1.5 TENH3 DO TENH3 + Kn(T) DO + Ko μn = ( μnm(T) x x ) ‐ Kdn(T) 1.0 2.0 1.0 + 0.341 2.0 + 0.5 μn = ( 0.272 x x ) ‐ 0.044 = 0.118 days‐1 1 1 μn 0.118 SRTmin = = = 8.5 days SRTaerobic = SRTmin x SF = 8.5 x 1.5 = 12.7 days SRTaerobic x 24 12.7 x 24 TA 8.0 SRToverall = = = 38.2 days 10 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Denitrification Capacity Constants and Temperature Corrections Base Value Theta Symbol Base Denitrification Rate @ 0.0025 1.09 µDN VSS/TSS 0.7 Sludge Nitrogen Content 0.07 Ns Minimum Wastwater Temperature, °C 5 T Effluent Dissolved Organic Nitrogen, mg/l 1 EDON Nitrogen Balance where: NAvail = Nitrogen available for oxidation and denitrification (mg/l) TKN = Influent Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) NAssim = Nitrogen assimilated into sludge (mg/l) where: NO3(Allow) = Allowable NO3 concentration in effluent (mg/l) TN = Total Nitrogen in effluent (mg/l) NPart = Nitrogen bound to VSS portion of effluent TSS (mg/l) Required Denitrification Capacity Design Denitrification Capacity where: ART = Anoxic Retention Time (hours/day) Design denitrification Capacity exceeds required denitrification capacity. Coefficient Temperature Corrected 0.0007 ΔM x Ns x 1,000,000 597 x 0.07 x 1,000,000 Q x 8.34 376,750 x 8.34 NAssim = = = 13.3 mg/l NO3(Allow) = TN ‐ EDON ‐ TENH3 ‐ NPart = 10 ‐ 1 ‐ 1.0 ‐ 0.5 = 7.5 mg/l NAvail = TKN ‐ EDON ‐ TENH3 ‐ NAssim ‐ NPart = 42 ‐ 1 ‐ 1.0 ‐ 13.3 ‐ 0.5 = 26.2 mg/l NPart = TESS x Ns x VSS/TSS = 10.0 x 0.07 x 0.7 = 0.5 mg/l (NAvail ‐ NO3(Allow)) x Q x 8.34 (26.2 ‐ 7.5) x 376,750 x 8.34 1,000,000 1,000,000 Req'd Capacity = = = 59 lb/day/basin Design Capacity = μDN x VSS/TSS x BMOB x ART = 0.0007 x 0.7 x 24,043 x 6.8 = 80 lb/day/basin 11 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Waste Sludge Pump Capacity where: WSP = Waste Sludge Pump Capacity(gal/min) SPT = Sludge Pumping Time (min/cycle) Vws x NCT 8,417 x 4.8 24 x SPT 24 x 10.00 WSP = = = 169 gal/min 12 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL SANITAIRE ICEAS Aeration Design Calculations BOD Removal, Nitrification, and De-Nitrification Process SANITAIRE Project #25730-15 Whitefish, MT Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand where AOR1 = Actual Oxygen Required for BOD oxidation (lb/day/basin) A = O2 / BOD Q = Average flow (gal/day/basin) BODin = Influent BOD received (mg/l) 1,000,000 = Conversion (g x mg) 8.34 = Conversion (lb x gal) Nitrification Oxygen Demand where AOR2 = Actual Oxygen required for Ammonia Oxidation (lb/day/basin) TKNox = Nitrogen available for oxidation(lb/day/basin) Constants Value Symbol VSS/TSS 0.7 Sludge N 0.07 Ns Effluent Dissolved Organic Nitrogen, mg/l 1 EDON Expected Effluent Ammonium concentration 1 TENH3 where Nassim = Nitrogen assimilated into biomass, (mg/l) where Yobs = Observed Sludge Yield, (MLSS produced / BOD removed) where Npart = Nitrogen bound to VSS portion of effluent TSS (mg/l) TESS = Anticipated Effluent Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Coefficient Q x BODin 376,750 x 300 1,000,000 1,000,000 A x x 8.34= 1.20 x AOR1 = x 8.34 = 1,131 lb/day/basin AOR2 = TKNox x 4.60 = 82.4 x 4.60 = 379 lb/day/basin TKNox = (TKN - EDON - TENH3 - Nassim - Npart) x Q x 8.34 ÷ 1,000,000 Nassim=BODin x Ns x Yobs = 300 x 0.07 x 0.633 = 13.29 mg/l Npart = TESS x Ns x VSS/TSS = 10 x 0.7 x 0.07 = 0.49 mg/l TKNox = (42 - 1 - 1 - 13.29 - 0.49) x 376,750 x 8.34 ÷ 1,000,000 = 82.4 lb/day/basin 13 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Denitrification Oxygen Credit where O2denit = Oxygen mass credit from denitrification (lb/day/basin) NO3-Ndenit = Mass of NO3-N denitrified (lb/day/basin) where μDN = Denitrification rate at 5°C BMOB = Basin biomass (lb/basin) ART = Anoxic Retention Time, (hrs/day) Total Actual Oxygen Transfer where AOR = Total Actual Oxygen Required (lb/day/basin) Total Standard Oxygen Transfer where SOR = Standard Condition Oxygen Requirement (lb/day/basin) α = Alpha factor θ = Temperature coefficient Tsite = Water temperature β = Beta factor Psite = Site Atmospheric Pressure Pstd = Standard atmospheric pressure (psig) C*sat20 = Dissolved oxygen solubility at standard conditions (mg/l) CsurfT = Dissolved oxygen solubility at site water temperature (mg/l) Csurf20 = Dissolved oxygen solubility at 20°C (mg/l) D.O. = Residual dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/l) AOR = AOR1 + AOR2 - O2denit = 1,131 + 379 - 226 = 1,283 lb/day/basin AOR 1,283 AOR / SOR 0.3645 SOR = = = 3,520 lb/day/basin AOR α x θ (TSite - 20) x ( β x C*sat20 x Psite / Pstd x CsurfT / Csurf20 - D.O.) SOR C*sat20 = AOR 0.65 x 1.024 (15 - 20) x ( 0.95 x 10.53 x 11.43 / 14.70 x 10.08 / 9.07 - 2.0) SOR 10.53 0.3645 = = O2denit = 2.9 x NO3-Ndenit = 2.9 x 78 = 226 lb/day/basin NO3-Ndenit = μDN x VSS/TSS x BMOB x ART = 0.00069 x 0.7 x 24,043 x 6.78 = 78 lb/day/basin 14 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Aeration System Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate where SOTR = Standard oxygen transfer rate (lb/hr/basin) TA = Aeration Time, (hrs/day) Aeration Depth Average Aeration Depth where AADad = Average Aeration Depth at Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd) Q = Average Dry Weather Flow (gpd/basin) NCT = Normal Cycle Time (hr) NDT = Normal Decant Time (min) NST = Normal Settling Time (min) BA = Basin Area (ft²) 1440 = Conversion (min/day) 2 = Calculate Aeration Depth at Middle of Normal Reaction Phase (NCT - NST - NDT) 7.48 = Conversion (gal/ft³) Maximum Aeration Depth where MADpw = Maximum Aerartion Depth at Peak Wet Weather Flow (gpd) PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow (gpd/basin) SCT = Storm Cycle Time (hr) SDT = Storm Decant Time (min) SST = Storm Settle time (min) MAD = Maximum Aeration Depth (ft) MAD is larger of MADad and MADpw SOR 3,520 TA 8 = 440 lb/hr/basin = SOTR = 377,000 x 4.8 x 60 ) - ( 72 + 48)] 2 x 1,440 x 7.48 x 5,000 + 14.54 AADad = = 15.13 ft Q x NCT x 60 ) - ( NDT + NST 2 x 1,440 x 7.48 x BA + BWL AADad = PWWF x SCT x 60 ) - ( SDT + SST 1,440 x 7.48 x BA MADpw = + BWL 1,150,000 x 3.6 x 60 ) - ( 54 + 36)] 1,440 x 7.48 x 5,000 + 14.54 = 17.23 ft MADpw = MAD = 17.23 ft 15 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFIDENTIAL Air Flow Requirement where Process Air = Process air flow requirement (scfm) ρ = Air density (0.075 lb/day/ft³) SOTE = Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency @ Submergence of 14.13 ft Opw = Fraction of Oxygen in air by Weight 10,000 = Conversion (100% * 100%) 60 = Conversion (min/hr) where Mixing Air = Mixing air flow requirement (scfm) MI = recommended air flow per unit area of basin (scfm/ft²) Blower Unit Capacity Blower unit capacity (BUC) is the larger of the process air requirement and the mixing air requirement. Process Air 1,440 scfm Mixing Air 625 scfm Use 1 blower per tank Blower Pressure where psig = blower pressure (rounded to next psig) 0.432 = water density (psi/ft) HL = Cumulative piping and diffuser headloss (psig) SOTR x 10,000 440 x 10,000 ρ x SOTE x Opw x 60 0.075 x 29.36 x 23.2 x 60 = = 1,440 scfm Process Air = Mixing Air = MI x BA = 0.13 x 5,000 = 625 scfm BUC = 1,440 scfm psig = MAD x 0.432 + HL = 17.23 x 0.432 + 1.00 = 8.5 psig 16 3/5/2015 Whitefish, MT 25730-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Biological Systems Partial Installation List Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Tucker Prison WWTP 11-7583 AR McClelland Consulting Eng, Inc Fayetteville,, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Antara Tower 11-7712 0.13 0.10 Iceas NIT Ketchikan - Mountain Point Wtf 97-3896 1.0 0.33 1998 AK CRW Engineering Group Anchorage, AK [PHONE REDACTED] Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan, AK (907) 247-3881 Iceas NIT Montevallo 93-1467 1.6 0.85 1993 AL Carr and Associates Pellham, AL (205) 664-84 Montevallo WWTP Montevallo, AL (205) 665-9209 Iceas NIT Bono 94-1402 0.50 0.30 1994 AR GTS, Inc. Paragould, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Bono WWTP, AR Bono, AR [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Bono WWTP 10-7315 0.50 0.30 AR Iceas NIT Booneville 98-4188 4.0 0.98 1999 AR Mickle Wagner Coleman, Inc Fort Smith, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Booneville, AR WWTP Booneville, AR Iceas NIT Brookland W W T P 04-5860 1.5 0.50 2005 AR NRS Consulting Engineers Paragould, AR Brookland, AR Brookland, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cove WWTP 01-4958 0.45 0.08 2003 AR Patterson Engineering Texarkana, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Cove WWTP, AR Cove, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Fisher 92-1351 0.15 0.08 1992 AR Affiliated Engineers Hot Springs, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Fisher, AR WWTP Fisher, AR Iceas NIT Fountain Hill 87-1133 0.08 0.06 1987 AR Affiliated Engineers Hot Springs, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Fountain Hill, AR WWTP Fountain Hill, AR (870) 328-7275 Iceas NIT Hot Springs S. W. 06-6391 AR NRS Consulting Engineers , Iceas NDN Humphrey 1351 0.15 0.08 1995 AR Civil Design, Inc. Little Rock, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Humphrey WWTP, AR Humphrey, AR (870) 853-9820 Iceas NIT Hurricane Lake, Saline Cnty 99-4376 0.75 0.25 2000 AR Perkins and Associates, Inc Russellville, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Hurricane Lake, Saline County Benton, AR Iceas NIT Lake City 1403 0.50 0.30 1994 AR GTS, Inc. Paragould, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Lake City, AR WWTP Lake City, AR [PHONE REDACTED] ext. 16 Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 1 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Nucor Yamata Steel Wwtp 99-4432 0.23 0.23 2000 AR Mehlburger Little Rock, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Nucor Yamata Steel WWTP AR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Star City 1362 1.0 0.37 1994 AR Summerford Engineering, Inc. Arkadelphia, AR [PHONE REDACTED] Star City, AR WWTP Star City, AR (870) 628-4166 Iceas NIT Cave Creek 09-7126 1.6 0.71 AZ Burns and McDonnell Englewood, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Ina Road WWTP 10-7413 AZ CH2M Hill Corvallis, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Jo Max W R F - Shea Sunbelt Pleasant Point Llc 03-5399 0.55 0.28 2004 AZ Wilson and Company Phoenix, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Jo Max WRF WWTP, AZ Peoria, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] (cell) Iceas NDN Loral Defense Systems 156 0.15 0.06 1985 AZ Loral Corp Litchfield Park, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Loral Defense Systems WWTP, AZ Litchfield Park, AZ Iceas NIT Paradise Peaks 142 0.19 0.08 1985 AZ AZ Process System Scottsdale, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Paradise Peaks WWTP, AZ Phoenix, AZ Iceas NIT San Luis - East WWTP 06-6320 0.18 0.09 2007 AZ Clear Solutions Environeering , San Luis East San Luis, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN San Luis 128 2.2 0.75 1993 AZ Nicklaus Engineering, Inc. Yuma, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] San Luis Public Works Dept. San Luis, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT San Luis WWTP (II) 02-5292 2.6 1.7 2003 AZ Nicklaus Engineering, Inc. Yuma, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] San Luis Public Works Dept. San Luis, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tatum Ranch 310 1.5 0.60 1986 AZ Greeley and Hansen Phoenix, AZ [PHONE REDACTED] Tatum Ranch, AZ WWTP Litchfield Park, AZ Iceas NIT Alameda County TMP-102 CA Angels Camp WWTP 05-5931 1.9 0.60 2005 CA Lee and Ro Inc. Rancho Cordova, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Angels Camp WWTP Angels Camp, CA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Camp Pendleton 11-7714 12 4.0 2012 CA CDM , Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 2 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Colusa WWTP 04-5699 4.8 1.2 2004 CA Bonadiman Consultants, Inc San Bernardino, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Colusa WWTP Colusa, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Oceanside - San Luis Rey 01-4853 2002 CA Pacific Gas & Electric 236 0.06 0.04 1987 CA Bechtel San Francisco, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Pacific Gas & Electric WWTP Avila Beach, CA Iceas NIT Salida 337 4.3 1.2 1991 CA Vail Eng. Corp/CDM Inc. Sacramento, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Salida, CA - City of Salida, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Salida WWTP 97-3921 8.6 2.4 1998 CA G. S. Dodson and Associates Walnut Creek, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Salida, CA - City of Salida, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sunny Slope 09-7087 2012 CA RMC Water and Environment Walnut Creek, CA [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Sunshine Canyon 11-7504 CA SBR NIT Bayfield WWTP 07-6730 1.5 0.60 CO Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Berthoud WWTF 05-6047 CO TEC (The Engineering Co) Ft. Collins, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cherokee Metropolitan District WWTP 07-6536 9.4 4.8 2010 CO GMS, Inc Colorado Springs, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Cherokee Metropolitan Dist WWTP Colorado Springs, CO O-[PHONE REDACTED] C-499-3382 S/I NDN Colorado City WWTP 04-5858 0.71 0.40 2005 CO Clyde B. Young and Co. Pueblo, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Colorado City WWTP Colorado City, CO [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Colorado City WWTP 05-6117 1.1 0.60 2005 CO Clyde B. Young and Co. Pueblo, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Colorado City WWTP Colorado City, CO [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Cucharas 417 0.44 0.17 1994 CO GMS, Inc Colorado Springs, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Cucharas, CO WWTP Cuchara, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Elbert WWTP 05-5933 0.12 0.04 2007 CO GMS, Inc Colorado Springs, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Elbert WWTP, CO Elbert, CO [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Elizabeth WWTP 09-7098 CO Richard P. Arber Assoc. Lakewood, CO Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 3 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Frontier Ranch WWTP 09-7072 0.05 0.04 CO Professional Eng. & Construction , Iceas NIT Inverness Reservoir - Englewood 96-3586 CO Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc Aurora, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Low Point WWTF 04-5721 1.5 0.50 2005 CO Jacobson Helgoth Consultants Lakewood, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Low Point WWTP - Thompson Crossing Metro District Johnstown, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Morrison WWTP 12-7811 CO Stantec , Iceas NDN Woody Creek 04-5734 0.08 0.04 2005 CO McLaughlin Water Eng. Denver, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Woody Creek WWTP Woody Creek, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Ledyard 96-3501 CT Austgen Biojet , Ledyard 96-4014 0.80 0.28 1997 CT T S Jones Consulting North Canton, CT [PHONE REDACTED] Ledyard WWTP, CT Ledyard, CT [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Montville 2965 4.8 2.4 1994 CT Tighe and Bond Westfield, MA [PHONE REDACTED] City of Montville Uncasville, CT (860) 848-8603 or -3830 SBR NIT Montville 96-4011 4.8 2.4 1996 CT Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, Inc Burlington, MA [PHONE REDACTED] City of Montville Uncasville, CT (860) 848-8603 or -3830 SBR NIT Montville 98-3971 2.5 1.5 1999 CT Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, Inc Burlington, MA [PHONE REDACTED] City of Montville Uncasville, CT (860) 848-8603 or -3830 SBR NIT Montville 00-4640 12 4.0 2002 CT Dufresne and Henry Manchester, NH [PHONE REDACTED] City of Montville Uncasville, CT (860) 848-8603 or -3830 SBR NIT Brighton WWTF 03-5518 0.45 0.15 2004 FL Gee and Jensen Jacksonville, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Brighton WWTP, FL Brighton, FL [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Camp Blanding WWTP Starke 96-4024 1.4 0.04 1997 FL Pittman Hartenstein and Assoc Inc Jacksonville, FL Camp Blanding WWTP - Starke, FL Starke, FL Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 4 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Dunes Community Dev. Dist. 99-4256 0.63 0.25 2000 FL Gee and Jensen Jacksonville, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Dunes Community Dev. Dist. WWTP, FL , FL [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Freeport WWTP 11-7561 FL Gadsden County East 00-4588 0.50 0.25 2002 FL Jim Stidham and Associates Tallahassee, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. Midway, FL Iceas NDN Julington Creek 1506 0.63 0.25 1995 FL Post Buckley Schuh and Jernigan , FL [PHONE REDACTED] Julington Creek, FL Jacksonville, FL ceas NDNP Julington Creek 97-3690 1.3 1.0 1998 FL England-Thims and Miller, Inc Jacksonville, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Julington Creek, FL Jacksonville, FL ceas NDNP Julington Creek Plantation 98-4092 1.3 0.50 1998 FL England-Thims and Miller, Inc Jacksonville, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Julington Creek, FL Jacksonville, FL ceas NDNP Meadowcrest 08-6928 FL McKim and Creed Cary, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Talquin Electric - Meadows WWTP 01-4700 0.30 0.10 2001 FL Jim Stidham and Associates Tallahassee, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Talquin Electric Killearn Lake Tallahassee, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Wewahitchka 1455 0.60 0.20 1994 FL Preble Rish, Inc. Tallahassee, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Wewahitchka, FL WWTP Wewahitchka, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Wewahitchka WWTP 13-8038 FL Preble Rish, Inc. Tallahassee, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Barrow County WWTP 05-6118 1.0 0.50 2006 GA Carter and Sloope Bogart, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Barrow County WWTP, GA Statham, GA SBR NDN Blue Ridge Golf & River Club 06-6385 0.22 0.10 GA Civil Engineering Consultants Marietta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Blue Ridge Golf & River Club Blue Ridge, GA Iceas NIT Calhoun - Mauldin Road WTP 04-5817 GA Peoples and Quigley Atlanta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Calhoun WWTP, GA Calhoun, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 5 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Canton WWTP 02-5164 7.2 3.3 2003 GA Gresham Smith and Partners Alpharetta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Canton WWTP, GA Canton, GA (770) 720-4194 ceas NDNP Cherokee County - Fitzgerald Creek Wpcp 05-6165 11 6.0 2008 GA Welker and Associates, Inc Marietta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Cherokee County - Fitzgerald Creek WWTP, GA Woodstock, GA [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDNP Crawfordville 05-6180 0.30 0.11 2007 GA G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers, Inc Atlanta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Crawfordville WWTP Crawfordville, GA Iceas NIT Donaldsonville WWTP 11-7657 1.0 GA Hightower Consulting Engineers Social Circle, GA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Madison I-20 WRF 05-6194 2.5 1.0 2008 GA Jordan, Jones and Goulding Atlanta, GA Madison, GA 1-20 Water Reclamation Facility Madison, GA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Olde Atlanta Club 1470 0.79 0.03 1993 GA Civil Engineering Consultants Marietta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Olde Atlanta Club, GA WWTP Suwanee, GA Iceas NIT Peachtree City Rockaway STP 99-4212 5.0 2.0 1999 GA Arcadis Atlanta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Peachtree City, GA WWTP Peachtree City, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Peachtree City-Rockaway STP 1249 5.0 2.0 1989 GA M.G. Engineering and Consult. Peachtree City, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Peachtree City, GA WWTP Peachtree City, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT President's Street 09-7086f GA City of Sanvannah, GA , Vogel State Park 1484 0.08 0.02 1993 GA Arcadis Geraghty and Miller Raleigh, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Vogel State Park W W T P, GA , GA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Waikoloa, West Hawaii Sewer Co 98-4121 0.27 0.09 1999 HI Witcher Engineering Kailua-Kona, HI [PHONE REDACTED] West Hawaii Utilities Waikoloa, HI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Atlantic WWTP 10-7494 5.0 1.1 IA Fox Engineering Co Ames, IA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 6 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Hopkinton WWTP 04-5758 0.20 0.07 2005 IA Howard R. Green Company Cedar Rapids, IA [PHONE REDACTED] Hopkinton WWTP, IA Hopkinton, IA [PHONE REDACTED] (cell) Iceas NIT Oelwein WWTP 05-5971 4.5 2.5 2005 IA Fox Engineering Co Ames, IA [PHONE REDACTED] Oelwein WWTP, IA Oelwein, IA Decant Only Washington, Ia WWTP 11-7567 6.3 1.0 IA Fox Engineering Co Ames, IA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT City Of Middleton 11-7547 8.4 1.5 ID Holladay Engineering , Iceas NDN City Of Jerseyville 12-7734 IL Iceas NIT Galesburg 06-6496f IL Crawford, Murphy and Tilly , Iceas NDN Galesburg 08-6819f IL Bruner Corporation Galesburg, IL [PHONE REDACTED] Poplar Grove 03-5575 0.63 0.25 2005 IL Robinson Engineering, Ltd South Holland, IL [PHONE REDACTED] Poplar Grove WWTP, IL Poplar Grove, IL (815) 765-1774 Iceas NIT Waukegan Gas & Coke WWTP 07-6624 0.04 0.04 IL Conestoga Rovers and Associates Waterloo, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Waukegan Gas & Coke, IL , IL SBR NDN Centerville 2274 2.0 0.50 1991 IN SIECO Columbus, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Centerville WWTP, IN Centerville, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Centerville WWTP 07-6707 4.0 1.0 2008 IN Bonar Assoc Ft. Wayne, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Centerville WWTP, IN Centerville, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Falling Waters WWTP 03-5495 0.45 0.15 2006 IN Michael J. Cap Homewood, IL Falling Waters WWTP, IN Falling Waters, IN [PHONE REDACTED] (cell) SBR NDNP Main Aboite 1091 1.9 1.3 1986 IN Utility Center, Inc. Ft. Wayne, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Main Aboite, IN WWTP Ft. Wayne, IN Iceas NIT Scottsburg 2298 3.0 1.8 1990 IN Gove Associates, Inc Indianapolis, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Scottsburg, IN WWTP Scottsburg, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Scottsburg 2800 3.0 1.8 1992 IN Schimpeler Corradino Assoc. Jeffersonville, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Scottsburg, IN WWTP Scottsburg, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 7 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Thousand Trails I 1097 0.05 0.02 1986 IN Thousand Trails, IN WWTP Clinton, IN Iceas NIT Warsaw WWTP 2522 1.5 0.05 1989 IN KSI Group Indianapolis, IN Warsaw WWTP, IN Warsaw, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT White Oaks 2447 0.10 0.05 1989 IN SIECO Columbus, IN [PHONE REDACTED] White Oaks WWTP, IN Monticello, IN Iceas NIT Conagra Beef - Garden City 97-3857 1.3 2.0 1998 KS CET Environmental Services Denver, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Montfort, Inc - Garden City KS Garden City, KS [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Osawatomie 98-4149 1.8 0.56 1999 KS Shafer Kline and Warren, Inc Kansas City, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Osawatomie WWTP, KS Osawatomie, KS [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Georgetown Post Aeration 01-4852 2002 KY Covington, La - Lee Rd. Jr. High School 09-7157f LA None , Cullen WWTP 09-7276 0.60 0.30 LA Balar Associates, Inc. Shreveport, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Cullen, LA WWTP Cullen, LA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Cypress Bayou Casino 97-3907 0.35 0.22 1998 LA Domingue, Szabo and Associates Lafayette, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Cypress Bayou Casino WWTP, LA Charenton, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Folsom WWTP 03-5321 0.40 0.20 2003 LA T C Spangler Hammond, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Folsom WWTP, LA Folsom, LA [PHONE REDACTED] or 5607 Iceas NIT Franklinton 00-4532 2.2 0.80 2001 LA T C Spangler Hammond, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Franklinton WWTP, LA Franklinton, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Greenleaves Utilities 1605 2.1 0.95 1995 LA Kelly McHugh and Assoc., Inc. Mandeville, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Greenleaves Utility Company Mandeville, LA Iceas NIT Homer WWTP 05-6141 2.0 0.90 2006 LA Balar Associates, Inc. Shreveport, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Homer, LA WWTP Homer, LA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Lafayette Util. - Ambassador Caffery Pkwy WWTP 05-6022 7.7 3.0 2008 LA Domingue, Szabo and Associates Lafayette, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Lafayette - Ambassador Caffery Pkwy, LA Lafayette, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 8 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Napoleonville 01-4948 0.60 0.30 2002 LA C. J. Savoie Paincourtville, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Napoleonville WWTP, LA Napoleonville, LA Iceas NIT New Iberia WWTP 03-5419 30 6.0 2006 LA Domingue, Szabo and Associates Lafayette, LA [PHONE REDACTED] New Iberia WWTP, LA New Iberia, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sandy Hill Water & Sewer Authority - Country Manor 06-6290 0.30 0.10 2006 LA Balar Associates, Inc. Shreveport, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Sandy Hill WWTP - County Manor, LA Leesville, LA SBR NIT The Landings - Hammond 06-6364 0.60 0.20 2007 LA Kyle Associates Mandeville, LA [PHONE REDACTED] The Landings WWTP - Hammond, LA Hammond, LA Iceas NDN Belchertown 98-4103 3.5 1.0 1999 MA Tighe and Bond Westfield, MA [PHONE REDACTED] Belchertown WWTP, MA Belchertown, MA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Marion WWTP 04-5655 2.4 0.59 2005 MA CDM Manchester, NH [PHONE REDACTED] Marion WWTP, MA Marion, MA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Provincetown 11-7533 MA AECOM , Provincetown WWTP, MA Provincetown, MA [PHONE REDACTED] Provincetown WWTP 01-4840 0.75 0.35 2002 MA Metcalf and Eddy Wakefield, MA [PHONE REDACTED] Provincetown WWTP, MA Provincetown, MA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Chesapeake Beach WWTP 07-6635 0.14 0.14 2008 MD Stearns and Wheler Bowie, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Chesapeake Beach WWTP Chesapeake Beach, MD SBR NDNP Havre De Grace 07-6674 0.40 0.40 2008 MD Stearns and Wheler Bowie, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Havre de Grace WWTP, MD Havre de Grace, MD SBR NDN Indianhead Naswc 09-7183 1.0 0.50 MD Patton Harris Rust and Assocates, pc Bridgewater, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Indian Head WWTP Indian Head, MD Iceas NDN Jefferson 3240 1.2 0.30 1995 MD McCrone, Inc. Annapolis, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Frederick County Bureau of Water & Sewer Frederick, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Lake Linganore 2194 1.6 0.40 1990 MD Frederick County, MD Frederick, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 9 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Millbottom 3111 0.40 0.10 1996 MD Sanitary Environmental Eng. Westminster, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Frederick County Bureau of Water & Sewer Frederick, MD [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Monrovia (Abj #2365) 98-4076 MD New Market 2980 0.96 0.24 1994 MD Chester Environmental Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] New Market WWTP, MD New Market, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Pleasant Branch 2997 0.40 0.10 1993 MD Kamber Engineering Gaithersburg, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Frederick County Bureau of Water & Sewer Frederick, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Spring Ridge 2539 0.80 0.20 1990 MD Gannett Fleming Baltimore, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Spring Ridge WWTP, MD Fredrick, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Augusta - Wwtp 97-3731 ME Augusta, ME - City of , Iceas NDN McCain Foods - Easton 99-4227 0.05 0.02 2000 ME Geomatrix Waterloo, ON [PHONE REDACTED] McCain Foods, Inc. Eaton, ME [PHONE REDACTED] xt 217 Iceas NIT Orleans -Tritown Stf 96-3459 ME Wright Pierce Topsham, ME French Paper Co 97-3854 0.75 0.50 1998 MI ABB Environmental Portland, ME [PHONE REDACTED] French Paper Company Niles, MI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Atochem, Inc. 2245 0.04 0.03 1990 MN MWH Metairie, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Atochem, Inc. WWTP, MN Blooming Praire, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Central Iron Range 11-7637 2.5 MN Howard R. Green Company Cedar Rapids, IA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Harris WWTP 06-6460 0.28 0.12 2007 MN Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik Asso St. Paul, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Harris WWTP, MN Harris, MN [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Lewiston 01-4781 0.40 0.28 2002 MN Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik Asso St. Paul, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Lewiston, MN WWTP Lewiston, MN [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Monticello 96-4021 4.6 2.1 1998 MN HDR Minneapolis, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Monticello WWTP, MN Monticello, MN [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 10 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Monticello WWTP 97-3724 4.7 2.1 1998 MN HDR Minneapolis, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Monticello WWTP, MN Monticello, MN [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT St. Michael 00-4527 3.9 1.4 2002 MN Mc Combs Frank Roos Assoc Plymouth, MN [PHONE REDACTED] St. Michaels WWTP, MN St. Michael, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Bonne Terre 08-6902f MO Horner and Shifrin, Inc. St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Festus - City WWTP 03-5349 12 3.0 2004 MO Horner and Shifrin, Inc. St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Festus - City WWTP, MO Festus, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Fremont Hills 08-6995f MO Schaffer Hines Nixa, MO Fremont Hills WWTP, MO Fremont Hills, MO Galena 11-7525f MO Jefferson City 01-4825 50 11 2002 MO Sverdrup Corp. , MO [PHONE REDACTED] Jefferson City WWTP, MO Jefferson City, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Kimmswick - Rock Creek WWTP 08-6999 MO Horner and Shifrin, Inc. St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Kimmswick Rock Creek P S D 06-6418 MO Owner , Kimmswick WWTP, MO Kimmswick, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Kimmswick WWTP - Rock Creek P S D 03-5366 17 4.8 2004 MO Horner and Shifrin, Inc. St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Kimmswick WWTP, MO Kimmswick, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Platte City 00-4536 2.0 0.61 2001 MO Shafer Kline and Warren, Inc Kansas City, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Platte City, MO Platte City, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Rock Creek Psd 11-7596 MO Kimmswick, MO Imperial, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Rock Creek WWTP 10-7326 17 4.8 MO Horner and Shifrin, Inc. St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Sullivan 08-6877 6.0 2.0 MO Jacobs Engineering St. Louis, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Sullivan WWTP, MO Sullivan, MO [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Glendive WWTP 13-8107 MT Tetra Tech RTW Denver, CO Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 11 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Bakersville - WWTP 02-5224 0.50 0.20 2003 NC Hobbs, Upchurch Associates Southern Pines, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Bakersville WWTP, NC Bakersville, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Camden Village /core Project - Camden County WWTP 06-6457f 2007 NC Hobbs, Upchurch Associates Southern Pines, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Claremont 2934 0.60 0.30 1994 NC G. Eugene Smithson and Assoc. Hickory, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Claremont, NC WWTP Claremont, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Conover 1020 1.4 0.30 1991 NC G. Eugene Smithson and Assoc. Hickory, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Public Works - City of Conover Conover, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Conover 1209 3.0 1.5 1991 NC G. Eugene Smithson and Assoc. Hickory, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Conover II, NC WWTP Conover, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Dunescape WWTP 07-6703 NC Rod Butler, PE Swansboro, NC Elizabethtown WWTP 97-3689 1.6 0.73 1998 NC Engineering Services, PA Garner, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Elizabethtown, NC - City of Elizabethtown, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Harnett County - South Central WWTP 07-6638 13 5.0 NC Marziano and Minier Ashboro, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Harnett Co. South Central WWTP Spring Lake, NC [PHONE REDACTED] X6470 Iceas NIT Harnett County - South Regional Phase 2 09-7294 25 10.0 NC Marziano and Minier Ashboro, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Spring Lake, NC-Harnett Cty South Lillington, NC [PHONE REDACTED] X6470 Iceas NDN 07-6807 NC Hobbs, Upchurch Associates Southern Pines, NC [PHONE REDACTED] WWTP 07-6769 NC Hobbs, Upchurch Associates Southern Pines, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Ocean Isle Beach WWTP 99-4429 3.2 2.0 2001 NC Hobbs, Upchurch Associates Southern Pines, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Ocean Isle Beach WWTP Ocean Isle Beach, NC Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 12 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Excel WWTP 96-4025 2.7 2.7 1997 NE Fox Engineering Co Ames, IA [PHONE REDACTED] Excel WWTP - Schuyler, NE Schuyler, NE [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN North Conway Wwtp 96-3557 NH Bernardsville 2139 2.5 0.76 1991 NJ Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Fairlawn, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Bernardsville WWTP, NJ Bernardsville, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Food Processing 97-3779 NJ Johnson & Johnson 2993 0.09 0.04 1993 NJ CH2M Hill Parsippany, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Johnson & Johnson, NJ Skillman, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Phillipsburg 09-7278 12 4.7 NJ DVIRKA and BARTILUCCI I OCCI Woodbury, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Phillipsburg, NJ WWTP Phillipsburg, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Phillipsburg 2222 7.0 3.5 1991 NJ BCM Engineers, Inc. Plymouth Meeting, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Phillipsburg, NJ WWTP Phillipsburg, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Prudent Publish 2268 0.02 0.01 1991 NJ Storch Engineers Florham Park, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Prudent Publish Roxbury, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT 2443 1.0 0.35 1992 NJ Marc Associates Mt. Holly, NJ [PHONE REDACTED] NJ WWTP NJ [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Acoma Pueblo I I 08-7043 0.22 0.08 NM Owner , Pueblo of Acoma - Acomita WWTP Acoma, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Alto Lakes 96-4016 0.04 0.02 1998 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Alto Lakes, NM - City of Alto, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Angel Fire WWTP 98-4135 3.0 1.0 1999 NM Gannett Fleming Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Angel Fire, NM WWTP Angel Fire, NM [PHONE REDACTED] xt 103 Iceas NIT Dona Ana Cnty. Santa Theresa 00-4565 0.60 0.30 2001 NM Leedshill - Kerkenhoff, Inc Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Santa Teresa, NM WWTP Santa Teresa, NM Iceas NDN Dona Ana County - So. Central Reg WWTF 02-5129 1.0 1.0 2003 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Las Cruces, NM - City of Las Cruces, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Jemez Springs WWTP 02-5080 0.22 0.08 2003 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Jemez Springs WWTP, NM Jemez Springs, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 13 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Lovington WWTP 05-6185 2.8 1.1 2007 NM Larkin Eng. Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Lovington WWTP, NM Lovington, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Pecos 09-7219 0.60 0.15 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Pecos, NM Pecos, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Pueblo of Acoma WWTP 99-4303 0.22 0.08 NM Gannett Fleming Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Pueblo of Acoma - Acomita WWTP Acoma, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Pueblo Of Sandia 00-4501 0.75 0.30 2001 NM Daniel B. Stephens and Assoc Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Pueblo of Sandia, NM Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Pueblo Of Santa Ana 02-5021 0.20 0.07 2002 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Pueblo of Santa Ana WWTP, NM Bernalillo, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Pueblo Of Santa Ana WWTP 99-4208 0.60 0.20 2002 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Pueblo of Santa Ana WWTP, NM Bernalillo, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Raton Wwtp 06-6275 2.7 0.90 2007 NM Wilson and Company Albuquerque, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Raton WWTP, NM Raton, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Ruidoso - Decanters 96-4019 1996 NM Drew Engineering Ruidoso, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Ruidoso WWTP, NM Ruidoso, NM Decant Only Santa Fe Community College 313 0.08 0.03 1988 NM Lawrence Vigil and Assoc. Inc. Corrales, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Santa Fe Community College WWTP, NM Santa Fe, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sipapu 713 0.06 0.04 1994 NM Weaver General Const. Co. Englewood, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Sipapu, NM WWTP Vadito, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Socorro 679 3.3 1.3 1994 NM H.G.E. Inc. Portland, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Socorro, NM Socorro, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Socorro 11-7620 NM Iceas NDN Village Of Cloudcroft - Membrae Purification Syste 05-6134 NM Linvingston Associates , Indian Hills WWTP - Carson City 99-4291 1.5 0.60 2000 NV Hsi Geotrans Westminster, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Indian Hills General Improvement Dist Minden, NV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 14 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Rolling A Ranch - Dayton 03-5596 0.75 0.25 2002 NV Brown and Caldwell Walnut Creek, CA [PHONE REDACTED] Rolling A Ranch WWTP, NV Dayton, NV [PHONE REDACTED]/233-1768 Iceas NDN Rolling A Ranch - Dayton 01-4696 0.38 0.13 2001 NV Brown and Caldwell Boise, ID [PHONE REDACTED] Rolling A Ranch WWTP, NV Dayton, NV [PHONE REDACTED]/233-1768 ceas NDNP Rolling A Ranch I I I 05-6115 3.0 1.0 2006 NV Brown and Caldwell , Rolling A Ranch WWTP, NV Dayton, NV [PHONE REDACTED]/233-1768 Iceas NDN South Dayton WWTP 00-4638 0.50 0.20 2002 NV CDM Denver, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Dayton Utilities Dayton, NV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Alexandria Orleans Clayton WWTP 03-5578 0.34 0.19 2004 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Alexandria-Orleans-Clayton WWTP, NY Alexandria, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Avery Village 3276 0.08 0.03 1994 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Avery Village, NY WWTP East Patchogue, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Boiceville WWTP 09-7101 0.33 0.08 2010 NY Lamont Engineers , NY Iceas NDN Bristal Estates 04-5718 0.14 0.05 2005 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] 4H Maintenance Eastport, New York [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Browning Hotel - Ronkonkoma 01-4751 0.16 0.05 2002 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Browning Hotel WWTP, NY Ronkonkoma, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Canaseraga WWTP 06-6223 0.38 0.10 2006 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Canaseraga WWTP, NY Canaseraga, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Canisteo 3143 2.0 0.70 1995 NY Hunt Engineers Horseheads, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Canisteo, NY WWTP Canisteo, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cape Vincent 11-7686 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cenacle Manor 97-3734 0.20 0.05 1998 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Cenacle Manor WWTP, NY Cenacle Manor, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Chatham WWTP 12-7727 NY , [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 15 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Chazy Wwtp 00-4544 0.25 0.09 2001 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Chazy, NY WWTP Chazy, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Clayton, Village Of, WWTF 01-4882 2.7 1.1 2002 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Village of Clayton WWTP, NY Clayton, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Ellenville WWTP 11-7604 2.4 1.1 NY BARTON and LOGUIDICE Syracuse, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Emerald Green 97-3810 0.03 0.03 1998 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Emerald Green WWTP, NY Emerald Green, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Erwin, Town Of - WWTP 00-4543 5.4 2.7 2002 NY Hunt Engineers Horseheads, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Town of Erwin Painted Post,, New York [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Essex WWTP 10-7396 0.16 0.06 NY AES Northeast, PLLC Plattsburgh, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Essex, NY Essex, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Fairfield @ Seldon Greens A 01-4710 0.21 0.05 2002 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Fairfield Properties Commack, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Fairfield Hills - Seldon 98-4065 0.21 0.05 1999 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Fairfield Properties Commack, NY [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Flatline Pilot Project 11-7675 NY Gore Mountain 2972 0.02 0.00 1992 NY Morse Engineering Glen Falls, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Gore Mountain, NY WWTP Gore Mountain, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Groton WWTP 09-7260 1.8 0.50 NY C. T. Male Associates, P.C. Latham, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Groton, NY Groton, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Guilderland 04-5737 6.0 3.6 2005 NY Delaware Engineering, P.C. Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Guilderland, NY Guilderland, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Gurwin Jewish Center - Wwtp 00-4447 0.09 0.03 2000 NY James and Leonard Engineers , [PHONE REDACTED] Severn Trent (Contract) Commack, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Hamlet Of W. Windsor Sewer Dist. 09-7094 0.43 0.11 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] West Windsor West Windsor, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 16 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Hilton Gardens WWTP - Ronkonkoma 03-5339 0.06 0.03 2004 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Waste Incorporated Ronkonkoma, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Holt Hotel WWTP - Brookhaven 03-5401 0.08 0.03 2004 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Waste Incorporated Brookhaven, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Hoosick Falls WWTP 05-5973 3.0 1.0 2006 NY Clough, Harbour and Associates Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Hoosick Falls WWTP Hoosick Falls, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT I R S Center Holtsville 3389 0.40 0.16 1994 NY Naylor Engineering Ridge, NY [PHONE REDACTED] IRS - Holtsville, NY WWTP Glen Cove, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Inlet WWTP 12-7826 0.10 0.02 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Islip - Broadway Knolls WWTP 05-6163 0.13 0.07 2006 NY Michael P. Chiarelli Huntington Station, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Broadway Knolls WWTP, NY Islip, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Keeseville WWTP 02-5171 2.0 0.70 2003 NY AES Northeast, PLLC Plattsburgh, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Keeseville WWTP, NY Keeseville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Maybrook 13-7981 NY Bipin Gandhi PC Goshen, NY [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Mexico WWTP 01-4849 NY New York City Watershed Project,kak 04-5885 0.19 0.05 2005 NY Bipin Gandhi PC Goshen, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Allied Pollution Control Bedford Hills, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Owego - City of 98-4137 2.0 0.85 1999 NY Delaware Engineering Onconta, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Owego, NY WWTP Owego, NY [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Park Meadow STP - Smithtown 99-4213 0.28 0.08 1999 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Park Meadow (Center Point) STP Smithtown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Patchogue Apts. 02-5000 0.20 0.05 2003 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Patchogue Apts. WWTP, NY , NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Patterson WWTP 05-6213 0.16 0.08 NY Dufresne and Henry Newburgh, NY Patterson WWTP, NY Patterson, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 17 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Philmont - Wwtp 97-3841 NY Clark Engineering New Lebanon, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Port Henry 07-6724 2.5 0.60 2007 NY AES Northeast, PLLC Plattsburgh, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Port Henry WWTP, NY Port Henry, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Port Henry WWTP 06-6309 2.5 0.60 2007 NY AES Northeast, PLLC Plattsburgh, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Port Henry WWTP, NY Port Henry, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Prattsville WWTP 05-6147 0.33 0.09 2006 NY Lamont, Van Devalk Eng. Cobleskill, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Prattsville WWTP, NY Prattsville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Red House 99-4398 0.16 0.04 1999 NY Bergmann Associates Rochester, NY [PHONE REDACTED] NYS Office of Parks - Red House WWTP Salamanca, NY [PHONE REDACTED] xt 275 Iceas NIT Rockland County 05-6211 3.4 1.8 2009 NY Delaware Engineering Onconta, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Rockland County WWTP, NY Hillburn, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Sag Harbor - WWTP 99-4285 0.60 0.25 2000 NY Dietrich Engineering, PC Huntington Station, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Sag Harbor WWTP, NY Sag Harbor, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Sayville Villas - Islip 01-4878 0.37 0.10 2003 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Sayville Villas WWTP, NY Islip, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Selden Sewer District No. 11 02-5045 2.0 0.89 2004 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Selden Sewer District No. 11, NY Coram, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Selden WWTP 11-7540 NY Owner , Iceas NDN Senior Housing - East Moriches 02-5105 0.21 0.08 2003 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Senior Housing WWTP, NY Shirley, NY [PHONE REDACTED] (office) Iceas NDN Setauket Meadows WWTP - Hauppauge 03-5405 0.09 0.03 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Setauket Meadows WWTP, NY East Setauket, NY S/I NDN Setauket Meadows WWTP - Hauppauge 05-5934 0.09 0.03 2005 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Setauket Meadows WWTP, NY East Setauket, NY S/I NDN Sharon Springs 95-4005 1.5 0.43 1996 NY Lamont, Van Devalk Eng. Cobleskill, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Sharon Springs, NY - Village of Sharon Springs, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sharon Springs (Abj #3256) 95-3387 NY SBR NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 18 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Sharon Springs (Abj #3256) 95-3387 NY Sharon Springs, NY - Village of Sharon Springs, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Shelter Island 2212 0.15 0.03 1988 NY Peconic Associates Greenport, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Summerfield Place Shelter Island Height, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Smith Haven Mall WWTP- Lake Grove, 01-4818 0.37 0.10 2002 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Smith Haven Mall WWTP, NY Lake Grove, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Smithtown Galleria 08-6895 NY Avalon Bay Communities , Smithtown Galleria II 00-4495 0.31 0.09 2001 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Smithtown, NY - City of Smithtown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Southampton Commons 3350 0.10 0.03 1996 NY Naylor Engineering Ridge, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Southampton Commons WWTP, NY , NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Southern Meadows 96-4022 0.32 0.08 1997 NY Naylor Engineering Ridge, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Southern Meadows WWTP, NY , NY Iceas NDN Stonehurst 3018 0.50 0.14 1996 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Stonehurst WWTP, NY Coram, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Stonehurst 95-3190 0.50 0.14 1996 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Stonehurst WWTP, NY Coram, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Stonehurst WWTP 03-5541 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Stonehurst WWTP, NY Coram, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Stonehurst WWTP 03-5463 0.76 0.21 2007 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Stonehurst WWTP, NY Coram, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Stonington 97-3694 0.21 0.05 1998 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Stonington WWTP, NY Stonington, NY [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Suffolk Community College - WWTP 02-5066 0.02 0.01 2003 NY Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Suffolk Community College WWTP, NY Riverhead, NY [PHONE REDACTED] (Jon Iceas NDN Suny Campus 10-7473f NY Owner , Decant Only Tallmadge Woods Wwtp 01-4694 0.83 0.42 2002 NY Henderson and Bodwell Plainview, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Tallmadge Woods WWTP, NY , NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 19 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD The Greens 02-5053 1.1 0.33 2003 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] The Greens WWTP, NY , NY [PHONE REDACTED] (office) Iceas NDN Tioga County Industrial Development Agency 02-5078 0.16 0.04 2002 NY Clough, Harbour and Associates Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Tioga County Industrial Development Agency, NY , NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Town Of Fishkill 08-6996 3.0 0.75 NY Delaware Engineering, P.C. Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Camo Pollution Control Fishkill, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Victoria Gardens 98-4124 1999 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Victorian Gardens WWTP, NY Holbrook, NY Iceas NDN Victorian Gardens - Holbrook 98-4124 0.37 0.10 1999 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Victorian Gardens WWTP, NY Holbrook, NY Iceas NDN Village Of Altamont 12-7822 NY BARTON and LOGUIDICE Syracuse, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Village Of Bainbridge WWTP 08-6911 0.80 0.32 NY Clough, Harbour and Associates Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Bainbridge, Village of WWTP, NY Bainbridge, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Village Of Belmont WWTP 11-7541 NY MRB Group Rochester, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Village Of Cayuga 13-8121 0.52 0.13 NY BARTON and LOGUIDICE Syracuse, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Village Of Dryden 10-7355 2.5 0.71 2011 NY MRB Group Rochester, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Lobar, Inc. Dillsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Village Of Sackets Harbor 09-7277 2.7 0.60 2011 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Village Of Woodbridge WWTP 10-7397 2.4 0.80 2011 NY Clough, Harbour and Associates Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Villages Of Lake Grove 06-6250 0.13 0.06 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Villages of Lake Grove WWTP, NY Lake Grove, NY [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 20 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Warwick - Blue Lake WWTF 01-4900 0.38 0.15 2002 NY Bipin Gandhi PC Goshen, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Warwick, NY - Blue Lake WWT Tuxedo, NY [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Waverly Park Condo 08-6910 0.13 0.06 NY Michael P. Chiarelli Huntington Station, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Waverly Park Condos WWTP, NY Holtsville, NY S/I NDN Wayland WWTP 05-5960 2005 NY MRB Group Rochester, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Wayland WWTP, NY Wayland, NY Decant Only West Hampton Drag Strip WWTP 05-6143 0.08 0.03 2007 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Westhampton Drag Strip WWTP, NY Westhampton, NY S/I NDN Westport WWTP 05-6090 1.0 0.14 2006 NY Bernier Carr and Associates Watertown, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Westport WWTP, NY Westport, NY S/I NDNP Whitney Point WWTP 06-6396 0.50 0.15 2007 NY Lamont, Van Devalk Eng. Cobleskill, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Whitney Point WWTP, NY Whitney Point, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Willow Pond On The Sound 00-4516 0.27 0.07 2003 NY Nelson and Pope Melville, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Sound Housing, LLC Babylon, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Woodcrest Estates 99-4206 0.18 0.05 1999 NY Woodcrest Estates, NY Port Jefferson Station, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Botkins 2337 1.5 0.50 1989 OH Design Enterprise, Ltd. Indianapolis, IN [PHONE REDACTED] Botkins WWTP, OH Botkins, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Eaton Homes WWTP 06-6484f OH K E McCartney and Assoc. Mansfield, OH Lorain County, OH Elyria, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Haskins Wwtp 05-6177 1.0 0.26 2006 OH Kirk Bros. Co. Alvada, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Haskins WWTP, OH Haskins, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Leipsic WWTP 06-6404 0.20 0.20 2007 OH Poggemeyer Design Group, Inc. Bowling Green, OH Leipsic WWTP, OH Leipsic, OH [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Leipsic WWTP 12-7756 OH Poggemeyer Design Group, Inc. Bowling Green, OH Iceas NIT Lorain County - Brentwood WWTP 06-6485f OH K E McCartney and Assoc. Mansfield, OH Lorain County, OH Elyria, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 21 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Lorain County - Cressthaven WWTP 06-6475f OH K E McCartney and Assoc. Mansfield, OH Lorain County, OH Elyria, OH [PHONE REDACTED] North Lewisburg 2756 0.40 0.17 1993 OH Design Enterprise, Ltd. Indianapolis, IN [PHONE REDACTED] North Lewisburg, OH WWTP North Lewisburg, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Ohio Air Int'l Guard 2107 0.18 0.07 1988 OH Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout Akron, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Ohio Air Int'l Guard WWTP, OH Springfield, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Pemberville WWTP 09-7285 1.3 0.40 2010 OH Feller and Finch , Pemberville WWTP Pemberville, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Put-in-bay 08-7044 1.3 0.50 OH Poggemeyer Design Group, Inc. Bowling Green, OH Put-in-Bay WWTP, OH Put-in-Bay, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Springboro 2167 5.0 2.0 1988 OH Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout Akron, OH [PHONE REDACTED] US Filter EOS Springboro, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Trutec 2285 0.04 0.02 1988 OH Nihon Pk. Of America Trutec, OH [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Williamsburg 1264 1.9 0.50 1990 OH Balke Engineers Cincinnati, OH [PHONE REDACTED] Williamsburg, OH WWTP Williamsburg, OH [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Bartlesville WWTP 01-4850 2002 OK FHC, Inc Tulsa, OK [PHONE REDACTED] Green Country Sewer Company, Llc 04-5919 2.0 0.75 2006 OK Spradling and Associates Tulsa, OK [PHONE REDACTED] Green Country WWTP, OK Broken Arrow, OK [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Republic Paperboard Co-Lawton 98-4184 1.2 0.94 1999 OK Fluor Daniels Greenville, SC Republic Pulp & Paperboard Company Lawton, OK [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cobble Beach WWTP 07-6784 1.2 0.41 2008 ON Stantec Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Cobble Beach, Ontario WWTP Owen Sound, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Coquille WWTP 11-7661 2.0 OR Dyer Partnership Coos Bay, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 22 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Garibaldi WWTP 03-5362 1.9 0.49 2004 OR H.G.E. Inc. Portland, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Garibaldi WWTP, OR Garibaldi, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Gold Beach WWTP 11-7595 OR Dyer Partnership Coos Bay, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Gold Beach WWTP , [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Jefferson WWTP 09-7180 4.8 0.63 OR Westech Engineering Inc. Salem, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Jefferson, OR Jefferson, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Lafayette WWTP 05-5977 2.2 1.6 2006 OR HBH Tigard, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Lafayette WWTP, OR Lafayette, OR [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Meadows WWTP 187 0.05 0.04 1985 OR Century West Engineering and Environmental Bend, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Mt. Hood - Meadown, OR WWTP Mt. Hood, OR [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Neskowin 545 0.35 0.11 1994 OR H.G.E. Inc. Portland, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Neskowin, OR WWTP Neskowin, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Neskowin WWTP 09-7265 OR Westech Engineering Inc. Salem, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Neskowin, OR WWTP Neskowin, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Netarts Oceanside Sanitary Dist. 10-7460 2.5 0.70 OR Westech Engineering , Iceas NIT Powers 13-8116 OR Civil West , Iceas NIT Rogue River 96-4020 1.5 0.48 1997 OR Dyer Partnership Coos Bay, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Rogue River WWTP, OR Rogue River, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Siletz 520 0.62 0.23 1994 OR Gary Dyer Assoc. Coss Bay, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Siletz, OR WWTP Siletz, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Yachats WWTP 07-6677 2.2 0.33 OR Dyer Partnership Coos Bay, OR [PHONE REDACTED] Yachats WWTP, OR Yachats, OR (541) 547-3243 Iceas NIT Abbottstown 2256 0.52 0.21 1990 PA Nassaux-Hemsley, Inc Chambersburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Abbotstown, PA WWTP Abbotstown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Antrim TWP 98-4138 3.0 1.2 1999 PA Brinjac Engineering, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Antrim Township, PA - Tnsp of Greencastle, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 23 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Archbald 2281 8.1 4.0 1991 PA W.G. Karam Associates Clark Summit, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Archbald WWTP, PA Archbald, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Archbald TMP-103 PA Archbald WWTP Equipment 02-5140 8.1 4.0 1991 PA W.G. Karam Associates Clark Summit, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Archbald WWTP, PA Archbald, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT County Industrial Park - Slate Lick 99-4402 0.40 0.20 2000 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] County Industrial WWTP Freeport, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Barnsboro 96-4015 2.3 0.90 1997 PA L. Robert Kimball and Associates Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Barnsboro, PA - City of Barnsboro, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Beach Lake Mun. Auth - WWTP 03-5496 0.34 0.09 2004 PA Reilly Associates West Pittston, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Beach Lake WWTP, PA Beach Lake, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Berwick 01-4793 0.75 0.30 2002 PA Wm. F. Hill and Assoc., Inc. Pa Berwick, PA WWTP New Oxford, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Berwick Twp Wwtp 01-4791 0.75 0.30 2002 PA Wm. F. Hill and Assoc., Inc. Pa Iceas NDN Bethlehem Township East Wwtp 99-4403 0.88 0.35 2001 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] East Bethlehem, PA Municipal Authority Fredricktown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Big Sewickley Creek Ww 02-5076 5.0 1.3 2004 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Economy Borough, Big Sewickley Creek WWTP, PA Sewickley, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Blacklick Valley - Control Panel 02-5209 PA Hegemann and Wray Cresson, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Blacklick Valley Municipal Authority Johnstown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] office Blacklick Valley Municipal Auth - WWTP 02-5024 0.50 0.20 2003 PA Hegemann and Wray Cresson, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Blacklick Valley Municipal Authority Johnstown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] office SBR NIT Borough Of Cochranton 08-6914 0.44 0.17 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Cochranton, Borough of WWTP, PA Cochranton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Breakneck 2765 8.0 2.0 1993 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Breakneck, PA WWTP Mars, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 24 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Breakneck Creek Regional Auth 02-5065 8.0 3.0 2003 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Breakneck, PA WWTP Mars, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Brownsville Municipal Auth WWTP 05-5937 5.0 1.0 2006 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Brownsville WWTP, PA Brownsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Buckingham 2157 0.71 0.24 1989 PA Tatman and Lee Assoc. Inc. Wilmington, DE [PHONE REDACTED] Buckingham, PA WWTP Buckingham, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Burgettstown-Smith Township Jt.S.A. 98-4169 3.2 0.80 1999 PA BCM Engineers, Inc. Pittsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Burgettstown-Smith Township Joint Sewer Authority Burgettstown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Butler Township 08-6926 5.5 2.2 PA Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Butler Township WWTP, PA St. Johns, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP California 12-7930 4.8 1.2 PA Fayette Engineering Co., Inc Uniontown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Central Mainline WWTP 04-5746 1.4 0.35 2005 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Central Mainline Sewer Authority Portage, PA [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cresson WWTP 01-4884 4.5 1.5 2001 PA Hegemann and Wray Cresson, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Cresson, PA WWTP Cresson, PA 814-886-2139x6 Iceas NIT Cresson WWTP - Equipment 01-4718 4.5 1.5 2001 PA Hegemann and Wray Cresson, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Cresson, PA WWTP Cresson, PA 814-886-2139x6 Iceas NIT Cumberland - North Twp. Municipal Auth. 01-4896 0.98 0.50 2002 PA HRG Consulting Engineers Harrisburg, pa [PHONE REDACTED] Cumberland Township PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Cumberland - South Twp. Municipal Auth. 01-4894 1.3 0.65 2003 PA HRG Consulting Engineers Harrisburg, pa [PHONE REDACTED] Cumberland Township PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Dry Tavern 2471 0.15 0.05 1990 PA BCM Engineers, Inc. Pittsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] H & H Water Control Rices Landing, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Dry Tavern Sewer Authority 05-6195 0.30 0.12 2006 PA Mc Millan Engineering Uniontown, PA H & H Water Control Rices Landing, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 25 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Dunbar Township Mun. Auth - WWTP 01-4946 0.75 0.30 2002 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] H & H Services Dunbar, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Dunbar Township WWTP 12-7766 0.50 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Duncansville 08-7039 4.1 1.8 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Duncansville WWTP, PA Duncansville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN East Stroudsburg 2440 3.8 1.0 1990 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] East Stroudsburg, PA WWTP East Stroudsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Ebensburg 2472 4.0 1.3 1990 PA L. Robert Kimball and Associates Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Ebensburg, PA WWTP Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Ebensburg Borough - WWTP 07-6785 5.5 2.0 2008 PA L. Robert Kimball and Associates Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Ebensburg, PA WWTP Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Ebensburg WWTP 04-5698 4.0 1.3 2005 PA Hegemann and Wray Cresson, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Ebensburg, PA WWTP Ebensburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Elmhurst 2172 0.21 0.11 1988 PA Klepadlo Associates Scranton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Elmhurst, PA WWTP Elmhurst, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Elmhurst 95-4006 0.39 0.19 1996 PA CECO Associates, Inc. Scranton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Elmhurst, PA WWTP Elmhurst, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Evans City WWTP 13-8069 PA HRG Consulting Engineers Harrisburg, pa [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Fairchance 2124 0.88 0.35 1989 PA Fayette Engineering Co., Inc Uniontown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Fairchance-Georges Joint Municipal Sewage Authority Smithfield, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Fairchance 98-4107 0.90 0.45 1999 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Fairchance-Georges Joint Municipal Sewage Authority Smithfield, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 26 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Fairchance 05-5975 3.5 0.75 2006 PA Gaydos-Chambers Associates, Inc Uniontown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Fairchance-Georges Joint Municipal Sewage Authority Smithfield, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Flaugherty Run WWTP Expansion 04-5895 6.4 2.4 2006 PA Nichols and Slagle Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Moon Township WWTP Corapolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Forest Hills Municipal Authority - South Fork 06-6503 3.0 1.2 2007 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Forest Hills Municipal Authority - South Fork, PA South Fork, PA [PHONE REDACTED] -mobile Iceas NIT Foxburg 09-7266 0.40 0.16 PA Dakota Engineering Associates. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Foxburg, PA WWTP , PA ceas NDNP Frackville 2393 3.7 1.4 1994 PA Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Frackville, PA WWTP Frackville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Franklin / Fayette Sewer Authority 02-5117 0.25 0.10 2003 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Franklin - Fayette WWTP, PA Smock, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT G.r.o.w.s. Landfill 06-6339 2006 PA Metcalf and Eddy Wakefield, MA [PHONE REDACTED] G.R.O.W.S. Landfill, Morrisville, PA Morrisville, PA German Twp 12-7878 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Granville 91-2774 1.0 0.40 1991 PA Granville Township WWTP Lewistown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Granville I I I 09-7151 1.6 0.50 2010 PA Glace Associates - Camp Hill, PA , Granville Township WWTP Lewistown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Granville Township 10-7380 PA Owner , Granville Sewer & Water Lewiston, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Granville Township WWTP (II) 01-4821 1.0 0.40 2002 PA Benatec Associates New Cumberland, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Granville Township WWTP Lewistown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Greenfield 2305 0.35 0.14 1988 PA Klepadlo Associates Scranton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Greenfield WWTP, PA Moosic, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 27 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Gregg Township WWTP 09-7196 PA Bassett Engineering Williamsport, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hanover Township Sewer Authority 11-7545 0.25 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Hazelton - Can Do WWTP 06-6510 PA EEMA Kulpsville, PA Hazelton - Can Do WWTP, PA Hazelton, PA Hempfield Township Mun Auth - Darragh STP 05-6027 5.9 1.1 2006 PA Gibson Thomas Engineering Latrobe, PA Hempfield Township - Darragh WWTP, PA Darragh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Hollidaysburg 2348 13 5.0 1994 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hollidaysburg, PA WWTP Hollidaysburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Hollidaysburg WWTP 04-5820 15 6.0 2005 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hollidaysburg WWTP Hollidaysburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Hollidaysburg WWTP 11-7653 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Hopewell Township - Raccoon Creek WPCP 01-4880 8.0 1.3 2002 PA Nira Consulting Engineers, Inc Coraopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hopewell Township WWTP, PA Aliquippa, PA Iceas NIT Jeannette WWTP 12-7927 5.6 1.8 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Kiski Valley WWTP 12-7932 31 7.0 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Koppel Borough Of WWTP 02-5225 0.90 0.24 2003 PA Michael Baker Beaver, PA Borough of Koppel WWTP, PA Koppel, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Kulpmont Marion Heights WWTP 03-5585 1.4 0.50 2004 PA Brinjac Engineering, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Kulpmont - Marion Heights WWTP, PA Maysville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Lake Mead Mun. Auth. - WWTP 06-6410 0.76 0.35 2007 PA Wm. F. Hill and Assoc., Inc. Pa Lake Meade WWTP, PA East Berlin, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Lakeview Joint Sewer Authority 96-4023 1.4 0.45 1997 PA Wodzianski and Smith Franklin, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Lakeview Joint Sewer Auth Sandy Lake, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 28 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Ligonier Borough Wwtp 99-4249 3.1 0.45 2000 PA Neilan Engrs Somerset, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Ligonier Borough WWTP, PA Ligonier, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Linesville Pine Joint Muni. Auth. 10-7416 2.1 0.36 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] NDNP Lower Moreland WWTP 06-6239 2007 PA CKS Engineers, Inc. Doylestown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Lower Moreland Township WWTP, PA Huntington Valley, PA Marcel Lakes 2068 0.25 0.10 1991 PA William G. Karam Associates Clarks Summit, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Marcel Lakes WWTP, PA Marcel Lakes, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Marcel Lakes Estates - Dingmans Ferry 01-4856 0.25 0.10 2001 PA Marcel Lakes WWTP, PA Marcel Lakes, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Martinsburg 2441 2.1 0.70 1994 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Martinsburg, PA WWTP Martinsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Mckeesport 11-7577 24 4.0 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Midway WWTP 03-5526 1.3 0.50 2005 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Midway WWTP, PA Midway, PA [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Millerstown WWTP 11-7706 0.30 0.12 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Mon Valley WWTP - Denora 01-4847 2002 PA Moniteau Jr. / Sr. High School WWTP 06-6386 0.06 0.02 PA Gray Warnick Butler, PA Moniteau Jr/Sr High School WWTP, PA West Sunbury, PA ceas NDNP Moon Township - Flaugherty Run WWTP 2790 3.2 1.0 1994 PA BCM Engineers, Inc. Pittsburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Moon Township Mun. Auth. Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Mount Pleasant 10-7480 PA Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Mount Union 01-4693 3.0 1.1 2001 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Mount Union, PA WWTP Mount Union, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 29 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Mt. Alto WWTP 11-7505 0.75 0.30 PA William F. Hill , Iceas NDN Mt. Carmel Township 09-7161 13 2.3 PA Brinjac Engineering, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Nazareth Borough 2181 2.6 1.3 1990 PA EDM Consultants Allentown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Nazareth Borough, PA WWTP Nazareth, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Nazareth Borough 10-7371 4.2 2.1 PA Keller Consulting Engineers Nazareth, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Nazareth Borough, PA WWTP Nazareth, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Nescopeck 01-4766 0.50 0.25 2002 PA Quad Three Group, Inc Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Nescopeck WWTP Nescopeck, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT New Bedford Area STP - Pulaski Township 05-5945 0.70 0.28 2006 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] New Bedford - Pulaski WWTP, PA Pulaski, PA Iceas NIT Newville Borough 08-6936 1.2 0.60 2009 PA Wm. F. Hill and Assoc., Inc. Pa Newville PA WWTP Newville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN North Beaver 2432 0.19 0.08 1992 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] North Beaver, PA WWTP New Castle, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT North Beaver WWTP 02-5007 0.30 0.11 2002 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] North Beaver Township Municipal Authority New Castle, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Northampton 2044 4.4 1.5 1990 PA Gannett Fleming Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Northampton, PA WWTP Northampton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Osceola Mills WWTP 06-6311 0.60 0.40 2008 PA Gwin Dobson and Foreman Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Osceola Mills WWTP, PA Osceola Mills, PA [PHONE REDACTED] x1 ceas NDNP Penelec 3218 0.83 0.83 1994 PA EBASCO Atlanta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Penelec WWTP New Florence, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Portage WWTP 07-6795 6.0 2.0 PA Gwin Dobson and Foreman Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Portage WWTP, PA Portage, PA ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 30 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Pulaski Township WWTP 05-5946 0.28 0.11 2006 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Pulaski Township WWTP, PA Pulaski, PA Iceas NIT Reading Township 98-4104 0.75 0.42 2000 PA Wm. F. Hill and Assoc., Inc. Pa Reading Township New Oxford, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Reibold STP - Wilson Ridge 11-7599 0.14 PA Dakota Engineering Associates. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Richeyville 2655 0.54 0.17 1991 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Richeyville WWTP, PA Richeyville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Richeyville WWTP 10-7373 0.54 0.17 PA Gannett Fleming Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Richeyville WWTP, PA Richeyville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Roaring Springs 2422 1.8 0.70 1989 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Roaring Springs WWTP, PA Roaring Springs, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Rostraver - Sweeney - Fellsburg WWTP 01-4671 5.3 1.5 2002 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Rostravar Township Sewage Authority West Newton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT S C I Dallas State Prison 10-7390 1.0 0.50 2011 PA Quad Three Group, Inc Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Dallas, PA-SCI Dallas State Prison , PA ceas NDNP Saxton Borough - WWTP 07-6640 2.0 0.60 PA Gwin Dobson and Foreman Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Saxton Borough WWTP, PA Bedford County, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Schuykill Valley 04-5775 1.4 0.55 2006 PA Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] PA American Water Co. Cumbola, PA Iceas NIT Schuylkill County - Gordon WWTP 01-4750 2.4 0.60 2002 PA Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Schuylkill County - Gordon WWTP Pottsville, PA Iceas NIT Schuylkill County 2683 1.6 0.40 1991 PA Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Schuylkill County - Gordon WWTP Pottsville, PA Iceas NIT Sewickley Twp STP 09-7179 PA Gibson Thomas Engineering Latrobe, PA Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 31 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Shippingport Borough WWTP 05-5976 0.38 0.15 2006 PA Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Shippingport WWTP Shippingport Borough, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Silver Springs 2528 1.5 0.60 1991 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Silver Springs WWTP, PA Silver Springs, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Slippery Rock 12-7785 5.2 1.2 PA HRG Consulting Engineers Harrisburg, pa [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Somerset Township Mun Auth 05-6108 0.60 0.15 2006 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Somerset Township WWTP, PA Somerset, PA 814-443-2434x103/483-0472 Iceas NIT South Fork - Forest Hills WWTP 04-5700 4.8 1.2 2004 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Forest Hills Municipal Authority - South Fork, PA South Fork, PA [PHONE REDACTED] -mobile Iceas NIT South Fork Mun Authority 98-4141 4.2 1.2 2000 PA Chester Environmental Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Forest Hills Municipal Authority - South Fork, PA South Fork, PA [PHONE REDACTED] -mobile Iceas NIT St. Marys Municipal Authority WWTP 01-4962 12 2.2 2002 PA KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] St. Marys WWTP St. Marys, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT St. Thomas 2168 1.0 0.40 1991 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] St. Thomas Township Mun. Auth. St. Thomas, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Strodes Mill 2895 0.20 0.08 1995 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Strodes Mill WWTP, PA Lewistown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Summerville Borough 01-4798 2002 PA , Summerville Borough Municipal Authority Export, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Summerville Borough Municiple Authority 01-4798 0.22 0.09 2002 PA Nichols and Slagle Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Summerville Borough Municipal Authority Export, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sunbury WWTP 01-4848 2002 PA Uni-Tec Consulting Engineers State College, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Tobyhanna 97-3744 1.2 0.30 1999 PA Michael J. Pasonick Jr., Inc. Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Tobyhanna WWTP, PA Tobyhanna, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 32 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Tobyhanna Army Depot 12-7885 PA Quad Three Group, Inc Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Trails End 2340 0.41 0.20 1988 PA William G. Karam Associates Clarks Summit, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Trails End, PA WWTP Shohola, PA Iceas NIT Twin County Joint Municipal Auth - North Union Tns 03-5523 0.32 0.13 2004 PA Michael J. Pasonick Jr., Inc. Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Twin County WWTP, PA North Union Tns, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union Chapman Reg. Auth - WWTF 04-5598 0.25 0.10 2005 PA Herbert Rowland and Grubic State College, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Arrow Engineering Port Trevorton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Upper Allegheny Wwtp 99-4262 PA Gibson Thomas Engineering Latrobe, PA Veteran's Center WWTP 12-7892 PA CKS Engineers, Inc. Doylestown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Warminster 04-5810 3.0 1.2 2005 PA CKS Engineers, Inc. Doylestown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] NAWC - Wastewater Treatment Plant Warminster, PA [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Washington Township 3361 0.75 0.25 1996 PA EDM Consultants Southhampton, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Washington TWP, PA WWTP Bally, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Weatherly 95-4001 1.2 0.60 1996 PA Quad Three Group, Inc Wilkes-Barre, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Weatherly, PA - City of Weatherly, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT West Mifflin Thompson 97-3891 5.0 1.5 1998 PA Chester Environmental Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] West Mifflin - Thompson WWTP, City of, PA West Mifflin, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT White Run Region. Auth. 01-4778 1.1 0.39 2002 PA Gannett Fleming Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] White Run Region. Auth. WWTP, PA PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN White Run Regional Authority 01-4777 0.39 2002 PA Gannett Fleming Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Wickham Village Wwtp - Hopewell Tnsp 00-4575 1.0 0.12 2001 PA Nira Consulting Engineers, Inc Coraopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Wickham Village, PA WWTP Aliquippa, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 33 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Williamstown WWTP 09-7125 2.0 0.45 PA Glace Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Windber Area Authority WWTP - Cambria County 05-6015 10.0 4.0 2005 PA EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Windber Area Authority - Ingleside WWTP, PA Johnstown, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Wood-Broad Top-Wells Jt.Mun Auth 98-3931 0.22 0.08 1998 PA CET Engineering Services Huntingdon, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Wood-Broad Top-Wells Joint Mun Auth, PA Wood, PA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Bush River Utilities - Lexington 03-5573 1.5 0.50 SC HPG and Co West Columbia, SC [PHONE REDACTED] Bush River Utilities Lexington, SC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Dorchester County, Sc - WWTP 04-5855 2006 SC B.P. Barber and Associates Spartanburg, NC [PHONE REDACTED] Dorchester County WWTP, SC North Charleston, SC Decant Only Hill City WWTP 06-6350 0.25 0.25 2007 SD McLaughlin Water Eng. Denver, CO [PHONE REDACTED] Hill City WWTP, SD Hill City, SD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Bledsoe Prison 11-7550 TN GRW Engineers, Inc. Lexington, KY [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN WWTP 1268 0.50 0.20 1990 TN James C. Hailey and Co. Nashville, TN [PHONE REDACTED] TN WWTP TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT WWTP 00-4480 1.5 0.60 2001 TN James C. Hailey and Co. Nashville, TN [PHONE REDACTED] TN WWTP TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cleveland 10-7334 33 22 2010 TN Cleveland WWTP, TN Cleveland, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Cleveland Utilities Charleston-Hiwas 97-3718 44 16 1998 TN Resource Consultants, Inc. Brentwood, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Cleveland WWTP, TN Cleveland, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Gainesboro 01-4730 1.5 0.50 2002 TN James C. Hailey and Co. Nashville, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Gainesboro, TN WWTP Gainesboro, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sweetwater WWTP 10-7345 4.0 1.5 TN Sweetwater, TN WWTP Sweetwater, TN Iceas NDN Tullahoma 1002 12 3.0 1985 TN Tullahoma WWTP, TN Tullahoma, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 34 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Union City 1014 17 4.0 1986 TN J.R. Wauford and Company Jackson, TN Union City, TN WWTP Union City, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union City 07-6583 TN Owner , Union City - WWTP Bearing & Seal Replacement 02-5318 17 4.0 2003 TN J.R. Wauford and Company Jackson, TN Union City, TN WWTP Union City, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union City WWTP 04-5677 17 4.0 2004 TN J.R. Wauford and Company Jackson, TN Union City, TN WWTP Union City, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union City WWTP 04-5626 17 4.0 2004 TN J.R. Wauford and Company Jackson, TN Union City, TN WWTP Union City, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union City WWTP - Decanters 03-5564 17 4.0 2003 TN J.R. Wauford and Company Jackson, TN Union City, TN WWTP Union City, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT West Warren 1324 1.8 0.60 1991 TN James C. Hailey and Co. Nashville, TN [PHONE REDACTED] West Warren, TN Morrison, TN [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Alvarado 08-6923 1.6 0.60 TX Dannenbaum Engineering Houston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Alvarado WWTP, TX Alvarado, TX Iceas NIT Atlanta 1432 5.0 2.0 1995 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Atlanta, TX WWTP Atlanta, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Atlanta WWTP 11-7699 TX City of Atlanta, TX Atlanta, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Aubrey WWTP 05-5923 0.75 0.25 2005 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Aubrey WWTP, TX Aubrey, TX Iceas NIT Big Lake 06-6333 1.3 0.35 2007 TX Hibbs and Tobb, Inc Abilene, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Big Lake WWTP, TX Big Lake, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Bonham, TX - ABJ Plt 95-4008 6.6 2.5 1996 TX Hayter Engineering Paris, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Bonham, TX - City of Bonham, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Celina WWTP 02-5005 0.82 0.25 2002 TX Hunter Assoc Austin, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Celina, TX Celina, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 35 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Clifton WWTP 99-4230 1.8 0.65 2000 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Clifton WWTP, TX Clifton, TX 254/386-7431 ceas NDNP Eden 09-7106 1.3 0.44 TX Burgess & Niple , Eden, TX Eden, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Fort Bend County MUD 118- Upper Oyster Creek WWTP 05-6214 3.0 0.75 2007 TX Carter and Burgess Houston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] ECO Resources Inc. Sugarland, TX [PHONE REDACTED]/240-1700 Iceas NIT Harris County Mud #149 Wwtp 95-3375 TX Hico WWTP 06-6483 0.75 0.25 2007 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Hico WWTP, TX Hico, TX [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Hico WWTP 09-7118 TX KSA Engineers Lufkin, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Hico WWTP, TX Hico, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Houston - Cypress Hill MUD # 1 - WWTP 02-4985 2.1 0.80 2002 TX Dannenbaum Engineering Houston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Aqua Source Houston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Italy WWTP 06-6447 1.5 0.65 2007 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Italy, TX Italy, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT La Joya 10-7471 TX S & B Infrastructure , Iceas NIT Livingston 1358 6.8 2.3 1991 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Livingston, TX WWTP Livingston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Livingston WWTP 09-7256 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Livingston, TX WWTP Livingston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Mineral Wells 1530 3.2 1.3 1995 TX Freese and Nichols Ft. Worth, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Mineral Wells - Pollard Creek WWTP Mineral Wells, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Northwest Harris County MUD #36 05-6010f TX Alexander Engineering, Inc. Spring, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Northwest Harris County MUD #36, TX Spring, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Reno WWTP 99-4395 1.6 0.52 2000 TX Hayter Engineering Paris, TX [PHONE REDACTED] City of Reno Reno, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Rio Vista 1381 0.22 0.10 1992 TX Brannon Corporation Tyler, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Rio Vista, TX WWTP City of Rio Vista, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 36 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Saint Jo 97-3759 0.52 0.15 1998 TX Chiang, Patel and Yerby, Inc Dallas,, TX [PHONE REDACTED] City of Saint. Jo Saint Jo, Texas [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sinton 97-3717 2.4 0.80 1998 TX Naismith Engineering, Inc. Corpus Christi, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Sinton WWTP, TX Sinton, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Sugarland - North Mission Glen WWTP 01-4858 TX Turner, Collie and Braden Houston, TX Sweetwater WWTP 01-4832 8.0 2.2 2002 TX Hibbs and Todd, Inc Arlington, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Sweetwater WWTP, TX Sweetwater, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT T R A - Denton Creek WWTP 08-6912 6.7 2.5 TX Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Fort Worth, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Denton Creek WWTP, TX Roanoke, TX [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Tex Americas Center WWTP 12-7752 4.5 1.5 TX Iceas NIT Trinity River Auth - Denton Creek T P - Arlington 02-5130 6.7 2.5 2004 TX Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Fort Worth, TX [PHONE REDACTED] Denton Creek WWTP, TX Roanoke, TX [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Weston Mud 11-7652 TX Jacobs Engineering Baton Rouge, LA [PHONE REDACTED] Acoma Pueblo 10-7377 Usa Pueblo of Acoma - Acomita WWTP Acoma, NM [PHONE REDACTED] Center West Joint Sewer Auth. 10-7439 Usa Widmer Engineering Connellsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Forest Hills Municipal Authority 08-7022 Usa EADS Group Altoona, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Southern Hs WWTP 12-7857 Usa Gannett Fleming Baltimore, MD [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Weatherly Borough, Pa 09-7202 Usa Owner , Iceas NIT James River 95-4002 0.27 0.11 1996 VA Dewberry and Davis Richmond, VA [PHONE REDACTED] James River WWTP, VA Maysville, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 37 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Nottoway 359 1.3 0.50 1989 VA Virginia Dept. of Corrections Richmond, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Nottoway, VA WWTP Burkeville, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Nottoway Correction Center - Burkeville 01-4813 1.3 0.50 2001 VA Virginia Dept. of Corrections Richmond, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Nottoway, VA WWTP Burkeville, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Selma 11-7532 VA Bowman Consulting , Iceas NDN Virginia D O T - I-64 Rest Area - Jerry's Run 02-5223 0.01 0.01 2004 VA R. Stuart Royer and Assoc, Inc Richmond, VA [PHONE REDACTED] Virginia DOT, I-64 Rest Area, VA Jerry's Run, VA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Castleton Wwtp 97-3814 1.4 0.54 1998 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] Castleton, VT - City of Castleton, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDNP Hartford 10-7325 4.8 1.5 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Johnson 3187 0.85 0.27 1995 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] Village of Johnson WWTF Johnson, VT [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Milton WWTP 05-5965 3.0 1.0 2006 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] Milton WWTP, VT Milton, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Poultney 01-4743 1.6 0.50 2002 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] Poultney, VT Poultney, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Pownal WWTP 05-6020 0.74 0.26 2006 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] Pownal, VT - WWTP Pownal, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NIT Stratton Mountain 98-3985 1.7 0.85 2000 VT Technicon , Stratton Corporation Stratton Mountain, VT [PHONE REDACTED]/2200 ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 38 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Troy - Jay 10-7333 1.2 0.40 VT Leach Engineering Consultants Lyndonville, VT [PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDNP West Rutland 99-4298 1.1 0.45 2000 VT Forcier Aldrich and Associates Willston, VT [PHONE REDACTED] West Rutland WWTP Rutland, VT [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Chelan 01-4786 2002 WA Gray and Osborne, Inc. Seattle, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Entiat WWTP 07-6804 0.36 0.15 WA Hammond Collier Wade Livingstone Wenatchee, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Entiat WWTP, WA Entiat, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Kalama W W T P 04-5665 WA Gray and Osborne, Inc. Seattle, WA [PHONE REDACTED] King County - Renton South WWTP 01-4846 2002 WA Lewis County W & Sd #6 - Lake Mayfield Village 01-4741 0.24 0.08 2002 WA Parametrix Sumner, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Lewis County W & Sd #6 Mossyrock, WA [PHONE REDACTED] (LAB) Iceas NIT Mason County- Rustlewood WWTP 07-6815 0.29 0.06 2008 WA Hammond Collier Wade Livingstone Wenatchee, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Mason County, WA Grapeview, WA [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Mc Cleary W W T P 04-5835 1.3 0.57 2005 WA Parametrix Sumner, WA [PHONE REDACTED] McCleary, WA McCleary, WA [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Cedar Grove WWTP 05-6204 1.4 0.40 2006 WI McMahon Assoc Neenah, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Cedar Grove, WI WWTP Cedar Grove, WI [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Danbury 08-6959 0.18 0.09 WI Short Elliott Hendrickson St. Paul, MN [PHONE REDACTED] Danbury WWTP, WI Danbury, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Dekorra WWTP 06-6423 0.20 0.10 2007 WI General Engineering Portage, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Dekorra WWTP, WI Poynette, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Green Lake - WWTP 07-6743 1.5 0.50 2008 WI McMahon Assoc Neenah, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Green Lake, WI WWTP Green Lake, WI [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 39 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Harmony Grove WWTP - Okee 02-5147 0.80 0.50 2003 WI General Engineering Portage, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Harmony Grove WWTP, WI Lodi, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Lebanon Sanitary District #2 - W W T P 04-5875 0.13 0.05 2005 WI McMahon Assoc Neenah, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Lebanon WWTP, Hidden Meadows Association Lebanon, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Readstown WWTP 01-4956 0.35 0.09 2003 WI McMahon Assoc Neenah, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Readstown WWTP Readstown, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Readstown WWTP 01-4944 0.35 0.09 2003 WI McMahon Assoc Neenah, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Readstown WWTP Readstown, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Red Arrow Products 95-4003 0.01 0.01 1996 WI MSB Corporation Appleton, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Red Arrow Products, WI WWTP Rhinelander, WI [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Spring Valley 09-7271 0.70 0.25 WI Foth and Van Dyke Green Bay, WI ceas NDNP St. Joseph WWTP 06-6340 0.17 0.07 2007 WI Ayres and Associates Eau Claire, WI [PHONE REDACTED] St. Joseph WWTP, WI St. Joseph, WI [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Athens 04-5729 2.0 0.50 2005 WV Stafford Consultants, Inc Princeton, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Athens, WV Athens, WV [PHONE REDACTED]/320-5579 Iceas NIT Cameron WWTP 00-4541 0.52 0.21 2001 WV Leonnon, Smith, Souleret Eng Corapopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Cameron, WV WWTP Cameron, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Charles Town 00-4545 4.8 1.2 2001 WV Chester Environmental Moon Township, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Charles Town, WV WWTP Charles Town, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Charles Town WWTP 05-6070 4.8 1.2 2006 WV Chester Engineers Gaithersburg, MD Charles Town, WV WWTP Charles Town, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Claywood Park P S D 08-7005 1.3 0.43 WV Cerrone Associates, Inc. Wheeling, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Claywood Park - Red Hill WWTP, WV , WV Iceas NIT Crab Orchard WWTP - Macarthur 01-4914 5.0 2.0 2002 WV Dunn Engineers, Inc Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Crab Orchard WWTP, WV MacArthur, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Fayetteville 2823 2.1 0.50 1994 WV Woolpert Associates Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Fayetteville WWTP Fayetteville, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 40 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Glenville WWTP 01-4755 2.0 0.65 2002 WV Dunn Engineers, Inc Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Glenville, WV Glenville, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Grantsville 00-4468 0.40 0.10 2001 WV Haworth Meyer and Boleyn - Charl S Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Town of Grantsville Grantsville, West Virginia [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Hancock County - Route 8 WWTP 06-6508 0.75 0.25 WV L. Robert Kimball and Associates Coraopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hancock County, WV New Cumberland, WV [PHONE REDACTED] cell Iceas NIT Hancock County PSD - Route 2 99-4384 1.1 0.30 2000 WV L. Robert Kimball and Associates Coraopolis, PA [PHONE REDACTED] Hancock County, WV Chester, WV [PHONE REDACTED] (or670-8384) Iceas NIT Hazelton - Preston County P. S. D. WWTP 02-4986 1.8 0.50 2003 WV Thrasher Engineering Clarksburg, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Hazelton, Preston County PSD WWTP, WV Hazelton, WV Iceas NIT Hazelton WWTP 11-7713 WV Thrasher Engineering Charleston, WV Iceas NIT Kermit WWTP 09-7172 0.09 0.05 2010 WV Woolpert Associates Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Kermit, WV Kermit, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Lakin- Camp Conley- Sand Hill Sewer 12-7906 1.0 0.35 WV Cerrone Associates, Inc. Wheeling, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Logan County WWTP 02-5268 3.5 1.0 2003 WV Haworth Meyer and Boleyn - Charl S Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Logan County WWTP, WV Logan, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Mullens WWTP 99-4235 0.88 0.33 1999 WV Woolpert Associates Columbus, OH Mullens WWTP, WV Mullens, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT New Cumberland 2676 0.54 0.18 1995 WV KLH Engineers Inc. Pittsburgh, PA [PHONE REDACTED] New Cumberland, WV WWTP New Cumberland, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Oceana, Wyoming County Wwtp 00-4474 2.1 0.50 2001 WV Dunn Engineers, Inc Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Town of Oceana Oceana, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Rocket Center 96-4013 0.50 0.20 1996 WV Alliant Tech Systems, Inc. Rocket Center, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Rocket Center WWTP, WV Rocket Center, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 41 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Salt Rock Sewer PSD, Wv 04-5910 10.0 2.5 2005 WV Dunn Engineers, Inc Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Salt Rock PSD, WV Ona, WV [PHONE REDACTED] x302 Iceas NIT St. Albans WWTP 99-4426 14 4.0 2001 WV Dunn Engineers, Inc Charleston, WV [PHONE REDACTED] St. Albans, WV WWTP St. Albans, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT St. Marys WWTP 10-7305 WV S and S Engineering Charleston, SC Terra Alta 99-4361 0.75 0.25 2000 WV Thrasher Engineering Clarksburg, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Terra Alta WWTP, WV Terra Alta, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Union Williams PSD - WWTP 04-5615 2.4 0.80 2005 WV Cerrone Associates, Inc. Wheeling, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Union Williams WWTP, WV Waverly, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Union Williams WWTP 05-5982 WV Cerrone Associates, Inc. Wheeling, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Union Williams WWTP, WV Waverly, WV [PHONE REDACTED] Hoxton Park 11-7552 Australia Koorlong 09-7150 2011 Australia Decant Only Maggie Hays STP 06-6285 0.06 0.03 2006 Australia Australia Silverwater, ns Maggie Hays WWTP, Australia , Iceas NDN New Warragamba STP 05-6009 Australia Westdale WWTP 09-7099 Australia Decant Only Imbirussu Ete 12-7741 4.3 2.6 Brazil Iceas NIT Aslan Technologies - WWTP 05-6182 0.14 0.07 2007 Canada Aslan Technologies WWTP, Ontario Burlington, Ontario ceas NDNP Banff WWTP 01-4855 2002 Canada Earth Tech Kelowna, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Baysville - Birch Glen WWTP Muskoka 04-5762 0.44 0.12 2006 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Baysville WWTP, Dist Mun. of Muskoka, Canada Baysville, Muskoka, Ontario ceas NDNP Brethren of Early Christianity 97-3728 0.04 0.01 1997 Canada Cumming Cockburn, Limited Canada, [PHONE REDACTED] Brethren of Early Christianity, Canada Bright, Ontario (519) 684-7392 Iceas NDN Brethren Of Early Christianity - Bright 02-5287 0.04 0.01 1997 Canada Cumming Cockburn, Limited Canada, [PHONE REDACTED] Brethren of Early Christianity, Canada Bright, Ontario (519) 684-7392 Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 42 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Britannia Beach WWTP 05-6168 0.57 0.21 2006 Canada Kerr Wood Leidal Assoc Vancouver, BC Britannia Beach WWTP, BC Britannia Beach, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Britannia Beach WWTP 05-6048 0.57 0.21 Canada Kerr Wood Leidal Assoc Vancouver, BC Britannia Beach WWTP, BC Britannia Beach, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Casino Rama 95-4007 1.7 0.55 1996 Canada Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd. Thornhill, Ontario, [PHONE REDACTED] Mnjikaning First Nation WWTP Rama, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] x1640 ceas NDNP Conestoga Meats WWTP - Breslau 04-5627 0.20 0.20 2004 Canada Geomatrix Waterloo, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Conestogo, Ontario WWTP Conestogo, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP District Of Kent (Abj 0817) 95-3259 1996 Canada Austgen Biojet , District of Kent, BC WWTP Agassized, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Dominion WWTP 09-7080 3.0 1.0 Canada Iceas NIT Dominion WWTP 08-6876 3.0 1.0 Canada Dillon Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Dominion WWTP Nova Scotia Canada Dominion, NS Decant Only Dominion, Nova Scotia 09-7057 2010 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Dryden 10-7488 6.8 2.4 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN East St Paul 08-6966 0.80 0.29 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] East St. Paul WWTP Manitoba Canada East St. Paul, MB ceas NDNP East St. Paul WWTP 08-6833 0.80 0.30 Canada Stantec Consulting Surrey, BC [PHONE REDACTED] East St. Paul WWTP Manitoba Canada East St. Paul, MB ceas NDNP Flin Flon, Mb - WWTP 04-5917 3.2 1.3 2005 Canada Dillon Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] City of Flin Flon, AB Flin Flon, AB [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Garden Hill First Nation WWTP 00-4641 1.6 0.41 2002 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Garden Hill First Nation WWTP, Canada Island Lake, Manitoba Iceas NIT Garden Hill First Nation WWTP 01-4641 1.6 0.41 2002 Canada Stanley Consulting Group Ltd Winnipeg MB R3T 5P4, [PHONE REDACTED] Garden Hill First Nation WWTP, Canada Island Lake, Manitoba Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 43 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Gibsons WWTP, Bc 04-5794 1.8 0.79 2005 Canada Stantec Consulting Surrey, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Gibsons WWTP, BC Gibsons, BC Iceas NIT Gillam Wwtp 99-4302 1.7 0.42 2000 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Gillam WWTP (MB), Canada Gillam, Manitoba (204) 652-2377 Iceas NIT Gimli WWTP 06-6383 2.3 1.1 2007 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Gimli WWTP, Manitoba Canada Gimli, MB ceas NDNP Gimli WWTP 05-6098 2.3 1.1 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Gimli WWTP, Manitoba Canada Gimli, MB ceas NDNP Golden WWTP 04-5621 1.1 0.66 2004 Canada Urban Systems Ltd. Kamploops, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Golden WWTP, BC Golden, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Haley Industries, Limited 00-4571 0.04 0.02 2002 Canada Geomatrix Waterloo, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Haley Industries Haley, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] xt 560 Iceas NIT Headingley Correctional Inst 99-4232 0.71 0.36 2000 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Headingley Correctional Inst WWTP, Canada Headingley, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Headingly 09-7213 2.0 0.62 Canada Dillon Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Headingley Correctional Inst WWTP, Canada Headingley, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Horseshoe Resort Corp. 96-4018 1.9 0.54 1997 Canada Thornburn Penny Cons. Eng. East Milton, Ontario, [PHONE REDACTED] Horseshoe Valley Resort Barrie, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Horseshoe Valley Resort 01-4836 0.49 0.14 2002 Canada Azurix North America Hamilton, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Horseshoe Valley Resort Barrie, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Horseshoe Valley Resort A01-483 0.49 0.14 2002 Canada Azurix North America Hamilton, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Horseshoe Valley Resort Barrie, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Kent, BC 95-4000 1.4 0.95 1996 Canada Stanley Associates Eng Ltd. Surrey, BC, [PHONE REDACTED] District of Kent, BC WWTP Agassized, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT La Ronge, Town Of WWTP 03-5416 1.4 0.64 2004 Canada UMA Engineering Saskatoon, SK [PHONE REDACTED] La Ronge, Town of, WWTP, Canada La Ronge, Saskatchewan Iceas NDN Lake Cowichan, Bc - Creekside Plant 04-5836f 2005 Canada Giles Environ. Engineering , Lake Cowichan - Lakeside WWTP, BC Lake Cowichan, BC Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 44 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Langdon ( Hamlet Of) WWTP 02-5134 0.86 0.36 2003 Canada UMA Constructors Lethbridge, ab [PHONE REDACTED] Langdon (Hamlet of) WWTP, Canada Langdon, Alberta [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Langdon WWTP 06-6452 1.1 0.79 Canada Simflo Calgary, AB Langdon (Hamlet of) WWTP, Canada Langdon, Alberta [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Lockport 97-3840 0.15 0.05 1998 Canada Stanley Associates Eng Ltd. Surrey, BC, [PHONE REDACTED] Lockport (MB) WWTP, Canada Lockport, Manitoba (204) 757-4756 Iceas NIT Long Sault 3242 3.0 0.71 1995 Canada M.S. Thompson and Assoc. Cornwall, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Long Sault, ONT WWTP Long Sault, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Lytton WWTP 03-5490 0.09 0.07 2004 Canada Stantec Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] EPCOR Lytton, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT MacTier Conger Marsh Lane WWTP Muskoka 04-5644 0.61 0.18 Canada Totten, Sims, Hubicki Assoc Whitby, ON [PHONE REDACTED] MacTier Conger Marsh Lane WWTP MacTier, ON ceas NDNP MacTier Conger Marsh Lane WWTP Muskoka 05-5959 0.61 0.18 2006 Canada Totten, Sims, Hubicki Assoc Whitby, ON [PHONE REDACTED] MacTier Conger Marsh Lane WWTP MacTier, ON ceas NDNP Mccain Foods, Grand Falls 96-3430 1998 Canada Gore and Storrie , McCain Foods Limited Grand Falls, New Brunswick SBR NIT Namgis First Nation - Alert Bay 02-5301 0.63 0.17 2003 Canada Kerr Wood Leidal Assoc Vancouver, BC Namgis First Nation - Alert Bay, Canada Alert Bay, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT New Tecumseth 96-4026 3.6 1.4 1997 Canada KMK Consultants Limited Brampton, ON [PHONE REDACTED] New Tecumseth (ON) WWTP, Canada New Tecumseth, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP North Dorchester WWTP 00-4515 0.49 0.14 2001 Canada Stantec Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] North Dorchester Wwtp Dorchester, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Oneida Nation Of Thames 00-4508 0.09 0.04 2001 Canada First Nations Eng Svcs Ltd Ohsweden, On [PHONE REDACTED] Oneida Nation Of Thames Delaware, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Oxford House, 1st Nation 97-3695 0.87 0.22 1997 Canada Ininew Project Management Ltd Winnipeg,Manitoba, [PHONE REDACTED] Oxford House (MB) WWTP, Canada Oxford House, Manitoba (204) 538-2879 Iceas NIT Pemberton WWTP 04-5709 1.1 0.45 2004 Canada Earth Tech Thornhill, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Village of Pemberton, BC Pemberton, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 45 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Pembroke, On - WWTP 03-5392 11 4.2 2006 Canada J.L. Richards and Assoc. Ltd. Ottawa, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Pembroke WWTP, Canada Pembroke, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED]/[PHONE REDACTED] S/I NDN Petawawa 96-4012 4.6 2.3 1996 Canada J.L. Richards and Assoc. Ltd. Ottawa, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Petawawa (ON) WWTP, Canada Petawawa, Ontario (613) 687-2141 ceas NDNP Port Hardy 06-6227 1.2 0.37 2007 Canada Stantec Consulting Surrey, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Port Hardy WWTP, BC Port Hardy, BC Iceas NIT Port Severn 96-4017 0.58 0.19 1996 Canada CH2M Hill North York, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Port Severn (ON) WWTP, Canada Port Severn, Ontario (705) 762-1175 ceas NDNP Prescott Wpcc 07-6699 4.2 1.5 Canada Ainley and Associates Limited Collingwood,, ON Prescott WWTP, Ontario Canada Prescott, ON ceas NDNP Red Leaves Resort 07-6578 0.14 0.11 2008 Canada Azimuth Engineering Barrie, ON Red Leaves Resort - Burlington, Ontario Canada Burlington, ON [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Reg Mun Of Waterloo - Conestogo WWTP 02-5150 0.17 0.05 2005 Canada Acres and Associated Env Toronto, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDNP Reg Mun Of York - Sutton W P C F 01-4844 3.2 0.81 2002 Canada Azurix North America Hamilton, ON [PHONE REDACTED] York, Sutton WPCF, Canada Sutton, Ontario [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Shakespeare WWTP 09-7194 0.15 0.09 Canada Iceas NIT Shawnigan Lake 08-6970f Canada Giles Environ. Engineering , Sooke WWTP 04-5882 1.8 0.79 2005 Canada Stantec Consulting Winnipeg, MB [PHONE REDACTED] Sooke WWTP Sooke, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT St. Theresa Point 09-7192 Canada None , Iceas NIT St. Theresa Point 98-3943 1.2 0.39 1999 Canada Burnside Engineering Western Winnipeg, St. Theresa Point, Canada St. Theresa Point, Manitoba [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Thorndale 10-7404 Canada Stantec Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 46 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Thorndale 11-7614 Canada Stantec Consulting London, ON [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Tobiano Resort 07-6532 0.18 0.13 2007 Canada Urban Systems Ltd. Kamploops, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tobiano Resort 06-6504 0.18 0.13 Canada Urban Systems Ltd. Kamploops, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Kamland Holdings Kamloops, BC [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Tsawwassen 96-4010 0.45 0.20 1996 Canada Stanley Associates Eng Ltd. Surrey, BC, [PHONE REDACTED] Tsawwasen, BC WWTP Delta, British Columbia [PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Vancouver S & D Dist-Lulu Island Wwtp 96-3641 Canada Associated Engineering Edmonton, AL [PHONE REDACTED] Winnipeg WWTP 06-6335 2008 Canada Winnipeg WWTP, MB Canada Winnipeg, MB Decant Only Aconcagua Foods 06-6470 3.1 3.1 2007 Chile Aconcauga Foods WWTP Chile , Iceas NIT Agrofrut - Rengo WWTP 06-6308 0.95 0.95 2006 Chile Ecoriles Santiago, Agrofrut - Rengo, Chile WWTP Rengo, Iceas NIT Autoclub Antofagusta 00-4539 0.14 0.09 2001 Chile Biwater Santiago, 011-562-203- Autoclub Antofagusta WWTP, Chile , Iceas NIT Buin-maipo WWTP 07-6740 6.8 3.1 Chile Aguas Andinas Santiago, 56(2)6942964 Buin - Malpo WWTP, Chile , SBR NDN Calama WWTP 05-6131 10 5.7 2005 Chile Chile Santiago, [PHONE REDACTED] Calama WWTP, Chile Biwater, Iceas NIT Calama WWTP - Biwater 01-4679 3.8 1.0 2002 Chile Biwater Santiago, 011-562-203- Calama WWTP, Chile Biwater, Iceas NDN Curacavi W W T P 04-5845 1.8 1.0 2005 Chile Aguas Andinas Santiago, 56(2)6942964 Curacavi WWTP, Chile Curacavi, SBR NDN El Monte - El Paico Y Lo Chacon 02-5319 1.8 1.1 2003 Chile Aguas Andinas Santiago, 56(2)6942964 El Monte - El Paico y Lo Chacon, Chile , SBR NDN El Monte Expansion 09-7232 2.6 1.6 Chile SBR NDN Laja Sn Rosendo & Canete 00-4564 2.7 1.3 2001 Chile Black and Veatch Orlando, FL [PHONE REDACTED] Laja San Rosendo/Canete, Chile , Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 47 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Melipilla 06-6280 8.9 4.4 2007 Chile Aguas Andinas Santiago, 56(2)6942964 Melipilla WWTP, Chile Melipilla, SBR NDN Pan de Azucar 01-4883 0.61 0.23 2002 Chile Bauer International Cubao, Quezon City, USA Pan de Azucar WWTP, Chile , 011-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Til Til WWTP 07-6559 0.51 0.29 2008 Chile Tezontle WWTP, Mexico , SBR NDN Chengyang Wastewater Treatment Co Ltd - Quing Dao 02-5167 21 13 2003 China Chengyang WWT Co. Ltd, China Quing Dao, Iceas NDN Chengyang Wastewater Treatment Co Ltd - Quingdao 02-5037 21 13 2002 China Chengyang WWT Co. Ltd, China Quing Dao, Iceas NDN Coca Cola 353 0.10 0.09 1989 China Coca-Cola WWTP, China , [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Kunming 668 80 40 1997 China BHP Engineering North Sydney, AU Kunming WWTP, China , 086-[PHONE REDACTED] ceas NDNP Aguazul 11-7510 Colombia Iceas NIT Rio Frio WWTP 11-7584 Colombia Iceas NDN Tolu Ptard 12-7902 Colombia Iceas NIT Iberostar Bavaro Golf & Resort 09-7049 1.0 0.69 Dominican Republic Iceas NDN Amira Wwtp 99-4341 2.4 1.6 2000 Egypt Horse Engineering Works SAE Alexandria, VA 203-52229994 Horse Engineering Works SAE Alexandria, 011-[PHONE REDACTED] or -2994 Iceas NIT Momi Bay Resort & Spa, Fiji 05-6176 0.33 0.25 Fiji Momi Bay Resort & Spa WWTP, Fiji Momi Bay, ceas NDNP Mako 01-4834 3.4 1.6 2002 Hungary Mako WWTP, Hungary Mako, Iceas NIT Dublin Bay 00-4481 [PHONE REDACTED] Ireland Paterson Candy , Dublin Corporation WWTP Dublin, SBR NIT Wexford WWTP 02-4999 6.7 3.0 2002 Ireland Jones Environmental , Wexford Co. Wexford, Iceas NIT Farod Project 12-7939 Israel Envirotreat , Iceas NIT Ah - Po 12-7848 Korea Iceas NDN Beob - Seong 07-6770 1.0 0.62 2008 Korea Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 48 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Bo Ryung Stp 00-4491 0.32 0.18 2001 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Bong Pyung 09-7233 0.47 0.28 Korea Iceas NDN Boon Won WWTP 99-4353 1.0 0.50 1998 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Dae Bu Do W W T P 04-5800 1.9 1.1 2005 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Dae Jung WWTP 01-4887 8.2 2.1 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Do - Am WWTP 03-5443 3.3 1.2 2006 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Do Am 09-7240 2.1 1.3 2010 Korea Iceas NDN Do Gae 98-4148 0.50 0.26 1999 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 ceas NDNP Dong Hak Sa WWTP 04-5649 0.75 0.51 2005 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Serim Paper Mfg. Co., Ltd. Seoul, 011-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Feedlot Waste 00-4505 0.07 0.07 2000 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Feedlot Waste Seoul, 9-011-82-2-511-4981 Iceas NIT Ga - Ya 10-7386 0.57 0.34 Korea ITT WWW Korea Dongan-Gu, Anyang-Si, Kyeonggi-Do 011-82-1-478-5582 Iceas NDN Gok Soo WWTP 06-6400 0.32 0.19 Korea Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 Iceas NDN Gong Am WWTP 04-5648 0.88 0.52 2005 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Im - Won 08-6847 1.1 0.81 Korea Seha Corporation - Env. Division Seoul, 82220568800 Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 Iceas NDN Ji Pyung 02-5027 0.53 0.31 2004 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 49 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Kang Dong Pusan City 01-4782 5.5 4.0 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Kang Dong Pusan City WWTP, Korea , Iceas NDN Kang Jin 00-4602 7.6 4.3 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Kang Jin WWTP, Korea , Iceas NIT Kum Sung WWTP 01-4807 2.1 1.0 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Moon Kyung, Korea - WWTP 01-4942 3.7 2.2 2003 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Mu Chang Po Expansion 04-5597 0.34 0.21 2005 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Serim Paper Mfg. Co. Seoul, 044-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Mu Chang Po WWTP 02-5082 0.34 0.21 2003 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Nam Won S. Cheju Island WWTP 03-5385 8.5 2.1 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Neunggok WWTP 07-6533 2.8 1.9 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 ceas NDNP North Cheju - East Expansion 12-7794 2.9 1.6 Korea Iceas NDN North Cheju - West 13-8143 5.9 3.2 Korea Iceas NDN North Cheju Island East WWTP 05-5981 5.9 3.2 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 North Cheju Island East WWTP Seoul, 0118225114981 Iceas NDN Om Chon WWTP 03-5547 0.05 0.03 2004 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Pyeong Chang 09-7234 0.69 0.49 Korea Iceas NDN Sam Cheok 01-4654 6.6 1.7 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Sam Cheok, Korea WWTP , Iceas NIT Shin Poong WWTP 03-5548 0.08 0.05 2004 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Shin Poong WWTP Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Sung San WWTP 02-5084 4.2 1.1 2003 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 50 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Won Dong 08-7030 Korea Seha Corporation - Env. Division Seoul, 82220568800 Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 Iceas NDN Yang Su - Korea 98-4166 0.98 0.48 1999 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Yang Su, Korea Seoul, 9-011-82-2-511-4981 Iceas NDN Yang Su W W P 07-6604 0.50 0.26 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 Iceas NDN Yang Yang 00-4622 5.3 3.2 2002 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Yang Yang, Korea , ceas NDNP Yeon - Moo 08-6894 3.9 2.3 Korea Seha Corporation-Environmental Div. Seoul, 82-2-515-1166 ceas NDNP Young Kwang WWTP 03-5365 2.9 2.0 2003 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NIT Young Kwang WWTP 02-5083 8.0 2.4 2003 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NIT Yu Gu WWTP 04-5647 1.9 0.97 2005 Korea Serim Paper Mfg. Co., LTD Seoul, 118225114981 Yu Gu WWTP Seoul, 118225114981 Iceas NDN El Monte 11-7512 Mexico Galerias Merida, Mexico - WWTP 06-6440 0.15 0.11 Mexico Iceas NIT Galerias Metepec - WWTP 05-5927 0.17 0.11 2005 Mexico Hidroecologia S.A de CV Mexico City, df 11-525-55-54 Galerias Metepec WWTP Mexico Mexico City, 011-[SSN REDACTED]-9414 Iceas NIT Galerias Metepec WWTP 98-4100 0.14 0.09 1999 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 Amanco Armando Aceves , 011-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Las Americas, Mexico - WWTP 04-5894 0.26 0.20 2005 Mexico Las Americas WWTP, Mexico Mexico City, 011-[SSN REDACTED]-9414 Iceas NIT Liverpool Atizapan WWTP 07-6796 0.39 0.29 Mexico Hidroecologia, S.A DE C.V , Iceas NIT Liverpool Cuernavaca WWTP 04-5815 0.20 0.13 2005 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 Liverpool Cuernavaca WWTP, Mexico Cuernavaca, Iceas NIT Liverpool South WWTP 07-6794 0.31 0.23 Mexico Hidroecologia, S.A. DE C.V. , Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 51 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Palacio De Hierro 08-6984 0.09 0.06 Mexico Iceas NIT Plaza Gentio Queretaro 13-8000 Mexico Iceas NIT Plaza Satellite I - Bauer Int'l 98-4016 0.31 0.22 1999 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 PLAZA SAETLLITE II , 9-011-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Plaza Satellite I - Bauer Int'l 99-4286 0.31 0.22 2000 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 PLAZA SAETLLITE II , 9-011-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Plaza Universidad 01-4652 0.18 0.12 2002 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 Plaza Universidad WWTP, Mexico , Iceas NIT Punta Norte WWTP 03-5532 0.21 0.08 2004 Mexico Puenta Norte WWTP La Quebrada, DF 011-[SSN REDACTED]-9414 Iceas NIT Satelite I 98-4106 0.19 0.10 1998 Mexico Satelite WWTP, Mexico , Iceas NIT Televisa WWTP 05-6012 0.12 0.08 Mexico Televisa WWTP, Mexico Televisa, Iceas NIT Tezontle WWTP 07-6561 0.30 0.22 Mexico Hidroecologia S.A de CV Mexico City, df 11-525-55-54 Tezontle WWTP, Mexico , Iceas NIT Via Moliere WWTP 04-5728 0.29 0.22 2005 Mexico Amanco Mexico City, 525553228800 Via Moliere WWTP, Mexico Mexico City, 011-[SSN REDACTED]-9414 Iceas NIT Villa Hidalgo 08-6935 3.4 1.4 Mexico AyMA Guadalajara, 33 3647-7608 Iceas NIT Auckland - Army Bay WWTP 03-5595 New Zealand Army Bay WWTP, New Zealand Auckland, 011-64-9-913-8999 Decant Only Somers Stp 11-7570 New Zealand AECOM , Iceas NIT Manchay 08-7032 Peru Sedapal Lima, 51-1-3173000 Iceas NIT Yunguyo Ptar 11-7524 Peru Iceas NIT Avon Products - Bauer Int'l. 99-4272 0.03 0.02 1999 Philippines Avon Products, Bauer Int'l., TX , TX Iceas NIT Bauer Int'l - Regalia Tower 00-4434 0.17 0.08 2000 Philippines The Regalia Group Corporation Cubao, Quezon City, 00632-438-0721 to 22 Iceas NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 52 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Brent International School - Phillipines 99-4221 0.35 0.19 2000 Philippines Pacific River Rehab. , Brent International School, Phillipines , [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Camp John Hay Phase 2 00-4523 0.53 0.33 2000 Philippines Bauer International Cubao, Quezon City, USA Camp John Hay WWTP , Iceas NIT Marco Polo Hotel Philippines 98-4105 0.16 0.08 1999 Philippines Rickmond Engineering Williamburg, VA Marco Polo Hotel WWTP , Iceas NIT Miascor Catering - Manila 98-4039 0.03 0.01 1999 Philippines Miascor Catering - Manilla, Phillipines , 011-[PHONE REDACTED] SBR NDN Splash Manufacturing Inc 01-4776 0.04 0.02 2002 Philippines Bauer International Cubao, Quezon City, USA Splash Mfg , Iceas NIT Abbott Laboratories TMP-011 Puerto Abbott Labs 2544 1.6 1.2 1991 Puerto Pedro Panzardi and Assoc. San Francis, [PHONE REDACTED] Abbott Laboratories Barcelonia, [PHONE REDACTED] ext 6320 SBR NIT Abbott Labs 3043 3.0 3.0 1994 Puerto Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. White Plains, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Abbott Laboratories Barcelonia, [PHONE REDACTED] ext 6320 SBR NIT Coca-Cola 2610 0.21 0.11 1990 Puerto Engineering Science Atlanta, GA [PHONE REDACTED] Coca-Cola, PR WWTP Cidra, [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Dupont - Puerto Rico Sdr 09-7081 Puerto Dupont Wilmington, DE [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Dupont Agricultural Caribe Ind 99-4417 0.43 0.22 2002 Puerto Century Engineering, Inc. Houston, TX [PHONE REDACTED] DuPont Agricultural Caribe Ind Ltd Manati, Puerto Rico [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT DuPont Agricultural Caribe Industries Ltd 99-4339 2002 Puerto DuPont Agricultural Caribe Ind Ltd Manati, Puerto Rico [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NDN Goya De 2784 0.20 0.10 1994 Puerto Fernando Rodriquez Hato Rey, [PHONE REDACTED] Goya de WWTP, Puerto Rico , [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Dupont WWTP 2815 1.8 1.2 1992 Spain Intecsa Industrial SA Madrid, Dupont Iberica, Spain Asturias, [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Dupont WWTP 3340 0.38 0.26 1995 Spain Dupont Wilmington, DE [PHONE REDACTED] Dupont Iberica, Spain Asturias, [PHONE REDACTED] SBR NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 53 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Dupont WWTP (iberica S. 98-4139 1.3 1.0 1999 Spain Fluor Daniels , 3498-5264091 Dupont Iberica, Spain Asturias, [PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Escarrilla 11-7528 Spain Iceas NDN Formigal 11-7530 Spain Iceas NDN Magallon WWTP 09-7231 0.59 0.20 Spain Iceas NDN Riaza WWTP 09-7153 1.2 0.50 Spain Iceas NIT Serraga 10-7382 0.41 0.12 Spain Iceas NDN Tramacastilla 11-7529 Spain Iceas NDN Afan Baglan 98-4173 0.50 0.24 2000 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, SBR NIT Afan Baglan WWTP 98-4170 28 14 2000 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Afan Baglan WWTP, Welsh Water Rugby, Wales 011-441-788-563-459 SBR NIT Banff Mac Duff WWTP 01-4676 1.8 0.99 2002 United Kingdom North of Scotland Water Authority , Scotland Iceas NIT Cardiff WWTP 98-4136 143 76 2000 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Cardiff WWTP, United Kingdom Rugby, England SBR NIT Cardiff WWTP 98-4150 143 76 2000 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Cardiff WWTP, United Kingdom Rugby, England SBR NIT Cardigan 97-3875 1.2 0.60 1998 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Cardigan WWTP, Welsh Water , Wales Iceas NIT Dollar STW 98-4112 1.1 0.55 1999 United Kingdom Dollar STW WWTP, Scotland Rugby, England 044-[PHONE REDACTED] Iceas NIT Ganol 98-3993 12 5.8 1999 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Ganol, United Kingdom - STP Rugby, England 011-441-788-563-459 Iceas NIT Girvan 00-4550 4.0 2.1 2001 United Kingdom Alfred Benesch and Co Pottsville, PA [PHONE REDACTED] West of Scotland Water Authority , Scotland SBR NIT Kinnegar WWTP 00-4438 20 11 2000 United Kingdom Hyder Engineers Bradford, Kinnegar Sewage Treatment Works , Iceas NDN Kinneil Kerse Wwtp 00-4441 15 7.6 2000 United Kingdom Paterson Candy , East of Scotland Water , Scotland Iceas NIT Llanasa WWTP 02-4977 5.3 2.7 2002 United Kingdom Galliford , Llanasa WWTP, Welsh Water , Wales Iceas NIT Moray East WWTP 01-4674 4.4 1.5 2002 United Kingdom North of Scotland Water Authority , Scotland Iceas NIT Moray West WWTP 01-4675 10 5.5 2002 United Kingdom North of Scotland Water Authority , Scotland SBR NIT Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 54 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Plant Job # Process PWWF ADWF Engineer Start Location Contact MGD Watchet & Doniford WWTP 02-4988 2.4 1.1 2002 United Kingdom Mowlem Construction, Inc. , Wessex Water Watchet & Doniford, England Iceas NIT Whitehaven 01-4724 8.8 3.6 2001 United Kingdom MWH , United Utilities Whitehaven, England Iceas NIT Whitehaven 01-4724 2001 United Kingdom MWH Albany, NY [PHONE REDACTED] Thu Dau Mot South STP 12-7715 7.0 4.7 Vietnam Iceas NDN 772 Installations Tuesday December 3, 2013 Page 55 of 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- Kimmswick MO Case Study – Using SBR Technology to Cost Effectively Accommodate Future BNR Requirements November 21, 2014 Francis Pastors Sanitaire – Xylem Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Outline • Introduction • Kimmswick, MO Background – 2004 Centralized Plant Upgrade • SBR/ICEAS Process • 2004 SBR Design & Costs • Future BNR Design Considerations • 2010 BNR Upgrade • BNR Upgrade Procedure • Performance • Conclusion 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Kimmswick, MO (Brief History) • Sewer district formed in 1979, contained 14 treatment plants • 8,000 dwelling units (approx. 22,000 PE) • Had new permit limits for 2003, Serving a PE of 22,000 • Wanted new centralized plant for more economic treatment • 32 square miles newly formed sewer district boundary • Replace 14 treatment plants and 17 miles of interceptor • Wanted to design for future BNR (future), though permit did not call for advanced nutrient removal 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Secondary Treatment Process Selection • Technology pre-selected on basis of proven effluent quality, footprint, peak flow capability, O&M, ease of future expansion to BNR treatment and • District evaluated oxidation ditch, conventional systems, MBR and SBR. • SBR Selected based on grading of above criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- ICEAS/SBR vs. Conventional BNR 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 ICEAS Equipment ---PAGE BREAK--- Rock Creek SD - Kimmswick, MO WWTP • Four Basin ICEAS NIT Design Each Basin: 129’ x 63’ x 18’ • Mississippi River discharge permit 30/30 BOD/TSS (<5/5/1 average typical) • 4.8 MGD, 3.5 peaking factor • Commissioned Sept 2004 • Sanitaire provided complete ICEAS equipment, SHT aeration, SIMS, SCADA and plant wide integration ---PAGE BREAK--- Considerations for Future BNR 2004 Design Considerations • Oversized basins by 20% - Inclusion of Air-Off periods for TN & P removal. • Increase blower capacity - 10 vs. 12 hours of aeration • Less than a 20% increase due to denitrification credit • Designed with spare diffusers – plugged before upgrade • Size SBR control panel future mixers. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Kimmswick PFD 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2004 Upgrade – Capital Cost and O&M Treatment Plant Capital Cost (2002) = $2.12/gal. treated Total Project cost $22M USD •$3.9M Engineering and other construction costs •$10.2M WWTP •$7.9M Interceptors Operations Budget = $1.4M •$155,000 annual electricity spend (treatment, pumping, operations building) Plant Staff •1 Operations Supt •1 Lab Director •4 Maintenance •3 Operators ---PAGE BREAK--- ICEAS Upgrade – Nitrification Requirement 11 (2010) Basins - Each 130’ x 63’ x 18’ TWL Influent Effluent (NIT) Design Design Operating (2008) ADWF [MGD] 4.8 3.5 PWWF [MGD] 7.2 PWWF1 [MGD] 10.55 PWWF2 [MGD] 16.7 BOD [mg/L] 220 30 4.8 TSS [mg/L] 220 30 4.0 TKN [mg/L] 55 14 (NH3-N) 3.1 (NH3-N) 11.5 (TN) *Winter Effluent of 5.7 (NH3-N) & 8.3 (TN) ---PAGE BREAK--- 2010 – Upgrade for BNR Treatment • Upgrade SBR to BNR for Denite Credit (Energy) & to Optimize Prior to Potential Permit Changes • SBR Upgrade Scope • PLC Upgrade • Mechanical Upgrade (Add Mixers) • Changes to Process & Operation • Controls & Reporting 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- PLC Upgrade Programming Changes • Changes in cycle structure • 4 to 4.8 hour cycles • Altering Air-On/Off during react period • Changes to level sensor settings to adjust storm mode triggers • SCADA upgrade to reflect current plant 13 Basin #1 40 80 120 180 AIR ON (0-40 min) AIR ON (0-40 min) AIR ON (0-40 min) SETTLE (60 min) DECANT (60 min) 0 240 Basin #1 24 AIR ON (0-24 min) **AIR OFF (24 min Mix) 0 48 AIR ON (0-24 min) 72 AIR ON (0-24 min) 288 SET T LE (60 min) AIR OFF (24 min Mix) DECANT (60 min) AIR ON (0-24 min) 228 168 144 120 AIR ON (0-24 min) 96 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mechanical Upgrade Design Considerations • Mixers • Designed and installed one submersible mixer per basin • Used guide supports in original design to accommodate extra force from mixers – no need to remove or adjust diffuser location • Control panel cut spot provided from the start • Decanter • Same size as original design • Adjusted down-comer limit switches 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Process Changes in Process and Operation • Biomass • Increased design mass by 10% to provide nitrification with less aeration time • Top and bottom water level raised for holding additional biomass • WAS Pump • Same as original design • Adjusted run time to accommodate one less cycle per day and additional biomass 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Process Changes in Controls and Reporting • Control System • DO Control • Same as original design • SIMS (Sludge Inventory Management System) • Change target SRT (user input) • Logic and equipment remained the same • Reporting Package • Initial reporting package did not include BNR requirements, updated to our proprietary reporting system 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- ICEAS Upgrade – TN and TP Design 17 Basins - Each 130’ x 63’ x 18’ TWL Influent Effluent (NIT) Design Design Operating (2008) ADWF [MGD] 4.8 3.5 PWWF [MGD] 7.2 PWWF1 [MGD] 10.55 PWWF2 [MGD] 16.7 BOD [mg/L] 220 30 4.8 TSS [mg/L] 220 30 4.0 TKN [mg/L] 55 14 (NH3-N) 3.1 (NH3-N)* 11.5 (TN) P [mg/L] 8 n/a n/a Basins - Each 130’ x 63’ x 18.5’ TWL Effluent (NDN) Design Operating (2012) 1.9 10 5.7 10 4.7 1 (NH3-N) 8 (TN) 1.0 (NH3-N)* 6.8 (TN) 3 2.7** (2010) *Winter Effluent of 5.7 (NH3-N) & 8.3 (TN) *Winter Effluent of 2.2 (NH3-N) & 6.9 (TN) With Chemical Dosing ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary Planning for future BNR requirements during initial design will ease the upgrade process. Preparing: • Basin Size • Blower and Grid Size • Control Panel • Mixers Capital Cost to upgrade to BNR treatment in 2010: $600,000. ($0.11 per Gal.) 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Conclusion Acknowledgements Jason Seger – Rock Creek Public Sewer Operations Manager (MWEA 2010 Plant of the Year) Sarah Walsh – Xylem-Sanitaire Process Engineer Abstract Author John Koch – Xylem Sanitaire Process Engineering Manager Mark Gehring – Xylem-Sanitaire Marketing Manager 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Thank You! We Welcome Your Questions November 21, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Manufacturer’s Design Report Parkson SBR ---PAGE BREAK--- EcoCycle SBR™ Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Whitefish, MT Diffused Aeration Option Preliminary Design Proposal June 30, 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 2 June 30, 2016 Mr. Scott Anderson, P.E. Anderson-Montgomery Consulting Engineers Whitefish, MT Diffused Aeration Option Parkson EcoCycle SBR™ Dear Mr. Anderson Thank you for your interest in Parkson's EcoCycle SBR™ treatment system. The EcoCycle SBR™ is an activated sludge treatment process which operates in a batch mode. The SBR process is ideal for organics removal, BNR, and ENR applications. Based upon the data provided for this project, we believe the EcoCycle SBR™ process is an ideal treatment selection. A number of equipment options and configurations can be used with the EcoCycle SBR™, all of which are designed to meet each project’s specific needs. Equipment selections most suitable for each application are dependent on variables such as effluent requirements, O&M costs, energy efficiency, expansion capabilities, and initial capital cost. Parkson welcomes the opportunity to discuss equipment options that will best meet the project requirements. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our equipment and services for this project. Should you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me at (913) 745- 1232. Sincerely, Brad Linsey Sr. Applications Engineer PARKSON CORPORATION An Axel Johnson, Inc. Company ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 3 1. Design Basis 1.1. Influent and Effluent Specifications The proposed system design is based on wastewater influent with the following characteristics: Table 1.1 – Design Influent flow requirements PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE Ave Daily Flow MGD 1.81 Peak Hourly Flow MGD 4.53 Table 1.2 - Influent Water Quality PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE Max WW Temperature Deg C 20 Minimum WW Temperature Deg C 8.1 BOD5 mg/L 330 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 200 NH3-N mg/L 21 TKN mg/L 41 Total Phosphorous (TP) mg/L 6 pH - 6 to 8 Table 1.3 - Effluent Water Quality PARAMETER UNITS QUALITY BOD5 mg/L 10 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 15 NH3-N mg/L 1.0 Total Nitrogen mg/L 8.0 Total Phosphorus mg/L 1.0 A process design spreadsheet has been attached which includes details regarding the process design, equipment sizing calculations, and estimated power costs. The calculations were utilized as the basis for the equipment that has been selected and included in this proposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 4 The design spreadsheet may include some assumed values that will need to be confirmed as the project moves forward. This proposal is contingent upon the following criteria: a. The wastewater will be pretreated to remove debris and grit. Fine screening is recommended. b. Sufficient alkalinity is present or will be added to allow uninhibited nitrification and pH of 6.5-8. c. The incoming oil and grease is below 100 mg/l. d. Chemical and metals concentrations are below toxic thresholds for organics and ammonia removal. e. Sufficient nutrients N, micronutrients) are present in the influent for biomass growth or will be added by the plant operating staff. f. A qualified operator will supervise plant activities and performance. 2. System Description The EcoCycle SBR™ is a fill and draw activated sludge process that operates in a batch mode. The SBR completes all unit process treatment steps within the reactors, eliminating the need for anaerobic or anoxic zones, RAS systems, and secondary clarifiers. The treatment is achieved using 5 primary steps. 2.1. ANOXIC FILL The SBR tanks are typically operated in series with one tank being filled at any given time. During anoxic fill, the influent valve is opened allowing raw influent to enter the basin. No aeration occurs during this period so that anaerobic and anoxic conditions are present to discourage the growth of filamentous bacteria. The anoxic condition also encourages the growth of well settling, facultative bacteria. Residual nitrate is removed creating anaerobic conditions that promote the growth of VFA’s and bio-P bacteria. During the later part of the anoxic fill, the aeration system is operated to allow the bacteria to begin metabolizing organic matter that was absorbed. This part of the fill period is AERATED FILL. SND (Simultaneous Nitrification / Denitrification) occurs during the aerated fill period since both anoxic and aerobic conditions exist. The high oxygen uptake creates an aerated anoxic condition where blowers are operated at full speed yet residual D.O. levels remain near zero. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 5 2.2. REACT Once the SBR reaches top water level or the designated fill time has been reached, the flow will be diverted to another SBR basin. Aeration and mixing occurs in the rector until complete biodegradation of organics has occurred. Since no flow enters the basin during react, no short circuiting of raw, untreated waste can occur. Dissolved oxygen is typically monitored during the react phase to determine when residual D.O. starts to form, indicating that oxygen demand for the batch has been satisfied and treatment is completed. Luxury uptake of phosphorous also occurs during the aeration step. For BNR or ENR applications, the aeration system can be cycled on / off to help promote denitrification. This can be a time based step or can be controlled using instrumentation such as ORP, ammonia analyzers, and nitrate analyzers. Carbon source for nitrate removal and metal salts for P precipitation (if required) are typically added during the un-aerated mix steps near the end of the react period. 2.3. SETTLE Following react, the SBR will begin a settle mode in which liquids / solids separation occurs. No influent enters the basin during this period allowing for a perfect quiescent condition. All of the reactor volume is used for solids separation. The settle period typically lasts for 45 minutes but is field adjustable through the operator setpoints. 2.4. DECANT The effluent withdrawal (Decant) begins once the settling period is finished. A floating decanter is used to maximize interface between the withdrawal ports and the settled biomass. The decanter is designed to remove effluent from below the water surface to prevent the inclusion of foam, scum, or floatables. Typical systems will have roughly 25%-35% of the basin contents removed from the upper portion of the reactor during the decant period. 2.5. IDLE The final step in the treatment process is the idle period. During idle, waste activated sludge is typically removed to maintain the correct biomass population in the reactor. The aeration and mixing system are typically not operated during idle and the reactor ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 6 simply waits for the next cycle to begin. An option to aerate during extended idle periods is provided through the control system. 3. System Components / Features 3.1. Flow Control Manifold (FCM) A Flow Control Manifold (FCM) is used to bring raw wastewater into the SBR reactor. The FCM is typically located with the bottom of the manifold 6” above the floor with a series of openings facing the floor. Raw influent is fed through the FCM which insures intimate contact between the raw influent and the settled biomass. The FCM also allows the influent to enter at a low velocity so the settled biomass is undisturbed in cases where fill and decant may occur simultaneously (such as during high sustained peaks and single tank operation). This same manifold is also used for multipoint sludge collection during the waste sludge step in some cases. 3.2. Floating Decanter The Parkson DynaCanter™ is a floating style decanter which utilizes a flex joint to allow vertical articulation. The decanter collects treated effluent from 16”-24” below the water surface to preclude foam, scum, or other floatables from the effluent. A series of check valves are provided in the decanter draw tube to isolate the effluent piping from the mixed liquor during mixing and aeration steps. A standard open / close valve is used in the effluent piping to control flow rate through the decanter. No electromechanical components are used inside the basin making operation and maintenance convenient for the operator. 3.3. DynaPhase Controls™ The Parkson DynaPhase Controls™ use constant level measurement analysis to determine rate of influent flows and adjusts treatment steps accordingly. During high flow events, this unique feature allows the system to dynamically adjust treatment steps based on actual flow rather than toggling between a normal mode and a storm mode. For example, if the plant is experiencing a 1.75X peaking factor, the control system will automatically cater cycle length and structure based on this specific flow. The DynaPhase Controls™ also include a first response feature in which the control system will automatically take a tank off line in the event of a primary equipment failure. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 7 4. Equipment and Services Provided Flow Control Manifolds: Four Model FCM14-3200 Manifolds shall be provided. Manifolds will be constructed of FRP with 304 stainless steel supports. Manifolds shall include adequate number and size of openings to reduce inlet velocities to <0.5 fps. Fixed Diffusers: Four Fixed Fine Bubble Diffuser Systems shall be provided. Each system shall consist of disk type membrane diffusers, PVC manifold piping, 304 stainless steel supports and 304 stainless steel air drop pipe. All in-basin air piping between air drops (including supports) shall be provided by the Contractor. Decanters: Four Model ED14-3800 DynaCanter™ Floating, Effluent Decanters shall be provided. Each decanter shall include 304 stainless steel supports and in-basin discharge piping. The in-basin discharge piping of the decanter shall terminate with a 14” flange for connection to the flanged wall penetration supplied by others. Floating Mixers: Four Floating Mixers shall be provided. Each mixer shall consist of fiberglass float, 316 stainless steel impeller, 304 stainless steel motor mounting base, 17-4 ph stainless steel motor shaft, 304 stainless steel intake volute assembly, 304 stainless steel cable mooring system, electric cable w/ floats and a 25 Hp, 900 rpm, 460 volt, 3 ph., 60 Hz, TEFC motor. Blowers and Accessories: Four Rotary Positive Displacement Blowers (one as a standby) shall be provided. Each blower will be selected to deliver 977 SCFM at 10.0 PSIG. Each blower will be furnished complete with inlet filter, inlet silencer, discharge silencer, butterfly valve, check valve, pressure relief valve, base plate, V-belt with sheaves, and a 75 Hp, 1800 RPM, 460 volt, 3 ph, 60 hz, TEFC motor. Waste Sludge Pumps: Four Submersible Centrifugal Pumps shall be provided for sludge wasting. Each pump will be selected to deliver 300 GPM at a total pump head of 15 ft. Each pump will be furnished complete with elbow discharge connection, 30 ft. power cable, thermal overload / seal failure protection, retrieval guide rails and guide rail brackets, stainless steel lifting cable, and a 5.0 Hp, 460 volt, 3 ph, 60 hz, submersible motor. Valves: Valves shall be furnished as listed below. All automatic valves will have 120 volt single phase electric motor actuators. Function Quantity Size Type Operator Influent 4 14” Plug Electric Effluent 4 14” Butterfly Electric ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 8 FRP Field Weld Material: FRP field wrap kits shall be provided to complete FRP field welds as identified on Parkson’s submittal drawings. Kits shall include FRP mat and woven roving, resin, catalyst, and gel coat. Labor for completing field joints shall be by the installing contractor. Supports: Supports for the in-basin equipment supplied by Parkson and described in this proposal are included. Supports will be constructed of 304 Stainless Steel. Field welding of supports shall be by the installing contractor. Hardware: Anchor bolts, gaskets, and connecting hardware for mounting in-basin equipment supplied by Parkson are included. Anchor bolts and connecting hardware shall be 18-8 SS. Note: Hardware and gaskets at Parkson/Contractor interfacing flanged connections are not included and shall be provided by the installing contractor. D.O. Control: One D.O. probe with mounting bracket and one analyzer shall be provided for each SBR basin. Process Control Panel: A control panel capable of directing operation of components listed in this proposal shall be provided. Control features shall include the following:  NEMA 12 Enclosure  Analog I/O modules as required  Digital I/O modules as required  10% spare I/O of each type  Allen Bradley PLC  Operator Interface  Control / Monitoring of Proposed Equipment and Instrumentation  HOA / OCA Switches  LED Lights  Modem  Submersible Pressure Transducers for Each SBR Basin (including stilling well)  Emergency TWL Float  DynaPhase Controls™ Software  D.O. blower control feature On-Site Service: Field service shall be provided for dry inspection, wet start up, O&M training, and follow up training. A total of four trips / twelve (12) man days of service are included. Additional service can be provided at Parkson’s daily field service rates. Air 4 6” Butterfly Electric ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 9 Submittals and O&M Manuals: Submittals and O&M Manuals shall be provided as required by the project specifications. 5. Cost Estimate and Terms Budget price for equipment and Freight terms are FOB jobsite, offloading by others. Taxes are not included. Terms are 10% Submittals, 80% Shipment, 10% Start up (NTE 180 days from Shipment). Approval drawings: 6-10 weeks after receipt of written order.* Equipment Shipment: 16-20 weeks after complete release for manufacture.* *Schedules will be verified at time of Order. 6. Clarifications / Exclusions Decanter wall spools must be cast in place or supported with additional bracing if link seals are used. All equipment is quoted with manufacturer’s standard coatings. Chemical feed equipment has not been included. Any requirements for addition of metal salts, carbon source, alkalinity, nutrients, or micronutrients shall be by others. If blower sound enclosures are used, contractor shall be responsible for providing 120 volt power source if required. This proposal is based on providing Parkson’s standard SBR control program. Additional programming for other equipment or upgrades to standard hardware formats can be provided at additional cost. SCADA / PC graphics packages are available if not already included in this proposal. A minimum of 3.5 ft of static head differential (plus pipe friction losses) between SBR BWL and water level at discharge elevation must be provided for the decanter to function properly. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 10 Outlet at effluent pipe discharge must be constantly submerged or provided with an upturned elbow to prevent air from entering the effluent piping. Out of basin air and liquid piping are not included. In basin air piping between air drops (if used) is by others. Concrete must be designed to accommodate 6” anchor bolts. Unless specified in the controls section of this proposal, valve power through the SBR control panel has not been included. Contractor/Owner shall be responsible for providing freeze protection. All welding shall be per AWS standards only (ASME standards, if required, may result in additional cost). MCC, VFD’s, and motor starters are by others. 7. Supplemental Information and References EcoCycle SBR™ design Calculations ---PAGE BREAK--- Designer: Date: Flow (ADF) 1.81 MGD average 6,851 m^3/d Flow (PHF) 4.53 MGD * 17,127 m^3/d mg/l lbs/d kg/d mg/l lbs/d kg/d BOD 330 4,977 2,257 BOD 10 151 68.5 * COD 577 8,710 3,950 COD NR NR NR TSS 199 2,997 1,359 TSS 15 226 102.7 TKN 41 624 283 TKN NR NR NR NH4-N 21 316 143 NH3-N Sum 1 15 6.8 * TN 41 624 283 NH3-N Win 1 15 6.8 P 6 91 41 TN 8 121 54.8 * TDS 500 7,548 3,423 P 1 15 6.8 * Inert TSS fraction 40 % Alum or ferric chloride addition req'd Winter WW Temperature (min.) 8.1 °C 47 °F Summer WW Temperature (max) 20 °C 68 °F Average WW Temperature 14.05 °C 57 °F Elevation 2,500 ft 762 m Average barometric pressure 13.41 psia* 92 kPa Winter Air Temperature -12 °C 10 °F Summer Air Temperature 38 °C 100 °F Design MLSS 3,500 mg/l @ TWL Design MLSS 4,224 mg/l @ BWL Hydr. Retention Time provided 1.46 days 35.0 hours Aerobic Sludge Age (SRTox) 11.3 days System SRT 22.6 days Biosolids growth rate 0.22 gVSS/gCODr/d 0.45 gVSS/gBODr/d F:M (adjusted for aeration 0.23 0.13 System F:M 0.06 Avg biosolids yield 2,172 lbs./day* 985 kg/d Avg net sludge yield (bio+inerts) 2,982 lbs/d based on CODr* 1,352 kg/d 3,404 lbs/d based on BODr* 1,544 kg/d Mass aerobic MLSS req'd 38,525 lbs 17,472 kgs Mass aerobic volume req'd 1.32 MG 4,995 m^3 Aerated portion of day 50.0 % Required total SBR volume 2.64 MG 9,991 m^3 INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS KBB 6/29/2016 EcoCycle SBR™ Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Design Outline SITE CONDITIONS Whitefish, MT Diffused Air Option PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Number of SBR basins 4 Rectangular Dimensions: Length/Width Ratio 1.0 : 1 Length 66 ft. 20.24 m Width 66 ft. 20.24 m Round Dimensions Diameter 75 ft. 22.85 m Top Water Level 20.0 ft. 6.10 m Bottom Water Level 16.6 ft. 5.05 m TWL at Design Average Flow 20.0 ft. 6.10 m Total Volume in SBR's 2.64 MG 9,991 m^3 Total Retention Time in SBR 35.0 hrs. First Estimate : lbs. O2/lb. BOD removed 1.25 kg O2/kg BOD removed lbs. O2/lb. TKN oxidized 4.6 kg O2/kg TKN oxidized lbs. O2/lb. NO3x denitrified -2.86 Denitrification credit 60 % Actual Oxygen Req'd, AOR 7,288 lbs. O2/day 3,305 kg/d Second Estimate : AOR = CODi - CODw - CODes + 4.6*TKNox - 2.86*NO3Ndn where : CODi influent = 8,710 lbs./day 3,950 kg/d CODw wasted = 2,606 lbs./day 1,182 kg/d CODes eff soluble = 755 lbs./day 342 kg/d TKNox** oxidized = 435 lbs./day 197 kg/d NO3Ndn denitrified = 216 lbs./day 98 kg/d 6,740 lbs./day 3,057 kg/d Use highest estimate DESIGN AOR = 7,288 lbs/day 3,305 kg/d Conversion Formula from ASCE Manual of Practice : SOR = AOR * Cs a * (ßCsd - DO) * Ø^(T-20) Cs = DO saturation at Stnd Conditions Csd = DO saturation at design conditions = 9.092*(1+0.4*D/34) Cst = DO saturation@liquid temp & 1 sea level = 11.23 mg/l where : = Cst*(Fe+0.4*D/34) = 9.07 mg/l 293.15 ElevFactor Fe = 0.91 Therefore, Csd = 10.39 mg/l Alpha, a 0.60 * SWD, D 20.0 ft D.O., mg/l 2.0 mg/l Beta, ß 0.95 * WW Temp T 20 °C Theta, Ø 1.024 Standard Oxygen Required, SOR = 17,326 lbs. O2/day 7,865 kg/d SOR Peaking Factor = 1 DESIGN SOR = 17,326 lbs. O2/day 7,865 kg/d AERATION SYSTEM SIZING Mass balance AOR BASIN DIMENSIONS Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Batches per day 4.00 per SBR Complete Cycle time 6.00 hrs. per basin Fill time at ADF 1.50 hrs. Anoxic Fill time 0.75 hrs. 50 % of FILL is anoxic. Aerated Fill 0.75 hrs. React time 2.25 hrs. 50 % of cycle is aerated. Denite time 0.25 hrs. Settle Time 0.75 hrs. 3.0 hrs. anoxic per cycle Decant time 0.50 hrs. Idle time 0.75 hrs. 3.0 hrs. aerated per cycle Aerator elevation 1.0 ft. 0.30 m Avg aerator submergence 18.8 ft. 5.73 m Total aeration time 3.00 hrs./cycle 12.0 hrs./basin/day SOR 361 lbs./hr/basin 164 kg/hr Normal gassing rate at ADF 1.2 SCFM / diffuser 0.03 m^3/min/dif Max gassing rate 2.4 SCFM / diffuser 0.07 m^3/min/dif Oxygen transfer efficiency (ADF) 35.7 % Design air flow 977 SCFM 28 m^3/m Diffusers required per basin 800 diffusers Grids / Racks per basin 1 Diffuser per rack / grid 800 Diffuser mixing energy 11.1 scfm/1000ft3 Diffuser density 0.22 scfm/ft2 Operating blowers = 1 per aerating basin Type of Blowers : = 1 1=PD, 2=Centrifugal, 3=Turbo Total Number of Blowers = 4 Air flow per blower = 977 SCFM 1,661 m^3/hr Inlet losses = 0.3 psig * 2.07 kPa 0.02 bar Net inlet pressure = 13.11 psia (absolute) 90.37 kPa 0.90 bar Discharge piping losses = 0.7 psig * 4.83 kPa 0.05 bar Losses at aerator = 0.75 psig 5.17 kPa 0.05 bar Total discharge pressure = 9.88 psig average 68.14 kPa 0.68 bar 9.98 psig maximum 68.78 kPa 0.69 bar 8.49 psig minimum 58.54 kPa 0.58 bar Site air flow required = 1,163 ICFM average 32.95 m^3/min Assumed blower efficiency = 68 % * BHp per blower = 57 BHp/Blower 42.8 BkW 45.6 kW @ 94% ME Blower BHp/aerating basin = 57 BHp/Basin 42.8 BkW 45.6 kW @ 94% ME DIFFUSED AERATION SYSTEM SIZING including a spare BLOWER SIZING DETAILS CYCLE TIMES Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Number of mixers 1 per basin Type of mixer: 1 1=Floating, 2=Submersible Hp per MG required 30 Total mixer energy req'd 20 Hp per basin Hp req'd per mixer 20 Hp per mixer Mixer size selected 25 Hp per mixer 18.7 BkW 19.8 kW @ 94% ME Total mixer BHp/basin 25 BHp/Mixer 18.7 BkW 19.8 kW @ 94% ME Cycles per day 16 Avg TWL to BWL volume 113,125 Gallons 428 cubic meters Max TWL to BWL volume 113,125 Gallons 428 cubic meters Decant time 0.50 hrs. 30 minutes Average decant flow 3,771 GPM 238 liters per second 1 Average flow per decanter 3,771 GPM 238 liters per second Dry solids (BOD estimate) 3,404 lbs/day 1,544 kg/d Solids concentration in WAS 0.85 % Total volume wasted per day 48,014 gallons per day 182 m3 / day Wasting frequency 4 per tank per day Volume wasted each period 3,001 gallons 11 m3 Length of each wasting period 10 minutes WAS pump rate 300 gpm 19 liters per second WAS pump discharge head 15 ft 4.6 meters WAS pump efficiency 65 % WAS pump BHp 1.7 BHp 1.3 kW Equipment BHp/basin Hours/day operating kW hr/day kW hr/annual SBR blowers 57.4 48 2057 750,667 SBR mixers 25.0 20 373 136,145 Cost of power per kWhr 0.05 Total 2,430 886,812 **Annual power cost $44,341 does not include corrections for motor efficiency, VFD losses, V-belt losses, or power factor *Denotes parameters assumed by Parkson. These parameters to be confirmed by Owner or Owner's representative MIXERS Number of decanters per basin DECANTERS SLUDGE WASTING POWER SUMMARY Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- EcoCycle SBR™ Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Whitefish, MT Jet Aeration Option Preliminary Design Proposal June 30, 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 2 June 30, 2016 Mr. Scott Anderson, P.E. Anderson-Montgomery Consulting Engineers Whitefish, MT Jet Aeration Option Parkson EcoCycle SBR™ Dear Mr. Anderson Thank you for your interest in Parkson's EcoCycle SBR™ treatment system. The EcoCycle SBR™ is an activated sludge treatment process which operates in a batch mode. The SBR process is ideal for organics removal, BNR, and ENR applications. Based upon the data provided for this project, we believe the EcoCycle SBR™ process is an ideal treatment selection. A number of equipment options and configurations can be used with the EcoCycle SBR™, all of which are designed to meet each project’s specific needs. Equipment selections most suitable for each application are dependent on variables such as effluent requirements, O&M costs, energy efficiency, expansion capabilities, and initial capital cost. Parkson welcomes the opportunity to discuss equipment options that will best meet the project requirements. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our equipment and services for this project. Should you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me at (913) 745- 1232. Sincerely, Brad Linsey Sr. Applications Engineer PARKSON CORPORATION An Axel Johnson, Inc. Company ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 3 1. Design Basis 1.1. Influent and Effluent Specifications The proposed system design is based on wastewater influent with the following characteristics: Table 1.1 – Design Influent flow requirements PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE Ave Daily Flow MGD 1.81 Peak Hourly Flow MGD 4.53 Table 1.2 - Influent Water Quality PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE Max WW Temperature Deg C 20 Minimum WW Temperature Deg C 8.1 BOD5 mg/L 330 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 200 NH3-N mg/L 21 TKN mg/L 41 Total Phosphorous (TP) mg/L 6 pH - 6 to 8 Table 1.3 - Effluent Water Quality PARAMETER UNITS QUALITY BOD5 mg/L 10 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 15 NH3-N mg/L 1.0 Total Nitrogen mg/L 8.0 Total Phosphorus mg/L 1.0 A process design spreadsheet has been attached which includes details regarding the process design, equipment sizing calculations, and estimated power costs. The calculations were utilized as the basis for the equipment that has been selected and included in this proposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 4 The design spreadsheet may include some assumed values that will need to be confirmed as the project moves forward. This proposal is contingent upon the following criteria: a. The wastewater will be pretreated to remove debris and grit. Fine screening is recommended. b. Sufficient alkalinity is present or will be added to allow uninhibited nitrification and pH of 6.5-8. c. The incoming oil and grease is below 100 mg/l. d. Chemical and metals concentrations are below toxic thresholds for organics and ammonia removal. e. Sufficient nutrients N, micronutrients) are present in the influent for biomass growth or will be added by the plant operating staff. f. A qualified operator will supervise plant activities and performance. 2. System Description The EcoCycle SBR™ is a fill and draw activated sludge process that operates in a batch mode. The SBR completes all unit process treatment steps within the reactors, eliminating the need for anaerobic or anoxic zones, RAS systems, and secondary clarifiers. The treatment is achieved using 5 primary steps. 2.1. ANOXIC FILL The SBR tanks are typically operated in series with one tank being filled at any given time. During anoxic fill, the influent valve is opened allowing raw influent to enter the basin. No aeration occurs during this period so that anaerobic and anoxic conditions are present to discourage the growth of filamentous bacteria. The anoxic condition also encourages the growth of well settling, facultative bacteria. Residual nitrate is removed creating anaerobic conditions that promote the growth of VFA’s and bio-P bacteria. During the later part of the anoxic fill, the aeration system is operated to allow the bacteria to begin metabolizing organic matter that was absorbed. This part of the fill period is AERATED FILL. SND (Simultaneous Nitrification / Denitrification) occurs during the aerated fill period since both anoxic and aerobic conditions exist. The high oxygen uptake creates an aerated anoxic condition where blowers are operated at full speed yet residual D.O. levels remain near zero. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 5 2.2. REACT Once the SBR reaches top water level or the designated fill time has been reached, the flow will be diverted to another SBR basin. Aeration and mixing occurs in the rector until complete biodegradation of organics has occurred. Since no flow enters the basin during react, no short circuiting of raw, untreated waste can occur. Dissolved oxygen is typically monitored during the react phase to determine when residual D.O. starts to form, indicating that oxygen demand for the batch has been satisfied and treatment is completed. Luxury uptake of phosphorous also occurs during the aeration step. For BNR or ENR applications, the aeration system can be cycled on / off to help promote denitrification. This can be a time based step or can be controlled using instrumentation such as ORP, ammonia analyzers, and nitrate analyzers. Carbon source for nitrate removal and metal salts for P precipitation (if required) are typically added during the un-aerated mix steps near the end of the react period. 2.3. SETTLE Following react, the SBR will begin a settle mode in which liquids / solids separation occurs. No influent enters the basin during this period allowing for a perfect quiescent condition. All of the reactor volume is used for solids separation. The settle period typically lasts for 45 minutes but is field adjustable through the operator setpoints. 2.4. DECANT The effluent withdrawal (Decant) begins once the settling period is finished. A floating decanter is used to maximize interface between the withdrawal ports and the settled biomass. The decanter is designed to remove effluent from below the water surface to prevent the inclusion of foam, scum, or floatables. Typical systems will have roughly 25%-35% of the basin contents removed from the upper portion of the reactor during the decant period. 2.5. IDLE The final step in the treatment process is the idle period. During idle, waste activated sludge is typically removed to maintain the correct biomass population in the reactor. The aeration and mixing system are typically not operated during idle and the reactor ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 6 simply waits for the next cycle to begin. An option to aerate during extended idle periods is provided through the control system. 3. System Components / Features 3.1. Flow Control Manifold (FCM) A Flow Control Manifold (FCM) is used to bring raw wastewater into the SBR reactor. The FCM is typically located with the bottom of the manifold 6” above the floor with a series of openings facing the floor. Raw influent is fed through the FCM which insures intimate contact between the raw influent and the settled biomass. The FCM also allows the influent to enter at a low velocity so the settled biomass is undisturbed in cases where fill and decant may occur simultaneously (such as during high sustained peaks and single tank operation). This same manifold is also used for multipoint sludge collection during the waste sludge step in some cases. 3.2. Floating Decanter The Parkson DynaCanter™ is a floating style decanter which utilizes a flex joint to allow vertical articulation. The decanter collects treated effluent from 16”-24” below the water surface to preclude foam, scum, or other floatables from the effluent. A series of check valves are provided in the decanter draw tube to isolate the effluent piping from the mixed liquor during mixing and aeration steps. A standard open / close valve is used in the effluent piping to control flow rate through the decanter. No electromechanical components are used inside the basin making operation and maintenance convenient for the operator. 3.3. DynaPhase Controls™ The Parkson DynaPhase Controls™ use constant level measurement analysis to determine rate of influent flows and adjusts treatment steps accordingly. During high flow events, this unique feature allows the system to dynamically adjust treatment steps based on actual flow rather than toggling between a normal mode and a storm mode. For example, if the plant is experiencing a 1.75X peaking factor, the control system will automatically cater cycle length and structure based on this specific flow. The DynaPhase Controls™ also include a first response feature in which the control system will automatically take a tank off line in the event of a primary equipment failure. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 7 3.4. VariOx™ Jet Aeration The Parkson VariOx™ aeration system is being recommended for this project. Jet aeration provides many benefits when used in activated sludge processes.  Materials of construction are FRP with stainless steel supports. Operational life is typically >25 years with no wear of jet nozzles. Oxygen transfer efficiency of the jets does not diminish over time.  Jets provide the ability to mix independent of aeration. This is a critical advantage for process control and a requirement in BNR and ENR applications.  The jets combine the functionality of diffused aeration and mechanical aeration since both pumps and blower are used. Alpha values in municipal wastewater are typically .85 or higher.  No maintenance is required on the FRP or stainless steel components making O&M simple and less costly.  No electromechanical components are located inside the reactors when dry pit pumps are used, allowing for ease of operation and maintenance. 4. Equipment and Services Provided Flow Control Manifolds: Four Model FCM14-3200 Manifolds shall be provided. Manifolds will be constructed of FRP with 304 stainless steel supports. Manifolds shall include adequate number and size of openings to reduce inlet velocities to <0.5 fps. Jet Aeration Manifolds: Four Model DD12/44A-20 VariOx™ aeration manifolds shall be provided. Each manifold will include twenty (20) jet aerators and will terminate with a 12” flanged connection. In-basin vertical air drop pipe is included and will terminate at the top of the tank wall, directly above the aeration header, with a 6” flanged connection (any in basin piping beyond these termination points shall be by others). Materials of construction shall be FRP utilizing vinyl ester resin. Pneumatic Flushout: Four Pneumatic Flushout Systems shall be provided. Each flushout system shall include riser pipe, discharge elbow, valve, and supports. The flushout riser pipe and valve shall be ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 8 Decanters: Four Model ED14-3800 DynaCanter™ Floating, Effluent Decanters shall be provided. Each decanter shall include 304 stainless steel supports and in-basin discharge piping. The in-basin discharge piping of the decanter shall terminate with a 14” flange for connection to the flanged wall penetration supplied by others. Jet Motive Liquid Pumps: Four Submersible Centrifugal Pumps shall be provided. Each pump will be selected to deliver 3,715 GPM at a total pump head of 20 ft. Each operating pump will be furnished complete with discharge connection, 30 ft. of power cable, thermal overload / seal failure protection, retrieval guide rails and guide rail brackets, 304 stainless steel lifting cable, and a 30 Hp, 460 volt, 3 ph, 60 hz, submersible motor. Blowers and Accessories: Four Rotary Positive Displacement Blowers (one as a standby) shall be provided. Each blower will be selected to deliver 910 SCFM at 8.7 PSIG. Each blower will be furnished complete with inlet filter, inlet silencer, discharge silencer, butterfly valve, check valve, pressure relief valve, base plate, V-belt with sheaves, and a 60 Hp, 1800 RPM, 460 volt, 3 ph, 60 hz, TEFC motor. Waste Sludge Pumps: Four Submersible Centrifugal Pumps shall be provided for sludge wasting. Each pump will be selected to deliver 300 GPM at a total pump head of 15 ft. Each pump will be furnished complete with elbow discharge connection, 30 ft. power cable, thermal overload / seal failure protection, retrieval guide rails and guide rail brackets, stainless steel lifting cable, and a 5.0 Hp, 460 volt, 3 ph, 60 hz, submersible motor. Valves: Valves shall be furnished as listed below. All automatic valves will have 120 volt single phase electric motor actuators. FRP Field Weld Material: FRP field wrap kits shall be provided to complete FRP field welds as identified on Parkson’s submittal drawings. Kits shall include FRP mat and woven roving, resin, catalyst, and gel coat. Labor for completing field joints shall be by the installing contractor. Function Quantity Size Type Operator Influent 4 14” Plug Electric Effluent 4 14” Butterfly Electric Air 4 6” Butterfly Electric Header Flushout 4 8” Plug Manual ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 9 Supports: Supports for the in-basin equipment supplied by Parkson and described in this proposal are included. Supports will be constructed of 304 Stainless Steel. Field welding of supports shall be by the installing contractor. Hardware: Anchor bolts, gaskets, and connecting hardware for mounting in-basin equipment supplied by Parkson are included. Anchor bolts and connecting hardware shall be 18-8 SS. Note: Hardware and gaskets at Parkson/Contractor interfacing flanged connections are not included and shall be provided by the installing contractor. D.O. Control: One D.O. probe with mounting bracket and one analyzer shall be provided for each SBR basin. Process Control Panel: A control panel capable of directing operation of components listed in this proposal shall be provided. Control features shall include the following:  NEMA 12 Enclosure  Analog I/O modules as required  Digital I/O modules as required  10% spare I/O of each type  Allen Bradley PLC  Operator Interface  Control / Monitoring of Proposed Equipment and Instrumentation  HOA / OCA Switches  LED Lights  Modem  Submersible Pressure Transducers for Each SBR Basin (including stilling well)  Emergency TWL Float  DynaPhase Controls™ Software  D.O. blower control feature On-Site Service: Field service shall be provided for dry inspection, wet start up, O&M training, and follow up training. A total of four trips / twelve (12) man days of service are included. Additional service can be provided at Parkson’s daily field service rates. Submittals and O&M Manuals: Submittals and O&M Manuals shall be provided as required by the project specifications. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 10 5. Cost Estimate and Terms Budget price for equipment and Freight terms are FOB jobsite, offloading by others. Taxes are not included. Terms are 10% Submittals, 80% Shipment, 10% Start up (NTE 180 days from Shipment). Approval drawings: 6-10 weeks after receipt of written order.* Equipment Shipment: 16-20 weeks after complete release for manufacture.* *Schedules will be verified at time of Order. 6. Clarifications / Exclusions Decanter wall spools must be cast in place or supported with additional bracing if link seals are used. All equipment is quoted with manufacturer’s standard coatings. Chemical feed equipment has not been included. Any requirements for addition of metal salts, carbon source, alkalinity, nutrients, or micronutrients shall be by others. If blower sound enclosures are used, contractor shall be responsible for providing 120 volt power source if required. This proposal is based on providing Parkson’s standard SBR control program. Additional programming for other equipment or upgrades to standard hardware formats can be provided at additional cost. SCADA / PC graphics packages are available if not already included in this proposal. A minimum of 3.5 ft of static head differential (plus pipe friction losses) between SBR BWL and water level at discharge elevation must be provided for the decanter to function properly. Outlet at effluent pipe discharge must be constantly submerged or provided with an upturned elbow to prevent air from entering the effluent piping. Out of basin air and liquid piping are not included. In basin air piping between air drops (if used) is by others. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.parkson.com Parkson Corporation Confidential 11 Concrete must be designed to accommodate 6” anchor bolts. Unless specified in the controls section of this proposal, valve power through the SBR control panel has not been included. Contractor/Owner shall be responsible for providing freeze protection. All welding shall be per AWS standards only (ASME standards, if required, may result in additional cost). MCC, VFD’s, and motor starters are by others. 7. Supplemental Information and References EcoCycle SBR™ design Calculations ---PAGE BREAK--- Designer: Date: Flow (ADF) 1.81 MGD average 6,843 m^3/d Flow (PHF) 4.53 MGD * 17,146 m^3/d mg/l lbs/d kg/d mg/l lbs/d kg/d BOD 330 4,977 2,257 BOD 10 151 68.4 * COD 578 8,710 3,950 COD NR NR NR TSS 199 2,997 1,359 TSS 15 226 102.6 TKN 41 624 283 TKN NR NR NR NH4-N 21 316 143 NH3-N Sum 1 15 6.8 * TN 41 624 283 NH3-N Win 1 15 6.8 P 6 90 41 TN 8 121 54.7 * TDS 500 7,539 3,419 P 1 15 6.8 * Inert TSS fraction 40 % Alum or ferric chloride addition req'd Winter WW Temperature (min.) 8.1 °C 47 °F Summer WW Temperature (max) 20 °C 68 °F Average WW Temperature 14.05 °C 57 °F Elevation 2,500 ft 762 m Average barometric pressure 13.41 psia* 92 kPa Winter Air Temperature -12 °C 10 °F Summer Air Temperature 38 °C 100 °F Design MLSS 3,500 mg/l @ TWL Design MLSS 4,225 mg/l @ BWL Hydr. Retention Time provided 1.46 days 35.0 hours Aerobic Sludge Age (SRTox) 11.3 days System SRT 22.6 days Biosolids growth rate 0.22 gVSS/gCODr/d 0.45 gVSS/gBODr/d F:M (adjusted for aeration 0.23 0.13 System F:M 0.06 Avg biosolids yield 2,172 lbs./day* 985 kg/d Avg net sludge yield (bio+inerts) 2,933 lbs/d based on CODr* 1,330 kg/d 3,404 lbs/d based on BODr* 1,544 kg/d Mass aerobic MLSS req'd 38,464 lbs 17,444 kgs Mass aerobic volume req'd 1.32 MG 4,988 m^3 Aerated portion of day 50.0 % Required total SBR volume 2.64 MG 9,975 m^3 SITE CONDITIONS Whitefish, MT Jet Aeration Option INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS KBB 6/29/2016 EcoCycle SBR™ Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Design Outline PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Number of SBR basins 4 Rectangular Dimensions: Length/Width Ratio 1.8 : 1 Length 88 ft. 26.85 m Width 50 ft. 15.24 m Round Dimensions Diameter 75 ft. 22.83 m Top Water Level 20.0 ft. 6.10 m Bottom Water Level 16.6 ft. 5.05 m TWL at Design Average Flow 20.0 ft. 6.10 m Total Volume in SBR's 2.64 MG 9,975 m^3 Total Retention Time in SBR 35.0 hrs. First Estimate : lbs. O2/lb. BOD removed 1.25 kg O2/kg BOD removed lbs. O2/lb. TKN oxidized 4.6 kg O2/kg TKN oxidized lbs. O2/lb. NO3x denitrified -2.86 Denitrification Credit 60 % Actual Oxygen Req'd, AOR 7,289 lbs. O2/day 3,305 kg/d Second Estimate : AOR = CODi - CODw - CODes + 4.6*TKNox - 2.86*NO3Ndn where : CODi influent = 8,710 lbs./day 3,950 kg/d CODw wasted = 2,606 lbs./day 1,182 kg/d CODes eff soluble = 980 lbs./day 444 kg/d TKNox** oxidized = 435 lbs./day 197 kg/d NO3Ndn denitrified = 189 lbs./day 86 kg/d 6,592 lbs./day 2,990 kg/d Use highest estimate DESIGN AOR = 7,289 lbs/day 3,305 kg/d Conversion Formula from ASCE Manual of Practice : SOR = AOR * Cs a * (ßCsd - DO) * Ø^(T-20) Cs = DO saturation at Stnd Conditions Csd = DO saturation at design conditions = 9.092*(1+0.4*D/34) Cst = DO saturation@liquid Temp & 1 sea level = 11.23 mg/l where : = Cst*(Fe+0.4*D/34) = 9.07 mg/l 293.15 ElevFactor Fe = 0.91 Therefore, Csd = 10.39 mg/l Alpha, a 0.85 * SWD, D 20.0 ft D.O., mg/l 2.0 mg/l Beta, ß 0.95 * WW Temp T 20 °C Theta, Ø 1.024 Standard Oxygen Required, SOR = 12,232 lbs. O2/day 5,552 kg/d SOR Peaking Factor = 1 DESIGN SOR = 12,232 lbs. O2/day 5,552 kg/d AERATION SYSTEM SIZING BASIN DIMENSIONS Mass balance AOR Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Batches per day 4.00 per SBR Complete Cycle time 6.00 hrs. per basin Fill time at ADF 1.50 hrs. Anoxic Fill time 0.75 hrs. 50 % of FILL is anoxic. Aerated Fill 0.75 hrs. React time 2.25 hrs. 50 % of cycle is aerated. Denite time 0.25 hrs. Settle Time 0.75 hrs. 3.0 hrs. anoxic per cycle Decant time 0.50 hrs. Idle time 0.75 hrs. 3.0 hrs. aerated per cycle Aerator elevation 2.5 ft. 0.76 m Nozzle Angle 25 ° Avg aerator submergence 17.3 ft. 5.27 m Total aeration time 3.00 hrs./cycle 12.0 hrs./basin/day SOR 255 lbs./hr/basin 116 kg/hr Normal gassing rate at ADF 45.5 SCFM / jet 1.29 m^3/min/jet Max gassing rate 91.0 SCFM / jet 2.58 m^3/min/jet Oxygen transfer efficiency (ADF) 27.1 % Design air flow 910 SCFM 26 m^3/m Jets required per basin 20.0 Model 44 A Jets Add'l jets for mixing 0 Total jets per basin 20.0 Jet headers per basin 1 Type : D D = Dual, S = Single Jets per header 20 Model 44 A Jets Operating blowers = 1 per aerating basin Type of Blowers : = 1 1=PD, 2=Centrifugal, 3=Turbo Total Number of Blowers = 4 Air flow per blower = 910 SCFM 1,546 m^3/hr Inlet losses = 0.3 psig * 2.07 kPa 0.02 bar Net inlet pressure = 13.11 psia (absolute) 90.37 kPa 0.90 bar Discharge piping losses = 0.7 psig * 4.83 kPa 0.05 bar Losses at aerator = 0.1 psig 0.69 kPa 0.01 bar Total discharge pressure = 8.58 psig average 59.18 kPa 0.59 bar 8.68 psig maximum 59.82 kPa 0.60 bar 7.19 psig minimum 49.58 kPa 0.49 bar Site air flow required = 1,083 ICFM average 30.67 m^3/min Assumed blower efficiency = 68 % * BHp per blower = 48 BHp/Blower 35.4 BkW 37.7 kW @ 94% ME Blower BHp/aerating basin = 48 BHp/Basin 35.4 BkW 37.7 kW @ 94% ME JET AERATION SYSTEM SIZING including a spare BLOWER SIZING DETAILS CYCLE TIMES Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Number of pumps 1 per basin Type of Pumps : 2 1=Dry pit, 2=Submersible, 3=Axial flow Total number of pumps 4 Design pressure at nozzle 18 ft. 5.3 m Flow per nozzle 186 GPM 11.7 l/s Flow per pump 3,715 GPM 234.3 l/s System headloss 2 ft.* 0.6 m Total pump head 20 ft. 5.9 m Assumed pump efficiency 70 % * BHp per pump 26 BHp/Pump 19.5 BkW 20.7 kW @ 94% ME Total pump BHp/basin 26 BHp/Basin 19.5 BkW 20.7 kW @ 94% ME Cycles per day 16 Avg TWL to BWL volume 113,000 Gallons 428 cubic meters Max TWL to BWL volume 113,000 Gallons 428 cubic meters Decant time 0.50 hrs. 30 minutes Average decant flow 3,767 GPM 238 liters per second 1 Average flow per decanter 3,767 GPM 238 liters per second Dry solids (BOD estimate) 3,404 lbs/day 1,544 kg/d Solids concentration in WAS 0.85 % Total volume wasted per day 48,017 gallons per day 182 m3 / day Wasting frequency 4 per tank per day Volume wasted each period 3,001 gallons 11 m3 Length of each wasting period 10 minutes WAS pump rate 300 gpm 19 liters per second WAS pump discharge head 15 ft 4.6 meters WAS pump efficiency 65 % WAS pump BHp 1.7 BHp 1.3 kW Equipment BHp/basin Hours/day operating kW hr/day kW hr/annual SBR blowers 47.5 48 1701 620,946 SBR jet pumps 26.1 52 1014 370,006 Cost of power per kWhr 0.05 Total 2,715 990,952 **Annual power cost $49,548 does not include corrections for motor efficiency, VFD losses, V-belt losses, or power factor *Denotes parameters assumed by Parkson. These parameters to be confirmed by Owner or Owner's representative POWER SUMMARY JET MOTIVE PUMPS Number of decanters per basin DECANTERS SLUDGE WASTING Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Whitefish, MT Present Worth Comparison Interest Rate) Fine Bubble SBR Present Item Worth 0 1 2 3 4 5 Initial Capital $975,000 $975,000 Annual Power Cost $508,591 $44,341 $46,558 $48,885 $51,330 $53,897 Annual Maintenance Cost $57,350 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Diffuser Replacement $101,740 $50,000 $1,642,681 Jet Aeration SBR Present Item Worth 0 1 2 3 4 5 Initial Capital $975,000 $975,000 Annual Power Cost $568,316 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 Annual Maintenance Cost $57,350 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Motive Pump Rebuild $17,404 $1,618,070 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $44,341 $46,558 $48,885 $51,330 $53,897 $44,341 $46,558 $48,885 $51,330 $53,897 $44,341 $46,558 $48,885 $51,330 $53,897 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $49,548 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year Year