LCA/ CITy OF ALLENTOWN - Home | Lehigh County Authority...PMTF Plastic Media Trickling Filter RMTF Rock Media Trickling Filter RO Reverse-Osmosis TDS Total Dissolved Solids TN Total

May 2016

Wastewater Capacity Program Sewage Facilities Plan (Act 537 Plan)

INTERIM FINAL REPORT

LCACITy OF ALLENTOWN

LCA 537 PLAN

1 OCTOBER 2016

CONTENTS

Page No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4 KEY FINDINGShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5

RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UPhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6 2013 Studies

bull IPP Effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Assessmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7 bull Discharge to Jordan Creekhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7 bull Discharge by Land Applicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8 bull KIWWTP Expansionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8 bull Preliminary Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2014 Studies

bull DRBC Projected Effluent Limits for KIWWTPhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10 bull Living Filter Land Application Evaluationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11 bull Conveyance Evaluationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12 bull KIWWTP Modeling and Optimizationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13 bull 2nd Year (2014) 537 Plan Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

bull TDS Analysis and Source Controlhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15 bull Supplemental Land Application Evaluationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip16 bull Dry Weather Conveyance Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip16 bull Flow and Load Projections and 4 MGD Expansion Timinghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip17 bull 3rd Year (2015) 537 Plan Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18 bull DEP Contactshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip19

LCA 537 PLAN

2 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

APPENDIX I DEP letter ndash Jordan Creek APPENDIX IIa LCA 537 Tech Memo (121913) APPENDIX IIb LCA 537 Status Meeting (111113) APPENDIX IIIa DRBC Memorandum (22814) APPENDIX IIIb DRBC Meeting Minutes and NH3 Proposal APPENDIX IIIc LCA Expansion ndash DRBC Winter Load Limits Final (22715) APPENDIX IV Living Filter (Dr Parizek) APPENDIX V LCA Conveyance Tech Memo (63015) APPENDIX VIa Intro and Section 2 Flows and Loadings APPENDIX VIb Process Modeling APPENDIX VIc Costs APPENDIX VId Mass Flow Evaluation and Mass Flow Diagrams APPENDIX VII Project Status Meeting (121514) APPENDIX VIII TDS ndash Source Control Memo (6213) APPENDIX IX Presentation ndash LCA Board (11915)

LCA 537 PLAN

3 OCTOBER 2016

Glossary of Acronyms amp Terms

AO Administrative Order

BAFS Biological Aerated Filters

CEPT Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

IPP Industrial Pre-treatment Plant

KISS Model Klinersquos Island Sewer System Model

KIWWTP Klinersquos Island Wastewater Treatment Plant

LOS Level of Service

MF Micro-Filtration

MGD Millions of Gallons per Day

NPV Net Present Value

NH3-N Ammonia Nitrogen

PMTF Plastic Media Trickling Filter

RMTF Rock Media Trickling Filter

RO Reverse-Osmosis

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

LCA 537 PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In early 2013 anticipating a 4 MGD growth in the LCA service area the Lehigh County Authority in cooperation with the City of Allentown commissioned ARRO Consulting and their teaming partner AECOM to prepare a Sewage Facilities Plan (Act 537 Plan) The scope of the 537 Plan involved

bull Updating projections of combined Allentown and LCA service area growth bull Updating projected effluent limitations bull Evaluating treatment alternatives to accommodate a 4 MGD expansion bull Evaluating conveyance costs for the treatment alternatives bull Conducting Public Outreach to obtain stakeholder input bull Identifying a preferred approach

Previous capacity studies (April 2007)(December 2007) identified 4 alternatives for accommodating a 4 MGD expansion

1 Expand conveyance to the Klinersquos Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (KIWWTP) and expand the plant by 4 MGD to 44 MGD capacity

2 Upgrade the LCA Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) to produce an effluent meeting direct discharge requirements and discharge via Land Application

3 Upgrade the LCA Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) to produce an effluent meeting direct discharge requirements and convey and discharge to Jordan Creek and

4 Upgrade the LCA Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) to produce an effluent meeting direct discharge requirements and convey and discharge to the Lehigh River

These previous studies had identified direct discharge to Jordan Creek and expanding the KIWWTP as first and second choices respectively based on Net Present Value (NPV) NPVs are calculated by discounting future OampM costs to the present and adding capital costs so that the combination of capital and operating costs are reflected in a single number All of the NPVs are negative ie they represent net present costs as there are no revenues to offset capital or operating costs so the lower the NPV the more attractive it is Table 1 summarizes these results Table 1

Alternative (Dollars in millions) Capital PV OampM NPV Expand KIWWTP 625 105 730 Direct Discharge - Land Application 712 142 853 Direct Discharge - Jordan Creek 593 101 694 Direct Discharge ndash Lehigh River 962 106 1068

LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

Over the 2013 -2015 period a number of studies were undertaken to support 537 Plan development Details of these studies and their findings are chronicled in the following sections A summary follows Key Findings From an overall findings standpoint several findings standout

bull The IPP has a very high influent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) content comprised of sodium salts TDS normally passes through traditional wastewater treatment and is cost-prohibitive to remove Direct discharge of a high TDS effluent to either land application or the Jordan River would create Secondary Drinking Water Standards compliance issues which render them impracticable and leaving only conveyance to and expansion of the KIWWTP and upgrading the IPP to direct discharge and conveyance to the Lehigh River as alternatives

bull An examination of innovative treatment technology alternatives for a KIWWTP 4 MGD expansion led to the finding that the capital cost could be reduced by approximately 20 such that the cost of a KIWWTP expansion was essentially equivalent to the cost of upgrading the IPP for direct discharge

bull It became clear that the wet weather compliance program that is being carried out concurrently with 537 Plan development effort overshadows the 537 Planning with respect to conveyance and the alternatives for a 4 MGD expansion should be viewed as an incremental expansion to the conveyance expansions required to achieve wet weather compliance Most of the conveyance system piping needs to be expanded and the incremental cost of enlarging conveyance piping to accommodate an additional 4 MGD is only $7 million ($84 million including incremental expansion of the Park Pump Station) in comparison to a $41 million cost for constructing a pump station and force main to convey to the Lehigh River

bull Table 2 below summarizes these costs Table 2

$ in millions Convey all Flow to KIWWTP

Convey all Flows Tributary to IPP to Lehigh (Force Main)

Incrementally expanded Park Pump Station and Conveyance

84 ndash

Force Main to Lehigh for all Flows Tributary

ndash 407

4 MGD KIWWTP expansion 262 ndash Upgrade IPP to direct discharge ndash 255 TOTAL 346 662

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

bull Detailed flow projections were developed which indicated that LCA would not exceed its capacity allocation at the KIWWTP until 2025 and that the KIWWTP would not reach its current 40 MGD design capacity until considerably thereafter

bull The wet weather compliance program is still under active development and the preliminary findings relied on in 537 Planning may change considerably and

bull The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) recommended a 537 Plan submission be delayed until the wet weather compliance program development is complete because any Plan completed now would most likely need to be redone and there is no immediate pressure to complete 537 Planning now

Recommended Follow-up Assuming a 5 year schedule for planning design and construction of a KIWWTP expansion it is recommended that reactivation of 537 planning be tentatively slated for 2020 This would be 5 years before projected LCA service area growth would exceed its current KIWWTP allocation Flow increases should be monitored and early achievement of 2020 projected flows be treated as a triggering point for resumption of 537 planning This approach has a built in contingency mechanism that makes it forgiving and workable should a further ahead-of-projection service area flow increases occur such that LCArsquos KIWWTP allocation is exceeded before an expansion is completed the current signatory allocation agreement provides for exceedance penalties to be paid to the other signatories which would not exceed the expected debt service on a KIWWTP expansion up to a 28 flow exceedance over the current 1078 MGD allocation See Appendix IX for calculations

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

2013 STUDIES Preliminary 537 Plan work focused on updating projected effluent limitation criteria for Jordan Creek and the Lehigh River while projections for future growth in the Allentown and LCA service areas were being developed IPP Effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Assessment A review of IPP effluent quality records uncovered a heretofore unaddressed issue the IPP effluent has an unusually high TDS content Only limited data were available as of 2013 which dated back to 2009-10 but this data indicated that TDS levels were on the order of 1300 milligramsLiter (mgL) with a rising trend AECOM developed a supplemental sampling plan which LCA carried out to confirm TDS levels Sampling in in 2013 found TDS levels of 1800 mgL or over 3 times the Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgL This increase was attributed to the growing level of industrially-sourced influent at the IPP Since the IPP effluent is conveyed to the KIWWTP where it is diluted to below 500 mgL there is no issue with respect to current operations however this finding had major implications for the prospect of direct discharge of the IPP depending on the alternative to be adopted Discharge to Jordan Creek Discussions with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) led to a letter from the DEP (Appendix I) clarifying the hydrogeological study requirements that would be needed to determine if Jordan Creek is a ldquogainingrdquo or ldquolosingrdquo stream and that if it is a losing stream at the point of discharge the discharge would have to meet Pennsylvania Class A Reclaimed Water standards These standards would require considerable upgrading to the IPP to provide for nitrification denitrification and filtration Furthermore TDS would have to meet the Federal Secondary Drinking water standard of a maximum TDS concentration of 500 mgL To reflect these requirements ARRO developed the scope cost and schedule for the required Hydrogeologic study and AECOM developed preliminary cost estimates for the additional treatment required (over nitrification denitrification and filtration) to reduce TDS to below the 500 mgL limit The Hydrogeological study was estimated to take several years at a cost on the order of $500000 with a questionable likelihood that the study would produce results justifying a relaxation of the effluent standards TDS is not removed in conventional wastewater treatment rather it represents a pass-through what comes in with the raw influent leaves with the effluent To remove TDS Micro-Filtration (MF) followed by Reverse Osmosis (RO) is required AECOMrsquos preliminary estimate for adding MF + RO indicated that the NPV (cost) for the Jordan Creek alternative would increase by $33 million to over $100 million Moving it from first

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

to a distant third in terms of relative attractiveness only slightly better than the most costly alternative of direct discharge to the Lehigh River The estimated $33 million increase reflects both a high capital cost and a high operating cost primarily due to the high power requirements to operate RO Discharge by Land Application The basis for Land Application of IPP effluent selected in studies prior to the 537 Plan was drip irrigation of agricultural lands relatively close to the IPP To facilitate drip irrigation filtration of the IPP effluent was required The capital cost associated with filtration resulted in a NPV $12 - $15 million higher than the Jordan Creek and KIWWTP Expansion alternatives Spray irrigation has a lower cost to establish the spray fields than drip irrigation and does not require filtration at the IPP however eastern Pennsylvania spray irrigation was traditionally limited to the growing season Since the IPP operates year-round to land apply only during the growing season would require 4 months of effluent storage At 4 MGD 480 million gallons of storage would be required The cost of providing this storage increased the cost of a spray irrigation-based land application system above the cost of the drip-based system As part of a technology review AECOM identified a land application program at State College Pennsylvania operated by Penn State that has been successfully operating for several decades using year-round spray irrigation which they called a ldquoLiving Filterrdquo Living Filter refers to the management of agricultural operations and crop rotation to facilitate nitrogen uptake thereby reducing the requirements for TN removal at the IPP and providing a beneficial reuse Adopting the Living Filter approach an LCA system would not need filtration at the IPP or 4 months of storage raising the prospect of reducing capital cost by approximately $20 million and making land application a preferred alternative Based on this finding the focus of evaluating land application shifted to evaluating the concept of adopting the Penn State Living Filter approach KIWWTP Expansion The largest uncertainty with respect to the KIWWTP was what effluent standards would be imposed by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) The KIWWTP is currently ldquograndfatheredrdquo under DBRC regulations Under these regulations an expansion or material change to the facility would trigger imposition of tighter standards Establishing new standards is interdependent with the collective loadings contributed to the River Basin by all discharges and governed by a ldquono backslidingrdquo policy with respect to River quality The DRBC uses a basin-wide model to assess the impact of changes in an individual discharge An assessment for a potential KIWWTP expansion was made in 2010 however it was generally recognized that the basin-wide model needed updating Recognizing the importance of updating and firming prospective DRBC-imposed KIWWTP effluent limits LCA agreed to contribute the cost of updating the model for the purpose of obtaining an opinion from DRBC as to prospective effluent

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

limits (This is only an opinion as legally binding limits are only set through opening a docket and obtaining a formal determination) The results of the basin-wide modeling update were received in late 2014 and subsequently factored into KIWWTP evaluations Preliminary Findings In late 2013 these preliminary findings were summarized in a memorandum with the recommendation to defer further pursuit of the Jordan Creek alternative pending development of the more preferred alternatives and a presentation on the status of 537 Planning was made to LCA Staff and the Board This memorandum and the associated presentation are provided in Appendix II The memorandumrsquos recommendations for re-focusing the 537 Plan development effort were

bull Defer further evaluation of direct discharge to Jordan Creek bull Conduct an effluent sampling program at the IPP to determine the constituents

that contribute to the observed high TDS for the purpose of evaluating source control as a potential lower cost means of reducing TDS

bull Develop a sophisticated model of the KIWWTP for the purpose of optimizing and cost-reducing the capital cost of a 4 MGD expansion The GPS-X (Hydromantis) modeling platform was recommended Once a calibrated and validated model is developed alternate process configurations and treatment technologies can be quickly evaluated to sort through and confirm an optimized approach

bull Evaluate the ldquoLiving Filterrdquo approach to land application by engaging Dr Richard Parizek who was instrumental in developing and refining the Penn State program over a 3 decades-long effort and

bull Initiate evaluation of conveyance cost for conveying the additional 4 MGD to KIWWTP This was one of the more uncertain costs in previous evaluations and required refinement This evaluation had been deferred while awaiting further development of the collection system models (LCA and the City of Allentown were developing individual models for their systems) By late 2013 it was judged that modeling had reached sufficient precision for the purposes of selecting a preferred expansion alternative

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

2014 STUDIES DRBC Projected Effluent Limits for KIWWTP DRBCrsquos completed a basin-wide model update an issued an initial opinion of prospective effluent standards on February 28 2014 A request for clarifications led to a July 28 2014 meeting to resolve remaining uncertainties The only unresolved issue coming out of the July 28 meeting was the appropriate wintertime ammonia standard The DRBC basin-wide model is focused on and validated with summertime conditions so a winter standard is somewhat arbitrary DRBCrsquos initial position was that the wintertime ammonia limit (ldquowinterrdquo defined as the 7-month period from October 1st to April 30th) should be the same differential (a 17 multiplier) between summer and winter historical averages applied as a multiplier to the new prospective model-based summertime standard This was challenged as only acceptable if the wintertime limit was based on a full 7 month average consistent with how the wintersummer differential was derived as opposed to the DRBC norm of monthly average limits After some further dialog resolution was reached in early 2015 with the DRBC electing to stay with a monthly limit but relaxing the multiplier to 30 the same (more defensible) summer-winter multiplier applied by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection This final determination was communicated in an email memorandum transmitted February 27 2015 In order to move forward with modeling and optimization studies for the KIWWTP during this extended dialog the more stringent standard 17 multiplier standard was used as a reference The February 28 2014 Memo minutes from the July 28 2014 meeting with relevant correspondence and the February 27 2015 final opinion memo (email) from DRBC are attached as Appendix III The following table shows DRBCrsquos 2010 opinion of prospective effluent limits (draft limits) triggered by a 4 MGD expansion to the KIWWTP compared with the 2014 opinion of prospective effluent limits (summertime monthly averages) Table 3 Parameter (mgL) 2010 Draft Limits (lbsday) 2014 Draft Limits (lbsday) Total Phosphorus (TP) 457 1092 Ammonia (NH3-N) 698 439 Total Nitrogen (TN) (no limit specified) 6463 The primary focus of KIWWTP modeling and optimization was focused on achieving the ammonia standard as it is the most stringent on a relative basis and requires more capital intensive modifications to meet It should be noted that the DRBC actually relaxed the draft Total Phosphorus limit between 2010 and 2014 The 2010 results were challenged as based on an assumed

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

historical discharge when actual TP discharges were considerably higher Actual discharges were documented and the DRBC responded with the relaxed draft limit Living Filter Land Application Evaluations Land application was evaluated in two studies prior to the initiation of 537 Planning (February 13 2012)(December 2007) These studies identified 8 potential agricultural land application sites within a 3 mile radius of the IPP The initial assessment was that two or three of these sites could collectively accept 4 MGD of upgraded IPP effluent ARROAECOM engaged the services of Dr Richard Parizek Emeritus Professor of Geology and Geo-Environmental Engineering The Pennsylvania State University to evaluate these sites with two objectives

bull Determine the suitability of these sites to be utilized for land-application using year-round spray irrigation ie using the Penn State Living Filter approach which he was instrumental in developing and refining over a 3-decade period and

bull Assess the potential for natural recharge (net of precipitation minus evapotranspiration) to provide dilution of the high TDS content of the IPP effluent to 500 mgL Note that this was not a consideration in the pre-537 Plan studies as the high TDS content was not addressed Because TDS above 1000 mgL can compromise farming operations Dr Parizek used this value for the TDS content of the IPP effluent with the understanding that an at that time undefined source control program would reduce the TDS down to that level

Dr Parizek toured the 8 potential sites and based on area topography and observed outcroppings identified two more promising sites located near each other on opposite sides of Interstate 78 and just west of Route 100 for further evaluation As it turns out the geology and topography in the vicinity of the IPP have similar make-ups to that of the region surrounding State College so much of Dr Parizekrsquos experience was directly relevant Dr Parizek selected the two sites for further study based on available area with acceptable gradients hummocky terrain (which aids infiltration and minimizes the potential for runoff) and the availability of buffers between the land application site and receptors (drinking water wells and gaining streams) Dr Parizek revisited the two sites to catalog receptors and evaluate surrounding lands for potential to contribute dilution from recharge and studied available information from well logs and topographical and soil mapping data His found that the site south of Interstate 78 would only support 04 MGD of ldquoliving filterrdquo spray irrigation ndash too small for development but the site north of Interstate 78 could support 15 MGD of ldquoliving filterrdquo spray irrigation

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

While 15 MGD falls well short of the capability to handle 4 MGD of expansion it raises the prospect of implementing Living Filter land application as a means of deferring a 4 MGD expansion of KIWWTP or reducing the size of a KIWWTP expansion To evaluate this prospect AECOM utilized cost data from previous studies to estimate the capital cost per MGD for a 15 MGD land application program By normalizing cost to millions of gallons per day (MGD) treated the relative attractiveness of proceeding with a more limited land application program to defer or reduce the size of an expansion at the KIWWTP was assessed Table 4 Alternative Scope Capital Cost

(2014 Dollars) (millions)

Capital cost per MGD treated (millions)

15 MGD Land Application Interstate 78-North Site

Pump Station Force Main Limited

Storage Spray Irrigation System

$183 $1217

4 MGD KIWWTP Expansion

Expanded Conveyance Upgrades at KIWWTP

$346 $865

Based on AECOM recommended cost-reducing technology This analysis led to the conclusion that there was no justification for implementing a smaller scale land application program Dr Parizek prepared a report with the details of his findings which is attached as Appendix IV Conveyance Evaluations As a result of the Jordan Creek and Land Application direct discharge alternatives being found disfavored due to TDS concerns effort focused on a comparison between the alternatives for conveyance to KIWWTP versus diversion of all flow tributary to the IPP with conveyance and discharge to the Lehigh River Diversion of all flows was assumed not just an additional 4 MGD to provide the greatest relief to the already wet weather-challenged conveyance system with a cost-effective incremental increase in pipe size for conveyance of all flows to direct discharge to the Lehigh River The analysis targeted achievement of the LCA wet weather level of service (LOS) defined as a maximum water surface at least three feet below the manhole rim in pipes 18-inch diameter or greater for a 10-year storm Modeling of alternatives in support of this analysis was conducted by ARCADIS using the KIWWTP Sewer System (KISS) model This model was developed by combining previously-existing models of the LCA and City of Allentown systems

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

Alternatives included the following

bull Conveyance improvements to move all flow to KIWWTP (Alt 10) bull Conveyance improvements assuming diversion of all flows tributary to the IPP to

the Lehigh (Alt 12a) bull Conveyance improvements assuming diversion of all flows tributary to the IPP

but with three upstream storage tanks provided to reduce the scope of pipe upsizing needed (Alt 12b)

The following table summarizes the conveyance costs associated with these alternatives Table 5 Capital Cost in millions

Alt 10 ndash All flows to Klinersquos Island

Alt 12a ndash Upgrade IPP amp Force Main to Lehigh River

Alt 12b ndash Same as 12a but storage to reduce pipe upsizing

Total $307 $338 $329 Difference vs Alt 10

ndash $31 $22

Tapping fees for the 4 MGD expansion are not included in these numbers ARCADISrsquo nomenclatureAlternative labeling changed subsequent to the 2014 Study Alternate cost estimating yielded cost differences of $47 and $38 million respectively for Alt 10 versus Alts 12a and 12b so the table resolves uncerainty in favor of the 12a and 12b alternatives which still come out less preferred The most striking element of this table is the size of the estimated overall investment to achieve wet weather compliance (LOS) The corollary finding is that by ldquopiggybackingrdquo the increase in conveyance to accommodate an additional 4 MGD from the IPP on top of the increases in conveyance capacity required to achieve wet weather compliance (EPA Administrative Order) the incremental cost of conveying the incremental 4 MGD is reduced such that conveyance to and expansion of the KIWWTP is clearly favored The full derivation of the cost estimates presented above are contained in a Technical Memorandum ndash see Appendix V KIWWP Modeling and Optimization KIWWTP modeling was a primary thrust of the 537 Plan effort during 2014 Modeling is only valuable if rigorously calibrated (in the hands of an experienced modeler) using historical data then validated using a subsequent data set that was not used in calibration This takes considerable effort but paysoff quickly as many process simulations can be run quickly once calibration and validation are complete Studies prior to the 537 Plan (ldquoKIWWTP Expansion Evaluationrdquo ndash OMNI Environmental February 2011) identified an expansion approach based on installing Biological Aerated Filters (BAFS) downstream of the Plastic Media Trickling Filters (PMTFs) in parallel with

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

the Rock Media Trickling Filters (RMTFs) The capital cost estimate for this approach is $36 million (escalated from 2010 study to 2014) While this is an established approach AECOM focused on utilizing a more innovative but proven technology sidestream deammonification in conjunction with Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT) and partial replacement of the rock media in the RMTFs with plastic media to increase nitrification capacity Modeling simulations confirmed that this was a robust reliable approach that can meet the prospective more stringent DBRC effluent limits with the following advantages over BAFs

bull Lower capital cost -- $26 million a $10 million reduction bull Lower energy requirements bull Lower chemical requirements (supplemental carbon) bull Higher digester gas production (available for cogeneration) bull Ability to phase investment ndash An initial Phase One project of $20 million (25

replacement of rock media) should meet needs for a decade or more with a straightforward Phase Two $6 million capital investment (2014 dollars ndash increasing rock media replacement to 375) to reach full buildout

Modeling simulations produced the following projected effluent concentrations at the Phase One project level (25 media replacement) and at 50 media replacement Table 6 KIWWTP GPS-X Simulations For replacing rock with Plastic Media

Coldest Max Month (Winter -- 11 deg C)

Coldest Max Month (Summer ndash 14 deg C)

Ammonia DRBC Limit (mgL) 282 094 Replacing one quadrant (25 Replacement)

Replacing two quadrants (50 Replacement)

20 028

Mass Load limits converted to concentrations at a Max Month flow of 56 MGD The conservative nature of these simulations should be noted These 56 MGD Max Month simulations reflect the highest monthly flow expected in a very wet month that also coincides with the coldest temperatures expected at a point in time when annual average flow reaches 44 MGD This is not expected to be reached by the 537 planning horizon of 2035 based on geometric projections of historical growth Rather 44 MGD is not projected to be achieved until 2056 Since a future KIWWTP expansion appears to be a clear winner with respect to a preferred alternative to accommodate a 4 MGD increase in LCA flows development of the KIWWTP model has been carefully documented See Appendix VI for the complete report

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

2nd Year (2014) 537 Plan Findings The evaluations made and findings reached during 2014 (as discussed above) and recommendations for further study were presented to LCA and City of Allentown staff in December A streamlined version of the staff presentation was given to the Board that same month The more detailed staff presentation is attached as Appendix VII While the evaluations to date clearly pointed to proceeding with a 4 MGD expansion at KIWWTP several confirming studies were identified with guidance from LCA staff and the LCA Board which became the focus for 2015 studies

1 The high TDS content of the IPP effluent turned out to be one of the two most influential elements affecting selection of a preferred alternative for a 4 MGD expansion Investigation into source control as a potentially more cost-effective approach compared with the prohibitive cost of Reverse Osmosis (RO) was warranted

2 The benefits of ldquopiggybackingrdquo the increase in capacity to convey to the KIWWTP onto the much larger program to achieve the desired wet weather LOS were readily apparent however a dry weather analysis was needed to reinforce the findings and develop reference information that would provide guidance on allocating cost between the LCA signatories and

3 While the land application evaluation did not produce promising results considerable agricultural lands more distant from the IPP to the southwest had been identified that may contain sufficient acreage to develop a meaningful land application program Much of this land had the added advantage of being under agricultural preservation restrictions which would protect against pressures for urban development and loss of previously developed land application sites A Board member pointed out that this was a risk associated with the site north of Interstate 78

2015 STUDIES TDS Analysis and Source Control Extensive TDS sampling was conducted in 2014 not just measuring the TDS levels in IPP effluent but also contributions from the major industrialcommercial sources that discharge into to IPP collection system and additional IPP effluent sampling was conducted in 2015 These sampling events showed

bull While the 1800 mgL TDS level measured in 2013 may have been above average 2014-15 sampling showed that TDS was in the 1500-1600 range or three times the Federal Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgL

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

bull The five largest industrialcommercial dischargers contributed over 75 of the TDS in final effluent with the largest contributing over one-half of the IPP effluent TDS (Measured levels are reported by discharger in Appendix VII)

bull The majority of the TDS was comprised of sodium salts Sodium is undesirable for land application and cannot be removed by methods other than Reverse Osmosis

Based on these findings a source control study was initiated for the largest industrial discharger A Technical Memorandum documenting this investigation is attached as Appendix VIII The industrial discharger cooperated in the study by sharing chemical purchases and their uses within the facility The controlling finding was that the majority of the TDS came from the use of sodium salts in their process This use was diverse and integral to their process so there is no practicable means of controlling TDS generation at the source exists Dr Parizekrsquos 2014 land application investigations were based on a successful source control program reducing TDS to the 1000 mgL range The finding that it was highly unlikely that substantial reductions from the 1500 mgL level could be achieved further confirmed that land application would not be feasible without substantial acreage for recharge and dilution and raised the concern that the high sodium levels would compromise farming operations Supplemental Land Application Evaluation A limited investigation into the availability of substantial suitable acreage to the southwest of the IPP for land application was conducted Key findings are summarized as

bull 678 acres of deed restricted agricultural preservation land was identified to the southwest of the IPP however ten times that (approximately 7000 acres) would be required to provide sufficient recharge and dilution to meet the 500 mgL standard

bull An additional 3 miles of conveyance is required to reach the agricultural area to the southwest of the IPP which would add an additional $3 million in conveyance capital cost

These findings give rise to the virtually inescapable conclusion that land application is not viable without implementing Reverse Osmosis to reduce TDS levels If at a future date Reverse Osmosis is implemented for other reasons land application using a Living Filter approach can be revisited Dry Weather Conveyance Analysis ARCADIS ran additional simulations using their KISS model of the combined LCA and Allentown collection systems based on dry weather flows using the same scenarios ndash full diversion of flows tributary to the IPP and pumping via forcemain to the Lehigh

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

River compared to conveyance to the KIWWTP Analysis of these simulations using the same pipe sizing methodology employed for the wet weather analysis led to the following finding The capital cost difference between full diversion and conveyance to the KIWWTP favored conveyance to the KIWWTP by 3 to 7 $million reinforcing the finding arrived at in the wet weather analysis It should be noted that some conveyance pipe upsizing is required for dry weather flows without the 4 MGD expansion The derivation of this finding can be found it the conveyance alternatives technical memo Appendix V Table Y below is based on the higher estimate for Convey all Flows to KIWWTP and lower estimate for Lehigh Force Main (most favorable treatment for all flows tributary to IPP to Lehigh)

Appendix V Tables 8 10 and 11 for supporting information Even under the most favorable treatment for the Lehigh River direct discharge alternative and considering dry weather flows only conveyance of all flows to the KIWWTP and KIWWTP expansion is favored Flow and Load Projections and 4 MGD Expansion Timing In parallel with AECOMrsquos alternatives evaluations ARRO was working with the LCA and City of Allentown signatories to develop a long range flow projection for the IPP The details of this effort are reported separately The key findings are summarized below

bull Current LCA flows are only at 84 of its KIWWTP allocation of 1078 MGD bull Flows are expected to increase gradually and only reach allocation in 2025 bull Flows are not expected to increase to 4 MGD above current allocation until 2040

These findings are shown graphically below in Figure 1

$ in millions Convey all Flows to KIWWTP and Expand KIWWTP

Convey all Flows Tributary to IPP to Lehigh (Force Main) and Direct Discharge

Incremental expanded Park Pump Station and Conveyance

$368 ndash

ndash 407

4 MGD KIWWTP expansion $262 ndash Upgrade IPP to direct discharge ndash 255 TOTAL 630 662

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

The implications of these findings are that

1 There is time to let the preferred approach of ldquopiggybackingrdquo increased conveyance to the KIWWTP onto the wet weather compliance program This program involves continuing to refine the collection system modeling and examining and optimizing alternatives as the signatories work to reduce I amp I

2 A Phase One expansion of the KIWWTP is likely not needed within the next 10 years (Although tighter effluent limits may be triggered by a material change to the facility which would trigger all or part of the Phase One scope)

3rd Year (2015) 537 Plan Findings The findings of the cumulative work over the three year period 2013 to 2015 were summarized in a presentation to LCA and Allentown staff and the LCA Board and by year-end 2015 to representatives of both the LCA and Allentown signatories This presentation is attached as Appendix IX These findings led to the following recommended path forward

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

bull Defer pursuit of alternatives other than KIWWTP expansion bull Integrate conveyance capacity increase with Wet Weather (AO) program (there

is time to do so) bull Conduct public outreach to inform Stakeholders

DEP Contacts Subsequent to presenting the overall findings of 537 Planning to date in November 2015 follow-up contacts were made with the DEP to (a) reconfirm that the 500 mgL Secondary Drinking Water Standard for TDS could not be relaxed as part of a controlled land application program and (b) obtain guidance on proceeding with a 537 Plan contingent on the outcome of developing a firm wet weather compliance plan DEP provided the following guidance

1 The 500 mgL Secondary Drinking Water Standard could not be relaxed and would be applied at the point(s) of compliance ndash land application influence groundwater reaching drinking water wells or surfacing at gaining streams and

2 537 Planning including public comment would have to be repeated when modified by wet weather compliance implementation given that KIWWTP flows and loads are well below design capacity suspending 537 Planning until the wet weather program is better developed is advised

This latter guidance being consistent with the tentative conclusion reached by LCA staff has resulted in need to document the status of 537 work to date in preparation for suspending further study until the wet weather program is better developed andor service area growth militates reactivation This report is intended to satisfy the documentation requirement

APPENDIX

APPENDIX I DEP letter ndash Jordan Creek

APPENDIX IIa LCA 537 Tech Memo (121913)

AECOM 1700 Market Street Suite 1700 Philadelphia PA T 2153994370 F 2153994371 wwwaecomcom

Memorandum Date December 19 2013

To Ms Pat Mandes LCA

From Ralph Eschborn

Copy Robert Kerchusky LCA

William Bohner ARRO

Subject Lehigh County Authority 537 Plan 4 MGD Expansion Alternatives ndash Evaluations ndash Recommendations

Dear Pat

Based on our findings to date and guidance we received at the recent workshops held with the LCA staff and Board we recommend the following near-term actions and schedule Near-Term Actions

Defer further work on direct discharge to Jordan Creek ndash Based on the findings that ndash - The geological circumstances associated with discharge to Jordan Creek would require

a costly multi-year effort to determine if meeting secondary drinking water standards is avoidable

- A favorable determination is problematic given DEPrsquos stated position and - Meeting secondary drinking water standards through reverse osmosis in economically

highly disfavored as an alternative Jordan Creek is now a distant third or fourth choice in terms of attractiveness as an alternative for a 4 MGD expansion Accordingly no further work is planned until remaining uncertainties associated with the ldquofront runnersrdquo are resolved Front running alternatives are ndash

- KI expansion - Cost-reduced land application or - A hybrid of the two with consideration of phasing

Conduct an effluent sampling and analysis program at the IPP ndash 4 to 6 weeks of sampling is recommended commencing as soon as possible Sampling and analysis would be for the following effluent constituents ndash

December 19 2013

- Sodium - Calcium - Magnesium - Potassium - Chloride - Sulfate - TDS - Alkalinity

The analyses would be based on daily composites as was done for the TDS analyses conducted this past August The purpose is to characterize the cation and anion composition that makes up the high (1800 mgL) TDS concentrations observed in August This information is needed to evaluate the availability of any less costly alternatives to reverse osmosis for TDS reduction and assess the ability of land application to accommodate these high TDS levels Funding for this analytical effort would be outside of the ARROAECOM budget

Develop a GPS-X model of the Klinersquos Island facility ndash Based on our analysis of Klinersquos Island (KI) operating data (as summarized in a Quantitative Mass Flow Diagram or ldquoQMFDrdquo) no supplemental sampling is required in order to develop and calibrate a model Once developed and calibrated we will be positioned to quickly simulate and evaluate KI 4 MGD expansion treatment alternatives including added hybrid and phased cases and home in on a ldquoshort listrdquo of two or three attractive approaches for full evaluation Beyond this immediate ldquopayoffrdquo the model will be available as a powerful tool for future use This effort is budgeted in our Scope of Work

Conduct a preliminary assessment of a cost-reduced land application program modeled after the Penn State ldquoLiving Filterrdquo ndash This effort would entail engaging Dr Richard Parizek as a subconsultant Dr Parizek has been instrumentally involved in the three-decade-long Penn State program since its inception and will be able to quickly assess this potential including addressing the new issue regarding the impact of high TDS effluent Budget for Dr Parizekrsquos effort will be made available from reduced effort in the outreach program

Commence conveyance modeling now with the ldquoas isrdquo LCA and COA models ndash This effort as originally envisioned entails assessing infrastructure needed for a ldquono net increaserdquo to system wet weather surcharging and overflows with a 4 MGD increase in dry weather flows conveyed to KI The preliminary estimate of this infrastructure cost needs to be refined to reduce uncertainty and confirm KI expansion as a ldquofront runnerrdquo The current conveyance system models in particular the COA system model need further upgrading This effort will take 12-18 months While this effort is needed for a cost-effective compliant design for the overall wet weather system the level of sophistication and precision in the current models is

December 19 2013

sufficient for the narrower task of firming the conveyance cost for KI expansion alternatives Residual uncertainty can be addressed with erring to the conservative side on infrastructure requirements We recommend moving forward now to avoid delay to the 537 planning process This effort is budgeted in our Scope of Work At such time as the refined integrated LCACOA model is in place if KI expansion prevails as the preferred approach the ldquono net increaserdquo infrastructure can be superseded as part of a more cost-effective integrated system approach

Schedule Overall the ARROAECOM team is striving to hold to the original schedule which targeted May 2014 for public comment on a draft 537 Plan To date conveyance system modeling and treatment facility alternatives evaluation have been on ldquofloatrdquo while awaiting wet weather model improvements and firming of future effluent standards respectively Updating and confirming future effluent standards has been a primary focus since outside agencies (DEP DRBC) are involved and the schedule is not within our control until we have their formal inputsupdates With Jordan Creek being deferred the largest uncertainty to the schedule is obtaining DRBC guidance In recent communication with DRBC they reported a significant issue arose as a result of updating their watershed model to replace their low estimated value for KI effluent phosphorus with actual effluent P concentration data This triggered a major recalibration which took several weeks but is now reportedly resolved They indicated they will have guidance for us in early January Building off of this date we need to activate both the conveyance modeling and alternative evaluations promptly to minimize schedule delay We foresee the following schedule

By end of January ndash - Complete IPP cationanion effluent sampling and analysis - Complete familiarization with COA wet weather model (ARCADIS) - Complete KI model development and calibration and - Receive preliminary assessment on feasibility of a high TDScost-reduced ldquoLiving

Filterrdquo land application system

By the end of February ndash Identify casesscenarios for evaluation This would entail ndash - An expansive look at options afforded with hybrid approaches (eg some land

application partial expansion of KI) phasing and utilization of the ldquopenalty clauserdquo in the COAKI signatory agreements and

- A workshop with LCA staff to screen the array of options identified down to a list of candidates for evaluation

December 19 2013

By the end of April ndash - Complete conveyance modeling and firm cost of conveyance for KI alternatives - Run KI modeling simulations develop ldquoshort listrdquo for full evaluation - Develop land application preliminary design review with DEP

By the end of May ndash - Develop budgetary opinions of probable construction cost and Present Values for the

ldquoshort listedrdquo alternatives and - Hold workshops with LCA staff and Board to review findings

APPENDIX IIb LCA 537 Status Meeting (111113)

copy2013 ARRO

LCA amp City of AllentownWastewater Capacity Program

Sewage Facilities (Act 537) Plan

Project Status Update

Monday November 11 2013 Lehigh County Authority Offices

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

2 Jordan Creek Alternative

3 Conveyance Matters

4 IPP and Klinersquos Island WWTP

5 City of Allentownrsquos Continuing Role

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

Jordan Creek Alternative

History (See 100113 memo) ndash How we arrived herendash November 7 2012 - Initial discussions with PaDEP

ndash May 30 2013 ndash PaDEP defines Two (2) options

bull Assess impacts from discharge ndash 4 phased tasks

bull Drinking water standard

Tasks ndash Create 4 reports PaDEP approvals occur in phases

4 copy2013 ARRO

Develop a proposed Monitoring Plan - Where the creek is ldquolosingrdquo and ldquogainingrdquo flow and how will this determination be made

bull Discharge point

bull Downstream monitoring

bull Drill plan

bull Monitoring schedule amp sampling protocol

bull Timeline for implementation

5 copy2013 ARRO

Create Creek Assessment Protocol Report ndash How will the low flow conditions in the creek will be defined and reported

bull Establish the Q7 10 low flow value

bull Hydrologic modeling

bull Establish ldquonormalrdquo and the ldquoQ7 10 conditionrdquo

bull Data collection amp sampling

bull Creek chemistry

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

Prepare a Discharge Evaluation Report ndash How does the discharge impact creek groundwater chemistry

bull Rate of recharge to the local aquifer

bull Creek water chemistry ndash as defined by Creek Assessment Protocol Report

bull Discharge chemistry ndash as defined by wastewater engineer

bull Impacts to the creek (comparison)

7 copy2013 ARRO

With positive results prepare a Discharge Impacts Report - How will the creek and groundwater be monitored to ensure that an adverse condition is not created from the discharge

bull Creek will be monitored sampled and potentially remediated after the discharge is installed

8 copy2013 ARRO

Costs 65 years = $159700 115 years = $249700ndash Proposed Monitoring Plan = $5000

ndash Creek Assessment Protocol Report = $44700 for one year with costs increasing $18000 each year required to achieve a Q7 10 condition

ndash Discharge Evaluation Report $10000

ndash Discharge Impacts Report $10000

Cost are exclusive of monitoring site access costs (easements Right of Way legal etc) For budgetary purposes a minimum of $100000 should be anticipated

9 copy2013 ARRO

Timeline = Minimum of 65 years amp Maximum of 115 years ndash Proposed Monitoring Plan 6 months for development submission and

approval

ndash Creek Assessment Protocol Report A workable timeframe is 5 yearshowever there is the possibility that data collection could occur for 10 years

ndash Discharge Evaluation Report 6 months for development submission and approval

ndash Discharge Impacts Report 6 months for development submission and approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

Lehigh County Authority Model

City of Allentown Model

Plan ndash Update future flows amp Upgrade COA Model (Arcadis) ndash Familiarize with WRA model (several days)

ndash Add Groundwater Module (several weeks)

ndash Flow monitoring amp full integration (18 months)

DECISION Stay on schedule with wide-range estimate or wait 18 Months

11 copy2013 ARRO

IPP and Klinersquos Island WWTP Evaluation of Alternatives

Parallel Effort ndash Effluent Limits and Facility Profiling - Facilities

3 year data analyses for KI and IPP

Completing quantitative profiles of flows loads amp step-by-step treatment performance (Quantitative Mass Flow Diagrams)

Modeling ndash Recommending modeling KI hold off on IPP

Supplemental Sampling

bull Not Required for KI

bull Some gaps for IPP -- will make recommendation

bull TDS sampling completed ndash need Cation-specific sampling

12 copy2013 ARRO

LCA IPP ndash Effluent TDS Data2009-2010

13 copy2012 ARROcopy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

Parallel Effort ndash Effluent Limits and Facility Profiling - Effluent Limits

Exploring Cost-Reduced Land Application (PSU ldquoliving filterrdquo model ndashwinter application virtually eliminates storage)

DRBC ndash Agreement on modeling to update EECs (NMC)

DEP interaction re Jordan Creek -- Secondary Drinking Water Standards ndash 500 mgL TDS

Jordan Creek IPP Treatment Alternative

ndash 4-fold reduction

ndash Conventional Technology = Reverse Osmosis

15 copy2013 ARRO

Parallel Effort ndash Effluent Limits and Facility Profiling

Treatment Alternative - RO

Coagulation + Sedimentation rarr MFUF rarr RO

ndash All 3 steps CAPEX = $65gal

minus Last 2 (Red) CAPEX = $25gal

minus 4 MGD CAPEX = $10 Million

OPEX = $1601000 gal rarr x 10^3 x 4 MGD x 365= $23 millionyr rarr $23 million Present Worth Cost

TOTAL PW = $33 Million

16 copy2013 ARRO

Present Worth of Alternatives

Uncertaintiesndash Klinersquos Island 4 MGD Conveyance Cost (included but needs validation)

ndash Cost Reduction Potential for Land Application (~ $20 million PW reduction)

ndash TDS Impact on Land Application

ndash Lower Cost TDS treatment ndash Source Control Lime softening

ndash Potential to further reduce KI Cost ndash Phasing New Technology Split Flows (2 MGD Land App 2 MGD KI)

$ MillionsKlinersquosIsland

Land Application

Jordan Creek LehighRiver

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

bull Evaluate cost-reducing potential for ldquoLiving Filterrdquo approach

bull Develop New Hybrid Scenarios for KI KI+LA split

Action Items for Consideration

Evaluate TDS impact on Land Application

Develop Klinersquos Island Model

IPP Supplemental Sampling ndash Cation Concentrations

Preliminary assessment of Source Control

Proceed with Collection System Simulations

City of Allentownrsquos Role

City of Allentownrsquos Continuing Role in the Planning Process

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

APPENDIX IIIa DRBC Memorandum (22814)

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

MEMORANDUM

TO William Muszynski PE David Kovach PG Shane McAleer PE

Mail Log Reference(s)

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

THROUGH Thomas Fikslin PhD

DATE February 28 2014 SUBJECT NMC to EWQ analysis for LCArsquos new 4 MGD discharge (Revised)

DRBC staff performed No Measurable Change (NMC) to Existing Water Quality (EWQ) evaluations as requested by the Lehigh County Authority (LCA) to determine the DRBC-required effluent limits for several options associated with LCArsquos projected increase of 40 MGD of wastewater disposal needs LCA requested effluent limitations for four potential discharge alternatives (Scenarios A B C D)

A a new 40 MGD discharge located at river kilometer 265 upstream of the mouth of the Lehigh River

B a new 40 MGD discharge located at river kilometer 216 upstream of the mouth of Jordan Creek

C a 40 MGD expansion to the existing City of Allentown (Klinersquos Island) WWTP (expanding from 40 MGD to 44 MGD)

D a substantial alteration or addition to the existing City of Allentown WWTP (while maintaining current permitted flow of 40 MGD)

Similar evaluations were performed in 2010 However LCA has provided addition information concerning actual flows and effluent quality and requested that the DRBC develop the SPW requirements using the new information The new information from LCA resulted in revisions to the DRBC estimated grandfathered (GF) loads that would be assigned to the City of Allentown WWTP Table 1 below provides the values for the key parameters in the previous and current version of the model

Table 1 Grandfathered (GF) effluent concentrations and loads for the City of Allentown (PA0026000)

City of Allentown MGD

NH4 NO3 ON OP IP TP TN Flow

Effluent Concentration

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

Grandfathered (Revised)

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

Difference (Revised - Old)

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

The revision to the GF loads assigned to the City of Allentown required the re-calibration of the Lehigh River Water Quality Model (LRWQM) since the wastewater flow and loading from the City of Allentown is a substantial contribution to the BCP The re-calibrated model version named LRWQM_2014 includes other updates as listed below

Updated GF and locked-in loads based on issued dockets as of December 2013 Reassigned headwater concentrations based on observed data collected by Aqua-PA in 2012 Reassigned diffuse source loads based on observed data collected by Aqua-PA in 2012 Used best professional judgment for the assignment of unmonitored headwaters and diffuse

sources Reassigned default GF effluent concentration for ammonia nitrogen from 057 mgl to 12 mgl The model was re-calibrated for each tributary where instream water quality data was available

and for the mainstem of the Lehigh River

Scenario Simulation Results

City of Allentown WWTP

SPW effluent loadings for the City of Allentown under Scenarios A B C and D are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below

Total effluent loads a sum of GF loads and Non-Grandfathered (NGF) (also referred to as incremental) loads for the City of Allentown with LCArsquos 40 MGD alternative discharge scenarios are summarized in Table 2

Total effluent concentrations for the City of Allentown with LCArsquos 40 MGD alternative discharge scenarios are summarized in Table 3 for informational and design purposes

LCArsquos New 40 MGD Discharge

Effluent conditions for a new 40 MGD discharge (under alternative discharge scenarios ldquoArdquo and ldquoBrdquo) are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 There is no grandfathered allocation for the new 40 MGD discharge

Allowable effluent loads for a new 40 MGD discharge under alternative discharge scenarios ldquoArdquo and ldquoBrdquo are summarized in Table 4

Allowable effluent concentrations for a new 40 MGD discharge under alternative discharge scenarios ldquoArdquo and ldquoBrdquo are summarized in Table 5 for informational and design purposes

Table 2 Total effluent loads for the City of Allentown with LCArsquos 4 MGD alternative discharge scenarios (Note The below load limits would be effective when the Klines Island plant expands or performs a substantial alterations or addition)

Total effluent loads for the City of Allentown for (GF + NGFs under 4 scenarios)

Flow Effluent load (lbsday) MGD NH4 NO3 ON OP IP TP TN

Grandfathered GF 316 3560 39715 8834 1081 7305 8386 52110 Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD plant into Lehigh River (A) GF+NGF 400 4121 45814 10657 1887 8216 10104 60592 Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD plant into Jordan Creek (B) GF+NGF 400 4226 45639 10657 1887 8216 10104 60522 Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD loads to Allentown WWTP with expansion to 44 MGD (C)

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD loads to Allentown WWTP without expansion (maintain 40 MGD) (D)

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

Table 3 Total allowable effluent concentrations for the City of Allentown with LCArsquos 4 MGD alternative discharge scenarios (Note Allowable concentrations are provided for informational and design purposes)

Allowable effluent concentrations for the City of Allentown for (GF + NGFs under 4 scenarios)

Flow Effluent concentrations (ugL)

MGD NH4 NO3 ON OP IP TP TN Grandfathered GF 316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760 Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD plant into Lehigh River (A) GF+NGF 400 1235 13724 3193 565 2461 3027 18151 Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD plant into Jordan Creek (B) GF+NGF 400 1266 13672 3193 565 2461 3027 18130

Allentown when LCAs 4 MGD loads to Allentown WWTP with expansion to 44 MGD (C)

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Table 4 Allowable effluent loads for the 40 MGD LCA Plant under two direct discharge scenarios

Allowable effluent loads for the 40 MGD LCA Plant Flow Effluent load (lbsday) MGD NH4-N NO3-N ON OP IP TP TN

NGF load when the LCAs 4 MGD plant into Lehigh River (ldquoArdquo) NGF 40 267 2904 868 384 434 818 4039 NGF load when the LCAs 4 MGD plant into Jordan Creek (ldquoBrdquo) NGF 40 317 2821 868 384 434 818 4006 Table 5 Allowable effluent concentrations for the 40 MGD LCA Plant under two direct discharge scenarios (Note Allowable concentrations are provided for informational and design purposes)

Allowable effluent concentrations for the 40 MGD LCA Plant Flow Effluent concentrations (ugL) MGD NH4-N NO3-N ON OP IP TP TN

EEC1 for the LCAs 40 MGD plant into Lehigh River (ldquoArdquo) NGF 40 800 8700 2600 1150 1300 2450 12100 EEC2 for the LCAs 40 MGD plant into Jordan Creek (ldquoBrdquo) NGF 40 950 8450 2600 1150 1300 2450 12000

Since these loadings are not included in approved dockets it is important to note that simulation results may change as DRBC obtains more information on headwaters diffused sources point source discharges etc for the Lehigh River watershed or if any new or expanded wastewater discharges within the model domain are proposed

APPENDIX IIIb DRBC Meeting Minutes and NH3 Proposal

LCACity of Allentown Act 537 Plan

Delaware River Basin Commission Meeting (DRBC) July 22 2014 ndash 200 PM

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Ralph Eschborn AECOM

Pat Mandes LCA

Bob Kerchusky City of Allentown (COA)

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Tim Bradley KleinfelderOmni

Edward Becker ARCADIS

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Brian Chamberlain COA

Note Attachment 1 ndash Meeting LogSign‐in Sheet

Attachment 2 ndash July 18 2014 Email Response from Shane McAleer RE LCA 4MGD Expansion ndash

Prospective DRBC Effluent Limits ndash (Used as meeting agenda)

Attachment 3 ndash Wintertime mass flow calculations factor for Ammonia

Attachment 4 ndash EPA Guidelines for setting effluent limits

Attachment 5 ndash Proposed wintertime (October through April) ammonia mass load limit

Introductions

A Purpose Review Shane McAleerrsquos email response dated July 18 2014 for clarifications

to prospective DRBC effluent limits for LCA 4 MGD expansion

Note The meeting and meeting minutes directly reflect the layout of the email

correspondence attached (Attachment 2) If further clarification or discussion was not

required a corresponding number is not included The reference to the ldquoMemordquo is to the

DRBC February 28 2014 Memo subject ldquoNMC to EWQ analysis for LCArsquos new 4MGD

discharge (Revised)rdquo

1b1) Grandfathered (GF) Flow

Mr Becker requested clarification that summer months were May through

September and Winter Months were October through April Mr McAleer

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

The data that was used was the data LCA provided to DRBC

2)a) LCA noted that the data that was used included an unusually warm year

1c Clarification was provided that TP loads were based on the summer time period

3a Reference was made to the following statement ldquoTherefore the ammonia load

limit in the winter will be 17 times the load limit for each of the discharge scenarios laid

forth in the Memordquo

LCA expressed concern with regard to the Ammonia load limit in the winter

being 17 times the load limit for each of the discharge scenarios Mr Becker

said that a more appropriate averaging on load rather that concentration results

in a ratio greater than 2 Mr Beckerrsquos calculations are attached as Attachment 3

Mr Eschborn asked how the limits will be implemented for a permit

Mr Muszynski stated usually PA DEP places limits on concentration based on a

ratio of a monthly limit DEP limits may not be tied into DRBC limits DRBC looks

at mass loading of the discharge Results would be reported monthly against a

monthly standard (Monthly = TMDL x 30)

Mr Bradley asked if calculations can be performed similarly to an EPA guidance

document Mr Bradley also stated that he has NJ data from a similar project

that used this method The relevant portion of the EPA guidance document is

attached as Attachment 4

The contributors to wintertime variability in ammonia loadings were discussed

Operations Temperature and pH Low wintertime temperatures adversely

affect the nitrification (ammonia removal) process

Mr Muszynski asked how LCA would like to see the ammonia limit calculated

Mr Muszynski recommended that LCA come back with a proposal suggesting a

calculation method He indicated he would be open to considering a winter

ammonia mass load limit being over a 6‐month period (180 days x TMDL) to deal

with the anticipated variability See Attachment 5 for proposal

Dr Suk requested the NJ Data that Mr Bradley referenced Mr Bradley agreed

to look into

4 Clarification was made on which parameters would receive seasonal load limits

DRBC will set seasonal load limits on Ammonia only Non‐seasonal parameters are

Nitrate Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen

Mr Muszynski DRBC summarized the request

1 Some adjustment to the proposed 17 factor for setting wintertime ammonia

2 The use of an extended winter averaging (over 6‐7 months)

Mr McAleer said if LCA has additional data they could send it over to DRBC Mr

Eschborn said LCA currently does not have any more data to send

Mr Eschborn asked how DRBCrsquos current monitoring is going Dr Suk responded saying

there are mixed results They will have trends by the end of the year

Ms Mandes requested a list of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) in DRBC

drainage area Dr Suk said he can provide a list to LCA

Mr Muszynski stated that the loading amounts are on a first come first serve basis

Mr Eschborn asked how many WWTFs have made substantive alterations

Dr Suk responded 5 in Lehigh County area and average 5 ndash 10 year

Mr Muszynski stated that substantive alterations consisted of the need for a WWTFrsquos

capacity to be increased andor WWTF design flow is not changing but major equipment

changes are made

DRBC is committed to water quality management Nutrient trading is not limited to

point sources

Mr McAleer noted that future NPDES draft permits will consist of the incorporation of

the DRBC concentration amounts into NPDES permit In the long run there will be no

docket only an NPDES permit

There was discussion with regard to dockets and if they could go longer than 5 years

Mr Muszynski stated no compliance schedule can go over 5 years without a court order

B Recap Plan Action Items Schedule

a Action Items Draft meeting minutes to everyone for review [LCA]

b DRBC analysis and proposing of a wintertime ammonia limit for the Act 537 Plan

c Schedule is January 2015 Draft Act 537 Plan

Adjournment

Attachment List

1 Attachment 1 ndash Meeting Log Sign‐in Sheet

2 Attachment 2 ndash July 18 2014 Email Response from Shane McAleer RE LCA 4MGD

Expansion ndashProspective DRBC Effluent Limits

3 Attachment 3 ndash Wintertime mass flow calculations factor for Ammonia

4 Attachment 4 ndash EPA Guidelines for setting effluent limits

5 Attachment 5 ndash Proposed Wintertime Ammonia Limit

Attachment 1 ndash Meeting LogSign‐in Sheet

Attachment 5 September 2 2014

BASIS ndash Wintertime Ammonia Limit

Ammonia analyses provided to DRBC for periods Oct‐April 2010‐11 2011‐12 and Oct‐Jan 2012‐13

Summer monthly load discharge averaged 304 lbsd with a range of 227 lbsd to 554 lbsd

Winter monthly load discharge averaged 616 lbsd with a broad range of 306 lbsd to 1139 lbsd

Winter peaking factor based on average loads = 203 (616304)

GRANDFATHERED + Non‐GRANDFATHERED LOAD ndash 44 MGD

LCA proposes a wintertime limit to be based on 7 month average October through April

LCA proposes a wintertime peaking factor using the same data set that DRBC used but more appropriately based on mass load averaging rather than concentration

DRBC 2010 DRBC Prelim 2014 LCA Proposed

Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

Summer defined as May through September Wintertime peaking factor of 17 Wintertime peaking factor of 203

APPENDIX IIIc LCA Expansion ndash DRBC Winter Load Limits Final (22715)

From McAleer ShaneTo Eschborn RalphCc Kovach David Suk Namsoo Muszynski BillSubject LCA Allentown Expansion evalaution - DRBC Seasonal Wintertime Load LimitsDate Friday February 27 2015 32540 PMAttachments image002png

image004pngimage006pngimage008pngimage021pngimage022pngimage023pngimage024pngimage025pngimage026pngimage027pngimage028pngimage029pngimage030pngimage031pngimage032png

RalphI have confirmed with DRBC Staff that for the Allentown WWTP 4 mgd expansion evaluation we will be imposing summer and winter load limits for Ammonia The winter load allowances will be based on a 31 ratio Winter to Summer identical to the ratio of winter to summer effluent concentration and load limits included in the NPDES permit for the Allentown WWTP The Ammonia load limits in pounds per day provided in Tables 2 and 4 of DRBCrsquos February 28 2014 memo will be applied to the summer months (May through September) The Ammonia load limits for the winter months (October through April) will be three times the summer load limits in pounds per day Effluent concentrations in Tables 3 and 5 of the memo provided for information and design purposes will be similarly adjusted This is a larger ratio for winter to summer Ammonia than the previously-discussed 17 which was based on actual data This would be for all 4 scenarios the Allentown WWTP scenarios (re-build at 40 mgd and expansion to 44 mgd) and the new WWTP discharge scenarios (Jordan Creek and Lehigh River) The load limits in pounds per day will be applied as a monthly average Please note that we will not be instituting an overall winter load limit in pounds as you requested This will be memorialized in an updated memo If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely

Shane M McAleer PEWater Resources Engineer Project Review SectionDelaware River Basin Commission(p) 609-883-9500 ext 293(p) 609-477-7223 (direct)(f) 609-883-9522(e) ShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus

From McAleer Shane Sent Wednesday February 04 2015 1143 AMTo Eschborn RalphSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion RalphWe are still working on this to see if we can give a further allowance for wintertime Ammonia limitsIt appears that we will not be able to give a load allowance for the entire winter as requestedHowever we may be able to increase the winter to summer ratio to greater than 17 to allow for variabilityI appreciate your patienceThanks Shane M McAleer PEWater Resources Engineer Project Review SectionDelaware River Basin Commission(p) 609-883-9500 ext 293(p) 609-477-7223 (direct)(f) 609-883-9522(e) ShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus

From Eschborn Ralph [mailtoRalphEschbornaecomcom] Sent Wednesday January 28 2015 144 PMTo McAleer ShaneSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion OKhellipthanks Ralph Eschborn PEAmericas Practice Lead for Energy WaterD 3035424721C 6107427537 AECOM717 17th St Suite 2600Denver CO 80202

wwwaecomcom

From McAleer Shane [mailtoShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus] Sent Wednesday January 28 2015 1139 AMTo Eschborn RalphSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion I am shooting for middle of next week as a date to get you wintertime Ammonia limits as several of our Modeling Monitoring and Assessment Branch staff are out this weekThanks for your patience Shane M McAleer PEWater Resources Engineer Project Review SectionDelaware River Basin Commission(p) 609-883-9500 ext 293(p) 609-477-7223 (direct)(f) 609-883-9522(e) ShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus

From McAleer Shane Sent Wednesday January 28 2015 136 PMTo Eschborn RalphSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion RalphI have reviewed your response and we will make a decision regarding winter-time Ammonia limits shortly based on your requestThank you Shane M McAleer PEWater Resources Engineer Project Review SectionDelaware River Basin Commission(p) 609-883-9500 ext 293(p) 609-477-7223 (direct)(f) 609-883-9522(e) ShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus

From Eschborn Ralph [mailtoRalphEschbornaecomcom] Sent Wednesday December 03 2014 727 AMTo McAleer ShaneCc Pat L Mandes Bohner BillSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion Hi Shane

Irsquove interspersed highlighted responses in italics to your two questions below Thanks for your thoroughness If these responses are satisfactory please issue an amendment to your February 28 2014 Memorandum adding the prospective wintertime ammonia limits Regards Ralph Eschborn PEAmericas Practice Lead for Energy WaterD 3035424721C 6107427537 AECOM717 17th St Suite 2600Denver CO 80202wwwaecomcom

From McAleer Shane [mailtoShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus] Sent Friday November 14 2014 202 PMTo Eschborn RalphSubject RE Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion RalphI have a few questions about the minutes and the proposed winter ammonia limits I reviewed your wintertime load calculation from 2010 2011 and 2013You wrote on Attachment 3 that the average monthly summer load was 304 lbsday and the average monthly winter load was 616 lbsday Based on these values your peaking factor was calculated as616 lbsday 304 lbsday = 203And therefore you propose the winter to summer ration be revised from 17 to 203 However I calculate the average monthly summer load from the same data set as 364 lbsdayBased on this number the ratio is 616 lbsday 364 lbsday = 17 Upon revisiting we find that we agree with your calculations Please check your calculation for the average monthly summer load and let me know if you come up with the same calculation for average monthly summer load Also Irsquod like to clarify your wintertime load limit requestOn Page 2 of the minutes you mention your request for a wintertime mass load limit over a 6-month period referencing Attachment 5 ldquo6-monthrdquo was a typo should have been ldquo7-monthrdquoOn Attachment 5 above the chart you propose the wintertime limit be based on a 7 month

average October through April On the chart your proposed wintertime limit is 8908 lbsdayAre you therefore proposing a load limit from October through April of approximately Correcting for the 17 factor vice 2037 months X 30 days month X 8908 746 lbsday which equals approximately 187000 158200 lbs in that 7 month span October through April = 212 daysSo the docket limit would be approx 187000 158200 lbs from October through April Docket limit would be 158200 lbs from October through April Please get back to me on these two items Sincerely Shane M McAleer PEWater Resources Engineer Project Review SectionDelaware River Basin Commission(p) 609-883-9500 ext 293(p) 609-477-7223 (direct)(f) 609-883-9522(e) ShaneMcAleerdrbcstatenjus

From Eschborn Ralph [mailtoRalphEschbornaecomcom] Sent Wednesday October 15 2014 814 AMTo McAleer ShaneCc mandes_pllehighcountyauthorityorg Bohner BillSubject Proposed DRBC Limits -- LCA Expansion Hi Shane Attached are the draft minutes from our July 22 meeting We took some time to respond in order to include a proposed wintertime ammonia limit which as you probably recall was the central issue for discussion at the meeting Please

middot Look over an let us know if you have any edits to the minutes andmiddot Respond as to the acceptability of the proposed wintertime ammonia limit

Let us know if you have any questions We look forward to your response Thanks Ralph Eschborn PEAmericas Practice Lead for Energy WaterD 3035424721C 6107427537

AECOM717 17th St Suite 2600Denver CO 80202wwwaecomcom

This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient you should not retain distribute disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies

APPENDIX IV Living Filter (Dr Parizek)

APPENDIX V LCA Conveyance Tech Memo (63015)

AECOM 701 Edgewater Drive Wakefield MA 01880 wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

As part of the 537 planning activities the ARROAECOM team was scoped with evaluating options to address an approximately 4 million gallons per day (MGD) increase in future flows to the Lehigh County Authority (LCA) and City of Allentown (CoA) conveyance systems Four general options were identified for addressing the additional flows

Conveyance to Klinersquos Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (KIWWTP) Diversion of flow at the Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) and conveyance of treated effluent to

the Lehigh River Diversion of flow at the Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) and conveyance of treated effluent to

Jordan Creek Diversion of flow at the Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) and conveyance of treated effluent to

land application

Options for diversion from IPP to land application or Jordan Creek will be addressed in separate documentation This memorandum focuses on a comparison between options for conveyance to KIWWTP versus diversion of flow at the IPP and discharge to the Lehigh River The analysis targeted achievement of the LCA wet weather level of service (LOS) defined as a maximum water surface at least three feet below the manhole rim in pipes 18-inch diameter or greater for the 10-year storm System conditions were based on projected 2040 future flows The future flow projections were developed through the 537 planning process and details on the development of the future flows are reported separately Modeling of alternatives in support of this analysis was conducted by ARCADIS using the Klinersquos Island Sewer System (KISS) model This model was developed by combining previously-existing models of the LCA and CoA systems ARCADIS is currently conducting a more detailed analysis of alternatives to achieve the wet weather LOS in the LCA system The intent of the analysis presented herein was to establish whether conveyance to KIWWTP or diversion at IPP to the Lehigh River would likely be the more cost-effective approach to

To Ralph Eschborn Page 1

Subject

Evaluation of Conveyance to Klinersquos Island WWTP vs Diversion of Flow at IPP

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

meeting the wet weather LOS At the conclusion of this evaluation a similar assessment is presented for meeting the dry weather LOS (no surcharging in dry weather) Alternatives to Meet Wet Weather LOS ARCADIS provided results of preliminary assessments of conveyance improvements needed to meet LOS criteria for the 10-year storm based on running a version of the KISS model in July 2014 Alternatives included the following

Conveyance improvements to move flow to KIWWTP (Alt 10) Conveyance improvements assuming diversion of all flows tributary to the IPP (Alt 12a) Conveyance improvements assuming diversion of all flows tributary to the IPP but with three

upstream storage tanks provided to reduce the scope of pipe upsizing needed (Alt 12b)

The conveyance alternatives were considered a ldquofirst cutrdquo at the scope of conveyance improvements needed and were developed by upsizing pipes to achieve the LOS It is understood that these alternatives would likely represent an ldquoupper boundrdquo on the scope of improvements needed to meet the LOS The length of upsized pipe segments is summarized by pipe diameter for Alternatives 10 12a and 12b in Table 1 The data on pipe diameters and lengths was provided by ARCADIS from the collection system model

Table 1 Lengths of Upsized Pipes by Pipe Diameter Pipe

Diameter (in)

Length of New Pipe (ft) Difference (ft)

Alternative 10 Alternative

12a Alternative

12b Alt 10-Alt 12a Alt 10-Alt 12b 72 3128 3128 3128 - - 60 13692 13692 5741 - 7951 48 36983 36879 3712 104 33271 42 47919 43216 59724 4703 (11805) 36 47481 43085 19013 4396 28467 30 6481 13403 0 (6922) 6481 27 0 0 4453 - (4453) 24 18863 18863 9640 - 9223 21 16399 16399 2330 - 14069 18 12224 10390 7793 1834 4431 15 2620 - 2309 2620 311 12 1145 714 3201 431 (2055)

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

As indicated in Table 1 the net difference in length of upsized pipe between Alternatives 10 and 12a is 7166 ft and the difference between Alternatives 10 and 12b is 85891 ft Planning-level estimated construction costs were developed for the range of pipe sizes and lengths presented in Table 1 Planning-level costs were developed using two different equations for unit costs one equation that was developed by AECOM for a project for the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority

(ALCOSAN) and one equation that had been used by ARCADIS in previous costs estimates for LCA ($14in diameterLF) Costs based on both equations were adjusted to September 2014 20-Cities Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) of 9870 The estimated costs are presented for Alternatives 10 12a and 12b in Tables 2 3 and 4 respectively The ALCOSAN cost equation is slightly more conservative than the $14in-diamLF basis but overall the two equations resulted in estimated total capital costs within about 12 percent of each other The mark-ups and contingency percentages reflect the same percentages used in the cost estimates attached to the May 2 2011 Memorandum on Updated Cost Summary for Wastewater Capacity Alternatives prepared by ARCADIS

Table 2 Estimated Costs for Alternative 10

Pipe Diameter (in) Length (LF)

Based on ALCOSAN Equation Based on $14in-diamLF

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 72 3128 $1282 $40 $1008 $32 60 13692 $1025 $140 $840 $115 48 36983 $802 $296 $672 $249 42 47919 $703 $337 $588 $282 36 47481 $613 $291 $504 $239 30 6481 $531 $34 $420 $27 24 18863 $458 $86 $336 $63 21 16399 $425 $70 $294 $48 18 12224 $394 $48 $252 $31 15 2620 $365 $10 $210 $06 12 1145 $338 $04 $168 $02 Total Base Construction Cost (BCC) $1357 $1093

BCC with ENR CCI Adjustment to 2014 $1361 $1194 General Conditions 7 $95 $84

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Total Construction Cost $2069 $1815 EngineeringLegalAdmin 20 $414 $363

Total Capital $2483 $2178

Table 3 Estimated Costs for Alternative 12a

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 72 3128 $1282 $40 $1008 $32 60 13692 $1025 $140 $840 $115 48 36879 $802 $296 $672 $248 42 43216 $703 $304 $588 $254 36 43085 $613 $264 $504 $217 30 13403 $531 $71 $420 $56 24 18863 $458 $86 $336 $63 21 16399 $425 $70 $294 $48 18 10390 $394 $41 $252 $ 26 15 - $365 - $210 - 12 714 $338 $02 $168 $01 Total Base Construction Cost (BCC) $1315 $1061

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Total Construction Cost $2005 $1762

EngineeringLegalAdmin 20 $401 $352 Total Capital $2406 $2114

Table 4 Estimated Costs for Alternative 12b

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 72 3128 $1282 $40 $1008 $32 60 5741 $1025 $59 $840 $48 48 3712 $802 $30 $672 $25 42 59724 $703 $420 $588 $351 36 19013 $613 $117 $504 $96 30 - $531 - $420 - 27 4453 $494 $22 $378 $17 24 9640 $458 $44 $336 $32 21 2330 $425 $10 $294 $07 18 7793 $394 $31 $252 $20 15 2309 $365 $08 $210 $05 12 3201 $338 $11 $168 $05 Total Base Construction Cost (BCC) $791 $ 638

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Alternative 12b also includes three upstream storage tanks Using a cost equation for storage tanks developed from ALCOSAN data estimated costs for the tanks are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Summary of Estimated Cost for Upstream Storage Tanks Location Size (MG) Unit Cost ($Gal) Base Construction

Cost Brienigsville 151 $402 $608 UMT 402 $355 $1428 Alburtis 252 $372 $938

Subtotal Base Construction Cost (BCC) $ 2973 BCC with ENR CCI Adjustment to 2014 $ 2983

General Conditions 7 $ 209 OHP 15 $ 446

Contingency 30 $ 895 Total Construction Cost $ 4532

EngineeringLegalAdmin 20 $ 906 Total Capital $ 5439

In order to compare the full diversion cases (12a and 12b) to the 4 MGD expanded flow to Klinersquos Island (10) the cost for conveyance from the IPP to the Lehigh River must be included (From the May 2 2011 Memorandum on Updated Cost Summary for Wastewater Capacity Alternatives prepared by ARCADIS the base construction cost of the force main from the IPP to the Lehigh River was about $29 million That estimate was based on 68500 LF of 30-inch diameter force main a unit cost of $14in-diamLF and an allowance of $85LF for easements Based on the current KISS model output the peak discharge flow from the IPP in the 10-year storm is in the range of 8 to 9 MGD For a 30-inch diameter force main velocities would be on the order of 3 fps and for a 24-inch diameter force main velocities would be approximately 44 fps The sensitivity of the cost evaluation to a 30-inch vs 24-inch force main diameter was therefore assessed Table 6 presents the planning-level estimated base construction costs for a 24 and 30-inch force main using unit costs from ALCOSAN data and the $14in-diamLF estimate previously used Table 7 presents the development of estimated total capital costs from the costs in Table 6 As indicated in Table 7 the estimated capital cost for the force main to the Lehigh River ranges from $47 to $635 million depending on the diameter and the cost equation basis Construction costs were also available for the 10700 LF 24-inch diameter Spring Creek Force Main installed in 2006 Updating those costs to the September 2014 20-Cities ENR CCI and pro-rating for length resulted in a total capital cost of $377M which was lower than either of the other two estimates for a 24-inch diameter force main

Table 6 Estimated Base Construction Costs for Force Main to Lehigh River

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Table 7 Estimated Total Capital Costs for Force Main to Lehigh River

Cost Component

Based on ALCOSAN Equation ($M)

Based on $14in-diamLF ($M)

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

Base Construction Cost from Table 4 $2836 $3410 $2302 $2877

Easement Allowance $058 $058 $058 $058 Total Base Construction Cost

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

BCC with ENR CCI Adjustment to 2014 $ 2904 $3480 $2578 $3206

General Conditions 7 $203 $244 $180 $224 OHP 15 $436 $522 $387 $481

Contingency 30 $871 $1044 $773 $962 Total Construction Cost $4415 $5289 $3918 $4874

EngineeringLegalAdmin 20 $883 $1058 $784 $975 Total Capital $530 $635 $470 $585

Conveyance of flow to KIWWTP without diversion at IPP would also require a somewhat higher capacity upgrade at the Park Pump Station Based on the KISS model the peak flow at Park Pump Station in the

10-year storm under Alternative 10 would be 53 MGD and under Alternative 12a it would be 47 MGD It is difficult to precisely estimate the difference in cost between upgrading to a 47 MGD facility versus upgrading to a 53 MDG facility at the current planning level However based on cost equations for pump station construction developed from data from ALCOSAN the difference in capital cost between a 47 MGD and a 53 MGD facility would be approximately $14 million

The May 2 2011 Memorandum on Updated Cost Summary for Wastewater Capacity Alternatives included a table titled ldquoKIWWTP Alternative Cost Summaryrdquo That table summarized the estimated capital costs for four alternatives

Remain Pretreatment Facility w All Flow to Allentown Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge via Land Application Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge to Jordan Creek Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge to Lehigh River

Table 8 presents an updated version of the table from the May 2 2011 memorandum that includes the estimated costs for conveyance to KIWWTP full diversion to the Lehigh River and full diversion to the Lehigh River with upstream storage tanks The cost of the force main from IPP to the Lehigh River in To be conservative Table 8 is based on a 24-inch force main using the prorated and indexed Spring Creek Force Main cost as a basis

Table 8 Summary of Costs

Cost Item

Capital Cost in $ Millions(1) IPP remains

pre-treatment Conveyance

only to KIWWTP (Alt 10)

Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge to Lehigh River

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

24-in FM Upstream Storage Tanks (Alt 12b)

WTP Treatment Upgrades $122 $377 $377

WTP Effluent Pump Station - $30 $30

KIWWTP Wet Weather Upgrades $131 $131 $131

KIWWTP 44 MGD Expansion Upgrades $262 - -

KIWWTP Compliance Upgrades $59 $59 $59

IPP Effluent Force Main - $377 $377 Cost for Conveyance System Pipe Upsizing $248 $241 $177

Upstream Storage Tanks - - $544

Incremental Cost for Upsizing Park PS $14 - -

Total $307 $338 $329 Difference vs Alt 10 $31 $22 Notes

(1) Costs indexed to ENR CCI 20-Cities Index of 9870 (September 2014)

As indicated in Table 8 the capital cost for the Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge to Lehigh River Alternative 12a would be approximately $31 million more than the Conveyance Only to KIWWTP Alternative 10 It should be noted that in Table 8 the costs for the conveyance system upsizing were based on the ALCOSAN-based cost equation If the $14in-diamLF unit cost were used the difference in capital costs would be $32 million so the relative differences are not sensitive to the cost basis used for the conveyance pipes If the ALCOSAN equation were used for the force main to the Lehigh River then the difference in cost between Alternatives 10 and 12a would increase by about $15 million Providing upstream storage tanks for the Upgrade IPP and Direct Discharge to Lehigh River alternative would reduce the total cost compared to Alternative 12 but it would still be approximately $22 million more than Alternative 10 It is possible that upstream storage tanks could also reduce the scope of pipe upsizing required under Alternative 10 but the comparison to Alternative 10 without storage tanks would be conservative In summary depending on the cost estimating basis and whether upstream storage tanks are provided the estimated capital cost of the alternative to divert flow at the IPP facility would be in the general range of $22 to $47 million more than the alternative to convey all flow to KIWWTP

It is important to note that the configuration of the most cost-effective conveyance improvements will most likely not include simply up-sizing the pipes per Alternatives 10 12a or 12b and that those alternatives were intended as a first-cut to establish the general scale of conveyance relief required Therefore the magnitude of the costs presented in Table 8 above should not be construed as actual total program costs The costs are presented as a means of estimating the relative difference in costs between the alternatives However assuming that more cost-effective means for conveyance relief (eg smaller parallel relief pipes or pump stationforce main combinations) are identified the difference in conveyance costs between the alternatives for conveying all flow to KIWWTP and diverting flow at IPP will likely be less than the estimate presented above If the savings in conveyance costs between Alternative 10 and Alternatives 12a or 12b are lower than shown in Table 8 then the net difference in total capital costs between those alternatives would be higher than shown in Table 8 Alternatives to Meet Dry Weather LOS To assess the sensitivity of the above evaluation to dry weather conditions the KISS model was run to assess the conveyance improvements needed to meet the dry weather LOS for two alternatives conveyance only to KIWWTP and conveyance to KIWWTP with full diversion of flow at the IPP As stated earlier in this memo the dry weather LOS is to convey flow with no surcharging Table 9 presents the length of upsized pipe segments by pipe diameter for Alternatives 2-D1 Dry Weather Conveyance to KIWWTP and 17d Dry Weather 100 Diversion of Flow at IPP The data on pipe diameters and lengths was provided by ARCADIS from the collection system model

Table 9 Lengths of Upsized Pipes by Pipe Diameter ndash Dry Weather

Pipe Diameter

Length of New Pipe (ft) Difference Alternative 2-D1 Conveyance to

KIWWTP Alternative 17d Diversion at IPP Alt 2-D1 - Alt 17d

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

As indicated in Table 9 the net difference in length of upsized pipe between Alternatives 2-D1 and 17d is 29914 ft Planning-level estimated construction costs for the range of pipe sizes and lengths for each alternative presented in Table 9 are presented in Tables 10 and 11 The cost estimating methodology was the same as described above for the wet weather LOS analysis

Table 10 Estimated Costs for Alternative 2-D1

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 48 701 $802 $056 $672 $047 42 21899 $703 $1539 $588 $1288 36 9407 $613 $576 $504 $474 30 3577 $531 $190 $420 $150 27 1988 $494 $098 $378 $075 Total Base Construction Cost (BCC) $ 2460 $ 2034

BCC with ENR CCI Adjustment to 2014 $ 2468 $ 2222 General Conditions 7 $173 $156

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Table 11 Estimated Costs for Alternative 17d

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 36 5656 $613 $347 $504 $285 27 2002 $494 $099 $378 $076 Total Base Construction Cost (BCC) $ 445 $ 361

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

From Tables 10 and 11 the difference in capital costs for conveyance piping between Alternatives 2-D1 and 17d would range from approximately $33 to $37 million As shown in Table 8 above the cost for the pump station and force main from IPP to the Lehigh River would be on the order of $41 million Even without assessing treatment upgrades for dry weather the conveyance upgrades for flow to KIWWTP would appear to be more cost-effective than diverting flow at the IPP Summary This evaluation suggests that diverting flow at the IPP as a means of meeting conveyance LOS will not be cost effective in comparison to conveying all flow to the KIWWTP It is suggested that subsequent evaluations of conveyance alternatives focus on conveyance to the KIWWTP without diversion of flow at IPP unless the relative costs for the respective treatment plant upgrades change significantly from the values shown in Table 8

APPENDIX VIa Intro and Section 2 Flows and Loadings

Lehigh County Authority Klinersquos Island WWTP Evaluation

TECHNICAL REPORT

Klinersquos Island WWTP Model Development

Evaluation of an Optimized Approach

4 MGD Expansion

Section 1 -- Introduction This report documents the development calibration and validation of a GPS-X model of the Klinersquos Island facility It is organized into the following Sections Section 2 ndash Flows and Loadings Analysis Section 3 ndash Process Modeling Section 4 ndash Cost Estimates

March 2015

TOC Section 2

20 FLOWS AND LOADINGS 2-1

21 PURPOSE 2-1 22 REVIEW OF INFLUENT DATA 2-1

221 Raw Wastewater Daily Flows and Loadings 2-1 222 Raw Wastewater Flow and Loading Cumulative Probability Distributions 2-5 2221 Normal Distribution 2-5 2222 Log-Normal Distribution 2-6 223 Raw Wastewater Flow and Loading Benchmarking Conditions 2-9 2231 Summary of Historical Raw Wastewater Flows and Loadings 2-9 2232 Annual Average Per-capita Loadings 2-11

23 BASIS OF DESIGN CONDITIONS 2-12 24 WASTEWATER TEMPERATURE 2-14 25 REFERENCES 2-17

List of Tables

Table 21 Annual average raw wastewater flows loadings and concentrations 2-9 Table 22 Historical raw wastewater flows and peaking factors 2-10 Table 23 Historical raw wastewater TSS loadings and peaking factors 2-10 Table 24 Historical raw wastewater BOD loadings and peaking factors 2-10 Table 25 Historical raw wastewater TKN loadings and peaking factors 2-10 Table 26 Historical raw wastewater NH4-N loadings and peaking factors 2-11 Table 27 Raw wastewater per-capita loadings 2-11 Table 28 2011 flow allocations and flow projections of servcie area entities 2-12 Table 29 Development of annual average raw wastewater design conditions 2-13 Table 210 Projected raw wastewater design conditions 2-14

List of Figures

Figure 21 Historical raw wastewater flow 2-2 Figure 22 Historical raw wastewater TSS loading 2-3 Figure 23 Historical raw wastewater BOD loading 2-3 Figure 24 Historical campus raw wastewater TKN loading 2-4 Figure 25 Historical campus raw wastewater NH4-N loading 2-4 Figure 26 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily flow (a) normal probability plot (b) log-

normal probability plot 2-7 Figure 27 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily TSS loading (a) normal probability plot

(b) log-normal probability plot 2-7 Figure 28 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily BOD loading (a) normal probability

plot (b) log-normal probability plot 2-7 Figure 29 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily TKN loading (a) normal probability plot

(b) log-normal probability plot 2-8 Figure 210 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily NH4-N loading (a) normal probability

plot (b) log-normal probability plot 2-8 Figure 211 Estimated Klinersquos Island WWTP service area population growth 2-14 Figure 212 Historical primary influent temperature 2-16 Figure 213 Historical intermediate clarifier effluent temperature 2-16 Figure 214 Historical RMTF effluent temperature 2-17

2-1 March 2016

20 FLOWS AND LOADINGS 21 Purpose Wastewater treatment plants need to be designed to achieve effluent compliance for the discharge limits and associated time-periods defined in with the treatment goals Those time periods typically are monthly weekly and daily That means that influent wastewater loading variations must be defined and applied when designing operating controlling and optimizing unit treatment processes Understanding the time-related-magnitude of loadings is fundamental to successful treatment performance which is directly related to properly sized processes and systems Intrinsic to that notion is the balance between the extent (size cost complexity etc) of the physical treatment facilities and the selected magnitude of the loading criteria and the duration of that loading magnitude Realistically treatment facilities must be sized and constructed based on probable loading conditions not on the absolute worst-case extreme loading circumstances This is where appropriate data analysis and judicious extraction of information are very important to define cost-effective solutions 22 Review of Influent Data Plant operations data from January 2010 through December 2012 were provided by the Authority compiled and evaluated to investigate the raw wastewater (RWW) flow and pollutant loadings The routinely sampled plant influent stream reflects primary influent however to properly project design criteria based on service area population growth it was necessary to translate the primary influent flow and loadings into raw wastewater To accomplish this it was fortunate that fairly detailed daily records of the side-streams that entered the wastewater upstream of the primaries were also available These included the rock media trickling filter (RMTF) recirculation the solids handling return streams leachate and septage Subtracting these side-streams from the primary influent allowed for sensible estimation of the true RWW This enabled historical analysis benchmarking and projection of future RWW flow and loadings based on the existing RWW loadings and projected service area growth Available historical parameters of interest included flow total suspended solids (TSS) and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH4-N) 221 Raw Wastewater Daily Flows and Loadings Figures 21 through 25 show the historical flow and pollutant loadings Review of the historical daily flow indicated that periods of elevated flowrates were commonly experienced during the early springtime suggesting a strong influence of snowmelt and spring rain events Conversely lower flowrates were typically observed towards the late summer time when sustained rain events were less frequent and groundwater levels were normally at their lowest One significant exception to this trend was present in late

2-2 March 2016

August 2011 On August 28 Hurricane Irene made landfall in the Mid-Atlantic region which caused an average daily flow in excess of 80 MGD at the Klinersquos Island WWTP

Figure 21 Historical raw wastewater flow

2-3 March 2016

Figure 22 Historical raw wastewater TSS loading

Figure 23 Historical raw wastewater BOD loading

2-4 March 2016

Figure 24 Historical campus raw wastewater TKN loading

Figure 25 Historical campus raw wastewater NH4-N loading

2-5 March 2016

Pollutant loadings did not appear to be proportional to flow rather on many occasions loadings appeared to be inversely proportional lower loadings were observed during higher flows and higher loadings were observed during lower flows One hypothesis that helps explain this relationship is the release of loadings into the environment upstream of the WWTP due to combined sewer overflows It is likely that because the Allentown WWTP service area is predominantly a combined sewer system heavy rain events flush a portion of the pollutant loadings into receiving streams thereby reducing the loadings normally received at the plant during high flow conditions 222 Raw Wastewater Flow and Loading Cumulative Probability Distributions Most often one wants to understand how data is ldquoclusteredrdquo or what data values occur most frequently A useful technique for that is to prepare a cumulative probability distribution by (1) ranking the reported data from the greatest to the lowest values where ldquonrdquo is the total number of data points (2) assigning each data point a rank denoted as ldquomrdquo where ldquomrdquo ranges from 1 to n (3) calculating each valuersquos probability by dividing ldquomrdquo by (n + 1) and (4) then plotting the values as a function of probability Probability in this respect is typically referred to as ldquonon-exceedence probabilityrdquo where each valuersquos probability indicates how much of the data did not exceed that value The result of this procedure is a graphical cumulative probability distribution of the data When the cumulative probability distributions are plotted on a standard arithmetic x-axis a form of an S-shaped curve typically results Unfortunately this type of plot does not provide insight relative to the nature of the type of probability distribution the data may have This requires that data be plotted on a probability x-axis Wastewater flow and loading data typically follow a ldquonormalrdquo or ldquolog-normalrdquo probability distribution as discussed in the following sections 2221 Normal Distribution The normal or Gaussian distribution is a mathematical equation that fits many continuous data observations for many natural occurrences When data is plotted that is representative of the mathematical equation of the normal distribution the well-known ldquobell-shaped curverdquo is produced that effectively indicates that the sample data are symmetrically located on either side of the center of the curve with the average value of the data located at the top-middle A normal probability plot provides a probability x-axis such that if the data are ldquonormally distributedrdquo the cumulative probabilities plot as a straight-line on that graph Many times it is useful to plot the cumulative probabilities of the data on normal probability paper to see if a straight-line fits the datahellipif so it suggests the data follow a normal distribution function such that certain statistical information about the data can be extracted from that graph The mean or average value of the data and the median or the value that has the same number of data points more than it and the same number of data points less than it both are located at the 50-percentile on a normal probability plot

2-6 March 2016

The probability scale on a normal probability plot indicates the probability that a related data value on the plot occurs ldquoless than that percent of the datardquohellipfor a value at the 50-percentile mark the plot identifies the value wherein half of the data is less than that value and half the data is more than that value Therefore the plot helps in understanding the magnitude of a data point in terms of the rest of the data Various judgments can be made based on that probability of non-exceedance 2222 Log-Normal Distribution When data is log-normally distributed the logarithms of the data plot as a straight line on a normal probability plot Log-normal probability plots have a normal probability scale on the x-axis and a logarithmic scale on the y-axis Data that plots as a straight-line on log-normal probability paper indicates that the logarithms of the data points follow a normal distribution For log-normally distributed data it should be noted that the 50-percentile is the median but the average is the geometric mean of the data not the arithmetic mean For a large number of wastewater treatment plants the log-normal probability distribution typically applies to influent and effluent data analyses For those plants the extreme high values (values above the 90-percentile) tend to curve upward and the extreme low values (values below the 10-percentile) tend to curve downward with the 10-percent to 90-percent values generally fitting a straight-line The percentile on the probability scale (x-axis) where the data tends to continuously deviate from the best-fit linear trace may help to understand the reasons for systematic errors that bias the data for certain operating conditions or for certain analytical measurements For instance when plotting constituent loading data the upper portion of the data trace could ldquoswing upwardrdquo and the lower portion could ldquoswing downwardrdquo such that those data points could be defined by their own best-fit line In this example case because loadings are calculated by integrating constituent concentrations and flows that upward or downward trend deviation could be caused by a systematic flow-metering error such that above or below a certain flow the meter system tends to read inaccurately for some reason Integrating the erroneously high or low flow values with the measured wastewater concentrations result in overstated or understated loadings A similar result would occur if accurate flowrates are integrated with erroneous concentration measurements These are two of a host of possibilities that could be influencing reported data valueshellipthe important observation from review of a data plot is that extreme values that deviate from the trend line should be scrutinized before including them in the ldquotruth windowrdquo of apparently representative data For each of the historically analyzed flow and loading parameters graphs of the data were constructed They include normal and log-normal probability plots These plots are shown in Figures 26 through 210 and provide an understanding the nature of the probability distribution of the data and help in understanding extreme values

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

Figure 26 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily flow (a) normal probability plot (b) log-normal probability plot

(a) (b)

Figure 27 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily TSS loading (a) normal probability plot (b) log-normal probability plot

(a) (b)

Figure 28 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily BOD loading (a) normal probability plot (b) log-normal probability plot

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

Figure 29 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily TKN loading (a) normal probability plot (b) log-normal probability plot

(a) (b)

Figure 210 Cumulative probability plots of historical average daily NH4-N loading (a) normal probability plot (b) log-normal probability plot

The probability plots suggested that the average daily flows and loadings data generally followed either a normal or log-normal probability distribution with the exception of some data below and beyond the 10 and 90 non-exceedence probabilities respectively This observation is a typical trend in raw wastewater flow and loading data which suggests that the raw wastewater historical flows and loadings reflect a dataset that is not out of the ordinary and hence passes one of the first ldquoreality checksrdquo that is performed on plant influent data The cumulative probability plots also provided insight relative to what extreme data should be scrutinized before inclusion in further analysis Often times in this type of analysis data that significantly deviate from the probability distribution best-fit linear trace are removed from the database to exclude abnormally extreme values that were likely caused by measurement errors thereby helping to avoid

2-9 March 2016

artificially inflated or deflated and inappropriate benchmarking conditions However since there were very few data illustrating significant deviation no data were removed from the database 223 Raw Wastewater Flow and Loading Benchmarking Conditions 2231 Summary of Historical Raw Wastewater Flows and Loadings The annual average flows and loadings for each year analyzed have been summarized in Table 21 where the flow-weighted concentrations have also been shown Flow and loading patterns presented in Figures 21 through 25 were investigated to identify maximum average flows and loadings for each year analyzed Of special interest were the maximum 210-day 30-day 7-day and 1-day average flowrates and loadings because those conditions were aligned with the 7-month average ammonia and total nitrogen limits defined by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and the monthly weekly and daily NPDES permit limits These maximum averages represent the maximum sustained average values for the described duration which can be used to infer peaking conditions of the flowrates and loadings due to the characteristics of the wastewater service area Each annually observed maximum average was normalized by dividing it by the annual average to create a ldquopeaking factorrdquo which can be applied to future conditions that reflect similar service area characteristics Tables 22 through 26 summarize the flow and loading conditions that were observed for each 1-year period analyzed

Table 21 Annual average raw wastewater flows loadings and concentrations

Parameter Unit 2010 Annual

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

Conditions Population (capita) 200000 200000 200000 200000

Flow (MGD) 316 360 309 328 TSS (lbsd) (mgL) 40702 154 38867 130 41577 161 40382 148 BOD (lbsd) (mgL) 37790 143 34764 116 37308 145 36620 134 TKN (lbsd) (mgL) 7229 274 6518 217 7064 274 6937 253

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Table 22 Historical raw wastewater flows and peaking factors

Year Annual Average

Maximum Averages Peaking Factors 210 day 30 day 7 day 1 day 210 day 30 day 7 day 1 day

(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (---) (---) (---) (---) 2010 316 327 387 447 638 104 123 141 202 2011 360 370 481 635 861 103 134 176 239 2012 309 376 382 416 635 122 124 135 206 AVG 328 358 417 499 711 109 127 151 216

Table 23 Historical raw wastewater TSS loadings and peaking factors

Year Annual Average

(lbsd) (lbsd) (lbsd) (lbsd) (lbsd) (---) (---) (---) (---) 2010 40702 42000 45003 48140 68948 103 111 118 169 2011 38867 41175 43661 44789 60721 106 112 115 156 2012 41577 43366 48297 53240 77127 104 116 128 186 AVG 40382 42180 45654 48723 68932 104 113 121 170

Table 24 Historical raw wastewater BOD loadings and peaking factors

Year Annual Average

Table 25 Historical raw wastewater TKN loadings and peaking factors

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Table 26 Historical raw wastewater NH4-N loadings and peaking factors

Year Annual Average

2232 Annual Average Per-capita Loadings It is important to check the validity of RWW flows and loadings before accepting them as truthful values on which to extrapolate projected future design values One of the most fundamental ldquoreality checksrdquo of annual average loadings is by examination on a per-capita basis For this application however one known major non-domestic loading stream that entered the Klinersquos Island WWTP influent was the LCA pretreatment plant effluent This loading stream was therefore subtracted from the Allentown RWW prior to computing the per-capita loadings The Klinersquos Island WWTP service area for the years that made up the historical database was approximately 200000 Using this population each per-capita annual average loading was computed and is presented in Table 27 along with typical per-capita loading values for comparison After review of the per-capita values relative to typical values it is clear that the annual average flow and loadings are quite reasonable for the size of the population served

Table 27 Raw wastewater per-capita loadings

Parameter Unit Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Pretreatment Plant Effluent

Annual Average Domestic

Loadings to Klines Island

Per-Capita

Loading Typical1 Range1

Flow (MGD) 328 307 2975 149 130 60 - 200 TSS (lbsd) 40382 510 39872 020 020 013 - 033 BOD (lbsd) 36620 388 36233 018 018 011 - 026 TKN (lbsd) 6937 405 6532 0033 0029 0020 - 0048

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

23 Basis of Design Conditions It is important to identify the origin of new wastewater production associated with a plantrsquos service area when projecting new additional flow and loadings The Klinersquos Island WWTP provides treatment for several service areas each of which owns specific capacity allocations The 2011 flow existing owned capacity allocations and the projected new flow through the design year of 2040 for each entity was provided by the Authority and compared in Table 28 The baseline year of 2011 was selected by the Authority to project new allocation needs since that yearrsquos flow was highest thereby projecting conservative future flow capacity allocations It was interesting to note that the 2040 flow was estimated at about 42 MGD and the new allocation total came out to about 44 MGD This is because the projected capacity allocations were determined by comparing the projected 2040 flow for each entity to its owned allocation If the 2040 flow exceeded the allocation that indicated a need to expand the allocation If the 2040 projected flow was less then existing allocation was deemed adequate

Table 28 2011 flow allocations and flow projections of servcie area entities

Service Area 2011 Flow New Flow 2040 Flow Owned

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

(MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) City of Allentown + Hanover Twp 1891 185 2076 1882 -194 2076Lehigh County Authority 891 252 1143 1078 -065 1143South Whitehall Twp 306 012 318 300 -018 318CWSA + North Whitehall Twp 242 008 250 376 126 376Salisbury Twp 123 000 123 199 076 199Emmaus Borough 134 008 142 140 -002 142Lower Macungie Twp 013 160 173 025 -148 173Total 3600 625 4225 4000 -225 4427

When projecting the loadings on the other hand it was noticed that the 2011 loadings were the lowest of the three years analyzed As such the average loadings of the three years analyzed were selected for the baseline (existing) loadings To project the design condition loadings the design flow of 44 MGD was set forth by the Authority and the balance of the existing and design flow was computed at 1119 MGD The equivalent population associated with this new flow was estimated at 111861 based on a per-capita flow of 100 gpd for new connections (it was assumed that this new flow would be from new sewer extensions without the effects of inflow and infiltration) The loadings associated with this population were calculated with the typical per-capita loadings cited in Table 27 The design annual average conditions were then computed by adding up the existing and new loadings which have been illustrated in Table 29

2-13 March 2016

Note that the projected new flow of 625 MGD cited in Table 28 has an equivalent population of only 62500 at a per-capita flow of 100 gpd making the total service area population (existing + new) of 262500 for the design year of 2040 However the method of projecting the design flow with entity capacity allocations working in tandem with the high 2011 baseline flow of 36 MGD resulted in 44 MGD the loadings of which have an equivalent population of 311861 The overall result is a basis of design condition that reflects 49361 more people than the design year population of 2040 The growth associated with these populations (existing population of 200000 and 2040 population of 262500) has been investigated in Figure 211 The apparent design population has been estimated to occur around the year 2058 so this basis of design provides for an extra 18 years of growth Use of the average peaking factors presented in Table 22 through 26 allowed for sensible extraction of the maximum sustained average conditions based on the projected annual average conditions Table 210 sets forth the design loading conditions

Table 29 Development of annual average raw wastewater design conditions

Parameter Unit Existing Annual

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Existing and Design Annual

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

Population (capita) 200000 111861 311861 Flow (MGD) 3281 1119 4400 TSS (lbsd) (mgL) 40382 148 22372 240 62754 171 BOD (lbsd) (mgL) 36620 134 20135 216 56755 155 TKN (lbsd) (mgL) 6937 253 3244 348 10181 277

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Figure 211 Estimated Klinersquos Island WWTP service area population growth

Table 210 Projected raw wastewater design conditions

Parameter Unit Annual

Average Conditions

Maximum 210d Average

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

Flow (MGD) 4400 4813 5575 6641 9488 TSS (lbsd) (mgL) 62754 171 65563 163 70926 153 75632 137 106918 135 BOD (lbsd) (mgL) 56755 155 58728 146 62370 134 68027 123 93609 118 TKN (lbsd) (mgL) 10181 277 10659 266 11387 245 12090 218 15572 197

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 5362 146 5828 145 6749 145 7508 136 9889 125 24 Wastewater Temperature Wastewater temperature has a significant influence on process performance relative to nitrogen removal The ability to nitrify decreases as temperature decreases As an example the rate of nitrification decreases about 30 for each 5degC decrease in temperature Biological systems for nitrogen removal must be designed for appropriate cold weather temperature conditions WWTP staff routinely measured the daily primary influent intermediate clarifier effluent and RMTF effluent temperatures These data have been illustrated in Figure 212 213 and 214 each with a 30-day moving

2-15 March 2016

average trend line shown An investigation of this data enabled judicious selection of design basis temperatures The long-term average primary influent intermediate clarifier effluent and RMTF effluent temperatures were 158degC 183degC and 169degC Based on these temperatures it can be inferred that there was a slight warming effect though the PMTFintermediate clarifier system and then a slight cooling effect through the RMTFs The NPDES permitrsquos winter time definition was November through April while the DRBCrsquos winter time definition was October through April When selecting the minimum winter time temperatures the difference in the permitting agencies time frames did not affect the temperatures because the minimums always occurred in February or March The minimum winter time monthly average temperatures for the PMTFs and RMTFs were identified at 11degC and 127degC and were based on the 30-day moving average minimums for the primary influent and intermediate clarifier effluent The minimum summer time monthly average temperatures were identified at 14degC and 161degC and were dictated by May temperatures so the difference in the permitting agencyrsquos summer time frames (NPDES is May through October DRBC is May through September) also did not affect the minimum summer time temperature selections Since the proposed winter time DRBC limit is based on a 7-month average the minimum 7-month average within the DRBC winter timeframe required identification To do so the 30-day moving average trend line was changed to a 210-day moving average where the minimum PMTF and RMTF temperatures were identified as 13degC and 15degC

2-16 March 2016

Figure 212 Historical primary influent temperature

Figure 213 Historical intermediate clarifier effluent temperature

2-17 March 2016

Figure 214 Historical RMTF effluent temperature

25 References 1 Metcalf amp Eddy Inc (2003) Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse 4th ed McGraw-Hill New York NY

APPENDIX VIb Process Modeling

Lehigh County Authority Klinersquos Island WWTP Process Evaluation

March 2016

TOC Section 3

30 PROCESS MODELING 3-1

31 METHODOLOGY 3-1 32 PRE-MODELING ACTIVITIES 3-4

321 Modeling Goals 3-4 322 Historical Process Performance 3-5

3221 Primary Treatment 3-5 3222 Tricking Filters 3-10 3223 Gravity Thickener 3-27 3224 Anaerobic Digestion 3-27 3225 Belt Filter Press Dewatering 3-29 3226 Combined Side-stream Recycle 3-30

33 INTENSIVE SAMPLING 3-31 34 MODEL DEVELOPMENT 3-31

341 Biological Model Selection 3-31 342 Influent Characterization Modeling 3-32 343 Trickling Filter Modeling 3-34 344 SolidsLiquid Separation Modeling 3-36 345 Anaerobic Digestion Modeling 3-36 346 Model Construction Calibration and Validation 3-36

3461 Influent Characterization 3-37 3462 Primary Treatment 3-40 3463 Trickling Filters 3-41 3464 Intermediate and Final Clarifiers 3-42 3465 Digestion 3-42 3466 Thickening Dewatering and Side-stream Treatment Clarifiers 3-42 3467 Steady-state Model Calibration and Validation Documentation 3-43 3468 Dynamic Model Validation Documentation 3-47

35 MODEL APPLICATION 3-69 351 Influent Scenario Development 3-69 352 Process Upgrade Configurations 3-70

3521 Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment 3-70 3522 Side-stream Treatment 3-71 3523 Partial RMTF Media Change Out 3-71

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Tables Table 31 Description of wastewater process modeling steps 3-3 Table 32 Primary Clarifier Mass Balance Closure Analysis 3-6 Table 33 Trickling filter classifications and operating parameters 3-11 Table 34 Comparison of long-term average performance parameters to literature predictions 3-22 Table 35 Primary anaerobic digestion mass balance and performance analysis results 3-29 Table 36 Process capabilities of various biological models 3-32 Table 37 Comparison of Klinersquos Island WWTP influents and IWA standard COD fractionations 3-39 Table 38 Comparison of Klinersquos Island influent wastewater fractions and Mantis2 model defaults 3-39 Table 39 Calibrated and validated trickling filter parameters changes 3-41 Table 310 NPDES and DRBC limits and their applicable loading conditions and temperatures 3-70 Table 311 Simulation results of upgrading the Klinersquos Island WWTP 3-73

List of Figures

March 2016

Figure 31 Stepwise approach to wastewater process modeling 3-2 Figure 32 Primary influent and effluent TSS with flow 3-7 Figure 33 Primary TSS removal efficiency with flow 3-8 Figure 34 Primary influent and effluent BOD with flow 3-8 Figure 35 Primary BOD removal efficiency with flow 3-9 Figure 36 Comparison of Greeley removal curves with observed removals 3-9 Figure 37 Primary influent and effluent TKN with flow 3-10 Figure 38 General relationship between BOD removal and volumetric BOD loading at 20degC 3-11 Figure 39 USEPA (1975) relationship between NH4-N removal and volumetric BOD loading 3-12 Figure 310 Okey and Albertson (1989) relationship between nitrification rate and BODTKN ratio 3-12 Figure 311 Parker et al (1990) relationships between nitrification rate and temperature 3-13 Figure 312 PMTFintermediate clarifier system influent and effluent BOD with flow and temperature 3-14 Figure 313 PMTFintermediate clarifier system BOD removal with flow and temperature 3-14 Figure 314 PMTFintermediate clarifier system BOD removal with BOD loading and temperature 3-15 Figure 315 PMTFintermediate clarifier system influent and effluent NH4-N with flow and temperature 3-

15 Figure 316 PMTFintermediate clarifier system NH4-N removal with flow and temperature 3-16 Figure 317 PMTFintermediate clarifier system NH4-N removal with BOD loading and temperature 3-16 Figure 318 RMTFfinal clarifier system influent and effluent BOD with flow and temperature 3-18 Figure 319 RMTFfinal clarifier system BOD removal with flow and temperature 3-18 Figure 320 RMTFfinal clarifier system BOD removal with BOD loading 3-19 Figure 321 RMTFfinal clarifier system influent and effluent NH4-N with flow and temperature 3-19 Figure 322 RMTFfinal clarifier system NH4-N removal with flow and temperature 3-20 Figure 323 RMTFfinal clarifier system NH4-N removal with BOD loading 3-20 Figure 324 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF removals with general BOD removal curve 3-23 Figure 325 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF removals with USEPA NH4-N removal curve 3-23 Figure 326 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF nitrification rates with Okey amp Albertson

nitrification rate curve 3-24 Figure 327 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF nitrification rates by Parker et al (1990) 3-24 Figure 328 Observed Yield curves for activated sludge processes downstream of primary treatment 3-26 Figure 329 Equivalent SRT within a trickling filter relative to volumetric BOD loading 3-27 Figure 330 Increase in anaerobic digestion performance with increasing time-temperature product 3-28 Figure 331 Distinction between soluble and particulate components in IWA models compared to the

fractions in reality 3-33 Figure 332 Conceptualization of the Hydromantis trickling filter model 3-35 Figure 333 Comprehensive modeling layout of the Klinersquos Island WWTP 3-37 Figure 334 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary influent 3-43 Figure 335 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary effluent 3-44 Figure 336 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the PMTF effluent 3-44 Figure 337 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the intermediate clarifier effluent 3-45 Figure 338 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the RMTF effluent 3-45 Figure 339 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the final clarifier effluent 3-46 Figure 340 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary digested sludge 3-46 Figure 341 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the digester biogas 3-47 Figure 342 Dynamic calibration output of primary influent carbonaceous parameters 3-48 Figure 343 Dynamic calibration output of primary influent nutrient pH and alkalinity parameters 3-48 Figure 344 Dynamic calibration output of primary effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-49 Figure 345 Dynamic calibration output of primary effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters 3-49 Figure 346 Dynamic calibration output of PMTF effluent TSS 3-50 Figure 347 Dynamic calibration output of PMTF effluent nutrient parameters 3-50 Figure 348 Dynamic calibration output of intermediate clarifier effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-51 Figure 349 Dynamic calibration output of intermediate clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-51 Figure 350 Dynamic calibration output of RMTF effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-52

March 2016

Figure 351 Dynamic calibration output of RMTF effluent nutrient parameters 3-52 Figure 352 Dynamic calibration output of final effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-53 Figure 353 Dynamic calibration output of final clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters 3-53 Figure 354 Dynamic calibration output of primary sludge solids 3-54 Figure 355 Dynamic calibration output of thickened secondary sludge solids 3-54 Figure 356 Dynamic calibration output of primary digested sludge solids 3-55 Figure 357 Dynamic calibration output of primary digester alkalinity and pH parameters 3-55 Figure 358 Dynamic calibration output of primary digester biogas parameters 3-56 Figure 359 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester sludge solids 3-56 Figure 360 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester alkalinity and pH parameters 3-57 Figure 361 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester supernatant TSS 3-57 Figure 362 Dynamic calibration output of combined return streams carbonaceous parameters 3-58 Figure 363 Dynamic calibration output of combined return streams nutrient parameters 3-58 Figure 364 Dynamic validation output of primary influent carbonaceous parameters 3-59 Figure 365 Dynamic validation output of primary influent nutrient pH and alkalinity parameters 3-59 Figure 366 Dynamic validation output of primary effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-60 Figure 367 Dynamic validation output of primary effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters 3-60 Figure 368 Dynamic validation output of PMTF effluent TSS 3-61 Figure 369 Dynamic validation output of PMTF effluent nutrient parameters 3-61 Figure 370 Dynamic validation output of intermediate clarifier effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-62 Figure 371 Dynamic validation output of intermediate clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-62 Figure 372 Dynamic validation output of RMTF effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-63 Figure 373 Dynamic validation output of RMTF effluent nutrient parameters 3-63 Figure 374 Dynamic validation output of final effluent carbonaceous parameters 3-64 Figure 375 Dynamic validation output of final clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters 3-64 Figure 376 Dynamic validation output of primary sludge solids 3-65 Figure 377 Dynamic validation output of thickened secondary sludge solids 3-65 Figure 378 Dynamic validation output of primary digested sludge solids 3-66 Figure 379 Dynamic validation output of primary digester alkalinity and pH parameters 3-66 Figure 380 Dynamic validation output of primary digester biogas parameters 3-67 Figure 381 Dynamic validation output of secondary digester sludge solids 3-67 Figure 382 Dynamic validation output of secondary digester alkalinity and pH parameters 3-68 Figure 383 Dynamic validation output of combined return streams carbonaceous parameters 3-68 Figure 384 Dynamic validation output of combined return streams nutrient parameters 3-69 Figure 385 Dynamic validation output of combined return streams nutrient parameters 3-71 Figure 386 Brentwood Industries CF-1900 crossflow media (45 ft2ft3) 3-72 Figure 387 GPS-X layout of the upgraded Klinersquos Island WWTP 3-73

3-1 March 2016

30 PROCESS MODELING 31 Methodology The application of mechanistic modeling in biological wastewater treatment has become a powerful approach to evaluating and designing wastewater treatment processes Mechanistically based models account for the major individual processes that occur concurrently within a system to predict the overall outcome and are inherently more powerful more accurate and less subjective than most empirical models which incorporate a statistical approach to mimic results obtained by studies With the development of the family of International Water Association (IWA) activated sludge models and commercially available modeling software packages biological wastewater modeling has become a popular evaluatory protocol for optimizing re-rating upgrading and designing wastewater treatment plants A practical stepwise approach was developed in 2006 that was geared towards the application of process modeling in the engineering consulting industry1 Two years later the IWA task group on Good Modeling Practice developed a unified protocol for broader usage applications2 These protocols are appropriately stepwise in nature and generally include the following three phases and sub-steps

1 Pre-modeling Activities a Identification of Modeling Goals b Historical Data Analysis c Historical Data Reconciliation d Intensive Sampling Campaign e Intensive Sampling Data Reconciliation

2 Model Development a Influent Characterization b Model Construction and Calibration c Model Validation

3 Model Application a Influent Scenario Development b Plant Performance Simulations

This methodology was followed in the development and application of the Klinersquos Island WWTP process model Figure 31 illustrates this protocol and Table 31 describes the key steps in further detail

3-2 March 2016

Figure 31 Stepwise approach to wastewater process modeling

3-3 March 2016

Table 31 Description of wastewater process modeling steps Step Description

1 Define Modeling Goals

The first step is to clearly identify goals to be achieved from the modeling These goals will dictate the level of model complexity quantity and quality of sampling data and the degree of model calibration Although a simple step in the process it can often be neglected causing scope creep and an unnecessary expenditure of effort

odeling Activities

2 Historical Data Analysis

Analyzing historical data can help identify if and where errors are due to current data collection practices

3 Historical Data Reconciliation

Correction of the sampling andor measurement errors identified in the historical data analysis decreases the chances of error generation in the next step

4 Intensive Sampling

Obtaining data for model calibration and verification ideally includes a comprehensive sampling program that captures a degree of dynamic variation necessary for the level of calibration identified in the first step

5 Intensive

Sampling Data Reconciliation

Reconciliation of the intensive sampling data before using it for model calibration helps to avoid incorrect model parameter adjustments By performing mass-balance checks and other data screening techniques error in the data is flagged Since models achieve 100 mass balance closure identification of these errors is important to understand where model predictions are more valid than measured data

6 Influent Characterization

This is considered the most crucial step as it influences how each inter-unit process will perform Experience indicates that model calibration is mostly achieved through correctly conducting influent characterization

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

Construction and Calibration

Parameters are iteratively adjusted until the model predictions dynamically match inter-unit and effluent parameters The hierarchy of parameter adjustment is influent characteristics physical geometry and lastly kinetic parameters

8 Model Validation

A calibrated model is run against a second dataset that is different from the calibration dataset (model validation and verification are used interchangeably)

9 Influent

Scenario Development

Definition of influent scenarios for evaluation are typically projected influent loading parameters that are extrapolated from a historical database and are characterized by the stoichiometric relationships obtained from the sampling campaign data

Model A

pplication10 Plant

Performance Simulations

Predicts plant performance for the projected influent scenarios and optimizes performance through sensitivity analyses

3-4 March 2016

32 Pre-modeling Activities There are several tasks that should be performed prior to the use of any modeling software These pre-modeling activities illustrated in steps 1 through 5 of Figure 31 aim to enhance the overall modeling project by defining the scope of the modeling identifying and reconciling areas of poor data quality and collecting intensive sampling data tailored specifically for model calibration Much of the effort associated with these steps involves data compilation and reconciliation by performing mass-balance calculations of sampling data to evaluate its quality relative to its use as a dataset for process model calibration 321 Modeling Goals By identifying the goalsoutcomes and scope of the modeling there is a better understanding of direction which minimizes the possibility of carrying out modeling investigations not pertinent to the objectives The goal of modeling the Klinersquos Island WWTP was to identify preliminarily configure and size process upgrades to enable the plant to handle the projected flows and loadings while meeting the following effluent limits

a Meet the summer NPDES monthly average effluent ammonia limit of 5

mgL and the summer DRBC monthly average effluent ammonia and TN limits of 4388 lbsd and 6463 lbsd at the following conditions

i Annual average conditions (44 MGD 158degC) ii Maximum month average conditions of 5575 MGD the coldest

monthly average summer temperature of 14degC

b Meet the winter DRBC 7-month average effluent ammonia and TN limits of 8908 lbsd and 6463 lbsd at

i Maximum 7-month average conditions of 4813 MGD the coldest 7-month average winter temperature of 13degC

c Meet the winter NPDES monthly average effluent limit of 15 mgL (CBOD

TN NH3-N)at

i Maximum month average conditions 5575 MGD the coldest monthly average winter temperature of 11degC

3-5 March 2016

322 Historical Process Performance The existing treatment process performance was evaluated relative to commonly accepted process performance parameters However there is always an inherent level of error in reported data due to measurement and sampling protocols and it is these investigations that enable one to infer an understanding of the quality of the data collected as the integrity of the data used for model development is critically important to any modeling project For example to properly characterize solids production it is necessary to know liquid-phase concentrations solids discharge quantities and solids-streams-flowrates for the interunit processes Integrating flows and their associated concentrations result in mass-flow streams (ie loadings) that must balance in order to benchmark processes and very importantly to do ldquoreality checkingrdquo of reported plant data and solids production Routinely-collected plant operations data from January 2010 through December 2012 was compiled and evaluated on both a long-term average and dynamic performance basis To investigate the long-term average performance and data quality it was convenient to construct a quantified mass-flow diagram (QMFD) to holistically illustrate the data in a diagrammatic fashion Appendix 31 illustrates the QMFD of the three-year average flows mass loadings and flow-weighted concentration data QMFDs of other specific data periods have also been included which will be discussed later Operating parameters of the process units are also illustrated for evaluation Much of the data presented is also color-coded to describe the origin of the value shown Blue values indicate historical average data and red values were calculated Red values reflect estimations by mass balance calculations because either (1) no data was available for that location or (2) reported data seemed unreasonable Dynamic process performance of the primary clarifiers plastic media trickling filters (PMTFs) and rock media trickling filters (RMTFs) were investigated by trending operations data to investigate correlations between flow loading andor temperature with removal efficiency 3221 Primary Treatment Primary treatment serves to remove suspended yet settable material for subsequent removal from the wastewater It is important to note that primary treatment is typically assumed to be mass-conservative meaning that solids are neither created nor destroyed during the process This was the assumption made The primary sludge averaged 37 solids a commonly observed primary sludge concentration The average primary sludge flowrate was metered at 0078 MGD which rendered a mass-flow of 24130 lbsd Considering the respective influent and effluent solids loadings of 43786 lbsd and 24130 lbsd the sludge mass-flow reflected a mass balance closure of 94 which represents reasonable mass balance closure Table 32 illustrates the primary clarifier mass-balance closure analysis

3-6 March 2016

Table 32 Primary Clarifier Mass Balance Closure Analysis

Parameter Flow TSS

(MGD) (mgL) (lbsd) Primary Influent 3711 141 43786 Primary Effluent 3704 56 17213 Primary Sludge 0078 37149 24130

Total Out 41343 Mass Balance Closure () 94

Primary treatment is provided by four 120 ft diameter primary clarifiers with an average depth of 12 ft Performance is typically related to the surface overflow rate (SOR)3 or the clarifierrsquos hydraulic retention time (HRT)45 The long-term average SOR and HRT of the primary clarifiers were observed at 819 gpdft2 and 26 hours respectively which translated to long-term average TSS and BOD removals of 61 and 39 respectively On a dynamic basis Figure 32 illustrates the clarifier influent flow and the influent and effluent TSS concentrations as a function of time where an inversely proportional correlation was found between flow and influent TSS at times where high influent flow occurred so did low influent TSS concentrations while at times of low flow high TSS occurred This indicated a dilution effect where high flow events diluted the influent TSS Effluent TSS did not seem to vary to the same degree as the influent suggesting a smoothing of variability due to the clarifierrsquos residence time Figure 33 presents flow and TSS removal efficiency where a similar correlation was apparent higher flows resulted in lower removals and lower flows resulted in higher removals However this correlation was likely caused by the variability of the influent TSS since it is included in the calculation of removal efficiency Figures 34 and 35 show the same graphs except with BOD rather than TSS where similar trends were apparent Figure 36 shows TSS and BOD removal as a function of HRT per the Greeley primary treatment model The daily TSS and BOD removal points have also been plotted upon the same graph for comparison to the model curves It was apparent that the observed removal data points clustered reasonably well with the Greeley curves The aforementioned long-term average TSS and BOD removals of 61 and 39 (which represent the centroid of the clustered data) reasonably agreed with the Greeley model-predicted removals of 60 and 35 Lastly the primary influent and effluent NH4-N and TKN was compared Since NH4-N is completely soluble and TKN is predominantly soluble in nature (since TKN is the sum of NH4-N and the organic nitrogen typically associated with TSS) NH4-N removal across primary treatment should be negligible and TKN removal should be quite small The long-term influent and effluent NH4-N were 5147 lbsd (166 mgL) and 4870 lbsd (158 mgL) which translated to a negligible 48 removal The long-term influent and

3-7 March 2016

effluent TKN were 8897 lbsd (29 mgL) and 7839 lbsd (25 mgL) which translated to 12 removal which represents the organic N associated with TSS that settles out in the primary sludge Figure 37 illustrates in the dynamic influent and effluent TKN where little change was observed Overall it can be concluded that the Klinersquos Island primary clarifiers operated as expected during the duration of the historical database and that the quality of the influent effluent and sludge data seemed reasonable

Figure 32 Primary influent and effluent TSS with flow

3-8 March 2016

Figure 33 Primary TSS removal efficiency with flow

Figure 34 Primary influent and effluent BOD with flow

3-9 March 2016

Figure 35 Primary BOD removal efficiency with flow

Figure 36 Comparison of Greeley removal curves with observed removals

3-10 March 2016

Figure 37 Primary influent and effluent TKN with flow

3222 Tricking Filters Various classifications and trickling filter performance parameters have been developed from observations and studies in operating trickling filters over many years Table 33 illustrates some of these observations6 Trickling filter studies have been carried out that have linked BOD and NH4-N removal efficiency with the volumetric BOD loading789 The studies showed that removal efficiency of both BOD and NH4-N decreased as the BOD loading increased The key removal relationships from these studies are shown in Figure 38 and 39 Other studies have indicated that the nitrification rate has been related to the influent BODTKN ratio10 and temperature11 The relationships documented by these studies are shown in Figure 310 and 311 The studies showed that the nitrification rate decreased as the influent BODTKN ratio increased and as temperature decreased but Okey and Albertson showed that the dissolved oxygen had a greater effect on the nitrification rate than temperature It should be noted that the performance reporting conventions of these studies and observations reflects the settling effects of the clarifier downstream of the filter The BOD and NH4-N removal efficiencies and nitrification rates for the PMTFintermediate clarifier system and the RMTFfinal clarifier system have been investigated on a long-term average and dynamic basis for comparison to the results provided in the literature

3-11 March 2016

Table 33 Trickling filter classifications and operating parameters

Figure 38 General relationship between BOD removal and volumetric BOD loading at 20degC

3-12 March 2016

Figure 39 USEPA (1975) relationship between NH4-N removal and volumetric BOD loading

Figure 310 Okey and Albertson (1989) relationship between nitrification rate and BODTKN ratio

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

Figure 311 Parker et al (1990) relationships between nitrification rate and temperature The daily PMTFintermediate clarifier system performance was investigated by plotting the influent and effluent BOD on the same plots as flow temperature and volumetric BOD loading to infer relationships between them Figure 312 illustrates the influent and effluent BOD with flow and temperature and Figure 313 shows the BOD removal efficiency with flow and temperature Figure 314 replaced flow with volumetric BOD loading A slight trend can be observed where higher influent flows and volumetric BOD loadings decreased BOD removal There did not seem to be a trend with temperature lower BOD removals did not appear to occur during lower wastewater temperatures and vice versa The same kinds of plots were also generated in terms of NH4-N Figure 315 illustrates influent and effluent NH4-N with flow and temperature while Figure 316 shows the NH4-N removal efficiency with flow and temperature Figure 317 replaced flow with volumetric BOD loading A clear trend became apparent where lower NH4-N removal efficiencies occurred when elevated flows and volumetric BOD loadings occurred especially when they coincided with lower temperatures It is therefore fairly conclusive that elevated flows andor BOD loadings and low temperatures resulted in reduced NH4-N removal efficiencies

3-14 March 2016

Figure 312 PMTFintermediate clarifier system influent and effluent BOD with flow and

temperature

Figure 313 PMTFintermediate clarifier system BOD removal with flow and temperature

3-15 March 2016

Figure 314 PMTFintermediate clarifier system BOD removal with BOD loading and temperature

Figure 315 PMTFintermediate clarifier system influent and effluent NH4-N with flow and

temperature

3-16 March 2016

Figure 316 PMTFintermediate clarifier system NH4-N removal with flow and temperature

Figure 317 PMTFintermediate clarifier system NH4-N removal with BOD loading and temperature

3-17 March 2016

There are four plastic media trickling filters (PMTFs) each with a diameter and media depth of 100 and 32 ft respectively which provides a total volume (all four units) of 1005310 ft3 The plastic media has a specific surface area of 27 ft2ft3 so the total media area available for biomass growth was about 271 million ft2 During the historical database period the long-term average BOD loading and nitrification rates respectively averaged 24 lbsd1000 ft3 and 048 gNm2d The influent effluent and BOD removal averaged 78 mgL 27 mgL and 66 The influent effluent and NH4-N removal averaged 158 mgL 73 mgL and 55 It should be noted that these removal efficiencies include the effects of the intermediate clarifier downstream of the PMTFs The daily RMTFfinal clarifier system performance was investigated by plotting the influent and effluent BOD on the same plots as flow temperature and volumetric BOD loading to infer relationships between them in a similar manner as for the PMTFs Figure 318 illustrates the influent and effluent BOD with flow and temperature and Figure 319 shows the BOD removal efficiency with flow and temperature Figure 320 shows NH4-N removal with volumetric BOD loading A slight trend can be observed where higher influent flows and volumetric BOD loadings decreased BOD removal Unlike the PMTFs there seemed to be a relationship with temperature lower BOD removals also coincided with lower wastewater temperatures and vice versa The same kinds of plots were also generated in terms of NH4-N Figure 321 illustrates influent and effluent NH4-N (and some limited effluent NO3-N data) with flow and temperature while Figure 322 shows the NH4-N removal efficiency with flow and temperature Figure 323 illustrates NH4-N removal with volumetric BOD loading A clear trend became apparent where lower NH4-N removal efficiencies occurred when elevated flows and volumetric BOD loadings occurred especially when they coincided with lower temperatures It is therefore fairly conclusive that elevated flows andor BOD loadings and low temperatures resulted in reduced NH4-N removal efficiencies

3-18 March 2016

Figure 318 RMTFfinal clarifier system influent and effluent BOD with flow and temperature

Figure 319 RMTFfinal clarifier system BOD removal with flow and temperature

3-19 March 2016

Figure 320 RMTFfinal clarifier system BOD removal with BOD loading

Figure 321 RMTFfinal clarifier system influent and effluent NH4-N with flow and temperature

3-20 March 2016

Figure 322 RMTFfinal clarifier system NH4-N removal with flow and temperature

Figure 323 RMTFfinal clarifier system NH4-N removal with BOD loading

3-21 March 2016

The rock media trickling filters (RMTFs) are 640 ft long and 372 ft wide Subtracting the small area occupied by the influent wastewater dosing tanks the top surface area of the RMTFs is calculated at 232030 ft2 The media depth is 10 ft which provides a total media volume of 232 million ft3 The rock media is about 2-inch diameter stone which has an approximate specific surface area of 17 ft2ft3 so the total media area available for biomass growth was about 394 million ft2 During the historical database period the long-term average BOD loading and nitrification rates respectively averaged 36 lbsd1000 ft3 and 020 gNm2d The influent effluent and BOD removal averaged 27 mgL 7 mgL and 82 The influent effluent and NH4-N removal averaged 73 mgL 08 mgL and 75 noting that these removal efficiencies included the effects of the final clarifiers downstream of the RMTFs Table 34 compared the long-term average trickling filter performances with the literature predictions The long-term average PMTF and RMTF BOD removals were lower than what the general BOD removal curve suggested Furthermore the daily BOD removals over the 3-year historical database have been plotted with the general BOD removal curve in Figure 324 The daily PMTF BOD removals were mostly clustered around the 20 to 30 lbsd1000ft3 loading region with the BOD removal in the 40 ndash 80 range The RMTF BOD removals were mostly clustered around the 2 to 7 lbsd1000ft3 loading region with the BOD removal in the 60 ndash 95 range While these clusters of data were generally lower than the curve it should be stressed that the curve is rather generically representative of performance at only 20degC and the long-term average data reflected an average temperature of about 158degC with winter temperatures often dropping to about 11degC It has been hypothesized that the data points near the curve are around 20degC and points below are for lower temperatures It was interesting to note however that the predicted removal range cited in Table 33 for an intermediate rate filter was 50 ndash 70 which showed good agreement with the observed 66 removal for the long-term average PMTF BOD loading of 24 lbsd1000ft3 Table 33 also showed a predicted removal range of 80 ndash 90 for the observed low rate RMTF BOD average loading of 36 lbsd1000ft3 also which indicated good agreement with the long-term average removal of 82 As illustrated in Table 34 the long-term average PMTF and RMTF NH4-N removals of 55 and 75 were in agreement with the literature predictions given their BOD loadings of 24 and 36 lbsd1000ft3 The daily NH4-N removals were also plotted with the USEPA (1975) curve in Figure 325 where the bulk of the clustered daily removals fell within the shaded area of expected performance The observed nitrification rates on the other hand were below the literature predictions whether correlated with the influent BODTKN ratio or temperature (it should be noted that Okey and Albertsonrsquos nitrification rate curve was developed from several plants with operating temperatures ranging from 9 ndash 20degC) In terms of the BODTKN ratio the long-term average PMTF nitrification rate of 048 gNm2d was not too far below the expected rate of 067 gNm2d by Okey and Albertson (1989) given the long-term

3-22 March 2016

average influent BODTKN ratio of 31 However the observed average RMTF nitrification rate of 020 gNm2d was substantially below the expected rate of 078 gNm2d for the long-term average influent BODTKN of 25 The daily rates were also shown in Figure 326 where the cluster of observed PMTF rates were slightly below the curve and the cluster of observed RMTF rates were farther yet below the curve When compared to nitrification rates as a function of temperature at other plants as observed by Parker et al (1990) in Figure 327 the daily observed PMTF and RMTF rates all seemed subpar Furthermore there did not seem to be an upward trend in the observed rates with wastewater temperature as Parker et al observed at other plants It is interesting to note however that Okey and Albertson concluded that the dissolved oxygen had a greater effect on the nitrification rate than temperature It seems plausible that oxygen or other limitations may have masked any possible temperature relationships These observed lower nitrification rates could be due to a host of factors such as dissolved oxygen limitations non-ideal distributor dosing or airflow limitations An alternative limiting factor for the RMTF nitrification rate on the other hand may not be a problematic issue at all quite the contrary To explain it is necessary to discuss how the rate is calculated It is simply the difference in the trickling filter influent and effluent NH4-N loadings or the daily mass removed divided by the area of the biomass support media Now if the influent loading is small to begin with and nearly all of the influent NH4-N loading is removed the removal rate by mathematical definition is small not because the rate is lower than it should be but because the NH4-N ran out (the filter removed all of it) such that the numerator of the calculated nitrification rate is small The historical data showed that the final effluent was usually quite close to fully nitrified and it is therefore possible that the calculated nitrification rate may have seemed low because the amount of NH4-N available to undergo nitrification was small not necessarily because of an impeded rate

Table 34 Comparison of long-term average performance parameters to literature predictions

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

Literature Reference Observed Literature

Prediction Observed Literature Prediction

BOD Loading (lbsd1000ft3) 24 --- 36 --- Influent BOD (mgL) 78 --- 27 --- Effluent BOD (mgL) 27 --- 70 ---

BOD Removal () 66 93 [50 ndash 70] 82 98

[80 ndash 90] General Removal Curve [Metcalf amp Eddy (1979)]

Influent NH4-N (mgL) 158 --- 73 --- Effluent NH4-N (mgL) 73 --- 08 --- NH4-N Removal () 55 10 - 60 75 65 - 100 USEPA (1975) Inf BODTKN (---) 31 --- 25 --- Nitrification Rate (gNm2d) 048 067 020 078 Okey amp Albertson (1989)

3-23 March 2016

Figure 324 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF removals with general BOD removal curve

Figure 325 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF removals with USEPA NH4-N removal curve

3-24 March 2016

Figure 326 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF nitrification rates with Okey amp Albertson

nitrification rate curve

Figure 327 Comparison of observed PMTF and RMTF nitrification rates by Parker et al (1990)

3-25 March 2016

There was another suspicion as to why the observed nitrification rates of the RMTFs seemed less than literature would suggest given the BODTKN ratio and temperature In examining the RMTF effluent upstream of the final clarifiers the data showed a long-term average NH4-N of 08 mgL which is less than the final effluent average of 20 mgL Initial suspicions were that the sludge blanket retention time in the final clarifiers might have released some NH4-N thereby showing less removal and reduced nitrification rates when computing the performance in terms of RMTF influent and the final clarifier effluent This however was discredited after discussions with operations staff Staff indicated that the RMTF effluent upstream of the clarifiers was not sampled The RMTF recirculation line which conveyed recirculation back to the primary influent is the long-term sampling location of this stream While still the same wastewater the sampling methodology likely caused a biased result in the direction of lower NH4-N concentrations The recirculation line sample is flow-weighted in that greater sample volumes are taken when the recirculation flow is high and less volume is taken when it is low The recirculation flow is inversely paced with the influent flow so as to keep the total forward flow through the plant constant at low dry weather influent flows the recirculation flow is high and at times of high influent flow the recirculation is low even going so far as a stoppage in the recirculation At times of low flow events when the RMTF performance was normally at its best recirculation was high such that the sampling frequency was high Furthermore at times of high flow events when the RMTF performance was normally at its worst recirculation was very low or stopped such that the sampling frequency was low Clearly this sampling methodology biased the data such that better performance was reflected in the recirculation sampling data than in the final effluent It is therefore concluded that the final effluent NH4-N data is probably better representative of the RMTF nitrification performance than the recirculation sampling data Finally an investigation of the trickling filterrsquos solids production was conducted because accurate solids production is a critical aspect of any modeling project The intermediate and final clarifier underflow sludges were not sampled however their flowrates were metered A simple mass balance across each set of clarifiers was conducted by subtracting the clarifier effluent mass loadings from the influent loadings to estimate the underflow sludge loading The clarifier total and volatile solids productions were computed at 12757 lbsTSSd and 10105 lbsVSSd for the intermediate clarifiers and 1820 lbsTSSd and 1442 lbsVSSd for the final clarifiers These volatile solids production values were then checked relative to the trickling filter operating parameters Solids production in trickling filters can be estimated in a manner similar to an activated sludge process where an observed solids yield factor expressed as mass of VSS produced per mass of BOD oxidized can be computed from data and them compared to an observed yield factor benchmark For an activated sludge process downstream of primary treatment the expected observed yield factor can be estimated with Figure_328 For trickling filters however there is an extra step in estimating the solids

3-26 March 2016

production Firstly an ldquoequivalent SRTrdquo within the filter must be estimated Estimating the filterrsquos SRT can be difficult but Figure 329 illustrates a rough correlation of the equivalent SRT with the volumetric BOD loading12 Considering the average PMTF and RMTF BOD loadings of 24 lbsd1000 ft3 (038 kgdm3) and 36 lbsd1000 ft3 (006 kgdm3) the equivalent SRTs were respectively estimated at about 45 days for the PMTFs and well over 10 days likely over 30 days for the RMTFs given the limitations of the graph resolution at lower volumetric BOD loadings At the average influent temperature of 158degC Figure 328 respectively predicted an observed yield of about 07 and 04 lbsVSSlbBOD for the PMTFs and RMTFs The trickling filter observed solids yield factors were respectively calculated at 092 and 038 lbsVSSlbBOD oxidized calculated as [Sludge VSS + Effluent VSS][Influent BOD ndash Effluent BOD] The observed and predicted yields for both trickling filters showed fairly close agreement which indicated that the estimated trickling filter solids production relative to the operation of filters during the historical database was reasonable

Figure 328 Observed Yield curves for activated sludge processes downstream of primary

treatment

3-27 March 2016

Figure 329 Equivalent SRT within a trickling filter relative to volumetric BOD loading

3223 Gravity Thickener The long-term average secondary sludge loading to the gravity thickeners was estimated at about 14578 lbsd based on the aforementioned intermediate and final clarifier mass balances The measured gravity thickener underflow and solids concentrations averaged 0046 MGD and 33 solids making a sludge mass-flow of 12344 lbsd To close the mass balance the resulting overflow was estimated at 2234 lbsd This balance rendered a thickener capture efficiency of about 85 a rather typical efficiency for a well operated gravity thickener As such it appeared the estimated secondary sludge loading and the measured thickened sludge from the thickeners was acceptable 3224 Anaerobic Digestion Two 80 ft diameter 28 ft depth anaerobic digesters provide sludge stabilization The total volume (both units) is about 21 million gallons which provides an average retention time of 17 days The primary units are not decanted The secondary digester provides stabilized sludge storage for dewatering and is routinely decanted During anaerobic digestion volatile solids are broken down and converted to biogas As such a mass balance of total solids cannot be performed in the conventional sense of a mass-conservative process However the inert or fixed solids (FSS = TSS ndash VSS) remain intact and therefore enable a fixed solids (FSS) balance check The estimated

3-28 March 2016

total sludge sent to the digester made up of the sum of the primary and thickened secondary sludge was estimated at 0123 MGD 36473 lbsTSSd and 30880 lbsVSSd The primary digested sludge was measured at 17 total solids with a volatile content of 67 Since no decanting was experienced the influent and effluent flowrate was assumed equal rendering a digested sludge mass flow of 17881 lbTSSd and 12014 lbsVSSd Examination of the inert loadings around the primary digesters showed a very good mass balance closure of 104 the results of which are shown in Table 35 Anaerobic digestion performance has been correlated with the digestion time and temperature Based on data provide by the USEPA13 an anaerobic digestion performance curve was developed that shows volatile solids (VS) destruction as a function of the time-temperature product exhibited by the digester (time being digester SRT and temperature being the digester operational temperature) This curve and the empirical data it is based on is illustrated in Figure 330 Applying the operational data Figure 330 was used to estimate the expected VS destruction and was compared to the observed destruction Table 35 shows the results of these comparisons where it was apparent that the observed and predicted performances reasonably agreed which indicated good digestion performance and good quality data

Figure 330 Increase in anaerobic digestion performance with increasing time-temperature

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

SRT x Temperature (oC-days)

3-29 March 2016

Table 35 Primary anaerobic digestion mass balance and performance analysis results

Parameter (unit) Value

Digester feed sludge total solids (lbsd) 36473 Digester feed sludge volatile solids (lbsd) 30880 Digester feed sludge inert solids (lbsd) 5593 Primary digested sludge total solids (lbsd) 17881 Primary digested sludge volatile solids (lbsd) 12014 Primary digested sludge inert solids (lbsd) 5866 Inert solids mass balance closure () 104 SRT (d) 17 Temperature (degC) 38 SRT-Temperature product (degC-d) 646 Observed VS destruction () 61 Predicted VS destruction () 54 Observed biogas production (ft3lbVS) 18 Typical biogas production range (ft3lbVS) 12 ndash 18

The primary digesters also produced an average biogas of 344228 ft3d with an average gas content of 67 CH4 and 33 CO2 This rendered a gas production of 18 ft3lbVS destroyed which was at the high end of the commonly accepted range of 12 to 18 ft3lbVS8 which once again indicated good digestion performance and quality data The secondary digester was routinely decanted to provide additional digested sludge storage volume which resulted in a slight thickening effect where the secondary digester influent and effluent averaged 17 and 23 solids respectively The volatile content into and out of the digester remained 67 however which indicated that volatile solids destruction did not occur to any substantial degree during secondary digestion Clearly the secondary digesterrsquos main purpose was to provide for digested sludge storage prior to dewatering 3225 Belt Filter Press Dewatering There were several feed flows to the three belt filter presses (BFPs) that included the secondary digested sludge imported water treatment plant sludge side-stream treatment clarifier sludge (used to settle the BFP filtrate and digester supernatant return streams) and washwater The secondary digester sludge flow was estimated by a flow balance of the primary digested sludge minus the metered secondary digester supernatant sludge Note that the primary digested sludge was simply estimated as the sum of the primary and thickened secondary sludge so essentially the secondary digested sludge flowrate was calculated from several independently-operated meters The average secondary digested sludge flow was estimated at 0118 MGD while the metered BFP feed sludge made up of secondary digested sludge and the side-stream clarifier sludge (which was very small) averaged 0093 MGD so there was a slight

3-30 March 2016

discrepancy However since the former value is made up of data from several meters all with their own degrees of error it can be argued that the total values came out fairly close Adding in the average trucked-in water plant sludge of 00027 MGD the total belt press feed flow averaged 010 MGD The average BFP feed sludge loading was 16043 lbsd The dewatered cake solids averaged 188 solids and 14946 lbsd indicating a 93 capture efficiency which can be considered fair belt press performance 3226 Combined Side-stream Recycle The thickening and dewatering return stream is made up gravity thickener overflow BFP filtrate and secondary digester supernatant the last two of which were clarified with two small side-stream treatment settling tanks operated in series This combined return stream was metered and sampled showing an average flow and TSS mass-flow of 174 MGD and 983 lbsd The return stream was also calculated by mass balance where a sludge flow and TSS mass-flow of 135 MGD and 2274 lbsd were estimated While not considered a major discrepancy since it only represented about 2 ndash 5 of the primary influent (depending on which TSS load was used) it was a discrepancy nonetheless The major purpose of capturing the side-stream loadings was for the estimation of the raw wastewater (RWW) loadings Since the RWW is not sampled a calculation was necessary for its estimation as the primary influent minus all other side-streams (thickening and dewatering return stream RMTF recirculation septage and leachate) With the return stream loading at only a very small fraction of the primary influent regardless of which value was used (983 or 2274 lbsTSSd) it did not significantly matter which value was used in estimating the raw wastewater loadings The long-term average RWW TSS has been presented in Appendix 31 at 40668 lbsd by subtracting the return stream loading of 2274 lbsd (determined by mass balance) from the measured primary influent (in addition to the other side-streams) rather than the measured return stream loading of 983 lbsd in order to close the plant-wide mass balance Using the measured return stream loading would have rendered a RWW TSS loading of 41959 lbsd which is only 3 greater In fact comparing the two estimated RWW TSS loadings on a per-capita basis using the service area population of 200000 people rendered 0203 and 0209 lbsdcapita both of which are quite close to the acceptable TSS per-capita loading of 020 lbsdcapita It was also necessary to examine the side-stream nutrient loadings Mass balance calculations of the return stream TKN NH4-N TP and OP using particulate N and P fractions of the VSS throughout the QMFD (from primary influent through digestion) estimated the return stream TKN NH4-N TP and OP values at 1700 1544 333 293 lbsd It is fairly well established that the side-stream TKN loadings represents about 20 of the influent TKN loading for a plant with anaerobic digestion This percentage was calculated at 14 using the measured return stream TKN average and 24 with

3-31 March 2016

the mass balance Neither of these percentages were unacceptable but it was noted that the mass-balance rendered value was more conservative Overall it was decided to calculate each daily RWW loading for the 3-year database using the daily estimated side-streams from the mass balance method to provide a closed mass balance (discussed later during model calibration activities) 33 Intensive Sampling An intensive sampling program is often carried out with many modeling projects however it was determined that the routinely-collected historical data was adequate for model calibration and validation purposes As such no intensive sampling was carried out 34 Model Development Model development activities involve influent characterization model construction calibration and validation These activities are normally completed together as changes to the influent characteristics geometry parameters and kinetic coefficients are iteratively made until model outputs match the calibration data However it is also important to calibrate a model with a scope that is not limited entirely to the period for which data was available As such it is advisable to adjust as few model parameters (ie biological kinetic coefficients) as possible to avoid criticism and a mathematical curve-fitting exercise Lastly the model is then run against other datasets ideally reflective of different conditions (ie different loadings temperatures etc) for validation purposes to either confirm the calibration parameter changes or refine them to provide additional assurance that calibration efforts have provided a model that can adequately predict process performance under varying conditions 341 Biological Model Selection There are several biological models available that range from the original IWA activated sludge models (ASMs) to proprietary models developed by commercial modeling software companies These models establish the mechanistic framework for which components and process rates are simulated Most of these models are specifically for activated sludge and exclude anaerobic digestion However there have been biological models developed particularly for anaerobic digestion these include anaerobic digestion mode 1 (ADM1) and MantisAD More recently however biological models have been developed that include both activated sludge modeling and anaerobic digestion modeling in the same matrix These have been colloquially dubbed ldquosuper modelsrdquo as they do not require an ASM to ADM interface all activated sludge and digestion processes are modeled throughout all biological modeling objects While these models are typically more powerful they also run slower

3-32 March 2016

Table 36 illustrates various biological models available and their key capabilities As wastewater process simulation models continue to become increasingly more complex it is important to recognize what level of model complexity is needed Very complex models can have slow computing times making iterative simulation activities (ie performing parameter changes for calibration or sensitivity analysis) cumbersome and time consuming to work with The appropriate level of model complexity is governed by the modeling project goals the treatment process being modeled what state variables and process rates are needed and the required degree of calibration The Mantis2 model in the GPS-X simulation platform was specifically selected for this project for its simulation speed and ease of use relative to scenario management customizable model code the ability to create SRT and MLSS PID feedback control loops and more detailed output reports which are not available in other simulator packages

Table 36 Process capabilities of various biological models

PROCESS ASM1 ASM2 ASM2d ASM3 Mantis (GPS-X)

2-Step Mantis (GPS-X)

New General

MampE NGmeth ADM1 ASAD

(BioWin) Mantis2 (GPS-X)

Carbonaceous Oxidation radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic One-step Nitrification radic radic radic radic radic radic radic Two-step Nitrification radic radic radic Denitrification with wastewater carbon radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic radic Denitrification with methanol radic radic radic Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal radic radic radic radic radic radic

Anaerobic Digestion radic radic radic

pH Estimation radic radic radic Advanced Side-stream Treatment radic radic

Simple Metal Precipitation radic Complex Metal Precipitation Chemistry radic radic

342 Influent Characterization Modeling Influent characterization is the partitioning of raw wastewater organic material nitrogen and phosphorus into the various species that make up the wastewater matrix For the most part the dynamics of any wastewater treatment plant are driven by the dynamics in the influent That is changes in observed oxygen demand solids and effluent nutrients are all driven by the incoming wastewater Therefore it is normally best to spend the majority of the calibration effort on understanding the influent wastewater dynamics and fractionation Municipal wastewater treatment models are based on chemical oxygen demand (COD) but the behavior of the model is highly dependent on

3-33 March 2016

the fractionation of that COD into its component parts Figure 331 is an illustrative representation of the IWA-based influent COD fractionation

Figure 331 Distinction between soluble and particulate components in IWA models compared to

the fractions in reality To describe the fractionation of influent wastewater COD it is first broken down into its soluble and particulate components These components are called the composite variables The composite variables are then broken down into their various constituents These constituents are called the state variables In the Mantis2 model the state variables for COD are non-biodegradable soluble material (si) readily biodegradable soluble fermentable substrate (ss) readily biodegradable soluble volatile fatty acids (sac) slowly biodegradable colloidal substrate (scol) slowly biodegradable particulate substrate (xs) and non-biodegradable particulate material (xi) The influent nitrogen and phosphorus is also made up of composite and state variables Similar to COD TKN has composite variables of soluble TKN (stkn) and particulate TKN (xtkn) The state variables for TKN include free and ionized ammonia (snh) soluble biodegradable organic nitrogen (snd) soluble unbiodegradable organic nitrogen (sni) particulate biodegradable organic nitrogen (xns) and particulate unbiodegradable organic nitrogen (xni) The influent TP has composite variables of soluble (stp) and particulate phosphorus (xtp) The state variables for TP include soluble orthophosphate (sp) soluble unbiodegradable organic phosphorus (spi) particulate biodegradable organic phosphorus (xps) and particulate unbiodegradable organic phosphorus (xpi) TSS is represented as a composite variable (x) made up of VSS (vss) and FSS (xiss) The VSS is based upon factors of the particulate state variables xs xi and xns The FSS is made up of inert inorganic particulate solids (xii) and a factor of the xps In dynamic modeling the state variables are constantly integrated over time and the composite variables are calculated by simply adding up the state variables that make them up

3-34 March 2016

Stoichiometric relationships are used to partition the state variables among the composite variables 343 Trickling Filter Modeling One of the more popular and commercially available attached growth models was developed by and marketed by Hydromantis for modeling trickling filters rotating biological contactors and biological aerated filters In this model a trickling filter for example is divided into ldquonrdquo horizontal sections each representing a slab of the trickling filter support media at a different depth The transfer of components (ie substrate ammonia oxygen etc) between each section through the liquid film is by liquid flow through the filter The biofilm in each section is modeled as a number of layers The model combines a biofilm model14 with the userrsquos choice of one of the aforementioned ASMs Movement of the ASM components through the liquid film and biofilm is respectively governed by diffusion in mass balance Equations 31 and 32 Each biofilm layer is modeled as a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with the biological reactions (ie substrate utilization) governed by the selected ASM Attachment and detachment coefficients are used to provide for a means of transfer of particulate components between the biofilm surface and the liquid film A graphical conceptualization of this trickling filter model in shown in Figure 33215

(31) where Aa = Surface area of biofilm through which movement is occurring δL = Thickness of attached liquid layer t = Time QL = Volumetric flowrate of attached liquid layer Sj

L = Substrate concentration in liquid film horizontal section j KM = Mass transfer coefficient from liquid to biofilm Sj

BLi = Substrate concentration at biofilm-liquid interface section j S = Saturated liquid-film substrate concentration KML = Oxygen transfer coefficient from air to liquid film

3-35 March 2016

(32) where S = Substrate concentration in layer t = Time Ds = Substrate diffusion coefficient y = Thickness of biofilm layer Sj

B = Substrate concentration in attached biofilm layer j QB = Volumetric flowrate of attached biofilm layer A = Surface area of attached microorganisms δB = Attached biofilm thickness in layer RS = Substrate utilization rate

Figure 332 Conceptualization of the Hydromantis trickling filter model

3-36 March 2016

344 SolidsLiquid Separation Modeling A simple solids removal object was used to simulate thickening and dewatering These modeling objects apply user-entered solids removal efficiencies to all influent particulate components The primary clarifier object operates the same way except that the solids removal is computed as a function of the HRT as per the Greely solids removal curve (Figure 36) that has been calibrated to measured performance These removed components are withdrawn in the underflow sludge the concentration of which is governed by the user-entered sludge flowrate Soluble and colloidal components are routed directly to the effluent and are therefore allowed to pass-through the object unimpeded The solids removal efficiencies and sludge flowrates observed in the calibration and validation datasets were respectively used in the primary intermediate and final clarifier objects gravity thickener side-stream treatment clarifiers and dewatering objects when calibrating and validating the model 345 Anaerobic Digestion Modeling The primary anaerobic digester was modeled with the Mantis2 biological model within an anaerobic digester object The secondary digester was modeled with a gravity thickening object to provide the decanting and thickening effects of the observed secondary digester operation Biological digestion reactions were excluded from the secondary digester model since historical data did not show an appreciable degree of volatile solids destruction across the secondary digester 346 Model Construction Calibration and Validation Individual treatment plant process units (bioreactors clarifiers thickeners etc) are often referred to as ldquoobjectsrdquo or ldquoelementsrdquo in commercial process modeling software packages In general these objects are linked together within a ldquolayoutrdquo to create the overall treatment plant process model The physical parameters (ie tank volumes clarifier surface area flow splits etc) are entered into the respective objects to represent the treatment plant The GPS-X layout of the Klinersquos Island WWTP model is shown in Figure 334 where it is important to note that a whole-plant model has been developed such that each interunit process including solids process facilities and their associated side-stream recycles were modeled in a comprehensive layout The Klinersquos Island WWTP model was calibrated and validated to several datasets The following monthly average data was employed for steady-state calibration and validation

1 February 2012 cold weather normal loadings 2 August 2012 warm weather normal loadings 3 January 2011 cold weather high ammonia loadings 4 September 2011 warm weather high flow

3-37 March 2016

These monthly datasets were documented in QMFDs of the same organization and format as the long-term historical data and are also shown in Appendix 31 They were used during model development to assist in comparing the model predictions with the data The model was also dynamically calibrated and validated to the following monthly datasets

1 February 2012 cold weather normal loadings 29 days 2 August 2012 warm weather normal loadings 31 days

Figure 333 Comprehensive modeling layout of the Klinersquos Island WWTP

3461 Influent Characterization Each of the three influent wastewater streams was represented with a separate influent object They included the Klinersquos Island WWTP raw wastewater (RWW) and the two trucked in streams the septage and landfill leachate While characterization of the septage and leachate was important it was found that the characterization of the RWW had a much more dramatic influence on the modeled plant performance As such more

3-38 March 2016

effort was focused on the characterization of the RWW after the initial characterization of the septage and leachate was completed The carbonaceous material characterization (fractionation of COD and TSS) was crucial to model calibration Calibration of these parameters was mostly achieved through iteratively altering the distribution of COD among the COD state variables and the CODTSS factors until an adequate fit to the data resulted For the Klinersquos Island WWTP model the fractionation that provided the best fit was consistent with a typical COD state distribution for RWW During calibration activities it was noticed that the modeled ammonia and TKN concentrations were overestimated by about 10 ndash 15 throughout the mainstream treatment locations in the model (ie primary influent primary effluent PMTF effluent intermediate clarifier effluent RMTF effluent and final clarifier effluent) It was important to note that the RWW loadings were estimated as the measured primary influent minus the measured side-streams and there was a discrepancy between the return stream loadings as measured to the loadings calculated by mass balance (Section 3226) As it turned out it was concluded that the measured return streams underestimated the true side-stream loadings specifically the nitrogenous loads because the model predictions would not match the interunit concentrations specifically TKN and NH4-N To correct for this the finalized RWW loadings were calculated by subtracting the return stream loadings as determined by mass balance (and other side-stream loadings) from the primary influent While this method did not make a significant change to the carbonaceous parameters (TSS BOD etc) the decrease in the RWW TKN and ammonia enabled a much better match between the modeled and measured interunit TKN and NH4-N concentrations AECOMrsquos ldquoInfluent Characterizerrdquo spreadsheet diagrammatically illustrates the average COD TSS TKN and TP breakdowns and stoichiometric factors The Influent Characterizer spreadsheet was also used to calculate and check the time varying composite and state variables with the stoichiometric factors The dynamic inputs were then directly read into the RWW influent object Daily data for the septage and leachate was unknown only the monthly average flow and TSS was available for septage To fill in the data gaps for septage parameter ratios (ie BODCOD TPTSS TKNBOD etc) from various other septage sampling programs conducted by AECOM were employed The historical monthly leachate data was a bit more inclusive with average flow TSS BOD and TKN However leachate characterization literature1617 was researched to obtain parameter ratios (specifically associated with phosphorus) needed to fill the leachate data gaps The monthly averages for these influent streams were kept constant during the dynamic simulations but it has been hypothesized that because their loadings were so small relative to the RWW their daily dynamic influence was quite negligible

3-39 March 2016

Table 37 illustrates a comparison of the calibrated and validated COD fractions for the Klinersquos Island RWW septage and leachate to the standard influent fractionation established by the IWA This comparison shows that the Klinersquos Island RWW was in reasonable agreement with the IWA standard However it was clear that the septage and leachate had very different characteristics that were heavily influenced by non-biodegradable particulate material In addition Table 38 compares the calibratedvalidated wastewater characterization fractions to the Mantis2 model defaults where the same conclusion is apparent Appendix 32 illustrates the detailed influent characterization breakdowns (both steady-state and dynamic) of the RWW septage and leachate for the calibration and validation influents

Table 37 Comparison of Klinersquos Island WWTP influents and IWA standard COD fractionations

Parameter COD Description KI RWW Septage Leachate IWA Standard

si Non-biodegradable soluble material 5 01 13 5 ss + sac Readily biodegradable soluble substrate 16 2 50 16 xs + scol Slowly biodegradable substrate 66 26 7 66

xi Non-biodegradable particulate material 13 72 30 13 Table 38 Comparison of Klinersquos Island influent wastewater fractions and Mantis2 model defaults

Parameter Fraction Description KI RWW Septage Leachate Mantis2

Default frsi Fraction of COD as non-biodegradable soluble 00500 00010 01300 00500

frss Fraction of COD as readily biodegradable soluble fermentable 01600 00140 02500 02000

frsac Fraction of COD as readily biodegradable soluble VFAs 00000 00000 02500 00000

frscol Fraction of slowly biodegradable COD as colloidal 01500 00100 02500 01500

frxi Fraction of COD as non-biodegradable particulate 01300 07200 03000 01300

fssbodtosscod Filtered COD to filtered BOD ratio 07078 07078 07078 07170 fpsbodtopscod Particulate COD to particulate BOD ratio 05291 05291 05291 05800

ivsstotss VSS to TSS ratio 08800 07500 05000 07500

icodtovssxs VSS to slowly biodegradable particulate substrate ratio 1700 1700 1700 1800

icodtovssxi VSS to non-biodegradable particulate material ratio 1700 1700 1700 1800

frsnh Fraction of TKN as ammonia 09000 09200 09900 09000

insi Fraction of non-biodegradable soluble material as N 00350 00350 0035 00500

inxi Fraction of non-biodegradable particulate material as N 00350 00350 0035 00500

ipsi Fraction of non-biodegradable soluble material as P 00100 00100 0010 00100

ipxi Fraction of non-biodegradable particulate material as P 00100 00100 0010 00100

3-40 March 2016

The imported water treatment plant (WTP) sludge was represented as an additional influent object The material was an inert chemical sludge created at the water treatment plant from the usage of alum as a flocculent The chemical sludge is created when alum is dissolved in water and creates a blend of two primary inorganic precipitates aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate The proportion of each and other products is a function of many influencing factors due to the prevailing aquatic chemistry The WTP sludge was modeled as a blend of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate the proportion of each was assumed equal to the stoichiometric products of dissolving 1 mass-unit of aluminum-ion into water where phosphorus was in excess This would theoretically create 452 mass units of aluminum phosphate and 289 mass-units of aluminum hydroxide for a total of 741 mass-units of inorganic sludge For the February 2012 calibration dataset the WTP sludge averaged 12 solids or 12000 mgL As per the aforementioned stoichiometric precipitates this concentration was represented as 4680 mgL of aluminum hydroxide and 7320 mgL of aluminum phosphate It was noted that the fractional make-up of this chemical sludge may have been quite different especially if phosphorus was not in excess during the creation of the sludge at the water plant (if so it would have been predominantly aluminum hydroxide) However it must be stressed that the fractional blend was irrelevant because the material was modeled as an inert precipitate and sent directly to the dewatering object the side-stream of which was settled and sent back to the dewatering unit This prevented any substantial movement of this modeled material to other parts of the layout where possible resolubilization might have occurred causing adverse modeling effects 3462 Primary Treatment The Greeley primary treatment model is available in the GPS-X primary clarifier object as the ldquosolids removal efficiency modelrdquo The solids removal efficiency is governed by Equation 33 and applies to all particulate state variables The empirical constants ldquoardquo and ldquobrdquo where changed slightly from the respective default values of 00075 and 0014 to 00095 and 00135 which slightly lowered the removal and enabled a very good match between the observed and modeled removal efficiency and primary effluent parameters

HRTtss (33)

where ηtss = solids removal efficiency HRT = hydraulic retention time a b = empirical constants

3-41 March 2016

3463 Trickling Filters One trickling filter object and a control flow splitter were used to represent the four PMTFs that operated in parallel and the trickling filter recirculation pump station Similarly one trickling filter object and a control flow splitter were used to represent the RMTFs and the trickling filter recirculation pump station that conveyed RMTF recirculation back to the primary influent During calibration and validation simulations the default trickling filter model parameters showed over predictions of soluble carbonaceous material oxidation and nitrification performance Furthermore the default kinetic parameters showed nitrite accumulation while the datasets indicated that the effluent NOx-N was predominantly in the form of NO3-N Lastly default nitrification performance was over-predicted during cold weather and under-predicted during warm weather which clearly showed the importance of validating a model to different operating conditions in particular temperature Many iterations were conducted that investigated several biofilm and kinetic parameters In the end Table 39 shows the necessary changes that were critical in matching modeled and observed performance for the four independent datasets

Table 39 Calibrated and validated trickling filter parameters changes

Biofilm Parameters Unit PMTF RMTF Default Maximum biofilm thickness (mm) 065 065 10

Diffusion constant for DO (cm2s) 250E-05 340E-06 250E-05

Diffusion constant for readily degradable substrate (cm2s) 100E-06 100E-06 690E-06

Reduction in diffusion in biofilm (---) 03 03 05

Detachment Rate (kgm2d) 0047 0047 007

Kinetic Parameters

Oxygen saturation coefficient for NOBs (mgL) 01 01 068

Arrhenius temperature coefficient for AOBs (---) 109 109 1072

The five biofilm parameter changes lowered the BOD removal and nitrification performance It was interesting to note that the RMTFs required the same changes as the PMTFs with one additional change lowering of the diffusion constant for dissolved oxygen In particular one performance-defining variable suggested by plant operations staff was a lack of oxygen in the RMTFs because of the lack of air movement through the media The need to lower the DO diffusion constant seems to have supported this claim while also recreating the effects

3-42 March 2016

Lowering the oxygen saturation coefficient for nitrite oxidizing biomass (NOB) prevented ldquonitrite shuntrdquo (an accumulation of nitrite) and simulated the observed conversion of NO2-N over to NO3-N Increasing the ammonia oxidizing biomass (AOB) Arrhenius coefficient was able to correct over prediction of nitrification performance at lower temperatures while at the same time improved nitrification performance at warmer temperatures This is exactly how an Arrhenius coefficient works raising its value lowers the cold weather rate and raises the warm weather rate The reason for the change was puzzling however as the default value of 1072 has been fairly well established for activated sludge processes It has been hypothesized that differences in trickling filter nitrifying populations are such that the biomass is more sensitive to temperature variations than in an activated sludge system 3464 Intermediate and Final Clarifiers The intermediate and final clarifier solids removal efficiencies that were observed during the calibration and validation datasets were input and held constant during each respective simulation The removal varied slightly from one dataset to another The February 2012 August 2012 January 2011 and September 2011 intermediate and final clarifier removals averaged 69 and 52 74 and 76 72 and 62 and 51 and 49 Incorporating these observed removals into the layout provided clarifier effluent predictions that matched well with the observed clarifier effluents 3465 Digestion The primary anaerobic digesters were modeled with the Mantis2 biological model within an anaerobic digester object No biological model parameter changes were necessary for the digesters Digested sludge concentrations volatile solids destruction and gas production matched fairly well with measured data 3466 Thickening Dewatering and Side-stream Treatment Clarifiers Simple thickener objects were used to represent the secondary sludge thickener the secondary digester and the side-stream treatment clarifiers A dewatering object was used to represent the belt filter presses (BFPs) The observed capture efficiencies when they were available and reasonable for each dataset were entered for each respective unit while 85 was used for the side-stream clarifiers A control splitter was used to recycle a small portion of plant effluent to the BFP feed to represent press washwater This was dynamically controlled to provide a washwater flowrate that was 12 times the BFP feed sludge flowrate a commonly observed washwater flowrate ratio The underflows were input for the thickener objects while the cake solids concentration was input for the BFP object The underflow solids and overflow concentration predictions matched fairly well with observed data

3-43 March 2016

3467 Steady-state Model Calibration and Validation Documentation The steady-state simulation results for the four datasets were compared to the corresponding monthly averages Figures 334 through 341 show the comparisons where the model predictions reasonably agreed with the monthly averages

Figure 334 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary influent

3-44 March 2016

Figure 335 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary effluent

Figure 336 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the PMTF effluent

3-45 March 2016

Figure 337 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the intermediate clarifier effluent

Figure 338 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the RMTF effluent

3-46 March 2016

Figure 339 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the final clarifier effluent

Figure 340 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the primary digested sludge

3-47 March 2016

Figure 341 Steady-state calibration and validation results of the digester biogas

3468 Dynamic Model Validation Documentation The dynamic model outputs (solid lines) around each interunit process were graphically compared with the measured data points (single dots) The calibration graphs (February 2012 dataset) are illustrated in Figures 342 through 363 where the model outputs reasonably agreed with the measured data The validation graphs (August 2012 dataset) are illustrated in Figures 364 through 384 where the model outputs again reasonably agreed with the measured data One exception is that the model-predicted return stream concentrations of TKN and NH4-N were substantially greater than the measured values As previously discussed it appeared that the sampled return stream measurements were underreported It has been hypothesized that the sampling methodology did not capture the full loads of the nitrogen parameters The calibrated and validated model parameters are located in Appendix 33

3-48 March 2016

Figure 342 Dynamic calibration output of primary influent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 343 Dynamic calibration output of primary influent nutrient pH and alkalinity parameters

3-49 March 2016

Figure 344 Dynamic calibration output of primary effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 345 Dynamic calibration output of primary effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-50 March 2016

Figure 346 Dynamic calibration output of PMTF effluent TSS

Figure 347 Dynamic calibration output of PMTF effluent nutrient parameters

3-51 March 2016

Figure 348 Dynamic calibration output of intermediate clarifier effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 349 Dynamic calibration output of intermediate clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity

parameters

3-52 March 2016

Figure 350 Dynamic calibration output of RMTF effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 351 Dynamic calibration output of RMTF effluent nutrient parameters

3-53 March 2016

Figure 352 Dynamic calibration output of final effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 353 Dynamic calibration output of final clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-54 March 2016

Figure 354 Dynamic calibration output of primary sludge solids

Figure 355 Dynamic calibration output of thickened secondary sludge solids

3-55 March 2016

Figure 356 Dynamic calibration output of primary digested sludge solids

Figure 357 Dynamic calibration output of primary digester alkalinity and pH parameters

3-56 March 2016

Figure 358 Dynamic calibration output of primary digester biogas parameters

Figure 359 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester sludge solids

3-57 March 2016

Figure 360 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester alkalinity and pH parameters

Figure 361 Dynamic calibration output of secondary digester supernatant TSS

3-58 March 2016

Figure 362 Dynamic calibration output of combined return streams carbonaceous parameters

Figure 363 Dynamic calibration output of combined return streams nutrient parameters

3-59 March 2016

Figure 364 Dynamic validation output of primary influent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 365 Dynamic validation output of primary influent nutrient pH and alkalinity parameters

3-60 March 2016

Figure 366 Dynamic validation output of primary effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 367 Dynamic validation output of primary effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-61 March 2016

Figure 368 Dynamic validation output of PMTF effluent TSS

Figure 369 Dynamic validation output of PMTF effluent nutrient parameters

3-62 March 2016

Figure 370 Dynamic validation output of intermediate clarifier effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 371 Dynamic validation output of intermediate clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity

parameters

3-63 March 2016

Figure 372 Dynamic validation output of RMTF effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 373 Dynamic validation output of RMTF effluent nutrient parameters

3-64 March 2016

Figure 374 Dynamic validation output of final effluent carbonaceous parameters

Figure 375 Dynamic validation output of final clarifier effluent nutrient and alkalinity parameters

3-65 March 2016

Figure 376 Dynamic validation output of primary sludge solids

Figure 377 Dynamic validation output of thickened secondary sludge solids

3-66 March 2016

Figure 378 Dynamic validation output of primary digested sludge solids

Figure 379 Dynamic validation output of primary digester alkalinity and pH parameters

3-67 March 2016

Figure 380 Dynamic validation output of primary digester biogas parameters

Figure 381 Dynamic validation output of secondary digester sludge solids

3-68 March 2016

Figure 382 Dynamic validation output of secondary digester alkalinity and pH parameters

Figure 383 Dynamic validation output of combined return streams carbonaceous parameters

3-69 March 2016

Figure 384 Dynamic validation output of combined return streams nutrient parameters

35 Model Application 351 Influent Scenario Development The design condition flows loadings and temperatures were employed for evaluating upgrade alternatives Specifically the design annual average maximum 210-day (max 7-month average to investigate the projected DRBC limits) and maximum month (max 30-day) loadings were used It was envisioned that septage and leachate processing at the Klinersquos Island WWTP would not occur under these loading conditions so they were simply turned off by setting their flows to zero The imported WTP sludge was proportionately increased however as it was assumed that WTP sludge processing would continue at the plant in the future The wastewater characterizations discussed above were applied to the design loading conditions Appendix 32 also illustrates the detailed influent characterization breakdowns for the design conditions The wastewater temperatures of 158degC 13degC 14degC and 11degC were respectively identified for the annual average max 7-month coldest max month summer and coldest max month winter conditions so as to investigate performance at the minimum probable temperatures associated with the summer and winter limits defined by the NPDES and proposed DRBC limits These temperatures were applied layout-wide except for the RMTFs Historical temperature data of the influent and RMTFs showed a typical 15 increase in temperature due to

3-70 March 2016

the biological activity within the PMTFs The RMTF temperatures of 183degC 15degC 161degC and 127degC were respectively identified for the annual average max 7-month coldest max month summer and coldest max month winter conditions 352 Process Upgrade Configurations The monthly average NPDES permit limit for NH4-N has been set at 15 mgL for November through April so the plant will need to meet this limit at the projected max month conditions at the minimum monthly temperature which reflects 11degC The DRBC NH4-N limits have been projected at 746 lbsd as a 7-month average between October and April and 439 lbsd as a monthly average between May and September The DRBC TN limits have been projected at 6463 lbsd as a monthly average between May and September Table 310 illustrates the tabulated limits at their associated loading conditions and temperatures that the plant will need to meet

Table 310 NPDES and DRBC limits and their applicable loading conditions and temperatures

Coldest Max 7-Month Ave Conditions OCT-APR

(DRBC Winter)

Coldest Max Month Ave Conditions NOV-APR

(NPDES Winter)

Coldest Max Month Ave Conditions MAY-SEP

(DRBC Summer)

(4813 MGD 13degC) (5575 MGD 11degC) (5575 MGD 14degC) NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746 lbsd (19 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15 mgL

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439 lbd

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3521 Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment CEPT is a proven upgrade for primary treatment where a combination of anionic polymer and ferric chloride is added to the primary influent Dosages of each are typically around 3 mgL and 05 mgL respectively At these dosages solids removal is normally increased by a factor of 14 and BOD removal can be doubled relative to typical primary treatment This will have a beneficial cascading effect of lowering the PMTF BOD loading and increase its BOD and NH4-N removal performance This will in turn lower the RMTF BOD loading and provide similar benefits CEPT removal has been illustrated in Figure 385 where curves of removal have been shown for TSS and BOD with normal primary treatment and CEPT To model CEPT the primary clarifier objectrsquos solids removal was simply increased to 85

3-71 March 2016

3522 Side-stream Treatment Since the side-streams reflect about 20 of the influent nitrogen removing this load prior to conveyance to the plant influent can reduce the final effluent by about 20 There are various process technologies for removing the side-stream TKN and NH4-N loading They include conventional nitrification and denitrification nitritation and denitritation and deammonification among others These processes can achieve nitrogen removal of about 90 or more when optimized To preliminarily model the effects of side-stream treatment a black box object was added to the Klinersquos Island GPS-X layout where the removal of NH4-N was set at 90 3523 Partial RMTF Media Change Out Increasing the media area available for biomass growth by changing out rock media with plastic cross flow media is a common trickling filter upgrade Simulations were conducted that investigated various partial changes of rock media with plastic cross flow media Several media types were investigated Brentwood Industries model CF-1900 was selected as the most appropriate media and is shown in Figure 386 With a specific surface area of 45 ft2ft3 it reflects an increase in the existing rock media

3-72 March 2016

specific surface area (17 ft2ft3) by 265 To perform the simulations the RMTFs were divided into quadrants Simulations for changing out 0 1 2 3 and all four of the quadrants with this plastic cross-flow media were run The simulations also reflect a CEPT performance of 85 solids removal and 90 removal of the side-stream ammonia loading The updated GPS-X layout has been illustrated in Figure 387 The results are shown in Table 310 where performance with one changed out quadrant is very close to meeting all limits while all limits are met with the change out of two quadrants of media

Figure 386 Brentwood Industries CF-1900 crossflow media (45 ft2ft3)

3-73 March 2016

Figure 387 GPS-X layout of the upgraded Klinersquos Island WWTP

Table 311 Simulation results of upgrading the Klinersquos Island WWTP with CEPT side-stream treatment and partial RMTF media changeout

Number of RMTF

Quadrants Changed to Plastic

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

Annual Average Conditions

Coldest Max 7-Month Ave Conditions OCT-

APR (DRBC Winter)

Coldest Max Month Ave Conditions

NOV-APR (NPDES Winter)

MAY-SEP (DRBC Summer)

(44 MGD 158degC) (4813 MGD 13degC) (5575 MGD 11degC) (5575 MGD 14degC) NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 439 lbsd (12

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

DRBC Limit = 6463 lbsd

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

36 References 1 Frank K (2007) ldquoA Practical Stepwise Approach to Wastewater Process Modelingrdquo Workshop on Applied Systems Analysis Watermatex Conference International Water Association Washington DC 2 Gillot S T Ohtsuki L Rieger A Shaw I Takacs S Winkler (2009) ldquoDevelopment of a unified protocol for good modeling practice in activated sludge modelingrdquo Influents vol 4 pp 70-72 3 Water Environment FederationAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (1998) Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants 4th ed WEF MOP 8 WEFASCE AlexandriaReston VA 4 Greeley S A (1938) ldquoSedimentation and Digestion in the United Statesrdquo in L Pearse (ed) Modern Sewer Disposal Anniversary Book of the Federation of Sewage Works Associations Lancaster Press Inc New York 5 Crites R and G Tchobanoglous (1998) Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems McGraw-Hill New York 6 Metcalf amp Eddy Inc (1979) Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Disposal 2nd ed McGraw-Hill Toronto 7 Mohlman F W et al (1946) ldquoSewage Treatment at Military Installationsrdquo National Research Council Subcommittee Report Sewage Works Journal vol 18 no 5 pp 787 - 1028 8 Metcalf amp Eddy Inc (2003) Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse 4th ed McGraw-Hill New York NY 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency (1975) Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control USEPA Office of Technology Transfer Washington DC 10 Okey R W and O E Albertson (1989) ldquoDiffusionrsquos Role in Regulating and Masking Temperature Effects in Fixed Film Nitrificationrdquo Journal Water Pollution Control Federation vol 61 p 500 11 Parker D S M P Lutz and A M Pratt (1990) ldquoNew Trickling Filter Applications in the USArdquo Water Science and Technology vol 22 p 215 12 Water Environment Federation (2000) Aerobic Fixed-Growth Reactors A Special Publication Water Environment Federation Alexandria VA 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency (1974) Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal USEPA Office of Technology Transfer Washington DC 14 Spengel D B and D Dzombak (1992) ldquoBiokinetic Modeling and Scale-up Considerations for Rotating Biological Contactorsrdquo Water Environment Research vol 64 no 3 pp 223-235 15 Hydromantis Inc (2006) GPS-X Technical Reference Manual Hydromantis Hamilton Ontario Canada 16 Slomczynska B and T Slomczynski (2004) ldquoPhysico-Chemical and Toxilogical Characteristics of Leachate from MSW Landfillsrdquo Polish Journal of Environmental Studies vol 13 no 6 pp 627 ndash 637 17 Kjeldsen P et al (2010) ldquoPresent and Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate A Reviewrdquo Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology vol 32 no 4 pp 297 - 336

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

40 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST 4-1

List of Tables

Table 41 Project cost estimate 4-1

List of Figures

No table of figures entries found

4-1 March 2016

40 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST The probable project costs developed as part of this evaluation were based on preliminary layouts of the new facilities and vendor quotes for major equipment The costs were developed by specification division but have been organized by process area Project costs were developed for three different degree of RMTF media change out change two quadrants (50) two and a half quadrants (375) and one quadrant (25) Table 41 illustrates the cost estimate summery Appendix 41 includes the detailed cost estimate

Table 41 Project cost estimate

Description Cost

Fraction of RMTF Media Changed Out 50 375 25

1 - CEPT $999940 $999940 $999940 2 - Change out RMTF Media $13246263 $9934697 $6623131 3 - Side-stream Treatment Facilities $2734727 $2734727 $2734727 4 - General CivilSite Work $73000 $73000 $73000

Sub Total 1 $17050000 $13740000 $10430000 General Conditions $850000 $690000 $520000

Sub Total 2 $17900000 $14430000 $10950000 Contractor Overhead amp Profit $2690000 $2170000 $1650000

Sub Total 3 $20590000 $16600000 $12600000 Contingency $6180000 $4980000 $3780000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $26770000 $21580000 $16380000 Design Administrative and Legal $5350000 $4320000 $3280000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $32120000 $25900000 $19660000

APPENDIX VId Mass Flow Evaluation and Mass Flow Diagrams

PROJECT LEHIGH COUNTY AUTHORITY ACT 537 PLAN UPDATE PROJECT NO SUBJECT QUANTIFIED MASS-FLOW DIAGRAM OF KLINE ISLAND WWTP HISTORICAL DATA DATE

TIME FRAME 1110 THROUGH 123112 COMPTED BY K FRANKCOLOR CODING BLUE VALUES INDICATE HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS RED VALUES ARE CALCULATEDESTIMATED

RMTF RECIRCULATION PLASTIC MEDIA TFs ROCK MEDIA TFsQ (MGD) 259 TOP SURFACE (ft2) 31416 TOP SURFACE (ft2) 232030

(mgL) (lbsd) PRIMARY CLARIFIERS MEDIA VOLUME (ft3) 101E+06 MEDIA VOLUME (ft3) 232E+06TSS 12 255 AREA (ft2) 45239 MEDIA AREA (ft2) 271E+07 INTERMEDIATE CLARIFIERS MEDIA AREA (ft2) 394E+07 FINAL CLARIFIERSVSS 93 202 VOLUME (MG) 408 BOD Loading (lbsdkft3) 24 AREA (ft2) 46181 BOD Loading (lbsdkft3) 36 AREA (ft2) 69194BOD 70 151 SOR (gpdft2) 819 Nit Rate (gNm2bulld) 048 VOLUME (MG) 415 Nit Rate (gNm2bulld) 020 VOLUME (MG) 621TKN 34 73 HRT (h) 26 HLR (gpdft2) 1394 SOR (gpdft2) 783 HLR (gpdft2) 156 SOR (gpdft2) 481NH4-N 08 18 TSS RE () 61 BOD η () 66 TSS RE () 69 BOD η () 82 TSS RE () 55TP 33 72 BOD RE () 39 NH4-N η () 55 NH4-N η () 75OP 29 63ALK 182 3929

RAW WASTEWATER PRIMARY INFLUENT PRIMARY EFFLUENT PMTF RECIRC PMTF EFFLUENT IC EFFLUENT RMTF EFFLUENT FINAL EFFLUENTQ (MGD) 3273 Q (MGD) 3711 Q (MGD) 3704 Q (MGD) 675 Q (MGD) 3704 Q (MGD) 3617 Q (MGD) 3357 Q (MGD) 3314

(mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)TSS 149 40668 TSS 141 43786 TSS 56 17213 TSS 59 18285 TSS 18 5528 TSS 12 3296 TSS 53 1470VSS 131 35873 VSS 124 38293 VSS 49 15054 VSS 47 14483 VSS 15 4379 VSS 93 2610 VSS 42 1164BOD 135 36900 BOD 126 39138 BOD 78 24035 TKN 14 4337 BOD 27 8276 BOD 70 1952 BOD 54 1500TKN 26 6977 TKN 29 8897 TKN 25 7839 NH4-N 74 2294 TKN 111 3362 TKN 34 939 TN 20 5389NH4-N 13 3473 NH4-N 166 5147 NH4-N 158 4870 TP 40 1221 NH4-N 73 2213 NH4-N 08 232 TKN 43 1183TP 41 1118 TP 50 1535 TP 40 1221 OP 30 932 TP 33 997 TP 33 926 NH4-N 20 562OP 24 664 OP 33 1021 OP 33 1019 ALK 225 69374 OP 30 910 OP 29 821 NO2-N 02 57ALK 289 78993 ALK 289 89314 ALK 282 87107 xTP 09 ALK 225 67748 ALK 182 50849 NO3-N 150 4149

TEMP (degC) 158 TEMP (degC) 183 TEMP (degC) 169 TP 32 872pH (SU) 73 04 OP 29 811

ALK 182 50185IC SLUDGE FC SLUDGE

RETURN STREAMS (Meas) Q (MGD) 087 Q (MGD) 032Q (MGD) 174 (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)

(mgL) (lbsd) PRIMARY SLUDGE TSS 1762 12757 TSS 673 1820TSS 68 983 Q (MGD) 0078 VSS 1396 10105 VSS 533 1442VSS 53 776 (mgL) (lbsd) Yobs (VSSBOD) 092 Yobs (VSSBOD) 038BOD 38 551 TSS 37149 24130 xTP 28 202 xTP 80 58TKN 73 1060 VSS 32489 21103 xTKNVSS OP 30 22 xTKNVSS OP 29 8 xTKNVSS

SEPTAGE NH4-N 60 869 xTKN 2160 102 xTKN 124 894 89 xTKN 32 86 60Q (MGD) 00057 TP 23 333 xTP 312 15 NH4-N 73 53 NH4-N 20 55

(mgL) (lbsd) OP 20 293TSS 11768 564 ALK 415 6024VSS 8535 409BOD 2555 122 THICKENER SUP TOTAL TF SLUDGETKN 753 36 RETURN STREAMS (Calc) Q (MGD) 115 Q (MGD) 119 PRIMARY DIGESTERSNH4-N 87 42 Q (MGD) 135 (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) VOLUME (MG) 21TP 226 108 TSS 203 2274 TSS 234 2234 TSS 1466 14578 SRT (d) 17OP 32 02 VSS 160 1796 VSS 185 1769 VSS 1161 11547 TEMP (degC) 38ALK 411 20 BOD 173 1944 BOD 200 1911 xTP 26 260 VSS DES () 61

TKN 151 1700 TKN 22 208 OP 30 30 BIOGAS (ft3d) 344228NH4-N 138 1544 NH4-N 59 56 xTKN 99 980 CH4 () 67TP 30 333 TP 72 68 NH4-N 59 59 CO2 () 33OP 26 293 OP 30 29 THICKENED TF SLUDGE GASVSS (ft3lb) 18ALK 537 6024 ALK 213 2036 Q (MGD) 0046

CAPTURE () 847 (mgL) (lbsd) BFP WWTSS 32495 12344 Q (MGD) 0114VSS 25739 9777 xTKNVSS

xTKN 830 85LEACHATE xTPVSSQ (MGD) 0042 xTP 220 22

(mgL) (lbsd) WTP SLUDGETSS 74 26 Q (MGD) 00027VSS 37 13 (mgL) (lbsd)BOD 60 21 TOTAL SLUDGE PDG SLUDGE SUPERNATANT BFP FEED SLUDGE (W WTP) TSS 24982 556TKN 320 111 Q (MGD) 0123 Q (MGD) 0123 Q (MGD) 00054 Q (MGD) 010 VSS 12491 278NH4-N 309 108 (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)TP 22 08 TSS 35432 36473 TSS 17370 17881 TSS 6045 272 TSS 20181 16043OP 11 04 VSS 29998 30880 VSS 11671 12014 VSS 4257 192 VSS 13535 10759ALK 1000 348 97 ALK 3726 3836 pH (SU) 727

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

SDG SLUDGE BFP FEED SLUDGE (WWTP)Q (MGD) 0118 Q (MGD) 0093

(mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)2ND SST EFFLUENT TSS 23000 22641 TSS 20043 15487Q (MGD) 0199 VSS 15566 15323 VSS 13565 10482

(mgL) (lbsd) ALK 3874 3814TSS 24 40 VFA 259 254VSS 16 27 pH (SU) 716BOD 20 33TKN 901 1492NH4-N 898 1488TP 160 265 2ND SST SLUDGE 1ST SST EFFLUENT 1ST SST SLUDGE SUP + PRESSATE SST SLUDGE PRESSATE DEWATERED CAKEOP 160 265 Q (MGD) 00009 Q (MGD) 0200 Q (MGD) 0006 Q (MGD) 0206 Q (MGD) 00069 Q (MGD) 0200 Q (MGD) 0010ALK 2407 3988 (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)

TSS 30000 224 TSS 159 264 TSS 30000 1496 TSS 1027 1760 TSS 30000 1721 TSS 892 1488 TSS 187629 14946VSS 20276 152 VSS 107 178 VSS 20276 1011 VSS 694 1190 VSS 20276 1163 VSS 598 998 VSS 125838 10024CAPTURE () 850 CAPTURE () 850 CAPTURE () 932

16-Sep-2013602890472

TIME FRAME FEBRUARY 2012 COMPTED BY K FRANKCOLOR CODING BLUE VALUES INDICATE HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS RED VALUES ARE CALCULATEDESTIMATED

(mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)TSS 148 37498 TSS 131 38668 TSS 586 17306 TSS 555 16400 TSS 173 4993 TSS 124 3218 TSS 60 1534VSS 133 33687 VSS 117 34641 VSS 525 15504 VSS 461 13601 VSS 144 4141 VSS 103 2669 VSS 50 1272BOD 149 37614 BOD 130 38574 BOD 862 25464 TKN 170 5006 BOD 266 7652 BOD 74 1918 BOD 70 1795TKN 25 6412 TKN 300 8863 TKN 256 7558 NH4-N 101 2975 TKN 137 3944 TKN 41 1065 TN NA NANH4-N 12 3101 NH4-N 183 5411 NH4-N 169 5001 TP 41 1204 NH4-N 95 2741 NH4-N 13 338 TKN 53 1368TP 39 979 TP 50 1485 TP 41 1204 OP 32 932 TP 34 992 TP 34 894 NH4-N 27 681OP 20 500 OP 33 980 OP 33 978 ALK 260 76766 OP 32 909 OP 30 788 NO2-N NA NAALK 315 79637 ALK 311 92019 ALK 312 92119 xTP 09 ALK 260 74868 ALK 196 50887 NO3-N NA NA

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

TIME FRAME AUGUST 2012 COMPTED BY K FRANKCOLOR CODING BLUE VALUES INDICATE HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS RED VALUES ARE CALCULATEDESTIMATED

TEMP (degC) 207 TEMP (degC) 244 TEMP (degC) 240 TP 39 971pH (SU) 71 xTP 04 OP 40 998

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

1629264 15543 (mgL) (lbsd) (mgL) (lbsd)2ND SST EFFLUENT 0988767 TSS 16690 15922 TSS 19667 12873Q (MGD) 01630 VSS 11533 11002 VSS 13589 8895

60289047221-Jul-2014

TIME FRAME JANUARY 2011 COMPTED BY K FRANKCOLOR CODING BLUE VALUES INDICATE HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS RED VALUES ARE CALCULATEDESTIMATED

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

TIME FRAME SEPTEMBER 2011 COMPTED BY K FRANKCOLOR CODING BLUE VALUES INDICATE HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS RED VALUES ARE CALCULATEDESTIMATED

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

Developed by Kevin Frank Laurel MD office USA 301-362-5281

Adjust blue-fonted parameters in the influent characterization diagram worksheets until computed variables match actual measurements

Fill out the steady-state measurements worksheet with average sampling data

Composite variables state variables and stoichiometric fractions are summarized in the variable summery worksheet

INFLUENT CHARACTERIZER VERSION 71FOR USE WITH

MEASURED RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICSCLIENT NAME Lehigh County AuthorityPROJECT NAME Klines Island WWTP ExpansionJOB NUMBER 602890472ENGINEER Kevin FrankWWTP STREAM Raw Wastewater

Enter available data in the values column Leave unknown variables blank

Symbol Description ValueBioWin Default

GPS-X Default

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand 500 430ffCOD Flocculated amp Filtered COD 105 108fCOD Filtered COD 188 148Effluent fCOD Effluent Filtered COD 250 215BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) 140 246 250fBOD Filtered BOD 115 90TSS Total Suspended Solids 154 240 225VSS Volatile Suspended Solids 135 195 168TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 280 400 400fTKN Filtered TKN 325 278NH4-N Ammonia 150 264 250TP Total Phosphorus 41 100 100sTP Soluble Total Phosphorus 50 82OP Orthophosphate 24 50 80

GPS-X MANTIS2 BIOLOGICAL MODEL INFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION DIAGRAMCLIENT NAMEPROJECT NAMEJOB NUMBERENGINEERWWTP STREAM

COD322

frsi frxi00500 01300

sbCOD213

frss frsac frscol01600 00000 01500

si ss sac scol xs xi161 515 00 319 1806 419

ffCOD fCOD xCOD676 995 2225

fssbodtosscod fpsbodtopscod

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (Design Annual Average)

Change blue-fonted values until computed variables match actual measurementsCARBONACEOUS BREAKDOWN

CUsersfrankkDesktopMobile FoldersLCAAllentown WWTPModelingInfluent Characterizer V71_Klines Island WWTPxls 3112016

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

vssxs vssxi vssxns issxps xii1063 246 122 56 139

icodtovssxs icodtovssxi

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

sni insi snh snd xns inxi xni056 0035 146 106 1001 0035 147

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

stp xtp258 fxmepo4 225

xtip xtop00 225

spi ipsi sp xmepo4 xps ipxi xpi016 0010 242 00 184 0010 042

PHOSPHORUS BREAKDOWN

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (Design Max 7 Month)

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (Design Max Month)

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (Long Term AVE)

ivsstotss x0880 1504

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

CARBONACEOUS BREAKDOWN

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (February 2012)

Change blue-fonted values until computed variables match actual measurements

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

CLIENT NAMEPROJECT NAME Library ComprehensiveJOB NUMBER Influent Model codstatesENGINEER Biological Model Mantis2WWTP STREAM

STEADY STATE STOICHt bod cod tkn snh tp sp Fraction SS Cal Default

SS 160 333 254 146 48 240 frsi 005 00500 109 228 210 122 33 164 frss 0160 0200 28 0801 95 197 229 146 28 142 frsac 0 0000 28 0942 110 228 232 139 33 165 frscol 015 0150 30 0943 175 364 187 104 53 263 frxi 013 0130 16 0414 156 325 245 142 47 234 fssbodtosscod 07078 0717 14 0605 151 315 266 164 45 227 fpsbodtopscod 0529 0703 13 0726 149 311 247 142 45 224 ivsstotss 0880 0750 13 0867 158 329 256 144 47 237 icodtovssxs 1700 1800 20 1108 132 275 261 140 40 198 icodtovssxi 1700 1800 20 1109 131 274 261 149 39 197 frsnh 09 0900 21 110

10 156 324 236 133 47 234 insi 0035 0050 18 10011 185 384 253 150 55 277 inxi 0035 0050 14 06812 168 349 299 167 50 252 ipsi 0010 0010 20 09413 150 311 253 141 45 224 ipxi 0010 0010 29 10014 160 334 267 143 48 240 fxmepo4 0000 000015 124 258 242 135 37 186 bodcod 048016 143 298 259 156 43 215 tpbod 003017 201 419 224 127 60 302 sptp 050018 173 361 280 155 52 26019 162 337 309 167 49 24320 177 369 240 152 53 26621 159 330 235 139 48 23822 159 331 262 160 48 23923 174 362 261 147 52 26124 159 330 239 133 48 23825 142 295 257 154 42 21226 143 299 287 180 43 21527 129 268 287 149 39 19328 133 278 286 148 40 200

COMPOSITE VARIABLESt cod fcod ffcod xcod sbcod fbod xbod bodu fbodu xbodu x vss xiss tkn stkn xtkn tp stp xtp xtip xtop

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

SAMPLING PROGRAM BASE DATA (February 2012)

DYNAMIC GPS-X VARIABLES

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Expansion

602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (February 2012)

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

STATE VARIABLESt si ss sac scol xs xi vssxs vssxi vssxns issxps xii sni snh snd xns xni spi sp xmepo4 xps xpi

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 160 334 280 149 57 280 frsi 005 00500 165 344 245 133 59 288 frss 0160 0200 281 165 343 248 133 58 287 frsac 0 0000 282 99 207 235 138 35 173 frscol 015 0150 303 103 215 215 125 37 181 frxi 013 0130 164 180 375 287 138 64 314 fssbodtosscod 07078 0717 145 182 379 296 169 65 317 fpsbodtopscod 0529 0703 136 152 317 263 154 54 266 ivsstotss 0880 0750 137 172 359 268 147 61 301 icodtovssxs 1700 1800 208 135 282 267 148 48 236 icodtovssxi 1700 1800 209 148 308 275 141 53 258 frsnh 09 0900 21

10 150 312 267 135 53 262 insi 0035 0050 1811 170 354 280 150 60 296 inxi 0035 0050 1412 225 470 362 192 80 394 ipsi 0010 0010 2013 169 353 275 146 60 296 ipxi 0010 0010 2914 160 334 275 153 57 280 fxmepo4 0000 000015 171 356 299 155 61 298 bodcod 048016 165 343 326 158 59 288 tpbod 003617 150 312 248 131 53 262 sptp 049118 159 330 277 156 56 27719 165 344 339 190 59 28920 163 340 286 146 58 28521 153 320 274 135 55 26822 148 308 296 125 53 25823 144 301 310 150 51 25224 151 314 265 126 54 26325 159 332 298 145 57 27826 153 318 337 172 54 26727 143 297 280 137 51 24928 154 320 287 149 55 26929 158 329 294 154 56 27630 134 278 341 181 47 233

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

SAMPLING PROGRAM BASE DATA (August 2012)

602890472Kevin FrankRaw Wastewater (August 2012)

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island WWTP Upgrade Evaluation

Kevin FrankWWTP Influent Septage February 2012

CUsersfrankkDesktopMobile FoldersLCAAllentown WWTPModelingInfluent Characterizer V71_Septagexls 3112016

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

Kevin FrankWWTP Influent Septage August 2012

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

Kevin FrankFebruary 2012 Leachate

CUsersfrankkDesktopMobile FoldersLCAAllentown WWTPModelingInfluent Characterizer V71_Leachatexls 3112016

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

Kevin FrankAugust 2012 Leachate

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

MODEL PARAMETERS PMTFs RMTFs DefaultPhysicalMedia Unit

liquid retention time in filter [min] 10 10 10maximum attached liquid film thickness [mm] 005 005 005maximum biofilm thickness [mm] 065 065 100density of biofilm [mgL] 1020000 1020000 1020000dry material content of biofilm [-] 01 01 01

Mass TransportDiffusion of Components in Water

diffusion constant for dissolved oxygen [cm2s] 250E-05 340E-06 250E-05diffusion constant for dissolved hydrogen [cm2s] 584E-05 584E-05 584E-05diffusion constant for dissolved dinitrogen gas [cm2s] 190E-05 190E-05 190E-05diffusion constant for dissolved methane [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for soluble inert material [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for colloidal substrate [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for readily degradable substrate [cm2s] 100E-06 100E-06 690E-06diffusion constant for acetate [cm2s] 124E-05 124E-05 124E-05diffusion constant for propionate [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for methanol [cm2s] 160E-05 160E-05 160E-05diffusion constant for total ammonia [cm2s] 200E-05 200E-05 200E-05diffusion constant for soluble organic nitrogen [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for nitrite [cm2s] 123E-05 123E-05 123E-05diffusion constant for nitrate [cm2s] 123E-05 123E-05 123E-05diffusion constant for ortho-phosphate [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05

diffusion constant for total soluble inorganic carbon [cm2s] 196E-05 196E-05 196E-05diffusion constant for total calcium [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for total magnesium [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for total inorganic potassium [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for other cation [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for other anion [cm2s] 310E-05 310E-05 310E-05diffusion constant for soluble component a [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05diffusion constant for soluble component b [cm2s] 100E-05 100E-05 100E-05

Effect of Biofilm on Diffusionreduction in diffusion in biofilm [-] 03 03 05

Solidsattachment rate [md] 05 05 05detachment rate [kg(m2d)] 0047 0047 007internal solids exchange rate [md] 200E-05 200E-05 200E-05

Model StoichiometryHeterotrophic Biomass

aerobic heterotrophic yield on soluble substrate [gCODgCOD] 0666 0666 0666anoxic heterotrophic yield on soluble substrate [gCODgCOD] 0533 0533 0533

Methylotrophic Biomassaerobic methylotrophe yield on methanol [gCODgCOD] 045 045 045anoxic methylotrophe yield on methanol [gCODgCOD] 036 036 036

Fermentative Biomassyield of fermentative biomass [gCODgCOD] 018 018 018

Ammonia-Oxidizing Biomassammonia-oxidizer yield [gCODgN] 018 018 018

Nitrite-Oxidizing Biomassnitrite-oxidizer yield [gCODgN] 006 006 006

Anammox Biomassbiomass yield on NH4-N [gCODgN] 0168 0168 0168

Poly-Phosphate-Accumulating Biomass (PAOs)aerobic yield on PAO growth [gCODgCOD] 0639 0639 0639anoxic yield on PAO growth [gCODgCOD] 0511 0511 0511

MODEL PARAMETERS PMTFs RMTFs DefaultPHA storage yield [gPgCOD] 04 04 04Xpp storage yield [gPgCOD] 02 02 02

Acetogenic Biomassacetogenic yield on propionate [gCODgCOD] 004 004 004

Hydrogenotrophic Methanogenic Biomassmethanogenic yield on H2 [gCODgCOD] 006 006 006

Acetoclastic Methanogenic Biomassmethanogenic yield on acetate [gCODgCOD] 005 005 005

Unbiodegradable Fraction from Biomass Decayunbiodegradable fraction from cell decay [gCODgCOD] 008 008 008

Soluble Inert COD fractionfraction of inert COD during slowly biodegradable organic hydrolysis [gCODgCOD] 0 0 0

fraction of inert COD during inert residue hydrolysis [gCODgCOD] 0 0 0

fraction of inert COD during inert organic hydrolysis [gCODgCOD] 0 0 0KineticAbsorption of Colloidal COD

specific adsorption rate [1(gCODm3)d] 01 01 01saturationinhibition coefficient for XsXbh [-] 005 005 005

Heterotrophic Biomassmaximum specific growth rate on substrate [1d] 32 32 32saturationinhibition coefficient for ss [mgCODL] 5 5 5saturation coefficient for oxygen [mgO2L] 02 02 02saturation coefficient for nirogen as nutrient [mgNL] 005 005 005switching coefficient for using NOx-N as nutrient [mgNL] 01 01 01saturation coefficient for phosphorus (nutrient) [mgPL] 001 001 001saturationinhibition coefficient for Sac [mgCODL] 5 5 5saturationinhibition coefficient for Spro [mgCODL] 5 5 5reduction factor for denitrification on nitrate-N [-] 032 032 032reduction factor for denitrification on nitrite-N [-] 048 048 048saturation coefficient for nitrite [mgNL] 075 075 075saturation coefficient for nitrate [mgNL] 05 05 05oxygen inhibition coefficient for denitrification [mgO2L] 02 02 02aerobic heterotrophic decay rate [1d] 062 062 062anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 09 09 09anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 06 06 06

Methylotrophic Biomassmaximum growth rate for methylotrophs [1d] 13 13 13methanol saturation coefficient for methylotrophs [mgCODL] 05 05 05saturation coefficient of nitrite for methylotrophs [mgNL] 01 01 01saturation coefficient of nitrate for methylotrophs [mgNL] 01 01 01oxygen saturation for methylotrophs [mgO2L] 02 02 02reduction factor for denitrification on nitrate-N [-] 04 04 04reduction factor for denitrification on nitrite-N [-] 06 06 06oxygen inhibition coefficient for denitrification [mgO2L] 02 02 02aerobic methylotrophic decay rate [1d] 02 02 02anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 09 09 09anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 06 06 06

Ammonia-Oxidizing Biomassmaximum growth rate for ammonia oxidizer [1d] 09 09 09

ammonia saturation coefficient for ammonia oxidizer [mgNL] 07 07 07oxygen saturation for ammonia oxidizer [mgO2L] 025 025 025inhibition coefficient of FA for ammonia oxidizer [mgNL] 50 50 50inhibition coefficient of FNA for ammonia oxidizer [mgNL] 02 02 02ammonia oxidizer aerobic decay rate [1d] 017 017 017anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05

MODEL PARAMETERS PMTFs RMTFs Defaultanaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Nitrite-Oxidizing Biomassmaximum growth rate for nitrite oxidizer [1d] 1 1 1nitrite saturation coefficient for nitrite oxidizer [mgNL] 01 01 01oxygen saturation for nitrite oxidizer [mgO2L] 01 01 068inhibition coefficient of FA for nitrite oxidizer [mgNL] 1 1 1inhibition coefficient of FNA fornitrite oxidizer [mgNL] 001 001 001nitrite oxidizer decay rate [1d] 017 017 017anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Anammox Biomassmaximum growth rate of anammox bacteria [1d] 00186 00186 00186ammonia saturation for anammox bacteria [mgNL] 073 073 073nitrite saturation coefficient for anammox bacteria [mgNL] 05 05 05oxygen saturationinhibition for anammox bacteria [mgO2L] 01 01 01aerobic decay rate of anammox bacteria [1d] 00058 00058 00058anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Poly-Phosphate-Accumulating Biomass (PAOs)rate constant for storage of PHA [gCODgPAOd] 6 6 6saturation coefficient of PAO for Sac [mgCODL] 4 4 4saturation coefficient for XppXbp [gPgCOD] 001 001 001saturation coefficient of PAO for Spro [mgCODL] 4 4 4maximum growth rate of PAO [1d] 1 1 1saturation coefficient for PHA [gCODgPAOCOD] 001 001 001saturation coefficient for oxygen [mgO2L] 02 02 02rate constant for storage of poly-phosphate [gPgPAOd] 15 15 15maximum ratio of XppXpao [gPgPAO] 034 034 034inhibition coefficient for XppXbp [gPgCOD] 002 002 002P saturation for uptake [mgPL] 02 02 02reduction factor for denitrification on nitrate-N [-] 024 024 024reduction factor for denitrification on nitrite-N [-] 036 036 036saturation coefficient of nitrite for PAO [g-Nm3] 05 05 05saturation coefficient of nitrate for PAO [g-Nm3] 05 05 05oxygen inhibition coefficient for denitrification [mgO2L] 02 02 02aerobic decay coefficient for PAO [1d] 02 02 02anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 09 09 09anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 06 06 06poly-P lysis coefficient [1d] 02 02 02PHA lysis coefficient [1d] 02 02 02

Fermentative Biomassmaximum fermentation rate [1d] 3 3 3oxygen saturation for obligate anaerobic biomass [mgO2L] 01 01 01nitrate saturation for obligate anaerobic biomass [mgNL] 01 01 01substrate saturation for fermentative biomass [mgCODL] 4 4 4hydrogen saturationinhibition for acidifier [mgCODL] 10 10 10aerobic decay rate for fermentative biomass [1d] 0133 0133 0133anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Acetogenic Biomassmaximum growth rate of propionate degrading bacteria [1d] 035 035 035undissociated propionate saturation for propionate degrading bacteria [mgCODL] 10 10 10hydrogen inhibition for propionate degrader [mgCODL] 5 5 5aerobic decay coefficient for acetogens [1d] 0067 0067 0067anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Hydrogenotrophic Methanogenic Biomass

MODEL PARAMETERS PMTFs RMTFs Defaultmaximum growth rate of H2-utilizing bacteria [1d] 0368 0368 0368hydrogen saturation for hydrogenotrophic methanogens [mgCODL] 25 25 25aerobic decay coefficient for hydrogenotrophic methanogens [1d] 0033 0033 0033anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Acetoclastic Methanogenic Biomassmaximum growth rate of acetate utilizing bacteria [1d] 015 015 015acetate saturation for hydrogenotrophic methanogens [mgCODL] 75 75 75aerobic decay coefficient for acetoclastic methanogens [1d] 0067 0067 0067anoxic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 05 05 05anaerobic reduction factor for decay rate [-] 03 03 03

Hydrolysishydrolysis rate constant for xs [1d] 3 3 3saturation coefficient for particulate COD [-] 01 01 01anoxic hydrolysis reduction factor [-] 028 028 028anaerobic hydrolysis reduction factor [-] 04 04 04saturationinhibition coefficient for NOx [mgNL] 05 05 05hydrolysis rate constant for inert residue [1d] 003 003 003saturation coefficient for inert residue [-] 1 1 1hydrolysis rate constant inert organics [1d] 003 003 003saturation coefficient for inert organics [-] 1 1 1

Ammonificationammonification rate [m3gCODd] 008 008 008

Precipitation of CaCO3 (Calcite)

precipitationdissolution rate for CaCO3

[(g-pptm3)((gCam3)(g

CO3-Cm3)d)] 5 5 5pKsp of CaCO3 [-] 645 645 645switching coefficient for dissolution of CaCO3 [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of MgNH4PO4 (Struvite)

precipitationdissolution rate for MgNH4PO46H2O

[(g-pptm3)((gMgm3)(gNH4-Nm3)(gPO4-

Pm3)d)] 300 300 300pKsp of MgNH4PO46H2O [-] 132 132 132switching coefficient for dissolution of MgNH4PO46H2O [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of MgHPO4 (Newberyite)

precipitationdissolution rate for MgHPO43H2O

[(g-pptm3)((gMgm3)(g

HPO4-Pm3)d)] 005 005 005pKsp of MgHPO43H2O [-] 58 58 58switching coefficient for dissolution of MgHPO43H2O [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of Ca3(PO4)2 (Amorphous calcium phosphate)

precipitationdissolution rate for CaPO4

[(g-pptm3)((gCam3)3(

gPO4-Pm3)2d)] 150 150 150pKsp of CaPO4 [-] 23 23 23switching coefficient for dissolution of CaPO4 [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of MgCO3 (Magnesite)

precipitationdissolution rate for MgCO3

CO3-Cm3)d)] 50 50 50pKsp of MgCO3 [-] 7 7 7

MODEL PARAMETERS PMTFs RMTFs Defaultswitching coefficient for dissolution of MgCO3 [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of AlPO4

precipitationdissolution rate for AlPO4

[(g-pptm3)((gAlm3)(g

PO4-Pm3)d)] 1 1 1pKsp of AlPO4 [-] 21 21 21switching coefficient for dissolution of AlPO4 [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

Precipitation of FePO4

precipitationdissolution rate for FePO4

[(g-pptm3)((gFem3)(g

PO4-Pm3)d)] 1 1 1pKsp of FePO4 [-] 26 26 26switching coefficient for dissolution of FePO4 [g-pptm3] 1 1 1

TemperatureTemperature coefficient for qads 1 1 1Temperature coefficient for muh 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bh 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for mumet 111 111 111Temperature coefficient for bmet 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for munh 109 109 1072Temperature coefficient for bnh 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for muno2 106 106 106Temperature coefficient for bno2 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for muax 11 11 11Temperature coefficient for bax 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for qpha 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for mup 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for qpp 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bbp 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for bpp 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for bbt 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for qfe 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bf 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for mupro 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bpro 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for muh2m 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bh2m 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for muacm 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for bacm 103 103 103Temperature coefficient for kh 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for kbxu 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for kbxi 107 107 107Temperature coefficient for kammo 107 107 107

Client Sheet 1Project Prepared by K FrankContract Number Checked by R EschbornProject Number Date 111414

50 375 25

Division 2 - Site Work $ 114939 Division 3 - Concrete $ 455081 Division 4 - Masonry $ 86400 Division 5 - Metals $ 183895 Division 6 - Wood PlasticsCompos $ 36000 Division 7 - ThermaMoist Protection $ 146200 Division 8 - Doors and Windows $ 10500 Division 9 - Finishes $ 75674 Division 10 - Specialties $ - Division 11 - Equipment $ 14155381 Division 12 - Furnishings $ 26000 Division 13 - Special Construction $ - Division 14 - Conveying Equipment $ - Division 15 - Mechanical $ 949082 Division 16 - Electrical $ 814777

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

1 - Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment $ 999940 999940$ 999940$ 2 - Change out RMTF Media $ 13246263 9934697$ 6623131$ 3 - Side-stream Treatment Facilities $ 2734727 2734727$ 2734727$ 4 - General CivilSite Work $ 73000 73000$ 73000$

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

General Conditions 5 $ 850000 $ 690000 $ 520000 (based on Subtotal 1)

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Contractor Overhead amp Profit 15 $ 2690000 $ 2170000 $ 1650000 (based on Subtotal 2)

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

Contingency 30 $ 6180000 $ 4980000 $ 3780000 (based on Subtotal 3)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 26770000 $ 21580000 $ 16380000

Design Administrative and Legal 20 $ 5350000 $ 4320000 $ 3280000 (based on total construction cost)

TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 32120000 $ 25900000 $ 19660000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Lehigh County AuthorityKlines Island Nitrification and TN Removal NA602890473C

COSTFRACTION OF ROCK MEDIA CHANGED OUT

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 2 - Site Work Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 2

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentBuilding Excavation and Backfill CY 726 7$ 5081$ Clearing and Grubbing -New Driveway SY 311 10$ 3111$ -Building SY 544 10$ 5444$ General and Roadway Excavation - New Driveway Final Grading SY 311 3$ 900$ - New Driveway CutsFills CY 311 10$ 3100$ Pavement OverlayRoads and Walkways - New Driveway - 6 Subbase SY 311 12$ 3700$ - Misc Gravel CY 156 10$ 1556$

2 Changout 50 of RMTF Media

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesReactor Excavation and Backfill CY 2241 7$ 15685$ Clearing and Grubbing SY 336 10$ 3361$

4 General CivilSite WorkConcrete and Compaction Testing LS 1 15000$ 15000$ LandscapingFinal SeedingSignagePainting LS 1 50000$ 50000$ EampS Control LS 1 8000$ 8000$

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST - PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Comments

Lehigh County Authority

Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal EnhancementsNA602890473C

K FrankR Eschborn111414

MaterialEquipment Cost

Labor CostTotal Unit Cost

(OampP)Total Item CostProcess Area Item Description

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 3 - Concrete Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 3

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment

Chemical Storage and Feed Building - Floor Slab CY 133 $ 600 $ 180 $ 780 104000$ New 60 x 60 chemical building - Footings CY 18 650$ $ 195 $ 845 15022$ New 60 x 60 chemical building

2 Changout 50 of RMTF Media - Concrete Wall Repair SF 102 75$ 7613$ 1 of surface repair assumed - Concrete Base Repair SF 1200 60$ 72000$ 1 of surface repair assumed

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesReactor Base Slab CY 128 $ 600 $ 180 $ 780 99840$ 2 reactors at 48L x 24W x 18DReactor Walls CY 160 650$ $ 195 $ 845 135200$ 1 common wall constructionWeir Troughs CY 4 650$ $ 195 $ 845 3380$ Reactor Walkway Support Walls CY 21 650$ $ 195 $ 845 18027$

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

Lehigh County Authority 3

Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal Enhancements K FrankNA R Eschborn602890473C

Process Area Item Description Units Quantity Total Item Cost

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 4 - Masonry Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 4

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentChemical Storage and Feed Building - CMUWalls SF 4800 18$ 86400$ New 60 x 60 chemical

3 Side-Stream Treatment Facilities

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CommentsMaterialEquipment

CostLabor Cost

Total Unit Cost (OampP)

Total Item CostProcess Area Item Description Units Quantity

NA R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal Enhancements K Frank

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 5 - Metals Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 5

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentChemical Storage and Feed Building - Steel Structure LB 10000 3$ 30000$ - Stairs LB 1000 4$ 4000$ - Railings LF 128 50$ 6400$ - Grating SF 240 50$ 12000$ - Misc LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$

2 Changout 50 of RMTF Media - Misc LS 1 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 13000$

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesBlower room in solids building - Stairs LB 200 4$ 800$ - Railings LF 50 50$ 2500$ - Grating SF 100 50$ 5000$ - Misc LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$ New Annamox Reactors - Stairs LB 1000 4$ 4000$ - Railings LF 288 50$ 14400$ - Grating SF 720 50$ 36000$ - Misc LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$ Rehab Elutriation Tanks - Stairs LB 1000 4$ 4000$ - Railings LF 264 50$ 13195$ - Grating SF 252 50$ 12600$ - Misc LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal Enhancements K FrankNA R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 6 - Wood PlasticsCompos Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 6

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentChemical Storage and Feed Building- Truss Roof SF 3600 10$ 36000$

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal Enhancements K Frank0

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by DisciplineDivision 7 - ThermaMoist Protection

Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 7

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentChemical Storage and Feed Building - Roof SF 3600 12$ 43200$ - Insulation SF 3600 25$ 90000$

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesMisc roof repairs LS 1 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 13000$

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 8 - Doors and Windows Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 8

Chemical Storage and Feed Building - Doors EA 3 1500$ 4500$ - Windows EA 8 750$ 6000$

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 9 - Finishes Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 9

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentChemical Storage and Feed Building - Wall Coating SF 4800 2$ 9600$ - Vinyl Ceiling SF 3600 3$ 10800$

2 Changout 50 of RMTF MediaRehab RMTF internal concrete surfaces - Wall Coating SF 1015 3$ 3045$ 10 of surface coating assumed - Base Coating SF 12000 3$ 36000$ 10 of surface coating assumed

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesRehab Elutriation Tanks - Wall Coating SF 2639 3$ 7917$ - Base Coating SF 2771 3$ 8313$

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 10 - Specialties Contract Number Checked by

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

Number Project Prepared by Discipline Division 11 - Equipment Contract Number Checked by Project Number Date

DIVISION 11

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentAnionic Polymer Emulsion System EA 1 $ 20000 $ 6000 26000$ 26000$ Anionic Polymer Storage Tank EA 1 $ 20000 $ 6000 26000$ 26000$ Anionic Polymer Metering Pumps EA 2 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 26000$ Carrier Water Pumps EA 2 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 26000$ Ferric Chloride Storage Tank EA 1 $ 20000 $ 6000 26000$ 26000$ Ferric Chloride Metering Pumps EA 2 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 26000$ Mechanical System Testing Startup amp Commissioning LS 1 $ 10000 10000$ 10000$

2 Changout 50 of RMTF Media1204480 cubic feet of AccuPac CF-1900 Cross Flow Media LS 1 $ 7306300 $ 2191890 9498190$ 9498190$ Quotes from BrentwoodAccuPier Media Supports LS 1 $ 1455200 $ 436560 1891760$ 1891760$ Quotes from BrentwoodAccuGrid Bio-grating LS 1 $ 500000 $ 150000 650000$ 650000$ Quotes from BrentwoodFreight to Jobsite LS 1 $ 366950 $ - 366950$ 366950$ Quotes from BrentwoodTechnical Installation Supervsion by Brentwood Industries Days 104 $ - $ 800 800$ 83200$ Quotes from Brentwood

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesSide-stream equalization tank EA 1 $ 100000 $ 30000 130000$ 130000$ Side-stream treatment feed pumps EA 2 $ 20000 $ 6000 26000$ 52000$ Fine Bubble Diffusers EA 1412 $ 50 $ 1500 65$ 91781$ 150 hp Turbo Blowers EA 2 $ 200000 $ 60000 260000$ 520000$ Diaphragm Airflow Control Valves and Meters EA 4 $ 25000 $ 7500 32500$ 130000$ Hyperboloid Mixers EA 4 $ 75000 $ 22500 97500$ 390000$ RAS Pumps EA 3 $ 20000 $ 6000 26000$ 78000$ WAS Pumps EA 3 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 39000$ Effluent Weirs EA 2 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 26000$ Annamox Biomass Cyclone Retention System LS 1 25000$ $ 7500 32500$ 32500$ Mechanical System Testing Startup amp Commissioning LS 1 $ 10000 10000$ 10000$

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

CommentsMaterialEquip

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST - PRELIMINARY DESIGNLehigh County Authority 11Klines Island Nitrification and TN Removal Enhancements K Frank

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 12 - Furnishings

Contract Number Checked by

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentMisc Items LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesMisc Items LS 1 $ 5000 $ 1500 6500$ 6500$ Misc Code Compliance LS 1 $ 10000 $ 3000 13000$ 13000$ For blower room in solids building

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST - PRELIMINARY DESIGNLehigh County Authority 12

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 13 - Special Construction

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 14 - Conveying Equipment

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Prepared by Discipline Division 15 - Mechanical

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentNew Process Piping (5 of Div 11 equipment cost) 8300$ HVAC SF 3600 1500$ $ 45 195$ 70200$ New 60 x 60 chemical building Plumbing and Fire Protection SF 3600 1000$ $ 30 130$ 46800$ New 60 x 60 chemical building

2 Changout 50 of RMTF MediaNew Process Piping (5 of Div 11 equipment cost) 624505$ New distribution piping assumed

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesNew Process Piping (5 of Div 11 equipment cost) 74964$ HVAC SF 625 1500$ $ 45 195$ 12188$ 25 x 25 room in solids buildingPlumbing and Fire Protection SF 625 1000$ $ 30 130$ 8125$ 25 x 25 room in solids buildingBridge Crane LS 1 80000$ $ 24000 104000$ 104000$

SUBTOTAL 949082$

(OampP)Total Item Cost

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

Process Area Item Description Units Quantity

602890473C

ClientSheet

Number Project Prepared by Discipline Division 16 - Electrical

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

1 Chemically Enhanced Primary TreatmentElectricalInstrumentation (25 of Div 11 amp 15) 72825$ Electric Service and Building Electrical SF 3600 $ 25 $ 8 $ 33 117000$ New 60 x 60 chemical building Control and HMI Programming LS 1 25000$ 25000$

3 Side-Stream Treatment FacilitiesElectricalInstrumentation (25 of Div 11 amp 15) 424639$ Electric Service and Building Electrical SF 625 $ 25 $ 8 $ 33 20313$ 25 x 25 blower room in solids buildingControl and HMI Programming LS 1 25000$ 25000$ Nutrient pH temperature monitoring probes LS 1 100000$ $ 30000 $ 130000 130000$

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

Total Item Cost Comments

602890473C 111414

Process Area Item Description Units QuantityMaterialEquip

ment CostLabor Cost

APPENDIX VII Project Status Meeting (121514)

copy2013 ARRO

Monday December 15 2014 Lehigh County Authority Offices

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

5 Klinersquos Island Upgrade to 44 MGD

6 Conveyance AlternativesHydraulic Evaluations

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 MGD ExpansionEvaluation of Alternatives

STATUS ndash November 11 2013

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

Sampling ResultsOct 09 ndash Aug 10 TDS = 1325 mgL (increasing trend)

June ndash July 13 TDS = 1800 mgL

Jan ndash March 14 TDS = 1610 mgL

March ndash April 14 Industrial Sampling

Week of Mar 4-10Flow (MGD) TDS (lbsd)Na (lbsd) Conc (mgL) 50 reduction TDS (lbsd)

Boston Beer 124 28826 6521 14413Coke 010 3014 379 1507Kraft 009 2018 522 1009Niagra 013 1452 307 726HW 012 6540 1992 3270

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

Plant Effl 404 54247 16464 1610 12396 Difference

Accounted For 771 590 33322 TOTAL lbsd

Inferred all other 235 12396 6742 989 TDS (mgL)TDS (mgL) 632 344

Castle Valley (May 2011)

DRIP vs Spray Irrigation

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

Source Castle Valley Consultants -- May 2011

Sum of Circles = $45700000

Richard R ParizekEmeritus Professor of Geology and Geo-Environmental Engineering

The Pennsylvania State University

President Richard R Parizek and Associates

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application IntroductionCastle Valley Report Feb 2012

Land Application

Dr Parizek StudyAssume 71 area ratio for dilution to 500 mgL (secondary drinking water standard) REQUIRES AGGRESSIVE SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM ndash reduce TDS to ~ 1000 mgL

Focus on Jandl A and Haaf sites as most promising

Concluded that the Jandl site could support ~ 15 MGD of Land Application using the ldquoLiving Filterrdquo Approach Haaf ~ 04 MGD

(too small for cost-effective development)

Potential value as means of deferring or size-reducing 4 MGD option

Land Application

Cost Implications of 15 MGD Land Application ProgramReference KI 4 MGD Expansion Capital Cost = $865Gallon

ndash (Facility Incremental Conveyance and Park Pump Station Capacity)

Assumes source-control program is successful in reducing Effluent TDS to ~ 1000 mgL

Jandl capital cost

$183 Million for 15 MGDndash Castle Valley (FEB 2012 Report)

= $1217Gallonndash (Pump Station Force Main Storage Spray Irrigation System)

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Parameter NPDESPermit

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

lbsday monthly average except wintertime NH3-N lbsday 7 month average October - April

Klinersquos Island

KLINErsquoS ISLAND SIMULATIONS WITH CALIBRATED MODEL

Projected to reach 44 MGD AA amp 5575 MGD MM in 2056 (geometric projection)

KLINErsquoS ISLAND UPGRADE TO 44 MGD

Hydraulic Evaluations to Support 537 Planning

Overview of Scope

Collaboration with On-going LCACoA Modeling Activities

Key Findings

Hydraulic Evaluations

Overview of ScopeIdentify options and recommend approach to treat the projected additional flow in collaboration with the ARCADIS modeling team

Projected Increase in Average Dry Weather Sanitary FlowKeystone Study identified potential developmentadditional flows in LCA service area

Projected flows in communities not covered by the Keystone Study

ndash City of Allentown provided flow projections

ndash Other communities either provided flow projections or projections were based on Ch 94 reports

Flow projections included residential and industrial flows

Conclusion on Projected Flow IncreaseTotal projected increase in average dry weather sanitary flow = 63 mgd

ndash 41 mgd from LCA

ndash 22 mgd from City of Allentown and other non-LCA communities

Total projected flow will exceed 40 mgd capacity at KI during wet year

KI Design Basis

ndash 44 MGD Dry Weather annual average

ndash 556 MGD Max Month

ndash Reached after 2040 (geometric growth)

OptionsApproach to ConveyTreat Additional Projected FlowDischarge from IPP

ndash Land application

bull Issues with TDS

ndash Jordan Creek

ndash Little Lehigh River

bull Requires 68500 LF force main

Discharge at Klinersquos Island WWTP

Collaboration with On-going LCACoA ModelingInvestigations to meet dry and wet weather Level of Service criteria

ndash LCA system ARCADIS

ndash CoA system Whitman Requardt amp Associates

Hydraulic models

ndash Separate models existed for the LCA and CoA systems

ndash Each had limited detail in the otherrsquos system

Decision to combine the models and use the combined model to support 537 planning

Recognition that conveyancetreatment decisions need to consider dry and wet weather levels of service

Model StatusCombined model has been created

Calibration has been initially checked

Flow meter and rainfall data collected to support further calibration between Keckrsquos Bridge and KI WWTP

Model has been used to assess initial conveyance alternatives

Teams are collaborating on additional alternatives to evaluate

Key Question for 537 PlanningWhere should projected additional dry weather flow be treated

ndash IPP vs Klinersquos Island

Sensitivity analysis based on model runs of initial conveyance alternatives provides a clear answer

Analysis of ldquoBoundingrdquo AlternativesMeet dry and wet weather levels of service by

ndash Conveyance system relief to convey all new flows to Klinersquos Island with no change to IPP

ndash Capturetreatdischarge all flow at IPP with reduced scope to meet LOS in conveyance system

ndash Sensitivity of replacing conveyance relief with targeted upstream storage

bull Enlarged pipes to achieve wet weather LOS

bull Represents conservative interceptor relief approach

Alt 10 ndashConveyance Only

Alt 12a ndashFull Diversion at IPP

Pipe Diameter (In)

Additional Length Required for Alt10 Conveyance to KI vs Alt 12a

Full Diversion at IPP (LF)72 060 048 10442 470336 439630 (6922)24 021 018 183415 2620 12 431

Net Difference in Pipe Length 7166 LFEst Capital Cost of Difference $7M

Additional Project ComponentsAlt 10 Conveyance Only

ndash Higher capacity upgrade to Park PS

ndash Higher treatment capacity at KI

Alt 12a IPP Diversion

ndash Higher treatment capacity at IPP

ndash Force main from IPP to Little Lehigh River

Cost Item

Estimated Capital Cost ($Million)

Alt 10 Conveyance to KI

Alt 12a Full Diversion at IPP

24-in FM IPP Treatment Upgrades $122 $377IPP Effluent Pump Station - $30IPP Effluent Force Main - $530KIWWTP Wet WeatherCompliance Upgrades $190 $190

KIWWTP 44 MGD Expansion Upgrades $262 -Incremental Cost for Conveyance System Pipe Upsizing

Incremental Cost for Upsizing Park PS $14 -Total $66 $113Difference vs Alt 10 $47

$865GPD

Alt 12b ndashFull Diversion at IPP with Targeted Upstream Storage

Pipe Diameter (In)

Difference in Length Required (LF)

Alt 10 Conveyance to KI vs Alt 12b Diversion at IPP + US

Storage

Alt 12a Full Diversion at IPP vs Alt 12bDiversion at IPP +

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Net Difference in Pipe Length 85891 LF 78725 LFEst Capital Cost of Difference $70M $63M

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

Alt 12b IPP diversion +

Upstream Storage24-in FM

IPP Treatment Upgrades $122 $377 $377IPP Effluent Pump Station - $30 $30IPP Effluent Force Main - $530 $530KIWWTP Wet Weather Upgrades $131 $131 $131

KIWWTP 44 MGD Expansion $262 - -

KIWWTP Compliance Upgrades $59 $59 $59Incremental Cost for Conveyance

$70 $63 -

Upstream Storage Tanks - - $544Incremental Cost for Park PS $14 - -Total $129 $176 $167Difference vs Alt 10 $47 $38

Summary of FindingsFull diversion of flow at IPP will save no more than $7M in conveyance relief piping vs sending all flow to KI

ndash Actual savings likely to be less as more cost-effective relief alternatives are developed

Effluent force main for full diversion at IPP is $53M

ndash Has Right of Way and Public Acceptance Issues

Other incremental costs not likely to make up difference

Conveyance savings for upstream storage would apply to both cases (diversion at IPP and all flow to KI)

ConclusionsMost cost-effective approach to address projected flows and meet dry and wet weather LOS will be to convey flow to KI and not expand IPP

Specifics of conveyance alternatives to be developed by ARCADIS and WRampA teams (future)

APPENDIX VIII TDS ndash Source Control Memo (6213)

Memorandum Date June 2 2015

To Ms Pat Mandes Lehigh County Authority

From Ralph Eschborn

Cc Bill Bohner ARRO Jake Rainwater AECOM

Subject LCA 537 Alternatives ndash Status amp IPP Effluent TDS ndash Industrial Source Contribution

Background Based on Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) data from the 2013 sampling program which reinforced 2009-10 data LCA conducted a sampling program in 2014 for effluent TDS as well as a targeted sampling program to obtain information on the contribution of industrial sources Results of the three effluent sampling programs are shown below

Sampling Period Average Concentration (mgL)

Concentration Range (mgL)

Comment

October 2009- August 2010

1325 1083 - 1568 Steady increase through period

June 15 ndash July 17 2013

1800 1527 - 2219 Less variability little or no trend

Jan 23 ndash March 8 2014

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

Based on all three sampling events it is clear that in selecting a preferred alternative for discharge TDS levels in the 1600 -1800 mgL range will have to be reduced or accommodated Based on guidance from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection they expect the Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgL TDS to be met at the control points associated with a discharge Typically the control point is a drinking water well

Options The options for reducing or accommodating are

TDS removal ndash This requires Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment A budgetary estimate indicated a capital cost of ~$10 million to install RO at the IPP with a Present Worth Cost (PWC) of ~$23 million for operating costs essentially ruling out this as an approach on an economic basis

Source Control ndash This would entail a cooperative program with the IPPrsquos major industrial customers to segregate high TDS sources within their operations before they are diluted with other wastewaters and discharged to the IPP The segregated streams would then be trucked or piped separately to the IPP to be conveyed directly to Klinersquos Island or handled completely independently

Land Application at high-dilution sites ndash This has been our recent area of study using the assistance of Dr Parizek Pennsylvania State University Professor Emeritus Unfortunately the most suitable site of those evaluated to date was only capable of supporting ~15 MGD of spray irrigation1 ndash well below the needed 4 MGD of additional capacity A second set of sites has been identified for evaluation but this evaluation is on hold per LCA direction pending an evaluation of the potential of Source Control to reduce TDS to more tolerable levels

Direct Discharge to the Lehigh ndash The high volume of the Lehigh will provide rapid dilution to levels below 500 mgL To minimize pressure on the conveyance system a force main sized sufficiently to take all IPP flow not just a 4 MGD expansion was scoped In a preliminary assessment the cost was substantially greater than the cost for incremental upsizing of Klinersquos Island conveyance which will need upsizing anyway to control overflows Further evaluations are underway

Continue Discharge to Klinersquos Island ndash Currently the ~ 4MGD of IPP flows are diluted 71 when mixed with the rest of Klinersquos Islandrsquos influent comfortably reducing the average effluent TDS for Klinersquos Island below 500 mgL

As can be seen from this set of options and their relative merits the logical next step is to evaluate the potential for Source Control to reduce IPP effluent TDS levels Industrial Source TDS Characterization To characterize the contribution from major industrial sources a sampling and analysis program was conducted in March and April of 2014 The results of this sampling are shown on the following page as pie charts

1 This evaluation included an optimistic assumption that TDS would be reduced to 1000 mgL through an as yet unidentified means If Source Control is not capable of doing this Land Application as an option would be essentially ruled out

Flow contribution by major industrial customers to the IPP

TDS contribution by major industrial customers to the IPP

As can be seen from the pie charts over one-half of the total TDS in the IPP effluent comes from Boston Beer The second largest contributor is Hauled Waste which contributes 12 of the TDS but only 3 of the volume Since this is composed of many smaller contributors additional characterization would be required to determine the potential for reduction LCA could consider a limit on TDS concentration which would selectively remove high TDS sources albeit with some revenue consequences The rest of the sources are small enough that a source control program would not be capable of achieving a substantial reduction alone

HW = Hauled Waste

Path Forward AECOM recommends investigating the potential for Boston Beer to segregate high TDS streams in their operation Candidates would include RO reject water which may be easily segregated as well as caustic sterilization washes which may be more difficult to segregate For LCArsquos consideration AECOM has prepared a scope and estimate for conducting this investigation ndash see letter proposal Herbert Higginbotham to Pat Mandes May 22 2015 Optionally a sampling program for say the 6 largest Hauled Waste (HW) streams could be undertaken to determine the potential for reduction AECOM recommends holding off on this option pending the outcome of the Boston Beer investigation If it is impracticable to reduce the TDS contribution from Boston Beer appreciably investigation into the potential to reduce the HW contribution isnrsquot warranted as the overall reduction would not be sufficient to lower levels sufficiently to make further land application investigations potentially fruitful

AECOM 625 West Ridge Pike Suite E-100 Conshohocken PA T 6108323500 F 6108323501 wwwaecomcom

Memorandum Date July 31 2015

From Matthew Gray AECOM

Cc Patrick Cyr AECOM Rich Colvin AECOM

Ralph Eschborn AECOM Jake Rainwater AECOM

Subject LCA- TDS Source Control Study

Site Visit Summary - Boston Beer Company

The Lehigh County Authority (LCA) is currently in the process of evaluating methods of reducing effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations from the Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) to levels that can ultimately comply with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectionrsquos Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgl TDS As part of a source control evaluation it has been determined that the Boston Beer Company (BBC) facility is a significant contributor of TDS accounting for 53 percent of the loading to IPP On Monday July 27 AECOM and LCA attended a site visit at the BBC facility to evaluate potential ways to segregate or lower the high TDS streams at the facility The meeting at the BBC facility was attended by BBC Operations and Environmental staff The following are a summary of the discussion points and key action items from the meeting Background

LCA is looking into obtaining an NPDES permit for the IPP facility The NPDES permit would require the IPP facility to lower their current effluent TDS

concentration of 1610 to 500 mgl The BBC effluent was sampled for TDS and Sodium during the week of March 4 2014

o Average Flow 124 mgd o Average TDS 2787 mgl 28826 lbd o Average Sodium 631 mgl 6521 lbd

AECOM explained the sources of TDS which consists of fixed dissolved solids (FDS) which are inorganic salts and volatile dissolved solids (VDS) which are organic solids such as sugars

Boston Beer Company Sources of TDS

Water Softeners

o Treats water that is not used for brewing o A brine solution is used to regenerate o Multiple water softeners located throughout facility

Reverse Osmosis o Limited use amount of water treated not available

Clean in Place (CIP) System o CIP is centralized o Caustic and acid solutions are reused to save water and chemicals o CIP discharges to sewer periodically to refresh the solutions

Wastewater Pre-Treatment o pH Treatment using caustic (base) and carbon dioxide (acid)

Boiler Chiller Cooling Towers o Insignificant amount of TDS compared to others

Action Items List It is recommended that LCA test the BBC effluent IPP influent and effluent daily

composites for VDS FDS and TDS One week of testing is recommended o It can be assumed that most of the VDS are biodegradable and will be removed

within the IPP facility The FDS which are considered inert inorganic solids will pass through the IPP facility and will be the majority of the measured TDS in the IPP effluent This will calculate the impact that BBC has on the TDS values within the IPP effluent

BBC to provide facility source water samples to allow LCA to test for VDS FDS and TDS Source water quality (TDS) varies from well to well so it is best to sample at BBC

BBC to provide the following chemical usage rates o Water softener brine solution o CIP caustic amp acid o Wastewater pre-treatment caustic and carbon dioxide

AECOM to provide an estimate of FDS generated from site based on chemical usages and source water usage

AECOM will work with BBC to determine if the FDS generated at the site can be lowered or separated from the wastewater stream

BBC to provide existing wastewater generation report if possible

Memorandum Date October 1 2015

Subject LCA- TDS Source Control Study Analysis Summary - Boston Beer Company

The Lehigh County Authority (LCA) is currently in the process of evaluating methods of reducing effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations from the Industrial Pre-treatment Plant (IPP) to levels that can ultimately comply with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectionrsquos Secondary Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgL TDS

As part of a source control evaluation it has been determined that the Boston Beer Company (BBC) facility is a significant contributor of TDS accounting for 53 percent of the loading to IPP On Monday July 27 AECOM and LCA attended a site visit at the BBC facility to evaluate potential ways to segregate or lower the high TDS streams at the facility The meeting at the BBC facility was attended by BBC Operations and Environmental staff Based from the meeting AECOM concluded there are six sources of TDS Raw Water Water Softeners Reverse Osmosis Clean in Place (CIP) System and Wastewater Pre-Treatment TDS consists of fixed dissolved solids (FDS) which are inorganic salts and volatile dissolved solids (VDS) which are organic solids such as sugars It can be assumed that most of the VDS from BBC are biodegradable sugars from the brewing process and will be removed within the IPP facility The FDS which are considered inert inorganic solids will pass through the IPP facility and will be the majority of the measured TDS in the IPP effluent To calculate the actual impact that BBC has on the TDS values within the IPP effluent it was recommended that LCA test the BBC source water and effluent and the IPP influent and effluent for VDS FDS and TDS Table 1 shows a summary of the testing

Table 1 Summary of Additional Testing

Location Flow TDS FDS VDS

‐ mgd mgL lbd mgL lbd of TDS mgL lbd of TDS

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

Based on the testing the BBC effluent TDS consists of 49 VDS which would be expected for brewery wastewater The BBC effluent TDS and FDS account for 44 and 38 of the IPP influent TDS and FDS loadings respectively however the BBC effluent FDS only accounts for 28 of the IPP effluent TDS The other 72 of TDS consists of 47 of FDS from other sources and 24 VDS AECOM obtained chemical and source water usages to determine if the 14425 lbd of FDS generated by BCC can be lowered or separated from the wastewater stream The chemical and source water usages were used to calculate the amount of FDS generated at each of the possible FDS generation locations mentioned above A detailed mass balance of the FDS at the BBC facility is attached as Attachment A The calculated amount of FDS generated by BBC based on the data given is 14582 lbd which compares well with the measured values The amount of sodium was also verified Prior sampling determined sodium accounts for 22 of the TDS of the BBC effluent which correlates to 6237 lbd based on the latest sampling data TDS The amount of salt brine and sodium hydroxide used by BCC generates an average of 5963 lbd of sodium which compares to the sampling data mentioned above With the FDS and sodium calculated values from source water and chemical usages corresponding well with sampling data AECOM is confident that they have captured all FDS sources from BCC Table 2 is a summary of the FDS generated at the BBC facility Table 2 FDS Source Generation

BBC FDS Sources Chemical FDS of FDS

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

Source Water ‐ 1866 13

Water Softener 10 NaCl Brine 663 5

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Pre Treatment 50 NaOH 844 6

Reverse Osmosis ‐ ‐ ‐

Utilities ‐ ‐ ‐

Note Reverse Osmosis is not current used and the utilities at the facility use

limited amounts of chemicals therefore were not considered to generate TDS The clean in place (CIP) system used at BBC generates 77 of the FDS leaving the facility and would be the best waste stream to work with BBC to lower the concentration or separate for the effluent However the system already reuses chemicals to reduce chemical usage and the amount of flow used for CIP is the main source of the effluent so stream separation is not an option

The CIP system is considered a primary internal process of the brewing process therefore BBC will be hesitant to make changes to the CIP system The amount of FDS generated from the other BBC sources are too small to make an impact on the IPP effluent TDS At this point with BCC effluent accounting for only 28 of the TDS leaving the IPP effluent and with no high strength waste stream that can be modified to lower the TDS concentration or segregated LCA may want to look for other possible high TDS dischargers

Notes1 Water used during brewing does not receive water treatment for hardness therefore the corresponding FDS leaves the facility with the product 2 The FDS created by the sodium ions will consist of a mixture of NaCl NaOH and NaHCO2 salts The average fraction of sodium in the salts is 47 which was used to calculate the FDS mass

Clean in Place (CIP) Chemical 50 NaOHFlow 1593 gpd NaOH 9082 lbdSodium 5268 lbdFDS2 11208 lbd

Water Softener BrineChemical 10 NaClFlow 739 gpd NaCl 663 lbdSodium 298 lbdFDS 663 lbd

Pre Treatment Chemical 50 NaOHFlow 108 gpd NaOH 684 lbdSodium 397 lbdFDS2 844 lbd

BBC Fixed Dissolved Solids GenerationSodium 5963 lbsFDS 12715 lbs

Source WaterFlow 20 mgd TDS 360 mgL 6011 lbdFDS 162 mgL 2705 lbd

VDS 198 mgL 3006 lbd

Product1

Flow 062 mgd FDS 162 mgL 838 lb Wastewater Effluent

Flow 138 mgd EstimatedFDS 1267 mgL 14582 lbdSodium 518 mgL 5963 lbd MeasuredTDS 2463 mgL 28351 lbdFDS 1253 mgL 14425 lbdVDS 1211 mgL 13936 lbdSodium 541 mgL 6237 lbdTSS 852 mgL 9805 lbdCOD 5220 mgL 60078 lbdBOD 3170 mgL 36484 lbdTKN 89 mgL 1024 lbd

Boston Beer CompanyFixed Dissolved Solids (FDS) Mass Balance

Attachment A

APPENDIX IX Presentation ndash LCA Board (11915)

copy2013 ARRO

Monday November 9 2015

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Land Application Studies

Source Control Study

Conveyance Studies

Klinersquos Island Studies

Path Forwardcopy2012 ARRO

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Average Concentration (mgL)

ConcentrationRange(mgL)

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

Less variability little or no trend

Jan 23 ndash Mar 8 2014 1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

August ndash Sept2015 1423 Higher Flow

copy2012 ARRO

At ~ 1500 mgL3x Drinking Water Standard of 500 mgL

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

TDS greater than 1000 mgL compromises agricultural use

For Land Application Assume 1000 can be achieved through source control

In Parallel ndash

ndash Evaluate Land Application with dilution to 500 mgL

ndash Evaluate Source Control

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application Castle Valley Report Feb 2012

Identified 8 potential sites (A-H)bull 3 mile radiusbull 107 ndash 229 Acresbull 2 -3 Sites = 4 MGDbull A amp B Sites selected for Study

A and B SITESDETAILED FOLLOW UP STUDIES

Favorable Topographic Soil Geologic and Hydrogeologic Settings

Close Proximity to IPP

Augmented Recharge in Carbonate Aquifer Groundwater Basin

Options For Demonstration Project

Favorable Sites For Effluent Storage Lagoons

BENEFITS OF SPRAY IRRIGATION OPTION

Less Costly Construction than Buried Lines

Allows Agricultural Activity Necessary To Remove Nutrients

Spray Line Schedules Can Be Adjusted to Manage Storm flows

More Uniform Distribution of Effluent

Less Chance of Overloading Soils

Preservation of Open Space Allowing For Alternate Uses

CONSTRAINTS

4 MGD Effluent Volume

High TDS In Industrial Effluentndash 1500 - 1800 mgL

DEP TDS Groundwater Limit 500 mgL

NO3 Limit 9 mgL (Three Monthly Samples)

Large Acreage Requiredndash 100-Foot Buffer For Property Lines

ndash 400-Foot Buffer For Homes

ndash Wind Drift Issues Icing of Roads

ndash Time To Establish Woody Borders

CONSTRAINTS (Continued)

Some Storage Required During Wet Weather

Deed Restrictions to Address Groundwater Use

Limited Detention Depressions on A SITE

Large Land Requirement for 71 Dilution Factor Even If Effluent Concentrations Are Reduced to 1000 mgL

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Lehigh Valley Avg Ann Rainfall ~ 40 inchesyear

Evapotranspiration ~ 25 inchesyear

Net Recharge ~ 15 inchesyr

Spray Irrigation ~ 104 inchesyr

To dilute from 1000 mgL to 500 mgL need equal contributions from Recharge and Irrigation

104 divided by 15 asymp 7 x Area

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A amp B SITESDomestic Wells Located Along Boundaries

Authority Well on A SITE

A SITE

Site and Contiguous Area 5061 Acres

Land North of Site to Surface Water Divide

North-South Flow Line 7542 Acres

Total Available Land 12603 Acres

___________________________________________

71 Dilution Requirement

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Potentially Suitable For Irrigation 991

Dilution Source Area 32576

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

IRRIGABLE AREA SUMMARY

B TRACT 53 Acres2 Ac-Inwk = 53305 Gallons

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

A TRACT 1575 Acres2 Ac-Inwk = 53305 Gallons

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

Parizek StudyConclusion

Cost Implications of 12 - 15 MGD Land Application ProgramReference KI 4 MGD Expansion Capital Cost = $865Gallon

A Site capital cost

No Driving Force for Phased Approach

23 copy2013 ARRO

Southwest AgPreservation Area

Southwest ndashbull 3 ndash 5 miles awaybull Contains 678

Ag Preservation Acres

Ag Preservation LandsConsiderations

678 Acres Identifiedhellipbut

For 4 MGD Need 3500 - 7000 acres

ndash 7000 acres if TDS canrsquot be reduced

ndash All under preservationdeed restriction

Twice the conveyance distance adds

gt $3Million to Capital Cost

Suspend investigation pending Source Control Study

25 copy2013 ARRO

AREA REQUIREDFOR 4 MGD(100 AVAILABILITY)

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

INDrsquoL SOURCE MONITORING

copy2012 ARRO

SOURCE CONTROL STUDY

copy2012 ARRO

TDSLand ApplrsquonSummary

Low Probability of significantly reducing TDS in IPP effluent through Source Control

High sodium further compromises agricultural use

DEP ldquoNo relief from 500 mgL TDS Drinking Water Standardrdquo

Conclusion Land Application likely requires Reverse Osmosis

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Conveyance Alternatives

BASIS = Meet wet weather Level of Service (LOS) criteria

ARCADIS developed ldquoKISSrdquo Model (Combined LCA Allentown and Signatories Systems)

Requested ldquoBoundingrdquo Simulations

ndash Convey LCA + 4 MGD to KI (Alt 10)

ndash Diversion of ALL flows Tributary to IPP (Alt 12a)

ndash Diversion of ALL flows with upstream storage

copy2012 ARRO

Alternative 10 ndashConveyance Only

copy2012 ARRO

Alternative 12a ndashFull IPP Diversion

copy2012 ARRO

Pipe Size Increases by Alternative

copy2012 ARRO

Summary of Conveyance Findings

copy2012 ARRO

Full diversion of flow at IPP will save no more than $7M in conveyance relief piping vs sending all flow to KI

Effluent force main for full diversion at IPP is $375 ndash 53M

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

ldquoEnd of Piperdquo Conventional Technology Previous Basis

Sidestream Deammonification ndashndash Ammonia Removal without Chemical Cost

ndash Small Reactor Low Energy

Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment (CEPT)ndash Diverts N to sidestream

ndash Reduces load on Trickling Filters

copy2012 ARRO

KI Innovative Technology

KLINErsquoS ISLAND SIMULATIONS

CALIBRATED MODEL

Projected to reach 44 MGD AA amp 5575 MGD MM in 2056(geometric projection)

KI Study Summary

Capital Cost Reduced from $36 to $26 Million

Potential for Phasing -- $20 M initial project $6 million full build-out later

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Path Forward copy2012 ARRO

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

$millions All Flow to KI Land Application Jordan Creek Lehigh RiverIPP Upgrades $112 $122 $122 $345 $122 $122 $346 $377 345 $377 $377IPP PSampForceMain $45 $820 $490 $199 217 562 377 377Land App System $274 $2985 $2985KI Wet Weather $120 $131 $131 $120 $131 $131 $120 131 12 131 $131KI Compliance $54 $59 $59 $54 $59 $59 $54 59 54 59 $59KI Expansion $326 $262 $262KI Conveyance (KISS) $128 $139 $2480 $2410Park PS (Increm) $14Reverse Osmosis (RO) 100 100TOTAL CAPEX $740 $713 $3068 $838 $692 $759 $719 $883 $1081 $944 $3354OPEX (PV) $105 $114 $114 $142 155 168 101 110 106 115 115RO OPEX (PV) $230 $230Present Value $827 $847 $1158 $1223 $1059

gt$2410 gt$2410Present Value $3182 gt$3568 gt$3633 $3469

2011 to 2014 Escalation 1089 Wet Weather LOS

537 Plan Path Forward

Defer pursuit of alternatives other than Klinersquos Island expansion

Integrate conveyance capacity increase with Wet Weather (AO) program

Conduct public outreach to inform Stakeholders

copy2012 ARRO

Board Presentation Nov 9 2015City Presentation Nov lsquo15LCA Signatory Presentation Nov rsquo15City Signatory Presentation Dec lsquo15StakeholderPublic Presentation

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

LCA Capacity Exceedance Calculations

Allocation at 11MGD

Multiplier Times Basic Rate1st 10 22nd 10 3gt 20 4

Base Rate Estimate 2014 LCA Cost $22148902014 final flow 3255738091Gallons

0000680303 06803per KgalEscalate at 1025 for 1 yr 06973per Kgal

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

Expand Klinersquos Island when + $2 MGD is reached

Present Worth (PW) = 20 years 4

First MGD over $50903707Penalty$13718549Credit

$37185158Net Penalty 1018771$Kgal $5053463 Present Worth=Second MGD over

$125274024Penalty$33761349Credit

$91512674Net Penalty 1253598$Kgal $12436572 Present Worth=Third MGD over

$162982548Net Penalty 1488425$Kgal $22149328 Present Worth=Fourth MGD over

$237352865Net Penalty 1625705$Kgal $32256254 Present Worth=

LCA AECOM Report Cover

AECOM Technical Summary Report (052316) (080916+Oct16 Pat Mande

DIVIDERS

Appendix I - DEP Letter - Jordan Creek

DIVIDERS

Appendix IIa - LCA 537 Tech Memo(121913)

DIVIDERS

Appendix IIb - LCA Act_537_Status_Mtg(11-11-13)

DIVIDERS

Appendix IIIa - DRBC Memo_LCA_4MGD_Expand(022814)

DIVIDERS

Appendix IIIb - MinutesampNH3Proposal-Final

LCA_COA 537 Plan - 7-22-14 DRBC Mtg Minutes

Att 2 - 7-18-14 Email Response Shane McAleer DRBC

Att 3 - KIWWTP NH3 load calculations

Att 4 - EPA TMDL Guidance

Att 5 - LCA proposed winter NH3 limit

DIVIDERS

Appendix IIIc - LCA Expansion - DRBC Winter Load Limits - FINAL (022715)

DIVIDERS

Appendix IV - Living Filter (Dr Parizek)_rev

DIVIDERS

Appendix V - LCA 537 Conveyance Tech Memo(063015)

DIVIDERS

Appendix VIa - Intro amp Section 2_Flows and Loadings

DIVIDERS

Appendix VIb - Section 3_Process Modeling

DIVIDERS

Appendix VIc - Section 4_Costs

DIVIDERS

Appendix VId - Attachments

DIVIDERS

Appendix VII - LCA_Act_537_Project_Status_Mtg(12-15-14)

DIVIDERS

Appendix VIII - TDS-Source Control Memo (060215)

DIVIDERS

Appendix IX - Presentation - LCA Board - Nov 9 2015

LCA 537 PLAN

1 OCTOBER 2016

CONTENTS

Page No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4 KEY FINDINGShelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5

RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UPhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip6 2013 Studies

bull IPP Effluent Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Assessmenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7 bull Discharge to Jordan Creekhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7 bull Discharge by Land Applicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8 bull KIWWTP Expansionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8 bull Preliminary Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip9

2014 Studies

bull DRBC Projected Effluent Limits for KIWWTPhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10 bull Living Filter Land Application Evaluationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip11 bull Conveyance Evaluationshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12 bull KIWWTP Modeling and Optimizationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13 bull 2nd Year (2014) 537 Plan Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15

bull TDS Analysis and Source Controlhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip15 bull Supplemental Land Application Evaluationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip16 bull Dry Weather Conveyance Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip16 bull Flow and Load Projections and 4 MGD Expansion Timinghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip17 bull 3rd Year (2015) 537 Plan Findingshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip18 bull DEP Contactshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip19

LCA 537 PLAN

2 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

LCA 537 PLAN

3 OCTOBER 2016

MF Micro-Filtration

RO Reverse-Osmosis

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

LCA 537 PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

84 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

$183 $1217

$346 $865

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

ndash $31 $22

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

20 028

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

$368 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

From Ralph Eschborn

William Bohner ARRO

Dear Pat

December 19 2013

copy2013 ARRO

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 copy2013 ARRO

bull Drill plan

5 copy2013 ARRO

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

7 copy2013 ARRO

8 copy2013 ARRO

9 copy2013 ARRO

approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

11 copy2013 ARRO

12 copy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

15 copy2013 ARRO

16 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

MEMORANDUM

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Pat Mandes LCA

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Introductions

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

to look into

changes are made

point sources

Adjournment

Attachment List

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

land application

Subject

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

Diameter (in)

12a Alternative

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Cost Component

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

Cost Item

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

Pipe Diameter

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

TECHNICAL REPORT

4 MGD Expansion

March 2015

TOC Section 2

List of Tables

List of Figures

2-1 March 2016

2-2 March 2016

2-3 March 2016

2-4 March 2016

2-5 March 2016

2-6 March 2016

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-9 March 2016

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Year Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Per-Capita

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

2-13 March 2016

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Average Conditions

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

2-15 March 2016

2-16 March 2016

2-17 March 2016

March 2016

TOC Section 3

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Figures

March 2016

3-1 March 2016

3-2 March 2016

3-3 March 2016

odeling Activities

5 Intensive

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

8 Model Validation

9 Influent

Model A

pplication10 Plant

3-4 March 2016

TN NH3-N)at

3-5 March 2016

3-6 March 2016

Parameter Flow TSS

3-7 March 2016

3-8 March 2016

3-9 March 2016

3-10 March 2016

3-11 March 2016

3-12 March 2016

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

3-14 March 2016

temperature

3-15 March 2016

temperature

3-16 March 2016

3-17 March 2016

3-18 March 2016

3-19 March 2016

3-20 March 2016

3-21 March 2016

3-22 March 2016

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

3-23 March 2016

3-24 March 2016

3-25 March 2016

3-26 March 2016

treatment

3-27 March 2016

3-28 March 2016

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

3-29 March 2016

3-30 March 2016

3-31 March 2016

3-32 March 2016

New General

3-33 March 2016

3-34 March 2016

3-35 March 2016

3-36 March 2016

3-37 March 2016

3-38 March 2016

3-39 March 2016

3-40 March 2016

HRTtss (33)

3-41 March 2016

Kinetic Parameters

3-42 March 2016

3-43 March 2016

3-44 March 2016

3-45 March 2016

3-46 March 2016

3-47 March 2016

3-48 March 2016

3-49 March 2016

3-50 March 2016

3-51 March 2016

parameters

3-52 March 2016

3-53 March 2016

3-54 March 2016

3-55 March 2016

3-56 March 2016

3-57 March 2016

3-58 March 2016

3-59 March 2016

3-60 March 2016

3-61 March 2016

3-62 March 2016

parameters

3-63 March 2016

3-64 March 2016

3-65 March 2016

3-66 March 2016

3-67 March 2016

3-68 March 2016

3-69 March 2016

3-70 March 2016

(DRBC Winter)

(NPDES Winter)

(DRBC Summer)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NPDES Limit = None

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3-71 March 2016

3-72 March 2016

3-73 March 2016

Number of RMTF

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

APR (DRBC Winter)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

List of Tables

List of Figures

4-1 March 2016

Description Cost

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

16-Sep-2013602890472

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

60289047221-Jul-2014

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

GPS-X Default

COD322

sbCOD213

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 225

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

50 375 25

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 2

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

Comments

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 3

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 4

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CostLabor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 5

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 6

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 7

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 8

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 9

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

DIVISION 11

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

SUBTOTAL 949082$

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

602890473C

ClientSheet

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

ment CostLabor Cost

copy2013 ARRO

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

Jandl capital cost

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

Klinersquos Island

Overview of Scope

Key Findings

KI Design Basis

ndash Jordan Creek

Hydraulic models

Pipe Diameter (In)

Cost Item

$865GPD

Pipe Diameter (In)

Storage

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

$70 $63 -

From Ralph Eschborn

Comment

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

HW = Hauled Waste

Water Softeners

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Product1

Attachment A

copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

copy2012 ARRO

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

In Parallel ndash

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

CONSTRAINTS

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A SITE

___________________________________________

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

A Site capital cost

23 copy2013 ARRO

25 copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

CALIBRATED MODEL

KI Study Summary

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Allocation at 11MGD

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

DIVIDERS






DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


LCA 537 PLAN

2 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

LCA 537 PLAN

3 OCTOBER 2016

MF Micro-Filtration

RO Reverse-Osmosis

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

LCA 537 PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

84 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

$183 $1217

$346 $865

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

ndash $31 $22

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

20 028

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

$368 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

From Ralph Eschborn

William Bohner ARRO

Dear Pat

December 19 2013

copy2013 ARRO

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 copy2013 ARRO

bull Drill plan

5 copy2013 ARRO

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

7 copy2013 ARRO

8 copy2013 ARRO

9 copy2013 ARRO

approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

11 copy2013 ARRO

12 copy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

15 copy2013 ARRO

16 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

MEMORANDUM

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Pat Mandes LCA

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Introductions

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

to look into

changes are made

point sources

Adjournment

Attachment List

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

land application

Subject

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

Diameter (in)

12a Alternative

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Cost Component

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

Cost Item

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

Pipe Diameter

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

TECHNICAL REPORT

4 MGD Expansion

March 2015

TOC Section 2

List of Tables

List of Figures

2-1 March 2016

2-2 March 2016

2-3 March 2016

2-4 March 2016

2-5 March 2016

2-6 March 2016

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-9 March 2016

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Year Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Per-Capita

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

2-13 March 2016

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Average Conditions

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

2-15 March 2016

2-16 March 2016

2-17 March 2016

March 2016

TOC Section 3

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Figures

March 2016

3-1 March 2016

3-2 March 2016

3-3 March 2016

odeling Activities

5 Intensive

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

8 Model Validation

9 Influent

Model A

pplication10 Plant

3-4 March 2016

TN NH3-N)at

3-5 March 2016

3-6 March 2016

Parameter Flow TSS

3-7 March 2016

3-8 March 2016

3-9 March 2016

3-10 March 2016

3-11 March 2016

3-12 March 2016

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

3-14 March 2016

temperature

3-15 March 2016

temperature

3-16 March 2016

3-17 March 2016

3-18 March 2016

3-19 March 2016

3-20 March 2016

3-21 March 2016

3-22 March 2016

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

3-23 March 2016

3-24 March 2016

3-25 March 2016

3-26 March 2016

treatment

3-27 March 2016

3-28 March 2016

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

3-29 March 2016

3-30 March 2016

3-31 March 2016

3-32 March 2016

New General

3-33 March 2016

3-34 March 2016

3-35 March 2016

3-36 March 2016

3-37 March 2016

3-38 March 2016

3-39 March 2016

3-40 March 2016

HRTtss (33)

3-41 March 2016

Kinetic Parameters

3-42 March 2016

3-43 March 2016

3-44 March 2016

3-45 March 2016

3-46 March 2016

3-47 March 2016

3-48 March 2016

3-49 March 2016

3-50 March 2016

3-51 March 2016

parameters

3-52 March 2016

3-53 March 2016

3-54 March 2016

3-55 March 2016

3-56 March 2016

3-57 March 2016

3-58 March 2016

3-59 March 2016

3-60 March 2016

3-61 March 2016

3-62 March 2016

parameters

3-63 March 2016

3-64 March 2016

3-65 March 2016

3-66 March 2016

3-67 March 2016

3-68 March 2016

3-69 March 2016

3-70 March 2016

(DRBC Winter)

(NPDES Winter)

(DRBC Summer)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NPDES Limit = None

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3-71 March 2016

3-72 March 2016

3-73 March 2016

Number of RMTF

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

APR (DRBC Winter)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

List of Tables

List of Figures

4-1 March 2016

Description Cost

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

16-Sep-2013602890472

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

60289047221-Jul-2014

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

GPS-X Default

COD322

sbCOD213

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 225

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

50 375 25

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 2

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

Comments

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 3

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 4

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CostLabor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 5

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 6

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 7

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 8

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 9

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

DIVISION 11

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

SUBTOTAL 949082$

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

602890473C

ClientSheet

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

ment CostLabor Cost

copy2013 ARRO

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

Jandl capital cost

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

Klinersquos Island

Overview of Scope

Key Findings

KI Design Basis

ndash Jordan Creek

Hydraulic models

Pipe Diameter (In)

Cost Item

$865GPD

Pipe Diameter (In)

Storage

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

$70 $63 -

From Ralph Eschborn

Comment

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

HW = Hauled Waste

Water Softeners

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Product1

Attachment A

copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

copy2012 ARRO

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

In Parallel ndash

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

CONSTRAINTS

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A SITE

___________________________________________

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

A Site capital cost

23 copy2013 ARRO

25 copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

CALIBRATED MODEL

KI Study Summary

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Allocation at 11MGD

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

DIVIDERS






DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


LCA 537 PLAN

3 OCTOBER 2016

MF Micro-Filtration

RO Reverse-Osmosis

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

LCA 537 PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

84 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

$183 $1217

$346 $865

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

ndash $31 $22

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

20 028

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

$368 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

From Ralph Eschborn

William Bohner ARRO

Dear Pat

December 19 2013

copy2013 ARRO

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 copy2013 ARRO

bull Drill plan

5 copy2013 ARRO

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

7 copy2013 ARRO

8 copy2013 ARRO

9 copy2013 ARRO

approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

11 copy2013 ARRO

12 copy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

15 copy2013 ARRO

16 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

MEMORANDUM

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Pat Mandes LCA

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Introductions

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

to look into

changes are made

point sources

Adjournment

Attachment List

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

land application

Subject

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

Diameter (in)

12a Alternative

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Cost Component

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

Cost Item

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

Pipe Diameter

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

TECHNICAL REPORT

4 MGD Expansion

March 2015

TOC Section 2

List of Tables

List of Figures

2-1 March 2016

2-2 March 2016

2-3 March 2016

2-4 March 2016

2-5 March 2016

2-6 March 2016

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-9 March 2016

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Year Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Per-Capita

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

2-13 March 2016

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Average Conditions

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

2-15 March 2016

2-16 March 2016

2-17 March 2016

March 2016

TOC Section 3

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Figures

March 2016

3-1 March 2016

3-2 March 2016

3-3 March 2016

odeling Activities

5 Intensive

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

8 Model Validation

9 Influent

Model A

pplication10 Plant

3-4 March 2016

TN NH3-N)at

3-5 March 2016

3-6 March 2016

Parameter Flow TSS

3-7 March 2016

3-8 March 2016

3-9 March 2016

3-10 March 2016

3-11 March 2016

3-12 March 2016

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

3-14 March 2016

temperature

3-15 March 2016

temperature

3-16 March 2016

3-17 March 2016

3-18 March 2016

3-19 March 2016

3-20 March 2016

3-21 March 2016

3-22 March 2016

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

3-23 March 2016

3-24 March 2016

3-25 March 2016

3-26 March 2016

treatment

3-27 March 2016

3-28 March 2016

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

3-29 March 2016

3-30 March 2016

3-31 March 2016

3-32 March 2016

New General

3-33 March 2016

3-34 March 2016

3-35 March 2016

3-36 March 2016

3-37 March 2016

3-38 March 2016

3-39 March 2016

3-40 March 2016

HRTtss (33)

3-41 March 2016

Kinetic Parameters

3-42 March 2016

3-43 March 2016

3-44 March 2016

3-45 March 2016

3-46 March 2016

3-47 March 2016

3-48 March 2016

3-49 March 2016

3-50 March 2016

3-51 March 2016

parameters

3-52 March 2016

3-53 March 2016

3-54 March 2016

3-55 March 2016

3-56 March 2016

3-57 March 2016

3-58 March 2016

3-59 March 2016

3-60 March 2016

3-61 March 2016

3-62 March 2016

parameters

3-63 March 2016

3-64 March 2016

3-65 March 2016

3-66 March 2016

3-67 March 2016

3-68 March 2016

3-69 March 2016

3-70 March 2016

(DRBC Winter)

(NPDES Winter)

(DRBC Summer)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NPDES Limit = None

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3-71 March 2016

3-72 March 2016

3-73 March 2016

Number of RMTF

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

APR (DRBC Winter)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

List of Tables

List of Figures

4-1 March 2016

Description Cost

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

16-Sep-2013602890472

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

60289047221-Jul-2014

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

GPS-X Default

COD322

sbCOD213

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 225

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

50 375 25

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 2

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

Comments

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 3

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 4

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CostLabor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 5

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 6

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 7

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 8

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 9

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

DIVISION 11

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

SUBTOTAL 949082$

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

602890473C

ClientSheet

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

ment CostLabor Cost

copy2013 ARRO

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

Jandl capital cost

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

Klinersquos Island

Overview of Scope

Key Findings

KI Design Basis

ndash Jordan Creek

Hydraulic models

Pipe Diameter (In)

Cost Item

$865GPD

Pipe Diameter (In)

Storage

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

$70 $63 -

From Ralph Eschborn

Comment

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

HW = Hauled Waste

Water Softeners

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Product1

Attachment A

copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

copy2012 ARRO

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

In Parallel ndash

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

CONSTRAINTS

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A SITE

___________________________________________

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

A Site capital cost

23 copy2013 ARRO

25 copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

CALIBRATED MODEL

KI Study Summary

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Allocation at 11MGD

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

DIVIDERS






DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


LCA 537 PLAN

4 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

84 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

$183 $1217

$346 $865

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

ndash $31 $22

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

20 028

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

$368 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

From Ralph Eschborn

William Bohner ARRO

Dear Pat

December 19 2013

copy2013 ARRO

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 copy2013 ARRO

bull Drill plan

5 copy2013 ARRO

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

7 copy2013 ARRO

8 copy2013 ARRO

9 copy2013 ARRO

approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

11 copy2013 ARRO

12 copy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

15 copy2013 ARRO

16 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

MEMORANDUM

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Pat Mandes LCA

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Introductions

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

to look into

changes are made

point sources

Adjournment

Attachment List

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

land application

Subject

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

Diameter (in)

12a Alternative

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Cost Component

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

Cost Item

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

Pipe Diameter

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

TECHNICAL REPORT

4 MGD Expansion

March 2015

TOC Section 2

List of Tables

List of Figures

2-1 March 2016

2-2 March 2016

2-3 March 2016

2-4 March 2016

2-5 March 2016

2-6 March 2016

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-9 March 2016

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Year Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Per-Capita

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

2-13 March 2016

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Average Conditions

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

2-15 March 2016

2-16 March 2016

2-17 March 2016

March 2016

TOC Section 3

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Figures

March 2016

3-1 March 2016

3-2 March 2016

3-3 March 2016

odeling Activities

5 Intensive

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

8 Model Validation

9 Influent

Model A

pplication10 Plant

3-4 March 2016

TN NH3-N)at

3-5 March 2016

3-6 March 2016

Parameter Flow TSS

3-7 March 2016

3-8 March 2016

3-9 March 2016

3-10 March 2016

3-11 March 2016

3-12 March 2016

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

3-14 March 2016

temperature

3-15 March 2016

temperature

3-16 March 2016

3-17 March 2016

3-18 March 2016

3-19 March 2016

3-20 March 2016

3-21 March 2016

3-22 March 2016

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

3-23 March 2016

3-24 March 2016

3-25 March 2016

3-26 March 2016

treatment

3-27 March 2016

3-28 March 2016

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

3-29 March 2016

3-30 March 2016

3-31 March 2016

3-32 March 2016

New General

3-33 March 2016

3-34 March 2016

3-35 March 2016

3-36 March 2016

3-37 March 2016

3-38 March 2016

3-39 March 2016

3-40 March 2016

HRTtss (33)

3-41 March 2016

Kinetic Parameters

3-42 March 2016

3-43 March 2016

3-44 March 2016

3-45 March 2016

3-46 March 2016

3-47 March 2016

3-48 March 2016

3-49 March 2016

3-50 March 2016

3-51 March 2016

parameters

3-52 March 2016

3-53 March 2016

3-54 March 2016

3-55 March 2016

3-56 March 2016

3-57 March 2016

3-58 March 2016

3-59 March 2016

3-60 March 2016

3-61 March 2016

3-62 March 2016

parameters

3-63 March 2016

3-64 March 2016

3-65 March 2016

3-66 March 2016

3-67 March 2016

3-68 March 2016

3-69 March 2016

3-70 March 2016

(DRBC Winter)

(NPDES Winter)

(DRBC Summer)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NPDES Limit = None

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3-71 March 2016

3-72 March 2016

3-73 March 2016

Number of RMTF

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

APR (DRBC Winter)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

List of Tables

List of Figures

4-1 March 2016

Description Cost

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

16-Sep-2013602890472

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

60289047221-Jul-2014

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

GPS-X Default

COD322

sbCOD213

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 225

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

50 375 25

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 2

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

Comments

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 3

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 4

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CostLabor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 5

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 6

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 7

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 8

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 9

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

DIVISION 11

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

SUBTOTAL 949082$

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

602890473C

ClientSheet

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

ment CostLabor Cost

copy2013 ARRO

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

Jandl capital cost

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

Klinersquos Island

Overview of Scope

Key Findings

KI Design Basis

ndash Jordan Creek

Hydraulic models

Pipe Diameter (In)

Cost Item

$865GPD

Pipe Diameter (In)

Storage

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

$70 $63 -

From Ralph Eschborn

Comment

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

HW = Hauled Waste

Water Softeners

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Product1

Attachment A

copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

copy2012 ARRO

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

In Parallel ndash

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

CONSTRAINTS

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A SITE

___________________________________________

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

A Site capital cost

23 copy2013 ARRO

25 copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

CALIBRATED MODEL

KI Study Summary

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Allocation at 11MGD

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

DIVIDERS






DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


LCA 537 PLAN

5 OCTOBER 2016

84 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

6 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

7 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

8 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

9 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

10 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

11 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

12 OCTOBER 2016

$183 $1217

$346 $865

LCA 537 PLAN

13 OCTOBER 2016

ndash $31 $22

LCA 537 PLAN

14 OCTOBER 2016

20 028

LCA 537 PLAN

15 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

16 OCTOBER 2016

LCA 537 PLAN

17 OCTOBER 2016

$368 ndash

ndash 407

LCA 537 PLAN

18 OCTOBER 2016

Figure 1

LCA 537 PLAN

19 OCTOBER 2016

APPENDIX

From Ralph Eschborn

William Bohner ARRO

Dear Pat

December 19 2013

copy2013 ARRO

1200 pm

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Introductions

6 TimingSchedule

3 copy2013 ARRO

4 copy2013 ARRO

bull Drill plan

5 copy2013 ARRO

bull Data reporting

6 copy2013 ARRO

7 copy2013 ARRO

8 copy2013 ARRO

9 copy2013 ARRO

approval

10 copy2013 ARRO

Conveyance Matters

Conveyance Issues

11 copy2013 ARRO

12 copy2013 ARRO

14 copy2013 ARRO

15 copy2013 ARRO

16 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

17 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

copy2012 ARRO

19 copy2013 ARRO

Schedule

MEMORANDUM

FROM Namsoo Suk PhD

Grandfathered (Old)

307 2300 16000 2400 650 350 1000 20700

316 1350 15060 3350 410 2770 3180 19760

+ 09 - 950 - 940 + 950 - 240 + 2420 + 2180 - 940

Load lbsday

Grandfathered (Old)

307 589 4099 615 167 90 256 5303

316 356 3972 883 108 730 839 5211

+ 09 - 233 - 128 + 269 - 58 + 641 + 582 - 92

Model update

GF+NGF 440 4388 48719 11525 2271 8650 10922 64632

GF+NGF 400 4261 46515 10867 1993 8356 10349 61644

GF+NGF 440 1195 13268 3139 619 2356 2974 17601

GF+NGF 400 1277 13934 3256 597 2503 3100 18467

Meeting Minutes

Attending

Shane McAleer DRBC

Namsoo Suk DRBC

Pat Mandes LCA

Liz Cheeseman ARRO

Bill Muszynski DRBC

Introductions

confirmed

1b2) GF Loads

to look into

changes are made

point sources

Adjournment

Attachment List

lbsd 698 ndash 4388 746 4388 8908

mgL 19 ndash 12 20 12 24

wwwaecomcom

781 224 5200 tel 781 224 6546 fax

Memorandum

land application

Subject

From Don Walker

Date June 30 2015

Diameter (in)

12a Alternative

Total Length 206935 199769 121044 7166 85891

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $204 $179 Contingency 30 $408 $358

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $198 $174 Contingency 30 $396 $348

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost ($M) Unit Cost

Base Construction

Cost ($M) 24 68500 $414 $2836 $336 $2302 30 68500 $498 $3410 $420 $2877

Cost Component

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

24-inch Diameter

30-inch Diameter

(BCC) $2895 $3468 $2360 $2935

Cost Item

24-in FM (Alt 12a)

Pipe Diameter

48 701 - 701 42 21899 - 21899 36 9407 5656 3751 30 3577 - 3577 27 1988 2002 -14

Total Length

7658 29914

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $370 $333 Contingency 30 $741 $667

Unit Cost ($LF)

Base Construction

Cost (M$) Unit Cost

Base Construction

OHP 15 $067 $059 Contingency 30 $134 $118

TECHNICAL REPORT

4 MGD Expansion

March 2015

TOC Section 2

List of Tables

List of Figures

2-1 March 2016

2-2 March 2016

2-3 March 2016

2-4 March 2016

2-5 March 2016

2-6 March 2016

2-7 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-8 March 2016

(a) (b)

2-9 March 2016

Average Conditions

2011 Annual Average

Conditions

2012 Annual Average

Conditions

2010-2012 Average

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3828 145 3099 103 3453 134 3460 126

2-10 March 2016

Year Annual Average

2-11 March 2016

Year Annual Average

Klines Island RWW

Annual Average LCA

Per-Capita

NH4-N (lbsd) 3460 297 3163 0016 0017 0011 - 0026

2-12 March 2016

Allocation Surplus

Allocation New

Owned Allocation

2-13 March 2016

Average Conditions

Difference Between

Average Conditions

Design Annual

Average Conditions

NH4-N (lbsd) (mgL) 3460 126 1902 204 5362 146

2-14 March 2016

Average Conditions

Maximum 30d Average

Maximum 7d Average

Maximum 1d Average

2-15 March 2016

2-16 March 2016

2-17 March 2016

March 2016

TOC Section 3

36 REFERENCES 3-74

List of Figures

March 2016

3-1 March 2016

3-2 March 2016

3-3 March 2016

odeling Activities

5 Intensive

Model D

evelopment

7 Model

8 Model Validation

9 Influent

Model A

pplication10 Plant

3-4 March 2016

TN NH3-N)at

3-5 March 2016

3-6 March 2016

Parameter Flow TSS

3-7 March 2016

3-8 March 2016

3-9 March 2016

3-10 March 2016

3-11 March 2016

3-12 March 2016

3-13 March 2016

Temperature (degC)

3-14 March 2016

temperature

3-15 March 2016

temperature

3-16 March 2016

3-17 March 2016

3-18 March 2016

3-19 March 2016

3-20 March 2016

3-21 March 2016

3-22 March 2016

Parameter Unit

PMTF RMTF

3-23 March 2016

3-24 March 2016

3-25 March 2016

3-26 March 2016

treatment

3-27 March 2016

3-28 March 2016

product

y = 56698ln(x) + 16569

3-29 March 2016

3-30 March 2016

3-31 March 2016

3-32 March 2016

New General

3-33 March 2016

3-34 March 2016

3-35 March 2016

3-36 March 2016

3-37 March 2016

3-38 March 2016

3-39 March 2016

3-40 March 2016

HRTtss (33)

3-41 March 2016

Kinetic Parameters

3-42 March 2016

3-43 March 2016

3-44 March 2016

3-45 March 2016

3-46 March 2016

3-47 March 2016

3-48 March 2016

3-49 March 2016

3-50 March 2016

3-51 March 2016

parameters

3-52 March 2016

3-53 March 2016

3-54 March 2016

3-55 March 2016

3-56 March 2016

3-57 March 2016

3-58 March 2016

3-59 March 2016

3-60 March 2016

3-61 March 2016

3-62 March 2016

parameters

3-63 March 2016

3-64 March 2016

3-65 March 2016

3-66 March 2016

3-67 March 2016

3-68 March 2016

3-69 March 2016

3-70 March 2016

(DRBC Winter)

(NPDES Winter)

(DRBC Summer)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NPDES Limit = None

(094 mgL)

(139 mgL)

3-71 March 2016

3-72 March 2016

3-73 March 2016

Number of RMTF

Cross Flow Media

Overall Media

Specific Surface

Area (ft2ft3)

APR (DRBC Winter)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

NH4-N (mgL)

TN (mgL)

DRBC Limit = 746

lbsd (19 mgL)

(161 mgL)

NPDES Limit = 15

NPDES Limit = None

DRBC Limit = 439

lbd (094 mgL)

DRBC Limit =

6463 lbd (139 mgL)

0 170 32 127 64 139 125 153 77 135 1 248 01 133 17 141 84 150 46 136 2 325 003 139 004 146 20 148 028 138 3 403 003 143 003 150 006 151 003 142 4 480 003 146 003 153 003 153 003 145

3-74 March 2016

APPENDIX VIc Costs

March 2016

TOC Section 10

List of Tables

List of Figures

4-1 March 2016

Description Cost

17 VFA 261 269pH (SU) 711

16-Sep-2013602890472

16 VFA 269 273pH (SU) 707

60289047218-Jul-2014

20 VFA 269 262pH (SU) 707

60289047221-Jul-2014

18 VFA 247 238pH (SU) 715

60289047221-Aug-2014

14 VFA 248 240pH (SU) 710

60289047221-Aug-2014

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

(1)(2)

GPS-X Default

COD322

sbCOD213

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD590 956

BOD155155

ivsstotss x0880 163

171vss xiss

1430 195

1700 1700

tkn277277

stkn xtkn1622 1148

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 225

COD304

sbCOD201

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD557 902

BOD14601460

ivsstotss x0880 153

163vss xiss

1346 184

1700 1700

tkn266266

stkn xtkn1611 1049

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 213

COD279

sbCOD184

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD511 828

BOD13401340

ivsstotss x0880 139

153vss xiss

1221 166

1700 1700

tkn245245

stkn xtkn1611 839

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

xtip xtop00 195

COD300

sbCOD198

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD550 890

BOD14401400

1540vss xiss

1323 1801350 190

1700 1700

tkn245280

stkn xtkn1459 991

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4541

xtip xtop00 210

COD333

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD610 988

BOD15991500

1480vss xiss

1447 1971330 150

1700 1700

tkn254300

stkn xtkn1622 918

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp4838

xtip xtop00 223

COD334

sbCOD220

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD612 991

BOD16041560

1780vss xiss

1478 2021580 200

1700 1700

tkn280320

stkn xtkn1656 1144

frsnh09000

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp5747

xtip xtop00 273

SS 333 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 164 145 197 254 162 92 48 26 22 00 220 228 70 48 157 150 42 68 187 59 128 114 100 137 210 136 74 33 18 15 00 151 197 61 41 136 130 36 59 162 51 111 99 87 119 229 162 67 28 15 13 00 132 228 71 48 158 151 42 68 187 59 128 115 101 138 232 154 78 33 18 15 00 153 364 113 77 252 240 67 108 299 94 204 176 155 211 187 116 71 53 28 24 00 244 325 100 68 224 214 60 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 245 158 88 47 25 22 00 225 315 97 66 218 208 58 94 258 82 177 155 137 186 266 183 84 45 24 21 00 216 311 96 65 215 205 57 92 255 81 175 154 136 185 247 158 89 45 24 21 00 217 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 184 163 143 196 256 161 95 47 25 22 00 228 275 85 58 190 181 50 82 225 71 154 140 123 168 261 156 106 40 21 18 00 189 274 85 58 189 181 50 81 225 71 154 138 121 166 261 166 95 39 21 18 00 18

10 324 100 68 224 214 59 96 266 84 182 160 141 192 236 148 88 47 25 22 00 2211 384 119 81 266 254 70 114 315 100 216 187 164 224 253 167 86 55 30 26 00 2612 349 108 73 241 231 64 104 286 90 196 175 154 210 299 186 113 50 27 23 00 2313 311 96 65 215 206 57 92 255 81 175 155 137 186 253 157 96 45 24 21 00 2114 334 103 70 230 220 61 99 273 86 187 167 147 200 267 159 109 48 26 22 00 2215 258 80 54 179 171 47 77 212 67 145 130 115 156 242 150 92 37 20 17 00 1716 298 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 167 148 130 177 259 173 86 43 23 20 00 2017 419 129 88 289 276 77 124 343 108 235 202 178 243 224 141 83 60 32 28 00 2818 361 111 76 249 238 66 107 296 93 202 179 158 215 280 172 109 52 28 24 00 2419 337 104 71 233 223 62 100 277 87 189 171 150 205 309 186 124 49 26 23 00 23

3112016

20 369 114 77 255 243 68 109 302 96 207 178 157 213 240 169 71 53 28 25 00 2521 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 162 142 194 235 154 81 48 25 22 00 2222 331 102 70 229 219 61 98 272 86 186 163 143 195 262 177 85 48 26 22 00 2223 362 112 76 250 239 66 107 297 94 203 178 157 214 261 164 98 52 28 24 00 2424 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 163 144 196 239 147 91 48 25 22 00 2225 295 91 62 204 195 54 87 242 76 165 146 129 175 257 171 86 42 23 20 00 2026 299 92 63 206 197 55 89 245 77 168 148 130 178 287 200 86 43 23 20 00 2027 268 83 56 185 177 49 80 220 69 150 139 122 167 287 166 121 39 21 18 00 1828 278 86 58 192 183 51 82 228 72 156 143 126 172 286 164 122 40 21 19 00 19

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 93 55 142 058 146 104 77 152 017 24 000 18 040 11 36 00 23 128 30 75 174 78 38 99 040 122 096 64 104 011 16 000 12 031 10 32 00 20 111 26 65 151 70 33 86 035 146 128 58 090 010 14 000 11 032 11 37 00 23 128 30 75 175 82 38 100 040 139 114 68 104 011 16 000 12 033 18 58 00 36 204 47 120 279 66 60 151 064 104 052 55 166 018 26 000 20 054 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 142 101 73 148 016 23 000 18 045 16 50 00 31 177 41 104 241 84 52 134 055 164 127 69 143 016 23 000 17 046 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 91 52 133 054 142 103 75 142 016 22 000 17 047 16 53 00 33 184 43 109 251 98 54 141 058 144 103 80 150 016 24 000 18 048 14 44 00 27 154 36 91 210 113 46 122 048 140 108 93 125 014 20 000 15 049 14 44 00 27 154 36 90 209 101 45 120 048 149 118 83 125 014 20 000 15 04

10 16 52 00 32 182 42 107 248 89 54 138 057 133 092 73 148 016 23 000 18 0411 19 61 00 38 216 50 127 294 83 64 161 067 150 100 68 175 019 28 000 21 0512 17 56 00 35 196 45 115 267 118 58 152 061 167 125 97 159 017 25 000 19 0513 16 50 00 31 175 40 103 238 100 52 135 055 141 102 82 142 016 22 000 17 04

3112016

SS 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 87 187 168 148 202 280 166 114 57 30 27 00 270 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 170 150 204 245 147 97 59 31 28 00 281 343 106 72 237 226 63 102 281 89 192 170 150 204 248 148 100 58 30 28 00 282 207 64 43 143 136 38 61 169 54 116 105 93 126 235 154 81 35 18 17 00 173 215 67 45 149 142 40 64 177 56 121 109 96 130 215 139 76 37 19 18 00 184 375 116 79 259 247 69 111 307 97 210 189 166 227 287 153 134 64 33 31 00 315 379 117 80 262 250 69 112 311 98 212 187 165 225 296 188 108 65 34 31 00 316 317 98 67 219 209 58 94 260 82 178 157 138 188 263 171 91 54 28 26 00 267 359 111 75 248 237 66 107 294 93 201 178 157 214 268 163 105 61 32 29 00 298 282 87 59 195 186 52 84 231 73 158 143 125 171 267 165 102 48 25 23 00 239 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 253 80 173 157 138 188 275 157 118 53 27 25 00 25

10 312 96 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 158 139 190 267 150 117 53 28 26 00 2611 354 109 74 244 233 65 105 290 92 198 177 156 212 280 167 113 60 31 29 00 2912 470 145 99 325 310 86 139 385 122 263 234 206 281 362 213 149 80 42 38 00 3813 353 109 74 244 233 65 105 289 91 198 176 155 212 275 163 112 60 31 29 00 2914 334 103 70 231 220 61 99 274 86 187 167 147 200 275 170 104 57 30 27 00 2715 356 110 75 246 235 65 106 292 92 200 180 158 216 299 173 126 61 32 29 00 2916 343 106 72 237 227 63 102 282 89 193 177 156 213 326 175 151 59 30 28 00 2817 312 97 66 216 206 57 93 256 81 175 156 138 188 248 146 102 53 28 26 00 26

3112016

18 330 102 69 228 218 61 98 271 86 185 165 145 198 277 173 104 56 29 27 00 2719 344 106 72 238 227 63 102 282 89 193 174 154 209 339 211 128 59 31 28 00 2820 340 105 71 235 225 62 101 279 88 191 172 151 207 286 163 123 58 30 28 00 2821 320 99 67 221 211 59 95 262 83 179 163 143 195 274 150 125 55 28 26 00 2622 308 95 65 213 203 56 91 252 80 173 162 143 194 296 139 158 53 27 25 00 2523 301 93 63 208 198 55 89 246 78 169 157 138 188 310 166 143 51 27 25 00 2524 314 97 66 217 207 58 93 258 81 176 160 141 192 265 140 124 54 28 26 00 2625 332 103 70 229 219 61 99 272 86 186 170 150 204 298 161 137 57 29 27 00 2726 318 98 67 220 210 58 94 261 82 178 165 145 198 337 191 146 54 28 26 00 2627 297 92 62 205 196 54 88 244 77 167 153 135 184 280 152 128 51 26 24 00 2428 320 99 67 221 212 59 95 263 83 180 163 143 195 287 165 122 55 28 26 00 2629 329 102 69 227 217 60 98 270 85 185 167 147 200 294 171 123 56 29 27 00 2730 278 86 58 192 184 51 83 228 72 156 146 129 175 341 201 140 47 25 23 00 23

SS 17 53 00 33 187 43 110 255 121 70 131 058 149 107 99 152 017 28 000 23 040 17 55 00 34 193 45 113 263 99 73 132 060 133 087 82 156 017 29 000 24 041 17 55 00 34 192 45 113 262 102 72 132 060 133 088 84 156 017 29 000 24 042 10 33 00 20 116 27 68 158 87 44 83 036 138 118 71 094 010 17 000 14 033 11 34 00 21 121 28 71 165 80 45 85 038 125 101 66 098 011 18 000 15 034 19 60 00 37 210 49 124 286 141 79 148 066 138 088 116 170 019 31 000 26 055 19 61 00 37 212 49 125 290 110 80 145 066 169 122 91 172 019 32 000 26 056 16 51 00 31 178 41 105 242 93 67 122 055 154 116 77 144 016 27 000 22 047 18 57 00 36 201 47 118 275 107 76 138 063 147 100 88 163 018 30 000 25 058 14 45 00 28 158 37 93 216 108 59 112 049 148 115 89 128 014 24 000 19 049 15 49 00 30 173 40 102 236 127 65 123 054 141 103 104 140 015 26 000 21 04

10 16 50 00 31 175 41 103 239 125 66 124 055 135 095 103 142 016 26 000 21 0411 18 57 00 35 198 46 117 270 118 75 138 062 150 105 97 161 018 30 000 24 0512 23 75 00 46 263 61 155 359 154 99 182 082 192 131 127 214 023 39 000 32 0613 18 56 00 35 198 46 116 270 117 74 137 062 146 101 96 161 018 30 000 24 05

3112016

COD5555

sbCOD1417

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD104 742

BOD846836

3852vss xiss

3269 10902794

1700 1700

tkn246246

stkn xtkn308 215

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp735740

xtip xtop00 72

COD13450

sbCOD3430

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD253 1797

BOD20492011

9264vss xiss

7911 26376719

1700 1700

tkn592592

stkn xtkn74 518

frsnh09200

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp178178

xtip xtop00 175

COD200

sbCOD14

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD73 6

BOD7976

ivsstotss x0500 108

37vss xiss54 5419 18

1700 1700

tkn575575

stkn xtkn563 12

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp1611

xtip xtop00 07

COD100

sbCOD7

07078 05291

fBOD xBOD37 3

BOD399

ivsstotss x0500 46

77vss xiss23 2339 38

1700 1700

tkn117117

stkn xtkn114 3

frsnh09900

SOLIDS BREAKDOWN

NITROGEN BREAKDOWN

tp2323

xtip xtop00 10

50 375 25

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000

BY PROCESS AREA

Subtotal 1 $ 17050000 $ 13740000 $ 10430000

Subtotal 2 $ 17900000 $ 14430000 $ 10950000

Subtotal 3 $ 20590000 $ 16600000 $ 12600000

BY DIVISION

DESCRIPTION

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 2

SUBTOTAL 114939$

Units Quantity

Comments

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 3

SUBTOTAL 455081$

Comments

111414

(OampP)

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 4

SUBTOTAL 86400$

CostLabor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 5

SUBTOTAL 183895$

Comments

Labor Cost

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 6

SUBTOTAL 36000$

CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 7

SUBTOTAL 146200$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 8

SUBTOTAL 10500$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

DIVISION 9

SUBTOTAL 75674$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

R Eschborn602890473C 111414

ClientSheet

DIVISION 11

SUBTOTAL 14155381$

ment CostLabor Cost

602890473C 111414

R Eschborn

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 12

SUBTOTAL 26000$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 13

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 14

SUBTOTAL -$

CostLabor Cost

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

Client Sheet Number

Project Number Date

DIVISION 15

SUBTOTAL 949082$

111414

Comments

NA R Eschborn

602890473C

ClientSheet

Project Number Date

DIVISION 16

SUBTOTAL 814777$

NA R Eschborn

602890473C 111414

ment CostLabor Cost

copy2013 ARRO

2 copy2013 ARRO

Todayrsquos Agenda

1 Background

2 TDS Summary

3 LCA Living Filter

4 DRBC Limits

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

TOTAL 169 41850 9722 20925

7 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

8 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

Jandl capital cost

14 copy2013 ARRO

DRBC Limits

Historical(40 MGD)

2010 DRBC (44)

2014DRBC (44)

TP 1063 457 1092NO3-N 5139 5700 4872NH3-N 3336 685 698 439746TN 6582 6463

Klinersquos Island

Overview of Scope

Key Findings

KI Design Basis

ndash Jordan Creek

Hydraulic models

Pipe Diameter (In)

Cost Item

$865GPD

Pipe Diameter (In)

Storage

US Storage72 0 060 7951 795148 33271 3316742 (11805) (16509)36 28467 2407230 6481 1340327 (4453) (4453)24 9223 922221 14069 1406918 4431 259715 311 (2309)12 (2055) (2486)

Cost Item

Alt 10 Conveyance

24-in FM

$70 $63 -

From Ralph Eschborn

Comment

1610 1410 - 1830 No Trend

HW = Hauled Waste

Water Softeners

BBC Source Water 20 360 6011 162 2705 45 198 3306 55

BBC Effluent 14 2463 28351 1253 14425 51 1211 13936 49

IPP Influent 42 1848 64743 1097 38414 59 748 26207 40

IPP Effluent 42 1423 49857 1084 37976 76 342 11968 24

‐ ‐ lbd ‐

CIP 50 NaOH 11208 77

Product1

Attachment A

copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

3 copy2013 ARRO

Land Application

CAPEX 625 712 593 962

OPEX (PW) 105 142 101 106

PW 73 853 694 1068

TDS Removal 33

PW 1024

November 2013

4 copy2013 ARRO

Shifting Focus

November 2013

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

TDS DATA

Sampling Period

Comment

October 2009-August 2010 1325 1083 - 1568

Steady increase

June 15 ndashJuly 17 2013 1800 1527 - 2219

copy2012 ARRO

TDS PLAN

copy2012 ARRO

In Parallel ndash

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

9 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

10 copy2013 ARRO

PSU Living Filter

11 copy2013 ARRO

CONSTRAINTS

71 Dilution

copy2012 ARRO

Evapotranspiration

copy2012 ARRO

WATER WELLS

A SITE

___________________________________________

Usable Acreage 1575

B SITE

Total 42484

____________________________________

_____________________________________

Irrigation Limit 53

(53 x 101) (533 x 104)=2825 x 106 Gallonswk

04 MGD

(158 x 102) (533 x 104)= 8396 x 106 GallonsWk

12 MGD

A Site capital cost

23 copy2013 ARRO

25 copy2013 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

copy2012 ARRO

CALIBRATED MODEL

KI Study Summary

No TDS Issue

copy2012 ARRO

AGENDA

Background

TDS Issues

Conveyance Studies

Timing

copy2012 ARRO

Economic Summary

copy2012 ARRO

1Q 2016

copy2012 ARRO

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Allocation at 11MGD

Phasing

copy2012 ARRO

Penalties

DIVIDERS






DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


DIVIDERS


Documents

LCA/ CITy OF ALLENTOWN - Home | Lehigh County Authority...PMTF Plastic Media Trickling Filter RMTF Rock Media Trickling Filter RO Reverse-Osmosis TDS Total Dissolved Solids TN Total