You are on page 1of 136

Return Activated Sludge Pumping

Basis of Design Report

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

DRAFT FINAL

June 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report

Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Plant Flows and Loads ........................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Existing Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................6
3.0 Project Elements ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Overall Program Site Plan ...........................................................................................................................8
3.1.2 Project Site Plan ..........................................................................................................................................8
3.2 Basis of Design ................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1 BioWin Model RAS Flows ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 State Point Analyses Requirements ........................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3.1 Pumping Station Design Criteria............................................................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Pump Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.3.3 RAS Pump Turndown Range .................................................................................................................... 15
3.4 BCE Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.1 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Risks ..................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Recommendation: ..................................................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Features ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
4.0 Condition Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 RAS Pipe Condition.......................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2 Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) of RAS Pipes..................................................................................... 19
5.0 Construction Sequencing.................................................................................................................... 19
5.1 Startup and Transitioning.................................................................................................................................. 20
6.0 Site Work ............................................................................................................................................. 20
7.0 Site Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 20
8.0 Control Strategy .................................................................................................................................. 20
8.1 Existing Control Strategy.................................................................................................................................. 20
8.2 Future Control Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 21
9.0 Site Electrical....................................................................................................................................... 21
10.0 Contractor Support Facilities and Laydown Area ........................................................................ 22
11.0 Project Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 22
11.1 RAS Piping Coordination with BNR Project .................................................................................................. 22

List of Figures
Figure 1. Process Schematic of Existing Facility ..........................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Plant Process Schematic .................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3. Overall Program Site Plan ..............................................................................................................................9
Figure 4. Overall Project Facility Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5. State Point Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
i
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report

List of Tables
Table 1. BODR Reference Documents ..........................................................................................................................2
Table 2. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for Year 2020...................................................................................5
Table 3. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for 181 mgd ADWF ........................................................................5
Table 4. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for 206 mgd ADWF ........................................................................5
Table 5. RAS Pumping Station Design Flow Criteria ................................................................................................. 11
Table 6. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 2020 ADWF............................... 12
Table 7. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 181 mgd ADWF......................... 12
Table 8. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 330 mgd EMDF ......................... 12
Table 9. Summary of Life Cycle Costs Analysis ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 10. RAS Alternatives Findings .......................................................................................................................... 17

Attachments
Attachment A. Return Activated Sludge Business Case Evaluation
Attachment B. Alternatives Development
Attachment C. RAS Can Drawings

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
ii
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report

Abbreviations
Acronym Description
AAF Average Annual Flow
ACC Area Control Center
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
AOR Acceptable Operating Range
ATTP Advanced Treatment Technologies Pilot
BCE Business Case Evaluation
BEP Best Efficiency Point
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BODR Basis of Design Report
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal
BRF Biosolids Reclamation Facility
DLDs Dedicated Land Disposal
CEP1 Phase 1 Capacity Expansion Project
CO Carbonaceous Oxygen
EMDF Equalized Maximum Daily Flow
ESBs Emergency Storage Basins
LS Lump Sum
mgd Million Gallons per Day
MM Maximum Monthly Flow
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPSH Net Positive Suction Head at 3 percent loss of head at BEP, feet of
water
NPSHmargin Net Positive Suction Head Margin Ratio
NPSHA Net Positive Suction Head Available, feet of water
NPSH3 Net Positive Suction Head at 3 percent loss of head, feet of water
Nss Suction Specific Speed
PEPS Primary Effluent Pumping Station
PCCS Process Computer Control System
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PHWWF2 Peak Hourly Wet Weather Flow For A 2-Year Storm
PMO Program Management Office
POR Preferred Operating Range
PST Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Qbep Flow at best efficiency point
RAS Return Activated Sludge

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
iii
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report

RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board


SF Square Foot
SRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
SSBs Solids Storage Basins
SST Secondary Sedimentation Tanks
SVI Sludge Volume Index
GTs Pre-aeration Grit Tanks
TDH Total Dynamic Head
TM Technical Memorandum
TSS Total Suspended Solids
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
VSD Variable Speed Drive
WRF Water Reclamation Facility

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
iv
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
1.0 Introduction
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, Regional Board) adopted
new waste discharge requirements for the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
(SRWTP) on December 9, 2010. These new discharge requirements are included in Order
No. R5-2010-0114, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
No. CA0077682 (as amended by Order R5-2011-0083). The new permit does not increase
SRWTP treatment capacity, and incorporates stricter discharge requirements that the existing
process is not capable of meeting. To comply with the permit discharge requirements and the
maximum schedule of 10 years established by the Regional Board, Sacramento Regional
County Sanitation District (SRCSD) has established the EchoWater Project Program. The
Return Activated Sludge (RAS) pumping is one of the required projects of the EchoWater
Project Program.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Basis of Design Report (BODR) is to provide the RAS pumping system
Designer with the basic process design and preliminary equipment selection of the RAS pumps
for the project. It also provides links to key documents and information necessary for a more
complete understanding of the project.

There are several steps needed to finalize this BODR including:

1. BODR confirmation will be conducted in a series of meetings where the selected


designer, District, and Program Management Office (PMO) staff review the
information contained in the BODR and Business Case Evaluation (BCE) and arrive at
an initial agreement for moving forward. Finalization of the BODR process will be
documented by the PMO and will be incorporated in the Preliminary Design Report
(PDR) documentation. District staff will be heavily involved in the finalization of the
BODR and agreement to moving forward with the PDR phase.

2. The production of the PDR includes the production of several technical memoranda
(TMs) for each discipline associated with RAS pumping. During that process, focused
meetings will include District staff to continuously define the project leading to the
design submittal phases.

3. The design submittal phases will include review by PMO and District staff to confirm
that the design is following the BODR intent and updated developments regarding
Regional Board permit requirements.

The basis of design, design criteria (as distinct from the Districts Design Guidelines), the
features, and discipline-specific information has been provided. In addition, a BCE has been
developed to evaluate the number and type of pumps; the results are contained in
Attachment A.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
1
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
2.0 Background
The PMO staff have developed and compiled several key documents as shown in Table 1. Note
that the NPDES limits are in review and several of the documents are in draft condition. This
BODR is based on the permit limits established by the December 2011 Central Valley Regional
Water Control Board Hearing.

Table 1. BODR Reference Documents


Document Name Description
NPDES Permit No. CA0077682 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted
Order No. R5-2010-0114. The permit is currently in review and some limits
(NH3-N and NO3-N) may change.
SRCSD Facility Plan 2nd Draft Describes existing treatment system, and multiple optional technologies for
achieving NPDES limits. Document will be finalized when the tertiary treatment
technology has been selected, based on the pilot plant operation and testing.
An additional update will be made following winter wastewater characterization
and pilot testing results.
Flows and Loads Technical Evaluated historical flows and loads and projected future flows and loads based
Memorandum Final on population growth estimates and incorporating water conservation. This
document is final.
Peak Flow Equalization Technical Evaluated options and developed solutions for storage of peak flows to limit the
Memorandum Draft equalized maximum day flow through the biological nutrient removal (BNR) and
tertiary systems to 330 mgd. This document is final draft.
Process Model and Mass Balance BioWinTM based model and mass balance outputs identifying process recycles
Technical Memorandum Draft and constraints. Document will be finalized once pilot data is available for
confirming influent wastewater characterization and key model kinetic and
stoichiometric parameters.
SRWTP Advanced Treatment The pilot plant has provided some information to the BioWinTM modeling, but
Technology Pilot (ATTP) Project On- finalization of the model will not be made until after winter wastewater
going (Operating under a separate characterization is complete and the BioWin modeling effort is finalized.
contract with Brown and Caldwell)
Drawings associated with project Initial draft site plans and facility plans and sections for each major treatment
elements process.

A process schematic of the existing treatment plant is shown on Figure 1. The plant includes
the following:

Liquid Stream:
Headworks (mechanical screens and influent pumping)

Emergency Storage Basins (ESBs)

Pre-aeration Grit Tanks (GTs)

Primary Sedimentation Tanks (PSTs)

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
2
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
EmergencyStorage
A B Basins C D SO2
PlantWaste Caustic

Ferric
Cl2
Secondary Chlorine Sacramento
Grit Primary COTanks
Screen Clarifiers Cl Contact River
R
Removal l Cl ifi
Clarifier
Influent 2

Grit Legend
Diversion
ScreenGrit
Septage Scum RAS Scum Sludge
l d
ProcessFlow
WAS Scum
Sidestream
Disposal Polymer Chemical
Coagulant/
PS

DAFT GBT Polymer Cl2


Filters
GBT/DAFTReturnedas DCB
PlantWasteto
Headworks ORtothe Reclaimed
PrimaryInfluent Anaerobic
TWAS

Water
Digesters
T

Surge MS DS SSBs DLDs Washwater


BasinE

FOGReceiving Sludge
MixingTanks
RF

BRF BeneficialUse

SD/SN
SN SD
FM SD
FlowMetering RASPumpingBODR
Structure
Figure1.
Z:\15.RAS(ReturnActivatedSludgeSystem)\B.Planning\BODR RASPumpStation\Figures\Figures1and2ProcessSchematicofexisting
anddesign ExistingPlantProcessSchematic
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
Carbonaceous Oxygen (CO) tanks and Secondary Sedimentation Tanks (SSTs) that
remove biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS)

Chlorine gas for disinfection

Sulfur dioxide gas for dechlorination prior to river discharge

Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)

Solids Stream:
Thickeners for waste activated sludge(gravity belt thickeners and dissolved air
flotation)

Anaerobic Digestion

Biosolids Reclamation Facility (BRF) (dewatering, drying and pelletizing facility)

Solids Storage Basins (SSBs) for further stabilization of digested sludge

Dedicated Land Disposal (DLDs) for disposal of sludge harvested solids from SSBs

Refer to the PMO Facilities Plan on the Districts web site (http://srcsd.com/business-
opportunites.php) for a more detailed description of the process units and current operations. 1

2.1 Plant Flows and Loads


Three design conditions were considered:

The year 2020 was evaluated as it is the year that the EchoWater Project will come on-
line at SRWTP.
181-mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) was evaluated as this is the design capacity
for the adopted NPDES permit.
206-mgd ADWF was evaluated as this is the projected flow approximately 20 years
after which 181-mgd ADWF is reached.

All the listed averaging periods (e.g., AAF, MMF, etc.) were considered for each design
condition. The raw influent flows and loads for each of the above-listed design conditions are
listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4. The loads identified for the maximum day are the result from high
sewer flows scouring solids that have settled during previously dry periods.

1
SRCSD Program Management Office (2012) Facility Plan: Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Program. Program Management Office, SRWTP, Elk Grove, CA.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
4
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
Table 2. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for Year 2020
Annual Max Max Peak
Item Unit ADWF** Average Month Week Max Day Hour
Flow mgd* 148 157 211 266 313 398
TSS lb/d 326,000 335,000 398,000 483,000 880,000 --
BOD lb/d 343,000 345,000 387,000 445,000 686,000 --
NH4 lb N/d 31,000 32,000 36,000 41,000 48,000 --
TKN lb N/d 52,000 54,000 68,000 77,000 77,000 --
* Includes water conservation
**ADWF: Average Dry Weather Flow

Table 3. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for 181 mgd ADWF
Annual Max Max Peak
Item Unit ADWF Average Month Week Max Day Hour

Flow mgd* 181 195 272 351 418 541

TSS lb/d 468,000 480,000 570,000 692,000 1,262,000 --

BOD lb/d 493,000 496,000 557,000 640,000 987,000 --

NH4 lb N/d 45,000 46,000 51,000 59,000 69,000 --

TKN lb N/d 74,000 76,000 95,000 110,000 110,000 --

* Includes water conservation

Table 4. SRWTP Raw Influent Flows and Loads for 206 mgd ADWF
Annual Max Max Peak
Item Unit ADWF Average Month Week Max Day Hour

Flow mgd* 206 223 318 414 497 648

TSS lb/d 574,000 589,000 699,000 850,000 1,548,000 --

BOD lb/d 604,000 608,000 683,000 785,000 1,209,000 --

NH4 lb N/d 55,000 56,000 63,000 72,000 84,000 --

TKN lb N/d 91,000 94,000 118,000 135,000 135,000 --

* Includes water conservation

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
5
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
2.2 Existing Facilities
The RAS system currently includes of two vertical pumps per Secondary Sedimentation Tank
(SSTs). Each RAS pump has a variable speed drive. RAS flow from the existing SSTs is
conveyed to the RAS channels in the carbonaceous oxidation (CO) tanks. The original SSTs
(Batteries I and II) utilize propeller (axial flow) pumps while the Battery III SSTs, constructed
during Phase 1 Capacity Expansion Project (CEP1), utilize mixed flow pumps. RAS is removed
from the bottom of the SSTs via suction type collectors. The collectors rotate around each SST
and draw the RAS into a 30-inch pipe leading to a pair of vertical pumps installed in 24-inch-
diameter pump cans. The two pumps work in duty-standby strategy. On the discharge side, the
flow passes through a 12-inch-diameter magnetic flow meter before flowing to the main RAS
pipeline. Each battery (eight SSTs each) combines its RAS flows into one 42-inch pipeline
before discharging into the RAS channels.

At the peak hourly wet weather flow for a 2-year storm (PHWWF2) of 332 mgd, per the CEP1
design criteria, the plant has the capacity of achieving a RAS return rate of 69 percent with all
SSTs and all RAS pumps on. At average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 181 mgd, the plant has
the capacity of achieving a RAS return rate of 126 percent with all SSTs and all RAS pumps
on. Existing operations protocol of the plant during PHWWF2 calls for a minimum of 20 SSTs
to be running at any one time with two SSTs serving as standby. PHWWF2 operations protocol
provides for each SST to have one pump operating and one as standby. In typical operation of
the plant during ADWF, a minimum of 16 SSTs are running at any one time with three SSTs
serving as standby. Each SST would have one pump operating and one as standby. The flow
rate for RAS pumps on Batteries I and II are controlled with eddy current variable speed drives
and flow rate for Battery III RAS pumps are controlled with variable frequency drives (VFDs)
for each pump. For all SSTs in service, the variable speed pumps are ramped up and down in
unison to help maintain an even sludge blanket. However, uneven flow distribution into the
SSTs does create a non-uniform sludge blanket across the existing SSTS.

SST Batteries I and II were constructed under Contract 767 in 1976 while Battery III was
constructed under Contract 2000 in 1989. Due to this difference, the SST batteries will vary in
mechanical design and electrical motor control center (MCC) location. The main difference in
the mechanical design is the difference in the RAS discharge piping. Batteries I and II
discharge piping does not prevent air entrainment in the flow meters while Battery III is
designed to remove that air entrainment by way of a U loop and an air relief valve.

Regarding the existing electrical system, Battery I RAS pumps are powered from MCCs
located in the Secondary Treatment Control Center South Building 6. Batteries II and III RAS
pumps are powered from MCCs located in the West Secondary Substation Building 12.

3.0 Project Elements


A process schematic of the proposed RAS pumping, BNR, and existing treatment processes is
shown on Figure 2. As part of the alternatives development, a detailed description of project
alternative, related hydraulic analysis, and associated drawings are contained in Attachment B.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
6
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Emergency Storage Basins
A B C1 C2 C3 D

Grit Primary Secondary Sacramento River


Screen CO Tanks
Removal Clarifier Not used Clarifiers
Ferric
Influent

Filtration &
RAS Disinfection
Alkalinity Feed Filter Influent
Pump Station
Septage (FIPS)
SST
Classifying Splitter
Selector

To WAS WAS P/S


Thickening

Legend
PE Pump Diversion
Station Screen Grit
(PEPS)
Sludge
Process Flow
Scum
Sidestream
Chemical
Anoxic Aerobic Swing
Zones Zone Zones
Drain P/S

BNR Tanks
RASS BODR

Figure 2.
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\Figures\Figures 1 and 2 Process Schematic of existing
and design Plant Process Schematic
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
3.1.1 Overall Program Site Plan
An overall site plan for the program is shown on Figure 3. The drawing shows the RAS
facilities along with the other facilities included in the program as follows:

Primary effluent pumping station


BNR facilities
CO tank conversion
Flow equalization
Filter influent pumping station
Filtration (including clearwell, backwash waste handling, pre-ozone, and miscellaneous
facilities)
Disinfection (UV or chlorine)
Dwight Road
Electrical feed (main feed)
Grit landfill removal
Site improvements (including utility extensions, contractor workforce parking, storm
drainage improvements, new roads)
Bufferlands building
Harvest Crew building
PMO/CMID building

3.1.2 Project Site Plan


A site plan of the RAS is shown on Figure 4. The dashed line shows the limits of the RAS
project. The RAS project includes the replacement of one RAS pump at each SST. The RAS
project includes the following major components:

Review recent condition assessment (anticipated summer 2013) and perform


supplemental condition assessment to manage outstanding unknowns and risk not
adequately explored in the recent condition assessment.
Replace existing RAS pumps with 24 new pumps at SSTs, one per SST.
Possibly rehabilitate cans and duct banks if condition assessment recommends
rehabilitation.
Replace conductors for all RAS pumps.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
8
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
NOT USED

RAS BODR
Figure 4
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
Replace electrical components in Batteries II & III RAS MCCs in the West Secondary
Substation Building 12.
Replace MCC 4K and MCC 4H in the Secondary Treatment Control Center South
Building 6 feeding Battery I RAS pumps.
Remove above grade piping and flow meters and replace piping to create a
configuration similar to Battery III installation. Modify below grade piping where
needed.
Add an additional isolation valve downstream of each flowmeter.
Modify the RAS pump control wiring in ACC4/11 and the West Secondary Substation
Building 12.

3.2 Basis of Design


The EMDF is 330 mgd. The ADWF to the plant will be 181 mgd, which is the same as the
plant permit capacity. Table 5 contains the list of flow design criteria. Based on these flow
values, the following sections describe the RAS pumping requirements.

Table 5. RAS Pumping Station Design Flow Criteria


Item Flow, mgd
1
EMDF 330
1
ADWF 181
Minimum flow2 78
Historical PHWWF2 from (CEP1) 332
1
Final flows may be slightly larger because of return flow from the sludge
storage basins and other residual processes.
2
99.9 percent of all existing instantaneous influent flow values are greater than 78 mgd.
Value is based on influent flow data from January 1, 2010 through December 30, 2011.

3.2.1 BioWin Model RAS Flows


The aerobic SRT and total MLSS were predicted using the pilot data and BioWin Model. Based
on the requirements of the BioWin model, and a preliminary state point analysis, the low and
maximum RAS return rate to achieve reliable settling without expansion of the SSTs capacity
was determined. The preliminary state point analysis established the low and maximum RAS
flow of 30 percent of ADWF and 63 percent of EMDF, respectively. These flows represent the
lowest and highest anticipated RAS flows for the biological processes to function properly.
During prolonged periods of low flows, the number of SSTs in service may need to be reduced
to avoid unnecessary RAS pumping. Excessive RAS pumping will not adversely impact the
process, but will represent an inefficient use of energy.

The relationship for flow rate per SST as a function of RAS rate at 2020 (148 mgd) and
181 mgd ADWF is shown in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. As an example, to achieve the
low conditions established by BioWin, with the plant at ADWF and the RAS low flow
condition of a 30 percent return rate, there would be 20 SSTs in operation with a RAS flow of
approximately 2.7 mgd per SST. The tradeoff between number of clarifiers in service and RAS

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
11
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
flow rate will be impacted by the minimum flow range of the selected RAS pump. The
relationship for flow rate per SSTs as a function of RAS flow at EMDF and number of SSTs in
service is shown in Table 8. As an example, to achieve the maximum conditions established by
BioWin, with the plant at EMDF and the RAS high flow condition of a 63 percent return rate,
there would be 22 SSTs in operation with a flow of approximately 9.5 mgd per SST. During
EMDF pumping events, two additional SSTs will be required when compared to the existing
SST operations strategy. As a result, all major maintenance on SSTs must be completed during
the dry season so that 22 SSTs can be in service with two in standby during the wet season.

Table 6. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 2020 ADWF
Number Percent Return Flow Overflow
of SSTs in Rate,
service 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% gpd/sqft
16 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.5 697
17 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.7 6.1 656
18 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.8 619
19 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 587
20 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.2 558
21 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.9 531
22 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.4 4.7 507
* Hatched numbers indicate flow below the SST RAS design low flow rate

Table 7. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 181 mgd ADWF
Number Percent Return Flow Overflow
of SSTs Rate,
in service 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% gpd/sqft
20 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.5 5.0 5.4 5.9 6.3 680
21 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.6 6.0 650
22 1.6 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.8 620
23 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 590
24 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 570
*Hatched numbers indicate flow below the SST RAS design low flow rate

Table 8. Required RAS Flow Rate (MGD) per SST as a Function of RAS Rate at 330 mgd EMDF
Number Percent Return Flow Overflow
of SSTs in Rate,
service 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 63% 65% 70% gpd/sqft
18 4.6 5.6 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.3 10.2 11.1 11.6 12.0 13.0 1380
19 4.4 5.3 6.1 7.0 7.9 8.8 9.6 10.5 11.0 11.4 12.3 1310
20 4.2 5.0 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.2 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.7 1240
21 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.5 9.9 10.3 11.1 1180
22 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.1 6.8 7.6 8.3 9.1 9.5 9.8 10.6 1130
23 3.6 4.3 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2 8.0 8.7 9.1 9.4 10.1 1080
24 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.2 6.9 7.6 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.7 1040
*Grayed numbers indicate flow is greater than SST RAS design flow rate.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
12
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
3.2.2 State Point Analysis Requirements
A state point analysis was performed to determine SRWTPs SST capacity. This is a graphical
method in determining the SSTs ability to meet treatment requirements. This analysis is based
on the RAS underflow rate, surface overflow rate and sludge volume index (SVI).The graph is
generated by calculating a limiting flux curve (based on experiments from the ATTP) and
incorporating the SSTs RAS underflow and surface overflow rates. The intersection of the
under and overflow rates is the state point.

This assesses SST performance and determines the maximum MLSS concentration by locating
the state point and underflow rate line to be lower than the flux curve. If the state point or
underflow rate is higher than the flux curve then the SST is overloaded. For this analysis, a
sustained peak flow of 330 mgd (EMDF) was assumed at a SVI of 150 mL/g. The SVI of
150 mL/g represents the design assumption for the 90th percentile value. The analysis assumed
that 22 SSTs are in service and that each SST has 9.5 mgd of RAS capacity. Figure 5 presents
the results of the state point analysis.

50
RAS Underfow (ft/ft/d)
45
Derated RAS Underflow (ft/ft/d)
40
Solids Flux, lb/sf-d

Surface Overflow Rate (ft/ft/d)


35

30
State Point
25

20

15
Limiting Flux
10

0
0 5 10 15
Design
MLSS Solids Concentration (g/L)

Figure 5. State Point Analysis

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
13
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
When using a state point analysis, it is important to account for non-idealities associated with
full-scale clarifiers. The state point analysis is a one-dimensional, steady-state analysis that
does not consider clarifier hydraulics and design features. Therefore, the state point analysis
result is typically derated by 20 percent to account for these non-idealities based on work
performed by Ekama and Marais (2004). This is shown by the dashed line in Figure 5. With the
20-percent derating, the indicated maximum MLSS concentration would be approximately
2,300 mg/L.

3.3 Design Criteria


This section describes key pump selection and pumping station design criteria.

3.3.1 Pumping Station Design Criteria


Pumping station design criteria shall conform to the revised SRCSD Engineering Design
Guidelines, Chapter 6: Mechanical Design.

3.3.2 Pump Selection Criteria


There are a number of critical constraints and criteria for selecting pumps for this project. One
criterion unique to this project is that the RAS pumps must fit in a 24-inch-diameter can.
Structural drawings for the RAS pump location and can are provided in Attachment C. In
addition, other selection criteria constituting good practice should include the following:

1. Suction specific speed (Nss) preferred value should be 8,500 and the acceptable
value should be no greater than 10,000 where:


Nss =
(3)0.75

Nss = Suction Specific Speed, (U.S. Units)


= Speed at rated condition, rpm
Qbep = Flow, gpm at best efficiency point (BEP)
NPSH3bep = Net Positive Suction Head at 3 percent loss of head at BEP, feet
H2O

2. At no point should the pump operate outside of the allowable operating region
(AOR) for the flow rate and total dynamic head (TDH) range required. Per the
Hydraulic Institute (HI), the extent of the AOR is established by the pump
manufacturer.
3. During the most common flow conditions, the pump should operate well within the
preferred operating region (POR) for the flow rate and TDH range required. The
most common flow conditions should be developed by taking influent flow
frequency histogram and scaling the flow down for a 50 percent RAS return rate.
Per HI, for pumps with specific speeds greater than 4500, the POR extends from
80 percent of QBEP to 115 percent of QBEP. As the pump approaches peak flow

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
14
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
conditions, the pump can operate outside of the POR, but must remain within the
AOR.
4. To prevent cavitation damage of the pump impeller and other low suction head
related problems, adequate net positive suction head (NPSH) must be available by
providing an NPSH margin that is appropriate for the application. Specifically,
NPSH margin for low energy pumps should be at a minimum 1.3 when flow is
within +/- 15 percent of the BEP. NPSH margins for flows outside of this range, for
high energy pumps, or for column pumps, the margin will be higher. Care should be
taken to not select too high of an NPSH margin which could result in the following:
a. Additional costs for pumping equipment (larger/slower pumps),
b. Reduced pump efficiency,
c. Reduced operating range due to selection of a higher suction specific speed
pump.

NPSHmargin is defined as follows:


NPSHA
NPSHmargin =
NPSH3

NPSHmargin = Net Positive Suction Head Margin Ratio, unitless


NPSHA = Net Positive Suction Head Available, feet H2O
NPSH3 = Net Positive Suction Head at 3 percent loss of head, feet H2O
(also known as NPSH required)

5. Maximum motor speed is 1800 RPM; 2-pole motors (3600 RPM) are not allowed
for pumping.

3.3.3 RAS Pump Turndown Range


Individual RAS pump turndown range should be sufficient to ramp flow up and down to meet
different design flows during for different seasons. The RAS return rate is a BNR process
criteria and ranges from a maximum of 63 percent to a minimum of 30 percent. As shown in
Table 8, for the high flow condition of EMDF and a RAS return rate of 63 percent there would
be 22 clarifiers on line each with a RAS flow rate of 9.5 mgd (6,600 gpm). The maximum flow
rate of 9.5 mgd per SST and a RAS return rate of 63 percent is based on the state point analysis.
The maximum flow rate is consistent with the original plant design and the design for CEP1.

As shown in Table 7, for the low flow condition ADWF and a RAS return rate of 30 percent
there would be 20 SSTs on line each with a RAS flow rate of 2.7 mgd (1,900 gpm). The
minimum of 20 SSTs in service at ADWF is required because the overflow rates for BNR
should be between 400 to 700 gal/day/sqft for average conditions and between 1,000 to
1,600 gal/day/sqft under peak conditions (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
15
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
For reference, the minimum flow that must be withdrawn from the Batteries I, II, and III SST
suction manifold (or collector) to maintain even withdrawal of sludge is 2.0 mgd (1,400 gpm)
based on the manufacturer original submittals and shop drawings. This minimum flow rate is
also assumed for Batteries I and II. At higher MLSS concentrations, low suction manifold
sludge withdrawal rates could lead to rising sludge in the SSTs.

To provide sufficient flexibility to respond to influent flow changes, the RAS pumps should
have the capability to range from to 2.7 mgd (1,900 gpm) during low flow conditions and
9.5 mgd (6,600 gpm) during high flow conditions. This flow range would allow the RAS
pumping system to have a flow turn down ratio of 3.5.

3.4 BCE Results


The RAS pumping BCE provides a summary of capital, operations, and maintenance cost
considerations for the RAS pumping system. Attachment A contains the BCE evaluation. See
Attachment B for information regarding the development of each alternative. The BCE
alternatives analysis focused on the strategy of using one pump versus two pumps per SST. The
following three alternatives were analyzed:

Alternative 1a small duty- small duty (no standby)


Alternative 2a large duty- large standby
Alternative 3 large duty only (no standby)

Table 9 contains a summary of the capital, annual, and present value (life cycle) costs for the
three alternatives.

Table 9. Summary of Life Cycle Costs Analysis


Annual
Annual Maintenance,
Operating Non-Recurring Life-Cycle Cost at
Alternative Capital Cost Costs Risk Costs 5% Discount Rate
Alternative 1a: Two small $20,000,000 $276,000 $394,000 $39,000,000
pumps
Alternative 2a: Two large $29,000,000 $289,000 $273,000 $47,000,000
pumps
Alternative 3: One large pump $17,000,000 $280,000 $174,000 $30,000,000
Note: Values are rounded.

3.4.1 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Risks


For Alternatives 1a and 3, if three pumps fail simultaneously, there is a risk that the SSTs may
not be able to return the sludge quick enough under high flows and solids may be passed to the
tertiary facilities. To manage this risk, the District may want to have a rapid response strategy.
This strategy may include purchasing a shelf standby pump that could be rotated into service
during repairs. The shelf standby pump could be purchased as part of the project or delayed
until either the flows increase and/or when the pumps have aged 5 or 10 years. No such risks

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
16
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
are considered in Alternative 2a due to the standby pump redundancy at each SST. Table 10
summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and risks to each alternative.

Table 10. RAS Alternatives Findings


Alternative Strategy Type Advantages Disadvantages Risks
1a Small Duty- Mixed flow Potential for high degree If one pump fails, SST In the event of pump
Small Duty of flow control must be taken out of failure must have a
Most efficient service until the pump is rapid response
back in service strategy to fix the
One pump on may pump
operate outside of the
acceptable pump
operating range
2a Large Duty- Mixed flow Redundant pump Highest capital and life Marginally meets
Large Greatest flow range cycle cost suction specific speed
Standby operating within the POR criteria.
Pump never operates Increased risk of
outside the AOR for flows suction recirculation
from 1,950 gpm to cavitation and pump
6,600 gpm clogging because
marginally meets
suction specific speed
criteria.
3 Large Duty Mixed flow Lowest capital and life If one pump fails, SST In the event of pump
Only cycle cost must be taken out of failure, must have a
Flexibility to install service until the pump is rapid response
standby at each SST in the back in service strategy to fix
future Marginally meets
Greatest flow range suction specific speed
operating within the POR criteria.
Pump never operates Increased risk of
outside the AOR for flows suction recirculation
from 1,950 gpm to cavitation and pump
6,600 gpm clogging because
marginally meets
suction specific speed
criteria.

3.4.2 Recommendation
Alternative 3 is recommended due to low life cycle costs. This alternative has the lowest cost
due to the fewest number of pumps to purchase and maintain. In addition, these pumps have
flow capabilities ranging from 1,900 gpm to 6,600 gpm while allowing the pump to remain in
the AOR with the majority of the operating range in the POR.

During the preliminary design process, the design consultant shall perform a BCE that
compares the life cycle cost of VSDs such as magnetic drives versus VFDs.

3.5 Features
The following is a list of RAS pumping features.
Number of pumps: one per SST.
Number of pumps total: 24.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
17
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
The pumps will be able to range in capacity from 2.7 mgd to 9.5 mgd by utilizing
variable speed drives (VSDs).
Design should allow for easy access for predictive maintenances where possible.
Prospective pump and motor features: 100 HP at 900 RPM
Pumps should have an interlock lube feature to allow automatic lubrication of the lower
bearing prior to starting up the pumps.
The packing or seal should be accessible by maintenance staff without removal of the
pump from the pump can.
For Batteries I and II, replace piping and flowmeters to create a configuration similar to
Battery III installation. Work on Batteries I and II will involve new connections to the
buried RAS header. For Battery III, replace above grade piping and flow meter if
required by the condition assessment.
Modify the existing discharge piping from all RAS pumps to incorporate an additional
isolation valve downstream of the magnetic flowmeters. Currently, there is no isolation
valve downstream of the flowmeter, during maintenance an entire battery needs to be
shut down because all pumps convey RAS into a common force main.
If condition assessment recommends rehabilitation, provide necessary refurbishment for
cans duct banks. New wiring for each pump will be required.
Provide space for future motor starters in the secondary treatment electrical distribution
building and in the Battery III electrical distribution building. If VFDs are installed,
locate new VFDs on site near the individual pumps only if space in the MCC is limited.
Replace flow meters and associated piping per design guidelines.
Provide accessibility for all valves, pumps, VSDs and flow meters.
Both cans should be rehabilitated (if recommended in the condition assessment) so that
the second can will serve as a standby can. This will allow the installation of the shelf
standby pump without having to remove the failed pump first. The standby can pump
pad should be reconfigured to receive the standby pump soleplate and should be capped.
Discharge piping to the standby can should be replaced and capped with a blind flange
to allow for quick installation.

4.0 Condition Assessment


A condition assessment will be performed under a separate project to determine whether repairs
are required for the existing SST pump cans or the electrical equipment, ducting, and wiring.
The flow meters and discharge piping shall also be evaluated and, if needed, rehabilitated. In
addition to corrosion and structural evaluations, the condition assessment will include a drift
survey to determine if the can is plumb and will provide an effective diameter that is available.
The effective diameter value accounts for offsets and out of roundness that would limit a
vertical column from passing into the can. This condition assessment will analyze three pump

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
18
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
cans at Battery I, three pump cans at Battery II, and two pump cans at Battery III. If there are
any gaps in the available condition assessment, the design consultant shall identify the risk and
recommend an additional condition assessment accordingly.

4.1 RAS Pipe Condition


The RAS piping system includes buried lines that range from 14 inches to 42 inches. A review
of the original design specifications suggests that all buried piping 14 inches and greater may
be bar wrapped concrete cylinder pipe (AWWA C303) and the above grade RAS piping near
the pumps is described as steel pipe (AWWA 200) with enamel lining. Bar wrapped concrete
cylinder pipe typically has a life span of 50 to 75 years. In 2020, Batteries I and II will be
43 years old.

The condition assessment should include confirmation of the type of material physically
exposing portions of the pipe and chiseling into the pipe (and spot repair sample areas). Based
on the type of pipe and the condition of the lining an estimate of useful life must be developed.

4.2 Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) of RAS Pipes


Portions of the system cross under MLSS/SE channels and will be difficult to replace should
replacement be required. Regardless of the findings of the condition assessment, the design
consultant will investigate and describe in a technical memorandum the layout of RAS pipe
system and determine what steps would be required to replace the entire RAS piping system.

If any physical improvements are reasonably provided under this project to facilitate future pipe
replacement then the required improvements should be incorporated into this project. If the
condition assessment recommends relining or in-place rehabilitation of the RAS pipe, those
improvements will be described in the contract documents.

5.0 Construction Sequencing


Contractor must coordinate with SRWTP to minimize the impact to plant operations when
accessing each RAS pump for demolition, rehabilitation, or construction. In general, the plant
would like 16 SSTs in service during the dry season and 20 SSTs during the wet season. In
addition, two SSTs should be in standby mode at all times. A short term reduction in standby or
in-service SSTs may be possible with coordination from SRWTP.

The BODR recommends rehabilitating the SSTs during the dry season when up to an entire
battery (8 SSTs) may be temporarily taken offline for access to the pump cans. Access to the
24-inch to 42-inch discharge pipes will require shutdown of associated RAS pumps. This can
be done in conjunction with the SST shutdown for pump can access.

Replacing the electrical wiring, MCC, and VSDs do not require shutdown and draining of the
SSTs and can be done anytime during the year.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
19
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
5.1 Startup and Transitioning
The project test plans will be developed by the design engineer. The startup project test plans
will include an approach that allows for continued RAS pumping to the CO tanks with the new
higher head pumps. Special design features may be required to facilitate pumping to the CO
tanks and later transition to the BNR facility. On an interim basis the design engineer may
require RAS discharge valves be throttled and/or require limitations on the VSD range.

6.0 Site Work


In general, no site work is required because the project does not change the existing site. If the
condition assessment reveals major rehabilitation requirements for the cans or duct banks,
additional site work may be required to restore the site back to existing conditions.

7.0 Site Utilities


In general, no utility work (other than electrical and control upgrades) is required because the
project uses existing utilities. The electrical and controls in ACC 4 will require upgrading.
Example modifications to ACC 4 are shown in Attachment C.

8.0 Control Strategy


This section provides information regarding the RAS pump control strategy for the existing and
a possible future condition.

8.1 Existing Control Strategy


These RAS pumps are controlled by a flow-paced control strategy to maintain a sludge level of
less than 30 inches off the tank flow. There is a control loop that will automatically shut off the
service pump and prevent the back-up pump from coming on line when the water surface level
in an SST falls to about a foot below the effluent launders. An exception is when the tank is
being drained.

Each tank constitutes its own strategy loop, and may have sludge removed from it
automatically at a rate set independently from the other tank pumping rates. Normally, only one
pump per tank is operating and the other pump serves as a standby, but both pumps can be
manually put in service at the same time if desired.

The return sludge from each tank flows through a magnetic flow meter which can be used to
manually adjust the return from each tank or insure that the return rate is balanced between
tanks. The RAS is pumped to the RAS mixing box located at the west end of the RAS channel
above the central tunnel.

The total secondary influent flow is divided by the number of tanks in service to calculate a
flow setpoint for all tanks. Each tank has an individual operator entered ratio value. This ratio
value is then multiplied by the calculated flow setpoint value to get a flow setpoint for a given
tank. The strategy will then modulate the RAS pump speed to maintain the flow setpoint.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
20
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
For Battery III, the two pumps operate in a lead-lag configuration and are rotated weekly.

8.2 Future Control Strategy


As with the existing control strategy, the RAS return rate will be established by the PCCS and
the RAS pumping rate will ramp up and down proportionally (30 percent to 63 percent) based
on the totalized flows from the PE flow meters upstream of the BNR basins. To compensate for
uneven flow distribution between SSTs, there will continue to be an operator-entered ratio to
achieve a slightly different scaling factor unique to each SST. The operators will adjust the
multiplier for each SST based on the relative depth of the sludge blanket in each SST. Over
time, operators may find that different multipliers should be used when different combinations
of SSTs are in-service. An alternative control will involve automatically controlling the RAS
flow based on each SSTs sludge blanket level. At other plants, automated control based on
sludge blanket level monitoring has not been reliable; however, the District in investigating
new approaches.

New control strategies will be required to maintain control of the secondary treatment process.
The following features may be required for process controls.

Provisions for potential polymer addition.


Sludge level monitors for automating sludge blanket control.
Retaining RAS TSS probes for automatic SRT control strategy.

Addition of these process controls are not included in the scope of this project, but may be
added.

9.0 Site Electrical


The electrical system shall be designed based on the current SRCSD Electrical Design
Guidelines. Battery I RAS pumps are powered from MCC 4K and MCC 4H located in the
Secondary Treatment Control Center South Building 6. Battery II and III RAS pumps are
powered from MCCs located in the West Secondary Substation Building 12. The RAS pumps
shall be fed from the existing electrical rooms. The design consultant shall perform a BCE that
compares the life cycle cost of VSDs such as magnetic drives in place of VFDs.

If recommended and approved, VFDs shall be located in the field per the Electrical Design
Guidelines. The existing 480V breaker buckets that feed the RAS pumps in the West Secondary
Substation shall be modified to accommodate the increased pump motor size for Battery II and
Battery III. MCC 4K and MCC 4H feeding Battery I RAS pumps shall be replaced. The RAS
pump field located VFDs shall include 3 percent line reactors and through the enclosure heat
sinks integral to the drive. Active harmonic filters shall be added to the existing switchgear
sized appropriately to reduce the harmonics to levels specified in the electrical design
guidelines.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
21
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Draft Final Basis of Design Report
10.0 Contractor Support Facilities and Laydown Area
The size and coordination of the contractors area for support facilities and laydown area have
not been finalized. Tentatively, contractor support facilities will be in the same area as the
BNR, primary effluent pumping station (PEPS), and equalization basin contractors. In addition,
contractor laydown areas will be provided near each construction site. The RAS pumping
contractor laydown is anticipated to be to the west of the RAS pumping construction site. Site
utilities for power, water, sewer, and storm drainage have been identified for these areas.

Basis of design for contractor support facilities and laydown area include the following:

The size of the laydown area needs to be evaluated based on construction phasing and
materials delivery.
Utilities extended to the trailer area will be sized to be shared with the BNR, PEPS
pumps, and equalization basin contractor.
The trailer area will be sized to accommodate the contractor, resident engineer, field
engineer (designer), and PMO staff.

11.0 Project Coordination


The RAS Pumping project requires interface with several other AWTP projects for scheduling,
testing, and utility piping purposes. The major treatment project is the BNR project. Site-related
projects will be completed prior to the start of the RAS Pumping projects.

After the site preparation is complete, the general completion sequence of construction is the
RAS Pumping project first, followed in turn by the PEPS project and then the BNR project.
This sequence permits orderly testing and commissioning of these projects.

The site utilities requirements for RAS piping must also be coordinated with the BNR area
projects and with the decommissioning/repurposing of the CO Tanks
11.1 RAS Piping Coordination with BNR Project
Design consultant shall coordinate with BNR regarding the diameter of the extension of the
RAS lines to the BNR project. If the RAS pumping discharge point into the BNR reaeration
tanks is more than a 350-foot extension, transitioning to a larger diameter pipe should be
considered. The designer should consider potential savings of lower velocities in the
discharge pipe versus increased energy for pumping at the current velocities. Current
velocities range from 1 ft/s to 12.2 ft/s in the RAS system.
,

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


EchoWater Project
22
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\BODR - RAS Pump Station\DRAFT Final RAS Basis of Design Report 2013-06-27.docx June 28, 2013
Attachment A

Return Activated Sludge


Business Case Evaluation
Business Case Evaluation
RAS Pumping

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

DRAFT

April 2013
Business Case Evaluation
RAS Pumping

Contents
1.0 Project Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Problem Statement................................................................................................................................ 1
3.0 Functional Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 1
4.0 Alternatives............................................................................................................................................ 2
5.0 Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 4
6.0 Recommendation................................................................................................................................... 5

Tables
Table 1. Summary of Life Cycle Costs..........................................................................................................................4
Table 2. Advantages, Disadvantages, Risks of Preferred Alternatives ..........................................................................4

Appendices
Appendix A. Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
i
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
1.0 Project Background
The return activated sludge (RAS) system currently consists of two vertical pumps per
secondary settling tank (SST). Flow from the existing SSTs is conveyed to the RAS channels in
the carbonaceous oxidation (CO) tanks. The original SSTs (Batteries I and II) utilize propeller
(axial) pumps while the Battery III SSTs, constructed during Phase 1 Capacity Expansion
Project (CEP1), utilize mixed flow pumps. RAS is removed from the bottom of the SST via
suction type collectors. The collectors draw the RAS into a 30-inch pipe leading to a pair of
24-inch-diameter vertical pump cans. These two cans hold pumps that work in duty-standby
strategy. On the discharge side, the flow passes through a 12-inch-diameter magnetic flow
meter before flowing to the main RAS pipeline. Each battery (eight SSTs each) combines their
RAS flows into one 42-inch pipeline before discharging into the RAS channels.

At the peak hourly wet weather flow for a 2-year storm (PHWWF2) of 332 mgd, per the CEP1
design criteria, the plant has the capacity of achieving a RAS return rate of 69 percent with all
SSTs and all 48 RAS pumps operating. At average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 181 mgd, the
plant has the capacity of achieving a RAS return rate of 126 percent with all SSTs and all RAS
pumps on. Existing operations protocol of the plant during PHWWF2 calls for a minimum of
20 SSTs to be running at any one time with two SSTs serving as standby. PHWWF2 operations
protocol provides for each SST to have one pump operating and one as standby. In typical
operation of the plant during ADWF, a minimum of 16 SSTs are on line at any one time with
three SSTs serving as standby. Each SST would have one pump operating and one as standby.
The flow rate for RAS pumps on Batteries I and II are controlled with eddy current variable
speed drives and flow rate for Battery III RAS pumps are controlled with variable frequency
drives (VFDs) for each pump. For all SSTs in service, the variable speed pumps are ramped up
and down in unison to help maintain an even sludge blanket. However, uneven flow
distribution into the SSTs does create a non-uniform sludge blanket across the existing SSTs.

The purpose of this business case evaluation (BCE) is to evaluate RAS pump alternatives from
the existing SST to the new biological nutrient removal (BNR) structure, and provide
recommended solutions.

2.0 Problem Statement


The existing RAS pumps will not meet the design flows for RAS conveyance to the BNR
structure. The BNR RAS discharge location will be farther away and will be approximately
2.8 to 3.1 feet higher than the static head at the RAS channel in the CO tanks. Because of the
higher head requirements experienced by the RAS pumps, the pumps will not deliver sufficient
flow to the BNR process.

3.0 Functional Requirements


The RAS pumps must be able to convey RAS from the SST to the BNR structure at the
required flow rates.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
1
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
4.0 Alternatives
The pumping station alternatives considered were:

0. Existing pumps-status quo (Pumping strategy: duty-duty; Pump type: propeller/


mixed flow; Manufacturers: Goulds/Fairbanks Morse)

1. Pumping strategy: small duty- small duty

a. Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Cascade

b. Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Fairbanks Morse

c. Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Patterson

d. Pump type: multi-purpose vertical turbine; Manufacturers: Patterson

2. Pumping strategy: large duty-large standby

a. Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Cascade

b. Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Fairbanks Morse

3. Pumping strategy: large duty only

a. Pump type: mixed flow and existing pumps; Manufacturer: Cascade

Below is a summary of each alternative and an explanation of whether the option was
considered viable:

Alternative 0 (Existing pumps-status quo) was not considered further because of the
higher head requirements experienced at the RAS pumps would cause the pumps to
deliver insufficient flow to the BNR process. The existing pumps are also unable to
meet the discharge requirements because 16 of the 32 Fairbanks Morse propeller pumps
in Batteries I and II are currently unavailable. As of March 2013, five of the 16
unavailable pumps would require being rebuilt before being placed back into service.
(Alternative eliminated.)
Alternative 1a (Small duty- small duty; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer:
Cascade) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans. Pump capacity
would match the existing pumps, but the pumps would be capable of pumping the same
flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Cascade does make a mixed
flow pump that can meet the space, head and flow requirements.
Alternative 1b (Small duty- small duty; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer:
Fairbanks Morse) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans. Pump
capacity would match the existing pumps, but the pumps would be capable of pumping
the same flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Fairbanks Morse may

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
2
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
make a mixed flow pump that can meet these space, head and flow requirements. This
alternative was not considered further because the manufacturer did not provide
sufficient information to fully evaluate the acceptable operating range of the pump.
Alternative 1a will be used to represent the viability of this style and size of pump.
(Alternative 1b eliminated; however, designer may perform further analysis if
Alternative 1a were selected to carry into detailed design.)
Alternative 1c (Small duty- small duty; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer:
Patterson) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans. Pump capacity
would match the existing pumps, but the pumps would be capable of pumping the same
flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Patterson makes a mixed flow
pump that can meet these space, head and flow requirements. This alternative was not
considered further because the manufacturer budgetary estimate was more than double
comparable budgetary estimate of Alternative 1a. Alternative 1a will be used to
represent the viability of this style and size of pump. (Alternative 1c eliminated;
however, designer could evaluate this pump during detailed design.)
Alternative 1d (Small duty- small duty; Pump type: multi-purpose vertical turbine;
Manufacturer: Patterson) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans.
Pump capacity would match the existing pumps, but the pumps would be capable of
pumping the same flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Patterson
makes a multi-purpose, solids handling, vertical turbine pump that can meet these space,
head and flow requirements. This alternative was not considered further because the
budgetary estimate was more than double comparable budgetary estimate of
Alternative 1a and because solids handling capabilities is not required based on existing
pump maintenance data. Alternative 1a will be used to represent the viability of this
style and size of pump. (Alternative 1d eliminated; however, designer could evaluate
this pump during detailed design.)
Alternative 2a (Large duty- large standby; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer:
Cascade) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans. Pump capacity
would be double the existing pumps. A single pump will be capable of pumping the
total flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Cascade does make a
mixed flow pump that can meet these space, head and flow requirements.
Alternative 2b (Large duty- large standby; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer:
Fairbanks Morse) two column pumps would be installed in the existing cans. Pump
capacity would be double the existing pumps. A single pump will be capable of
pumping the total flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Fairbanks
Morse may make a mixed flow pump that can meet these space, head and flow
requirements. This alternative was not considered further because the manufacturer did
not provide sufficient information to fully evaluate the acceptable operating range of the
pump. Alternative 2a will be used to represent the viability of this style and size of
pump. (Alternative 2b eliminated; however, designer may perform further analysis if
Alternative 2a were selected to carry into detailed design.)

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
3
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
Alternative 3 (Large duty only; Pump type: mixed flow; Manufacturer: Cascade) a
single column pump would be installed in one existing can per SST. Pump capacity
would be double the existing pumps. A single pump will be capable of pumping the
total flow rate against a greater head. The pump manufacturer Cascade does make a
mixed flow pump that can meet these space, head and flow requirements. Under this
strategy, redundancy would be provided by shutting down an SST with a faulty pump
and bringing on line a standby SST to meet the process needs.

5.0 Findings
This BCE provides a summary of cost, operations, and maintenance considerations for three
basic types of operation strategies (small duty-small duty, large duty- large standby, and large
duty only). Table 1 contains a summary of the capital, annual, and present value (life cycle)
costs for the preferred alternatives. The life cycle cost analysis can be found in Appendix A.
Table 1. Summary of Life Cycle Costs
Annual
Annual Maintenance,
Operating Non-Recurring, Life-Cycle Cost at
Alternative Capital Cost Costs Risk Costs 5% Discount Rate
Alternative 1a $20,000,000 $276,000 $394,000 $39,000,000
Alternative 2a $29,000,000 $289,000 $273,000 $47,000,000
Alternative 3 $17,000,000 $280,000 $174,000 $30,000,000

Each alternative has their own advantages, disadvantages, and risks associated. Table 2
summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and risks to each preferred alternative.

Table 2. Advantages, Disadvantages, Risks of Preferred Alternatives


Alternative Strategy Type Advantages Disadvantages Risks
1a Small Duty- Mixed flow - Potential for high degree of - If one pump fails, SST - In the event of pump
Small Duty flow control must be taken out of service failure must have a rapid
until the pump is back in response strategy to fix
service the pump

- One pump on may operate


outside of the acceptable
pump operating range
2a Large Duty- Mixed flow - Redundant pump - Highest capital and life - Increased risk of
Large Standby cycle cost suction recirculation
- Greatest flow range cavitation and pump
operating within the POR clogging because
marginally meets suction
- Pump never operates outs specific speed criteria.
side of the AOR for flows
from 2,750 gpm to 6,600 gpm

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
4
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
Alternative Strategy Type Advantages Disadvantages Risks
3 Large Duty Mixed flow - Lowest capital and life cycle - If one pump fails, SST - In the event of pump
Only cost must be taken out of service failure, must have a rapid
until the pump is back in response strategy to fix
- Flexibility to install standby service - Marginally meets
at each SST in the future suction specific speed
criteria.
-Greatest flow range operating - Increased risk of
within the POR suction recirculation
cavitation and pump
-Pump never operates outs clogging because
side of the AOR for flows marginally meets suction
from 2,750 gpm to 6,600 gpm specific speed criteria.

The primary BCE findings are as follows:

1. Alternative 1a requires two 4.75-mgd pumps per SST to be functioning to keep the
SST in service and also requires all 48 pumps to be maintained. The large number
of duty pumps in Alternative 1a could allow for a high degree of RAS flow process
control. However, with one pump on, portions of the flow range would result in the
pump operating outside of the acceptable operating range (AOR).
2. Alternative 2a is fundamentally different from the other alternatives because two
9.5-mgd pumps are provided per SST (48 pumps total). If a pump fails, the
impacted SST may remain in service while repairs are made.
3. Alternative 3 requires installation of only 24 pumps each with a capacity of
9.5 mgd.
4. For Alternatives 1a and 3, if three pumps fail simultaneously, there is a risk that the
SSTs may not be able to return the sludge quick enough under high flows and solids
may be passed to the tertiary facilities. To manage this risk, the District may want to
have a rapid response strategy. This strategy may include purchasing a shelf standby
pump that could be rotated into service during repairs. The shelf standby pump
could be purchased as part of the project or delayed until either the flows increase
and/or when the pumps have aged 5 or 10 years.

6.0 Recommendation
Alternative 3 is recommended because of the low life-cycle costs and the lower costs of
maintaining 24 pumps instead of 48 pumps. In addition, pumps would always operate within
the AOR and the majority of the operating range would be within the pumps preferred
operating range (POR). The selection of an alternative with only 24 pumps is consistent with
selected alternative of the District BCE on RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy, February 18, 2010.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
5
Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\RAS BCE\Formatted Attachment A RAS BCE 2013-04-18.docx April 18, 2013
Appendix A

Life Cycle Cost Analysis


RAS BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION SUMMARY
Financial Factors
Inflation Rate 3.0%
Discount Rate 5.0% Select an inflation rate to use in the evaluation, the starting year of
Starting Year 2020 the analysis, and the number of years in the life-cycle period.
Number of Years 60

Financial Impact Table


Annual Annual Maintenance, Non- Life-Cycle Cost at
Alternative Base Cost Operation Recurring, Risk Costs 5% Discount Rate
Two Small Pumps $ 20,283,801 $ 276,052 $ 393,811 $ 38,822,642
Two Large Pumps $ 28,746,265 $ 289,026 $ 372,290 $ 47,048,544
One Large Pump $ 17,366,565 $ 280,209 $ 173,797 $ 29,931,455

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 1 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 1a
Annual Operational Costs Support (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)
Energy
Pump Motor Efficiency, Flow Rate, Pumps in
Item and Description Efficiency, % % gpm/pump Service Energy, kW-hr Comment
Assume ADWF of 181 mgd with a 50% RAS rate
Energy Operations Costs (/yr) 84% 95% 3,144.88 20 2,211,000 and zero sidestream. Alternative 1 has two pumps
on per SST.

Daily Operations
Hours for all
Item and Description Batteries Days per Year Labor, $/hr Total Comment
Three times day an operator walks the SSTS. Each
walk takes approximately 40 minutes. Operators are
Daily operations check on
0.4 365 93 $ 13,578 looking for bad sounds and may observe oil
equipment and facility
reservoirs. Allocate get 45 minutes for attention to
RAS pumps

Annual Maintenance Costs Support


Item and Description Units Quantity Cost Total, $ Comment
Labor Costs-Regular Pump Standard practice is to start every pump once per
hours/month 9 $ 288 $ 2,595
Runs month. Effort takes 9 hours per month.
Check for sound, vibration and Assume 5 minutes per pump per week to check for
hrs/yr/pump 4.3 $ 288 $ 1,249
general performance. sound and vibration and general performance.
Annual PMS to oil the lower Annual PMS include 2 hours per year for each pump
hrs/yr/pump 2 $ 288 $ 577
bearings to oil the lower bearings
Electricians check motors and 3 hour per pump per year for electricians to check
hrs/yr/pump 3 $ 288 $ 865
oil the motors. motors and oil the motors.
Breaker maintenance: 2.5 hours for each pump
Breaker maintenance hrs/yr/pump 1.3 $ 288 $ 360
breaker every 2 years

Annual Risk Costs Support (per pump)


Item and Description Units Quantity cost Total, $/pump Comment
Clogging with plastics or rags Probabilty of clogging 5% $ 28,540 $ 1,427 Each year 5% chance of clogging

Non-Recurring Costs (per pump replacement)

Item and Description Units Quantity Total Comment


After 10 years plan on 1 pumps per year need to be
rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years plan
Overhaul of RAS Pump
$ LS 22,800 $ 22,800 on 2 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
Material mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per year need to be
VFD material $/ HP 100 $ 5,000 repalced . After 20 years plan on 2 VFDs per year
need to be replaced.
After 10 years plan on 1 pump per year need to be
rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years plan
Labor to replacement RAS
$ LS 5,740 $ 5,740 on 2 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
Pump mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per year need to be
Labor to replacement RAS VFD HRs 8 $ 2,306 repalced . After 20 years plan on 2 VFDs per year
need to be replaced.
Total $ 35,846

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 2 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 1a - Two 3,300 gpm pumps (Small Duty Now - Small Duty Later)
Quantifiable Base and Annual Costs

Item and Description Reference Units Quantity Cost/Unit Total Cost

Base Costs (unescalated)


Cascade Model 12MFC Mixed Flow Quote dated 06/01/2012 pumps 48 $ 38,750 $ 1,860,000
Pumps

Pump Installation and pipe 20% based on meeting with D pumps 48 $ 7,750 $ 372,000
realignment Orsinelli on 7/9/01

Electrical and Instrumentation Based on D Orsinelli email on pumps 48 $ 40,000 $ 1,920,000


(including vsd/mcc/etc/wire) 7/31/2012

Can rehab on all 48 cans Based on meeting with D SF 7841 $ 40 $ 313,657


Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Three new RAS MCC Substation Based on meeting with D SF 7500 $ 190 $ 1,425,000
(one per battery) Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Sub Total Capital Costs $ 5,890,657


Markup 3.44 $ 20,283,801
Total Capital Costs $ 20,283,801

Annual Operational Costs (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)


Energy Costs
kWhr 2211000 $ 0.09 $ 198,990

Daily Checks
LS 1 $ 13,578 $ 13,578

Total Annual Operation $ 212,568

Annual Maintenance Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Labor Costs-Regular Pump Runs months 9 $ 2,595 $ 23,352
Check for sound, vibration and
general performance. pumps 48 $ 1,249 $ 59,966
Annual PMS to oil the lower
bearings pumps 48 $ 577 $ 27,677
Electricians check motors and oil
the motors. pumps 48 $ 865 $ 41,515

Breaker maintenance
pumps 48 $ 360 $ 17,298

0
pumps 48 $ - $ -

Total Annual Maintenance $ 169,809

Annual Risk Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Clogging with plastics or rags
pumps 48 $ 1,427 $ 68,496

Total Annual Risk $ 68,496

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 3 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 1a - Two 3,300 gpm pumps (Small Duty-Small Duty)
Quantifiable Non-Recurring Costs
Starting Year 2020
No. of Years 60

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
Capital Costs (including soft costs and contractor costs)
Capital Costs (including contingency) $ 20,283,801

Recurring Costs - Operation, Maintenance and Risk (from worksheet)


Annual Operation $ 212,568 $ 218,945 $ 225,513 $ 232,279 $ 239,247 $ 246,425 $ 253,817 $ 261,432 $ 269,275 $ 277,353 $ 285,674 $ 294,244 $ 303,071 $ 312,163 $ 321,528 $ 331,174 $ 341,109 $ 351,343 $ 361,883
Annual Maintenance $ 169,809 $ 174,903 $ 180,150 $ 185,555 $ 191,121 $ 196,855 $ 202,760 $ 208,843 $ 215,109 $ 221,562 $ 228,209 $ 235,055 $ 242,107 $ 249,370 $ 256,851 $ 264,556 $ 272,493 $ 280,668 $ 289,088
Annual Risk $ 68,496 $ 70,551 $ 72,668 $ 74,848 $ 77,093 $ 79,406 $ 81,788 $ 84,242 $ 86,769 $ 89,372 $ 92,053 $ 94,815 $ 97,659 $ 100,589 $ 103,607 $ 106,715 $ 109,916 $ 113,214 $ 116,610
Non-Recurring Costs Enter description, then enter the cost(s) under the appropriate year(s).
After 10 years after installation, plan on 1 pump per year to rebuild due to mechanical failure. $ 48,175 $ 49,620 $ 51,108 $ 52,642 $ 54,221 $ 55,848 $ 57,523 $ 59,249 $ 61,026
After 20 years after installation, plan on an additional 2 pumps per year to rebuild due to mechanical failure.

Projected Inflation Rate 3.0%

Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 20,734,674 $ 464,399 $ 478,331 $ 492,681 $ 507,461 $ 522,685 $ 538,366 $ 554,517 $ 571,152 $ 588,287 $ 654,110 $ 673,733 $ 693,945 $ 714,764 $ 736,207 $ 758,293 $ 781,042 $ 804,473 $ 828,607

Life Cycle Cost


Projected Discount Rate
3% $ 20,734,674 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 450,873 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719 $ 486,719
5% $ 20,734,674 $ 442,285 $ 433,860 $ 425,596 $ 417,490 $ 409,538 $ 401,737 $ 394,085 $ 386,578 $ 379,215 $ 401,567 $ 393,918 $ 386,415 $ 379,054 $ 371,834 $ 364,752 $ 357,804 $ 350,989 $ 344,303
7% $ 20,734,674 $ 434,018 $ 417,793 $ 402,174 $ 387,140 $ 372,667 $ 358,736 $ 345,325 $ 332,416 $ 319,989 $ 332,516 $ 320,086 $ 308,120 $ 296,602 $ 285,514 $ 274,840 $ 264,566 $ 254,676 $ 245,155

Total Life Cycle Cost


3% Discount Rate $ 51,996,201
5% Discount Rate $ 38,822,642
7% Discount Rate $ 32,376,094

Annualized Operations
Life Cycle Cost $ 212,568 $ 208,519 $ 204,547 $ 200,651 $ 196,829 $ 193,080 $ 189,402 $ 185,795 $ 182,256 $ 178,784 $ 175,379 $ 172,038 $ 168,761 $ 165,547 $ 162,394 $ 159,300 $ 156,266 $ 153,290 $ 150,370
Net Present Value $ 7,639,897
Annualized Payments $276,052

Annualized Maintenance and Risk


Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 238,305 $ 245,454 $ 252,818 $ 260,402 $ 268,214 $ 276,261 $ 284,548 $ 293,085 $ 301,877 $ 310,934 $ 368,436 $ 379,490 $ 390,874 $ 402,600 $ 414,678 $ 427,119 $ 439,932 $ 453,130 $ 466,724
Life Cycle cost (5% discount) $ 238,305 $ 233,766 $ 229,313 $ 224,945 $ 220,660 $ 216,457 $ 212,334 $ 208,290 $ 204,323 $ 200,431 $ 226,188 $ 221,880 $ 217,653 $ 213,508 $ 209,441 $ 205,451 $ 201,538 $ 197,699 $ 193,934
Net Present Value (5% discount) $ 10,898,939
Annualized Payments $393,811

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059

$ 372,739 $ 383,921 $ 395,439 $ 407,302 $ 419,521 $ 432,107 $ 445,070 $ 458,422 $ 472,175 $ 486,340 $ 500,930 $ 515,958 $ 531,437 $ 547,380 $ 563,802 $ 580,716 $ 598,137 $ 616,081 $ 634,564 $ 653,601 $ 673,209
$ 297,761 $ 306,693 $ 315,894 $ 325,371 $ 335,132 $ 345,186 $ 355,542 $ 366,208 $ 377,194 $ 388,510 $ 400,165 $ 412,170 $ 424,535 $ 437,271 $ 450,390 $ 463,901 $ 477,818 $ 492,153 $ 506,917 $ 522,125 $ 537,789
$ 120,108 $ 123,712 $ 127,423 $ 131,246 $ 135,183 $ 139,239 $ 143,416 $ 147,718 $ 152,150 $ 156,714 $ 161,416 $ 166,258 $ 171,246 $ 176,383 $ 181,675 $ 187,125 $ 192,739 $ 198,521 $ 204,477 $ 210,611 $ 216,929

$ 62,857 $ 64,743 $ 66,685 $ 68,686 $ 70,746 $ 72,868 $ 75,055 $ 77,306 $ 79,625 $ 82,014 $ 84,475 $ 87,009 $ 89,619 $ 92,308 $ 95,077 $ 97,929 $ 100,867 $ 103,893 $ 107,010 $ 110,220 $ 113,527
$ 129,485 $ 133,370 $ 137,371 $ 141,492 $ 145,737 $ 150,109 $ 154,612 $ 159,251 $ 164,028 $ 168,949 $ 174,018 $ 179,238 $ 184,615 $ 190,154 $ 195,858 $ 201,734 $ 207,786 $ 214,020 $ 220,440 $ 227,053

$ 853,465 $ 1,008,555 $ 1,038,811 $ 1,069,976 $ 1,102,075 $ 1,135,137 $ 1,169,191 $ 1,204,267 $ 1,240,395 $ 1,277,607 $ 1,315,935 $ 1,355,413 $ 1,396,075 $ 1,437,958 $ 1,481,096 $ 1,525,529 $ 1,571,295 $ 1,618,434 $ 1,666,987 $ 1,716,997 $ 1,768,507

$ 486,719 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412
$ 337,745 $ 380,114 $ 372,873 $ 365,771 $ 358,804 $ 351,970 $ 345,265 $ 338,689 $ 332,238 $ 325,909 $ 319,702 $ 313,612 $ 307,638 $ 301,779 $ 296,031 $ 290,392 $ 284,861 $ 279,435 $ 274,112 $ 268,891 $ 263,769
$ 235,990 $ 260,630 $ 250,887 $ 241,508 $ 232,479 $ 223,788 $ 215,423 $ 207,369 $ 199,617 $ 192,155 $ 184,972 $ 178,057 $ 171,400 $ 164,993 $ 158,825 $ 152,888 $ 147,172 $ 141,670 $ 136,374 $ 131,276 $ 126,369

$ 147,506 $ 144,696 $ 141,940 $ 139,236 $ 136,584 $ 133,983 $ 131,430 $ 128,927 $ 126,471 $ 124,062 $ 121,699 $ 119,381 $ 117,107 $ 114,877 $ 112,688 $ 110,542 $ 108,436 $ 106,371 $ 104,345 $ 102,357 $ 100,408

$ 480,726 $ 624,633 $ 643,372 $ 662,673 $ 682,553 $ 703,030 $ 724,121 $ 745,845 $ 768,220 $ 791,267 $ 815,005 $ 839,455 $ 864,638 $ 890,577 $ 917,295 $ 944,814 $ 973,158 $ 1,002,353 $ 1,032,423 $ 1,063,396 $ 1,095,298
$ 190,240 $ 235,418 $ 230,934 $ 226,535 $ 222,220 $ 217,987 $ 213,835 $ 209,762 $ 205,766 $ 201,847 $ 198,002 $ 194,231 $ 190,531 $ 186,902 $ 183,342 $ 179,850 $ 176,424 $ 173,064 $ 169,767 $ 166,534 $ 163,361

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079

$ 693,405 $ 714,207 $ 735,633 $ 757,702 $ 780,433 $ 803,846 $ 827,962 $ 852,801 $ 878,385 $ 904,736 $ 931,878 $ 959,834 $ 988,630 $ 1,018,288 $ 1,048,837 $ 1,080,302 $ 1,112,711 $ 1,146,093 $ 1,180,475 $ 1,215,890
$ 553,922 $ 570,540 $ 587,656 $ 605,286 $ 623,445 $ 642,148 $ 661,412 $ 681,255 $ 701,692 $ 722,743 $ 744,425 $ 766,758 $ 789,761 $ 813,454 $ 837,857 $ 862,993 $ 888,883 $ 915,549 $ 943,016 $ 971,306
$ 223,437 $ 230,140 $ 237,044 $ 244,156 $ 251,480 $ 259,025 $ 266,795 $ 274,799 $ 283,043 $ 291,535 $ 300,281 $ 309,289 $ 318,568 $ 328,125 $ 337,969 $ 348,108 $ 358,551 $ 369,307 $ 380,387 $ 391,798

$ 116,933 $ 120,440 $ 124,054 $ 127,775 $ 131,609 $ 135,557 $ 139,624 $ 143,812 $ 148,127 $ 152,570 $ 157,148 $ 161,862 $ 166,718 $ 171,719 $ 176,871 $ 182,177 $ 187,642 $ 193,272 $ 199,070 $ 205,042
$ 233,865 $ 240,881 $ 248,107 $ 255,551 $ 263,217 $ 271,114 $ 279,247 $ 287,624 $ 296,253 $ 305,141 $ 314,295 $ 323,724 $ 333,436 $ 343,439 $ 353,742 $ 364,354 $ 375,285 $ 386,543 $ 398,140 $ 410,084

$ 1,821,562 $ 1,876,209 $ 1,932,495 $ 1,990,470 $ 2,050,184 $ 2,111,689 $ 2,175,040 $ 2,240,291 $ 2,307,500 $ 2,376,725 $ 2,448,027 $ 2,521,468 $ 2,597,112 $ 2,675,025 $ 2,755,276 $ 2,837,934 $ 2,923,072 $ 3,010,764 $ 3,101,087 $ 3,194,120

$ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412 $ 558,412
$ 258,745 $ 253,817 $ 248,982 $ 244,239 $ 239,587 $ 235,024 $ 230,547 $ 226,156 $ 221,848 $ 217,622 $ 213,477 $ 209,411 $ 205,422 $ 201,509 $ 197,671 $ 193,906 $ 190,212 $ 186,589 $ 183,035 $ 179,549
$ 121,645 $ 117,097 $ 112,720 $ 108,506 $ 104,450 $ 100,545 $ 96,786 $ 93,168 $ 89,685 $ 86,332 $ 83,105 $ 79,998 $ 77,008 $ 74,129 $ 71,358 $ 68,690 $ 66,122 $ 63,650 $ 61,271 $ 58,980

$ 98,495 $ 96,619 $ 94,779 $ 92,973 $ 91,202 $ 89,465 $ 87,761 $ 86,090 $ 84,450 $ 82,841 $ 81,263 $ 79,715 $ 78,197 $ 76,708 $ 75,246 $ 73,813 $ 72,407 $ 71,028 $ 69,675 $ 68,348

$ 1,128,157 $ 1,162,002 $ 1,196,862 $ 1,232,768 $ 1,269,751 $ 1,307,843 $ 1,347,078 $ 1,387,491 $ 1,429,115 $ 1,471,989 $ 1,516,149 $ 1,561,633 $ 1,608,482 $ 1,656,736 $ 1,706,439 $ 1,757,632 $ 1,810,361 $ 1,864,672 $ 1,920,612 $ 1,978,230
$ 160,250 $ 157,197 $ 154,203 $ 151,266 $ 148,385 $ 145,558 $ 142,786 $ 140,066 $ 137,398 $ 134,781 $ 132,214 $ 129,695 $ 127,225 $ 124,802 $ 122,425 $ 120,093 $ 117,805 $ 115,561 $ 113,360 $ 111,201

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


Alternative 2a
Annual Operational Costs Support (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)
Energy
Pump Motor Efficiency, Flow Rate, Pumps in
Item and Description Efficiency, % % gpm/pump Service Energy, kW-hr Comment
Assume ADWF of 181 mgd with a 50% RAS rate
Energy Operations Costs (/yr) 80% 95% 3144.875 20 2,322,000 and zero sidestream. Alternative 1 has on pump per
SST.

Daily Operations
Hours for all
Item and Description Batteries Days per Year Labor, $/hr Total Comment
Three times day an operator walks the SSTS. Each
walk takes approximately 40 minutes. Operators are
Daily operations check on
0.4 365 93 $ 13,578 looking for bad sounds and may observe oil
equipment and facility
reservoirs. Allocate get 45 minutes for attention to
RAS pumps

Annual Maintenance Costs Support


Item and Description Units Quantity cost Total, $ Comment
Labor Costs-Regular Pump Standard practice is to start every pump once per
hours/month 9 $ 288 $ 2,595
Runs month. Effort takes 9 hours per month.
Check for sound, vibration and Assume 5 minutes per pump per week to check for
hrs/yr/pump 4.3 $ 288 $ 1,249
general performance. sound and vibration and general performance.
Annual PMS to oil the lower Annual PMS include 2 hours per year for each pump
hrs/yr/pump 2 $ 288 $ 577
bearings to oil the lower bearings
Electricians check motors and 3 hour per pump per year for electricians to check
hrs/yr/pump 3 $ 288 $ 865
oil the motors. motors and oil the motors.
Breaker maintenance: 2.5 hours for each pump
Breaker maintenance hrs/yr/pump 1.3 $ 288 $ 360
breaker every 2 years

Annual Risk Costs Support (per pump)


Item and Description Units Quantity cost Total, $/pump Comment
Clogging with plastics or rags Probabilty of clogging 0.05 $ 28,540 $ 1,427 Each year 5% chance of clogging

Non-Recurring Costs (per pump replacement)

Item and Description Units Quantity Total Comment


After 10 years plan on 1 pumps per year need to be
rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years plan
Overhaul of RAS Pump
$ LS 22,800 $ 22,800 on 2 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
Material mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per year need to be
VFD material $/ HP 100 $ 10,000 repalced . After 20 years plan on 2 VFDs per year
need to be replaced.
After 10 years plan on 1 pump per year need to be
rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years plan
Labor to replacement RAS
$ LS 5,740 $ 5,740 on 2 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
Pump mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per year need to be
Labor to replacement RAS VFD HRs 8 $ 2,306 repalced . After 20 years plan on 2 VFDs per year
need to be replaced.
Total $ 40,846

3%
Labor cost, $/hr = 93
Maintenance Cost Multiplier** 3.1
Loaded labor, $/hr = 288.3

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 7 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 2a - Two 6,600 GPM Pumps (Large Duty- Large Standby)
Quantifiable Base and Annual Costs

Item and Description Reference Units Quantity Cost/Unit Total Cost

Base Costs (unescalated)


Cascade 16MF Mixed Flow Pumps Quote dated 06/01/2012 pumps 48 $ 72,500 $ 3,480,000

Pump Installation and pipe 20% based on meeting with D pumps 48 $ 14,500 $ 696,000
realignment Orsinelli on 7/9/01

Electrical and Instrumentation Based on D Orsinelli email on pumps 48 $ 50,700 $ 2,433,600


(including vsd/mcc/etc/wire) 7/31/2012

Can rehab on all 48 cans Based on meeting with D SF 7841 $ 40 $ 313,657


Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Three new RAS MCC Substation Based on meeting with D SF 7500 $ 190 $ 1,425,000
(one per battery) Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Sub Total Capital Costs $ 8,348,257


Markup 3.44 $ 28,746,265
Total Capital Costs $ 28,746,265

Annual Operational Costs (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)


Energy Costs
kWhr 2322000 $ 0.09 $ 208,980

Daily Checks
LS 1 $ 13,578 $ 13,578

Total Annual Operation $ 222,558

Annual Maintenance Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Labor Costs-Regular Pump Runs
Months 12 $ 2,595 $ 31,136
Check for sound, vibration and
general performance. pumps 48 $ 1,249 $ 59,966
Annual PMS to oil the lower
bearings pumps 48 $ 577 $ 27,677
Electricians check motors and oil
the motors. pumps 48 $ 865 $ 41,515

Breaker maintenance
pumps 48 $ 360 $ 17,298

0
pumps 48 $ - $ -

Total Annual Maintenance $ 177,593

Annual Risk Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Clogging with plastics or rags
pumps 48 $ 1,427 $ 68,496

Total Annual Risk $ 68,496

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 8 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 2a - Two 6,600 GPM Pumps (Large Duty- Large Standby)
Quantifiable Non-Recurring Costs
Starting Year 2020
No. of Years 60

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
Capital Costs (including soft costs and contractor costs)
Capital Costs (including contingency) $ 28,746,265

Recurring Costs - Operation, Maintenance and Risk (from worksheet)


Annual Operation $ 222,558 $ 229,235 $ 236,112 $ 243,195 $ 250,491 $ 258,006 $ 265,746 $ 273,718 $ 281,930 $ 290,388 $ 299,099 $ 308,072 $ 317,314 $ 326,834 $ 336,639 $ 346,738 $ 357,140 $ 367,854 $ 378,890
Annual Maintenance $ 177,593 $ 182,921 $ 188,408 $ 194,060 $ 199,882 $ 205,879 $ 212,055 $ 218,417 $ 224,969 $ 231,718 $ 238,670 $ 245,830 $ 253,205 $ 260,801 $ 268,625 $ 276,684 $ 284,984 $ 293,534 $ 302,340
Annual Risk $ 68,496 $ 70,551 $ 72,668 $ 74,848 $ 77,093 $ 79,406 $ 81,788 $ 84,242 $ 86,769 $ 89,372 $ 92,053 $ 94,815 $ 97,659 $ 100,589 $ 103,607 $ 106,715 $ 109,916 $ 113,214 $ 116,610
Non-Recurring Costs Enter description, then enter the cost(s) under the appropriate year(s).
After 15 years plan on 1 pump per year to rebuild due to mechanical failure. $ 63,637 $ 65,547 $ 67,513 $ 69,538
After 30 years plan on an additional pump per year to rebuild due to mechanical failure.

Projected Inflation Rate 3.0%

Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 29,214,911 $482,706 $497,188 $512,103 $527,466 $543,290 $559,589 $576,377 $593,668 $611,478 $629,822 $648,717 $668,178 $688,224 $708,871 $793,774 $817,587 $842,115 $867,378

Life Cycle Cost


Projected Discount Rate
3% $ 29,214,911 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 468,647 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493
5% $ 29,214,911 $ 459,720 $ 450,964 $ 442,374 $ 433,948 $ 425,682 $ 417,574 $ 409,620 $ 401,818 $ 394,164 $ 386,656 $ 379,291 $ 372,067 $ 364,980 $ 358,028 $ 381,819 $ 374,546 $ 367,412 $ 360,414
7% $ 29,214,911 $ 451,127 $ 434,263 $ 418,029 $ 402,401 $ 387,358 $ 372,878 $ 358,938 $ 345,520 $ 332,603 $ 320,170 $ 308,201 $ 296,679 $ 285,588 $ 274,912 $ 287,700 $ 276,945 $ 266,592 $ 256,626

Total Life Cycle Cost


3% Discount Rate $ 59,928,564
5% Discount Rate $ 47,048,544
7% Discount Rate $ 40,751,167

Annualized Operations
Life Cycle Cost $ 222,558 $ 218,319 $ 214,160 $ 210,081 $ 206,080 $ 202,154 $ 198,304 $ 194,526 $ 190,821 $ 187,187 $ 183,621 $ 180,124 $ 176,693 $ 173,327 $ 170,026 $ 166,787 $ 163,610 $ 160,494 $ 157,437
Net Present Value $ 7,998,955
Annualized Payments $289,026

Annualized Maintenance and Risk


Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 246,089 $ 253,472 $ 261,076 $ 268,908 $ 276,975 $ 285,285 $ 293,843 $ 302,658 $ 311,738 $ 321,090 $ 330,723 $ 340,645 $ 350,864 $ 361,390 $ 372,232 $ 447,036 $ 460,447 $ 474,261 $ 488,488
Life Cycle cost (5% discount) $ 246,089 $ 241,402 $ 236,803 $ 232,293 $ 227,868 $ 223,528 $ 219,270 $ 215,094 $ 210,997 $ 206,978 $ 203,035 $ 199,168 $ 195,374 $ 191,653 $ 188,002 $ 215,032 $ 210,936 $ 206,918 $ 202,977
Net Present Value (5% discount) $ 10,303,333
Annualized Payments $372,290

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

$ 390,257 $ 401,965 $ 414,023 $ 426,444 $ 439,237 $ 452,415 $ 465,987 $ 479,967 $ 494,366 $ 509,197 $ 524,473 $ 540,207 $ 556,413 $ 573,105 $ 590,298 $ 608,007 $ 626,248 $ 645,035 $ 664,386 $ 684,318 $ 704,847 $ 725,993
$ 311,410 $ 320,752 $ 330,375 $ 340,286 $ 350,495 $ 361,010 $ 371,840 $ 382,995 $ 394,485 $ 406,319 $ 418,509 $ 431,064 $ 443,996 $ 457,316 $ 471,036 $ 485,167 $ 499,722 $ 514,713 $ 530,155 $ 546,059 $ 562,441 $ 579,314
$ 120,108 $ 123,712 $ 127,423 $ 131,246 $ 135,183 $ 139,239 $ 143,416 $ 147,718 $ 152,150 $ 156,714 $ 161,416 $ 166,258 $ 171,246 $ 176,383 $ 181,675 $ 187,125 $ 192,739 $ 198,521 $ 204,477 $ 210,611 $ 216,929 $ 223,437

$ 71,625 $ 73,773 $ 75,986 $ 78,266 $ 80,614 $ 83,032 $ 85,523 $ 88,089 $ 90,732 $ 93,454 $ 96,257 $ 99,145 $ 102,119 $ 105,183 $ 108,339 $ 111,589 $ 114,936 $ 118,384 $ 121,936 $ 125,594 $ 129,362 $ 133,243
$ 99,145 $ 102,119 $ 105,183 $ 108,339 $ 111,589 $ 114,936 $ 118,384 $ 121,936 $ 125,594 $ 129,362 $ 133,243

$893,400 $920,202 $947,808 $976,242 $1,005,529 $1,035,695 $1,066,766 $1,098,769 $1,131,732 $1,165,684 $1,200,655 $1,335,819 $1,375,894 $1,417,171 $1,459,686 $1,503,476 $1,548,581 $1,595,038 $1,642,889 $1,692,176 $1,742,941 $1,795,229

$ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 509,493 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340
$ 353,549 $ 346,814 $ 340,208 $ 333,728 $ 327,371 $ 321,136 $ 315,019 $ 309,019 $ 303,133 $ 297,359 $ 291,695 $ 309,078 $ 303,191 $ 297,416 $ 291,751 $ 286,194 $ 280,743 $ 275,395 $ 270,150 $ 265,004 $ 259,956 $ 255,005
$ 247,032 $ 237,798 $ 228,908 $ 220,351 $ 212,113 $ 204,184 $ 196,551 $ 189,203 $ 182,130 $ 175,321 $ 168,767 $ 175,483 $ 168,923 $ 162,608 $ 156,529 $ 150,677 $ 145,045 $ 139,622 $ 134,403 $ 129,378 $ 124,542 $ 119,886

$ 154,438 $ 151,496 $ 148,611 $ 145,780 $ 143,003 $ 140,279 $ 137,607 $ 134,986 $ 132,415 $ 129,893 $ 127,419 $ 124,992 $ 122,611 $ 120,275 $ 117,984 $ 115,737 $ 113,533 $ 111,370 $ 109,249 $ 107,168 $ 105,127 $ 103,124

$ 503,143 $ 518,237 $ 533,784 $ 549,798 $ 566,292 $ 583,281 $ 600,779 $ 618,802 $ 637,366 $ 656,487 $ 676,182 $ 795,613 $ 819,481 $ 844,065 $ 869,387 $ 895,469 $ 922,333 $ 950,003 $ 978,503 $ 1,007,858 $ 1,038,094 $ 1,069,237
$ 199,111 $ 195,318 $ 191,598 $ 187,948 $ 184,368 $ 180,857 $ 177,412 $ 174,032 $ 170,718 $ 167,466 $ 164,276 $ 184,087 $ 180,580 $ 177,141 $ 173,767 $ 170,457 $ 167,210 $ 164,025 $ 160,901 $ 157,836 $ 154,830 $ 151,880

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079

$ 747,772 $ 770,206 $ 793,312 $ 817,111 $ 841,624 $ 866,873 $ 892,879 $ 919,666 $ 947,256 $ 975,673 $ 1,004,944 $ 1,035,092 $ 1,066,145 $ 1,098,129 $ 1,131,073 $ 1,165,005 $ 1,199,955 $ 1,235,954 $ 1,273,032
$ 596,694 $ 614,595 $ 633,033 $ 652,023 $ 671,584 $ 691,732 $ 712,484 $ 733,858 $ 755,874 $ 778,550 $ 801,907 $ 825,964 $ 850,743 $ 876,265 $ 902,553 $ 929,630 $ 957,518 $ 986,244 $ 1,015,831
$ 230,140 $ 237,044 $ 244,156 $ 251,480 $ 259,025 $ 266,795 $ 274,799 $ 283,043 $ 291,535 $ 300,281 $ 309,289 $ 318,568 $ 328,125 $ 337,969 $ 348,108 $ 358,551 $ 369,307 $ 380,387 $ 391,798

$ 137,240 $ 141,357 $ 145,598 $ 149,966 $ 154,465 $ 159,099 $ 163,872 $ 168,788 $ 173,851 $ 179,067 $ 184,439 $ 189,972 $ 195,671 $ 201,542 $ 207,588 $ 213,815 $ 220,230 $ 226,837 $ 233,642
$ 137,240 $ 141,357 $ 145,598 $ 149,966 $ 154,465 $ 159,099 $ 163,872 $ 168,788 $ 173,851 $ 179,067 $ 184,439 $ 189,972 $ 195,671 $ 201,542 $ 207,588 $ 213,815 $ 220,230 $ 226,837 $ 233,642

$1,849,086 $1,904,559 $1,961,696 $2,020,547 $2,081,163 $2,143,598 $2,207,906 $2,274,143 $2,342,367 $2,412,638 $2,485,017 $2,559,568 $2,636,355 $2,715,446 $2,796,909 $2,880,816 $2,967,241 $3,056,258 $3,147,946

$ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340 $ 550,340
$ 250,147 $ 245,383 $ 240,709 $ 236,124 $ 231,626 $ 227,214 $ 222,886 $ 218,641 $ 214,476 $ 210,391 $ 206,384 $ 202,452 $ 198,596 $ 194,813 $ 191,103 $ 187,463 $ 183,892 $ 180,389 $ 176,953
$ 115,404 $ 111,090 $ 106,937 $ 102,940 $ 99,091 $ 95,387 $ 91,821 $ 88,389 $ 85,084 $ 81,904 $ 78,842 $ 75,894 $ 73,057 $ 70,326 $ 67,697 $ 65,166 $ 62,730 $ 60,385 $ 58,128

$ 101,160 $ 99,233 $ 97,343 $ 95,489 $ 93,670 $ 91,886 $ 90,135 $ 88,419 $ 86,734 $ 85,082 $ 83,462 $ 81,872 $ 80,313 $ 78,783 $ 77,282 $ 75,810 $ 74,366 $ 72,950 $ 71,560

$ 1,101,314 $ 1,134,353 $ 1,168,384 $ 1,203,435 $ 1,239,539 $ 1,276,725 $ 1,315,026 $ 1,354,477 $ 1,395,112 $ 1,436,965 $ 1,480,074 $ 1,524,476 $ 1,570,210 $ 1,617,317 $ 1,665,836 $ 1,715,811 $ 1,767,286 $ 1,820,304 $ 1,874,913
$ 148,988 $ 146,150 $ 143,366 $ 140,635 $ 137,956 $ 135,329 $ 132,751 $ 130,222 $ 127,742 $ 125,309 $ 122,922 $ 120,580 $ 118,284 $ 116,031 $ 113,821 $ 111,653 $ 109,526 $ 107,440 $ 105,393

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


Alternative 3
Annual Operational Costs Support (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)
Energy
Pump Efficiency, Motor Efficiency, Flow Rate, Pumps in
Item and Description % % gpm/pump Service Energy, kW-hr Comment
Assume ADWF of 181 mgd with a 50% RAS rate
Energy Operations Costs (/yr) 80% 95% 3,144.88 20 2,322,000 and zero sidestream. Alternative 1 has on pump per
SST.

Daily Operations
Hours for all
Item and Description Batteries Days per Year Labor, $/hr Total Comment
Three times day an operator walks the SSTS. Each
walk takes approximately 40 minutes. Operators are
Daily operations check on
0.2 365 93 $ 6,789 looking for bad sounds and may observe oil
equipment and facility
reservoirs. Allocate get 30 minutes for attention to
RAS pumps

Annual Maintenance Costs Support


Item and Description Units Quantity cost Total, $ Comment

Check for sound, vibration and Assume 5 minutes per pump per week to check for
hrs/yr/pump 4.3 $ 288 $ 1,249
general performance. sound and vibration and general performance.
Annual PMS to oil the lower Annual PMS include 2 hours per year for each pump
hrs/yr/pump 2 $ 288 $ 577
bearings to oil the lower bearings
Electricians check motors and 3 hour per pump per year for electricians to check
hrs/yr/pump 3 $ 288 $ 865
oil the motors. motors and oil the motors.
Breaker maintenance: 2.5 hours for each pump
Breaker maintenance hrs/yr/pump 1.3 $ 288 $ 360
breaker every 2 years

Annual Risk Costs Support (per pump)


Item and Description Units Quantity cost Total, $/pump Comment
Clogging with plastics or rags Probabilty of clogging 5% $ 28,540 $ 1,427 Each year 5% chance of clogging

Non-Recurring Costs (per pump replacement)

Item and Description Units Quantity Total Comment


After 10 years plan on 1 pumps per year need to be
rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years plan
Overhaul of RAS Pump on 2 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
$ LS 22,800 $ 22,800
Material mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per 2 years need to be
VFD material $/ HP 100 $ 10,000 repalced . After 20 years plan on 1 VFDs per year
need to be replaced.
After 10 years plan on s pumps per 2 yeasr need to
be rebuilt due to mechanical failure. After 20 years
Labor to replacement RAS plan on 4 pumps per year need to be rebuilt due to
$ LS 5,740 $ 5,740
Pump mechanical failure. Per the February 18, 2012 BCE:
RAS Unit Maintenance Strategy for Batteries I and II
SST, pumps expereince 3 to 4 unit failures per year.
After 10 years plan on 1 VFD per 2 yeasr need to be
Labor to replacement RAS VFD HRs 8 $ 2,306 repalced . After 20 years plan on 1 VFD per year
need to be replaced.
Total $ 40,846

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 12 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 3 - One 6,600 GPM Pump (Large-No Standby)
Quantifiable Base and Annual Costs

Item and Description Reference Units Quantity Cost/Unit Total Cost

Base Costs (unescalated)


Cascade 16MF Mixed Flow Pumps Quote dated 06/01/2012 pumps 24 $ 72,500 $ 1,740,000

Pump Installation and pipe 20% based on meeting with D pumps 24 $ 14,500 $ 348,000
realignment Orsinelli on 7/9/01

Electrical and Instrumentation Based on D Orsinelli email on pumps 24 $ 50,700 $ 1,216,800


(including vsd/mcc/etc/wire) 7/31/2012

Can rehab on all 48 cans Based on meeting with D SF 7841 $ 40 $ 313,657


Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Three new RAS MCC Substation (one Based on meeting with D SF 7500 $ 190 $ 1,425,000
per battery) Orsinelli on 7/9/2012

Sub Total Capital Costs $ 5,043,457


Markup 3.44 $ 17,366,565
Total Capital Costs $ 17,366,565

Annual Operational Costs (chemical, energy, operational oversight, etc.)


Energy Costs
kWhr 2322000 $ 0.09 $ 208,980

Daily Checks
LS 1 $ 6,789 $ 6,789

Total Annual Operation $ 215,769

Annual Maintenance Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Check for sound, vibration and
general performance. pumps 24 $ 1,249 $ 29,983

Annual PMS to oil the lower bearings


pumps 24 $ 577 $ 13,838
Electricians check motors and oil the
motors. pumps 24 $ 865 $ 20,758

Breaker maintenance
pumps 24 $ 360 $ 8,649

0
pumps 24 $ - $ -

Total Annual Maintenance $ 73,228

Annual Risk Costs (Note: Enter non-recurring costs on LCC worksheet.)


Clogging with plastics or rags
pumps 24 $ 1,427 $ 34,248

Total Annual Risk $ 34,248

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412 Page 13 of 17 4/12/2013


Alternative 3 - One 6,600 GPM Pump (Large-No Standby)
Quantifiable Non-Recurring Costs
Starting Year 2020
No. of Years 60

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
Capital Costs (including soft costs and contractor costs)
Capital Costs (including contingency) $ 17,366,565

Recurring Costs - Operation, Maintenance and Risk (from worksheet)


Annual Operation $ 215,769 $ 222,242 $ 228,909 $ 235,777 $ 242,850 $ 250,135 $ 257,639 $ 265,369 $ 273,330 $ 281,530 $ 289,975 $ 298,675 $ 307,635 $ 316,864 $ 326,370 $ 336,161 $ 346,246 $ 356,633 $ 367,332
Annual Maintenance $ 73,228 $ 75,425 $ 77,688 $ 80,018 $ 82,419 $ 84,892 $ 87,438 $ 90,061 $ 92,763 $ 95,546 $ 98,413 $ 101,365 $ 104,406 $ 107,538 $ 110,764 $ 114,087 $ 117,510 $ 121,035 $ 124,666
Annual Risk $ 34,248 $ 35,276 $ 36,334 $ 37,424 $ 38,547 $ 39,703 $ 40,894 $ 42,121 $ 43,384 $ 44,686 $ 46,027 $ 47,407 $ 48,830 $ 50,294 $ 51,803 $ 53,357 $ 54,958 $ 56,607 $ 58,305
Non-Recurring Costs Enter description, then enter the cost(s) under the appropriate year(s).
After 10 years after installation, plan on 1 pump per 2 years need to be rebuilt due to mechanical failure. $ 54,894 $ 58,237 $ 61,784 $ 65,547 $ 69,538
After 20 years after installation, plan on 1 additional pump per 2 years need to be rebuilt due to mechanical failure.

Projected Inflation Rate 3.0%

Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 17,689,810 $ 332,943 $ 342,931 $ 353,219 $ 363,815 $ 374,730 $ 385,972 $ 397,551 $ 409,477 $ 421,762 $ 489,309 $ 447,447 $ 519,108 $ 474,697 $ 550,721 $ 503,606 $ 584,260 $ 534,275 $ 619,842

Life Cycle Cost


Projected Discount Rate
3% $ 17,689,810 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 323,245 $ 364,092 $ 323,245 $ 364,092 $ 323,245 $ 364,092 $ 323,245 $ 364,092 $ 323,245 $ 364,092
5% $ 17,689,810 $ 317,088 $ 311,048 $ 305,124 $ 299,312 $ 293,611 $ 288,018 $ 282,532 $ 277,150 $ 271,871 $ 300,393 $ 261,613 $ 289,059 $ 251,742 $ 278,152 $ 242,243 $ 267,656 $ 233,102 $ 257,557
7% $ 17,689,810 $ 311,161 $ 299,529 $ 288,332 $ 277,553 $ 267,177 $ 257,189 $ 247,575 $ 238,320 $ 229,410 $ 248,740 $ 212,579 $ 230,490 $ 196,982 $ 213,579 $ 182,530 $ 197,909 $ 169,138 $ 183,389

Total Life Cycle Cost


3% Discount Rate $ 38,599,360
5% Discount Rate $ 29,931,455
7% Discount Rate $ 25,661,204

Annualized Operations
Life Cycle Cost $ 215,769 $ 211,659 $ 207,628 $ 203,673 $ 199,793 $ 195,988 $ 192,255 $ 188,593 $ 185,000 $ 181,476 $ 178,020 $ 174,629 $ 171,303 $ 168,040 $ 164,839 $ 161,699 $ 158,619 $ 155,598 $ 152,634
Net Present Value $ 7,754,952
Annualized Payments $280,209

Annualized Maintenance and Risk


Annual Expense (including inflation) $ 107,476 $ 110,701 $ 114,022 $ 117,442 $ 120,965 $ 124,594 $ 128,332 $ 132,182 $ 136,148 $ 140,232 $ 199,333 $ 148,772 $ 211,473 $ 157,833 $ 224,351 $ 167,445 $ 238,014 $ 177,642 $ 252,510
Life Cycle cost (5% discount) $ 107,476 $ 105,429 $ 103,421 $ 101,451 $ 99,519 $ 97,623 $ 95,764 $ 93,939 $ 92,150 $ 90,395 $ 122,373 $ 86,984 $ 117,756 $ 83,702 $ 113,313 $ 80,544 $ 109,037 $ 77,505 $ 104,923
Net Present Value (5% discount) $ 4,809,939
Annualized Payments $173,797

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059

$ 378,352 $ 389,703 $ 401,394 $ 413,436 $ 425,839 $ 438,614 $ 451,772 $ 465,326 $ 479,285 $ 493,664 $ 508,474 $ 523,728 $ 539,440 $ 555,623 $ 572,292 $ 589,460 $ 607,144 $ 625,359 $ 644,119 $ 663,443 $ 683,346
$ 128,406 $ 132,258 $ 136,226 $ 140,313 $ 144,522 $ 148,858 $ 153,324 $ 157,923 $ 162,661 $ 167,541 $ 172,567 $ 177,744 $ 183,076 $ 188,569 $ 194,226 $ 200,053 $ 206,054 $ 212,236 $ 218,603 $ 225,161 $ 231,916
$ 60,054 $ 61,856 $ 63,712 $ 65,623 $ 67,592 $ 69,619 $ 71,708 $ 73,859 $ 76,075 $ 78,357 $ 80,708 $ 83,129 $ 85,623 $ 88,192 $ 90,837 $ 93,562 $ 96,369 $ 99,260 $ 102,238 $ 105,305 $ 108,465

$ 73,773 $ 78,266 $ 83,032 $ 88,089 $ 93,454 $ 99,145 $ 105,183 $ 111,589 $ 118,384 $ 125,594
$ 73,773 $ 78,266 $ 83,032 $ 88,089 $ 93,454 $ 99,145 $ 105,183 $ 111,589 $ 118,384 $ 125,594

$ 566,813 $ 731,363 $ 601,331 $ 775,903 $ 637,953 $ 823,156 $ 676,804 $ 873,286 $ 718,021 $ 926,469 $ 761,749 $ 982,891 $ 808,139 $ 1,042,749 $ 857,355 $ 1,106,253 $ 909,568 $ 1,173,624 $ 964,960 $ 1,245,097 $ 1,023,726

$ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245
$ 224,307 $ 275,643 $ 215,843 $ 265,242 $ 207,699 $ 255,234 $ 199,862 $ 245,604 $ 192,321 $ 236,336 $ 185,064 $ 227,419 $ 178,081 $ 218,838 $ 171,362 $ 210,581 $ 164,896 $ 202,635 $ 158,674 $ 194,989 $ 152,687
$ 156,728 $ 188,998 $ 145,229 $ 175,132 $ 134,574 $ 162,282 $ 124,701 $ 150,376 $ 115,551 $ 139,343 $ 107,074 $ 129,120 $ 99,218 $ 119,646 $ 91,938 $ 110,868 $ 85,193 $ 102,734 $ 78,942 $ 95,196 $ 73,150

$ 149,727 $ 146,875 $ 144,077 $ 141,333 $ 138,641 $ 136,000 $ 133,410 $ 130,868 $ 128,376 $ 125,931 $ 123,532 $ 121,179 $ 118,871 $ 116,606 $ 114,385 $ 112,207 $ 110,069 $ 107,973 $ 105,916 $ 103,899 $ 101,920

$ 188,460 $ 341,661 $ 199,938 $ 362,468 $ 212,114 $ 384,542 $ 225,031 $ 407,961 $ 238,736 $ 432,805 $ 253,275 $ 459,163 $ 268,699 $ 487,126 $ 285,063 $ 516,792 $ 302,423 $ 548,265 $ 320,841 $ 581,654 $ 340,380
$ 74,580 $ 128,768 $ 71,766 $ 123,910 $ 69,058 $ 119,234 $ 66,452 $ 114,735 $ 63,945 $ 110,406 $ 61,532 $ 106,240 $ 59,210 $ 102,231 $ 56,976 $ 98,374 $ 54,826 $ 94,662 $ 52,758 $ 91,090 $ 50,767

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079

$ 703,847 $ 724,962 $ 746,711 $ 769,112 $ 792,186 $ 815,951 $ 840,430 $ 865,643 $ 891,612 $ 918,360 $ 945,911 $ 974,288 $ 1,003,517 $ 1,033,623 $ 1,064,631 $ 1,096,570 $ 1,129,467 $ 1,163,351 $ 1,198,252 $ 1,234,199
$ 238,873 $ 246,039 $ 253,421 $ 261,023 $ 268,854 $ 276,919 $ 285,227 $ 293,784 $ 302,597 $ 311,675 $ 321,026 $ 330,656 $ 340,576 $ 350,793 $ 361,317 $ 372,157 $ 383,321 $ 394,821 $ 406,666 $ 418,866
$ 111,719 $ 115,070 $ 118,522 $ 122,078 $ 125,740 $ 129,512 $ 133,398 $ 137,400 $ 141,522 $ 145,767 $ 150,140 $ 154,645 $ 159,284 $ 164,062 $ 168,984 $ 174,054 $ 179,275 $ 184,654 $ 190,193 $ 195,899

$ 133,243 $ 141,357 $ 149,966 $ 159,099 $ 168,788 $ 179,067 $ 189,972 $ 201,542 $ 213,815 $ 226,837
$ 133,243 $ 141,357 $ 149,966 $ 159,099 $ 168,788 $ 179,067 $ 189,972 $ 201,542 $ 213,815 $ 226,837

$ 1,320,924 $ 1,086,071 $ 1,401,368 $ 1,152,213 $ 1,486,711 $ 1,222,383 $ 1,577,252 $ 1,296,826 $ 1,673,307 $ 1,375,803 $ 1,775,211 $ 1,459,589 $ 1,883,321 $ 1,548,478 $ 1,998,016 $ 1,642,781 $ 2,119,695 $ 1,742,826 $ 2,248,784 $ 1,848,964

$ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245 $ 404,938 $ 323,245
$ 187,632 $ 146,925 $ 180,552 $ 141,382 $ 173,739 $ 136,047 $ 167,183 $ 130,914 $ 160,875 $ 125,974 $ 154,805 $ 121,221 $ 148,964 $ 116,647 $ 143,343 $ 112,245 $ 137,934 $ 108,010 $ 132,730 $ 103,935
$ 88,212 $ 67,783 $ 81,740 $ 62,810 $ 75,743 $ 58,202 $ 70,185 $ 53,932 $ 65,036 $ 49,975 $ 60,264 $ 46,308 $ 55,843 $ 42,911 $ 51,746 $ 39,762 $ 47,949 $ 36,845 $ 44,431 $ 34,142

$ 99,978 $ 98,074 $ 96,206 $ 94,373 $ 92,576 $ 90,813 $ 89,083 $ 87,386 $ 85,721 $ 84,089 $ 82,487 $ 80,916 $ 79,375 $ 77,863 $ 76,380 $ 74,925 $ 73,498 $ 72,098 $ 70,724 $ 69,377

$ 617,077 $ 361,109 $ 654,657 $ 383,101 $ 694,526 $ 406,432 $ 736,822 $ 431,184 $ 781,695 $ 457,443 $ 829,300 $ 485,301 $ 879,804 $ 514,856 $ 933,384 $ 546,210 $ 990,228 $ 579,475 $ 1,050,532 $ 614,765
$ 87,653 $ 48,851 $ 84,346 $ 47,008 $ 81,163 $ 45,234 $ 78,101 $ 43,528 $ 75,154 $ 41,885 $ 72,318 $ 40,305 $ 69,589 $ 38,784 $ 66,964 $ 37,321 $ 64,437 $ 35,912 $ 62,005 $ 34,557

Appendix A RAS BCE Cost Analysis 20130412


Markups Defined

Markup Type Item Value


Gross Markups (compound)
Net markup 1.1975
General Conditions 15% 1.15
Start up And Training 8% 1.08
Estimating and Bidding Contingency 30% 1.3
Insurance 2% 1.02
Bonds 1.5% 1.015
Escalation 22 1.22
Total gross markups 2.44
Note: Values are compounding or multiplicative rather than simple

Soft Costs
Engineering Services Through Bid 9% 9.00%
Engineering Services During Construction 4% 4.00%
PMO Support (JV) 5% 5.00%
District Staff 3% 3.00%
Construction Management 8% 8.00%
Change Order Contingency 5% 5.00%
Project Contingency 7% 7.00%
Program Contingency 0% 0.00%
Total soft cost markups 41%
Note: Values are compounding or multiplicative rather than simple

Total Markup
Goss markup 2.44
Soft Cost markups 1.41
Total markup of construction costs 3.44
Attachment B

Alternatives Development
Return Activated Sludge Business Case Evaluation Development
This attachment provides the basis regarding how each alternative in the RAS BCE was
selected. There are several options in determining how many pumps should be used and how
large each pump should be. There are several types of pump operation strategies and a wide
selection of available pumps that will work with RAS. In this document, four pump operation
strategies are paired with three pump options to develop a list of three viable alternatives.

Pump Operation Strategies


This section investigates the strategies of using of the existing pumps and explores installing
new pumps. The existing pumps are operated together in duty-duty configuration. The existing
pumps will be considered as the status quo alternative. For installation of new pumps, three
pump strategies are developed in this section.

Existing Pumps (Status Quo Alternative)


The status quo alternative would involve relying on the existing pumps to meet future BNR
requirements. The existing RAS pumps can be used to convey RAS to the new reaeration tank,
but both pumps will be required to operate and they will operate a maximum of 9 percent less
than the required flow rate of 3,300 gpm (4.75 mgd) per pump. Under this strategy, redundancy
would be provided by shutting down an SST with a faulty pump and bringing on line a standby
SST to meet the process needs.

If the 32 Fairbanks Morse propeller pumps in Batteries I and II were used with all pumps on,
the maximum flow rate would be 3,000 gpm (4.3 mgd) at 39 feet TDH per pump. The
16 Goulds mixed flow pumps in Battery III will operate at a maximum 3,100 gpm (4.5 mgd) at
40 feet TDH per pump. Both the existing Fairbanks Morse and Goulds pumps will not meet the
design flow requirements and larger pumps will be required. The existing RAS system curve
was modeled and overlaid with the existing pumps. The existing piping system trace is shown
in Appendix B along with the existing pipe system curve and pipe segment detail report. This
graphic is provided in Appendix B.

The existing pumps are unable to meet the discharge requirements because 16 of the
32 Fairbanks Morse propeller pumps in Batteries I and II are currently unavailable. As of
March 2013, five of the 16 unavailable pumps would require being rebuilt or replaced before
being placed back into service.

Existing pump curves for Batteries I and II are overlaid against the proposed system curve is
shown on Figure 1. The Battery III existing pump curves are overlaid against the proposed
system curve and are shown on Figure 2. The system curve was developed based on a detailed
analysis of each pipe segment in the existing system.

The model considers all pipes and fittings as found on the design drawings. Modeling of the
major losses is based on DarcyWeisbach equation. All piping is modeled based on DIP,
cement mortar-lined with a roughness coefficient of 0.000417 0.001083 foot. The roughness
coefficient is adapted from Pumping Station Design Manual (Garr Jones et al, 2008) and the

B-1
high value of 0.001083 foot approximates aged pipe with cement mortar lining. However,
subsequent review of original design specifications suggests that all buried piping 14 inches
and greater may be bar wrapped concrete cylinder pipe (AWWA C303). In the original design
specifications, the above grade RAS piping near the pumps is described as steel pipe
(AWWA 200) with enamel lining. Pending confirmation during the condition assessment,
coefficients should be revised based on the roughness values described in Design Guidelines.
Table 1 contains values for minor loss coefficients that are used in the model.

Table 1. Minor Loss Coefficients for Common Fittings and Valves


Type of Minor Loss High Loss Low Loss
90 Elbow, standard 0.3 0.25
45 Elbow 0.3 0.1
Branch Tee 1 0.75
Passing Tee 0.5 0.3
Concentric Expander 0.25 0.1
Concentric Reducer 0.075 0.01
Cross, Branch Flow 0.75 0.75
Cross, Line Flow 0.5 0.5
Sharp Edged Exit/Entrance 0.5 0.5
Butterfly 0.35 0.3
Note: Adapted from Pumping Station Design Manual; Garr Jones et al, 2008

The maximum static lift of 6.4 feet (119.0 feet 112.6 feet) for the proposed RAS pumping
system curve is based on an assumed water surface elevation in the BNR RAS reaeration tank.
This maximum is from the provisional hydraulic profile in Appendix A and is estimated from
losses for the existing treatment train and for the future BNR treatment train. The future system
curve and segment detail report is shown in Appendix B. For reference, existing pump
documentation is contained in Appendix C.

2) Use the corrected head to establish the flow per 1) To determine the flow for each pump
pump. Use the flow per pump with the uncorrected when two pumps are running use the
pump curve to determine the head experienced by intersection of the system curve and the
the pump when two pumps are on. summed corrected pumps

Figure 1. Batteries I and II Existing Fairbanks Morse Pump Curves Overlaid


against the Proposed System Curve

B-2
Figure 2. Battery III Existing Goulds Pump Curves Overlaid against the Proposed System Curve

Strategies for New Pumps


There are three basic types of operation strategies for replacing the existing pumps: large
duty-large standby, small duty-small duty, and large duty only. The large duty-large standby
operation strategy is similar to the existing system, but would require replacement of the pumps
with larger capacity pumps. The small duty-small duty operation strategy refers to two smaller
capacity pumps operating at the same time to provide the required flow rate.

New Pumps: Large Duty-Large Standby


In the large duty-large standby strategy, each pump would be sized to provide up to 9.5 mgd
and will utilize VFDs to turn down the pumps to a desired flow rate. The pumps in this scenario
would operate at a flow of 9.5 mgd at a preliminary 42 ft TDH. The preliminary TDH is highly
dependent on the location of the new RAS reaeration basin.

The large duty-large standby strategy requires the flow per can to be double the original design
requirements. However, with the increased flows, the open bottom can to horizontal header still
conforms to the requirements of the Hydraulic Institute (HI) standards 9.8.2.6, as shown in
Table 2. Because the cans conform to the requirements of HI 9.8.2.6, the design consultant will
not require a physical model; however, during design the design consultant will require the
pump manufacturers to confirm that prospective pumps are compatible with the existing cans.

B-3
Table 2. Summary of Eliminated Alternatives
Duty-
HI Requirement Standby HI Value
Value
Velocity in Can Below 4.7 5.0
Suction Bell, ft/s
Depth from header to 12 9 (3 X Suction
Suction Bell, ft Bell Diameter)
Depth of Suction Bell 11.5 2.5
Below Water Surface
Elevation, ft

New Pumps: Small Duty-Small Duty


In the small duty-small duty strategy, each pump would be sized to run simultaneously and
provide up to 4.75 mgd per pump. The pumps would utilize VFDs to turn down the pumps to a
desired flow rate. The pumps in this strategy will operate at a flow of 4.75 mgd at a preliminary
42-foot TDH. When compared to the duty-standby strategy, working together this strategy has
the potential to provide greater flexibility for turndown at each SST. In this approach,
redundancy would not come from a standby pump, but would be provided by redundant SSTs.
Therefore, if there are no available redundant SSTs and a pump fails on one SST, solids would
likely accumulate in the SST until the sludge blanket reaches the launders or until the SST was
taken off line.

Large Duty Only


The large duty only operation strategy will involve removing both existing pumps for each SST
and installing one new 9.5- mgd (6,600-gpm) pump per SST to handle the PWWF flow. While
both existing pumps are being removed, both cans would be reconditioned so a future pump
could be installed. Under this strategy, redundancy would be provided by shutting down an
SST with a faulty pump and bring online a standby SST to meet the process needs.

A variant of this strategy would be to simply leave the existing pump in place next to the new
large pump. Depending on the large pump selection, there is a potential to extend the low flow
range of the SST by leaving the existing pump in service. This extended range could be helpful
for meeting process needs during startup.

Construction Sequencing
Construction sequencing will be a challenge for both small and large pumps. Higher head
pumps are required to supply RAS to the BNR. However, the pumps are planned to be installed
prior to cutting over from the CO tanks to the BNR tanks. Both large and small pumps can be
kept operating within their allowable operating region (AOR). At start up (to the CO tanks) the
discharge valve can be throttled and the higher end of the pump speed can be restricted. The
design engineer will have to develop the optimal strategy and sequencing plan.

B-4
Pump Selection Options
This section investigates optional pump types to be considered for replacement of the existing
pumps. Pump selection is an iterative process that is dependent on pump operating levels,
dimensions and characteristics. The process starts by developing the high and low system
curves assuming static lift conditions and then selecting a pump that matches those conditions.
Once in the detail design stage, the pumps dimensions are then used to verify that the pump
meets the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Hydraulic
Institute Standards (HI). The intent of this section is to perform an initial vetting of three
classes of pumps: propeller pumps, mixed flow pumps, and vertical turbine solids handling
pumps.

Propeller Pumps
A propeller pump (i.e., axial flow pump) is a common type of pump that is essentially a
propeller in a pipe. The propeller blades push the liquid parallel to the pipe and work best under
low head and higher flow conditions. These pumps are currently being used in Batteries I
and II. While propeller pumps may be viable for the increased head of this application, they
would be operating at the edge of what this type of pump can achieve.

Manufacturers of propeller pumps include Patterson, Fairbanks Morse, and others; however,
neither manufacturer recommended using propeller pumps. Specifically, Patterson cited the fact
that their propeller pumps are more appropriate for TDH conditions lower than 20 feet and
Fairbanks Morse does not have a propeller pump that can meet these flow and head
requirements.

Mixed Flow Pumps


Mixed flow pumps borrow characteristics from both radial flow (vertical turbine) and axial
flow (propeller) pumps. As liquid flows through the impeller of a mixed flow pump, it
experiences both radial acceleration and lift. As a result, mixed flow pumps typically perform
better under higher head conditions than propeller pumps. Battery III utilizes this type of pump.

Mixed flow pumps are provided by all three of the contacted manufacturers (Cascade,
Fairbanks Morse, and Patterson) and were found to be the most efficient type of pumps
considered. Cascade and Fairbanks Morse each provided one mixed flow pump selection for
each strategy. Patterson provided one mixed flow pump selection for the duty-duty strategy.

Vertical Turbine Solids Handling Pumps


Vertical turbine solids handling (VTSH) pumps are mixed flow pumps. These pumps are
generally more resistant to clogging and stringy materials; however, for a given flow rate, their
bowl diameter is larger than the mixed flow and propeller pumps. Neither Cascade nor
Fairbanks Morse manufacture a VTSH pump that can meet the specified duty points and fit
within the existing 24-inch-diameter can.

B-5
Patterson Pumps does have one VTSH type pump, the Multi-Purpose Vertical Turbine Pumps
(12MPVT), that will fit in the 24-inch-diameter can. This model would only apply for the small
duty-small duty pumping strategy.

For applications that have a risk or a history of solids or stringy materials fouling pumps,
VTSH pumps are well suited. However, at SRCSD both propeller and mixed flow pumps have
performed well for approximately three decades on the RAS system. There may be limited
value to using VTSH pumps on the existing RAS system. Considering mixed flow pumps in
addition to VTSH pumps may provide access to a wider variety of pumping solutions that
provide a greater benefit for performance at a lower cost.

List of Alternatives
The list of the alternatives considered is summarized in Table 3. The table represents a
matching up of operational strategies with the list of available pump options that meet the
design requirements. The three manufacturers contacted are not the only manufacturers
providing propeller, mixed flow, or VTSH pumps. Although a complete search for all
manufacturers was not conducted, the reviewed pumps are considered representative of each
type of pump and are acceptable for the preliminary nature of this document.

Table 3. Summary of Viable Alternatives


Alterna Costs /
Brand1 Strategy Type Efficiency Comments
tive pump

0 Goulds/Fair Designed for Propeller/ Mixed 48%-81% / Status quo


banks Morse Duty-Duty Flow 45%-77%
1a Cascade Small Duty - Mixed Flow 72%-85% $38,750
Small Duty (low to high flow)
1b Fairbanks Small Duty - Mixed Flow 83.2% $45,000
Morse Small Duty @ high flow
1c Patterson Small Duty - Mixed Flow 85.5% - 84.1% $93,000
Small Duty (low to high flow)
1d Patterson Small Duty - Multi-purpose 68% - 78.9 % $83,000 VTSH Equivalent
Small Duty vertical turbine (low to high flow)
2a Cascade Large Duty - Mixed Flow 71%-85% $72,500 Intake bell requires
Large (low to high flow) shaving
Standby
2b Fairbanks Large Duty - Mixed Flow 80.1% $50,000
Morse Large @ high flow
Standby
3 Cascade Large Duty Mixed Flow and 71%-85% $72,500 Intake bell requires
Only existing pumps (low to high flow) shaving

1. Pumps listed in this table are a sample of pumps available. An exhaustive search for appropriate pumps was not conducted;
only these three manufacturers were contacted.

B-6
Appendix A

Determination of Static Head Based on Hydraulic Profiles


APPENDIX A

DETERMINATION OF STATIC HEAD BASED ON


HYDRAULIC PROFILES

Hydraulic Profile
This appendix estimates the liquid train hydraulic profile through the biological process to the
SSTs. The purpose of this section is to establish the estimated water surface elevation in the
RAS reaeration tank to compute the static head loss that the RAS pumps must overcome. This
Appendix is for planning level purposes only. Once the BNR design team develops a hydraulic
profile for the Preliminary Design Report this Appendix will either be deleted or significantly
revised. The difference in water surface elevations in the SSTs and the upstream RAS
connection point determines the static head required for the RAS pumping system. In the next
section, the static head for the existing and future conditions are combined with the dynamic
losses to develop system curves. Table 1 contains the design flow criteria

Table 1. Design Flow Criteria

Item Flow, mgd


EMDF 330
ADWF 181
Minimum flow1 78
Historical PHWWF2 from (CEP1) 332
1
99.9% of all existing instantaneous influent flow values are greater than 78 mgd.
Value is based on influent flow data from January 1, 2010 through December 30, 2011.

Existing Conditions Hydraulic Profile


The hydraulic profile for the existing conditions (from the SSTs to settled sewage channel) is
based on the Oxidation Tank Expansion Project 1994 hydraulic profile. The PHWWF2 of
332 MGD is similar for this system and the ADWF of 175 MGD will generate similar water
surface elevations to the permitted flow of 181 MGD. As shown in Table 2, the effluent leaves
the settled sewage channel with a water surface elevation of 116.44 at PHWWF2 and at
115.48 at ADWF. The water surface elevations at the SSTs are 112.61 at PHWWF2 and 112.59
at ADWF.

A-1
Table 2. Hydraulic Losses from the Existing Settled Sewage Channel to the SSTs

Loss, ft Elevation, ft
Item PHWWF2 ADWF PHWWF2 ADWF Basis
A SSTs 112.61 112.59 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

B Mixed Liquor Dist. Channel 0.46 0.13 113.07 112.72 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

C Mixed Liquor Channel 0.13 0.03 113.20 112.75 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

D Oxidation Influent Channel 2.96 2.65 116.16 115.40 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

E Settled Sewage Channels/ 0.28 0.08 116.44 115.48 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Junction upstream of CO Tanks Tank Expansion Project

Total 3.83 2.89

Note: PHWWF2 approximately equals EMDF of 330 mgd and ADWF approximately equals
181 mgd.

Hydraulic Profile of BNR with Existing CO Tanks for Swing Zones


For this preliminary document, the hydraulic profile developed for existing structures is
combined with typical loss values used in the industry to represent future flow structure losses.
As an example, the flow splitting structure upstream of the BNR has not been designed, but a
maximum head loss of 1 foot is used. The hydraulic profile for the proposed option (new BNR
with existing carbonaceous oxidation tanks used for swing zones) is based on the Carbonaceous
Oxidation Tank Expansion Project 1994 hydraulic profile and typical values used in the
industry to represent losses at future flow structures. The PHWWF2 of 330 MGD is similar for
this system and the ADWF of 175 MGD will generate similar water surface elevations to the
permitted flow of 181 MGD. As shown in Table 3, the water surface elevation in the reaeration
splitter box may be as high as 119.14 at PHWWF2. With an efficient hydraulic design, at
ADWF, the water surface elevation in the reaeration tank may be as low at 116.50. Under both
existing and proposed conditions, the water surface elevation at the SSTs is 112.61 at
PHWWF2 and 112.59 at ADWF.

A-2
Table 3. Hydraulic Losses from the Reaeration Tanks to the SSTs

Loss, ft Elevation, ft
Item PHWWF2 ADWF PHWWF2 ADWF Basis
A SSTs 112.61 112.59 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

B Mixed Liquor Dist. Channel 0.46 0.13 113.07 112.72 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

C Mixed Liquor Channel 0.13 0.03 113.20 112.75 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

D Oxidation Influent Channel 2.96 2.65 116.16 115.40 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
Tank Expansion Project

E Settled Sewage Channels/ Junction 0.28 0.08 116.44 115.48 From Carbonaceous Oxidation
upstream of CO Tanks Tank Expansion Project

F Effluent Channel at End of BNR 0.10 0.02 116.54 115.50 Two pipes each 120-inches in
Tanks diameter 400 ft from junction with
CO Tanks

G Upstream End of BNR Tanks 0.30 0.20 116.84 115.70 Submerged weir calculation from
(Through BNR Tanks Over Weir at Pilot Plant (7/14/2011)
End of BNR Tanks)

H Channel Upstream of Flow Splitting 1.00 0.30 117.84 116.00 Loss for Cut through Flume
to BNR Tanks (Cut throat flumes) (Assume 40:1 Ratio of head loss in
distribution channel)

I Channel Upstream of RAS Mixing 0.50 0.20 118.34 116.20 Use 0.5 feet for sufficient mixing
energy

J Reaeration Collector Channel 0.20 0.10 118.54 116.30 Use 0.2 ft for sufficient loss in
channel

K Reaeration tank 0.10 0.00 118.64 116.30 Use 0.1 ft for sufficient loss in tank

L Splitter Box (Cut throat flumes 0.50 0.20 119.14 116.50 Use 0.5 ft for flow splitting
upstream of Reaeration)

Total 6.53 3.91

Note: PHWWF2 approximately equals EMDF of 330 mgd and ADWF approximately equals 181 mgd.

A-3
Appendix B

RAS Piping Calculations and Segments


8521 Laguna Station Road
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Phone: 916 875-9000
Fax 916 875-9068
SRCSD AWTP EXISTING Mail Code: 99-003
RAS SYSTEM

Created by: Gary Lin Date: 4/25/2012

Reviewed by: A. Graham Calciano Date: 5/14/2012

This packet contains the existing RAS system curve model and associated calculations. The
following is a list of notes and assumptions regarding RAS calculations.

1. There are 24 secondary clarifiers separated into three batteries at SRWTP. Each battery of 8
clarifiers share one 42-inch pipeline to the RAS Channel.

2. Secondary clarifier 4 is used to generate the high system curves in BC Pump Plots.
Secondary clarifier 4 is in Battery I (south east corner) and is the furthest from the RAS
Channelthus has the highest head loss. Secondary clarifier 13 is used to generate the low
system curves in BC Pump Plots. Secondary clarifier 13 is in Battery II (center North), and is
directly adjacent to the 42-inch pipelineclosest to the RAS Channel with the lowest head
loss. The main difference between these two curves is that the low curve uses the lower pipe
and minor loss coefficients and a reduce pipe length due to a different clarifier location.

3. A current condition RAS flow of 9.5 MGD (6,600 gpm) is assumed per secondary clarifier.

4. The RAS Channel water surface elevations during high and low flows are 116.2 ft and 115.4
ft (respectively). The clarifier water surface elevations during high and low flows are 112.61
ft and 112.59 ft. The water surface elevations are taken from Carollos hydraulic profile that
was done under contract 2745 in 1994.

5. The headloss due to the collectors in the clarifier is calculated based on a 1.43 ft headloss at
the manifold at 9.5 MGD. This known value was based on the submittal for the Tow Bro type
collectors in SST Battery III. This headloss was used to back calculate a reasonable minor
loss coefficient for the collector mechanism. Batteries I and II were manufactured by Walker
Process and were assumed to use similar collectors with a similar headloss.

6. The collector discharge manifold (to 30 RAS) is rectangular. An equivalent diameter analysis
was completed and found the rectangular discharge manifold to be 26 inches.
SRCSD RAS Piping Existing
Goulds - Duty

Name No Of Pump Stages Position Operating Speed(rpm) Impeller Dia(in)


Goulds Lead (1990) 1 1 1780 14

Goulds Lag (1990) 1 2 1780 14


SRCSD RAS Piping Existing
Fairbanks - Duty

Name No Of Pump Stages Position Operating Speed(rpm) Impeller Dia(in)

Fairbanks Lead(1977) 1 1 1720 14

Fairbanks Lag (1977) 1 2 1720 14


Segment Detail Report
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing

Last Update Date: April 18, 2013


Report Date: April 18, 2013
Engineer: Gary Lin

Pump Station Flow Rate: 9.5 mgd


System Loss: (Hi / Lo): 27.5 / 15 ft
Viscosity: 0.0000189 lbf-sec/ft2
Density: 1.94 slug/ft3

Segment Description: Clarifier tank(N1 - N3 ; N2 NOT USED)


Upstream Elevation: 0
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 112.6 / 112.6 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 0 / 0 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 0 mgd

Flow in Segment: 9.5 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 1.5432 / 1.3682 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss User Defined Tow-Bro 16 0.8500 0.7500 0 0 NA NA 10.54 1.5 1.3 109.4 109.6 111.1 111.3
Collec
Pipe Loss User Defined Manifold 26 0.0011 0.00092 4 4 0.0173 0.0167 3.9901 0 0 110.9 111 111.1 111.3
26"
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 0.00092 78 78 0.0168 0.0164 2.8619 0.1 0.1 110.9 111.1 111.1 111.2
Cyl. Pipe 30"

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 1 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
Segment Description: 6,600 flow from 1 tank(N3 - N6 in corr losses)
Upstream Elevation: 102
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 138.6 / 126.3 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 2276.3 / 1510.5 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 0 mgd

Flow in Segment: 9.5 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 3.1581 / 1.6438 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Rdcr. (use 12 0.0750 0.0100 0 0 NA NA 18.73 0.4 0.1 132.7 120.7 138.1 126.2
dsmall, dsmall/dlarge
>.5
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 12.3 0.0011 0.00092 3.5 3.5 0.0201 0.0193 17.83 0.3 0.3 132.9 120.9 137.8 125.9
Epoxy lined 12"
Minor Loss User Defined Magnetic 12 0 0 0 0 NA NA 18.73 0 0 132.3 120.4 137.8 125.9
Flowmeter
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 12 0.2500 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 18.73 1.4 0.5 131 119.9 136.4 125.3
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 18 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.3 135 124 136.1 125.1
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 18.4 0.0011 0.00092 3.5 3.5 0.0184 0.0178 7.9670 0 0 135.1 124 136.1 125
Epoxy lined 18"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 18 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.3 134.7 123.7 135.7 124.7
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 18.4 0.0011 0.00092 2.5 2.5 0.0184 0.0178 7.9670 0 0 134.7 123.7 135.7 124.7
Epoxy lined 18"
Minor Loss Fittings 45 Elbow 18 0.3000 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.1 134.3 123.5 135.4 124.6

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 2 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
Segment Description: 13,200 flow from 2 tanks (N6 - N7)
Upstream Elevation: 105
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 135.4 / 124.6 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 1892.9 / 1221.3 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 9.5 mgd

Flow in Segment: 19.01 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 1.2744 / 0.6944 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Cross, branch 30 0.7500* 0.7500* 0 0 NA NA 5.9940 0.4 0.4 134.4 123.6 135 124.2
flow
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 NU 260 NU 0.0165 NU 5.7238 0.9 NU 133.6 NU 134.1 NU
Cyl. Pipe 30"
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 24.7 NU 0.00092 NU 28 NU 0.0166 8.8423 NU 0.3 NU 122.7 NU 123.9
Cyl. Pipe 24"

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 3 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
Segment Description: 26,400 flow from 4 tanks (N7 - N8)
Upstream Elevation: 105.4
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 134.1 / 123.9 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 1788.6 / 1153.2 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 19.01 mgd

Flow in Segment: 38.01 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 7.2610 / 0.4370 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Cross, line flow 30 0.5000* NU 0 NU NA NU 11.99 1.1 NU 130.8 NU 133 NU
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 NU 220 NU 0.0163 NU 11.45 2.9 NU 128.1 NU 130.1 NU
Cyl. Pipe 30"
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 30 0.2500 NU 0 NU NA NU 11.99 0.6 NU 127.3 NU 129.6 NU
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 36.9 0.0011 NU 152 NU 0.0157 NU 7.9239 0.8 NU 127.8 NU 128.8 NU
Cyl. Pipe 36"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 36 0.3000 NU 0 NU NA NU 8.3250 0.3 NU 127.4 NU 128.5 NU
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 36.9 0.0011 NU 268 NU 0.0157 NU 7.9239 1.3 NU 126.2 NU 127.2 NU
Cyl. Pipe 36"
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 36 0.2500 NU 0 NU NA NU 8.3250 0.3 NU 125.8 NU 126.9 NU
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 NU 12 NU 0.0153 NU 5.8352 0 NU 126.3 NU 126.9 NU
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Fittings Branch Tee 42 NU 0.7500 NU 0 NU NA 6.1163 NU 0.4 NU 122.9 NU 123.5

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 4 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
Segment Description: 52,800 flow from 8 tanks (N8-N9)
Upstream Elevation: 106
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 126.9 / 123.5 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 1299 / 1088.6 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 38.01 mgd

Flow in Segment: 76.03 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 10.66 / 8.0811 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Passing Tee 42 0.5000 NU 0 NU NA NU 12.23 1.2 NU 123.4 NU 125.7 NU
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 405 405 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 3.6 3.5 119.9 117.8 122.1 120
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 12.23 0.7 0.6 119 117.1 121.4 119.4
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 114 114 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 1 1 118.2 116.3 120.3 118.4
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Rdcr. (use 36 0.0750 0.0100 0 0 NA NA 16.65 0.3 0 115.7 114 120 118.4
dsmall, dsmall/dlarge
>.5
Minor Loss Valves Butterfly 36 0.3500 0.3000 0 0 NA NA 16.65 1.5 1.3 114.2 112.7 118.5 117.1
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 36 0.2500 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 16.65 1.1 0.4 113.1 112.3 117.4 116.6
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 7 7 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 0.1 0.1 115.2 114.4 117.4 116.6
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Entrance/Exit 42 0.5000 0.5000 0 0 NA NA 12.23 1.2 1.2 113.9 113.1 116.2 115.4
Sharp-edged

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 5 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
System Loss Summary

EGL Pressure
Node Description Elevation Flow into Node Flow Increament Flow out of Node
Hi Lo Hi Lo
ft ft ft psf psf mgd mgd mgd
N1 Secondary Clarifiers 112.6 112.6 0 0 0 0 0 9.5
N4 Vertical Propeller Pump 111.1 111.2 102 564 574.9 9.5 0 9.5
N4 Vertical Propeller Pump 138.6 126.3 102 2276.3 1510.5 9.5 0 9.5
N6 Add Tank 3, (2 pumps) 135.4 124.6 105 1892.9 1221.3 9.5 9.5 19.01
N7 Adds tanks 7, 8, (4 pumps) 134.1 123.9 105.4 1788.6 1153.2 19.01 19.01 38.01
N8 Adds tanks 1, 2, 5, 6 (8 126.9 123.5 106 1299 1088.6 38.01 38.01 76.03
N9 RAS Channels 116.2 115.4 0 0 0 76.03 0 0

Static Lift Energy Required (Hi / Lo): 3.6 / 2.8 ft

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 6 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Existing Last Update Date: 4/18/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/18/13
SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed
Goulds - Duty

Name No Of Pump Stages Position Operating Speed(rpm) Impeller Dia(in)


Goulds Lead (1990) 1 1 1780 14

Goulds Lag (1990) 1 2 1780 14


SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed
Fairbanks - Duty

Name No Of Pump Stages Position Operating Speed(rpm) Impeller Dia(in)

Fairbanks Lead(1977) 1 1 1720 14

Fairbanks Lag (1977) 1 2 1720 14


Segment Detail Report
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed

Last Update Date: April 11, 2013


Report Date: April 11, 2013
Engineer: Gary Lin

Pump Station Flow Rate: 9.5 mgd


System Loss: (Hi / Lo): 41.8 / 24.6 ft
Viscosity: 0.0000189 lbf-sec/ft2
Density: 1.94 slug/ft3

Segment Description: Clarifier tank(N1 - N3 ; N2 NOT USED)


Upstream Elevation: 0
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 112.6 / 112.6 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 0 / 0 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 0 mgd

Flow in Segment: 9.5 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 1.5432 / 1.3682 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss User Defined Tow-Bro 16 0.8500 0.7500 0 0 NA NA 10.54 1.5 1.3 109.4 109.6 111.1 111.3
Collec
Pipe Loss User Defined Manifold 26 0.0011 0.00092 4 4 0.0173 0.0167 3.9901 0 0 110.9 111 111.1 111.3
26"
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 0.00092 78 78 0.0168 0.0164 2.8619 0.1 0.1 110.9 111.1 111.1 111.2
Cyl. Pipe 30"

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 1 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
Segment Description: 6,600 gpm from 1 tank(N3 - N6 in corr. Losses)
Upstream Elevation: 102
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 152.9 / 135.8 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 3169.7 / 2105 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 0 mgd

Flow in Segment: 9.5 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 3.1581 / 1.6438 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Rdcr. (use 12 0.0750 0.0100 0 0 NA NA 18.73 0.4 0.1 147 130.3 152.5 135.7
dsmall, dsmall/dlarge
>.5
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 12.3 0.0011 0.00092 3.5 3.5 0.0201 0.0193 17.83 0.3 0.3 147.2 130.5 152.2 135.4
Epoxy lined 12"
Minor Loss User Defined Magnetic 12 0 0 0 0 NA NA 18.73 0 0 146.7 130 152.2 135.4
Flowmeter
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 12 0.2500 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 18.73 1.4 0.5 145.3 129.4 150.8 134.9
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 18 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.3 149.4 133.5 150.5 134.6
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 18.4 0.0011 0.00092 3.5 3.5 0.0184 0.0178 7.9670 0 0 149.4 133.6 150.4 134.6
Epoxy lined 18"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 18 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.3 149 133.2 150.1 134.3
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Steel, 18.4 0.0011 0.00092 2.5 2.5 0.0184 0.0178 7.9670 0 0 149.1 133.3 150.1 134.3
Epoxy lined 18"
Minor Loss Fittings 45 Elbow 18 0.3000 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 8.3250 0.3 0.1 148.7 133.1 149.7 134.2

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 2 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
Segment Description: 13,200 gpm from 2 tanks (N6 - N7)
Upstream Elevation: 105
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 149.7 / 134.2 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 2786.3 / 1815.8 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 9.5 mgd

Flow in Segment: 19.01 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 1.2744 / 0.6944 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Cross, branch 30 0.7500* 0.7500* 0 0 NA NA 5.9940 0.4 0.4 148.8 133.2 149.3 133.7
flow
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 NU 260 NU 0.0165 NU 5.7238 0.9 NU 148 NU 148.5 NU
Cyl. Pipe 30"
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 24.7 NU 0.00092 NU 28 NU 0.0166 8.8423 NU 0.3 NU 132.2 NU 133.5
Cyl. Pipe 24"

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 3 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
Segment Description: 26,400 gpm from 4 tanks (N7 - N8)
Upstream Elevation: 105.4
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 148.5 / 133.5 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 2682 / 1747.7 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 19.01 mgd

Flow in Segment: 38.01 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 7.2610 / 0.4370 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Cross, line flow 30 0.5000* NU 0 NU NA NU 11.99 1.1 NU 145.1 NU 147.3 NU
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 30.7 0.0011 NU 220 NU 0.0163 NU 11.45 2.9 NU 142.4 NU 144.5 NU
Cyl. Pipe 30"
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 30 0.2500 NU 0 NU NA NU 11.99 0.6 NU 141.7 NU 143.9 NU
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 36.9 0.0011 NU 152 NU 0.0157 NU 7.9239 0.8 NU 142.2 NU 143.2 NU
Cyl. Pipe 36"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 36 0.3000 NU 0 NU NA NU 8.3250 0.3 NU 141.8 NU 142.8 NU
standard
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 36.9 0.0011 NU 268 NU 0.0157 NU 7.9239 1.3 NU 140.5 NU 141.5 NU
Cyl. Pipe 36"
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 36 0.2500 NU 0 NU NA NU 8.3250 0.3 NU 140.2 NU 141.2 NU
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 NU 12 NU 0.0153 NU 5.8352 0 NU 140.7 NU 141.2 NU
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Fittings Branch Tee 42 NU 0.7500 NU 0 NU NA 6.1163 NU 0.4 NU 132.4 NU 133

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 4 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
Segment Description: 52,800 gpm from 8 tanks (N8-N9)
Upstream Elevation: 106
:
Upstream EGL (Hi / Lo): 141.2 / 133 ft
:
Upstream Pressure(Hi / Lo): 2192.5 / 1683.1 psf

Upstream Flow Increment: 38.01 mgd

Flow in Segment: 76.03 mgd

Total Loss Through Segment (Hi / Lo): 22.21 / 14.53 ft

Segment Detail List

Roughness / K Length Friction Factor Loss HGL EGL


Category Loss Description Diameter Velocity
Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo
in ft ft ft ft ft/sec ft ft ft ft ft ft
Minor Loss Fittings Passing Tee 42 0.5000 NU 0 NU NA NU 12.23 1.2 NU 137.7 NU 140 NU
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 405 405 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 3.6 3.5 134.3 127.4 136.4 129.5
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 1090 790 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 9.8 6.9 124.5 120.5 126.6 122.7
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 12.23 0.7 0.6 123.6 119.7 125.9 122.1
standard
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 0.2500 0 0 NA NA 12.23 0.7 0.6 122.9 119.2 125.2 121.5
standard
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 NU 0 NU NA NU 12.23 0.7 NU 122.2 NU 124.5 NU
standard
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 NU 0 NU NA NU 12.23 0.7 NU 121.5 NU 123.8 NU
standard
Minor Loss Fittings 90 Elbow, 42 0.3000 NU 0 NU NA NU 12.23 0.7 NU 120.8 NU 123.1 NU
standard
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Rdcr. (use 36 0.0750 0.0100 0 0 NA NA 16.65 0.3 0 118.5 117.1 122.8 121.5
dsmall, dsmall/dlarge
>.5
Minor Loss Valves Butterfly 36 0.3500 0.3000 0 0 NA NA 16.65 1.5 1.3 117 115.8 121.3 120.2
Minor Loss Fittings Con. Expndr. 36 0.2500 0.1000 0 0 NA NA 16.65 1.1 0.4 115.9 115.4 120.2 119.7
(use dsmall,
dsmall/dlarge >
Pipe Loss User Defined Conc. 43 0.0011 0.00092 7 7 0.0151 0.0147 11.67 0.1 0.1 118 117.5 120.2 119.7
Cyl. Pipe 42"
Minor Loss Entrance/Exit 42 0.5000 0.5000 0 0 NA NA 12.23 1.2 1.2 116.7 116.2 119 118.5
Sharp-edged

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 5 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
System Loss Summary

EGL Pressure
Node Description Elevation Flow into Node Flow Increament Flow out of Node
Hi Lo Hi Lo
ft ft ft psf psf mgd mgd mgd
N1 Secondary Clarifiers 112.6 112.6 0 0 0 0 0 9.5
N4 Vertical Propeller Pump 111.1 111.2 102 564 574.9 9.5 0 9.5
N4 Vertical Propeller Pump 152.9 135.8 102 3169.7 2105 9.5 0 9.5
N6 Add Tank 3, (2 pumps) 149.7 134.2 105 2786.3 1815.8 9.5 9.5 19.01
N7 Adds tanks 7, 8, (4 pumps) 148.5 133.5 105.4 2682 1747.7 19.01 19.01 38.01
N8 Adds tanks 1, 2, 5, 6 (8 141.2 133 106 2192.5 1683.1 38.01 38.01 76.03
N9 RAS Channels 119 118.5 0 0 0 76.03 0 0

Static Lift Energy Required (Hi / Lo): 6.4 / 5.9 ft

# value less than the range.


* value greater than the range. Page 6 of 6
NU not used
Project Name: SRCSD RAS Piping Proposed Last Update Date: 4/11/13 Guidance Name:Guidance_Data_September2008.gud Guidance Ver:September 2008 Report Date: 4/11/13
Appendix C

Existing RAS Pump Specifications and Details


Attachment C

RAS Can Drawings


SRCSD
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF


SACRAMENTO REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING -


BASIS OF DESIGN
JULY 2013

[CONSULTANT/DESIGNER ORGANIZATION]

ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT [XXXX]


CONTRACT NUMBER
J. Bruins D. Fong P. Hume D. Nottoli P. Serna A. Warren
BOARD OF S. Cohn S. Hansen R. MacGlashan B. Pannell D. Skoglund J. Yee
DIRECTORS J. Cooper K. Howell M. McGowan S. Peters O. Villegas

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF


SACRAMENTO REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING -


BASIS OF DESIGN
SRCSD

[DESIGN DRAWINGS INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME]


Volume [X] of [X]
OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

JULY 2013

[CONSULTANT/DESIGNER ORGANIZATION]

SUBMITTED: DATE SUBMITTAL APPROVED: DATE


[DESIGNER] [PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE]
PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT MANAGER

SUBMITTAL APPROVED: DATE APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: DATE APPROVED: DATE


V. KYOTANI, PE R. ROBLES, PE S.R. DEAN, PE
PROGRAM MANAGER PLANT MANAGER DISTRICT ENGINEER

APPROVALS

[XXXX]
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONTRACT NUMBER
1 2 3 4 5

DESIGN FIRM
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE
PHONE:
CONTACT:
WWW.

REDDING

AVE

VD
D D

AVE
AME

80 S

BL
RICA

BU
N R ARDEN WAY
SUB CONSULTANT
IVE

HOWE
R

WATT
KS
OA VD

ER
SACRAMENTO BL
CITY

RIV
FAIR
CAN
OF AM
ERI
50 PRELIMINARY
SAN FRANCISCO SACRAMENTO OM
LS
FO THIS DRAWING IS NOT VALID FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES UNLESS IT
FRESNO BEARS THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF A
MONTEREY DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL

ST
OC
KT
99
CO
JAC
KSO

ON
N

RD
FRUITRIDGE RD

LO

BRADSHAW RD
C
LOS ANGELOS YO C
101

INN RD
BLV
5 99

RD
D
GRASS FLORIN RD SACRAMENTO REGIONAL

SA
VALLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

POWER

FLORIN
CR
PROJECT LOCATION
RETURN ACTIVATED

AM
Sacramento Regional
SLUDGE PUMPING -

EN
GERBER RD
Wastewater MARYSVILLE

TO
BASIS OF DESIGN
Treatment Plant
80

ELK GROVE -
PATH AND FILENAME: Z:\15. RAS (Return Activated Sludge System)\B. Planning\CAD Graphics\B.20 CAD\1-MODELS\1.0 Revit\2012-AWTP-RASP-15.09-RVT-Admin.rvt

MEADOWVIEW RD
MACK RD
PROJECT LOCATION
PLACERVILLE Sacramento Regional
505 SACRAMENTO 50 Wastewater
80 CALVINE RD
Treatment Plant

BLVD
1 SANTA FREEPORT

DWIGHT RD
ROSA DAVIS
99
SHELDON RD
FAIRFIELD
101 5
B LAGUNA BLVD BOND RD
B
99

N
ST
CONCORD

FRANKLI
AT
CITY OF

ER
680
ELK GROVE

OU
SAN ELK GROVE BLVD

TE
FRANCISCO STOCKTON

RD
E
205

IN
580

TL
5 THIS IS THE ONLY MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

AN
5 ALLOWABLE PLANT ISSUE BLOCK

GR
580 ACCESS FOR DESIGNED
MODESTO CONTRACTORS PMO ENGINEERING
DRAWN
BILBY RD PMO CAD
RD
CAD User: PMO ENGINEERING

CHECKED
KLIN

160
A.G. CALCIANO
RAN

RIVE
SAN

UNION PACIFIC
D-F
HOO
APPROVED
JOSE

BRUCEVILLE RD
1 R. WILLIAMS

R
17 FILENAME

DESIGNER PROJECT NUMBER


99 [XXXX]
SANTA 680 CONTRACT NUMBER

RAILROAD
CRUZ
5 CONTRACT SEQUENCE NUMBER

A DISCIPLINE
A
SALINAS GENERAL
PLOT DATE: 7/2/2013 10:12:40 AM

101 LOCATION AND AREA MAPS

VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP


DRAWING NUMBER
4
GI001 OF
34

1 2 3 4 SCALE IN INCHES 0 1/2 1 2 4 (IF SCALE BAR IS NOT 4", SCALE ACCORDINGLY)
1 2 3 4 5

KEYNOTES:
1 EMERGENCY STORAGE BASIN A
ROCKS
ROCKS

DESIGN FIRM
ROCKS ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

2 EMERGENCY STORAGE BASIN B


ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS

ADDRESS
CITY, STATE
ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS
3 EMERGENCY STORAGE BASIN E PHONE:
GATE
ROCKS ROCKS
ROCKS ROCKS

ROCKS

GATE
CONTACT:
4 SEPTAGE DISPOSAL AREA WWW.
ROCKS

6
CONC.

CONC.
DI
TC H
ROCKS

CONC. DI TCH
CONC. DI TCH

ROCKS

CONC. DI TCH

PI LES

CONC.
CONC.

CONC.

5 RESIDENT ENGINEER BUILDING


GATE

ASPH.

EMERGENCY STORAGE
ROCKS

ROCKS

CONC.

ROCKS

BASIN C 2 CONC.

1 4
D 6 INFLUENT JUNCTION STRUCTURE D
ROCKS

CONC.

CONC. DI TCH

ROCKS
ASPH.

3
CONC.

ROCKS

ROCKS

ROCKS
ROCKS
CONC.

ASPH.
GATE

ASPH.

7 TUNNEL VENTILATION BUILDING SUB CONSULTANT


ROCKS
ROCKS

CONC. CONC.
ASPH.
CONC.

ASPH.
ASPH. CONC. ASPH.
ASPH. CONC. ASPH.

CONC. CONC.
CONC.
GATE

GATE

CONC. ASPH.
ROCKS

ROCKS
CONC.
ROCKS CONC.

8 BATTERY I DIGESTERS
ASPH.

CONC. CONC.

GATE

ASPH.

CONC.

PI LES

22
ROCKS

ASPH. ASPH.
ASPH.
ASPH.

TRAI LER

CONC.

ASPH.
CONC.

ROCKS CONC.
TRAI LER

CONC. ASPH.
TRAI LER
TRAI LER

DECK
UNKNOW N SUR FACE CONC.

TRAI LER TRAI LER

11
ASPH.

UNKNOW N SUR FACE ASPH.

5
ASPH.
ASPH.

CONC.

ASPH.

CONC.
TRAI LER

DECK

TRAI LER
ASPH.

12 9 BATTERY II DIGESTERS
CONC. ROCKS
ASPH.

7
GATE

ROCKS

EMERGENCY
CONC.

ASPH.

10 10 BATTERY III DIGESTERS


14
ASPH.

WA
LL
ROCKS

STORAGE 47
TANK

21
ASPH. ASPH.
ASPH.
UNKNOW N SUR FACE ASPH.

OVERHANG

OVERHANG
UNKNOW N SUR FACE
ASPH. ASPH.

9
PRELIMINARY
CONC. CONC.
OVERHANG

CONC.

ASPH.
ASPH. ASPH.
ASPH. CONC.
ROCKS

CONC.
FOUNDATI ON
OVERHANG

BASIN D
TANK
CONC.
TANK
ASPH. W

11 MIXED SLUDGE BUILDING


ALL

OVERHANG

CONC.

TANK TANK

ASPH. ASPH.
FOUNDATI ON
PI LES ROCKS

CONC.
CONC.
CONC.

TANK

TANK

19 27 20
ASPH. GATE CONC.

OVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANG

ROCKS
OVERHANG OVERHANG
ASPH.

8
CONC.