Perfinalversionassubmittedtocdphe12 April2

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE PROJECT
(AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SITE APPLICATION)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT & SITE APPLICATION

Mountain Water & Sanitation District 12365 Highway 285 Conifer, CO 80433 NPDES# CO-0022730 Unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado MARCH 2012
BY:
AQUAWORKS DBO, INC. 5325 SOUTH VALENTIA WAY GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................4 PLANNING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................5 2.1 Planning Area.......................................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Geography & Climate ..........................................................................................................5 2.1.3 WWTP Site ..........................................................................................................................6 2.1.4 Existing Site Application and Discharge Permit .................................................................6 2.1.5 PELS ....................................................................................................................................6 2.2 208 Plan Coordination .........................................................................................................7 2.3 Growth Areas and Population Trends ..................................................................................8 2.4 Wastewater Flow Forecasts .................................................................................................8 2.5 Wasteload Forecasts...........................................................................................................10 2.6 Summary of Proposed Capacity and Forecasted Loading .................................................11 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES.........................................................................................12 3.1 Service Area Features ........................................................................................................12 3.2 Area Discharge Permits .....................................................................................................12 3.3 Facilities Layout and Description ......................................................................................12 3.4 Wastewater Flows ..............................................................................................................13 3.5 Financial Status and Users .................................................................................................13 4.1 Compliance ........................................................................................................................15 4.2 Security ..............................................................................................................................15 4.3 Operation and Maintenance ...............................................................................................15 4.4 Growth ...............................................................................................................................15 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................16 No Action .......................................................................................................................................16 Optimizing Existing Facilities .......................................................................................................16 Interconnecting to Nearby Facilities ..............................................................................................17 Upgrade with a New Facility .........................................................................................................17 5.1 Description .........................................................................................................................17 5.1.1 Membrane Biological Reactor ...........................................................................................18 5.1.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor .................................................................................................23 5.1.3 Conventional Activated Sludge .........................................................................................29 5.2 Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................32 5.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................32 5.4 Land Requirements ............................................................................................................33 5.5 Construction Issues ............................................................................................................33 5.6 Operational Aspects ...........................................................................................................34 5.7 Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................35 5.8 Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................................35 5.9 Summary of Alternatives ...................................................................................................36 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................................................38 6.1 Justification of Selected Alternative ..................................................................................38
Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements Preliminary Engineering Report
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.2 Technical Description ........................................................................................................39 6.3 Environmental Review of Selected Alternative .................................................................43 6.4 Green Project Reserve........................................................................................................43 6.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................43 6.4.2 Component #1: Install WWTP Energy Efficient Process Equipment ...............................44 6.4.3 Component #2: Anaerobic Sludge Digestion ....................................................................46 6.4.4 Green Project Reserve Conclusion ....................................................................................48 6.5 Project Costs ......................................................................................................................49 6.6 Project Implementation ......................................................................................................51 6.7 Preliminary Effluent Limits Application and Site Application .........................................51 6.8 Process Design ...................................................................................................................52 6.9 Final Design .......................................................................................................................52 6.10 Discharge Permit ................................................................................................................52 6.11 Miscellaneous Permits .......................................................................................................52 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................53 TABLES Table 1. Preliminary Effluent Limits .............................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Population Growth Estimate ............................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Wastewater Flow Forecasts .............................................................................................. 8 Table 4. Waste-load Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Design Capacity Summary Table ................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Cost Estimates for Alternatives ...................................................................................... 35 Table 7. MBR Advantages/Disadvantages ................................................................................... 35 Table 8. SBR Advantages/Disadvantages..................................................................................... 35 Table 9. Conventional Activated Sludge Advantages/Disadvantages .......................................... 36 Table 10. Summary of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 37 Table 11. Component Summary ................................................................................................... 43 Table 12. Project Components ...................................................................................................... 44 Table 13. Current WWTP Power Consumption ........................................................................... 44 Table 14. Energy Savings Summary............................................................................................. 46 Table 15. Fuel Savings .................................................................................................................. 48 Table 16. Cost Savings ................................................................................................................. 48 Table 17. Cost Savings Summary ................................................................................................. 49 Table 18. Green Project Reserve Eligible Costs ........................................................................... 49 Table 19. Conceptual Engineers Opinion of Probable Costs ...................................................... 49 Table 20. Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................. 51 FIGURES Figure 1. Influent Flow Rates ......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Influent BOD Loading ................................................................................................... 11
ii
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3. Chart of Alternatives Assessment Options .................................................................... 16 Figure 4. MBR Design Flow Diagram .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. Image of Kubota Membrane Filter ................................................................................ 20 Figure 6. Overview of MicroBLOX Package MBR ..................................................................... 22 Figure 7. Overview of Fluidyne ISAM Package SBR .................................................................. 24 Figure 8. Fluidyne ISAM SBR Process ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 9. Overview of Ashbrook Package Activated Sludge System .......................................... 32 Figure 10. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed WWTP ................................................................ 39 Figure 11. SBR Operational Cycle ............................................................................................... 42
Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Preliminary Engineering Report
iii
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mountain Water and Sanitation District (the District), located in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, provides municipal water and wastewater service to approximately 1050 people (389 taps). Currently, sewage is collected via a gravity-fed collection system and treated by a RBC wastewater treatment facility. The existing facility was constructed in the early 1980s. Although improvements to the plant were made in the 1990s, the facility is not capable of meeting effluent limits for ammonia. In light of the age of the RBC unit and critical design constraints that exist with the existing facility, the District has made the decision to initiate planning activities needed to replace the facility. The existing WWTP is permitted to treat 100,000 GPD of flow and 366 pounds per day of BOD. Historically, the WWTP has treated, on average, 46,391 GPD of flow and 117 pounds per day of BOD. There is potential for the flow to increase by an additional 27% as vacant properties within the service area are developed over the next 50 years. The upgraded facility will be rated at the same hydraulic and organic limits as the existing facility, as there will be enough capacity at the WWTP to handle the 27% growth within the District. The alternatives evaluated included taking no action, optimizing the existing facility, interconnecting to another facility, and upgrading the existing system with a new treatment process. The treatment processes evaluated consisted of Membrane Biological Reactor, Sequencing Batch Reactor, and conventional activated sludge process. The Sequencing Batch Reactor was selected as the preferred alternative because of its capital cost, small footprint, anaerobic sludge digestion, operation and maintenance costs, and required amount of operator involvement. The preferred alternative will result in a number of incremental environmental improvements over the existing facility. These benefits include greater power efficiency and lower sludge generation. The environmental benefits are significant and measurable and qualify the project for the CDPHE Green Project Reserve Program. The conceptual engineers opinion of probable costs for this project, including permitting, design, and construction is $2,000,000.
PLANNING CONDITIONS
2.1 PLANNING AREA 2.1.1 OVERVIEW
The Mountain Water and Sanitation District is located 2.8 miles southwest of Conifer, Colorado, and covers approximately 640 acres, with roughly 340 of those acres developed and platted. The District provides potable water and wastewater treatment services to approximately 389 taps. The current planning area is fixed, and the District does not anticipate increasing the size of the area to include more properties. Additional flow growth within the planning area is anticipated to be minimal as the opportunity for growth is limited to the remaining vacant lots. The District estimates that it will serve approximately 495 taps at build-out (year 2050). Water consumers within the District are predominantly single-family residences and discharge domestic sewage to the WWTP. A small portion of the service area is zoned for commercial use and currently, a convenience store is being served in this area. Discharges to the WWTP from the existing convenience store consist of domestic sewage. There is a second commercial area that is currently vacant. It is anticipated that when this area is occupied, all of the discharges from there will consist of domestic sewage.
2.1.2
GEOGRAPHY & CLIMATE
Elevations within the District area vary from 9,500 to 8,350 feet. The WWTP site is located near the lowest section. A gravity collection system conveys sewage from the users to the WWTP. Pump stations are not required to convey wastewater. The WWTP discharges to an unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch that runs near the Districts existing WWTP. Project designs will recognize the need to mitigate cold weather conditions by utilizing belowgrade placements, weather treatment of exposed piping, and installing equipment inside of climate-controlled buildings. Implementation will also be made for protection of sensitive equipment from direct sunlight and electrical faults caused by extreme summer heat. The elevation of the project (8,385 feet ASL) will also need to be factored into the design of the new project. The facility will need to include additional capabilities to compensate for the lower presence of ambient oxygen encountered at this elevation.
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
2.1.3
WWTP SITE
The existing WWTP site is located at 12365 Highway 285, Conifer, Colorado, 80433. Access to the site is obtained via a private driveway off of Old US Highway 285. The Districts headquarters and administrative offices share the site with the WWTP. The existing WWTP is located in the northeast of the northwest of Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 41 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (39 29 32N, 105 20 46W). The upgraded WWTP will be located on the same site.
2.1.4
EXISTING SITE APPLICATION AND DISCHARGE PERMIT
On June 8, 2007 the WQCD issued a Site Application Amendment and Design Approval Letter (#3431) for the Districts WWTP. The amendment and design approval permits the addition of a sodium bisulfite dechlorination system. The letter maintains the permitted hydraulic and organic loading of 100,000 GPD and 366 pounds BOD/day, respectively. The Districts most recent discharge permit (CO-002730), was issued in May of 2005. Prior to 2005, the District was not required to meet ammonia limits in the effluent. The 2005 Permit contained ammonia limits that were to be phased in as part of a compliance schedule. The District requested a temporary modification of certain conditions in the permit to allow a study of the aquatic life in Gooseberry Gulch and its tributaries. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission approved a Type iii Temporary Modification that extended through December 31, 2011. It is unknown when a new discharge permit will be issued by the CDPHE.
2.1.5
PELS
The District requested and received PELs dated October 18th, 2011 for the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch. The PELs are for the same discharge location and volume of effluent as the existing WWTP. The following is a summary table of the PELs:
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Table 1. Preliminary Effluent Limits
Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation under the Site Approval Process Discharge to Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch at a Design Flow of 0.1 MGD
Technology Based Limitations
BOD5 (mg/l) BOD5 (% removal) TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l) TSS, mechanical plant (% removal) Oil and Grease (mg/l) pH (s.u.)
Other Pollutants
45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) 85 (30-day average) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) 85 (30-day average) 10 (maximum) 6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
WQBELs
E. coli (#/100 ml) Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l) Total Ammonia, January (mg/l)
Total Ammonia, February (mg/l) Total Ammonia, March (mg/l) Total Ammonia, April (mg/l)
Total Ammonia, May (mg/l) Total Ammonia, June (mg/l) Total Ammonia, July (mg/l) Total Ammonia, August (mg/l) Total Ammonia, September (mg/l) Total Ammonia, October (mg/l) Total Ammonia, November (mg/l) Total Ammonia, December (mg/l)
252 (7-day average), 126 (30-day average) 0.019 (daily maximum), 0.011 (30-day average) 16 (daily maximum), 4.9 (30-day average) 18 (daily maximum), 5.1 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 14 (daily maximum), 4.6 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 16 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 17 (daily maximum), 4.3 (30-day average) 18 (daily maximum), 4.5 (30-day average) 17 (daily maximum), 4.6 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average)
2.2 208 PLAN COORDINATION

Regional planning coordination matters between the District, CDPHE, AquaWorks DBO, DRCOG, and Jefferson County are anticipated to be minimal for the proposed project. The District proposes to maintain the historical permit limits for the hydraulic and organic capacity of the existing wastewater treatment works. Many characteristics of the existing WWTP will remain the same, such as type of discharge (surface water), location of discharge (unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch), flow rates, and the location of the plant. The upgrade project is not intended to promote any further development or growth. The District did submit a Water and Wastewater Utility Report to DRCOG in May of 2010. A Utility Report was submitted to DRCOG in lieu of a Utility Plan as the Districts existing
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
facilities have adequate capacity to serve ultimate build out within the planning area for flow and loading. In January of 2011, the District requested a status update on the review process of the Utility Report from DRCOG. DRCOG staff stated that a review of the report never took place. Furthermore, DRCOG stated that they no longer review Utility Reports and that that responsibility has been transferred back to the CDPHE. The Utility Report has therefore not been officially approved by a regulatory agency. This application for upgrades to the WWTP is consistent with the findings of the Utility Report. The project should be favorably received by stakeholders, given that the intent of this project is to upgrade a plant with better and more reliable equipment without increasing capacity.
2.3 GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS

The District does not anticipate adding additional users by increasing the size of the service area. The only opportunity for growth (additional taps) is through the development of properties already within the Districts service area. Steep terrain, unfavorable geographic conditions, and zoning regulations limit the potential for additional taps. The District estimates the potential at 495 taps at complete build-out in the year 2050.
Table 2. Population Growth Estimate
Build Out (Year 2050) Current 389 495 Taps: 2.7 2.7 Residents Per Tap: 1050 People 1337 People Estimated Population:
The potential exists for the District to increase wastewater flow by 27% once complete build out is achieved. The facility will not exceed hydraulic and organic loading capacities even if the conservative estimate of 27% growth factor is applied to existing hydraulic and organic rates.
2.4 WASTEWATER FLOW FORECASTS

It is possible to quantify current and forecast future flow rates as the District maintains comprehensive flow and loading records. Complete flow records are included in the Appendix of this report and are summarized below. Future flow rates were estimated by applying a 27% growth factor:
Table 3. Wastewater Flow Forecasts Current 46,391 GPD 73,129 GPD 129 GPM Future 58,916 GPD 92,873 GPD 164 GPM
Flow (30-day Average) Flow (Peak Day) Flow (Peak Hour)
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Portions of the Districts wastewater collection system were constructed over a period of five decades and are susceptible to inflow and infiltration due to their age and condition. Figure #1 graphically shows how influent flow can increase during the spring runoff months. There were three times in 2007 when wastewater influent exceeded the discharge permit limit of 100,000 GPD. Evidence indicates that the three excursions from the discharge permit were due to I&I artificially inflating the wastewater flow rates. Since then, the District has actively sought to decrease I&I by making repairs to the collection system. The amount of I&I has substantiality decreased since these efforts were taken. The amount of I&I for the most recent available runoff period (spring of 2011) was negligible.
Figure 1. Influent Flow Rates
WWTP Influent Flow (30-Day Average)

0.1800 0.1600 0.1400 0.1200 Flow (MGD) 0.1000 0.0800 0.0600 0.0400 0.0200 0.0000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Permit
The District will maintain the current design capacity of 100,000 GPD (30-day average) for the WWTP works, consistent with the limits of the existing Site Application. The hydraulic design of 100,000 GPD is conservative compared to the historic flow and estimated future flow rates.
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
2.5 WASTELOAD FORECASTS

Organic loading can be estimated similarly to hydraulic loading. Complete waste-loading records are included in the appendix of this report and are summarized below. Future organic loading rates were estimated by applying a 27% growth factor:
Table 4. Waste-load Forecasts Current BOD Concentration BOD Loading 316 117 mg/L lbs/Day Future 316 mg/L 149 lbs/Day
A graphical representation of the historical BOD loading is shown below. The figure shows that there were two excursions from the BOD limit, one in 2007 and one in 2009. The cause of the excursions of BOD (in pounds) is due to increased flows as a result of significant I&I and variations in BOD sampling techniques. The quantity of flow for those two months was very high. Reported BOD concentrations vary greatly from month to month as shown in the Appendix. The cause of the wide variation in BOD concentrations is likely due to sampling methods. The source of wastewater is consistent each month and therefore the District would expect the BOD quantity (in pounds per day) to remain consistent. The District has implemented new BOD sampling procedures, including purchasing a composite sampler in February 2011, with the goal of achieving greater consistency for their BOD concentration results. The influent BOD results have been more uniform since using the composite sampler. The historical empirical concentration for BOD averages to 316 mg/l. This is on the high end of the theoretical concentration rates expected at a wastewater treatment facility. The US EPA states that BOD concentration in typical residential wastewater ranges between 155 mg/l and 286 mg/l. The 316 mg/l is within reason as the District residents consume less potable water than average (approximately 40-50 gallons per person per day) resulting in higher concentrations than in typical wastewater. The data analyzed does not support increasing the BOD concentration for planning purposes. Furthermore, additional conservatism is built into the design for BOD loading. The historic loading for the facility has been 117 LB/Day. This is equivalent to 32% of the permitted loading capacity of 366 LB/Day.
10
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 2. Influent BOD Loading
WWTP Influent BOD Loading

600
500
400 BOD (Pounds)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Permit
300
200
100
2.6 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CAPACITY AND FORECASTED LOADING

The current facility is rated at a capacity of 100,000 GPD of influent flow and 366 pounds per day of BOD of organic loading. The upgraded facility will be rated at the same capacity of the existing facility, maintaining the existing limits of the Site Application. Maintaining the existing capacities still provides additional conservatism for the basis of design. The design parameters are summarized below:
Table 5. Design Capacity Summary Table Current Flow (30-day Average) BOD Loading 46,391 GPD 117 PPD Build-Out 58,916 GPD 149 PPD Rating/Design 100,000 GPD 366 PPD
11
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES

3.1 SERVICE AREA FEATURES
A total of 385 residences, one active commercial facility consisting of a gas station/convenience store with restrooms, and one unoccupied commercial facility are located within the Districts service area, for a total number of 389 taps. The District provides potable water supply and domestic sanitary wastewater treatment services to platted lots. In addition to the platted lots, there are eight tracts, totaling approximately 35 acres in size, within the District. Due to steep terrain, high multiple residence development cost, and a desire for privacy, three of these tracts have been developed with only one single family residence. Three of the remaining five tracts are steeper and less accessible than the developed tracts. It is very unlikely that these tracts will have more than one single family residence and the forecast for future growth is based upon one tap for each of these tracts. There are no industrial facilities within the District and the commercial tracts are anticipated to contribute only domestic wastewater.
3.2 AREA DISCHARGE PERMITS

A five mile radius map is included in the appendix, showing WWTPs within a five mile radius of the existing Mountain Water & Sanitation WWTP. The locations of the WWTPs were provided by DRCOG. The EPA Envirofacts website provides locations of water discharges on their site. The website lists the following wastewater treatment facilities within the 5-mile radius area: Conifer Sanitation Association/Conifer Metropolitan District/Village at Conifer Conifer High School WW Reclamation Plant Aspen Park Metro District
3.3 FACILITIES LAYOUT AND DESCRIPTION

The existing facility consists of the following principal treatment components. A drawing of the existing facility is included in the appendix: Influent Flow Measurement: Ultrasonic flow meter with a 2 parshall flume and recording capabilities. Screening: Manually cleaned barscreen. Three quarter inch screen spacing between bars. Primary Sedimentation: Volume of 8,295 gallons. Average depth of 10.4 feet. Detention time of 2.25 hours. Flow Equalization: Volume of 7,110 gallons. Detention time of 1.7 hours.
12
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Rotating Biological Contactor: 57,900 square feet of media area. Two positive displacement blowers with capacity of 175 CFM. Solids Contact: Volume of 17,260 gallons. Average water depth of 16.5 feet. Hydraulic detention time of 4 hours. Return sludge rate of 35 GPM. Design MLSS of 2,000 mg/l. Two positive displacement blowers with a capacity of 70 SCFM. Secondary Sedimentation: Final clarifier 8 feet deep. Two return sludge pumps with a capacity of 35 GPM. Disinfection/Chlorine Contact Basin: Sodium hypochlorite addition. Contact tank of 3,124 gallons providing 45 minutes of contact time. Dechlorination: Addition of sodium bisulfite prior to discharging. Aerobic Digestion: Primary tank volume of 11,360 gallons. Secondary tank volume of 17,233 gallons. Solids retention time of 40 days. Two positive displacement blowers of 100 SCFM. Backup Generator: 30 kW generator with ATS.
3.4 WASTEWATER FLOWS

The upgraded WWTP will be designed to treat 100,000 GPD of flow and 366 pounds of BOD/day. The basis of design is greater than the current flow rates plus a 27% growth factor. Wastewater flow rates have peaked during spring runoff months because of I&I; however, the magnitude of the peak flows has decreased over time. A graph of historic hydraulic loading rates shows how the flow increased during these months. The projected hydraulic loading rates used to size the upgraded wastewater treatment plant takes reasonable levels of I&I into account. The hydraulic loading for the plant should continue to decrease over time as sources of I&I are located and fixed. There are no combined sewer systems to adversely affect flow rates.
3.5 FINANCIAL STATUS AND USERS

A ten-year financial projection, created in 2010, is included in the appendix of this report. The financial records detail the income and expenses for the District including property taxes, user rates, operation & maintenance costs, debt service, etc. The only debt the District currently holds is the balance of the $1,000,000 SRF loan for the drinking water treatment upgrade project. The full amount of the SRF loan has not been drawn at the time this report was written, but it is expected that the full amount will be used once the drinking water project currently under way is complete. It is anticipated that the District will be required to assume debt to finance the WWTP improvement project. The District will therefore be applying for a SRF loan (along with the
13
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Green Project Reserve program) for the proposed project. The principal and interest payments for these capital improvement projects are included in the 20-year financial projections. It is likely that user fees and/or property taxes will need to increase to repay future capital project financial obligations. Also included in the appendix is a user Rate & Charges Schedule for 2011. The Districts rates are consumptive based with a sliding fee scale that increases along with consumption. There are two types of users within the District. In 2010 residential users consumed 12,565,000 gallons of potable water and the commercial users consumed 84,000 gallons.
14
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

4.1 COMPLIANCE
The existing WWTP is not capable of meeting the ammonia limits that appeared in the 2005 Permit, or are set forth in the PELs. Due to the fact that the Type iii Temporary Modification approved by the Water Quality Control Commission expired on December 31, 2011, and the District anticipates that a new permit with ammonia limits will be issued by the CDPHE in the near future, it is anticipated that the Districts WWTP will be deemed to be out of compliance. The intent of the District is to work with the CDPHE staff to develop a compliance schedule that will allow the District sufficient time to replace the existing facility. Increasingly restrictive and new limits, specifically ammonia and Total Nitrogen, will continue to be introduced as the discharge permit is renewed every five years. The District is therefore looking ahead at future compliance requirements.
4.2 SECURITY
The currently facility consists of an RBC treatment building, an operations building, and uncovered buried concrete tanks, all surrounded by chain linked fence with locked gates. The existing configuration is adequate to protect the existing assets. While currently satisfactory, security at the wastewater treatment facility will be improved with the proposed upgrade project. All buried concrete tanks will be covered with concrete lids or a building. Locked access hatches will be provided where necessary in the concrete lids to allow for equipment access.
4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The existing treatment facility is operator effort intensive. Maintaining the equipment is a constant challenge for the facilities operators. Due to the age of the system, replacement parts are difficult to obtain. Replacing the system with one featuring contemporary technology, such as PLC control, will automate more functions and ease the demand for operator involvement. System reliability will be improved and additional preventative measures such as a SCADA system and alarm autodialer will be implemented. Overall, the updated facility should simplify operator functions and, once training is complete, require less operator involvement.
4.4 GROWTH
The upgrade project is not required to accommodate future growth. The proposed upgrade project will maintain the permitted hydraulic and loading rates.
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
An analysis of potential reasonable alternatives was conducted for this project. The following alternatives were evaluated: No action. Optimizing existing facilities. Interconnecting to nearby facilities. Upgrade existing facility with one of the following technologies: o Membrane Biological Reactor (MBR) o Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) o Conventional Activated Sludge
Figure 3. Chart of Alternatives Assessment Options
Alternative Categories: Treatment Technologies:
No Action
Optimize existing facilities
Interconnect
Upgrade with new facility
Membrane Biological Reactor
Sequencing Batch Reactor
Conventional Activated Sludge
NO ACTION
Due to the fact that the WWTP is not capable of meeting the ammonia limits set forth in the PELs, a No Action alternative is not feasible. Operations and maintenance personnel are also concerned that the cost to repair or replace critical components of the WWTP would be substantial, if possible at all, due to the limited availability of replacement parts. The District prefers to invest funds to upgrade the facility instead of spending money to simply maintain the current treatment process.
OPTIMIZING EXISTING FACILITIES

The process of optimizing the current facilities to both 1) upgrade existing equipment and 2)
16
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
meet ammonia and other future discharge permit limits would be prohibitively expensive. This approach would require replacing critical components of the plant such as the rotating biological contactor and concrete tanks and also providing additional concrete tank volume to treat for ammonia and total nitrogen. Some of the equipment requiring replacement is not manufactured anymore. Provisions would need to be made to keep the WWTP functional while the optimizations were made. Retrofitting the facility to optimize its configuration and condition would be more complicated and costly than starting with new treatment technology.
INTERCONNECTING TO NEARBY FACILITIES

The CDPHE provides direction, in Section 22.4(1)(b)(v), Consolidation Analysis of the Guidance Document for the Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works, for determining if interconnecting to existing facilities is feasible. The guidance document states that only one of five factors is needed to preclude consolidation and make connecting to an existing facility infeasible. Only applications for new wastewater treatment facilities must discuss the feasibility of consolidation, therefore excluding this application from this requirement. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons that make connecting to an existing facility infeasible such as expense, distance to the nearest facility, increasing the capacity of an existing facility, crossing public lands/rights-of-ways, merging service areas, stream flow disturbance, impacts to water rights, and the need to pump wastewater.
UPGRADE WITH A NEW FACILITY

The most feasible scenario is to replace the existing RBC with a different treatment technology. The District has the opportunity to implement new technologies developed and improved since the installation of the original facility. New treatment technologies can allow for a smaller footprint, greater energy efficiency, simpler operations, greater operational control, and to produce overall better effluent quality. A number of different treatment technologies are available. Three options were evaluated for this project, Membrane Biological Reactor, Sequencing Batch Reactor, and conventional activated sludge. Following are the evaluations of the alternatives:
5.1
DESCRIPTION
The following are general descriptions of the three alternatives analyzed:
17
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
5.1.1 MEMBRANE BIOLOGICAL REACTOR

The Membrane Bioreactor System evaluated for this project is supplied as a complete packaged system to take advantage of efficiencies with the manufacture and installation of the system. The MBR package, the microBLOX system by Ovivo USA, LLC, consists of an influent screening channel and equalization basin, aerobic sludge, and WAS storage, as well as effluent chlorination and de-chlorination. The configuration is typical for MBR systems. The utilization of the membrane provides advanced capabilities for meeting effluent quality standards. The separation created by a semi-permeable membrane allows the MBR to produce high-quality effluent. The membrane prohibits solids material from reaching the effluent channel. MBR systems consist of aerobic sludge manipulation that uses semi-permeable membranes. The nominal pore size for the alternative analyzed is 0.4 m. This porosity limits pathogenic flow-through and improves the ability to produce consistent effluent quality. The microBLOX system is a pre-packaged system that allows for onsite shipment and minimal physical adjustments once installed. The packaged MBR system consists of the following operational processes: Influent fine screening Equalization Zone / Transfer Pump KUBOTA Submerged Membranes WAS Zone Pre-Wired, Factory Tested Equipment Remote Monitoring Controls
The projects design requirements call for two parallel microBLOX systems, each with a design capacity of 50,000 GPD (100,000 GPD total) with no additional provisions for maximum flow rate attenuation. This design promotes redundancy of operations and increased success of quality effluent. Phasing in the installation of two parallel systems is required to maintain the ability to treat wastewater while the new facility is under construction. Details of the sequencing can be found later in this report. The systems operational processes are discussed below.
18
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 4. MBR Design Flow Diagram
Influent flow Conditions and Fine Screening Two (2) Enviroquip Model FS600 fine screens are supplied for the removal of solids. One (1) screen is an installed standby. Clear openings range from 2-14mm with max flow rates ranging from 150-400 gpm. Screening is designed to meet peak flow rates. Screenings are processed into a continuous bagger assembly for ease of removal and disposal in a solid waste facility. Equalization Zone / Transfer Pumps An integrated 2,480 gal influent storage basin accommodates peak flow and I&I events to circumvent short-circuiting of above-peak events. Redundancy includes two (2) transfer pumps, (1 duty and 1 standby) with a forward feed rate of 44.5 gpm. The transfer pumps help control membrane permeable flow-through rates and maintain a minimum submergence of the membranes. KUBOTA Submerged Membranes The MBR systems core treatment is housed in the dual 3rd basin. In this basin, a MLSS of
19
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
20,000 mg/l is maintained under constant aerobic conditions. KUBOTA membranes utilize filtration to separate treated water from the mixed liquor. Air scour Rietschle Elmo blowers (2 duty, 1 standby) are supplied to provide constant aeration of the mixed liquor. The continuous scouring acts as a primary means of anti-fouling of the membranes. Typical operation of membranes calls for a set permeate period of time, determined by the manufacturer, followed by a rest function and/or a reverse flow. This alternating operation helps prevent overloading and buildup on the membrane cartridges. The membranes themselves are in a parallel arrangement of semi-permeable plates that use a permeate vacuum pump to achieve an optimal flow-through rate. Adjustments are made by the operator to achieve constant pressure. This feature provides a balance between flow-through capabilities and membrane fouling due to over-suction.
Figure 5. Image of Kubota Membrane Filter
WAS Zone An integrated on-board WAS storage zone is provided in the microBLOX package plant. The estimated storage volume for this project is 2,484 gallons. This basin is utilized as a means to partially digest and thicken WAS up to an amount of 2-3% solids. Hauling cost is estimated to be roughly 5 times less than that of a conventional activated sludge WWTP. Effluent Operation Effluent rate is determined by the two (2) permeate pumps (1 duty, 1 standby). The pumps are controlled and monitored by the systems internal controls. Effluent volume is measured with an integral flow meter.
20
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Biological Nutrient Reduction To achieve nitrification and denitrification, which is necessary for total nitrogen removal, system controls monitors dissolved oxygen levels in the biomass to indicate the changing biological oxygen demand. Based on the results, the aeration is controlled to maintain low dissolved oxygen (< 1.0 ppm) for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification in the same basin. This operation creates a dual-zone phenomenon within each sludge floc. The outer fraction of the biofloc is exposed to a relatively higher DO concentration and hence is considered aerobic. Nitrification of ammonia to nitrate occurs in this outer fraction of the floc. Toward the center of the floc, DO is depleted quickly and anoxic conditions prevail due to the presence of nitrate. Denitrification is the dominant reaction in the interior fraction of the floc. Total nitrogen removal is achieved in a single reactor with simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. In order to substantially remove the polyphosphates, the wastewater industry utilizes a traditional inexpensive method of alum addition. This chemical precipitate then accumulates in the waste sludge and adds to the inert material of the removed sludge. The MicroBLOX allows chemical addition directly into the aeration/MBR basin where the chemical alum precipitates the phosphorus into insoluble form, which is then removed as inert WAS.
Supplemental Oxygen Transfer System Air supply is provided by two regenerative blowers. Typical operation requires the blowers to air scour when the permeate pumps are on. To offset the cost of blower runtimes and satisfy oxygen demand, the MicroBLOX MBR system comes with a supplemental oxygen transfer system. Normal range of oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is around 20%, whereas the PCI DOC concentrator increases oxygen concentration to 93% +/- 3%.
21
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 6. Overview of MicroBLOX Package MBR
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Operation of the MicroBLOX MBR is performed through an integral HMI interface panel. The panel manipulates and monitors the operation of blowers, pumps, flows, & chemical additions. The manufacturer suggests that the basins be cleaned with a chemical cleaning for organic fouling 4 times per year and two times per year for inorganic fouling. Chemicals used will consist of acid and caustic cleaners. As with any process, a proactive procedure provides optimal performance for continuous quality treatment. Influent, effluent, and in-basin monitoring of wastewater conditions will allow trending and predictive measures to be taken to forecast possible interruptions in effluent quality. A scheduled routine of sludge removal will be required at the intervals deemed necessary. Chemical Addition The MBR process will requires the five following chemicals for operations and maintenance: Alum, to promote the removal of phosphorous in the sludge Carbon addition, if needed for additional de-nitrification. Sodium hypochlorite, for disinfection and quarterly cleaning of membranes. Sodium bisulfite, to de-chlorinate the effluent prior to discharge Citric acid, needed in the backwash as a means to recoup membrane performance from inorganic fouling.
22
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
5.1.2 SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR

A SBR treatment facility consists of an activated sludge system with most required equipment and controls supplied by a common manufacturer. There are a number of SBR manufacturers in the marketplace. This report evaluates the SBR unit manufactured by Fluidyne Corporation. The Fluidyne SBR Systems features the following major components: Influent conditioning / sludge storage tanks / integrated anaerobic zone Anoxic equalization basins (SAM Basins) Jet motive / wastewater transfer pumps Jet aspirator aeration system SBR Basins Automated solids-excluding decanters Decant equalization and chlorine contact basins PLC-based control system
The proposed system consists of two identical process trains, each rated at 50,000 gallons per day. This configuration provides enhanced operator control and additional redundancy capabilities. The function and basis of design for each of these project components are discussed below. Please note that the illustrations below show equipment installed in steel tanks. The proposed Mountain Water and Sanitation District project would consist of the equipment installed in buried concrete tanks.
23
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 7. Overview of Fluidyne ISAM Package SBR
*Not shown, the fourth chamber, consisting of an effluent EQ and Chlorine Contact Basin
Influent Conditioning / Sludge Storage Tanks After influent flow measurement and screening (manual or automatic), raw wastewater will flow by gravity into the first component of the biological process, the influent conditioning/sludge storage chambers. These chambers will be constant-level chambers where heavy influent solids and grit will settle out, similar to a primary clarifier. Here, settleable solids will be converted to soluble BOD. Underflow baffles will be provided to prevent direct short-circuiting. A second function of this chamber is to store and concentrate waste sludge. The anaerobic tanks are designed to provide approximately 90 days of sludge storage, subject to influent conditions. Contrary to common expectation, experience has shown that this component of the process does not produce significant odor. The tanks promote anaerobic conditions and can achieve methanogenesis. The unpleasant byproducts of anaerobic conditions are eliminated through proper ventilation, grease mat and surface accumulation, volatile gas pull through into anoxic/aerobic portions, and sludge integrity non-disruption. The combination of these features reduces the odors associated with conventional WWTPs.
24
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Fluidyne has documented significant volatile solids reductions and typical sludge solids concentrations of 3-4%. This results in an extremely efficient sludge storage system and minimizes the frequency of hauling, which meets the criteria outlined in the Green Project Reserve program of the State Revolving Fund. Sludge will be removed periodically, based on observation of stored sludge levels, with a vacuum truck and hauled offsite to a permitted entity. Anoxic Equalization Tank Conditioned influent, which is high in soluble BOD, then flows by gravity to the anoxic equalization basin. The purpose of the anoxic equalization basin is threefold: (1) to retain and equalize peak influent flows, (2) to provide an ideal environment for high rate de-nitrification, and (3) to act as a selector against filaments. Jet Motive Wastewater Transfer Pumps The multi-purpose jet-motive pumps serve three essential functions of the SBR. First, the pumps act on an intermittent cycle to forward-feed partially treated water into the SBR while simultaneously acting as Venturi aerators. Second, the pumps cycle water between the SBR and anoxic basin to denitrify the wastewater. Third, the jet motive pumps feed WAS to the front of the plant achieved by siphoning a side stream of the sludge. Enough jet motive pumps will be supplied to provide redundancy. Aeration System Aspirating Nozzles The motive pump also activates an aspirating jet aerator. The nozzles are located in the SBR basins. The oxygen delivery system is sized to exceed the calculated oxygen requirements to accomplish treatment (CBOD and ammonia conversion). Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Each batch of wastewater is treated within a cycle within the two SBR basins. Within each cycle are four distinct phases: 1. 2. 3. 4. Fill / React; Interact / React; Settle; and Decant.
The following is a description and illustration of the five phases of the SBR process:
25
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 8. Fluidyne ISAM SBR Process
26
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
27
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
The operating parameters for the SBR include an MLSS of 3,000 mg/l, an SRT of 16 days, 9.28 batches per day, power usage of 243 kWh/day, and an MLVSS of 2,400 mg/l. Disinfection System Supernatant will be decanted from the SBR basins into a dedicated holding and chlorine contact tank. Liquid sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) will be dosed directly into the decant pipe during each decant period. Initial mixing is provided by the turbulent pipe conditions at the pipe exit to the holding tank. A chemical metering pump with auto/manual control, capable of providing the required dose (gallons per hour) of solution, will be used. The time between batches is greater than 30 minutes, providing adequate contact time between the chlorine and stored effluent. Effluent will flow from chlorine contact tanks to the discharge to the unnamed tributary of Gooseberry Gulch by gravity or by pump. Sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3) will be dosed to dechlorinate the effluent stream during discharge. If gravity flow can be achieved, an effluent control valve will be used to throttle the flow of effluent and engage the dechlorination metering pump. Biological Nutrient Reduction The Fluidyne ISAM has features that allow for BNR through the modulation of MLSS and React cycles. Uric nitrogen is removed first by anaerobic process de-nitrification, which converts ureabased nitrogen into ammonia. The Fluidyne system then allows for nitrification a semianaerobic or anoxic process whereby the ammonia is converted to nitrite/nitrate molecules. The ISAM allows for chemical alum addition in either the SBR or the effluent tank. Both options allow for precipitate formation and phosphorous to accumulate in the sludge for ultimate disposal offsite. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE The Fluidyne ISAM is operated by a PLC with HMI manipulation. The process is automated and allows for operator adjustment to achieve a quality effluent. The ISAM, as with all wastewater facilities, runs best with daily supervision but provides consistent operation if a proactive regiment is implemented. A true understanding of influent/effluent and in-basin conditions will allow the operator to make educated adjustments and predictions for wastewater treatment. Daily or weekly maintenance may include settleability, MLSS testing of the SBR, and a monthly sludge judge analysis of the anaerobic basin. It is suggested that pump maintenance be performed in accordance with the manufacturers O&M requirements. Sludge hauling is typically done quarterly but is subject to influent loading conditions. Design criteria, developed during the final design of the facility, will influence how frequently sludge
28
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
must be removed. Chemical Addition The SBR process will require the addition of the three following chemicals: Alum, to promote the removal of phosphorous in the sludge Sodium hypochlorite, for disinfection in the effluent basin Sodium bisulfite, for dechlorination prior to effluent discharge to the receiving stream.
5.1.3 CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE

Wastewater treatment using the activated sludge process has been the stable constant of wastewater since 1913, and the traditional means of removing the treated water from the bacterial Bug-laden wastewater was through gravimetric settling. This traditional model of activated sludge and clarification is a possible alternative for the Mountain Water & Sanitation District improvement. The package system evaluated for this alternative is the Ashbrook Process Systems Groups Package Plant. The Ashbrook system utilizes a consecutive tank interaction of; Anoxic Chamber Aeration Chamber Mechanical Clarifier Sludge Holding Chamber/Aerobic Digester Disinfection
The proposed system consists of two identical 50,000 gallon per day process trains, providing enhanced operator control and additional redundancy capabilities. The function and basis of design for each of these components are discussed below: Anoxic Chamber The anoxic chamber utilizes RAS recycled activated sludge from the clarifier and introduces it into a partial mix with incoming raw wastewater to produce an environment conducive to denitrification. This dual purpose action further reduces the oxygen reduction potential of the pretreated slurry and also begins the organic breakdown of incoming raw sewage. The anoxic mix is facilitated by a submerged mixing pump. Aeration Chamber
29
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
The aeration chamber receives the partially treated sewage with a low oxygen reduction potential and high oxygen demand. The process step utilizes consistent blower operation through course diffusers as mixing and oxygen transfer mechanisms. The system incorporates a permanent inbasin air piping that is connected to two (2) blowers (1 duty, 1 standby). The aeration basin has a steady state design for a MLSS concentration of 3,000 mg/L with a sludge age of approximately 12 days. The lower SRT helps prevent against unwanted microorganisms that can impede the clarification process. The Diffuser submergence of 8.5 feet allows for optimal oxygen transfer. Mechanical Clarifier The circular mechanical clarifier utilizes scum removal rotation, support bridges and a drive unit to collect the activated sludge in a stilling well. The activated sludge is returned to the anoxic basin through an airlift alongside the scum collections. The clarifier is equipped with adjustable V-notch weirs and scum baffling. The RAS is returned to the anoxic basin at a concentrated value through an airlift system that offers the aerobic sludge a little respite before being exposed to an elongated anoxic period. Sludge Holding Chamber/Aerobic Digester Integrated within the package plant, is an aerobic sludge digester with the holding capacity of roughly 16 days storage. Aerobic digestion is achieved with course air diffusers. Supernatant is then decanted back into the wastewater flow stream. Disinfection/Dechlorination A single basin with a 2,000 gallon capacity is supplied at the end of the Ashbrook package system for disinfection. Chlorine is delivered by a tablet dispenser. Effluent would be dechlorinated with a tablet dispenser. Biological Nutrient Reduction The traditional activated sludge model allows for multiple zones of wastewater treatment but requires the cycling of water through multiple zones multiple times before true treatment is achieved. This means that although the wastewater enters an anoxic zone first, the nitrogen present is not in the form of NO3, and therefore cannot be released. Wastewater nitrogen is bound as NH3 and requires aerobic measures to nitrify the molecule. Once nitrification is achieved, then the wastewater progresses to the clarifier. The process requires a large percentage of RAS directed back into the anoxic zone at the head of the plant for de-nitrification. These zones are innate in the conventional plant, but they are separated by HRT and SRT, so multiple
30
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
progressions are required to achieve high quality BNR. Phosphorus removal is handled with the addition of alum in the aeration basin. Phosphorous then accumulates in the WAS for removal off-site.
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Conventional plant designs require daily inspection and a proactive maintenance regimen to achieve optimal plant performance. Monitoring of influent conditions helps achieve peak plant performance as well as in-basin and effluent monitoring for key wastewater indicators such as MLSS, pH, alkalinity, COD, BOD, and temperature. Annual drainage and inspection of diffusers is recommended to decrease the risk of blockage. Pumps and blowers are subject to the manufacturers O&M requirements. Waste-activated sludge will need to be removed from the WWTP at incremental time periods to allow for future sludge growth and proper MLSS concentrations within the plant. Chemical Addition The activated sludge process will require the addition of the following three chemicals: Alum, to promote the removal of phosphorous in the sludge Sodium hypochlorite, for disinfection in effluent basin (tablet dispenser) Sodium bisulfite, for de-chlorination prior to effluent discharge to the receiving stream
31
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Figure 9. Overview of Ashbrook Package Activated Sludge System
5.2
DESIGN CRITERIA
Design criteria for each of the three alternatives analyzed, such as anticipated influent and effluent characteristics, basin sizing, pumping requirements, hydraulic retention time, solids retention time, and sludge production, are included in the appendix of this report. Each equipment manufacturer has included design criteria within its proposal. Additionally, equipment data sheets and vendor information is included.
5.3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will result in net improvements to the environment. The existing facility is not designed for treatment of ammonia and total nitrogen. The new facility will be designed utilizing todays available BNR, phosphorous removal, and automated technology and will treat wastewater to a much higher level than the existing facility. Environmental impacts that could potentially be encountered when constructing a new wastewater treatment plant will likely not be experienced with this project. If they are encountered, they will be to a small degree. These environmental items could include displacement of wildlife, increased noise, additional traffic, additional odor generation, additional runoff, etc. The upgraded WWTP will either maintain or decrease the levels. As an
32
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
example, the new WWTP will be designed to emit fewer odors than the existing facility. It is anticipated that there will be unavoidable impacts during the implementation of the project, as is consistent with the construction of most public works projects. The District will do its part to decrease these impacts to the lowest level possible by implementing measures such as following runoff best management practices, limiting the times construction activities can take place to daytime hours, and not disturbing any historic or architecturally significant features. Work is not being proposed in wetlands for any of the alternatives. The existing effluent discharge line will be reused, allowing the District to avoid having to work in the area of the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch.
5.4
LAND REQUIREMENTS
The upgraded WWTP will be located on the same site as the existing facility, generally within the limits of the existing chain link fence. Acquiring new property will not be required for this project. Planning will be required to locate all new construction on the property while still maintaining the function of the existing facility. The area used as the access drive and parking lot for the District will likely be required for construction staging purposed during the build phase of the project. The area will be restored to its original condition once the project is complete.
5.5
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
The most significant construction problem anticipated with this project is maintaining operation of the existing WWTP while the upgraded WWTP is being constructed. This problem is applicable for all three alternatives reviewed. A general phasing plan has been developed to best manage the process of maintaining wastewater treatment capabilities throughout the duration of the project. The following primary steps will be followed: Phase I: Install Train #1 of the new WWTP. Train #1 will be installed in the greatest area of free space at the existing WWTP site. Train #1 will be designed for a capacity of 50,000 GPD (30-day average). Install chlorine contact tank. Install headworks. Install sewer line connecting existing manhole (including manhole) to headworks and begin treating wastewater on Train #1. Phase II: Decommission and remove the existing WWTP.
33
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Phase III: Install Train #2 in the area made available by removing the existing WWTP. Commence use of both trains. This phasing approach will require that the system treat wastewater for a period of a few months using one 50,000 GPD train while the existing plant is decommissioned and the second train is built. The District believes that one train will be adequate to treat the volume of wastewater for that temporary period. The historic average daily flow for the past five years has been 46,391 GPD. This number continues to decrease as the District makes repairs to its collection system, decreasing the amount of I&I that enters the system. Over the past six years, the District has made significant progress reducing I&I from entering the system, as shown on Figure 1. I&I only occurs during spring runoff months and as Figure 1 shows, the additional flow caused by I&I ends by July of each year. The District anticipates that it would run on one train only during periods of low I&I. Additional construction problems may present themselves as the design of the project progresses. It is anticipated that bedrock will be encountered during excavation. During final design, the District will evaluate the benefit of installing a lift station to decrease the excavation required for the tanks. Provisions will need to be made to mitigate these problems to the greatest degree possible. Additional potential construction problems will be similar for each of the three alternatives analyzed.
5.6
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
The District employs a Superintendent (Class A Operator License), Assistant Superintendent, and Operator-in-Training, who maintain the existing facility. Maintaining the existing facility is a very time-intensive process due to its age and process configuration. The upgraded plant will require less operator involvement than the existing facility. The MBR provides tertiary treatment (filtration) of the treated water which requires substantial energy. It is expected that the MBR alterative would be significantly more expensive to operate due to its power consumption. This system will require the highest level of operator involvement. The SBR is anticipated to have the least amount of operator involvement, power costs, and energy use. Sludge generation would also be the least with this option due to the conditions generated in the anaerobic tank. The conventional activated sludge treatment plants operational demands will fall in between the
34
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
SBR and MBR. This system will require periodic inspection and cleaning. This system also generates the most amount of sludge.
5.7
COST ESTIMATES
The following is a high order magnitude cost estimate for each alternative:
Table 6. Cost Estimates for Alternatives Alternative #1 Equipment Other Costs Total: Alternative #2 Alternative #3
$1,300,000 $1,300,000 $2,600,000
$269,200 $1,730,800 $2,000,000
$894,000 $1,356,000 $2,250,000
5.8
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative:

Table 7. MBR Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Delivered as a packaged unit Uninterrupted quality effluent due to physical nature of the membrane. High Quality BOD, NH3 Removal Lower probability of coarse diffusers plugging Increased MLSS concentration >20,000 mg/L (smaller footprint required) Smaller volume of sludge produced
High capital costs High power cost due to continuous blower and permeate pump operation Full enclosure in building required Lower oxygen transfer rate due to coarse diffusers Chemical cleaning of membranes required utilizing concentrated acids and bases Possible membrane fouling Requires influent lift station Requires replacing membranes Requires greater periodic maintenance Purchase and disposal of cleaning chemicals
Table 8. SBR Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Low capital costs Lower footprint accomplished by combining processes in each tank.
Plant can gain too much MLSS and produce solids in effluent If not properly maintained If anaerobic tank is not maintained below a set sludge level, it can provide unsightly scum in
35
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Reduced amount of sludge generated and ability to store sludge No influent lift station required Does not come shipped as a packaged unit Lower electrical consumption No in-basin moving parts or maintenance required High level of automation A number of green project reserve qualifying elements Innate anoxic/aerobic patterns for high level of total nitrogen reduction Provides internal biological buffering that resist system upsets Only a small operations building is required May be able to decrease excavation by installing lift station.
Table 9. Conventional Activated Sludge Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
SBR, eventually causing poor settleability. Requires buried concrete tanks
Low level of operation understanding required Comes shipped as a packaged unit
Prone to operator errors and system upsets Requires influent lift station Air diffusers prone to fouling Requires full enclosure in building Requires influent lift station Requires periodical draining of tanks to inspect and clean Large HRT required to cycle water repeatedly for diminishing gains in overall quality High degree of mechanical maintenance High cost of long-term parts replacement
5.9
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The following is a summary of the alternatives evaluated for the Preliminary Engineering Report:
36
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Table 10. Summary of Alternatives Section Item 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Description Design Criteria Environmental Impacts Land Requirements Construction Problems Operational Aspects Cost Estimates Advantages Disadvantages Membrane Biological Reactor Sequencing Batch Reactor Conventional Activated Sludge
Ovivo USA Fluidyne Ashbrook Simon Hartley Hydraulic Loading = 100,000 GPD & Organic Loading = 366 PPD Similar Impacts Smallest Footprint Medium Footprint Largest Footprint Similar Level Anticipated Difficult to Operate Standard Effort Increased Effort Most Costly Least Costly Medium Cost Effluent Quality Cost-effective Shipped Complete Costly Buried Tanks Required Full Building Enclosure
37
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
6.1 JUSTIFICATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The versatility and innovation of Sequencing Batch Reactors has shown a SBR to be the most suitable to meet the needs of the District. The advantages of using a SBR can be measured both in monetary and nonmonetary value. The first determining factor is cost. The direct cost comparison of SBRs to membrane filters and activated sludge designs show that SBRs have the lowest capital and ongoing expenses. The greatest gain of the membrane technology is a permanent barrier that prevents solids from being inadvertently discharged, but this benefit does not merit the incremental cost incurred. The next determining factor is footprint and space availability. A package design SBR can utilize the space in a compact efficient manner and can eliminate the need for additional sludge storage. This in-line sludge handling adds an additional advantage for SBR design because it does not require further tank volume or handling equipment. The SBR has a sludge reducing capability in the form of anaerobic digestion, which requires less electrical and labor cost than a conventional WWTP and a membrane design. A measureable monetary value is electrical consumption savings. The design calculations provided by SBR designers show a more efficient oxygen transfer rate per pound of BOD treatment. The lower electrical cost comes from multiple areas of saving: aeration operational strategies, sludge treatment, sludge storage, and volume of sludge. All four of these areas have advantageous properties that are more prevalent in an SBR design than the other alternatives. A measurable savings will take place in the manual hours needed to maintain the SBR. This is due to the high level of automation available through PLC operated controls, floats, ORP and/or oxygen in-line measuring devices. Further, the SBR does not require maintenance of membranes or diffusers. There are Green Project properties with the SBR design that are not realized by other technologies. The combination of sludge handling, manual labor savings, and reduced electrical consumption are all relevant to the criteria mentioned in the Green Project Reserve section of this report. These are innate features of the SBR design that are not found in the alternatives. Little to no variation of operator duties is required with the SBR process to make consistent, quality effluent. This consistent quality is due to the innate characteristics of the SBR design. There are designated anaerobic, anoxic, and aeration zones to promote maximum BOD and TSS
38
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
removal. The SBR process results in biological nutrient reduction with minimal operator intervention. The SBR design provides a number of tools for operational manipulation to develop optimal operational settings that are not part of the design of the alternative plants. The attributes of the SBR application exceeds the benefits of the alternative forms of treatment. The District can expect to see measurable gains in WWTP treatment operations, initially and over the course of the plants life. It is anticipated that the District will realize a number of other non-measurable characteristics about the proposed SBR design that will result in more efficient time usage, higher quality effluent production, and overall improved sustainable practices.
Figure 10. Conceptual Rendering of Proposed WWTP
6.2 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

The proposed WWTP design for the Mountain Water and Wastewater Sanitation District will consist of 100,000 GPD SBR. The plant design will utilize the natural gravity flow of the influent from the community to headworks screening and flow measurement. The barscreen will be either manually or automatically raked, depending upon the costs of each option. A lift station may be installed to raise wastewater to above ground tanks. The system will then proceed to a two-train SBR design. Each SBR train will be identical to the other.
39
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
The SBR process will consist of a series of four tanks. The first basin is an anaerobic selector tank that performs multiple functions. The anaerobic tank acts as a trash trap and sludge settling tank. Approximately 30% of the BOD available in wastewater is in the form of suspended solids. The solids are removed gravimetrically in the anaerobic tank and settle to the bottom of the basin. There is no functional mixing of this basin except that of the inflow and mild exit turbulence. The lack of turbulence allows for a high degree of compaction on the basin floor, thereby promoting anaerobic growth. The basin is always full; therefore, the amount of water exiting the tank equals the water entering the tank. As the solids entering the anaerobic tank are digested, concentrations of solids are reduced. The exit flow carries the liquid with lower BOD and TSS into the next basin. The anaerobic process reduces organics to either ethanol or methane gas, which is passed into the second basin through a baffled overflow. Contrary to common expectations, the anaerobic tank does not typically produce odors. Odors that are produced are quickly dissolved and carried into the aerobic portion of the SBR, where they are oxidized into it less noxious forms. An example would be hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which is commonly described as the rotten egg smell. Because of the hydraulic profile of the SBR, the dissolved gases are put into a high aerobic environment before being released to atmosphere. The H2S is converted to sulfate or sulfite (SO4 or SO3) or organically digested by microbes by metabolic processes. The internal baffles and the lack of mixing within the anaerobic basin allow for coagulation of fats and oils to accumulate at the top 6 to 12 inches of surface water, often forming a mat of high-energy grease. This mat is not detrimental to the process and actually, over time, can produce a sustainable source of BOD to sustain organisms during low events. The baffled section of the anaerobic tank functions as a trap for grease and adequately prevents it from reaching the SBR in large quantities. Grease in large quantities can disrupt the settleability of MLSS and cause upsets in effluent quality. Trapping grease in the anaerobic tank allows it to be either digested anaerobically or hauled off site. The second basin, the anoxic tank, is an equalization basin that receives its incoming flow from the anaerobic basin. The partially reduced, solid removed wastewater has soluble characteristics that are ideal for initial aerobic treatment. In this basin, MLSS reacts with wastewater under ideal conditions. The MLSS and food source (incoming wastewater) create a high oxygen demand, lowering the dissolved O2, and reducing the ORP levels. This feature is not crucial for initial treatment, but it contributes to the BNR cycle. The anoxic tank is also known as the surge tank because it receives surging water back from the SBR to mix the entire basin. The anoxic basin also acts as the equalization tank, allowing water to rise to a preset point, before initiating pumping action to convey wastewater to the third basin. The anoxic tank is connected to the third
40
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
tank in two locations: 1) forward feed pumping and 2) return mixing. Each anoxic basin houses one-jet motive pumps that forward feed the anoxic slurry into the third basin, known as the SBR reactor. The anoxic and SBR reactor tanks are designed so that for every gallon of MLSS wastewater slurry moved forward, one gallon of return MLSS wastewater flows back through an overflow weir. This feature allows for continual cycling of MLSS into the anoxic zone. The jet motives perform multiple functions. The first function is pumping the wastewater from the anoxic tank to the SBR reactor and the resulting overflow that mixes the anoxic basin. The second function is to aerate the SBR. Aeration can be executed with aspirating nozzles or the use of pressured air in a jet header manifold. The third function is for WAS conveyance. A bleed off line of the header in the SBR reactor is operated intermittently to remove a portion of MLSS from the SBR reactor. This feature conveys the aerobic sludge back to the anaerobic basin where it settles and is digested by anaerobic organisms. It is estimated that 50% of the volatile organics are removed, reducing the overall sludge hauling cost. Once MLSS enters the third and largest basin, it progress in an aerobic/anoxic/static cycle that facilitates microorganism growth, particulate uptake, and sewage treatment. This process either progresses in the SBR or can be diverted back into the anoxic basin for cycling back into the SBR reactor basin. The process of SBR reactor/anoxic tank interaction is called interact mode. The isolated mixing process of the SBR is called the react mode. The purpose of the aerobic/anoxic/static cycle is to achieve maximum BOD removal with minimal aeration cost. The aeration mode facilitates the oxidation of nitrogen ammonia into a less toxic nitrate/nitrite combination. Nitrate can still be hazardous and needs to be converted into nitrogen gas to meet the PELs and minimalize effects on biological factors downstream. To achieve this objective, wastewater reaches an anoxic stage wherein the nitrifying bacteria will utilize the oxygen bound to nitrogen in nitrate (NO3) and produce nitrogen gas (N2) as a waste product. Nitrogen gas makes up 78% of the earths atmosphere. The static operation is considered an energy savings mode whereby the available dissolved oxygen is consumed. The microscopic bacteria work together to achieve an ecosystem network of interconnecting organisms that use wastewater as their base food source. The manipulation of this ecosystem by the operator assists the user to achieve the desired effluent quality. When the water level in the anoxic tank reaches approximately two-thirds volume, the PLC initiates the SBR to begin settle mode. The settle mode creates a separation between the treated water and the organisms living in it. The heavier particles settle to the bottom of the SBR reactor, leaving, clear, treated water on the surface of the SBR. The clear water (superannuate) is then
41
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
decanted out of the SBR reactor. Surface scum is prevented from leaving the SBR reactor by the decanting method. The discharged volume progresses through a siphon and into the fourth tank, an effluent equalization/chlorination basin. In this tank, a minimum of 30 minutes of chlorine contact time is achieved. The water leaving the chlorine contact tank is de-chlorinated with sodium bisulfite prior to final discharge to the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch. After decanting is complete and the SBR reaches bottom water level, the PLC is signaled through float or ultra-sonic level transducers to begin the fill cycle. The waiting water in the anoxic basin is pumped into the SBR until the overflow weir spills water back into the anoxic basin, allowing for continual pumping and aerating. The fundamental cycle of this SBR design is interact/settle/decant/fill/interact. This, in combination with the anaerobic basin, makes for a highly effective and efficient treatment process. Supernatant is decanted to the effluent equalization/chlorine contact tank where a minimum of 30 minutes of chlorine contact time is achieved. Finished effluent will either be pumped or flow by gravity to the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch. This diagram below shows the anoxic/SBR reactor interaction cycle.
Figure 11. SBR Operational Cycle
42
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The proposed project involves replacing an existing WWTP with a system that will provide a net benefit to the environment. The upgraded facility will be located on the same site as the existing facility. Due to the extremely unlikelihood that any long-term incremental impacts to the environment will be made with this project, the District believes it qualifies for a Category Exclusion from the Environmental Assessment requirements. The plant currently discharges to an unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch via a PVC line that originates at the existing WWTP and terminates in the swale of the gulch. This PVC line will be reused with the project. The discharge area of the line will not be disturbed and therefore, impacts within the wetlands, riparian area, and natural areas (if present) will be avoided.
6.4 GREEN PROJECT RESERVE 6.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to summarize and justify the eligibility of certain components of the Mountain Water & Sanitation Districts wastewater treatment system upgrade project for the CDPHEs Green Project Reserve program. The CDPHEs GPR sets aside a minimum of 20% of SRF funding for the purpose of funding green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities. The District plans on constructing a facility that will have two components that meet or exceed the requirements of the GPR program:
Table 11. Component Summary Part Component #1 Component #2 Category Energy Efficiency Environmentally Innovative Section 3.2-2 4.5-5b Item Reduction in Energy Consumption (savings greater than 20%) Significant Reduction in Residuals Business Case Categorical Eligible Business Case Required
Component #1 is categorically eligible for the GPR program. This report will therefore summarize why this component is eligible and how it exceeds the programs minimum requirements. A business case is included in this report for Component #2 to justify eligibility for the GPR program. The two qualifying components for the GPR consist of the following:
43
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Table 12. Project Components Part Component #1 Component #2 Item Install WWTP process equipment that consumes less energy to treat the wastewater Install anaerobic digestion to decrease biosolids generation
6.4.2
COMPONENT #1: INSTALL WWTP ENERGY EFFICIENT PROCESS EQUIPMENT
Energy efficiency is defined by the Green Project Reserve Program as the use of improved technologies and practices to reduce the energy consumption of water quality projects, use energy in a more efficient way, and/or produce/utilize renewable energy. The Districts existing wastewater treatment plant was installed approximately 30 years ago. The proposed project will use wastewater treatment process equipment that will consume less energy than the existing facility by 1) using biological processes that require less energy and 2) consist of equipment that is more efficient than the existing equipment. This section will show how at least a 20% energy savings is achieved over current usage. The District maintains records of the power consumed by the existing wastewater treatment facility. These records are used to determine existing power demands as follows:
Table 13. Current WWTP Power Consumption Approximate Consumption (monthly) 1 15,000 30
Item Monthly Base Rate Service Charge Energy Charge
Unit Cost $ 30.00 $ 0.06363 $ 11.60
Unit LS kWh kW Total:
Price $30.00 $954.45 $348.00 $1,332.45
The District spent $15,913.56 for electricity at the WWTP in 2010. This checks with the annual cost of the monthly estimate (12 x $1,332.34 = $15,989) Power records include consumption of the existing WWTP and district office. Must therefore deduct the power consumed by the District office for this evaluation. District office = 1,500 square feet 1 Average Consumption = $1.34 per square foot per year Office electricity use = $2,010 per year Office electricity use = $168 per month WWTP Electricity use = $1,165 per month
44
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Notes: 1) Energy Information Administration. 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
The proposed SBR treatment utilizes a combination of energy efficient processes to achieve an energy efficient process. The Fluidyne ISAM is a four-basin package system that uses gravity to feed wastewater into an anaerobic selector. This anaerobic chamber results in a passive process that reduces the solid content of the wastewater stream by 30% or more. The solids are digested over time by obligate anaerobic bacteria without any energy expended by the user. Anaerobic digestion is preferable to an aerobic digestion system because electricity is required to power the blowers required to perform aerobic digestion. The second in-line basin, an anoxic tank, has an interact period with the aerated wastewater returned from the SBR reactor. The anoxic conditions of the basin naturally select for specific bacteria that treat the waste stream for biological nutrient removal, including nitrogen. There is a submersible pump within the anoxic basin that forward-feeds the now partially treated waste stream into the aerobic portion. Up to this point, raw sewage has been partially treated without requiring any energy. In conventional WWTP design, it common for a pump to only perform one function such as the forward feed of water/sludge, aeration/mixing, return flow, or sludge removal. The Fluidyne SBR design uses a single motive pump to perform 3 different functions to save on upfront capital cost, long term maintenance, and operating cost. These functions include forward feed, aerating/mixing, and WAS recirculation, saving capital and energy costs. The motive pump will be regulated by a VFD to further improve the efficiency of the pumps, and closely match the pumps output to actual demand. The current WWTP design does not use VFDs to regulate motor output. An additional energy savings feature included with the SBR design is the use of ORP sensing. This capability allows the operator to monitor the demand for oxygen, preventing over-aeration in the SBR reactor. The operator will be able to automatically perform the feature by creating setpoints in the PLC. The process design calculations from Fluidyne (included in the appendix) estimate the cost requirements of the wastewater treatment to be approximately 243 kWh/day. The Fluidyne estimate includes the energy demand of the motive pumps and blowers. The pumps and blowers consume the overwhelming majority of the power used to treat the wastewater. There are however other components that consume power such as the control panel, miscellaneous valves, the SCADA panel, ultrasonic flow meter, building lights and heat, and chemical feed pumps. These additional devices are estimated to require an additional 25% in power consumption,
45
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
increasing the total plants consumption to 304 kWh/day. The power consumption calculation by Fluidyne is based off of the design flow of 100,000 GPD with a BOD concentration of 374 mg/L. The calculations by Fluidyne need to be adjusted to make a direct comparison to the actual historic flow rate of the facility, 46,391 GPD, to determine if a 20% power savings will be achieved.
Table 14. Energy Savings Summary Existing Facility Daily Demand Monthly Demand Monthly Demand (adjusted for flow) Service Charge Rate Monthly Service Charge Energy Charge Rate Monthly Energy Charge Monthly Cost Proposed Facility 304 kWh/Day 9,120 kWh 4,231 kWh $0.06363 kWh $269 $11.60 kW $400 $669 Monthly Cost Savings Energy Savings
$1,165
$496
42%
The energy savings realized with the installation of the SBR process of approximately 42% is greater than the 20% needed to be considered categorically eligible for the for the GPR program.
6.4.3
COMPONENT #2: ANAEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION
Environmentally innovative projects are defined by the Green Project Reserve Program as those that demonstrate new and/or innovative approaches to delivering services or managing water resources in a more sustainable way. The Mountain Water and Sanitation District will meet this objective by significantly reducing the amount of biosolids generated by the new facility and mitigating negative environmental impacts, such as those generated by hauling of the sludge. Section 4.5-5b states that treatment technologies or approaches that significantly reduce the volume of residuals, minimize generation of residuals, or lower the amount of chemicals in the residuals may be eligible for the GPR program. A business case is required for this section and therefore presented as follows. The District historically hauls approximately 172,700 gallons of biosolids each year. Each truck has the capacity of 5,000 gallons resulting in 35 trips per year, or about one load each week and a half. The District pays the hauler $400 per load to haul and dispose of its sludge.
46
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Numerous wastewater facilities, including the RBC currently installed at the District, utilize aerobic digestion as a means to reduce the volume of sludge by repeatedly over-aerating the WAS in an attempt to burn up the residual organic pollutants. This is a diminishing-return operation that severely limits the overall efficiency of any WWTP. The Fluidyne SBR utilizes an in-line anaerobic selector as a sludge storage basin as well as a sludge digester. The anaerobic action digests the sludge, reducing the volume. Also, the sludge is compacted upwards of 3-4% solids through gravimetric settling. To achieve these concentrations, conventional plants must enlist the use of costly belt presses and drying pits. Conventional approaches require space, labor, energy, and substantial capital cost. Digestion and compaction improves the longer the sludge is retained in the anaerobic basin, decreasing the need for hauling. Conventional aerobic digestion is not an efficient method because it requires aerobic bacteria to digest aerobic bacteria. This process requires digestion of existing bacteria so that its bionutrients can be broken down into simpler compounds. Bacteria, when unable to self-sustain, enter into a sporocyte stage that resists degradation or consumption. Fluidyne avoids this situation by putting aerobic bacteria into an anaerobic basin so that they can be killed more efficiently. Fluidynes approach does not require electricity to digest and compact the bacteria. Fluidynes approach allows the organic molecules to be dissolved and then recycled throughout the treatment process. This strategy provides a more thorough treatment and a greater by-product release of CO2, H20 and N2. These compounds are non-hazardous when released into the environment and pose less of an environmental risk than their alternative forms, CH4 and NH3. The Fluidyne calculations estimate that the new treatment facility will generate 256 gallons per day (93,440 gallons per year) of biosolids for 100,000 gallons per day of flow. Adjusting the sludge generation for 46,391 GPD of flow decreases sludge production to 43,348 gallons per year. This calculation adjustment is needed to make an equivalent comparison to before and after sludge generating amounts. The new plant will require sludge to be hauled about 9 times per year if the District continues to use trucks with a capacity of 5,000 gallons. The net impacts to the environment are significant and measureable. The most significant impacts are those mitigated from hauling the sludge. The current process is inefficient and the process yields a significant amount of residuals that must unnecessarily be hauled off and disposed of offsite. The hauling adds additional vehicle trips to the road system, fuel consumption, and release of emissions. The amount of fuel and mileage savings by implementing the SBR process is quantified below:
47
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Table 15. Fuel Savings Item Trips per Year (current) Trips per Year (proposed) Trip Length (roundtrip) Miles per Year (current) Miles per Year (proposed) Vehicle Fuel Consumption Yearly Fuel Consumption (current) Yearly Fuel Consumption (proposed) Yearly Fuel Savings Miles Saved (yearly) Number Units 35 9 172 6,020 1,548 10 602 155 447 4,472 Trips Trips Miles Miles Miles MPG Gallons Gallons Gallons Miles
The cost savings realized by decreasing the amount of residuals generated are considerable. It costs $400 per load to haul sludge offsite. The District can save considerable money by decreasing the frequency of hauling:
Table 16. Cost Savings Item Trips per Year (current) Trips per Year (proposed) Cost per trip Hauling cost per year (current) Hauling cost per year (proposed) Yearly Savings Number 35 9 $400 $14,000 $3,600 $10,400 Units Trips Trips Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
The annual cost savings do not show the additional capital cost savings that would occur by not having to construct additional sludge holding facilities and aeration capabilities.
6.4.4
GREEN PROJECT RESERVE CONCLUSION
The incremental green benefits realized by upgrading the existing wastewater treatment plant to a Fluidyne SBR are significant, both environmentally and financially. The environmental benefits include, but are not limited to: Lower energy use Less demand on power generating facilities Reduced vehicle trips Fewer emissions generated Small volume of biosolids that must be accepted off site
48
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Smaller treatment works footprint Reduced odor from anaerobic sludge digestion Reduced biological nutrients in effluent discharge Improved receiving stream quality
The financial benefits achieved by improving sustainability are significant. Those savings are summarized below:
Table 17. Cost Savings Summary Item Category #1 Category #2 Total: Amount $5,892/year $10,400/year $16,292/year
Given the substantial environmental and economic benefits, the District believes that $870,327 of the project costs is eligible for the Green Project Reserve Program. The costs are detailed as follows:
Table 18. Green Project Reserve Eligible Costs Item WWTP Equipment Package Concrete Tanks Excavation WWTP Treatment Building Equipment Installation Engineering Design Fees Grand Total Cost $292,600 $290,000 $25,000 $40,000 $125,000 $97,727 $870,327
The project therefore qualifies for inclusion into the GPR program by meeting the requirement that at least 20% ($400,000) of the projects costs qualify for the program.
6.5 PROJECT COSTS

The following engineers opinion of probable cost has been prepared for this project:
Table 19. Conceptual Engineers Opinion of Probable Costs Division: Item: 1 Contractor General Requirements
Quantity: Unit Cost: 1 LS
Item Cost: $50,000
49
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
2 Site Construction Site Clearing Rock Breaking/Crushing Excavation Bedding Backfill & Grading Site Piping Site Restoration Erosion Control Demo Existing WWTP & Phasing of New WWTP Remove and Replace Chain Link Fencing 3 Concrete Precast Tanks (ISAM x 2, SAM x 2, EQ x 1) Cast in Place Concrete (SBR Tanks x 2) Miscellaneous Concrete (Barscreen, Building Slab, Generator Pad) 5 Metals Hatches/Stairs/Guardrail 6-10 Building Related Controls & Blower Building
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS
$7,500 $75,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $45,000 $7,400 $5,000 $125,000 $25,000
1 1 1
LS LS LS
$175,000 $115,000 $40,000
LS
$20,000
LS
$40,000
11 Equipment Wastewater Process Treatment Equipment (Package by Manufacturer) Headworks (Automatic Barscreen) Flow Measurement (Flume & Ultrasonic Flow Meter) Autodialer/SCADA Backup Generator Chemical Metering (3 duty: 1 shelf spare) Miscellaneous Equipment Installation 15 Mechanical HVAC Labor & Materials
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS
$269,200 $30,000 $6,000 $10,000 $30,000 $10,000 $15,000 $125,000
LS
$15,000
50
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
Electrical (not including bringing three phase 16 power to site) Line Voltage Electrical Improvements Instrumentation and Controls Contractor Overhead & Profit: Contingency: Subtotal: SRF Activity Coordination, Application, & Community Involvement Design Engineering (Process, Civil, Geotechnical, Structural, Electrical, HVAC): Bidding & Construction Engineering Consulting: Permit Fees (to CDPHE) Additional Items, Fees, and Contingency Grand Total:
1 1 10.0% 10.0%
LS LS
$75,000 $30,000 $140,510 $140,510 $1,686,120 $15,000
5.75% 5.5%
$96,954 $92,737 $9,190 $100,000 $2,000,000
6.6 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Construction of the improvements is anticipated for some time in 2014. The date of construction is dependent upon a number of factors, not all of which are under the control of the District. The following milestones highlight the anticipated schedule. The final schedule, however, is dependent upon a number of factors, such as approval time and weather:
Table 20. Implementation Schedule Date Second Quarter of 2012 Second Quarter of 2012 Third Quarter of 2012 Fourth Quarter of 2012 Fourth Quarter of 2012 Second Quarter of 2013 Fourth Quarter 2013 Fourth Quarter of 2013 First Quarter of 2014 Fourth Quarter of 2014 Item Submit PER & Site Application to CDPHE Submit SRF Loan Application to CDPHE Obtain SRF Loan Approval from CWRPDA Obtain Site Application Approval from CDPHE Commence Work on Final Design Submit Final Plans & Specifications to CDPHE Obtain Final Approval from CDPHE and Bid Project Award Contract for Project Begin Construction Facility Start-up
6.7 PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITS APPLICATION AND SITE APPLICATION

The preliminary effluent limits for the project are attached to this report. The District will submit
51
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
for Site Application approval with the Preliminary Engineering Report for concurrent review by the WQCD.
6.8 PROCESS DESIGN

A process design report will be submitted to the WQCD after Site Application approval and funding is obtained for the project.
6.9 FINAL DESIGN

Final design documents will be submitted to the WQCD after the process design report is approved and funding is obtained.
6.10
DISCHARGE PERMIT
The District anticipates working with the CDPHE staff on the development of a discharge permit to replace the permit that expired on its own terms in May of 2010, but has been administratively extended.
6.11
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
Due to the limited scope and magnitude of the project, only a minimum of additional permits will be required. At a minimum, the District (or its contractor) will apply for and obtain a building permit from Jefferson County prior to commencement of any construction.
52
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
ABBREVIATIONS
(Not all may be included in this report) ATS AWDBO BNR BDL BWL CDPHE cf CWL cy DRCOG ft g GPR gpd gpm HMI Hp HWL I&I kw kwh LS LWL MBR MCL MLSS MG MGD mg/L g/L min N/A NaOCl NaHSO3 O&M Automatic Transfer Switch AquaWorks DBO, Inc. Biological Nutrient Reduction below detection level bottom water level Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment cubic feet cycle water level cubic yards Denver Regional Council of Governments feet gram Green Project Reserve gallons per day gallons per minute human machine interface horsepower high water level inflow and infiltration kilowatt kilowatt hour lump sum low water level membrane biological reactor maximum contaminate level mixed liquor suspended solids million gallons million gallons per day milligrams per liter micrograms per liter minutes not applicable sodium hypochlorite sodium bisulfite operation and maintenance
53
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
PER PEL ppm RAS SBR SCFM SWL RTU TSS TWL WWTF WQCD WAS
Preliminary Engineering Report Preliminary Effluent Limits parts per million return activated sludge sequencing batch reactor standard cubic feet per minute settle water level remote telemetry unit total suspended solids top water level wastewater treatment facility Water Quality Control Division waste activated sludge
54
AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
REFERENCES
AquaWorks DBO, Inc., (February 2010) . Water Treatment Improvements: System Improvements, Construction Application & Project Summary. Greenwood Village. AquaWorks DBO, Inc., (January 2011) . Technical, Managerial, and Finacial Plan. Mountain Water & Sanitation District. Greenwood Village. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (2010). Guidance Document for the Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works. Denver. Denver Regional Council of Governments (2007). Wastewater Utility Plan Guidance Document. Denver. Enviroquip, Emico Water Technologies. (2011). http://enviroquip.com/products/pdf/207.pdf. Kubota Submerged Membrane Unit. (2011). http://env.kubota.co.jp/ksmu/introducton/. Lindeburg, M. R. (2003). Civil Engineering Reference Manual (9th Edition). Belmont, CA: Professional Publications. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Cincinnati. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Envirofacts Warehouse. Retrieved February 14 , 2011 from http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.detail_report?npdesid=CO0022730
APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Site Application Form (Amendment of an Existing Site Application) Preliminary Effluent Limits dated October 18, 2011 Site Application Amendment and Design Approval #3431 Letter Historic Flow and Loading Results Rates & Charges effective January 1, 2012 20-Year Financial Projections Ovivo microBLOX Proposal Fluidyne Proposal Ashbrook Simon-Hartley Proposal Preliminary Drawings o Cover o Abbreviations & Symbols o Service Area o 5-Mile Radius Map o Zoning Map o Existing Site Plan o Existing WWTP Layout o Proposed Site Plan o Phasing Plan o Process Flow Schematic o Hydraulic Profile o SBR Equipment Plan o Building & Hatch Plan
CDPHE CHECKLIST
Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report Guidance & Review Checklist Form Name of Project: Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project Applicant: Mountain Water & Sanitation District 12365 Highway 285 Conifer, CO 80433 AquaWorks DBO, Inc. 5325 S. Valentia Way Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 838-1800
Consultant:
(303) 477-5915
Type of Project: Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade WQCD District Engineer: WQCD Project Manager: Scott Garncarz Section (Suggested Outline)
(1) Executive Summary (2) Planning Conditions
(303) 692-2374 Addressed on Page (Applicant) Complete (Reviewer)
Necessary Elements (Guidance)
Briefly summarize the system needs, selected alternative, overall costs, and environmental benefits of the proposed project. This section should contain an overview of the significant regional features defining the context of the report and proposed project. Displaying much of the information in map and tabular formats is highly recommended for ease of review and discussion. Include map(s) of the current and projected service area for the 20-year planning period; identify environmental features such as streams, lakes, wetlands, and floodplains for the entire planning area. This documentation does not require field surveys and may 5 be obtained from existing data sources such as the National Wetlands Inventory, FEMA and USGS. All or parts of this discussion may be referenced if covered in the Environmental Assessment Report in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If the proposed project is within the boundaries of a 208 Agency or regional council of governments (COG), address conformance with the 208 Plan in 7 relation to service area boundaries, population projections, and whether or not the project is identified in the 208 Plan.
(2.1) Planning Area
(2.2) 208 Plan Coordination
Section (Suggested Outline)

(2.3) Growth Areas and Population Trends

Summarize population projections for the project planning area for a 20-year planning period; compute and compare recent growth rates with projected growth rates; compute estimated increases in equivalent residential units (EQRs); identify growth boundaries and specific areas of concentrated growth; and reference information sources. Briefly summarize current flows and projections (average day, peak day, and peak hour) for the project planning area for a 20-year period; infiltration and inflow impacts; and flow reduction measures such as water conservation practices. Identify wasteload projections for major effluent parameters such as BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorus, metals, etc.
Addressed on Page (Applicant)
Complete (Reviewer)
(2.4) Wastewater Flow Forecasts
(2.5) Wasteload Forecasts
10
(3) Description of Existing Facilities (3.1) Service Area Features
(3.2) Area Discharge Permits (3.3) Facilities Layout and Description
(3.4) Wastewater Flows
(3.5) Financial Status and Users
This section should provide a description of the existing treatment and collection facilities. On the planning area map, identify the locations of municipal and industrial treatment plants, sludge management areas and facilities, pretreatment plants, 12 pumping sites and any significantly developed areas served by onsite or unconventional systems. Identify all other discharge permits for facilities discharging to the same stream segment as the existing 12 treatment facilities. Provide a schematic layout and describe existing facilities including design capabilities and condition of existing treatment processes. Highlight dates major 12 system components were constructed and remaining useful life. Describe the existing wastewater flows/influent characteristics (including toxic pollutants), discharge permits, and overload conditions. Identify any combined sewer systems, locations of bypasses and 13 overflows. Discuss and analyze the average, peak, dry, and wet weather flows. Provide information on current infiltration and inflow as well as flow reduction impacts. Discuss the financial status of the current wastewater system including O & M costs, existing debt, rate structure and other capital improvement programs. 13 Also include a tabulation of volumes used by types of users (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) for the most recent typical fiscal year.

(4) Project Purpose and Need (4.1) Compliance (4.2) Security (4.3) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) (4.4) Growth
Complete (Reviewer)
This section should document the applicable reasons for considering modifications to the existing facilities. Include a discussion of the systems current and future discharge permit compliance status. Identify any vulnerability assessment concerns. Identify O&M issues such as operational constraints, water loss and adequate controls. Identify growth related needs such as approaching 80% of design capacity and expanding for proposed future growth; considerations for phasing capacity increases and consolidating systems. Provide reasons for projected future growth during the planning period; identify support by additional revenues and local and regional planning. 15 15 15
15
(5) Assessment of Alternatives
(5.1) Description
(5.2) Design Criteria
(5.3) Environmental Impacts (5.4) Land
This section should contain a description of the reasonable alternatives (no action, building new centralized facilities, optimizing the current facilities, interconnecting with other existing facilities, and developing centrally managed small cluster or individual facilities) that were considered in planning a solution to meet the identified needs. Consolidation of treatment facilities should be evaluated in accordance with WQCD Policy on Consolidation of Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works. The alternatives should be consistent with those considered in the environmental review. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental effects must be integrated into the project design. Complete assessments should be grouped by alternative and should include information requested in (5.1) through (5.8) below: Describe and compare all feasible wastewater treatment technologies including new technologies that have been thoroughly tested and installed or piloted with successful operating and compliance track records, and 17 the facilities including collection facilities (systems and alignments, including infiltration and inflow aspects) associated with each alternative. State the design parameters, including effluent limitations, used for evaluation purposes of each alternative. The parameters must comply with state regulatory requirements and the State of Colorados 32 Design Criteria Considered in the Review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Ref. WQCD Policy 96-1). Describe direct and indirect impacts unique to each alternative on floodplains, wetlands, wildlife habitat, 32 historical and archaeological properties, etc., including any projected permits and certifications. Identify sites and easements, as well as permits and 33

Requirements

certifications required for each alternative, and specify if the properties are currently owned, to be acquired or leased by the applicant. Discuss concerns such as subsurface rock, high water table, limited access, or other conditions that may affect cost of construction or operation of a facility for each alternative. Discuss, in general terms, the staffing requirements, certification level requirements, and the expected basic operating configuration and process control complexities for each alternative. Provide cost estimates for each alternative including breakdowns for construction, non-construction, and annual operations and maintenance, as well as a present worth analysis for each alternative. A reasonable discount rate should be used for determining the present worth of the uniform series of O&M values (in todays dollars) and the salvage value. Describe, in a narrative format, how each alternative affects the applicants current and future needs with respect to financial, managerial, and operational resources; how each alternative complies with regulatory requirements and existing comprehensive area-wide development plans; and how each alternative satisfies public and environmental concerns. Summarize, in a matrix rating system, the advantage and disadvantages of each alternative for clarity.
Complete (Reviewer)
(5.5) Construction Problems
33
(5.6) Operational Aspects
34
(5.7) Cost Estimates
35
(5.8) Advantages/ Disadvantages
35
(6) Selected Alternative (6.1) Justification of Selected Alternative
(6.2) Technical Description
This section should contain the description of the chosen alternative. Include basic hydraulic profiles, basin sizes, detention times, etc. The Water Quality Control Division considers this as a 10% design submittal. Demonstrate the recommended alternative is the most favorable based on monetary and non-monetary considerations covered in section 5 above. Address whether or not the technology is addressed in the state 38 design criteria. Typically, any new technology or technologies not yet used in Colorado require a submission to the Technical Services Unit (TSU) for the New Technologies Committee. Describe the major features - treatment plant, collection lines, and lift stations; schematic flow diagram; unit processes and sizes; sewer length and sizes; preliminary effluent limits; design criteria detention 39 times, overflow rates, process loadings, removal efficiencies, initial design flow, reserve capacity, adequate collection system capacity (existing and proposed); pre-treatment needs; flood proofing

requirements; final bio-solids disposal options and costs; and cost saving/pollution prevention measures such as energy conservation and sale of biosolids. To facilitate the environmental determination process, we require the Environmental Assessment Checklist be completed for the selected alternative and included as an appendix to the PER. This document can be found on the CDPHE WQCD FSU website : http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/FinancialSolutions/in dex. Describe any green components incorporated into the selected alternative. The components should be categorized as one or more of the following four EPA definitions: Green Infrastructure, Water Efficiency, Energy Efficiency or Environmentally Innovative. Reference: April 21, 2010 EPA Procedures for implementing Certain Provisions of EPAs Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs, Attachment 2: 2010 Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 20% Green Project Reserve: Guidance for Determining Project Eligibility. This document can be found on the CDPHE WQCD FSU website : http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/FinancialSolutions/in dex.html Provide more detailed project related capital costs, operation and maintenance budget staffing, training, materials, electricity, lab expenses, residual disposal etc.; replacement costs; compare current and proposed user rates; and 20-year cash flow projection spreadsheet. Hold a public meeting with 30-day notice period and summarize outcome; financing recommendations; required legal arrangements and/or intergovernmental agreements; a schedule and/or time line required for the general implementation steps outlined below in 6.5a6.5e. (Some of these time lines will overlap.) Include as part of the implementation plan, the PEL and site applications and associated time schedule with those activities. Typically there should be 4-6 weeks for application and receipt of PELs. Site approval is typically 6-8 weeks once the Division receives a complete application. PELs must be a part of a complete site application. Signatures required in the site application typically require the applicant to get on the meeting agendas of the Management Agencies,
Complete (Reviewer)
(6.3) Environmental Review of Selected Alterative
43
(6.4) Green Project Reserve
43
(6.5) Costs
49
(6.6) Project Implementation
51
(6.6a) Preliminary Effluent Limits (PEL) Application and Site Application
51

(6.6b) Process Design

County Commissioners and Local Boards of Health. This report should be submitted after site application approval and prior to final design. Include date and time frame (minimum WQCD review time is 30 days). (Ref. WQCD Policy 96-1; Sec. 1.3.0) Include approximate date and time frame (minimum Division review time is 45 days). (Ref. WQCD Policy 96-1; Sec.1) Minimum application time is 180 days prior to discharge. (Ref. WQCD Regulation 61). Indicate the need for storm water permit application and any 401/404, CDOT and railroad permit applications and time schedules.
Complete (Reviewer)
52
(6.6c) Final Design
52 52 52
(6.6d) Discharge Permit (6.6e) Miscellaneous Permits
Prepared By: Adam Sommers, P.E.
Date: March 29, 2012
Reviewed By: ____________________________________________
Date:____________________
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, B2 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 303-692-3500
Regulation 22 Domestic Wastewater Step 2: Application Form Section 22.8: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval
Regulation 22 Application Form Section 22.8 of Regulation 22: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval
A. Project and System Information System Name Project Title County Date Fee Paid or payment attached Design Company Name Design Engineer Address Email Phone Applicant / Entity Representative Name/Title Address Email Phone
Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project Jefferson County
Invoice Number and Check Number CO License Number
AquaWorks DBO, Inc. Adam Sommers, P.E. 5325 South Valentia Way Greenwood Village, CO 80111 adam@aquaworksdbo.com 303.477.5915 Mountain Water & Sanitation District Mr. Kenneth A. Pfohl, President 12365 Highway 285 Conifer, CO 80433 mwsd@quest.net 303.838.1800
Fax Fax
38,169
303.838.7960
B. Type of Site Application Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval Disinfection Changes Only (Section 22.8(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation 22) Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval All other Amendment Requests (Section 22.8 Regulation 22) C. Project Information Location (existing or proposed site) Brief location description Legal Description (e.g., Township, Range) County Latitude Longitude Funding Process Proposed Project Capacity Maximum Month Average Hydraulic Capacity in million 0.1 MGD gallons per day (MGD) Peak Hour Hydraulic Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) Organic Capacity (lbs. BOD5/day) Treatment Facility Only No Yes
Same location as existing facility. NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 6S, Range 41W Jefferson 39 29 32N 105 20 46W
0.21 MGD 366 lbs. BOD5/day
Will a State or Federal grant or loan be sought to finance any portion of the project (e.g., State Revolving Fund)?
If yes, please list project number
Project Schedule and Cost Estimate Estimated Bid Opening Date Fall 2013 Estimated Completion Date Fall 2014 Estimated Project Cost $2,000,000
Revised August 2010
Page 1 of 4
Regulation 22 Domestic Wastewater Step 2: Application Form Section 22.8: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval
Regulation 22 Application Form Section 22.8 of Regulation 22: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval
Project and System Information Project Title System Name County Original site location approval number (please attach a copy of the approval letter) Original site location approval date CDPS discharge permit number CDPS discharge permit expiration date 1. Type of Site Amendment Liquid stream treatment process addition (22.8(2)(a)) Treatment process physical change (22.8(2)(b)(i-vii, except ii)) Treatment process physical change (22.8(2)(b)(ii)) Decrease in approved, rated design capacity (22.8(2)(c)) Increase in approved, rated design capacity (22.8(2)(c)) Reclaimed domestic wastewater addition or expansion (22.8(2)(d)) Discharge type change (22.8(2)(e)) 2. Site Amendment Description
Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project Mountain Water & Sanitation District Jefferson County #3431
June 8, 2007 CO-0022730 May 31, 2010 (Facility is operating under an administrative extension)
Please submit Regulation 22 Application, Section 22.8 (2)(b)(ii) of Regulation 22: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval Disinfection Changes Only
The Mountain Water and Sanitation District provides wastewater treatment services to approximately 900 customers within their service area. The existing wastewater treatment facility, constructed in the early 1980s, utilizes a rotating biological contactor (RBC) treatment process. The existing RBC plant meets current discharge permit limits; however, the facility is nearing the end of its design life and will likely not be able to meet more stringent pending discharge limits, specifically ammonia effluent limits. Because of the impending obsolescence of the existing facility, the district would like to replace the existing wastewater treatment system with a new system that will serve the residents of the district for the long term. The district is therefore seeking site application approval to replace the existing RBC treatment facility with a Sequencing Batch Reactor. The new facility will be able to meet stricter discharge permit limits, specificity BOD, TSS, ammonia, and total nitrogen. The replacement facility will also be able to operate using less energy and create less biosolids than the existing facility does. The replacement facility will maintain the same permitted limits of 0.1 MGD of hydraulic flow and 366 PPD of BOD. Please refer to the Preliminary Engineering Report for details.
Revised August 2010
Page 2 of 4
3.Comparison of Existing and Proposed Treatment Facilities a. Treatment Capacity i. Hydraulic capacity: Maximum Month Average (million gallons per day) ii. Hydraulic capacity: Peak Hour (million gallons per day) iii. Organic capacity: Maximum Month Average (lbs BOD5/day) b. Treatment Facility Process Description Existing Treatment Facility 0.1 MGD 0.21 MGD (174 GPM) 366 PPD Rotating Biological Contactor After Proposed Treatment Process Modification(s) 0.1 MGD 0.21 MGD (174 GPM)
366 PPD Sequencing Batch Reactor
c. Effluent disposal method (check all that apply) Surface Discharge to watercourse Location of discharge (stream segment and legal description) Groundwater Discharge Land application Treated Effluent Reuse (Regulation 84) Evaporation Other (enter description) 4. Additional Factors
Please identify any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your site location application. Response:
Please see attached Preliminary Engineering Report.
Revised August 2010
Page 3 of 4
Regulation 22 Domestic Wastewater Step 2: Application Form Section 22.8: Applicant Certification and Review Agencies Notification List
Applicant Certification and Review Agencies Notification List Section 22.8 of Regulation 22: Amendment of an Existing Site Location Approval
A. Project and System Information System Name Project Title County
Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Project Jefferson County
1. Applicant Certification I certify that I am familiar with the requirement of Regulation 22 - Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works. Applicant Legal Representative (e.g., Public Works Director) Date Typed Name Signature President, Board of Directors Kenneth A. Pfohl
The system legal representative is the legally responsible agent and decision-making authority (e.g. public works director, mayor, president of a board, owner). The Consulting Engineer is not the legal representative and cannot sign this form.
2. Review Agencies Notification List As required in Section 22.8(1), the amendment application and any amendment proposal supporting documentation must be submitted to all appropriate local governments, 208 planning agencies and State agencies, as defined in 22.4(2). The review agencies will have 15 working days from receipt of the application to review and comment directly to the Division unless a brief extension is requested in writing. Please list below the governmental review agencies to whom the amendment application and proposal has been submitted and attach a copy of the transmittal letter. Management Agency, if different from other entities listed below Typed Name / Agency County, if proposed facility is located in unincorporated areas of a county Typed Name / Agency Jefferson County City or Town, if site is located within three miles of the City/Town boundary Typed Name / Agency Notification Date
Notification Date
Notification Date
Local Health Authority Typed Name / Agency Jefferson County Environmental Health Services 208 Planning Agency Typed Name / Agency Notification Date Notification Date
Other State or Federal Agencies, if facility is located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency Typed Name / Agency Notification Date Colorado Department of Transportation
Revised August 2010
Page 4 of 4
October 18, 2011 Terry Miers Mountain Water & Sanitation District 12365 US Highway 285 Conifer, CO 80433 Re: PEL200348, Mountain Water and Sanitation District WWTF Dear Ms. Miers: The Water Quality Control Division (Division) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has prepared, per your request, the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs) for the proposed upgrade to the Mountain Water and Sanitation District (Mountain WSD) wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). These effluent limits were developed as detailed in the attached document, for use as one of the submittals in your application for Site Approval. With a hydraulic design capacity of 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharge into an unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch, which is identified as stream segment COSPUS05c, the Mountain WSD WWTF will require an individual permit. PELs developed for this facility are based on the water quality standards for the receiving stream identified in the PEL application, and/or on technology based limitations established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62). As explained in the attached document, these limitations have been developed based on the water quality standards for the receiving stream, the ambient water quality of the receiving stream, the calculated low flows, the stated design flow of the facility, technology based limitations established in the Regulations for Effluent Limitations (Regulation No. 62), applicable federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), and where necessary the antidegradation regulations, mixing zone policies, and any designation of a receiving stream by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) fish. A determination of which PELs ultimately apply in a permit will be dependent on decisions made by the permittee regarding treatment facilities, discharge type, industrial contributions, industrial sector, applicable water quality standards, receiving streams, design flows, parameters of concern, reasonable potential analyses, or other information presented to the Division at the time of application. Table 1 contains a summary of the limitations that have been developed in this PEL, for which the proposed treatment facility will be evaluated against, under the Site Approval Process. This evaluation will include a determination of whether the proposed treatment facility as designed, can meet these limitations. A new wastewater treatment facility will be expected to meet the limitations for these parameters upon commencement of discharge. 1
Table 1 Preliminary Effluent Limits for Evaluation under the Site Approval Process Discharge to Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch at a Design Flow of 0.1 MGD
BOD5 (mg/l) BOD5 (% removal) TSS, mechanical plant (mg/l) TSS, mechanical plant (% removal) Oil and Grease (mg/l) pH (s.u.)
Other Pollutants
45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) 85 (30-day average) 45 (7-day average), 30 (30-day average) 85 (30-day average) 10 (maximum) 6.5-9.0 (minimum-maximum)
WQBELs
E. coli (#/100 ml) Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l) Total Ammonia, January (mg/l)
Total Ammonia, February (mg/l) Total Ammonia, March (mg/l) Total Ammonia, April (mg/l)
Total Ammonia, May (mg/l) Total Ammonia, June (mg/l) Total Ammonia, July (mg/l) Total Ammonia, August (mg/l) Total Ammonia, September (mg/l) Total Ammonia, October (mg/l) Total Ammonia, November (mg/l) Total Ammonia, December (mg/l)
252 (7-day average), 126 (30-day average) 0.019 (daily maximum), 0.011 (30-day average) 16 (daily maximum), 4.9 (30-day average) 18 (daily maximum), 5.1 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 14 (daily maximum), 4.6 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 16 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 17 (daily maximum), 4.3 (30-day average) 18 (daily maximum), 4.5 (30-day average) 17 (daily maximum), 4.6 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.8 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average) 15 (daily maximum), 4.7 (30-day average)
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (303) 692-3608. Sincerely,
Eric T. Oppelt, P.E. Assessment Based Permits Unit Water Quality Control Division PEL Approved By:
Andrew Neuhart Assessment Based Permits Unit Manager Water Quality Control Division cc: Melanie Criswell, WQCD Engineering Section PEL200348 file
Mountain WSD WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits
PEL200348
Preliminary Effluent Limitations Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch Mountain Water and Sanitation District WWTF
Table of Contents
I. PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 III. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 4 Narrative Standards .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides .............................................................................................. 4 Salinity ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Segment Specific Numeric Standard ........................................................................................................................... 6 Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations.................................................................................................... 7 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 Colorados Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List .................................................................................................................................. 7 IV. RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 Low Flow Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Mixing Zones ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Ambient Water Quality................................................................................................................................................ 9 V. FACILITY INFORMATION AND POLLUTANTS EVALUATED ........................................................................................ 9 Facility Information .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Pollutants of Concern ................................................................................................................................................. 9 VI. DETERMINATION OF WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (WQBELS) .............................................. 10 Technical Information ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Calculation of WQBELs ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Agricultural Use Parameters (SAR and EC): ........................................................................................................... 13 VII. ANTIDEGRADATION EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction to the Antidegradation Process ............................................................................................................ 13 Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution ........................................................................................... 14 New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs) ................................................................................. 14 Calculation of Loadings for New or Increased Impact Test ..................................................................................... 15 Calculation of Non-Impact Limitations..................................................................................................................... 16 VIII. TECHNOLOGY BASED LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 17 Regulations for Effluent Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 17 IX. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
I. Preliminary Effluent Limitations Summary

Table A-1 includes summary information related to this PEL. This summary table includes key regulatory starting points used in development of the PEL such as: receiving stream information; threatened and endangered species; 303(d) and Monitoring and Evaluation listings; low flow and facility flow summaries; and a list of parameters evaluated.
Appendix A
Page 1 of 18
Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
Mountain WSD WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits Table A-1 PEL Summary Facility Information Design Flow (max 30-day ave, MGD) 0.1
PEL200348
Facility Name
PEL Number
Mountain WSD WWTF Receiving Stream Name Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch
PEL200348 Receiving Stream Information
Design Flow (max 30day ave, CFS) 0.15
Segment ID
Designation
Classification(s) Aquatic Life Cold 2, Recreation Class U, Agriculture, Water Supply
COSPUS05c
Undesignated
Low Flows (cfs) 1E3 (1-day) 0 T & E Sp eci es No 7E3 (7-day) 0 30E3 (30-day) 0 Regulatory Information Ratio of 30E3 to the Design Flow (cfs) 0:1
303(d) (Reg 93)
Monitor and Eval (Reg 93)
Existing TMDL
Temporary Modification(s)
Control Regulation
Ammonia
None
No
NH3 (ac/ch) = Existing quality (Type iii). Expires 12/31/2011.
None
Pollutants Evaluated Ammonia, E. coli, TRC, SAR, EC
II.
Introduction
The Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PEL) for an unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch near the Mountain WSD WWTF, located in Jefferson County, is intended to determine the assimilative capacities available for pollutants found to be of concern. This PEL describes how the water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) are developed. These parameters may or may not appear in the permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as Appendix A Page 2 of 18 Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
PEL200348
reasonable potential analysis, evaluation of federal effluent limitation guidelines, implementation of state-based technology based limits, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species listing, or other requirements as discussed in the permit rationale. Figure A-1 contains a map of the study area evaluated as part of this PEL.
FIGURE A-1
The Mountain WSD WWTF discharges to an unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch, which is stream segment COSPUS05c. This means the South Platte River Basin, Upper South Platte Subbasin, Stream Segment 05c. This segment is composed of the Mainstem of Gooseberry Gulch and all tributaries to it from its source to Sunset Trail. Stream segment COSPUS05c is classified for Aquatic Life Cold 2, Recreation Class U, Water Supply and Agriculture. There are no other point source contributors to this stream segment. The segment has a temporary modification that sets the acute and chronic ammonia standards to the existing quality until the 12/31/2011. Due to the imminent change to this standard, the recommended effluent limits for ammonia will be described in this PEL for the standards that will apply after 12/31/2011. Appendix A Page 3 of 18 Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
PEL200348
Information used in this assessment includes data gathered from the Mountain WSD WWTF, Division, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The data used in the assessment consist of the best information available at the time of preparation of this PEL analysis.
III. Water Quality Standards

Narrative Standards Narrative Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(1) of the regulations, and apply to any pollutant of concern, even where there is no numeric standard for that pollutant. Waters of the state shall be free from substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source discharges in amounts, concentrations or combinations which: for all surface waters except wetlands; (i) can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses. Depositions are stream bottom buildup of materials which include but are not limited to anaerobic sludge, mine slurry or tailings, silt, or mud; or (ii) form floating debris, scum, or other surface materials sufficient to harm existing beneficial uses; or (iii) produce color, odor, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or harm existing beneficial uses or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic species or to the water; or (iv) are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life; or (v) produce a predominance of undesirable aquatic life; or (vi) cause a film on the surface or produce a deposit on shorelines; and for surface waters in wetlands; (i) produce color, odor, changes in pH, or other conditions in such a degree as to create a nuisance or harm water quality dependent functions or impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic species of the wetland; or (ii) are toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life of the wetland. In order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements for any parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits.
Standards for Organic Parameters and Radionuclides Radionuclides: Statewide Basic Standards have been developed in Section 31.11(2) and (3) of The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water to protect the waters of the state from radionuclides and organic chemicals. In no case shall radioactive materials in surface waters be increased by any cause attributable to municipal, industrial, or agricultural practices or discharges to as to exceed the following levels, Appendix A Page 4 of 18 Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
PEL200348
unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. Standards for radionuclides are shown in Table A-2. Table A-2 Radionuclide Standards Parameter Americium 241* Cesium 134 Plutonium 239, and 240* Radium 226 and 228* Strontium 90* Thorium 230 and 232* Tritium Picocuries per Liter 0.15 80 0.15 5 8 60 20,000
*Radionuclide samples for these materials should be analyzed using unfiltered (total) samples. These Human Health based standards are 30-day average values for both plutonium and americium.
Organics: The organic pollutant standards contained in the Basic Standards for Organic Chemicals Table are applicable to all surface waters of the state for the corresponding use classifications, unless alternative site-specific standards have been adopted. These standards have been adopted as interim standards and will remain in effect until alternative permanent standards are adopted by the Commission. These interim standards shall not be considered final or permanent standards subject to antibacksliding or downgrading restrictions. Although not reproduced in this PEL, the specific standards for organic chemicals can be found in Regulation 31.11(3). In order to protect the Basic Standards in waters of the state, effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements for radionuclides, organics, or any other parameter of concern could be put in CDPS discharge permits. The aquatic life standards for organics apply to all stream segments that are classified for aquatic life. The water supply standards apply only to those segments that are classified for water supply. The water + fish standards apply to those segments that have a Class 1 aquatic life and a water supply classification. The fish ingestion standards apply to Class 1 aquatic life segments that do not have a water supply designation. The water + fish and the fish ingestion standards may also apply to Class 2 aquatic life segments, where the Water Quality Control Commission has made such determination. Because the Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch is classified for Aquatic Life Cold 2, with a water supply designation, the water supply and aquatic life standards apply to this discharge. Salinity Salinity: The Divisions policy, Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops, may be applied to discharges where an agricultural water intake exists downstream of a discharge point. Limitations for electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio may be applied in accordance with this policy. Temperature Appendix A Page 5 of 18 Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
PEL200348
Temperature shall maintain a normal pattern of diurnal and seasonal fluctuations with no abrupt changes and shall have no increase in temperature of a magnitude, rate, and duration deemed deleterious to the resident aquatic life. This standard shall not be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with section 25-8-104, C.R.S. Segment Specific Numeric Standards Numeric standards are developed on a basin-specific basis and are adopted for particular stream segments by the Water Quality Control Commission. The standards in Table A-3 have been assigned to stream segment COSPUS05c in accordance with the Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin. Table A-3 In-stream Standards for Stream Segment COSPUS05c
Physical and Biological Dissolved Oxygen (DO) = 6 mg/l, minimum pH = 6.5 - 9 su E. coli chronic = 126 colonies/100 ml Temperature April-Oct =18.3 C MWAT and 23.9 C DM Temperature Nov-March = 9 C MWAT and 13 C DM Inorganic Total Ammonia acute and chronic = TVS Chlorine acute = 0.019 mg/l Chlorine chronic = 0.011 mg/l Free Cyanide acute = 0.005 mg/l Sulfide chronic = 0.002 mg/l Boron chronic = 0.75 mg/l Nitrite acute = 0.05 mg/l Nitrate acute = 10 mg/l Chloride chronic = 250 mg/l Sulfate chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000 or 250 mg/l Metals Dissolved Arsenic acute = 340 g/l Total Recoverable Arsenic chronic = 0.02 - 10 g/l Dissolved Cadmium acute for trout and Dissolved Cadmium chronic = TVS Total Recoverable Trivalent Chromium acute = 50 g/l Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Copper acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Iron chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000, or 300 g/l Total Recoverable Iron chronic = 1000 g/l Dissolved Lead acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Manganese chronic = For WS, the greater of ambient water quality as of January 1, 2000, or 50 g/l Dissolved Manganese acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Molybdenum chronic = 0 g/l Total Mercury chronic = 0.01 g/l Dissolved Nickel acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Selenium acute and chronic = TVS Dissolved Silver acute and Dissolved Silver chronic for trout = TVS Dissolved Zinc acute and chronic = TVS Nonylphenol acute = 28 g/l Nonylphenol chronic = 6.6 g/l Total Recoverable Beryllium chronic = 4 g/l
Appendix A
Page 6 of 18
PEL200348
Arsenic Range: For chronic total recoverable arsenic, the range of standards applies at the point of intake to a water supply. The nearest surface water intake is more than six miles downstream, and this discharge is unlikely to impact this source. The nearest groundwater intake is more than 2 miles downstream, and is not hydrologically connected to the surface water at this point. Therefore the drinking water standard for arsenic will not be applied however, the agricultural standard for total recoverable of 100 g/l would apply, based on Regulation 31. Table Value Standards and Hardness Calculations As metals with standards specified as TVS are not included as parameters of concern for this facility, the hardness value of the receiving water and the subsequent calculation of the TVS equations is inconsequential and is therefore omitted from this PEL. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Regulation 93 Colorados Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List This stream segment is on the 303(d) list of water quality impacted streams for ammonia. For a receiving water placed on this list, the Restoration and Protection Unit is tasked with developing the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the Waste Load Allocation (WLAs) to be distributed to the affected facilities. WLAs for ammonia have not yet been established and the allowable concentration calculated in the following sections may change upon further evaluation by the Division. This stream segment is not listed on the Divisions monitoring and evaluation list.
IV. Receiving Stream Information

Low Flow Analysis The Colorado Regulations specify the use of low flow conditions when establishing water quality based effluent limitations, specifically the acute and chronic low flows. The acute low flow, referred to as 1E3, represents the one-day low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on an acute standard. The 7-day average low flow, 7E3, represents the seven-day average low flow recurring in a 3 year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a Maximum Weekly Average Temperature standard (MWAT). The chronic low flow, 30E3, represents the 30-day average low flow recurring in a three-year interval, and is used in developing limitations based on a chronic standard. Although there is periodic flow in the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch upstream of the Mountain WSD WWTF, the 1E3 and 30E3 monthly low flows are set at zero based on information provided by the local Water Commissioner. For this analysis, low flows are summarized in Table A4.
Appendix A
Page 7 of 18
Mountain WSD WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits Table A-4
PEL200348
Low Flows for Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch at the Mountain WSD WWTF WWTF
Low Flow (cfs) 1E3 Acute 7E3 Chronic 30E3 Chronic Annual 0 0 0 Jan 0 0 0 Feb 0 0 0 Mar 0 0 0 Apr 0 0 0 May 0 0 0 Jun 0 0 0 Jul 0 0 0 Aug 0 0 0 Sep 0 0 0 Oct 0 0 0 Nov 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 0
The ratio of the low flow of Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch to the Mountain WSD WWTF WWTF design flow is 0:1 Note that since the low flow has been determined to be zero, the ambient water quality discussion is unnecessary and has therefore been deleted in this PEL. This is explained in more detail under the Technical Information discussion in Section VI.
Mixing Zones The amount of the available assimilative capacity (dilution) that may be used by the permittee for the purposes of calculating the WQBELs may be limited in a permitting action based upon a mixing zone analysis or other factor. These other factors that may reduce the amount of assimilative capacity available in a permit are: presence of other dischargers in the vicinity; the presence of a water diversion downstream of the discharge (in the mixing zone); the need to provide a zone of passage for aquatic life; the likelihood of bioaccumulation of toxins in fish or wildlife; habitat considerations such as fish spawning or nursery areas; the presence of threatened and endangered species; potential for human exposure through drinking water or recreation; the possibility that aquatic life will be attracted to the effluent plume; the potential for adverse effects on groundwater; and the toxicity or persistence of the substance discharged. Unless a facility has performed a mixing zone study during the course of the previous permit, and a decision has been made regarding the amount of the assimilative capacity that can be used by the facility, the Division assumes that the full assimilative capacity can be allocated. Note that the review of mixing study considerations, exemptions and perhaps performing a new mixing study (due to changes in low flow, change in facility design flow, channel geomorphology or other reason) is evaluated in every permit and permit renewal. If a mixing zone study has been performed and a decision regarding the amount of available assimilative capacity has been made, the Division may calculate the water quality based effluent limitations (WQBELs) based on this available capacity. In addition, the amount of assimilative capacity may be reduced by T&E implications. For this facility, 100% of the available assimilative capacity may be used as the facility has not had to perform a mixing zone study, the discharge is not to a T&E stream segment, and is not expected to have an influence on any of the other factors listed above.
Appendix A
Page 8 of 18
PEL200348
Since the receiving stream has a zero low flow as calculated above, the WQBELs would be equal to the WQS, and therefore consideration of full or reduced assimilative capacity is inconsequential. Ambient Water Quality The Division evaluates ambient water quality based on a variety of statistical methods as prescribed in Section 31.8(2)(a)(i) and 31.8(2)(b)(i)(B) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 31, and as outlined in the Divisions Policy for Characterizing Ambient Water Quality for Use in Determining Water Quality Standards Based Effluent Limits (WQP-19). The ambient water quality was not assessed for Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch because the background in-stream low flow condition is zero, and because no ambient water quality data are available for the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch upstream of the Mountain Water and Sanitation District WWTF discharge.
V.
Facility Information and Pollutants Evaluated
Facility Information The Mountain WSD WWTF is located at in the SW 1/4 of S28, T6S, R71W, 6th P.M.; 12365 Highway 285, Conifer, CO in Jefferson County. The current and proposed design capacity of the facility is 0.1 MGD (0.15 cfs). Wastewater treatment is proposed to be accomplished using a mechanical wastewater treatment process. The technical analyses that follow include assessments of the assimilative capacity based on this design capacity. The Mountain WSD WWTF is the sole known point source contributor to the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch. No other point sources were identified as dischargers to the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch upstream of the confluence North Fork of the South Platte River. Due to the in-stream low flow of zero, the assimilative capacities during times of low flow are not affected by nearby contributions. Therefore, modeling nearby facilities in conjunction with this facility was not necessary.
Pollutants of Concern Pollutants of concern may be determined by one or more of the following: facility type; effluent characteristics and chemistry; effluent water quality data; receiving water quality; presence of federal effluent limitation guidelines; or other information. Parameters evaluated in this PEL may or may not appear in a permit with limitations or monitoring requirements, subject to other determinations such as a reasonable potential analysis, mixing zone analyses, 303(d) listings, threatened and endangered species listings or other requirement as discussed in a permit rationale. There are no site-specific in-stream water quality standards for BOD5 or CBOD5, TSS, percent removal, and oil and grease for this receiving stream. Thus, assimilative capacities were not determined for these parameters. The applicable limitations for these pollutants can be found in Regulation No. 62 and will be applied in the permit for the WWTF.
Appendix A
Page 9 of 18
PEL200348
The following parameters were identified by the Division as pollutants to be evaluated for this facility:

Total Residual Chlorine E. coli Ammonia Temperature SAR and EC
Based upon the size of the discharge, the lack of industrial contributors, and the fact that no unusually high metals concentrations are expected to be found in the domestic wastewater effluent, metals are not evaluated further in this Preliminary Effluent Limitations. According to the Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of the South Platte River, there are no existing public water supply uses in segment COSPUS05c, or in the next segment downstream from the Mountain WSD WWTF. For this reason, the nitrate standard, which is applied at the point of intake to a water supply, is not evaluated as part of this analysis. During assessment of the facility, nearby facilities, and receiving stream water quality, no additional parameters were identified as pollutants of concern.
VI. Determination of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)

Technical Information Note that the WQBELs developed in the following paragraphs, are calculations of what an effluent limitation may be in a permit. The WQBELs for any given parameter, will be compared to other potential limitations (federal Effluent Limitations Guidelines, State Effluent Limitations, or other applicable limitation) and typically the more stringent limit is incorporated into a permit. If the WQBEL is the more stringent limitation, incorporation into a permit is dependent upon a reasonable potential analysis. In-stream background data and low flows evaluated in Sections II and III are used to determine the assimilative capacity of the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch near the Mountain WSD WWTF for pollutants of concern, and to calculate the WQBELs. For all parameters except ammonia, it is the Divisions approach to calculate the WQBELs using the lowest of the monthly low flows (referred to as the annual low flow) as determined in the low flow analysis. For ammonia, it is the standard procedure of the Division to determine monthly WQBELs using the monthly low flows, as the regulations allow the use of seasonal flows. The Divisions standard analysis consists of steady-state, mass-balance calculations for most pollutants and modeling for pollutants such as ammonia. The mass-balance equation is used by the Division to calculate the WQBELs, and accounts for the upstream concentration of a pollutant at the existing quality, critical low flow (minimal dilution), effluent flow and the water quality standard. The mass-balance equation is expressed as:
Appendix A
Page 10 of 18
Mountain WSD WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits M2 Where, M 3Q 3 M 1Q1 Q2
PEL200348
Q1 = Upstream low flow (1E3 or 30E3) Q2 = Average daily effluent flow (design capacity) Q3 = Downstream flow (Q1 + Q2) M1 = In-stream background pollutant concentrations at the existing quality M2 = Calculated WQBEL M3 = Water Quality Standard, or other maximum allowable pollutant concentration When Q1 equals zero, Q2 equals Q3, and the following results:
M2 M3
Because the low flow (Q1) for the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch is zero, the WQBELs for Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch for the pollutants of concern are equal to the in-stream water quality standards. A more detailed discussion of the technical analysis is provided in the pages that follow.
Calculation of WQBELs Using the mass-balance equation provided in the beginning of Section VI, the acute and chronic low flows set out in Section IV, ambient water quality as discussed in Section IV, and the in-stream standards shown in Section III, the WQBELs for were calculated. The data used and the resulting WQBELs, M2, are set forth in Table A-7a for the chronic WQBELs and A-7b for the acute WQBELs. When the ambient water quality exceeds the in-stream standard, the Division standard procedure is to allocate the water quality standard to prevent further degradation of the receiving waters. Chlorine: There are no point sources discharging total residual chlorine within one mile of the Mountain WSD WWTF. Because chlorine is rapidly oxidized, in-stream levels of residual chlorine are detected only for a short distance below a source. Ambient chlorine was therefore assumed to be zero. E. coli: There are no point sources discharging E. coli within one mile of the Mountain WSD WWTF. Thus, WQBELs were evaluated separately. In the absence of E. coli ambient water quality data, fecal coliform ambient data are used as a conservative estimate of E. coli existing quality. For E. coli, the Division establishes the 7-day geometric mean limit as two times the 30-day geometric mean limit and also includes maximum limits of 2,000 colonies per 100 ml (30-day geometric mean) and 4,000 colonies per 100 ml (7-day geometric mean). This 2000 colony limitation also applies to discharges to ditches. Temperature: Appendix A Page 11 of 18 Last Revised by EO 10/18/11
PEL200348
The 7E3 low flow is 0 in all months, so the discharge is assumed to be to an effluent dependent (ephemeral stream without the presence of wastewater) water, therefore in accordance with Regulation 31.14(14), no temperature limitations are required at this time.
Table A-5a Chronic WQBELs

Parameter E. coli (#/100 ml) TRC (mg/l) Q1 (cfs) 0 0 Q2 (cfs) 0.17 0.17 Q3 (cfs) 0.17 0.17 M1 1 0 M3 126 0.011 M2 126 0.011
Table A-5b Acute WQBELs

Parameter TRC (mg/l) Q1 (cfs) 0 Q2 (cfs) 0.17 Q3 (cfs) 0.17 M1 0 M3 0.019 M2 0.019
Ammonia: The Ammonia Toxicity Model (AMMTOX) is a software program designed to project the downstream effects of ammonia and the ammonia assimilative capacities available to each discharger based on upstream water quality and effluent discharges. To develop data for the AMMTOX model, an in-stream water quality study should be conducted of the upstream receiving water conditions, particularly the pH and corresponding temperature, over a period of at least one year. There were no pH or temperature data available for the Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch, and only pH data available for the WWTF that could be used as adequate input data for the AMMTOX model. Therefore, the Division standard procedure is to rely on statistically-based, regionalized data for pH and temperature compiled from similar facilities and receiving waters. The AMMTOX may be calibrated for a number of variables in addition to the data discussed above. The values used for the other variables in the model are listed below: 0.4d Stream velocity = 0.3Q Default ammonia loss rate = 6/day pH amplitude was assumed to be medium Default times for pH maximum, temperature maximum, and time of day of occurrence pH rebound was set at the default value of 0.2 su per mile Temperature rebound was set at the default value of 0.7 degrees C per mile. The results of the ammonia analyses for the Mountain WSD WWTF are presented in Table A-6.
Appendix A
Page 12 of 18
Mountain WSD WWTF Preliminary Effluent Limits Table A-6
PEL200348
AMMTOX Results for Unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch at the Mountain WSD WWTF WWTF
Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Ammonia Chronic (mg/l) 4.9 5.1 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 Total Ammonia Acute (mg/l) 16 18 15 14 15 16 17 18 17 15 15 15
Agricultural Use Parameters (SAR and EC): Section 31.11(1)(a)(iv) of The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Waters (Regulation No. 31) includes the narrative standard that State surface waters shall be free of substances that are harmful to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals, plants, or aquatic life. The interpretation of these conditions (i.e., no harm to plants and no harm to the beneficial uses) and how they were to be applied in permits were contemplated by the Division as part of an Agricultural Work Group, and culminated in the most recent policy entitled Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops (hereafter the Narrative Standards policy) Based on available information, the water in the unnamed tributary to Gooseberry Gulch is not currently used for irrigation water.
VII. Antidegradation Evaluation

Introduction to the Antidegradation Process The antidegradation process conducted as part of this Preliminary Effluent Limitations is designed to determine if an antidegradation review is necessary and if necessary, to complete the required calculations to determine the limits that can be selected as the antidegradation-based effluent limit (ADBEL), absent further analyses that must be conducted by the facility. As outlined in the Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural Guidance (AD Guidance), the first consideration of an antidegradation evaluation is to determine if new or increased impacts are expected to occur. This is determined by a comparison of the newly calculated WQBELs verses the existing permit limitations in place as of September 30, 2000, and is described in more detail in the analysis. Note that the AD Guidance refers to the permit limitations as of September 30, 2000 as the existing limits.
Appendix A
Page 13 of 18
PEL200348
If a new or increased impact is found to occur, then the next step of the antidegradation process is to go through the significance determination tests. These tests include: 1) bioaccumulative toxic pollutant test; 2) temporary impacts test; 3) dilution test (100:1 dilution at low flow) and; 4) a concentration test. As the determination of new or increased impacts, and the bioaccumulative and concentration significance determination tests require more extensive calculations, the Division will begin the antidegradation evaluation with the dilution and temporary impact significance determination tests. These two significance tests may exempt a facility from further AD review without the additional calculations. Note that the antidegradation requirements outlined in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water specify that chronic numeric standards should be used in the antidegradation review; however, where there is only an acute standard, the acute standard should be used. The appropriate standards are used in the following antidegradation analysis. Significance Tests for Temporary Impacts and Dilution This is not a temporary discharge and therefore exclusion based on a temporary discharge cannot be granted and the AD evaluation must continue. The ratio of the chronic (30E3) low flow to the design flow is 0:1, and is less than the 100:1 significance criteria. Therefore this facility is also not exempt from an AD evaluation based on the dilution significance determination test, and the AD evaluation must continue. For the determination of a new or increased impact and for the remaining significance determination tests, additional calculations are necessary. Therefore, at this point in the antidegradation evaluation, the Division will go back to the new or increased impacts test. If there is a new or increased impact, the last two significance tests will be evaluated. New or Increased Impact and Non Impact Limitations (NILs) To determine if there is a new or increased impact to the receiving water, a comparison of the new WQBEL concentrations and loadings verses the concentrations and loadings as of September 30, 2000, needs to occur. If either the new concentration or loading is greater than the September 2000 concentration or loading, then a new or increased impact is determined. If this is a new facility (commencement of discharge after September 30, 2000) it is automatically considered a new or increased impact. Note that the AD Guidance document includes a step in the New or Increased Impact Test that calculates the Non-Impact Limit (NIL). The permittee may choose to retain a NIL if certain conditions are met, and therefore the AD evaluation for that parameter would be complete. As the NIL is typically greater than the ADBAC, and is therefore the chosen limit, the Division will typically conclude the AD evaluation after determining the NIL. Where the NILs are very stringent, or upon request of a permittee, the Division will calculate both the NIL and the AD limitation so that the limitations can be compared and the permittee can determine which of the two limits they would prefer, one which does not allow any increased impact (NIL), or the other which allows an insignificant impact (AD limit).
Appendix A
Page 14 of 18
PEL200348
The non impact limit (NIL) is defined as the limit which results in no increased water quality impact (no increase in load or limit over the September 2000 load or limit). The NIL is calculated as the September 2000 loading, divided by the new design flow, and divided by a conversion factor of 8.34. If there is no change in design flow, then the NIL is equal to the September 2000 permit limitation. If the facility was in place, but did not have a limitation for a particular parameter in the September 2000 permit, the Division may substitute an implicit limitation. Consistent with the First Update to the AD Guidance of April 2002, an implicit limit is determined based on the approach that specifies that the implicit limit is the maximum concentration of the effluent from October 1998 to September 2000, if such data is available. If this data is unavailable, the Division may substitute more recent representative data, if appropriate, on a case by case basis. Note that if there is a change in design flow, the implicit limit/loading is subject to recalculation based on the new design flow. For parameters that are undisclosed by the permittee, and unknown to the Division to be present, an implicit limitation may not be recognized. This facility was in place as a discharger prior to September 30, 2000, and therefore the new or increased impacts test must be conducted. As the design flow for this facility is the same as it was in September 2000, the NILs are equal to the permit limitations as of September 2000. For total residual chlorine, the limitations as of September 2000 were used in the evaluation of new or increased impacts. For ammonia, data prior to 2000 were not available. Therefore data from 2005 - 2010 were determined to be adequate and were used to determine the implicit limitations. In accordance with the Divisions practice regarding E. coli, an implicit limit for E. coli is determined as 0.32 times the permit limit for fecal coliform. Calculation of Loadings for New or Increased Impact Test The equations for the loading calculations are given below. Note that the AD requirements outlined in The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water specify that chronic numeric standards should be used in the AD review; however, where there is only an acute standard, the acute standard should be used. Thus, the chronic low flows will be used later in this AD evaluation for all parameters with a chronic standard, and the acute low flows will be used for those parameters with only an acute standard. Previous permit load = Mpermitted (mg/l) Qpermitted (mgd) 8.34 New WQBELs load = M2 (mg/l) Q2 (mgd) 8.34 Where, Mpermitted Qpermitted Q2 M2 8.34 = September 2000 permit limit (or implicit limit) (mg/l) = design flow as of September 2000 (mgd) = current design flow (same as used in the WQBEL calculations) = new WQBEL concentration (mg/l) = unit conversion factor
Appendix A
Page 15 of 18
PEL200348
Calculation of Non-Impact Limitations The design flow of this facility as of September 30, 2000 was 0.1 MGD. The new design flow of this facility is also 0.1 MGD. To determine if new or increased impacts are to occur, the September 2000 permit concentrations need to be adjusted for this new design flow. The equations are shown below. September 2000 permit load = Mpermitted Qpermitted 8.34 Non Impact Limit (NIL) = September 2000 permitted load New Design Flow 8.34 Where, Mpermitted = September 2000 permit limit or implicit limit (mg/l) Qpermitted = September 2000 design flow (mgd) Q2 = new or current design flow (mgd) 8.34 = Unit conversion factor Table A-7 shows the results of these calculations and the determination of a new or increased impact. Table A-7 Determination of New or Increased Impacts
Pollutant E. coli (#/100 ml) TRC (mg/l) NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jan NH3, Tot (mg/l) Feb NH3, Tot (mg/l) Mar NH3, Tot (mg/l) Apr NH3, Tot (mg/l) May NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jun NH3, Tot (mg/l) Jul NH3, Tot (mg/l) Aug NH3, Tot (mg/l) Sep NH3, Tot (mg/l) Oct NH3, Tot (mg/l) Nov NH3, Tot (mg/l) Dec Sept 2000 Permit Limit NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sept 2000 Permit Load (lbs/day) NA 0.42 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NIL 6402 0.5 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 402 New WQBEL 126.0 0.011 4.9 5.1 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 New WQBEL Load (lbs/day) 1051 0.0092 4.1 4.3 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.9 New or Increased Impact No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
1 - Note that loading for E. coli cannot be calculated; but, for comparison purposes, the approach is sufficient. 2 Implicit NILs based either on the 2000 fecal coliform effluent limit, or effluent data for ammonia.
As shown in Table A-7, there are no new or increased impacts to the receiving stream based on the new WQBELS, and therefore the AD evaluation is complete, and AD limitations are not necessary. The WQBELs are the final result of this PEL.
Appendix A
Page 16 of 18
PEL200348
VIII.
Regulations for Effluent Limitations Regulation No. 62, the Regulations for Effluent Limitations, includes effluent limitations that apply to all discharges of wastewater to State waters, with the exception of storm water and agricultural return flows. These regulations are applicable to the discharge from the proposed discharge. Table A-8 contains a summary of the applicable limitations for pollutants of concern at this facility. Table A-8 Regulation 62 Based Limitations
Parameter BOD5 TSS, mechanical plant TSS, aerated lagoon TSS, non-aerated lagoon BOD5 Percent Removal TSS Percent Removal Total Residual Chlorine pH Oil and Grease 30-Day Average 30 mg/l 30 mg/l 75 mg/l 105 mg/l 85% 85% NA NA NA 7-Day Average 45 mg/l 45 mg/l 110 mg/l 160 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA Instantaneous Maximum NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 mg/l 6.0-9.0 s.u. 10 mg/l
IX. References
Regulations: The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, Regulation 31, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective January 1, 2011. Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, Regulation No. 38, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective June 30, 2011. Regulations for Effluent Limitations, Regulation 62, CDPHE, WQCC, March 30, 2008. Colorados Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List, Regulation 93, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission, effective April 30, 2010. Policy and Guidance Documents: Antidegradation Significance Determination for New or Increased Water Quality Impacts, Procedural Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, December 2001.
Appendix A
Page 17 of 18
PEL200348
Memorandum Re: First Update to (Antidegradation) Guidance Version 1.0, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, April 23, 2002. Rationale for Classifications, Standards and Designations of Segments of the South Platte River, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective June 30, 2009. Policy Concerning Escherichia coli versus Fecal Coliform, CDPHE, WQCD, July 20, 2005. Colorado Mixing Zone Implementation Guidance, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, effective April 2002. Policy for Conducting Assessments for Implementation of Temperature Standards in Discharge Permits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-23, effective July 3, 2008. Implementing Narrative Standards in Discharge Permits for the Protection of Irrigated Crops, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-24, effective March 10, 2008. Policy for Characterizing Ambient Water Quality for Use in Determining Water Quality Standards Based Effluent Limits, Colorado Department Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Policy Number WQP-19, effective May 2002.
Appendix A
Page 18 of 18
WWTP Influent Loading Calculations

DATE Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Average INFLUENT FLOW 30DAY AVG (MGD) 0.0370 0.0365 0.0357 0.1100 0.0722 0.0341 0.0311 0.0378 0.0374 0.0493 0.0454 0.0477 0.0470 0.0443 0.0432 0.0397 0.0372 0.0336 0.0365 0.0377 0.0432 0.0461 0.0534 0.0470 0.0521 0.0831 0.1096 0.1022 0.1585 0.0680 0.0554 0.0428 0.0411 0.0419 0.0464 0.0475 0.0475 0.0440 0.0444 0.0559 0.0512 0.0337 0.0273 0.0328 0.0320 0.0339 0.0380 0.0360 0.0350 0.0310 0.0340 0.0920 0.0650 0.0720 0.0370 0.0320 0.0350 0.0418 0.0550 0.0423 0.0427 0.0399 0.0507 0.0783 0.0700 0.0400 0.0310 0.0341 0.0268 0.0334 0.0402 0.0399 0.0401 0.0454 0.0382 0.0373 0.0388 0.0313 0.0310 0.0306 0.0302 0.0323 0.0344 0.0334 0.0464 INFLUENT FLOW DAILY MAX (MGD) 0.0497 0.0454 0.0483 0.2229 0.1940 0.0466 0.0401 0.0467 0.0485 0.0571 0.0585 0.0640 0.0615 0.0590 0.0570 0.0476 0.0475 0.0429 0.0578 0.0525 0.0598 0.0710 0.0695 0.0575 0.0665 0.1160 0.1550 0.3460 0.3235 0.0890 0.0694 0.0523 0.0542 0.0579 0.0601 0.0573 0.0604 0.0580 0.0593 0.0747 0.0639 0.0489 0.0397 0.0580 0.0440 0.0465 0.0820 0.0450 0.0490 0.0480 0.0450 0.3070 0.1200 0.1840 0.0500 0.0430 0.0460 0.0550 0.0690 0.0498 0.0522 0.0503 0.0972 0.1040 0.1200 0.0570 0.0372 0.0558 0.0363 0.0472 0.0511 0.0546 0.0467 0.0641 0.0465 0.0485 0.0505 0.0662 0.0421 0.0496 0.0378 0.0431 0.0442 0.0418 0.0731 INFLUENT FLOW TAKEN DAY OF BOD SAMPLE (MGD) 0.0368 0.0345 0.0354 0.0401 0.1210 0.0378 0.0332 0.0350 0.0351 0.0419 0.0429 0.0453 0.0484 0.0410 0.0349 0.0371 0.0411 0.0339 0.0373 0.0337 0.0505 0.0450 0.0650 0.0453 0.0436 0.0511 0.1276 0.0676 0.1946 0.0675 0.0435 0.0417 0.0542 0.0371 0.0485 0.0387 0.0425 0.0422 0.0363 0.0441 0.0539 0.0355 0.0231 0.0300 0.0287 0.0318 0.0446 0.0304 0.0335 0.0372 0.0328 0.0345 0.0634 0.1836 0.0416 0.0272 0.0303 0.0361 0.0613 0.0420 0.0434 0.0396 0.0413 0.0718 0.0556 0.0405 0.0299 0.0335 0.0257 0.0279 0.0374 0.0356 0.0374 0.0487 0.0410 0.0317 0.0334 0.0250 0.0354 0.0336 0.0297 0.0278 0.0329 0.0316 0.0455 INFLUENT BOD (MG/L) 532 207 441 281 141 194 403 298 356 237 464 340 478 378 248 364 242 572 319 462 271 181 388 199 327 277 466 211 143 194 265 281 319 190 372 205 564 395 158 167 146 235 268 187 236 301 468 609 1036 921 570 331 182 347 1020 768 636 270 395 213 193 129 368 394 150 201 74 103 65 298 257 164 169 197 311 177 206 192 198 187 156 210 246 242 316 BOD LOADING (LBS/DAY) 163 60 130 94 142 61 112 87 104 83 166 128 193 129 72 113 83 162 99 130 114 68 210 75 119 118 496 119 232 109 96 98 144 59 150 66 200 139 48 61 66 70 52 47 56 80 174 154 289 286 156 95 96 531 354 174 161 81 202 75 70 43 127 236 70 68 19 29 14 69 80 49 53 80 106 47 57 40 58 52 39 49 67 64 117 INFLUENT TSS 30-DAY AVG(MG/L) 410 70 810 304 136 90 480 176 465 280 395 364 73 330 94 453 147 453 172 430 172 100 90 240 267 308 820 148 183 194 104 248 290 123 336 86 513 245 54 77 86 271 87 59 148 161 630 1161 1289 1720 1467 256 200 476 1479 1465 2110 1300 688 915 1086 540 1095 668 261 915 215 250 277 561 300 105 86 150 166 115 113 75 83 76 84 102 74 142 408
MOUNTAIN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT RATES AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2012
Water and sewer charges are based upon per-gallon usage. There is a minimum charge of $35.17. The rate for 3300 gallons (or less) in a month is charged at a conservation rate and over is charged at a higher fee. A few examples are listed below. Increase on 1/1/2012 is approximately 5.3% on the monthly bill. Base fee $35.17 Per 1000 gallons up to 3300 $13.04 water/$7.73 sewer = $20.77 Per 1000 gallons over 3300 $19.94 water/$11.73 sewer = $31.67 Gallons Used in 30 day month Charge for Sewer and Water 0 $35.17 1200 $60.10 2700 $91.25 3600 $113.21 4500 $141.72 6500 $205.05 Availability of Service Monthly - Vacant Lot $30.00 Tap Fee - Water Service Tap Fee - Sewer Service Capital Improvement Fee TOTAL $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $40,500.00
$50.00 1st Rules & Regulations violation $250.00 2nd Rules & Regulations violation $500.00 3rd Rules & Regulations violation (plus water shut off) Connection Fee - Water Service $200.00 Connection Fee - Sewer Service $200.00 Turn On/Turn Off Fee $25.00/$25.00 Late Charge on unpaid balance on full service & availability bills 10% Penalty on unpaid Tap & CIF-10% immediate penalty and 1% interest shall accrue monthly $25.00 1st NSF Check Charge (plus actual bank charge) $50.00 2nd NSF Check Charge (plus actual bank charge) Prohibited Plumbing or Device Fine (ie:bypasses, unmetered water lines) $1,000.00 Fee To Transfer Service (One Time Fee billed to Seller) $25.00 Fee To Process Shut-Off Letter $25.00 Fee To Process New Service Application $25.00 Fee To Process County Certification $100.00 Fee To Process Lien On Property $150.00 Contractor License Fee/Renewal $100.00 Service Line Inspection Fee $50.00 Rules & Regulations Copy $5.00 Maps Copy $5.00 Copies - per side $ .10 cents Legal & Engineering fees for property development service agreements, Actual Cost of Service plan review & approval, construction monitoring & approval, etc.(may require escrow)
Available Resources: January 1 Revenues: Tax and/or operating revenue to pay debt Tax revenue for operations User charge revenue Contributions from customers - tap fees Late fees and other Total Revenues
2012 965,830
2013 1,032,541
2014 1,081,693
2015 1,082,006
2016 1,083,665
2017 1,093,856
2018 1,112,930
2019 1,135,571
2020 1,161,768
2021 1,166,509
2022 1,174,779
2023 1,186,562
2024 1,201,839
2025 1,220,590
2026 1,242,793
2027 1,268,423
2028 1,297,452
2029 1,329,849
2030 1,365,584
2031 1,404,620
2032 1,446,918
2033 1,492,439
50,000 86,066 462,862 46,500 372,434 881,796
100,000 87,787 486,005 48,000 1,349,434 1,883,439
150,000 89,543 505,445 49,500 1,349,434 1,904,379
150,000 91,334 525,663 51,000 349,434 926,097
150,000 93,161 546,690 52,500 356,423 955,612
150,000 95,024 568,557 54,000 363,551 986,108
150,000 96,924 585,614 55,500 370,822 1,011,936
150,000 98,863 603,182 57,000 378,239 1,038,421
150,000 100,840 621,278 58,500 385,803 1,065,581
150,000 102,857 639,916 60,000 393,519 1,093,436
150,000 104,914 659,114 61,500 401,390 1,122,003
150,000 107,012 678,887 63,000 409,418 1,151,305
150,000 109,152 699,254 64,500 417,606 1,181,360
150,000 111,336 720,231 66,000 425,958 1,212,189
150,000 113,562 741,838 67,500 434,477 1,243,815
150,000 115,834 764,093 69,000 443,167 1,276,260
150,000 118,150 787,016 70,500 452,030 1,309,546
150,000 120,513 810,627 72,000 461,071 1,343,697
150,000 122,923 834,945 73,500 470,292 1,378,738
150,000 125,382 859,994 75,000 479,698 1,414,692
150,000 127,890 885,794 76,500 489,292 1,451,586
150,000 130,447 912,367 78,000 499,078 1,489,445
Expenditures: Operations and Maintenance Capital outlay Debt service Total Expenditures 640,085 125,000 50,000 815,085 659,288 1,075,000 100,000 1,834,288 679,066 1,075,000 150,000 1,904,066 699,438 75,000 150,000 924,438 720,421 75,000 150,000 945,421 742,034 75,000 150,000 967,034 764,295 75,000 150,000 989,295 787,224 75,000 150,000 1,012,224 810,841 100,000 150,000 1,060,841 835,166 100,000 150,000 1,085,166 860,221 100,000 150,000 1,110,221 886,027 100,000 150,000 1,136,027 912,608 100,000 150,000 1,162,608 939,986 100,000 150,000 1,189,986 968,186 100,000 150,000 1,218,186 997,232 100,000 150,000 1,247,232 1,027,149 100,000 150,000 1,277,149 1,057,963 100,000 150,000 1,307,963 1,089,702 100,000 150,000 1,339,702 1,122,393 100,000 150,000 1,372,393 1,156,065 100,000 150,000 1,406,065 1,190,747 100,000 150,000 1,440,747
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Available Resources: December 31
66,711 1,032,541
49,152 1,081,693
313 1,082,006
1,659 1,083,665
10,191 1,093,856
19,074 1,112,930
22,641 1,135,571
26,197 1,161,768
4,741 1,166,509
8,270 1,174,779
11,783 1,186,562
15,277 1,201,839
18,751 1,220,590
22,203 1,242,793
25,629 1,268,423
29,029 1,297,452
32,398 1,329,849
35,734 1,365,584
39,036 1,404,620
42,299 1,446,918
45,521 1,492,439
48,699 1,541,138
TWENTY YEAR FINANCIAL PROJECTION FOR DISTRICT 12 MARCH22
OvivoUSA,LLC 2404RutlandDrive AustinTX 78758 USA Telephone:512.834.6000 Facsimile:512.834.6039 www.ovivowater.com
microBLOXPreliminaryProposal
MountainWater&SanitationDistrict,CO
OvivoProposal#0922111SMBR0 September26,2011
Copyright2010GLV.Allrightsreserved.
ThisdocumentisconfidentialandshallremainthesolepropertyofOvivo.ThisdocumentmaynotbereproducedordistributedwithoutpriorwrittenapprovalofOvivo.Thedataandinformation providedisfurnishedonarestrictedbasisandisnottobeusedinanywaydetrimentaltotheinterestsofOvivo.
microBLOX System
RTO (Ready-to-Operate) Enviroquip MBR Systems
Key features & benefits

Complete, Ready-to-Operate MBR System High solids operation Gravity filtration Simple, single-stage process Small footprint Easily located, deployable Lowest complexity of any MBR system
How we create value

Guaranteed to meet most stringent nutrient limits 25% - 50% lower total installed cost >5x less waste solids hauling 12 week delivery (2 weeks for submittals) Highest reuse quality effluent All replacement parts in stock (72 hr delivery) Comprehensive service plans available
www.ovivowater.com Copyright 2011 GLV. All rights reserved.
microBLOX System
microBLOX Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) systems are fully functional solutions to wastewater treatment problems and are ideally suited for a wide range of applications, including, but not limited to: housing developments, state parks, rest areas, isolated communities, military camps, shopping malls, golf courses, resorts, casinos, sewer mining (scalping), some industrial and more.
Why use a microBLOX System?

Lowest Total Cost of Ownership
Total installed and operating costs can be lower than all other comparable technologies.
The Most Space Efficient

At higher flow and/or pollutant loading, a microBLOX system can treat more waste than any other technology in a given footprint (maximum unit capacity up to 62,500 gpd).
microBLOX technology was designed and engineered to be extremely simple to operate and optimize. This singlestage process uses one set of blowers to provide mixing, air scouring and process oxygen. For higher strength waste, concentrated oxygen can be efficiently added to the process on an as needed basis. Each system can be guaranteed to meet the most stringent nutrient limits and online monitoring is available for ammonia, nitrates and phosphorus in the effluent. Backed by one of the largest water companies in the world, Ovivo, microBLOX systems are built on the experience of the Enviroquip MBR system with our over 130 operating plants in the US and 330 plants worldwide.
Most Reliable
Considered Best Available Technology (BAT), microBLOX systems are guaranteed to meet the most stringent nutrient limits and to produce the highest, reuse quality effluent over a broad range of operating conditions.
Single Source Responsibility

There is only one number to call for technical support, parts or service (with parts delivery in 72 hrs).
Built for Operators by Operators

All components are accessible; no electrical components are located in mixed liquor. Full remote monitoring capabilities using easily configurable phone application.
62,500 GPD microBLOX plant is easily installed and ready-to-operate. Systems can be contained within a Hidden in Plain SightTM building.
www.ovivowater.com Copyright 2011 GLV. All rights reserved.
microBLOX Range
Standard Systems
Each microBLOX system comes equipped as a fully functioning, ready-to-operate MBR system, including: Fine screening (1) Integrated, tested process tankage (2) Equalization Zone (3) WAS Zone (4) KUBOTA submerged membrane units (5) Pre-wired, factory tested equipment (6) Remote monitoring controls
Treated Effluent Quality

Parameters BOD5 Ammonia (NH3) Phosphorus (TP) Fecal Coliform TSS Typical Values < 2.0 mg/l < 1.0 mg/l < 1.0 mg/l < 2.0 mg/l Achievable Values Non Detectable < 3.0 mg/l < 0.3 mg/l < 0.03 mg/l Non Detectable
Total Nitrogen (TN) < 10.0 mg/l
< 2.2 CFU/100 ml Non Detectable
Options
Several options are available to tailor the capabilities of each microBLOX system to meet specific project needs including: Online nutrient monitoring Winterization packages Chemical dosing (add. carbon, pH, coagulants) Permeate disinfection Permeate pumping (7) Concentrated oxygen delivery systems (8) Removal of color and certain contaminants of concern
4 5 6
2
The Ready-to-Operate microBLOX system will arrive onsite pre-assembled as show above. Skid mounted add-on options are available (as shown) for enhanced treatment.
The Process
A microBLOX system can be configured to run in flow-through or batch modes depending on site conditions and treatment goals. As shown below, influent (raw wastewater) is screened before filling a dedicated Equalization Zone. Equalized wastewater is then pumped into a single-stage MBR process designed to operate over a range of dissolved oxygen conditions to achieve nutrient removal targets. For smaller, municipal applications, process oxygen is delivered exclusively by membrane aeration. Biologically treated wastewater is then gravity filtered (or pumped) using KUBOTA membranes to produce reuse quality effluent with only one tank; there is no recycle, no mechanical mixing and no fine bubble diffusers. For higher strength wastes (e.g. light industrial or commercial), or to increase hydraulic throughput, options are available using various oxygen concentrator technologies. Oxygen makeup and delivery systems are completely skid mounted and easy to setup requiring only a few field connections. The onboard controls system is equipped with programming necessary for seamless integration. Unlike other MBR systems, a microBLOX system integrates solids thickening into the biological process to keep waste solids handling costs down and to improve overall reliability. As necessary, partially digested, thickened solids are wasted to an integral Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) Storage Zone. WAS can be stored at 2% - 3% solids, which can reduce hauling frequencies by more than 5 times that of conventional (package) technologies using sedimentation for solid/liquid separation.
Simplified Flow Diagram

Sludge Disposal (2% - 3% Solids) WAS Gravity WAS Basin Optional Supplemental Oxygen
Fine Screen
Membranes Pump Forward EQ Basin Equipment Porch
Influent
Effluent
www.ovivowater.com
Copyright 201 GLV. All rights reserved 1
Kubota is a registered trademark of the Kubota Corporation
microBLOXDesignSummary MountainWaterandSanitationDistrict(AAF50,000GPD)
BasisofDesign
Parameter AverageAnnualFlow(AAF) MaxMonthFlow(MMF) PeakWeekFlow(PWF)** PeakDayFlow(PDF)** PeakHourlyFlow(PHF)** Flow 50,000GPD 50,000GPD 50,000GPD* 50,000GPD* 50,000GPD* Temperature 15C* 10C* 10C* 10C* 10C* Influent 439mg/L 400mg/L* 50mg/L* 40mg/L* 8mg/L* 50mg/L* 300mg/L* 20C* 8,000ft* TypicalEventDuration 9consecutivemonths 3consecutivemonths 3nonconsecutiveweeks 8nonconsecutivedays 4hrswith24hrsbetweenPHF EffluentLimits <10mg/L <10mg/L <3mg/L* <2mg/L <1mg/L <10mg/L* <75mg/L* DesignDurations 9.0months* 3.0months* 3.0weeks* 8.0days* 4.0hours*
Parameter BOD TSS TKN NH3 TP TN Alkalinity MaximumWastewaterTemperature Elevation

* Value assumed by Ovivo, to be verified by consulting engineer. ** Peak values assumed to be equalized either through onboard or external methods.
microBLOX(Membrane)Design
Parameter No.ofMembraneBasins No.ofMembraneUnitsperBasin MembraneUnitType No.ofCartridgesperUnit SurfaceAreaperCartridge DesignFlux MembraneBasinVolume MembraneAirScourRateforSizing AORSuppliedbyAirScour MBRBasinMLSS Value 2 1 RM200 200 15.6ft2/cartridge 8.01gal/(ft2xday) 8,126gal/basin 70scfm/unit 80lbO2/day 20,000mg/L Notes 2unitstotal cartridge:515HP 400membranecartridgestotal DesignbasedonConstant(1)fluxoperation 7.8ftx14ftx10ftSWD @5.5PSIGdischarge TMPRangesfrom.53.0PSI
OnboardEQ/BufferTankDesign
Parameter BasinVolume InternalBasinDimensions Value 2,480gal 7.8ftx5ftx8.5ftSWD Notes
OnboardWASStorageTankDesign
Parameter BasinVolume InternalBasinDimensions Value 4,084gal 7.8ftx7ftx10ftSWD Notes
SupplementalO2DeliveryDesign
Parameter O2inWaterSaturationDevice SupplementalOxygenVolume Value MazzeiAirJection 133lbsO2/day Notes
MBRWasteActivatedSludgeProductionParameters
Parameter WASSludgeProduction SludgeConcentration SludgeFlow Value 121lbssludge/day 2.00% 723galsludge/day Notes solids
SystemDesignParameters
Parameter PlantHRT DesignPlantSRT Value 7.8hours 12days Notes
Copyright 2011 GLV. All rights reserved.
100107-1-XYZ-R0
Design Summary, Page 1
microBLOXDesignSummary MountainWaterandSanitationDistrict(AAF50,000GPD)
EQtoMBRPumpDesign
Parameter Pumps Type UnitCapacity TDH Value 2 ProgressiveCavity 44.5gpm 15.0ft Notes 1Duty,1Standby
SupplementalO2PumpDesign
Parameter Pumps Type UnitCapacity TDH Value 2 ProgressiveCavity 100GPM 40.0ft Notes 1Duty,1Standby
PermeatePumpDesign
Parameter Pumps Type PermeateDesignFlow Value 2 ProgressiveCavity 39GPM Notes 1Duty,1Standby SuctionDesign Flow=50,000GPD(CapacityIncludesRelax)
BlowerDesign
Parameter MBRBlowers Type UnitMBRBlowerCapacity MBRBlowerDischargePressure Value 2 Regenerative 120SCFM 5.5PSIGdischarge Notes 2duty&1standby
microBLOXSystemPowerFeedRequirements
Parameter Voltage Current Phase Frequency Value 460V 200A 3phase 50/60Hz Notes EstimateOnly! EstimateOnly!
ChemicalCleaningDesign
Parameter Cleaningchemical(organicfouling) TypicalCleaningSchedule VolumeperMembrane VolumeofCleaningSolution CleaningSolutionConcentration Volumeof12.5%Stocksolution Cleaningchemical(inorganicfouling) TypicalCleaningSchedule VolumeperMembrane VolumeofCleaningSolution CleaningSolutionConcentration Volumeof100.0%Stocksolution Value SodiumHypochlorite 14 1.35gal/cartridge 270.0gal/basin 0.25% 5gal/basin/cleaning OxalicAcid 12 1.35gal/cartridge 270.0gal/basin 1.0% 3gal/basin/cleaning Notes 4times/yr cleanings/basin/yr
2times/yr cleanings/basin/yr
100107-1-XYZ-R0
Design Summary, Page 2
microBLOXSummaryScopeofSupply MountainWaterandSanitationDistrict(AAF50,000GPD)
FixedScopeofSupply
Item (1)TransportableTankSystem (1)IntegratedEquipmentPorches(PrimaryLower) (1)IntegratedEquipmentPorches(PrimaryUpper) (1)IntegratedEquipmentPorches(SecondaryLower) (1)IntegratedEquipmentPorches(SecondaryUpper) (1)OnboardEqualization/BufferTank (1)FineScreen(xpdesign) (1)SecondFineScreen(installedstandby) (1)ContinuousBaggerAssembly&(1)BagCassette (1)EqualizationtoMBRTransferpump (1)SecondEqualizationtoMBRTransferpump(installedstandby) (1)OnboardWASTank (1)SubmergedMembraneUnit(oneperMBRtank) (1)SecondSubmergedMembraneUnits(oneperMBRTank) (1)OutfittedMBRTank(piping,supports,etc) (1)SecondoutfittedMBRTankwithHydraulicLink/Isolation (1)AirScourBlower (1)SecondAirScourBlower(requiredforsecondSMU) (1)InstalledStandbyAirScourBlower (1)PermeateFlowMeter (1)PermeatePump(requiredforsuctionsystems) (1)SecondPermeatePump(installedstandby) Rawmaterialsforfabrication(railing,stair/ladder,unistrut) ControlsSystem(scada,hmi,plc,mcp) SystemFabrication&Assembly(Labor) Startup,Inspection,Training Value Type Length Length Length Length Length Model Model Model Model Model Length Model Model Length Length Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Specification RioBravo(44.2fttank) 8.5ftx12.5ft 8.5ftx12.5ft 8.5ftx4.33ft 8.5ftx4.33ft 7.8ftx5.0ftx8.5ft(2,480gal) EnviroquipFS600 EnviroquipFS600 innoKomLongofillLongopac SeepexBW10 SeepexBW10 7.8ftx7ftx10ft(4,084gal) RM200 RM200 7.76ftx14ftx10ft(8,126gal) 7.76ftx14ftx10ft(8,126gal) RietschleElmoSAH235 RietschleElmoSAH235 RietschleElmoSAH235 Endress&HauserPromag10W SeepexBW10 SeepexBW10 EnviroquipFabrication Enviroquip/Integrator EnviroquipFabrication EnviroquipFieldService
EquipmentOptions
Item (1set)VentedTankCovers (1)AlumMeteringSystem(chempump) Value Model Model Specification RioBravo BlueWhite
SupplementalO2 Transfer System

Item (1)SupplementalO2 Transfer Pump (1)SecondSupplementalO2TransferPumps(installedstandby) (1)MazzeiSupplementalO2 Injector (1)O2 Concentrator System Startup,Inspection,TrainingforSupplementalO2 system Value Model Model Model Model Model Specification NetzchNM063BY02S14V NetzchNM063BY02S14V Mazzei2081injector PCIDOCS66 EnviroquipFieldService
100107-1-XYZ-R0
Scope Summary, Page 1
11'103/4"
B
FROMPUMPSTOSDOXSKID
TOPERMEATE COLLECTION
3'10"
FROMSDOXSKIDTO MBRBASINS
1'71/2" 2'10" 10'101/8"
1'0"
1'10"
C
43'0"
COPYRIGHT 2010 GLV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - REV E
THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION
THISDRAWINGCONTAINSCONFIDENTIALPROPRIETARYINFORMATIONOFOVIVO,ANDITS AFFILIATES,ANDISNOTTOBEDISCLOSEDNORTOBEUSEDEXCEPTFOREVALUATING PROPOSALSOFOVIVOORINSTALLING,OPERATINGORMAINTAININGOVIVOEQUIPMENT. UNLESSOTHERWISEAUTHORIZEDINWRITINGBYOVIVO.UNCONTROLLEDCOPYIFPRINTED
Bringing water to life

MICROBLOX RM200 PUMPED THREE UV
DWG. NO.
REF. FROM DATE (mm/dd/yy) 5/18/2011 GDG
DO NOT SCALE PRINTS

WORKMANSHIP STANDARD WI-7501-01 APPLIES
INITIALRELEASE REVISIONDESCRIPTION
EN/ECO
BY
CHECK'D
DATE
A REV
DRAWN CHECK'D
ORIGINAL S.O.
RMPMP3UV
SHEET 1 OF 3
REV
4'4"
4"
7'7" EQ01
4"
3'2" WAS01
4"
13'11"
4"
12'8"
CIP01
MB02
8'6"
FS01 MB01
VIEW A-A
SECTION B-B
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW INFLUENT
2'11"
3'0"
VIEW C-C
2'3"
10"
63/4"
VIEW D-D
OVIVO
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY GLV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - REV E
DO NOT SCALE PRINTS DWG. WORKMANSHIP STANDARD WI-7501-01 NO. APPLIES
RMPMP3UV
SHEET 2 OF 3
REV
OVIVO
COPYRIGHT 2010 BY GLV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - REV E
DO NOT SCALE PRINTS DWG. WORKMANSHIP STANDARD WI-7501-01 NO. APPLIES
RMPMP3UV
SHEET 3 OF 3
REV
CORPORATION
THE EXPERIENCED LEADER IN SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR TECHNOLOGY
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR PROCESS
ISAM
THE EXPERIENCED LEADER IN SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

TRUST FLUIDYNES EXPERIENCE The Fluidyne ISAM Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system incorporates the latest technology and two decades of experience in providing the most reliable system with the highest effluent quality. Fluidyne SBR systems have operated around the World and won numerous awards including the 1997 USEPA Grand Award for the best operated and maintained WWTP in the Nation in the Large, Non-Discharging (water reclamation) category for the Bartow, Florida plant. Fluidyne SBRs consistently provide better than 10/10/5/1 (BOD5/TSS/N/TP) effluent quality. The Bartow plant has consistently produced better than 3/3/3/1 effluent quality. FLUIDYNE PREPACKAGED SBRS The Fluidyne prepackaged ISAM SBR is available for average influent flows from 1,000 GPD to 50,000 GPD. Each unit is shipped complete; prewired and prepiped.
A TOTALLY NEW CONCEPT IN SBR DESIGN The Fluidyne ISAM Sequencing Batch Reactor system is a single train SBR system which incorporates a constant level anaerobic selector chamber, followed by a surge/anoxic/mix (SAM) tank , and one or more SBR basins. In operation, all influent flow enters the anaerobic basin where influent solids are allowed to settle much like a primary clarifier. Elimination of primary solids in the anaerobic basin allows for much smaller SBR basins at equivalent SRT than conventional SBRs. The anaerobic selector also creates soluble carbon as a food source for biological nutrient removal through anaerobic conversion of settleable BOD to soluble BOD. The influent then flows to the SAM surge basin, or influent equalization basin. The surge basin provides flow and nutrient equalization to optimize treatment at the full range of flows and loadings. Several unique feature of the Fluidyne ISAM SBR include odor control and scum skimming. Mixed liquor is maintained in the SAM tank to immediately react with incoming flow from the anaerobic chamber to suppress odors and initiate and accelerate carbon and nitrogen reactions. Mixed liquor is recycled from the top of the SBR tank effectively removing scum by use of proprietary flow and scum control system. In addition, nitrates are recycled to the SAM tank for effective and rapid denitrification. Denitrification reactions are accelerated in the presence of the unreacted carbon from the raw sewage entering the SAM tank. Aeration and energy requirements are reduced as nitrates are fully reduced to nitrogen gas in the SAM tank. REDUCES WASTE SLUDGE BY 75% The Fluidyne ISAM Sequencing Batch Reactor incorporates an anaerobic selector chamber with the SAM SBR. The anaerobic selector not only provides consistent phosphorous removal by subjecting the recirculated biomass to anaerobic conditions, forcing the release of phosphorous, but also creates soluble carbon as a food source for phosphorous removal through anaerobic conversion of settleable BOD to soluble BOD. Additionally, anaerobic sludge digestion occurs in the anaerobic selector chamber, reducing waste solids production by up to 75% for the entire secondary process.
100% ON-LINE STANDBY EQUIPMENT Fluidynes prepackaged ISAM SBRs are furnished with spare mixing/fill pump and aerator assembly installed for 100% redundancy.
System Components: Influent flow enters the Anaerobic Chamber where influent solids settle much like a primary clarifier. Settlable BOD is converted to soluble BOD. The influent then flows to the SAM Reactor. Mixed liquor is maintained in the SAM Reactor to immediately react with incoming raw sewage to suppress odors and initiate and accelerate carbon and nitrogen reactions.
Fill Phase: When the level in the SAM Reactor reaches a predetermined set point, the motive liquid pump is started. SBR basin is filled and mixed. A variable percentage of the pumped flow is recycled to the Anaerobic Chamber where heavier solids settle. Recycle flow is varied to maintain desired MLSS concentration in SBR. Solids in Anaerobic Chamber are digested.
Interact Phase: When the level in the SBR basin reaches TWL, mixed liquor overflows the Surge Chamber weir, and is returned to the SAM Reactor through the Surge Jet to mix the SAM Reactor. A variable percentage of the pumped flow is recycled to the Anaerobic Chamber where heavier solids settle. Recycle flow is varied to maintain desired MLSS concentration in SBR. Aeration is cycled on and off to provide required aeration. Scum is removed from SBR basin. Solids in Anaerobic Chamber are digested.
Settle Phase: When the SAM reactor reaches a predetermined level, aeration is discontinued, and the SBR basin settles under perfect quiescent conditions. Solids in Anaerobic Chamber are digested.
Decant Phase: When the Settle time value is reached, the decant valve is opened and treated effluent is withdrawn from the upper portion of the reactor.
Filled Decant Phase: If SAM Reactor reaches TWL before decant phase ends, during peak hourly influent flows, influent overflows the overflow chamber, and is diffused at into the settled sludge at extremely low velocities.
THE EXPERIENCED LEADER IN SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR TECHNOLOGY The Fluidyne ISAM SBR system provides the following benefits,
1. Ability to handle highly variable flows and loading associated with the small flow plants. The ISAM is more flexible than continuous flow plants. Regardless of flows or loading, aeration and mixing can automatically be adjusted to optimize power and prohibit filamentous growth. 2. At high flows, solids cannot wash out as with extended aeration plants as the ISAM system has quiescent settle and decant. 3. ISAM facilities are easily expandable by adding a new tank. The additional tank does not require major changes in controls; only a new tank and associated equipment. 4. ISAM provides a small footprint with no digesters, secondary clarifiers, RAS piping and pumping. 5. ISAM produces the highest quality effluent. Typical Fluidyne ISAM facilities are achieving less than 10 mg/l BOD and TSS, less than 1 mg/l NH3-N, less than 5 mg/l total N, and less than 2 mg/l phosphorous. 6. Easy to operate and maintain as mechanical equipment is minimized with no chasing of sludge associated with extended aeration plants. 7. Use of self-aspirating jet aerators eliminate blowers and blower accessories. 8. Built in sludge reduction system using the Anaerobic Conditioner/Trash Trap significantly reduces sludge handling and hauling costs. 9. 100% stand-by aerator is included with the system to allow continuous operation with one unit out of service. 10. Built in flow equalization is provided in the ISAM reactor to handle peak hours. 11. Automatic scum skimming prior to effluent discharge provides highest quality effluent. 12. Exceptional after sales service by Fluidyne technicians. Fluidyne employees have been granted over 40 patents in wastewater and water treatment technology and equipment. 13. Reduced operation and maintenance costs as power usage is controlled through the Fluidyne control panel. 14. Installed cost is lower as the system comes with the in-basin equipment pre-installed 15. The Anaerobic Conditioner/Trash Trap is covered and raw wastewater reacts immediately with mixed liquor in an aerated environment, there are no odor concerns. Fluidyne Corporation 2816 West First Street Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 Phone: (319) 266-9967 Fax: (319) 277-6034 E-Mail: www.FluidyneCorp.com Fluidyne Florida 2202 Gold Oak Lane Sarasota, FL 34232 Phone: (941) 342-8915 Fax: (941) 342-9765 E-mail: ptiflorida@aol.com Fluidyne Canada 2348 Lucerne Rd, Suite 110 Town of Mount Royal, Quebec H3R2J8, Canada Phone: (514) 739-5363 Fax: (514) 739-5420 E-mail: fluidyne@attcanada.net
CORPORATION
5436 Nordic Drive, Suite D Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 Phone: (319) 266-9967 Fax: (319) 277-6034
Reply to: 2202 Gold Oak Lane Sarasota, Florida 34232 Phone: (941) 342-8915 E-mail: ptiflorida@aol.com
ISAM SBR with Jet Aeration System Design Calculations For Mountain W&S - WWTP Blower Assisted System
I. DESIGN CONDITIONS: Design flow Max month ADF Peak daily flow Peak hourly flow Influent BOD5 BOD5 removed in anaerobic chamber BOD5 to SBR Effluent BOD5 Influent TSS Removal in anaerobic chamber TSS to SBR Effluent TSS Influent TKN Effluent NH3-N Effluent total N Influent P Effluent P (Chemical feed required) Design MLSS (Full reactor) Design F:M SRT (SBR) SRT (SBR+SAM) Elevation Average barometric pressure II. BASIN DESIGN: Number of reactor basins Length Width Maximum SWD Minimum SWD Volume Retention time Concrete ISAM = = = = = = = Page 1 2 16 ft. 18 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 0.086 MG 20.7 hrs. Version 5.5. 06/11 0 in. 0 in. 0 in. 0 in. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = < = = = = = = 0.10 MGD 0.20 MGD (Assumed) 174 GPM (Assumed) 374 mg/L 30% 262 mg/L 218 lbs./day 30 mg/L 464 mg/L 65% 162 mg/L 30 mg/L 50 mg/L 42 lbs/day 4.3 mg/L 10 mg/L 7 mg/L (Assumed) 6 lb/day 1 mg/L 3,000 mg/L 0.10 13 days 16 days 8,500 ft. MSL 10.70 psia Dec. 29, 2011
CORPORATION
SAM
TM
reactor basin
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2 17 ft. 10 ft. 14 ft. 2 ft. 2 16 ft. 10 ft. 14 ft. 0 in. 0 in. 6 in. 0 in. 0 in. 6 in. 0 in.
Length Width Maximum SWD Minimum SWD Working volume Anaerobic chamber Length Width SWD Volume Effluent equalization/filter feed basin Length Width Maximum SWD Minimum SWD Working volume III. OXYGEN REQUIREMENT: lbs. O2 / lb. BOD5 removed lbs. O2 / lb. TKN applied lbs. O2 recovered/ lb. NO3 denitrified Actual Oxygen Required
31,790 Gallons
34,707 Gallons 1 22 ft. 10 ft. 9 ft. 1 ft. 0 in. 0 in. 6 in. 6 in.
13,165 Gallons 1.25 4.60 2.86 313 lbs./day
Actual to Standard Oxygen Conversion Formula: AOR SOR = b C SMID - C L aq (T - 20) C 1 + 0.5 (S) S 34 Where: a T CS CSMID CSMID Therefore: Standard Oxygen Required (Average) Peaking factor Design SOR (Peak) Concrete ISAM = = = Page 2 559 lbs./day 1.50 838 lbs./day Version 5.5. 06/11 = = = 0.85 20 C 9.09 elevation and temperature. 9.03 mg/L b q CL = = = 0.95 1.024 1.0 mg/L
= Oxygen saturation concentration at 50 % submergence at site =
CORPORATION
IV. PROCESS DESIGN
Cycle time at design flow Fill time Aerated interact at average SOR Aerated interact at peak SOR Anoxic interact at average SOR Anoxic interact at peak SOR Settle time Decant time Total cycle time Submergence Total aeration time (Peak) SOR for aeration design Design gassing rate Site gassing rate Absorption efficiency Design air flow Jets required per basin Aerators per basin Jets per aerator V. BLOWER CALCULATIONS: Operating blowers Air flow per blower Inlet losses Net inlet pressure Discharge piping losses Aerator losses Total discharge pressure Design ambient temperature Site air flow required Equivalent sea level pressure Assumed blower efficiency BHp per blower Total blower BHp Blower motor Hp
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
5.17 hrs. 0.45 hrs. 2.30 hrs. 3.45 hrs. 1.31 hrs. 0.16 hrs. 0.75 hrs. 0.36 hrs. 5.17 hrs. 18.0 ft. 3.45 hrs./cycle 32.0 hrs./day 26 lbs./hr. 49 SCFM / jet 59 ICFM / jet 25.8 % 98 SCFM 2 1 2
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1 98 SCFM 0.50 psig 10.20 psia 0.50 psig 7.89 psig 8.39 psig 100 F 560 R 150 ICFM 13.76 psig 55 % 7.9 7.9 10
Concrete ISAM
Page 3
Version 5.5. 06/11
CORPORATION
VI. PUMP CALCULATIONS:
Jet motive liquid pump: Pumps per basin Flow per pump Total pump head Assumed pump efficiency BHp per pump Pump motor Hp VII. DECANTER SIZING: Cycles per day Batch volume Decant flow VIII. SUMMARY: Standard Oxygen Required (Average) Standard Oxygen Required (Peak) Power usage (Average) Power usage (Peak) IX. SLUDGE PRODUCTION CALCULATIONS: lb VSS/lb BOD5 removed @ TDES lb VSS/lb NH3-N removed @ TDES lb VSS/lb NO3-N removed @ TDES Total VSS production Total sludge for digestion Anaerobic volatile reduction Waste sludge concentration Sludge to disposal Sludge storage X. NITRIFICATION/DENITRIFICATION Minimum mixed liquor temperature ML dissolved oxygen Alkalinity required for nitrification Alkalinity recovered, denitrification Net influent alkalinity required Max. nitrifier growth rate Concrete ISAM = = = = = = Page 4 10 C 1.0 mg/L 233 mg/L 68 mg/L 165 mg/L 0.125 days-1 Version 5.5. 06/11 = = = = = = > = = = 0.49 0.17 0.80 114 lb/day 142 lb/day 50% 4.0% 85 lbs./day 256 GPD 54 days = = = = 559 lbs./day 838 lbs./day 243 kWh/day 306 kWh/day = = = 9.28 10,771 Gallons 500 GPM = = = = = = 1 398 GPM 31 ft. 75 % 4.2 5
CORPORATION
Minimum SRT required for nitrification Actual SRT at mininimum temp.(SBR) Kn, half velocity constant Growth rate for heterotrophs/nitrifiers Projected effluent soluble NH3-N Specific utilization rate MLVSS percentage in MLSS MLVSS SBR specific denitrification rate at TMIN NO3 removed at TMIN in SBR NO3 removal required in SAM SAM specific denitrification rate at TMIN SAM MLVSS required for denitrification SAM tank volume for NO3 removal Total tank volume required Actual tank volume provided
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
8.0 days 11.6 days 0.22 mg/L 0.086 0.49 mg/L 0.25 lbs BOD5/lb MLVSS 883 lbs. 80% 2,400 mg/L 0.04 MG 0.020 g/g/day 12 lb/day 7 lb/day 0.029 g/g/day 254 lbs. 0.01 MG 0.057 MG 0.123 MG
MLVSS required for BOD & NH3 removal =
Tank volume req. for BOD & NH3 removal=
Concrete ISAM
Page 5
Version 5.5. 06/11
FLUIDYNE
CORPORATION
5436 Nordic Drive, Suite D Cedar Falls, IA 50613 Phone: (319) 266-9967 Fax: (319) 277-6034 http://www.fluidynecorp.com
PROPOSAL
FLUIDYNE CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE COMPANY) AGREES TO SELL TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PURCHASER AGREES TO BUY AND ACCEPT FROM THE COMPANY, THE ITEM (S) DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROJECT:
Mountain Water & Sanitation Wastewater Treatment Plant Fluidyne ISAM System
FLC 111411 November 14, 2011 Mr. Adam Sommers AquaWorks DBO, Inc.
PROPOSAL NO.: DATE WRITTEN: FOR:
Representation and Coordination by: Ambiente H2O Equipment 9249 S Broadway #200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 303/433-0364 phn 303/380-0664 fax shansen@ambienteh2o.com
FLUIDYNE CORPORATION 5436 Nordic Drive Suite D Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Proposal No.: FLC 111411 Project: Mountain W & S Date: November 14, 2011
Fluidyne Corporation is pleased to quote our ISAM Equipment and process technology for treating wastewater at the Mountain Water and Sanitation Wastewater Treatment Plant. The ISAM has been sized based on the following: INFLUENT 49,200 gpd 100,000 gpd 374 mg/l (366 lbs/day) 464 mg/l 50mg/l 6 mg/l EFFLUENT
Current Flow: Design Flow: Design BOD: Design TSS: Design TN: Design:
30 mg/l or less 30 mg/l or less 10 mg/l or less TIN, 4.3 mgl or less NH3 1 mg/l with chem.. addition
Fluidyne proposes a two train ISAM. The concrete tanks have been sized with the following internal dimensions: ISAM (Covered and vented): Two (2) 10 wide X 16 long X 14.5 TWL X 16.5 wall height. (Bottom of tank cover starts at 16.5) SAM : Two (2) tanks - 10 wide X 17 long X 14.5 TWL X 16.5 wall height SBRs: Two (2) tanks - 10 wide X 40 long X 14.5 TWL X 16.5 wall height EFFLUENT EQ: One tank 22 wide X 10 long X 9.5 TWL X 12 wall height Fluidyne is quoting two options. The first option utilizes jet aspirators eliminating the need for blowers. We have included separate independent smaller HP mixers in the SBR tanks due to the TN requirement and to conserve power during anoxic mix conditions. The second option utilizes compressed air from blowers to provide the oxygen. This option reduces the operating cost by requiring less operating HP during the mixing and aeration cycles. JET AERATION WITH COMPRESSED AIR: Fluidyne is pleased to quote the following: ISAM TANK: Two (2) ISAM Tank Influent Baffles. Two (2) ISAM Tank Overflow Baffles.
Two (2) 4 Waste Sludge Collection Manifolds with supports. SAM TANK: Two (2) SAM Tank Influent Diffuser with flange connection. Two (2) Vertical submersible motive liquid/fill pumps. Each pump will provide motive liquid for a jet aspirating nozzles and be furnished complete with an 6 elbow discharge connection, discharge piping and supports, retrieval assembly, guide bars, accessories and a 10 HP submersible motor. Pump to be equipped with moisture and temp sensors. Mini-cas moisture and temp detection device to be mounted in the Fluidyne control panel. One (1) Shelf Spare 10 HP submersible motive liquid/fill pump with 30 of cable. Two (2) 2 Electric Operated Waste Sludge Control Valves with electric actuator (120/1/60 electrical service) mounted in NEMA 4 enclosure with strip heater. Power for strip heater to be provided by others. Four (4) 2 Manually Operated Waste Sludge Control Valves SBR: Two (2) Fluidyne model# DM2JA6 Jet Aeration Headers including liquid piping, jet nozzle assembly and air intake piping. Two (2) Fluidyne model# FOW- 12 Overflow Weir/Scum Skimmer. Two (2) Fluidyne model# SED-6 Fixed Decanter with withdrawal piping, wall supports and a 3 flange connection to tank wall. Two (2) 1 Electric Operated Decant vent ball valve with electric actuator (120/1/60 electrical service) mounted in NEMA 4 enclosure with strip heater. Power for strip heater to be provided by others. Two (2) 6 Electric Operated Decant Control Valve with electric actuator and neck extension (120/1/60 electrical service) EFFLUENT EQUALIZATION TANK: One (1) 4 Electric Operated Effluent Equalization flow control valve with electric actuator (120/1/60 electrical service) and neck extension. Actuated Valve to operate and have its position set based on effluent flow meter reading. NOTE: Valve is open/close service and not modulating service.
INSTRUMENTATION: One (1) Set of Float Level Sensors with support brackets for each SAM, each SBR and effluent equalization tank. Each SAM will be equipped with a three float assembly. Each SBR will be equipped with a two float assembly and the effluent equalization tank will be equipped with a three float assembly. (120/1/60 electrical service). One (1) Multi-Channel Analyzer for ORP control. Two (2) ORP Probes with 30 of cable and handrail mounting kit. BLOWERS: A total of three (3) 15 HP Blower packages with inlet filter/silencer, flex connector, vbelt drive, discharge silencer, check valve and pressure relief valve. There shall be a dedicated blower to each train and one blower to be a 100% spare blower. CONTROLS 460 V, 3 phase 60 hz power and 120 V, 1 phase 60 hz power: One (1) ISAM Control System in NEMA 12 enclosure including motor starters, indicating lights, Allen-Bradley Micrologix 1400 PLC, Panelview 600C, alarm indicators, modem, I/O, and relays to automatically control the ISAM process. Control panel to be UL listed. Fluidyne to include the ability for remote internet access to PLC via Ethernet connection (Local IP address and service and associated fees by others). Control of non-Fluidyne supplied equipment is included as part of our control panel as follows: Influent flow measurement (4-20 m-amp signal) to our panel. Control/monitor and start the fine screen (fine screen supplier to provide detailed control narrative). Effluent flow measurement (4-20 m-amp signal) to our panel. I/0 to send up to 8 signals to an autodialer (autodialer by others). Include start/stop controls and fault monitoring for operating 4 chemical dosing pumps ( two for NaOCl, one for supplemental carbon, and one for alkalinity addition) Genset and ATS I/O per sheet I-O-05.
NOTE: Fluidyne has included the ability to download the ORP readings from the control panel through a USB connection. The data will need to be downloaded by the operator at a maximum of every two weeks. The data can then be loaded on to a computer ( by others) to review ORP readings. Six (6) Sets of Operation and Maintenance Manuals The price for the above equipment is $269,200 FOB-factory with freight allowed to Colorado.
CLARIFICATIONS: We have not included any conduit, field wiring or installation of any remote panels, junction boxes or disconnects. This will be the responsibility of the installing contractor. Please see other exclusions below. SERVICE: Service is provided in the amount of six (6) man days provided in two (2) trips. Travel and living expenses are included in this service. Addition service can be provided at a rate of $ 950.00/day USD plus travel and living expenses EXCLUSIONS: Not furnished by Fluidyne are the following; concrete slab or concrete tanks; any pipe, supports, fittings or valves except those specifically included above; out of basin or interconnecting piping, valving or supports; influent pumps and accessories to ISAM tank including controls; screening; grit removal; disinfection; filtration; anchor bolts; remote panels; conduit and wiring external to the control panel; freeze protection or heat tracing; anodes; interconnecting hardware and gaskets; fencing; stairways, walkways or platforms; control building and accessories; blower sound enclosures; chemical metering pumps and accessories; chemicals; flow meters; parshall flumes; auto-dialer; IP address and local service; phone line and accessories; ATS; generator; effluent sampler and accessories; electrical and mechanical installation labor; off-loading of equipment; jobsite testing; jobsite storage; structural or seismic calculations; taxes; duties; insurance and other items not specifically mentioned in the body of this proposal. SHIPMENT: 12 to 16 weeks after receipt of approved drawings. TAXES: Any applicable duties, sales, use, excise or similar taxes are not included in the quoted price. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Warranties shall apply only when payments are made in full and according to the following schedule: 10% with order, 15% with approved drawings 65% Net 30 days from shipment, 10% Net 30 days from start-up Unless other terms are specified, all payments shall be in United States Dollars and pro rate payments shall become due as deliveries are made. If date of delivery is delayed by purchaser, date of readiness for delivery shall be deemed date of delivery for payment purposes. If purchaser delays manufacture, a payment shall be made based on the purchase price and percentage of completion, balance payable in accordance with the terms stated. Title shall not pass to purchaser or end user until all payments including final payment and any retention for all goods and services have been received in full by Fluidyne. If, at any time in Companys judgment, purchaser may be or may become unable or unwilling to meet the terms specified, Company may require satisfactory assurances of
full or partial payment as a condition of commencing of continuing manufacture; or in advance of shipment, if shipment has been made, recover the product(s) from the carrier. DURATION: This proposal shall remain in effect for 60 days after proposal date, unless changed in the interim upon written notice.
FLUIDYNE CORPORATION TERMS OF SALE The conditions stated below shall constitute a part of the agreement resulting from the acceptance of an order for the whole or any part of the equipment covered by this quotation. 1. ACCEPTANCE: All orders shall be made out to Fluidyne Corp., 5436 Nordic Drive, Suite D, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613, and shall be subject to acceptance by Fluidyne. Orders may not be canceled without Fluidynes written consent, and then only on terms indemnifying Fluidyne against loss. Fluidyne reserves the right to correct any typographical or clerical errors in the proposal, pricing, or specification. Acceptance of any contract by Fluidyne shall be contingent upon credit approval. Performance shall be subject to strikes, fires, accidents, or curtailments in manufacturing or due to delays unavoidable or beyond the control of Fluidyne. No direct or liquidated damages or penalties shall be accepted. Receipt of the original copy of this proposal, signed by the purchaser, shall constitute a purchase order. The drawings and bulletin illustrations submitted with this proposal shall be general type, arrangement and approximate dimensions of the equipment to be furnished. Fluidyne reserves the right to alter such details in design or arrangement of its equipment, which in its judgment would constitute an improvement in construction, application or operation. Fluidyne shall promptly forward all necessary engineering information for installation of its equipment to the purchaser upon receipt of this accepted proposal. Any changes in equipment, arrangement of equipment, or application of equipment requested by purchaser after acceptance of proposal will be made at purchaser's expense. 2. TAXES The prices quoted are subject to any addition, which may be necessary to cover any tax charge now existing or hereafter imposed by Federal, State, or Municipal authorities upon equipment or services herein described or the production, sale, distribution or delivery thereof, or upon any feature of this transaction. 3. BINDING RESPONSIBILITIES: Sales representatives are not authorized to bind us. Typographical errors are not binding. 4. CANCELLATION: After acceptance, an order shall not be subject to cancellation unless cancellation charges are borne by the Purchaser for work done by the Seller up to the time of receipt of
cancellation notice; nor shall such orders be subject to change unless price increases are born by the Purchaser. 5. SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY: All deliveries quoted are estimates based on Fluidyne's best judgment at the time of this proposal, but shipment on these dates is not guaranteed. Deliveries are figured from date of receipt in Cedar Falls, Iowa of approved order and technical data. Fluidyne will not accept any claims caused by delay in shipment or delivery. It is further understood that storage charges of 1 percent per month will apply commencing 30 days from date of equipment completion if purchaser asks the delivery be delayed after production is started. Billing will be made at time of completion of equipment and paid per standard terms. 6. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Terms of payment are 10% with order, 15% with approved drawings and 65% Net 30 days from shipment and 10% Net 30 days from start-up unless stipulated otherwise in the body of this proposal. Accounts not paid on net cash due date bear interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per month not to exceed the maximum permissible by law. Title shall not pass to purchaser or end user until all payments including final payment and any retention for all goods and services have been received in full by Fluidyne. 7. INSTALLATION AND INITIAL OPERATION: All equipment shall be installed by and at the expense of the Purchaser unless otherwise stipulated. The Seller will furnish at its option, engineers to supervise the installation and starting up of the equipment. Field service will be provided by a factory-trained representative at a per diem rate of $950/day plus travel and expenses on any additional period not stated in this contract. 8. WARRANTY: Fluidyne warrants the equipment proposed and described herein against defects in material and workmanship under normal service for a period of one year after date of start-up, not to exceed eighteen months from date of shipment. Parts of products manufactured by others and provided by Fluidyne are warranted only to the extent of the original manufacturers warranty. This warranty is valid provided that the installation operation and maintenance of the equipment is made in accordance with Fluidyne's instructions. The purchaser must promptly give written notice of any equipment defects to Fluidyne. Under warranty, Fluidyne will provide, without cost to the purchaser, such replacement parts as may be required to repair or replace the defective equipment. All labor as may be required to make such replacements must be made by purchaser unless stated otherwise in this proposal. Qualified Fluidyne personnel or its agents must perform all startup service, or this warranty is void. Fluidyne will not warrant nor replace any material involved when repairs are made without prior written authorization from Fluidyne.
THIS IS FLUIDYNE'S SOLE WARRANTY. FLUIDYNE MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED: ALL IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED WARRANTY MADE BY ANY PERSON, AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE WHICH EXCEEDS FLUIDYNE'S AFOREMENTIONED OBLIGATION ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED BY FLUIDYNE AND EXCLUDED FROM THIS WARRANTY. 9. PATENTS: The equipment provided by Fluidyne may be covered by patents pending or issued. Fluidyne grants the right to use this equipment without further charges. Fluidyne does not grant rights to use, royalties, or protection against patent litigation arising from use of this equipment in patented processes controlled by others unless otherwise listed above. 10. CHANGE ORDERS: Any change orders shall be mutually agreeable between buyer and seller. 11. LIABILITY: In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for anticipated profits or for incidental, special, indirect, punitive or consequential damages under any circumstances. A partys liability on any claim of any kind for any loss or damage arising out of, connected with, or resulting from this Agreement or from the performance or breach thereof shall, in no case, exceed the price allocable to the Equipment or the Services or any unit thereof which gives rise to the claim. Neither Buyer nor Seller shall be liable for penalties of any description. 12. PRICING Fluidyne pricing is based on these terms of sale. No monies have been included for acceptance of different, additional or modified terms of sale. SUBMITED BY: FLUIDYNE CORPORATION DATE: November 14, 2011 PROJECT: Mountain Water and Sanitary WWTP ACCEPTED BY: ________________________________ (Sign and Title) (Company Name) DATED: __________________________________
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL
DATE: TO:
October 27, 2011 Adam Sommers, P.E.
COMPANY: AquaWorks, DBO 5325 South Valentia Way Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Tel: (303) 477-5915 CC: FROM: Chad Dannemann Michael Yang Applications Engineer Mountain Water and Sanitation, CO
Process Systems Group

11600 East Hardy Houston, Texas 77093-1098 Phone: (281) 985-4423 Fax: (281) 985-4431 Email: michael.yang@as-h.com
SUBJECT:
QUOTE NUMBER: 28580 R1 In response to your inquiry for a 100,000 gpd wastewater treatment system, we are pleased to propose two (2) Model H-50M30-ANSHMCC complete mix activated sludge wastewater treatment systems. Basis of Design Average Daily Flow Rate: Peak Daily Flow Rate: Influent Temperature: Elevation: Influent BOD5: TSS: TKN: Ammonia-N: Phosphorus-P: TN: Alkalinity: pH: 439 mg/L 400 mg/L 50 mg/L 35 mg/L 10 mg/L N/A 300 mg/L 6.5 8.5 100,000 gpd 300,000 gpd 10 C 8,500 ft AMSL Projected Effluent Secondary 30 mg/L 30 mg/L 2 mg/L 1 mg/L 10 mg/L -
Page 1 of 3
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL
Scope of Supply, Two 50% Trains, Each Train Consists the Following: Anoxic Chamber One (1) 16,667 gallon anoxic chamber with transfer port to aeration chamber One (1) 1.5 hp MLSS recycle pump complete with slide rails, 140 gpm @ 15 ft TDH One (1) 1.5 hp mixer Aeration Chamber One (1) 62,500 gallon aeration chamber Two (2) 25 hp blower motor units, 461 scfm @ 5.23 psig each (1 duty & 1 standby) One (1) fixed coarse bubble aeration system, complete with in-basin air piping, 387 SCFM One (1) main control panel mounted in NEMA 3R enclosure with magnetic starters, circuit breakers, programmable time clock, and HOA switches, 230/460 volt, 3 phase, 60 Hz One (1) chemical feed system for phosphorus removal Mechanical Clarifier One (1) 16 ft diameter mechanical clarifier, complete with inlet pipe, stilling well, sludge and scum removal mechanisms, structural steel support bridge, and drive unit One (1) airlift sludge return pump and piping One (1) airlift scum return pump and piping One (1) clarifier outlet trough, equipped with adjustable galvanized v-notched weir plates and scum baffle Sludge Holding Chamber/Aerobic Digester One (1) 13,700 gallon sludge chamber with 16 days of sludge storage One (1) supernatant decant airlift assembly One (1) fixed coarse bubble aeration system, 55 scfm Disinfection One (1) 2,083 gallon chlorine contact tank One (1) tablet chlorinator Corrosion Prevention One (1) interior/exterior sand blast, SSPC-SP10/SSPC-SP6, respectively One (1) coat of interior/exterior surface protection, Tnemec series 46H-413 Coal Tar Epoxy, 8-10 mils TDFT Service Walkway One (1) lot of 18 gauge galvanized, non-skid One (1) Lot of painted steel pipe handrail 2 rail with kick-plate One (1) 45 degree access stairway with checker-plate stair treads, and painted steel pipe handrail
Page 2 of 3
BUDGETARY PROPOSAL
Field Service One (1) trip to the jobsite Five (5) eight hour days total Clarifications Items Not Supplied by Ashbrook Electrical connections and wiring to the control panel Site work Plumbing to the plant Drain valves and piping outside plant walls Conduit, wiring and plant lighting Concrete foundation and supply/installation of clarifier grout General Notes 1. Excavation, foundation pad, crane off-loading, field welding, touch-up paint, plumbing to the plant, connection of anodes, installation of grating, handrail and component equipment, electrical wiring, and filling of the tank for testing are to be done by the general contractor. 2. There is no provision included in the budgeted price, unless noted, for field erection supervision, tests, inspections or adjustments of equipment. 3. Each secondary train system will measure approximately 58' long x 24' wide x 11' tall, weighing approximately 94,000 lbs. empty, and will be delivered to the jobsite in two (2) sections, each weighing approximately 47,000 lbs., which will require approximately 170 linear feet of field welding for reassembly, by others. 4. Each circular mechanical clarifier will measure approximately 16' diameter x 11' tall weighing approximately 13,000 lbs. empty, and will be prepared for delivery in two (2) sections, the largest weighing approximately 7,000 lbs., which will require approximately 70 linear feet of field welding for reassembly, by others. Pricing Budgetary price for two trains, F.O.B. factory, with freight allowed to Colorado, off loading by others....$894,000.00 If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call your our office. Sincerely, Ashbrook Simon-Hartley Attachments: Activated Sludge Design Output
Page 3 of 3
Ashbrook Simon-Hartley Operations, LP

Activated Sludge Design
Printed: 10/27/2011, 7:31 AM
Michael Yang Package Plant - Annual Average Conditions - 1 of 2 Trains Projected Effluent Quality (mg/L): Secondary Effluent Influent Characteristics:
Flow: BOD5: TSS: TKN: Ammonia: Phosphorus Alkalinity: 50,000 439 400 50 35 10 150 GPD Ave mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L * mg/L * mg/L * 150,000 183 167 21 15 4.2 63 GPD Peak Lbs/Day Lbs/Day Lbs/Day Lbs/Day Lbs/Day Lbs/Day BOD5: TSS: TN: TKN: Ammonia: Phosphorus Alkalinity: < < < < < < < 30 30 10 N/A 2 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 Chem Feed
Project: Engineer: Computed By: Conditions:
Mountain Water & Sanitation, CO #28580 R1
Design Parameters:
MLSS Temperature: Site Elevation: alpha: beta: Minimum Residual DO:
o 10 C 8,500 Ft. MSL 0.85 * 0.95 * mg/L 2.0
Plant Design:
Number of treatment trains: Pre-Equalization Volume: Anaerobic Volume: Anoxic Volume: Aeration Volume: Total Reactor Volume: Post Aeration Volume:
3
Steady-State Operating Characteristics:
1 0 0 2,228 8,355 10,583 0
Ft3 Ft3 Ft3 Ft3 Ft3 Ft3

3
0 0 16,667 62,500 79,167 0
Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal Gal
17.3 Lb BOD5/d/1000 Ft 13,700 Gal 1,832 Ft Organic Loading Rate: Digester Volume: 3 38.0 2,083 Hours 279 Ft Gal Total HRT: Disinfection Volume: Average Clarifier Overflow Rate: 8.0 Hours 280 GPD/Ft2 Anoxic HRT: 12.0 Peak Clarifier Overflow Rate: Day 840 GPD/Ft2 SRT: 2,940 mg/L 179 Ft2 MLSS: Clarifier Surface Area: 8000 mg/L 16 RAS TSS: Clarifier Diameter: Ft 0.025 MGD 18,000 mg/L RAS Rate: Est. Thickened WAS conc.: 17.5 GPM 16 RAS Rate: Required Digester Storage: Days 149 Lbs/Day 17 WAS Loading: VS Reduction in Digester: % 2,232 GPD 0 WAS Rate Equalization Air Required: SCFM 0.81 387 SCFM Lb/Lb Yield Lb WAS/Lb BOD: Reactor Air Requirement: 11.3 Lbs/Hr 55 AOR: Digester Air Requirement: SCFM 1.25 Lb/Lb 19 Lb AOR/Lb BOD5: Airlift Requirement: SCFM 0.44 0 Field Correction Factor: Post Aeration Air Req'd: SCFM 25.7 Lbs/Hr 5.23 PSIG SOR Blower Discharge Pressure: % 6.4 22.0 HP SOTE Total Approx Blower BHP: 0.20 MGD 19.3 HP MLSS Recycle Flow Reactor Blower BHP: 8.50 Ft 2.6 Diffuser Submergence Digester Blower BHP: HP 9.5 Ft Side Water Depth: NOTE: Reactor is defined as the sum of all aeration basins plus the anoxic basins. * Value is assumed Page 1 of 1 M28580 - Mountain Water & Sanitation, CO (PP) R1 Design Summary
MOUNTAIN WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT SUPPLEMENT
2/14/2012 3:43:54 PM, COPYRIGHT AQUAWORKS DBO, INC.
AquaWorks DBO
DESIGN BUILD OPERATE
INC
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO
1-800-922-1987
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES
SHEET NO.
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
SHEET NO.
SERVICE AREA MAP
SHEET NO.
5-MILE RADIUS MAP
SHEET NO.
ZONING MAP
SHEET NO.
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SHEET NO.
EXISTING WWTP LAYOUT
SHEET NO.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SHEET NO.
PHASING PLAN
SHEET NO.
10
PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC
SHEET NO.
11
HYDRAULIC PROFILE
SHEET NO.
12
SBR EQUIPMENT PLAN
SHEET NO.
15
BUILDING & HATCH PLAN

Perfinalversionassubmittedtocdphe12 April2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perfinalversionassubmittedtocdphe12 April2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE PROJECT

(AMENDMENT OF AN EXISTING SITE APPLICATION)

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT & SITE APPLICATION

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

GEOGRAPHY & CLIMATE

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

EXISTING SITE APPLICATION AND DISCHARGE PERMIT

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

Table 1. Preliminary Effluent Limits

2.2 208 PLAN COORDINATION

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

2.3 GROWTH AREAS AND POPULATION TRENDS

2.4 WASTEWATER FLOW FORECASTS

Flow (30-day Average) Flow (Peak Day) Flow (Peak Hour)

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

WWTP Influent Flow (30-Day Average)

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

2.5 WASTELOAD FORECASTS

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

Figure 2. Influent BOD Loading

WWTP Influent BOD Loading

400 BOD (Pounds)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Permit

2.6 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CAPACITY AND FORECASTED LOADING

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES

3.2 AREA DISCHARGE PERMITS

3.3 FACILITIES LAYOUT AND DESCRIPTION

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

3.4 WASTEWATER FLOWS

3.5 FINANCIAL STATUS AND USERS

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

Mountain Water & Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Improvements

Preliminary Engineering Report

AquaWorks DBO, Inc.

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Figure 3. Chart of Alternatives Assessment Options

Alternative Categories: Treatment Technologies:

Optimize existing facilities

Upgrade with new facility

Membrane Biological Reactor

Sequencing Batch Reactor

Conventional Activated Sludge

OPTIMIZING EXISTING FACILITIES