ENGINEERING REPORT FOR - … REPORT FOR: NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT DISTRICT EXPANSION...

ENGINEERING REPORT FOR:

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT

DISTRICT EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY

PREPARED FOR:

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT

P.O. BOX 167

MAYVILLE, NEW YORK 14757

PREPARED BY:

AECOM USA, INC.

257 WEST GENESEE STREET, SUITE 400

BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202

July 2015

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT - DISTRICT EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENGINEER’S REPORT

J:\Projects\11177358\Deliverables\NCLSD Engineers Report.docx

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………. 1-1 1.1 Problem Defined………………………………………………………………….. 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Scope……………………………………………………………….. 1-1

1.3 Description of the NCLSD ……………………………………………..………. 1-3

2.0 NCLSD EXPANSION AND CONSOLIDATION OPTIONS ………………………. 2-1 2.1 Background………………………………………………………………………. 2-1

2.1.1 Soil Conditions………………………………………………………….. 2-3

2.1.2 Conditions of Existing Septic Systems (CCDOH Information) ……….. 2-3

2.1.2.1 CCDOH Septic System Database…………………………….... 2-3

2.1.2.2 CCDOH Private Drinking Water Bacterial Testing Database…. 2-4

2.2 Option Development………………………..………………….………….…….. 2-6

2.2.1 Option 1- No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with

SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades………………………………. 2-6

2.2.2 Option 1A - Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments

to NCLSD WWTP ……………………………………………………. 2-9

2.2.3 Option 2 - Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to

NCLSD WWTP …………………………………………………………. 2-11

2.2.4 Option 2A - Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments

to NCLSD WWTP ………………………………………………………. 2-11

2.2.5 Option 3A - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP …………………………………………………………. 2-13

2.2.6 Option 3B - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main on Lake bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP…………………………………………………………. 2-13

2.2.7 Option 4 – Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers…………………. 2-13

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND EVALUATION OF NCLSD WWTP ……………………….…………………….…………………….…… 3-1 3.1 General…………………………………………………………………….……. 3-1

3.2 Discharge Permit……………………………………………………..…………. 3-2

3.3 Current and Future Flow Projections ………………………………..…………. 3-4

3.3.1 Wastewater Flow Projections………………………………..…………. 3-4

3.3.2 Future Flow Projections………………………………..………………. 3-5

3.3.2.1 Population Trends………………………………..………………. 3-5

3.3.2.2 Parcel Build-Out………………………………..………………. 3-7

3.3.2.3 Study Area Peak Flows…………………………………………. 3-7

3.3.2.4 Study Area Future Flow Conclusions……………………………. 3-7

3.4 Plant Flows and Performance………………………………..…………………. 3-8

3.4.1 Daily Operational Data………………………………..………………. 3-8

3.4.1.1 Flow……………………………………………………………. 3-8

3.4.1.2 BOD5 and TSS Concentrations and Loadings…………………. 3-8



ii

3.4.2 Monthly Average Flow Data………………………………..……………. 3-9

3.5 Description and Analysis of Existing Treatment Process………………………. 3-10

3.5.1 Headworks………………………………..………………………………. 3-10

3.5.2 Ferric Chloride Addition……………………………….…………………. 3-10

3.5.3 Main Pumping Station………………………………..…………………. 3-11

3.5.4 Primary Clarifiers………………………………..………………………. 3-11

3.5.5 Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs) ………………………………... 3-12

3.5.6 Secondary Clarifiers……………………………………………………... 3-12

3.5.7 Filtration and Intermediate Pump Station ………………………………... 3-12

3.5.8 Chlorine Contact Tank and Wastewater Disinfection…………………... 3-13

3.5.9 Anaerobic Digesters……………………………………………………... 3-13

3.5.10 Sludge Dewatering Facilities……………………………………………... 3-14

3.5.11 Outfalls 001, 002, and 003………………………………………………... 3-14

3.5.12 Additional Required Upgrades and Future Considerations……………... 3-14

3.5.13 Total Residual Chlorine………………………………………………... 3-14

3.5.14 Ammonia………………………………………………………………... 3-15

3.6 Summary of WWTP Improvements Recommendations……………..…………. 3-15

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.……………….……………………… 4-1 4.1 Cost of Upgrades………………………………………………………….……. 4-1

4.2 Explanations of Type of Costs……………………………………………….……. 4-1

4.2.1 Capital Construction Costs………………………………………………. 4-1

4.2.2 Private Property Owner Connection Costs………………………………. 4-2

4.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs ………………………………………. 4-3

4.2.4 Total Costs ………………………………………………………………. 4-3

4.3 Option 1- No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES

Permit Required Plant Upgrades Costs……………….….……….….……………. 4-4




4.4 Option 1A - Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP Costs……………………………………………….….……. 4-5




4.5 Option 2 Costs - Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP ………………………………………………………….….…. 4-7




4.6 Option 2A Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP Costs……………………………………………….….……. 4-9



NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT -

DISTRICT EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENGINEER’S REPORT


iii


4.7 Option 3A - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD

WWTP Costs………………………………………………………….….……. 4-9




4.8 Option 3B Costs - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force Main on Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores

to NCLSD WWTP …………………………………………………….….……. 4-11




4.9 Option 4 Costs - Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers……………………. 4-13

4.10 Cost Summary ………………………………………………………….….……. 4-13

4.11 Evaluation of Cost Options…………………………………………….….……. 4-19

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE……………….………………………… 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES…..…………….………………………………….………………………… 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Site Location and District Map

Figure 1.2: Existing Site Plan

Figure 2.1: Project Study Area

Figure 2.2: Option 1A/2A Proposed Plan: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace

Developments to NCLSD WWTP

Figure 2.3: Option 2 Proposed Plan: Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to

NCLSD WWTP

Figure 2.4: Option 3A Proposed Plan - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD

WWTP

Figure 2.5: Option 3B Proposed Plan: Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force Main on Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD

WWTP

Figure 3.1: Existing Process Flow Schematic

Figure 3.2: Proposed Site Plan

Figure 3.3: Proposed Process Flow Schematic

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Option 1: Proposed NCLSD WWTP Improvements

Table 3.1: Existing WWTP Design Basis

Table 3.2: Estimation of Peak Flowrate (GPD) by Zone

Table 3.3: Population Data and Trends



iv

Table 3.4: NCLSD Village of Mayville WWTP: Recommended Upgrades Table 4.1: Conceptual Cost Estimate Option 1A/2A Table 4.2: Conceptual Cost Estimate Option 2 Table 4.3: Conceptual Cost Estimate Option 3A Table 4.4: Conceptual Cost Estimate Option 3B Table 4.5: Conceptual Cost Estimate Option 4 Table 4.6: Capital Construction Cost Estimate Summary Table 4.7: Capital Construction Costs - Estimated Costs Per User Table 4.8: Operation and Maintenance Costs - Estimated Costs Per User Table 4.9: Total Cost Estimate Summary - Estimated Costs Per User

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Flow Data Table A-1: Estimation of Flowrate for Non-Residential Sources Table A-2 Flow Data for Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Pump Stations Appendix B – Cost Estimates Table B-1: Property Owner Construction and Collection System Expansion Costs (Options 3A and

3B) Table B-2: Conveyance to NCLSD Costs per Option Table B-3: Upgrades to NCLSD WWTP Costs for Final Phosphorous Limits Compliance and

Expansion of Sewer District Table B-4: Estimated Construction Costs: Cost Estimate Sources Table B-5: Estimated Construction Costs: Chautauqua Shores Pump Station Upgrade Table B-6: Estimated Construction Costs: Lighthouse Point Pump Station Upgrade Table B-7: Cost Distribution Matrix Table B-8: Cost Estimate Summary: Large Volume and Non-residential Users Table B-9: Capital Construction Costs - Estimated Costs Per User Including Apportionment of Costs

to Existing NCLSD Users with Vacant/Undeveloped Parcels Table B-10: Total Cost Estimate Summary - Estimated Costs Per User Including Apportionment of

Costs to Existing NCLSD Users with Vacant/Undeveloped Parcels

Appendix C – Vendor Literature and Quotes Filtration:

- Drawing: Parkson Dynasand® Continuous Backwash Sand Filter General Arrangement, Four (4) modules per cell (2 pages)

- Preliminary Budget Sizing: Parkson Dynasand® with ECOWASH Intermittent Backwash System (1 page)

Pumps:

- Emails from Rick Calmes at GP Jager (May 2015) with pump recommendations and budgetary costing (8 pages)

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.51E) (4 pages) o Intermediate PS to Filter Building, Small Pumps o Wet Well to Clarifier Pump

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.65E) (4 pages)



v

o Chautauqua Shores PS - Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.65E) (4 pages)

o Lighthouse Point PS (NOT used for budgetary purposes in this study) - Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.78Z) (4 pages)

o Lighthouse Point PS Alternated (used for budgetary purposes in this study) - Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA15.52E) (4 pages)

o Lighthouse Point PS Alternated (used for budgetary purposes in this study) Clarifiers:

- Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier (25’-0” Diameter) – Scope of Supply prepared by Evoqua Water Technologies LLC (May 26, 2015) (2 pages)

- Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier (30’-0” Diameter) – Scope of Supply prepared by Evoqua Water Technologies LLC (May 26, 2015) (2 pages)

Parshall Flume:

- Drawing: Fiberglass 18” Parshall Flume, Dwg. No. P-F-18-N- N- N- N- N- N prepared by Open Channel Flow) (1 page)

- Quotation for an 18-inch Parshall Flume prepared by Open Channel Flow (Alpharetta, GA), dated 1/27/2015 (1 page)

Dewatering Equipment:

- Budget Price and Equipment Recommendation for Sludge Dewatering Equipment prepared by Komline-Sanderson dated May 14, 2015 (1 page)

- Drawings: Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, Kompress Foundation Plan and Anchor Bolt Layout (CKO65-20008DA1); Kompress Model GRSL-1M Series III Hydraulic T/U & Steer (CK065-300017DD1, CK065-300017DD2) (3 pages total)

Mechanical Screen

- Email correspondence from Wendi Richards at Siewert Equipment regarding a quotation from Hydro-Dyne for a Triden Mechanical Screen (May 27, 2015) (1 page)

- Triden Screens brochure and technical information (2 pages) - Triden Screen Equipment Sizing and Hydraulic Performance (2 pages)

Anaerobic Digesters

- Budgetary Proposal prepared by Envirodyne Systems Inc. (3 pages)

Appendix D – New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit



1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Defined

Chautauqua Lake is a regional recreational asset located in the southwestern corner of western New York State. The lake is a 17 mile long, 2 mile wide freshwater lake, with a shoreline of 41 miles.

The lake experiences nuisance algal blooms as a direct result of nutrient loading, from point and non-point sources. Algae in the form of Cyanobacteria are common summertime occurrences that threaten the lake and its many uses. In 2004, Chautauqua Lake was designated as an impaired water body and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) phosphorus allocation for the lake was completed in 2012. This designation and the ensuing New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit limits are requiring that the regional sewerage utilities update their plants to effectively remove phosphorus from their effluent.

The three major public sewerage utilities that provide sewer service are centered around densely populated areas along the length of the lake with one at the north end of the lake (North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District (NCLSD)), one on the west side of the lake near the Chautauqua Institution (Chautauqua Utilities District (CUD)) and one at the south end near Celoron (South and Center Sewer District (S&CCLSD)). The widely dispersed development outside of the three major sewer districts coupled with the distances between the districts has hindered large expansions of new sanitary sewage facilities. A portion of the area’s population is also seasonal which has further discouraged large-scale expansion.

As NCLSD, CUD and S&CCLSD are gearing up to meet their requirements under their new SPDES permits, the facilities are considering expansions to their service areas to contribute to the improvement of the overall water quality of the lake. This study and engineer’s report details the NCLSD’s investigation into a large geographic expansion along the east side of the lake from the Village of Mayville limits to the area just north of Midway Park and Maple Springs, NY. Additionally, an analysis was performed to include flows from a portion of the NCLSD adjacent to and south of the Chautauqua Institution (west side of the lake) whereby the sewage is conveyed through NCLSD facilities to the CUD WWTP for treatment.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

The North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District provides sewer services (collection and treatment) to a district encompassing the Village of Mayville and portions of the Town of Chautauqua located in Chautauqua County, New York. The NCLSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located in the Village of Mayville, New York. See Figure 1.1 on the following page for a Site Location and District Map.

This report details the findings of a study undertaken to consider expansion of the NCLSD treatment area to include areas currently in district, but treated by another entity (Chautauqua Utilities District) out of district areas (Chautauqua Heights Sewer District) and undistricted areas on the east side of the Lake. This study builds upon the following reports prepared by URS Corporation:

• “Mayville Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades”, URS Corporation, December 2007

• “Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Evaluation”, URS Corporation, March 2012

• “Final Phosphorus Effluent Limit Compliance Evaluation, URS Corporation, December 2014

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

TOW

N OF

STOC

KTON

TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOW

N OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

kBlack

CreekLittleInlet

Dew i

ttvi lle

Cree

k

WingCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

ttvi lle

Cree

k

PendergastCreek

ST394

ST430

ST430

GG127

GG642

WestWestElleryEllery

Cottage ParkCottage Park

WooglinWooglin

HartfieldHartfield

MapleMapleSpringsSprings

Midway ParkMidway Park

Orchard TerraceOrchard Terrace

PleasantvillePleasantville

DewittvilleDewittville

ChautauquaLake

FalconRd

The Cir

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Oneida Dr

Big Inlt

LowellAve

W Wiley

AveLawndaleDr

North

AveWalnut

Ave

Springbrook Rd

Merrill Ave

Heather Ct

Clark St

LakviewAve

South Dr

BellamyField Rd

BrooksideRd

Summer

Haven Rd

Knight St

Davis Rd

Erickson Ln

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

CrestwoodRd

Wiery Rd

Service RdCreek Rd

LookoutAve

N Lake Dr

Lighthouse

Point Rd

Tinke

rtown

Dr

GullRd

Elmwood Ave

Orchard Ave

Memorial Dr

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

LinAve

Shorelands Dr

Whitney Bay Rd

Emerald Ave

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

JanesAve

Academy St

Hannum Rd

CayugaCir

WatermanRd

PickardRd

Bird

and

Tree

Rd

Luce Rd

Crestwood RdBroadway

Rd

SummitAve

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

ParkRd

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

Sea Lion Dr

Elm St

OldRoute 17

Bloomer Rd

McKay Rd

Morris St

Maple Dr W

Coe R

d

Centralia Hartfield Rd

Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

PrattAve

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St

Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd

Maple Springs Ellery Rd

Wrig

ht Rd

Webber Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

d

E LakeRd E Lake Rd

Water

St

WLake

Rd

Portage Rd E Lake Rd

S Erie St

N Erie St

WLake Rd

E Chautauqua StSherm

an

Mayvil le Rd

ELake

Rd

Route 430

W Lake Rd

MAYVILLE WWTP

CHAUTAUQUA HEIGHTS WWTP

CUD WWTP

NORTH CHAUTAUQUALAKE SEWER

DISTRICT

NORTH CHAUTAUQUALAKE SEWER

DISTRICT

CUD SEWERDISTRICT

CHAUTAUQUAHEIGHTS SEWER

DISTRICT

CHAUTAUQUA SHORES PSORCHARD TERRACE PS

LIGHTHOUSE POINT PS

MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

Lake Erie

§̈¦86

§̈¦90

§̈¦86

§̈¦90 £¤62

£¤6

£¤20£¤20

£¤62

£¤62

C h a u t a u q u aC h a u t a u q u aC o u n t yC o u n t y

W a r r e nW a r r e nC o u n t yC o u n t y

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Site L

ocati

on.m

xdCr

eator

: Dan

T Da

te: 7/

2/201

5

TITLE

PROJECT

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKESEWER DISTRICT

FIGURE NO.

REGIONAL INDEX

USGS Quadrangles:- Chautauqua

- Hartfield- Sherman- Westfield

SITE LOCATION ANDDISTRICT MAP

0 3,0001,500Feet

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015

FISHER ASSOCIATES, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.

New York State Education Law Section 7209states that it is a violation of this law for anyperson, unless he / she is acting under thedirection of a licensed professional engineeror land surveyor, to alter an item in any way.If an item bearing the seal of an engineer orland surveyor is altered, the altering engineeror land surveyor shall affix to the item his / herseal and the notation "altered by" followed byhis / her signature and the date of suchalteration, and a specific description of thealteration.

LEGEND

1.1

% Wastewater Treatment Plant Location

% Pump Station Location

Municipal Boundary

Sewer District:

Chautauqua Heights Sewer District

North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District (NCLSD)

CUD Sewer District

NCLSD Service Area Treated at CUD WWTP

Chautauqua CountyNew York



1-3

AECOM USA Inc. (AECOM), as a successor to URS Corporation, was contracted by the North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District to perform the following evaluations:

• Determine the capital upgrades necessary in the collection system to convey the sewage to the Mayville WWTP in order to sewer the areas defined in this study,

• Determine the sewage flow produced by the areas defined in the study,

• Determine the capital upgrades necessary at the Mayville WWTP to treat the additional sewage flow produced by the areas defined in the study,

• Consider the capital upgrades that will be required to meet the new SPDES limits and anticipated future SPDES limits for the current and any future flows.

• Determine the capital and operational and maintenance costs associated with the identified upgrades,

• Determine a typical district user’s annual sewage fee for the upgrades identified in this study,

• Prepare an Engineering Report documenting the above findings.

This report documents the results of AECOM’s evaluation. 1.2 Description of the NCLSD The North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District (NCLSD) was formed as a municipal improvement district under the laws of the State of New York to provide sewer service (collection and treatment) to a district encompassing the Village of Mayville and portions of the Town of Chautauqua located in Chautauqua County, New York. The wastewater collection and treatment facilities were designed, constructed, and placed into service in 1979. The collection system consists of gravity sewers, grinder pumping stations, transmission pumping stations and force mains. The service area of the NCLSD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) includes the Village of Mayville and also includes a significant portion of the area north of the Chautauqua Institution, tributary to the Lighthouse Point Pump Station, including the Irwins Bay Pump Station (see Figure 1.1). However, there are portions of the NCLSD adjacent to the Chautauqua Institution whereby the sewage is conveyed through NCLSD facilities to the CUD WWTP. These properties in general are referred to as the “North End” and many of the properties are owned by the Chautauqua Institution. Additionally, there is NCLSD property south of CUD, including the developments of Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace. These properties also have their sewage conveyed through NCLSD facilities to the CUD WWTP (see Figure 1.1). The NCLSD WWTP provides secondary treatment and discharges treated wastewater to Chautauqua Lake in accordance with the facility’s SPDES Permit No. 0020826. See Figure 1.2 on the following page for the NCLSD WWTP Site Plan. The NCLSD is also under contract with the Town of Chautauqua to operate, maintain, and administer the Chautauqua Heights Sewer District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (CHSD WWTP).

W Lake Rd

Morris St

Valley St P a rk RdBarton St

Mead ow Ln

Barnes St ST394

Lakeside ParkLakeside ParkPoint PleasantPoint Pleasant

Mud

C reek

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Site_

Plan.m

xdCr

eator

: Dan

T Da

te: 5/

27/20

15

SOURCE: ESRI, DIGITALGLOBE, GEOEYE, EARTHSTAR GEOGRAPHICS, CNES/AIRBUS DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, GETMAPPING, AEROGRID, IGN, IGP, SWISSTOPO, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

STUDY AREA

NCLSD VILLAGE OF MAYVILLEEXISTING SITE PLAN

COPYRIGHT © 2015FISHER ASSOCIATES, P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.


LEGEND

1.2


Jo Lyn Enterprises Ltd

MayvilleProperties, LLC

Village Of Mayville

Jo Lyn Enterprises Ltd

Village Of Mayville

Mayville Properties, LLC

Village Of Mayville

Village Of Mayville

N Chaut Lake Sewer Dist

Village Of Mayville

VillageOf

Mayville

PrimaryClarifier

PrimaryClarifier

MainPumpingStation

ChlorineContact Tank

SecondaryClarifier

SecondaryClarifier

RotatingBiological Contactors

Administration Building

PrimaryDigester

DigesterBuilding

SecondaryDigester

SludgeDrying Beds

Pavement

Structures

Parcel Boundary

!I0 6030

Feet



2-1

SECTION 2

NCLSD EXPANSION AND CONSOLIDATION OPTIONS

NCLSD is open to the possibilities of sewer district expansion and/or consolidation with adjacent sewer districts if it makes economic and practical sense to do so. Sewer district consolidation and expansion would be beneficial to Chautauqua Lake and also would help spread the capital cost of the new infrastructure over a greater number of users, potentially helping to reduce the cost per user. The NYSDEC’s draft TMDL recommends that “municipal sewer system expansion should be investigated for high priority areas such as existing lakefront development not currently served and non-lakefront areas where large numbers of failing on site [septic] systems are documented” (USEPA, NYSDEC, 2011). In contrast to the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study whereby URS Corporation considered district expansion only on the east-southeast side of the lake, at the request of NCLSD, this study has been expanded to include the area south of Thumb Road to the area north of Midway Park and Maple Springs (along Route 430 and to the east shore of Chautauqua Lake). The eastern expansion would provide sewerage up to the S&CCLSD boundary on the east side of the lake. The current study also includes the existing NCLSD areas currently serviced by the Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Pump Stations on the west side of the lake.

Figure 2.1 details a breakdown of the project study area into 14 zones. Zone selection is somewhat arbitrary, although AECOM did consider a number of factors such as population density, topography, and proximity to the existing wastewater facilities in developing the zones. Expansion further inland (East of Rte. 430) was not considered because the housing density is not sufficient to justify bringing sewer service to these areas. The only exceptions to this are:

• The triangle formed by County Rte. 52, Meadows Road, and Rte. 430; which were evaluated as part of Zone 6, and

• The KOA campground located between Tyler and Thumb Roads (Zone 10), which experiences high seasonal density.

The study area under consideration includes over 750 residences, approximately 90 of which are in tributary to the CUD WWTP, multiple businesses, and five campgrounds. Zone 14 constitutes the area that is within NCLSD service area and located south of the Chautauqua Institution (west side of the lake) whereby the sewage is conveyed through NCLSD facilities to the CUD WWTP for treatment. It should be noted that any option that brings additional users into the NCLSD WWTP will have to be accompanied by a NYSDEC review of the TMDL’s phosphorous allocation. Ultimately, it is expected that mass discharge limitations will be increased consistent with achieving an effluent phosphorous concentration of approximately 0.3 mg/L.

2.1 Background As part of this study, AECOM utilized the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study as the foundation for the additional analysis required. As presented in the referenced study, there are a number of factors that affect where and how to expand the CHSD and also the cost of expansion. The following factors were considered as part of the option development:

• Soil Conditions

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOWN

OF

STOC

KTON

TOWN

OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

MAYVILLE WWTP


CUD WWTP

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

k

B i g

I n let

Black

CreekLittleInlet

Dew i

t tvi lle

Cree

k

WingCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

ttville

Cree

k

Pendergast

Creek

ST394 ST430

ST430

GG127

GG648

GG642


CottageCottageParkPark

WooglinWooglin

HartfieldHartfield




Point PleasantPoint Pleasant DewittvilleDewittville

ChautauquaLake

FalconRd

The Cir

TerraceAve

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Oneida Dr

Big Inlt

Irving Pl

LowellAve

W Wiley

AveLawndaleDr

North

Ave

MapleAve

Walnut

Ave

Springbrook Rd

MerrillAve

Miller Ave

Heather Ct

LakviewAve

South Dr

Clark St

BellamyField Rd

BrooksideRd

W Whallon

St

Park Ave

Summer

Haven Rd

Davis Rd

OakSt

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

Barnes St

CrestwoodRd

Service RdCreek Rd

E Marvin St

Tinke

rtown

Dr

ChedwelAve

Elmwood Ave

Memorial Dr

Meadow Ln

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

Shorelands Dr

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

JanesAve

WatermanRd

PickardRd

HannumRd

Luce Rd


Rd

SummitAve

BloomerRd

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

LeetAve

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

PrendergastBlvd

Sea Lion Dr

Elm St

OldRoute 17

McKay Rd

Morris St

Bloomer Rd

Coe R

d


Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

PrattAve

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St

Webber Rd

Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd


Wrig

ht Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

dE Lake Rd

Water

St

WLake

Rd

W Chautauqua St


S Erie St

N Erie St

W Lake Rd


an

Mayvil le Rd

E Lake Rd

Route430

WLake

Rd

"S1

"S3

"S5

"S4

"S2

"S6

"S7

"S10"S9

"S8

"S11

"S12

"S13

"S14


LIGHTHOUSE POINT PS

MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

Lake Erie

§̈¦86

§̈¦90

§̈¦86

§̈¦90 £¤62

£¤6

£¤20£¤20

£¤62C h a u t a u q u aC h a u t a u q u aC o u n t yC o u n t y

W a r r e nW a r r e nC o u n t yC o u n t y

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Zone

s.mxd

Crea

tor: E

ric D

ate: 6

/29/20

15

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

REGIONAL INDEX



PROJECT STUDY AREA

0 3,0001,500Feet

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015



LEGEND

2.1


% Pump Station Location

Sewerage Study Area

Municipal Boundary




2-3

• Condition of Existing Septic Systems

• Current and Future Flow Projections The following is presented directly from the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study and applies to the project area utilized in that study, which extended from Galloway Road on the north to Thumb Road on the south.: “2.1.1 Soil Conditions

The existing soil conditions within the project area are predominantly silty loams and/or channery loams

(“Soil Survey of Chautauqua County, New York”, U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service, 1994). The soils

are characterized by being moderately well drained to well drained, with some areas closer to the

lakeshore having somewhat poorly drained soils. For areas closer to the lakeshore, the water table is

typically about 1 to 2 feet below grade from October through May, and about 0.5 to 1.5 feet below grade

from November through May. Bedrock is typically greater than 6 feet deep within the project area.

The Soil Survey indicates that a majority of the project area is unsuitable and/or unfavorable for the

septic tank absorption fields. Seasonal wetness and often restricted permeability in the substratum are

identified as main limitations to these types of systems. Based on information provided by the

Chautauqua County Health Department (CCDOH), the majority of the households within the project area

have a septic tank followed by tile leach fields or sand filters. There are also some leaching stone beds,

seepage pits and/or aeration systems within the study area.

For purposes of evaluating new sewer installation, URS has assumed the following with respect to soil

conditions:

• Bedrock is typically greater than 6 feet deep, and as a result, rock excavation is assumed to be

minimal for options that involve shallow collection systems (grinder pump or vacuum systems).

For conventional gravity sewer installation a contingency for rock excavation will be included in

the project costs to account for rock that may be encountered within the trench excavation.

• Trench dewatering is anticipated due to the seasonal wetness, and for areas closer to the

lakeshore with poorly drained soils.

2.1.2 Conditions of Existing Septic Systems (CCDOH Information)

Two separate indicators of septic system condition were considered:

• Septic system database maintained by CCHDOH, and

• Well water bacterial reports also maintained by the CCDOH.

Both of these are discussed in this section.

2.1.2.1 CCDOH Septic System Database

The Chautauqua County Health Department regulates private sewage systems within Chautauqua

County. New septic systems are required to be designed and installed to meet the standards outlined in

Article IV of the Sanitary Code of the Chautauqua County Health District and New York State Code Part

75. Chautauqua County inspectors oversee the design and installation of new systems, and have done so

since the regulations were adopted in 1965. Records of new installations and corrections/replacements

are kept by the CCDOH. Systems installed prior to development of the Sanitary Code permitting



2-4

requirements (1965) were for the most part unregulated and uninspected at the time of installation.

According to discussions with the CCDOH, many of the septic systems within the project area have likely

been in place since the 1920’s and 1930’s. In the event that a property inspection identifies an

unsatisfactory system, the homeowner is required to correct or replace the system. However, there is no

defined program in place to inspect all existing systems. Therefore identifying deficient systems is most

likely to occur in response to a homeowner complaint.

The computerized database of septic inspections for all of Chautauqua County from 1965 through 2011

was provided to URS by CCDOH for analysis. It should be noted that the County is in the process of

entering data from handwritten septic system inspections into their database. The process is not

complete, and no estimates on the “% complete” for this data entry process were provided by the

CCDOH. The data URS was provided constitutes the information in the database as of October 24, 2011.

The information provided to URS by the CCDOH was contained in two separate databases. The

historical database (1965 ~ 2009) included 743 septic system records, of which 185 were in the project

area.1 The post-2009 database included 18 records, of which 3 were in the project area. Of the 185

inspections within the project area, 66 utilize tile fields (36%), 61 utilize sand filters (33%), 31 utilize

aeration (17%), 13 utilize leaching stone beds (7%), 9 utilize seepage pits (5%), 3 utilize tile in fill (1%),

and 2 are unknown (1%). Seventy-three (73) of these 185 inspections were repeat inspections to address

a prior failed inspection and replacements that was required by the CCDOH. The database did not

provide an indication if the item requiring a correction was resolved as a result of the correction

inspection. Of the data available, 3 recent (post 2009) septic inspections were performed in the project

area. Of the 3 inspections within the project area, 2 utilize leaching stone beds (67%) and 1 was

unknown (33%). Further specific information relevant to this inspection was not part of the information

provided.

The incidences of failed inspections or replacements may be an indication of systems that are leaking,

have poor functionality and/or are contributing to groundwater contamination. The expansion of the

sewer district to these residences may be beneficial to prevent or reduce some of these concerns.

2.1.2.2 CCDOH Private Drinking Water Bacterial Testing Database

Parcel mapping information was provided to URS by CCDOH. A review of the parcel maps along with a

review of aerial photography to locate residences indicates that the majority of residences in the study

area are located along the lakeshore and are situated closely together. Because there is no municipal

water system in the majority of the study area (the only exception being the CHSD service area – Zone 3

on Figure 3.1)2, it can be concluded that each parcel will likely have a septic system and a drinking water

well on their property. Due to the relatively small size of many of the parcels; wells and septic systems

are likely located very closely together. Further, soil conditions were indicated as unfavorable for the

type of systems predominantly utilized (i.e., absorption fields), which inhibit proper treatment and

percolation. The predominance of drinking water wells in close proximity to septic systems is further

reason to explore the possibilities of sewer district consolidation and expansion.

To explore the impact of septic system/drinking water well proximity on drinking water quality URS

requested bacteriological test results for drinking water wells from the CCDOH. The CCDOH maintains

1 It is noted that the project area referenced pertains to the study area of the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study. This analysis was not updated to reflect the expanded project area under this current evaluation. However, it is believed that the Zones 11, 12, and 13 have similar septic system characteristics to the project area analyzed above (Zones 1 through 10) and that the general conclusions discussed above apply to the expanded study area.

2 Zone 14 of the study area is an additional exception.



2-5

its own New York State and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved bacteria testing

laboratory certified to test potable water for Total Coliform and E. coli bacteria. The CCDOH routinely

provides testing of all community (cities, villages, mobile home parks) and non-community

(restaurants,hotels) water supplies for Total Coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. The

CCDOH also tests private water systems (homes and businesses) for Total Coliform and E. Coli bacteria.

Tests on private water systems are typically performed when the homes are being sold or when a private

homeowner requests that a bacteria test to be performed (CCDOH).

The private drinking water bacteria testing results for Chautauqua County from 2005 through 2011 were

provided by CCDOH. The testing results from this period yielded 217 samples in the project area3. Out

of the 217 samples, 102 samples (47%) had positive result of total coliform bacteria and were deemed

unsatisfactory by the CCDOH. The remaining 115 samples were non-detect. Out of the 217 samples, 21

samples (10%) had detected E. coli bacteria, and 196 samples (90%) were non-detect for E. coli bacteria.

According to the NYSDOH’s “Recommended Residential Water Quality Testing” any positive result of

coliform bacteria is unsatisfactory and is an indicator of possible disease causing contamination.

The sampling data indicated from the Point Chautauqua region (directly south of the CHWWTP) (refer to

Figure 1.1) had the highest incidence of unsatisfactory samples. The Point Chautauqua area accounted

for 44% of the unsatisfactory results. Of the 96 drinking water samples collected within the Point

Chautauqua area, 48% of samples (46 out of 96) were determined to be unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory

samples taken from Point Chautauqua had an average total coliform count of 119 CFU/100 mL, with a

maximum of 800 CFU/100 mL. Samples analyzed directly north of the CHWWTP (i.e., along Route 430

and west towards the Lake, from north of Breeze Lane to approximately Galloway Road) also had a high

incidence of unsatisfactory samples. Out of the 75 samples analyzed from this region, 31 were

unsatisfactory (41%).

The incidence of coliform bacteria in private drinking water wells is a cause for concern. Coliform

bacteria in private drinking water may be an indication of contamination from nearby septic systems.

The expansion of the sewer district to these residences may be beneficial to prevent or reduce some of

these concerns.”

Although the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study was focused on the areas between Galloway Road and Thumb Road, it is believed that the conclusions reached regarding soil conditions, septic systems, and bacterial contamination of drinking water wells, likely also pertain to the expanded study area reaching as far south as the area just north of Midway Park. For the purposes of this report, AECOM brought forward two of the five options developed in the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study for further consideration and expansion. Those two options include: “Expansion Option 2 – Expand CHSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Under Lake” and “Expansion Option 3 – Expand CHSD to Entire Study Area and Treat at NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430).”

3 It is noted that the project area referenced pertains to the 2012 Chautauqua Heights study. This analysis was not updated to reflect the expanded project area under this current evaluation. However, it is believed that the Zones 11, 12, and 13 have similar bacterial contamination issues to the project area analyzed above (Zones 1 through 10) and that the general conclusions discussed above apply to the expanded study area.



2-6

2.2 Option Development Based upon the desire to expand and/or consolidate the NCLSD and the analysis presented in Section 2.1, five options (and two sub-options) have been generated for this report. It is noted that “Expansion Option 2” and “Expansion Option 3” from the 2012 URS report have been carried forward, updated and expanded and renamed as Option 3B and Option 3A, respectively. The five options and sub-options are listed below:

• Option 1: No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with the SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades. This option includes the NCLSD and CHSD WWTP upgrades identified in the 2014 and 2012 URS reports, respectively. o Option 1A: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP.

This option includes relocating the sewerage services from CUD to NCLSD for Zone 14 only. This is an additive sub-option to Option 1. (Note: This option does not include the NCLSD users located on the “north end” of CUD. These users’ flows are by gravity to the CUD WWTP, and it does not hydraulically make sense to connect them through this option).

• Option 2: Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP. This option includes sewerage services for Zone 3 only. This option also includes the NCLSD WWTP upgrades for effluent phosphorus removal. o Option 2A: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP.

This option includes relocating the sewerage services from CUD to NCLSD for Zone 14 only. This is an additive sub-option to Option 2. See note in Option 1A above.

• Option 3A: Expand NCLSD to entire study area (14 zones), convey sewage from east side of lake to NCLSD WWTP via force main along Rte. 430 and pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP.

• Option 3B: Expand NCLSD to entire study area (14 zones), convey sewage from east side of lake to NCLSD WWTP via force main under Chautauqua Lake and pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP.

• Option 4: Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers

For each option the following information is presented in this section:

• A description of the option,

• A proposed layout/sewerage plan (where applicable),

• Consideration of project sequencing (where applicable),

• Net impact of total phosphorus removal as predicted by the study, “Integrated Sewage Management Plan for Chautauqua Lake”, by O’Brien and Gere, 2014.

Option costs are presented in Section 4. 2.2.1 Option 1: No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades. This option includes the NCLSD and CHSD WWTP upgrades identified in the 2014 and 2012 URS reports, respectively. No additional sewage conveyance work is included in this option. In essence, this is the null option as the respective sewer districts are required to provide SPDES permit compliance and “no action” is not a feasible alternative. Table 2.1 summarizes the proposed NCLSD treatment plant improvements that will be undertaken as part of the proposed option. It is important to note that the improvements planned in this option will not



2-7

increase the treatment capacity of the plant, but are designed to meet the new SPDES phosphorus limits and other proposed permit changes including nitrogen and residual chlorine. For each item, the requirement for undertaking the work is also provided.

TABLE 2.1

Option 1 - No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades

Proposed NCLSD WWTP Improvements

Unit Process Upgrade/Improvement Reason

Filtration Add filtration downstream of the secondary clarifiers. A new filter building will be constructed to house the filters and ancillary equipment and controls.

Final polishing for phosphorous removal.

Provide ancillary facilities for chemical addition (sodium hypochlorite) prior to the filters.

To prevent and/or control biological growth within the filter.

Pump Station Add a pump station structure downstream of the secondary clarifiers. Work will include modification of influent piping to the chlorine contact tank and removal of the existing flow meter upstream of chlorine contact tank.

To pump plant flows to the new filtration building located on the southeastern corner of the site

Chemical Storage/Addition An upgraded chemical storage area including secondary containment and metering pumps will be provided in the new filter building. Storage for ferric chloride solution (totes), and sodium hypochlorite (55-gallon drums) will be provided. New ferric chloride chemical piping will be required from the building to the new addition points. Include relocation of existing ferric chloride storage, metering pumps, and piping.

To support new chemical addition processes.

Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs) Effluent Distribution Structure

Provide an additional ferric chloride feed point at the RBC effluent distribution structure. Install mixer and baffles in the structure.

To provide mixing of the ferric chloride solution.

Outfall Modifications Install flow meter and sampler in existing manhole located 40 feet downstream of chlorine contact tank.

Existing flow meter and piping removed to allow construction of pump station.

Site Work Regrade area for new filter building including installing a paved access road to new filter building.

Provide access for maintenance vehicles and chemical deliveries to the filter building.

Electrical Upgrades Expand existing Motor Control Center To support plant upgrades.

The majority of the plant modifications required for this option are centered on phosphorus removal. In late 2014, URS recommended implementation of a multi-point chemical addition with filtration as the



2-8

preferred method to remove phosphorus from the plant effluent. Construction of a new filter building will be required to house the new filter process and chemical storage. The new building is proposed to be of concrete block construction with a steel gable roof. The main room of the filter building will consist of the filtration equipment, filter tanks (concrete or stainless steel), influent and effluent channels (as required), and associated piping. Control panels would be provided for local control of the filters. A mechanical/electrical room and two chemical storage rooms would also be provided. The chemical storage rooms will have overhead doors to allow for delivery of chemical totes and drums into the building. Energy efficient lighting and ventilation systems will be incorporated. It is noted that depending on the filtration technology selected, a flocculation tank may be necessary after chemical addition and prior to the filter in order to obtain the required phosphorous removal. The existing secondary clarifiers (two (2) at 30-foot diameter by 10-foot side water depth) should be sufficient to meet this requirement and will be considered further during detailed design. A paved access road will be constructed to allow plant operations and maintenance personnel, and chemical deliveries to access the new building. Due to the approximate seven (7) foot grade change between the existing site and the new filter building location, significant site re-grading will need to be performed and/or a retaining wall will need to be constructed to allow for the new access road. Where feasible, site grading and stormwater management design will promote infiltration. Permeable/pervious pavement will be evaluated for the paved access road during detailed design. A pump station will be required to lift plant flows to the new filter building. The pump station will be installed downstream of the existing secondary clarifiers and prior to the existing chlorine contact tank. The pump station shall consist of an approximately 10 foot by 10 foot by 15 foot deep concrete structure and will house four (4) submersible pumps (two (2) pumps at 0. 5 mgd, and two (2) pumps at 1.1 mgd) with premium efficiency motors. The pump station will have a maximum capacity exceeding the design peak flow of 1.6 mgd. The pump station will be able to pump the design peak flow with one of the 1.1 mgd pumps out of service. The pump station will be configured with an effluent overflow weir consisting of a reinforced concrete channel and open-top automatically actuated normally closed sluice gate. If flows into the pump station are greater than the capacity of the lift station, the overflow weir will allow flows to pass by gravity to the existing chlorine contact tank. A secondary benefit to the overflow weir is that it will prevent backflow of return, treated flows from the filters. In case of power failure, the sluice gate will open, allowing all flow to flow by gravity to the chlorine contact tanks. The facility’s motor control center (MCC) will require upgrades to support the power requirements of the proposed upgrades. The facility does not have a SCADA system. Local controls will be provided for each new system and component.

Although not the focus of this study, AECOM also considered the impact of each option upon the CHSD WWTP and CHSD users. Under Option 1, the upgrades required at the CHSD WWTP, to meet phosphorus limit compliance, as defined in the 2012 URS report include the following:

• Replacement of sand filter unit

• Miscellaneous structural repairs (pipe supports, tank braces, cross bracing for building, wood truss rehabilitation)

• Replacement of clarifier baffles and effluent weir

• Installation of mechanical ventilation unit

• Installation of attic moisture barrier

• Increase spare parts stock



2-9

It is important to note that this option details the minimum capital upgrades that both districts are required to perform to enable the two treatment plants to achieve compliance with the future phosphorous requirements of the plants’ SPDES permits. Based on the 2014 O’Brien and Gere report, this option will remove approximately 2,054 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake. 2.2.2 Option 1A: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD

WWTP

The existing agreement between CUD and NCLSD for treatment of Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments wastewater flows at CUD WWTP expires in 2019. In anticipation of this date, NCLSD is considering options for best managing these flows. The estimated project costs will help guide NCLSD with future decisions regarding treatment of this area’s wastewater. As an alternative to pumping the Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to the CUD WWTP, AECOM assembled an additive sub option whereby the Chautauqua Shores Pump Station (PS) is upgraded to pump to the nearest gravity sewer that is tributary to the NCLSD WWTP and has sufficient capacity to accept the flow. See Figure 2.2 on the following page. This option was requested by the NCLSD personnel and includes alternative treatment of Zone 14 sewage. This sub-option was developed to determine if pumping flows to the NCLSD WWTP would be a cost effective long term solution compared to paying CUD WWTP on an annual basis to treat these flows. To minimize the capital costs, the most cost effective option available is to increase the Lighthouse Point pump station capacity and leave its existing forcemain in service; however, this will leave the district with no spare capacity in the pump station and in the existing forcemain as the velocities in the forcemain are over 5 ft/sec. An alternative approach to upgrading the Lighthouse Point PS would be to increase the size of the existing 6 inch forcemain to an 8 inch forcemain, which would allow for smaller pumps and a smaller increase in the electrical service size. However, the additional capital costs would increase the budget another $500,000 to $750,000. The alternative approach with the upgrade to the 8-inch forcemain was not carried under this analysis. Option 1A is an additive sub-option to Option 1. This sub-option includes the following work:

• Three new pumps and rail system for Chautauqua Shores Pump Station. The existing three (3) 160 gpm pumps will be replaced with three (3) new 160 gpm pumps. Larger motor pumps will be required due to the increase in static head to pump to NCLSD WWTP compared to the CUD WWTP.

• New 6 inch forcemain, approximately 8,000 lineal feet from Chautauqua Shores PS to a manhole in front of #5066 SR 394, which is tributary to Lighthouse Point PS. Given the larger pumps, the difference in length and the difference in the static head required for the revised alignment of the force main, the two new pumps will have 32 hp motors4, a significant increase over the existing 5 hp motors.

• New pump controls, variable frequency drives, enclosures and a new electrical service for Chautauqua Shores Pump Station.

• New pump station structure, pumps and electrical service at the Lighthouse Point PS. Larger pumps will be required due to the additional flows from Chautauqua Shores. Additionally, NCLSD district staff relayed to AECOM that Lighthouse Point PS has capacity issues during wet weather flow events. Given the larger pumps, and the increase in the capacity of the pumps, the two new pumps will have 57 hp motors4, a significant increase over the existing 9.4 hp motors.

4 Is it noted that the manufacturer recommended pump selections under this option are not standard motor sizes. Pump motor size and associated electrical work may vary based on final pump selection in the design and construction phase.

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%


TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOWN

OF

STOC

KTON

TOWN

OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

NCLSD WWTP

CUD WWTP

EXISTING8" X 6"

FM REDUCER

MH 5066SR 394

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

k

B igInl

e t

Black

CreekLittleInlet

Dewi

tt vi l le

C ree

k

WingCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

t tville

Cree

k

Pendergast

Creek

ST394

ST430

ST430

GG127

GG642


WooglinWooglin

HartfieldHartfield






ChautauquaLake

Park Rd

FalconRd

The Cir

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Big Inlt

TerraceAve

W Wiley

AveLawndaleDr

North

AveWalnut

Ave

North Ave

Springbrook Rd

Heather Ct

Clark St

LakviewAve

South Dr

BellamyField Rd

WytheAve

BrooksideRd

W Whallon

St

AndrewsAve

Park Ave

Summer

Haven Rd

WhitneyBay Rd

Davis Rd

OakSt

Erickson Ln

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

Barnes

St

CrestwoodRd

Wiery Rd

Service RdCreek Rd

E Marvin St

Lighthouse

Point Rd

S Terrace

Ave

Tinke

rtown

Dr

Chedwel Ave

Mather

Rd

Elmwood Ave

Orchard Ave

Moha

wkDr

Memorial Dr

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

LinAve

Shorelands Dr

Fairview RdEmerald Ave

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

JanesAve

WatermanRd

Hannum Rd

PickardRd

Luce Rd


Rd

SummitAve

BloomerRd

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

PrendergastBlvd

Sea Lion Dr

Elm St

OldRoute 17

McKay Rd

Morris St

Bloomer Rd

Coe R

d


Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

PrattAve

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St

Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd

Webber Rd


Wrig

ht Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

d

E LakeRd E Lake Rd

Water

St

WLak e

Rd

W Chautauqua St


S Erie St

N Erie St

W Lake Rd


an

Mayvil le Rd

E Lake Rd

Route 430

W Lake Rd

"S14CHAUTAUQUA SHORES PS (MODIFIED)

ORCHARD TERRACE PS

LIGHTHOUSE POINT PS (MODIFIED)

MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

4

1413

11

2

12

3 6

10

1

85

97ST394

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Optio

n_1A

_2A.m

xdCr

eator

: Eric

Date

: 6/29

/2015

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

STUDY AREA INDEX



OPTION 1A/2A PROPOSED PLAN:PUMP CHAUTAUQUA SHORES AND

ORCHARD TERRACE DEVELOPMENTSTO NCLSD WWTP

0 3,0001,500Feet

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015



LEGEND

2.2

% Existing Pump Station Location

$ Proposed Pump Station Location


Municipal Boundary

Sewerage Study Area

Proposed Sewer Lines (with Flow Direction)

Proposed Gravity Sewer

Proposed Grinder Pump Forcemain

Proposed Forcemain




2-11

It should be noted that the volume of wastewater pumped to the NCLSD under Option 1A will not require a capacity upgrade of the NCLSD WWTP, as the average flow of the Chautauqua Shores PS is 56,000 gpd, which can be accommodated without expanding the plant capacity. In addition, no district expansion is required for this option. The new 6” forcemain will require easements and/or work within the right-of-way. Construction of this sub-option alone does not change the phosphorus loading to the lake because this flow is already factored into CUD’s upgrades; however, pairing this sub-option with Option 1 will remove approximately 2,055 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake (i.e., 1,969 lbs/year due to NCLSD WWTP upgrades, and 85.7 lbs/year due to CHSD upgrades). 2.2.3 Option 2: Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP

and NCLSD Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades.

As an alternative to rehabilitation of the existing CHSD WWTP, AECOM assembled this option whereby the WWTP is demolished and a pump station is constructed on site with a force main that follows Route 430 to the NCLSD WWTP. This option is an expansion of the NCLSD, as the existing CHSD would cease to exist and CHSD users would become users of NCLSD. See Figure 2.3 on the following page. In contrast to the 2012 URS study, this option includes Zone 3 only (the area currently served by the existing WWTP).

This option includes the following work:

• The improvements to the NCLSD WWTP, only as described under Option 1.

• Demolition of the CHSD and construction a pump station and force main to convey the sewage from CHSD to the NCLSD WWTP.

This option was developed for the following reasons:

• The volume of wastewater pumped to the NCLSD will not require a capacity upgrade of the NCLSD WWTP, as the average flow of the CHSD is 20,000 gpd.

• The pump station can be sized to accept future flows from the surrounding area to provide opportunities for future expansion.

• As an alternative to upgrading the CHSD WWTP for SPDES phosphorus limit compliance

Based on the 2014 O’Brien and Gere report, this option will remove approximately 2,055 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake. It is noted that the change in net phosphorus load to the lake is estimated to be same as Option 1 because NCLSD WWTP and CHSD WWTP have equivalent permitted effluent concentrations. Therefore, whether the CHSD flows are treated at the NCLSD or CHSD WWTP, they will still be required achieve the same level of phosphorous removal. Under this option, the TMDL phosphorous allocation assigned to CHSD is assumed to be transferred to the NCLSD WWTP allocation.

2.2.4 Option 2A: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP.

Similarly to Option 1A, this is an additive sub-option to Option 2, i.e., it includes the Option 2 upgrades to convert the CHSD WWTP to a pump station with a forcemain to the NCLSD WWTP and it also includes bringing the NCLSD district flows that currently are treated at CUD WWTP, to the NCLSD WWTP.

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOWN

OF

STOC

KTON

TOWN

OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

NCLSD WWTPCONVERTED PUMPING STATION

FORMER CHAUTAUQUA HEIGHTS WWTP

CUD WWTP

FORCE MAIN TONCLSD WWTP

EXISTING8" X 6"

FM REDUCER

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

k

B igIn le t

Black

CreekLitt leInlet

Dewi

t tvi l le

Cree

k

W ingCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

tt ville

Cree

k

PendergastCreek

ST394

ST430

GG127

GG642



WooglinWooglin

HartfieldHartfield






ChautauquaLake

Park Rd

FalconRd

The Cir

TerraceAve

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Oneida Dr

Big Inlt

Irving Pl

HiddenValley Ln

W Wiley

Ave

Walnut

Ave

Springbrook Rd

Merrill AveMiller Ave

Heather Ct

Clark St

LakviewAve

HarperAve

BellamyField Rd

WytheAve

BrooksideRd

W Whallon

St

Summer

Haven Rd

Davis Rd

OakSt

Erickson Ln

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

Barnes

St

CrestwoodRd

Wiery Rd

Service RdCreek Rd

E Marvin St

Tinke

rtown

Dr

Chedwel Ave

Mather

Rd

WhitneyBay Rd

ElmwoodAve

Orchard Ave

SerenityAcres Rd

Memorial Dr

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

Shorelands Dr

Emera ldAve

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

JanesAve

WatermanRd

PittsburghAve

PickardRd

HannumRd

Luce Rd


Rd

SummitAve

BloomerRd

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

LeetAve

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

PrendergastBlvd

Sea Lion Dr

Elm St

OldRoute 17

McKay Rd

Morris St

Bloomer Rd

Coe R

d


Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

PrattAve

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St

Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd


Webber Rd

Wrig

ht Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

d

E LakeRd E Lake Rd

Water

St

WLake

Rd

W Chautauqua St


S Erie St

N Erie St

WLake Rd

E Chautauqua St

Sherman Mayvil le

Rd E Lake Rd

Route 430

WLakeRd

"S3


LIGHTHOUSE POINT PS

MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

4

1413

11

2

12

3 6

10

1

85

97ST394

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Optio

n_2.m

xdCr

eator

: Eric

Date

: 6/29

/2015

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

STUDY AREA INDEX



0 3,0001,500Feet

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015



LEGEND

2.3




Municipal Boundary

Sewerage Study Area




Proposed Forcemain


OPTION 2 PROPOSED PLAN:CONVERT CHSD WWTP TO A PUMP

STATION WITH FORCEMAIN TONCLSD WWTP



2-13

In addition to the Option 2 work described above, this option has an identical scope to Option 1A (refer to Section 2.2.2 and Figure 2.2). Construction of this sub-option alone does not change the phosphorus loading to the lake; however, pairing this sub-option with Option 2 will remove approximately 2,055 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake. It is noted that the change in net phosphorus load to the lake is estimated to be same as Option 1 because both facilities have equivalent permitted effluent concentrations. Therefore, whether these flows are treated at NCLSD WWTP or CUD WWTP, they will still be required achieve the same level of phosphorous removal. Also, as mentioned under Option 1A, the TMDL allocation for these additional users is assumed to be added to NCLSD’s TMDL allocation. 2.2.5 Option 3A - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP Option 3A expands the collection system to include all of the study area on the east side of the lake (Zones 1 through 13), as well as the study area on the west side of the Lake (Zone 14). Refer to Figure 2.4 on the following page. The CHSD WWTP would be demolished and a new pump station would be constructed on site. Zones 1 and 2 would be connected to the existing CHSD sewerage facilities and flows would be conveyed to the new Chautauqua Heights Pump Station for conveyance to the NCLSD WWTP. Zones 1 and 2 are located north of the existing CHSD, and this option would require district expansion of the sewer district of the southern boundary of the NCLSD. Property owners within Zones 1 and 2 would be connected to the system either through a gravity connection or via a grinder pump/force main system. A pumping station would be constructed in Zone 2 to convey flows to the proposed Chautauqua Heights Pump Station. Zone 3 is already connected to the CHSD, and this would remain the same under this option. Property owners within Zones 4 through 13 would be connected through either a gravity connection or via a grinder pump/force main connection. The Bayberry Landing WWTP (Zone 9) would be converted to a pumping station and would be connected to the gravity system along Route 430. The flow from Zones 4 through 13 would be conveyed to a pumping station located in Zone 8 that would pump to the proposed Chautauqua Heights Pump Station. The Chautauqua Heights Pump Station would convey flows via a force main to the NCLSD WWTP via a force main that follows Route 430 around the northern basin of the lake. The forcemain would terminate at the NCSLD WWTP to avoid hydraulic overloading of the existing gravity sewers. The flow from the Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace areas on the west side of the Lake (Zone 14) will be conveyed to the Lighthouse Point PS via a new forcemain from the Chautauqua Heights PS to a gravity sewer tributary to the Lighthouse Point PS.

Option 3A includes the following:

• Demolition of the existing CHSD WWTP

• Construction of a pumping station at the location of the CHSD WWTP and a forcemain following Route 430 to the NCLSD WWTP,

• Upgrades to the NCLSD WWTP to accommodate the additional 326,000 gallons per day of wastewater from the expanded CHSD and Chautauqua Shores (see Section 3 of this report).

• Project work identified in Option 1A/2A to convey wastewater from Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace to the NCLSD WWTP which includes: o Two new pumps and rail system for Chautauqua Shores Pump Station. The existing 75 gpm

pumps will be replaced with two new 160 gpm pumps. o New 6 inch forcemain, approximately 8,000 lineal feet from Chautauqua Shores PS to a manhole

in front of #5066 SR 394, which is tributary to Lighthouse Point PS.

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%MH 5066SR 394

TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOWN

OF

STOC

KTON

TOWN

OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

NCLSD WWTPCONVERTED PUMPING STATION

FORMER CHAUTAUQUA HEIGHTS WWTP

CUD WWTP

FORCE MAIN TONCLSD WWTP

EXISTING8" X 6"

FM REDUCER

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

k

B igInl

et

Black

CreekLitt leInlet

Dewi

t tvil le

Cree

k

Wi ngCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

ttville

Cree

k

PendergastCreek

ST394 ST430

ST430

GG127

GG648

GG642


WooglinWooglin






ChautauquaLake

Park Rd

FalconRd

The Cir

TerraceAve

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Oneida Dr

Big Inlt

Irving Pl

LowellAve

W Wiley

AveLawndaleDr

North

Ave

MapleAve

Walnut

Ave

Springbrook Rd

Heather Ct

Clark St

LakviewAve

South Dr

BellamyField Rd

BrooksideRd

W Whallon

St

Park Ave

Summer

Haven Rd

Davis Rd

OakSt

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

Barnes

St

Wiery Rd

Service Rd

WhitneyBay Rd

Creek Rd

E Marvin St

Tinke

rtown

Dr

GullRd

Chedwel Ave

Mather

Rd

ElmwoodAve

Memorial Dr

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

LinAve

Shorelands Dr

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

WatermanRd

JanesAve

CayugaCir

PickardRd

Luce Rd

HannumRd


Rd

SummitAve

BloomerRd

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

S Lake Dr

LeetAve

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

PrendergastBlvd

Sea Lion Dr

Elm St

OldRoute 17

McKay Rd

Morris St

Bloomer Rd

Coe R

d


Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

PrattAve

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd

Webber Rd


Wrig

ht Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

d

E LakeRd E Lake Rd

Water

St

WLake

Rd

W Chautauqua St


S Erie St

N Erie St

W Lake Rd


an

Mayvil le Rd

E Lake Rd

Route430

W Lake Rd

"S1

"S3

"S5

"S4

"S2

"S6

"S7

"S10"S9

"S8

"S11

"S12

"S13

"S14CHAUTAUQUA SHORES PS (MODIFIED)

ORCHARD TERRACE PS


MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

4

1413

11

2

12

3 6

10

1

85

97ST394

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Optio

n_3A

.mxd

Crea

tor: E

ric D

ate: 6

/29/20

15

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

STUDY AREA INDEX



0 3,0001,500Feet

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015



LEGEND

2.4




Municipal Boundary

Sewerage Study Area Zones




Proposed Forcemain


OPTION 3A PROPOSED PLAN:EXPAND NCLSD TO ENTIRE STUDY AREA

AND TREAT AT NCLSD WWTP VIAFORCEMAIN ALONG RT. 430 AND PUMP

CHAUTAUQUA SHORES TO NCLSD WWTP



2-15

o New pump controls, variable frequency drives, enclosures and a new electrical service for Chautauqua Shores Pump Station

o New pump station structure, pumps and electrical service at the Lighthouse Point PS. (NCLSD district staff relayed to AECOM that Lighthouse Point PS has capacity issues during wet weather flow events).

Based on the 2014 O’Brien and Gere report, this option will remove approximately 2,474 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake, an incremental increase of 419 lbs/year over Option 1, 1a, 2 and 2a. 2.2.6 Option 3B - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main on Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP Option 3B expands the collection system to include all of the study area on the east side of the lake (Zones 1 through 13), as well as the study area on the west side of the Lake (Zone 14). Option 3B is identical in scope to Option 3A, with the exception that the forcemain would be installed along the bottom of Chautauqua Lake instead of following Route 430 to the NCLSD WWTP. Refer to Figure 2.5 on the following page. All other project work shall be identical to the scope of work identified in Section 2.2.5 of this report. Based on the 2014 O’Brien and Gere report, this option will remove approximately 2,474 lbs/year of phosphorus from the lake, an incremental increase of 419 lbs/year over Options 1, 1A, 2 and 2A. 2.2.7 Option 4 - Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers Option 4 is a standalone option required to maintain functionality of the NCLSD WWTP’s existing anaerobic digesters. The existing floating digester covers on facility’s first stage and second stage digester tanks are in disrepair and are at the end of their useful lives. Replacement with two new floating covers is recommended to provide the desired functionality and performance of the digesters. Option 4 is recommended to be added to all options described above, however, it is being carried as a separate upgrade option as it is not part of the current SPDES permit compliance requirements nor does it qualify as a plant expansion option. 2.3 Option Planning

Considerations to be addressed during the planning and design phases are discussed below.

2.3.1 Community Engagement

The project planning process for the selected option will include a community engagement component. Public outreach will help the community develop an understanding for the need for the selected project, and all interested parties will be provided the opportunity to comment. 2.3.2 Environmental Review and Sustainability

A State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) review will be conducted prior to implementation of the selected option to thoroughly consider environmental impacts. Any adverse environmental impacts will

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

CONVERTED PUMPING STATIONFORMER CHAUTAUQUA HEIGHTS WWTP

TOWN OF ELLERY

TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

TOW

N OF

STOC

KTON

TOW

N OF

CHAU

TAUQ

UA

NCLSD WWTP

CUD WWTP

EXISTING8" X 6"

FM REDUCER

MH 5066SR 394

ChautauquaGolfClub

Black

Cree

k

BigInl

et

Black

CreekLitt leInlet

Dew i

ttvi lle

Cree

k

WingCreek

MudCreek

Dewi

ttville

Cree

k

Pendergast

Creek

ST394 ST430

ST430

GG127

GG642



WooglinWooglin

HartfieldHartfield






ChautauquaLake

Park Rd

CookAve

FalconRd

The Cir

TerraceAve

Forest Ln

Inlet Dr

Oneida Dr

Big Inlt

Irving Pl

LowellAve

LawndaleDr

MapleAve

Walnut

Ave

Springbrook Rd

Merrill AveMiller Ave

LakeviewAve

Heather Ct

Clark St

LakviewAve

South Dr

HarperAve

BellamyField Rd

BrooksideRd

W Whallon

St

Summer

Haven Rd

WhitneyBay Rd

Davis Rd

OakSt

Tiebor Rd

Kataw

kaRd

Vincent

Ave

Barnes

St

Wiery Rd

Service RdCreek Rd

E Marvin St

Tinke

rtown

Dr

Chedwel Ave

Elmwood Ave

Memorial Dr

Over

look

Ave

Iona S

t

LinAve

Shorelands Dr

Marina

Dr

Scandia Dr

CayugaDr

JanesAve

PittsburghAve

Hannum Rd

WatermanRd

PickardRd

Luce Rd


Rd

SummitAve

HurstAve

MapleDr E

GallowayRd

LeetAve

Royc

e Rd

Whallon Rd

Mill R

d

E Evans St

PrendergastBlvd

Sea Lion Dr

OldRoute 17

Bloomer Rd

McKay Rd

Morris St

Maple Dr W

Coe R

d


Weaver Rd

Casselman Rd

Card Rd

Brodt Rd

Beaujean Rd

VanNess Rd

Valley St

Lake

view

Ave

Walker Rd

Tyler Rd

Webber Rd


Wrig

ht Rd

Moore Rd

Chau

tauqu

aSt

edma

n Rd

Thumb Rd

Hewe

s Rd

Potte

r Rd

Lewi

s Rd

Mead

ows R

d

Morris R

d

Bayv

iew R

dE Lake Rd

Water

St

WLake

Rd

W Chautauqua St


S Erie St

N Erie St

W Lake Rd


an

Mayvil le Rd

E Lake Rd

Route430

WLake

Rd

"S1

"S3

"S5

"S4

"S2

"S6

"S7

"S10"S9

"S8

"S11

"S12

"S13

"S14

CHAUTAUQUA SHORES PS (MODIFIED)ORCHARD TERRACE PS


MATHER ROAD PS

IRWINS BAY PS

4

1413

11

2

12

3 6

10

1

85

97ST394

Path:

J:\Pr

ojects

\1540

15-00

-AEC

OM_W

WTP_

Mayv

ille\G

IS\AE

COM_

Optio

n_3B

.mxd

Crea

tor: D

anT

Date:

7/2/2

015

TITLE

PROJECT


FIGURE NO.

STUDY AREA INDEX



0 0.50.25Miles

!ICOPYRIGHT © 2015



LEGEND

2.5




Municipal Boundary

Sewerage Study Area Zones




Proposed Forcemain


OPTION 3B PROPOSED PLAN:EXPAND NCLSD TO ENTIRE STUDY AREA AND

TREAT AT NCLSD WWTP VIA FORCEMAINON LAKE BOTTOM AND PUMP CHAUTAUQUA

SHORES TO NCLSD WWTP



2-17

be identified during the review process and will be either be avoided, minimized, or mitigated, as appropriate. During the design phase, sustainability considerations will be incorporated into the project where feasible. Opportunities for sustainable design include the following:

• Energy efficiency: o New pumps will be provided with premium efficiency motors. Pumps will be provided

with variable frequency drives with control loops, where applicable. o As appropriate, lighting and HVAC systems for new buildings will exceed efficiency

requirements of the required building energy code. o New or replacement equipment specified will incorporate energy efficient and/or low-

flow options where feasible.

• Green Infrastructure: o Stormwater management practices that mimic natural hydrology will be incorporated into

the design as appropriate. Bioretention/bioinfiltration-type practices and pervious pavements will be considered for pump station and WWTP upgrade sites.



3-1

SECTION 3

DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER FLOWS

AND EVALUATION OF NCLSD WWTP

3.1 General The NCLSD wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is a secondary treatment facility designed to reduce wastewater pollutants including biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids, and provides disinfection of the wastewater prior to discharge into Chautauqua Lake. The original design life of the Mayville WWTP was 20 years, and the facility is currently over 35 years old. The basis of design for the original WWTP is presented in Table 3.1.Some critical upgrades were performed in 2010 to maintain plant functionality including replacement of screw pumps and RBCs.

As described in Section 1 of this report, the service area of the NCLSD WWTP includes the Village of Mayville and also includes a significant portion of the area north of the Chautauqua Institution, tributary to the Lighthouse Point Pump Station, including the Irwins Bay Pump Station (see Figure 1.1).

TABLE 3.1

Existing WWTP Design Basis

Parameter Influent Effluent Design Criteria

Average flow, mgd 0.5 0.5 (30 day arithmetic mean)

Peak flow, mgd 1.6 N/A

BOD5 , mg/l 229 30 (30 day arithmetic mean)

Average BOD5 Loading, lbs/day 1, 3 955 125 (30 day arithmetic mean)

Peak BOD5 Loading, lbs/day 2 3,046 N/A

TSS, mg/l 212 30 (30 day arithmetic mean)

Average TSS Loading, lbs/day 1, 3 884 125 (30 day arithmetic mean)

Peak TSS Loading, lbs/day 2 2,820 N/A

pH, S.U. 6-9 6-9

Settleable Solids, ml/l N/A 0.3

Fecal coliform, mpn N/A 200/100 ml (30 day geo. mean)

Chlorine residual, mg/l N/A 2.0

NOTES: 1. Average daily loading calculated at average daily flow of 0.5 mgd times the influent design basis. 2. Peak loading calculated at maximum daily flow of 1.6 mgd times the influent design basis 3. Effluent loading calculated as average daily flow times the effluent design basis (permit limit). 4. N/A: Not Applicable



3-2

Figure 1.2 shows the existing site plan of the WWTP. Figure 3.1 is a schematic process flow diagram of the existing WWTP and includes the following major unit processes:

• Headworks including screening, grit removal, and flow measurement,

• Ferric chloride addition after the bar screens for phosphorous precipitation,

• Influent wastewater pumping including three (3) Archimedes screw pumps and a flow distribution structure,

• Primary sedimentation including two (2) primary clarifiers with floatables removal and sludge pumping,

• Biological treatment including three (3) rotating biological contactors (RBCs) for aerobic biological oxidation of organic pollutants and ammonia removal,

• Secondary sedimentation including two (2) secondary clarifiers with floatables removal and sludge pumping,

• Disinfection with gaseous chlorine in two (2) chlorine contact tanks.

• Sludge stabilization and dewatering including a two-stage anaerobic digester system and sludge drying beds.

3.2 Discharge Permit

The facility operates under an existing SPDES permit (NY 002 0826) that is included in Appendix A. The facility’s SPDES permit was last modified by the NYSDEC on June 29, 2015. The permit modification incorporated additional requirements for total phosphorous and ammonia.

The facility’s current discharge permit limits are listed below:

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 30/45 mg/l Monthly Average / 7-Day Average;

125/188 lbs/d Monthly Average / 7-Day Average; 85% removal Monthly Average

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30/45 mg/l Monthly Average / 7-Day Average; 125/188 lbs/d Monthly Average / 7-Day Average; 85% removal Monthly Average

Fecal Coliform 200/400 #/100 ml 30-Day / 7-Day Geometric Mean Settleable Solids 0.3 ml/l Daily Maximum Total residual chlorine 2.0 mg/l Daily Maximum pH 6.0 to 9.0 Nitrogen, ammonia Monitor only - Monthly Average Phosphorous 1.0 mg/L, Monthly Average Monitor only lbs/day

Settleable solids, total residual chlorine, and pH are monitored through daily grab samples. Total phosphorous and ammonia monitoring is required monthly via three (3) grab samples collected over a 6 hour period. Fecal coliform are monitored through grab samples twice per month. BOD5 and TSS monitoring is required twice per month via three (3) grab samples collected over a 6 hour period. Effective June 1, 2018, the facility will be required to comply with the final effluent phosphorus limit of 339.5 lbs/year (0.93 lbs/day), or 375.6 lbs/year aggregated with the Chautauqua Heights Sewer District (CHSD). It is noted that because the phosphorous TMDL is a mass limitation, the allowable effluent

TITLE OF DRAWING

PROJECT

SCALE

ISSUE DATEDRAWN BY

Phone: 716-858-1234325 Delaware Ave.,St. 200, Buffalo, NY 14202

COPYRIGHT 2015FISHER ASSOCIATES,P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.

DRAWING NO.

FIGURE 3.1

NCLSD VILLAGE OF MAYVILLE WWTP

R. EVANS

NO SCALE

06-29-15

EXISTING PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC



3-4

concentration will vary as the flow varies. At lower flows a higher concentration will be allowed, whereas if the plant were to receive its full permitted flow, the concentration would be quite low. At the average daily flow (0.33 million gallons per day (mgd)), the final effluent limit concentration equivalent is 0.34 mg/l; whereas at the design capacity of 0.5 mgd, the effluent concentration equivalent is 0.22 mg/l. It should be noted that if the NCLSD service area is expanded to include areas not presently discharged to the NCSLD WWTP, then the phosphorous mass discharge limits would be expected to be increased proportionality. This would need to be negotiated with the NYSDEC before proceeding with any potential district extensions.

3.3 Current and Future Flow Projections As presented, the purpose of this study is to determine the potential costs for district expansion, conveyance and treatment of expanded areas with the ultimate goal of removing as much nutrient loading from the Lake as feasible. In doing so, AECOM reviewed and expanded the Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Study performed by URS three years ago. Additional areas were added to the prior study area as requested by the district and presented above in Section 2 of this report. In evaluating sewer district expansion options it is important to not only consider current flows and conditions, but also future flows and conditions. Design flows for the expanded service area were calculated based on “Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works” (NYSDEC 1988) and Ten States Standards (2009). Future flow projections were analyzed based on population trends for the Town of Chautauqua and Chautauqua County along with a consideration of future parcel-build out potential. 3.3.1 Wastewater Flow Projections The Ten States Standards requirement for sizing new wastewater collection systems is as follows: "the

sizing of wastewater facilities receiving flows from new wastewater collection systems shall be based on

an average daily flow of 100 gallons (380 L) per capita plus wastewater flow from industrial plants and

major institutional or commercial facilities unless water use data or other justification upon which to

better estimate flow is provided." The average household size in the Town of Chautauqua is 3 persons, as per the 2010 U.S. Census. As a result, the estimated wastewater flow from each household was estimated to be 300 gpd. In the 2012 URS study, the project study area was separated into twelve (12) zones based on a logical grouping of flow sources by geographical location and topography (Refer to Figure 2.1). The flow sources within each zone were identified, counted, and classified as residential or non-residential. This was performed from a review of aerial mapping along with a site reconnaissance (drive-by) of many of the streets in the study area. The sewage flow rate in gallons per day was then estimated for each zone. Zones 13 and 14 were added to the study based upon the request of the NCLSD. Zone 13 was added on the east side of the Lake and is bound by Thumb Road to the north and the area just north of Midway Park and Maple Springs to the south. Zone 14 is on the west side of the Lake and consists of Chautauqua Shores, Orchard Terrace and Prendergrast Point areas. Again, it is important to note that Zone 14 is presently in the NCSLD district, but due to their geographic location, they are currently tributary to the Chautauqua Shores pump station which pumps directly to the Chautauqua Utility District Treatment Plant. There are flow records for the Chautauqua Shores pump station, the data from which was used to estimate base flows from this area. The concept of an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) is a convenient measure by which to apportion sewage flows and treatment costs based upon the volume of sewage discharged. Each household is



3-5

considered to be one equivalent dwelling unit; and is assumed to generate 300 gallons per day of wastewater. For non-residential units it is a straight forward matter to estimate their wastewater flow, and then to divide it by 300 gpd, to determine how many EDUs each source is equivalent to. Sewer charges can then be apportioned per number of EDUs. EDUs for non-residential sources were developed based on typical wastewater flow rates for campgrounds, mobile home parks, and other source types as recommended by NYSDEC (1988) (Refer to Table A-1 in Appendix A). The total number of EDUs for each zone was determined and was multiplied by the assumed average daily flow per EDU (300 gpd) to arrive at a total wastewater flow for each zone in gpd. Table 3.2 on the following page presents a breakdown of all wastewater sources in each of the 14 zones in the study area, along with the number of EDUs in each zone. 3.3.2 Future Flow Projections Because each sewer district expansion option should be valid for a 20 year planning period, it is necessary to project the future wastewater flow, so that facilities can be appropriately sized for future conditions. Typical methods of projecting future flows include one or more of the following:

• Analyzing historical wastewater flow rates and trends,

• Analyzing historical and projected population trends,

• Analyzing the service area’s number of undeveloped parcels and estimating the extent of future development.

AECOM did not think the first method listed above was applicable to the current study, therefore, the last two methods of analysis were attempted. The results are described below. 3.3.2.1 Population Trends

An analysis of population trends was performed for the Town of Chautauqua and Chautauqua County in an attempt to develop future flow projections. This method analyzes population data for the Town of Chautauqua and Chautauqua County from the U.S. Census Bureau. Data for the decennial census from 1980 to 2010 are shown in Table 3.3. It is important to note that when completing the US Census, responders are asked to indicate where they live “most of the time”. Therefore seasonal residents who spend a few summer months in the Town of Chautauqua may not be counted as part of the census data. Therefore this may not be the best estimate of analysis for predicting future population trends.

The percentage change in population over a twenty year periods (1990 to 2010) and a ten year period (2000 to 2010) were considered. A population loss of 4.9% was experienced County-wide from 1990 to 2010. Both the Town and County of Chautauqua experienced a population loss from 2000 to 2010, with 4.3% and 3.5% loss measured, respectively. Based upon US Census data trends it would appear that the population is declining. However, it is not known for certain if this data accurately captures the seasonal population, and therefore the overall trends in the study area.

Per Source Total

WEST SIDE OF CHAUTAUQUA LAKE

Houses/residential 32 32

Liquor Store/Office 1 1

2Route 430 (from Breeze Ln to Wooglin Rd), Iona St, Wooglin Rd, Lake Ave,

Shorelands Dr, East Ave, Breeze LnHouses/residential 72 52 72 72 21,600 43,200 -

Chautauqua Lake Estates (151 condos) 151 151

Villas (18 villas) 18 18

Chautauqua Point Golf Course Club House 1 3

4

Point Chautauqua (Leet Ave, Lookout Ave, Emerald Ave, Zephyr Ave, Terrace

Ave, Midland Ave, Floral Ave, Lake Ave, Orchard Ave, Diamond Ave, Maple Ave,

Conlan Dr), Route 430 (Leet Ave East to Leet Ave West)

Houses/residential 100 75 100 100 30,000 60,000 -

5Route 430 (Springbrook to Leet Ave), Private Drive, 7 Winds Drive, Tinkertown Dr,

Cobb's Landing, Lahr's LaneHouses/residential 31 12 31 31 9,300 18,600 -


Church 1 1

Post Office 1 1

Fire Dept 1 1

Greenhouse 1 1

Auto Shop 1 1


Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 mobile home units) 40 27


Gift Shop 1 1

Restaurant 1 3

Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 225 45


Bayberry Landing (34 condos) 34 34


KOA Campground (250 campsites) 250 38


Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds) 225 45

Retail 1 1

Marina 1 1


Restaurant 1 3

Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center (250 beds) 250 50


Mobile homes (14 units) 14 9

Greenhouse 1 1

The Boys JIM Club of American Camp (250 beds) 250 50

EAST SIDE OF CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SUBTOTAL 252,300 497,600

14 Chautauqua Shores, Orchard Terrace Pump Stations Houses/residential 92 (Estimated) - 177 56,900 113,800

Flowrate (gpd) was based on historical data (2004 to 2014) from the

Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Pump Stations.

Undeveloped/unsewered parcels and total E.D.U.s were estimated

using aerial photography.

316 - 1,100 309,200 611,400 -

310,000 612,000

+ 5% + 5%

Notes: 326,000 643,000

1. Undeveloped/unsewered parcels refers to either vacant parcels (have not been developed), or parcels that are not anticipated to receive sewer service. These parcels are not assumed to add to the current flow requirement, but will be assessed a sewer charge if they

have access to a sewer line. Undeveloped/unsewered parcels were identified using the Chautauqua County, NY Geographic Information Services Parcel Viewer website (http://chautauqua.ny.us/departments/is/GIS/Pages/default.aspx).

2. Flowrate (gpd) is based the Ten States Standards requirement of an average daily flow of 100 gallons (380 L) per capita. An average household capacity of 3 people per household was used for this analysis, as per the 2010 Census data (U.S. Census Bureau) for the Town of Chautauqua.

3. Peak flow factor = 2, with exception of Chautauqua Heights Sewer District, where peak flows are known.

4. Total Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) for non-residential units, campgrounds, mobile homes, etc. were developed based on guidance from "Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works: Intermediate Sized Sewerage Facilities" (NYSDEC, 1988). Refer to Table A-1.

Table 3.2

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT EVALUATION

ESTIMATION OF PEAK FLOWRATE (GPD) BY ZONE

Zone (Refer to

Figure 2.1)Location Sources

Number of

Sources

Undeveloped/

unsewered

Parcels1

Number of Equivalent Dwelling

Units (EDUs) Flowrate2 (gpd) Notes

Peak Flowrate3

(gpd)

1Route 430 (Wooglin Rd to Galloway Rd), Dearing Rd, South Dr, North Dr, Grand

Ave8 33 9,900

-

3Route 430 (Villa/Fairview Drive to Breeze Lane); (Mohawk Dr, Oneida Dr, Seneca

Dr, Cayuga Dr); Shore Drive0 172 27,000

Existing flows to the CHWWTP are shown. (Calculated flowrate using

EDUs = 51,600 gpd)

6

Meadows Road (north of Route 430 to Springbrook Rd), Springbrook Rd (between

Meadows Rd and Route 430), Route 430 (between Meadows Road and 7 Winds

Drive)

6 41 12,300

47,000

24,600

-

7 Meadows Road (south of Route 430), Ericson Ln 18 50 15,000 -30,000

8 Route 430 (Tyler Rd to Meadows Rd) 9 58 17,400 34,800

-24,600

9 Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Tyler Rd) 3 48 14,400 -

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 41 12,300

Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd), Bellamy Field Rd, Marina Drive, West Wind

Drive, East Wind Drive, McDonald Rd, Lake Winds, Walker Rd, Overlook Ave35 147 44,100 -88,200

3 58 17,400

PERCENT INCREASE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:

-34,800

DESIGN BASIS FOR FUTURE FLOWS (GPD):

-

TOTAL (East and West Sides of the Lake = Zones 1 through 13)

28,800

13 Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd 3 72 21,600

11

-43,200

12 Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave)

19,800

TOTAL ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST THOUSAND (GPD):



3-7

TABLE 3.3

Population Data and Trends

Year Town of Chautauqua Chautauqua County 1980 Not available 146,925

1990 Not available 141,895

2000 4,666 139,750

2010 4,464 134,905

Population change: 1990 - 2010 Not available -4.9%

Population change: 2000 - 2010 -4.3% -3.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov/popfinder/

3.3.2.2 Parcel Build-Out An analysis of future parcel build-out potential was also considered as a basis for analyzing future wastewater flows. Based upon a review of recent aerial mapping along with a site reconnaissance performed by AECOM, the land bordering Chautauqua Lake is very densely developed, leaving few parcels available for future development. Away from the lake and along Route 430, there are numerous parcels available for potential future development. Table 3.2 lists the number of parcels within each zone that are currently undeveloped within the project study area. It is noted that many of the undeveloped parcels are owned by adjacent property owners, do not have frontage to a roadway, or have dimensions that preclude the development of a residence or building. Very small parcels may not have enough square footage to allow construction of a building, or may lack sufficient size to meet current standards for separation of drinking water wells and septic systems. As a result, future development is not anticipated in many cases. To allow for additional development that may occur within the project study area, AECOM assumed that a 5% increase in the design flow rate would be sufficient to capture future development over the next 20 years. AECOM believes this is a conservative assumption, based upon development trends in the project study area. 3.3.2.3 Study Area Peak Flows The current plant design basis is 0.5 mgd and the current peak flow of the plant is 1.6 mgd (within 95% of the time, see Section 3.4.1.1), leading to a peak factor of 3. For newly sewered areas, constructed with modern materials and no cross connections, such as in study areas 1, 2, and 4 through 13, a peak flow factor of 2 is reasonable. 3.3.2.4 Study Area Future Flow Conclusions The design basis for future flows will be the current flow demand as listed in Table 3.2 plus a 5% increase to account for population increase and/or future parcel build-out within the study area. The flow rate recommended for the project study area to accommodate future growth is 326,000 gpd and the peak flow rate is 643,000 gpd.



3-8

3.4 Plant Flows and Performance

As presented in the preceding section, AECOM has estimated an incremental average daily future flow increase of 0.33 mgd and an incremental peak hourly future flow rate increase of 0.61 mgd. Additionally, AECOM has reviewed historical WWTP performance data for the facility. It is noted the analysis was limited to flow and influent and effluent BOD5 and TSS data. The following historical data was analyzed:

• Daily data for the past seven calendar years (2007 to 2014).

• Monthly data for the period of 1979 through April 2015.

3.4.1 Daily Operational Data

Daily operational flow data were reviewed for the past seven years and are discussed in the following sections.

3.4.1.1 Flow

Daily flow data for the past seven years (daily average flow, instantaneous maximum, and instantaneous minimum) are presented below. A statistical evaluation of the data for the past seven and one half years is as follows:

• Average Daily Flow 0.33 million gallons per day (mgd)

• Peak Instantaneous Flow 2.5 mgd (occurred once)

• Typical Peak instantaneous flow 0.64 mgd (occurred 130 times)

• Daily average flow is <= 0.5 mgd 88% of the time

• Peak instantaneous flow is <= 1.6 mgd 95% of the time

• Peak instantaneous flow is <= 2.0 mgd 99% of the time

3.4.1.2 BOD5 and TSS Concentrations and Loadings

Daily average BOD5 and TSS influent and effluent concentrations have been statistically evaluated to determine the applicability of the design basis for the NCLSD WWTP. This data set contains over 200 points of data. The daily data from March 2007 to April 2015 is summarized below:

• Average influent BOD5 concentration 191 mg/l

• Average influent TSS concentration 146 mg/l

• Average effluent total BOD5 concentration 6 mg/l

• Average effluent TSS concentration 5 mg/l

Given the above analysis, it is AECOM’s opinion that the original basis of design for the NCLSD WWTP of 229 mg/l and 212 mg/l of BOD5 and TSS, respectively, is appropriate and conservative for analysis of future plant performance and loadings.



3-9

Daily average and maximum BOD5 and TSS influent loadings have been statistically evaluated to determine the applicability of the original design basis for the NCLSD WWTP. This data set contains over 200 points of data. The daily data from March 2007 to April 2015 is summarized below:

• Average influent BOD5 loading 433 lb/day

• Average influent TSS loading 334 lb/day

• Typical maximum influent BOD5 loading 1155 lb/day

• Typical maximum influent TSS loading 893 lb/day

Given the above analysis, it is AECOM’s opinion that the basis of design for the NCLSD WWTP of 985 lb/day and 884 lb/day of BOD5 and TSS respectively, is appropriate and conservative for analysis of future plant performance and loadings.

3.4.2 Monthly Average Flow Data

AECOM also examined monthly average flow data for the plant from its inception (1979) through 2015. The data is representative of historical trends that have been experienced by the Mayville WWTP. Due to the recent implementation of ferric chloride addition to precipitate phosphorous, sufficient monthly average data for influent and effluent phosphorous was not yet available for analysis.

Over the past 35 years of operation, flows have displayed a number of trends. During the first three complete years of operation (1980 – 1982) the monthly average flow was approximately 0.33 mgd. Flows then dropped for the next 9 years (1983 – 1991), followed by six years of increased flow, with a peak monthly average flow of 0.47 mgd in 1996. Flows decreased and leveled to an average of 0.32 mgd from 1998 – 2006. Flows have averaged 0.33 mgd from 2007 – 2015. Statistical evaluation of the monthly flow data reveals the following trends:

• Average monthly average daily flow 2007 – 2015 0.32 mgd

• Maximum monthly average daily flow (March 1994, 0.69 mgd January 1998, and March 2014)

• Minimum monthly average daily flow (May 1985) 0.09 mgd

• Past 7 years average monthly average daily flow 2007 – 2014 0.33 mgd

• Past 2 years average monthly average daily flow 2012 – 2014 0.33 mgd

Given the above flow data AECOM proposes to use the following flow rates for the basis of design of the proposed plant upgrades:

Current average daily flow: 0.33 mgd

Proposed incremental average daily flow (Options 3A and 3B): 0.33 mgd

Proposed incremental peak flow (Options 3A and 3B): 0.64 mgd

Current peak flow: 1.60 mgd

Total proposed peak flow: 2.24 mgd



3-10

Current design average flow: 0.50 mgd

Current design peak flow: 1.60 mgd

Proposed design basis average flow: 0.75 mgd

Proposed design basis peak flow: 2.25 mgd

3.5 Description and Analysis of Existing Treatment Process

This section includes a description of each unit process. This section was developed based on a site visit to the NCLSD WWTP by AECOM on December 3, 2014 and April 7, 2015, recent conversations with NCLSD staff (May 2014), specifications and record drawings for recent plant upgrades and replacements, and the “Engineering Report for North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District Mayville Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades” (URS, 2007). It is anticipated that if Options 1, 1A, 2 and 2A are chosen, the NCLSD WWTP will be modified to remove effluent phosphorus as recommended in the December 2014 URS report, only. However, if either Option 3A or 3B are chosen, the NCLSD upgrades as described in this section will have to be considered.

3.5.1 Headworks

The existing headworks consist of a mechanical bar screen, a bypass channel manual bar screen, a grit sedimentation chamber, and a Parshall flume. The original design documents indicate the WWTP headworks facilities were designed for a peak hydraulic capacity of 2.4 mgd.

The mechanical screen is located in an 18" wide channel with 3/4" clear spacing. The approach velocity at design average flow of 0.5 mgd is calculated at 0.78 feet per second (fps). The grit chamber is a horizontal flow grit sedimentation chamber with a surface area of 70 SF. These units are typically designed based on a capacity of approximately 32,000 gallons per day per square foot. This loading rate would indicate a capacity of approximately 2.24 mgd.

The existing grit removal system consists of a single open impeller type grit pump. The pump is timer controlled. The pump feeds a cyclone unit followed by a grit washing (classifier unit). The grit pumping system, cyclone, and classifier were recently replaced with a Wemco Hydrogritter model 1000 with a Wemco model C Torque Flow Pump.

The plant has a 6" Parshall flume that has a maximum capacity of 2.53 mgd, and is therefore adequate for the peak design flow of 2.25 mgd.

Therefore, the headworks structures and appurtenances are sized sufficiently to handle the average and proposed future peak flows of 0.75 mgd and 2.25 mgd, respectively; however, the district staff have expressed concern over the poor condition of the mechanical screen, which is original to the plant. AECOM has included in its plant upgrades for Options 3A and 3B the replacement cost of the mechanical screen. 3.5.2 Ferric Chloride Addition In February 2014, the WWTP began dosing ferric chloride (33% solution) to the headworks of the plant (after the bar screens). Liquid ferric chloride is stored outdoors in 300 gallon totes. The solution is pumped via a drum pump to two (2) 200 gallon tanks located in the influent screen room. The 200 gallon tanks are equipped with secondary containment. The ferric chloride solution is dosed to the headworks of



3-11

the plant via a Flomotion Systems Series variable speed peristaltic pump. The pump is located in the generator room. The peristaltic pump dosing is based on the influent plant flow and is tied to the influent flow meter. The pump flow rate increases with plant influent flow, and when the influent flow exceeds 0.5 mgd, the peristaltic pump delivers ferric chloride at its maximum flow rate. According to WWTP staff, the pump flow rate was determined by trial and error. The pump is capable of 0.14 to 20.54 gallon per hour output. The current system will be inadequate for the multi-point chemical precipitation phosphorus removal system as planned by the district to comply with the new phosphorus SPDES permit limits. It is likely that the ferric chloride storage and distribution system will be housed in the proposed filter building planned to be constructed. It is anticipated that the new ferric chloride storage and distribution system will consist of the same type of system: 300 gallon totes and small chemical feed pumps. The cost for the new ferric chloride addition system has been added to the project budget. 3.5.3 Main Pumping Station

The main pumping station consists of three 30” screw pumps which were replaced in 2010. The screw pump upgrades included replacement of the screws, drives, motors, bearings, and controls. The original screw pumps were each rated at 0.8 mgd (555 gallons per minute), and the station was rated at 1.6 mgd peak pumping capacity, with two pumps operational and one as a backup. The new pumps are each rated at 1.1 mgd (764 gallons per minute), and the station is rated at 2.2 mgd peak pumping capacity. A new pump controller was also installed to automate the operation of the screws (lead, lag, etc.).

Given that the peak flow of the WWTP will increase to the rated pump station peak capacity, an additional pump will have to be added for redundancy purposes. As part of this study, the cost for installation of a 0.8 mgd submersible pump with a premium efficiency motor and an 8 inch forcemain has been added to the project budget. It is anticipated that the pump can be installed in the wet well of the existing main pumping station and the forcemain will constructed to run on the outside wall of the main pump station to the upper well of the main pump station.

3.5.4 Primary Clarifiers

The existing WWTP is provided with two 25-foot diameter by 10-foot side water depth primary clarifiers. The clarifiers co-settle primary and waste activated sludge wasted from the secondary clarifiers, i.e.: waste activated sludge from the secondary clarifiers is wasted to the primary clarifiers. At the proposed design average daily flow of 0.75 mgd, the surface overflow rate is 764 gpd/ft2, and at the peak hourly flow of 2.25 mgd, the surface overflow rate increases to 2,251 gpd/ft2. Ten States Standards recommends a maximum overflow rate of 1,200 gpd/ft2 for primary clarifiers co-settling sludge.

The facility has two piston type plunger pumps to waste primary sludge to the facility’s primary digester. The primary sludge pumps run on a timer; each pump runs for 6 minutes per day.

Given that the two existing clarifiers are over capacity for the flows generated by Options 3A or 3B, the cost of a third 25-foot diameter cast in place concrete primary clarifier and ancillary equipment has been added to the project budget. With three primary clarifiers, at the proposed design average daily flow of 0.75 mgd, the surface overflow rate is 509 gpd/ft2, and at the peak hourly flow of 2.25 mgd, the surface overflow rate increases to 1,501 gpd/ft2. It is important to note that when the plant influent exceeds 1.76 mgd and a third primary clarifier online, the primary clarifier overflow rate exceeds 1,200 gpd/ft2. At peak flows under this scenario, co-settling of sludge would have to be suspended until the influent flows decrease.



3-12

The new tank shall include an effluent structure, railings, gratings, weirs, baffles, supports, concrete stairs, and internal mechanisms including controls and electrical work. Influent and effluent process piping will also require modification to accommodate the new primary clarifier.

3.5.5 Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs)

The existing WWTP is provided with three RBC shafts, which were upgraded in 2010. The shafts are arranged in parallel, with each RBC being sectioned off into three stages by block walls. All three tanks are equipped with supplemental aeration in the form of coarse bubble diffusers arranged along the tank bottom.

Upgrades performed in 2010 included replacement of the shafts, media, drives, motors, and bearings for each of the RBCs. The existing units were replaced with higher capacity units (a minimum of 100,000 square feet of available surface area on each assembly, thereby providing a minimum of 300,000 total square feet of available surface area in the RBC system). The new system is capable of treating an average daily flow of 0.50 mgd and a peak flow of 2.5 mgd. Each RBC has a hydraulic load cell bearing which permits weight measurements to determine biomass buildup on the disk. The aeration system was refurbished by replacing the existing coarse bubble diffusers including providing a dedicated power source for the supplemental aeration equipment. The design average flow and the associated organic loadings of Options 3A or 3B exceed typical recommended first stage loadings (>6.4 lbs BOD5/1000 ft2) for the existing RBCs; therefore, the cost of a fourth RBC tank and ancillary equipment has been added to the project budget. The upgrade will include a new cast in place concrete structure with baffles and an in kind RBC unit. The existing influent process piping and RBC effluent channel shall be modified to accommodate the new RBC. 3.5.6 Secondary Clarifiers

The existing WWTP is provided with two 30-foot diameter by 10-foot side water depth secondary clarifiers. The clarifiers receive all flow exiting the RBC units, and settle the sloughed biomass. At the average daily flow of 0.5 mgd, the surface overflow rate is 354 gpd/ft2, and at the peak hourly flow of 1.6 mgd the surface overflow rate increases to 1,132 gpd/ft2. The facility has secondary sludge pumps which waste sludge to the primary clarifiers. At the proposed design average daily flow of 0.75 mgd, the surface overflow rate is 531 gpd/ft2, and at the peak hourly flow of 2.25 mgd, the surface overflow rate increases to 1,563 gpd/ft2. Ten States Standards recommends a maximum overflow rate of 1,200 gpd/ft2 for secondary clarifiers following fixed film processes. Given that the two existing clarifiers are over capacity for the flows generated by Options 3A or 3B, the cost of a third 30-foot diameter cast in place concrete secondary clarifier and ancillary equipment has been added to the project budget. With three 30-foot diameter secondary clarifiers, the overflow rate will be 354 gpd/ft2 (at the proposed design average daily flow) and 1,042 gpd/ft2 (at the peak hourly flow). The tank shall include an effluent structure, railings, gratings, weirs, baffles, supports, concrete stairs, and internal mechanisms including controls and electrical work. Influent and effluent process piping will also require modification to accommodate the new secondary clarifier. 3.5.7 Filtration and Intermediate Pump Station

As described in Section 2.2.1 (Option 1), plant modifications to provide phosphorus removal are required under the null option. The work shall consist of construction of a new filter building to house the new filter process and chemical storage. This upgrade shall be in accordance with the description in the above



3-13

referenced section, however, the filter building and filter units will need to be of a larger capacity to accommodate the higher flows. In addition, a pump station will be required to lift plant flows to the new filter building. The pump station will be installed downstream of the existing secondary clarifiers and prior to the existing chlorine contact tank. The pump station shall consist of an approximately 10 foot by 10 foot by 15 foot deep concrete structure and will house four (4) submersible pumps (two (2) pumps at 0.75 mgd, and two (2) pumps at 1.5 mgd) with premium efficiency motors. The pump station will be able to pump the design peak flow with one of the 1.5 mgd pumps out of service.

3.5.8 Chlorine Contact Tank and Wastewater Disinfection

The existing WWTP is provided with two chlorine contact tanks with a total tank volume of 14,500 gallons at peak hourly flow. The current tanks provide 13 minutes of contact time at a peak hourly flow of 1.6 mgd. The tanks are capable of treating a peak flow of 1.39 mgd while providing a 15 minute hydraulic retention time. The chlorine contact tanks are inadequate to provide the 15 minutes of contact time at 2.25 mgd as required under Options 3A and 3B. Therefore the chlorine contact tanks will have to be expanded to provide the proper residence time, the cost of which has been added to the project budget. The existing chlorine tank structure will be modified to include a third cast-in-place concrete chlorine contact tank including piping connections, baffles, concrete stairs, grating, and railings. The WWTP stores the chlorine gas in 150 lb cylinders at the headworks of the treatment plant. The chlorine gas is mixed with potable water and pumped to the chlorine contact chamber. The current chlorination system will be adequate for the increase in plant flow due to Options 3A or 3B.

3.5.9 Anaerobic Digesters

The existing anaerobic digester system is a two-stage system with the first stage (active stage) heated and partially mixed. The heat exchanger sludge recirculation pump provides a limited degree of mixing within the primary digester. The second stage tank is used for solids separation and supernatant decanting. It is unheated and unmixed. The digester system was cleaned in the summer of 2013.

The first stage digester tank is 25 foot diameter by 18.7 foot side water depth (maximum). The tank has a maximum volume of approximately 72,500 gallons (9,700 cubic feet). The second stage tank is 20 ft diameter by 19 feet side water depth (maximum). The tank has a maximum volume of approximately 47,000 gallons (6,270 cubic feet). The existing digester heating plant consists of a hot water boiler, hot water pump, sludge heat exchanger, and sludge recirculation pump. Anticipating an increase in sludge flow to the digesters, if Option 3A or 3B are chosen, the hydraulic residence time of the digesters will drop from 43 days, existing conditions, to 21 days, design conditions. Although AECOM anticipates that this is acceptable, it is noted that the plant is going to have to process sludge on a more routine basis, which will require additional dewatering capabilities. It is noted that the digester covers are in poor shape and will need replacement regardless of the plant expansion. One of the existing digester covers has sunken in, and both covers are in poor condition and at the end of their useful lives. The replacement of these covers with two new floating covers is recommended to maintain functionality and will be carried as a separate upgrade option as it is not part of the current SPDES permit compliance requirements.



3-14

3.5.10 Sludge Dewatering Facilities Currently the facility pumps sludge from the secondary digester onto their sludge drying beds located on the northeastern corner of the property. The system dewaters sludge prior to landfilling. It is anticipated that due to the increase in residual solids that will be produced by the increased flows and loadings to the plant under Options 3A or 3B, the plant will require additional dewatering capabilities in the form of a sludge press. A solids handling building has been added to the project budget which includes a polymer feed system, a belt filter sludge press, and truck load out facility. The building shall be a concrete block building with steel roof and shall include lighting, ventilation and electrical work, including a new MCC to power the building and the other facility upgrades. Lighting and ventilation work shall exceed building code requirements for efficiency. The existing sludge drying beds will remain in place and shall be utilized seasonally.

3.5.11 Outfalls 001, 002, and 003 The facility has three outfalls, 001, 002, and 003. Outfall 001 is a 12 inch diameter pipe and discharges to Chautauqua Lake. Outfall 002 discharges to Mud Creek and is not normally used. Outfall 003 is a plant bypass to be used only in emergency high flow situations and discharges to Chautauqua Lake. Outfall 001 is insufficient to carry the current peak flow without surcharging the existing system. Increasing the plant flow will only compound this issue. AECOM has added a new 15 inch diameter outfall and diffuser to the project budget. Approximately 1,500 linear feet of 15 inch diameter effluent sewer pipe would be installed via pipe bursting between the flow meter/effluent sampling manhole to the discharge in Chautauqua Lake. 3.5.12 Additional Required Upgrades and Future Considerations

This section describes recommended plant upgrades and additional considerations that should be taken into account during future development work at the facility. These include future permit requirements for total residual chlorine and ammonia. 3.5.13 Total Residual Chlorine The facility’s SPDES permit requires monitoring of total residual chlorine (TRC) through daily grab samples. The current discharge limit for TRC is 2.0 mg/l. A stricter total residual chlorine discharge limit is required under the facility’s SPDES permit in the future. The facility’s June 29, 2015 permit modification incorporated new TRC discharge limits of 0.1 mg/l that will be required effective June 1, 2018. Under the permit modifications, TRC sampling is required daily via one grab sample. As a result of these future requirements, it is recommended that the facility provide whatever space and hydraulic grade are necessary for chemical dechlorination as part of the current upgrade so that in the future a chemical feed will be relatively easy to implement (i.e, no excavation, or additional tankage necessary).

To meet the new TRC discharge limits, the facility could implement sodium thiosulfate addition to the effluent discharge chamber of the chlorine contact tank to reduce effluent total residual chlorine. It is anticipated that the hydraulic turbulence in the effluent discharge chamber is adequate to assure complete mixing. Space will be provided in the proposed filter / chemical storage building for future chemical storage of 55-gallon drums of sodium thiosulfate. The facility should also relocate the effluent monitoring location further downstream on NCLSD’s property, to an existing manhole located 70 feet



3-15

downstream of the chlorine contact tank. Relocation of the monitoring station along with installation of underground chemical feed conduits would be performed as part of current upgrade project. 3.5.13 Ammonia

The facility’s June 29, 2015 permit modification incorporated new ammonia requirements. Currently, ammonia monitoring is required monthly via three (3) grab samples collected over a 6 hour period. Effective June 1, 2008, the NCLSD’s permit will require effluent ammonia limits of 7.6 mg/l in November through May, and 4.9 mg/l in June through October. The existing plant biological treatment system is a rotating biological contactor which is a fixed film system that is capable of achieving effluent nitrification. Based on monitoring data collected from November 2013 to October 2014, average effluent ammonia is 0.79 mg/l in November through May, and 2.07 mg/l in June through October. None of the preliminary data samples exceeded the future effluent ammonia limits; therefore it is not anticipated that additional upgrades will be necessary to meet the future effluent ammonia limits. 3.6 Summary of WWTP Improvements Recommendations The improvements to the NCLSD WWTP are shown schematically on Figure 3.2 on the following page. A revised process flow diagram illustrates the changes to the process in Figure 3.3. The additional recommended upgrades presented in this section are summarized in Table 3.4.


TITLE OF DRAWING

PROJECT

SCALE

ISSUE DATEDRAWN BYCOPYRIGHT 2015FISHER ASSOCIATES,P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.

DRAWING NO.

FIGURE 3.2


R. EVANS

AS SHOWN

06-29-15

PROPOSED SITE PLAN


TITLE OF DRAWING

PROJECTCOPYRIGHT 2015FISHER ASSOCIATES,P.E., L.S., L.A., D.P.C.

DRAWING NO.

SCALE

ISSUE DATEDRAWN BY

FIGURE 3.3


R. EVANS

NO SCALE

06-29-15

PROPOSED PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC

NCLSD Treatment Plant Process

Option 1: No

Expansion of

NCLSD Service

Area and

Compliance with

the SPDES

Permit Required

Plant Upgrades

Option 1A: Pump

Chautauqua

Shores and

Orchard Terrace

Developments to

NCLSD WWTP

Option 2:

Convert CHSD

WWTP to a Pump

Station with

Forcemain to

NCLSD WWTP

Option 2A: Pump

Chautauqua

Shores and

Orchard Terrace

Developments to

NCLSD WWTP

Option 3A: Expand

NCLSD To Entire

Study Area And

Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force

Main Along Rte. 430

and Pump

Chautauqua Shores

to NCLSD WWTP

Option 3B: Expand

NCLSD To Entire

Study Area And

Treat At NCLSD

WWTP Via Force

Main on Lake

Bottom and Pump

Chautauqua Shores

to NCLSD WWTP

Option 4:

Replace NCLSD

WWTP Digester

Covers

Existing Facilities

HeadworksMechanical Bar Screen N N N N Y Y N Existing screen is in poor condition.Grit Removal System N N N N N N NParshall Flume N N N N N N N

Main Pump Station N N N N Y Y N Peak flow Option 3A and 3B eliminates redundancy

Primary Clarifiers N N N N Y Y N Overflow rate too high for Option 3A and 3B - need additional primary clarifier

Rotating Biological Contactors N N N N Y Y N First stage loading rate too high for Option 3A and 3B, need additional RBC

Secondary Clarifiers N N N N Y Y N Overflow rate too high for Option 3A and 3B - need additional secondary clarifier

Chlorine Contact Tank N N N N Y Y N Insufficient contact time for Option 3A and 3B - must add chlorine contact tank.

Outfalls N N N N Y Y N Outfall 001 capacity is compromised and insufficient for Option 3A and 3B, need new submerged outfall pipe

Chemical Addition (Ferric Chloride) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Expansion of existing system including chemical storage distribution, baffling and mixing

Anaerobic Digesters N N N N N N Y Existing digester covers are in poor condition, not in service

Sludge Drying Beds N N N N N N N

Electrical Infrastructure Y Y Y Y Y Y N Requires electrical upgrades, Options 3A and 3B require significant electrical infrastructure upgrades

Proposed Facilities

Intermediate Pump Station Y Y Y Y Y Y N Required to pump to effluent filters

Effluent Filtration Y Y Y Y Y Y N Required to meet new SPDES Phosphorus limits

Multi Point Chemical Addition Y Y Y Y Y Y N Required to meet new SPDES Phosphorus limits

Sludge Dewatering N N N N Y Y N Improvements necessary to handle additional sludge created by Options 3A and 3B

Key: N - Not required, i.e. not included in Option costsY - Required, i.e., included in Option costs

Notes

NCLSD Village of Mayville WWTP Recommended Upgrades By OptionNORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT EVALUATION

TABLE 3.4



4-1

SECTION 4

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Cost of Upgrades In this section, the estimated construction costs of the various options are provided. Refer to Tables B-1 through B-10 in Appendix B for a complete breakdown of the costs for each option discussed in Section 3.0. The estimated capital costs for each option are summarized in Table 4-5.

4.2 Explanation of Type of Costs For each of the options developed in Section 3.2 the following information is presented in this section:

• Capital costs: o Capital construction costs, including capital recovery factors for a 20-year planning

period. o Property owner connection costs (as applicable).

• Operation and maintenance costs. Each of these cost types is defined below. The costs for the selected option will be apportioned to existing NCLSD users, existing CHSD users, developed parcels (new to collection system) and undeveloped parcels (new to collection system), as applicable. It is noted that under options where CHSD flows are to be treated at NCLSD WWTP, existing CHSD users are henceforth referred to as “new NCLSD users”. While the exact arrangement between the CHSD and NCLSD would be subject to the negotiations between the respective sewer districts, the existing CHSD users are referenced as such in this report for simplicity and consistency of discussion. Refer to Table B-7 in Appendix B for a summary of the types of costs associated with each option and the proposed apportionment. 4.2.1 Capital Construction Costs Capital construction costs include the cost of construction for all facilities, excluding the private property costs described below in Section 4.2.2. Costs include treatment plant upgrades at the CHSD WWTP or NCLSD WWTP, gravity sewers, grinder pumps and force mains and sewage pumping stations. AECOM utilized our experience with similar projects to estimate the capital costs. For a project of this magnitude, AECOM assumed that the capital cost would be raised through bonding and would be paid for by the property owners within the sewer district over a 20 year period. AECOM assumed a simple interest rate of 4.5% in calculating annual payments.

There are a number of ways to apportion the cost among the sewer district users. Some possible methods include:

• Cost per user based upon the volume of potable water consumed or wastewater discharged.

• Flat cost per user based upon the number of EDUs assigned to each property.



4-2

• Cost per linear foot of frontage for properties that abut a sewered right-of-way.

• Assessed valuation of properties within the district.

• Some combination of two or more of these factors. Additionally, it is possible to have different rates for properties that are connected to the sewer system and those that are not connected to the sewer system but have access to it.

In the 2012 URS report, URS discussed the possible cost apportionment methods with the Town of Chautauqua and arrived at the following proposed method of assessing sewer charges. This same approach is utilized in this report:

“Cost will be apportioned as a flat rate per EDU, with undeveloped parcels counting

between 0.2 and 0.5 of an EDU. URS will present costs for each option with each

undeveloped parcel counting as 0.2 and 0.5 of an EDU. The Town will ultimately need to

decide what ratio to select for assessing undeveloped properties. Levying a charge upon

undeveloped parcels has the effect of distributing costs among property owners that have

access to the sewer system, but presently do not generate any wastewater. This will help to

lower the cost for those property owners that do have a residence or business and do

generate wastewater.”

This approach was selected for the following reasons:

• Water consumption data is not available for any properties because there is limited public water supplies (Zones 3 and 14 presently are the only areas served by a municipal water system). Also, residences with private wells do not have water meters.

• Installing wastewater flow meters for individual residences and businesses is not typically performed. Such a system would have very high maintenance needs.

• Not all properties have frontage on a right-of-way and therefore there is no way to correctly apportion access to sewers.

• AECOM and the Town both felt that it was important to assess not only the current users, but to also assess undeveloped parcels which will benefit from having access to a public sewer system.

It is noted that at this time, there are no charges levied upon undeveloped (vacant) parcels within the existing NCLSD boundaries. In the past, these parcels were levied a charge of $6 per undeveloped parcel per year; this charge was eliminated in 2015. As a result, two separate cost analyses were performed under this report. This primary analysis (presented in the tables of this section) levied charges to undeveloped parcels only if they were new to the sewer district or part of an expansion option (i.e., users in Zones 1 through 13 on the east side of the lake). As all users on the western side of the lake are currently within the NCLSD (regardless of whether their flows discharge to CUD WWTP or NCLSD WWTP), undeveloped parcels on the west side of the lake were not levied charges under the options presented to keep consistent with current practices. The secondary analysis levied charges to all undeveloped parcels on the east and western sides of the lake evenly. The primary analysis is primarily used for discussion purposes in this report. The second analysis and related tables are included in Appendix C. 4.2.2 Private Property Owner Connection Costs In order to connect each residence to the sewer collection and treatment system a sewer lateral connection must be installed. Depending upon the type of collection system (gravity sewer, grinder pumps) the lateral sewer construction method will vary. The sewer district cannot install a lateral connecting sewer on private property. Therefore a portion of the cost to connect each residence to the collection system



4-3

(portion located not within the right-of-way) must be separately paid for by the homeowner. This cost will vary per property and per type of connection. The type of connection (gravity or grinder) will vary depending on the option being considered. Additional factors that will affect the cost include:

• Distance from the home being connected to the right-of-way,

• Soil conditions,

• Depth of the connection, and

• Topography.

For each option, AECOM attempted to estimate a typical cost of connection for a private property owner. The property owner connection cost will need to be paid by the property owner at the time of connection. This cost is completely separate from, and is in addition to, the capital construction cost of each option. In the event that the district expands, all new users will be responsible for connecting within a certain timeframe to be specified by the sewer district. Delays in homeowner connections can lead to increases to capital construction costs and additional project financing. The cost summary tables in this report list the property owner connections costs for a typical homeowner, for each option. It should be noted that homeowners can join together and contract for lateral sewer installation collectively as a method to reduce their costs.

It is noted that under Options 1A/2A (addition of Zone 14), private property owner connection costs are not anticipated to be incurred because the sanitary sewer connection is already in place. 4.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs In addition to capital costs, each option will also have operation and maintenance costs (O&M). Operation and maintenance costs include all the annual costs associated with operating and maintaining the system. Costs include labor, benefits, chemicals, utilities, replacement parts, outside services, etc. The operation and maintenance costs will likely be assessed to users connected to the system through property taxes. For reasons discussed above, operation and maintenance costs will be assessed as a routine user charge (quarterly is typical) that is assessed per EDU connected to the system, i.e., only those users that discharge wastewater will be assessed a quarterly user charge. 4.2.4 Total Costs Total costs to each resident therefore will consist of the following:

• Initial Cost of Connection (private property construction cost) – Initial cost of installation of a sewer lateral must be fully paid for by the homeowner. This cost will vary for each property.

• Sewer Tax Bill – Annual assessment that covers the cost of the bonding of the capital construction cost. This will be paid by all property owners with-in the sewer district based upon the number of EDUs on that property. Properties that are not developed will be assessed at a reduced rate that is between 20% and 50% of the rate assessed to properties with a building or residence.

• Quarterly User Charge – Quarterly bill paid by each user of the system based upon the number of EDUs located on that property will pay for operation and maintenance of the system. Undeveloped properties that are not connected to the sewer collection system will not be assessed a quarterly user charge.



4-4

4.3 Option 1 - No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades Costs 4.3.1 Capital Costs The total capital cost of Option 1 is $3.8 million. Costs will be incurred by NCLSD users and CHSD users as described below. Capital Costs by NCLSD Users (NCLSD WWTP Upgrades)

The estimated capital cost of the NCLSD WWTP upgrades recommended in the 2014 URS study (Option 1: Continuous Backwash Sand Filters (2014)) is $2.8 million. This cost will be incurred by the existing NCLSD users. Because the district does not have this amount of cash resources on-hand, it is assumed that the funds must be obtained by bonding the project. System users will be assessed a charge to cover the cost of the bonding. The capital costs for this alternative have been calculated to be $120 per EDU per year over a 20 year period (or $80.53 per EDU per year over a 30 year period as calculated in the 2014 URS study). Capital Costs by CHSD Users (CHSD WWTP Upgrades)

In this section, the capital costs by CHSD users for the CHWWTP improvements discussed in Section 2.2 and the 2012 URS report are discussed. The capital construction cost of upgrades required to meet (interim and final) phosphorous discharge limits is anticipated to be approximately $749,000. The total capital construction cost of upgrades required to maintain functionality and other miscellaneous upgrades is anticipated to be approximately $251,000. Each of these capital construction costs respectively includes a 20% contingency, engineering, and typical percentage add-ons for general requirements and bonding during construction. This equates to a total capital construction cost of $1,000,000 and a total cost per EDU will be approximately $450 per year over a 20-year period. 4.3.2 Property Owner Connection Costs Option 1 will not expand sewer service into any new undeveloped areas, therefore, under this option property owner construction costs are not necessary. 4.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs Additional operation and maintenance is anticipated at the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the increased treatment requirements of the facility (approximately $25,000 per year). The NCLSD current annual operating budget includes the estimated yearly costs for labor, utilities, supplies, permits, sampling, analysis, replacement parts, chemicals, collection system costs, and other miscellaneous costs. In 2014, the annual operation and maintenance cost for the WWTP was $303,600 and the collection system’s O&M cost was approximately $346,500, for a total of approximately $378 per EDU. The annual O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $400 per EDU, an increase of $22 per EDU per year. The CHSD current annual operating budget includes the estimated yearly costs for labor, utilities, supplies, permits, sampling, analysis, replacement parts, chemicals, and other miscellaneous costs. In 2012, the current annual operation and maintenance cost was $95,000 or $540 per EDU. Once phosphorous removal is implemented, there will be additional costs for chemical purchases, and



4-5

additional sludge disposal. It is estimated that yearly operation and maintenance costs would increase to approximately $96,000. The cost per EDU will be approximately $560 per year, which is a $20 increase per EDU. 4.4 Option 1A - Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP Costs The estimated capital costs of Option 1A are presented in Table 4.1. 4.4.1 Capital Costs Option 1A is an additive sub-option to Option 1. The estimated capital cost of Option 1A is $2.1 million dollars. The total capital cost of Option 1 plus Option 1A is $5.9 million. The cost of Option 1A would be borne by the developed parcels within Zone 14. These developed parcels are currently within the NCLSD, but currently have their flows treated at CUD. If determined by the NCLSD, the cost of this sub-option may also be borne by undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD. If Option 1 plus Option 1A is selected, the capital cost for existing NCLSD users will be $120 per EDU per year over a 20 year period. The cost per EDU will be approximately $1,030 for developed parcels (NCLSD users that will now have flows going to NCLSD WWTP instead of CUD WWTP) over a 20 year period. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD, the Option 1 plus Option 1A costs would decrease to $110 to $120 for existing NCLSD users, and to $560 to $760 for developed parcels. The cost per EDU will range from $160 to $280 for undeveloped parcels. Refer to Table B-9 in Appendix B. 4.4.2 Property Owner Connection Costs Option 1A will not expand sewer service into any new undeveloped areas, therefore, under this option property owner construction costs are not necessary. 4.4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs Option 1A would include an increase to account for additional labor and maintenance of the upgrades pump stations, and the new forcemain. AECOM assumed the following operation and maintenance costs:

• An additional 64 hours of labor at $75 per hour is assumed,

• An increase in electrical costs required to pump to the NCLSD WWTP. It can be reasonably assumed that the additional maintenance costs will be similar to the existing pump stations. The estimated incremental annual electrical cost to operate and maintain the proposed option is approximately $13,400.

• Additional operation and maintenance costs on the forcemain and collection system totaling approximately $7,000.

• Additional operation and maintenance is anticipated at the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the increased flows to the facility (approximately $40,000-50,000 per year).

Therefore, an additional $65,000 per year of O&M costs is anticipated. For Option 1 plus Option 1A, this is anticipated to result in approximately $410 per EDU per year of O&M costs, an increase of approximately $32 per EDU per year for existing NCLSD users.

Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

Collection System / Flow Conveyance

Collection System Expansion Costs 1 ls $0 $0

Conveyance of Flow to NCLSD WWTP (see Table B-2 in Appendix B) 1 ls $2,094,800 $2,094,800

$2,095,000

Expansion of NCLSD Data

New Users with Flows to NCLSD WWTP (E.D.U.s) under Option 1A or 2A 177 (estimated)

General Notes

1. All unit costs are in 2015 dollars.

2. All total costs rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars.

3. Options 1A & 2A are "adder" items (not stand-alone) and may only be selected in conjunction with Options 1 and 2, respectively.

TOTAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Table 4.1


Conceptual Cost Estimate

OPTION 1A/2A: Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments

to NCLSD WWTP



4-7

4.5 Option 2 - Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP Costs

The estimated capital costs of Option 2 are presented in Table 4.2. 4.5.1 Capital Costs

The estimated capital cost of Option 2 is $6.0 million. Because the district does not have this amount of cash resources on-hand, it is assumed that the funds must be obtained by bonding the project. System users will be assessed a charge to cover the cost of the bonding. The annual cost per EDU will be $110 for existing NCLSD users which increases solely as a result of the required WWTP upgrades to meet the new SPDES permit requirements. The annual cost per EDU will be $1,550 for former CHSD users (new users to the NCLSD). These costs will be paid per year over a 20-year period. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (see Table B-9 in Appendix B), the Option 2 costs would decrease to $100 to $110 for existing NCLSD users, and to $800 to $1,120 for developed parcels. The cost per EDU will range from $230 to $400 for undeveloped parcels.

4.5.2 Private Property Owner Costs Option 2 will not expand sewer service into any new undeveloped areas, therefore, under this option property owner construction costs are not necessary. 4.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs Option 2 would include an increase to account for additional labor and maintenance of the upgrades pump stations, and the new forcemain. AECOM assumed the following operation and maintenance costs:


• Additional operation and maintenance costs on the forcemain and collection system totaling approximately $7,000.

• Additional operation and maintenance is anticipated at the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the increased flows to the facility (approximately $18,000 per year).

• Additional electrical/utility and replacement parts for the new pump station at $5,000 per year.

Therefore, an additional $39,600 per year of O&M costs would be required for the NCLSD. However, the CHSD O&M costs would be eliminated, and the NCLSD O&M costs would be shared amongst a larger number of sewer district users. As a result, the total O&M cost per NCLSD user is anticipated to be increased to approximately $400 per EDU per year. There would be a decrease in yearly O&M costs for the former CHSD users, of approximately $140 per EDU per year.



Collection System Expansion Costs 1 ls $0 $0


WWTP Upgrades

Required upgrades at NCLSD WWTP (see note 3) 1 ls $2,800,000 $2,800,000

$6,011,000


New Users with Flows to NCLSD WWTP (E.D.U.s) under Option 2 172

General Notes



3. Costs at NCLSD WWTP are approximately $2.8 million. For a complete breakdown of NCLSD WWTP upgrades for phosphorous

removal, refer to the Engineer's Report "North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District: Final Phosphorous Limit Compliance Evaluation"

(URS, 2014).


Table 4.2



OPTION 2: Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP



4-9

4.6 Option 2A Costs 4.6.1 Capital Costs Option 2A is an additive sub-option to Option 2. The estimated capital cost of Option 2A is $2.1 million dollars. The total capital cost of Option 2 plus Option 2A is $8.1 million. The cost of Option 2A would be borne by the developed parcels within Zone 14. These developed parcels are currently within the NCLSD, but currently have their flows treated at CUD. If determined by the NCLSD, the cost of this sub-option may also be borne by undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD. If Option 2 plus Option 2A is selected, the capital cost for existing NCLSD users will be $110 per EDU per year over a 20 year period. The cost per EDU will be approximately $1,280 for developed parcels (new users/new flows going to NCLSD WWTP) over a 20 year period. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (see Table B-9 in Appendix B), the Option 2 plus Option 2A costs would decrease to $100 for existing NCLSD users, and to $870 to $1,070 for developed parcels. The cost per EDU will range from $220 to $440 for undeveloped parcels. 4.6.2 Property Owner Connection Costs Option 2A will not expand sewer service into any new undeveloped areas, therefore, under this option property owner construction costs are not necessary. 4.6.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs Additional operation and maintenance costs for Option 2A are expected to be consistent with the costs described in Option 1A (refer to Section 4.4.3). Operation and maintenance costs for Option 2 plus Option 2A shall $380 per EDU per year. This represents a decrease for existing CHSD users of $162 per EDU per year, and slight increase of $2 per EDU per year for existing NCLSD users. 4.7 Option 3A Costs - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Under Lake The estimated capital costs of Option 3A are presented in Table 4.3. 4.7.1 Capital Costs The total capital construction cost of Option 3A is anticipated to be approximately $31.1 million. The annual cost per EDU will be $250 for existing NCLSD users. The annual cost per EDU will range from $1,610 to $1,700 for developed parcels (new users). The annual cost per EDU will range from $340 to $810 for new undeveloped parcels (east side of the lake). These costs will be paid per year over a 20-year period. Refer to the tables in Appendix B for the costs of larger volume users. If annual fees are also apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (see Table B-9 in Appendix B), the Option 3A costs would decrease to $230 to $250 for existing NCLSD users, and to $1,420 to $1,610 for developed parcels. The cost per EDU will range from $330 to $710 for undeveloped parcels.



Collection System Expansion Costs (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) 1 ls $16,214,400 $16,214,400


WWTP Upgrades

Required upgrades at NCLSD WWTP (see Table B-3 in Appendix B) 1 ls $9,605,500 $9,605,500

$31,125,000


New Users with Flows to NCLSD WWTP (E.D.U.s) under Option 3A 1,100

Per new gravity connection $6,100Per new grinder pump connection $1,100

General Notes



3. All property owner construction costs are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

4. The property owner cost of connection to the system varies depending on the individual property and the type of connection.

Option 3A includes both gravity sewer connections and grinder pump connections. Property owner construction costs represent

one-time construction costs.

AVERAGE PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRUCTION COSTS (see note 4)


Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP

OPTION 3A: Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main

Table 4.3





4-11

4.7.2 Property Owner Connection Costs Option 3A will expand sewer service into the entire study area and therefore those residents outside of Zones 3 and 14 will incur costs to connect their residence to the sewer collection system. The property owner connection costs under Option 3A are anticipated to be $1,100 for grinder pump connections and near $6,100 for gravity sewer connections for typical homeowner connections. 4.7.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs Additional operation and maintenance is anticipated to significantly increase at the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the increased flows to the facility. The operation and maintenance costs are anticipated to double at the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the increased flows to the facility (approximately $300,000 per year). Option 3A would include an increase to account for additional labor and maintenance of the new collection system. AECOM assumed the following operation and maintenance costs:


• Replacement of 10 grinder pumps per year (at approximately $1,250 each), and

• Additional electrical/utility and replacement parts for the new pump stations at $10,000 per year.

As Option 3A includes rerouting the sewage from Zone 14 to the NCLSD, the estimated incremental annual operation and maintenance cost of Option 1A/2A also pertains. This results in an additional $110,000 per year of O&M costs for the NCLSD. However, shared amongst a larger number of sewer district users, the anticipated O&M costs would reduce to $260 per EDU per year, a reduction for both NCLSD and CHSD users. 4.8 Option 3B Costs - Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 The estimated capital costs of Option 3B are presented in Table 4.4. 4.8.1 Capital Costs The total capital construction cost of Option 3B is anticipated to be approximately $30.7 million. The annual cost per EDU will be $250 for existing NCLSD users. The annual cost per EDU will range from $1,590 to $1,670 for developed parcels (new users). The annual cost per EDU will range from $340 to $800 for new undeveloped parcels (east side of the lake). These costs will be paid per year over a 20-year period. Refer to the Tables in Appendix B for the costs of larger volume users. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (see Table B-9 in Appendix B), the Option 3B costs would decrease to $230 to $250 for existing NCLSD users, and to $1,400 to $1,580 for developed parcels. The cost per EDU will range from $320 to $700 for undeveloped parcels. 4.8.2 Property Owner Connection Costs Option 3B will expand sewer service into the entire study area and therefore those residents outside of Zones 3 and 14 will incur costs to connect their residence to the sewer collection system. The property owner connection costs under Option 3B are anticipated to be $1,100 for grinder pump connections and near $6,100 for gravity sewer connections for typical homeowner connections.



Collection System Expansion Costs (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) 1 ls $16,214,400 $16,214,400


WWTP Upgrades

Required upgrades at NCLSD WWTP (see Table B-3 in Appendix B) 1 ls $9,605,500 $9,605,500

$30,726,000


New Users with Flows to NCLSD WWTP (E.D.U.s) under Option 3B 1,100

Per new gravity connection $6,100Per new grinder pump connection $1,100

General Notes



3. All property owner construction costs are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

4. The property owner cost of connection to the system varies depending on the individual property and the type of connection.

Option 3B includes both gravity sewer connections and grinder pump connections. Property owner construction costs represent

one-time construction costs.

AVERAGE PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRUCTION COSTS (see note 3)

Table 4.4



OPTION 3B: Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP

Via Force Main on Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP




4-13

4.8.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Additional operation and maintenance costs for Option 3B are expected to be consistent with the costs described in Option 3A (refer to Section 4.7.3).

4.9 Option 4 Costs – Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers The total capital construction cost of Option 4 is anticipated to be approximately $1.0 million. The estimated capital costs of Option 4 are presented in Table 4.5. If added to Option 1 or Option 1 plus Option 1A, the annual cost per EDU will be an additional $50 for existing NCLSD users. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (see Table B-9), the Option 4 costs would decrease to $40 to $50 for existing NCLSD users, and range from $10 to $20 for undeveloped parcels. If Option 4 were combined with one of the remaining Options, the additional annual per user cost would be decreased as a result of apportionment among a larger number of sewer district users. Per user costs would also apply to "new" users under the remaining options. 4.10 Cost Summary

Tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 summarize the costs associated with each option. On Tables 4.6 through 4.8, the costs are separated into cost per user type. Refer to Appendix B for supporting tables and calculations. The cost summary tables are described below.

Table 4.6 summarizes the total capital construction costs for each option and sub-option. Table 4.7 presents the capital construction costs in terms of annual costs for each user type (existing CHSD users, existing NCLSD users, developed parcels, and undeveloped parcels) assuming a 20-year financing period. This table also shows the costs per year for distinct upgrade types (i.e., CHSD WWTP upgrades, NCLSD WWTP upgrades, new collection system and conveyance costs).

Users of the sewer district will also be assessed an annual operation and maintenance cost on their

property taxes. Operation and maintenance costs associated with each option are presented in Table 4.8 as total annual costs for the sewer district and cost per EDU per year.

It is noted that Tables 4.1 through 4.4 summarize the typical property owner connection costs

associated with each option. Each new user that will be connected to the system will be responsible for the property owner connection costs (a one-time cost) on their own property. The connection costs will be borne solely by the property owner. Refer to Table B-8 for the costs of large volume users. It is noted that large volume users may be responsible for significantly higher connection costs than the typical user, depending on the property type and type of connection.

The total costs associated with each option are summarized in Table 4.9. Capital construction

costs and operation and maintenance costs are presented for each option (from Tables 4.7 and 4.8, respectively) and are added to provide total annual costs for each user type. The typical property owner connections costs are presented for each option Table 4.9 (from Tables 4.1 through 4.4).

ItemQuantity Units

Material

Cost (each)

Installation/Labor

Cost (each)Total Cost

WWTP Upgrades

Install new covers on existing digesters (see note 3) 1 ls $175,000 $600,000 $775,000

$775,000

Percentage Add-ons Percentage

Contingency (%) 15% $0 $117,000

General Requirements (%) 3% $0 $24,000

Engineering (%) 10% $0 $78,000

Insurance & Bonds (%) 2% $0 $16,000

Subtotal of Percentage Add-ons $0 $235,000

TOTAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1,010,000

General Notes



3. Based on quote for two (2) digester covers provided by Envirodyne Systems Inc. (June 2015).

OPTION 4: Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers



Table 4.5


Total Capital Construction Cost 1,2

1 $3,800,000

1A $2,095,000

1 + 1A $5,895,000

2 $6,011,000

2A $2,095,000

2 + 2A $8,106,000

3A $31,125,000

3B $30,726,000

4 $1,010,000

Notes:


2. All total costs rounded up to the nearest hundred thousand dollars.

3. Costs at NCLSD WWTP are approximately $2.8 million. Costs at CHSD WWTP are approximately $1.0 million. For a complete breakdown of Option 1 costs,

refer to the Engineer's Report "North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District: Final Phosphorous Limit Compliance Evaluation" (URS, REVISION 2- July 2015) and the

Engineer's Report "Chautauqua Heights Sewer District WWTP Phosphorous Compliance Evaluation" (URS, REVISION 1- July 2015).

Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers

Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along

Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main on Lake

Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP

Table 4.6


CAPTIAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Option

Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP

No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant

Upgrades (see note 3)

Pump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP

Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades & Convert CHSD WWTP to a

Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP

Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades & Pump Chautauqua Shores and

Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP

0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50

1

No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and

Compliance with SPDES Permit Required

Plant Upgrades

172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 $1,000,000 $76,900 $2,800,000 $215,300 $0 $0 $3,800,000 $292,200 $450

1APump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard

Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 N/A N/A $0 $0 $2,095,000 $161,100 $2,095,000 $161,100 N/A

1 + 1A


Plant Upgrades & Pump Chautauqua

Shores and Orchard Terrace


172 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 $1,000,000 $76,900 $2,800,000 $215,300 $2,095,000 $161,100 $5,895,000 $453,200 $447

2Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station

with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 201 1,816 172 0 N/A N/A $2,800,000 $215,300 $3,210,300 $246,800 $6,011,000 $462,200 N/A


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 N/A N/A $0 $0 $2,095,000 $161,100 $2,095,000 $161,100 N/A

2 + 2APump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard

Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 24 1,993 349 0 N/A N/A $2,800,000 $215,300 $5,305,300 $407,900 $8,105,300 $623,200 N/A

3A

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And

Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main

Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua

Shores to NCLSD WWTP

0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 224 N/A N/A $9,605,500 $738,500 $21,519,500 $1,654,400 $31,125,000 $2,392,800 N/A $250 to $250 $1,610 to $1,700 $340 to $810

3B


Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main on

Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua


0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 224 N/A N/A $9,605,500 $738,500 $21,120,500 $1,623,700 $30,726,000 $2,362,100 N/A $250 to $250 $1,590 to $1,670 $340 to $800

4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers 172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 N/A N/A $1,010,000 $77,700 $0 $0 $1,010,000 $77,700 N/A $50 to $50

Notes:


2. All total costs rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars. Annual costs per user/parcel owner are rounded up to the nearest ten dollars.

3. Under Options 2, 3A, and 3B, CHSD Users will become "new" developed parcels (NCLSD Users).

4. Column refers to new EDUs to join the NCLSD and/or existing NCLSD users that will now have their wastewater treated at NCLSD. Options 1A, 2A, 3A, and 3B include incorporation of approximately 216 users on the west side of the lake that are currently within the NCLSD but have their wastewater treated at CUD.

5 Refer to Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. 3.4 and Appendix B tables for a breakdown of the costs of each respective option.

6. "Costs Per Year over the Planning Period" represents the annual cost by the utility to pay back the capital construction costs, assuming 4.5% interest rate and twenty (20) year financing period.

7. The capital construction cost per user will depend on the rate structure chosen by the sewer district. Both rate structures divide the capital costs up amongst users connected to the system plus undeveloped/unsewered parcels multiplied by a fractional component. A range of capital construction costs is presented

based upon two rate options for the undeveloped/unsewered parcels. Under the first rate structure, undeveloped/unsewered parcels count as 0.5 EDU. Under the second rate structure, unsewered parcels count as 0.2 EDU.

8. Refer to Table B-7 for a breakdown of costs required per type of parcel owner.

9. Existing NCLSD Users = 1,845.

$1,280

$920

N/A

N/A

N/A

$1,550 N/A

$110

CHSD Users

(See note 3)

Sewer District Users

Table 4.7


CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS - ESTIMATED COSTS PER USER

NCLSD WWTP UpgradesCollection System and Conveyance

CostsTotal Capital Construction Cost Cost per Existing NCLSD User

Cost per Developed Parcel

(New Users) (per EDU)Cost per Undeveloped Parcel

Capital Construction Costs (exclusive of Property Owner Costs) Annual Costs Per Users/Parcel Owners 5,6

Option

$1,030

N/A $920 N/A

N/A

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

Total Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

Total Capital

Construction

Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

Rate Structure Range

Cost per Existing

CHSD User

$110

$120

$120

N/A N/A

NCLSD Users

with Flows to

CUD WWTP

Total Users

with Flow to

NCLSD

WWTP

NCLSD Users

Rate Structure Range Rate Structure RangeTotal Cost

"New"

Developed

Parcels

(EDUs) to

NCLSD

WWTP (See

note 4)

Total Users in

NCLSD (See

note 9)

"New"

undeveloped

parcels within

new NCLSD

boundaries

CHSD WWTP Upgrades

Total Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

N/A N/A

Total Users in

NCLSD

NCLSD Users

with Flows to

CUD WWTP

Total Users with

Flow to NCLSD

WWTP

"New" Developed

Parcels (EDUs) to

NCLSD WWTP

(See note 4)

"New"

undeveloped

parcels within

new NCLSD

boundaries

1



Plant Upgrades

172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 $96,000 $675,065 $560 $400


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0

1 + 1A





172 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 N/A $740,065 N/A $410


with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 201 1,816 172 0 N/A $689,665 N/A $400


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0

2 + 2A


Plant Upgrades & Convert CHSD WWTP

to a Pump Station with Forcemain to

NCLSD WWTP

0 2,017 24 1,993 349 0 N/A $754,665 N/A $380

3A





0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 224 N/A $760,065 N/A $260

3B





0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 224 N/A $760,065 N/A $260

4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers 172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 N/ACost increases a result of option

estimated to be negligible.N/A

Cost increases a result of option

estimated to be negligible.

Notes:



3. Under Options 2, 3A, and 3B, CHSD Users will become NCLSD Users.

4. Column refers to new EDUs to join the NCLSD and/or existing NCLSD users that will now have their wastewater treated at NCLSD. Options 1A, 2A, 3A, and 3B include incorporation of approximately 177 users on the west side of the lake that are currently within the

NCLSD but have their wastewater treated at CUD.

5. Refer to Section 4.0 for a description of the anticipated O&M costs.


7. Current O&M costs by existing CHSD users are $540 per year. Current O&M costs by all existing NCLSD users (with flows currently treated at NCLSD WWTP) are estimated as $378 per year based on the 2014 NCLSD operating budget.

8. Column represents NCLSD users who have their flows treated at the NCLSD WWTP under the respective option.

9. Options 1A and 2A are not standalone options, thus the O&M costs are not indicative of the total O&M cost of this option. Refer to the additive Options 1 + 1A or 2 + 2A, respectively.

NCLSD Users

See note 9.

See note 9.

Table 4.8


OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS - ESTIMATED COSTS PER USER

Option

Sewer District Users Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

CHSD Users

(See note 3)NCLSDCHSD

Total O&M Costs Per EDU Per Year5,6,7

CHSD Users NCLSD Users7,8

0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50

1



Plant Upgrades 7

172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 $450 $560 $1,010 $400 N/A


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 N/A N/A N/A $0 See note 6.

1 + 1A



Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments

to NCLSD WWTP

172 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 $450 $560 $1,010 $410 $410


with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP 7 0 2,017 201 1,816 172 0 N/A N/A N/A $400 $400


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 0 N/A N/A N/A $0 See note 6.

2 + 2A


Plant Upgrades & Convert CHSD WWTP to

a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD

WWTP

0 2,017 24 1,993 349 0 N/A N/A N/A $380 $380 $1,660 to $1,660

3A





0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 224 N/A N/A N/A $250 to $250 $260 $510 to $510 $1,100 to $6,100 $1,610 to $1,700 $260 $1,870 to $1,960 $340 to $810

3B






4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers8 172 1,845 201 1,644 0 0 N/A N/A N/A $50 to $50 $0 $50 to $50 $0

Notes:

1. All unit costs are planning level estimates and are based on 2015 dollars.



4. The capital construction costs per user are presented as a range which indicates the cost differential expected depending on the rate structure chosen by the sewer district for undeveloped parcels. Refer to Table 4.7 for a description of this range.

5. Current O&M costs by NCLSD users with flows currently treated at CUD WWTP are estimated as $168 per year based on the 2014 NCLSD operating budget.


7. An additional $48,900 per year or $27 per EDU per year is anticipated to levied to the NCLSD for CUD WWTP upgrades and should be added to the total annual cost of the respective options. Refer to Section 4.11 of the Engineer's Report.

8. The annual cost per user for Option 4 is represented under the scenario of addition to Option 1 or Options 1+1A. If Option 4 were combined with one of the remaining Options, the annual per user cost would be decreased as a result of apportionment

among a larger number of sewer district users. Per user costs would also apply to "new" users under the remaining options.

N/A

$1,280

$1,440

See note 6.

See note 6.

$1,950$1,550

ANNUAL COSTS PER EDU BY EXISTING NCLSD Users

(Current Annual Cost = $378/year per EDU) 5

$0

Initial Connection Costs

(See Tables 4.3 and 4.4)

$490$110

N/A

N/A

$0

N/A

N/A

N/A

$510

$120 $530

N/A

$110

ANNUAL COSTS BY

UNDEVELOPED

PARCELS

Total

Annual

Costs

N/A

Capital Construction

Costs3,4

(See Table 4.6)

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)

Total Annual Costs

Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range

ANNUAL COSTS BY DEVELOPED PARCELS (NEW USERS)


Costs3,4

(See Table 4.7)

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)

Total Annual Costs


N/A$120

ANNUAL COSTS PER EDU BY

EXISTING CHSD USERS

(Current Annual Cost = $540/year

per EDU)

NCLSD Users

$520

Table 4.9


TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - ESTIMATED COSTS PER USER

N/A


N/A

Capital

Construction

Costs4

(See Table

4.7)

Option


CHSD

Users3

"New"

undeveloped

parcels

within new

NCLSD

boundaries

Total Users

in NCLSD


Costs3,4

(See Table 4.7)


N/A N/A N/A N/A

NCLSD

Users with

Flows to

CUD

WWTP

Total Users

with Flow

to NCLSD

WWTP

"New"

Developed

Parcels

(EDUs) to

NCLSD

WWTP (See

note 4)

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A$920

$1,030

$920



4-21

4.11 Evaluation of Cost Options Option 1 is the “null option” and consists of the requirements to meet final phosphorous compliance limits at both NCLSD and CHSD WWTPs. The total capital construction cost of Option 1 is $3.8 million, consisting of $2.8 million of NCLSD WWTP upgrades and $1.0 million of CHSD WWTP upgrades. Option 2 was presented as an alternative to Option 1, in which flows would be directed to the NCLSD WWTP for treatment rather than continue to be treated at the CHSD WWTP. Option 2 results in $6.0 million of capital construction costs (collective between NCLSD AND CHSD), compared with the collective $3.8 million WWTP upgrades of the null option. Option 2 includes $3.2 million in flow conveyance improvements that would send flows to NCLSD WWTP for treatment and would be levied to the CHSD users. While annual costs for existing NCLSD users would slightly decrease under Option 2 as compared to the null option (from $547 per EDU per year to $537 per EDU per year), the annual costs for “new” NCLSD users (i.e., former CHSD users) would likely be cost prohibitive at $1,977 per EDU per year (nearly double the cost of the null option at $1,010 per EDU per year). This is due to the “new” NCLSD users (i.e., former CHSD users) helping bear the cost of NCLSD WWTP upgrades, but also assuming the cost for the conveyance system and forcemain to NCLSD WWTP. Option 2 does not provide any additional phosphorous removal as compared to the null option. However, Option 2 does position the sewer districts for future expansion opportunities, as the pump station can be designed and sized with future growth or expansion from the surrounding area in mind. It is noted that prior to NCLSD accepting any flow from CHSD, it is strongly recommended that the CHSD be required to perform an infiltration and inflow study and implement corrective measures to remove excessive infiltration and inflow. Options 1A/2A, the sub-option to Options 1 and 2, investigated whether pumping flows to the NCLSD WWTP would be a cost effective long term solution compared to paying CUD WWTP on an annual basis to treat a portion of the district’s flows. From 2010 to 2014, NCLSD paid CUD an average of $60,580 annually to treat the sewage flows from NCLSD users at the CUD WWTP. In 2014, NCLSD collected approximately $76,000 from affected users, 80% of which went directly to CUD, leaving minimal revenue for O&M of the collection system by NCLSD. It is acknowledged that the annual fee to CUD is anticipated to increase, as CUD WWTP is also required to perform upgrades for phosphorous SPDES permit compliance. These upgrades have been estimated at $8.0 million, 8.3% of which will be borne by NCLSD. This equates to $664,000 or $48,900 per year over a 20 year period. Assuming these costs are to be distributed evenly among existing NCLSD users, this projects a future annual cost of $109,480 to be paid by NCLSD to CUD for treatment of sewage flows (an additional $27 per EDU per year). Total annual capital costs over a 20 year planning period to treat these flows at NCLSD WWTP under Options 1A/2A total approximately $161,000. This represents an increase of $100,000 per year from current rates and an increase of $52,000 from projected rates as a result of CUD WWTP upgrades. This equates to a total annual fee of approximately $1,440 to $1,660 per EDU for developed parcels, depending on the option selected (i.e., Option 1A or 2A). (Refer to Table B-9 for costs if existing undeveloped NCLSD users are also apportioned costs). Comparable rates for these users would not be able to be sustained within a reasonable payback period of 20 to 30 years. In addition, there would be significant electrical costs and O&M costs incurred to implement this option.



4-22

It is also acknowledged that the annual costs to CUD include fees to treat flows from NCLSD users located north of CUD. These users will continue to have their sewage flows treated at CUD, and therefore, a portion of these costs would continue to be incurred if Option 1A/2A was implemented. This rate would need to be re-negotiated between CUD and NCLSD if Option 1A/2A is selected. Based on the analysis above, Options 1A and 2A are not viewed to be favorable options for the NCLSD. Options 3A and 3B have significant capital costs at $31.2 million and $30.7 million respectively. Options 3A and 3B both provide the expansion of sewer service to the entire expanded service area presented in this report. The only difference between Options 3A and 3B is the method for routing the forcemain from the CHWWTP to the NCLSD WWTP. It is noted that an evaluation of the lake bottom would be required for Option 3B to determine the suitability of the installation of the forcemain. Significant additional upgrades are required at the NCLSD WWTP as result of the service area expansion. These costs, plus collection system and conveyance system costs, while borne over the entire new service area are likely cost prohibitive. Total annual costs for existing NCLSD users would be approximately $510 per EDU (an increase of approximately $132 per year from current annual fees). “New” NCLSD users (i.e., former CHSD users and developed parcels) would have total annual costs of approximately $1,850 to $1,960 per EDU, as well as initial connection costs (as applicable). Undeveloped parcels would have total annual costs ranging from $340 to $810 per EDU. If annual fees are apportioned to undeveloped parcels within the NCLSD (Table B-9), the Option 3A or 3B costs for existing NCLSD users would decrease by approximately $10 to $20 per year, and developed parcels would decrease by approximately $300 to $400 per year. Undeveloped parcels would have total annual costs ranging from $320 to $710 per EDU. While Options 3A and 3B provide sewer district consolidation and expansion that would be beneficial to Chautauqua Lake as a whole, the capital costs are significant. These options spread the capital cost of the new infrastructure over a greater number of users; however, plant upgrades required at NCLSD WWTP are significantly more substantial as a result. Further, the phosphorous removal from the Chautauqua Lake is anticipated to be achieved under the null option. For an additional $27.4 million and $26.9 million in comparison to the null option respectively, Options 3A and 3B provide only approximately 20% additional phosphorous removal (i.e., 2,474 lbs/year versus 2,055 lbs/year). Option 4 is required to maintain functionality and performance of the NCLSD WWTP’s existing anaerobic digesters. Replacement with two new floating covers is recommended. Replacement in kind is anticipated to be approximately $1.0 million. The estimated capital costs of Option 3B are presented in Table 4.5. If added to Option 1 or Option 1 plus Option 1A, the annual cost per EDU will be an additional $50 for existing NCLSD users. This annual fee would decrease per EDU if shared among more users (i.e, under all other options). Option 4 is recommended to be added to the selected option regardless of the sewer district expansion plans. The options presented in this report represent a wide range of options for NCLSD and CHSD to achieve the overall objectives of meeting SPDES permit compliance, improvement of water quality, maintaining WWTP functionality, and sewer district consolidation and expansion. As such, some of the options presented attempt to address disparate objectives while others include significant overlap. Therefore, there is a large difference between costing of these options and an in depth economic analysis including comparison of life cycle costs for each option was determined of little value.



5-1

SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE 5.1 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis provided and consideration of NCLSD and CHSD’s key objectives, potential reasonable approaches for implementation were identified by AECOM and NCLSD. The following approaches were identified as paths forward in achieving the objectives of achieving with SPDES permit compliance and improvement of water quality of Chautauqua Lake. The final options selected will be determined by the funding available. 5.1.1 Recommended Option for NCLSD The minimum option required of NCLSD to meet SPDES compliance and maintain plant functionality consists of the Option 1 NCLSD WWTP upgrades component ($2.8 million) plus Option 4 NCLSD WWTP upgrades ($1.0 million). This equates to $3.8 million in upgrades. Without funding assistance, the impact to existing NCLSD users equates to approximately $600 per EDU per year over a twenty year period (including additional annual fees to CUD WWTP for continued treatment of west side flows). This equates to an increase of approximately $222 per year over existing rates for existing users. 5.1.2 Recommended Options for CHSD The minimum option required of CHSD to meet SPDES permit compliance and maintain plant functionality is Option 1 - CHSD WWTP upgrades component ($1.0 million). Without additional funding assistance, $1.0 million would be apportioned to existing CHSD users over a twenty year period, equating to approximately $1,010 per EDU per year (an increase of approximately $470 per year over existing rates). This option would commit the Town of Chautauqua to the operation and management of the CHSD WWTP for approximately another 20 to 30 years, and thus discourage the expansion/consolidation options with NCLSD discussed herein. As such, a long term plan would not be established for addressing existing lakefront and non-lakefront development currently not served by a sewer system and where large numbers of failing on site septic systems are documented. It is acknowledged that phosphorous removal as a result of extending sewer service to these areas is anticipated to be fractional in comparison with the phosphorous removal as a result of WWTP upgrades. If these objectives are deemed to be a sufficient driver for additional funding, a second option may be preferred for CHSD. This would consist of conveyance of CHSD flows to the NCLSD WWTP for treatment. This would consist of Option 2 Conveyance of Flow to NCLSD WWTP component ($3.2 million). 5.1.3 Recommended Option for NCLSD and CHSD Consolidation/Expansion To address the larger objectives of improvement of water quality in the northern Chautauqua Lake region and sewer district consolidation and expansion as well as the required SPDES permit compliance and plant functionality upgrades, a combination of Option 3A ($31.1 million) and Option 4 ($1.0 million) would be recommended. This equates to a total $32.1 million required. Without funding assistance, the annual cost impact to existing NCLSD users, existing CHSD users, and new sewer district users would be



5-2

substantial and likely cost prohibitive. The final scope of the project and total funding required would be contingent on the negotiation of the sewer district extension boundaries. 5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR RECOMMENDED OPTIONS In this section, an approximate milestone schedule is provided for the recommended options. Project schedules shown below shall supersede the project schedule shown in 2014 URS report, “North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District Final Phosphorus Effluent Limit Compliance Evaluation.” 5.2.1 Recommended Option for NCLSD An approximate milestone project schedule for Option 1 NCLSD WWTP upgrades component ($2.8 million) plus Option 4 NCLSD WWTP upgrades ($1.0 million) is as follows:

1. Begin Design phase February 2016 2. Submission of design to NYSDEC August 2016 3. NYSDEC approval of design November 2016 4. Bid phase January 2017 – May 2017 5. Construction contract awarded May 2017 6. Construction June 2017 – April 2018 7. Startup/commissioning April 2018 8. Project completion May 2018 9. Final SPDES Compliance Date June 1, 2018

5.2.2 Recommended Options for CHSD An approximate milestone project schedule for Option 1 - CHSD WWTP upgrades component ($1.0 million) is as follows:

1. Begin Design phase February 2016 2. Submission of design to NYSDEC August 2016 3. NYSDEC approval of design November 2016 4. Bid phase January 2017 – May 2017 5. Construction contract awarded May 2017 6. Construction June 2017 – January 2018 7. Startup/commissioning January 2018 8. Project completion February 2018 9. Final SPDES Compliance Date June 2018

An approximate milestone project schedule for Option 2 Conveyance of Flow to NCLSD WWTP component ($3.2 million) would modify the NCLSD project schedule submitted in Option 5.2.1 as follows:



5-3

1. Begin Design phase February 2016 2. CHSD Apply for Waiver for Final

SPDES Compliance Limits March 2016

3. Submission of design to NYSDEC August 2016 4. NYSDEC approval of design November 2016 5. Bid phase January 2017 – May 2017 6. Construction contract awarded May 2017 7. Construction of NCLSD WWTP

Upgrades, Flow Conveyance and

CHSD WWTP Decommissioning June 2017 – April 2018

8. Startup/commissioning (NCLSD WWTP) April 2018

9. Project completion May 2018

10. Final SPDES Compliance Date June 2018

5.2.3 Recommended Option for NCLSD and CHSD Consolidation/Expansion Design and construction will be phased to achieve SPDES compliance in accordance with the Final SPDES Compliance Date. Expansion phase timelines shown are approximate and contingent upon multiple factors including the commitment of funding and the creation of district extensions. An approximate milestone project schedule for Option 3A ($31.1 million) plus Option 4 ($1.0 million):

Phase 1 – NCLSD WWTP Upgrades

1. Begin Design phase February 2016 2. Submission of design to NYSDEC August 2016 3. NYSDEC approval of design November 2016 4. Bid phase January 2017 – May 1, 2017 5. Construction contract awarded May 2017 6. Construction June 2017 – April 2018 7. Startup/commissioning April 2018 8. Project completion May 2018 9. Final SPDES Compliance Date June 2018

Phase 2 District Expansion Upgrades

1. Begin Design phase May 2016 2. Submission of design to NYSDEC May 2018 3. NYSDEC approval of design July 2018 4. Bid phase August 2018 – October 2018 5. Construction contract awarded November 2018 6. Construction December 2018 – December 2023 7. Startup/commissioning January 2024 8. Project completion February 2024

NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT - FINAL PHOSPHOROUS LIMIT COMPLIANCE EVALUATION


7-1

SECTION 6

REFERENCES Chautauqua County Department of Health (CCDOH).“Sanitary Code of Chautauqua County Health District.” Chautauqua County Government website: http://www.chautauqua-ny.com/departments/health/Documents/Environmental%20Health/REPORTS/2010%20Sanitary%20Code.pdf CCDOH. “Lab Testing: Water Laboratory.” Chautauqua County Government website: http://www.chautauqua-ny.com/departments/health/Pages/labtesting.aspx Chautauqua County GIS Parcel Viewer website: http://chautauqua.ny.us/departments/is/ GIS/Pages/default.aspx. 10 NYCRR Part 75 (December 1990). "Standards for Individual Water Supply and Individual Sewage Treatment System.” http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/wastewater_ treatment_ systems/design_handbook.htm New York State Department of Environmental Conservation email correspondence regarding TMDL limits for Chautauqua Lake SPDES permit Dischargers (June 16, 2011). (Dan Hayes, NYSDEC). New York State Department of Health (NYDOH) (September 2008). “Individual Water Supply Wells - Fact Sheet #3.” http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/part5/append5b/fs3_ water_quality.htm Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, A Report of the Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes--Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers, 2004 Edition (Ten State Standards) U.S. Census Bureau (September 2011). “2010 Demographic Profile- NY - Chautauqua town.” http://www.census.gov/popfinder/ U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (1994). “Soil Survey of Chautauqua County, New York.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (August 2011). “Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Phosphorus in Chautauqua Lake (Draft).” http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/tmdlchautlkdftaug11.pdf URS Corporation (March 2012). “Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Evaluation” URS Corporation (December 2007). “Engineering Report for: North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District Mayville Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Mayville, New York” URS Corporation (December 2014, Rev1: July 2015). “Engineering Report for: Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Phosphorus Compliance Evaluation” URS Corporation (December 2014, Rev2: July 2015). “Engineering Report for: North Chautauqua Lake Sewer District Final Phosphorus Effluent Limit Compliance Evaluation”



Appendix A Flow Data

Table A-1: Estimation of Flowrate for Non-Residential Sources Table A-2 Flow Data for Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Pump Stations

Zone Location

Number of

commercial/

other units

Commercial/other type (if

applicable)

Commercial/

Other Flowrate

(gpd) by AreaFraction of

Residential Approx E.D.U.

1

Route 430 (Wooglin Rd to Galloway Rd), Dearing Rd, South Dr,

North Dr, Grand Ave 1 Liquor Store/Office 900.3

1

2

Route 430 (from Breeze Ln to Wooglin Rd), Iona St, Wooglin Rd,

Lake Ave, Shorelands Dr, East Ave, Breeze Ln - - -- -

3

Shore Dr, Route 430 (Villa/Fairview Drive to Breeze Lane),

Chautaqua Lake Estates (Mohawk Dr, Oneida Dr, Seneca Dr,

Cayuga Dr), Chautauqua Lake Estates (151 units) and Villas at

Point Chautauqua (18 units) 3 Golf Club House 500 1.7 3

4

Point Chautauqua (Leet Ave, Lookout Ave, Emerald Ave, Zephyr

Ave, Terrace Ave, Midland Ave, Floral Ave, Lake Ave, Orchard Ave,

Diamond Ave, Maple Ave, Conlan Dr), Route 430 (Leet Ave East

entrance to Leet Ave West entrance) - - -

- -

5

Route 430 (Springbrook to Leet Ave), Private Drive, 7 Winds Drive,

Tinkertown Dr - - -- -

1 Church 450 1.5 1

1 Post Office 75 0.3 1

1 Fire Dept 75 0.3 1

1 Greenhouse 75 0.3 1

1 Auto Shop 75 0.3 17 Meadows Road (south), Ericson Ln - Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 units) 8,000 26.7 27

1 Gift Shop 45 0.2 1

1 Restaurant 875 2.9 3Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 13,500 45.0 45

9

Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Tyler Rd), including Bayberry Landing (34

units) - - - --

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 (includes KOA campground) 1 KOA Campground (225 units) 11,250 37.5 38

Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds)13,500 45.0 45

1 Retail 45 0.2 11 Marina 30 0.1 11 Restaurant 875 2.9 3Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center

Camp (250 beds) 15,000 50.0 50Mobile home units (14 units) 2,800 9.3 91 Greenhouse 75 0.3 1The Boys JIM Club of American Camp

(Approx. 250 beds) 15,000 50.050

Notes:

1. Flowrates developed based on Table 3 in "Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works: Intermediate Sized Sewerage Facilities" (NYSDEC, 1988).

2. Flowrates for campgrounds, mobile home parks, and commercial sources are based on the typical wastewater flowrates for those source types as recommended by NYSDEC (1988).

11

13

3

2

Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave), Overlook Ave12

Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd), Bellamy Field Rd, Marina

Drive, West Wind Drive, East Wind Drive, McDonald Rd, Lake

Winds, Walker Rd3

Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd


Table A-1

5

8 Route 430 (Tyler Rd to Meadows Rd) 3

6

Meadows Road (north of Route 430 to Springbrook Rd),

Springbrook Rd (between Meadows Rd and Route 430), Route 430

(between Meadows Road and Springbrook Rd), Cobb's Landing,

Lahr's Lane

ESTIMATION OF FLOWRATE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL SOURCES

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Tables 3.2, A-1, A-2.xlsx

Chautauqua

ShoresOrchard Terrace

GPY GPD

2004 8,798,250 9,067,500 17,865,750 48,947

2005 9,055,800 9,898,350 18,954,150 51,929

2006 9,284,850 9,617,250 18,902,100 51,787

2007 9,762,150 9,047,250 18,809,400 51,533

2008 10,488,900 10,246,500 20,735,400 56,809

2009 9,886,350 9,094,500 18,980,850 52,002

2010 8,949,900 6,403,500 15,353,400 42,064

2011 21,864,090 0 21,864,090 59,902

2012 9,335,800 8,933,250 18,269,050 50,052

2013 11,309,100 8,844,750 20,153,850 55,216

2014 19,626,300 0 19,626,300 53,771

GPY GPD

Flow Meter "working" 20,745,195 56,836Flow Meter " not working" 18,669,328 51,149

Table A-2


FLOW DATA FOR CHAUTAUQUA SHORES

Average Total Flow

YearTotal

Flowrate

Gallon per year (GPY)

& ORCHARD TERRACE PUMP STATIONS

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Tables 3.2, A-1, A-2.xlsx



Appendix B

Cost Estimates Table B-1: Property Owner Construction and Collection System Expansion Costs (Options 3A and

3B) Table B-2: Conveyance to NCLSD Costs per Option Table B-3: Upgrades to NCLSD WWTP Costs for Final Phosphorous Limits Compliance and

Expansion of Sewer District Table B-4: Estimated Construction Costs: Cost Estimate Sources Table B-5: Estimated Construction Costs: Chautauqua Shores Pump Station Upgrade Table B-6: Estimated Construction Costs: Lighthouse Point Pump Station Upgrade Table B-7: Cost Distribution Matrix Table B-8: Cost Estimate Summary: Large Volume and Non-residential Users Table B-9: Capital Construction Costs - Estimated Costs Per User Including Apportionment of Costs

to Existing NCLSD Users with Vacant/Undeveloped Parcels Table B-10: Total Cost Estimate Summary - Estimated Costs Per User Including Apportionment of

Costs to Existing NCLSD Users with Vacant/Undeveloped Parcels

Estimated

Number of

Gravity

Connections

Average Lateral

Length (LF) to

Gravity Sewer

Mainline

Approx Cost of

New Laterals

Per New

Connection

Subtotal

Estimated

Number of New

Grinder Pump

Systems

Average Lateral

Length (LF) to

Grinder Pump

Station

Cost of New

Laterals to

Grinder Pump

Station Per New

Connection

Subtotal

PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUMMARY

1 33 33 9 75 $7,838 $70,538 24 10 $1,045 $25,080 $95,618 Property Owner Construction Costs (see notes 2 and 7) $2,542,5002 72 72 48 30 $3,135 $150,480 25 10 $1,045 $26,125.00 $176,605 Average cost by property owner per new connection (gravity) $6,1003 172 172 0 - $0 $0 0 - $0 $0 $0 Average cost by property owner per new connection (grinder pump) $1,1004 100 100 35 30 $3,135 $109,725 65 10 $1,045 $67,925 $177,650

5 31 31 20 50 $5,225 $104,500 11 10 $1,045 $11,495 $115,995

6 41 41 41 50 $5,225 $214,225 0 - $0 $0 $214,225

7 50 63 112 50 $5,225 $585,200 49 10 $1,045 $51,205 $636,405

8 58 12 11 75 $7,838 $86,213 4 10 $1,045 $4,180 $90,393

9 48 15 0 - $0 $0 14 10 $1,045 $14,630 $14,630

10 41 4 3 50 $5,225 $15,675 0 - $0 $0 $15,675

11 147 103 68 100 $10,450 $710,600 35 10 $1,045 $36,575 $747,175

12 58 7 5 120 $12,540 $62,700 2 10 $1,045 $2,090 $64,790

13 72 29 26 70 $7,315 $190,190 3 10 $1,045 $3,135 $193,325

14 177 177 0 - $0 $0 0 - $0 $0 $0

SUBTOTAL 1,100 859 378 $2,300,045 232 $242,440 $2,542,485

Average Length

(LF) to Main

Cost of 1.5-inch

Forcemain

Lateral

Connection to

Sewer

Forcemain

Cost to Furnish,

Install, and

Startup Grinder

Pump Stations

Approx Length

of Grinder Pump

Forcemain (LF)

Cost to Furnish

and Install (2-

inch) Grinder

Pump

Forcemain

Approx Quantity

of Air Release

Valves, Flushing

Connections

(EA)

Cost of Air

Release Valves,

Flushing

Connections

Approx Length

of Gravity Sewer

(LF)

Cost to Furnish

and Install (8-

inch, 10-inch)

diameter

Cost to connect

new laterals to

system

Approx Quantity

of Manholes

(EA)

Cost to Furnish

and Install

Manholes

GRAVITY

SEWER

SUBTOTAL

Construct and

Furnish Sewage

Pumping Station

(see note 6)

Cost of Sewage

Pumping

Stations

Approx Length

of Forcemain

(LF)

Cost to Furnish

and Install

Forcemain to

Convey Flow to

Converted

CHWWTP PS

1 60 $39,600 $204,442 3,100 $68,200 3;3 $25,773 $338,015 1,700 $188,870 $18,150 6 $26,400 $233,420 0 $0 0 $0 $0

2 15 $41,250 $212,960 2,600 $57,200 2;3 $19,613 $331,023 6,000 $666,600 $39,600 20 $88,000 $794,200 1 $134,400 600 $30,000 $164,400

3 0 $0 $0 - $0 0 $0 $0 3,000 $333,300 $5,000 10 $44,000 $382,300 0 $0 0 $0 $0

4 20 $107,250 $553,696 8,100 $178,200 4;8 $44,088 $883,234 5,500 $611,050 $55,000 19 $83,600 $749,650 0 $0 1,200 $60,000 $60,000

5 20 $18,150 $93,702 300 $6,600 0 $0 $118,452 5,400 $599,940 $17,050 18 $79,200 $696,190 0 $0 2,600 $130,000 $130,000

6 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 3,600 $399,960 $22,550 12 $52,800 $475,310 0 $0 0 $0 $0

7 10 $80,850 $417,402 1,150 $25,300 0;1 $2,431 $525,983 1,800 $199,980 $34,650 6 $26,400 $261,030 0 $0 1,000 $50,000 $50,000

8 50 $6,600 $34,074 1,500 $33,000 0;1 $2,431 $76,105 2,100 $233,310 $6,600 7 $30,800 $270,710 1 $319,200 750 $37,500 $356,700

9 40 $23,100 $119,258 0 $0 0 $0 $142,358 2,100 $233,310 $8,250 7 $30,800 $272,360 1 $134,400 350 $17,500 $151,900

10 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 2,300 $255,530 $2,200 8 $35,200 $292,930 0 $0 0 $0 $0

11 60 $57,750 $298,144 3,850 $84,700 2;4 $22,044 $462,638 8,600 $955,460 $56,650 29 $127,600 $1,139,710 2 $268,800 2,650 $132,500 $401,300

12 25 $3,300 $17,037 2,600 $57,200 2;3 $19,613 $97,150 2,950 $327,745 $3,850 10 $44,000 $375,595 1 $315,000 1,600 $80,000 $395,000

13 100 $4,950 $25,555 3,500 $77,000 2;4 $22,044 $129,549 2,850 $316,635 $15,950 10 $44,000 $376,585 1 $134,400 2,200 $110,000 $244,400

14 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0

SUBTOTAL $382,800 $1,976,269 $587,400 $158,037 $3,104,506 $6,319,990 $1,306,200 $647,500 $1,953,700

Notes: COLLECTION SYSTEM COSTS SUMMARY1. The costs per zone as presented above are for bookkeeping purposes only. They do not represent the cost to connect each zone to the system, but rather the costs of infrastructure located within each zone.

2. Assumes the cost by property owners is the one-time connection cost of the sewer lateral from the residence or business to either the sanitary mainline (gravity system) or to the grinder pump station (grinder pump system). Percentage Add-Ons SUBTOTAL: $11,378,196

3. Assumes standard manholes installed on gravity sewer at 300 LF intervals. Rock Excavation 0.5% $56,900

4. Assumes air release valve installed at intervals of 2,000 feet on forcemain piping. Dewatering 2% $227,600

5. Assumes flushing connections installed on forcemain piping at 1,000 LF intervals. Erosion Control 2% $227,600

6. "Construct and Furnish Sewage Pumping Station" refers to the installation of a new packaged pumping system (i.e, Zones 2, 8,11,12 13), or the conversion of an existing WWTP to pumping station (i.e., Zone 9), or demolition Restoration 5% $569,000

Refer to the "Chautauqua Heights Sewer District Evaluation" Engineer's Report (URS, 2012) for additional information. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic 5% $569,000

7. Property owner connection costs may not be representative for large volume users. Refer to the Engineer's Report (URS, 2012) and Table B-8 for additional information. Mobilization/Demobilization 2% $227,600

8. Total capital costs are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars. General Requirements (%) 2% $227,600

9. Refer to Table B-4 for sources for estimated construction costs. Engineering (%) 8% $910,300

10. Zone 14 has existing collection system infrastructure in place. Refer to Table B-2 for conveyance costs associated with the connection of Zone 14. Insurance & Bonds (%) 1% $113,800

Contingency (%) 15% $1,706,800

TOTAL: $16,214,400

Zone

GRINDER PUMP FORCEMAINGRINDER PUMP FORCEMAINS

TO COLLECTION SYSTEM

PROPERTY OWNER CONSTRUCTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COSTS (OPTIONS 3A AND 3B)

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: BREAKDOWN PER ZONE


Table B-1

PUMP

STATIONS

SUBTOTAL

Estimated

Number of New

Connections

EDUs Per Zone

COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION

GRAVITY CONNECTIONS

GRAVITY SEWER

PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTION: CONNECTIONS/LATERALS

GRINDER PUMP CONNECTIONS

Private Property

Construction

SUBTOTAL

PUMP STATION FORCEMAINPUMP STATION

GRINDER PUMP

SUBTOTAL

Zone

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Cost Estimate - NCLSD.xlsx

OPTION 1 OPTION 1A/2A OPTION 2 OPTION 4

Upgrade NCLSD WWTP

and CHSD WWTP to Meet

Final Phosphorous Effluent

Limits

Pump Chautauqua Shores and

Orchard Terrace Developments to

NCLSD WWTP

Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump

Station with Forcemain to NCLSD

WWTP

Replace NCLSD WWTP

Digester Covers

N/A Zone 14 Zone 3 Zone 3 Zone 14 Zone 3 Zone 14 N/A

N/A 2 1 1 2 1 2 N/A

N/A $570,000 $452,500 $452,500 $570,000 $452,500 $570,000 N/A

N/A 12,000 24,000 24,000 12,000 9,000 12,000 N/A

N/A $900,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $900,000 $1,520,000 $900,000 N/A

$0 $1,470,000 $2,252,500 $0

Percentage

Rock Excavation 0.5% $0 $7,400 $11,300 $0

Dewatering 2% $0 $29,400 $45,100 $0

Erosion Control 2% $0 $29,400 $45,100 $0

Restoration 5% $0 $73,500 $112,700 $0

Maintenance and Protection of Traffic 5% $0 $73,500 $112,700 $0

Mobilization/Demobilization 2% $0 $29,400 $45,100 $0

General Requirements (%) 2% $0 $29,400 $45,100 $0

Engineering (%) 8% $0 $117,600 $180,200 $0

Insurance & Bonds (%) 1% $0 $14,700 $22,600 $0Contingency (%) 15% $0 $220,500 $337,900 $0

$0 $2,094,800 $3,210,300 $0

Notes:1. Row refers to the conversion of the existing WWTP to a pumping station (Zone 3) or the upgrade of existing pumping stations (Zone 14). Refer to Tables B-4 through B-6 and the Engineer's Report for additional information.

2. Work in Zone 3 includes demolition of existing CHWWTP.

3. Under Option 3B, the length of the forcemain to the existing NCLSD WWTP (from the eastern side of the lake) represents approx. 8,000 LF to be installed under Lake Chautauqua & approx. 1,000 LF on the western side of the lake to the existing plant.

4. Capital costs are rounded to the nearest hundred dollars.

5. Refer to Table B-4 for sources for estimated construction costs.

$172,200

CONVEYANCE TO NCLSD COSTS PER OPTION

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: BREAKDOWN PER OPTION


$186,200

$186,200

$74,500

$74,500

$18,700

$172,200

$68,900

$68,900

$17,300

Table B-2

Percentage Add-Ons

Construct and Furnish Sewage Pumping Station or

Modify Existing Station (see note 1)

SUBTOTAL

CONVEYANCE TO NCLSD

$3,722,500 $3,442,500

Cost to Furnish and Install Forcemain to the Existing

NCLSD WWTP

Approx Length of Forcemain (LF) (see note 3)

Cost of Sewage Pumping Station Work (see note 2)

OPTION 3A

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At

NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main on Lake Bottom and

Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At

NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along Rte. 430 and

Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD WWTP

OPTION 3B

COSTS PER OPTION

$68,900

Convey Additional Flows from Zone

$5,305,100

Pump

Stations

Forcemain

TOTAL

$37,300

$297,800

$74,500

$558,400

$74,500

$4,906,100

$34,500

$275,400

$68,900

$516,400

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Cost Estimate - NCLSD.xlsx

Proposed Adminstration/Influent Building Upgrades

Item Quantity UnitsMaterial Cost

(each)

Installation/Labor Cost

(each)Total Cost

Reference or Comment

Replace mechanical screen 1 Lump Sum $185,000 $185,000 $370,000

Based on quote for a Triden Screen from Hydro-dyne Engineering Inc.

provided by Siewert Equipment Co. (May 2015)

Modify existing channel 1 Lump Sum $0 $2,500 $2,500 Modify to accomodate mechanical screens as required (remove fillet).

Replace Parshall flume 1 Lump Sum $3,500 $5,250 $8,750

Based on quote for a Parshall flume (fiberglass laminate) from Open

Channel Flow provided by Siewert Equipment Co. (May 2015)

Bypass Pumping during construction 8 Days $0 $800 $6,400

Controls and Electrical Work 1 Lump Sum $80,000 $50,000 $130,000

Including new service and power connections for Filter Building,

Intermediate Pump Station, and Solids Handling Building.

Subtotal $517,650

Proposed Main Pumping Station Building Upgrades


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Provide and install submersible pump 1 Lump Sum $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 Based on quote for Wilo FA10.51E provided by GP Jager Inc. (May 2015)

Install 10-inch piping to Upper Pump Room 100 LF $40 $20 $6,000 To be installed above grade.

Provide and install primary sludge pump 1 Lump Sum $20,000 $30,000 $50,000


Subtotal $128,500

Proposed Intermediate Pump Station Structure


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavation for pump station structure 200 CY $0 $75 $15,000

Excavation to remove existing components prior to CCT (refer to

Proposed CCT Upgrades below) & to facilitate install of new structure.

Includes sheeting & shoring.


Temporary piping during construction 1 Lump Sum $0 $1,500 $1,500

Provide and install pump station structure 1 Each $25,000 $50,000 $75,000

Based on a 10' x 10' x 16' deep cast-in-place concrete structure with

access hatch.

Backfill 144 CY $30 $30 $8,640

Provide and install four (4) submersible pumps (2 at 0.75 MGD, 2 at 1.5

MGD) 1 Lump Sum $90,000 $90,000 $180,000

Based on quote for Wilo FA10.51E and FA15.52E submersible sewage

pumps with rails for removal provided by GP Jager Inc. (Dec 2014).

Process flow piping (16-inch diameter) modifications to new PS 10 LF $80 $95 $1,750

Process flow bypass (16-inch diameter) to CCT (gravity flow) 10 LF $80 $95 $1,750

Process flow forcemain (10-inch) from PS to filter building 120 LF $50 $75 $15,000

Install tank drain (8-inch) from pump station structure to MH-11 40 LF $40 $65 $4,200

Install effluent sluice/weir with automatic controls 1 Each $5,000 $5,000 $10,000

Electrical Work 1 Lump Sum $8,500 $10,000 $18,500

Subtotal $347,340

Proposed Clarifier Upgrades


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavation for Primary Clarifier #3 240 CY $0 $75 $18,000

Install 25' diameter cast in place concrete Primary Clarifier #3 1 Lump Sum $98,000 $196,000 $294,000

Includes compacted fill, effluent structure, railings, grating, weirs, baffles,

supports, and concrete stairs

Backfill and grading around Primary Clarifier #3 40 CY $30 $30 $2,400

Provide and install Primary Clarifier #3 mechanisms 1 Lump Sum $100,000 $150,000 $250,000

Based on quote for Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier mechanisms from

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC provided by GP Jager Inc. (May 2015)

including controls and electrical work.

Process flow piping (10-inch diameter) from Main PS to Primary Clarifier #3

(gravity flow) 70 LF $50 $75 $8,750

Process flow piping (10-inch diameter) from Primary Clarifier #3 to

Distribution Box (gravity flow) 100 LF $50 $75 $12,500

Excavation for Secondary Clarifier #3 365 CY $0 $75 $27,375

Install 30' diameter cast in place concrete Secondary Clarifier #3 1 Lump Sum $125,000 $187,500 $312,500

Includes compacted fill, sludge pump chamber, railings, grating, weirs,

baffles, supports, and concrete stairs.

Backfill and grading around Secondary Clarifier #3 60 CY $30 $30 $3,600

Provide and install Secondary Clarifier #3 mechanisms 1 Lump Sum $110,000 $165,000 $275,000

Based on quote for Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier mechanisms from

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC provided by GP Jager Inc. (May 2015)

including controls and electrical work.

Process flow piping (10-inch diameter) from Distribution Box to Secondary

Clarifier #3 (gravity flow) 90 LF $50 $75 $11,250

Process flow piping (10-inch diameter) from Secondary Clarifier #3 to

Intermediate PS (gravity flow) 80 LF $50 $75 $10,000

Provide and install secondary sludge pump 1 Lump Sum $20,000 $20,000 $40,000

Controls and Electrical Work 2 Lump Sum $3,000 $3,000 $12,000Note: Primary sludge pump included under Proposed Main Pumping

Station Building above.

Subtotal $1,277,375

Proposed RBC Effluent Distribution Structure Upgrades


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavation for RBC #4 220 CY $0 $50 $11,000

Construct concrete tank for RBC #4 1 Lump Sum $50,000 $75,000 $125,000

Based on a 33' x 16' x 8' deep cast-in-place concrete structure with

baffles and extension/modification of existing effluent channel

Process flow piping (10-inch diameter) from Distribution Box to RBC #4

(gravity flow) 40 LF $50 $75 $5,000

Install new RBC #4 1 Lump Sum $150,000 $50,000 $200,000 Based on furnish and installation price for 2010 project at WWTP.

Bypass Pumping during construction 14 Days $0 $1,500 $21,000

Install mixer in RBC effluent distribution structure 1 Each $20,000 $20,000 $40,000

Based on a quote from Philadelphia Mixer provided by GP Jager Inc.

(Dec 2014) for a 3 HP gear driven mixer.

Add baffles to RBC effluent distribution structure 1 Lump Sum $5,000 $7,500 $12,500

Modify RBC effluent distribution structure for chemical feed addition 1 Lump Sum $0 $2,000 $2,000


Subtotal $424,700

Proposed Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT) Upgrades


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavate and demo existing chlorine contact tank 150 CY $0 $75 $11,250

Remove existing pipe assembly, flow meter, and manhole prior to CCT 1 Lump Sum $0 $7,500 $7,500

Install flow meter and sampler in existing manhole downstream of CCT 1 Each $5,000 $1,000 $6,000

Dewatering for excavation 2 Weeks $0 $1,500 $3,000


Temporary piping during construction 1 Lump Sum $0 $1,500 $1,500

Provide and install chlorine contact tank 775 SF $30 $45 $58,125

Based on construction of a 28' x 20' x 6' deep cast-in-place concrete

structure including piping connections, baffles, concrete stairs, grating,

and railings.

Electrical Work 1 Lump Sum $300 $1,000 $1,300

Subtotal $104,675

TABLE B-3



UPGRADES TO NCLSD WWTP COSTS FOR FINAL PHOSPHOROUS LIMITS COMPLIANCE AND EXPANSION OF SEWER DISTRICT

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Cost Estimate - NCLSD.xlsx Revision 8/4/2015

TABLE B-3



UPGRADES TO NCLSD WWTP COSTS FOR FINAL PHOSPHOROUS LIMITS COMPLIANCE AND EXPANSION OF SEWER DISTRICT

Proposed Filter / Chemical Storage Building


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavation for filter building including filter modules, secondary

containment, and related manholes 965 CY $0 $75 $72,375

Dewatering for excavation 10 Weeks $0 $1,500 $15,000

Construct 63' x 36' building 2,268 SF $100 $150 $567,000 Assumes a concrete block building with steel roof.

Provide and install complete filter assemblies including concrete basins and

control panels 1 Lump Sum $647,000 $866,000 $1,513,000

Based on quote for Parkson DynaSand® Continuous Backwash Sand

Filter for three (3) cells of four (4) DSF50CDBTF modules provided by

Siewert Equipment Co. (May 2015) including stainless steel enclosures

and grating over filter bed.

Process flow piping (12-inch) between filter building and CCT 200 LF $65 $95 $32,000

Install flow meter upstream of filter building including access manhole 1 Each $8,600 $4,300 $12,900

Based on quote for MagFlux® 7100 Sensor 8" ANSI/300 provided by GP

Jager Inc. (Dec 2014)

Extend existing 2-inch diameter potable waterline to filter building 200 LF $64 $32 $19,200

Install 8-inch diameter tank drain and backwash flow piping (8-inch) from

Filters to MH-11 175 LF $40 $65 $18,375

Install eye wash station and chemical storage safety features 1 Lump Sum $3,000 $3,000 $6,000

Install cast-in-place secondary containment structure 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $50,000 $75,000

Based on a 6' x 10' x 3.5' deep cast-in-place concrete structure with

grating at floor surface.

Provide and install chemical feed pumps 2 Each $1,000 $1,000 $4,000 Sodium hypochlorite (2)

Relocate ferric chloride storage (330 gallon totes, metering pumps, etc.) 1 Lump Sum $0 $2,500 $2,500

Sodium hypochlorite solution (55 gallon drum) 1 Each $200 $200 $400

Sodium hypochlorite chemical feed piping to storage tank to filter 150 LF $15 $25 $6,000

Ferric chloride chemical feed piping from filter building to RBC effluent

distribution structure 200 LF $25 $25 $10,000

Ferric chloride chemical feed from filter building to plant headworks 380 LF $25 $25 $19,000

Power and controls conduits to Adminstration Building 380 LF $10 $25 $13,300

Heat Trace for chemical feed lines 50 LF $10 $5 $750

Building lighting and electrical work 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $30,000 $55,000

Building heating and ventilation 1 Lump Sum $7,500 $11,250 $18,750

Subtotal $2,460,550

Proposed Solids Handling Building


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Excavation for solids handling building 59 CY $0 $75 $4,444

Construct 40' x 40' building 1,600 SF $100 $150 $400,000 Assumes a concrete block building with steel roof.

Provide and install solids handling equipment 1 Lump Sum $280,000 $280,000 $560,000

Based on a quote for Komline-Sanderson GRSL-1 Series III Kompress

Belt Press provided by GP Jager Inc. (May 2015).

Process flow piping (4-inch) between digesters and Solids Handling Building 60 LF $50 $75 $7,500

Install 8-inch diameter drain piping (8-inch) to MH-14 40 LF $40 $65 $4,200

Relocate existing 4-inch diameter drain to faciliate building installation 1 Lump Sum $0 $4,000 $4,000

Power and controls conduits to Adminstration Building 200 LF $10 $25 $7,000

Building lighting and electrical work 1 Lump Sum $103,000 $33,000 $136,000 Including MCC

Building heating and ventilation 1 Lump Sum $5,000 $10,000 $15,000

Subtotal $1,138,144

Site Investigations and Site Work


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Soil Borings 1 Lump Sum $0 $15,000 $15,000

Geotechnical Investigation 1 Lump Sum $0 $10,000 $10,000

Survey 1 Lump Sum $0 $20,000 $20,000

Clearing and Grubbing 500 SY $0 $10 $5,000

Construct Access Road (Paved) 725 SY $30 $45 $54,375 Assume 625' L x 10' W, includes truck turn-arounds

Construct Retaining Wall 75 LF $200 $300 $37,500

Remove existing chain link fence 200 LF $0 $10 $2,000

Install or replace chain link fence 480 LF $10 $20 $14,400

Stormwater line / SWPPP Compliance 1 Lump Sum $10,000 $20,000 $30,000

Restoration including topsoil and seeding 1 Lump Sum $2,500 $5,000 $7,500

Subtotal $195,775

Miscellaneous


(each)


(each)Total Cost


Modify existing Outfall 001 manhole. 1 Lump Sum $7,500 $11,250 $18,750

Replace existing 12-inch effluent sewer with 15-inch pipe (pipe bursting) 1,200 LF $75 $50 $150,000

Replace existing 12-inch effluent sewer with 15-inch piping (under lake) 1,300 LF $75 $75 $195,000

Subtotal $363,750

SUMMARY

Proposed Adminstration/Influent Building Upgrades $517,650

Proposed Main Pumping Station Building Upgrades $128,500

Proposed Intermediate Pump Station Structure $347,340

Proposed Clarifier Upgrades $1,277,375

Proposed RBC Effluent Distribution Structure Upgrades $424,700

Proposed Filter / Chemical Storage Building $2,460,550

Proposed Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT) Upgrades $104,675

Proposed Solids Handling Building $1,138,144

Site Investigations and Site Work $195,775

Miscellaneous $363,750

SUBTOTAL $6,958,500

Percentage Add-ons Percentage

Contingency (%) 20% $1,392,000

General Requirements (%) 4% $279,000

Engineering (%) 12% $836,000

Insurance & Bonds (%) 2% $140,000

Subtotal of Percentage Add-ons $2,647,000

TOTAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COST (Capital Costs + Percentage Add-ons) $9,605,500

Notes:

1. All costs are planning level estimates and are based on 2015 dollars.

2. The total capital construction cost is rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

3. Excavation work includes sheeting and shoring.

4. Process flow, drain piping, and conduit installation work includes excavation, backfill, sheeting, shoring, and connections to existing or proposed structures.

J:\Projects\11177358\MISC\Cost Estimate - NCLSD.xlsx Revision 8/4/2015

Unit Cost Estimate Cost1 Source

LF $95 $105

EA $500 $550

LF $95 $105

EA $7,744 $8,518

EA $1,500 $1,650

LF $20 $22

EA $5,600 $6,160

EA $2,210 $2,431

LF $94 $103

LF $101 $111

EA $4,000 $4,400

LS $128,000 $134,400

LS $304,000 $319,200

LS $128,000 $134,400

LS $300,000 $315,000

LS $125,000 $137,500 EBJ

LF $175 $184 Planning level estimates provided by Kandey Company (December 2011).

LF - $50 EBJ

LF - $75 EBJ

Notes:

1. Costs based on Bid Tabs from 2009 and 2011 were adjusted with 10% and 5% markups respectively to account for inflation.

2. Assumes flushing connections installed at intervals of 1,000 feet on the forcemain piping. Cost estimates based on 2-inch diameter forcemain two-way valves.

3. The Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 Bid Tab April 2009 (Clark Patterson Lee) was developed based on the installation of PVC SDR-21 piping. This analysis assumed the installation of one

simplex pump station and control panel (furnished by Environment-One Sewer Systems) at each residence/connection.

4. Sewage pumping station quotes increased to reflect the cost of construction and installation.

5. Pipe diameters of gravity sewers and grinder forcemains were estimated and/or averaged for this analysis.

6. EBJ indicates engineering best judgement.

Table B-4

Construct and furnish sewage pumping station (95 gpm at 21')

Erie County DEP Sewer District #3 Bid Tab April 2009; URS Corp. Each

item represents an average of the bidders for a similar installation.Furnish and Install standard manholes

Erie County DEP Sewer District #3 Bid Tab April 2009; URS Corp. Each

item represents an average of the bidders for a similar installation.

Item

Furnish and install 6-inch sewer lateral; connect to gravity sewer

Connect 6-inch sewer lateral to gravity (8-inch, 10-inch) sewer main

Furnish and install 6-inch sewer lateral; connect to grinder pump station

Furnish and install air release valves

Furnish and install flushing connections2

Planning level estimates for pumps, duplex panel, and fiberglass wet wells

provided by Flygt/xylem (November 2011).4


Furnish and install 4-inch forcemain (pavement)

Town of Cuba Sewer District #5 Bid Tab April 2009, Clark Patterson Lee.

Provided by Environment-One Sewer Systems. Each item represents an

average of the bidders for a similar installation.3


Furnish and Install (8-inch, 10-inch) diameter gravity sewer (green space)

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: COST ESTIMATE SOURCES

Furnish, install, and startup grinder pump stations

Furnish and Install (8-inch, 10-inch) diameter gravity sewer (pavement)

Furnish and install 1.5-inch forcemain lateral

Furnish and install 2-inch grinder pump forcemain

Furnish and install 4-inch forcemain (green space)

Furnish and install 4-inch forcemain under the lake

Construct and furnish sewage pumping station (570 gpm at 92') at CHWWTP


Demolish existing CHWWTP/convert to pump station

ItemQuantity Units

Material

Cost (each)

Installation/Labor

Cost (each)Total Cost Notes

Bypass pumping during construction 1 Lump Sum $0 $800 $800

Replace existing submersible pumps and

motors (three (3) pumps at 160 gpm at 150.7')1 Lump Sum $87,000 $87,000 $174,000

Based on planning level estimates for FA10.65E pumps,

motors, rails, control panels, etc. provided by Wilo Pumps (May

2015).

Electrical and Controls Work 1 Lump Sum $46,000 $46,000 $92,000 See note 3.

$267,000

General Notes


2. All total costs rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars. 3. Scope of work consists of providing a new electrical service and distribution, including: a new connection to the overhead distribution, new meter cabinet, new service disconnect, new generator connection cabinet and new control panel incorporating VFD’s for each pump and associated controls and communications required by the system. All of these components

would need to be self-supporting or provided with supports other than the utility pole, rated for the exterior environment and sized for the equipment proposed for each pump station. This analysis assumes the local utility can accommodate the electrical requirements.

Table B-5



Chautauqua Shores Pump Station Upgrade


ItemQuantity Units

Material

Cost (each)

Installation/Labor

Cost (each)Total Cost Notes

Bypass pumping during construction 1 Lump Sum $0 $800 $800

Replace existing submersible pumps and

motors (two (2) pumps at 500 gpm at 167')1 Lump Sum $76,000 $76,000 $152,000

Based on planning level estimates for two (2) FA 10.78Z

pumps, motors, rails, control panels, etc. provided by Wilo

Pumps (May 2015).

Remove existing 6' diameter wet well and

replace with 10' square wet well 1 Lump Sum $25,000 $25,000 $50,000

Electrical and Controls Work 1 Lump Sum $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 See note 3.

$303,000

General Notes


2. All total costs rounded up to the nearest thousand dollars. 3. Scope of work consists of providing a new electrical service and distribution, including: a new connection to the overhead distribution, new meter cabinet, new service disconnect, new generator connection cabinet and new control panel incorporating VFD’s for each pump and associated controls and communications required by the system. All of these components

would need to be self-supporting or provided with supports other than the utility pole, rated for the exterior environment and sized for the equipment proposed for each pump station. This analysis assumes the local utility can accommodate the electrical requirements.

Table B-6



Lighthouse Point Pump Station Upgrade


CHSD Upgrades NCLSD UpgradesCollection System Expansion and

Conveyance to NCLSD WWTP CostsCHSD Sewer District O&M Costs NCLSD Sewer District O&M Costs

1No Expansion of NCLSD Service Area and Compliance with SPDES

Permit Required Plant UpgradesN/A

Existing CHSD Users

(172)Existing NCLSD users (1,845) N/A Existing CHSD Users (172) Existing NCLSD users (1,845)

1APump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to

NCLSD WWTPN/A N/A N/A

New developed parcels (177),

[Undeveloped parcels (316)]N/A New developed parcels (177)

1 + 1A

Compliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades & Pump

Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to NCLSD

WWTP

N/AExisting CHSD Users

(172)

Existing NCLSD users (1,668), New

developed parcels (177), [Undeveloped

parcels (316)]


[Undeveloped parcels (316)]Existing CHSD Users (172)


developed parcels (177)

2Convert CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD

WWTPN/A N/A

Existing NCLSD users (1,845), new


parcels (316)]


new undeveloped parcels (0),

[Undeveloped parcels (316)]

N/AExisting NCLSD users (1,845), new


2APump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments to

NCLSD WWTPN/A N/A N/A


[Undeveloped parcels (316)]N/A New developed parcels (177)

2 + 2ACompliance with SPDES Permit Required Plant Upgrades & Convert

CHSD WWTP to a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTPN/A N/A



parcels (316)]


[Undeveloped parcels (316)]N/A



3A

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via

Force Main Along Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD

WWTP

New developed parcels

(1,100)N/A


developed parcels (1,100), [Undeveloped

parcels (224 to 585)]

New developed parcels (1,100),

[Undeveloped parcels (224 to 585)]N/A


developed parcels (1,100)

3B

Expand NCLSD To Entire Study Area And Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via

Force Main on Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to NCLSD

WWTP

New developed parcels

(1,100)N/A


developed parcels (1,100), [Undeveloped

parcels (224 to 585)]

New developed parcels (1,100),

[Undeveloped parcels (224 to 585)]N/A


developed parcels (1,100)

4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers N/A N/A Existing NCLSD users (1,845) N/A N/A Existing NCLSD users (1,845)

General Notes:

1. The types of users that the cost will be distributed amongst are as follows:

Existing NCLSD Users: "Existing NCLSD Users" refers to current users of the NCLSD that have their wastewater treated at the NCLSD WWTP (i.e., refer to Figure 1.1)

New developed parcels: The new developed parcels are parcels that have development (i.e., housing, campground, restaurant, etc.) and are within the new boundaries of the NCLSD, and will have flows going to the NCLSD WWTP as a result of the

upgrades. These parcels will receive sewer service as a result of the option.

New undeveloped parcels: The new undeveloped parcels are parcels that do not currently have any development (i.e., housing, campground, restaurant, etc.) and are within the new boundaries of the NCLSD (will have the capability to connect to sewer)

These parcels will not receive sewer service as a result of the option, but may in the future undergo development and opt into the sewer service. These parcels are identified in [brackets] to denote that costs may be

'apportoined to them depending on the rate structure selected by the sewer district agreements.

2. The property owner connection costs (private property construction) will be presented as a range. The range indicates the potential cost for different property types and the type of connection.

3. The components of the capital construction costs per user (i.e., NCLSD Upgrades; Collection System Expansion and Conveyance to NCLSD WWTP Costs) will be presented as a range depend on the rate structure chosen by the sewer district.

Refer to Table 4.7 for a description of this range.

Option

Table B-7


COST DISTRIBUTION MATRIX

Property Owner

Connection Costs

(Private Property

Construction)2

Capital Construction Costs1,3

Operation and Maintenance Costs

1 1A/2A 2

0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (COST PER USER PER YEAR)

7 Meadows Road (south), Ericson Ln Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 units) 27 N/A N/A N/A $43,470 to $45,900 $43,470 to $45,900

1 restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A $4,830 to $5,100 $4,830 to $5,100

Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 45 N/A N/A N/A $72,450 to $76,500 $72,450 to $76,500

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 KOA Campground (225 units) 38 N/A N/A N/A $61,180 to $64,600 $61,180 to $64,600

11 Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd) Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds) 45 N/A N/A N/A $72,450 to $76,500 $72,450 to $76,500

1 Restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A $4,830 to $5,100 $4,830 to $5,100

Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center Camp (250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A $80,500 to $85,000 $80,500 to $85,000

13 Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd The Boys JIM Club of American Camp (Approx. 250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A $80,500 to $85,000 $80,500 to $85,000

PROPERTY OWNER COSTS (INITIAL CONNECTION COST)5

7 Meadows Road (south), Ericson Ln Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 units) 27 N/A N/A N/A

1 restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A

Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 45 N/A N/A N/A

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 KOA Campground (225 units) 38 N/A N/A N/A

11 Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd) Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds) 45 N/A N/A N/A

1 Restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A

Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center Camp (250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A

13 Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd The Boys JIM Club of American Camp (Approx. 250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A

O&M COSTS (COST PER USER PER YEAR)

7 Meadows Road (south), Ericson Ln Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 units) 27 N/A N/A N/A

1 restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A

Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 45 N/A N/A N/A

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 KOA Campground (225 units) 38 N/A N/A N/A

11 Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd) Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds) 45 N/A N/A N/A

1 Restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A

Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center Camp (250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A

13 Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd The Boys JIM Club of American Camp (Approx. 250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (COST PER USER PER YEAR)

7 Meadows Road (south), Ericson Ln Creek-n-Lake Camp (40 units) 27 N/A N/A N/A $50,500 to $53,000 $50,500 to $53,000

1 restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A $5,700 to $5,900 $5,700 to $5,900

Camp Onyahsa (225 units) 45 N/A N/A N/A $84,200 to $88,200 $84,200 to $88,200

10 Thumb Rd east of Route 430 KOA Campground (225 units) 38 N/A N/A N/A $71,100 to $74,500 $71,100 to $64,600

11 Route 430 (Thumb Rd to Lewis Rd) Camp Mission Meadows (225 beds) 45 N/A N/A N/A $84,200 to $88,200 $84,200 to $76,500

1 Restaurant 3 N/A N/A N/A $5,700 to $5,900 $5,700 to $5,100

Lake Chautauqua Lutheran Center Camp (250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A $93,500 to $98,000 $93,500 to $85,000

13 Route 430 (Weaver Ave to Midway Park Rd), North Rd, Creek Rd The Boys JIM Club of American Camp (Approx. 250 beds) 50 N/A N/A N/A $93,500 to $98,000 $93,500 to $85,000

General Notes:

1. All costs are planning level estimates and are based on 2015 dollars.

2. Zones with only residential connections are not depicted in this table.

3. Non-residential units equivalent to 1 EDU will have similar costs to those presented in Tables 4.6 through 4.8 and are not represented in this table.

4. Costs are determined by multiplying cost per EDU (Table 4.7) by the number of EDU's for each user. Costs are presented assuming no costs are apportioned to existing NCLSD users with undeveloped/vacant parcels.

5. Initial connections costs are shown estimates only. Initial connection costs will vary based on which and how many structures are to receive sewerage services, site topography, soil conditions, etc.

Table B-8


COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY: LARGE VOLUME AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS

Zone Location User

Approx E.D.U.

(refer to Tables

3.2 and A-1)

3B3A

OPTIONS3,4


Treat At NCLSD WWTP Via Force Main Along

Rte. 430 and Pump Chautauqua Shores to

NCLSD WWTP



Lake Bottom and Pump Chautauqua Shores to

NCLSD WWTP

Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range

No Expansion of

NCLSD Service Area

and Compliance with

SPDES Permit

Required Plant

Upgrades 7

Pump Chautauqua

Shores and Orchard

Terrace

Developments to

NCLSD WWTP

Convert CHSD

WWTP to a Pump

Station with

Forcemain to

NCLSD WWTP 7

8 Route 430 (Tyler Rd to Meadows Rd)

$15,675 $15,675

$41,800 $41,800

$7,838 $7,838

$4,180 $4,180

$7,020 $7,020

8 Route 430 (Tyler Rd to Meadows Rd)$780

$11,700 $11,700

$780

$9,880 $9,880

$11,700

$13,000 $13,000

$11,700

$780 $780

$13,000 $13,000

12 Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave), Overlook Ave

Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave), Overlook Ave12

12Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave), Overlook Ave

12 Route 430 (Lewis Rd to Weaver Ave), Overlook Ave



$3,135

$6,100

$2,090

$3,135

$3,135

$6,100

$2,090

$3,135

0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50

1



Plant Upgrades

172 1,845 201 1,644 0 361 $1,000,000 $76,900 $2,800,000 $215,300 $0 $0 $3,800,000 $292,200 $450 $110 to $120 $30 to $60


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 N/A N/A $0 $0 $2,095,000 $161,100 $2,095,000 $161,100 N/A $460 to $650 $130 to $230

1 + 1A





172 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 $1,000,000 $76,900 $2,800,000 $215,300 $2,095,000 $161,100 $5,895,000 $453,200 $450 $110 to $120 $560 to $760 $160 to $280


with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 201 1,816 172 361 N/A N/A $2,800,000 $215,300 $3,210,300 $246,800 $6,011,000 $462,200 N/A $100 to $110 $800 to $1,120 $230 to $400


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 N/A N/A $0 $0 $2,095,000 $161,100 $2,095,000 $161,100 N/A $460 to $650 $130 to $230

2 + 2APump Chautauqua Shores and Orchard

Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 24 1,993 349 361 N/A N/A $2,800,000 $215,300 $5,305,300 $407,900 $8,105,300 $623,200 N/A $100 to $100 $870 to $1,070 $220 to $440

3A





0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 585 N/A N/A $9,605,500 $738,500 $21,519,500 $1,654,400 $31,125,000 $2,392,800 N/A $230 to $250 $1,420 to $1,610 $330 to $710

3B





0 2,945 24 2,921 1,100 585 N/A N/A $9,605,500 $738,500 $21,120,500 $1,623,700 $30,726,000 $2,362,100 N/A $230 to $250 $1,400 to $1,580 $320 to $700

4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers 172 1,845 201 1,644 0 361 N/A N/A $1,010,000 $77,700 $0 $0 $1,010,000 $77,700 N/A $40 to $50 $10 to $20

Notes:



3. Under Options 2, 3A, and 3B, CHSD Users will become "new" developed parcels (NCLSD Users).

4. Column refers to new EDUs to join the NCLSD and/or existing NCLSD users that will now have their wastewater treated at NCLSD. Options 1A, 2A, 3A, and 3B include incorporation of approximately 216 users on the west side of the lake that are currently within the NCLSD but have their wastewater treated at CUD.

5 Refer to Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. 3.4 and Appendix B tables for a breakdown of the costs of each respective option.

6. "Costs Per Year over the Planning Period" represents the annual cost by the utility to pay back the capital construction costs, assuming 4.5% interest rate and twenty (20) year financing period.

7. The capital construction cost per user will depend on the rate structure chosen by the sewer district. Both rate structures divide the capital costs up amongst users connected to the system plus undeveloped/unsewered parcels multiplied by a fractional component. A range of capital construction costs is presented

based upon two rate options for the undeveloped/unsewered parcels. Under the first rate structure, undeveloped/unsewered parcels count as 0.5 EDU. Under the second rate structure, unsewered parcels count as 0.2 EDU.


9. Existing NCLSD Users = 1,845.

Collection System and Conveyance

Costs

Total Cost

INCLUDING APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS TO EXISTING NCLSD USERS WITH VACANT/UNDEVELOPED PARCELS

N/A

N/A

Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range

N/A

Total Capital Construction Cost

Cost per Existing

CHSD User

Cost per Existing NCLSD UserCost per Developed Parcel

(New Users) (per EDU)

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

Total Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

NCLSD WWTP Upgrades

Table B-9


CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS - ESTIMATED COSTS PER USER

Option

Sewer District Users Capital Construction Costs (exclusive of Property Owner Costs) Annual Costs Per Users/Parcel Owners 5,6

CHSD Users

(See note 3)

NCLSD Users CHSD WWTP Upgrades Cost per Undeveloped Parcel

Total Users in

NCLSD

NCLSD Users

with Flows to

CUD WWTP

Total Users

with Flow to

NCLSD

WWTP

"New"

Developed

Parcels

(EDUs) to be

Added to

NCLSD

(See note 4)

Undeveloped

parcels within

NCLSD

boundaries

N/A

Total Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

Total Capital

Construction

Cost

Costs Per Year

over Planning

Period

0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.50

1



Plant Upgrades

172 1,845 201 1,644 0 361 $450 $560 $1,010 $110 to $120 $400 $510 to $520 N/A $30 to $60


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 N/A N/A N/A $0 $460 to $650 See note 6. $130 to $230

1 + 1A



Shores and Orchard Terrace Developments

to NCLSD WWTP

172 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 $450 $560 $1,010 $110 to $120 $410 $520 to $530 $560 to $760 $410 $970 to $1,170 $160 to $280


with Forcemain to NCLSD WWTP0 2,017 201 1,816 172 361 N/A N/A N/A $100 to $110 $400 $500 to $510 $800 to $1,120 $400 $230 to $400


Terrace Developments to NCLSD WWTPN/A 1,845 24 1,821 177 361 N/A N/A N/A $0 $460 to $650 See note 6. $130 to $230

2 + 2A


Plant Upgrades & Convert CHSD WWTP to

a Pump Station with Forcemain to NCLSD

WWTP

0 2,017 24 1,993 349 361 N/A N/A N/A $100 to $100 $380 $480 to $480 $870 to $1,070 $380 $1,250 to $1,450 $220 to $440

3A






3B






4 Replace NCLSD WWTP Digester Covers7 172 1,845 201 1,644 0 361 N/A N/A N/A $40 to $50 $0 $40 to $50 $0 $10 to $20

Notes:

1. All unit costs are planning level estimates and are based on 2015 dollars.



4. The capital construction costs per user are presented as a range which indicates the cost differential expected depending on the rate structure chosen by the sewer district for undeveloped parcels. Refer to Table 4.6 for a description of this range.

5. Current O&M costs by NCLSD users based on the 2014 NCLSD operating budget.


7. The annual cost per user for Option 4 is represented under the scenario of addition to Option 1 or Options 1+1A. If Option 4 were combined with one of the remaining Options, the annual per user cost would be decreased as a result of apportionment

among a larger number of sewer district users. Per user costs would also apply to "new" users under the remaining options.

INCLUDING APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS TO EXISTING NCLSD USERS WITH VACANT/UNDEVELOPED PARCELS

N/A $0 N/A See note 6.

$1,200

N/A $0 N/A See note 6.

N/A

NCLSD

Users with

Flows to

CUD

WWTP

Total Users

with Flow

to NCLSD

WWTP

"New"

Developed

Parcels

(EDUs) to

NCLSD

WWTP (See

note 4)


Total Annual Costs


Costs3,4

(See Table 4.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range Rate Structure Range

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)

Initial Connection Costs

(See Tables 4.3 and 4.4)


Costs3,4

(See Table 4.7)

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)

Total Annual CostsTotal

Annual

Costs


Costs3,4

(See Table 4.7)Total Users

in NCLSD

"New"

undeveloped

parcels

within new

NCLSD

boundaries


N/A N/A N/A

Table B-10


TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - ESTIMATED COSTS PER USER

Option


ANNUAL COSTS PER EDU BY

EXISTING CHSD USERS

(Current Annual Cost = $540/year

per EDU)

ANNUAL COSTS PER EDU BY EXISTING NCLSD Users

(Current Annual Cost = $378/year per EDU) 5 ANNUAL COSTS BY DEVELOPED PARCELS (NEW USERS)

ANNUAL COSTS BY

UNDEVELOPED

PARCELS

CHSD

Users3

NCLSD Users

Capital

Construction

Costs4

(See Table

4.7)

O&M

Costs

(See

Table 4.8)



Appendix C

Vendor Literature and Quotes Filtration:

- Drawing: Parkson Dynasand® Continuous Backwash Sand Filter General Arrangement, Four (4) modules per cell (2 pages)

- Preliminary Budget Sizing: Parkson Dynasand® with ECOWASH Intermittent Backwash System (1 page)

Pumps: - Emails from Rick Calmes at GP Jager (May 2015) with pump recommendations and

budgetary costing (8 pages) - Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.51E) (4 pages)

o Intermediate PS to Filter Building, Small Pumps o Wet Well to Clarifier Pump

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.65E) (4 pages) o Chautauqua Shores PS

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.65E) (4 pages) o Lighthouse Point PS (NOT used for budgetary purposes in this study)

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA10.78Z) (4 pages) o Lighthouse Point PS Alternated (used for budgetary purposes in this study)

- Pump Technical Data and Performance Curves (FA15.52E) (4 pages) o Lighthouse Point PS Alternated (used for budgetary purposes in this study)

Clarifiers: - Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier (25’-0” Diameter) – Scope of Supply prepared by Evoqua Water

Technologies LLC (May 26, 2015) (2 pages) - Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier (30’-0” Diameter) – Scope of Supply prepared by Evoqua Water

Technologies LLC (May 26, 2015) (2 pages) Parshall Flume:

- Drawing: Fiberglass 18” Parshall Flume, Dwg. No. P-F-18-N- N- N- N- N- N prepared by Open Channel Flow) (1 page)

- Quotation for an 18-inch Parshall Flume prepared by Open Channel Flow (Alpharetta, GA), dated 1/27/2015 (1 page)

Dewatering Equipment: - Budget Price and Equipment Recommendation for Sludge Dewatering Equipment prepared

by Komline-Sanderson dated May 14, 2015 (1 page) - Drawings: Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, Kompress Foundation Plan and

Anchor Bolt Layout (CKO65-20008DA1); Kompress Model GRSL-1M Series III Hydraulic T/U & Steer (CK065-300017DD1, CK065-300017DD2) (3 pages total)

Mechanical Screen - Email correspondence from Wendi Richards at Siewert Equipment regarding a quotation

from Hydro-Dyne for a Triden Mechanical Screen (May 27, 2015) (1 page) - Triden Screens brochure and technical information (2 pages) - Triden Screen Equipment Sizing and Hydraulic Performance (2 pages)

Anaerobic Digesters - Budgetary Proposal prepared by Envirodyne Systems Inc. (3 pages)

APPLICATION :

DESIGN DATA Temp TSS TP TN

deg C mg/L mg/L mg/L

Peak: gpm = 2.2 mgd Influent 7 25 20 2

Design: gpm = 0.75 mgd Effluent 6 0.2

* - All effluent limits may require chemical addition (by others)

RECOMMENDATIONS:12 DynaSand filter modules for installation in concrete tanks

No. modules per cell 4 modules No. of filter cells 3 cells

Filtration area per module 50 ft2 Filtration area per cell 200 ft2

Loading Rate: Peak: 3.82 gpm/ft2, 1 cell out of service Total filtration area 600 ft2

Design: 0.87 gpm/ft2, all cells in service

Filtration depth 80 in. Total sand requirement 216 tons

Sand required per module 18 tons Typical headloss across filter 18 to 24 inchesDesign headloss across filter 48 in. WC Recommended Compressor Package: Rotary ScrewTotal air consumption 31.2 scfm Compressor Type DuplexTotal reject flow per unit 7.00 to 14.00 gpm intermittently Package #: EW-7.5-DD

Ingersoll-Rand Model : UP6-7.5-125Filter plant dimensions 46.5 ft - Length 20.2 ft - Width Motor horsepower: 7.5 hp

23.5 ft - Depth Dryer Type: DesiccantDryer Dew Point: -40 deg F

Total Estimated concrete volume: Qty: 1Structural: 247 cubic yards Grouting: 98 cubic yards

MATERIALSFeed Manifold: FRPFeed Assembly: 304L SSHardware: 304SSReject compartment and lower stay-in-place mold: FRPAirlift pump: PVC

SCOPEAll filter internals, filter media

EcoWash* intemittent backwash system including FRP NEMA 4X Central Control Panel and FRP NEMA 4X Air Control Panel.

Local headloss gauge, low level float switch

Grating over the filter cell supplied by Parkson, Handrails by others.

Compressor package supplied by Parkson.

Start-up visit including travel & living expenses.

BUDGET PRICING USD, FOB factory - Equipment & sand freight allowed, taxes extra.

SHIPMENTSubmittals 5 weeks after receipt of written purchase order.Shipment 13 weeks after receipt of approved drawings or submittal waiver.

ON-SITE INSTALLATIONConcrete installed at $500 x 247 cu. yds. =

Grout(fill) installed at $125 x 98 cu. yds. =

Internals installed at $35 x 288 hours =

Estimated installation cost =

Estimated total installed cost =

* EcoWash - PLC control system with HMI, SCADA Ethernet communication, and optional remote monitoring.

Rob Troupe

RM: Jean Grenier

14-May-15

$501,000

$123,572$12,195$10,080

$145,847$646,847

1528521

1401 W. Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL

33309 tel: (954) 974-6610 fax: (954) 974-6182

DYNASAND® SAND FILTER with ECOWASH™ INTERMITTENT BACKWASH SYSTEM

Preliminary BUDGET SizingNorth Chautauqua, NY

Phosphorous Removal

pHTurbidity NO-x-N

NTU mg/L

Rev 9g Rev Date: 11/6/14

1

Wetzel, Nadine

From: Rick Calmes <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:03 AM

To: Wetzel, Nadine

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff; 'Dave Boshart'

Subject: RE: North Chautauqua Lake Pump Quotes

Attachments: FA10.78Z, Lighthouse Point PS ALTERNATE.PDF

Nadine,

I forgot to attach curves and specs.

Sincerely,

Rick Calmes Manufacturers' Representative

Buffalo/Rochester, NY Office:

10836 Partridge Road

Holland, NY 14080

Phone: 716-222-4101 Cell: 716-697-5543 Fax: 716-222-4102

Email: [email protected] Website: www.jagerinc.com

New York City Metro (Corporate Headquarters):

PO Box 417, Butler, NJ 07405

Phone: 973-750-1180 Fax: 973-750-1181

Now on Facebook!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/GP-Jager-Inc/134445759954098

Confidentiality Note: This email message and any attachments to it are intended only for the named recipients and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential

information. If you are not one of the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or forward this e-mail message and immediately delete it from your computer.

From: Rick Calmes [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:02 AM To: 'Wetzel, Nadine'

Cc: 'Burroughs, Jeff'; 'Dave Boshart'; 'GP Jager Assoc. - Greg' Subject: RE: North Chautauqua Lake Pump Quotes

Nadine, Please see the revised pricing and selection for the Lighthouse Point PS Alternate selection…Also, I have

added a separate price adder for the base elbow and guide rail assemblies for the Lighthouse Point PS and

2

Chautauqua Shores PS. With the Alternate selection at the Lighthouse point, the base elbow assemblies will HAVE to be replaced do to the size and weight of the pump selected.

Lighthouse Point PS - ALTERNATE

2 – FA10.78Z, FKT27.1-4/28KEx, 57HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 2 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 2 – Thermal Sensors 2 – Standard Paint Coating

2 – DN150L/2RK, 6” Base Elbow, Coupling & Upper Bracket 6 – 1.25” x 20’, 304SS Guide Rails 2 – 3/8” x 30’, 304SS Lifting Chain

2 – Thermal Relay 2 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $46,250

BASE ELBOW AND GUIDE RAIL ASSEMBLY FOR CHAUTAUQUA SHORES PS

1 – DN100/2RK, 4” Base Elbow, Coupling & Upper Bracket 2 – 1.25” x 20’, 304SS Guide Rails 1 – ¼” x 30’, 304SS Lifting Chain

TOTAL LIST PRICE: $1,775 / Assembly

Sincerely,




Holland, NY 14080

Phone: 716-222-4101 Cell: 716-697-5543 Fax: 716-222-4102




Phone: 973-750-1180 Fax: 973-750-1181

Now on Facebook!




3

From: Wetzel, Nadine [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:19 PM To: Rick Calmes

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff


Rick,

*Updated* alternate option:

• Lighthouse Pt. PS ALTERNATE- Design basis: TDH= 167 feet, Flow= 500 gpm

Nadine R. Wetzel, EIT Graduate Engineer D 1-716-923-1139 [email protected] AECOM 257 West Genesee Street Suite 400, Buffalo New York 14202 T 1-716-856-5636 F 1-716-856-2545 www.aecom.com

AECOM and URS have joined together as one company. Learn more.

From: Wetzel, Nadine

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:15 PM To: 'Rick Calmes'

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff


Rick,

Please disregard the Lighthouse Pt. PS ALTERNATE option below.

Thanks

Nadine R. Wetzel, EIT Graduate Engineer D 1-716-923-1139 [email protected] AECOM 257 West Genesee Street Suite 400, Buffalo New York 14202 T 1-716-856-5636 F 1-716-856-2545 www.aecom.com

AECOM and URS have joined together as one company. Learn more.

From: Wetzel, Nadine

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:50 PM

To: 'Rick Calmes' Cc: Burroughs, Jeff


Hi Rick,

Thank you for your help! A few comments:

4

• Could you provide budgetary pricing for control panel, floats, VFDs (Intermediate PS pumps, and WWTP wet

well), etc. for each of the pumps?

• Could you provide budgetary pricing adders to replace the rail systems at Chautauqua Shores and Lighthouse

Pt? These are corroded and would be replaced.

• Also, we have could you add another option (alternate to Lighthouse Pt):

o Lighthouse Pt. PS ALTERNATE- Design basis: TDH= 71.5 feet, Flow= 280 gpm

Thank you!

Nadine R. Wetzel, EIT Graduate Engineer D 1-716-923-1139 [email protected] AECOM 257 West Genesee Street Suite 400, Buffalo New York 14202 T 1-716-856-5636 F 1-716-856-2545 www.aecom.com AECOM and URS have joined together as one company. Learn more.


Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 3:19 PM

To: Wetzel, Nadine Cc: Burroughs, Jeff; 'Greg Jager'; 'Dave Boshart'; 'Joe Habib '


Nadine,

Please see below and attached. These are Budget prices and based on the information provided. Review our selections

and see if you agree.

Please note for the Chautauqua Shores PS and the Lighthouse Pt. PS I have quoted the pumps only with Flygt Adaptor Coupling to go on the existing base elbow and guide rail system. For all the other pumps, I quoted the Base Elbow and Guide Rail system since these are new installations. Chautauqua Shores PS 2 – FA10.65E, HC20.1-4/30KEx, 32HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 2 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 2 – Thermal Sensors 2 – Standard Paint Coating 2 – 4” Flygt Adaptor Coupling 2 – Thermal Relay 2 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $27,325 Lighthouse Point PS 2 – FA10.65E, HC20.1-4/22KEx, 23.5HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 2 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 2 – Thermal Sensors 2 – Standard Paint Coating 2 – 4” Flygt Adaptor Coupling 2 – Thermal Relay

5

2 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $26,696 Intermediate PS to Filter Building, Small Pumps 2 – FA10.51E, FK17.1-4/8KEx, 6.2HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 2 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 2 – Thermal Sensors 2 – Standard Paint Coating 2 – DN100/2RK, 4” Base Elbow, Coupling & Upper Bracket 4 – 1.25” x 20’, 304SS Guide Rails 2 – ¼” x 30’, 304SS Lifting Chain 2 – Thermal Relay 2 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $14,449 LIST Intermediate PS to Filter Building, Large Pumps 2 – FA15.52E, HC20.1-6/22KEx, 14.8HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 2 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 2 – Thermal Sensors 2 – Standard Paint Coating 2 – DN150L/2RK, 6” Base Elbow, Coupling & Upper Bracket 4 – 1.25” x 20’, 304SS Guide Rails 2 – ¼” x 30’, 304SS Lifting Chain 2 – Thermal Relay 2 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $28,731 LIST WWTP Wet-Well to Clarifiers 1 – FA10.51E, FK17.1-4/8KEx, 6.2HP, 460V with 40’ Cable 1 – Moisture Sensor & Cable 1 – Thermal Sensors 1 – Standard Paint Coating 1 – DN100/2RK, 4” Base Elbow, Coupling & Upper Bracket 2 – 1.25” x 20’, 304SS Guide Rails 1 – ¼” x 30’, 304SS Lifting Chain 1 – Thermal Relay 1 – Moisture Relay TOTAL LIST PRICE: $7,724 LIST Extras (NET Pricing, NOT subject to additional discount)

QTY DESCRIPTION

1 Freight to Job Site, Lot $3,000.00 NET

- Day Startup by WILO $1,500.00 NET/Day (If Required)

- Certified, Non-Witnessed Performance Testing $550.00 NET/Pump (If Required)

6

Sincerely,

Rick Calmes

Manufacturers' Representative



Holland, NY 14080

Phone: 716-222-4101 Cell: 716-697-5543 Fax: 716-222-4102




Phone: 973-750-1180 Fax: 973-750-1181

Now on Facebook!





Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 3:01 PM

To: Rick Calmes Cc: Burroughs, Jeff


Hi Rick,

Please see comments below in red. I cannot confirm if we know the brand of the existing pumps… Recommendations

of Wilo pumps would suit our purposes for this feasibility study. Thanks!



Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:08 PM

To: Wetzel, Nadine

7

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff


Nadine,

For purposes of retrofitting guiderails – do these pumps exist and what brand are they? We can see if we fit or adapt to

the existing.

Sincerely,




Holland, NY 14080

Phone: 716-222-4101 Cell: 716-697-5543 Fax: 716-222-4102




Phone: 973-750-1180 Fax: 973-750-1181

Now on Facebook!





Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:09 AM To: Rick Calmes ([email protected])

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff

Subject: North Chautauqua Lake Pump Quotes

Hi Rick,

I heard you briefly spoke with Jeff Burroughs yesterday regarding the additional pump quotes/recommendations we will

need for the North Chautauqua Lake study. I have itemized these requests below. We would like to stick with the WILO

pump recommendations. When you get a chance to review, please give Jeff Burroughs a call --- we have some

additional questions about the implications of pumping into an existing forcemain. Please let us know if you have any

questions for us. Thank you!

PUMPS 1&2: Chautauqua Shores

Two (2) submersible pumps and motors.

8

• Pumps shall be suitable for pumping wastewater.

• Constant speed.

• Design basis: TDH= 150.7 feet, Flow= 160 gpm

• To replace existing pumps in an existing PS.

• Space shouldn’t be an issue at this PS --- existing PS is approx.. 6’x10’x24’deep

PUMPS 3&4: Lighthouse Point

Two (2) submersible pumps and motors


• Constant speed.

• Design basis: TDH= 69.1 feet, Flow= 500 gpm

• To replace existing pumps in an existing PS.

• Space may be an issue at this PS --- existing PS is approx.. 6’ inside diameter x 20’ deep, we’ll need to replace

the structure if the new pumps won’t fit.

PUMPS 5,6,7,8: FM from Intermediate PS to Filter Building

Modification of a quote you provided for us in Dec. 2014 (3 WILO submersibles):

Four (4) submersible pumps and motors


• Constant speed.

• Two (2) pumps capable of: TDH= 25.9 feet, Flow= 521 gpm

• Two (2) pumps capable of: TDH= 27.7 feet, Flow= 1,042 gpm

• For installation in a new PS chamber. Approx.. 10’x10’x15’ deep

PUMP 9: WWTP Wet Well to Clarifiers

One (1) submersible pump and motor.


• VFD

• Design basis: TDH= 21 feet, Flow= 556 gpm

• For installation in an existing wet well

• Space shouldn’t be an issue – wet well is approx.. 8’ deep


This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this

Project:

Project number:

Intmdt. PS to Filter Building Pumps

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data

Submersible sewage pump FA 10.51E

with motor

FK 17.1-4/8KEx

Pump

Pump type

Impeller Ødesigned

FA 10.51E

max. possible

standard

min. possible

7.7

171 mm

6.9

5.8

1740Nominal speed

Frequency Hz

Impeller type

Impeller construction Closed

Installation type

1/min

Single-channel

60

Suspension device

DN100/2RK

Free passage

Suction port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

3.9

Discharge port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

inch

inch

inch

inch

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-S

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-D

Weights

Weight of pump end

Weight of motor

Weight of unitlb

lb

lb57.3

187.4

244.7

Materials

Pump housing

Stationary w ear ring

Impeller

Mobile w ear ring

EN-GJL-250

1.4308

EN-GJL-250

1.4462/1.4470

Motor

Duty point data

Motor name

Rated pow er

Pow er input w ith rated pow er

Current input w ith rated pow er

Number of poles

Rated speed

cos phi w ith rated pow er

Volume flow Fluid

Head

Shaft pow er

Pump efficiency

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Speed

521

25.9

4.85

6.5

US g.p.m.

ft

hp

hp

71

11.2

1690

Water, pure

ft

rpm

%

Efficiency w ith rated pow er

cos phi w ith starting

Rated frequency

Operation type w et

Max. fluid temperature

Rated voltage

Motor connection cable

Starting current, star-delta

Starting current, direct starting

Starting torque

Inertia moment

Starts per hour max.

Degree of protection

Sel. explosion protection

FK 17.1-4/8KEx

6.2 hp

hp8.5

9.4 A

73 %

4

1660 rpm

0.85 60 Hz

S1

104 °F

36.5 A

12.1 A

FM -

29

0.1732

15

IP 68

lbf f t

lb f t²

V

7G1,5 H07RN-F

460 ~3

max. max.

Total efficiencyPump efficiencyP

P=

P

P1

*

2

2

1

Ex-designation FM

Ex-number

Operation type dry S1

Item no.

Tender text

Submersible motor in pressure-resistant design, w ith internal, hermetically-tight active cooling w ith highly efficient heat

exchanger, double mechanical shaft seal in EMU block design, as w ell as separate sealing chamber. The motor chamber and

the sealing chamber are f illed w ith medical w hite oil. Motor sealing at the shaft by a double, w ear-resistant mechanical shaft

seal independent of the direction of rotation entirely made of silicon-carbide as closed unit in EMU sealing cartridge of

stainless steel w ith intermediate separation chamber and additional shaft sealing ring.

Both seals are cooled and lubricated. The motor chamber is equipped w ith connecting terminals. Protection of the motor

w inding by thermistors installed. Both closed ball bearings are maintenance-free and f illed w ith high-quality grease. All

casing parts are of cast iron. Shaft and connecting elements are of stainless steel. The motor is suitable for continuous

operation (s1) under full load in immerged and completely emerged condition.

Submersible Sew age Pump as submersible, single-stage block unit in stationary, vertical installation to pump untreated

sew age w hich doesn't attack the pump neither chemically nor mechanically. Pump w ith radially arranged discharge piece

and axial pump intake. Service-friendly design by separated motor and pump casing. Pumping values to be guaranteed as

per ISO 9906 Annex A

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

FK 17.1-4/8KEx

Pump

Head

Ef f iciency

Shaf t power P2

NPSH-v alues

Speed

Ø 6.906

71%

Application range

Ø 6.906

Ø 6.906 (P2)

Ø 6.906

Ø 6.906

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

[f t]

0

20

40

[%]

1

2

3

4

5

[hp]

5

10

15

20

25

30

[f t]

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

[rpm]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 [US g.p.m.]

1

Pow er data referred to:


Motor

Rated pow er

Impeller type

Frequency

Nominal speed

Impeller Ø designed

FM

Single-channel

60 Hz

Duty point data

1740

67/8 Volume flow

Speed

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Pump efficiency

Shaft pow er

Head

1690 rpm

11.2 ft

6.5 hp

71

4.85

25.9 ft

hp

521 US g.p.m.

%

hp

rpm

inch

P1

P2

Tolerance as per ISO 9906 / Annex A.2

6.2

Water, pure [100%] ; 68°F; 62.315lb/ft³; 1.0768E-5ft²/s

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Performance curves


with motor

FK 17.1-4/8KEx

Dimensions in inch

t

i sc

b

r

a

wd

y

z

vg

h

f

e

q

j

x

k

a 373/8 r 45/16

b 291/8 s 1213/16

c 123/16 t 615/16

d 45/16 v 9/16

e 139/16 w 171/4

f 7 x 39/16

g 77/8 y 65/16

h 1411/16 z 71/2

i 87/8

j 115/16

k 37/8

q 45/16

Connections

Suction port

DN100

PN10

Discharge port

DN100

PN10

DN100/2RK

Suspension device

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

FK 17.1-4/8KEx

Project:

Project number:

Chautauqua Shores PS

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-19

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/30KEx

Pump

Pump type

Impeller Ødesigned

FA 10.65E

max. possible

standard

min. possible

12.5

306 mm

12

9.2

1740Nominal speed

Frequency Hz

Impeller type


Installation type

1/min

Single-channel

60

Suspension device

DN100/2RK

Free passage

Suction port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

3.1

Discharge port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

inch

inch

inch

inch

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-S

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-D

Weights

Weight of pump end

Weight of motor

Weight of unitlb

lb

lb169.8

449.7

619.5

Materials

Pump housing


Impeller

Mobile w ear ring

Suction portsEN-GJL-250

1.4308

EN-GJL-250

1.4462/1.4470

EN-GJL-250

Motor

Duty point data

Motor name

Rated pow er



Number of poles

Rated speed


Volume flow Fluid

Head

Shaft pow er

Pump efficiency

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Speed

160

151

14.6

17.9

US g.p.m.

ft

hp

hp

42

5.9

1721

Water, pure

ft

rpm

%



Rated frequency

Operation type w et


Rated voltage




Starting torque

Inertia moment




HC 20.1-4/30KEx

32 hp

hp37.5

42 A

85 %

4

1710 rpm

0.83

0.55

60 Hz

S1

104 °F

230 A

77 A

FM -

149

1.2624

15

IP 68

lbf f t

lb f t²

V

4x6 + 7x1,5 NSSHÖU

460 ~3

max. max.


P=

P

P1

*

2

2

1

Ex-designation FM

Ex-number


Item no.

Tender text

Submersible motor in pressure-resistant design , w ith internal, hermetically-tight active cooling w ith highly efficient heat

exchanger, double mechanical shaft seal in EMU block design, as w ell as separate sealing chamber and additional leakage

chamber w ith f loat control. Motor chamber dry, cooling cycle w ith w ater/glycol filling. Motor sealing at the shaft by a double,

w ear-resistant mechanical shaft seal independent of the direction of rotation entirely made of silicon-carbide as closed unit, in

stainless steel sealing cartridge and additional shaft sealing ring. Both seals are cooled and lubricated by medical w hite oil or

w ater-glycol on customer's request. The motor chamber is equipped w ith connecting terminals. Protection of the motor

w inding by thermistors installed. Both closed ball bearings are maintenance-free and f illed w ith high-quality grease.

All external casing parts are of cast iron, shaft and connecting elements of stainless steel.The motor is suitable for continuous

operation (S1) under full load in immerged and completely emerged condition.





Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-19

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/30KEx

Pump

Head

Ef f iciency

Shaf t power P2

NPSH-v alues

Speed

Ø 12

70.8%

Application range

Ø 12

Ø 12 (P2)

Ø 12

Ø 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

[f t]

0

20

40

[%]

0

10

20

[hp]

4

5

6

7

[f t]

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

[rpm]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 [US g.p.m.]

1



Motor

Rated pow er

Impeller type

Frequency

Nominal speed


FM

Single-channel

60 Hz

Duty point data

1740

12 Volume flow

Speed

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Pump efficiency

Shaft pow er

Head

1721 rpm

5.9 ft

17.9 hp

42

14.6

151 ft

hp

160 US g.p.m.

%

hp

rpm

inch

P1

P2


32


Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-19

J. Stanford

Performance curves


with motor

HC 20.1-4/30KEx

Dimensions in inch

t

i sc

b

r

a

wd

y

z

vg

h

f

e

q

j

x

k

a 4811/16 r 415/16

b 441/2 s 1213/16

c 117/8 t 615/16

d 45/16 v 9/16

e 1811/16 w 221/2

f 103/16 x 39/16

g 11 y 65/16

h 1915/16 z 71/2

i 87/8

j 115/16

k 37/8

q 45/16

Connections

Suction port

DN100

PN10

Discharge port

DN100

PN10

DN100/2RK

Suspension device

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-19

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/30KEx

Project:

Project number:

Lighthouse Point PS

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/22KEx

Pump

Pump type

Impeller Ødesigned

FA 10.65E

max. possible

standard

min. possible

12.5

246 mm

9.8

9.2

1740Nominal speed

Frequency Hz

Impeller type


Installation type

1/min

Single-channel

60

Suspension device

DN100/2RK

Free passage

Suction port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

3.1

Discharge port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

inch

inch

inch

inch

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-S

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-D

Weights

Weight of pump end

Weight of motor

Weight of unitlb

lb

lb169.8

414.5

584.2

Materials

Pump housing


Impeller

Mobile w ear ring

Suction portsEN-GJL-250

1.4308

EN-GJL-250

1.4462/1.4470

EN-GJL-250

Motor

Duty point data

Motor name

Rated pow er



Number of poles

Rated speed


Volume flow Fluid

Head

Shaft pow er

Pump efficiency

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Speed

500

69.1

12.8

15.5

US g.p.m.

ft

hp

hp

68.3

8.2

1753

Water, pure

ft

rpm

%



Rated frequency

Operation type w et


Rated voltage




Starting torque

Inertia moment




HC 20.1-4/22KEx

23.5 hp

hp28.5

31.5 A

83 %

4

1710 rpm

0.85

0.55

60 Hz

S1

104 °F

126 A

42 A

FM -

121

1.0394

15

IP 68

lbf f t

lb f t²

V

4x4 + 7x1,5 NSSHÖU

460 ~3

max. max.


P=

P

P1

*

2

2

1

Ex-designation FM

Ex-number


Item no.

Tender text














Project:

Project number:

Lighthouse Point PS

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/22KEx

Pump

Head

Ef f iciency

Shaf t power P2

NPSH-v alues

Speed

Ø 9.756

68.5%

Application range

Ø 9.756

Ø 9.756 (P2)

Ø 9.756

Ø 9.756

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

[f t]

0102030405060

[%]

4

8

12

16

[hp]

5

10

15

20

[f t]

1400

1500

1600

[rpm]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 [US g.p.m.]

1



Motor

Rated pow er

Impeller type

Frequency

Nominal speed


FM

Single-channel

60 Hz

Duty point data

1740

93/4 Volume flow

Speed

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Pump efficiency

Shaft pow er

Head

1753 rpm

8.2 ft

15.5 hp

68.3

12.8

69.1 ft

hp

500 US g.p.m.

%

hp

rpm

inch

P1

P2


23.5


Project:

Project number:

Lighthouse Point PS

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Performance curves


with motor

HC 20.1-4/22KEx

Dimensions in inch

t

i sc

b

r

a

wd

y

z

vg

h

f

e

q

j

x

k

a 4811/16 r 415/16

b 441/2 s 1213/16

c 117/8 t 615/16

d 45/16 v 9/16

e 1811/16 w 221/2

f 103/16 x 39/16

g 11 y 65/16

h 1915/16 z 71/2

i 87/8

j 115/16

k 37/8

q 45/16

Connections

Suction port

DN100

PN10

Discharge port

DN100

PN10

DN100/2RK

Suspension device

Project:

Project number:

Lighthouse Point PS

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-4/22KEx

Project:

Project number:

Lighthouse Pt. PS - Alternate

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-27

J. Stanford

Technical data

Submersible sewage pump FA 10.78Z

with motor

FKT 27.1-4/28KEx

Pump

Pump type

Impeller Ødesigned

FA 10.78Z

max. possible

standard

min. possible

16.1

330 mm

13

13

1740Nominal speed

Frequency Hz

Impeller type


Installation type

1/min

Tw o-channel

60

Suspension device 2

DN150L/2RK

Free passage

Suction port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

3.1

Discharge port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

inch

inch

inch

inch

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-S

PN10

DN100

EN1092-2-D

Weights

Weight of pump end

Weight of motor

Weight of unitlb

lb

lb377

859.8

1236.8

Materials

Pump housing


Impeller

Mobile w ear ring

Suction portsEN-GJS-500-7

1.4308

EN-GJS-500-7

1.4462/1.4470

EN-GJL-250

Motor

Duty point data

Motor name

Rated pow er



Number of poles

Rated speed


Volume flow Fluid

Head

Shaft pow er

Pump efficiency

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Speed

504.7

170.1

36.5

41.5

US g.p.m.

ft

hp

hp

59.4

10

1749

Water, pure

ft

rpm

%



Rated frequency

Operation type w et


Rated voltage




Starting torque

Inertia moment




FKT 27.1-4/28KEx

57 hp

hp65

74 A

88 %

4

1740 rpm

0.82 60 Hz

S1

104 °F

380 A

125 A

FM -

354

4.0341

15

IP 68

lbf f t

lb f t²

V

4x16 + 7x1,5 NSSHÖU

460 ~3

max. max.


P=

P

P1

*

2

2

1

Ex-designation FM

Ex-number


Item no.

Tender text

Submersible motor in pressure-tight design, w ith internal, sealed active circulation cooling w ith highly eff icient heat exchanger,

WILOEMU-double mechanical shaft seal in block design, as w ell as separate sealing chamber and additional leakage chamber w ith

f loat control. Motor chamber dry, cooling cycle w ith w ater/glycol f illing. Motor sealing at the shaft

by a double, w ear-resistant mechanical shaft seal independent of the direction of rotation entirely made of silicon-carbide

as closed unit, in stainless steel sealing cartridge and additional radial seal. Both seals

are cooled and lubricated by medical w hite oil or by w ater/glycol on customer's request.

The motor chamber is equipped w ith connecting terminals. Protection of the motor w inding by temperature sw itches installed.

Both ball bearings are maintenance-free, f illed w ith high-quality grease and sealed w ith additional sealing elements.

All outside casing parts are made of cast iron, shaft and connecting elements are made of

stainless steel.

The motor is suitable for continuous operation (S1) under full load in submerged and completely emerged condition.





Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-27

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

FKT 27.1-4/28KEx

Pump

Head

Ef f iciency

Shaf t power P2

NPSH-v alues

Ø 12.99

69.8%

Application range

Ø 12.99

Ø 12.99 (P2)

Ø 12.99

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

[f t]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

[%]

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[hp]

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

[f t]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 [US g.p.m.]

1



Motor

Rated pow er

Impeller type

Frequency

Nominal speed


FM

Tw o-channel

60 Hz

Duty point data

1740

13 Volume flow

Speed

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Pump efficiency

Shaft pow er

Head

1749 rpm

10 ft

41.5 hp

59.4

36.5

170.1 ft

hp

504.7 US g.p.m.

%

hp

rpm

inch

P1

P2


57


Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-27

J. Stanford

Performance curves


with motor

FKT 27.1-4/28KEx

Dimensions in inch

t

i sc

b

r

a

wd

y

z

vg

h

f

e

q

j

x

k

a 641/2 r 73/16

b 473/4 s 185/16

c 151/2 t 811/16

d 45/16 v 11/16

e 223/16 w 2911/16

f 115/8 x 39/16

g 133/4 y 81/4

h 25 z 97/16

i 125/8

j 115/16

k 33/4

q 57/8

Connections

Suction port

DN100

PN10

Discharge port

DN100

PN10

DN150L/2RK

Suspension device 2

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-27

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

FKT 27.1-4/28KEx

Project:

Project number:

Intmdt. PS to Filter Bldg Lg. Pumps

1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-6/22KEx

Pump

Pump type

Impeller Ødesigned

FA 15.52E

max. possible

standard

min. possible

10.8

275 mm

10.8

8.5

1140Nominal speed

Frequency Hz

Impeller type


Installation type

1/min

Single-channel

60

Suspension device

DN150L/2RK

Free passage

Suction port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

3.9

Discharge port

Pressure rating

Rated diameter

Standard

inch

inch

inch

inch

PN10

DN150

EN1092-2-S

PN10

DN150

EN1092-2-D

Weights

Weight of pump end

Weight of motor

Weight of unitlb

lb

lb180.8

414.5

595.2

Materials

Pump housing


Impeller

Mobile w ear ring

EN-GJL-250

1.4308

EN-GJL-250

1.4462/1.4470

Motor

Duty point data

Motor name

Rated pow er



Number of poles

Rated speed


Volume flow Fluid

Head

Shaft pow er

Pump efficiency

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Speed

1042

27.7

9.5

11.9

US g.p.m.

ft

hp

hp

77.1

10.7

1143

Water, pure

ft

rpm

%



Rated frequency

Operation type w et


Rated voltage




Starting torque

Inertia moment




HC 20.1-6/22KEx

14.8 hp

hp18.3

20.5 A

81 %

6

1105 rpm

0.84

0.6

60 Hz

S1

104 °F

82 A

28.5 A

FM -

129

1.3929

15

IP 68

lbf f t

lb f t²

V

4x2,5 + 7x1,5 NSSHÖU

460 ~3

max. max.


P=

P

P1

*

2

2

1

Ex-designation FM

Ex-number


Item no.

Tender text














Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-6/22KEx

Pump

Head

Ef f iciency

Shaf t power P2

NPSH-v alues

Ø 10.76

77.4%

Application range

Ø 10.76

Ø 10.76 (P2)

Ø 10.76

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

[f t]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

[%]

2

4

6

8

[hp]

4

8

12

16

[f t]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 [US g.p.m.]

1



Motor

Rated pow er

Impeller type

Frequency

Nominal speed


FM

Single-channel

60 Hz

Duty point data

1140

103/4 Volume flow

Speed

Required pump NPSH

Pow er input

Pump efficiency

Shaft pow er

Head

1143 rpm

10.7 ft

11.9 hp

77.1

9.5

27.7 ft

hp

1042 US g.p.m.

%

hp

rpm

inch

P1

P2


14.8


Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Performance curves


with motor

HC 20.1-6/22KEx

Dimensions in inch

t

i sc

b

r

a

wd

y

z

vg

h

f

e

q

j

x

k

a 5213/16 r 713/16

b 4811/16 s 185/16

c 16 t 811/16

d 45/16 v 3/4

e 20 w 2613/16

f 117/8 x 39/16

g 133/4 y 81/4

h 237/16 z 97/16

i 125/8

j 115/16

k 33/4

q 57/8

Connections

Suction port

DN150

PN10

Discharge port

DN150

PN10

DN150L/2RK

Suspension device

Project:

Project number:


1505091JS

Created on:

Created by:

2015-05-21

J. Stanford

Technical data


with motor

HC 20.1-6/22KEx

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

Project: N. Chautauqua, NY Date: May 26, 2015Engineer: Designer: SRS

(1) 25'- 0'' Diameter x 10'- 0'' SWD

Items INCLUDED- F16LT Drive Assembly; 0.50HP, 230/460 V, 60 Hz, 3 Phase Motor

- Rotational Speed: 0.05 RPM- Tip Speed: 3.93 ft/min- Torque Rating of Selected Drive: 4,700 ft-lbs

- Influent Feed Well- Center Torque Tube- Scraper Arms- Full Span Bridge with Half Span Walkway and Center Platform- 1-1/2-in Double-rail Handrail- 1 1/4" Grating for Walkway and Center Platform Decking- (1) Conventional Skimming Assemblies per Tank with Flushing Device- (1) 2'-6" Scum Trough per Tank- Evoqua Standard Service Manuals- 316 SS Anchor Bolts- Freight- Engineering- Field Service consisting of (1 ) Trip and (2) Days

Materials of Construction- Submerged Equipment: Primed A36 Carbon Steel- Non-Submerged Equipment: Primed A36 Carbon Steel- Handrail: Aluminum- Walkway Decking: Aluminum- Weirs and Baffles: FRP (Not by Evoqua)

Items NOT INCLUDED- Electrical Controls, except as noted- Weirs, Baffles and Associated Supports- Current Density Baffles- Concrete Tank- Effluent Troughs- Finish Paint

General Items- Compliance permitting and approval (Federal, State and/or local).- Detail shop fabrication drawings.- Electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic controls unless specifically noted.- Engineering and supervision of all equipment and labor for civil works.- Laboratory, shop, or field testing other than supervision of start-up testing.- Taxes, bonds, fees, permits, lien waivers, licenses, etc.- Tools or spare parts.

Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier - Scope of Supply

Clarifier Mechanisms:

- Unloading of equipment and protected storage of equipment at jobsite.- Utilities connections.

Civil Works and Mechanical Items- Adhesives, adhesive dispensers, grout, mastic & anti-seize compounds.- Anchor bolts and/or expansion anchors unless otherwise noted.- Base slabs, equipment mounting pads, or shims.- Concrete work of any sort, grout, mastic, sealing compounds, shims.- Demolition, removal, or transfer of anything that is existing.- Engineering, permitting, and surveying.- Equipment lifting hoists, cranes, or other lifting devices.- Field surface preparation and/or painting.- Floor grating, stairways, ladders, platforms, handrailing unless noted.- Installation of equipment.- Interconnecting materials external to enclosures such as cable, pressure taps, tubing, etc.- Labor for field testing.- Lubricants, grease piping, grease guns.- Modifications to existing equipment or structures.- Pipe supports and hangers for piping.- Piping, pumps, valves, wall sleeves, gates, drains, weirs, baffles not mentioned.- Plumbing associated with waste disposal, floor drains, and/or emergency and safety wash stations.- PVC solvent weld materials.

Electrical Items- Conduit or wiring in the field.- Cable trays, fittings, and supports.-

- Instrumentation required for post treatment monitoring.- Power to Evoqua supplied equipment.- Motor control centers.- Plant lighting.- Supply and installation of building power, lighting, main service disconnects and control panels.-

- Underwriters Laboratory inspection of electrical controls.- Variable frequency drives unless specifically noted.

Budget Price (1) Clarifier Mechanism $91,000

Influent instrumentation including, but not limited to flowmeters, pH analyzers, temperature transmitters and/or pressure transducers.

Supply, installation and control of a remote telemetry system (SCADA) to monitor and control the operation of the system and overall plant operation otherthan mentioned Siemens controls.

The scope of supply and pricing are based on Evoqua’s standard equipment selection, standard terms of sale and warrantyterms. Any variations from these standards may affect this budgetary quotation. Additionally, please note that this budgetary

quotation is for review and informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer for acceptance.

Evoqua Water Technologies LLC

Project: N. Chautauqua, NY Date: May 26, 2015Engineer: Designer: SRS

(1) 30'- 0'' Diameter x 10'- 0'' SWD

Items INCLUDED- F20LT Drive Assembly; 0.50HP, 230/460 V, 60 Hz, 3 Phase Motor

- Rotational Speed: 0.05 RPM- Tip Speed: 4.71 ft/min- Torque Rating of Selected Drive: 9,000 ft-lbs

- Influent Feed Well- Center Torque Tube- Scraper Arms- Full Span Bridge with Half Span Walkway and Center Platform- 1-1/2-in Double-rail Handrail- 1 1/4" Grating for Walkway and Center Platform Decking- (1) Conventional Skimming Assemblies per Tank with Flushing Device- (1) 2'-6" Scum Trough per Tank- Evoqua Standard Service Manuals- 316 SS Anchor Bolts- Freight- Engineering- Field Service consisting of (1 ) Trip and (2) Days

Materials of Construction- Submerged Equipment: Primed A36 Carbon Steel- Non-Submerged Equipment: Primed A36 Carbon Steel- Handrail: Aluminum- Walkway Decking: Aluminum- Weirs and Baffles: FRP (Not by Evoqua)

Items NOT INCLUDED- Electrical Controls, except as noted- Weirs, Baffles and Associated Supports- Current Density Baffles- Concrete Tank- Effluent Troughs- Finish Paint

General Items- Compliance permitting and approval (Federal, State and/or local).- Detail shop fabrication drawings.- Electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic controls unless specifically noted.- Engineering and supervision of all equipment and labor for civil works.- Laboratory, shop, or field testing other than supervision of start-up testing.- Taxes, bonds, fees, permits, lien waivers, licenses, etc.- Tools or spare parts.

Side-Feed Scraper Clarifier - Scope of Supply

Clarifier Mechanisms:

- Unloading of equipment and protected storage of equipment at jobsite.- Utilities connections.

Civil Works and Mechanical Items- Adhesives, adhesive dispensers, grout, mastic & anti-seize compounds.- Anchor bolts and/or expansion anchors unless otherwise noted.- Base slabs, equipment mounting pads, or shims.- Concrete work of any sort, grout, mastic, sealing compounds, shims.- Demolition, removal, or transfer of anything that is existing.- Engineering, permitting, and surveying.- Equipment lifting hoists, cranes, or other lifting devices.- Field surface preparation and/or painting.- Floor grating, stairways, ladders, platforms, handrailing unless noted.- Installation of equipment.- Interconnecting materials external to enclosures such as cable, pressure taps, tubing, etc.- Labor for field testing.- Lubricants, grease piping, grease guns.- Modifications to existing equipment or structures.- Pipe supports and hangers for piping.- Piping, pumps, valves, wall sleeves, gates, drains, weirs, baffles not mentioned.- Plumbing associated with waste disposal, floor drains, and/or emergency and safety wash stations.- PVC solvent weld materials.

Electrical Items- Conduit or wiring in the field.- Cable trays, fittings, and supports.-

- Instrumentation required for post treatment monitoring.- Power to Evoqua supplied equipment.- Motor control centers.- Plant lighting.- Supply and installation of building power, lighting, main service disconnects and control panels.-

- Underwriters Laboratory inspection of electrical controls.- Variable frequency drives unless specifically noted.

Budget Price (1) Clarifier Mechanism $99,700

Influent instrumentation including, but not limited to flowmeters, pH analyzers, temperature transmitters and/or pressure transducers.

Supply, installation and control of a remote telemetry system (SCADA) to monitor and control the operation of the system and overall plant operation otherthan mentioned Siemens controls.

The scope of supply and pricing are based on Evoqua’s standard equipment selection, standard terms of sale and warrantyterms. Any variations from these standards may affect this budgetary quotation. Additionally, please note that this budgetary

quotation is for review and informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer for acceptance.

815 Branch Drive Quotation815 Branch Drive Quotation815 Branch Drive

Alpharetta, GA 30004

Quotation

Page 1 of 1Alpharetta, GA 30004

[email protected] Date Number

Page 1 of 1

[email protected] Date [email protected] Date

O: 855.481.1118 | F: 855.331.6475 1/27/2015

Number

150127-100O: 855.481.1118 | F: 855.331.6475 1/27/2015 150127-100

Shipping to:Billing to: Shipping to:Billing to:

Chautauqua, NYSiewert Equipment Chautauqua, NY

USA

Siewert Equipment

175 Akron Street USA175 Akron Street USA175 Akron Street

Rochester, NY 14609

USA

Rochester, NY 14609

USAUSA

TermsAttention Project / Reference FOB / Shipping & HandlingTerms

1% 15 Wendi Richards | E: [email protected]

Attention Project / Reference FOB / Shipping & Handling

NCLSD1% 15 Wendi Richards | E: [email protected]

Factory, PP&ANCLSD1% 15

or Net 30V: 315.632.8406

Wendi Richards | E: [email protected], PP&A

or Net 30V: 315.632.8406

Item Quanity Price TotalProduct DescriptionItem Quanity Price TotalProduct Description

A 1 3,47018-Inch Parshall FlumeA 1 3,470

Fiberglass laminate construction

18-Inch Parshall Flume

Fiberglass laminate construction

(5) year FiberLock equipment warranty*(5) year FiberLock equipment warranty*

*(5) year FiberLock equipment warranty with completed registration**(5) year FiberLock equipment warranty with completed registration*

Standard manufacturing lead-time: 6-8 weeks.Standard manufacturing lead-time: 6-8 weeks.

Prices are valid for (90) days. Prices are valid for (90) days.

Ships palleted via OCF selected LTL carrier (commerical location - no notification). Ships palleted via OCF selected LTL carrier (commerical location - no notification).

In purchasing the above Products, Buyer agrees to accept and include, in its entirety, Seller's Terms and Conditons of Sale. No modification to, or exclusion of, Seller's Terms and In purchasing the above Products, Buyer agrees to accept and include, in its entirety, Seller's Terms and Conditons of Sale. No modification to, or exclusion of, Seller's Terms and

Conditions of Sale is allowed. Exclusion or less than full incororation of Seller's Terms and Conditions of Sale will result in the withdrawl of the Products from tender. Seller's Terms Conditions of Sale is allowed. Exclusion or less than full incororation of Seller's Terms and Conditions of Sale will result in the withdrawl of the Products from tender. Seller's Terms

and Conditions of Sale can be found at http://openchannelflow.com/policies/terms-and-conditions/ Details of the product warranty can be found at and Conditions of Sale can be found at http://openchannelflow.com/policies/terms-and-conditions/ Details of the product warranty can be found at

http://openchannelflow.com/customer-service/warrantyhttp://openchannelflow.com/customer-service/warranty

1

Wetzel, Nadine

Subject: RE: NCLSD screen quote

From: Wendi Richards [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:54 PM To: Wetzel, Nadine

Cc: Burroughs, Jeff; Kevin Ryan Subject: NCLSD screen quote

Nadine,

Please see attached the hydraulic calculations showing headloss for both ¼” (6 mm) and ½” (12 mm) openings from

HydroDyne Engineering, complete with drawings and dimensions of the screen.

6mm Screens:

Hydro-Dyne will supply one (1) Triden Through flow screen and one (1) Washing Compactor manufactured in 304

stainless steel complete with one (1) NEMA 4X main panel and one (1) NEMA 7 local panel and spare parts.

Estimate: $185,000

Shipping, start-up and training included.

As you can see from both profiles, the velocity and headloss are pretty similar. This assumes channel bottom width is

same as top width (no fillets).

Please let me know which you prefer (I’d recommend 6 mm) and what else you may need.

Thanks,

Wendi Richards, P.E.

Syracuse, NY

Siewert Equipment Co. A Division of Cummins-Wagner-Siewert, LLC

[email protected]

315-632-8406 (mobile)

Notice: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Cummins-Wagner. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Cummins-Wagner accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. *** Cummins-Wagner Co., Inc., 10901 Pump House Rd., Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 http://www.cummins-wagner.com ***

Triden Screens

No submerged drive parts

Large particle removal

Continuously cleaned

Excellent for prison applications

Easy installation and maintenance with all mounting and access above channel

Low profile bottom shoe and brush limit headloss and screen bypass

Low friction UHMWPE surfaces reduce wear and operation costs

Stainless steel links and panels are significantly stronger than plastic hooks or molded panels

STANDARD - Features & Benefits OPTIONAL - Products & Accessories ADDITIONAL - Compactors & Conveyorsfor dewatering and conditioning of screenings

Shafted and shaftless flights

Returns organics and wash water to channel

Collects and conveys screenings for disposal

Compactors reduce disposal weight and volume, while bagging units can contain odor

Screenings meet strict landfill requirements

www.hydro-dyne.com

TM

US & International Patents

Low headloss

All stainless steel construction

Grid opening options from 1 to 75 mm

Practical design and material selectionprovide reliable and efficient operation

Direct drive uses no chains or sprockets

No rotating brushes required

Pivots from channel for easy flow bypass

Neoprene channel seals

Only two grease fittings per screen

Fully enclosed for operator safety

Custom designed per application

Low Flow, Original, Heavy Duty and Super Duty models

T316 and specialty stainless steel construction

Stainless steel laced links, wire mesh, and perforated panel or UHMWPE perforated panel grid openings

Cold weather protection

Spray wash or dry unloading

Controls are offered from basic operation to sophisticated automation

Electric, hydraulic, or explosion proof drives

Triden ScreensTechnical Information

Given: C = 3’ D = 6’ V1 = 2 fpsG = C - 6” = 30”Q = C (D) V1 = 36 ft 3/s = 23.27 mgd

To determine headloss for a 6 mm grid with clean screen find:

Example Calculation of Existing Channel

Open Area = G (D1) eff = 9.43 ft2

V2 = Q/Open Area = 3.82 fpsh = (V2

2 - V12) 0.186

h = 1.97 in

UHMWPEGuide Links

Stainless SteelDrive Sprocket

Stainless SteelDrive Lugs

Grid Drive Sprocket

NomenclatureC = channel widthD = depth of flowD1 = depth of gridG = grid widthQ = flowh = headlossV1 = inlet velocityV2 = exit velocityeff = grid efficiency

Stainless Steel Links

Link LengthLFS 8”STR 8”HDR 12”SDR 16”

60 - 90°Screen Incline

Sharp hookfor effective removal

Particle diameter up to 8”+

Foot Seal

Optional Compactoror Conveyor

Pivots easily for channel bypass

Recommendations for Designing a ChannelMaintain V1 above 2 fps to ensure scouringKeep V1 acceptable during off-peak flows by setting D = 2 (C)Channel Depth = D + 12” freeboardNarrower grid openings will reduce efficiency

Grid eff = Screen eff = Grid Open AreaGrid Total Area

Grid Open AreaFlow Area

Grid Open Area = Grid Total Area - Grid Closed Area (due to spacers and grid elements)

Flow area = (C) (D)Grid Width (G) = Channel Width (C) - 5” for C < 30”Grid Width (G) = Channel Width (C) - 6” for C < 48”

Channel Width (ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4

345678910

210

Flow

(mgd

)

Head

loss (

in)

Flow30% Blocked

Clean Screen

3 mm 4 mm 5 mm 6 mm 9 mm 12 mm 15 mm62.2% 43.6% 67.1% 46.9% 69.8% 48.8% 72.4% 50.7% 75.7% 53.0% 77.8% 54.4% 67.1% 46.9%

9 mm 12 mm 20 mm 25 mm 50 mm 75 mm15 mm70.7% 49.5% 77.8% 54.5% 79.5% 55.7% 80.6% 56.4% 85.8% 60.0% 87.7% 61.4% 75.0% 52.5%

65.6% 45.9% 68.8% 48.1% 73.2% 51.2% 76.1% 53.3% 80.4% 56.3% 83.6% 58.5% 64.9% 45.4%

TridenTM STR & LFS - Original & Low Flow

TridenTM HDR - Heavy Duty

TridenTM SDR- Super Duty

Opening Size 0% Blocked 30% BlockedLegend -

Triden Screen

401 E. Douglas Rd. Oldsmar, FL USAPhone (813) 818-0777 Fax (813) 818-0770

www.hydro-dyne.com

Open Area Percentages of Screen Grid

TM

Stainless Steel Shaft Flow

FREEBOARD

Project: Chautauqua, NY

Date:

Rep: Siewert Equipment Co. Inc.

Tel: 813-818-0777 Fax: 813-818-0770 By: LL Checked: Model # STR 19 104 6 L

C Channel Width 20.00 in 508 mm L Length of Screen 103.98 in 2641 mmH Channel Height 49.00 in 1245 mm W Width of Screen 19.00 in 483 mmTC Height from Grade to Top of Channel 0.00 in 0 mm G Width of Grid 13.55 in 344 mm

Screen Grid Parameters: ∠ Screen Angle 75 ° 75 °S Grid Opening Spacing 6mm Link Y1 Discharge Height from the Screen 27.80 in 706 mmObs Percent of Screen Obstructed 30 % Hook Link 14 ga Y Discharge Height from the Compactor 48.00 in 1219 mmOAeff

* Effective Percent of Grid Opening 47.68 % Straight Link 16 ga

Y= 48.00'' Y1 = 27.80''

L = 103.98''

∠ = 75 ° H = 49.00''

G = 13.55'' 27.06''W = 19.00''C = 20.00''

NOTE: * Effective Percent of Grid Opening = Percent of Grid Opening at 6mm Opening × ( 1 - Proposed 30% of Screen Obstructed ).

5/27/2015

Triden Screen Equipment Sizing

Channel Dimensions: English Units SI UnitsSI Units Equipment Dimensions: English Units

26.4'' 25.62''

*ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF HYDRO-DYNE ENGINEERING INC. AND HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR RESTRICTIVE USE. THIS DATA MUST BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL AND TRANSMISSION, DUPLICATION OR DISCLOSURE IS PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY HYDRO-DYNE ENGINEERING INC.

Project: Chautauqua, NY

Date:

Rep: Siewert Equipment Co. Inc.

Tel: 813-818-0777 Fax: 813-818-0770 By: LL Checked: Model # STR 19 104 6 L

Q 2.40 MGD 1667 gpm 105 L/s 9085 m3/d Q 2.40 MGD 1667 gpm 105 L/s 9085 m3/dD1 D1

D2 D2

ΔH Total Headloss in mm ΔH Total Headloss in mmF Freeboard in mm F Freeboard in mmV1 Influent Channel Velocity ft/s m/s V1 Influent Channel Velocity ft/s m/sVG Velocity Through Grid ft/s m/s VG Velocity Through Grid ft/s m/sV2 Effluent Channel Velocity ft/s m/s V2 Effluent Channel Velocity ft/s m/s

5/27/2015

Triden Screen Hydraulic Performance

SI UnitsFixed D1 Condition @ 30% Obs English Units SI Units Fixed D2 Condition @ 30% Obs English UnitsFlow Rate Flow RateUpstream Water Depth 548mm Upstream Water Depth

Downstream Water Depth 15.00 in 381559

Downstream Water Depth 15.88 in 403 mm22.00 in 21.57 in

27.00 686 27.43 6976.12 155 6.57 167

1.22 0.37 1.24 0.385.36 1.63 5.54 1.69

(in

ch

)

(ft/

s)

(in

ch

)

(ft/

s)

Screen Performance VS. Screen Blocking at Fixed D1 Screen Performance VS. Screen Blocking at Fixed D2

1.68 0.51 1.78 0.54

*ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE INFORMATION TRANSMITTED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF HYDRO-DYNE ENGINEERING INC. AND HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR RESTRICTIVE USE. THIS DATA MUST BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL AND TRANSMISSION, DUPLICATION OR DISCLOSURE IS PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY HYDRO-DYNE ENGINEERING INC.

mmmm

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Velo

cit

y

Hea

dlo

ss

Percent of Screen Obstructed (%)

Headloss

Influent Velocity

Effluent Velocity

Grid Velocity

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Vel

oci

ty

Hea

dlo

ss

Percent of Screen Obstructed (%)

Headloss

Influent Velocity

Effluent Velocity

Grid Velocity



Appendix D

New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit

ENGINEERING REPORT FOR - … REPORT FOR: NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT DISTRICT EXPANSION...

Documents

Transcript of ENGINEERING REPORT FOR - … REPORT FOR: NORTH CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SEWER DISTRICT DISTRICT EXPANSION...