Onondaga County, NY

Onondaga County, NY Enhanced Wet Weather Operations Planning Evaluation Meadowbrook-Limestone Wastewater Treatment Plant

March 2016 Revised July 2016

Revised July 2016

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Historic Wet Weather Flows...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Environmental Review .............................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Smart Growth Assessment ....................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5

2. Current Plant Operations .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Existing Wet Weather Operations Plan .................................................................................... 7

2.2 Influent Screening ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Grit Removal ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.4 Influent Pumping System .......................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Aeration Basins ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.6 Clarifiers .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.7 Disinfection ............................................................................................................................... 9

3. Influent Pumping Improvements ....................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Current Pumping Conditions ................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Proposed Pumping Improvements ......................................................................................... 10

4. Wet Weather Improvements ............................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.2 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................ 15

4.3 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................ 17

5. Wet Weather Holding Tank Expansion ............................................................................................. 19

6. Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................. 20

6.1 Alternative 1 - Upgrades For 29.5 mgd Peak Flow ................................................................. 20

6.2 Alternative 2 - Upgrades For 21.6 mgd Peak Flow ................................................................. 20 6.3 Alternative 3 - Upgrades For 16.0 mgd Peak Flow ................................................................. 20

7. Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 22

8. Engineering Report Certification ....................................................................................................... 23

Appendices Appendix A Wet Weather Alternative Cost Estimate

GHD | Enhanced Wet Weather Operations Planning Evaluation, Meadowbrook-Limestone WWTP - 11109373.1 | i

Tables Table 1-1 Influent Flows Table 1-2 Energy Efficiency Feasibility Table 2-1 Aeration Basins Operating Criteria Table 2-2 Clarifier Operating Criteria Table 2-3 Disinfection Operating Criteria Table 3-1 Current Influent Pump Design Criteria Table 3-2 Influent Pumps for Dry Weather Flow Table 3-3 Average and Low Flow Pump Operation Table 4-1 Headworks Design Criteria for Alternative 1 Table 4-2 Aeration Basins Design Criteria for Alternative 1 Table 4-3 Clarifier Design Criteria for Alternative 1 Table 4-4 Headworks Design Criteria for Alternative 2 Table 4-5 Clarifier Design Criteria for Alternative 2 Table 4-6 Headworks Design Criteria for Alternative 3 Table 4-7 Clarifier Design Criteria for Alternative 3 Table 5-1 Wet Weather Storage Tank Table 6-1 Project Cost Estimates

Figures Figure 1-1 Existing Site Plan Figure 1-2 Annual Average Flow Figure 1-3 Summer Event Figure 1-4 Winter/Spring Event Figure 3-1 Pump Efficiency Curves Figure 3-2 Influent Pumping System Curves Figure 3-3 Peak Flow Pump Curves Figure 4-1 Headworks Building Lower Level Plan Figure 4-2 Headworks Building Upper Level Plan Figure 4-3 Alternative 1 Site Plan Figure 4-4 Influent Pump Building Mods, Lower Level Plan Figure 4-5 Influent Pump Building Mods, Upper Level Plan Figure 4-6 Alternative 2 Site Plan Figure 4-6 Alternative 3 Site Plan Figure 5-1 Wet Weather Storage Tank

GHD | Enhanced Wet Weather Operations Planning Evaluation, Meadowbrook-Limestone WWTP - 11109373.1 | ii

1. Introduction The Meadowbrook-Limestone Wastewater Treatment Plant (MBLS WWTP) is owned and operated by the Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP). The facility treats wastewater from the Towns of Dewitt and Manlius and smaller portions of the Town of Pompey and the City of Syracuse. The facility receives significant wet weather flows due to inflow and infiltration (I/I) in the collection system.

The County received an Engineering Planning Grant from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to perform an enhanced wet weather operations plan and evaluation. The goal of the evaluation is to recommend enhancements to the MBLS plant which would enable it to better handle wet weather flow events. It is anticipated this planning level evaluation will be used to complete life cycle cost comparisons between performing treatment plant expansions and collection system I/I abatement work.

1.1 Background

The MBLS WWTP was designed in 1969 and was constructed and began operation in 1973. The primary treatment consists of influent screening, grit removal, and influent pumping. The secondary treatment process was designed as an extended aeration activated sludge process followed by clarification and disinfection. Sludge is stored in aerated tanks, thickened, and hauled off for processing at another OCDWEP facility. The existing site plan of the facility is shown in Figure 1-1.

There have been a series of upgrades and modifications to the treatment plant since its construction in 1973, including:

1. 1976 - Miscellaneous upgrades to screening and aeration.

2. 1993 - Chemical handling, aeration and sludge thickening upgrades.

3. 1998 - Conversion of gas chlorination to liquid sodium hypochlorite chlorination.

4. 2000 - Garage modifications.

5. 2003 - Wet weather upgrades with the conversion of a digester tank to a 1.1 million gallon (MG) wet weather storage tank.

6. 2005 - Upgrades to the influent screening, grit removal, and influent pumping along with other miscellaneous upgrades.

Design efforts are currently underway to upgrade the disinfection system from chemical chlorination to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. This work is being undertaken to meet new SPDES permit requirements for total residual chlorine in the effluent discharge. Other improvements in the project will include clarifier and chemical system upgrades. Construction of these improvements is anticipated to be complete by the spring of 2018.

1.2 Historic Wet Weather Flows

The influent flows to the MBLS WWTP were evaluated for the time period of January 2011 through April 2015 and are summarized in Table 1-1. The influent flow is measured with an insertion flow sensor located on the force main from the influent pumps to the aeration tank distribution box. During this period of record, the MBLS WWTP had an average annual flow of 5.5 million gallons per

GHD | Enhanced Wet Weather Operations Planning Evaluation, Meadowbrook-Limestone WWTP - 11109373.1 | 1

Plot Date: Cad File No:21 December 2015 - 10:36 AM C:\pwwork\sfbishop\dms06921\111-09373-F1.1.dwg

Figure

Date

Revision

Job Number

One Remington Park Drive, Cazenovia NY 13035 USA T 1 315 679 5800 F 1 315 679 5801 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

1-1

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEP

MEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP

EXISTING SITE PLAN

111-09373

A

12/15

APPROXIMATEFLOODWAY BOUNDARY

SCALE 1"=100' AT ORIGINAL SIZE

0 200'15010050

N

day (mgd), which is 85 percent of the design and permitted monthly flow of 6.5 mgd. The original design drawings from 1969 indicate the peak hour design flow for the facility was 16 mgd. Influent flow meter records indicate the peak hour flow is 29.5 mgd.

Table 1-1 Influent Flows

Observed Influent Flow Peak hour flow(1) 29.5 mgd 99.9 percentile hourly flow 22.4 mgd 99.5 percentile hourly flow (design peak hour) 16.0 mgd 99 percentile hourly flow 14.0 mgd Maximum month flow 8.9 mgd Period average flow 5.5 mgd

(1) The influent flow meter is only capable of measuring a maximum of 30 mgd.

In 2011, the MBLS WWTP monthly average flows exceeded 95 percent of the design flow of the facility. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 750-2.9(c)(1), OCDWEP was required to prepare a Flow Management Plan for the facility. Subsequent to its development, extensive efforts were made to contain I/I into the MBLS collection system. The following is a summary of the work undertaken since 2002.

1. The City of Syracuse investigated catch basins indicated to be directly or indirectly connected to the Meadowbrook trunk sewer in the existing 2002 Sewer System Evaluation Study (SSES), BBL Engineers, 2002-2003. No direct connections were noted.

2. Manholes identified in the 2002 MBLS SSES were inspected, five of which required follow-up work.

3. To aid in tracking manholes that were inspected and received subsequent repairs, County-owned sewers and manholes in the MBLS WWTP service area were plotted on a GIS overlay.

4. In the Meadowbrook service area, 1,185 County and Town manholes were physically inspected and GPS readings were taken. Approximately 53 miles of sewer line were encompassed.

5. Eighty standard manhole covers in low lying areas were replaced with new locking watertight frames and covers.

6. Rain dishes were installed on 24 County-owned manholes and on 29 Town of Manlius-owned manholes in low-lying, flood prone areas.

7. 640 gallons of Avanti hydrophilic grout were pumped into 10 County-owned manholes with active infiltration. The contractor estimated infiltration reduction for these manholes was 350 to 450 gallons per minute (gpm).

8. 30 County-owned manholes were lined with Strong Seal QSR lining material to stop and prevent future infiltration.

9. Flow meters were installed on the two main influent sewers into MBLS WWTP to evaluate dry weather versus wet weather variations in the individual sewer lines.


10. Coordinated with the Village of Fayetteville and Town of Manlius to offset sanitary flow for all newly proposed developments.

11. OCDWEP performed 64,083 feet of closed circuit televising of sewer lines in the MBLS service area during the third quarter of 2013.

12. Approximately 113 feet of the County-owned Ross Park trunk sewer was rehabilitated with cured-in-place pipe lining to reduce I/I as noted in the 2002 SSES.

13. The Village of Fayetteville rehabilitated approximately 4,500 feet of sewer lines with cured-in-place pipe lining to reduce I/I as noted in the 2002 SSES.

14. The Village of Manlius rehabilitated approximately 2,700 feet of sewer lines with cured-in-place pipe lining to reduce I/I as noted in the 2002 SSES.

15. Since the last quarter of 2012, $1,154,413.50 for contracted manhole rehabilitation and grouting work was expended in the MBLS WWTP service area.

The implementation of flow management improvements has helped to maintain MBLS annual flows under the 95 percent (6.18 mgd) action level. Monthly average influent flows for the facility are shown in the Figure 1-2. It should be noted that the sixth highest amount of precipitation in Syracuse was recorded in 2011.

Figure 1-2 Annual Average Flow

The current wet weather operations at the plant have been adapted to the type of wet weather event anticipated, which falls into two main categories. The first is a high intensity/short duration summer-time thunderstorm event. This type of event is illustrated in Figure 1-3, which shows the influent flow graph below taken from July 28, 2014.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FLO

W (M

GD)

Permitted Design Flow (6.5 mgd)

* 2015 data includes Jan to Nov.

*


Figure 1-3 Summer Event

The second type of wet weather event is a winter or spring event with rainfall on snow with generally high groundwater that leads to a prolonged high flow event. Figure 1-4 shows an event from April 22 to April 30, 2011. Plant operations during these type of wet weather events are discussed in the following section of this report.

Figure 1-4 Winter/Spring Event

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

04/2

2/20

11 0

0

04/2

2/20

11 1

2

04/2

3/20

11 0

0

04/2

3/20

11 1

2

04/2

4/20

11 0

0

04/2

4/20

11 1

2

04/2

5/20

11 0

0

04/2

5/20

11 1

2

04/2

6/20

11 0

0

04/2

6/20

11 1

2

04/2

7/20

11 0

0

04/2

7/20

11 1

2

04/2

8/20

11 0

0

04/2

8/20

11 1

2

04/2

9/20

11 0

0

04/2

9/20

11 1

2

04/3

0/20

11 0

0

04/3

0/20

11 1

2

05/0

1/20

11 0

0

FLO

W (M

GD)

Hourly Flow

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

07/2

8/20

14 0

0

07/2

8/20

14 0

2

07/2

8/20

14 0

4

07/2

8/20

14 0

6

07/2

8/20

14 0

8

07/2

8/20

14 1

0

07/2

8/20

14 1

2

07/2

8/20

14 1

4

07/2

8/20

14 1

6

07/2

8/20

14 1

8

07/2

8/20

14 2

0

07/2

8/20

14 2

2

07/2

9/20

14 0

0

07/2

9/20

14 0

2

07/2

9/20

14 0

4

07/2

9/20

14 0

6

FLO

W (M

GD)

Hourly Flow


1.3 Environmental Review

This project has been identified by Onondaga County to be a SEQR Type II action; therefore, no further environmental review has been completed.

The treatment facility is partially located within the floodplain and floodway of Limestone Creek. The current FEMA Floodplain Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel Number 360584 0010D dated February 5, 1992 was reviewed. The improvements proposed for this project would occur within the floodplain but would not interfere with the floodway. The proposed work within the floodplain would require a Flood Plain Permit from the Town of Manlius.

As evidenced from available NYSDEC and U.S. Fish & Wildlife mapping, there are wetlands present at the site, outside of the fenceline, to the west and north of the treatment plant. The proposed improvements in this project will take place within the facility fenceline and are not anticipated to affect the adjacent wetlands.

1.4 Smart Growth Assessment

The proposed project is comprised of work on the existing MBLS WWTP and does not increase the SPDES permit flow capacity of the facility. Therefore, further smart growth assessment is not required. The completed Smart Growth Assessment is included in the Appendix B.

1.5 Energy Efficiency Analysis

Each federal fiscal year, the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC) produces an Intended Use Plan for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for water pollution control. As outlined in this year’s Plan, the NYSEFC anticipates funding will be sought for projects to evaluate wastewater treatment practices and technologies which achieve performance and treatment requirements while reducing consumption of energy.

The New York State Energy and Research Authority (NYSERDA) has studied energy usage at wastewater treatment facilities and has developed a guideline identifying certain processes and technologies that reduce energy usage. It is understood that the cost savings when employing these technologies generally exceed the initial cost. As such, an evaluation considering the feasibility of employing such technologies was conducted for the MBLS WWTP. Improvements were recommended considering energy efficient alternatives. A summary of the energy efficiency improvements, based on the NYSERDA guidelines, is summarized in Table 1-2.


Table 1-2 Energy Efficiency Feasibility

Operation Process

Standard Practice

Typical Energy Efficiency Measures Recommended Improvements

Final clarifiers EPAct motors Premium efficiency motors

New premium efficiency motors will be installed for the clarifier drive mechanisms.

UV disinfection Medium pressure UV lamps

Low pressure high output lamp technology

Low pressure high output lamps are proposed along with UV dose control provided by inputs in flow and UV transmissivity (UVT).

Pumping – Influent pumps, RAS pumps

EPAct Motors Premium efficiency motors

All new pumps installed will have premium efficiency motors.

Building systems Building Energy Code compliant

Lighting, HVAC, etc. more efficient than Building Energy Code

Upgrade existing HVAC and lighting equipment in existing buildings to meet or exceed the specifications in the Building Energy Code. The number of air changes per hour, and by default, the associated building heating systems, are governed by the requirements of NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities.

LED lighting will be provided at locations of new construction, such as the UV disinfection enclosure and adjacent site lighting.


2. Current Plant Operations 2.1 Existing Wet Weather Operations Plan

The current Wet Weather Operating Plan for the MBLS WWTP was last updated in July 2014. The plan contains three levels of operating conditions based on the type and severity of wet weather event encountered. The plan was developed to utilize the existing infrastructure to handle wet weather events and return the plant to normal operation as soon as feasible.

Wet weather operation Condition No. 1 is used for short period, two- to three-hour storms, when flows approach 10 to 11 mgd. Flow is manually diverted to the 1 MG wet weather storage tank to lessen the peak flow through secondary treatment.

Wet weather operation Condition No. 2 is used for heavy rains and snow melt that cause a longer and high sustained peak flow. Flows in this condition typically reach up to 20 mgd. The wet weather storage tank is not effective at dampening the flow for longer high peaks. As the flows start to exceed 10 to 11 mgd, the aeration is turned off to the aeration tanks to maintain solids in the tanks. When the flow begins to drop below 15 mgd, the wet weather storage tank is used to divert flow and reduce it through the aeration tanks to less than 10 mgd. At this point, the aeration can be turned back on to the tanks. By utilizing the wet weather tank at the tail end of the event, the duration of aeration shutdown can be minimized.

Wet weather operation Condition No. 3 is used for extended periods of heavy rain and snow melt during rapid warming. The aeration shutdown and wet weather tank are utilized the same as with Condition No. 2. However, during this condition, the peak flows exceed the capacity of the influent pumping and grit system, and influent screening is in jeopardy of flooding. The power to the grit system and screen is turned off and the screen rake arm is kept at the highest position to minimize damage to this equipment

2.2 Influent Screening

The influent screening consists of a mechanical climber bar screen with 3/4-inch clear opening and a bypass channel with a manual bar rack. The climber screen was installed in 2005 and has a capacity of 25 mgd. The plant staff has indicated the climber screen is able to keep up with screening during peak flow events. In a condition where the capacity of the influent pumps is exceeded, the screen channel back ups and raw wastewater overflows the channel and bypasses screening.

2.3 Grit Removal

The MBLS plant originally had two small aerated grit tanks for grit removal. In 2005, these grit tanks were retrofitted with the Eutek stacked tray vortex grit system. The existing grit tanks were only large enough to hold 5 of the suggested 10 trays recommended for grit removal according to the grit system manufacturer. The total design capacity of the grit system is 25 mgd.

Plant staff has indicated that the Eutek system removes more grit than the old aerated grit tanks; however, during cleaning of the aeration tanks, a significant amount of grit continues to accumulate at the bottom of the aeration tanks. It is suspected that during high flows, more grit is suspended in the collection system, and at these higher flows, the grit system is less efficient at grit capture. It is


also suspected that grit and solids accumulations increase during periods when the aeration is turned off and this material may not become resuspended again.

2.4 Influent Pumping System

There are four influent pumps located in the Headworks Building that draw suction from a divided wet well. The pumps were replaced in 2005 with new centrifugal Flowserve pumps. The design firm capacity with three pumps running is 25 mgd. As noted previously, the plant experiences wet weather events that exceed the capacity of the pumps even with the fourth pump operating. The plant staff has difficulty operating the pumps efficiently at lower flows. The operation of the pumps is detailed in Section 4 of this report.

2.5 Aeration Basins

The two existing aeration basins are designed for an extended aeration activated sludge process. They are undersized for hydraulic detention time and organic loadings rates based on current design criteria for extended aeration with single-stage nitrification. However, the loadings are within the range of convention activated sludge treatment.

The operating conditions of the activated sludge process are summarized in the Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Aeration Basins Operating Criteria

Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 2 Total volume 2.3 MG Hydraulic detention time 10.1 hours (at 5.5 mgd,

average flow) 8.5 hours (at 6.5 mgd, design flow)

20 to 30 hours - Extended aeration 4 to 8 hours - Conventional aeration (M&E, 4th Edition)

Organic loading rate 29.8 lbs CBOD/1,000 cf/d(1)

<15 lb-BOD/1,000 cf extended aeration <40 lb-BOD/1,000 cf conventional aeration (Ten-States Standards)

(1) Based on design capacity of 9,200 lbs CBOD/day from Annual Certification.

2.6 Clarifiers

The facility has two existing circular clarifiers which are significantly undersized for the peaking flows received at the MBLS WWTP. At the observed peak hour flows of 29.5 mgd at the plant, the surface overflow rate and solids loading rate are approximately three times higher than the recommended design loading rates. Review of the original 1969 plant drawings revealed that the original plant was set up for a future expansion to include a total of six clarifiers and three aeration tanks. The current operating criteria for the clarifiers is summarized in Table 2-2.

The majority of the current wet weather operating procedures are designed around retaining solids in the activated sludge process so the plant retains solids and can resume treatment following a wet weather event.


Table 2-2 Clarifier Operating Criteria

Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 2 Diameter 75 feet Side water depth 10 feet 12 feet (Ten-States Standards) Surface Overflow Rate (SOR)

3,237 gpd/sf (at 29.5 mgd peak hour)

<900 gpd/sf (Ten-State Standards)

Solids Loading Rate (SLR) 117 lb/d/sf 118 (at 29.5 mgd peak hour)(1)

<35 lb/d/sf (Ten-State Standards)

(1) Based on a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) of 4,000 mg/L and return activated sludge (RAS) rate of 2.5 mgd.

2.7 Disinfection

The facility currently has a chlorine contact tank to provide disinfection with the use of liquid sodium hypochlorite. The disinfection system has a nominal capacity of 22.7 mgd as indicated in Table 2-3. The County is currently initiating a project to upgrade the disinfection to utilize UV to meet the new SPDES permit requirement of 0.02 mg/L for residual chlorine in the effluent.

Table 2-3 Disinfection Operating Criteria

Parameter Value Design Standard Type Contact tank with liquid sodium

hypochlorite

Total volume 236,400 gallons Peak hour capacity 22.7 mgd (at 15-minute detention

time) 15-minute detention at peak hour flow (Ten-States Standards)


3. Influent Pumping Improvements 3.1 Current Pumping Conditions

The four current end suction centrifugal influent pumps were replaced during the 2005 upgrade project at the MBLS WWTP. The new pumps were designed with a firm pumping capacity of 25 mgd with three pumps operating and one pump as standby. The design criteria for the existing influent pumps are listed in Table 3-1. It has been observed that the current pumps may be operating at a lower capacity than originally designed. The facility is collecting information on pump operating points during higher flow conditions, which should allow for a better assessment of the peak pumping capacity of the current pumps.

Table 3-1 Current Influent Pump Design Criteria

Parameter Value Number of pumps 4 (3 duty, 1 standby) Type of pump End suction centrifugal Capacity (each pump) 5,800 gpm (8.35 mgd)

38 feet TDH 75 HP 83 percent efficiency

Total pumping capacity 17,400 gpm (25 mgd) with three duty pumps operating

The County has indicated that improvements are needed in the existing influent pumping system to accommodate more efficient operation at low and average flows and to handle the high flow wet weather events received at the facility.

3.2 Proposed Pumping Improvements

The plant influent dry weather low flows are around 2.7 mgd, with average flows at 5.5 mgd and peak wet weather flows reaching 29.5 mgd. This flow range is on the order of 10 to 1, which makes efficient pump operation of this wide range difficult. The current pump arrangement has limitation on low flow operations and peak high flow operations. Improvements were evaluated for the influent pumping system to include better low flow and peak flow operation.

3.2.1 Dry Weather Flow Operation

The current minimum influent flows to the facility are in the range of 2.7 mgd. The existing pumps have a design capacity of 5800 gpm (8.35 mgd) each and therefore require significant turn-down to reach this minimum flow. Therefore, it is recommended for each of the alternatives that two additional smaller pumps be added to allow for better operation and efficiency at low and average flows. Table 3-2 lists the design criteria for the smaller dry weather pumps.


Table 3-2 Influent Pumps for Dry Weather Flow

Parameter Value Number of pumps 2 Type of pump End suction centrifugal Capacity 5.5 mgd at 31 feet TDH (each pump)

50 HP 78 percent efficiency

The existing pumps have a best efficiency point of 83 percent at a flow of 9.4 mgd. Single pump operation typically occurs below 6 mgd; therefore, the pumps never operate near the best efficiency point. The proposed smaller 50 HP pumps have a best efficiency point of 78 percent at a flow of 5.5 mgd. This allows for the smaller, single-pump operation to handle a majority of the flows near the best efficiency point. Figure 3-1 shows the pump efficiency versus flow and indicates the proposed smaller pumps can operate more efficiently up to a flow of 5.5 mgd.

Figure 3-1 Pump Efficiency Curves

The cost savings from utilizing the proposed smaller pumps for average and low flows were calculated and summarized in Table 3-3. The hourly flow data were used to determine the percentages of time the plant influent flow was within each efficiency grouping. The total energy savings amounted to around $2,470 per year based on an electrical usage cost of $0.068/kwh. A cost savings on the demand charge may also be realized; however, this would only occur during prolonged drier periods when one or more of the existing larger pumps are not required.

The installation of two additional smaller pumps would require an expansion to the existing wet well and dry well areas. The capital cost for this expansion would result in an unrealistic payback period


based on estimated power savings. However, if improvements are undertaken to expand the headworks for wet weather flows, the addition of the smaller pumps should be considered.

Table 3-3 Average and Dry Weather Pump Operation

Influent Flow

Duration of Yearly Operation

Hours Per

Year

Existing Pump bhp

Needed

Proposed Pump bhp

Needed

Existing Pumps’ Yearly

Power Cost

Proposed Pumps’ Yearly

Power Cost <3 mgd 10% 876 41 HP 20 HP $1,808 $882 3 to 5.5 mgd 50% 4,380 47 HP 40 HP $10,3662 $8819 >5.5 mgd 4% 3,504 52 HP Total $12,170 $9,701

3.2.2 High Flow Operation

The theoretical system curve for the existing operation of the influent pumping system under peak conditions with three duty pumps running is shown in Figure 3-2. Based on this analysis, the existing pumps installed should have a firm capacity (three pumps running) of 17,400 gpm (25 mgd). The plant staff collected flow data on pump operation including flow, discharge pressure, and pump speed. The data collected to date represents flows that are 6.0 mgd and less and fall on the flat part of the system curve. The discharge pressures at these low flows primarily represent the static lift needed for pumping and therefore were not useful in calibrating the system curve. It is recommended the County collect additional pump operation data during future peak flow events.

Based on available information, the current pumps should be sufficient to provide the firm pumping capacity for Alternative 2 (21.6 mgd) and Alternative 3 (16.0 mgd). For Alternative 1, the peak hour design flow is 29.5 mgd, which would require new influent pumps with a slightly higher capacity.

Figure 3-2 Influent Pumping System Curves


4. Wet Weather Improvements The Wet Weather Operations Plans developed and used by the County at the MBLS WWTP enable them to maximize use of the current plant infrastructure to handle peaking wet weather flows. However, to effectively handle wet weather flows at the facility, additional capital improvements are needed. The goal of enhancements to the wet weather operations are to:

1. Protect the facility infrastructure during peak wet weather flow periods.

2. Preserve the activated sludge biomass so the facility can resume normal treatment following an event.

3. Maintain SPDES permit compliance.

The first goal of maintaining plant infrastructure during highs flows cannot currently be met due to flooding of the lower level of the headworks, resulting from pumping limitations. The flooding jeopardizes the grit and screenings equipment. In addition, the lack of screening and grit removal at these higher flows can cause maintenance issues in the plant, including debris damaging downstream equipment and grit accumulation in the aeration tanks. The capacity of the headworks facility inclusive of screening, grit removal, and influent pumping must be increased to handle the current wet weather flows.

The second and third goals of maintaining treatment capabilities and extending treatment levels at higher flows cannot be met due to limitations in the aeration tanks and clarifiers. Therefore, addition of aeration tank and clarifier capacity is required.

Three alternatives were proposed to enhance the wet weather hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant. The alternatives provide enhancements to meet differing peak flow values. The extent of improvements ultimately required to be implemented at the MBLS WWTP will depend on the amount of I/I reduction that can be achieved in the collection system. The design peak hour flow capacity for each alternative is:

Alternative 1 = 29.5 mgd (100 percentile flow) (current peak hour flow rate)

Alternative 2 = 21.6 mgd (99.8 percentile flow)

Alternative 3 = 16.0 mgd (99.5 percentile flow) (current plant design peak flow rate)

The capital investment in these alternatives will only increase the hydraulic capacity of the facility to handle I/I and will not result in a loading (BOD , TSS, etc.) capacity expansion of the facility to handle growth in the collection system.

4.1 Alternative 1

This alternative includes upgrades to handle wet weather flows up to 29.5 mgd. Improvements would be made by increasing the screen grit removal and pumping capacity of the headworks, adding an additional aeration basin, and constructing larger clarifiers.

4.1.1 Headworks

The capacity of screening, grit removal, and pumping cannot be expanded sufficiently within the existing Headworks Building to meet the peak flows of this alternative. Therefore, a new Headworks Building is proposed to be constructed in the existing unused sludge drying bed. This would allow


for construction while the existing headworks remains in service. A new Headworks Building would be two floors similar to the existing building. The basement level would contain the screening, grit removal, and pumping wet and dry wells. The ground level would house the screenings washer compactor, grit classifier, and electrical room. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the building layout. The design criteria for the new headworks is shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Headworks Design Criteria for Alternative 1

Parameter Value Screening

Number of screens Screen capacity Screen clear spacing Screening channel dimensions

2 (1 duty, 1 standby) 29.5 mgd (each) 3/8-inch perforated Width 6’ - 0”, depth 7’-3”

Grit Removal Type Number of units Total capacity

Vortex, stacked tray (Eutek) 2 29.5 mgd

Influent Pumping Type Number of units Capacity

Centrifugal solids handling 4 large, 2 small 29.5 mgd (with 1 large pump out of service)

4.1.2 Aeration Tanks

A third aeration tank would be constructed to increase the hydraulic detention time and lessen the organic loading on the two existing aeration basins. A new weir gate would be added to the aeration distribution box and the existing unused 24-inch ductile iron pipe leaving the box would be piped to the new aeration tank. The aeration capacity of the existing blowers would need to be increased; it is recommended the existing centrifugal blowers could be upgraded to higher efficiency turbo-style blowers with larger capacity. The design criteria for the aeration basins is shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Aeration Basins Design Criteria for Alternative 1

Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 3 (2 existing, 1 new) Total volume 3.45 MG Hydraulic detention time 13.7 hours (at 5.5 mgd,

average flow) 11.6 hours (at 6.5 mgd,

design flow)

20 to 30 hours - Extended aeration 4 to 8 hours - Conventional aeration

(M&E, 4th Edition)

Organic loading rate 21.8 lbs-CBOD/ 1,000 cf/d (1) <15 lb BOD/1,000 cf extended aeration

<40 lb BOD/1,000 cf conventional aeration (Ten-States Standards)

(1) Based on design capacity of 9,200 lbs CBOD/day from Annual Certification.


Plot Date: Cad File No:2 February 2016 - 1:55 PM C:\pwwork\sfbishop\dms06921\111-09373-F3.1.dwg

FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


4-1

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEP MEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP ALTERNATIVE 1HEADWORKS BUILDINGLOWER LEVEL PLAN

111-09373A02/16

0 4'-0" 16'-0"

SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" AT ORIGINAL SIZE

8'-0" 12'-0"

N

SLIDE GATE (TYP)

GRIT COLLECTION SYSTEM (TYP)

INFLUENT PUMPS (TYP 4)

48" RAW SEPTAGE36" INFLUENT FORCEMAIN

90'-0"

51'-0

"

WET WEATHER PUMPS (TYP 2)

SCREEN

SCREEN


FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


4-2

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEP MEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP ALTERNATIVE 1HEADWORKS BUILDINGUPPER LEVEL PLAN

111-09373A02/16

0 4'-0" 16'-0"


8'-0" 12'-0"

N

OVERHEAD DOOR

CARTS BYOTHERS (TYP)

WASHER/ COMPACTOR

CONVEYORSCREENS

GRIT WASHER/ CLASSIFIER

PUMP RETRIEVALHATCH (TYP)

111'-0"

51'-0

"

GRIT WASHER/ CLASSIFIER

4.1.3 Clarifiers

The two existing clarifiers are undersized and shallower than current design standards. In this alternative the two existing clarifiers would be demolished and replaced with three larger clarifiers that meet current standards for surface overflow rates and solids loading rate. A new distribution box would be required to split the flow between the new clarifiers. A new return and waste sludge pump station is proposed to support the new clarifiers. Separate RAS return lines will be provided to each aeration tank for operational flexibility.

The design criteria for the clarifiers is shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Clarifier Design Criteria for Alternative 1

Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 3 Diameter 120 feet Side water depth 16 feet 12 feet (Ten-States Standards)

14 feet (WEF MOP-8) 16 feet (TR-16 Guidelines)

SOR 842 gpd/sf (at 29.5 mgd peak hour) <900 gpd/sf (Ten-States Standards) SLR 30 lbs/d/sf (at 29.5 mgd peak hour)(1) <35 lb/d/sf (Ten-States Standards)

(1) Based on a MLSS of 4,000 mg/L and RAS rate of 2.5 mgd.

4.1.4 Additional Upgrades

Additional upgrades include conversion of the existing backup digester tank to a 0.5 MG wet weather holding tank (discussed further in Section 5). The disinfection system is scheduled to be upgraded to a UV system by 2018.

4.1.5 Site Layout

The layout for this alternative is shown in Figure 4-3.

4.2 Alternative 2

This alternative includes upgrades to handle wet weather flows up to 21.6 mgd. Improvements would be made by increasing the screen grit removal and pumping capacity of the headworks by adding a parallel treatment train. Piping would be added to the aeration basins to allow for step feed during high flow conditions. The existing clarifiers would be demolished and two larger clarifiers constructed.

4.2.1 Headworks

The capacity of the screening, grit removal, and pumping cannot be sufficiently expanded in the existing Headworks Building to meet the peak flows of this alternative; however, a parallel train could be added to increase capacity and performance. A distribution box would be constructed upstream of the existing Headworks Building to split flow between the current headworks and the added treatment train. The new treatment train would consist of a new mechanical screen, vortex grit removal system, and additional influent pumping wet and dry wells. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the building layout.


Plot Date: Cad File No:2 February 2016 - 11:06 AM C:\pwwork\sfbishop\dms06921\111-09373-F3.3.dwg

DateRevision

Job Number

SITE PLAN Figure 4-3 One Remington Park Drive, Cazenovia NY 13035 USA T 1 315 679 5800 F 1 315 679 5801 E [email protected] W

www.ghd.com

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEPMEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP

ALTERNATIVE 1

111-09373A02/16


0 200'15010050

DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTURE

N

CLARIFIERNO 1 (120'Ø)


WETWEATHER

TANK


RAS/WAS


AERA

TION

TAN

K NO

3

HEAD

WOR

KSBU

ILDIN

G


INFLUENT FLOW METER

RAS FEED TOAERATION TANKS

EFFLUENT PARSHALL FLUMEUV SYSTEM

ELECTRICAL STRUCTURE


FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


4-4

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEP MEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3INFLUENT PUMP BUILDING MODSLOWER LEVEL PLAN

111-09373A02/160 8'-0"


16'-0" 24'-0"

SCREEN

SLIDE GATE (TYP)

GRIT COLLECTIONSYSTEM

INFLUENTPUMP (TYP)

86'-3"

22'-6

"

48" RAW SEWAGE

COUPLING (TYP)

36"Ø PIPE (TYP)

8'-0"

8'-0"

REMOVE MECHANICALSCREEN FROM SERVICE


FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


4-5

ONONDAGA COUNTY DWEP MEADOWBROOK - LIMESTONE WWTP ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3INFLUENT PUMP BUILDING MODSUPPER LEVEL PLAN

111-09373A02/160 8'-0"


16'-0" 24'-0"

OVERHEAD DOOR

OVERHEADDOOR

CARTS BY OTHERS

GRIT WASHER/CLASSIFIER

SCREENS

WASHER/COMPACTOR

PUMP RETRIEVALHATCH (TYP)

86'-3"

22'-6

"

SCREW CONVEYOR



Number of screens Screen capacity New screen type New screen clear spacing Screening channel dimensions

2 (1 duty, 1 standby) 29.5 mgd (each) Center flow 3/8-inch perforated Width 6’-0”, depth 7’-3”


Vortex, stacked tray (Eutek) 2 existing, 1 new 25 mgd (existing), 29.5 mgd (new)

Influent Pumping Number of pumps Capacity

4 existing, 2 new 8.3 mgd (each existing), 5.5 mgd (each new)


The existing aeration tanks are prone to washout of mixed liquor during high flows. The current wet weather operating procedure is to stop aeration of the tanks when flows reach 10 to 11 mgd. In this alternative, a step feed process is proposed to help maintain mixed liquor in the tank and allow for treatment at higher flows. Piping would be connected to the influent pump station force main to allow for diversion of influent flow to the 1/3 and 2/3 points in the aeration tank. This will allow for the return sludge to remain and concentrate in the first 1/3 of the tank before mixing with the influent. This will also lessen the solids loading on the clarifiers.

4.2.3 Clarifiers

The two existing clarifiers are undersized and shallower than current design standards. In this alternative, the two existing clarifiers would be demolished and replaced with two larger clarifiers that meet current standards for surface overflow and solids loading rates. A new distribution box would be required to split the flow between the clarifiers. The existing return and waste sludge pump station would also be upgraded to allow for better control of sludge return. Separate RAS feed lines will be provided for each aeration tank. The design criteria for the clarifiers is given in Table 4-5.


Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 2 (new) Diameter 125 feet Side water depth 16 feet 12 feet (Ten-States Standards)


SOR 853 gpd/sf (at 21.6 mgd peak hour) <900 gpd/sf (Ten-States Standards) SLR 32 lbs/d/sf (at 21.6 mgd peak hour)(1) <35 lb/d/sf (Ten-States Standards)





4.2.5 Site Layout

The layout for this alternative is shown in Figure 4-6.

4.3 Alternative 3

This alternative includes upgrades to handle wet weather flows up to 16.0 mgd. Improvements would be made by increasing the screen grit removal and pumping capacity of the headworks by adding a parallel treatment train. Piping would be added to the aeration basins to allow for step feed during high flow conditions. The two existing clarifiers would remain and a new, larger, third clarifier would be constructed.

4.3.1 Headworks

The capacity of the screening, grit removal, and pumping cannot be sufficiently expanded in the existing Headworks Building to meet the peak flows of this alternative; however, a parallel train could be added to increase capacity and performance. The layout of the expanded headworks is the same as described in Alternative 2.



Number of screens Screen capacity New screen type New screen clear spacing Screening channel dimensions (new)

2 (1 duty, 1 standby) 29.5 mgd (each) Centerflow 3/8-inch perforated Width 6’-0”, depth 7’-3”


Vortex, stacked tray (Eutek) 2 existing, 1 new 25 mgd (existing), 29.5 mgd (new)

Influent Pumping Number of pumps Capacity

4 existing, 2 new 8.3 mgd (each existing), 2.7 mgd (each new)


The existing aeration tanks are prone to washout of mixed liquor during high flows. The current wet weather operating procedure is to stop aeration of the tanks when flows reach 10 to 11 mgd. In this alternative, a step feed process is proposed to help maintain mixed liquor as described in Alternative 2.



DateRevision

Job Number

SITE PLAN Figure 4-6 One Remington Park Drive, Cazenovia NY 13035 USA T 1 315 679 5800 F 1 315 679 5801 E [email protected] W

www.ghd.com


ALTERNATIVE 2

111-09373A02/16


0 200'15010050


N

CLARIFIER NO 1(125'Ø)


WETWEATHER

TANK

RAS/WAS

STEP FEEDUPGRADE


INFLUENT SCREENINGAND PUMPING UPGRADE





INFLUENT FLOW METER

4.3.3 Clarifiers

In this alternative, the two existing clarifiers will remain in service and a new, larger, third clarifier will be constructed. The existing two clarifiers will handle 50 percent of the flow (25 percent each). The new clarifier will handle the remaining 50 percent of the flow. The existing distribution box will be modified to provide the proper flow split to the clarifiers. The plant staff will also have the option of send all of the flow from Aeration Tank No. 1 to the two existing clarifiers and the Aeration Tank No. 2 flow to the new clarifier. A new RAS pump station will be provided to support the clarifiers along with separate RAS feed to each aeration tank. This will isolate process into two separate treatment trains. A summary of the clarifier design criteria is shown in Table 4-7.


Parameter Value Design Standard Number of units 2 (existing) 1 (new) Diameter 75 feet (existing), 105 feet (new) Side water depth 10 feet (existing), 16 feet (new) 12 feet (Ten-States Standards)


SOR 878 gpd/sf (existing) 896 gpd/sf (new) (at 16.0 mgd peak hour)

< 900 gpd/sf (Ten-State Standards)

SLR 34 lb/d/sf (existing), 35 lb/d/sf (new) (at 16.0 mgd peak hour)

< 35 lb/d/sf (Ten-State Standards)




4.3.5 Site Layout

The layout for this alternative is shown in Figure 4-7. The process flow diagram for this alternative is shown in the figure below.



FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


4-7


ALTERNATIVE 3SITE PLAN

111-09373A02/16


0 200'15010050

DISTRIBUTIONSTRUCTUREADDITION

N


WETWEATHER

TANK

STEP FEEDUPGRADE


INFLUENT SCREENINGAND PUMPING UPGRADE




RAS/WAS

INFLUENT FLOW METER


5. Wet Weather Holding Tank Expansion The existing 1.1 MG wet weather holding tank was created by conversion of an existing sludge digester tank in 2003. This tank is utilized by manually diverting flow from the aeration distribution box through a 24-inch overflow pipe to the storage tank. The storage is currently used to dampen peak flows through the aeration tanks and clarifiers during short duration storm events. During longer duration storm events, the tank is used after the peak flow when the flow through the aeration can be lowered by diverting to the holding tank and turning the air back on to the aeration tanks.

To increase the wet weather holding tank storage capacity, it is proposed to convert the existing backup digester tank to provide additional wet weather storage capacity. The modifications needed to the tank include:

1. A penetration would be made in the wall between the tanks and sluice gate, installed to allow flow between the tanks.

2. Sloping concrete fill would be added to the bottom floor to aid in cleaning and draining the new tank into the existing tank.

3. Install an aeration grid with a minimum of four laterals to provide better mixing. This will be useful in preventing solids deposition if the tank is also used as a backup sludge digester tank.

4. Construct a walkway along the south side of the tank. A minimum of two station monitors would be placed on the walkway to allow cleaning of the tank from the walkway above.

The existing wet weather storage holding tank is difficult to clean after use and improvements are recommended. Similar to the new holding tank, a walkway should be constructed along the south side of the tank with two station monitors for cleaning. A third station monitor should be installed along the existing walkway between the tanks to aid in cleaning the center of the tank and to the north.

The proposed modifications are shown in Figure 5-1. The design criteria of the wet weather storage tanks are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Wet Weather Storage Tank

Parameter Value Existing Holding Tank

Length Width Sidewater depth Volume

140 feet 70-15 feet 15 feet 1.1 MG

New Holding Tank Length Width Sidewater depth Volume

64 feet 70-15 feet 15 feet 0.5 MG

Total Volume 1.6 MG



FigureDate

RevisionJob Number


5-1


WET WEATHER STORAGE TANK

111-09373A02/16

(CONVERTED FROM SLUDGE STORAGE)

STATION MONITOR

STATION MONITOR

STATION MONITOR

STATION MONITOR

STATION MONITOR

AERATION GRID

CONCRETE WALK ADDITION

CONCRETE WALK ADDITION

SLOPEDCONCRETE FLOOR

WALL PENETRATIONAND SLUICE GATE

NOT TO SCALE

INFILL 36"W x 12"H OPENING

6. Cost Estimates Cost estimates have been prepared for each alternative and are summarized in Table 6-1. A detailed breakdown of costs is included in Appendix A. The costs for new tanks and buildings include constructing pile foundations for these structures, based on past construction at the site. It is also expected that high groundwater will add to dewatering costs for buried structures. Work is currently underway to upgrade the disinfection system at the facility; therefore, these costs have not been included.

The major capital components of each alternative are as follows:

6.1 Alternative 1 - Upgrades For 29.5 mgd Peak Flow

New Headworks building with screening, grit removal and influent pumping.

Addition of a third aeration tank.

Construction of three 120-foot diameter clarifiers.

Construction of a new RAS pump station.

Conversion of the existing backup sludge digester to a wet weather holding tank.


Addition of a second train in the headworks for screening, grit removal, and influent pumping.

Addition of step feed in the aeration tank.

Construction of two 125-foot diameter clarifiers.

Upgrades to the RAS pump station.



Addition of a second train in the headworks for screening, grit removal, and influent pumping.

Addition of step feed in the aeration tank.

Construction of one 105-foot diameter clarifier.

Upgrades to the RAS pump station.



Table 6-1 Project Cost Estimates

Cost Components Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Headworks improvements $10,100,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 Aeration tank improvements $4,200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Clarifier and RAS/waste activated sludge improvements

$13,500,000 $9,200,000 $5,400,000

Wet weather storage improvements (0.5 MG)

$500,000 $500,000 $500,000

Subtotal $28,300,000 $16,600,000 $12,800,000 Contingency (25%) $2,800,000 $1,700,000 $1,300,000 Total Construction Costs $31,100,000 $18,300,000 $14,100,000 Admin, Legal & Engineering (20%) $6,200,000 $3,700,000 $2,800,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (2015 dollars) $37,300,000 $22,000,000 $16,900,000


7. Summary The MBLS WWTP service area contributes significant I/I to the treatment facility. The ratio of the dry weather to wet weather flows is on the order of 5 to 1. These high wet weather flows affect the facility’s ability to remain in compliance with the SPDES Permit. Efforts to handle wet weather flows have focused on collection system maintenance and operational changes to the WWTP during high flow events. This report reviews alternatives to construct physical upgrades to the treatment facility to handle continued wet weather flow events.

In 2002, a Sewer System Evaluation Study was completed which identified the areas of needed improvements in the collection system. Numerous projects have been completed in the collection system as identified in this report. In addition, a Wet Weather Operating Plan has been developed and implemented at the MBLS WWTP. The plan optimizes the use of the existing infrastructure at the facility to accommodate the wet weather flows and return the facility to normal treatment operations. However, without continued I/I removal from the collection system, additional capital upgrades will be needed at the treatment plant to handle the wet weather flows.

Three alternatives were evaluated for upgrading the facility to accommodate the wet weather flow conditions. The alternatives included capital upgrades to the facility to handle peak flows in the range of 16 to 29.5 mgd at a cost of $17 million to $37 million. These upgrades only provide for additional hydraulic capacity to handle the wet weather flows above 16 mgd that occur less than 0.5 percent of the time. These capital upgrades will not result in additional organic treatment capacity at the plant to handle any future growth within the service area.

The three alternatives evaluated in this study are likely significantly more costly than performing improvements to the conveyance system to reduce I/I. Even with completion of the described plant upgrades, improvements to the collection system are still necessary to reduce both I/I and the high peaking factor associated with wet weather events. Therefore, it is recommended that improvements be made to the conveyance system to reduce I/I prior to commencing costly upgrades to the treatment facility. Following these conveyance system improvements, the effectiveness of the I/I reduction can also be assessed and potential treatment plant improvements can also be re-evaluated at that time.


Appendix A - Wet Weather Alternative Cost Estimate

ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTSDate: 2/1/2016

Status of Cost Estimate: Study

Cost Components Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Headworks Improvements $10,100,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000

Aeration Tank Improvements $4,200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Clarifier and RAS/WAS Improvements $13,500,000 $9,200,000 $5,400,000Wet Weather Storage Improvements (0.5 MG) $500,000 $500,000 $500,000

Subtotal $28,300,000 $16,600,000 $12,800,000Contingency (25%) $2,800,000 $1,700,000 $1,300,000Total Construction Costs $31,100,000 $18,300,000 $14,100,000Admin, Legal & Engineering (20%) $6,200,000 $3,700,000 $2,800,000Total Project Costs (2015) $37,300,000 $22,000,000 $16,900,000

ALTERNATIVE - 1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTNEW HEADWORKS BLDG

Project: Meadowbrook-Limestone WWTP Computed By: RCFLocation: Syracuse, NY

Owner: OCDWEP Date 2/1/16Description: Wet Weather Upgrades Project No: 11109373

No. Basis Per Total Per Total Man $/Man Total TotalUnits Unit Unit Hours Hour Cost

Mobilization 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $200,000Site Restoration 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Sitework/ roads/ landscaping 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

SitePre Headworks - 48" DIP 160 LF $1,000 $160,000 $23 $3,705 $2 $38 $12,403 $176,110Post Headworks - 36" DIP 265 LF $400 $106,000 $16 $4,295 $1 $38 $12,839 $123,13048" DIP 90 Bend 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 $216 $216 $17 $38 $647 $17,86036" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $5,400 $10,800 $137 $274 $13 $38 $970 $12,040Excavation 787 CY $50.00 $39,352 $42,300Stone Bedding 197 CY $20.00 $3,935 $15.00 $2,951 0.60 $47 $5,549 $9,480Hauling 787 CY $7.30 $5,745 $0 0.11 $47 $4,069 $10,990Backfill 197 CY $10 $1,968 $6.00 $1,181 0.40 $57 $4,486 $7,630Dewatering 90 DAY $3,000.00 $270,000 $270,000Sheeting 16000 SF $30.00 $480,000 $480,000

Architectural New Building 9460 SF $250.00 $2,365,000 $2,365,000

StructuralHeadworksSlabs, cast on grade - flat 328 CY $550.00 $180,400 $180,400Channel Concrete 70 CY $700.00 $49,000 $49,000Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 28 CY $400.00 $11,200 $11,200Piles 7500 LF $50.00 $375,000 $375,000Pile Caps/Tips 150 EA $100.00 $15,000 $15,000Meter VaultPre-cast concrete vault 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $40,000Piles 500 LF $50.00 $25,000 $25,000Excavation & dewatering 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

MechanicalBar Screen - Screen 2 EA $170,000 $340,000 $102,000 $442,000Bar Screen - Press 2 EA $60,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000Bar Screen - Submersible Motor 2 EA $10,000 $20,000 $6,000 $26,000Influent Pump Station Pumps (75 hp) 4 EA $75,000 $300,000 $90,000 $390,000Influent Pump Station Pumps (50 hp) 2 EA $60,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000Grit Systems 2 EA $376,000 $752,000 $225,600 $977,600Magnetic Flow Meter 30" 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 $4,000 $44,000Flow Meter pipe fittings 36" 6 EA $9,000 $54,000 $5,400 $59,400Flow Meter - Plug Valves - 36" 3 EA $42,000 $126,000 $12,600 $138,600

ElectricalElectrical and Instrumentation 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000Emergency Generator Allowance 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 $250,000

General Conditions 8% $606,600 8% $1,000 8% $44,700 Subtotal $8,189,000 $13,600 $603,300 $8,806,000

Overhead & Profit 15% $1,228,400 15% $2,000 15% $90,500Subtotal $9,417,400 $15,600 $693,800 $10,127,000

Contingency 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0TOTAL $9,417,000 $16,000 $694,000 $10,100,000

Quantity Material Equipment Labor

ALTERNATIVE - 1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTAERATION TANK UPGRADES




Mobilization 1 LS $100,000 $100,000 $0 $100,000Site Restoration 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000

SitePost Aeration Tank - 48" DIP 40 LF $1,000 $40,000 $40,00048" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 $26,00016" RAS piping 660 LF $200 $132,000 $132,00016" RAS Valving 4 EA $7,000 $28,000 $28,000Excavation 74 CY $50.00 $3,704 $3,980Stone Bedding 19 CY $20.00 $15.00 $278 0.60 $47 $522 $520Hauling 74 CY $7.30 $541 $0 0.11 $47 $383 $1,030Backfill 19 CY $10 $6.00 $111 0.40 $57 $422 $530Dewatering 90 DAY $1,000.00 $90,000 $0 $90,000Sheeting 7500 SF $30.00 $225,000 $0 $225,000

Architectural Walkways 200 LF $500 $100,000 $30,000 $130,000

Structural Straight Wall 346 CY $850.00 $294,100 $294,100Slabs, cast on grade - flat 764 CY $550.00 $420,200 $420,200Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 73 CY $400.00 $29,200 $29,200Piles (Assume 50' depth; est. 280 piles) 14000 LF $50.00 $700,000 $700,000Pile Caps/Tips 560 EA $100.00 $56,000 $56,000

MechanicalBlower Replacement 3 EA $125,000 $375,000 $112,500 $487,500Aeration Grid 11,284 SF $4 $45,136 $13,541 $58,677Aeration Piping 300 LF $125 $37,500 $37,500Dbox upgrade (16" DIP) 50 LF $138 $6,891 $6,891Dbox upgrade: Weir Gate 1 LS $24,000 $24,000 $7,200 $31,200

ElectricalElectrical and Instrumentation 1 LS $440,000 $440,000 $440,000

General Conditions 8% $255,500 8% $0 8% $13,200 Subtotal $3,448,800 $400 $177,800 $3,627,000

Overhead & Profit 15% $517,300 15% $100 15% $26,700Subtotal $3,966,100 $500 $204,500 $4,171,000



ALTERNATIVE - 1 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTCLARIFIER UPGRADES





SitePre Clarification Tanks (all 3 pipes) - 30" DIP 225 LF $350 $78,750 $78,750Post Clarifier 3 - 30" DIP 180 LF $350 $63,000 $63,000Post Clarifier 1&2 - 30" DIP 40 LF $350 $14,000 $14,000Between Clarifier 1&2 - 42" DIP 150 LF $500 $75,000 $75,000Post Clarifier 1 - 48" DIP 140 LF $1,000 $140,000 $140,000RAS Pipes - 16" DIP 660 LF $200 $132,000 $132,00016" DIP 45 Bend 5 EA $400 $2,000 $2,00048" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 $26,00030" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $4,000 $8,000 $8,00030" DIP 90 Bend 1 EA $5,600 $5,600 $5,60030" DIP Tee 1 EA $8,000 $8,000 $8,00048" DIP Tee 1 EA $26,000 $26,000 $26,000Excavation 2,583 CY $50.00 $129,167 $0 $0 $138,850Stone Bedding 646 CY $20.00 $15.00 $9,688 0.60 $47 $18,213 $18,210Hauling 2,583 CY $7.30 $18,858 $0 0.11 $47 $13,356 $36,090Backfill 646 CY $10 $6.00 $3,875 0.40 $57 $14,725 $18,600Dewatering 60 DAY $3,000.00 $180,000 $180,000Sheeting 19000 SF $30.00 $570,000 $570,000RAS Bldg Dewatering 90 DAY $1,500.00 $135,000 $135,000RAS Bldg Sheeting 4800 SF $30.00 $144,000 $144,000

Architectural New RAS Building 1,000 SF $250 $250,000 $250,000

Structural Curved Wall 608 CY $900.00 $547,200 $547,200Slabs, cast on grade - conical 1998 CY $650.00 $1,298,700 $1,298,700Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 222 CY $400.00 $88,800 $88,800Flowable Concrete Fill (3" Grout) 333 CY $200.00 $66,600 $66,600Piles (Assume 50' depth; est. 156 piles) 23400 LF $50.00 $1,170,000 $1,170,000Pile Caps/Tips 936 EA $100.00 $93,600 $93,600RAS Bldge Piles (Assume 50' depth; est. 20 piles) 1000 LF $50.00 $50,000 $50,000RAS Bldg Pile Caps/Tips 20 EA $100.00 $2,000 $2,000

MechanicalCenterfeed Clarifier Mechanism 3 LS $207,000 $621,000 $186,300 $807,300Weir and Scum Baffles 3 LS $38,000 $114,000 $34,200 $148,200Effluent Launders 3 LS $172,000 $516,000 $154,800 $670,800EDI 3 LS $61,000 $183,000 $54,900 $237,900Feedwell 3 LS $94,000 $282,000 $84,600 $366,600V-Plow Blades 3 LS $96,000 $288,000 $86,400 $374,400Sludge Valves/Pipes 3 LS $47,000 $141,000 $42,300 $183,300FRP Density Baffles 3 LS $45,000 $135,000 $40,500 $175,500Dbox upgrade - slab 126 CY $550 $69,300 $0 $69,300Dbox upgrade - walls 945 CY $850 $803,250 $0 $803,250Dbox upgrade: Weir Gate 3 LS $24,000 $72,000 $21,600 $93,600RAS Pumps 5 LS $24,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000RAS Pumps Piping Allowance 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $75,000

ElectricalElectrical & instrumentation 1 LS $990,000 $990,000 $990,000

General Conditions 8% $806,500 8% $1,100 8% $63,000 Subtotal $10,888,300 $14,700 $850,900 $11,754,000




ALTERNATIVE - 2 & 3 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTHEADWORKS BLDG ADDITION




Mobilization 1 LS $120,000 $120,000 $120,000Site Restoration 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

SitePre Headworks - 48" DIP 100 LF $1,000 $100,000 $100,00048" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 $26,000Excavation 185 CY $50.00 $9,259 $0 $9,260Stone Bedding 46 CY $20.00 $926 $15.00 $694 0.60 $47 $1,306 $2,930Hauling 185 CY $7.30 $1,352 0.11 $47 $957 $2,310Backfill 46 CY $10 $463 $6.00 $278 0.40 $57 $1,056 $1,800Dewatering 90 DAY $3,000.00 $270,000 $270,000Sheeting 7200 SF $30.00 $216,000 $216,000

Architectural New Building 5160 SF $250.00 $1,290,000 $1,290,000

Structural Slabs, cast on grade - flat 178 CY $550.00 $97,900 $97,900Channel Concrete 40 CY $700.00 $28,000 $28,000Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 15 CY $400.00 $6,000 $6,000Piles 4000 LF $50.00 $200,000 $200,000Pile Caps/Tips 81 EA $100.00 $8,063 $8,060MeterVaultPre-cast concrete vault 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $40,000Piles 500 LF $50.00 $25,000 $25,000Excavation & dewatering 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

MechanicalInfluent Distribution Structure - Slab 6 CY $550.00 $3,300 $3,300Influent Distribution Structure - Wall 29 CY $850 $24,650 $24,650Influent Distribution Structure - Gates 2 LS $24,000 $48,000 $14,400 $62,400Bar Screen - Screen 2 LS $170,000 $340,000 $102,000 $442,000Bar Screen - Washer/Compactor 2 LS $60,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000Grit Systems 1 LS $376,000 $376,000 $112,800 $488,800Influent Pump Station Pumps (50 hp) 2 EA $60,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000Influent Pump Station Pumps - Piping allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Magnetic Flow Meter 30" 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 $4,000 $44,000Flow Meter pipe fittings 36" 6 EA $9,000 $54,000 $5,400 $59,400Flow Meter - Plug Valves - 36" 3 EA $42,000 $126,000 $12,600 $138,600

ElectricalElectrical and Instrumentation 1 LS $390,000 $390,000 $390,000Emergency Generator Allowance 1 LS $250,000 $250,000 $250,000

General Conditions 8% $355,700 8% $100 8% $26,100 Subtotal $4,801,600 $1,100 $352,600 $5,155,000

Overhead & Profit 15% $720,200 15% $200 15% $52,900Subtotal $5,521,800 $1,300 $405,500 $5,929,000



ALTERNATIVE - 2 & 3 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTAERATION TANK UPGRADES





SitePost Aeration Tank - 48" DIP 90 LF $1,000 $90,000 $90,00048" DIP 90 Bend 2 EA $17,000 $34,000 $34,000Excavation 1,074 CY $50.00 $53,704 $0 $0 $53,700Stone Bedding 269 CY $20.00 $15.00 $4,028 0.60 $47 $7,572 $11,600Hauling 1,074 CY $7.30 $7,841 0.11 $47 $5,553 $13,390Backfill 269 CY $10 $6.00 $1,611 0.40 $57 $6,122 $7,73016" RAS piping 440 LF $200 $88,000 $88,00016" RAS Valving 3 EA $7,000 $21,000 $21,000

Structural Concrete Partition Wall 130 CY $850.00 $110,500 $110,500

MechanicalStep Feed (30" DIP) 490 LF $350 $171,500 $171,500Step Feed: Valve (30") 4 LS $30,000 $120,000 $120,000Step Feed: Valve (36") 2 LS $42,000 $84,000 $84,000

General Conditions 8% $68,000 8% $500 8% $1,500 Subtotal $868,500 $6,100 $20,700 $895,000

Overhead & Profit 15% $130,300 15% $900 15% $3,100Subtotal $998,800 $7,000 $23,800 $1,030,000

Contingency 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0TOTAL $999,000 $7,000 $24,000 $1,000,000






Mobilization 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $200,000Site Restoration 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000

SitePre Clarification Tanks (both pipes) - 42" DIP 110 LF $500 $55,000 $55,000Post Clarifier 2 - 42" DIP 160 LF $500 $80,000 $80,000Post Clarifier 1 - 42" DIP 20 LF $500 $10,000 $10,000Post Clarifier 1 - 48" DIP 130 LF $1,000 $130,000 $130,000RAS Pipes - 16" DIP 420 LF $200 $84,000 $84,00016" DIP 45 Bend 3 EA $300 $900 $90048" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $13,000 $26,000 $26,00042" DIP 45 Bend 2 EA $9,000 $18,000 $18,00042" DIP 90 Bend 1 EA $12,000 $12,000 $12,00048" DIP Tee 1 EA $26,000 $26,000 $26,000Excavation 1,556 CY $50.00 $77,778 $77,780Stone Bedding 389 CY $20.00 $15.00 $5,833 0.60 $47 $10,967 $16,800Hauling 1,556 CY $7.30 $11,356 0.11 $47 $8,042 $19,400Backfill 389 CY $10 $6.00 $2,333 0.40 $57 $8,867 $11,200Dewatering 90 DAY $1,500.00 $135,000 $135,000Sheeting 20000 SF $30.00 $600,000 $600,000

Structural Curved Wall 421 CY $900.00 $379,200 $379,200Slabs, cast on grade - conical 1442 CY $650.00 $937,300 $937,300Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 160 CY $400.00 $64,000 $64,000Flowable Concrete Fill (3" Grout) 240 CY $200.00 $48,000 $48,000Piles 15600 LF $50.00 $780,000 $780,000Pile Caps/Tips 624 EA $100.00 $62,400 $62,400

MechanicalCenterfeed Clarifier Mechanism 2 LS $207,000 $414,000 $124,200 $538,200Weir and Scum Baffles 2 LS $38,000 $76,000 $22,800 $98,800Effluent Launders 2 LS $172,000 $344,000 $103,200 $447,200EDI 2 LS $61,000 $122,000 $36,600 $158,600Feedwell 2 LS $94,000 $188,000 $56,400 $244,400V-Plow Blades 2 LS $96,000 $192,000 $57,600 $249,600Sludge Valves/Pipes 2 LS $47,000 $94,000 $28,200 $122,200FRP Density Baffles 2 LS $45,000 $90,000 $27,000 $117,000Dbox upgrade - slab 115 CY $550 $63,250 $0 $63,250Dbox upgrade - walls 776 CY $850 $659,600 $0 $659,600Dbox upgrade: Weir Gate 2 LS $24,000 $48,000 $14,400 $62,400RAS Pumps 3 LS $24,000 $72,000 $21,600 $93,600RAS Pumps Piping Allowance 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000









Quantity Material Equipment LaborNo. Basis Per Total Per Total Man $/Man Total Total

Units Unit Unit Hours Hour CostMobilization 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000Site Restoration 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000

SitePre Clarifier 3 - 30" DIP 120 LF $350 $42,000 $42,000Post Clarifier 3 - 30" DIP 200 LF $350 $70,000 $70,000Post Clarifier 2 - 42" DIP 130 LF $450 $58,500 $58,500Post Clarifier 1 - 48" DIP 90 LF $1,000 $90,000 $90,000RAS Pipes - 16" DIP 480 LF $200 $96,000 $96,00016" DIP 45 Bend 3 EA $300 $900 $90030" DIP 45 Bend 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 $4,00030" DIP 90 Bend 1 EA $5,600 $5,600 $5,60048" DIP Tee 1 EA $26,000 $26,000 $26,000Excavation 1,889 CY $50.00 $94,444 $0 $0 $94,440Stone Bedding 472 CY $20.00 $15.00 $7,083 0.60 $47 $13,317 $20,400Hauling 1,889 CY $7.30 $13,789 0.11 $47 $9,766 $23,550Backfill 472 CY $10 $4,722 $6.00 $2,833 0.40 $57 $10,767 $18,320Dewatering 90 DAY $1,500.00 $135,000 $135,000

Architectural New RAS Building 1,000 SF $250 $250,000 $250,000

Structural Curved Wall 133 CY $900.00 $119,700 $119,700Slabs, cast on grade - conical 514 CY $650.00 $334,100 $334,100Concrete fill (2" Mud Mat) 58 CY $400.00 $23,200 $23,200Flowable Concrete Fill (3" Grout) 86 CY $200.00 $17,200 $17,200Piles 6600 LF $50.00 $330,000 $330,000Pile Caps/Tips 264 EA $100.00 $26,400 $26,400RAS Bldge Piles (Assume 50' depth; est. 20 piles) 1000 LF $50.00 $50,000 $50,000RAS Bldg Pile Caps/Tips 20 EA $100.00 $2,000 $2,000

MechanicalCenterfeed Clarifier Mechanism 1 LS $207,000 $207,000 $62,100 $269,100Weir and Scum Baffles 1 LS $38,000 $38,000 $11,400 $49,400Effluent Launders 1 LS $172,000 $172,000 $51,600 $223,600EDI 1 LS $61,000 $61,000 $18,300 $79,300Feedwell 1 LS $94,000 $94,000 $28,200 $122,200V-Plow Blades 1 LS $96,000 $96,000 $28,800 $124,800Sludge Valves/Pipes 1 LS $47,000 $47,000 $14,100 $61,100FRP Density Baffles 1 LS $45,000 $45,000 $13,500 $58,500Dbox upgrade: Demo 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 $20,000Dbox upgrade: Weir Gate 1 LS $24,000 $24,000 $7,200 $31,200Dbox upgrade: Concrete walls 630 CY $850 $535,500 $0 $535,500Dbox upgrade: Concrete slab 114 CY $550 $62,803 $0 $62,803RAS Pumps 5 LS $24,000 $120,000 $36,000 $156,000RAS Pumps Piping Allowance 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $25,000 $100,000



Overhead & Profit 15% $653,800 15% $1,600 15% $54,300Subtotal $5,012,600 $12,300 $416,100 $5,441,000


ALTERNATIVE - 1, 2 & 3 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTWET WEATHER STORAGE UPGRADES



Quantity Material Equipment LaborNo. Basis Per Total Per Total Man $/Man Total Total

Units Unit Unit Hours Hour CostMobilization 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000

SitePiping for Station Monitors - Underground 20 LF $24 $482 $2 $44 0.62$ $38 $467 $990Piping for Station Monitors - Above Ground 217 LF $24 $5,230 $2 $482 0.62$ $38 $5,071 $10,780Excavation 37 CY $50.00 $1,852 $0 $0 $1,850Stone Bedding 9 CY $20.00 $15.00 $139 0.60$ $47 $261 $400Hauling 37 CY $7.30 $270 0.11$ $47 $191 $460Backfill 9 CY $10 $6.00 $56 0.40$ $57 $211 $270

MechanicalDemo 1 LS $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000Sloping 154 CY $550 $84,741 $0.00 $84,741 0.00 0 $25,422 $194,904Walkway 128 LF $500 $64,000 $0 $19,200 $83,200Station Monitors 5 LS $1,500 $7,500 $0 $2,250 $9,750Aeration Grid 4,480 SF $4.00 $17,920 $0 $5,376 $23,296Aeration Piping 150 LF $125 $18,750 $0 $18,750Sluice Gate (4'x4') 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 $0 $6,000 $26,000

General Conditions 8% $19,300 8% $100 8% $5,600 Subtotal $260,000 $85,600 $75,100 $421,000

Overhead & Profit 15% $39,000 15% $12,800 15% $11,300Subtotal $299,000 $98,400 $86,400 $484,000

Contingency 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0TOTAL $299,000 $98,000 $86,000 $500,000

www.ghd.com

Onondaga County, NY

Documents

Transcript of Onondaga County, NY