J.D. STRONG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

October 15, 2012

Mr. Chris Young, Chairman

STATE OF OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD

www.owrb.ok.gov

Lone Grove Water and Sewerage Trust Authority P.O. Box 304 Lone Grove, Oklahoma 73443-0304

Dear Mr. Young:

MARY FALUN GOVERNOR

Under the FY 2012 Appropriations Bill for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF), the Oklahoma Water Resources Board has the ability to provide additional subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness to projects that incorporate eligible "green" elements.

In reviewing the documentation provided by the Lone Grove Water and Sewerage Trust Authority in support of the $11,755,000.00 CWSRF funding request for Wastewater System Improvements (ORF-04-0011-CW), OWRB engineering staff have determined that approximately $3,735,535.53 is considered "green" according to EPA's Green Project Reserve Guidelines. Based on the funding available for Green Projects under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Lone Grove is eligible to receive $500,000.00 in CWSRF loan principal forgiveness. The final determination will be made prior to loan closing.

Attached please find the CWSRF Green Project Reserve Eligibility Determination Form completed for your project. Please keep this information for yout records. As required by EPA, this information will also be made available on the OWRB website at www.owrb.ok.gov.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have questions or need additional information. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,

·n-~ ~r~~:~an, Chief

Financial Assistance Division

Cc: · Allan BrookS, Bond Counsel Rick A Smith, Financial Advisor Michael J. Graves, Consulting Engineer Byju Sudhakaran, OWRB Engineer Sonia Mock, OWRB Analyst Lori Johnson, OWRB Environmental Specialist

owm WATER RESOURCES BOARD

the water agency

3800 N. CLASSEN BOULEVARD • OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73118 TELEPHONE (405) 530-8800 • FAX (405) 530-8900

F. Ford Drummond, Chairman • Linda P. Lambert, Vice Chairman • Tom Buchanan, Secretary Bob Drake • Marilyn Feaver • Ed File • Rudy Herrmann • Jason W. Hitch • Richard C. Sevenoaks

Name of System

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)

Green Project Reserve Eligibility Determination

CWSRF Project Number/ Loan Number C1ty of Lone Grove ORF-04-0011-CW

General ProJeCt Descnpt1on

The Proposed project cons1sts of three new l1ft stat1ons w1th pumps and motors, rehabilitate lagoon cells to convert them to flow eqUJ1izat1on basms, mstall27,290 LF of 8" grav1tyhnes, construct an extended aerat1on act1vated sludge WWTP at the new s1te The total cost IS est1mated as $11,141,872 00

GPR Component Descnpt1on

Item

Cascade Aerators Lift stat1on Pumps and Motors H1gh Eff1c1ency Extended Aerat1on Activated Sludge Fac11ity

Approved GPR Amount Prorated prorated eligible costs Total GPR Amount

Approved Subs1dy Amount (tf applicable)

Approved by ~ ~

BYJu Sudhakara,{~eer

Category·

Energy Eff1c1ency

Energy EffiCiency Enerqy Eff1c1ency_

"Categones Green Infrastructure/Water Efficiency/Energy Effte~ency/Env1ronmentally Innovative

$

140,368 00 257,580 00

2,652, 756 00

3,050, 704 00 684,831 53

Date

Categoncally Green (Yes/No)

No

No No

Busmess Case Reqwred? (Yes/No)

Yes

Yes Yes

CR-r .... oY.-o-c/1-c...J 1016 24th Avenue NW Norman, OK 73069

TEL 405 329 2555 FAX 405 329 3555

www GarverUSA.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

GP~

To: C1ty of Lone Grove Date: September 7, 2012

Attn: lan O'Neal, City Manager

From: Lance Klement, PE

RE: Lone Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvements Pr CWSRF Green Reserve Program

Purpose

SEP 11 2012

Oklahoma Water Resources Soard

The purpose of the Technical Memorandum (TM) is to document the energy sav1ngs of selected equipment for proposed Improvements for the Lone Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvements project. Th1s project has applied for and is slated to receive funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan ass1stance program. A recent initiative of the CWSRF

- program is the-Gre-en ProjecrResewe-{GPRrtuna,-wliich gr~lrils ptinc1ple forgiVeness o'n cfualltylfig equipment. This TM has been prepared w1th the specific intent of qualifying certain elements of the project which may be eligible for GPR fund1ng. Refer to the engineenng report for rnformatron not contained herem.

Summary

• The wastewater collection system improvements project for the City of Lone Grove proposes three new influent hft stat1ons. The hft stations are necessary to combrne the system's three lagoons mto one wastewater treatment plant. Gravity flow from the lagoons to the WWTP processes is not possible without lift stations at two of the lagoons and the WWTP site. The lift statrons at the lagoons will each require two pumps and motors, and the plant lift station will requ1re 3 pumps and motors. Thrs totals 7 pumps, motors, and assocrated infrastructure.

• Ant1c1pated Total Loan Amount = $11,141,872 Lagoon lift stat1on estimate (total)= $79,500 WWTP lift station estimate {total)= $178,080 Associated quahfyrng GPR professronalllegal/bond fees = $54,522

• Green Project Reserve total = $312,1 02 (2.8% of total project cost) • Annual average energy savings:

o North lagoon lift station = 39,984 Kw-Hr or$ 3,599 o South lagoon lift station = 10,503 Kw-Hr or$ 945 o WWTP hft stat1on = 13,696 Kw-Hr or $1,233

• Ant1c1pated total present worth savings over twenty years is $75,962. o North lagoon lift station= $53,553 o South lagoon lift station= $14,062 o WWTP lift station= $18,347

Mr O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 2 of 5

Background

• The upgraded WWTP Will have a treatment capacity of 0.34 mgd. • A new influent hft station and new lagoon pump stations are bemg installed with high efficiency

pumps and motors with the following operat1on points:

Installation Required No. of Flow Head

Pumps (gpm) (ft)

North Lagoon L1ft Stat1on 2 85 160

South Lagoon Lift 2 78 70

Station WWTP Lift Stat1on 3 120 50

• H1gh efficiency pumps and motors w1ll be mstalled to conserve energy. • Automatic floats and timers, along with VFDs for the WWTP lift station, have been Included to

max1m1ze the effiGiency of cycle t1mes of pumps, reduce operator hours, and conserve energy.

The facility costs are detailed in the December 2011 Engmeering Report for the project, and are as · follows:

WWTP Lift Stat1on $ 134,400 Collectron System Lift Statrons $60,000 Subtotal $_194,4_00 Contmgency and OH&P $48,600 Subtotal + Contingency_ & OHP EscalatiOn $ 14,580 Total Facility Construction Costs $257,580

Results

• North Lagoon Lrft Stat1on o The proposed new pumps Will have a rated effic1ency of 83.5% o The proposed new motors w1ll have a rated eff1c1ency of 92%

• South Lagoon Lift Station o The proposed new pumps will have a rated efficiency of 81.5%. o The proposed new motors Will have a rated efficiency of 92%.

• WWTP Lift Station o The proposed new pumps w111 have a rated efficiency of 69% o The proposed new motors will have a rated efficiency of 92%

Calculated Energy Efficiency

North Lagoon Lift Station • Standard pumps on the market have average efficiency ratings of 40 2%. • Standard motors on the market have average efficiency ratmgs of 75% • A standard system would consume an average of 118,224 Kw-hr annually.

Page 2 of 5

Mr. O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 3 of 5

• The wire-to-water efficiency is the pump efficiency time's motor efficiency. For standard pumps and motors for this application, the average efficiency is 0.36 or 36%.

• The wire-to-water efficiency of the high efficiency pump for this application is 0.92 X .835 = 0.77 or77%.

• Comparing the efficiencies of the proposed pumps and motors with standard pumps and motors: 77%/36% = 2.14.

• The Increased efficiency of the proposed pump over the standard pumps is 114%, which exceeds the 20% recommended miniJTlum efficiency for pumps and motors.

• Example of cost and energy savings a high efficiency pump that meets th.e criteria;

Demonstrating Energy and Cost Savings : North Lagoon Uft Station Pumps

Design condition of 85 gpm and 160 feet, TDH Usage based on 24 hrs/day, 365 days/year operation

High Efficiency Standard Pump Standard Pump

Pump Parameter Pump #1 #2

Flygt MP3127.17.0 Gorman Rupp,

Myers 4RC, Manufacturer U3B-B-1,

HT, 11 BHP 10.2 BHP

16.9 BHP

Voltage/ Phase -- 460/3 - 460/3 460/3 .·

Motor Efficiency, % --·~92 75 75

Pump Efficiency 83.5 33.8 46.5

Power usage, Kw-Hr/Yr 78,240 --------- - ·- 88,995 147,452

Power Save, Kw-Hr/Yr - .. i (10,754) (69,212) • Power Cost, $/Kw-Hr - $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09

Operational Cost, $/Yr $ ; 7,042• $ 8,010 $ 13,271

Savings, $/Yr - $ (968) $ (6,229) • .t ·" .•. -·· .

Savings, $/20-Yr ·(3% infl.) :" ':(;2. ... ~.~ $ (14,402) $ (91,688)

Base Standard Efficiency,% ' 0]7 0.37 0.35 ,.. ~

South Lagoon Lift Station • Standard pumps on the market have average efficiency ratings of 23%. • Standard motors on the market have average efficiency ratings of 75%. • A standard system would consume an average of 53,179 Kw-hr annually. • The wire-to-water efficiency Is the pump efficiency times motor efficiency. For standard pumps

and motors for this application, the average efficiency is 0.28 or 28%. • The wire-to-water efficiency of the high efficiency pump for this application is 0.92 X .815 =

0.75 or 75%. • Comparing the efficiencies of the proposed pumps and motors with standard pumps and

motors: 75% /28% = 2.68. • The increased efficiency of the proposed pump over the standard pumps is 168%, which

exceeds the 20% recommended minimum efficiency for pumps and motors. • Example of cost and energy savings a high efficiency pump that meets the criteria:

Page 3 ofS

. ..

Mr. O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 4 of 5

Demonstrating Energy and Cost Savings : South Lacoon Lift Station Pumps Design condition of 78 gpm and 70 feet, TDH Usage based on 24 hrs/day, 365 days/year operation

High EfficientY Standard Pump Standard Pump Pump Parameter Pump #1 #2

Flygt MP3.102.l70, Gorman Rupp,

Myers MSPD3, Manufacturer T48-.B-6,

6BHP 6.64 SHP

5.52 BHP

Voltage/ Phase 460/3 460/3 460/3

Motor Efficiency, % 92 75 75

Pump Efficiency .-· 81.5 20.7 25.3

Power usage, Kw-Hr/Yr 42,676 58,195 48,162

Power Save, Kw-Hr/Yr - (15,519) (5,485)

Power Cost, $/l<w-Hr $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.09

Operational Cost, $/Yr $ 3,841 $ 5,238 $ 4,335

Savings, S/Yr . .:.. --"''OJ. - $ (1,397) s {494) "· t.

Savings, $/20-Yr (3% infl.) co' - ~ $ (20,783) s (7,346)

Base Standard Efficiency, % 0.75 0.37 0.19

WWTP Lift Station • Standard pumps on the market have average efficiency ratings of 43.5%. • Standard motors on the market have average efficiency ratings of 75%. • A standard system would consume an average of 30,624 Kw-hr annually. • The wire-to-water efficiency is the pump efficiency times motor efficiency. For standard pumps

and motors for this application, the average efficiency is 0.36 or 36%. • The wire-to-water efficiency of the high efficiency pump for this application is 0.92 X .69 = 0.&3

or 63%. • Comparing the efficiencies of the proposed pumps and motors with standard pumps and

motors: 63%/41% = 1.75. • The increased efficiency of the proposed pump over the standard pumps is 75%, which

exceeds the 20% recommended minimum efficiency for pumps and motors. • Example of cost and energy savings a high efficiency pump that meets the criteria:

Page 4 of 5

.. ' , ~

-~~-----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 5 of5

Demonstrating Energy and Cost Savings : WWTP Uft Station Pumps DeS:ign condition of 120 gpm and 50 feet, TDH Usage based on 24 hrs/day, 365 days/year operation

High Efficiency Standard Pump Pump Parameter Pump #1

Gormann-Rupp Manufacturer

830-B-1, 238 BHP Hydromatic,

.... ....-.... - 30MPS, 3.81 BHP

Voltage/ Phase 460/3 460/3

Motor Efficiency, % 92 75

Pump Efficiency 69 40

Power usage, Kw-Hr/Yr 16.928 3'3, 242

Power Save, Kw-Hr/Yr - (16,314)

Power Cost, $/Kw-Hr $ 0.09 s 0.09

Operational Cost per 2 pumps, S/Yr $' - 3;250 ·-· s 5,984

Savings, $/Yr - $ (2,936)

Savings, $/20-Yr (3% infl.) - s {43,694} .......... ---- -- .. -&ase Standard Efficiency, % ~ 0.63 !.c 0.37

Engineering Fees

Standard Pump #2

Gormann-Rupp, 128-B-1 3.21 BHP

460/3

75

46.9

28,007

(11,079)

s 0.09

s 5,042

$ (1,994)

$ (29,674)

0.35

• GPR qualifying items (before professional fees)= $257,580 or 2.8% (total project cost less total professional fees)

• Total professional fees for the project= $1,947,213 o Engineering & Inspection fees= $1,634,513 o Bond Counsel fees= $84,800 o Local Counsel fees= $42,400 o Financial Advisor fees= $53,000 o Land and right of way acquisition = $132,500

• GPR qualifying professional fees= 2.8% x $1,947,21.3 = $54,522 • Total GPR qualifying funds = $257,580 + $54,522 = $312,10:2 (:2;8% of totaJ loan)

Conclusion • Energy efficient lift stations will save the City an average of 64,183 Kw-hr per year, which

equates to 47% less energy consumed. • At 9 cents per Kw-hr energy, reductions will res.ult in operations savings $5,776. • The total present worth savings due to energy efficiency over 20 years is $85,954.

Page 5 of 5

1016 241hAvenue NVI~O Norman, OK 73069 0

TEL 405 329 2555 FAX 405 329 3555 SEP 11 2012

www GarverUSA cort Oklaboma water Resources Board

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: City of Lone Grove

Attn: lan O'Neal, City Manager

From: Lance Klement, PE

Date: September 7, 2012

RE: Lone Grove Wastewater Collect1on System Improvements Project CWSRF Green Reserve Program

Purpose The purpose of the Techn1cal Memorandum (TM) 1s to document the energy savings of selected equipment for proposed improvements for the Lone Grove Wastewater Collectton System Improvements project. Th1s project has applied for and IS slated to receive fund1ng through the Clean WaterStateRevolving FuncncwsRF)-Ioanasslstance prog·ram. A recent ih1t1at1ve-of the-cWSRF -program is the Green ProJect Reserve (GPR) fund, wh1ch grants pnnciple forgiveness on quallfy1ng equipment. Th1s TM has been prepared with the spec1f1c 1ntent of qualifying certain elements of the proJect which may be ehg1ble for GPR funding. Refer to the engineering report for information not contairiedherein -- .

Summary • The wastewater collection system improvements project for the C1ty of Lone Grove proposes a

new cascade aerator as an alternative to a reaeration basin. The cascade aerator reqUJres no diffuser equ1pment, such as blowers, and no electnc1ty to effectively reaerate the effluent wastewater

• Anticipated Total Loan Amount = $11,141 ,872 Total cascade aerator construction cost est1mate = $140,368 Associated qualifying GPR professional/legal/bond fees = $29,208

• Green ProJeCt Reserve total ::::$169,576 (1.5% of requested loan) • Annual average energy savmgs = 32,662 Kw-Hr or $2,940. • Anticipated total present worth power and O&M sav1ngs over twenty years at 3% antiCipated

interest, and assuming power costs stay constant= $43,740 electncal costs+ $5,951 anticipated O&M costs (assum1ng $400/year O&M) = $49,691, or 35% of the cap1tal cost of the system. ·

Background • A new wastewater treatment plant project Will require reaeratron of the effluent wastewater. • The altemat1ves considered included a reaeration basJn with a dedicated blower, basin, and

diffusers, or a cascade aerator, wh1ch does not reqUire equipment or electnc1ty. • The reaeratron basin and associated equipment will have an estimated capital cost of

$133,000, whrle the reaeration bas1n 1s estimated to cost approximately $120,000. • The cascade aerator is being Implemented in an effort to save power and O&M requirements

-- -:-' ....... ,. •'

Mr lan O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 2 of 2

The facrllty costs are estimated to be approximately equal to the post aeratron basin detarled rn the December 2011 Engineering Report for the project, and are as follows:

Cascade Aerator $ 105,938 Subtotal $105,938 Contingency and OH&P $26,485 Subtotal + Contingency & OHP Escalation $7,945 Total Facility Construction Costs $140,368

Results • The cascade aerator arrangement was selected by the Crty of Lone Grove as the most

energy-eff1c1ent option requiring the least amount of overhead and marntenance. The proposed arrangement Will result in a 20 year cost savings of $82,692.

Calculated Energy Efficiency • It is assumed that a 5 horsepower blower Will run continuously each day to provide the

reaeration needed 1f a reaeratron basin were to be Implemented. • The annuaTpower consumption for this -process ean be c-alculated from-the -num-ber- of hours

the motor Will operate For the process, the estimated annual power consumption IS 32,662 kW-hr.

Engineering Fees • GPR qualrfyrng 1tems (before engineerrng fees)= $140,368 or 1.5% (total project cost"less

total professional fees) • Total professronal fees for the proJect (including escalat1on) = $1,947,213

o Eng1neering/Profess1onal fees= $1,634,513 o Bond council fees= $84,800 o Local counsel fees= $42,400 o Financial advisor fees= $53,000 o Land and nght of way acquisition= $132,500

• GPR qualrfy1ng professional fees= 1.5% x $1 ,947,213= $29,208 • Total GPR qualrfy1ng funds= $140,368 + $29,208 = $169,576 (1.5% of total loan)

Conclusion • An energy efficient cascade aerator wrll save the c;ity an average of 32,662 Kw-hr a year • Energy reductions wtll result 1n operations savrngs of $2,940 a year, at 9 cents per krlowatt­

hour. • The total present worth savings over the lrfet1me of the improvements, or 20 years, 1s $49,691

.. ,

1016 241h Avenue NW Norman, OK 73069

TEL 405 329.2555 FAX 405 329 3555

www.GarverUSA.com

otf- CL/ ... ooct -W G,P(l..

SEP 11 2012

Oldallama Water RIIOW'CGI Board

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: City of Lone Grove

Attn: lan O'Neal, C1ty Manager

From: Lance Klement, PE

Date: September 7, 2012

RE: Lone Grove Wastewater Collect1on System Improvements ProJect CWSRF Green Reserve Program

Purpose

The purpose of the Technical Memorandum (TM) IS to document the energy savrngs of selected equipment for proposed Improvements for the Lone Grove Wastewater Collection System Improvements project. ·This-project has applied for and 1s slated to·receive·fundlng·through the-clean­Water State Revolv1ng Fund (CWSRF) loan assistance program. A recent initiative of the CWSRF program is the Green Project Reserve (GPR) fund, which grants principle forgiveness on qualifying equipment. Th1s TM has been prepared with the specific intent of qualifying certain elements of the proJect wtiitli may be eligible fofGPR funaihg. Refer to the erigineeiin~freport for information not contained herern.

Summary

• A packaged extended-aeration act1vated sludge treatment process has been selected for the new Lone Grove Wastewater Treatmen.t Plant (WWTP). This treatment process Incorporates a variety of features to optimize energy consumption including common wall construction. a compact footpnnt, efficient aerat1on systems and operation, and energy recovery. When combined, all of these features provide the City of Lone Grove with an energy efficient solution to treat wastewater.

• Ant1c1pated Total Loan Amount= $11,141,872 Extended-Aeration Activated Sludge Total Fac111ty Costs = $2,652,756 Associated qualifying GPR professional/legal/bond fees= $562,745

• Green Project Reserve Total = $3,215,501 (28 9% of total project costs) • Annual Energy Savings= $22,761 • Anticipated Total Present Worth Savrngs, Over 20-Years = $383,255

r •

Mr lan O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 2 of 4

Background

A packaged extended-air act1vated sludge treatment process w1ll be utilized to prov1de aerat1on, clarification, and d1gest1on for the Lone Grove WWTP. The packaged system selected for the Lone Grove WWTP is the SEQUOX-Pius act1vated sludge process by Aero-Mod. The Aero-Mod SEQUOX­Pius process mcorporates common wall des1gn, a compact footpnnt, an efficient aeration system, and energy recovery to maxim1ze energy efficiency and treatment capabilities.

The SEQUOX-Pius activated sludge process mmim1zes power consumption, thereby mcreasing energy savings, in four key areas.

1. The aeration process is segmented into two separate stages, each contained w1th1n individual basms, The initial stage aeration aerates With fine bubble aeration (orgamc controlled environment). Fme bubble aerat1on in this apphcat1on maximizes oxygen transfer to the wastewater thus optimizing utilized horsepower m th1s stage. In contrast, the second stage uses the aerat1on to completely m1x the tank and is not focused on oxygen transfer. For th1s application, coarse bubble aeration will be used for second stage aeration (mixing controlled environment). Coarse bubble aeration maximizes the transfer ofmixmg energy-to the wastewater. By ut1lizmg fhe opt1mumt)tpes of aerat1on system for each application based on aeration requirements, oxygen transfer efficiencies and mixmg efficiencies are max1m1zed wh1le concurrently opt1m1zmg the overall energy usage for the oy~ral!il.~r:.atiQ.!'l ~Q.9~§_s. _ _ _ _ _ _

2. The Lone Grove WWTP will operate two s1milar, parallel trains w1th each train's lineup configured w1th separate zones for first stage aerat1on, second stage aeration, and · clanf1cation. The second stage aeration will be operated alternatively as a nitrification zone and then as a denitnficat1on zone Dunng mtnf1catlon, the aerat1on system w11i be operated The trains' tankage volumes are s1zed such that durmg denitnf1cat1on, an individual train's second stage's aeration can be turned off 1n the associated second stage aerat1on zones to develop anoxic zone conditions that achieve denitnf1cat1on. This operational flexibility min1m1zes daily fluctuations in the blower's energy use and el1mmates the reqUirement of having to turn the blowers on and off thus avoiding startup power peak demands.

3. The denitrification mode of operation recovers a portion of the oxygen demand and thus offsets the amount of energy requ1red to ox1d1ze the ammon1a mtrogen 1nto mtrate nitrogen. When the bactena use the chem1cal oxygen from the n1trates, this reduces overall oxygen reqUirements, thus reducing the total energy costs by reducing blower s1ze and operation. Also, aeration process' IS configured such that the demtnfication process occurs without the need for mechanicallelectncal Internal m1xed liquor recycle pumps and Without mechanical/electncal m1xers, further 1ncreas1ng energy sav1ngs.

4. The Aero-Mod process Includes clanf1er technology, referred to as a ClarAtor, that Includes no moving parts below the water surface. Use of the Clarator Technology reduces energy usage via two means. The f1rst energy savmgs is accomplished since, compared to traditional clanfier technology, the ClarAtor ehmmates the need for a drive mechanism. Influent to the clanfier 1s drawn from the surface· of the aeration basin through mlet screens and distributed uniformly across the lower port1on of the clarifier. Settling occurs under Ideal conditions since movmg sludge scrapers are not provided and eliminate any turbulence that could remix the setting solids. Secondly, settled solids are removed from

Mr. lan O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page 3 of 4

the bottom of the clarifier via stationary hydraulic suction hoods evenly spaced across the floor of the clarifier. Airlifts are attached to the piping leading from the tops of these hydraulic hoods. These pumps provide the suction lift required for rapid sludge removal but only use minimal energy to lift the return sludge over a common wall to the adjacent aeration basin. The clarification process provides energy efficiency since collector drives are eliminated and return sludge pumping requirements are minimized.

The facility costs are based upon the December 2011 Engineering Report for the project. and are as forlows:

Aeration Basins _$_.1 ,13_5.200 - - -

Secondary Clarifiers $497 184 Aerobic Digester $369,696 Subtotal $2,002 080 ' .. Contlnqency and OH&P $500 520 - ,_\ . -

Subtotal + Contingency & OHP Escalation $ 150 156 Total Facility Construction Costs $2,652,756

Results/Calculated Energy Efficiency

Assuming usage of 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, the potential energy savings for each of the previously discussed are.as are presented in the following table:

DescriptJon Potential Energy Savin's (HP/hr)

Kw-hr Total Kw/yr Annual Savinp

. - -r' . . I ... l 'Y 'r ,, I • • ~ r ··--~r·"T.":-~·~·..,. ._._ 1 .. '· · ··~- ....... ~ .... _ .......... f .r; t"'::

2. Alternatlnc Aeration to allow for De­Nitrification

4. Drive-Free Oarifler Mechanism

Total:

27.7

1.5

43.8

20.664 181,018 $16,292

1.119 9,802 $882

32.7 286,Z31 $2.5,761

2o-Year Present Worth: $383,255

As can be seen from the above table, Aero-Mod's SEQUOX-Pius extended aeration activated sludge treatment process is projected to save approximately $25,751 annually to the City of Lone Grove, assuming power costs of $0.09/kW-hr. Over 20 years, the savings are estimated to be approximately $383,244, assuming 3% inflation.

Mr ian O'Neal September 7, 2012 Page4of4

Engineering Fees • GPR qualifying 1tems (before eng1neenng fees)= $2,652,756 or 28.9% (total project cost less

total professional fees) • Total professional fees for the proJect (Including escalation)= $1,947,213

o Engineenng/Professional fees= $1,634,513 o Bond council fees= $84,800 o Local counsel fees= $42,400 o Flnanc1al adv1sor fees= $53,000 o Land and nght of way acquis1t1on= $132,500

• GPR qualifying professional fees= 28.9% x $1,947,213= $562,745 • Total GPR qualifying funds= $2,652,756 + $562,745= $3,215,501 (28.9% of total proJect

est1mate).

Conclusion • The Aero-Mod SEQUOX-Pius treatment process will potentially save the City of Lone Grove

286,231 Kw-hr annually. • Tfus savings results in approximately $25,761 per year. • The total present worth savmgs due to energy optim1zat1on over 20 years IS $383,244.