Loading...
Exhibit MSD 77I - 12255 Cost EstimatePHASE II STUDY Lower Meramec River WWTP St. Louis County, MO July 2008 MSD Project No. 2006167 HDR Project No. 000000000065483 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Study Submitted to: METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT 2350 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Project No. 2006167 Prepared by: HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 1807 Park 270 Drive Suite 105 St. Louis, MO 63146 Project No. 000000000065483 July 2008 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1-1 2.0 FLOW AND LOADING PROJECTIONS..........................................................2-1 2.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 FLOW PROJECTIONS..................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Projections During Phase I Design .....................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Average Daily Flows............................................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Flow Peaking Factors..........................................................................................................2-4 2.3 LOADING PROJECTIONS.............................................................................................2-6 2.3.1 BOD Loadings......................................................................................................................2-6 2.3.2 TSS Loadings........................................................................................................................2-6 2.3.3 Ammonia and TKN Loadings ...............................................................................................2-7 2.3.4 Phosphorus Loadings...........................................................................................................2-7 3.0 REGULATORY IMPACTS .................................................................................3-1 3.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................3-1 3.2 DISINFECTION...........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 NUTRIENT REMOVAL................................................................................................3-2 3.4 BLENDING FLOW REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................3-3 3.5 EFFLUENT DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................................................3-3 4.0 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION...........................................4-1 4.1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH.................................................................................4-1 4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA .....................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Flow and Loadings...............................................................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Effluent Quality ....................................................................................................................4-2 4.2.3 Process Design Parameters .................................................................................................4-3 4.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS........................................................................................4-4 4.3.1 Alternative 1a – TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP.................................................................................4-4 4.3.2 Alternative 1d – TF-Solids Contact-SBF-ChemP ................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Alternative 2a – Parallel TF-Solids Contact-SBF/AS-ChemP.............................................4-8 4.3.4 Alternative 2b – Parallel TF-Solids Contact-SBF/AS-BioP...............................................4-11 4.3.5 Alternative 3b – AS-BioP ...................................................................................................4-14 4.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS...................................................................4-16 4.5 EVALUATION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................4-17 5.0 DISINFECTION ....................................................................................................5-1 5.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................5-1 5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA .....................................................................................................5-1 5.2.1 Regulatory Requirements.....................................................................................................5-1 5.2.2 Design Flows and Conditions..............................................................................................5-2 5.2.3 Design Considerations and Assumptions.............................................................................5-2 5.3 DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................5-5 5.3.1 Alternative 1 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for All Three Phases......................................5-5 5.3.2 Alternative 2 – On-site Generation of 12.5% Hypochlorite for All Three Phases...............5-6 5.3.3 Alternative 3 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for Phase I and LP UV for Phases II and III 5-7 5.3.4 Alternative 4 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for Phase I and MP UV for Phases II and III5-8 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 iii 5.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS.....................................................................5-9 5.5 RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................5-10 6.0 SOLIDS EVALUATION.......................................................................................6-1 6.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................6-1 6.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................6-1 6.3 EXISTING FACILITIES OPERATION.............................................................................6-1 6.4 DESIGN SOLIDS PRODUCTION ...................................................................................6-2 6.5 SOLIDS DISPOSAL OPTIONS.......................................................................................6-3 7.0 RECOMMENDED EXPANSION PLAN............................................................7-1 7.1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH.................................................................................7-1 7.2 EXPANSION PLAN......................................................................................................7-1 7.2.1 Fine Screening .....................................................................................................................7-2 7.2.2 Grit Removal ........................................................................................................................7-3 7.2.3 Primary Clarifiers................................................................................................................7-3 7.2.4 Aeration Basins ....................................................................................................................7-3 7.2.5 Secondary Clarifiers ............................................................................................................7-4 7.2.6 Disinfection ..........................................................................................................................7-4 7.2.7 Solids Handling....................................................................................................................7-4 7.2.8 Effluent Peak Flow Pumping................................................................................................7-5 7.3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN..........................................................................................7-5 7.4 PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC PROFILE .........................................................................7-6 7.5 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ......................................................7-10 APPENDICES Appendix A – Cost Comparison of Treatment Alternatives Appendix B – Disinfection Cost Comparison Summary Appendix C – Meramec WWTP Hydraulic Profile Appendix D – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 – Meramec WWTP Design Flows (Projections made in 2002)...................................2-2 Table 2.2 – Summary of Hydraulic Peaking Factors...................................................................2-4 Table 2.3 – Meramec WWTP Recommended Peaking Factors ..................................................2-5 Table 2.4 – Meramec WWTP Revised Flow Projections............................................................2-5 Table 2.5 – BOD Loading Projections.........................................................................................2-6 Table 2.6 – TSS Loading Projections ..........................................................................................2-7 Table 2.7 – Ammonia Loading Projections.................................................................................2-7 Table 2.8 – TKN Loading Projections.........................................................................................2-7 Table 2.9 – Total Phosphorus Loading Projections.....................................................................2-8 Table 3.1 – Proposed Effluent Design Criteria............................................................................3-3 Table 4.1 – Meramec WWTP Flow Projections..........................................................................4-1 Table 4.2 – Meramec WWTP Loading Projections.....................................................................4-2 Table 4.3 – Meramec WWTP Effluent Design Criteria ..............................................................4-2 Table 4.4 – Process Design Parameters.......................................................................................4-3 Table 4.5 – Alternative 1a Facilities............................................................................................4-5 Table 4.6 – Alternative 1d Facilities............................................................................................4-7 Table 4.7 – Alternative 2a Facilities..........................................................................................4-10 Table 4.8 – Alternative 2b Facilities..........................................................................................4-13 Table 4.9 – Alternative 3b Facilities..........................................................................................4-16 Table 4.10 – Alternatives Capital Cost Comparison .................................................................4-17 Table 4.11 – Alternatives Operating Cost Comparison.............................................................4-17 Table 4.12 – Alternatives Present Worth Comparison ..............................................................4-17 Table 4.13 – Alternative 3b Evaluation Summary.....................................................................4-18 Table 5.1 – Anticipated Effluent Disinfection Regulatory Requirements...................................5-1 Table 5.2 – Design Flows and Conditions...................................................................................5-2 Table 5.3 – Comparison of Low vs. Medium Pressure UV Technologies ..................................5-3 Table 5.4 – Summary of Disinfection Alternatives .....................................................................5-5 Table 5.5 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection....................5-5 Table 5.6 – Alternative 1 System Features..................................................................................5-6 Table 5.7 – Alternative 1 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs ...........................................5-6 Table 5.8 – Alternative 2 System Features..................................................................................5-7 Table 5.9 – Alternative 2 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs ...........................................5-7 Table 5.10 – Advantages and Disadvantages of UV Disinfection...............................................5-8 Table 5.11 – Alternative 3 System Features................................................................................5-8 Table 5.12 – Alternative 3 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs .........................................5-8 Table 5.13 – Alternative 4 System Features................................................................................5-9 Table 5.14 – Alternative 4 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs .........................................5-9 Table 5.15 – Alternatives Capital and O&M Cost Comparison..................................................5-9 Table 6.1 – Solids Projections for Meramec WWTP Based on Current Production...................6-2 Table 6.2 – Solids Projections for Meramec WWTP Based on Mass Balance Model................6-3 Table 6.3 – Daily Dewatering Capacity with Expansion of Meramec WWTP...........................6-3 Table 6.4 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Solids Disposal Options ....................................6-4 Table 7.1 – Fine Screen Facilities................................................................................................7-2 Table 7.2 – Grit Removal Facilities.............................................................................................7-3 Table 7.3 – Primary Clarifier Facilities .......................................................................................7-3 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 v Table 7.4 – Aeration Basin Facilities...........................................................................................7-3 Table 7.5 – Final Clarifier Facilities............................................................................................7-4 Table 7.6 – Gravity Thickener Facilities .....................................................................................7-4 Table 7.7 – Sludge Storage/Blending Facilities...........................................................................7-5 Table 7.8 – Belt Filter Press Facilities.........................................................................................7-5 Table 7.9 – Cake Storage and Loadout Facilities ........................................................................7-5 Table 7.10 – Effluent Pumps .......................................................................................................7-5 Table 7.11 – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs of Phase II and III Expansions.............7-10 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 – Adjusted Average Daily Flow (ADF) Projections Extended to Year 2025 ............2-3 Figure 4.1 – Alternative 1a Flow Diagram..................................................................................4-5 Figure 4.2 – Alternative 1d Flow Diagram..................................................................................4-7 Figure 4.3 – Alternative 2a Flow Diagram..................................................................................4-9 Figure 4.4 – Alternative 2b Flow Diagram................................................................................4-12 Figure 4.5 – Alternative 3b Flow Diagram................................................................................4-15 Figure 7.1 – Meramec WWTP Phase II and III Flow Diagram...................................................7-2 Figure 7.2 – Preliminary Site Plan for Phase II and Phase III.....................................................7-7 Figure 7.3 – Primary Clarifier Train Profile................................................................................7-8 Figure 7.4 – Grit Tank Train Profile............................................................................................7-9 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 1-1 1.0 Introduction Phase I of the Lower Meramec River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Meramec WWTP) and the adjacent Baumgartner Lift Station began operation in March 2007. Phase I allowed decommissioning of the Baumgartner Lagoon, which served the Mattese Creek and Sub Area 7 collection systems, and the Meramec Lagoon, which served Arnold and Sub Area 8. Phase I also included approximately 22,000 feet of a 96-inch diameter tunnel from the former Baumgartner Lagoon location to the new Baumgartner Lift Station. Phase II is planned to extend the conveyance system to the existing Fenton WWTP, directing flows from the Fenton collection system to the Meramec WWTP and allowing decommissioning of the Fenton WWTP. Phase III is planned to extend the conveyance system from Fenton to the existing Grand Glaize WWTP, directing flows from the Grand Glaize collection system to the Meramec WWTP and allowing decommissioning of the Grand Glaize WWTP. The current schedule is for Phase II to be completed around 2015 and Phase III completed in 2025. The purpose of this Study is to evaluate the future needs at the regional Meramec WWTP. This Study is a compilation of technical memorandums developed between June 2007 and February 2008. The Study contains the following sections: • Flow and Loading Projections – Existing flow and loading data is evaluated to arrive at anticipated flow and loadings for Phases II and III. • Regulatory Impacts – Recent and anticipated regulatory changes are evaluated to identify probable impacts on future operating permits at the Meramec WWTP. • Treatment Alternatives Evaluation – Based on anticipated flows, loadings, and discharge permit limits, various expansion alternatives are evaluated, with one alternative recommended for future expansions. • Disinfection – A separate evaluation of disinfection alternatives is included with a recommendation for Phase I disinfection and future expansions. • Solids Evaluation – This Section includes an evaluation of expected solids generation and a summary of disposal options. • Recommended Expansion Plan – This Section presents details of the alternative recommended in the Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Section, and includes a preliminary site plan, hydraulic profile, and opinion of probable construction costs. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-1 2.0 Flow and Loading Projections 2.1 Background The newly constructed Meramec WWTP was sized to handle flow from the areas previously serviced by the Baumgartner Lagoon (Mattese Creek and Sub Area 7) and the Meramec Lagoon (Arnold and Sub Area 8). Phase II is planned to incorporate flows currently directed to the Fenton WWTP and Phase III incorporates flows currently directed to the Grand Glaize WWTP. The District’s current schedule is for Phase II to be completed around 2015 and Phase III completed in 2025. In order to evaluate expansion alternatives for the Meramec WWTP, future flows and pollutant loadings must be established as a basis for the evaluation. HDR has reviewed design basis information for the recently constructed Baumgartner Lift Station and Meramec WWTP, along with historic operating data for the former Baumgartner Lagoon, Meramec Lagoon, Fenton WWTP, and Grand Glaize WWTP. HDR was responsible for design of the recent expansion at the Fenton WWTP and the current expansion of the Grand Glaize WWTP and drew on these experiences to aid in determination of future flows and loadings for the Meramec WWTP. This Section includes review of the flow and loadings information from each of the design projects mentioned above, along with historic operating data and previous facility plans to project flow and loadings for future expansions (Phase II and Phase III) of the Meramec WWTP. The District has requested that flows from the Northeast Public Sewer District (NEPSD) be incorporated in these projections. A meeting was held on September 4, 2007 with Jeff Doss, NEPSD, in which Mr. Doss provided HDR with flow projections for the Phase II and Phase III timeframes. These projections are incorporated into this Section. 2.2 Flow Projections 2.2.1 Projections During Phase I Design As a matter of reference, the flow projections developed by the District’s consultants during Phase I Design (2002) are summarized in Table 2.1. Phase II projections included 5 MGD from the Fenton WWTP and 8 MGD from the NEPSD system. Phase III included incorporation of 25 MGD from the Grand Glaize WWTP and an additional 2 MGD from the NEPSD system. Note that the Phase III average flow was increased from 55 to 56 MGD since the concept for plant expansion was to mirror the Phase II plant, thereby doubling its capacity. Note that the listed peak hour flow for Phase III exceeds the Baumgartner Lift Station Phase III capacity of 202.5 MGD. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-2 Table 2.1 – Meramec WWTP Design Flows (Projections made in 2002) Average1 (MGD) Peak Month2 (MGD) Peak Day3 (MGD) Peak Hour4 (MGD) Phase I 15 34.5 42 60 Phase II 28 64.4 78.4 113 Phase III 56 128.8 157 226 Notes: 1. Design basis used by CH2MHill and confirmed by MSD. 2. Using peaking factor of 2.3 from Design Development Report dated January 2001. 3. Using peaking factor of 2.8 from Design Development Report dated January 2001. 4. Using peaking factor of 4.0 and confirmed by MSD. Phase II peak hour flow per Phase I Design Conformed Contract Documents, 11/03. 2.2.2 Average Daily Flows The flow projections in Table 2.1 were developed in 2001. Therefore, it is prudent to re-evaluate these projections using data and information obtained since the time these flows were developed. The average daily flow (ADF) for Phase I of 15 MGD was determined based on a projection of 1990-1997 data for the Baumgartner Lagoon and Meramec Lagoon service areas. This projection is contained in Draft Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 2 prepared by CH2MHill and dated January 26, 1999. The projection was for the year 2020, but the Phase III projection for this project must extend to 2025. Extrapolation of Figure 1 in the 1999 TM to the year 2025 indicates an ADF closer to 16 MGD (See Figure 2.1). However, a comparison of this projection to recent dry weather flow data indicates that it may be conservatively high. Therefore, the ADF projection for Phase I will remain at 15 MGD for the 2025 timeframe. The District’s current schedule is for Phase II to be completed by 2015. HDR completed design of an expansion to the Fenton WWTP in 2003 based on District projections of 6.75 MGD. This flow projection will be rounded up to 7.0 MGD for purposes of average daily flow (ADF) calculations. NEPSD has provided flow projections of 6 MGD for this same timeframe. Therefore, the Phase II ADF projection is calculated as follows: Phase II ADF = Phase I ADF + Fenton WWTP Projection + NEPSD Projection = 15 MGD + 7 MGD + 6 MGD = 28 MGD 2-3 Figure 2.1 – Adjusted Average Daily Flow (ADF) Projections Extended to Year 2025 !"#$$ %$$ & ’($")* +,-.+,-$//#!0$% * $1 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-4 Phase III is anticipated to take Grand Glaize WWTP off-line in 2025. HDR completed design of an expansion to the Grand Glaize WWTP in 2006. The flow projections for that expansion included an analysis of historic growth as well as population projections. The design was based on meeting an ADF of 21 MGD in 2025. NEPSD provided a projection of an additional 5.5 MGD (rounded up to 6.0 for ADF calculation below) for Phase III, for a total ADF from NEPSD of 11.5 MGD in 2025. Therefore, the Phase III ADF projection is calculated as follows: Phase III ADF = Phase II ADF + Grand Glaize Projection + NEPSD Projection = 28 MGD + 21 MGD + 6 MGD = 55 MGD Note that the Phase III ADF projection does not include any increase for the Fenton service area over the 7 MGD included in the Phase II ADF calculation. 2.2.3 Flow Peaking Factors A review of hydraulic peaking factors from previous studies, designs, and operating data was conducted and is summarized in Table 2.2 below. Peaking factors are highly dependent on the condition and characteristics of the collection system serviced by each WWTP. Therefore, applying identical peaking factors to Phase I through Phase III flows may not be the best approach, since the Meramec WWTP is designed to be a regional facility and will incorporate flows from a number of different collection systems. Table 2.2 includes peaking factors that have been calculated based on historic flows from 2004-2006 for the Baumgartner and Meramec Lagoons and 2004-2007 flows for the Fenton WWTP and the Grand Glaize WWTP. The peak month peaking factors for the operating data were calculated based on the maximum 30 day average flow for each year divided by the corresponding annual average flow and selecting the highest peaking factor. The peak day factors for the operating data were selected based on an average of the maximum day flow for each year divided by the corresponding annual average. Table 2.2 – Summary of Hydraulic Peaking Factors Peak Month PMF/ADF Peak Day PDF/ADF Peak Hour PHF/ADF Baumgartner Lift Station Design NA 2.8 4.5 1997 Facility Plan 1.43 NA 4.5 (Meramec WWTP) 7.0 (Fenton WWTP) 5.5 (Grand Glaize WWTP) Meramec WWTP Design 2.3 2.8 4.0 2004-2006 Baumgartner + Meramec Lagoons Data 1.5 1.9 NA 2004-2007 Fenton WWTP Data 1.7 3.1 NA 2004-2007 Grand Glaize WWTP Data 1.5 2.5 NA Based on the review of previous studies, designs and operating data, HDR is recommending that the peaking factors listed in Table 2.3 be used to evaluate future expansion alternatives. Phase I peaking factors have been changed from the factors used during Phase I design, which are shown in Table 2.2. These factors are more reflective of historic values from the operating data for the Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-5 Baumgartner and Meramec Lagoons and do not need to compensate for higher peaking factors applicable to Phase II and III projections, since they are only applied to the Phase I flows. The NEPSD system is operated with wet weather storage, and therefore peak hour flow is limited to twice the ADF. This peaking factor was conservatively used for the NEPSD peak day as well. The NEPSD peak month peaking factor was estimated to be 1.5 based on a summary of operating data for 2006 provided by NEPSD. The Phase III peak hour peaking factor for Grand Glaize has been limited to 4.0 in order to keep the Phase III peak hour flow within the design capacity of the Baumgartner Lift Station. The actual peak hour peaking factor at Grand Glaize is not known due to the fact that peak hour flows exceed the pumping capacity at the WWTP. The current peak hour peaking factor is something in excess of 4.6. Therefore, improvements will need to be made within the collection system to reduce I&I, or storage needs to be provided at Grand Glaize to reduce the peak hour factor to below 4.0. Table 2.3 – Meramec WWTP Recommended Peaking Factors Peak Month PMF/ADF Peak Day PDF/ADF Peak Hour PHF/ADF Phase I 1.5 2.2 4.1 Phase II (x Fenton Flow Only) 1.7 3.1 5.0 Phase II (x NEPSD Flow Only) 1.5 2.0 2.0 Phase III (x Grand Glaize Flow Only) 1.5 2.5 4.0 Phase III (x NEPSD Flow Only) 1.5 2.0 2.0 The recommended peaking factors in Table 2.3 were used to calculate revised flow projections for each Phase. The peaking factors for Phase II and III flows are applicable to the incremental flow increases for each respective Phase. For example, the Phase II Peak Month flow is calculated as follows: Phase II Peak Month = (Phase I ADF x 1.5) + (Fenton ADF x 1.7) + (NEPSD ADF x 1.5) = (15 MGD x 1.5) + (7 MGD x 1.7) + (6 MGD x 1.5) = 43.5 MGD The revised flow projections are presented in Table 2.4. Based on review of the information and data provided by the District, HDR recommends that these flows be used as the basis for evaluation of the WWTP expansion alternatives. Table 2.4 – Meramec WWTP Revised Flow Projections Average (MGD) Peak Month (MGD) Peak Day (MGD) Peak Hour (MGD) Phase I 15 22.5 33 61.5 Phase II 28 43.5 67 108.5 Phase III 55 84 130.5 202.5 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-6 2.3 Loading Projections 2.3.1 BOD Loadings The Phase I Design was based on an average BOD concentration of 151 mg/l. While this would be considered relatively low for typical domestic sanitary wastewater, it is in line with the values historically seen at the Fenton and Grand Glaize WWTPs and higher than what has been seen in recent years at the Baumgartner and Meramec Lagoon facilities. Recent influent data from these facilities is actually in the form of carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) and therefore not used as an estimate of total BOD. Therefore, the average BOD concentration of 151 mg/l will be carried forward for loading projections. The Phase I Design used a mass based peaking factor of 1.3 to determine peak month BOD loadings. This too is in line with historical data for the Fenton and Grand Glaize WWTPs and will be carried forward for loading projections. The Phase I Design information did not include a peaking factor for peak day BOD loadings, however, a mass based value of 2.67 was used in the recent Grand Glaize expansion and will be used for these projections as well. Table 2.5 summarizes the BOD loading projections for each Phase, based on the concentration and peaking factors mentioned above. Table 2.5 – BOD Loading Projections ADF (MGD) Avg. BOD (mg/l) Avg. BOD (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) Phase I 15 151 18,900 24,600 50,500 Phase II 28 151 35,300 45,900 94,300 Phase III 55 151 69,300 90,100 185,000 2.3.2 TSS Loadings The Phase I Design was based on an average TSS concentration of 207 mg/l. This is higher than values observed in the operating data over the past four years for the Baumgartner Lagoon, Meramec Lagoon, and Grand Glaize WWTP, but slightly lower than concentrations observed at the Fenton WWTP. However, the influent TSS values are suspect due to reported problems with solids build-up at the influent sampling location. Based on these observations, the average TSS concentration used in the Phase I Design will be carried forward as a conservative estimate for loading projections. The Phase I Design used a mass based peaking factor of 1.4 to determine peak month TSS loadings. This is in line with historic data at the WWTPs and will be carried forward for loading projections. The Phase I Design information did not include a peaking factor for peak day TSS loadings, however, a mass based value of 3.5 was used in the recent Grand Glaize expansion and will be used for these projections as well. Table 2.6 summarizes the TSS loading projections for each Phase, based on the concentration and peaking factors mentioned above. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-7 Table 2.6 – TSS Loading Projections ADF (MGD) Avg. TSS (mg/l) Avg. TSS (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) Phase I 15 207 25,900 36,300 90,700 Phase II 28 207 48,300 67,600 169,100 Phase III 55 207 95,000 133,000 332,500 2.3.3 Ammonia and TKN Loadings The Phase I Design did not include ammonia or total nitrogen removal, so there were no nitrogen projections provided in that information. However, ammonia sampling was conducted during the Grand Glaize expansion design, and an average ammonia concentration of 17 mg/l was established along with a TKN concentration of 25 mg/l. Recent ammonia and TKN sampling results at the Meramec WWTP are also similar to the concentrations used for the Grand Glaize expansion; therefore these concentrations will be used for loading projections at the Meramec WWTP. The BOD peaking factors listed above will be applied to the ammonia and TKN parameters since they typically track with BOD peaks. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 summarize the ammonia and TKN loading projections, respectively, for each Phase, based on the concentrations and peaking factors mentioned above. These concentrations and peaking factors should be verified through influent sampling prior to final design. Table 2.7 – Ammonia Loading Projections ADF (MGD) Avg. NH3 (mg/l) Avg. NH3 (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) Phase I 15 17 2,100 2,700 5,600 Phase II 28 17 4,000 5,200 10,700 Phase III 55 17 7,800 10,100 20,800 Table 2.8 – TKN Loading Projections ADF (MGD) Avg. TKN (mg/l) Avg. TKN (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) Phase I 15 25 3,100 4,000 8,300 Phase II 28 25 5,800 7,500 15,500 Phase III 55 25 11,500 15,000 30,700 2.3.4 Phosphorus Loadings There is little data available on influent concentrations of total phosphorus at the Fenton, Grand Glaize, or Meramec WWTPs. HDR recommends influent sampling for phosphorus to verify the assumptions made in this Section. Based on the other pollutant loadings and typical phosphorus concentrations in domestic wastewater, an average total phosphorus concentration of 6 mg/l will be used. The BOD peaking factors listed above will be applied to the phosphorus parameter. Table 2.9 summarizes the phosphorus loading projections for each Phase, based on the concentration and peaking factors mentioned above. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 2-8 Table 2.9 – Total Phosphorus Loading Projections ADF (MGD) Avg. TP (mg/l) Avg. TP (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) Phase I 15 6 800 1,000 2,100 Phase II 28 6 1,400 1,800 3,700 Phase III 55 6 2,800 3,600 7,500 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 3-1 3.0 Regulatory Impacts 3.1 Background In order to evaluate expansion alternatives for the Meramec WWTP, future discharge limits need to be established as part of the basis for the evaluation. Regulations affecting WWTP discharges are continually being revised and based on the anticipated timeframe for Phase II and III expansions at the Meramec WWTP (2015 for Phase II and 2025 for Phase III), it is safe to assume that additional parameters will be added to the operating permit and current limits will be further reduced. While we cannot say for certain what regulatory changes will impact the WWTP in Phase II and III, we can make projections based on current information and discussions within the regulatory community. The scope of this Section includes review of information related to probable regulatory changes that may impact the operation and expansion of the Meramec WWTP. Based on this review, HDR will recommend discharge parameters and corresponding limits to be used as the basis for evaluation of expansion alternatives. The major issues that are discussed in further detail in this Section include: • Disinfection • Nutrient Removal • Blending Flow Requirements 3.2 Disinfection The current NPDES permit for the Meramec WWTP contains fecal coliform limits that become effective on February 26, 2012. The permit allows the District to present an evaluation to show that disinfection is not required to protect one or both recreational uses (whole body contact or secondary contact recreation), or present a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) that demonstrates one or both designated recreational uses are not attainable in the classified waters receiving the effluent. The District has pursued the alternatives to disinfection with MDNR and determined that they will not be acceptable for the Meramec WWTP. Therefore, disinfection will need to be in place and operational by February 26, 2012. The current NPDES permit limit for fecal coliform is a monthly average of 400 colonies/100 ml with a daily maximum of 1000 colonies/100 ml. However, MDNR is in the process of revising the effluent regulations from fecal coliform to E. coli. In addition, EPA may require that the segment of the Mississippi River where the Meramec WWTP discharges, be designated as Whole Body Contact, potentially requiring the discharge to meet an E. coli limit of 126 colonies/100ml. These regulatory uncertainties make it prudent to proceed with an anticipated limit of 126 colonies/100 ml for purposes of evaluating expansion alternatives. The proposed E. coli limit will apply during the recreation season of April 1 to October 31 and is currently proposed as a 30-day geometric mean requiring 5 samples (minimum once per week) evenly spaced over 30 days. Another possible regulatory impact related to disinfection is the potential for future regulation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Regulation of DBPs would impact the method of disinfection Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 3-2 treatment. Disinfection using chlorine or ozone results in the formation of numerous DBPs. This must be considered when selecting and designing the disinfection system. If a method is chosen that generates DBPs, it should be adaptable to future conversion to an alternate disinfection method such as UV radiation. 3.3 Nutrient Removal MDNR is currently developing numeric nutrient standards for lakes and streams. Rivers will likely be addressed prior to Phase II expansion of the Meramec WWTP. The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently issued a draft report addressing the hypoxia issue in the Gulf of Mexico. The draft report places a strong emphasis on the need to control nutrient discharges from existing treatment plants along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The suggested limits in the draft report are as follows and considered the limit of current technology: Total Nitrogen (TN) = 3.0 mg/l Total Phosphorus (TP) = 0.3 mg/l Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) responded to this EPA report and suggested further work was needed for 1) cost analyses, 2) watersheds modeling and 3) consideration of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), because it impacts 25 states with different nutrient concentrations, discharge volume and quantity of point sources versus non point sources. KDHE explained that Kansas standards are technology-based on biological nutrient removal and set at: TN = 8.0 mg/l TP = 1.5 mg/l The level of nutrient limits currently applied in Kansas would require BOD and TSS removals to 20 mg/l or less because 7 to 10% of the effluent TSS will be particulate nitrogen and 2 to 7% of the effluent TSS will be particulate phosphorus (phosphorus percentage depends on whether or not biological phosphorus removal is implemented). Additionally, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate and organic nitrogen will add to the effluent total nitrogen value, and orthophosphate, poly/condensed phosphate and organic phosphorus will add to the total phosphorus value. The more stringent requirement that the SAB identified would require additional treatment including effluent filtration to achieve BOD and TSS levels of 5 mg/l or less and chemical feed systems to provide adequate carbon source for the denitrification process and precipitate any remaining soluble phosphorus compounds such as orthophosphates. Based on the current regulatory direction and nutrient removal requirements being implemented around the country, it is reasonable to assume that the Meramec WWTP will eventually be required to incorporate nutrient removal. It is very possible that nutrient limits will be placed on the plant prior to the Phase II expansion. The current NPDES permit requires monitoring for numerous forms of nitrogen and total phosphorus, which is a good indicator of future parameters to be limited. The level of nutrient removal that will be required is highly speculative at this point. A prudent approach is to evaluate alternatives that will reach the lower limits of biological nutrient removal Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 3-3 (BNR), similar to what is being enacted in Kansas and other states currently, allowing for future incorporation of enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) to reach the level of limits being proposed by the SAB. 3.4 Blending Flow Requirements Phase I of the Meramec WWTP was designed to handle a peak hour flow of 60 MGD. The secondary treatment system (trickling filters and final clarifiers) was designed to handle approximately 43 MGD of this flow. The remaining 17 MGD is diverted around secondary treatment following primary treatment and then blended with flow from the secondary treatment system at the Effluent Box. This blending practice has been commonly used at WWTPs within the District and others in Missouri. However, this practice has not been adequately addressed in federal and state regulations, so EPA proposed a policy in 2003, which was modified and re- proposed in December 2005. The policy has not been finalized, but key provisions include: • Blending will only be allowed if no feasible alternatives exist. • Diversions must receive a minimum of primary treatment and blended with effluent from secondary treatment prior to disinfection. • Blended flow must be monitored and meet NPDES permit limits. • Blending to be specifically addressed in NPDES permit. • Dry weather diversions are not allowed. It should be noted that EPA officials have stated that in the future, wet weather flow diversions should be eliminated from most WWTPs serving separate sanitary sewer collection systems. With this goal in mind, the final policy will likely contain stringent requirements for the regulated community to prove that there are no feasible alternatives to blending flow at each WWTP. It should also be noted that many states are not allowing blending, especially at newer WWTPs not serving combined sewer collection systems. For the Meramec WWTP, it is prudent to evaluate the feasibility of sizing the secondary treatment and disinfection systems to handle the peak hour flows (identified in Section 2) as part of the expansion alternatives analysis 3.5 Effluent Design Criteria Based on the evaluation of probable regulatory impacts and general trends currently being observed around the country, HDR proposes to use the parameters and corresponding limits presented in Table 3.1 as the basis for evaluation of expansion alternatives at the Meramec WWTP for Phases II and III. These limits will apply to the entire peak hour flow through the plant. Table 3.1 – Proposed Effluent Design Criteria Parameter Weekly Avg. (mg/l) Monthly Avg. (mg/l) BOD 25 20 TSS 25 20 TN 10.0 8.0 TP 1.5 1.0 E. Coli - 126 colonies Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 3-4 Note that the evaluation of expansion alternatives will consider future incorporation of ENR to achieve a total nitrogen limit on the order of 3.0 mg/l and a total phosphorus limit on the order of 0.3 mg/l. Since ENR technologies are rapidly evolving, a detailed evaluation will not be included in the expansion alternatives analysis. The analysis will address probable ENR space requirements. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-1 4.0 Treatment Alternatives Evaluation 4.1 Background and Approach This Section presents the expansion alternatives for the Phase II and Phase III build-out conditions at the Meramec Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Phase II will incorporate flows and loadings from the Fenton WWTP and is currently scheduled for construction in the 2015 timeframe. Phase III will incorporate flows and loadings from the Grand Glaize WWTP and is currently scheduled for construction in the 2025 timeframe. Sixteen alternatives were discussed in the Process Alternatives Workshop held on November 14, 2007. Five alternatives (1a, 1d, 2a, 2b, and 3b) were selected for further evaluation. The Alternatives Analysis is presented in Subsection 4.3 and includes the following elements for each alternative: o Description o Process Flow Diagram o Facility Additions/Modifications (for Phase II) For purposes of this evaluation, it is being assumed that nutrient limits, requiring biological nutrient removal (BNR) level technology, will be in place when the Phase II expansion occurs. The evaluation considers adaptability of each alternative to be modified to include enhanced nutrient removal (ENR). The nutrient limits used for this evaluation are discussed in Subsection 4.2. Subsection 4.4 presents a cost comparison of all five alternatives that includes capital and operation cost estimates. The costs presented in Subsection 4.4 do not reflect the total expected cost of Phase II expansion; they only include costs necessary for comparison of alternatives and do not include costs common to all alternatives. Finally, Subsection 4.5 presents a summary of the alternatives evaluation and HDR’s recommendation for the selected alternative. 4.2 Design Criteria 4.2.1 Flow and Loadings The flow and loadings for each phase of the Meramec WWTP were developed in Section 2 and are summarized in the tables below. Table 4.1 – Meramec WWTP Flow Projections Average (MGD) Peak Month (MGD) Peak Day (MGD) Peak Hour (MGD) Phase I 15 22.5 33 61.5 Phase II 28 43.5 67 108.5 Phase III 55 84 130.5 202.5 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-2 Table 4.2 – Meramec WWTP Loading Projections Average Day (mg/l) Average Day (lb/day) Peak Month (lb/day) Peak Day (lb/day) BOD Phase I 151 18,900 24,600 50,500 Phase II 151 35,300 45,900 94,300 Phase III 151 69,300 90,100 185,000 TSS Phase I 207 25,900 36,300 90,700 Phase II 207 48,300 67,600 169,100 Phase III 207 95,000 133,000 332,500 Ammonia Phase I 17 2,100 2,700 5,600 Phase II 17 4,000 5,200 10,700 Phase III 17 7,800 10,100 20,800 TKN Phase I 25 3,100 4,000 8,300 Phase II 25 5,800 7,500 15,500 Phase III 25 11,500 15,000 30,700 Total Phosphorus Phase I 6 800 1,000 2,100 Phase II 6 1,400 1,800 3,700 Phase III 6 2,800 3,600 7,500 4.2.2 Effluent Quality Based on an evaluation of probable regulatory impacts, effluent quality design criteria were proposed as presented in Section 3 and agreed upon by the District in the Process Alternatives Workshop on November 14, 2007. These criteria are presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 – Meramec WWTP Effluent Design Criteria Parameter Weekly Average (mg/l) Monthly Average (mg/l) BOD 25 20 TSS 25 20 Total Nitrogen 10 8 Total Phosphorus 1.5 1 E. Coli - 126 colonies Note that the evaluation of expansion alternatives will consider future incorporation of ENR to achieve a total nitrogen limit on the order of 3.0 mg/l and a total phosphorus limit on the order of 0.3 mg/l. Since ENR technologies are rapidly evolving, a detailed evaluation will not be Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-3 included in the expansion alternatives analysis. The analysis will address probable ENR space requirements. 4.2.3 Process Design Parameters The process design parameters used as a basis for the alternatives analysis are presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 – Process Design Parameters Process Unit Design Flow Design Criteria and Basis Primary Clarifier Peak Hour HRT = 1 hr OFR = 3,500 gal/ft2.d Trickling Filter Peak Day 90 lb BOD/1,000 ft3.d Peak Hour Hydraulic Capacity = 15,000 gpm/TF Intermediate Clarifier Peak Hour HRT = 1 hr OFR = 3,500 gal/ft2.d Nitrification Activated Sludge Peak Month Aerobic SRT = 12 days at 10oC MLSS = 2,500 mg/L BOD, N/DN Activated Sludge Peak Month Aerobic SRT = 12 days at 10oC MLSS = 3,500 mg/L Secondary Clarifier Peak Hour HRT = 2 hrs SOR = 1,200 gal/ft2.d SOR = 60 lb/ft2.d Biological Aerated Filter (for nitrification) Peak Month HLR = 4.5 gpm/ft2 BOD Loading Rate = 90 lb/1,000 ft3.d Ammonia Loading Rate =33 lb/1,000 ft3.d TSS Loading Rate = 110 lb/1,000 ft3.d Peak Hour HLR = 10 gpm/ft2 Backwash 8 gpm/ ft2 Duration = 20 minutes Frequency = 24 hours Submerged Biological Filter (for denitrification) Peak Month HLR = 4.5 gpm/ft2 HRT = 15 minutes Peak Hour HLR = 10 gpm/ft2 HRT = 10 minutes Backwash 8 gpm/ ft2 Duration = 20 minutes Frequency = 24 hours Notes: HLR – Hydraulic Loading Rate HRT – Hydraulic Retention Time MLSS – Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids OFR – Overflow Rate SOR – Surface Overflow Rate Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-4 4.3 Alternatives Analysis The five short-listed alternatives fall into three categories: 1. Alternatives that are based on adding equipment to the existing trickling filter treatment train to treat Phase II flows – Alternatives 1a and 1d. 2. Alternatives that are based on adding equipment to the existing trickling filter treatment train to treat a portion of the Phase II flows and a separate, parallel treatment train to treat the remainder of the Phase II flows – Alternatives 2a and 2b. 3. An alternative that abandons the existing secondary treatment system and adds an entirely new secondary treatment train to handle all Phase II flows – Alternative 3b. Each alternative has been modeled using HDR’s EnVision mass balance model, and the BioWIN biological process model to arrive at equipment sizes and process rates necessary to determine relative capital costs and operating costs for comparison of the alternatives. All alternatives are modeled assuming that the existing perforated plate fine screens will be expanded per plan prior to primary treatment. The modeling does not include disinfection. Section 5 evaluates the alternatives for disinfection. Solids handling will be similar for all alternatives, so it is not included in this evaluation. Solids handling is addressed in Section 6 and Section 7 Recommended Expansion Plan will include solids handling improvements for the recommended alternative. 4.3.1 Alternative 1a – TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP 4.3.1.1 Description The process flow diagram for Alternative 1a is illustrated in Figure 4.1. In this alternative, the influent flow will follow these process steps: o Primary clarifiers with ferric addition to enhance primary clarification for reducing BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units and also provide chemical phosphorus removal. o Trickling filters for biological removal of BOD. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. o Biological aerated filters (BAF) for nitrification. o Submerged biological filters (SBF) with methanol addition for denitrification. o Disinfection for E. Coli destruction. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-5 Facilities Ferric to primaries Add Primaries TF for BOD removal BAF for nitrification SBF for denitrification To Disinfection Ferric MeOH BAF MeOH BAF SBF 28 GritGrit 15 Flow Liquid Solid Peak15FlowLiquidSolidPeak Figure 4.1 – Alternative 1a Flow Diagram 4.3.1.2 Facility Additions/Modifications The facility additions necessary for Alternative 1a are presented in Table 4.5. The table also includes chemical addition and various process pumping requirements. Note that the listed flowrates may contain recycle flows. Table 4.5 – Alternative 1a Facilities Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit Primary Clarifiers 2 4 90 ft diameter 15.5 ft deep Ferric Addition 5,627 lb/d average day 25,570 lb/d peak day Primary Sludge Pumps 3 4 500 gpm Flow around TF 0 mgd average day 71 mgd peak hour TF Pumping 32 mgd average day 43 mgd peak hour Trickling Filters 2 0 120 ft diameter 24 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifiers 2 0 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep Secondary Sludge Pumps 3 0 500 gpm BAF Pumping 32 mgd average day 113 mgd peak hour BAF 0 10 56 ft long CS FS PC TF SC GT SB BFP Legend AER – Aeration AN – Anaerobic ANX – Anoxic BAF – Biological Aerated Filters BFP – Belt Filter Press CS – Coarse Screen FRM - Fermenter FS – Fine Screen GR – Grit Removal GT – Gravity Thickener PC – Primary Clarifier SB – Sludge Blending SBF – Submerged Biological Filters SC – Secondary Clarifier TF – Trickling Filter BAF SBF Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-6 Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit 28 ft wide 11.5 ft deep BAF Process Air 5,645 scfm average day 23,380 scfm peak day BAF Filter Backwash Pumps 0 3 12,720 gpm Methanol Dosage Rate 5,965 lb/d average day 20,000 lb/d peak day Flow around SBF 0 mgd average day 63 mgd peak hour SBF Pumping 30 mgd average day 48 mgd peak hour SBF 0 7 50 ft long 25 ft wide 8.2 ft deep SBF Filter Backwash Pumps 0 3 10,160 gpm 4.3.2 Alternative 1d – TF-Solids Contact-SBF-ChemP 4.3.2.1 Description The process flow diagram for Alternative 1d is illustrated in Figure 4.2. In this alternative, the influent flow will follow these process steps: o Primary clarifiers with ferric addition to enhance primary clarification for reducing BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units and also provide chemical phosphorus removal. o Trickling filters for biological removal of BOD. o Intermediate clarification for TSS removal. o Solids Contact to remove the remaining BOD and for nitrification. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. o Submerged biological filters (SBF) with methanol addition for denitrification. o Disinfection for E. Coli destruction. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-7 Facilities Ferric to primaries Add Primaries TF for BOD removal AS/SC for nitrification SBF for denitrification To Disinfection Ferric SC MeOH SBF 28 GritGrit 15 Flow Liquid Solid Peak15FlowLiquidSolidPeak Figure 4.2 – Alternative 1d Flow Diagram 4.3.2.2 Facility Additions/Modifications The facility additions necessary for Alternative 1d are presented in Table 4.6. The table also includes chemical addition and various process pumping requirements. Note that the listed flowrates may contain recycle flows. Table 4.6 – Alternative 1d Facilities Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit Primary Clarifiers 2 4 90 ft diameter 15.5 ft deep Ferric Addition 5,292 lb/d average day 25,090 lb/d peak day Primary Sludge Pumps 3 4 500 gpm Flow around TF 0 mgd average day 69 mgd peak hour TF Pumping 30 mgd average day 43 mgd peak day Trickling Filters 2 0 120 ft diameter 24 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifiers 2 0 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep Secondary Sludge Pumps 3 0 800 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification 0 2 0.0 MG anaerobic 0.0 MG anoxic 4.0 MG aerobic CS FS PC TF SC GT SB BFP SC Legend AER – Aeration AN – Anaerobic ANX – Anoxic BAF – Biological Aerated Filters BFP – Belt Filter Press CS – Coarse Screen FRM - Fermenter FS – Fine Screen GR – Grit Removal GT – Gravity Thickener PC – Primary Clarifier SB – Sludge Blending SBF – Submerged Biological Filters SC – Secondary Clarifier TF – Trickling Filter UV – Ultraviolet Disinfection SBF Solids Contact Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-8 Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit AS Blower Requirements 9,510 scfm average day 32,570 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 0 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumping (bioP) 0 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Secondary Clarifiers 0 6 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 7 5,500 gpm WAS pumping 0 2 100 gpm Methanol Feed 7,769 lb/d 19,229 lb/d Flow around SBF 0 mgd average day 62 mgd peak day SBF Pumping 30 mgd average day 48 mgd peak day SBF 0 7 50 ft long 25 ft wide 8.2 ft deep SBF Filter Backwash Pumps 0 3 10,160 gpm 4.3.3 Alternative 2a – Parallel TF-Solids Contact-SBF/AS-ChemP 4.3.3.1 Description The process flow diagram for Alternative 2a is illustrated in Figure 4.3. In this alternative, the influent flow will be split in two parallel process trains following the fine screens: o 15 mgd will be routed to the trickling filter train, which consists of: o Primary clarifiers with ferric addition to enhance primary clarification for reducing BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units and also provide chemical phosphorus removal. o Trickling filters for biological removal of BOD. o Intermediate clarification for TSS removal. o Solids Contact to remove the remaining BOD and for nitrification. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. o Submerged biological filters (SBF) with methanol addition for denitrification. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-9 o The remaining flow will go to a parallel activated sludge train, which consists of: o Primary clarifiers with ferric addition to enhance primary clarification for reducing BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units and also provide chemical phosphorus removal. o Activated sludge process using the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process for additional BOD removal, nitrification and denitrification. The MLE system has an anoxic zone followed by an aerobic zone, where nitrate is denitrified to nitrogen gas. Return activated sludge (RAS) returned from the secondary clarifier is introduced into the anoxic zone. A separate nitrate recycle will also bring both mixed liquor and nitrate back from the aerobic zone to the first anoxic zone. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. The flow from the two process trains will then be recombined and routed to disinfection. Facilities Ferric to primaries Add Primaries Two trains: •TF train –<15 mgd -AS/SC for nitrification -SBF for denitrification * AS train for NDN –>13 mgd To Disinfection Ferric SC MeOH SBF Ferric 15 13 GritGrit 15 Flow Liquid Solid Peak15FlowLiquidSolidPeak Figure 4.3 – Alternative 2a Flow Diagram 4.3.3.2 Facility Additions/Modifications The facility additions necessary for Alternative 2a are presented in Table 4.7. The table also includes chemical addition and various process pumping requirements. Note that the listed flowrates may contain recycle flows. CS FS PC TF SC GT SB BFP SC PC AN/ANX SC Legend AER – Aeration AN – Anaerobic ANX – Anoxic BAF – Biological Aerated Filters BFP – Belt Filter Press CS – Coarse Screen FRM - Fermenter FS – Fine Screen GR – Grit Removal GT – Gravity Thickener PC – Primary Clarifier SB – Sludge Blending SBF – Submerged Biological Filters SC – Secondary Clarifier TF – Trickling Filter UV – Ultraviolet Disinfection SBF Solids Contact Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-10 Table 4.7 – Alternative 2a Facilities Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit Primary Clarifiers 2 4 90 ft diameter 15.5 ft deep Ferric Addition 5,125 lb/d average day 24,740 lb/d peak day Primary Sludge Pumps 3 4 500 gpm TF Pumping 15 mgd average day 44 mgd peak hour AS Flow 14 mgd average day 68 mgd peak day Trickling Filters 2 0 120 ft diameter 24 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifiers 2 0 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifier Sludge Pumps 3 1 500 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification 0 1 0.0 MG anaerobic 0.0 MG anoxic 4.0 MG aerobic Nit AS Blower Requirements 4,282 scfm average day 11,350 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 0 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (bioP) 0 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Secondary Clarifiers AS-Nit 0 3 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 4 5,500 gpm WAS pumping 0 2 100 gpm Methanol Dosage Rate 3,843 lb/d average day 9,480 lb/d peak day Flow around SBF 0 mgd average day 20 mgd peak hour SBF Pumping 15 mgd average day 22 mgd peak hour SBF 0 6 38 ft long 19 ft wide 8.2 ft deep SBF Filter Backwash Pumps 0 2 5,632 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification- Denitrification 0 2 0.0 MG anaerobic 0.7 MG anoxic 2.8 MG aerobic AS N/DN Blower Requirements 7,875 scfm average day Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-11 Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit 20,280 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 43 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (bioP) 0 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 42 HP Secondary Clarifiers AS N/DN 0 4 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 5 4,000 gpm WAS pumping 0 2 100 gpm 4.3.4 Alternative 2b – Parallel TF-Solids Contact-SBF/AS-BioP 4.3.4.1 Description The process flow diagram for Alternative 2b is illustrated in Figure 4.4. In this alternative, the influent flow will be split in two parallel process trains following the fine screens: o 15 mgd will be routed to the trickling filter train, which consists of: o Primary clarifiers with ferric addition to enhance primary clarification for reducing BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units and also provide chemical phosphorus removal. o Trickling filters for biological removal of BOD. o Intermediate clarification for TSS removal. o Solids Contact to remove the remaining BOD and for nitrification. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. o Submerged biological filters (SBF) with methanol addition for denitrification. o The remaining of the flow will go to the activated sludge train, which consists of: o Activated sludge process using the A2O (anaerobic, anoxic, oxic) process for BOD removal, nitrification, denitrification and biological phosphorus removal. The A2O system has an anaerobic zone followed by an anoxic zone followed by an aerobic zone. Nitrates are denitrified to nitrogen gas in the anoxic zone. The anaerobic/aerobic zones allow biological phosphorus removal by releasing (anaerobic zone) and then luxury uptaking (aerobic zone) the phosphorus. Return activated sludge (RAS) returned from the secondary clarifier is introduced into the anaerobic zone. A separate nitrate recycle will also bring both mixed liquor Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-12 and nitrate back from the aerobic zone to the first anoxic zone. The system will be designed to also allow operation in the mUCT mode (modified University of Cape Town). The mUCT mode is similar to the A2O process except that the RAS is recycled to the anoxic stage instead of the aerobic stage, and a separate internal recycle goes from the anoxic to the anaerobic stage. In the design, a recycle from the anoxic to the anaerobic zone will be added to enhance biological phosphorus removal and the RAS will be returned to the second anaerobic tank. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. The flow from the two process trains will then be recombined and routed to disinfection. Facilities Two trains: * TF train –<15 mgd -Ferric to primaries -AS/SC for nitrification -SBF for denitrification * AS train BioP –>13 mgd -No Primaries -AS (BioP & NDN) To Disinfection Ferric SC MeOH SBF 15 13 GritGrit 15 Flow Liquid Solid Peak15FlowLiquidSolidPeak Figure 4.4 – Alternative 2b Flow Diagram CS FS PC TF SC GT SB BFP SC AN/ANX/AER SC Legend AER – Aeration AN – Anaerobic ANX – Anoxic BAF – Biological Aerated Filters BFP – Belt Filter Press CS – Coarse Screen FRM - Fermenter FS – Fine Screen GR – Grit Removal GT – Gravity Thickener PC – Primary Clarifier SB – Sludge Blending SBF – Submerged Biological Filters SC – Secondary Clarifier TF – Trickling Filter UV – Ultraviolet Disinfection SBF Solids Contact Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-13 4.3.4.2 Facility Additions/Modifications The facility additions necessary for Alternative 2b are presented in Table 4.8. The table also includes chemical addition and various process pumping requirements. Note that the listed flowrates may contain recycle flows. Table 4.8 – Alternative 2b Facilities Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit TF Train Flow 15 mgd average day 44 mgd peak hour AS Train Flow 13 mgd average day 65 mgd peak hour Primary Clarifiers 2 1 90 ft diameter 15.5 ft deep Ferric Addition 2,502 lb/d average day 11,980 lb/d peak day Primary Sludge Pumps 3 1 500 gpm TF Pumping 15 mgd average day 44 mgd peak hour Trickling Filters 2 0 120 ft diameter 24 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifiers 2 0 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep Trickling Filter Clarifier Sludge Pumps 3 1 500 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification 0 1 0.0 MG anaerobic 0.0 MG anoxic 4.0 MG aerobic Nit AS Blower Requirements 4,110 scfm average day 10,830 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 0 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (bioP) 0 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 0 HP Secondary Clarifiers AS-Nit 0 3 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 4 4,000 gpm WAS pumping 0 2 100 gpm Methanol Dosage Rate 3,722 lb/d average day 9,263 lb/d peak day Flow around SBF 0 mgd average day 22 mgd peak hour SBF Pumping 15 mgd average day 22 mgd peak hour SBF 0 6 38 ft long Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-14 Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit 19 ft wide 8.2 ft deep SBF Filter Backwash Pumps 0 3 5,632 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification- Denitrification with BioP 0 3 0.5 MG anaerobic 1.0 MG anoxic 3.5 MG aerobic N/DN AS Blower Requirements 11,940 scfm average day 28,180 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 45 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (bioP) 23 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 45 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 90 HP Secondary Clarifiers AS N/DN BioP 0 4 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 5 3,500 gpm WAS pumping 0 2 200 gpm 4.3.5 Alternative 3b – AS-BioP 4.3.5.1 Description The process flow diagram for Alternative 3b is illustrated in Figure 4.5. In this alternative, the influent flow will follow the following process steps: o 15 mgd will be routed through the existing primary clarifiers to reduce BOD and TSS loading to the downstream treatment units. o Effluent from the primary clarifiers and the remainder of the flow will be recombined and routed to the secondary treatment system consisting of: o Activated sludge process using the A2O (anaerobic, anoxic, oxic) process for BOD removal, nitrification, denitrification and biological phosphorus removal. The A2O system has an anaerobic zone followed by an anoxic zone followed by an aerobic zone. Nitrates are denitrified to nitrogen gas in the anoxic zone. The anaerobic/aerobic zones allow biological phosphorus removal by releasing (anaerobic zone) and then luxury uptaking (aerobic zone) the phosphorus. Return activated sludge (RAS) returned from the secondary clarifier is introduced into the anaerobic zone. A separate nitrate recycle will also bring both mixed liquor and nitrate back from the aerobic zone to the first anoxic zone. The system will be designed to also allow operation in the mUCT mode (modified University of Cape Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-15 Town). The mUCT mode is similar to the A2O process except that the RAS is recycled to the anoxic stage instead of the aerobic stage, and a separate internal recycle goes from the anoxic to the anaerobic stage. In the design, a recycle from the anoxic to the anaerobic zone will be added to enhance biological phosphorus removal and the RAS will be returned to the second anaerobic tank. o Secondary clarifiers for TSS removal. o Disinfection for E. Coli destruction. Facilities No Trickling Filters 15 MGD to existing Primaries All flow including peak to AS AS w/ BioP/NDN 15 13 To Disinfection GritGrit 15 Flow Liquid Solid Peak15FlowLiquidSolidPeak Figure 4.5 – Alternative 3b Flow Diagram 4.3.5.2 Facility Additions/Modifications The facility additions necessary for Alternative 3b are presented in Table 4.9. The table also includes various process pumping requirements. Note that the listed flowrates may contain recycle flows. CS FS PC GT SB BFP AN/ANX/AER SC Legend AER – Aeration AN – Anaerobic ANX – Anoxic BAF – Biological Aerated Filters BFP – Belt Filter Press CS – Coarse Screen FRM - Fermenter FS – Fine Screen GR – Grit Removal GT – Gravity Thickener PC – Primary Clarifier SB – Sludge Blending SBF – Submerged Biological Filters SC – Secondary Clarifier TF – Trickling Filter UV – Ultraviolet Disinfection Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-16 Table 4.9 – Alternative 3b Facilities Process Existing units New Units Size of Unit Flow to Primaries 15 mgd average day 45 mgd peak hour Flow to AS 14 mgd average day 65 mgd peak hour Primary Clarifiers 2 0 90 ft diameter 15.5 ft deep Ferric Addition 0 lb/d average day 0 lb/d peak day Primary Sludge Pumps 3 0 500 gpm Activated Sludge Nitrification- Denitrification with BioP 0 4 0.6 MG anaerobic 1.1 MG anoxic 3.9 MG aerobic N/DN AS Blower Requirements 19,900 scfm average day 46,980 scfm peak day Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (denit) 87 mgd Mixed Liquor Recycle Pumps (BioP) 44 mgd Anaerobic Mixing (Total) 66 HP Anoxic Mixing (Total) 132 HP Secondary Clarifiers AS N/DN BioP 0 6 150 ft diameter 17 ft deep RAS Pumping 0 7 4,500 gpm WAS pumping 3 0 500 gpm 4.4 Comparison of Alternative Costs Table 4.10 provides a comparison of estimated capital costs for each alternative. Note that these costs do not reflect the entire cost necessary for the Phase II expansion. These planning level estimates have been developed to provide a relative comparison between the alternatives and do not include numerous items that are common to each alternative, such as solids handling, disinfection, common piping, etc. These capital costs were developed using process equipment/basin sizes from the process modeling and estimating concrete quantities, excavation and backfill quantities, equipment costs, piping, and electrical costs. BAF/SBF costs were obtained from manufacturer’s proposals. The comparison identifies that Alternative 3b has the lowest relative capital cost. Additional detail of capital costs for each alternative is included in Appendix A. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-17 Table 4.10 – Alternatives Capital Cost Comparison Alt 1A Alt 1D Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 3B Process Units TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-BioP AS-BioP Primary Clarifiers 2,910,000$ 2,910,000$ 2,910,000$ 730,000$ -$ Aeration Basins -$ 6,690,000$ 7,970,000$ 11,690,000$ 11,540,000$ Final Clarifiers -$ 8,850,000$ 10,320,000$ 10,320,000$ 8,850,000$ BAF/SBF 23,390,000$ 10,880,000$ 7,330,000$ 7,330,000$ -$ Total Capital Costs 26,300,000$ 29,330,000$ 28,530,000$ 30,070,000$ 20,390,000$ Table 4.11 summarizes the projected annual operating costs for each alternative. Four major operating costs are identified: aeration power, ferric chloride, methanol, and pumping power. The power costs are based on estimates of horsepower and a power cost of $0.06/kWh. The ferric chloride costs are based on a unit cost of $0.10/lb and the methanol costs are based on a price of $2.75/gallon. Note that methanol costs fluctuate greatly and buying in bulk to hold the price will require significant storage or contract negotiation to provide for annual basis. The comparison identifies Alternative 3b as less than half the annual cost of the next lowest alternative. This difference is due primarily to the fact that Alternative 3b does not require ferric chloride for phosphorus removal and does not require an additional carbon source (methanol) for denitrification. Table 4.11 – Alternatives Operating Cost Comparison Alt 1A Alt 1D Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 3B TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-BioP AS-BioP Aeration Power Cost 116,000$ 196,000$ 251,000$ 331,000$ 488,000$ Annual Ferric Cost 205,000$ 193,000$ 187,000$ 91,000$ -$ Annual Methanol Cost 907,000$ 1,181,000$ 584,000$ 566,000$ -$ Pumping Power Cost 404,000$ 311,000$ 155,000$ 145,000$ 55,000$ Annual Operating Costs 1,630,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,180,000$ 1,130,000$ 540,000$ Table 4.12 identifies a present worth comparison of capital and operating costs for each alternative. The present worth is based on 20 years of operation amortized at 6%. The comparison clearly identifies Alternative 3b as the most cost effective treatment approach. Table 4.12 – Alternatives Present Worth Comparison Alt 1A Alt 1D Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 3B TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-BioP AS-BioP Total Capital Costs 26,300,000$ 29,330,000$ 28,530,000$ 30,070,000$ 20,390,000$ Present Worth of Op Costs $18,700,000 $21,600,000 $13,500,000 $13,000,000 $6,200,000 Total Capital + Ops PW $45,000,000 $50,900,000 $42,000,000 $43,100,000 $26,600,000 4.5 Evaluation Summary and Recommendation Based on the cost comparison presented in Subsection 4.4 and the evaluation summary presented in Table 4.13, HDR recommends that the District select Alternative 3b as the design basis for future expansion of the Lower Meramec WWTP. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-18 Table 4.13 – Alternative 3b Evaluation Summary Criteria Comments Process Flexibility Ability to Expand to Meet ENR Limits ENR limits can be met by adding an SBF process after the final clarifiers. This will also require methanol addition, but methanol requirements can be reduced by adding aeration volume. Additional aeration volume will also reduce the size of SBF required. Allowance for increased aeration volume should be a consideration during Phase II Design. Ability to handle Peak Wet Weather Flows Alternative 3b has been modeled to handle the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Baumgartner Lift Station for both Phases II and III. All flow through the WWTP will go through secondary treatment. O&M Requirements Minimize Process Complexity While inherently more complex than simple BOD removal, Alternative 3b is relatively less complex to operate than the other alternatives because it does not require addition of ferric chloride or methanol to achieve nutrient removal. Minimize Use of Consumables As evidenced in the operating cost comparison, Alternative 3b requires slightly more electrical power to operate than the other alternatives, but does not require addition of ferric chloride or methanol to achieve nutrient removal, thereby resulting in substantially less operating costs. Minimize Solids Generation Alternative 3b will likely result in less solids generation than the other alternatives since there is no chemical precipitation of total phosphorus (TP). Site Impacts Keep Footprint Within Current Boundaries Alternative 3b can fit within the boundaries of the District’s current property. The existing lagoons will need to be filled and the slope along the western edge may need to be extended west to allow construction of the aeration basins required for Phase III. Incorporate Existing Process Units Alternative 3b does not include the trickling filters or existing secondary clarifiers in the Phase II secondary treatment process. As shown in the cost comparison, it is not feasible to include these units for nutrient removal. The existing primary clarifiers will be used and the trickling filters may continue to be used for odor control. The secondary clarifier mechanisms may be reused in Phase III. Minimize Odor Generation The biological process of Alternative 3b should not significantly increase odor generation. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 4-19 Criteria Comments Costs Capital Cost Alternative 3b requires the least capital expenditure of all the alternatives. O&M Cost Alternative 3b requires less than half the operating expenses of the other alternatives, resulting in substantial savings over the 20 year life cycle design period. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-1 5.0 Disinfection 5.1 Background This Section presents the disinfection alternatives for the Phase I, Phase II and Phase III plant expansions at the Meramec WWTP. The advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives are discussed and the life cycle cost differences between the disinfection alternatives are presented. A recommendation is made based on the economic comparison and non-economic considerations. After a preliminary screening of the disinfection methods, the following options were considered as viable disinfection methods for the Meramec WWTP: o Chlorination/Dechlorination - Bulk purchase liquid sodium hypochlorite (12.5% at use) - Bulk storage of sodium bisulfite - On-site generation of 12.5% sodium hypochlorite o Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection - Low pressure high output lamps - Medium pressure high output lamps Subsection 5.2 identifies the design criteria used as the basis for development and comparison of the disinfection alternatives. Gaseous chlorine and sulfur dioxide were not a part of the evaluation because the District’s risk management group has eliminated the gaseous options due to safety concerns. Subsection 5.2 also includes discussion of disinfection for the existing Phase I facility, a brief comparison of UV technologies evaluated for Phases II and III, and a list of design assumptions. Subsection 5.3 describes the facilities required for each alternative. Subsection 5.4 presents a cost comparison of all four alternatives that includes capital and operation cost estimates. Finally, Subsection 5.5 presents HDR’s recommended approach to disinfection for each Phase of the Meramec WWTP. 5.2 Design Criteria 5.2.1 Regulatory Requirements The current NPDES permit for the Meramec WWTP contains disinfection requirements that become effective one day before the permit expires, which is February 26, 2012. Section 3 describes the pending regulatory change from total coliform to e-coli. Based on the review in Section 3, the limits illustrated in Table 5.1 will be used in the evaluation of alternatives. Table 5.1 – Anticipated Effluent Disinfection Regulatory Requirements Limitations for Discharge to Mississippi River 2012 to 2015 (Phase I) 548 e-coli per 100 mL 30 day geometric mean 2016 and beyond (Phases II & III) 126 e-coli per 100 mL 30 day geometric mean Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-2 5.2.2 Design Flows and Conditions The sizing of the chlorine contact basins and the UV channels is based on the projected flows and the site-specific disinfection requirements. Table 5.2 identifies the average daily flows (ADF) and peak hour flows (PHF) from Section 2 that serve as the basis for evaluation of the disinfection alternatives. The table also identifies the design criteria for the contact basins and UV channels. Table 5.2 – Design Flows and Conditions Flow (mgd) Design Phase I Phase II Phase III Conditions Chlorine Contact Basin Contact Time = 15 minutes @ Peak Hourly Flow UV Channel ADF=15 PHF=61.5 ADF=28 PHF=108.5 ADF=55 PHF=202.5 UV transmittance = 40% for Phase I = 55% for Phase II and III UV dose = bioassay determined 5.2.3 Design Considerations and Assumptions 5.2.3.1 Phase I Disinfection Method There has been much discussion regarding the method of disinfection to be used on Phase I of the Meramec WWTP when it becomes a regulatory requirement on February 26, 2012. This timeframe is a minimum of three years prior to the planned Phase II expansion. Therefore, the disinfection system will have to be designed to reliably treat the trickling filter effluent. It is HDR’s recommendation that a sodium hypochlorite based system be selected for disinfection of the Phase I effluent for the following reasons: o Chlorination has a long history of successful application in wastewater disinfection. It has been proved that chlorination provides reliable disinfection for a wide range of effluent quality in wastewater treatment, e.g. trickling filter effluent disinfection. o On the other hand, UV disinfection is a pure physical radiation process and has shown to be effective for low turbid water (i.e. TSS less than 10 mg/L). UV has been deployed to disinfect trickling filter effluent, but the application is challenging. Trickling filter effluents may have low UV transmittance (UVT), high levels of suspended solids and higher percentage of large particles, which tend to hinder light passage through the water and therefore interfere with the exposure of the target pathogens to the UV light. o A chlorination system will likely still be required for plant water system treatment even if the plant converts to UV in subsequent expansions (Phases II and III). Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-3 5.2.3.2 Selection of UV Technologies As described in Section 4, the Phase I trickling filter based process at the Meramec WWTP will be changed to an activated sludge process for Phases II and III. The activated sludge process will produce an effluent that is more amenable to disinfection using UV technology. Therefore, UV disinfection is a viable option for future expansions and is evaluated in this Section. UV disinfection technologies have been used routinely in wastewater treatment and other industrial and commercial applications. UV disinfection systems require a small footprint compared to chlorine contact basins and do not require any chemicals for disinfection. UV can be applied in two basic configurations: open channel or closed vessel. While there are examples of closed vessel systems operating at WWTPs, such as at the Fenton WWTP, most wastewater UV is now provided in an open-channel installation. Open-channel UV disinfection systems are available in three different lamp systems: low pressure/low intensity (LP/LI), low pressure/high intensity (LP/HI), and medium pressure/high intensity (MP/HI). LP/LI systems require a large number of lamps. MP/HI systems have a lower operating life, lower efficiency for the conversion of energy in the germicidal range, and increased fouling due to high operating temperatures. A relative comparison of the current low pressure and medium pressure UV lamp technologies is presented in Table 5.3. The lamp arrangements can be horizontal or vertical, but horizontal has become the standard for most applications and encourages competitive bidding. UV technology and other advanced disinfection technologies will likely develop dramatically in the next 10-15 years. Since Phase II expansion will not occur until at least 2015, there is time to allow the technologies to advance in performance reliability and energy efficiency prior to making a final decision on the exact disinfection system for the Phase II and III expansions. Table 5.3 – Comparison of Low vs. Medium Pressure UV Technologies LOW PRESSURE MEDIUM PRESSURE More lamps Less lamps No continuous flow required Continuous flow required Low power demand (300W) High power demand (4,000W) No dangerous byproducts formation Possible byproducts formation (nitrite) Longer lamp life (12,000 hours) Shorter lamp life (5,000 hours) Low operating temperature (180 C) High operating temperature (800 C) Low fouling potential High fouling potential Higher efficiency (40%) Lower efficiency (15%) Low annual power consumption (30%) High annual power consumption (100%) Lower cost lamps and sleeves Higher cost lamps and sleeves Easy lamp replacement Complex lamp replacement No cool down before restart Fifteen minutes cool down required before restart Recent research has shown that there are no performance advantages of one lamp technology over the other, meaning the germicidal power of both lamps is the same towards the same water Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-4 quality. This means that with the same UV dose, the medium pressure lamps are not more powerful in treating the trickling filter effluent than the low pressure lamps, as has been claimed by some medium pressure system manufacturers. 5.2.3.3 Design Assumptions For the purposes of this Section, the following assumptions are made: o Phase I chlorination system will be retained for plant water system algae control in the subsequent expansion phases. o The chlorine contact basin would be designed to use either bulk purchased liquid sodium hypochlorite or on-site generated 12.5% liquid hypochlorite. o Multiple chlorine contact basins would be designed for O&M flexibility. o Dechlorination will be required for all alternatives using chlorination. Dechlorination will be achieved using bulk purchased liquid sodium bisulfite. o When UV disinfection is considered for plant expansions beyond Phase I, the layout for the UV basin would be independent of the Phase I contact basin based on the best design practices for UV systems. HDR’s experience has shown that there is no significant cost advantage of converting chlorine contact basins to UV channels; unless there are footprint restrictions that do not allow for construction of stand-alone UV channels. o UV system designs and cost estimates are based on Trojan Technologies equipment budget proposals for the 3000plus (low pressure) and 4000 (medium pressure) systems. o On-site generation designs and cost estimates are based on Electrolytic Technologies Corporation’s budget proposal for the Klorigen™ on-site generation system that produces 12.5% sodium hypochlorite. Bulk storage of sodium bisulfite still required for dechlorination. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-5 5.3 Disinfection Alternatives This Subsection provides a description of each of the four alternatives evaluated for disinfection at the Meramec WWTP. Table 5.4 summarizes each alternative by identifying which technology is applied in each of the three phases. Table 5.4 – Summary of Disinfection Alternatives PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III ALTERNATIVE 1 Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite ALTERNATIVE 2 Onsite Generation of 12.5% Hypochlorite ALTERNATIVE 3 Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite LP UV LP UV ALTERNATIVE 4 Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite MP UV MP UV 5.3.1 Alternative 1 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for All Three Phases The evaluation of this alternative includes bulk storage and containment of commercially available (12.5 percent) sodium hypochlorite solution and (38 percent) sodium bisulfite solution transported to the Meramec WWTP in tanker trucks. The purchased liquid sodium hypochlorite solutions may be fed from full strength solution or diluted solution and pumped directly from solution storage tanks to the point of application. Advantages and disadvantages of using liquid sodium hypochlorite for chlorination and sodium bisulfite for dechlorination are listed in Table 5.5. Table 5.5 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection Advantages Disadvantages Long history of successful application in wastewater treatment Pricing is subject to market volatility and local availability Proven effectiveness against most pathogenic organisms Sheltered storage is required to minimize degradation and freezing concerns Sodium hypochlorite is safer to transport, store, and handle (compared to chlorine gas) Operator exposure to liquid chemicals Not expected to impact the plant’s overall electrical load Risk of accidental spill during transportation and increased delivery traffic Provides measurable residual material Impact to environment if dechlorination is incomplete Mechanism of disinfection well understood Generation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) which may be limited in future permits Advanced control and automation are readily available Generation of additional total dissolved solids The bulk purchased liquid hypochlorite system mainly consists of a storage facility, metering pumps, chemical induction units and chlorine contact basins. The new contact basin would provide 15 minutes of contact time for the peak hourly flow. For the purpose of this Section, a dosage of 8 mg/L as chlorine for hypochlorite and 2 mg/L as sulfur dioxide for bisulfite is Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-6 assumed for Phase I; a hypochlorite dose of 6 mg/L is used for Phase II and Phase III. These dosages are estimated based on MDNR design guidelines and the current practice at the Grand Glaize WWTP. The design features of Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 – Alternative 1 System Features SYSTEM FEATURE PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III TOTAL Hypochlorite Storage Tanks, 5,000-gallon each 4 2 3 9 Hypochlorite Metering Pumps 2 1 1 4 Chemical Induction Unit 3 - - 3 Chlorine Contact Basin Volume, ft3 85,700 65,365 130,935 282,000 Disinfection Building, sf 4,000 - - 4,000 Bisulfite Storage Tanks, 2,500-gallon each 2 - 1 3 Bisulfite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 Table 5.7 summarizes the estimated construction and O&M costs of a bulk purchase hypochlorite and bisulfite system with chlorine contact basins. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B. These are planning level cost estimates and include a contingency of 30%. Table 5.7 – Alternative 1 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs CONSTRUCTION COST O&M COST ALTERNATIVE 1 PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III NPW TOTAL COST Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite $4,110,000 $2,070,000 $3,430,000 $3,530,000 $13,140,000 5.3.2 Alternative 2 – On-site Generation of 12.5% Hypochlorite for All Three Phases The evaluation of this alternative includes the Klorigen™ on-site generation system which may produce chlorine gas and 12.5% sodium hypochlorite through brine electrolysis and membrane separation. The system requires process water of particular quality to produce the brine from coarse, 99.98% sodium chloride, food grade salt. The generated 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution may be fed directly from a storage tank to the point of application. For each pound of equivalent chlorine produced in the form of 12.5% sodium hypochlorite, the following supply is required: o 0.95 gallons of softened water (Total Hardness of 0.2 mg/L as CaCO3) o 1.8 lb of salt (99.98% purity) o 1.75 kWh of electrical energy (not including water softening) Thus, for the average chlorine usage of 5,000 lb/day, 4,750 gallons of softened water, 9,000 lb of salt and 8,750 kWh of power would be required each day. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-7 The cost of on-site generation equipment is relatively high. The major cost component of the generation system is the generation cells, which typically require replacement every 7 years. The cost of a generation cell could be 25 percent of the entire generation system. Equipment redundancy can also be an issue; the generated hypochlorite storage is limited to 1 to 2 days. The large quantity of salt required for this system might also pose a challenge for local salt supplies, since high-purity salt is essential for smooth operation of the process. The design features of Alternative 2 are summarized in Table 5.8. Table 5.8 – Alternative 2 System Features SYSTEM FEATURE PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III TOTAL Salt Storage (14-day supply), pounds 25,200 10,080 35,280 70,560 Brine Tanks 1 1 1 3 On-site Generation System (Electrolyzers) 4 4 8 16 Hypochlorite Storage Tanks 2, 2,500- gallon 1, 5,000- gallon 1, 5,000- gallon 4 Hypochlorite Metering Pumps 2 1 1 4 Chemical Induction Unit 3 - - 3 Chlorine Contact Basin Volume, ft3 85,700 65,365 130,935 282,000 Disinfection Building, sf 4,000 - - 4,000 Bisulfite Storage Tanks, 2,500-gallon each 2 - 1 3 Bisulfite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 Table 5.9 summarizes the estimated construction and O&M costs of on-site generation of hypochlorite and bisulfite system with chlorine contact basins. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B. These are planning level cost estimates and include a contingency of 30%. Table 5.9 – Alternative 2 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs CONSTRUCTION COST O&M COST ALTERNATIVE 2 PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III NPW TOTAL COST Onsite Gen 12.5% Hypochlorite $6,670,000 $3,380,000 $6,230,000 $3,160,000 $19,440,000 5.3.3 Alternative 3 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for Phase I and LP UV for Phases II and III When the Phase II expansion is constructed, the improvement in effluent quality will allow for use of UV technology for disinfection. Therefore, this alternative is based on low pressure UV technology for Phases II and III. The pros and cons of low pressure vs. medium pressure UV were described above. Table 5.10 lists some advantages and disadvantages of using UV technology as compared to a sodium hypochlorite based system. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-8 Table 5.10 – Advantages and Disadvantages of UV Disinfection Advantages Disadvantages No toxic by-products of disinfection Higher power consumption No in-stream chemicals required for disinfection or dechlorination Maintenance labor for bulb cleaning and replacement Less space required May still need chlorine system for Nocardia, RAS, and/or plant service water chlorination The design features of Alternative 3 are summarized in Table 5.11. Table 5.11 – Alternative 3 System Features SYSTEM FEATURE PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III TOTAL Hypochlorite Storage Tanks, 5,000-gallon each 4 - - 4 Hypochlorite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 Chemical Induction Unit 3 - - 3 Chlorine Contact Basin Volume, ft3 85,700 - - 85,700 Chlorine Building, sf 4,000 - - 4,000 Bisulfite Storage Tanks, 2,500-gallon each 2 - - 2 Bisulfite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 UV Channel - 3 3 6 Low Pressure UV Lamps - 672 672 1,344 UV System Footprint (approximate) - 80’ x 60’ 80’ x 50’ 80’ x 110’ Table 5.12 summarizes the estimated construction and O&M costs of a combination of a Phase I bulk purchase hypochlorite and bisulfite system and a Phase II&III low pressure UV system. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B. These are planning level cost estimates and include a contingency of 30%. Table 5.12 – Alternative 3 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs CONSTRUCTION COST O&M COST ALTERNATIVE 3 PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III NPW TOTAL COST Phase I-Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite Phase II & III-Low Pressure UV System $4,110,000 $5,080,000 $4,990,000 $1,350,000 $15,530,000 5.3.4 Alternative 4 – Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite for Phase I and MP UV for Phases II and III This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 except that it is based on using medium pressure UV equipment instead of low pressure. The design features of Alternative 4 are summarized in Table 5.13. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-9 Table 5.13 – Alternative 4 System Features SYSTEM FEATURE PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III TOTAL Hypochlorite Storage Tanks, 5,000-gallon each 4 - - 4 Hypochlorite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 Chemical Induction Unit 3 - - 3 Chlorine Contact Basin Volume, ft3 85,700 - - 85,700 Chlorine Building, sf 4,000 - - 4,000 Bisulfite Storage Tanks, 2,500-gallon each 2 - - 2 Bisulfite Metering Pumps 2 - - 2 UV Channel - 2 - 2 Medium Pressure UV Lamps - 384 96 480 UV System Footprint (approximately) - 80’ x 40’ - 80’ x 40’ Table 5.14 summarizes the estimated construction and O&M costs of a combination of a Phase I bulk purchase hypochlorite and bisulfite system and a Phase II&III medium pressure UV system. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix B. These are planning level cost estimates and include a contingency of 30%. Table 5.14 – Alternative 4 Estimated Construction and O&M Costs CONSTRUCTION COST O&M COST ALTERNATIVE 4 PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III NPW TOTAL COST Phase I-Bulk Purchase Hypochlorite Phase II & III-Medium Pressure UV System $4,110,000 $6,830,000 $1,390,000 $2,000,000 $14,330,000 5.4 Comparison of Alternative Costs Table 5.15 provides a comparison of estimated capital and O&M costs for the four disinfection alternatives discussed in this Section. Table 5.15 – Alternatives Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Disinfection Alternative Phase I Phase II Phase III Construction O&M Total % 1 Bulk Purchase $9,610,000 $3,530,000 $13,140,000 100% 2 Onsite Generation $16,280,000 $3,160,000 $19,440,000 148% 3 Bulk Purchase LP UV $14,180,000 $1,350,000 $15,530,000 118% 4 Bulk Purchase MP UV $12,330,000 $2,000,000 $14,330,000 109% Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 5-10 The following are some important points to consider when reviewing the cost comparison above: o Alternative 1, bulk purchase of hypochlorite for all three phases, appears to have the overall lowest lifecycle cost, but each alternative includes a 30% contingency, so Alternatives 3 and 4 are within this range. o Alternative 2, on-site generation of 12.5% hypochlorite, would have the highest lifecycle cost among all alternatives, mainly due to the highest capital cost for the on- site generation equipment. o Costs of the two UV alternatives, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, are comparable in lifecycle costs, differing by less than 10%. o The O&M costs of UV alternatives are significantly less than the hypochlorite based alternatives, and there is a greater likelihood of price volatility with the hypochlorite alternatives since they contain chemicals, whereas the UV O&M costs are primarily tied to electrical costs, which are less subject to price volatility. o Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 are all based on bulk purchase of hypochlorite in Phase I. Assuming that Phase I disinfection will need to occur over a 5 year period prior to construction of Phase II (2012-2016), the purchase price for hypochlorite would need to exceed an average of approximately $3.85/gallon over that timeframe to make on- site generation feasible (assuming prices of consumables for on-site generation remain constant). This “break even” point would fall to $2.50/gallon if Phase II construction is delayed until 2022 timeframe. 5.5 Recommendation Based on the cost comparison and non-economic considerations discussed previously, HDR’s recommendation is as follows: o Proceed with design of a bulk purchase hypochlorite system to meet the Phase I plant effluent disinfection requirements set to take effect February 26, 2012. o Switch the disinfection to UV technology at Phase II and subsequent Phase III expansions. Retain the Phase I chlorination system for plant service water disinfection and other maintenance uses. Due to the rapid changes occurring in UV technology, HDR recommends that an evaluation of the specific technologies for Phase II be conducted during the design period. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 6-1 6.0 Solids Evaluation 6.1 Background The purpose of this Section is to establish a solids production estimate for Phases II and III of the Meramec WWTP, and provide a preliminary evaluation of solids disposal options. Projected flows and loadings for Phases II and III are presented in Section 2 and have been used as the basis for the solids evaluation contained herein. The Meramec WWTP went on-line in March 2007 with fine screening, primary settling, trickling filters, final clarifiers, and a discharge outfall to the Mississippi River. Primary and secondary sludge streams are co-thickened in gravity thickeners prior to dewatering through Ashbrook Winklepresses (2 units). 6.2 Regulatory Requirements MSD operates under NPDES permit requirements through the Missouri Clean Water Law and Regulations and incorporates applicable federal sludge disposal requirements under 40 CFR 503. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has principal authority for permitting and enforcement of federal sludge regulations (40 CFR 503) until Missouri is delegated the EPA sludge program. Sludge that meets the requirements for land application is called "biosolids." Biosolids are defined in state rules as sludge that meets minimum pollutant level requirements for land applications. Biosolids, as applied to domestic sludge, must meet treatment process criteria for both pathogen and metal pollutant limitations for beneficial use. 40 CFR 503 also contains requirements for surface disposal (landfill) and incineration of biosolids. Details of the regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 503 are outside the scope this Study. 6.3 Existing Facilities Operation The Baumgartner Lagoon went off-line in March 2007, with flow diverted for start-up of the Meramec WWTP. The Baumgartner flows and loadings are now part of the Meramec WWTP and are identified in Section 2 in the evaluation of flows and loadings. The Meramec Lagoon is adjacent to the new Meramec WWTP. Flows to the Lagoon from District collection systems were diverted to the new Meramec WWTP in March 2007. The City of Arnold has connected to the newly constructed Baumgartner Tunnel, and the Meramec Lagoon has been taken off-line. The Lagoon loadings are noted to be about half of normal domestic strength for both CBOD and TSS. This may indicate significant infiltration of groundwater in the base flow. The Fenton WWTP is an interim facility currently operating around 4.5 MGD. The plant was expanded in 2005 to a design average flow of 6.75 MGD. MSD’s current schedule is to operate this facility until year 2015, when flow will be diverted to the Meramec WWTP as part of the Phase II plant expansion. The current dewatering system at the Fenton WWTP includes a gravity thickener, polymer feed system, sludge pump, and an Ashbrook belt filter press. The Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 6-2 dewatered solids are currently either hauled to the Bissell WWTP for incineration or hauled to a landfill for disposal. The Grand Glaize WWTP is an interim facility currently operating near its design capacity of 16 MGD. MSD’s current schedule is to operate the facility until the year 2025 when flow will be diverted to the Meramec WWTP as part of the Phase III plant expansion. Current improvements underway at Grand Glaize include upgrades to achieve nitrification, increase average capacity to 21 MGD, addition of a second belt filter press, and conversion of disinfection from gaseous chlorine to sodium hypochlorite. Grand Glaize WWTP biosolids disposal is currently contracted with a private contractor located in Hannibal, Missouri, as part of a composting operation. The Meramec WWTP currently experiences average flows of about 10 MGD, with an additional 1 to 2 MGD being added when the Meramec Lagoon is taken off-line. The current dewatering system at the Lower Meramec WWTP includes polymer feed system, sludge thickening, sludge pumps, 2 Ashbrook belt filter presses, and short term cake storage for truck loading. Dewatered sludge is trucked to the Bissell WWTP for incineration. Provisions have been made in the Process Building for addition of up to three belt filter presses for dewatering capacity requirements of Phases II and III. 6.4 Design Solids Production Based on the historic flow and solids production data for the Fenton, Grand Glaize, and Meramec WWTPs, the solids production for the combined facilities is averaging approximately 18 dry tons per day (DTPD), which equates to a solids production of 0.6 dry tons per MGD of flow. Peak month is averaging approximately 21 DTPD, which equates to a solids production of 0.5 dry tons per MGD of peak flow. Using these ratios and the flow projections from Section 2, a projection of solids production can be calculated for each Phase. These projections are presented in Table 6.1. The projections are presented in DTPD based on production occurring every day of the week and also based on production occurring five days per week to aid in understanding the options for operation of the dewatering equipment. Table 6.1 – Solids Projections for Meramec WWTP Based on Current Production Phase I Phase II Phase III 7 days/week DTPD 5 days/week DTPD 7 days/week DTPD 5 days/week DTPD 7 days/week DTPD 5 days/week DTPD Average Day 9 13 17 24 33 46 Peak Month 11 16 22 31 42 59 The projections in Table 6.1 are based on current production rates. The future Phase II and III expansions will likely require process changes to meet stricter effluent limits, which may result in additional solids production. Also, as described in Section 2, the current BOD and TSS loadings appear to be less concentrated than the projected loadings in Phase II and III. Therefore, HDR’s mass balance program, EnVision, was used to calculate projected solids production based on the loading projections in Section 2. The existing treatment process was Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 6-3 modified in the program to incorporate nutrient removal and calculate estimated solids production rates. The results of the program are presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 – Solids Projections for Meramec WWTP Based on Mass Balance Model Phase II Phase III 7 days/week DTPD 5 days/week DTPD 7 days/week DTPD 5 days/week DTPD Average Day 19.1 26.7 32.9 46.1 Peak Month 24.6 34.4 43.5 60.9 The solids handling and dewatering process at the Meramec WWTP has been planned for expansion in Phases II and III. There is space provided for three additional belt filter presses (BFP) for a total of five BFPs in Phase III. Table 6.3 illustrates the estimated dewatering capacities using two to five BFPs for solids throughput capacities of 1,400 lbs/hr and 1,600 lbs/hr per BFP. The operating data for Grand Glaize indicates that the BFPs currently operate around 1,600 lbs/hr. However, the press manufacturer has indicated that future process changes for nutrient removal at the Meramec WWTP may drop the production capacity to around 1,400 lbs/hr. Comparing the projected solids production rates in Table 6.2 to the capacity estimates in Table 6.3 indicates that in Phase III, during the peak month, the BFPs may need to be operated more than five days per week. Comparison of these tables also indicates that all five presses may be required for normal operation of two shifts (16 hours per day), five days per week in Phase III. Table 6.3 – Daily Dewatering Capacity with Expansion of Meramec WWTP Current 2-BFP (DTPD) 3-BFP (DTPD) 4-BFP (DTPD) 5-BFP (DTPD) Daily Throughout Options @ 1,400 Lbs/hr @ 1,600 Lbs/hr @ 1,400 Lbs/hr @ 1,600 Lbs/hr @ 1,400 Lbs/hr @ 1,600 Lbs/hr @ 1,400 Lbs/hr @ 1,600 Lbs/hr 8-Hour Run 11 13 17 19 22 26 28 32 12-Hour Run 17 19 25 29 34 38 42 48 16-Hour Run 22 26 34 38 45 51 56 64 6.5 Solids Disposal Options There are currently three primary types of disposal options identified for municipal sludges: • Surface Disposal • Incineration • Land Application The District currently uses all three methods for disposal of solids generated by the WWTPs within the Lower Meramec Service Area. In 2006, approximately 3,350 dry tons of sludge generated at the Grand Glaize WWTP went to a composting operation in Hannibal, MO. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 6-4 Approximately 870 dry tons of sludge generated at the Fenton WWTP went to incineration at the Bissell facility and approximately 106 dry tons were sent to the landfill. Land Application of sludges requires a digestion step beforehand, or lime stabilization as a liquid or lime mixing in a pugmill with the cake solids. Incorporation of these processes at a WWTP requires significant capital and O&M expenditures. Since these processes do not currently exist at the Meramec WWTP, land application options are limited to those in which the stabilization process is achieved off-site, such as the composting operation used for Grand Glaize sludges. Another possible land application alternative is reclamation of mining sites. Table 6.4 lists some advantages and disadvantages of the main options for disposal of solids generated at the Meramec WWTP. Table 6.4 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Solids Disposal Options Advantages Disadvantages Landfill Disposal No further solids treatment or monitoring required. Relatively low O&M costs. Low public concern. Requires no free water present. Costs will increase over time. Nearby landfill capacity could become scarce. Does not utilize nutrient value of the sludge. Incineration Reduced volume of disposal required. District owns and operates incineration systems. Requires little land area. Relatively short haul distance. Produces stack gases that require treatment. Disposal ash has concentrated metals. Higher O&M costs projected. Land Application (Composting or Mine Reclamation) Utilizes nutrient value of sludge. Contracted out, so no additional O&M required. Relatively high contract price. Typically significant haul distances. Public contact concern. All of these options will likely remain available for disposal of Phase II and Phase III sludges generated at the Meramec WWTP. However, regulatory restrictions and equipment upgrade requirements may eliminate incineration as a cost effective option in the future. The District continually evaluates the costs associated with solids disposal at all of their WWTPs and will continue to do so in the future to identify the most cost effective method of disposal. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-1 7.0 Recommended Expansion Plan 7.1 Background and Approach This Section presents the recommended expansion plan for the Phase II and Phase III build-out conditions at the Meramec Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Phase II and III anticipated flows and loadings were developed in Section 2 and summarized again in Section 4. Please refer to these Sections for flow and loading information. Section 4 presented five alternatives for expansion of the Meramec WWTP and identified the activated sludge process with biological phosphorus removal (AS-BioP) alternative as the recommended secondary treatment process for both Phases II and III. Section 5 presented four alternatives for disinfection and identified ultraviolet (UV) technology as the recommended process for both Phases II and III. The major components of the recommended expansion plan, including solids handling, are discussed in Subsection 7.2. Subsection 7.3 presents the preliminary site plan for the recommended expansion and identifies areas within the flood plain that will require fill for future expansion. Subsection 7.4 identifies the preliminary hydraulic profile through the expanded facility. Subsection 7.5 provides a summary of the estimated construction costs for Phase II and Phase III. 7.2 Expansion Plan Section 4 identified the activated sludge process with biological phosphorus removal (AS-BioP) alternative as the recommended secondary treatment process for both Phases II and III. This process is illustrated in Figure 7.1. Each major process is described in the Subsections below, beginning with fine screening. The coarse screens and influent pump station are not within the scope of this project, but it should be noted that upgrades in the influent pump station will be required to convey Phase II and III flows to the WWTP. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-2 Mississippi River 15 13 UV GR 15 Flow Liquid Solid GR PC SCAERANXAN GT GT/ FRM SB BFP FS Ph II 40Ph III Ph II&III CS Legend AER –Aeration AN –Anaerobic ANX –Anoxic BFP –Belt Filter Press CS –Coarse Screen FRM -Fermenter FS –Fine Screen GR –Grit Removal GT –Gravity Thickener PC –Primary Clarifier SB –Sludge Blending SC –Secondary Clarifier UV –Ultraviolet Disinfection Figure 7.1 – Meramec WWTP Phase II and III Flow Diagram 7.2.1 Fine Screening The Phase I design of the Process Building includes channels for installation of additional fine screens in Phases II and III. The 3 mm perforated plate fine screens installed in Phase I are currently operating significantly below capacity due to excessive headloss through the screens. The District is evaluating this issue and for purposes of this report, HDR is assuming that the hydraulic issues will be resolved and fine screens will be added in the available channels during the Phase II and Phase III expansions and that no additional headworks expansion will be required. Table 7.1 identifies the planned expansion of the fine screen facilities, based on the Phase I design capacities. Table 7.1 – Fine Screen Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 24” wide – 3mm perforated plate – 15 MGD 2 0 1 3 72” wide – 3mm perforated plate – 63 MGD 1 1 1 3 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-3 7.2.2 Grit Removal The current Phase I facility has a grit removal system that removes grit from the primary and secondary clarifier sludge. When aeration basins are added to the process, this current approach to grit removal will not work, because grit will settle out in the aeration basins. Therefore, grit tanks will be required prior to the aeration basins. The current grit removal system will remain operational for the portion of the flow that goes to the existing primary clarifiers. The new vortex grit removal system will use centrifugal force in a small circular tank to separate and remove grit down to a 200 mesh size. Removal is efficient even over variable flow rates with minimal headloss occurring through the tank. Table 7.2 – Grit Removal Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total Eutek Slurrycup and Grit Snail System – 650 gpm 2 0 0 0 Vortex Grit System – 40 MGD each. 0 2 2 4 7.2.3 Primary Clarifiers The existing primary clarifiers will remain in service with 15 MGD average flow and 45 MGD peak hour flow capacity. Flow to the primary clarifiers will not go through the new grit tanks. Grit that settles in the primary clarifiers will be removed from the primary sludge using the existing grit removal system. Table 7.3 – Primary Clarifier Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 90 ft. diameter – 15.5 ft. SWD – spiral blade 2 0 0 2 7.2.4 Aeration Basins The aeration basins are part of the activated sludge process which has multiple modes of operation. Key components are the selector zones for anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic treatment phases. Equipment includes mixers for anaerobic and anoxic zones, and fine bubble diffused air system with blowers. There will also be internal recycle pumps and piping from the aerobic zone to the anoxic zone and the anoxic zone to the anaerobic zone. The basins will be of concrete construction. Table 7.4 – Aeration Basin Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total Multiple basins, 18 ft. SWD, 5.5 MG each (0.5 MG anaerobic, 1.1 MG anoxic, 3.9 MG aerobic) 0 4 4 8 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-4 7.2.5 Secondary Clarifiers The existing secondary clarifiers were designed for removing trickling filter solids and are not suitable for an activated sludge process. The sludge return piping is too small. The secondary clarifiers required for the activated sludge process are deeper for enhancing settling performance and sludge blanket control. The RAS return system must control the sludge blanket and rapidly return solids to the aeration system. A vacuum style or “suction” header with spaced orifices will be provided on the scraper mechanism to sweep the tank floor. Table 7.5 – Final Clarifier Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 150 ft. diameter – 17 ft. SWD 0 6 6 12 7.2.6 Disinfection Disinfection is discussed in Section 5. A detailed evaluation of UV technologies will be conducted prior to Phase II design to determine which UV technology should be implemented at the Meramec WWTP. UV channels will be constructed in Phase II and expanded during Phase III. The hypochlorite system to be installed for Phase I will continue to be used in Phases II and III for plant water treatment only. 7.2.7 Solids Handling 7.2.7.1 Gravity Thickeners In order to avoid release of phosphorus in the waste activated sludge (WAS), WAS and primary sludge will be thickened in separate gravity thickeners. Two new gravity thickeners will be built deeper than the existing thickeners and used to thicken the primary sludge. These new thickeners will also act as fermenters, allowing production of volatile fatty acids (VFA) to be returned to the process as food for the biological organisms that remove the phosphorus. The existing thickeners will be used to thicken the WAS. During Phase III these thickeners will also serve as sludge storage capacity. Table 7.6 – Gravity Thickener Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 50 ft. diameter – 12 ft. SWD 2 0 0 2 50 ft. diameter – 18 ft. SWD 0 2 0 2 7.2.7.2 Storage/Blending The thickened primary sludge and WAS will be blended prior to being fed to the belt filter presses (BFP). Ferric chloride will added at this stage for odor control at the BFPs and to avoid phosphorus release. The sludge storage tanks act as a reservoir for feeding the thickened biosolids to the BFP. The tanks provide a more consistent concentration to feed the BFP units, resulting in a cake of consistently higher percent solids. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-5 Table 7.7 – Sludge Storage/Blending Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 150,000 gal. Tank 0 2 0 2 7.2.7.3 Belt Filter Presses Section 6 identified that five presses may be required for normal operation of two shifts for five days a week operation after Phase III is implemented. Additional press feed pumps and polymer system equipment will be needed for each belt press added. Table 7.8 – Belt Filter Press Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total 2.0 M – 1400 lb/hr Belt Filter Press 2 1 2 5 The current cake storage system will be expanded as additional dewatering equipment is installed with similar storage hoppers with a rotary drive, leveling arm, and cake discharger on each unit. Table 7.9 – Cake Storage and Loadout Facilities Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total Cake Storage Hopper System, 54 cy. each 2 1 2 5 7.2.8 Effluent Peak Flow Pumping The existing 78-inch outfall will not be able to convey the Phase III peak hour flow. The existing effluent box will have to be expanded by adding submersible or turbine pumps to a new, adjacent box, and by raising the walls of Box 1 (existing box) to elevation 445.00. Additional head is needed in Box 1 to utilize the existing 78-inch RCP for Phase III peak flow (202.5 MGD) to push the flows at a velocity of over 9 ft/s. Table 7.10 – Effluent Pumps Unit Existing Phase II Phase III Total Pumps, 46,875 gpm (67.5 MGD) 0 0 3 3 7.3 Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Phase II and Phase III is presented in Figure 7.2. The site plan identifies that the area where the polishing cell lagoon is currently located will be necessary for disinfection during Phase II and Phase III and will also be necessary for incorporation of enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) if future nutrient removal regulations require treatment to relatively low levels as discussed in Section 4. The site plan also identifies that some additional fill will likely be required along the western edge of the site to allow construction of the Phase III Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-6 aeration basins. The existing bypass piping along this edge of the site will have to be removed and the embankment extended west to allow construction of the aeration basins and placement of piping along the west side of the aeration basins. The proposed site plan will allow construction of the Phase II expansion with minimal impact on the existing operation. Figure 7.2 also identifies proposed extensions to the existing pipe gallery. 7.4 Preliminary Hydraulic Profile The hydraulics through the proposed Phase II and Phase III expansions of the Meramec WWTP were modeled using the Visual Hydraulics program. Two separate trains were modeled; one through the existing primary clarifiers and the Phase II aeration basins, secondary clarifiers and UV disinfection. The other train was through the new grit tanks, Phase III aeration basins, secondary clarifiers and UV disinfection. The profile through the primary clarifier train is illustrated in Figure 7.3 and the profile through the grit tank train is illustrated in Figure 7.4. Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-10 Each profile begins at the existing effluent box, which has a starting water elevation of 420 ft. This elevation was established in Phase I design and reflects the fact that during peak hour flows during flood conditions, discharge from the WWTP will overflow the lower wall at the effluent box and discharge down the adjacent slope and spill into the nearby floodwaters. Hydraulic modeling indicates that the existing 78” outfall is not large enough to convey peak hour flows in Phase II when the river elevation exceeds 407 ft. Since this situation will only occur when flood waters are near the base on the embankment at the WWTP, MDNR may allow this during Phase II. However, during Phase III, peak hour flows will overflow the effluent box when river levels are above 379 ft., which is lower than normal. Therefore, the existing effluent box and outfall will have to be modified during the Phase III expansion, as described in Subsection 7.2, to allow peak hour flows to be conveyed to the river instead of overflowing down the embankment at the WWTP. The hydraulic profile for the primary clarifier train in Figure 7.3, identifies that the water level in the primary clarifiers will be above the scum trough during peak hour flows. This will require some programming modifications, but should not adversely affect the overall performance of the primary clarifiers. These hydraulic profiles will be revised during Phase II design. Their primary purpose at this point is to determine if the new treatment process can be incorporated within the existing WWTP hydraulics. Figures 7.3 and 7.4 illustrate that the new treatment process can be incorporated within the hydraulic profile of the existing WWTP. The Visual Hydraulics Calculation Summary Report for each train is included in Appendix C. 7.5 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Table 7.11 lists the opinion of probable construction costs for Phase II and Phase III expansions. These estimates are further detailed in Appendix D. Table 7.11 – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs of Phase II and III Expansions Summary by CSI Division Phase II Phase III Sitework – Div. 2 Total $2,202,000 $1,972,000 Concrete – Div. 3 Total $16,346,000 $15,874,000 Masonry – Div. 4 Total $256,000 $216,000 Metals – Div. 5 Total $492,000 $592,000 Wood & Plastics – Div. 6 Total $55,000 $33,000 Thermal and Moist. Protec. – Div. 7 Total $113,000 $118,000 Doors and Windows – Div. 8 Total $75,000 $69,000 Finishes – Div. 9 Total $345,000 $380,000 Specialties – Div 10. Total $23,000 $23,000 Equipment – Div. 11 Total $12,817,000 $13,918,000 Furnishings – Div. 12 Total - - Special Construction – Div. 13 Total $1,419,000 $1,613,000 Meramec WWTP July 2008 Phase II Study MSD Project No. 2006167 7-11 Summary by CSI Division Phase II Phase III Conveying Systems – Div. 14 Total $192,000 $247,000 Mechanical – Div. 15 Total $11,719,000 $12,174,000 Electrical – Div. 16 Total $4,605,000 $4,723,000 Subtotal $50,659,000 $51,952,000 Contingency (30%) $15,197,000 $15,585,000 Subtotal – Direct Costs $65,856,000 $67,537,000 Contractor’s Field General Conditions (8%) $5,268,000 $5,403,000 Contractor’s Overhead and Profit (12%) $8,534,000 $8,753,000 Bonds and Insurance (2%) $1,593,000 $1,634,000 Subtotal – 2008 Construction Costs $81,251,000 $83,327,000 Escalation to Year 2016 @ 7%/yr $58,353,000 - Escalation to Year 2026 @ 7%/yr - $198,313,000 Total for Phase II $139,604,000 - Total for Phase III - $281,640,000 Note that these are opinions of construction costs only and do not include engineering, administration, or legal fees. Also note that escalation was estimated at 7% per year based on RS Means Construction Cost Index (CCI) information for St. Louis for the period 2003 to the first quarter of 2008, which identifies an average annual increase of approximately 6%. For purposes of this Study, this value was increased slightly to 7%. These costs are also based on the assumption that the current hydraulic capacity issues at the fine screens are resolved and that new fine screens are added per plan in the existing channels within the Process Building. APPENDICES Appendix A – Cost Comparison of Treatment Alternatives Meramec WWTP Phase II Expansion Alternatives Cost Comparison MSD Project No. 2006167 Date: 01/17/08 Alt 1A Alt 1D Alt 2A Alt 2B Alt 3B TF-BAF-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-ChemP TF-SC-SBF/AS-BioP AS-BioP Capital Costs Primary Clarifiers Slabs 1200 1200 1200 300 0 Walls 728 728 728 182 0 Elev Slabs 128 128 128 32 0 Columns/Beams 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Cost 1,214,000$ 1,214,000$ 1,214,000$ 304,000$ -$ Sitework Cost 400,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ 100,000$ -$ Equipment Cost 800,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$ 200,000$ -$ Piping Cost 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 125,000$ -$ Aeration Basins Slabs 0 2270 3105 4538 3105 Walls 0 1545 2448 5183 5142 Elev Slabs 0 65 130 245 180 Columns/Beams 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Cost -$ 2,282,000$ 3,377,000$ 6,059,000$ 5,231,000$ Sitework Cost -$ 697,000$ 1,023,000$ 1,882,000$ 1,892,000$ Aeration Equip. Cost -$ 940,000$ 864,000$ 975,000$ 1,192,000$ Blower Cost -$ 1,024,000$ 958,000$ 1,024,000$ 1,225,000$ Blower Building -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ Piping Cost -$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,250,000$ Final Clarifiers Slabs 0 4200 4900 4900 4200 Walls 0 1968 2296 2296 1968 Elev Slabs 0 318 371 371 318 Columns/Beams 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete Cost -$ 3,764,000$ 4,391,000$ 4,391,000$ 3,764,000$ Sitework Cost -$ 2,232,000$ 2,604,000$ 2,604,000$ 2,232,000$ Equipment Cost -$ 1,800,000$ 2,100,000$ 2,100,000$ 1,800,000$ Piping Cost -$ 1,050,000$ 1,225,000$ 1,225,000$ 1,050,000$ BAF/SBF Slabs 2624 1379 820 820 0 Walls 2645 1692 1293 1293 0 Elev Slabs 1085 460 282 282 0 Columns/Beams 428 112 98 98 0 Concrete Cost 4,292,000$ 2,289,000$ 1,586,000$ 1,586,000$ -$ Sitework Cost 300,000$ 150,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ BAF/SBF Equipment Cost 14,250,000$ 6,115,000$ 3,951,000$ 3,951,000$ -$ Additional Equipment Cost 2,850,000$ 1,223,000$ 790,000$ 790,000$ -$ Methanol Feed System 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ Piping Cost 1,200,000$ 600,000$ 400,000$ 400,000$ -$ Total Capital Costs 26,300,000$ 29,300,000$ 28,500,000$ 30,100,000$ 20,400,000$ Operating Costs Aeration Power Cost 116,000$ 196,000$ 251,000$ 331,000$ 488,000$ Annual Ferric Cost 205,000$ 193,000$ 187,000$ 91,000$ -$ Annual Methanol Cost 907,000$ 1,181,000$ 584,000$ 566,000$ -$ Pumping Power Cost 404,000$ 311,000$ 155,000$ 145,000$ 55,000$ Annual Operating Costs 1,630,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,180,000$ 1,130,000$ 540,000$ Present Worth of Op Costs $18,700,000 $21,600,000 $13,500,000 $13,000,000 $6,200,000 (2012-2032) Total Capital + Ops PW $45,000,000 $50,900,000 $42,000,000 $43,100,000 $26,600,000 NOTE: These costs do NOT reflect total expected cost of expansion, they only include costs necessary for comparison and do not include costs common to all alternatives, such as solids handling, disinfection, common piping, etc. Appendix B – Disinfection Cost Comparison Summary Meramec WWTP Disinfection Cost Comparison SummaryMSD Project No. 2006167Date: 01/30/08SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTPHASE IPHASE IIPHASE IIITOTAL (2008$)Bulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase Hypochlorite$4,110,000$2,070,000$3,430,000$9,610,000Onsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% Hypochlorite$6,670,000$3,380,000$6,230,000$16,280,000Bulk Purchase HypochloriteLP UVLP UV$4,110,000$5,080,000$4,990,000$14,180,000Bulk Purchase HypochloriteMP UVMP UV$4,110,000$6,830,000$1,390,000$12,330,000SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED O&M COSTPHASE IPHASE IIPHASE IIINPWBulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase Hypochlorite$185,000$271,000$532,000$3,530,000Onsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% Hypochlorite$165,000$243,000$477,000$3,160,000Bulk Purchase HypochloriteLP UVLP UV$185,000$65,000$132,000$1,350,000Bulk Purchase HypochloriteMP UVMP UV$185,000$150,000$197,000$2,000,000TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTPHASE IPHASE IIPHASE IIITOTAL PERCENTAGEALTERNATIVE 1Bulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase HypochloriteBulk Purchase Hypochlorite$13,140,000100%ALTERNATIVE 2Onsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% HypochloriteOnsite Gen 12.5% Hypochlorite$19,440,000148%ALTERNATIVE 3Bulk Purchase HypochloriteLP UVLP UV$15,530,000118%ALTERNATIVE 4Bulk Purchase HypochloriteMP UVMP UV$14,330,000109%Notes:1. Bulk sodium hypochlorite cost = $0.80/gallon. Bulk sodium bisulfite cost = $1.45/gallon.2. On-site hypochlorite generation O&M costs equivalent to $0.70/gallon.3. Electrical costs based on $0.06/kWhr.4. O&M costs amortized at 6%.ALTERNATIVE 1ALTERNATIVE 2ALTERNATIVE 3ALTERNATIVE 4ALTERNATIVE 1ALTERNATIVE 2ALTERNATIVE 3ALTERNATIVE 4 Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase I (Bulk Purchased Liquid Chlorine)Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/9/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $481,000.00 $481,000 SUBTOTAL $481,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 5,000 CY $8.00 $40,000 Backfill 1,500 CY $12.00 $18,000 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 Hypochlorite Transfer Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Tanker Truck Loading Containment 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 3,000 SF $3.00 $9,000 SUBTOTAL $152,000 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 500 CY $525.00 $262,500 Walls 500 CY $675.00 $337,500 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Disinfection Building 4,000 SF $150.00 $600,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $1,220,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 500 LF $75.00 $37,500 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 150 SF $50.00 $7,500 Bollards 8 EA $400.00 $3,200 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $62,300 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000 SUBTOTAL $12,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 3 EA $30,000.00 $90,000 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Recirculation Pump 2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (5,000-gallon)4 EA $15,000.00 $60,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $250,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 2500 SF $50.00 $125,000 Instrumentation/ORP Residual Control 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$275,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $5,000 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000 Emergency Eyewash and Shower 1 EA $1,600.00 $1,600Plumbing1LS$10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $339,100 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $349,000.00 $349,000 SUBTOTAL $349,000 Subtotal $3,160,000 Contingency (30%)$950,000Total Estimated Construction Cost $4,110,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase II (Bulk Purchased Liquid Chlorine)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/9/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $243,000.00 $243,000 SUBTOTAL $243,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 4,000 CY $8.00 $32,000 Backfill 1,200 CY $12.00 $14,400 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 Hypochlorite Transfer Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Tanker Truck Loading Containment 0 LS $10,000.00 $0 Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 2,500 SF $3.00 $7,500 SUBTOTAL $118,900 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 400 CY $525.00 $210,000 Walls 400 CY $675.00 $270,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $500,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 500 LF $75.00 $37,500 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 150 SF $50.00 $7,500 Bollards 6 EA $400.00 $2,400 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $61,500 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 0 EA $3,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 0 EA $30,000.00 $0 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 0 EA $15,000.00 $0 Recirculation Pump 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (5,000-gallon)2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)0 EA $10,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $45,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 1500 SF $50.00 $75,000 Instrumentation 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000SUBTOTAL$100,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 0 EA $5,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000 Emergency Eyewash and Shower 0 EA $1,600.00 $0Plumbing1LS$10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $337,500 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $176,000.00 $176,000 SUBTOTAL $176,000 Subtotal $1,590,000 Contingency (30%)$480,000Total Estimated Construction Cost $2,070,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase III (Bulk Purchased Liquid Chlorine)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/9/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $403,000.00 $403,000 SUBTOTAL $403,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 10,000 CY $8.00 $80,000 Backfill 3,000 CY $12.00 $36,000 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 Hypochlorite Transfer Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Tanker Truck Loading Containment 0 LS $10,000.00 $0 Drainage Piping 200 LF $150.00 $30,000 Paving 5,000 SF $3.00 $15,000 SUBTOTAL $246,000 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 800 CY $525.00 $420,000 Walls 800 CY $675.00 $540,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $990,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 1,000 LF $75.00 $75,000 Aluminum Stairs 100 Tread $130.00 $13,000 Aluminum Grating 300 SF $50.00 $15,000 Bollards 8 EA $400.00 $3,200 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000 SUBTOTAL $113,200 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 SUBTOTAL $3,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 0 EA $30,000.00 $0 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Recirculation Pump 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (5,000-gallon)3 EA $15,000.00 $45,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $85,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 2000 SF $50.00 $100,000 Instrumentation 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000SUBTOTAL$125,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 0 EA $5,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 200 LF $750.00 $150,000 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000 Emergency Eyewash and Shower 0 EA $1,600.00 $0Plumbing1LS$10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $375,000 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $292,000.00 $292,000 SUBTOTAL $292,000 Subtotal $2,640,000 Contingency (30%)$790,000Total Estimated Construction Cost $3,430,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase I (Onsite Generation 12.5% Liquid Chlorine)Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $783,000.00 $783,000 SUBTOTAL $783,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 5,000 CY $8.00 $40,000 Backfill 1,500 CY $12.00 $18,000 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 Brine and Hypochlorite Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Salt Off-loading Area 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 3,000 SF $3.00 $9,000 SUBTOTAL $157,000 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 500 CY $525.00 $262,500 Walls 500 CY $675.00 $337,500 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Disinfection Building 4,000 SF $150.00 $600,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $1,220,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 500 LF $75.00 $37,500 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 150 SF $50.00 $7,500 Bollards 8 EA $400.00 $3,200 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $62,300 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000 SUBTOTAL $12,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 3 EA $30,000.00 $90,000 12.5% Hypochlorite Generator Skids and Rectifiers 1 EA $1,324,500.00 $1,324,500 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Recirculation Pump 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Brine Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Holding Tank/Neutralization Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $1,564,500 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 2000 SF $50.00 $100,000 Instrumentation/ORP Residual Control 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$250,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $5,000 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000Salt/Compressed Air Piping 500 LF $200.00 $100,000 Cooling Water Piping 500 LF $20.00 $10,000 Water Piping 1000 LF $20.00 $20,000 Softening Water Piping 500 LF $10.00 $5,000 Brine Solution Piping 500 LF $15.00 $7,500 Caustic (Sodium Hydroxide) Solution Piping 500 LF $10.00 $5,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000Emergency Eyewash and Shower 1 EA $1,600.00 $1,600 Plumbing (Waste and Vent)1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 SUBTOTAL $501,600 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $567,000.00 $567,000 SUBTOTAL $567,000 Subtotal $5,130,000 Contingency (30%)$1,540,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $6,670,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase II (Onsite Generation 12.5% Liquid Chlorine)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $397,000.00 $397,000 SUBTOTAL $397,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 4,000 CY $8.00 $32,000 Backfill 1,200 CY $12.00 $14,400 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 Brine and Hypochlorite Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Salt Off-loading Area 0 LS $15,000.00 $0 Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 2,500 SF $3.00 $7,500 SUBTOTAL $123,900 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 400 CY $525.00 $210,000 Walls 400 CY $675.00 $270,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $500,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 500 LF $75.00 $37,500 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 150 SF $50.00 $7,500 Bollards 6 EA $400.00 $2,400 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $61,500 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000 SUBTOTAL $12,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 0 EA $30,000.00 $0 12.5% Hypochlorite Generator Skids and Rectifiers 1 EA $600,000.00 $600,000 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 0 EA $15,000.00 $0 Recirculation Pump 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Brine Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Holding Tank/Neutralization Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (5,000-gallon)1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)0 EA $10,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $675,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 1500 SF $50.00 $75,000 Instrumentation 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000SUBTOTAL$155,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 0 EA $5,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000Salt/Compressed Air Piping 100 LF $200.00 $20,000 Cooling Water Piping 100 LF $20.00 $2,000 Water Piping 50 LF $20.00 $1,000 Softening Water Piping 100 LF $10.00 $1,000 Brine Solution Piping 100 LF $15.00 $1,500 Caustic (Sodium Hydroxide) Solution Piping 100 LF $10.00 $1,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000Emergency Eyewash and Shower 0 EA $1,600.00 $0 Plumbing (Waste and Vent)1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 SUBTOTAL $379,000 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $287,000.00 $287,000 SUBTOTAL $287,000 Subtotal $2,600,000 Contingency (30%)$780,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $3,380,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase III (Onsite Generation 12.5% Liquid Chlorine)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $730,000.00 $730,000 SUBTOTAL $730,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 10,000 CY $8.00 $80,000 Backfill 3,000 CY $12.00 $36,000 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 Brine and Hypochlorite Piping 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Salt Off-loading Area 0 LS $15,000.00 $0 Drainage Piping 200 LF $150.00 $30,000 Paving 5,000 SF $3.00 $15,000 SUBTOTAL $221,000 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE Chlorine Contact BasinFoundations and Footings 800 CY $525.00 $420,000 Walls 800 CY $675.00 $540,000 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $980,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 1,000 LF $75.00 $75,000 Aluminum Stairs 100 Tread $130.00 $13,000 Aluminum Grating 300 SF $50.00 $15,000 Bollards 8 EA $400.00 $3,200 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $111,200 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 SUBTOTAL $3,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTInduction Unit/Water Champ 0 EA $30,000.00 $0 12.5% Hypochlorite Generator Skids and Rectifiers 1 EA $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000 Hypochlorite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Bisulfite Metering Pump 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Recirculation Pump 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Brine Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Holding Tank/Neutralization Tank 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Hypochlorite Storage Tank (5,000-gallon)1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Bisulfite Storage Tank (2,500-gallon)1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $1,600,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Storage Area Cover 1500 SF $50.00 $75,000 Instrumentation 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$225,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMS Potable Davit Crane 0 EA $5,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000Salt/Compressed Air Piping 100 LF $200.00 $20,000 Cooling Water Piping 100 LF $20.00 $2,000 Water Piping 50 LF $20.00 $1,000 Softening Water Piping 100 LF $10.00 $1,000 Brine Solution Piping 100 LF $15.00 $1,500 Caustic (Sodium Hydroxide) Solution Piping 100 LF $10.00 $1,000 Miscellaneous Piping and Fittings 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 36-inch Slide Gate 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000Emergency Eyewash and Shower 0 EA $1,600.00 $0 Plumbing (Waste and Vent)1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 SUBTOTAL $379,000 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $529,000.00 $529,000 SUBTOTAL $529,000 Subtotal $4,790,000 Contingency (30%)$1,440,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $6,230,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase II (LP UV)/New Installation Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $596,000.00 $596,000 SUBTOTAL $596,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 1,000 CY $8.00 $8,000 Backfill 350 CY $12.00 $4,200 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow and Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 1,500 SF $3.00 $4,500 SUBTOTAL $56,700 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE UV Basin Foundations and Footings 100 CY $525.00 $52,500 Walls 120 CY $675.00 $81,000Suspended Slab 100 CY $675.00 $67,500 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow Split Structure 50 CY $650.00 $32,500 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $253,500 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 220 LF $75.00 $16,500 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 400 SF $50.00 $20,000 Bollards 6 EA $400.00 $2,400 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $53,000 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 3 EA $1,500.00 $4,500 SUBTOTAL $4,500 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTLP HI UV System 1 EA $1,722,500.00 $1,722,500 SUBTOTAL $1,722,500 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Aluminum Canopy 4,000 SF $50.00 $200,000 Instrumentation (flow-pacing/dose-pacing)1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$350,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMSBridge Crane 1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000 SUBTOTAL $100,000 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Serpentine Weir 3 EA $8,000.00 $24,000 Adjustable Fixed Weir 3 EA $15,000.00 $45,000 36-in Flap Gate 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000 Flow Meter 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Plumbing 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 SUBTOTAL $331,500 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $432,000.00 $432,000SUBTOTAL$432,000 Subtotal $3,910,000 Contingency (30%)$1,170,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $5,080,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase III (LP UV)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $585,000.00 $585,000 SUBTOTAL $585,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 1,000 CY $8.00 $8,000 Backfill 350 CY $12.00 $4,200 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow and Drainage Piping 100 LF $150.00 $15,000 Paving 1,500 SF $3.00 $4,500 SUBTOTAL $56,700 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE UV Basin Foundations and Footings 100 CY $525.00 $52,500 Walls 120 CY $675.00 $81,000Suspended Slab 100 CY $675.00 $67,500 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow Split Structure 50 CY $650.00 $32,500 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $253,500 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 200 LF $75.00 $15,000 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 400 SF $50.00 $20,000 Bollards 4 EA $400.00 $1,600 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $50,700 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 3 EA $1,500.00 $4,500 SUBTOTAL $4,500 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTLP HI UV System 1 EA $1,722,500.00 $1,722,500 SUBTOTAL $1,722,500 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Aluminum Canopy 4,000 SF $50.00 $200,000 Instrumentation (flow-pacing/dose-pacing)1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$350,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMSBridge Crane 1 EA $100,000.00 $100,000 SUBTOTAL $100,000 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Final Effluent Piping 80 LF $750.00 $60,000 Serpentine Weir 3 EA $8,000.00 $24,000 Adjustable Fixed Weir 3 EA $15,000.00 $45,000 36-in Flap Gate 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000 Flow Meter 0 EA $15,000.00 $0 Plumbing 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $279,000 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $424,000.00 $424,000SUBTOTAL$424,000 Subtotal $3,840,000 Contingency (30%)$1,150,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $4,990,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase II (MP UV)/New Installation Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $800,000.00 $800,000 SUBTOTAL $800,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Structural Excavation 2,200 CY $8.00 $17,600 Backfill 700 CY $12.00 $8,400 Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 Flow and Drainage Piping 200 LF $180.00 $36,000 Paving 2,000 SF $3.00 $6,000 SUBTOTAL $98,000 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE UV Basin Foundations and Footings 150 CY $525.00 $78,750 Walls 200 CY $675.00 $135,000Suspended Slab 100 CY $675.00 $67,500 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow Split Structure 80 CY $650.00 $52,000 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $353,250 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 250 LF $75.00 $18,750 Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread $130.00 $9,100 Aluminum Grating 500 SF $50.00 $25,000 Bollards 6 EA $400.00 $2,400 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $60,250 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000 SUBTOTAL $3,000 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $10,000 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTMP HI UV System 1 EA $2,730,000.00 $2,730,000 SUBTOTAL $2,730,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Aluminum Canopy 2,000 SF $75.00 $150,000 Instrumentation (flow-pacing/dose-pacing)1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000SUBTOTAL$300,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMSBridge Crane 0 EA $100,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 150 LF $750.00 $112,500 Final Effluent Piping 100 LF $750.00 $75,000 Effluent Weir/Gate 2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000 Adjustable Fixed Weir 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000 36-in Flap Gate 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000 Flow Meter 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Plumbing 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 SUBTOTAL $312,500 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $580,000.00 $580,000SUBTOTAL$580,000 Subtotal $5,250,000 Contingency (30%)$1,580,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $6,830,000 COST Job No. 2654831-233 Calc No. Computation Project Meramec WWTP Disinfection - Phase III (MP UV)/Expansion Computed JL Subject Cost Estimate Date 1/14/2008 Task Estimate of Probable Construction Cost Reviewed DDH File Name Date 1/25/2008 QUANTITY UNITS PRICE DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTSMobilization, Overhead, Profit, Insurance and Bonds 1 LS $164,000.00 $164,000 SUBTOTAL $164,000 DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK Site Clearing 0 LS $10,000.00 $0 Structural Excavation 0 CY $8.00 $0 Backfill 0 CY $12.00 $0 Final Grading and Seeding 0 CY $10.00 $0Granular Fill Under Structures 0 LS $15,000.00 $0 Flow and Drainage Piping 0 LF $180.00 $0 Paving 0 SF $3.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE UV Basin Foundations and Footings 0 CY $525.00 $0 Walls 0 CY $675.00 $0Suspended Slab 0 CY $675.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 Flow Split Structure 0 CY $650.00 $0 Disinfection Building 0 SF $150.00 $0 Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 SUBTOTAL $20,000 DIVISION 5 - METALS Aluminum Railing 0 LF $75.00 $0 Aluminum Stairs 0 Tread $130.00 $0 Aluminum Grating 0 SF $50.00 $0 Bollards 0 EA $400.00 $0 Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $5,000 DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS FRP Stop Gates 0 EA $1,500.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 0 LS $5,000.00 $0 Signs 0 LS $5,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENTMP HI UV System 1 EA $630,000.00 $630,000 SUBTOTAL $630,000 DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Aluminum Canopy 0 SF $75.00 $0 Instrumentation 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000SUBTOTAL$100,000 DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING SYSTEMSBridge Crane 0 EA $100,000.00 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Secondary Effluent Piping 0 LF $750.00 $0 Final Effluent Piping 0 LF $750.00 $0 Effluent Weir/Gate 0 EA $10,000.00 $0 Adjustable Fixed Weir 0 EA $15,000.00 $0 36-in Flap Gate 0 EA $25,000.00 $0 Flow Meter 0 EA $15,000.00 $0 Plumbing 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000 SUBTOTAL $35,000 DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Electrical 1 LS $119,000.00 $119,000SUBTOTAL$119,000 Subtotal $1,070,000 Contingency (30%)$320,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,390,000 COST Appendix C – Meramec WWTP Hydraulic Profile Appendix D – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Summary Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD) Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 2,202,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 16,346,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 256,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 492,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 55,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 113,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 75,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 345,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 23,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 12,817,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 1,419,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 192,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 11,719,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 4,605,000$ Subtotal 50,659,000$ Contingency 30%15,197,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 65,856,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%5,268,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%8,534,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%1,593,000$ Subtotal-2008 Construction Costs 81,251,000$ Escalation to Year 2016 @ 7%/year 58,353,000$ Total to Midpoint of Construction in 2016 139,604,000$ Notes: 1. Concrete prices are based on $562/CY slab, $722/CY walls, and $776/CY supported slabs, and $856/CY beams. Cost includes rebar and installation. 2. Equipment costs are based on vendor budget quotes with 15-30% added in for installation. 3. Unit prices are based on a combination of Means cost data, vendor prices, and past project experience. 4. Electrical costs are based on 10% of Divisions 2-15. 5. Cost escalation based on review of RS Means Construction Cost Index (CCI) for St. Louis from 2003 to 2008. Components of Estimate Corresponding Portion of Estimate w/o Escalation Preliminary Treatment 6,058,000$ 7% Aeration Basins 27,085,000$ 33% Secondary Clarifiers 33,207,000$ 41% Disinfection 7,368,000$ 9% Solids Handling 7,533,000$ 9% Total 81,251,000$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 1 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Preliminary Treatment Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 86,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 491,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 56,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 31,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 10,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 24,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 13,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 20,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 3,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 776,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 116,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total -$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 1,808,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 343,000$ Subtotal 3,777,000$ Contingency 30%1,133,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 4,910,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%393,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%636,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%119,000$ Subtotal 6,058,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 4,351,000$ Total 10,409,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Demolition of Existing 36 IN bypass piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Misc. Demolition 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Excavation for Grit Tanks (2)1800 CY 8$ 14,400$ Backfill Structural Fill 1000 CY 12$ 12,000$ Excavation for Grit Building (1)220 CY 8$ 1,760$ Backfill Structural Fill 1000 CY 12$ 12,000$ Waste Material to Site 1500 CY 4$ 6,000$ Dewatering-Sumps 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #2 Total 86,160$ Wall and Floor Penetrations-Core Drill Misc.1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Concrete Slabs 200 CY 562$ 112,400$ Concrete Walls 300 CY 722$ 216,600$ Elevated Slabs 20 CY 776$ 15,520$ Flowmeter Pits 2 EA 50,000$ 100,000$ Sidewalks 400 LF 15$ 6,000$ Precast Roof Plank 1200 SF 25$ 30,000$ Div. #3 Total 490,520$ Division #4 - Masonry 10 IN CMU 2000 SF 28$ 56,000$ Div. #4 Total 56,000$ Divison #5 - Metals Grating/Checker Plate 20 SF 50$ 1,000$ Guardrail-Aluminum 400 LF 75$ 30,000$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 2 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Ladders 0 VLF 85$ -$ Weir Plate 0 LS -$ -$ Div. #5 Total 31,000$ FRP Slide Plates-Manual 6 EA 1,000.00$ 6,000$ Misc. Treated Wood 1 LS 4,000.00$ 4,000$ Div. #6 Total 10,000$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection Roofing 1200 SF 20$ 24,000$ Div. #7 Total 24,000$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows Aluminum Double Doors 2 EA 5,500.00$ 11,000$ Windows 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ Div. #8 Total 13,000$ Division #9 - Finishes Coatings 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Div. #9 Total 20,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Signs 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Fire Extinguishers 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$ Div. #10 Total 2,500$ Division # 11 - Equipment Fine Screens-72 IN 1 EA 300,000$ 300,000$ Screenings Washer incl. Controls 1 LS 126,000$ 126,000$ Vortex Equipment 2 EA 150,000$ 300,000$ Grit Classifier 1 EA 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #11 Total 776,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Fine Screen Bubbler System 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$ 48" Flowmeters 2 EA 30,000$ 60,000$ Level Transmitters 4 EA 3,500$ 14,000$ Float Switch in Screen Channel 1 EA 1,500$ 1,500$ Combustible Gas Detectors 1 EA 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #13 Total 115,500$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Div. #14 Total -$ Division # 15 - Mechanical 6" DIP Piping 200 LF 100$ 20,000$ 4" DIP Piping 100 LF 70$ 7,000$ 2" PVC Piping 600 LF 60$ 36,000$ Valves, Fittings, Hangers 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Hose for Reel 1 LS 500$ 500$ Yard Hydrants 4 EA 500$ 2,000$ Wall hydrants with Hose Reel 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ 60 IN PEF 525 LF 1,200$ 630,000$ 48 IN Grit Influent 900 LF 800$ 720,000$ 48" motor actuated butterfly valves 5 EA 49,000$ 245,000$ Misc. Fittings 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Grit Bldg HVAC 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Div. #15 Total 1,807,500$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (use 10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 343,218$ 343,218$ -$ Div. #16 Total 343,200$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 3 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Aeration Basins Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 1,069,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 5,812,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 200,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 199,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 40,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 89,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 62,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 150,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 5,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 3,597,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 860,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 46,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 3,223,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 1,535,000$ Subtotal 16,887,000$ Contingency 30%5,066,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 21,953,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%1,756,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%2,845,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%531,000$ Subtotal 27,085,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 19,452,000$ Total 46,537,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Chain Link Fence-Removed & Reinstall 1000 LF 10$ 10,000$ Temporary Fencing 1000 LF 4$ 4,000$ Silt Fence 4000 LF 5$ 20,000$ Clearing and grubbing 8 AC 3,500$ 28,000$ Excavation for Aeration Tanks 60000 CY 8$ 480,000$ Structural Backfill 10000 CY 12$ 120,000$ Structural Bedding 1000 CY 25$ 25,000$ Filter Fabric 15000 SY 1.5$ 22,500$ Excess Material Disposal 50000 CY 4$ 200,000$ Excavation for MLSS Split Structure 200 CY 20$ 4,000$ Misc Structural Backfill 100 CY 12$ 1,200$ Structural Bedding 50 CY 25$ 1,250$ Excess Material Disposal 100 CY 4$ 400$ Sidewalk 1500 LF 15$ 22,500$ Final Grading and Seeding 3 AC 10,000$ 30,000$ Landscaping 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Excavation Dewatering - Sumps 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #2 Total 1,068,850$ Aeration Basin Slabs 3105 CY 562$ 1,745,010$ Aeration Basin Walls 5142 CY 722$ 3,712,524$ Aeration Basin Elevated Slabs 180 CY 776$ 139,680$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 4 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) MLSS Split Structure 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Blower Building Foundation and Floor Slab 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Tank Testing 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Fill concrete and grouting 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Pipe Support Footings 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building Roof Planks 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ Div. #3 Total 5,812,214$ Division #4 - Masonry Masonry Superstructure 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ Div. #4 Total 200,000$ Divison #5 - Metals Grating - Split Structures 300 SF 40$ 12,000$ Guardrail 1500 LF 50$ 75,000$ Ladders 200 VLF 85$ 17,000$ Misc. Stairs 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Misc. Structural Steel 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Misc. Hardware 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Lintels 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building Stairs/Landing 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Div. #5 Total 199,000$ Weirs 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ Div. #6 Total 40,000$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection Seal Wall and Roof Penetrations, Sealants 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Blower Building Roof 3000 SF 20$ 60,000$ Roof Walkways 1500 SF 3$ 4,500$ Flashing 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Downspouts 80 LF 25$ 2,000$ Scuppers 4 EA 1,000$ 4,000$ Div. #7 Total 88,500$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows Aluminum Doors and Frames 4 EA 5,500$ 22,000$ Aluminum Overhead Doors 2 EA 20,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ Div. #8 Total 62,000$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Paint Air Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Acoustic Panels in Blower Bldg 50 EA 300$ 15,000$ Field Painting Equipment 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #9 Total 150,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Equipment Tagging 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 5,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment Aeration Equipment 1 LS 1,192,000$ 1,192,000$ Blowers (including valves)1 LS 1,225,000$ 1,225,000$ Denit Recycle Pumps 8 EA 50,000$ 400,000$ BioP Recycle Pumps 8 EA 35,000$ 280,000$ Mixers 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Div. #11 Total 3,597,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 5 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) 48 IN Aeration Influent Mag Meters 4 EA 50,000$ 200,000$ 48 IN Primary Effluent 1 EA 50,000$ 50,000$ 24 IN MXL Mag Meters 4 EA 20,000$ 80,000$ DO Sensors, Transmitters 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ DCS Modifications/Integration 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Div. #13 Total 860,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Hoists, Trolleys, and Monorails 1 LS 46,000$ 46,000$ Div. #14 Total 46,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Pressure Relief Valves 180 EA 500$ 90,000$ Yard Hydrants 8 EA 500$ 4,000$ 48 IN Motorized Butterfly Valves on SI 4 EA 49,000$ 196,000$ 48x48 CI Slide Gates at Splitter 6 EA 20,000$ 120,000$ 72x72 AL Slide Gates at Splitter 2 EA 15,000$ 30,000$ Testing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Wall Hydrants with Hose racks 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ 36 IN Recycle Piping 1200 LF 500$ 600,000$ 24 IN Recycle Piping 1200 LF 300$ 360,000$ 48 IN Grit Effluent 20 LF 800$ 16,000$ 54 IN SIF 800 LF 900$ 720,000$ 24"-36" SS aeration header piping 1500 LF 600$ 900,000$ Miscellaneous Fittings 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Miscellaneous Valves, Pipe Supports-Plumbing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building HVAC 1 LS 65,000$ 65,000$ Div. #15 Total 3,223,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div. 2-15)1 LS 1,535,156$ 1,535,156$ Div. #16 Total 1,535,200$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 6 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Secondary Clarifiers Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 708,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 8,857,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 50,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 155,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 5,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 3,349,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 117,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 46,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 5,535,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 1,882,000$ Subtotal 20,704,000$ Contingency 30%6,211,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 26,915,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%2,153,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%3,488,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%651,000$ Subtotal 33,207,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 23,849,000$ Total 57,056,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Excavation for Clarifiers & Tunnel 45000 CY 6$ 270,000$ Structural Backfill 20000 CY 12$ 240,000$ Structural Bedding 1000 CY 25$ 25,000$ Filter Fabric 15000 SY 1.5$ 22,500$ Excess Material Disposal 25000 CY 4$ 100,000$ Excavation Dewatering 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #2 Total 707,500$ Clarifier Slabs 4200 CY 562$ 2,360,400$ Clarifier Walls 1968 CY 722$ 1,420,896$ Clarifier Launders 318 CY 776$ 246,768$ Pipe Gallery Slabs 2800 CY 562$ 1,573,600$ Pipe Gallery Walls 1800 CY 722$ 1,299,600$ Pipe Gallery Roof 2200 CY 776$ 1,707,200$ Pipe Gallery Columns 220 CY 856$ 188,320$ Tank Testing 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Fill concrete and grouting 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Pipe Support Footings 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Scum Concentrator Support Pad 1 LS 10,400$ 10,400$ Div. #3 Total 8,857,184$ Division #4 - Masonry -$ Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 7 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Misc. Metals 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #5 Total 50,000$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Field Painting Equipment 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #9 Total 155,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Equipment Tagging 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 5,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment RAS Pumps 12 EA 37,000$ 444,000$ Scum Pumps 6 EA 10,000$ 60,000$ Final Clarifier Mechanism/Bridge 6 EA 300,000$ 1,800,000$ Algae Sweeps 6 EA 25,000$ 150,000$ Weir/Scum Baffle 6 EA 30,000$ 180,000$ Automatic Water Strainer w/ control panel 1 EA 16,000$ 16,000$ Service Water Pumps 3 EA 6,000$ 18,000$ Baffles-Current-Density-Clarifiers 6 EA 55,000$ 330,000$ Scum Concentrator 1 LS 240,000$ 240,000$ WAS Pumps 3 EA 37,000$ 111,000$ Div. #11 Total 3,349,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction 8 IN WAS Sldg Mag Meter 2 EA 8,000$ 16,000$ 36 IN RAS Flowmeter 1 EA 20,000$ 20,000$ 16 IN RAS and MXL Mag Meters 6 EA 12,000$ 72,000$ Float Switch Final Clarifiers Scum Pit 6 EA 1,500$ 9,000$ Div. #13 Total 117,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Hoists, Trolleys, and Monorails 1 LS 46,000$ 46,000$ Div. #14 Total 46,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Misc. Piping 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 48" RAS Piping 1300 LF 800$ 1,040,000$ 36" RAS Piping 600 LF 500$ 300,000$ 24" RAS Piping 600 LF 300$ 180,000$ 48" SIF Piping 1900 LF 800$ 1,520,000$ 64" SEF Piping 850 LF 1,400$ 1,190,000$ 48" SEF Piping 350 LF 800$ 280,000$ 36" SEF Piping 1000 LF 500$ 500,000$ Tunnel HVAC 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Div. #15 Total 5,535,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div. 2-15)1 LS 1,882,168$ 1,882,168$ Div. #16 Total 1,882,200$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 8 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Disinfection Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 100,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 426,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 60,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 5,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total -$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 10,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 2,730,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 300,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total -$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 545,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 418,000$ Subtotal 4,594,000$ Contingency 30%1,378,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 5,972,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%478,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%774,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%144,000$ Subtotal 7,368,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 5,292,000$ Total 12,660,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Site Clearing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Structural Excavation 2,200 CY 8$ 17,600$ Backfill 700 CY 12$ 8,400$ Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Flow and Drainage Piping 200 LF 180$ 36,000$ Paving 2,000 SF 4$ 8,000$ Div. #2 Total 100,000$ UV Basin Foundations and Footings 150 CY 562$ 84,300$ Walls 200 CY 722$ 144,400$ Suspended Slab 100 CY 776$ 77,600$ Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Flow Split Structure-Junction Box-Influent Effluent boxes 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #3 Total 426,300$ Division #4 - Masonry Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Aluminum Railing 250 LF 75$ 18,750$ Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread 130$ 9,100$ Aluminum Grating 500 SF 50$ 25,000$ Bollards 6 EA 400$ 2,400$ Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #5 Total 60,250$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 9 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) FRP Stop Gates 3 EA 1,500$ 4,500$ Div. #6 Total 4,500$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes -$ Div. #9 Total -$ Division # 10 Specialties Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Signs 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 10,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment MP HI UV System 1 EA 2,730,000$ 2,730,000$ Div. #11 Total 2,730,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Aluminum Canopy 2,000 SF 75$ 150,000$ Instrumentation (flow-pacing/dose-pacing)1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ Div. #13 Total 300,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Bridge Crane 0 EA -$ -$ Div. #14 Total -$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Secondary Effluent Piping-108 IN RCP 40 LF 1,500$ 60,000$ Final Effluent Piping-108 IN RCP 200 LF 1,500$ 300,000$ 15 FT DIA Manholes-Installed 1 EA 60,000$ 60,000$ Serpentine Weir 2 EA 10,000$ 20,000$ Adjustable Fixed Weir 2 EA 15,000$ 30,000$ 36-in Flap Gate 1 EA 25,000$ 25,000$ Flow Meter 1 EA 15,000$ 15,000$ Plumbing 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$ Div. #15 Total 545,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (use 10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 417,605$ 417,605$ -$ Div. #16 Total 417,600$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 10 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase II Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase II Solids Handling Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 239,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 760,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 152,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 20,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total -$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 2,365,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 26,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 100,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 608,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 427,000$ Subtotal 4,697,000$ Contingency 30%1,409,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 6,106,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%488,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%791,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%148,000$ Subtotal 7,533,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 5,410,000$ Total 12,943,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Demolition - Piping 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ Excavation for Sludge Storage, Thickener Tanks (2)11400 CY 8$ 91,200$ Backfill Structural Fill 4000 CY 12$ 48,000$ Structural Bedding 400 CY 25$ 10,000$ Waste Materials to Site 7000 CY 4$ 28,000$ Dewatering Sumps 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Filter Fabric 1000 SY 2$ 1,500$ Div. #2 Total 238,700$ Curb - Polmer Upper Level 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Curb and sump - BFP 1 LS 8,000$ 8,000$ Equipment Pads 1 EA 500$ 500$ Concrete Slab 400 CY 562$ 224,800$ Concrete Walls 650 CY 722$ 469,300$ Elevated Slabs 60 CY 776$ 46,560$ Sidewalks 200 LF 15$ 3,000$ Floor and Wall patches 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #3 Total 760,160$ Division #4 - Masonry -$ Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Elevated Walkway Supports 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Grating 290 SF 40$ 11,600$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 11 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Guardrail 200 LF 50$ 10,000$ Existing building support frame modifications 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Loadout I-beam supports 10000 LB 7$ 70,000$ Div. #5 Total 151,600$ -$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #9 Total 20,000$ Division # 10 Specialties -$ Div. #10 Total -$ Division # 11 - Equipment Belt Filter Press and control panel 1 EA 550,000$ 550,000$ Polymer Feeder 1 EA 25,000$ 25,000$ Press Feed Pumps 2 EA 37,000$ 74,000$ Sludge Storage Pumps 2 EA 68,000$ 136,000$ Gravity Thickener Pumps 6 EA 37,000$ 222,000$ Sludge Cake Loadout (Bin)1 LS 840,000$ 840,000$ Gravity Thickener System 2 EA 125,000$ 250,000$ Gravity Thickener Flat Covers 2 EA 132,000$ 264,000$ Wash Water Booster Pump 1 EA 4,000$ 4,000$ Div. #11 Total 2,365,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction 8" Magnetic Flow Meter 2 EA 5,000$ 10,000$ 4" Magnetic Flow Meter 3 EA 4,200$ 12,600$ 1" Magnetic Flow Meter 1 EA 3,300$ 3,300$ Div. #13 Total 25,900$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Shaftless Screw Conveyors & Motorized Gate 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #14 Total 100,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Manual Valves 40 EA 4,000$ 160,000$ Motorized Valves 4 EA 8,000$ 32,000$ 2" Piping (and smaller)1000 LF 50$ 50,000$ 4" Piping 400 LF 70$ 28,000$ 8" Piping 1000 LF 100$ 100,000$ 10" Piping 600 LF 120$ 72,000$ 12" Piping 1000 LF 140$ 140,000$ Miscellaneous Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Testing 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$ Pipe Supports 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Div. #15 Total 608,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (use 10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 426,936$ 426,936$ Div. #16 Total 426,900$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Page 12 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Summary Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD) Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 1,972,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 15,874,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 216,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 592,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 33,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 118,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 69,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 380,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 23,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 13,918,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 1,613,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 247,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 12,174,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 4,723,000$ Subtotal 51,952,000$ Contingency 30%15,585,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 67,537,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%5,403,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%8,753,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%1,634,000$ Subtotal-2008 Construction Costs 83,327,000$ Escalation to Year 2026 7%/year 198,313,000$ Total to Midpoint of Construction in 2026 281,640,000$ Notes: 1. Concrete prices are based on $562/CY slab, $722/CY walls, and $776/CY supported slabs, and $856/CY beams. Cost includes rebar and installation. 2. Equipment costs are based on vendor budget quotes with 15-30% added in for installation. 3. Unit prices are based on a combination of Means cost data, vendor prices, and past project experience. 4. Electrical costs are based on 10% of Divisions 2-15. 5. Cost escalation based on review of RS Means Construction Cost Index (CCI) for St. Louis from 2003 to 2008. Components of Estimate Corresponding Portion of Estimate w/o Escalation Preliminary Treatment 4,300,000$ 5% Aeration Basins 28,721,000$ 34% Secondary Clarifiers 35,126,000$ 42% Disinfection 2,755,000$ 3% Solids Handling 6,528,000$ 8% Effluent Box 5,897,000$ 7% Total 83,327,000$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 13 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Preliminary Treatment Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 44,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 391,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 16,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 31,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 30,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 24,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 7,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 20,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 3,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 1,016,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 92,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total -$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 763,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 244,000$ Subtotal 2,681,000$ Contingency 30%804,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 3,485,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%279,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%452,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%84,000$ Subtotal 4,300,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2026 @ 7%/year 10,234,000$ Total 14,534,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Misc. Demolition 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Excavation for Grit Tanks (2)1800 CY 6$ 10,800$ Backfill Structural Fill 800 CY 12$ 9,600$ Excavation for Grit Building (1)220 CY 6$ 1,320$ Backfill Structural Fill 100 CY 12$ 1,200$ Waste Material to Site 1500 CY 4$ 6,000$ Dewatering-Sumps 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #2 Total 43,920$ Wall and Floor Penetrations-Core Drill Misc.1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Concrete Slabs 200 CY 562$ 112,400$ Concrete Walls 300 CY 722$ 216,600$ Elevated Slabs 20 CY 776$ 15,520$ Sidewalks 400 LF 15$ 6,000$ Precast Roof Plank 1200 SF 25$ 30,000$ Div. #3 Total 390,520$ Division #4 - Masonry 10 IN CMU 2000 SF 8$ 16,000$ Div. #4 Total 16,000$ Divison #5 - Metals Grating/Checker Plate 20 SF 50$ 1,000$ Guardrail-Aluminum 400 LF 75$ 30,000$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 14 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Ladders 0 VLF 85$ -$ Weir Plate 0 LS -$ -$ Div. #5 Total 31,000$ FRP Slide Plates-Manual 6 EA 1,000.00$ 6,000$ Misc. Treated Wood 1 LS 4,000.00$ 4,000$ FRP Flumes 2 EA 10,000$ 20,000$ Div. #6 Total 30,000$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection Roofing 1200 SF 20$ 24,000$ Div. #7 Total 24,000$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows Aluminum Double Doors 2 EA 2,500.00$ 5,000$ Windows 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ Div. #8 Total 7,000$ Division #9 - Finishes Coatings 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Div. #9 Total 20,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Signs 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ Fire Extinguishers 1 LS 1,500$ 1,500$ Div. #10 Total 2,500$ Division # 11 - Equipment Fine Screens-72 IN 1 EA 300,000$ 300,000$ Fine Screens 24 IN 1 EA 250,000$ 250,000$ Screenings Washer incl. Controls 1 LS 126,000$ 126,000$ Vortex Equipment 2 EA 150,000$ 300,000$ Grit Classifier 1 EA 40,000$ 40,000$ Div. #11 Total 1,016,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Fine Screen Bubbler System 2 LS 35,000$ 70,000$ Level Transmitters 4 EA 3,500$ 14,000$ Float Switch in Screen Channel 2 EA 1,500$ 3,000$ Combustible Gas Detectors 1 EA 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #13 Total 92,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Div. #14 Total -$ Division # 15 - Mechanical 6" DIP Piping 200 LF 100$ 20,000$ 4" DIP Piping 100 LF 70$ 7,000$ 2" PVC Piping 600 LF 60$ 36,000$ Valves, Fittings, Hangers 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Hose for Reel 1 LS 500$ 500$ Yard Hydrants 4 EA 500$ 2,000$ Wall hydrants with Hose Reel 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ 48 IN Grit Influent 700 LF 800$ 560,000$ Misc. Fittings 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Grit Bldg HVAC 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Div. #15 Total 762,500$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (use 10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 243,544$ 243,544$ -$ Div. #16 Total 243,500$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 15 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Aeration Basins Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 1,069,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 5,787,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total 200,000$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 199,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 89,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total 62,000$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 150,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 5,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 3,597,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 828,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 46,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 4,247,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 1,628,000$ Subtotal 17,907,000$ Contingency 30%5,372,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 23,279,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%1,862,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%3,017,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%563,000$ Subtotal 28,721,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2026 @ 7%/year 68,354,000$ Total 97,075,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Chain Link Fence-Removed & Reinstall 1000 LF 10$ 10,000$ Temporary Fencing 1000 LF 4$ 4,000$ Silt Fence 4000 LF 5$ 20,000$ Clearing and grubbing 8 AC 3,500$ 28,000$ Excavation for Aeration Tanks 60000 CY 8$ 480,000$ Structural Backfill 10000 CY 12$ 120,000$ Structural Bedding 1000 CY 25$ 25,000$ Filter Fabric 15000 SY 1.5$ 22,500$ Excess Material Disposal 50000 CY 4$ 200,000$ Excavation for MLSS Split Structure 200 CY 20$ 4,000$ Misc Structural Backfill 100 CY 12$ 1,200$ Structural Bedding 50 CY 25$ 1,250$ Excess Material Disposal 100 CY 4$ 400$ Sidewalk 1500 LF 15$ 22,500$ Final Grading and Seeding 3 AC 10,000$ 30,000$ Landscaping 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Excavation Dewatering 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #2 Total 1,068,850$ Aeration Basin Slabs 3105 CY 562$ 1,745,010$ Aeration Basin Walls 5142 CY 722$ 3,712,524$ Aeration Basin Elevated Slabs 180 CY 776$ 139,680$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 16 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) MLSS Split Structure 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Blower Building Foundation and Floor Slab 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Tank Testing 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Fill concrete and grouting 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Pipe Support Footings 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building Roof Planks 1 LS 40,000$ 40,000$ Div. #3 Total 5,787,214$ Division #4 - Masonry Masonry Superstructure 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ Div. #4 Total 200,000$ Divison #5 - Metals Grating - Split Structures 300 SF 40$ 12,000$ Guardrail 1500 LF 50$ 75,000$ Ladders 200 VLF 85$ 17,000$ Misc. Stairs 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Misc. Structural Steel 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Misc. Hardware 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Lintels 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building Stairs/Landing 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Div. #5 Total 199,000$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection Seal Wall and Roof Penetrations, Sealants 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Blower Building Roof 3000 SF 20$ 60,000$ Roof Walkways 1500 SF 3$ 4,500$ Flashing 1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ Downspouts 80 LF 25$ 2,000$ Scuppers 4 EA 1,000$ 4,000$ Div. #7 Total 88,500$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows Aluminum Doors and Frames 4 EA 5,500$ 22,000$ Aluminum Overhead Doors 2 EA 20,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$ Div. #8 Total 62,000$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Paint Air Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Acoustic Panels in Blower Bldg 50 EA 300$ 15,000$ Field Painting Equipment 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #9 Total 150,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Equipment Tagging 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 5,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment Aeration Equipment 1 LS 1,192,000$ 1,192,000$ Blowers (including valves)1 LS 1,225,000$ 1,225,000$ Denit Recycle Pumps 8 EA 50,000$ 400,000$ BioP Recycle Pumps 8 EA 35,000$ 280,000$ Mixers 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Div. #11 Total 3,597,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 17 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) 48 IN Aeration Influent Mag Meters 4 EA 50,000$ 200,000$ 48 IN Primary Effluent 1 EA 50,000$ 50,000$ 24 IN MXL Mag Meters 4 EA 12,000$ 48,000$ DO Sensors, Transmitters 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ DCS Modifications/Integration 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Div. #13 Total 828,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Hoists, Trolleys, and Monorails 1 LS 46,000$ 46,000$ Div. #14 Total 46,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Pressure Relief Valves 180 EA 500$ 90,000$ Yard Hydrants 8 EA 500$ 4,000$ 48 IN Motorized Butterfly Valves on SI 4 EA 35,000$ 140,000$ 48x48 CI Slide Gates at Splitter 6 EA 20,000$ 120,000$ 72x72 AL Slide Gates at Splitter 2 EA 15,000$ 30,000$ Testing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Wall Hydrants with Hose racks 2 EA 1,000$ 2,000$ Miscellaneous Valves, Pipe Supports-Plumbing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Blower Building HVAC 1 LS 65,000$ 65,000$ 36 IN Recycle Piping 1200 LF 500$ 600,000$ 24 IN Recycle Piping 1200 LF 300$ 360,000$ 48 IN Grit Effluent 20 LF 800$ 16,000$ 54 IN SIF 2000 LF 900$ 1,800,000$ 24"-36" SS aeration header piping 1500 LF 600$ 900,000$ Misc. Fittings 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #15 Total 4,247,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div. 2-15)1 LS 1,627,856$ 1,627,856$ Div. #16 Total 1,627,900$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 18 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Secondary Clarifiers Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 708,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 8,857,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 50,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 155,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 5,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 3,349,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 117,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 46,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 6,621,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 1,991,000$ Subtotal 21,899,000$ Contingency 30%6,570,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 28,469,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%2,278,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%3,690,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%689,000$ Subtotal 35,126,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2026 @ 7%/year 83,598,000$ Total 118,724,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Excavation for Clarifiers & Tunnel 45000 CY 6$ 270,000$ Structural Backfill 20000 CY 12$ 240,000$ Structural Bedding 1000 CY 25$ 25,000$ Filter Fabric 15000 SY 1.5$ 22,500$ Excess Material Disposal 25000 CY 4$ 100,000$ Excavation Dewatering 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #2 Total 707,500$ Clarifier Slabs 4200 CY 562$ 2,360,400$ Clarifier Walls 1968 CY 722$ 1,420,896$ Clarifier Launders 318 CY 776$ 246,768$ Pipe Gallery Slabs 2800 CY 562$ 1,573,600$ Pipe Gallery Walls 1800 CY 722$ 1,299,600$ Pipe Gallery Roof 2200 CY 776$ 1,707,200$ Pipe Gallery Columns 220 CY 856$ 188,320$ Tank Testing 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Fill concrete and grouting 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Pipe Support Footings 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Scum Concentrator Support Pad 1 LS 10,400$ 10,400$ Div. #3 Total 8,857,184$ Division #4 - Masonry -$ Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 19 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Misc. Metals 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Div. #5 Total 50,000$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Field Painting Equipment 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #9 Total 155,000$ Division # 10 Specialties Equipment Tagging 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 5,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment RAS Pumps 12 EA 37,000$ 444,000$ Scum Pumps 6 EA 10,000$ 60,000$ Final Clarifier Mechanism/Bridge 6 EA 300,000$ 1,800,000$ Algae Sweeps 6 EA 25,000$ 150,000$ Weir/Scum Baffle 6 EA 30,000$ 180,000$ Automatic Water Strainer w/ control panel 1 EA 16,000$ 16,000$ Service Water Pumps 3 EA 6,000$ 18,000$ Baffles-Current-Density-Clarifiers 6 EA 55,000$ 330,000$ Scum Concentrator 1 LS 240,000$ 240,000$ WAS Pumps 3 EA 37,000$ 111,000$ Div. #11 Total 3,349,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction 8 IN WAS Sldg Mag Meter 2 EA 8,000$ 16,000$ 36 IN RAS Flowmeter 1 EA 20,000$ 20,000$ 16 IN RAS and MXL Mag Meters 6 EA 12,000$ 72,000$ Float Switch Final Clarifiers Scum Pit 6 EA 1,500$ 9,000$ Div. #13 Total 117,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Hoists, Trolleys, and Monorails 1 LS 46,000$ 46,000$ Div. #14 Total 46,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Misc Piping 1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ 48" RAS Piping 2000 LF 800$ 1,600,000$ 36" RAS Piping 600 LF 500$ 300,000$ 24" RAS Piping 600 LF 300$ 180,000$ 54" SIF Piping 3200 LF 900$ 2,880,000$ 48" SIF Piping 400 LF 800$ 320,000$ 60" SEF Piping 240 LF 1,400$ 336,000$ 48" SEF Piping 350 LF 800$ 280,000$ 36" SEF Piping 800 LF 500$ 400,000$ Tunnel HVAC 1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ Div. #15 Total 6,621,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div. 2-15)1 LS 1,990,768$ 1,990,768$ Div. #16 Total 1,990,800$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 20 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Disinfection Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 96,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 388,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 60,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total 3,000$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total -$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total 10,000$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 630,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 250,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total -$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 125,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 156,000$ Subtotal 1,718,000$ Contingency 30%515,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 2,233,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%179,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%289,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%54,000$ Subtotal 2,755,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2026 @ 7%/year 6,557,000$ Total 9,312,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Site Clearing 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Structural Excavation 2,220 CY 6$ 13,320$ Backfill 700 CY 12$ 8,400$ Final Grading and Seeding 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Granular Fill Under Structures 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Flow and Drainage Piping 200 LF 180$ 36,000$ Paving 2,000 SF 4$ 8,000$ Div. #2 Total 95,720$ UV Basin -$ Foundations and Footings 150 CY 562$ 84,300$ Walls 200 CY 722$ 144,400$ Suspended Slab 100 CY 776$ 77,600$ Miscellaneous Concrete (Walkway, etc.)1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Flow Split Structure 80 CY 650$ 52,000$ Disinfection Building 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Miscellaneous Concrete (sidewalk, pipe encasement)1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #3 Total 388,300$ Division #4 - Masonry Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Aluminum Railing 250 LF 75$ 18,750$ Aluminum Stairs 70 Tread 130$ 9,100$ Aluminum Grating 500 SF 50$ 25,000$ Bollards 6 EA 400$ 2,400$ Miscellaneous Metals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Division #3 - Concrete Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 21 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Div. #5 Total 60,250$ FRP Stop Gates 2 EA 1,500$ 3,000$ Div. #6 Total 3,000$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes -$ Div. #9 Total -$ Division # 10 Specialties Identification, Stenciling, and Tagging Systems 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Signs 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #10 Total 10,000$ Division # 11 - Equipment MP HI UV System 1 EA 630,000$ 630,000$ Div. #11 Total 630,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Aluminum Canopy 2,000 SF 75$ 150,000$ Instrumentation 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #13 Total 250,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Bridge Crane 0 EA -$ -$ Div. #14 Total -$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Secondary Effluent Piping 0 LF 750$ -$ Final Effluent Piping 0 LF 750$ -$ Effluent Weir/Gate 2 EA 10,000$ 20,000$ Adjustable Fixed Weir 2 EA 15,000$ 30,000$ 36-in Flap Gate 1 EA 25,000$ 25,000$ Flow Meter 1 EA 15,000$ 15,000$ Plumbing 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$ Div. #15 Total 125,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 156,227$ 156,227$ -$ Div. #16 Total 156,200$ Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 22 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/18/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Solids Handling Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/25/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 10,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 28,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 242,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total -$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 40,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total -$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 2,986,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 26,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 100,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 268,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 370,000$ Subtotal 4,070,000$ Contingency 30%1,221,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 5,291,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%423,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%686,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%128,000$ Subtotal 6,528,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 15,536,000$ Total 22,064,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Demolition - Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #2 Total 10,000$ Curb - Polmer Upper Level 2 LS 3,000$ 6,000$ Curb and sump - BFP 2 LS 8,000$ 16,000$ Equipment Pads 2 EA 500$ 1,000$ Floor and Wall patches 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #3 Total 28,000$ Division #4 - Masonry -$ Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Elevated Walkway Supports 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Grating 290 SF 40$ 11,600$ Guardrail 200 LF 50$ 10,000$ Existing building support frame modifications 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Loadout I-beam supports 20000 LB 7$ 140,000$ Div. #5 Total 241,600$ -$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection -$ Division #3 - Concrete Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 23 of 26 Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Div. #7 Total -$ Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes Paint Exposed Ductile Piping 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Paint Interior Ferrous Metals 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Div. #9 Total 40,000$ Division # 10 Specialties -$ Div. #10 Total -$ Division # 11 - Equipment Belt Filter Press and control panel 2 EA 550,000$ 1,100,000$ Polymer Feeder 2 EA 25,000$ 50,000$ Press Feed Pumps 4 EA 37,000$ 148,000$ Sludge Cake Loadout (Bin)2 EA 840,000$ 1,680,000$ Wash Water Booster Pump 2 EA 4,000$ 8,000$ Div. #11 Total 2,986,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction 8" Magnetic Flow Meter 2 EA 5,000$ 10,000$ 4" Magnetic Flow Meter 3 EA 4,200$ 12,600$ 1" Magnetic Flow Meter 1 EA 3,300$ 3,300$ Div. #13 Total 25,900$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Shaftless Screw Conveyors & Motorized Gate 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Div. #14 Total 100,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Manual Valves 8 EA 4,000$ 32,000$ Motorized Valves 4 EA 8,000$ 32,000$ 2" Piping (and smaller)1000 LF 60$ 60,000$ 4" Piping 400 LF 70$ 28,000$ 8" Piping 1000 LF 90$ 90,000$ Miscellaneous Piping 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Testing 1 LS 1,000$ 1,000$ Pipe Supports 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Div. #15 Total 268,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (use 10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 369,950$ 369,950$ Div. #16 Total 370,000$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 24 of 26 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost, MSD Meramec WWTP Phase III Client:MSD Date:2/26/2008 Project:Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase II Estimator:MAS Task:Phase III Effluent Box Checked By:DDH Project No.:00000000065483(HDR)Check Date:2/26/2008 HDR Engineering, Inc. 2006167 (MSD)Revised: Division Summary of Estimate Totals Sitework - Div. 2 Total 45,000$ Concrete - Div. 3 Total 423,000$ Masonry - Div. 4 Total -$ Metals - Div. 5 Total 10,000$ Wood & Plastics - Div. 6 Total -$ Thermal & Moist. Protc. - Div. 7 Total 5,000$ Doors & Windows - Div. 8 Total -$ Finishes - Div. 9 Total 15,000$ Specialties - Div. 10 Total -$ Equipment - Div. 11 Total 2,340,000$ Furnishings - Div. 12 Total -$ Special Construction - Div. 13 Total 300,000$ Conveying Systems - Div. 14 Total 55,000$ Mechanical - Div. 15 Total 150,000$ Electrical - Div. 16 Total 334,000$ Subtotal 3,677,000$ Contingency 30%1,103,000$ Subtotal - Direct Costs 4,780,000$ Contractor's Field General Conditions 8%382,000$ Contractor's Overhead and Profit 12%619,000$ Bonds and Insurance 2%116,000$ Subtotal 5,897,000$ Escalation to Midpoint of Const. 2016 @ 7%/year 14,034,000$ Total 19,931,000$ Unit Price Total Description Quantity Unit ($/unit)($) Division #2 - Site Work Demolition 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$ Site Work 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #2 Total 45,000$ Concrete -$ Slab 100 CY 562$ 56,200$ El. Slab 100 CY 776$ 77,600$ Walls 400 CY 722$ 288,800$ Div. #3 Total 422,600$ Division #4 - Masonry -$ Div. #4 Total -$ Divison #5 - Metals Misc. Metals 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$ Div. #5 Total 10,000$ -$ Div. #6 Total -$ Division 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Div. #7 Total 5,000$ Division #3 - Concrete Division #6 - Wood & Plastics Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 25 of 26 Division #8 - Doors and Windows -$ Div. #8 Total -$ Division #9 - Finishes Misc.1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Div. #9 Total 15,000$ Division # 10 Specialties -$ Div. #10 Total -$ Division # 11 - Equipment FM Turbine Pumps 3 EA 780,000$ 2,340,000$ Div. #11 Total 2,340,000$ Division # 12 - Furnishings -$ Div. #12 Total -$ Division # 13 - Special Construction Soft Start Drives 3 EA 100,000$ 300,000$ Div. #13 Total 300,000$ Division #14 - Conveying Systems Canopy 1 LS 35,000$ 35,000$ Access Stairs 1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ Div. #14 Total 55,000$ Division # 15 - Mechanical Piping, Misc.1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ Div. #15 Total 150,000$ Division #16 - Electrical Electrical (10% of Div 2-15)1 LS 334,260$ 334,260$ Div. #16 Total 334,300$ Lower Meramec River WWTP Phase III Page 26 of 26