Loading...
Exhibit MSD 89G - Solids Handling Master Plan Phase 1 Technical MemorandumComprehensive Solids Master Plan Volume 1, Phase 1 Technical Memoranda Table of Contents TM 1 MSD O&M Management TM 2 Facilities Summaries and Solids Projections TM 3 Solids Disposal / Reuse Alternatives TM 4 Summary of Regulatory Issues TM 5 Condition Assessment Report TM 6 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation TM 7 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies TM 8 Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility TM 9 Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life with Recommendations TM 10 Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites Public Perception Focus Group TM1–MSDO&MManagementVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 1 –MSD O&M Management TM2–FacilitiesSummariesandSolidsProjectionsVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 2 –Facilities Summaries and Solids Projections BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 1 of 21 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2 – FACILITY SUMMARIES AND SOLIDS PROJECTIONS To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Ben Freese, Trish Scanlan, Matt Bond This Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 2 summarizes the existing solids processing facilities and current solids production for each of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District’s seven treatment facilities. Information on the existing facilities was obtained from existing plant records, interviews with MSD staff, and plant permits. Plant historical solids productions were summarized for existing operational conditions based on current solids production records and wastewater treatment flows. Based on anticipated treatment expansions or modifications and input from MSD staff, solids projections were estimated for future conditions at each treatment facility. The location of the wastewater treatment facilities and their sewersheds are shown in Figure 1. Summaries of operations data from each of the plants are included in Appendix A. Table of Contents 1. Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility....................................................................... 1 2. Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility.............................................................. 7 3. Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Facility............................................................... 10 4. Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Facility........................................................ 12 5. Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Facility ..................................................... 14 6. Grand Glaize Wastewater Treatment Facility........................................................... 16 7. Fenton Wastewater Treatment Facility..................................................................... 18 Appendix A - Summary of Operations Data Appendix B - Bissell Point Hauled Waste Summary 1. Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility The Lemay WWTP is an activated sludge plant with an existing average design capacity of 167 mg and peak hydraulic design capacity of 233 mgd. The annual daily average flow rate is approximately 121 mgd. The plant began operating in 1968 as a primary treatment facility with incineration for solids. Construction of the secondary treatment facilities began with the aeration basins in 1977 and secondary clarifiers in 1980. The entire secondary treatment process was completed and full secondary treatment began in Figure 1 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 2 of 21 1985. Expansion of the primary treatment facilities to handle future wet weather flows is currently in construction that will increase the primary treatment capacity to 340 mgd. Future wet weather expansion phases are anticipated that would further increase the overall primary treatment capacity to 800 mgd. The secondary treatment capacity is to remain at 167 mgd. The major treatment components consist of four detritus grit tanks, five comminutors, two pre-aeration tanks, eight primary clarifiers, eight step-feed aeration tanks, and twelve final clarifiers. The wet weather expansion will include construction of four additional primary clarifiers, two grit basins with channel grinders; a primary sludge pump station and a grit handling facility. The Lemay WWTP has a design sludge production of 73,000 dry tons per year. The solids processes include:  Co-thickening of primary and secondary solids in primary clarifiers.  Six high-solids Ashbrook Winklepresses belt filter presses for dewatering.  Two live-bottom feed bins with screw conveyor conveyance.  Four multiple hearth incinerators with heat recovery.  Three ash slurry ponds.  Ash disposal at Prospect Hill landfill. Figure 2 is a schematic of the solids processes. a. Current Solids Production Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant produces approximately 17,198 dry tons of raw sludge per year for incineration. Shown on Figure 3 are plots of the monthly average influent flow, total dry solids production, and estimated ash remaining after incineration. Ash production was estimated by assuming that all volatile solids in the feed to the incinerators were destroyed. The effect of high river levels and high influent flows to the plant in the spring can be observed. With high flows, the volatile solids concentration of the sludge is much lower, and carry through inorganics can be observed in the ash quantities. Table 1 summarizes the historical solids production for the three year period, 2006 through 2008. The maximum month solids production occurred in April 2007, and the volatile solids concentration was 50 percent during the maximum month. Summarized data for all the treatment facilities are included in Appendix A. 165186.103-2c ADI 7/23/09Figure 2METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTLEMAYWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTPrimary Clarifiers(8 Total)Final Clarifiers(12 Total)ActivatedSludge Wells(2 total)Sludge Wells(3 Total)Belt Filter Presses (6 Total)Ash Slurry Ponds(3 total)RASWASDisposal to Prospect Hill LandfillMultiple Hearth Incinerators(4 Total)Sludge Feed Pumps (3 total)WH boilerHeat Recovery systemNon-Potable WaterWater ConditioningPotable WaterCondenserTurbineCooling Heat Exchanger BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 3 of 21 Table 1 Lemay WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Influent Flow (mgd) Primary Solids (tpd) WAS Solids (tpd) Total Solids (dtpd) Volatile Solids (dtpd) Ash Production (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 100 12.9 19.5 32.5 18.1 21.6 0.33 2007 119 22.3 29.8 52.1 27.6 20.9 0.44 2008 145 15.6 41.0 56.6 29.4 18.7 0.39 MM 201 21.0 64.0 85.0 42.87 35.5 0.42 AA 121 17.0 30.1 47.1 25.8 20.4 0.38 b. Future Solids Production The Lemay WWTP serves a mature watershed with little growth expected. The MSD is planning to make modifications to the collection system to increase the amount of wet weather influent captured for treatment. These collection system modifications are likely to impact the characteristics of the influent to the WWTP, in terms of both quantity (i.e. hydraulic and solids loads) and quality (i.e. solids concentrations). The collection system BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 4 of 21 modifications may also play a large role in determining the duration of wet weather impacts. It will be several years before planning and design of the collection system modifications are finalized, and very little collection system data is available at this time on future wet weather influent characteristics. Therefore, historical hydraulic and solids loads at the WWTP were used to estimate future wet weather influent characteristics. From the plot of historical data shown on Figure 4, it appears that the Mississippi River level has a major impact on the flow and influent characteristics to the WWTP and the resulting solids production. Figure 4 Influent Flow vs. River Level 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 River Level, ftInfluent Flow, mgd0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Solids, dtpdPlant Flow Solids The District is in the process of rehabilitating portions of the collection system and believes that the rehabilitation will significantly decrease inflow and infiltration from high Mississippi River levels. Twice during the past three years the river remained high, over river Elevation 15, for extended periods, causing significant inflow and infiltration to enter the plant. To lessen the impact of high-river flow conditions on the development of projections of future solids production , the following dates were eliminated from the data:  March 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007.  March 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 5 of 21 Removing these dates adjusted the dry weather conditions to an average flow of 99 mgd and an average total solids production of 42.0 dtpd (0.42dt/MG). Therefore, it was estimated that wet weather flows contributed on average approximately 22 mgd of flow to the plant to achieve the historical annual average flow of 121 mgd. During the wet weather, high river months, the plant had an average influent flow of 186 mgd and dry sludge production of 62.3 dtpd (0.33dt/MG). Therefore, assuming that the water characteristics of the River Des Peres will be similar to the flow captured with the improvements in the collection system, wet weather flows produced approximately 20.3 dtpd of largely inorganic solids at an average flow of 87 mgd (0.23dt/MG). Without an extensive review of the collection system, it is difficult to predict the frequency and volume of future wet weather events. The existing treatment wet weather capacity is 233 mgd. After completion of the Phase 1 wet weather facilities, the plant will have a new wet weather capacity of 340 mgd. Therefore, the following assumptions were used to predict future solids production:  The base solids production will remain unchanged at the current level of 42 dtpd.  Wet weather flow will contribute additional solids production at the rate of 0.23dt/MG, and will consist of essentially inert solids.  The annual average flow to the plant will increase by 20% of the new wet weather capacity (20% of 107 mgd). Therefore, the total annual average flow to the plant will increase to 142 mgd (99mgd base + 22mgd existing + 21mgd future).  Maximum month flows will increase to one half of the peak wet weather flow.  The current practice of co-thickening in the primary clarifiers will remain unchanged. (Although, as noted below, this practice should be re-examined in Phase 2 of the master planning.) Shown on Figure 5 are plots of the volatile solids content of the influent solids and the combined dewatered solids to incineration at the Lemay WWTP for the three-year period, 2006 through 2008. The volatile content (%VS) is an indicator of the potential for energy recovery from wastewater solids through both the biodegradation (anaerobic digestion) and thermal conversion (incineration) pathways but, in particular the latter. The VS data indicate a consistent, but somewhat variable pattern of loss (2 to 15%) of volatile content through the liquid stream and solids concentration processes. The annual average volatile solids lost through the treatment process was 3.8 dtpd. This phenomenon most likely is a result of the following:  Diminished solids capture in the primary clarifiers from using them for co- thickening, resulting in solids carryover and stabilization via aerobic digestion in the downstream aeration tanks. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 6 of 21  Solubilization of a portion of the settled solids through hydrolysis as they are being concentrated in the primary clarifiers. Both factors result in increased organic loading and oxygen demand (and, potentially, energy consumption) in the secondary treatment facilities, and a reduced energy content of the solids wasted to the solids processing facilities. Therefore, continued use of co- thickening should be evaluated in Phase 2 of the master planning for all facilities where this practice is employed, with adjustments made as needed in projections of solids quantities and characteristics at that time based on the outcome of the evaluation. Table 2 summarizes the estimates of future flows and solids loadings after completion of Phase 1 expansion of the plant. Phase 2 and Phase 3 wet weather expansion are not included in the totals, but future increases may be mitigated somewhat as sewer improvements are made to reduce combined sewer overflows. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 7 of 21 Table 2 Lemay WWTP Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning Average Influent Flow (mgd) Primary Solids (tpd) WAS Solids (tpd) Total Solids (dtpd) Dewatered Volatile Solids (dtpd) Ash Production (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) MM 241 30 64 94 42.8 51.4 0.39 AA 142 21 30.1 52 25.8 26.8 0.36 2. Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility The Bissell Point WWTP was commissioned in 1970 with a permitted design flow of 250 mgd. The plant has a design sludge production of 74,369 dry tons per year. The plant has both trickling filters and activated sludge for secondary treatment. However, the plant has not operated with the activated sludge system since January 2008 because industrial loads were reduced to the plant and the activated sludge system is not needed. The solids processes include:  Co-thickening of primary and secondary solids in primary clarifiers.  Gravity belt thickeners for WAS (not used).  Belt filter press dewatering (15 Andritz units, 12 converted to high solids machines).  Six sludge bins and six Schwing high pressure piston pumps, plus a seventh bin and piston pump for off-site solids.  Six multiple hearth incinerators.  Two ash slurry ponds.  Dissolved flotation thickening system for grease (not used).  Ash disposal at Prospect Hill landfill.  Receives gravity thickened solids from Coldwater WWTP though sewer system for incineration. Bissell Point is the only plant in MSD’s system that receives hauled waste from industrial and commercial sources. Hauled wastes are received and distributed to different parts of the treatment plant for processing. Hauled waste volumes for fiscal year 2006 through 2008 are summarized in Appendix B. MSD commissioned a report on the Unloading Station grease separation, which is included in Appendix B. Refer to Figure 6 for a general schematic of the solids processes. 165186.103-2b ADI 7/23/09Figure 5Raw WastewaterPrimary Clarifiers(8 Total)Final Clarifiers(12 Total)Pump Station No. 1Preliminary Treatment/Grit RemovalGrit to Landfill Disposal or IncinerationSludge Wells(2 total)Storage TanksBelt Filter Presses (14 Total)Equalization Bins (6 Total)Scrubbers(6 Total)GasesMultiple Hearth Incinerators(6 Total)Stack GassesFinal Effluent to RiverAsh Settling Basins(2 total)Ash SlurryWet Ash Disposal to LandfillTo Primary EffluentAsh Pumping StationMETROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTBISSELL POINTWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTPiston Pumps (6 Total)CakeSludge Pumps(3 total)Cake Receiving BinPiston Pump Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 8 of 21 a. Current Solids Production Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow 127 mgd and produces approximately 33,810 dry tons of raw sludge per year for incineration. Shown on Figure 7 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment, total dry solids production, and estimated ash production at the plant. Ash production was estimated by assuming that all volatile solids to the incinerators were destroyed. The effect of high river levels and high flows in the spring can be observed on both the flows and the solids production. With high flows, the volatile solids concentration of the sludge is much lower, and carry through inorganics can be observed in the ash quantities. Table 3 summarizes the historical solids production at the plant. The maximum month solids production occurred in June 2008, when the volatile solids concentration in the feed solids to incineration was 32 percent. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 9 of 21 Table 3 Bissell Point WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow, (mgd) WAS/TF (tpd) Primary Sludge (tpd) Cake to Incinerator (dtpd) Volatile Solids (dtpd) Ash Production (dptd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 109.7 34.0 52.7 86.7 53.7 33.0 0.79 2007 116.7 41.6 41.5 83.1 44.4 39.9 0.71 2008 153.9 27.9 80.2 108.1 51.3 60.0 0.70 MM 211.3 127.8 44.9 172.7 114.0 117.5 0.82 AA 126.8 34.5 58.1 92.6 50.3 44.4 0.73 Notes: 1. Aeration basins out of service since January 2008. 2. Coldwater sludge changed from digested to raw sludge December 17, 2008. b. Future Solids Production The Bissell Point WWTP serves a mature watershed with little growth expected. Data after January of 2008 is most representative of plant operations with the aeration basins out of service. In mid December 2008, solids from Coldwater changed from digested to raw solids as the Coldwater digesters were taken out of service. Estimates of future solids production are presented in Table 4, based on 2008 averages only. Higher solids loadings are expected from Coldwater because there is no longer volatile solids reduction from the digestion process. Alternatives will be developed in later stages that may or may not have Coldwater WWTP sludge. Future tightening of the combined sewer overflow system should reduce flows and inorganic materials in the solids, but it will take a long time before these benefits are realized and it is too difficult to estimate that reduction for this study. Table 4 Bissell Point WWTP Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning Year Primary Solids (tpd) TF Solids (tpd) Total Solids (dtpd) Volatile Solids (dtpd) Ash Production (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) MM 135.7 37.0 177.3 59.0 117.5 0.99 AA 80.2 27.9 111.7 54.1 60.0 0.38 Notes: 1. Annual average based on 2008 with no activated sludge. An allowance is included for the additional Coldwater WWTP sludge as raw sludge (MM 4.6 dtpd total, 3.7 dtpd volatile, and AA 3.6 dtpd total and 2.8 dtpd volatile). Ash production is expected to stay the same. 2. The maximum month volatile solids production was 64.21 dtpd, occurring in March 2009. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 10 of 21 3. Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Facility The Coldwater WWTP is an activated sludge plant that was commissioned in 1965 with an original design capacity of 40 mgd. Recent improvements at the plant have increased the secondary treatment capacity to 55 mgd and the primary treatment capacity to 100 mgd. The plant has a design sludge production of 7,556 dry tons per year. The solids processes include:  Three Eutek primary grit/sludge separators.  One primary sludge gravity thickener.  Six WAS gravity thickeners.  Pumping of Raw Sludge to Bissell Watershed.  Six anaerobic digesters (not used). Secondary sludge is no longer conveyed to the primary clarifiers for co-thickening. Prior to December 2008, sludge was digested at the plant prior to being pumped to the Bissell Watershed. The digesters were removed from service in 2008 and now all thickened sludge is pumped directly to the Bissell Watershed. Figure 8 illustrates the sludge handling facilities at the plant. a. Current Solids Production Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow of 24 mgd and produces approximately 3,848 dry tons of sludge per year. Shown on Figure 9 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment, and raw and digested solids production at the plant. Table 5 summarizes the historical solids production at the plant. The maximum month raw sludge production occurred in December 2008, but the second highest maximum month in May 2007 will be used as the basis for future planning because December 2008 values would have been affected by digester shutdown operations. Primary Clarifiers(4 Total)165186.103-1b ADI 7/23/09Figure 7 MFinal Clarifiers(7 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pumps (5 Total)WAS PumpsRAS PumpStationTo Aeration BasinsWAS Thickener(7 Total)Primary Sludge Thickener(1 Total)Grit DumpsterGrit/Sludge Separators(3 Total)To Bissel WWTP Sewer SystemPrimary Sludge METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCOLDWATERWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT2-Stage Pumps(4 Total)Anaerobic Digesters(6 Total, Not Used) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 11 of 21 Table 5 Coldwater WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Raw Sludge (dtpd) Volatile Raw Sludge (dptd) Total Digested Sludge (dtpd) Volatile Solids Digested (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 19.5 14.5 11.6 10.2 6.22 0.74 2007 22.1 13.0 10.1 10.8 6.39 0.59 2008 30.4 14.7 11.2 10.6 5.91 0.48 MM 26.5 18.5 15.0 13.9 8.45 AA 24.0 14.1 11.0 10.5 6.18 0.59 Note: Note after December 17, 2008, raw sludge (vs. digested sludge) pumped to Bissell Watershed. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 12 of 21 b. Future Solids Production The Coldwater watershed is mature and no dry weather growth is expected. Therefore, the solids projections for raw sludge are based on the annual average and maximum month projections from Table 6 as follows. Table 6 Coldwater WWTP Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Raw Sludge (dtpd) Volatile Raw Sludge (dptd) Solids Production (dt/MG) MM 18.5 15.0 AA 24.0 14.1 11.0 0.59 Note: 1. Solids currently discharged to Bissell Point watershed and are included in the Bissell Point projections. 4. Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Facility The Missouri WWTP was commissioned in 1989 and has a permitted design flow of 28 mgd. The plant is currently undergoing improvements to increase the secondary and wet weather capacity of the plant. Upon completion of the wet weather expansion, the fine screens and grit removal facilities will be sized to handle a peak flow of 190 mgd. Primary treatment (including preaeration basins and primary clarifiers) will be sized to handle 80 mgd. The secondary treatment facilities will also be expanded to handle 80 mgd and include replacement of the trickling filters with an activated sludge treatment process. The new average day permitted design flow will be 38 mgd. Currently, the plant has a design sludge production of 7,556 dry tons per year. Significant changes to the solids processing are anticipated to be completed within the next several years. Secondary sludge will no longer be co-thickened in the primary clarifiers. The secondary sludge will be thickened by rotary drums before combining with primary sludge for anaerobic digestion. It is anticipated that the belt filter presses will be replaced with three dewatering centrifuges. The digesters will be rehabbed. Sludge is currently disposed off site to the St. Peters composting facility, with disposal at a landfill as backup. Refer to Figure 10 for an illustration of the major sludge components. 165186.103-2a ADI 7/23/09Figure 9Final Clarifiers(6 Total)Raw WastewaterDigesterReceiving WellTo Primary EffluentPrimary Clarifiers(4 Total)WAS Holding BasinRAS Wetwell & Pump Station (4 Pumps)Thickener Feed Pumps (4 Total)Rotary Drum Thickeners(4 Total)Digesters(4 Primary& Secondary)CentrifugeReceiving WellCentrifuges (3 Total)Sludge Storage Silo(2 Total)Primary SludgePump Station(2 Pumps)Primary SludgeMETROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTMISSOURI RIVERWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTSludge Cake Pumps (3 Total)Centrifuge Feed Pumps (6 Total)Truck to Compost or Landfill BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 13 of 21 a. Current Solids Production Plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow of 27.5 mgd and produces approximately 3,025 dry tons of digested sludge per year. Shown on Figure 11 are plots of the monthly average influent flows to treatment, and raw and digested solids production at the plant. Table 7 summarizes the historical solids production. The maximum month solids production occurred in July 2008, when the volatile solids concentration was 14 percent. Table 7 Missouri River WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Raw Solids (tpd) Volatile (dtpd) Total Digested Solids (dtpd) To Compost (dtpd) To Landfill (dtpd) Land Applied (dtpd) Raw Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 26.5 13.3 11.2 7.7 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.50 2007 27.2 12.2 11.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.45 2008 28.9 13.3 12.3 9.0 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.46 MM 29.3 23.0 15.9 14.1 AA 27.5 12.9 11.5 8.3 7.4 0.1 0.8 0.47 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 14 of 21 b. Future Solids Production Future solids production were developed using a BioWin Model as part of the secondary treatment expansion currently in design to estimate year 2030 solids. A summary of the future solids production are included in Table 8. Table 8 Missouri River WWTP Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Raw Solids (tpd) Influent Volatile Solids (tpd) Digested Solids (dtpd) Raw Solids Production (dt/MG) MM 43.0 58.0 46.5 36.1 AA 38.0 47.7 38.2 29.6 1.25 5. Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Facility The Lower Meramec WWTP is a trickling filter plant that was commissioned in 2007 with a permitted design capacity of 15 mgd. A plant expansion study is currently underway that will likely lead to converting the plant to an activated sludge process. In its current configuration, the plant has a design sludge production of 3,450 dry tons per year. The solids processes include:  Primary and activated sludge are degritted and then co-thickened.  Two gravity thickeners for concentrating combined sludge after grit removal.  Two dewatering belt filter presses (high-solids Ashbrook Winklepresses). Stabilization of solids is not performed at the plant; dewatered raw sludge is trucked offsite for disposal in a landfill. Refer to Figure 12 for an illustration of the major sludge components. a. Current Solids Production Plant data from March 2007 to May 2009 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow of 12.3 mgd and produces approximately 2,205 dry tons of raw sludge per year. Shown on Figure 13 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment and raw solids production at the plant. Table 9 summarizes the historical solids production at the plant. The maximum month solids production occurred in May 2008, when the volatile solids concentration was 66 percent. METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTLOWER MERAMECWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT165186.103-1a ADI 7/23/09Raw WastewaterFrom Baumgartner PSFigure 11Primary Clarifiers(2 Total)Secondary Clarifiers(2 Total)Sludge Gravity Thickeners(2 Total)Recycle to Primary TreatmentBelt Filter Press Dewatering(2 Total)Sludge TruckLoading Hoppers(2 total)GritTruckLoading HopperPrimary Sludge and Grit Pumps(3 Total)Secondary Sludge Pumps(3 total)Truck to Compost or LandfillMGrit/Sludge Separators(3 Total)Truck to LandfillThickened Sludge Pumps(3 Total) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 15 of 21 Figure 13 Lower Meramec WWTP Flow and Solids Production 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Feb-07 May-07 Aug-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 DateFlow (mgd) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 Total Solids (dtpd)Flow (mgd)Total Solids (dtpd) Table 9 Lower Meramec WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Total Solids (tpd) Volatile Solids (tpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2007 9.6 5.0 3.8 0.52 2008 14.3 6.8 4.7 0.48 2009 12.9 6.2 4.8 0.48 MM 16.7 10.1 6.7 0.61 AA 12.3 6.0 4.4 0.49 b. Future Solids Production MSD’s long-term plans are to decommission the Grand Glaize WWTP and Fenton WWTP and convey the flows now received at those facilities to the Lower Meramec WWTP for treatment. These additional flows are anticipated to increase the average design flow at Lower Meramec to 42.75 mgd. Additional development within the three sewersheds is anticipated that will increase the future ultimate treatment capacity to 56 mgd. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 16 of 21 Table 10 presents estimates of the future solids production with all flow from Fenton and Grand Glaize treated at Lower Meramec, plus the increased flow within the sewersheds. Projections assume that the plant is converted to activated sludge with resultant higher sludge production. Table 10 Lower Meramec WWTP Future Solids Production for Facilities Master Planning Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Total Solids (tpd) Volatile Solids (tpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) MM 76.0 53.2 39.9 0.7 AA 56.0 39.2 29.4 0.7 Notes: 1. Projections include Grand Glaize and Fenton WWTPs. 2. Future total solids and volatile solids were estimated using 0.7 (dt/MG) sludge production ratio and 75% volatile solids. 6. Grand Glaize Wastewater Treatment Facility The Grand Glaize WWTP is an oxidation basin plant that was commissioned in 1986 with a permitted design capacity of 16 mgd. The plant was recently expanded to accommodate a design flow to 21 mgd. The improvements include addition of primary clarifiers, additional aeration basins and final clarifiers to meet the increased flows. A second belt filter press was also installed with the improvements. The plant has a design sludge production of 3,250 dry tons per year. Major sludge process systems at the plant include gravity sludge thickeners and belt filter presses. There is no dewatered sludge storage except in trucks. Stabilization of solids is not performed at the plant. Sludge is disposed offsite by truck to landfill, incineration, composting, or land application. Refer to Figure 14 for an illustration of the major sludge components. a. Current Solids Production Historical plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow of 15.4 mgd and produces approximately 3,280 dry tons of raw sludge per year. 165186.103-1c ADI 7/23/09Figure 13Primary Clarifiers(4 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pump Station (6 Pumps)Final Clarifiers(7 Total)WAS Pump Station(3 Pumps)Gravity Thickener(2 Total)Belt Filter Press Dewatering(2 Total)To Aeration BasinsRAS Pump Station(8 Pumps)Truck Conveyor (2 Bays Total)METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTGRAND GLAIZEWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTRaw Solids to Landfill BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 17 of 21 Shown on Figure 15 are plots of the monthly average influent flow to treatment and total dry (raw) solids production at the plant. The new primary clarifiers began operation in November 2008, which has altered the solids process at the plant. Therefore, data are shown in Table 11 for before and after the primary clarifiers were placed into operation. The maximum month solids production occurred in May 2008, when the volatile solids concentration was 78 percent. Table 11 Grand Glaize WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Primary Solids (dtpd) WAS Solids (tpd) Total Solids (dtpd) Volatile Solids (tpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 15.0 - - 9.2 7.6 0.61 2007 15.0 - - 8.5 7.1 0.57 2008 16.1 - - 9.3 7.4 0.57 Nov 08 to May 09 14.7 5.1 3.2 8.4 6.5 0.57 MM 20.4 - - 11.1 8.6 - AA 15.4 - - 9.0 7.4 0.58 Notes: 1. Annual Average and Maximum Month based on 2006 to 2008 plant data. 2. November 2008 to May 2009 data after primary clarifiers in service. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 18 of 21 b. Future Solids Projections MSD intends to eliminate the facility in the future with the flow going to the Lower Meramec WWTP. Please see the discussion in the preceding Section 6. 7. Fenton Wastewater Treatment Facility The Fenton WWTP was commissioned in 1987 and has a current permitted design flow of 6.75 mgd. Major treatment components include screening, primary settling, aeration basin, final settling, and disinfection. The plant has a design sludge production of 2,750 dry tons per year. Solids handling facilities include one gravity thickener and one belt filter press. The existing sludge holding tank is no longer in service at the plant. Disposal of the solids consists of truck transport to other MSD facilities, land application, or landfill. Refer to Figure 16 for an illustration of the major sludge components. a. Current Solids Production Historical plant data from 2006 to 2008 indicates the plant operates at an annual average daily flow of 4.6 mgd and produces approximately 1,075 dry tons of partially stabilized sludge per year. Figure 17 illustrates the monthly historical treatment plant flow and monthly average total dry solids production at the plant. Table 12 presents the historical solids production at the plant. The maximum month solids production occurred in December 2008. 165186.103-1d ADI 7/20/09Figure 15Primary Clarifier(1 Total)Raw WastewaterPrimary Sludge Pump Station (4 Pumps)Gravity Thickener(1 Total)Belt Filter Press Dewatering(1 Total)Truck Conveyor (1 Total)Final Clarifiers(7 Total)WAS Pump Station(2 Pumps)To Aeration BasinsRAS Pump Station(4 Pumps)Sludge Holding Tank(Not in Use)METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTFENTONWASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 19 of 21 Table 12 Fenton WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Total Solids (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 4.0 2.7 0.66 2007 4.4 2.6 0.58 2008 5.2 3.4 0.65 MM 4.5 5.0 AA 4.6 2.9 0.63 Notes: 1. No data available for volatile solids. b. Future Solids Projections MSD intends to decommission this facility in the future with the flow conveyed instead to the Lower Meramec WWTP. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page - 20 - of 21 Appendix A Summary of Operations Data Plant Influent Flow(MGD)Average River Level, ftMonthly Rainfall, inchesSolids Filtered(dtpd)Secondary Solids Wasted(dtpd)Grit & Cake Solids Incinerated(dtpd)Water Fed Incinerators(tpd)Volatile Solids to Incinerators(tpd)Volatile Solids Concentration to Filters(%)Plant Influent Volitale ConcentrationPlant Influent Vol atile Solids (tpd)Volatile Solids Lost Through Plant, dtpdBissell Volatile Solids for Comparison(dtpd)Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at % Solids Below(wtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at Density Below(cf/d)30%60Jan-06105.6 1.2 1.416.7 3.8 33.5 61.7 10.765%75% 12.6 1.8 63 22.7 75.72523Feb-06 87.2 1.2 0.5 18.3 24.9 44.4 126.1 12.267%78% 14.2 2.1 66 32.2 107.33575Mar-06 113.9 4.2 2.9 37.9 28.2 62.4 182.1 22.961%71% 26.9 4.0 64 39.5 131.84394Apr-06 102.6 13.7 1.9 11.5 21.1 46.5 106.9 7.059%74% 8.5 1.5 56 39.5 131.64385May-06 111.3 13.7 2.4 21.0 25.4 52.2 137.4 12.057%72% 15.1 3.1 61 40.2 133.94462Jun-06 96.0 6.0 2.3 34.1 16.6 58.0 127.2 19.357%70% 23.9 4.5 61 38.7 129.04300Jul-06 96.6 1.1 1.9 31.5 21.1 50.9 115.1 16.457%65% 20.4 4.1 61 34.5 115.13835Aug-06 92.4 -0.1 1.5 63.8 20.3 52.8 117.5 34.855%63% 40.2 5.4 64 18.0 59.91996Sep-06 85.2 1.5 1.2 58.8 17.6 48.0 117.4 35.261%67% 39.4 4.2 60 12.8 42.61419Oct-06 92.5 0.0 3.7 39.5 19.2 38.5 107.2 24.764%71% 28.0 3.4 62 13.9 46.21541Nov-06 95.1 -1.3 4.3 27.514.434.178.9 17.865%69% 19.01.26316.354.21807Dec-06 117.6 4.4 1.7 29.221.837.389.6 18.563%71% 20.72.36218.862.72090Jan-07 123.4 6.8 3.1 36.833.441.9103.2 22.461%71% 26.23.76219.564.82161Feb-07 123.9 3.1 2.0 39.542.441.8115.1 25.665%68% 26.91.25916.253.91798Mar-07 136.2 16.6 3.2 44.063.642.5119.0 24.957%61% 26.91.95617.658.61953Apr-07 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.064.078.3199.3 42.951%62% 52.79.84635.5118.23941May-07 184.2 23.2 4.0 57.624.052.4102.5 26.647%55% 31.75.13625.785.72857Jun-07 110.4 15.8 2.9 61.421.062.7136.9 32.755%66% 40.57.85630.099.93330Jul-0799.0 10.1 3.1 58.118.654.8116.1 29.652%64% 37.27.65325.283.92796Aug-07 91.0 8.7 1.6 53.417.150.4113.3 31.560%68% 36.34.85518.963.02100Sep-07 92.6 9.5 1.7 48.621.446.5115.8 28.358%68% 33.04.85318.360.92030Oct-07 89.4 11.0 2.0 47.515.445.6105.6 31.466%73% 34.73.35614.247.41581Nov-07 80.1 5.8 1.3 35.615.639.892.7 23.567%71% 25.31.85616.454.61819Dec-07 95.2 4.1 2.8 58.021.050.9131.7 37.765%70% 40.62.95313.244.11470Jan-08 79.9 8.1 2.0 45.412.938.589.5 31.068%71% 32.21.2617.524.9832Feb-08 118.6 12.0 4.6 54.721.045.8101.0 32.159%67% 36.64.55813.745.71525Mar-08 186.0 21.2 8.4 45.217.436.369.5 23.552%50% 22.6 -0.94012.842.81427Apr-08 218.0 27.1 3.8 40.999.437.485.2 17.743%45% 18.40.74119.765.82193May-08 204.1 27.8 10.8 71.1 164.572.8183.2 28.340%48% 34.15.84144.5148.34943Jun-08 220.9 33.1 1.9 76.534.659.3116.5 27.737%45% 34.46.72831.6105.33511Jul-08 180.4 27.8 7.5 72.836.557.9115.1 29.641%50% 36.46.83228.394.33143Aug-08 104.0 13.1 1.6 51.820.542.691.7 27.855%66% 34.26.45014.849.21642Sep-08 154.5 18.0 9.8 67.123.545.187.6 30.547%49% 32.92.44214.648.71622Oct-08 86.0 9.8 1.2 57.125.052.1134.2 34.162%68% 38.84.75917.959.81993Nov-08 82.4 6.7 1.9 45.317.738.4102.9 30.868%75% 34.03.1617.625.3844Dec-08 107.2 4.7 4.6 51.218.544.7107.8 32.868%72% 36.84.05611.939.613192006 99.7 3.8 2.1 32.519.546.5113.9 19.3 61% 71% 22.43.161.927.290.83027.42007 118.9 11.4 2.6 52.129.850.6120.9 29.8 59% 66% 34.34.653.420.969.62319.52008 145.2 17.5 4.8 56.641.047.6107.0 28.8 53% 59% 32.63.847.418.762.52082.7MM 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.064.078.3199.3 42.9 51% 62% 52.79.846.035.5118.23940.7AA121.2 10.9 3.2 47.130.148.3114.0 26.0 58% 65% 29.83.854.322.374.32476.5YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Primary Solids (tpd)WAS Solids (tpd)Total Solids (dtpd)Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)Filter Volatile Solids %Fitler Volatile Solids (dtpd)2006 100 12.9 19.5 32.527.20.3361%19.782007 119 22.3 29.8 52.120.90.4459%30.592008 145 15.6 41.0 56.618.70.3953%30.18MM 201 21.0 64.0 85.035.50.4251%43.33AA121 17.0 30.1 47.122.30.3858%27.13Monthly TotalsLemay WWTP Solids SummaryTable SummaryAppendix ALemay WWTP Solids Summary Date Influent Flo WAS Flow WAS TSS WAS TSS WAS VSS Pri Sludge Press feed Cake solids Cake Volatl Wet Tons Dry Tons Polymer Inc6 Inc2 Inc3 Inc4 Inc5 Inc6Estimated Ash Production(dtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at % Solids Below(wtpd)Estimated "Wet" Ash at Density Below(cf/d)mgd mgd Avg mg/l lbs/day Avg mg/l mgd solids, Avg % Avg % % of solids Cake Cake Avg lb/Dry T Wet Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons30%60Jan-06 114.81.745,458 79,292 3,734 0.48 3.90 21.1 63.0 376.9 79.5 5.00 142.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.38 30.15 29.498.13,270Feb-06 102.31.863,505 54,496 2,432 0.60 3.60 20.8 66.0 423.0 88.0 8.18 135.56 0.00 0.00 42.33 17.46 28.20 29.999.73,324Mar-06 115.52.013,007 50,319 2,034 0.52 4.20 23.5 64.0 400.4 94.1 5.55 129.41 0.00 50.44 13.23 0.00 30.41 33.9112.93,763Apr-06 132.71.893,673 57,896 2,300 0.46 4.80 24.9 56.0 373.7 93.0 4.26 189.83 0.00 45.77 0.00 0.00 47.27 40.9136.54,549May-06 104.71.764,382 64,250 2,780 0.53 4.10 23.7 61.0 392.5 93.0 4.55 190.10 0.00 33.31 14.66 0.00 45.05 36.3120.94,031Jun-06 104.41.524,263 53,923 2,765 0.58 3.50 23.8 61.0 334.6 79.6 7.48 173.11 0.00 0.00 38.43 0.00 41.20 31.1103.53,451Jul-06 107.61.543,498 44,889 2,284 0.64 3.60 24.0 61.0 372.7 89.5 6.05 147.19 0.00 28.23 25.90 0.00 35.32 34.9116.33,876Aug-06 107.25.432,463 111,586 1,630 0.67 3.20 24.0 64.0 346.7 83.2 6.13 165.73 0.00 15.04 28.39 0.00 39.78 30.099.83,328Sep-06 98.25.733,471 165,776 2,347 0.54 3.40 24.4 60.0 355.6 86.8 5.44 0.00 0.00 50.56 36.21 0.00 0.00 34.7115.73,857Oct-06 103.55.651,230 57,909 7650.61 3.50 24.3 62.0 392.6 95.4 4.32 68.22 0.00 63.08 15.74 0.00 16.58 36.3120.84,028Nov-06 108.55.54909 41,999 5480.43 3.60 24.9 63.0 307.2 76.5 4.87 0.00 0.00 36.02 40.46 0.00 0.00 28.394.33,144Dec-06 117.55.94658 32,572 3870.41 4.00 25.7 62.0 316.4 81.3 4.78 0.00 0.00 46.34 34.98 0.00 0.00 30.9103.03,433Jan-07 123.76.10621 31,609 3620.36 4.00 25.9 62.0 307.4 79.6 3.70 0.00 0.00 51.67 27.95 0.00 0.00 30.3100.93,362Feb-07 126.05.86781 38,197 4420.35 5.20 25.9 59.0 325.5 84.3 4.36 0.00 5.16 14.54 51.13 13.47 0.00 34.6115.23,840Mar-07 117.09.20869 66,700 5200.37 5.00 27.2 56.0 330.4 89.9 3.14 15.40 34.92 0.00 5.47 45.29 4.19 39.5131.84,393Apr-07 135.312.72910 96,562 4880.36 7.20 29.7 46.0 429.5 127.6 3.36 220.07 58.97 0.00 3.24 0.00 65.36 68.9229.67,654May-07 164.611.881,235 122,336 5350.33 8.60 33.9 36.0 395.1 133.9 3.58 206.73 2.32 0.00 61.54 0.00 70.08 85.7285.79,524Jun-07 115.713.78934 107,314 5410.41 4.40 26.9 56.0 307.2 82.6 5.54 0.00 11.98 0.00 57.95 12.71 0.00 36.4121.24,040Jul-07 112.013.39781 87,218 5100.43 4.30 27.3 53.0 253.3 69.2 5.28 178.31 4.09 6.09 10.30 0.00 48.68 32.5108.43,612Aug-07 106.49.451,249 98,454 7840.36 3.60 26.7 55.0 191.2 51.1 8.21 111.95 19.23 0.00 1.93 0.00 29.89 23.076.62,553Sep-07 99.714.052,181 255,624 1,170 0.43 3.80 27.7 53.0 266.9 73.9 6.04 80.34 32.49 0.00 19.19 0.00 22.26 34.7115.83,861Oct-07 96.27.33605 36,964 4060.37 3.90 27.5 56.0 226.2 62.2 5.28 0.00 11.18 16.07 34.96 0.00 0.00 27.491.23,041Nov-07 91.83.391,203 34,045 7260.29 3.70 25.6 56.0 190.7 48.8 5.69 1.48 0.00 48.44 0.00 0.00 0.38 21.571.62,387Dec-07 112.23.15911 23,921 5410.40 4.60 28.3 53.0 334.3 94.6 4.86 122.86 0.00 24.68 0.00 35.16 34.77 44.5148.24,941Jan-08 104.12.00446 7,451 2720.42 4.10 26.4 61.0 311.2 82.2 5.40 119.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.62 31.54 32.0106.83,560Feb-08 136.90.20677 1,129 3670.41 4.70 30.8 58.0 304.7 93.9 3.94 49.04 0.00 0.00 34.23 44.53 15.11 39.4131.44,380Mar-08 199.59.30966 74,899 3940.40 7.40 34.7 40.0 410.7 142.5 3.58 114.76 13.11 28.13 47.80 13.65 39.82 85.5285.09,501Apr-08 206.711.54925 89,000 3810.37 6.90 31.9 41.0 357.7 114.1 3.80 77.82 1.09 46.95 41.25 0.00 24.83 67.3224.47,481May-08 211.311.83810 79,910 3850.47 6.60 32.7 41.0 409.1 133.8 3.25 120.19 0.00 45.98 48.48 0.00 39.30 78.9263.18,769Jun-08 210.211.401,220 116,027 3530.29 10.70 38.1 28.0 339.7 129.4 3.89 97.38 7.54 39.99 0.00 44.80 37.10 93.2310.610,354Jul-08 174.011.71758 74,025 2750.47 8.70 39.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.89 67.60 11.48 65.80 0.00 68.81 26.63 117.5391.513,050Aug-08 118.211.70502 48,984 2740.47 5.10 31.2 50.0 310.2 96.8 4.16 0.00 0.00 50.35 0.00 46.43 0.00 48.4161.35,377Sep-08 162.79.34791 61,637 3000.40 6.70 34.7 42.0 340.4 118.1 3.49 74.49 0.00 37.49 0.00 54.78 25.85 68.5228.37,612Oct-08 101.69.15437 33,342 2810.43 3.50 28.5 59.0 230.5 65.7 6.74 10.76 25.67 0.09 26.76 10.09 3.07 26.989.82,992Nov-08 98.39.19534 40,943 3440.35 3.90 28.4 61.0 230.0 65.3 6.75 0.00 14.59 10.09 11.47 29.17 0.00 25.584.92,831Dec-08 123.79.16562 42,938 3510.35 4.60 30.4 56.0 271.7 82.6 6.36 148.37 0.04 21.10 16.31 0.04 45.10 36.3121.24,038Jan-09 111.07.65752 48,009 4170.42 4.00 28.2 62.0 283.6 80.0 4.65 79.46 0.03 28.03 29.50 0.01 22.41 30.4101.33,377Feb-09 123.99.28622 48,132 3820.37 5.60 29.4 59.0 331.6 97.5 4.47 170.32 0.03 15.85 31.53 0.01 50.07 40.0133.24,441Mar-09 132.29.201,003 76,931 4900.37 6.60 30.6 52.0 403.5 123.5 4.37 194.62 0.13 21.90 41.79 0.11 59.55 59.3197.66,586Apr-09 177.49.25946 72,953 4420.44 6.00 31.6 51.0 384.5 121.5 3.52 223.76 0.34 35.25 13.16 2.04 70.71 59.5198.56,615May-09 173.29.251,129 87,051 4340.32 8.40 34.9 38.0 405.3 141.4 3.15 53.23 0.29 39.50 0.74 82.33 18.58 87.7292.39,7432006 109.73.383,043 67,909 2,001 0.54 3.78 23.8 61.9 366.0 86.7 5.55 111.84 0.00 30.73 24.19 5.57 26.16 33.04110.133,6712007 116.79.191,023 83,245 5850.37 4.86 27.7 53.4 296.5 83.1 4.92 78.10 15.03 13.46 22.80 8.89 22.97 39.91133.024,4342008 153.98.88719 55,857 3310.40 6.08 32.3 47.4 329.5 108.1 4.52 73.32 6.13 28.83 18.86 30.24 24.03 59.96199.866,662MM 174.011.7758.0 74025.3 275.0 0.58.739.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.9 67.6 11.5 65.8 0.0 68.8 26.6 117.5391.513050.4AA 126.87.151,595 69,004 9720.44 4.91 27.9 54.3 330.7 92.6 5.00 87.75 7.05 24.34 21.95 14.90 24.39 44.30147.674,922YearInfluent Flow, mgdWAS/Humus (tpd)Primary Sludge (tpd)Cake to Incinerator (dtpd)Total Solids (dtpy)Solids Production (dt/MG)Volatile Solids (tpd)Ash Production (dtpd)2006 109.734.05387 31,631 0.79 53.7332007 116.741.64283 30,347 0.71 44.4402008 153.927.980108 39,453 0.70 51.360MM 174.037.0136173 63,045 0.99 55.3117AA 126.834.55893 33,810 0.73 50.3441. Digesters removed December 17, 2008 so alll sludge pumped to Bissell is raw instead of digested2. Averaging $408 per 10 cubic yard container of grit removed.3. Natural Gas prices fluctuate widely4. Future considerations: Aeration would only be restarted if required by regulatory or if nutrient removal was required. 5. Bissell can accept hauled sludge cake from other plants. Disposal costs are slightly more per ton than Bissell cake after press operation6. Polymer prices are not constant over the life of this table. Current prices are $0.094 per lb.7. Bissell watershed is likely not to grow in flow or strength except for capture of more CSO.Monthly TotalsBissell WWTP Solids SummaryAppendix ABissell WWTP Solids Summary Total Flow Plant FlowDiverted Raw FlowTotal Flow Monthly Average Waste FlowTotal Raw Sludge FlowBissell Sludge FlowRaw Sludge % TSRaw Sludge TSRaw Sludge TS PoundsRaw Sludge % VSRaw Sludge VSRaw Sludge VS PoundsRaw Sludge pHDigested SludgeDigested Sludge Removed Digested Sludge % TSDigested Sludge TSDigested Sludge % VSDigested Sludge VSDigested Sludge Vol mg/LRaw Sludge (dtpd)Month MG MG MG MGD MG MG MG % mg/L lbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU MG DT % mg/L % % mg/LJan-06 19.71 19.71 1.05 0.18 0.18 1.99 19,903 29,856 81.94 16,292 24,445 6.38 0.19 8.06 1.00 10,019 61.97 0.63 6,256.00 14.9Feb-06 18.83 18.83 0.00 527.37 0.81 0.17 0.17 1.95 19,546 27,052 82.96 16,186 22,404 6.32 0.18 8.95 1.23 12,264 58.89 0.73 7,302.57 13.5Mar-06 22.98 22.98 0.00 712.48 0.88 0.22 0.22 1.76 17,606 31,633 80.87 14,222 25,577 6.41 0.25 10.70 1.08 10,768 59.84 0.65 6,468.81 15.8Apr-06 22.37 22.37 0.00 671.21 1.10 0.23 0.23 1.50 15,000 29,348 81.67 12,260 24,025 6.38 0.31 10.62 0.84 8,430 60.03 0.51 5,141.87 14.7May-06 21.36 21.36 0.00 662.06 0.83 0.21 0.21 1.68 16,752 29,800 79.97 13,352 23,753 6.44 0.26 8.61 0.78 7,829 58.23 0.46 4,629.42 14.9Jun-06 18.57 18.57 0.00 556.97 0.81 0.20 0.20 1.78 17,757 29,428 81.20 14,329 23,720 6.47 0.22 9.47 1.04 10,362 61.59 0.64 6,397.93 14.7Jul-06 18.06 17.80 8.10 18.06 0.88 0.22 0.22 1.79 17,945 32,550 80.48 14,407 26,160 6.36 0.25 8.99 0.86 8,552 62.58 0.54 5,434.61 16.3Aug-06 16.97 16.97 0.00 16.97 0.80 0.22 0.22 1.48 14,839 26,755 81.06 12,013 21,641 6.46 0.27 9.77 0.89 8,913 62.42 0.56 5,585.39 13.4Sep-06 16.40 16.40 0.00 16.40 0.74 0.17 0.17 1.43 14,260 20,051 81.33 11,597 16,301 6.62 0.28 11.53 0.97 9,723 63.57 0.62 6,219.50 10.0Oct-06 17.57 17.57 0.00 17.57 0.66 0.17 0.17 2.01 20,126 28,831 77.55 14,838 21,133 6.48 0.22 11.16 1.15 11,520 60.37 0.70 6,990.10 14.4Nov-06 18.13 18.13 0.00 18.13 0.80 0.21 0.21 1.94 19,430 34,762 79.53 15,356 27,504 6.52 0.25 12.32 1.12 11,224 57.21 0.64 6,440.34 17.4Dec-06 23.64 23.15 15.00 23.64 0.93 0.18 0.18 1.75 17,471 26,801 79.35 13,815 21,246 6.56 0.24 12.79 1.26 12,574 61.29 0.77 7,689.55 13.4Jan-07 25.45 25.45 0.00 25.45 0.80 0.18 0.18 1.50 14,987 22,954 79.65 12,000 18,342 6.53 0.25 12.06 1.10 11,003 60.19 0.67 6,687.90 11.5Feb-07 24.82 24.82 0.00 24.82 0.84 0.18 0.18 1.57 15,700 23,210 78.54 12,334 18,247 6.41 0.25 9.64 0.93 9,286 58.96 0.55 5,542.54 11.6Mar-07 23.89 23.89 0.00 23.89 0.81 0.18 0.18 1.50 15,010 22,786 80.06 11,976 18,172 6.44 0.26 11.06 1.03 10,323 58.65 0.61 6,093.32 11.4Apr-07 31.26 31.26 0.00 31.26 0.85 0.16 0.16 1.61 16,107 21,847 76.10 12,146 16,422 6.38 0.22 10.18 1.12 11,207 56.07 0.63 6,292.93 10.9May-07 32.84 32.84 0.00 32.84 0.71 0.18 0.18 2.30 23,042 35,032 72.90 15,622 23,652 6.39 0.21 10.55 1.22 12,229 54.45 0.67 6,739.13 17.5Jun-07 21.42 21.42 0.00 21.42 0.82 0.18 0.18 2.14 21,360 32,381 79.23 16,884 25,563 6.38 0.19 11.74 1.45 14,500 58.38 0.84 8,425.69 16.2Jul-07 18.83 18.83 0.00 18.83 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.71 17,061 28,430 79.35 13,244 22,223 6.39 0.25 11.80 1.09 10,877 59.58 0.65 6,483.29 14.2Aug-07 17.79 17.79 0.00 17.79 0.83 0.20 0.20 1.88 18,813 31,018 81.74 15,387 25,349 6.34 0.22 11.32 1.23 12,345 61.90 0.76 7,643.97 15.5Sep-07 17.24 17.24 0.00 17.24 0.74 0.18 0.18 1.68 16,773 25,050 79.83 13,353 19,905 6.36 0.22 9.21 0.99 9,900 61.40 0.63 6,250.97 12.5Oct-07 17.48 17.48 0.00 17.48 0.77 0.17 0.17 1.65 16,461 23,856 78.32 12,905 18,686 6.50 0.23 10.52 1.08 10,816 62.10 0.68 6,773.45 11.9Nov-07 16.01 16.01 0.00 16.01 0.77 0.16 0.16 1.76 17,550 23,419 78.47 13,515 18,051 6.48 0.23 11.21 1.14 11,360 61.40 0.70 6,952.80 11.7Dec-07 18.74 18.74 0.00 18.74 0.81 0.15 0.15 1.84 18,423 23,186 78.39 14,190 17,879 6.43 0.23 9.89 1.05 10,452 59.32 0.63 6,313.42 11.6Jan-08 18.61 18.61 0.00 18.61 0.70 0.15 0.15 1.84 18,365 22,519 80.74 14,571 17,899 6.40 0.22 9.96 1.10 11,013 61.13 0.67 6,724.32 11.3Feb-08 27.64 27.64 0.00 27.64 0.81 0.19 0.19 1.85 18,466 28,759 78.38 14,091 21,959 6.21 0.23 11.88 1.22 12,210 57.97 0.70 7,039.07 14.4Mar-08 42.69 42.69 0.00 42.69 0.73 0.19 0.19 1.58 15,790 24,382 75.16 12,014 18,522 6.25 0.22 9.74 1.10 11,045 58.58 0.66 6,607.03 12.2Apr-08 45.26 45.26 0.00 45.26 0.61 0.20 0.20 1.94 19,410 31,936 73.93 14,392 23,817 6.17 0.21 11.04 1.27 12,677 51.90 0.68 6,772.20 16.0May-08 42.09 42.07 0.64 42.09 0.60 0.20 0.20 2.04 20,387 34,494 73.19 14,339 24,262 6.40 0.21 9.09 0.98 9,757 53.50 0.53 5,295.50 17.2Jun-08 30.37 30.37 0.00 30.37 1.33 0.20 0.20 1.84 18,443 30,940 78.47 14,400 24,168 6.40 0.22 12.75 1.43 14,317 50.47 0.72 7,167.43 15.5Jul-08 30.13 30.13 0.00 30.13 0.77 0.20 0.20 1.87 18,716 31,359 75.81 13,742 23,049 6.36 0.23 10.21 1.04 10,429 54.06 0.57 5,653.90 15.7Aug-08 23.08 23.08 0.00 23.08 0.80 0.20 0.20 1.70 17,045 28,799 78.97 13,161 22,279 6.47 0.23 8.53 0.90 9,010 54.32 0.48 4,782.35 14.4Sep-08 35.84 35.01 25.00 35.84 0.59 0.19 0.19 1.94 19,387 30,397 72.63 13,623 21,435 6.49 0.22 9.85 1.05 10,480 51.60 0.54 5,441.10 15.2Oct-08 23.06 23.06 0.00 23.06 0.53 0.20 0.20 1.51 15,097 25,338 80.52 12,108 20,345 6.46 0.22 11.15 1.20 12,035 55.71 0.67 6,733.65 12.7Nov-08 20.20 20.20 0.00 20.20 0.71 0.20 0.20 1.57 15,737 26,671 81.10 12,739 21,603 6.45 0.23 9.23 0.97 9,663 58.87 0.58 5,808.57 13.3Dec-08 26.49 26.49 0.00 26.49 0.67 0.36 0.36 1.39 13,886 37,100 81.25 11,276 29,994 6.51 0.37 13.87 0.91 9,132 60.88 0.54 5,385.65 18.5Jan-09 23.79 23.79 0.00 23.79 0.38 0.65 0.65 0.43 4,310 23,306 49.60 2,137 11,580 6.51 0.65 11.65 0.43 4,310 11.7Feb-09 28.33 28.33 0.00 28.33 0.65 0.52 0.52 0.40 3,986 17,419 67.19 2,939 12,926 6.69 0.52 8.71 0.40 3,986 8.7Mar-09 27.47 27.47 0.00 27.47 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.46 4,616 22,546 73.35 3,476 16,984 6.70 0.59 11.27 0.46 4,616 11.3Apr-09 37.03 37.03 0.00 37.03 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.45 4,487 19,352 66.60 3,205 13,742 6.67 0.53 9.68 0.45 4,487 9.7May-09 29.14 29.14 0.00 29.14 0.42 0.50 0.50 0.40 3,971 16,503 67.10 2,735 11,337 6.83 0.50 8.25 0.40 3,971 8.32006 19.55 19.49 2.10 294.62 0.86 0.20 0.20 1.76 17,553 28,906 80.66 14,056 23,159 6.45 0.24 10.25 1.02 10,182 60.66 0.62 6,213.01 14.452007 22.15 22.15 0.00 22.15 0.79 0.18 0.18 1.76 17,607 26,097 78.55 13,630 20,208 6.42 0.23 10.76 1.12 11,191 59.37 0.67 6,683.28 13.052008 30.45 30.38 2.14 30.45 0.74 0.21 0.21 1.76 17,561 29,391 77.51 13,371 22,444 6.38 0.23 10.61 1.10 10,981 55.75 0.61 6,117.56 14.70MM 26.49 26.49 0.00 26.49 0.67 0.36 0.36 1.39 13,885.71 37,099.81 81.25 11,276.29 29,994.04 6.51 0.37 13.87 0.91 9,132.14 60.88 0.54 5,385.65 18.55AA 24.05 24.01 1.39 110.63 0.80 0.19 0.19 1.76 17,574 28,131 78.91 13,686 21,937 6.42 0.24 10.54 1.08 10,785 58.59 0.63 6,337.95 14.07YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Raw Sludge (dtpd)Total Digested Sludge (dptd)Raw Solids Production (dt/MG)Raw Sludge Volatile Solids (tpd)Inorganic "Ash" Volume (tpd)200619.5 14.5 10.2 0.74 11.58-1.332007 22.1 13.0 10.8 0.59 10.100.662008 30.4 14.7 10.6 0.48 11.22-0.61MM 26.5 18.5 13.9 0.70 15.00-1.12AA 24.0 14.1 10.5 0.59 10.97-0.431. Used Digested Sludge for total VS2. Ignored Dec-)08 Max Month due to startupColdwater WWTP Solids SummaryMonthly Totals Total FlowDiverted Plant FlowPrimary Effluent Diverted Plant FlowRaw Sludge Feed FlowRaw Sludge to Digesters Monthly Raw Sludge % TSRaw Sludge TS mg/LRaw Sludge TS PoundsRaw Sludge % VSRaw Sludge VS mg/LRaw Sludge VS PoundsRaw Sludge pHDigester Gas ProducedDigester Gas WastedDigester Gas UsedDigested Sludge Volatile Feed Sludge FlowFeed Sludge TS mg/LFeed Sludge TS % MonthMonth MG MG MG MG MG MG % mg/L lbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU KCF KCF KCF % MG mg/L %Jan-06 26.47 0.00 0.00 26.47 0.11 0.11 4.13 41,273 26,703 73 29,595 19,248 6.13 237.8 0.5 237.3 43.3 0.1 21,043 2.1 Jan-06Feb-06 24.17 0.00 0.00 24.17 0.11 0.11 4.00 40,000 26,886 81 32,205 21,642 6.03 227.6 0.0 227.6 46.9 0.1 19,333 1.9 Feb-06Mar-06 27.44 0.00 0.00 27.44 0.11 0.11 4.23 42,304 29,529 79 33,221 23,180 6.07 236.9 0.0 236.9 45.7 0.1 26,261 2.6 Mar-06Apr-06 26.61 0.00 0.00 26.61 0.11 0.11 4.36 43,550 26,866 81 35,058 21,628 5.93 247.9 0.1 247.8 68.8 0.2 24,950 2.5 Apr-06May-06 27.36 0.00 0.00 27.36 0.11 0.11 4.19 41,913 30,321 77 32,010 23,113 5.79 182.5 45.6 136.9 54.8 0.1 22,783 2.3 May-06Jun-06 26.47 0.00 0.00 26.47 0.12 0.12 4.17 41,682 30,483 77 31,981 23,481 5.75 218.0 18.0 200.0 38.8 0.1 28,130 2.8 Jun-06Jul-06 27.05 0.00 0.00 27.05 0.11 0.11 3.91 39,143 25,156 78 30,503 19,603 5.79 232.9 7.1 225.8 40.2 0.1 21,048 2.1 Jul-06Aug-06 27.15 0.00 0.00 27.15 0.11 0.11 3.53 35,304 24,915 76 26,982 19,053 5.89 231.5 6.5 225.0 56.5 0.1 21,182 2.1 Aug-06Sep-06 25.53 0.00 0.00 25.53 0.10 0.10 4.02 40,200 24,211 76 30,610 18,450 5.84 125.7 9.4 116.3 39.4 0.1 17,727 1.8 Sep-06Oct-06 25.48 0.00 0.00 25.48 0.12 0.12 3.73 37,318 26,149 75 27,572 19,301 6.02 234.2 9.2 225.0 36.9 0.1 18,545 1.9 Oct-06Nov-06 25.53 0.00 0.08 25.53 0.11 0.11 4.03 40,273 27,997 76 30,468 21,181 6.12 234.4 9.4 225.0 47.3 0.1 23,190 2.3 Nov-06Dec-06 29.03 0.00 0.00 29.03 0.11 0.11 3.24 32,350 19,714 74 23,859 14,538 6.25 226.6 1.7 225.0 54.5 0.1 23,571 2.4 Dec-06Jan-07 29.38 0.00 0.00 29.38 0.12 0.12 3.41 34,087 24,549 75 24,912 17,901 6.18 225.0 0.0 225.0 60.1 0.1 19,522 2.0 Jan-07Feb-07 28.49 0.00 0.00 28.49 0.11 0.11 3.95 39,450 26,996 77 30,407 20,809 6.08 225.0 0.0 225.0 46.8 0.1 20,850 2.1 Feb-07Mar-07 27.25 0.00 0.00 27.25 0.11 0.11 4.57 45,727 28,909 77 34,827 21,973 5.95 207.7 0.0 207.7 42.3 0.1 28,864 2.9 Mar-07Apr-07 30.28 0.00 0.00 30.28 0.11 0.11 4.29 42,905 26,581 74 31,420 19,393 6.04 208.2 0.0 208.2 45.9 0.1 21,850 2.2 Apr-07May-07 31.56 0.00 0.00 31.56 0.10 0.10 4.63 46,304 30,627 69 30,975 20,389 6.03 181.8 0.0 181.8 44.4 0.1 23,636 2.4 May-07Jun-07 29.85 0.00 0.00 29.85 0.11 0.11 4.44 44,429 27,667 71 30,354 18,754 5.95 163.6 2.4 161.2 55.2 0.1 21,000 2.1 Jun-07Jul-07 27.35 0.00 0.00 27.35 0.11 0.11 5.15 51,455 31,766 67 30,238 18,765 5.94 179.5 9.6 169.9 51.9 0.1 26,727 2.7 Jul-07Aug-07 28.07 0.00 0.00 28.07 0.11 0.11 3.23 32,261 20,259 74 24,102 15,032 6.02 92.9 0.8 92.1 58.3 0.1 25,565 2.6 Aug-07Sep-07 24.62 0.00 0.00 24.62 0.11 0.11 3.35 33,450 19,797 74 24,420 14,433 5.96 185.3 0.0 185.3 44.9 0.1 26,350 2.6 Sep-07Oct-07 22.47 0.00 0.00 22.47 0.09 0.09 3.32 33,217 18,441 79 26,092 14,491 5.99 192.5 0.0 192.5 46.5 0.1 17,870 1.8 Oct-07Nov-07 22.18 0.00 0.00 22.18 0.09 0.09 3.60 36,045 20,910 80 28,795 16,681 5.90 228.8 0.0 228.8 38.9 0.1 14,857 1.5 Nov-07Dec-07 25.15 0.00 0.00 25.15 0.08 0.08 3.82 38,190 17,191 80 30,288 13,628 6.00 228.8 0.0 228.8 47.6 0.1 19,238 1.9 Dec-07Jan-08 24.14 0.00 0.00 24.14 0.08 0.08 4.07 40,652 18,979 79 32,039 14,931 5.98 231.5 0.0 231.5 43.4 0.1 20,087 2.0 Jan-08Feb-08 28.06 0.00 1.58 28.06 0.08 0.08 4.50 44,952 20,357 73 32,242 14,502 5.97 233.0 0.0 233.0 46.2 0.1 30,381 3.0 Feb-08Mar-08 29.95 2.00 0.25 29.89 0.08 0.08 5.23 52,286 26,887 67 32,631 16,372 6.01 218.7 0.0 218.7 55.5 0.1 25,333 2.5 Mar-08Apr-08 32.93 0.00 0.00 32.93 0.11 0.11 5.51 55,143 34,803 72 37,316 23,286 5.88 238.5 0.0 238.5 78.2 0.1 32,864 3.3 Apr-08May-08 34.32 0.00 0.00 34.32 0.10 0.10 5.41 54,091 31,969 68 34,010 19,956 5.96 238.5 0.0 238.5 49.4 0.1 24,045 2.4 May-08Jun-08 30.61 0.00 0.00 30.61 0.10 0.10 5.03 50,286 30,921 66 33,069 20,332 5.86 235.4 0.0 235.4 71.1 0.1 33,238 3.3 Jun-08Jul-08 29.35 0.00 0.00 29.35 0.09 0.09 8.05 80,522 46,025 45 32,022 17,913 5.78 222.6 0.0 222.6 13.7 0.1 31,542 3.2 Jul-08Aug-08 26.74 0.00 0.00 26.74 0.09 0.09 6.02 60,190 28,178 54 30,485 14,443 5.92 214.8 0.0 214.8 44.0 0.1 31,381 3.1 Aug-08Sep-08 31.83 0.00 10.43 31.83 0.09 0.09 4.73 47,318 26,079 63 26,718 14,667 5.97 222.9 0.0 222.9 73.6 0.1 26,850 2.7 Sep-08Oct-08 25.60 0.00 0.00 25.60 0.08 0.08 3.69 36,913 18,711 73 26,736 13,564 6.03 212.2 0.0 212.2 67.7 0.1 26,565 2.7 Oct-08Nov-08 25.03 0.00 0.00 25.03 0.08 0.08 3.74 37,350 17,229 80 29,871 13,812 6.04 220.8 0.0 220.8 51.5 0.1 18,150 1.8 Nov-08Dec-08 27.86 0.00 0.00 27.86 0.08 0.08 4.05 40,522 19,588 75 30,097 14,587 6.10 222.3 0.0 222.3 38.4 0.1 23,348 2.3 Dec-08Jan-09 24.39 0.00 0.00 24.39 0.08 0.08 4.10 40,955 19,435 82 33,702 15,988 5.81 179.6 0.0 179.6 77.1 0.1 26,053 2.6 Jan-09Feb-09 26.68 2.00 0.00 26.60 0.08 0.08 4.13 41,250 19,021 80 32,768 15,118 6.02 198.6 0.0 198.5 46.4 0.1 28,650 2.9 Feb-09Mar-09 26.10 0.00 0.00 26.10 0.07 0.07 4.61 46,091 19,575 77 35,530 15,102 5.84 225.9 0.0 225.9 42.5 0.1 20,318 2.0 Mar-09Apr-09 30.23 0.00 0.00 30.23 0.07 0.07 4.42 44,190 17,519 77 34,119 13,522 5.98 218.7 0.0 218.7 45.5 0.1 22,619 2.3 Apr-09May-09 29.41 0.00 0.00 29.41 0.12 0.12 3.92 39,190 23,498 73 28,963 17,618 6.08 195.9 0.0 195.8 37.8 0.1 24,000 2.4 May-092006 26.52 0.00 0.01 26.52 0.11 0.11 3.96 39,609 26,577 77 30,339 20,368 5.97 219.7 9.0 210.7 47.8 0.1 22,314 2.2 20062007 27.22 0.00 0.00 27.22 0.10 0.10 3.98 39,793 24,474 75 28,902 17,687 6.00 193.3 1.1 192.2 48.6 0.1 22,194 2.2 20072008 28.87 0.17 1.02 28.86 0.09 0.09 5.00 50,019 26,644 68 31,436 16,530 5.96 225.9 0.0 225.9 52.7 0.1 26,982 2.7 2008MM 29.35 0.00 0.00 29.35 0.09 0.09 8.05 80,522 46,025 45 32,022 17,913 5.78 222.6 0.0 222.6 13.7 0.1 31,542 3.2 MMAA27.54 0.06 0.34 27.54 0.10 0.10 4.31 43,140 25,899 73 30,226 18,195 5.98 213.0 3.3 209.6 49.7 0.1 23,830 2.4 AAYearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Raw Sludge (tpd)Feed Sludge (tpd))Compost (dtpd)Landfill (dtpd)Land Applied (dtpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)Volatile Solids (dtpd)Total Digested Solids (dtpd)Tons2006 26.5 13.3 11.2 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.5 3.7 7.72007 27.2 12.2 11.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 8.22008 28.9 13.3 12.3 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 4.8 9.0MM 29.3 23.0 15.914.1AA27.5 12.9 11.5 7.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 8.3Monthly TotalsMissouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 1 of 2)Appnendix AMissouri River Solids SummaryPage 1 of 2 Feed Sludge TS PoundsFeed Sludge % VSFeed Sludge VS mg/LFeed Sludge VS PoundsFeed Sludge pHBP Polymer AddedBP Polymer $/DTBelt Press Hours of OperationBelt Press Yield Dry Tons/HourSludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Total Dry Sludge Cake Produced Land App Total Wet TonsLand App Total Dry TonsCompost Total Wet TonsCompost Total Dry TonsIncineration Total Wet TonsIncineration Total Dry TonsLandfill Total Wet TonsLandfill Total Dry TonsTotal WT DisposedTotal DT Disposedlbs/day % mg/L lbs/day SU lbs/Day $/DT Hours DT/hr % Wet Tons Dry Tons Lbs Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons17,822 51.0 10,733 9,028 7.9 225.3 22.3 6.0 1.1 27.2 23.0 6.2 46,056 22.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 6.017,675 54.9 10,608 9,638 7.8 233.1 22.4 7.4 0.9 27.5 23.0 6.4 45,975 24.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 6.723,931 54.4 14,477 13,148 7.9 286.3 21.5 9.5 1.0 28.4 34.0 9.6 68,029 34.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 9.934,740 47.8 11,659 17,273 7.8 245.8 23.0 7.7 0.9 29.8 22.7 6.8 45,437 3.4 0.9 20.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.7 7.223,536 49.6 11,171 11,563 7.7 288.4 20.2 8.7 1.0 29.8 29.7 8.9 59,450 16.1 5.0 13.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 9.124,278 55.5 15,709 13,536 7.7 324.1 18.9 8.8 1.4 27.6 39.0 10.7 77,928 0.0 0.0 39.8 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.8 11.020,555 55.6 11,630 11,184 7.7 269.5 21.9 7.3 1.0 25.6 29.8 7.7 59,524 0.0 0.0 30.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 7.822,932 48.8 10,063 10,813 7.7 301.0 22.2 8.3 1.0 27.6 29.6 8.2 59,196 0.0 0.0 30.4 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 8.520,068 54.6 9,605 10,777 7.8 208.8 25.0 4.4 1.0 24.0 21.1 5.1 42,290 0.0 0.0 21.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 5.219,098 54.8 10,163 10,440 7.8 322.1 31.0 7.4 0.9 26.4 26.2 7.0 52,321 0.0 0.0 26.6 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 6.923,532 51.8 11,978 12,118 7.8 298.0 27.4 8.8 0.9 27.5 23.7 6.5 47,390 0.0 0.0 25.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 7.121,714 47.8 11,266 10,325 7.8 265.3 31.6 6.5 1.1 29.0 23.9 6.9 47,716 0.0 0.0 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 7.021,635 47.1 9,083 10,005 7.7 294.7 33.8 8.0 0.9 29.5 24.5 7.1 48,970 0.0 0.0 24.6 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 7.218,919 52.4 10,947 9,938 7.8 289.0 30.5 7.3 1.1 27.6 27.1 7.4 54,205 0.0 0.0 27.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 7.725,024 53.9 15,658 13,505 7.9 332.6 27.1 8.4 1.9 27.4 38.4 10.4 76,704 0.0 0.0 38.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 10.523,009 50.5 10,919 11,513 7.8 337.2 38.4 7.4 1.0 25.9 26.2 7.1 52,455 0.0 0.0 26.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 7.323,760 48.0 11,151 11,223 7.8 374.7 32.9 7.6 1.2 28.4 33.0 9.4 66,065 0.0 0.0 32.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.3 9.122,234 45.8 9,422 9,867 7.8 308.0 29.8 8.0 1.4 29.6 29.7 8.9 59,368 0.0 0.0 29.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 9.027,655 44.3 11,828 12,228 7.7 303.1 28.1 7.9 1.2 30.9 29.0 9.0 58,071 0.0 0.0 29.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 9.128,013 46.9 11,299 12,633 7.6 305.3 34.6 9.2 1.2 29.5 26.9 8.0 53,841 0.0 0.0 28.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 8.526,233 50.9 13,534 13,455 7.7 308.9 29.6 8.8 1.0 27.9 35.0 9.6 70,087 0.0 0.0 35.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 9.915,345 53.6 9,499 8,240 7.6 263.1 29.2 6.0 0.9 27.4 26.9 7.4 53,705 0.0 0.0 26.9 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 7.415,808 57.7 8,637 9,091 7.5 267.6 35.5 7.6 0.9 25.2 24.3 6.2 48,575 0.0 0.0 23.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 6.016,383 53.9 10,339 8,966 7.6 265.3 38.7 6.4 2.5 26.4 22.0 5.7 44,018 0.0 0.0 23.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 6.217,322 54.9 10,972 9,578 7.6 275.8 65.6 6.2 1.1 26.9 25.8 7.0 51,692 0.0 0.0 25.2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 6.826,158 50.2 15,515 13,348 7.6 310.5 24.3 7.9 1.8 28.9 38.9 11.2 77,807 0.0 0.0 39.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 11.320,899 43.3 10,870 8,933 7.7 405.5 46.1 7.0 1.1 31.2 24.1 7.6 48,206 0.0 0.0 25.5 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 7.930,941 40.5 13,107 12,209 7.6 428.4 32.9 8.2 1.2 31.0 33.6 10.4 67,158 0.0 0.0 34.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 10.619,464 45.8 10,774 8,841 7.7 309.5 30.2 7.3 1.2 28.7 30.0 8.6 60,067 0.0 0.0 29.8 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 8.429,967 38.8 12,664 11,424 7.6 304.5 22.0 7.6 1.5 33.6 33.5 11.3 67,083 0.0 0.0 33.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 11.131,771 39.6 12,491 12,249 7.6 383.1 32.7 10.1 1.2 33.8 39.7 13.2 79,346 0.0 0.0 38.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.2 42.6 14.130,062 37.4 11,074 10,485 7.7 309.5 31.8 7.0 3.3 34.3 23.4 8.1 46,848 0.0 0.0 24.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 8.626,839 36.1 9,318 9,314 7.8 311.1 26.3 8.8 1.1 33.7 28.7 9.8 57,370 0.0 0.0 27.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 29.0 9.826,212 43.4 11,197 11,045 7.8 290.5 33.9 6.8 1.1 28.9 24.9 7.2 49,745 0.0 0.0 25.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 7.415,046 52.6 9,543 7,878 7.6 211.0 35.1 5.4 1.3 24.8 19.8 5.2 39,610 0.0 0.0 21.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 5.520,620 53.9 12,596 11,158 7.8 275.8 33.7 5.7 1.1 28.0 22.9 6.4 45,755 0.0 0.0 20.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.2 23.7 6.617,133 46.5 11,562 7,673 7.6 271.6 34.0 5.8 1.3 28.6 25.6 7.4 51,251 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 20.6 5.9 25.4 7.325,860 54.9 15,923 14,197 7.5 331.0 30.0 8.8 1.2 26.9 40.3 11.2 80,691 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.5 11.4 41.5 11.419,948 54.1 11,434 11,313 7.5 336.8 44.7 7.9 1.0 26.2 30.3 8.1 60,641 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 8.7 32.6 8.720,370 53.0 12,011 10,837 7.6 293.7 35.1 7.5 0.9 26.1 25.3 6.6 50,543 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.5 6.4 25.9 6.822,859 53.1 12,584 11,996 7.6 286.3 33.8 8.4 0.9 24.0 27.3 6.9 54,501 0.0 0.0 8.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 20.4 5.1 28.5 7.222,490 52.2 11,588 11,654 7.8 272.3 23.9 7.6 1.0 27.5 27.1 7.5 54,276 8.4 2.4 19.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 7.722,001 50.4 11,026 10,889 7.7 304.1 32.4 7.7 1.3 28.0 28.6 8.0 57,172 0.0 0.0 29.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 8.224,608 44.7 11,677 10,539 7.7 317.9 34.6 7.3 1.4 30.3 28.8 8.8 57,557 0.0 0.0 28.7 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 29.5 9.031,771 39.6 12,491 12,249 7.6 383.1 32.7 10.1 1.2 33.8 39.7 13.2 79,346 0.0 0.0 38.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.2 42.6 14.123,033 49.1 11,431 11,027 7.7 298.1 30.3 7.5 1.2 28.6 28.2 8.1 56,335 2.8 0.8 25.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 28.7 8.3Missouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 2 of 2)Monthly TotalsAppnendix AMissouri River Solids SummaryPage 2 of 2 Plant FlowSRT RAS FlowRAS Composite SSRAS SS Reportable WAS FlowBFP1 Sludge FlowFeed Sludge TS %BFP2 Sludge FlowSludge Cake % SolidsSludge Cake Produced Total Wet TonsSludge Cake Produced Total Dry TonsTotal Wet Tons DisposedTotal Dry Tons DisposedMonthMGDays MGmg/Lmg/LMGMG%MG%wtpddtpdwtpddtpdJan-0616.34 2.417.44 3,370.77 3,390.000.540.102.7019.20 50.259.6250.289.67Feb-0614.36 3.166.57 3,532.50 3,565.540.440.092.7019.93 52.359.9652.369.98Mar-0616.34 2.807.58 3,577.41 3,593.060.510.092.8419.49 46.059.2146.169.19Apr-0614.82 2.976.80 3,307.69 3,345.060.470.073.1319.20 53.2810.4354.4310.72May-0614.77 2.637.09 3,996.54 3,989.760.460.082.8920.22 46.308.8846.338.87Jun-0614.77 2.797.06 3,701.92 3,700.690.460.092.6020.78 45.649.2045.599.18Jul-0615.80 2.677.36 3,267.69 3,223.390.560.082.8620.52 44.499.2344.259.30Aug-0613.78 2.946.95 3,007.41 2,984.520.510.122.3719.90 43.438.9043.398.83Sep-0612.83 3.296.39 2,592.80 2,610.170.490.092.7619.78 43.558.6842.838.65Oct-0613.89 2.896.31 3,012.69 3,027.660.500.082.9620.28 42.358.3543.088.46Nov-0614.37 3.156.59 3,293.46 3,314.330.440.082.9919.12 43.928.9343.078.78Dec-0617.56 3.037.96 3,868.52 3,915.400.420.073.2419.34 44.118.4544.948.64Jan-0717.65 2.678.02 4,499.62 4,506.130.460.073.1619.04 46.879.7047.269.80Feb-0716.70 2.757.58 3,955.29 3,969.710.470.082.7820.19 45.719.3546.619.50Mar-0716.13 3.067.35 3,722.59 3,707.900.460.102.5719.28 48.289.6749.609.92Apr-0717.62 5.708.00 3,983.60 4,042.580.510.073.4620.57 46.869.0645.808.89May-0718.01 2.538.18 3,735.56 3,735.810.550.073.1920.41 45.389.3243.808.98Jun-0714.31 4.686.55 3,826.92 3,821.920.440.082.9019.84 44.869.1444.779.08Jul-0713.06 3.315.98 3,471.15 3,464.030.480.073.2519.71 43.488.6743.298.64Aug-0713.09 2.546.20 2,959.63 2,975.650.640.093.1018.91 39.017.7138.287.58Sep-0713.11 2.165.73 3,348.08 3,293.500.720.102.0619.24 39.237.6737.747.40Oct-0712.85 2.205.88 3,338.46 3,326.130.730.032.150.1120.23 34.746.7133.546.62Nov-0712.80 5.205.87 3,480.38 3,542.830.660.023.190.0319.69 37.257.5736.787.46Dec-0714.69 1.806.69 3,713.85 3,707.580.770.072.350.0218.90 40.838.0039.637.80Jan-0813.01 2.035.95 3,411.85 3,384.190.720.022.250.0919.97 47.728.9950.949.63Feb-0816.16 2.367.27 3,905.60 3,979.480.670.002.470.1020.61 50.2210.0849.229.80Mar-0824.21 1.78 11.12 4,704.62 4,753.060.700.003.100.0922.61 47.509.6547.249.29Apr-0821.54 1.86 10.00 4,382.31 4,362.670.770.003.380.0821.81 42.359.3242.439.33May-0820.44 1.869.98 4,352.22 4,385.240.690.003.230.0821.32 50.5811.1050.6711.21Jun-0814.11 2.055.89 4,160.80 4,087.000.520.003.370.0823.27 45.319.5745.109.48Jul-0815.16 2.613.85 3,278.70 3,236.180.570.003.330.0825.25 44.1110.2844.1410.34Aug-0814.19 3.391.08 1,452.33 1,448.910.600.003.770.0729.88 37.229.3536.919.15Sep-0814.85 3.380.00 1,604.40 1,591.440.580.004.570.0730.33 32.459.7131.889.25Oct-0812.83 12.02 0.00 1,850.77 1,849.170.310.004.050.0530.42 32.279.6732.179.78Nov-0812.28 15.73 0.00 3,014.23 3,019.670.150.004.760.0431.21 23.807.2423.827.25Dec-0814.84 15.86 0.00 4,606.54 4,588.230.160.004.690.0431.02 20.076.2719.275.99Jan-0912.63 13.94 0.00 4,967.41 4,995.650.200.004.380.0627.07 26.878.3227.428.57Feb-0914.23 18.98 0.00 5,843.04 5,881.090.150.005.130.0530.37 34.099.2532.448.82Mar-0914.50 24.94 0.00 4,387.31 4,376.850.150.004.700.0530.70 30.329.1031.779.47Apr-0917.79 14.97 0.00 4,471.92 4,399.830.200.005.220.0629.45 32.139.8832.149.87May-0916.53 10.82 0.00 5,002.96 4,949.110.170.004.870.0629.07 29.368.6530.899.06200614.97 2.907.01 3,377.45 3,388.300.490.092.8419.81 46.319.1546.399.19200715.00 3.226.84 3,669.59 3,674.480.570.072.850.0519.67 42.718.5542.268.47200816.13 5.414.60 3,393.70 3,390.440.540.003.580.0725.64 39.479.2739.489.21Nov 08 to May 09 14.69 16.48 0.00 4,603.92 4,591.790.170.004.810.0529.75 28.018.3728.198.43MM20.44 1.869.98 4,352.22 4,385.240.690.003.230.0821.32 50.5811.1050.6711.21AA15.37 3.846.15 3,480.25 3,484.410.530.053.090.0621.71 42.838.9942.718.96YearAverage Influent Flow (mgd)Primary Solids (dtpd)WAS Solids (tpd)Total Solids (dtpd)Volatile Solids (tpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)2006 15.0 9.2 7.6 0.612007 15.0 8.5 7.1 0.572008 16.1 9.3 7.4 0.57Nov 08 to May 09 14.7 5.1 3.2 8.4 6.5 0.57MM 20.4 11.1 8.6 -AA 15.4 9.0 7.4 0.581. Primary Sludge VS used reportable ML % VS for Concentration2. Assume WAS has VS percentage equal to primaryTable SummaryMonthly TotalsGrand Glaize WWTP Solids SummaryAppendix AGrand Glaize WWTP Solids Summary Lift Station Total FlowFeed Sludge TS mg/LFeed Sludge TS %Feed Sludge TS PoundsFeed Sludge % VSFeed Sludge VS PoundsDelivery #1 Wet TonsDelivery #1 % SolidsDelivery #1 Dry TonsDelivery #2 Wet TonsDelivery #2 % SolidsDelivery #2 Dry TonsDelivery #3 Wet TonsDelivery #3 % SolidsDelivery #3 Dry TonsDelivery #4 Wet TonsDelivery #4 % SolidsDelivery #4 Dry TonsIncineration Total Wet TonsIncineration Total Dry TonsLandfill Total Wet TonsLandfill Total Dry TonsTotal WT DisposedTotal DT DisposedMonthMG mg/L% lbs/day% lbs/dayWT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT DT WT DT TonTonMar-07 8.04 37,050.00 3.71 1,170.11 72.06 882.25 1.94 34.17 0.68 1.40 29.25 0.41 0.000.00 0.000.00 1.31 0.44 2.03 0.66 3.34 1.09Apr-07 10.85 37,984.62 3.80 3,506.63 79.43 2,770.56 7.95 33.61 2.66 3.61 33.58 1.21 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 11.56 3.87 11.56 3.87May-07 13.20 42,175.00 4.22 1,741.15 72.43 1,338.14 10.26 33.33 3.42 3.72 31.44 1.17 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.98 4.59 13.98 4.59Jun-07 10.10 44,223.08 4.42 9,037.71 77.02 6,963.78 14.90 28.78 4.30 4.84 28.50 1.37 1.55 30.45 0.47 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 21.29 6.14 21.29 6.14Jul-07 9.98 46,530.77 4.65 6,071.01 75.66 4,555.69 11.95 30.24 3.61 4.64 30.15 1.40 2.93 32.03 0.94 0.71 31.10 0.22 0.00 0.00 20.23 6.17 20.23 6.17Aug-07 8.41 38,850.00 3.89 6,200.11 79.86 4,983.55 12.48 30.77 3.84 4.50 29.98 1.36 1.38 30.25 0.42 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.36 5.62 18.36 5.62Sep-07 8.08 33,045.45 3.30 1,601.91 75.98 1,258.98 9.69 31.21 3.02 3.95 30.94 1.22 2.21 30.63 0.68 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 15.86 4.93 15.86 4.93Oct-07 7.97 42,285.71 4.23 2,008.55 78.51 1,587.94 10.68 32.34 3.45 4.57 33.23 1.52 2.62 31.13 0.81 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.87 5.78 17.87 5.78Nov-07 8.79 42,615.38 4.26 3,300.50 79.87 2,645.06 11.93 30.82 3.67 5.95 31.64 1.88 0.85 31.50 0.27 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.73 5.82 18.73 5.82Dec-07 10.53 44,407.69 4.44 5,925.31 80.37 4,762.73 12.90 32.78 4.22 4.70 32.74 1.54 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.61 5.76 17.61 5.76Jan-08 9.88 40,984.62 4.10 6,603.95 80.55 5,294.23 12.22 31.64 3.87 5.85 31.76 1.85 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.08 5.72 18.08 5.72Feb-08 12.13 36,915.38 3.69 8,963.29 80.41 7,128.20 11.15 33.97 3.79 5.08 34.12 1.73 0.68 30.60 0.21 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 16.91 5.74 16.91 5.74Mar-08 19.76 45,230.77 4.52 9,175.59 74.34 6,517.33 7.80 36.40 2.84 2.21 35.57 0.79 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 10.01 3.63 10.01 3.63Apr-08 16.85 48,392.31 4.84 9,909.08 72.71 6,941.95 10.12 36.55 3.67 6.89 38.04 2.61 1.69 37.80 0.64 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.70 6.92 18.70 6.92May-08 16.67 54,523.08 5.45 14,719.31 66.29 9,685.40 16.32 31.27 5.12 11.08 30.16 3.35 3.96 30.46 1.21 1.55 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 32.91 10.13 32.91 10.13Jun-08 21.99 64,023.08 6.40 12,492.22 58.40 7,375.52 14.70 31.19 4.58 7.56 31.47 2.37 3.40 31.00 1.06 2.36 31.97 0.76 0.00 0.00 28.02 8.77 28.02 8.77Jul-08 16.58 64,238.46 6.42 10,671.09 58.82 5,736.14 15.65 32.97 5.14 4.78 29.60 1.41 2.24 29.20 0.66 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 22.67 7.21 22.67 7.21Aug-08 10.83 69,576.92 6.96 11,169.06 51.75 5,372.55 13.82 30.74 4.28 12.01 30.56 3.67 2.32 35.20 0.82 1.54 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 29.69 9.23 29.69 9.23Sep-08 16.11 70,061.54 7.01 11,504.40 54.28 6,063.26 13.80 32.78 4.53 9.04 35.23 3.16 3.72 31.42 1.17 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 26.55 8.86 26.55 8.86Oct-08 9.71 42,015.38 4.20 7,267.74 75.55 5,504.57 8.59 34.42 2.96 5.57 35.22 1.96 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 14.16 4.92 14.16 4.92Nov-08 9.33 38,708.33 3.87 6,069.86 79.54 4,804.51 10.03 34.10 3.42 3.19 34.35 1.10 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.23 4.52 13.23 4.52Dec-08 11.52 53,835.71 5.38 11,112.93 69.23 6,960.59 13.78 35.93 4.98 4.28 35.48 1.52 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 18.05 6.50 18.05 6.50Jan-09 9.99 40,646.15 4.06 7,207.38 79.22 5,730.02 10.62 37.23 3.96 3.09 37.33 1.16 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 13.71 5.12 13.71 5.12Feb-09 12.12 43,975.00 4.40 8,775.98 80.89 7,102.47 11.34 35.40 4.00 4.52 36.47 1.65 0.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 15.85 5.65 15.85 5.65Mar-09 12.04 39,907.69 3.99 7,459.82 77.98 5,474.73 11.33 32.38 3.66 5.04 32.59 1.64 1.55 32.20 0.50 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 17.91 5.80 17.91 5.80Apr-09 14.63 46,669.23 4.67 9,287.82 76.21 7,091.78 12.68 34.31 4.34 3.82 34.80 1.33 0.87 33.40 0.29 0.61 33.90 0.21 0.00 0.00 17.98 6.17 17.98 6.05May-09 15.82 49,066.67 4.91 9,470.54 70.97 6,704.72 14.04 29.31 4.11 10.34 28.30 2.92 4.02 28.94 1.16 0.81 29.80 0.24 0.00 0.00 29.21 8.42 29.21 8.422007 9.59 40,916.77 4.09 4,056.30 77.12 3,174.87 10.47 31.81 3.29 4.19 31.15 1.31 1.15 31.00 0.36 0.07 31.10 0.02 0.13 0.04 15.75 4.93 15.88 4.982008 14.28 52,375.47 5.24 9,971.54 68.49 6,448.69 12.33 33.50 4.10 6.46 33.46 2.13 1.50 32.24 0.48 0.45 30.42 0.14 0.00 0.00 20.75 6.85 20.75 6.852009 12.92 44,052.95 4.41 8,440.31 77.05 6,420.74 12.00 33.73 4.01 5.36 33.90 1.74 1.29 31.51 0.39 0.28 31.85 0.09 0.00 0.00 18.93 6.23 18.93 6.21MM 16.67 54,523.08 5.45 14,719.31 66.29 9,685.40 16.32 31.27 5.12 11.08 30.16 3.35 3.96 30.46 1.21 1.55 29.65 0.46 0.00 0.00 32.91 10.13 32.91 10.13AA 12.29 46,590.30 4.66 7,497.15 73.27 5,230.99 11.58 32.91 3.78 5.42 32.68 1.75 1.33 31.64 0.42 0.28 31.01 0.09 0.05 0.02 18.56 6.02 18.61 6.04YearAverage Plant Flow (mgd)Total Solids (dtpd)Volatile Solids (tpd)Solids Production (dt/MG)2007 9.6 5.0 3.8 0.522008 14.3 6.8 4.7 0.482009 12.9 6.2 4.8 0.48MM 16.7 10.1 6.7 0.61AA 12.3 6.0 4.4 0.49MM 76.0 46.2 30.6AA 56.0 27.5 20.1 0.47Future ConditionsMonthly TotalsLower Meramec WWTP Solids SummarySummaryAppendix ALower Meramec WWTP Solids Data FENTON Total WT Disposed Total DT Disposed Sludge Cake % Solids Plant Flow WAS Flow RAS SS Month wtpd dtpd % MG MG mg/L Jan-06 10.21 2.42 25.50 3.51 0.06 4,489.67 Feb-06 12.45 2.98 24.99 3.55 0.08 4,290.96 Mar-06 14.84 3.33 24.21 4.51 0.08 4,173.55 Apr-06 12.09 2.74 24.93 3.95 0.08 4,226.67 May-06 15.05 3.13 22.92 4.30 0.12 4,283.00 Jun-06 12.88 2.97 26.63 4.11 0.09 3,935.67 Jul-06 8.87 2.14 27.21 3.94 0.08 2,955.81 Aug-06 10.70 2.62 26.60 3.96 0.08 3,185.81 Sep-06 8.50 2.00 27.32 3.83 0.07 2,611.67 Oct-06 8.84 1.91 23.90 3.99 0.07 3,563.87 Nov-06 12.91 2.80 26.57 4.07 0.07 4,195.33 Dec-06 14.57 3.00 25.66 4.84 0.08 4,662.90 Jan-07 11.49 2.44 27.49 5.08 0.07 4,898.71 Feb-07 10.81 2.15 26.53 4.60 0.06 4,926.79 Mar-07 12.36 2.67 24.15 4.61 0.08 4,819.35 Apr-07 11.92 2.46 26.25 5.39 0.07 4,496.67 May-07 13.73 2.78 25.44 5.56 0.09 4,272.26 Jun-07 11.42 2.48 27.95 4.31 0.08 3,666.67 Jul-07 9.33 2.21 29.25 3.88 0.06 3,120.32 Aug-07 11.25 2.91 28.55 3.83 0.08 3,083.87 Sep-07 10.04 2.65 28.75 3.92 0.09 2,445.33 Oct-07 10.46 2.85 29.06 3.69 0.07 2,337.10 Nov-07 10.08 2.61 28.39 3.69 0.07 2,615.67 Dec-07 10.53 2.75 27.19 4.40 0.07 3,650.97 Jan-08 12.98 3.10 27.33 3.97 0.09 4,053.87 Feb-08 13.85 3.35 26.56 4.98 0.10 3,559.66 Mar-08 13.89 3.86 28.82 7.64 0.08 6,132.90 Apr-08 17.10 4.68 29.09 7.29 0.10 5,805.67 May-08 12.22 3.08 26.63 6.41 0.08 5,403.23 Jun-08 13.67 3.42 26.33 6.74 0.07 4,292.41 Jul-08 12.11 3.20 28.86 5.11 0.06 4,261.94 Aug-08 10.13 2.71 27.40 3.94 0.06 4,167.10 Sep-08 11.28 3.07 30.60 5.35 0.05 5,007.00 Oct-08 10.11 2.54 26.37 3.39 0.05 3,576.21 Nov-08 10.55 2.65 26.61 3.71 0.06 3,680.33 Dec-08 12.88 4.99 25.80 4.45 0.07 4,339.03 2006 11.83 2.67 25.54 4.05 0.08 3,881.24 2007 11.12 2.58 27.42 4.41 0.07 3,694.47 2008 12.56 3.39 27.53 5.25 0.07 4,523.28 MM 12.88 4.99 25.80 4.45 0.07 4,339.03 AA 11.84 2.88 26.83 4.57 0.07 4,033.00 Year Average Influent Flow (mgd) Total Solids (dtpd) Solids Production (dt/MG) 2006 4.0 2.7 0.66 2007 4.4 2.6 0.58 2008 5.2 3.4 0.65 MM 4.5 5.0 AA 4.6 2.9 0.63 1. No data provided for VS. Monthly Totals Fenton WWTP Solids Summary Table Summary Appendix A Fenton WWTP Solids Summary BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections August 28, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page - 21 - of 21 Appendix B Bissell Point Hauled Waste Summary BISSELL POINT UNLOADING STATION GREASESEPARATIONFISCAL YEAR 2010INFRASTRUCTUISSELL POINTWWTPPROJECT PROBLEMPROJECT NO: 2008117 jMUNICIPALITY: \. Louis City IMAJOR SERVICE AREA: JVariousWATERSHED:VariousFUND:660 SANITARY REPLACEMENTDESIGNER:MSDCOST: $370,000GREASE FROM THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION GETS TRAPPED IN THE CROSS COLLECTORS AND PRIMARY EFFLUENT WEIRS ICREATES OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS FOR THE PRIMARY TANKS.PROJECT SOLUTIONDESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A GREASE SEPARATOR ON THE DISCHARGE LINE OF THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION LEADING TO TH8PRIMARY TREATMENT TANKS, SIZED FOR INTERMITTENT PUMP OUT AND TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTABLE GREASE FOR RECYCLING. ™SCHEDULESTARTENDPRELIMINARY DESIGNDESIGN6/1/200811/1/2009EASEMENT ACQUISITIONBID/CONTRACT AWARD12/1/20093/1/2010CONSTRW4/1/20L—JL11/1/23FUNDING SOURCEREMARKSFEDERAL$0STATE$0LOCAL$0MSD$370,000DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT WAS ADDRESSED VIA A GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District - Fiscal Year 201052ID = 8213EXPENSE 1 JACOBSJacobs501 North BroadwaySt. Louis, Missouri 63102314-335-4000MemorandumDate April 22, 2007To Gary T. Moore, PEFrom James Coll, PESubject Bissell Point Unloading Station GreaseSeparationProject No.: 20081171. IntroductionA preliminary study has been prepared for the subject project, which is not currently programmedin the 5-year Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). The project is located at theBissell Point WWTP (see figure 1-Keyplan), in the Bissell Point Service Area in the City of St.Louis. The purpose of this study is to provide a preliminary design and cost estimate for providinga grease separator on the discharge line of the waste unloading station to the preaeration/primarytreatment tanks for greasy wastes transported by trucks to the plant.2. HistoryThe wastes transported by trucks from grease trap sources are currently being disposed of directlyto the unloading station at the WWTP, but this is causing problems due to a high amount of greaseincluded in the disposed waste. The grease from the waste unloading station gets trapped in thecross collectors and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems forthe primary tanks. Grease could potentially be separated from sewage, captured and recycled tovenders for alternative boiler fuel, etc.3. Origin of ProjectThe project was initiated after requests from plant staff for a permanent solution to the problem ofthe grease from the waste unloading station getting trapped in the cross collectors and primaryeffluent weirs, creating operational and maintenance problems.4. Existing ConditionsThe waste from grease trap sources is being collected by trucks and disposed at the wasteunloading station through 5 manholes. The waste flow travels through two VCP pipes, 10-inchand 15-inch, and then to a mechanical grinder, which grinds and crushes hard objects that comewith waste sewage (see Figure 1). Then, the waste enters the influent conduit for the pre-aerationtank. From the pre-aeration tank, the flow then enters the (8) primary clarifiers. Due to a highamount of the grease included in the disposed waste, the grease gets trapped in the cross collectors JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 2 of6and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems for the primarytanks. The plant staff normally cleans the cross collectors and primary effluent weirs on a regularbasis and, at that time, must also clean out the large agglomerations of grease. In addition, plantstaff must rebuild the grinder equipment every 12-13 months at the cost of $13,000 -$15,000,mostly due to rocks damaging the grinder blades.The flow rate entering the grinder and primary tanks, through both sewer lines, is approximately1,100 gpm. This is a conservative estimate based on a worst-case hauled waste volume andservice water volume discharge, assuming trucks are simultaneously dumping at one time at allfive manholes at the waste unloading station. The typical unloading rate per truck is 150 gpm. Themaximum service water contribution (when both valves are open) is 350 gpm. Therefore, the totalpeak flow rate is equal to 5 trucks multiplied by 150 gpm/truck plus 350 gpm service water and isequal to 1,100 gpm.In FY2007 alone, the plant had received a total volume of 16M gallons of grease-based sewage.Based on MSB's lab sample testing of the different grease trap sources that have been taken fromthe hauling trucks over July and August of 2007, the amounts of the grease were significant andhad an average concentration of 52,240 mg/1. The samples were as follows:SampleDate07/03/0707/03/0708/09/0708/03/0708/04/07AverageSampleTime11:1810:2410:4511:3011:30Sample TypeTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomTanker Top,Middle &BottomSample Grease Trap Source1 Chinese Restaurant & 1High School Cafeteria1 BBQ Restaurant3 Different Wai - MartGrease Traps1 Italian Restaurant1 Office Building CafeteriaO&G (mg/1)66,90073,10066,70027,90026,60052,240Test MethodEPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664EPA 1664From the available data for FY2007, the grease volume rate indicates that the total mixed greasewaste (Septic Tanks and other food related grease traps, etc.) was 4,370,207 gallons and the totalsingle food related grease waste (vegetable oil, fat oil, and water) was 3,529,480 gallons. AirOperating Permit Regulations mandate the firms that use recycled grease for boiler fuel to be JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 3 of6single food related grease. The flow rate and grease volume calculations for the single foodrelated grease volume of 3,529,480 gallons per year are determined as follows:FLOW RATE CALCULATIONSHauled waste operational hours per year = [(10 hr/day) (260weekday/year) + (5hr/day)(26Sat/year)] = 2,730 hr/yrGrease wastewater flow rate - (3,529,480 gal/yr) (yr/2,730 hr) (hr/60min) = 22 GPMService water flow rate = 350 GPM/2 lines = 175 GPM/lineGrease wastewater and service water flow rate = 22 GPM + 175 GPM = 197 GPMGREASE ONLY VOLUMEThe density of vegetable oil is about 7.65 Ib/galHauled grease - (52,240 mg/L) (3,529,480 gal) ((1L / lOOOmL) (2.205E-3 Ib /1 g) (3.785L /1gal) = 1,538,823 Ib grease/yrVolume of grease = (1,538,823 Ib/yr) (gal/7.65 Ib) (yr/52week) = 3,869 gal/week5. Proposed SolutionThe proposed solution provides a dedicated area and equipment for separating solid and greasebefore entering the grinder and primary tanks and collects the grease for recycling and includesthe following:a. The single food related grease waste shall be dumped through MH1 and MH2 located atthe east side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 15" VCP pipe to theproposed underground grease separator structure.b. Mixed waste (food related grease) shall be dumped through manhole CB1, CB2 and MH4located at the west side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 10" VCPpipe to the grinder tank.c. Installation of a new 12-inch pipe as a standby for the existing 10-inch and 15-inch pipesduring maintenance or blockage. The upstream end of this new pipe will be connected tothe existing 10-inch VCP pipe located between MH2 and structure CB2 through a newMH6, and the downstream will be connected to the existing 15-inch pipe through a newMH5.d. Installation of a 12,000-gallon (8' 0 X 32' L) underground, heated grease separationsystem on the existing 15 inch VCP line. (See Figure 1).e. The proposed 12,000-gallons capacity is conservatively sized for future needs.f. Installation of two, 24-inch diameter manway extensions for maintenance purposes.g. Installation of al0,000-gallon underground, heated grease storage tank for recycling. (SeeFigure 1).h. The proposed 10,000-gallon capacity is conservatively sized to account for emergencyoperation as well as future needs,i. The collected grease should be recycled to a grease recycling vender for use as boiler fuel,etc. JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 4 of 6j. Installation of 10-inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 10-inch pipe between MH2and CB2 to prevent cross-flow from MH2. Remove the plug during grease separatormaintenance for bypass purposes,k. Installation of 15-inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 15-inch pipe between MH2and the new grease separator system during grease separator maintenance.1. Installation of 12-inch removable plug at MH6 on the proposed 12-inch pipe betweenMH5 and MH6. Remove the plug during the existing 10-inch pipe or grease separatormaintenance for bypass purposes,m. Installation of 10-inch removable plug at MH CB2 on the existing 10-inch pipe betweenMH3 and CB2 during maintenance,n. Installation of signage to identifyControls will be local with alarms tied into the plant.The waste grease from the separation system will be automatically pumped to the storage tank.It is anticipated that the storage tank will be pumped out periodically by the grease recyclingvendor and the waste grease will be taken off-site. It will be important to maintain lowmoisture content for the grease to be usable as boiler fuel.The total preliminary estimated cost for this project is $ 442,280. An exhibit that illustrates thescope of the work and a preliminary itemized cost estimate are attached. The estimated cost isfor the construction of the new facility and does not allow for the ongoing costs that will beincurred when the material is collected for recycling.Self-contained, septage receiving stations were reviewed as a possible alternative, howeverthis option was eliminated for two reasons: 1) the cost of these units is on the order of$125,000 for equipment only, so 5 units would cost $625,000 plus site work and hookupcosts; and 2) septage receiving stations are not designed to handle the high grease content ofgrease trap waste. Fouling and clogging are concerns, making this option unfeasible.6. Constructability IssuesThe discharge from the unloading station to the existing MH3, located east of the grinder, flowsthrough 10-inch and 15-inch sewer pipes. The flow from the above mentioned manhole dischargesto the grinder through an 18-inch pipe. The location of the new underground grease separator andthe underground grease storage tank for recycling will be bounded by the existing roadway to thenorth, existing 24-inch storm sewer, 6-inch water line, and 36-inch abandoned storm sewer to thesouth and several electrical conduits to the east and west. Therefore, there are concerns as to thenumber of underground utilities falling in the footprint of the project. The proximity of theseutilities will need to be considered during final design and construction to ensure they are notdamaged. The relocation of several utilities may be involved in the final design and constructionphases of the project. Also, as the work is to be carried out at an operational facility, carefulconsideration of traffic movements and flow from the unloading station to the primary tanks willbe needed to allow for the normal operation of the plant to continue without disruption. JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 5 of 67. Priority PointsThe project provides for enhanced operational efficiency by minimizing the amount of the greaseentering the cross collectors and the primary effluent weirs. It will dispose the trapped solid wasteat the bottom of the grease separator prior to reaching the waste solid grinder to reduce the wearand tear on the grinder and maximizing the grinder operational life and reducing maintenancecost. The captured grease will be recycled to vendors for alternate boiler fuel, etc. Therefore, thewaste grease will have less environmental impacts. Priority ranking calculations resulted in 6.00Total Weighted Benefits Points for the project. The Benefit to Log- Cost Ratio was calculated tobe 1.06.8. RecommendationsThe proposed project is recommended for further design and implementation. The operationprocedures for the grease waste and solid separator should be detailed in an operation andmaintenance plan that should include the following:a. Who is responsible for disposal or recycling of the grease after it has been processed andseparated at the WWTP?b. When should disposal and/or recycling be initiated and what is the procedure?c. Who is responsible for removal of the grease separator?d. Frequency and method for cleaning the grease separator unite. Additional items that should be given further consideration during the detailed designinclude:• A flushing system that could either manually or automatically periodically cleanthe grease separator and piping• The type need for intermediate storage to hold the grease prior to hauling by arecycling firm• The design of the grease separation system shall comply with the UniformPlumbing Code (UPC).• The grease separation system shall be designed to remove up to 95 percent of freewater and 75 percent of total solids to supply grease for boiler fuel.• Highland Tank Company/Low Engineering Company is a potential supplier for thegrease separator system and the underground grease storage tank for recycling.Other manufacturers make similar equipment.• ACE Grease Service, Inc is a potential resource for recycling the grease.• ACE Grease Service, Inc will accept the separated grease with no cost forrecycling if the water content is up to 5 percent, and will charge the MSD if thewater content is above 5 percent.• Darling International, Inc. and Kostelac Grease Service, Inc. will accept theseparated grease with no cost for recycling if the water content and insolubleimpurities do not exceed 2%.• Verde Holdings LLC (PO Box 157, Imperial Beach, CA, Contact Larry Zajohnc,408-205-3939) expressed an interest in MSD's waste grease. JACOBSBissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation2008117Page 6 of 6These items were not included in the estimate of the cost prepared in this preliminary. An analysisof the cost effectiveness and pros and cons of these items should be prepared as part of detaileddesign.Attachments:Project Cost EstimateProject Extent FigurePriority Ranking SheetAppendix Pre-CIPRO: Engineer's Cost EstimateProject: Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease SeparationNumber: 2008117Estimated By: JACOBSChecked By: MSDWatershed: 1 BissellDate: April 22Date: April 22,2008,2008Line#12345678910111213141516171819202122Pay-ItemDescriptionENCASEMENT - CLASS "A" CONCRETEEXCAVATION CLASS "C"GRANULAR BACKFILLGREASE SEPARATION SYSTEMGREASE STORAGE TANKMANHOLE - STANDARD CONSTRUCTIONPIPE SEWER 12 INCH (SANITARY/COMBINED)PLUG END 10 INCHPLUG END 12 INCHPLUG END 15 INCHREINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONSHORING LEFT IN PLACESODDING - ZOYSIASTREET PAVEMENT - CONCRETE REM. AND REP.Preceding Pay Items Total:MOBILIZATIONSubtotal:UTILITY RELOCATIONPROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF SITEMSD Construction Estimate:ContingenciesMSD Engineering, Legal, And AdministrationProject Total:EstimatedQuantity10.00400215116109211302366570881UnitCYCYCYLSLSLFLFEAEAEACYSFSYSYLSUnitPrice$260$19$39$99,500$61,500$210$100$115$140$160$725$9$12$73$9,938ExtendedPrice$2,600$7,600$8,385$99,500$61,500$1,260$10,900$230$140$160$21,589$21,294$6,840$6,448$248,446$9,938$258,384$25,000$51,677$335,061$33,506$73,713$442,280MSD CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE & CONTINGENCIES: \7 * / ' \ \ J - \\\T ENCMEER OFFICE \" winr etnrutAi v \"S"W ^PLAN-VIEW. t* J- s 3 I ta:iU 0) 9 OKjJNiL- p«». MH 3Si.r - ..re "51 «.oc P«>P.~W-ST* »5S l?plF- 15"e O.<W 2 EXISTING 15" VCP PROFILE EXISTING 10" VCP PROFILE WASTE DRAIN PROFILE HORI2. 1"=20' VERT. 1"=5' r TM3–SolidsDisposal/ReuseAlternativesVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 3 –Solids Disposal /Reuse Alternatives BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3 – SOLIDS DISPOSAL/REUSE ALTERNATIVES To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Patricia Scanlan, Bob Pepperman, Yinan Qi, Lewis Naylor, Tom Gredell This Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 3 summarizes the disposal/reuse alternatives and technologies for municipal wastewater solids and incinerator ash produced by the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of the City of St. Louis. A number of solids processing technologies are available, including thickening, dewatering, and stabilization. Potential stabilization technologies include aerobic/anaerobic digestion, composting, heat drying, lime stabilization, incineration, or gasification. Disposal/reuse alternatives included in this review are landfill disposal, land application, distribution and marketing of a fertilizer product, incinerator ash use as construction material, and energy production. Regulatory requirements and preliminary cost estimates for each final use/disposal alternative are also discussed. Cost information does not include costs associated with treatment and processing requirements prior to final use/disposal. Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 1 1. Landfill Disposal......................................................................................................... 3 a. Regulatory Requirements........................................................................................ 3 b. Landfill availability................................................................................................. 4 i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options............................................................ 4 ii) Unit disposal costs.............................................................................................. 4 2. Bulk Land application of Class A and Class B cake .................................................. 5 a. Regulatory requirements......................................................................................... 6 b. Land availability..................................................................................................... 8 i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options............................................................ 8 ii) Unit disposal costs.............................................................................................. 8 3. Compost Distribution and Marketing......................................................................... 8 a. Regulatory Requirements...................................................................................... 10 b. Long term outlook................................................................................................. 11 c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 12 d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 12 e. Incinerator ash....................................................................................................... 12 f. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 13 g. Disposal/beneficial use options............................................................................. 13 h. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 15 i. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 15 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 2 - 4. Heat Dried Material.................................................................................................. 15 a. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 16 b. Disposal/beneficial use options............................................................................. 16 c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 17 d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 17 5. Fuel Product.............................................................................................................. 18 a. Regulatory requirements....................................................................................... 18 b. Options/outlets...................................................................................................... 18 c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options.............................................................. 18 d. Unit disposal costs................................................................................................ 19 6. Results of Screening ................................................................................................. 19 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 3 - 1. Landfill Disposal Landfilling has commonly been used as a disposal method for dewatered solids. In locations where tipping fees are low and the hauling distance is relatively short, landfilling can be a cost effective disposal option. Sludge landfilling options include disposal in a monofill (a landfill dedicated to wastewater treatment plant sludge, typically owned and operated by the generating entity) or by co-disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill (a landfill that may accept a variety of wastes, including sewage sludge and municipal solid waste). Although co-disposal of biosolids is more common than monofilling, sewage sludge typically represents only a small percentage of the total waste in a co-disposal landfill. Landfill disposal does not typically require stabilization; however, requirements for individual landfills can vary. a. Regulatory Requirements Sewage sludge use or disposal, including monofilling, is regulated by the USEPA under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. The design and operation of municipal solid waste landfills is Federally regulated by the USEPA under 40 CFR Subpart I, Part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills. Missouri and Illinois have been delegated the authority to administer federal MSW landfill requirements. Additionally, each state or local jurisdiction will have additional requirements for municipal and industrial solids wastes that go beyond federal requirements. Prior to disposal of biosolids to a MSW landfill, the material must meet both a paint filter test and a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test. Dewatered municipal biosolids can typically meet both the TCLP and the paint filter test requirements. Liquid sludge cannot pass the paint filter test and cannot be discharged into MSW landfills. There is no Federal regulatory requirement for stabilization prior to landfill disposal; however, individual landfills can impose requirements that are more stringent than state and Federal regulations. Accepting wastewater solids at a co-disposal landfill generally does not add significant regulatory hurdles or permit constraints to the landfill operator. Landfilling of biosolids in monofills is regulated by the USEPA under 40 CFR, Subpart C, Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge as Surface Disposal. The Part 503 Regulations establish maximum concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and nickel in biosolids that can be landfilled in a monofill without a liner. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 4 - b. Landfill availability A number of landfills are available within a 30 mile radius of the MSD facilities as indicated in Table 1. Based on conversations with local landfills, many of the landfills anticipate long term availability for dewatered cake, on the order of 50 years or longer. Table 1. St. Louis Area Landfills Name Location Distance Lifetime Remaining Milam RDF East St. Louis, IL < 10 miles 20 years Cotton Wood Hills RDF East St. Louis, IL 40 miles 50 years Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill Maryland Heights, MO 20 miles 60+ years Landfill operating schedules vary from site to site, but many landfills accept biosolids one shift per day, 5 days per week. Storage must be provided for solids that are dewatered during backshifts and on weekends. MSD currently hauls sludge from the Lower Meramec, Grand Glaize, and Fenton Wastewater Treatment Plants to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill. Solids are accepted during the day Monday through Friday and Saturday mornings. From the Missouri River WWTP, bisolids that exceed the capacity of the St. Peters composting facility are also hauled to the Fred Weber landfill. i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options No stabilization or pathogen criteria are required for biosolids that are sent to landfills for disposal. However, treatment plants without stabilization/pathogen reduction that rely solely on landfill disposal can find themselves in a tenuous position if landfill disposal is no longer possible, as few, if any, other disposal/management options will be available without an investment in stabilization/pathogen reduction techniques. If biosolids are stabilized prior to landfill disposal, they may be suitable for bulk land application; however, it may be difficult to implement a land application program on short notice, and therefore, land application would not be a reliable back up option under these circumstances. ii) Unit disposal costs Landfill tipping fee ranges from $20 to $30 per wet ton of solids. Hauling costs can reach approximately $10 per wet ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 5 - MSD routinely solicits bids for landfill disposal of solids. Currently, all wastewater solids to landfill are hauled to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill at a 2009 bid cost of $23.96 per wet ton ($21.00 tipping fee plus $2.96 regulatory fee). 2. Bulk Land application of Class A and Class B cake Bulk land application is the most common option for beneficial use of biosolids and is often the most cost effective. Biosolids can be applied to agricultural land, forested areas, rangelands, or to disturbed land in need of reclamation. Recycling biosolids through land application serves several purposes. It improves soil physical properties, such as texture and water holding capacity, which make conditions more favorable for root growth and increases the drought tolerance of vegetation. Biosolids application also supplies nutrients essential for plant growth, including nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as some essential micronutrients such as nickel, zinc, and copper, and consequently can be used as an alternative or substitute for chemical fertilizers. The nutrients in the biosolids offer several advantages over those in inorganic fertilizers because they are organic and are released slowly to growing plants. These organic forms of nutrients are less water soluble and, therefore, less likely to leach into groundwater or run off into surface waters. Furthermore, mineral sources of phosphorus are increasingly considered limited, while agricultural use of phosphorus in biosolids are often viewed as a more sustainable practice. While biosolids can be applied in liquid or solid form, it is usually most economical to reduce the volume of biosolids prior to transportation or storage through a dewatering process. Based on the large quantity of solids produced by the MSD and the corresponding liquid volumes that would have to be hauled to application sites, liquid land application has not been included in this evaluation. Dewatered cake can be applied with conventional agricultural equipment, such as manure spreaders ( Figure 1) Figure 1. Land application of biosolids BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 6 - In the Midwest, most bu rain crops (corn, wheat, soybeans) and pasture. Application to grain crops is limited to the spring (prior to age, tory requirements bulk, they must meet at least the federal requirements established in 40 CFR Part 503 Regulations. These requirements include (i.e.,flies ons, known as ceiling concentrations, for nine metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, xceed that nt , h two levels of pathogen reduction, Class A and B. Class A pathogen requirements call for reducing, through one or more , lk land application is to land cultivated in g planting) and fall (after harvesting). Consequently, at least 6 months of biosolids stor in some form, is required to support a land application program. Alternatively, a system can be developed where, during times when land application is not practical, the biosolids can be managed through landfill disposal or through an alternative method (e.g. contract composting). a. Regula Before biosolids can be land applied in limits on allowable metals concentrations, requirements for pathogen and vector and rodents) attraction reduction, and land management practices. The federal requirements for beneficial use of biosolids are summarized below:  The federal laws specify maximum allowable concentrati mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc). If biosolids do not e the ceiling concentrations, they can be land applied. These ceiling concentrations are hard limits: if analysis of a biosolids sample indicates that any one of these limits is exceeded, all the biosolids represented by sample cannot be land applied. For the biosolids to be marketed or distributed to the general public, the metal concentrations must be below the Polluta Concentration Limits (PCLs). The PCL’s are averages of the concentrations of the elements in all samples over the testing period. Land appliers are not required to track the cumulative pollutant loading rate (CPLR) for biosolids which meet the PCLs. Biosolids in which any of the regulated elements exceed the PCL but meet the Ceiling Concentration may still be land applied but the annual application of the regulated pollutants must be tracked and reported. With advance pre-treatment programs, most municipal biosolids typically meet the lower PCLs.  The Part 503 regulations establis processes, the densities of fecal coliform to less than 1,000 Most Probable Number per gram of total solids (MPN/g of TS), or salmonella to less than 3 MPN/4 grams of TS. In addition to testing to confirm reduced densities of pathogens or indicator organisms, certain process control parameters for the specific treatment technique must also be met (e.g. time and temperature, pH etc.). Class B biosolids have less stringent pathogen treatment requirements; however, they have more handling and application site restrictions. Class B BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 7 - y, duction (VAR) requirements before beneficial use. VAR requirements are intended to t rs of Bi ass A pathogen requirements, VAR requirements, and the PCL etals contents are known as “Exceptional Quality (EQ)” biosolids. EQ biosolids can be nomic levels. This means that the the lated NR) to There are no pending changes in the Federal regulations that would prohibit continued nd application of Class B biosolids; however, a number of states and localities, iminary nd can be demonstrated by testing which indicates the biosolids exhibit fecal coliform densities of less than 2,000,000 MPN/g of TS of solid. Alternativel Class B can be demonstrated by demonstrating compliance with certain process operational standards (e.g. time and duration in digesters).  Both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet Vector Attraction Re reduce the putrescibility of the solids. Highly putrid solids will tend to attrac vectors, such as flies and rodents. Vector attraction reduction can be met through a number of techniques (which techniques are often the same as those used to meet Class B or Class A pathogen reduction). VAR can also be accomplished by incorporation of biosolids into the soil, either through injection of liquid or tilling of dewatered cake into the soil within six hou application. osolids that meet the Cl m sold or given away. These biosolids can generally be applied as freely as any other fertilizer or soli amendment to any type of land. However, bulk applications of EQ biosolids may be subject to some of the same limitations as application of non-EQ biosolids.  In addition to the pathogen and VAR requirements for land application, biosolids can only be applied at agro amount of biosolids applied must not exceed the nutrient requirements of crops at the land application site. At the federal level, biosolids are regu based on nitrogen levels; however, some areas of the United States are requiring application limits based on phosphorus limitations. While phosphorus is not currently regulated in Missouri or Illinois, preliminary discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MD indicate that some phosphorus restrictions may be imposed in the next 10 20 years. la including much of California and Virginia, have imposed ordinances that restrict or eliminate Class B application or increase monitoring requirements. Based on prel discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Class B la application is not expected to be restricted in Missouri in the near future; however, long- term sustainability of this final use method is subject to pubic perception and pressure. Conversely, as commercial fertilizer prices increase with increases in natural gas costs, agricultural opportunities to use low-cost biosolids will likely become greater. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 8 - Based on discussions with Synagro, a national land application contractor with ea, land application sites in Missouri are available with average one-way hauling distance of 35 to 40 miles from the MSD facilities. Application nce to 25 to Other than bulk land application, few outlets are available for Class A or Class B ss A or Class B pathogen and VAR requirements can also be hauled to MSW landfills for disposal. Bulk land application rates provided by Synagro suggest a turnkey contract cost of $20 to includes hauling and limited off-site storage. Costs vary depending on the distance from the generating facility to the land application site. omposting is a natural process of aerobic, thermophilic microbiological degradation of l product that is free of odors and pathogens, will not attract rodents and insects, and can be used beneficially for s into il moderate nutrient content. Compost can generally be sold for a nominal fee that helps to reduce or off-set product marketing and distribution costs. The anic b. Land availability experience in the St. Louis ar sites in Illinois are somewhat closer, reducing the average one-way hauling dista to 30 miles. Synagro staff also indicated they expect land availability to be sufficient sustain a bulk land application program for at least the next 20 years, assuming continued regulatory support. i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options dewatered cake. As a backup option, biosolids that meet Cla ii) Unit disposal costs $28 per wet ton of solids. This cost 3. Compost Distribution and Marketing C organic matter or residues into a stabilized, usefu horticultural and agricultural purposes. During the composting process, the material is stabilized biologically, converting the readily biodegradable components of biosolid material that is stable or resistant to subsequent biological change. Further decomposition is very slow and does not result in odor or vector attraction problems during its use. Dewatered cake can be composted into a humus-like material that can be used as a so amendment with a commercial compost market is extremely competitive; consequently, it is difficult for a utility to generate significant revenue from compost sales. While in some locations, demand for the compost can exceed the supply, many utilities give the finished compost to rate payers at no charge to expand distribution of the material and to enhance public relations. There are numerous facilities in the St. Louis area that compost various org BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 9 - ips, ulking agents significantly increase the amount of material requiring transport, processing, temporary storage, and marketing. Many s omposting operations minimize release of objectionable odors by good housekeeping, maintaining aerobic conditions and target temperatures, and minimizing r ), or by turning the compost pile with or without forced aeration (best). Agitation combined with forced aeration is the most effective e n materials (including some portion of MSD’s biosolids), and it is anticipated that the market for end product is well-supplied. Composting requires the addition of bulking agents, typically yard waste or wood ch to increase the porosity of the compost. B utilities combine their green waste program with the composting operation, using the green waste as the source of the amendment. The biosolids enhance the green waste composting by furnishing nutrients and moisture. However, if sufficient green waste i not available, amendment must be purchased, significantly increasing the cost of the composting program. Composting facilities require a larger area than other biosolids processing facilities for composting operations and amendment and finished product storage. All composting operations produce odors, some of which will be objectionable. Well operated c release of odors to sensitive noses. Aeration and temperature control is provided through natural convection (poor), forced o negative aeration with blowers (good process control technology. Nonetheless, agitated windrow operation (Figure 2) is the most common biosolids composting technology. Since static windrows rely on natural ventilation, this strategy is uncommon because of poor aeration and lack of mixing. Th best biosolids composting strategies are agitated windrows which assure periodic aeratio and thorough mixing of the biological materials. In-vessel systems (e.g. agitated bed composting facilities) furnish both agitation and forced aeration. When enclosed, composting off-gases can be captured and treated prior to release to the atmosphere, minimizing release of objectionable odors. The type of aeration method dictates the physical configuration of the compost operation. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 10 - Figure 2. Compost facility In general most of the odor generation occurs during the first two weeks of composting and most careful process control is required during this period. Intermittent release of odors by well-composted materials is generally not significant during curing and storage. Because of perceived odor concerns, siting of unenclosed composting facilities can be more complex than enclosed facilities. a. Regulatory Requirements Composting of biosolids is regulated under 40 CFR Part 503. Composting can be performed to meet Class A or Class B pathogen critiera, but is most often used to generate Class A material. The Class A rule requires meeting operational standards (documenting required time and temperature) and finished product testing (enumeration of pathogen indicators). The following requirements need to be met to produce Class A biosolids: Operational standards (process control)  Using either the within-vessel composting method or the static aerated pile composting method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55 oC or higher for 3 days.  Using the windrow composting method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55 oC or higher for 15 days or longer. During the period when the compost is maintained at 55 oC or higher, the windrow is turned a minimum of five times. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 11 - Pathogen indicator standards (product quality assurance)  The density of fecal coliform in the biosolids must be less than 1000 MPN per grams of total solids , or the density of Salmonella sp. bacterial in the biosolids must be less than 3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids.  Pathogen reduction requirements must be met prior to, or at the same time as vector attraction reduction, Vector attraction reduction-VAR (stabilization of biodegradable organic matter)  The stated purpose of vector attraction reduction is to minimize attraction of vectors (flies, rodents) to the material. The more practical basis is to minimize release of objectionable odors during distribution and utilization of the compost.  VAR is achieved by aerobic composting for 14 total days or longer, during which time the temperature must be over 40C, and the average temperature must be higher than 45C. b. Long term outlook Soil based disposition options for biosolids include distribution of heat treated pellets, application of Class B liquid and dewatered cake, and compost. The long term outlook for composting appears to be based on (1) public acceptance of agricultural use of Class B biosolids products, (2) the cost of energy for transportation and processing of biosolids, (3) long term landfill capacity and cost of landfilling biosolids, and (4) political and community support of composting as a “green” technology. Weighing these factors is not straightforward. Public support for distribution of Class B biosolids products appears to diminishing due in part to the mistaken perception of the material being a high health risk soil amendment. Alternatives to application of Class B to agricultural land and forests are the Class A products compost and heat dried pellets. Compost possesses well-accepted physical properties, and has a diversity of uses including surface mulch, and incorporation to adjust the physical properties of soil as practiced by home gardeners, professional landscapers, and soil blenders. The major advantage of compost is its high organic matter content. Application rates are fairly high, and use tends to be within the commercial-municipal sector. Transportation distance of composted biosolids which are only 60% dry matter is limited. Although amendment must be transported to the compost site, if the amendment is green waste, transportation costs to the composting location are incurred in any event. Processing energy for compost varies widely depending on the technology. While BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 12 - enclosed systems enable better odor control, ventilation and odor treatment consume substantial electrical energy. Agitated windrow systems use little electrical energy, but have increased potential for release of objectionable odors. Landfill capacity and cost have influenced use of composting technology over the past 30 years. In the 1990’s landfill costs approached $100 per ton in some regions, and the number composting facilities increased due largely to the operations and maintenance cost of $30 to $50 per ton. In the past 10 years, landfill costs have decreased substantially and composting no longer has the economic advantage. On a long term basis, the major factors influencing developing compost facilities are likely to be public rejection of Class B biosolids products and the opportunities to use biosolids as an important adjunct to compost greenwaste. Finally, community and political support and enthusiasm for this “green” technology may be the leading factor important to growth of composting facilities. c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options Markets for compost are generally seasonal in nature with greatest use occurring during the spring and fall. One of the benefits of compost is that it can be stored uncovered outside for many months. Communities with the luxury of large inventorying areas will stockpile compost produced during low demand periods so that they have a ready supply for the season. Others utilize compost in more traditional bulk land application programs, providing the material for reclamation of disturbed lands, and for application to crops. In such cases, compost is not utilized primarily as a plant nutrient resource, but rather as a soil conditioner. Composted biosolids are used as alternative daily cover and have been blended with poor quality soil to for a rooting media during closure of landfill cells. If the composting operation is no longer available, dewatered cake can be landfilled or, if the biosolids are stabilized prior to composting, they may be suitable for bulk land application. To a large extent biosolids compost must be promoted and marketed aggressively to assure ready disposition. d. Unit disposal costs Operations and maintenance costs will vary between $20 and $30 per wet ton. Capital costs for composting facilities are highly variable and depend in the type of compositng selected as well as the potential enclosure of the process and need for odor control. e. Incinerator ash Incineration is the process of burning the volatile organic compounds associated with a biosolids product. In order for the volatile solids to burn, the moisture bound in the BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 13 - biosolids must first be evaporated. The resulting products are steam, flue gas, and ash. Since the biosolids’ organic material is destroyed and the water content in the biosolids is evaporated, the mass and volume of the ash is approximately 10 percent of the feed solids. Because of the high temperatures reached in the incineration process, the ash produced is a sterile product. The most common disposal method for incinerator ash is landfill disposal. f. Regulatory requirements Ash is regulated as a solid waste in Missouri. For MSW landfill disposal, ash must meet the TCLP requirements to ensure it is not hazardous. Biosolids ash typically meets TCLP requirements and can be disposed in properly permitted landfills. The incineration process itself must comply with air emission requirements. Air emissions are a function of the composition of the sludge and combustion characteristics of the volatile portion of the solids. Additional air emissions come from metals that may be present in the solids. However, with good pretreatment programs, metals regulated by 40 CFR 503 have not been a problem for existing incinerators in the United States. Incineration of biosolids in Missouri is regulated under the State’s solid waste regulations [10 CSR 80-2:020]. Beneficial use of MSD’s biosolids incinerator ash could be exempted under these regulations. g. Disposal/beneficial use options Incinerator ash is typically hauled to landfills or monofills for disposal. The MSD-owned ash monofill is currently being evaluated to determine ultimate capacity and expected life. In addition to landfill disposal, biosolids ash can be used as a construction material or as a soil amendment. A summary of uses is as follows:  Ash can be used as a flowable fill material for backfilling excavations, placement of underground pipe, building foundations, footings, utility cuts, and any other type of application where it is advantageous to use a low strength controlled density fill. The Hampton Roads (Virginia) Sanitation District has utilized their biosolids incinerator ash as a constituent of fill material used to close out lagoons. It may be difficult to obtain a permit exemption for the use of MSD’s ash for flowable fill in Missouri.  Ash can be used in a number of construction materials, including concrete, cement, asphalt products, to serve as a mineral filler in place of sand or coal ash. In order to be utilized as a pozzolan in cement and cement-derived products, the ash must meet ASTM C 595 – 08 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 14 - Cements. Preliminary conversations with regional cement manufacturers indicated an interest in further exploring this option. An elemental analysis providing the concentrations of Ca, Si, Al, and Fe as well as certain other elements and a TCLP analysis demonstrating that the product was not hazardous are first steps in furthering this potential. Further, both the Federal Highway Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) have methods for approving ash for use as a component of construction materials. Generally, the ash must meet certain analytical parameters (see AASHTO M295 or ASTM C618 - Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete) and be approved by MODOT for use.  MSW landfill operations require the application of cover material daily in order to minimize the escape of particulates and litter. Some generators manage ash from sludge incineration by giving it to landfills to be used instead of soil for daily cover.  Ash can be used as a filler material in the manufacture of bricks and blocks, replacing coal ash. Discussions with a regional brick producer resulted in an interest on the part of the brick producer in utilizing the MSD ash. This manufacturer is willing to test the MSD ash, but only on the basis that MSD is willing to pay a “service fee” to the brick maker if the ash can be utilized.  Ash may have fairly high levels of phosphorus which is desirable for land application in parts of the country which are phosphorus-poor. Ash may also have some marketability as a liming agent. Joe Slater of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Plant Food Control Service indicated that ash could be registered as a fertilizer and/or liming agent if the product met certain criteria. For a fertilizer, the material must be relatively low in heavy metals and a guaranteed plant food analysis provided. As a liming agent, the product would have to meet 65% calcium carbonate equivalent and 90% passing a #8 mesh screen. Additional detail on potential end uses of ash, including local contacts, is provided in Appendix A to this Technical Memorandum. Ash must typically pass a TCLP analysis to be suitable for any of the listed beneficial uses. Additional elemental analyses may also be required. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 15 - h. Flexibility of outlets and backup options Ash that can not be used beneficially can be landfilled. While there is little flexibility of outlets, a number of landfills are available for ash disposal. Details of landfilling ash to MSW landfills are discussed in TM 9 and the life of the existing MSD Prospect Hill special waste landfill is being assessed as part of this project . i. Unit disposal costs Landfill unit disposal costs for ash in privately-owned landfills are similar to those for biosolids with tipping fess of approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids; however, incineration significantly reduces the quantity of material requiring disposal. Hauling cost is approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance. Cost of landfilling ash in city-owned landfills will be developed in Technical Memorandum No. 9 for this project. As noted previously, solids including ash may be hauled to the Fred Weber Sanitary Landfill at a 2009 bid cost of $23.96 per wet ton ($21.00 tipping fee plus $2.96 regulatory fee).. The market for sewage sludge ash appears to be promising in the coming years due to the number of different uses for ash, and the size of each of the various market segments. Marketing potential has not yet been fully realized and significant barriers to successful market expansion exist. The most significant impediment to beneficial use of ash is the preponderance of coal ash in the area, which is available in larger quantities that may be more suitable to beneficial use operations. More investigation must to be conducted to develop a cost estimate for any prospective beneficial use of ash. 4. Heat Dried Material Heat drying removes water from dewatered biosolids to accomplish both volume and weight reduction. Typically in this type of process, dewatered biosolids at nominally 20 to 25 percent solids are dried to between 90 and 95 percent solids. The temperatures to which the biosolids are subjected in a thermal drying process typically meet requirements to enable the end product to meet Class A pathogen reduction status. Drying can also be used to meet vector attraction reduction standards through desiccation. Depending on the type of drying technology used, the dried product can be a pellet-like material (Figure 3) or an irregularly shaped granule. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 16 - Figure 3. Heat dried material a. Regulatory requirements Heat dried material must meet 40 CFR Part 503 regulations for metals content, pathogen removal and VAR. The heat drying process typically meets the pathogen and VAR requirements. Most municipal biosolids meet the Part 503 metals requirements; drying does not concentrate or dilute the pollutant concentration of the incoming cake, therefore if the input biosolids meet the PCL and Ceiling Concentrations, the dried biosolids should as well. Bulk land application of heat dried material should meet nitrogen loading limits, similar to cake land application. Many states require heat dried material sold as a fertilizer product to be registered, with guaranteed nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) concentrations. b. Disposal/beneficial use options Heat drying produces a marketable product, which meets the 40 CFR Part 503 requirements for Class A biosolids. The product retains its nutrient value after thermal treatment and is suitable for beneficial reuse as a fertilizer, soil conditioner, or fuel. Heat dried biosolids can be utilized in a broad spectrum of outlets ranging from bulk land application (as currently practiced with dewatered cake) to specialty applications such as golf courses, fruits and vegetables, and home retail to use as a fuel resource. Availability of outlets vary by region and with product physical and chemical qualities. For instance, a dusty product with low plant nutrients will not be widely accepted as a high end BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 17 - fertilizer, but may work very well as a fuel. Conversely, a “hard” particle with high fertilizer value may be sought by end-users who are willing to recognize substantial value in the product. Depending on the source, heat dried biosolids will typically contain 3-6% total nitrogen, 2-5% total phosphorus and <1% total potassium on a dry weight basis. In addition to these three primary plant nutrients, dried biosolids will commonly contain varying amounts of important secondary plant nutrients (e.g. sulfur, calcium, etc.) and essential trace elements or micronutrients (e.g. zinc, copper, molybdenum, etc.), In order to distribute this material as a fertilizer, guaranteed analyses must be developed and the product registered with the State Department of Agriculture (in Missouri, the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Missouri manages this program). Heat dried biosolids typically exhibit an energy value in the range of 5,000-8,000 BTU per pound; similar to low grade coal, but with a higher ash and nitrogen content. Heat dried biosolids are currently being used in cement kilns in Maryland and are being planned in Pennsylvania and are widely used in cement kilns in Europe. The incorporation of dried biosolids as a supplemental fuel into a coal-fired power plant may require operational changes in air pollution control to remove ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options Since dried biosolids are relatively odor free, easy to handle, and meet Class A pathogen requirements, they have a number of outlets. While bulk land application is the most common, marketing programs can be developed to target high-end outlets. Local fertilizer use and distribution will generally be seasonal, but the relatively high value of the end product may support transportation to other markets that can utilize the biosolids year around. Product that is committed to use as a fuel component for cement manufacturing or power production will generally have a year around outlet; however such plants may schedule periodic outages in which no biosolids will be utilized. Product that can not be beneficially used can be landfilled. d. Unit disposal costs The market value of heat-dried biosolids depends on local market conditions, nutrient content, physical characteristics of the product, and other factors. The commercial value of heat-dried biosolids in the US typically ranges between $5 and $40 per ton of dry material. Costs for landfill disposal of dried material are similar to those for biosolids with tipping fees of approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids. Hauling cost is approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 18 - 5. Fuel Product Gasification has been used for over fifty years to convert coal and petroleum based materials into a combustible gas, commonly referenced as synthetic gas (syngas), and a carbon rich residue called char. The syngas requires cleaning before it can be used as a fuel, and is sometimes blended and upgraded with higher grade gases. The ash that comes out of the gasification system can be reused/disposed in the same way as incinerator ash. Gasification is still an emerging process for biosolids treatment, with a single demonstration unit in operation at Stamford, CT. The first permanent sludge gasification system in North America was recently commissioned in Sanford, Florida; however, the entire gasification process is not yet in operation. A proprietary system, SlurryCarb, converts biosolids to a char-like material calle E-Fuel. The first of its kind process in Rialto, CA is currently in commissioning. The E-Fuel is not typically used on site and is exported to other customers for combustion and use. a. Regulatory requirements The energy products generation through gasification and SlurryCarb are not regulated materials. Ash disposal is expected to be regulated as discussed in Section 4. Energy processes are expected to be subject to air emissions; however, as this these are newer technologies, no air emission information is available at this time. b. Options/outlets Char is used outside the United States as an organic soil amendment. Most of the phosphorus and some of the nitrogen apparently remain with the end product and so it may be more like compost than like heat-dried biosolids. Before this is implemented, additional research will need to be conducted. c. Flexibility of outlets and backup options Syngas generated through the gasification process can be used to generate heat through boilers or power and heat through a combined heat and power (CHP) technology, such as engine generators. Syngas does not meet commercial gas quality and would require additional treatment to allow injection into natural gas pipelines. Char generated through the SlurryCarb process can be combusted for energy; however, since this is an emerging process, information is not currently available on the number of facilities that would be able to use the char. Biosolids that are not treated through the gasification or SlurryCarb BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 19 - process can be disposed in landfills (if dewatered). If the biosolids are stabilized, such as through digestion, they may be suitable for bulk land application. d. Unit disposal costs Ash generated through the gasification process will have disposal costs similar to incineration ash, ranging from approximately $20 to $30 per ton of solids, with hauling cost of approximately $10 per ton, assuming a 20 mile one-way hauling distance. Costs and/or revenues for char as a fuel product are unknown at this time. 6. Results of Screening The final use alternatives were screened during Workshop 1, using the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) evaluation process described in Technical Memorandum 6. The screening process was performed as a group, and reflects the consensus of inputs from MSD staff. The results of the TBL ratings are presented in Appendix B. A summary of the category and criteria ratings used in the TBL is presented in Table 2. Table 2. TBL Screening Results Category Weight Criteria Weight Aesthetics 1 Truck traffic 1 Public Safety/site security 1 Ease of permitting 1 Social 25 Public perception 1 Minimizes GHGs 1 Outlet reliability 3 Proven experience 4 Environmental 25 Flexibility 2 Capital cost 3 O&M cost 3 Staffing/operational complexity 2 Constructibility 1 Economic 50 Ability to phase construction 1 The results of the evaluation process are shown on Figure 4. Based on the results of the TBL evaluation, the following processes were identified as potential final use options for the MSD wastewater facilities: BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 20 -  Ash disposal  Landfill of cake  Class B land application (digested solids)  Class B land application (alkaline stabilized solids)  Distribution/marketing of dried product  Distribution of compost These final use options were used to develop treatment technology options discussed in Technical Memorandum 7. 0.50 1.00 2.25 0.60 0.95 1.80 0.50 0.98 2.15 0.95 1.08 1.10 0.75 1.00 0.85 0.75 0.98 2.50 0.90 1.10 1.35 1.05 0.55 0.55 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Total Weighted ScoreLand App Class B Land App Class A Land App Alk Stab Dried Product Compost Landfill Cake Ash Energy Product Final Use Alternative St. Louis MSD Solids FInal Use Options Economic Environmental Social Figure 4. Results of TBL Evaluation BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives July 2, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 Appendix A Potential End Use Alternatives for Incinerator Ash  Bob Pepperman June 26, 2009 Memo: Use of Incinerator Ash – Preliminary Investigations  Tom Gredell July 1, 2009 Supplement to Bob Pepperman Memo Memo Date: June 26, 2009 To: Matt Bond From: Bob Pepperman Re: Use of incinerator ash – preliminary investigations Copy: Introduction As part of the scope of the project Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan (MSD Project No. 2009145 Task C (1) f. Identify Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash, Environmental Group Services (EGS) initiated investigations into potential outlets for biosolids incinerator ash. Missouri DNR was contacted as a first step. The purpose of this contact was to gain an understanding of the regulatory controls that might dictate which, if any, uses might be authorized under the States regulations. I spoke with Chris Nagel, Compliance and Enforcement Section Chief (573-526-3909). Mr. Nagel referred me to provisions in the State’s solid waste regulations [10 CSR 80-2:020], Section 9 of which allows for Permit Exemptions for a number of solid waste management activities that can be approved; Mr. Nagel indicated that beneficial use of MSD’s biosolids incinerator ash could be exempted under these regulations. I began exploring alternatives for outlets for the ash. I spoke with George Zanter (816-901 - 4924) of Herzog, Inc.’s Environmental Division in St. Joseph, MO. Herzog was the contractor charged with marketing/distributing biosolids incinerator ash from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services or MCES (serving Minneapolis, St. Paul and surrounding communities in Minnesota) Central plant. Although Mr. Zanter was not with Herzog at the time and the company no longer provides this service for MCES, he did share that Herzog was reasonably successful in acting as a broker or “middle-man” for the material. Apparently Herzog provided some portion of the product to a local cement manufacturer. Herzog would be interested in carrying out the same role for MSD if the District decides to go that way. I contacted or attempted to contact two cement producing companies located in proximity to St. Louis. The first, Holcim Cement in Clarksville, MO has a subsidiary entity called Geocycle that is charged with obtaining alternative fuels and feed stocks. I am awaiting a return call from Geocycle. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-2 I also contacted Buzzi Unicem’s Festus, MO QC Manager, Mr. Nick Rice (636- 931-2502). Mr. Rice indicated that they had tried ash from a biosolids incinerators some years ago (before he arrived) and the information he had on the material was that it worked from a chemistry standpoint but that there were issues related to handling and odor. Mr. Rice indicated that, in order to consider a product, they would need an elemental analysis providing the concentrations of Ca, Si, Al, and Fe as well as certain other elements and a TCLP analysis demonstrating that the product was not hazardous. If the ash passed those tests, then further exploration could be undertaken. Mr. Rice indicated they currently utilize a substantial amount of coal fly ash as a raw material in their cement production. The ash they use is referred to as Class C or Class F fly ash. This material is separated at the power plant and maintained in a dry state. Ash is loaded into pneumatic tankers for delivery to the kiln. The ash is pneumatically conveyed to a silo/tank and then incorporated into the raw material mix. Biosolids incinerator ash would have to be similarly handled. Mr. Rice also suggested that fly ash is used as a pozzolan in cement and cement- derived products. In order to be so utilized, the ash must meet ASTM C 595 – 08 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements, which is a general standard for blended hydraulic cements covering the gamut of blended hydraulic cements and including those made with slag, pozzolan, or a blend of the two combined with Portland cement, Portland cement clinker, and also slag with lime. Some municipalities utilize biosolids incinerator ash in the production of bricks. As St. Louis was once called, “Brick City,” one might suspect a reasonable opportunity to work with brick manufactures in the region. I was able to locate only one: Richards Brick Company (618-656-0230), whose manufacturing facility is located in Edwardsville, IL, which is about 25 miles from St. Louis. Mr. Motley at Richards indicated that they would be interested in considering ash for bricks. He would only be interested; however, if he could be paid to take it (but less than cost of landfilling). He'd want a 5-gallon bucket to play with. Some years ago, Dr. Henry Liu (who is now head of a company in Columbia, MO called Freight Pipeline Company) developed processes for incorporating ashes into the brick-making process. Dr. Liu’s company has the capacity to evaluate materials like the MSD’s ash and develop formulas for incorporation of the ash into brick-making; Dr. Liu would undertake such a project under contract with the MSD. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) allow for the use of coal fly ash in concrete, asphalt and various fills. Most of these uses are based on the ash meeting certain testing requirements. One could anticipate that MSD’s incinerator ash could also be suitable for these applications. Mr. Joe Schroer of MoDOT (573-751-3849) provided information related to use of ash in highway consturction. To be approved, a material must be tested and demonstrated to comply with AASHTO M295 (ASTM C618) Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete after which 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-3 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-4 the MoDOT will publish notice that the material is approved for use. At this point, the MSD would market the ash in a manner similar as any other biosolids-derived product. It should be expected that, in order to enter this market, a fairly rigorous testing program would be required. Such testing would be aimed at confirming the incinerator ash met the minimum qualifications and standards for use in the various products. After this testing, it is likely that one or more demonstrations would be necessary to provide field evidence of performance. MoDOT publishes a list of pre-qualified fly ash sources; perhaps the most important aspect of this listing is the number of fly ash sources. Clearly, MSD would have to offer a useful value proposition to any prospective user in order for that user to switch from readily available fly ash to incinerator ash. The Illinois Department of Transportation also has procedures for qualifying fly ash and similar products as a component of road construction materials. Joe Slater of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Plant Food Control Service (573-882-3891) indicated that ash could be registered as a fertilizer and/or liming agent if the product met certain criteria. For a fertilizer, the material must be relatively low in heavy metals and a guaranteed plant food analysis provided. As a liming agent, the product would have to meet 65% calcium carbonate equivalent and 90% passing a #8 mesh screen. Memo To: Matt Bond, P.E. and Tom Knox, P.E., Black & Veatch Corporation From: Thomas R. Gredell, P.E. CC: Bob Pepperman; Rickie L. Roberts, P.E., GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.; Date: 7/1/2009 Re: Supplement to June 26, 2009 Pepperman Memo on Use of Incinerator Ash I have reviewed Bob Pepperman’s memo dated June 26, 2009 and titled “Use of incinerator ash – preliminary investigations’. My perspective is my past experience and current understanding of the regulatory and business aspects of solid waste management in Missouri, including disposal, beneficial use and re-use or recycling. As noted by Mr. Pepperman, my review and this memo are a part of the scope of the Phase 1 MSD Biosolids project, specifically Task C.1f, Identify Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash. My perspective and comments strictly relate to MSD’s incinerator ash and DO NOT relate to the un-incinerated biosolids. I offer the following comments in response to specific paragraphs in Mr. Pepperman’s memo. 1. Paragraph 2 – MDNR regulations. I concur that Mr. Pepperman’s reference to 10 CSR 80-2.020 (9) is the correct reference for Missouri’s Solid Waste Management Rules relative to beneficial use exemptions. While working for MDNR in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, I was involved in drafting various versions of this regulation. The primary, historical use of the permit exemption section of the rules is to allow beneficial use of industrial wastes in a similar manner to ‘clean fill’, which is defined and exempt from solid waste regulation in Missouri. One of the key premises of Missouri’s ‘clean fill’ definition is that the material is ‘inert’. While the word ‘inert’ is vague, this has been practically interpreted to mean that the material is inorganic and does not have significant metals content or other potential contaminants of concern. As Mr. Pepperman states, an extensive testing program, followed by a submittal to MDNR, review and subsequent approval, would be required to meet a ‘beneficial use’ exemption. This ‘beneficial use’ exemption has historically been used for coal combustion products (CCP), especially fly ash and bottom ash/slag. It has also been used for foundry sands. The Bissell and LeMay plant incinerator ash would be a candidate for exemption under this regulation, but the apparent high iron content, as well as other leachable metals, may be a hindrance. CCP wastes (fly ash and bottom ash) have historically been used by utilities as ‘clean fill’ for improvements to their own facilities. This would be an option for MSD to pursue, if there appeared to be a financial savings to their construction costs. This use would require a ‘case-by-case’ review and approval by MDNR’s Solid Waste Management Program. 10 CSR 80-2.020 (9) requires consideration of A-5 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-6 geologic/hydrologic site conditions and waste physical and chemical characteristics for this type of approval. Additionally, some type of soil cover (possibly 1 to 2 feet of clayey soil) and establishment of a vegetative cover to prevent erosion would be required. It should be noted that Missouri’s Solid Waste Management Law and Rules specifically exempt the processes that re-use or recycle solid wastes directly into products. For instance, if the incinerator ash were to be hauled to a brick plant for direct re-use as a raw material, that hauling and processing (e.g., the manufacturing process) would be exempt from solid waste regulation. On-site processing of the incinerator ash to make it a more attractive product at the Bissell or LeMay plants would likely also be exempt from solid waste regulation, but likely NOT exempt from Clean Water regulation. 2. Paragraph 3 – Herzog, Inc. I am aware of Herzog’s presence and that they are a long- time participant in solid waste management in the mid-west and beyond. It is my perception that they are a specialty waste company and that they would be a good choice for a potential contractor to market this material. I routinely work with a local consultant, Greg Haug, P.E., Resource Enterprises, LLC, who also works with specific industries to find alternative disposal uses for their industrial wastes. Mr. Haug works extensively (but not exclusively) with Continental Cement Company, whom I have mentioned has a past interest in MSD’s incinerator ash. Therefore, Mr. Haug may or may not be available to work with MSD on a broader basis. 3. Paragraph 4 – Cement producing companies. I concur with Mr. Pepperman that the cement industry is a potential end user of this material. They have historically and actively sought industrial wastes for alternative fuel sources and raw material substitutions. Holcim is opening a new, larger cement plant near St. Genevieve, Missouri. It is unclear to me if the Clarksville plant will remain open, but I could pursue this if this is desirable. In addition to Holcim, I have mentioned in a recent e- mail that Continental Cement Company just south of Hannibal, Missouri, has past and current interest in MSD’s incinerator ash. Also, Lone Star Cement near Cape Girardeau has historically been interested in the use of industrial wastes for use in their processes. Due to their ties to the housing and construction market, Missouri’s cement manufacturers are currently suffering from the overall economic decline. 4. Paragraph 5 and 6 – Buzzi Unicem. I am not directly familiar with this facility, but the information (e.g., elemental analysis) that they would require should be similar for all cement manufacturing facilities. Although it is not anticipated that analytical testing of MSD’s current incinerator ash would prove it to be characteristically hazardous, some cement manufacturers are permitted to take hazardous wastes (Continental Cement and Holcim-Clarksville, for instance). However, this would likely lead to the cement company charging a disposal fee for the material. I do not believe that the discussion regarding Mr. Rice’s comments about fly ash in cement-derived products is particularly relevant to consideration of alternatives for MSD’s incinerator ash. I expect the physical, chemical and/or pozzalonic properties of CCP fly ash to differ from MSD’s incinerator ash, based on the past and current information and knowledge. In this regard, I located a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) document that discusses the use of fly ash as a concrete 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-7 additive, including a description of Type C versus Type F fly ash. The link to the FHWA document on fly ash is: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm 5. Paragraph 7 – Use of Incinerator Ash in the Manufacture of Bricks. As discussed in an earlier e-mail, the prominence of brick manufacturer’s in central and eastern Missouri has significantly diminished in the past 10 to 15 years. This should not be interpreted to mean that remaining brick manufacturers won’t be interested in MSD’s incinerator ash, but this will mean that there will be fewer available outlets. Missouri’s brick manufacturer’s once included residential bricks, as well as industrial refractory bricks, (and mortars) associated with the steel industry. However, the national and possibly global competition in the brick market may increase the industry’s interest in the use of alternative raw materials that will both reduce the cost of manufacturing and allow them to market their product as a ‘green product’. The surge of interest in L.E.E.D. certified vertical construction and other ‘green’ and sustainable construction (including horizontal construction) may lead to increased markets for MSD’s incinerator ash. Missouri’s refractory brick industry consolidated in the 1990’s, leading to the closure of most (if not all) of Missouri’s industrial refractory facilities, many of which were located between Mexico, Missouri and Louisiana, Missouri along U.S. Highway 54. Missouri’s residential brick manufacturing likewise has diminished, with the most notable recent closure being A.P. Green Refractory facility in Mexico, Missouri. However, there has been local (mid-Missouri) news reports in the past two years (approximate) about a residential brick company planning to re-open in Mexico in a portion of the old A.P. Green Refractory facilities. I am not familiar with the status of the residential and industrial brick manufacturing business in Illinois. 6. Paragraph 8 – Dr. Henry Liu. As noted in a previous e-mail, I am generally familiar with Dr. Liu’s background and research based out of Columbia, Missouri. From my perspective and based on his presentations that I have listened to, he has an interest and experience in finding alternative uses for large quantities of industrial materials, such as CCP fly ash, in particular in the manufacture of bricks and/or cinder blocks using a ‘pressure process’. I concur with Mr. Pepperman that he would be a potential source or consultant to conduct future ‘research’ into specific uses for MSD’s incinerator ash. 7. Paragraph 9 through 12 – Use of Incinerator Ash in Highway Construction. I am familiar with MoDOT’s use of CCP materials in highway construction. This has been a significant CCP flyash outlet for Missouri’s electric utilities over the past 20 to 30 years. When most of Missouri’s coal-fired electric generating plants switched to ‘western coal’ in the 1990’s, this created an abundance of pozzalonic fly ash in Missouri. With an abundance of available material and a national trend towards and acceptance of the use of fly ash in cement, MoDOT has embraced its use in the highway construction process. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-8 I have also had some experience in trying to obtain MoDOT approval for use of other ‘recovered solid wastes’ in the highway construction process. In particular, I worked with a client and a large St. Louis area contractor in trying to secure MoDOT’s approval of the use of recycle asphalt shingles as a substitute raw material in asphaltic cement. This process led me to the conclusion that MoDOT was very particular about the use of alternative raw material and the impact that they would have on the long-term QUALITY of their final product, which is Missouri’s highways. So I would expect that this would require significant testing, time and meetings with MoDOT to secure approval for MSD’s incinerator ash. My general familiarity with the issues of use of fly ash in the concrete manufacturing process would lead me to suspect that the impact that the iron content and the carbon content of MSD’s incineration ash would have on the quality of the finished concrete would be one of MoDOT’s highest concerns. 8. Paragraph 13 – Registration as a Fertilizer or Soil Amendment. I am generally familiar with this process, but not extensively. I concur that this is a potential avenue for re-use of biosolids, especially for un-incinerated biosolids. Due to the inorganic nature of MSD’s incinerator ash, the potential for certification as a soil amendment, or ‘liming agent’, seems most promising. Mr. Pepperman has covered the prospective alternative uses for the incinerator ash thoroughly. The most promising outlets appear to be: 1. Beneficial Use as a ‘Clean Fill’ material. This option carries some long-term liabilities for MSD, as future regulatory changes towards the classification of various contaminants that are present in MSD’s ash could result in some environmental liability exposure for MSD. This is best controlled if the materials were used on their own properties for their own projects. 2. Reuse as a ‘raw material substitute’ in the cement manufacturing process. The cement manufacturing process has a strong presence in the St. Louis area. The current economic impact to this industry is likely short-term. However, the current competitive climate of the industry may make the demand for cheaper, alternative raw materials even greater, which could benefit MSD. Other possibilities not specifically mentioned by Mr. Pepperman include: 1. The potential use of MSD’s incinerator ash as an ingredient in future compost products created with MSD’s un-incinerated biosolids. It is my understanding that these concepts are being developed by others under Task B, but it is my understanding that commercial products generated from the co-composting of yard waste and biosolids can benefit from the physical characteristics (sandy quality) and possibly chemical characteristics (i.e., calcium and iron) of the incinerator ash. 2. Use as ‘Alternative Daily Cover’ at municipal waste landfills. Missouri Solid Waste Management Rules (10 CSR 80-3.010) regulating municipal solid waste landfills require that the solid waste be covered with 6-inches of soil at the end of each operating day. The placement of soil daily cover is an expense and also consumes valuable air space in the landfill. MDNR’s Solid Waste Management Program allows municipal solid waste landfills that have meet the federal Subtitle D design standards 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-9 for liners and leachate collection systems to utilize ‘alternative daily covers’. The incinerator ash is ‘soil-like’ in physical appearance and characteristic and would likely meet MDNR’s criteria for alternate daily cover. However, approval for this use would have to be initiated by the municipal solid waste landfill and it would require a ‘case-by-case’ review by MDNR. This option would also include a hauling cost to the municipal solid waste landfill plus the landfill MAY still choose to charge a ‘disposal cost’ for the incinerator ash. Specific outlets can be pursued in Phase 2, if that is the direction that MSD would like to pursue. Appendix B Results of Triple Bottom Line Evaluation 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2 TM4–SummaryofRegulatoryIssuesVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 4 –Summary of Regulatory Issues BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 4 – REGULATORY REVIEW To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Patricia Scanlan, Ajay Kasarabada, Carlos De Leon This Technical Memorandum presents a review of biosolids-related regulations that would potentially apply to the Metropolitan St. Louis District (MSD) biosolids program. It also includes results of discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to identify existing trends in biosolids management or permitting practices or potential changes in state regulations. 1. Biosolids Regulations Biosolids are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503 Rule and by state and local ordinances. Odor, pathogens (e.g. disease-causing bacteria and viruses), biological vectors (e.g. rodents and flies) and heavy metals impact biosolids management, disposal, and final use practices. Federal and state biosolids regulations are discussed in the following sections. a. Federal Regulation The Part 503 Rule sets standards for final use or disposal when biosolids are applied to agricultural and non-agricultural land (including products sold or given away), placed in or on surface disposal sites or incinerated. The Part 503 Rule includes a provision that requires a utility disposing of biosolids in municipal solid waste landfills or using biosolids as a daily cover material at landfill sites must ensure compliance with 40 CFR Part 258. Treatment works that use a landfill for biosolids disposal must insure that the material is non-hazardous (as determined by the Toxicity Characteristics Leachate Procedure or TCLP) and passes the Paint Filter Liquid Test. The standards contained in the Part 503 Rule consist of general requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, operational standards and requirements for frequency of monitoring, record keeping and reporting. The Part 503 rules primarily regulate land application practices, surface disposal (monofills), sewage sludge incineration, pathogen and vector attraction reduction. As part of these issues, Part 503 addresses monitoring and record keeping practices and biosolids management. The land application, pathogen and vector attraction reduction reqirements, management and monitoring are described in the following sections. The incinerator-related issues are described in Section 2 of this memo, Air Emission Regulations. i) Metal Limits The Part 503 regulations list two different concentration limits for pollutants; (1) Ceiling Concentration Limit (CCL), and (2) Pollutant Concentration Limit (PCL), for applying BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 2 biosolids on land. The CCL sets the maximum allowable pollutant concentration in biosolids that are applied to land. If the biosolids contain pollutants greater than the CCL, biosolids can not be land applied. The PCL sets a lower pollutant concentration threshold which, when achieved, relieves owner from certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for metal loadings. While biosolids that meet the CCL but exceed the PCL can still be land applied, the cumulative loadings of pollutants to land must be monitored and recorded. In comparison, biosolids that meet the lower PCL can be distributed to the public or applied to land without tracking the metal loading rates. The CCL and PCL for metals, established by Part 503 Regulations, are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Part 503 Metal Limits for Land Application Metal PCL (mg/kg) CCL (mg/kg) Cadmium 39 85 Copper 1,500 4,300 Lead 300 840 Nickel 420 420 Zinc 2,800 7,500 Arsenic 41 75 Chromium 1,200 3,000 Mercury 17 57 Molybdenum -- 75 Selenium 36 100 ii) Pathogen Reduction Requirements The pathogen reduction requirements for biosolids are divided into two criteria: Class A and Class B. A combination of technological and microbiological requirements can be used to ensure reduction of pathogens to meet these criteria. The goal of the Class A requirements is to reduce the pathogens in biosolids (including enteric viruses, pathogenic bacteria, and viable helminth ova) to below detectable levels, as defined in the 1992 regulation. Class A biosolids have no use restrictions based on pathogen content and are considered to pose no threat to public health. Unlike Class A biosolids, which are virtually pathogen free, Class B biosolids may contain some pathogens. The goal of the Class B requirements is to reduce pathogens in biosolids to levels that are unlikely to pose a threat to public health and the environment under the specific use conditions. For Class B biosolids that are applied to land, site use restrictions are imposed to minimize the potential for human or animal exposure for a period of time following land application and until environmental factors (e.g. sunlight, desiccation) have further reduced pathogens. Application of Class B biosolids must be conducted in compliance with site restrictions; consequently, Class B biosolids application is limited to agricultural use on row crops or pasture or land reclamation. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 3 b. Class B Treatment Methods Class B pathogen requirements can be met in three different ways. The objective of all three alternatives is to ensure that pathogenic bacteria and enteric viruses are reduced in density, as demonstrated by a fecal coliform density in the biosolids of less than 2 million most probable number (MPN) or colony-forming units (CFU) per gram total solids (TS) biosolids (dry weight basis). In addition to management-practice requirements, including site restrictions, the Class B pathogen control requirements mandate that one of the following be satisfied before land application: i) Fecal Coliform Limitation The geometric mean of at least seven separate samples must be less than 2,000,000 MPN or CFU per g of TS. ii) Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) These processes have demonstrated the capability to achieve at least a 2-log reduction in fecal coliform. The processes are as follows:  Aerobic Digestion: Solids must be treated in a well mixed, aerobic condition with time and temperature between 40 days at 20°C and 60 days at 15°C.  Anaerobic Digestion: Solids must be treated in an anaerobic environment for at least 15 days at 35°C to 55°C.  Lime Stabilization: Add sufficient lime to the sewage sludge to raise the pH to 12 after 2 hours of contact.  Air Drying: Dry the solids for a minimum of 3 months. During 2 of the 3 months, the ambient average daily temperature must be above 0°C.  Composting: Compost the solids at a temperature of 40°C or higher for 5 days. For 4 hours at some point during each of the 5 days, the temperature in the compost pile must exceed 55°C. iii) Process Equivalent to Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) Processes that are not specifically identified in Part 503 can be used to meet Class B criteria if individually approved by USEPA or designated permitting authority. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 4 c. Class A Treatment Methods Six alternative methods within the Part 503 regulation demonstrate Class A pathogen reduction. The objective of these methods is to achieve the following conditions in the end product:  Solids contain less than 1000 MPN fecal coliform per gram of total biosolids or less than 3 MPN of Salmonella sp. per 4 grams total biosolids.  Enteric virus concentration is less than 1 PFU per 4 grams of TS.  Viable helminth ova concentration is less than 1 viable helminth ovum per 4 gram of TS. Class A biosolids must meet either of the limits mentioned above or one of the following alternatives: i) Time and Temperature Requirements Solids are treated for a specific time and temperature to kill pathogens. Time requirements vary depending on the treatment temperature. Typical requirements range from 5 days at 50oC to 30 minutes at 67oC. ii) Alkaline Treatment Requirements Solids are treated for a specific time and temperature to kill pathogens. Time requirements vary depending on the treatment temperature. Typical requirements range from 5 days at 50oC to 30 minutes at 67oC. Biosolids pH must exceed 12 for at least 72 hours and the biosolids temperature must exceed 53oC during that period. Biosolids must then be dried to a concentration exceeding 50 percent solids. iii) Treatment by Other Processes This alternative includes all processes other than those listed herein and requires monitoring of untreated sludge for viruses and pathogens. If these pathogens are not detected in the feed sludge, the treated biosolids are assumed to be Class A biosolids until the next monitoring period. If viruses and ova are found in the untreated biosolids, pathogens in the treated biosolids must be measured to confirm compliance with Class A pathogen criteria. iv) Unknown Processes This alternative applies to processes (such as lagoon storage, air drying, or cake storage) where kill mechanisms are not well understood or there is a lack of control over kill mechanisms. Virus and helminth monitoring are required for each batch of product. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 5 v) Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) A number of specific processes are identified by Part 503 that meet Class A pathogen requirements. The most commonly used processes include the following:  Composting: Compost the solids at a temperature of 55°C or higher for 3 days with in-vessel composting or static aerated pile. If windrow composting method is used, compost the solids at a temperature of 55°C or higher for 15 days or longer and provide minimum of five turning times.  Heat Drying: Solids must be dried to 90 percent dry material at a minimum of 80oC.  Heat Treatment: Liquid biosolids must be treated at a minimum of 180oC for 30 minutes or longer.  Pasteurization: Solids must be treated at a minimum of 70oC for 30 minutes or longer. vi) Vector Attraction Reduction Requirements Both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR) requirements for beneficial use. VAR requirements are intended to reduce the putrescibility of the solids. Putrescible solids will tend to attract vectors, such as flies and rodents. There are 12 VAR options for biosolids. Eight of the options treat the biosolids to reduce its ability to degrade further. These methods directly measure the volatility of the solids after stabilization, or measure indicator parameters, such as the oxygen uptake rate during additional degradation or the rate of degradation after stabilization. Other indirect measurements include meeting temperature or pH requirements for a specified detention time or drying the biosolids to specific solids concentrations. The last three VAR methods do not include treatment, but dictate management practices to minimize vector access. These include injecting the solids below the ground surface, using equipment to incorporating the biosolids into the soil (disking in the biosolids), or covering the biosolids after placement. “Exceptional quality” (EQ) biosolids are biosolids which have met the Part 503 PCL requirements as well as Class A pathogen reduction requirements and one of the first eight vector attraction reduction options. EQ biosolids may be land applied without site restrictions, sold, or given away. d. State Regulations The State of Missouri does not have delegation over biosolids permitting; however, the state has the authority to promulgate regulations and guidelines in addition to those presented in Part 503. The MDNR has incorporated the Part 503 rules in the state BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 6 requirements under the Missouri Clean Water Law and regulations. The state rules include additional requirements that are not covered under USEPA. Complying with the state rules automatically meets the USEPA requirements as well. The MDNR has its biosolids rules codified under the Code of State Regulations (CSR), Title 10. Separate divisions within Title 10 affect MSD, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Key State Regulations Affecting the Management of Biosolids Division Chapter Applicability 20 6, 7, 8 Sludge disposal in surface lagoons, sludge transport for beneficial use 80 All Solid Waste management: landfilling, landfill design and operation Biosolids treatment and management requirements are also provided through a series of Water Quality Guides published by the University of Missouri. While the University has published 16 guides, 5 have been incorporated by reference the MDNR Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits, Part III, Sludge & Biosolids from Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The incorporated guides are as follows:  WQ 422 Land Application of Septage  WQ 423 Monitoring Requirements for Biosolids Land Application  WQ 424 Biosolids Standards for Pathogens and Vectors  WQ 425 Biosolids Standards for Metals and Other Trace Substances  WQ 426 Best Management practices for Biosolids Land Applications All biosolids-related guides from the University of Missouri are available in electronic format at: http://extension.missouri.edu/main/DisplayCategory.aspx?C=74 The guides follow the USEPA Part 503 regulation on most issues. However, they provide additional requirements for the following:  Monitoring frequency. WQ 423 provides greater delineation for monitoring frequency than Part 503. WQ 423 requirements are listed in Table 3. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 7 Table 3. Recommended Monitoring Frequency Design Sludge Production (dry tons per year) Monitoring Frequency Metals, Pathogens, and Vectors Nitrogen TKN1 Nitrogen PAN2 Priority Pollutants and TCLP3 0 to 100 1 per year 1 per year 1 per month 1 per year 101 to 200 Biannual Biannual 1 per month 1 per year 201 to 1,000 Quarterly Quarterly 1 per month 1 per year 1,001 to 10,000 1 per month 1 per month 1 per week See note 4 10,001+ 1 per week 1 per week 1 per day See note 4 1Test total Kjeldahl nitrogen, if biosolids application is 2 dry tons per acre per year or less 2Calcualte plant available nitrogen, if biosolids application is more than 2 dry tons per acre per year. 3Priority pollutants (40 CFR 122.21, Appendix D, Tables II and III) and toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (40 CFR 261.24) is required only for permit holders that must have a pre- treatment program. 4One sample for each 1,000 dry tons of sludge  Application rates. WQ 425 includes application rate limits based on the total cumulative loading limit, based on the soil cation exchange capacity (CEC). These limits are listed in Table 4. The WQ 425 values for soils with CEC values of less 15 or less are lower than the Part 503 requirements. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 8 Table 4. Application Limits based on Soil Cation Exchange1 CEC 15+ CEC 5 to 15 CEC 0 to 5 Pollutant Annual Total(2) Annual Total(2) Annual Total Arsenic 1.8 36.0 1.8 36.0 1.8 36.0 Cadmium 1.7 35.0 0.9 9.0 0.4 4.5 Chromium 133.0 2,670.0 100.0 1,000.0 50.0 500.0 Copper 66.0 1,335.0 25.0 250.0 12.0 125.0 Lead 13.0 267.0 13.0 267.0 13.0 133.0 Mercury 0.7 15.0 0.7 15.0 0.7 15.0 Molybdenum 0.8 16.0 0.8 8.0 0.8 8.0 Nickel 19.0 347.0 19.0 250.0 12.0 125.0 Selenium 4.5 89.0 4.5 44.0 1.6 16.0 Zinc 124.0 2,492.0 50.0 500.0 25.0 250.0 1Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Permit Standard Conditions Part IV, June 1993 2Total cumulative loading limits for soils with equal or greater than 6.0 pH (salt-based test)  Best Management Practices. Some of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in WQ 426 are more stringent than Part 503 requirements. These include increased buffer zones to protect surface waters (300 ft), dwellings (150 ft) wetlands (100 ft) and property lines (50 ft); slope limitations for application areas; soil pH limits at the application sites (6.0 to 7.5); and biosolids storage requirements (90 days for the St. Louis area). A copy of the Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits, Part III, is included in Appendix 1. e. Regulatory Outlook and Trends A meeting was held with the MDNR on September 21, 2009 (See MDNR Meeting Minutes, Appendix 2). Based on the information provided by MDNR, the staff envisioned several regulatory changes that may occur within the next 10 to 20 years. These include the addition of phosphorus limitations for land application rates and monitoring of pharmaceutical and endocrine disruption compounds. Neither of these issues has been addressed at the federal level at this time and no regulation modifications are currently pending. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 9 2. Air Emission Regulations Air emissions are controlled under a number of federal regulations, including both Clean Air Act and 40 CFR Part 503. In addition, in September 2009, the USEPA issued a final rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, subject to numerous parts of the 40 CFR. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are specifically excluded from reporting in the current rule in general. However, there are some potential categorical requirements for rated head input of fuel combustion units, as well as CO2e discharge rates, that could push the Bissell and Lemay facilities into GHG monitoring requirements. Air emission regulations are discussed in the following sections. a. Federal Regulations The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) new source review (NSR) provisions are implemented for new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing major sources under two programs; the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program outlined in 40 CFR 52.21 for areas in attainment, and the NSR program outlined in 40 CFR 51 and 52 for areas considered non-attainment for certain pollutants. The air quality in a given area is generally designated as being in attainment for a pollutant if the monitored concentrations of that pollutant are less than the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Likewise, a given area is generally classified as non-attainment for a pollutant if the monitored concentrations of that pollutant in the area are above the NAAQS. A review of the air quality attainment status of the St. Louis metropolitan area that includes the City of St. Louis, St. Louis, Jefferson, Franklin and St. Charles Counties reveals that MSD’s current incinerator fleet is located in a moderate non-attainment area for ozone (8-hour) and a non-attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) see definition in Table 5. i) Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review The PSD regulations are designed to ensure that the air quality in existing attainment areas does not significantly deteriorate or exceed the NAAQS while providing a margin for future industrial and commercial growth. The primary provisions of the PSD regulations require that major modifications and new major stationary sources be carefully reviewed prior to construction to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, the applicable PSD air quality increments, and the requirements to apply BACT to minimize the emissions of air pollutants. A major stationary source is defined as any one of the listed major source categories that emits, or has the potential-to-emit (PTE), 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 10 pollutant, or 250 tpy or more of any regulated pollutant if the stationary source does not fall under one of the listed major source categories. All MSD incinerator facilities are currently classified as a major non-attainment source and a major PSD source. If any upgrades or retrofits are proposed for incinerators located at existing major stationary sources, PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) applicability is determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis by comparing the emissions increase of each pollutant against the PSD significant emission rates (SERs) listed in Table 5. Table 5. Significant Emission Rates Pollutant Significant Emission Rate (ton/year) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 40 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 40 Particulate matter (PM) 25 Particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) 15 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 10 Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 Ozone (O3)--NOx or volatile organic compounds (VOC) 40 Lead (Pb) 0.6 Fluorides 3 Sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) 7 Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 10 Total reduced sulfur compounds 10 As mentioned previously, the St. Louis metropolitan area is a moderate non-attainment area for ozone (8-hour) and a non-attainment area for PM2.5. In Missouri, the NSR program required by the federal CAA is administered by through Section (7) of 10 CSR 10 6.060 Construction Permits Required. VOCs and NOx are considered as surrogate pollutants for ozone and regulated as nonattainment pollutants. It has not yet been established if MDNR considers PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. Since the MSD facilities are classified as existing major sources, the significance levels for triggering NSR review for VOCs, NOx and PM2.5 are 40, 40 and 10 tons per year, respectively. It needs to be established if new major construction or retrofits/modification projects will trigger a NNSR or PSD. Operational limitations or stricter air emission limits may be required to permit the projects as minor modifications to existing major sources (ie, to limit potential increases in emissions to less than the major modification thresholds). In non-attainment areas such as the St. Louis metropolitan area, NNSR review will require the implementation of lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), purchasing of emission reduction credits (or offsets) and other requirements that will need to be managed and addressed early in the project planning phase. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 11 ii) New Source Performance Standards – Sewage Treatment Plants The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) established in the 1970 CAA, were developed for specific industrial categories and are promulgated in 40 CFR 60. The 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart O, Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants regulates sludge incinerators that have been constructed or modified after June 11, 1973 and a design capacity greater than 1,000 kilograms (kg) per day. NSPS Subpart O limits opacity from each sludge incinerator stack to less than 20 percent and filterable particulates (PM) to less than 1.3 lb/dry-ton. The criteria for this NSPS will need to be continuously met even after the modification/upgrades to individual incinerators. iii) 40 CFR Part 503, Subpart E, Incineration The USEPA’s 40 CFR Part 503 Rule regulates the emission of seven metals and total hydrocarbons from biosolids incinerators based on the following approaches:  Risk-specific concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel  National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead  Technology-based operational standard for total hydrocarbons  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP) for beryllium and mercury (see above for discussion on beryllium and mercury NESHAPs). (1) Risk-Specific Concentrations for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel The emission of arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel from an incinerator are controlled by limiting the allowable concentration of each metal in the biosolids to be fed to the incinerator. The allowable concentration for each metal is determined for each individual incinerator is calculated based on a formula provided in the Part 503 regulations. Inputs to the formula include allowable ambient air increase in metals concentrations (based on Part 503 risk-based assessment results), dispersion factors, control efficiency, and biosolids feed rate. (2) NAAQS for Lead The equation used to calculate the allowable concentration of lead in biosolids to be incinerated is similar to the equation used for arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel. However, rather than being based on a risk-based calculation developed for the Part 503 Rules, the lead limit is based on a percentage of the NAAQS and includes factors for dispersion, control efficiency for lead, and the biosolids feed rate. (3) Total Hydrocarbons and CO Total hydrocarbons (THC) or carbon monoxide (CO) are monitored to represent all organic compounds in the exhaust gas that are covered by the Part 503 Rule. The THC or CO requirement is a technology-based standard and not based on risk assessment BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 12 methodology used for the metals. The Part 503 Rule allows a monthly average concentration of up to 100 parts per million based on volume (ppmv) of THC or CO. The emission limit for THC of 100 ppmv is monitored as propane, corrected to 0 percent moisture and 7 percent oxygen. If the CO in the emission does not exceed 100 ppmv, USEPA allows CO to be used as an alternative to THC. However, a CO limit of 100 ppmv is more stringent than a THC limit of 100 ppmv. In either case, the regulation requires the monthly average to be based on the arithmetic mean of 24-hourly averages, with the hourly average based on at least two readings. The criteria for this regulation will need to be continuously met even after the proposed upgrades/modifications. iv) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and EPA’s Impending Re-definition of Biosolids USEPA is currently developing a revised definition of non-hazardous solid waste. The applicability of Section 112 or Section 129 of the CAA will depend on the finalized version of that solid waste definition rule. Biosolids are included in this re-definition rule. Early indications are that the USEPA may reclassify biosolids as solid waste. If this re-definition of biosolids proceeds, it will affect sludge incineration regulation. Specifically, it could result in more future stringent emission limits, affect the market for biosolids as a co-firing fuel, and require treatment plants to obtain permits from solid waste agencies for disposal or land application of biosolids. Therefore, it is important to track this rule development closely as it could have significant impacts on future compliance for incineration or biosolids disposal. It is likely that multiple hearth incinerators would have difficulty meeting potential new regulatory requirements if regulated under Section129 of the CAA. Emissions of mercury, which is a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) will continue to be regulated under the mercury NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, Subpart E, National Emission Standard for Mercury, which limits the emissions of mercury to less than 3,200 grams or 7.1 pounds of mercury per 24-hour period. The mercury NESHAP also requires affected facilities to conduct stack testing or sludge sampling, and relevant recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are triggered if mercury emissions exceed 3.5 pounds per 24- hour period. Emissions of beryllium, which is also a HAP, will continue to be regulated under the beryllium NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, Subpart C, National Emission Standard for Beryllium, which limits the emissions of beryllium to less than 10 grams or 0.022 pounds of beryllium per 24-hour period. v) Title V Operating Permit Any changes to the existing incinerators will require new construction permits, which will need to be incorporated in the respective facility’s Title V Operating Permit within 12-months of initiating operations with the upgrades/modifications in place. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 4- Regulatory Review October 16, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp 13 a) State Regulations The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has no sludge incinerator specific regulations other than those that are already listed under the federal regulations. Any proposed project will likely need air construction permits from the MDNR. Whether or not these permits will be major permits or minor permits can only be established after some preliminary engineering decisions are made on the type, and scale of the proposed retrofit/upgrade projects. Other local and state specific regulations associated with opacity, particulate matter and sulfur compounds that are currently applicable, will continue to be applicable after the proposed modifications and it is expected that MSD will continue to comply with these regulation. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 Appendix A Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits Part III BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 Appendix B MDNR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2009 MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting With Missouri Department of Natural Resources September 21, 2009, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Lewis & Clark Office Building, Gasconade Camp Room Meeting Objectives: 1. Confirm existing biosolids regulations and requirements 2. Identify regulatory issues that may impact current or future biosolids alternatives or operations Attendee List is Attached Discussion Items: The MSD staff and Black & Veatch presented the following information on the current management practices used by MSD: • Biosolids management practices and processes at MSD plants are generally operating fine, meet all regulatory requirements, and are of sufficient capacity to meet current and near term needs. The district feels they employ the most costs effective process at individual plants for biosolids processing and disposal. • Incineration is practiced at the largest plants (Bissell Point and Lemay). Although incineration has worked well, the age of the equipment and new potential emissions requirements are the primary reason the District is taking a comprehensive look at all alternatives for this study. • After the Missouri River WWTP changes to activated sludge, only about half of the solids production can be composted by St. Peters composting. The excess biosolids will need to be managed through an alternate process. • The Missouri River WWTP used the solids from its lagoons as a part of the levee materials during expansion. They were also used to enhance the sandy soils in the river land area and for land application in Illinois. At the time, applying solids to remediate the land in the “lead belt” area was considered, but not pursued. • Solids from the other plants currently go to the Fred Weber landfill. The MDNR staff, led by Tony Dohmen, provided the following information: • There have been no changes to biosolids regulations for Missouri for the past five years. Part III regulations have not changed. • Rob Morrison stated that the WPCB is currently evaluating a program to see if some changes need to be made to the regulations. • The USEPA has set phosphorous limits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). MDNR believes that phosphorus limits could be expected on land application of biosolids within the next 10 to 20 years. • MDNR expects that endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals may be regulated in some fashion in the future. However, MDNR staff are not aware of any timelines or target dates. • Rob Morrison stated the phosphorous requirements could increase the amount of storage needed. Tony Dohmen recommends a full year of storage, regardless of the state requirements. • There are currently only two utilities that compost municipal solids: St. Peters and Nixa. • Tony Dohmen reviews and implements the Biosolids program in Missouri for MDNR. There are no other resources dedicated to biosolids program or enforcement in the State. Since the vast majority of biosolids programs use land application Tony’s focus is on land application regulations and policies. MDNR supports land application for its beneficial reuse features. Tony implements the program in accordance with the established 503 regulations. Except for the standard Part 3 conditions attached to all discharge permits, Missouri has no other overarching regulations on land application. • Tony Dohmen considered the recommendation of heat dried biosolids: it creates a valuable product, but at a high cost and with large greenhouse gas emissions. He questioned the issues surrounding such an operation, considering that there are no other facilities in the State of Missouri that currently produce Class A biosolids. • Nowa Technology was identified as a party interested in generating biodiesel from biosolids. Nowa is currently talking to Little Blue Valley Sanitation District. Nowa is currently seeking a demonstration project and funding. Contact Richard Nelson at Nowatechnology.com. • Waste Corporation of America (WCA) of Sedalia was also identified. WCA is currently seeking biomass to digest to produce biogas. It is considering many sources, including animal waste and municipal solid waste. The goal is to recover energy and sell compost or land apply a digested product. Answers to specific questions from MSD/Black & Veatch are as follows: 1. MDNR does not have specific information regarding state-wide biosolids generation or management methods. 2. Landfills are getting full. Takes a minimum of five years to permit a new one. MSD may be able to use sludge as an alternative daily cover, but would be limited by the landfill size and odor issues. Landfills require material that passes the paint filter test. There are currently no issues for pathogens on the daily cover, but raw solids would be a concern due to their odor potential and their vector attraction. Landfills would not generally be expected to accept raw solids for daily cover. MDNR is aware Fred Weber ahs over 80 years of remaining life in its St Louis County landfill 3. Odor complaints from both land application and trucking. There have been a few complaints about odors from both trucking and setback issues. MDNR is aware of approximately 6 land application contractors in the state, without a lot of problems with the contractors. MDNR does not have a standard inspection program; investigations are based on complaints. 4. Source of investigations. MDNR investigates complaints from regional offices, not from its Jefferson City office. 5. Permitting Timelines. Permit renewals typically take longer than permit modifications. A new biosolids facility not associated with an existing liquid stream permit would be handled by USEPA, not MDNR since MDNR does not have primacy on biosolids matters.. Field storage can be permitted under an existing permit, as long as it is associated with an existing permitted WWTP facility. 6. Greenhouse gas emissions. There are no MDNR greenhouse gas emission regulations, and MDNR is waiting on guidance from EPA. 7. Incineration. Providing that air emissions are met, MDNR believes new facilities would be permitted. However, installations that incinerate municipal solid waste would need to comply with local regulations, plus a rigorous public input process, meetings, etc. Several large cities in Missouri employ incineration, KCMO, Independence, Little Blue Valley and St Louis. 8. Emerging Technologies. MDNR is not sure where emerging technologies would be permitted, or even what department in the MDNR would have a controlling stake. 9. Land Application in Illinois. MDNR did not know of any Missouri communities that land apply biosolids in Illinois. Tom Dohmen stated that Region V (based in Illinois) has no issues with material crossing state lines. As a result, it may be possible that the Illinois EPA may or may not have issues with land application. 10. Lead Belt Area. This was thought originally to be a location for “one time” application to remediate lead mining tailings, but has since become a long term operation. MDNR could support additional applications. Future phosphorous limits may need to be assessed based on the potential for loads and run off. Incorporation may be required in the future to minimize run off. Municipalities in Jefferson County and South County send their biosolids to the Doe Run. Articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Highlighted misapplication and management problems, but those appear to have been addressed. One of the apparent issues was that Septage was improperly applied at the Doe Run site, when material was required to be screened to less than half an inch. Doe Run has been required by MDNR to establish a more definitive plan for land application, and procedure to allow proper land application of biosolids and prevent improper application of liquid sludge’s and Septage. 11. Energy Center. The MDNR Energy Center is investigating various methods of energy conservation and recovery. Included in their interests are weatherization and conversion of biomass to fuel. 12. EPA coordination. EPA receives copies of annual biosolids reports. Tonya Nicks is the official contact for biosolids, and John Dunn of EPA also contributes. TM5–ConditionAssessmentReportVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 5 –Condition Assessment Report BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5 – CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Dan Bunce, Matt Bond, Alan Christanell, Jim Rowan, Jim Lonsway, Kevin Nelson, Samba Muddhana (EDSI) This memorandum summarizes the O&M and management strategies determined from condition assessment evaluations performed as a part of the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. It also summarizes the Results of the condition assessments conducted on the solids processing systems at the Metropolitan St. Louis District’s seven wastewater treatment plants (WWTPS). Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 1 1. Condition Assessment Methodology.......................................................................... 2 a. Condition Assessment Planning ............................................................................. 2 b. Assessment of Probability of Failure (POF)........................................................... 3 c. Assessment of Consequence of Failure (COF)....................................................... 4 d. Existing Equipment Information Collection........................................................... 7 e. Equipment/Asset Hierarchy.................................................................................... 8 f. IBM-Maximo Work Order History......................................................................... 8 g. Work Order Characterization.................................................................................. 9 h. Failure Data associated with WO’s......................................................................... 9 2. Initial Maximo Findings and Recommendations...................................................... 10 a. Initial Recommendations...................................................................................... 11 b. Other Recommendations....................................................................................... 12 3. Condition Assessment Results.................................................................................. 13 a. Business Risk Exposure Analysis Methodology.................................................. 15 b. Lemay WWTP...................................................................................................... 17 c. Bissell Point WWTP............................................................................................. 23 d. Coldwater WWTP................................................................................................. 32 e. Missouri River WWTP......................................................................................... 35 f. Lower Meramec WWTP....................................................................................... 37 g. Grand Glaize WWTP............................................................................................ 39 h. Fenton WWTP...................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A – Sample Equipment Evaluation Form Appendix B – Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Appendix C – Ratings for All Assessed Solids Processing Equipment Appendix D – Photographs from Inspections QC: B. Green Page 1 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 1. Condition Assessment Methodology a. Condition Assessment Planning An assessment of the facilities and equipment for the WWTP's was conducted to support the overall goals of the project. Specifically, the assessment and ranking of risk levels of the facilities was based on the product of the ranking of the Probability of Failure (POF) and Consequence of Failure (COF), as depicted in the asset risk signature figure below. Asset Risk Signature 5 High Business Risk Exposure Medium Business Risk Exposure 4 Low Business Risk Exposure 3 2 1 12345Probability of FailureConsequence of Failure Increasing Risk Prior to conducting field assessment activities, the Black & Veatch team (Team) developed equipment assessment criteria to support the risk ranking review of equipment and obtained specific available equipment information contained within MSD’s IBM- Maximo Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The team reviewed the assessment criteria during the project kickoff meeting and provided comments to the specific criteria and assessment rating descriptions. Following the kickoff meeting, the team made the necessary modifications and used the criteria as a basis for developing the equipment assessment forms. The final Assessment Criteria is provided in Tables 1 and 2 in the following section. QC: B. Green Page 2 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 b. Assessment of Probability of Failure (POF) The facilities at the WWTP's were evaluated using the POF criteria below: Table 1 Probability of Failure Criteria Condition Description % of Asset Requiring Replacement 1 New or very good condition 0% 2 Minor defects only 5% 3 Corrective maintenance required 10 – 20% 4 Significant deterioration 20 – 40% 5 Unserviceable 50 – 100% Reliability Description Failure Timing (as % of Expected Life) Example Based on 20 yr Expected Life 1 Exceptional reliability >50% > 10 yrs 2 Random breakdown 50% 10 yrs 3 Occasional breakdown 25% 5 yrs 4 Periodic breakdown 10% 2 yrs 5 Frequent breakdown < 5% < 1 yr Capacity Description Functionality Description 1 Significantly exceeds desired capacity 1 Exceeds all functional requirements 2 Exceeds desired capacity 2 Exceeds some functional requirements 3 Meets desired capacity 3 Meets all functional requirements 4 Fails to meet desired capacity 4 Fails some functional requirements 5 Significantly fails to meet desired capacity 5 Fails all functional requirements Financial Efficiency Description 1 Most Efficient 2 Financial Efficiency is high 3 Financial efficiency is average 4 Financial efficiency is low 5 Asset should be replaced Probability of Failure criteria were evaluated using the following guidelines:  Condition – Brand new or essentially new equipment was given a rating of 1. Old equipment that runs acceptably with only typical preventative maintenance required was rated a 3. Equipment requiring significant maintenance was rated a 4 or 5. QC: B. Green Page 3 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009  Reliability – Equipment only requiring scheduled preventative maintenance was rated a 2. If more than scheduled maintenance is required, the rating was a 3. If the equipment is not usable, then it was rated a 5.  Capacity – Equipment whose capacity matched the capacity required to perform its function was rated a 3. If the equipment had excess capacity it was rated a 2 and equipment was rated a 4 if it was slightly under its required capacity.  Functionality – Equipment that performed its function adequately was rated a 3. If equipment failed to achieve its function, it was rated a 4 or 5.  Financial Efficiency – Equipment was rated a 2 if there are very few (if any) better ways to perform the function. Equipment was rated a 4 if there were better ways to perform the function, such as newer technology. A rating of 3 meant that the equipment is a proper fit for its function, with no better ways to perform the function. c. Assessment of Consequence of Failure (COF) The facilities at the WWTP’s were evaluated using the COF criteria presented in Table 2. The results of the COF analysis will be combined with the POF analysis to develop risk rankings for the facilities. QC: B. Green Page 4 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Table 2 Consequence of Failure Criteria Criticality Criteria Rating Description Health & Safety 1 Does not result in injury or illness 2 3 Minor/Reportable Injury or Illness ($2,000 - $20,000). Impact reversible within 3 months. 4 Potential for Serious Injury 5 Serious Injury or Loss of Life Social Impact 1 No or negligible impact. 2 3 Localized customer complaints likely. 4 Broader customer complaints expected. Makes local news. Potential regulatory violations. 5 Regulatory violations expected. Makes news. Possible fines and prosecution. Difficulty of Repair 1 < 1 day 2 Between 1 day and 1 week 3 Between 1 week and 1 month 4 Between 1 and 3 Months 5 > 3 months Redundancy 1 >100% redundant assets in-place as part of process 2 51-100% redundancy in-place 3 10-50% redundancy in-place 4 10% or less redundancy in-place 5 Asset serves primary function with no back-up Consequence of Failure criteria were evaluated using the following guidelines:  Health & Safety – Equipment was evaluated on the potential for human harm in the event of failure with the equipment. The more serious the human harm, the higher the rating. Equipment was only evaluated on its specific function within the plant. Although failure with one piece of equipment could have consequences with associated equipment and have impacts throughout the plant, the rating provided was only for the specific piece of equipment being evaluated. QC: B. Green Page 5 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009  Social Impact – Equipment was evaluated on potential to cause violations of the treatment plant’s effluent permit as well as on the plant’s ability to be a “good neighbor”. If an equipment failure directly impacted the capability of the plant to meet its effluent requirements or jeopardized the plant’s standing in the neighborhood, then that equipment was given a high score. Failures or problems with equipment that could lead to effluent permit violations or significant odor releases, as examples, were rated a 4 or 5. Although failure with one piece of equipment could have consequences with associated equipment and have impacts throughout the plant, the rating provided was only for the specific piece of equipment being evaluated.  Difficulty of Repair – A piece of equipment was rated a 2 based upon guidelines such as if spare parts were readily available, service could be performed by local technicians, the service work was not labor intensive, the equipment was easy to access, or no shutdowns or temporary operations were required. As any of these guidelines became less favorable, the rating of the equipment was higher.  Redundancy – The percent redundancy was determined by considering the number of pieces of equipment required to operate on an average day’s plant flow with the number of pieces of spare equipment available. For example, if there are four pieces of equipment and three pieces are required leaving one spare available, the redundancy is 33%. Individual pieces of equipment that are associated with an overall piece of equipment, such as a belt drive on a belt filter press, were evaluated for redundancy as a part of the overall piece of equipment. In this example, since there would not be 2 drives for one belt, the redundancy rating was for the entire belt filter press. A sample Equipment Assessment Form is provided in Appendix A. QC: B. Green Page 6 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 d. Existing Equipment Information Collection Following the Kickoff meeting, the Team met with MSD O&M staff and briefly reviewed the organization and current use-of-equipment data, maintenance Work Order (WO) history, and obtained downloads of the target equipment data for each of the seven waste water treatment plants (WWTP). Based on discussions with staff, equipment associated with the following systems (Table 3 below) was used as a basis for the assessment activities to support the Comprehensive Solids Master Plan development. Table 3 MSD System Abbreviations Process Code Process Description SCR Bar Screens GRT Grit Removal COM Comminution PRI Primary Sedimentation* THK Sludge Thickener DWR Sludge Dewatering DIG Sludge Digesters INC Incineration ASH Ash Handling SLD Sludge Treatment INF Influent** * Assessment of this process will target Grease and Sludge pumps only. ** Downloaded separately on 6/25/2009. Only pertinent equipment data was downloaded from the database to support the assessment activities. Although the equipment data was downloaded from MSD’s CMMS and imported to our Capital Asset Management and Prioritization (CAMPS) System – which was used for supporting the condition assessment and risk ranking evaluation, compatibility between the two data formats was maintained by assigning each assessment QC: B. Green Page 7 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 record a unique identifier directly related to both systems. Additional discussion related to updating MSD’s IBM-Maximo CMMS with assessment and other equipment information is provided in Section 2 of this memo. e. Equipment/Asset Hierarchy It was clear to our team that significant amount of effort has been expended by MSD in developing its Location and Equipment-based hierarchy. It appears that the hierarchy supports the ability to “walk to” equipment (Location Hierarchy) and that generally equipment is organized in a logical manner to support maintenance management (known as Maintenance Managed Item, or MMI). However, it was difficult to apply a consistent Risk-Based facility assessment (Consequence and Probability of Failure ratings) across all seven WWTP’s due to some inconsistencies in how the data is structured. Therefore, to correct for this and apply a consistent assessment, additional sub-processes were identified and new assessment records were developed within the CAMPS database. f. IBM-Maximo Work Order History Based on our cursory review of the WO’s captured and downloaded from MSD’s IBM- Maximo application for a subset of plant process areas, it is apparent that MSD is utilizing the existing CMMS extensively for initiating and documenting WO’s in support of its management of plant assets. Staff reported that extensive WO history has been maintained and our analysis identified repeated WO’s dating back to 1995. We specifically found the use of multiple types of WO’s distinguishing between Preventive Maintenance (PM), Emergency Maintenance (EM), and Corrective Maintenance (CM) - which make up over 95% of the WO’s downloaded as part of the condition assessment planning activities. QC: B. Green Page 8 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Table 4 on the following page provides a summary of the WO’s. In the following section, we provide brief findings and potential value-added improvements that MSD may consider as part of its current Maximo upgrade. g. Work Order Characterization A total of 37,703 WO’s were reviewed. Each type of WO is quantified and presented in descending order in the Table 4 below: Table 4 Work Order Characterization Type of Work Activity Count of WO's in Category % of Total CM 15310 40.6% PM 14897 39.5% EM 5866 15.6% SM 496 1.3% PDM 468 1.2% Null values (unidentified) 213 0.6% EV 189 0.5% OP 150 0.4% PMPDM 72 0.2% CCM 23 0.1% CPM 11 0.03% MR 6 0.02% MG 2 0.01% Total 37,703 h. Failure Data associated with WO’s. The documentation, analysis and review of failure data is an activity that can have a positive direct impact on the maintenance strategies of equipment and ultimately result in improved performance and reliability of equipment at MSD’s facilities. As MSD QC: B. Green Page 9 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 implements the next generation of its IBM- Maximo CMMS, there are several opportunities for improving the speed, accuracy and consistency of analyzing key equipment failure-related data to make it more consistent with Best Asset Management practices. Based on a cursory review of the WO’s downloaded for the solids handling related facilities at the seven WWTP’s, we have identified the following items for consideration:  15,355 out of 21,176 CM or EM type WO’s do not have Failure Dates, impacting the ability to evaluate failure frequency. Failure Frequency is a valuable measure of reliability of equipment performance, allowing for optimal renewal timing analysis, as well as for documenting data driven equipment selection decisions.  Only 5,648 out of 21,176 (27%) of the CM or EM type WO’s have problem codes. Further, with limited searchable and consistent “root cause of failure” data, MSD has limited ability to determine predominant modes of failure and therefore tailor maintenance strategies to mitigate similar failures in the future. 2. Initial Maximo Findings and Recommendations Initial findings related to the review of CMMS equipment data and staff discussions included:  Limited use of Criticality Assessment. Staff reported the desire for using criticality assessments to help in prioritizing and tailoring maintenance and assessment strategies. To-date, criticality has only been developed on a limited basis.  Limited Installation Date Data. The date of installation information was very limited (approximately 1% populated), the ability to determine the actual age of equipment and assess remaining useful life or average life expectancy. QC: B. Green Page 10 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009  Major Rebuild Code Needed. A work code or field is needed to indicate that the life of the asset has been significantly extended due to a major rehabilitation or rebuild. a. Initial Recommendations Although our Team’s review of MSD’s use of Maximo was very limited and focused specifically to the needs of this project, we have developed several findings and recommendations based on discussions with staff and a cursory review of the data obtained from the CMMS. Based on the findings of our Team’s review of the historical use of MSD’s CMMS, we recommend that MSD’s Asset Management Team and IBM- Maximo Implementation Team consider incorporating the recommendations noted below. These are specifically related to the District’s use of IBM-Maximo v7.4.1 in enabling key asset management practices to improve the financial, reliability, and performance aspects of MSD’s treatment facilities assets: 1. Location and Equipment Hierarchy: It is recommended that MSD review its location and equipment based hierarchies (from a consistency standpoint) to support a mid-level visual assessment that would be beneficial to MSD on an on-going basis. 2. Failure Modes Analysis. It is recommended that MSD incorporate the root- cause-of-failure analysis as part of normal CM or EM work order activities. To facilitate this workflow, documented business process diagrams, established failure codes, and modifications to Maximo WO screens would be needed. 3. Risk-Based Assessment Process. It is recommended that a formal risk-based workflow process be incorporated. This would require changes to current Maximo data tables, and that specific user interfaces (screens) be developed to QC: B. Green Page 11 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 support the viewing of the COF and POF data captured (including monitoring and updating of these same assets throughout MSD’s facilities). In addition to the incorporation of a risk-based analyses for the collection system, the COF criteria for the collection system should incorporate rating elements that incorporates the direct impact to the community and the environment (due to the more direct connection of these assets to the community). The District may want to conduct a condition assessment with each scheduled work order. This could be built into the workflow by printing the condition assessment form as part of the work orders, and capturing condition ratings during each visit. 4. Review of Overall Asset Management (AM) Strategy: To support the optimal implementation for meeting MSD’s long-term asset management strategy, while deriving near-term value to MSD, it is recommended that the District establish a broad set of objectives for the AM strategy and identify specific areas to facilitate those objectives through the current implementation of IBM- Maximo v7.1.4. For example, should the District wish to have a good understanding of which assets pose the highest risk of failure to meet desired service levels, there are several opportunities within the IBM-Maximo Implementation to capture, analyze, and maintain key information to support this understanding. b. Other Recommendations 1. Installation Date: It is recommended that MSD establishes protocol for reviewing equipment and establishing either an actual or an estimated installation date. This estimation would allow for developing a comprehensive analysis of long-term financial requirements for renewal of equipment that is based on the expected remaining useful life of all the facility assets. There are QC: B. Green Page 12 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 several methods that could be employed to estimate the installation date. Along with the estimated date of installation, it is important to capture the source of the date. This would allow for a continuous improvement in accuracy of the date of installation of facilities. On a go-forward basis, it is also recommended that MSD use the CMMS to capture major renewals (e.g. rebuild) of equipment that extends the effective remaining life of the equipment. 2. Reducing Reactive Maintenance Activities: Consistent with asset management practices, it is recommended that the District review the WO characterization statistics (identified above) periodically to assess any trends in moving from a more corrective and emergency maintenance program (currently approximately 56% of maintenance activities) to preventive and predictive maintenance program. Employing a risk-based assessment/review of maintenance strategies would help support shifting from a reactive to a preventive maintenance program by focusing on the higher risk (higher frequency multiplied by consequence) assets first. MSD may want to incorporate cost into the assessment for each type of activity if the information is available to support such an analysis. 3. Condition Assessment Results Condition assessment teams comprised of Black & Veatch, David Mason & Associates, and Engineering Design Source, Inc. staff reviewed each of the District’s plants with District personnel. The condition assessments began with interviews of senior staff, and then inspections proceeded with experienced District operations and maintenance staff. The goal of the condition assessment was to review each facilities solids processing equipment, as well as its screening and grit removal equipment. The assessments consisted of a visual inspection and focused on key process equipment. Rating forms QC: B. Green Page 13 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 were used with the previously described probability-of-failure and consequence-of-failure criteria. A total of 1,416 assets were evaluated, as indicated in Table 5. POF scores of 4 or higher indicate that the equipment should be evaluated further due to the criteria that caused that poor rating. Approximately 22% of the assessed assets had items with POF criteria of 4 or higher in any one category. Of these assets, only 4 percent had consequences-of-failure (health and safety, social impact, or difficulty of repair) higher than 4. Redundancy ratings were summarized and evaluated separately. Table 5 Equipment Inspection Summary by Plant Plant Name Number of Equipment Items Assessed Equipment with POF of 4 or 5 in any category Number of Equipment Items with a POF Rated 4 or 5, where COF is 4 or 5 (not considering redundancy) All Plants 1416 317 22% 153 11% Bissell Point 561 136 43% 85 56% Coldwater 82 19 6% 13 8% Fenton 25 0 0% 0 0% Grand Glaize 120 15 5% 1 1% Lower Meramec 109 10 3% 8 5% Lemay 377 125 39% 46 30% Missouri River 142 12 9% 0 0% Facility descriptions and schematics are included in Technical Memorandum No. 2 - Facility Descriptions and Solids Quantities. Discussions of the condition of major solids systems are included for each wastewater treatment plant in the following sections. Unit processes and equipment that are not mentioned are in good (or better) condition (i.e. POF scores of 3 or less). Where ranges of scores are provided, some specific units in the system have different ratings than others. Summary tables of equipment condition are provided for each plant within this TM. A detailed listing of condition assessment ratings for equipment with POF scores of 4 or higher is included in Appendix B. Appendix C includes a printout of all equipment that was assessed irrespective of POF scores. QC: B. Green Page 14 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 Business risk exposure scores were also calculated to consider the combined effect of POF and COF. Assets with high business risk exposure should be evaluated further as soon as possible, and those with medium business risk exposure should be monitored for additional data. The methodology for determining business risk exposure is described as follows: a. Business Risk Exposure Analysis Methodology As described previously, individual POF and COF ratings were determined through the assessment activities for each item considered. Following the assessment of equipment at each plant, the Team developed the overall business risk exposure according to the following methodology. Step 1: Develop overall Probability of Failure (POF) Rating POF Ratings were assessed for each of the following:  POF due to condition-based failure  POF due to failure to meet reliability targets  POF due to inadequate capacity  POF of not meeting required functionality of that asset  POF due to excessive O&M costs and failing to meet lifecycle cost objectives The overall POF rating quantifies or estimates the likelihood of the asset failing to meet any one of the 5 criteria identified above. For example, an asset may score very low in all but one POF rating category, but may score a rating of 5 in one (such as the condition- based failure). In this case the maximum value of 5 is used for the overall POF rating, describing that any one driver may cause the asset to fail. Step 2: Develop Overall Consequence of Failure (COF) Rating The COF ratings were assessed for each of the following:  Impacts on Heath & Safety QC: B. Green Page 15 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009  Social Impacts  Difficulty (and Costs) of repair including disruption to the process Because consequences-of-failure of an asset are cumulative, COF ratings are added together to describe a combined rating. However, to normalize the summation of the COF ratings back to a scale of 1-5 for use in the risk signature presented below, they are divided by the number of criteria. Although the capture-of-redundancy factors were included in the COF grouping, the use of these factors are analyzed separately since they represent a potential reduction of consequences (or impact) that the failure of a particular asset has on the overall plant operation. Step 3: Develop Overall Business Risk Exposure Ratings The overall business risk exposure rating is represented as the product of the overall POF and COF ratings. The overall Business Risk Exposure can be visualized by identifying where the risk rating falls within the risk signature below. Asset Risk Signature 5 5 7.5 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 4.5 4.56.8 9 111416182023 4 4 6 8 101214161820 High Business Risk Exposure (12-25) 3.5 3.5 5.3 7 8.8 11 12 14 16 18 3 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 11 12 14 15 Medium Business Risk Exposure (5-11) 2.5 2.5 3.8 5 6.3 7.5 8.8 10 11 13 2 2345678910 Low Business Risk Exposure (1-4) 1.5 1.5 2.3 3 3.8 4.5 5.3 6 6.8 7.5 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Probability of FailureConsequence of Failure Step 4: Incorporate Redundancy Factors To support a review of assets determined to have less than 50% redundancy (equivalent to a rating of 4 or 5) tables have been prepared to allow for isolating these assets to QC: B. Green Page 16 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 further identify a smaller subset of higher business risk exposure assets. These subset- assets would then represent those assets that not only have POF and COF ratings of 4 or 5, but also have little or no redundancy in the process for which they support. b. Lemay WWTP Findings from the condition assessments for the Lemay WWTP are included in Table 6 and are summarized below:  Grit Removal. The current grit dragout conveyors were installed around 1965 and require high maintenance. The District should be able to switch over to the new grit removal equipment and use the older equipment infrequently once the wet weather expansion is complete.  Trash Building Grit Conveyors. Grit collected by the grit dragouts are discharged onto belt conveyors in the East Trash Building and the West Trash Building. These conveyors carry the grit to receiving dumpsters used for grit disposal. There is no redundancy with the grit conveyors in the East and West Trash Buildings. If a conveyor system is out of service, all grit will have to be collected in one dumpster creating the potential for capacity and hauling frequency issues.  Grease Thickening. Existing dissolved air flotation thickening units for grease thickening from the primary clarifiers require high maintenance.  Blended Sludge Wetwell. The concrete blended sludge wetwell shows signs of concrete degradation, likely due to high hydrogen sulfide levels. All sludge flow is conveyed through this wetwell prior to dewatering, so it is very important that it be kept in service. Additional structural evaluations should be conducted on this wetwell to determine a rehabilitation plan.  Belt Filter Press Cake Discharge Conveyors. Each belt filter press discharges cake solids to a single set of horizontal belt conveyors and vertical screw conveyors. These conveyors discharge the sludge cake to the incinerators. There QC: B. Green Page 17 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report September 10, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 Re-issued: October 16, 2009 QC: B. Green Page 18 of 41 is no redundancy with these conveyors. If one conveyor as part of the conveyor system from a belt filter press to an incinerator is out of service it will not be able to discharge cake solids and the belt filter press cannot be used.  Incinerators. Considerable detail is provided in Table 6 and in Appendix B on the incinerators, burners, emissions systems, heat recovery boilers, and ash handling system. The incinerators are in generally good condition considering their age, but require significant rehabilitation and upgrades for continued use. Additional emissions control is needed to control yellow plume and meet future emissions regulations. Phase 2 evaluations will consider options for both incinerator rehabilitation and new incinerators. Phase 2 evaluations may include more detailed inspections, and rehabilitation options will consider the findings from the condition assessments.  Ash Slurry Piping. There are two pipes for carrying ash slurry from the two ash slurry tanks to the ash lagoons, a distance of approximately one mile. One ash slurry pipe is dedicated to an ash slurry tank. There is no redundancy with the ash slurry pipes. If a pipe should break, then its respective ash slurry tank will also have to be taken out of service. Table 6 – Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Headworks Comminutors and Drives Medium 9 Condition 4 Difficult repair 5 Original equipment that requires high maintenance and has no redundancy during peak flows. Consider replacement or expansion. Grit Removal Grit dragout conveyors Trash Bldgs Medium 8 Condition 4 Difficult repair 4 Old equipment that requires high maintenance. Use new grit removal equipment installed with plant expansion once available. Grit and screenings building Not rated Not rated Not rated Equipment not used, preventative maintenance is conducted Grease Thickening DAF units Medium 7 Financial 4 None >3 Old equipment that requires high maintenance. Only serves for grease and floatables removal. Consider doing a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the future. Dewatering Blended sludge wet well Medium 13 Condition 4 Difficult repair 5 Health & Safety 4 Significant concrete deterioration and hatch corrosion Needs detailed evaluation, rehabilitation, and tank lining Incineration Centershaft drive motors Medium 7 Functionality 4 None >3 Incompatible with VFD's Considering replacement of VFD’s Combustion air fans Incinerator Afterburner Incinerator Auxiliary Medium 8 Financial 4 None >3 Formerly used for combustion air, now used at times for cooling Consider removing with addition of ambient air inlets QC: B. Green Page 19 of 41 Table 6 – Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Incinerator 1 Medium 15 Reliability 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 Has not been operated for 10 years. Roofs replaced with castible type. Refractory and shell has been reconditioned and unit placed back in service. Need to replace missing fans and other auxiliary items that have been scavenged. Not operable now due to missing parts. Determine if needed in future based on solids requirements for facility. Could be upgraded if needed. Add improvements determined for other incinerators if re-activated. Incinerator 2 Medium 15 Reliability 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 Some slagging due to high inert solids in feed. Visible emissions (yellow plume) of concern and may required better scrubber and other modifications. Developing 18 month operating cycle between major repairs Consider scrubber upgrades and other improvements to better handle visible emissions. Add ambient air dampers. Incinerator 3 Medium 15 Reliability 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 Hearth 4 needs replacement Some slagging due to high inert solids in feed. Visible emissions (yellow plume) of concern and may required better scrubber and other modifications. Ambient air dampers added to this unit. Refractory repairs needed for breeching at weir. Developing 18 month operating cycle between major repairs. Consider scrubber upgrades and other improvements to better handle visible emissions. Incinerator 4 Medium 15 Reliability 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 Some slagging due to high inert solids in feed. Visible emissions (yellow plume) of concern and may Developing 18 month operating cycle between major repairs. Consider scrubber upgrades and other improvements to better handle visible QC: B. Green Page 20 of 41 Table 6 – Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations required better scrubber and other modifications. emissions. Add ambient air dampers. Incinerator burners Medium 9-12 Mostly 12 Reliability 4-5 Financial 4 None >3 Older style burners used. Newer burners desirable for better control and reduced maintenance. New MHF burners installed and ambient air dampers added for No. 3. Replace burners with MHF style burners to reduce maintenance and provide better control needed for air emissions compliance. Replacement burners for hearths 3 and 5 on-site but not installed yet. ID Fans Incinerators 1-4 Medium 15 Functionality 4 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 VFD boards burned no speed adjustment. Inlet dampers may need operators. Vibration experience at 80 to 85 % speed when VFD used. Some accumulation of tar requiring cleaning. ID fans should be considered for major repairs or replacement. ID fan sizing dependent on other equipment such as APC equipment that may be added, increasing pressure requirements for fans. Review with emissions equipment improvements, additions or replacements. Waste heat boilers Medium 8 None >3 Difficult repair Boilers desirable for energy recovery. Now used for building heating and cooling (producing low pressure steam). Steam pressure too low now for soot blowers. Boiler feedwater piping deteriorated. Consider replacement of boilers if energy recovery such as power generation is considered for implementation. Existing boilers not suitable for more aggressive energy recovery where high pressure steam is needed (400 to 600 psi steam). Scrubber water strainers Medium 9 Condition 4 Reliability 4 None >3 No. 1 needs to be replaced, Nos. 1&3 larger than 2&4 Replace all of them Venturi scrubbers High 13 Reliability 4 Financial 4 Social Impact 4 See “visible emissions” above for incinerators. Upgrade scrubbers to impingement tray and fixed venturi scrubbers such QC: B. Green Page 21 of 41 Table 6 – Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments QC: B. Green Page 22 of 41 System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Functionality 4 Will not do job in future as the Envirocare Venturipak. Impingement scrubbers Medium 11 Scrubber #:1 12 Functionality 4 Financial 4 None >3 Scrubber #1: Social Impact 4 Follows venturis. Vessel could be reused. Upgrade as part of combined impingement/fixed venturi scrubbers noted for venturis. Consider reuse of existing impingement scrubber vessel. Waste Heat Boiler Fly Ash System 1-4 Medium 11 Reliability 4 Financial 4 Health & Safety 4 WH boiler uses vacuum pneumatic conveyance. Not operating. Consider replacing with dense phase positive pressure (full pipe) pneumatic conveyance system. Stack THC CEMs High 18 Reliability 5 Financial 4 Functionality 4 Difficult repair 4 Social Impacts 4 Common THC analyzers, 1 duty and 1 standby. Need replacements due to age and difficulty of obtaining parts and service. Replace THC CEMs with new units. Incinerator stack Medium 11 None >3 Difficult repair 5 Condition unknown Needs inspection Afterburners 1-3 for Inc. 1-4 High 17 Financial 5 Social 4 Too large for application Replace burners with smaller capacity burners. Ash Handling Ash screw conveyors Medium 9 Condition 4 Social 5 Screws worn, other problems. Replace conveyors. Ash lines to lagoons High 13 Capacity 4 Financial 4 Social 4 Lines have problems with leaks, over 1 mile long. Consider relocating lagoons to defense mapping site. Lagoons Not rated Not rated Not rated Occasional discharge violations due to overfilling lagoons Consider relocating lagoons to defense mapping site. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 c. Bissell Point WWTP Findings from the Bissell Point WWTP condition assessments are included in Table 7 and are summarized below:  Comminutors. The comminutors have high maintenance and must be rebuilt on a 5 year (or less) cycle. Consider evaluation of maintenance costs vs. newer communitor or channel grinder technology.  Grit Removal. The grit removal system is in good condition except for the grit tank dragout on basin No. 5. Maintenance rehabilitation should a high priority because basin No. 5 is the most reliable during cold weather whereas the others freeze up.  WAS/RAS pumping. Because the activated sludge is not being used, trickling filter humus is wasted by pumping with both the RAS and WASL pumps. RAS pumps are extremely oversized for this application and can only be operated intermittently. The efficiency of this system should be evaluated and smaller dedicated WAS pumps considered.  Solids Dewatering. As noted in Table 7 and Appendix B, the condition of the belt filter presses is highly variable. Grease is a problem causing blinding of the belts, and control cabinets need better isolation from corrosive gasses. There are serious problems with polymer pump vibration leading to pipe breaks and dewatering system failures. Some conveyors and catwalks have significant corrosion and should be assessed and recoated.  Dewatered Cake Pumps. The high pressure piston pumps that pump dewatered cake to the incinerators require significant maintenance ($10,000-70,000/yr), and their maintenance is the primary job of one of the mechanics. The district has evaluated alternatives and no feasible alternative has been identified to replace these pumps.  Incineration. Considerable detail is provided in Table 7 and in Appendix B on the incinerators and emissions systems. The incinerators are in generally good condition considering their age, but require significant rehabilitation and upgrades for continued use. Additional emissions control is needed to meet future emissions regulations. Phase 2 evaluations will consider options for both incinerator QC: B. Green Page 23 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 QC: B. Green Page 24 of 41 rehabilitation and new incinerators. Phase 2 evaluations may include more detailed inspections, and rehabilitation options will consider the findings from the condition assessments. Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Screening Comminutors Medium 8-9 Condition 1-4 Reliability 2-4 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4-5 Comminutors must be rebuilt every 5 years and motors must be replaced more frequently due to severe duty. Of the seven units, one unit is currently being rebuilt, one is scheduled for rebuilding, and one unit is out of service until it can be rebuilt. Rebuilt equipment frequently does not meet original equipment tolerances, requiring additional machining of cutter surfaces to allow equipment to operate satisfactorily. Comminutors blind frequently during fall when leaves are present in the influent. Evaluate cost effectiveness of replacing existing comminutors with newer comminutors or channel grinders. Current maintenance program of rebuilding to bring as close to new as possible will be continued. Grit Removal Grit tank dragout (No. 5 only) Medium 7 Condition 4 Reliability 4 None >3 Needs full rehabilitation of shoes, chain, and drag rail. MSD has identified as a maintenance project with high priority. Ready to start soon. Operation of Grit Tank No. 5 is important, as Grit Tanks No. 1, 2, and 3 are not used frequently during cold months due to freezing of QC: B. Green Page 25 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations the grit conveyor/slide gates. WAS Pumping WAS pumps and VFD’s Medium 8 Condition 3-4 Reliability 3-4 Capacity 4 Functionality 4 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4 Difficult to obtain spare parts for the WAS Pumps. One of the three pumps is currently out of service and is scheduled to be replaced. WAS pumps draw suction from the RAS pump discharge line. Since the activated sludge process is currently not being utilized, the RAS pumps do not operate continuously. Current operation is to operate one RAS pump for 30 minutes to remove sludge from 2 final clarifiers. The District is purchasing a spare WAS pump which will be available when necessary to replace an existing pump. Alternatively, smaller WAS pumps could be installed for each battery of final clarifiers which would continuously pump from the final clarifiers at a lower rate for a more uniform removal of sludge. RAS Pumping RAS Pumps and VFD’s Medium 7-8 Financial 4 Difficult repair 3-4 Since the activated sludge facilities are not currently in service, the RAS pumps are not needed to return sludge. However, sludge must still be removed from the final clarifiers and wasted. The only means to remove sludge from the final clarifiers is by using the RAS pumps. The WAS pumps then pump out of the Unless the activated sludge process will be placed in service in the near future, the District may consider installing smaller WAS pumps at each battery of final clarifiers which would continuously pump from the final clarifiers at a lower rate for a more uniform removal of sludge and more efficient pumping operation. . QC: B. Green Page 26 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations RAS discharge line to waste sludge to the primary clarifiers, where it is co-thickened with primary sludge. The efficiency of this pumping arrangement is low. The RAS pumps are located in below-grade pump stations at each of the three batteries of final clarifiers. Access to the pumps for servicing or removal is difficult. Dewatering Belt Presses Medium 7-12 Condition 2-5 Financial 4 None >3 Most presses have been upgraded to 14 roll, high solids units. Highly variable condition among 15 BFP’s. Press A is out of service and is being used to supply parts to other presses. Press C is out of service and the District has no plans to repair and place back in service. Operators report that grease from the receiving stations frequently blind the belts which results in frequent cleaning and ultimately in Investigate methods to improve grease removal upstream of belt filter presses. The District is evaluating installation of pressurized and purged control cabinets to prevent hydrogen sulfide from entering the cabinets. Currently, the District is replacing corroded copper cable with a more corrosion resistant cable. QC: B. Green Page 27 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations premature belt wear and replacement. Hydrogen sulfide has damaged wiring in control cabinets for presses. Unloading Belt Conveyors Medium 5-7 Financial 4-5 None >3 Unloading Belt Conveyor No. 6 has a structural member which has completely corroded and requires replacement. Conveyors require moderate maintenance due to buildup of sludge and grease on rollers which must be frequently removed. If buildup on rollers is not removed, belts do not track properly resulting in premature belt wear and failure. Replace damaged structural steel on conveyor No. 6. Consider applying a protective epoxy coating on all steel members. Black & Veatch and David Mason & Associates will perform a structural assessment of all structural steel components on the Press Floor. The assessment will include recommendations to address corrosion issues present. EQ Bin Conveyors Medium 5 Financial 4-5 None >3 Conveyors require moderate maintenance due to buildup of sludge and grease on rollers which must be frequently removed. If buildup on rollers is not removed, belts do not track properly resulting in premature belt wear and failure. The District is reviewing the feasibility of replacing the conveyors with shaftless screw conveyors. Alternatively, the District could consider improvements to the grease removal system. QC: B. Green Page 28 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Polymer Circulation Pumps High 16 Functionality 4 Financial 3-4 Difficult repair 5 Chronic vibration on pump discharge results in piping breaks in the pump discharge header. A loss of polymer feed due a break in the discharge header shuts down the dewatering process. Redesign pumping system to isolate or dampen vibrations. Consider alternate piping material with more ductility to withstand vibration. MSD is undertaking project to address this issue. Piston cake pumps High 15 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4 Schwing pumps require approximately one hour of mechanic’s time each day for maintenance and upkeep. Pumps are rebuilt after 2,000 hours of operation. Hydraulic power packs are out-dated design with difficult to obtain components. District study has indicated no feasible alternatives to replace pumps with existing system configuration District should consider adding “water lubrication” to piping to reduce head on pumps. Consider replacing hydraulic power packs also. Incineration Incinerator No. 1 Not rated Not rated Not rated No longer operated. Needs major repairs and upgrades to operate. Detailed inspections required to fully assess condition for future use. Incinerator No. 2 thru No. 5 Medium 10 None >3 Social Impact 5 Difficulty of repair 5 Late 1960’s design. Operating but in need of upgrades for future needs particularly emissions controls. Inspections have increased from every 2 to 3 years to 1 year. Some refractory repairs are needed (2 Consider upgrades based on need in future for capacity to handle solids. Details inspections required to fully assess condition and determine needs. The District is replacing the afterburner controls. QC: B. Green Page 29 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations units).Afterburner controls need replacement. Incinerator No. 6 Medium 10 None >3 Social Impact 5 Difficulty of repair 5 Upgraded in 1990s. May need additional upgrades for future needs. Detailed inspections required to fully assess condition. Fuel supply main gas meters, Incinerator No. 2 thru No. 6 Med-High 10-17 Condition 4-5 Social Impacts 4 Difficult repair 4 Gas meters obsolete. Accurate determination of fuel use required by permit. Need to replace gas meters Centershaft drive High 13 Reliability 4 Financial 4 Social impacts 4 Difficult to maintain good speed control. VFD’s repaired but at end of the useful life. Speed control needed for good combustion with MHF's. Replace VFD’s to provide speed control and possible reversing function. Cooling air fan Medium 7 Financial 4 Social 5 Fans needing replacement to provide reliable operation. Backup fan used now. Replace fans and consider reconfiguring the fans. Polymer transfer pump High 16 Functionality 4 Difficult repair 5 Social 4 Not used now. Replace but low priority. Hearth burners High 13 Condition 4 Reliability 4 Functionality 4 Financial 4 Social impacts 5 Difficult repair 4 Old burners and design. New MHF burners available that would reduce maintenance and provide better control. Planned for upgrades to MHF burners (selective upgrades). Soot blower motors Medium 8 Condition 4 Difficult repair 4 Replace Venturi / Impingement Scrubbers (No. 2 thru No. 6) Medium 8 None >3 Social 5 Scrubbers are functional now for current air permit. Some wear on venturi blades. Future permit Consider replacement of scrubbers with more efficient impingement and fixed venturi scrubbers. Possible reuse of impingement scrubber vessel. QC: B. Green Page 30 of 41 Table 7 – Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments QC: B. Green Page 31 of 41 System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations changes may require better/updated scrubbers. Want to be good neighbor. Continuous emissions monitoring systems for total hydrrocarbon (THC) analyzer. High 13 Condition 4 Reliability 4 Social impacts 5 Difficult repair 4 Dual units (duty/standby). Need frequent attention and old equipment. Required by permit. The District is replacing the CEMs. Emergency bypass stacks High 13 None >3 Social impacts 5 Difficult repair 5 Emergency bypass stack dampers generally leak and may need repairs. Consider as part of overall upgrade program. Heat exchangers Medium 7 None >3 Difficult repair Use for energy recovery (heating combustion air). Reduces fuel usage. Consider rebuild or replacement to retain fuel savings benefits. Consider in view of overall possible heat recovery alternatives. Incinerator stack High 14 None >3 Social impacts 5 Difficult repair 5 Interior relined 2007 Exterior tuck pointing planned Ash Handling Basin drain pumps High 13 Financial 4 Social impacts 4 Difficult repair 4 Rebuilt Spare pumps are available to use. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 d. Coldwater WWTP Findings from the condition assessments for the Coldwater WWTP are included in Table 8 and are summarized below:  Coarse Screening. Problems noted in Table 8 should be corrected by the manufacturer.  Fine Screening. There are hydraulic capacity problems with the fine screen discharge trough between the screens.  Screenings Washing Compactor. The grinder plugs often causing spilling of wastewater and overflow of the discharge chute. A large capacity unit, if one is available, is recommended.  Grit Removal. The gravity line from the grit separator to the primary sludge thickener has insufficient capacity, causing overflows. A pump station is planned to pump these flows, making the gravity line a low head pressure line.  Sludge Disposal. There is a single force main to transfer solids from the Coldwater WWTP to the Bissell Point collection system. If the force main fails, there is no backup solids processing or disposal system.  Sludge Lagoons. The four sludge storage lagoons at the plant are no longer a part of the sludge disposal process, however they are still full of sludge. Currently there are no plans to empty these lagoons, but regulations or future needs at the plant may require that they be emptied. QC: B. Green Page 32 of 41 Table 8 – Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Screening Coarse screen gripper rake Medium 11 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4 Under high flows, gripper does not collect very much material. Periodic problems maintaining proper position over dumpster. Lowering brake for rake slips after releasing material. Limited coverage of screens by second rake impact redundancy. Work with manufacturer to correct Fine screens Medium 11 Capacity 4 Social 4 Questionable whether they can achieve design capacity of 55 mgd. B&V/manufacturer/contractor to resolve. Fine screen discharge trough Medium 11 Reliability 4 Functionality 4 Financial 4 Social 4 Problems with solids buildup in trough with high flows Install screw conveyor in trough. Increase flow of sluicing water. Screenings washer compactor High 15 Reliability 5 Functionality 5 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4 Social 4 Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow of discharge chute. Install larger capacity unit if available. Work with manufacturer to reduce plugging issue in grinder. Grit Removal Grit separator Medium 9 Financial 4 None >3 Gravity line from grit separator to primary sludge thickener has insufficient capacity, causing overflows from the grit separator. Plans for building a pump station are being designed. Grit washer Medium 11 Reliability 4 Capacity 4 Difficult repair 4 Liner needs replacing Address as part of manufacturer’s warranty. RAS Pump Station QC: B. Green Page 33 of 41 Table 8 – Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments QC: B. Green Page 34 of 41 System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations PLC Medium 13 Reliability 4 Difficult repair 5 An old PLC that had high maintenance costs as per Maximo records. PLC has been replaced as part of recently completed plant improvements. RAS pump VFD Medium 7 None >3 Difficult Repair Digesters Anaerobic digesters Not rated None >3 None >3 Existing anaerobic digesters in generally good structural condition. If intend to use in the future, review the condition of the covers and mechanical systems is required. Sludge Pumping for Disposal Digested sludge pumps A/B, force main Low None >3 None >3 Although pumps and force main are in good condition, there is no redundancy to dispose sludge from the WWTP if this system fails. Release of odors is a concern, in addition to corrosion of sewers. Higher solids concentrations could cause plugging of line. Develop backup sludge disposal alternative. Develop program for regular inspection of force main to Bissell. Continue inspection of air release valves. The District should monitor the condition of the sewer lines downstream of the force main discharge. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 e. Missouri River WWTP Findings from the condition assessments for the Missouri WWTP are included in Table 9. Most of the solids processing equipment will be replaced by the following projects:  Headworks Project. There is a current project under construction to upgrade the headworks and primary treatment.  Two additional projects are underway to rehabilitate the anaerobic digesters (bidding in 2009) and the secondary treatment expansion (bidding in late 2010). The secondary treatment expansion project includes new rotary drum thickeners for WAS thickening, new centrifuges for digested solids dewatering, and sludge storage bins for dewatered cake storage. Anaerobic digestion and cogeneration will be retained.  Gas Cleaning System. The gas cleaning system is projected to have inadequate capacity once expected higher volumes of generated gas are achieved. At that time, the capacity of the system will need to be increased. QC: B. Green Page 35 of 41 Table 9 – Missouri River Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Primary Sludge Primary Clarifier Scum Mixers Medium 7 Capacity 4 Functionality 5 None >3 Scum pits have grease problems and need effective mixers to prevent buildup Install flushing valve, mixers or non-potable water high pressure spray nozzles. Dewatering Belt Filter Press compressor motors Medium 5 Financial 4 None >3 Compressor motors break down once a year requiring replacement Continue monitoring. Digesters Digester service pump Medium 5 Capacity 4 Functionality 4 None >3 Pump suction unable to withdraw from bottom of digester New sludge mixing and transfer piping being installed in digesters as part of Digester Rehabilitation project to help with sludge mixing and withdrawal. Note: Most solids processing equipment to be rehabilitated or replaced as part of secondary expansion QC: B. Green Page 36 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.0000 f. Lower Meramec WWTP Findings from the condition assessments for the Lower Meramec WWTP are included in Table 10 and are summarized below:  Coarse Screening. The coarse screen gripper rake does not penetrate into the bar rack at the bottom of the rack, causing buildup of grit that must be manually cleaned. It is not clearly understood what is causing this problem since the bottom of the bar rack is so deep and difficult to access.  Fine Screens. The fine screen’s capacity is inadequate, partially because the perforated plates are have 1/8” diameter holes. The plates have been changed to ¼” openings. The screenings washers do not work and are not used and the manufacturer is no longer in business. Screenings washer replacement is recommended.  Thickener Level Control. The District has had problems with the sludge thickener level control and is working on a solution. The remainder of the solids processing equipment works very well and has adequate redundancy. QC: B. Green Page 37 of 41 Table 10 – Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Screening Coarse screen gripper rakes Medium 8 Functionality Difficult repair 4 Gripper rake does not penetrate bottom of bar rack allowing grit buildup. Difficult to maintain/repair since the screens are 200 ft below grade. Identify source of problem with gripper mechanism by working with manufacturer. Fine screen Medium 10 Capacity 5 Difficult repair 4 Screens have been changed out to larger ¼” screens and this appears to have resolved the problem. Screenings washer Medium 10 Reliability 5 Functionality 5 Difficult repair 4 Washers do not work and not used. Manufacturer out of business so can’t get parts/service. Replace units. Sludge Thickeners Thickener level control Medium 7 Functionality 4 None >3 Problems maintaining level controller, so only one thickener used instead of both. QC: B. Green Page 38 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.000 g. Grand Glaize WWTP Findings from the condition assessments for the Grand Glaize WWTP are included in Table 11 and summarized below:  Screening. Although the condition of the coarse and fine screens is good, there is only one Bosker rake unit for two coarse screens and no redundancy for the fine screens system. Therefore, screenings will be bypassed around these units if they are out of service. Plans are being developed for installing a second screenings washer/compactor unit. Currently only one unit is installed.  Grit Removal. The Detritor grit removal system is fairly effective and normal flows, but washes out during wet weather flows. This causes sand and grit to wash through to the primary tanks.  Primary Sludge Pumping. The double disc pumps installed in 2008 have problems with sand and grit washed through the grit process during wet weather.  Solids Dewatering. After the addition of the second belt filter press in 2008, the older belt filter press should be rebuilt. A project is recommended to provide redundancy for the screening system and to improve grit capture and processing. Consideration should be given to using the peak flow storage basins to dampen peak flows into the treatment plant. QC: B. Green Page 39 of 41 Table 11 – Grand Glaize Wastewater Treatment Plant – Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk Rank POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Grit Removal Grit Basins/ collectors Medium 7 Capacity 4 Functionality 4 None >3 Grit basin capacity not sufficient for peak wet weather flows Use peak flow storage basins to reduce peaks into plant. Grit dragout conveyors Medium 7 Financial 4 None >3 Maintenance has been better with change to plastic chains ~ 5 yrs ago Primary Sludge Primary sludge pumps (double disc) Medium 7 Functionality 4 None >3 Installed 2008, problems with high solids, grit laden sludge during wet weather Improve grit removal or add grit washing system at grit basins. Dewatering Belt Filter Press No. 1 Medium 12 Condition 4 Reliability 5 Difficult repair 5 Taken out of service. Requires complete rebuild to serve as a backup unit. Rebuild older unit now that second BFP unit is on-line. QC: B. Green Page 40 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM5 – Condition Assessment Report October 9, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 41.000 h. Fenton WWTP All solids processing assets at the Fenton WWTP had a POF rating of 3 or lower, indicating that all equipment is in good to excellent condition. The grit removal system exhibits some washout at high flows, but it is not as bad as the Grand Glaize WWTP. There are no planned projects related to the solids processing systems. Appendix A Sample Equipment Evaluation Form MSD Comprehensive Solids Master Plan Condition Assessment Form E2089 BT COMMINUT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1 COM-G-1 CHICAGO PUMP CO. 1/1/1993 COMMINUTOR #1 PA-19 Equip Number Plant Code Description Location Plant-Process Model Old Equip Number Manufacturer Serial Number Install Date Construction Contract Equip Type 3.33Spec Section PA-19OM Manual 859-328Loop Drawing MCC P-12Main Power Other Info Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial CURRENTLY BROKE. NEEDS REBUILD. NEW MOTOR ON PUMPComments / Observations Health Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair Redundancy Maint. Priority Comments / Observations 4Estimated Remaining Life (yrs) $34,461.52Total Maint. Cost $7,480.89YTD Costs $2,981.68Last Year Cost $5,681.26Cost 2 years ago $0.00Cost 3 years ago Planned for Abandonment?Not Assessed / To Be Replaced ASSET DETAILS ASSET ASSESSMENT 4 4 3 3 4 1 1 5 4 MAINTENANCE BT-COM 3 Consequence of Failure Ratings Probability of Failure Ratings ASSET REFERENCE INFORMATION Assessment Date Assessor Install Data Source Staff Knowledge Expected Asset Life (yrs)20 Appendix B Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsBT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P1E1964 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 ( WASL-P1-1 )01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7. PROBLEM WITH DRIVESNO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P1-MTRE4517 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P2E1965 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 (WASL-P1-2 )01-Jan-948444 4441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7. OUT OF SERVICE. BEING REPLACEDBT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P2-MTRE4519 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P3E4516 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 (WASL-P1-3.P )01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7 NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P3-MTRE4520 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P1-VFDE4518 VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 1 VFD 75HP01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P2-VFDE4521 VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 2 VFD 75HP20-Jun-0781244441142.05BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P3-VFDE4522 VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 3 VFD 75HP01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P1 E34930 PUMPWET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #101-Jan-0516233 3443544.03 REBUILT ON 5 YR BASIS. NEW PUMP (1 YR AGO - 2008). 1 SPARE ON ORDER.BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P3 E1949 PUMPWET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #301-Jan-0916333 3443544.03 REBUILT 2005BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1 E2089 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #101-Jan-9394433441152.34 CURRENTLY BROKE. NEEDS REBUILD. NEW MOTOR ON PUMPBT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2 E2090 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #201-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTORBT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3 E2091 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #301-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTORBT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4 E2092 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #401-Jan-9784433441142.04 CURRENTLY REBUILDING.BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM5 E2093 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #501-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2005.BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM6 E2094 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #601-Jan-9394433441152.34BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7 E2095 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #701-Jan-9394433441152.34 NEEDS REBUILD.BTBT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP1E2061 PUMPPOLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 01-Jan-70163234343454.05 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, PROBLEM WITH PVC PIPING 2 FOR GRAVITY BELT THICKNESS, 2 FOR BFP'S (NOT USED)VERY DIFFICULT TO REPAIRBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP1-MTRE4948 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP2E2062 PUMPPOLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 01-Jan-04163334443454.05 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, BREAKS PVC PIPINGBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP2-MTRE4951 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-04163334443454.05BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2 E1499 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #2 SCHWING THIS UNIT TIMES LEFT 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEAD.BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3 E1500 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #3 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEADBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4 40014 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #4 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEADBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P5 E1502 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #5 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415333 3443443.75 RUNS BETTER THAN OTHER PUMPSBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P6 E1503 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #6 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415333 3443443.75BTBT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA E2015 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS A BATTERY #1 (BP2-3)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. PRESS A IS OUT OF SERVICE AND PARTS ARE BEING USED FOR OTHER BFP'S. NOT CURRENTLY IN USE.INCREASED ROLLERS FROM 12 TO 15 IN YEAR 2000 FOR ALL THE PRESSES.H2S DAMAGE TO WIRING IN CABINETS. GREASE FORM RECEIVING STATION IS BLINDING THE BELTS ON BFPBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPC E2014 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS C BATTERY #1 (BP2-2)01-Jan-9812533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. OUT OF SERVICEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPE E2013 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS E BATTERY #1 (BP2-1)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF E7519 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS F BATTERY #1 (BP1-1)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-1E1398 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 (CK-CU1-1)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-2E1399 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 (CK-CU1-2)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPGE2018 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS G BATTERY 2 (BP3-3)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. ADDED ROLLERS IN 2000. H2S DAMAGE TO WIRING IN CABINETS. GREASE FROM RECEIVING STATION IS BLINDING BFPBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI E2017 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS I BATTERY 2 (BP3-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ E2019 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS J BATTERY 2 (BP5-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPK E2016 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS K BATTERY 2 (BP3-1)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL E7169 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS L BATTERY 2 (BP51)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3 E1400 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 (CK-CU1-3)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5 E1402 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 (CK-CU1-5)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3 E2012 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS BATTERY #3 01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPME2022 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS M BATTERY 3 (BP6-3)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPOE6468 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS O BATTERY 3 (BP6-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. DOES NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL ROLLERSBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP E2021 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS P BATTERY 3 (BP4-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPQE6171 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS Q BATTERY 3 (BP6-1)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 CURRENTLY NOT IN USEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPR E2020 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS R BATTERY 3 (BP4-1)01-Jan-957233 34411 31.72 CURRENTLY NOT IN USEBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-4E1401 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 (CK-CU1-4)01-Jan-955333 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9,10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-6E1403 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 (CK-CU1-6)01-Jan-957433 35511 21.35 STRUCTURAL BAR CORRODED COMPLETELY AND NEEDS REPLACEMENTBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1 E1377 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 1 FEED CONVEYOR (CK-CU2-1)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2 E1378 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-2 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3 E1379 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-3 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4 E1380 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-4 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5 E1381 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-5 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6 E1382 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-6 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P1E2290 PUMP RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 ( RASL-P1-1.P ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P1-MTRE2307 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P2E7503 PUMP RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 ( RASL-P1-2.P )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P2-MTRE6812 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P3E2286 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 (RASL-P1-3.P )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P3-MTRE2287 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P4E2285 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 ( RASL-P1-4.P ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P4-MTRE2284 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD1E3942 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #1 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD2E5362 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #2 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD3E7536 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #3 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BTBT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD4E2288 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #4 VFD 75HP24-May-077223 34411 31.71BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P5E2380 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 ( RASL-P1-5 ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P5-MTRE5392 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P6E2381 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 ( RASL-P1-6 )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P6-MTRE5395 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P7E2382 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 ( RASL-P1-7 )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P7-MTRE5399 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P8E2383 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 ( RASL-P1-8 ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P8-MTRE5389 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 3441131.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD5E7537 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #5 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD6E5396 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #6 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD7E5400 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #7 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD8E5390 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #8 VFD 75HP17-Apr-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P10E2384 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #1001-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P10-MTRE5974 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 MOTOR01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P11E2385 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 (24IN) 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P11-MTRE5976 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 MOTOR01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BTBT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P12E2386 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP P1-12- (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P12-MTRE7534 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #12 MOTOR01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P9E7513 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9-18IN 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P9-MTRE7502 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD10E5979 VFDRAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #10 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD11E5980 VFDRAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #11 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD12E5981 VFDRAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #12 VFD 75HP20-Jun-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD9E5978 VFDRAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #9 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7BT BT-GRT-T5-CUE6617 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT01-Jan-97744333411 31.73NEEDS NEW SHOES REPLACED, NEW CHAIN, NEW INCLINE, NEW DRAG RAILBT BT-INC-BLDG BV0075 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 2 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9417523 3351543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK.10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsBT BT-INC-BLDGBV0077 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 4 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9413422 3341543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK.BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR E1950 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER01-Jan-93132244344423.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR-CLUE1443 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN-AUXE1540 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR ABT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR-CLUE1444 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN-AUXE1541 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR FAN ABT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR-CLUE1445 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN-AUXE1542 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 4 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR FAN ABT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR-CLUE1446 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-FN-AUXE1543 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75 BACKUP FOR FAN ABT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR-CLUE1447 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN-AUXE1544 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75 BACKUP FOR FAN ABT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2E33772 PUMPINC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL )01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2-DRE33900 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 DRIVE01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2-MTRE33903 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL ) MO01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3E33773 PUMPINC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL )01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3-DRE33901 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 DRIVE01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3-MTRE33902 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) MO01-Jan-70163234343454.05BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM1 E7062 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 1 ( CONTINUOUS 134433341543.32 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENTBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM2 E7063 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 2 ( CONTINUOUS 134443341543.32 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENTBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1AE1631 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 MUST RUN IN PAIRS. A/C, B/D. PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1BE1637 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1CE1642 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-92134434441543.33BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1DE1647 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED OF UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1BE1638 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1CE1643 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1DE1648 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1AE1633 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES.BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1BE1639 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1CE1644 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1DE1649 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1AE1634 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADESBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1BE1640 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1CE1645 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1DE1650 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33BTBT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1AE1636 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1BE1641 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1CE1646 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1DE1651 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE-SBV1-MTRE1367 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE-SBV1-MTRE1369 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE-SBV1-MTRE1371 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE-SBV1-MTRE1373MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE-SBV1-MTRE1375 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.0110/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsCT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR-BSR1E16363 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE BARSCREEN BOSKER 101-Jan-0811131 3441342.75 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the gripper over dumpster position.CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR-BSR2E16365 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE BARSCREEN BOSKER 201-Jan-0811131 3441342.75 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the gripper over dumpster position.CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT-RM-GRD1E40016 GRINDER CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI01-Jan-09151515451443.02 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow.CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT-RM-GRD2E40017 GRINDER CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI01-Jan-09151515451443.02 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow.CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSF1E40147 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FINE BARSCREEN #101-Jan-08111341341432.72 New ConstructionCT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-CUE40136 CONVEYOR SLUICING TROUGH 01-Jan-0811144 4441432.75 Problem with solids buildup in trough during high flows, needs manual washing to remove buildup.No backup available.CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 E32908 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 3 01-Jan-08111341341432.72 New Construction.CTCT-INF-BSF-BSF1E32913 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 401-Jan-08111341341432.72 New Construction.CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1E32903 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 201-Jan-08111341341432.72 New ConstructionCT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-CU1E16760 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP1 CONVEYOR 101-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 Built 2008.Needs lot of operational oversight (Every 2 hours)Odor released, Capacity problems makes operate only one.CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-CU1-MTRE16777 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP1 CONVEYOR 1 01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONECT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-WAE38836 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 101-Jan-08111441141342.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING, TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/ FORCE MAIN.DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINERCT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-CUE16778 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CONVEYOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONECT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-CU-MTRE16780 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CU MOTOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RECORDED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONECT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-WAE38837 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 201-Jan-08111441141342.73NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN.DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACMENT LINER.CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-CUE16779 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CONVEYOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONECT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-CU-MTRE16781 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CU MOTOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008, NEEDS LOTS OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONECT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-WAE38838 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 301-Jan-08111441141342.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAINDIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINERCT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-PLC E17231 PLC RAS BLDG FL2 PLC 01-Jan-08131433141453.35 NEW CONSTRUCTIONGT GT-GRT-T1-C E12862 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHERGT GT-GRT-T1-CU E12843 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS.RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.GT GT-GRT-T2-C E12872 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER.GT GT-GRT-T2-CU E12849 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 3441131.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS.RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.GT GT-GRT-T3-CE12876 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOE WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATER.GT GT-GRT-T3-CUE12853 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS.RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.GT GT-GRT-T4-CE12877 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHERGT GT-GRT-T4-CUE12857 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS.RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P1E37419 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P2E37420 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P3E37421 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-09713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P4E37422 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.GTGT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P5E37423 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN, SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsGT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P6E37424 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1 E14461 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 1 01-Jan-99124533251152.32 CURRENTLY NOT USED. BUT INTENT TO REBUILD AS A BACKUP TO NEW BELT PRESS.JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC-RK1E36024 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 101-Jan-0781134241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP.JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC-RK2E36026 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 201-Jan-0781134241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1 E35612 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN ROOM 1 FINE BSR SCREEN(SMALL)01-Jan-07101153251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASSJT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-WA1BE35609 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED SCREENINGS WASHER 1B01-Jan-07104535251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4 E35358 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 (BIG SCREEN)01-Jan-07101153251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-WA4BE35378 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B01-Jan-07104535251142.05ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING OVERFLOW. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICABLE.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5 E35357 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 (SMALL)01-Jan-07101153251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-WA5BE35381 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B01-Jan-07104535251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE.JT JT-THK-T1 E35399 TANK THICKENER TANK #1 01-Jan-07711342411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NOT CURRENTLYY IN USE. CAN STILL BE USED AS A BACK UP. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROLJT JT-THK-T2 E35401 TANK THICKENER TANK #2 01-Jan-07711342411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY USED. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROLLT LT-COM-1 E30808 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 1 01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.LT LT-COM-1-DR E30812 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 1 DRIVE 01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.LT LT-COM-2 E22480 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 2 01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.LT LT-COM-2-DR E22481 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 2 DRIVE 01-Jan-6593334241152.35ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.LT LT-COM-3 E22474 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 3 01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY OUT OF SERVICE FOR REBUILDING SINCE 2YRS.NEW DRIVE WHEN REBUILT. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.LT LT-COM-4 E22514 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 4 01-Jan-6593234241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. TENDENCY TO GET BLINDEDLT LT-COM-5 E22583 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 5 01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3 E30232 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4 E22738 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1-PPGE20363 TANK ASH SLURRY TANK DISCHARGE PIPING TRAIN01-Jan-09133343443433.31 2 LINES, DUTY/STANDBY . BURIED LINE. ASH SLURRY TANKS TO LAGOON INCLUDING VALVES. MILE LONG LINES.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1 E23646 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 01-Jan-83153433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HAS NOT BEEN OPERATED FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, 2.45 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITYDEVELPING 18 MONTH OPERATING CYCLE BETWEEN MAJOR REPAIRS. ASSESSMENT FOR INCINERATOR SHELLS, REFRACTORY CENTER SHAFT, ARMS, TEETH, TOP/BOTTOM SEALS.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH-CU-DRE22667 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYORSLTLT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS-MTRE23464 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEM WITH CAPATIBILITY WITH VFDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN101 E22493 FANINCINERATOR 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACK UPLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN102 E21220 FANAFTERBURNER 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN103 E22494 FANINCINERATOR 1 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E23654 INCININCINERATOR 201-Jan-83152433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. LIMIT ON CAPACITY PER AIR PERMIT IS ABOUT 2.74 DTPHSEE COMMENTS TO NO. 1 INC.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-ASH-CU-DRE22668 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 2 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYORLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS-MTRE24179 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING ON REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH CAPATABILITY WITH UFO.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN201 E21356 FANINCINERATOR 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACKUPLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN202 E21221 FANAFTERBURNER 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. FAN AND MOTOR BACKUP FOR BURNER AND AUX. FAN.LTLT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN203 E21357 FANINCINERATOR 2 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FAN . NOT NORMALLY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN303-MTRBV0047 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP, 230/460 V, 3 PH, 116/5801-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 AUXILARRY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 E23655 INCININCINERATOR 301-Jan-83153433343443.71 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HEARTH 4 NEEDS REPLACEMENT, 2.17 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITYSEE COMMENTS FOR NO. 1LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-ASH-CU-DRE22669 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-CS-MTRE24325 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO COMPATABILITY WITH VFDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN301 E21321 FANINCINERATOR 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTER BURNERS FANS BACKUPLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN302 E21222 FANAFTERBURNER 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303 E21322 FANINCINERATOR 3 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS, NOT NORMALLY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303-MTRE21192 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 116/58 01-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 Auxillary fan combustion fan motor NOT USED NORMALLY. USED AS A BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4 E23656 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 01-Jan-83152433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. 3.26 DTPH LIMIT CAPACIYSEE COMMENTS ON NO. 1LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS-MTRE24327 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-88733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH COM PATABILITY WITH VFD.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CU-DRE22670 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYORSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN401 E22674 FAN INCINERATOR 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTER FANS BACKUPLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN402 E21223 FAN AFTERBURNER 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSBURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403 E22675 FAN INCINERATOR 4 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403-MTRE21191 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3535 RP01-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 AUXILLARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH11BNR1E22449 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/ LOSS OF OTHER BURNERSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR1E22446 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR2E22447 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR3E22448 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-SRW-STRE24249 PROSERST INCINERATOR #1 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. 1 AND 3 LARGER THAN 2 AND 4 (FEEDS FLYASH REMOVED FROM WASTE HEAT BOILERS)LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH11BNR1E21347 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/LOSS OF OTHER BURNERSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR1E21344 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR2E21345INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR3E21346 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-839333 34431 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-SRW-STRE24295 PROSERST INCINERATOR #2 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH11BNR1E23042 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED, FOR PREHEAT.LOSS OF OTHER BURNERSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR1E23039 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR2E23040 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR3E23041 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-SRW-STRE24296 PROSERST INCINERATOR #3 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH11BNR1E22649 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-83123533453132.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FOR PREHEAT AND LOSS OF OTHER BURNERSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR1E22646 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR2E22647 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR3E22648 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:PA 64. RARELY USEDLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-SRW-STRE24297 PROSERST INCINERATOR #4 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR1 E24233 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 101-Jan-09122234443423.05LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR2 E24279 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER #201-Jan-091122344433 22.75LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR3 E24274 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 301-Jan-091122344433 22.70LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR4 E24275 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 401-Jan-091122344433 22.75LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-FGS-SCBRE24229 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 101-Jan-83133434443433.35INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE, ETC.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR1E23574 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER A 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR2E22444 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR3E22445 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-FGS-SCBRE24283 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 2 01-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR1E23572 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR2E21342 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 6410/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR3E21343 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-FGS-SCBRE24284 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 3 01-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY BODY, BLADE, ETC.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR1E23036 INCIN INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR2E23037 INCIN INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR3E23038 INCIN INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-FGS-SCBRE24285 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 4 01-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR1E22643 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR2E22644 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LTLT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR3E22645 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB1 BV0048 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM NO. 101-Jan-83113433444132.75 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVES, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB2 BV0049 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM 201-Jan-83113433444132.75 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB3 BV0050 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER/FLY ASH SYSTEM 301-Jan-83113433444132.75 THREE HPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB4 BV0051 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER- FLY ASHS SYSTEM 401-Jan-83113433444132.75 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCERS, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-WW E31949 SUMPBLENDED SLUDGE WELL01-Jan-0913423 3244153.35 SIGNIFICANT CONCRETE DETERIORATION AND POSSIBLE HATCH CORROSION. NEEDS DETAILED STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND REHABILITATION. SOME STAFF WOULD LIKE GRINDER ON THE PRIMARY LINES OR ON INLET OF BFP FEED PUMPS.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-ANLR1E23602 INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #101-Jan-94183534453443.71 2 UNITS, DUTY/STANBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-ANLR2E23603 INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #201-Jan-94183534453443.712 UNITS DUTY / STANDBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3-BNR1E22439 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3-BNR2E22440 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR1E22441 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR2E22442 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-839333 34431 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR3E22443 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3-BNR1E21338 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3-BNR2E21362 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR1E21339 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR2E21340 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR3E21341 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3-BNR2E23032 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR1E23033 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR2E23034 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR3E23035 INCININCIENRATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3-BNR1E22638 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3-BNR2E22639 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR1E22640 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-83123533453132.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR2E22641 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR3E22642 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN12-VFD E33688 VFDID FANS 1 AND 2 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-98114433243142.75NOT OPERATIONALLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN34-VFD E33689 VFDID FANS 3 AND 4 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-98114433243142.75NOT OPERATIONALLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR1E20467 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 101-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR2E20468 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 201-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR3E20466 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 301-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3PlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR1E24140 INCIN INC2 AFTERBURNER 1 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR2E24141 INCIN INC2 AFTERBURNER 2 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR3E24142 INCIN INC2 AFTERBURNER 3 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR1E24143 INCIN INC3 AFTERBURNER 1 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR2E24144 INCIN INC3 AFTERBURNER 2 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR3E24145 INCIN INC3 AFTERBURNER 3 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR1E24149 INCIN INC4 AFTERBURNER 1 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLCED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR2E24147 INCIN INC4 AFTERBURNER 2 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR3E24148 INCIN INC4 AFTERBURNER 3 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983, NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATIONLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-IDFN E23657 FAN INCINERATOR 1 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOWLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-IDFN E23472 FAN INCINERATOR 2 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOWLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-IDFN E22554 FAN INCINERATOR 3 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOWLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-IDFN E22555 FAN INCINERATOR 4 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOWLT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T1 BV0027 TANK DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 1 01-Jan-657223 34411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATIONLT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T2 BV0028 TANK DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 2 01-Jan-657223 34411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION.LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1 E20512 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 HIGH MAINTAINENCE ITEM. DRAGOUT TROUGH IS HEAVILY CORRODED BUT PLANNED TO BE REPLACEDAT PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2 E20513 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONMT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC1-MTRE18539 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 1 MOTOR01-Jan-095333 34411 21.32 BREAKS DOWN ONCE A YEAR FOR REPLACEMENTMT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC2-MTRE18544 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 2 MOTOR01-Jan-095333 34411 21.32MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1 E33420 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 1 01-Jan-88521441411 21.32PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED.MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1-MTR E17757 MOTOR DIGESTER SERVICE PUMP 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-88521441411 21.32MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2 E33415 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 (LARGE)01-Jan-88521441411 21.32PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED.MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2-MTR E18303 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-88521441411 21.32MT MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL E17502 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #1 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-98722452511 21.35 SCUM PITS IN CLARIFIERS HAVE GREASE PROBLEMS AND NEED EFFECTIVE MIXERS TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP.MT MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL-MTR E17503 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER COLLECTOR #1 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-98722452511 21.35MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL E18429 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-09722452511 21.35MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL-MTR E18432 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-0972245251121.35MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL E18431 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-09722452511 21.35MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL-MTR E17545 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-09722452511 21.3510/16/2009 Appendix C Ratings for All Assessed Solids Processing Equipment Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P1 E34930 PUMP WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #101-Jan-0516233 3443544.03 REBUILT ON 5 YR BASIS. NEW PUMP (1 YR AGO - 2008). 1 SPARE ON ORDER.$2,918.15 $2,918.15BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P3 E1949 PUMP WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #301-Jan-0916333 3443544.03 REBUILT 2005$6,460.00 $374.24 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP1E2061 PUMP POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 01-Jan-70163234343454.05 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, PROBLEM WITH PVC PIPING 2 FOR GRAVITY BELT THICKNESS, 2 FOR BFP'S (NOT USED)VERY DIFFICULT TO REPAIR $25,789.41 $11,398.24 $331.73 $2,599.08BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP1-MTRE4948 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-70163234343454.05$563.02 $0.00 $0.00 $209.10BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP2E2062 PUMP POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 01-Jan-04163334443454.05 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, BREAKS PVC PIPING$40,066.80 $10,804.83 $251.48 $2,747.54BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-CRP2-MTRE4951 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-04163334443454.05$862.29 $0.00$0.00 $127.35BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2 E1499 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #2 SCHWING THIS UNIT TIMES LEFT 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEAD.$140,820.23 $9,571.11 $11,381.50 $48,999.59BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3 E1500 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #3 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEAD$181,646.21 $10,117.53 $67,581.85 $13,581.52BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4 40014 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #4 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415233 3443443.75 NEW HEAD$0.00 $0.00 $38,052.69 $24,157.57BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P5 E1502 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #5 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415333 3443443.75 RUNS BETTER THAN OTHER PUMPS$171,162.94 $64,578.65 $12,642.62 $27,462.56BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P6 E1503 PUMPSLUDGE CAKE PUMP #6 SCHWING 01-Jan-9415333 3443443.75$183,971.77 $29,873.79 $34,309.80 $17,898.10BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA E2015 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS A BATTERY #1 (BP2-3)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. PRESS A IS OUT OF SERVICE AND PARTS ARE BEING USED FOR OTHER BFP'S. NOT CURRENTLY IN USE.INCREASED ROLLERS FROM 12 TO 15 IN YEAR 2000 FOR ALL THE PRESSES.H2S DAMAGE TO WIRING IN CABINETS. GREASE FORM RECEIVING STATION IS BLINDING THE BELTS ON BFP$118,017.92 $66,536.80 $5,684.14 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPCE2014 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS C BATTERY #1 (BP2-2)01-Jan-9812533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. OUT OF SERVICE$50,238.74 $1,501.12 $4,735.68 $104.55BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPE E2013 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS E BATTERY #1 (BP2-1)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$160,708.86 $81,271.98 $8,728.47 $249.76BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF E7519 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS F BATTERY #1 (BP1-1)01-Jan-9512533 34531 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$153,173.85 $63,601.80 $13,325.55 $4,286.38BT BT-INC-BLDGBV0075 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 2 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9417523 3351543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK.BT BT-INC-BLDGBV0077 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 4 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9413422 3341543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK.BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR E1950 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER01-Jan-93132244344423.35$119,298.53 $15,785.77 $14,102.91 $13,152.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR-CLUE1443 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35$5,548.82 $508.74 $536.61 $1,921.67BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR-CLUE1444 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35$2,623.85 $159.88$0.00 $107.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR-CLUE1445 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35$1,469.21 $335.00 $440.22 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR-CLUE1446 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35$5,550.46$457.86$0.00 $1,541.60BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR-CLUE1447 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC01-Jan-94133433443523.35$12,395.04 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2E33772 PUMPINC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL )01-Jan-70163234343454.05$2,115.59 $383.14 $1,187.95 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2-DRE33900 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 DRIVE01-Jan-70163234343454.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P2-MTRE33903 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL ) MO01-Jan-70163234343454.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3E33773 PUMPINC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL )01-Jan-70163234343454.05$1,198.68 $0.00 $168.28 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3-DRE33901 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 DRIVE01-Jan-70163234343454.05$378.50 $0.00 $378.50 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR-P3-MTRE33902 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) MO01-Jan-70163234343454.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM1 E7062 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 1 ( CONTINUOUS 134433341543.32 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK.CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT$160,353.97 $42,438.96 $12,923.86 $13,561.55BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM2 E7063 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 2 ( CONTINUOUS 134443341543.32 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK.CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT$170,367.65 $8,064.14 $10,233.69 $12,695.22BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1AE1631 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 MUST RUN IN PAIRS. A/C, B/D. PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$16,682.17 $1,086.08 $7,934.54 $1,374.31BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1BE1637 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$6,686.66 $229.15$0.00 $679.20BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1CE1642 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-92134434441543.33$2,073.91 $0.00 $84.90 $466.95BTBT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR-1DE1647 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED OF UPGRADES$3,531.35 $0.00$0.00 $537.24BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1BE1638 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33$4,615.23 $1,158.43 $2,036.85 $41.82BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1CE1643 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33$6,635.92 $268.25 $2,053.49 $41.82BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR-1DE1648 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$4,751.80 $1,413.55 $1,811.98 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1AE1633 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES.$12,043.18 $0.00 $2,675.97 $1,407.69BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1BE1639 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$6,077.21 $0.00 $132.15 $1,241.94BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1CE1644 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$3,195.85 $0.00$0.00 $44.23BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR-1DE1649 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$2,147.61 $0.00$0.00 $171.58BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1AE1634 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES$9,528.23 $980.26 $4,722.48 $84.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1BE1640 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$4,831.29 $1,184.96 $3,029.58 $221.62BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1CE1645 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$6,741.40 $3,130.86$0.00 $169.80BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR-1DE1650 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33$2,402.18 $984.95$0.00 $127.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1AE1636 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER A01-Jan-94134434441543.33PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$6,459.58 $1,363.09 $2,946.70 $212.25BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1BE1641 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER B01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$5,229.38 $1,078.88 $437.86 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1CE1646 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER C01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$4,065.54 $1,121.10 $132.15 $5.65BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR-1DE1651 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER D01-Jan-94134434441543.33 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE$2,052.14 $229.15 $217.05 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-BYP-STKE1291 STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK01-Jan-9413333 3333554.35 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.)$453.88 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-BYP-STKE1273 STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK01-Jan-9413333 3333554.35 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.)$2,622.57 $0.00 $1,805.61 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-BYP-STKE1292 STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK01-Jan-9413333 3333554.35 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.)$1,595.97 $0.00 $45.83 $84.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-BYP-STKE1293 STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK01-Jan-9413333 3333554.356 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.)$2,024.85 $0.00 $95.78 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-BYP-STKE1294 STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK01-Jan-9413333 3333554.35 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.)$1,357.05 $0.00 $342.52 $241.20BT BT-INC-STACK BV0085 INCIN INCINERATOR STACK, MASONRY STACK, DOUBLE WALL01-Jan-6914323 3334554.74 COMMON STACK FOR 6 INCINERATORS. RELINED INTERIOR 2 YRS. AGO (2007). PLANNED EXTERIOR TUCK POINTINGBT BT-105-BLDG-SCR BV0052 BARSCRN COARSE SCREEN 01-Jan-707233 3331152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONBT BT-105-BLDG-SCR BV0053 BARSCRN CLAMP SHELL FOR WET WELL 01-Jan-706223 3331142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONBT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P1E1964 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 ( WASL-P1-1 )01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7. PROBLEM WITH DRIVESNO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE $54,790.08 $9,538.63 $572.78 $20,498.89BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P1-MTRE4517 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P2E1965 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 (WASL-P1-2 )01-Jan-948444 4441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7. OUT OF SERVICE. BEING REPLACED$80,280.48 $19,813.31 $20,405.07 $8,941.53BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P2-MTRE4519 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$1,539.15 $930.55 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P3E4516 PUMP STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 (WASL-P1-3.P )01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7 NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE $18,476.74 $0.00 $13,186.68 $4,968.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2-WAS-P3-MTRE4520 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 MOTOR 01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$218.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P1-VFDE4518 VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 1 VFD 75HP01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$7,427.87 $0.00 $4,614.95 $0.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P2-VFDE4521 VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 2 VFD 75HP20-Jun-0781244441142.05$172.80$0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3-SUB4-WAS-P3-VFDE4522 VFDSTOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 3 VFD 75HP01-Jan-9483344441142.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$4,398.00 $0.00 $4,398.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1 E2089 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #101-Jan-9394433441152.34 CURRENTLY BROKE. NEEDS REBUILD. NEW MOTOR ON PUMP$34,461.52 $7,480.89 $2,981.68 $5,681.26BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1-DR E4183 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #1 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$2,133.11 $0.00 $700.85 $176.93BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2 E2090 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #201-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTOR$230,702.58 $131,403.20 $57,378.65 $13,465.56BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2-DR E5319 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #2 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$3,101.94 $0.00 $2,705.89 $0.00BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3 E2091 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #301-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTOR$225,213.37 $153,643.21 $38,847.62 $1,182.29BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3-DR E5321 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #3 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$129.68 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4 E2092 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #401-Jan-9784433441142.04 CURRENTLY REBUILDING.$50,911.21 $17,739.05 $4,256.00 $1,253.07BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4-DR E7674 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #4 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$2,975.09 $0.00$0.00 $1,443.80BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM5 E2093 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #501-Jan-938123 3441142.04 REBUILT IN 2005.$390,183.71 $150,979.64 $6,773.31 $4,387.18BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM6 E2094 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #601-Jan-9394433441152.34$19,485.66$45.83$0.00 $661.26BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM6-DR E6462 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #6 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$864.28 $0.00$0.00 $212.25BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7 E2095 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #701-Jan-9394433441152.34 NEEDS REBUILD.$25,173.95 $4,405.65$0.00 $1,160.94BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7-DR E5326 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR #7 DRIVE01-Jan-935223 33311 31.74$2,347.33 $817.80 $735.91 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-1 E2077 PUMPGRIT TANK 1 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$7,170.94 $2,277.59 $154.92 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-1-MTRE6321 MOTOR GRIT TANK1 DRAIN PUMP MOTOR, 01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$409.59 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-2 E6317 PUMPGRIT TANK 2 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$733.00 $733.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-2-MTRE6318 MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-3 E4411 PUMPGRIT TANK 3 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$1,657.57 $1,657.57$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-3-MTRE4414 MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-4 E4450 PUMPGRIT TANK 4 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-4-MTRE4453MOTOR GRIT TANK 4 PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-5 E6472 PUMPGRIT TANK 5 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$1,928.36 $0.00 $1,928.36 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-5-MTRE4464 MOTOR GRIT TANK 5 PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-6 E4474 PUMPGRIT TANK 6 PUMP01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$297.06 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-6-MTRE4478 MOTOR GRIT TANK 6 PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-975213 33311 31.72$194.79 $194.79$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL-T3-MXLE2054 MIXER POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK #3 MIXER01-Jan-7010223 3233433.35$164.57 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL-T4-MXLE2055 MIXER POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK #4 MIXER01-Jan-7010223 3233433.35 SERVES BFP$201.07 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL-T5-MXLE2056 MIXER POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK 5 MIXER01-Jan-7010223 3233433.35$183.72 $91.66 $92.06 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T1 E1470 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 16333 2331142.05 EQ BASIN 1, SCHWING PUMP 1, AND INC 1 ARE OUT OF SERVICE. 8 SCREWS/BIN, 2 PHIADELPHIA DRIVES/BIN, 1 CONTROL UNIT/BINEACH SCREW HAS GEAR AND INDIVIDULAL SHEAR PIN. WHEN 1 PIN SHEARS, REMAINING SCREWS CONTINUE TO ROTATE CAUSEING DAMAGE TO SHAFTS AND GEARING.$17,837.17 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T2 E1460 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 26333 2331142.05$62,882.25$11,543.04 $3,386.92 $1,086.85BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T3 E1461 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 36333 2331142.05$27,464.01 $412.72 $1,383.11 $3,163.72BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T4 E1462 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 46333 2331142.05$63,764.74 $10,739.63 $2,760.13 $598.82BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T5 E1463 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 56333 2331142.05$47,529.12 ($151.82) $5,272.58 $7,846.69BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T6 E1475 TANKDWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 66333 2331142.05$44,808.50 $13,890.78 $2,022.55 $8,078.72BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW1-MXL1E1998 MIXER SLUDGE WET WELL 1 MIXER 101-Jan-958322 2234132.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. TANK 1 IS NOT IN USE BUT WILL BE OPERATIONAL SOON.DIFFICULT TO WORK DUE TO LOW HEAD ROOM$94.88 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW1-MXL2E1999 MIXER SLUDGE WET WELL 1 MIXER 201-Jan-958322 2234132.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. TANK 1 IS NOT IN USE BUT WILL BE OPERATIONAL SOON.$94.88 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW2-MXL3E2001 MIXER SLUDGE WET WELL 2 MIXER 301-Jan-958322 2234132.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$24,813.91 $1,322.46 $20,741.79 $339.60BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW2-MXL4E2002 MIXER SLUDGE WET WELL 2 MIXER 401-Jan-958322 2234132.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$6,583.93 $143.68$0.00 $1,671.13BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-1E1398 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 (CK-CU1-1)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$52,332.92 $15,676.36 $6,545.21 $1,913.64BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-2E1399 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 (CK-CU1-2)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35$17,955.48 $3,550.27 $0.00 $201.51BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPGE2018 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS G BATTERY 2 (BP3-3)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. ADDED ROLLERS IN 2000. H2S DAMAGE TO WIRING IN CABINETS. GREASE FROM RECEIVING STATION IS BLINDING BFP$195,894.13 $75,995.09 $19,185.83 $11,105.44BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI E2017 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS I BATTERY 2 (BP3-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$129,345.10 $26,861.29 $11,438.05 $1,152.43BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ E2019 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS J BATTERY 2 (BP5-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32$207,735.06 $73,749.08 $27,935.49 $6,215.68BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPK E2016 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS K BATTERY 2 (BP3-1)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$267,676.80 $86,318.36 $11,260.64 $22,542.37BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL E7169 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS L BATTERY 2 (BP51)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$189,102.30 $74,470.72 $19,226.23 $11,937.55BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3 E1400 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 (CK-CU1-3)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$43,506.00 $2,180.86 $5,037.29 $15,072.25BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5 E1402 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 (CK-CU1-5)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35$55,200.90 $4,181.55 $9,275.82 $3,135.87BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3 E2012 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS BATTERY #3 01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$508,014.71 $24,019.01 $57,591.16 $11,270.08BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPME2022 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS M BATTERY 3 (BP6-3)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$252,746.43 $117,039.12 $16,052.96 $20,997.49BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPOE6468 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS O BATTERY 3 (BP6-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. DOES NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL ROLLERS$158,071.28 $20,465.30 $15,414.76 $13,545.1210/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP E2021 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS P BATTERY 3 (BP4-2)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$202,643.37 $77,800.43 $35,014.36 $1,716.65BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPQE6171 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS Q BATTERY 3 (BP6-1)01-Jan-959233 34431 32.32 CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$210,019.81 $93,591.04 $10,708.11 $19,082.48BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPRE2020 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS R BATTERY 3 (BP4-1)01-Jan-957233 34411 31.72 CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$224,163.45 $97,482.84 $18,407.13 $20,208.94BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-4E1401 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 (CK-CU1-4)01-Jan-955333 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9,$43,948.82 $2,794.16 $3,049.49 $4,404.47BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-6E1403 CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 (CK-CU1-6)01-Jan-957433 35511 21.35 STRUCTURAL BAR CORRODED COMPLETELY AND NEEDS REPLACEMENT$61,578.16 $10,087.97 $3,396.84 $2,465.73BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1 E1377 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 1 FEED CONVEYOR (CK-CU2-1)01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$18,743.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2 E1378 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-2 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$49,768.15 $1,236.08 $3,761.34 $3,510.50BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3 E1379 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-3 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$29,454.28 ($293.11) $2,616.83 $6,768.43BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4 E1380 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-4 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$59,885.80 $8,157.85 $8,646.57 $3,938.21BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5 E1381 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-5 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$42,709.18 $3,955.82 $1,044.35 $327.44BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6 E1382 CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-6 )01-Jan-955323 34411 21.35$25,713.97 $2,560.46 $6,676.56 $1,031.29BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P1E2290 PUMP RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 ( RASL-P1-1.P ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$14,671.83 $0.00 $352.40 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P1-MTRE2307 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$446.60 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P2E7503 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 ( RASL-P1-2.P )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$2,296.72 $0.00 $242.28 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P2-MTRE6812 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P3E2286 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 (RASL-P1-3.P )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$1,901.69 $0.00 $1,453.65 $169.80BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P3-MTRE2287 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$220.25 $0.00 $220.25 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P4E2285 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 ( RASL-P1-4.P ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$44.05 $0.00 $44.05 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS-P4-MTRE2284 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$343.31 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM-P1E2824 PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #1 01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$374.52 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM-P1-MTRE2487 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$124.84 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM-P2E2305PUMPRAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #2 01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM-P2-MTRE2823 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD1E3942 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #1 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$11,399.97 $6,757.21 $4,398.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD2E5362 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #2 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7($2,311.62) $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD3E7536 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #3 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$499.95 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3-MCCR-VFD4E2288 VFDRAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #4 VFD 75HP24-May-077223 34411 31.71$12,573.56 $0.00$0.00 $13,416.41BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P5E2380 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 ( RASL-P1-5 ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$18,907.14 $1,170.68$0.00 $12,246.57BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P5-MTRE5392 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$731.85 $0.00$0.00 $731.85BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P6E2381PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 ( RASL-P1-6 )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$592.91 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P6-MTRE5395 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P7E2382 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 ( RASL-P1-7 )01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$1,359.75 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P7-MTRE5399 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 MOTOR 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P8E2383 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 ( RASL-P1-8 ) (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$16,865.10 $35.03$0.00 $13,692.44BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS-P8-MTRE5389 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM-P3E5371 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #3 01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$144.68 $0.00$0.00 $144.68BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM-P3-MTRE5370 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING SUMP #2 PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM-P4E5376 PUMPRAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #4 01-Jan-945223 3231131.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM-P4-MTRE5375 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING SUMP #2 PUMP #4 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD5E7537 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #5 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$13,948.59 $7,703.36 $4,893.70 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD6E5396 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #6 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD7E5400 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #7 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$966.69 $295.33$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3-MCCR-VFD8E5390 VFDRAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #8 VFD 75HP17-Apr-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$16,914.24 $0.00$0.00 $16,790.32BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P10E2384 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #1001-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$8,330.99 $0.00$0.00 $21.23BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P10-MTRE5974 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 MOTOR01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P11E2385 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 (24IN) 01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$1,959.33 $0.00$0.00 $635.06BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P11-MTRE5976 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 MOTOR01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P12E2386 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP P1-12- (18IN)01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$13,261.12 $68.42 $807.02 $21.23BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P12-MTRE7534 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #12 MOTOR01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$634.24 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P9E7513 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9-18IN 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71$32,874.85 $1,107.97 $2,169.72 $14,775.92BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-P9-MTRE7502 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9 MOTOR 01-Jan-947223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM-P5E2007 PUMPRAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #5 01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$6,913.41 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM-P5-MTRE5380 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #5 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM-P6E2008 PUMP RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #6 01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$2,044.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM-P6-MTRE5968 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #6 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 32311 31.73$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD10E5979 VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #10 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$7,262.36 $0.00 $0.00 $20.91BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD11E5980 VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #11 VFD 150HP01-Jan-948223 3441142.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$187.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD12E5981 VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #12 VFD 75HP20-Jun-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$17,472.67 $0.00 $0.00 $13,881.77BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3-MCCR-VFD9E5978 VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #9 VFD 75HP01-Jan-077223 34411 31.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-7$11,019.53 $5,336.31 $4,398.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T4-CU-DR E4445 DRVREDCE GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-075123 33311 31.73$5,718.30 $197.01 $165.76 $228.96BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T4-CU-DR-MTRE4444 MOTOR GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$249.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T5-CU-DR E6619 DRVREDCE GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73$3,795.99 $0.00 $372.96 $805.02BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T6-CU-DR E6623 DRVREDCE GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 6 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,562.21 $197.01 $417.23 $668.20BT BT-GRT-T1-CE4388 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NEED 1 OR 4 IN SERVICE ALL THE TIME TO RECEIVE HAULED WASTE$10,740.25 $2,368.18 $267.60 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T1-C-DRE4389 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,352.50 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T1-C-MTRE4391 MOTOR GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$6,289.41 $0.00 $1,078.07 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T1-CU1-DR-MTR E4370 MOTOR GRIT TANK 1 GRIT SCREW CONVEYORMOTOR01-Jan-976223 3231142.05 DURING WINTER TIME, ALL SCREW CONVEYORS FREEZE UP. PROBLEM WITH SLIDE GATE MAKES THEM NON OPERATIONAL$312.68 $0.00 $312.68 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T1-CU-DR-MTR E4377 MOTOR GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR 01-Jan-955223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,705.64 $0.00 $0.00 $84.90BT BT-GRT-T2-C E4394 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,086.94 $0.00 $176.20 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T2-C-DR E4397 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,544.27 $0.00 $0.00 $924.26BT BT-GRT-T2-C-MTR E4400 MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$457.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T2-CU1-DR-MTR E4431 MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 GRIT SCREW CONVEYORMOTOR01-Jan-976223 3231142.05 DURING WINTER TIME, ALL SCREW CONVEYORS FREEZE UP. PROBLEM WITH SLIDE GATE MAKES THEM NON OPERATIONAL.$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T2-CU-DR-MTR E4423 MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT MOTOR 01-Jan-955223 33311 31.73$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T3-C E6493 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR 01-Jan-705323 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY REPAIRED. ARMS REPLACED$8,747.02 $2,715.33 $0.00 $901.51BT BT-GRT-T3-C-DR E4399 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705323 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY BEING REPLACED$1,557.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T3-C-MTR E4402 MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,622.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T3-CU E4425 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT 01-Jan-085123 33311 31.73$199,514.68 $29,105.78 $73,135.19 $407.93BT BT-GRT-T3-CU1-DR-MTR E4432 MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 GRIT SCREW CONVEYORMOTOR01-Jan-976323 3331142.05 OUT OF SERVICE. BEING REPAIRED. FREEZE UP DURING WINTER.$1,152.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T3-CU-DR-MTR E7530 MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR 01-Jan-955223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$62.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T4-C E6473 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NEED 1 OR 4 IN SERVICE TO RECEIVE HAULED WASTE$6,382.72 $0.00 $367.25 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T4-C-DR E4455 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$5,595.36 $0.00 $1,291.02 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T4-C-MTR E4456 MOTOR GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$642.61 $0.00 $84.90 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T4-CU E4443 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT 01-Jan-015223 33311 31.73 DRAG OUT SHIELD IS CORRODED AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED$55,867.46 $175.12 $360.98 $27,727.41BT BT-GRT-T5-C E4468 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$5,664.17 $0.00 $197.90 $209.10BT BT-GRT-T5-C-DR E4469 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$586.76 $487.85 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T5-C-MTR E4470 MOTOR GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T5-CU E6617 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT 01-Jan-97744333411 31.73 NEEDS NEW SHOES REPLACED, NEW CHAIN, NEW INCLINE, NEW DRAG RAIL$17,510.12 $262.68 $6,497.05 $209.10BT BT-GRT-T6-C E4484 COLECTOR GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$3,683.12 $91.66 $1,915.29 $418.20BT BT-GRT-T6-C-DR E4485 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,125.34$0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T6-C-MTRE4486 MOTOR GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR MOTOR 01-Jan-705223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$121.42 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T6-CUE6621 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 6 DRAGOUT01-Jan-985223 33311 31.73 REPLACED CHAIN. NEEDS NEW DRAGOUT SHIELD.$138,442.99 $87.56 $123,721.94 $309.84BT BT-INC-BLDGBV0079 INSTRMNT INCIN. NO. 6 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9410223 3331543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METERBT BT-INC-BLDGBV0076 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 3 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9410223 3331543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METERSBT BT-INC-BLDGBV0078 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 5 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN 01-Jan-9410223 3331543.35 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METERBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD1-MTRE1414M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #1 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD2 E1415 GRINDER WET ASH GRINDER #201-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$5,687.64 $262.68 $93.96 $3,820.53BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD2-MTRE1415M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #2 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$357.28 $357.28$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD3 E1416 GRINDER WET ASH GRINDER #301-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$7,004.25 $39.97 $346.32 $245.31BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD3-MTRE1416M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #3 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD4 E1417 GRINDER WET ASH GRINDER #4...01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$10,769.79 $0.00 $911.06 $2,715.20BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD4-MTRE1417M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #4 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 13313 11.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD5 E7678 GRINDER WET ASH GRINDER #501-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$17,111.34 $762.50 $926.71 $339.60BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD5-MTRE7678M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #5 MOTOR01-Jan-945221 13313 11.73$980.62 $0.00$0.00 $707.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD6 E1418 GRINDER WET ASH GRINDER #601-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$15,238.88 $1,866.58 $3,419.01 $1,919.67BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD6-MTRE1418M MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #6 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.03$453.11 $220.25 $232.86 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP1E1929 SUMPINC BLDG FL1 WET ASH SUMP 1 01-Jan-939323 3331533.02$46,743.89 $17,580.54 $1,069.87 $4,254.76BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP1-MXL1E1930 MIXER INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 1 MIXER #101-Jan-939323 3331533.02$7,215.64 $3,880.52 $1,756.25 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP1-MXL2E1931 MIXER INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 1 MIXER #201-Jan-939323 3331533.02$11,906.58 $569.69 $3,309.25 $3,357.61BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP2E1934 SUMPINC BLDG FL1 WET ASH SUMP 2 01-Jan-099323 3331533.02$66,059.88 $0.00 $1,841.46 $16,835.38BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP2-MXL1E1935 MIXER INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 2 MIXER #101-Jan-939323 3331533.02$26,828.95$0.00 $17,071.78 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL-SUMP2-MXL2E1936 MIXER INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 2 MIXER #201-Jan-939323 3331533.02$15,215.82 $315.56 $6,998.39 $3,304.94BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR-FNE3400 FANINC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER FAN01-Jan-9310223 3333433.35$1,093.60 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR-MTRE3399 MOTOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER #1MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-936223 13313 22.05$478.22 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP1-P1E7539 PUMPINC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 101-Jan-939323 3331533.02REBUILT PUMP AVAILABLE$64,937.94 $7,557.19 $19,532.10 $6,375.4310/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP1-P1-MTRE2972 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 1 MOTOR LEFT HAND01-Jan-936223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP1-P2E1933 PUMP INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 201-Jan-939323 3331533.02$72,936.95 $5,241.81 $6,464.87 $18,902.58BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP1-P2-MTRE2966 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-936223 13313 22.05$1,379.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP2-P1E1938 PUMP INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 101-Jan-939323 3331533.02$51,166.54 $1,194.95 $7,280.23 $1,574.96BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP2-P1-MTRE2957 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 1 MOTOR RIGHT HAN01-Jan-936223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP2-P2E1939 PUMP INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 201-Jan-939323 3331533.02$87,209.30 $10,451.57 $35,041.91 $4,533.77BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SUMP2-P2-MTRE2951 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 2 MOTOR RIGHT HAN01-Jan-936223 13313 22.05$497.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T2-GRD2E1432 GRINDER DRY ASH GRINDER #2 01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$122.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T2-GRD2-MTRE1432MMOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #2 MOTOR01-Jan-945223 13313 11.75$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T3-GRD3E1433 GRINDER DRY ASH GRINDER #301-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T3-GRD3-MTRE1433M MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #3 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T4-GRD4E1434 GRINDER DRY ASH GRINDER #401-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$248.64 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T4-GRD4-MTRE1434M MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #4 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T5-GRD5E1435 GRINDER DRY ASH GRINDER #501-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$198.56 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T5-GRD5-MTRE1435M MOTOR DRY ASH HOPPER #5 GRINDER #5 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T6-GRD6E1436 GRINDER DRY ASH GRINDER #601-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$234.08 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T6-GRD6-MTRE1436M MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #6 MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK-GRD2BV0080 GRINDER INCIN NO. 2 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE01-Jan-7211333 3333533.75FREQUENTLY REBUILTPARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK-GRD3BV0081 GRINDER INCIN NO. 3 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE01-Jan-7211333 3333533.75 FREQUENTLY REBUILTPARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK-GRD4BV0082 GRINDER INCIN NO. 4 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE01-Jan-7211333 3333533.75 FREQUENTLY REBUILTPARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK-GRD5BV0083 GRINDER INCIN NO. 5 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE01-Jan-7211333 3333533.75 FREQUENTLY REBUILTPARTS AVAILABLEBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK-GRD6BV0084 GRINDER INCIN NO. 6 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE01-Jan-7211333 3333533.75 FREQUENTLY REBUILTBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E1438 INCININC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 201-Jan-6910233 3231543.31 NEEDS TEETH REPLACEMENT. SOME REFRACTORY$153,033.14 $10,316.59 $7,299.82 $26,366.96BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-BNR-FNE1581 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC2 BURNER COMB FAN01-Jan-9411213 3333443.75$1,510.56 $274.98 $652.76 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-BNR-FN-MTRE1593 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 2 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR E1454 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE01-Jan-6910213 3231543.35 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR$14,931.87 $2,474.67 $552.20 $677.81BTBT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR-MTRE1449 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$633.78 $207.62$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR-VFDE3403 VFDINC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT VFD01-Jan-048233 3331522.75 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIRLOOSE SPARE UNIT$10,919.92 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN-AUXE1540 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR A$1,313.74 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN-AUX-MTRE1540M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN-MTRE1534M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-SLD-FNE1730 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB FAN 2B01-Jan-945223 33311 31.72$2,682.01 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-SLD-FN-MTRE1747 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB FAN 2B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 E1439 INCININC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 301-Jan-6910333 3231543.31$170,069.24 $3,918.10 $13,816.17 $22,012.85BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-BNR-FNE1582 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 3 BURNER COMB FAN01-Jan-9411213 3333443.75$706.41 $0.00 $176.20 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-BNR-FN-MTRE1594 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR E1455 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE01-Jan-0410213 3231543.35 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR$4,072.65 $237.29 $69.69 $125.46BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR-MTRE1450 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$1,393.55 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR-VFDE3404 VFDINC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT VFD01-Jan-048233 3331522.75 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIRLOOSE SPARE UNIT$5,170.60 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN-AUXE1541 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR FAN A$2,612.27 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN-AUX-MTRE1541M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN-MTRE1535M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-SLD-FNE1732 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 3 SLUDGE COMB FAN 3B01-Jan-945223 3331131.75$1,453.68 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-SLD-FN-MTRE1748 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 SLUDGE COMB FAN 3B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4 E7478 INCININC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 401-Jan-6910233 3231543.31$115,963.54 $5,413.41 $10,482.21 $16,873.03BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-BNR-FNE1583 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 4 BURNER COMB FAN01-Jan-9411213 3333443.75$492.63 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-BNR-FN-MTRE1595 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR E1456 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE01-Jan-9410213 3231543.35 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR$14,412.18 $197.01 $793.52 $176.98BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR-MTRE1451 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$353.69 $0.00$0.00 $252.18BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR-VFDE3405 VFDINC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT VFD01-Jan-048233 3331522.75 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIRLOOSE SPAIR UNIT$1,008.31 $0.00 $184.13 $333.41BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN-AUXE1542 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 4 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75BACKUP FOR FAN A$912.40 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN-AUX-MTRE1542MMOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$125.96 $0.00 $125.96 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN-MTRE1536M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$486.47 $0.00$0.00 $79.88BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-SLD-FNE1734 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 4 SLUDGE COMB FAN 4B01-Jan-945223 33311 31.72$870.57 $0.00$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-SLD-FN-MTRE1749 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 SLUDGE COMB FAN 4B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5 E1440 INCIN INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 5 01-Jan-6910233 2231543.31$137,227.73 $18,284.07 $4,501.37 $11,430.42BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-BNR-FNE1584 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 BURNER COMB FAN01-Jan-9411213 3333443.75$110.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-BNR-FN-MTRE1596 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR E1457 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE01-Jan-6910213 3231543.35 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR $19,357.47 $79.94 $141.02 $524.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR-MTRE1452 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$1,097.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR-VFDE3406 VFD INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT VFD01-Jan-048233 3331522.75 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR LOOSE SPARE UNIT $6,833.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-FN-AUXE1543 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75 BACKUP FOR FAN A$952.74 $183.32 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-FN-AUX-MTRE1543M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-FN-MTRE1537M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-SLD-FNE1736 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB FAN 5B01-Jan-945223 33311 31.75$4,863.35 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-SLD-FN-MTRE1750 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB FAN 5B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6 E1441 INCININC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 601-Jan-9410233 3331543.31$126,220.69 $10,773.26 $13,130.51 $7,408.47BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-BNR-FNE1585 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC6 BURNER COMB FAN01-Jan-9411213 3333443.75$580.59 $91.66 $411.01 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-BNR-FN-MTRE1597 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR E1458 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE01-Jan-9410213 3231543.35 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR$16,073.24 $137.49 $4,456.05 $1,833.49BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR-MTRE7524 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$3,438.03 $0.00$0.00 $717.45BTBT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR-VFDE7156 VFDINC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT VFD01-Jan-048233 3331522.75 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIRLOOSE SPARE UNIT$4,845.77 $0.00 $88.10 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN-AUXE1544 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN01-Jan-94723343411 31.75 BACKUP FOR FAN A$426.31 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN-AUX-MTRE1544M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN-MTRE1538M MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$43.39 $0.00 $43.39 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-SLD-FNE1738 FANINC BLDG FL1 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB FAN 6B01-Jan-945223 33311 31.75$4,616.18 $0.00 $2,129.90 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-SLD-FN-MTRE1751 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB FAN 6B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-HP1E7275 PUMPINC BLDG FL1 SLUDGE CAKE PUMP SCHWING 701-Jan-9010223 3333343.35 FOR SLUDGE RECEIVING BIN. OCCASIONAL USE TO RECEIVE SLUDGE FROM OTHER PLANTSSPARE PUMP AVAILABLE BUT NOT INSTALLED. NO SPARE HYDRAULIC PACK.$167,945.35 $0.00 $6,431.97 $13,708.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR-10AE2712 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 10 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03INCLUDES BURNERS, VALVES AND CONTROLS.$909.69 $88.10 $295.22 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR-11AE2713 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$264.66 $91.66 $173.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR-9AE1692 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,349.66 $682.11$0.00 $273.65BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR-9BE1697 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,228.79 $110.13 $1,596.47 $148.58BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR-9CE1702 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,138.05 $422.04$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR-10AE2917 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 10 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR-11AE2918 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$108.08 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR-9AE1693 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$617.09 $91.66 $88.10 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR-9BE1698 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$461.84$91.66$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR-9CE1703 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$666.99 $91.66 $88.10 $99.17BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR-10AE2911 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 10 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$1,878.89 $0.00 $133.91 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR-11AE2912 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$466.77 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR-9AE1694 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,232.66 $0.00 $239.33 $97.91BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR-9BE1699 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,526.20 $0.00 $1,109.04 $84.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR-9CE1704 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,054.87 $0.00 $44.05 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR-10AE2913 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 10 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$71.04 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR-11AE2914GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$873.84 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR-9AE1695 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$908.71 $297.01$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR-9BE1700 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,924.77 $114.58 $44.05 $773.14BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR-9CE1705 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,344.61 $1,400.14 $43.39 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR-10AE2915 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 10 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$2,020.32 $2,020.32$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR-11AE2916 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-946233 33313 22.03$3,954.47 $3,594.12$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR-9AE1696 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,429.75 $183.32 $1,919.21 $127.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR-9BE1701 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,961.70$0.00 $4,453.34 $106.13BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR-9CE1706 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$972.88 $22.92 $348.07 $168.54BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BNR-7AE1677 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,446.80 $2,846.02 $374.89 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BNR-7BE1682 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,370.20 $2,125.03 $870.97 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BNR-7CE1687 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,949.04 $1,985.63 $131.49 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR-7AE1678 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$5,616.73 $1,050.36 $224.69 $3,725.0210/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR-7BE1683 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,911.75 $829.91 $305.71 $783.95BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR-7CE1688 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,990.12 $1,985.85 $259.12 $125.46BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR-7AE1679 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,184.36 $183.32 $829.00 $146.37BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR-7BE1684 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,619.47 $690.48 $534.62 $42.45BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR-7CE1689 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,023.69 $0.00 $44.05 $83.64BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR-7AE1680 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$5,955.76 $3,782.54 $43.39 $42.45BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR-7BE1685 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,346.56 $636.52 $198.23 $689.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR-7CE1690 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,151.00 $1,944.46$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR-7AE1681 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$6,511.91 $1,938.11 $1,295.07 $411.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR-7BE1686 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$6,675.23 $1,927.76 $92.06 $1,170.75BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR-7CE1691 GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,532.58 $373.57 $886.36 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR-3AE1652 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33 APPLIES BURNERS, VALVE AND RAINS, CONTROLS$3,598.26 $283.22 $301.85 $868.28BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR-3BE1657 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$5,588.25 $3,319.35 $169.80 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR-5AE1662 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,372.01 $307.61 $269.03 $299.23BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR-5BE1667 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,503.86$179.76 $84.90 $983.31BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR-5CE1672 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,747.03 $2,223.19 $446.83 $42.45BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-SCBR E1300 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER01-Jan-9411213 3333533.75$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-SCBR1E1295 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 VENTURI SCRUBBER01-Jan-948333 3331522.75 SCRUBBER AND DAMPER. ALSO ACTUATOR. 3 ACTUATORS REPLACED. 1 SPARE DAMPER$20,128.24 $91.66 $301.65 $12,548.76BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR-3AE1653 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$12,080.80 $699.58 $5,253.45 $883.71BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR-3BE1658 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,956.75 $1,160.27 $216.95 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR-5AE1663 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,531.92 $91.66 $501.42 $292.74BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR-5BE1668 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,927.19$183.32 $84.90 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR-5CE1673 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$7,881.66 $5,527.16 $129.66 $83.64BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-SCBR E1301 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER01-Jan-9411213 3333533.75$2,317.64 $0.00 $1,292.51 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-SCBR1E1296 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 VENTURI SCRUBBER01-Jan-948333 3331522.75$9,131.75 $559.19 $5,841.04 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR-3AE1654 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$7,483.06 $0.00 $2,734.45 $547.98BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR-3BE1659 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,792.60 $458.30 $218.93 $188.82BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR-5AE1664 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$7,412.79 $0.00 $730.92 $239.86BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR-5BE1669 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$2,563.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR-5CE1674 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,746.37 $193.22$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-SCBR E1302 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER01-Jan-9411213 3333533.75$9,559.82 $0.00$0.00 $212.25BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-SCBR1E1297 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 VENTURI SCRUBBER01-Jan-948333 3331522.75$27,946.92 ($452.63) $14,947.37 $3,038.02BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR-3AE1655 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 3 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,455.13 $1,928.52$0.00 $966.39BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR-3BE1660 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 3 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,242.93 $806.19 $872.34 $179.83BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR-5AE1665 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,359.15 $1,618.98 $44.05 $106.93BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR-5BE1670 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$5,719.31 $1,602.96$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR-5CE1675 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$3,792.01$489.48 $780.25 $127.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-SCBR E1303 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER01-Jan-949213 3331533.05$10,659.88 $399.70 $0.00 $199.70BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-SCBR1E1298 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 VENTURI SCRUBBER01-Jan-948333 3331522.75$27,424.13 $871.47 $14,934.37 $7,896.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR-3AE1656 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 3 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$9,398.46 $796.96 $1,191.54 $119.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR-3BE1661 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 3 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$5,896.47 $2,505.85 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR-5AE1666 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER A01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$4,169.32 $412.48 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR-5BE1671 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER B01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$1,031.18 $137.49 $358.35 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR-5CE1676 GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER C01-Jan-947333 3331422.33$965.59$474.78 $409.95 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-SCBR E1304 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER01-Jan-9411213 3333533.75$5,071.81 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-SCBR1E1299 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 VENTURI SCRUBBER01-Jan-948333 3331522.75$37,570.10 $4,916.87 $10,368.11 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-ASH-CUE1246 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR01-Jan-945333 33311 31.75$4,304.23 $229.15 $985.63 $159.76BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-ASH-CUE7668 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR01-Jan-945333 33311 31.75$632.29 $0.00 $210.35 $179.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-ASH-CUE1247 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR01-Jan-945333 33311 31.75$1,293.32 $0.00 $210.35 $179.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-ASH-CUE1248 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR01-Jan-945333 33311 31.75$1,991.67 $716.88 $256.38 $421.20BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-ASH-CUE33687 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR01-Jan-945333 33311 31.75$6,340.44 $2,729.30 $533.70 $641.21BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-FN E1280 FANINC BLDG FL5 INC 6 ID FAN01-Jan-9410323 3331543.35$15,281.45 $183.32 $3,427.80 $633.35BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-FN-MTRE1331 MOTOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 ID FAN MOTOR 01-Jan-069223 3331533.05$8,988.23 $0.00$0.00 $466.23BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FN E1276 FANINC BLDG FL6 INC 2 ID FAN01-Jan-9410323 3331543.35 INCLUDES INLET AND DISCHARGE DAMPER. SPARE DISCHARE DAMPER AVAILABLE.$38,724.53 $12,797.27 $1,381.92 $10,273.4610/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FN-MTRE1327 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 ID FAN MOTOR 01-Jan-069223 3331533.05 ALL REPLACED OR REBUILT$14,569.50 $3,376.56 $0.00 $7,449.70BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE E1345 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 HEAT EXCHANGER01-Jan-947213 3331152.35$72.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE-SBV1-MTRE1367 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE-SBV2-MTRE1368 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-SCBR2E2846 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 PRECOOLER 01-Jan-9410223 3331543.35$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-SLD-CAF-MTRE1771 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 2A MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FN E1277 FAN INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 ID FAN 01-Jan-9410323 3331543.35$16,852.88 $0.00 $452.21 $875.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FN-MTRE1328 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 ID FAN MOTOR 01-Jan-069223 3331533.05$27,919.47 $0.00 $1,194.00 $21,401.45BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE E1346 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 HEAT EXCHANGER01-Jan-947213 3331152.35$1,336.14$0.00 $431.12 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE-SBV1-MTRE1369 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE-SBV2-MTRE1370 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-SCBR2E2847 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 PRECOOLER 01-Jan-948223 3331522.75$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-SLD-CAF-MTRE1772 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 3A MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FN E1278 FAN INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 ID FAN 01-Jan-949323 3331533.03$39,637.42 $500.00 $15,052.93 $84.90BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FN-MTRE1329 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 ID FAN MOTOR 01-Jan-069223 3331533.05$3,296.92 $0.00 $487.80 $2,809.12BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE E1347 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 HEAT EXCHANGER01-Jan-947213 3331152.35$1,950.94 $0.00 $353.31 $145.92BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE-SBV1-MTRE1371 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01$151.32 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BTBT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE-SBV2-MTRE1372 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-SCBR2E2848 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 PRECOOLER 01-Jan-9410223 3331543.35$662.67 $660.43$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-SLD-CAF-MTRE1773 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 4A MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-FN E1279 FANINC BLDG FL6 INC 5 ID FAN01-Jan-9410323 3331543.35$49,328.89 $1,580.93 $3,712.42 $5,333.80BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-FN-MTRE1330 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 ID FAN MOTOR 01-Jan-069223 3331533.05$34,013.87 $0.00 $130.17 $21,595.33BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE E1348 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 HEAT EXCHANGER01-Jan-947213 3331152.35$821.75 $45.83$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE-SBV1-MTRE1373 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01$197.75 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE-SBV2-MTRE1374 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-SCBR2E2849 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 PRECOOLER 01-Jan-948223 3331522.75$0.54$0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-SLD-CAF-MTRE1774 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 5A MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$161.72 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE E1349 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 HEAT EXCHANGER01-Jan-947213 3331152.35$3,245.20 $1,048.25 $220.25 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE-SBV1-MTRE1375 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR01-Jan-948433 3341142.01$339.60 $0.00$0.00 $339.60BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE-SBV2-MTRE1376 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$497.28 $0.00 $497.28 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-SCBR2E2850 SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 PRECOOLER 01-Jan-948223 3331522.75$694.02 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-SLD-CAF-MTRE1775 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 6A MOTOR01-Jan-946223 13313 22.05$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-SUB3-INC2-FN-VFD E1333 VFDSUB STATION 3 INC 2 ID FAN VFD 01-Jan-078113 3331522.75 ALL REPLACED EXCEPT NO. 5 UNIT.$28,566.70 $0.00 $28,254.81 $0.00BT BT-SUB3-INC3-FN-VFD E1334 VFDSUB STATION 3 INC 3 ID FAN VFD 01-Jan-078113 3331522.75$50,066.92 ($41.78) $48,140.01 $20.91BT BT-SUB3-INC4-FN-VFD E1335 VFDSUB STATION 3 INC 4 ID FAN VFD 31-Jul-078113 3331522.75$10,547.21 $0.00 $10,112.37 $292.74BT BT-SUB3-INC5-FN-VFD E1336 VFDSUB STATION 3 INC 5 ID FAN VFD 01-Jan-078113 3331522.75$21,455.43 $0.00 $20,405.17 $0.00BT BT-SUB3-INC6-FN-VFD E1337 VFDSUB STATION 3 INC 6 ID FAN VFD 01-Jan-078113 3331522.75$44,633.15 ($102.50) $40,665.55 $2,568.60BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1 E6387 COLECTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 101-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$106,652.13 $19,471.40 $5,371.88 $5,744.45BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1-CCNTRE6388 COLECTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 101-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$46,951.45 $0.00 $1,428.87 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1-DRE33827 DRVREDCE THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 1 DRIVE01-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$9,721.32 $0.00 $124.32 $736.83BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1-DR-MTRE33828 MOTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 1 MOTOR01-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2 E6390 SCUMSKIM THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 201-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$59,705.03 $2,210.93$0.00 $9,897.67BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2-CCNTRE6389 SCUMSKIM THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 201-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$42,335.30$4,293.90$0.00 $2,240.87BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2-DRE33830 DRVREDCE THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 2 DRIVE01-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$7,056.18 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2-DR-MTRE33829 MOTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 2 MOTOR01-Jan-956223 3331142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2-SKM-DRE35823 DRVREDCE SCUM CONCENTRATOR SKIMMING DRIVE01-Jan-956223 3331142.02$5,412.46 $226.40 $1,049.24 $1,225.27BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P1E2035 PUMPPOLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #1 01-Jan-952211 11211 11.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$5,174.27 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P1-MTRE5814 MOTOR POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-952211 11211 11.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P2E2036 PUMPPOLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #2 01-Jan-952211 11211 11.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$31,831.13 $160.41$0.00 $155.91BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P2-MTRE5816 MOTOR POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-952211 11211 11.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P3E2037 PUMPPOLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #3 01-Jan-952211 11211 11.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$53.15 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL-UNLD-P3-MTRE5818 MOTOR POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-952211 1121111.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-B BV0072 TANKSLUDGE RECEIVING BIN01-Jan-013221 22211 31.75 3 DRIVES, 9? SCREWS, WELDING REPAIRSBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW1-GRD1E1996 GRINDER SLUDGE WET WELL 1 GRINDER 1 (MUFFIN MONSTER)01-Jan-954222 23311 21.32 BP-9. NO CUTTER TEETH$50,370.58 $0.00$0.00 $9,101.33BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW1-GRD2E1997 GRINDER SLUDGE WET WELL 1 GRINDER 2 01-Jan-954222 23311 21.32 BP-9. NO CUTTER TEETH$23,352.63 $0.00$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW2-GRD1E7518 GRINDER SLUDGE WET WELL 2 GRINDER 1 01-Jan-954222 23311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$34,843.07 $380.00 $4,855.47 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-WW2-GRD2E2000 GRINDER SLUDGE WET WELL 2 GRINDER 2 01-Jan-954222 23311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$111,128.63 $9,702.56 $24,553.21 $975.74BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P1 E3311 PUMP HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #101-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. USE FOR PUMPS, ASH. CONSTANT SPEED PUMP$34,213.48 $2,817.91 $8,478.85 $3,910.70BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P1-MTRE4526 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$416.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P2 E3312 PUMP HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #201-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CONSTANT SPEED PUMP$17,321.81 $244.65 $12,282.12 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P2-MTRE6394 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$1,599.50 $0.00 $178.40 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P3 E3313 PUMP HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #301-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. VARIABLE SPEED PUMP$49,393.64 $754.32 $10,731.27 $83.64BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P3-MTRE6398 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$162.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P4 E6404 PUMP HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #401-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 CONSTANT SPEED PUMP$15,922.86 $1,897.57 $321.44 $1,576.24BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P4-MTRE6405 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #4 MOTOR01-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$4,000.28 $0.00 $128.95 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P5 E3314 PUMPHIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #501-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$64,802.54 ($685.11) $11,682.71 $1,803.26BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P5-MTRE6407 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 5 MOTOR01-Jan-954223 32311 21.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$299.15 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA-MXLE5876 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS A INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPC-MXLE5875 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS C INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPD-MXLE5873 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS D INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$62.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPE-MXLE5874 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS E INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF-MXLE5872 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS F INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-1-DRE7520 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$9,396.07 $0.00 $374.43 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1-2-DRE1409 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35$2,425.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPG-MXLE6169 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS G INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$305.28 $0.00 $0.00 $305.28BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI-MXLE5878 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS I INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05$856.20 $0.00 $416.86 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ-MXLE5880 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS J INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPK-MXLE5877 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS K INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL-MXLE5879 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS L INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05$223.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3-DRE1410 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$1,669.71 $0.00 $247.07 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5-DRE1412 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$6,975.53 $0.00 $0.00 $167.28BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPM-MXLE5885 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS M INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE.$399.70 $399.70 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPO-MXLE5884 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS O INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$958.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP-MXLE5882 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS P INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPQ-MXLE5883 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS Q INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$878.34 $119.06 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPR-MXLE5881 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS R INLINE MIXER 01-Jan-953213 22311 11.05 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE$350.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-4-DRE1411 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE (CK-CU1-4)01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$3,301.72 $0.00 $150.16 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1-6-DRE1413 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 DRIVE (CK-CU1-6)01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$5,698.41 $0.00 $1,133.64 $250.92BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1-DRE1387 DRVREDCE FEED CONVEYOR #1 DRIVE 01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$2,896.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1-MTRE7669 MOTOR FEED CONVEYOR #1 CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$118.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2-DRE1388 DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35$2,401.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2-MTRE6810 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3-DRE7521 DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$2,218.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3-MTRE6806 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4-DRE1389 DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35$3,446.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4-MTRE6801 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5-DRE1390 DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$2,735.47 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5-MTRE6797 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6-DRE1391 DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$2,992.52 $0.00 $130.17 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6-MTRE6705 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-954213 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$86.99 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P1 E4741 PUMPDWR BLDG MEZ SLUDGE LANDING SLUDGE PUMP 101-Jan-954222 2221142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9DIFFICULT TO WORK ON PUMPS DUE TO SPACE CONSTRAINTS$43,829.21 $15,969.65 $3,307.52 $8,173.68BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P1-MTRE4742 MOTOR DWR BLDG SLUDGE LANDING SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-954222 2221142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P2 E4744 PUMPDWR BLDG MEZ SLUDGE LANDING SLUDGE PUMP 201-Jan-954222 2221142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$45,356.09 $171.91 $6,682.35 $0.00BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P2-MTRE4745 MOTOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-954222 2221142.02 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-9$1,090.63 $44.05 $968.66 $0.00BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-CU-G E4261 CONVEYOR GRIT REMOVAL EAST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR G01-Jan-764223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. SERVES GRIT TANKS 5 AND 6.$22,803.82 $1,041.83 $1,857.35 $3,258.99BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-CU-H E4265 CONVEYOR GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR H01-Jan-764223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. SERVES GRIT TANK 4$33,514.06 $1,930.95 $3,058.17 $1,963.65BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM1-CU-G-DR-MTRE4262 MOTOR GRIT REMOVAL EAST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR G MOTOR01-Jan-764223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41.$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM2-CU-H-DRE4266 DRVREDCE GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR H DRIVE REDU01-Jan-764223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41.$4,490.21 $197.01 $299.22 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoBT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM2-CU-H-DR-MTRE5341 MOTOR GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR H MOTOR01-Jan-764223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41.$355.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-GRT-T1-CU E4375 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT 01-Jan-064223 33311 21.33 TORQUE SWITCH INSTALLED$71,120.46 $12,734.37 $2,709.69 $6,593.70BT BT-GRT-T2-CU E4419 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT 01-Jan-074223 33311 21.33 BOLT IS STUCK AND CANNOT GET IT OUT$171,314.71 $2,901.26 $17,959.81 $27,183.88BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-CUE7269 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS BIN UNLOADING SCREWS01-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$5,915.39 $0.00 $351.71 $429.85BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-CU1E7273 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS CHUTE CONVEYOR SCREWS01-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$15,988.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-CU1-DRE7274 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 SCUS CHUTE CONVEYOR SCREW DRIVE01-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-DRE7270 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVES01-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$16,042.89 $0.00 $169.80 $10,455.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-DR-MTR1E7271 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVE MOTOR101-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$45.83 $45.83 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-DR-MTR2E38865 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVE MOTOR201-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM-DR-MTR3E38866 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVE MOTOR301-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SLD-T E7264 TANKINC BLDG FL3 SCUS LIVE BOTTOM BIN BUNKER01-Jan-943221 22211 31.75$8,908.91 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SRW-P3-VFDE6402 VFDHIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 3 VFD30-Jan-034123 32311 21.32$19,799.00 $0.00 $521.20 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SRW-P5-VFDE6739 VFDHIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 5 VFD14-Jun-024123 32311 21.32$5,598.45 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-ASH-FDE1250 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER01-Jan-944333 33311 21.35$941.91 $0.00 $189.32 $440.48BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-ASH-FDE1251 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER01-Jan-944333 33311 21.35$1,188.09 $634.81 $189.32 $179.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-ASH-FDE1252 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER01-Jan-944333 33311 21.35$732.20 $0.00 $189.32 $179.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-ASH-FDE1253 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER01-Jan-944333 33311 21.35$870.19 $0.00 $189.32 $179.73BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-ASH-FDE1249 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER01-Jan-944333 33311 21.35$814.22$0.00 $189.32 $179.73BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P1A E6565 PUMPPRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #1A 01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35 OPERATES TANK 1NO BACK UP AVAILABLE$4,238.95 $601.42 $527.28 $993.25BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P1A-MTRE4590 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMING PUMP #1A MOTOR01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35$35.52 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P3 E6564 PUMPPRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #301-Jan-094223 33311 21.35 OPERATES 2 AND 3$25,468.68 $1,839.61 $5,117.69 $1,413.76BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P3-MTR E6573 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35$840.49 $0.00$0.00 $148.58BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P5 E6566 PUMPPRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #501-Jan-094223 33311 21.35 OPERATES 4 AND 5$27,052.57 $1,459.35 $6,942.31 $4,100.14BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P5-MTR E6574 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #5 MOTOR01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35$340.92 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P7 E6567 PUMPPRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #701-Jan-094223 33311 21.35 OPERATES 6 AND 7$32,199.61 $11,263.42 $13,615.68 $5,845.75BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P7-MTR E6575 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #7 MOTOR01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35$588.82 $0.00 $588.82 $0.00BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P8A E6568 PUMPPRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #8A 01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35 OPERATES TANK 8$17,067.96 $4,977.30 $6,105.13 $2,434.85BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P8A-MTRE7512 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #8A MOTOR01-Jan-094223 33311 21.35$2,033.29 $45.83 $349.15 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1 E4530 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #101-Jan-094223 33311 21.33SEAL WATER PIPING BACK FLOW PREVENTOR IS RUSTED AND NEEDS REPAIR$17,236.98 $45.83 $2,865.10 $6,419.40BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1-MTR E4529 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$353.54 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1-VFD E7538 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1 VFD 28-Aug-014223 33311 21.33$15,907.63 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2 E7499 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #201-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$20,802.13 $0.00 $3,779.87 $1,548.57BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2-MTR E4564 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$108.78 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2-VFD E6100 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2 VFD 28-Jun-014223 33311 21.33$10,768.72 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3 E4533 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #301-Jan-094223 33311 21.33 NEW CONSTRUCTION$9,068.18 $2,339.92 $3,399.84 $627.95BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3-MTR E6555 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #3 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$560.84 $137.49 $151.40 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3-VFD E6101 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #3 VFD 01-Feb-014223 33311 21.33$9,333.72 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4 E4567 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #401-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$20,608.19 $1,901.39 $2,829.76 $1,856.93BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4-MTR E4565 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #4 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$1,958.99 $0.00 $1,887.95 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4-VFD E6102 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #4 VFD 18-Jan-014223 33311 21.33$9,512.79 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5 E4534 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #501-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$14,325.65 $777.36 $4,379.31 $199.70BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5-MTR E4531 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #5 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$328.31 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5-VFD E6103 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #5 VFD 20-Mar-024223 33311 21.33$14,273.31 $0.00$0.00 $501.67BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P6 E4568 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #601-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$11,059.42 $592.20 $929.93 $1,215.11BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P6-MTR E6556 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$380.74 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P6-VFD E6104 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #6 VFD 02-Apr-024223 33311 21.33$10,240.01 $0.00$0.00 $127.35BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7 E4535 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #701-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$20,207.86 $4,646.01 $3,327.88 $199.70BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7-MTR E4532 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #7 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$8,268.81 $7,969.65$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7-VFD E6106 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #7 VFD 02-Apr-024223 33311 21.33$10,510.27 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P8 E4569 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #801-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$16,507.61 $2,282.09 $2,671.43 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P8-MTR E4566 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #8 MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-094223 33311 21.33$1,377.09 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P8-VFD E6122 VFDPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #8 VFD 02-Apr-024223 33311 21.33$6,740.49$0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-SRM-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P E33386 PUMPWAREHOUSE BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SPARE PUMP01-Jan-094113 33311 21.35$50.00 $0.00$0.00 $50.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1 E1993 PUMPTHK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 101-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$33,605.08 $1,018.69 $7,065.79 $2,587.91BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1-DRE4507 DRVREDCE THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 DRIVE 01-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$1,067.50 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1-MTRE4506 MOTOR THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$1,625.28 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1-VFDE6524 VFDTHK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 VFD 01-Jan-954223 33311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$226.34 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2 E1994 PUMPTHK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 201-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$18,996.32 $0.00 $1,859.78 $6,597.20BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2-DRE4515 DRVREDCE THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 DRIVE 01-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$935.27 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2-MTRE4514 MOTOR THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 MOTOR 01-Jan-954223 32311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2-VFDE6526 VFDTHK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 VFD 01-Jan-954223 32311 21.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP-15$169.80 $0.00$0.00 $169.80CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT-RM-GRD1E40016 GRINDER CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI01-Jan-09151515451443.02New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow.$394.02 $394.02CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT-RM-GRD2E40017 GRINDER CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI01-Jan-09151515451443.02 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow.$175.12 $175.12CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-PLC E17231 PLCRAS BLDG FL2 PLC01-Jan-08131433141453.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$10,196.52 $1,808.13 $1,705.34 $1,968.18CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1 E16088 PUMPWASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #1 ,4 IN01-Jan-885232 31311 31.72$12,826.61 $0.00 $350.24 $165.7610/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoCT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1-MTRE16090 MOTOR WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-885232 31311 31.72$0.00 $0.00CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2 E16094 PUMP WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #2 , 6 IN01-Jan-885232 31311 31.72 THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT CONDITION OF VLAVES & METERS$19,828.04 $0.00 $875.60 $165.76CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2-MTRE16096 MOTOR WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-885232 31311 31.72$93.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-CR-P2B-E E16280 ELECTRIC DIGESTED SLUDGE PUMP #2B SOFT START01-Jan-096113 3131142.05$16,839.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FM E40380 INSTRMNT FLOW METER, BISSELL POINT FORCEMAIN01-Jan-887113 3131422.35 CRITICAL TO OPERATION OF FORCE MAIN. $0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P1A E16290 PUMP DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #1 01-Jan-895223 31311 31.75 CONCRETE BASE PEDESTAL, STEEL PLATE DETERIORATING$18,467.45 $1,706.41 $150.34 $1,009.52CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P1B E16294 PUMP DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #1 01-Jan-887223 31313 32.33 REPLACED CHECK VALVE AND BOLT ISOLATION VALVES. CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE CORRODED. BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEAR.DESIRED TO HAVE COMPLETE REDUNDANCY DUE TO CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS.$17,480.00 $8,262.26 $248.64 $328.52CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2A E16292 PUMP DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #2 01-Jan-895223 31311 31.75 CONCRETE BASE PEDESTAL, STEEL BASE PLATE ARE DETERIORATING$9,197.97 $592.11 $801.49 $223.03CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2A-MTRE16299 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #2 MOTOR,01-Jan-895223 31311 31.75$288.54 $0.00 $252.42 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2B E15713 PUMP DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #2 01-Jan-887223 3131332.33 CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE CORRODED. BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEAR.DESIRED TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY DUE TO CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS$21,585.00 $9,237.22 $594.45 $7,643.90CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2B-MTRE15716 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE PUMP #2B MOTOR 01-Jan-887223 31313 32.33DESIRE TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY DUE TO CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS$331.52 $0.00 $331.52CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3A E16293 PUMPDIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #301-Jan-895223 31311 31.73 MOVED FROM THICKENING TO SLUDGE PUMPING$5,168.08 $3,224.32CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3A-MTRE15712 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW MOTOR ON EXISTING PUMP$2,316.94 $525.14$0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3B E16295 PUMPDIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #301-Jan-887223 31313 32.33 CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE DETERIORATING. BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEARDESIRED TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY$22,131.99 $6,948.33 $627.66 $379.43CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3B-MTRE16840 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #3 MOTOR01-Jan-887223 31313 32.33$663.84 $0.00$0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-PSI-TRNE40381 INSTRMNT PRESSURE TRANSMITTER, BISSELL POINT FORCEMAIN01-Jan-887113 3131422.35CRITICAL TO OPERATION OF FORCE MAIN.$0.00 $0.00CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-THK-P2 E15615 PUMPTHICKENED SLUDGE PUMP #2 (3A) [OLD LOCATION]01-Jan-895223 31311 31.73 MOVED FORM THICKENING TO SLUDGE PUMPING$3,158.20 $0.00 $168.28 $1,255.19CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-THK-P2-MTRE15619 MOTOR THICKENED SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR (3A) [OLD LOCATION]01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. NEW MOTOR ON EXISTING PUMP$0.00 $0.00CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR-BSR1E16363 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE BARSCREEN BOSKER 101-Jan-0811131 3441342.75New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the gripper over dumpster position.$2,694.77 $607.53 $2,087.24CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR-BSR2E16365 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE BARSCREEN BOSKER 201-Jan-0811131 3441342.75 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the gripper over dumpster position.$1,379.07 $394.02 $985.05CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSF1E40147 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FINE BARSCREEN #101-Jan-08111341341432.72 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSR1E16386 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 101-Jan-088113 3131432.72 New Construction$2,626.80 $2,626.80CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSR2E16388 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 201-Jan-088113 3131432.72$3,086.49 $3,086.49CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSR3E16389 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 301-Jan-088113 3131432.72$394.02 $394.02CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-BSR4E16391 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 401-Jan-088113 3131432.72$569.14 $569.14CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR-CUE40136 CONVEYOR SLUICING TROUGH01-Jan-0811144 4441432.75Problem with solids buildup in trough during high flows, needs manual washing to remove buildup.No backup available.$555.12 $555.12CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1E32908 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 301-Jan-08111341341432.72 New Construction.CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1E32913 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 401-Jan-08111341341432.72 New Construction.CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1E32903 BARSCRN FINE SCREEN # 201-Jan-08111341341432.72 New ConstructionCT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1E38785 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP101-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$175.12 $175.12CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1-MTRE38793 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP1 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction (2008)$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2E38786 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP201-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$3,188.34 $3,188.34CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2-MTRE38794 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP2 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P3E38787 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP301-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CTCT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P3-MTRE38795 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP3 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction.$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P4E38788 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP401-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction.$892.00 $892.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P4-MTRE38796 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP4 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P1E38806 PUMP PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP101-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$131.34 $131.34CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P1-MTRE38810 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP1 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$381.84 $381.84CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2E38807 PUMP PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP201-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$131.34 $131.34CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2-MTRE38811 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP2 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3E38808 PUMP PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP301-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$220.95 $220.95CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3-MTRE38812 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP3 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4E38809 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP401-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$175.12 $175.12CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4-MTRE38813 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP4 MOTOR01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P5E38889 PUMPPRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP501-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 New Construction$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-CU1E16760 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP1 CONVEYOR 101-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 Built 2008.Needs lot of operational oversight (Every 2 hours)Odor released, Capacity problems makes operate only one. $2,955.15 $2,955.15CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-CU1-MTRE16777 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP1 CONVEYOR 1 01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP1-WAE38836 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 101-Jan-08111441141342.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING, TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/ FORCE MAIN.DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-CUE16778 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CONVEYOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE$2,879.46$2,879.4610/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoCT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-CU-MTRE16780 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CU MOTOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RECORDED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP2-WAE38837 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 201-Jan-08111441141342.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN.DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACMENT LINER. $0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-CUE16779 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CONVEYOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE$1,326.72 $1,326.72CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-CU-MTRE16781 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CU MOTOR01-Jan-089111 34413 32.33 BUILT 2008, NEEDS LOTS OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS)ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2-GRT-SEP3-WAE38838 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 301-Jan-08111441141342.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAINDIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER $372.13 $372.13CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T E39027 TANK PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENER TANK (NEW)01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$831.82 $831.82 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-C E39029 CIRCCOLL PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-C-DR E39030 GRDRVRDC PRI SLD THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-C-DR-MTR E39031 MOTOR PRI SLD THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-ODR E16062 ODORCNTL PRI/WAS SLD THICKENER TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT01-Jan-087113 31313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$153.23 $153.23CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-ODR-FN E16068 FANPRI/WAS SLD THK TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT FAN01-Jan-087113 31313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-ODR-FN-MTRE16069 MOTOR PRI/WAS SLD THK TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT FAN MOTOR01-Jan-087113 31313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P1 E16268 PUMPRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #101-Jan-885213 31311 31.72 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL$19,599.37 $218.90 $248.64 $202.75CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P1-MTR E16272 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP # 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 31311 31.72$3,760.01 $0.00$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P2 E16269 PUMPRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #201-Jan-885213 31311 31.72 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL$25,432.46 $725.43 $331.52 $279.58CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P2-MTR E16273 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP # 2 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 31311 31.72$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P3 E16270 PUMPRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #301-Jan-885213 31311 31.72 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL$8,192.77 $218.90 $331.52 $243.30CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P3-MTR E16300 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP # 3 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 31311 31.72$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P4 E16271 PUMPRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #401-Jan-885213 3131131.72 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL$6,020.25 $525.36 $331.52 $239.64CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P4-MTR E16301 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #4 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 31311 31.72$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-P1-VFD E16306 VFDRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #1 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-007113 3131152.35$3,208.47 $0.00$0.00 $0.00CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-P2-VFD E16307 VFDRETURN SLUDGE PUMP #2 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-007113 3131152.35$2,487.37 $0.00$0.00 $0.00CT CT-SCR-BLDG-HRM-AC1-CP E15633 ELECCNTL BAR SCREEN DIFFERENTIAL AIR COMPRESSOR CNTRL PNL01-Jan-086113 11331 22.03 BUILT 1 YR BACK, BUBBLER CABINET FOR EACH SCREEN, < 1 YR OLD, THREE SCREENS OUTLINE - TWO OPERATIONAL, ONE STAND BYNO SPARE PARTS, CAN GET PARTS AND FIX IN HOUSE $64,231.24 $0.00$0.00 $0.00CT CT-SLD-FME33088 PIPING SLUDGE DISPOSAL FORCED MAIN 01-Jan-0910333 3131453.35 Assessed at Manhole on Redman/Ebert at bridge over creek. This is the first manhole downstream of force main end structure.$21,798.45 $0.00 $1,006.94 $4,072.38CT CT-THK-TE16053 TANKWASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE THICKENER TANK01-Jan-648213 3131342.75 ORIGINAL PLANT$4,747.59 $0.00$0.00 $2,895.65CT CT-THK-T-CE16054 COLECTOR THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$249.68 $0.00CT CT-THK-T-C-DRE16057 DRVREDCE THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$2,058.19 $525.36$0.00 $0.00CT CT-THK-T-C-MTRE16056 MOTOR THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR MOTOR01-Jan-087113 32313 32.35 NEW CONSTRUCTION$249.68 $0.00FT FT-ADM-BLDGE14165 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS01-Jan-055113 2231131.75 VERY LIMITED RUN TIME$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-ADM-BLDGE14166 PUMPADM BLDG WASH WATER PUMP 01-Jan-055113 22311 31.75 VERY LIMITED RUN TIME.$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-GRT-BLDG-CU1-DR E14308 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE.01-Jan-866333 3331142.05 REBUILDING THE DRAGOUT CONVEYOR WITH PLASTIC CHAINS$65.94 $0.00$0.00 $0.00FT FT-GRT-BLDG-CU1-MTR E14307 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR.01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-GRT-T1CE14309 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONGRIT BASIN BYPASSED IF SYSTEM IS DOWN$284.70 $0.00$0.00 $0.00FT FT-GRT-T1C-DRE14311 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,644.97 $0.00$0.00 $2,644.97FT FT-GRT-T1C-MTRE14310 MOTOR GRIT TANK #1 COLLECTOR MOTOR. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,909.79 $0.00$0.00 $1,943.99FT FT-THK-BLDG-SLD-FDP1 E1129 PUMPTHICKNER BLDG SLUDGE FEED PUMP #101-Jan-035333 33311 31.72$4,146.58 $1,340.07 $132.48 $530.69FT FT-THK-BLDG-SLD-FDP2 E1133 PUMPTHICKNER BLDG SLUDGE FEED PUMP # 201-Jan-035333 33311 31.72$1,363.40 $159.88 $94.63 $145.92FT FT-THK-T1E14985 TANKGRAVITY THICKENER TANK LK. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$11,763.07 $985.00 $1,987.25 $0.00FT FT-THK-T1C-DRE14987 DRVREDCE GRAVITY THICKENER TANK DRIVE. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DUE FOR REBUILD OF DRIVE. NOT URGENT$14,504.69 $1,913.76 $1,823.28 $1,923.04FT FT-THK-T1C-MTRE14986 MOTOR GRAVITY THICKENER TANK MOTOR. 01-Jan-865333 33311 31.75ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-ADM-BLDGE14173 CONVEYOR ADM BLDG MCC01-Jan-054113 32311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-FIN-VAULT1-RAS-P1 E34823 PUMPFINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 RETURN PUMP 1 (FT-01-Jan-054113 32311 21.32$1,842.65 $1,632.75 $76.84 $71.35FT FT-FIN-VAULT1-RAS-P2 E34824 PUMPFINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 RETURN PUMP 2 (FT-01-Jan-054113 32311 21.32$435.79 $171.62 $131.11 $71.35FT FT-FIN-VAULT1-WAS-P1 E34831 PUMPFINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 WASTE PUMP 1 (FT-F01-Jan-054123 32311 21.32 PROBLEM WITH CLOGGED BY RAGS AND STRINGY MATERIALS$953.29 $82.01 $232.06 $577.51FT FT-FIN-VAULT2-WAS-P2 E34832 PUMPFINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 2 WASTE PUMP 2 (FT-F01-Jan-054123 32311 21.32 PROBLEMS WITH CLOGGED BY RAGS AND STRINGY MATERIALS$3,756.24 $640.99 $2,657.09 $396.45FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL1-BYP-BS E15279 BARSCRN INFLUENT BLDG FL1 WET WELL BYPASS BAR SCREEN01-Jan-864113 31311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MANUALLY CLEANED. ONLY IN SERVICE DURING HIGH FLOWS$0.00 $0.00$0.00FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL1-PFS E34747 PFSINFLUENT BLDG FL1 WET WELL FINE SCREEN01-Jan-044213 32311 21.35$17,296.04 $4,172.00 $3,323.54 $6,148.28FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-BRSH-DRE34745 DRVREDCE INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN BRUSH UNIT DRIVE01-Jan-044213 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-BRSH-MTRE34744 MOTOR INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN BRUSH UNIT MOTOR01-Jan-044213 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-GRD E34741 GRINDER INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN GRINDER WASHER MONST01-Jan-044113 32311 21.35$9,179.86 $0.00 $5,416.01 $108.48FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-GRD-DRE34742 DRVREDCE INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN GRINDER DRIVE01-Jan-044113 32311 21.35$4,369.10 $1,526.98 $647.21 $480.46FT FT-PRI-BLDG-SLD-P1 E14619 PUMPPRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1.01-Jan-994131 23311 21.32 PLAN TO DO BEARING REPLACEMENT IN THE NEXT2 MONTHS.$28,948.38 $0.00 $984.41 $849.43FT FT-PRI-BLDG-SLD-P2 E14620 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2. 01-Jan-994113 32311 21.32 CURRENTLY OUT OF SERVICE. GETTING BEARINGS REPLACED$8,811.37 $1,367.17 $75.70 $5,170.56GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1 E14461 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 1 01-Jan-99124533251152.32 CURRENTLY NOT USED. BUT INTENT TO REBUILD AS A BACKUP TO NEW BELT PRESS.$316,941.75 $0.00 $33,073.34 $25,764.63GT GT-GRT-T1-C E12862 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER$14,738.86 $294.99 $838.00 $0.00GT GT-GRT-T1-C-DR E12864 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$595.64 $418.75 $0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoGT GT-GRT-T1-C-MTRE12863 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$152.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-GRT-T1-CUE12843 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.$21,446.41 $0.00 $1,025.20 $965.50GT GT-GRT-T2-CE12872 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER.$296.77 $294.99$0.00GT GT-GRT-T2-C-DRE12878 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$30.93 $30.93$0.00GT GT-GRT-T2-C-MTRE12873 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-GRT-T2-CUE12849 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.$46,843.08 $0.00 $623.72 $0.00GT GT-GRT-T3-CE12876 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOE WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATER.$3,776.38 $3,522.38$0.00 $0.00GT GT-GRT-T3-C-DRE12879 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$3,045.93 $30.93$0.00 $0.00GT GT-GRT-T3-C-MTRE12874 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$233.82 $0.00$0.00 $41.82GT GT-GRT-T3-CUE12853 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.$44,531.82$0.00 $2,587.36 $2,038.15GT GT-GRT-T4-CE12877 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR 01-Jan-88722443411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER$826.85 $0.00$0.00 $689.35GT GT-GRT-T4-C-DRE12880 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$30.93 $30.93$0.00GT GT-GRT-T4-C-MTRE12875 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR01-Jan-885223 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-GRT-T4-CUE12857 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01-Jan-887333 34411 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO.$24,461.65 $0.00 $316.40 $11,579.12GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T1-CU-DRE12848 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$906.98 $87.56$0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T1-CU-MTRE12845 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T2-CU-DRE12852 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,459.53 $87.56 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T2-CU-MTRE12851 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T3-CU-DRE12856 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,287.34$43.78$0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T3-CU-MTRE12855 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T4-CU-DRE12930 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$22,507.52 $89.72 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT-T4-CU-MTRE12859 MOTOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-885333 33311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF-1 E39205 PFS INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 1 (NEW)01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION$4,129.51 $3,562.84 $566.67GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF2 E39208 PFS INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 2 ( NEW01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION$3,247.98 $2,848.30 $399.68GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF3 E39214 PFS INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 3 (NEW01-Jan-085113 31311 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION$3,090.99 $2,649.24 $441.75GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1 E13070 PUMP N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 01-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$43,875.99 $3,552.65 $15,517.84 $3,941.89GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1-DR E14590 DRVREDCE NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$49.64 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1-MTR E13071 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$671.27 $0.00 $0.00 $324.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2 E13525 PUMP N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 01-Jan-886311 3331142.01REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$12,843.22 $0.00 $1,110.44 $1,778.36GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-DR E14591 DRVREDCE NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-LUB-MTR E13528 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 LUBE MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-MTR E13526 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$832.80 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3E13531 PUMPN RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #301-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING HE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$1,084.63 $251.54 $433.86 $0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-DR E14592 DRVREDCE NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-LUB-MTR E14645 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-MTR E13530 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4E13534 PUMPN RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #401-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACIGN THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$1,017.54 $0.00 $797.21 $0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-DR E14594 DRVREDCE NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-LUB-MTR E13537 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-MTR E14628 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P1E13398 PUMPWAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #101-Jan-885333 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET$42.45 $0.00$0.00 $42.45GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P2E13399 PUMPWAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #201-Jan-885333 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET$7,371.99 $5,770.01 $440.92 $0.00GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P3E13400 PUMPWAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #301-Jan-885333 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET$326.16 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P1E37419 PUMPPRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.$171.18 $0.00 $171.18GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P2E37420 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.$87.56 $0.00 $87.56GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P3E37421 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-09713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoGT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P4E37422 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.$0.00 $0.00GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P5E37423 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN, SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER$306.46 $306.46GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD-P6E37424 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01-Jan-08713342411 31.73 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TOPUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER.$0.00 $0.00GT GT-PRI-SCC-CCNTR-SKM E37501 SCUMSKIM PRI AREA SCUM CONCENTRATOR SKIMMER01-Jan-085133 33311 31.75 FREEZING PROBLEMS DUE TO FEEDER CONTROLS. SCUM HAULED TO BISSELL PLANT.$0.00 $0.00GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P1 E37334 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 1 01-Jan-085113 32311 31.72 NEW CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P2 E37335 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 2 01-Jan-085113 32311 31.72 NEW CONSTRUCTION$44.05 $44.05GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P3 E37336 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 3 01-Jan-085113 32311 31.72 NEW CONSTRUCTION$244.50 $244.50GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P4 E37337 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 4 01-Jan-085113 32311 31.72 NEW CONSTRUCTION$194.63 $194.63GT GT-RAS-SCC-WW-P1 E37350 PUMP RAS SCUM PIT PUMP 1 01-Jan-085113 31311 31.75 NEW CONSTRUCTION IF PUMP OUT OF SERVICE, THEY CAN RETURN THE SCUM TO THE PROCESS$99.93 $99.93GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-POL-FD-P1E32423 PUMP POLYMER FEED PUMP # 1 01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72$8,282.43 $2,242.09 $123.32 $58.79GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-POL-FD-P2E32424 PUMP POLYMER FEED PUMP # 2 01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72$3,847.00 $1,918.36 $848.85 $100.61GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P1MTRE13251 MOTOR ( FUTURE ) SLUDGE FEED PUMP #1 MOTOR01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72 REBUILT IN 2009$0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P2 E13255 PUMP SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72 REBUILT IN 2009$21,223.78 $11,019.02 $321.37 $749.11GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P2DRE14680 DRVREDCE SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 DRIVE 01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72REBUILT IN 2009$5,418.32 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P2MTRE13253 MOTOR SLUDGE PROCESSING FEED PUMP #2 MOTOR01-Jan-995213 32311 31.72 REBUILT IN 2009$65.94 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD1 E32891 GRINDER SLUDGE GRINDER #101-Jan-885323 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. BEING REPLACED WITH VOGELSANG GRINDERS AS A TRIAL. EXISTING GRINDERS NEED REBUILT EVERY 2 YEARS$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD1-MTRE32892 MOTOR SLUDGE GRINDER #1 MOTOR 01-Jan-885323 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD2 E13243 GRINDER SLUDGE GRINDER #2 01-Jan-885323 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. BEING REPLACED WITH VOGELSANG GRINDERS AS A TRIAL. EXISTING GRINDERS NEED REBUILT EVERY 2 YEARS$8,176.77 $207.86 $3,358.11 $1,453.15GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD2-MTRE13245 MOTOR SLUDGE GRINDER #2 MOTOR 01-Jan-885323 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,953.36 $0.00 $190.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CP E32435 ELECCNTL BELT PRESS CONTROL PANEL 01-Jan-996333 3331142.03 NEED SOME REHAB DUE TO SULFIDE COROSSION. $9,827.64 $0.00 $412.47 $5,575.54GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA-MXL-2E39227 MIXER SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR 2 POLYBLEND UNIT (N01-Jan-995233 33311 31.72 BLEND UNIT OCCASIONALLY PLUGS. GEAR PUMP NEEDS OCCASIONAL REPLACEMENT.$45.83 $45.83GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA-MXL-2-CHMBR-MTRE39230 MOTOR SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR 2 POLYBLEND UNIT MI01-Jan-995233 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA-MXL-2-GPE39231 PUMP SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR 2 POLYBLEND UNIT GE01-Jan-995233 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5 E13554 PUMP S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 01-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$49,623.49 $554.68 $1,709.92 $43,638.45GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5-DR E14646 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 GEAR DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$11,194.71 $0.00 $0.00 $458.52GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5-LUB-MTR E13558 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$244.76 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5-MTR E13555 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$673.54 $0.00 $249.00 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6 E13549 PUMP S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 01-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$49,080.05 $0.00 $232.37 $44,808.23GTGT-SRAS-STU-P6-DR E14656 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 GEAR DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$612.09 $0.00 $360.16 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6-LUB-MTR E13552 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6-MTR E13550 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$519.39 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7E13543 PUMPS RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #701-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$1,812.18 $0.00 $142.78 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-DR E14647 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 GEAR DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-LUB E13548 PUMPS RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 LUBE PUMP BODY01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$207.78 $0.00$0.00 $207.78GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-LUB-MTR E13547 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-MTR E13544 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$957.62 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8E13538 PUMPS RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #801-Jan-886311 3331142.01 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS$71.39 $0.00 $71.39GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8-DR E14657 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 GEAR DRIVE01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8-LUB-MTR E13542 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 LUBE PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-885213 3331131.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8-MTR E13539 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SWAS-VLT-P4E13411 PUMPWAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #401-Jan-885333 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET$312.57 $0.00$0.00GT GT-SWAS-VLT-P5E13412 PUMPWAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #501-Jan-885333 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET$8,403.08 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-THK-T1E13222 TANKGRAVITY THICKENER TANK #101-Jan-885213 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. COVERS INSTALLED IN 2008. ODOR CONTROL INSTALLED IN 2008.$38,486.34 $0.00 $1,991.77 $2,574.84GT GT-THK-T1-C-DRE13224 DRVREDCE GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #1 DRIVE 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$72.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-THK-T1-C-DR-MTR E13223 MOTOR GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #1 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$186.66 $0.00$0.00 $0.00GT GT-THK-T2E13230 TANKGRAVITY THICKENER TANK #201-Jan-885213 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. COVERS INSTALLED IN 2008. ODOR CONTROL INSTALLED IN 2008.$80,488.19 $0.00 $1,847.94 $1,147.61GT GT-THK-T2-C-DRE13232 DRVREDCE GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #2 DRIVE 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,643.61 $0.00 $120.00 $0.00GT GT-THK-T2-C-DR-MTR E13231 MOTOR GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #2 MOTOR 01-Jan-885213 33311 31.72$540.98 $0.00$0.00 $251.98GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-BSC1 E12768 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 (4 FT) 01-Jan-054113 31311 21.35 4 FT SCREENTWO SCREENS COVERED BY ONE RAKE$51,713.44 $2,738.06 $1,292.95 $4,000.62GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-BSC2 E12909 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #2 (6 FT) 01-Jan-054113 31311 21.35 6 FT SCREEN (6 FT WIDE)TWO SCREENS CLEARED BY ONE RAKE$22,489.72 $0.00$0.00 $928.86GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1-CE12916 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE 01-Jan-054113 3131121.35No back up available. One rake covers bothe the coarse screens.$13,989.51 $2,238.32$0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1-DRE12908 DRVREDCE COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE DRIVE 01-Jan-054113 31311 21.35NO BACK UP AVAILABLE. ONE RAKE COVERS BOTH THE COARSE SCREENS$8,355.17 $0.00$0.00 $427.5610/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoGT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1-MTRE12917 MOTOR COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE MOTOR01-Jan-054113 31311 21.35 NO BACK UP AVAILABLE. ONE RAKE COVERS BOTHE THE COARSE SCREENS.$0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-GRD E39192 GRINDER INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 3 GRINDER WASHER COMP25-Feb-084113 31311 21.35 INITIAL START UO PROBLEMS. NOW WORKING FINE. HAS LOT OF WATER LEAKS IN THE CHUTENO REDUNDANCY $3,982.34 $3,859.78 $122.56GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CU1 E15430 CONVEYOR BELT FILTER PRESS CONVEYOR #1 (BFPSC)01-Jan-994333 31311 21.35 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED.$12,547.88 $0.00 $0.00 $3,116.49GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CU2 E15431 CONVEYOR BELT FILTER PRESS VERTICAL SCREW CONVEYOR (BFPVC)01-Jan-994333 31311 21.35 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED.$9,217.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CU3 E15432 CONVEYOR BELT FILTER PRESS HORZ UPPER FILL TRANSFER CONVEYO01-Jan-994331 33311 21.35 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED.$3,765.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-P E15377 PUMP BELT PRESS 1 WASHWATER PUMP 01-Jan-994323 32311 21.32 WILL BE BROUGHT BACK IN SERVICE ONCE BFP # 1 BECOMES FUNCTIONAL. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE.$19,367.01 $0.00 $122.01 $123.75GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2 E37750 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 2 (NEW UNIT) 16-May-074123 32311 21.32 FULL REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE WHEN OLD UNIT IS FIXED AND READY TO RUN. FULL SET OF SPARE PARTS AVAIABLE IN EVENT OF FAILURE.$15,303.38 $1,333.74 $13,969.64GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CP E37751 ELECCNTL SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 CONTROL PANEL07-May-074113 32311 21.35$1,179.32 $448.13 $731.19GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU1 E37752 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORZONTAL CONVEYOR 101-Jan-074113 31311 21.35 SPARE PARTS ON HAND $674.16 $500.60 $173.56GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU2 E37755 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 201-Jan-074113 31311 21.35SPARE PARTS ON HAND$548.19 $548.19GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU3 E37758 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 VERTICAL CONVEYOR 301-Jan-074113 31311 21.35SPARE PARTS ON HAND$374.97 $374.97GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU4 E39141 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 401-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$645.27 $0.00 $645.27GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU4-DRE39142 DRVREDCE SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE01-Jan-993213 31310 21.02$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU4-MTRE39143 MOTOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 4 MOTOR01-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-P E37764 PUMPSOLID BLDG FL2 BELT PRESS 2 WASH WATER PUMP12-Sep-074113 31311 21.32$1,160.79 $87.56 $1,073.23GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP-CU1E15433 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS LOAD TRANSFER CONVEYOR #101-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$6,386.77 $0.00 $1,712.63 $360.33GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP-CU2E15434 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS LOAD TRANSFER CONVEYOR #201-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$5,434.02 $0.00$0.00 $205.03GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP-SC-CU1E15435 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS TRUCK FILL CONVEYOR #101-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$4,512.18 $0.00$0.00 $701.36GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP-SC-CU2E15436 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS TRUCK FILL CONVEYOR #201-Jan-994213 31311 21.32$1,933.24$0.00$0.00 $176.20JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC-RK1E36024 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 101-Jan-0781134241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP.$15,887.51 $916.29 $3,734.16 $10,544.57JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC-RK2E36026 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 201-Jan-0781134241142.02ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP.$8,063.98 $914.10 $2,943.13 $4,125.64JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-WW-BSC1 E36019 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG WET WELL BARSCREEN 101-Jan-077113 3231152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SO THERE IS 30"OF SOLIDS BUILD UP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.$0.00 $0.00JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-WW-BSC2 E36020 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG WET WELL BARSCREEN 201-Jan-077113 3231152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. SO THERE IS 30"OF SOLIDS BUILD UP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.$1,920.76 $0.00 $1,920.76JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-BYP-P1E35634 PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM BYPASS PUMP101-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$451.27 $0.00 $337.10 $114.17JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-BYP-P1-MTRE36151 PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM BYPASS PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1E35418 CONVEYOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM CONCENTRATOR 101-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$7,688.68 $0.00 $6,131.31 $398.02JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-CE36846 CONVEYOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM CONCENTRATOR 1 COLLECTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,432.06 $0.00 $983.50 $448.56JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-C-MTRE36847 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM CONCENTRATOR 1 COLLECTOR MOT01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-EV3-MTRE35840 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRI SCC CONCENTRATOR 1 ELECT VALVE 3 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T1E35694 TANK PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM TANK 101-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T1-P1E35693 PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 PRI CONCENTRATED SCUM PUMP 101-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,672.78 $2,365.07 $246.88 $60.83JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T1-P1-MTRE36127 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM PUMP 1 MTR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T2E35403 TANK PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK 2 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,818.00 $0.00 $606.00 $1,212.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T2-MXL1E35400 MIXER PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK MIXER 101-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$547.25 $0.00 $547.25JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC-C1-T2-MXL1-MTRE35402 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK MIXER 1 MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THKBV0024 TANK SCUM CONCENTRATOR 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP1-SLD-HOP1E35665 TANK PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS 1 SLUDGE CAKE HOPPER 101-Jan-076123 3231142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$11,218.27 $5,659.10 $3,239.34 $2,319.83JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP2-SLD-HOP2E36289 TANK PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS SLUDGE CAKE HOPPER 201-Jan-076123 3231142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$8,537.58 $0.00 $5,454.27 $2,906.10JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP2-SLD-HOP2-MTRE35141 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS 2 SLUDGE CAKE HOP2 MOTOR01-Jan-076123 3231142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT BV0023 FILTER GRIT SEPERATOR 01-Jan-075123 32311 31.72JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT BV0022 FILTER GRIT SEPERATOR 01-Jan-075123 32311 31.72JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-HOP1 E35621 TANK PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT HOPPER 1 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$712.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-HOP2 E35072 TANK PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT HOPPER 2 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$218.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-SLRT1E36290 FILTER PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 1 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$724.08 $0.00 $543.73 $78.97JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-SLRT1-MTRE35147 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 1 MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-SLRT2E35142 FILTER PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 2 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$847.67 $0.00 $401.06 $324.96JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-SLRT2-MTRE35148 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 2 MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$3,401.41 $0.00 $3,401.41JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1 E35612 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN ROOM 1 FINE BSR SCREEN(SMALL)01-Jan-07101153251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS$7,864.50 $0.00 $3,173.03 $4,062.02JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-CPTR-1AE35607 CMPCTR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING COMPACTOR 1A01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$5,458.91 $5,458.9110/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoJT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-CPTR-1A-DRVE39416 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING COMPACTOR 1A DRIVE01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-CPTR-1A-MTRE35608 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING COMPACTOR 1A MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$4,882.15 $0.00 $4,882.15JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-WA1BE35609 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED SCREENINGS WASHER 1B01-Jan-07104535251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE.$173.56 $0.00 $173.56JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4 E35358 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 (BIG SCREEN)01-Jan-07101153251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS.$17,085.43 $0.00 $10,918.51 $5,868.07JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-CPTR4AE35377 CMPCTR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 COMPACTOR 401-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,829.83 $0.00 $664.20 $2,165.63JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-CPTR4A-MTRE35641 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 COMPACTOR 4A MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$3,743.16 $0.00 $71.28 $3,671.88JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-WA4BE35378 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B01-Jan-07104535251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING OVERFLOW. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICABLE.$8,815.18 $0.00 $8,815.18JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5 E35357 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 (SMALL)01-Jan-07101153251142.05ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS.$6,111.08 $0.00 $2,869.85 $2,949.42JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-WA5BE35381 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B01-Jan-07104535251142.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE.$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-HOP1 BV0021 TANKPRC BLDG FL3 SCREENINGS HOPPER 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP1 E35658 BELTPRES PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 101-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$111,381.31 $0.00 $58,065.29 $41,914.56JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP1-LBLT-DRE35662 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 1 LONG BELT DRIVE01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP1-LBLT-DR-MTRE35663 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 1 LONG BELT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2 E35653 BELTPRES PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 201-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$11,229.05 $0.00 $1,960.28 $8,977.16JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-LBLT-DR-MTRE35657 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 LONG BELT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-SBLT-DRE35654 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 SHORT BELT DRIVE01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-SBLT-DR-MTRE35655MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 SHORT BELT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-T1-SCC-WW-P1 E35442 PUMPPRI TANK 1 SCUM WETWELL PUMP 1 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$41.44 $0.00$0.00 $41.44JT JT-PRI-T2-SCC-WWE35443 TANKPRI TANK 2 SCUM WETWELL01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-T2-SCC-WW-P1 E35532 PUMPPRI TANK 2 SCUM WETWELL PUMP 2 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$464.49 $0.00 $252.07 $212.42JT JT-THK-T1E35399 TANKTHICKENER TANK #101-Jan-07711342411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NOT CURRENTLYY IN USE. CAN STILL BE USED AS A BACK UP. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL$8,256.56 $0.00 $2,804.98 $3,953.88JT JT-THK-T1-C-DRE37478 DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$391.64 $0.00$0.00 $330.26JT JT-THK-T1-C-DR-MTR E37479 MOTOR THICKENER TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T1-SCC-WW-P1 E35704 WETWELL THICKENER TANK #1 SCUM WETWELL PUMP101-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$972.73 $0.00 $422.36 $489.54JT JT-THK-T1-SKME35689 SCUMSKIM THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T1-SKM-DRE35692 DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER DRIVE 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$5.58 $0.00$0.00 $5.58JT JT-THK-T1-SKM-DR-MTR E35699 MOTOR THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JTJT-THK-T2E35401 TANKTHICKENER TANK #201-Jan-07711342411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY USED. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL$3,661.70 $0.00 $2,107.73 $1,136.08JT JT-THK-T2-C-DRE37480 DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #2 COLLECTOR DRIVE01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$127.05 $0.00 $65.67 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-C-DR-MTR E37481 MOTOR THICKENER TANK #2 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW E35702 WETWELL THICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL 01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW-HST E35706 HOISTTHICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL HOIST01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW-P1 E35705 WETWELL THICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL PUMP101-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$41.44 $0.00$0.00 $41.44JT JT-THK-T2-SKME35691 SCUMSKIM THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-SKM-DRE35696 DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER DRIVE 01-Jan-085113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$155.16 $0.00$0.00 $0.00JT JT-THK-T2-SKM-DR-MTR E35698 MOTOR THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-075113 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P1E35900 PUMPPRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 101-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,686.05 $0.00 $336.55 $414.19JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P1-MTRE35901 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P2E35903 PUMPPRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 201-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$332.64 $0.00 $290.57 $42.07JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P2-MTRE35904 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P3E35687 PUMPPRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 301-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$271.63 $0.00 $229.56 $42.07JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM-THK-SLD-P3-MTRE35690 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 3 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T1E36158 TANKPRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 101-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$39,115.66 $0.00 $20,208.56 $14,978.18JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T1-P1E36166 PUMPPRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 PUMP 101-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T1-P1-MTRE36167 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 PUMP 1 MTR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T2E36161 TANKPRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 201-Jan-074113 32311 21.32ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T2-P1E36164 PUMPPRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 TRANSFER PUMP01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32$8,516.41 $8,516.41JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL-T2-P1-MTRE36165 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 TRANSFER PUMP 01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-MTRE36764 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE BSR SCREEN 1 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$386.00 $0.00 $386.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-WA1B-DRVE39417 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED SCREENINGS WASHER 1B DRIVE01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoJT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1-WA1B-MTRE36286 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 COMP SCREENINGS WASHER 1B MTR01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$84.00 $0.00 $84.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-WA4B-DRVE39415 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B DRIVE01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$199.85 $0.00 $199.85JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4-WA4B-MTRE36287 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 COMP SCREENINGS WASHER 4B MTR01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-CPTR5AE35366 CMPCTR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMPACTOR 5A01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$510.63 $0.00 $510.63JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-CPTR5A-DRVE39418 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMPACTOR 5A DRIVE01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$702.24 $0.00 $702.24JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-CPTR5A-MTRE35642 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMP 5A MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,763.28 $0.00 $1,763.28JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-WA5B-DRVE39419 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B DRIVE01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5-WA5B-MTRE36273 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B MOTOR01-Jan-074223 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$308.89 $0.00 $308.89JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU7E37106 CONVEYOR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 01-Jan-074113 3331121.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$783.86 $0.00 $659.54 $124.32JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU7-DRVE39420 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 DRIVE01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DRIVE VIBRATES AS SCREW TURNS WHICH WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU7-MTRE37107 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU8E35371 CONVEYOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CONVEYOR 801-Jan-074113 33311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$2,387.14 $0.00 $1,473.54 $413.12JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU8-DRVE39421 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CONVEYOR 8 DRIVE01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF-CU8-MTRE35354 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CIONVEYOR 8 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-DAY-T1BV0020 TANKFL4 POLYMER TANK 1 (DAY)01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P1 E40024 PUMPPROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 101-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P1-MTRE40026 MOTOR PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P2 E40029 PUMP PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 201-Jan-074113 31311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P2-MTRE40031 MOTOR PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P3 E40034 PUMP PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 301-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P3-MTRE40036 MOTOR PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 3 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.32 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-MXL-T2E35771 TANK PRC BLDG FL4 POLYMER TANK 2 01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P1 E35997 PUMP PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP101-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$866.95 $0.00 $215.09 $522.25JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P1-MTR E35996 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P2 E35994 PUMP PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 201-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$85.85 $0.00 $43.78 $42.07JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P2-MTR E35993 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P3 E35991 PUMP PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 301-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P3-MTR E35990 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP3 MOTOR01-Jan-074113 32311 21.31 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00JT JT-PRI-T2 E35032 TANK PRIMARY TANK 2 01-Jan-074113 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$4,630.35 $0.00 $2,839.68 $1,096.11LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1-PPGE20363 TANK ASH SLURRY TANK DISCHARGE PIPING TRAIN01-Jan-09133343443433.312 LINES, DUTY/STANDBY . BURIED LINE. ASH SLURRY TANKS TO LAGOON INCLUDING VALVES. MILE LONG LINES.$1,619.56 $0.00$0.00 $128.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1 E23646 INCININCINERATOR 101-Jan-83153433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HAS NOT BEEN OPERATED FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, 2.45 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITYDEVELPING 18 MONTH OPERATING CYCLE BETWEEN MAJOR REPAIRS. ASSESSMENT FOR INCINERATOR SHELLS, REFRACTORY CENTER SHAFT, ARMS, TEETH, TOP/BOTTOM SEALS.$198,749.45 $43,710.72 $127,060.42 $17,119.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E23654 INCININCINERATOR 201-Jan-83152433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. LIMIT ON CAPACITY PER AIR PERMIT IS ABOUT 2.74 DTPHSEE COMMENTS TO NO. 1 INC.$207,069.45 $32,015.75 $115,612.59 $10,081.12LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 E23655 INCININCINERATOR 301-Jan-83153433343443.71 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HEARTH 4 NEEDS REPLACEMENT, 2.17 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITYSEE COMMENTS FOR NO. 1$145,013.78 $1,238.30 $6,198.62 $16,440.74LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4 E23656 INCININCINERATOR 401-Jan-83152433343443.71 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. 3.26 DTPH LIMIT CAPACIYSEE COMMENTS ON NO. 1$235,265.95 $23,352.38 $13,143.24 $93,912.42LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH11-BNR1E22449 INCININCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 11 BURNER A01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/ LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR1E22446 INCININCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED$31.21 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR2E22447 INCININCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED.$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9-BNR3E22448 INCININCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-83123533453132.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED.$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH11-BNR1E21347 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS$297.69 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR1E21344 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$40.43 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR2E21345 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$355.39 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH11-BNR1E23042 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED, FOR PREHEAT.LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS$1,226.47 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR1E23039 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$795.45 $0.00$0.00 $257.70LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR2E23040 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$324.46 $0.00$0.00 $243.60LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9-BNR3E23041 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$0.00$0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH11-BNR1E22649 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FOR PREHEAT ANDLOSS OF OTHER BURNERS$348.72 $0.00 $246.75 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR1E22646 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$312.70 $231.50 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR2E22647 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$86.78 $0.00 $86.78LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9-BNR3E22648 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:PA 64. RARELY USED$314.15 $91.66 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR1 E24233 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 1 01-Jan-09122234443423.05$120.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-FGS-SCBRE24229 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 1 01-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE, ETC.$31.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR1E23574 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER A 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$1,802.81 $269.12 $842.76 $552.85LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR2E22444 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$1,207.39 $0.00 $1,207.39LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7-BNR3E22445 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$875.40 $799.74 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-FGS-SCBRE24283 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 2 01-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC.$1,372.22 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250.42LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR1E23572 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$3,856.08 $0.00 $351.08 $206.66LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR2E21342 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$743.69 $363.08 $132.15 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7-BNR3E21343 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,169.08 $0.00 $132.15 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-FGS-SCBRE24284 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 3 01-Jan-83133434443433.35INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY BODY, BLADE, ETC.$4,551.21 $0.00 $397.28 $594.80LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR1E23036 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,341.04 $699.42$0.00 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR2E23037 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,289.31 $0.00 $151.12 $1,637.32LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7-BNR3E23038 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,382.47 $0.00$0.00 $250.92LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-FGS-SCBRE24285 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 401-Jan-83133434443433.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC.$5,337.28 $0.00$0.00 $448.14LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR1E22643 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$5,299.48 $97.77 $2,519.13 $731.66LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR2E22644 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$3,228.44 $458.30 $2,295.73 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7-BNR3E22645 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,874.59$91.66 $303.73 $633.60LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-WW E31949 SUMP BLENDED SLUDGE WELL 01-Jan-0913423 3244153.35 SIGNIFICANT CONCRETE DETERIORATION AND POSSIBLE HATCH CORROSION. NEEDS DETAILED STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND REHABILITATION. SOME STAFF WOULD LIKE GRINDER ON THE PRIMARY LINES OR ON INLET OF BFP FEED PUMPS.$40,152.02 $0.00 $2,495.26 $12,695.02LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-ANLR1E23602 INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #101-Jan-94183534453443.71 2 UNITS, DUTY/STANBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. $144,599.78 $0.00 $20,335.90 $8,839.97LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-ANLR2E23603 INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #201-Jan-94183534453443.71 2 UNITS DUTY / STANDBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. $176,539.01 $0.00 $3,738.49 $26,425.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3-BNR1E22439 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$617.01 $60.74 $427.62 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3-BNR2E22440 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$1,676.94 $983.06 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR1E22441 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$956.79 $361.98 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR3E22443 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$1,195.20 $333.34 $86.78 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3-BNR1E21338 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-83123533453132.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$497.86 $325.06$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3-BNR2E21362 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$1,018.54 $308.35$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR1E21339 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$4,692.08 $530.02$0.00 $81.20LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR2E21340 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$882.43 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5-BNR3E21341 INCININCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$4,298.48 $412.47$0.00 $123.02LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3-BNR2E23032 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$8,466.43 $7,578.92$0.00 $167.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR1E23033 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$15,299.08 $6,874.63 $2,581.25 $1,481.40LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR2E23034 INCININCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$12,625.55 $7,467.87$0.00 $1,121.37LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5-BNR3E23035 INCININCIENRATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-83123533453132.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$10,448.52 $7,707.90 $1,132.42 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3-BNR1E22638 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,840.13 $45.83 $1,312.40 $987.48LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3-BNR2E22639 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$2,441.74 $575.03$0.00 $856.36LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR1E22640 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$18,210.76 $704.51 $4,084.27 $3,242.08LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR2E22641 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$3,802.80 $443.13 $1,880.98 $376.38LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5-BNR3E22642 INCININCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01-Jan-831235334531 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$4,071.16 $412.47 $1,044.00 $449.94LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR1E20467 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 101-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR2E20468 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 201-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$0.00$0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR3E20466 INCININC1 AFTERBURNER 301-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR1E24140 INCININC2 AFTERBURNER 101-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$919.34 $616.70$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR2E24141 INCININC2 AFTERBURNER 201-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.$2,410.87 $0.00 $220.25 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR3E24142 INCININC2 AFTERBURNER 301-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$548.85 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR1E24143 INCININC3 AFTERBURNER 101-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.$447.21 $220.25$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR2E24144 INCININC3 AFTERBURNER 201-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION.$1,019.02 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR3E24145 INCIN INC3 AFTERBURNER 3 01-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$493.22 $0.00 $173.56 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR1E24149INCININC4 AFTERBURNER 101-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLCED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$1,617.67 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR2E24147 INCININC4 AFTERBURNER 201-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$157.60 $91.66$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR3E24148 INCININC4 AFTERBURNER 301-Jan-8317223 3553433.33 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983, NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION$1,613.49 $366.64$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-IDFN E23657 FANINCINERATOR 1 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW$3,739.75 $0.00 $1,576.92 $324.0810/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-IDFN E23472 FANINCINERATOR 2 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW$38,966.28 $0.00 $446.18 $2,376.98LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-IDFN E22554 FANINCINERATOR 3 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW$12,621.59 $0.00$0.00 $260.34LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-IDFN E22555 FANINCINERATOR 4 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01-Jan-83153334443443.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW$9,231.67 $0.00 $1,363.07 $171.68LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1 E23552 PUMPSCUM PUMP 101-Jan-096223 3231142.02$21,638.81 $0.00 $220.95 $10,164.34LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2 E23555 PUMPBLOWER BLDG SCUM PUMP 201-Jan-096223 3231142.02$26,097.66 $0.00 $2,837.92 $3,794.57LT LT-COM-1E30808 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 101-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.$25,618.19 $0.00 $210.48 $588.95LT LT-COM-1-DRE30812 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 1 DRIVE01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.$0.00 $0.00LT LT-COM-2E22480 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 201-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.$220,054.24 $0.00 $2,630.89 $2,232.43LT LT-COM-2-DRE22481 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 2 DRIVE01-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.$13,613.27 $0.00 $10,813.99 $2,754.10LT LT-COM-3E22474 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 301-Jan-6593334241152.35ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY OUT OF SERVICE FOR REBUILDING SINCE 2YRS.NEW DRIVE WHEN REBUILT. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.$117,485.66 $0.00 $1,742.91 $23,705.81LT LT-COM-4E22514 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 401-Jan-6593234241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. TENDENCY TO GET BLINDED$201,225.90 $0.00$0.00 $3,079.73LT LT-COM-4-DRE22518 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 4 DRIVE01-Jan-655323 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. INTEND TO REPLACE MOTOR IN NEXT 2 YEARS. ONE COMMINUTOR AT A TIME. SIGNIFICANT CONCRETE DETERIORATION ON THE OPERATING FLOS AND FLOW CHANNELS.INTEREST IN PULLING OVERHEAD LIFT TO OPERATE ON COMMINUTORS.$1,797.14 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-COM-5E22583 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 501-Jan-6593334241152.35 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY.$119,698.69 $0.00 $39,384.69 $45,821.99LT LT-COM-5-DRE22506 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 5 DRIVE01-Jan-085113 32311 31.75 NEW CONSTRUCTION$15,696.84 $2,479.07 $13,217.77LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU103 E21383 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 301-Jan-095223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$16,872.66 $0.00 $155.43 $217.29LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3E30232 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$31,859.78 $0.00 $267.22 $176.20LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3-DR E22301 DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3-DR-MTR E22298 MOTOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4E22738 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$69,532.43 $0.00 $5,174.83 $130.17LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4-DR E22300 DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72$77,481.79 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4-DR-MTR E22297 MOTOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-DR BV0036 DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-655223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-DR BV0037 DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BUILDING BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-655223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-MTR BV0038 MOTOR EAST TRASH BUILDING BELT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-655223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-GRT-T1-C-DRE22811 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE$3,478.88 $359.32 $521.43 $276.18LT LT-GRT-T2-C-DRE22812 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.$2,067.59 $137.49 $508.96 $390.58LT LT-GRT-T2-C-MTRE30218 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 PH , 220/440 V , 3 PH PH, 9/4.501-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00LT LT-GRT-T3-C-DRE22813 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.$1,393.20 $460.34 $165.76 $139.79LT LT-GRT-T3-C-MTRE33490 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 HP , 220/440 V , 3 PH PH, 9/4.501-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00LT LT-GRT-T4E23152 TANKGRIT TANK 4 ASSEMBLY01-Jan-655223 3231131.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$14,060.20 $0.00 $2,517.34 $3,220.02LT LT-GRT-T4-C-DRE23061 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.$1,530.94 $448.82 $595.74 $199.70LT LT-GRT-T4-C-MTRE33489 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 HP , 220/440 V , 3 PH, 9/4.5 AM01-Jan-655223 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$557.90 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-CU1 E21314 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 101-Jan-095223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$10,586.34 $0.00 $199.11 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1A E21054 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMPS 1A01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01$19,940.73 $0.00 $1,417.41 $13,428.06LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1B E21133 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #1B01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01$9,014.73 $274.97 $4,345.78 $1,078.43LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1C E21135 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #1C01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$33,505.67 $2,345.26 $3,977.49 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1D E21136 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #1D01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$33,262.36 $4,204.64 $719.38 $3,557.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2A E21139 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #2A01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$22,469.52 $4,054.94 $11,469.46 $1,074.57LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2B E21140 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #2B01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$14,313.60 $4,340.21 $1,658.50 $1,314.06LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2C E21142 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #2C01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$21,832.03 $1,013.70 $2,424.21 $2,672.40LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2D E21144 PUMPASH SLURRY PUMP #2D01-Jan-836333 33331 22.01 4 PUMPS$24,887.95 $1,518.19 $1,351.48 $1,679.99LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1 E21052 TANKASH SLURRY TANK #101-Jan-837323 33331 32.35$28,498.98$0.00 $489.85 $315.88LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T2 E21053 TANKASH SLURRY TANK #201-Jan-837323 33331 32.35$78,832.79 $0.00 $2,819.50 $4,875.26LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH-CU-DRE22667 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH-GRDE21045 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER 101-Jan-837233 33331 32.35$1,262.42 $0.00 $1,262.42LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH-GRD-DRE23247 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 1 DRIVE01-Jan-836223 33331 22.05$615.66 $615.66$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS E20418 INCININCINERATOR 1 CENTERSHAFT 01-Jan-896123 33331 22.01 GEAR REDUCE, BULL AND PINION GEARS, (ALL UNITS) INCLUDESONE SPARE PINION$18,614.18 $1,374.90 $10,878.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS-MTRE23464 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC01-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEM WITH CAPATIBILITY WITH VFD$8,453.74 $0.00 $5,399.82 $2,297.92LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS-VFDE20474 VFDCENTERSHAFT 1 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-995123 32331 11.73SPARES AVAILABLE$5,632.72 $45.83 $320.38 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN101 E22493 FANINCINERATOR 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACK UP$326.34 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN102 E21220 FANAFTERBURNER 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN103 E22494 FANINCINERATOR 1 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 3443122.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED.$1,579.69 $1,337.38 $36.60 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FNA E22491 FANCENTERSHAFT 1 COOLING AIR FAN A 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR. ASSOCIATED DRYER ETC.$311.58 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FNB E22492 FANCENTERSHAFT 1 COOLING AIR FAN B 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR. DRYERS ETC.$311.58 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-ASH-CU-DRE22668 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 2 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYOR$1,770.53 $1,085.75$0.00 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS E24177 INCININCINERATOR 2 CENTERSHAFT 01-Jan-896123 33331 22.03 SEE NO. 1, INCINERATOR, GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARS1 SPARE PINION AVAILABLE$35,553.30 $14,026.91 $1,175.03 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS-MTRE24179 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING ON REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH CAPATABILITY WITH UFO.$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS-VFDE24178 VFDINC 2 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-995123 32331 11.73SPARES AVAILABLE$13,015.78 $183.32 $43.39 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN201 E21356 FANINCINERATOR 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACKUP$1,732.09 $379.32 $252.42 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN202 E21221 FANAFTERBURNER 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. FAN AND MOTOR BACKUP FOR BURNER AND AUX. FAN.$2,565.93 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN203 E21357 FANINCINERATOR 2 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FAN . NOT NORMALLY USED$6,218.70 $0.00 $438.40 $499.92LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN303-MTRBV0047 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP, 230/460 V, 3 PH, 116/5801-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 AUXILARRY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANSLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FNA E21354 FAN CENTERSHAFT 2 COOLING AIR FAN A 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, ASSOCIATED DAMER ETC.$2,249.02 $534.86 $69.05 $284.24LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FNB E21355 FAN CENTERSHAFT 2 COOLING AIR FAN B 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, DAMPERS ETC.$2,798.05 $383.38 $1,498.29 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-GRD E21046 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #2 ASSEMBLY 01-Jan-837233 33331 32.35$6,588.80 $0.00 $0.00 $4,925.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-GRD-DRE23249 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 2 DRIVE 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.05$767.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-ASH-CU-DRE22669 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35$4,471.07 $78.80 $2,632.69 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-CS E24201 INCIN INCINERATOR 3 CENTERSHAFT 01-Jan-996213 33331 22.01 INCLUDES GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARSONE SPARE PINION $43,978.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-CS-MTRE24325 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-99733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO COMPATABILITY WITH VFD$41.82 $0.00 $0.00 $41.82LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-CS-VFDE24324 VFD INC 3 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-885123 32331 11.73 SPARES AVAILABLE $854.07 $91.66 $43.39 $167.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN301 E21321 FAN INCINERATOR 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTER BURNERS FANS BACKUP$567.61 $0.00 $86.78LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN302 E21222 FANAFTERBURNER 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303 E21322 FANINCINERATOR 3 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS, NOT NORMALLY USED$7,851.25 $1,378.33 $326.13 $39.16LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303-MTRE21192 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 116/58 01-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 Auxillary fan combustion fan motor NOT USED NORMALLY. USED AS A BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS.$137.38 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FNA E21319 FAN INCINERATOR 3 COOLING AIR FAN A 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, ASSOCIATED DAMPER ETC.$3,245.02 $0.00 $0.00 $1,748.67LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FNB E21320 FAN INCINERATOR 3 COOLING AIR FAN B 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWERS AND MOTORS, DAMPERS ETC.$1,144.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-GRD E21047 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #3 ASSEMBLY 01-Jan-837233 33331 32.35$18,995.17 $0.00 $185.80 $0.93LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-GRD-DRE23250 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 3 DRIVE 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.05$275.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS E24202 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 CENTERSHAFT 01-Jan-896123 33331 22.01 SEE NO. 1. INCLUDES GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARSONE SPARE PINION $52,889.54 $91.66 $6,489.54 $11,322.41LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS-MTRE24327 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/2301-Jan-88733342431 11.71 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH COM PATABILITY WITH VFD.$10,903.00 $0.00 $4,395.91 $5,294.40LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS-VFDE24326 VFD INC 4 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-995123 32331 11.73 SPARES AVAILABLE $8,135.27 $185.61 $130.17 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CU-DRE22670 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE 01-Jan-839433 33431 32.35 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS$4,764.46 $1,836.05 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN401 E22674 FAN INCINERATOR 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 3443122.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSAUX. AND AFTER FANS BACKUP$715.13 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN402 E21223 FANAFTERBURNER 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORSBURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403 E22675 FANINCINERATOR 4 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN01-Jan-838223 34431 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED.$6,088.75 $584.19 $36.60 $663.65LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403-MTRE21191 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3535 RP01-Jan-838213 34431 22.01 AUXILLARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS.$132.44 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FNA E22672 FAN INCINERATOR 4 COOLING AIR FAN A 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, ASSOCIATED DAMPER ETC.$1,758.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FNB E22673 FAN INCINERATOR 4 COOLING AIR FAN B 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.01 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, DAMPERS ETC.$2,134.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-GRD E21048 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #4 ASSEMBLY 01-Jan-837233 33331 32.35$30,780.33 $0.00 $513.23 $9,002.88LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-GRD-DRE23251 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 4 DRIVE 01-Jan-836223 33331 22.05$2,909.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-SRW-STRE24249 PROSERST INCINERATOR #1 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. 1 AND 3 LARGER THAN 2 AND 4 (FEEDS FLYASH REMOVED FROM WASTE HEAT BOILERS)$3,825.74 $0.00 $3,328.68 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-BNR3E21346 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01-Jan-839333 34431 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED$161.72 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-SRW-STRE24295 PROSERST INCINERATOR #2 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35$5,693.79 $0.00 $0.00 $646.06LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-SRW-STRE24296 PROSERST INCINERATOR #3 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35$8,334.46 $0.00 $460.36 $173.56LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-SRW-STRE24297PROSERST INCINERATOR #4 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER01-Jan-83944333431 32.35$8,185.48 $0.00 $6,150.53 $1,405.18LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR2 E24279 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER #201-Jan-091122344433 22.75$1,823.17 $0.00$0.00 $228.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR3 E24274 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 301-Jan-091122344433 22.70$300.35 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR4 E24275 WETSCRUB IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 401-Jan-091122344433 22.75$786.10 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-10-MTRE31841 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3/1.5 01-Jan-837223 33331 32.35 PUMP AND MOTOR$129.45 $129.45LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-11-MTRE31843 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3/1.5 01-Jan-837223 33331 32.35 PUMP AND MOTOR$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-12-MTRE31846 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3/1.5 01-Jan-837223 33331 32.35 PUMP AND MOTOR$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-9-MTRE31839 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3/1.5 01-Jan-837223 33331 32.35 PUMP AND MOTOR$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB1 BV0048 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM NO. 101-Jan-83113433444132.75 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVES, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB2 BV0049 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM 201-Jan-83113433444132.753 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB3 BV0050 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER/FLY ASH SYSTEM 301-Jan-83113433444132.75 THREE HPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB4 BV0051 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER- FLY ASHS SYSTEM 401-Jan-83113433444132.75 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCERS, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEMLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-INC1-FGS-ANLRE24146 INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #1 OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$5,500.92 $5,405.72$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-INC2-FGS-ANLRE24150 INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #2 OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$8,090.75 $1,638.74 $4,267.93 $83.6410/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-INC3-FGS-ANLRE24151 INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #3 OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$8,323.54 $0.00 $1,828.85 $1,153.52LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM-INC4-FGS-ANLRE24152 INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #4 OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$12,441.92 $3,067.33 $3,185.82 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5-BNR2E22442 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01-Jan-839333 34431 32.35 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64.$1,521.83 $91.66 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-SCBR E24228 WETSCRUB PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER 101-Jan-837223 33331 32.35$165.76 $0.00 $0.00 $165.76LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-SCBR E24280 WETSCRUB PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER 201-Jan-837223 33331 32.35$38.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3-BNR1E23031 INCIN INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01-Jan-096113 23331 22.05 MHF BURNERS$9,979.51 $8,531.57 $0.00 $1,201.01LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-SCBR E24281 WETSCRUB INC3 PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER 301-Jan-837323 33331 32.35$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-SCBR E24282 WETSCRUB PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER 401-Jan-837223 33331 32.35$3,387.58 $0.00 $0.00 $264.30LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB1 E20470 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER 1 01-Jan-838333 3233142.75 INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS.$14,168.72 $6,101.56 $1,398.92 $1,922.29LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB2 E21061 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER 2 01-Jan-838233 3233142.75INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS.$30,303.08 $2,270.76 $2,349.69 $2,944.67LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB3 E21064 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER 301-Jan-838333 3233142.75 INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS.$30,905.92 $5,648.25 $1,383.78 $2,920.33LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB4 E21067 BOILER WASTE HEAT BOILER 401-Jan-838233 3233142.75 INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS.$42,212.14 $1,878.95 $2,128.17 $3,037.93LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN12-VFDE33688 VFDID FANS 1 AND 2 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-98114433243142.75NOT OPERATIONAL$26,408.57 $0.00 $2,130.54 $13,016.73LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN34-VFDE33689 VFDID FANS 3 AND 4 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE01-Jan-98114433243142.75NOT OPERATIONAL$9,568.90 $0.00 $1,471.09 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR E20419 INCINAFTERBURNER #1(SHELL)01-Jan-8310223 3333433.35$436.05 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-FGS-ANLRE21381 INSTRMNT INCINERATOR #1 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$3,609.51 $3,054.17$0.00 $105.81LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR E23465 INCINAFTERBURNER #2 (SHELL)01-Jan-838223 3331432.75$4,516.63 $458.30 $616.01 $209.10LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FGS-ANLRE23391 INSTRMNT INCINERATOR #2 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$12,412.54 $638.06 $2,275.61 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR E23469 INCINAFTERBURNER 301-Jan-8310323 3333433.35$7,861.74$1,225.25$0.00 $2,604.88LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FGS-ANLRE23045 INSTRMNT INCINERATOR #3 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-837233 33331 32.31$20,601.94 $1,202.51 $1,265.98 $1,730.84LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR E23471 INCINAFTERBURNER 401-Jan-8310223 3333433.35$4,567.90 $631.37 $606.69 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FGS-ANLRE22652 INSTRMNT INCINERATOR #4 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER01-Jan-8310233 3333433.35$31,413.44 $9,415.52 $2,534.68 $3,954.26LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1 E22909 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 101-Jan-926323 3231142.02 ORIGINALLY 8 ROLL PRESSES AND PLANT STAFF CONVERTED THEM TO 14 ROLL PRESS.BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$110,822.88 $0.00 $41,666.31 $6,267.91LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-BBLT E23519 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #1 BOTTOM BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$10,254.10 $2,408.40 $284.96 $1,999.76LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-CP E21247 ELECCNTL BELT FILTER PRESS #1 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$2,710.47 $274.98$0.00 $2,050.53LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-HP-MTRE23352 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 230/460 V , 3 PH, 5.8/2.9 A 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$91.66 $91.66LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-POL-INJE22922 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 1 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RIN01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$2,724.38 $0.00 $783.15 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-TBLT E23518 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #1 TOP BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$28,220.58 $4,723.94 $2,223.46 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-VFD E23522 VSDBELT FILTER PRESS #1 VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLLER01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$1,535.72 $0.00 $88.10 $84.90LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-WWP E21243 PUMPBELT FILTER PRESS 1 BELT WASH WATER PUMP01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$6,384.20 $668.57 $2,758.78 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2 E22910 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #201-Jan-926323 3231142.01 ORIGINALLY 8 ROLL PRESSES AND PLANT STAFF CONVERTED THEM TO 14 ROLL PRESS.BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$186,019.09 $0.00 $9,177.48 $75,346.12LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-BBLT E23523 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #2 BOTTOM BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$22,582.65 $3,385.85 $683.27 $2,641.89LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-CP E21254 ELECCNTL SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #2 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$2,453.41 $0.00 $86.78 $167.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-HP E20655 PUMPPUMP, SUBMERSIBLE, 1.15 HP, 208,230/480 VOLT, 172001-Jan-926323 3231142.01$9,622.92 $767.52 $1,357.14 $3,629.31LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-POL-INJE22927 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #2 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RI01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$2,364.56 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-TBLT E23521 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #2 TOP BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$11,140.03 $2,778.00 $384.82 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-VFD E23527 VSDSLUDGE FILTER PRESS #2 VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$3,224.67$91.66 $1,758.10 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-WWP E23188 PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS 2 BELT WASH WATER PUMP01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$10,436.45 $1,156.08 $1,190.25 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3 E22911 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #3 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 ORIGINALLY 8 ROLL PRESSES AND PLANT STAFF CONVERTED THEM TO 14 ROLL PRESS.BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$163,080.10 $0.00 $22,205.94 $6,400.93LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-BBLT E23526 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #3 BOTTOM BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$38,405.53 $2,444.10 $9,420.49 $1,852.23LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-CP E23546 ELECCNTL SLUDGE FILTER PRESS 3 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$719.14 $293.57 $0.00 $385.14LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-HP E23355 PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS 3 HYDRAULIC PUMP01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$3,055.80 $175.80 $597.05 $1,208.66LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-POL-INJE22933 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #3 POLYMER-SOLUTION INJECTION RI01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$907.47 $869.64 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-TBLT E23524 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #3 TOP BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$21,087.01 $2,918.65 $250.14 $2,125.71LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-VFD E23529 VSD SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #3 VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLLER01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$788.86 $183.32 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-WWP E23190 PUMP PUMP, CENTRIFUGAL 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$4,663.32 $3.60 $263.91 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4 E22912 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #401-Jan-926323 3231142.01 ORIGINALLY 8 ROLL PRESSES AND PLANT STAFF CONVERTED THEM TO 14 ROLL PRESS.BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$167,165.51 $0.00 $12,115.15 $4,335.15LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-BBLT E23531 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 , BOTTOM BELT01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$22,496.74 $2,227.48 $837.62 $3,914.35LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CP E23547 ELECCNTL BFP4 LOCAL CONTROL PANEL01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$5,406.79 $121.11 $290.55 $463.40LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-HP-MTRE23356 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 1 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3.2/1.6 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$675.37 $0.00$0.00 $675.37LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-POL-INJE22760 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION R01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$1,727.54 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-TBLT E23530 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 TOP BELT 01-Jan-926323 3231142.01 .BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES$36,029.38 $5,592.80 $866.20 $7,659.33LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-VFD E23533 VSDSLUDGE FILTER PRESS #4, VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$4,804.20 $1,983.30$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-WWP E23191 PUMPBFP4 WASH WATER PUMP01-Jan-926323 3231142.01$2,971.59 $606.35 $2,170.21 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5 E22913 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 501-Jan-006113 3231142.01 ISSUE WITH HYDRAULIC DRIVE FOR 3-WAY VALVE. USED LEAST OF 6 PRESSES.$64,301.19 $0.00 $7,202.48 $6,679.75LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-BBLT E23535 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5, BOTTOM BELT 01-Jan-006113 3231142.01$7,676.53$1,822.16 $3,725.55 $1,989.39LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-HP-MTRE23357 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 1.5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 4./2.001-Jan-006113 3231142.01$640.86 $423.30LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-POL-INJE22942 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5 POLYMER-SOLUTION INJECTION RI01-Jan-006113 3231142.01$98.83 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-TBLT E23534 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5 TOP BELT 01-Jan-006113 3231142.01$12,958.22 $3,666.86 $415.77 $2,013.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-VFD E23537 VSDSLUDGE FILTER PRESS #5, VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER01-Jan-006113 3231142.01$6,811.86 $0.00 $173.56 $2,047.86LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-WWP E23193 PUMPBFP5 WASH WATER PUMP01-Jan-006113 3231142.01$387.32 $0.00 $86.78 $41.82LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6 E22914 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 601-Jan-046113 3231142.01$153,302.85 $0.00 $8,955.06 $2,341.43LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-BBLT E23539 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6, BOTTOM BELT 01-Jan-076113 3131142.01$25,683.37 $4,443.09 $6,661.92 $7,274.57LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-HP E23359 PUMPBELT FILTER PRESS 6 HYDRAULIC PUMP01-Jan-046113 3231142.01$1,548.33 $0.00$0.00 $1,413.41LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-POL-INJE22948 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RI01-Jan-046113 3231142.01$0.00 $0.00$0.00LTLT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-TBLT E23538 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6 TOP BELT 01-Jan-046113 3231142.01$18,520.98 $4,390.39 $6,105.50 $4,751.33LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-VFD E23541 VSDSLUDGE FILTER PRESS #6, VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER01-Jan-046113 3231142.01$2,584.57 $0.00 $493.56 $1,853.15LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-WWP E23330 PUMPBFP6 BELT PRESS 6 WASH WATER PUMP01-Jan-046113 3231142.01$5,081.98 $0.00 $88.10 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU01 E31129 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-01 - PRESSES 1 & 5 TO SC-03P01-Jan-005223 32311 31.75 USUAL MAINTENANCE REPLACING LINERS AND SCREWS$11,643.45 $0.00 $616.70 $1,527.92LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU05 E31134 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-05 - PRESS 3 TO SC-07P01-Jan-975223 32311 31.75 USUAL MAINTAINENCE RELACING LINERS AND SCREWS$4,810.64 $1,193.49 $1,983.25 $40.55LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU09 E31140 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-09 - BETWEEN SLUDGE BINS 1 & 201-Jan-975223 32311 31.75$10,806.21 $2,258.90 $2,344.74 $378.90LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-CU12 E31125 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-12 - INTO INC 1 DROPCHUTE01-Jan-096233 33331 22.05$4,438.69 $87.56$0.00 $880.75LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-IDFN-MTRE36246 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 AMP , 01-Jan-838123 3333142.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$10,240.84 $10,078.44$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-CU13 E31126 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-13 - INTO INC 2 DROPCHUTE01-Jan-096233 33331 22.05$7,152.72 $470.70 $80.49 $2,481.71LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-IDFN-MTRE24153 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 A , 1701-Jan-838123 3333142.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64$2,715.28 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-CU14 E31127 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-14 - INTO INC 3 DROPCHUTE01-Jan-096233 33331 22.05$7,852.74 ($1,060.55) $5,480.07 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-IDFN-MTRE24188 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 AMP , 01-Jan-838223 3333142.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$8,065.72 $0.00 $4,217.06 $3,280.94LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-CU15 E31128 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-15 - INTO INC 4 DROPCHUTE01-Jan-096233 33331 22.05$18,013.89 $595.40 $173.56 $1,473.93LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-IDFN-MTRE24209 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 A , 1701-Jan-838323 3333142.75 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64$1,289.92 $0.00 $46.30 $1,081.22LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1 E31896 TANKINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 101-Jan-005213 32311 31.72 LINERS NEED REPLACEMENT. MOTORS AND DRIVED REPLACED 3 YEARS AGOIF THE BIN IS OUT OF SERVICE, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO WHICH INCINERATOR THEY CAN OPERATE.$127,656.85 $1,336.10 $2,729.47 $723.45LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU1E35008 CONVEYOR NC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-101-Jan-005213 31311 31.72$1,238.51 $0.00 $1,177.86 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU1-VFDE35009 VFDINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1 VFD01-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU2E35012 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-201-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$0.00 $0.00LTLT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU2-VFDE35013 VFDINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 2 VFD01-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU3E35016 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-301-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$11,245.10 $0.00$0.00 $11,245.10LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU3-VFDE35017 VFDINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 3 VFD01-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU4E35020 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-401-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$11,044.48 $0.00$0.00 $11,044.48LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU4-VFDE35021 VFDINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 4 VFD01-Jan-005213 32311 31.72$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2 E31897 TANKINC BLG SLUDGE BIN 201-Jan-975213 32311 31.72 MOTOR AND DRIVES WERE REPLACED 3 YEARS AGO. IF THE BIN IS OUT OF SERVICE, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO WHICH INCINERATOR THEY CAN OPERATELINERS NEED REPLACEMENT$22,967.19 $1,717.23$0.00 $1,035.55LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU1E30664 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 101-Jan-975213 32311 31.72$11,442.12 $0.00$0.00 $11,442.12LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU2E30665 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 201-Jan-975213 32311 31.72$15,134.96 $0.00 $173.56 $11,722.60LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU3E30666 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 301-Jan-975213 3231131.72$13,691.77 $0.00$0.00 $12,252.22LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU4E30667 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 401-Jan-975213 32311 31.72$11,926.92 $0.00 $1,302.66 $10,585.30LT LT-INC-BLDG-STKE23573 FACEXT INCINERATION STACK01-Jan-6811313 3333353.75 NEEDS INSPECTION.$204,325.81 $0.00 $625.81 $5,614.45LT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T1 BV0027 TANKDISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 1 01-Jan-657223 34411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATIONLT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T2 BV0028 TANKDISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 2 01-Jan-657223 34411 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION.LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1 E20512 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 HIGH MAINTAINENCE ITEM. DRAGOUT TROUGH IS HEAVILY CORRODED BUT PLANNED TO BE REPLACEDAT PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.$63,050.79 $0.00 $798.80 $21,857.36LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU104 E21382 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 401-Jan-095223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$26,101.98 $0.00 $1,872.99 $1,495.4610/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1-DR E22292 DRVREDCE WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,053.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1-DR-MTR E22293 MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$1,080.60 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2 E20513 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT01-Jan-098433 3241142.02 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$9,838.49 $0.00 $2,783.42 $3,470.07LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2-DR E22303 DRVREDCE WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT DRIVE01-Jan-655322 32311 31.73 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2-DR-MTR E22299 MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR01-Jan-655322 32311 31.72 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION$0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU-DR BV0040 DRVREDCE WEST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE01-Jan-655223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU-MTR BV0041 MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR MOTOR01-Jan-655223 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONLT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1 E20690 PUMP PUMP, CENTRIFUGAL, 4 IN, 5 IN, 15 IN , SINGLE , 1401-Jan-854213 32311 21.32$41,090.30 $9,863.43 $9,195.23 $2,130.17LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1-MTRE23331 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 144/72 01-Jan-994113 32311 21.32$8,055.09 $0.00 $88.10LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2 E20910 PUMP WAS PUMP #2 01-Jan-854213 32311 21.32$6,846.01 $663.93 $2,006.73 $1,410.11LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2-MTRE32692MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 137.4/6801-Jan-994113 32311 21.32$91.66 $91.66$0.00LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P3-MTRE21295 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 137.4/601-Jan-994113 32311 21.32$8,228.32 $313.69$0.00 $0.00LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P4-MTRE21300 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 144/72 01-Jan-994113 32311 21.32$8,103.17 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-SC 2 E40054 CONVEYOR G&S SCREW CONVEYOR 201-Jan-044123 32311 21.35SCREWS FOR THE BACKUP GRIT DUMPSTERS$0.00 $0.00LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-SC1 E40052 CONVEYOR G&S SCREW CONVEYOR 101-Jan-044123 32311 21.35SCREWS FOR THE BACKUP GRIT DUMPSTERS$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P1 E22967 PUMPRAW POLYMER PUMP 101-Jan-894213 32311 21.32 EVERY 5 YEARS THEY HAVE TO REPLACE STARTER AND MOTOR. ULTRASONIC SENSOR FOR TANK IS OUT OF SERVICE$38,485.49 $0.00$0.00 $4,600.29LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P1-MTRE24078 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.6/6.801-Jan-894213 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P2 E22968 PUMPRAW POLYMER PUMP 201-Jan-894213 32311 21.32 EVERY 5 YEARS THEY HAVE TO REPLACE STARTER AND MOTOR. ULTRASONIC SENSOR FOR TANK IS OUT OF SERVICE$21,243.01 $0.00$0.00 $66.18LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P2-MTRE24079 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460V , 3 PH, 13.6/6.8 01-Jan-894213 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P1 E22878 PUMPSLUDGE PUMP #101-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESSSEAL WATER STATION IS HEAVILY CORRODED (STEEL TANK)$8,191.44 $3,661.66 $1,695.88 $427.17LTLT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P1-VFDE23277 VFDSLUDGE FEED PUMP #1 VFD & PROCESS PANEL01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P2 E22879 PUMPSLUDGE PUMP #201-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS$5,919.10 $299.78 $221.83 $234.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P2-VFDE23280 VFD SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 VFD & PROCESS PANEL01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$560.43 $0.00 $393.15 $167.28LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P3 E22759 PUMP SLUDGE PUMP #3 01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS$7,562.22 $405.43 $422.73 $1,058.49LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P3-VFDE23281 VFD SLUDGE FEED PUMP 3 VFD & PROCESS PANEL01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$997.04 $367.87 $88.10 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P4 E22880 PUMP SLUDGE PUMP #4 01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS$5,506.50 $339.75 $428.22 $1,117.21LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P4-VFDE23282 VFD SLUDGE FEED PUMP 4 VFD & PROCESS PANEL01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$451.20 $0.00 $0.00 $410.72LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P5 E22971 PUMP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 5 01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS$12,199.27 $1,597.87 $962.90 $632.95LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P5-VFDE23278 VFD SLUDGE FEED PUMP 5 VFD 01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P6 E22902 PUMP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 6 01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS$9,390.91$1,499.76 $366.89 $723.31LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P6-VFDE23283 VFDSLUDGE FEED PUMP 6 VFD01-Jan-954113 31311 21.32$3,424.90 $0.00 $2,350.73 $886.91LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-CU E23460 CONVEYOR BFP #1 CONVEYOR01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS$12,609.95 $0.00 $1,868.09 $1,610.15LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-CU-DR E23289 DRVREDCE BFP 1 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-CU E23463 CONVEYOR SCALE, WEIGH01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$27,961.03 $0.00 $316.04 $86.78LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-CU-DR E23290 DRVREDCE BFP 2 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$1,843.74 $0.00 $525.30 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-CU E31494 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR-BFP301-Jan-004213 31311 21.35 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS$5,685.03 $0.00 $1,214.79 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-CU-DR E33512 DRVREDCE BFP 3 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$199.65 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CU E31495 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR-BFP401-Jan-004213 31311 21.35 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS$5,537.45 $0.00 $179.76 $1,552.67LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CU-DR E33513 DRVREDCE BFP 4 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$252.84 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-CU E31497 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR-BFP501-Jan-004213 31311 21.35 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS$19,843.17 $0.00 $1,444.62 $2,045.96LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-CU-DR E33514 DRVREDCE BFP 5 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$1,333.38 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-CU E31498 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR-BFP601-Jan-004213 31311 21.35OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS$18,299.58 $0.00 $2,163.38 $1,210.60LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-CU-DR E33515 DRVREDCE BFP 6 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$750.33 $750.33LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU02 E31130 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-02 - PRESS 2 TO SC-03P01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$4,475.18 $1,277.42 $176.20 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU03 E31131 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-03 - VERTICAL TO SLUDGE BIN 101-Jan-004233 32311 21.35 MORE PROBLEMS WITH BEARINGS AND LINERS ON VERTICAL SCREWS$29,082.03 $1,094.49 $88.10 $13,219.61LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU03P E31132 CONVEYOR SCREW CONV SC-03P - INTO VERT SCREW SLUDGE BIN 101-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$223.99 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU04 E30662 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-04 - SC-04 INTO SLUDGE BIN 101-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$79,318.36 $1,561.23 $540.90 $673.08LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU06 E30660 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-O6 - PRESS 4 & 6 TO SC-07P01-Jan-984223 32311 21.35$16,093.98 $0.00 $9,306.56 $187.45LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU07 E31137 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-07 - VERTICAL TO SLUDGE BIN 201-Jan-974233 32311 21.35$86,464.52 $10,655.83 $14,461.54 $36,220.09LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU07P E31138 CONVEYOR SCREW CONV SC-07P - INTO VERT SCREW SLUDGE BIN 201-Jan-974213 31311 21.35$7,839.85 $929.38 $1,706.97 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU08 E31139 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC-08 - INTO SLUDGE BIN 201-Jan-974213 31311 21.35$15,555.17 $1,231.74 $1,487.19 $41.8210/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoLT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-CU1 E31119 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 1 - INC 1 WEIGH CONVEYOR01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$29,499.26 $0.00 $4,022.88 $742.58LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-CU2 E31857 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 2 - INC 2 WEIGH CONVEYOR01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$32,900.47 $0.00 $333.37 $174.88LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-CU3 E31121 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 3 - INC 3 WEIGH CONVEYOR01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$17,220.38 $0.00 $689.72 $265.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-CU4 E31122 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 4 - INC 4 WEIGH CONVEYOR01-Jan-004213 31311 21.35$11,250.70 $0.00 $1,288.60 $209.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT1-CRP1E21396 PUMP POLYMER SOLUTION PUMP 1 01-Jan-854213 31311 21.32 PLANS TO REPLACE FEED PIPING AND FLOW METERS$13,611.19 $9,763.07 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT1-CRP1-MTRE24080 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 7.5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 20/10 01-Jan-854213 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT2-CRP2E21400 PUMP POLYMER SOLUTION PUMP 2 01-Jan-854213 31311 21.32$1,961.93 $183.32 $0.00 $151.88LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT2-CRP2-MTRE24081 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 7.5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 20/10 01-Jan-854213 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU1-MTRE35011 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU2-MTRE35014 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU3-MTRE35018 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.601-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1-CU4-MTRE35022 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU1-MTRE22007 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.601-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU1-VFDE21706 VFDTHICKENER 1 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$77.92 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU2-MTRE33641 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU2-VFDE21708 VFDTHICKENER 2 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$257.20 $0.00 $173.56 $83.64LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU3-MTRE22009 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.601-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU3-VFDE21709 VFDTHICKENER 3 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$0.00$0.00$0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU4-MTRE33642 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.601-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$2,073.61 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2-CU4-VFDE21710 VFDTHICKENER 4 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD01-Jan-064113 32311 21.32$77.92 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD1 E21701 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 1 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$1,426.36 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD2 E21420 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$2,942.19 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD3 E21421 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 3 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$9,680.07 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD4 E21423 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 4 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD5 E21424 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 5 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$380.73 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD6 E21425 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 6 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD7 E21428 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 7 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD8 E21429 VFDRAW SLUDGE PUMP 8 VFD01-Jan-994113 31311 21.33$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P10E20532 PUMPPRIMARY STORED SLUDGE PUMP 2 01-Jan-804213 32311 21.32 VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION$37.83 $0.00$0.00 $0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P10-MTR E21567 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.32 VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P5E20878 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 501-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$9,887.65 $1,006.19 $851.46 $3,771.23LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P5-MTR E21787 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$7,000.21 $176.20$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P6E20879 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 601-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$3,638.07 $1,222.85 $341.37 $1,227.52LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P6-MTR E21788 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$4,285.52 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P7E21790 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 701-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$10,093.34 $904.38 $561.13 $3,259.74LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P7-MTR E21416 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P8E21417 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 801-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$2,688.91 $617.24 $579.55 $463.26LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P8-MTR E21791 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$1,653.73 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P9E22781 PUMPPRIMARY STORED SLUDGE PUMP 1 01-Jan-804213 32311 21.32 VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION$0.00 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P9-MTR E21566 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 19.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.32$125.40 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P1E21696 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$7,100.16 $1,875.65 $349.06 $2,090.59LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P1-MTR E21690 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$1,426.36 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P2E20875 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 201-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$3,596.46 $1,381.39 $207.20 $653.87LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P2-MTR E21783 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 3.33 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$2,942.19 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P3E20876 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 301-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$6,704.15 $969.78 $430.95 $3,256.98LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P3-MTR E21784 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$3,717.18 $0.00$0.00LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P4E20877 PUMPRAW SLUDGE PUMP 401-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$1,767.53 $616.89 $290.08 $414.72LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P4-MTR E21785 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 1101-Jan-804213 32311 21.33$2,873.50 $91.66$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1A-BKR1CE17867 ELECPWR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1A BKR1C BOILER 1 BREAKER01-Jan-095213 31311 31.75 UNKNOWN INSTALL DATEWILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1A-BKR2DE19148 ELECPWR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1A BKR2D BOILER WATER REC PUM01-Jan-095213 31311 31.75 UNKOWN INSTALL DATEWILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B-BKR2DE19160 ELECPWR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR2D BOILER WATER REC PUM01-Jan-095213 31311 31.75 UNKNOWN INSTALL DATEWILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER PROJECT$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B-BKR3AE19161 ELECPWR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR3A BOILER REC PUMP 3 BR01-Jan-095213 31311 31.75 UNKNOWN INSTALL DATEWILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B-BKR4BE17872 ELECPWR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR4B BOILER 2 BREAKER01-Jan-095213 31311 31.75WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-1 E19777 GENERATR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 1 01-Jan-885313 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONINSTRUMENTATION$21,614.21 $3,852.10 $2,132.73 $8,068.41MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR E19779 ENGINE ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 01-Jan-886333 3231142.03 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENTRUN AT 280 KW TYPICALLY. RATED AT 330 KW, OVERHAULED NEXT YEAR. OVERHAULS REDUCED DUE TO GAS CLEANING. LESS FREQUENT, TYPICALLY 15,000 HOURS. NOW EXPECTED TO BE 150,000 GIVE OR TAKE$410,284.17 $28,590.67 $23,717.79 $22,398.85MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-1 E18132 GENERATR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 2 01-Jan-885313 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONINSTRUMENTATION$19,210.33 $5,171.91 $4,740.98 $668.80MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR E18131 ENGINE ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 01-Jan-886333 3231142.03 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENTRUN AT 280 KW TYPICALLY. JUST OVERHAULED. OVERHAUL TAKES 3 WEEKS WITH HELP IF JUST MSD STAFF COULD TAKE 2 MONTHS (NO OUTSIDE HELP)$520,815.33 $164,556.48 $20,441.81 $25,781.33MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-1 E18083 GENERATR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 3 01-Jan-885313 32311 31.75 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENTINSTRUMENTTATION$2,334.26 $175.53 $550.36 $0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoMT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR E18082 ENGINE ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 01-Jan-886333 3231142.03 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT RUN AT 280 KW TYPICALLY. NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED THE YEAR. NEXT TO BE SCHEDULED.$324,698.61 $30,195.13 $14,246.73 $20,125.02MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SLD-P1 E33401 PUMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 1A01-Jan-997223 33313 32.32$6,639.44 $45.83 $6,201.19 $144.47MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SLD-P1-MTRE18639 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-937223 33313 32.32 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:CHANGED DURING FLOOD $92.27 $91.66 $0.00 $0.61MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SLD-P2 E33400 PUMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 (1B)01-Jan-097223 33313 32.32$1,887.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SLD-P2-MTRE18640 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-097223 33313 32.32$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SUMP-P1E17367 PUMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP EFFLUENT PUMP 101-Jan-887223 33313 32.32$6,911.59 $21.89 $0.00 $84.90MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SUMP-P2E17368 PUMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP EFFLUENT PUMP 201-Jan-097233 33313 32.32$5,661.68 $240.79 $65.09 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1 E20033 BLOWCOMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 101-Jan-885323 33311 31.72$8,770.24 $278.52 $63.00 $315.18MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1-FLT E20040 FILTER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 1 FILTER01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1-MTR E20037 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 1 M01-Jan-095323 3331131.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1-SIL E20057 SILENCER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 1 OUTLET SILENCER01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2 E20034 BLOWCOMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 201-Jan-885323 33311 31.72$11,190.01 $140.38 $149.78 $268.17MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-FLT E20039 FILTER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 FILTER01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-MTR E20038 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 2 M01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-SIL E20058 SILENCER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 OUTLET SILENCER01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-SIL1 E20042 SILENCER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 INLET SILENCER01-Jan-095323 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP1 E18514 BELTPRES BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 01-Jan-096333 3331142.02$179,681.22 $0.00 $84,917.93 $15,381.53MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP1-MTR1 E18641 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 MOTOR 101-Jan-095213 33311 31.72$494.07 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP1-MTR2 (BOTTOM)E18642 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 MOTOR 201-Jan-095213 33311 31.72 REPLACED$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2 E18515 BELTPRES BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 01-Jan-096333 3331142.02$153,417.51$0.00 $59,798.23 $10,294.69MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2-MTR1 E18643 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 MOTOR 101-Jan-095213 33311 31.72$168.92 $0.00 $137.41 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2-MTR2 (BOTTOM)E18644 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 MOTOR 201-Jan-095213 33311 31.72 REPLACED$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC1-MTRE18539 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 1 MOTOR01-Jan-095333 34411 21.32 BREAKS DOWN ONCE A YEAR FOR REPLACEMENT$3,310.08 $1,128.16 $901.08 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC2-MTRE18544 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 2 MOTOR01-Jan-095333 34411 21.32$707.37 $435.42$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1 E18614 MIXER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 101-Jan-085113 33311 31.72$28,336.26 $8,025.04 $13,075.01 $642.13MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1-CPE20076 ELECCNTL BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 1 CONTROL01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1-MTRE18617 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 1 MOTOR01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$1,778.24 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2 E18615 MIXER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 201-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$26,951.49 $5,195.13 $15,482.19 $243.48MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2-CPE20077 ELECCNTL BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 2 CONTROL01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2-MTRE18553 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 2 MOTOR01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$245.40 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T1 E18600 TANKBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 101-Jan-885213 33311 31.74 CHECK INSTALL DATETO GET A FULL TRUCK LOAD THEY NEED BOTH TRUCKS$671,684.15 $103,021.99 $125,702.60 $86,263.63MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T2 E18601 TANKBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 201-Jan-095213 33311 31.74$106,970.02 $0.00$0.00 $408.28MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T5-P1 E20068 PUMPBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 101-Jan-085113 33311 31.72 NEW CONSTRUCTION$5,670.98 $2,009.93$0.00 $83.64MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T5-P1-MTRE20071 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$1,693.06 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T6-P2-MTRE20072 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-095113 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP1 E18519 PUMPBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 101-Jan-935333 33311 31.72 REPLACED$4,189.28 $328.63$0.00 $1,819.45MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP1-MTR E18522 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-095333 33311 31.72$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP2 E18520 PUMPBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 201-Jan-095333 33311 31.72$0.00$0.00$0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP3 E18521 PUMPBELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 301-Jan-095333 33311 31.72$2,761.07 $804.30 $235.23 $1,429.49MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE1 E19213 HEATEX DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 101-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$7,346.06 $772.28 $2,353.46 $619.07MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE1-P E19807 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 1 WATER PUMP01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$5,023.60 $278.13 $2,421.85 $274.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE1-P-MTRE19808 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 1 WATER PUMP MOTO01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$1,635.57 $1,295.97$0.00 $339.60MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE2-P E19816 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 2 WATER PUMP01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$1,645.92 $942.22$0.00 $179.73MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE2-P-MTRE19817 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 2 WATER PUMP MOTO01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE3-P E19841 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 3 WATER PUMP01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$2,639.35 $0.00 $126.21 $119.82MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE3-P-MTRE19848 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 3 WATER PUMP MOTO01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$32.42 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE4-P-MTRE18925 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 4 WATER PUMP MOTO01-Jan-885213 31311 31.73$259.36 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1 E33420 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 1 01-Jan-8852144141121.32PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED.$5,470.80 $4,599.50 $384.04 $79.88MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1-MTR E17757 MOTOR DIGESTER SERVICE PUMP 1 MOTOR 01-Jan-88521441411 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2 E33415 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 (LARGE)01-Jan-88521441411 21.32PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED.$2,574.00 $1,438.56 $313.31 $199.70MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2-MTR E18303 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-88521441411 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PGS-T1E18164 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #1 01-Jan-8810213 3134423.31 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. MOVED TO CURRENT LOCATION IN 2007SOME OF THE VALVES AND PRESSURE AND LEVEL INDICATORS WERE REPLACED WHEN THE TANKS MOVED IN. MSD HAS A PM TEAM FOR THE SET OF TANKS. VAPORIZER COMMON TO ALL TANKS.$1,738.56 $0.00$0.0010/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoMT MT-PGS-T2E18165 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #2 01-Jan-0910213 3134423.31$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PGS-T3E18166 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #3 01-Jan-0910213 3134423.31$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PGS-T4E18167 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #4 01-Jan-0910213 3134423.31$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PGS-T5E18168 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #5 01-Jan-0910213 3134423.31$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PGS-T6E18169 TANKPROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #6 01-Jan-0910213 3134423.31$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1 E18506 PUMPPRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 1 (1A)01-Jan-885223 31311 31.72 SCUM PITS AT CLARIFIERS HAVE PROBLEM WITH GREASE BUILD UP. NEED SOMETHING TO MIX THE SCUM TO PREVENT GREASE BUILD UP IN THE PITS.$26,272.52 $16,612.43 $513.62 $7,736.60MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1-MTRE18505 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-885223 31311 31.72$3,405.09 $3,405.09$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2 E18504 PUMPPRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 2 (1B)01-Jan-885223 31311 31.72 SCUM PITS AT CLARIFIER HAVE PROBLEM WITH GREASE BUILD UP. NEED SOMETHING TO MIX THE SCUM TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP IN PITS$13,611.21 ($4,340.26) $15,725.73 $0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2-MTRE18503 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-885223 31311 31.72$344.51 $344.51$0.00MT MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL E17502 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #1 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-98722452511 21.35 SCUM PITS IN CLARIFIERS HAVE GREASE PROBLEMS AND NEED EFFECTIVE MIXERS TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP.$5,388.12$387.18 $616.67 $318.64MT MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL-MTR E17503 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER COLLECTOR #1 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-98722452511 21.35$3,800.84 $764.17 $1,347.03 $1,580.86MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL E18429 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-09722452511 21.35$7,063.67 $375.60 $1,104.51 $1,315.76MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL-MTR E18432 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-09722452511 21.35$306.33 $0.00 $157.28 $149.05MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL E18431 MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER 01-Jan-09722452511 21.35$4,801.91 $488.52 $326.57 $968.85MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL-MTR E17545 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER MOTOR01-Jan-09722452511 21.35$1,002.85 $0.00 $135.25 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-HE1 E17927 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCHANGER 101-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-HHW-HEE17514 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 101-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 EXHAUST COMING OFF OF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-HHW-PE19797 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 1 HOT WATER PUMP01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$3,432.66 $422.72 $83.51 $860.11MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-HHW-P-MTRE19799MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 1 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$2,891.94 $0.00$0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR-HEE19780 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 OIL COOLER01-Jan-884333 32311 21.35 OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS $5,507.17 $7,663.65 $1,901.52MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR-HE-PE19782 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 OIL COOLER PUMP01-Jan-883213 31311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT RUNS ONLY AT START UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS THEN SHUTS OFF.$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR-PE19783 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 WATER JACKET PUMP01-Jan-883313 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-T E19784 TANK ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 1 EXPANSION TANK01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASSIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, BUT VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GALLONS) WHEN INGINE SHUTS OFF$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-HE1 E18103 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCH 201-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993$217.56 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-HHW-HEE18223 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 201-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 EXHAUST COMING OFF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-HHW-PE18233 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 2 HOT WATER PUMP01-Jan-883213 31311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$1,903.09 $267.43 $126.90 $292.93MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-HHW-P-MTRE18234 MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 2 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$22.03 $0.00 $22.03MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR-HEE18134 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 OIL COOLER01-Jan-884333 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS $2,313.19 $0.00 $2,313.19MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR-HE-PE18135 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 OIL COOLER PUMP01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT RUNS ONLY AT START-UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS, THEN SHUTS OFF.($722.60) $0.00 ($207.81)MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR-PE18133 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 WATER JACKET PUMP01-Jan-883313 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$5,479.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-SIL E18128 ENGINE POW GEN EXHAUST HEAT RECOVERY SILENCER #201-Jan-884213 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-T E18127 TANK ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 2 EXPANSION TANK01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GAL) TO FLOOR WHEN ENGINESHUTS OFF$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-HE1 E18074 ENGINE ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCH 301-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993$1,658.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-HHW-HEE18119 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 301-Jan-934213 32311 21.35 EXHAUST COMING OFF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993($2,096.50) $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-HHW-PE18062 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 3 HOT WATER PUMP01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$11,719.86 $284.57 $742.15 $3,711.01MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-HHW-P-MTRE18060 MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 3 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$42.45 $0.00 $0.00 $42.45MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR-HEE18084 HEATEX ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 OIL COOLER01-Jan-884333 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS $2,291.30 $0.00 $2,490.14 $597.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR-HE-PE18085 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 OIL COOLER PUMP01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT RUNS ONLY AT START-UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS. THEN SHUTS OFF$762.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR-PE20180 PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 WATER JACKET PUMP01-Jan-883313 32311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT$3,579.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-SIL E18112 SILENCER ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 SILENCER (WATER JACKE01-Jan-884213 32311 21.35 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. ENGINE TO SILENCERS HAS A LEAK$1,151.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-T E18111 TANK ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 3 EXPANSION TANK01-Jan-883213 32311 11.05 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASSIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, BUT VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GAL) TO FLOOR WHEN ENGINE SHUTS OFF.$267.72 $0.00 $103.60 $0.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CU1 E18459 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 101-Jan-094333 33311 21.35 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YRS .$31,233.96 $0.00 $6,839.60 $16,839.00MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CU1-DR E20174 DRVREDCE BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35$3,533.47 $572.37 $1,641.55 $973.75MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CU1-MTRE18460 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 1 MOTOR01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35 NEEDS PERIODIC MAINTENANCE. LINER AND SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YEARSONLY TRUCK LOAD CONVEYOR HAS REDUNDANCY. NO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION OF FACILITY$108.78 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG1-P E33404 PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP01-Jan-044113 31311 21.35$6,689.12 $5,495.74 $314.30 $159.76MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG1-P-GRDE18453 GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER01-Jan-064113 31311 21.35$13,019.35 $487.27 $179.36 $161.29MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG1-P-MTRE18873 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-044113 31311 21.35$351.33$0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P E33405 PUMPDIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$12,672.36 $1,933.06 $9,860.93 $498.1310/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk RankPlantLocationEquip NumberEquip TypeAsset DescriptionInstall DateOverall Risk RankCondition Reliability Capacity Functionality FinancialPOF Rating (Max of each POF)Health & SafetySocial ImpactsDifficulty of RepairCOF Rank (Average of COF Ratings)Redundancy POF Comments COF CommentsTotal Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year CostCost 2 years agoMT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P-GRDE18454 GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$4,521.51 $2,123.09 $941.59 $193.82MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P-MTRE19115 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$45.83 $45.83 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG3-P E33407 PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 3 RECIRC PUMP01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$1,032.29 $73.44 $114.16 $39.94MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG3-P-GRDE18455 GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 3 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER14-Nov-004113 31311 21.35$2,975.18 $19.99 $98.96 $121.65MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG4-P E33408 PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 4 RECIRC PUMP01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$20,175.13 $96.68 $633.62 $209.69MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG4-P-MTRE17641 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 4 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR01-Jan-094113 31311 21.35$3.77 $0.00 $1.24 $2.53MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG-SLD-GRDE18456 GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SLUDGE GRINDER 5 FOR BELT PRESS01-Jan-064113 31311 21.35 DIFFICULT TO REPAIR IF REQUIRED, SINCE HANGS UPSIDE DOWN FROM PIPING$10,645.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL2-DIG1-MA E18345 ACCUMULA DIGESTER BLDG FL2 DIGESTER 1 MOISTURE ACCUMULATOR01-Jan-883213 31311 11.05 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT.$969.52 $0.00 $511.00 $0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND1 E18499 GRINDER PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 101-Jan-884213 31311 21.35$30,875.38 $5,942.17 $3,327.13 $8,425.27MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND1-MTRE18501MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 1 MOTOR01-Jan-884213 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND2 E18494 GRINDER PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 201-Jan-884213 31311 21.35$62,182.40 $10,923.42 $18,378.84 $460.82MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND2-MTRE18500 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 2 MOTOR01-Jan-884213 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P1 E18496 PUMPPRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 101-Jan-884223 31311 21.32 REDONE 1993. SLUDGE PUMP HAS HARD TIME DRAWING HEAVIER SOLIDS OUT OF CLARIFIERS.$15,040.91 $7,384.26 $318.56 $5,954.86MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P1-MTRE18498 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR01-Jan-884223 31311 21.32 REDONE 1993$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P2 E18497 PUMPPRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 201-Jan-884223 31311 21.32 SLUDGE PUMP HAS HARD TIME DRAWING HEAVIER SOLIDS OUT OF CLARIFIER$12,263.40 $2,298.64 $1,661.14 $5,884.12MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P2-MTRE18492 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR01-Jan-884223 31311 21.32$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND1 E18508 GRINDER PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 101-Jan-884323 31311 21.35$6,412.68 $0.00$0.00 $0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND1-MTRE18507 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 1 MOTOR01-Jan-884323 31311 21.35$91.67 $91.67 $0.00MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND2 E17385 GRINDER PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 201-Jan-884323 31311 21.35$2,817.33 $0.00 $0.00 $589.92MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND2-MTRE17549 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 2 MOTOR01-Jan-884323 31311 21.35$0.00 $0.00 $0.00MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2 E18461 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 2 VERTICAL01-Jan-094333 33311 21.35 LINER AND SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YRS. VERTICAL SCREWS NEED REPLACEMENT EVERY 16 MONTHS.$28,252.71 $0.00 $607.79 $16,494.11MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2-DR E18465 DRVREDCE BELT FILTER PRESS SCREW CONVEYOR #2 DRIVE01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35$1,762.15 $0.00 $67.30 $1,156.04MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2-MTR E18464 MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 2 MOTOR01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35 SCREWS NEED REPLACEMENT EVERY 16 MONTHS NO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION OF FACILITY$61.93 $0.00 $61.93MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3 E19482 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 301-Jan-094333 33311 21.35 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YRS.$34,398.41 $0.00 $0.00 $10,260.74MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3-DR E19488 DRVREDCE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35$13,581.00 $5,671.70 $0.00 $6,093.71MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3-MTR E19485 MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 3 MOTOR01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35 NEEDS PERIODIC MAINTENANCE. LINER AND SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YEARSNO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION OF FACILITY$1,081.99 $431.00 $0.00 $650.99MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5 E19492 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 501-Jan-094333 33311 21.35 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5YRS. NEED TO RUN BOTH CONVEYORS OVER TRUCK TO AVOID SPILL.$24,159.43 $0.00 $45.83 $11,801.38MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5-DR E19494 DRVREDCE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 5 DRIVE01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35$396.64 $355.20 $0.00MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5-MTR E19493 MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 5 MOTOR01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35NEEDS TO OPERATE BOTH CONVEYOR OVER TRUCKS TO PREVENT SPILL$0.00 $0.00$0.00MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU6E19098 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 601-Jan-094333 33311 21.35 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5YRS. NEED TO RUN BOTH CONVEYORS OVER TRUCK TO AVOID SPILL.$31,615.78 $0.00$0.00 $13,216.91MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU6-DR E19101 DRVREDCE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 6 DRIVE01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35$106.72 $0.00 $44.05 $21.23MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU6-MTR E19100 MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 6 MOTOR01-Jan-884333 33311 21.35NEEDS TO PERATE BOTH CONVEYOR OVER TRUCKS TO PREVENT SPILL$0.00 $0.00$0.0010/16/2009 Appendix D Photographs from Inspections 1 Bissell WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 8 & 9, 2009 Grit tank - drag out and conveying Grit tank - drag out and conveying Grit tank - drag out Grit tank - drag out and conveying Grit tank D-1 2 Grit tank - drag out chutes 4,5 & 6 Grit tank - drag out chutes 4,5 & 6 Grit tank - drag out conveying Grit tank - drag out conveying Grit tank – drain pump Comminutor D-2 3 Comminutor floor opening Bar screen – not in service Pre-aeration tanks Pre-aeration tanks – damaged actuator Primary sludge pump Primary sludge pump D-3 4 Primary sludge pump Primary sludge pump VFD’s Pre-aeration tanks – numerous epoxy injection grouted cracks. No leaking observed. Drainage pumps D-4 5 Drainage pumps Primary settling tanks Waste activated sludge pumps Waste activated sludge pumps Waste activated sludge pumps Service water pumps D-5 6 Service water pumps RASL pump #1 RASL pump #2 RASL pump #3 RASL pump #4 Scum pumps for bank 1 of RASL pumps D-6 7 RASL pump #5 RASL pump #6 RASL pump #7 RASL pump #8 Scum pumps for bank 2 of RASL pumps RASL pump #9 D-7 8 RASL pump #10 RASL pump #11 RASL pump #12 Scum pumps for bank 2 of RASL pumps Polymer test tanks High pressure service water D-8 9 Sludge tank grinders Sludge tank mixers (removed) Equalization bin Equalization bin screws Schwing pump power pack Equalization bin discharge chute D-9 10 Equalization bin screw motors Equalization bin screw gears Schwing pump Schwing pump Schwing pump Exterior sludge hopper D-10 11 Exterior sludge hopper – bottom screws Exterior sludge hopper – schwing pump Exterior sludge hopper – schwing pump (and backup pump)Drainage well siphon pumps Sludge pumps Sludge pumps D-11 12 Polymer unloading pumps Transfer pumps Grinders Polymer mixing and circulation Polymer mixing and circulation Polymer mixing and circulation D-12 13 Service water pumps Service water pumps Service water pumps Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) D-13 14 Belt filter presses (general) – polymer valves Belt filter presses (general) – polymer valves Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) D-14 15 Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) D-15 16 Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) D-16 17 Belt filter presses (general)Belt filter presses (general) Belt filter presses (general) – deteriorated steel at catwalks Belt filter presses (general) – deteriorated steel at catwalks Belt filter presses (general) – deteriorated steel at catwalks Gravity feed presses (out of service) D-17 18 Gravity feed presses (out of service)Scum collector and concentrator Scum collector and concentrator Scum collector and concentrator Scum pumps Scum pumps D-18 19 Influent pump station – bar screens Influent pump station – bar screens Influent pump station – bar screens Influent pump station – bar screens, cracked concrete at baseplate Influent pump station – overhead crane Influent pump station – overhead crane D-19 20 Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) D-20 21 Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) D-21 22 Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) D-22 23 Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) D-23 24 Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Incinerator (general)Incinerator (general) Exhaust gas stack – spalling brick face Exhaust gas stack – spalling brick face D-24 25 Exhaust gas stack – spalling brick face D-25 1 Coldwater WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos June 24, 2009 Course screening collection and handling Course screening collection – hopper and dumpster Course screening – standing water from collection process Primary sludge and grit pumping – grit/sludge separators Primary sludge and grit pumping – grit/sludge separators D-26 2 Primary sludge and grit pumping – sludge pumps (5 total)Primary sludge and grit pumping – scum pumps (4 total) Primary sludge and grit pumping – scum pumps (4 total)Fine screening and handling – fine screens Fine screening and handling – screened effluent trough Fine screening and handling – screened effluent trough D-27 3 Fine screening and handling – washers/compactors Fine screening and handling – washer/compactor Fine screening and handling – compactor discharge into dumpster Fine screening and handling – makeshift discharge collection from washers/compactors overflow. Sludge force main manhole Sludge force main manhole D-28 4 Sludge force main manhole – downstream from first manhole Sludge force main manhole – downstream from first manhole Grit house exterior Grit house exterior Grit house interior Grit house exterior – cracks in masonry at windows and doors D-29 5 North grit basin South grit basin South grit basin Grit basin concrete – poor condition Grit basin complex – at sluice gates into communitors Comminutors structure – concrete in poor condition D-30 6 Comminutors structure – concrete in poor condition Original clarifier basin #4 Original clarifier basin #3 Original clarifier basin #2 Original clarifier basin #1 Original clarifier structure – concrete in poor condition D-31 7 Waste activated sludge thickener tank Primary sludge thickener tank Entrance to digester complex Digester complex – secondary digester #1 Digester complex – secondary digester #2 Digester complex – secondary digester #2 D-32 8 Force main pumps – “A” pumps Force main pumps – “A” pumps Force main pumps – “A” pumps Force main pumps – “B” pumps Force main pumps – “B” pumps Force main pumps – “B” pumps D-33 9 Force main pumps – “B” pumps Interior of digester complex Interior of digester complex Interior of digester complex Waste activated sludge pump house – main level Waste activated sludge pump house – main level D-34 10 Waste activated sludge pump house – lower level Waste activated sludge pump house – lower level Waste activated sludge pump house – WAS pumps Waste activated sludge pump house – WAS pumps Return activated sludge pump house – RAS pumps Return activated sludge pump house – RAS pumps D-35 11 Return activated sludge pump house – RAS pumps Return activated sludge pump house – RAS pumps Return activated sludge pump house – exterior (west)Return activated sludge pump house – exterior (east) Return activated sludge pump house – interior, minor cracking at masonry throughout building. Sludge lagoons D-36 12 Sludge lagoons Sludge lagoons Sludge lagoons D-37 1 Fenton WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 1, 2009 View Looking Down at Bar Screen View Looking South at “Muffin Monster” Grinder Compactor View Looking South at Grit Drag-out Equipment View Looking South at Biofilter Building View of Grit Chamber Looking East. Grit Chamber Was Not in Service at Time of Photo. D-38 2 Crack in Top of Channel Wall Just South of Grit Chamber Primary Sludge Pumps Photo of Maintenance Work to Primary Sludge Pump Algae Growth at South Final Clarifier Interior of Solids Handling Building, View Looking Northwest Rusted Wall Angles at Southeast Corner of Solids Handling Building D-39 3 Polymer Pumps at Southwest Corner of Solids Handling Building Rusted Baseplates at Polymer Pumps Belt Filter Press Looking East D-40 1 Grand Glaize WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 1, 2009 Photo Looking Down at Coarse Bar Screen Rails Coarse Bar Screen Rake Photo Looking Down at Bar Screen Rake During Operation Photo of Bar Screen Rake During Operation Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor – South View D-41 2 Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor – South View Modifications to Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor – North View Close-up of Modifications to Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor – North View Influent Building Fine Screens – West View Sluicing Trough Pipe, Influent Building – View Looking North Unused Screw Conveyor Along South Wall in Influent Building. Screw Conveyor Replaced by Sluicing Trough Pipe D-42 3 Influent Building Grit Drag-outs #1 - #4. View Looking Southeast East Exterior Wall of Influent Building View of Grit Basins Looking Southeast from Influent Building Close-up of Grit Basin Primary Scum Concentrator – View Looking Northeast Sludge Pumps in Primary Clarifier Building D-43 4 Sludge Pumps in Primary Clarifier Building North RAS Screw Pumps #3 and #4 Looking North View Looking South at RAS Screw Pumps #1 and #2 Close-up of North Screw Pump #2 (RSP-2) Close-up of North Screw Pump #2 – Crack in Concrete Curb Close-up of Crack in Concrete Curb at Screw Pump #3 D-44 5 Crack in Concrete Curb at Screw Pump #4 View Looking South of Final Clarifiers #5 and #6 View Looking North on Top of Thickener Tank View of Belt Filter Press #2 Looking East View looking West of Belt Filter Press #2 Typical Corrosion on Mezzanine Beams and Connections in Filter Press Building D-45 6 Sludge Feed Pumps #1 and #2 Located in Basement of Filter Press Building Polymer Feed Pumps in Basement of Filter Press Building Steel Plate Corrosion Below Sludge Feed Pump Crack in Thrust Block at North End of Sludge Feed Pump #1 Steel Plate Corrosion Below Polymer Storage Tank Pump D-46 1 Lemay WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 6 &7, 2009 Belt filter press #1 Belt filter press #2 Belt filter press #2 Belt filter press #3 Belt filter press #4 D-47 2 Belt filter press #5 Belt filter press #5 Belt filter press #6 Belt filter press floor, conveyors Polymer tanks Polymer pumps D-48 3 Piping at polymer pumps, held together with rope Cake hopper – from filter presses Screws and motors at cake hopper Belt filter press conveyors, at press #1, #2 & #5 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #1, #2 & #5 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #1, #2 & #5 D-49 4 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #3, #4 & #6 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #3, #4 & #6 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #3, #4 & #6 Moisture damage at roof of belt filter press building Moisture damage at roof of belt filter press building Sludge pumps D-50 5 Sludge pumps Sludge wet well – blended sludge storage tank Sludge wet well – blended sludge storage tank Sludge wet well – blended sludge storage tank Sludge wet well – blended sludge storage tank Sludge wet well – blended sludge storage tank Concrete deterioration observed, requires further evaluation D-51 6 Polymer transfer pumps Protected water tanks – corrosion at pipes and tanks Protected water tanks – corrosion at pipes and tanks Protected water tanks – corrosion at pipes and tanks Stored sludge pump Comminutor tank – concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab D-52 7 Comminutor tank – concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab Comminutor tank – concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab Comminutor tank discharge – deterioration at walkway Grit tank – concrete spalling and deterioration Grit tank – concrete spalling and deterioration Grit tank – concrete spalling and deterioration D-53 8 Grit tanks Stairs to grit tanks – extensive deterioration, safety issue Stairs to grit tanks – extensive deterioration, safety issue Comminutors Comminutors Comminutors D-54 9 Grit drag out and conveying (west)Grit drag out and conveying (west) Grit drag out and conveying (west)Grit drag out and conveying (east) Grit drag out and conveying (east)Grit drag out and conveying (east) D-55 10 Grit drag out and conveying (east)Grit drag out and conveying – belt from east dragouts Sludge thickening (scum from primary clarifiers)Sludge thickening (scum from primary clarifiers) Thickened sludge (scum) pump Thickened sludge (scum) pump D-56 11 RAS pump – 4 total WAS pump #1 WAS pump #2 WAS pump #3 WAS pump #4 Press floor at incinerators D-57 12 Press floor at incinerators Press floor at incinerators Press floor at incinerators - afterburner Press floor at incinerators - afterburner Incinerator – afterburner and piping Incinerator – afterburner and piping D-58 13 Incinerator – afterburner and piping Incinerator – afterburner and piping Waste heat boiler Waste heat boiler Center shaft return air Burners D-59 14 Scrubber Clinker from incinerator Clinker from incinerator Scrubber Scrubber Venturi Scrubber D-60 15 Venturi Scrubber #2 burner Incinerator damper Ash slurry tank and conveyor Fans Scrubber drain D-61 16 Fans Slurry pumps Control room Control room D-62 1 Lower Meramec WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 2, 2009 Dry Erase Board Diagram of Plant Gravity Thickeners Looking West (GT-2)Bar Rakes #1 and #2 View Down Shaft to Bar Screens View Inside Influent Pump Station D-63 2 Exterior View Looking North of Influent Pump Station Gravity Thickener Scum Pit Water Valve Gravity Thickener Sludge Pumps #1, #2, and #3 View of Scum Concentrator Looking North Ferric Chloride Storage Tank Fine Screens #4 and #5 D-64 3 Fine Screen #1 Sludge Cake Hopper #1 Screening Compactor #4 Screening Conveyor #1 Grit Removal Unit #1 Screenings Hopper #1 D-65 4 Grit Hoppers #1 and #2 Fine Screen and Screening Compactor #5 Fine Screen and Screening Compactor #4 Fine Screen and Screening Compactor #1 Belt Filter Press #2 Belt Filter Press #1 D-66 5 Belt Filter Press #2 Belt Filter Press Control Panels #1 and #2 Belt Filter Press #2 Polymer Blending Units #1 and #2 Polymer Feed Pumps #1, #2, and #3 View Looking West of Potential Space For Drying Facility D-67 6 View Looking Northeast of Potential Space For Drying Facility View Looking East of Potential Space For Drying Facility View Looking West of Potential Space For Drying Facility View Looking West of Potential Space For Drying Facility Heated Scum Processing Primary Sludge Pumps #1, #2, and #3 D-68 7 Trickling Filter Pumps #1, #2, and #3 D-69 1 MO River WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos June 25, 2009 Power generation building – engine 1 Power generation building – engine 1 Power generation building – generator 1 Power generation building – generator 1 Power generation building – engine 2 D-70 2 Power generation building – engine 2 Power generation building – generator 2 Power generation building – generator 2 Power generation building – engine 3 Power generation building – engine 3 Power generation building – generator 3 D-71 3 Power generation building – generator 3 Primary sludge pumping station – scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station – sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station – sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station – sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station – grinder pumps at sludge line D-72 4 Primary sludge pumping station – scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station – scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station – scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station – grinder pumps at scum line Sludge thickening building – belt filter press Sludge thickening building – belt filter press D-73 5 Sludge thickening building – belt filter press Sludge thickening building – belt filter press Sludge thickening building – belt filter press Sludge thickening building – sludge conveyor Sludge thickening building – shaftless screw conveyor Sludge thickening building – shaftless screw conveyor to truck loading D-74 6 Sludge thickening building – shaftless screw conveyor to truck loading Sludge thickening building – press feed pumps Sludge thickening building – press feed pumps Sludge thickening building – press effluent pumps Sludge thickening building – press effluent pumps Sludge thickening building – washwater pumps D-75 7 Sludge thickening building – air compressors Sludge thickening building – Sludge thickening building – blowers Sludge thickening building – blowers Digester control building – transfer pumps Digester control building – transfer pumps D-76 8 Digester control building – transfer pumps Digester control building – recirculation pumps Digester control building – recirculation pumps Digester control building – grinder pump Digester control building – heat exchangers Digester control building – heat exchangers D-77 9 Digester control building – heat exchangers Digester control building – heat exchangers D-78 TM6–TripleBottomLineEvaluationVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 6 –Triple Bottom Line Evaluation BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 6 – TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Patricia Scanlan, Deniz Yurtsever, Lori Stone This Technical Memorandum presents information on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) evaluation methodology, criteria, and weighting factors. Incorporating a TBL evaluation in the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan analysis ensures that factors affecting sustainability, including environmental and social merits and life cycle economics, are considered. The following sections address the TBL approach and representative results for the alternatives evaluation. The TBL evaluation will be updated based on input received during Workshop I. 1) Definition of a Sustainable Biosolids Program The definition of “sustainability” was used to guide the evaluation of the biosolids program and improvement alternatives. A sustainable biosolids program for the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) is one that:  Encompasses diversity in products, markets, and practices to ensure continuous product distribution;  Incorporates products and practices that ensure the safety of human health and the environment;  Considers local economic benefits;  Fosters good relationships with stakeholders, end-users, and the public;  Integrates with existing wastewater processes; and is adaptable to changes in technology and in markets. QC: G. Shimp -1- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 a) Considering the “Triple Bottom Line” Approach The definition of sustainability demands a long-term perspective about the consequences of today’s activities. It goes beyond economic aspects to include environmental and social concerns in formulating all types of policies. It also recognizes that global cooperation is required to achieve sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions worldwide. This concept has become known as managing to the “triple bottom line” (TBL) and is shown graphically in Figure 1. Planning criteria and alternatives analysis incorporate both economic and non-economic factors. The TBL consists of: 1. An economic component that reflects the cash flow accounting stance of the utility (i.e., internal costs and revenues) 2. A “social” component that reflects the social impacts of the utility action (e.g., minimizing nuisance impact to local community such as truck traffic and noise from plant operations.) 3. An environmental component that addresses environmental impacts of the utility actions and decision, such as reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by reducing methane flaring and electricity purchases QC: G. Shimp -2- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 Figure 1 - Triple Bottom Line Components b) TBL Protocol There are two main components of TBL assessment. The first one involves determining which factors to include within economic, social and environmental bottom line. These factors should be determined to reflect the long term goals of St. Louis MSD and a spectrum of values and criteria inherent to alternative technologies under investigation. The second part of the TBL protocol involves assigning a rating to indicate the performance of a given alternative relative to a certain criteria. Selection of TBL Factors The identification and valuation of factors contributing to a utility’s social and environmental bottom lines is, for the most part, less straightforward than for the economic bottom line. There is no “hard rule” that defines which elements of a program contribute to its social bottom line or environmental bottom line. The factors should QC: G. Shimp -3- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 reflect the operating philosophy of the utility’s core business. Table 1 identifies several potential elements of a TBL. Table 1. Potential Elements of a TBL Analysis Economic Bottom Line Social Bottom Line Environmental Bottom Line Planning, permitting, design cost Public perception Air quality Capital cost Nuisance impacts (odor, truck traffic, noise) Energy use Operations and maintenance cost Aesthetics Minimize GHGs Operating revenues Ease of permitting Biosolids project market outlet reliability Risk of contracting biosolids operations vs. using District Resources Public health and safety Proven experience Employment impacts Flexibility 2) Weighting and Scoring The category and criteria weights are used to identify the relative importance of each area of evaluation. Assigning weights allows the District to prioritize the impacts of the various aspects of each alternative. a) Category Weights The three categories economic, environmental, and social - are assigned weights to reflect the overall importance to the District. The total weighting of 100 percent is distributed among the three “legs” of the triple bottom line categories. Typical weightings are often distributed equally (33.3 percent for each category) or with greater QC: G. Shimp -4- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 emphasis on economic factors (50 percent) with the remainder distributed between social (25 percent) and environmental categories. Suggested weights for the Economic, Social, and Environmental categories are 50 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent, respectively; however, these weights can be modified during the Phase I Workshop. b) Criteria Description Recommended criteria for each category are described in the following section. 1. Economic Criteria The out of pocket costs borne by the utility are the direct costs associated with proposed biosolids alternative. These should reflect life cycle costs and, thus, include capital, equipment or construction costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and administration and permit fees. Any revenues associated with the sale of biosolids product should also be considered in this category. For the Phase I screening process, values are based on “order of magnitude” costs of each alternative, relative to one another. Descriptions of the criteria are as follows:  Capital Cost – Relative estimate of plant construction and infrastructure improvements required by an option.  Operating Cost – Relative estimate of operations and maintenance recurring costs associated with an option.  Staffing/Operational Complexity – Complex systems will generally be more susceptible to downtime than less complex systems, which impacts reliability. Complexity also impacts the skill level required for the District’s operations and maintenance staff. Complex systems generally require a high level of operator attention and maintenance. Training is usually more frequent and QC: G. Shimp -5- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 rigorous. Use of contract operations or contract disposal/reuse can also be considered.  Constructability – This criterion involves the challenges related with construction of the proposed technology. During Phase 2, conceptual design and more detailed life cycle costs will be prepared for the most promising alternatives. 2. Social Criteria This category includes the evaluation of alternative’s social impacts.  Aesthetics and Truck Traffic– Many utilities consider processes to minimize odors, truck traffic, and other nuisance effects on nearby residents. The rating for this criterion reflects the potential for neighbor impacts and complaints, based on proximity to the treatment plant, potential for offsite odors, number of trucks necessary to haul raw or final solids, and the requirements to use residential or non-industrial roadways.  Public and Employee Safety – This criterion reflects the effect of the alternative on health and safety for plant employees as well as the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the concerns related to biosolids land application on agricultural sites are often expressed in terms of pathogens, metals, and trace organics.  Ease of Permitting – This criterion reflects the relative ease in obtaining permits for construction and operation of an alternative. Although each of the technologies being considered will meet current regulatory requirements, some technologies/final use alternatives may be more easily permitted than others. Permitting difficulties can increase the time required to implement an alternative. QC: G. Shimp -6- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009  Public Perception – This criterion reflects the public acceptance or anticipated public opposition to biosolids management practices. Public acceptance issues can arise from nuisance issues such as odors, truck traffic, noise or concerns over public health and environmental quality (i.e. concern about incineration or land application). 3. Environmental Factors This category includes the evaluation of technology’s environmental impacts.  Minimize GHGs – This criterion reflects the expected GHG emissions from a final use alternative and associated treatment technology, including process emissions, fossil fuel energy use, and GHGs associated with beneficial use or landfill disposal. Alternatives that can minimize generation of GHGs are more environmentally favorable.  Biosolids Product Market/Outlet Reliability – This criterion reflects the expected long-term access to a single type of final use or disposal option, such as landfilling or land application. As an example, landfill disposal would be rated based on expected availability of landfill disposal, based on future regulations and local landfill practices. This criterion does not reflect the number of different types of outlets available for a final use of final use options, such as landfill disposal vs. beneficial use options.  Proven Experience – This criterion is an indicator of a technology’s overall reliability. A technology that has been widely used with documented operational data is considered to be more reliable than technologies still in the development stage. The advantages of proven performance include better defined costs and known operational issues such as maintenance requirements and byproducts characteristics. QC: G. Shimp -7- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009  Flexibility – This criterion reflects the number or diversity of outlets available for a final use alternative. Greater flexibility means that the District can direct the biosolids to different final use outlets, based on availability and cost, with no or little impact on its equipment or operations. c) Criteria Weighting A weighting or prioritization factor is applied to each of the criteria within the Economic, Social, and Environmental categories to reflect the relative importance of each. Values of 1 to 3 are used for the evaluation and are defined in Table 2. Table 2. Criteria Weighting/Prioritization Factor Scale More Important 3 Of Moderate Importance 2 Less Important 1 d) Alternative Scoring Scores are applied to each alternative evaluated. The alternatives are rated on a 1 through 5 scoring system, as presented in Table 3. Since weights have already been applied to the categories and criteria, the values applied for the scoring should be independent of the importance of the criteria. Table 3. Alternative Rating Scale Most Favorable 5 Moderately Favorable 4 Neutral 3 Less Favorable 2 Least Favorable 1 e) Calculating Overall Weighted Scores QC: G. Shimp -8- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 After applying weightings for each criterion in all three categories, the weighted score for each alternative is calculated. An example calculation for a single category is shown in Table 4. While weights and the number of criteria in each category will differ for the MSD evaluation, the methodology remains the same. The total alternative score is the sum of the category totals for each alternative. Table 4. Calculation of Weighted Score (for a Single Category) Category Weight Criteria Weight Weight Calculation Formula Calculated Criteria Weight Alternative Score Weighted Score Criteria 1 50% 3 = 3/6 x 50% 25% 5 1.25 Criteria 2 50% 1 = 1/6 x 50% 8.3% 1 0.083 Criteria 3 50% 2 = 2/6 x 50% 16.7% 5 0.83 Category Total 6 2.17 3) Determining the Most Attractive Solutions Any number of alternatives can be evaluated using this system; however, it is most effective to limit the alternatives to broad categories, rather than numerous variations of similar options. The alternatives that result in the highest total scores are considered the most attractive for implementation. A number of alternatives has been identified for evaluation in Technical Memorandum No. 3. Additional alternatives will be identified and considered during the Phase I Workshop QC: G. Shimp -9- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp -10- The results of the category and criteria weights and final use alternative scores are tracked using a spreadsheet format. An example of a completed TBL evaluation is shown in Figure 2. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation July 1, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 Figure 2. Results of Screening QC: G. Shimp -11- TM7–SummaryofSolidsProcessingTechnologiesVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 7 –Summary of Solids Processing Technologies BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp - 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 7 – SUMMARY OF SOLIDS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Patricia Scanlan, Yinan Qi, Bently Green This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes solids processing technologies that may be considered to support the final use alternatives identified during Workshop 1 – Final Use Alternative Screening. Each of these technologies was discussed and evaluated during Workshop 2 – Technology Screening Workshop. The results of the screening are also included in this TM. Table of Contents 1. Treatment Technologies........................................................................................- 13 - a. Thickening........................................................................................................- 13 - i) Primary Solids Thickening Technologies......................................................- 13 - (1) Gravity Thickening...............................................................................- 13 - (2) Mechanical Co-thickening with Waste Activated Sludge....................- 15 - ii) Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Technologies.......................................- 15 - (1) Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening......................................................- 16 - (2) Thickening Centrifuges.........................................................................- 17 - (3) Gravity Belt...........................................................................................- 19 - (4) Rotary Drum and Rotary Screw............................................................- 21 - b. Dewatering........................................................................................................- 23 - i) Belt Filter Press..............................................................................................- 24 - ii) Centrifuge ......................................................................................................- 25 - iii) Rotary Press...................................................................................................- 26 - iv) Screw Press....................................................................................................- 28 - c. Stabilization......................................................................................................- 30 - i) Anaerobic Digestion......................................................................................- 30 - ii) Alkaline Stabilization.....................................................................................- 33 - iii) Composting....................................................................................................- 35 - iv) Thermal Drying..............................................................................................- 38 - (1) Direct Contact Dryer Systems ..............................................................- 39 - (2) Fluidized Bed Systems..........................................................................- 41 - (3) Paddle/Disk/Rotary Chamber Drying Systems.....................................- 42 - (4) Belt Dryers............................................................................................- 43 - v) Incineration....................................................................................................- 45 - d. Energy Recovery...............................................................................................- 48 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 2 - (1) Digester Gas Energy.............................................................................- 49 - (2) Co-generation/Pyrolysis........................................................................- 49 - e. Third Party Partnerships ...................................................................................- 51 - (1) Trigen Energy Corporation...................................................................- 51 - (2) Bache Energy........................................................................................- 52 - (3) Ameren UE...........................................................................................- 53 - 2. Alternatives Evaluation.........................................................................................- 55 - a. Solids Quantities...............................................................................................- 55 - b. Costs..................................................................................................................- 56 - c. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates................................................................- 57 - d. Large Plant Options..........................................................................................- 60 - e. Medium Plant Options......................................................................................- 62 - 3. Results of Screening .............................................................................................- 64 - List of Figures Figure ES-1. Results of TBL Evaluation for Large Plant Option................................- 10 - Figure ES-2. Results of TBL Evaluation for Medium Plant Option............................- 11 - Figure 1. Gravity Thickeners at the Lower Meramec WWTP.....................................- 14 - Figure 2. DAF Thickening (Courtesy of Envirex).......................................................- 16 - Figure 3. Centrifuge Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Alfa Laval)........................- 18 - Figure 4. Installed Centrifuge......................................................................................- 18 - Figure 5. Gravity Belt Thickener Principle of Operations (Courtesy of Ashbrook) ...- 20 - Figure 6. Installed Gravity Belt Thickeners at the Bissell WWTP..............................- 20 - Figure 7. Rotary Drum Thickener Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Parkson).......- 22 - Figure 8. Rotary Screw Thickener (Courtesy of Huber)..............................................- 22 - Figure 9. Belt Filter Press Installation at the Bissell WWTP ......................................- 24 - Figure 10. Rotary Press Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Fournier)......................- 27 - Figure 11. 4-Channel Rotary Press..............................................................................- 28 - Figure 12. Screw Press Dewatering (Courtesy of FKC)..............................................- 29 - Figure 13. Screw Press Dewatering.............................................................................- 29 - Figure 14. Anaerobic Digesters at the Coldwater WWTP (not currently in service)..- 31 - Figure 15. Alkaline Stabilization Process....................................................................- 33 - Figure 16. RDP Alkaline Stabilization System............................................................- 34 - Figure 17. In-vessel Composting System....................................................................- 36 - Figure 18. Membrane Covered Static Pile (Courtesy of Gore) ...................................- 37 - Figure 19. Rotary Drum Drying System (Courtesy of Andritz)..................................- 40 - Figure 20. Skid-Mounted Direct Drying Equipment (Courtesy of Andritz) ...............- 41 - Figure 21. Fluidized Bed Schematic (Courtesy of Andritz)........................................- 42 - Figure 22. Modular Dryer (Courtesy of Komline).......................................................- 43 - Figure 23. Belt Dryer Schematic (Courtesy of Andritz)..............................................- 44 - Figure 24. Belt Dryer System (Courtesy of Andritz)...................................................- 44 - Figure 25. Fluid Bed Incineration Schematic..............................................................- 46 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 3 - Figure 26. Incineration Facility at Bissell Point WWTP.............................................- 46 - Figure 27. Overview of Scope Areas (from WRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol).............- 58 - Figure 28. Results of TBL Evaluation for Large Plant Option....................................- 65 - Figure 29. Results of TBL Evaluation for Medium Plant Option................................- 66 - List of Tables Table 1. Solids Quantities...............................................................................................- 6 - Table 2. Large-Capacity Technology Alternatives Preliminary Evaluation Results......- 7 - Table 3. Medium-Capacity Technology Alternatives.....................................................- 8 - Table 4. Category and Criteria Weights .........................................................................- 9 - Table 5. Large-Plant Technology Alternatives Screening Results...............................- 10 - Table 6. Medium-Plant Technology Alternatives.........................................................- 11 - Table 7. Gravity Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages...................................- 15 - Table 8. Mechanical Co-Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages.......................- 15 - Table 9. DAF Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages.......................................- 17 - Table 10. Centrifuge Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages............................- 19 - Table 11. GBT Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages.....................................- 21 - Table 12. Rotary Drum/Rotary Screw Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages.- 23 - Table 13. Belt Filter Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages...................- 25 - Table 14. Centrifuge Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages............................- 26 - Table 15. Rotary Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages ........................- 28 - Table 16. Screw Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages .........................- 30 - Table 17. Anaerobic Digestion – Advantages and Disadvantages...............................- 32 - Table 18. Alkaline Stabilization – Advantages and Disadvantages .............................- 35 - Table 19. Compost Stabilization – Advantages and Disadvantages.............................- 37 - Table 20. Thermal Drying – Advantages and Disadvantages.......................................- 45 - Table 21. Incineration – Advantages and Disadvantages.............................................- 48 - Table 22. Solids Quantities (same as Table 1)..............................................................- 55 - Table 23. O&M Unit Cost Summary............................................................................- 57 - Table 24. Greenhouse Gas Emission Parameters .........................................................- 59 - Table 25. Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases.........................................- 60 - Table 26. Large-Capacity Technology Alternatives Preliminary Evaluation Results (Same as Table 2).....................................................................................................................- 61 - Table 27. Medium-Capacity Technology Alternatives (Same as Table 3)...................- 63 - Table 28. TBL Category and Criteria Weights.............................................................- 64 - Table 29. Large-Plant Technology Alternatives Screening Results.............................- 65 - Table 30. Medium-Plant Technology Alternatives.......................................................- 66 - Appendix A – Meeting Minutes from Potential Third Party Partnerships A.1. Fred Weber Landfill A.2. St. Louis Composting A.3. St. Peters Composting BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 4 - A.4. Trigen A.5. Ameren UE A.6. Bache Energy BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 5 - Executive Summary The treatment technologies presented in this TM include thickening, dewatering, and stabilization and energy recovery. The technologies presented include only those can support the final use options selected for further evaluation at the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) facilities. Benefits and drawbacks of each of the listed technologies are also presented. Specific technologies discussed are: Thickening  Primary solids thickening (gravity and mechanical co-thickening)  Waste activated sludge thickening (dissolved air floatation, centrifuge, gravity belt, and rotary drum/screw thickening) Dewatering  Belt filter press  Centrifuge  Rotary press  Screw press Stabilization  Anaerobic digestion  Alkaline stabilization  Composting  Thermal drying (direct contact, fluidized bed, paddle/disk/rotary chamber, belt drying) Incineration Energy recovery  Digester gas energy, cogeneration, pyrolysis Each technology is also presented in terms of suitability for a large-sized facility or a medium-sized facility. Large-sized facilities include the Bissell Point and the Lemay wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Solids quantities from the Lemay plant have been used to represent “large plant” requirements for the Phase I screening. Medium- sized facilities include the Coldwater, Missouri River, and Lower Meramec plants. The Grand Glaze and Fenton plants are scheduled to be decommissioned within the 20 year project time period and have not been included in the Phase I screening evaluation. The Coldwater WWTP solids quantities have been used to represent “medium plant” requirements. Solids quantities used for each of these conditions are presented in Table 1. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 6 - Table 1. Solids Quantities Primary Solids WAS Total AA Flow (mgd) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Solids Pro- duction (dt/MG) Lemay WWTP 2030 MM 241 30 65 64 40 94 48 0.39 Mid - point AA 132 19 62 31 51 50 55 0.38 Coldwater WWTP 2030 MM 26 9.3 81 9.3 81 18.5 81 0.52 Mid - point AA 24 7.1 80 7.1 76 14.1 78 0.59 Preliminary cost and greenhouse gas emission estimates for the large- and medium- capacity plant conditions are presented in Table 2. and Table 2. , respectively. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 Re-Issued: October 16, 2009 QC: G. Shimp - 7 - Table 2. Large-Capacity Technology Alternatives Preliminary Evaluation Results Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Capital Cost ($M) Annual O&M Cost($M) Present Worth ($M) GHG Emissions (tonne/yr) 1a. Multiple hearth incineration Incineration with upgraded multiple hearth technology Landfill disposal of ash None 38.2 2.0 63.3 7,300 1b. Fluidized bed incineration Incineration with new fluid bed technology Landfill disposal of ash Electricity production from waste heat 65.1 1.2 80.2 3,000 2. Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Landfill disposal of digested cake Electricity production from biogas 45.5 2.7 58.4 (336) 3. Heat drying Anaerobic digestion with heat drying Beneficial reuse of dried product Heat recovery from drying for process heating, use of biogas for heat drying 91.0 3.4 134.2 11,900 4. Landfill None Landfill None 0 2.3 28.9 27,000 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 8 - Table 3. Medium-Capacity Technology Alternatives Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Capital Cost ($M) Annual O&M Cost ($M) Present Worth ($M) GHG Emissions(tonne/yr)5. Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Land application of Class B cake Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.5 18.4 (1,548) 6. Heat drying Anaerobic digestion with heat drying Beneficial reuse of dried product Heat recovery from drying for process heating, use of biogas for heat drying 22.5 0.8 32.8 3,015 7. Alkaline stabilization Alkaline stabilization of raw cake Land application of Class B cake None 3.0 0.7 11.5 (976) 8. Composting Anaerobic digestion and compost stabilization of digested cake 3rd party distribution and beneficial use through St. Louis Composting Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.4 18.1 126 9. Liquid Disposal Anaerobic digestion Liquid solids to Fred Weber Landfill Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.1 14.2 (1,037) 10. Landfill None Landfill None 0 0.9 10.7 7,637 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 9 - Each of the technologies was screened using a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis. The category and criteria weightings used in the analysis are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Category and Criteria Weights Category Weight Criteria Weight Aesthetics 4 Truck traffic 1 Ease of permitting 1 Social 15 Public perception 1 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 2 Proven experience 3 Flexibility 4 Environmental 25 Beneficial Reuse 2 Capital cost 10 O&M cost 10 Staffing/operational complexity 4 Economic 60 Permitting effort 1 The results of the screening for the large plant options is shown on Figure ES-1. The technologies that were selected for further evaluation during Phase II are listed in Table 5. The results of the screening for the medium plant options is shown on Figure ES-2. The technologies that were selected for further evaluation during Phase II are listed in Table 6. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 10 - 0.62 1.06 1.85 0.62 1.17 1.82 0.45 0.98 1.68 0.58 1.02 0.74 0.32 0.52 2.28 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Total Weighted ScoreMHF Rebuild FBI MAD/Landfill Thermal Drying Landfill Raw Large Plant Treatment Technology Alternative Economic Environmental Social Figure ES-1. Results of TBL Evaluation for Large Plant Option Table 5. Large-Plant Technology Alternatives Screening Results Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Multiple hearth incineration Incineration with upgraded multiple hearth technology Landfill disposal of ash None Fluidized bed incineration Incineration with new fluid bed technology Landfill disposal of ash Electricity production from waste heat Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Landfill disposal of digested cake Electricity production from biogas Landfill None Landfill None BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 11 - 0.47 1.06 1.80 0.58 1.06 0.74 0.26 0.85 1.80 0.41 0.92 1.92 0.54 0.48 2.50 0.51 0.63 1.94 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Total Weighted ScoreMAD/Land App Thermal Drying Alk Stab/Land App Composting Liquid Disposal Landfill Raw Medium Plant Treatment Technology Alternative Economic Environmental Social Figure ES-2. Results of TBL Evaluation for Medium Plant Option Table 6. Medium-Plant Technology Alternatives Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Land application of Class B cake Electricity production from biogas Composting Anaerobic digestion and compost stabilization of digested cake 3rd party distribution and beneficial use through St. Louis Composting Electricity production from biogas Liquid Disposal Anaerobic digestion Liquid solids to Fred Weber Landfill Electricity production from biogas Landfill None Landfill None Several organizations that were potentially interested in partnering with MSD for biosolids treatment or use of a biosolids process by-product were contacted to discuss 3rd party partnerships. The potential opportunities available with each of these organizations are discussed in this report. These organizations included: BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 12 -  Trigen  Bache  Ameren UE. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 13 - 1. Treatment Technologies a. Thickening All of the final use options identified during the Final Use Alternatives workshop require thickening of biological solids. Currently, several of the MSD facilities co-thicken primary and biological solids in the primary clarifiers. While this thickening process is suitable for solids produced from an attached growth process (such as trickling filters), it is not typically recommended for waste activated sludge (WAS) solids. Consequently, mechanical thickening would be recommended for treatment plants that have activated sludge systems (Bissell, Missouri River, Grand Glaize, Coldwater, and Fenton) Selection of thickening technologies will be discussed during Workshop 2 – Technology Selection. Solids thickening reduce the flow and volume requirements for downstream processes. The capacities of treatment technologies that are affected by sludge volume and flow, such as sludge heating or cooling used in the anaerobic digestion process can also be reduced. The suitability of thickening technologies varies depending on the type of solids (primary solids vs. WAS) and thickened solids requirements. i) Primary Solids Thickening Technologies (1) Gravity Thickening The concentration of primary solids reaching stabilization can be affected by the configuration of the primary clarifiers and the sludge collection mechanism. Primary solids removed from circular primary clarifiers using scraper mechanisms typically concentrate to 3 to 4 percent total solids (TS) during primary clarification and often require no additional thickening. Primary solids removed from rectangular clarifiers using chain and flight collection systems are more dilute, typically concentrating to 1 to 2 percent TS. Consequently, in the case of rectangular clarifiers, a separate thickening process is recommended to increase the solids concentration to 3 to 5 percent TS. Gravity thickening (Figure 3) is an alternative for thickening dilute primary solids BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 14 - Figure 3. Gravity Thickeners at the Lower Meramec WWTP Primary solids settle easily, without the use of polymer. Therefore, gravity settling is an effective thickening process for primary solids and is the most common thickening technology used. Gravity thickeners are usually covered to reduce odor release, with the headspace under the cover vented to the aeration basins, eliminating the need for separate odor control. At large- and medium-sized plants, settled solids are typically withdrawn continuously from the gravity thickener. Gravity thickeners are not recommended for co-thickening of primary solids and waste activated solids (WAS) because the solids retention time will likely result in biological activity, which creates additional odors and can negatively impact the settling process and diminish the energy content of the settled solids. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of gravity thickening. These are listed in Table 1. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 15 - Table 7. Gravity Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Increased solids concentration reduces downstream capacity requirements Increased odor potential and diminished energy content of thickened solids Potential to generate volatile fatty acids for biological nutrient removal processes Additional treatment step increases process complexity Provides some flow equalization and storage Additional treatment step increases plant siting requirements Simple operation (2) Mechanical Co-thickening with Waste Activated Sludge While gravity co-thickening is not typically recommended for primary solids and WAS, mechanical co-thickening can be used to thicken the combined solids in a single step. In addition, eliminating a gravity thickening step for the primary solids reduces hydrolysis and fermentation and therefore retains more energy in the primary solids and reduces return stream load on the liquid stream treatment. Thickened solids can range from 7 to 10 percent TS. Enclosed thickening processes may be more attractive than open processes, due to the odor potential of the combined solids. Advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 8. Table 8. Mechanical Co-Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Single process for primary and secondary solids Greater odor potential than separate thickening; enclosed process recommended High solids concentrations for downstream processing Pumping equipment must be suitable for high solids concentrations Retains energy in solids Capacity requirements may limit choice of mechanical thickening technology ii) Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Technologies Waste activated solids concentrations typically range from 0.5 to greater than 1.0 percent TS; however, the short solids retention times (SRT’s) expected at the MSD treatment plants can result in WAS concentrations as low as 0.3 percent TS. Waste activated solids, which settle less readily than primary solids, are not well suited to gravity thickening. It is typically thickened using mechanical thickening processes, achieving BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 16 - thickened solids concentrations of 3 to 5 percent TS. A number of technologies are available for WAS thickening. The most widely used technologies include dissolved air flotation (DAF’s), thickening centrifuges, gravity belt thickeners (GBT), and rotary drum thickeners (RDT). These thickening technologies are discussed in the following sections. (1) Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening Dissolved air flotation (DAF) thickening concentrates solids by attaching microscopic air bubbles to the suspended solids, increasing the buoyancy of the solids and causing them to float to the surface. A recycle stream from the DAF subnatant is saturated with air and discharged into the DAF influent. When this combined stream (whitewater) is released in the DAF, the entrained air comes out of solution forming fine bubbles. A pressure tank (saturator) and compressor system has been typically used to make the whitewater; however, air handling recycle pumps are available that combine the pumping and air injection steps, eliminating the need for saturators and compressors. A DAF thickener is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. DAF Thickening (Courtesy of Envirex) While DAF’s have been traditionally used to thicken WAS, a number of installations use co-thickening DAF’s to thicken a combined feed of primary solids and WAS. Co- thickening DAF’s can also help concentrate scum removed from the primary and secondary clarifiers. In a co-thickening DAF, the heavier solids settle to the bottom while the lighter solids float. Dissolved air flotation thickeners are typically sized based on the solids loading rates and can be operated with or without polymer conditioning. Variables that can affect the BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 17 - performance of a DAF thickener include hydraulic loading, recycle flow, air-to-solids ratio, dissolution ratio, and the rate of removal of the float solids. The thickened solids concentrations range from 3 to 4 percent at greater than 90 percent capture efficiency. Co-thickened solids can reach concentrations of up to 7 percent TS. DAF thickening technology is available from a number of manufacturers, including Envirex and Siemens. Advantages and disadvantages of DAF thickening are presented in Table 9. . Table 9. DAF Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Provides “wide spot” in line, minimizing need for storage Relatively high power use – varies depending on saturation technology Little operator attention Odor potential Can be designed for low polymer consumption Lower thickened solids concentration than other thickening technologies (WAS only DAFs) Relatively insensitive to hydraulic loading rate changes Can have large footprint requirement Technology available from several manufacturers (2) Thickening Centrifuges Centrifuge thickening is commonly used for WAS thickening in medium- to large- capacity facilities. It is a self-contained process that uses high speed centrifugal forces to separate suspended solids from the liquid. The solids are forced to the perimeter of the bowl, conveyed by a scroll to one end of the unit and discharged. The liquid flows through ports at the opposite end of the unit and is typically returned to the head works. The principle of operation is presented on Figure 5. An installed unit is shown on Figure 6. Centrifuge equipment is available from a number of manufacturers, including Siemens, Westfalia, Andritz, Alfa Laval and Centrisys. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 18 - Figure 5. Centrifuge Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Alfa Laval) Figure 6. Installed Centrifuge In WAS thickening applications, centrifuges typically achieve solids concentrations ranging from 5 to 6 percent at solids capture efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent. Higher solids concentrations up to 8 percent TS are possible in co-thickening applications. Polymer addition can increase solids capture to approximately 95 percent, but generally does not increase the thickened solids concentration. Typically, facilities using centrifuges for WAS thickening feed up to 10 pounds of polymer per dry ton of solids; however, some installations have been able to operate thickening centrifuges with little or no polymer. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 19 - Operational control of the process is possible through variation of hydraulic throughput, adjustment of scroll speed, pool depth and polymer feed. Centrifuges have higher power consumption than the other thickening technologies. Routine maintenance of centrifuges can be performed by the plant staff, but periodically the scroll/bowl assembly may have to be shipped to a maintenance facility. This can result in extended downtime for the equipment. Some centrifuge suppliers have started providing replacement scroll/bowl assemblies for use at the time the existing one is pulled to minimize downtime. Advantages and disadvantages of centrifuge thickening are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Centrifuge Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages High capacity equipment – well suited to larger plants Higher capital costs compared to some of the other thickening technologies Higher solids concentrations (5-8% TS), depending on feed solids characteristics Higher energy usage Minimum space requirements Major maintenance must be performed by the manufacturer Little operator attention when operations are stable May be difficult to retrofit into existing buildings because of structural requirements May not require polymer addition Can use spare machine as “swing” machine to back up both thickening and dewatering Enclosed technology – good odor containment and housekeeping. Technology available from multiple manufacturers (3) Gravity Belt Gravity belt thickeners have widespread use for WAS thickening applications, and may be suitable for selected co-thickening applications as well. Gravity belt thickeners separate free water from the solids by gravity drainage through a porous belt. Dilute solids are introduced at the head end of a horizontal filter belt. As the solids move along the belt, free water drains through the porous belt into a collection tray and is returned to the head works. Plows in the gravity zone break up the solids and aid the release of water. Thickened solids are discharged at the end of the horizontal filter belt. Gravity BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 20 - belt thickeners are available in belt widths ranging from 1 to 3 meters. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the operation principle of a GBT and an installed unit, respectively. Figure 7. Gravity Belt Thickener Principle of Operations (Courtesy of Ashbrook) Figure 8. Installed Gravity Belt Thickeners at the Bissell WWTP The feed solids are conditioned with a polymer to form a stable floc before introduction to the belt. With the use of a polymer, GBTs can achieve solids captures of 95 percent. Operation of a GBT can be controlled by adjusting solids feed rate, polymer feed rate, belt speed to control solids retention time on the belt and position of the solids plow. Gravity belt thickeners have an open equipment design and can be difficult to capture odorous emissions for treatment. Consequently, the whole area requires ventilation and perhaps odor control. The belt has to be washed continuously to avoid blinding. Gravity belt thickeners are available from several manufacturers, including Komline-Sanderson, Ashbrook, and Siemens. Advantages and disadvantages of GBT thickening are listed in Table 11. . BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 21 - Table 11. GBT Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Moderate operational complexity; relatively low requirement for operator attention Open equipment design – potential for odors and high humidity Relatively high unit capacity Require frequent belt washing to avoid blinding – high wash water flows Relatively low initial capital cost Low power requirements (4) Rotary Drum and Rotary Screw Rotary drum thickeners (RDT's) and Rotary Screw Thickeners (RST) are parallel technologies based on a similar premise. Both technologies use gravity to drain the solids as they pass through a mesh or perforated basket. Besides the need for polymer addition, a flocculation tank upstream and a system of spray nozzles to keep the media clean, the main differences between the technologies are:  Rotary drum thickeners have a rotating shell made of wire or polyethylene mesh or perforated steel. The drum is differentiated into zones based on the mesh size, with a finer mesh at the inlet where the feed solids contain more water. The mesh size increases towards the drum outlet to facilitate drainage of the more concentrated solids. The feed solids are pumped into the drum, where drum rotation helps drive the filtrate through the perforations into a collection trough. Rings of varying heights inside the drum control the solids retention time in each zone. A diagram for the operation of a Rotary Drum can be found on Figure 9. In most cases, RDT’s can produce 4 to 6 percent solids with 95 percent solids recovery with the use of a polymer. RDT’s are typically enclosed to contain odors. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 22 - Figure 9. Rotary Drum Thickener Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Parkson)  Rotary Screw Thickening uses rotating screws, with stationary drums. Flocculated solids overflow into the lower portion of an inclined drum with a static perforated basket. The drum is equipped with a slowly rotating screw that conveys the solids upward to the drum discharge, while allowing water to drain through the basket. The basket is continuously cleaned with brushes to prevent solids accumulation and periodically cleaned with an automatic spray wash. Rotary screw thickening technology is reported to thicken WAS to 4 to 8 percent TS, with a 95 percent capture. A rotary screw thickener is shown on Figure 10. Figure 10. Rotary Screw Thickener (Courtesy of Huber) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 23 - RDT’s and RST’s are gaining popularity as a WAS thickening technology. Several design variations of RDT’s are offered by other suppliers of the technology. Like GBT’s, polymer conditioning is essential for achieving an adequate cake solids concentration with RDT's and RST’s. RDT’s are available from several manufacturers, including Parkson, Hycor, and Alfa Laval, while RST’s are manufactured by Huber and FKC. Advantages and disadvantages of RDT thickening are listed in Table 12. Table 12. Rotary Drum/Rotary Screw Thickening – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Moderate operational complexity Higher polymer consumption – varies by installation Little operator attention High wash water requirements Low power usage Relatively low unit capacities Good odor containment May have difficulty thickening WAS with feed concentrations less than 0.5 percent TS Technology available from several manufacturers b. Dewatering All of the final use options identified during the Final Use Alternatives workshop require dewatering. Selection of dewatering technologies will be discussed during Workshop 2 – Technology Selection. Dewatering is a mechanical treatment process to reduce the moisture content of the biosolids. Dewatered cake can be handled as a solid material, rather than as a liquid material, and is required for all final use options with the exception of liquid land application. The capacity and cost of post-dewatering treatment steps, such as heat drying or incineration, are affected by the moisture content of the dewatered cake. Cake volume also decreases with decreasing moisture content, so the costs of final use options that require cake hauling decrease with increased moisture removal. The effectiveness of dewatering technologies varies depending on the type of solids (primary solids vs. WAS vs. TF humus) and upstream processing (digested solids vs. raw). A number of solids dewatering technologies are available. The most widely used technologies are belt filter press dewatering, similar to the existing dewatering at the Missouri River facility, and centrifuge dewatering. Newer technologies include screw press BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 24 - dewatering and rotary press dewatering. These dewatering technologies are discussed in the following sections. Ancillary equipment for the dewatering operations include solids feed pumps and polymer storage and feed equipment. i) Belt Filter Press The belt filter press dewaters solids through a continuous process of gravity drainage and compression. In standard units, conditioned sludge is evenly distributed onto a moving porous belt where free water is drained from the sludge, followed by a zone of compression dewatering during which the solids are squeezed between two porous cloth belts to remove additional water. A photo of an installed BFP is presented on Figure 11. Depending on the characteristics of the feed solids, BFP's are capable of achieving cake solids concentrations ranging from 15 to 22 percent for digested solids and 25 percent or greater for raw solids, depending on the feed characteristics. Capture efficiencies are typically greater than 90 percent. The variables affecting the performance of BFP's include the solids characteristics, polymer conditioning, and the belt tension. Belt filter maintenance, which includes replacing belts, rollers, and bearings, can be performed by plant staff. Figure 11. Belt Filter Press Installation at the Bissell WWTP Belt filter press capacity requirements are based on both solids and hydraulic loading rates. Belt press equipment is typically limited to a hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of approximately 70 gpm/meter. Solids loading rates (SLR’s) typically range from 600 to 800 pounds per hour of belt filter width (pph/meter) for digested solids; and 1,000 to 1,200 pph/meter for combined raw primary and WAS solids. However, loading rates can vary significantly. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 25 - The feed solids are conditioned with a polymer to form a stable floc before introduction to the belt. With the use of a polymer, BFP's can achieve solids captures of 92 to 95 percent. Operation of a BFP can be controlled by adjusting solids and polymer feed rate, belt speed, and belt tension. Belt filter presses have an open equipment design and can be difficult to capture odorous emissions for treatment. Consequently, the whole area requires ventilation and possible odor control. The belt is continuously washed to avoid blinding. Belt filter presses are available from a number of vendors, including Ashbrook, Komline-Sanderson, Andritz, and Siemens. Advantages and disadvantages of BFP dewatering are listed Table 13 Table 13. Belt Filter Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Simple operation Open construction - potential for odors and increased housekeeping Relatively low initial capital cost Large footprint for high capacity systems Low power requirements High wash water flows Maintenance can be performed by plant staff Low to mid-range cake solids Technology available from several manufacturers May require more operator attention than other dewatering technologies Relatively tolerant of grit and other inert material ii) Centrifuge Centrifuge dewatering is a shallow depth settling process enhanced by applying centrifugal force. While several types are available, the scroll-discharge, solid bowl centrifuge is most often used. The solids are pumped into the centrifuge, where the high speed spinning action of the bowl forces the solids against the bowl surface. The heavier solids are conveyed by the scroll along the bowl to the solids discharge point. The centrate flows to the opposite end of the centrifuge and is discharged. Centrifuge equipment used for dewatering is similar to centrifuge thickening equipment; however machine adjustments are different for the two applications. Consequently, a single centrifuge can be used to back up both centrifuge dewatering and thickening, if the processes are co-located. Centrifuge cake solids are typically 2 to 3 percent dryer than belt filter press cake. Capture efficiencies are usually 95 percent or greater. Centrifuge dewatering typically BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 26 - requires greater polymer use than BFP dewatering. Centrifuge operations can be optimized by adjusting the feed rate, polymer dose, and the differential scroll speed. Consistent feed characteristics or feeding from a well mixed tank is important for maintaining optimum performance. Centrifuges are subject to damage from trash in the feed solids; consequently, grinders or macerators are provided upstream of the centrifuge. Minor maintenance can be performed by plant staff, but major maintenance, such as repairing or refinishing the centrifuge screw or bowl, must be performed by the manufacturer. Similar to the belt filter press, centrifuge capacity is based both on hydraulic and solids loading rates. Centrifuges are available in a variety of sizes, with centrifuge sizing typically based on manufacturer recommendation. On a unit basis, centrifuges provide greater dewatering capacity than belt filter presses, but have greater capital costs per unit. Centrifuges are often difficult to install in an existing building due to the high vibrational loads generated by the centrifuge equipment. Structural renovations required to support the equipment can be cost prohibitive. Advantages and disadvantages of centrifuge dewatering are listed in Table 14. Table 14. Centrifuge Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Relatively low operator attention requirements High capital cost High cake solids content Difficult to install in existing buildings Enclosed technology – good odor control and reduced housekeeping issues High polymer requirement A single machine can back up both thickening and dewatering High power use High capacity equipment Major maintenance performed by the vendor Technology available from several manufacturers Can be susceptible to high wear from grit and other inert materials High degree of operational flexibility Concerns for bacterial and pathogenic regrowth and reactivation iii) Rotary Press Rotary press dewatering is a relatively new technology for the wastewater industry, but interest is growing due to its low energy requirements. The principle of rotary press operation is shown on Figure 12. Low concentration solids are fed into the dewatering BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 27 - channel and are moved along the channel by a rotating element on the central shaft. As the solids travel the length of the channel, the pressure builds and forces water from the cake. The filtrate passes through metal screens on either side of the channel and is discharged at the bottom of the press. Dewatered cake is discharged at the bottom of the press. A flocculation unit is included upstream of the press to allow the solids to flocculate after polymer addition. Figure 12. Rotary Press Principle of Operation (Courtesy of Fournier) The press capacity is based on the number of channels attached to the central shaft, with a maximum of 6 channels. A 4-channel press is shown on Figure 13. Rotary press capacity is a function of solids loading rate, not hydraulic loading rate. Therefore, the solids concentration of the feed has no impact on the unit sizing, eliminating the need for upstream thickening prior to dewatering. Processes upstream of the dewatering operation, such as digestion, may still require thickening. Dewatered solids concentrations from rotary press installations are typically similar to those achieved through centrifuge dewatering; however, performance can vary. Since performance information is limited, pilot testing is recommended if this dewatering method is going to be considered. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 28 - Figure 13. 4-Channel Rotary Press Advantages and disadvantages of rotary press dewatering are listed in Table 15. Table 15. Rotary Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Relatively low operator attention requirements High capital cost High cake solids content – must be determined based on pilot testing Potentially high polymer requirement – must be determined based on pilot testing Enclosed technology – good odor control and reduced housekeeping issues Technology available from limited number of manufacturers Low energy consumption Limited experience on wastewater solids Equipment capacity can be easily expanded up to 6 channels Maintenance can be performed by plant staff Small footprint technology iv) Screw Press Screw press dewatering technology has been used in industrial applications for many years and has recently been promoted for dewatering municipal biosolids. There are several screw press technologies available, but all technologies operate on the same basic principles. The BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 29 - screw press is somewhat similar to the rotary screen thickener. Flocculated solids are fed into the press and are conveyed from the inlet to the outlet end of the press by a rotating screw. As the sludge moves along the length of the press, it is squeezed between the screw and perforated screens surrounding the screw. Filtrate pressed from the sludge drains through the perforated screens. The principle of operation of the screw press is illustrated on Figure 14. A rotary screen thickener is shown upstream of the screw press in the illustration; however, a number of installations feed flocculated solids directly to the press. A screw press installation is shown on Figure 15. Figure 14. Screw Press Dewatering (Courtesy of FKC) Figure 15. Screw Press Dewatering BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 30 - Reported cake solids concentrations generated by screw presses have widely varying concentrations, ranging from 14 to 25 percent cake. Reported polymer dosages also vary widely. Consequently, pilot testing would be recommended if this dewatering is considered. Screw presses have relatively low capacities compared to other dewatering technologies, so they would not be recommended for the larger capacity facilities. Depending on manufacturer, screw press technology can also require a significant footprint. Screw press dewatering has relatively low power consumption requirements. The enclosed construction reduces odor potential and improves housekeeping. Advantages and disadvantages of screw press dewatering in Table 16: Table 16. Screw Press Dewatering – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Simple operation Large footprint for high capacity systems Low power requirements Variable cake solids – recommend pilot testing Maintenance can be performed by plant staff Variable polymer consumption – recommend pilot testing Enclosed technology – good odor containment and housekeeping. Technology available from several manufacturers c. Stabilization i) Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion, which occurs as the result of a complicated set of chemical and biochemical reactions, produces stabilized solids, reduces pathogens, reduces biomass quantity by partial destruction of volatile solids (VS), and produces usable gas as a byproduct. Anaerobic digestion is typically used to meet stabilization and pathogen requirements for land application, or in some states, landfill disposal. However, the digestion process is also used to stabilize solids upstream of heat drying and has been used in combination with incineration. The biogas generated during the anaerobic digestion step can be used for building and process heating, to generate electricity, or can be cleaned to natural gas quality and injected into gas pipelines or used as vehicle fuel. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 31 - The most common uses of biogas are for digester and building heating, use in a downstream heat drying process, or to generate electricity on-site. The anaerobic digestion process consists of three steps: hydrolysis, acid formation, and gas formation. In conventional systems, all three steps are combined in a single tank. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion occurs at a temperature range of 35 to 38 oC and is typically used to meet Class B pathogen reduction criteria, allowing the resulting biosolids to be used as a bulk fertilizer. Mesophilic systems are designed based on solids retention time (SRT) and volatile solids (VS) loading rates. Systems are typically designed to provide a 15 day solids retention time (SRT) at maximum month design conditions to meet 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 503 requirements for land application and VS loading rates of less than 150 to 170 lb per day per 1000 cf (ppd/kcf). Systems that produce solids for land application can often support shorter SRT’s. The anaerobic digestion system at the Coldwater plant is shown on Figure 16. Figure 16. Anaerobic Digesters at the Coldwater WWTP (not currently in service) “Enhanced” anaerobic digestion can include several variations that improve performance or pathogen reduction. The most common enhancement is the acid-gas configuration, in which the hydrolysis and acid formation steps are performed in a separate tank from the gas formation step, allowing optimization of each environment. The "phased" approach is used to reduce foaming potential and may improve stabilization and gas production. While performance varies widely among sites and is greatly impacted by the digester feed characteristics, volatile solids reduction (VSR) increases (and corresponding gas production) of 25 to 30 percent have been reported. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 32 - Thermophilic anaerobic digestion occurs when at least one stage in the digestion process is operated at a thermophilic temperature of 50 to 60 oC. The main goal of thermophilic treatment is to achieve greater pathogen destruction; however, it can also increase VSR and decrease required detention times. Thermophilic systems can be designed to meet Class A pathogen criteria. There are several operating TPAD installations in the Midwest. As part of the cell destruction that occurs during the anaerobic digestion process, nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, are released and are returned to the plant influent through the dewatering sidestreams. Liquid stream treatment systems, especially those that include low effluent nitrogen limits and phosphorus removal, may require equalization or sidestream treatment to minimize the impact on the liquid treatment processes. Anaerobic digestion is a well-understood technology; however, the process requires operator oversight, including daily sampling and analysis. Digestion heating equipment can be subject to fouling and the nutrients released in the digestion process can generate struvite, which can accumulate on pipes and other equipment downstream of the digestion process. Conventional digesters can also accumulate sand and grit and require periodic dewatering and cleaning. A 5 year cleaning frequency is typically expected. Advantages and disadvantages associated with anaerobic digestion processes are listed in Table 17. Table 17. Anaerobic Digestion – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Good volatile solids destruction (40 to 60 %) May experience foaming Generation of methane for use in process heat or power generation Recovers slowly from upset Broad applicability Requires periodic dewatering/cleaning Good pathogen inactivation Increases nutrient load to liquid stream processes Reduces total sludge mass Potential for struvite accumulation and clogging Low net energy requirements Requires operator oversight and control Low GHG emissions Several proprietary pre-treatment processes are also available to increase cell destruction and gas generation, including Cambi thermal hydrolysis and lysing technologies including OpenCEL, Crown Biogest, and ozone addition processes. Of these systems, BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 33 - only Cambi and Crown Biogest have full scale installations, all of which are in Europe or Australia. The performance of each of these technologies can vary, and consequently, the benefits. Therefore, testing would be recommended for any pretreatment technology considered. Based on the outcome of the Final Use Alternatives workshop, anaerobic digestion will be considered as a medium plant and large plant option for treatment to meet Class B land application requirements or for treatment prior to heat drying or composting. ii) Alkaline Stabilization Alkaline stabilization uses alkaline materials, such as quicklime, to treat the dewatered biosolids. The chemical reaction of the dewatered biosolids with the alkaline agent generates heat and elevates the pH, meeting both pathogen reduction requirements and vector attraction reduction criteria. The resulting product typically has a low nutrient content due to dilution and loss of ammonia. Typical biosolids require approximately one pound of lime per pound of solids for Class A treatment. A schematic of the alkaline stabilization process is presented on Figure 17. Figure 17. Alkaline Stabilization Process In addition to high lime treatment, several proprietary alkaline stabilization processes are available that meet Class A treatment requirements using other materials or energy sources in addition to lime. Some of these include:  The proprietary N-Viro process uses a combination of alkaline stabilization and drying to produce a synthetic soil. In this process, dewatered biosolids are mixed with alkaline materials such as cement kiln dust, lime or fly ash, causing a chemical reaction that raises both the pH and the temperature. The chemical BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 34 - reaction is followed by either air- or heat-drying. The soil is subsequently distributed as an agricultural liming agent and soil conditioner.  The BIOSET alkaline stabilization process blends lime and dry sulfamic acid with dewatered biosolids. The mixture is pumped into a continuous, plug flow reactor. The exothermic reaction resulting from lime addition to the wet biosolids raises the temperature of the mixture in the reactor to 160 to 200 oF.  RDP is an in-vessel lime stabilization/pasteurization process. RDP adds external heat to the exothermic heat generated by the lime/biosolids reaction to decrease the amount of lime required to meet Class A pathogen requirements. Since the quantity of lime used in the RDP process is significantly less than is used in other alkaline stabilization processes, the resulting product is more similar to biosolids than to a liming agent. RDP-stabilized biosolids are typically land-applied at nitrogen agronomic rates, as compared to application rates used for pH adjustment for liming agents. The RDP process is shown on Figure 18. Figure 18. RDP Alkaline Stabilization System Alkaline stabilized solids are suitable for bulk land application, either as a liming agent (high lime, N-Viro, Bioset) or as a conventional biosolids material (RDP). Alkaline stabilization is a simple process and these systems typically have lower capital costs than other Class A treatment processes, which make them well suited as a backup or interim treatment method. There are a number of operating issues associated with alkaline stabilization, including odor potential, operator working conditions, and material handling. Ammonia is generated during the treatment process and can be released during treatment and use of the treated material. Lime handling creates dust, which can be unpleasant for the operators and can cause equipment maintenance issues. Since alkaline stabilization requires a significant quantity of treatment chemicals and does little to reduce the volume of the treated biosolids, the material handling and hauling BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 35 - requirements are greater than many other stabilization processes, which will increase truck traffic at the treatment facility. Advantages and disadvantages of alkaline stabilization are listed in Table 18. Table 18. Alkaline Stabilization – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Simple process Lime can create dust problems Relatively low capital costs Odor potential Contract operation an option Increased truck traffic Liming agent desirable for agricultural use Requires cake storage Technology available from several manufacturers Higher GHG emissions than other bulk land application final use technologies Potential concern about pathogen re- activation during storage Based on the outcome of the Final Use Alternatives workshop, alkaline stabilization will be considered as a medium plant option for treatment to meet Class B land application requirements. iii) Composting Composting produces a humus-like material from dewatered cake that can be used as a soil amendment. Since compost is a marketable product, it can often be sold for a nominal fee that helps to reduce or eliminate product distribution costs. Composting requires the addition of bulking agents, typically yard waste or wood chips, to increase the porosity of the compost; however, bulking agents significantly increase the amount of material requiring transport and ultimate disposal. Composting operations require adequate aeration to prevent odor problems. Sufficient oxygen can be provided through natural convention, forced aeration with blowers, or by turning the compost pile (windrowing). The type of aeration method dictates the physical configuration of the compost operation. There are several different composting methods available. Two of these – aerated static pile and windrowing – require significant amounts of land. Even with aeration, odors from these methods can be problematic and require that the facility be completely enclosed with odor control equipment. A mechanical, or in-vessel, composting system has a much smaller footprint than the static pile or windrow methods; however, the capital cost is greater. An in-vessel system is shown on Figure 19. The in-vessel system mechanically agitates the compost within BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 36 - the closed containers and uses forced air to keep the compost aerobic. The odor control systems required for in-vessel composting are smaller than those used for static pile or windrow systems. As an alternative to in-vessel composting, membrane covers can be used for static pile systems. An example of a static pile system with a membrane cover is shown on Figure 20. Figure 19. In-vessel Composting System BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 37 - Figure 20. Membrane Covered Static Pile (Courtesy of Gore) Composting systems require a large area for the facility and amendment and finished product storage. In addition, even with odor control of the active composting process, curing product storage is typically outside and can cause odors. Consequently, siting of new composting facilities can be difficult. Advantages and disadvantages of compost stabilization are listed in Table 19. Table 19. Compost Stabilization – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Well received product Odor issues Final use for yard waste Siting concerns due to large footprint Low GHG emissions Operating cost (of hauling and amendment) Capital cost Higher truck traffic MSD currently composts dewatered, anaerobically digested cake from the Missouri River plant at the St. Peters windrow composting facility. Current hauling and tipping fees are $3 per wet ton and $15.25 per wet ton, respectively. The St. Peters facility also composts yard waste and aerobically digested biosolids generated by St. Peters, producing a total of approximately 6,000 wet tons of compost annually. The St. Peters facility has capacity BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 38 - limitations and only accepts up to 80 wet tons per week of dewatered cake from the Missouri River WWTP, which is approximately one-third of the plant’s biosolids production. In addition, the composting facility has periodic off-site odor issues, which it believes to be exacerbated by the inclusion of the anaerobically digested cake from the Missouri River plant. Due to odor issues, the St. Peters facility is in the process of converting from windrow operation to an aerated static pile technology, with an expected completion date of 2010. St. Peters has also expressed interest in determining if adding incineration ash to the composting process may be attractive. While the current composting arrangement with St. Peters has been beneficial to both MSD and the City of St. Peters, projected increases in solids production from the Missouri River WWTP will exceed the St. Peters facility capacity. As an alternative or addition to composting at the St. Peters site, the project team has discussed contract composting with St. Louis Composting. St. Louis Composting provides yard waste composting for much of the St. Louis metro area, with a 26 acre static pile facility in Valley Park, a 115 acre windrow composting facility outside Belleville, IL, and a transfer station near Maryland Heights. St. Louis Composting is also planning a new facility in Jefferson County. These facilities currently compost 500,000 cy of yard waste and 200,000 cy of wood chips annually and the Belleville facility is permitted to include up to 10 percent of “other waste”, which may include biosolids. The Belleville composting site currently includes up to 2 percent of the “other waste”, with an additional capacity of up to 40,000 cy annually. Based on the locations, co-composting of Lower Meramec WWTP biosolids would be most attractive at the Belleville or new Jefferson County facilities. Potential tipping fees will be evaluated during Phase 2 of the project. Based on the outcome of the Final Use Alternatives workshop, composting provided by another entity (such as St. Louis composting) will be considered as a medium plant treatment option. iv) Thermal Drying Thermal drying is an add-on process that complements digestion and produces a Class A biosolids product. Heat drying involves the application of heat to evaporate moisture from the solids, improving the handling characteristics and reducing the mass of solids for final disposal. Heat drying produces a marketable product, which meets the 40 CFR Part 503 requirements for Class A biosolids. The product retains its nutrient value after thermal treatment and is suitable for beneficial reuse as a fertilizer, soil conditioner or fuel. There are a number of different drying technologies available, and technology selection is determined by capacity requirements and product quality. Drying technologies are BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 39 - generally categorized as direct or indirect systems. In direct dryers, the solids are heated by direct contact with a hot gas. With indirect dryers, heat is transferred by conduction from the heat carrier to the biosolids through a metal surface. (1) Direct Contact Dryer Systems Rotary drum dryers are widely used throughout North American and Europe. This technology has been used with biosolids in North America since Milwaukee began drying operations in the 1920s. Rotary drum systems, which have the highest rated capacity of the drying systems available, are rated in terms of pounds of water evaporated per hour (pph). The capacities of rotary drum units range from 4,400 to 22,000 pph of evaporation. This corresponds to solids capacities of 10 to 50 dry ton per day (dtpd) per unit, based on 20 percent cake solids and a 5 day per week operating schedule. These systems also produce a high quality pelletized product that is suitable for diverse outlets. There are a number of manufacturers of rotary drum dryer systems including Andritz-Ruthner (Andritz), and Siemens (Sernagiotto). Baker Ruhlman makes drums that are used by New England Fertilizer Company (NEFCO) dryer systems. A process schematic of a rotary drum drying system is shown on Figure 21. Dried recycled product is coated with dewatered cake in a mixer, before entering the rotary drum dryer. Heated process gas flows through the drum, heating the pellets and evaporating moisture while the rotation of the drum keeps the material in motion. Many dryers are triple pass units, with the pellets passing through three concentric cylinder sections. As the pellets pass through the dryer, they become light enough to be entrained by the exhaust gas and carried outside to a separator where the pellets are separated and conveyed to a vibrating screen. In the screen, oversized material and undersized material are separated from properly sized pellets. The oversized material is crushed and returned to the mixer, along with fines and a portion of crushed pellets. This dry product is then recoated with dewatered cake and sent back through the dryer. A portion of the properly sized pellets downstream of the screen is not recycled, but is cooled in a product cooler and conveyed to storage as finished product. Downstream of the cyclone, the process gas flows through a wet scrubber condenser for removal of particulates and moisture. Then a large portion of the gas is then returned to the furnace to repeat the cycle. During operation, oxygen concentrations in the process gas are typically below 5 percent. The portion of the process gas stream not recirculated is removed and directed to a high-efficiency wet venturi scrubber to remove fine particulate. This blow-down gas is then sent through a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) for odor control. The RTO is a combination afterburner and heat recovery device. Heat can be recovered from the scrubber system and be used for digester process heating. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 40 - Figure 21. Rotary Drum Drying System (Courtesy of Andritz) A rotary drum drying system is shown on Figure 22. It should be noted that the drying system shown in this photograph is a skid-mounted unit, prior to installation within a building. Because of the multiple unit processes involved with rotary drum drying, operation of this technology is complex. Maintenance of all equipment, with the exception of the drums, can be performed by plant staff. Drying installations are usually sized to operate 5 to 6 days per week, allowing 1 to 2 days of scheduled downtime for maintenance. Direct drying systems produce a high quality granular product that looks similar to commercial fertilizer. The dried product is typically used in bulk land application, by soil blenders, or is sold or given to the public. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 41 - Figure 22. Skid-Mounted Direct Drying Equipment (Courtesy of Andritz) Drying systems have a high energy demand, in the form of natural gas, steam, or electricity, to dry dewatered cake from approximately 20 percent to greater than 90 percent total solids (TS). Consequently, many drying systems are designed to use biogas generated in the anaerobic digestion process to minimize purchase of natural gas. Each of the rotary drum suppliers considered should be able to produce a high quality product. The primary difference between the suppliers is experience in North America. Andritz has the largest number of installations in North America (12+), with several of these in operation for more than five years. NEFCO has three facilities in operation, with one in operation since 1992. Siemens has only one facility in operation in North America but may installations in Europe. Rotary drum dryers account for a high percentage of dryer capacity in North America. (2) Fluidized Bed Systems Fluidized bed dryer systems produce a granular product that is relatively dust-free, but less uniform in size than a rotary drum drying system. Fluidized bed dryers use steam to heat the biosolids in the dryer and the circulating air stream through an in-bed heat exchanger. Previously dried material is back-mixed with dewatered biosolids prior to introducing the mixture to the dryer. A graphic representation of a fluidized bed dryer is presented on Figure 23. Evaporative capacities up to 18,000 pph (approximately 40 dtpd) are typical. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 42 - Figure 23. Fluidized Bed Schematic (Courtesy of Andritz) Fluid bed systems have been used in Europe since the early 1990’s, with more than 30 installations; however, it is relatively uncommon in North America, with only two units in operation in 2008. Due to the low temperature of the drying process, fluid-bed systems are well suited for applications where waste heat is available from other processes. Systems in Europe have been operated off waste steam from garbage incineration plants, and a relatively new facility at the North Shore Sanitation District, Waukegan, IL, is using waste heat from a vitrification process. (3) Paddle/Disk/Rotary Chamber Drying Systems The Paddle/Disk/Rotary Chamber category of dryers encompasses a wide variety of indirect contact dryers. Some of the manufacturers of these dryers include Komline- Sanderson, Gouda, and Fenton. These dryers use heated disks, paddles, or screws to transfer heat to the biosolids and evaporate water. The heat transfer medium is generally oil (Komine-Sanderson, Gouda, or Fenton) or steam (Komline-Sanderson). A Komline- Sanderson dryer is shown on Figure 24. The capacities of these dryers vary, with unit capacities typically 10 dtpd or less. The largest units have capacities of approximately 20 dtpd. The indirect systems minimize the volume of exhaust air generated and, therefore, have relatively low odor emissions. These dryers have been in use in the United States since the mid-1990s. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 43 - Figure 24. Modular Dryer (Courtesy of Komline) Modular dryers, including paddle/disk/rotary chamber technologies, typically require less operator oversight than rotary drum or fluidized bed systems. Minor maintenance and maintenance of ancillary systems can be performed by plant staff; however, maintenance of components in the drying train is typically performed by the manufacturer. These systems can be either continuous feed or batch systems. Most of the paddle dryer applications have been for drying biosolids to reduce the moisture content of the final product to less than 10 percent, but some units have also been used as scalping upstream of incinerators to increase incineration capacity. (4) Belt Dryers Belt dryers are used widely in Europe, with more than 30 installations, but are relatively new to North America, with only two installations. In a belt dryer system, dewatered cake is fed onto a moving belt. Hot air is blown through the belt, drying the cake. The dried product drops from the moving belt into a collection system. Spent air is recovered and reheated in the drying air loop. A schematic of this process is shown on Figure 25. A belt dryer installation is shown on Figure 26. Belt dryers are relatively low temperature dryers with the drying gas ranging from approximately 130 oC to 177 oC. While the belt dryer requires larger volumes of drying gas due to the low temperature operation, the low temperatures support the use of alternative energy, which allows a wide range of energy recovery options, including waste heat from an incineration process. Facilities in Europe have been operated using waste heat from gas fired engines, municipal solid waste incinerators, and sludge incinerators. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 44 - Product quality is less uniform in size than the pellets produced using a rotary drum system. Belt dryers are available from several manufacturers, including Andritz and Kruger. Figure 25. Belt Dryer Schematic (Courtesy of Andritz) Figure 26. Belt Dryer System (Courtesy of Andritz) Advantages and disadvantages of thermal drying are listed in Table 20. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 45 - Table 20. Thermal Drying – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Large volume and mass reduction ~ 80 % Air permit required – less difficult than for combustion Dried product is good for beneficial reuse as fertilizer, soil amendment, and fuel. Reduced quantity for landfill, if necessary Anaerobic digestion highly recommended prior to drying – increases cost Many systems available for all size plants High fuel costs but can use digester gas to reduce Centrifuges desirable but belt filter presses can be used Concerns about safety Considered as “green” technology High GHG emissions. May be offset with GHG reduction from fertilizer use Well known technology Based on the outcome of the Final Use Alternatives workshop, heat drying will be considered as a medium plan and large plant treatment option. For both cases, anaerobic digestion will be included upstream of the drying technology. v) Incineration Combustion (incineration) of dewatered solids achieves the greatest reduction in volume and mass for subsequent reuse or disposal by eliminating the water content of the solids and oxidizing the organic material in the sludge. The resulting sterile ash consists of the inert portion of the dry solids. The overall reduction is greater than 90 percent of wet solids feed. While there are opportunities for beneficial use of the ash, it is typically sent to landfill for disposal. Autogenous (burning without additional fuel source) operation of an incineration facility is possible with sufficient volatile solids and dewatered cake of 28 to 34 percent dry solids. Heat recovery from exhaust gases such as use of hot wind box can lower the solids concentration required for autogenous combustion. Incineration uses the heating value of the solids to destroy the organics much like other processes use the organic value of the sludge as fertilizer. A schematic of the fluid bed incineration process is shown on Figure 27. The Bissell Point incineration facility is shown on Figure 28. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 46 - Figure 27. Fluid Bed Incineration Schematic Figure 28. Incineration Facility at Bissell Point WWTP The primary concern with incineration is public perception that incinerators produce harmful air emissions. These perceptions can result in more time for permitting activities. Air emissions are a function of the composition of the sludge and combustion characteristics of the volatile portion of the solids. Additional air emissions come from metals that may be present in the solids. However, with good pretreatment programs, BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 47 - metals regulated by 40 CFR 503 regulations have not been a problem for the existing incinerators in the United States. New installations are showing that air emissions can be controlled to meet regulatory requirements. Modern incinerators use a combination of advanced emissions control equipment and operations control (control of air, temperatures, etc.) to meet stringent air emissions requirements. At the time of this writing, a potential modification of federal regulations is being discussed by the USEPA which will categorize biosolids as a solid waste, which could increase the emission control requirements. There are two basic types of incinerators in use in the United States, fluid bed incinerators and multiple hearth incinerators. The multiple hearth incinerator, such as those installed at the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTP's, is older technology that is more difficult to construct and maintain. Multiple hearth incinerators also have a difficult time achieving complete combustion which increases the emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SOx) as well as producing a nuisance yellow plume discharge. New incineration facilities use fluid bed technology. These units are shut down for a 2 to 3 week period annually for preventative and planned maintenance. Backup processing during this time would be centrifuge dewatering and landfilling. Chemical addition may be required to control odors during the landfilling period. Incinerators are a good fit for large facilities, with a single unit capable of processing up to 150 dry tons per day (dtpd) of solids with practical low end capacity of 50 dtpd. A new incineration facility would use a fluid bed reactor for good combustion, lower emissions, and ease of operation. New fluid bed reactors are replacing older multiple hearth units are being used at Cincinnati, OH; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; and Toronto, Canada with additional applications under design and planned for Cleveland, OH. Incineration is particularly suited for plants with limited space, large solids generation, no anaerobic digestion and continuous, controlled operation despite weather conditions. Advantages and disadvantages of incineration are summarized in Table 21. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 48 - Table 21. Incineration – Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Large volume and mass reduction Not perceived as “green” No pre-stabilization (anaerobic digestion) needed and handles scum and grease Air permit required – more difficult than for other technologies Uses “bioenergy” of solids, little or no auxiliary fuel required Centrifuges desirable for autogenous combustion. Small footprint, continuous processing on- site, not function of weather or transportation Not suitable for small plants, below 50 dtpd Defer cost of digester rehabilitation or replacement Relatively high GHG emissions Based on the outcome of the Final Use Alternatives workshop, incineration will be considered as a large plant treatment option, considering both an upgrade of the new multiple hearth option and new fluidized bed options. Digestion will not be included in the incineration options. d. Energy Recovery Energy recovery and energy management for wastewater treatment facilities are an increasingly vital component of the overall operational management philosophy and success of the utility; with growing regulatory demands, as well as public pressure to be as efficient, and as environmentally-friendly (“green”), as possible. There are a number of alternatives that could be considered for each individual treatment plant, or for the all of the plants as a combined entity. Most all of them, with the exception of digester gas energy production (which the District has incorporated into its Missouri River plant), involve some sort of third party partnership to be considered viable. Particularly, the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative, passed in November 2008 and requiring investor- owned energy utilities to generate or purchase 15% of their electricity from clean energy sources by 2021, is anticipated to be a catalyst for future partnerships with wastewater utilities to either purchase electricity produced from wastewater treatment systems, or to utilize biosolids as a supplemental fuel source at coal-fired plants that have co-generation capability. This section provides a brief overview of the available energy recovery and partnership alternatives available to the District. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 49 - (1) Digester Gas Energy Digester gas produced by anaerobic digestion facilities can be used in a variety of ways, including generating electricity. As interest in sustainability increases, more wastewater utilities are looking at biosolids as a potential resource. In general, wastewater treatment facilities are large users of energy. However, even with access to resources that can be converted into useable energy, it is often difficult for wastewater utilities to generate energy as economically as it can be purchased. Wastewater treatment plants are unregulated with regard to energy production. Therefore, they are not required to produce any renewable energy, and they receive no direct incentives from its generation. Thus, for wastewater facilities there is often little or no incentive for producing green energy as a stand-alone process other than for the public relations benefit. However, as noted above, the passage of the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative will provide greater incentive for power producers to pursue partnerships with local wastewater treatment utilities in order to receive renewable energy credits. If anaerobic digestion is employed to process biosolids, there are still issues to resolve about how to utilize the digester gas produced. Digester gas typically requires conditioning prior to utilization. Contaminants that must be removed include water vapor, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and siloxanes. Siloxanes are manmade volatile organic compounds containing silicon and oxygen found in many consumer products. When combusted, siloxanes form silicon dioxide, which can accumulate on equipment – resulting in operation and maintenance issues. Engine generators are the most commonly used biogas generation technology at wastewater treatment plants and have been used by the District at the Missouri River treatment plant. For applications with extremely large quantities of digester gas, combustion turbines are being examined. Microturbines, which are small capacity turbines (30 to 250 kW) with reduced maintenance requirements, are becoming more common. Fuel cells, which are gaining interest, have not yet proved to be cost effective for digester gas. (2) Co-generation/Pyrolysis An economical way to burn biomass is to co-fire it with coal in existing plants. Co-fired projects are usually implemented by retrofitting a biomass fuel feed system to an existing coal plant, although greenfield facilities can also be readily designed to accept a variety of fuels. Co-firing biomass in a coal plant generally has overall positive environmental effects. The clean biomass fuel typically reduces emissions of sulfur, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and heavy metals, such as mercury. Further, compared to other renewable BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 50 - resources, biomass co-firing directly offsets coal use (unlike intermittent wind, which could offset gas, coal, nuclear, or even other renewables, such as hydro). Based on their inherent energy value, biosolids have the potential to be combusted as a fuel. However, the high ash content and moisture content of biosolids is still an obstacle. If drying can be performed without significant use of energy through the recovery of waste heat, then the combustion of biosolids for electrical generation becomes more attractive. With that said, even with the incentive of renewable energy credits, there remain a number of barriers to a viable market for co-firing biosolids for energy production, including:  Plant and corporate management and operations staff may be hesitant to change their plants. Plant personnel typically commit to maximizing the efficiency and availability of the plant by improving performance, technology, and operations and maintenance practices over time. It is critical to the success of any biomass co-firing project to have project champions at both the plant and corporate office. Without this, a co-firing project is likely to have insurmountable difficulties.  Without added regulatory drivers it is unlikely that biomass fuel costs will be competitive with coal.  Co-firing may impact the marketability of fly ash, which is sold as an admixture to the cement industry.  The biomass fuel supply infrastructure is immature in many regions of the country, and biomass suppliers may find it difficult to meet utility procurement standards.  There are some issues related to plant performance that can detract from plant operations. Proper design, implementation, and operations will minimize these.  Environmental critics are sometimes opposed to co-firing biomass with coal because they feel it is a form of “green washing” dirty coal plants. They believe that biomass could be used to justify extended lives for coal plants. For these reasons, they argue that co-fired biomass should not be counted as renewable. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 51 - These concerns have been an obstacle to more widespread biomass co-firing adoption by utilities in the U.S. However, most of these issues can be addressed through proper system design, fuel selection, and limiting the amount of co-firing. e. Third Party Partnerships (1) Trigen Energy Corporation Trigen is a steam and cogeneration utility in St. Louis, owned by Veolia Water, that provides steam to approximately 100 buildings in the heart of downtown. The steam is generated at a Trigen-owned plant at a pressure of 165 psi and distributed through a City- owned piping network. The primary energy source for the steam boilers is natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup energy source. Cogeneration capacity from the steam is 15 MW, plus an 18 MW condensing turbine used occasionally. Trigen has also secured the rights as wholesaler of natural gas from Louisiana. Potential opportunities between the St. Louis MSD and Trigen include:  Sale of natural gas from Trigen to MSD  Sale of steam from MSD’s Bissell Point cogeneration facility to Trigen  Sale of MSD-generated digester gas to Trigen  Trigen’s use of MSD-generated wastewater solids for steam and power generation Of the listed opportunities, the most promising of these to Trigen is the purchase of steam from MSD. MSD would install a heat recovery system for the Bissell Point incineration process and sell the steam to Trigen. Trigen would provide the steam transfer pipeline (expected to be 8” diameter or less), within the 3 mile gas easement that currently includes its natural gas pipeline. The sale price of the steam would fluctuate based on the market price of natural gas. Trigen envisions this as a way to demonstrate its cooperation with the City and publicize the use of green energy. Veolia, Trigen’s parent company, also benefits from the offset of carbon emissions for such an operation. In order to pursue this opportunity, MSD will need to upgrade/replace the existing incinerators at Bissell Point. It may also be attractive to extend a steam line to Lemay to obtain steam from its incinerators. This will also require upgrade/replacement of the Lemay incinerators. Actions required to evaluate this option include: BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 52 -  Black & Veatch to estimate the quantity of steam (at 165 psi minimum) available from Bissell Point only, and Bissell Point and Lemay solids.  Based on the steam estimates, Trigen will provide the budgetary estimates for revenue to the District to purchase the steam. This will be based on Trigen building the steam delivery pipeline to the Bissell Point fence line.  MSD staff will consider using Trigen as a gas provider, possible at rates closer to wholesale. The detailed analysis of this alternative will not be conducted until Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. (2) Bache Energy Bache is an emerging enterprise focused on generating sustainable energy using a proprietary pyrolysis technology. Mike Judd is the sole US licensee developing this process. Using mainly wood waste products, the technology is able to generate steam, electricity, biofuel and synthetic natural gas as a byproduct. Plans for sites in St. Louis focus on Mississippi River access, where barges would be used to deliver wood material and haul out liquid biofuel. Opportunities between the St. Louis MSD and Bache Energy include:  Bache Energy is interested in purchasing property owned by MSD that is currently the site of the Lemay ash lagoons, adjacent to the Pinnacle Casino. This real estate purchase opportunity is not a function of the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. Alternatively, the site of the abandoned Solid Waste Incinerator near the Bissell WWTP could also allow Bache Energy access to the Mississippi river.  If Bache Energy locates on its desired site near the Lemay plant, the Bache process will become a major source of waste heat, potentially suitable for drying MSD dewatered cake. Bache Energy will charge MSD a tipping fee to accept and process biosolids.  Under the most optimistic scenarios, Bache is expecting a 2 ½ year time period to begin construction in one of its facilities Actions required to evaluate this option include:  Black & Veatch will obtain additional available information on the technology. According to Bache Energy, only limited information will be available due to existing Non-Disclosure Agreements.  Bache Energy and MSD will discuss an agreement for the land purchase. This discussion is separate from the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 53 -  Black & Veatch will monitor the progress of Bache Energy’s facility development, and if it looks viable, may consider evaluating the option of supplying dewatered sludge to Bache Energy for Drying. The detailed analysis of this alternative will not be conducted until Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. (3) Ameren UE Ameren UE is a subsidiary of Ameren Corporation, based in St. Louis. Founded in 1902, it is Missouri’s largest electric utility with 55 percent of its customers in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Under Missouri Proposition C requirements, Ameren UE is seeking to increase its renewable energy production. The requirements are to increase its renewable energy portfolio to 2 percent by 2011, and 15 percent by 2021. Ameren UE is considering biosolids-related renewable energy sources to help achieve its Renewable Energy mandates. Ameren UE’s Meramec Power Plant is adjacent to MSD’s Lower Meramec WWTP, which may present viable cost effective opportunities for use of the wastewater solids or digester gas as a renewable energy source. Ameren UE is cautiously interested in the use of biosolids at its coal-fired power plants. Potential logistical issues, increased O&M on its operations and unknown characteristics of the material are critical unknown factors. Opportunities between MSD and Ameren UE include:  Co-firing MSD-generated dried biosolids in the Ameren UE power generation plant boiler. Limitations to this process are expected to be operational, including: o Fluctuations in the supply and composition of boiler feed material. Ameren UE will determine if the use of dried biosolids can be an option for its operation. o The size of the dried material. The material must be compatible with pulverized coal feed, which has a size limitation of less than ¼ inch.  Selection of method of solids hauling between the plants and the Ameren UE facility. Using barges to transport solids on the river may be an attractive option. The option of including a third party solids handler may also be of interest.  Availability of digester gas from the Lower Meramec WWTP. Due to the proximity, piping biogas generated at the Lower Meramec plant to the Ameren BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 54 - UE facility may be feasible. The Lower Meramec plant does not currently have anaerobic digestion.  The Coldwater WWTP, which has out of service anaerobic digesters, could re- commission the digestion process and sell biogas to Ameren UE. A minimum facility capacity would be 1 MW for it to be cost effective. Actions required to evaluate this option include:  Ameren UE will explore potential logistical issues for using biosolids at its existing facilities.  Ameren UE will provide an estimate of the quantity of coal used at its power plants, which is expected to be in the range of 20 to 25 million tons per year total, for its four facilities. The detailed analysis of this alternative will not be conducted until Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 55 - 2. Alternatives Evaluation a. Solids Quantities The solids projections included in Technical Memorandum No. 2 – Facility Summaries and Solids Projections were used for the solids analyses. Historical solids quantities and projections were based on extrapolation of information in the District’s operations records for solids production and were not based on detailed process modeling, which was excluded from the Phase 1 scope of work. It is recommended that more detailed process models based on influent characteristics and solids mass balances be conducted as part of Phase 2 evaluations so that more accurate unit process capacity analyses can be conducted and more realistic operating costs can be developed. The Lemay WWTP solids quantities were used to represent the “large plant” options; the Coldwater WWTP solids quantities were used to represent “medium plant” options. Future maximum month solids quantities (design quantities) were based on 2030 values and are used to develop process capacity requirements. Midpoint average annual quantities, which are used to develop operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements and costs, were developed by interpolating between the current and future (2030) annual average (AA) quantities. A summary of the solids quantities is presented in Table 1. Table 22. Solids Quantities (same as Table 1) Primary Solids WAS Total AA Flow (mgd) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Solids Pro- duction (dt/MG) Lemay WWTP 2030 MM 241 30 65 64 40 94 48 0.39 Mid - point AA 132 19 62 31 51 50 55 0.38 Coldwater WWTP 2030 MM 26 9.3 81 9.3 81 18.5 81 0.52 Mid - point AA 24 7.1 80 7.1 76 14.1 78 0.59 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 56 - While total solids data were available for the Coldwater plant, data were not available to identify the primary solids and WAS contribution. Consequently, the primary solids and WAS components were estimated based on “typical” relative production, which ranges from 40 percent primary solids, 60 percent WAS to 60 percent primary solids, 40 percent WAS. A production ratio of 50 percent primary solids, 50 percent WAS was used for both 2030 maximum month and midpoint annual average conditions. While the primary solids to WAS ratio for the Lemay plant at 38:60 and 32:68 for midpoint and 2030 maximum month conditions, respectively reflects unusually low primary solids production, it is likely impacted by the current co-thickening operation. As described in TM 2, two issues impact primary solids production: 1) co-thickening reduces solids capture rates in the primary clarifiers, resulting in solids carryover into the activated sludge process and 2) co-thickening increases the solubilization of solids in the primary clarifier, reducing the quantity of total solids produced. Several of the facilities are anticipating biological process changes from current trickling filter operations to activated sludge processes for the future conditions. When calculating the midpoint solids biological solids quantities, the current trickling filter solids production was used in conjunction with future WAS quantities. Final use alternatives were identified during Workshop 1 – Final Use Alternative Screening. These final use options were used to determine required treatment technologies for system evaluation for Workshop 2 – Treatment Technology Screening. Since some processes are differently suited to medium- or large-capacity facilities, the technology evaluation was divided into an evaluation for large plants, including Bissell Point and Lemay WWTP's, and medium-sized facilities, including Coldwater, Missouri River, and Lower Meramec WWTP's. The Fenton and Grand Glaze facilities are expected to be decommissioned within the studied project life, with the respective influent flows diverted to the Lower Meramec plant. Consequently, neither the Fenton nor the Grand Glaze facilities were included in this evaluation. b. Costs Costs used for this preliminary evaluation were based on the unit costs presented in Table 23, using a 20 year project life and a 5 percent interest rate. Costs reflect current costs to the District. Natural gas costs, which vary by season, reflect a yearly average rate. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 57 - Table 23. O&M Unit Cost Summary Parameter Unit Cost Power kWh $0.070 Natural Gas mmBtu $3.53 Labor (Operations/Maintenance) hour $40 Polymer lb $2.50 Equipment Maintenance Percent of equipment cost 2 % Hauling to Composting Site wet ton $3.00 Disposal at Composting Site wet ton $15.25 c. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates were developed for the evaluated options based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) guidelines. For parameters that were not covered under these guidelines, literature values and recommendations were used. The GHG emission assessments include CO2, CH4, and N2O generated from combustion of fossil fuels and CH4 and N2O from combustion of biogenic fuels, landfill fugitive gas emissions, and land application. Greenhouse gas emissions were also estimated for polymer and lime use. No GHG emissions from embodied energy use for facilities or equipment were included in this evaluation. Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated based on estimated energy use, biosolids production, and polymer use at the 2020 average conditions. The LGOP protocol has established a system that allows ready comparison between organizations, based on three “Scope” categories, each with specific categories of emissions. Scope 1 and Scope 2 have well-defined boundaries, while Scope 3 is an “optional” reporting category. A summary of the scope definitions is presented on Figure 29. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 58 - Figure 29. Overview of Scope Areas (from WRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol) The definitions of the scope conditions are as follows: Scope 1 includes direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned and controlled by the organization. These include emissions from combustion of natural gas or biogas, biosolids combustion, emissions from liquid stream processes, and vehicle use. Scope 1 includes fugitive emissions from flares and other processes. If the utility generates power on-site using biogas, emissions associated with the generation process are included in this section. Carbon dioxide emissions from biosolids combustion are not included in this section. Non- GHG emissions, such as NOx, are not included. Scope 2 is limited to indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity. While the GHG emissions occur at the facility where the electricity is generated rather than the point of use, the using organization is responsible for inclusion of the emissions in its GHG inventory. Scope 3 is an optional reporting area, but may include large inventories of GHG emissions or offsets. Scope 3 includes all indirect GHG emissions, other than electricity use. Scope 3 emissions are a result of the operations and practices of the organization, but the sources of the emissions are not owned or controlled by the organization. Scope 3 emissions include:  GHG emissions associated with embodied carbon  Vehicle emissions from contracted operations, such as hauling, transport, or land application  GHG emissions associated with chemical production and delivery  Employee travel (business and commuting) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 59 -  Landfill emissions (if not owned/operated by the organization)  Process emissions from contracted activities  Offsets associated with biosolids use in place of synthetic fertilizer  Carbon sequestration offsets Since tracking and accounting for Scope 3 emissions is optional, all items do not need to be included. However, tracking activities that are major emissions sources can provide valuable information to help with process and technology decisions. Some criteria that can be used to determine which Scope 3 items to track include:  The activity/process is responsible for a large quantity of GHG emissions relative to the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions  Potential emission reductions can be attained through modifications to these activities/processes, based on organization actions.  The activities or emissions are of high interest to stakeholders It can be difficult to accurately assess Scope 3 emissions, since there may not be a direct “cause and effect” relationship between the organization’s actions and these emissions. As an example, if fertilizer offsets are being considered as a Scope 3 item, it is difficult to determine if the biosolids replace synthetic fertilizer at the same usage rates. If biosolids application results in a need for supplemental nutrients, there is little ability to identify GHG emissions associated with the additional nutrient application. Parameters that were included in the GHG estimates are listed in Table 24. Table 24. Greenhouse Gas Emission Parameters Parameter Scope Direct Emissions Natural gas use Incineration Biogas combustion Fugitive biogas emissions Truck traffic from hauling 1 Indirect Emissions Power consumption 2 Indirect Emissions Composting Chemical production (lime, polymer) Fertilizer offsets Landfill disposal 3 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 60 - Greenhouse gas assessments involve performing an inventory of all GHG's emitted by the organization or industry and applying the appropriate global warming potential (GWP) value to each gas. The GWP is a measurement of the amount a specific GHG contributes to global warming based on its radiative effect (ability to trap heat in the atmosphere) of 1 kilogram of the gas over a period of 100 years. The GWP is a relative value, based on CO2 having a value of 1. Although the GWP's of the GHG's have been updated in 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, the GWP values presented in the Second Assessment Report (SAR) from the IPCC, published in 1996, are used as the standard values. The GWP values are listed in Table 25. As shown in the table, the GWP varies significantly, depending on the type of gas. Consequently, a small quantity of emitted gas with a high GWP can have a great effect on the GHG inventory. Table 25. Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases Gas Chemical Name Atmospheric Lifetime (years) 2001 IPCC GWP Carbon Dioxide CO2 50 -200 1 Methane CH4 12 21 Nitrous Oxide N2O 120 310 d. Large Plant Options The treatment technology and final use options identified for evaluation for large- capacity facilities are listed in Table 26. The information developed for the screening is intended to be used to differentiate between alternatives based on relative costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, costs and GHG emissions for processes that are common to all alternatives have not been included in the screening level results. These processes include thickening and dewatering, which are both currently used at the Lemay and Bissell point facilities. The results of the screening level evaluation are also presented in Table 26. High level cost information for the screened options is presented in Appendix B. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 61 - Table 26. Large-Capacity Technology Alternatives Preliminary Evaluation Results (Same as Table 2) Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Capital Cost ($M) Annual O&M Cost($M) Present Worth ($M) GHG Emissions (tonne/yr) 1a. Multiple hearth incineration Incineration with upgraded multiple hearth technology Landfill disposal of ash None 38.2 2.0 63.3 7,300 1b. Fluidized bed incineration Incineration with new fluid bed technology Landfill disposal of ash Electricity production from waste heat 65.1 1.2 80.2 3,000 2. Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Landfill disposal of digested cake Electricity production from biogas 45.5 2.7 58.4 (336) 3. Heat drying Anaerobic digestion with heat drying Beneficial reuse of dried product Heat recovery from drying for process heating, use of biogas for heat drying 91.0 3.4 134.2 11,900 4. Landfill None Landfill None 0 2.3 28.9 27,000 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 62 - The following items are noted with respect to the results provided in Table 20:  Costs for the multiple hearth and fluidized bed incineration options are based on achieving Clean Air Act 112 emission standards; and eliminating the existing yellow plume from the incinerator discharge. If existing regulations are modified such that the emission requirements must meet CAA 129 standards, it is unlikely that the multiple hearth incinerators will remain a viable option for future use.  For the large plants, no costs are included for thickening or dewatering, since both plants already have them in some form.  Due to the limitations of the existing thickening processes, which currently thicken sludge to about 3% TS, the anaerobic digester and the heat drying costs are larger than would be expected. If mechanical thickening processes are installed and the thickened solids concentration increased to approximately 5-6% TS, the anaerobic digestion and heat drying costs are reduced by roughly $100/dry ton. e. Medium Plant Options The treatment technology and final use options identified for evaluation for medium- capacity facilities are listed in Table 27. In similar fashion to the large-plant options, processes common to the treatment plants are not included in the costs and GHG information for the screening level evaluation. For the three plants considered in the medium-plant options, Coldwater, Missouri River, and Lower Meramec, this is limited to thickening. Digestion equipment is available at two of these plants, Coldwater and Missouri River; however, the Coldwater WWTP digesters have been taken out of service and may require upgrades and repair if re-commissioned. Dewatering is also in use at two of the facilities, Missouri River and Lower Meramec. The following items are noted with respect to the results provided in Table 27.  Costs for composting are based solely on the current fees of $18.25/ wet ton (per tipping fee to dispose of solids at the St. Peters Composting facility from the Missouri River WWTP). This cost would be updated in Phase 2, with costs incorporated from St. Louis Composting. An alternative that may merit additional consideration would include hauling excess solids (solids in excess of what is hauled to St. Peters) from the Missouri River WWTP to St. Louis Composting on a trial basis.  Digestion costs have been included. It was assumed that existing thickening and dewatering facilities are sufficient for the immediate future.  No costs are included for liquid disposal to a landfill. If tipping fees or additional hauling costs should be accounted for, these would be assessed in Phase 2 (if warranted). High level cost information for the screened alternatives is presented in Appendix B. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 63 - Table 27. Medium-Capacity Technology Alternatives (Same as Table 3) Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Capital Cost ($M) Annual O&M Cost ($M) Present Worth ($M) GHG Emissions(tonne/yr)5. Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Land application of Class B cake Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.5 18.4 (1,548) 6. Heat drying Anaerobic digestion with heat drying Beneficial reuse of dried product Heat recovery from drying for process heating, use of biogas for heat drying 22.5 0.8 32.8 3,015 7. Alkaline stabilization Alkaline stabilization of raw cake Land application of Class B cake None 3.0 0.7 11.5 (976) 8. Composting Anaerobic digestion and compost stabilization of digested cake 3rd party distribution and beneficial use through St. Louis Composting Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.4 18.1 126 9. Liquid Disposal Anaerobic digestion Liquid solids to Fred Weber Landfill Electricity production from biogas 12.7 0.1 14.2 (1,037) 10. Landfill None Landfill None 0 0.9 10.7 7,637 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 64 - 3. Results of Screening The treatment technology options were screened during Workshop 2, using the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) evaluation process described in Technical Memorandum 6. Minutes from the workshop are included in Appendix C. Options for large plants (Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs) and medium plants (Coldwater, Missouri River, and Lower Meramec WWTPs) were screened separately. The screening process was performed as a group, and reflects the consensus of inputs from MSD staff. The results of the TBL ratings are presented in Appendix D. A summary of the category and criteria ratings used in the TBL is presented in Table 28. Table 28. TBL Category and Criteria Weights Category Weight Criteria Weight Aesthetics 4 Truck traffic 1 Ease of permitting 1 Social 15 Public perception 1 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 2 Proven experience 3 Flexibility 4 Environmental 25 Beneficial Reuse 2 Capital cost 10 O&M cost 10 Staffing/operational complexity 4 Economic 60 Permitting effort 1 During the screening process, staff provided recommendations to modify unit costs. These modifications will be included in the Phase II cost evaluations. The results of the evaluation process for the large plant option are shown on Figure 30. The options selected for further evaluation during Phase II of this study are presented in Table 29. Results for the medium plant option are shown on Figure 31. The options selected for further evaluation during Phase II are listed in Table 30. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 65 - 0.62 1.06 1.85 0.62 1.17 1.82 0.45 0.98 1.68 0.58 1.02 0.74 0.32 0.52 2.28 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Total Weighted ScoreMHF Rebuild FBI MAD/Landfill Thermal Drying Landfill Raw Large Plant Treatment Technology Alternative Economic Environmental Social Figure 30. Results of TBL Evaluation for Large Plant Option Table 29. Large-Plant Technology Alternatives Screening Results Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Multiple hearth incineration Incineration with upgraded multiple hearth technology Landfill disposal of ash None Fluidized bed incineration Incineration with new fluid bed technology Landfill disposal of ash Electricity production from waste heat Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Landfill disposal of digested cake Electricity production from biogas Landfill None Landfill None BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 66 - 0.47 1.06 1.80 0.58 1.06 0.74 0.26 0.85 1.80 0.41 0.92 1.92 0.54 0.48 2.50 0.51 0.63 1.94 - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Total Weighted ScoreMAD/Land App Thermal Drying Alk Stab/Land App Composting Liquid Disposal Landfill Raw Medium Plant Treatment Technology Alternative Economic Environmental Social Figure 31. Results of TBL Evaluation for Medium Plant Option Table 30. Medium-Plant Technology Alternatives Alternative Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Recovery Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion Land application of Class B cake Electricity production from biogas Composting Anaerobic digestion and compost stabilization of digested cake 3rd party distribution and beneficial use through St. Louis Composting Electricity production from biogas Liquid Disposal Anaerobic digestion Liquid solids to Fred Weber Landfill Electricity production from biogas Landfill None Landfill None BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 Appendix A Meeting Minutes from Potential Third Party Partnerships A.1. Fred Weber Landfill A.2. St. Louis Composting A.3. St. Peters Composting A.4. Trigen A.5. Ameren UE A.6. Bache Energy BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-2 A.1. Fred Weber Landfill MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with Fred Weber, Inc. August 5, 2009 Objectives: 8. Discuss existing operations/contracts 9. Identify new opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attending: Fred Weber: Glenn O’Bryan, Director Engineering/Resource Planning; Jim Bell, Operations Manager; Mitch Stepro, Special Waste Manager; St Louis MSD: Steve Roberts, Project Manager; Ken Gambaro Plant Manager; B&V: Tom Ratzki and Matt Bond Background: Fred Weber, Inc. is a large construction materials supply company and commercial landfill located in Maryland Heights near the Missouri River WWTP. They currently receive solids from MSD facilities at a bid cost of $23.96/wet ton (includes $2.96 regulatory fee). Their primary site houses their quarry and landfill operations, and a site aerial photo and other photos are on B&V’s Cygnet site. They are in the first option year of the contract, and expect to renew the second and final option year for about $1.50/wet ton more. They expect a life for the landfill of over 80 years, and do not expect tipping fees to rise more than the consumer price index (CPI) over time. Past operations receiving MSD solids have been relatively trouble free. They currently take solids in the “north pit” along with municipal waste, and have had occasional odor complaints (adjacent Pattonville High School) especially with more odorous solids from the South County WWTP's. They have restricted hours receiving South County plant solids because of odor potential. They will soon be activating a new section of the landfill in their “south pit” that will be much lower (250 ft below grade) and farther from the high school—they expect this will significantly reduce or eliminate odor complaints. They receive yard waste and operate a static pile composting operation in the south pit. They provided a summary of operations, and received about 68,000 tons of yard waste from the year ending 6/30/09. Details are in the B&V Cygnet site. They are picking up a contract with Hansen’s Tree Service to receive trimmings from Ameren line clearing operations. They have no experience with co-composting with municipal biosolids. They will soon publicly announce a major collaboration with Ameren, Methane to Megawatts. They are building a gas utilization system for power generation with a production rate of up to 60 MW. They mentioned it could be possible that MSD could receive credit for a portion of gas production that comes from their solids. Opportunities with MSD: Several opportunities for continued and new collaboration with MSD were discussed: BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-3  Landfill of solids. They would be interested in receiving more landfill solids from MSD. They need predictability, and will evaluate how much they can receive in proportion to their other solids waste. We gave them preliminary projections and they will advise how much they could take from MSD.  Receipt of Incinerator Ash. They expect to be able to receive ash as a waste, and may be able to use it in their cover. They are very short on cover material, needing about 500 tons of soil per day for daily cover. They requested laboratory analyses and physical samples of ash to evaluate this, and would prefer the ash to be as dry as possible.  Dried sludge receipt. It may be possible to blend a heat dried biosolids pellets with their lime pellets in a soil admixture blend.  Co-composting. They would consider co-composting with biosolids, but believe that an enclosed (expensive) system would be required at their site.  Liquid sludge to landfill. They would like to explore taking liquid sludge from MSD to the soon to be dormant portions of the “north pit”. One problem they have with gas production is that the materials are too dry in the landfill. They would provide a synthetic cover to contain gas (and odors) from liquid solids distributed over the dormant cell, and the liquid and organic content of the solids will help increase gas production. This would require special approval from MDNR, likely on a smaller pilot scale, prior to long term implementation. Digested sludge could be piped from Missouri River, or hauled for smaller scale pilot testing. Action Items: 1. Fred Weber to determine how much MSD solids they could landfill at this site. 2. MSD/B&V to facilitate giving Fred Weber laboratory analyses and physical samples of ash for potential landfill cover. 3. Black & Veatch and Gredell Engineering to consider the feasibility of the liquid sludge option to the landfill. If feasible, this will be added to the technology options for Phase 1 screening, and possibly be fully developed during Phase 2. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-4 A.2. St. Louis Composting MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with St Louis Composting August 6, 2009 Objectives: 1. Identify new opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attendees: Patrick Geraty, Owner St Louis Composting,; Steve Roberts, MSD Project Manager, Tom Ratzki and Matt Bond, B&V Background: St Louis Composting provides yard waste composting for much of the St Louis metropolitan area. They estimate they have about 60% of the market, and currently have facilities in Valley Park (26 acres, headquarters, static pile composting, product distribution), near Belleville (115 acres, leased, more varied windrow composting), and a transfer station in Maryland Heights. They handle about 500,000 cy of yard waste and 200,000 cy of wood chips per year. They are beginning a 5 year contract for the St Louis forestry department that will deliver a lot more tree trimmings. They receive $9/cy for trimmings that result in wood chips, a good potential bulking agent for co-composting with biosolids. Patrick says that it would likely be impossible to site another composting facility in St Louis County, and they are seeking a new site in Jefferson County within the next year. Their Illinois facility is sited well in a rural setting. It is permitted to receive up to 10 percent “Other Waste” which includes food waste and animal beddings (up to 38,000 cy per year). Patrick believes “Other Wastes” could also include biosolids under their permit. They are currently using less than 2 percent of this allocation, and they would have capacity to handle all the projected South County biosolids. Note that site restrictions exist that windrows can be no closer than 600 ft from nearest residence. St Louis Composting only deals with yard waste at this time producing mainly mulches. They see a very good market for soil amendment product made from compost. It is clear St Louis Compost has and can market landscape product to the St Louis market, and feels confident they could produce and market regionally a composted material if they had the nitrogen source from municipal biosolids. Scans from a couple of their brochures are attached with facility locations, a photo of the Illinois composting facility, and compost product pricing. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-5 Opportunities with MSD: Several opportunities for collaboration with MSD were discussed, including co-composting with municipal biosolids and use of MSD ash in their product blends. The most promising alternative would appear to be co-composting of MSD solids from Lower Meramec at the Belleville facility and potentially at a future St Louis Composting Jefferson County facility. Currently their Belleville site is permitted for this and could be conducted on a pilot basis, perhaps first with Missouri River biosolids that are already digested. For the Phase 2 technology evaluation, this alternative would involve new digesters at Lower Meramec, hauling digested biosolids to their Belleville facility, and paying a fee to compost the solids using the windrow composting method. It appears that they have plenty of wood chip supply for all South County solids. St Louis Composting would be responsible for all facility operations, permitting, and product distribution. A consulting fee allowance would be included with this alternative for the technology assistance getting this program started. Future upgrades could allow acceptance of all South County MSD solids, and eventual construction of more elaborate enclosed composting facilities in Illinois or Jefferson County (their new site). Note St Louis Composting’s new Jefferson County Facility potentially could be located very near the Lower Meramec Plant near the Jefferson County Line). Additionally, Patrick would like to consider incinerator ash for their product blends. We should arrange to give them testing analyses and ash samples. Action Items: 1. St Louis Composting to propose “tipping fee” to receive solids for composting at the Illinois facility, and send this to Matt Bond. 2. B&V to prepare composting technology alternative as described above, first for technology screening during Phase 1, then for detailed evaluation during Phase 2 if it survives the screening. 3. District/B&V to send St Louis composting ash analyses and physical ash samples for their consideration as part of their product blends. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-6 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-7 A.3. St. Peters Composting MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with St Peters August 5, 2009 Objectives: 1. Discuss existing operations/contracts 2. Identify new opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attendees: Russ Batzel, Manager Public Works and Bill Malach, Director of Utilities, St Peters; Steve Roberts, MSD Project Manager and Ken Gambaro, MSD Plant Manager; Tom Ratzki and Matt Bond, Black & Veatch. Background: For nearly 10 years, St. Peters has been composting a large portion of the digested biosolids from St. Louis MSD’s Missouri River WWTP at the St. Peters water and wastewater treatment plant site. After pilot testing and acceptance by MDNR, a Mutual Assistance Agreement was entered into between St. Peters and MSD in 2001. The agreement was amended once in January 2007 to reflect a $3 increase in the price to received the biosolids for composting, raising to the current price of $15.25 per wet ton. The agreement is considered to be flexible by both parties, and its key aspects follow:  Biosolids can be composted or land applied.  MSD will generally provide all the Missouri River dewatered biosolids to St Peters at a solids content greater than 20 percent, but can divert a portion to other uses or pilot studies.  The City may refuse deliveries due to weather or field conditions.  Tipping fees for processing shall be reviewed annually.  By written consent, the City may receive biosolids material from other MSD facilities.  The agreement may be terminated upon at least 60 days notice by either party. St. Peters initially had a liquid land application program for its biosolids. Land application became less feasible on City land when they sold 1200 acres for the Highway 370 project. The City recently installed two belt filter presses, and can now dewater its aerobically digested biosolids to about 16% solids and it now composts those solids in addition to the Missouri River solids. They produce about 6000 wet tons per year. The City notes that the anaerobically digested Missouri River solids release more odors than the aerobically digested St. Peters solids during compost pile turning. The City uses the open windrow method of composting. They carefully monitor the “recipes” of each batch, mixing biosolids with wood chips from their yard waste collection program. They closely monitor temperatures of the piles and the turning of BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-8 the piles to meet Class A stabilization requirements. They have periodic odor complaints when they turn the piles while prevailing winds are in certain directions from certain direction. They are currently limiting their acceptance of Missouri River biosolids to about 80 wet tons per week (about 1/3 of the Missouri River plant’s production of 12,000 wet tons per year) because of odor concerns, wood chip availability, and need to compost of the City’s dewatered biosolids. Due to odor concerns, the City has committed to upgrade the composting system to an aerated static pile system. They will be using the Engineered Compost Systems (ECS) process for aeration and process control. Static piles will be placed on pads with side walls, and a downflow ventilation system will take off gasses to a biofilter for odor. The approximate project budget is $2M, and the project design includes design for current production from St Peters and Missouri River (8 bunker design each 30 by 70 by 10 feet tall, 4 bunkers for each entity). The work will begin soon and is anticipated to be operational early in 2010. St. Peters receives a tipping fee of $10 per cy for yard waste, and receive materials from contractors outside the City. They expect to get more material from Nelson, a tree trimming company that serves Ameren. When they run short of chips for composting with biosolids, they sometimes discount the tipping fee to $4 per cy. They sell compost in bulk at $10 per cy. They give away 2 cy per year to residents. They land apply excess compost over what they can distribute on their city owned land, and manage their crops aggressively. Some of the Missouri wineries are interested in their compost. They meet US Compost Council requirements for quality via extra testing. The program is run by a staff of three. They were featured in the July issue of Treatment Plant Operator (www.tpomag.com) and a copy of that article is on the B&V Cygnet site. Also the Cygnet site includes site visit photos and the St. Peters/MSD agreement and amendment. The City noted that MSD should consider requiring compost application on their contracts for seeding and site restoration. Bill shared his specifications with us, and Steve will discuss within MSD. Tom will discuss including compost within the Missouri River expansion project. The City might be interested in blending incinerator ash in some of their products. They would like testing analyses and physical samples to work with. Opportunities with MSD: It is clear that this mutual agreement has been effective for both St. Peters and the District. St. Peters is planning on continuing to accept MSD solids and if their new design is effective, they should be able to handle current production. However, it is not expected that they will be able to handle the increased quantity after the Missouri River plant is converted to activated sludge, nor handle increased biosolids from growth in the Missouri River basin. They could expand the 8 bay facilities to 12 bays, but that is not currently planned or budgeted. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-9 Actions Items: 1. St Peters to provide MSD with compost specification for inclusion on public works projects (Done). 2. Steve Roberts to work with MSD to determine if compost should be included in MSD projects. 3. District/B&V to send St Louis composting ash analyses and physical ash samples for their consideration as part of their product blends. 4. Tom Ratzki to advise Missouri River design team of desire to use compost in project specifications. 5. Solids alternatives developed for the Missouri River Plant need to have other outlets for biosolids above the expected design capacity of the St. Peters’ facility. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-10 A.4. Trigen MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with Trigen Energy Corporation August 6, 2009 Objectives: 1. Discuss existing Trigen operations, goals and objectives 2. Identify new opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attendees: Wayne Deczynski, Vice President and General Manager, Trigen Energy Corp (a Veolia Energy Company); Steve Roberts, MSD Project Manager; Tom Ratzki and Matt Bond, B&V. Background: Trigen is a steam and cogeneration utility regulated by the City of St Louis because of legacy ownership and tariff issues. The City owns the steam pipe distribution system; Trigen owns the main plant and maintains the distribution system. Steam is distributed to the system at 165 psi. They have 100 building customers (nearly all major hotels, Busch Stadium, Keil/Savvis Center, America’s Center /Edward Jones Dome) in the heart of downtown for steam, and use natural gas (fuel oil backup) as a fuel source. They sell power to the market when economic conditions are right. They have 15MW of cogeneration capacity, plus an 18MW condensing turbine that they only use occasionally. They are now negotiating the renewal of their contract with the City, and fully expect to have it extended. Other parts of Trigen, a Veolia Company now for 1.5 years, serve other major US Cities, and selling chilled water is a market the St Louis operation needs to get into. They are working on this and plan to do this in the next few years, but must route supply and return 36” chilled water lines through the heart of downtown. This will also pit them against Ameren as their potential chilled water users now use electric power for their air conditioning. They have secured rights to the major wholesale natural gas line from Louisiana, and are the third largest natural gas user in the metro area behind Laclede and Ameren. Their connection is right next to the Bissell Point plant and it is possible that they could provide wholesale gas pricing to MSD. They have an easement for the 3 mile gas line from the connection near Bissell to their steam plant at the riverfront, just north of the Veteran’s Bridge. A write-up on Trigen is attached for reference. Opportunities with MSD: Several opportunities for collaboration with MSD were discussed, including buying steam from recovered heat at Bissell Point, delivering BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-11 digester methane gas to Trigen, and using sludge as a fuel source for generating steam and electricity. The most promising alternative appears to be installing heat recovery and selling the steam to Trigen. They would build a pipe along the 3 mile easement they already have for the gas line. It is expected that this would be an 8” line or less and relatively easy to construct. They would pay for the steam likely with pricing tied to natural gas prices, and see it as a win/win solution and a way to demonstrate cooperation and “green” reuse of energy with the City. Veolia will invest capital to make this type of opportunity work, and with their global/European perspective can see some benefits for carbon offsets. For the study, we would look at incinerator upgrade and new fluidized bed incinerator options that would provide the steam as a source to Trigen. We may also look at extending another line to Lemay, and/or trucking or barging Lemay solids to a larger incinerator at Bissell Point. It should be noted that they could serve additional customers along the natural gas route including Proctor & Gamble. We made it clear that it may be several years before the District would proceed with these improvements unless the regulatory picture changes quickly, or there are economic incentives to proceed more quickly. There are not major incinerator replacement costs in the 5 year CIP. Action Items: 1. Black & Veatch to estimate the quantity of steam (M-lbs at 165 psi minimum) that could be available from Bissell Point only, and Bissell Point and Lemay solids. This may be varying quantities based on various incinerator alternatives and heat recovery strategies, and will likely be presented in a range of possible steam quantities. 2. Based on the steam estimates, Trigen will provide the budgetary estimates for revenue to the district to purchase the steam. This will be based on Trigen building the steam delivery pipeline to the Bissell Point fence line. 3. Steve Roberts can explore with District management whether they would entertain using Trigen as a gas provider, possible at rates closer to wholesale. We did not know if the district was already doing this. This could be done with or without the other synergistic alternatives. 4. The detailed analysis of this alternative would not be conducted until Phase 2 of our study. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-12 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-13 Trigen Energy Corporation Listed on the New York Stock Exchange (TGN) Trigen's mission: Reliably and efficiently heat and cool buildings with less than half the energy and pollution required by conventional systems. Trigen Energy Corporation is the leading owner and operator of community energy systems in North America. Trigen operates efficient central plants which are staffed around the clock with highly trained, well supervised crews. From these central production plants, Trigen distributes steam, hot water, and/or chilled water to customer buildings through underground pipelines. Two of these plants incorporate cogeneration, which is the simultaneous generation of heat and power, while an additional four utilize trigeneration, which also incorporates generation of chilled water. Trigen also offers services to the buildings themselves. Our technical competence and skilled workers give us an ability to operate and maintain electric, water, steam, gas, and air systems. Trigen operates building equipment in Brooklyn, Nassau County, New York, and in Trenton, New Jersey. Our roots go back to 1975. Trigen was formed in 1986 by combining the management and assets of Cogeneration Development Corporation with the financial strength of multinational district heating and power plant developer ELYO, whose largest district BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-14 heating subsidiary is the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU). ELYO makes available to Trigen a substantial body of proprietary technology and experience in the efficient construction and operation of district energy systems. Trigen's only business in the efficient generation and distribution of energy for buildings. We survive and prosper by performing these tasks with excellence. Trigen's corporate structure:  Corporate Headquarters, White Plains, New York  Trigen Boston, Boston, Massachusetts  Trigen Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland  Trigen-Peoples, Chicago, Illinois  Trigen Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri  Trigen London, London, Ontario  Trigen Nassau, Garden City, New York  Trigen Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  Trigen Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  Trigen St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri  Trigen Trenton, Trenton, New Jersey  Trigen Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma For more information, contact: Susan S. Odiseos, Director, Marketing & Communications Trigen Energy Corporation One Water Street White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 286-6600 FAX: (914) 948-9157 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-15 A.5. Ameren UE MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with Ameren UE August 10, 2009 Objectives: 1. Identify new opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attendees: Rich Wright-Managing Executive-Renewables, Ameren UE, William Barbieri-Manager Renewables, Ameren UE, Neil Frankenberg, MSD, Steve Roberts, MSD, Tom Ratzki, B&V, Bill Cole, B&V, John Gribble, B&V, Nate Emsick, B&V, Bently Green, B&V Background: Under current Proposition C requirements, utilities such as Ameren are exploring opportunities to increase their renewable energy production levels at their various power plants. Rich Wright and William Barbieri work within Ameren Energy Fuels and Services in the Renewables division and are leading Ameren’s efforts to assess future compliance with these requirements. Of particular interest for this meeting is the fact that Ameren’s Meramec Power Plant is adjacent to MSD’s Lower Meramec Wastewater Treatment Facility on Fine Road, and as such, may present viable cost effective opportunities for utilization of solids material as a renewable energy source. General Discussion: Tom opened the meeting by explaining the goals and objectives for the MSD Solids Masterplan, and where this evaluation currently stands. General discussion items are summarized as follows:  Solids Masterplan o Phase 1 – consists of general evaluation, condition assessment, and screening of various technology options. o Phase 2 – will involve a detailed analysis of screened alternatives. o Digester Gas Production – will be considered as an alternative in this study for each of the District’s seven WWTP’s.  Current Solids Production o About 85% of MSD’s solids production occurs at the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTP’s. o Missouri River WWTP – is the only plant currently using digesters to stabilize biosolids prior to disposal. Digester gas is used for energy production at the plant. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-16 o Coldwater WWTP – has digesters, but they are now out of service and the solids are pumped to the Bissell Point collection system. Opportunities with MSD: Several opportunities for collaboration with MSD were discussed (in consideration of the regulatory and economic constraints related to their feasibility) as follows:  Proposition C (passed in Missouri November 2008) o Requires power companies to increase their usage of renewable energy over time. Current requirements at to achieve 2% by 2011, increasing to 15% by 2021.  How this will be measured is still not clear and is something Ameren anticipates will be resolved in the near future.  Also, federal requirements appear to be much more aggressive, with renewable energy at 20% by 2020. How federal and state versions will be reconciled is not clear at this time. o Energy utilities can purchase Renewable Energy Credits (REC’s) in lieu of achieving mandated renewable energy criteria. o There was a discussion of what was and wasn’t allowable as an REC under Prop C. However, it was agreed that biosolids clearly fall into the allowable category.  Operations o There is concern by Ameren UE that adding biosolids to coal power plants, while being a renewable resource credit, might have negative consequences for the overall operation of the plant. Coal fired plant operation is much more sensitive than some people realize and is based on specific chemistry that must be monitored continuously. As such, the operation is not amenable to sporadic composition changes. To make it effective, the biosolids source of supply would need to be consistent and reliable, in both rate of supply and composition. o Ameren is looking at possible alternative feed sources for the coal plants, which may be more amenable to biosolids, and more forgiving to potential inconsistencies. o Pulverized coal (<1/4” solids) plants have mill issues. Biosolids are a potential fuel source, but the feasibility is something that Ameren would have to do more testing on. Rich Wright is going to see if he can get us a response on the feasibility of using dried biosolids as a renewable energy source from Ameren’s Research Group.  Conceptual Ideas o Third Party Solids Handler – Bill Cole discussed potential scenarios under which a third party would take biosolids in either a pellet form (or converts to pellet form), and then deliver the material by barge to an BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-17 alternate feed source power plant, where it would be converted to energy. There is a green component in taking trucks off the road through barge use. Is there a potential for this type of operation at the Sioux facility? Rich indicated that this is something that would have to be explored, but most likely would not be feasible due to site. o Meramec Power Plant – discussed feasibility of providing solids from the Lower Meramec WWTP if the solids could be directly injected into the boiler, as opposed to being mixed with the coal. The Meramec Power Plant could also take digester gas if it were produced at the Lower Meramec WWTP. o Coldwater WWTP – Ameren UE would be interested in buying digester gas. Could have a 5 MW feed at Coldwater where Ameren UE would own the generating facility, if that much gas production is available. Ameren probably could not justify less than a 1 MW generation facility.  Ameren wanted to know if any other utility was doing something similar. Bill Cole mentioned that JEA in Jacksonville, FL was and that B&V had assisted them with a renewable energy facility.  Ameren wanted to know the Btu value of digested solids. B&V advised that they would provide this information to Ameren.  EPRI Report – was previously completed assessing feasibility of using solids for power generation.  General conclusions – Ameren is cautiously interested in considering the use of biosolids as a renewable energy source, if additional support data and testing can confirm its overall cost-effectiveness. Ameren rated its current interest level as a “5” on a scale of 0-10; but did note that regulatory issues could very well change the drivers significantly as they develop such that their interest level could increase. Action Items: 1. Ameren will explore potential logistical issues for using biosolids at its existing facilities, to assess overall constraints to implementation. 2. For comparative purposes, Ameren is going to provide an estimate of the volume of coal used at its power plants. It is roughly 20-25 tons per year in total to the four facilities. 3. B&V will provide an estimate of Btu value for the biosolids in a dried, stabilized form. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-18 A.6. Bache Energy MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with Bache Energy August 10, 2009 Objectives: 1. Discuss proposed Bache facilities, goals and objectives 2. Identify opportunities for collaboration with St. Louis MSD Attendees: Mike Judd, President, Bache Energy, Tom Cochran – Cochran Architects; Steve Roberts, MSD Project Manager, Neil Frankenberg , Lemay Plant Manager; Tom Ratzki and Bently Green, B&V. Background: Bache is an emerging sustainable energy generation enterprise being developed by Mike Judd. Using proprietary European combustion technology (pyrolysis), which Mike has the exclusive US licenses to, he has developed proposed facilities to create a bio fuel/synthetic natural gas and generate steam/electricity from burning/processing wood waste products. He has developed plans for sites in St Louis near both the Lemay and Bissell Point WWTP's, focusing on Mississippi River access for shipping of wood material by barge and exporting a liquid Biofuel by barge. His interest in sites near the two large WWTPs is that he can use waste heat from the process to add a Heat drying process to his facilities using another European technology that is simple and very cost effective. He has established a proposed source of wood as part of statewide Forestry Management program being initiated by Missouri DNR. He also sees an economic market for transport of wood waste by barge throughout the Mississippi river region if he has a facility that can easily be reached by customers. The proposed facility would have multiple units (up to 8 process trains) capable of processing 1000 tons of wood per day (based on 25% water content). Each unit would consist of side-by-side 120 tpd units (240 tpd) total. They need at least 100 tpd to make the operation feasible. The venture is presently awaiting approval of tax increment financing and sustainable energy grants for the City of St Louis and US Government. He is exploring real estate options for a site for a St Louis Facility (see below). Opportunities with MSD: Bache’s number one goal is to execute a real estate deal with MSD for property owned by the District, along the Mississippi River, near the Lemay WWTP that currently is the site of the ash lagoons south of the Lemay plant along the Mississippi River, adjacent to the new Pinnacle Casino. This land deal is not a function of the Solids Master Plan. If Bache secures the site and financing, and begins operation of the wood burning Energy facility, they have a major source of waste heat and it will be relatively simple for BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-19 them to add the sludge drying facilities. Due to the relative close by location near the Lemay plant, this new facility could process all of Lemay’s biosolids if they are delivered as dewatered material at between 20 and 25% solids (Bache envisioned a Schwing type pumping arrangement with 25% solids- but did not realize the distance was over a mile and pumping technology for that thick of solids is problematic). Bache is logistically looking at 2 ½ years to get to start-up even under its most optimistic scenarios. As such, it was agreed that no major decisions could be made by the District based on this technology until this process is much closer to fruition. Bache has previously been interested in a site near the Bissell WWTP, and had developed plans for a facility that utilized the City of St Louis’ abandoned Solid Waste Incinerator there. However, the City has been reluctant to sell or lease the facility to them. If that venture ever becomes active again, or if an alternate site can be found near the Bissell plant (Bache has had discussions with Trigen to jointly site, use waste heat/steam in conjunction with Trigen’s facility near Bissell), then a similar scenario could be considered at Bissell. Bache did indicate that they would anticipate charging MSD a tipping fee to accept biosolids at these proposed facilities. The tipping fee amount would be subject to negotiations once the overall economic parameters are clearer and better understood. Action Items: 1. Black & Veatch requested Bache provide them a summary of the proposed technology to be employed at these facilities- however this technology is proprietary and Mike Judd has several Non-Disclosure Agreements in place. He will provide what he can that is public information 2. Bache and MSD will discuss (separate from the Solids Master Plan efforts) an agreement for the land needed by Bache. 3. Black & Veatch will monitor the progress of Bache’s facility development, and if it looks viable, may consider evaluating the option of supplying dewatered sludge to Bache for drying during Phase 2. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 Appendix B Screening Evaluation Cost Information Large Plant Options B.1. Multiple Hearth Furnace Incineration B.2. Fluid Bed Incineration B.3. Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Disposal B.4. Heat Drying and Anaerobic Digestion B.5. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake Medium Plant Options B.6. Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application of Class B Cake B.7. Heat Drying and Anaerobic Digestion B.8. Alkaline Stabilization and Land Application of Class B Cake B.9. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting (by Contract) B.10. Anaerobic Digestion and Liquid Disposal B.11. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2 B-1. Multiple Hearth Furnace Incineration BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-3 B-1 Continued. Multiple Hearth Furnace Incineration BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-4 B-2. Fluid Bed Incineration BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-5 B-2 Continued. Fluid Bed Incineration BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-6 B-3. Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Disposal BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-7 B-3 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Disposal BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-8 B-4. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-9 B-4 Continued. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-10 B-5. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-11 B-5 Continued. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-12 B6. Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application of Class B Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-13 B6 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application of Class B Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-14 B7. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-15 B7 Continued. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-16 B8. Alkaline Stabilization with Land Application of Class B Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-17 B8 Continued. Alkaline Stabilization with Land Application of Class B Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-18 B9. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting (by Contract) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-19 B9 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting (by Contract) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-20 B.10. Anaerobic Digestion and Liquid Disposal BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-21 B.10. Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Liquid Disposal BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-22 B-11. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-23 B-11 Continued. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-1 Appendix C Workshop 2 Meeting Minutes BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-2 MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Workshop No. 2 – Solids Alternative Screening Workshop September 23, 2009, 9 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Objectives: 1. Consider recommendations from public perception focus group 2. Obtain input from Solids Alternative Advisory Group 3. Screen technologies and determine alternatives to carry into Phase 2 detailed evaluation. Attendees: Ken Gambaro, MSD Brice Green, Synagro Todd Heller, MSD Becca Coyle, MSD Buffy Santel, MSD Donna Hull, Metro Denver Steve Roberts, MSD Mike Townley, MSD Pam Huntoon, MSD Bret Berthold, MSD Bob Dominak, NEORSD Lori Stone, B&V Mark Wisbey Jacobs Jon Sprague, MSD Trish Scanlon, B&V Neil Frankenburg, MSD Jim Rowan, B&V Tom Ratzki, B&V Bently Green, B&V Matt Bond, B&V Agenda: See attached. Meeting Minutes: 9:10 am Introductions—Matt Bond  Attendees BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-3 Results of MDNR Discussions (Coordinated through Tony Dohman, September 21, 2009) – Matt Bond  Did not learn anything significantly new. o See PowerPoint slides.  Bob Dominak – History of 112/129 – EPA consistently said biosolids should be regulated under 112. June 2007 court ruling reversed that position. Bob’s recent discussions with NACWA and EPA indicate that EPA may be leaning towards CAA 129. Discussed the impact that if regulated under CAA 129, land application sites could be classified as solid waste landfills. EPA granted a 7 month extension by the courts within the last few days. Bob did believe that there is more flexibility on max standards than what was initially perceived.  Tom noted that MDNR was appreciative of the fact that the District was engaging them at such an early stage of the evaluation process. 9:33 am Public Perception Focus Group – Tom Ratzki (also see slides)  12 people / 2-hour session  Explained biosolids characteristics and end uses  Focus group perceptions: o Incineration is a “bad word” – think “thermal conversion” o Biosolids are not “safe” o Landfill space is running out o Truck traffic not an issue o Reuse of solids is very important o Most credible sources of information are trusted friends/neighbors employed by MSD or graduate students doing research in environmental field o Economic most important TBL category o Odors are also going to have to be addressed o Triple Bottom Line: Econ/Env/Social = 60/25/15% - this confirms the District’s own thinking on this breakdown with a higher weighting on economic factors.  District input on recommendations o Jon S. inquired about how focus group was selected. They were invited from Vector’s list of potential focus group members to participate in a “resource recovery” focus group (not wanting them to know it was MSD or sludge related). Looked for a broad diversity from throughout MSD’s service area. 9:44 am Solids Alternative Focus Group (Lori Stone, Bob Dominak, Donna Hull, Brice Green)  Lessons learned from similar evaluations, experience  NEORSD – Bob Dominak (also see slides for more detail) BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-4 o Currently have a beneficial reuse RFP out, considering the following options:  Clean daily cover  Flowable fill o Biosolids program had been selected, but following significant upper and mid-level management turnover, implementation of the program was temporarily suspended while NEORSD re-evaluated the previously selected alternatives. NEORSD brought in peer review panels, and reconsidered incineration (it wanted to ensure there was no bias). The ultimate conclusion was that the decision process was validated and the original decisions were carried forward with the slight modification that the plan adds a green energy production component. o Current processes:  Thickening: GBT’s  Dewatering: Centrifuges that get 47-53% TS  Incineration: Zimpro process / $4-5M per year to operate o Current Systems/Upgrades:  Southerly – installed MHF’s in 1930’s; put in new units in 1970’s. Now replacing with FBI’s.  Westerly: Just upgraded the MHF’s (replacement with FBI’s not warranted because the MHF’s are in good shape). This is a trickling filter (TF) plant. Incinerator influent sludge averages about 30% TS into the 8 hearth system. 10:10 am  METRO Denver – Donna Hull (also see slides for more detail) o Land application is the low cost final use program for the district o METROGRO is the brand name for the biosolids product. o It has one WWF currently, although it is considering a new WWF in northern part of Denver that would be on line by 2015. o Current solids production: 80 dtpd at an average 23% solids concentration. Approximately 93% goes to land application on an annual basis (18-20 truck loads per day). o Composting represents the other 7%. This option does include a tipping fee, but is part of a contingency plan for their overall operations. o Purchased 52,000 acres of farmland for the land app program (approximately 70 miles east of Denver). Owning its property gives it more control. o Costs – road maintenance o Lessons learned: farming and land app not always conducive, there was a lot of public skepticism and negative public perception within the local BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-5 community that was not acknowledged or addressed until the utility received a Cease and Desist order 1997. o New approaches:  Metro concluded that it would need a change in attitude  It would need to improve its program  It needed a new public outreach & education / increase monitoring and research efforts / diverse and flexible / high performance  Environmental Management System (EMS) – Plan/do/act/check – systematic approach / Benefits – raise the bar – educate the public  Public Outreach – stakeholder involvement / USGS independent monitoring  Surveys  Community involvement / donations o Jon S – seems labor intensive – how many people are involved with the overall operation? Donna agreed to send a staffing summary.  45 total  17 field operators / trans / distribution / road maintenance  8 field mechanics  2 utility servicemen  1 field rep / liaison between Metro and farmers o Becca C – revenue from crops? Has not been very lucrative / farmer guaranteed 15 bushels/acre / Metro has had to subsidize operations in some years / has received revenue in only a couple of years. o Incineration was not an option in Denver from a regulatory standpoint / air pollution concerns already dominate due to proximity to mountains / getting incineration permit was considered near impossible. 10:49 am  Synagro - Brice Green o Don’t see phosphorus regulations impacting Missouri soon. o Synagro operates most types of stabilization/final use technologies/ what fits for the customer o Feels lime stabilization on the way out, as there is less interest in it; fewer programs.  Finding land depends on if someone needs lime / probably can’t go back to same sites for 5-6 years due to pH issues / as you go further west the soils are alkaline / o Problems that Synagro experiences – most often occur with programs that are renewed from year to year. Long term programs are easier to operate and maintain. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-6 o General land-app problems occur with odors, etc. There is typically not a problem associated with concerns with the end product. The end-users generally want the product. 11:08 am Break 11:13 am Technology Discussion –Trish, Jim (also see slides)  Refer to Technical Memorandum No. 7  Advantages, Disadvantages, and Considerations of Technologies 11:30 Working Lunch (provided) 11:45 Continue Technology Discussion—Trish, Jim 1:00 pm Results of Technical Evaluation of Alternatives --Trish  Refer to Technical Memorandum No. 7 o Overview / Thickening / Dewatering – Trish o Thermal / Incineration – Jim R  Need digested solids for good end-product for thermal drying  Important Note Regarding CAA 112/129 – Bob Dominak indicated that EPA won’t lump MHF’s and FBI’s into one group, but will consider the top 12% for each type of technology (and further, the top 12% criteria is potentially negotiable), but the indication that Bob has now is that MHF’s would not have to meet the performance MACT’s for FBI’s.  FBI – typically 4 inlets (can get by with 2) – pumped in with Schwing pumps; ash goes out with the exhaust bed, which makes the emission control a little more complex. The FBI’s have twice the capacity for the same diameter as compared to MHF’s.  What kind of clinker problems do you have with MHF’s? [Jim Rowan] Can occasionally have some and have to clean them out. 1:10 pm  Evaluated Alternatives – Trish o Land app: $20/wet ton BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-7 o Evaluation modifications:  Loading facilities: Ken G. pointed out that the “Landfill Raw” option would have a capital cost associated with it for loading and storage facilities  Storage facilities: Bob D. pointed out that they had assumed 14 days of storage for a landfill option. Ken G. noted that weekend storage would be needed at a minimum as proposed for Missouri River design. o Appendix – show breakdown of how costs were derived. (Todd H)  Life cycle cost information  Greenhouse gas (GHG) estimates 1:30 Conduct Screening of Alternatives—Trish, Matt  Large Plants – general group discussion for allocating the weighting criteria. o Milam Landfill – had a permit to accept liquid waste / it was also permitted to put dried biosolids into its final cover / 20% or so / this is in Illinois and would be permitted through IEPA (Mike Townley) – this is something that would need to be followed up in Phase 2.  Medium-size plants o Although truck traffic may be a larger concern for composting, it is acknowledged that this becomes less of a District concern with 3rd party composting.  For the final version, we need more narrative on the various issues impacting the TBL evaluation. There could be a myriad of interpretations to the scoring criteria. It should be clear as to why (for particular criteria) one alternative ranked ahead of another and for what reason.  Look at MHF/FBI both with power generation.  Trigen part is separate – FBI with steam recovery (for sale) – this is a sub- alternative to FBI with power generation.  Put power generation on the MHF, but have the ability to take it out. Will do FBI the same way.  Regional solution – base on a larger FBI facility; this will provide an incremental cost to be able to accurately assess the impact of power generation.  Summary results of screening are consisted of the following: o Large Plants. Eliminated thermal drying alternative o Medium plants. Eliminated thermal trying and alkaline stabilization technologies. Note: The output of triple bottom line (TBL) screening is attached.  Next steps: BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-8 o Wrap up the Tech Memo’s and request comments regarding TM 7 within the next week or so. o Put together a final consolidated summary of all the TM’s. o Steve to get the no. of copies needed o Final review meeting likely held after WEFTEC. o Scoping – try to get done early Nov. / B&V needs to have most of the scope completed by October. 3:30 Wrap-up Phase 1, Plans for Phase 2—Matt  Will be compiling Tech Memos into a binder and distributing to District. Need to know how many binders for the District.  Scheduling meetings with EPA region 7 and IEPA, will invite Buffy S and John L to participated by teleconference.  Will schedule final review meeting in October after WEFTEC. That meeting will address any final comments on Phase 1 Tech Memos and discuss goals and scope for Phase 2.  B&V will begin working on scope for Phase 2. 4:00 Adjourn BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-1 Appendix D Results of Triple Bottom Line Screening D.1. Large Plant Options D.2. Medium Plant Options BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-2 Table D-1. Large Plant Treatment Technology Option Screening Results BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies September 18, 2009 MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V File 44.000 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-3 Table D-2. Medium Plant Treatment Technology Option Screening Results TM8–SummaryofProspectHillReclamationFacilityVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 8 –Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 1 of 9 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 8 – SUMMARY OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION (EXISTING CONDITIONS, PERMITTED CAPACITY & REMAINING LIFE ESTIMATE) To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Thomas R. Gredell, P.E., Rickie R. Roberts, P.E., GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the evaluation of the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) Prospect Hill Reclamation Project disposal site existing conditions, permitted capacity and remaining disposal life estimate. The site is permitted as a special waste disposal area by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources under Solid Waste Disposal Area Operating Permit No. 0718905. The existing site conditions were identified through research of MSD and MDNR’s historic site files. The site’s remaining capacity was evaluated by comparing the permitted final grading plan found in MDNR’s files to a current topographic survey performed by a registered land surveyor employed by Environmental Design Source, Inc. (EDSI). The remaining disposal life under the current Solid Waste Disposal Area Permit was estimated by determining a historical average annual disposal rate. GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. (Gredell Engineering) conducted a review of file information held by:  The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Solid Waste Management Program and St. Louis Regional Office;  The MSD files of both the Bissell Point Plant Office and the Environmental Compliance Office. These files revealed the identification of wastes permitted for disposal, permitted design air space (approved final contours and permitted solid waste boundary), and other potentially pertinent permit conditions. From the information evaluated, Gredell Engineering determined the remaining permitted air space and a projection of the remaining life under the current MDNR permit based on the historical annual average ash disposal rate. The projections of future average annual waste volumes were determined from projecting historical haul records for the Bissell and Lemay plants at the same percentage as Black & Veatch TM2 future projections for ash production. Table of Contents 1. Summary of Project Meetings .................................................................................... 2 2. Topographic Survey of the Existing Site.................................................................... 3 3. Existing Site Permit Conditions.................................................................................. 4 4. Permitted Final Grading Plan...................................................................................... 6 5. Projected Waste Disposal Rates.................................................................................. 6 6. Remaining Permitted Landfill Life............................................................................. 8 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 2 of 9 Appendix A – Minutes of July 28, 2009 Existing Conditions Meeting---------- A1 Appendix B – Site Topography and Grading Figures TM 8-1, -2 & -3---------- B1 Appendix C – Historical Ash Disposal Records------------------------------------- C1 Appendix D – Memorandum of Documentation of Volume Calculations and Table of AutoCAD Volume Calculations------------------- D1 1. Summary of Project Meetings a. Project Kick-Off Meeting and Site Condition Assessment. A project kick-off meeting was held on June 17, 2009 with District staff at the Bissell plant facilities. The meeting was held to review the anticipated scope of required services, to agree on evaluation criteria and expectations, to establish a list of key stakeholders and regulatory agencies on the project, to obtain background information and facility plans, to confirm site visit and major meeting dates, and to confirm the schedule of project completion. The meeting began at 9:00 am at the Bissell Point Plant Conference Room and was followed by a site visit to assess conditions of the District’s Prospect Hill Reclamation Site. The purpose of the site visit was to observe existing site conditions, discuss the operation and performance of the site appurtenances, equipment and labor with District staff, and to collect additional site specific information. After the site visit and lunch, the group returned to the Bissell Point Conference Room to conclude the meeting, discuss the observations from the site visit during the morning and finalize the work schedule and procedures. b. MSD Environmental Compliance Meeting. On June 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm Black & Veatch held a meeting with MSD Environmental Compliance staff at the Bissell Point Plant Environmental Compliance Office. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of MSD facilities environmental compliance and protocol for contacts with Federal, State and Local Compliance agencies in the course of completing Phase I of the MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Project. Gredell Engineering was present to review the status of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project Landfill Disposal Site. According to MSD environmental compliance staff the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project landfill was in compliance with federal, state and local requirements and except for some minor local complaints of fugitive dust during ash disposal events and MDNR inspection notes of excessive vegetative growth (e.g., small trees) becoming established between disposal events, there have been few issues during the operating history of the facility. Arrangements for the site survey and their file information review were established and clarified during this meeting with Gredell Engineering. BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 3 of 9 c. Meeting to Confirm Existing Conditions, Wastes Quantities. On July 28, 2009 a meeting was held with MSD staff at the Bissell Point Plant Conference Room to review Gredell Engineering and EDSI findings from the existing topographic survey, as well as to summarize findings of state, local, and MSD archive reviews in preparation for completing TMs 8 and 9 relative to the remaining life of Prospect Hill, potential for expansion of Prospect Hill, wastes quantities and characteristics and potential replacement sites for Prospect Hill. In this meeting Gredell Engineering presented the preliminary results of the existing site topographic survey, the permitted final contours, the original 1985 site bottom topography, and information on preliminary ash waste volumes historically disposed at the site. The preliminary ash production estimates and projections of TM2 were also discussed at this meeting and it was noted that there seems to be a significant difference in the historical amounts of ash disposed and ash production estimates associated with solids in the sewage flow through the plants (Bissell Point, Lemay and Cold Water). After discussion, it was decided to use the more conservative historical haul records for ash disposal quantities in estimating the remaining life of Prospect Hill Reclamation Project facility. Minutes of the July 28, 2009 meeting are included in Appendix A for reference. Historical haul records were updated by the MSD Plant Managers following the July 28, 2009 meeting to include all the historical haul events and the current estimated quantity of ash in the basins at both the Bissell Point and Lemay Plants. The revised ash data has been incorporated into TM 8 and 9. 2. Topographic Survey of the Existing Site a. Current Topographic Survey. A registered Land Surveyor employed by EDSI prepared a topographic survey of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project Site. The survey focused on current elevations of the contiguous District parcels that encompass the acreage included in the Solid Waste Disposal Area Operating Permit. In addition, the survey identified and located all surface features of stormwater and leachate collection piping within and all utilities immediately adjacent to the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site. A property boundary survey was provided by MSD. A sealed copy of the survey of the existing site topography is provided in Appendix B- Site Topography and Grading Figures. b. Existing Site Conditions. In addition to the current July 2009 topography, the survey located surrounding streets, curbs and storm waster inverts, and local utility lines around the site. Vertical survey control was run to the site from an established permanent St. Louis County benchmark so that vertical grading can be reestablished as needed should on-site controls be disturbed or accidentally destroyed. BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 4 of 9 3. Existing Site Permit Conditions a. MDNR File Review. Documents maintained by MDNR’s Solid Waste Management Program were identified and evaluated for information relevant to current and historic operational practices, permitted fill elevations and volumes, the permitted solid waste boundary, compliance status and history, and landfill airspace estimates. Gredell Engineering also conducted a file review at the St. Louis Regional Office of MDNR. These file reviews resulted in finding the original facility permit dated December 10, 1984 along with other historical information on the facility usage, design modifications and operation. Authorization to begin operation of the facility was issued in 1985 after site preparation construction was completed. The facility permitted area is generally defined as the area within the high wall of the abandoned shale quarry. The disposal area is referred to in the file records as approximately 30 acres in size. The permit boundary shown on grading plans found in the permit files and digitized into AutoCAD was determined to be about 30 acres. The bottom of the landfill was designed to have a contoured, compacted clay soil liner (36 inches thick) and a leachate collection system consisting of a series of interconnected perforated and solid ductile iron pipes (DIP) connected to precast concrete manholes. The compacted clay bottom liner and leachate collection system were installed initially in the west portion of the quarry bottom but were expanded through a permit modification in 1997 to cover the entire bottom of the quarry. The leachate collection system gravity drains to the MSD sewer system servicing this area of the City near the corner of Scranton Avenue and Riverview Dr. The manholes connecting the leachate collection and drainage pipes are made of precast concrete pipe sections and are extended vertically as the ash fill progresses upward. The manholes provide access for monitoring leachate level and for leachate sampling. A 3-foot thick sand layer is placed between the ash and the wall around specified sections of the quarry’s perimeter high wall as the landfill is filled with ash to promote drainage of leachate to the landfill bottom liner and the collection system. A copy of the approved design plans were located in the MDNR files and copies of the approved solid waste boundary the 1985 final grade design were found. The types of waste approved for acceptance included wastewater treatment sludge incinerator ash, excavated sewer and street rubble from District activities and concrete demolition waste from the Missouri Portland Cement Company. Originally, the quarry was divided into two designated waste disposal areas; one portion for incinerator ash disposal and one portion for other permitted wastes. During the years of operation from 1985 to 1997, the disposal of incinerator ash had largely exceeded the disposal of other permitted wastes. To maintain a stable fill, MSD modified the permit to use the disposal area designated for other wastes to dispose of incinerator ash. About 1997 the site design was modified to allow disposal of incinerator ash within the entire permit area. This modification BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 5 of 9 included expanding the clay liner and leachate collection system to cover the entire quarry bottom. At this same time, the lower entrance road near the intersection of Scranton and Riverview Dr. was relocated to its present location along Scranton, closer to its intersection with Lilac. A containment berm was constructed at the open south side of the quarry where the first entrance road had been located. This containment berm prevented storm water from gravity draining from the quarry and a storm water collection and drainage system was installed inside the quarry to route storm water along with leachate to MSD’s combined sanitary and storm water sewer system. Subsequently, all drainage from the site is routed to MSD for treatment prior to discharge. b. MSD File Review. Documents maintained by the District were evaluated for information relevant to current and historic landfill operations, types and quantities of disposed wastes, construction observation documents, construction record drawings, airspace calculations and City/County permits or approvals. The review of the MSD files revealed information on the operation of the facility from its beginning through the last incinerator ash haul disposal event in 2007. Periodically there were minor compliance issues throughout the facility operating history, but the facility is currently in compliance as documented by MDNR’s last inspection report from 2008. According to MSD staff, the most significant current problem with the facility is the under drain piping system is clogged and the leachate and storm water within the waste are not draining freely to MSD’s combined sewer system. Two areas of standing water were noted inside the quarry during the facility site visit that are attributed to this drainage system malfunction. A copy of the MDNR approved permit design plans for the disposal area was not found in the MSD files. As the landfill approaches final approved elevation and the ash fill rises above the quarry high walls, the MDNR approved design plans will be needed to ensure final grading of the ash fill complies with the 1985 approved permit final grade. In the early years of operation, St. Louis County Department of Health wrote a report of an inspection. The County Solid Waste regulatory office was contacted to request a file review, but they reported they no longer regulated the facility and were not able to locate any files on the facility. The City of Riverview has historically received complaints about dust from the facility during ash waste disposal events. MSD subsequently required their contract hauler to implement dust control during the ash hauling, spreading and compacting activities. BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 6 of 9 4. Permitted Final Grading Plan a. MDNR Approved Final Grading Plan. The 1985 MDNR approved final grading plan has a relatively flat design side slope of 10:1 above the high wall of the shale quarry. The side slopes peak at elevation of 512 with two concave depressions inside the inner 512 elevations. The two concave areas of the final grading plan each have a drop inlet stormwater structure concentric to the surface at an inlet elevation of 510. The concave surfaces allow stormwater to drain to manholes that are connected to the internal gravity drainage system. The approved final grading plan design is shown on plan sheets 8 of 19 and 9 of 19 prepared by Engineering Design Management, Inc. (EDM) on April 30, 1985. Gredell Engineering has digitized the approved final contours design along with the permitted landfill boundary area into an AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 drawing file that was used to determine the remaining landfill air space between the existing current topography and the permit limits. A plot of the digitized approved design final contours is provided in Appendix B. b. Original Design Life. The design air space estimated in the 1985 engineering report and design plans approved by MDNR indicate that the estimated landfill volume was 2.0 million cubic yards. These same documents estimated the annual ash disposal rate at 75,000 cubic yards per year. The initial 1984 permit application in the engineering report proposed a final soil layer cap of 24 inches (2 ft.) thickness and a bottom clay liner of 36 inches (3 ft.) thickness. The approved permit design drawings prepared by EDM in 1985, show a final soil cap of 36 inches (3 ft.) thickness. Gredell Engineering has assumed the 2 million cubic yards of design air space is net air space, meaning that it does not include the volume of final cover. The original design life of the landfill calculates to be 26.67 years using the design landfill volume estimate at an annual average disposal rate of 75,000 cubic yards per year. 5. Projected Waste Disposal Rates a. Historic Waste Disposal Rates. The landfill’s current permit allows for the disposal of wastewater treatment sludge incinerator ash, excavated sewer and street rubble from District activities, and concrete demolition waste from the Missouri Portland Cement Company. Records were found in the file reviews indicating that as little as 320 cubic yards of concrete demolition waste has been disposed at the landfill from MO Portland Cement Company early in the operational life of the facility. With input from the Bissell Point Plant and Lemay Plant Managers and the MSD file reviews, total volumes of incinerator ash hauled and subsequently disposed at Prospect Hill Reclamation Project, along with the current volumes of ash waste in the basins at Bissell Point and Lemay Plants were determined to be approximately 1.66 million cubic yards over the period from 1986 to 2009 (a 23-year operating period). This calculates to, an average annual disposal rate of approximately 72,500 cubic yards. This is 2,500 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 7 of 9 cubic yards per year less than the original permit application projected annual average ash disposal rate of 75,000 cubic yards. A table in Appendix C provides a summary of the historical ash disposal events by year and the recorded estimated volumes disposed during each event (as 1,000’s of cubic yards). MSD staff and the file record indicate that the historical recorded volume of the ash disposal events were calculated by conducting a ‘before’ and ‘after’ topographic survey of the ash pond surface. These volumes represent an amount of incinerator ash hauled based on the in-place density of the dewatered ash in the ponds. Gredell Engineering has estimated the volume of the in-place ash waste at the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project as 1.262 million cubic yards. This volume was determined by a comparison of the 1985 quarry bottom grade contours and the EDSI 2009 topography survey contours. A copy of the drawing of the 1985 quarry bottom grade is provided in Appendix B. This in place volume is slightly lower, but compares favorably to the recorded volumes of the historical ash disposal events. It is reasonable to assume that the density of incinerator ash placed in the landfill will be greater than the density of incinerator ash in the dewatered ash ponds, resulting in a reduced volume of space occupied in the landfill (e.g., shrinkage). Dividing the estimated volume of incinerator ash currently in the landfill plus the estimated amount of ash waste currently in the Bissell Point and Lemay plants ash ponds by 23 years yields an average annual ash production rate of approximately 72,500 cubic yards. Incinerator ash projections to be generated by the District’s Wastewater Treatment Plants and the operational practices at the District wastewater treatment plants with incinerators were evaluated by Black & Veatch and reported in TM 2. One aspect of TM 2 was to determine future waste disposal projections needs for the next 20 years for the purposes of preparing a Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. These ash production projections reported in TM2 are less than the historical annual average ash disposal rates estimated over the 23-year operating life of the Prospect Hill Landfill. While there are many possible explanations for the differences in annual average ash generation rates, Gredell Engineering has chosen to use the higher and more conservative values calculated based on historic haul records, the current estimated volume of ash in the basins at the Bissell Point and Lemay Plants and the estimated in-place volume in the landfill. The higher ash waste production number will provide a more conservative (less optimistic) estimate of the remaining life of the landfill. Based on the above discussion, Gredell Engineering used an average annual incinerator ash production rate of 72,500 cubic yards as the current, base condition. b. Projected Waste Disposal Rates. As mentioned above, TM2 addresses the projection of ash production rates and thus disposal rate capacity needs for the BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 8 of 9 next 20 years. As discussed above, these projections are lower than the historical annual average disposal volumes, so they will not be used directly. However, the combined, projected percentage increase for incinerator ash identified in TM 2 for both the Bissell Point and Lemay plants will be used to project a future annual incinerator ash production rate. TM 2 identifies a 33% increase in the current base incinerator ash production rate for the purposes of preparing a Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan. Therefore, an average annual incinerator ash production rate of 96,500 cubic yards was used as the FUTURE rate of consumption of the remaining permitted volume at the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project. This ash waste production rate was used to estimate the permitted remaining life of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project, as well as the potential vertical expansions of the permitted air space capacity to be addressed in TM9. 6. Remaining Permitted Landfill Life The remaining landfill life at Prospect Hill Reclamation Project was calculated using topographic survey data, existing permit and operational conditions, the permitted final grading plan, and projected FUTURE ash waste production rates. Gredell Engineering digitized the approved final contours (circa 1985) and permitted solid waste boundary into an AutoCAD drawing. The approved final contours were compared electronically to an AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 drawing of the existing site topographic contours to determine the remaining permitted air space (as a volume) available for future ash waste production disposal. The remaining life estimate was determined using AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010. The AutoCAD evaluation process description is detailed in a memorandum provided in Appendix D, along with a table of the resulting air space volumes. To provide some verification of the permitted air space utilized to date, the 1985 permitted landfill bottom contours were digitized and an AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 volume was calculated estimating the volume between the approximate landfill bottom and the existing topographic contours. As previously discussed, this volume was determined to be 1.262 million cubic yards and compares well with the historical volume of ash hauled and disposed in Prospect Hill Reclamation Project of 1.4 million cubic yards. The estimated remaining permitted air space was calculated using AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010 by comparing the existing topography to the approved 1985 permitted final cap design contours. The volume was determined to be 0.768 million cubic yards of air space after subtracting the required volume of air space consumed by the 3-foot final soil cover and after accounting for the ash in inventory. Using the remaining estimated cubic yards of air space and a FUTURE annual average disposal rate of 96,500 cubic yards, the remaining permitted landfill life was calculated to be about 8 years. Alternative uses or off-site beneficial disposal options for the incinerator ash could further extend the estimated remaining life of Prospect Hill Reclamation Project Reclamation Site by BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 9 of 9 deferring the use of the remaining permitted volume for a later date. Potential alternative uses and beneficial disposal options are summarized in detail in TM3. TM9–ReportonProspectHillRemainingLifewithRecommendationsVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 9 –Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life with Recommendations BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 1 - QC: T. Knox 090109 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 9 – Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Thomas R. Gredell, P.E., Rick R. Roberts, P.E., GREDELL Engineering Resources This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the evaluation of the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) Prospect Hill Reclamation Project disposal site remaining life and recommendations regarding findings on waste streams, quantities and characteristics, remaining life under the current landfill permit, landfill end uses, options for extending the landfill life through vertical expansion and impediments to landfill vertical expansion. GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. (Gredell Engineering) utilized the information gathered from the file reviews, approved design plans and MSD input to evaluate the waste ash physical and chemical characteristics, potential landfill end uses, the potential vertical expansion of the landfill for an extended remaining life and impediments to landfill vertical expansion. TM 8 addresses the evaluation of the MSD Prospect Hill Reclamation Project disposal site existing conditions, permitted capacity and remaining life disposal capacity estimate. This document (TM 9) utilizes the background information and conclusions developed in TM 8 and builds on the information to evaluate realistic options for increasing the operational life of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project Disposal site. Table of Contents 1. Waste Streams-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2. Waste Quantities and Characteristics -------------------------------------------- 2 3. Remaining Life under Current Landfill Permit----------------------------------- 3 4. Landfill End Uses----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 5. Options for Expanding the Permitted Landfill Capacity------------------------ 4 6. Impediments to Expanding Landfill Capacity------------------------------------- 5 Appendix A – Waste Characteristics Tables and Graphs---------------------------- A1 Appendix B – Vertical Expansion Drawings, Cross Sections and 3-D Renderings B1 Appendix C – EDSI Memorandum on Local Permit Requirements------------------- C1 Appendix D – Memorandum on Volume Calculation Documentation---------------- D1 Appendix E – Projected Permitting Schedule for Vertical Expansion and Costs-- E1 1. Waste Streams. The type of wastes approved for acceptance at the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project consists of wastewater treatment sludge incinerator ash, excavated sewer and street rubble from District activities, and concrete demolition waste from the Missouri Portland Cement Company. According to MSD file information, Missouri Portland Cement Company retained permission to BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 2 - QC: T. Knox 090109 use the disposal area for disposal of concrete demolition waste as part of the MSD purchase agreement but the company is no longer in business in this area. The disposal of excavated sewer and street rubble from District activities is also allowed, but Missouri’s Solid Waste Management Law allows this type of waste to be disposed of as “clean fill” and therefore it does not have to go to a permitted landfill. [Note – “Clean Fill” is defined in 260.200.1 (5) RSMo 2008 as “…uncontaminated soil, rock, sand, gravel, concrete, asphaltic concrete, cinderblocks, brick, minimal amounts of wood and metal, and inert solids as approved by rule or policy of the department for fill, reclamation or other beneficial use;”] The remaining air space in Prospect Hill has more economic value to MSD for the disposal of the incinerator ash, as the ash waste stream is defined as a non- hazardous special waste under Missouri laws and rules and disposal at an alternative landfill (e.g., a permitted sanitary landfill) would be at the current waste disposal market prices. Therefore, based on our evaluation, Gredell Engineering recommends the District retain the remaining air space at Prospect Hill solely for the disposal of wastewater treatment sludge incinerator ash. Additionally, Gredell Engineering recommends that MSD pursue alternative ash use and disposal options as discussed in TM3. Ash diverted from the landfill through alternative beneficial uses will extend the life of the remaining permitted landfill capacity, or air space. Siting, permitting and developing a new landfill for this waste stream in the future will be expensive and challenging as federal, state and local landfill regulations historically become more stringent over time and property values in the Metropolitan St. Louis area continue to appreciate. 2. Waste Quantities and Characteristics. Waste quantities are projected to increase due to improvements and expansions of the District’s wastewater plants over the next 20 years. TM2’s forecast predicts that the ash production rate from both the Bissell Point and Lemay plants may increase by 33%. TM8 estimated a CURRENT average annual disposal rate of 72,500 CY (cubic yards) for both plants. TM8 further estimated a FUTURE average annual disposal rate of 96,500 CY after applying the 33% increase in ash production rates over the next 20 years. As long as the District continues to utilize wastewater sludge incineration as a biosolids treatment technology, the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project disposal site will have value to the District. According to information in the District historic records, MSD and other potential vendors have evaluated the ash for its chemical makeup and physical properties to develop potential alternatives to the disposal of the incinerator ash at Prospect Hill. Because the ash has relatively high total metal concentrations it has been tested using the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLPs) to evaluate leachable metals. The ash (or the leachate present in the landfill) also exhibits a relatively high pH, but on average has consistently been below pH 12.5, which is BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 3 - QC: T. Knox 090109 the regulatory threshold for a characteristic hazardous waste. The historic test results indicate that the ash has consistently been determined to be non- hazardous waste. The ash has also been tested for concentrations of plant micro and macronutrients to evaluate its potential for use as a soil amendment or organic waste composting supplement. With its soil-like consistency and relatively high elemental compounds concentration, it has been considered as a supplement to cement production and the manufacturing of bricks. However, to date the records indicate that no vendors have made a viable proposal to divert the ash to their processes on a long-term basis. Historic information on the characteristics of the ash, which summaries the range of the known physical and chemical properties of the ash waste, is provided in Appendix A. Generally, the ash is characterized as a non-hazardous, non- cohesive fine sand material with an optimum compaction dry density of 66.4 pounds per cubic foot at a moisture content of 47 %. [This is a relatively low dry density and high optimum moisture content.] The ash has an alkaline pH, generally above 9. It is high in certain plant nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potash and zinc. The toxic metals in the ash do not readily leach, at least in part due to the alkaline nature of the ash. Additional geotechnical testing and chemical testing are recommended in response to TM3 and MSD is in the process of collecting representative samples for testing during the planned 2009 ash disposal event at the Lemay plant. 3. Remaining Life under Current Landfill Permit. The remaining operating life of Prospect Hill Reclamation Project under the current landfill permit was estimated in TM 8 at about 8 years at the future annual average ash waste production rate of 96,500 CY. This life could be extended by diverting some of the future ash production from disposal at this site and alternatively using it for other beneficial uses by outside vendors or as controlled fill in future MSD plant expansion construction projects. 4. Landfill End Uses. The existing permit design does not identify a specific end use proposed for the completed landfill. As currently permitted (approved), the completed landfill will be closed as a gently sloping (maximum 10% grade) grassy knoll with a concave top. The approved final grading plan includes two depressions near the center that each includes a stormwater drain inlet or manhole that will direct stormwater drainage to the internal leachate piping system and eventually to the District’s combined sewer system along Scranton Avenue. The original permitted design and approval did not incorporate the concept of formal closure and post closure landfill care plans, as this regulatory concept was not introduced until approximately 1987. Subsequent to the state’s BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 4 - QC: T. Knox 090109 implementation of closure and post closure plans requirements, the District developed a formal closure and post closure maintenance plan, but it still did not address a specific end use. This was typical of the regulatory era and most landfills are still permitted today with a passive, non-specific end use that includes grass vegetated slopes that are routinely mowed at least twice per year. Active development of closed landfills as commercial or industrial properties is generally discouraged or unfeasible due to the reality of long-term and often differential settlement of the in-place waste materials and the need to maintain the environmental integrity of the site for an indeterminate future period of time. Due to the relatively small size (30 acres) of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility and the gentle slope limitations of the currently approved grading plan and stormwater drainage system, Gredell Engineering recommends that MSD close the site and let it function as a green space with no specific use or specific site improvements. With the cooperation of the local community, all or a portion of the site could potentially be accessible to the public (after closure) as a park or public area with walking trails around the perimeter of the top or base of the slope. 5. Options for Expanding the Permitted Landfill Capacity. As part of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility evaluation, Gredell Engineering estimated the potential for extending the remaining life through a vertical expansion of the permitted disposal area. A vertical expansion of an existing solid waste disposal area (e.g., landfill) typically involves increasing the elevation of the approved final grading plan for the landfill within the current approved horizontal ‘footprint’. The existing permit states the permitted solid waste disposal area (footprint) is approximately 30 acres. Therefore, the established existing landfill footprint is set at 30acres and any vertical expansion will be limited to this size area. Increasing the permitted volume of the landfill correspondingly increases the total waste disposal capacity and operating life of the landfill. By regulatory definition, a vertical expansion cannot extend or increase the horizontal boundary of waste placement allowed under the current permit. At the state level, the vertical expansion of an existing, permitted solid waste disposal area requires only an MDNR permit modification. The regulatory approval process at the state level for a vertical expansion is less complicated, typically generates less public attention and takes less time to review and approve than a new permit, i.e. a horizontal expansion. The permit modification process must include an engineering report and plans that address the technical (engineering) issues associated with the increased height of the landfill. Typically, the request for a vertical expansion will result in MDNR requiring specific improvements to the environmental control features of the landfill, such as leachate collection, final cover system, stormwater management system or groundwater monitoring system. MDNR will also require proof of compliance BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 5 - QC: T. Knox 090109 with all local permit and approval requirements prior to final approval of a vertical expansion permit modification. The approved permit final contours for the Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility incorporate a 10:1 (horizontal:vertical or H:V) sideslope from the quarry’s perimeter side walls to a maximum elevation of 512. This is a very flat grade for the sideslope of a typical landfill final grading plan. Therefore, the landfill design capacity can be significantly increased using a steeper slope of 4:1 (H:V) and increasing the maximum elevation of the landfill by 50 or more feet. MDNR regularly accepts 4:1 sideslopes for landfill final grading plans. A 4:1 sideslope is easily constructed, vegetated and can be readily maintained after closure. Gredell Engineering evaluated two potential options for vertically expanding the existing landfill permitted area. For purposes of discussion in TM9, the first option is identified as the ‘moderate’ vertical expansion proposal and the second option is identified as the ‘aggressive’ vertical expansion.  The moderate vertical expansion grading plan increases the sideslopes at 4:1 (H:V) grade from the current approved final grade of 10:1 at the waste disposal boundary to an elevation of 540 at the top of the 4:1 slope. The proposed flatter, convex top of the final grading plan utilizes a minimum 5% grade to promote rapid drainage of rainfall and minimize infiltration into the landfill. The peak elevation is approximately 553 feet. The moderate vertical expansion adds additional capacity estimated at 814,000 CY, which will yield additional estimated life of 8.4 years at the future average annual disposal rate of 96,500 CY.  The aggressive vertical expansion grading plan utilizes a 4:1 (H:V) sideslope beginning at existing grade at the waste disposal boundary (the historic quarry rim) to an elevation of 580 at the top of the 4:1 slope. The flat (5%) top is a minimum width of 100 feet, with a peak elevation of approximately 589. The aggressive vertical expansion adds additional capacity estimated at 584,000 CY, which will yield additional estimated life of 6.1 years at the future average annual disposal rate of 96,500 CY. Plan and profiles drawings depicting the existing site contours and final contours of the two options evaluated for vertical expansion are provided in Appendix B. Appendix B also includes 3-D renderings of the aggressive vertical expansion from various directions to help visualize how the expansion would appear when completed. This type of illustration can help public perception and understanding of the proposed expansion during a permit modification and expansion process. 7. Potential Impediments to Expanding Landfill Capacity. Potential impediments to the vertical expansion of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project include: a. Geologic Conditions. The geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project site are acceptable for landfill development BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 6 - QC: T. Knox 090109 and operation in the current regulatory climate. The existing site is not in the floodplain alluvium of the nearby Mississippi River, but in the “uplands” along Riverview Dr. The site is a historic shale quarry mined to remove shale bedrock deposits and the base shale materials provide a naturally impermeable bottom. Additionally, substantial overburden materials appear to remain on the site for use in the closure of the site. b. Impact to End Use. If the District chooses to pursue a vertical expansion of the permitted disposal area, a passive end use is recommended such as a green space or passive public use area. This may offer some value to the local community’s nearby residents and potentially make the additional height and continued operation of the disposal area more palatable both during operations and after closure. The redesigned final grading plan can be developed to incorporate and support a specific, passive end use. Alternatively, the redesigned final grading plan can maximize the permitted capacity of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project with the understanding that the site will be maintained by MSD and inaccessible to the general public. In either case, the closed landfill will require long-term care and maintenance of its environmental control systems for an indeterminate period into the future. c. Potential Public Reaction. It is difficult to ascertain what the potential public reaction will be to the potential vertical expansion of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site. Since the site has been in operation for 23 years as a disposal area and has approximately 9 years of operation left under the existing permit, the local community may object to a future request to extend the life an additional 9 to 16 years. Alternatively, because the site is only operated intermittently, the local community may not consider it an excessive nuisance and may tolerate its extended operation. Land use in the area appears to be relatively stable with little new or extensive developments or property improvements being undertaken. This may make the proposed expansion more palatable to the local community. Local land use ordinances require the site to have a conditional use permit from both the Cities of Riverview and St. Louis since a portion of the property lies within both city limits. The review of the MSD files verified that the current landfill has conditional use permits from Riverview and St. Louis that appear to remain in effect. With the closure of the MO Portland cement plant on the south side of Scranton the landfill is now the only “heavy industrial“ land use in what otherwise appears to be a “residential” or “multi-unit residential” land use area and although it is probably a “grandfathered” land use, a vertical expansion of the use will likely require renewal of the conditional use permits and this may not be approved by the local communities. It is a relatively common practice for landfills to agree to community “host” fees paid on the basis of tons of waste disposed at the BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 7 - QC: T. Knox 090109 disposal area during the operating life of a facility to make the disposal operations more palatable and profitable to the local community. d. Regulatory Requirements. The vertical expansion of an existing landfill for the purpose of gaining additional capacity and operating life is an accepted and common practice in Missouri’s non-hazardous waste disposal business. The natural geologic setting and the existing clay liner and leachate collection system are positive design features that will improve the acceptability of a proposed vertical expansion to MDNR. However, MDNR will often take the opportunity to thoroughly review the design and operation of the permitted disposal area and require specific improvements to the environmental control systems or require correction of persistent operational difficulties or compliance issues. a. Anticipated Environmental System Improvements. The primary environmental systems of a modern landfill are the liner system, the leachate collection system, the final cover system and the environmental monitoring systems. i. The natural geologic setting and the fact that the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project has waste covering nearly the entire permitted footprint indicates that it is not likely that improvements will be required to the landfill liner system. ii. Because the leachate collection system is not functioning properly, it is likely that MDNR will require correction of this operational issue through maintenance or redesign. iii. The final cover system is currently designed as a 3-foot thick soil layer with grassy vegetation for erosion control and to minimize long-term rainfall infiltration. It is unlikely that MDNR would require a more complex final cover system at this time. iv. There are limited environmental monitoring systems currently in place at the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project site. Leachate sampling is possible through the interior manhole structures that ultimately will direct stormwater into the leachate collection system. It is likely that MDNR will require the evaluation and installation of a groundwater monitoring system as a requirement of accepting a proposed vertical expansion. Since the 1980’s when the existing landfill was permitted, more emphasis has developed by environmental protection agencies due to public concern on requiring groundwater monitoring around landfills to verify leachate collection systems are functioning as designed and leachate migration into the groundwater beyond the landfill footprint is not occurring. It is sometimes difficult or impossible to obtain true background groundwater samples and to establish background groundwater quality around a facility that has BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 8 - QC: T. Knox 090109 been operating and has waste in place. On the other hand, it is unlikely that MDNR will require a decomposition gas (e.g., methane gas) monitoring system because the landfill is a mono-fill that disposes of primarily inorganic wastes. b. Operational Improvements. The Prospect Hill Reclamation Project has two known operational or compliance issues that may require correction or improved management systems if a vertical expansion is pursued. i. The current malfunction of the leachate underdrain system will likely be an impediment to MDNR’s acceptance of a proposed vertical expansion to increase the amount of waste disposal capacity. It will be important to demonstrate that the existing leachate control system design features are in compliance and functioning as designed to manage leachate and storm water runoff at the facility. ii. MSD has been monitoring the landfill leachate for some time. MSD, no doubt, has an industrial discharger’s quality control program with industrial discharge limitations and pretreatment standards for industrial discharges to the MSD sewer system. MSD should evaluate if the landfill leachate discharge is in compliance with their current industrial discharger’s discharge standards if not, this could be an issue to obtaining a landfill expansion. iii. Proper dust control measures and the control of excessive, woody vegetation on the site are likely to be important factors in getting both state and local agency approvals to expand the capacity of the site. e. Technical Issues. Modifying the landfill capacity through a vertical expansion and thus extending its operational life could result in agency- mandated groundwater monitoring well system installation, as described above. Additionally, this would likely require groundwater monitoring to be added to the site’s post-closure maintenance plan. Subsequent detection of groundwater contaminant impact from the landfill could result in the requirement to develop and implement a corrective action plan and the banning of further waste disposal in the remaining unused landfill air space. In this case, applying for a vertical expansion could result in more operating costs and less remaining permitted life. However, it is noted that MDNR does not currently require that a special waste monofill provide a post-closure care financial assurance instrument (as a requirement of a solid waste disposal area operating permit). The stormwater management system incorporated into the currently approved MDNR final grading plan allows a significant amount of stormwater BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources B&V Project 165186 St. Louis MSD TM 9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16 2009 - 9 - QC: T. Knox 090109 on top of the closed landfill to enter into the leachate collection system for transport to MSD’s combined sewer system. A vertical expansion would result in a final grading plan that was convex, not concave as is the current grading plan, thus increasing the amount of stormwater runoff to be managed prior to off-site discharge. The increased final grades on the side slopes of a vertical expansion would also increase the amount of stormwater runoff by increasing the percentage of rainfall that runs off and thus increase the peak flow, as well as shorten the time of concentration during a design storm event. The overall stormwater management system would require redesign as a part of a vertical expansion design. MSD has a Clean Water Act Phase II stormwater management plan and program under implementation and redesign of the final grade plan and stormwater management during the extended life of a vertical expansion will require compliance with the applicable state and local stormwater management programs. The design of the proposed aggressive vertical expansion will result in less on-site soil being available for construction of the final cover system at the end of the disposal area operation. This is due to the increase in the elevation of the final grading plan at the waste boundary perimeter. However, the actual quantity of soil available on-site was not identified in the historic permit documents, so it is not known if this would create a shortage of on-site soil for final cover. The balance of on-site soil available for landfill construction, operational use and landfill closure is an issue that MDNR looks at closely during the review of a landfill design, either a new site or a vertically expanded site. This issue will require evaluation as a part of the vertical expansion design. Despite the issues noted above that require consideration during the pursuit of additional site capacity through a vertical expansion, the likelihood of achieving approval of a final grading plan adding considerable life to the Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility is very good. As always with permitting waste disposal facilities, a primary unknown factor is the public acceptance of the continued, long-term operation of the site. A Gant Chart of the projected permitting schedule for a vertical expansion of the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project site is provided in Appendix E along with estimated costs. TM 9 TABLE A-1BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM-9)PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREASUMMARY OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009 mg/kg1 7/24/86212/1/19941/30/199805-l2-999/21/19995/1/2003Average3,4,519801991-19921995Average5,6Aluminum--21,70023,40027,50013,050--21,413422,90032,10014,50023,1673Arsenic (As)53.5765.782.22.15146190124693Barium (Ba)1,72035325711800267--2,87958608944947493Calcium (CaC03)140,0007,0208,62027,400----45,760446,10061,70020,40042,7333Cadmium (Cd)152.57540.18.0911.04514650134223Chromium (Cr)340100107218160159.418169604591285163Copper (Cu)420171256568355472.4537461,4905652727763Iron (Fe203)41,00032,10040,40068,80038,910--44,242538,80040,90019,60033,1003Lead (Pb)395103108234139157.118961,2104961936333Manganese (Mn)3155251 200963538--5854--8651,7201,2932Mercury (Hg)0.3<0.36< 0.2500.333< 0.2500.43610.36 or less61<0.25<0.251 or less3Nickel (Ni)18057.271.5191105121.8121638018057.52063Potassium (K)3,55042203250--2080--3,2754--------0Sodium (Na)2,5051,9301,860--1,790--2,0214--------0Silver (Ag)257.86514.28.528.557126705529.5523Selenium (Se)ND0.140.510.24--04600.250.5203Zinc (Zn)2,3004805451,3908191,4991,17264,7001,2606152,1923Nitrates (N)300Phosphates (P)2,100Radium (Ra)(pci/g)1.1Total Nitrogen (N)1,000Aluminum (Al203)45,000Magnesium (MgCO3)56,000Silica (Si02)496,000Notes123456Number of samplesLemay WWTPAverage results are for ash from the Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Average results are for ash from the Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility. The average value of mercury (Hg) was calculated as the average value of detected values and a note "or less" indicating that some samples had no detected concentration like mercury. Total Digested Metals Concentrations are in mg/kg.1986 results for the Bissell Point WWTP were reported differently than subsequent results and are shown separately. When the parameters matched, the data was combined with subsequent data to compute an average value.Average values were calculated for those parameters that also had analyses of TCLP metals. These sets of results are shown in a table of Comparisons.Bissell Point WWTPNumber of samples TM 9 TABLE A-2BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM-9)PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA SUMMARY OF TCLP METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility40 CFR 261.2412/1/19941/30/19985/2/19999/21/1999Average319801991-19921995AverageStandard7As0.22--0.07< 0.0020.143 or less30.260.0390.010.10335Ba0.3415.604.5214.708.7941.264.821.112.3973100Cd0.010.030.030.050.03140.050.010.010.02331Cr<0.020.020.07< 0.020.045 or less4<0.01<0.020.030.03 or less35Pb< 0.040.05< 0.040.100.074 or less40.12<0.04<0.040.12 or less35Hg< 0.0005----< 0.00020.0005 or less20.00190.0007< 0.00050.0013 or less30.2Ag0.01< 0.01< 0.01< 0.010.01 or less40.02<0.0070.10.06 or less35Se0.000.000.00< 0.0010.001 or less40.080.001<0.0010.041 or less31Notes123456740 CFR 264.24 define the Toxicity Characteristic for hazardous wastes. These standards were last revised in 71 FR 40259, July 14, 2006. TCLP Metals1,2 Average was calculated as the average of detected values, with the phrase " or less" added if any values below detection limits were reported. Results shown are for composite samples of ash hauled from the Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility. The results of four samples were found in the files. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results are reported in mg/l.Lemay WWTP4,5,6Number of SamplesNumber of SamplesThe 1980 Sample from the Lemay Ash Lagoon was a grab sample from the edge of the The Lemay data includes data from both the Extraction Procedure and the Toxicity Characteristics leaching Procedure. One set of TCLP results was found for the Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility. TM 9 TABLE A-3BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM-9)PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREASUMMARY OF LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONSAUGUST 20097/23/1991pH(units)3111.5310.76712.1510.29.411.411.910.99--NFRmg/L3210297461.2205.7310.5509.3-2,591.93,813.01,315.2--CODmg/L331660114.000129.66715552.516178.714135111.55--BOD (5 day)mg/L3333935.66737.33354.517.25749.1434234.70--KJN-Nmg/L301104.6674.70061.5<14.85774.79--NH3-Nmg/L26163.1673.11121<12.57142.64--PHOS-pmg/L320.11.40.7330.8330.71.811.9711.61.23--Arsenicmg/L270.0010.0020.0030.0030.020.00430.0030.008<0.002<0.00690.05Bariummg/L200.010.010.0540.0730.040.260.130.388<0.1<0.15742Cadmium4mg/L90.0050.0130.0160.008<0.005<0.005<0.0050.007<0.005<0.01030.005Chromiummg/L180.02NDND0.0380.020.045<0.020.0340.02<0.03150.1Coppermg/L260.006ND0.0120.0180.02050.0360.020.020<0.0050.021Iron4mg/L330.050.210.2520.2580.8051.50.261.8591.160.870.3Lead4mg/L70.006NDND0.043<0.040.06<0.040.109<0.04<0.07070.015Mercurymg/L130.00030.00040.00070.00180.0009<0.0005<0.00050.00040.0003<0.00080.0020Nickelmg/L290.030.060.0600.0670.0550.06<0.030.0800.050.060.1Seleniummg/L210.001ND0.0010.0040.0010.002..140.0020.0040.0020.05Silvermg/L60.007ND0.0100.011<0.010.01<0.010.010<0.01<0.01010.05Zincmg/L300.0170.0240.1480.0700.030.090.020.2400.070.105Notes1Leachate Analyses are reported in mg/l except pH which is reported in Standard Units.2The number of samples used to calculate the average annual value are show in this column. 3This value represents the average value of the seven annual averages. 45Groundwater Quality Standards are listed in 10 CSR 20-7.031 Table A (revised 7/31/2008) , Missouri's Water Quality Standards.6The sources of these data are the files of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. 1994 AverageParameter19911991 AverageUnits1Minimum Value Detected3The average concentration of Cadmium, Iron and Lead are greater than the Groundwater Quality Standard. The leachate is collected and treated at the Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. 1998 AverageAVERAGE3The average concentration of Cadmium, Iron and Lead are greater than the Groundwater Quality Standard. The leachate is collected and treated at the Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. Groundwater Quality Standard5Total Number of Samples21993 Average1997 Average1992 Average1995 Average TM 9 TABLE A-5BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICTCCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM-9)PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREACOMPARISON OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009Bissell PointLemayBissell PointLemayArsenic0.01 or less0.05 0.143 or less0.1035468.5Barium0.16 or less28.792.3971002879749Cadmium0.01 or less0.0050.0310.02311422Chromium0.03 or less0.10.045 or less0.03 or less5181516Lead0.07 or less0.0150.074 or less0.12 or less5189633Mercury0.0008 or less0.0020.0005 or less0.0013 or less0.2< 0.3561 or lessSilver0.01 or less 0.050.01 or less0.06 or less51251.5Selenium0.0020.05 0.001 or less0.041 or less1020.25pH211.0112.5 3Notes:1234mg/l40 CFR 261.24 Standard 3TCLP Analysis for Metals1Groundwater Quality Standard2TOTAL METALS IN ASH4Leachate Analysis and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (T.C. L.P.) are reported in mg/l.TCLP Standards are found at 40 CFR 261.24Leachate Analysis1Total Metals Analysis on Ash is reported in mg/kg.pH in Leachate was compared to Corrosivity standard in 40 CR 261.22 REVISION DESCRIPTIONBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.FILE NO. SCALEDESIGNEDSURVEYEDDATEAPPROVEDCHECKEDDRAWNSHEET NO.NAT.R.G.T.R.G.T.R.G.7/2009B.E.D.165186AS SHOWNCONTOURS 7-7-09GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGLAND AIR WATER 1505 East High Street Telephone: (573) 659-9078 Jefferson City, Missouri Facsimile: (573) 659-9079BLACK & VEATCHMSD BIOSOLIDSST. LOUIS, MISSOURILILAC AVE.SCRANT O N AVE. RIVER V I E W D R I V E 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OFPROPECT HILL RECLAMATIONSITE VERTICAL EXPANSIONLOOKING TO THE EASTPROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA REVISION DESCRIPTIONBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.FILE NO. SCALEDESIGNEDSURVEYEDDATEAPPROVEDCHECKEDDRAWNSHEET NO.NAT.R.G.T.R.G.T.R.G.7/2009B.E.D.165186AS SHOWNCONTOURS 7-7-09GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGLAND AIR WATER 1505 East High Street Telephone: (573) 659-9078 Jefferson City, Missouri Facsimile: (573) 659-9079BLACK & VEATCHMSD BIOSOLIDSST. LOUIS, MISSOURI3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OFPROPECT HILL RECLAMATIONSITE VERTICAL EXPANSIONLOOKING TO THE NORTHLILAC AVE. SCRANTON AVE. PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE L I L A C A V E . SCRANT O N A V E . RIVE R VI E W D RI V E ELEV.=589.0 +\- ELEV.=528.0 +\- VIEW OF AGGRESIVE VERTICAL EXPANSION FROM SOUTH SIDE LOOKING NORTH. 1.TOP VIEW IS 42 DEGREES ABOVE HORIZONTAL. 2.BOTTOM VIEW IS 0 DEGREES ABOVE HORIZONTAL. 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA REVISION DESCRIPTIONBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.FILE NO. SCALEDESIGNEDSURVEYEDDATEAPPROVEDCHECKEDDRAWNSHEET NO.NAT.R.G.T.R.G.T.R.G.7/2009B.E.D.165186AS SHOWNCONTOURS 7-7-09GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGLAND AIR WATER 1505 East High Street Telephone: (573) 659-9078 Jefferson City, Missouri Facsimile: (573) 659-9079BLACK & VEATCHMSD BIOSOLIDSST. LOUIS, MISSOURILILAC AVE.SCRANTON AVE . RIVER V I E W D R I V E 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OFPROPECT HILL RECLAMATIONSITE VERTICAL EXPANSIONLOOKING TO THE SOUTH EASTPROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA REVISION DESCRIPTIONBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.FILE NO. SCALEDESIGNEDSURVEYEDDATEAPPROVEDCHECKEDDRAWNSHEET NO.NAT.R.G.T.R.G.T.R.G.7/2009B.E.D.165186AS SHOWNCONTOURS 7-7-09GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGLAND AIR WATER 1505 East High Street Telephone: (573) 659-9078 Jefferson City, Missouri Facsimile: (573) 659-90793 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OFPROPECT HILL RECLAMATIONSITE VERTICAL EXPANSIONLOOKING TO THE SOUTHBLACK & VEATCHMSD BIOSOLIDSST. LOUIS, MISSOURILIL A C A V E . SCRANTON AVE. RIVE R VI E W D RI V E PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE LILAC A V E . ELEV.=589 +\- ELEV.=528.0 +\- 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA REVISION DESCRIPTIONBYNO.DATEPROJECT NO.FILE NO. SCALEDESIGNEDSURVEYEDDATEAPPROVEDCHECKEDDRAWNSHEET NO.NAT.R.G.T.R.G.T.R.G.7/2009B.E.D.165186AS SHOWNCONTOURS 7-7-09GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERINGLAND AIR WATER 1505 East High Street Telephone: (573) 659-9078 Jefferson City, Missouri Facsimile: (573) 659-9079BLACK & VEATCHMSD BIOSOLIDSST. LOUIS, MISSOURI3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OFPROPECT HILL RECLAMATIONSITE VERTICAL EXPANSIONNORTH END LOOKING EASTPROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE NORTH PROPERTY LINEELEV.=540.0 +\- ELEV.=589.0 +\- 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA Page 1 1505 East High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Telephone No. (573) 659-9078 Fax No. (573) 659-9079 Black & Veatch MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan (TM 9) Frank J. Dolan, P.E. September 4, 2009 Calculations of Projected Volumes and Years of Service for the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site This memo follows the memo of 8/26/2009 on the various steps used to calculate the volumes in the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. The following terms apply to the various surfaces used in these volume calculations. Moderate contours – This term refers to proposed contours to be limited to an elevation of 560 feet. Aggressive contours – This term refers to proposed contours intended to use all available air space within the existing footprint of the permitted area. Steps to create the surfaces Below is a description of the steps taken to create the moderate and aggressive contours. Moderate Contours The Moderate surface was prepared by adjusting the location the “APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF LANDFILL AREA” to match the highwalls and soil mounds. The limit was placed to minimize the appearance of any high walls that might be hazardous to children in the community. The contours were created by pushing final slope grades from the elevations and the landfill limit at a slope of 4 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. The slope would increase toward the center of the fill area and to an elevation of 540 feet. At 540 feet, the slope would change to 20 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. The change in slope will create a gently sloping surface over a large area of the top of the site. The highest elevation is about 553 feet. Aggressive Contours The Aggressive contours were prepared by extending the location of the “APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF LANDFILL AREA” to take advantage of the highwalls and berms more fully. The contours were created by pushing final slope grades from the existing elevations of the berms and high walls at the landfill limit at a slope of 4 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. The slope would increase toward the center of the fill area and to an elevation of 580 feet. At 580 feet, the slope would change to 20 Horizontal: 1 Vertical. The change in slope will create a gently sloping surface over an area of the top of the site large enough for equipment to operate. The top elevation is about 589 feet. Black & Veatch MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan (TM 9) October 9, 2009 Page 2 Page 2 Comparisons of Surfaces All surfaces were recreated using TIN surfaces in 2010 Civil-3D. The TIN surfaces allow for manipulation of the data in virtual space to determine if the surfaces are regular and represent the surfaces from which they were created. Grid points were created on the surface to allow for regular spacing of points for comparison between surfaces. The difference between the elevations at these points indicates a thickness between two surfaces. This “Surface” is used to calculate the volume between two sets of contours. To limit the volumes between two surfaces, the footprint of the landfill was bounded by the proposed limit of waste placement, the highwalls and tops of berms from the 2009 land survey. The cut and fill volumes are reported for individual “Surfaces” in the direct records from the Civil 3D program and are summarized in the table entitled “PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE, CALCULATIONS OF PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CLOSURE DATES FOR LANDFILL EXPANSION, August 2009” Comparison of Volumes The volumes calculated above are put into perspective by calculating the average fill rate. The volume between the quarry bottom and the existing surface was filled in the period of 1986 to 2009, 23 years. That means that an average of 55,000 cubic yards per year was deposited in the site. The volume of waste hauled to the Prospect Hill Reclamation site from the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs about 72,500 CY per year. The rate of fill was projected to increase by 33 percent projected in TM2 and is estimated as 96,400 CY per year. The projected fill volume is reduced by the volume for cover and the volume of waste to be placed in the Prospect Hill Reclamation site in 2009. The cover of the site is required to be three feet (3’) thick. The volume of the soil cover is 145,000 CY. The volume of the waste in inventory at the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs is estimated as 250,500 CY. These volumes of cover and ash inventory are subtracted from the volumes of air space available at the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. The remaining volumes are divided by the rate of fill, 96,400 CY/ yr to get the remaining years of service for the site. The projected year of closure is the sum of the current year, 2009, and the projected years of service. To reach the closure year currently permitted by MDNR, the remaining volume of air space, 1,164,000 CY is reduced by the volume of the ash inventory, 250,500 CY and the volume of the cover, 145,000 CY to leave 768,000 CY. At 96,400 CY/ yr, this volume provides a service life of about 8 years. When added to 2009, the 8 years of service indicates site closure at the currently permitted contours in 2017. Similar calculations show closure in 2025 for a moderate vertical expansion and 2031 for an aggressive vertical expansion of the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. Attachments: PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE, CALCULATIONS OF PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CLOSURE DATES FOR LANDFILL EXPANSION, August 2009 BLACK & VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 9) VOLUME FROM EDSI 2009 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO MODERATE VERTICAL EXPANSION BLACK & VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 9) VOLUME FROM MODERATE VERTICAL EXPANSION TO AGGRESSIVE VERTICAL EXPANSION BLACK and VEATCHMSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 9)PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE CALCULATIONS OF PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CLOSURE DATES FOR LANDFILL EXPANSION August 2009BASE SURFACECOMPARISON SURFACEYears by Layer3Year of Closure42009 Existing Contours1985-Approved Final Grade1,164,000768,0008.020171985-Approved Final GradeModerate Vertical Expansion814,0001,582,00016.42025Moderate Vertical ExpansionAggressive Vertical Expansion584,0002,166,00022.52031Notes:1234WWTP2009 INVENTORY OF ASH, CYLEMAY166,441BISSELL POINT84,000TOTAL VOLUME, CY250,441AVAILABLE FILL ABOVE EXISTING SURFACE (CY)1,2 THE BASE YEAR FOR PROJECTING YEAR OF CLOSURE IS 2009. Projected Years of ServiceTHE AVAILABLE FILL IS THE TOTAL PROJECTED VOLUME MINUS VOLUME OF COVER, 145,000 CYPROJECTED FILL VOLUME (CY)YEARS OF SERVICE WERE ESTIMATED BY DIVIDING THE AVAILABLE FILL BY THE RATE OF FILL. THE CURRENT RATE OF FILL IS 72,500 CY PER YEAR AND HAS BEEN INCREASED BY 33% TO REFLECT INCREASES PROJECTED IN TM 2 TO A RATE OF 96,400 CY PER YEAR. THE AVAILABLE FILL HAS ALSO BEEN ADJUSTED FOR THE VOLUME OF ASH CURRENTLY AT THE BISSELL POINT AND LEMAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THERE ARE 166,500 CY OF ASH STORED IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH LAGOONS AT THE LEMAY WWTP. THERE ARE 84,000 CY AT THE BISSELL POINT WWTP. THE TOTAL PROJECTED VOLUME MINUS VOLUME OF COVER MINUS THE VOLUMES FROM THE WWTPS IS REPORTED IN THIS COLUMN.Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. TM10–ReportonPotentialProspectHillReplacementSitesVOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 10 –Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 1 - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 10 – Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites To: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District From: Thomas R. Gredell, P.E., Rick L. Roberts, P.E., GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the evaluation of potentially finding and developing a future incinerator ash landfill as a replacement for the current Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility disposal site. Siting criteria used for the evaluation included:  Geologic criteria for Missouri identified from readily available published information and input from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Land Survey (MDNR DGLS) on the St. Louis metropolitan area geology.  Geologic criteria for Illinois identified from readily available published information from the Illinois Geologic Survey website.  A geographic search area limited to a 30-mile radius from the two MSD sludge incinerators locations (Bissell Point and Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plants)  A potentially available property size of 80 acres to 100 acres GREDELL Engineering Resources (Gredell Engineering) utilized the information gathered from published documentation and website searches of state and local jurisdictions, local real estate property pricing and MSD input to evaluate the potential replacement sites and real or potential impediments to establishing a future incinerator ash landfill. The potential, future location was targeted for either Missouri or Illinois within 30 miles of either the Bissell Point or Lemay plants. Table of Contents 1. Landfill Geologic Siting Criteria Meeting with MDNR DGLS ---------------------- 2 2. Identification of Geologic Limitations within Search Area -------------------------- 2 3. Potential Replacement Site Considerations ------------------------------------------ 3 4. Identify Specific Potential Replacement Sites ---------------------------------------- 4 5. List of Selected Specific Potential Replacement Sites ----------------------------- 7 6. Real and Potential Impediments to Potential Replacement Sites --------------- 8 7. Potential Replacement Site Permitting Schedules and Development Costs Estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Appendix A – Minutes of the Meeting with MDNR DGLS ------------------------------------ A1 Appendix B – Revised Bibliography of Geologic Information ------------------------------- B1 Appendix C – Potential Replacement Sites Location Map ---------------------------------- C1 Appendix D – Replacement Sites Permitting and Development Ghant Chart and Cost Tables---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1 BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 2 - 1. Landfill Geologic Siting Criteria Meeting with MDNR Division of Geology and Land Survey (DGLS). On August 3, 2009, at 9:00 am a meeting was held with the MDNR DGLS at the MDNR DGLS conference room in Rolla, Missouri. Mike Townley attended representing MSD and Tom Gredell and Jim Fels attended representing Gredell Engineering. Peter Price and Larry Pierce attended representing MDNR DGLS. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain MDNR DGLS input and guidance on geologic criteria for siting a future permitted disposal area (i.e., landfill) in Missouri within the St. Louis metropolitan area for MSD biosolids incinerator ash. The topics discussed included parameters for future landfill development, geologic settings anticipated within the geographic area and their suitability for landfill development, available geologic resources for the St. Louis area and potential future regulatory changes that could influence future landfill geologic siting criteria. The meeting provided up to date information and a list of resources to allow Gredell Engineering to develop a methodology for establishing a geologic features map identifying areas of potential suitability for landfill siting and development within the St. Louis area. A copy of the meeting minutes are provided in Appendix A. 2. Identification of Geologic Limitations within Search Area. Based on the results of the August 3, 2009 meeting with the MDNR DGLS, Gredell Engineering developed a methodology for determining, identifying and evaluating anticipated geologic characteristics within the search area for potential future disposal sites. Using MDNR DGLS input, Gredell Engineering staff researched a wide variety of geologic information resources identified in the bibliography provided in Appendix B. The bibliography first focused on Missouri conditions and then applied the same geologic considerations to Illinois. In addition to the meeting with MDNR DGLS, telephone contact was made with the appropriate Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) office to identify general geologic siting criteria. The primary difference between Missouri and Illinois is that Missouri would not allow siting of a municipal, demolition or special waste landfill in an alluvial setting, while Illinois did not automatically eliminate alluvial settings from consideration. The methodology focused on bedrock geology as the primary critical geologic feature. Bedrock geology strongly influences ‘natural’ site characteristics for waste containment and generally determines the quantity and quality of available groundwater resources. New landfills will be required to design and implement comprehensive groundwater monitoring systems based on bedrock geology. Soil type and quantity is also a key geologic consideration for future landfill development, but can potentially be overcome by purchase of off-site soil reserves. The excavation and hauling of the off-site soils then become an economic factor in the initial and lifetime economic evaluation of a replacement landfill site. For the MSD evaluation, surficial geology (soil) maps were overlain BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 3 - with bedrock geology maps. As necessary, well logs available from published geologic references in Missouri were evaluated to confirm anticipated bedrock and soil conditions. Based on the criteria obtained from the Missouri and Illinois regulatory agencies and published geologic information (both bedrock and soil), Gredell Engineering developed the following algorithm for determining suitable geologic settings.  MOST FAVORABLE – Bedrock: Primarily Pennsylvanian Marmaton (Pm) Formation, surrounded with Pennsylvanian Cherokee (Pc) Formation. Soil is typically residuum soils (clayey), lacustrine deposits (silt and clay) and loess soils (silty).  FAVORABLE – Glacial Drift or Glacial Till overburden (thick clayey soils) underlain by varying bedrock of Pennsylvanian, Mississippian and/or Ordovician age.  ACCEPTABLE – Bedrock: Ordovician Jefferson City (Ojc) Formation. Soil is typically residuum soils (clayey).  UNACCEPTABLE – Alluvium (floodplain) settings due to lack of confining layer (bedrock or other) between landfill and groundwater. Karst bedrock settings due to unidentifiable, preferential contaminant migration leading to difficulty of establishing effective groundwater monitoring systems. Faulted bedrock settings due to potential seismic stability (primarily Holocene faulting) and preferential contaminant migration leading to difficulty of establishing effective groundwater monitoring systems. 3. Potential Replacement Site Considerations. After developing a map of the search area within a 30-mile radius of the Bissell Point and Lemay plants that identified general geologic settings potentially acceptable for future landfill development and encompassing the area, a search was made for specific potential sites of a suitable size (80-100 acres minimum). The radius of 30 miles, consistent with TM3, was determined to be a “reasonable haul distance”, as required by the scope of work and discussed with MSD representatives on August 31, 2009. Gredell Engineering determined an area of 80 to 100 acres would be large enough to provide a service life comparable to the existing Prospect Hill disposal site. Two categories of potential sites were considered; Greenfield sites, or previously undeveloped sites; and Brownfield sites, or previously developed industrial or commercial sites. Brownfield sites could include large, inactive industrial/manufacturing tracts of land available for redevelopment. However, industrial/manufacturing tracts typically include significant amounts of buildings, utilities and other site improvements that would have to be demolished, removed and properly disposed prior to utilizing the site as a future landfill. Past activity on historic industrial sites can also result in significant on-site contamination that must be properly characterized and BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 4 - remediated prior to redevelopment. But Brownfield sites can also include active or inactive mining sites, which can have significantly lower redevelopment costs when used as a landfill. There are a limited number of 80 to 100 acre tracts of previously undeveloped land within 30 miles of the Bissell and Lemay plants due to the historic, concentrated urban and suburban development in and around St. Louis County. There are existing databases available that identify active and inactive surface mining sites within the St. Louis metropolitan area on both the Missouri and Illinois side. The existing site is a former shale quarry. Inactive surface mining sites are typically large tracts of land that have a need for some type of reclamation. If they are geologically suitable, formerly disturbed sites have the advantage of offering beneficial reclamation while providing disposal capacity for non- hazardous wastes. From the owner’s perspective, the development of their property as a landfill can turn a financial liability into a financial asset by providing a ‘second life’ for the property. Generally, the commercial costs of inactive mining sites are more reasonable compared to Greenfield sites. Therefore, abandoned rock quarries and coal strip mine sites were given consideration, along with Greenfield sites (previously undeveloped sites) as candidate potential replacement sites. Potential disadvantages to inactive mining sites include the need to manage residues left behind from former industrial or commercial activities and the lack of residual overburden soils for landfill development (e.g., liner construction, operating cover and final cap construction). After identifying sufficient specific suitable sites, each site was further evaluated on published information available on its specific location and political jurisdiction. 4. Identify Specific Potential Replacement Sites. Using the site considerations described above, Gredell Engineering and EDSI identified a specific list of potential replacement sites for consideration. The sites are listed below in three categories: Missouri Mine Locations; Illinois Mine Locations; and Greenfield Sites. The specific sites have been identified and located on a map provided in Appendix C, Potential Replacement Sites Location Map. Each site has been given a unique identifier on the map. A general description of the specific potential replacement sites is also provided. A. Missouri Mine Locations: The existing Prospect Hill site is an inactive shale quarry site. As indicated in Section 3, use of active and inactive mineral mining sites as an ash waste landfill could result in significant improvement to the property. In Missouri, limestone or shale surface mining is more prevalent than surface coal mining. A total of seven (7) sites in addition to the existing Prospect Hill location were located in Missouri and are listed below: BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 5 - M #1 Westlake Quarry - Approximately 280 acres. General location; T47N, R5E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #2 Bellefontaine Quarry, 5981 Baumgartner Road - Approximately 80 acres. General location; T47N &T48N, R6E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #3 Fred Weber, Inc., 2320 Creve Coeur Mill Road - Approximately160 acres (297 acres total). General location; T46N, R5E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #4, Existing Prospect Hill Site, at Riverview Dr. and Scranton - Approximately 75 acres. General location; T46N, R7E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #5, Bussen Quarries Inc., Anstine Quarry, 5000 Bussen Road - Approximately 40 acres (475 acres total). General location; Sec. 33, T43N & T44N, R 4E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #6, Unidentified Quarry - Approximately 60 acres. General location; Sec. 28 & 33, T45N,R5E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #7, Unidentified Quarry - Approximately 90 acres. General location; T45N, R6E, St. Louis County, Missouri. M #8, Unidentified Quarry - Approximately 160 acres. General location; Sec. 28, T44N, R6E, St. Louis County, Missouri. B. Illinois Mine Locations: Abandoned Coal Strip Mine sites are similar to abandon surface mineral mine sites in that they typically require reclamation and can be improved with the addition of fill material. Abandon coal strip mine areas sometimes generate acidic mine drainage. An alkaline waste material such as the MSD incinerator ash may have a beneficial side affect of helping to neutralize the acidic site conditions. In Illinois within the target 30-mile radius from the Bissell and Lemay plants, available mine site records indicate a potential abundance of old abandon coal strip mine sites. A combination of mineral surface mine areas (quarries) and coal strip mine areas were located in Illinois and are listed below: I #1 Columbia Quarry, 1501 Columbia Quarry Road - Approximately 436 acres, General location; Center N ½, N ½, T1S, R10W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #2 Casper Stolle Quarry, 3003 Stolle Road, Approximately 265 acres, General location; Center E ½, T1N, R10W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #3 Falling Springs Quarry Company, 2901 Stolle Road, Approximately 460 acres, General location; Center E1/2, T1N, R 10W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #4 Columbia Quarry Company, 100 Industrial Drive, Approximately 380 acres, General location; Center S ½ , S ½, T1N, R 10W, St. Clair County, Illinois. BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 6 - I #5 Columbia Quarry, 5440 Quarry Drive, Approximately 170 acres, General location; NW1/4, T3S, R9W, Monroe County, Illinois. I #6 Alby Quarry, 1627 Alby Street, Approximately 26 acres, General location; Center N ½, N ½, T5N, R10W, Madison County, Illinois. I #7 Kimaterials Inc. Lohr Quarry, 9434 Godfrey Road, Approximately 56 acres, General location; Sec. 5, T6N, R6W, Madison County, Illinois. I #8 Mt. Olive & Staunton Coal Co., Staunton, Approximately 33 acres, General location; Sec. 10, T6N, R6W, Madison County, Illinois. I #9 Voge (Henry), Mt. Olive & Staunton Coal Co., Staunton, Approximately 30 acres, General location; Sec. 8, T6N, R6W, Madison County, Illinois. I #10 Midwest Smokeless Fuel Corp & Midwest Radiant Fuel, Millstadt, Approximately 4800 acres, General location; Sec. 34-36, T1N, R 9W, Sec. 2-3, T1S, R 9W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #11 Midwest Radiant Corp. & Peabody Coal Co., Belleville, Approximately 3725 acres, General location; Sec. 406, T1S,R8W, Sec. 31-32, T1N, R 8W, Sec. 36, T1N, R9W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #12 Morgan (F.C.) Coal Co., Millstadt, Belleville, Approximately 1770 acres, General location; Sec. 11, 14, 24, T1S, R 9W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #13 Stitzel (Fred Jr.), Millstadt, Approximately 725 acres, General location; Sec. 7, T1S, R8W and Sec. 12,T1S, R9W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #14 Morgan (F.C.) Coal Co., Millstadt, Approximately 430 acres, General location; Sec. 7 &18, T1S, R8W, Sec. 13, T1S, R9W, St. Clair County, Illinois. I #15 Grossman (Wilbert), Belleville, Approximately 130 acres, General location; Sec. 19, T1S, R 8W, St. Clair County, Illinois. C. Greenfield Sites: Open undisturbed tracts of land of 80-100 acres located in the target area are difficult to find within the target area. Gredell Engineering and EDSI checked multiple real estate company websites and worked with one specific realtor to try to locate Greenfield properties of this size that are available for commercial development. No commercial listings of this size were found in the target area. Outside of the 30-mile radius, sites were found in southern Jefferson County, Franklin County and western St. Charles County of Missouri. Illinois appears to have much more open, undeveloped farmland of this size in the target area, but no parcels were located that are currently on the market. This does not mean that Greenfield sites cannot be located at a later date, but the process will take a concerted effort. With the use of Google Earth, EDSI located three (3) Greenfield sites of 80 to 100 acres of open land in contiguous tracts in St. Louis as follows: MGF #1, Tract of land lying NW of the intersection of Highway 367 and Lindberg Blvd, N. St. Louis County, Approximately 80 – 100 acres. BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 7 - MGF #2, Tract of land lying SW of the intersection of Highways 270 and 367, N. St. Louis County, Approximately 60 acres. MGF #3, Tract of land lying SE of the intersection of Highways 270 and 55, S. St. Louis County, Approximately 50 acres. 5. List of Selected Specific Potential Replacement Sites. From the above list of potential replacement sites, five (5) sites were selected for closer evaluation. In Missouri, we chose three potential Greenfield sites. These three sites were chosen for their close proximity to the Bissell and Lemay plants. Although two or the sites are smaller than 80 acres, additional undeveloped tracts of land appear to be adjacent to these sites. In Illinois, we chose two Brownfield sites, both mineral surface mining operations. These two sites were chosen for their close proximity to the Bissell and Lemay plants. MGF #1 is a site located in an unincorporated area of north St. Louis County west of Missouri Highway 367 and north of Lindberg Boulevard. From the aerial map view, it is an open property near an active rock quarry. According to the County tax records, it is 80.72 acres and is owned by Knox County Stone Inc. It has good accessibility from Missouri Highway 367 and is only about 15 miles from the Bissell Point Plant. MGF #2 is a site located in an unincorporated area of St. Louis County near the community of Bellefontaine Neighbors, southeast of the intersection of highways 367 and 270. It is about 10 miles from the Bissell Point Plant and has good accessibility from south Missouri Highway 367. According to the County tax records, it is 45.88 acres and is owned by the St. Louis County Department of Public Health and Welfare. MGF #3 is a site located in an unincorporated area of St. Louis County southeast of the intersection of Interstate Highways I-55 and I-270. It is about 6 miles from the Lemay Plant. According to the County tax records, it is 18.44 acres and is owned by Bussen Quarries Inc. Additional acreage appears to be available adjacent to the 18.44-acre tract. This site is possibly undermined by quarrying operations, according to the Bussen Quarries web page. I #1 is a rock quarry site near Columbia, Illinois just off of Interstate Highway I- 255 and Illinois Highway 158. It is about 7 miles from the Lemay Plant. It appears the site is approximately 436 acres. I #4 is a rock quarry site near Dupo, Illinois just off Interstate Highway I-255 at intersection with Illinois Highway 3. It has good accessibility from Interstate Highway I-255 and is about 380 acres. 6. Real and Potential Impediments to Potential Replacement Sites. Siting a replacement landfill in the St. Louis Metropolitan area is going to be challenging BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 8 - in any location having adequate acreage for the facility. Greenfield sites will likely be more of a challenge than Brownfield sites previously used for commercial and industrial use like rock quarrying or coal mining. Both the Missouri and Illinois regulatory agencies require local government approval prior to pursuit of state solid waste environmental permitting. For the Missouri sites listed, the local government will be St. Louis County. For the two Illinois sites chosen for further consideration, the local government will be Saint Clair County and could include the cities of Columbia and Dupo. In Missouri, the local permits or approvals can be pursued while the initial solid waste permitting process is in process. In Illinois, a local permit must be obtained before the state agency will accept an application for a solid waste permit. Both Missouri and Illinois solid waste permitting requirements are intended to be ‘objective’ processes. Therefore, if local approval can be attained, then state approval should be attainable, provided that the site is geologically suitable and the design and operation comply with the respective state regulations. Since Prospect Hill was permitted in the mid-1980’s, Missouri’s environmental laws and regulations have become stricter. A new disposal facility will require an extensive hydrogeologic evaluation of the site and an extensive groundwater monitoring system. Illinois has similar standards. Both states technical and regulatory processes are designed to meet or exceed the federal RCRA Subtitle D standards for municipal solid waste landfill design and operation. One potentially significant difficulty in developing a disposal facility in Illinois outside the MSD sewer service area is that it will require a different leachate management system than currently available for the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site. Direct discharge to a sewer system in Illinois may not be possible. Many landfills have to install sumps, pumps, storage capacity and truck loading systems for off-site leachate management. Stormwater management will also likely require an extensive management system with runoff control and detention to meet pre-existing conditions. Another significant aspect of siting a replacement landfill at a new location is the need for a good public relations and information campaign. This could include the need for MSD to pay a fee to the local, ‘host’ municipality or county, as well as ensure that the end use after closure will offer some benefit to the local community. In the hierarchy of waste management technologies (e.g., Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Incinerate and Dispose), incineration and land disposal are considered the least desirable by the public. Generally, current public perception leans towards identifying sustainable technologies for managing waste materials and residuals. To site a replacement landfill in any location, the District will have to demonstrate in their public relations campaign that they have explored all other potential management technologies for the incinerator ash and that other, more desirable management options are financially prohibitive. BLACK & VEATCH /GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM10- Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites MSD Contract No. 2009145 October 16, 2009 QC: T. Knox - 9 - 7. Potential Replacement Site Permitting Schedules and Development Costs Estimate. Gredell Engineering has prepared hypothetical project schedules for the development and permitting of a potential replacement disposal site. The project schedules include preliminary design, local permits/approvals and state solid waste environmental permitting processes. Additionally, budget-level cost estimates have been prepared for the processes involved with applying for and obtaining landfill permits in both Missouri and Illinois. The schedules and cost tables are provided in Appendix D. The siting, development, design and permitting schedule in either Missouri or Illinois requires a minimum of 5 years to complete. Some recent past landfill development projects have taken as long as 10 years to get permitted and begin operation. While the processes in Missouri and Illinois differ in their specific details, the two processes are generally similar, as the applicable regulations are similar and based on the same federal standards. Therefore, the gross development and permitting cost estimates (for budgeting purposes) are approximately the same. Commercial property costs for tracts of land 80 to 100 acres in size currently list between $5,000 to $10,000 per acre and up, depending on how close they are to the metropolitan area or to desirable parts of the metropolitan area. Using this range of cost per acre, base property acquisition costs for a 90-acre site (average of 80 to 100 acres) will be from $450,000 to $900,000 in the current market. Based on the above statements and the data provided in Appendix D, the total budgetary cost for purchasing property, developing and permitting a replacement landfill will cost between $ 4,770,000 and $ 5,220,000 in 2009 dollars. It should be noted that these costs can significantly increase if the local permitting and approval process becomes contentious due to negative public reaction to the replacement site proposal. PublicPerceptionFocusGroupPUBLIC PERCEPTION FOCUS GROUP Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer DistrictComprehensive Solids Handling Master PlanPublic Perception Focus Group Summary Prepared by For Black & Veatch August 2009 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –1–
 Comprehensive
Solids
Handling
Master
Plan


 Public
Perception
Focus
Group
Summary
 
 Background
 The
Metropolitan
St.
Louis
Sewer
District
(MSD)
contracted
Black
&
Veatch
to
prepare
a
 district‐wide
Comprehensive
Solids
Handling
Master
Plan.
In
order
to
measure
public
 perception
regarding
various
solids
treatment
and
use
options
and
to
gain
insights
about
 the
Triple
Bottom
Line
evaluation
model,
Black
&
Veatch
contracted
Vector
 Communications
to
conduct
the
focus
group.
It
was
held
on
Thursday,
August
27
at
 Vector’s
office.
 
 
 Focus
Group
Demographics
 Twelve
residents,
representing
the
City
of
St.
Louis
and
St.
Louis
County,
participated
in
 the
focus
group.
Of
those
participating,
the
following
demographic
representation
 prevailed:
 
 • County
of
Residence:
58%
–
City
of
St.
Louis;
and
42%
–
St.
Louis
County;
 • Residential
Proximity
to
WWTP:
50%
lived
close
to
either
Bissell,
Lemay
or
 Coldwater
WWTP
(see
map);
 • Gender:
58%
–
female;
and
42%
–
 male;
 • Ethnicity:
50%
–
African
American;
 33%
–
European
American;
8%
–
 Asian
American;
and
8%
–
Indian
 American;
 • Age:
25%
–
20
to
29
years
of
age;
 42%
–
30
to
39
years
of
age;
25%
–
 40
to
49
years
of
age:
and
8%
–
60+
 years
of
age;
 • Household
Composition:
42%
–
 with
children
between
the
ages
of
 one
and
sixteen
years
of
age;

 • Pet
Ownership:
58%
–
with
either
a
 dog
and/or
cat;

 • Home
Ownership:
100%
 • Biosolids
Knowledge:
33%
–
 indicated
that
they
had
heard
the
 term
biosolids;
and
of
those
four
 individuals,
two
correctly
defined
 the
term
biosolids.
 
 
 Methodology
 The
two‐hour
focus
group
began
with
participants
completing
a
demographic
survey
 (appendix),
as
well
as
a
short
survey
(appendix)
to
determine
knowledge
about
 wastewater
treatment
and
biosolids.
Following
the
surveys,
Tom
Ratzki
of
Black
&
 Veatch
presented
a
20‐minute
overview
of
the
following
topics:
 
 Participants’
Residential
Locations
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –2–
 • Wastewater
Treatment
and
Solids
Processing;
 • Explanation
of
Biosolids;
 • Solids
Processing
and
End
Use
Options;
and
 • Solids
Processing
Options
Evaluation
–
Triple
Bottom
Line.
 
 Participants
asked
several
clarifying
questions
after
the
presentation
and
then,
Jessica
 Perkins
began
the
80‐minute
focus
group
discussion.
The
discussion
covered
the
 following
topics:
 
 • Additional
information
needed
regarding
solids
handling;
 • Trusted
sources
of
information;
 • Concerns
about
solids
handling;
 • Acceptable
(and
unacceptable)
solids
handling
options;
and
 • Preferred
weighting
ratios
for
the
Triple
Bottom
Line.
 
 After
the
discussion,
participants
were
surveyed
again
to
determine
the
increase
in
 solids
handling
processing
knowledge.
 
 
 Focus
Group
Discussion
Results
 Additional
Information
Needed
for
Thorough
Evaluation
of
Options
 Participants
were
asked
what
additional
questions
would
help
to
inform
them
about
the
 solids
handling
process.
They
wanted
to
know:
 • How
much
space
is
available
in
landfills?

 • When
will
landfill
space
be
exhausted?
 • What
other
land
application
uses
exist
for
treated
biosolids?
 • What
are
the
public
health
implications
of
various
options?
 • What
is
the
methodology
for
comparing
green
house
gas
emissions
among
 options?
 • How
can
we
reduce
our
waste
so
that
fewer
solids
are
treated?
 • Is
there
a
way
to
localize
treatment
at
our
residences
and
businesses?
 • What
is
the
return
on
investment
if
reduction
or
treatment
is
localized
at
homes
 and
businesses?
 • How
do
you
define
and
measure
odor
potential
of
the
various
options?

 • How
are
other
countries
and
cities
handling
solids
processing?
 • How
can
MSD
share
the
cost
with
other
utilities
for
co‐burning?
 
 Note:
The
participants
were
asked
to
generate
questions
so
that
Black
&
Veatch
and
MSD
 would
have
a
foundation
for
a
future
biosolids
FAQ.
 
 Trusted
Sources
of
Information
 Participants
felt
that
any
entity
that
had
an
economic
or
financial
interest
in
solids
 handling
would
provide
biased
answers
to
their
questions.
Therefore,
they
felt
the
best
 sources
were
environmentally
aligned
organizations,
such
as
the
United
States
EPA,
 Green
Peace,
Environmental
Defense
Fund,
Missouri
Botanical
Gardens,
Conservation
 International
and
environmental
scientists.

Additionally,
one
participant
mentioned
 graduate
students
who
were
engaged
in
unbiased
research.
Interestingly,
professors
 were
not
considered
unbiased
because
of
their
desires
to
promote
personal
research
 interests.
MSD
would
be
considered
a
trusted
source
if
it
commissioned
research
from
a
 third
party
and
reported
the
results
on
its
website.
 
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –3–
 Communicating
with
the
Public
 While
not
included
as
a
focus
group
discussion
topic,
one
participant
raised
the
question
 about
how
MSD
should
communicate
with
the
public
about
solids
handling.
Participants
 stated
that
they
wanted
to
see
relevant
facts
relative
to
the
options,
associated
rate
 increases
and
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
each
option
being
considered.
Since
 the
topic
of
solids
handling
is
unknown
to
most
residents,
MSD
should
begin
its
 information
and
engagement
process
well
in
advance
of
actual
implementation.
While
 one
participant
mentioned
bill
inserts
as
a
mechanism
for
information
dissemination;
 others
mentioned
infomercials
as
a
mechanism.
Several
participants
remarked
that
bill
 inserts
would
be
useless
because
they
believe
few
ratepayers
read
them.
Participants
 encouraged
more
focus
groups
or
other
public
events
to
inform
residents
about
solids
 handling
processes
and
options.
 
 Solids
Handling
Concerns
 The
concerns
expressed
by
participants
mirrored
the
additional
information
required
 for
thorough
evaluation.
Specifically,
participants
were
concerned
with
the:
 
 • Odors
associated
with
solids
processing,
but
not
the
odor
of
the
end‐products;
 • Allergens
produced
by
solids
processing;
 • Increased
truck
traffic
for
hauling
end‐products;
 • MSD’s
accountability
to
the
public
based
on
its
track
record;
 • Siting
of
facilities
to
protect
environmental
justice
issues;
 • Degree
of
regulatory
oversight;
 • Availability
of
landfill
space
for
future
generations;
 • Cost
(to
MSD
and
eventually,
rate
payers)
of
options
selected;
and
 • Selection
of
options
based
on
best
practices
research.
 
 Perceptions
About
Solids
Handling
Options
 Participants,
while
reviewing
a
summary
document
of
solids
handling
and
use
options
 with
the
associated
advantages
and
disadvantages,
were
asked
to
voice
their
preferred
 options.
Overall,
participants
found
environmentally
friendly
and
cost
effective
options
 as
the
most
publicly
accepted.
The
least
accepted
options
were
those
that
used
valuable
 resources,
such
land
and
energy,
to
produce
end
products.
The
chart
below
provides
a
 visual
synopsis
of
each
option’s
acceptability.
 
 
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –4–
 
 Land
Application
of
Treated
Solids
 Sixty‐seven
percent
viewed
this
as
publicly
acceptable
because
it
was
viewed
as
a
 green
option
with
few
disadvantages.
While
they
understood
that
creating
a
market
 for
the
product
was
difficult,
they
felt
that
the
environmental
benefits
far
 outweighed
the
costs
of
marketing.
Participants
preferred
the
biosolids
storage
at
 the
application
location,
rather
than
at
the
WWTP.
 
 Co­Burning
 Fifty
percent
viewed
co‐burning
as
acceptable
because
it
was
low‐cost
and
 environmentally
beneficial
because
eventually
it
could
replace
coal.
However,
they
 understood
that
this
option
would
require
additional
time
to
become
widely
 adopted
by
power
plants;
and
this
option
doesn’t
provide
enough
financial
incentive
 for
replacing
coal.
Sixteen
percent
viewed
coal
burning
as
unacceptable
because
it
 was
unproven
and
it
represented
a
high
cost
to
wastewater
utility
companies.
 
 Composting
 Fifty
percent
viewed
composting
as
an
acceptable
option
because
first
and
foremost,
 it
was
familiar
to
them
as
homeowners,
and
it
is
a
known
strategy
for
reducing
and
 reusing
waste.
For
those
who
viewed
it
as
unacceptable,
they
were
most
concerned
 with
the
high
capital
and
operating
costs,
as
well
as
the
associated
odors
of
 processing.
 
 Heat
Drying
 The
audience’s
acceptability
and
unacceptability
percentages
for
heat
drying
were
 virtually
the
same,
at
40%.
For
those
viewing
the
option
as
acceptable,
they
saw
it
as
 creating
an
environmentally
sustainable
cycle.
However,
for
those
viewing
it
as
 unacceptable,
their
major
concerns
related
to
cost
and
environmental
impacts.
 Additionally,
one
participant
remarked
that
with
the
additional
demand
for
natural
 gas,
the
price
of
natural
gas
could
increase
to
regulate
demand.
 
 Landfills
 Seventy‐five
percent
of
the
participants
viewed
this
method
as
the
least
publicly
 accepted
because
they
were
concerned
about
the
future
cost
and
availability
of
 landfills
and
they
felt
that
it
was
the
least
sustainable
or
green
option
provided.
For
 the
remaining
participants,
landfills
were
acceptable
because
this
was
the
most
 proven
and
cost
effective
option.
 
 Incineration
 Almost
92%
of
the
participants
viewed
incineration
as
publicly
unacceptable.
While
 several
admitted
that
the
term
conjured
visions
of
billowing
smoke
and
 contaminants,
several
remark
that
the
high
costs
and
emissions
were
the
 determining
factors
in
labeling
it
as
unacceptable.
Participants
found
the
idea
of
 using
“one
resource
to
kill
another,
with
no
value”
as
being
extremely
undesirable
 for
environmental
sustainability.
Finally,
one
participant
remarked
that
any
options
 with
possible
permitting
issues
would
be
suspect.
 
 Ratzki
asked
the
participants
if
their
opinion
would
change
if
the
incineration
 process
recovered
heat,
produced
steam
and
produced
sustainable
electricity
as
a
 replacement
for
coal
generated
power.
Two
or
three
participants
remarked
that
 they
would
consider
incineration
as
a
more
appealing
option.
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –5–
 
 Evaluating
Solids
Handling
Options
–
Triple
Bottom
Line
Model
(TBL)
 As
a
method
to
evaluate
solids
handling
options,
Ratzki
presented
the
TBL
concept
to
the
 participants
during
the
overview.
The
facilitator
re‐introduced
the
topic
by
asking
 participants
to
review
three
weighting
scenarios
for
evaluating
options.
The
three
 options
were:
 
 • Scenario
A:

Economic
–
33.3%;
Environmental
–
33.3%;
and
Social
–
33.3%;
 • Scenario
B:

Economic
–
50%;
Environmental
–
25%;
and
Social
–
25%;
and
 • Scenario
C:

Economic
–
75%;
Environmental
–
12.5%;
and
Social
–
12.5%.
 
 Fifty
percent
of
the
participants
preferred
Scenario
A
because
it
demonstrated
a
 balanced
approach
among
the
factors.
Although
they
believed
this
was
a
more
equitable
 approach,
they
viewed
addressing
environmental
factors,
as
more
critical
than
social
 factors.
For
the
42%
that
selected
Scenario
B,
the
predominant
reason
was
a
high
 concern
regarding
rate
affordability
for
the
masses
and
those
on
fixed
incomes.
It
seems
 from
the
discussion
that
economic
and
environmental
factors
are
most
critical.

 
 Ratzki
suggested
another
scenario
(Economic
–
60%,
Environmental
–
30%
and
Social
–
 10%)
to
the
group
and
a
small
percentage
of
the
participants
agreed
with
this
scenario.
 Participants
were
very
concerned
about
the
economic
impact
of
MSD’s
actions
on
rate
 increases.
However,
protecting
the
environment
is
just
as
critical
to
them.

 
 From
the
post‐survey
(appendix),
where
participants
were
asked
to
rate
goal
statements
 on
a
scale
of
one
to
five,
with
one
being
of
minimal
importance
and
five
being
of
highest
 importance,
it
appears
that
economic
and
social
factors
should
be
equal
with
 environmental
factors
being
weighed
slightly
higher.
The
table
below
represents
the
 frequency
distribution,
as
well
as
the
rating.
 
 1
2
3
4
5
 Goal
Statement
Frequency
Distribution
 Number
Responding
 Rating
 1. Maintain
capital,
operating
and
 maintenance
expenses
to
keep
sewer
 rates
as
affordable
as
possible.
 
1
7
3
1
3.33
 2. Minimize
the
effects
of
green
house
gas
 emissions
to
protect
the
environment.


2
4
6
4.33
 3. Use
technologies,
which
minimize
 neighborhood
impacts,
such
as
odors,
 truck
traffic
and
plant
aesthetics.
 
3
4
3
2
3.33
 
 It
would
seem
from
the
results
and
the
prior
discussion
that
participants
could
also
 consider
the
following
two
scenarios:
 • Economic
–
40%;
Environmental
–
40%;
and
Social
–
20%
(equal
treatment
for
 economic
and
environmental
factors)
 • Economic
–
30%;
Environmental
–
40%;
and
Social
–
30%
(environmental
 factors
slightly
higher,
as
per
post‐survey
results)
 

 Note:
The
facilitator
suggested
these
scenarios
after
reviewing
the
data.
The
scenarios
were
 not
vetted
with
the
focus
group.
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –6–
 
 

 Focus
Group
Learning
Effectiveness
 At
the
focus
group’s
completion,
participants
completed
another
survey
(appendix)
to
 determine
the
change
in
learning
and
perceptions.
For
the
question,
“What
happens
to
 wastewater
solid
material
after
it
leaves
your
drain
or
toilet?”
participants
provided
a
 more
detailed
description
on
the
post‐survey
than
they
did
on
the
pre‐presentation
 survey.
Additionally,
on
the
pre‐survey,
only
16%
correctly
described
the
term
biosolids.
 However,
on
the
post‐survey,
100%
correctly
described
the
term
biosolids.
Finally
on
the
 pre‐survey,
67%
stated
that
“it
was
a
good
idea
to
treat,
recycle
and
return
human
waste
 to
the
soil
as
fertilizer”;
and
that
percentage
increased
to
100%
on
the
post‐survey.

 
 
 Implications
for
the
Solids
Handling
Master
Plan




 Black
&
Veatch,
along
with
MSD,
should
consider
the
following
as
the
master
plan
is
 developed:
 
 • Only
a
small
percentage1
of
the
population
knows
about
solids
handling
and
what
 people
don’t
know
often
creates
greater
opposition.
Therefore,
extensive
and
 long‐term
public
awareness
is
required
for
acceptability.
 
 • Solids
handling
options
most
favored
are
those
that
keep
costs
affordable
and
 protect
the
environment
from
additional
harm.
However,
environmental
 sustainability
and
public
health
should
be
proven
and
documented
by
an
 unbiased
source.
 
 • Costs
and
environmental
sustainability
are
the
most
critical
factors
for
evaluating
 options.
Participants
are
willing
to
pay
slightly
more,
if
the
options
are
more
 environmentally
friendly.
Therefore,
consider
weighting
economic
and
 environmental
factors
the
same
in
the
TBL
model.
 
 • The
public
is
unaware
of
most
issues
facing
MSD.
The
District
may
want
to
 consider
becoming
more
transparent
about
the
regulatory
and
environmental
 issues
that
impact
its
decisions.
 
 • The
most
trusted
resources
for
information
are
those
that
focus
on
 environmental
stewardship
and
receive
minimal
financial
gain
for
their
efforts.
 MSD
should
consider
posting
reviews
or
references
from
environmental
 stewards,
such
as
WERF,
on
its
website.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1
From
a
recent
MSD
survey
conducted
by
ETC
Institute,
27%
of
835
respondents
had
heard
of
the
term
 biosolids.
Of
those
that
had
heard
of
the
term,
almost
90%
identified
the
term
correctly.
 
 Solids
Handling
Master
Plan

 Focus
Group
Summary
 –7–
 Appendix
 Sample
of
Surveys
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‐