The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutExhibit MSD 73G - SMP PH 1 TM'sBLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference•, ENERGY WATER INFORMATION GOVERNMENT Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Engineering Services Phase 1 Technical Memoranda Mr. Steve Roberts Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 2350 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103 Dear Mr. Roberts: B&V Project 165186 B&V File B1 October 19, 2009 Eng. Contract: E-1255 Project No. 2009145 We have prepared a compilation of the Phase 1 Technical Memoranda for the Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan in both hard copy and electronic forms. Distribution of the copies is as noted on the following page. The status of the technical memoranda is as follows: Tech Descristion and Status Memo No. 1 MSD O&M Management. On hold until Phase 2 awaiting financial information from recent fiscal years. 2 Facility Summaries and Solids Projections. Final, review comments incorporated 3 Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives. Final, review comments incorporated 4 Summary of Regulatory Issues. Initial draft issue incorporating B&V research and results of meeting with MDNR. Still need input from USEPA and IEPA 5 Condition Assessment Report. Final, review comments incorporated 6 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation. Final, review comments incorporated. 7 Summary of Solids Processing Technologies. Final, review comments incorporated 8 Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility. Final, review comments incorporated. 9 Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations. Final, review comments incorporated. 10 Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites. Final, review comments incorporated. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments on the technical memoranda. We have begun development of the detailed scope for Phase 2 work. Sincerely, BLACK & VEATCH D. Matt Bond, P.E. Black & Veatch Corporation • 15450 South Outer Forty Drive • Suite 200 • Chesterfield, MO 63017 USA • Telephone: 636.532,7940 Page 2 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan (2009145) Phase 1 Technical Memoranda Distribution: Binders with Hard Copies (12): MSD Headquarters Steve Roberts, Gene Stinnett, file Bissell Point WWTP Bret Berthold Lemay WWTP Neil Frankenberg Coldwater WWTP Ken Gambaro Grand Glaize WWTP Todd Heller B&V Chesterfield Office Tom Ratzki, Bently Green, File Other B&V Matt Bond, Trish Scanlan B&V Project 165186 October 19, 2009 CD/Electronic Copies (33): MSD Headquarters Steve Roberts, Pam Huntoon, Gene Stinnett, Jon Sprague, Gary Moore, Karen Sneed, Ed Cope, Carole Willis, file Bissell Point WWTP Bret Berthold, Mike Townley, John Lodderhose, Buffy Santel Lemay WWTP Neil Frankenberg, Rebecca Coyle Coldwater WWTP Ken Gambaro Grand Glaize WWTP Todd Heller B&V Chesterfield Office Belinda Walk, Tom Ratzki, Bently Green, Alan Christanell, file Other B&V Matt Bond, Jim Rowan, Trish Scanlan, Dan Bunce, Lori Stone EDSI Samba Muddhana David Mason and Assoc. Jamie Nobis Gredell Engineering Tom Gredell, Rick Roberts Resources Environmental Group Bob Pepperman Services Comprehensive Solids Master Plan Volume 1, Phase 1 Technical Memoranda Table of Contents TM 1 TM 2 TM 3 TM 4 TM 5 TM 6 TM 7 TM 8 TM 9 TM 10 MSD O&M Management Facilities Summaries and Solids Projections Solids Disposal / Reuse Alternatives Summary of Regulatory Issues Condition Assessment Report Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Summary of Solids Processing Technologies Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life with Recommendations Report on Potential Prospect Hill Replacement Sites Public Perception Focus Group r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 1 — MSD O&M Management L A r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 2 — Facilities Summaries and Solids Projections L J TM 2 — Facilities Summaries a) C 0 C1) C 'CS C CO BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 1 of 21 n The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District SERVICE AREAS BLANCHETTE BRIDGE ST CHARLES COL / r MISSOURI RIVER STATE HWY.i18 ♦ GRAND GLAIZE TP LOWER -MRAIWWVFECQ COLDWATER CiEEK AWWyRTER ! LAlNAEF-ST. LOUIS INIERNIOIONAL AIRPORT CLAYTON I RWERR AFHWY.,0! DES PERES EMAY WWTP GARTNER% BAPPACKB EAm BRIDGE CNA:1,0F POCKS Figure 1 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 2 of 21 Sludge Wells (3 Total) Primary Clarifiers (8 Total) BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference. WAS I/I RAS I 11 Activated Sludge Wells (2 total) Multiple Hearth Incinerators (4 Total) Belt Filter Presses (6 Total) Sludge Feed Pumps (3 total) Final Clarifiers (12 Total) Heat Recovery system Turbine Non -Potable Water Cooling Heat Exchanger Condenser Water Conditioning Potable Water WH boiler Ash Slurry Ponds (3 total) Disposal to Prospect Hill Landfill METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT LEMAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-2c AD 17/23/09 Figure 2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 250.0 200.0 150.0 v E LL 100.0 50.0 0.0 Dec -05 Mar -06 Jun -06 Sep.06 Dec -06 Mar -07 Jun -07 Sep -07 Dec -07 Mar -08 Jun -08 Aug -08 Nov -06 Figure 3 Lemay WWTP Flow and Total Solids e -e-Flow (mgd) Est Ash (dlpd) -a-Total Solids (dtpd) 100.0 95,0 - 90.0 85.0 - 80 0 75.0 - 70.0 - 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 - 40.0 - 35.0 - 30.0 - 25.0 20.0 = 150 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 Table 1 Lemay WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Average Influent Primary WAS Total Volatile Ash Solids Flow Solids Solids Solids Solids Production Production Year (mgd) (tpd) (tpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (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 Total Salida IdtPd7 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 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 3 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. 250.0 200.0 E 150.0 8 0 LL aai 100.0 c • Figure 4 Influent Flow vs. River Level • • • • • • • 50.0 ♦ — • 0.0 • • AA • • • ♦ • • t_• • • • • • N • • • • •• • • • • • • • • 00 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 River Level, ft • Plant Flow • Solids 25.0 • 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 v 100.0 a H 80.0 N 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 30.0 35.0 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 4 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 5 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 • 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. 250.0 200.0 1500 co E V_ 100 +J 500 Figure 5 Lemay WWTP Volatile Solids 20% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 30% 10% 0.0 0% Dec -05 Mar -06 Jun -06 Sep -06 Dec -06 Mar -07 Jun -07 Sep -07 Dec•07 Mar -08 Jun -08 Aug -08 Nov -08 Date () — Influent Solids (%V) f Dewatered Solids (%V) 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 6 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 7 of 21 Raw Wastewater s Pump Preliminary Station Treatment/ No. 1 Grit Removal c7 Primary Clarifiers Final Clarifiers (8 Total) (12 Total) 1 Grit to Landfill Disposal or Incineration Sludge Wells (2 total) Ash Pumping Station To Primary Effluents BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference Storage Tanks Belt Filter Presses (14 Total) Sludge Pumps 11 _ (3 total) Piston Pumps (6 Total) Cake Equalization Bins (6 Total) Piston Pump ► Final Effluent to River Stack Gasses Scrubbers i (6 Total) Cake ReceivingSluBrryin � rrrr°r r� Ash n v Ash Settling Basins (2 total) Wet Ash Disposal to Landfill io a) m Multiple Hearth Incinerators (6 Total) METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT BISSELL POINT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-2b ADI 7/23/09 Figure 5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Jan -06 Jul -06 Feb -07 Aug -07 Date Mar -08 Sep -08 Apr -09 Figure 7 Bissell WWTP Flow and Solids Production +Flow (mgd) —s--Total Solids (dtpd) ---Est Ash (dtpd) 250.0 200.0 150.0 «' a 0 0) 100.0 ;° 50.0 0.0 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 8 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 9 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 10 of 21 Raw Wastewater Primary Clarifiers 4 Total BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference' Primary Sludge Pumps (5 Total) Grit/Sludge Separators (3 Total) inal Clarifier (7 Total) To Aeration Basins4 Grit Dumpster v co co WAS Pumps 0 RAS Pump Station WAS Thickener (7 Total) Primary Sludge Thickener (1 Total) 2 -Stage Pumps (4 Total) Bissel WWTP ►l\./r Sewer System Anaerobic Digesters (6 Total, Not Used) METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT COLDWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-1 b AD 17/23/09 Figure 7 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 a 30.00 CA 25.00 a a 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Jul -OS Jan -07 Aug -07 Date Feb -08 Sep -08 Dec -05 Figure 9 Coldwater WWTP Flow and Solids Production Flow (mgd) -e- Raw Solids (dtpd) Digest Solids (dtpd) 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 2- 25.00 a 4 20.00 O W 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 11 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 12 of 21 Raw Wastewaters WAS Holding Basin inal Clarifier (6 Total) i �To Primary Effluent RAS Wetwell & Pump Station (4 Pumps) Rotary Drum Thickeners (4 Total) _AzirrT Thickener Feed Pumps (4 Total) BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference= Digester Receiving Well i (4 Total Digesters (4 Primary & Secondary) Centrifuge Receiving Well 1 Centrifuge Feed Pumps (6 Total) Primary Clarifiers Primary Sludge Pump Station (2 Pumps) Centrifuges (3 Total) Sludge Cake Pumps (3 Total) 1 Sludge Storage Silo (2 Total) Truck to Compost or Landfill METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT MISSOURI RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-2a ADI 7/23/09 Figure 9 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Figure 11 Missouri River WWTP Flow and Solids Production - *-Flow (mgd) - 6- Raw Sludge (dtpd) - Digested Solids (dtpd) 40.0 5.0 0.0 Total Solids (dtpd) Table 7 Missouri River WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Average Total Raw Plant Raw Digested To To Land Solids Flow Solids Volatile Solids Compost Landfill Applied Production Year (mgd) (tpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (dtpd) (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 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 13 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 14 of 21 Primary Clarifiers Secondary Clarifiers (2 Total) (2 Total) Fv/ Raw Wastewater From Baumgartner PS s Grit/Sludge Separators (3 Total) BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference Sludge Grit Primary Sludge and Grit Pumps (3 Total) Truck to Landfill Truck Loading Hopper Lo. Secondary Sludge Pumps (3 total) Gravity Thickeners (2 Total) Recycle to Primary Treatment Sludge Thickened Sludge Pumps (3 Total) Belt Filter Press Dewatering (2 Total) Truck Loading Hoppers (2 total) Truck to Compost or Landfill METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT LOWER MERAMEC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103 -la ADI 7/23/09 Figure 11 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 25.00 20.00 .- 15.00 tT E 0 u- 10.00 5.00 0.00 May -07 Aug -07 Dec -07 Mar -08 Jun -08 Date Sep -08 Jan -09 Apr -09 Feb -07 Figure 13 Lower Meramec WWTP Flow and Solids Production -0-Flow (mgd) -F 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 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Jul -09 Total Solids (dtpd) 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 15 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 16 of 21 Raw Wastewaters Primary Clarifiers (4 Total) BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference= Primary Sludge Pump Station (6 Pumps) Gravity Thickener (2 Total) inal Clarifier (7 Total) WAS Pump Station (3 Pumps) RAS Pump Station (8 Pumps) Truck Conveyor (2 Bays Total) Belt Filter Press Dewatering (2 Total) Raw Solids to Landfill 0 -To Aeration Basins METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT GRAND GLAIZE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-1c AD 17/23/09 Figure 13 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Figure 15 Grand Glaize WWTP Flow and Solids Production 30.00 25.00 20,00 "" 15.00 T. 10.00 5.00 0.00 Dec -O5 Apr -08 Aug -O6 Dec -06 Apr -07 Aug -07 Dec -07 Apr -08 Jul -08 Noy -08 Mar -09 Date --Flow (mgd) +Total Solids (dtpd) 30.00 250D 2000 g a 15 00 :2 0 y 10 00 RD 5.00 0.00 Table 11 Grand Glaize WWTP Existing Influent Flows and Solids Production Average Plant Primary WAS Total Volatile Solids Flow Solids Solids Solids Solids Production Year (mgd) (dtpd) (tpd) (dtpd) (tpd) (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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 17 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. 900 800 700 6.00 cn 500 E O • 4 0 LL 309 2.00 1.00 Figure 17 Fenton WWTP Flow and Total Solids Jan -07 Aug -07 Date Feb -0B t Flow (mgd) tTotal Solids (c Sep -08 9.00 8.00 7 0 600 a 600 a 4.00 300 2.00 100 0.00 Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 18 of 21 Raw Wastewaters Primary Clarifier (1 Total) Primary Sludge Pump Station (4 Pumps) J Sludge Holding Tank (Not in Use) BLACK & VEATCH building a world of difference inal Clarifier (7 Total) WAS Pump Station (2 Pumps) ►To Aeration Basins RAS Pump Station Gravity Thickener (4 Pumps) (1 Total) Truck Conveyor (1 Total) Belt Filter Press Dewatering (1 Total) METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT FENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 165186.103-1d ADI 7/20/09 Figure 15 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued.• October 16, 2009 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. Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page 19 of 21 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued:• October 16, 2009 Appendix A Summary of Operations Data Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page -20-of21 Lemay WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals Plant Influent Flow (MGD) Average River Level, ft Monthly Rainfall, inches Solids 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 Concentration Plant Influent Vol atile Solids (tpd) Volatile Solids Lost Through Plant, dtpd Bissell 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% 60 Jan -06 105.6 1.2 1.4 16.7 3.8 33.5 61.7 10.7 65% 75% 12.6 1.8 63 22.7 75.7 2523 Feb -06 87.2 1.2 0.5 18.3 24.9 44.4 126.1 12.2 67% 78% 14.2 2.1 66 32.2 107.3 3575 Mar -06 113.9 4.2 2.9 37.9 28.2 62.4 182.1 22.9 61% 71% 26.9 4.0 64 39.5 131.8 4394 Apr -06 102.6 13.7 1.9 11.5 21.1 46.5 106.9 7.0 59% 74% 8.5 1.5 56 39.5 131.6 4385 May -06 111.3 13.7 2.4 21.0 25.4 52.2 137.4 12.0 57% 72% 15.1 3.1 61 40.2 133.9 4462 Jun -06 96.0 6.0 2.3 34.1 16.6 58.0 127.2 19.3 57% 70% 23.9 4.5 61 38.7 129.0 4300 Jul -06 96.6 1.1 1.9 31.5 21.1 50.9 115.1 16.4 57% 65% 20.4 4.1 61 34.5 115.1 3835 Aug -06 92.4 -0.1 1.5 63.8 20.3 52.8 117.5 34.8 55% 63% 40.2 5.4 64 18.0 59.9 1996 Sep -06 85.2 1.5 1.2 58.8 17.6 48.0 117.4 35.2 61% 67% 39.4 4.2 60 12.8 42.6 1419 Oct -06 92.5 0.0 3.7 39.5 19.2 38.5 107.2 24.7 64% 71% 28.0 3.4 62 13.9 46.2 1541 Nov -06 95.1 -1.3 4.3 27.5 14.4 34.1 78.9 17.8 65% 69% 19.0 1.2 63 16.3 54.2 1807 Dec -06 117.6 4.4 1.7 29.2 21.8 37.3 89.6 18.5 63% 71% 20.7 2.3 62 18.8 62.7 2090 Jan -07 123.4 6.8 3.1 36.8 33.4 41.9 103.2 22.4 61% 71% 26.2 3.7 62 19.5 64.8 2161 Feb -07 123.9 3.1 2.0 39.5 42.4 41.8 115.1 25.6 65% 68% 26.9 1.2 59 16.2 53.9 1798 Mar -07 136.2 16.6 3.2 44.0 63.6 42.5 119.0 24.9 57% 61% 26.9 1.9 56 17.6 58.6 1953 Apr -07 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.0 64.0 78.3 199.3 42.9 51% 62% 52.7 9.8 46 35.5 118.2 3941 May -07 184.2 23.2 4.0 57.6 24.0 52.4 102.5 26.6 47% 55% 31.7 5.1 36 25.7 85.7 2857 Jun -07 110.4 15.8 2.9 61.4 21.0 62.7 136.9 32.7 55% 66% 40.5 7.8 56 30.0 99.9 3330 Jul -07 99.0 10.1 3.1 58.1 18.6 54.8 116.1 29.6 52% 64% 37.2 7.6 53 25.2 83.9 2796 Aug -07 91.0 8.7 1.6 53.4 17.1 50.4 113.3 31.5 60% 68% 36.3 4.8 55 18.9 63.0 2100 Sep -07 92.6 9.5 1.7 48.6 21.4 46.5 115.8 28.3 58% 68% 33.0 4.8 53 18.3 60.9 2030 Oct -07 89.4 11.0 2.0 47.5 15.4 45.6 105.6 31.4 66% 73% 34.7 3.3 56 14.2 47.4 1581 Nov -07 80.1 5.8 1.3 35.6 15.6 39.8 92.7 23.5 67% 71% 25.3 1.8 56 16.4 54.6 1819 Dec -07 95.2 4.1 2.8 58.0 21.0 50.9 131.7 37.7 65% 70% 40.6 2.9 53 13.2 44.1 1470 Jan -08 79.9 8.1 2.0 45.4 12.9 38.5 89.5 31.0 68% 71% 32.2 1.2 61 7.5 24.9 832 Feb -08 118.6 12.0 4.6 54.7 21.0 45.8 101.0 32.1 59% 67% 36.6 4.5 58 13.7 45.7 1525 Mar -08 186.0 21.2 8.4 45.2 17.4 36.3 69.5 23.5 52% 50% 22.6 -0.9 40 12.8 42.8 1427 Apr -08 218.0 27.1 3.8 40.9 99.4 37.4 85.2 17.7 43% 45% 18.4 0.7 41 19.7 65.8 2193 May -08 204.1 27.8 10.8 71.1 164.5 72.8 183.2 28.3 40% 48% 34.1 5.8 41 44.5 148.3 4943 Jun -08 220.9 33.1 1.9 76.5 34.6 59.3 116.5 27.7 37% 45% 34.4 6.7 28 31.6 105.3 3511 Jul -08 180.4 27.8 7.5 72.8 36.5 57.9 115.1 29.6 41% 50% 36.4 6.8 32 28.3 94.3 3143 Aug -08 104.0 13.1 1.6 51.8 20.5 42.6 91.7 27.8 55% 66% 34.2 6.4 50 14.8 49.2 1642 Sep -08 154.5 18.0 9.8 67.1 23.5 45.1 87.6 30.5 47% 49% 32.9 2.4 42 14.6 48.7 1622 Oct -08 86.0 9.8 1.2 57.1 25.0 52.1 134.2 34.1 62% 68% 38.8 4.7 59 17.9 59.8 1993 Nov -08 82.4 6.7 1.9 45.3 17.7 38.4 102.9 30.8 68% 75% 34.0 3.1 61 7.6 25.3 844 Dec -08 107.2 4.7 4.6 51.2 18.5 44.7 107.8 32.8 68% 72% 36.8 4.0 56 11.9 39.6 1319 2006 99.7 3.8 2.1 32.5 19.5 46.5 113.9 19.3 61% 71% 22.4 3.1 61.9 27.2 90.8 3027.4 2007 118.9 11.4 2.6 52.1 29.8 50.6 120.9 29.8 59% 66% 34.3 4.6 53.4 20.9 69.6 2319.5 2008 145.2 17.5 4.8 56.6 41.0 47.6 107.0 28.8 53% 59% 32.6 3.8 47.4 18.7 62.5 2082.7 MM 201.3 22.1 3.2 85.0 64.0 78.3 199.3 42.9 51% 62% 52.7 9.8 46.0 35.5 118.2 3940.7 AA 121.2 10.9 3.2 47.1 30.1 48.3 114.0 26.0 58% 65% 29.8 3.8 54.3 22.3 74.3 2476.5 Table Summary Year Average 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 32.5 27.2 0.33 61% 19.78 2007 119 22.3 29.8 52.1 20.9 0.44 59% 30.59 2008 145 15.6 41.0 56.6 18.7 0.39 53% 30.18 MM 201 21.0 64.0 85.0 35.5 0.42 51% 43.33 AA 121 17.0 30.1 47.1 22.3 0.38 58% 27.13 Appendix A Lemay WWTP Solids Summary Bissell WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals Date Influent Flo WAS Flow WAS TSS WAS TSS WAS VSS Pri Sludge Press feed Cake solids Cake Volatl Wet Tons Dry Tons Pol mer Inc6 Inc2 Inc3 Inc4 Inc5 Inc6 Estimated Ash Production (d . d) Estimated "Wet" Ash at % Solids Below (w ' d) Estimated "Wet" Ash at Density Below (cf/d) mgd mgd Avg mg/I lbs/day Avg mg/I mgd solids, Avg % Avg % % of solids Cake Cake Avg lb/Dry T Wet Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons Dry Tons 30% 60 Jan -06 114.8 1.74 5,458 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 29.4 98.1 3,270 Feb -06 102.3 1.86 3,505 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 29.9 99.7 3,324 Mar -06 115.5 2.01 3,007 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 33.9 112.9 3,763 Apr -06 132.7 1.89 3,673 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 40.9 136.5 4,549 Ma -06 104.7 1.76 4,382 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 36.3 120.9 4,031 Jun -06 104.4 1.52 4,263 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 31.1 103.5 3,451 Jul -06 107.6 1.54 3,498 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 34.9 116.3 3,876 Aug -06 107.2 5.43 2,463 111,586 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 30.0 99.8 3,328 Se, -06 98.2 5.73 3,471 165,776 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 34.7 115.7 3,857 Oct -06 103.5 5.65 1,230 57,909 765 0.61 3.50 24.3 62.0 392.6 95.4 4.32 68.22 0.00 63.08 15.74 0.00 16.58 36.3 120.8 4,028 Nov -06 108.5 5.54 909 41,999 548 0.43 3.60 24.9 63.0 307.2 76.5 4.87 0.00 0.00 36.02 40.46 0.00 0.00 28.3 94.3 3,144 Dec -06 117.5 5.94 658 32,572 387 0.41 4.00 25.7 62.0 316.4 81.3 4.78 0.00 0.00 46.34 34.98 0.00 0.00 30.9 103.0 3,433 Jan -07 123.7 6.10 621 31,609 362 0.36 4.00 25.9 62.0 307.4 79.6 3.70 0.00 0.00 51.67 27.95 0.00 0.00 30.3 100.9 3,362 Feb -07 126.0 5.86 781 38,197 442 0.35 5.20 25.9 59.0 325.5 84.3 4.36 0.00 5.16 14.54 51.13 13.47 0.00 34.6 115.2 3,840 Mar -07 117.0 9.20 869 66,700 520 0.37 5.00 27.2 56.0 330.4 89.9 3.14 15.40 34.92 0.00 5.47 45.29 4.19 39.5 131.8 4,393 Apr -07 135.3 12.72 910 96,562 488 0.36 7.20 29.7 46.0 429.5 127.6 3.36 220.07 58.97 0.00 3.24 0.00 65.36 68.9 229.6 7,654 Ma -07 164.6 11.88 1,235 122,336 535 0.33 8.60 33.9 36.0 395.1 133.9 3.58 206.73 2.32 0.00 61.54 0.00 70.08 85.7 285.7 9,524 Jun -07 115.7 13.78 934 107,314 541 0.41 4.40 26.9 56.0 307.2 82.6 5.54 0.00 11.98 0.00 57.95 12.71 0.00 36.4 121.2 4,040 Jul -07 112.0 13.39 781 87,218 510 0.43 4.30 27.3 53.0 253.3 69.2 5.28 178.31 4.09 6.09 10.30 0.00 48.68 32.5 108.4 3,612 Aug -07 106.4 9.45 1,249 98,454 784 0.36 3.60 26.7 55.0 191.2 51.1 8.21 111.95 19.23 0.00 1.93 0.00 29.89 23.0 76.6 2,553 Se• -07 99.7 14.05 2,181 255,624 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 34.7 115.8 3,861 Oct -07 96.2 7.33 605 36,964 406 0.37 3.90 27.5 56.0 226.2 62.2 5.28 0.00 11.18 16.07 34.96 0.00 0.00 27.4 91.2 3,041 Nov -07 91.8 3.39 1,203 34,045 726 0.29 3.70 25.6 56.0 190.7 48.8 5.69 1.48 0.00 48.44 0.00 0.00 0.38 21.5 71.6 2,387 Dec -07 112.2 3.15 911 23,921 541 0.40 4.60 28.3 53.0 334.3 94.6 4.86 122.86 0.00 24.68 0.00 35.16 34.77 44.5 148.2 4,941 Jan -08 104.1 2.00 446 7,451 272 0.42 4.10 26.4 61.0 311.2 82.2 5.40 119.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.62 31.54 32.0 106.8 3,560 Feb -08 136.9 0.20 677 1,129 367 0.41 4.70 30.8 58.0 304.7 93.9 3.94 49.04 0.00 0.00 34.23 44.53 15.11 39.4 131.4 4,380 Mar -08 199.5 9.30 966 74,899 394 0.40 7.40 34.7 40.0 410.7 142.5 3.58 114.76 13.11 28.13 47.80 13.65 39.82 85.5 285.0 9,501 Apr -08 206.7 11.54 925 89,000 381 0.37 6.90 31.9 41.0 357.7 114.1 3.80 77.82 1.09 46.95 41.25 0.00 24.83 67.3 224.4 7,481 Ma -08 211.3 11.83 810 79,910 385 0.47 6.60 32.7 41.0 409.1 133.8 3.25 120.19 0.00 45.98 48.48 0.00 39.30 78.9 263.1 8,769 Jun -08 210.2 11.40 1,220 116,027 353 0.29 10.70 38.1 28.0 339.7 129.4 3.89 97.38 7.54 39.99 0.00 44.80 37.10 93.2 310.6 10,354 Jul -08 174.0 11.71 758 74,025 275 0.47 8.70 39.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.89 67.60 11.48 65.80 0.00 68.81 26.63 117.5 391.5 13,050 Aug -08 118.2 11.70 502 48,984 274 0.47 5.10 31.2 50.0 310.2 96.8 4.16 0.00 0.00 50.35 0.00 46.43 0.00 48.4 161.3 5,377 Sep -08 162.7 9.34 791 61,637 300 0.40 6.70 34.7 42.0 340.4 118.1 3.49 74.49 0.00 37.49 0.00 54.78 25.85 68.5 228.3 7,612 Oct -08 101.6 9.15 437 33,342 281 0.43 3.50 28.5 59.0 230.5 65.7 6.74 10.76 25.67 0.09 26.76 10.09 3.07 26.9 89.8 2,992 Nov -08 98.3 9.19 534 40,943 344 0.35 3.90 28.4 61.0 230.0 65.3 6.75 0.00 14.59 10.09 11.47 29.17 0.00 25.5 84.9 2,831 Dec -08 123.7 9.16 562 42,938 351 0.35 4.60 30.4 56.0 271.7 82.6 6.36 148.37 0.04 21.10 16.31 0.04 45.10 36.3 121.2 4,038 Jan -09 111.0 7.65 752 48,009 417 0.42 4.00 28.2 62.0 283.6 80.0 4.65 79.46 0.03 28.03 29.50 0.01 22.41 30.4 101.3 3,377 Feb -09 123.9 9.28 622 48,132 382 0.37 5.60 29.4 59.0 331.6 97.5 4.47 170.32 0.03 15.85 31.53 0.01 50.07 40.0 133.2 4,441 Mar -09 132.2 9.20 1,003 76,931 490 0.37 6.60 30.6 52.0 403.5 123.5 4.37 194.62 0.13 21.90 41.79 0.11 59.55 59.3 197.6 6,586 Apr -09 177.4 9.25 946 72,953 442 0.44 6.00 31.6 51.0 384.5 121.5 3.52 223.76 0.34 35.25 13.16 2.04 70.71 59.5 198.5 6,615 Ma -09 173.2 9.25 1,129 87,051 434 0.32 8.40 34.9 38.0 405.3 141.4 3.15 53.23 0.29 39.50 0.74 82.33 18.58 87.7 292.3 9,743 2006 109.7 3.38 3,043 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 33.04 110.13 3,671 2007 116.7 9.19 1,023 83,245 585 0.37 4.86 27.7 53.4 296.5 83.1 4.92 78.10 15.03 13.46 22.80 8.89 22.97 39.91 133.02 4,434 2008 153.9 8.88 719 55,857 331 0.40 6.08 32.3 47.4 329.5 108.1 4.52 73.32 6.13 28.83 18.86 30.24 24.03 59.96 199.86 6,662 MM 174.0 11.7 758.0 74025.3 275.0 0.5 8.7 39.4 32.0 438.4 172.7 2.9 67.6 11.5 65.8 0.0 68.8 26.6 117.5 391.5 13050.4 AA 126.8 7.15 1,595 69,004 972 0.44 4.91 27.9 54.3 330.7 92.6 5.00 87.75 7.05 24.34 21.95 14.90 24.39 44.30 147.67 4,922 Year Influent Flow, mgd WAS/Humus (tpd) Primary Sludge (tpd) Cake to Incinerator (dtpd) Total Solids (dtpy) Solids Production (dt/MG) Volatile Solids (tpd) Ash Production (dtpd) 2006 109.7 34.0 53 87 31,631 0.79 53.7 33 2007 116.7 41.6 42 83 30,347 0.71 44.4 40 2008 153.9 27.9 80 108 39,453 0.70 51.3 60 MM 174.0 37.0 136 173 63,045 0.99 55.3 117 AA 126.8 34.5 58 93 33,810 0.73 50.3 44 1. Digesters removed December 17, 2008 so all' s udge pumped to Bissell is raw instead of digested 2. Averaging $408 per 10 cubic yard container of grit removed. 3. Natural Gas prices fluctuate widely 4. 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 operation 6. 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. Appendix A Bissell WWTP Solids Summary Coldwater WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals Total Flow Plant Flow Diverted Raw Flow Total Flow Monthly Average Waste Flow Total Raw Sludge Flow Bissell Sludge Flow Raw Sludge % TS Raw Sludge TS Raw Sludge TS Pounds Raw Sludge % VS Raw Sludge VS Raw Sludge VS Pounds Raw Sludge pH Digested Sludge Digested Sludge Removed Digested Sludge % TS Digested Sludge TS Digested Sludge % VS Digested Sludge VS Digested Sludge Vol m• L Raw Sludge dt.d) Month MG MG MG MGD MG MG MG % m e lbs/da % in! L lbs/da SU MG DT %o m /L % % mg/L Jan -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 14.9 Feb -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 13.5 Mar -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 15.8 Air -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 14.7 May -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 14.9 Jun -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 14.7 Jul -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 16.3 Aug -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 13.4 Sep -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 10.0 Oct -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 14.4 Nov -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 17.4 Dec -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 13.4 Jan -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 11.5 Feb -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 11.6 Mar -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 11.4 A•r-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 10.9 Ma -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 17.5 Jun -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 16.2 Jul -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 14.2 Au. -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 15.5 Se. -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 12.5 Oct -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 11.9 Nov -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 11.7 Dec -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 11.6 Jan -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 11.3 Feb -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 14.4 Mar -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 12.2 Apr -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 16.0 May -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 17.2 Jun -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 15.5 Jul -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 15.7 Aug -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 14.4 Sep -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 15.2 Oct -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 12.7 Nov -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 13.3 Dec -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 18.5 Jan -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 11.7 Feb -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 8.7 Mar -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 11.3 A•r-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 9.7 Ma -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 8.3 2006 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 14.45 2007 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 13.05 2008 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 14.70 MM 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 18.55 AA 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 14.07 Year Average Influent Flow (mgd) Raw Sludge (dtpd) Total Digested Sludge (dptd) Raw Solids Production (dt/MG) Raw Sludge Volatile Solids (tpd) Inorganic "Ash" Volume (tpd) 2006 19.5 14.5 10.2 0.74 11.58 -1.33 2007 22.1 13.0 10.8 0.59 10.10 0.66 2008 30.4 14.7 10.6 0.48 11.22 -0.61 MM 26.5 18.5 13.9 0.70 15.00 -1.12 AA 24.0 14.1 10.5 0.59 10.97 -0.43 1. Used Diges ed Sludge for otal VS 2. Ignored Dec -)08 Max Month due to startup Missouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 1 of 2) Monthly Totals Total Flow Diverted Plant Flow Primary Effluent Diverted Plant Flow Raw Sludge Feed Flow Raw Sludge to Digesters Monthly Raw Sludge % TS Raw Sludge TS mg/L Raw Sludge TS Pounds Raw Sludge % VS Raw Sludge VS mg/L Raw Sludge VS Pounds Raw Sludge pH Digester Gas Produced Digester Gas Wasted Digester Gas Used Digested Sludge Volatile Feed Sludge Flow Feed Sludge TS mg/L Feed Sludge TS % Month Month 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 -06 Feb -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 -06 Mar -0 27.4 1.00 0.00 27.44 0.11 0.11 4.23 42,304 2',529 79 33,221 23,180 6.07 236. 0.1 236.9 45.7 0.1 26,261 2.6 Mar -06 Apr -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 -06 May -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 5'.8 0.1 22,783 2.3 May -06 Jun -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 -06 Ju -06 27.05 0.00 0.00 27.05 0.11 0.11 3.91 39,1 3 25,156 78 30,503 19,603 5.79 232.9 7.1 225.8 40.2 0.1 21,048 2.1 Ju -06 Aug -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 -06 Sep -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 -06 Oct -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 -06 Nov -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 -06 Dec -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 -06 Jan -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 -07 Feb -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 -07 Mar -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 -07 Apr -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 -07 May -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 -07 Jun -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 -07 Ju -07 27.35 1.00 0.00 27.35 0.11 0.11 5.15 51,455 1,766 67 30,238 18,765 5.94 179.5 9.6 169.9 51.9 0.1 26,727 2.7 Ju -17 Aug -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 -07 Sep -07 2 .62 0.00 0.00 24.62 0.11 0.11 3.35 33,450 19,797 74 2 ,420 14,433 5.96 185.3 0.0 185.3 4.9 0.1 26,350 2.6 Sep -07 Oct -07 22.47 0.00 0.00 22.47 0.09 0.09 3.32 33,217 18,4A 1 79 26,092 14,491 5.99 192.5 0.0 192.5 4..5 0.1 17,870 1.8 Oct -07 Nov -07 22.18 0.00 0.00 22.18 0.09 0.09 3.60 36,0 5 20,910 80 28,795 16,681 5.90 228.8 0.0 228.8 38.9 0.1 14,857 1.5 Nov -07 Dec -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 -07 Jan -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 -08 Feb -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 -08 Mar -08 29.95 2.00 0.25 29.89 0.08 0.08 5.23 52,286 26,887 67 32,.31 16,372 6.01 218.7 0.1 21:.7 55.5 0.1 25,333 2.5 Mar -08 Apr -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 -08 May -08 34.32 0.00 0.00 34.32 0.10 0.10 5.41 54,091 31,969 68 3' ,010 9,956 5.96 238.5 0.0 238.5 49.4 0.1 24,045 2.4 May -08 Jun -08 Jul -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 -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 -08 Aug -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 -08 Sep -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 -08 Oct -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 -08 Nov -08 25.03 1.00 0.00 25.03 0.08 0.08 3.74 37,350 17,229 80 29,871 13,812 6.04 220.: 0.1 220.8 51.5 0.1 18,150 1.8 Nov -08 Dec -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 -08 Jan -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 -09 Feb -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 -09 Mar -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 -09 Apr -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 -09 May -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 -09 2006 2006 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 2007 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 2007 2008 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 2008 MM 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 MM AA 27.54 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 AA Year Average 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) tons 2006 26.5 13.3 11.2 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.5 3.7 7.7 2007 27.2 12.2 11.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 8.2 2008 28.9 13.3 12.3 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 4.8 9.0 MM 29.3 23.0 15.9 14.1 AA 27.5 12.9 11.5 7.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 4.1 8.3 Appnendix A Missouri River Solids Summary Page 1 of 2 Missouri River WWTP Solids Summary (Page 2 of 2) Monthly Totals Feed Sludge TS Pounds Feed Sludge % VS Feed Sludge VS mg/L Feed Sludge VS Pounds Feed Sludge pH BP Polymer Added BP Polymer $/DT Belt Press Hours of Operation Belt Press Yield Dry Tons/Hour Sludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Sludge Cake Produced Total Dry Sludge Cake Produced Land App Total Wet Tons Land App Total Dry Tons Compost Total Wet Tons Compost Total Dry Tons Incineration Total Wet Tons Incineratio n Total Dry Tons Landfill Total Wet Tons Landfill Total Dry Tons Total WT Disposed Total DT Disposed lbs/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 Tons 17,822 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 6.0 17,675 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 6.7 23,931 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 9.9 34,740 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 7.2 23,536 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 9.1 24,278 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 11.0 20,555 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 7.8 22,932 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 8.5 20,068 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 5.2 19,098 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 6.9 23,532 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 7.1 21,714 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 7.0 21,635 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 7.2 18,919 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 7.7 25,024 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 10.5 23,009 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 7.3 23,760 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 9.1 22,234 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 9.0 27,655 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 9.1 28,013 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 8.5 26,233 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 9.9 15,345 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 7.4 15,808 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 6.0 16,383 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 6.2 17,322 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 6.8 26,158 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 11.3 20,899 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 7.9 30,941 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 10.6 19,464 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 8.4 29,967 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 11.1 31,771 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 14.1 30,062 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 8.6 26,839 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 9.8 26,212 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 7.4 15,046 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 5.5 20,620 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 6.6 17,133 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 7.3 25,860 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 11.4 19,948 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 8.7 20,370 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 6.8 22,859 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 7.2 22,490 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 7.7 22,001 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 8.2 24,608 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 9.0 31,771 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 14.1 23,033 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 8.3 Appnendix A Missouri River Solids Summary Page 2 of 2 Grand Glaize WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals Plant Flow SRT RAS Flow RAS Composite SS RAS SS Reportable WAS Flow BFP1 Sludge Flow Feed Sludge TS % BFP2 Sludge Flow Sludge Cake % Solids Sludge Cake Produced Total Wet Tons Sludge Cake Produced Total Dry Tons Total Wet Tons Disposed Total Dry Tons Disposed Month MG Days MG mg/L mg/L MG MG % MG % wtpd dtpd wtpd dtpd Jan -06 16.34 2.41 7.44 3,370.77 3,390.00 0.54 0.10 2.70 19.20 50.25 9.62 50.28 9.67 Feb -06 14.36 3.16 6.57 3,532.50 3,565.54 0.44 0.09 2.70 19.93 52.35 9.96 52.36 9.98 Mar -06 16.34 2.80 7.58 3,577.41 3,593.06 0.51 0.09 2.84 19.49 46.05 9.21 46.16 9.19 A.r-06 14.82 2.97 6.80 3,307.69 3,345.06 0.47 0.07 3.13 19.20 53.28 10.43 54.43 10.72 May -06 14.77 2.63 7.09 3,996.54 3,989.76 0.46 0.08 2.89 20.22 46.30 8.88 46.33 8.87 Jun -06 14.77 2.79 7.06 3,701.92 3,700.69 0.46 0.09 2.60 20.78 45.64 9.20 45.59 9.18 Jul -06 15.80 2.67 7.36 3,267.69 3,223.39 0.56 0.08 2.86 20.52 44.49 9.23 44.25 9.30 Au: -06 13.78 2.94 6.95 3,007.41 2,984.52 0.51 0.12 2.37 19.90 43.43 8.90 43.39 8.83 Sep -06 12.83 3.29 6.39 2,592.80 2,610.17 0.49 0.09 2.76 19.78 43.55 8.68 42.83 8.65 Oct -06 13.89 2.89 6.31 3,012.69 3,027.66 0.50 0.08 2.96 20.28 42.35 8.35 43.08 8.46 Nov -06 14.37 3.15 6.59 3,293.46 3,314.33 0.44 0.08 2.99 19.12 43.92 8.93 43.07 8.78 Dec -06 17.56 3.03 7.96 3,868.52 3,915.40 0.42 0.07 3.24 19.34 44.11 8.45 44.94 8.64 Jan -07 17.65 2.67 8.02 4,499.62 4,506.13 0.46 0.07 3.16 19.04 46.87 9.70 47.26 9.80 Feb -07 16.70 2.75 7.58 3,955.29 3,969.71 0.47 0.08 2.78 20.19 45.71 9.35 46.61 9.50 Mar -07 16.13 3.06 7.35 3,722.59 3,707.90 0.46 0.10 2.57 19.28 48.28 9.67 49.60 9.92 A.r-07 17.62 5.70 8.00 3,983.60 4,042.58 0.51 0.07 3.46 20.57 46.86 9.06 45.80 8.89 May -07 18.01 2.53 8.18 3,735.56 3,735.81 0.55 0.07 3.19 20.41 45.38 9.32 43.80 8.98 Jun -07 14.31 4.68 6.55 3,826.92 3,821.92 0.44 0.08 2.90 19.84 44.86 9.14 44.77 9.08 Jul -07 13.06 3.31 5.98 3,471.15 3,464.03 0.48 0.07 3.25 19.71 43.48 8.67 43.29 8.64 Au! -07 13.09 2.54 6.20 2,959.63 2,975.65 0.64 0.09 3.10 18.91 39.01 7.71 38.28 7.58 Sep -07 13.11 2.16 5.73 3,348.08 3,293.50 0.72 0.10 2.06 19.24 39.23 7.67 37.74 7.40 Oct -07 12.85 2.20 5.88 3,338.46 3,326.13 0.73 0.03 2.15 0.11 20.23 34.74 6.71 33.54 6.62 Nov -07 12.80 5.20 5.87 3,480.38 3,542.83 0.66 0.02 3.19 0.03 19.69 37.25 7.57 36.78 7.46 Dec -07 14.69 1.80 6.69 3,713.85 3,707.58 0.77 0.07 2.35 0.02 18.90 40.83 8.00 39.63 7.80 Jan -08 13.01 2.03 5.95 3,411.85 3,384.19 0.72 0.02 2.25 0.09 19.97 47.72 8.99 50.94 9.63 Feb -08 16.16 2.36 7.27 3,905.60 3,979.48 0.67 0.00 2.47 0.10 20.61 50.22 10.08 49.22 9.80 Mar -08 24.21 1.78 11.12 4,704.62 4,753.06 0.70 0.00 3.10 0.09 22.61 47.50 9.65 47.24 9.29 Apr -08 21.54 1.86 10.00 4,382.31 4,362.67 0.77 0.00 3.38 0.08 21.81 42.35 9.32 42.43 9.33 May -08 20.44 1.86 9.98 4,352.22 4,385.24 0.69 0.00 3.23 0.08 21.32 50.58 11.10 50.67 11.21 Jun -08 14.11 2.05 5.89 4,160.80 4,087.00 0.52 0.00 3.37 0.08 23.27 45.31 9.57 45.10 9.48 Jul -08 15.16 2.61 3.85 3,278.70 3,236.18 0.57 0.00 3.33 0.08 25.25 44.11 10.28 44.14 10.34 Au! -08 14.19 3.39 1.08 1,452.33 1,448.91 0.60 0.00 3.77 0.07 29.88 37.22 9.35 36.91 9.15 Sep -08 14.85 3.38 0.00 1,604.40 1,591.44 0.58 0.00 4.57 0.07 30.33 32.45 9.71 31.88 9.25 Oct -08 12.83 12.02 0.00 1,850.77 1,849.17 0.31 0.00 4.05 0.05 30.42 32.27 9.67 32.17 9.78 Nov -08 12.28 15.73 0.00 3,014.23 3,019.67 0.15 0.00 4.76 0.04 31.21 23.80 7.24 23.82 7.25 Dec -08 14.84 15.86 0.00 4,606.54 4,588.23 0.16 0.00 4.69 0.04 31.02 20.07 6.27 19.27 5.99 Jan -09 12.63 13.94 0.00 4,967.41 4,995.65 0.20 0.00 4.38 0.06 27.07 26.87 8.32 27.42 8.57 Feb -09 14.23 18.98 0.00 5,843.04 5,881.09 0.15 0.00 5.13 0.05 30.37 34.09 9.25 32.44 8.82 Mar -09 14.50 24.94 0.00 4,387.31 4,376.85 0.15 0.00 4.70 0.05 30.70 30.32 9.10 31.77 9.47 A.r-09 17.79 14.97 0.00 4,471.92 4,399.83 0.20 0.00 5.22 0.06 29.45 32.13 9.88 32.14 9.87 May -09 16.53 10.82 0.00 5,002.96 4,949.11 0.17 0.00 4.87 0.06 29.07 29.36 8.65 30.89 9.06 2006 14.97 2.90 7.01 3,377.45 3,388.30 0.49 0.09 2.84 19.81 46.31 9.15 46.39 9.19 2007 15.00 3.22 6.84 3,669.59 3,674.48 0.57 0.07 2.85 0.05 19.67 42.71 8.55 42.26 8.47 2008 16.13 5.41 4.60 3,393.70 3,390.44 0.54 0.00 3.58 0.07 25.64 39.47 9.27 39.48 9.21 Nov 08 to Ma 09 14.69 16.48 0.00 4,603.92 4,591.79 0.17 0.00 4.81 0.05 29.75 28.01 8.37 28.19 8.43 MM 20.44 1.86 9.98 4,352.22 4,385.24 0.69 0.00 3.23 0.08 21.32 50.58 11.10 50.67 11.21 AA 15.37 3.84 6.15 3,480.25 3,484.41 0.53 0.05 3.09 0.06 21.71 42.83 8.99 42.71 8.96 Table Summary Year Average 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 0.61 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 1. Primary Sludge VS used reportable ML % VS for Concentration 2. Assume WAS has VS percentage equal to primary Appendix A Grand Glaize WWTP Solids Summary Lower Meramec WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals Lift Station Total Flow Feed Sludge TS mg/L Feed Sludge TS % Feed Sludge TS Pounds Feed Sludge % VS Feed Sludge VS Pounds Delivery #1 Wet Tons Delivery #1 % Solids Delivery #1 Dry Tons Delivery #2 Wet Tons Delivery #2 % Solids Delivery #2 Dry Tons Delivery #3 Wet Tons Delivery #3 % Solids Delivery #3 Dry Tons Delivery #4 Wet Tons Delivery #4 % Solids Delivery #4 Dry Tons Incineration Total Wet Tons Incineration Total Dry Tons Landfill Total Wet Tons Landfill Total Dry Tons Total WT Disposed Total DT Disposed Month MG mg/L % lbs/day % lbs/day WT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT % DT WT DT WT DT Ton Ton Mar -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.44 2.03 0.66 3.34 1.09 Apr -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.56 3.87 11.56 3.87 May -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.98 4.59 13.98 4.59 Jun -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.29 6.14 21.29 6.14 Jul -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 6.17 Aug -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.36 5.62 18.36 5.62 Sep -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.86 4.93 15.86 4.93 Oct -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.87 5.78 17.87 5.78 Nov -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.73 5.82 18.73 5.82 Dec -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.61 5.76 17.61 5.76 Jan -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.08 5.72 18.08 5.72 Feb -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.91 5.74 16.91 5.74 Mar -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.01 3.63 10.01 3.63 Aor-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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.70 6.92 18.70 6.92 May -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 10.13 Jun -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 8.77 Jul -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.67 7.21 22.67 7.21 Aug -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 9.23 Sep -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.55 8.86 26.55 8.86 Oct 08 9.71 42,015.38 j 4.20 7,267.74 75.55 5,504.57 8.59 34.42 2.96 5.57 35.22 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.16 4.92 14.16 4.92 Nov -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.23 4.52 13.23 4.52 Dec -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.05 6.50 18.05 6.50 Jan -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.71 5.12 13.71 5.12 Feb -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.85 5.65 15.85 5.65 Mar -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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.91 5.80 17.91 5.80 Apr -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 6.05 Ma -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 8.42 2007 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 4.98 2008 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 6.85 2009 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 6.21 MM 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 10.13 AA 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 6.04 Summary Year Average Plant Flow (mgd) Total Solids (dtpd) 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 Future Conditions MM 76.0 46.2 30.6 AA 56.0 27.5 20.1 0.47 Appendix A Lower Meramec WWTP Solids Data Fenton WWTP Solids Summary Monthly Totals 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 Table Summary 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. Appendix A Fenton WWTP Solids Summary BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM2-Facility Summaries and Solids Projections MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 28, 2009 Re -issued:• October 16, 2009 Appendix B Bissell Point Hauled Waste Summary Final (QC: G. Shimp) Page - 21 - of 21 1. Actual Volumes Actual Volume Summa Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc. industrial IND 7,653,956 Landfill Leachate IND1 586,810 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 225,950 Ind. food grease trap IND3 228,600 Misc. domestic DOM & DOM5 854,666 Residential septic DOM1 1,009,570 Commercial septic DOM2 586,625 Dom food grease trap DOM3 3,898,769 Car wash DOM4 585,979 Grand Total -- 15,630,925 Actual Domestic Volume Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Domestic - General DOM 492,370 Laundry Waste DOM 1,825 Oil/Water Separator DOM 200 Sludge - Domestic WWTP DOM 156,000 Sludge - General DOM 106,650 Stormwater - Contaminated - General DOM 91,125 Septic Tank - Residential DOM1 1,009,570 Septic Tank - Commercial/Industrial DOM2 586,625 Grease Trap - Restaurant/Institutional DOM3 3,898,769 Carwash DOM4 517,540 Truck or Fleet Vehicle Wash Waste DOM4 68,439 Portable Toilets DOM5 6,496 Grand Total 6,935,609 Actual industrial Volume: Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc, industrial IND 7,653,956 Landfill Leachate IND1 586,810 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 225,950 Ind. food grease trap IND3 228,600 Grand Total -- 8,695,316 H. Tarok Capacity Volumes Month Total Billed Volume Capacity Rate ($/gal) Monthly Billings July -07 1,208,450 0.07 $ 84,591.50 August -07 1,396,400 0.07 $ 97,748.00 September -07 1,225,900 0.07 $ 85,813.00 October -07 1,134,625 0.07 $ 79,423.75 November -07 1,164,325 0.07 $ 81,502.75 December -07 1,301,050 0.07 $ 91,073.50 January -08 1,264,275 0.07 $ 88,499.25 February -08 1,421,375 0.07 $ 99,496.25 March -08 1,740,900 0.07 $ 121,863.00 April -08 1,768,400 0.07 $ 123,788.00 May -08 1,744,500 0.07 $ 122,115.00 June -08 1,604,150 0.07 $ 112,290.50 Grand Total 16,974,350 -. $ 1,188,204.50 01 I. Actual Volumes Actual Volume Summa Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc. industrial IND 5,052,471 Landfill Leachate IND1 436,700 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 202,650 Ind. food grease trap IND3 1,863,980 Misc. domestic DOM & DOM5 772,750 Residential septic DOM1 960,150 Commercial septic DOM2 746,275 Dom food grease trap DOM3 4,093,652 Car wash DOM4 439,745 Grand Total -- 14,568,373 Actual Domestic Volume Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Domestic - General DOM 363,660 Laundry Waste DOM 1,250 Oil/Water Separator DOM 8,400 Sludge - Domestic WWTP DOM 295,300 Sludge - General DOM 24,600 Stormwater - Contaminated - General DOM 76,340 Septic Tank - Residential DOM1 960,150 Septic Tank - Commercial/Industrial DOM2 746,275 Grease Trap - Restaurant/Institutional DOM3 4,093,652 Carwash DOM4 393,800 Truck or Fleet Vehicle Wash Waste DOM4 45,945 Portable Toilets DOM5 3,200 Grand Total 7,012,572 Actual Industrial Volume: Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc. industrial IND 5,052,471 Landfill Leachate IND1 436,700 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 202,650 Ind. food grease trap IND3 1,863,980 Grand Total — 7,555,801 II. Tank Capacity Volumes Month Total Billed Volume Capacity Rate ($/gal) Monthly Billings July -06 1,571,500 0.07 $ 110,005.00 August -06 1,378,400 0.07 $ 96,488.00 September -06 1,194,300 0.07 $ 83,601.00 October -06 1,173,799 0.07 $ 82,165.93 November -06 1,188,450 0.07 $ 83,191.50 December -06 1,057,550 0.07 $ 74,028.50 January -07 1,215,450 0.07 $ 85,081.50 February -07 1,114,350 0.07 $ 78,004.50 March -07 1,515,550 0.07 $ 106,088.50 April -07 1,293,600 0,07 $ 90,552.00 May -07 1,500,950 0.07 $ 105,066.50 June -07 1,410,550 0.07 $ 98,738.50 Grand Total 15,614,449 �$ 1,093,011.43 Mo I. Actual Volumes Actual Volume Summa Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc. industrial IND 4,554,866 Landfill Leachate IND1 910,580 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 261,081 Ind. food grease trap IND3 1,405,400 Misc. domestic DOM & DOM5 866,920 Residential septic DOM1 1,124,815 Commercial septic DOM2 739,235 Dom food grease trap DOM3 3,917,569 Car wash DOM4 346,450 Grand Total — 14,126,916 Actual Domestic Volume Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Carwash DOM4 346,450 Domestic- General DOM 457,560 Expired/Excess Product DOM 1,000 Grease Trap -Restaurant/Institutional DOM3 3,917,569 Laundry Waste DOM 3,800 Oil/Water Separator DOM 6,200 Portable Toilets DOM5 12,500 Septic Tank - Commercial/Industrial DOM2 739,235 Septic Tank - Residential DOM1 1,124,815 Sludge - Domestic WWTP DOM 247,500 Sludge - General DOM 15,700 Stormwater - Contaminated - General DOM 67,410 Truck or Fleet Vehicle Wash Waste DOM 55,250 Grand Total 6,994,989 Actual Industrial Volume: Type Of Waste HWRS Waste Source Code Actual Volume Misc. industrial IND 4,554,866 Landfill Leachate IND1 910,580 Industrial laundry sludge IND2 261,081 Ind. food grease trap IND3 1,405,400 Grand Total -- 7,131,927 II. Tank Capacity Volumes Month Total Billed Volume Capacity Rate ($/gal) Monthly Billings July -05 1,495,250 0.07 $ 104,667.50 August -05 1,240,200 0.07 $ 86,814.00 September -05 1,157,999 0.07 $ 81,059.93 October -05 1,278,750 0.07 $ 89,512.50 November -05 1,488,650 0.07 $ 104,205.50 December -05 1,031,650 0.07 $ 72,215.50 January -06 1,174,748 0.07 $ 82,232.36 February -06 1,099,950 0.07 $ 76,996.50 March -06 1,252,200 0.07 $ 87,654.00 April -06 1,324,400 0.07 $ 92,708.00 May -06 1,268,100 0.07 $ 88,767.00 June -06 1,404,050 0.07 1 $ 98,283.50 Grand Total 15,215,947 $ 1,065,116.29 BISSELL POINT UNLOADING STATION GREASE SEPARATION FISCAL YEAR 2010 PROJECT PROBLEM INFRASTRUCTU PROJECT NO: 2008117 MUNICIPALITY: St. Louis City MAJOR SERVICE AREA: Various WATERSHED: Various FUND: 660 SANITARY REPLACEMENT DESIGNER: MSD COST: $370,000 GREASE FROM THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION GETS TRAPPED IN THE CROSS COLLECTORS AND PRIMARY EFFLUENT WEIRS CREATES OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS FOR THE PRIMARY TANKS. PROJECT SOLUTION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A GREASE SEPARATOR ON THE DISCHARGE LINE OF THE WASTE UNLOADING STATION LEADING TO PRIMARY TREATMENT TANKS, SIZED FOR INTERMITTENT PUMP OUT AND TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTABLE GREASE FOR RECYCLING. SCHEDULE PRELIMINARY DESIGN DESIGN EASEMENT ACQUISITION BID/CONTRACT AWARD CONSTRU START 6/1/2008 12/1/2009 4/1/2f END 11/1/2009 3/1/2010 11/1/21 FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL $0 REMARKS STATE $0 LOCAL $0 DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT WAS ADDRESSED VIA A GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District - Fiscal Year 2010 52 ID = 8213 MSD $370,000 EXPENSE JACOBS Jacobs 501 North Broadway St. Louis, Missouri 63102 314-335-4000 Memorandum Date April 22, 2007 To Gary T. Moore, PE From James Coll, PE Subject Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Project No.: 2008117 Separation 1. Introduction A preliminary study has been prepared for the subject project, which is not currently programmed in the 5 -year Capital Improvement and Replacement Program (CIRP). The project is located at the Bissell 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 providing a grease separator on the discharge line of the waste unloading station to the preaeration/primary treatment tanks for greasy wastes transported by trucks to the plant. 2. History The wastes transported by trucks from grease trap sources are currently being disposed of directly to the unloading station at the WWTP, but this is causing problems due to a high amount of grease included in the disposed waste. The grease from the waste unloading station gets trapped in the cross collectors and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems for the primary tanks. Grease could potentially be separated from sewage, captured and recycled to venders for alternative boiler fuel, etc. 3. Origin of Project The project was initiated after requests from plant staff for a permanent solution to the problem of the grease from the waste unloading station getting trapped in the cross collectors and primary effluent weirs, creating operational and maintenance problems. 4. Existing Conditions The waste from grease trap sources is being collected by trucks and disposed at the waste unloading station through 5 manholes. The waste flow travels through two VCP pipes, 10 -inch and 15 -inch, and then to a mechanical grinder, which grinds and crushes hard objects that come with waste sewage (see Figure 1). Then, the waste enters the influent conduit for the pre -aeration tank. From the pre -aeration tank, the flow then enters the (8) primary clarifiers. Due to a high amount of the grease included in the disposed waste, the grease gets trapped in the cross collectors JACOBS Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation 2008117 Page 2 of 6 and primary effluent weirs and creates operational and maintenance problems for the primary tanks. The plant staff normally cleans the cross collectors and primary effluent weirs on a regular basis and, at that time, must also clean out the large agglomerations of grease. In addition, plant staff 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 approximately 1,100 gpm. This is a conservative estimate based on a worst -case hauled waste volume and service water volume discharge, assuming trucks are simultaneously dumping at one time at all five manholes at the waste unloading station. The typical unloading rate per truck is 150 gpm. The maximum service water contribution (when both valves are open) is 350 gpm. Therefore, the total peak flow rate is equal to 5 trucks multiplied by 150 gpm/truck plus 350 gpm service water and is equal to 1,100 gpm. In FY2007 alone, the plant had received a total volume of 16M gallons of grease -based sewage. Based on MSD's lab sample testing of the different grease trap sources that have been taken from the hauling trucks over July and August of 2007, the amounts of the grease were significant and had an average concentration of 52,240 mg/l. The samples were as follows: Sample Date Sample Time Sample Type Sample Grease Trap Source O&G (mg/1) Test Method 07/03/07 11:18 Tanker Top, Middle & Bottom 1 Chinese Restaurant & 1 High School Cafeteria 66,900 EPA 1664 07/03/07 10:24 Tanker Top, Middle & Bottom 1 BBQ Restaurant 73,100 EPA 1664 08/09/07 10:45 Tanker Top, Middle & Bottom 3 Different Wal - Mart Grease Traps 66,700 EPA 1664 08/03/07 11:30 Tanker Top, Middle & Bottom 1 Italian Restaurant 27,900 EPA 1664 08/04/07 11:30 Tanker Top, Middle & Bottom 1 Office Building Cafeteria 26,600 EPA 1664 Average 52,240 From the available data for FY2007, the grease volume rate indicates that the total mixed grease waste (Septic Tanks and other food related grease traps, etc.) was 4,370,207 gallons and the total single food related grease waste (vegetable oil, fat oil, and water) was 3,529,480 gallons. Air Operating Permit Regulations mandate the firms that use recycled grease for boiler fuel to be JACOBS Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation 2008117 Page 3 of 6 single food related grease. The flow rate and grease volume calculations for the single food related grease volume of 3,529,480 gallons per year are determined as follows: FLOW RATE CALCULATIONS Hauled waste operational hours per year = [(10 hr/day) (260weekday/year) + (5hr/day) (26Sat/year)] = 2,730 hr/yr Grease wastewater flow rate = (3,529,480 gal/yr) (yr/2,730 hr) (hr/60min) = 22 GPM Service water flow rate = 350 GPM/2 lines = 175 GPM/line Grease wastewater and service water flow rate = 22 GPM + 175 GPM = 197 GPM GREASE ONLY VOLUME The density of vegetable oil is about 7.65 lb/gal Hauled grease = (52,240 mg/L) (3,529,480 gal) ((1L / 1000mL) (2.205E-3 lb / 1 g) (3.785L / 1 gal) = 1,538,823 lb grease/yr Volume of grease = (1,538,823 lb/yr) (gal/7.65 lb) (yr/52week) = 3,869 gal/week 5. Proposed Solution The proposed solution provides a dedicated area and equipment for separating solid and grease before entering the grinder and primary tanks and collects the grease for recycling and includes the following: a. The single food related grease waste shall be dumped through MH1 and MH2 located at the east side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 15" VCP pipe to the proposed underground grease separator structure. b. Mixed waste (food related grease) shall be dumped through manhole CB1, CB2 and MH4 located at the west side of the unloading station and flow through the existing 10" VCP pipe to the grinder tank. c. Installation of a new 12 -inch pipe as a standby for the existing 10 -inch and 15 -inch pipes during maintenance or blockage. The upstream end of this new pipe will be connected to the existing 10 -inch VCP pipe located between MH2 and structure CB2 through a new MH6, and the downstream will be connected to the existing 15 -inch pipe through a new MHS. d. Installation of a 12,000 -gallon (8' 0 X 32' L) underground, heated grease separation system 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. (See Figure 1). h. The proposed 10,000 -gallon capacity is conservatively sized to account for emergency operation as well as future needs. i. The collected grease should be recycled to a grease recycling vender for use as boiler fuel, etc. JacoBs Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation 2008117 Page 4 of 6 j. Installation of 10 -inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 10 -inch pipe between MH2 and CB2 to prevent cross -flow from MH2. Remove the plug during grease separator maintenance for bypass purposes. k. Installation of 15 -inch removable plug at MH2 on the existing 15 -inch pipe between MH2 and the new grease separator system during grease separator maintenance. 1. Installation of 12 -inch removable plug at MH6 on the proposed 12 -inch pipe between MH5 and MH6. Remove the plug during the existing 10 -inch pipe or grease separator maintenance for bypass purposes. m. Installation of 10 -inch removable plug at MH CB2 on the existing 10 -inch pipe between MH3 and CB2 during maintenance. n. Installation of signage to identify Controls 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 recycling vendor and the waste grease will be taken off -site. It will be important to maintain low moisture 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 the scope of the work and a preliminary itemized cost estimate are attached. The estimated cost is for the construction of the new facility and does not allow for the ongoing costs that will be incurred when the material is collected for recycling. Self-contained, septage receiving stations were reviewed as a possible alternative, however this 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 hookup costs; and 2) septage receiving stations are not designed to handle the high grease content of grease trap waste. Fouling and clogging are concerns, making this option unfeasible. 6. Constructability Issues The discharge from the unloading station to the existing MH3, located east of the grinder, flows through 10 -inch and 15 -inch sewer pipes. The flow from the above mentioned manhole discharges to the grinder through an 18 -inch pipe. The location of the new underground grease separator and the underground grease storage tank for recycling will be bounded by the existing roadway to the north, existing 24 -inch storm sewer, 6 -inch water line, and 36 -inch abandoned storm sewer to the south and several electrical conduits to the east and west. Therefore, there are concerns as to the number of underground utilities falling in the footprint of the project. The proximity of these utilities will need to be considered during final design and construction to ensure they are not damaged. The relocation of several utilities may be involved in the final design and construction phases of the project. Also, as the work is to be carried out at an operational facility, careful consideration of traffic movements and flow from the unloading station to the primary tanks will be needed to allow for the normal operation of the plant to continue without disruption. JACOBS Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation 2008117 Page 5 of 6 7. Priority Points The project provides for enhanced operational efficiency by minimizing the amount of the grease entering the cross collectors and the primary effluent weirs. It will dispose the trapped solid waste at the bottom of the grease separator prior to reaching the waste solid grinder to reduce the wear and tear on the grinder and maximizing the grinder operational life and reducing maintenance cost. The captured grease will be recycled to vendors for alternate boiler fuel, etc. Therefore, the waste grease will have less environmental impacts. Priority ranking calculations resulted in 6.00 Total Weighted Benefits Points for the project. The Benefit to Log- Cost Ratio was calculated to be 1.06. 8. Recommendations The proposed project is recommended for further design and implementation. The operation procedures for the grease waste and solid separator should be detailed in an operation and maintenance plan that should include the following: a. Who is responsible for disposal or recycling of the grease after it has been processed and separated 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 unit e. Additional items that should be given further consideration during the detailed design include: • A flushing system that could either manually or automatically periodically clean the grease separator and piping • The type need for intermediate storage to hold the grease prior to hauling by a recycling firm • The design of the grease separation system shall comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC). • The grease separation system shall be designed to remove up to 95 percent of free water and 75 percent of total solids to supply grease for boiler fuel. • Highland Tank Company/Low Engineering Company is a potential supplier for the grease 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 for recycling if the water content is up to 5 percent, and will charge the MSD if the water content is above 5 percent. • Darling International, Inc. and Kostelac Grease Service, Inc. will accept the separated grease with no cost for recycling if the water content and insoluble impurities 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. JACOBS Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation 2008117 Page 6 of 6 These items were not included in the estimate of the cost prepared in this preliminary. An analysis of the cost effectiveness and pros and cons of these items should be prepared as part of detailed design. Attachments: Project Cost Estimate Project Extent Figure Priority Ranking Sheet Appendix Pre-CIPRO: Engineer's Cost Estimate Project: Bissell Point Unloading Station Grease Separation Number: 2008117 Estimated By: JACOBS Checked By: MSD Watershed: l Bissell Date: April 22, 2008 Date: April 22, 2008 Line Pay -Item Description Estimated Unit Extended Quantity Unit Price Price 1 ENCASEMENT - CLASS "A" CONCRETE 2 EXCAVATION CLASS "C" 3 GRANULAR BACKFILL 4 GREASE SEPARATION SYSTEM 5 GREASE STORAGE TANK 6 MANHOLE - STANDARD CONSTRUCTION 7 PIPE SEWER 12 INCH (SANITARY/COMBINED) 8 PLUG END 10 INCH 9 PLUG END 12 INCH 10 PLUG END 15 INCH 11 REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 12 SHORING LEFT IN PLACE 13 SODDING - ZOYSIA 14 STREET PAVEMENT - CONCRETE REM. AND REP. 15 Preceding Pay Items Total: 16 MOBILIZATION 17 Subtotal: 18 UTILITY RELOCATION 19 PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF SITE 20 MSD Construction Estimate: 21 Contingencies 22 MSD Engineering, Legal, And Administration Project Total: MSD CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE & CONTINGENCIES: 10.00 CY $260 $2,600 400 CY $19 $7,600 215 CY $39 $8,385 1 LS $99,500 $99,500 1 LS $61,500 $61,500 6 LF $210 $1,260 109 LF $100 $10,900 2 EA $115 $230 1 EA $140 $140 1 EA $160 $160 30 CY $725 $21,589 2366 SF $9 $21,294 570 SY $12 $6,840 88 SY $73 $6,448 $248,446 1 LS $9,938 $9,938 $258,384 $25,000 $51,677 $335,061 $33,506 $73,713 $368,567 $442,280 1r OPOSED $2? P:PE \\ \\\\\\ RESIDENT ENGINEER OFFICE \)\ EX 4'-0� WIDE SIDEWALK / SCRETE AS£NENT IX CONCRETE •. 'ENCASEMENT USE THIS LINE •••'"' FOR MIXED WASTE' ALL 10" REMOVABLE PLUG N EXIST. PIPE IF NECESSARY cp EX ,CB IXYARD , HYDRANT 16SW(D) SETRED SEWAGE MID TRIAL EFRLENT CONDUITS.. :. INSTALL 12 REMOVABLE PLUG ELEC DUCT • ''Ex 8' VCP - IX YARO. HYDRANT 25'N(G) �IXMHt � EX 11HSEETTLEp (WASTES AGE CONDUIT) HARGE M.'s*" N ENOv E IF NEC PLAN VIEW _ SVf;;RDRUP 3 I CGunuT ATIC)NS 4Y -I 42E1 �' f (6R'DE •� E 4201 �^ i `•a"ct. F it. over P. o STA i.4' ITYS ..ii. T 1 S. 401.55 EXISTING 15" VCP PROFILE FS. 420.9 i N<iJHil- P. . MN 351F -_ _!e O.00 nN - S1A 1150 1ZOCF • 15 0.00 STA 1.55- NIt• 2 1;01.1- 15.-e 0.02, . - 416.04 • tai 1 RI =2s S FL wow MU 10 Idyl1MI el to COVER & >'j or am f7 R let TtA.SU a2SSp 21 ass 74 plY a 0; ji +ts CORE 051 IT,IK.L i [wasn't' t t o19.) I Too tt 1 _ .frc.-._j...,_._ .L $ 140 1,5[1 .• StivI i CS10UT j fl ! 110 .. 10 MCP u -2- ,. b' Sm 10-e 0 0' t% X ' liii � 1 F2l 14. VCP :0'f•O!WS_ EfRcgrsT C6aW1 0• ;01,Ni u t _ o 1 •,'," •I •65 ..- J �Et t 1 t 44•0:0.• d 1 u G 41 41 1 i n i 1 " kd I- h� :7,11di s✓3 ( ! Ili il EXISTING 10' VCP PROFILE WASTE DRAIN PROFILE HORTZ. 1-=20' VERT_ 1`=5- E r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 3 —Solids Disposal / Reuse Alternatives L J BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -1 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 2 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 3 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 4 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) 5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 In the Midwest, most bulk land application is to land cultivated in grain crops (corn, wheat, soybeans) and pasture. Application to grain crops is limited to the spring (prior to planting) and fall (after harvesting). Consequently, at least 6 months of biosolids storage, 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. Regulatory requirements Before biosolids can be land applied in bulk, they must meet at least the federal requirements established in 40 CFR Part 503 Regulations. These requirements include limits on allowable metals concentrations, requirements for pathogen and vector (i.e.,flies 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 concentrations, known as ceiling concentrations, for nine metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc). If biosolids do not exceed 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 that sample cannot be land applied. For the biosolids to be marketed or distributed to the general public, the metal concentrations must be below the Pollutant 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 establish two levels of pathogen reduction, Class A and B. Class A pathogen requirements call for reducing, through one or more 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 6 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. Alternatively, 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 Reduction (VAR) requirements before beneficial use. VAR requirements are intended to reduce the putrescibility of the solids. Highly putrid solids will tend to attract 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 hours of application. Biosolids that meet the Class A pathogen requirements, VAR requirements, and the PCL metals contents are known as "Exceptional Quality (EQ)" biosolids. EQ biosolids can be 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 maybe 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 agronomic levels. This means that the amount of biosolids applied must not exceed the nutrient requirements of the crops at the land application site. At the federal level, biosolids are regulated 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 (MDNR) indicate that some phosphorus restrictions may be imposed in the next 10 to 20 years. There are no pending changes in the Federal regulations that would prohibit continued land application of Class B biosolids; however, a number of states and localities, including much of California and Virginia, have imposed ordinances that restrict or eliminate Class B application or increase monitoring requirements. Based on preliminary discussions with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Class B land 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 7 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 b. Land availability Based on discussions with Synagro, a national land application contractor with experience in the St. Louis area, land application sites in Missouri are available with average one-way hauling distance of 35 to 40 miles from the MSD facilities. Application sites in Illinois are somewhat closer, reducing the average one-way hauling distance to 25 to 30 miles. Synagro staff also indicated they expect land availability to be sufficient to sustain a bulk land application program for at least the next 20 years, assuming continued regulatory support. i) Flexibility of outlets and backup options Other than bulk land application, few outlets are available for Class A or Class B dewatered cake. As a backup option, biosolids that meet Class A or Class B pathogen and VAR requirements can also be hauled to MSW landfills for disposal. ii) Unit disposal costs Bulk land application rates provided by Synagro suggest a turnkey contract cost of $20 to $28 per wet ton of solids. This cost includes hauling and limited off -site storage. Costs vary depending on the distance from the generating facility to the land application site. 3. Compost Distribution and Marketing Composting is a natural process of aerobic, thermophilic microbiological degradation of organic matter or residues into a stabilized, useful product that is free of odors and pathogens, will not attract rodents and insects, and can be used beneficially for horticultural and agricultural purposes. During the composting process, the material is stabilized biologically, converting the readily biodegradable components of biosolids into 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 soil amendment with a 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 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 organic QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 8 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 chips, to increase the porosity of the compost. Bulking agents significantly increase the amount of material requiring transport, processing, temporary storage, and marketing. Many 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 is 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 composting operations minimize release of objectionable odors by good housekeeping, maintaining aerobic conditions and target temperatures, and minimizing release of odors to sensitive noses. Aeration and temperature control is provided through natural convection (poor), forced or negative aeration with blowers (good), or by turning the compost pile with or without forced aeration (best). Agitation combined with forced aeration is the most effective 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. The best biosolids composting strategies are agitated windrows which assure periodic aeration 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 9 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 °C or higher for 3 days. • Using the windrow composting method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55 °C or higher for 15 days or longer. During the period when the compost is maintained at 55 °C or higher, the windrow is turned a minimum of five times. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 10 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 11 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -12 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -13 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -14 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 15 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -16 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -17 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -18 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 Social 25 Aesthetics 1 Truck traffic 1 Public Safety/site security 1 Ease of permitting 1 Public perception 1 Environmental 25 Minimizes GHGs 1 Outlet reliability 3 Proven experience 4 Flexibility 2 Economic 50 Capital cost 3 O&M cost 3 Staffing/operational complexity 2 Constructibility 1 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 fmal use options for the MSD wastewater facilities: QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -19 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 • 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. Total Weighted Score St. Louis MSD Solids Final Use Options 4.50 - 4.00 - 3.50 - 3.00 - 2.50 - 2.00 - 1.50 - 1.00 - 0.50 - ❑ Economic ■ Environmental ❑ Social Land App Land App Land App Dried Class B Class A Alk Stab Product Compost Landfill Cake Ash Energy Product 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.75 0.75 Final Use Alternative Figure 4. Results of TBL Evaluation QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 20 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM3 - Solids Disposal/Reuse Alternatives MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 2, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Revised: October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 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 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-4 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 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-6 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-7 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-8 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-9 Appendix B Results of Triple Bottom Line Evaluation 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Alternative Component Assumptions Final Use Alternative Key Techno logy I Land App Class H Land App Class A Land App Alk Stab Dried Product Compost Landfill Cake Ash Energy Product Evaluation Factor Cateoo Weight Factor Description Criteria Weight Weight Percentage Factor Social 25% 25.0% 1 Aesthetics 2 Truck traffic 3 Public safety/site security 4 Ease of Permitting S Public perception How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood, considering noise, visual aesthetics, and odors. 5.0% How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood considering truck traffic? 5.0% 3 3 3 3 4 Does the alternative present any particular safety risks? How well can the facility he secured from risks? What is the potential for truck spills? How difficult will it be to permit the likely technology necessary for the selected final use? .os 5.0% Does the final use alternative have a pasties or negative perception? 5.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 1 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 S 2 5 2 4 5 5 2 5 1 2 5 Environmental 25% Subtotal Score (Social) 25.0% 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.95 0.75 0.75 0.90 1.05 1 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability Estimate of the alternatives GHG emissions, for both final use and anticipated treatement process 1 3 Proven experience 4 Flexibility How likely is it that the selected final use outlet will be availalble throughout the project life? Does the supporting treatment technology have signficant operating/installation experience? If the selected final outlet is not available, can the final product be easily diverted to other types of 2 5.0% 3 outlets? 0.0% 0.0% I 2.5% 5 4 4 4 10.0% 5 4 3 3 7.5% 3 3 5 3 3 4' 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 3 Subtotal Score (Environmental) 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.08 1.00 0.98 1.10 0.55 1 Capital cos 2 C&M costs How expensive is the alternative expected to be relative to the others? What are the O&M costs? 3 15.0% 5 3 15.0% 5 2 2 5 3 Staffing/operational complexity 4 Constructibility 5 Ability to phase construction How complex is the alternative likely to be from an operations standpoint and onsite staffing needs? Does the alternative present any special constructability challenges? Can the alternative be phased in througout the MSD system over time? 2 10.0% 1 5.0% 5 1 5.0% 0.0% 4 3 5 4 5 4 2 Subtotal Scar Total Score 100% Scores: 5= Most Favorable .............. ..I = Leant Favorable. (Economic) 2.25 1.80 2.15 100% 3.75 3.35 3.63 1.10 0.85 2.50 1.35 3.13 2.60 1.23 3.35 0.55 2.15 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2 r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 4 —Summary of Regulatory Issues L J BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp 1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp 2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp 3 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 50°C to 30 minutes at 67°C. 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 50°C to 30 minutes at 67°C. Biosolids pH must exceed 12 for at least 72 hours and the biosolids temperature must exceed 53°C 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. QC: G. Shimp 4 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 80°C. • Heat Treatment: Liquid biosolids must be treated at a minimum of 180°C for 30 minutes or longer. • Pasteurization: Solids must be treated at a minimum of 70°C 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 QC: G. Shimp 5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp 6 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 Table 3. Recommended Monitoring Frequenc Design Sludge Production (dry tons per year) Monitoring Frequency Metals, Pathogens, and Vectors Nitrogen TKN 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 'Test 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. 40ne 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. QC: G. Shimp 7 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 Table 4. Annlication Limits based on Soil Cation Exchangel Pollutant CEC 15+ CEC 5 to 15 CEC O to 5 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 'Missouri 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. QC: G. Shimp 8 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp 9 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 (PMio) 15 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 10 Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 Ozone (03)--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. QC: G. Shimp 10 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 0, 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 0 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 QC: G. Shimp 11 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp 12 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 4- Regulatory Review MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 a) State Regulations The Missouri Depai tiuent 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. QC: G. Shimp 13 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Appendix A Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits Part III 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Appendix B MDNR Meeting Minutes September 21, 2009 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 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. MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan Meeting with MDNR on Regulatory Issues September 21, 2009 Name Title Email Phone oeavel RV/PPoieelitiemv.6. 6©wcdd/ &bv.oelei ,9/F-4/3)--• -i Ion (2-A' 1 4 la \/ Prb3 eti YlirecEor ra-tZ.k.i f i Q,I..v, c„.., 6 36 632 cos! Rio /oo- i1/4 LC r k rlSO 'g,e. ,,,,b c, a4, .ti f hefieres1-/mscf•c,i, 4 pr C fl aQ e S Ye N1 S, f7 G3' 8G7-G2o/ .7iy•- rc q 3 c, - f 7i y 4°kiA/ L, 6 X19 z ,P/•1 o cf SD As c7 • 2, 'g -) ,t Me.. G2 na." 3-1 i n ne-it . Ass f D"Lc is r• L�ere'll. Hasp men@sIions4 co.N 31'f-7(o8-G36I yka2o% 4toe, On1/47-ey s /41 . fAsa lh .3/9- 7a- 1() .1-7,11).1-7,11) pci mer M (? Q N R +nhj A,),(„ear. e�'�oQn r.ma / 5 -73751 i3T 7,12/<H '&1 A ,U t AA} $ ?, 1( 2FS rO ()A«_ L c A d S C a_v7 / Q vy () loV , e fy., 9 i3 VSB . 3 /s kat Illorrl:Sem W 110141kiliZoibilL roL morrise,10 J. me.+ 6,3/SG-, Orli 573 5,_,-/72-3 Arc AA'rev1bJ erg 6i79;nee✓ & do ✓., w o. yoii roger- Koreol9e M', xu M o ON& 74 x ik et 0I, A-0 , y v 1/ d 573- 5---2 6- °Q S/ �ti /44 d 0/V e - it)P7" (Q Q i,, yre . ?`i e/ ef1- • ili as y y cenr. nto._,B1- 7,_,.. s 3)7s/ 6...7_2" P-4/21 � i4, /� era. f `'(Do ►-e t D N - 114?C Wy an r �ro U 573 - S...6o - T s"-- 0_1 N N)coyi inb04\- EPIP di%.n&Aci e dArdp►U 5a) 675-5A, -3409 r 1 VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 5 — Condition Assessment Report L J BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 5 — CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT To: From: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 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 Appendix B — Appendix C — Appendix D — Sample Equipment Evaluation Form Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Ratings for All Assessed Solids Processing Equipment — Photographs from Inspections QC: B. Green Page 1 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 1. Condition Assessment Methodology a. Condition Assessment Planning B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. Probability of Failure 5 4 3 2 Asset Risk Signature 1 2 3 4 5 Consequence of Failure High Business Risk Exposure Medium Business Risk Exposure Low Business Risk Exposure 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 b. Assessment of Probability of Failure (POF) B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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 Example Based on 20 yr Expected Life) Expected Life 1 Exceptional reliability >50% > 10 yrs 2 Random breakdown 50% 0 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 Description Efficiency 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 4or5. QC: B. Green Page 3 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 Probability of Failure 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 Consequence of Failure AlHigh Business Risk Exposure (12-25) Medium Business Risk Exposure (5-11) Low Business Risk Exposure (1-4) 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 10, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 Re -issued: October 16, 2009 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. QC: B. Green Page 18 of 41 Table 6 — Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant — Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank Headworks Medium 9 Medium 8 Condition 4 Condition 4 Difficult repair 5 Difficult repair 4 Original equipment that requires high maintenance and has no redundancy durin_ .eak flows. Old equipment that requires high maintenance. Consider replacement or expansion. Use new grit removal equipment installed with plant expansion once available. Comminutors and Drives Grit Removal Grit dragout conveyors Trash Bldgs Grit and screenings buildin: Grease Thickenin . DAF units Dewaterin Blended sludge wet well Incineration Centershaft drive motors Not rated Not rated Not rated Equipment not used, preventative maintenance is conducted Medium 7 Medium 13 Financial 4 Condition 4 None >3 Difficult repair 5 Health & Safety 4 Old equipment that requires high maintenance. Only serves for grease and floatables removal. Significant concrete deterioration and hatch corrosion Consider doing a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the future. Needs detailed evaluation, rehabilitation, and tank lining 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 re uirin cleanin . 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 re lacements. 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 System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 ins.ection Afterburners 1-3 for Inc. 1-4 Ash Handlin Ash screw conveyors High 17 Financial 5 Social 4 Too large for application Replace burners with smaller capacity burners. 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. QC: B. Green Page 22 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 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 TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 rehabilitation and new incinerators. Phase 2 evaluations may include more detailed inspections, and rehabilitation options will consider the findings from the condition assessments. QC: B. Green Page 24 of 41 Table 7 — Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant — Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank Screenin. Comminutors Medium 8-9 Condition 1-4 Reliability 2-4 Financial 4 Difficult repair 4-5 Comminutors must be 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. 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. Grit Removal Grit tank dragout Medium 7 Condition 4 None >3 Needs full rehabilitation of MSD has identified as a maintenance (No. 5 only) Reliability 4 shoes, chain, and drag rail. 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 durin_ cold months due to freezin_ of QC: B. Green Page 25 of 41 Table 7 — Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Plant — Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank WAS Pum s in WAS pumps and VFD's RAS Pum + in RAS 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 .rit conve or/slide sates. 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. 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank Dewaterin Belt Presses 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. 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 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. 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. 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 Incineration Incinerator No. 1 High 15 Not rated Financial 4 Not rated Difficult repair 4 Not rated 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 com onents. No longer operated. 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. 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 peanut. 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 um 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 System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank changes may require better/updated scrubbers. Want to be _ood nei_hbor. 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 Ash Handlin Basin drain pumps High 14 High 13 None >3 Financial 4 Social impacts 5 Difficult re . air 5 Social impacts 4 Difficult repair 4 Interior relined 2007 Rebuilt Exterior tuck pointing planned Spare pumps are available to use. QC: B. Green Page 31 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 d. Coldwater WWTP B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Screenin' Rank 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 Coarse screen gripper rake 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 Grit Removal Grit separator 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 .lu::in. issue in :.nder. 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 RAS Pump Station Medium 11 Reliability 4 Ca. aci 4 Difficult repair 4 Liner needs replacing Address as part of manufacturer's warran . QC: B. Green Page 33 of 41 Table 8 — Coldwater Wastewater Treatment Plant — Solids Processing Condition Assessments System/Asset Overall Risk POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Rank 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 Di!. esters Anaerobic digesters Sludge Pumping for Dis I osal Digested sludge pumps A/B, force main Medium 7 None >3 Difficult Repair 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 s stems is re. uired. 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. QC: B. Green Page 34 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 e. Missouri River WWTP B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Prima Slud • e Rank Medium 7 Medium 5 Medium 5 Capacity 4 Functionality 5 Financial 4 Capacity 4 Functionality 4 None >3 None >3 None >3 Scum pits have grease problems and need effective mixers to prevent buildu. Compressor motors break down once a year requiring re a lacement Pump suction unable to withdraw from bottom of digester Install flushing valve, mixers or non - potable water high pressure spray nozzles. Continue monitoring. New sludge mixing and transfer piping being installed in digesters as part of Digester Rehabilitation project to help with sludge mixing and withdrawal. Primary Clarifier Scum Mixers Dewaterin Belt Filter Press compressor motors Di ' esters Digester service pump Note: Most solids .rocessin• e.ui.ment to be rehabilitated or re laced as .art of seconda ex.ansion QC: B. Green Page 36 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 f. Lower Meramec WWTP B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.0000 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 I/4" 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Screenin' Rank 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. Coarse screen gripper rakes Fine screen Medium 10 Capacity 5 Difficult repair 4 Screens have been changed out to larger 1/4" screens and this appears to have resolved the problem. Screenings washer Sludge Thickeners Thickener level control Medium 10 Medium 7 Reliability 5 Functionality 5 Functionality 4 Difficult repair 4 None >3 Washers do not work and not used. Manufacturer out of business so can't get • arts/service. Problems maintaining level controller, so only one thickener used instead of both. Replace units. QC: B. Green Page 38 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 g. Grand Glaize WWTP B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.000 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 POF Scores >3 COF Scores >3 Description of Issues Recommendations Grit Removal Rank 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 Basins/ collectors Grit dragout conveyors Primar Slud ' e Medium 7 Financial 4 None >3 Maintenance has been better with change to plastic chains — 5 rs a. o Medium 7 Functionality 4 Condition 4 Reliability 5 None >3 Difficult repair 5 Installed 2008, problems with high solids, grit laden sludge during wet weather Taken out of service. Requires complete rebuild to serve as a backup unit. Improve grit removal or add grit washing system at grit basins. Rebuild older unit now that second BFP unit is on-line. Primary sludge pumps (double disc Dewaterin Belt Filter Press No. 1 Medium 12 QC: B. Green Page 40 of 41 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM5 — Condition Assessment Report MSD Contract No. 2009145 h. Fenton WWTP B&V Project 165186 October 9, 2009 B&V File 41.000 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 ASSET DETAILS Equip Number Plant -Process Model Description Old Equip Number Manufacturer Location Serial Number Install Date E2089 Plant Code BT BT-COM Equip Type COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #1 ICOM-G-1 'CHICAGO PUMP CO. IBT-COM-BLDG-COM1 1/1/1993 Install Data Source 'Staff Knowledge I Planned for Abandonment? ❑ Not Assessed / To Be Replaced ASSET ASSESSMENT Probability of Failure Ratings Condition Reliability Capacity Comments / Observations 4 Functionality 4 Financial 3 3 4 CURRENTLY BROKE. NEEDS REBUILD. NEW MOTOR ON PUMP Consequence of Failure Ratings Health Safety Social Impacts Comments / Observations 1 Difficulty of Repair 1 Redundancy 5 Estimated Remaining Life (yrs) 4 Expected Asset Life (yrs) 120 MAINTENANCE Maint. Priority Total Maint. Cost YTD Costs 3 Last Year Cost $34,461.52 Cost 2 years ago $7,480.89 Cost 3 years ago ASSET REFERENCE INFORMATION Construction Contract PA -19 OM Manual Main Power Other Info PA -19 MCC P-12 Spec Section Loop Drawing $2,981.68 $5,681.26 $0.00 3.33 859-328 BLACK 13t VEATCH Building a world of difference Assessor Assessment Date Appendix B Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant BT _a Location l BT-AER-STOC-BLD G -F L2 - WAS -PI BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P1-MTR BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P2 BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P2-MTR BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P3 BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P3-MTR BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3- SUB4-WAS-P1-VFD BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3- SUB4-WAS-P2-VFD B T-AER-S T O C -BLDG -F L3- SUB4-WAS-P3-VFD BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P1 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT Equip Number E1964 Equip Type PUMP E4517 MOTOR E1965 PUMP E4519 MOTOR 1E4516 PUMP E4520 MOTOR E4518 E4521 E4522 E34930 VFD VFD VFD PUMP BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P3 E1949 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1 E2089 L Asset Description 1 STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 (WASL- P1-1 ) ISTOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 MOTOR Install Date 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 (WASL- P1-2 ) STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 (WASL- P1-3.P ) STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 MOTOR 01 -Jan -941 STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 1 VFD 75HP STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 2 VFD 75HP STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 3 VFD 75HP WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #1 PUMP WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #3 COMMINUT ICOMMINUTOR #1 BT BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM5 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM6 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2 E2090 E2091 E2092 E2093 E2094 E2095 E2061 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 20 -Jun -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -051 01 -Jan -091 01 -Jan -93 Overall Risk Rank 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #2 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #3 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #4 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #5 COMMINUT COMM INUT PUMP BT-DW R-BLDG-FLI-POL- CRP1 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -70 COMMINUTOR #6 COMMINUTOR #7 POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 BT BT-DW R-BLDG-FLI-POL- CRP1-MTR BT-DW R-BLDG-FL1-POL- CRP2 BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI -POL- CRP2-MTR BT -D W R-BLDG-FLI -SLD-P2 E4948 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 01 -Jan -70 BT E2062 PUMP 01 -Jan -04 BT E4951 MOTOR BT E1499 PUMP BT BT BT BT BT BT-DW R-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3 BT-DW R-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P5 E1502 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P6 E1503 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA E2015 E1500 40014 PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #6 SCHWING BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS A BATTERY #1 (BP2-3) POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 MOTOR SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #2 SCHWING THIS UNIT TIMES LEFT SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #3 SCHWING SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #4 SCHWING SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #5 SCHWING 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -95 9 8 8 8 8 9 Condition Reliability 3 Capacity 4 4 Functionality Financial 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 4 4 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy -J POF Comments =Mr= COF Comments 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7. PROBLEM WITH DRIVES 2.0 NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7. OUT OF SERVICE. BEING REPLACED INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2.0 5 2.0 5 3i 2 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 5 5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 3 REBUILT ON 5 YR BASIS. NEW PUMP (1 YR AGO - 3 2008). 1 SPARE ON ORDER. REBUILT 2005 2.3 4 CURRENTLY BROKE. NEEDS REBUILD. NEW MOTOR ON PUMP 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 4.0 4.0 4 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTOR 4 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MOTOR 4 CURRENTLY REBUILDING. 4 REBUILT IN 2005. 41 4 NEEDS REBUILD. 5 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, PROBLEM WITH PVC PIPING 2 FOR GRAVITY BELT THICKNESS, 2 FOR BFP'S (NOT USED) 5 VERY DIFFICULT TO REPAIR 4 4.0 5 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, BREAKS PVC PIPING 4.0 3.7 5 NEW HEAD. 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 BT BT BT-DW R-BLDG-FL2-BATI -BPC E2014 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPE E2013 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF E7519 BT BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS C BATTERY #1 01 -Jan -981 (BP2-2) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS E BATTERY #1 01 -Jan -95I (BPS BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS F BATTERY #1 01 -Jan -951 (BP1-1) CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 (CK- 01 -Jan -95 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1 El 398 1 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1. El 399 2 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2- BPG BT BT CU1-1) CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 (CK- CU1-2) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS G BATTERY 2 (BP3-3) E2018 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI E2017 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ E2019 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 2.3 2.3 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS I BATTERY 2 (BP3 01 -Jan -95 2) 01 -Jan -95 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS J BATTERY 2 I(BP5-2) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS K BATTERY 2 (BP3-1) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS L BATTERY 2 (BP51 1) CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 (CK- CU1-3) CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 (CK- CU1-5) BELT FILTER PRESS BATTERY #3 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPK E2016 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL E7169 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3 El 400 BT 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5 El 402 BT BT BT BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3 01 -Jan -95 E2012 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E2022 BPM BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E6468 BPO BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP E2021 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- BPQ BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPR E2020 BT E6171 BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU 1El 401 4 BELT FILTER PRESS M BATTERY 3 (BP6-3) BELT FILTER PRESS 0 BATTERY 3 (BP6-2) BELT FILTER PRESS P BATTERY 3 (BP4-2) BELT FILTER PRESS Q BATTERY 3 (BP6-1) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS R BATTERY 3 (BP4-1) CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 (CK- CU1-4) 01 -Jan -95I 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -951 5 9 3 3 2.3 5INEW HEAD 5 NEW HEAD 5 RUNS BETTER THAN OTHER PUMPS 5 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. PRESS A IS OUT OF SERVICE AND PARTS ARE BEING USED FOR OTHER BFP'S. NOT CURRENTLY IN USE. 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. OUT OF SERVICE 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 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 1.3 2.3 2.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. ADDED ROLLERS IN 2000. H2S DAMAGE TO WIRING IN CABINETS. GREASE FROM RECEIVING STATION IS BLINDING BFP 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2.3 2.3 3 2 2 4 3 1 2.3 1.3 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2.3 1 3 1 1.7 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. DOES NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL ROLLERS 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 2 CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 2 CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9, 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Equip Location Number BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU 1- El 403 6 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1 E1377 BT BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2 1E1378 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3 El 379 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4 El 380 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5 El 381 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6 El 382 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2290 P1 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2307 P1-MTR BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL1-RAS- E7503 P2 BT BT Equi type Asset Description Install Date CONVEYOR UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 (CK- 01 -Jan -95 CU1-6) CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 1 FEED 01 -Jan -95 CONVEYOR (CK-CU2-1) CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED 01 -Jan -95 CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-2 ) CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED 01 -Jan -95 CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-3 ) CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED 01 -Jan -951 CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-4 ) CONVEYOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED 01 -Jan -95 CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-5 ) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED 01 -Jan -95 CONVEYOR (CK-CU2-6 ) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 (RASL- 01 -Jan -94 P1 -1.P ) (181N) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 CONVEYOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E6812 P2-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL1-RAS- E2286 P3 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL1-RAS- E2287 P3-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL1-RAS- E2285 P4 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL1-RAS P4-MTR BT MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 ( RASL- P1-2.P ) RAS BLDGI FL1 RAS PUMP #2 MOTOR BT PUMP MOTOR BT PUMP E2284 MOTOR BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL3- MCCR-VFD1 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL3- iMCCR-VFD2 BT E3942 VFD E5362 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL3- E7536 MCCR-VFD3 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDGI-FL3- E2288 MCCR-VFD4 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2380 P5 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E5392 P5-MTR BT VFD VFD BT VFD BT PUMP MOTOR BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2381 P6 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- P6-MTR BT PUMP E5395 MOTOR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- P7 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E5399 P7-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2383 P8 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- P8-MTR BT -F I N-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFDS BT -F I N-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD6 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD7 BT -F I N-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD8 BT E2382 PUMP BT MOTOR BT BT BT BT PUMP E5389 MOTOR E7537 VFD E5396 E5400 VFD VFD BT E5390 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- P10 BT E2384 VFD PUMP RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 (RASL- P1-3.P RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 (RASL- P1-4.P )(181N) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #1 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #2 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #3 VFD 150HP RAS BLDGI FL3 RAS PUMP #4 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 (RASL- P1-5 ) (181N) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -941 01 -Jan -94I 24 -May -071 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 (RASL- P1-6 ) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 (RASL- P1-7 ) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94I 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 (RASL- P1-8 ) (181N) IRAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #5 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #6 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #7 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #8 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 17 -Apr -071 01 -Jan -94 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E5974 P1O-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E2385 P11 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E5976 PI1-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS-1E2386 P12 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- P12-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- P9 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- P9-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- MCCR-VFD10 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- BT BT BT BT MOTOR PUMP RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 (241N) 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 E7534 MOTOR PUMP MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP P1-12- (18IN) RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #12 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9-181N 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 BT E7513 PUMP BT E7502 MOTOR BT BT BT E5979 VFD E5980 VFD 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #10 VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #11 VFD 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- MCCR-VFD12 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- MCCR-VFD9 BT-GRT-T5-CU E5981 VFD 'RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #12 VFD 75HP VFD RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #9 VFD 75HP CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT BT E5978 BT E6617 BT BT-INC-BLDG 20 -Jun -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -94 7 8 8 1 3 2 3 2 31 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 1.3 3 2 3 3 4 4 1 2 Redundancy POF Comments 5 STRUCTURAL BAR CORRODED COMPLETELY AND _ NEEDS REPLACEMENT 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 3 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 3 4 4 1 2 3 1.3 1.7 2 2 3 3 4 4 11 1 3 1.7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 2 2' 2 3 3 4 4 1 4 2.0 2 3 3 4 4 4 2.0 2 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 COF Comments 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 4 4 1 1 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 2.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 2 4 4 4 4 1.7 1.7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1.7 4 3 1.7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 4 2.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 3 3 4 4 4 2.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 4 5 2 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 1.7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 3 3 4 4 1.7 3 3 3 4 1.7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 3 NEEDS NEW SHOES REPLACED, NEW CHAIN, NEW INCLINE, NEW DRAG RAIL 3 3 3 5 5 4 3.3 51NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK. 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Equip Number Equip ype Asset Description Install Date 01 -Jan -94 Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliabilit Ca.acit 2 Functionalit Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratin .s Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments _. BT _. ..._ ____ BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-SCBR -.--.. .._ .. ...... . E1950 SCRUBBER ._... .._. . ...... . ___ _.._ .. .. ... . INC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER 01 -Jan -93 2 2 a a 3 4 3 a ..___ 4 4 3 4 2 3.3 I 5 . _ ._. _.__ _.._ ..._._.-...____ .._..... BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-DR- CLU E1443 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC 01 -Jan -94 31 4 3 3 5 2 3.3 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FN- AUX E1540 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 5 BACKUP FOR A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR- CLU E1444 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC 01 -Jan -94 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 S 2 3.3 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-FN- AUX E1541 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 5 BACKUP FOR FAN A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR- CLU E1445 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC 01 -Jan -94 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 2 3.3 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN- AUX E1542 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 5 BACKUP FOR FAN A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR- CLU E1446 CLUTCH [DRIVE INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT CENTRIC CLUTC 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 5 2 3.3 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC5-FN- AUX E1543 FAN 'INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 5 BACKUP FOR FAN A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR- CLU E1447 CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC 01 -Jan -94- 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 2 3.3 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN- AUX E1544 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 5 BACKUP FOR FAN A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2 E33772 PUMP INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL) 01 -Jan -70 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2 -DR E33900 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER 01 -Jan -70 PUMP 2 DRIVE 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2-MTR E33903 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL ) MO 01 -Jan -70 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3 E33773 PUMP INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) 01 -Jan -70 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3 -DR E33901 DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 DRIVE 01 -Jan -70 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3-MTR E33902 MOTOR INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) MO 01 -Jan -70 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4.0 5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM1 E7062 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 1A CONTINUOUS 4 4 3 3 3 4 1 5 4 3.3 2 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. ICEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM2 E7063 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 2 ( CONTINUOUS 4 4, 4 3 3 4 1 5 4 3.3 2 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR- E1631 1A GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER A 01 -Jan -94 4 4. 3 4, 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 MUST RUN IN PAIRS. NC, B/D. PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR- 1B E1637 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 01 -Jan -94 BURNER B 4 4. 3 4. 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR- 1C E1642 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER C 01 -Jan -92 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR- 1D E1647 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER D 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED OF UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR- 1B E1638 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER B 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR- 1C E1643 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER C 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-BNR- E1648 1D GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER D 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 1A E1633 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER A 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1' 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES. BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 1B E1639 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER B 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 11 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 1C E1644 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER C 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 1D E1649 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER D 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- 1A E1634 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER A 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADES BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- 1B E1640 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER B 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- 1C E1645 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER C 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- E1650 1D GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER D 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- 1A E1636 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER A 01 -Jan -94 4 4, 3 4, 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- 1B E1641 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER B 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- 1C E1646 GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER C INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 I BURNER D INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- _ 1D _ BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE- SBV1-MTR _ BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE- SBV1-MTR E1651 E1367 E1369 GASBURN MOTOR MOTOR MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 4 4 3 4 4 4 1 5 4 3.3 3 PLANNED FOR UPGRADE 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE- SBV1-MTR E1371 i 01 -Jan -94 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE- SBV1-MTR E1373 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE- SBV1-MTR E1375 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 8 4 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 4 2.0 1 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant CT Location Equip Number Equip Type I Asset Description I Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR- El 6363 BARSCRN BSR1 CT CT -H W-BLD G-FL2-BSC-SCR- BSR2 E16365 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE 01 -Jan -08 BARSCREEN BOSKER I CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE 01 -Jan -08 BARSCREEN BOSKER 2 CT CT -H W-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT- RM-GRD1 CT -H W-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT- RM-GRD2 CT -H W-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSF1 E40016 GRINDER CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI CT HEADWORKS BLDG FINE BARSCREEN #1 SLUICING TROUGH CT E40017 GRINDER 11 11 1 1 1 4 4 01 -Jan -091 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -08 CT CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- CU CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP1-CU1 CT E40147 BARSCRN E40136 E32908 E32913 E32903 E16760 CONVEYOR BARSCRN BARSCRN BARSCRN CONVEYOR CT -P RI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP1-CUI-MTR E16777 MOTOR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- E38836 SCRUBBER GRT-SEP1-WA CT CT CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP2-CU CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP2-CU-MTR CT -PR I -S L D-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP2-WA E16778 FINE SCREEN # 3 FINE SCREEN # 4 FINE SCREEN # 2 PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP1 PRI S SEP1 PRI S WASF 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 CONVEYOR PRIS E16780 SEP MOTOR PRIS E38837 SEP SCRUBBER PRIS WASF CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP3-CU CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP3-CU-MTR CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP3-WA E16779 CONVEYOR PRI CT E16781 SEP MOTOR PRIS CT E38838 SEP LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT CONVEYOR I 1 01-Jan-08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT iER 1 01 -Jan -08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT !CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT !CU MOTOR 01 -Jan -08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT IER 2 01 -Jan -08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT I CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -08 LD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT I CU MOTOR 01 -Jan -08 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 3 CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-PLC GT GT-GRT-TI-C E17231 E12862 PLC COLECTOR IRAS BLDG FL2 PLC GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR 01 -Jan -08 11 11 11 11 11 9 9 11 9 9 11 5 5 5 1 4 2.7 1 3 4 2.7 5 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the grippe over dumpster position. 5 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the grippe over duster osition. 2 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow. 2 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow. 2 New Construction 1 4 4 3.0 3.0 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 3 2.7 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 2.7 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 4 2.3 2.7 5 Problem with solids buildup in trough during high flows, needs manual washing to remove buildup. 2 New Construction. 2 New Construction. 2 New Construction 3 No backup available. 3 3 Built 2008.Needs lot of operational oversight (Every 2 hours) BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING, TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/ FORCE MAIN. 3 4 1 3 3 2.3 1 1 3 4 4 3 3 2.3 1 9 1 9 11 4 4 1 3 4 2.7 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN. 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) 3 BUILT 2008, NEEDS LOTS OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN 4 1 3 3 2.3 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 2.3 4 4 1 4 1 3 4 2.7 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-GRT-T1-CU E12843 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR GT GT-GRT-T2-C E12872 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR GT GT-GRT-T2-CU 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 E12849 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-GRT-T3-C E12876 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR GT GT-GRT-T3-CU E12853 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-GRT-T4-C E12877 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-GRT-T4-CU E12857 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-S L D - P1 E37419 PUMP GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- P2 E37420 PUMP GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-S L D - P3 E37421 PUMP GT GT-P RI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-S LD- P4 E37422 PUMP GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- P5 E37423 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -08 PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -08 PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -09 PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -08 PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -08 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 2 3 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 5 3 Odor released, Capacity problems makes operate only one. (ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE ODOR RECORDED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACMENT LINER. ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER 3.3 5 NEW CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 1 3 3 1 3 1.7 2 2 4 4 1 1 1,7 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 2 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 3 3 3 1 1 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 1.7 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 1 3 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER. 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOE WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATER. 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. 3 4 4 1 3 1.7 1 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 4 2 4 1 1 1.7 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN, SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER 1 1 1 3 1.7 3 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant Location Equip Number E37424 Equip Type Asset Description PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments 1. GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- P6 PUMP 01 -Jan -08 7 1 4 8 1 8 1 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 3 1.7 3 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 -99- 5 3 3 2 5 1 1 5 2.3 2 CURRENTLY NOT USED. BUT INTENT TO REBUILD AS A BACKUP TO NEW BELT PRESS. _ JT JT JT JT JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC- E36024 RK1 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 1 01 -Jan -07 1 3 4 2 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP. JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC- E36026 RK2 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 2 01 -Jan -07 1 3 4 2 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP. JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1 E35612 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN ROOM 1 FINE BSR SCREEN(SMALL) 01 -Jan -07 10 1 1 5 3 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E35609 WA1B WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED SCREENINGS WASHER 1B 01 -Jan -07 10 4 5 3 5 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE. JT JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4 E35358 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 (BIG SCREEN) 01 -Jan -07 10 1 1 5 3 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS. JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- WA4B E35378 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B 01 -Jan -07 10 4 5 3 Si 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL 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 -07 10 1 1 5 3 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS. JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- WA5B E35381 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B 01 -Jan -07 10 4 5 3 5 2 5 1 1 4 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE. JT JT JT-THK-T1 JT-THK-T2 E35399 E35401 TANK TANK THICKENER TANK #1 THICKENER TANK #2 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 7 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 1 3 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NOT CURRENTLYY IN USE. CAN STILL BE USED AS A BACK UP. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL 7 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 1 3 1,7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY USED. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL LT LT-COM-1 E30808 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 1 01 -Jan -65 9 3 3 3 4, 2 4 1 1 5 2.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY. LT LT-COM-I-DR E30812 1DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 1 DRIVE 01 -Jan -65 9 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 5 2.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. LT LT-COM-2 E22480 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 2 01 -Jan -65 g 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 5 2.3 5 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 -65 9 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 5 2.3 5 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. LT LT-COM-3 E22474 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 3 01 -Jan -65 9 9 9 8 8 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 6 2.3 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 COMMINUTOR4 01 -Jan -65 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 1 1 5 2.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. TENDENCY TO GET BLINDED LT LT-COM-5 E22583 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 5 01 -Jan -65 3 3 4 2 4 1 1 5 2,3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY. LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3 E30232 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT 01 -Jan -09 4 3 3 3 2 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4 E22738 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT 01 -Jan -09 4 3 3 3 2 4 1 1 4 2.0 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1- PPG E20363 TANK ASH SLURRY TANK DISCHARGE PIPING TRAIN 01 -Jan -09 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3.3 1 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 -83 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HAS NOT BEEN DEVELPING 18 MONTH OPERATING CYCLE BETWEEN OPERATED FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, 2.45 DTPH LIMIT MAJOR REPAIRS. ASSESSMENT FOR INCINERATOR ON CAPACITY SHELLS, REFRACTORY CENTER SHAFT, ARMS, TEETH, TOP/BOTTOM SEALS. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH- CU -DR E22667 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 3 2.3 5 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS- MTR E23464 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC 01 -Jan -99 7 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 1 1 1.7 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEM ,WITH CAPATIBILITY WITH VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INCI-FN101 E22493 FAN INCINERATOR 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -83 B 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACK UP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INCI-FN102 E21220 FAN AFTERBURNER 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -83 8 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN103 E22494 FAN INCINERATOR 1 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -83 8 2 2 I 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1'INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E23654 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 01 -Jan -83 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3.7 1 5 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. LIMIT ON CAPACITY PER AIR PERMIT IS ABOUT 2.74 DTPH SEE COMMENTS TO NO. 1 INC. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-ASH- E22668 CU -DR DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 2 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 9 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 3 2.3 APPLIES TO CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS- E24179 MTR MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 INCINERATOR 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -83 T 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 1 1 1.7 PLANNING ON REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH CAPATABILITY WITH UFO. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN201 E21356 FAN 8 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORS AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACKUP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FN202 E21221 FAN AFTERBURNER 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -83 8 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. FAN AND MOTOR BACKUP FOR BURNER AND AUX. FAN. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN203 E21357 FAN INCINERATOR 2 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN 01 -Jan -83 8 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FAN . NOT NORMALLY USED LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN303 BV0047 MTR MOTOR 'MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP, 230/460 V, 3 PH, 116/58 01 -Jan -83 8 2 1 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 2.0 1 AUXILARRY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR I NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant LT LT LT Location LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 Equip Number E23655 Equip Type INCIN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-ASH- 1E22669 DRVREDCE CU -DR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-CS- E24325 MOTOR MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN301 E21321 LT LT FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN302 E21222 LT FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303 E21322 LT LT LT LT LT LT FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303. E21192 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4 E23656 LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS- MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CU- E22670 DR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-FN401 MOTOR INCIN E24327 MOTOR DRVREDCE E22674 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN402 E21223 FAN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-FN403 E22675 LT FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-FN403 E21191 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH11 E22449 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- E22446 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- E22448 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC 1-SRW- STR LT MOTOR LT LT LT LT I LT LT INCIN INCIN E22447 INCIN LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH 11 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9- BNR1 E24249 E21347 INCIN PROSERST INCIN E21344 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9- E21345 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9-1E21346 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-SRW- E24295 STR LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH 11 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- E23039 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-S R W- STR LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH 11 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-I N C4-HTH9- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-I N C4-HTH 9- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9- E22648 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-SRW- E24297 STR LT -I N C-BLDG-FL2-SCB R 1 LT -I N C -B LDG-FL2-SCBR2 LT -I N C-BLDG-FL2-SCBR3 LT -I N C-BLDG-FL2-SCBR4 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC 1-F G S- SCBR INCIN INCIN PROSERST E23042 INCIN INCIN LT LT LT LT E23040 INCIN E23041 INCIN E24296 PROSERST E22649 INCIN LT LT LT E22646 INCIN E22647 INCIN LT INCIN LT LT LT LT LT PROSERST E24233 WETSCRUB E24279 WETSCRUB E24274 1WETSCRUB E24275 WETSCRUB E24229 WETSCRUB LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INCI-HTH7-'E23574 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7- E22444 BNR2 LT LT LT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-INCI -HTH7- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-FGS- E24283 SCBR LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- E23572 BNR1 I LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- BNR2 INCIN INCIN E22445 INCIN LT LT WETSCRUB INCIN E21342 INCIN Asset Description INCINERATOR 3 ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 INCINERATOR 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 3 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH, 116/58 INCINERATOR 4 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE INCINERATOR 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 4 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 3535 RP INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 11 BURNER A INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR #1 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR #2 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR #3 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR #4 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 1 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER #2 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 3 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 4 VENTURI SCRUBBER 1 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER A INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 VENTURI SCRUBBER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 Install Date 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -83 Overall Risk Rank 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 9 7 8 8 8 8 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -831 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 8 8 8 8 Condition 3 Reliability 4 Capacity 3 Functionality 3 Financial 3 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4. 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2' 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 9 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 3 4 3 5 5 4 5 3 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 9 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -83 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 Health & Safety 3 Social Impacts 4 Difficulty of Repair 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 3.7 Redundancy 1 2.3 4' 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1.7 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 2.0 4 4 3.7 1 1 1.7 1 3 2.3 1 2 2.0 2 2.0 2.0 1 2 2.0 1 3 2.3 3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2.3 1 2.3 3 2.3 3 2.3 1 3 2.3 1 3 2.3 1 3 2.3 1 3 2.3 4 3 3 3 4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.3 2 2 2 3 3 2.3 3 2.3 3 2.3 4 3 3.3 3 2.3 2.3 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HEARTH 4 NEEDS REPLACEMENT, 2.17 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITY 5 POF Comments 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO COMPATABILITY WITH VFD 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS 1I INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS, NOT NORMALLY USED 1 Auxiliary fan combustion fan motor 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. 3.26 DTPH LIMIT CAPACIY 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH COM PATABILITY WITH VFD. 5 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED. 1 AUXILLARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. 1FOR PREHEAT/ LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5I INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. 5 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. 1 AND 3 LARGER THAN 2 AND 4 (FEEDS FLYASH REMOVED FROM WASTE HEAT BOILERS) 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED, FOR PREHEAT.LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FOR PREHEAT AND LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:PA 64. RARELY USED 5 5 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE, ETC. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 COF Comments SEE COMMENTS FOR NO. 1 AUX. AND AFTER BURNERS FANS BACKUP BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS NOT USED NORMALLY. USED AS A BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS. SEE COMMENTS ON NO. 1 AUX. AND AFTER FANS BACKUP BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS. 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant LT LT LT Location LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-FGS- SCBR LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- E23037 BNR2 LT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-FGS- SCBR Equip Number Equip Type E21343 INCIN Asset Description INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 Install Date 01 -Jan -83 E24284 E23036 WETSCRUB INCIN LT LT LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7- E22643 BNR1 LT LT -I N C-BLDG-FL3-I NC4-HTH7- E22644 BNR2 LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-W H B2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-W H B4 LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-WW LT -I NC -B LDG-FL5-AN LR-RM- ANLR1 LT -I N C -B LDG-FL5-AN L R-RM- ANLR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC 1-H T H 3- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- BNR1 LT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- BNR2 LT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-I N C2-HTH3- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-I N C2-HTH3- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-I N C2-HTH5- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-I N C2 -H T H 5- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5- E21341 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3- E23032 BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5- E23033 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH 5- BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5- E23035 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3- E22638 BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3-1 E22639 BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH 5- BNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5- E22641 BNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5- E22642 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN12-VFD E33688 INCIN E23038 INCIN VENTURI SCRUBBER 3 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 E24285 WETSCRUB VENTURI SCRUBBER 4 INCIN INCIN E22645 INCIN BV0048 BV0049 BV0050 BOILER BOILER BOILER BV0051 E31949 E23602 E23603 BOILER SUMP INSTRMNT INSTRMNT E22439 INCIN E22440 INCIN LT LT LT LT E22441 E22442 INCIN INCIN E22443 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM NO. 1 WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM 2 WASTE HEAT BOILER/FLY ASH SYSTEM 3 WASTE HEAT BOILER- FLY ASHS SYSTEM 4 BLENDED SLUDGE WELL INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #1 INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #2 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 2.3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -83i 01 -Jan -83 Overall Risk Rank Condition 11 11 11 11 Reliability Capacity 5 3 3 4 3 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -94 4 2 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 E21338 INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 LT LT LT LT LT E21362 E21339 INCIN INCIN E21340 INCIN LT LT LT INCIN INCIN E23034 INCIN INCIN INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Functionality 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 1 5 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.3 Redundancy 5 POF Comments MEP INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY BODY, BLADE, ETC. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC. INSTALL DATA SOURCE PA 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.3 5 5 5 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVES, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM THREE HPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCERS, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM 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. 2 UNITS, DUTY/STANBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. 3.7 1 2 UNITS DUTY / STANDBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCIN LT LT LT LT LT INCIN iINCIENRATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 [INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 INCIN E22640 INCIN LT INCIN INCIN LT LT LT LT VFD LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN34-VFD E33689 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC 1- ABNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1- E20468 ABNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC 1- ABNR3 VFD E20467 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 3 3 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 ID FANS 1 AND 2 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE ID FANS 3 AND 4 VARIALBLE 'FREQUENCY DRIVE INC1 AFTERBURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -83 INCIN E20466 INCIN INC1 AFTERBURNER 2 INC1 AFTERBURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 11 11 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 COF Comments NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION NOT OPERATIONAL NOT OPERATIONAL 10/16/2009 Appendix B - Condition Assessment Results, Assets with POF > 3 Plant LT LT LT LT LT Location LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2- ABNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-I N C2- ABNR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-I N C2- ABNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-I N C3- ABNR1 LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-I N C 3- ABNR2 Equip Number E24140 E24141 E24142 E24143 E24144 Equip Type Asset Description INCIN I INC2 AFTERBURNER 1 INCIN INC2 AFTERBURNER 2 INCIN i1NC2 AFTERBURNER 3 INCIN INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3- E24145 INCIN ABNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- E24149 INCIN ABNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- E24147 INCIN ABNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- E24148 INCIN ABNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-I DFN LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-I DFN LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-I DFN LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-I D F N E23657 E23472 E22554 E22555 FAN FAN FAN FAN LT-TH K -B LDG-FL2-DAF-T 1 LT-TH K -B LDG-FL2-DAF-T2 LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1 LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2 MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC1- MTR MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC2- MTR MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1 MT -D I G -BLDG -FL 1-P 1-MTR MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2 MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P2-MTR MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL MT-PRI-T 1-SCC-MXL-MTR MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL-MTR MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL-MTR BV0027 BV0028 E20512 E20513 E18539 E18544 E33420 E17757 E33415 E18303 E17502 E17503 E18429 E18432 E18431 TANK TANK Install Date 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INC3 AFTERBURNER 1 INC3 AFTERBURNER 2 INC3 AFTERBURNER 3 INC4 AFTERBURNER 1 INC4 AFTERBURNER 2 INC4 AFTERBURNER 3 INCINERATOR 1 INDUCED DRAFT FAN INCINERATOR 2 INDUCED DRAFT FAN INCINERATOR 3 INDUCED DRAFT FAN INCINERATOR 4 INDUCED DRAFT FAN DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 1 DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 2 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 CONVEYOR MOTOR MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR MIXER MOTOR MIXER MOTOR E17545 MIXER MOTOR DRAGOUT WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 2 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 1 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -091 DIGESTER SERVICE PUMP 1 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 01 -Jan -88 (LARGE) (DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 01 -Jan -88 MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #1 SCUM MIXER 01 -Jan -981 PRIMARY CLARIFIER COLLECTOR #1 SCUM MIXER MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER MOTOR 01 -Jan -09 Overall Risk Rank Ca act SCUM PITS IN CLARIFIERS HAVE GREASE PROBLEMS AND NEED EFFECTIVE MIXERS TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP. COF Comments AT PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED. PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED. 71 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 71 Condition 4 Reliabili 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Functionalit 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF Health & Safet Social Impacts Difficulty o Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratin . s 3.3 3.3 3.31 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Redundancy 3 POF Comments NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLCED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 5 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983, NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION. HIGH MAINTAINENCE ITEM. DRAGOUT TROUGH IS HEAVILY CORRODED BUT PLANNED TO BE REPLACED ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.31 1.3 1.3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 BREAKS DOWN ONCE A YEAR FOR REPLACEMENT 1.3 1.3 5 10/16/2009 Appendix C Ratings for All Assessed Solids Processing Equipment Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P1 E34930 BT BT BT-ASH-SUMP-DRN-P3 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL- CRP1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL- BT BT CRP1-MTR BT-DW R-BLDG-FLI-POL- CRP2 BT-DW R-BLDG-FLI-POL- rood KATo E1949 Equi. T pe PUMP PUMP E2061 PUMP E4948 E2062 E4951 Asset Description WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #1 WET ASH SETTLING BASIN DRAINAGE PUMP #3 POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #1 MOTOR PUMP POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 MOTOR POLYMER CIRCULATION PUMP #2 MOTOR Install Date 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -70 Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliabili Ca.aci Functional Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratin Redundanc 01 -Jan -70 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5- 4 4.0 4.0 4 6 4.0 4 4 4 5 5 4.0 POF Comments 3 REBUILT ON 5 YR BASIS. NEW PUMP (1 YR AGO 2008). 1 SPARE ON ORDER. 3 REBUILT 2005 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, PROBLEM WITH PVC PIPING 2 FOR GRAVITY BELT THICKNESS, 2 FOR BFP'S (NOT USED) 5 4.01 4.0 5 5 WHEN PUMP VIBRATES, BREAKS PVC PIPING COF Comments - VERY DIFFICULT TO REPAIR Total Maint Costs $2,918.15 $6,460.00 YTDCosts Last Year Cos Cost 2 years ago $2,918.15 $374.24 $0.00 $0.00 $25,789.41 $11,398.24 $331.73 $2,599.08 $563.02 $0.00 $0.00 $40,066.80, $10,804.83 $862.291 $0.00 $251.48 $0.00 $209.10 $2,747.54 $127.35; BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2 E1499 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3 E1500 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P4 40014 BT BT BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P5 BT-DW R-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P6 BT -D W R-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1- BPC BT BT BT -D W R -B L D G-FL2-BAT 1-B P E BT-DW R-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF E1502 E1503 E2015 E2014 PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #2 SCHWING THIS UNIT TIMES LEFT PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #3 SCHWING PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #4 SCHWING PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #5 SCHWING PUMP SLUDGE CAKE PUMP #6 SCHWING BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS A BATTERY #1 (BP2-3) BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS C BATTERY #1 BP2-2) E2013 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS E BATTERY#1 (BP2-1) E7519 BELTPRES 1 BELT FILTER PRESS F BATTERY#1 (BP1-1) BT BT-INC-BLDG BV0075 BT BT-INC-BLDG BV0077 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR E1950 BT E1443 BT E1444 INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 2 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN INSTRMNT INCIN NO. 4 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN SCRUBBER BT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR- CLU B T-INC-BLDG-FLI -INC 3-D R- CLU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR- CLU E1445 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR- BT BT CLU B T-INC-BLDG-FLI -INC 6-D R- CLU BT -I N C-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2-DR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P2-MTR BT BT BT BT BT BT ST -IN C-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3 BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3-DR BT -I NC-BLDG-FL2-POL-TFR- P3-MTR BT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM 1 BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CR-CEM2 BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-B N R - 1A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BNR- 1B BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BN R - 1C BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-BN R - 1D BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-I NC3-BN R - 1B BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-I NC3-BN R - 1C BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-I NC3-BN R - 1D BT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 1A BT-INC-BL DG-FL5-INC4-BNR- 15 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT E1446 E1447 CLUTCH CLUTCH CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC CLUTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC C P D E33772 E33900 E33903 E33773 E33901 -UTCH INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE CENTRIC CLUTC JMP INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL ) #VREDCE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 DRIVE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 2 (TUTHILL ) MO INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 DRIVE INC BLDG FL2 POLYMER TRANSFER PUMP 3 (TUTHILL ) MO MOTOR PUMP DRVREDCE E33902 MOTOR E7062 E7063 E1631 E1637 INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 1 ( CONTINUOUS INSTRMNT INC BLDG FL3 INC CONTROL ROOM CEM 2 ( CONTINUOUS GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER B E1642 GASBURN E1647 E1638 E1643 1648 E1633 E1639 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- E1644 1C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-BNR- E1649 113 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- 1E1634 1A iBT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- E1640 1B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- E1645 1C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-BNR- E1650 1D BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-)NC6-BNR- E1636 1A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- E1641 1B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- E1646 1C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-BNR- E1651 10 BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-BYP- STK BT -I NC-BLDG-FL6-I NC3-BYP- STK E1291 E1273 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-BYP- E1292 STK BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-BYP- E1293 L STK GASBURN GASBURN GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER C INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 HEARTH 1 BURNER D INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER B INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER C GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 HEARTH 1 BURNER D GASBURN INC BLDG FLS INC 4 HEARTH 1 _ BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER C GASBURN GASBURN GASBURN GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 HEARTH 1 BURNER D INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER A INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER B INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER C GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 HEARTH 1 BURNER D GASBURN INC BLDG FLS INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER C GASBURN STACK STACK STACK INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 HEARTH 1 BURNER D INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK STACK INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan 95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -93 2 2 2 3 3 5 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 3 01 -Jan -94 3 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 3 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -92 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 4 01 -Jan -94 01 Jan -94 4 01 -Jan- 4 01 -Jan -94 3 01 -Jan -94 3 01 -Jan -94 3 01 -Jan -94 3 3 3 3, 3 31 3 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 & 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 1 5 3 3 4 1 5 S 5 3 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 3.7 5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.3 NEW HEAD. 5 NEW HEAD 5 NEW HEAD 5 RUNS BETTER THAN OTHER PUMPS 5 2 2.3 2 2.31 2 2.3 2 3.3 3.3 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. PRESS A IS OUT OF SERVICE AND PARTS ARE BEING USED FOR OTHER BFP'S. NOT CURRENTLY IN USE. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. OUT OF SERVICE INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK. 5 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER. NEEDS WORK. 5 3.3 5 3.3 5 3.3 3.3 5 3.31 5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5 5 4.0 5 4.0 3.3 5 2 3.3 2 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.31 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.31 3 3.3 3 3.3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.31 3 4.31 5 4.3 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT 2 TOTAL UNITS, OUT/STANDBY IN COMMON STACK. CEMs PLANNED FOR REPLACEMENT MUST RUN IN PAIRS. A/C, B/D. PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED OF UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES. PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADES PLANNED FOR UPGRADE PLANNED FOR UPGRADE PLANNED FOR UPGRADE PLANNED FOR UPGRADE PLANNED FOR UPGRADE PLANNED FOR UPGRADE 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.) 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.) 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.) 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.) 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 $140,820.23 $9,571.11) $11,381.501 $48,999.: 181,646.21 $10,117.53 _$67,581.85 $13,581.` $0.00 $0.00 $38,052.69 $24,157.! $12,642.62 $27,462.` $34,309.80 $17,898: --$5,684.14 $0.( $171,162.94 _ $183,971.77 $118,017.92 $64,578.65 $29,873.79 $66,536.80 $50,238.74 $1,501.12 $4,735.6 $104.`, 9 2 7 6 0 0 5 $160,708.8 $81,271.98 $153,173.8 $63,601.80 $8,728.4 $249.1 $13,325.55 $4,286.3 3 7 0 J0 $1,541:60 $119,298.531 $15,785.77) $14,102.91 $13,152.7 $5,548.82 $508.74) $536.61 $1,921.( 2,623.85 $159.88 $0.00 $107.1. $1,469.21 $335.00 $440.22 $5,550.46 $457.86 $12,395.'' $0.00 $2,115.5 $383.14 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.( $0.00 $0.( $1,187.95 $0.( $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,198.68 $0.00 $378.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $168.28 $378.50 $0.00 $0.( $0.( $0.( $0.( $0.( $160,353.9 $42,438.96 $12,923.86 $13,561.`, $170,367.6 $8,064.14 $16,682.1 $1,086.08 0 0 0 0 0 1 $10,233.6 $1,374.3 $12,695.2 1 0 $7,934. $6,686.6. $229.15 $0.00 $2,073.91 $0.00 $84.90 $3,531.3 $0.00 $0.00 $679.: $466.f $537.: $4,615.2 $1,158.43 $2,036.8 $41.f $6,077.21 Moo $3,195.85 2,147.61 $2,675.97 $132.15 $0.00' $0.00 50.00 $9,528.2 $980.26 6,741.40 $2,402.18 $6,459.58 $5,229.38 $984.95 $0.00 $1,363.09 $2,946.70 $1,078.88 $437.86 $4,065.54 52,052.14 $44.; $212.; $229.15 $217.05 $0.00 $0.00 2,622.57 $0.00 $1,805.61 $1,595.9 $0.00 $45.83 $2,024.8 $0.00 $95.78 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLE-INC6-BYP- STK BT BT-INC-STACK BT BT -105 -SLOG -SCR BT BT -105 -BLDG -SCR BT BT-AER-STOC-SLOG-FL2- WAS-P1 BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P1-MTR BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P2 BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P2-MTR BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P3 BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL2- WAS-P3-MTR BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3- SUB4-WAS-P1-VFD BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3- SUB4-WAS-P2-VFD BT BT-AER-STOC-BLDG-FL3- SUB4-WAS-P3-VFD BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1 Equip Number E1294 Equip Type STACK BV0085 INCIN BV0052 BV0053 E1964 E4517 E1965 E4519 E4516 E4520 E4518 E4521 E4522 E2089 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM1-DR E4183 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2 E2090 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM2-DR E5319 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3 E2091 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM3-DR E5321 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4 E2092 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM4-DR E7674 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COMS E2093 BT ST-COM-BLDG-COME E2094 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COME-DR E6462 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7 E2095 BT BT-COM-BLDG-COM7-DR E5326 BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-1 E2077 BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-1- E6321 MTR BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-2 E6317 PUMP BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-2- E6318 MOTOR MTR BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-3 E4411 PUMP BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-3- E4414 MOTOR MTR BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-4 E4450 PUMP BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-4- E4453 MOTOR MTR BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-5 E6472 PUMP BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-5- E4464 MOTOR MTR BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-6 E4474 PUMP BT BT-COM-TNL-GRT-P-120-6- E4478 MOTOR MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL- E2054 MIXER T3-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL- E2055 MIXER T4-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-POL-MXL- E2056 MIXER T5-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T1 E1470 TANK BARSCRN BARSCRN PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR Asset Description INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 EMERGENCY BYPASS STACK INCINERATOR STACK, MASONRY STACK, DOUBLE WALL COARSE SCREEN CLAMP SHELL FOR WET WELL STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 (WASL- P1-1 ) STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 1 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 (WASL- P1-2 ) STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 2 MOTOR STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 (WASL- P1-3.P ) STOC BLDG FL2 WAS PUMP 3 MOTOR VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 1 VFD 75HP VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 2 VFD 75HP VFD STOC BLDG FL3 SUB STATION 4 WAS PUMP 3 VFD 75HP COMMINUT COMMINUTOR #1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T2 E1460 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T3 E1461 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T4 E1462 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T5 E1463 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-T6 E1475 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- E1998 WW1-MXL1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- E1999 WW1-MXL2 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- E2001 WW2-MXL3 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- E2002 WW2-MXL4 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1 E1398 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1- E1399 2 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2- E2018 BPG BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI E2017 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ E2019 BT BT-DWR-SLOG-FL2-BAT2-BPK E2016 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL E7169 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3 E1400 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5 E1402 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- BPM BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- BPO E2012 E2022 E6468 DRVREDCE COMM IN UT DRVREDCE COMM IN UT DRVREDCE COMM IN UT DRVREDCE COMMINUT COMMINUT DRVREDCE COMM IN UT DRVREDCE PUMP MOTOR TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK MIXER MIXER MIXER MIXER CONVEYOR CONVEYOR BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES CONVEYOR CONVEYOR BELTPRES BELTPRES BELTPRES COMMINUTOR #1 DRIVE COMMINUTOR #2 COMMINUTOR #2 DRIVE COMMINUTOR #3 COMMINUTOR #3 DRIVE COMMINUTOR #4 COMMINUTOR #4 DRIVE COMMINUTOR #5 COMMINUTOR #6 COMMINUTOR #6 DRIVE COMMINUTOR #7 COMMINUTOR #7 DRIVE GRIT TANK 1 PUMP GRIT TANK1 DRAIN PUMP MOTOR, GRIT TANK 2 PUMP GRIT TANK 2 PUMP MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 PUMP GRIT TANK 3 PUMP MOTOR GRIT TANK PUMP GRIT TANK 4 PUMP MOTOR GRIT TANK 5 PUMP GRIT TANK 5 PUMP MOTOR GRIT TANK 6 PUMP GRIT TANK 6 PUMP MOTOR POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK #3 MIXER POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK #4 MIXER POLYMER MIXING/AGING TANK 5 MIXER DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 1 DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 2 DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 3 DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 4 DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 5 DWR BLDG FL1 EQUALIZATION BIN 6 SLUDGE WET WELL 1 MIXER 1 SLUDGE WET WELL 1 MIXER 2 SLUDGE WET WELL 2 MIXER 3 SLUDGE WET WELL 2 MIXER 4 UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 (CK- CU1-1) UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 (CK- CU1-2) BELT FILTER PRESS G BATTERY 2 (BP3-3) BELT FILTER PRESS I BATTERY 2 (BP3 2) BELT FILTER PRESS J BATTERY 2 (BP5-2) BELT FILTER PRESS K BATTERY 2 (BP3-1) BELT FILTER PRESS L BATTERY 2 (BP5 1) UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 (CK- CU1-3) UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 (CK- CU1-5) BELT FILTER PRESS BATTERY #3 BELT FILTER PRESS M BATTERY 3 (BP6-3) BELT FILTER PRESS 0 BATTERY 3 (BP6-2) Install Date 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -69 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 20 -Jun -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 Overall Risk Rank 7 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 9 5 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 5 5 9 9 9 Condition 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 4 2 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 Reliability Capacity 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 22 24 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 Functionality 3 Financial 3 3 3 _ 3 3 3 4 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 Health & Safety 3 4 Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 5 5 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 34 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, 4 4 4 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 Redundancy POF Comments 4.3 5 6 CONFIGURED DIFFERENTLY (NEWER INCIN.) 4.7 4 COMMON STACK FOR 6 IN INTERIOR 2 YRS. AGO (201 TUCK POINTING 2.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIOP 2.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIOS 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B DRIVES 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 BEING REPLACED 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 2.3 4 CURRENTLY BROKE. NEE[ MOTOR ON PUMP 1.7 4 2.0 4 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MO 1.7 4 2.0 4 REBUILT IN 2006. NEW MO 1.7 4 2.0 4 CURRENTLY REBUILDING. 1.7 4 2.0 4 REBUILT IN 2005. 2.3 4 1.7 4 2.3 4 NEEDS REBUILD. 1.7 4 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.7 2 1.7 2 3.3 5 3.3 5 SERVES BFP 3.3 5 2.0 5 EQ BASIN 1, SCHWING PU OUT OF SERVICE. 8 SCRE DRIVES/BIN, 1 CONTROL 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.3 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.3 5 5 5 5 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 USE BUT WILL BE OPERAT 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 USE BUT WILL BE OPERAT 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 2000 H2S DAMAGE TO WIt GREASE FROM RECEIVIN( BFP 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 2 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B 5 2.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: B USE 2.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 USE 2.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:13 USE. DOES NOT HAVE ADI COF Comments Total Maint Costs $1,357.05 CINERATORS. RELINED 17). PLANNED EXTERIOR 1 1 P-7. PROBLEM WITH P-7 P-7. OUT OF SERVICE. NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE $5, $81 P-7 $ P-7 NO SPARE PARTS AVAILABLE $11 P-7 P-7 $. P-7 9, 1S REBUILD. NEW $3, $: TOR $231 $: TOR $22! $51 $: $391 $11 $2! v1P 1, AND INC 1 ARE NS/BIN, 2 PHIADELPHIA NIT/BIN P-9. TANK 1 IS NOT IN 'IONAL SOON. P-9. TANK 1 IS NOT IN 'IONAL SOON. P-9 P-9 P-9 P-9. ADDED ROLLERS IN RING IN CABINETS. ) STATION IS BLINDING P-9 P-9 P-9 P-9 P-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN P-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN P-9. CURRENTLY NOT IN )ITIONAL ROLLERS EACH SCREW HAS GEAR AND INDIVIDULAL SHEAR PIN. WHEN 1 PIN SHEARS, REMAINING SCREWS CONTINUE TO ROTATE CAUSEING DAMAGE TO SHAFTS AND GEARING. $1. $6: $2 $6: DIFFICULT TO WORK DUE TO LOW HEAD ROOM $4', $4, $2, $1 $5: $1: $19! $121 $20' $26' $18! $4: $5! $50! $25: $151 ,790.08 $0.00 ,280.48 $19,813.31 ,539.151 $930.55 ,476.741 $0.00 218.47 $0.00 ,427.87 $172.8171 $0.00 1,398.00 $0.00 1,461.52 $7,480.89 ,133.11 $0.00 ,702.58 $131,403.20 ,101.94 $0.00 ,213.37 $153,643.21 129.68 $0.00 ,911.21 $17,739.05 ,975.09 $0.00 ,183.71 $150,979.64 ,485.66 _ $45.83 1864.281 $0.00 ,173.95 $4,405.65 ,347.331 - $817.80 ,170.941_ $2,277.59 1409.591 $0.00 733.00 $733.00 $0.00 $0.00 1,657.57 $1,657.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ,928.36 $0.00 $0.00 $297.06' $0.00 $194.79 $194.79 $164.57 $0.00 $201.07 $0.00 $183.72 $91.66 ,837.17 $0.00 ,882.25 ,464.01 ,764.74 ,529.12 ,808.50 $94.88 $94.88 ,813.91 ,583.93 ,332.92 ,955.48 ,894.13 ,345.10 ,735.06 ,676.80 ,102.30 ,506.00 ,200.90 ,014.71 ,746.43 ,071.28 $11,543.04 $412.72 $10,739.63 ($151.82) $13,890.78 $0.00 $0.00 $1,322.46 $143.68 $15,676.36 $3,550.27 $75,995.09 $26,861.29 $73,749.08 $86,318.36 $74,470.72 $2,180.86 $4,181.55 $24,019.01 $117,039.12 $20,465.30 YTDCosts $0.00 Last Year Cost $342.52 $9,538.63 $572.78 $0.00 $0.00 $20,405.07 $0.00 $13,186.68 $0.00 $0.00 $4,614.95 $0.00 Cost 2 years ago $241.20 $20,498.89 $0.00 $8,941.53 $0.00 $4,968.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,398.00 $0.00 $2,981.68 $5,681.26 $700.85 $57,378.65 $2,705.89 $38,847.62 $0.00 $4,256.00 $0.00 $6,773.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $735.91 $154.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,928.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $92.06 $0.00 $3,386.92 $1,383.11 $2,760.13 $5,272.58 $2,022.55 $0.00 $0.00 $20,741.79 $0.00 $6,545.21 $0.00 $19,185.83 $11,438.05 $27,935.49 $11,260.64 $19,226.23 $5,037.29 $9,275.82 $57,591.16 $16,052.96 $15,414.76 $176.93 $13,465.56 $0.00 $1,182.29 $0.00 $1,253.07 $1,443.80 $4,387.18 $661.26 $212.25 $1,160.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,086.85 $3,163.72 $598.82 $7,846.69 $8,078.72 $0.00 $0.00 $339.60 $1,671.13 $1,913.64 $201.51 $11,105.44 $1,152.43 $6,215.68 $22,542.37 $11,937.55 $15,072.25 $3,135.87 $11,270.08 $20,997.49 $13,545.12 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant _ Location Number BT BT-DWR BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP E2021 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1 E1403 CONVEYOR 6 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1 E1377 CONVEYOR BT -D W R-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- BPQ BT -D W R-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- BPR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1 E1401 Equip Type BELTPRES E6171 BELTPRES E2020 BELTPRES CONVEYOR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2 E1378 CONVEYOR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3 E1379 CONVEYOR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4 E1380 CONVEYOR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5 El 381 !CONVEYOR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6 E1382 CONVEYOR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2290 P1 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2307 P1-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FLI-RAS- E7503 P2 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E6812 P2-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2286 P3 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2287 P3-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2285 P4 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-RAS- E2284 P4-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM- E2824 P1 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM- E2487 P1-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM- E2305 P2 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL1-SKM- E2823 P2-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3- MCCR-VFDI BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3- MCCR-VFD2 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3- E7536 MCCR-VFD3 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG1-FL3- E2288 MCCR-VFD4 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FLI-RAS- E2380 P5 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FLI-RAS- E5392 P5-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2381 P6 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E5395 P6-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2382 P7 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E5399 P7-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-RAS- E2383 P8 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FLI-RAS- E5389 P8-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FLI-SKM- E5371 P3 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FLI-SKM- E5370 P3-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM- E5376 P4 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL1-SKM- E5375 P4-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD5 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD6 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD7 BT-FI N-RAS-BLDG2-FL3- MCCR-VFD8 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FLI-RAS- E2384 P10 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FLI-RAS- E5974 P10-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E2385 P11 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E5976 P11-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E2386 P12 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E7534 P12-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E7513 P9 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-RAS- E7502 P9-MTR BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM- E2007 P5 BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM- E5380 P5-MTR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR E3942 VFD E5362 VFD VFD VFD PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR E7537 'VFD E5396 VFD E5400 VFD E5390 VFD PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR Asset Description BELT FILTER PRESS P BATTERY 3 (BP4-2) BELT FILTER PRESS Q BATTERY 3 (9P6-1) BELT FILTER PRESS R BATTERY 3 (BP4-1), UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 (CK- CU1-4) UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 (CK- CU1-6) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 1 FEED CONVEYOR (CK-CU2-1) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR) CK-CU2.2 ) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-3 ) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR (CK-CU2.4 ) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-5 ) DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR ( CK-CU2-6 ) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #1 ( RASL- 01 -Jan -94 P1 -1.P ) (181N) RAS BLDG1 FLI RAS PUMP #1 MOTOR Install Date 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95'. 01 -Jan -95, 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95. 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95'. 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 (RASL- 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94 RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 (RASL- 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94. P1 -2.P ) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #2 MOTOR P1 -3.P ) RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #3 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 RAS PUMP #4 (RASL- P1-4.P ) (181N) RAS BLDG1 FLI RAS PUMP #4 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #1 RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #1 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #2 RAS BLDG1 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #2 MOTOR RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #1 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #2 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #3 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG1 FL3 RAS PUMP #4 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 (RASL- P1-5) (18IN) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #5 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS. PUMP #6 ( RASL- P1-6 RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #6 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 (RASL- P1-7 ) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #7 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 ( RASL- P1-8) (181N) RAS BLDG2 FL1 RAS PUMP #8 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #3 RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING SUMP #2 PUMP #3 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #4 RAS BLDG2 FL1 SKIMMINGSUMP#2 PUMP #4 MOTOR RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #5 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #6 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #7 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG2 FL3 RAS PUMP #8 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #10 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 (24IN) RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #11 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FLI RAS PUMP P1-12- (18IN) RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #12 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9-181N RAS BLDG3 FL1 RAS PUMP #9 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #5 RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #5 MOTOR 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94. 24 -May -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94, 01 -Jan -94.. 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94.. 17 -Apr -07 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 Overall Risk Rank 9 9 7 Condition 2 2 2 5 3 7 4 5 3 5 3 Reliability 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity 3 3 3 3 Functionality 3 Financial 4 4 41 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Health 8 Safety 3 3 Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 3 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 2.3 2.3 1.7 2 2 1.3 1.3 2 1.3 Redundancy, 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 2 1I 1 1 1 2 1,3 2 2 2 3 3 1.7 4 20 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 3 1.7 3 3 3 4 1.7 1.7 POF Comments 2 5 5 3 3 3 3 1.7 2.0 4 2.0 3 1.7 3 1.7 3 1.7 4 2:0 4 2,0 3 4 4 4 2:0 3 4 1 1 4 2:0 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 2� 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 41 4 4 2 2 3 1.7 3 3 3 3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3 3 4 4 3 4 17 17 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 4 4 4 3 2.0 20 3 3 3 3 2,0 1.7 3 3 1.7 1.7 3 3 1.7 CURRENTLY NOT IN USE CURRENTLY NOT IN USE INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9, STRUCTURAL BAR CORRODED COMPLETELY AND NEEDS REPLACEMENT INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 COF Comments 8,330.99 1.7 3 1.7 3 i Total Maint Cost 2 years Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost ago $202,643.37 $77,800.43 $35,014.36 $1,716.65 $210,019.81 $93,591.04 $10,708.11 $19,082.48 $224,163.4 $97,482.84 $18,407.13 $20,208.94 $43,948.821 $2,794.16 $3,049.4 $4,404.47 $61578.16 $10,087.97 $3,396.84 $2,465.73 $18,743.711 $0.00 $0.00 $49,768.15 $1,236.08 $3,761.34 $29,454.28 ($293.11) $2,616.83 $59,885.80 $8,157.85 $8,646.57 $42,709.18 $3,955.82 $2,560.46 $25,713.97 $11,399.9 ($2,311.62 $499.9 $18,907.14 $731.85 $592.91 $0.00 $1,044.35 $6,676.56 $0.00 $352.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $242.28 $0.00 $3,510.50 $6,768.43 $3,938.21 $327.44 $1,031.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,453.65 $169.80 $0.00 $220.25 $0.00 $0.00 $44.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,757.21 $4,398.0. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,416.41 $1,170.68 $0.00 $12,246.57 $0.00 $0.00 $731.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,865.10 $35.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,692.44 $0.00 $144.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,703.36 $4,893.7 $0.00 $295.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,959.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,790.32 $21.23 $0.00 $0.00 $635.06 $0.00 $13,261.12 $68.42 $807.02 $634.24 $0.00 $0.00 $32,874.85 $1,107.97 $2,169.72 $0.00 6,913.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.23 $0.00 $14,775.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Number BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM- E2008 P6 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL1-SKM- E5968 P6-MTR BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- E5979 MCCR-VFD10 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- E5980 MCCR-VFD11 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- E5981 MCCR-VFD12 BT BT-FIN-RAS-BLDG3-FL3- E5978 MCCR-VFD9 BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T4-CU-DR E4445 Location BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T4-CU-DR- E4444 MTR BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T5-CU-DR E6619 BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-T6-CU-DR E6623 BT BT-GRT-T1-C E4388 BT BT-GRT-T1-C-DR BT BT-GRT-T1-C-MTR BT BT-GRT-T1-CU1-DR-MTR BT BT-GRT-T1-CU-DR-MTR BT BT BT BT BT-GRT-T2-C BT-GRT-T2-C-DR BT-GRT-T2-C-MTR BT-GRT-T2-CU1-DR-MTR E4389 E4391 E4370 Equip Type PUMP MOTOR VFD VFD VFD VFD DRVREDCE MOTOR DRVREDCE DRVREDCE COLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR MOTOR E4377 MOTOR E4394 E4397 E4400 E4431 BT BT-GRT-T2-CU-DR-MTR E4423 BT BT-GRT-T3-C E6493 BT BT-GRT-T3-C-DR E4399 BT BT BT BT-GRT-T3-C-MTR BT-GRT-T3-CU BT-GRT-T3-CU 1-D R-MTR BT BT-GRT-T3-CU-DR-MTR E4402 E4425 E4432 COLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR MOTOR Asset Description RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #6 RAS BLDG3 FL1 SKIMMING PUMP #6 MOTOR RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #10 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #11 VFD 150HP RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #12 VFD 75HP RAS BLDG3 FL3 RAS PUMP #9 VFD 75HP GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT DRIVE GRIT BLDG FL3 GRIT TANK 6 DRAGOUT DRIVE GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 1 GRIT SCREW CONVEYOR MOTOR Install Date 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 20 -Jun -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 St -Jan -70 O1 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -97 GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR 01 -Jan -95 GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 GRIT SCREW CONVEYOR MOTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT MOTOR COLECTOR GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR CONVEYOR MOTOR E7530 MOTOR BT BT-GRT-T4-C E6473 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT-GRT-T4-C-DR BT-GRT-T4-C-MTR BT-GRT-T4-CU BT-GRT-T5-C BT-GRT-T5-C-DR BT-GRT-T5-C-MTR BT-GRT-T5-CU BT-GRT-T6-C BT-GRT-T6-C-DR BT-GRT-T6-C-MTR BT-GRT-T6-CU E4455 E4456 E4443 E4468 E4469 E4470 E6617 E4484 E4485 E4486 E6621 BT BT-INC-BLDG BV0079 BT BT-INC-BLDG BV0076 BT BT-INC-BLDG BV0078 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD1- E1414M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD2 E1415 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD2- E1415M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL7-ASH-GRD3 E1416 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD3- E1416M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLt-ASH-GRD4 E1417 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-GRD4- E1417M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD5 E7678 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD5- E7678M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD6 E1418 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-GRD6- E1418M MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL- E1929 SUMP/ BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-MXL- E1930 SUMP1-MXL1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-MXL- E1931 SUMP1-MXL2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL- E1934 SUMP2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL7-ASH-MXL- E1935 SUMP2-MXL1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-MXL- E1936 SUMP2-MXL2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR- E3400 FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-SCBR- E3399 MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH- E7539 SUMP1-P1 GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT GRIT TANK 3 GRIT SCREW CONVEYOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR COLECTOR GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR CONVEYOR COLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR CONVEYOR COLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR CONVEYOR INSTRMNT INSTRMNT INSTRMNT MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR SUMP MIXER MIXER SUMP MIXER MIXER FAN MOTOR PUMP GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR _ GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT TANK 5 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 5 DRAGOUT GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT TANK 6 COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT TANK 6 DRAGOUT INCIN. NO. 6 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN INCIN NO. 3 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN INCIN NO. 5 MAIN FUEL GAS TRAIN WET ASH GRINDER #1 MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #2 WET ASH GRINDER #2 MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #3 WET ASH GRINDER #3 MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #4... WET ASH GRINDER #4 MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #5 WET ASH GRINDER #5 MOTOR WET ASH GRINDER #6 WET ASH GRINDER #6 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH SUMP 1 INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 1 MIXER #1 INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 1 MIXER #2 INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH SUMP 2 INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 2 MIXER #1 INC BLDG FL1 WET ASH MIXER SUMP 2 MIXER #2 INC BLDG FL1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER FAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUBBER #1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 1 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -01 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -70 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 Overall Risk Rank 5 5 8 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 6 9 Condition 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2' 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reliability 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Functionality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Financial 2 4 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 Health 8 Safety 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Social Impacts 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3' Difficulty of Repair 5 5 3 5 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1.7 1.7 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -7 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION Redundancy POF Comments 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NEE SERVICE ALL THE TIME TO RECE WASTE 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2.0 5 DURING WINTER TIME, ALL SCR FREEZE UP. PROBLEM WITH SLI THEM NON OPERATIONAL 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2.0 5 DURING WINTER TIME, ALL SCR FREEZE UP. PROBLEM WITH SLI THEM NON OPERATIONAL. 1.7 3 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CUR REPAIRED. ARMS REPLACED 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CUR REPLACED 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 2.0 5 OUT OF SERVICE. BEING REPAIR DURING WINTER. 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NEE SERVICE TO RECEIVE HAULED V 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 DRAG OUT SHIELD IS CORRODE BE REPLACED 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 NEEDS NEW SHOES REPLACED, INCLINE, NEW DRAG RAIL 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 REPLACED CHAIN. NEEDS NEW 3.3 5 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER 3.3 5 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER 3.3 5 NEED TO REPLACE GAS METER 2.0 5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 3.0 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 COF Comments Total Maint Costs $2,044.31 D1 OR 4 IN IVE HAULED EW CONVEYORS DE GATE MAKES W CONVEYORS /E GATE MAKES 2ENTLY 2ENTLY BEING ED. FREEZE UP >1 OR 4 IN 'ASTE AND NEEDS TO NEW CHAIN, NEW /RAGOUT SHIELD. REBUILT PUMP AVAILABLE $0.00 $7,262.36,' $187.26'' $17,472.67 $11,019.53,' $5,718.30'1 $249.68 $3,795.9 $2,562.21 $10,740.25 YTDCosts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,336.31 $197.01 $0.00 $0.00 $197.01 $2,368.18 $1,352.50: $0.00 $6,289.411 $0.00 $312.68 $0.00 $1,705.64 $0.00 $2,086.941 $0.00 $1,544.2711- $0.00 $457.121 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001 $0.00 $8,747.021 $2,715.33 $1,557.7 $1,622.47 $0.00 $199,514.68 $29,105.78 $1,152.05; $0.00 $62.42 $0.00 $0.00 Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,398.00 $165.76 $0.00 $372.96 $417.23 $267.60 $0.00 $1,078.07 $312.68 Cost 2 years ago $0.00 $0.00 $20.91 $0.00 $13,881.77 $0.00 $228.96 $0.00 $805.02 $668.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $84.90 $176.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,135.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $924.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $901.51 $0.00 $0.00 $407.93 $0.00 $0.00 $6,382.721 $0.00 $367.25 $0.00 $5,595.36 $0.00 $1,291.02 $0.00 $642.611 $0.00 $84.90 $0.00 555,867.461- $175.12 $360.98 $27,727.41 $5,664.171_ $0.00 $197.90 $209.10 $586.76'1 $487.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001_ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,510.12 $262.68 $6,497.05 $209.10 $3,683.12 $91.66 $1,915.29 $418.20 $1,125.34] $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121.421 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $138,442.94, $87.56 $123,721.94 $309.84 1 $0.00 $5,687.64 $357.28 $7,004.25- $0.00• $10,769.79 $0.00, $17,111.34 $762.50 $980.62 $0.00 $15,238.88 $1,866.58, $453.11' $220.25 $46,743.89 $17,580.54 $7,215.64 $3,880.52 $11,906.58 $569.69 $66,059.88 $0.00 $26,828.95 $0.00 $15,215.82 $315.56 $1,093.60 $0.00 $478.22 $0.00 $64,937.94 $7,557.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $262.68 $93.96 $3,820.53 $357.28 $0.00 $0.00 $39.97 $346.32 $245.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $911.06 $2,715.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $926.71 $339.60 $0.00 $707.90 $3,419.01 $1,919.67 $232.86 $0.00 $1,069.87 $4,254.76 $1,756.25 $0.00 $3,309.25 $3,357.61 $1,841.46 $16,835.38 $17,071.78 $0.00 $6,998.39 $3,304.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,532.10 $6,375.43 10/16/2009 $0.00 $7,262.36,' $187.26'' $17,472.67 $11,019.53,' $5,718.30'1 $249.68 $3,795.9 $2,562.21 $10,740.25 YTDCosts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,336.31 $197.01 $0.00 $0.00 $197.01 $2,368.18 $1,352.50: $0.00 $6,289.411 $0.00 $312.68 $0.00 $1,705.64 $0.00 $2,086.941 $0.00 $1,544.2711- $0.00 $457.121 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001 $0.00 $8,747.021 $2,715.33 $1,557.7 $1,622.47 $0.00 $199,514.68 $29,105.78 $1,152.05; $0.00 $62.42 $0.00 $0.00 Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,398.00 $165.76 $0.00 $372.96 $417.23 $267.60 $0.00 $1,078.07 $312.68 Cost 2 years ago $0.00 $0.00 $20.91 $0.00 $13,881.77 $0.00 $228.96 $0.00 $805.02 $668.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $84.90 $176.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,135.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $924.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $901.51 $0.00 $0.00 $407.93 $0.00 $0.00 $6,382.721 $0.00 $367.25 $0.00 $5,595.36 $0.00 $1,291.02 $0.00 $642.611 $0.00 $84.90 $0.00 555,867.461- $175.12 $360.98 $27,727.41 $5,664.171_ $0.00 $197.90 $209.10 $586.76'1 $487.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001_ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $17,510.12 $262.68 $6,497.05 $209.10 $3,683.12 $91.66 $1,915.29 $418.20 $1,125.34] $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121.421 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $138,442.94, $87.56 $123,721.94 $309.84 1 $0.00 $5,687.64 $357.28 $7,004.25- $0.00• $10,769.79 $0.00, $17,111.34 $762.50 $980.62 $0.00 $15,238.88 $1,866.58, $453.11' $220.25 $46,743.89 $17,580.54 $7,215.64 $3,880.52 $11,906.58 $569.69 $66,059.88 $0.00 $26,828.95 $0.00 $15,215.82 $315.56 $1,093.60 $0.00 $478.22 $0.00 $64,937.94 $7,557.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $262.68 $93.96 $3,820.53 $357.28 $0.00 $0.00 $39.97 $346.32 $245.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $911.06 $2,715.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $926.71 $339.60 $0.00 $707.90 $3,419.01 $1,919.67 $232.86 $0.00 $1,069.87 $4,254.76 $1,756.25 $0.00 $3,309.25 $3,357.61 $1,841.46 $16,835.38 $17,071.78 $0.00 $6,998.39 $3,304.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,532.10 $6,375.43 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health 8 Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH- E2972 MOTOR SUMP1-P1-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH- E1933 PUMP SUMP1-P2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH- E2966 MOTOR SUMP1-P2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH- E1938 PUMP SUMP2-P1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH- E2957 MOTOR SUMP2-PI-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH- E1939 PUMP SUMP2-P2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH- E2951 MOTOR SUMP2-P2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T2- E1432 GRINDER GRD2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T2- E1432M MOTOR GRD2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T3- E1433 GRINDER GRD3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T3- E1433M MOTOR GRD3-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T4- E1434 GRINDER GRD4 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T4- E1434M MOTOR GRD4-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T5- E1435 GRINDER GRD5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T5- E1435M MOTOR GRD5-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-ASH-T6- E1436 GRINDER GRD6 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T6- E1436M MOTOR GRD6-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK- BV0080 GRINDER GRD2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-CLNK- BV0081 GRINDER GRD3 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-CLNK- BV0082 GRINDER GRD4 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-CLNK- BV0083 GRINDER GRD5 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-CLNK- BV0084 GRINDER GRD6 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E1438 INCIN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-BNR- E1581 FAN FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-BNR- E1593 MOTOR FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR E1454 DRVREDCE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR- E1449 MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-DR- E3403 VFD VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FN- E1540 FAN AUX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN- E1540M MOTOR AUX-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FN- E1534M MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-SLD- E1730 FAN FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-SLD- E1747 MOTOR FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 E1439 INCIN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-BNR- E1582 FAN FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-BNR- E1594 MOTOR FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-DR E1455 DRVREDCE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-DR- E1450 MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-DR- E3404 VFD VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN- E1541 FAN AUX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN- E1541M MOTOR AUX-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN- E1535M MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-SLD- E1732 FAN FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-SLD- E1748 MOTOR FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4 E7478 INCIN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-BNR- E1583 FAN FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-BNR- E1595 MOTOR FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-DR E1456 DRVREDCE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR- E1451 MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-DR- E3405 VFD VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN- E1542 FAN AUX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN- El 542M MOTOR AUX-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN- E1536M MOTOR MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-SLD- E1734 FAN FN INC BLDG FLI SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 1 MOTOR LEFT HAND INC BLDG FL1 SUMP I WET ASH PUMP 2 INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 1 WET ASH PUMP 2 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 1 MOTOR RIGHT HAN INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 2 INC BLDG FL1 SUMP 2 WET ASH PUMP 2 MOTOR RIGHT HAN DRY ASH GRINDER #2 DRY ASH GRINDER #2 MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #3 DRY ASH GRINDER #3 MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #4 DRY ASH GRINDER #4 MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #5 DRY ASH HOPPER #5 GRINDER #5 MOTOR DRY ASH GRINDER #6 DRY ASH GRINDER #6 MOTOR INCIN NO. 2 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE INCIN NO. 3 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE INCIN NO. 4 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE INCIN NO. 5 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE INCIN NO. 6 CLINKER GRINDERS PLUS GATE INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 2 INC BLDG FL1 INC2 BURNER COMB FAN INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 2 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT VFD INC BLDG FLI INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB FAN 2B INC BLDG FL1 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB FAN 2B MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 3 01 -Jan -69 INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 BURNER COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN INC BLDG FLI INC 3 BURNER COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -04 DRIVE INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -94 DRIVE MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -04 VFD INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY 01 -Jan -94 COOLING AIR FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 STANDBY 01 -Jan -94 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 3 SLUDGE COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN 3B INC BLDG FLI INC 3 SLUDGE COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN 3B MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 4 01 -Jan -69 INC BLDG FLI INC 4 BURNER COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN INC BLDG FLI INC 4 BURNER COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -94 DRIVE INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -94 DRIVE MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -04 VFD INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 STANDBY 01 -Jan -94 COOLING AIR FAN INC BLDG FLI INC 4 STANDBY 01 -Jan -94 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 COOLING AIR FAN 01 -Jan -94 MOTOR INC BLDG ELI INC 4 SLUDGE COMB 01 -Jan -94 FAN 4B 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -72 01 -Jan -72 01 -Jan -72 01 -Jan -72 01 -Jan -72 01 -Jan -69 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -69 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 6 10 6 8 7 6 6 5 6 10 11 6 10 6 8 7 6 6 5 6 10 11 6 10 6 8 7 6 6 5 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 5 3 3.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 5 3 3.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 5 3 3.0 1 3 3 3 2 2.0 1 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 1 3 1 1.7 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 3 5 3 3.7 3 3 3 3 5 3 3.7 3 3 3 3 5 3 3.7 3 3 3 3 5 3 3.7 3 3 3 3 5 3 3.7 3 2. 3 1 5 4 3.3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 2 3 1 5 4 3.3 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 5 2 2.7 4 3 4 1 1' 3 1.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 2 3 1 5 4 3.3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2:0 3 2 3 1 5 4 3.3 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 5 2 4 3 4 1 1. 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 2 3 1 5 4 3.3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 2 3 5 4 3.3 1 3 3 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 5 2 2.7 4 3 4 1 1 3 1.7 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 1 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 3 1 3 1.7 2 2 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 FREQUENTLY REBUILT 5 FREQUENTLY REBUILT 5 FREQUENTLY REBUILT 5 FREQUENTLY REBUILT 5 FREQUENTLY REBUILT 1 NEEDS TEETH REPLACEMENT. SOME REFRACTORY 5 5 5 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR 5 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR 5 5 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR 5 5 5 5 5 5 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR 5 5 REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR 5 2 PARTS AVAILABLE PARTS AVAILABLE PARTS AVAILABLE PARTS AVAILABLE LOOSE SPARE UNIT BACKUP FOR A LOOSE SPARE UNIT BACKUP FOR FAN A LOOSE SPAIR UNIT BACKUP FOR FAN A $0.00 $72,936.95 $1,379.88 $51,166.54 $0.00 $87,209.30 $497.18 $122.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $248.64 $0.00 $198.56 $0.00 $234.08 $0.00 $0.00 $5,241.81 $0.00 $1,194.95 $0.00 $10,451.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,464.87 $0.00 $7,280.23 $0.00 $35,041.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,902.58 $0.00 $1,574.96 $0.00 $4,533.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $153,033.14 $10,316.59 $7,299.82 $26,366.96 $1,510.561 $274.98 $652.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,931.87 $2,474.67 $552.20 $677.81 $633.78 $207.62 $0.00 $0.00 $10,919.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,313.74 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,682.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $170,069.24 $3,918.10 $13,816.17 $22,012.85 $706.41 $0.00 $176.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,072.6y $237.29 $69.69 $125.46. $1,393.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,170.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,612.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,453.6811 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $115,963.54 $5,413.41 $10,482.21 $16,873.03 $492.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,412.18 $197.01 $793.52 $176.98 $353.69 $0.00 $0.00 $252.18 $1,008.31 $0.00 $184.13 $333.41 $912.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $125.96 $0.00 $125.96 $0.00 $486.47 $0.00 $0.00 $79.88 $870.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-SLD- FN-MTR BT BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5 BT -I NC-BLDG-FLI-INC5-BNR- FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-BNR- FN-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR BT -4BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR- BT Equip Number 61749 61440 E1584 Equip Type MOTOR INCIN FAN E1596 E1457 MTR BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-DR- VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC5-FN- AUX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-FN- AUX-MTR BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FLI -INC5-FN- MTR BT -I NC-BLDG-FLI-INC5-SLD- FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC5-SLD- FN-MTR E1452 E3406 E1543 MOTOR Overall Risk Asset Description Install Date Rank Condition INC BLDG FL1 INC 4 SLUDGE COMB 01 -Jan -94 6 2 FAN 4B MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 5 01 -Jan -69 10 2 INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 BURNER COMB 01 -Jan -94 11 2 FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR VFD INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 CENTERSHAFT VFD FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN E1543M MOTOR E1537M MOTOR E1736 FAN E1750 MOTOR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6 BT BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FLI -INC6-BN R - FN BT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-BNR- FN-MTR BT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-D R E1441 El 585 E1597 E1458 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR- E7524 MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-DR- E7156 VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN- E1544 AUX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN- E1544M AUX-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-FN- E1538M MTR BT BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-INC6-SLD- FN BT -I NC-BLDG-FLI -INC6-SLD- FN-MTR BT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM- HP1 E1738 E1751 E7275 INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB FAN 59 INC BLDG FL1 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB FAN 5B MOTOR INCIN INC BLDG FL1 INCINERATOR 6 FAN MOTOR DRVREDCE INC BLDG FL1 INC6 BURNER COMB FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 BURNER COMB FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT DRIVE MOTOR VFD FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 CENTERSHAFT VFD INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 STANDBY COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 COOLING AIR FAN MOTOR FAN INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB FAN 66 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB _ FAN 6B MOTOR PUMP INC BLDG FL1 SLUDGE CAKE PUMP SCHWING 7 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR- E2712 GASBURN 10A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR- 62713 GASBURN 11A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR- E1692 GASBURN 9A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR- I E1697 GASBURN 9B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-BNR- E1702 9C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR- E2917 10A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR- E2918 11A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR- 61693 9A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BNR- E1698 9B BT BT PT -I NC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-BN R - 9C BT -I NC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BN R - 10A INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 10 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER C GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 10 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER A GASBURN E1703 GASBURN E2911 GASBURN BT ]BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR- E2912 11A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR- 9A 61694 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR- E1699 9B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-BNR- E1704 9C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR- I E2913 10A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR- E2914 11A BT BT PT -I NC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BN R - 9A BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR- 9B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC5-BNR- 9C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR- 110A BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR- 11A BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BN R - 9A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR- 9B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC6-BNR- 9C BT BT GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER B INC BLDG FL2 INC 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER C INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 10 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER C GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 10 BURNER A GASBURN E1695 GASBURN E1700 GASBURN E1705 E2915 E2916 E1696 E1701 PT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BN R - 7A BT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BN R - 7B BT 1BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-BNR- 7C BT IBT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR- I I7A E1706 GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 11 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER A INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER B INC BLDG FL2 INC 5 HEARTH 9 BURNER C GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 10 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 11 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER B GASBURN E1677 GASBURN E1682 GASBURN E1687 GASBURN E1678 INC BLDG FL2 INC 6 HEARTH 9 BURNER C INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL INC BLDG FL3 INC 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 I BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL 01 -Jan -94 6 2 Reliability Capacity 3 Functionality 1 3 2 3 3 3 Financial 01 -Jan -69 10 2 1 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 01 -Jan -04 8 2 01 -Jan -94 7 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 Health & Safety 3 3 Social Impacts COF Rank Difficulty of (Average of COF Repair Ratings) 2 2.0 1 5 4 3 4 4 1 3i 2 Redundancy] POF Comments 3.3 3.7 3 01 -Jan -94 6 21 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 01 -Jan -94 5 2 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 01 -Jan -94 10 2 3 01 -Jan -94 11 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 1 2 01 -Jan -94 10 2 1 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 01 -Jan -04 8 2 3 01 -Jan -94 7 2 3 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 01 -Jan -94 5 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -90 10 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 7 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 5 2 3 4 1 1 3 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.7 1. 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 01 -Jan -941.. 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 01 -Jan -94 6 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 01 -Jan -94 7 3 01 -Jan -94 7 3 01 -Jan -94 7 3 01 -Jan -94 6 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 01 -Jan -94 7 3 01 -Jan -94 71 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 6 01 -Jan -94 7 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 7 3 2' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 5 4 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 2.0 2.0 1.7 5 2.9 5 3.3 3.7 2.0 3.3 3 4 3 5 2 2.0 2.7 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 1 1.71 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 2.3 5 5 3 3 3 2.3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 2.3 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 2.3'] 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 2.31 3 2.3 2.0 3 3 2.0 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 2.3 3 2.3 2.3 3 3 2.0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 1 4 2 2.0 2.3 2.3 3 3 3 2.31 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 4 2 2.0 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 2.3 2.3 3 2.31 3 2.31 INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR BACKUP FOR FAN A INCLUDES PINION, GEAR BOX, AND BULL GEAR REPLACE RATHER THAN REPAIR BACKUP FOR FAN A FOR SLUDGE RECEIVING BIN. OCCASIONAL USE TO RECEIVE SLUDGE FROM OTHER PLANTS INCLUDES BURNERS, VALVES AND CONTROLS. COF Comments LOOSE SPARE UNIT LOOSE SPARE UNIT SPARE PUMP AVAILABLE BUT NOT INSTALLED. NO SPARE HYDRAULIC PACK. Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 $137,227.731 $18,284.07 $110.75 $0.00 $0.00 Cost 2 years ago $0.00 $4,501.37 $11,430.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,357.47 $79.94/ $141.02 $1,097.97 $0.00 $0.00 $6,833.23 $0.00 $0.00 $952.74 $183.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,863.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $126,220.6 $10,773.26 $13,130.51 $580.59 $0.00 $16,073.24 $91.66 $0.00 $137.49 $411.01 $0.00 $4,456.05 $3,438.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,845.77 $0.00 $88.10 $426.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $524.35 $0.00, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,408.47 $0.00 $0.00 $1,833.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43.39 $0.00 $43.39 $4,616.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $167,945.35 $0.00 $2,129.90 $0.00 $6,431.97 $909.69 $88.10 $295.22 $717.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,708.73 $264.66 $91.66 $173.00 $1,349.66 $682.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $273.65 $2,228.79 $110.13! $1,596.4 $1,138.05 $422.04 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $108.08 $0.05 $0.00 $617.09 $91.66 $88.10 $461.84 $91.66 $0.00 $666.99 $91.66 $88.10 1,878.8° $0.00 $133.91 $466.77 $0.001 $0.00 $1,232.66 $148.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $99.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $239.33 $3,526.20 $0.00 $1,109.04 $2,054.87 $0.05 $71.04 $0.00 $873.84 $0.00 $908.71 $297.01 $44.051 $0.00 $97.91 $84.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,924.7. $114.58 $44.05 $0.00 $0.00 $773.14 $2,344.61 $1,400.14 $43.39 $2,020.32 $2,020.32 $0.00 $0.00 $106.13 $972.88 $22.92 $348.07 $3,370.2. $2,125.03 $870.97 $168.54 $0.00 $0.00 $2,949.04 $1,985.63 $131.49 $5,616.73 $1,050.36 $224.69 $3,725.02 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR- E1683 7B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-BNR- E1688 7C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR- E1679 7A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR- E1684 76 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-BNR- E1689 7C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR- E1680 7A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR- E1685 7B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC5-BNR- E1690 7C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR- E1681 7A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR- E1686 76 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC6-BNR- E1691 7C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR- E1652 3A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR- E1657 3B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR- E1662 5A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR- E1667 56 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-BNR- E1672 5C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-SCBR E1300 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC2- E1295 SCBR1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR- E1653 3A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR- E1658 3B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR- E1663 5A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR- E1668 56 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-BNR- E1673 5C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-SCBR E1301 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC3- E1296 SCBR1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR- E1654 3A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR- E1659 38 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR- E1664 5A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR- E1669 5B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-BNR- E1674 5C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-SCBR E1302 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC4- E1297 SCBR1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR- E1655 3A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR- E1660 3B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR- E1665 5A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR- E1670 5B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-BNR- E1675 5C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-SCBR E1303 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5- E1298 SCBR1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR- E1656 3A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR- E1661 3B BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR- E1666 5A BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR- E1671 58 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-BNR- E1676 5C BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6-SCBR E1304 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC6- E1299 SCBR1 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-ASH- E1246 CU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-ASH- E7668 CU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-ASH- E1247 CU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC5-ASH- E1248 CU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-ASH- E33687 CU BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-FN E1280 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC6-FN- E1331 MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FN E1276 FAN Equip Type I Asset Description GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 5 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER A (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER B (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL3 INC 6 HEARTH 7 BURNER C (GROUND LEVEL GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER C SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 VENTURI SCRUBBER GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER C SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 VENTURI SCRUBBER GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER C SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 VENTURI SCRUBBER GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 3 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 3 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 HEARTH 5 BURNER C SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 VENTURI SCRUBBER GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 3 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 3 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER A GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER B GASBURN INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 HEARTH 5 BURNER C SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER SCRUBBER INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 VENTURI SCRUBBER CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 2 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 3 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 4 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 5 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 FLUE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR FAN INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 ID FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL5 INC 6 ID FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 ID FAN Install Date 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 O1 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 O1 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 O1 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality 3 3 3 Financial 3 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 7 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 7 3 3 7 3 3 7 3 3 7 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 11 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 11 2 1 3 3 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 11 2 1 3 3 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 Health 8 Safety Social Impacts 4 4 Difficulty of Repair 2 2 2 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 1 4 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 3 3 1i 4 3 3 3 1 4 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 5 5 2 3 2 3 1 4 3 1 4 2 2 3 1 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 5 3 5 4 4 3 1 4 3 1! 4 3 1 4 3 3 5 3 1 5 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 1 9 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 11 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 4 4 4 3 1i 4 3 3 5 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 1 1 3 3 01 -Jan -94 10 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 01 -Jan -06 9 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 5 5 4 01 -Jan -94 10 3 2 3 3 3 3 5 4 2.3 2.3 Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Cost 2 years Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost ago $4,911.75 $829.91 $305.71 $783.95 $3,990.12 $1,985.85 $259.12 $125.46 2.3 3 $4,184.36 $183.32 $829.00 $146.37 2.3 3 $1,619.47 $690.48 $534.62 $42.45 2.3 3 $3,023.69 $0.00 $44.05 $83.64 2.3 3 $5,955.76 $3,782.54 $43.39 $42.45 2.3 3 $3,346.56 $636.52 $198.23 $689.90 2.3 3 $4,151.00 $1,944.46 $0.00 $0.00 2.3 $6,511.91 $1,938.11 $1,295.07 $411.73. 2.3 $6,675.23 $1,927.76 $92.06 $1,170.75 2.3 3 $4,532.58 $373.57 $886.36 $0.00 2.3 3 APPLIES BURNERS, VALVE AND RAINS, CONTROLS $3,598.26 $283.22 $301.85 $868.28. 2.3 3 $5,588.25 $3,319.35 $169.80 $0.00 2.3 3 $3,372.01 $307.61 $269.03 $299.23 2.3 3 $2,503.86 $179.76 $84.90 $983.31 2.3 3 $2,747.03 $2,223.19 $446.83 $42.45 3.7 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.7 5 SCRUBBER AND DAMPER. ALSO ACTUATOR. 3 $20,128.24 $91.66 $301.65 $12,548.76 ACTUATORS REPLACED. 1 SPARE DAMPER 2.3 3 $12,080.80 $699.58 $5,253.45 $883.71 2.3 3 $1,956.75 $1,160.27 $216.95 $0.00 2.3 3 $1,531.92 $91.66 $501.42 $292.74 2.3 3 $2,927.19 $183.32 $84.90 $0.00 2.3 3 $7,881.66 $5,527.16 $129.66 $83.64 3.7 5 $2,317.64 $0.00 $1,292.51 $0.00 2.7 $9,131.75 $559.19 $5,841.04 $0.00 2.3 3 $7,483.06 $0.00 $2,734.45 $547.98 2.3 3 $1,792.60 $458.30 $218.93 $188.82 2.3 3 $7,412.79 $0.00 $730.92 $239.86 2.3 3 $2,563.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.3 3 $4,746.37 $193.22 $0.00 $0.00 3.7 $9,559.82 $0.00 $0.00 $212.25 2.7 $27,946.92 ($452.63) $14,947.37 $3,038.02 2.3 3 $4,455.13 $1,928.52 $0.00 $966.39 2.3 3 $3,242.93 $806.19 $872.34 $179.83 2.3 3 $4,359.15 $1,618.98 $44.05 $106.93 2.3 3 $5,719.31 $1,602.96 $0.00 $0.00 2.3 3 $3,792.01 $489.48 $780.25 $127.35 3.0 5 $10,659.88 $399.70 $0.00 $199.70 2.7 $27,424.13 $871.47 $14,934.37 $7,896.00 2.3 3 $9,398.46 $796.96 $1,191.54 $119.73 2.3 3 $5,896.47 $2,505.85 $0.00 $0.00 2.3 3 $4,169.32 $412.48 $0.00 $0.00 2.3 3 $1,031.18 $137.49 $358.35 $0.00 2.3 3 $965.59 $474.78 $409.95 $0.00 3.7 $5,071.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.7 5 $37,570.10 $4,916.87 $10,368.11 $0.00 1.7 $4,304.23 $229.15 $985.63 $159.76 1.7 $632.29 $0.00 $210.35 $179.73 1.7 $1,293.32 $0.00 $210.35 $179.73 1.7 5 $1,991.67 $716.88 $256.38 $421.20 1.7 5 $6,340.44 $2,729.30 $533.70 $641.21 3.3 5 $15,281.45 $183.32 $3,427.80 $633.35 3.0 5 $8,988.23 $0.00 $0.00 $466.23 3.3 5 INCLUDES INLET AND DISCHARGE DAMPER. SPARE DISCHARE DAMPER AVAILABLE. $38,724.53 $12,797.27 $1,381.92 $10,273.46 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plan U _ Location BT BTINC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FN- MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description E1327 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 ID FAN MOTOR E1345 HEATEX BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLB-INC2-HE- E1367 SBV1-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-HE- E1368 SBV2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2- SCBR2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-SLD- E1771 CAF-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FN E1277 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FN- E1328 MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE E1346 MOTOR MOTOR E2846 SCRUBBER MOTOR FAN MOTOR NC BLDG FL6 INC 2 HEAT EXCHANGER INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SOOT BLOWER MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 PRECOOLER INC BLDG FL6 INC 2 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 2A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 ID FAN INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 ID FAN MOTOR Install Date 01 -Jan -06 Overall Risk Rank Condition 9 2 01 -Jan -94 7 2 Reliability Capacity 3 3 Functionality 3 3 3 Financial 3 01 -Jan -94. 8 4 3 3 3 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 3 1 3 3 01 -Jan -94 10 2 2 3 3 31 3 01 -Jan -94 6 2 2 3 1 3 31 01 -Jan -94 10 3 _ 2 3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -06 9 2 2 3 3 3 3 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 4 Health 8 Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 3.0 5 2.3 4 2.0 Redundancy POF Comments 5 ALL REPLACED OR REBUILT 3 2 5 2.0 5 4 3.3 3 2 5 5 20 5 4 3 3.0 3.3 5 COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts $14,569.50 $3,376.56 $72.24 Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cost 2 years ago $7,449.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,852.88 $27,919.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $452.21 $875.90 $0.00 $1,194.00 $21,401.45 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE- SBV1-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-HE- SBV2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3- SCBR2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-SLD- CAF-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FN BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FN- MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE HEATEX E1369 MOTOR E1370 MOTOR E2847 E1772 SCRUBBER MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 HEAT EXCHANGER INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 PRECOOLER INC BLDG FL6 INC 3 SLUDGE COMB. AIR FAN 3A MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94. 01 -Jan -94 7 2 8 4 3 3 6 2 2 3 8 2 2 3 6 2 E1278 FAN INC BLDG FL6 INC 41D FAN 01 -Jan -94 9 3 E1329 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 ID FAN MOTOR 01 -Jan -06 9 2 E1347 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE- E1371 SBV1-MTR_ BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-HE- E1372 SBV2-MTR --- BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- E2848 SCBR2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-SLD- E1773 CAF-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-FN E1279 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-FN- E1330 MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE- SBV1-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-HE- SBV2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5- SCBR2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC5-SLD- CAF-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 HEAT 01 -Jan -94 7 2 _ EXCHANGER MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER A 01 -Jan -94 8 MOTOR MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SOOT BLOWER B 01 -Jan -94, 6 MOTOR SCRUBBER 01 -Jan -94. 10 MOTOR 01 -Jan -94. FAN MOTOR E1348 HEATEX E1373 MOTOR E1374 MOTOR E2849 SCRUBBER E1774 MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 PRECOOLER INC BLDG FL6 INC 4 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 4A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 ID FAN INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 ID FAN MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 HEAT EXCHANGER INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 PRECOOLER INC BLDG FL6 INC 5 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 5A MOTOR E1349 HEATEX INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 HEAT BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE- SBV1-MTR E1375 MOTOR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-HE- SBV2-MTR BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6- SCBR2 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC6-SLD- CAF-MTR BT BT-SUB3-INC2-FN-VFD BT BT-SUB3-INC3-FN-VFD BT BT-SUB3-INC4-FN-VFD_ BT BT-SUB3-INC5-FN-VFD BT BT-SUB3-INC6-FN-VFD BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1 BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1- CCNTR BT BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C1- DR BT-TH K -B LD G-FL3-SCC-C 1- DR-MTR E1376 E2850 E1775 MOTOR MOTOR SCRUBBER EXCHANGER INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER A MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SOOT BLOWER B MOTOR INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 PRECOOLER INC BLDG FL6 INC 6 SLUDGE COMB AIR FAN 6A MOTOR 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -O6 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 4 3 1 1 5 2.3 1 4 2.0 1 3 2 2.0 3 1 5 2 27 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 3 3 1 5 5 3 3 3.0 3.0 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 2,3 5 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 2.0 1 3 3 2 2,0 3 6 2 2 3 10 3 2 3 9 2 2 3 7 8 6 8 6 7 2 3 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 31 3 1 3 1 3 01 -Jan -94. 8 4 3 3 01 -Jan -94.. 6 2 01 -Jan -94 8 2 01 -Jan -94 6 2 E1333 VFD SUB STATION 3 INC 21D FAN VFD 01 -Jan -07 E1334 VFD SUB STATION 3 INC 3 I FAN VFD 01 -Jan -07 E1335 VFD SUB STATION 3 INC 41D FAN VFD 31 -Jul -07 E1336 VFD SUB STATION 3 INC 51D FAN VFD 01 -Jan -07 E1337 VFD SUB STATION 3 INC 6 ID FAN VFD 01 -Jan -07 E6387 COLECTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM 01 -Jan -95. CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR I E6388 COLECTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM 01 -Jan -95'. E33827 DRVREDCE E33828 MOTOR BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2 E6390 SCUMSKIM BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2- E6389 SCUMSKIM CCNTR BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2- E33830 DRVREDCE BT DR BT-TH K-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2- DR-MTR E33829 MOTOR BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL3-SCC-C2- E35823 DRVREDCE SKM-DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL- E2035 PUMP UNLD-P1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI-SHP-POL- E5814 MOTOR UNLD-PI-MTR BT BT BT BT BT 'BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI-SHP-POL- E2036 UNLD-P2 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL- E5816 UNLD-P2-MTR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL- E2037 UNLD-P3 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SHP-POL- E5818 UNLD-P3-MTR BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD-B 5V0072 BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- E1996 WW1-GRD1 PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR TANK GRINDER CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 1 THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 1 DRIVE THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 1 MOTOR THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 2 THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATOR COLLECTOR 2 THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 2 DRIVE THK BLDG FL3 SCUM CONCENTRATORS COLLECTOR 2 MOTOR SCUM CONCENTRATOR SKIMMING DRIVE POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #1 POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #1 MOTOR POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #2 POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #2 MOTOR POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #3 POLYMER UNLOADING PUMP #3 MOTOR SLUDGE RECEIVING BIN SLUDGE WET WELL 1 GRINDER 1 (MUFFIN MONSTER) 01 -Jan -95 2 3 2 3 2 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 8 1 1 3 6 2 2 3 6 2 2 3 6 2 2 01 -Jan -95, 6 2 2 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 01 -Jan -95 6 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 5 4 3 5 3.3 5 2.0 3.3 3.0 1 4 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 5 2.3 4 2.0 2 2 2 5 2.0 2.7 5 2.0 5 2.3 5 3 4 3 3 1 1 4 2.0 3 3 1 3 2 2.0 2 2.7 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 5 2 1 1 4 3 1 4 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.0 1 5 5 5 5 ALL REPLACED EXCEPT NO. 5 UNIT. 5 5 5 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2 3 3 3 4 20 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2,0 2 2 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 01 -Jan -95 2 01 -Jan -01 01 -Jan -9 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 1.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 1.7 5 3 DRIVES, 9? SCREWS, WELDING REPAIRS 1.3 2 2 2 BP -9. NO CUTTER TEETH $1,336.1 0.00 $0.001 $431.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0( $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 500.00 $15,052.93 $84.9( $0.00 $487.80 $2,809.1: $0.00 $353.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $660.43 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $145.9: $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.0( $49,328.8 $1,580.93 $3,712.42 $5,333.8( $34,013.8 $0.00 $130.17 $21,595.3: 821.7 $45.83 $0.00 $197.7 $0.0( $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.54 $0.00 $0.00 $161.72 $0.0( $0.oc $0.00 $0.00 $3,245.2 $1,048.25 $220.25 $339.60 $0.00 $0.00 $497.28 $0.00 $497.28 $694.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0( $0.0C $339.6( $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0( , 6. r, $0.00 $28,254.81 $0.00 $50$28,06566.927 ($41.78) $48,140.01 $20.91 $10,547.21 $0.00 $10,112.37 $292.74 $21,455.43 $0.00 $20,405.17 $0.00 $44,633.15 ($102.50) $40,665.55 $2,568.60 $106,652.1 $19,471.40 $5,371.88 $5,744.45 $46,951.4. $0.00 $1,428.87 $9,721.3. $0.00. $124.32 $736.8: $7,056.1 $5,174.2 $155.9' $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $53.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI-SLO- W W 1-GRD2 E1997 GRINDER SLUDGE WET WELL 1 GRINDER 2 01 -Jan -95 1.3 BP -9. NO CUTTER TEETH $23,352.6 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant _ Location BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- W W2-GRD1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SLD- W W2-GRD2 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P1 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P1- MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P2 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI-SRW-P2- MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FLI-SRW-P3 Equip Number E7518 E2000 E3311 E4526 E3312 E6394 E3313 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P3- E6398 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P4 E6404 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P4- E6405 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P5 E3314 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL1-SRW-P5- E6407 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPA E5876 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1- E5875 BPC-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1- E5873 BPD-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPE E5874 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-BPF- E5872 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1 E7520 1 -DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT1-CU1 E1409 2 -DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2- E6169 BPG-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPI- E5878 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPJ- E5880 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPK E5877 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-BPL- E5879 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU3 E1410 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT2-CU5 E1412 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E5885 BPM-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E5884 BPO-MXL _ BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-BPP E5882 MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E5883 BPQ-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3- E5881 BPR-MXL BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1 E1411 4 -DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-BAT3-CU1 E1413 6 -DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1- E1387 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T1-CU2-1- E7669 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2- E1388 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T2-CU2-2- E6810 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3- E7521 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T3-CU2-3- E6806 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4- E1389 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T4-CU2-4- E6801 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5- E1390 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T5-CU2-5- E6797 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6- E1391 DR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-FL2-T6-CU2-6- E6705 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P1 E4741 Equip Type GRINDER GRINDER PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP 1 MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR MIXER MIXER MIXER MIXER MIXER Asset Description SLUDGE WET WELL 2 GRINDER 1 SLUDGE WET WELL 2 GRINDER 2 POF Rating Overall Risk (Max of each Install Date Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF) 01 -Jan -95i 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 01 -Jan -95 74 2 2 2 2 3 3 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #1 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #1 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #2 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #2 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #3 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #3 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #4 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #4 MOTOR HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP #5 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 5 MOTOR BELT FILTER PRESS A INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2' 2 3 3 2 3 Health 8 Safety Social Difficulty of Impacts Repair 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 BELT FILTER PRESS C INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -9 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratinasl 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Redundancy, POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Cost 2 years Last Year Cost ago 1,3 1.3 2 2 2 1 BELT FILTER PRESS D INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 BELT FILTER PRESS E INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 BELT FILTER PRESS F INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -9 5 2 1 3 2 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE DRVREDCE MIXER MIXER MIXER MIXER 1 3 1 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. USE FOR PUMPS, ASH. CONSTANT SPEED PUMP 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $34,843.07 $380.00 $111,128.63 $9,702.56 $34,213.48 $2,817.91 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CONSTANT SPEED PUMP 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. VARIABLE SPEED PUMP 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $416.301 $0.00 2 CONSTANT SPEED PUMP 1.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $17,321.81 $1,599.50 $49,393.64 $162.61 $15,922.86 $4,000.28 1.3 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0i $64,802.54 ($685.11) 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $299.15 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $0.00 $0.00 $62.05 $0.00 $4,855.47 $24,553.21 $8,478.85 $0.00 $975.74 $3,910.70 $0,00 $0.00 $244.65 $12,282.1 $0.00 $0.00 $178.40 $0.00 $754.32 $10,731.27 $83.64 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,897.57 $321.44 $1,576.24 $0.00 $128.95 $11,682.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 1-2 DRIVE BELT FILTER PRESS C INLINE MIXER 1 1 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 $0.00 $0.00 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 1.3 $9,396.07 $0.00 $1,803.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $374.43 1.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 BELT FILTER PRESS I INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1.0 BELT FILTER PRESS J INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 BELT FILTER PRESS K INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS L INLINE MIXER. 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 5 DRIVE MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS M INLINE MIXER MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS 0 INLINE MIXER MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS P INLINE MIXER MIXER BELT FILTER PRESS Q INLINE MIXER MIXER 01 -Jan -95. 2 1 3 3 1 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 2 2 3 BELT FILTER PRESS R INLINE MIXER 01 -Jan -95 2 1I 3 2 2 3 DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE (CK-CU1-4) DRVREDCE UNLOADING BELT CONVEYOR 6 DRIVE (CK-CUI-6L DRVREDCE FEED CONVEYOR #1 DRIVE 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 1 2 1.0 $2,425.68 $305.28 $856.20 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $223.38 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 1 1 1 1 1 $1,669.71 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $6,975.53 1.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. 1.0 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 2 1.3 01 -Jan -95. 2 1, 3 3 2 3 1 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 .3 MOTOR FEED CONVEYOR #1 CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 2 FEED 1 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 01 -Jan -95 2 3 3 2 3 CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE 1 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 5 1.3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 31 2 MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 3 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 4 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 5 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR DRIVE MOTOR DWR-BLDG-FL2 EQ BIN 6 FEED CONVEYOR MOTOR PUMP DWR BLDG MEZ SLUDGE LANDING SLUDGE PUMP I MOTOR 1 2 1.3 3 1 2 1.3 01 -Jan -95 2 3 3 2 3 1 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 3 3 2 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2. 3 01 -Jan -95 2 1 3 3 2'1. 3 01 -Jan -95 2 2 2 2 2 2 BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P1- 1E4742 MTR BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P2 E4744 PUMP BT BT-DWR-BLDG-MEZ-SLD-P2- E4745 MOTOR MTR --- -- --- - - BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-CU-G E4261 CONVEYOR BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-CU-H E4265 DWR BLDG SLUDGE LANDING SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR DWR BLDG MEZ SLUDGE LANDING. SLUDGE PUMP 2 SLUDGE DISPOSAL SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 MOTOR GRIT REMOVAL EAST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR G _ CONVEYOR GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR H 1 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 $399.70 $958.00 $0.00 $0.00 $416.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $247.07 $0.00 $0.00 $399.70 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $878.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $119.06 $350.10 $0.00 $3,301.72 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $5,698.41 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $2,896.50 $118.52 $2,401.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.16 $0.00 $1,133.64 $0.00, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $2,218.02 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 $0.00 $0.00 $3,446.32 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 2 1.3 1.3 2 1.3 4 2,0 01 -Jan -95 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 2.0 01 -Jan -95 21 2 2 2 2 2 01 -Jan -95 2 2 2 2 2 2 BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM1-CU-G- E4262 MOTOR DR-MTR BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM2-CU-H- E4266 DR 01 -Jan -76 2 2 3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -76 2 2 3 3 3 3 GRIT REMOVAL EAST HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR G MOTOR DRVREDCE GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL (CONVEYOR H DRIVE REDU 01 -Jan -76 2 2 3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -76 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 2.0 4 2.0 1.3 2 1.3 1 1,3 1 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $0.00 $2,735.47 $0.00 $2,992.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $130.17 $86.99 $0.00 $0.00 DIFFICULT TO WORK ON PUMPS DUE TO SPACE $43,829.21 CONSTRAINTS $0.00 $15,969.65 $3,307.5 $0.00 $0.00 $45,356.09 $171.91 $6,682.35 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -9 $1,090.63 $44.05 $968.66 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. SERVES GRIT TANKS 5 AND 6. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. SERVES GRIT TANK 4 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. $22,803.82 $1,041.83 $1,857.35 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $305.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $167.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,173.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,258.99 $33,514.06 $1,930.95 $3,058.17 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 $1,963.65 $4,490.21 $197.01 $299.22 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago BT BT-GRT-BLDG-FL3-RM2-CU-H- E5341 MOTOR GRIT REMOVAL WEST HORIZONTAL 01 -Jan -76 DR-MTR CONVEYOR H MOTOR BT BT-GRT-T1-CU E4375 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT BT BT-GRT-T2-CU E4419 CONVEYOR GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM- E7269 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS BIN UNLOADING CU SCREWS BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-SLD-RM- E7273 01 -Jan -94 CU1 BT 01 -Jan -94 BT 01 -Jan -94 BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM- CU1-DR BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM- DR BT-INC-BLDG-FL1-SLD-RM- DR-MTR1 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS CHUTE CONVEYOR SCREWS E7274 INC BLDG FL1 SCUS CHUTE CONVEYOR SCREW DRIVE E7270 INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVES E7271 INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVE MOTOR1 DRVREDCE DRVREDCE MOTOR 01-Jan-06� 01 -Jan -07. 01 -Jan -94 BT 01 -Jan -94 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FLI-SLD-RM- E38865 01 -Jan -94 DR-MTR2 BT E38866 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING 01 -Jan -94 DRIVE MOTOR3 BT E7264 TANK INC BLDG FL3 SCUS LIVE BOTTOM BIN 01 -Jan -94 BUNKER BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SRW-P3- E6402 VFD VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SRW-P5- E6739 VFD BT BT-INC-BLDG-F L 1-SLD-RM- DR-MTR3 BT-INC-BLDG-FL3-SLD-T BT BT BT -I NC-BLDG-FL4-INC2-ASH- FD BT -I NC-BLDG-FL4-INC3-ASH- FD BT -I NC-BLDG-FL4-INC4-ASH- FD E1250 E1251 E1252 BT BT-INC-BLDG-FL4-INC5-ASH- E1253 FD BT E1249 CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 6 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER BT E6565 PUMP PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #1A BT E4590 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMING PUMP #1A MOTOR BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P3 E6564 PUMP PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #3 BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P3-MTR E6573 HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 3 VFD VFD HIGH PRESSURE SERVICE WATER PUMP 5 VFD CONVEYOR CONVEYOR CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 2 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER INC BLDG FL4 INC 3 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER INC BLDG FL4 INC 4 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER CONVEYOR INC BLDG FL4 INC 5 FLUE ASH ROTARY FEEDER MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #3 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #5 BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P5 E6566 PUMP BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P5-MTR E6574 BT BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P7 BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P7-MTR E6567 E6575 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #5 MOTOR PUMP PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #7 MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #7 MOTOR BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P8A E6568 PUMP BT BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P8A- E7512 MOTOR MTR BT BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1 BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1-MTR E4530 E4529 PUMP MOTOR PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #8A PRIMARY SKIMMINGS PUMP #8A MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC 30 -Jan -03 14 -Jun -02 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 41. 2 1.3 2 1.3 3 1.7 3 1.7 3 3 3 3 3 1.7 5 1.7 5 1.7 5 3 1.7 3 1.7 3 1.7 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 2 2 5 2 2 1.3 5 1.3 5 1.3 5 2 1.3 5 2 1.3 5 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 5 5 TORQUE SWITCH INSTALLED BOLT IS STUCK AND CANNOT GET IT OUT OPERATES TANK 1 5 OPERATES 2 AND 3 2 1.3 5 OPERATES 4 AND 5 2 2 2 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 5 5 OPERATES 6 AND 7 2 1.3 5 OPERATES TANK 8 2 1.3 5 2 2 1.3 3 SEAL WATER PIPING BACK FLOW PREVENTOR IS RUSTED AND NEEDS REPAIR 1.3 3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P1-VFD E7538 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1 VFD 28 -Aug -01 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1.3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2 E7499 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1.3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2-MTR E4564 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR, 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 ELECTRIC BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P2-VFD E6100 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2 VFD 28 -Jun -01- 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3 E4533 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #3 01 -Jan -09- 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3-MTR E6555 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #3 MOTOR, 01 -Jan -09- 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 ELECTRIC BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P3-VFD E6101 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #3 VFD 01 -Feb -01 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4 E4567 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #4 01 -Jan -09- 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4-MTR E4565 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #4 MOTOR, 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1.3 3 33 3 1.3 3 1.3 3 1.3 3 ELECTRIC BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P4-VFD E6102 VlL) PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #4 VFD 18 -Jan -01 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5 E4534 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #5 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5-MTR E4531 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #5 MOTOR, 01 -Jan -09- 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 ELECTRIC BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P5-VFD E6103 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #5 VFD 20 -Mar -02 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1.3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P6 E4568 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #6 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1.3 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P6-MTR E6556 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #6 MOTOR, 01 -Jan -09 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 BT BT BT BT-PRI-I N F-TNL-SLD-P6-VFD BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7 BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7-MTR E6104 E4535 E4532 ELECTRIC VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #6 VFD PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #7 MOTOR PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #7 MOTOR, ELECTRIC 02 -Apr -02 2 2 01 -Jan -09 2 2 01 -Jan -09 2 2 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P7-VFD E6106 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #7 VFD 02 -Apr -02 2 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P8 E4569 PUMP PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #8 01 -Jan -09 2 BT BT-PRI-INF-TNL-SLD-P8-MTR E4566 MOTOR 01 -Jan -09 2 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #8 MOTOR, ELECTRIC BT E6122 VFD PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #8 VFD 02 -Apr -02 2 BT E33386 PUMP WAREHOUSE BLDG FL1 PRIMARY 01 -Jan -09- 1 SPARE PUMP BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1 E1993 PUMP THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 01 -Jan -95 2 BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1- E4507 DRVREDCE 01 -Jan -95- 2 DR BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P1- E4506 01 -Jan -95 2 MTR BT-TH K-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P 1- VFD BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2 BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2- DR BT BT BT BT-PRI-I N F-TNL-SLD-P8-VFD BT-SRM-BLDG-FL 1-PRI-P E6524 E1994 E4515 BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2- E4514 MTR BT BT-THK-BLDG-FL2-SCC-P2- E6526 VFD VFD CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT- E40016 GRINDER RM-GRD1 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSF-GRT- E40017 GRINDER RM-GRD2 CT CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-PLC E17231 PLC CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1 E16088 THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 DRIVE MOTOR THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 MOTOR VFD THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 1 VFD PUMP THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 DRVREDCE THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 DRIVE MOTOR THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 MOTOR THK BLDG FL2 SCUM PUMP 2 VFD CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 FINE BSCRN COLLECTION RM GRI RAS BLDG FL2 PLC PUMP WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #1 ,4 IN 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 33 3 1.3 3 1.3 3 1.3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 3 1 2 1.3 3 3 1 2 1.3 3 3 1 2 1.3 5 NEW CONSTRUCTION 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 1.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 1.3 5 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 1.3 5 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2' 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 5 1 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 1.3 2 1.3 4 3.0 4 3.0 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 5 5 01 -Jan -08 1 4 3 3 4 1 4 5 3.3 01 -Jan -88 5 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 5 5 2 2 New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow. New Construction. Grinder fails often due to plugging causing spilling and overflow. NEW CONSTRUCTION 2 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: BP -15 NO BACK UP AVAILABLE $355.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71,120.46 $171,314.71 $5,915.39 $12,734.37 $2,901.26 $0.00 $2,709.69 $17,959.81 $351.71 $6,593.70 $27,183.88 $429.85 $15,988.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $169.80 $10,455.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,908.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19,799.00 $0.00 $521.20 $0.00 $5,598.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,042.89 $0.00 $45.83 $45.83 $941.91 $0.00 $1,188.091 $634.81 $732.20 $0.00 $189.32 $189.32 $189.32 $440.48 $179.73 $179.73 $870.19 $0.00 $189.32 $179.73 $814.22 $4,238.95 $35.52 $0.00 $601.42 $0.00 $189.32 $527.28 $0.00 $179.73 $993.25 $0.00 $25,468.681 $1,839.61 $5,117.69 $1,413.76 $840.49 $0.00 $0.00 $148.58 $27,052.57 $1,459.35 $6,942.31 $4,100.14 $340.92 $32,199.61 $588.82 $0.00 $11,263.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,615.68 $5,845.75 $588.82 $0.00 $17,067.96; $4,977.30 $6,105.13 $2,434.85 $2,033.29' $45.83 $349.15 $0.00 $17,236.98' $45.83 $353.541 $0.00 $15,907.63. $20,802.13!_ $108.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,768.72 $0.00 $9,068.18 $2,339.92 $560.84 $137.49 $9,333.721 $0.00 $20,608.191 $1,901.39 $1,958.99' $0.00 $9,512.79 $0.00 $14,325.65 $777.36 $328.31 $0.00 $14,273.311 $0.00 $11,059.42 $592.20 $380.74 $0.00 $10,240.011 $0.00 $20,207.86 $4,646.01 $8,268.81 $7,969.65 $2,865.10 $6,419.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,779.87 $0.00 $0.00 $3,399.84 $151.40 $0.00 $2,829.76 $1,887.95 $0.00 $4,379.31 $0.00 $0.00 $929.93 $0.00 $0.00 $3,327.88 $0.00 $10,510.271,._ $0.00 $0.00 $16,507.611 $2,282.09 $2,671.43 $1,377.081 $0.00 $0.00 $6,740.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,548.57 $0.00 $0.00 $627.95 $0.00 $0.00 $1,856.93 $0.00 $0.00 $199.70 $0.00 $501.67 $1,215.11 $0.00 $127.35 $199.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.001 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $33,605.0 $1,018.69 $7,065.79 $2,587.91 $1,067.501- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,625.281 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $226.341 $0.00 $18,996.32 $935.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,859.78 $0.00 $0.00 $6,597.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $169.80 $0.00 $0.00 $169.80 $394.02 $394.02 $175.12 $175.12 $10,196.52 $12,826.61 $0.00 $350.24 $165.76 $1,808.13 $1,705.34 $1,968.18 10/16/2009 MOTOR INC BLDG FL1 SCUS LBB UNLOADING DRIVE MOTOR2 BT -I NC-BLDG-FL4-I NC6-ASH- FD BT-PRI-EFF-TN L-SKM-P1 A BT-PRI-EFF-TNL-SKM-P1A- MTR Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location CT CT-AER BLDG-FL1-WAS-P1- MTR CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2 CT CT-AER-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2- MTR CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-CR-P2B-E CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FM CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-PIA CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P1B CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FLI-SLD-P2A CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2A- MTR CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P2B ,CT ICT-DIG-BLDG-FLISLD-P2B- MTR Equip Number Equip Type E16090 MOTOR E16094 E16096 E16280 PUMP MOTOR ELECTRIC E40380 INSTRMNT E16290 PUMP E16294 E16292 PUMP PUMP E16299 MOTOR E15713 PUMP E15716 MOTOR CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3A E16293 PUMP CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FLI-SLD-P3A- MTR E15712 MOTOR CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FLI-SLD-P38 CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-P3B- MTR_ CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-SLD-PSI- TRN CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-THK-P2 E16295 PUMP E16840 MOTOR E40381 E15615 CT CT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-THK-P2- E15619 MTR CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR- E16363 BSR1 PICT CT-HW-BLDG-FL2-BSC-SCR BSR2 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSF1 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSR1 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSR2 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSR3 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- BSR4 CT CT-HW-BLDG-FL3-BSF-SCR- CU CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-INF-BSF-BSF1 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P1 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-PI-MTR CT CT-PRISLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P2 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P2-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P3 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P3-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P4 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SCC-P4-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FLt- INSTRMNT PUMP MOTOR BARSCRN E16365 Asset Description WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #1 MOTOR WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #2 , 6 IN WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE PUMP #2I3 SOFT START FLOW METER, BISSELL POINT FORCEMAIN DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #1 DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #1 DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #2 Overall Risk Install Date Rank 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #2 MOTOR, DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP#2 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -89 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -89 01 -Jan -89 01 -Jan -88 DIGESTED SLUDGE PUMP #2B MOTOR 01 -Jan -88. DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #3 01 -Jan -89 DIGESTED SLUDGE A PUMP #3 MOTOR DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP #3 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -88, DIGESTED SLUDGE B PUMP#3 MOTOR PRESSURE TRANSMITTER, BISSELL POINT FORCEMAIN THICKENED SLUDGE PUMP #2 (3A) [OLD LOCATION) THICKENED SLUDGE PUMP #2 MOTOR (3A) [OLD LOCATION] CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE BARSCREEN BOSKER I 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -89 01 -Jan -08.. 01 -Jan -08 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FL2 COARSE 01 -Jan -08 E40147 BARSCREEN BOSKER2 BARSCRN CT HEADWORKS BLDG FINE BARSCREEN #1 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 1 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 2 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 3 BARSCRN CT HW BLDG FL3 FINE BARSCRN CLEANER 4 CONVEYOR SLUICING TROUGH E16386 E16388 E16389 E16391 E40136 E32908 E32913 E32903 E38785 E38793 E38786 01 -Jan -08 BARSCRN BARSCRN BARSCRN PUMP MOTOR PUMP E38794 MOTOR E38787 PUMP E38795 E38788 E38796 SLD-P1 E38806 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P1-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P2 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P2-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P3 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P3-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- SLD-P4 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL1- OLD-P4-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FLt- SLD-P5 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEPI-CU1 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP E38810 MOTOR E38807 E38811 PUMP MOTOR E38808 E38812 E38809 E38813 E38889 E16760 GRT-SEP1-CUI-MTR E16777 CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP1-WA E38836 PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP 01 -Jan -08'. 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08. 01 -Jan -08 FINE SCREEN # 3 FINE SCREEN # 4 FINE SCREEN # 2 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP1 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP1 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP2 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP2 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP3 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG. FL1 SCUM PMP3 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP4 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SCUM PMP4 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP1 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP1 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP2 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP2 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP3 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 SLUDGE PMP3 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 01-Jan-081SLUDGE PMP4 PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 01 -Jan -081 SLUDGE PMP4 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PMP BLDG FL1 01 -Jan -08. SLUDGE PMP5 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT 01 -Jan -08, SEP1 CONVEYOR 1 MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT 01 -Jan -08, SEP1 CONVEYOR 1 SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT 01 -Jan -08 WASHER 1 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01Jan-OS 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08. 01 -Jan -08. 01 -Jan -OS 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -081. Condition 5 2 5 2 5 2 6 1 7 1 5 2 7 2 5 5 7 7 5 5 7 7 7 5 5 11 11 a 11 11 11 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 9 11 Reliability Capacity 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 Functionality 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial 1 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Health & Safety Social Impacts 1 2 3 1. 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 4 3 1 3 Difficulty of Repair 3 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 1.7 1.7 1.7 Redundann y2 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 3' 2.3 POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs $0.00 2 THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT CONDITION OF VLAVES & METERS 2 5 CRITICAL TO OPERATION OF FORCE MAIN. 1.7 5 CONCRETE BASE PEDESTAL, STEEL PLATE DETERIORATING 2.3 3 REPLACED CHECK VALVE AND BOLT ISOLATION VALVES. CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE CORRODED. BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEAR. 1.7 5 CONCRETE BASE PEDESTAL, STEEL BASE PLATE ARE DETERIORATING 1.7 5 2.3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1.7 DESIRED TO HAVE COMPLETE REDUNDANCY DUE TO CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS. $19,828.04 $93.63 $16,839.31 $0.00 YTDCosts $0.00 Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago $0.00 $875.60 $165.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $18,467.45 $1,706.41 $150.34 $1,009.52 $17,480.00 $8,262.26 $248.64 3 CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE CORRODED. DESIRED TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY DUE TO BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEAR. CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS $9,197.97 $592.11 $801.49 $288.54] $0.00 $252.42 $21,585.00 $9,237.22 $594.45 DESIRE TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY DUE TO CRITICAL NATURE OF PUMPS $331.52 $328.52 $223.03 $0.00 $7,643.90 $0.00 $331.52 3 MOVED FROM THICKENING TO SLUDGE PUMPING $5,168.08 $3,224.32 3 1 3 1 1 1.7 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW MOTOR ON EXISTING PUMP CONCRETE PAD AND BASE PLATE DETERIORATING. BELTS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT TWICE A YEAR 3 3 1 3 1 3 2,3 3 2,316.94 $525.14 DESIRED TO HAVE 100% REDUNDANCY $0.00 0.00 $22,131.99 $6,948.33 $627.66 $379.43 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.3 3 3 1 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 3 4 2.3 5 $663.84 $0.00 CRITICAL TO OPERATION OF FORCE MAIN. $0.00 $0.00 1.7 3 MOVED FORM THICKENING TO SLUDGE PUMPING 1.7 2.7 4 4 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 4 3 1 4 3 2.7 2.7 1 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.7 1 1 1.7 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 1.7' 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 3 1.7 3 1 3 1 3 1.7 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 3 3 3 3 1.7 3 1.7 3 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. NEW MOTOR ON EXISTING PUMP 5 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the gripper over dumpster position. 5 New Construction. Under high flows, gripper does not pick up much. Periodic problem with brake on the. gripper over dumpster position. 2 New Construction 2 New Construction 2 2 2 $0.00 $0.00 $3,158.20 $0.00 $168.2 $1,255.19 $0.00 $0.00 $2,694.77 $607.53 $2,087.24 $1,379.07 $394.02 $985.05 $0.00 $2,626.80 $3,086.491 $394.021 $569.141 $555.12 5 Problem with solids buildup in trough duringhigh flows,. needs manual washing to remove buildup. 2 New Construction. 2 New Construction. 2 New Construction 3 New Construction No backup available. $0.00 $2,626.80 $3,086.49 $569.14 $555.12 $175.12 $175.12 3 New Construction (2008) $0.00 $0.00 3 New Construction $3,188.34 $3,188.34 3 New Construction $0.00 Moo 3 New Construction 3 New Construction. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 New Construction. $892.00 $892.00 3 New Construction $0.00 3 New Construction $131.34 $131.34 3 New Construction $381.84 $381.84 3 New Construction $131.34 $131.34 3 New Construction $0.00 $0.00 3 New Construction $220.95 $220.91 3 New Construction $0.00 3 New Construction 3 New Construction $0.00 $175.12 $175.12 3 New Construction $0.00 $0.00 2.3 3 Built 2008.Needs lot of operational oversight (Every 2 3 2.3 4 2.7 hours) 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING, TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/ FORCE MAIN. Odor released, Capacity problems makes operate only one. $2,955.15 $2,955.15 ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Moo CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-F1.2- GRT-SEP2-CU CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CONVEYOR 9 4 4 3 2.3 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT EVERY 2 HOURS) ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE 2,879.46 $2,879.41 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- El 6780 MOTOR GRT-SEP2-CU-MTR CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- E38837 SCRUBBER GRT-SEP2-WA Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description Install Date CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- El 6779 GRT-SEP3-CU CT CT CT-PRI-SLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP3-CU-MTR CT-PRI-OLD-GRT-BLDG-FL2- GRT-SEP3-WA CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T CT CT- PRI -SLD -THK -T-C CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-C-DR E16781 E38838 E39027 E39029 E39030 CT CT-PRI-SLD-THK-T-C-DR-MTR E39031 CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT -PR I-SLD-THK-T-OD R CT PRI -SLD -THK -T-O D R -F N CT PRI -SLD -THK -T-O D R -F N MTR CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P1 CT-RAS-BLDG-FL 1-P 1-MTR CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P2 CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P2-MTR CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P3 CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P3-MTR CT-RAS-BLDG-FL1-P4 CT-RAS-BLDG-F L 1-P4-MTR CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-P1-VFD CT-RAS-BLDG-FL2-P2-VFD CT-SCR-BLDG-HRM-AC 1-CP CT-SLD-FM CT CT-THK-T CT CT-THK-T-C CT CT-THK-T-C-DR CT CT-THK-T-C-MTR FT FT -ADM -BLDG FT FT FT FT FT FT FT FT FT -ADM -BLDG FT-GRT-BLDG-CU1-DR FT-GRT-BLDG-CUI-MTR FT-GRT-T1C FT-GRT-T1 C -DR FT-GRT-T1C-MTR FT-THK-BLDG-SLD-F DP 1 FT-THK-BLDG-SLD-FDP2 FT FT-THK-T1 FT FT-THK-T1C-DR FT FT-THK-T1C-MTR FT FT FT FT -ADM -BLDG FT -FIN -VAULT 1-RAS-P 1 FT-FIN-VAULT1-RAS-P2 FT FT-FIN-VAULT1-WAS-P1 FT FT-FIN-VAULT2-WAS-P2 FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL1-BYP-BS E16062 E16068 E16069 E16268 E16272 E16269 E16273 E16270 El 6300 El 6271 E16301 E16306 E16307 E15633 PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 2 CU MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 2 CONVEYOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CONVEYOR MOTOR PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT SEP 3 CU MOTOR SCRUBBER PRI SLD & GRIT PUMP BLDG FL2 GRIT WASHER 3 TANK CIRCCOLL GRDRVRDC PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENER TANK (NEW) PRIMARY SLUDGE THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR PRI SLD THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE PRI SLD THICKENER TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR PRI/WAS SLD THICKENER TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT PRI/WAS SLD THK TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT FAN PRI/WAS SLD THK TANKS ODOR CONTROL UNIT FAN MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #1 RETURN SLUDGE PUMP # 1 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #2 RETURN SLUDGE PUMP # 2 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #3 RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #3 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #4 RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #4 MOTOR RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #1 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE RETURN SLUDGE PUMP #2 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE BAR SCREEN DIFFERENTIAL AIR COMPRESSOR CNTRL PNL MOTOR ODORCNTL FAN MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR VFD VFD ELECCNTL E33088 PIPING E16053 E16054 E16057 E16056 TANK COLECTOR DRVREDCE SLUDGE DISPOSAL FORCED MAIN WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE THICKENER TANK THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR DRIVE THICKENED SLUDGE TANK COLLECTOR MOTOR MOTOR E14165 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS E14166 E14308 E14307 E14309 E14311 E14310 E1129 E1133 PUMP DRVREDCE MOTOR COLECTOR DRVREDCE MOTOR PUMP PUMP E14985 TANK E14987 ADM BLDG WASH WATER PUMP GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE. GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR. GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR. GRIT TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE. GRIT TANK #1 COLLECTOR MOTOR. THICKNER BLDG SLUDGE FEED PUMP #1 THICKNER BLDG SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK LK. DRVREDCE GRAVITY THICKENER TANK DRIVE. E14966 MOTOR E14173 E34823 E34824 E34831 E34832 E15279 CONVEYOR PUMP PUMP 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -64 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -03 01 -Jan -03 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -86 Overall Risk Rank 9 11 9 9 11 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 6 10 8 7 7 7 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK MOTOR. 01 -Jan -86 5 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -05 ADM BLDG MCC FINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 RETURN PUMP 1 (FT - FINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 RETURN PUMP 2 (FT - FINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 1 WASTE PUMP 1 (FT -F PUMP PUMP FINAL CLAIRIFIER RETURN VAULT 2 WASTE PUMP 2 (FT -F BARSCRN INFLUENT BLDG FL1 WET WELL BYPASS BAR SCREEN FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL1-PFS E34747 PFS FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-BRSH- E34745 DR FT FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-BRSH- MTR FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-GRD E34744 E34741 FT FT-INF-BLDG-FL2-PFS-GRD- E34742 DR FT FT-PRI-BLDG-SLD-P1 E14619 PUMP INFLUENT BLDG FL1 WET WELL FINE SCREEN DRVREDCE INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN BRUSH UNIT DRIVE MOTOR INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN BRUSH UNIT MOTOR GRINDER INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN GRINDER WASHER MONST DRVREDCE INFLUENT BLDG FL2 FINE SCREEN GRINDER DRIVE FT GT GT FT-PRI-BLDG-SLD-P2 GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1 GT-GRT-TI-C E14620 E14461 E12862 PUMP BELTPRES PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #1. PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP #2. BELT FILTER PRESS 1 COLECTOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -05 01 -Jan -86 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -88 7 Condition 1 1 Reliability 4 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2' 2 1 1 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 Capacity ®o 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial 4 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Health & Safety Social Impacts 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 Difficulty of Repair 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts 2.3 3 BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN. BUILT 2008. NEEDS LOT OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) BUILT 2008, NEEDS LOTS OF OPERATIONAL OVERSIGHT (EVERY 2 HOURS) NEW CONSTRUCTION. LINER PROBLEMS NEEDS REPLACING. TEARS AWAY. FLOW SWITCH BAD. PLANS TO ADDRESS CAPACITY IN GRAVITY DISCHARGE BY BUILDING PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION 2.7 2.3 3 2.3 2.7 3 3 2.3 2.3 5 5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 5 5 5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION 2 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL 2 2 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL 2 ODOR RECORDED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACMENT LINER. ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE ODOR RELEASED, CAPACITY PROBLEMS MAKES OPERATE ONLY ONE DIFFICULT TO REPAIR AND GET REPLACEMENT LINER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,326.72 $1,326.72 $0.00 $372.13 $831.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $153.23 $0.00 $0.00 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL 2 CONCERN ABOUT BUBBLER CONTROL 5 2 2.3 2.0 5 3 5 3.3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 2.7 2.3 5 5 2.3 2.3 5 5 BUILT 1 YR BACK, BUBBLER CABINET FOR EACH SCREEN, < 1 YR OLD, THREE SCREENS OUTLINE - TWO OPERATIONAL, ONE STAND BY Assessed at Manhole on Redman/Ebert at bridge over creek. This is the first manhole downstream of force main end structure. ORIGINAL PLANT NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 VERY LIMITED RUN TIME 1.7 2.0 1.7 5 5 VERY LIMITED RUN TIME. REBUILDING THE DRAGOUT CONVEYOR WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1.7 2 2 NO SPARE PARTS, CAN GET PARTS AND FIX IN HOUSE GRIT BASIN BYPASSED IF SYSTEM IS DOWN $0.00 $372.13 $831.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $153.23 $0.00 $0.00 $19,599.371_ $3,760.011 $25,432.48, $0.001 $8,192.77_ $0.001 $6,020.20 $0.001 $3,208.47' L $218.90 $0.00 $725.43 $0.00 $218.90 $0.00 $525.36 $0.00 $0.00 $2,487.3 $64,231.241 $0.00 $0.00 $21,798.451 $0.00 $4,747.591 $249.6811 $2,058.1 $249.69 $0.001 $0.00 $65.94 $0.00 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DUE FOR REBUILD OF DRIVE. NOT URGENT 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 1.3 1.3 5 2 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 2 1.3 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 2 1.3 2.3 2 2 1.7 PROBLEM WITH CLOGGED BY RAGS AND STRINGY MATERIALS PROBLEMS WITH CLOGGED BY RAGS AND STRINGY MATERIALS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MANUALLY CLEANED. ONLY IN SERVICE DURING HIGH FLOWS PLAN TO DO BEARING REPLACEMENT IN THE NEXT 2 MONTHS. CURRENTLY OUT OF SERVICE. GETTING BEARINGS REPLACED CURRENTLY NOT USED. BUT INTENT TO REBUILD AS A BACKUP TO NEW BELT PRESS. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER $0.00 $0.00 $525.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $284.701, $0.00 $2,644.971 $0.00 $2,909.79 $0.00 $4,146.58' $1,340.07 $1,363.4 $159.88 $0.00 $1,842.65 $435.79 $0.00 Moo $3,756.24 $0.00 $1,632.75 $171.62 Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago $248.64 $0.00 $331.52 $331.52 $331.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $202.75 $0.00 $279.58 $243.30 $239.64 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,006.94 $4,072.38 $0.00 $2,895.65 $0.00 $0.00 Moo $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $132.48 $76.84 $131.11 $82.01 $232.06 $2,657.09 $0.00 $0.00 $17,296.041 $4,172,00 $0.00 $0.00 $28,948.39- $0.00 $8,811.37 $1,367.17 $14,738.86 $294.99 $3,323.54 $0.00 $0.00 $5,416.01 $647.21 $984.41 $75.70 $33,073.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,644.97 $1,943.99 $71.35 $71.35 $577.51 $396.45 $0.00 $0.00 $108.48 $480.46 $849.43 $5,170.56 $25,764.63 GT GT GRT T1 C DR E12864 DRVREDCE GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE 01 -Jan -88 5 3 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $595.64 $418.75 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plan GT GT-GRT-T1-C-MTR Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description GT GT GT-GRT-T1-CU GT-GRT-T2-C GT GT-GRT-T2-C-DR GT GT-GRT-T2-C-MTR GT GT-GRT-T2-CU E12863 MOTOR E12843 CONVEYOR E12872 COLECTOR E12878 DRVREDCE E12873 MOTOR E12849 CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #1 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #2 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR Install Date 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 Overall Risk Rank 5 7 7 5 5 7 Condition 2 3 2 2 2 3 Reliability Capacity 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 Functionality 3 Financial 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 4 4 3 3 4 Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 3 3 3 3 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3 3 3 1.7 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOE WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATER. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COF Comments Total Maint Costs $152.00 YTDCosts $0.00 Last Year Cost $0.00 Cost 2 years ago $21,446.41 $0.00 $1,025.20 $965.50 $296.77 $294.99 $30.93 $30.93 $0.00 $0.00 $46,843.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $623.72 GT GT-GRT-T3-C GT GT-GRT-T3-C-DR GT GT-GRT-T3-C-MTR GT GT GT-GRT-T3-CU GT-GRT-T4-C GT GT-GRT-T4-C-DR GT GT-GRT-T4-C-MTR GT GT-GRT-T4-CU GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- TI-CU-DR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T1-CU-MTR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T2-CU-DR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T2-CU-MTR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T3-CU-DR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T3-CU-MTR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T4-CU-DR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-GRT- T4-CU-MTR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF-1 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF2 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL4-SCF3 GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1 GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1-DR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P1-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2 E13525 PUMP GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-DR E14591 DRVREDCE GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-LUB-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P2-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3 GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-DR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-LUB-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P3-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4 GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-DR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-LUB-MTR GT GT-NRAS-STU-P4-MTR GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P1 GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P2 GT GT-NWAS-VLT-P3 E12876 COLECTOR E12879 DRVREDCE E12874 MOTOR E12853 CONVEYOR E12877 COLECTOR E12880 DRVREDCE E12875 MOTOR E12857 CONVEYOR GT GT GT GT-PRI -P M P-BLDG-FL2-S L D - P1 G T-PRI -P M P-BLDG-FL2-S L D - P2 G T-PRI -P M P-BLDG-FL2-S L D - P3 E12848 DRVREDCE E12845 MOTOR E12852 DRVREDCE E12851 MOTOR E12856 DRVREDCE E12855 MOTOR E12930 DRVREDCE E12859 MOTOR E39205 PFS E39208 PFS E39214 PFS E13070 PUMP E14590 DRVREDCE E13071 MOTOR E13528 E13526 E13531 E14592 E14645 E13530 E13534 E14594 E13537 E14628 E13398 E13399 E13400 E37419 MOTOR MOTOR PUMP DRVREDCE MOTOR MOTOR PUMP DRVREDCE MOTOR MOTOR PUMP PUMP PUMP PUMP E37420 PUMP E37421 PUMP GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #3 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #4 GRIT COLLECTOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #1 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #2 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #3 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR DRIVE GRIT BASIN #4 DRAGOUT CONVEYOR MOTOR INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 1 (NEW) NF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 2 ( NEW INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 4 FINE SCREEN 3 (NEW V RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #1 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 LUBE MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #2 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 LUBE PUMP MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #3 MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 NRAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 GEAR REDUCER DRIVE N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 LUBE PUMP MOTOR N RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #4 MOTOR WAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #1 WAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #2 WAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #3 PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DISC PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -09 7 5 5 7 7 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 7 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CAPACITY NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WET WEATHER. POOR GRIT CAPTURE DURING WET WEATHER ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINENCE HAS BEEN BETTER WITH ADDITION OF PLASTIC CHAINS. RETROFITTED WITH PLASTIC CHAINS 5 YRS AGO. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2.0 1 REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 L 2 2 2 3 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING HE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACIGN THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. $3,776.3✓3, $3,522.38 $3,045.931 $30.93 $0.00 $233.82 $44,531.8 $0.00 $826.85 $0.00 $30.93 $30.93 $0.00 $0.00 $24,461.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,587.36 $2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $316.40 $11 $906.98 $87.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,459.5311 $87.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,287.34] $43.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,507.52 $89.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,129.51 $3,562.84 $566.67 $3,247.981 $2,848.30 $399.68 $3,090.991 $2,649.24 $441.75 $43,875.99 $3,552.65 $15,517.84 $3 $49.64 $0.00 $0.00 $671.27 $0.00 $0.00 $12,843.221 $0.00 $1,110.44 $1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $832.80 $0.00 $0.00 $1,084.631 $251.54 $433.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,017.54 $0.00 $797.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $42.45 $0.00 $0.00 $7,371.99 $5,770.01 $440.92 $326.16 $0.00 $0.00 $171.18 $0.00 $171.18 $87.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $87.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41.82 038.15 689.35 579.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 941.89 324.00 778.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $42.45 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- E37422 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY P4 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- E37423 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY P5 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP GT GT-PRI-PMP-BLDG-FL2-SLD- E37424 PUMP PRI PUMP BLDG FL2 DOUBLE DUTY P6 PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP L__ GT 'IGT-PRI-SCC-CCNTR-SKM E37501 SCUMSKIM PRI AREA SCUM CONCENTRATOR 01 -Jan -O8 5 1 SKIMMER GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-PI E37334 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 1 01 -Jan -O8 5 1 GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P2 E37335 PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 2 01 -Jan -O8 5 1 GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P3 1E37336 I PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 3 01 -Jan -08 5 1 GT GT-RAS-PMP-STA-P4 E37337 'PUMP RAS PUMP STATION PUMP 4 01 -Jan -08 5 1 GT GT-RAS-SCC-WW-P1 E37350 PUMP RAS SCUM PIT PUMP 1 01 -Jan -08 5 1 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -OS 7 3 3 2 4 7 1 3 3 4 7 1 3 4 2 3 3 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-POL-FD- E32423 PUMP POLYMER FEED PUMP# 1 01 -Jan -99 5 2 P1 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FLI-POL-FD- E32424 PUMP POLYMER FEED PUMP # 2 P2 I GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P1 613251 MTR GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-FD-P2 E13255 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FLI-SLD-FD-P2 E14680 DR GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FLI-SLD-FD-P2 E13253 MTR GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FLI-SLD-GRDI E32891 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD1- E32892 MTR GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD2 El 3243 GT GT GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA- MXL-2 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA- MXL-2-CHMBR-MTR GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-POL-BA- MXL-2-GP GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5 GT IGT-SRAS-STU-P5-DR GT HGT-SRAS-STU-P5-LUB-MTR MOTOR PUMP ( FUTURE ) SLUDGE FEED PUMP#1 MOTOR SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 DRVREDCE SLUDGE FEED PUMP #2 DRIVE 01 -Jan -99 MOTOR SLUDGE PROCESSING FEED PUMP #2 MOTOR GRINDER SLUDGE GRINDER #1 MOTOR (SLUDGE GRINDER#1 MOTOR GRINDER SLUDGE GRINDER #2 GTSPB-BLDG-FL1-SLD-GRD2 E13245 MTR GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BPI-CP E32435 E39227 MOTOR 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 SLUDGE GRINDER#2 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88i ELECCNTL BELT PRESS CONTROL PANEL 01 -Jan -99 MIXER SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR 2 POLYBLEND UNIT (N 639230 MOTOR SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR _ 2 POLYBLEND UNIT MI 639231 PUMP SOLID PROCESS BLDG PRESS FLOOR 2 POLYBLEND UNIT GE 613554 PUMP S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -88 614646 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 GEAR 613558 MOTOR GT GT-SRAS-STU-P5-MTR E13555 MOTOR GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6 1E13549 GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6-DR 614656 PUMP DRIVE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 LURE PUMP MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #5 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 GEAR DRIVE MOTOR GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6-LUB-MTR 613552 GT GT-SRAS-STU-P6-MTR E13550 GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7 E13543 MOTOR PUMP 'GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-DR E14647 01 -Jan -88 S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 LUBE PUMP MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #6 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 01 -Jan -88 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 GEAR GT IGT-SRAS-STU-P7-LUB 613548 PUMP GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-LUB-MTR 1E13547 MOTOR GT GT-SRAS-STU-P7-MTR E13544 MOTOR DRIVE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 LURE PUMP BODY S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 LURE PUMP MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #7 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -881 GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8 613538 PUMP S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-SRAS-STU-P8-DR 614657 DRVREDCE S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 GEAR DRIVE GT GT-SRAS-STU-PE-LUB-MTR 613542 MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 LUBE ,GT ,GT-SRAS-STU-P8-MTR E13539 MOTOR PUMP MOTOR S RAS FAC SCREW PUMP #8 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-SWAS-VLT-P4 613411 PUMP 'WAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #4 01 -Jan -88 GT GT-SWAS-VLT-P5 E13412 I PUMP WAS SUBMERSIBLE PUMP #5 GT GT-THK-T1 E13222 TANK GT GT-THK-T1-C-DR E13224 DRVREDCE GT GT-THK-TI-C-DR-MTR 613223 MOTOR GT GT-THK-T2 GT GT-THK-T2-C-DR 01 -Jan -88 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK#1 01 -Jan -88 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #1 DRIVE 01 -Jan -88 613230 TANK E13232 DRVREDCE GT GT-THK-T2-C-DR-MTR E13231 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-BSC1 E12768 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-BSC2 E12909 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1- E12916 C GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #1 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #2 GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #2 DRIVE MOTOR GRAVITY THICKENER TANK #2 MOTO 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 5 5 2 5 51 5 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.7 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. 4 1 1 3 1.7 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN, SLUDGE 1 DURING WET WEATHER 4 1 1 3 1.7 3 NEW CONSTRUCTION. SYSTEM HAS PROBLEMS TO PUMP HIGH SOLIDS, GRIT, LADEN , SLUDGE DURING WET WEATHER. 3 1 1 3 1.7 5 FREEZING PROBLEMS DUE TO FEEDER 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 01 -Jan -99 5 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 $0.00 $0.00 $306.46 $306.46 $0.00 $0.00 CONTROLS. SCUM HAULED TO BISSELL PLANT 31 1.7 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 1.71 5 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 REBUILT IN 2009 3 2 1 21 3 3 2 3 1 3 1.7 2 REBUILT IN 2009 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 1.7 2 REBUILT IN 2009 1.7 2 REBUILT IN 2009 3 3 5 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 5 3 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 51 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1.71 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. BEING REPLACED WITH VOGELSANG GRINDERS AS A TRIAL. EXISTING GRINDERS NEED REBUILT EVERY 2 YEARS 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 6 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 1.7 2.01 1.7 1 3 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. BEING REPLACED WITH VOGELSANG GRINDERS AS A TRIAL. EXISTING GRINDERS NEED REBUILT EVERY 2 YEARS 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 NEED SOME REHAB DUE TO SULFIDE COROSSION. $0.00 $0.00 $44.05 $244.50 $194.63 IF PUMP OUT OF SERVICE, THEY CAN RETURN THE $99.93 SCUM TO THE PROCESS $0.00 $0.00 $44.05 $244.50 $194.63 $99.93 $8,282.43 $2,242.09 $123.32 $58.79 $3,847.00 $1,918.36 $848.85 $100.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $21,223.78 $11,019.02 $321.37 2 BLEND UNIT OCCASIONALLY PLUGS. GEAR PUMP NEEDS OCCASIONAL REPLACEMENT. 1.7 2 3 3 3 1 3 1.7 2 $5,418.32 $0.00 $0.00 $65.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $749.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,176.77 $0.00 $207.86 $3,358.11 1 1 4 2.0 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 1 3 1.7 1 1 3 1 $1,453.1 $1,953.36 $0.00 $190.001 $0.00 $9,827.64 $0.00 $412.47 $5,575.541 $45.83 $45.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $49,623.49 $554.68 $1,709.92 $43,638.451 $11,194.71 $0.00 $0.00 $458.52 3 3 3 1.71 1 1.71 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 5 2 5 5 2 6 3 5 2 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 4 1I ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $244.76 $673.54 2.0 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $49,080.05 $612.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $360.16 $0.00 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $519.39 2.01, 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $1,812.18 1 3 3 6 5 2 5 2 5 5 3 21 21 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $142.78 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1.T 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $207.78 $0.00 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2.0 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING THE FLIGHTS AND BEARINGS 1.7 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 3 3 5 2 5 2 3 3 3 1 3 $0.00 $957.62 $71.39 $0.00 $0.00 $249.00 $0.00 $232.3 $44,808.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $207.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71.39 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 1.71 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1.71 3 3 3 3 5 2 1 3 3 5 2 3 5 2 1 3 5 2 11 3 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 (4 FT 01 -Jan -05 4 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #2 (6 FT) 01 -Jan -05 4 BARSCRN COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE 01 -Jan -O5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. REPLACING PUMPS ONE PER YEAR IN ANNUAL BUDGET $312.57 $0.00 $0.00 $8,403.08 $0.00 $0.00 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. COVERS INSTALLED IN 3 3 3 3 3 2008. ODOR CONTROL INSTALLED IN 2008. $38,486.34 $0.00 $1,991.77 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 1 1 21 2 2 1.7 $72.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $186.66 $0.00 $0.00 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. COVERS INSTALLED IN 2008. ODOR CONTROL INSTALLED IN 2008. 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 1.3 5 4 FT SCREEN 1.3 5 $80,488.19 $1,643.61 $540.98 $0.00 $120.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,574.84 $0.00 $0.00 $1,147.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TWO SCREENS COVERED BY ONE RAKE $51,713.44 $2,738.06 TWO SCREENS CLEARED BY ONE RAKE $22,489.7 $0.00 No back up available. One rake covers bothe the coarse $13,989.51 $2,238.3/ screens. $1,292.95 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.62 $0.00 GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1- E12908 DR 1 DRVREDCE COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE DRIVE 01 -Jan -05 3 1.3 NO BACK UP AVAILABLE. ONE RAKE COVERS BOTH THE COARSE SCREENS $8,355.1 $0.00 $0.00 $427.56 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-BSC1- E12917 MTR GT GT-INF-BLDG-WW-FL3-GRD E39192 Equipjype MOTOR Asset Description COARSE BAR SCREEN #1 RAKE MOTOR GRINDER INF PUMP BLDG WET WELL FLOOR 3 GRINDER WASHER COMP GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CU1 E15430 CONVEYOR BELT FILTER PRESS CONVEYOR #1 (BFPSC) GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP1-CU2 E15431 CONVEYOR BELT FILTER PRESS VERTICAL SCREW CONVEYOR (BFPVC) GT GT GT GT GT-S PB-BLDG-FL2-BP 1-C U 3 GT-S PB-BLDG-FL2-BP 1-P GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2 GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CP E15432 E15377 CONVEYOR PUMP E37750 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS HORZ UPPER FILL TRANSFER CONVEYO BELT PRESS 1 WASHWATER PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS 2 (NEW UNIT) E37751 ELECCNTL SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 CONTROL PANEL Overall Risk Install Date Rank 01 -Jan -05i 25 -Feb -08 4 Condition 1 01 -Jan -99 4 3 01 -Jan -99 3 01 -Jan -99 4 3 01 -Jan -99 16 -May -07 07 -May -07 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU1 E37752 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORZONTAL CONVEYOR I GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU2 E37755 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 2 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU3 E37758 GT GT GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU4 GT-S PB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-C U4 - DR GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-CU4- MTR E39141 E39142 E39143 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-FL2-BP2-P E37764 01 -Jan -0 CONVEYOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 VERTICAL CONVEYOR CONVEYOR DRVREDCE MOTOR SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 4 SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE SOLID BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 HORIZONTAL CONVEYOR 4 MOTOR PUMP SOLID BLDG FL2 BELT PRESS 2 WASH WATER PUMP GT El 5433 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS LOAD TRANSFER CONVEYOR #1 GT E15434 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS LOAD TRANSFER CONVEYOR#2 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP- El 5435 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS TRUCK FILL CONVEYOR SC-CU1 #1 GT GT-SPB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-BP- El 5436 SC-CU2 JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT-I NF-BSC-BLDG-FL1-BSC- RK1 J T-INF-BSC-BLDG-FL 1-BSC- RK2 JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-W W-BSC1 JT-INF-BSC-BLDG-11W-BSC2 E36024 E36026 E36019 E36020 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E35634 BYP-P1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E36151 BYP-Pl-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E35418 C1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E36846 C1 -C JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E36847 C1-C-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-SCCR-SCC E35840 C1-EV3-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-SCCR-SCC E35694 C1 -T1 jJT JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-SCCR-SCC E35693 C1 -T1 -P1 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-SCCR-SCC E36127 C1-T1-P1-MTR _ JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E35403 C1 -T2 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-SCCR-SCC E35400 C1-T2-MXL1 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-SCCR-SCC E35402 C1-T2-MXL1-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-THK-RM- BV0024 THK JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP1-SLD- IE35665 HOPI JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP2-SLD- E36289 HOP2 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-BP2-SLD- HOP2-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT JT 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 12 -Sep -07 01 -Jan -99 CONVEYOR BELT PRESS TRUCK FILL CONVEYOR #2 BARSCRN BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 1 INF BARSCREEN BLDG FL1 BARSCREEN RAKE 2 BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG WET WELL BARSCREEN I BARSCRN INF BARSCREEN BLDG WET WELL BARSCREEN 2 PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM BYPASS PUMP1 PUMP CONVEYOR CONVEYOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM BYPASS PUMP MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM CONCENTRATOR 1 PRC BLDG FLI PRIMARY SCUM CONCENTRATOR I COLLECTOR MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM MOTOR TANK PUMP MOTOR TANK MIXER MOTOR JT JT-P RC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-HOP 1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT-HOP2 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT- SLRT1 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT- SLRT1-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-GRT- SLRT2 JT-P RC-BLDG-FL3-GRT- SLRT2-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1 JT JT JT E35141 BV0023 BV0022 E35621 E35072 E36290 TANK TANK TANK MOTOR FILTER FILTER TANK E35147 E35142 E35148 E35612 TANK CONCENTRATOR I COLLECTOR MOT 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 8 01 -Jan -07 7 01 -Jan -07 7 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 PRC BLDG FL1 PRI SCC 01 -Jan -07 CONCENTRATOR 1 ELECT VALVE 3 PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM TANK 01 -Jan -07 1 PRC BLDG FL1 PRI CONCENTRATED SCUM PUMP 1 PRC BLDG FL1 PRIMARY SCUM PUMP 1 MTR PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK 2 PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK MIXER 1 PRC BLDG FL1 SCUM MIXING TANK MIXER 1 MOTOR SCUM CONCENTRATOR 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07' 01 -Jan -07 PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS 1 SLUDGE CAKE HOPPER 1 PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS SLUDGE CAKE HOPPER 2 PRC BLDG FL3 BELT PRESS 2 SLUDGE CAKE HOP2 MOTOR GRIT SEPERATOR GRIT SEPERATOR PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT HOPPER 1 PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT HOPPER 2 FILTER PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 1 MOTOR FILTER MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 1 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 2 PRC BLDG FL3 GRIT SLURRY TANK 2 MOTOR BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN ROOM 1 FINE BSR SCREEN(SMALL) 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 01 -Jan -07 6 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 Reliabili 3 Capacity Functionality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 1i 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 Health 8 Safety 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 Social Impacts 1 1 1 Difficulty of Repair 2 2 2 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 1.3 1.3 1.3 Redundany1 5 POF Comment 5 INITIAL START UO PROBLEMS. NOW WORKING FINE. HAS LOT OF WATER LEAKS IN THE CHUTE 5 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED. 1.3 5 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED. 1.3 5 1.3 2 WILL BE FUNCTIONAL WHEN BFP#1 IS REHABILITATED. WILL BE BROUGHT BACK IN SERVICE ONCE BFP # 1 BECOMES FUNCTIONAL. CURRENTLY NOT IN USE. 2 1.3 1.0 1.3 2 2 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 1.3 2 20 2.0 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP. 2 2.3 5 2.3 5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 5 5 5 1.7 1.7 1.7 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. 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. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 1.7 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 3 1 1 4 2 3 1 1 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. 2. 5 2.0 5 4 2.0 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COF Comments NO BACK UP AVAILABLE. ONE RAKE COVERS BOTHE THE COARSE SCREENS. NO REDUNDANCY FULL REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE WHEN OLD UNIT IS FIXED AND READY TO RUN. FULL SET OF SPARE PARTS AVAIABLE IN EVENT OF FAILURE. SPARE PARTS ON HAND SPARE PARTS ON HAND SPARE PARTS ON HAND ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. RAKE DOES NOT PENETRATE GRIT AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN ALLOWING IT TO BUILD UP. Total Maint 1 Costs YTDCosts $0.00 $0.00 $3,982.34 $3,859.78 $12,547.8 $0.00 $9,217.4 $0.00 $3,765.71 $19,367.01 $0.00 $0.00 $15,303.38 $1,333.74 $1,179.32 Cost 2 years Last Year Cost ago $0.00 $122.76 $0.00 $3,116.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $122.01 $13,969. $123.75 $448.13 $731.19 $674.16 $548.19 $374.97 $645.27 $0.00 $0.00 $500.60 $173.5 $548.19 $374.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $645.27 $1,160.79 $87.56 $1,073.2 $6,386.77 $0.00 $1,712.6 $360.33 $5,434.02 $0.00 $0.00 $205.03 ,512.18 $0.00 $0.00 $701.36. $1,933.24 $0.00 $0.00 $176.20 $15,887.51 $8,063.98 $0.00 $1,920.76 $916.29 $914.10 $0.00 $0.00 $3,734.161 $10,544.57 $2,943.131 $4,125.64 $1,920.76 $451.27 $0.00 $337.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,688.6 $1,432.0 $8,537.58 $0.00 $114.17 $6,131.31 $398.02 $983.50 $2,365.07 $246.88 $0.00 $606.00 $1,212.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3239.341 $2,319.831 $5,454.27 $2,906.10 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 1 01 -Jan -07 10 3 3 3 5 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 2 2.0 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS $712.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $218.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $847.67 $3,401.41 $0.00 $401.06 $324.96 $0.00 $3,401.41 $3,173.03 $4,062.02 $7,864.50 JT JT-PRC-BLOG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- CPTR-1A E35607 CMPCTR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING COMPACTOR 1A 01 -Jan -07 5 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $5,458.91 $5,458.91 10/16/2009 GT-S PB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-B P- CUI GT-S PB-BLDG-SCFL-MEZ-B P- CU2 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number Equip Type Asset Description JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E39416 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING CPTR-1A-DRV COMPACTOR 1A DRIVE JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E35608 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENING CPTR-1A-MTR COMPACTOR 1A MOTOR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E35609 WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED WA1B SCREENINGS WASHER 1B JT JT JT-P RC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- CPTR4A JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- CPTR4A-MTR JT JT JT JT JT-P RC -BL DG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- WA4B JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- WA5B JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-HOP 1 E35358 E35377 E35641 E35378 E35357 E35381 BV0021 BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 (BIG SCREEN) CMPCTR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 COMPACTOR 4 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 COMPACTOR 4A MOTOR WETSCRUB PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B BARSCRN PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 (SMALL) WETSCRUB. PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B TANK PRC BLDG FL3 SCREENINGS HOPPER Install Date 01 -Jan -07 Overall Risk Rank 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 Condition 1 Reliability 10 5 01 -Jan -07 10 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 10 01 -Jan -07 10 01 -Jan -07 10 01 -Jan -07 5 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP1 ,E35658 IBELTPRES PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 1 01 -Jan -07 5 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP1-LBLT- E35662 01 -Jan -07 5 DR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BPI-LBLT- JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2 E35663 DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 1 LONG 01 -Jan -07 5 BELT DRIVE MOTOR JT E35653 BELTPRES PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 01 -Jan -07 5 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-LBLT- E35657 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 LONG 01 -Jan -07 5 BELT DRIVE MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2' SHORT BELT DRIVE DR-MTR DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 1 LONG JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-SBLT- E35654 DR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-BP2-SBLT- E35655 DR-MTR JT JT JT JT JT JT JT W JT-PRI-TI-SCC-W -P1 W JT-PRI-T2-SCC-W W JT-PRI-T2-SCC-W -P1 JT-THK-T1 JT-THK-TI-C-DR JT-THK-T1-C-DR-MTR W JT-THK-TI-SCC-W -P1 JT JT JT JT JT-THK-T1-SKM JT-THK-T1-SKM-DR JT-THK-T1-SKM-DR-MTR JT-THK-T2 IJT 1JT-THK-T2-C-DR E35442 E35443 E35532 E35399 E37478 E37479 E35704 IWETWELL E35689 SCUMSKIM THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER E35692 DRVREDCE BELT DRIVE MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 BELT PRESS 2 SHORT BELT DRIVE MOTOR PUMP PRI TANK 1 SCUM WETWELL PUMP 1 TANK PRI TANK 2 SCUM WETWELL PUMP PRI TANK 2 SCUM WETWELL PUMP 2 TANK THICKENER TANK #1 DRVREDCE MOTOR THICKENER TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE THICKENER TANK #1 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR THICKENER TANK #1 SCUM WETWELL PUMP1 E35699 E35401 E37480 JT JT-THK-T2-C-DR-MTR JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW-HST JT JT-THK-T2-SCC-WW-P1 JT JT-THK-T2-SKM JT JT -Jr JT JT Jr JT-THK-T2-SKM-DR JT-THK-T2-SKM-DR-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM- ITHK-SLD-P1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM- THK-SLD-P1-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FLI-THK-RM- THK-SLD-P2 JT-P RC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM- THK-SLD-P2-MTR DRVREDCE MOTOR TANK THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER DRIVE THICKENER TANK #1 SKIMMER DRIVE MOTOR THICKENER TANK #2 DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #2 COLLECTOR DRIVE E37481 MOTOR THICKENER TANK #2 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR E35702 WETWELL THICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL E35706 HOIST E35705 THICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL HOIST WETWELL THICKENER TANK #2 SCUM WETWELL PUMP1 E35691 SCUMSKIM THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER E35696 E35698 E35900 E35901 E35903 E35904 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM- E35687 THK-SLD-P3 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL1-THK-RM- E35690 THK-SLD-P3-MTR JT JT JT JT JT JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL- E36158 Ti JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL E36166 T1 -P1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POLL E36167 T1-P1-MTR JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POLJ E36161 T2 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL- E36164 T2 -P1 JT-PRC-BLDG-FL2-POLR-POL- E36165 T2-P1-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SC R-BSF 1- E36764 'MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E39417 WA1B-DRV I DRVREDCE THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER DRIVE MOTOR THICKENER TANK #2 SKIMMER DRIVE MOTOR PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 2 PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 3 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL1 THK RM THK SLUDGE PUMP 3 MOTOR TANK PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 PUMP PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 PUMP 1 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 PUMP 1 MTR TANK PUMP MOTOR MOTOR PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 TRANSFER PUMP PRC BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 TRANSFER PUMP PRC BLDG FL3 FINE BSR SCREEN 1 MOTOR DRVREDCE PRC BLDG FL3 COMPACTED SCREENINGS WASHER 1B DRIVE 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 4 5 5 1 Capacity 3 3 Functionality 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 2 3 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 21 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 7 1 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 7 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -07 5 01 -Jan -08 5 01 -Jan -07 5 1 1 1 3 1.7 2 1.7 5 1.7 5 1.7 5 1.71 2 1.7 1.7 2 2 1.7 21 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY USED. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.31 1.3 1.31 2 1.3 2 1.31 2 1.3 2 3 3 2 3 3 Health & Safety 1 Social Impacts 1 Difficulty of Repair 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 1.7 Redundancy POF Comments 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2.0 5 2.0 5 1.7 5 1.7 2.0 5 2.0 5 2.0 5 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING OVERFLOW. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICABLE. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. GETS CLOGGED QUICKLY CAUSING BYPASS. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHERS DO NOT WORK. THE SCREEN GETS CLOGGED CAUSING OVERFLOWS. MANUFACTURER OUT OF BUSINESS SO NOT SERVICEABLE. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 3 1.7 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 11 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 21 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. NOT CURRENTLYY IN USE. CAN STILL BE USED AS A BACK UP. PROBLEM WITH MAINTAINING LEVEL CONTROL ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 2 3r 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 1 $4,882.15 $0.00 $4,882.15 $173.56 $0.00 $173.56 Cost 2 years ago $17,085.43 $0.00 $10,918.51 $5,868.07 $2,829.831 $0.00 $3,743.1 $0.00 $8,815.18 $0.00 $6,111.08 $0.00 $0.00 $111,381.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $664.20 $2,165.63 $71.28 $3,671.88 $8,815.181 $2,869.85 $2,949.42 $0.00 $58,065.291 $41,914.56i $0.00 $0.00 $11,229.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41.44 $0.00 $464.49 $0.00 $1,960.28 $8,977.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $252.07 $41.44 $212.42 $8,256.56 $0.00 $2,804.98 $3,953.88 $391.64 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $972.73 $0.00 $5.58 $0.00 $3,661.70 $127.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41.44 $0.00 $155.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,686.05 $0.00 $336.55 $414.19 $330.26 $422.36 $489.54 $0.00 $2,107.73 $5.58 $1,136.08 $65.67 $0.00 $0.00 $41.44 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Moo $0.00 Saw $39,115.6 Saw $0.00 Moo $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,516.41 $8,516.41 $0.00 $386.00 $0.00 $20.208.56 $14,978.18 Moo $0.00 $386.00 Moo 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF1- E36286 MOTOR WAIB-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- E39415 DRVREDCE WA4B-DRV JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF4- E36287 MOTOR WA4B-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLOG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- E35366 CMPCTR CPTR5A _ JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- E39418 DRVREDCE CPTR5A-DRV JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- E35642 MOTOR CPTR5A-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- E39419 DRVREDCE WA5B-DRV JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF5- E36273 MOTOR WA5B-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E37106 CONVEYOR CU7 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E39420 DRVREDCE CU7-DRV JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E37107 MOTOR CU7-MTR _ JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E35371 CONVEYOR CU8 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E39421 DRVREDCE CU8-DRV JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL3-SCR-BSF- E35354 MOTOR CU8-MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-DAY- BV0020 TANK T1 JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P1 E40024 PUMP Location Equip Number Equip Type JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P1. E40026 MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P2 540029 MOTOR PUMP JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P2.540031 MTR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P3 540034 MOTOR PUMP JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-FD-P3 E40036 MTR MOTOR JT JT-PRC-BLDG-FL4-POL-MXL- E35771 T2 JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P1 535997 TANK PUMP JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P1-MTR IE35996 MOTOR JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P2 E35994 PUMP JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P2-MTR E35993 MOTOR JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P3 E35991 PUMP JT JT-PRI-RM-SLD-P3-MTR E35990 MOTOR JT JT-PRI-T2 E35032 TANK LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1- PPG E20363 TANK LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1 LT ILT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2 E23646 INCIN Asset Description PRC BLDG FL3 COMP SCREENINGS WASHER 1B MTR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 4 WASHER 4B DRIVE PRC BLDG FL3 COMP SCREENINGS WASHER 4B MTR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMPACTOR 5A PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMPACTOR 5A DRIVE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 COMP 5A MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B DRIVE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN 5 WASHER 5B MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 Overall Risk Install Date Rank 01 -Jan -071 01 -Jan -076a 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 4 Condition 2 2 4 2 PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 DRIVE PRC BLDG FL3 SCREEN CONVEYOR 7 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CONVEYOR 8 PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CONVEYOR 8 DRIVE PRC BLDG FL3 FINE SCREEN CIONVEYOR 8 MOTOR FL4 POLYMER TANK 1 (DAY) 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 2 2 1 1 Reliabili Capaci Functionali 1 1 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 1 PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 1 PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 1 MOTOR PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 2 PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 2 MOTOR PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 3 PROCESS BUILDING FLOOR 4 POLYMER FEED PUMP 3 MOTOR PRC BLDG FL4 POLYMER TANK 2 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 1 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP1 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 3 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 RAW SLUDGE PUMP3 MOTOR PRIMARY TANK 2 ASH SLURRY TANK DISCHARGE PIPING TRAIN 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -07 01 -Jan -09 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 INCINERATOR 1 E23654 INCIN 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 2 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3 E23655 INCIN LT 'LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4 E23656 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1- E22449 INCIN HTH11-BNR1 _ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- E22446 INCIN BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- E22447 INCIN BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC1-HTH9- E22448 INCIN BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2- E21347 INCIN HTH11-BNRI LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9- E21344 INCIN BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9- E21345 INCIN BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3- E23042 INCIN HTH11-BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- 523039 INCIN BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- 523040 INCIN BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-HTH9- E23041 INCIN BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4- E22649 INCIN HTH11-BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9- E22646 INCIN BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9- 522647 INCIN BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-HTH9- E22648 INCIN BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR1 524233 WETSCRUB LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-FGS- E24229 WETSCRUB. SCBR INCINERATOR 3 01 -Jan -83 3 3 3 Financial 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Health & Safety Social Difficulty of Impacts Repair 2 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratinasl 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 2 2 Redundancy] POF Comments 1.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.31, 1.3!{ 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1. 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3, 3.3 3.7 4 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago $84.00 $0.00 $199.85 $84.00 $0.00 $199.85 $0.00 $0.00 $510.63 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $702.24 $1763.28 $0.00 $510.63 $0.00 $702.24 $0.00 $1,763.25 $0.00 $0.00 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $308.89 $0.00 $308.89 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $783.86 $0.00 $659.54 $124.32 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DRIVE VIBRATES AS SCREW TURNS WHICH WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $2,387.14 $0.00 $1,473.54 $413.12 $0.00 $0.00 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 $0.00 $0.00 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Moo 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $866.95 $0.00 $0.00 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $85.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215.09 $522.25 $0.00 $0.00 $43.78 $42.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1 2 LINES, DUTY/STANDBY . BURIED LINE. ASH SLURRY TANKS TO LAGOON INCLUDING VALVES. MILE LONG LINES. 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. HAS NOT BEEN DEVELPING 18 MONTH OPERATING CYCLE BETWEEN OPERATED FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, 2.45 DTPH LIMIT MAJOR REPAIRS. ASSESSMENT FOR INCINERATOR ON CAPACITY SHELLS, REFRACTORY CENTER SHAFT, ARMS, TEETH, TOP/BOTTOM SEALS. 3.7 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 13/64. LIMIT ON CAPACITY PER AIR PERMIT IS ABOUT 2.74 DTPH INCINERATOR 4 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 11 BURNER A INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 11 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -8 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 1 VENTURI SCRUBBER I 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 3 2 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.7 1 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983 INSTALL DATA SOURCE PA 13/64. HEARTH 4 NEEDS REPLACEMENT, 2.17 DTPH LIMIT ON CAPACITY 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. 326 DTPH LIMIT CAPACIY 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/ LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED 3.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2:3 2.3 2.3 $4,630. $1,619.5 $198,749.4 $0.00 $2,839.68 $1,096.11 $0.00 $0.00 $128.641 $43,710.72 $127,060.42 $17,119.2 SEE COMMENTS TO NO. 1 INC. SEE COMMENTS FOR NO. 1 SEE COMMENTS ON NO. 1 $207,069.4.- $32,015.75 $115,612.5= $10,081.1 $145,013.78 $1,238.30 $6,198.62 $16,440.74 $235,265.95 $23,352.38 $13,143.2' $93,912.421 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31.21 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. RARELY USED. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED. FOR PREHEAT/LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED $297.69 $0.00 $0.00 $40.43 $0.00 $0.00 2.3, 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 2.3, 2.3 23 $355.39 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED, FOR PREHEAT.LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED $1,226.47 $0.00 $0.00 $795.45 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $324.46 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 3 2',3 2.3 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $257.70 $243.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FOR PREHEAT AND LOSS OF OTHER BURNERS 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 84. RARELY USED $348.72 $0.00 $245.75 $312.70 $231.50 $0.00 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 3 2.3 3 4 2 3 3 3:0 3.3 $0.00 $0.00' $86.78 $0.00 $86.78 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:PA 64. RARELY USED $314.15 $91.66 $0.00 $120.96 $0.00 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE, ETC. $0.00 $0.00 $31.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7- E23574 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7- E22444 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC1-HTH7- E22445 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-FGS- E24283 SCBR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- E23572 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- E21342 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC2-HTH7- E21343 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-FGS- E24284 SCBR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- E23036 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- E23037 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC3-HTH7- E23038 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-FGS- E24285 SCBR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7- E22643 INCIN BNR1 Equip Type INCIN INCIN INCIN WETSCRUB INCIN INCIN INCIN WETSCRUB INCIN INCIN INCIN WETSCRUB LT LT INC BLDG FL3 INC4 HTH7 E22644 INCIN BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-INC4-HTH7- E22645 INCIN BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-WW E31949 SUMP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM- E23602 ANLR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM- E23603 ANLR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3- E22439 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH3- E22440 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- E22441 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- E22443 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3- E21338 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH3- E21362 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5- E21339 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5- E21340 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-HTH5- E21341 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3- E23032 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5- E23033 Asset Description INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER A Install Date 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 VENTURI SCRUBBER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 VENTURI SCRUBBER 3 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 VENTURI SCRUBBER 4 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 7 BURNER 3 BLENDED SLUDGE WELL INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #1 INSTRMNT INCINERATION STACK THC ANALYZER #2 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN BNR1 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5- E23034 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH5- E23035 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3- E22638 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH3- E22639 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5- E22640 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5- E22641 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-HTH5- E22642 BNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1- E20467 INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN INCIN ABNR1 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1- E20468 ABNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1- E20466 ABNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2- ABNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2- ABNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2- ABNR3 _ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3- ABNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3- E24140 INCIN INCIN INCIN E24141 INCIN E24142 INCIN E24143 INCIN ABNR2 E24144 NON LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3- ABNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- ABNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- ABNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4- ABNR3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-IDFN E24145 INCIN E24149 INCIN E24147 INCIN E24148 INCIN E23657 FAN INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 INCIENRATOR 3 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 3 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 1 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 INCINERATOR 4 HEARTH 5 BURNER 3 INC1 INC1 INC1 INC2 INC2 INC2 INC3 INC3 INC3 INC4 INC4 INC4 INCI 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -94 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 Overall Risk Rank AFTERBURNER 1 01 an -83 AFTERBURNER 2 AFTERBURNER 3 AFTERBURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 AFTERBURNER 2 AFTERBURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 AFTERBURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 AFTERBURNER 2 01 -Jan -83 AFTERBURNER 3 01 an -83 AFTERBURNER 1 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 AFTERBURNER 2 AFTERBURNER 3 01 -Jan -83 IERATOR 1 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01 -Jan -83 Condition 4 Reliability 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 Functionality 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 51 5 4 5 5 5 4 Health 8 Safety 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 5 51 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Social Impacts 1 4 4 4 4 Difficulty of Repair 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy] POF Comments 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. COF Comments 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 3 3 3 3 3 3 Total Maint f Costs 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 3:31 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 23 3.3. 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY BODY, BLADE, ETC. 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 YTDCosts $1,802.81 $269.12 $1,207.3$ $0.00 $875.40 $799.74 $1,372.22 $3,856.08 $743.69 $2,169.08 $4,551.21 $2,341.04 $2,289.31 $0.00 $0.00 $351.08 Last Year Cost $842.76 $1,207.3 Cost 2 years ago $552.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,250.42 $206.66 $363.08 $132.15 $0.00 $132.15 $0.00 $397.28 $699.42 $0.00 $0.00 $151.12 $1,637.32 $0.00 $0.00 $594.80 $83.64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $2,382.47 $0.00 3.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. VENTURI ONLY, BODY, BLADE ETC. 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 4 4I 3 3 3 3 3 3.3 $0.00 $250.92 $5,337.28 $0.00 $0,00 $448.14 $5,299.48 $97.77 $2,519.13 $731.66 $3,228.44 $458.30 $2,295.73 $83.64 $2,874.59 $91.66 $303.73 $633.60 5 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 $12,695.02 3.7 1 2 UNITS, DUTY/STANBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. 3.7 1 2 UNITS DUTY / STANDBY. SHOULD BE REPLACED. 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 144,599.7 $0.00 $20,335.90 $8,839.97 $3,738.49 $26,425.64 $427.62 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $86.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $81.20 $0.00 $0.00 $176,539.01 $617.01 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. $1,676.9 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. 2.3 5I INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. $0.00 $60.74 $983.06 $956.791 $361.98 $1,195.2 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 3 2.3'1 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 $497.86 $1,018.54 $4,692.08 $882.43 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 2.3 2,3 2.3 $4,298.481 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $8,466.43 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $15,299.08 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $12,625.55 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 $10,448.52 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA W 2.3 2.3 3 2.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $2,840.13 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA W $2,441.74 $18,210.76 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA W $3,802.80 2.3 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 3:3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.31 3.3 3.3 3:3( 3.3 4 3 $4,071.16 $333.34 $325.06 $308.35 $530.02 $0.00 $412.47 $7,578.92 $6,874.63 $7,467.87 $7,707.90 $45.83 $575.03 $704.51 $443.13 $0.00 $123.02 $0.00 $167.28 $2,581.2 $1,481.40 $0.00 $1,121.37 $1,132.42 $0.00 $1,312.4+ $987.48 $0.00 $856.36 $4,084.27 $3,242.08 $1,880.98 $376.38 $412.47 $1,044.00 $449.94 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEED TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION. 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLCED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3.3 3 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 3.3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $919.34 $2,410.87 $548.85 $0.00 $0.00 $616.70 $0.00 $0.00 $447.21 $1,019.02 $220.25 $493.22 $1,617.67 4 3 4 3.7 $157.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 so.00 $220.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $173.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,576.92 $91.66 3 INSTALL DATE: 1968/1983, NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. TOO LARGE FOR APPLICATION 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN W. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY ,THROTTLE FLOW $1,613.49 $366.64 $3,739.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $324.08 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Equip Plant Location Number Equip Type LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-IDFN 623472 FAN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-I NC3-IDFN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-IDFN LT LT-BL-BLDG-FLI-SCC-P1 LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2 LT LT-COM-1 622554 E22555 E23552 E23555 E30808 Asset Description Install Date INCINERATOR 2 INDUCED DRAFT FAN 01 -Jan -83 FAN INCINERATOR 3 INDUCED DRAFT FAN FAN PUMP PUMP COMM INUT INCINERATOR 4 INDUCED DRAFT FAN SCUM PUMP 1 BLOWER BLDG SCUM PUMP 2 COMMINUTOR 1 LT LT-COM-1-DR 630812 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 1 DRIVE LT LT-COM-2 E22480 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR2 LT LT-COM-2-DR E22481 LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3 LT-COM-3 LT-COM-4 LT-COM-4-DR LT-COM-5 LT-COM-5-DR LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU103 LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU3-DR LT LT LT-ETS H-BLDG-CU3-DR-MTR LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4 LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4-DR LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU4-DR-MTR LT LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-DR LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-DR LT LT-ETSH-BLDG-CU-MTR E22474 E22514 E22518 Overall Risk Rank Condition 01 -Jan -651 01 -Jan -65 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 2 DRIVE COMMINUT COMMINUT DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 3 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 9 COMMINUTOR 4 9 Reliability 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 9 3 01 -Jan -65 9 COMMINUTOR4 DRIVE 01 -Jan -65 E22583 COMMINUT COMMINUTOR 5 5 01 -Jan -65 9 E22506 DRVREDCE COMMINUTOR 5 DRIVE 01 -Jan -08 E21383 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 3 01 -Jan -09 E30232 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 01 -Jan -09 DRAGOUT E22301 1DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE 01 -Jan -65 E22298 MOTOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 3 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR E22738 CONVEYOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT E22300 DRVREDCE EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE E22297 MOTOR 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -09 BV0036 BV0037 BV0038 DRVREDCE DRVREDCE LT LT-GRT-T1-C-DR LT LT LT-GRT-T2-C-DR LT-GRT-T2-C-MTR LT LT-GRT-T3-C-DR LT LT-GRT-T3-C-MTR E22811 622812 E30218 622813 E33490 MOTOR EAST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 4 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR EAST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE EAST TRASH BUILDING BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE MOTOR EAST TRASH BUILDING BELT CONVEYOR MOTOR DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 1 COLLECTOR DRIVE DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 2 COLLECTOR DRIVE MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 PH , 220/440 V , 3 PH PH, 9/4.5 DRVREDCE GRIT TANK 3 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 HP , 220/440 V , 3 PH PH, 9/4.5 GRIT TANK 4 ASSEMBLY GRIT TANK 4 COLLECTOR DRIVE 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 01 -Jan -65 LT LT-GRT-T4 623152 TANK 01 -Jan -65 LT LT-GRT-T4-C-DR 623061 (DRVREDCE 01 -Jan -65 LT LT-GRT-T4-C-MTR E33489 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3 HP , 220/440 V , 3 01 -Jan -65 PH, 9/4.5 AM LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-CU1 E21314 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 1 01 -Jan -09 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1A 621054 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMPS 1A 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1B E21133 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #1I3 01 -Jan -83 621135 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #1C 01 -Jan -83 E21136 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #1D 01 -Jan -83 621139 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #2A 01 -Jan -83 621140 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #2B 01 -Jan -83 621142 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #2C 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2D E21144 PUMP ASH SLURRY PUMP #2D 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T1 621052 TANK ASH SLURRY TANK#1 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-T2 621053 TANK ASH SLURRY TANK #2 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH- 622667 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 CU -DR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-ASH- 621045 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER 1 01 -Jan -83 GRD E23247 DRVREDCE LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1C LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P1D LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2A LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2B LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-ASH-P2C LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC1-ASH- GRD-DR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-CS- MTR LT-INC-BLDG-F L 1-INC 1-CS- VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC1-FN101 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC1-FN102 LT LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC1-FNB LT-INC-BLDG-FL 1-INC 1-F N 103 LT -I N C -BLDG -FL 1-INC 1-FNA CLINKER GRINDER 1 DRIVE 620418 INCIN INCINERATOR 1 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -89 E23464 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC 01 -Jan -99 E20474 VFD CENTERSHAFT 1 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE E22493 FAN E21220 E22494 E22491 E22492 FAN FAN FAN FAN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-ASH- CU-DR E22668 01 -Jan -99 INCINERATOR 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 1 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 1 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN CENTERSHAFT 1 COOLING AIR FAN A CENTERSHAFT 1 COOLING AIR FAN B 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 2 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 3 3 3 3 Capacity Functionality 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 Financial 4 2 3 3 4 POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 Social Impacts 4 3 4 Difficulty of Repair 4 4 4 4 5 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 3.7 Redundancy POF Comments 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. APPLIES TO FAN ONLY. MOTORS SEPARATE. ALSO INLET GUIDE VANE DAMPER INCLUDED. NOT ABLE TO FULLY THROTTLE FLOW 2 3.7 5 3.7 2.0 2.0 2 2.3 5 5 3 2 2 5 1 5 2 2 8 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 3 4 5 5 3 2.3 5 2.3 2.3. 2.3 2.3 1.7 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 5 3 2 5 3 2 8 4 3 5 3 2 5 3: 2 5 2 2 5 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE.GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY. 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. CURRENTLY OUT OF SERVICE FOR REBUILDING SINCE 2YRS.NEW DRIVE WHEN REBUILT. GETS BLINDED FREQUENTLY. ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. TENDENCY TO GET BLINDED 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. 5 2.3 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. GETS BLINDED 1.7 1.7 2.0 FREQUENTLY. 5 NEW CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2.0 1.1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 5 5 2 2 5 2 5 2 5 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 5 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 31 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 5 2 2 3, 3 2 3 1 5 2 2 31 3 2 3 1 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 9 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 7 2 3 6 21 2 6 1 2 7 3 3 5 1 2 8 2 2 8 2 2' 8 2 2 6 2 2i 6 2 2 9 41 3s 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.7 1.7 3 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. 3 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7' 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 31 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. DURING PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. 3 1.7 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 3 1.7 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 2 2.0 1j 2 1 2 _ 1 4 PUMPS 2 _ 1 4 PUMPS 2 _ 1 4 PUMPS 2 1 4 PUMPS 2 2.0 1 4 PUMPS 2 2.0 1 4 PUMPS 3 2.3 5 3 2.3 5 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1. 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2' 3 1 2 3 1, 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 5 2.3 5 2 2.0 5 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS 2 2.0' 1 GEAR REDUCE, BULL AND PINION GEARS, (ALL UNITS) INCLUDES 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEM WITH CAPATIBILITY WITH VFD 3 1.7 1.7 2.01 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS 2.0 2.0 2.0 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED. INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR. ASSOCIATED DRYER ETC. 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND 2.3 MOTOR. DRYERS ETC. 5 APPLIES TO CONVEYOR COF Comments SINCE THE PLANT FLOWS AT PEAK OFTEN, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. INTEREST IN PULLING OVERHEAD LIFT TO OPERATE ON COMMINUTORS. ONE SPARE PINION SPARES AVAILABLE AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACK UP BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS Total Maint Costs $38,966.28 YTDCosts $0.00 $12,621.59 $0.00 $9,231.67 $21,638.81 Last Year Cost $446.18 $0.00 Cost 2 years ago $2,376.98 $260.34 $0.00 $1,363.07 $171.68 $0.00 $220.95 $10,16434 $26,097.6 $0.00 $2,837.92 $3,794.57 $25,616.1 $0.00 $210.48] $$588.95 $0.001 $0.00 $220,054.241 $0.00 $2,630.1 $2,232.43 13,613.271 $0.00 $10,813.99 $2,754.10 $117,485.661 $0.00 $1,742.91 $23,705.81 $201,225.90 $0.00 $0.00 1,797,14 $0.00 $119,698.6 $3,079.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $39,384.69 $45,821.99 $15,696.84 $2,479.07 $13,217.77 $16,872.66 $0.00 $155.43 $217.29 $31,859.78 $0.00 $267.22 $176.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $69,532.43 $0.00 $77,481.7 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,174.83 $130.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,478.88 $359.32 $521.43 $276.18 $2,067.59 $137.49 $508.96 $390.511; $0.00 $1,393.20 $460.34 $0.00 $14,060.20 $1,530.94 $0.00 $165.76 $139.7g $0.00 $2,517.34 $3,220.02 $448.82 $595.74 $199.70 $557.90 $0.00 $33,505.67 $2,345.26 $3,977.49 $14,313.60 $4,340.21 $1,658.50 $1,314.06 $489.85 $315.88 $1,262.42 $615.66 $326.34 0.00 $0.00 $1,262.42 $5,399.8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,579.69 $0.00 $311.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,770.53 $1,085.75 $0.00 0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-CS LT ILT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-CS- E24179 MOTOR MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-CS- E24178 VFD VFD LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN201 E21356 FAN Location Equip Number Equip Type E24177 INCIN LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN202 E21221 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FN203 E21357 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FN303 BV0047 MOTOR MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-FNA E21354 FAN -J - - --- 1LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC2-FNB E21355 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-GRD E21046 LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC2-GRD- E23249 DR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-ASH- E22669 CU -DR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI -INC3-CS Asset Description INCINERATOR 2 CENTERSHAFT Install Date 01 -Jan -89 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 INC 2 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE INCINERATOR INCINERATOR 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 2 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 2 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP, 230/460 V, 3 PH, 116/58 CENTERSHAFT2 COOLING AIR FAN A 01 -Jan -99 CENTERSHAFT 2 COOLING AIR FAN B 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83. 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83. GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #2 ASSEMBLY 01 -Jan -83, DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 2 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE E24201 INCIN LT -I N C -BLDG -FL 1-INC3-CS- MTR LT -I NC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-CS- VFD LT-INC-BLDG-F L 1-INC3-F N 301 624325 MOTOR 624324 VFD 621321 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN302 E21222 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303 E21322 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FN303 E21192 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-FNA E21319 MOTOR FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-FNB E21320 LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC3-GRD E21047 LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC3-GRD- E23250 DR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-CS E24202 LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CS- E24327 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-CS- E24326 VFD LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-CU- E22670 DR LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-FN401 E22674 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR 3 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -99 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 INC 3 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE INCINERATOR 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 3 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 3 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 116/58 INCINERATOR 3 COOLING AIR FAN A 01 -Jan -99, 01 -Jan -881 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -S3 FAN INCINERATOR 3 COOLING AIR FAN B 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83. 01 -Jan -83. GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #3 ASSEMBLY 01 -Jan -83 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 3 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 INCIN INCINERATOR 4 CENTERSHAFT 01 -Jan -89 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 20 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 46.2/23 VFD INC 4 CENTERSHAFT VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE DRVREDCE ASH SCREW CONVEYOR 4 DRIVE FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN402 E21223 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403 E22675 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FN403 E21191 MOTOR MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FNA E22672 FAN ILT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-FNB E22673 FAN LT-INC-BLDG-FLI-INC4-GRD E21048 LT-INC-BLDG-FL1-INC4-GRD- E23251 DR LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC(-SRW- E24249 STR INCINERATOR 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN AFTERBURNER 4 COMBUSTION AIR FAN INCINERATOR 4 AUXILIARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 50 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH, 3535 RP INCINERATOR 4 COOLING AIR FAN A 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -99, 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83' 01 -Jan -83, 01 -Jan -83. INCINERATOR 4 COOLING. AIR FAN B 01 -Jan -83 GRINDER CLINKER GRINDER #4 ASSEMBLY 01 -Jan -83 DRVREDCE CLINKER GRINDER 4 DRIVE 01 -Jan -83 PROSERST INCINERATOR#1 SCRUBBER ADAMS I 01 -Jan -83 STRAINER LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-HTH9- E21346 BNR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC2-SRW- E24295 STR LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC3-SRW- E24296 STR LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-INC4-SRW- E24297 STR LT -I N C -B LDG-FL2-SCBR2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-SCBR3 LT-INC-BLDG-FL2-S C B R4 LT-INC-BLDG- F L 3-CRP9-10- MTR LT -I NC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-11- MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-12- 631846 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-CRP9-9- E31839 MTR LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-W H81 INCIN PROSERST INCINERATOR #2 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER PROSERST INCINERATOR #3 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER PROSERST E24279 WETSCRUB E24274 WETSCRUB E24275 WETSCRUB E31841 MOTOR E31843 MOTOR (MOTOR MOTOR BV0048 BOILER LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB2 BV0049 BOILER LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB3 BV0050 BOILER LT 'LT-INC-BLDG-FL3-WHB4 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM- INC1-FGS-ANLR BV0051 BOILER 624146 Overall Risk Rank INCINERATOR 2 HEARTH 9 BURNER 3 01 -Jan -83' 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 INCINERATOR #4 SCRUBBER ADAMS STRAINER IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER #2 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 3 IMPINGEMENT SCRUBBER 4 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH, 3/1.5 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH. 3/1.5 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 3/4 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH, 3/1.5 MOTOR, ELECTRIC. 3/4 HP , 230/460 V 3 PH, 3/1.5 WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM NO. 1 01 -Jan -83. 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 WASTE HEAT BOILER FLY ASH SYSTEM 2 WASTE HEAT BOILER/FLY ASH SYSTEM 3 WASTE HEAT BOILER- FLY ASHS SYSTEM 4 INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #1 OXYGEN ANALYZER 01 -Jan -83. 01 -Jan -83. 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83, 01 -Jan -83. 6 7 5 8 8 8 8 6 6 7 6 9 6 7' 51 8 8 8 8 6 6 7 6 6 7 5 9 8 8 8 8 6 6 7 6 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 7 Condition 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Reliability 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 Capacity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Functionality 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 Health & Safety 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 21 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 COF Rank Social Difficulty of (Average of COF Impacts Repair Ratings) 3 1 2 2.0 3 1 1.7 3 1.7 Redundancy" POF Comments_ 3 SEE NO. 1, INCINERATOR, GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARS 1 PLANNING ON REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH CAPATABILITY WITH UFO. 3 2 2,.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2,0 3 1 2 2.0 3 1 2 2:0 3 T 2 2.0 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. FAN AND MOTOR BACKUP FOR BURNER AND AUX. FAN. COF Comments SPARE PINION AVAILABLE Total Maint Costs YTDCosts $35,553.30 $14,026.91 SPARES AVAILABLE AUX. AND AFTERBURNER FANS BACKUP 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FAN . NOT NORMALLY USED 1 AUXILARRY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago $1,175.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,015.78 $183.32 $43.39 $1,732.09 $379.32 $252.42 $2,565.93 $0.00 $0.00 $6,218.70 $0.00 $438.40 NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, ASSOCIATED DAMER ETC. 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWER AND MOTOR, DAMPERS ETC. 3 3 2.3 5 3 1 2 2.0 5 $2,249.02 $534.86 $2,798.05 $383.38 $1,498.2 $8,588.8ta $0.00 $767.91 $0.00 3 1 3 2.3 5 $4,471.07 3 1 2 2.0 3 1 1 1.7 3 1 1': 1.7 3 1 2 2.0 3 1 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 3 1 2 3 1 2 2.0 3 1, 3 2.3 5 3 1 2 2.0 5 3 1 2 2.0 3 9 1 1.7 2.0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 INCLUDES GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARS ONE SPARE PINION $43,978.67 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO COMPATABILITY WITH VFD 3 SPARES AVAILABLE $41.82 $854.07 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. FAN AND MOTORS AUX. AND AFTER BURNERS FANS BACKUP $567.61 $0.00 $0.00 $78.80 $2,632.6 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $91.661 $43.39 $0.00 $86.78 BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS $0.00 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS, NOT NORMALLY USED 1 Auxiliary fan combustion fan motor $7,851.25 NOT USED NORMALLY. USED AS A BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS. 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. BLOWER AND MOTOR, ASSOCIATED DAMPER ETC. 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. BLOWERS AND MOTORS, DAMPERS ETC. $137.38 $3,245.02 $1,144.89 $18,995.17 $275.67 $0.00 $1,378.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 SEE NO. 1. INCLUDES GEAR REDUCER, BALL AND PINION GEARS 1 PLANNING A REPLACEMENT DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH COM PATABILITY WITH VFD. 3 1 1 1.7 3 3 1 3 2;3 3 1 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 3 11 2 2.0 3 2 2.0 ONE SPARE PINION SPARES AVAILABLE $52,889.54 $10,903.00 50.00 $83.64 $0.00 $0.00 $499.92 $69.05 $284.24 $0.00 $4,925.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41.82 $167.28 $326.13 $39.16 $0.00 $0.00 $1,748.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $185.80 $0.93 $0.00. $0.001 $0.00' $91.66 $6,489.54 $11,322.41 $0.00 $4,395.91 $5,294.40 $8,135.27' $185.61 $130.17 5 APPLIES TO CONVEYORS $4,764.46 $1,836.05 $0.00 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. FANS AND MOTORS 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. STANDBY FOR OTHER FANS. NOT NORMALLY USED. 1 AUXILLARY COMBUSTION AIR FAN MOTOR AUX. AND AFTER FANS BACKUP $715.13 $0.00 $0.00 BURNER AND AUX. FAN BACKUPS $0.00 $0.00 NOT NORMALLY USED. USED AS BACKUP FOR COMBUSTION AIR FANS. 6,088.75 $584.19 $132.44 $0.00 1 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. BLOWER AND MOTOR,ASSOCIATED DAMPER ETC. 11 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA M. BLOWER AND MOTOR, DAMPERS ETC. $1,758.37 $0.00 $2,134.50 3 3 2.3 5 3 1 2 2.0 5 3 1 3 2.3 3 3 2.3 $30,780.33 $2,909.11 $0.00 $83.64 $0.00 $0.00 $36.60 $0.00 $663.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $513.23 $9,002.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. 1 AND 3 LARGER THAN 2 AND 4 (FEEDS FLYASH REMOVED FROM WASTE HEAT BOILERS) 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64. RARELY USED 3 1 3 23 5 3 1 3 2,3 $3,825.74 $161.72 $0.00 $3,328.68 $0.00 $5,693.79 $0.00 5 $8,334.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $646.06 $0.00 $460.38 3 3 2.3 5 8,185.48 3 3 2 2.7 3 3 2 2.7 0 3 3 2 2.7 5 3 3 2.3 3 1 3 2.3 3 1 3 2.3 3 1 3 2.3 4 1 3 2.7 $1,823.17 $300.35 $786.10 5 PUMP AND MOTOR 51 PUMP AND MOTOR $129.45 $0.00 $6,150.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $129.45 $0.00 $0.00 5 PUMP AND MOTOR 5 PUMP AND MOTOR $0.00 $0.00 $173.56 $1,405.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $228.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVES, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM 2.7 5 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM 2.7 5 THREE HPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM 2.7 23 PRODUCER, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF SYSTEM 5 3 HOPPER VALVES, MAIN VALVE, VACUUM PRODUCERS, EXHAUSTERS ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM $5,500.92 $5,405.72 $0.00 $0.00 LT LT -I NC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM- INC2-FGS-ANLR INSTRMNT AFTERBURNER #2 OXYGEN ANALYZER 2.3 $83.64 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description Install Date Overall Risk Rank Condition Reliability Capacity Functionality Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) Health & Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago LT LT-INC-BLDG- F L 5-ANLR- R M- INC3-FGS-ANLR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-ANLR-RM- E24152 IN C4 -F G S -AN LR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-HTH5- E22442 BNR2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC1-SCBR E24228 E24151 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC2-SCBR E24280 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-HTH3- E23031 BNR1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC3-SCBR E24281 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-INC4-SCBR E24282 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL5-WHB4 E20470 E21061 E21064 E21067 INSTRMNT INSTRMNT INCIN WETSCRUB WETSCRUB INCIN WETSCRUB WETSCRUB BOILER BOILER BOILER BOILER LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN12- E33688 VFD VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-IDFN34- E33689 VFD VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-ABNR E20419 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC1-FGS- E21381 INSTRMNT ANLR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-ABNR E23465 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC2-FGS- E23391 INSTRMNT ANLR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-ABNR E23469 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC3-FGS- E23045 INSTRMNT ANLR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-ABNR E23471 INCIN LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL6-INC4-FGS- E22652 INSTRMNT ANLR LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1 LT-INC-BLDG- F L 7-B P 1-B B LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-CP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-HP- MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-POL- INJ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-TBLT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-WWP LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2 LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-BBLT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-CP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-HP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-POL- INJ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-TBLT E22909 BELTPRES E23519 BELTPRES E21247 E23352 E22922 E23518 ELECCNTL MOTOR BELTPRES BELTPRES E23522 VSD E21243 PUMP E22910 BELTPRES E23523 BELTPRES E21254 E20655 E22927 E23521 AFTERBURNER #3 OXYGEN ANALYZER AFTERBURNER #4 OXYGEN ANALYZER INCINERATOR 1 HEARTH 5 BURNER 2 PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER INCINERATOR 3 HEARTH 3 BURNER 1 INC3 PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER 3 PRECOOLER-QUENCHER SCRUBBER WASTE HEAT BOILER 1 WASTE HEAT BOILER 2 WASTE HEAT BOILER 3 WASTE HEAT BOILER 4 ID FANS 1 AND 2 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE ID FANS 3 AND 4 VARIALBLE FREQUENCY DRIVE AFTERBURNER #1(SHELL) INCINERATOR #1 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER AFTERBURNER #2 (SHELL) INCINERATOR #2 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER AFTERBURNER 3 INCINERATOR #3 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER AFTERBURNER 4 INCINERATOR #4 FLUE GAS OXYGEN ANALYZER BELT FILTER PRESS 1 BELT FILTER PRESS #1 BOTTOM BELT BELT FILTER PRESS #1 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 230/460 V , 3 PH, 5.8/2.9 A BELT FILTER PRESS 1 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RIN BELT FILTER PRESS #1 TOP BELT BELT FILTER PRESS #1 VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLLER BELT FILTER PRESS 1 BELT WASH WATER PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS #2 BELT FILTER PRESS #2 BOTTOM BELT ELECCNTL SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #2 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL PUMP BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #2 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RI BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #2 TOP BELT PUMP, SUBMERSIBLE, 1.15 HP, 208,230/480 VOLT, 1720 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-VFD E23527 VSD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-WWP E23188 PUMP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3 E22911 LT LT -I N C -B LD G-FL7-BP3-BB LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-CP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-HP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-POL- INJ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-TBLT BELTPRES E23526 BELTPRES E23546 E23355 E22933 ELECCNTL PUMP BELTPRES E23524 BELTPRES SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #2 VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER BELT FILTER PRESS 2 BELT WASH WATER PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS #3 BELT FILTER PRESS #3 BOTTOM BELT SLUDGE FILTER PRESS 3 BELT LOCAL CONTROL PANEL BELT FILTER PRESS 3 HYDRAULIC PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS #3 POLYMER - SOLUTION INJECTION RI BELT FILTER PRESS #3 TOP BELT 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -98 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 01 -Jan -92 7 7 9 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 11 11 10 7 8 7 10 7 10 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.3 2.7 2.3 3.3 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.0 5 5 5 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64. MHF BURNERS 5 INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS. 5 5 5 5 5 2 2.0 4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 1 4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 2 3 1 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 4 41 INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS. INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS. INCLUDES WASTE HEAT BOILER, SOOT BLOWERS AND DAMPENERS. 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 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES 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 2.0 1 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE 2.0 2.0 2.0 4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES 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 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES 2.0 1 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES NOT OPERATIONAL NOT OPERATIONAL $8,323.54 $12,441.92 $1,521.83 $165.76 $38.96 $9,979.51 $0.00 $3,387.58 $14,168.72 $30,303.08 $30,905.92 $42,212.14 $26,408.57 $9,568.90 $436.05 $3,609.51 $4,516.63 $12,412.54 $7,861.74 $20,601.94 $4,567.90 $31,413.44 $110,822.88 $0.00 $3,067.33 $91.66 $0.00 $0.00 $8,531.57 $0.00 $0.00 $6,101.56 $2,270.76 $5,648.25 $1,878.95 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,054.17 $458.30 $638.06 $1,225.25 $1,202.51 $631.37 $9,415.52 $0.00 $10,254.10 $2,408.40 $2,710.47' $91.66 $2,724.3✓' $1,828.85 $3,185.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $165.76 $0.01 $1,201.0 $0.00 $264.31 $1,398.92. $1,922.2!. $2,349.69 $2,944.6 $1,383.78 $2,920.33 $2,128.17 $3,037.93 $2,130.54 $13,016.73 $1,471.09 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $105.81 $616.01 $209.11 $2,275.61 $0.01 $0.00 $2,604.88 $1,265.98 $1,730.84 $606.69 $0.01 $2,534.68 $3,954.26 $41,666.31 $6,267.91 $284.96 $1,999.71 $274.98 $91.66 $0.00 $783.15 $28,220.58 $4,723.94 $1,535.72 $0.00 $6,384.20 $668.57 $186,019.09 $0.00 $22,582.65 $3,385.85 $2,453.41 $0.00 $9,622.9i-$767.52 $2,364.56 $0.00 $11,140.03 $2,778.00 $3,224.67 $91.66 $0.00 $2,050.53 $0.01 $2,223.46 $0.01 $88.10 $2,758.78 $9,177.48 $84.91 $0.01 $75,346.0 $683.27 $2,641.81 $86.78 $1,357.14 $0.00 $384.82 $1,758.10 $10,436.45 $1,156.08 $1,190.25 $163,080.10 $0.00 $38,405.53 $2,444.10 $719.14 $3,055.80 $907.47 $21,087.01. $293.57 $175.80 $869.64 $2,918.65 $22,205.94 $167.21 $3,629.3' $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 $6,400.93 $9,420.49 $1,852.2: $0.00 $597.05 $0.00 $250.14 $385.1, $1,208.61 $0.01 $2,125.7' LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-VFD E23529 VSD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-WWP E23190 PUMP SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #3 VARIABLE 01 -Jan -92 SPEED CONTROLLER PUMP, CENTRIFUGAL 01 -Jan -92 6 6 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 2.0 2.0 $788.8 $183.32 $4,663.32 $3.60 $0.00 $0.01 $263.91 $0.01 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4 Location LT LT LT LT LT Equip Number E22912 LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-BBLT E23531 LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CP 1E23547 LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-HP- E23356 MTR _ LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-POL- E22760 INJ LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-TBLT E23530 Equip Type Asset Description, BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 Install Date 01 -Jan -92 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 , BOTTOM BELT 01 -Jan -92 ELECCNTL BFP4 LOCAL CONTROL PANEL 01 -Jan -92 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 1 HP , 230/460 V , 3 01 -Jan -92 PH, 3.2/1.6 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 POLYMER 01 -Jan -92' SOLUTION INJECTION R BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #4 TOP BELT 01 -Jan -92 Overall Risk Rank 6 Condition 3 6 3 Reliability 2 Capacity 3 Functionality 3 Financial 6 3 2 6 3 2 3 3 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 Health & Safety 3 3 Social Impacts 6 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 Difficulty of Repair 4 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 2.0 4 Redundancy 1 POF Comments 1 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 COF Comments Total Maint _ Costs YTDCosts $167,165.51 $0.00 Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago 2.0 1 BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE 1 20 2.0 1 1 IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES 4 2.0 6 3 2 3 $12,115.15 $4,335.15 $22,496.74 $2,227.481 $837.62 $3,914.35 $5,406.79 $675.37 $121.11 $290.55 $463.40 $0.00 $0.00 $675.37 $1,727.54 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2.0 1 .BELT DAMAGE OFTEN DUE TO SOLIDS BLOCKAGE $36,029.38 $5,592.80 $866.20 IN RECIEVING WELL AND PUMPED TO PRESSES LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-VFD E23533 VSD SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #4, VARIABLE 01 -Jan -92 6 3 2 3 3 SPEED CONTROLER LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-WWP E23191 PUMP BFP4 WASH WATER PUMP 01 -Jan -92 6 3 2 3 3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5 E22913 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 5 01 -Jan -00 6 ,LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-BBLT E23535 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5, BOTTOM BELT 01 -Jan -00 6 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-HP- MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-POL- INJ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-TBLT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-WWP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-BBLT 3 3 2.0 $7,659.33 $4,804.20 $1,983.30 $0.00 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 2.0 1 2.0 1 ISSUE WITH HYDRAULIC DRIVE FOR 3 -WAY VALVE. USED LEAST OF 6 PRESSES. $0.00 $2,971.59 $606.35 $2,170.21 $0.00 $64,301.19 $0.00 $7,202.4: $6,679.75 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 2.0 1 $7,676.53 $1,822.16 $3,725.5 $1,989.39 E23357 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 1.5 HP , 230/460 V , 01 -Jan -00 6 1 3 PH, 4./2.0 E22942 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5 POLYMER- 01 -Jan -00 6 1 SOLUTION INJECTION RI E23534 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #5 TOP BELT 01 -Jan -00 6 1 E23537 VSD SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #5, VARIABLE 01 -Jan -00 6 SPEED CONTROLER E23193 PUMP BFP5 WASH WATER PUMP 01 -Jan -00 6 1 E22914 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS 6 01 -Jan -04 6 1 E23539 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6, BOTTOM BELT 01 -Jan -07 6 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-HP E23359 PUMP BELT FILTER PRESS 6 HYDRAULIC PUMP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-POL- 1E22948 INJ LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-TBLT E23538 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-VFD E23541 01 -Jan -04 BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6 POLYMER SOLUTION INJECTION RI BELTPRES BELT FILTER PRESS #6 TOP BELT VSD SLUDGE FILTER PRESS #6, VARIABLE SPEED CONTROLER PUMP BFP6 BELT PRESS 6 WASH WATER PUMP CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC -01 -PRESSES 1 & 5 TO SC -03P CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC -05 - PRESS 3 TO SC -07P CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC -09 - BETWEEN SLUDGE BINS 1 & 2 SCREW CONVEYOR SC -12 - INTO INC 1 DROPCHUTE MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 AMP , SCREW CONVEYOR SC -13 - INTO INC 2 DROPCHUTE MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 A, 17 CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC -14 - INTO INC 3 DROPCHUTE MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 AMP , CONVEYOR SCREW CONVEYOR SC -15 - INTO INC 4 DROPCHUTE MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 350 HP , 4000 V , 3 PH, 45 A, 17 TANK INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-WWP E23330 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU01 E31129 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU05 E31134 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU09 E31140 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-CU12 E31125 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INCI-IDFN- E36246 MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-CU13 E31126 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-IDFN- E24153 MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-CU14 E31127 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-IDFN- E24188 MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-CU15 E31128 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-IDFN- E24209 MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1 CONVEYOR MOTOR 'CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04.. 01 -Jan -04. 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -09, 01 -Jan -831 01 -Jan -09' 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU1-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU2 E31896 E35008 CONVEYOR NC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-1 E35009 VFD INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1 VFD E35012 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-2 E35013 VFD INC BLG SLUDGE BIN I LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 2 VFD E35016 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-3 E35017 1VFD INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 3 VFD E35020 CONVEYOR INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 1-4 E35021 VFD INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 1 LIVE BOTTOM CONVEYOR 4 VFD E31897 TANK INC BLG SLUDGE BIN 2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU2-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU3-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU4__. LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU4-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU4 LT LT-INC-BLDG-STK LT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T1 E30664 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR I E30665 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 2 E30666 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN SCREW CONVEYOR 3 E30667 CONVEYOR EAST LIVE BOTTOM BIN. SCREW CONVEYOR 4 E23573 FACEXT INCINERATION STACK BV0027 TANK DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT # 1 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -83 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -97 6 6 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 2:0 $640.86 $423.30 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 2.0 1 $98.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 4 4 2.0 1 2.0 1 $12,958.22 $3,666.86 1 $6,811.86 $0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 $415.77 $2,013.28 $173.56 $2,047.86 $387.32 $0.00 $86.78 $41.82 2 1 1 1 1 3 153,302.85 $0.00 $8,955.06 $2,341.43 $25,663.37 $4,443.09 $6,661.92 $7,274.57 3 2 3 1 1 4 2.0 1 $1,548.33 $0.00 $0.001 $1,413.41 3 6 1 1 3 6 1 1 3 6 3 1I 3 5 2 5 2 2 3 5 2 2 6 2 3 3 8 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 2.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 2.0 1 2.0 $18,520.98 $4,390.39 $6,105.50 $4,751.33 $2,584.57 $0.00 $493.56 $1,853.15 3 2l 3 2 3 1 1 4 2.0 1 $5,081.98 $0.00 $88.10 $0.00 3 1 3 1.7 5 USUAL MAINTENANCE REPLACING LINERS AND SCREWS 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 1.7 5 USUAL MAINTAINENCE RELACING LINERS AND SCREWS 6 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1.7 $11,643.45 $0.00 $616.70 $1,527.92 $4,810.64 $1,193.49 $1,983.25 $40.55 $10,806.21 $2258.90 $2,344.7- $378.90 1 2 2.0 5 $4,438.69 $87.56 $0.00 $880.75 1 4 2.7 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 $10,240.841 $10,078.44 $0.00 $0.00 2.0 8 1 2 3 6 2 3 3 4 2.7 3 3 8 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 2.0 3 3 3 2.7 6 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2.0 8 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 $7,152.7 $470.7r1 $80.49 $2,481.71 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PN 64 5 $2,715.2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,852.74 ($1,060.55) $5,480.0 $0.00 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 $8,065.72 $0.00 $4,217.0. $3,280.94 $18,013.89 $595.40 $173.56 $1,473.93 2.7 5 INSTALL DATA SOURCE: PA 64 5 2 1 3 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 01 -Jan -97' 5' 2 1 3 3 01 -Jan -97' 5 2 01 -Jan -97 ' 5 01 -Jan -97' 5 01 -Jan -68 01 -Jan -65 LT LT-THK-BLDG-FL2-DAF-T2 BV0028 TANK DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION UNIT#2 01 -Jan -65 LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1 E20512 CONVEYOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK I LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU104 DRAGOUT 11 7 7 01 -Jan -09 B 1E21382 CONVEYOR GRIT CONVEYOR 4 01 -Jan -09 5 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 3 3 $1,289.9 $0.00 $46.30 $1,081.22 1.7 2 LINERS NEED REPLACEMENT. MOTORS AND DRIVED REPLACED 3 YEARS AGO IF THE BIN IS OUT OF SERVICE, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO WHICH INCINERATOR THEY CAN OPERATE. $127,656.85 $1,336.10 $2,729.4 $723.45 1.7 2 $1,238.51 3 1.7 2 1,7 2 2 3 1.7 3 2 1.7 2 3 3 3 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 5 3.7 3 1.7 3 1.7 1 20 1.7 2 MOTOR AND DRIVES WERE REPLACED 3 YEARS AGO. IF THE BIN IS OUT OF SERVICE, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO WHICH INCINERATOR THEY CAN OPERATE 2 2 2 2 LINERS NEED REPLACEMENT $0.00 $1,177.8• $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00.. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,245.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,044.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,967.19 $1,717.23 $0.00- $0.00 $11,245.101 $0.00 $0.00 $11,044.48 $0.001 $1,035.55 $11,442.12 $0.00 $0.00 $11,442.12 $15,134.96 $0.00 $173.56 $11,722.60 $13,691.77 $0.00 $0.001 $12252.22 $11,926.92 $0.00 $1,302.66 $10,585.30 5 NEEDS INSPECTION. 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. FOR GREASE AND FLOATABLE SEPERATION. 2 HIGH MAINTAINENCE ITEM. DRAGOUT TROUGH IS HEAVILY CORRODED BUT PLANNED TO BE REPLACED 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION $204,325.81 $0.00 $625.81: $5,614.45 AT PEAK FLOWS, NO REDUNDANCY AVAILABLE. $63,050.79 $0.00 $798.80 $21,857.36 $26,101.98 $0.00 $1,872.99 $1,495.4$ 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU1-DR E22292 LT ILT-WTSH-BLDG-CUI-DR-MTR E22293 LT ILT-WISH-BLDG-CU2 LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2-DR E22303 Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description DRVREDCE WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR E20513 CONVEYOR DRVREDCE LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU2-DR-MTR E22299 MOTOR LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU-DR BV0040 DRVREDCE LT LT-WTSH-BLDG-CU-MTR BV0041 MOTOR LT LT-BL-BLDG-FLI-WAS-P1 E20690 PUMP LT ,LT-BL-BLDG-FLI-WAS-P1- E23331 MOTOR MTR LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2 E20910 PUMP LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P2- E32692 ,MOTOR MTR LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P3- E21295 MTR LT LT-BL-BLDG-FL1-WAS-P4- I E21300 MTR LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-SC 2 E40054 LT LT-GS-BLDG-FL4-SC1 E40052 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P1 E22967 LT ILT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P1- MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-POL-P2- MTR LT LT -I NC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P1 MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 1 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT DRIVE WEST TRASH BLDG GRIT TANK 2 DRAGOUT DRIVE MOTOR WEST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR DRIVE WEST TRASH BLDG. BELT CONVEYOR MOTOR PUMP, CENTRIFUGAL, 4 IN, 5 IN, 15 IN , SINGLE , 14 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 144/72 WAS PUMP #2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 137.4/68 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 137.4/6 Install Date 01 -Jan -65 Overall Risk Rank Condition 5 3 01 -Jan -65 5 3 2 2 3 01 -Jan -09 8 4 3 3 3 01 -Jan -65, 5 3 2 2 3 01 -Jan -65 5 3 2' 2 3 01 -Jan -65 5 2 2 3 3 01 -Jan -65 5 2 2 3 3 01Jan-99� 2 3 3 01 -Jan -99 1 Reliability 01 -Jan -85 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 60 HP, 230/460 V , 01 -Jan -99 3 PH, 144/72 CONVEYOR G&S SCREW CONVEYOR 2 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -04 01 -Jan -89 CONVEYOR PUMP G&S SCREW CONVEYOR I RAW POLYMER PUMP 1 E24078 (MOTOR MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 E22968 E24079 E22878 PUMP MOTOR PUMP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P1- E23277 VFD VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P2 E22879 PUMP SLUDGE PUMP#2 PH, 13.6/6.8 RAW POLYMER PUMP 2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460V , 3 PH, 13.6/6.8 SLUDGE PUMP #1 SLUDGE FEED PUMP #1 VFD & PROCESS PANEL LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P2- E23280 VFD VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P3 E22759 PUMP LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P3- 1E23281 VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P4 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P4- VFD LT LT -I N C-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P5 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P5- VFD LT LT LT LT -I N C-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P6 LT-INC-BLDG-FL4-SLD-P6- VFD LT -I NC-BLDG-FL7-BPI -CU VFD E22880 PUMP E23282 VFD E22971 PUMP E23278 VFD E22902 E23283 E23460 PUMP VFD CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP1-CU-DR E23289 DRVREDCE LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT 01 -Jan -89 2 01 -Jan -89 2 01 -Jan -89 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 VFD & PROCESS PANEL SLUDGE PUMP #3 SLUDGE FEED PUMP 3 VFD & PROCESS PANEL SLUDGE PUMP #4 SLUDGE FEED PUMP 4 VFD& PROCESS PANEL SLUDGE FEED PUMP 5 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 SLUDGE FEED PUMP 5 VFD SLUDGE FEED PUMP 6 SLUDGE FEED PUMP 6 VFD BFP#1 CONVEYOR BFP 1 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP2-CU E23463 CONVEYOR SCALE, WEIGH LT-INC-BLDG-FL7.9P2-CU-DR E23290 DRVREDCE LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-13P3-CU E31494 CONVEYOR LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP3-CU-DR E33512 DRVREDCE LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CU 1E31495 CONVEYOR LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP4-CU-DR E33513 DRVREDCE LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-CU E31497 CONVEYOR LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP5-CU-DR E33514 DRVREDCE LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-CU E31498 CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-BP6-CU-DR E33515 DRVREDCE LT LT LT LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CUO2 E31130 LT -I NC-BLDG-FL7-CU03 E31131 LT-INC-BLDG-F L 7-C U O3 P LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CUO4 LT -I NC -B LDG-FL7-CU06 CONVEYOR CONVEYOR E31132 CONVEYOR E30662 CONVEYOR LT E30660 CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CU07 E31137 CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CUO7P E31136 CONVEYOR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-CUO8 E31139 CONVEYOR BFP 2 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE BELT CONVEYOR-BFP3 BFP 3 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE BELT CONVEYOR -BFPO BFP 4 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE BELT CONVEYOR-BFPS BFP 5 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE BELT CONVEYOR-BFP6 BFP 6 CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE SCREW CONVEYOR SC -02 - PRESS 2 TO SC -03P SCREW CONVEYOR SC -03 - VERTICAL TO SLUDGE BIN 1 SCREW CONV SC -03P - INTO VERT SCREW SLUDGE BIN 1 SCREW CONVEYOR SC -04 - SC -04 INTO SLUDGE BIN 1 SCREW CONVEYOR SC -06 - PRESS 4 & 6 TO SC -07P SCREW CONVEYOR SC -07 - VERTICAL TO SLUDGE BIN 2 SCREW CONY SC -07P - INTO VERT SCREW SLUDGE BIN 2 SCREW CONVEYOR SC -08 - INTO SLUDGE BIN 2 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -95 01 -Jan -01 2 01 -Jan -00 2 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 01 -Jan -00 2 01 -Jan -98 2 01 -Jan -97 2 2 01 -Jan -97 01 -Jan -97 S 1 1 1 2 Capacity 2 Functionality 3 3 3 3 Financial 2 2 2 2 2 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 Health & Safety 1 Social Impacts 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 01 -Jan -00 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 1T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 Difficulty of Repair 3 3 4 3 3 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 3 3 2 2 1.7 1.7 2 2.0 2 1.7 3 1.7 2 1.7 1.7 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3, 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1.3 2 1.3 5 1.3 5 1.3 2 1.3 1.3 SCREWS FOR THE BACKUP GRIT DUMPSTERS SCREWS FOR THE BACKUP GRIT DUMPSTERS EVERY 5 YEARS THEY HAVE TO REPLACE STARTER AND MOTOR. ULTRASONIC SENSOR FOR TANK IS OUT OF SERVICE 2 2 EVERY 5 YEARS THEY HAVE TO REPLACE STARTER AND MOTOR. ULTRASONIC SENSOR FOR TANK IS OUT OF SERVICE 2 1.3 2 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS 1.3 2 1.3 2 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM. OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS 1.3 2 1.3 2 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS 1.3 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Redundancy' POF Comments 2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COF Comments Total Maint 1 Costs YTDCosts $1,053.19 $0.00 $1,080.60 Cost 2 years Last Year Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,838.49 $0.00 $2,783.42 $0.00 ago $0.00 $3,470. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 07 $0.00 $0.00 $41,090.30 $9,863.43 $9,195.23 $2,130. $8,055.09 $6,846.01 $0.00 $88.10 $663.93 $2,006.73 $1,410. SEAL WATER STATION IS HEAVILY CORRODED (STEEL TANK) $91.66 11 $91.66 $0.00 $8,228.32 $313.69 $0.00 $8,103.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,485.49 $0.00 $0.00 $21,243.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.600., $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66. 18 $8,191. ' $3,661.66 $1,695.:: $427. $0.00 $0.00 $5,919.10 $299.78 $560.43 $7,562.2 2 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS 2 INTEND TO INSTALL GRINDERS UPSTREAM OF EACH PUMP. EACH PUMP IS DEDICATED TO ONE PRESS 2 5 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1.3 OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS OCCASIONAL ROLLER REPLACEMENT REQUIRED ON ALL BELT CONVEYORS MORE PROBLEMS WITH BEARINGS AND LINERS ON VERTICAL SCREWS 1T $221.83 $234.64 $0.00 $393.15 $405.43 $422.73 $997.04 $367.87 $88.10 $167.281 $1,058.491 $0.00 $5,506.5' $339.75 $428.22 $1,117. $451.20 $0.00 $0.00 $410. $12,199.2 $1,597.87( $962.9' $632. $0.00 $0.00 21 72 95 $9,390.91 $1,499.76 $366.89 $723.31 $27,961.0 $1,610. $1,843.7 $5,685.0 $199.6 $0.00 $316.04 $86.78 $0.00 $525.30 $0.00 $0.00 $1,214.7 $0.00 $1,444.62 $2,045.96 $750.33 $750.33 $0.00 $0.00 60 $0.00 61 $223.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $79,318. $1,561.23 $540.90 $673. $15,555.17 $1,231.74 $1,487.1 $41.82 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC1-CU1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC2-CU2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC3-CU3 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-INC4-CU4 Location Equip Number Equip Type Asset Description LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT1- CRP1 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT1- CRP1-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT2- CRP2 LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-POL-MT2- CRP2-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU1-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU2-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU3-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T1- CU4-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU1-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU1-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU2-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU2-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU3-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU3-VFD LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU4-MTR LT LT-INC-BLDG-FL7-SLD-T2- CU4-VFD LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD1 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD2 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD3 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD4 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFDS LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD6 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD7 LT LT-PRI-BLDG-FL2-VFD8 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P10 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-PIO-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P5 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P5-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P6 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P6-MTR LT LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P7 LT-PRI-TNLE-P7-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P8 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P8-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P9 LT LT-PRI-TNLE-P9-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P1 LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P1-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P2 LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P2-MTR LT LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P3 LT-PRI-TNLW-P3-MTR LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P4 LT LT-PRI-TNLW-P4-MTR MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1A- BKR1C MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1A- BKR2D MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B- BKR2D MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B- BKR3A MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R3-MCC1B- BKR4B MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-1 MT MT MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR MT -ADM -BLDG -R6 -GE N2-1 MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR E31119 CONVEYOR E31857 CONVEYOR E31121 CONVEYOR E31122 CONVEYOR E21396 PUMP E24080 MOTOR E21400 PUMP E24081 MOTOR E35011 MOTOR E35014 MOTOR E35018 MOTOR E35022 MOTOR E22007 MOTOR E21706 VFD E33641 MOTOR E21708 VFD E22009 MOTOR E21709 VFD E33642 MOTOR E21710 VFD E21701 E21420 E21421 E21423 E21424 E21425 E21428 E21429 E20532 VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD VFD PUMP E21567 MOTOR E20878 PUMP E21787 MOTOR E20879 PUMP E21788 MOTOR E21790 PUMP E21416 MOTOR E21417 PUMP E21791 MOTOR E22781 PUMP E21566 MOTOR E21696 PUMP E21690 MOTOR E20875 PUMP E21783 MOTOR E20876 PUMP E21784 MOTOR E20877 PUMP E21785 MOTOR E17867 E19148 E19160 E19161 E17872 E19777 E19779 E18132 E18131 ELECPWR ELECPWR ELECPWR ELECPWR ELECPWR GENERATR ENGINE GENERATR ENGINE Install Date BELT CONVEYOR IWC 1 - INC 1 WEIGH 01 -Jan -00 CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 2 - INC 2 WEIGH CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 3 - INC 3 WEIGH CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR IWC 4 - INC 4 WEIGH CONVEYOR POLYMER SOLUTION PUMP 1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 7.5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 20/10 POLYMER SOLUTION PUMP 2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 7.5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 20/10 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 01 -Jan -06 PH, 13.2/6.6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 01 -Jan -06 PH, 13.2/6.6 THICKENER 1 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5HP , 230/460 V , 3 PH, 13.2/6.6 THICKENER 2 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 01 -Jan -06 PH, 13.2/6.6 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -00 01 -Jan -85 01 -Jan -85 01 -Jan -85 01 -Jan -85 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -06 THICKENER 3 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 5 HP , 230/460 V , 3 01 -Jan -06 PH, 13.2/6.6 01 -Jan -06 THICKENER 4 BOTTOM SCREW CONVEYOR VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 1 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 3 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 4 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 5 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 6 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 7 VFD RAW SLUDGE PUMP 8 VFD PRIMARY STORED SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 5 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 6 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A , 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 7 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 8 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 PRIMARY STORED SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 19.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 3.33 A , 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 3 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 RAW SLUDGE PUMP 4 MOTOR, ELECTRIC, 25 HP , 460 V , 3 PH, 29.8 A, 11 ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1A BKR1C BOILER 1 BREAKER ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1A BKR2D BOILER WATER REC PUM ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR2D BOILER WATER REC PUM ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR3A BOILER REC PUMP 3 BR ADM BLDG MCC ROOM MCC1B BKR4B BOILER 2 BREAKER ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 1 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 2 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80- 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80- 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80- 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -80 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 01 -Jan -88 5 01 -Jan -88 6 Condition 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Reliability 3 3 Capacity 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Functionality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Health 8 Safety Social Impacts 1 1 1 1 1 1 Difficulty of Repair 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Redundancy POF Comments COF Comment: ol Maint Co sts $29,499.26 $0.00 $32,900.471 $0.00 $17,220.381 $0.00 $11,250.70' $0.00 $13,611.1 $9,763.07 $0.00 $0.00. $1,961.9 $183.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 YTDCosts Last Year Cost 5 5 5 5 2 PLANS TO REPLACE FEED PIPING AND FLOW METERS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION 3 3 3 3 1.3 1.3 3 3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3 3 2 VERY RARELY OPERATED. OPERATED DURING BACKUP STORAGE SITUATION 2 3 3 3 3 1.3 1.3 3 3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3 3 5 5 5 5 2.0 3 1.7 2.0 5 3 UNKNOWN INSTALL DATE UNKOWN INSTALL DATE UNKNOWN INSTALL DATE UNKNOWN INSTALL DATE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER PROJECT WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT WILL BE REUSED AFTER BOILER REPLACEMENT AS PART OF DIGESTER REHAB PROJECT INSTRUMENTATION RUN 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 INSTRUMENTATION RUN AT 280 KW TYPICALLY. JUST OVERHAULED. OVERHAUL TAKES 3 WEEKS WITH HELP IF JUST MSD STAFF COULD TAKE 2 MONTHS (NO OUTSIDE HELP) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $77.92 $0.00 $257.20 $0.001 50.001 52,073.61 1 $77.92 - $1,426.36 $2,942.19; $9,680.07_ $0.001 $380.731 $0.001, $0.00 $0.001 $37.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,022.88 $333.37 $689.72 $1,288.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $173.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cost a $9,887.65, $1,006.19 $851.46 $ $7,000.21 $176.20 $0.00 $3,638.07!-$1,222.85 $341.37 $ $4,285.52 $0.00 $0.00 $10,093.34 _ $904.38 $0.00 $0.00 $561.13 $ $0.00 $2,688.91 $617.24 $579.55 $1,653.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $125.401 $0.00 $0.00 $7,100.161 $1,875.65 $349.06 $ $1,426.36 $0.00 $0.00 $3,596.4G $1,381.39 $207.20 $2,942.1 $0.00 $6,704.15 $969.78 $3,717.181 $0.00 $1,767.53 $616.89 $290.08 $2,873.50 $91.66 $0.00 $430.95 $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,614.21 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,852.10 $410,284.17 $28,590.67 $19,210.33 $5,171.91 $520,815.33 $164,556.48 $414.72 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,132.73 $ $23,717.79 $2 $4,740.98 $20,441.81 $2 years go $742.58 $174.88 $265.00 $209.64 $0.00 $151.88 $0.00 $83.64 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ,771.23 ,227.52 ,259.74 $463.26 ,090.59 $653.87 ,256.98 ,068.41 ,398.85 $668.80 ,781.33 MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-1 E18083 GENERATR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 3 01 -Jan -88 5 3 3 3 2 3 3 1.7 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT INSTRU MENTTATION $2,334.26 $175.53 $550.36 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR E18082 ENGINE Location Equip Number Equip Type L Asset Description Install Date MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BPSLD-P1 E33401 1 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BPSLD-P1- E18639 MTR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SLD-P2 E33400 MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT -B P-BLDG-FLI-BPSLD-P2- MTR MT-BP-BLDG-FL1-BP-SUMP- P1 MT-BP-BLDG-FLI-BP-SUMP- 1E17368 P2 MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1 E20033 BLOWCOMP E20040 E20037 E18640 E17367 PUMP MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 1A BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 (1B) BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP SLUDGE FEED PUMP 2 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP EFFLUENT PUMP 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL1 BP EFFLUENT PUMP 2 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 1 FILTER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 1 M BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 1 OUTLET SILENCER PUMP MOTOR PUMP PUMP MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1-FLT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BLI-MTR FILTER MOTOR MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL1-SIL E20057 SILENCER MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2 1E20034 E20039 E20038 MT -B P-BLDG-FL2-BL2-FLT MT -B P-BLDG-FL2-BL2-MTR MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-SIL E20056 BLOWCOMP BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 2 FILTER MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 FILTER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK BLOWER 2 M SILENCER BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 OUTLET SILENCER MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BL2-SIL1 E20042 SILENCER MT MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP1 MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP 1-MTR 1 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP1-MTR2 (BOTTOM) MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2-M TR 1 MT MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP2-MTR2 (BOTTOM) MT -B P-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC 1- MTR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 BLOWER 2 INLET SILENCER 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -99 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88, 01 -Jan -09'. 01 -Jan -09'' 01 -Jan -09: 01 -Jan -88. 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 E18514 BELTPRES BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 01 -Jan -09 E18641 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 01 -Jan -09, MOTOR 1 E18642 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 1 01 -Jan -09 MOTOR 2 E18515 BELTPRES BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 01 -Jan -09 E18643 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 01 -Jan -09 E18644 E18539 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-AC2- E18544 MTR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1 E18614 MIXER MOTOR 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS 2 MOTOR 2 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS AIR COMPRESSOR 2 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 1 CONTROL BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 2 MOTOR MOTOR MOTOR MT MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1- CP MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL1- MTR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2 E20076 E18617 ELECCNTL MOTOR E18615 MIXER MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2- MT MT CP MT -B P-BLDG-FL2-POL-MXL2- MTR MT -B P-BLDG-FL2-POL-T1 E20077 E18553 E18600 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T2 E18601 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T5-P1 E20068 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T5-P1- E20071 MTR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-POL-T6-P2- E20072 MTR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP1 E18519 iMT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP1-MTR1E18522 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-WWP2 E18520 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-W W P3 E18521 MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE1 E19213 MT MT-DIG-BLOG-FL1-HE1-P 1E19807 PUMP MT E19808 ELECCNTL BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 2 CONTROL MOTOR TANK BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER MIXER FEEDER 2 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER STORAGE TANK 2 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 POLYMER AGING PUMP 2 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 1 MOTOR BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 2 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 WASHWATER PUMP 3 DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 1 DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 1 WATER PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 1 WATER PUMP MOTO DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 2 WATER PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 2 WATER PUMP MOTO DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 3 WATER PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 3 WATER PUMP MOTO DIGESTER BLDG FL1 HEAT EXCHANGER 4 WATER PUMP MOTO DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 1 TANK PUMP MOTOR MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP PUMP MT MT -DIG -BLDG -FL 1-H E 1-P- MTR MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-H 62-P E19816 MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE2-P- E19817 MTR MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-HE3-P E19841 MT MT MT - DIG -BLDG-FL1-HE3-P MTR MT -D I G-BLDG-FL1-H E4-P- MTR MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1 E19848 E18925 E33420 MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-P1-MTR MT MT MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FLI-P2 MT-DIG-BLDG-FLI-P2-MTR MT-PGS-T1 E17757 E33415 E18303 HEATEX MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR MOTOR PUMP MOTOR PUMP MOTOR E18164 TANK DIGESTER SERVICE PUMP 1 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 (LARGE) DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SERVICE PUMP 2 MOTOR PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #1 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09': 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -08 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -93 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 O1 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88, 01 -Jan -88' 01 -Jan -88. 01 -Jan -88, 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88, Overall Risk Rank 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5. 10 Condition 3 Reliability 3 Capacity 3 Functionality 3 Financial 2 POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 Health 8 Safety Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 4 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 1 ILA Total Maint Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Costs 1 YTDCosts Last Year Cost Cost 2 years ago 2.0 3 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT RUN AT 280 KW TYPICALLY. NEEDS TO BE $324,698.61 $30,195.13 $14,246.73 $20,125.02 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 31 2 2 kJ V GKr1HULCU I ric T CHI, INCA I I V 6G ounouULCU. $6,201.19 $144.47 $0.61 $0.00 2.3 $6,639.4 $45.83 3 3 3 1 3 2.3 INSTALL DATA SOURCE:CHANGED DURING FLOOD $92.27 $91.66 $0.00 3 3 3 1 3 2.3 2 $1,887.3 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 1 3! 3 2.3 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.3 2 $6,911.5 $21.89 $0.00 $84.901 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2.3 2 $5,661. $240.791 $65.09 $0.00 $315.18 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $8,770.2' $278.52 $63.00 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1. 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $11,190.01 $140.38 $149.78 $268.17 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 -3 1,7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1. 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,381.5 $0.001 2 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 3 1 1 4 2.0 2 $179,681. $0.00 $84,917.93 2 1 3 1 1 3 1.T 2 $494.0 $0.00 $0.00 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1. 2 REPLACED $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 1 1 4 2.0 2 $153,417.51 $0.00 $59,798.23 $10,294.69 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $168.92 $0.00 $137.41 $0.00 21 3 3 1 1 1 1 31 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 REPLACED $0.00 $3,310.0 $0.00 $1,128.16 $0.00 3 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 BREAKS DOWN ONCE A YEAR FOR REPLACEMENT $901.08 $0.00 3 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 $707.37 $435.42 $0.00 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $28,336.2 $8,025.04 $13,075.01 $642.13 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $1,778.2 $0.00 $0.001 $0.00 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $26,951.4 $5,195.13 $15,482.9 $243.48 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $245.40 $0.00 $0.001 $0.00 1 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 4 CHECK INSTALL DATE TO GET A FULL TRUCK LOAD THEY NEED BOTH $671,684.1 TRUCKS $103,021.99 $125,702.601 $86,263.63 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1..T 4 $106,970.0 $0.00 $0.00 $408.28' 1 3 3' 3 3 1 1 3 1.,7 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION $5,670. i $2,009.93 $0.00 $83.64 1 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $1,693.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.001 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,819.45 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2REPLACED $4,189.2 $328.63 $0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 13 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1.7 2 $2,761.0 $804.30 $235.23 $1,429.49 $619.07 $274.00 $339.60 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 $7,346.06 $772.28 $2,353.46 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 17 3 $5,023.60 $278.13 $2,421.85 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1..7 3 $1,635.57 $1,295.97 $0.00 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 $1,645.92 $942.22 $0.00 $179.731 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 i3 $2,639.35 $0.00 $126.21 $119.82 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 $32.42 $0.00: $0.00 1 $0.00 2 2 2 21 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1.7 3 $259.36 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED. $5,470.80 $4,599.50' $384.04 $79.88 9 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 PUMP SUCTION IS UNABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM BOTTOM OF DIGESTOR AS DESIRED. $2,574.00 $1,438.56 $313.31 $199.70 1 4 4 1 4 1 1 2 1.3 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 3 3 1 3 4 4 2 3.3 1 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. MOVED TO CURRENT SOME OF THE VALVES AND PRESSURE AND LEVEL LOCATION IN 2007 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 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank Plant Location MT MT-PGS-T2 MT MT-PGS-T3 MT MT-PGS-T4 MT MT-PGS-T5 MT MT-PGS-T6 MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1 Equip Number E18165 E18166 E18167 E18168 E18169 E18506 Equip Type TANK TANK TANK TANK TANK PUMP MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P1- E18505 MOTOR MTR MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2 El 8504 PUMP MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-P2- El 8503 MOTOR MTR MT MT-PRI-T1-SCC-MXL E17502 MIXER MT MT-PRI-Tl-SCC-MXL-MTR MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL MT MT-PRI-T3-SCC-MXL-MTR MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL MT MT-PRI-T4-SCC-MXL-MTR E17503 El 8429 E18432 E18431 El 7545 MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-HE1 E17927 MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1- E17514 HHW-HE MT MT -ADM -BL DG-R6-GEN 1- E19797 HHW-P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1- E19799 HHW-P-MTR MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR- E19780 HE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GENI-MTR- E19782 HE -P MOTOR MIXER MOTOR MIXER MOTOR HEATEX HEATEX PUMP MOTOR HEATEX PUMP MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-MTR- El 9783 PUMP P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN1-T El 9784 TANK MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-HE1 818103 HEATEX MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2- E18223 HEATEX HHW-HE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2- E18233 PUMP HHW-P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2- E18234 MOTOR HHW-P-MTR MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR- El 8134 HEATEX HE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR- 818135 PUMP HE -P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-MTR. El 8133 P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-SIL El 8128 MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN2-T E18127 PUMP ENGINE TANK MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-HE1 El 8074 ENGINE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3- E18119 HEATEX HHW-HE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3- E18062 PUMP HHW-P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3- E18060 MOTOR HHW-P-MTR MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR. El 8084 HEATEX HE MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR. El 8085 PUMP HE -P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-MTR. E20180 P MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-SIL El 8112 MT MT-ADM-BLDG-R6-GEN3-T 818111 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CU1 MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CUl-DR MT MT-BP-BLDG-FL2-BP-CU1- MTR E18459 E20174 E18460 MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG1-P E33404 MT MT-DIG-BLDG-Flt-DIG1-P- El 8453 GRD MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG1-P- E18873 MTR MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P E33405 PUMP SILENCER TANK CONVEYOR DRVREDCE MOTOR PUMP GRINDER MOTOR PUMP Asset Description Install Date PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #2 01 -Jan -09 PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #3 01 -Jan -09 PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #4 01 -Jan -09 PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #5 01 -Jan -09 PROPANE GAS STORAGE TANK #6 01 -Jan -09 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 1 01 -Jan - (1A) PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 1 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 2 (18) 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM PUMP 2 01 -Jan - MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #1 SCUM MIXER 01 -Jan - PRIMARY CLARIFIER COLLECTOR #1 SCUM MIXER MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #3 SCUM MIXER MOTOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER PRIMARY CLARIFIER #4 SCUM MIXER MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCHANGER 1 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 1 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 1 HOT WATER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 1 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 OIL COOLER ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 OIL COOLER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 1 WATER JACKET PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 1 EXPANSION TANK ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCH 2 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 2 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 2 HOT WATER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 2 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 OIL COOLER ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 OIL COOLER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 2 WATER JACKET PUMP POW GEN EXHAUST HEAT RECOVERY SILENCER #2 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 2 EXPANSION TANK ADM BLDG ENGINE RM AUXILIARY HEAT EXCH 3 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM PRI HEAT EXCHANGER 3 ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 3 HOT WATER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GEN 3 HOT WATER PUMP MOTOR ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 OIL COOLER ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 OIL COOLER PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 WATER JACKET PUMP ADM BLDG ENGINE RM ENGINE 3 SILENCER (WATER JACKE ADM BLDG ENGINE RM GENERATOR 3 EXPANSION TANK BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 1 BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 1 DRIVE BELT PRESS BLDG FL2 PRESS CONVEYOR 1 MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 1 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan- 01 -Jan - 01 -Jan - Overall Risk Rank 10 10 10 10 10 Condition 2 2 2 2 2 Reliabili Capacity Functionality 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 3 3 Health & Safety 4 4 4 4 4 Social Impacts 4 4 4 4 Difficulty of Repair 2 2 2 2 2 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 88 5 88 5 88 5 98 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1' 4 5 2 98 7 2 2 4 5 2 5 1 1. 2 09 7 2 2� 4 5 2 5 1 1 2 09 7 2' 2 4 5 2 5 1 1' 2 09 7 2 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 2 09 7 2 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 2 93- 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 93 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 88 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 93 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 93 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 68 2 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 93 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1. 2 93 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1. 1 88- 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 3. 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 88 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 09 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 88 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 88 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 04 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 06 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 04 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 09 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.7 Redundancy POF Comments COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts Last Year Cost 2 SCUM PITS AT CLARIFIERS HAVE PROBLEM WITH GREASE BUILD UP. NEED SOMETHING TO MIX THE SCUM TO PREVENT GREASE BUILD UP IN THE PITS. 1.7 2 1.7 2 SCUM PITS AT CLARIFIER HAVE PROBLEM WITH GREASE BUILD UP. NEED SOMETHING TO MIX THE SCUM TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP IN PITS 1.7 2 1.3 5 SCUM PITS IN CLARIFIERS HAVE GREASE PROBLEMS AND NEED EFFECTIVE MIXERS TO PREVENT THE BUILD UP. 1.3 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 5 5 5 5 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 EXHAUST COMING OFF OF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 5 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 EXHAUST COMING OFF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.3 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 5 COOLING WATER BEFORE GOING BACK INTO ENGINE LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 EXHAUST COMING OFF THE ENGINES LIKELY REDONE SINCE 1993 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 1.0 1.3 1.0 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT 5 ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. ENGINE TO SILENCERS HAS A LEAK 5 INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS RUNS ONLY AT START UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS THEN SHUTS OFF. EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASSIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, BUT VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GALLONS) WHEN INGINE SHUTS OFF OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,272.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,612.43 Cost 2 years ago $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $513.62 $7,736.60 $3,405.09 $3,405.09 $0.00 $13,611.21 ($4,340.26) $15,725.73 $0.00 $344.51 $344.51 $0.00 $5,388.12 $387.18 $616.67 $318.64 $3,800.84 $7,063.67 $306.33 $4,801.91 $1,002.85 $0.00 $0.00 $3,432.66 $2,891.94 $5,507.17 $0.00 $764.17 $375.60 $0.00 $488.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $422.72 $0.00 $7,663.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $217.56 $0.00 $1,903.00 $267.43 $22.03 $0.00 $2,313.19 $0.00 RUNS ONLY AT START-UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON ($722.60) FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS, THEN SHUTS OFF. EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GAL) TO FLOOR WHEN ENGINESHUTS OFF OCCASSIONAL LEAKS AND CHANGING OF SEALS RUNS ONLY AT START-UP OF ENGINE, AND ONLY ON FOR A MINUTE OR TWO UNTIL ENGINE STARTS. THEN SHUTS OFF EXTREMELY RELIABLE, ONLY OCCASSIONAL SIGHT GLASS REPLACEMENT, BUT VERY MINOR. DOES SPILL COOLANT (10-30 GAL) TO FLOOR WHEN ENGINE SHUTS OFF. 1.3 5 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YRS. 1.3 5 1.3 5 NEEDS PERIODIC MAINTENANCE. LINER AND ONLY TRUCK LOAD CONVEYOR HAS REDUNDANCY. SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YEARS NO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION OF FACILITY 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 5 $5,479.75 $0.00 $0.00 $1,658.9 ($2,096.50 $11,719.861 $42.45 $2,291.31 $762.09 - $3,579.38 $1,151.20 $267.72 $0.00 $1,347.03 $1,580.86 $1,104.51 $1,315.76 $157.28 $149.05 $326.57 $968.85 $135.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $83.51 $860.11 $0.00 $1,901.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $126.90 $292.93 $22.03 $2,313.19 $0.00 ($207.81) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $284.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,233.96 $0.00 $3,533.47' $572.37 $108.78 $0.00 $6,689.12 $13,019.35 $351.33 $12,672.36 $5,495.74 $487.27 $0.00 $1,933.06 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $742.15 $0.00 $2,490.14 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $103.60 $0.00 $0.00 $3,711.01 $42.45 $597.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,839.60 $16,839.00 $1,641.55 $973.75 $0.00 $314.30 $179.36 $0.00 $9,860.93 $159.76 $161.29 $0.00 $498.13 10/16/2009 Appendix C - Ratings for all Assessed Solids Processing Equipment - Sorted by Plant and Overall Risk Rank MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT Plant Location _ MT MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P- GRD MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG2-P- MTR MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG3-P MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG3-P- GRD MT -DI G-BLDG-FLI-DIG4-P MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-D104-P- MTR MT-DIG-BLDG-FL1-DIG-SLD- GRD MT-DIG-BLDG-FL2-DIG1-MA Equip Number Equip Type E18454 GRINDER E19115 E33407 E18455 E33408 E17641 E18456 E18345 MT-PRI-BLDG-FLI-PRI-GND1 E18499 MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND1- E18501 MTR MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND2 E18494 MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-GND2- E18500 MTR MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P1 E18496 MOTOR PUMP GRINDER PUMP MOTOR GRINDER ACCUMULA GRINDER MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER2 MOTOR PUMP PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 1 Asset Description DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 2 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 3 RECIRC PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 3 RECIRC PUMP GRINDER DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 4 RECIRC PUMP DIGESTER BLDG FL1 DIG 4 RECIRC PUMP MOTOR DIGESTER BLDG FL1 SLUDGE GRINDER 5 FOR BELT PRESS DIGESTER BLDG FL2 DIGESTER 1 MOISTURE ACCUMULATOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 1 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 1 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE GRINDER 2 Overall Risk Install Date Rank 01 -Jan -09 4 01 -Jan -09 - 01 -Jan -09 14 -Nov -00 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -06 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P1- E18498 MOTOR MTR MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P2 E18497 MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-PRI-P2- E18492 MTR MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND1 E18508 MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-Gh101 E18507 MTR MT-PRI-BLDG-FLI-SCC-GND2 E17385 PUMP MOTOR GRINDER MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 Condition PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 1 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 2 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SLUDGE PUMP 2 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 1 PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 1 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 GRINDER PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 2 MOTOR PRIMARY BLDG FL1 PRI SCUM GRINDER 2 MOTOR CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 2 VERTICAL MT MT MT-PRI-BLDG-FL1-SCC-GND2 MTR MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2 E17549 E18461 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -09 Reliability Capacity 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 21 3 21, 1 3 21 1 3 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 Functionality 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2-DR E18465 DRVREDCE BELT FILTER PRESS SCREW CONVEYOR #2 DRIVE MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 2 MOTOR CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 3 SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 3 DRIVE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 3 MOTOR MT MT MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU2-MTR MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3 MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3-DR MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU3-MTR MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5 E18464 E19482 E19488 (DRVREDCE E19485 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -09 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 3 3 3 3 E19492 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5-OR 5 01 -Jan -09 E19494 DRVREDCE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -88 5 DRIVE Et 9493 MOTOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -88 5 MOTOR E19098 CONVEYOR SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 01 -Jan -09 MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU5-MTR MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CUE MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU6-DR E19101 6 3 3 3 DRVREDCE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR MT MT-SLD-BLDG-CU6-MTR E19100 MOTOR 6 DRIVE SLUDGE LOADOUT BLDG CONVEYOR 6 MOTOR 01 -Jan -88 01 -Jan -88 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 Financial POF Rating (Max of each POF) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Health 8 Safety 3 Social Impacts Difficulty of Repair 2 2 2 2 2 COF Rank (Average of COF Ratings) 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Redundancy 5 5 5 POF Comments 5 5 COF Comments Total Maint Costs YTDCosts $4,521.51 $2,123.09 Cost 2 years ago $193.82 $45.83 $45.83 $0.00 $1,032.29 $73.44 $114.16 $39.94 $2,975.18 $19.99 $98.96 $121.65 $20,175.13 $96.68 $633.62 $209.69 5 $3.77 $0.00 $1.24 $2.53 1.3 5 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.0 5IORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 5 DIFFICULT TO REPAIR IF REQUIRED, SINCE HANGS UPSIDE DOWN FROM PIPING $10,645.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $969.52 $0.00 $511.00 $0.00 $30,875.38 $5,942.17 $3,327.13 $8,425.27 5 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1.3 2 REDONE 1993. SLUDGE PUMP HAS HARD TIME DRAWING HEAVIER SOLIDS OUT OF CLARIFIERS. 1.3 2 REDONE 1993 1.3 1.3 1.3 $62,182.40 $10,923.42 $18,378.84 $460.82 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,040.91 $7,384.26 $318.56 $5,954.8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 SLUDGE PUMP HAS HARD TIME DRAWING HEAVIER SOLIDS OUT OF CLARIFIER 2 5 1 1.3 5 1 3 1 1 1.3 5 3 2 1.3 5 3 3 3 3 1 1 1.3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 1.3 1.3 $12,263.40 $2,298.64 $1,661.14 $5,884.1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,412.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $91.67 $91.67 $0.00 2,817.33 $0.00 $0.00 $589.92 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 LINER AND SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YRS. VERTICAL SCREWS NEED REPLACEMENT EVERY 16 MONTHS. 5 $28,252.71 $0.00 $607.79 $16,494.11 5 SCREWS NEED REPLACEMENT EVERY 16 MONTHS NO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION OF FACILITY $1,762.15 $0.00 $67.30 $1,156.04 $61.93 $0.00 $61.93 1.3 5 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2:5 3 1.3 3 1 1 2 1,3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1.3 1.3 3 1 1 2 1.3 3 2 1.3 3 3 1 2 1.3 3 3 1 2 1.3 YRS. 5 $34,398.41 $0.00 $0.00 $13,581.00 $5,671.70 $0.00 5 NEEDS PERIODIC MAINTENANCE. LINER AND NO REDUNDANCY. OPERATION IS CRITICAL TO SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5 YEARS FUNCTION OF FACILITY 5 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5YRS. NEED TO RUN BOTH CONVEYORS OVER TRUCK TO AVOID SPILL. 5 $1,081.99 $431.00 $0.00 $10,260.74 $6,093.71 $650.99 $24,159.43 $0.00 $45.83 $11,801.3q $396.64 $355.20 $0.00 5 LINER & SCREW NEEDS REPLACEMENT EVERY 2.5YRS. NEED TO RUN BOTH CONVEYORS OVER TRUCK TO AVOID SPILL. 5 5 NEEDS TO OPERATE BOTH CONVEYOR OVER TRUCKS TO PREVENT SPILL _ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,615.78 $0.00 $0.00 $13,216.91 $106.72 $0.00 $44.05 NEEDS TO PERATE BOTH CONVEYOR OVER TRUCKS TO PREVENT SPILL $21.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10/16/2009 Appendix D Photographs from Inspections Bissell WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 8 & 9, 2009 D-1 D-2 Pre -aeration tanks — damaged actuator D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 Scum pumps for bank 2 of RASL pumps D-7 D-8 Equalization bin discharge chute D-9 D-10 txtenor swage hopper— bottom screws ❑xtenor swage popper — scnwing pump D-11 D-12 Bell liter presses lgeeerall D-13 Belt filter presses (general) — polymer valves Belt filter presses (general) — polymer valves D-14 D-15 D-16 Dell 'leer presses tgeneral) -uelerluraleu steel al catwalks Belt filter presses (general) — deteriorated steel at catwalks belt triter presses (general) — aetenoratea steel at catwalks Gravity feed presses (out of service) D-17 Scum collector and concentrator D-18 Influent pump station — overhead crane Influent pump station — overhead crane D-19 D-20 D-21 Incinerator (general) D-22 fa *WO Inch ieralor (general) D-23 Incinerator (general) Exhaust gas stack — spalling brick face Exhaust gas stack — spalling brick face D-24 txoaust gas stack — spaumg cock Lace D-25 Coldwater WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos June 24, 2009 Lourse screening collection — Hopper ana aumpster Primary sludge and grit pumping — grit/siudge separators course screening collection ana naming Lourse screening — stanaing water trom collection process Primary sludge and grit pumping — grit/sludge separators D-26 Primary sludge and grit pumping — sludge pumps (5 total) Primary sludge and grit pumping — scum pumps (4 total) Rne screening and handling — screened effluent trough Pnmary sludge and gnt pumping — scum pumps (4 total) Fine screening and handling — tine screens Fine screening and handling — screened effluent trough D-27 Fine screening and handling — washers/compactors rine screening ant nanoung — compactor ciscnarge into cumpster rine screening and handling — washer/compactor Fine screening and handling — makeshift discharge collection from washers/compactors overflow. D-28 Sludge force main manhole — downstream from first manhole Sludge torce main manhole — downstream trom tirst manhole (irlt House exterior — cracks in masonry at windows and doors D-29 L r l iii iiilinu i IIII1 itn►►►i►uioit�sam\\\\ ��i�n»��rlrrrrrrrutrnr�tntyttumt �`: iu� iniiriirfriu1nfin111t1t11111 ��\\\\\ v\«<\%`'' South grit basin tdn[ basin complex— at sluice gates into communnors t;nt basin concrete — poor common uomminurors structure — concrete in poor conomon D-30 Comminutors structure — concrete in poor condition Original clarifier structure — concrete in poor condition D-31 vvasre acuvacea sluuye uucsener tanx Digester complex — secondary digester #2 fterosishi 1 D est mplex —s ondary digeste Digester complex — secondary digester r2 D-32 D-33 Waste activated sludge pump house — maid level JVaste activated sludge pump house — main level D-34 vvasre auuvaeea suuge pump nouse — lower revel waste activatea sluage pump nouse — vvwo pumps Return activated sludge pump house — RAS pumps vvaste activate° sluage pump nouse — lower level vvesre acuvarea sruuye pump nouse — suns pumps Return activated sludge pump house — RAS pumps D-35 return acavatea swage pump nouse — rvat pumps rceturn activate° swage pump nouse — exterior (west) Return activated sludge pump house — interior, minor cracking at masonry throughout building. Meturn activated swage pump nouse — t<AJ pumps Return activated sludge pump house —exterior (east) D-36 Sludge lagoons D-37 Fenton WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 1, 2009 View Looking South at "Muffin Monster" Grinder Compactor View Looking South at Biofilter Building D-38 Photo of Maintenance Work to Primary Sludge Pump Rusted Wall Angles at Southeast Corner of Solids Handling Building D-39 Polymer Pumps at Southwest Corner of Solids Handling Building D-40 Grand Glaize WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 1, 2009 Photo of Bar Screen Rake During Operation Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor — South View D-41 Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor — South View Close-up of Modifications to Franklin Miller Grinder Compactor — North View Influent Building Fine Screens — West View Unused Screw Conveyor Along South Wall in Influent Building. Screw Conveyor Replaced by Sluicing Trough Pipe D-42 Influent Building Grit Drag -outs #1 - #4. View Looking Southeast View of Grit Basins Looking Southeast from Influent Building Primary Scum Concentrator— View Looking Northeast D-43 Sludge Pumps in Primary Clarifier Building Close-up of North Screw Pump #2 — Crack in Concrete Curb Close-up of North Screw Pump #2 (RSP-2) Close-up of Crack in Concrete Curb at Screw Pump #3 D-44 Crack in Concrete Curb at Screw Pump #4 View Looking North on Top of Thickener Tank View looking West of Belt Filter Press #2 View Looking South of Final Clarifiers #5 and #6 View of Belt Filter Press #2 Looking East Typical Corrosion on Mezzanine Beams and Connections in Filter Press Building D-45 Steel Plate Corrosion Below Sludge Feed Pump Steel Plate Corrosion Below Polymer Storage Tank Pump Crack in Thrust Block at North End of Sludge Feed Pump #1 D-46 Lemay WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 6 &7, 2009 D-47 Piping at polymer pumps, held together with rope Bert niter press conveyors, at press Belt filter press conveyors, at press D-49 Belt filter press conveyors, at press #3, #4 & #6 belt niter press conveyors, at press #S, #4 & #0 Moisture damage at root of belt titter press building Belt filter press conveyors, at press #3, #4 & #6 moisture damage at root or bet filter press building D-50 Swage wet weu — oienaea swage 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 rrureueu ware, WOOS. — W„ULIU„ a, pipes anu ,anus rrorecrea waver ranrcs — corrosion ar pipes cif a ranrcs Comminutor tank — concrete soaking and deterioration at top slab D-52 Comminutor tank —concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab i,omminuwr rank wscuarye — uerenoiauun di WdIKWdy Grit tank — concrete spalling and deterioration a iI Comminutor tank —concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab Grit tank — concrete spalling and deterioration Grit tank — concrete spalling airs deterioration D-53 Comminutor tank —concrete spalling and deterioration at top slab Grit tank — concrete spalling and deterioration Grit tank — concrete spalling airs deterioration D-53 Stairs to grit tanks — extensive deterioration, safety issue atolls ro gnt tanks — extenene uererrurauun, emery lesue D-54 Grit drag out and conveying (west) D-55 Grit drag out and conveying (east) swage tmckenmg (scum from primary claimers) Grit drag out and conveying — belt from east dragouts Sludge thickening (scum from primary clarmers) D-56 D-57 rress poor at incinerators - aterburner tress poor at incinerators - aterburner Incinerator— afterburner and pl4,ing D-58 Incinerator — afterburner and piping D-59 D-60 D-62 Lower Meramec WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos July 2, 2009 View Inside Influent Pump Station D-63 Gravity Thickener Sludge Pumps #1, #2, and #3 Gravity Thickener Scum Pit Water Valve View of Scum Concentrator Looking North D-64 Fine Screen #1 D-65 D-66 D-67 View Looking West of Potential Space For Drying Facility View Looking East of Potential Space For Drying Facility k /011111111111° T6 View Looking West of Potential Space For Drying Facility D-68 Trickling Filter Pumps #1, #2, and #3 D-69 MO River WWTP MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Study Condition Assessment Photos June 25, 2009 Power generation building — engine 1 Power generation building — generator 1 Power generation building — engine 1 Power generation building — generator 1 D-70 rower generation building — generator z Power generation building — engine 3 rower generation building — generator z rower generation building — engine 3 Power generation building — generator D-71 Power generation building — generator s Primary sludge pumping station — sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station — sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station — scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station — sludge pumps Primary sludge pumping station — grinder pumps at sludge line D-72 Primary sludge pumping station — scum pumps Primary sludge pumping station — scum pumps sludge thickening buiiding — belt titter press Primary sludge pumping station — scum pumps Primary swage pumping station — grinder pumps at scum one Sludge thickening building — belt filter press D-73 swage tnickenng ounamg — oes niter press Sludge thickening building — belt filter press Sludge thickening building — shaftless screw conveyor sludge thickening building — sludge conveyor Sludge thickening building — shaftless screw conveyor to truck loading D-74 swage mickening owiaing — snamess screw conveyor to truck loading Sludge thickening building — press teed pumps Sludge thickening building — press effluent pumps Sludge thickening building — press feed pumps Sludge thickening building — press effluent pumps Sludge thickening building — washwater pumps D-75 Sludge thickening building — air compressors Sludge tnickertlrtg building — blowers Digester control building — transfer pumps Sludge thickening building — blowers Digester control building — transfer pumps D-76 uigester control building — transter pumps uigester control building — recirculation pumps Digester control building — neat exchangers uigester control ouilding — recirculation pumps Digester control building — grinder pump Digester control building — heat exchangers D-77 Digester control building — heat exchangers Digester control building — heat exchangers D-78 r 7 VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 6 — Triple Bottom Line Evaluation L BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 SOC/0- ECONOMIC ECONOMIC EGO - EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL soclo- ENVIRONP7ENTAL Figure 1 - Triple Bottom Line Components b) TBL Protocol B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Re -Issued: October 16, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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/fmal 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 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 TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Re -Issued: October 16, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp -10- BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM6 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation MSD Contract No. 2009145 Alternative Component Assumptions Final Use Alternative key Technology B&V Project 165186 July 1, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Figure 2. Results of Screening Re -Issued: October 16, 2009 Land App Class 0 Land App Class A Land App Alk Stab Dried Product Compost Landfill Cake Ash Energy Product Evaluation Factor Category Weight Factor Description Criteria o t Weight Percentage I Factor Social 25% 25.0% 1 Aesthetics 2 Truck traffic 3 Public safetyisito security 4 Ease of Permitting 5 Public perception How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood, considering noise, visual aesthetics, and odors_ How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood considering truck traffic? Does the alternative present any particular safety risks? How well can the facility be secured from risks? How difficult will it be to permit the likely technology necessary for the selected final use? Does the final use alternative have apostive or negativ erce.tion? Environmental 2515 1 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 3 Proven experience 4 Flexibility Estimate of the alternatives GHG emissions, for both use and anticipated treatement process _ How likely is it that the selected final use outlet will b availalble throughout the project life? _ Does the supporting treatment technology have signficant operatingfinstallation experience? If the selected final outlet is not available, can the final product be easily diverted to other types of outlets? 1 3 3 5 3 3 5.0% 5.0 % 5.0% 5.0 % 5.0% St btotal Score (Socie().., 25:0% 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 1.55 1.15 0.65 0.75 0.85 1.05 3 B 3 5 3 2 4.2% 83% 0.0% 0.0% 5 5 3 Subtotal Score (Environmental) w 0.75 0.67 0.67 1.0a 0.83 058 0.83 0.67 1 Capital cost 2 0&M costs How expensive is the alternative expected to be relative to the others? Does the alternative present any special constructabillty challenges? How complex is the alternative likely to be from an operations standpoint and onsite staffing needs? Does the alternative present any special constructabifdy challenges? 2 16.7% 5 2 167% 5 3 5 3 Staffing/operational complexity 4 Constructibility 8.3% 5 0.3% 5 0.0% 0.0 % 3 3 1 b 1 Subtotal Score (Economic) Total Score 100% 2.50 1.33 I 3.25 1.17 1.00 3.22 3.13 0.67 2.32 1.33 3.50 1.33 3.52 2.55 Scores: 5 = Most Favorable.................1 = Least Favorable QC: G. Shimp r 1 VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 7 — Summary of Solids Processing Technologies L J BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Re -Issued: October 16, 2009 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 - QC: G. Shimp - 1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 (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 - QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 3 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 A.4. Trigen A.5. Ameren UE A.6. Bache Energy QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 4 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Table 1. Solids Quantities AA Flow (mgd) Primary Solids WAS Total Solids Pro - duction (dt/MG) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 6 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Re -Issued: October 16, 2009 Alternative Table 2. Large -Capacity Stabilization Technology Disposal/Reuse Alternatives Energy Recovery Preliminary Capital Cost Evaluation Results Present Worth GHG Emissions Annual O&M Cost (SM) ($M) ($M) (tonne/yr) 1 a. Multiple Incineration with Landfill disposal None hearth incineration upgraded multiple hearth technology of ash 38.2 2.0 63.3 7,300 lb. Fluidized bed Incineration with Landfill disposal Electricity incineration new fluid bed technology of ash production from waste heat 65.1 1.2 80.2 3,000 2. Anaerobic Anaerobic Landfill disposal Electricity digestion digestion of digested cake production from biogas 45.5 2.7 58.4 (336) 3. Heat drying Anaerobic digestion with Beneficial reuse of dried product Heat recovery from drying for heat drying 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 QC: G. Shimp - 7 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) -8 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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 Social 15 Aesthetics 4 Truck traffic 1 Ease of permitting 1 Public perception 1 Environmental 25 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 2 Proven experience 3 Flexibility 4 Beneficial Reuse 2 Economic 60 Capital cost 10 O&M cost 10 Staffing/operational complexity 4 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 9 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 4.00 - 3.50 - 3.00 - a, L 0 2.50 - , 2.00 - 1.00 - 0.50 MHF Rebuild FBI ❑ Economic • Environmental ❑ Social MAD/Landfill Thermal Landfill Raw Drying Large Plant Treatment Technology Alternative 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 10 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 4.00 - 3.50 - 3.00 - a) a) 0 H 1.50 1.00 0.50 - MAD/Land Thermal App Drying ❑ Economic M Environmental ❑ Social Alk Composting Liquid Landfill Raw Stab/Land Disposal App Medium Plant Treatment Technology Alternative 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 3r 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: QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 11 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 • Trigen • Bache • Ameren UE. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 12 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 13 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 14 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 15 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 16 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. . 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 17 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 im rl11ro11111 1 11111111 1 '1111 11 III II IL :: -J I li 1 11 1111111 �. FEE La 71J13.8 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 18 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 19 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. Feed & polymer injection LE Feed retention tank T } 1 1 1 1 Gravity drainage } } + } } } Bell tensioning Adjustable ramp Sump Discharge 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. . QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) — 20 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 21 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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) QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 22 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 Disadvantages Thickening — Advantages and 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 23 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 24 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 Disadvantages Advantages 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 25 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 26 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. SLUDGE STATIC MECHANICAL COMPONENT NOTATING MECHANICAL COMPONENT GEESATERING SLUDGE (CAKE 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 27 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 28 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 29 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 30 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 °C 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 31 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Thermophilic anaerobic digestion occurs when at least one stage in the digestion process is operated at a thermophilic temperature of 50 to 60 °C. 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 Disadvantages Advantages 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, QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 32 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. Alkaline P44aterial (Lime, k:ilndust) Dev,atered Calve Figure 17. Alkaline Stabilization Process ixer Treated Solids 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 33 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 °F. • 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 34 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 35 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 36 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 37 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 38 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 39 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 40 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 41 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 42 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 °C to 177 °C. 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 43 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. Drying air loop Feed screw Product Feed a A.A. .Arv\rr. Coaling ar Z i i o a Bad mixing Cutlet end product Heal IF Exchanger 8 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. Exhaust Air QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 44 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 45 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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, QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 46 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 47 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 48 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 (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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 49 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 50 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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: QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 51 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 • 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 1/2 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 52 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 • 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 1/4 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 53 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 54 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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) AA Flow (mgd) Primary Solids WAS Total Solids Pro - duction (dt/MG) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) Quantity (dtpd) VS (%) 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 55 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 56 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 N20 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 57 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 CO2 SCOPE 1 DIRECT SF4 SCOPE 2 INDIRECT Purchased Electricity for Own Use CH4 L MEJ Fuel Combustion N40 HFCs PFCs SCOPE 3 INDIRECT Employee Business Travel Production of Purchased Materials Pr etse Contractor use r� n .. ��,-• Vehicles Outsourced Activities 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) QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 58 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 • 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 59 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 N20 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 60 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Table 26 Alternative Large -Capacity Technology Alternatives Preliminary Evaluation Results (Same as Table Present Worth ($M) 2) GHG Emissions (tonne/yr) Stabilization Disposal/Reuse Energy Capital Recovery Cost (SM) Annual O&M Cost ($M) 1 a. Multiple hearth incineration Incineration with upgraded multiple hearth technology Landfill disposal of ash None 38.2 2.0 63.3 7,300 lb. 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 61 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 62 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 63 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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 Social 15 Aesthetics 4 Truck traffic 1 Ease of permitting 1 Public perception 1 Environmental 25 Minimizes GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 2 Proven experience 3 Flexibility 4 Beneficial Reuse 2 Economic 60 Capital cost 10 O&M cost 10 Staffing/operational complexity 4 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. QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 64 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 4.00 - 3.50 - 3.00 - a, L 0 2.50 - , 2.00 - 1.00 - 0.50 MHF Rebuild FBI ❑ Economic • Environmental ❑ Social MAD/Landfill Thermal Landfill Raw Drying Large Plant Treatment Technology Alternative 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 65 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 4.00 - 3.50 - 3.00 - a) L 8 co 2.50- m 5, 2.00 a) 0 H 1.50 1.00 0.50 - MAD/Land Thermal App Drying ❑ Economic M Environmental ❑ Social Alk Composting Liquid Landfill Raw Stab/Land Disposal App Medium Plant Treatment Technology Alternative 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 3r 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 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) - 66 - BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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: 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 • 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-3 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-4 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 C..vrdwq Bilen hem nrar nopet d dragr.u� bateau,' I. a rryM :, ono.. St cwneonpnaag In Onto vcomb nr.d t nnnwo,dol,s.dlian. hr mo'ohiol r lF,It in no =tempo! IvlWt In ntpnka+ng rM ielvong hone ..1.e. mos .4 the agent: rl.ann more n aing o, flM14M •a®d mcabet room, into n eR wools took wok ,tern .Fcanty. a Ii.. enrol Jrm No " CJl.uu. ..c..nnry For rook! onlooking, moon Fete Odell non er d111dyhnt w dxnn.rsung ewarn.n. II ra paw a c. d y hint dl.L. w ao..Ir...vent e+� .dm ts mnwdn. Compost 4.4.4 ay Frrk Fall Inie1 I bid 10,4 g41 F:iP Rows M-4 7.-5#a ooSntn-Anr,Mlodry Mrch 6.11..116. Faeady tiny 158 d M., Moot good p 011431 3.1-21%)? 1401612 -ti -351V Hours M F6:7da•i-4:7Op. ir. Y. -jute pbch:Manlli.t Maryland HMO. Facility lbr•F Only) I :`id Maryland h4pha. MO6 047 wbtra nn i lam spa AltolnposW.com >r 1. Campos, m t.e prod:tt them corral ham gwa decariper11ah d agaa6 redatid ..cl. hcrn.s. glass ckppngs, bash utd hlrttot.y. A. the contend da¢mlxwn. n g.n.m.t bon tlro! amissno the mains' and oaks, a bandit:, el itw Ora goo!, Colton, it on atgalk ntoiscal IIn hot IF aria}., tehf ty io i qp.. e.. rhoniroi, nby.lo3. ,.t! I rol al .I,a,00bntl+rs d wit no pmwry nacho. a r..ldaint Mart n✓I,a.n i.-I It typicaly rot c•aaarrirod at a I,rd4a,r law &rewashing rrDn,a Conp-Sena htc'.I.a, nl .g stet clans. re krr.nd range d crg,nk hoar..tt. lino. arm wino* shred Inn o !whits with a irYhon)Deihtpaa 'edk. tritons. 77.1 and .401 !fret to rarpret a taa..no4had. may 4. ttr cld.d w p-.o.ocetad ht lattlli ne !loam b-_`doo 4lanng to.wtrann, ..00h.. n.o mrlyt,, tooth.. otology rind nmagen to prow and muhory. d.e.eie accerra.ng the process ea the craaokt brick Anon- tree I. whirl, d.aap, Nord wait and p allot!.. in do naertiallb. capon it taws titAdard b a point. -ben. *. he.ahool b Fta,s gra- 4, cool ta4 .t.i.lk.n 7h. .nit. p.tc... It ..._sly on:softWog :, t4.O In dti .:..it Campos? Hon=da!° Wad, C. -ski 3 ! 8 / RA* yid .=...0 rtra.9, ! ._ Ina t .xt Fail and lig EnlwrcR 526 i coin:, and k e.rad nmtpt . Aran, rz., ter.. moo r .r d.a 1. Gel. r g'a'. ono,nn eono,6dd, nod .j.ni ..-?tent, �'�i/t IkMI Cowoded o+. fi...ne al:r hsSf:•ri nr..ae i a 6". oidr.nd 6uv a=nfag.n Mo...nCalepua $27 / twato p.44 " Book Cold motor rod •lu% po,. , h.r WI.Mulch 317 / etbr wed lama, Ora -boo 6.., :god ..d.-....&4 y..nd •7 yd L,"...iept. Si®/ cut c yard by onni -own. n4o. i a.. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-6 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-7 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-8 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-9 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-10 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-11 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 .7 BLACK&VEATCH Boothrrg a world of difference: 2008 Attolo 144 e &win gaS S G I1 v 47C ibitecep 2 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-12 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 TRIGEN 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-13 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 heating subsidiary is the Compagnie Parisienne de Chauffage Urbain (CPCU). ELY() 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-14 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-15 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 (RFC'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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-16 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-17 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-18 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 21/2 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) A-19 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 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.S. 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner. Plant PN, Tnle: B-1. Multiple Hearth Furnace Incineration St. Louis MOD Large Plant Option 155185 0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Date: Checked By: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W U 4 a N z w I— I — O z 0 O h9 INPUT DATA IN CELLS UNIT COSTS Item Units Cost Source Electricity ($kWh) $0.070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($mmOtu) $3.53 Fuel 011 WV!) $3.00 Diesel (Simm0tu) $0.00 Chemicals Polymer ($ln active) $2.50 Labor Operations labor (Sly) $40,40 Maintenance labor (Site; $40.40 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% or equip $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (SAW) $10.00 Tipping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($hvt) $2000 Land Application Fee ($gag. $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (V 545 Electrical B Instrumentation (I 15% General Requirements (%) 10% Contingencies (%) 35% Engineering, Legal & Admin. (%1 20% Present Worth Lrle of Project (years) 20 Interest Rafe (%) 5% PIA Factor 12,40 P!F Salvage (0.30) COSTS FOR UNIT PROCESSES (Will use default values it costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual 0&M Capital 0610 InpuuT7 Default Input Default Solids Thickening Pltnlary Solids $10001dtpd $1050/41 $45 $12 Waste Activated Solids $10051dtpd $1000fdt $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000/gal $1000/gal $4,49 $8 Digester Gas Cleaning $10001scfm $1000fscfm $2 $0.2 Gas Utilization Dewatering $10001dtpd $1000/di $0 $0 Thermal Drying $10001dtpd $1000/di $656 $66 Incineration $10001dtpd $1000/dt MK $190 $534 $30 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $1000/dtpd $1000fdt $80 $0 Composting $10001dtpd $(dt Windrow $0 $751 $69 $0 Upgrade .e is Unit casts -costa Summary 10162039 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) B-2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner: Plant: PN: Tills B-1 Continued. Multiple Hearth Furnace Incineration St. Louis MOD Large Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked 8y: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W U 00 5- 02 Z I- 0 2 0 O MH Upgrade xis Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion No No No No No Digester Gas Cleaning No No No No No Gas Utilization Na No No No Na Dewatedng No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration Yes Yes No No No Alkaline Stabilization No No No No No Composting Na Na No No No Landfill Disposal Yes Yes No No No Land Application Na No No No No ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million 3 Solids Thickening PNrnaty Sollcd $0.00 moo $0.00 $0.00 Waste Acfiveteri SoAds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.0) $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.110 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $000 $000 Incineration MN $35.19 $2.82 $35.14 $73.34 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Compacting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landh11 Disposal $1.13 $14.08 $14.08 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $38.19 $3.99 $49.71 $8741 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Aciivafed SOAds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dawalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Incineration MN $20.32 $1.50 $18.69 $39.01 Alkaline Stabilization $0.0o $0.00 $1130 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.52 $6.45 $6.45 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $20,32 $2.02 $25.14 $45.46 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Unn Costs -Costs. Suernary B-3 rofdl1008 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owners Plant: PN: Tale B-2. Fluid Bed Incineration St. Louis MOD Large Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By, Dale: Checked 8y: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 2 W M ce I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT os-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (MIllS) 50.070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($lmmi$$) $353. Fuel Oil (&gal) $3.00 Diesel ($hnrrritu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) 52.50 Labor °pennons labor (Mid $4000 Maintenance labor ($'hr) 54000 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (9 ofequip $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee ($6v$ $10.00 Tpping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($wt) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($dga0 $5.00 Construction COst Factors Site Work (V) 5% EleIXdcal & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineerinsl, Legal &Admin. (%1 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 interest Rate (4S) 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.381 COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5E.SI(Wi11 use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Sofida $1000fdtpd $1000/d1 $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdtpd $1000141 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $100flfgal $4.49 $8 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isotm $1000/scfm $2 50.2 Gee Utilization Dewatedng $1000fdtpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000idtpd $10001/40 $056 066 Incineration $1000fdtpd $1000141 FBI $350 $534 $21 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $100Wdtpd $1000141 $80 $0 Composting $10001dtpd $!dt Wrhdrow $0 $751 $69 $0 Incinerator large.xls 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) $0 ]0 Urn Cast -Costs. Sumrnaly n0102f109 B-4 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner: Plant: PN: Tdle B-2 Continued. Fluid Bed Incineration St. Louis MSD Large Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked 8y: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W U Q 5- tO co I - Z to I- re 0 0 Fa Incinerator awns Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primacy, Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion No No No No No Digester Gas Cleaning No No No No No Gas Utilization Na No No No No Dewatering No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration Yes Yes No No No Alkaline Slabilzadnn No No No No No Composting Na No. No No No Landfill Disposal Yes Yes No No No Land Application No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primacy Solids $0.00 moo $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Sokts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0,00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 Digester Gas Gleaning $0.00 $0.00) $0.00 $000 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0-00 $0 00 Incineration FB! $65.14 81.35 $16.91 $52.05 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $1.13 $14.08 $14.08 Land Application $0.00 $0.40 $0.00 TOTAL $85.14 $2.49 $30.99 $96.13 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Sarkis $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dewalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Themal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Incineration FBI $34„65 $0.70 $8.56 $43.31 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.52 $6.45 $6.45 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $34.58 $1.21 $15.11 $49.79 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Unn Cash -Costs Summary B-5 10!612009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Goren Plant: PN: Title B-3. Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Disposal St. Lenin MOD Large Plant Option 65186.0103 Jnit Costs File No. Computed By. Dale: Checked Or Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W Li a to 2 I- 0 Z 0 0 INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (MISS) $0.970 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($/mm6kt) $353. Fuel Oil Algal) 03.00 Diesel ($hnr))itu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) $2.50 Labor Opemllons labor (5MW) $4000 Maintenance labor ($1hr) $40.00 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% 01equlp 5) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (SAe$ $10.00 Tipping Fee Wed) $2300 Land Applicatien Fee ($lwt) $15.00 Land Application Fee ($$ga0 $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (%) 555 Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Leger &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (6) 5'$r PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.381 COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5E.S7Wi11 use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Sofida $1000/clod $10001d1 $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdlpd $1000/d1 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000/gal $10001gal Cony. $2 $2.84 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000/scam $10001scim H251H200Sgux. $3 $0.4 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen Dewetedng $1000Idlpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000ldtpd $1000141 $655 $66 Incineration $1000fdtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $1000/dtpd $1000141 $50 $0 Composting $10001dtpd $Idt $0 $0 $93 $0 0 large. x6 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Cosh -Costs. Summary 1010215/9 B-6 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Oo,er Plant: PN: Title B-3 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Disposal St. Louis MOD Large Plant Option 165166.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked By: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of to I- 2 I- 0 2 0 O MAD ergs. x6 Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No No Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes No No No Gas Utilization Yes Yes No No No De eledng No No No Na Na Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No No Na No Na Alkaline Slabilzadon No No No No No Composting Na No. No No Na Landfill Disposal Yes Yes No No No Land Application No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital GAM PW -08M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million 3 Solids Thickening PrloarySogcls $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated SoAds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Com. $37.04 $1.15 $1428 $51.32 Digester Gas Cleaning N251N20JSllas. $2.41 $0.17 $2.17 $4.55 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $6.02 40.57 47.05 41..04 Dowrrledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0 d0 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 Landfill Disposal $4.44 $55.32 $55.32 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $45.47 $5.16 $64.71 $110.18 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital CAM PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Acdvafecf SOlids $0.00 00.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Cores. $20.06 $0.61 $7.60 $27.67 Digester Gas Gleaning N25/H2wstloe. $1.47 $0.11 $1.32 $2.79 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $3.75 $0.32 -$4.01 40..26 Deweledng $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 Thenrel Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $000 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $2.26 $28.21 $28.21 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $25,30 $2.66 $33.12 $6$.42 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Cost -Costs Summary B-7 10612009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owners Plant: PN: Title B-4. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion St. Laois MOD Large Plant Option 165166.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked By: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 2 I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (MISS) $0.970 Fuel Costs Natural Gas (S/mm6Nt) $353. Fuel Oil ($gal) 03.00 Diesel ($hnnaitu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) 52.50 Labor Operation labor (MO $4090 Maintenance labor ($hr) 54090 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% ofequulp $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee ($4s0) 51000 Tipping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($wt) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($$ga$ $5.00 Construction COst Factors Site Work (%) 555 Electrical & Instmmentatmon (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legal &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (%) 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.361 COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5ESI(Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary So! Oa $1000fdtpd $1000/dl $46 01.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdtpd $1000141 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $10001gal Caine. $1.5 $2.84 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $10001sofm $1000/sofm H25/H20l5flex. $3 50.4 Gas Utilization Dewatering $1000ldlpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000ldtpd $1000/dt Rorury Drum $420 $607 $72 Incineration $10001dtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $1000/dlpd $1000141 $50 $0 Composting $10001dtpd $/dt $0 $0 $90 $0 large,els 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Line Cost -Costs. Summary 101012005 B-8 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 O'arer Plant: PN: Tdle B-4 Continued. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion St. Louis MSD Large Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked 8y: Data: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W U to 00 I - Z I- O z 0 0 Dry large xis Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case/ Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primacy, Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No No Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes No No No Gas Utilization Na No No No No Deweledng No No No No No Thermal Drying Yes Yes No No No Incineration No No No No No Alkaline Slabilzalion No No No No No Composting Na No. No No No Landfill Disposal No No No No No Land Application No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primay Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Actvafed Soids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Corrv. $27.78 $1.15 $1428 $42.06 Digester Gas Cleaning N251N2dr511ox. $2.41 $0.17 $2.17 $4.58 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying Roby Drool $6129 $5-33 $56.35 $127.65 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $090 Land Application $0.00 $0.0 $0.00 TOTAL $91.48 $6.65 $62.81 $174.29 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste AciivafeciSOAtls $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Corry. $15.05 $0.61 $7.80 $22.65 Digester Gas Cleaning N251N24✓S6ox. $1.47 $0.11 $1.32 $2.79 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dawalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying RoNry Drum $3125 $2.72 $33.84 $55.09 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $400 $0.50 $O00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $5.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $87,77 $3.43 $42.78 $90.63 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) itpt Coso-Costa Summary B-9 10!612009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner: Plant: PN: Me: B-5. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake St. Louis MOD Large Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By, Dale: Checked 8y: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 W U n( a to 2 W M ce I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT ci.s-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (MISS) 50.070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas (S/mm6k$) $353. Fuel Oil (&gal) $3.00 Diesel ($hnrrritu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) 52.50 Labor °pennons labor ($hr) 54000 Maintenance labor ($'hr) 54000 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (16 ofequ/p 5) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee ($6e0 $10.00 Tpping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($wt) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($dga0 $5.00 Construction COst Factors Site Work (V) 5% Eleotrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legal &Admin. (%1 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 interest Rate (55) 5'$r PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.381 COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5E.SSWi11 use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Sofida $1000idtpd $1000/dl $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdtpd 51000/41 50 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $100/1/gat $4.49 $8 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000/sotm $1000/scfm $2 50.2 Gee Utilization Dewatedng $1000fdtpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000idtpd $1000/dt $056 066 Incineration 51000fdtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $100Wdtpd $1000141 $80 $0 Composting $10001dtpd $Idt Windrow $0 $751 $69 $0 Lantltll large 2 ale 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Costs -Cost Summary 10162/109 B-10 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner: Plant: PN: Title B-5 Continued. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake St. Louis MSD Large Plant Option 165186.0133 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked Ey: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of w 0 ct n. co 00 I - Y 0 0 O Landfill large 2 xis Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary, Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No Na No No No Anaerobic Digestion No No No No No Digester Gas Cleaning No No No No No Gas Utilization Na No Na No No Dewatedng No No No Na Na Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No Na Na No Na Alkaline Stabilzadon No No No No No Composting Na Na Na Na Na Landfill Disposal Yes Yes No No No Land Application No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening PNrnnsy Solids $0.00 Moo $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated SoAds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0,00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0-00 $0 00 incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Dinpcoal $4.35 $54.27 $54.27 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $4.35 $5427 $54.27 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste AclivafedSOAtls $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dewalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Indneration 50,00 $0.00 $0.00 50,00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 50.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $2.32 $28.87 $28.87 Land Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $2.32 $28.87 $28.87 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Unn Costs -Cost Summary B-11 1010 000 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 B6. Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application of Class B Cake Omen Plant: PN: Tolle: St. Louis MSD Medium Plant Option 165166.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked Sy: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W Li a 92 2 I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (MISS) 50.070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($/mmUtu) $353. Fuel Oil (&gal) $3.00 Diesel ($hnrrrftu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) 52.50 Labor Operations labor (Mir) $4000 Maintenance labor ($hr) $4000 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% of equip 0) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (Srwf) $10.00 Tipping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($'w4) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($dga$ $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (%) 555 Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legal &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (%) 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0381 COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5ESII(Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary So( ids $1000idtpd $10001d1 $46 51.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdlpd $1000ld1 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $1000fgal Curry. $2.64 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isotm $10001scfm HPS/H20l5flex. $3 $0.4 Gas Utilization Eng. doen Dewatering $1000ldlpd $10001d1 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000ldtpd $10001dt $500 $656 566 Incineration $1000fdtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $10001dtpd $1000141 $60 $33 Composting $10001dtpd $Idt 50 $0 593 50 Land Application medium xis 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn 003ts.Cosb Summary 101612009 B-12 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 B6 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Land Application of Class B Cake Owner: Plant: PN: Me: St. Laois MSD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By, Dale: Checked 8y: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W 0 00 rn z W I- re I- 0 z 0 0 Land Application nedlutn xis Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No No Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes Na No No Gas Utilization Yes Yes No No No Dewaledng No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No No No No Na Alkaline Slabilzadon No Na No No No Composting No Na Na Na No Landfill Disposal No No No No No Land Appllcalion Cake Yes Yes No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Com. $10.01 $023 $263 $12.84 Digester Gas Cleaning N25110LVSIMs. $0.80 $0.05 $0.72 $1.53 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.88 $0.15 $1.83 $0.05 Dicsaledeg $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $O A0 $0 d0 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilisation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Land Application Cake $0.43 $5.38 $5.38 TOTAL $12.70 $0.57 $7.10 $19.79 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary 30855 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste AcdvafeciSoikia $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Carts. $7.65 $0.17 $2.16 $9.81 Digester Gas Cleaning M25Al2Oi5ges. $0.59 $0.04 $0.54 $1.13 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.51 $0.09 -$1.15 $0.38 Dewaledng $0.00 $0.00 80.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cake $0.34 $4.19 $4.19 TOTAL $9.75 $0.46 $5.74 $1848 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Unn Costs -Cost Sunnaty B-13 10!612009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owners Plant: PN: Tale: B7. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion St. Louis MOD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked Br Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 W C.) 00 a us 2 I- 0 Z 0 O M INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, tiril Units Cost Source Electricity ($1k i) $0070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($ymmeta) $353. Fuel Oil (&gal) 03.00 Diesel ($hnnrftu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) $2.50 Labor Cpemflons labor ($hr) $4000 Maintenance labor ($hr) $40.00 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% ofequip $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (S/wf) 510.00 Typing Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($fwt) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($dgaS $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (M) 5% Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legal &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate CO 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.38) COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5E.S71Ni11 use default values 1 costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary SofOa $1000fdtpd $1003fd1 $46 01.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdlpd $10001011 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $1000fgal Cony. 02 $2.84 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isutm $10001scfm HPS/H20l5flex. $3 $0.4 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen Dewetedng $1000/dlpd $1000fdt $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000fdtpd $10001dt MMWfar $500 $656 $86 Incineration $1000fdtpd $10001011 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $10001dIpd $10001011 $80 $38 Composting $1000ldtpd $/dt $0 $0 $93 $0 at Drying metlum.x5 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Una Costs-Cose Summary 1016,2009 B-14 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner Plant: PN: This B7 Continued. Heat Drying with Anaerobic Digestion St. Laois MSD Medium Plant Option 165166.0103 Unit Costs File No. Campoled By: Dale: Checked By: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of z O z 0 Heat Drying metlum.xls Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primacy, Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No No Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes No No No Gas Utilization Na No No No Na Deweledng No No No No No Thermal Drying Yes Yes No No No Incineration No No No No Na Alkaline Stabilization No No No No No Composting Na No. No No Na Landfill Disposal No No No No No Land Application Cake No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -GAM Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primacy Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated S31es $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Con. $7.06 $023 $2 63 $9 S9 Digester Gas Cleaning N2Sm2d7Sgos. $0.50 $0.05 $0.72 $1.53 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dnwrrledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying Modular $11.70 $0.79 $0.7$ $21.49 incineration $0.00 $0.00 30.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilisation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.00 50.00 TOTAL $1957 $1.07 $13.34 $32.90 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste As -deafest Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Coyne. $5.40 $0.17 $2.16 $7.55 Digester Gas Cleaning N25m20ANos. $0.59 $0.04 $0.54 $1.13 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dewalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying Macular $6.12 $0.61 $7.63 $16.75 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $15.11 $0.03 $10.32 $25.43 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Ara Costs -Cost Summary B-15 10.612009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 B8. Alkaline Stabilization with Land Application of Class B Cake Owner Plant: PN: Tolle: St. Louis MOD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Data: Checked Or Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of 2 W M ce I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT ci.s-rs, Units Cost Source Electricity (3.905) $0.970 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($/mm6tu) $353. Fuel Oil Algal) $3.00 Diesel ($hnrnStu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (&7D active) $2.50 Labor Operations labor (Sole) $4090 Melntenance labor ($.'hr) $40.00 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% ofequulp $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee IS/Wt) $10.00 Tipping Fee ($/wl) $2300 Land Applioation Fee ($+'wt) $15.00 Land Application Fee ($dgaO $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (%) 5% Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineerinsl, Legel &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (%) 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.38) COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5E.S7Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Prfrnary Solids $1000/dtpd $1000141 $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdtpd $1000141 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $1000kiel $4.49 $8 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isotm $10001sofm 02 $0.2 Gas Utilization Dewatedng $1000ydlpd $1000141 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000Idtpd $1002141 $500 $556 $56 Incineration $1000Idtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $10001dlpd $10001011 Clean 9 $60 $60 $38 Composting $1000Idtpd $/dt $0 S0 $91 $0 AIk Stab raealurn on 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Cost -Costs. Surrrnaly 1016,2009 B-16 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 B8 Continued. Alkaline Stabilization with Land Application of Class B Cake Owner Plant: PN: Tdle: St. Laois MSD Medium Plant Option 165166.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked 8y: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W U 00 lL to Z I- O 2 0 0 Alk Stab medlumxb Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary, Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion No No No No No Digester Gas Cleaning No No No No No Gas Utilization Na No Na No Na Dewaledng No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No No No No No Alkaline Stabilization Yes Yes No No No Composting No No. No Na Ha Landfill Disposal No No No No No Land Application Cake Yes Yas No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activafer5SoAds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0 DO $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0-00 $0 d0 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization Class 5 $2.95 $0.39 $4.67 $7.92 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Land Application Cake $0.51 $5.35 $6.35 TOTAL $2.95 $0.90 $1122 $14.18 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 Waste Activated Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dewalering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Alkaline Stabilization class a $2.25 $0.30 $3.71 $6.96 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Dispo al $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cate $0.39 $4.64 $4.04 TOTAL $2.25 $0.69 $6.56 $10.51 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) UM Cost -Costs Summary B-17 I 01612005 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Omer Plant: PN: Tolle: B9. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting (by Contract) St. Louis MSD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked By: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 2 I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, .11.11 Units Cost Source Electricity (S/kVf?+) $0.970 Fuel Costs Natural Gas (S/mm65 $353. Fuel Oil algal) $3.00 Diesel ($1mrnetu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (540 active) 52.50 Labor Operations labor WO $4000 Maintenance labor ($hr) $40.00 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (96 ofequip $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (WO $10.00 Typing Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($w0 $20.00 Land Application Fee ($$ga$ $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (V) 5% Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legal &Admin. (6) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 interest Rate (%0 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIF Salvage (0.38) COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5ER(Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Sofido $1000idtpd $10001d1 $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdlpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $1000fgal Cetrv. $2.84 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isotm $1000/scfm HPSYH20/s0ox. $3 $0.4 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen Dewatedng $10001dtpd $1000141 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $10001dtpd $10001st $500 $656 066 Incineration $1000Idtpd $10001st $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $10001dtpd $1000141 $80 $35 Composting $10001dtpd $/dt Windrow $0 $751 $91 $0 mprstrg medlum,xls 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Costs -Cost Summary I0le21k19 B-18 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 B9 Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting (by Contract) O: 1rr_ Piaui PN: Title: St. Louis MSD Medum Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked 8y: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W 0 05 0 r0 co 2 I - Z w I- re I - O Z 0 O Composting medmntxls Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No Na Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes No No No Gas Utilization Yes Yes No No No De eledng i No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No No No No Na Alkaline Stabilization No No No No No Composting Yes Yes No No No Landfill Disposal No No No No No Land Application Cake No No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital 08M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Sollce $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Corrv. $1401 $023 $263 $12.64 Digester Gas Cleaning M25m20751rax. $0.50 $0.05 $0.72 $1.53 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.88 $0.15 -$1.83 $0.05 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $400 $0 00 incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting Windier w $0.00 $0.39 04.60 $4.90 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $12.70 $0.53 $9.62 $19.32 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Sends $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste AcdvanseSOlids $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 Anaerobic Digestion Corry. $7.65 $0.17 $2.16 $9.81 Digester Gas Cleaning 525152015110.e. $0.68 $0.04 $0.54 $1.13 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.51 $0.09 -$1.15 $035 Dewelering $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.110 $0.00 $0.00 Composting Windrow $0.00 $0.31 $3.61 $3.81 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $9.75 $0.43 $5.36 $15.11 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Ant Costs -Cost Summary B-19 10!&!3009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner: Plant: PN: Tolle: B.10. Anaerobic Digestion and Liquid Disposal St. Louis MOD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked Br Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 01 2 I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, int Units Cost Source Electricity (S/kIWO $0070 Fuel Costs Natural Gas (S/mm6kt) $353. Fuel Oil (&gal) $3.00 Diesel ($hnnrftu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (so active) $2.50 Labor Opemllons labor WO $4090 Maintenance labor ($'/e) $40.00 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% ofequip $) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee ISMS 510.00 Typing Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($/wt) $20.00 Land Application Fee ($$ga$ $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (V) 5% EleIXdcal & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies (%) 25% Engineering, Legel &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (95) 5% PIA Factor 12,46 PIP Salvage (0.38) COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5ESII(Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Solids $1000fdtpd $100051 $46 01.2 Waste Activated Solids $1000fdlpd $100051 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000/gal $1000fgal Cony. $2.84 $12 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000/scam $1000/scfm HPSf920l5flex. $3 $0.4 Gas Utilization Eng. Ole Dewatedng $10001dlpd $1000/41 $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1005fdtpd $1000/dt $500 $656 006 Incineration $10001dtpd $1000141 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $1000/dlpd $1000/011 $80 $38 Composting $1000Iatpd $/dt $0 $0 $91 $0 tad medium xi 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Urn Costs -Cost Summary 101/COoa B-20 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Omer Plant: PN: Tdla: B.10. Continued. Anaerobic Digestion and Liquid Disposal St. Louis MSD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked 8y: Date: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 a1 W U e5 0. to Z w F- 04 F- O 2 0 O Liqutl medlum.0LS Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion Yes Yes No No Na Digester Gas Cleaning Yes Yes No No No Gas Utilization Yes Yes No No Na Dewaledng No No No Na Na Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No Na Na No Na Alkaline Slabilzadon No No No No No Composting Na No. No No Na Landfill Disposal Na No No No Na Land Application Cake Na No No No Na ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital 0&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Prim.), SODce $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated. Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Come. $1401 $023 $283 $12.84 Digester Gas Cleaning N2SIN2wiltoo. $0.80 $0.05 $0.72 $1$3 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.88 $0.15 $1.83 $0.05 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $000 $000 $0 00 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.20 $0.00 TOTAL $12.70 $0.14 $1.72 $14.42 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Acdvafed Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion Corry. $7.65 $0.17 $2.18 $9.81 Digester Gas Cleaning N25AH2wsaos. $0.59 $0.04 $0.54 $1.13 Gas Utilization Eng. Gen $1.51 -$0.09 -$1.15 $035 Dawalering $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 Triennial Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Incineration 50,00 $0.00 $0.00 50,00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $000 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Land Application Cake $1100 $0.00 50,00 TOTAL $9.75 $0.12 $1.55 $11.25 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Unn Costs -Cost Summary B-21 10/52609 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner Plant: PN: Tolle: B-11. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake St. Louis MOD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Computed By: Dale: Checked Br Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 e1 2 I- 0 Z 0 O INPUT DATA IN CELLS LINT cis-rs, tirt Units Cost Source Electricity ($86.15) $0.970 Fuel Costs Natural Gas ($/mmt)(0 $353. Fuel Oil Algal) $3.00 Diesel ($hmruetu) 50.00. Chemicals Polymer (540 active) $2.50 Labor Operations labor (Mid $4000 Maintenance labor ($Whr) $4090 Maintenance Materials Equipment Maintenance (% ofequlp 5) 2% Disposal Costs Hauling Fee (Sywf) $10.00 Tipping Fee ($/wt) $2300 Land Application Fee ($4t) $15.00 Land Application Fee ($dgaO $5.00 Construction Cost Factors Site Work (%) 555 Electrical & Instrumentation (%) 15% General Requirements (%b) 10% Contingencies N 25% Engineering, Legel &Admin. (%) 20% Present Worth Life of Project (years) 20 Interest Rate (%) 5% PIA Factor 12.46 PIP Salvage (0.36( COSTS FOR UNIT PROCES5ESII(Will use default values if costs not known) Unit Process Units Technology Capital Annual O&M Capital O&M Input Default Input Default Solids Thickening Primary Solids $1000fdtpd $10021d1 $46 $1.2 Waste Activated Sobs $1000fdlpd $10001d1 $0 $0 Anaerobic Digestion $1000fgal $1000fgal $4.49 $8 Digester Gas Cleaning $1000Isctm $1000/sofm 52 50.2 Gas Utilization Dewatering $10001dlpd $1000fdt $0 $0 Thermal Drying $1000/dtpd $10001dt $509 $656 $06 Incineration $1000fdtpd $1000611 $350 $534 $22 $19 Alkaline Stabilization $10001dlpd $1000141 $50 $60 $38 Composting $10001dtpd $/dt $0 $0 $91 $0 Landrlll raw medium no 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) UnC Costs -Cost Summary loarzao9 B-22 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Owner Fiord: PN: Tdle: B-11 Continued. Landfill Disposal of Raw Cake St. Louis MSD Medium Plant Option 165186.0103 Unit Costs File No. Compiled By: Dale: Checked By: Dale: Page: PAS September 15, 2009 HS September 16, 2009 of W O. 00 N co I - or 0 0 Landfill raw medium xis Process Selected for Evaluation Unit Process Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case4 Case 5 Solids Thickening t Primary Solids No No No No No Waste Activated Solids No No No No No Anaerobic Digestion No No No No No Digester Gas Cleaning No No No No No Gas Utilization Na No No No Na Dewaledng No No No No No Thermal Drying No No No No No Incineration No No No No Na Alkaline Slabilzadon No No No No No Composting No No. No No Na Landfill Disposal Yes Yes No No No Land Application Cake Na No No No No ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS CASE 1: MAXIMUM MONTH DESIGN Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW -O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 moo $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Sa ds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Derraledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $O AO $0 d0 Incineration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composling $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $1.12 $13.96 $13.90 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.20 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $1.12 $13.96 $13.96 CASE 2: MIDPOINT ANNUAL AVERAGE Unit Process Technology Capital O&M PW-O&M Total PW Million $ Million $ Million $ Million $ Solids Thickening Primary Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Waste Activated Solids $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Anaerobic Digestion $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Digester Gas Cleaning $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.03 Gas Utilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Dawaledng $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Thermal Drying $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 incineration $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Alkaline Stabilization $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Composting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Landfill Disposal $0.66 $10.66 $10.65 Land Application Cake $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.96 $10.66 $10.66 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) Una Coats -Cost Summary B-23 10.1,2009 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Appendix C Workshop 2 Meeting Minutes 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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) 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-3 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-4 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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. 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-5 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-6 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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: 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-7 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 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 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) C-8 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD TM 7- Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 Appendix D Results of Triple Bottom Line Screening D.1. Large Plant Options D.2. Medium Plant Options 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-1 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Table D-1. Large Plant Treatment Technology Option Screening Results Large Plant Alternatives Alternative Component Assumptions Treatment Technology !Evaluation Factor Key Technology Category Weight Factor Description Criteria Weight Weight Percentage Factor Social 15% 15.0% 1 Aesthetics 2'Truck traffic P blc safety/site sacurty Ease of Permitting 5 Public erce Lion Environmental 25% Minimizes 1 GHGs 2 Outlet reliability 3 Proven experience How well does the alternative ft into the neighborhood, considering noise, visual aesthetics, and odors. How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood considering truck traffic? none praoent any particular safety risks? How well can tho facility bo eocurod from Make? How difficult will it be to permit the. likely technology necessary for the selected final use? Does the final use alternative have a ostive or ne ative erce.tion? 4 Flexibility a lb Iv1HF Rebuild FBI MAD/Landfill 4 8.6% 5 2.1% 5 0 0.0% 2.1% 3 2.1% Thermal Drying Landfill Raw wlpower wlpower generation _ generation 5 2 5 4 4 Subtotal Score (Social) 0.62 25.0% Estimate of the alternatives GHG emissions, for both final use and anticipated treatement process How likely is it that the selected final use outlet will be availalble throughout the project life? Does the supporting treatment technology have signfcant operating/installation experience? If the selected final outlet is not available, can the final product be easily diverted to other types of outlets? Beneficial 5 reuse Beneficial use of product or energy 2 3.9% 3 4 0.62 0.45 5 4 1 0.50 0.32 2 3.8% 5 3 5.8% 5 4 7.7% 5 5 3 5 3 5 2 3.0% 2 0.0% 4 4 5 Economic 60% Subtotal Score (Environmental) 1.06 60.0% 1.17 0.98 1.02 0.52 1 Capital cost 2 O&M costs How expensive is the alternative expected to be relative to the others? Does the alternative present any special constructability challenges? 10 24.0% 3 10 24.0% 3 4 3 2 2 3!,Staffng/operati lonal complexity Corstructibility 4 Permitting Effort How complex is the alternative likely to be from an operations standpoint and 4 9.6% 3 3 4 onsite staffing and training needs? Does the alternative present any c alleng.s? Cost and staff needs for permitting and operations 0 0.0% 2.4% 5 0.0% 4 4 3 5 5 Total Score 100% Scores: 5 = Most Favorable. 1 = Least Favorable Subtotal Score (Economic) 1.85 1.82 1.60 0.74 2.28 100% 3.53 3.62 3.11 2.34 3.12 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Summary of Solids Processing Technologies MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 September 18, 2009 B&V File 44.000 Table D-2. Medium Plant Treatment Technology Option Screening Results Medium Plant Alternatives Alternative Component Assumptions 6 7 8 9 10 Treatment Technology Evaluation Factor Category W erg hihi Factor Description Criteria Weight Weight Percentage Factor I MAD/Land App Thermal StaAlk b/Land Composting Liquid Landfill Raw Drying App Disposal Social 15% 15.0% 1 Aesthetics 2 3 Truck traffic DuF3re f^ty"^4e cocurity Ease of Permitting 4 Public perception How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood, considering noise, 41 3.3% 3 visual aesthetics, and odors. How well does the alternative fit into the neighborhood considering truck traffic? D c the alt maths] present any particular safety ricks? Ho,/ well can the fa�'�"y be soured fr m "i.i.14-59 How difficult will it be to permit the likely technology necessary for the selected final use? Does the final use alternative have a postive or negative perception? 0 2.1% 3 0.0% 2.1% 3 2.1% 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 4 3 5 4 4 5 2 1 Environmental 25% Subtotal Score (Social) 25.0% 0.47 0.58 0.26 0.41 0.54 0.51 1 Minimizes GHGs 2 3 Outlet reliability Proven experience Flexibility 5 Beneficial reuse Economic 60% Estimate of the alternatives GHG emissions, for both final use and anticipated treatment process How likely is it that the selected final use outlet will be availalble throughout the project life? Does the supporting treatment technology have signfcant operating/installation experience? If the selected final outlet is not available, can the final product be easily diverted to other types of outlets? Beneficial use of product or energy 2 3.3% 5 1 3 4 3.8% 4 3 5 5 5.6% 7:7% 3.8% 0.0% Subtotal Score (Environmental) 60.0% 5 1 5 1.06 1.06 2 2 1 3 0.85 0.92 0.48 0.63 1 Capital cost 2 O&M costs How expensive is the alternative expected to be relative to the others? Does the alternative present any special constructability challenges? How complex is the alternative likely to be from an operations standpoint 4 9.6% 3 and ensile staffing needs? Does the alternative present any shad^9ae2 Cost and staff needs for permitting and operations 10 24.0% 3 10 24.0% 3 1 5 1 3 3 5 5 3 Staffing/operational complexity C ^ctruct'b' ity 4 Permitting Effort 6 1 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 Total Score 100% Scores: 5 - Most - Least Favorable Subtotal Score (Economic) 100% 1.80 0.74 3.33 2.38 1.80 1.92 2.90 3.25 2.50 1.94 3.51 3.09 10/14/2009 QC: G. Shimp (09/17/2009) D-3 r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 8 — Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility L J Cll > CL Cr) O U i LL O 0 O • c6 CO E E C° U Cl) O I CC co 2 F- BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 1 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 Appendix A Appendix B — Appendix C — Appendix D — Minutes of July 28, 2009 Existing Conditions Meeting Al Site Topography and Grading Figures TM 8-1, -2 & -3 B1 Historical Ash Disposal Records Cl — 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. QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 2 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 3 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 fmding 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 peiiiut 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 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 4 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 5 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 6 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 7 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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 QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 8 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Summary of Prospect Hill Reclamation Facility MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 October 16, 2009 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. QC: T. Knox 082509 Page 9 of 9 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Evaluation of Prospect Hill MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 26, 2009 Appendix A Minutes of July 28, 2009 Existing Conditions Meeting MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan Prospect Hill Landfill Initial Findings Review Meeting — July 28, 2009 The attendee list is attached. MSD action items are in Bold Italics and summarized at end of minutes Initial Findings Review Meeting: The meeting was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at MSD's Bissell Plant conference room at 1:00 PM. Tom Gredell and Rick Roberts, GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. (Gredell Engineering) presented the information under Agenda Items 1 through 10 in a PowerPoint slide presentation. Copies of the PowerPoint slide presentation, the meeting agenda and Figures 1 through4 were handed out to the meeting attendees at the start of the meeting. Copies of the handouts are attached to these minutes. 1. Presentation of Site Topographic Survey Results - Gredell Engineering reviewed the information obtained by EDSI during the site topographic survey. Figure 1 was presented as an image of the topographic survey site map and current site topography. The image presented in Figure 1 showed the topography at the 2 feet contour interval. The permitted limits of the edge of waste ash disposal was shown as a dashed line and were obtained by digitizing the boundary found on MDNR approved plans. Because previous site benchmarks were not apparent on the topographic base map or contour map, three centrally located manholes (manhole #'s 7, 8 and 9) were use to overlay previous site design features onto the current site topography and base map features for establishing the edge of waste permit boundary. The site information obtained by the topographic survey was reviewed along with a series of site photographs taken during the June 17, 2009 site visit to orient site conditions with Figure 1. In addition to the site topography and waste permit boundary, the topographic survey located the edge of standing water, the depth of standing water, tree lines, fence lines, on -site roads, adjoining streets and curb lines, sanitary and stormwater manholes, and stormwater inlets. 2. Discussion of Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash — It was pointed out that TM 3, which has been completed, provides a thorough discussion of potential alternative uses for incinerator ash. However, subsequent to the completion of TM 3 and prior to the meeting, two specific potential beneficial uses for portions of the incinerator ash were identified and were scheduled for discussion at this meeting. One proposed use is the use of ash from the Lemay Plant ash ponds by Great Rivers Greenway to widen the ash lagoon levees adjacent to the Mississippi River to accommodate a biking trail under construction along the river front. The widened levees would make room for the bike trail and fence to prevent access to the ash lagoons. One concern is the ash material's stability as a levee fill material. The other potential use of the ash, also at the Lemay Plant is to fill a proposed plant facility's expansion area along the River Des Peres, between the existing plant and the river to raise it above floodplain levels and protect the area from flooding. Gredell Engineering provided regulatory information on a provision in the Missouri Solid Waste Regulations 10CSR80-2.020 (9)(B) that allows a permit exemption for the beneficial use of non- hazardous solid waste in applications where such use does not impact the environment (land, surface water or groundwater). They pointed out that these potential uses could be evaluated under the conditions of this permit exemption provision and presented to the state for approval. If approved by the state, the ash material could be used in the manner proposed. This would preserve remaining air space capacity in the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project which would preserve it for future ash disposal needs. PH-InitialFindingsReviewMINUTES072809-1.doc MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan Prospect Hill Landfill Initial Findings Review Meeting — July 28, 2009 There was considerable discussion of the potential benefits and impediments of these potential uses, the proposed locations, the current conditions of the proposed locations, and the timing of the development of the two potential projects. The discussion concluded with recognition that use of the ash as a fill material was a potential alternative use under the permit exemption provision of "beneficial use" of a solid waste, but that each proposed project would have to be evaluated and designed to account for the properties and characteristics (physical and chemical) of the material for the specific application. 3. Findings from the Regulatory File Reviews- Gredell Engineering discussed that they had completed three regulatory file reviews on the Prospect Hill Reclamation Project. These reviews were completed at the state and local levels (MDNR Jefferson City Office, MDNR St. Louis Regional Office and St. Louis County Solid Waste Division Office). The file review at the MDNR Jefferson City Office located site background information related to: the types of waste permitted to be accepted at the facility and the types of wastes excluded from the facility; the site selection process when it was permitted along with the provisions of the design for environmental protection (the landfill liner system, the landfill leachate collection system, the landfill stormwater management system, air quality, aesthetics and vector control); review of local ordinance and local zoning approval; and the approved design plans, which included the edge of waste permitted boundary and the approved final contours map. Figure 2 was presented. Figure 2 shows the permitted final contours of the site and the location of two cross sections, which were used to project potential vertical expansion scenarios. The MDNR Jefferson City Office file review also included searching for and identifying the original permit approval documents from 1985, approved permit modifications since 1985 to date, and the operating history and compliance inspection history of the site 1985 to date. Waste disposal records were also searched to document the amounts and types of waste disposed in the facility from 1985 to date. The file review at the MDNR St. Louis Regional Office was conducted to validate the information found in the MDNR Jefferson City Office file review and to search for information to supplement and fill in gaps in the Jefferson City Office file review findings. Much of the same information was found but additional information was also found on the permit modification history and the history of waste disposal amounts and types of waste deposited in the facility over the years of operation since 1985. The contact for a file review at St. Louis County Solid Waste Division determined that St. Louis County no longer inspects this facility and their file records were closed several years ago County staff were not able to locate any of the closed files for review. Gredell Engineering speculates that the county permit was invalidated when the City of Riverside annexed the western portion of the Prospect Hill property. 4. MSD File Review Findings — Gredell Engineering conducted a thorough review of the MSD files in the offices of Mike Townley and Buffy Santel. This file review found good information on the original design and operations manual with small size (11x17 inch) plan drawings, the operations history, records of waste disposal events, waste characteristics (both physical and chemical), and the construction development of on -site roads, berms, the liner and leachate collection systems. Geotechnical testing data on the in place ash deposited in the facility was found which is key to estimating the remaining life of the facility relative to the remaining PH-InitialFindingsReviewMINUTES072809-1.doc MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan Prospect Hill Landfill Initial Findings Review Meeting — July 28, 2009 permitted air space. Two graphs were presented showing the relative ranges of the in place ash moisture content and dry density values documented by the geotechnical testing completed after various ash/waste disposal events. 5. Current and Future Wastes for Disposal — It was pointed out that the file records revealed the types of waste approved for disposal at the facility. MSD historical waste hauling records were obtained and Black & Veatch had determined projected current and future ash solids quantities requiring disposal. Preliminary results of the ash/waste amounts determined in the draft TM 2 provided by Black & Veatch and the historical MSD haul records appear to have some discrepancies, but it is believed with further evaluation these will be resolved, allowing representative current and future projection of ash waste amounts requiring disposal to be determined. This will allow the remaining life projections of the remaining air space to be completed. Information from the historical file record of MSD on the amount of ash disposal from both plants 1975 -1997 was handed out MSD's Mike Townley offered to update the waste haul amount records from 1997 to date. 6. Waste Characteristics — Findings on waste characteristics (physical and chemical) were discussed. As previously noted, graphs of the ranges of moisture content and density of the in place ash at the landfill were handed out. It was noted that ash analysis for total metals content, TCLP metals content, macro and micro plant nutrients content and some other analyses were found in the MSD and MDNR files. However it was pointed out that most this data was not very current and that current data would be useful in validating the historical data. MSD's Buffy Santel will have samples collected and analyzed from the pending 2009 ash waste haul events scheduled The historical data indicates the ash is a non -hazardous solid waste, has the soil classification of a "sand", and has significant levels of plant macro nutrients and some plant micro nutrients. The pH analyses of the ash show it can run as high as 12.2, but generally ranges from 9.0 to 11.0. 7. Parameters for Remaining Life Projections- Gredell Engineering presented a list of parameters to be discussed for calculating the remaining air space and the remaining life at Prospect Hill under three potential scenarios of waste projection amounts. The current thinking is to use an ash in place density of 60 pounds per cubic foot for converting tons to volume of air space occupied. However, this may vary somewhat as further evaluation of the database information is conducted. Black & Veatch commented that remaining life projections should be limited to two scenarios: Current Bissell Point and Lemay Plant ash generation projections plus solids ash projections from the Coldwater Plant; and potential ash projections for all solids from all of the MSD plants. MSD, Gredell Engineering and Black & Veatch will work together to determine the best fit scenarios to be projected as the final remaining air space at Prospect Hill is determined. 8. Parameters for Vertical Expansion — Gredell Engineering presented two cross sections (Figures 3 and 4) of the Prospect Hill site that included projected vertical expansion of the landfill final cap under two scenarios: one passive, topping out at elevation 560 (approximately 20 feet above the highest surrounding elevation); and one aggressive, topping out at elevation 620 (approximately 80 feet above the highest surrounding elevation). No additional capacity estimates were available for this meeting under these two scenarios, but the cross sections illustrated the PH-InitialFindingsReviewMINUTES072809-1.doc MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan Prospect Hill Landfill Initial Findings Review Meeting — July 28, 2009 possibilities for vertical expansion within design slope limitations set by the state regulations. Other considerations are community concerns might be to a vertical expansion of the facility. The discussion covered the possible reasons for limiting the current approved cap height to only 510. Reasoning for this can only be speculated since the original design parameters of the original designers is not known. However, it was pointed out that the more aggressive vertical expansion illustrated results in a very small top with long side slopes that would require well designed post -closure stormwater management features such as terraces, let down structures and detention structures to control the rate of stormwater release. It was also discussed that the more aggressive cap would mean the closed site would have limited potential for any post closure use or development of the site. During this discussion Matt Bond with Black & Veatch, who was participating by phone, had to leave the meeting. The continued discussion with the MSD staff resulted in direction to complete the evaluation for vertical expansion using the passive scenario as shown and reducing the aggressive scenario to top out at elevation 610. It was pointed out that for Phase 1 our evaluation was limited to gross volume estimates of the increased capacity of the two scenarios and not detailed design, so terracing and other storm water management features will not be included in the evaluation as they would have minimal effect on the facility capacity. It was also pointed out that should the more aggressive vertical expansion plan be pursued as permit modification, a lower vertical expansion could be offered as a compromise and still provides additional facility life. 9. Questions/Comments about Existing Conditions - Additional questions and/or comments were requested concerning the initial findings, but no specific questions or comments were made. MSD staff indicated that they were satisfied with the initial findings. Gredell Engineering indicated that adequate information was found to proceed and complete our scope of work. MSD was tasked with two commitments: 1) to update the historical ash haul records from 1997 to date. 2) to collect representative samples of the planned 2009 ash waste hauls and perform chemical analyses. We suggest submitting ash samples to a geotechnical testing laboratory to conduct geotechnical tests to determine geotechnical properties of the material (i.e. particle size distribution, atterberg limits, plasticity index, optimum moisture and compaction). 10.Technical Memo 8 Contents — Gredell Engineering reviewed with MSD staff the general contents to be presented in TM 8 per the Scope of Work and, briefly, where we stood on the schedule. The main focus of TM 8 is the determination of the remaining permitted air space at Prospect Hill and the projection of remaining life at the current rate of ash generation. It was noted that Task C 2. is running somewhat behind schedule but the meeting with MDNR DGLS has been scheduled for Monday, August 3, 2009 and following that meeting we will be able meet the final project schedule. The meeting was concluded at approximately 3:15 pm. Summary of MSD Action Items From Meeting: 1. MSD (Mike Townley) will update the waste haul amount records from 1997 to date. 2. MSD representatives will collect and analyze representative ash samples from the pending 2009 ash waste haul events scheduled. Buffy Santel will coordinate. PH-InitialFindingsReviewMINUTES072809-1. doc 8 7 yff ' 0) {i®,? gsf7S Q7rvt,w Odd •,,3E7 —19hS- 05)1,1 v24, 3vrcbinitt ✓i Y ' L. `- A11ritif701�kP�'A A "D #1/4'tI +wnlq kLTL+l'2 Q-�W rd L '00 `N•��, -a -61"-)‘:-g Qi3.0� — o) )1-,k2 CrSv i �) �` - c:1\-aell c227r149+Q ci?W'xi cuS 0. 10 1,11.-h1S )"1 *k.-i'''ciQt .." -361 aJ & ur V' ' 1Cam. � r-eYrl �' ? 9 i I ,,j,.`y 7 r/' ` dr 41. 1-4-736-`,4q' .g.%1 9,015 r •'%� 7�� l l 1 - . ..5 "T yil ¢soy - A'sii Wgzo . / , if , .c %-1? //, 4-33R/ $ ih f1iS Questions/Topics for Task C 1.i, Prospect Hill Initial Findings Review Meeting Tuesday July 28, 2009 1:00 to 3:00 pm Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 1. Presentation of Site Topographic Survey Results - • Topographic Map (Figure 1) • Review Site Information Obtained 2. Discuss Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash • Alternative Uses were Incorporated into TM 3 • Discuss Beneficial Use (Widening the levee at Lemay for Great Rivers Greenway Bike Trail) 3. Findings from the Regulatory File Reviews • MDNR Jefferson City Office (Figure 2) • MDNR St. Louis Regional Office • St. Louis County DOH Solid Waste Division 4. Findings From the District Files • Operation History • Waste Characteristics • Construction Documentation 5. Current and Future Wastes for Disposal • Permitted Wastes for Disposal • Historical Record Wastes Disposal • Future Wastes for Disposal 6. Waste Characteristics • Physical Characteristics • Chemical Characteristics • Field Density Testing Results 7. Parameters for Remaining Life Projections 8. Parameters for Vertical Expansion (Figure 3) 9. Questions & Comments about Existing Conditions 10. TM 8 Contents Ina,u BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD Prospect Hill Reclamation Site Meeting to Confirm Existing Conditions and Waste Quantities B&V Project 165186 July 28, 2009 1:00 pm Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 3460 Hollenberg Dr., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63044 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Meeting to Confirm Existing Conditions and Waste Quantities Presentation Overview 1. Presentation of Site Topographic Survey Results 2 Discuss Alternative Uses for Incinerator Ash 3. Findings from the Regulatory File Reviews 4. Findings From the District Files 5. Current and Future Wastes for Disposal 6. Waste Characteristics 7 Parameters for Remaining Life Projections 8. Parameters for Vertical Expansion (Figure 3) 9. Questions & Comments about Existing Conditions 10. TM 8 Contents 7282009 Prepared by GREDELL 2 Engineering Resources, Inc. �7 1 • ^II ,__ 0. }} _ r p ire 7282009 Prepared by GREDELL 3 Engineering Resources, Inc. 1::: — Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 1. Site Topographic Survey Information •Site information Obtained •Topography •Treeline •Edge of Water •Bottom of Water •Sanitary Manholes •Stormwater Manholes •Stormwater Inlets •Fences •Survey Markers 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 4 Engineering Resources. Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Overview of Existing Conditions, Looking North 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 5 Engineering Resources. Inc. Top of South Berm Looking NE at the Ponded Area 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 6 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Its,I Top of NE end of site, looking South 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 7 Engineering Resources. Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Facing SE Berm Prepared by GREDELL 7/28/2009 Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Top of Berm Looking West 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 9 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 2. Alternative Uses — Incinerator Ash • Alternate Uses are discussed in TM 3 • Proposed Beneficial Use Alternative at Lemay Plant •Widening the levee at the Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plant for Great Rivers Greenway •Levee Design needs to account for ash material properties (cohesionless sand) •Project specifications need to include ash placement procedures, moisture, compaction, and QA/QC testing requirements 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources. Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 3. Regulatory File Review Findings •MSD's Prospect Hill Reclamation Area files were reviewed at the following regulatory agencies: •MDNR, Jefferson City Office •MDNR, St. Louis Regional Office •St. Louis County Department of Health, Solid Waste Division 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources. Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 3. Regulatory File Review Findings •MDNR, Jefferson City Office Files •Approved Design Plans (Final Contours) •Permit Documents (Original and Modifications) •Review of Inspection Records •Waste Disposal Records 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 3. Regulatory File Review Findings •MDNR, St. Louis Regional Office •Approved Design Plans •Permit Documents (Original and Modifications) •Review of Inspection Records/Complaints •Waste Disposal Records 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 13 Engineering Resources. Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 3. Regulatory File Review Findings •St. Louis County Department of Health, Solid Waste Division •Contacted for Verification of Records •No File Records Available 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources. Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 4. MSD File Review Findings •MSD Prospect Hill Reclamation file review on June 25, 2009: •Design Plans and Operations Manual •Operation History •Records of waste disposal •Waste Characteristics •Chemical properties, physical analyses, field density verification •Construction Documentation for Site Development •Liner Installation •Leachate System •Roads, Berms 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 5. Current and Future Wastes for Disposal •Wastes Permitted for Disposal •MSD Historical Wastes Hauling Records •Information from TM2 Wastes Generation •Future Wastes Disposal Capacity Needs 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources. Inc 11,z 1. --1A Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 6. Waste Characteristics •Physical Characteristics •Particle Size •Compaction Testing (Field Densities) •Atterberg Limits •Moisture Content (Field Moistures) 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 17 Engineering Resources. Inc. BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD � so 2001 it162 Gel 200/ �..] W cneoeu n,gAn Ae Mr- B&V Project 165186 June 28, 2009 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Ash Moisture Content '1401STUIRE CONTENT RANGE —Mr—HIGH STANDARD DEVIATOR LOW S7ANDAR] DEVIATOR CAVERAGE ONTENT o]STDRE 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 18 Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 6. Waste Characteristics •Chemical Characteristics •Total Toxic Metals Analysis •TCLP Toxic Metals Analysis •Plant Macro/Micro Nutrients Testing (Calcium, Phosphorous, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium, etc.) 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 19 Engineering Resources. Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 6. Waste Characteristics •Field Density Testing Results •Independent field moisture/density sampling and testing following waste Dlacement 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 20 Engineering Resources. Inc. U BLACK 8 VEATCH St. Louis MSD Prospect Hill Reclamation Area In -Place Ash/Waste Density' ODIN 1002 ON, CONTRACT YEAR ear nauhng EMU Project 165186 June 28, 2009 MI DENSITY' RANGE LOW STANDARD DEVIA AVERAGE DENSITY 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 21 Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area msar. 7. Parameters for Remaining Life Projections • Assume Disposal Area in -place waste density of 60 pcf • Scenarios for estimating waste quantities for Remaining Life Determination: Maintain current waste disposal quantities and rate (Minimum Waste Volume) Maintain current waste stream and ADD waste currently routed to incinerator at Bissell from Coldwater Creek (Mid -range Waste Volume) Maintain current waste stream and ADD all waste streams from all MSD plants (Maximum Waste Volume) 7080009 Prepared by GREDELL 22 Engineering Resources, Inc Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 8. Parameters for Vertical Expansion • Limitations of Permitted Waste Boundary Design Parameters: — 4:1 (H:V) side slopes — 5% final crown — 60 pcf waste density Scenario #1: — Maximum elevation - 620' Scenario #2: Maximum elevation — 560' — 4:1 (H:V) side slopes to a 100 -ft wide crown 7282009 Prepared by GREDELL 23 Engineering Resources, Inc. — II eI iii' � _-. OP �1i 1 i1 Q i 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 26 Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 9. Questions/Comments about Existing Conditions Questions ? Comments? 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 27 Engineering Resources, Inc. LiQ Prospect Hill Reclamation Area 10. Technical Memo 8 Contents • Limitations of Permitted Waste Boundary • Summarize and present findings Provide Remaining Life Estimate • Identify critical issues to continued ash disposal and use • Prnviria actimatac fnr nntantial aunancinn of Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Identify alternative disposal sites within a reasonable haul distance Identify federal, state, local, and public impediments to expansion of Prospect Hill Reclamation Area and development and permitting of alternative disposal sites in the region 7/28/2009 Prepared by GREDELL 28 Engineering Resources, Inc LEGEND i EXISTING CONTOURS APPROXIMATE FINAL LIMIT OF LANDFILL AREA —ST— PIPE LINE TREE UNE — WATER UNE —H 0— FENCE LINE EXISTING PAVEMENT ® INLET DESIGNATOR O MANHOLE DESIGNATOR (41541 IX STM MANHOLE T 474.. -APPROXIMATE FINAL UNIT OF LANDFILL AREA. ROCK FENCE (7860 Ex STM MANHOLE 7403.95 Ex SON MANHOLE /2E3 -019D T 436.97 WATER (POSSIBLY A SPRING) 696�12Ez 0T J T433.09 IX STM INLET 1203-0290 T433.52 if )".0- / r t V ( 1 1 1 ) , I 1 I l 1 1 I 4 I\\ l f' •./. - 1 rI 1 1 1 1 \ �I �.. 1 1 1 \ ✓/; // i�� (! \�AVA��.A / �A111(r ii/�/�l/ ! J/! "VVA�� /// /J 111 J I If(// /// il VA , �� .,� 1I ) \�\ \\II / —\ \ -A r rte',* .".4/At \ .)' , — \ \ ti \ \\ / )/ / 1 A i"\ / , AV (4{6 \ S (' ) Q \ �$� 1 1 1 \ \ • A7N \ 1 \\'— ‘. \ a 1 \ E%5fMf�lANXO E \ \ r TUr. ) ,, I VIII _ I�I�I\\\\ \L 1 /E, S�iI MAItHOLE \ \ ) \ \ 1 \ ) \ \\ \�/'/ �✓i �11�1111�1111 1� 1l \ } I A A /! .ea4r ) A 1 1 l \ l \ ! / v ,• ��1 I lllpllli .C' S 1 ! (i 11 \) v) Ill� �ipilhl 1+\-, 11111 �V \ r J A`� 1 'r ") ) ( ) \ ? ) Ul i�l�llpi{II 11 �I,Vv �A\ 1 .� i , ) 1 ▪ ! 1 „ �.: i .4— =�� l kl�ll��l� �lll�l�i/ A /I )/ ) f f l 1 r/ \ �I `\! VAT :.�_ A 1\ II�IIII III'il !fl)11!)1)� /� \ (8�4� l r ( \ l \ Ir — ! -:--=_----2---1.:i,:-/-1 — 1 i ) ! 11111j1f11i111A1� �III��I�UIII�lr l \ - l ) ) 1 \\\\\\\ / r / P iI lll 1111I�m 1111111111\141 .ss ^1111\I� I{ll'�{ b J1 =7-7- (11 �gl�\�Illpll I\il�plpllll 1 11A IllA1 A l' 111 WLELEv_w3 ))/)111\11 '!f EX STM INLET 12030200 Tan.. �999> L J EXPOSED ATM PIPE FL 433.00 (7122> VA STM INLET T435.S3 IX STMMV30L6' ) \t I \ \ l I 1.171 c (7129> L J EX STM INLET T 435.02 EX STM INLET 434.53 /li Q \ (4161) (7141) `IX STM MANHOLE T 500.9] EX SAN MANHOLE 436.06 -APPROXIMATE FINAL UNIT OF LANDFILL U REA- / Olt SCALE: 1" - 200' F517 D REVISION DESCRIPTION x u, > C x ▪ CO — C.) 0 O co 2 gym U, CC 0 CC O N 2 U w Z Lu ax - C W LL 43 2N ✓ e C m 0 caw CC F mW C N a / 9 Ow Z $p cgc a c p Z i J a e g cr c n C:\B&V\SITE-PLAN -F1G2 3.dwg, FIG2, 7/24/2009 3:38:02 PM "APPROXIMATE LIMIT (786() EX STM MANHOLE T443.96 EX SAN MANHOLE 12630190 T 436.97 WATER (POSSIBLY A SPRING) /- 46983)&733%E' T433.08 EX STM INLET 1263-0290 T 433.12 LEGEND EXISTING CONTOURS APPROXIMATE FINAL LIMIT OF LANDFILL AREA PIPE UNE ......... TREE UNE WATER LINE FENCE UNE EXISTING PAVEMENT INLET DESIGNATOR MANHOLE DESIGNATOR (4154 I L Imm - ... Of lifnf7111?--�� . � FrnAN A.•ANosEcmx As EX STM MANHOLE �'�� • Q86� s �_ .84 E%STM MANHOL` FINAL T4T8.83 OF LANDFILL AN� � �� AREA" A � � � • B was, cHao \ �. It‘ \\\VIILI I I (8241 °all • um ' /" \�\ _�'��^Vr161) r r 1 7129) (7141 SIM MANHOLE ) _-- (7122) Ex SIM INLET Ts00.9r L J ]435.02 AT 43SANMANXOIE EXBTM,NLEf �Ex,NLET 2 495.46 m EX STMT 12E3-0.30 T 433.833 EXPOSED STM PIPE FL 433.02 T 436.63 —. \ 434.63 Y�Y XIMATE FINAL UNIT OF LANDFILLAREA" REVISION DESCRIPTION C:\B&V\SITE•PLAN•FIG2_3.dwg, FIG3, 7/24/2009 3:34:42 PM ggEEEEEEEEEEE s o ,If -VNOLIO3S 8 0 8 6 8 8 8 i I1 I I I 1 1 ' f i I ' 1 I I I ! Ib2 1, ,o a 1, I s ( i } l i ,—i— 1 1 j i t 1 , _i _ 1 l it jl I amp 1441 1 ! { IIj ; 1 j i1'If�lil ! {{ I 1 `n2 1 i 11 II 1 i i 1 I • 1 I 11 I 1�I _ ' f I I I I f ' l I } I 1 11 1 1 > i ii I i ;111 1 iii i I 1i'i! n Cpl i,l,_I ,r, I 1 -1--ryl !fi[[ij 1' i I ---F;, 111 i It I l! Imo` 11 ! i , II ( I rz l! I I ' ! I�!' � Ili L ;i:1il;l;; '� :'! I I 1 ,\, ;HgmF F i ' i' i i I I, i= i t ! 1 I I I ` I ! I i "t I f i' 1 i 1 _- —4 —[ . I 1T}— I I ! 1 1 1 1 1 a —±f ' I 1 1 i ' I Im F i t 11 1 1 I I f —t-11---f---J7-1. --1 ' r 1 I f I !it{ I I ; I`HiI ., i i i it 1 i f I I i; h 1 I I 1 1 ?I �I !1 1`1 [ i I II, Il 11 d �I } Il f f 1{; k 4 `, 1 a �O ; 1 1 I i- I ' - i j 1 i i!` 1 I i 1 1 i 1� I j i { I, I 1 ;1 i i1 =11_ 1 I ' !. ! I I 1 f I I j Ij pill I Il` 1111 I .� , I I 1!I p I o ` �IIIIH i«I:I' i 1. 1111� I 11 11 H o g o o E o'. E, E g a a o 0 GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERIN G LAND IR 3480 Hotleneerg Oliva , Su lte 300 Tele pho ne: (314) 3443574 SL Lou le,M lueurl Facsimile: (314) 7704142 PRELIMINARY CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 3 BLACK & VEATCH MSD BIOSOLIDS ST. LOUIS, M ISSOURI N0. DATE REV ISION DESCRIPTION DV WrA SR GPIAN BA C:\B&V\SITE-PLAN-FIG2_3.dwg, FIG4, 7/24/2009 3:35:06 PM g a o o g o g go g g o g '$ $ s o ,S-SNO/133S FC 8 G A s a" G 8 A Q � o lb 8 9 �A 00 (pt ill i 1 1 i ( I I 3 i 2 I j I I ` { �D 2 y I I I I I MB.1' j I I lF t fi l li { g gg g g g o 0 o g o o g g IEEE GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. ENVIRONMENTA L ENGINEERING 1.0 WAWA 3460 Ho6e nbar6 Drive, Dulls 300 Te lephone: (314) 3443574 St. Lo ula,Mbeourl Facsimile: (314)770 21 42 PRELIMINARY CROSS SECTIONS FIGURE 4 BLACK & VEATCH M SD BIOSOLIDS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI NO. DA TE REVISION DESCRIPTION BY AuVRO VIED His SREPLAN BA WIA BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Evaluation of Prospect Hill MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 26, 2009 Appendix B Site Topography and Grading: Figures TM8-1 to TM8-3 ENTRANCE GATE PRELIMINARY DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIGURE #TM8-1. 1 SITE TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON A CERTIFIED SURVEY BY EDSI DATED 8/14/2009. 2. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE IS CONTINUOUS AROUND THE SITE BUT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE DUE TO THE LACK OF 2009 SURVEY DATA. 3. BOUNDARY OF WASTE IS BASED ON MDNR APPROVED PLANS, SHEET 1 OF 19 TITLED "PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION PROJECT" DATED 4/30/1985 BY EDM. LEGEND —x — sr EXISTING CHAINUNK FENCELINE - - .- MONR WASTE BOUNDARY EDGE OF PAVEMENT ^-�`^� EXISTING CONTOURS (2' INTERVAL) • ENTRANCE GATE \ \ x�x • 410 464 470 t/ \ ` +/4 \ / / / Q 4/4 4 _ / 4 +/ / +,, i/ PRELIMINARY DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIGURE #TM8-2 NOTES: 1.1985 QUARRY BOTTOM GRADE IS BASED ON MDNR APPROVED EDM 1985 DRAWINGS 3 AND 4 OF 19 TITLED "PHASE I SITE GRADING PLAN" DATED 4/30/1985. 2. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE IS CONTINUOUS AROUND THE SITE BUT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE DUE TO THE LACK OF 2009 SURVEY DATA. 3. BOUNDARY OF WASTE IS BASED ON MDNR APPROVED PLANS, SHEET 1 OF 19 TITLED "PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION PROJECT" DATED 4/30/1985 BY EDM. i aunt r -Soo 0 a0' 100' a00' E 2 001.5 of 6g°_ c gttog ()Zm l c± en I ig LEGEND —x— 87 EXISTING CHMNLINK FENCEUNE — — -- MDNR WASTE BOUNDARY EDGE OF PAVEMENT -vim QUARRY BOTTOM CONTOURS (4' 610' commas) Lu°1 R Silea CC 2 iY Z 'OSZ ill: TSg C55 JW-=8. ..1 1W tW C5 ♦ ENTRANCE GATE ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ *rx x MR..� x'x'�. -- • 4/4 +/ +/ +4 „/ 47 FIGURE #TM8-3 NOTES: 1. FINAL GRADE IS BASED ON • MDNR APPROVED EDM 1985 • DRAWINGS 8 AND 9 OF 19 TITLED ♦ "FINAL SITE GRADING PLAN" Dated 4/30/1985. • PRELIMINARY DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE IS CONTINUOUS AROUND THE SITE BUT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE DUE TO THE LACK OF 2009 SURVEY DATA. 3. BOUNDARY OF WASTE IS BASED ON MDNR APPROVED PLANS, SHEET 1 OF 19 TITLED "PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION PROJECT' DATED 4/30/1985 BY EDM. i 0 80' 100' 200' Eta z zcqg MaEl W W 8u, :.7 z a 12 1 LEGEND —x— 82" E7USTW G CHAINLINK FENCEUNE — — MDNR WASTE BOUNDARY EDGE OF PAVEMENT MDNR APPROVED FINAL CONTOURS (2 INTERVAL) V RR MI 13.0M � m` 'i S 8 11 Wm W W C, BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Evaluation of Prospect Hill MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 26, 2009 Appendix C Historical Ash Waste Production Summary TM 8 TABLE C-1 BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM -8) TOTAL AND ANNUAL ASH VOLUME Ash Waste Disposal Quantities at Prospect Hill Reclamation Project from MSD File Review and Data from Bissell Point and LeMay Plant Managers Year 1986 Reported Volume from Bissell Point Plant in 1,000's of CY 75 Reported Volume from LeMay Plant in 1,000's of CY Grand Total of Ash Disposal and Average Annual Ash Disposal at Prospect Hill 1986-2009 in 1,000's of CY 1988 75 1990 76 1994 78 1995 89.25 108.35 1996 90.65 1997 82.45 1998 70 1999 82 93.24 2001 73.3 2002 76.27 2003 75 2004 27.32 2005 17.05 2007 157.13 68.24 In ponds, 2009 Totals 84 166.44 Grand Total Hauled 1986- 2009 -23 Years Average Annual Ash Disposal at Prospect Hill 1,184.05 480.64 Data from Mike Townley 1998: 70056 Cu Yd 1999: 82000 Cu Yd 2001: 73300 Cu Yd 2002: 76270 Cu Yd 2003: 75000 Cu Yd 2007: 157133 Cu Yd (2 Ponds) 2009: 84,000 Cu Yd (In Ponds) 1,664.69 72.38 Data from Neil Frankenberg 1999: 93,237 Cu Yd 2004: 27,320 Cu Yd 2005: 17,051 Cu Yd 2007: 68,237 Cu Yd Data from Becca Coyle 2009: 166441 Cu Yd (In 2 Ponds) Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 10/7/2009 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD TM8- Evaluation of Prospect Hill MSD Contract No. 2009145 B&V Project 165186 August 26, 2009 Appendix D Volume Calculations Documentation 1505 East High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Telephone No. (573) 659-9078 Fax No. (573) 659-9079 Memo GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. To: Black & Veatch: MSD Biosolids - Phase I: Evaluate Site Capacity From: Frank J. Dolan, P.E. CC: Bill Adams Date: 8/26/2009 Re: Calculations of Volumes Documentation of Volume Calculations This memo documents the various steps used to reach the volumes in the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. The following terms apply to the various surfaces used in these volume calculations. Quarry Bottom — This term refers to the contours digitized from the 1985, MDNR approved plan sheets numbered 3 of 19 and 4 of 19, the Phase I grading plan. Existing surface — The term refers to the 2009 survey of the site prepared by EDSI. 1985 approved, final contours— This term refers to the contours digitized from the 1985, MDNR- approved plan sheets numbered 8 of 19 and 9 of 19, the final site grading plan. Steps to create the surfaces Below is a description of the steps taken to create the surfaces. Quarry Bottom The quarry bottom was digitized for copies of the plans approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Management Program in 1985. These copies were obtained from the Department. A JPG file was made from the approved plan sheets numbered 3 of 19 and 4 of 19, the Phase I grading plan. The file was imported into Civil 3Dand generally oriented using the locations of MHs 8 and 9 in the center of the quarry. To locate the extent of the quarry bottom for the volume calculations, the digitized surface was moved 107 feet S26.5°W. The match to quarry high walls, the steep walls where the rock has been removed, along the north and east sides of the existing surface were compared to get a practical fit of the contours. The "APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF LANDFILL AREA" was also taken from sheet 7 of 19, interim site grading plan. Page 1 Black & Veatch MSD Comprehensive Solids Handling Master Plan (TM 8) October 7, 2009 Page 2 Existing Surface The existing surface was surveyed by EDSI. EDSI provided the results of their topographic survey as triangulated irregular network, TIN surface and as an AUTOCAD drawing. 1985 MDNR Approved Final Contours The 1985 Approved, Final Contours was digitized from copies of the plans approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Management Program. These copies were obtained from the Department. A JPG file was made from the approved plan sheets numbered 7 of 19 and 8 of 19, the Final grading plan. The file was imported into Civil 3Dand generally oriented using the locations of MHs 8 and 9 in the center of the quarry and topographic features outside the fill area. 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 FOR EXISTING AND 1985 PERMITTED VOLUMES, August 2009" To support these volume calculations, tick marks were produced on the figures showing the cuts / fills at each grid point. Copies of the volume calculations between surfaces were printed directly from the Civil 3D program and are attached. The attached tables on volume calculations shows the volumes from the projected quarry bottom to the existing surface and from the existing surface to the final contours approved in 1985. The total permitted volume calculated represents the sum of those volumes minus the volume of three feet of cover over the surface. Attachments Table entitled "PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE, CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND 1985 PERMITTED VOLUMES, August 2009" Tables from Civil 3D showing Volumes in Layers at Prospect Hill Reclamation Site entitled: VOLUME FROM ESTIMATED 1985 QUARRY BOTTOM GRADE TO EDSI 2009 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY VOLUME FROM ESTIMATED EDSI 2009 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO 1985 APPROVED FINAL GRADE • Page 2 BLACK and VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND 1985 PERMITTED VOLUMES August 2009 BASE SURFACE COMPARISON SURFACE FILL VOLUME (CY) COMMENTS 2009 Existing Contours Estimated Quarry Bottom 1,262,000 Estimated Volume of In -Place Waste 2009 Existing Contours 1985 -Approved Final Grade 768,000 Estimated Remaining Permitted Volume Adjusted for Cover Volume and 2009 Ash inventory Total Estimated Permitted Volume 2,030,000 Volume Adjusted for Cover Volume and 2009 Ash inventory Cover Volume is 145,000 CY for about 30 acres covered by 3 feet of soil times 1,613 CY per Acre-foot. WWTP 2009 INVENTORY OF ASH, CY LEMAY 166,441 BISSELL POINT 84,000 TOTAL VOLUME, CY 250,441 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. Printed 8/26/2009 BLACK & VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 8) VOLUME FROM ESTIMATED 1985 QUARRY BOTTOM GRADE TO EDSI 2009 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 8/26/2009 BLACK & VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 8) VOLUME FROM ESTIMATED EDSI 2009 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO 1985 APPROVED FINAL GRADE LI Surface Properties - EXIST -FINAL -1985 -GRID Q General dGrid -.. _._._.........__ __ ng .._ 25.000' 9 � 25 �. Y spacing ...... _.. _,. 000 Orientation . . ... . .. NO 00' 00.00E . .. . "_ Volume I. Base Surface ..- I ..._ exist Comparison Surface ._ ... _ ..... ... ,.....I .. .. . . .. __... ,...... ,.. .....___.. _ .._. __.. _...... FINAL 1985 Cut Factor I 1.000 ?.,._actor _ 1.000 _.. ._ _,....... .....,..... -___._._-r _ -- Revision number Number of points 1 2040 I Minimum X coordinate .. .... . . . ...... __-.....__.. . ._...... , 901725.000' Minimum Y coordinate 1 1056775.000 Maximum X coordinate 903125.000' Maximum Y coordinate .1 1058200.000' Minimum elevation �,.—. — _ 7 -24.232' Maximum elevation 62.708' Mean elevation 26,116' Cut volume (unadjusted) :. 3219.14 Cu. Yd FO volume (unadjusted) 1-1167044.79 . _T--__ i 1167044.79Cu. Yd. _.... Net volume (unadjusted) _....,._._ _.. .. .......... _, .. ! 1163825 64 Cu Yd <F 1? . _. Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 8/26/2009 r VOLUME 1 PHASE 1 TM 9— Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life with Recommendations L J O C O) E E O U a) cc L O ti - J O7 C C E O CC 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 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 Al Appendix B — Vertical Expansion Drawings, Cross Sections and 3-D Renderings B1 Appendix C — EDSI Memorandum on Local Permit Requirements Cl Appendix D — Memorandum on Volume Calculation Documentation D1 Appendix E — Projected Permitting Schedule for Vertical Expansion and Costs El 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 -1- QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 -2 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 -3 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 -4 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 5 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 -6 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 7 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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 -8 QC: T. Knox 090109 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 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. -9 QC: T. Knox 090109 BLACK & VEATCH/GREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 Appendix A Waste Characteristics Tables and Graphs 1505 East High Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Telephone No. (573) 659-9078 Fax No. (573) 659-9079 Memo GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. To: Black & Veatch MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan (TM 9) From Frank J. Dolan, P.E. CC: Date: 9/1/2009 Re: Historic Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Incinerator Ash This memo summarizes historic documents pertaining to the physical and chemical composition of ash in the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. Records of wastewater sludge incinerator ash (ash) composition from the Bissell Point and Lemay Wastewater Treatment Plants, WWTPs, were reviewed. The records of physical and chemical composition date from the 1980s through 2007. The source of data for the physical characteristics are the test results for nuclear density tests for the density and moisture content of the ash after it had been placed. Additional samples were taken on ash samples to show standard Proctor results. These tests were performed after ash was hauled to the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site. Illustrations were developed to show the density and moisture content of the ash when it was placed at the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. The information for the illustrations was taken from construction quality control documents found in the MSD files. Three general types of chemical analysis of the ash appear: o Total concentrations were performed on ash from the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs. o Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) following the requirements in 40 CFR 261 was performed on ash from the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs. o Total Recoverable Metals analysis was performed on the leachate from the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. Attached are tables summarizing these analyses. Total concentrations are provided for metals and non-metals in 1986 for the ash from the Bissell Point WWTP. In later analyses, only metal constituents were analyzed and reported for either Bissell Point or Lemay WWTP. The results of these analyses were averaged by parameter for the weight per weight of sample, mg/kg. The table on the Summary of Total Metal Concentrations is attached. The TCLP results were also averaged to determine general composition of the ash being deposited in the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. When compared to federal hazardous waste characteristic standards found in 40 CFR 261.24, the TCLP results are well below the threshold concentrations required for classification as a characteristic waste due to toxicity for the metals reported. The table on the Summary of TCLP Metal Concentrations is attached. Page 1 Black & Veatch MSD Comprehensive Solid Handling Master Plan (TM 9) September 3, 2009 Page 2 Significantly, more data sets were available on the leachate from the Prospect Hill Reclamation site. To get an understanding of the concentrations of parameters, both metals and nonmetals, the concentrations were averaged each year. The results of these annual averages were then used to produce a general composition of the leachate. The groundwater quality standard from 10 CSR 20- 7.031 is listed for these parameters. These standards are not discharge standards and do not show that the leachate is being discharged in violation of the Clean Water Law. The standards are provided for comparison only. For the parameters shown, cadmium, iron and lead have concentrations that average above the corresponding groundwater quality standards. The table on the Summary of Leachate Concentration is attached. There is one analysis of quarry pond water from 1983 in the record. (This summary appears in Appendix A of the Engineering Report for the Solid Waste Permit Application in 1985.) It shows an elevated level for pH of 11.2. Analyses for pH in the leachate continue to be high with averages of 11 and values as high as 13.1. A table showing the Comparison of Metal Concentrations is attached. It compares the concentration of the metal in the leachate both to the groundwater quality standard and to the concentration of the metal that is extracted from the ash using the TCLP. For reference, the total concentration of metals in the ash from both the Bissell Point and Lemay WWTPs is reported. Attachments: Illustrations of the Density and Moisture Content of Ash at the Prospect Hill Reclamation Site Prospect Hill Reclamation Area, Summary of Total Metal Concentrations, August 2009 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area, Summary of TCLP Metal Concentrations, August 2009 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area, Summary of Leachate Concentrations, August 2009 Summary of Analysis, Missouri Portland Cement Company, Quarry Pond Water, 1983 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area, Comparison of Metal Concentrations, August 2009 • Page 2 BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD 70 68 66 V 64 a x--62 v) 60 p 58 54 52 50 Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. Prospect Hill Reclamation Area In -Place Ash/Waste Density r 2001 2002 2003 CONTRACT YEAR B&V Project 165186 June 28, 2009 X 2007 DENSITY RANGE THIGH STANDARD DEVIATION LOW STANDARD DEVIATON AVERAGE DENSITY Note: 1. In -place ash/waste density calculated from contracted hauling BLACK & VEATCH St. Louis MSD 50 45 40 C +; 35 c 0 U L 30 z N 2 25 0 a 20 15 10 B&V Project 165186 June 28, 2009 Prospect Hill Reclamation Area Ash Moisture Content IMMO 2007 2001 2002 2003 CONTRACT YEAR Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. MI MOISTURE CONTENT RANGE THIGH STANDARD DEVIATON LOW STANDARD DEVIATON AVERAGE MOISTURE CONTENT TM 9 TABLE A-1 BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT CCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM -9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA SUMMARY OF TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009 mg/kg' 7/24/862 12/1/1994 Bissell 1/30/1998 Point WWTP 05-12-99 9/21/1999 5/1/2003 Average3'4.5 Number of samples 1980 Lemay 1991-1992 WWTP 1995 Average" Number of samples Aluminum -- 21,700 23,400 27,500 13,050 -- 21,413 4 22,900 32,100 14,500 23,167 3 Arsenic (As) 5 3.57 6 5.78 2.2 2.151 4 6 190 12 4 69 3 Barium (Ba) 1,720 353 257 11800 267 -- 2,879 5 860 894 494 749 3 Calcium (CaCO3) 140,000 7,020 8,620 27,400 -- -- 45,760 4 46,100 61,700 20,400 42,733 3 Cadmium (Cd) 15 2.57 5 40.1 8.09 11.045 14 6 50 13 4 22 3 Chromium (Cr) 340 100 107 218 160 159.4 181 6 960 459 128 516 3 Copper (Cu) 420 171 256 568 355 472.45 374 6 1,490 565 272 776 3 Iron (Fe203) 41,000 32,100 40,400 68,800 38,910 -- 44,242 5 38,800 40,900 19,600 33,100 3 Lead (Pb) 395 103 108 234 139 157.1 189 6 1,210 496 193 633 3 Manganese (Mn) 315 525 1 200 963 538 -- 585 4 -- 865 1,720 1,293 2 Mercury (Hg) 0.3 <0.36 < 0.250 0.333 < 0.250 0.4361 0.36 or less 6 1 <0.25 <0.25 1 or less 3 Nickel (Ni) 180 57.2 71.5 191 105 121.8 121 6 380 180 57.5 206 3 Potassium (K) 3,550 4220 3250 -- 2080 -- 3,275 4 -- -- -- -- 0 Sodium (Na) 2,505 1,930 1,860 -- 1,790 -- 2,021 4 -- -- -- -- 0 Silver (Ag) 25 7.86 5 14.2 8.52 8.557 12 6 70 55 29.5 52 3 Selenium (Se) ND 0.14 0.5 1 0.24 -- 0 4 60 0.25 0.5 20 3 Zinc (Zn) 2,300 480 545 1,390 819 1,499 1,172 6 4,700 1,260 615 2,192 3 Nitrates (N) 300 Phosphates (P) 2,100 Radium (Ra)(pci/g) 1.1 Total Nitrogen (N) 1,000 Aluminum (A1203) 45,000 Magnesium (MgCO3) 56,000 Silica (S102) 496,000 Notes 1 2 3 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. 4 Average results are for ash from the Bissell Point Wastewater Treatment Facility. 5 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. 6 Average results are for ash from the Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility. Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 10/9/2009 TM 9 TABLE A-2 BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT CCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM -9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA SUMMARY OF TCLP METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009 TCLP Metals'2 Bissell Point 12/1/1994 Wastewater 1/30/1998 Treatment 5/2/1999 Facility 9/21/1999 Average3 Number of Samples 1980 Lemay WWTP4,5,6 1991-1992 1995 Average Number of Samples 40 CFR 261.24 Standard' 5 As 0.22 -- 0.07 < 0.002 0.143 or less 3 0.26 0.039 0.01 0.103 3 Ba 0.34 15.60 4.52 14.70 8.79 4 1.26 4.82 1.11 2.397 3 100 Cd 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.031 4 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.023 3 1 Cr <0.02 0.02 0.07 < 0.02 0.045 or less 4 <0.01 <0.02 0.03 0.03 or less 3 5 Pb < 0.04 0.05 < 0.04 0.10 0.074 or less 4 0.12 <0.04 <0.04 0.12 or less 3 5 Hg < 0.0005 -- -- < 0.0002 0.0005 or less 2 0.0019 0.0007 < 0.0005 0.0013 or less 3 0.2 Ag 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 or less 4 0.02 <0.007 0.1 0.06 or less 3 5 Se 0.00 0.00 0.00 < 0.001 0.001 or less 4 0.08 0.001 <0.001 0.041 or less 3 1 Notes 1 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. 2 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results are reported in mg/I. 3 Average was calculated as the average of detected values, with the phrase " or less" added if any values below detection limits were reported. 4 One set of TCLP results was found for the Lemay Wastewater Treatment Facility. 5 The 1980 Sample from the Lemay Ash Lagoon was a grab sample from the edge of the 6 The Lemay data includes data from both the Extraction Procedure and the Toxicity Characteristics leaching Procedure. 7 40 CFR 264.24 define the Toxicity Characteristic for hazardous wastes. These standards were last revised in 71 FR 40259, July 14, 2006. Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 10/9/2009 TM 9 TABLE A-3 BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT CCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM -9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA SUMMARY OF LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009 Parameter Units' Total Number of Samples Minimum Value Detected' 1991 1991 Average 1992 Average 1993 Average 1994 Average 1995 Average 1997 Average 1998 Average AVERAGE' Groundwater Quality 5 Standard 7/23/1991 pH (units) 31 11.53 10.767 12.15 10.2 9.4 11.4 11.9 10.99 -- NFR mg/L 32 10 297 461.2 205.7 310.5 509.3 - 2,591.9 3,813.0 1,315.2 -- COD mg/L 33 16 60 114.000 129.667 155 52.5 16 178.714 135 111.55 -- BOD (5 day) mg/L 33 3 39 35.667 37.333 54.5 17.25 7 49.143 42 34.70 -- KJN-N mg/L 30 1 10 4.667 4.700 6 1.5 <1 4.857 7 4.79 - NH3-N mg/L 26 1 6 3.167 3.111 2 1 <1 2.571 4 2.64 -- PHOS-p mg/L 32 0.1 1.4 0.733 0.833 0.7 1.8 1 1.971 1.6 1.23 -- Arsenic mg/L 27 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.02 0.0043 0.003 0.008 <0.002 <0.0069 0.05 Barium mg/L 20 0.01 0.01 0.054 0.073 0.04 0.26 0.13 0.388 <0.1 <0.1574 2 Cadmium4 mg/L 9 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.008 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 <0.005 <0.0103 0.005 Chromium mg/L 18 0.02 ND ND 0.038 0.02 0.045 <0.02 0.034 0.02 <0.0315 0.1 Copper mg/L 26 0.006 ND 0.012 0.018 0.0205 0.036 0.02 0.020 <0.005 0.02 1 Iron4 mg/L 33 0.05 0.21 0.252 0.258 0.805 1.5 0.26 1.859 1.16 0.87 0.3 Lead4 mg/L 7 0.006 ND ND 0.043 <0.04 0.06 <0.04 0.109 <0.04 <0.0707 0.015 Mercury mg/L 13 0.0003 0.0004 0.0007 0.0018 0.0009 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 <0.0008 0.0020 Nickel mg/L 29 0.03 0.06 0.060 0.067 0.055 0.06 <0.03 0.080 0.05 0.06 0.1 Selenium mg/L 21 0.001 ND 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.002 ..14 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.05 Silver mg/L 6 0.007 ND 0.010 0.011 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.010 <0.01 <0.0101 0.05 Zinc mg/L 30 0.017 0.024 0.148 0.070 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.240 0.07 0.10 5 Notes 1 2 3 4 5 Leachate Analyses are reported in mg/I except pH which is reported in Standard Units. The number of samples used to calculate the average annual value are show in this column. This value represents the average value of the seven annual averages. The 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 Standards are listed in 10 CSR 20-7.031 Table A (revised 7/31/2008) , Missouri's Water Quality Standards. 6 The 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. The sources of these data are the files of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. 10/9/2009 Summary of Analysis Missouri Portland Cement Company Quarry Pond Water This summary appears in Appendix A of the Engineering Report for the Solid Waste Permit Application in 1984 Date of Collection: November 1,1983 Grab Sample pH 11,2 Temperature 59`QF Suspended Solids Volatile Suspended Solids Biochemical OxygenDemand Chemical Oxygen Demand Amonia - N Total Nitrogen - N Total Phosphorus - P Chloride - Cl Nitrate Sulfate - SO4 Metals (as mg/1 of element) 12,, 971 42 % Total Solids 3,880 mg/1 Volatile Total Solids 8 % 10 mg/1 75 mg/ 1 4 mg/1 8 mg/1 0.9 mg/1 106 mg/1 ND 1,650 mg/1 Arsenic ND Iron 0.08 Barium 0.20 Mercury 0.0005 Beryllium ND Lead 0.10 Cadmium 0.01 Nickel 0.07 Chromium 0.10 Selenium 0.01 Copper 0.02 Silver ND Zinc 0.14 ND - Not Detected Figure A-8 TM 9 TABLE A-5 BLACK and VEATCH METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT CCOMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM -9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA COMPARISON OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS AUGUST 2009 mg/I Leachate Analysis' Groundwater Quality Standard2 Arsenic 0.01 or less 0.05 Barium 0.16 or less 2 Cadmium 0.01 or less 0.005 Chromium 0.03 or less 0.1 Lead 0.07 or less 0.015 Mercury 0.0008 or less 0.002 Silver 0.01 or less 0.05 Selenium 0.002 0.05 pH2 11.01 12.5 3 Notes: 1 Bissell Point I Lemay 40 CFR 261.24 Standard s TCLP Analysis for Metals' 0.143 or less 0.103 5 8.79 2.397 100 0.031 0.023 1 0.045 or less 0.03 or less 5 0.074 or less 0.12 or less 5 0.0005 or less 0.0013 or less 0.2 0.01 or less 0.06 or less 5 0.001 or less 0.041 or less 1 Leachate Analysis and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (T.C. L.P.) are reported in mg/I. 2 pH in Leachate was compared to Corrosivity standard in 40 CR 261.22 3 TCLP Standards are found at 40 CFR 261.24 4 Total Metals Analysis on Ash is reported in mg/kg. Prepared by GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc. Bissell Point Lemay TOTAL METALS IN ASH4 4 68.5 2879 749 14 22 181 516 189 633 < 0.356 1 or less 12 51.5 0 20.25 10/9/2009 BLACK & VEATCHIGREDELL Engineering Resources St. Louis MSD B&V Project 165186 TM9- Report on Prospect Hill Remaining Life and Recommendations MSD Contract No. 2009145 Appendix B Vertical Expansion Drawings and Cross Sections RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N BY NO . DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E N O . SC A L E DE S I G N E D SU R V E Y E D DA T E AP P R O V E D CH E C K E D DR A W N SH E E T N O . NA T.R . G . T.R . G . T.R . G . 7/ 2 0 0 9 B. E . D . 16 5 1 8 6 AS S H O W N CO N T O U R S 7 - 7 - 0 9 GR E D E L L E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , I n c . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D A I R W A T E R 1 5 0 5 E a s t H i g h S t r e e t T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 8 J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M i s s o u r i F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 9 BL A C K & V E A T C H M S D B I O S O L I D S ST . L O U I S , M I S S O U R I LILAC AVE . SC R A N T O N A V E . RIVER V I E W D R I V E 3 D I M E N S I O N A L R E N D E R I N G O F PR O P E C T H I L L R E C L A M A T I O N SI T E V E R T I C A L E X P A N S I O N LO O K I N G T O T H E E A S T PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N BY NO . DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E N O . SC A L E DE S I G N E D SU R V E Y E D DA T E AP P R O V E D CH E C K E D DR A W N SH E E T N O . NA T.R . G . T.R . G . T.R . G . 7/ 2 0 0 9 B. E . D . 16 5 1 8 6 AS S H O W N CO N T O U R S 7 - 7 - 0 9 GR E D E L L E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , I n c . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D A I R W A T E R 1 5 0 5 E a s t H i g h S t r e e t T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 8 J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M i s s o u r i F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 9 BL A C K & V E A T C H M S D B I O S O L I D S ST . L O U I S , M I S S O U R I 3 D I M E N S I O N A L R E N D E R I N G O F PR O P E C T H I L L R E C L A M A T I O N SI T E V E R T I C A L E X P A N S I O N LO O K I N G T O T H E N O R T H LILAC AVE . SCRANTON AVE. PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE LIL A C A V E . SCRANT O N A V E . RIV E R V I E W D R I 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 RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N BY NO . DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E N O . SC A L E DE S I G N E D SU R V E Y E D DA T E AP P R O V E D CH E C K E D DR A W N SH E E T N O . NA T.R . G . T.R . G . T.R . G . 7/ 2 0 0 9 B. E . D . 16 5 1 8 6 AS S H O W N CO N T O U R S 7 - 7 - 0 9 GR E D E L L E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , I n c . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D A I R W A T E R 1 5 0 5 E a s t H i g h S t r e e t T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 8 J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M i s s o u r i F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 9 BL A C K & V E A T C H M S D B I O S O L I D S ST . L O U I S , M I S S O U R I LIL A C A V E . SC R A N T O N A V E . RIVER V I E W D R I V E 3 D I M E N S I O N A L R E N D E R I N G O F PR O P E C T H I L L R E C L A M A T I O N SI T E V E R T I C A L E X P A N S I O N LO O K I N G T O T H E S O U T H E A S T PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N BY NO . DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E N O . SC A L E DE S I G N E D SU R V E Y E D DA T E AP P R O V E D CH E C K E D DR A W N SH E E T N O . NA T.R . G . T.R . G . T.R . G . 7/ 2 0 0 9 B. E . D . 16 5 1 8 6 AS S H O W N CO N T O U R S 7 - 7 - 0 9 GR E D E L L E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , I n c . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D A I R W A T E R 1 5 0 5 E a s t H i g h S t r e e t T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 8 J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M i s s o u r i F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 9 3 D I M E N S I O N A L R E N D E R I N G O F PR O P E C T H I L L R E C L A M A T I O N SI T E V E R T I C A L E X P A N S I O N LO O K I N G T O T H E S O U T H BL A C K & V E A T C H M S D B I O S O L I D S ST . L O U I S , M I S S O U R I LILA C A V E . SCRANTON AVE. RIV E R V I E W D R I V E PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE LILAC AV E . ELEV.=589 +\- ELEV.=528.0 +\- 3 DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION AREA RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N BY NO . DA T E PR O J E C T N O . FI L E N O . SC A L E DE S I G N E D SU R V E Y E D DA T E AP P R O V E D CH E C K E D DR A W N SH E E T N O . NA T.R . G . T.R . G . T.R . G . 7/ 2 0 0 9 B. E . D . 16 5 1 8 6 AS S H O W N CO N T O U R S 7 - 7 - 0 9 GR E D E L L E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , I n c . EN V I R O N M E N T A L E N G I N E E R I N G LA N D A I R W A T E R 1 5 0 5 E a s t H i g h S t r e e t T e l e p h o n e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 8 J e f f e r s o n C i t y , M i s s o u r i F a c s i m i l e : ( 5 7 3 ) 6 5 9 - 9 0 7 9 BL A C K & V E A T C H M S D B I O S O L I D S ST . L O U I S , M I S S O U R I 3 D I M E N S I O N A L R E N D E R I N G O F PR O P E C T H I L L R E C L A M A T I O N SI T E V E R T I C A L E X P A N S I O N NO R T H E N D L O O K I N G E A S T PROPOSED EXPANSION EXISTING SURFACE NO R T H P R O P E R T Y L I N E ELEV.=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 VEATCH MSD COMPREHENSIVE SOLIDS HANDLING MASTER PLAN (TM 9) PROSPECT HILL RECLAMATION SITE CALCULATIONS OF PROJECTED VOLUMES AND CLOSURE DATES FOR LANDFILL EXPANSION August 2009 BASE SURFACE COMPARISON SURFACE Years by Layer3 Year of Closure4 2009 Existing Contours 1985-Approved Final Grade 1,164,000 768,000 8.0 2017 1985-Approved Final Grade Moderate Vertical Expansion 814,000 1,582,000 16.4 2025 Moderate Vertical Expansion Aggressive Vertical Expansion 584,000 2,166,000 22.5 2031 Notes: 1 2 3 4 WWTP 2009 INVENTORY OF ASH, CY LEMAY 166,441 BISSELL POINT 84,000 TOTAL VOLUME, CY 250,441 AVAILABLE FILL ABOVE EXISTING SURFACE (CY)1,2 THE BASE YEAR FOR PROJECTING YEAR OF CLOSURE IS 2009. Projected Years of Service THE AVAILABLE FILL IS THE TOTAL PROJECTED VOLUME MINUS VOLUME OF COVER, 145,000 CY PROJECTED 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 W ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THERE ARE 166,500 CY OF ASH STORED IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH LAGOONS AT THE LEMAY W W TP. THERE ARE 84,000 CY AT THE BISSELL POINT W W TP. 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. TM 10–ReportonPotential ProspectHillReplacementSites VOLUME 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. PublicPerceptionFocusGroup PUBLIC 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                                                                                            ‐      