Appendix C1 - SBR-MBR Wastewater Facilities Analysis

Appendix C1 SBR/MBR Wastewater Facilities Analysis

Wastewater Treatment System for Title 22 Reclamation at the Malibu Civic Center Area 1. DESIGN CRITERIA The proposed wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center Area of Malibu will provide treatment of residential and commercial domestic wastewater for reclamation as unrestricted use irrigation water. Thus the treatment system will have to treat the wastewater to levels that meet Title 22 requirements for reclaimed wastewater as well as meet effluent limits required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The design criteria for the treatment plant include the estimated influent water quality, the Title 22 and RWQCB effluent requirements, and the influent flow rate. There are two possible influent flow rates based on the selected collection system area and disposal option as discussed above. The influent and effluent water quality is the same for both flow options. The treatment system design criteria are as follows. The influent wastewater quality is expected to have a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of 300 mg/L, a total suspended solids (TSS) of 300 mg/L, and ammonia of 45 mg/L. The effluent limits are expected to be as follows: BOD 10 mg/L TSS 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen 10 mg/L Turbidity average of < 2 NTU

< 5 NTU 95 percent of the time Never greater than 10 NTU

CT (if using chlorine for disinfection) 450 min-mg/L with a minimum of 90 minute contact time

Coliform < 2.2 MPN/100 mL The flow rate for Option 1 is an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 120,000 gallons per day (gpd) with a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 150,000 gpd. The flow and loadings for Option 1 are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Wastewater Flows and Loadings Used for Option 1 Flow into New Treatment Plant

ADWF, MGD 0.120 PWWF, MGD 0.150

BOD5 Concentration at ADWF, mg/L 300 Loadings at ADWF, lb/day 300 Loading at PWWF, lb/day 375

TSS Concentration at ADWF, mg/L 300 Loadings at ADWF, lb/day 300

Loading at PWWF, lb/day 375 Nitrogen

ADWF Total Nitrogen, mg/L 45 Nitrogen loading at ADWF, lb/day 45 Nitrogen loading at peak month, lb/daya 60

______________________________________________________________________________ a Loadings for Nitrogen increased by 1.3 for peak monthly conditions. The flow rate for Option 2 is an average dry weather flow of 200,000 gallons per day (gpd) with a maximum flow of 250,000 gpd. The flow and loadings for Option 2 are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Wastewater Flows and Loadings for Option 2 Flow into New Treatment Plant

ADWF, MGD 0.200 PWWF, MGD 0.250

BOD5 Concentration at ADWF, mg/L 300 Loadings at ADWF, lb/day 500 Loading at PWWF, lb/day 625

TSS Concentration at ADWF, mg/L 300 Loadings at ADWF, lb/day 500 Loading at PWWF, lb/day 625

Nitrogen ADWF Total Nitrogen, mg/L 45 Nitrogen loading at ADWF, lb/day 75 Nitrogen loading at peak month, lb/daya 100

______________________________________________________________________________ a Loadings for Nitrogen increased by 1.3 for peak monthly conditions. 2. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES As determined in the Preliminary Conceptual Plan for Wastewater Reclamation in the Civic Center Area dated July 7, 2003, the two treatment options considered for this feasibility study are a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and a membrane biological reactor (MBR). Both systems have a history of meeting the discharge requirements at various locations. A description of each follows.

1. PROCESS DESCRIPTION An SBR is a fill-and-draw reactor system that utilizes a single complete mix reactor in which all the steps of the activated sludge process occur. The fill-and-draw mode of operations utilizes four cycles: fill, react, settle, and decant. The activated sludge mixed liquor remains in the reactor during all cycles, thereby eliminating the need for a separate secondary sedimentation

tank. To provide for nitrogen removal an anoxic sub-cycle is added during the react cycle for denitrification. The SBR system will provide an effluent suspended solids in the 15 to 20 mg/L range. However, to reliably meet the anticipated, stringent effluent total coliform limit of 2.2 MPN/100 mL, a very low turbidity effluent is required. In addition, a low suspended solids effluent should improve land disposal capacity and extend the life of the disposal system. Therefore, filtration is required to provide suspended solids at a range of 5 to 10 mg/L. To provide for equalization of peak flows and emergency storage, an influent equalization tank was included in the SBR system considered for this project. An SBR treatment system will consist of influent flow metering, screening, the SBR system, filtration, disinfection, effluent flow metering, an aerated sludge tank, and sludge dewatering. The principal manufacturers of SBR systems are Fluidyne, Cass, and Aqua Aerobics. An MBR is an activated sludge reactor system that utilizes a single complete mix reactor in which all the steps of the activated sludge process occur with a membrane filter system submerged in the reactor. The membrane filter system filters the water continuously from the reactor by the suction from a pump. As with the SBR, the activated sludge mixed liquor remains in the reactor during all cycles, thereby eliminating the need for a separate secondary sedimentation tank. In addition, the filtration system is located within the reactor, thereby eliminating the extra space required for a filter system. To provide for nitrogen removal an anoxic stage is added for denitrification. MBR systems are continuous gravity flow-through systems and are sized for the average flow. If the peak flow conditions are greater than two times the average flow at any time, then an equalization tank must be installed prior to the biological treatment tank to provide flow equalization. For comparison purposes, the same influent equalization tank was provided for both the MBR and SBR. An MBR treatment system will consist of influent flow metering, screening, the MBR system, disinfection, effluent flow metering, an aerated sludge tank, and sludge dewatering. The principal manufacturers of MBR systems are Zenon, Kubota, Mitsubishi, and Ionics.

2. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The facilities required for the SBR and MBR systems are provided below. The MBR system includes membrane filtration in its design. The SBR system requires a filtration system. A description of the filtration system options follows the discussion of the SBR facilities. Both the SBR and the MBR require influent and effluent flow metering, screening, disinfection, and sludge aeration and dewatering. A description of these facilities is provided after the following discussion of the filtration systems. MBR The facilities required for the MBR system are a concrete rectangular tank divided into three cells (influent equalization, anoxic zone, and aerated/filtration zone), pumps, electrically actuated valves, blowers, level controls, a programmable logic controller (PLC), and ultra-filtration membrane filter. The screened raw wastewater is discharged to the anoxic cell. The raw wastewater is mixed with recirculated mixed liquor in the anoxic cell and then flows to the aeration cell. In the aeration cell, the wastewater is aerated through a grid of fine bubble diffusers connected to positive displacement blowers. The ultra-filtration membranes are

immersed directly in the aerated mixed liquor and are either gravity fed or connected to the suction side of a centrifugal pump. The wastewater is biologically treated in the anoxic/aerobic bioreactor and the clean permeate is drawn through the membranes and discharged to the disinfection system. The MBR system will provide an effluent suspended solids in the less than 5 mg/L range and turbidity of

Disadvantages Water requirements for backwashing estimated at 5 percent of flow treated on average. Higher complexity system, includes numerous mechanical and electrical components that

can fail and need maintenance. Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 7 hours weekly to check operation and to perform miscellaneous repairs and adjustments. Annual repairs are estimated at $1,000 and power cost at $245. Total annual O&M cost is estimated at $12,665. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Continuously Backwashing Upflow Sand Filter A continuously backwashing, upflow sand filter consists of a cylindrical filter structure containing a deep sand bed. Feed water is introduced at the top and flows downward to a system of radial pipes at the bottom of the filter. The influent flows up through the moving sand bed and solids are removed. The filtrate exits at the top of the filter. The filter media is continuously cleaned by recycling the sand internally through an airlift pipe and sand washer. The cleaned sand is redistributed on top of the sand bed, allowing for continuous, uninterrupted flow of filtrate and backwash water. However, since these filters require continuous flow to provide a high quality effluent and SBR system discharge in batches, these filters are not technically feasible for an SBR. Synthetic Media Filter Synthetic media filters are a new technology that could be used at a loading rate of 24 gpm/sq.ft. and a head of 10 to 50 psi depending on operation parameters. Advantages Low headloss and high porosity offer a low energy gradient. Highest hydraulic loading of any filter, 5 to 6 times other filters High rate of solids removal. Anticipated effluent quality less than10 mg/L TSS.

Average effluent quality expected to be less than 5 mg/L. Porosity of filter can be altered according to the characteristics of the influent Uses feed water for backwashing, not filtrate as in other filters Minimal O&M. Automated, unattended operation. Limited space requirements. Modular design allows easy expansion. Disadvantages New process, not widely used for tertiary treatment of wastewater. Pumping and power requirements for backwashing estimated at 5 percent of flow treated

on average. Higher complexity system, includes numerous mechanical and electrical components that

can fail and need maintenance.

TABLE 3PRESENT WORTH AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS OPTIONS

Malibu WWTP

FILTRATIONRotating Mechanic. Synthetic

Treatment Step Drum Cleaned Pressure MediaProcess Screen Screen Screen Filtration FiltrationCAPITAL COSTSEquipment $72,000 $70,000 $78,000 $80,000 $115,300Installation $32,400 $24,500 $35,100 $28,000 $40,355TOTAL CAPITAL $104,400 $94,500 $113,100 $108,000 $155,655

ANNUAL O&M COSTSLabor @ $30 /hr $15,600 $15,600 $15,600 $10,920 $10,920Chemicals $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000Repairs $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000Power @ $.15 kWh $1,715 $1,470 $1,960 $245 $612Toxics, Safety Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0TOTAL O&M $18,315 $18,070 $18,560 $13,165 $13,532

20 YEAR PRESENT VALUE 333,000$ 320,000$ 344,000$ 272,000$ 324,000$ Interest 8%Inflation 3%

SLUDGE DEWATERING DISINFECTION Sludge Screw Belt Sodium On-Site UV

Treatment Bagging Press Press Hypochlorite GeneratorProcessCAPITAL COSTSEquipment $38,000 $97,000 $132,000 $28,000 $56,000 $130,000Installation $13,300 $33,950 $46,200 $10,000 $20,000 $65,000TOTAL CAPITAL $51,300 $130,950 $178,200 $38,000 $76,000 $195,000

ANNUAL O&M COSTSLabor @ $30 /hr $31,200 $10,920 $10,920 $17,160 $15,600 $10,920Chemicals $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $6,205 $11,680 $0Repairs $2,730 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $1,000 $4,000Power @ $.15 kWh $163 $327 $327 $980 $980 $1,419Toxics, Safety Program $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $1,000 $0TOTAL O&M $35,093 $13,247 $13,247 $27,845 $30,260 $16,339

20 YEAR PRESENT VALUE 489,000$ 296,000$ 343,000$ 385,000$ 453,000$ 399,000$ Interest 8%Inflation 3%

SCREENING

Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 7 hours weekly to check operation and to perform miscellaneous repairs and adjustments. Annual repairs are estimated at $1,000 and power cost at $612. Total annual O&M cost is estimated at $13,532. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Selected Alternative Based on the analysis presented in Table 3. Present Worth and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pressure filters is the most cost-effective option. Flow Metering Two types of flow meters were considered, a magnetic meter and a Doppler meter. Magnetic Flow Meter Magnetic flow meters operate in accordance with the Faraday principle which states that a conductor moving within a magnetic field induces a voltage, the amplitude of which is proportional to the conductor velocity. The conductor is the wastewater and the magnetic field is generated by coils in the flow meter. A magnetic meter consists of a flanged magnetic flow meter and a readout with a chart recorder. The flanged flow meter would be installed on the pipe in a vault. The flow readout would be installed in the building. Advantages: Well-established process, widely used for wastewater and potable water High accuracy to within 0.5% total error band Can measure flow of clean water Most models easy to calibrate Disadvantages: The flanged magnetic flow meter unit cannot be cleaned with standard sewer pipe

equipment Sensitive to environmental electrical noise Higher cost Some models require factory calibration Doppler Flow Meter Doppler flow meters operate in accordance with the Doppler principle which states that a frequency difference in sound reflected off a particle is proportional to the velocity of the particle. The particles are in the wastewater and the sound is generated by a transmitter in the flow meter. A Doppler meter consists of a transmitter, a Doppler frequency receiver/conditioner and a transducer. A chart recorder will be added to provide a record of flow. The transducer

will be installed on the pipe in a vault. The flow readout will be installed in the building. High end Doppler meters are available that will measure flow in waters that have low turbidity like potable water or tertiary effluent. Advantages: Well-established process, widely used for wastewater Transmitter attaches to exterior of pipe Transmitter does not affect pipe cleaning High accuracy to within 0.5% total error band Easy to calibrate Disadvantages: High end meter required to accurately measure flow in effluent Recommendation Either the magnetic meter or the Doppler meter are suitable for this project. The final selection will be made during design. Screening Three types of screens were considered, a step screen, a rotating drum screen, and a mechanically cleaned screen. Step Screen A step screen consists of bars which form the grid of the screen and are made of interlaced, rotating and stationary, step-shaped stainless steel plates. The diameter of the circle of the rotation corresponds to the height of one step. In its normal position, the Step Screen resembles a staircase. The Step Screen operates automatically when the water level upstream increases to a predetermined level, the rotating bars make one revolution. Screenings accumulate on the stairs forming a mat. The mat of screenings is lifted step by step until it reaches the discharge point at the top of the screen where it is discharged. A separate conveyor/compactor compacts the screenings and conveys them to a dumpster for disposal. Advantages Newer process that is not widely used for screening raw wastewater Minimal O&M. Automated, unattended operation. High flow capacity. High removal efficiency Disadvantages Requires a concrete channel Numerous mechanical and electrical components that can fail and need maintenance. Several manufacturers with varying quality of equipment Requires a separate conveyor/compactor

Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 10 hours weekly to check operation and to perform miscellaneous repairs and adjustments. Annual repairs are estimated at $1,000 and power cost at $1,715. Total annual O&M cost is estimated at $18,315. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow.

Rotating Drum Screen In a rotating drum screen, the raw wastewater enters through an inlet pipe to the inside of the drum. The filtrate passes through the drum perforations into a collection trough. An internal screw transports the screenings up the balance of the sloped drum to the discharge chute. Spray nozzles clean the drum surface to prevent blinding of the drum surface. A separate conveyor/compactor compacts the screenings and conveys them to a dumpster for disposal. Advantages Well-established process, widely used for screening raw wastewater Minimal O&M. Automated, unattended operation. High flow capacity. High removal efficiency Influent and effluent can be piped, thus a concrete channel is not required except for the

emergency by-pass Disadvantages Numerous mechanical and electrical components that can fail and need maintenance. Several manufacturers with varying quality of equipment. A separate conveyor/compactor is required Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 10 hours weekly to check operation and to perform miscellaneous repairs and adjustments. Annual repairs are estimated at $1,000 and power cost at $1,470. Total annual O&M cost is estimated at $18,070. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Mechanically Cleaned Bar Screen A mechanically cleaned bar screen consists of a bar screen with a traveling, reciprocating rake that removes and elevates the screening to a discharge point. A separate conveyor/compactor compacts the screenings and conveys them to a dumpster for disposal. Advantages Well-established process, widely used for screening raw wastewater Minimal O&M. Automated, unattended operation. High flow capacity.

Disadvantages Numerous mechanical and electrical components that can fail and need maintenance. Several manufacturers with varying quality of equipment. Lower removal efficiency A separate conveyor/compactor is required Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 10 hours weekly to check operation and to perform miscellaneous repairs and adjustments. Annual repairs are estimated at $1,000 and power cost at $1,960. Total annual O&M cost is estimated at $18,560. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Recommended Alternative Based on the analysis presented in Table 3. Present Worth and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Process Options, the rotating drum is the most cost effective alternative. Also since the raw wastewater will be pumped by grinder pumps the influent particle size is expected to be small, the drum screen will be the most effective in screening solids. In addition, the drum screen is enclosed and thus readily amenable to odor control. Disinfection Disinfection of the effluent will be required to meet the anticipated discharge requirement of an average coliform count of less than 2.2 MPN/100 mL. It is anticipated that the effluent suspended solids will have to be reduced to 10 mg/L or less in order to allow effective and reliable disinfection. Four disinfection options were considered: gas chlorination, liquid sodium hypochlorite, on-site generated sodium hypochlorite, and ultra violet light (UV). Sodium Hypochlorite To avoid the problems associated with chlorine gas, a chlorination system could be designed using a sodium hypochlorite solution and a feed system. All chlorination equipment would be located in the new treatment building. The chlorination system would require a storage area for the concentrated sodium hypochlorite, a 1000 gallon double containment storage tank with concrete pad and berm, piping, duplex chemical feed pumps with flow proportioning controls, flow meter and recorder. Advantages No potential for toxic gas releases. Simple equipment. Proven technology. Disadvantages Larger storage area required. Production of chlorinated by-products in the effluent.

Chlorine contact chamber will require periodic cleaning that requires taking the unit out of service and flushing.

Chemicals are more costly than gaseous chlorine. Estimated Costs Labor cost is estimated at 11 hours per week to check and adjust dosages, prepare chemical solutions, measure residuals, calibrate controls, etc. Chemical costs are estimated based on dosages of 20 lb/day chlorine for Option 1 and 33 lb/day chlorine for Option 2. Sodium hypochlorite costs $.85/lb. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Calcium hypochlorite could be substituted for sodium hypochlorite, but it comes in solid form rather than liquid (increased handling costs) and costs 50 percent more per pound of chlorine. On-Site Chlorine Generation Equipment is available to produce chlorine from salt (sodium chloride) and electricity. By producing chlorine on demand, the amount of hazardous chemicals present on the site and potential for chemical exposure is significantly reduced. The cost of salt and electricity though is high for the amount of chlorine produced. Advantages No potential for toxic gas releases. Reduced handling of toxic chemicals. Proven technology. Disadvantages High capital costs. Production of chlorinated by-products in the effluent. Chlorine contact chamber will require periodic cleaning that requires taking the unit out

of service and flushing. Moderate power requirements but salt is expensive to produce chlorine. Estimated Costs Labor cost is estimated at 1 hour per day to check and adjust dosages, prepare chemical solutions, measure residuals, etc. Chemical costs are estimated based on dosages of 20 lb/day chlorine for Option 1 and 33 lb/day chlorine for Option 2. Sodium chloride costs $1.60/lb. Refer to Table 3 for the complete cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Ultra Violet Light (UV) Disinfection The use of UV for disinfection is an established practice in water and wastewater treatment and other applications. There are no chemicals involved in the process and no toxic residual in the treated water. Effective disinfection depends on obtaining adequate penetration of the light into

the water to be treated, so that all microorganisms present are exposed. This requires a relatively short light path, sufficient light intensity and low turbidity water. Disinfection of wastewater with turbidity in excess of 5 NTU may not be effective at the disinfection level required of 2.2 MPN/100 mL due to shielding of the microorganisms by the solids. A recent report prepared by the National Water Research Institute for the California Department of Health Services recommends the following criteria for UV disinfection of wastewater for reclamation purposes under Title 22: 140 Mw s/cm2 under worst operating conditions. Minimum allowable transmittance of 55%. Minimum of three UV banks in series. At least one redundant UV bank must be provided. Standby power or alternative means of maintaining disinfection during a power outage. Careful performance monitoring. Advantages No potential for toxic gas releases. No handling of toxic chemicals. No production of chlorinated by-products. Simple system to operate with no moving parts and no residuals to measure or chemical

doses to be set. Low maintenance system with no pumps or residual analyzers to take care of. Disadvantages Requires low turbidity effluent, sensitive to process upsets that result in high effluent

suspended solids. Requires careful monitoring. High power requirements and higher capital cost. Lamps must be cleaned weekly and replaced every 1.5 to 2 years. More electrical and monitoring equipment but in a non-corrosive environment. Only certain systems are approved by DHS for Title 22 reclamation There are few systems currently meeting Title 22 in California at the design flow rates Estimated Costs Labor cost is estimated at 7 hour per day to check and clean lamps and replace lamp sleeves. Lamp replacement is estimated at $4,000 and electricity estimated at $1,419. Refer to Table 3 for the complete cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Selected Alternative

Based on the analysis presented in Table 3, the liquid sodium hypochlorite system is the most cost effective option. Sludge Handling

An aerobic digester is included in the SBR design to provide stabilization of sludge that is wasted from the SBR. The aerobic digester will be integrated into the SBR and constructed of new concrete walls. Mixing will be provided by mixers or jet pumps and aeration will be provided by non-proprietary aerators, aspirating pumps or coarse bubble diffusers. The MBR operates at a mixed liquor concentration of 10,000 to 15,000 mg/L which is similar to the concentration of the aerated sludge in the SBR. Thus the mixed liquor in the MBR can be pumped directly to the sludge dewatering equipment without further thickening. In order to haul de-watered sludge to a landfill, the sludge will have to be analyzed for various chemicals by a state certified laboratory in order to be approved for acceptance by the landfill. Since the wastewater at Malibu is domestic and commercial wastewater with no industrial component, it is anticipated that the Malibu sludge will not contain chemical constituents at concentrations that will prevent disposal at a landfill. The following is an analysis of the various sludge dewatering options. Sludge Bagging System A sludge bagging system dewaters sludge by pumping the sludge from the aerated digester to disposable, porous polypropylene bags, where the liquid drains from the bags and the solids are retained and compacted within the bags. A polymer is injected into the sludge to form a floc of solids and increase de-watering. The system is controlled by timers and level sensors which automatically top off the bags until they are full. An air compressor adds air pressure to the filled bags to further dewater and compact the solids. The bags are usually left to dry for 2 to 3 days prior to disposal by hauling to a landfill. Advantages Low headloss and high porosity offer a low energy gradient. Low capital cost Storage in bags reduces odors Proven technology Disadvantages Sludge will be bagged nearly every day resulting in high labor costs Bags weigh approximately 50 pounds and will have to be moved from the sludge bagger

to the dumpster by the operators. Sludge bagging will not be cost effective for the Option 2 flow due to the amount of labor

required. Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 20 hours weekly to run the equipment and manage the filled bags. Annual chemical costs are estimated at $1,000, material costs are estimated at $2,730 and power cost at $163. Total O&M cost is estimated at $35,093. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow.

Screw Press A screw press consists of a stainless steel shaft with welded-on stainless steel helical fight inside a stainless steel screen with 0.023-inch diameter holes. A polymer is injected into the sludge to form a floc of solids and increase de-watering. The screw press creates high pressures to force the water out of the sludge and through the screen holes. The dewatered sludge is dumped onto a conveyor that transports the sludge to a dumpster or truck bed. Advantages Low labor costs. Proven technology Disadvantages High capital costs More complex system, includes numerous mechanical and electrical components that can

fail and need maintenance. Open system that may create odors Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 7 hours weekly to operate the equipment to prepare polymer. Annual chemical costs are estimated at $1,000, material costs are estimated at $1,0500 and power cost at $327. Total O&M cost is estimated at $13,247. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Belt Filter Press A belt filter press is a continuous-feed system consists of a chemical conditioning, gravity drainage, and mechanically applied pressure. A polymer is injected into the sludge to form a floc of solids and increase de-watering. The conditioned sludge is introduced on a gravity drainage section and allowed to thicken by gravity. Then the belt filter press creates high pressures to force the water out of the sludge and through opposing porous cloth belts. A series of rollers subject the sludge to shearing fores. The squeezing and shearing forces induce the release of additional quantities of water from the sludge. The dewatered sludge is dumped onto a conveyor that transports the sludge to a dumpster or truck bed. Advantages Low labor costs. Proven technology Low power requirements Minimal effort required for shut down Disadvantages High capital costs Higher tech system, includes numerous mechanical and electrical components that can

fail and need maintenance. Open system that may create odors

Sensitive to incoming sludge feed characteristics Automatic operation generally not advised Estimated Costs Labor is estimated at 7 hours weekly to operate the equipment to prepare polymer. Annual chemical costs are estimated at $1,000, material costs are estimated at $1,0500 and power cost at $327. Total O&M cost is estimated at $13,247. Refer to Table 3 for the full cost estimate for the Option 1 flow. Selected Alternative Based on the analysis presented in Table 3, the sludge screw press system is the most cost effective alternative. 3. LAND AREA The SBR system for Option 1 will require an area of approximately 62 feet by 93 feet. This does not include the chlorine contact chamber (installed underground), sludge and screening dumpsters, odor control treatment facilities (underground), or employee parking. The SBR system for Option 2 will require an area of approximately 74 feet by 116 feet. This does not include the chlorine contact chamber (installed underground), sludge and screening dumpsters, odor control treatment facilities (underground), or employee parking. The MBR system for Option 1 will require an area of approximately 50 feet by 62 feet. This does not include the chlorine contact chamber (installed underground), sludge and screening dumpsters, odor control treatment facilities (underground), or employee parking. The MBR system for Option 2 will require an area of approximately 59 feet by 72 feet. This does not include the chlorine contact chamber (installed underground), sludge and screening dumpsters, odor control treatment facilities (underground), or employee parking. 4. ENERGY USE The SBR system for Option 1 will have an estimated installed horse power of 5 for the screen and conveyor/compactor, 45 for the SBR, 10 for the filters, 5 for the sludge handling, 1 for disinfection, 15 for odor control, and 10 for effluent pumping for a total of 91 installed horse power. The estimated power use will be approximately 800 KWH per day at the design flow of 120,000 gpd. The SBR system for Option 2 will have an estimated installed horse power of 10 for the screen and conveyor/compactor, 87 for the SBR, 16 for the filters, 7 for the sludge handling, 1 for disinfection, 20 for odor control, and 20 for effluent pumping for a total of 161 installed horse power. The estimated power use will be approximately 1,250 KWH per day at the design flow of 200,000 gpd.

The MBR system for Option 1 will have an estimated installed horse power of 5 for the screen and conveyor/compactor, 86 for the MBR, 5 for the sludge handling, 1 for disinfection, 15 for odor control, and 10 for effluent pumping for a total of 122 horse power installed. The estimated power use will be approximately xxxx KWH per day at the design flow of 120,000 gpd. The MBR system for Option 2 will have an estimated installed horse power of 10 for the screen and conveyor/compactor, 86 for the MBR, 7 for the sludge handling, 1 for disinfection, 20 for odor control, and 20 for effluent pumping for a total of 144 hp installed. The estimated power use will be approximately xxxxx KWH per day at the design flow of 200,000 gpd. 5. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) For either the SBR or MBR system, a state certified Grade III operator will be required for the position of chief plant operator. The plant is estimated to be staffed full time during the day, including weekends, and by an on-call person at night and holidays. Staff would include two full time operators and one part time operator. The laboratory analyses are estimated to be conducted on site for BOD, TSS, nitrogen, coliform, and oil and grease, and for all process control monitoring. All other monitoring would be conducted at outside, state certified laboratories. O&M costs will include power, laboratory costs for the monitoring required by the permit and for process control, chemicals, parts, outside repairs, and labor and benefits. The estimated costs of O&M for each alternative are presented in the preliminary cost section below. 6. VISUAL AND ODORS The SBR and MBR systems will be installed in a building or screened with walls. Thus the visual impact would be expected to be minimal and will be determined by the architectural design of the building or screening. If the treatment system is installed in a building, either the entire building will have an odor control system. If the treatment system is screened, the raw water screening and sludge handling facilities will be enclosed with an odor control system. Thus there is not expected to by any odors detected outside the plant. 7. PRELIMINARY COSTS The preliminary cost estimates for the SBR and MBR systems, excluding the building costs, are presented in Tables 4 through 7. The cost estimates include the capital costs, annual O&M costs, and a 20 year present value analysis. The present value analysis was conducted using a discount rate of 5 percent. A summary of the costs for the SBR and MBR systems at flow rates of 0.120 MGD and 0.200 MGD is presented in Table 8. 8. PERFORMANCE DATA Performance data for a few SBR systems are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 4Preliminary Cost Estimate 0.120 MGD SBR

Malibu, WWTP

Unit Prices Extended ItemWORK ITEMS Quantity Units Installed Prices Subtotal

1 HeadworksExcavation and Backfill 59 cu yd 18$ 1,064$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 84 cu yd 550$ 46,214$ 8" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent piping to SBR 120 lf 50$ 6,000$ 4" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent pipe at meter 10 lf 35$ 350$ Drum Screen with Washer & Compactor 1 ea 70,000$ 70,000$ Flow Meter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 4,200$ 4,200$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,570$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,130$ Installation 20% 14,840$

Subtotal Headworks 159,000$ 2 Odor Control System

12-inch PVC Pipe 50 ft 32$ 1,600$ Blowers, 7.5 HP 2 ea 6,500$ 13,000$ Dampener 1 ea 2,030$ 2,030$ Miscellaneous 1 ls 1,000$ 1,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 1,200$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 2,400$ Installation 20% 16,030$

Subtotal Odor Control System 37,000$ 3 SBR

Excavation 3,024 cu yd 8$ 24,189$ Backfill and Compaction 1,664 cu yd 10$ 16,641$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), tank walls 242 cu yd 550$ 133,300$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), floor 162 cu yd 550$ 89,202$ 1-inch GSP, compressed air line 100 ft 13$ 1,300$ 3-inch GSP, air to SBR 170 ft 20$ 3,400$ 3-inch PVC, SBR piping 200 ft 20$ 4,000$ 4-inch PVC, SBR effluent piping 137 ft 35$ 4,795$ 6-inch PVC, effluent piping 20 ft 40$ 800$ 4-inch DIP, decant piping 20 ft 35$ 700$ SBR Equipment 1 ls 195,000$ 195,000$ Emergency Generator 1 ls 25,500$ 25,500$ Crane 1 ls 2,084$ 2,084$ Sales Tax 7.5% 16,690$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 29,563$ Installation 20% 44,517$

Subtotal SBR 592,000$ 4 Filter System

Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 4 cu yd 500$ 1,780$ Filter System 1 ls 80,000$ 80,000$ Turbidimeter 2 ea 1,900$ 3,800$ Chart Recorders 2 ea 1,000$ 2,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 6,440$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 12,870$ Installation 15% 12,870$

Subtotal Filter System 120,000$ 5 Disinfection

Flow Mmeter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 6,500$ 6,500$ pH Meter 1 ea 1,500$ 1,500$ Chlorine Residual Analyzer 1 ea 2,000$ 2,000$ Chlorine System 1 ls 12,000$ 12,000$ Chlorine Contact Chamber 142 ft 75$ 10,650$ Sales Tax 7.5% 2,450$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 4,900$ Installation 20% 6,530$

UV Disinfection Subtotal 46,530$ 6 Sludge Handling

Screw Press 1 ea 75,000$ 75,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,630$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,250$

Page 1 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


Installation 15% 11,250$ Subtotal Sludge Bagging System 103,000$

7 Laboratory EquipmentLaboratory Equipment 1 ls 77,000$ 77,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,775$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,550$ Installation 25% 19,250$

Laboratory Subtotal 113,575$ FACILITY SUBTOTAL 1,171,105$

8 Miscellaneous ItemsSitework 2% 23,000$ Process Piping, Mechanical 10% 117,000$ Instrumentation and Controls 5% 59,000$ Electrical Distribution and Service 15% 176,000$ Painting 1% 12,000$

Miscellaneous Subtotal 387,000$ FACILITY TOTAL 1,558,105$

Contingency for Unknown or Changed Conditions (15%) 233,716$

Estimated Total Construction Costs 1,791,821$

Engineering (Design, permitting & const. mgmt. @ 25%) 447,955$

Estimated Total Capital Costs 2,240,000$

ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Task Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Total Cost1 Labor and Benefits

Operator III 1 an $90,000 $90,000Operator I 1 an $60,000 $60,000Laboratory Technician 1 an $30,000 $30,000

Subtotal Labor and Benefits 180,000$ Note. Benefits were calculated at 50% of salaries

2 On-call Operator for Emergency ResponseOperator 12 Mo $400 $4,800

Subtotal On-call Operator 4,800$

3 ExpensesParts 1 ls $3,000 $3,000Outside Repairs 1 ls $4,000 $4,000Chemicals 1 ls $9,205 $9,205Laboratory Certification Fee 1 ls $1,600 $1,600Outside Laboratory Total Dissolved Solids 24 ea 30$ 720$ Sodium 24 ea 30$ 720$ Chloride 24 ea 30$ 720$ Telephone 1 ls $360 $360Power 292000 kwh $0.15 $43,800Safety and Training 1 ls $1,000 $1,000General Liability 1 ls $20,000 $20,000

Subtotal Expenses $85,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M BUDGET $270,000

20 YEAR PRESENT VALUE 5,605,000$ Interest 8%Inflation 3%

Page 2 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


1 HeadworksExcavation and Backfill 59 cu yd 18$ 1,064$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 84 cu yd 550$ 46,214$ 15" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent piping to SBR 120 lf 60$ 7,200$ 12" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent pipe at meter 20 lf 55$ 1,100$ Drum Screen with Washer & Compactor 1 ea 70,000$ 70,000$ Flow Meter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 4,200$ 4,200$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,570$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,130$ Installation 20% 14,840$


12-inch PVC Pipe 50 ft 32$ 1,600$ Blowers, 10 HP 2 ea 7,500$ 15,000$ Dampener 1 ea 3,030$ 3,030$ Miscellaneous 1 ls 2,000$ 2,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 1,500$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 3,000$ Installation 20% 20,030$

Subtotal Odor Control System 46,000$ 3 SBR

Excavation 4,387 cu yd 8$ 35,095$ Backfill and Compaction 2,075 cu yd 10$ 20,748$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), tank walls 322 cu yd 550$ 177,058$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), floor 261 cu yd 550$ 143,418$ 1-inch GSP, compressed air line 100 ft 13$ 1,300$ 4-inch GSP, air to SBR 170 ft 35$ 5,950$ 6-inch PVC, SBR piping 200 ft 40$ 8,000$ 6-inch PVC, SBR effluent piping 137 ft 40$ 5,480$ 6-inch PVC, effluent piping 20 ft 40$ 800$ 6-inch DIP, decant piping 20 ft 40$ 800$ SBR Equipment 1 ls 230,000$ 230,000$ Emergency Generator 1 ls 30,000$ 30,000$ Crane 1 ls 2,084$ 2,084$ Sales Tax 7.5% 19,660$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 34,813$ Installation 20% 52,417$

Subtotal SBR 768,000$ 4 Filter System

Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 4 cu yd 500$ 1,780$ Filter System 1 ls 100,000$ 100,000$ Turbidimeter 2 ea 1,900$ 3,800$ Chart Recorders 2 ea 1,000$ 2,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 7,940$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 15,870$ Installation 15% 15,870$

Subtotal Filter System 147,000$ 5 Disinfection

Flow Meter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 6,500$ 6,500$ pH Meter 1 ea 1,500$ 1,500$ Chlorine Residual Analyzer 1 ea 2,000$ 2,000$ Chlorine System 1 ls 12,000$ 12,000$ Chlorine Contact Chamber 236 ft 75$ 17,700$ Sales Tax 7.5% 2,980$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 5,960$ Installation 15% 5,960$

Disinfection Subtotal 54,600$ 6 Sludge Handling

Screw Press 1 ea 75,000$ 75,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,630$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,250$

Page 1 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


Installation 15% 11,250$ Subtotal Sludge Bagging System 103,000$

7 Laboratory EquipmentLaboratory Equipment 1 ls 77,000$ 77,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,775$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,550$ Installation 25% 19,250$

Laboratory Subtotal 113,575$ FACILITY SUBTOTAL 1,393,175$

8 Miscellaneous ItemsSitework 2% 28,000$ Process Piping, Mechanical 10% 139,000$ Instrumentation and Controls 5% 70,000$ Electrical Distribution and Service 15% 209,000$ Painting 1% 14,000$
















Page 2 of 2

TABLE 6Preliminary Cost Estimate 0.120 MGD MBR

Malibu, WWTP


1 HeadworksExcavation and Backfill 59 cu yd 18$ 1,064$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 84 cu yd 550$ 46,214$ 8" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent piping to MSBR 120 lf 50$ 6,000$ 4" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent pipe at meter 10 lf 35$ 350$ Drum Screen with Washer & Compactor 1 ea 70,000$ 70,000$ Flow Meter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 4,200$ 4,200$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,570$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,130$ Installation 20% 14,840$



Subtotal Odor Control System 37,000$ 3 MBR

Excavation 825 cu yd 8$ 6,600$ Backfill and Compaction 560 cu yd 10$ 5,600$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), tank walls 86 cu yd 550$ 47,476$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), floor 87 cu yd 550$ 47,585$ MBR Equipment 1 ls 592,000$ 592,000$ Emergency Generator 1 ls 25,500$ 25,500$ Sales Tax 7.5% 46,310$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 92,625$ Installation 20% 123,500$

Subtotal SBR 987,000$ 4 Disinfection


Disinfection Subtotal 46,530$ 5 Sludge Handling

Screw Press 1 ea 75,000$ 75,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,630$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,250$ Installation 15% 11,250$

Subtotal Sludge Bagging System 103,000$ 6 Laboratory Equipment

Laboratory Equipment 1 ls 77,000$ 77,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,775$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,550$ Installation 25% 19,250$

Laboratory Subtotal 113,575$

Page 1 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


FACILITY SUBTOTAL 1,446,105$ 7 Miscellaneous Items

Sitework 2% 29,000$ Process Piping, Mechanical 10% 145,000$ Instrumentation and Controls 5% 72,000$ Electrical Distribution and Service 15% 217,000$ Painting 1% 14,000$
















Page 2 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


1 HeadworksExcavation and Backfill 59 cu yd 18$ 1,064$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour) 84 cu yd 550$ 46,214$ 15" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent piping to MSBR 120 lf 60$ 7,200$ 12" Ductile Iron Pipe, influent pipe at meter 10 lf 55$ 550$ Drum Screen with Washer & Compactor 1 ea 70,000$ 70,000$ Flow Meter and Chart Recorder 1 ls 4,200$ 4,200$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,570$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,130$ Installation 20% 14,840$



Subtotal Odor Control System 37,000$ 3 MBR

Excavation 1,062 cu yd 8$ 8,496$ Backfill and Compaction 649 cu yd 10$ 6,487$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), tank walls 106 cu yd 550$ 58,344$ Concrete (form, rebar, pour), floor 116 cu yd 550$ 63,637$ MBR Equipment 1 ls 889,500$ 889,500$ Emergency Generator 1 ls 30,000$ 30,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 68,960$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 137,925$ Installation 20% 183,900$

Subtotal SBR 1,447,000$ 4 Disinfection


UV Disinfection Subtotal 54,600$ 5 Sludge Handling

Screw Press 1 ea 75,000$ 75,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,630$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,250$ Installation 15% 11,250$

Subtotal Sludge Bagging System 103,000$ 6 Laboratory Equipment

Laboratory Equipment 1 ls 77,000$ 77,000$ Sales Tax 7.5% 5,775$ Contractor's Markup on Equipment 15% 11,550$ Installation 25% 19,250$

Laboratory Subtotal 113,575$

Page 1 of 2


Malibu, WWTP


FACILITY SUBTOTAL 1,916,175$ 7 Miscellaneous Items

Sitework 2% 38,000$ Process Piping, Mechanical 10% 192,000$ Instrumentation and Controls 5% 96,000$ Electrical Distribution and Service 15% 287,000$ Painting 1% 19,000$
















Page 2 of 2

TABLE 8SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR SBR AND MBR

Malibu WWTP

0.120 MGD 0.200 MGDWORK ITEMS SBR MBR SBR MBF

1 Headworks 159,000$ 159,000$ 161,000$ 161,000$ 2 Odor Control System 37,000$ 37,000$ 46,000$ 37,000$ 3 Treatment System 592,000$ 987,000$ 768,000$ 1,447,000$ 4 Filtration 120,000$ - 147,000$ -5 Disinfection 46,530$ 46,530$ 54,600$ 54,600$ 6 Sludge Handling 103,000$ 103,000$ 103,000$ 103,000$ 7 Laboratory Equipment 113,575$ 113,575$ 113,575$ 113,575$

FACILITY SUBTOTAL 1,171,105$ 1,446,105$ 1,393,175$ 1,916,175$ 8 Miscellaneous Items 387,000$ 477,000$ 460,000$ 632,000$

FACILITY TOTAL 1,558,105$ 1,923,105$ 1,853,175$ 2,548,175$ Contingency for Unknown or Changed Conditions (15%) 233,716$ 288,466$ 277,976$ 382,226$

Estimated Total Construction Costs 1,791,821$ 2,211,571$ 2,131,151$ 2,930,401$

Engineering (Design, permitting & const. mgmt. @25%) 447,955$ 552,893$ 532,788$ 732,600$

Estimated Total Capital Costs 2,240,000$ 2,764,000$ 2,664,000$ 3,663,000$

$/gallon 18.67$ 23.03$ 13.32$ 18.32$

Annual O&M 270,000$ $281,000 301,000$ 318,000$

20-Year Present Value 5,605,000$ 6,266,000$ 6,415,000$ 7,626,000$

TABLE 9SBR PERFORMANCE DATA

Various Locations

MO. AVG. EFFLUENTSECONDARY EFFLUENT EFFLUENT

SITE DATE FLOW BOD TSS TKN NH3 NO2 NO3 Total N Coliforms Mo. Max Mo. Avg. Mo. MaxMGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/LMPN/100 mL NTU NTU NTU

Rancho Larios WWTP, San Juan Bautista, CAMay-04 0.014 3 1.9 0.3

Documents

Appendix C1 - SBR-MBR Wastewater Facilities Analysis