NC0081370_engineering alternatives analysis_20141126

Wastewater Treatment Plant
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Report for
City of Claremont
Final Report — November 2014
Claremont WWTP Expansion
EAA & EA
o4io18.o3
PREPARED FOR:
City of Claremont
PO Box 446
Claremont, NC 286io
PREPARED BY:
Davis & Floyd, Inc.
1305 N. Center Street
Hickory, NC 2860m
[phone]
i41,
� I1
' r4
▪ DAVIS &
FLOYD, INC.
-nt •
-� No. F-0244 o
r it�� ritee /0r �� P
`N „GAR,,,,.•
C • r
No. 14773
•er.

Table of Contents
Section Title Pape
Section 1.0- Executive Summary 1
Section 2.0- Proposed Project Description 3
Section 3.0- Current Situation 5
3.1 Background Information 5
3.2 Planning Area 5
3.3 Planning Period 5
3.4 Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities 6
3.5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 7
3.5.1 North Wastewater Treatment Plant 7
3.5.2 McLin Wastewater Treatment Plant 13
3.5.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment 19
3.5.4 Wet Weather Flow Assessment 21
Section 4.0- Future Condition 23
4.1 General 23
4.2 Population Forecast 23
4.3 Projected Wastewater Flow 24
4.4 Projected Wastewater Characteristics 25
4.5 Speculative Effluent Limits 26
Section 5.0- Purpose and Need 28
Section 6.0- Wastewater Treatment Alternatives 29
6.1 Introduction 29
6.2 Wastewater Treatment Alternative Description 29
Section 7.0- Wastewater Treatment Alternative Evaluation 35
7.1 Introduction 35
7.2 Present Worth Analysis 35
7.3 Alternative Ranking & Selection 36
7.4 Selected Plan Description 38
7.5 Financial Analysis 42
Wastewater Treatment EAA
City of Claremont, NC Page I i

Tables Page
2.1 Estimated Capital Cost Summary 4
3.1 Pump Station Draw Down Test Results 6
3.2 Effluent Limitations for the North Wastewater Treatment Plant 11
3.3 Performance Summary for the North Wastewater Treatment Plant 12
3.4 North Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Violations 13
3.5 McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria 16
3.6 Effluent Limitations for the McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 17
3.7 Performance Summary for the McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 18
3.8 McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Violations 19
3.9 Wastewater Flow Summary 20
3.10 Wet Weather Flow Assessment 22
4.1 Population Projections, Catawba County, NC 23
4.2 Planning Area Population Projections 24
4.3 Planning Area Wastewater Flow Projections 25
4.4 Projected Raw Wastewater Characteristics 26
4.5 Speculative Effluent Limits 27
7.1 Cost Summary and Present Worth Value 36
7.2 Alternative Ranking 38
7.3 McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Proposed Design Criteria 41
7.4 First Year Operational Cost 42
Figures Page
3.1 Study Area & Sub -Basin Map 8
3.2 City of Claremont Sewer Map 9
3.3 North WWTP Process Schematic 10
3.4 McLin Creek WWTP Process Schematic 15
6.1 Alternative B Proposed McLin Creek WWTP Process Schematic 32
6.2 Alternative C Proposed McLin Creek WWTP Process Schematic 33
6.3 Alternative D Proposed Potential Wastewater Land Application Sites 34
Appendices
WWTP Flow Data A
NC DENR Speculative Limit Letter B
Detail Alternative Cost Estimates C
Project First Year O&M Budget D
Wastewater Treatment EAA
City of Claremont, NC Page I ii

Section 1.0 — Executive Summary
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. To respond to this
growth and development it will be essential that the City have adequate wastewater treatment
infrastructure available. The purpose of this Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) is to
project future wastewater treatment needs and then identify and evaluate alternatives that are
available to the City that will enable this need to be met.
The City currently owns two wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). The North WWTP
has a capacity of 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and the McLin Creek WWTP has a capacity
of 0.3 MGD for a combined capacity of 0.4 MGD. In assessment of historical and future
residential, commercial, and industrial growth trends, it is recommended that the City plan for a
total wastewater treatment capacity of 1.2 MGD with the ability for further expansion as
required.
To provide for this future wastewater treatment capacity need, the City of Claremont
initiated negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and conditions for its participation in
the Catawba WWTP that is currently under construction. Those negotiations were not successful
leaving the City of Claremont with the potential option of upgrading and expanding their existing
WWTPs. This EAA evaluated the design, physical condition, and performance of both the
North WWTP and the McLin Creek WWTP. From this evaluation various alternatives for
upgrade and expansion were identified for evaluation as described below:
• Alternative A provided for the upgrade and expansion of both of the City's
existing WWTPs.
• Alternative B provided for the consolidation of all wastewater treatment at the
upgraded and expanded McLin Creek WWTP utilizing the same method of
wastewater treatment.
• Alternative C provided for the consolidation of all wastewater treatment at the
McLin Creek WWTP with treatment being provided by a membrane biological
reactor (MBR).
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 11
City of Claremont, NC

• Alternative D was the same as Alternative B with effluent disposal by standard
rate land application.
The North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) provided
Speculative Effluent Limits describing the allowable mass loading of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and ammonia permissible for discharge to Mull Creek and McLin Creek
respectively by the City's WWTPs. In the case of McLin Creek, these Speculative Effluent
Limits were very restrictive. HydroAnalysis, Inc. was commissioned by the City to perform a
water quality study to determine if the mass loading for BOD and ammonia to McLin Creek
could be increased. This study demonstrated that McLin Creek could receive additional mass
loading without violation of water quality standards. After review and approval of the study
DNER issued revised Speculative Limits that will enable the expansion of the McLin Creek
WWTP to a capacity of 1.2 MGD.
Upon the evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative C proposing consolidation of all
wastewater treatment at the McLin Creek WWTP with membrane biological reactor treatment,
was determined to be most cost-effective and is recommended for final consideration by the City
of Claremont.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 12
City of Claremont, NC

Section 2.0 — Proposed Project Description
The selected plan (Alternative C) would provide for the upgrade and expansion of the
McLin Creek WWTP. Due to the age and condition of the North WWTP, the City is currently
proceeding with the design and construction of a new pump station and force main that will
enable the decommissioning of the North WWTP. Flow from the North WWTP will be
conveyed the McLin Creek WWTP for treatment and discharge. The proposed project will
upgrade and expand the McLin Creek WWTP to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing the Membrane
Biological Reactor (MBR) treatment process. The expansion would be performed in two phases
with the first phase providing for 0.8 MGD of capacity. Treated wastewater would continue to
discharge to McLin Creek; however, the superior quality of the effluent from the MBR process
may provide opportunities for effluent reuse in the future.
The upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP would consist of the following
major components as more fully described in Section 7:
• Course Influent Screening: The existing headworks would be modified to include
two manual bar screens.
• Influent Pump Station: The existing influent pump station would be upgraded
with the installation of new influent pumps, piping, and controls.
• Fine Screening: Rotary drum fine screen are proposed to be installed as required
to protect the membrane in the MBR.
• MBR Process: The existing ICEAS SBR treatment process will be retrofitted to
create the MBR process which will consist of three treatment cells: (1) an anoxic
cell, (2) a preaeration cell, and (3) a membrane reactor cells.
• Disinfection: The existing chlorine disinfection system will be replaced with an
ultra -violet (UV) light disinfection system.
• Sludge Holding: A new 300,000 gallons sludge holding tank would be
constructed.
Presented in Table 2.1 is the estimated probable cost for the implementation of the
selected plan. Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of the McLin Creek WWTP illustrating the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 13
City of Claremont, NC

scope of the proposed upgrade and expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in Table 7.2
are the proposed design criteria for the plant upgrade and expansion.
Table 2.1
Estimated Capital Cost Summary
Item
Estimated Cost
Phase 1 Construction , 0.8 MGD
$6,011,772
Phase 2 Construction, 1.2 MGD
$1,021,487
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$7,033,259
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 14
City of Claremont, NC

Section 3.0 — Current Situation
3.1 Background Information
The City of Claremont needs additional wastewater treatment capacity in response to
anticipated growth and development of the City and adjoining areas. In 2011 a Preliminary
Engineering Report (2011 PER) was commissioned by Catawba County in conjunction with the
City of Hickory, City of Conover, and the City of Claremont to address the total wastewater
treatment needs for the McLin/Lyle Creek drainage basin. Hickory, Conover, and Claremont
each have existing wastewater treatment facilities serving customers within this drainage basin.
The draft 2011 PER evaluated various alternatives for providing wastewater treatment service to
the drainage basin. This draft report determined that the least cost option for Claremont was to
decommission its two existing wastewater treatment plants and convey its wastewater to the new
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) being constructed on Lyle Creek near the Town of Catawba
(referred to as the Catawba WWTP.) . The Catawba WWTP is being constructed by the City of
Hickory in conjunction with Catawba County.
Based upon the findings of the draft 2011 PER, the City of Claremont initiated
negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and conditions for their participation in the
Catawba WWTP. Those negotiations were not successful, and as a result the City of Claremont
authorized this Engineering Alternative Analysis report to further evaluate alternatives for the
upgrade and expansion of their existing WWTP's to meet their future wastewater treatment
needs.
3.2 Planning Area
The planning area for this study is show in Figure 3.1 and includes the current wastewater
service area of the Claremont and potential future services areas.
3.3 Planning Period
The period considered reasonable for the planning of wastewater infrastructure is
typically 20 years. Projections of infrastructure needs beyond 20 years begin to become
unreliable. Therefore the planning year for this study will be 2034.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 15
City of Claremont, NC

3.4 Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities
The City of Claremont owns 134,587 LF, or 25.5 miles of gravity and pressurized
sanitary sewer piping, five (5) pump stations, and two (2) Wastewater Treatment Plants. Pump
station data provided by the City of Hickory Public Utilities Department has been summarized in
Table 3.1. Pump draw down tests were performed to determine the actual pumping capacity of
each pump. A map showing the location of the existing sewer collection system is presented in
Figure 3.2.
According to drawdown tests performed by City of Hickory staff, the pump stations do
not currently have excessive run times and therefore should be capable of handling increased
flow if needed. As shown in Figure 3.1, wastewater collected in Sub -basin 1 is conveyed to
Claremont's North Wastewater Treatment Plant and wastewater collected in Sub -basin 2 is
conveyed to Claremont's McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 3.1
Pump Station Draw Down Test Results
Station
Name
Wet Well
Size
Pump 1
(t)
Pump 2
(t)
Current
Flow (gpm)
Calculated Flow
Pump 1 / 2 (gpm)
Design Flow
(GPM)
State
6' dia
60 s
60 s
n/a
140.97 / 132.16
n/a
Catawba
Truck
4' dia
60 s
60 s
9.79
45.05 / 33.3
n/a
Smyres
6' x 10'
60 s
60 s
9.35
46.75 / 9.35
n/a
Mom and
Pops
5' dia
60 s
60 s
n/a
61.21 / 6.12
n/a
School
7' dia
60 s
60 s
11.99
59.96 / 59.96
n/a
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
6

3.5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Claremont owns the North and McLin Creek wastewater treatment plants.
Both plants are operated by the City of Hickory under an intergovernmental agreement. The
locations of these plants are shown in Figure 3.2.
3.5.1 North Wastewater Treatment Plant
The North WWTP is a conventional package type extended aeration activated sludge
facility. The plant was originally constructed in 1951 and underwent its most
expansion/upgrade in 1975. The plant has a current design
capacity of 0.100 million gallons per day with a present
day average flow of 0.060 million gallons per day. The
effluent is chlorinated and then de -chlorinated to remove
residual chlorine with final discharge to Mull Creek which
is a tributary of Lyle Creek. Residual biosolids are
periodically removed and hauled to the Catawba County
regional compost facility.
recent
The plant runs below its rated capacity during dry weather periods, however it exceeds
capacity during significant rainfall events. The existing plant is outdated and in poor condition.
The North WWTP currently serves the area included in Sub -basin "1" as shown in Figure 3.1.
Shown in Figure 3.3 is a schematic of the Plant. Presented in Table 3.2 is a description of the
plant's current NPDES permit effluent limitations. Table 3.3 illustrates the plant's current
performance and presented in Table 3.4 is the plant's
NPDES permit compliance history.
Planned upgrades and maintenance to the
Claremont North WWTP include; a new digester and
new chain and flights in the larger clarifier. Also, the
North WWTP is not equipped with an emergency
generator. Estimated capital cost for these
improvements is approximately $200,000. Although these planned upgrades will address
immediate needs for the WWTP, they will not address its future capacity requirements.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 17
City of Claremont, NC

'�.rrrlCh
ROCK BARN
COUNTRY CLUB �y
FIGURE 3.1
STUDY AREA & SUB -BASIN MAP
1305 NORTH CENTER STREET
I QEngineermg HICKORY, NC 28601
1 Architecture 828-322-2290
DEnvironmental & Laboratory Services

\
TO NORTH WWTP \�
t,;,2,. •—
• i
1,,,,,1,0 t /
/
_1 _ _ _ j
1 .,,,*/ /
/
-- J /
N. /
/
ROC( MAW POP
g
ss gig
APPROXIMATE Locsro.
L_ J
TO McLI WW
COLLERONE EUROPA USA WC
LEGEND
CATAWBA TRUCK RENTAL PUMP STATION
SMYRE PUMP STATION
REST AREA PUMP STATION
A WSMP (MOM & POPS) PUMP STATION
A SCHOOL BRANCH PUMP STATION
▪ NORTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MC LIN CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
O AREA SERVED BY McLIN WWTP
AREA SERVED BY NORTH WWTP
FIGURE 3.2
CITY OF CLAREMONT SEWER MAP
•
1000 500 0
1000
W
0 a
2000
ETJ LINE
CITY LIMIT LINE
SEWER LINE
SEWER MANHOLE
DESIGN PROJECT NAME / NUMBER
SCALE: 1" - 1000'
NOTE:
1MIS MAP WAS PREPARED USING THE
PTY OF CLAREMONDI SEWER SSSTEM MAP.
PRODUCED BY Wx DICKSON IN FEeaugar zooa
DA,V I S
r'� 1305 NORTH CENTER STREET
Engineering HICKORY, NC 28601
Architecture 828-322-2290
FL Y DEnvironmental & Laboratory Services

Z 3Ndld�
31V1S
DRYING BEDS
EFFLUENT WEIR
o
Ct
zN
U m
I1 X-X --X-- X--X z --X -z z z x
1
z z • z - z- X X- z
s
A w

Table 3.2
Effluent Limitations for the North Wastewater Treatment Plant
(from NPDES Permit No. NC0032662)
Parameters
Effluent Limits
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Average
Flow (mgd)
0.100
BOD, 5 day, 20°Ca
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
28 µg/L
Notes: a = Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal)
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 11
City of Claremont, NC

Plant Effluent
xCIl
it
7.4
7.8
01
8.0
S
N
N
VD
N
S
N
S
CAN
N
S
Data in bold was during a period that the plant was experiencing Interference.
Ammonia
(mg/L)
kr1
O
s
7r
O
0.03
0.08
N
O
—1
,--I
N
0
01
,--I
0
V)
N
0
0.64
0.28
0.30
.-1
O
TSS
(mg/L)
,--4
'--4
NI
tq
.--1
.--i
'--i
.--,
s
M
.--i
00
Ir..:O
.--,
O
.--
tr,
14.2
M
O
.--i
O
a,
.--i
20.0
BOD
(mg/L)
12.0
©
O
O
r 12.0
7.1
6.8
s
M
k 1
l�
M
Plant Influent
a�
oN
12
10
enencc)d-
18
22
el
24
cc)
18
el
O
5
.4
la
TSS
(mg/L)
546
M
O�
M
471
O
O_
\O
,
.--i
.--i
560
1385
1735
BOD
(mg/L)
725
01
603
547
835
1352
O
71-
Il
O
N
[ 620
878
1124
w
A
0.076
1/1
O
0
C71
O
0
0.079
0.076 1
0.063
0.084
0.065 J
0.060
VD
O
0
VD
O
0
N
O
0
ct
61
a)
4
2013
.M�
©(NI
.M—i
O
.M-i
©
2013
..
©
.M�
©
en
..
O
2013
2013
2013
2013
Month
...
a
O
February
Q.,
�-�
June
July
August
September
October
November
a•.
N
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC

Table 3.4
North Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Violations (6/2009 - 6/2010)
Action or Penalty
Date issued
Parameter of concern
Status
Special Order by Consent
None
Judicial Order
None
Civil Penalty Assessment
None
Notice of Violation
Oct-10
Flow
Nov-10
Flow
Dec-10
Flow
3.5.2 McLin Wastewater Treatment Plant
The McLin Creek WWTP was originally constructed in 1992 and currently serves the
area in Sub -basin "2" as shown in Figure 3.1. This WWTP discharges its treated effluent to
McLin Creek which is a tributary to Lyle Creek.
The McLin Creek WWTP is an activated
sludge treatment facility utilizing the Intermittent
Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) process.
Headworks include a mechanical bar screen and grit
removal. Flow is treated in two separate ICEAS basins
through aeration, settling, and decantation. Effluent
from the ICEAS basins is further treated by tertiary
sand filters followed by chlorine disinfection and dechlorination, with final discharge into McLin
Creek. The plant has a current design capacity of 0.300
million gallons per day with a present day average
flow of 0.136 million gallons per day. A schematic of
the plant is presented in Figure 3.4. The design criteria
for the plant are presented in Table 3.5. Presented in
Table 3.6 is the NPDES permit discharge limits for the
plant. Presented in Table 3.7 is a summary of the
plant's recent performance. During a portion of this
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 13
City of Claremont, NC

operational period the plant was subject to an unknown non -domestic discharge that resulted in
interference with the biological treatment process. Other than this period of interference, it can
be observed the plant is capable of providing extremely good wastewater treatment.
According to Claremont's Annual Wastewater Quality Report from July 2009 to June
2010, the plant had 12 Notice of Violations (NOV's) related to BOD and ammonia levels. It is
believed that these violations are primarily associated with non -domestic discharges which are
being addressed through more diligent enforcement of the City's Sewer Use Ordinance. A
summary of those violations is presented in Table 3.8.
Planned upgrades and maintenance at the McLin WWTP include; replacing the sand
filter media, refurbishing the tertiary filter pipe gallery; replacing the bar screen and grit removal
system; and installation of a SCADA control system. Also, the McLin WWTP's current
emergency generator only powers the lift station at the head of the plant. An upgrade for an
emergency generator to run the entire plant is proposed.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 114
City of Claremont, NC

astewater Treatment Plant De
i..
U
cn
Ct
U 0 Y
CU
�,CU
4.
a ad 0
0 at =(-7 .0 4 cn
a) a U E aO N -o 1p
o N O ,z? Q O o 0 PQ ›' "" 00 4
ON= >V]O ZP,(.) (/]kE-1o.
a
V1
w
o
o U
w
w a
a)
0
cia
O 0
40 to
cn cid
t.
• ,..0. o — 0 L p• 0 ate)
cn N U cn N d E—i O (.) N EB (.) p~
U O
cu
O O'v y 0 :„
fl0 Y W V C� N U cC .0 •O
i ce' c1 ▪ ▪ � ' `' �
Z(�¢C7C7 Z�3 Zw 915
t
°
cd _6 6 -6 6 W b!l V] cd _6 U -d N W _6 U Q
1-1
111
U
U
�..yy
cu act
0 .5
o 16 Flo
pi,y E
Z -o
cd_6 6 cA 6-
N
0 a..
cu
1) j Z
o
EZ rien
;.
a)
E
E 'C
0 a)
czt
U a0i
E>,
U
cn
_°N E E
Q • , • 1 0 A 0 P1 V PQ
U
cl N coo 0 0 N O O O Q" cC 0? 0 [� O� 0 0 0 0 O N O
1.�.I O O N N M l ,--- N ,--i ,--i ,--i (� V] H O ,--1 0 a H V] cn O w O `O
13. S1ud2e Processin
cd

N
M
00
0.1
z
z
it
G>
CA
w
A
a
z
0
Effluent Limits
cv
c
A
d
a
1
00
N
Notes: a = Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal)
get
d
-al
N
24.0 mg/L
45 mg/L
i-
12 mg/L
400 / 100 m1
Monthly
Average
0.300
8.0 mg/L
16.0 mg/L
a
E
©
M
2.0 mg/L
4.0 mg/L
200 / l00 m1
Parameters
G.
E
0
w
BOD, 5 day, 20°Ca (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)
BOD, 5 day, 20°Ca (Nov 1 thru Mar
31)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
NH3 as N (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)
NH3 as N (Nov 1 thru Mar 31)
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)

i."
CC
E
Fol
i.i
Ctt
CC
it
MV
cet
i.i
5
CA
C.e
eel
E
it
4-1
it
Plant Effluent
it
M
N
Ch
--1
7.2
N
N
0'L
O
Data in bold was during a period that the plant was experiencing Interference.
Ammonia
(mg/L)
O
0.08
1.36
2.04
N
0.20
Si'0
O
O
0.46
TSS
(mg/L)
a
N
O
("Ni
7.2
VO
ri
oo
O
00
4
VO
kri
O
kn
3.7
O
N
O
N
BOD
(mg/L)
4.7
M
01
15.0
O
O
18.0
O
v�-1
14.0
O
M
2.9
Plant Influent
E^
.O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
14.0
14.0
Ammonia
(mg/L)
—
M
N
N
27.6
23.5
O
N
27.8
s
24.2
M
29.5
O
—
con
HI
z,
147
200
150
112
294
238
264
295
308
289
A
PO
Z.
bA
E
149
183
148
-
M
107
234
,-�
—
tN
214
194
202
CIA
w
u►
--
\O
o
kr)
0
0.132
kr)
0
M
0
0.141
0.209
a1
a1
0
0
0.143
M
0
�O
DD
0
iw
CI
'+
M
O
N
M
O
N
M
O
N
2013
M
O
NNNNNNNN
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
Month
0
cd ti
N
w
Q
��
June
July
August
N
N
October
November
December

Table 3.8
McLin Creek Wastewater Plant Permit Violations (6/2009 - 6/2010)
Action or Penalty
Date issued
Parameter of concern
Status
Special Order by Consent
None
Judicial Order
None
Civil Penalty Assessment
None
Notice of Violation
Feb-10
NH3
Mar-10
NH3
Nov-10
NH3
Jun-09
BOD
Apr-10
BOD
Nov-10
BOD
Dec-10
BOD
Jun-10
Fecal
3.5.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment
As previously mentioned both the North and McLin Creek WWTP's have had periods of
non -compliant treatment due to interference caused by non -domestic wastewater being
discharged to the sewer system. Otherwise, both of these plants are capable of providing
adequate wastewater treatment. From inspection it is apparent that the North WWTP is nearing
the end of its mechanical life and will need to be replaced or decommissioned in the near future.
By comparison the McLin Creek WWTP is about 20 years old and in generally good structural
and mechanical condition. This plant is capable of providing many more years of service to the
City of Claremont.
Provided in Table 3.9 is a summary of the wastewater flow being received by these two
treatment plants for the years 2012 and 2013. Both plants are operating within their design
capacities. Their combined rated capacity and current wastewater flow is 0.4 MGD and 0.214
MGD respectively.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 19
City of Claremont, NC

Table 3.9
Wastewater Flow Summary
Month
Year
McLin
Flow
North
Flow
Total
Flow
Total
Rainfall
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Inches
January
2012
0.125
0.063
0.188
1.0
February
2012
0.126
0.061
0.187
1.1
March
2012
0.133
0.064
0.197
2.3
April
2012
0.122
0.065
0.187
2.3
May
2012
0.151
0.049
0.200
5.7
June
2012
0.131
0.055
0.186
2.4
July
2012
0.137
0.054
0.191
4.2
August
2012
0.141
0.057
0.198
5.8
September
2012
0.141
0.061
0.202
6.4
October
2012
0.133
0.067
0.200
2.2
November
2012
0.113
0.076
0.189
0.4
December
2012
0.119
0.104*
0.223
4.6
January
2013
0.161
0.076
0.237
7.4
February
2013
0.157
0.075
0.232
3.8
March
2013
0.132
0.069
0.201
2.6
April
2013
0.154
0.079
0.233
7.1
May
2013
0.135
0.076
0.211
4.6
June
2013
0.141
0.063
0.204
6.4
July
2013
0.209
0.084
0.293
10.15
August
2013
0.199
0.065
0.264
3.9
September
2013
0.155
0.060
0.215
2.7
October
2013
0.143
0.061
0.204
1.9
November
2013
0.153
0.066
0.219
4.4
December
2013
0.186
0.077
0.263
7.0
Monthly Average
0.146
0.068
0.214
Peak Month
0.209
0.084
0.293
Plant Capacity
0.300
0.100
0.400
*_High flow due to water line leak to sewer
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 120

As can be observed from Table 3.9 treatment capacity is available for transfer of flow
from the North WWTP to the McLin Creek WWTP. However, doing so leaves little capacity
remaining for future growth without the expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP.
3.5.4 Wet Weather Flow Assessment
Both treatment plants are subject to infiltration and inflow (UI). Inflow into a collection
system is usually regarded as stormwater runoff that enters a system through manholes,
cleanouts, or other above ground openings in direct response to a rainfall event. Infiltration
enters the system as groundwater, through cracked pipes, poor connections, or deteriorating
sections of the sanitary sewer system. Infiltration can also be induced by a rainfall event(s). UI
has a negative impact on the sanitary sewer system as it utilizes the capacities of the plants,
collection lines, and pump stations that would otherwise be available to convey wastewater. It
has also the potential to cause sewer overflows during wet weather conditions.
In reviewing UI contribution to each plant, an analysis was made of daily and monthly
flow records and presented in Table 3.10. From this analysis January thru April 2012 represents
a dry weather period for the study area with little or no UI. The total recorded wastewater flow
for April 2012 was 0.187 MGD and is considered to represent Base Dry Weather Daily Average
Flow. During the following month (May 2012) a significant rainfall event occurred with five
inches of rain over a three day period. Wastewater flow resulting from this rainfall event is
considered to represent Peak Day Rainfall Induced UI and totals 0.474 MGD. Then, the UI
resulting from this significant rainfall event would be the difference between the Peak Day
Rainfall Induced Flow and the Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow or 0.287 MGD.
The Maximum Monthly Average Base UI was quantified to be the difference between the
Maximum Monthly Average Flow recorded for the 2012 assessment period as documented in
Table 3.9 and the Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow. Include in the Appendix A is
supporting daily flow data for the period of analysis. Provided in Table 3.10 is summary of this
flow assessment. From this assessment the Maximum Monthly Average Base UI total expected
during a wet month is approximately 40,000 gallons per day.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 21
City of Claremont, NC

Table 3.10
Wet Weather Flow Assessment
Flow Condition
McLin
Flow
North
Flow
Total
Flow
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow
0.122
0.065
0.187
Peak Day Rainfall Induced Flow
0.331
0.143
0.474
Peak Day Rainfall Induced I/1
0.209
0.078
0.287
Maximum Monthly Average Flow
0.151
0.076
0.224
Maximum Monthly Average Base I/1
0.029
0.011
0.040
During the period of July and August of 2013 the region experienced extremely
abnormal rainfall resulting in uncharacteristic amounts of infiltration and inflow. For this reason
this data was not considered representative for purposes of this study.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 22
City of Claremont, NC

Section 4.0 — Future Condition
4.1. General
This section will present an assessment of future condition in the planning area that will
establish the need for future wastewater treatment facilities.
4.2 Population Forecast
Presented in Table 4.1 is population data and projections for Catawba County according
to the U.S. Census.
Table 4.1
Population Projections
Catawba County, NC
Year
Po • ulation
(%) Increase
2000
141,685
2010(Estimated)
159,125
2010
154,358
8.94
2030(Estimated)
196,477
27.28
As was shown in Figure 3.1, the Claremont wastewater service area consists of two Sub -
basins. Wastewater collected in Sub -basin 1 is conveyed to the North Wastewater Treatment
Plant and wastewater collected in Sub -basin 2 is conveyed to the McLin Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Using population data provided by the Western Piedmont Council of
Government (WPCOG) for these sub -basins, and 27.28% projected increases in County
population, the population of each sub -basin has been projected and presented in Table 4.2.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 23
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.2
Planning Area Population Projections
City of Claremont, NC
Sub -Basin
Po • ulation
2010
2030
1
921
1172
2
3408
4337
TOTAL
4329
5509
4.3 Projected Wastewater Flow
Wastewater flow for the 20 year planning period has been projected and presented in
Table 4.3 based upon anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial growth within each sub -
basin. Current base flow is projected to increase in proportion to the overall population growth
rate presented in the previous section. In addition, historical growth patterns for the County have
indicated that the percentage of population provided sewer service has increased approximately
0.3% per year. Over a 20 year planning period this would represent an overall increase of
approximately 6.0% in the population served.
Future commercial/industrial flow was calculated based on the land area that has been
zoned for industrial and/or commercial development within the service area. Wastewater flow
was estimated using a projected development flow of 880 gallons per acre per day as prescribed
by NCDENR standards for non-residential developments where types of use and occupancy are
not known. It is recognized that industrial flow projections are subject to wide variation and
could substantially exceed this projection. The Town of Claremont and Catawaba County are
actively seeking industrial and commercial development within the service area and to
accommodate that development adequate wastewater treatment service is critical.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 24
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.3
Planning Area Wastewater Flow Projections
Item
North WWTP
Sub- Basin 1
McLin WWTP
Sub -Basin 2
Total Projected
Flow
Current Base Flow, MGD
0.065
0.122
0.187
Population Growth Rate
27.28%
27.28%
Service Extension Rate
6%
6%
Projected Base Flow, MGD
0.088
0.165
0.253
Ind./Commercial Site Area, ac.
238
163
Flow / Acre, GPD
880
880
Projected Ind./Commercial Flow, MGD
0.209
0.143
0.352
Monthly Avg. Base I/I Flow, MGD
0.011
0.029
0.037
Total Projected Flow, MGD
0.308
0.337
0.645
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. Residential,
commercial, and industrial growth opportunities could rapidly create the need for capacity
beyond that projected in Table 4.3. To insure adequate wastewater treatment capacity if
available to accommodate growth and development opportunities, it is recommended that the
City increase wastewater treatment capacity to 1.2 MGD with provisions for further expansion as
the need arises.
4.4 Projected Wastewater Characteristics
The primary customer base for the City of Claremont is not expected to change materially
during the planning period. From evaluation of historical wastewater characteristics for both the
North and the McLin Creek WWTP's the projected raw wastewater specification is as presented
in Table 4.4. This specification will be used in the planning for WWTP upgrade and expansions.
The City's Sewer Use Ordinance will need to be utilized to require industries having wastewater
with high organic loading provide pretreatment of their wastewater prior to discharge to the City
sewer system.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 25
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.4
Projected Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Parameter
Monthly Average
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), mg/1
300
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/1
300
Ammonia, mg/1
30
pH
7
Max. Temperature, C
20
Min. Temperature, C
12
4.5 Speculative Effluent Limits
In anticipation of the adding WWTP capacity to meet future needs of the City of
Claremont, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
was requested to provide Speculative Effluent Limits. These limits describe the expected quality
that the effluent from the WWTP would have to meet prior to its discharge to Mull Creek and
McLin Creek at various future plant discharge flow rates. Presented in Table 4.5 is a summary
of the Speculative Effluent Limits for the most critical parameters. A copy of the NCDENR
Speculative Limits letter for McLin Creek is included in Appendix B.
The rational for the Speculative Effluent for McLin Creek WWTP was supported by the
water quality study of Lyle Creek and McLin Creek performed by HydroAnalysis, Inc.
commissioned by the City of Claremont and the City of Conover in conjunction with NCDENR.
The indicated effluent limits for the North WWTP and McLin Creek WWTP are
obtainable with current treatment technology as evidenced by the current performance of these
treatment plants. Enforcement of the City's Sewer Use Ordinance will continue to be critical to
guard against plant up -sets caused by discharge of non-compliance industrial waste.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 26
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.5
Speculative Effluent Limits
Parameter
Mull Creek,
Monthly Average
McLin Creek,
Monthly Average
WWTP
North WWTP
McLin Creek WWTP
Flow, MGD
0.25
1.2
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), Summer/Winter, mg/1
8.0/16.0
8.0/12.0
Ammonia, Summer/Winter,
2.0/4.0
2.0/4.0
mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
5.0
5.0
Ultimate Oxygen Demand,
Summer/Winter , #/d
44/88
52.5/105
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 27
City of Claremont, NC

Section 5.0 — Purpose and Need
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. To accommodate
growth and development opportunities it will be essential the City have adequate wastewater
treatment infrastructure. Wastewater flow projections indicate a total wastewater treatment
capacity need for the City's service area of approximately 0.64 MGD for the 20 year planning
period. However, residential, commercial, and industrial growth opportunities could rapidly
create the need for capacity beyond that projected. Planning for a total wastewater treatment
capacity of 1.2 MGD is proposed with provisions for further expansion as the need arises.
The City of Claremont's participation in the proposed Catawba WWTP being constructed
by the City of Hickory would have been an alternative for meeting its future wastewater
treatment capacity needs. However, negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and
conditions for the City of Claremont's participation in the Catawba WWTP were not successful.
Accordingly, the City of Claremont authorized this Engineering Alternative Analysis report to
evaluate alternatives for the upgrade and expansion of their existing WWTP's to meet their
future wastewater treatment needs.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 28
City of Claremont, NC

Section 6.0 — Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
In previous sections of this report the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity
was identified. This section will present alternatives available to the City of Claremont.
6.2 Wastewater Treatment Alternative Description
There are several alternatives which are not considered viable as described below:
Do -Nothing Alternative: As addressed previously in this report the City of Claremont's
existing WWTP's do not have adequate treatment capacity to meet the projected future needs of
the City's service area. Due to its age and condition, the North WWTP cannot continue to
provide reliable and NPDES permit compliant wastewater treatment without upgrade. For these
principal reasons this alternative in not viable.
Regional Alternative: The alternative of connection to the City of Hickory's Catawba
WWTP was actively considered; however, as previously discussed attempts to negotiate
acceptable terms and conditions for the City's of Claremont's participation in this facility have
not been successful. Therefore, this alternative is not viable.
Provided below is a description of each of the available wastewater treatment alternatives
evaluated by this study.
Alternative A
This alternative would provide for the upgrade and expansion of both the North WWTP
and the McLin Creek WWTP. Due to its age and condition it is proposed that the existing North
WWTP be replaced at the same location and would continue to discharge treated effluent to Mull
Creek. It is further proposed that the new North WWTP would provide a capacity of 0.3 MGD
and would utilize the same treatment process as that current utilized at the McLin Creek WWTP
in order to simplify plant operation and maintenance for plant operational staff. The McLin
Creek WWTP would be upgraded and expanded to a capacity of 0.9 MGD utilizing it current
treatment process and continue to discharge to McLin Creek.
Since the initiation of this Engineering Alternative Analysis report, the City of Claremont
has decided to proceed with the decommissioning of the North WWTP. This decision was
based upon the age and condition of the North WWTP, the anticipated costs for its upgrade and
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 29
City of Claremont, NC

expansion, the location of the plant, and the desire to consolidate wastewater treatment at one
location. The City has taken steps to provide for the design and construction of the wastewater
transmission system that would convey the wastewater from the North WWTP to the McLin
WWTP. This alternative will not be further considered.
Alternative B
With the planned decommissioning of the North WWTP and all wastewater treatment
consolidated at the McLin Creek WWTP, the McLin Creek WWTP would be upgraded and
expanded to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing its current ICEAS Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR)
treatment process and continue to discharge treated effluent to McLin Creek. Two additional
SBR treatment cells would be required as well as expansion of the existing effluent filters.
Alternative B is considered a viable alternative and will receive further evaluation. Presented in
Figure 6.1 is a schematic of the proposed upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP
utilizing the ICEAS SBR treatment process.
Alternative C
This alternative is similar to Alternative B in that all wastewater treatment will be
consolidated at the McLin Creek WWTP. With this alternative the existing McLin Creek
WWTP would be upgraded and expanded to a capacity of 1.2 MGD by converting the existing
ICEAS SBR treatment cells to membrane biological reactors (MBR). No additional treatment
tankage would be needed and the existing tertiary filters would no longer be required. Effluent
from the MBR would continue to be discharge to McLin Creek. The MBR process would
produce a superior quality effluent giving the City additional assurance of meeting NPDES
permit limits and also provide an effluent quality suitable for reuse. Alternative C is considered
a viable alternative and will receive further evaluation. Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of
the proposed upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP utilizing the MBR treatment
process.
Alternative D
With this alternative the McLin Creek WWTP would be upgraded and expanded as
described in Alternative B to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing its current SBR treatment process
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 130
City of Claremont, NC

however treated effluent would be land applied instead of discharged to McLin Creek. Three
methods of land application are available:
• Rapid Infiltration — The use of rapid infiltration system requires the presence of
highly permeable soils. Most soils within Catawba County do not have high
enough infiltration rates to support rapid infiltration. Thus, rapid infiltration was
eliminated as a feasible land application alternative.
• Overland Flow — Overland flow systems are generally comprised of slopes
between 2% and 8%, and require large tracts of land. The slopes of land
surrounding the existing WWTP are excessive Thus, the overland flow process
is also eliminated.
• Slow Rate Land Application — The slow rate process is normally referred to as
irrigation. Based on the site characteristics criteria for slow rate systems, the
forested and agricultural areas in close vicinity of the existing McLin Creek
WWTP appear to be suitable for this type of land application and thus this
alternative will be further evaluated. At a typical application rate of 2 inches per
week, approximately 280 acres will be required for land application and buffer
areas. Presented in Figure 6.3 is a map showing the location of potential land
application sites. The three sites identified meet the acreage requirement for land
application. Other sites may also be available. For purposes of this preliminary
analysis it was assumed that these sites are suitable and available for acquisition
by the City. It is further assumed that crop revenue will be sufficient to offset
crop management and harvesting cost.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 131
City of Claremont, NC

STORAGE BLDG
O
O w
C
mot
UV DISINFECTION
ZZ
fi
FILTER CELLS
fi
4
4
FM
ss
ss
fi
141.
Q
(n
CL
0 Z
CL
N
0
40
NEW HEADWORKS
DATE: 10/6/2014 I PROJECT NO.: 041018.03
FIGURE 6.1 - ALTERNATIVE "B"
PROPOSED McLIN CREEK PROCESS SCHEMATIC

STORAGE BLDG
ss
WCD J
p
(n =
p
I❑L
SS
W
CD
V)
CO C5
m
POST AERATION
SS
11111
CL CD
0
w
N
Z Z
W W
w W
U
N N
Z Z
WC'
p p
J
CC CO
C.�
w
=
0
J
CO
2
2
u/O
CC
0
Q
CC = N w
aww CD
Z : V
CL
BAR SCREEN
C7
O
O
LC)
CD
CC
N COO O
W N N
rZ
U Z N
M
CD CO
Ln =
M
pp �
•e:,l!
•
PROJECT NO.: 041018.03
DATE: 10/6/2014
FIGURE 6.2 - ALTERNATIVE "C"
PROPOSED McLIN CREEK PROCESS SCHEMATIC

I IJ - LTER TI E D
EglarAMIKI PROJECT NO.: 041018.0 '

Section 7.0 — Wastewater Treatment Alternative Evaluation
7.1 Introduction
The various alternatives which have been indentified will now be evaluated with respect
to monetary factors (present worth value) and non -monetary factors such as environmental
effects, implementation capability, treatment reliability, energy consumption, and operational
complexity. The most cost effective alternative is determined by consideration of both the
monetary and non -monetary factors.
7.2 Present Worth Analysis
Present worth value (PWV) is the primary tool for comparing the monetary value of
alternatives. PWV is determined by converting the initial capital costs, annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, and future salvage value of an alternative to present day dollars.
Capital cost estimates include costs of contractor mobilization, structures, mechanical
equipment, piping, buildings, electrical work, instrumentation & controls, sitework, and
allowances for construction contingencies and technical services. Capital costs presented in this
report are preliminary, and are based upon information currently available. The cost estimates
were developed from a variety of sources including equipment manufacturers, contractors, and
in-house calculations. Actual construction costs will be influenced by final site conditions,
regulatory requirements, detailed engineering design, market conditions at the time of bidding
for construction services, inflation, time constraints, and other factors outside the scope of this
analysis.
Annual operation and maintenance expenses include both fixed and variable expense
items including labor, power, chemicals, supplies, and minor repairs to equipment. Labor
expense estimates are based upon that currently experienced by the Town of Claremont and other
similar sized WWTP's. Power and chemical usage are variable expense items and have been
estimated considering process requirements. The costs used to estimate power and chemical
costs are based on the current market.
The service life of all proposed equipment included in the various alternatives is assumed
to be 20 years. Therefore, equipment replacement costs are not a part of the cost present worth
calculation. The useful life of concrete structures and piping was estimated at 40 years. Future
salvage values were calculated based upon straight-line depreciation of the initial costs over the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 135
City of Claremont, NC

useful life span of the plant component. The value of land was assumed to have a constant value
throughout the life of the project.
Detail estimates of capital costs, O&M costs, and salvage value were developed for each
wastewater treatment alternative. Construction of each alternative was considered to be
implemented in two phases. The first phase would be implemented immediately and provide for
a treatment capacity of 0.8 MGD. The second phase would be implemented in 10 years and
would provide for the upgrade and expansion to a treatment capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in
Table 7.1 is a summary of those estimates along with the calculated present worth value of each
alternative. The detail estimates are included in the Appendix C to this report.
Table 7.1
Cost Summary and Present Worth Value
Item
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Phase 1 Capital Cost
$4,994,178
$6,011,772
$8,123,164
Phase 2 Capital Cost
$2,118,026
$1,021,487
$3,590,119
Total Capital Cost
$7,112,204
$7,033,259
$11,713,283
Average Annual O&M
$394,588
$415,709
$408,949
Expense
Salvage Value
$1,450,394
$740,480
$3,169,760
Present Worth Value
$11,637,606
$12,546,576
$15,123,666
7.3 Alternative Ranking & Selection
To determine the most cost effective alternative a composite ranking of each alternative
was determined based upon monetary factors represented by PWV and non -monetary factors
represented by environmental effects, implementation capability, treatment reliability, energy
consumption, and operational complexity. Presented in Table 7.2 is the composite rankings
assigned to each evaluated alternative. In performing the ranking, possible values ranged from 1
to 3 with 3 representing the most desirable rank. When alternatives appear to have similar
characteristics, the ranking given would be equal.
• Environmental Effects — Construction of Alternatives B and C would be within
the current plant site which would be an advantage. Construction of Alternative
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 136
City of Claremont, NC

D would require acquisition and development of additional property. Alternative
C would provide superior quality effluent for discharge to McLin Creek or reuse
by industry and others. Alternative D would have no discharge. Secondary
environmental impacts of each alternative are considered equal. An
Environmental Alternative Assessment will be prepared that will evaluate the
environmental impact in more detail.
• Implementation Capability — Implementation of Alternative C would have the
advantage over the other alternatives since the treatment plant could be expanded
by retrofitting the existing treatment basin with MBR equipment. Implementation
of Alternative D would be hindered by the acquisition of additional property for
the land application sites.
• Treatment Reliability — The current SBR treatment process has on occasion
experienced difficulty producing consistent treatment results that have been
attributed to non -compliant industrial discharge. The MBR treatment process
operates at a much higher biomass concentration that makes the process less
susceptible to biological upset. Also the membrane filtration process eliminates
the biomass settability issues often experienced by SBR and activated sludge
treatment processes that result in poor treatment performance.
• Energy Consumption — Energy requirements were estimated for each alternative.
Alternative B had the least 20 year energy cost followed by Alternative D and
then Alternative C.
• Operational Complexity — The Alternative C utilizing the MBR treatment process
would be less complex to operate due to the elimination of biomass settability as
an operating parameter. In addition tertiary filtration would no longer be
required. Alternative D would have the lowest rank due to the need to operate a
spray field in addition to the WWTP.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 137
City of Claremont, NC

Table 7.2
Alternative Ranking
Evaluation
Factor
Factor
Weight
Alternative B
SBR
Alternative C
MBR
Alternative D
SBR w/LA
Rank
Value
Rank
Value
Rank
Value
PWV
25
3
75
2
50
1
25
Environmental
Effects
20
2
40
3
60
2
40
Implementation
Capability
10
2
20
3
30
1
10
Treatment
Reliability
20
1
20
3
60
2
40
Energy
Consumption
10
3
30
1
10
2
20
Operational
Complexity
15
2
30
3
45
1
15
Total Value
100
215
255
150
Alternative C received the highest ranking and is therefore deemed the most cost effective
alternative considering both monetary and non -monetary cost.
7.4 Selected Plan Description
Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of the McLin Creek WWTP illustrating the scope
of the proposed upgrade and expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in Table 7.2 are the
proposed design criteria for the plant upgrade and expansion. The upgrade and expansion of the
McLin Creek WWTP would consist of the following major components:
• Course Influent Screening: The existing headworks would be modified to include
two manual bar screens to provide course influent screening to protect the
downstream influent pump station.
• Influent Pump Station: The existing influent pump station would be upgraded
with the installation of new influent pumps, piping, and controls.
• Fine Screening: Rotary drum fine screen are proposed to be installed as required
to protect the membrane in the MBR. Drum screen will have two levels of
screening and will remove particles in the wastewater down to 1.6 mm in size.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 138
City of Claremont, NC

• MBR Process: The MBR process will consist of three treatment cells: (1) an
anoxic cell, (2) a preaeration cell, and (3) a membrane reactor cells. The two
existing sludge holding tanks will be retrofitted with the installation of mixing and
diffused aeration systems to create the anoxic and pre aeration cells respectively.
The existing SBR basins will be retrofitted to create the membrane reactor cells
with the installation of a new diffused aeration system and submerged flat plate
membrane filtration units. Pumps will be installed to provide internal recycle of
mixed liquor from the membrane reactor cell back to the anoxic cell. Additional
pumps will be installed to pull treated water or permeate through the membranes
for final treatment and discharge.
• Disinfection: The existing chlorine disinfection system will be replaced with an
ultra -violet (UV) light disinfection system.
• Sludge Holding: A new 300,000 gallons sludge holding tank will be provided to
store and thicken sludge prior to disposal in the County's regional sludge
composting facility.
The upgrade and expansion would be accomplished in two phases. The initial phase
would provide for a capacity of 0.8 MGD. The second phase would increase the capacity to 1.2
MGD. A scope of the first phase would include all those plant components presented in Table
7.2 with the following adjustments:
• Influent Pump Station — Pumps would be installed to accommodate an initial peak
wet weather flow of 2.3 MGD. These pumps would be replaced in the second
phase expansion.
• Membrane Biological Reactor (MBR) — The initial number of MBR filtration
units installed would be 20. With expansion to 1.2 MGD an additional 10 units
would be installed for a total of 30 units.
• UV Disinfection — The initial number of UV lamp modules would be 8. With
expansion to 1.2 MGD an additional 2 units would be installed.
It should be noted that studies have shown that the MBR process has the capability to
remove bacteria and virus to levels equal or better than that achieved by chlorine or UV
disinfection. In recognition of this fact, several States no longer require disinfection after the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 139
City of Claremont, NC

MBR process. If NC DENR would approve elimination of the requirement for disinfection,
significant capital and operational cost savings could be realized.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 40
City of Claremont, NC

M
N
r Treatment Plant Pro
Lin Creek Wastewat
Fine Bubble
Submersible
0)
°
E
°
cat
tI.
a>
co
o
cn
a. o
rzl
0 0
v) - t4 0
ct a 0 U
. PO cn ct
�'u �'u o o a. 0
o
00 Ucn0000 co°�s- d06 UcH UP4
a>
0
0.
0
0 0
cn N E a,
E, et mA-
Zel
�. - y °' R' asi a> a�i a4 0
° ° �.a 0~- 0~ o
I) E0 0E0cuE U
aaZ IE- ,Z -,Z
as ca m
azi_6 o-o czi_6 o cd oA
1-1
a.
E
E
a
0p
E 0
a,
0 E ay 4.,U '
•7 C7 (.7 -2 0
CQ7 LQ7 Q o°'n LQ7 °0 � a
NOM OOOON p.p.p v V] O O MO
,--1MM MMNN,--I 0000N HN-- NH -.en OO 0O4-, cipH6cn—i
co a)
+0 0
3 Q o 0
oxx
; 0
oQ a) a)
p.
- o
cn
N
•
0
•
0
0 0
an
.0 = - a0>
ot
E� Z
czi _6 U 'G Lt.
cci -6 o -c
Anoxic Treatment Cell
0
4 A
N
U a> a,
o o =
Zu
, ar
0
0
6
wo
U
z
E
a)
U
0
N
ocS

7.5 Financial Analysis
Presented in Table 7.3 is the estimated operational expense for the first year of operation.
Annual debt service as presented in this table is based upon capital financing at two percent for a
period of 20 years. Debt service may be less than that indicated depending upon the amount of
any construction grants received by the City or reserve fund contributions made by the City to
help finance construction cost. Currently the City of Claremont contracts with the City of
Hickory for the O&M of the existing WWTP's. Presented in the Appendix D and summarized in
Table 7.3 is an estimate of the first year O&M expense for the upgraded and expanded McLin
Creek WWTP based upon operational cost observed for similar treatment facilities and with the
City providing in-house operation.
Table 7.4
First Year Operational Cost
Item
Alternative A
Annual Debt Service
$367,660
Initial Annual O&M Expense
$362,913
Total Annual Expense
$730,573
Annual Wastewater Billings, MG
62.06
Unit Cost, $/1000 gal.
$11.77
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 42
City of Claremont, NC

APPENDIX A

Q
sic
Oil It
a 0
Z
0.
4
0 E
s" co
4.1 too
0
•
Month of April Flow
•
Y)
_ O)
N
CO
t`
CAI
_ CO
N
- N
.
r
N
0
N
_ 0)
_ CO
r
_CCa
r
d
N
r
L
L
r
r
0
r
C)
- co
0
L 1.0
c))
N
1 1 I 1 1 I r
O 0 CO i� 0 0 %Ct. M N r O
r d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 6 O 0 O O o 0 0 0 0
(am) MOjJ
Claremont - North
4.50
Fell
t2
0
riC
0 0 O 0 0
C? LO O 117 O
'r!' Cr> Ch Cal C4
0
0
O
r
(segouj) jju;u e
0
Lc)
0
0
d
Claremont - North
0 0© 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O C 11 Na• o o1 o g q q q q O Ca Cal (0.o o o o ro
O 066600000000 00000066000
C))
CO
C)
0
00 O
CO CO O -.
C). CI q
0 0 o O
00 Ln CO
O O O
O 0 0
CO N
'o o 0
0CR OC) O
C3 soo O o
O O O O O
O "# o o d
0 0 0 0 0
0 CP 0 0 0 0 0 0
O d O o 0 o d
LO
00
O O
00000
[*� C> h-
N 0 0
NtONzt-LO
'41 CO O) (O
C3) 0 0 0
r o 0 O
N
t� N d' ►o CO tom -co C3) O r N CO 'cif' Lt') CO IN" CO 0)0 r N CO d 10 CO to-- CO CD 0
rrrrrrry-rrtVNNNNNNNNNM o }C }
•

c
0
tit a
CL
4.-. o
E
niC
visa Cts
0
_
a
tfax
Inc
N
0 0 0
r'
0
gr-
W ein) Mou
0 0
0 0
Claremont - McLin
u)
c)
0 0 0 0© C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C YocyooNw00000000000Nc0000
000000000000000000000
Month of April Rainfall
f ! ! I t f 1 1
00000 000000
le o LO o In o lr) a In o
tot4 4 CY5Ce5NC\IrIr. 66
(segouu) lltiuje j
Claremont - McLin
2 co
r-
046.
Cti r- N M d 10 CC) N. Co 1:5) r
co
0
0
IO tC)
00
NCO r
'sr N
r r
0 00
N
rn
0
0
to
r-
0
0
0
Ca r
MtO
0
r r
000
o> 0 vict
0 o
0 0
o o co
r r r
000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oroott000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 N. CO 0
r r 0 r
0000
m
co
r
0
01)
0 r
0 0
o 0 0 co
N 0 0 0
co N. N
co N. N
O r r
000
0
m
cN"-rrrrrova rrc\I\INNNNNNNNN0 W d X 0
•

irm
tend o
via CO
0
CN
Month of May Flow
1
O
N
O o
O
0
co
0
O
CD
O
0 0
C7 o
(aoul9 MOIL
C7
r
N
r
0
r
0)
co
(U
(Y)
N
r
0
O
Claremont North
rvi
0)
wc
C) O O
C O O
0
co
n to to
.V. CR O
� 0 0
0000000000000
O O O O Co 0 CO N 0 0 0 0 Cl
d66666Oddd6oe5
0 CO OD itzt 00
00000
0 0 0 0 0
Cfl0C010NCOfN-
1.0MCON�Ntst
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
1
r- N Cc) d to cb 1s. 00 C)
Month of May Rainfall
occ0000000ck000coamxpoo
Lf rnocptO ") too
rr 000x3Xd00t-d--ococ tC» d'C'X X\ Nr-1-OO
rrrr
(salmi!) I1L';U1e,I
Claremont - North
•
O
cp.
000066C3600oco d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO O 0 0 0 0 r r Opp o p
CO 'srO
00
CO to
0 CO
00
CO CO
00
11"-0)0)000O
NCOMt.C)t0tp
000O00
0 0 0 0 0 0
hNU')
O O 0
0 0 0
0 0
LO
1-0
00
00000
ts.00r
tnO()6
ct fact
r
0 0
NMd`t0CC) Is-000)0r•NMe iOCO 000)0r C0
N.-Tr' rr--r--t-t--hlNNNNNNNNNoco ro • ?C 0
i�rJ tU
H Q

Month of May Flow
0
a
C 0) N N I o © 00
0 a 0 0 0 O Ca O
(dovt[) MOu
Claremont-. McLin
Month of May Rainfall
0
CO
- N
co
O
N
N
N
CO
N
N
r
N
0
N
0)
ti--
00
r
r
CO
r
R()
CO
r
0
r
0>
co
CO
N
1 1 1 1 1 1 f I 1 it Ili 1 1 1 1 11
000000000000000000000000
OOU)OIOoEOoLootoo Loan °Inotnoioo c,
rr-rr
(se !pup [leJuie�
Claremont - Main
r-.
0 0 0 CO
.�
Door:
0 0 0 a a o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 000000016 o CO o
c O O O O Q O O c>. c') CAI O 0 a a Ci oC) 0 0 C> 0 0 r•- r O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOO000IDco 666c)lc- aoo6000000000000
LC
CO CO N CO CO (0 It CO N r - tO N ip I> 10 CO 10 CO 0 CO CO CO CO CO N'S1'
N CO dd
* N 0 0 N 1-0 CO N ' COCY) CO N 00 i- CO CO d' RA d' CO r r h- N
r r r r r 0 r CO CY) N r r r r r- r r r r r 0 r r r
6 o 6 Co O O O Q a 0 a o O O o o C7 O O O O O O c> 0 0 O o 0
EL
QrNCOd R000IN- CO0>
CO c rN -�mcg- r NNNNNNNNCN1lNCOO
2COrr
to co 000 Ri?
d O o

APPENDIX B

1�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Pat McCrory Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
February 12, 2014
Mr. Guy Slagle, P.E., Project Director
Davis & Floyd
1073130> Street NE
Hickory, NC 28602
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
City of Claremont
McLin Creek WWTP
Permit No. NC0081370
Catawba County
Catawba River Basin
Dear Mr. Slagle:
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for 1.2 MGD at the Claremont McLin Creek
WWTP. The Division received the speculative limits request in a letter dated January 21, 2014.
Please recognize that speculative limits may change based on future water quality initiatives,
and it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the speculative limits with the Division's
NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work. The Division understands that the
Claremont North WWTP will be decommissioned upon expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP.
Receiving Stream. McLin Creek is located within the Catawba River Basin. McLin Creek
has a stream classification of WS-IV;CA, and waters with this classification have a best
usage for a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food -processing purposes in
addition to the uses for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. McLin Creek has a summer 7Q10 flow of 5
cfs, a winter 7Q10 flow of 9 cfs, and an annual average flow of 26 cfs.
McLin Creek is currently listed as an impaired waterbody on the 2012 North Carolina 303(d)
Impaired Waters List for biological integrity. There are no specific permitting strategies for
McLin Creek in the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Online Map Viewer, there are not any Federally Listed threatened or endangered
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
NorthCarolina
lVaturaiij
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Guy Slagle
February 12, 2014
Page 2 of 4
aquatic species identified within a 5 mile radius of the proposed discharge location. If there
are any identified threatened/endangered species, it is recommended that the applicant
discuss the proposed project with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the
proposed discharge location might impact such species.
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and
the Upper Lyle and McLin Creek Water Quality Modeling Analysis prepared by
HydroAnalysis, speculative limits for the proposed expansion to 1.2 MGD are presented in
Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring requirements for metals and
other toxicants, as well as potential instream monitoring requirements, will be addressed
upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application. Some features of the speculative limit
development include the following:
BOD/DO/NH3N Limits. The limits for BOD, DO and NH3N are based on the
results of the modeling analysis. The Qua12K model predicted DO concentrations
above the water quality standard maintaining the current concentration limits for
BOD and ammonia.
Upstream/Downstream Monitoring. Instream monitoring for dissolved oxygen and
temperature is recommended to evaluate the increased discharge impact on the
watershed. Monitoring locations will be determined when the permit is modified to
include the expansion.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for Conover SE WWTP
Effluent
Characteristic
Effluent
Lirnitations
Monthly
Average
Weekly Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow
1.2 MGD
BOD5 (April 1 - October 31)
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
BOD5 (November 1 - March
31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
NH3 as N (April 1 - October
31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
NH3
March
1-
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
as N (November
31)
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum)
5.0 mg/L
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
TRC
28 ug/1
Fecal
mean)
coliform (geometric
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Phosphorus
Monitor
Total Nitrogen
Monitor
Dissolved Oxygen
Upstream
Downstream monitoring

Mr. Guy Slagle
February 12, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Temperature
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
(Quarterly test) 27%
Upstream/ Downstream monitoring
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee
that an NPDES permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these
speculative limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and
evaluates a formal permit application for the new/expanded discharge. In accordance with
North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c), the most environmentally
sound alternative should be selected from all reasonably cost effective options. Therefore,
as a component of all NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed
engineering alternatives analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested
flows and provide an analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the
Division guidance for preparing EAA documents is attached.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document
must be prepared for all projects that: 1) need a permit; 2) use public money or affect public
lands; and 3) might have a potential to significantly impact the environment. For new or
expanding discharges, significant impact is defined as > 500,000 gpd additional flow. Since
the City of Claremenot is proposing an increase in flow >500,000 gpd, the City must
prepare a SEPA document that evaluates the potential for impacting the quality of the
environment. The NPDES Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for the
expanded discharge until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. A
SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear justification for the proposed
project. If the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse
effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental
Impact Statement). For projects that are subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed
above will need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if
all EAA requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding
SEPA EA/EIS requirements, please contact Jackie Roddy with DWR Planning at (919) 807-
6442
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting
requirements, please feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] or Tom Belnick
at [phone].
Respectfully,
4
om Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Attachment EAA Guidance Document

Mr. Guy Slagle
February 12, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Hardcopy:
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Electronic Copy:
US Fish and Wildlife Service, [e-mail]
DWR/Mooresvillle Regional Office
DWR/SEPA, Jackie Roddy
DWR/Modeling, Kathy Stecker
DWR/Basinwide Planning, Jeff Manning
NPDES Server>Specs

APPENDIX C

O O O O
O O O O
vi N vi
N N 00 —
69 69 69 69
'4 ^1 E. ^'
—
O O O O O O
N vi CO„ C_
69 N 69 69
69 69
69
0 0 0 7 0 0
\O 00 V M N O
69 69 CO„
N Oi
69 N
69 69
69
w
▪ VO
0
00
00
64
O CO CO O CO CO CO CO CO
0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--� N 00 vi Me' y1 0 v1 0
00 69 N 69 V'1 69 N
69 69 69 69 69 69 69
0 0
O un to
N N 00
N 69 �--i
69 69
0 I 0 0
0 0 0
O 69 v) O
• N vi
69 69
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 v1 0
In 69 tr-
69 69
cd vi vi v: wi vi vi vi vi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'i a1
O O O O kel M 0 kO
kO O O M N 00 k 7 N
N N_ O N N Vi _M
,N� M 69 69
69 69 69 69
69
O 0
O O
N O
- M
69 69
O O 0 0
0 VI M O
M N kO V1
N Vi
N 69 69
69
00
69 69
krr
00
4
0 0 OV1
O M O
• 6 6
69 69
69
4-+
N M --i 7 CO
N
w >
cl E C� E E
c 0. a
E • E � W
y o o o ,c
• o
LJUUhUU U W 0.• 0

00, V0 o im vim
)
)
lA O 7 M
Ns II)lfi 00
N 7 rl N 11)
rl
b9
O O O O O O 00 O O O kr N 0 0 0 0 7 O O O O O O O O O
O O V) O O V) ,O V) O O V) ,--i 000,00 O O O O ONMOO
O kr) l„ kr) v� ,.0 O kr) O kr 00 l� O kr O ,0 M CO O kr O v) 00 -, O O
of h 00 N O N N O r O O 69 69 ,--, N kr) ,. V) O vi
N ,D ,D M N • 69 N M — N 69 CO N N N k) N 69 N 69
N 69 ,--i N 69 69 69 69 ---- 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 69 ,--i 69 69
6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R
O O O O k) k) 00 O O O WI CO O O O WI 00 O O O O O WI 00 O O
O O V) O M ,--, M V) O O ---- M O O O ,--i M O O O O O �--� M O O
O i l� kn 69 69 69 WI O WI 66EraO V') kr) Era Era 00 O kr) O V'1 69 69 O O
Oi h 00 69 N O Era69 O 69 ,--, N vi 69 O vi
N ,-0 ,-0 N en 00 N N N I N N 69
N 69 69 69 69 69 N 69 69 69 69
69 69 6R
vi vi vi T T T T vi vi
kn O D
,C O 1, 00 --� --�
T T T
U U U
U U U
'. '. N 7 00
0)
W
E
A
o
w c
a w
E cn a
v o• o•
w 0 w
b
d
U U
C. .Q U 0, 0)) 4 .Q
o o 3 w 79 b
CO ? ° o c E o
bA (� '� C U iC (d 0, U
3 o b o y 4 o o ~ a�
0
c 0) 6"'
o o D aova "-a.to o
G. a 0 ,0 .2 Ew 0 0o O�A o
4.H 2a
o
cn w CO, a I) at
aas o 4...)o a) a)a.)W 000ko o o k o A7 "okoo a Nai ovwv,Uvwaw wwUwa iiww,. a vaAUwav)
U U U
en CO kr)
M 00 en
N N
Concrete Pads

k k kw-
=
o § KE- - E§�� �K
7
00 0 0000 000
\\ \ \«\& \\\
- ER \ /k// N - ER
00 0 0en00 000
\\ \ \&&] \\\
\/ \ / //\
000
or) en
eA
--c
0
0
E •
/ en
2
4 ] §
» ] } \ g e
• \ j 0 ▪ O
u s
« o\ / o / 07// io
<\- k\ \\]I/ • \/§ I/$
V1U} aw mod])) w\\/ )0I
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
7 V1
rl rl
b19 b9
O O O O
0 0 0 0
0 N 0 0
Vl N N Vl
N
69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
69 69 69 69 69 59 59 59 59 59
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o O N b9 69 69 69 69 69 69
M O uO
N
69 69
69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 69 59 59 59 59 59 0 0 Vl 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
O N O O OO V^ N
WI N ut WI l� O u.O
N M 69 ,--1 M ,--1 N
69 69 69 69 69 69
U cn
N •
v� v� 4r vi
vi vi vi vi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
N
m
N
O.
k
N
N pq
w .5
u,
C
N
Q. a
x N
w EL
��+ C al.al.a,.y O -2
o
O =
c-Y 2 2 :r
3::• � .w y c)6 /) 12 5 N
yL so°°o Q a3h o0Cn.� .a wc.a o
d vo N d a[ a3 v
a aU r�o �w w a w
N oo d o.0o.o �t wgo5,-o ?o
22pov“U 2,4Ua�2U4c..) 07f� SaU4a wUa9QU

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
Grit Removal
O CO O
64 M 64
r'i.
O,
N
00
6R
O O O O O O O O O O O O
6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R
O O O O O 00
N O O O kn
7 00 N O N
71- 6R 6R N 6R
69 69
O O O O O O O ,n 00 O d- O O O O O V1 00
R 6R O 6O 6R 6R O enO enkr) N O O O M
VD M V1 69 69 O 69 69 N EA-9 - O ,n 66N 6R V'i 7 00 CDR 6
N
N N --, M
6R 6R 7 6R 6R
69 69
O O O O O O O O O O O O
a a
at
w! !
c c
W W t7
v o o o o v 4
C O VI 75' C O m O k'
C7U�3C7U4UW
o`
a P.
al 101D
-5s.
ct
--i --i --i N CO
O O O
6R 6R 6R
O O O
6R 6R 6R
O O O
V W U vo ti 4 U W per.. W W U W

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
en o uvs vs o
N N O
so▪ - N O
V7 OC
69 H4
M O O D O O
M 0 00 0 VD N
Q" 0 0 N h Vl O V 0 V V VD ,--1
7 ,.O vi 0 0 7 N 0, m 0"
VD 69 ,--1 M 69 N 69 69 N M 69 69
69 69 69 69 69 69
N 000 0000M0 000
Q, 0 0 Vl 69 69 0 69 69 V V VD ,--1
7 ut vi 69 O N a, m O;
,O 69 ,--1 N N M 69 69
69 69 69 69 69
'l-
▪ c, Lel ,0'""oo
74,
UV Disinfection
m m m
Additional UV Modules
0 0 0 0 0
69 69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 0
69 69 69 69 69
69 69 0
0
0
00
69
69 69 0
0
0
00
69
m m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
ciD
w .50
U
Q w
vp
✓ W
• U
U F--1
O. " .5
A 'ci tin
` 4 8 E .g
!6 p :; ko
0
t• E o
a � g
.°" ;a w E N
Imo o '� >. E.
•
o w w)• 5 4 ate), < o a
0
o a"i o k o Fi o C) C.
u 4 0 <4 0 00 U N 0 4 '

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
�Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
N O ao N 00 N
ao - 1 a
O - 7 7 N GO
rl - \O N N i l
b9 b9 „y^ b9 b9 rl
E
6R
O0 509 e.s e.s e.s e.s
N M
b9 b9
0 V1 0 0 0
0 N 99 0 99
O 69 O
4'i 59
b9
69
0 0 0
0 b9 b9
O
69
0 0
Estimated Construction Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
O O O a
O tin In O
OC 0 N C
r oo
o - oo v,
N V3 N N
69 69 EA
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V1
O 0 0 0 O O O v'i V V0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'� 0 �O Or
O o0 O O O l l� O VNl O Vl Vl O O O O O V1 l� O -, 00
v-, N N v-, O 00 69 ,-� ,-0 l0 0 M N v'i O WI"00 O 00 t- M 7 69 69
N °� l� �--i �--i 69 69 00 69 �--i N �--i 69 �--i WI 69 l� 00 '. 69
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 64
69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'i 0 0 WI 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 O O v'n O M
0 00 0 0 0 V WI N 0 WI N 0 69 WI 0 0 0 0 0 V1 N V1 69 69
WI N ut v-, O v-, 69 N N 00 v-i N v-, O v-, O 01 l� M 6S
N C\ 69 ,--1 ---1 69 69 N 69 ,--1 N 69 ,--1 r 69 N 00 ----
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
69
5
N
N m m m 4r EA EA
m
a)
m
a)
0.
k
a)
M oq
w .5
u,
C
N_
w 2 >
o0
i m cr
a a y a
o P, •o C, p +�+
H r c' 0
E 5
3ya9 .a
m6o:n w y • a o ,p o a
o
Y„w a.w a) wo� W'v
cr
00° paai o •
w o o 5,m ai cd o. w g o o g .a 4 5 o c 2 o.5o k
ti

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIENT
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
§7
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
= m = _ _
\ - 7 7 i
Ni 2 co / R
\ - 2 - -
/00v7.) // //$/ ? wl ?af00- // /
... . .. ..«- ±0QQ- 0R .. -
\// / // /9s// /9s/\-�/� f9s N
///\/9S4a/ /0�/ \\\\//\\ // 0 \\/ __/\ C- /_/_ /y /\ /
ƒ
)
r 4 w w w w 4 4
Disinfection Chamber Modifications
7 4 4 w w w 4 4 4 4 4
NN-
•{
f ;
\j
o
\
Concrete Pads

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
J
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Q
O = N N 7
M O vO O O
lry - M O 00
N r t` tin
69 69 7 69 69
EA
O 0 609 0 0 0 0
O Ln 00 000
v-, l� N_ ,� CS' O
✓ ,O N N l
69 69 69 M 69 ,--1
O Lel O O O O O
0 6N9 6N9 O - ▪ O O O
69 ,-1 O kn.
v) N N 00
69 M 69 69
69
O O
▪ O O 0
N N
N
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIL'N"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
7,
E-3Q
0 0 0
o v3 tn
-
v� r,
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 69 59 59 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 59 0 0 LeI N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
le v-, 7 v-, m 0 uo
N v N
69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 69 59 59 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 59
0 111 0 0
WI kr VO Vi h 0 ,o
N ,--1 69 ,--1 M ,--1 N
69 69 69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 N b9 69 69 69 69 69 69
,A 5v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v� v cd v� v� v� 4r vi vi vi vi vi
,-1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
N
m
o
k
N
M of,
w .5
u,
C
N
Q. a
x N
w EL
��+ C c) iL iL iL iL iL
o c
o 0 .- r w
-y O •� r
H y Q CI)
•L. U C y C 4 ,z C ¢' C C. C
7 h (0 VD P. o �; ct .a o ) .� .� i .a ao
0�r o Lr�w �'w w po w a4w '• '
2.-2poa U 2<4U4iU4cSU4cDU4Usc., caUa�a;w°U4›U

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
O O O O O O
b4 69 69 69 69 69
O O OEA EA EA EA
O N
O\ N
N IA7 64
b9
O O O 609 609 609 N WI en
O O
O O O VD V ,--,
7 O ken o M o
N M N M 69 69
M 69 69 69
69
O O O O V1 00 O O O O V1 00 O O O
b9 69 69 O M O O O O M N WI en v1 69 69 O O O V1 69 69 V VD
69 O 690, M N N
N M M 69 69
M 69 69 69
69
VJ• VJ• VJ•
VJ• VJ•
U U U
VJ• VJ• VJ•
O O O O O
69 69 69 69 69
O O O O O
69 69 69 69 69
O O
69 69 69
O O
69 69 69
VJ• VJ• VJ• 4
O O O O O OO O O O O O O
UV Disinfection
P. VA
Concrete Pads

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD MBR
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
E-3Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
94 o vir ea°vei
o ao N ao
,-i _ ao
in obs .-1 ,-in 9S 9S
O O O O O
69 59 59 59 59
O 9S 9S
O
0 N 99 0 59 0 59 59
O 69 C O
vi en
h
69 59
vi ,A 4: 4i vi
v v cd
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
\7
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
$ 7
/ ƒ
i
/
0 00 \\\\\\ 0rN0r 0000
/ - 99 \$99 99 /�///�//�/
0 • 00 NC 0 0rN09 0000
/ - \�/ / /�// �//�/
▪ /5 ///Kj/ B*
CD

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
�¢
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Grit Removal
00 0
a Il es
V 00
M N
N M
b9
64
O O O O O O O V1 D1 O O O O O O O O O 00 O O
O O O O N N en ,.O en ,.O vn O O O O vn ,.O WI
VO O O M N VO N N O M O O V1 V1 VV1 1 ,O O O
i N 0 7 N r M O..E'a E'aI -- 4 Oi N 00 N 7 0 I - N O
N ,--i M N 69 69 ---- -- 69 69 N VD VD M N 69 N M
69 69 69 69 69 N 69 N 69 69 69 69
69 69 69 69
O O O O O O O V1 00 O O O O O O V1 V1 00 O O
O O O O kn M O M O M kr) O O v) O M M WI O
VD O O M N VD V1 69 69 O 69 69 O V1 N V1 69 69 69 V1 O
; N 0 7 N Ovi 69 vi O; N 00 69 N o
N ,--i M N 69 69 N VD VD N M
,--i 69 69 69 69 N 69 ,--i 69 69
69 69 69
m m m 0) m m m
.-. --i N ti ti ti r. vi
N M 00
O O O
69 69 69
O 00
M
V1 69 69
69
O O O

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
O O O O O O
H4 O to O O O
M 7 CD CD M
to 00 O O -
en," ▪ 1 H N ti
bH bH bH bH bH
O O O O O
99 99 99 99 99
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 O N M O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
00 O tel O V1 00 ,--1 O O O O 0 O h O 00
O — N vO ui uO ,— kei v-, 0' 0' 0' v-, N VD' N
N N Vl N ,-69 N 69 0 N 0 e ,..0� 0 ,
N 99 99 99 ,- 99 99 ,-1 99 N 99 99 99 99
69 69 69 69
O O O V1 00 O O O O O V1 00 O O O O O O tel O O
0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 O M O O 0 0 O O N N
O ,e1 V1 69 69 00 0 V1 O V1 69 69 0 0 0 0 O 0 69 69
• 7 5H ,-� N v"i 5H
00 N N N vl N N 69 O N O r
99 99 N b9 99 99 b9 b9 N b9
69 69 69
✓ m 9
O 0 0 0 0
.2
• 0
44 • Po
m m m m
Disinfection Chamber Modifications
M 00 9.1
M 00 ,l
N N
w
00
O • W
0
U • F--1
Y ymtv
C
CO al,
•E
co
a 0 0)
2 ?
Q
w •°
o " >
0 O
,--� ,--� 00 O ON
0o M

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
E-3Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
O O N 0 M
O O 7 N
r
a M O V) 0(41,
l
N 69 b 69 69 -
64 69
O O O O O O O O O
O O O V1 V1 O O O O
uO l� k1' i O N 00 r. O O
Q, 0 N 00 0 . N N
7 7 m 00 7 69 N 69
69 69 69 69 69 69 69
0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0
O O 69 00 V1 O O O O
0l� v-, N M ,--1 O v-,
0 0 69 69 69 N 00
7 7 N 69 69
69 69 69
N
6R
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
0 0 0
o v3 in
4; r,
,o
vo in
us us
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
O ‘.O O 0
Vl 7 N Vl
N
69 69 69 69
0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
69 69 69 69 69 59 59 59 59 59
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
m O uO
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 69 59 59 59 59 59 0 0 Vl 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
0 0 0 O 00 V^ N
v-, 7 ut v-, l� O �o
N vi 59 —1 m —1 N
69 69 69 69 69 69
▪ 5' •>,ww
U vi --'
N •
v� v� 4r vi
vi vi vi vi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.
N
m
N
O.
k
N
N 0)
w .5
u,
C
N
Q. Q
x N
w o EL
��+ C C...) al.al.iL
.y O -2
O =
c - Y 2 2 :r
::• � .3 yc)w
6 /) 5 N
cd al. yLsoa3h o °o0 n � a 0. .
vwc.a o
dvo N d a[� a3 v
a aU r�o �w w a w
w to m o. 0 o. o c° t = g o o. a, 5 o
220av�c.) x,4c�a2c�ac�xc.7 SwU,�xwUa.9QU

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
Grit Removal
O CO O
64 M 64
r'i.
O,
N
00
6R
O O O O O O O O O O O O
6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R 6R
O O O O O 00
N O O O kn
7 00 N O N
71- 6R 6R N 6R
69 69
O O O O O O O ,n 00 O d- O O O O O V1 00
R 6R O 6O 6R 6R O enO enkr) N O O O M
VD M V1 69 69 O 69 69 N EA-9 - O ,n 66N 6R V'i 7 00 CDR 6
N
N N --, M
6R 6R 7 6R 6R
69 69
O O O O O O O O O O O O
a a
at
w! !
c c
W W t7
v o o o o v 4
C O VI 75' C O m O k'
C7U�3C7U4UW
o`
a P.
al 101D
-5s.
ct
--i --i --i N CO
O O O
6R 6R 6R
O O O
6R 6R 6R
O O O
V W U vo ti 4 U W per.. W W U W

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
Q
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
O O o O O
E9 O uy 69 O
N O
N O
00
O O O O O O O O O O
69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
O O O O O O O O O O O
N Vl rn 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0
V VD O
0, m 0, O
M 69 69 00
M 69 69 0 ---i M 0 enkr)O Q O O O
Q, V1 69 69 0 69 69 V V VD ,--1
7 69 O N O, m O.
,.O N N M 69 69
69 69 69 69
—7 cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UV Disinfection
m m m
Additional UV Modules
0 0 0 0 0
69 69 69 69 69
Cr
w
ciD
U
69 69 0
0
O
00
69
111
Q w
vp
✓ w
O U
U
CL . Q .
0
` ..
E
!6 p,
co a�
E �
0cd
m ° ;ac E CA o 74
o '� •>. E.
0 o m w ,�•°w 0) ▪ < ° a
o t 8 o k o c o C) • a C.
u4 0<4 Ow PoV)0 0v)4 '

ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
UNIT COST TOTAL
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
QUANTITY
NUMBER UNIT
COST ESTIMATE
CLIEN"I
Claremont
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
Z
MANUFACTURER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
�Q
✓ 7 O O M N N
r 0 0 0'V 0
O C 00 00 .• 0O10
ea in. r 6A9
.- N
69 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 v"N 69 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 69
O l O O O Vl Vl O 0
V"1 M 00 Cr,' Vl M N WI 00
N M N _M C\ M 69 Q,
69 69 N M N N 69
69 69 69 69 69
O V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N 69 0 69 0 0 kn N 0 0 0 69 69
O 69 O O O 69 00 f Vl O
Vl 69 00 O1 Vl (4 N 00
N N 69 69 69 C1
69 N M 69
69 69
,A
GJ
O 0
M 0 0 0 -
v vcyj
0 0
0) 0
• c
0 • N f�.' GJ
, C1 c0 G�+, ..,G�+, Q y y s.
L •c�Cpj, •C. O iC .,V. bq 7`' 0
• O Qi bq N Q Q Q Q' O L• U
N O v b-0 b 0 U
0 x w x Ga J W W W v] 1-1 ▪ W W cn
Estimated Construction Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COST

Alternative B
Operation & Maintenance Expense
ICEAS SBR
Fixed Operational Expenses
Item
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$37,200
$37,200
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
$223,950
$223,950
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.86
$0.10
Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
Installed hp
Design Run
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Time/d (hr)
Bar Screen
2
4
0.83
1.24
3.33
4.97
Washing Press
5
4
0.83
3.11
3.33
12.43
Vortex Grit
6
24
24.00
107.38
24.00
107.38
Grit Pumps
10
4
0.83
6.21
3.33
24.86
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25
275.72
ICEAS Basin Blowers, each
60
12
12.00
1073.81
12.00
1610.71
Sludge Pumps
2.4
5
1.04
1.86
4.17
7.46
Equilization Basin
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Filter Feed Pump
7
16
3.33
17.40
13.33
69.60
Filter Backwash Pumps
15
4
0.83
9.32
3.33
37.28
Filter Other
11.5
4
0.83
7.15
3.33
28.59
UV Disinfection
0.27
24
24.00
4.83
24.00
4.83
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
2554.02
3436.61
Annual Electrical Costs
$93,222
$125,436
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
lbs./DT
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
1.032
16
0
$0
0
$0
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, WT/d
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6.45
$50.00
490
$24,523
1962
$98,094
Total Annual O&M Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
$341,695
$447,480

Alternative C
Operation & Maintenance Expense
MBR
Fixed Operational Expenses
Item
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$35,260
$35,260
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
$222,010
$222,010
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.80
$0.10
Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
Installed hp
Design Run
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Time/d (hr)
Fine Screen
6
4
0.83
3.73
3.33
14.91
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25
275.72
MBR Treatment System
2264.00
3064.00
UV Disinfection
0.215
24
24.00
3.85
24.00
3.85
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
3235.35
4253.32
Annual Electrical Costs
$118,090
$155,246
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
lbs./DT
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
0.96
16
0
$0
0
SO
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, WT/d
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6
$50.00
456
$22,813
1825
$91,250
Total Annual O&M Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
$362,913
$468,506

Alternative D
Operation & Maintenance Expense
ICEAS SBR w/Land Application
Fixed Operational Expenses
Item
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$42,200
$42,200
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
$228,950
$228,950
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.86
$0.10
Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
Installed hp
Design Run
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Time/d (hr)
Bar Screen
2
4
0.83
1.24
3.33
4.97
Washing Press
5
4
0.83
3.11
3.33
12.43
Vortex Grit
6
24
24.00
107.38
24.00
107.38
Grit Pumps
10
4
0.83
6.21
3.33
24.86
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25
275.72
ICEAS Basin Blowers, each
60
12
12.00
1073.81
12.00
1610.71
Sludge Pumps
2.4
5
1.04
1.86
4.17
7.46
Equilization Basin
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Feed Pump
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Backwash Pumps
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Other
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UV Disinfection
0.27
24
24.00
4.83
24.00
4.83
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Effluent Distribution Pumping
90
20
4.17
279.64
16.67
1118.55
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
2441.86
4061.75
Annual Electrical Costs
$89,128
$148,254
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
lbs./DT
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
1.032
16
0
$0
0
$0
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, WT/d
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6.45
$50.00
490
$24,523
1962
$98,094
Total Annual O&M Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
$342,601
$475,298

APPENDIX D

PROJECTED FIRST YEAR O&M BUDGET
McLIN CREEK WWTP (0.8 MGD)
EXPENSE ITEM
AMOUNT
Salaries
$85,000
Employee Benefits
$29,750
Repairs & Maintenance
$20,000
UV Lamp Replacement
$5,000
Mambrane Replacement
$10,260
Utilities
$118,090
Office Expense
$3,000
Contractual Services (Lab & Engr)
$40,000
Supplies
$15,000
Vehiciles
$4,000
Miscellaneous
$10,000
Sludge Disposal
$22,813
TOTAL EXPENSES
$362,913