technical memorandum · disinfection, and solids handling. the headworks includes mechanical and...

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

City of Louisville and Redtail Ridge Development Wastewater Pumping and Treatment Infrastructure | 1 of 8

Date: February 18, 2020

To: City of Louisville, Brue Baukol

From: Patrick Radabaugh, PE - Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Sam Franzen, PE – Dewberry Engineers, Inc.

Subject: City of Louisville and Redtail Ridge Wastewater Pumping and Treatment Infrastructure – Subject to Revision

INTRODUCTION

Redtail Ridge, a proposed development in southeastern Louisville, will produce a projected 631,550 gallons per day (annual average) at a projected peak hour flow of 2 million gallons per day at completion of their four phase buildout plan. A breakdown of the projected flows and loads by Phase is provided in

the “City of Louisville and Redtail Ridge Development Flows and Loads” Technical Memorandum 1.

The intent of this technical memorandum (TM) is to identify the pumping and treatment infrastructure needed for the Redtail Ridge development to (1) lift the wastewater produced in the development into the

City’s collection system and (2) the treatment infrastructure needed at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to treat the developments wastewater. This TM includes the following:

Capacity evaluation of existing WWTP

Proposed list of wastewater pumping and infrastructure needs

Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs

List of regulatory requirements including duration of effort

Preliminary project design and construction schedule (including regulatory requirements)

WWTP Capacity

The City of Louisville recently upgraded their WWTP to a biological nutrient removal (BNR) facility that is rated for 2.53 million gallons per day (mgd) and 5,515 pounds per day (ppd) of BOD5. The improvements

at the WWTP included several items to improve resiliency at the WWTP by providing redundancy for key pieces of process equipment. This allows Plant Operations staff the flexibility to address maintenance needs while still providing full treatment and allows the Staff to perform proactive preventative

maintenance to reduce the potential of emergency repairs.

The WWTP consists of a headworks, secondary treatment, tertiary (reuse) filtration, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and solids handling. The headworks includes mechanical and manual bar screens, grit

removal, grit washing, and influent flow measurement. After the headworks, the wastewater enters the influent lift station that pumps the wastewater up into the secondary process. The secondary process includes Johannesburg treatment trains, a pump station [with return activated sludge (RAS), waste

activated sludge (WAS), internal mixed liquor return (IMLR), and scum pumps), blowers, secondary clarifiers, and a backup alum system. Solids handling processes consist of a rotary drum thickener (for



WAS thickening), aerobic digestion, and centrifuge dewatering. A process flow diagram for the WWTP is provided in Figure 1.

The results of the capacity analysis are provided in the attached Table 1. Table 1 is broken down into

the various unit processes at the WWTP: headworks, influent lift station, secondary process, disinfection, solids handling, and reuse. A brief summary of the information in Table 1 by unit process is in the bullet list below.

Headworks. The headworks consists of screens, grit removal and handling, and influent flow measurement. All installed equipment has sufficient capacity to handle the projected flows and additional flows and loads from the Redtail Ridge development.

Influent Lift Station. The influent lift station was designed to accommodate only the projected flows and loads listed in the 2014 Facility Plan. The additional flows from the Redtail Ridge development exceed the projected flows and loads for all future City development and will require

construction of a new lift station.

Secondary Process. This unit process consists of Johannesburg treatment process, secondary clarifier, and process equipment. The existing facility was designed to require the operation of all

three treatment trains at the projected City of Louisville buildout conditions (2014 WWTP Facility Plan). The projected additional flows and loads from Redtail Ridge will exceed the current capacity of the secondary process and City’s desired level of redundancy.

Figure 1 - City of Louisville WWTP Process Flow Diagram



Disinfection. The WWTP currently utilizes ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. This unit process currently has double redundancy; it has redundancy in each channel (one redundant module per channel) and a redundant channel. If this desired level of redundancy is desired to be

maintained, the system will need to be upgraded.

Solids Handling. Solids handling includes WAS thickening with a rotary drum thickener (RDT), aerobic digestion, and biosolids dewatering via centrifuge. The current thickening and dewatering

processes do not utilize all of their respective capacity but have no redundancy. With the additional flows and loads from Redtail Ridge, additional burden will be placed on operations staff due to the lack of redundancy and these processes should be expanded to improve redundancy.

The aerobic digester only has capacity for the current projected buildout flows; the sludge storage tank provides additional biosolids storage prior to dewatering. The additional wastewater flow and load from Redtail Ridge exceed the projected flows and loads for all future City development

and would require construction of additional digester space.

Reuse. The reuse system consists of feed pumps, filters, and distribution pumps. The current system is maxed out during the summer irrigation season and will require additional pumping and

filtration infrastructure if Redtail Ridge desires to reuse water for irrigation.

Wastewater Pumping and Treatment Infrastructure Needs

The following wastewater pumping and treatment infrastructure will be needed to pump and treat the projected wastewater flows and loads from Redtail Ridge into the City’s collection system and WWTP.

Lift station at the development capable of pumping a peak hour capacity of 2 mgd.

Lift station at the WWTP (downstream of the headworks and upstream of secondary process) with a peak hour capacity of 6.6 mgd (existing peak hour flow of 4.58 mgd + 2 mgd from Redtail

Ridge)

Johannesburg process basin matching existing to be located adjacent to train 3.

Secondary clarifier matching existing.

Process equipment including one RAS pump, one WAS pump, scum pumps, one IMLR pump, diffusers, and instrumentation to match existing. No additional structures will be needed; all equipment will be in existing structures or in the new process basin.

Aerobic digester to match existing. New digester will provide capacity and storage to match the current operations of digestion and storage. Projected flows and loads from Redtail Ridge will account for approximately 1/3 of the volume of the new digester. The remaining volume will

serve as “storage volume” or as additional capacity.

The following infrastructure is needed to address redundancy concerns that arise of the additional wastewater flow and load from the proposed Redtail Ridge development.

UV Disinfection. The existing system has double redundancy (modules and channels). If the regulatory required redundancy is followed (redundant channel), no upgrades are required. If the



current level of redundancy is desired, channel modifications and new UV equipment will be required. Per discussion on February 5, 2020, the regulatory redundancy requirement is sufficient and the City will not require the double redundancy requirement on UV disinfection.

WAS Thickening. The increase in flows and loads will place increased demands on operations staff and will increase the need for redundancy in WAS thickening. WAS thickening is required to minimize aerobic digester size, e.g. lower concentration of WAS solids requires an increased

digester volume. To address this need, it is recommended a redundant RDT and TWAS pump be installed at the WWTP. Alternatively, the digester contents could be thickened in the digester via settling and decanting off the supernatant. Infrastructure for settling and decanting will require

less capital cost, but would be significantly more costly to operate due to the additional man power required.

Biosolids Dewatering. Like WAS thickening, the WWTP lacks redundancy in the dewatering

process. With an increased load coming into the WWTP from Redtail Ridge, there will be an increased burden on Plant Staff to maintain the current level of operations which will reduce the maintenance opportunities. Due to the importance of this process on plant operations, it is

recommended that a redundant dewatering unit be installed at the WWTP. This will require a new structure. The new structure would contain two new centrifuges, outdoor truck discharge, and conveyor system. This dewatering will be similar to the City’s existing dewatering process.

Reuse. The existing Reuse system (pumping and filtration) is maxed out at the City’s current projected reuse demands. If Redtail Ridge desires to utilize reuse water for irrigation, the current reuse pumping and filtration systems will need to be upgraded as well as the extension of the

system to Redtail Ridge (reuse distribution is beyond the scope of this memo). Redtail Ridge will not be utilizing reuse water for irrigation and no infrastructure improvements will be required as a result of the Redtail Ridge development.

Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Table 2 below presents planning level preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the improvements listed in the previous section. Our construction cost opinions are based on the quantities of raw materials, construction labor, major equipment, supplies, excavation, and contractor’s markup for

overhead and profit. Dewberry developed opinions of probable construction from recently completed projects, published literature, and equipment manufacturer’s quotations.

The itemized opinion of probable construction cost contain contingencies to allow for unknown or

uncertain conditions. At present, many project components and details cannot be determined. The contingency factor accounts for hidden or unknown physical conditions such as conflicting utilities and construction details which cannot be identified, predicted, or accurately estimated but are likely to occur

based on experience with similar projects. Contingencies vary with the level of detail associated with the planning, budgeting, or design process. As a project becomes more defined, unknowns are identified and contingency factors decrease. The construction cost estimates represent Class IV estimate as defined by

the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) with a relative accuracy of minus 30 percent to plus 50 percent. The level of accuracy will improve as the project progresses from planning into design.



Based on the current level of uncertainty associated with this project, a contingency factor of 25 percent of estimated construction costs has been assumed. Cost factors given in Table 2 have been added to the materials and equipment costs to develop total project costs for each alternative.

Table 2 Cost Factors Used to Develop Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

Cost Factor Percent of

Construction Description

Mobilization/ demobilization 3 Contractor cost

Contractor overhead & profit 15 Markup on subcontracts, materials, & labor

Bonding and insurance 2 Contractor cost

Contingencies 25 Unknown conditions & conflicting utilities

Planning, Engineering, and Administration

18

Planning, design, survey, geotechnical investigation,

construction observation, training, O&M manual, startup services

A summary of preliminary estimate of probable construction costs by unit process is provided in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the preliminary estimate of probable construction costs for all the infrastructure

improvements listed in this TM is $20.1 million while the estimated total project cost is $23.8 million. Total project costs include planning, design engineering, geotechnical, regulatory review costs, construction oversight and engineering services, startup, training, and operation and maintenance manual preparation.

Table 3 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and Total Project Costs

Item

Preliminary Opinion of

Probable Construction

Cost

Total Project Cost

Required Infrastructure

Offsite Lift Station $3,083,000 $3,638,000

WWTP - Lift Station $1,978,000 $2,334,000

WWTP - Johannesburg Process $3,965,000 $4,679,000

WWTP - SPPS $679,000 $801,000

WWTP - Secondary Clarifier $1,979,000 $2,335,000

WWTP - Aerobic Digester $3,370,000 $3,997,000

Subtotal $15,054,000 $17,764,000

Infrastructure That Addresses Redundancy Or Other Needs

WWTP - RDT $795,000 $938,000

WWTP - Dewatering $4,288,000 $5,060,000

Subtotal $5,083,000 $5,998,000

Infrastructure Required WWTP Infrastructure $20,137,000 $23,762,000



Table 3 Clarifications and Notes

Table 3 lists planning level construction and total project costs for the offsite lift station (no conveyance costs included) and additional treatment infrastructure required at the WWTP to accommodate the projected wastewater flows and loads from Redtail Ridge (see TM1). Below are additional notes to clarify

the infrastructure improvements.

The required improvements in Table 3 will increase the capacity of the WWTP to 3.53 mgd and 8,968 ppd (5,515 ppd current, 1,211 ppd from train 3 currently not included in permitted capacity,

and 2,242 ppd from new train 4 for Redtail Ridge) of BOD5. Final permitted capacity may vary slightly and will be determined prior to submission of the site application.

BOD5 capacity is based upon information presented in the Process Design Report for the original

improvements. New data (influent and operational) will be incorporated into the process model during design to determine if BOD5 capacity per train can be increased.

With the improvements, the WWTP would have approximately 0.2 mgd and 365 ppd BOD5 in

excess capacity in the secondary process (aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, and SPPS equipment) that will go unused by Redtail Ridge. Under max month conditions, the Redtail Ridge development is projected to produce 0.8 mgd and 1,877 ppd BOD5 while the capacity of a

secondary treatment train is 1 mgd and 2,242 ppd BOD5. The new digester will match size and dimensions of the existing for ease of operations. The size

of the new aerobic digester will exceed the volume required to accommodate projected Redtail

Ridge flow and loads. The additional volume will replace the existing sludge storage tank volume (0.56 million gallons) and will provide an additional volume (e.g. excess capacity) of 0.3 million gallons.

The UV system currently has double redundancy; it has redundancy in the number of modules per channel and the number of channels. Even with the projected flows from Redtail Ridge, no expansion or modification of this system would be required to meet regulatory redundancy

requirements. WAS Thickening with RDTs is recommended for inclusion. Incorporation of an RDT has a higher

capital cost than manual digester decanting, but significantly lower operation and maintenance

cost. The proposed dewatering system includes two new centrifuges, polymer system, conveyors, and

an outdoor truck bay. If an indoor truck back for loading biosolids is desire, the construction cost

will increase by $1 million.

List of Regulatory Requirements Including Duration of Effort

The infrastructure improvements will require two separate regulatory review processes: (1) for the offsite lift station and force main, and (2) for the WWTP improvements. The offsite lift station and WWTP

improvements have similar regulatory review processes with a couple of minor differences. The two differences are that (1) the WWTP will require a preliminary effluent limit (PEL) request prior to submitting the site application and (2) the WWTP requires a process design report (PDR) while the lift station will

required a basis of design (BDR) report. The WWTP site application (with the PEL request) can be a



long duration item and can impact the project schedule. Table 4 provides a summary of preparation and review time for each regulatory submittal.

Table 4 Regulatory Review Periods for Offsite Lift Station and the WWTP Improvements

Item Preparation

Time, days

Regulatory Review,

days

Total Estimated

Time, months

Request Preliminary Effluent Limits

7 60 2.5

Site Application (22.5 for WWTP and 22.7 for Lift Station)

21 60 - local agency review

67 - CDPHE

5

Basis of Design Report (Offsite Lift Station)

30 60 3

Process Design Report (WWTP Improvements)

60 60 4

Note: Dewberry will either perform a streamlined review of the final design documents or will self-certify the design. This steps eliminates a 60 day regulatory review period of the final design documents.

Preliminary Project Design and Construction Schedule

A preliminary project schedule is summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the total project duration for the offsite lift station is 25 months while the total project duration for the WWTP improvements is four years (48 months). This project duration could be reduced if alternative delivery is incorporated.

Table 5 Preliminary Project Schedule

Item Duration, Months

Offsite Lift Station

Site Application (prep and CDPHE review) (5) Five Months

30 Percent Design (2) Two Months

Basis of Design Report (3) Three Months

Remainder of Design (6) Six Months

Total Design (Site App, Design, BDR) (10) Ten Months (requires sequencing of regulatory deliverables)

Bidding (3) Three Months

Construction (12) Twelve Months

Total Project Duration (25) Twenty Five Months

WWTP Infrastructure

PEL (2.5) Two and one-half months

Site Application (5) Five Months

30 Percent Design (4) Four Months

PDR (prep and regulatory review) (4) Four Months



Remainder of Design (12) Twelve Months

Total Design (PEL, Site App, PDR, Design) (20) Twenty Months (requires sequencing of

regulatory deliverables)

Bidding (4) Four Months

Construction (24) Twenty Four Months

Total Project Duration (48) Forty Eight Months

The offsite lift station will need to be the first new piece of infrastructure constructed. It will need to be constructed and operational prior to completion of any occupied structures in Redtail Ridge.

The Redtail Ridge development currently includes four phases. The development for each phase was

recently revised and it impacted the flow and load projections (see Tables 6 and 7 of TM1). The revised development plan increased the projected flows in Phase 1 to 0.38 mgd (up from 0.17 mgd). The projected wastewater flow from Phase 1 would result push the WWTP to operating near capacity.

Therefore, it is recommended that the improvements at the WWTP be designed and constructed concurrently with the Redtail Ridge Phase 1 development improvements.

Summary

Dewberry has provided this memorandum to inform the City and the Developer about the existing

capacity of the City’s WWTP and its ability to accommodate future wastewater flow and loads from the proposed Redtail Ridge development. This memorandum covered the following topics:

Capacity evaluation of existing WWTP

Proposed list of wastewater pumping and infrastructure needs

Preliminary opinion of probable construction and total project costs

List of regulatory requirements including duration of effort

Preliminary project design and construction schedule (including regulatory requirements)

All WWTP improvements will need to be designed and constructed concurrently with the Redtail Ridge Phase 1 development improvements.

Additional input is needed in regards to the desired dewatering improvements.

The total time of regulatory reviews is nearly 14.5 months and reviews are sequenced in the order of completion. The estimated construction cost for a new lift station and for additional infrastructure required

is approximately $23.8 million dollars. The schedule includes 25 months for the offsite lift station and 48 months for the WWTP expansion.

Table 1 City of Louisville WWTP Capacity Analysis by Unit Process

Unit ProcessTotal No. of

UnitsUnits in

OperationCapacity per

Unit Firm CapacityCity Desired Redundancy

Regulatory Required

Redundancy Total Capacity UnitsPermitted Capacity

Current Average Use (see Units)

Percent Permitted Capacity Currently

Utilized

At Buildout, percent permitted

capacity utilized Comments

HEADWORKSScreens

Mechanical Screens 2 1 4.6 9.20 4.6 9.2 MGDManual Bar Screen 1 1 10 10 10 MGD Manual bar screen is the redundancy for the mechanical bar screen

Screens Total 3 1 see above 9.2 9.2 4.6 9.2 MGD 4.58 1.8 42% 50% Screens are sized based upon peak hour flows.Grit System 2 1 4.6 4.6 4.6 N/A 9.2 MGD 4.58 1.8 42% 50% Not required by CDPHE, but recommended.Flow Measurement - Flume 1 1 10.41 10.41 0 Effluent Flume 10.41 MGD 4.58 1.8 38% 44% Flow measurement is sized based upon peak hour flowsINFLUENT LIFT STATIONSewage Lift Pumps 5 4 795 3,180 795 3,975 gpm 1.8 85% 100% Peak hour flowSECONDARY PROCESS

3 2 1.27 2.54 1.27 2.53 MGD 2.53 0 0% 100%3 2 2,242 5,515 1,211 5,515 ppd BOD 5,515 4,502 82% 100%3 2 1.27 2.54 1.27 2.53 MGD 2.53 1.8 71% 100%

Alum System 3 3 2.28 4.56 2.28 Bio P removal 6.84 MGD 4.58 3.91 86% 67%DISINFECTION

Modules 3 2 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.56 6.9 MGD 4.56 3.91 86% 100% Peak hour flowChannels 2 1 6.9 6.9 6.9 4.56 6.9 MGD 4.56 3.91 86% 100% Peak hour flowUV Total 2 channels 1 6.9 6.9 6.9 4.56 6.9 MGD 4.56 3.91 86% 100% Peak hour flow

Flow Measurement - Flume 1 1 10.41 10.41 0 Influent flume 10.41 MGD 4.56 1.8 38% 44% Peak hour flowSOLIDS HANDLINGAeration Digester

Aerobic Digester 1 (Flow Equivalent) 1 1 2.53 2.53 1.2Dewater and

landfill 2.53 MGD 2.53 1.8 71% 100% Flow equivalent basis. Current Digester has capacity to handle current permitted capacity.

Sludge Holding Basin (Aerobic Digester 2 Flow Equivalent) 1 1 1.2

SHB is digester City Desired

Digester Redundancy 1.2 MGD 1.2 1.8 Flow equivalent basis.

Thickening and DewateringRotary Drum Thickener 1 1 200 0 200 Not Required 200 gpm 200 50 25% 50% Units are gpm. There is no backup unit. City desires redundancy

Centrifuge 1 1 100 0 110 Not Required 110 gpm 110 110 50% 75%Units are hours per day. Currently dewater 3 days per week. There is no backup unit. City desires redundancy.

REUSE Filter 1 1 1,400 0 200 Not. Required 1 gpm 1,400 700 50% 100% Operating capacity of filter is truly only about 1 MGD.

Pumps 2 2 1,400 700 700 Not. Required 110 gpm 700 700 100% 100%Note: Buildout as defined in the 2014 Facility Plan.

Aeration Basins

Secondary Clarifiers

DRAFT Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

Project: Louisville WWTP Expansion Redtail RidgeProject #: 50116814Date: 02/10/20120Subject

18% For new structures and buildings15% For new structures and buildings3%15%2% Included in OH & P25%Construction Contingencies

Mobilization / Demobilization

Markups for Planning Level Cost Estimates

Bonding and InsuranceContractor Overhead and Profit

ElectricalHVAC

Dewberry Engineers Inc.2/10/2020

Page 1 of 14Louisville WWTP Expansion Redtail Ridge

% Markups

Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

Summary of InfrastructurePlanning Level Construction

Cost Total Project Cost

Offsite Lift StationSubtotal $3,083,000 $3,638,000

Wastewater Treatment PlantOnsite Lift Station $1,978,000 $2,334,000Johannesburg Process $3,965,000 $4,679,000SPPS Process Equipment $679,000 $801,000Secondary Clarifier $1,979,000 $2,335,000Aerobic Digester $3,370,000 $3,977,000RDT $795,000 $938,000Centrifuge/Dewatering $4,288,000 $5,060,000

Subtotal $17,054,000 $20,124,000

Total $20,137,000 $23,762,000



Summary


Cost Cost per unit Material Cost Install Factor Installation Cost TOTALItem Qty. Unit $ S $ COST, $

CivilExcavation 2,200 cy 22 48,400 0 0 49,000Backfill 1,200 cy 28 33,600 0 0 34,000Yard Piping 30 lf 225 6,750 0 0 7,000

Subtotal 90,000 Structural/ArchitecturalBuilding Foundation 24 cy 1,050 25,200 0 0 26,000Wet Well Foundation 26 cy 1,050 27,300 0 0 28,000Wet well walls 79 cy 1,200 94,800 0 0 95,000Coiling Door 1 ea 12,500 12,500 0.2 2,500 15,000Architectural 1,300 sf 350 455,000 0 0 455,000

619,000 ProcessBridge Crane 1 ls 25,000 25,000 0.30 7,500 33,000Piping 1 ls 175,000 175,000 0.00 0 175,000Submersible Pumps 3 ls 50,000 150,000 0.50 75,000 225,000Valves 1 ls 25,000 25,000 0.40 10,000 35,000Magnetic Flow Meter 1 ea 6,200 6,200 0.50 3,100 10,000Instrumentation 1 ls 12,000 12,000 0.40 4,800 17,000Odor Control 1 ls 175,000 175,000 0.60 105,000 280,000

775,000 Electrical18% Factor 268,000Generator with ATS 1 ls 115,000 115,000 0.3 34,500 150,000

418,000 HVAC15% Factor 223,000

223,000

2,125,000

Total 2,125,000Mobilization / Demobilization, 3 percent 3% 64,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit, 15 percent 15% 319,000 Bonding and Insurance, 3 percent 2% 43,000

2,551,000 Contingencies 25% 532,000

3,083,000

Total Construction Cost


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Capital Cost Subtotal



Offsite LS


Cost Cost per unit Material cost, Install Factor Install Cost TOTALItem Qty. Unit $ $ % $ COST,$

DemolitionExcavation 500 cy 22 11,000 0% 0 11,000Backfill 300 cy 28 8,400 0% 0 9,000Bypass pumping 1 ls 40,000 40,000 0% 0 40,000Overflow basin 20,000 cy 22 440,000 0% 0 440,000

500,000StructuralReinforced Concrete Foundation 22 cy 1,050 23,100 0% 0 24,000Reinforced Concrete Walls 35 cy 1,200 42,000 0% 0 42,000Lift Station Cover (Aluminum Grating) 351 sf 80 28,080 0% 0 29,000Epoxy Coating 1,400 sf 20 28,000 0% 0 28,000Overflow misc 1 ls 200,000 200,000 0% 0 200,000

323,000Geotechnical

Subtotal 0Architectual

0MechanicalPumps 1 ls 175,000 175,000 25% 43,750 219,000Sluice Gates (24" x 24") 3 ea 15,000 45,000 20% 9,000 54,0006" D (DI) 200 lf 240 48,000 0% 0 48,0002" Vent (PVC2) 30 lf 28 840 0 0 1,000Ultra Sonic Leveling Meter 2 ea 2,500 5,000 20% 1,000 6,000Level Floats 6 ea 500 3,000 20% 600 4,000

332,000Electrical18% Factor 208,000

208,000

1,363,000

Total 1,363,000Mobilization / Demobilization, 3 percent 3% 41,000Contractor Overhead and Profit, 15 percent 15% 205,000Bonding and Insurance, 2 percent 2% 28,000

1,637,000Construction Contingencies, 25 percent 25% 341,000

1,978,000

Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal




Lift Station



Site WorkExcavation 11,400 cy 22 250,800 0% 0 251,000Shoring, 20 ft deep 2,000 sf 15 30,000 0% 0 30,000Structural Fill, 3/4" Crushed Rock 300 cy 38 11,400 0% 0 12,000Backfill 7,200 cy 28 201,600 0% 0 202,000

495,000StructuralReinforced Concrete Foundation 504 cy 1,050 529,200 0% 0 530,000Reinforced Concrete Walls 425 cy 1,200 510,000 0% 0 510,000Reinforced Concrete Walkways 31 cy 1,200 37,200 0% 0 38,000Grout 24 cy 1,050 24,733 0 25,000Aluminum Railing 350 lf 133 46,550 20% 9,310 56,000Pressure Equalization Valves 26 ea 750 19,500 20% 3,900 24,000Aluminum Grating over Influent Channel 200 sf 50 10,000 20% 2,000 12,0003/4" Rock Under Foundation 1,000 cy 80 80,000 0% 0 80,000

1,275,000Architectural

0MechanicalFine Bubble Diffusers 1 ea 180,000 180,000 15% 27,000 207,000Submersible Mixers 7 ea 15,000 105,000 20% 21,000 126,000Air Piping, 12" 100 lf 400 40,000 10% 4,000 44,000Air Piping, 10" 20 lf 330 6,600 10% 660 8,000MLR, 12" 250 lf 116 29,000 10% 2,900 32,000RAS Piping, 8" 230 lf 84 19,320 10% 1,932 22,000Slide Gates - 12x12 2 ea 5,250 10,500 10% 1,050 12,000Slide Gates - 24x24 2 ea 6,400 12,800 10% 1,280 15,000Slide Gates - 36x36 6 ea 8,025 48,150 10% 4,815 53,000Slide Gates - 42x42 3 ea 9,125 27,375 10% 2,738 31,000Butterfly Valves, 8", Air 2 ea 3,000 6,000 10% 600 7,000Butterfly Valves, 10", Air 4 ea 4,450 17,800 10% 1,780 20,000Butterfly Valve, 12", MLR 3 ea 5,500 16,500 10% 1,650 19,000Instrumentation 1 1s 60,000 60,000 15% 9,000 69,000

665,000HVAC

0Electrical15% Factor 366,000

366,000

2,801,000



3,965,000

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Secondary Process Basins



Site WorkWAS Piping 1,200 ft 150 180,000 0% 0 180,000

180,000StructuralEquipment pads 3 cy 1050 3,150 20% 630 4,000

4,000Architectual

sf 30 0 0% 0 0

0MechanicalPump StationMLR Pumps (Centrifugal) 1 ea 45,000 45,000 25% 11,250 57,000RAS Pumps (Centrifugal) 1 ea 36,000 36,000 25% 9,000 45,000WAS Pumps (Centrifugal) 1 ea 15,000 15,000 25% 3,750 19,000Instrumentation 1 ls 25000 25,000 10% 2,500 28,000MLR Piping, 12" 15 ls 97 1,455 10% 146 2,000MLR Piping, 18" 10 ls 261 2,610 10% 261 3,000MLR Piping, 24" 20 lf` 330 6,600 10% 660 8,000RAS Piping, 8" 65 lf 64 4,160 10% 416 5,000RAS Piping, 12" 26 lf 97 2,522 10% 252 3,000RAS Piping, 16" 22 lf 136 2,992 10% 299 4,000ML Piping, 18" 55 lf 261 14,355 10% 1,436 16,000WAS Piping, 3" 12 lf 51 612 10% 61 1,000Plug Valves, 4" (WAS) 2 ea 800 1,600 10% 160 2,000Plug Valves, 8" (RAS) 3 ea 1300 3,900 10% 390 5,000Plug Valves, 10" (RAS) 1 ea 2000 2,000 10% 200 3,000Plug Valves, 16" (RAS) 1 ea 5000 5,000 10% 500 6,000Butterfly Valves, 18" (MLR) 2 ea 5900 11,800 10% 1,180 13,000Butterfly Valves, 18 " (ML) 1 ea 5900 5,900 10% 590 7,000Butterfly Valves, 12" (MLR) 2 ea 2200 4,400 10% 440 5,000Swing Check Valve, 8" (RAS) 1 ea 2900 2,900 10% 290 4,000Swing Check Valve, 12" (MLR) 1 ea 6750 6,750 10% 675 8,000Duckbill Check Valve, 4" (WAS) 1 ea 1000 1,000 10% 100 2,000Seal Water Units 3 ea 5000 15,000 10% 1,500 17,000

263,000HVAC0% Factor -


45,000

492,000

Total 492,000Mobilization / Demobilization, 3 percent 3% 10,000Contractor Overhead and Profit, 15 percent 15% 47,000Bonding and Insurance, 2 percent 2% 7,000

556,000Construction Contingencies, 25 percent 25% 123,000

679,000

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Secondary Pump Station



Site WorkExcavation 8,200 cy 22 180,400 0% 0 181,000Backfill 6,100 cy 28 170,800 0% 0 171,000Backfill - Structural 3/4" rock 130 cy 38 4,940 0% 0 5,000Pipe Trenching 530 lf 107 56,710 20% 11,342 69,000

426,000StructuralReinforced Concrete Foundation 195 cy 1,050 204,750 0% 0 205,000Reinforced Concrete Walls 175 cy 1,200 210,000 0% 0 210,000Reinforced Concrete Trough 60 cy 1,200 72,000 0% 0 72,000Aluminum Grating 15 sf 50 750 20% 150 1,000

488,000Architectual

0MechanicalSecondary Clarifier Collector 1 ea 140,000 140,000 15% 21,000 161,000Triangular Notch weir 1 ea 40,000 40,000 15% 6,000 46,000FRP Baffles and Launder Covers 1 1s 65,000 65,000 25% 16,250 82,000Scum Spray System 1 ea 12,000 12,000 10% 1,200 14,000Slide Gate (30" x 30") 3 ea 5,831 17,494 15% 2,624 21,000ML Piping 18" 165 lf 136 22,440 15% 3,366 26,000RAS Piping - 10" 165 lf 75 12,375 15% 1,856 15,000SSC Piping, 6" 200 lf 65 13,000 15% 1,950 15,000


129,000

1,423,000



1,979,000

Subtotal


Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Secondary Clarifiers


Cost Cost per unit Material cost, Install Factor Install CostItem Qty. Unit $ $ % $

Site WorkExcavation - see Site Work tab 0 cy 0 0% 0Backfill - see Site Work tab 0 cy 0 0% 0

StructuralStructural Modifications- channel widening 1 ls 150,000 150,000 0% 0

Architectual

MechanicalUV Disinfection System 1 ls 250,000 250,000 25% 62,500Gates 1 ls 35,000 35,000 15% 5,250

HVAC10% Factor

ELECTRICAL15% Factor

TotalMobilization / Demobilization, 3 percent 3%Contractor Overhead and Profit, 15 percent 15%Bonding and Insurance, 2 percent 2%

Construction Contingencies, 25 percent 25%

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal


Subtotal



UV Building


TOTALCOST,$

00

0

150,000

150,000

0

313,00041,000

354,000

-

0

76,000

76,000

580,000

580,00018,00087,00012,000

697,000145,000842,000



UV Building



DemolitionDemo Existing system 1 1s 25,000 25,000 0% 0 25,000

25,000Structural

0Architectual

0MechanicalNew Pumps 4 ea 35,000 140,000 30% 42,000 182,000Piping 1 ls 85,000 85,000 30% 25,500 111,000New Reuse Filter 1 ls 275,000 275,000 20% 55,000 330,000

623,000HVAC

0ELECTRICAL10% Factor 65,000

65,000

713,000



1,032,000

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal



Reuse Building



DemolitionDemo Existing Concrete 600 cy 335 201,000 0% 0 201,000Excavation 10,250 cy 22 225,500 0% 0 226,000Excavation near existing structures 3,850 cy 22 84,700 0% 85,000Shoring 4,000 sf 35 140,000 100% 140,000Fill 5,600 cy 28 156,800 0% 0 157,000Fill near structures 3,850 cy 28 107,800 0% 108,000Structural Backfill, 3/4" Crushed rock 470 cy 38 17,860 0% 0 18,000

935,000StructuralReinforced Concrete Foundation 710 cy 1,050 745,500 0% 0 746,000Reinforced Concrete Walls 385 cy 1,200 462,000 0% 0 462,000Aluminum Handrail 400 lf 133 53,200 0% 0 54,000

1,262,000Geotechnical


0MechanicalValves 1 ls 12,000 12,000 20% 2,400 14,000Piping 1 ls 25,000 25,000 25% 6,250 31,000Coarse Bubble Diffusers 1 ea 62,500 62,500 15% 9,375 72,000Instrumentation 1 ls 18,000 18,000 15% 2,700 21,000


117,000

2,452,000



3,370,000

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Aerobic Digester



DemolitionDemo work 1 1s 25,000 25,000 0% 0 25,000

25,000StructuralModifications 1 ls 50,000 50,000 0% 0 50,000

50,000Geotechnical


0MechanicalRDT 1 ea 225,000 225,000 40% 90,000 315,000Piping 1 ls 25,000 25,000 15% 3,750 29,000Valves 2 ea 15,000 30,000 15% 4,500 35,000TWAS pump 1 ea 15,000 15,000 25% 3,750 19,000Instrumenation 1 ls 5,000 5,000 20% 1,000 6,000

404,000HVAC


72,000

551,000



795,000

Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal



RDT



Site WorkDemo Existing Bldg 1 1s 125,000 125,000 0% 0 125,000Site Piping 1 1s 150,000 150,000 0% 0 150,000Pavement 4,000 sf 18 72,000 0% 0 72,000

347,000StructuralSlab on Grade 100 cy 1,050 105,000 0% 0 105,000

105,000Geotechnical

Subtotal 0ArchitectualArchitectural 1,500 sf 250 375,000 0 0 375,000

375,000Mechanical

Shaftless Screw Sludge Conveyor w/ 6" Knife Gate 2 ea 40,000 80,000 15% 12,000 92,000Piping 1 ls 75,000 75,000 25% 18,750 94,000Valves 1 ls 25,000 25,000 0% 0 25,000Centrifuge 2 ea 350,000 700,000 10% 70,000 770,000Polymer System 2 ea 50,000 100,000 10% 10,000 110,000

1,091,000Electrical18% Factor 283,000HVAC15% Factor 236,000

519,000

2,956,000



4,288,000

Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal




Dewatering outdoor



Site WorkDemo Existing Bldg 1 1s 125,000 125,000 0% 0 125,000Site Piping 1 1s 150,000 150,000 0% 0 150,000Pavement 4,000 sf 18 72,000 0% 0 72,000

347,000StructuralSlab on Grade 200 cy 1,050 210,000 0% 0 210,000

210,000Geotechnical

Subtotal 0ArchitectualArchitectural 2,500 sf 250 625,000 0 0 625,000

625,000Mechanical

Shaftless Screw Sludge Conveyor w/ 6" Knife Gate 2 ea 48,800 97,600 15% 14,640 113,000Piping 1 ls 75,000 75,000 25% 18,750 94,000Valves 1 ls 25,000 25,000 0% 0 25,000Centrifuge 2 ea 350,000 700,000 10% 70,000 770,000Polymer System 2 ea 50,000 100,000 10% 10,000 110,000

1,112,000Electrical18% Factor 351,000HVAC15% Factor 293,000

644,000

3,582,000



5,196,000

Subtotal


Subtotal


Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal

Subtotal



Dewatering Indoor

technical memorandum · disinfection, and solids handling. the headworks includes mechanical and...

Documents