The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDWQ-2025-002862PROVO CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 2023 CONDITION ASSESSMENT BUDGETARY PLANNING https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC PROVO CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN Date: January 8, 2025 Prepared By: Jenny Calderon, PE John Matta, PE Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Population Projections / Flows and Loads .......................................................................................... 2 3. 2023 Condition Assessment - Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 4. Other Planned Plant Upgrades ........................................................................................................... 7 5. Available Funding ................................................................................................................................ 9 6. Prioritization of Repairs and Upgrades ............................................................................................... 9 6.1. Stage 1 Upgrades ........................................................................................................................... 12 6.2. Stage 2a Upgrades ......................................................................................................................... 13 6.3. Stage 2b Upgrades ......................................................................................................................... 14 6.4. Stage 3 Upgrades ........................................................................................................................... 15 6.5. Stage 4 Upgrades ........................................................................................................................... 16 6.6. Stage 5 Upgrades ........................................................................................................................... 16 7. Budgetary Planning ........................................................................................................................... 17 8. Stage 1 Upgrades Implementation Plan ........................................................................................... 22 9. APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 24 10. APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... 25 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page ii https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC List of Tables Table 2-1 – Provo City WRF Calculated Influent Flows per Utah Regulation 317-3 ................................... 3 Table 2-2 – Population Data Used for 2020 Upgrades Design Including Estimated Flows ........................ 3 Table 3-1 - 2023 Condition Assessment Recommended Repairs and Upgrades ........................................ 4 Table 4-1 – Estimated Costs of Recommended Upgrades to PCWRF ........................................................ 8 Table 5-1 – PCWRF Capital Improvements Allocations .............................................................................. 9 Table 6-1 – Prioritization of Repairs and Upgrades to PCWRF ................................................................. 10 Table 7-1 – Proposed Project Funding Schedule (Includes Escalation, Engineering, and Owner Contingency) ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 8-1 – Recommended Stage 1 Upgrades Project Planning .............................................................. 23 List of Figures Figure 1-1 – Current Plant Upgrades .......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 6-1 – Priority 1 Upgrades: Stage 1 ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6-2 – Remainder of Phase 1, Stage 2a Upgrades ........................................................................... 14 Figure 6-3 – Liquid Stream Process Expansion: Phase 2, Stage 2b Upgrades .......................................... 15 Figure 6-4 – Solids Stream Process Upgrades: Phase 2, Stage 3 Upgrades .............................................. 16 Figure 6-5 – Nutrient Upgrades: Phase 2, Stage 5 Upgrades ................................................................... 17 Figure 7-1 - Costs and Expenditures Based on Assumed Funding ............................................................ 18 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 1 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 1. Introduction The Provo City Wastewater Treatment Facility (PCWRF) was originally constructed in 1953 with its last major process upgrades in 1976. The plant has been well maintained, but most of the facilities and equipment have served the plant well beyond their anticipated useful life. In 2019, the City began the process of updating and upgrading the entire treatment facility. Upgrades were divided into two phases. Phase 1 will upgrade the entire liquid stream process for an Average Annual Day (AAD) flow of 16 mgd, to meet the 2035 population and flow projections. Phase 1 also includes a new power distribution system and complete upgrades to plant electrical equipment. Upgrades to the solids stream process are limited to those repairs and upgrades required to keep the facilities in operation until Phase 2 of construction could begin. The Phase 2 Construction was planned to begin starting in 2035, expanding the liquid stream process to meet the buildout population projections, with projected AAD flow of 24 mgd, and complete replacement of the solids stream process. Due to budgetary constraints the Phase 1 upgrades had to be subdivided into smaller construction packages to allow the City to begin upgrades while still developing funds for future packages. The second construction package of the Phase 1 construction is currently in progress. Packages 1 and 2 have included construction of the plant’s new power distribution building and feeds to all new processes, modest upgrades to the solids stream process, and replacement of the existing secondary treatment process with a membrane bioreactor (MBR) secondary treatment process. The current construction package includes two of the three MBR treatment trains required to fully decommission the plant’s existing secondary process. The scope of the current plant upgrades is shown in Figure 1-1 below. The existing treatment process is in satisfactory condition but was not designed to meet the permitted effluent phosphorus limits that PCWRF will be required to meet beginning in January 2025. Until Bioreactor No. 3 is constructed, and the existing aeration basins are decommissioned, it may be necessary to meet this limit using chemical addition at its existing final clarifiers, resulting in increased operational costs. Also, if anticipated nitrogen limitations are enacted, Bioreactor No. 3 will become necessary, as the existing secondary process will not be capable of meeting those requirements. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 2 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 1-1 – Current Plant Upgrades 2. Population Projections / Flows and Loads The population growth estimates used for the design of the current plant upgrades are shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 below. Population estimates from the 2021 Provo City Wastewater and Collection System Master Plan are reproduced in Table 2-1 indicating a similar, if slightly accelerated, growth plan to the one used for upgrades design. Based on these projections, Provo’s improvement will be approaching an estimated 16 mgd by 2035, as estimated in the plant upgrades design. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 3 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 2-1 – Provo City WRF Calculated Influent Flows per Utah Regulation 317-3 Parameter, Unit Design Flow Factor Projected 2022 Values Projected 2035 Values Buildout Design Population Estimates 127,000 149,000 197,000 2021 Master Plan Estimates 150,291 200,000 AAD, mgd 1 13.6 15.9 21.1 ADMM, mgd 1.2 16.3 19.1 25.3 PDF, mgd 1.8 24.5 28.7 37.9 Adjusted PHF1, mgd 2.4 32.6 38.3 50.6 Minimum Daily Flow, mgd 0.76 10.3 12.1 16.0 Minimum Hourly Flow, mgd 0.44 5.98 7.01 9.27 Table 2-2 – Population Data Used for 2020 Upgrades Design Including Estimated Flows Year Population Estimated Flow, mgd 2010 Census 112,488 2018 Estimated 119,184 2020 122,971 2030 142,223 2035 Estimated 148,664 15.9 2040 155,397 2050 159,265 2060 163,229 2136 Buildout 197,000 21.1 3. 2023 Condition Assessment - Recommendations When the current plant upgrades are complete, the plant will begin the process of upgrading existing processes and facilities to address concerns associated with aging facilities. To that end, a condition CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 4 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC assessment for all plant assets, processes, and equipment was conducted in Summer 2023. Assets were evaluated on their general condition and performance, as well as safety, permit compliance and reliability, redundancy, operational flexibility, and operational and maintenance demands. The Condition Assessment report is attached for reference in APPENDIX A and divides recommended repairs and upgrades into three Priority categories: • Priority 1 upgrades are recommended to be addressed within 1-5 years • Priority 2 upgrades recommended to be addressed within 5-10 years • Priority 3 upgrades carry no definite timeline. Assets in this category should be monitored for repair and upgrade as required, but are not expected to need repair within the next 10 years. Assets and facilities recommended for Priority 1 upgrades are at high risk of failure, lack redundancy, create unsafe conditions for operators, and are critical processes for plant operation and permit compliance. Assets and facilities recommended for Priority 2 and Priority 3 upgrades represent known concerns, but which carry less urgency for a variety of reasons. These assets and facilities are generally in better condition, have sufficient redundancy, or are not critical processes to plant operations or permit compliance. Based on this and on available funding data, this document is intended to provide a planning framework for making capital improvements over a 20-year planning horizon. Table 3-1 lists items recommended for repair based on the results of the 2023 condition assessment. Items in bold typeface are Priority 1 upgrades. These items are discussed in detail in the Condition Assessment Report (APPENDIX A). Table 3-1 - 2023 Condition Assessment Recommended Repairs and Upgrades Area Performance Septage Station • System Undersized • No Metering Capability Influent Pump Station (IPS) • Aging Equipment and Valves • Odor Control System lacks fresh air vents / blower is undersized (See Headworks Screens and Grit) • Pump VFDs are in very poor condition • Controls and electrical equipment are outdated • Electrical Refeed Package B Influent Junction Box • Box needs concrete and pipeline rehabilitation • Gate replacement for bypass functionality Headworks Screens • No redundancy and no space in facility for expansion • Frequent O&M issues related to Septage station • Standby power MCC is old and lacks proper accessibility. • Electrical Refeed Package C • Inadequate redundancy Headworks Grit: • Concrete rehabilitation • Odor Control (See IPS) • Replace West grit chamber effluent gate before failure. Full pump around required. PC Distribution Structure • Structural Rebuild / Concrete Rehabilitation Primary Clarifier (PC) No. 1 • Adequate performance, need overall rebuild CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 5 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Area Performance Primary Clarifier No. 2 • Adequate performance, need overall rebuild. Previous equipment damage has compromised expected design life. Ferric Dosing Station • Replacement of Ferric Dosing Pump No. 2 Aeration Basin Metering Structure • Good condition – Decommission upon construction of Bioreactor No. 3 Aeration Basin Influent (ABI) Pump Station • Good condition – Decommission upon construction of Bioreactor No. 3 Aeration Basins • Good condition – Decommission upon construction of Bioreactor No. 3, and repurpose. • Cannot treat biologically for Phosphorous Final Clarifiers • Good conditions/ample redundancy – Decommission upon construction of Bioreactor No. 3 (Old) Blower Building • Connection from existing to new Process Aeration header to reduce energy demand for aeration • Electrical Refeed Package E Filter Building • Decommissioned once new plant is operational • Evaluate for required dewatering efforts UV System • One bank of channels with aging equipment • Improve ventilation, heating and humidity control • Electrical Refeed Package D • Expand Aerator Capacity at UV Facility • Structural maintenance at Chlorine Building Impure Water PS • Pumps No. 1 and No. 2 NPW PS • Pumps and associated piping system to be replaced. Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 2 • Aging Structure • Old Equipment and Process Piping • NFPA-820 Compliance • Old Controls and Electrical Equipment • Electrical Refeed Package A Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 • Aging Structure • Old Equipment and process Piping • NFPA-820 Compliance • Water Damage to MCC Dissolved Air Floatation Thickener • Recent failures prompted upgrades as part of current plant upgrades • Aging Thickened sludge pumps and compressor • Old MCC running at full capacity • Performance to be re-evaluated upon commissioning of MBR Primary Digesters • Building Structural – Aging Concrete / Masonry, Roof to be replaced • Process Piping to be upgraded • NFPA-820 Compliance • Aging electrical and controls equipment. Secondary Digesters • Used for Solids Holding Tanks • Localized concrete repairs • Level Floors and upgrade sump drain system • Equipment recently updated CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 6 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Area Performance • Ventilation upgrades part of Elovac System Installation • Aging Electrical and Controls / System near capacity Waste Gas Flare • Corrosion • Faulty Igniter • To be relocated to a safe distance from Primary Digesters Dewatering Centrifuge System • Recent upgrades to polymer dosing and Centrifuge No. 1 • Centrifuge No. 2 is aging but in good condition • Electrical Refeed Package B Sludge Drying Beds • Poor condition, low criticality of failure • Re-asphalt Bed 10 Centrate Pump Station • Aging wetwell structure • All new equipment Struvite Control System • New system to be installed Spring 2024 Site • Grading and paving / beautification • Lighting at North end of Plant • Site Security & Lighting • General Concrete / Structural Repairs Electrical Feed • Electrical Refeed Packages A-E • Expand new power distribution system for connection of existing facilities • Old Power Distribution System lacks redundancy / Replacement parts are not available due to age • Powers all solids handling facilities, and all existing liquid stream facilities • Site electrical ductbank • Power Distribution Equipment & Load Administration Building • Laboratory • Offices • Maintenance Shop • Old Structure • Outdated pluming • Insufficient HVAC • Code Compliance • Insufficient Space for Growing Operations: • Growing operations requirements / staff • Storage and staff facilities scattered throughout site • No Women’s Locker Room and Showers • Small shared office spaces • Laboratory requirements for drinking water plant are not well accommodated in existing lab. • No separate space exists for clean water testing in lab Phase 1 Upgrades • Bioreactor No. 3 & Membrane Tank No. 8 Equipment • Upgrade headworks and primary clarifiers Phase 2 Upgrades • Bioreactor No. 4 and No. 5 • Expanded primary and headworks capacity • Replacement of Solids stream Processes CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 7 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4. Other Planned Plant Upgrades In addition to the upgrades recommended as a result of the 2023 Condition Assessment, PCWRF will also be continuing to implement the remainder of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 plant upgrades. These upgrades began in 2019 to address current and anticipated regulations, aging and outdated equipment and infrastructure, safety concerns, insufficient redundancy, and other concerns. Many of the repairs and upgrades recommended as a result of the 2023 Condition Assessment are interim repairs, which will allow the City to Phase upgrades while maintaining current plant operations. The remaining Phase 1 Upgrades will ensure the plant’s liquid stream process will meet anticipated flows and loadings, as well as new regulatory requirements through 2035 (16 mgd). These upgrades include: • Complete replacement of the headworks facilities to add process redundancy and modify facility to allow for future expansion. • Complete replacement of the primary clarifiers. This is dependent on the carbon content of the influent wastewater and the need for denitrification. • Construction of Bioreactor No. 3 and outfitting Membrane Tank No. 8 with equipment PCWRF’s headworks facility needs to be expanded to accommodate process redundancy and future plant expansion. Replacement of the primary clarifiers will allow both the existing clarifiers and the influent pump station (IPS) to be decommissioned. The fine screen pump station (FSPS) being constructed as part of the current plant upgrades will become the new IPS. This upgrade will address age and condition concerns regarding both the existing IPS and clarifiers and will reduce overall pumping costs by reducing the number of times that plant flows will have to be lifted in-plant. To complete the Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) facility, PCWRF will construct Bioreactor No. 3 and provide membrane equipment for Membrane Tank No. 8. By doing this, PCWRF will be able to eliminate its dependence on the existing aeration basins for redundancy and capacity. This will allow the plant to decommission the aeration basins (repurposing them for additional surge storage capacity or for aerated digestion), the final clarifiers, the existing RAS/WAS pump station, and the Aeration Basin Influent (ABI) Pump Station. By decommissioning both the ABI Pump Station and IPS, PCWRF will be left with only a single lift station in its treatment process (the new FSPS), reducing overall pumping costs (and maintenance costs associated with maintaining pumps and equipment in several separate facilities). In addition, by completing the MBR facility, Provo will be capable of meeting its Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) biologically, reducing reliance on chemicals and their associated costs. If a Total Organic Nitrogen (TIN) limit is imposed, Bioreactor No. 3 will be required to meet it because the existing aeration basins do not have the ability to denitrify. Depending upon the TIN limitation imposed and the plant influent rates when such a rule goes into effect, a TIN limit may also move up the timeline for installing Bioreactor No. 4. All bioreactors being constructed as part of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction have denitrification capability, but the extent of the denitrification in the system depends on the total volume of the bioreactors. Phase 2 Upgrades (recommended beginning in 2030) will: CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 8 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC • Expand the headworks and primary clarification facilities to provide expanded capacity and process redundancy to meet community growth projections. o Primary clarification upgrades will need to be evaluated depending on influent carbon strength and denitrification requirements. • Add Bioreactor No. 4 to meet community growth projections. • Add Bioreactor No. 5 to meet anticipated TIN limit regulations. • Complete replacement of the solids handling processes. The Phase 2 upgrades are intended to expand the plant’s liquid stream processes (MBRs, Headworks, and Primary Clarifiers) to meet Provo’s Buildout population and flow projections (24 MGD) and to fully update and replace the existing solids stream process. Expansion of the liquid stream processes is expected to be required by about 2035 but will depend on actual community growth. The plant’s existing solids stream process is aging, with some facilities dating back to the 1950’s. The process is designed for the buildout flow projections, but many of the processes lack redundancy. In addition, the facilities themselves are in poor condition. The Priority 1 solids stream process upgrades recommended as a result of PCWRF’s 2023 Condition Assessment will address the most urgent needs and allow operations to continued for up to 10 additional years. Ultimately, though, these processes need to be replaced with processes that complement the new secondary process, can meet anticipated regulatory changes with respect to Per- and PolyFluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and which will address safety, redundancy, building and fire code, and other concerns. These changes are discussed in greater detail in APPENDIX A: 2023 Condition Assessment and APPENDIS B: Biosolids Master Plan. Engineering estimates of costs associated with all the repairs and upgrades recommended as part of the 2023 Condition Assessment and planned plant upgrades. These are summarized in Table 4-1 below. Note that these are high-level engineering estimates based on current market conditions and recent installations that are similar in nature. All costs are in 2024 dollars. Specific upgrades are detailed in Section 6. Table 4-1 – Estimated Costs of Recommended Upgrades to PCWRF Areas Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Remaining Phase 1 and Phase 2 Upgrades Liquid Areas $4.25M $3.15M $0.75M Phase 1 Upgrades: Headworks and Primary Clarifiers $25M to $40M Solids Areas $2.38M $1.30M $2.32M Phase 2 Upgrades: Full replacement of solids facilities $80M to $160M General / Site $7.50M CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 9 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Areas Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Remaining Phase 1 and Phase 2 Upgrades Bioreactor No. 3 $21.0M Electrical Feed & Equipment $4.10M $5.9M Phase 2 Upgrades: Expansion of Liquid Stream Processes: Headworks & Primary Clarifiers $50M to $80M TOTALS: $39.2M $4.45M $8.97M $155M to $280M 5. Available Funding Provo City Public Works Department has indicated that their current budget allocates an annual capital improvement budget for required upgrades. The annual allocations currently budgeted are summarized in Table 5-1. Because these allocations are insufficient to address the upgrades detailed in Table 4-1 within the recommended timeframes, PCWRF is actively seeking additional funding to begin addressing all Priority 1 upgrades. Table 5-1 – PCWRF Capital Improvements Allocations Fiscal Year Available Budget FY 2026 $5M FY 2027 $5M FY 2028 $5M FY 2029 $5M FY 2030 $10M FY 2031 $5M TOTAL: $35M 6. Prioritization of Repairs and Upgrades All recommended repairs and upgrades are included in Table 6-1 below along with estimated costs associated with each upgrade and the recommended fiscal year in which the upgrade should be implemented. The upgrades are grouped by color to visually break down when upgrades are needed. The need for all recommended upgrades is discussed in detail in the 2023 Condition Assessment Report attached to this document as the Stage 1 Upgrades Implementation Plan. • Stage 1 includes all the Priority 1 Upgrades • Stage 2a includes Phase 1 remaining capital projects and Priority 2 upgrades • Stage 2b includes Phase 2 liquid stream upgrades CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 10 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC • Stage 3 includes Phase 2 solids stream upgrades • Stage 4 includes Priority 3 upgrades • Stage 5 includes Phase 2 regulatory upgrades Table 6-1 provides an itemized list of each stage. Table 6-1 – Prioritization of Repairs and Upgrades to PCWRF Upgrade Type Description Cost FY Upgrade Recommended Stage 1 Recommended Upgrades Priority 1: Filter Building Repair roof and make structural repairs necessary to safely decommission facility, Evaluate dewatering needs - Operating Budget $0.100M 2025 Priority 1: UV Disinfection Facility Replace 1 Bank of bulbs - Operating Budget $0.025M 2025 Priority 1: Influent Pump Station Replace Influent Pump VFDs and address Odor Control Concerns (Upgrade Blower Size) $1.000M 2026 Priority 1: Primary Clarifier No. 2 Full Refurbishment of Primary Clarifier No. 2 including new mechanism $1.500M 2026 Priority 1: UV Disinfection Facility Expand Capacity of Aerators located at UV facility $0.100M 2026 Priority 1: General Improvements Elec Improvements - Electrical Refeeds to existing facilities: PSPS 2, IPS, Blower Bldg, Dewatering, Disinfection Load Centers $4.100M 2026 Priority 1: General Improvements Grading / Paving / Drainage - Stormwater / Landscaping** $0.750M 2026 Priority 1: General Improvements Site Security $0.400M 2026 Priority 1: General Improvements North Plant Exterior Lighting $0.250M 2026 Priority 1: Bioreactor No. 3 Construction $21.000M 2026 Priority 1: Influent and Headworks Concrete Rehab / Replace inoperable influent bypass gates - Pipeline from centrifuge from across street, PLS force main, MOPO $1.000M 2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 11 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Upgrade Type Description Cost FY Upgrade Recommended Priority 1: Influent and Headworks Expand septage tank capacity / Improve metering capability $0.500M 2027 Priority 1: Primary Digesters Catwalk replacement and digester roof replacement, Digester Hatch repairs, Control Panel Replacement / Control Building roof, Replacement of equipment: sludge pumps, heat exchangers, flow meter, boilers, 3-way valves, Digester structural repairs $1.500M 2027 Priority 1: Waste Gas Burner Upgrade to address corrosion and faulty igniter $0.175M 2028 Priority 1: Waste Gas Burner Relocate to a safe distance from primary digesters $0.175M 2028 Priority 1: Secondary Digesters Level Floors and Upgrade sump drain system $0.200M 2028 Priority 1: Ferric Dosing Station Replace dosing pump No. 2 - Operating Budget $0.020M 2029 Priority 1: Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 NFPA-820 Compliance upgrades $0.150M 2029 Priority 1: Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 Process piping & Valves $0.150M 2029 Priority 1: Drying Beds Re-asphalt drying bed No. 10 $0.025M 2029 Priority 1: General Improvements Administration / Laboratory / Maint. Shop $4.350M 2029 Priority 1: General Improvements Collections Building $1.750M 2029 Stage 2a Recommended Upgrades PHASE 1 Upgrades Headworks $22.000M 2030 PHASE 1 Upgrades Primary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 $18.000M 2030 Priority 2 Upgrades Liquid Stream $3.150M 2033 Priority 2 Upgrades Solids Stream $1.300M 2033 Stage 2b Recommended Upgrades PHASE 2 Upgrades: Expansion of Liquid Stream Process to 24 MGD PC #3 $10.000M 2033 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 12 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Upgrade Type Description Cost FY Upgrade Recommended PHASE 2 Upgrades: Expansion of Liquid Stream Process to 24 MGD HW Expansion $8.000M 2033 PHASE 2 Upgrades: Expansion of Liquid Stream Process to 24 MGD Bioreactor No. 4, Expansion of Membrane Facility & Equipment $41.000M 2033 Stage 3 Recommended Upgrades PHASE 2 Upgrades: Future Solids Handling Process Thermal Drying and Conversion of Organics: Pyrolysis / Degassification / Incineration + selected pretreatment $158.700M 2035 PHASE 2 Upgrades: Future Solids Handling Process Drying Beds to replace Existing Utilized for New Solids Stream $1.300M 2035 Stage 4 Recommended Upgrades Priority 3 Upgrades Liquid Stream $0.750M 2037 Priority 3 Upgrades Solids Stream $2.318M 2037 Priority 3 Upgrades Electrical Equipment Upgrades $5.900M 2037 Stage 5 Recommended Upgrades PHASE 2 Upgrades: Nutrient Regulations Bioreactor No. 5 $21.000M 2040 6.1. Stage 1 Upgrades In the 2023 WRF Condition Assessment, the projects indicated as Priority 1 upgrades were identified and recommended for repairs beginning in FY 2026, upon completion of the current plant upgrades. These Stage 1 upgrades include refurbishments to existing facilities and equipment, construction of a new administration building, a new collections building, completion of site electrical and civil upgrades, construction of Bioreactor No. 3, and refeeding all existing facilities from the new Power Distribution System. These upgrades are recommended for completion within the next 5 years to help promote maintenance of plant operations until aging facilities can be upgraded, expanded, and replaced in future construction phases. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 13 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 6-1 – Priority 1 Upgrades: Stage 1 6.2. Stage 2a Upgrades The Stage 2a upgrades (see Figure 6-2) include the completion of the Phase 1 upgrades and Priority 2 Condition Upgrades should be planned to begin by 2030. These upgrades will reduce dependency on several aging facilities and address maintenance of facilities concerns that are expected to become more urgent over time (Priority 2 Condition Upgrades). The existing IPS will be decommissioned as part of these upgrades and the FSPS will become the new IPS. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 14 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 6-2 – Remainder of Phase 1, Stage 2a Upgrades 6.3. Stage 2b Upgrades The City should also consider implementing the facility’s liquid stream expansion upgrades as part of the liquid stream process upgrades. These are listed as Stage 2b upgrades in Table 6-1. These upgrades include the expansion of the headworks and primary clarifiers and the construction of Bioreactor No. 4. These upgrades will increase the entire liquid stream process capacity to meet community buildout flow and load projections. This is recommended because the expansion will likely be necessary to meet population projections beyond 2035. If the liquid stream process and expansion upgrades can be completed as part of a single construction project, it is likely to be less costly by preventing inflationary cost increases, and by reducing the number of construction mobilizations required. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 15 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 6-3 – Liquid Stream Process Expansion: Phase 2, Stage 2b Upgrades 6.4. Stage 3 Upgrades The Stage 3 solids stream upgrades (see Figure 6-4) should be planned to begin by 2035. By this time, many of the facilities interim upgrades will have reached the end of their useful life, and the solids handling facilities will need to be replaced for condition and performance. Depending on regulatory requirements regarding PFAS, it may be necessary to begin the solids stream upgrades even sooner than is listed in Table 6-1. The replacement of the biosolids process will begin with converting the process for a thermal conversion process such as pyrolysis or thermal degasification. These upgrades may be implemented with or without pretreatment digestion processes, but in either case will require dewatering and drying facilities. The cost listed in the table below assumes that the existing process is beyond its useful life and will be replaced by a thermal conversion process with no preliminary digestion. Options are discussed in detail in the Biosolids Master Plan (APPENDIX B). CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 16 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 6-4 – Solids Stream Process Upgrades: Phase 2, Stage 3 Upgrades 6.5. Stage 4 Upgrades Stage 4 Upgrades include the remainder of the Priority 3 Condition Upgrades and are recommended for completion by 2040. Some of these may have been previously completed through operations and maintenance activities by 2040, but any outstanding Priority 3 Condition Upgrades are expected to become high priority upgrades within about 10-15 years. 6.6. Stage 5 Upgrades The Stage 5 Nutrient Upgrades (see Figure 6-5) include the construction of Bioreactor No. 5. It is likely that by 2035, the plant will be required to meet a Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) limit necessitating increased overall bioreactor capacity (construction of Bioreactor No. 5) by the time Provo reaches buildout capacity. Stage 5 is currently placed for recommended completion in 2045. It will be necessary for Provo to monitor its growth and plant performance to optimize the timing of construction. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 17 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 6-5 – Nutrient Upgrades: Phase 2, Stage 5 Upgrades 7. Budgetary Planning Based on the recommended budgetary planning and phasing of construction discussed herein, a plan has been prepared to show a potential financing scenario that would cover the upgrades on the timeline discussed. Figure 7-1 shows two different financing scenarios: • Shown in blue are the project costs incurred in the year when the project is implemented. (including escalation), with the line showing the cumulative project costs over time. • The green lines show a funding scenario where the project costs are paid back using bonds or loans on 5-year increments through the planning horizon. With the line showing cumulative costs, including escalation and interest estimated. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 18 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 7-1 - Costs and Expenditures Based on Assumed Funding This information is also tabulated in Table 7-1, which shows each fiscal year through 2064. It shows the cost of upgrades in individual years both with and without escalation (projects allocated to each fiscal you can be seen in Table 6-1). It also shows the upgrades divided into 5 separate stages and their cumulative annual payments on a 20-year payback period (highlighted in yellow). The last four columns of Table 7-1 show: • The service populations estimated through buildout (as shown in Table 2-2) • The annual capital facilities allocations currently budgeted for FY 2025-2031. It is assumed that after 2031 the annual allocations will grow proportional to population growth. • The per capital monthly increase that would be required in each fiscal year (non-cumulative) to service the annual loan payments. • The per capital monthly increase that would be required in each fiscal year (non-cumulative) to service the annual loan payments if the annual capital allocations are used to service the annual payment. At each stage of development, population growth and community needs should be reevaluated. Faster or slower community growth, changes to buildout population projections, regulatory changes, changes in technology, and changes in the flow and loading characteristics of influent sewage may all have bearing on the timeline and extent of required upgrades. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 19 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC These recommendations are based on a 20-year planning horizon. It is worth noting that at the end of this planning horizon, the equipment being installed right now will be 20 years old and in need of its own maintenance, which is not considered herein. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 20 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 7-1 – Proposed Project Funding Schedule (Includes Escalation, Engineering, and Owner Contingency) Funding Interest Rate 3.0% Funding Payback Period Annual Payment to Service Loans Principal Balance After Payment Population Budgeted Capital Funds Allocation (Assumed Proportional to population Growth After 2031) Additional monthly utility rate Person to cover the Cost of Upgrades. They are not cumulative Escalation Rate 4.0% Engineering Design / Construction Administration 10.5% Owner Contingency 12.0% Fiscal Year Projects Planned by FY Funding Amount (Including Escalation) Additional Monthly Cost Per Person Based on each year's Projected Population Additional Monthly Cost Per Person Based on each year's Projected Population If Assumed Capital Fund Allocations are Used For Loan Payments 2024 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $0.00M $0.00M 130,672 $0.00M $0.00 $0.00 2025 $0.13M $50.00M 20 $3.36M $48.14M 146,579 $5.00M $2.11 $0.00 2026 $33.45M $0.00M 0 $3.36M $46.22M 148,377 $5.00M $2.09 $0.00 2027 $3.00M $0.00M 0 $3.36M $44.25M 150,176 $5.00M $2.07 $0.00 2028 $0.55M $0.00M 0 $3.36M $42.22M 151,974 $5.00M $2.05 $0.00 2029 $2.10M $0.00M 0 $3.36M $40.12M 153,773 $10.00M $2.03 $0.00 2030 $40.00M $160.46M 20 $14.15M $192.45M 155,571 $5.00M $8.48 $5.48 2031 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $14.15M $184.08M 157,414 $5.05M $8.40 $5.40 2032 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $14.15M $175.45M 159,257 $5.09M $8.32 $5.32 2033 $63.45M $0.00M 0 $14.15M $166.57M 161,100 $5.14M $8.24 $5.25 2034 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $14.15M $157.42M 162,943 $5.18M $8.16 $5.17 2035 $160.00M $301.94M 20 $34.44M $438.70M 164,786 $5.23M $19.69 $16.70 2036 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $34.44M $417.42M 166,628 $5.28M $19.51 $16.52 2037 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $34.44M $395.50M 168,471 $5.33M $19.33 $16.34 2038 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $34.44M $372.92M 170,314 $5.37M $19.16 $16.17 2039 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $34.44M $349.67M 172,157 $5.42M $18.99 $16.00 2040 $8.97M $20.59M 20 $35.82M $345.54M 174,000 $5.44M $19.58 $16.61 2041 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $35.82M $320.09M 175,600 $5.45M $19.53 $16.56 2042 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $35.82M $293.86M 177,200 $5.46M $19.48 $16.51 2043 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $35.82M $266.85M 178,800 $5.48M $19.43 $16.46 2044 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $35.82M $239.03M 180,400 $5.49M $19.38 $16.41 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 21 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Funding Interest Rate 3.0% Funding Payback Period Annual Payment to Service Loans Principal Balance After Payment Population Budgeted Capital Funds Allocation (Assumed Proportional to population Growth After 2031) Additional monthly utility rate Person to cover the Cost of Upgrades. They are not cumulative Escalation Rate 4.0% Engineering Design / Construction Administration 10.5% Owner Contingency 12.0% Fiscal Year Projects Planned by FY Funding Amount (Including Escalation) Additional Monthly Cost Per Person Based on each year's Projected Population Additional Monthly Cost Per Person Based on each year's Projected Population If Assumed Capital Fund Allocations are Used For Loan Payments 2045 $21.00M $58.66M 20 $36.41M $270.22M 182,000 $5.50M $19.65 $16.68 2046 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $36.41M $241.92M 183,600 $5.52M $19.60 $16.63 2047 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $36.41M $212.77M 185,200 $5.53M $19.55 $16.58 2048 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $36.41M $182.75M 186,800 $5.55M $19.50 $16.53 2049 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $36.41M $151.82M 188,400 $5.56M $19.45 $16.48 2050 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $25.62M $130.75M 190,000 $5.57M $13.65 $10.68 2051 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $25.62M $109.05M 190,540 $5.59M $13.62 $10.65 2052 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $25.62M $86.70M 191,080 $5.60M $13.59 $10.62 2053 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $25.62M $63.68M 191,620 $5.61M $13.55 $10.58 2054 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $25.62M $39.97M 192,160 $5.63M $13.52 $10.55 2055 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $5.33M $35.84M 192,700 $5.64M $2.80 $0.00 2056 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $5.33M $31.59M 193,240 $5.66M $2.80 $0.00 2057 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $5.33M $27.21M 193,780 $5.67M $2.79 $0.00 2058 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $5.33M $22.70M 194,320 $5.68M $2.78 $0.00 2059 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $5.33M $18.06M 194,860 $5.70M $2.78 $0.00 2060 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $3.94M $14.66M 195,400 $5.71M $2.05 $0.00 2061 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $3.94M $11.15M 195,940 $5.73M $2.04 $0.00 2062 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $3.94M $7.54M 196,480 $5.74M $2.04 $0.00 2063 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $3.94M $3.83M 197,020 $5.76M $2.03 $0.00 2064 $0.00M $0.00M 0 $3.94M $0.00M 197,560 $5.78M $2.03 $0.00 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 22 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 8. Stage 1 Upgrades Implementation Plan As previously discussed, the PCWRF Stage 1 upgrades include all the upgrades considered most urgent for PCWRF’s continued operation. These upgrades are recommended for implementation within the next five years. The upgrades target various areas of the plant and apply to various systems and facilities that are not connected except in the very broadest sense. The grouping of upgrades associated with this stage may be further subdivided without detriment to individual projects if PCWRF is unable to secure all the funding at one time, as outlined in the potential implementation scenario outlined in Section 7. This section is intended to give PCWRF a road map to implementation of projects in a way that provides the plant the functionality that each upgrade is intended to provide, while delineating the upgrades into individual projects that can be completed commensurate with available funding. The main Stage 1 Upgrade cost areas are outlined in Table 8-1. Funding amounts in the table include all escalation, fees, and contingencies. The table also shows recommended implementation time and project status. Electrical and site upgrades (grading paving, drainage, security and lighting) are recommended first, followed by the Bioreactor No. 3 and Membrane System Expansion upgrades (a single project funded over two years if required), and finally, the remainder of the Condition Assessment Upgrades which may be implemented over a three-year period if required. As shown in Table 8-1, it is recommended that the administration building (with laboratory, maintenance shop, and operations facilities) be implemented first of these remaining upgrades. It is understood that all upgrades that receive any federal funding will require the plant to meet the Build America Buy America (BABA) Act. WaterWorks anticipates that equipment and parts associated with the recommended upgrades are easily sourced domestically and will meet the requirements of this rule. The exception is the membrane equipment associated with the Bioreactor No. 3 and Membrane System Expansion project, which include parts and equipment that are not sourced domestically (Approximately $0.5M-$1.0M of the total $21.0M project estimate). For those items that cannot be domestically sourced, Provo may have to seek an exemption to the requirement. See APPENDIX A for more details about all upgrades discussed herein. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 23 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 8-1 – Recommended Stage 1 Upgrades Project Planning Plant Process and/or Systems Estimated Costs Project Status Project Duration 2025 / 2026 2025 / 2026 2026 / 2027 2027 / 2028 / 2029 Total Electrical Refeed Packages $5.2M Design 90% Design: 30 Days $5.2M $5.2M Construction – 12 months Bioreactor No. 3 and Membrane System Expansion $26.8M Design 50% Design: 8 months $11.3M $15.5M $26.8M Construction: 12 to 18 months High Priority Condition Assessment Upgrades $18.0M Design Not Started Design: 6 months Site Upgrades: $1.8M Admin/Lab Operations Building $5.4M $5.3M $5.4M $18.0M Construction: 12 to 18 months Stage 1 - Total $50.0M $7.0M $11.3M $15.5M $5.5M $5.3M $5.4M $50.0M CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 3/26/2025 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC ADDENDUM 1 Updated Environmental Review and Cost Effectiveness Analysis Provo City Water Reclamation Facility has been engaged in plant upgrades since 2020 and will be beginning a new construction package in 2025 to implement the third of three bioreactors associated with the Phase 1 Upgrades, completing upgrades to its secondary treatment process in order to meet state regulatory requirements with respect to effluent phosphorus concentration. In January 2020, at the onset of Construction of the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility’s Phase 1 Upgrades, Water Works Engineers prepared a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) including an Environmental Review and Cost Effectiveness Analysis. The main CFP Document is attached for your review (its appendices are not included herein). Section 5 of the attached CFP details the Environmental Review. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis is detailed in Section 6, Section 7, and Section 8. The plant will be continuing its work implementing the Phased Liquid Stream Process detailed in the CFP document, as changing course would be far more costly at this Stage of Development. However, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis has been updated to reflect current plant conditions, construction progress, current economic conditions and recommendations. This information is located in the Provo City WRF Capital Facilities Budget and Phasing Plan to which this document has been appended. CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 9. APPENDIX A 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROVO CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC PROVO CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – PROVO CITY WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT Date: January 8, 2025 Prepared By: Jenny Calderon, PE John Matta, PE Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Evaluation of Existing Equipment and Structures ............................................................................ 11 3.1. Condition Assessment .................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1. Equipment Condition Assessment .......................................................................................... 13 3.2. Performance Assessment .............................................................................................................. 14 3.3. Criticality Assessment .................................................................................................................... 14 4. Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Structural Condition Assessment ................................................................................................... 16 4.2. Administration Building ................................................................................................................. 21 4.2.1. Space Requirements ............................................................................................................... 21 4.3. Collections Building ........................................................................................................................ 22 4.4. Site ................................................................................................................................................. 22 4.5. Power Distribution Center ............................................................................................................. 22 4.6. Liquid Stream Process .................................................................................................................... 24 4.6.1. Influent and Headworks Facilities ........................................................................................... 24 4.6.2. Influent Pump Station (IPS) ..................................................................................................... 27 4.6.3. Headworks and Influent Pump Station Odor Control System ................................................ 29 4.6.4. Primary Clarifier Influent Distribution Structure .................................................................... 30 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page ii https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.6.5. Primary Clarifiers..................................................................................................................... 32 4.6.6. Ferric Chloride Dosing Station ................................................................................................ 34 4.6.7. Primary Effluent Diversion Structure ...................................................................................... 34 4.6.8. Aeration Basin Pump Station .................................................................................................. 34 4.6.9. Aeration Basin Metering Structure ......................................................................................... 34 4.6.10. Aeration Basins ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.6.11. Aeration Basin Blower Building ............................................................................................ 36 4.6.12. Final Clarifiers........................................................................................................................ 37 4.6.13. Filter Building ........................................................................................................................ 37 4.6.14. Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility ............................................................................................. 37 4.7. Solids Stream Process .................................................................................................................... 39 4.7.1. Primary Sludge Pump Stations ................................................................................................ 40 4.7.2. Dissolved Air Floatation Thickener (DAFT) ............................................................................. 44 4.7.3. Primary Digesters .................................................................................................................... 45 4.7.4. Waste Gas Burner ................................................................................................................... 51 4.7.5. Secondary Digesters................................................................................................................ 51 4.7.6. Dewatering Facility ................................................................................................................. 54 4.7.7. Centrate Pump Station ........................................................................................................... 54 4.7.8. Sludge Drying Beds ................................................................................................................. 55 4.8. Evaluation of Equipment and Structures ....................................................................................... 55 4.9. Interpretation of Results ................................................................................................................ 64 5. APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................... 67 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page iii https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC List of Tables Table 1-1– Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for Liquid Stream Process Facilities ....................... 2 Table 1-2 – Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for Solid Stream Process Facilities ........................ 5 Table 1-3 – Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for General Facilities & Site .................................. 8 Table 1-4 – Summary of Costs for Condition Assessment Priority Upgrades and Remaining Construction Projects ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 1-5 – Summary of Currently Allocated Capital Improvement Funds for Upgrades to PCWRF ......... 9 Table 3-1 – Condition Assessment Scoring Definitions ............................................................................ 13 Table 3-2 – Criticality Rating Definitions ................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-1 - Electrical Refeed Packages Estimated Costs ........................................................................... 23 Table 4-2 – Condition Assessment Scoring Definitions ............................................................................ 55 List of Figures Figure 3-1 - Useful Life Analysis Flow Chart .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 3-2 - Relation between Age and Predicted Remaining Life ........................................................... 12 Figure 3-3 - Relation between Condition Rating and Remaining Life Multiplier ...................................... 14 Figure 4-1 - Light Pole Footing Disintegration and Spalling ...................................................................... 17 Figure 4-2 - Failed Stair Treads and Embedded Nosings .......................................................................... 18 Figure 4-3 - Corroded Buried Electrical Junction Box/Vault ..................................................................... 18 Figure 4-4 - Typical Corrosion at Underside of Steel Walkways ............................................................... 19 Figure 4-5 - Cracking at Asphalt Paving Due to Inadequate Grade .......................................................... 20 Figure 4-6 - Missing Top of Wall Out-of-Plane Connections to Roof Diaphragm ..................................... 20 Figure 4-7 - Deterioration of Concrete and Steel in Influent Junction Box .............................................. 25 Figure 4-8 - Concrete Spalling in Influent Junction Box ............................................................................ 25 Figure 4-9 - Rusting of Septage Dump Station Tanks ............................................................................... 26 Figure 4-10 - Influent Pumps No. 1, 2, and 3 ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 4-11 - Influent Pump Station Pumps and Check Valves ................................................................. 29 Figure 4-12 - Broken Concrete and Failed Stair Treads at Influent Distribution Structure ...................... 31 Figure 4-13 - Deterioration of Concrete and Steel in Influent Distribution Structure ............................. 31 Figure 4-14 - Repaired Rake Arm After Damage and Rusting of Clarifier Steel ........................................ 32 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page iv https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-15 - Deterioration of Structural Steel and Drive Mechanism in Need of Replacement at Primary Clarifier No. 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 4-16 - Concrete Cracking and Additional Crack at Previous Repair on Primary Clarifier No. 2 ..... 33 Figure 4-17 - Rusting Panels Containing Flume Flow Meters ................................................................... 36 Figure 4-18 – Undersized Aerators at UV Facility ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 4-19 - Gas Unit Heater in Common Space with Equipment in Hazardous Location at Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 ....................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 4-20 - Exterior Brick Cracking / Separation from Structure at Primary Sludge PS No. 2 ............... 43 Figure 4-21 - Rusting of Parapet Walls at PSPS No. 2 .............................................................................. 43 Figure 4-22 - MCC Rusting as a Result of Leaking Roof / Flooding at PSPS No. 2 ..................................... 43 Figure 4-23 - Sump Pump No. 2 Inoperable at PSPS No. 2 ....................................................................... 44 Figure 4-24 - Rusting Hatch and Equipment on Primary Digester Exterior .............................................. 46 Figure 4-25 - Rusting / Leaking Process Piping in Primary Digester Facility ............................................. 47 Figure 4-26 - Missing Mortar and Crack Formation on Primary Digester Exterior ................................... 48 Figure 4-27 - Roof Leaking above Control Panel at Primary Digester ...................................................... 49 Figure 4-28 - Roof Leaking in Primary Digester Building .......................................................................... 49 Figure 4-29 - Catwalk Rusting above North Boiler Stack .......................................................................... 50 Figure 4-30 - Inaccurate Pressure Gauges in Primary Digester Facility .................................................... 50 Figure 4-31 - Corrosion of Shroud and Base of Waste Gas Burner .......................................................... 51 Figure 4-32 – Crack in the South Wall of the Secondary Digester Facility ............................................... 52 Figure 4-33 - Concrete broken away due to degradation by Corrosive Gases at Digester Roof Vents .... 52 Figure 4-34 – Corrosion to Secondary Digester Bridge Structure ............................................................ 53 Figure 4-35 – Corroded Connections to Secondary Digesters .................................................................. 53 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 1 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 1. Executive Summary WaterWorks performed an updated condition assessment in Summer of 2023 to assess the assets and facilities at Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) for the purposes of planning future upgrades. The facilities were rated according to the relative recommended replacement priority for facilities and assets. The results of the assessment are summarized and tabulated in Table 1-1,Table 1-2, Table 1-3, and Table 1-4. The priority of recommended repairs are: • Priority 1: The facility or asset needs repair within the next 1-5 years due to its condition or the criticality of its failure on plant operations, safety, regulatory compliance, redundancy, or operational flexibility. • Priority 2: The facility or asset is recommended for planned upgrade or replacement within the next 5-10 years. • Priority 3: The facility or asset is to be regularly repaired and monitored for upgrade or replacement. The cost estimates indicated for repairs are high-level estimates, based on known market conditions and similar reference projects, and are in 2023 dollars. These costs are intended to aid the City in planning and prioritizing projects only. More detailed cost estimates will be created as details of repairs or upgrades are developed and design decisions are made. Inflation has been high and unpredictable over the last 3 years, and though it has largely stabilized, costs will likely increase over the next few years. In consultation with Provo City’s Financial Analyst, WaterWorks was informed of funds that are expected to become available for upgrades to PCWRF between FY2026 and FY2031. These amounts are shown in Table 1-5 and total $35M Based on the information tabulated in the following tables, PCWRF staff have indicated that their intention is to address Priority 1 repairs, begin feeding existing systems from the new power distribution system, and complete construction of Bioreactor No. 3 by the end of FY31 (July 2031). The condition of existing facilities and required upgrades are described in detail in Section 4 and its subsections. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 2 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 1-1– Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for Liquid Stream Process Facilities Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Septage Station Undersized Deteriorated Deteriorated Upgrade Metering Control Valve Capability N/A N/A N/A $0.50M Influent Pump Station (IPS) Aging Equipment Odor control issues to be addressed to prevent serious concrete damage N/A N/A Odor issues: 1. Odor Control Vent Fan may be undersized. 2. Inadequate fresh air intake vents 3. Corrosion Old Equipment / VFDs need replacement N/A $1.00M Influent Junction Box / Primary influent structure Old Structure / Piping Needs concrete rehabilitation N/A Influent Pipeline Rehabilitation to Opposite Side of East Bay Blvd N/A N/A N/A $1.00M Gates to be moved from Priority 3 to 1 if primary bypass is required Headworks Screens Overall Good Condition N/A N/A N/A Odor Control System Issues (See IPS) Old system Accessibility issues New power feed needed, Standby Generator Old System Electrical Feed and Standby Power Upgrades Addressed as Electrical Refeed Package C (See Table 4-1) Headworks Grit Overall Good Condition N/A N/A N/A Odor Control System Issues (See IPS) Same as screens Old system Electrical Feed and Standby Power Upgrades Addressed as Electrical Refeed Package C (See Table 4-1) Primary Clarifier No. 2 (PC2) Adequate performance, need overall rebuild Concrete Rehabilitation Previous Damage to Mechanism / In need of Replacement Process Piping / Mechanical N/A Old Electrical Old Controls $1.50M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 3 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Ferric Dosing Station Good overall condition N/A Ferric Dosing Pump to be Replaced N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.02M (Old) Blower Building Adequate capacity, turndown issues N/A Blowers oversized for capacity needed. Connect aeration header to new blower system N/A N/A N/A N/A Incorporated into current plant upgrades Filter Building Decommissioned once new plant is operational Minor repairs to keep building safe To be abandoned / Evaluate for dewatering and O&M To be abandoned N/A N/A N/A $0.10M UV System Good Condition One bank with aging lamps Expand capacity of aerators To be connected to new electrical system $0.125M Electrical Feed and Standby Power Upgrades Addressed as Electrical Refeed Package C (See Table 4-1) Aeration Basin Metering Structure Good condition N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construct Bioreactor No. 3 instead of improving the ABI metering Structure Aeration Basin Influent (ABI) Pump Station Good condition N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construct Bioreactor No. 3 instead of improving ABI Pump Station Aeration Basins Good condition. Cannot treat biologically for Phosphorus N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construct Bioreactor No. 3 instead of improving the aeration basins TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 4 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 2 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Influent Pump Station (IPS) Old Structure / Equipment N/A N/A Valves N/A N/A N/A $0.20M Headworks Screens Overall Good Condition Space in building for expanded capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Full System Replacement / Expansion Required Headworks Grit Overall Good Condition Needs concrete rehabilitation N/A Effluent Gate N/A N/A N/A $0.30M Primary Clarifier Distribution Box Adequate performance Structural Rebuild / Rehabilitation Required N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.50M Primary Clarifier No. 1 (PC1) Adequate performance, need overall rebuild. Severe risk of floating when drained Concrete Rehabilitation Mechanism Replacement Process Piping / Mechanical N/A Old Electrical Old Controls $1.50M UV System Good Condition N/A N/A N/A Improve ventilation, heating and humidity control N/A N/A $0.25M Impure Water (IPW) PS Moderate Condition N/A Pump / Equipment Replacement N/A See UV Building N/A N/A $0.20M Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Final Clarifiers Good conditions/ample redundancy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Construct Bioreactor No. 3 and additional MBR equipment instead of improving the aeration basins (See Table 1-4) TOTAL: Priority 3 Liquids Stream Process Upgrades $4.245M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 5 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 2 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Non-Potable Water (NPW) PS Old Equipment and Process Piping See IPS Pump / Equipment Replacement Process Piping Replacement See IPS See IPS $0.20M TOTAL: Priority 2 Liquids Stream Process Upgrades $3.15M Performance Comments Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation/ Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 3 Upgrades LIQUID STREAM PROCESS Influent Pump Station (IPS) Old Structure / Equipment N/A Old Equipment Valves N/A N/A Old Equipment $0.50M Influent Junction Box / Primary influent structure Old Structure / Piping N/A Gate replacement N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.25M Gates to be moved from Priority 3 to 1 if primary bypass is req’d Headworks Screens Overall Good Condition N/A Frequent O&M due to Insufficient Redundancy at Septage Tanks (See Septage) N/A N/A N/A N/A Entire facility to be expanded / replaced in future construciton TOTAL: Priority 3 Liquids Stream Process Upgrades $0.75M TOTAL RECOMMENDED LIQUID STREAM UPGRADES: $8.15M Table 1-2 – Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for Solid Stream Process Facilities Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS PSPS 1 Aging Strucutre - To be monitored for repairs. Replace with Primary Clarifiers N/A N/A Process Piping and Valves Need replacement Not in compliance w/ NFPA 820 N/A N/A $0.30M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 6 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS PSPS 2 Aging Strucutre - To be monitored for repairs. Replace with Primary Clarifiers N/A N/A N/A Not in compliance w/ NFPA 820 Water damage Old equipment Addressed as part Electrical Refeed Package A (See Table 4-1) Primary Digesters Aging Structure, equipment, and piping. Insufficient redundancy. Needs significant upgrades for continued use. Building in bad conditions, roof leaks Need upgrades Need upgrades Need upgrades Old system Old system $1.50M Secondary Digesters Used for sludge holding Localized concrete repairs N/A Level Floors / New sump drain system N/A N/A N/A $0.20M Waste Gas Flare Corrosion, safety issues Corrosion Needs to be replaced & relocated for safety Needs to be replaced & relocated for safety Needs to be replaced & relocated for safety Needs to be replaced & relocated for safety Needs to be replaced & relocated for safety $0.35M Sludge Drying Beds Poor condition, Low criticality N/A alt #10 – maintenance project N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.025M TOTAL: Priority 1 Solids Stream Process Upgrades $2.375M Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS PSPS 2 Aging Strucutre - To be monitored for repairs. Replace with Primary Clarifiers N/A Old equipment Process Piping and Valves Need replacement N/A N/A N/A $0.50M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 7 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS Thickeners Upgraded under current package. No system redundancy. N/A Thickened sludge pumps not replaced under current upgrades pacakge N/A N/A Old MCC. System at capacity N/A $0.50M Performance to be re- evaluated for MBR sludge Secondary Digesters Used for sludge holding N/A N/A N/A N/A Old system, near capacity Old system $0.30M Most equipment is being changed out as part of current upgrades TOTAL: Priority 2 Solids Stream Process Upgrades $1.30M Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS PSPS 1 N/A N/A Old Equipment - Redundant pumping system Process Piping and Valves Need replacement N/A N/A N/A $0.30M Dewatering Centrifuge System Adequate performance, Building in good condition N/A Monitor Centrifuge No. 1 for replacement N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.30M Sludge Drying Beds Poor condition, Low criticality Reasphalt all N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.275M Sludge Drying Beds Poor condition, Low criticality Replace drying beds decommissioned for space for new solids handling process N/A Replace drying beds decommissioned for space for new solids handling process N/A N/A N/A $1.293M Centrate PS Acceptable condition N/A Equipment maintenance N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.05M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 8 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Performance Structural Equipment Process Piping Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Controls Costs Priority 1 Upgrades SOLID STREAM PROCESS Struvite Control System New N/A Frequent Equipment maintnance due to aggressive application N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.10M TOTAL: Priority 3 Solids Stream Process Upgrades $2.318M TOTAL: ALL RECOMMENDED SOLID STREAM UPGRADE $5.99M Table 1-3 – Condition Assessment Upgrade Priorities for General Facilities & Site Performance Civil/Structural Equipment / Furnishings Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Costs Notes Priority 1 Upgrades GENERAL / SITE UPGRADES Site Grading and paving, lighting, beautification Grading, paving, beautification N/A N/A Lighting, Site Security $1.40M Electrical Upgrades Upgrades to Power Distribution System N/A N/A N/A Priority 1: Connect existing facilities to new power distribution system $4.10M Admin Building · Maintenance Shop · Laboratory · Offices Well maintained but need overhaul or replacement: too small for current and future needs Old structure, code compliance / Replace with larger facility Outdated Plumbing and HVAC system need repairs N/A $4.35M Collection Building Good Condition. Need additional Capacity for Equipment Storage Additional Building needed for added capacity New Building New Building New Building $1.75M Priority 1 Total $11.6M Performance Civil/Structural Equipment / Furnishings Building Systems (Ventilation / Plumbing) Electrical Costs Notes Priority 3 Upgrades GENERAL / SITE UPGRADES Electrical Upgrades Upgrades to Power Distribution System Priority 3: Upgrade existing power distribution load centers and equipment $5.90M Priority 3 Total $5.90M TOTALS: $17.5M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 9 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 1-4 – Summary of Costs for Condition Assessment Priority Upgrades and Remaining Construction Projects Areas Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Full Replacement (After 2035) Liquid Areas $4.25M $3.15M $0.75M Phase 1 Upgrades: Headworks and Primary Clarifiers $25.0M - $40.0M Solids Areas $2.38M $1.30M $2.32M Phase 2 Upgrades: Full replacement of solids facilities $80.0M - $160M General / Site $7.50M Bioreactor No. 3 $21.0M Electrical Feed & Equipment Feed: $4.10M Equipment: $5.9M Phase 2 Upgrades: Expansion of Liquid Stream Processes: Headworks & Primary Clarifiers $50.0M - $80.0M TOTALS: $39.2M $4.45M $8.97M $155M – $280M Table 1-5 – Summary of Currently Allocated Capital Improvement Funds for Upgrades to PCWRF FY 2026 ($ in Millions) FY 2027 ($ in Millions) FY 2028 ($ in Millions) FY 2029 ($ in Millions) FY 2029 ($ in Millions) FY 2030 ($ in Millions) FY 2031 ($ in Millions) TOTAL: ($ in Millions) $5M $5M $5M $5M $5M $10M $5M $35M TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 10 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 2. Introduction Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) was originally constructed in 1953 with major upgrades to the facility in 1976. The plant is currently in the process of upgrading its secondary liquids stream treatment process to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system capable of treating to new regulatory requirements. The existing secondary process is in acceptable condition, but not capable of meeting the new Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) and anticipated denitrification requirements. The current upgrades to the plant are Package 2 of the Phase 1 upgrades. The Phase 1 upgrades include all upgrades required to meet the City’s 2035 population and flow projections (16 MGD capacity). These upgrades include, but are not limited to, replacement of the headworks and primary clarifiers, a new MBR secondary treatment process, equalization and surge containment, refurbishment of the entire solids handling process, a new administration building, site grading, paving and stormwater drainage upgrades, a new power distribution system with feeds to all new and existing processes, and a new standby power system for the entire plant. Packages 1 and 2 of phase 1 include a new power distribution system, feeds to all new process facilities, a new standby power system for the new facilities, refurbishment of select solids handling equipment, equalization and some surge containment, construction of two of the three MBRs required to meet the TBPEL limit and anticipated 2035 flow requirements, and all MBR support facilities. The remainder of the upgrades are to be completed as future packages and were originally planned for completion by 2035. The Phase 2 upgrades will expand the liquid stream process to meet the Provo’s buildout population and flow projections, upgrading the plant treatment capacity to 24 MGD. The solids stream processes will be completely replaced during this phase. The following document is an evaluation of all current assets with recommendations to the City regarding its approach to taking on these upgrades with respect to timing and cost. Section 3, Evaluation of Existing Equipment and Structures, describes the evaluation process used to assess plant equipment and assets. Section 4, Summary of Results, discusses the results of the assessment, and a detailed description of the condition of each facility with recommendations for repair that are prioritized as follows: • Priority 1: The facility or asset needs repair within 1-7 of completion of the current Phase 1, Package 2 Upgrades due to its condition or the criticality of its failure on plant operations, safety, regulatory compliance, redundancy, or operational flexibility. • Priority 2: The facility or asset is recommended for planned upgrade or replacement within 10 years of completion of the current Phase 1, Package 2 Upgrades. • Priority 3: The facility or asset is to be regularly repaired and monitored for upgrade or replacement. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 11 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 3. Evaluation of Existing Equipment and Structures A performance and general condition assessment has been conducted for the existing treatment process related equipment and structures at PCWRF. The assessment is intended for use in developing a plan for current and future upgrades and expansion projects necessary to maintain PCWRF’s current treatment capabilities and meet anticipated future regulations and capacity requirements. An analysis was conducted to determine the remaining useful life of all process related equipment and structures. This analysis included a systematic process for evaluating each component based on its anticipated useful life, age, use and condition as outlined in Figure 3-1. WaterWorks and PCWRF staff reviewed equipment records and performed the inspection and evaluation of the equipment and structures. Information gathered from this effort was used within a spreadsheet-based evaluation tool to calculate the anticipated remaining useful life. The spreadsheet utilized in this study is included as an APPENDIX A to this document. The process used to perform this evaluation is described below: Standard Useful Life The standard useful life of the equipment and structures was determined based on industry standard expectations for the life of equipment and structures with some modifications made based on the experience of those conducting the evaluation. For equipment, the standard useful life utilized ranged from 10 to 20 years dependent on the type and complexity of the equipment. For structures, the standard useful life ranged from 40 to 50 years based on the type of construction and environment. Figure 3-1 - Useful Life Analysis Flow Chart TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 12 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Adjustment for Age The age of the structures and equipment was determined based on records for construction and equipment installation. The age of the equipment or structure was deducted from the standard useful life to determine the expected remaining useful life based on age. In many cases the age exceeded the standard anticipated useful life. In these cases the expected useful life of the equipment was increased using the relation shown in Figure 3-2 to account for the years of service achieved beyond the standard useful life. Figure 3-2 - Relation between Age and Predicted Remaining Life Adjustment for Use The use of the equipment is intended to account for the hours of operation that is typical for each piece of equipment or structure, with the expectation that heavy use of system components will decrease the anticipated remaining useful life more rapidly than light use. Equipment usage was entered into the spreadsheet as a percentage of time used in a typical day based on 24 hour usage being 100%. Base Remaining Useful Life The base remaining useful life documents the expected remaining useful life after the adjustment for age and use. This number represents the number of years that the equipment or structure would be expected to continue to provide service without consideration for its current condition or performance. 3.1. Condition Assessment A condition assessment for each structure and piece of equipment was conducted for this study. A summary of both the structural and equipment assessment is provided below. 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 0%100%200%300% Pr e d i c t e d L i f e ( % o f B a s e L i f e ) Age (% of Base Life) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 13 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 3.1.1. Equipment Condition Assessment The condition of equipment was assessed based on maintenance records and several physical inspections, as well as information gathered from facility operators and maintenance staff. The information developed through the review of records and inspections was used to rate the equipment based on its condition, wear, renewal requirements and annual corrective maintenance expense. Definitions used in the rating are presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 – Condition Assessment Scoring Definitions Score Condition Wear Renewal Requirement Annual Corrective Maintenance Expense 1 Like New Little No Action Required < 5% 2 Very Good Normal – Light Minor Renewal Required 5% to 10% 3 Satisfactory Normal - Heavy Moderate Renewal Required 10% to 20% 4 Poor Abnormal Scheduled Replacement Required 20% to 40% 5 Very Poor Failure Imminent Immediate Replacement Required > 40% Condition and wear were assessed based on visual inspection of the equipment by PCWRP operations staff. Renewal and annual maintenance expenses were assessed based on records for equipment maintenance and replacement. The overall condition assessment score was determined based on the highest rating assigned in the categories listed. For example, if a piece of equipment was found to be in satisfactory condition (condition rating = 3), exhibit normal/light wear (wear rating = 2), require minor renewal (renewal rating = 2), but its annual corrective maintenance cost incurred is greater than 40% of the equipment capital cost (maintenance rating = 5), the equipment was assigned a score of 5. This scoring method was found to be more representative of the true condition of the equipment than alternate methods such as averaging the scores, since some equipment showed little wear and appeared to be in good condition, but the cost to keep it in good operational condition was excessive, while other equipment showed significant wear and degradation, but very little had been spent on maintenance or renewal. Based on the scores assigned through the condition assessment, a remaining life multiplier was assigned for each component being analyzed base on the relation depicted in Figure 3-3. The multiplier is used within the remaining life assessment to adjust the base remaining useful life to account for equipment condition. Components that are new and/or in good condition receive a multiplier at or near one, resulting in minimal adjustment to the base remaining useful life. Components that have failed or are in poor condition are assigned a multiplier near zero, resulting in a significant reduction in their expected useful life. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 14 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 3-3 - Relation between Condition Rating and Remaining Life Multiplier 3.2. Performance Assessment In addition to the assessment of condition, the performance of the equipment and structures was evaluated. This evaluation was intended to account for equipment that is in good condition, but that does not perform its intended service to the satisfaction of PCWRP staff. The evaluation of performance was conducted based on information from facility managers and operators. The intent of this evaluation was to identify equipment that does not perform useful service to the operation of the facility. As this evaluation is subjective, numerical scores or multipliers were not utilized. Adjustments to the useful life were made manually based on the assessment of WaterWorks and Provo City staff. Equipment or structures that do not perform their intended service were assigned a remaining useful life of zero. This was done to identify equipment or structures that are no longer useful to the performance of the facility and should be removed or replaced. The useful life was not adjusted for equipment or structures that were identified to have moderate to small performance issues. 3.3. Criticality Assessment In addition to the determination of remaining useful life, the project team also performed a criticality assessment for all equipment and structures. This assessment was intended to identify the nature and severity of impacts that an equipment or structural failure would have on the operation of the PCWRP. Each piece of equipment and structure was assigned a rating based on the effect a failure would have in the following five areas: • Safety – Assessment of the risk of harm to operations staff that would be created by a failure. • Permit Compliance/Process Reliability – Assessment of the impact that a failure would have on the facility’s ability to meet its permit requirements. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 2 3 4 5 Re m a i n i n g L i f e M u l t i p l i e r Condition Score TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 15 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC • Redundancy – Assessment of the level of redundancy that is currently in place based on the treatment capacity the facility would maintain in a failure event. • Flexibility – Impact that a failure would have on the facility’s ability to react to changes in operating conditions, flow and/or load. • Operational Impacts – Assessment of the cost in operator time and/or money that will be incurred due to a failure. WaterWorks worked with PCWRP staff to assign a rating from 1 to 5 in each of these categories. Ratings were assigned according to the following definitions: Table 3-2 – Criticality Rating Definitions Safety Rating Definition 1 No Impact 2 Moderate Potential for Minor Injury 3 Create Hazardous/Unhealthy Work Environment 4 Moderate Potential for Severe Injury 5 High Potential for Severe Injury Permit Compliance/Process Reliability Rating Definition 1 No Impact 2 Minor Process Performance Interruptions 3 Decreased Process Performance/Low Potential for Permit Violation 4 Moderate Potential for Permit Violation 5 High Potential for Process Failure/Permit Violation Redundancy Rating Definition 1 Fully Redundant/No Loss in Capacity 2 Minor and/or Short Term Loss in Capacity 3 Partial Redundancy/Maintain 65% or More Capacity 4 Partial Redundancy/Maintain 50% Capacity 5 No Redundancy Flexibility Rating Definition 1 No Impact 2 Moderate Operational Limitations Requiring Minimal Effort to Address 3 Significant Operational Limitations Requiring Moderate Effort to Address 4 Significant Operational Limitations Requiring Substantial Effort to Address TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 16 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 5 Inability to Respond to Changing Conditions Operational Impacts Rating Definition 1 No Impact 2 Minimal Effort/Time/Cost 3 Moderate Effort/Time/Cost 4 Significant Effort/Time/Cost 5 Substantial Effort/Time/Cost The criticality of the equipment and structures is determined by taking the average of the scores in the five categories. A category weighting can be used to place more emphasis on categories that are seen as more important, but for this analysis PCWP staff decided to maintain an equal weight for all categories. The resulting criticality rating ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 indicates low criticality and 5 indicated extremely critical. 4. Summary of Results The spreadsheet that documents this evaluation is included in the APPENDIX A. All scoring and rating determinations made can be reviewed and adjusted in the spreadsheet to maintain an up-to-date assessment of the condition and criticality of Provo City Water Reclamation Facility equipment and structures. Most of the existing facilities at the PCWRF predate the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 820 standard for fire protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities. This standard outlines electrical and ventilation requirements for Wastewater Treatment Facilities to mitigate fire and explosion risk for processes in which combustible gases are present in significant quantities. Some facilities on site have been upgraded over time to meet NFPA 820 requirements, but many facilities have not. As upgrades are undertaken in facilities, their compliance with NFPA 820 must be evaluated. 4.1. Structural Condition Assessment A structural inspection of all existing facilities was conducted at the PCWRF in Summer 2023. At the time of the inspection, all facilities were in service. The structural assessment did not provide an in-depth inspection of each individual facility but rather an overview assessment of the general conditions, operational performance, exposed structural member detailing, and noticeable degradation. In general, the facilities were in good condition and showed little signs of degradation, given their age and use. A few of the facilities show signs of substantial, but localized, concrete degradation consisting of cracked and spalled concrete. Due to their age many facilities do not meet current building codes, particularly as pertain to seismic design. Many of the various diversion structure walls exhibited signs of cracked concrete, although no visible leaks were observed at the time of the inspection. These included both the influent diversion structures. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 17 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC It was observed that some light pole footings exhibited signs of concrete disintegration and spalling at the exposed above grade portion of the footings as shown in Figure 4-1 below. Figure 4-1 - Light Pole Footing Disintegration and Spalling At the Secondary Digester building, a large crack on the South wall was observed near the East overhead doors. This crack follows the mortar joint in the building’s masonry and terminates at the base of the East window (see Figure 4-32). The crack will be repaired as part of the Struvite Control System installation being added to the current plant upgrades. However, because the structural design of the facility does not meet current structural building codes, the repair will be cosmetic in nature. To repair it such that the crack would not reform would require a complete structural retrofit to the structure. At the aeration basins, a few concrete cracks with calcium deposits were observed, indicating that the cracks may occasionally leak, or they may have had a slow leak. The cast-in-place metal stair tread nosing at locations throughout the PCWRF were observed to have become dislodged due to water penetration and freeze thaw cycles. Figure 4-2 depicts typical damage seen throughout the plant. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 18 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-2 - Failed Stair Treads and Embedded Nosings Many of the buried electrical vaults throughout the PCWRP contained corroded ferrous metals and showed signs of groundwater infiltration as shown in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3 - Corroded Buried Electrical Junction Box/Vault TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 19 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC A handful of concrete wall construction joints in underground portions of non-water bearing structures were observed to have minor leaks and failed joint sealant. However, the leaks observed appeared to be solely from groundwater and were very minor. In addition, the bottom of steel access walkways at clarifiers and sedimentation basins were observed to shows signs of mild corrosion as shown in Figure 4-4. Figure 4-4 - Typical Corrosion at Underside of Steel Walkways While not directly related to the structural assessment of the facilities, it was noted that the site paving and drainage lacked adequate slope in some areas to properly direct rainfall/snow melt runoff, resulting in puddles and pavement cracking. Damage was observed adjacent to the operations building and aeration basins. Figure 4-5 shows typical asphalt failure at the plant due to improper runoff and drainage. The grading and paving design for the current plant upgrades will address these concerns. However, this portion of the design is currently out of the scope of work for the current project. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 20 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-5 - Cracking at Asphalt Paving Due to Inadequate Grade The top of wall connections at facilities with flexible roof diaphragms, wood framed roofs and un-topped metal deck steel framed roofs, were observed to be lacking proper top of wall connections to support the concrete and masonry walls from out-of-plane seismic loading. Under current building codes, the tops of concrete and masonry walls are required to be anchored to the roof framing and roof diaphragm to prevent the wall from pulling away from the roof during a seismic event. Figure 4-6 shows the missing top of wall out-of-plane connections in the disinfection and the influent pump station buildings. Figure 4-6 - Missing Top of Wall Out-of-Plane Connections to Roof Diaphragm Although there are a few facilities that were observed to show significant degradation, all deficiencies listed above are consistent with facilities of this era. As with any structure, routine maintenance is required to prolong the life of the structure. The deficiencies listed above do not pose a danger of TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 21 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC imminent failure of the facility or member, but rather maintenance and aesthetic concerns. Some noted items like the condition of the stair treads may pose a risk to personnel. Concrete members that are deteriorating should also be addressed if they are intended to remain in service beyond the next one to two years. The deficiencies observed related to structural detailing and top of wall connections are also consistent with facilities constructed in this era. New developments in seismic data and a better scientific understanding of how seismic ground motions are transferred into forces and resisted within structures has in turn required structures to be designed and detailed to a higher and more refined level of connection detailing. The governing building codes do not require that existing structures meet the current requirements of the governing codes unless modifications are made to the structures; meaning that there are no regulatory requirements to update an existing structure unless the structure is modified. 4.2. Administration Building The PCWRF administration building houses the plant operations controls, employee offices, locker room, break room, laboratory, and maintenance shop. It is well maintained but needs to be expanded or fully replaced to expand the facilities. The building’s plumbing is old and needs to be replaced. The existing HVAC system has insufficient air circulation and requires overhaul. As an older building, the administration building needs to be evaluated for seismic and other building code compliance. The administration building houses the plant laboratory, which is too small and the space itself is outdated. This building should be monitored for repairs and complete replacement is recommended within 1-10 years to address functionality and building code concerns. When this is done, additional parking must be considered. The site lacks sufficient parking area for both staff and visitors to the facility. 4.2.1. Space Requirements The administration building is undersized for current plant operations in almost any capacity. With the largest seating capacity, the employee break is frequently used as a staff equipment / process training room and meeting room. The room is insufficiently sized to comfortably accommodate the entire operations team. Small offices and working spaces are shared by as many as 3-5 operators. Women’s facilities (restroom, locker room, showers) are insufficient. There is no women’s locker room or shower, and there is only a single stall women’s bathroom. There is also insufficient space for these facilities in the existing structure. Additionally, laundry facilities for the operations staff are located inconveniently in a separate building. The shop / maintenance area doubles as maintenance vehicle parking. Vehicles must be removed from the area to allow maintenance activities to occur. There is extremely limited storage space in the shop area. Spare process, electrical, controls, and other inventories are kept in various onsite facilities in which additional limited storage space could be carved out. Not having a centralized equipment and inventory storage area can affect repair response times, and limits operator efficiency for maintenance activities. Likewise, the laboratory space has limited storage and working space as the laboratory expands over time. The laboratory also lacks area separation that will be required for clean water testing. A new administration building addressing these concerns is recommended as a Priority 1 upgrade to the facility. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 22 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.3. Collections Building The Provo Collections staff have a building located at the Southeast corner of PCWRF. This building houses equipment, offices, and storage space. It is in good condition, but currently lacks sufficient space to house all equipment currently owned by the City and required for Collections system activities. An additional building is required to provide the needed equipment storage capacity. Because this represents a current need for Collections operations it is recommended as a Phase 1 upgrade. 4.4. Site Grading, paving, and stormwater drainage improvements were included in the current plant upgrades but were delayed due to budget constraints. The plant is currently investigating the feasibility of reincorporating a portion of these upgrades into the Phase 1, Package 2 Construction. If it is not feasible, grading and paving, fencing, and expanded site security will be required as soon as possible after the new secondary process is constructed to provide adequate site drainage, access, and security. General beautification and landscaping is recommended as funds become available, and there is inadequate parking on site for both staff and visitors to the site. These upgrades are recommended as Priority 1. The North end of the plant lacks adequate lighting. Some aging fixtures have been lost in connection with current repairs. Inadequate lighting represents a safety risk to operators, and installation of additional lighting at the North end of the plant is recommended as a Priority 1 upgrade. 4.5. Power Distribution Center The Power Distribution Center for the existing plant was originally constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. Most of the equipment housed in this structure dates to 1976 as well. The switchgear powers the headworks, influent pump station, dewatering building, primary and secondary digesters, aeration basins, existing blower building, primary and final clarifiers, filter building, operations building, chlorine building, and UV disinfection facility. The main breaker is set up such that it will not be tripped on single phase power loss. The gear in cabinets 104, 105, 106, and 107 have been recently rebuilt. However, during the maintenance the plant’s spare gear had to be used to replace one of the gears that was beyond repair. Therefore, the plant lacks redundancy on this system, and spare parts are no longer available for the switchgear due to its age. The existing system is well maintained and in good condition considering its age. Substantial maintenance has not been required, but the facility carries a high criticality associated with failure because it powers so many of the plant’s critical systems. The switchgear was expanded in 2005 for installation of new emergency power generators. This portion of the switchgear is in excellent condition and carries an overall moderate criticality of failure. The generators are in moderate condition and carry an overall moderate criticality of failure. However, maintenance costs have been rising in recent years. Both units’ radiators and fans have been replaced. The block heaters on each have been replaced multiple times. Recent maintenance costs, including manhours and participation by the Provo City Energy Management team amount to approximately $40,000. The generator control PLC is in good condition and carries only a moderate criticality of failure. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 23 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The only recent maintenance cost of note was that the PLC’s HMI screen which was replaced recently when the generators had alarms which could not be cleared. This repair cost was approximately $5,000. A new Power Distribution Building has been constructed in connection with the current plant upgrades, including feeds to all new facilities. However, many of the existing facilities are not being connected to the new power distribution or standby power systems, nor are the existing load centers and equipment being replaced, as part of the current upgrades. Upgrades to the existing power distribution system were originally planned as part of the current plant upgrades but were delayed due to budgetary constraints. Much of the existing power distribution system is well beyond its expected useful life. Equipment cannot be easily repaired as replacement parts are difficult to find and the system lacks redundancy. In connection with this assessment, WaterWorks electrical engineering team has worked with Provo City to simplify the upgrades that were originally proposed as part of the Phase 1, Package 1 plant upgrades. This simplified design includes refeeding existing facilities and load centers rather than replacing and completely upgrading the load centers and power distribution equipment. This will allow the plant to reduce demand on the existing Power Distribution Center, creating system redundancy in the short- term, and will ultimately place all existing systems on the new power distribution and standby power systems. Expanding the new power distribution system for the connection of existing plant facilities is recommended as Priority 1 upgrades to be phased in within seven years of the completion of the current plant upgrades using allocated capital improvement funds. The load centers and electrical equipment powered from the load centers will still need to be replaced but may be monitored for repairs by plant staff as a Priority 3 Upgrade. Cost estimates associated with the electrical upgrades have been divided into 5 electrical refeed packages, and electrical equipment upgrades. Estimated costs are summarized in Table 4-1. A new fiber optic network loop has been installed throughout the plant. The power distribution building and standby power system were constructed for the new secondary process and provisioned for future expansion to power the existing plant in the future. Temporary backup generators have been added to the headworks, influent pump station and ABI pump station, and due to concerns about the reliability of power to the disinfection facility, a feeder from the new power distribution building to the disinfection facility was added back to the scope of the 2020 plant upgrades. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 24 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 4-1 - Electrical Refeed Packages Estimated Costs Package Description Estimated Cost Package A Refeed the Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 2, replacing damaged MCC equipment, and upgrading the facility to meet NFPA 820 requirements. $909,000.00 Package B Refeed the Dewatering Facility and Influent Pump Station Load Center 1. $732,000.00 Package B Optional Replacement of Transformer and Switchgear $259,000.00 Package C Refeed the Headworks Facilities $657,000.00 Package D Refeed Load Center 4 located at the Disinfection Facility, bringing the collections building, filter building, disinfection facility and administration building onto the new power distribution system. $1,164,000.00 Package E Refeed Load Center 2 at the existing blower building, bringing the existing secondary process onto the new power distribution system $389,000.00 Priority 3 Monitor Existing Load Centers and Power Distribution Equipment for Replacement as Necessary, or as Existing Facilities are Upgraded. $5,900,000 TOTAL PRIORITY 1 REFEED PACKAGES A – E $4,100,000.00 TOTAL PRIORITY 3 POWER DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT UPGRADES $5,900,000.00 TOTAL REQUIRED PHASE 1 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES: $10,000,000.00 4.6. Liquid Stream Process 4.6.1. Influent and Headworks Facilities The influent junction box is equipped with two gates, one of which was originally installed in 1976 in inoperable. The influent box is equipped with bypass gates to allow influent to bypass the screening facility if required. However, the influent junction box gate cannot be operated, which means the bypass feature cannot be used. This is recommended as a Priority 3 repair. However, If it is determined that a primary bypass will be needed to augment bioreactor performance, this repair will be reclassified as Priority 1. Current loading rates and a recent COD fractionation suggest that Provo’s process is not carbon limited and this will not be required. The influent structure, shown in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 has deteriorated concrete with exposed aggregate and visible rusting. The aluminum checker plate cover is deteriorating as well, and because of the concrete deterioration is becoming unsafe to plant staff. Plant staff have indicated that the line feeding into this structure is in poor condition and in need of replacement. Repairs to the influent structure are recommended as a Priority 1 upgrade. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 25 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-7 - Deterioration of Concrete and Steel in Influent Junction Box Figure 4-8 - Concrete Spalling in Influent Junction Box TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 26 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The plant houses two septage dump station tanks located North of the Headworks building. These tanks are undersized (see Figure 4-9). Because the tanks are undersized, it is not possible to meter flow to the headworks despite having a control valve installed on the system. Therefore, plant operations staff removed the control valve on this system to prevent system backups. Properly controlling flow would significantly limit how much septage could be received by the plant. In addition to being undersized, the tanks are in poor condition. Operations and maintenance impacts of this system are significant because failures at these tanks cause damage to the headworks screening facilities, which lack redundancy. Plant staff report that most of the O&M costs associated with the headworks screening facilities in recent years can be attributed to septage failures and the inability to control the flow of septage to the headworks. The step screens and step screen lamella become damaged or break, the wash presses must be frequently rebuilt, and the plant incurs $60K to $80K of annual maintenance costs, including estimated operator time, in connection with septage tank failures. Expanding the septage dump station is a Priority 1 upgrade. Figure 4-9 - Rusting of Septage Dump Station Tanks PCWRF’s headworks step screen system was installed in 1990 with upgrades in 2015 and consists of two step screens, washer compactors, and screenings conveyors. The overall system is in relatively good condition throughout. However, the system’s criticality is high due to lack of redundancy. O&M costs are high, as discussed above, and failure of the screening equipment is dangerous due to potential sewer gas exposure and handling of raw sewage material. If the high cost of maintenance to this equipment could be addressed in part by expanding the septage dump station, this would result in an overall safer work environment at the headworks. The headworks facility needs to be expanded for redundancy, but the current facility lacks space for expanded capacity. Replacing this facility with a new facility is recommended as part of the Phase 1 liquid stream process upgrades and is a major upgrade that should be addressed after completion of construction of the secondary process upgrades, including Bioreactor No. 3. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 27 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Grit chambers 1 & 2 were installed as part of 1990 headworks upgrades to the plant. The concrete chambers themselves are in poor condition due to their age and the corrosive nature of the environment. It is recommended that the concrete be restored and coated to protect against corrosion (Priority 2). The grit pumps are in good condition, but the facility has resulted in significant maintenance cost in recent years, as plant staff have been replacing the 25 pinch valves associated with the system. The grit classifier and conveyor have been a maintenance concern in recent years: the motor and cyclone were replaced at a total cost of approximately $20K. This system has an overall moderate criticality associated with its failure. The grit air compressors were rebuilt in 2016 and the blowers were rebuilt in 2020 and are in good condition with low risk and criticality of failure. The grit system equipment is recommended as a Priority 3 upgrade. The grit system’s influent gates are in good condition and moderate criticality. The East effluent gate is being replaced as part of an ongoing maintenance project. The West gate is in relatively good condition but due to the configuration of the grit system’s effluent channel, it will require a complete grit system pump around should it ever need to be replaced. There is no way to prevent backflow to the West grit chamber if the gate is removed. Therefore, the criticality of failure is significant. It is recommended that plant staff monitor the gate for signs of failure so pump-around and replacement can be planned and efficiently executed. Gate replacement is expected to be required within 5-10 years (Priority 2). The headworks electrical equipment is generally in good condition with an overall moderate criticality of failure. However, the electrical system lacks redundancy. The headworks emergency MCC-E is in poor condition, with significant maintenance requirements in recent years. In addition, due to the way the panelboard feeds to the headworks, it prevents the automatic transfer switch from being accessed. A switch failure would present a difficult and costly repair. Plant staff have indicated that the least costly fix is to route the headworks emergency power to the influent building emergency power system. The best overall fix would be to feed the emergency power system from the new power distribution building. These upgrades are provided for as part of the electrical distribution system upgrades Package C. This is recommended as a Priority 1 plant upgrade. 4.6.2. Influent Pump Station (IPS) The IPS control building was constructed with the original plant and expanded during the 1976 plant upgrades. It is an aging structure but has been well maintained and is in relatively good condition, considering its age (see Section 4.1 for more information). The pumps are in good condition, but the three oldest and smallest pumps were installed as part of the original plant construction in 1953, are well beyond their expected useful life (shown in Figure 4-10). In addition, the pumps cause water hammering when they kick on, which can cause damage to piping systems and structural supports and pose a safety risk. The largest pumps, installed in 2005, are in good condition, but the VFDs (also installed in 2005) are in poor condition and lack redundancy. It is difficult and expensive to obtain replacement parts for older electrical equipment, so failure of these VFDs will result in costly repairs. Because these pumps allow water to be moved through the plant, there is a high criticality associated with their failure. Without redundancy or operational flexibility to move the water through the plant, failure of this equipment would not only be costly, but would result in significant maintenance of plant operations efforts. Pumps are considered a Priority 3 upgrade due to their overall good condition, while the VFDs TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 28 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC are considered a Priority 1 upgrade due to their age, condition, and the criticality of their failure. The check valves (Figure 4-11) on all the influent pumps are in poor condition, which represents a safety concern and risk of equipment damage. The IPS channel isolation gates are not used by the plant. They are in good condition, and their criticality is very low. The valves and gates are recommended as a Priority 2 upgrade. Because of the deficiencies in the capacity of the odor control system (see Section 4.6.3), the IPS has frequent odor issues. Improved system ventilation for fresh air supply is required to prevent the risk of severe concrete damage in the wetwell due to the corrosive environment, as discussed in the previous section. Replacing the headworks and primary clarifiers as part of the overall Phase 1 plant upgrades will allow this process to be decommissioned, allowing the plant to decommission aging equipment and facilities, and reducing the overall pumping requirements of the plant. Figure 4-10 - Influent Pumps No. 1, 2, and 3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 29 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-11 - Influent Pump Station Pumps and Check Valves 4.6.3. Headworks and Influent Pump Station Odor Control System The headworks odor control system prevents nuisance odors in the headworks and influent pump station (IPS) facilities from escaping into surrounding areas. In addition, the odor control system is a critical process for plant safety. It draws off sewer gases that can be toxic to operators in large amounts and that present an explosion hazard, as outlined in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 820 standard for fire protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities. Moreover, these gases can be corrosive to structures, equipment, and pipelines, resulting in maintenance issues and upgrades. The current odor control system consists of a venting and a blower which draw off sewer gases and deliver them to an activated carbon media filter. As foul air is passed through the filter, odor causing constituents are adsorbed onto the carbon, allowing odor free air to pass through. The odor control system is effective, but replacement of the carbon media as required is costly. The plant last replaced the carbon at its headworks odor control system in 2018. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 30 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Plant staff have observed that the blower is undersized, allowing the escape of some fugitive odors. They are also concerned about corrosion within their headworks facilities and IPS. They have observed corrosion at the headworks, grit system, and plant influent structures. Because frequent fugitive odors are observed at the IPS, plant staff are concerned that corrosion in the IPS wetwell will result. This is an area that is not easily observed by plant staff without removing the pump station from service. Replacement of the undersized blower is a Priority 1 upgrade. The existing headworks odor control system eliminates gas and odors for aesthetic and safety concerns but was not designed to protect facilities from corrosion. The odor control system blower draws off sewer gases, creating a negative pressure within the headspaces of pipes and structures. The negative pressure prevents the remaining gases from escaping into facilities and nearby environments. However, there are no fresh air vents within the system. Therefore, as sewer gases are drawn off, the space is replaced by upstream sewer gases rather than fresh air, which would limit the corrosion potential in pipelines, equipment, and facilities. It is recommended that the plant install fresh air vents in strategic locations to promote the longevity of equipment, structures, and piping, and may also improve the performance of the odor control system in terms of preventing fugitive odors. After fresh air venting is installed, the blower may be evaluated for capacity (Priority 1 upgrade). Less costly options for odor control are also recommended for future consideration. For instance, as part of the 2022 secondary process upgrades that are currently in progress, the plant is installing a biofilter for odor control at its fine screen pump station and screening facility. This technology uses tree bark for the media filter, which is less costly to replace than activated carbon. 4.6.4. Primary Clarifier Influent Distribution Structure The Primary Clarifier Influent Distribution Structure was constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The structure is in poor condition. The exterior stairs, shown in Figure 4-12, are cracking and have missing treads. Rusting of the structure is becoming a major issue, which poses a safety hazard with moderate potential for severe injury. The structure’s interior (Figure 4-13) shows significant concrete spalling and rusting of the primary influent bypass lines. This deterioration has largely resulted from sewer gases given off by the primary influent, which are toxic and corrosive. The gates in the distribution structure, which direct the flow to the primary clarifiers and the bypass lines to the trickling filter pump station wetwell (repurposed as an effluent box for Primary Clarifier No. 1) are likewise becoming much more difficult to operate due to the deteriorating condition, impacting operational flexibility. The condition of the yard piping flowing to the clarifiers is unknown. Refurbishment of this structure is recommended as a Priority 2 Upgrade. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 31 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-12 - Broken Concrete and Failed Stair Treads at Influent Distribution Structure Figure 4-13 - Deterioration of Concrete and Steel in Influent Distribution Structure TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 32 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The odor control system at the influent structure, installed in 2005, can also be modified with fresh air vents to help remedy the corrosive effects of sewer gases as discussed in Section 4.6.3. The odor control system and FRP panel are well maintained and have been recently repainted. The yard lighting in the vicinity of the primary influent distribution structure is also very poor, which presents a safety concern to operations staff. Upgrading the lighting in this area is recommended as part of near-term plant upgrades. This is a Priority 1 upgrade. 4.6.5. Primary Clarifiers The primary clarifiers (PC) were built in 1966 (West PC No. 1) and 1976 (East PC No. 2) and are slated for replacement as part of the liquid stream process upgrades. Replacement of the primary clarifiers will allow IPS to be decommissioned, and the new Fine Screen Pump Station to be repurposed as the new influent pump station. If the primary clarifiers can be replaced in the near term, this will reduce the sunk costs of upgrading the existing clarifiers. The metal structural components, particularly in PC No. 2, are in very poor shape. PC No. 1 has grout that needs to be replaced. The PC is not adequately protected against floating due to groundwater when taken offline. The PC lost one leg of power in 2022, but that issue has been resolved. The drive on PC No. 1 was rebuilt about 20 years ago, and there have been subsequent welding repairs to keep the mechanism in working order. In 2022, debris was caught in the steel of PC No. 2’s rake arm shown in Figure 4-15, and the arm was bent and had to be rebuilt. Plant staff replaced the torque switch (~$10K) and repaired the arm in house (~$20K) as well as could be managed and to maintain plant operations. The drive mechanism for PC No. 2 is past its expected useful life and is recommended for rebuild as a Priority 1 upgrade (see Figure 4-15). The complete Phase 1 plant upgrades will include new clarifiers. However, because new primary clarifiers are not part of the near-term plant upgrades. Both existing units must be drained and rebuilt, with priority given to PC No. 2, which needs a new drive mechanism and to be restored structurally, as necessary. Refurbishment of PC No. 2 is a Priority 1 Upgrade. Refurbishment of PC No. 1 is a Priority 2 Upgrade. Replacing this facility with a new facility is Figure 4-14 - Repaired Rake Arm After Damage and Rusting of Clarifier Steel TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 33 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC recommended as part of the Phase 1 liquid stream process upgrades and is a major upgrade that should be addressed after completion of current construction and construction of Bioreactor No. 3. Upgrading this facility will allow the plant to decommission the existing IPS, allowing aging equipment to be decommissioned and minimizing the pumping requirements for the plant. As previously mentioned, the area lighting at the North end of the plant in the PC area is insufficient and poses a risk to operator safety during the early morning and evening. Due to the age and condition of the area lighting, some lighting has been lost as site construction activities have progressed. This is discussed in Section 4.3 Figure 4-15 - Deterioration of Structural Steel and Drive Mechanism in Need of Replacement at Primary Clarifier No. 2 Figure 4-16 - Concrete Cracking and Additional Crack at Previous Repair on Primary Clarifier No. 2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 34 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.6.6. Ferric Chloride Dosing Station The ferric chloride dosing structure was built in 1982 and is in good condition. The ferric dosing equipment was installed in 2001 and remains in good condition. Dosing pump #1 was replaced in 2020 and runs very well. Dosing pump #2 is nearing the end of its expected useful life and is recommended for replacement as a Priority 1 Upgrade. 4.6.7. Primary Effluent Diversion Structure When the trickling filters were demolished in 2020, the trickling filter wetwell was decommissioned but the structure was left intact. It will remain in service as an interim distribution structure conveying primary effluent from Primary Clarifier No. 1 to the Primary Influent Distribution structure. The wetwell is still in good condition. This structure carries a Priority 2 upgrade priority. 4.6.8. Aeration Basin Pump Station The aeration basin influent (ABI) pump station was also constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The roof of the pump station was replaced as part of some upgrades in 2019. A partition was built to separate the electrical equipment from the rest of the building to upgrade the facility to comply with NFPA 820 requirements. New pumps were installed, and the piping was replaced. The MCC equipment was replaced and VFDs were provided for pumps 1 and 4 in place of the amplispeed drives. When the current plant upgrades are complete, pumps 1 and 4 will not be used, and pumps 2 and 3, which are smaller in size and capacity, will be run at minimum speed to feed the aeration basins until the Membrane Bioreactor No. 3 is constructed, at which point the entire facility will be decommissioned. The ABI pump station is in good condition and does not require any immediate attention. It is recommended that plant staff monitor the facility and its equipment for as-needed repairs and maintenance (Priority 3). To avoid major upgrades to this facility, it is recommended that construction of Bioreactor No. 3 and expansion of the membrane system be undertaken (Priority 1) within the next 5 years so this facility can be decommissioned, reducing the plant’s overall pumping requirements. 4.6.9. Aeration Basin Metering Structure The primary effluent diversion structure was constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The structure itself is in good condition. The flow instrumentation was upgraded in 2010 and 2014 and is at the end of its anticipated useful life. The panel that houses the flow meter controllers, as well as the junction box that houses its wiring, is rusting out at the bottom (see Figure 4-17). A steel plate cover has recently been added to the diversion structure along with a forced air GAC unit for odor control. This odor control system has fresh air venting to prevent corrosion to the equipment housed within this structure. Upgrades to this structure are recommended only on an as-needed basis, as this structure will be decommissioned upon completion of Bioreactor No. 3 and expansion of the membrane system. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 35 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-17 Figure 4-17 - Rusting Panels Containing Flume Flow Meters TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 36 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.6.10. Aeration Basins The aeration basins were originally constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The structures themselves are in good condition, considering their age, and have a moderate criticality associated with failure. They are approaching their anticipated useful life and require regular maintenance as an important factor for continued use. The Aeration Basin No. 1 and No. 2 structures are being retrofitted for use equalization and surge containment basins. The Equalization Basin (formerly Aeration Basin No. 1) will have a compressed air mixing system installed to resuspend solids as needed. The aeration system in these two basins will be removed, keeping a few pallets of aeration diffusers on hand to for redundancy for Aeration Basins No. 3 and No. 4. Basins No. 3 and No. 4 are being kept online as aeration basins, in a duty / standby configuration, to provide additional capacity and redundancy for the secondary treatment process currently under construction. The aeration basins are not capable of achieving biological phosphorus removal, and their continued use as redundancy to the new secondary process may require regular chemical dosing to achieve the total phosphorus limit that Provo City will be required to meet starting in January 2025. Operating two parallel secondary processes will be an operational challenge and may affect staffing requirements. Furthermore, chemical phosphorus removal will require careful dosing to balance cost with permit requirements. Chemical treatment is more costly and produces a higher solids volume than biological phosphorus removal, which may require more frequent testing and monitoring. If a Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) limit is imposed, Bioreactor No. 3 will be required to meet that limit, as the existing aeration basins have no denitrification capability, and the two new bioreactors lack sufficient capacity for reliable denitrification year-round. It is recommended that the City begin construction of Bioreactor No. 3 and expansion of the membrane system as a Priority 1 upgrade, so the aeration basins can be decommissioned. These basins will be repurposed for additional surge containment when no longer required for process redundancy or may, alternately be repurposed as aerated digesters as part of the complete solids handling stream overhaul that will be required as part of the Phase 2 upgrades (See the 2024 Biosolids Master Plan completed in conjunction with this analysis). At that time, all existing aeration equipment will be decommissioned. 4.6.11. Aeration Basin Blower Building The Aeration Basin Blower Building was constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. This structure is in good condition but is an old structure. The blower building houses the aeration blowers, return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, and the waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps for the plant’s secondary process. The blowers have all exceeded their anticipated useful life. With the exception of Blower No. 2 (installed in 2002), the blowers were installed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. Blower No. 3’s motor was rebuilt in 2002. Blowers No. 3 and No. 4 are in bad condition but have a moderate criticality of failure due to system redundancy. That said, process and permit reliability depend on a functioning aeration system. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 37 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The new secondary process will replace the aeration basins except for a small flow which will be processed by the aeration basins once the new process is brought online. Because the existing blowers are quite oversized for this operation configuration, it was recommended, and PCWRF has added piping linking the new process air header to the process air header for the existing aeration basins. Using the new process blowers to supply the existing aeration basins’ aeration demand will energy savings, and the additional construction cost for the connection will pay for itself within 1-2 years. WAS pump No. 1 was replaced in 2018 during upgrades to the blower building at that time. The mechanical seals on this pump were replaced in 2023. This pump is in good condition. WAS pump No. 2 is in moderate condition. It has exceeded its expected useful life but is only required for system redundancy. Neither WAS pump is recommended for upgrade or replacement as neither is expected to require upgrade or replacement prior to completion of Bioreactor No. 3, whereupon they will be decommissioned. Replacement of RAS pump No. 2 with a pump with a lower capacity is included in the current plant upgrades, as flow rates through the RAS pump station will decrease once the new secondary process is online. With lower flow rates, the existing RAS pumps will be too large. The amplispeed drives on RAS pumps No. 1 and No. 2 failed in early 2023 and were rebuilt to facilitate continued plant operation until the current upgrades are complete. RAS Pump No. 3 is being retrofitted with a VFD motor controller as part of these upgrades. On completion of the upgrades, this pump will be kept online for redundancy, and to provide the required flushing volume for the RAS return wetwell. These upgrades are expected to provide the necessary functionality and redundancy to serve the plant until Bioreactor No. 3 is completed and the facility is decommissioned. No further upgrades are recommended. 4.6.12. Final Clarifiers The final clarifiers were constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The structures are in relatively good condition. The mechanisms and weirs are in moderate condition but have a low criticality of failure. There is adequate redundancy, and the redundancy will increase when the current plant upgrades are complete. The clarifiers will be decommissioned when Bioreactor No. 3 is completed. To avoid sunk costs, rather than rebuilding or upgrading these clarifiers, it is recommended that PCWRF allocate funds toward beginning construction of Bioreactor No. 3 and expansion of membrane capacity of the MBR process. 4.6.13. Filter Building The filter building will be decommissioned at the end of the current plant upgrades. The structure is in moderate to poor condition, and will have to have the roof repaired, and other moderate structural repairs to make it safe prior to decommissioning. The facility also needs to be evaluated for dewatering and other costs that may result from decommissioning. The alternative is demolishing the structure, which is estimated to carry a higher cost. 4.6.14. Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility The ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system was originally installed in 2015. The system was retrofitted to the chlorine contact channels that were in operation at that time. Plant staff’s most significant concern TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 38 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC regarding the UV facility is power distribution. As discussed in Section 4.3, this facility is powered from the 1976 power distribution system. Due to the age and condition of the electrical system, and the critical nature of the UV disinfection process on permit reliability, it was deemed necessary to supply a power feed from the new distribution system to the UV disinfection facility as part of the 2020 process upgrades currently in progress. The UV facility is generally in good condition. The PLC needs to be upgraded despite being well maintained. UV bulb replacement is approximately $25K/year. The operations team equipped three UV banks with new bulbs between 2021 and 2023. There is 1 remaining bank that has reached 100% of its design life, but because the plant is oversized in terms of UV dosing, plant staff plan to continue to operate these bulbs to failure before replacing them. The bulbs carry a 15,000-hour design life. The UV influent Aerators (in Figure 4-18) are undersized and struggle to impart sufficient dissolved oxygen to meet the plant’s permitted effluent requirement of 6 mg/L, particularly when flows are relatively low and the hydraulic retention time in the clarifiers is relatively high. Permeate from the plant’s new MBR secondary process will have a higher DO content than the effluent from the existing secondary process. This is due to the air scour system that is run continuously as part of the MBR system’s cleaning cycles, as well as a cascading weir at the secondary effluent diversion structure. The facility may need to be expanded to meet aeration requirements, but it is recommended that the system be evaluated after the new MBR system comes online to determine the aeration requirements at this facility. The UV facility is very humid due to the covered channels inside, and increased ventilation is required to allow the humidity to be properly exhausted from the building to prevent premature degradation of the structure. The addition of exhaust fans will increase the building’s heating demand during the winter months. The heating system will have to be expanded. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 39 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-18 – Undersized Aerators at UV Facility The adjacent chlorine building is largely unused. It houses the effluent flow meter and is used for chlorine storage but has otherwise been moth-balled. The plant is currently taking steps toward modifying the space to accommodate some office space and an equipment shop, utilizing existing space to alleviate some of the space constraints the plant is experiencing, until a new administration building can be constructed. Therefore, the structure will need continued maintenance such that the facility does not pose a safety risk to operators. The exterior structure is in bad condition. Replacement of all doors and windows is recommended. There is minor damage to the brick masonry that requires maintenance, and the roof needs to be replaced. These upgrades will be undertaken as necessary by the plant maintenance budget. 4.6.14.1. Impure and Non-Potable Water Pump Stations The impure water (IPW) pump station is housed within the UV facility. The system consists of three impure water pumps that recirculate treated effluent to the plant for irrigation, wash down, and other plant operations that require water, but not necessarily culinary grade water. The pumps were originally installed as part of the 1976 upgrades, but Pump No. 3 was replaced in 2015, when the UV disinfection system was retrofitted to the chlorine contact basins. Pumps No. 1 and No. 2 have reached the end of their anticipated useful life and are in poor condition. They will need to be replaced as a Priority 2 upgrade. The non-potable water (NPW) pump station is located in the influent pump station. This pump station is used in much the same way as the IPW pump station but for applications in which cleaner water is required. The pumps were installed in 2005 and have exceeded their anticipated useful life. Piping to non-potable tanks needs to be repaired as a Priority 2 upgrade. 4.7. Solids Stream Process The plant’s solids stream process is designed to process and stabilize organic solids that are removed during primary and secondary treatment. Provo’s solids stream process produces Class B biosolids. The production of Class B biosolids further reduces sludge disposal costs because rather than having to pay for special disposal of hazardous materials, Class B biosolids can be landfilled, or in Provo’s case, are hauled to Elberta Valley Ag, who currently land applies the solids as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. The plant is now looking into alternative solids handling and disposal methods for their biosolids. The prospect of land applying as a long-term biosolids solution is uncertain due to public perception and potential regulatory changes on the horizon to address Per- and PolyFluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). PCWRF’s 2024 Biosolids Master Plan examines biosolids handling options for PCWRF as it seeks to upgrade its solids handling processes in future phases of construction. The plant upgrades that are currently in progress, which began in 2020, originally included upgrades to the plant’s solids processing facilities, including the primary sludge pump stations, primary and secondary digesters, thickening and dewatering facilities. These upgrades were designed to allow continued operation of these facilities until their planned replacement, which was, at the time, estimated to begin by 2035. Major upgrades to the liquid stream process (currently in progress) were TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 40 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC prioritized to allow the plant required to meet new regulatory requirements limiting nutrient concentrations in plant effluent. Most of the solids stream process upgrades were removed from the project scope of work due to budgetary constraints. Most of the solids stream process facilities date back to the 1976 plant upgrades, with some facilities dating back to the original construction of the plant in 1953. As these facilities continue to age and deteriorate, more frequent and costly repairs are required to maintain facility operation. Furthermore, the facilities and equipment may become more dangerous to work on, replacement parts may become more difficult to obtain, and processes and operations may suffer. In 2022, for example, equipment failures at the thickening facility resulted in the complete shutdown of the facility for nearly a month. During that time, solids thickening had to take place at the final clarifiers, which is not as effective as the thickening facility. This resulted in more dilute solids being sent to the digesters reducing the hydraulic retention time in the digesters and digester efficiency. Continued dilution may have eventually led to an interruption in the production of Class B Biosolids, which would have resulted in increased disposal costs for the plant until the problem was corrected. The equipment failures at the thickening facility led to the determination that the facility’s upgrades could no longer be delayed, and upgrades to this facility were added back to the current process upgrades scope of work. The plant’s maintenance staff were able to limit the consequences of loss of this process for the short term until service could be restored, but the failure resulted in interim maintenance costs to prolong equipment use until the upgrades can be made. PCWRF’s other solids handling facilities are at risk of similar types of failures due to age and condition, as described in the following sections. It is important that the City attempt to prioritize these upgrades before failures take place. Planned upgrades are typically less costly. and can also serve to minimize the duration and nature of impacts on processes. 4.7.1. Primary Sludge Pump Stations Primary sludge and scum from the existing primary clarifiers are removed to the primary sludge pump stations. There is one pump station dedicated to each of the two clarifiers. 4.7.1.1. Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 The primary sludge pump station No. 1 is dedicated to PC No. 1 and was constructed as part of the 1976 upgrades. The structure is aging, but in reasonably good condition. New windows are recommended as planned upgrades to improve the overall condition of the structure. Also, the facility predates NFPA 820 requirements. It is currently classified as a Class 1, Division 2 hazardous environment, meaning that flammable gases may be present in sufficient quantities to ignite. These areas require equipment with increased safety features, which are more expensive. This represents a fiscal risk to the plant as equipment is replaced. This facility also presents a safety concern because it uses a gas unit heater shown in Figure 4-19. The pilot on gas heating units and the possible presence of flammable gases represents a safety risk for plant staff. In addition, existing equipment installed before the advent of NFPA 820 requirements may not be suitable for a Class 1, Division 2 hazardous environment. These concerns may be addressed by upgrading the facility to an Unclassified area by equipping it with increased ventilation. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 41 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Conversely, the heater and other older equipment may be replaced with equipment suitable for the area classification. These upgrades are recommended to be planned as Priority 1 upgrades. Figure 4-19 Figure 4-19 - Gas Unit Heater in Common Space with Equipment in Hazardous Location at Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 42 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC In 2022, the wet end of scum pump No. 1 was replaced and a new rotor, stator, and bearing housing were provided. Scum pump No. 2 became plugged with grease, but the plant staff were able to unclog it. Redundancy for these pumps has been improved with the maintenance performed. However, the piping and fittings for the scum pumps are rusting, which will require increased maintenance. Sludge Pump No. 2 was replaced as part of the 2020 upgrades and Sludge Pump No. 1 is expected to provide up to an additional 8-10 years of continued operation because recent upgrades will reduce wear in this pump. 4.7.1.2. Primary Sludge Pump Station No.2 Primary Sludge Pump Station No. 2 was constructed as part of the 1976 upgrades. The structure is aging but in reasonably good condition. The brick of the structure is coming loose in places as seen in Figure 4-20, and the parapet walls are rusting in Figure 4-21. The roof was replaced in May after it failed and flooded the building, which severely rusted and damaged interior equipment inside. The MCC was highly affected, and the bottom has rusted out (shown in Figure 4-22), creating a potentially hazardous condition. There have been two MCC bucket fires and starters have been burned up. Furthermore, the plant is running out of replacement parts for the MCC, and due to its age replacement parts are difficult to find. Plant staff indicate that MCC replacement in this facility is the most urgent Priority 1 repair currently required, and is included as part of the Package A Electrical refeed project (See Table 4-1). The sludge pumps are in good condition, but replacement parts are difficult to find. The pump station currently has 5 isolation valves and 1 check valve that are non-functioning. Sump Pump No. 1 is operating but is original equipment when the building was built and has surpassed its anticipated useful life. Sump Pump No. 2 is completely inoperable, so the facility lacks redundancy. Replacement of Sump Pump No. 2 will improve operational flexibility. This facility carries a moderate criticality associated with failure. The pumps and process piping in this facility are recommended for planned replacement as Priority 2 upgrades. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 43 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-20 - Exterior Brick Cracking / Separation from Structure at Primary Sludge PS No. 2 Figure 4-21 - Rusting of Parapet Walls at PSPS No. 2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 44 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-22 - MCC Rusting as a Result of Leaking Roof / Flooding at PSPS No. 2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 45 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-23 - Sump Pump No. 2 Inoperable at PSPS No. 2 4.7.2. Dissolved Air Floatation Thickener (DAFT) As discussed in Section 4.7 above, equipment failures in 2022 have resulted in the addition of the complete upgrade of this facility to the current plant upgrades project. This includes upgrades to the DAFT clarifier structure and refurbishment of the bridge and mechanism, a new VFD for the DAFT mechanism. The thickened sludge pumps are in adequate condition and will not be replaced. The staged recycle pumps that share a single dual-shaft-motor will be replaced with new pumps operating in a parallel configuration with dedicated motors to improve system redundancy and reduce the risk associated with pump failure at this facility. The grating and stair railing attachment to the DAFT thickener will be refurbished to reduce the risk to operator safety. A new saturation tank will be provided with a new air control panel, valves, and instrumentation to improve overall system operation and effectiveness. The existing air compressor has exceeded its expected useful life. Its condition is deteriorating, but it carries only a moderate criticality of failure, and it is not slated for replacement as part of the upcoming upgrades. Some of the aging equipment is not being replaced as part of the upgrades, however, with regularly scheduled maintenance and replacement as aging components reach the end of their useful life, the DAFT facility is expected to remain in service for 2 to 10 more years. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 46 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC It should be noted that there is some concern that the DAF thickening process may not be as effective once the MBR process is online, due to higher production of filamentous bacteria and foam, which may be resistant to thickening using a DAFT process. It is recommended that the thickening process be evaluated for efficacy after commissioning the MBR and before the complete replacement of this process is undertaken. This may affect the expected longevity of the rebuilt equipment. The DAFT building is aging but has been well maintained. As part of the upcoming facility upgrades, the doors are being replaced and adequate ventilation will be added to the facility to meet NFPA 820 requirements to reduce explosion hazards in wastewater treatment facilities. Vent-fail panels will be added with lights at each door indicating whether it is safe to enter the building. These upgrades will reduce risk to operator safety as well as to equipment and processes. With regularly scheduled maintenance the structure is expected to remain in use until the solids treatment facilities are replaced beginning in 2035. The DAFT MCC is old and at its capacity. Furthermore, there is a high criticality associated with its failure. It is recommended for upgrade and expansion and a feed from the new power distribution system as Priority 2 upgrades. 4.7.3. Primary Digesters The primary digesters (PD) were originally constructed as part of the 1976 plant upgrades. The plant employs a mesophilic anaerobic digestion process to stabilize solids for the production of Class B biosolids. Digestion of biosolids reduces the overall volume of solids which reduces hauling costs associated with disposal. Digestion also reduces volatile solids that cause odors and attract pests that can spread disease. Much of the equipment in the PD facility is aging and in poor condition (Figure 4-25). Furthermore, the equipment lacks sufficient redundancy, which means that a failure of equipment could interfere with the plant’s ability to achieve production of Class B biosolids, resulting not only in operations and maintenance costs, but also in steeper hauling and disposal costs until the plant could once again demonstrate that Class B biosolids are being continuously produced. The North boiler stack is located on the East digester under the catwalk and has caused the catwalk to rust (see Figure 4-29). The catwalk needs to be moved but to do so will require cutting the roof. The roof generally must be replaced about every eight years and is nearing the end of its anticipated useful life. The primary digester control building structure needs maintenance. There is a leak in the roof above the primary digester control panel shown in Figure 4-27. Once the roof is repaired, a new controller will be required to replace the existing aging panel. The digester structures have hatches that don’t adequately seal. These represent a significant maintenance concern as they cannot easily be replaced without replacing the entire roof of the structure. The dome hatches are sealed off and non-operational, which limits access to the digesters. The mixers (installed in 2016) need to be rebuilt to maintain proper performance. The primary digester sludge pumps are all in need of replacement. Because of their age and condition, they are becoming increasingly dangerous for plant staff to perform routine maintenance on. The heat TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 47 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC exchangers are in poor condition. Their hardware leaks, and as they deteriorate, they become less safe for plant staff to work on. The sludge flow meter is in a bad installation location, and subject to corrosion. It works now but is expected to fail within the next five years due to age and condition. As part of ongoing maintenance to the plant, hydrogen sulfide sensors are being added to this facility. Indicator lights will be added to the facility entrances, indicating to operators as they approach the facility whether it is safe to enter the building. Materials are on site for this upgrade, with installation scheduled to take place this year. The South boiler unit is in poor condition. The unit is rusting out. The door and burners were replaced in both boilers in 2020 which recovered some operability. The 3-way valves for mixing and distribution of sludge need to be rebuilt or replaced. These valves have needed a lot of adjustment in recent months but have not failed. However, loss of these valves will take down the associated PD, so a planned shutdown for the replacement of these valves is critical to maintaining production of Class B Biosolids. PD equipment is aging, in poor condition, becoming increasingly unsafe to maintain, and lacks sufficient redundancy. The facility requires new piping, PLC, pumps, heat exchangers, boilers, and 3-way mixing valves. In addition, pressure gauges located throughout the facility shown in Figure 4-30 are inaccurate and require replacement, which represents a safety concern for operators. The operations staff have planned to incorporate these repairs into regularly scheduled maintenance upgrades replacing some of this equipment each year. If these upgrades are approved within the next 5 years, plant staff believe they can keep the PDs operational until 2035 when the biosolids process can be scheduled for replacement. Upgrades to this facility are considered Priority 1. The plant is currently in the process of replacing the overflow pipe between the two digesters as it became completely blocked, interfering with digester operation. Figure 4-24 - Rusting Hatch and Equipment on Primary Digester Exterior TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 48 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-25 - Rusting / Leaking Process Piping in Primary Digester Facility TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 49 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-26 - Missing Mortar and Crack Formation on Primary Digester Exterior TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 50 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-27 - Roof Leaking above Control Panel at Primary Digester Figure 4-28 - Roof Leaking in Primary Digester Building TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 51 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 4-29 - Catwalk Rusting above North Boiler Stack Figure 4-30 - Inaccurate Pressure Gauges in Primary Digester Facility TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 52 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.7.4. Waste Gas Burner The waste gas burner is in poor condition and has exceeded its expected useful life. Because the methane produced during digestion must be either captured or burned, failure of the waste gas burner must be prevented. The system lacks redundancy and requires frequent maintenance. The gas regulator was replaced in 2016, but the ignitor does not work properly, which makes relighting it a risk to operator safety. The burner’s top shroud and base slab pipe are corroded as seen in Figure 4-31. In addition to the condition and criticality of failure, the waste gas burner’s placement is only about 25 feet away from the primary digesters, which represents a fire / explosion hazard. It needs to be relocated to a safe distance from the digester. Relocating and upgrading the waste gas burner are recommended as Priority 1 upgrades. Figure 4-31 - Corrosion of Shroud and Base of Waste Gas Burner 4.7.5. Secondary Digesters The secondary digester control building is in reasonably good condition but is in need of some maintenance. There is a large crack on the south wall that is need of repair (See Figure 4-32), and will be included as part of the Struvite Control System installation at this facility (See Section 4.7.5.1). This repair will be largely cosmetic, as discussed in Section 4.1. The digester structures were retrofitted with vents to allow gases to vent from the digesters. Some of these gases are corrosive and have caused deterioration to the concrete around each vent. Deteriorated concrete has loose aggregate that pulls away easily, and a large piece of concrete that had come loose from the structure was observed during recent inspection and is shown in Figure 4-33. The bridge structures on top of the digesters that allow access to the linear motion mixers are severely corroded posing a safety risk to operators. Moreover, the connections of these structures to the digester building show significant signs of corrosion in the TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 53 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC bolts and the surrounding concrete, as shown in Figure 4-34 and Figure 4-35. The floor drain system needs to be repaired, and the floors in the facility need to be leveled. It is recommended that these structural and mechanical needs be addressed as Priority 1 Upgrades. Operationally, the secondary digester building is in good condition. The linear motion mixer was installed in 2012 and the rails were replaced about three years ago. The dewatering system Feed Pumps No. 1 and No. 3 and their VFDs were replaced as part of the 2020 plant upgrades, still in progress. The Chopper pump is not often used and was left installed to provide operational flexibility to the operators. This pump has a very low criticality of failure as it is not required for process reliability. The electrical and controls system is near its capacity and aging. This system is recommended for expansion or replacement as a Priority 2 Upgrade. The secondary digesters are currently used as solids holding tanks after primary digestion and allow the plant to control the feed to their dewatering facility. There are, therefore, no operating boilers, compressors, heat exchangers, or other equipment that is required for digestion processes. The piping and equipment that is still in the facility but not used for current operations is planned for demolition and removal as part of the Struvite Control System installation (See Section 4.7.5.1). Figure 4-32 – Crack in the South Wall of the Secondary Digester Facility Figure 4-33 - Concrete broken away due to degradation by Corrosive Gases at Digester Roof Vents TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 54 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 4.7.5.1. Struvite Control System A new struvite control system has been piloted by PCWRF over the last two years. A permanent installation will be added to the secondary digester control building as part of the current plant upgrades. Struvite is a scale that commonly forms downstream of anaerobic digestion processes, like the one employed at PCWRF. Struvite forms in piping and equipment, and can cause damage to equipment, interrupt processes, and cause significant maintenance issues. In addition to removing the threat of nuisance struvite formation, the system will promote the removal of phosphorus in conjunction with the disposal of biosolids. This will help the plant to meet its effluent phosphorus limit, which goes into effect in January 2025. This system is not yet installed, and because the equipment will be new, it will be at low risk of failure. However, the system consists of a chemical pump, reactor feed and discharge pumps, a Figure 4-34 – Corrosion to Secondary Digester Bridge Structure Figure 4-35 – Corroded Connections to Secondary Digesters TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 55 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC biogas booster pump, a stainless-steel reactor pressure vessel, instruments, valves, and a control panel, all of which will require regularly scheduled maintenance. The system will reduce the plant’s use of ferric sulfate for struvite control/phosphorus removal, which will reduce maintenance costs and mitigate the risk associated with chemical handling. Ferric sulfate may be used occasionally as a backup means to address struvite and remove phosphorus during system upsets and or equipment failures. As part of the installation of this system, the secondary digester building doors and windows will be replaced. A floor hatch, skylight, and an overhead coiling door will be added to the facility for improved access to equipment, loading and unloading. Ventilation will also be added to the facility to meet NFPA 820 requirements to reduce explosion hazard in wastewater treatment facilities. Vent-fail panels will be added with lights at each door indicating whether it is safe to enter the building. These upgrades will reduce the facility’s risk to operator safety. 4.7.6. Dewatering Facility The dewatering building is in good condition, with major upgrades to and expansion of the facility taking place in 2012. In 2022, upgrades were made to the facility’s equipment in connection with the 2020 Package 1 plant upgrades. Centrifuge No. 1, which was new in 1995, was replaced as part of the 2012 dewatering upgrades and expansion, as was the screw and liner for its existing screw conveyor. Centrifuge No. 2 was much newer (installed in 2012) and is still operating effectively. Feed piping associated with the dewatering system was replaced including isolation plug valves, both centrifuges isolation gate valve, the feed pipe flow meter, and ferric sulfate injection line. The two centrifuges give the plant operational flexibility and redundancy so there is a low criticality of failure. The entire polymer feed system was upgraded as part of the Package 1 plant upgrades. The electrical system for the dewatering facility is in good condition. The MCC and PLC have exceeded their expected useful life and lack redundancy but are in good condition and there is a low to moderate criticality associated with their failure. The rest of the electrical equipment is in good condition and has a low criticality of failure. No upgrades are currently recommended for this facility, but the facility and equipment should continue to be monitored for repairs as needed, and for the replacement of Centrifuge No. 2 as a Priority 3 upgrade. 4.7.7. Centrate Pump Station The centrate pump station equalization basin was constructed in 2002 and is in good condition, with a high criticality associated with failure, due to lack of operational flexibility and redundancy and the O&M costs associated with repairs. The centrate pump station wetwell receives water removed during the dewatering process (centrate). The centrate is and pumped to the drying beds where it can be metered back to the influent pump station. The plant is currently in the process of upgrading the process piping leading from the wetwell to the drying beds because it became blocked completely by struvite. The plant will replace the piping with HDPE, which plant staff have observed to be more resistant to struvite formation than metal piping. Once the current plant upgrades are complete, the water can also be pumped to the Equalization Basin where it will blend with screened primary effluent and be equalized over 24 hours. The pumps and associated piping were replaced in 2022 as part of the Package 1 plant TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 56 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC upgrades and are all in new condition. No upgrades are recommended to this facility at this time. Plant staff will monitor the equipment for maintenance and repair on an as-needed basis. 4.7.8. Sludge Drying Beds The sludge drying beds are still in regular use. They are used to meter centrate back to the head of the plant to reduce shock loadings of nutrients. They are also used when digesters are taken down for cleaning. Drying beds 1-8 are temporarily on loan to Provo City Public Works Streets department for storage. The drying beds are in bad condition but have a low criticality associated with failure. When the new secondary process is brought online it will increase operational flexibility, as the centrate can be equalized at the equalization basin as well as at the drying beds. A recent maintenance upgrade replaced some of the drying bed gates and added actuators to promote more controlled metering of centrate flow back to the influent pump station. These should be monitored for maintenance as required to maintain operation. Drying bed No. 10 needs new asphalt as a Priority 1 upgrade. No other repairs are recommended at this time. The drying beds are located at the Northeast corner of the plant. When the new solids handling process is built as part of the Phase 2 upgrades, its planned location was to be this Northeast corner. The reason for this is that building new process facilities where the existing process facilities are located along the North border of the plant was deemed impractical due to the web of process and utility pipes that run along the plant’s North road. To make upgrades simpler and less costly, the Northeast corner was selected. The solids handling processes would take the space of at least two of the large drying beds. It may be necessary to build additional drying beds to replace those decommissioned. Additional drying bed capacity is a Priority 3 upgrade. 4.8. Evaluation of Equipment and Structures The evaluation of the equipment and structures identified several pieces of equipment that are at or near the end of their useful life. This equipment is listed in Table 4-2below. High level cost estimates associated with repairs recommended over the next 10 years are tabulated in Table 1-1 through Table 1-4 in the Executive Summary. Table 4-2 – Condition Assessment Scoring Definitions Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life POWER DISTRIBUTION BUILDING / EMERGENCY GENERATOR SYSTEM Power Distribution Bldg Electrical Switchgear 1976 3 4.2 -22 600 KW Emergency Diesel Generator #1 2005 3 3.2 -2 600 KW Emergency Diesel Generator #2 2005 3 3.2 -2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 57 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life 250 KW Emergency Generator (Headworks) 1980 5 3 -40 350 KW Emergency Generator (Disinfection) 1980 4 3.2 -25 1500 KVA Transformer 2005 3 3.4 -5 HEADWORKS Septage Dump Station Tank #1 1993 4 1.8 -16 Septage Dump Station Tank #2 1993 4 1.8 -16 Influent Junction Box Slide Gate (South) 1976 5 2.4 -44 Grit Chamber #1 1990 4 1.2 -16 Grit Chamber #2 1990 4 1.6 -16 Influent Flow Meter 1976 5 3 -46 Influent Pump Control Building 1953 2 1.6 -5 Influent Pump #1 1953 3 1.4 -29 Influent Pump #2 1953 3 1.4 -29 Influent Pump #3 1953 3 1.4 -29 Non-Potable Water Pump #1 2005 3 1.6 -2 Non-Potable Water Pump #2 2005 3 1.6 -2 Pump #1 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #2 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #3 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #4 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #5 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #6 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #7 Check Valve 1976 4 3 -27 Pump #4VFD 2005 5 3.6 -17 Pump #5 VFD 2005 5 3.6 -17 Pump #6 VFD 2005 5 3.6 -17 Pump #7 VFD 2005 5 3.6 -17 Influent Pump Station Wetwell Isolation Gate #1 (For Pumps 6&7 Wetwell) 1976 4 2.8 -29 Headworks Odor Control Tank 2000 3 2.6 -2 Influent Force Main 1976 4 3.4 -29 Headworks MCC 1990 3 3.6 -19 Headworks Lift Station RTU 2007 2 2.6 -1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 58 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Headworks Lift Station Panel View Plus 1990 2 2.4 -13 Headworks Channel Level Controller 2008 3 1.2 -6 IPS Medium Voltage Switch and Transformer 1976 5 3.6 -44 IPS 480V Switchgear 1976 5 3.6 -44 IPS 480V MCC A 2005 2 2 -2 IPS 480V MCC B 2005 2 2 -2 IPS PLC 2005 4 2.6 -12 PRIMARY CLARIFICATION Primary Sedimentation Distribution Structure 1976 4 4 -27 Primary Sed. Odor Control System 2005 4 2.6 -10 Primary Clarifier #1 Structure 1966 4 3.2 -35 Primary Clarifier #2 Structure 1976 3 3.4 -14 Primary Clarifier #1 Mechanism 2005 3 2.6 -5 Primary Clarifier #2 Mechanism 1976 5 3.2 -25 Primary Sludge Pump Station #1 Structure 1966 4 2.6 -35 Primary Clarifier Scum Pump #2 1976 3 2.4 -11 Primary Clarifier Sludge Pump #4 (Scum Pump #3) 1976 3 2.8 -19 Primary Clarifier Pump Station # 2 Sump Pump #1 1976 4 3.8 -30 Primary Clarifier Pump Station # 2 Sump Pump #2 1976 5 4.2 -44 Primary Sludge Pump Station MCC 1976 5 4.2 -46 Primary Sludge Pump Station PLC 2004 4 3.2 -12 FERRIC CHLORIDE DOSING STATION Ferric Chloride Storage Tank #1 2001 3 2.4 -7 Ferric Chloride Storage Tank #2 2001 3 2.4 -7 Ferric Chloride Chemical Feed Pump #2 2001 4 2 -13 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 59 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Ferric Chloride Level Control #1 2001 4 2.6 -13 Ferric Chloride Level Control #2 2001 4 1.8 -13 AERATION BASINS Flume/Electronic Equipment Flow Meter #1 (Bypass) 1976 3 3.6 -5 Flume/Electronic Equipment Flow Meter #2 1976 3 3.6 -3 Aeration Basin Pump #2 (VFD Pump) 1976 3 3 -19 Aeration Basin Pump #3 (VFD Pump) 1976 3 3 -19 Aeration Basin Pump #4 1976 5 3 -43 Aeration Basin #1 Diffusers 1997 2 1.8 -1 Aeration Basin #2 Diffusers 1997 2 1.8 -1 Aeration Basin #3 Diffusers 1997 2 1.8 -1 Aeration Basin #1 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 3 1.8 -18 Aeration Basin #2 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 3 1.8 -18 Aeration Basin #3 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 3 1.8 -18 Aeration Basin #4 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 3 1.8 -18 Aeration Basin #1 Automated Control Valve (Air) 1976 3 1.8 -5 Aeration Basin #2 Automated Control Valve (Air) 1976 3 1.8 -5 Aeration Basin #3 Automated Control Valve (Air) 1976 3 1.8 -5 Aeration Basin #4 Automated Control Valve (Air) 1976 3 1.8 -5 Zone #1 Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 Zone #2 Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 Zone #3 Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 Zone #4 Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 Zone #5 Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 Zone #6Air Flow Meter 1976 2 2.4 -6 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 60 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Aeration Blower #1 1976 3 2.6 -14 Aeration Blower #2 2002 3 2.8 -5 Aeration Blower #3 1976 4 2.8 -32 Aeration Blower #4 1976 4 2.6 -27 Aeration Blower #1 Motor (600 hp) 1976 5 2.6 -44 Aeration Blower #2 Motor (400 hp) 2002 3 2.8 -5 Aeration Blower #3 Motor (600 hp) 2002 4 2.6 -12 Aeration Blower #4 Motor (600 hp) 1976 5 2.6 -44 Blower #2 VFD 2002 3 2.6 -5 Blower #3 VFD 2002 3 2.6 -7 Blower #1 Check Valve 1976 4 1 -29 Blower #2 Check Valve 1976 4 1 -29 Blower #4 Check Valve 1976 4 1 -29 Mass Air Flow Meter 1976 3 3.2 -5 RAS Pump #1 1976 4 3 -8 RAS Pump #3 1976 4 3 -26 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #2 & Actuator 1976 3 2 -18 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #3 & Actuator 1976 3 2 -18 RAS Check Valve #1 1976 4 1.2 -29 RAS Check Valve #2 1976 3 1.2 -18 RAS Check Valve #3 1976 3 1.2 -18 RAS Flow Meter #1 1976 4 2.8 -8 RAS Flow Meter #2 1976 3 2.2 -33 RAS Flow Meter #3 1976 3 2.2 -33 RAS Flow Meter #4 1976 3 2.2 -33 WAS/Scum Pump #1 1976 3 2 -19 WAS/Scum Pump #2 1976 3 2 -19 WAS Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 5 2.2 -44 WAS Pump #2 Amplispeed Drive 1976 5 2.2 -44 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 61 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life WAS Flow Meter 1976 4 2 -17 Scum Valve and Actuator #1 1976 4 2.2 -29 Scum Valve and Actuator #2 1976 4 2.2 -29 Aeration Basin Influent MCC "E" 480V 500AT 1976 5 3.4 -45 Aeration Basin Influent PLC 1976 4 2.8 -38 Blower Building MV Switch, 4160V Transformer 1976 3 2.8 -31 Blower Building 4160V Gear, Feeders, Starters 1976 4 2.8 -38 Blower Building MV Switch, 480V Transformer 1976 3 2.8 -31 Blower Building 480V Switchboard 1976 4 2.8 -38 Blower Building 480V MCC 1976 4 2.8 -38 Blower Building PLC 1976 4 2.8 -38 FINAL CLARIFIERS Final Clarifier #1 Mechanism 2005 3 2 -5 Final Clarifier #2 Mechanism 2005 3 2 -5 Final Clarifier #3 Mechanism 2005 3 2 -5 Final Clarifier #4 Mechanism 2005 3 2 -5 Final Clarifier #1 FRP Weirs 1976 3 2 -5 Final Clarifier #2 FRP Weirs 1976 3 2 -21 Final Clarifier #3 FRP Weirs 1976 3 2 -2 Final Clarifier Scum Collection Boxes 1976 3 2 -14 Final Clarifier #1 Drain Valves 1976 5 3 -44 Final Clarifier #2 Drain Valves 1976 5 3 -44 Final Clarifier #3 Drain Valves 1976 5 3 -44 Final Clarifier #4 Drain Valves 1976 5 3 -44 TERTIARY FILTERS (TO BE DECOMMISSIONED) Surge Tank Level Sensor 2006 2 1.8 -2 Surge Equalization Pump #1 1976 3 1 -17 Surge Equalization Pump #2 1976 3 1 -17 Surge Equalization Flow Meter 2006 2 1.8 -2 Tertiary Filter Building 1976 4 2.2 -28 Surface Wash Pump #1 1976 3 1.8 -17 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 62 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Surface Wash Flow Meter 1976 3 2.6 -33 Surface Wash Check Valve #1 1976 3 1.6 -18 Backwash Pump #1 1976 3 1.8 -17 Backwash Pump #2 1976 3 1.8 -17 Backwash Pump VFD 1976 5 3 -32 Backwash Flow Meter 1976 3 2.6 -19 Filter Backwash Flow Control Modulating Valve 1997 3 2.8 -5 Filter Building MCC (South) 1976 4 1.8 -39 Filter Building MCC (North) 1976 4 1.8 -39 Filter Building PLC (Upstairs) 1998 4 2.4 -17 Filter Building PLC (Downstairs) 2008 2 2.4 -1 CHLORINE INJECTION SYSTEM (MOTH-BALLED) Chlorine Building Structure 1976 3 2.8 -15 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #1 1998 3 1.6 -11 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #2 1998 3 1.6 -11 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #3 1998 3 1.6 -11 SO2 Tank Scale #1 1998 3 1.6 -11 SO2 Tank Scale #2 1998 3 1.6 -11 Chlorinator #1 1998 3 2.4 -10 Chlorinator #2 1998 3 2.4 -10 Chlorinator #3 1998 3 2.4 -10 Chlorine Ejector 1998 3 4 -12 Sulphinator #1 1998 3 2.4 -11 Sulphinator #2 1998 3 2.4 -11 SO2 Ejectors 1998 3 2.4 -12 Recirculation Scrubber Pump 1998 3 3.8 -12 Emergency Chlorine Scrubber 1998 3 3.8 -6 Chlorine/SO2 Scrubber Blower/Motor 1998 3 3.2 -12 Chlorine ORP Probe 1998 3 3 -2 SO2 ORP Probe 1998 3 3 -12 Hi-Rate Valve 1998 3 2.8 -4 Overhead Crane (3 Ton) 1998 3 2.6 -4 Chlorine Building MV Switch & Transformer 1976 4 2.8 -32 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 63 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Chlorine Building 480V 1600A SWBD 1976 4 2.8 -32 Chlorine Building 800A ATS 1999 2 2.8 -1 Chlorine Building 480V 800A SWBD 1999 2 2.8 -1 Chlorine Building 480V MCC 1976 4 2.8 -39 Chlorine Building PLC 2008 2 2.8 -1 ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION FACILITY Plant Effluent Flow Meter 1998 3 2.8 -12 Channel #2 (South) 1976 3 2 -14 Control Gate #1 1976 3 2 -18 Control Gate #2 1976 4 2 -29 Aerator/Mixer #1 1998 4 2 -10 Aerator/Mixer #2 1998 3 2 -1 Submersible Pump #1 1998 3 1.8 -7 Submersible Pump #2 1998 3 1.8 -7 Impure Water (IPW) Pump #1 (Variable) 1976 3 2 -16 IPW Pump #2 (Constant) 1976 3 2 -16 IPW Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 5 2 -44 IPW Pump #3 Amplispeed Drive 1976 5 2 -44 SO2 ORP Probe 1998 3 2.2 -12 Chlorine Residual Analyzer 1998 3 3.2 -12 Groundwater Sump Drain Pump 2014 5 3 -7 Treatment Plant Lab Infrastructure 1976 4 3.6 -28 Treatment Plant Lab Equipment 1976 3 3.6 -22 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DIGESTERS Thickened Sludge Pump #3 1976 3 2.2 -17 Thickened Sludge Pump #4 1976 3 2.2 -17 Thickened Sludge Recycle Pump South 1976 3 2.4 -17 Air Compressor #1 1976 4 2 -29 Expansion Tank 1976 4 2.8 -30 Thickened Sludge Level Bubbler 1976 3 2.6 -22 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 64 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Primary Digester #1 (East) 1976 4 2.8 -27 Primary Digester #2 (West) 1976 4 2.8 -27 Primary Digester Control Building 1976 4 3.2 -28 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #1 1976 5 2.6 -13 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #2 1976 5 2.6 -8 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #3 1976 5 2.6 -44 Primary Sludge Heat Exchanger #1 1976 4 2.6 -32 Primary Sludge Heat Exchanger #2 1976 4 2.6 -32 Hot Water Circulation Pump #1 2001 4 3.2 -12 Hot Water Circulation Pump #2 2001 4 3.2 -12 Hot Water Boiler #1 2001 3 2.4 -7 Hot Water Boiler #2 2001 4 2.4 -13 Primary Sludge Inline Grinder #1 2008 5 2.8 -14 Primary Sludge Inline Grinder #2 2008 5 2.8 -14 Hot Water 3-Way Mixing Valve (East) 1976 5 2.4 -20 Hot Water 3-Way Mixing Valve (West) 1976 5 2.4 -20 Sludge 3-Way Distribution Valve 1976 4 3 -15 Sludge Flow Meter 2001 3 3 -10 Waste Gas Burner 1976 5 3.6 -44 Totalizer (Gas) 2001 2 2.6 0 Totalizer (Burner) 2001 2 2.6 0 Secondary Digester #1 (West) 1953 2 1.8 -5 Secondary Digester #2 (East) 1953 2 1.8 -5 Linear Motion Mixer #1 VFD 2012 2 2.2 0 Secondary Digester Operation Building 1953 4 2.6 -44 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 65 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Equipment Year Installed Condition Rating Criticality Rating Anticipated Remaining Useful Life Chopper Pump #2 2012 4 1.8 -2 Primary Digester Relief Valves #2 2001 4 2.8 -8 Primary Digester Building MCC 1995 3 2.4 -15 Primary Digester Building PLC 2004 3 2.4 -8 Secondary Digester PLC 2011 2 2 0 Shaftless Screw Conveyor #1 (16") 1995 3 2 -6 SOLIDS PROCESS Sludge Feed Flow Meter #1 2012 2 2 0 Sludge Feed Flow Meter #2 2012 2 2 0 Air Compressor 1995 3 2.6 -8 Sludge Hopper Scale 2011 3 1.4 -1 Hopper Screw #1 1995 5 2.6 -26 Hopper Screw #2 1995 5 2.4 -26 Hopper Gate #1 1995 3 1.8 0 Hopper Gate #2 1995 3 1.8 0 Hopper Gate #3 1995 3 1.8 0 Sludge Drying Bed #1 - 4 1976 4 1.2 -21 Sludge Drying Bed #5 - 8 1976 4 1.2 -21 Sludge Drying Bed #10 1976 4 1.2 -11 Sludge Drying Bed #13 1976 5 1.2 -43 Sludge Drying Bed #14 1976 3 1.2 -7 Sludge Drying Bed Valves 1976 5 2 -44 All Buildings HVAC 1990 3 2 -9 Treatment Plant Lab Infrastructure 1990 3 2 -9 Treatment Plant Lab Equipment 1990 3 2 -17 Centrifuge Building MCC 1995 3 2.2 -15 Centrifuge Building PLC 2004 3 2.2 -8 4.9. Interpretation of Results It is important to note that the purpose of this analysis is not to predict when a structure or piece of equipment will fail, but rather to provide a representation of the relative risk of failure for a structure or piece of equipment. The intent of the table above is not to report that all of the listed structures and TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 66 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC equipment are going to fail within the next five years, but to relate that many of the structures and equipment units are at a high risk of failure based on an analysis of their age, use, condition and performance. If the equipment or structure is critical to the operation of the facility, then its high risk of failure can be associated with a high risk that the facility will incur impaired operation. The list of equipment presented in Table 4-2 includes all equipment that has a moderate to high risk of failure in the next five years. Repair and refurbishment of many of these items will be conducted as part of the PCWRF operation and maintenance program. The results of the condition assessment are expected to be used as a tool for the planning and budgeting of scheduled equipment replacement and renovations. Its use in this study was to identify major systems and process units that are in need of significant work to extend their useful life and reduce the risk of failure. The systems and process units of greatest concern for this study are those that are required to maintain and/or expand the capacity of the facility. Process units in need of substantial equipment replacement and/or renovation to maintain the capacity of the facility and decrease the risk for system and/or facility failure include the following:  Power Distribution System o Move existing facilities to new power distribution system as upgrades are made.  Sitework o Grading and Paving o Landscaping o Site Security o Exterior lightning North Plant o Replace administration building, laboratory, and maintenance shop facilities with larger facilities to accommodate current operations and staffing. o Expand onsite parking.  Influent Facilities & Headworks o Expand capacity and metering capability of Septage Dump Tanks o Replace NPW pumps and piping o Replace Influent pump VFDs o Restore and coat grit chamber structures. o Plan for replacement of West influent gate o Upgrade headworks emergency MCC-E o Reroute headworks emergency power to the influent building emergency power system. o Upgrade Headworks Odor Control System with fresh air supply vents and increased blower capacity.  Primary Treatment o Upgrade Primary Clarifier Distribution Structure o Upgrade Primary Clarifier Structures and mechanisms o Upgrade Primary Sludge Pump Station (PSPS) Buildings  Make upgrades to meet NEC and NFPA-820 area classification requirements TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 67 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC  Replace PSPS pumps and process piping  Ferric Dosing Station o Replace Ferric Chloride Dosing Pump No. 2  Tertiary Filters o Replace building roof and make structural and other repairs required for decommissioning structure safely.  UV Disinfection o Replace IPW pumps No. 1 and 2 o Upgrade humidity control measures  Digesters o Primary Digester Control Building Upgrades  Make upgrades to meet NEC and NFPA-820 area classification requirements o Primary Digester Heat Exchangers/Circulation Pumps/Boilers/Mixing Valves o Waste Gas Burner/Regulator/Totalizer o Secondary Digester structural repairs.  Waste Gas Burner o Upgrade unit to address corrosion and faulty igniter o Relocate away from Primary Digesters  Solids Dewatering o Sludge Drying Bed No. 10 asphalt TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1/10/2025, Page 67 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Condition Assessment 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 5. APPENDIX A Condition Assessment Evaluation Spreadsheet Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule Emergency Generator System Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 0001 Power Distribution Bldg Electrical Switchgear 1976 49 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 27 100 3 4 5 5 5 2 4 0.75 -28.5 2025 0002 Electrical Switchgear (Expansion for Generators)2005 20 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 23 100 1 1 5 5 1 1 3 1.00 3.0 2028 0003 Generac Control PLC 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 100 2 1 4 5 3 1 3 0.75 0.6 2026 0004 600 KW Emergency Diesel Generator #1 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 10 3 1 4 3 3 5 3 0.75 5.6 2031 0005 600 KW Emergency Diesel Generator #2 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 10 3 1 4 3 3 5 3 0.75 5.6 2031 0006 250 KW Emergency Generator (Headworks)1980 45 Equipment, Treatment 20 49 10 5 1 1 5 3 5 3 0.05 -41.9 2025 0007 350 KW Emergency Generator (Disinfection)1980 45 Equipment, Treatment 20 49 10 4 1 5 5 3 2 3 0.30 -26.6 2025 0008 1500 KVA Transformer 2005 20 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 23 100 3 4 5 5 2 1 3 0.75 -2.7 2025 Headworks Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 1001 Septage Dump Station Tank #1 1993 32 Valves. Misc. 10 27 50 4 1 1 2 1 4 2 0.30 -23.3 2025 1002 Septage Dump Station Tank #2 1993 32 Valves. Misc. 10 27 50 4 1 1 2 1 4 2 0.30 -23.3 2025 1003 Influent Junction Box Slide Gate (South)1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 2 1 4 3 2 2 0.05 -47.6 2025 1004 Influent Junction Box Slide Gate (East)2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 100 1 2 1 4 3 1 2 1.00 3.4 2028 1005 Mechanical Step Step Screen #1 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1006 Mechanical Step Step Screen #2 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1007 East Screen Influent Slide Gate 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 3.7 2029 1008 East Screen Effluent Slide Gate 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 3.7 2029 1009 West Screen Influent Slide Gate 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 3.7 2029 1010 West Screen Effluent Slide Gate 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 3.7 2029 1011 Washer/Compactor #1 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1012 Washer/Compactor #2 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1013 Screenings Conveyor #1 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1014 Screenings Conveyor #2 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 50 1 3 1 1 1 4 2 1.00 13.7 2039 1015 Grit Chamber #1 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 100 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 9.4 2034 1016 Grit Chamber #2 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 100 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 9.4 2034 1017 Grit Chamber Influent Gate (West) 1990 35 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -14.6 2025 1018 Grit Chamber Influent Gate (East) 1990 35 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -14.6 2025 1019 Grit Chamber Effluent Gate (West) 1990 35 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 0.75 -14.6 2025 2 Liftings Shafts, 1 Gate 1020 Grit Chamber Effluent Gate (East) 2023 2 Valves. Misc. 10 10 100 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.00 8.2 2033 2 Liftings Shafts, 1 Gate 1021 Grit Pump #1 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 50 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 1.1 2026 1022 Grit Pump #2 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 50 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 1.1 2026 1023 Grit Classifer 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 1 1 2 5 5 4 3 1.00 12.0 2037 1024 Grit Conveyor 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 2 1 2 5 5 4 3 0.75 6.5 2032 1025 Grit Blower #1 1990 2020 5 Equipment, Treatment 20 21 33 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 12.6 2038 Needs to Be Replaced 1026 Grit Blower #2 1990 2020 5 Equipment, Treatment 20 21 33 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 12.6 2038 1027 Grit Blower #3 2016 2020 5 Equipment, Treatment 20 21 33 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 12.6 2038 1028 Air Compressor #1 2012 2016 9 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 75 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.00 13.1 2038 1029 Air Compressor #2 1990 2016 9 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 25 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.00 16.4 2041 1030 Influent Flow Meter 1976 49 Meters 10 27 100 5 1 4 5 3 2 3 0.05 -47.6 2025 1031 Influent Bypass Slide Gate (West)2014 11 Valves. Misc. 10 15 100 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -0.1 2025 1032 Influent Bypass Slide Gate (South)1976 2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 100 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -2.7 2025 1033 Influent Pump Control Building 1953 72 Concrete Structures 50 89 100 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 0.75 -5.4 2025 1034 Influent Pump #1 1953 72 Pumps 10 27 10 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -46.5 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 1035 Influent Pump #2 1953 72 Pumps 10 27 10 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -46.5 2025 1036 Influent Pump #3 1953 72 Pumps 10 27 10 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -46.5 2025 1037 Influent Pump #4 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 33 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -0.4 2025 1038 Influent Pump #5 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 33 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -0.4 2025 1039 Influent Pump #6 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 33 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -0.4 2025 1040 Influent Pump #7 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 33 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -0.4 2025 1041 Non-Potable Water Pump #1 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 50 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 0.75 -1.4 2025 1042 Non-Potable Water Pump #2 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 50 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 0.75 -1.4 2025 1043 Pump #1 Influent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 Get updated with Joel 1044 Pump #1 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1045 Pump #2 Influent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1046 Pump #2 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1047 Pump #3 Influent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1048 Pump #3 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1049 Pump #4 Influent Isolation Valve 2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 0.2 2025 1050 Pump #4 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1051 Pump #5 Influent Isolation Valve 2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 0.2 2025 1052 Pump #5 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1053 Pump #6 Influent Isolation Valve 2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 0.2 2025 1054 Pump #6 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1055 Pump #7 Influent Isolation Valve 2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 0.2 2025 1056 Pump #7 Effluent Isolation Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 25 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -25.0 2025 1057 Pump #1 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1058 Pump #2 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1059 Pump #3 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1060 Pump #4 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1061 Pump #5 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1062 Pump #6 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 1063 Pump #7 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 33 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 Antero Database 1064 Pump #4VFD 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 33 5 2 3 5 5 3 4 0.05 -18.4 2025 Antero Database 1065 Pump #5 VFD 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 33 5 2 3 5 5 3 4 0.05 -18.4 2025 Antero Database 1066 Pump #6 VFD 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 33 5 2 3 5 5 3 4 0.05 -18.4 2025 Antero Database 1067 Pump #7 VFD 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 33 5 2 3 5 5 3 4 0.05 -18.4 2025 1068 Influent Pump Station Wetwell Isolation Gate #1 (For Pumps 6&7 Wetwell)1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 2 1 5 5 1 3 0.30 -40.8 2025 1069 Influent Pump Station Wetwell Isolation Gate #2 (Pump 4 wetwell)2005 20 Valves. Misc. 10 23 100 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 0.75 -2.7 2025 1070 Influent Pump Station Channel Isolation Gate #1 2005 20 Valves. Misc.10 23 100 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 -2.7 2025 NOT USED 1071 Influent Pump Station Channel Isolation Gate #2 2005 20 Valves. Misc.10 23 100 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 -2.7 2025 NOT USED 1072 Headworks Odor Control Blower 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 2 3 1 5 2 2 3 0.75 6.5 2032 1073 Headworks Odor Control Tank 2000 2009 16 Equipment, Treatment 20 25 100 3 3 1 5 2 2 3 0.75 2.6 2028 1074 Influent Force Main 1976 49 Pipe - Concrete 40 63 100 3 1 5 5 2 1 3 0.75 -2.1 2025 1075 Headworks MCC 1990 35 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 3 4 3 5 3 3 4 0.75 -14.6 2025 1076 Headworks Automatic Transfer Switch 2005 20 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 23 100 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 0.75 -2.7 2025 1077 Headworks Lift Station RTU 2007 18 MCCs/VFDs 10 21 100 1 1 2 5 1 2 2 1.00 3.4 2028 1078 Headworks Lift Station Panel View Plus 1990 35 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 2 2 1 5 2 2 2 0.75 -14.6 2025 1079 Headworks Channel Level Controller 2008 17 MCCs/VFDs 10 20 100 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -1.7 2025 1 added 1080 Headworks PLC 2015 10 MCCs/VFDs 10 14 100 1 1 2 5 1 2 2 1.00 3.7 2029 1081 Headworks Screen 1 Control Panel 2015 10 MCCs/VFDs 10 14 100 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.00 3.7 2029 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 1082 Headworks Screen 2 Control Panel 2015 10 MCCs/VFDs 10 14 100 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1.00 3.7 2029 1083 Headworks Grit Classifier Control Panel 2020 5 MCCs/VFDs 10 11 100 3 1 1 5 2 3 2 0.75 3.3 2028 1084 IPS Medium Voltage Switch and Transformer 1976 49 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 27 100 5 2 4 5 5 2 4 0.05 -47.6 2025 1085 IPS 480V Switchgear 1976 49 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 27 100 5 2 4 5 5 2 4 0.05 -47.6 2025 1086 IPS 480V MCC A 2005 20 MCCs/VFDs 10 23 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -2.7 2025 1087 IPS 480V MCC B 2005 20 MCCs/VFDs 10 23 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -2.7 2025 1088 IPS PLC 2005 20 MCCs/VFDs 10 23 100 4 1 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -13.1 2025 Primary Sedimentation Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 2001 Primary Sedimentation Distribution Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 4 4 5 5 4 2 4 0.30 -28.7 2025 Rusting is a major issue 2002 Primary Sed. Odor Control System 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 100 4 2 1 5 2 3 3 0.30 -11.8 2025 2003 Primary Clarifier #1 Structure 1966 59 Concrete Structures 50 76 100 4 2 5 3 3 3 3 0.30 -36.2 2025 2004 Primary Clarifier #2 Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 3 2 5 3 3 4 3 0.75 1.8 2027 2005 Primary Clarifier #1 Mechanism 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 100 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 0.75 0.6 2026 2006 Primary Clarifier #2 Mechanism 1976 1996 29 Equipment, Treatment 20 36 100 5 4 2 3 3 4 3 0.05 -27.2 2025 2007 Primary Sludge Pump Station #1 Structure 1966 59 Concrete Structures 50 76 100 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 0.30 -36.2 2025 Condition can be upgraded if new windows are added. 2008 Primary Clarifier Scum Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 99 3 3 1 2 4 3 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 New rotor and stator 2009 Primary Clarifier Scum Pump #2 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 0.75 -22.4 2025 2010 Primary Clarifier Sludge Pump #1 1976 2010 15 Pumps 10 18 99 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 0.75 -1.2 2025 Rebuild Every 3 Years 2011 Primary Clarifier Sludge Pump #2 1976 2010 15 Pumps 10 18 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1.00 8.8 2034 Rebuild Every 3 Years 2012 Primary Sludge Pump Station #2 Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 4 2 3 2 4 3 0.75 1.8 2027 Roof has been leaking 2013 Primary Clarifier Sludge Pump #4 (Scum Pump #3)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 100 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 5 check valves need replacement 2014 Primary Clarifier Sludge Pump #3 1976 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 100 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 0.75 0.3 2025 New Rotor and Stator in 2015 2015 Primary Clarifier Pump Station # 2 Sump Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 100 4 4 2 5 5 3 4 0.30 -40.8 2025 2016 Primary Clarifier Pump Station # 2 Sump Pump #2 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 100 5 4 2 5 5 5 4 0.05 -47.6 2025 2017 Primary Sludge Pump Station MCC 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 5 5 2 5 5 4 4 0.05 -47.6 2025 Running out of boneyard parts, 2 bucket fires and starters burned up 2018 Primary Sludge Pump Station PLC 2004 21 MCCs/VFDs 10 24 100 4 3 2 5 3 3 3 0.30 -13.9 2025 APCO to work on this PLC Ferric Chloride Dosing Station Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 3001 Ferric Chloride Building 1982 2001 24 Buildings 45 50 100 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 0.75 13.6 2039 Needs new door, city to replace 3002 Ferric Chloride Storage Tank #1 2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 100 3 5 1 1 3 2 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 3003 Ferric Chloride Storage Tank #2 2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 100 3 5 1 1 3 2 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 3004 Ferric Chloride Chemical Feed Pump #1 2001 2020 5 Equipment, Treatment 20 21 50 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 0.75 11.7 2037 Pump replaced in 2020 3005 Ferric Chloride Chemical Feed Pump #2 2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 50 4 2 1 1 3 3 2 0.30 -14.1 2025 3006 Ferric Chloride Level Control #1 2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 51 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 0.30 -14.1 2025 3007 Ferric Chloride Level Control #2 2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 52 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 0.30 -14.1 2025 Aeration Basin Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 6001 Aeration Basin Metering Structure (Flumes)1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 5 5 5 2 4 0.75 1.8 2027 Forced air GAC for odor control, cement cover 6002 Flume/Electronic Equipment Flow Meter #1 (Bypass)1976 2010 15 Water Meters 10 18 100 3 1 5 5 4 3 4 0.75 -1.2 2025 At life expectancy 6003 Flume/Electronic Equipment Flow Meter #2 1976 2014 11 Water Meters 10 15 100 3 1 5 5 4 3 4 0.75 -0.1 2025 At life expectancy 6004 Aeration Basin Influent Pump Station 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 5 1 3 2 3 0.75 1.8 2027 New roof was added 6005 Aeration Basin Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 3 1.00 -13.6 2025 Under Design Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 6006 Aeration Basin Pump #2 (VFD Pump)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 99 3 2 5 4 2 2 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 Under Design 6007 Aeration Basin Pump #3 (VFD Pump)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 99 3 2 5 4 2 2 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 Under Design 6008 Aeration Basin Pump #4 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 1 5 2 5 4 2 2 3 0.05 -47.2 2025 Under Design 6009 AB Pump #1 VFD 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 1 2 5 5 4 2 4 1.00 17.1 2042 Under Design 6010 AB Pump #2 VFD 2010 15 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 99 1 2 5 5 4 2 4 1.00 9.2 2034 Under Design 6011 AB Pump #3 VFD 2011 14 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 99 1 2 5 5 4 2 4 1.00 9.7 2035 Under Design 6012 AB Pump #4 VFD 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 1 2 5 5 4 2 4 1.00 17.1 2042 Under Design 6013 Aeration Basin Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 5 3 3 2 3 0.75 1.8 2027 6014 Aeration Basin #1 Diffusers 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 6015 Aeration Basin #2 Diffusers 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 6016 Aeration Basin #3 Diffusers 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 6017 Aeration Basin #4 Diffusers 2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 100 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 0.75 -0.6 2025 6018 Aeration Basin #1 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6019 Aeration Basin #2 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6020 Aeration Basin #3 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6021 Aeration Basin #4 Manual Valves (6 Each) Drop Leg 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6022 Aeration Basin #1 Automated Control Valve (Air)1976 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 1997 6023 Aeration Basin #2 Automated Control Valve (Air)1976 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 1998 6024 Aeration Basin #3 Automated Control Valve (Air)1976 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 1999 6025 Aeration Basin #4 Automated Control Valve (Air)1976 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2000 6026 Zone #1 Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2001 6027 Zone #2 Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2002 6028 Zone #3 Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2003 6029 Zone #4 Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2004 6030 Zone #5 Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2005 6031 Zone #6Air Flow Meter 1976 1997 28 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Valve 1976, Actuator 2006 6032 Aeration Blower #1 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 0.75 0.6 2026 6033 Aeration Blower #2 2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 30 3 2 5 2 2 3 3 0.75 2.7 2028 Process Equipment 6034 Aeration Blower #3 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 70 4 2 5 2 2 3 3 0.30 -33.3 2025 Process Equipment 6035 Aeration Blower #4 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 4 2 4 2 2 3 3 0.30 -29.2 2025 Process Equipment 6036 Aeration Blower #1 Motor (600 hp)1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 5 2 4 2 2 3 3 0.05 -45.7 2025 Process Equipment 6037 Aeration Blower #2 Motor (400 hp)2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 30 3 2 5 2 2 3 3 0.75 2.7 2028 Process Equipment 6038 Aeration Blower #3 Motor (600 hp)2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 70 4 2 4 2 2 3 3 0.30 -13.8 2025 Process Equipment 6039 Aeration Blower #4 Motor (600 hp)1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 5 2 4 2 2 3 3 0.05 -45.7 2025 Process Equipment 6040 Blower #2 VFD 2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 30 3 1 5 3 2 2 3 0.75 2.7 2028 6041 Blower #3 VFD 2002 23 Equipment, Treatment 20 30 70 3 1 5 3 2 2 3 0.75 0.0 2025 6042 Blower #1 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.30 -40.8 2025 6043 Blower #2 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.30 -40.8 2025 6044 Blower #3 Check Valve 1976 2014 11 Valves. Misc. 10 15 100 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 -0.1 2025 6045 Blower #4 Check Valve 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.30 -40.8 2025 6046 Mass Air Flow Meter 1976 2009 16 Meters 10 19 100 3 2 3 5 5 1 3 0.75 -1.5 2025 6047 Blower Building 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 1 5 5 5 1 3 0.75 1.8 2027 6048 RAS Pump #1 1976 2005 20 Pumps 10 23 50 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.30 -12.6 2025 6049 RAS Pump #2 1976 2008 17 Pumps 10 20 50 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.30 -10.4 2025 6050 RAS Pump #3 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 10 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.30 -38.8 2025 6051 RAS Pump #1 Motor 1976 2013 12 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 50 3 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.75 6.4 2031 6052 RAS Pump #2 Motor 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 50 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.30 -32.5 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 6053 RAS Pump #3 Motor 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 50 4 2 4 3 4 2 3 0.30 -32.5 2025 Antero Database 6054 RAS Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 50 5 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.05 -46.3 2025 Antero Database 6055 RAS Pump #2 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 50 5 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.05 -46.3 2025 6056 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #1 & Actuator 2010 15 Valves. Misc. 10 18 100 3 1 4 1 2 2 2 0.75 -1.2 2025 6057 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #2 & Actuator 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 4 1 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6058 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #3 & Actuator 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 4 1 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6059 RAS Automatic Flow Control Valve #4 & Actuator 2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 100 3 1 4 1 2 2 2 0.75 -1.5 2025 6060 RAS Check Valve #1 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.30 -40.8 2025 6061 RAS Check Valve #2 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -28.5 2025 6062 RAS Check Valve #3 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -28.5 2025 6063 RAS Flow Meter #1 1976 2010 15 Water Meters 10 18 100 4 2 3 3 1 5 3 0.30 -9.5 2025 6064 RAS Flow Meter #2 1976 49 Water Meters 10 27 100 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6065 RAS Flow Meter #3 1976 49 Water Meters 10 27 100 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6066 RAS Flow Meter #4 1976 49 Water Meters 10 27 100 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6067 WAS/Scum Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 100 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6068 WAS/Scum Pump #2 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 100 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 6069 WAS Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 5 2 1 2 4 2 2 0.05 -46.4 2025 6070 WAS Pump #2 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 5 2 1 2 4 2 2 0.05 -46.4 2025 6071 WAS Flow Meter 1976 1998 27 Water Meters 10 26 100 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 0.30 -19.1 2025 6072 Scum Valve and Actuator #1 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 0.30 -40.8 2025 6073 Scum Valve and Actuator #2 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 0.30 -40.8 2025 6074 Aeration Basin Influent MCC "E" 480V 500AT 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 5 2 3 5 2 5 3 0.05 -47.4 2025 6075 Aeration Basin Influent PLC 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 6076 Blower Building MV Switch, 4160V Transformer 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 3 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.75 -25.7 2025 6077 Blower Building 4160V Gear, Feeders, Starters 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 6078 Blower Building MV Switch, 480V Transformer 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 3 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.75 -25.7 2025 6079 Blower Building 480V Switchboard 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 6080 Blower Building 480V MCC 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 6081 Blower Building PLC 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 33 4 2 2 5 2 3 3 0.30 -39.7 2025 Final Clarifiers Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 7001 Final Clarifier Distribution Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 3 2 5 3 1 3 0.75 1.8 2027 7002 Final Clarifier #1 Structure 1976 2005 20 Concrete Structures 50 54 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 20.2 2045 Coated in 2005 7003 Final Clarifier #2 Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 1.8 2027 7004 Final Clarifier #3 Structure 1976 2009 16 Concrete Structures 50 53 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 23.4 2048 Coated in 2009 7005 Final Clarifier #4 Structure 1976 2012 13 Concrete Structures 50 52 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 25.9 2051 Coated in 2012 7006 Final Clarifier #1 Mechanism 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 0.9 2026 7007 Final Clarifier #2 Mechanism 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 0.9 2026 7008 Final Clarifier #3 Mechanism 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 0.9 2026 Antero Database 7009 Final Clarifier #4 Mechanism 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 0.9 2026 Antero Database 7010 Final Clarifier #1 FRP Weirs 1976 2005 20 Equipment, Treatment 20 27 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 0.9 2026 Installed FRP Weir in 2005 7011 Final Clarifier #2 FRP Weirs 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -10.0 2025 Antero Database 7012 Final Clarifier #3 FRP Weirs 1976 2009 16 Equipment, Treatment 20 25 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 2.9 2028 Installed FRP Weir in 2009 7013 Final Clarifier #4 FRP Weirs 1976 2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 75 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 4.7 2030 Installed FRP Weir in 2012 7014 Final Clarifier Scum Collection Boxes 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 1.8 2027 Antero Database Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 7015 Final Clarifier #1 Drain Valves 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.05 -47.6 2025 Non-Operational 7016 Final Clarifier #2 Drain Valves 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.05 -47.6 2025 Non-Operational 7017 Final Clarifier #3 Drain Valves 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.05 -47.6 2025 Non-Operational 7018 Final Clarifier #4 Drain Valves 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.05 -47.6 2025 Non-Operational Tertiary Filters Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 8001 Filter Equalization Surge Tank 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 2 2 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -0.4 2025 8002 Surge Tank Level Sensor 2006 19 Meters 10 22 100 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -2.3 2025 8003 FSBE Junction Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 3 4 4 2 3 0.75 1.8 2027 8004 Surge Equalization Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 -26.9 2025 8005 Surge Equalization Pump #2 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 -26.9 2025 8006 Surge Equalization Flow Meter 2006 19 Meters 10 22 100 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 0.75 -2.3 2025 8007 Tertiary Filter Building 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 3 2 1 5 2 1 2 0.75 -0.4 2025 8008 Filter Influent Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 0.05 -47.2 2025 8009 Filter Influent Pump #2 (VFD Pump)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 8010 Filter Influent Pump #3 (VFD Pump)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 8011 Filter Influent Pump #4 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 2 0.05 -47.2 2025 8012 Filter Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.05 -45.7 2025 8013 Filter Pump #2 VFD 2011 14 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 50 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 5.1 2030 8014 Filter Pump #3 VFD 2011 14 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 50 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 5.1 2030 8015 Filter Pump #4 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.05 -45.7 2025 8016 Filter Influent Level Wetwell Meter 1976 49 Meters 10 27 0 5 1 1 5 1 2 2 0.05 -47.2 2025 Out of Service 8017 Filter Basin #1 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8018 Filter Basin #2 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8019 Filter Basin #3 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8020 Filter Basin #4 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8021 Filter Basin #5 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8022 Filter Basin #6 Media 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 8023 Filter Basin #1 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8024 Filter Basin #2 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8025 Filter Basin #3 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8026 Filter Basin #4 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8027 Filter Basin #5 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8028 Filter Basin #6 Underdrain 1976 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0.75 -2.0 2025 Inspected in 1997 8029 Filter Channel Level Sensor 1995 30 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 1 5 5 1 3 0.75 -9.9 2025 8030 Filter Basin #1 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 Some Have Been Replaced 8031 Filter Basin #2 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 " " 8032 Filter Basin #3 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 " " 8033 Filter Basin #4 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 Probe Type 8034 Filter Basin #5 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 Some Have Been Replaced 8035 Filter Basin #6 Level Meter 2003 22 Meters 10 24 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 " " 8036 Clear Well Level Sensor 1976 49 Meters 10 27 100 2 2 2 5 5 2 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 " " 8037 Filter Basin Blow Off Valve 1976 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 10 3 2 2 5 2 2 3 0.75 -3.3 2025 8038 Filter Basin #1 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8039 Filter Basin #2 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 8040 Filter Basin #3 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8041 Filter Basin #4 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8042 Filter Basin #5 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8043 Filter Basin #6 Surface Agitators 1997 28 Equipment, Treatment 20 35 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8044 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV101 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8045 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV102 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8046 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV103 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8047 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV104 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8048 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV105 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8049 Filter Basin #1 Valve BFV106 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8050 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV201 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8051 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV202 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8052 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV203 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8053 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV204 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8054 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV205 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8055 Filter Basin #2 Valve BFV206 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 Antero Database 8056 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV301 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8057 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV302 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8058 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV303 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8059 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV304 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8060 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV305 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8061 Filter Basin #3 Valve BFV306 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8062 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV401 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8063 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV402 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8064 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV403 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8065 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV404 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8066 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV405 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8067 Filter Basin #4 Valve BFV406 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8068 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV501 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8069 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV502 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8070 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV503 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8071 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV504 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8072 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV505 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8073 Filter Basin #5 Valve BFV506 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8074 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV601 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8075 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV602 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8076 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV603 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8077 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV604 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8078 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV605 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8079 Filter Basin #6 Valve BFV606 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -8.1 2025 8080 Surface Wash Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 8081 Surface Wash Pump #2 1976 2014 11 Pumps 10 15 50 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 0.7 2026 8082 Surface Wash Flow Meter 1976 49 Meters 10 27 100 3 1 2 5 4 1 3 0.75 -28.5 2025 8083 Surface Wash Check Valve #1 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 8084 Surface Wash Check Valve #2 1976 2014 11 Valves. Misc. 10 15 100 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.75 -0.1 2025 8085 Backwash Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 8086 Backwash Pump #2 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 8087 Backwash Pump VFD 1976 1989 36 Equipment, Treatment 20 43 100 5 1 2 5 3 4 3 0.05 -33.9 2025 One VFD for Two Pumps 8088 Backwash Flow Meter 1976 1990 35 Meters 10 27 100 3 1 2 5 3 2 3 0.75 -14.6 2025 8089 Backwash Pump Check Valve #1 1997 2007 18 Valves. Misc. 10 21 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -2.0 2025 8090 Backwash Pump Check Valve #2 1997 2011 14 Valves. Misc. 10 17 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -1.0 2025 8091 Filter Backwash Flow Control Modulating Valve 1997 28 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 2 5 3 3 3 0.75 -8.1 2025 8092 Filter Building MCC (South)1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.30 -40.8 2025 8093 Filter Building MCC (North)1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 0.30 -40.8 2025 8094 Filter Building PLC (Upstairs)1998 27 MCCs/VFDs 10 26 100 4 2 1 5 2 2 2 0.30 -19.1 2025 8095 Filter Building PLC (Downstairs)2008 17 MCCs/VFDs 10 20 100 2 2 1 5 2 2 2 0.75 -1.7 2025 Chlorine Injection System Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 9001 Chlorine Building Structure 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 3 1 2 5 3 3 3 0.75 -0.4 2025 9002 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #1 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9003 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #2 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9004 Chlorine Ton Tank Scale #3 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9005 SO2 Tank Scale #1 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9006 SO2 Tank Scale #2 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9007 Chlorinator #1 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 33 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -4.6 2025 9008 Chlorinator #2 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 33 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -4.6 2025 9009 Chlorinator #3 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 33 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -4.6 2025 9010 Chlorine Ejector 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 100 3 3 5 5 5 2 4 0.75 -7.3 2025 9011 Sulphinator #1 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9012 Sulphinator #2 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 50 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 9013 SO2 Ejectors 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 100 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 0.75 -7.3 2025 9014 Recirculation Scrubber Pump 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 100 3 2 5 5 5 2 4 0.75 -7.3 2025 9015 Emergency Chlorine Scrubber 1998 2007 18 Chlorination Equipment 10 21 100 3 2 5 5 5 2 4 0.75 -2.0 2025 Antero Database 9016 Chlorine/SO2 Scrubber Blower/Motor 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 100 3 2 5 5 2 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 Antero Database 9017 Chlorine Distribution Control Valve #1 2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 25 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 1.0 2026 9018 Chlorine Distribution Control Valve #2 2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 25 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 1.0 2026 9019 Chlorine Distribution Control Valve #3 2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 25 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 1.0 2026 9020 Chlorine Distribution Control Valve #4 2009 16 Valves. Misc. 10 19 25 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 1.0 2026 9021 Chlorine ORP Probe 1998 2015 10 Water Meters 10 14 100 3 2 3 5 3 2 3 0.75 0.3 2025 9022 SO2 ORP Probe 1998 27 Water Meters 10 26 100 3 2 3 5 3 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 9023 Hi-Rate Valve 1998 27 Valves. Misc. 10 26 100 3 2 2 5 3 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 9024 Overhead Crane (3 Ton)1998 27 Valves. Misc. 10 26 100 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 9025 Chlorine Building MV Switch & Transformer 1976 49 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 27 100 4 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.30 -40.8 2025 9026 Chlorine Building 480V 1600A SWBD 1976 49 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 27 100 4 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.30 -40.8 2025 9027 Chlorine Building 800A ATS 1999 26 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 26 100 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.75 -6.5 2025 9028 Chlorine Building 480V 800A SWBD 1999 26 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 26 100 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.75 -6.5 2025 9029 Chlorine Building 480V MCC 1976 49 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 4 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.30 -40.8 2025 9030 Chlorine Building PLC 2008 17 MCCs/VFDs 10 20 100 2 2 3 5 2 2 3 0.75 -1.7 2025 Chlorine Contact Basins Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 10001 Chlorine Basin Junction Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 0.75 1.8 2027 2015-2016 UV Upgrades 10002 Plant Effluent Flow Meter 1998 27 Water Meters 10 26 100 3 1 3 5 3 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 10003 CCB Channel #1 (North)1976 1998 27 Concrete Structures 50 56 100 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 0.75 14.9 2040 Floor Epoxied in 1998 10004 CCB Channel #2 (South)1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 0.75 1.8 2027 Out of Service - Backfilled for UV Upgrades 10005 CCB Control Gate #1 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -28.5 2025 Removed on 5/20/15 10006 CCB Control Gate #2 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.30 -40.8 2025 10007 CCB Aerator/Mixer #1 1998 27 Valves. Misc. 10 26 25 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.30 -17.8 2025 Relocated w/ UV Project 10008 CCB Aerator/Mixer #2 1998 27 Valves. Misc. 10 26 25 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -4.0 2025 Relocated w/ UV Project 10009 CCB Submersible Pump #1 1998 27 Pumps 10 26 50 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 10010 CCB Submersible Pump #2 1998 27 Pumps 10 26 50 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0.75 -5.8 2025 10011 Impure Water (IPW) Pump #1 (Variable)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 33 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -25.7 2025 10012 IPW Pump #2 (Constant)1976 49 Pumps 10 27 33 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -25.7 2025 10013 IPW Pump #3 (Variable)1976 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 33 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 1.7 2027 UV Project will Add VFD 10014 IPW Pump #1 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 33 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.05 -46.1 2025 UV Project will Add VFD 10015 IPW Pump #3 Amplispeed Drive 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 33 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.05 -46.1 2025 UV Project will Add VFD 10016 CCB Analyzer Pump 1976 2013 12 Pumps 10 15 100 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 0.75 -0.5 2025 Replace Pump Yearly 10017 Chlorine Effluent Sampler Manhole 1998 27 Concrete Structures 50 56 100 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 0.75 14.9 2040 10018 SO2 ORP Probe 1998 27 Water Meters 10 26 100 3 1 2 4 2 2 2 0.75 -7.3 2025 10019 Chlorine Residual Analyzer 1998 27 Chlorination Equipment 10 26 100 3 3 3 5 3 2 3 0.75 -7.3 2025 10020 UV Disinfection Channel #1 2015 10 Concrete Structures 50 51 100 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 41.2 2066 10021 UV Disinfection Channel #2 2015 10 Concrete Structures 50 51 100 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 41.2 2066 10022 UV Disinfection Module #1 2015 10 Chlorination Equipment 10 14 50 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 4.7 2030 10023 UV Disinfection Module #2 2015 10 Chlorination Equipment 10 14 50 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 4.7 2030 10024 UV Disinfection Module #3 2015 10 Chlorination Equipment 10 14 50 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 4.7 2030 10025 UV Disinfection Module #4 2015 10 Chlorination Equipment 10 14 50 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 1.00 4.7 2030 10026 UV Influent Aerator #1 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 12.0 2037 10027 UV Influent Aerator #2 2015 10 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 12.0 2037 10028 UV Channel Sump Drain Pump #1 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 25 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 6.0 2031 10029 UV Channel Sump Drain Pump #2 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 25 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 6.0 2031 10030 UV Channel Sump Drain Pump #3 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 25 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 6.0 2031 10031 UV Channel Sump Drain Pump #4 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 25 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 6.0 2031 10032 UV Channel Isolation Gate #1 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 3.7 2029 10033 UV Channel Isolation Gate #2 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.00 3.7 2029 10034 UV Channel Weir/Level Control Gate #1 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 1.00 3.7 2029 10035 UV Channel Weir/Level Control Gate #2 2015 10 Valves. Misc. 10 14 100 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 1.00 3.7 2029 10036 Groundwater Sump Drain Pump 2014 2015 10 Pumps 10 14 100 5 2 1 5 3 4 3 0.05 -9.3 2025 Replaced after 1 year (New on 6/10/15) 10037 Treatment Plant Lab Infrastructure 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 4 3 4 5 2 4 4 0.30 -29.5 2025 10038 Treatment Plant Lab Equipment 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 3 3 4 5 2 4 4 0.75 -10.7 2025 Primary and Secondary Digesters Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 11001 Thickener Building Structure 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 2 1 3 5 4 2 3 0.75 -0.4 2025 11002 DAF Thickener Structure 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 3 2 3 5 3 2 3 0.75 1.8 2027 11003 DAF Thickener Mechanism 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 4 2 3 5 3 2 3 0.30 -33.7 2025 11004 Thickened Sludge Pump #3 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 11005 Thickened Sludge Pump #4 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 11006 Thickened Sludge Recycle Pump North 1976 2014 11 Pumps 10 15 50 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 0.75 0.7 2026 11007 Thickened Sludge Recycle Pump South 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 50 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 0.75 -26.9 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 11008 Air Compressor #1 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 25 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 0.30 -31.1 2025 11009 Screw Air Compressor #2 2011 14 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 75 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 0.75 4.1 2029 11010 Expansion Tank 1976 49 Steel Tanks 10 27 100 4 2 2 5 3 2 3 0.30 -40.8 2025 11011 Thickened Sludge Level Bubbler 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 3 1 2 5 3 2 3 0.75 -10.7 2025 11012 Primary Digester #1 (East)1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 0.30 -28.7 2025 Dome Coating in 2015 11013 Primary Digester #2 (West)1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 100 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 0.30 -28.7 2025 Dome Coating in 2015 11014 Primary Sludge Linear Motion Mixer #1 2016 9 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 1.00 12.7 2038 Scheduled for Install in 2016 11015 Primary Sludge Linear Motion Mixer #2 2016 9 Equipment, Treatment 20 22 100 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 1.00 12.7 2038 Scheduled for Install in 2016 11016 Linear Motion Mixer #1 VFD 2016 9 MCCs/VFDs 10 13 33 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 1.00 5.8 2031 Scheduled for Install in 2016 11017 Linear Motion Mixer #2 VFD 2016 9 MCCs/VFDs 10 13 33 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 1.00 5.8 2031 Scheduled for Install in 2016 11018 Primary Digester Control Building 1976 49 Buildings 45 65 100 3 2 5 5 2 2 3 0.75 -0.4 2025 11019 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #1 1976 2008 17 Pumps 10 20 33 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 0.4 2025 11020 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #2 1976 2013 12 Pumps 10 15 33 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 1.1 2026 Antero Database 11021 Primary Digester Sludge Pump #3 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 33 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 -25.7 2025 Antero Database 11022 Primary Sludge Heat Exchanger #1 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.30 -33.7 2025 Antero Database 11023 Primary Sludge Heat Exchanger #2 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.30 -33.7 2025 11024 Hot Water Circulation Pump #1 2001 24 Pumps 10 25 100 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.0 2025 11025 Hot Water Circulation Pump #2 2001 24 Pumps 10 25 100 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.0 2025 11026 Hot Water Boiler #1 2001 24 HVAC Equipment 20 31 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 11027 Hot Water Boiler #2 2001 24 HVAC Equipment 20 31 100 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 11028 Primary Sludge Inline Grinder #1 2008 17 Equipment, Treatment 20 25 25 5 1 2 5 3 3 3 0.05 -15.5 2025 11029 Primary Sludge Inline Grinder #2 2008 17 Equipment, Treatment 20 25 25 5 1 2 5 3 3 3 0.05 -15.5 2025 11030 Hot Water 3-Way Mixing Valve (East)1976 2001 24 Valves. Misc. 10 25 100 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.0 2025 11031 Hot Water 3-Way Mixing Valve (West)1976 2001 24 Valves. Misc. 10 25 100 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.0 2025 11032 Sludge 3-Way Distribution Valve 1976 1995 30 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 3 1 2 5 2 2 2 0.75 -9.9 2025 11033 Primary Digester Gas Flow Meter (East)2001 24 Water Meters 10 25 100 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.30 -16.4 2025 11034 Primary Digester Gas Flow Meter (West)2001 24 Water Meters 10 25 100 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.30 -16.4 2025 11035 Sludge Flow Meter 2001 24 Water Meters 10 25 100 2 1 2 5 2 2 2 0.75 -5.0 2025 11036 Waste Gas Burner 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 4 4 2 5 3 1 3 0.30 -33.7 2025 11037 Waste Gas Regulator 1976 49 Equipment, Treatment 20 51 100 4 4 2 5 3 1 3 0.30 -33.7 2025 11038 Totalizer (Gas)2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 100 2 1 2 5 3 1 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 11039 Totalizer (Burner)2001 24 Equipment, Treatment 20 31 100 2 1 2 5 3 1 2 0.75 -0.9 2025 11040 Secondary Digester #1 (West)1953 72 Concrete Structures 50 89 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.4 2025 11041 Secondary Digester #2 (East)1953 72 Concrete Structures 50 89 100 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.75 -5.4 2025 11042 Secondary Digester #1 Linear Motion Mixer 2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 100 2 2 2 5 2 1 2 0.75 4.4 2029 11043 Linear Motion Mixer #1 VFD 2012 13 MCCs/VFDs 10 16 100 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 1.00 3.3 2028 11044 Secondary Digester Operation Building 1953 72 Buildings 45 87 100 4 2 2 5 2 2 3 0.30 -45.8 2025 11045 Sludge Transfer Pump #1 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 33 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 0.30 -39.7 2025 11046 Chopper Pump #2 2012 13 Pumps 10 16 33 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 0.75 0.9 2026 11047 Sludge Transfer Pump #3 1976 49 Pumps 10 27 33 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 0.30 -39.7 2025 11048 Transfer Pump #1 VFD 2013 12 MCCs/VFDs 10 15 33 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.00 5.5 2031 11049 Chopper Pump #2 VFD 2012 13 MCCs/VFDs 10 16 33 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.00 5.5 2031 11050 Transfer Pump #3 VFD 2012 13 MCCs/VFDs 10 16 33 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.00 5.5 2031 11051 Primary Digester Relief Valves #1 2001 24 Valves. Misc. 10 25 33 4 5 3 1 2 3 3 0.30 -15.4 2025 Scheduled for Replacement in 2016 11052 Primary Digester Relief Valves #2 2001 24 Valves. Misc. 10 25 33 4 5 3 1 2 3 3 0.30 -15.4 2025 Scheduled for Replacement in 2016 11053 Secondary Digester Relief Valves 2001 24 Valves. Misc. 10 25 33 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 0.30 -15.4 2025 Scheduled for Replacement in 2016 11054 Primary Digester Building MCC 1995 30 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 3 2 2 5 2 1 2 0.75 -9.9 2025 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 11055 Primary Digester Building PLC 2004 21 MCCs/VFDs 10 24 100 3 2 2 5 2 1 2 0.75 -3.2 2025 11056 Secondary Digester 480V Panelboard 2011 14 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 17 100 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 1.00 3.3 2028 11057 Secondary Digester PLC 2011 14 MCCs/VFDs 10 17 100 2 1 1 5 2 1 2 0.75 -1.0 2025 Solids Process Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9 Column11 Column12 Column13 Column14 Column15 Column16 Column18 Column19 Column20 Column21 Column22 12001 Centrifuge Master Flow Meter (Secondary Dig. Basement)1995 30 Water Meters 10 27 100 2 1 2 5 2 2 2 0.75 -9.9 2025 12002 Centrifuge Building Structure 1995 30 Buildings 45 53 100 1 2 2 5 1 2 2 1.00 22.6 2048 12003 Centrifuge Building Structure Expansion 2012 13 Buildings 45 47 100 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 1.00 33.9 2059 12004 Centrifuge #1 1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 10 4 2 1 1 2 3 2 0.30 -16.3 2025 12005 Centrifuge #2 2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 90 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 4.5 2030 12006 Overhead Bridge Crane 1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 5 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1.00 16.7 2042 12007 Shaftless Screw Conveyor #1 (12")1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 10 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 4.3 2029 12008 Shaftless Screw Conveyor #1 (16")1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 10 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 4.3 2029 12009 Shaftless Screw Conveyor #2 (12")2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 90 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 4.5 2030 12010 Shaftless Screw Conveyor #2 (16")2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 90 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 0.75 4.5 2030 12011 Sludge Feed Flow Meter #1 2012 13 Water Meters 10 16 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -0.7 2025 12012 Sludge Feed Flow Meter #2 2012 13 Water Meters 10 16 100 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -0.7 2025 12013 Air Compressor 1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 25 3 2 2 5 2 2 3 0.75 2.2 2027 12014 Natural Gas Water Heater 4 - On Demand 1995 2015 10 HVAC Equipment 20 22 100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 12.0 2037 12015 Polymer Feed Pump #1 1995 30 Pumps 10 27 25 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.75 -6.5 2025 12016 Polymer Feed Pump #2 1995 30 Pumps 10 27 25 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.75 -6.5 2025 12017 Polymer Feed Pump #3 2012 13 Pumps 10 16 25 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.75 1.3 2026 12018 Polymer Feed Pump #4 2012 13 Pumps 10 16 25 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 0.75 1.3 2026 12019 Polymer Scale #1 2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 50 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 5.7 2031 12020 Polymer Scale #2 2012 13 Equipment, Treatment 20 23 50 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 5.7 2031 12021 Polymer Mixing Pump 1995 30 Pumps 10 27 100 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -9.9 2025 12022 Polymer Water Flow Meter 1995 30 Water Meters 10 27 100 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.75 -9.9 2025 12023 Sludge Hopper Scale 2011 14 Equipment, Treatment 20 24 100 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.75 3.8 2029 12024 Hopper Screw #1 1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 100 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 0.05 -28.2 2025 12025 Hopper Screw #2 1995 30 Equipment, Treatment 20 37 100 5 2 2 2 3 3 2 0.05 -28.2 2025 12026 Hopper Gate #1 1995 2003 22 Valves. Misc. 10 24 100 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 12027 Hopper Gate #2 1995 2003 22 Valves. Misc. 10 24 100 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 12028 Hopper Gate #3 1995 2003 22 Valves. Misc. 10 24 100 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.75 -3.7 2025 12029 Centrate Equalization Basin 2002 23 Concrete Structures 50 55 100 2 2 2 5 5 5 4 0.75 17.8 2043 12030 Centrate Pump (Trash Pump)2014 11 Pumps 10 15 100 5 2 1 2 2 3 2 0.05 -10.3 2025 Changes Often due to Struvite Buildup 12031 Sludge Drying Bed #1 - 4 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.30 -22.6 2025 Not Used 12032 Sludge Drying Bed #5 - 8 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.30 -22.6 2025 Not Used 12033 Sludge Drying Bed #9 1976 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 20 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 18.0 2043 Upgrade Concrete wall, Asphalt, and Drains 12034 Sludge Drying Bed #10 1976 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 10 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.30 -12.9 2025 Upgrade Concrete wall, Asphalt, and Drains 12035 Sludge Drying Bed #11 1976 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 20 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 18.0 2043 Upgrade Concrete wall, Asphalt, and Drains 12036 Sludge Drying Bed #12 1976 1990 35 Concrete Structures 50 59 20 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 18.0 2043 Upgrade Concrete wall, Asphalt, and Drains 12037 Sludge Drying Bed #13 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 10 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.05 -44.8 2025 12038 Sludge Drying Bed #14 1976 49 Concrete Structures 50 68 20 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 0.75 11.6 2037 12039 Sludge Drying Bed Valves 1976 49 Valves. Misc. 10 27 100 5 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.05 -47.6 2025 Valve Problems 12040 All Buildings HVAC 1990 35 HVAC Equipment 20 42 20 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 2.4 2027 12041 Treatment Plant Lab Infrastructure 1990 35 Equipment, Treatment 20 42 20 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 2.4 2027 Asset ID Description Year Installed Year of Major Upgrade/ Maintenance Age (Yrs) Equip Type Base Life (yrs) Actuarial Life (yrs) Usage (%) Condition Safety Permit Reliability Redundancy Flexibility O&M Impacts Criticality Assessment Condition Adjustment Remaining Life (yrs) Replacement Year Comments/ Maintenance Schedule 12042 Treatment Plant Lab Equipment 1990 35 Instruments 10 27 20 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 0.75 -10.7 2025 12041 Centrifuge Building MCC 1995 30 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 100 3 2 1 5 1 2 2 0.75 -9.9 2025 12042 Centrifuge Building PLC 2004 21 MCCs/VFDs 10 24 100 3 2 1 5 1 2 2 0.75 -3.2 2025 12043 Centrifuge #1 Control Panel 1995 30 MCCs/VFDs 10 27 25 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 0.30 -20.6 2025 12044 Centrifuge #2 Control Panel 2011 14 MCCs/VFDs 10 17 100 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1.00 3.3 2028 12045 Centrifuge #2 Isolation Transformer 2011 14 Transformers/Switchgear/Wiring10 17 100 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1.00 3.3 2028 12046 Centrifuge #2 Touch Screen Panel 2011 14 MCCs/VFDs 10 17 100 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1.00 3.3 2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 10. APPENDIX B BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 1 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC PROVO WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Date: January 10, 2025 Prepared By: David Kopchynski, Ph.D., PE, Eddie Gilcrease, Ph.D. Reviewed By: Jenny Calderon, PE, John Matta, PE Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2 1.1. Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Biosolids Projections ..................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Biosolids Treatment Alternatives .................................................................................... 3 1.4. Biosolids Disposal Alternatives ...................................................................................... 6 1.5. Biosolids Treatment, Reduction, and Disposal Options Cost Summary ............................. 6 1.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 7 1.7. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables Table ES-1 Benefits and Drawbacks of Advanced Treatment and Biosolids Handling Alternatives . 4 Table ES-2 Benefits and Drawbacks of Treatment Alternatives ................................................... 5 Table ES-3 Disposal Alternatives .............................................................................................. 6 Table ES-4 Capital, O&M, and 20-Year NPV Cost Summary for Alternative Treatments ................. 6 Table ES-5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 8 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 2 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 1. Executive Summary The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) anticipates complete replacement of its aging biosolids treatment infrastructure. Additionally, the City projects a 205% increase in sludge production by buildout. This challenge is compounded by emerging regulations, public concerns about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and uncertainties regarding disposal options. Advanced treatment processes such as Pyrolysis and High-Temperature Gasification offer promising solutions that produce Class A, or Excellent Quality (EQ), solids that are free of PFAS. As these technologies continue to gain wider adoption, ongoing advancements are being made in optimizing their footprint, efficacy, cost-efficiency, and operational requirements. Traditional “Pre-Treatment” options, such as Aerobic Digestion and Anaerobic Digestion, allow for the reduction of sludge volumes, lowering the overall cost of Advanced Treatment. Since Advanced Treatment results in EQ sludge, upstream treatment processes do not need to achieve Class A or B requirements. A No-Pretreatment option is also considered which, while requiring twice the Advanced Treatment capacity, eliminates expensive digestion processes and may enhance efficacy by utilizing volatile solids (VS) as natural gas fuel for the Advanced Treatment process. Currently, land application of Class B solids remains a viable option, providing time for advanced technologies to mature as regulations on emerging contaminants evolve. Extending the life of the current process (Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion) by 5 to 10 years is recommended. Costs for repair and maintenance of the current process are provided in PCWRF’s 2023 Condition Assessment and Capital Facilities Budget and Phasing Plan (Capital Facilities Plan herein). The inclusion of Advanced Treatment may be planned in the meantime. The long-term recommendation is a Pretreatment (digestive) method followed by High-Thermal Gasification. This report evaluates the most recent Advanced and Pretreatment options and provides capital and operational cost estimates. 1.1. Regulatory Framework PFAS contamination is a primary reason for implementing Advanced Treatment. Though there are currently no concentration limits for PFAS in composts, digestates, or biosolids, future concentration limits in biosolids are anticipated. A national assessment of PFAS in Biosolids is currently underway, with a report expected to be published by the end of 2024. As of April 2024, the EPA’s drinking water limits for PFOS and PFOA are 4 ppt, down from 70 ppt, indicating a trend toward stricter regulations. Studies show decreasing PFAS levels in biosolids due to increased restrictions. Continuous PFAS testing and monitoring are recommended to address potential regulatory challenges. Pathogens: Biosolids may be classified by the EPA as Class A or Class B based on pathogen destruction and vector attraction limits, with Class B biosolids having higher pathogen counts and BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 3 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC more usage limitations than Class A. EPA 40 CFR Part 503 requires <1000 coliform Most Probable Number (MPN)/g, <1 Plaque Forming Units (PFU) Enterovirus/4g, <1 helminth ova/4g. Odor/Emissions: Provo is required to adhere to air quality levels set by the Utah Bureau of Air Quality. The Odor issues are typically resolved through state or local nuisance laws, as the EPA does not explicitly regulate odor. Effective odor management strategies include covering, buffer areas, vegetative screens, and natural landscape features. 1.2. Biosolids Projections The biosolids generated by the PCWRF were assessed using historical Monthly Operations Report (MOR) data and future projections, considering the facility's transition to a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process. The production of biosolids is expected to increase from the current 9,000 lbs/day (dry mass, using conventional activated sludge with solids digestion) to 19,500 lbs/day at buildout (using MBR activated sludge with solids digestion and no advanced solids treatment). If no solids pretreatment is applied, the biosolids production at buildout increases to 39,000 lbs/day with MBR treatment and no advanced solids treatment. Both Advanced Treatment options discussed (Pyrolysis and High-Thermal Gasification) produce similar amounts of sludge, 1,400 Dry tons annually, or an 80-85% reduction of the dry sludge processed. 1.3. Biosolids Treatment Alternatives Two Advanced biosolids treatment methods, Pyrolysis (as manufactured by BioForceTech) and High-Temperature Gasification (as manufactured by EcoRemedy), are considered. These methods can operate with or without Pretreatment to produce Excellent Quality (EQ), PFAS-free biosolids (biochar, Flexchar, or sand), suitable as consumer products, that can be sold or disposed of at no additional disposal fee/ton. A summary of advantages and disadvantages and associated capital and O&M costs are presented in Table ES-1. Cost estimates are derived from vendor quotes, escalations of known values from prior estimates, and projected conditions for the PCWRF at Buildout. This report also considers Pretreatment options (Digestion) to replace the existing Mesophilic Digestion process. These will include: 1) No Pretreatment; Mesophilic Digestion; and Aerobic Digestion. These alternatives are summarized in Table ES-2. Cost estimates for replacing aging components of the two existing mesophilic digesters, aimed at extending the lifespan of those units, are detailed in the Capital Facilities Plan. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 4 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table ES-1 Benefits and Drawbacks of Advanced Treatment and Biosolids Handling Alternatives Description Description Pros Cons Capital Costs O&M Costs Pyrolysis (Bioforce- Tech) (Class A or EQ Solids) - Thermochemic al breakdown of organic matter -Produces PFAS-free sellable biochar -Modular -Lower O&M costs -Long-term free disposal -Not an established technology in Treatment -Higher Capital costs. -Air emissions treatment requirements 1 $64,400,000 2 $128,770,000 1$308,700 2 $592,000 High Temperature Gasification (EcoRemedy) (Class A or EQ solids) -Higher Temp alternative -Produces FlexChar or Sand, and high-quality syngas -Less Expensive - Removes PFAS -Smaller footprint -More beneficial use options. -Longer use in the treatment industry -Not as modular -Air emissions treatment requirements 1 $42,423,000 2 $98,600,000 1 $625,000 2 $1,250,000 1: Buildout Condition cost using Mesophilic Digestion 2: Buildout Condition cost using No Treatment BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 5 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table ES-2 Benefits and Drawbacks of Treatment Alternatives Description Description Pros Cons Capital Costs O&M Costs No Treatment (Primary Sludge and WAS Solids) -Removal of digestion processes -Eliminate the need for capital cost to replace the anaerobic process -Requires additional centrifuges -Increased sludge volume -Disposal restrictions -Increase in disposal costs -Odor potential $29,900,000 $928,000 Mesophilic Digestion (3 Digesters) (Class B Solids) -Current Anaerobic treatment process -60% Volatile Solids (VS) destruction. - Established in treatment Facilities -Familiarity with staff -High Capital cost -High landfilling costs -No future guarantee of an end user for land application $88,600,000 $1,240,000 Aerobic Digestion -Retrofit of existing Aeration Basin No. 3 and No. 4 to operate as Aerobic Digestors. -Class A potential -30-40% VS destruction -Well-established Process -Low Capital Costs for PCWRF since repurposing old aeration basins -Least expensive option -Highly modular respecting biosolids reduction & quality -High O&M Cost. Requires odor control. -No methane capture and reuse for Advanced Treatment processes -Fuel costs to be added to O&M $41,800,000 $1,500,000 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 6 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 1.4. Biosolids Disposal Alternatives Disposal methods available for short-term and long-term disposal were also considered (Table ES-3). Table ES-3 Disposal Alternatives Description Description Pros Cons Notes Landfill -Disposal at municipal landfills -Simple operation. -Risk of increase in tipping fees costs -Hauling costs and liabilities The impact of PFAS regulations is unclear Land Application -Application to agricultural fields as a soil amendment -Simple operation -Inexpensive -Depends on land availability and customers willing to accept biosolids -Hauling and application costs and liabilities The impact of PFAS regulations is unclear Class A or B sludge Consumer Product -Higher-quality sludge that can be used by the public -Beneficial use and free disposal -PFAS free Public perception and acceptance. Requires EQ sludge 1.5. Biosolids Treatment, Reduction, and Disposal Options Cost Summary The capital and O&M costs associated with treatment, sludge reduction, and disposal options are summarized below in Table ES-4. Comparisons were based on weighted criteria and scores that reflect both monetary and non-monetary factors to provide a comparative assessment of alternatives. Determining Factor weights are listed beside them (e.g., Sludge Reduction (3)). A lower NPV/weighted criteria score reflects a better option. Table ES-4 Capital, O&M, and 20-Year NPV Cost Summary for Alternative Treatments Advanced Treatment Pyrolysis Pyrolysis Pyrolysis Gasification Gasification Gasification Pretreatment No Treatment Mesophilic Digestion Aerobic Digestion No Treatment Mesophilic Digestion Aerobic Digestion Long Term Reliability (4) 3 4 2.5 3.5 4.5 3 Sludge Reduction (3) 4 4 4 4 4 4 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 7 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Advanced Treatment Pyrolysis Pyrolysis Pyrolysis Gasification Gasification Gasification Pretreatment No Treatment Mesophilic Digestion Aerobic Digestion No Treatment Mesophilic Digestion Aerobic Digestion Beneficial Use (2) 4 4.5 4 4 4.5 4 Public Perception (1) 3 4 3.5 3 4 3.5 Staff Burden (3) 4 2 2 4 2.5 2 Reg Complexity (2) 3 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 Liability (4) 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 Weighted Score 63 67 56 65 69 58 Capital Costs, million $158 $153 $106 $128 $131 $84 1 Year O&M, million $1.52 $1.54 $3.10 $1.60 $1.90 $2.70 20 Year NPV, million $188 $184 $154 $160 $169 $138 NPV/score 3 3 2.83 2.47 2.50 2.45 1.6. Conclusions Advanced Treatment processes, i.e. Pyrolysis or High-Temperature Gasification are necessary to address anticipated regulatory concerns regarding PFAS. Advancements and refinements of Advanced Treatment processes are ongoing and further evaluation is needed regarding the necessity and specifics of recommended Pretreatment options. For example, recent improvements in sludge drying have reduced the energy demands of pyrolysis and gasification systems. Low-temperature sludge dehumidification systems, long used in industrial sludge drying, are now adopted in the municipal wastewater sludge market, offering a viable alternative to conventional drying technologies used in Advanced Treatment. Immediate selection of a specific Advanced Treatment platform or pretreatment option may therefore be premature. The current analysis, based on the best NPV/cost score, indicates that replacing Anaerobic Digestion with Aerobic Digestion combined with High-Temperature Gasification is the most advantageous option. This approach capitalizes on cost savings by using existing aeration BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 8 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC basins, thereby avoiding the high replacement costs linked to Anaerobic Digestion. Furthermore, High Thermal Gasification is the least expensive Advanced Treatment option and requires the least amount of space. A potential drawback is that, since biogas reuse is not feasible with Aerobic Digestion, the operational and maintenance costs for advanced treatment may increase due to the need for supplemental fuel. The second-highest scoring option is High-Temperature Gasification without Pretreatment. This approach reduces operational complexity, eliminates the costs associated with implementing a new digestion process, and potentially enhances gasification by utilizing more of its own fuel (from undigested Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)) to sustain the process more effectively. However, this option necessitates doubling the Advanced Treatment footprint due to the increased sludge volume that must be processed. 1.7. Recommendations Given the relative novelty of Advanced Treatment options in wastewater treatment and their ongoing in situ evaluation, it is recommended to extend the life of existing mesophilic processes to 5 to 10 years through necessary repairs and maintenance. During this time, Advanced Treatment systems will continue to be assessed allowing PCWRF to select the optimal system when the existing solids handling process is replaced. This will allow PCWRF time to determine which, if any, pretreatment option is preferred and for staff to become familiar with the new MBR configuration before implementing significant changes in solids handling. If a Pretreatment option is proven advantageous and is operationally compatible with Advanced Treatment, the older Mesophilic Digestion system should be discontinued and replaced with that Pretreatment option. Table ES-5 Summary provides a comprehensive summary of process descriptions followed by a bulleted summary of recommendations. A Process Flow Diagram is provided in figure Table ES-5 Summary Treatment Option Requirements Discussion No Pretreatment (NPT) Advanced Treatment (AT) -2x AT trains -Additional centrifugation -DW, GT, and DAFT -Cost the same as MD and 1 AT train -Simplifies Process -More VSS available to power AT -Less flexibility -Class A or EQ Mesophilic Digestion (MD) Advanced Treatment (AT) -1 AT Train -DW, GT, DAFT, Struvite C, RNG, Flare -Cost the same as MD and 1 AT train -Staff Familiar with MD -Safest option due to familiarity -Flexible/redundant -Methane recapture to feed AT -Class B, A, or EQ BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 9 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Treatment Option Requirements Discussion Aerobic Digestion (AD) Advanced Treatment (AT) -1 AT Train -DW, GT, and DAFT -Lowest Cost option -Flexible/redundant -Can produce Class B, A, or EQ -Unfamiliarity with both systems at the plant -No methane re-use for AT -AB conversion should be tested first • Extension of Mesophilic process life is recommended until Advanced Treatment is chosen, installed, and proven. • It is too early to choose a specific Advanced Treatment option, while these new systems are being evaluated. Also, Pretreatments may or may not efficiently work with Advanced Treatments in the future • Based on weighted scores, Aerobic Digestion with Gasification is recommended for long- term. However: o Mesophilic Digestion and Advanced Treatment provide familiarity, flexibility, redundancy, and methane re-use for Advanced Treatment o Removal of Digestion does not save money but may enhance Advanced Treatment processes (providing higher BTU sludge) and lower staff burden BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 10 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatments ES.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure ES - 1 Process Flow Diagram BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 1 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC PROVO WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER PROVO CITY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN Date: January 10, 2025 Prepared By: David Kopchynski, Ph.D., PE, Eddie Gilcrease, Ph.D. Reviewed By: Jenny Calderon, PE, John Matta, PE Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Current and Future Biosolids Generation and Management ............................................................. 8 3.1. Current Production and Disposal ..................................................................................................... 8 3.2. Current Disposal Costs ................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Future Biosolids Production ........................................................................................................... 12 4. Biosolids Treatment Alternatives...................................................................................................... 13 4.1. No Pretreatment: Decommissioning of Primary Digesters ........................................................... 13 4.2. Mesophilic Digestion ...................................................................................................................... 14 4.3. Conversion of Existing Aerobic Basins into Aerobic Digesters ...................................................... 15 5. Advanced Treatment (Biosolids Reduction) Alternatives ................................................................. 18 5.1. Pyrolysis-Based Drying/Biochar ..................................................................................................... 18 5.1.1. High-Temperature Gasification (Fluid Lift GasificationTM) ...................................................... 21 5.2. Case Studies ................................................................................................................................... 24 5.3. Advance Treatment and Compatibilities with Pretreatment Processes ....................................... 24 6. Results and Recommendations for Biosolids Management Options ............................................... 25 6.1. Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 31 6.1.1. Discussion................................................................................................................................ 31 6.1.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 31 6.1.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 32 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 2 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 7. References ........................................................................................................................................ 33 8. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 34 List of Tables Table 2-1 Preparation and pathogen limitations for Class A Biosolids ....................................................... 7 Table 3-1 Annual Biosolids Production ....................................................................................................... 9 Table 3-2 Primary Sludge, Scum, and WAS Production and Characteristics .............................................. 9 Table 3-3 Annual Biosolids Management ................................................................................................ 10 Table 3-4 Total Estimated Cost of Current Biosolids Disposal .................................................................. 11 Table 3-5 Biosolids Production Estimates from MOR Data and Biowin™ Models ................................... 13 Table 4-1 Buildout Solids Production and Landfilling Costs with No Treatment...................................... 14 Table 4-2 Design Criteria for Mesophilic Digestion .................................................................................. 15 Table 4-3 Estimated Capital Costs for Mesophilic Digestion .................................................................... 15 Table 4-4 Estimated O&M Costs for Mesophilic Digestion ...................................................................... 15 Table 4-5 Buildout Cost Evaluation for Aerobic Digestion v Anaerobic Digestion ................................... 17 Table 4-6 Aerobic Digestion Solids Classification Criteria ........................................................................ 17 Table 5-1 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Unit Design Criteria ............................................................................. 19 Table 5-2 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Capital Costs ........................................................................................ 19 Table 5-3 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Annual Operating Costs ...................................................................... 20 Table 5-4 Revenue from Selling Biochar ................................................................................................... 20 Table 5-5 Total Pyrolysis + Drying Costs Summary ................................................................................... 20 Table 5-6 Ultralift Gasification Design Criteria, PWRCF Loadings ............................................................ 22 Table 5-7 Ultralift Gasification Capitol and O&M Costs ........................................................................... 23 Table 5-8 Resale Values of EQ/Class A solids and Syngas ......................................................................... 23 Table 6-1 Cost Items Included in Capital and O&M Cost Estimates ......................................................... 25 Table 6-2 Alternative Management Cost Summary ................................................................................. 25 Table 6-3 Scoring Criteria for Influence Factors ....................................................................................... 27 Table 6-4 Determination Factor Scores .................................................................................................... 29 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 3 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 6-5 Scored Data Summary............................................................................................................... 30 Table 8-1A - 2022 Provo City Biosolids Metal Analysis ............................................................................. 34 List of Figures Figure 3-1 Solids Flow Streams ................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3-2 Monthly Biosolids Cake Offloaded (2021-2023) ...................................................................... 10 Figure 3-3 Solid Stream Process after Completion of Current Plant Upgrades ........................................ 12 Figure 5-1 Pyrolysis Process Flow Diagram ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 5-2 Ultralift Gasification Unit ......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8-1A Footprint for complete pyrolysis system .............................................................................. 35 Figure 8-2A Centysis Belt Dryer specifications ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 8-3A High-Temperature Thermal Gasification (UltraliftTM) system layout .................................... 36 Figure 8-4A Layout figure for the plant. Location for Advanced Treatment designated as “Thermal Conversion Solids Process” ....................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 8-5A Existing plant model .............................................................................................................. 38 Figure 8-6A MBR 12.4 MGD plant model ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 8-7A MBR 25.3 MGD Buildout plant model ................................................................................... 38 Figure 8-8A Thermophilic digestion model ............................................................................................... 39 Figure 8-9A Aerobic digestion model ....................................................................................................... 39 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 4 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 1. Introduction The PCWRF currently produces Class B biosolids as dewatered anaerobically digested sludge for agricultural use. With the existing infrastructure nearing the end of its operational life, comprehensive replacement is necessary, along with capacity upgrades to handle a projected 205% increase in sludge volume. Furthermore, emerging concerns about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) complicate biosolids management as traditional disposal methods, like land application and landfilling, face greater regulatory and public scrutiny. Advanced Treatment processes, such as Pyrolysis and High-Temperature Gasification, offer a promising solution. These systems work by breaking down biosolids through high-temperature, non-combustion treatments, to produce high-quality biogas and Excellent Quality (EQ) materials, free of PFAS, suitable as consumer products. Although still emerging in the wastewater treatment industry, these technologies are being widely discussed and increasingly adopted globally for their potential efficacy in the removal of PFAS and microplastics, while producing a safe end-use consumer product. Producing EQ solids through Advanced Treatment methods negates the need for upstream Class A sludge treatments, like Thermophilic Digestion. Sludge treatments that produce lower-quality sludge, like Aerobic and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion, are sufficient to feed Pyrolysis or Gasification processes. It’s also possible to bypass sludge treatment and convey it directly to the advanced processes. While this “No-Pretreatment” option, requires twice the Advanced Treatment capacity, it eliminates capital and operation costs of expensive digestion processes, while potentially enhancing the thermal process by introducing more calorific sludge to the process as fuel. These Advanced Treatment systems, deployed in several municipalities, vary in efficacy, footprint, and cost, and continue to evolve as they are tested in situ. Given the nascent stage of these technologies, extending the life of current solids handling processes as these technologies develop is recommended. PCWRF is also currently undergoing significant upgrades to its liquid stream, the familiarity with which, can inform the optimal sludge treatment specific to these new processes. This report discusses both Advanced Treatment of biosolids and associated Pretreatment options and provides cost estimates derived from the following: • Current process data from Monthly Operations Reports (MORs). • Process Modeling of Buildout conditions: • 20-year cost calculations (Capital cost + 20*O&M cost) • Recent vendor quotes. • Values are known from recent similar cost assessments. • Costs of individual processes (isolated from other costs) • Costs of processes as combined with other treatments and disposal methods. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 5 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC ▪ E.g. Mesophilic Digestion + Land Application Two Advanced Treatment processes, three Sludge Reduction processes, and three Disposal alternatives are discussed in this report with comparisons of their operability, compliance with regulations, public perception, and Capital and O&M costs. Costs include the replacement of all process elements of the solids stream. These processes include Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening (Daft), Gravity Thickening (GT), Dewatering (DW), Struvite Control, and the Flare system. Treatment processes not including Anaerobic Digestion will only include costs from DAFT, GT, and DW. For this report, only a single example of each process is provided in detail. Again, it should be assumed that proprietary systems from different providers will vary in terms of costs, footprint, and overall efficacy. Pretreatment Alternatives • No Pretreatment: The removal of the Anaerobic Digestion process saves the capital cost of refurbishing and ultimately replacing the facilities, as well as associated O&M costs. This would result in approximately twice the volume of biosolids and require increased dewatering capacity and increased risk associated with solids handling. The biosolids produced would be of low quality but may be further processed via Pyrolysis, Thermal Drying (a step upstream from pyrolysis), or Gasification. Untreated sludge contains more volatile compounds and higher BTU values, which can be used to better fuel Advanced Treatment processes. Without further treatment, landfilling is the only disposal option. If landfilling is considered as a long-term disposal option, and tipping fees are kept low, overall cost savings are substantial. • Mesophilic Digestion: This is the City’s current Solids Stream Process, which produces Class B Biosolids at a 60% Volatile Solids (VS) reduction. It has been in operation at the PCWRF since its inception and, hence has value in its familiarity. It requires the support of five other processes (DW, GT, RNG, Flare, and Struvite Control). The current process is aging, and full replacement costs have been considered in this option. This analysis adds a third digester building to the previous configuration to meet buildout capacity needs and as redundancy. • Aerobic Digestion: Replaces the current anaerobic digestion process. Implementation would involve repurposing one or two of the existing aeration basins with an aerobic digestion process. This saves significant capital costs by utilizing existing facilities. Further savings are realized by the elimination of Anaerobic Digestion but may result in increased production of a lower-quality sludge that cannot be land-applied without further processing. This process will also necessitate the addition of Lime (alkalinity), as well as a mechanism for odor control. Aerobic Digestion can be modulated to produce higher quality sludge, however, by the inclusion of pathogen control strategies, additions of a second basin (for prolonged SRT), and improved aeration. This analysis is based on a two-basin Aerobic digester configuration that produces Class B solids. Advanced Treatment Alternatives • Pyrolysis: This technology involves the thermal drying of biosolids followed by high-temperature, oxygen-free pyrolysis to produce PFAS-free biochar and syngas. Energy efficiency is enhanced through the recycling of syngas to power the driers and pyrolysis units. This technology may be considered emerging, with only one operational unit in the US (Redding, CA), although multiple BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 6 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC pyrolysis facilities are under construction, reflecting increasing competition among suppliers with proprietary processes. The system discussed (from Bioforce-Tech) has an advantage in its modularity. • Gasification: Similar to pyrolysis, this process breaks down biosolids at elevated temperatures without combustion, but at much higher temperatures (10000C+). These systems can be used to produce biochar-like materials called FlexChar, or “Sand”, that can used as a filler or soil amendments. The unit discussed (from EcoRemedy) consists of a single unit with a smaller footprint than BioForce Tech Pyrolysis. It is currently in operation at a facility in Edmonds, Washington. Disposal Alternatives • Landfilling: Presently costs 38.00/ton in tipping fees, in addition to hauling costs. A significant cost component. This is only an option absent Advanced Treatment. • Land application: Presently in use by PCWRF, it costs $8.00/ton to apply to a local agricultural field. Land Application is expected to face reduced desirability and regulatory impacts due to the presence of PFAS and other potentially harmful contaminants. Pyrolysis, incineration, and de-gasification are the only options that address these uncertainties. • Consumer Product: Excellent Quality (EQ) solids, free of PFAS, that can be used by the general public. For this report, it refers to Biochar, Flexchar, or Sand which is useful as a filler, absorbent, or soil amendment. All options considered in the final analysis, utilizing Advanced Treatment, produce EQ solids. These can be removed from the PCWRF at no cost or sold. Both Advanced Treatments produce similar amounts of sludge, 1,400 Dry tons annually, or an 80-85% reduction of the TSS being processed. 2. Regulatory Framework PFAS: PFAS contamination is the primary rationale for Advanced Treatment, although at present there are no concentration limits for PFAS in composts, digestates, or biosolids, and a universally validated analytical method for PFAS detection in solids is unavailable. Concentration limits are expected to be developed in the future, however. As of 2022, the EPA’s drinking water limits for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are 0.02 ppt and 0.004 ppt, respectively. This is compared to the previous limit of 70 ppt (for PFOS) suggesting a trend towards more stringent regulations. Notably, studies report decreasing levels of PFAS in biosolids correlating with heightened restrictions on PFOS and PFOAs in production. Many US states/municipalities utilize biosolids for composting and some have begun setting limits for PFAS in biosolids intended for land application and in composting feedstocks. If land application is desired to continue indefinitely, it is recommended to conduct PFAS testing and monitoring to proactively address potential regulatory challenges. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 7 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Pathogens: Biosolids are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as either Class A or Class B Biosolids depending on pathogen destruction and vector attraction limits. Class B biosolids, as presently produced at the Provo-WRF, possess a higher pathogen count and face greater usage limitations than Class A Biosolids. Class A Biosolids face no limitations in use, at present. However, their production (e.g. through composting) involves greater costs and complexity in meeting specific time, temperature, and pollutant level requirements. These are briefly described in Table 2-1 (from 40 CFR Part 503). Table 2-1 Preparation and pathogen limitations for Class A Biosolids Microbial Limits <1000 fecal coliform MPN/g or <3 Salmonellae MPN/4g <1 PFU enterovirus/4g <1 helminth ova/4g Odor: Aerobic Digestion, Composting, and other processes are associated with odor, and Advanced Treatment options as well may be subject to emissions complaints if not properly controlled. Provo must adhere to air quality levels permitted by the Utah Bureau of Air Quality, which are part of the state’s implementation plan approved by the EPA (EPA.gov). In the United States, the EPA does not explicitly regulate odor in biosolids as a recognized pollutant. However, Utah’s state regulations, specifically Utah Administrative Code R315-312-3(1)(b), require a minimum distance of 500 feet between composting facilities and critical areas such as permanent residences, schools, hospitals, institutions, offices, restaurants, and churches. Odor-related matters are otherwise resolved through state or local nuisance laws, for instance, Provo City Municipal Code which declares the allowed existence of “emanations of noxious or unreasonable odors” on property to be unlawful. The initiation of odor regulations is commonly triggered by public complaints, prompting the need for effective odor management strategies such as covering. Utilizing buffer areas, vegetative screens, and natural landscape features is also recommended as effective measures to mitigate the potential impact of odors on surrounding communities. Facility Standard Requirements: R315-312 of the Utah Administrative Code governs recycling facility standards. They include requirements that: • Facilities are not located within 500 feet of permanent residence, school, hospital, institution, office building, restaurant, or church. • Facilities are not in wetlands, along watercourses, or in a 100-year floodplain. • Run-off prevention systems are designed, constructed, and maintained to divert the maximum flow from a 25-year storm event. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 8 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 3. Current and Future Biosolids Generation and Management 3.1. Current Production and Disposal This section provides a summary and assessment of PCWRF’s existing biosolids generation and treatment management to determine current biosolids disposal expenses. It also determines the anticipated cost of landfilling 100% of produced biosolids should land application options become non-viable. Production: PCWRF is a Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) treatment plant with an Average Annual Day (AAD) influent rate of 12.5 MGD. It utilizes two Mesophilic anaerobic primary digesters to stabilize biosolids, reduce biosolids mass for disposal, mitigate pathogens, and achieve Class B Biosolids classification. The digesters treat sludges from two primary clarifiers (primary sludge) and waste- activated sludge (WAS) from the final clarifiers (See Figure 3-1). While sludge from the primary clarifiers is directly pumped to the primary digesters, WAS from the clarifiers is first directed to a dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) for thickening before being transferred to the primary digesters. To meet USEPA Part 503 standards for Class B Biosolids suitable for land application, a solids retention time of 15 days at 35°C is maintained. Subsequently, solids are transferred to two secondary digesters that serve as holding tanks before undergoing struvite removal and being conveyed to dewatering centrifuges. Polymer addition aids in the dewatering process by promoting flocculation and conditioning of the centrifuge feed sludge. The average cake solids content produced by the centrifuge sludge from 2021 to 2023 was 19.5%. Biosolid samples are collected quarterly by Provo City’s UPDES Permit UTL-021717 and CFR 503.16. From 2021-2023, the plant produced an average of 12.7 M Wet Total lbs, and 1,160 dry metric tons (DMT), according to Provo’s annual Biosolids Reports (Table 3-1). Primary sludge and WAS loading on the digesters (alongside future projections) are provided in Table 3-4. Figure 3-1 Solids Flow Streams BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 9 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 3-1 Annual Biosolids Production 2021 2022 2023 Average Plant Flow ADMM MGD 11 11 15 13 Cent Feed Average % 2 2 2 2 Cake Average % 20 20 20 20 Wet Total lbs 11,106,000 12,493,000 14,386,000 12,662,000 Total Produced DMT 1,070 1,200 1,220 1,160 Total Produced y3 6,300 7,090 8,160 7,180 Data was obtained from MOR and Biosolids reports. Table 3-2 Primary Sludge, Scum, and WAS Production and Characteristics Parameter AAD Loading Conditions 2023, 12.4 MGD Buildout, 25.3 MGD Dry Mass Flow from Primary Clarifiers, lbs/d 10,000 22,000 Volumetric Flow from Primary Clarifiers, gal/d 28,000 70,000 Primary Clarifier Solids, % 4.3 3.8 WAS Dry Mass Flow, lbs/d 43,000 2,000 WAS Volumetric Flow, gal/d 179,000 360,000 WAS Solids, % as TSS 0.5 0.6 DAF Thickened WAS Dry Mass Flow, lbs/d 8,000 17,000 DAF Thickened Volumetric Flow, gal/d 33,000 30,000 DAF Thickened WAS Solids Content, % 2.9 7.0 Total Flow to Primary Digester, gal/d 60,000 100,000 Flow to Primary Digester, Solids content, % 3.5 4.7 Current condition data are obtained from PCWRF process monitoring data and are monthly averages of daily flows. Projections are from Biowin™ process modeling. Disposal: For several years, the dewatered cake from the Provo WRF had been beneficially utilized through land application. The land application site, Elberta Valley Ag. (West Lake Farms), is operated as a farming enterprise situated approximately 31.3 miles southwest of PCWRF. PCWRF currently owns two biosolids-hauling trucks and employs licensed truck drivers to transport biosolids loads. Based on data obtained from the City’s monthly centrifuge data sheets from 2021 to 2023, the average annual offloaded material amounted to approximately 12.8M lbs equivalent to 1,140 dry metric tons, 100% of which is offloaded in land application. Table 3-3 and Figure 3-2 provide a summary of annual and monthly offload data. The findings are consistent with a general, expected trend toward increasing production over three years. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 10 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 3-3 Annual Biosolids Management 2021 2022 2023 Average Land Applied lbs 11,106,000 12,493,000 11,934,000 11,844,000 Wet Total lbs 11,106,000 12,493,000 14,386,000 12,662,000 Total Produced DMT 1,070 1,200 1,220 1,160 Land Applied DMT 1,070 1,200 1,160 1,140 Data obtained from PCWRF’s Annual Biosolids Reports. Figure 3-2 Monthly Biosolids Cake Offloaded (2021-2023) 3.2. Current Disposal Costs As of January 2024, the long-term viability of the arrangement with West Lake Farms has come into question. The Farm recently requested that the City provide its own biosolids spreading service for offloading onto its site. Presently, the City is in the process of contracting for this service at BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 11 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC approximately $8.00/ton. While this represents the most cost-effective short-term solution, long-term application of Class B and Class A solids is uncertain due to evolving attitudes and potential regulations concerning the safety of biosolids as it relates to “forever chemicals” such as PFAS and Microplastics. Absent this resource, solids will necessarily be hauled to a landfill located at South Utah Valley Solids Waste District (4.8 miles) where landfilling tipping fees will be incurred at $38.00/wet ton. This represents a significant increase in current cost ($61,000 vs. $290,000 annually for 7,200 tons of sludge). In Table 3-4, itemized costs of biosolids landfilling are listed, including: • Hourly wages for hauling vehicle drivers • Diesel fuel consumption by the trucks • Annual maintenance costs for the trucks • Annual expenses for biosolids toxicology testing • Tipping fees (that will be presently going into effect) Table 3-4 Total Estimated Cost of Current Biosolids Disposal Parameter Tractor Dump Truck Notes Bed Volume, y3 28-31 22-26 % of Hauled Load 0.80 0.20 Annual Volume Hauled per Truck (y3/year) 6,500 1,600 80%:20% ratio, Annual Wet Mass Hauled (lbs/year) 11,509,000 2,877,000 *14,386,000 total Annual Wet Mass Hauled (Tons/year) 5,700 1,400 1,220 total Annual Number of Trips 220 70 290 total Average gas mileage, MPG 4 5 Annual Maintenance Costs 1,600 3,900 Land Ap 62.6 mi Land Fill 4.8 mi Miles Traveled Annually 18,000 1,400 Based on 290 trips Annual Fuel Cost $17,000 $1,300 Based on $4/gal Gas used Annually, gal 4,300 360 Annual Driver Labor Hours 20 65 mph Annual Labor Cost $680 Based on $31/h Maintenance $5,500 Total Annual Hauling Cost $7,500 Total Annual Cost with Tipping $273,000 7,200 tons x $38/ton Contractor Fee/ton $8 Tons/year Hauled 7,200 Toxicology Testing ($/Year) $3,700 $3,700 Total Annual Cost 2023 $61,000 $291,000 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 12 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Parameter Tractor Dump Truck Notes *Total Annual Costs Buildout $126,000 $687,000 205% Increase over Current based on modeling 20-Year NPV Cost $2,500,000 $13,700,000 Based on 2023 Solids report *Derived from Biowin modeling, described in the next section. 3.3. Future Biosolids Production PCWRF is currently in the process of upgrading its secondary process to an MBR process with a modified Westbank Process Configuration (Figure 3-3 assumes current solids processes remain). This process will allow for biological phosphorus removal and denitrification in addition to meeting current limits associated with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal and nitrification. PCWRF's biosolids production rate is expected to increase proportionally as flow increases from the current ADD flow of 12.4 MGD to the projected Buildout ADMM flow of 25.3 MGD. These changes will heavily influence future biosolids production and management. Figure 3-3 Solid Stream Process after Completion of Current Plant Upgrades Future production of biosolids at the PCWRF was estimated using Envirosim’s Biowin™ wastewater treatment process modeling software. Multiple calibration runs of the Biowin™ model were conducted BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 13 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC to replicate current conditions at PCWRF using process monitoring data from the plant, specifically, the AAD solids load for 2023 (chemical oxygen demand (COD) = 428 mg/L, BOD = 180 mg/L, TSS = 190 mg/L). The biosolids production rates estimated from the calibration runs matched the characteristics of the current plant processes from Monthly Operations Reports (MORs) by approximately 10%. A model was then constructed to simulate solids production considering the MBR upgrade. The calibrated model was subsequently used to simulate future performance under projected flow (25.3 MGD at Buildout) Table 3-5. With the new MBR configuration, the model predicts a biosolids production of 19,500 dry lbs/day or 90,000 wet lbs/day. This is approximately twice the production of the current condition from MOR data (9,500 dry lbs/day). Table 3-5 Biosolids Production Estimates from MOR Data and Biowin™ Models Biosolids Production Estimate Dry Mass lbs/d Cake % TSS Wet Mass lbs/d Cake Density lbs/ft3 Volume cy/m 2023 AAD Solids Loading from (12.4 MGD) Observed from MOR Data 9,000 19 48,000 65.3 840 Biowin Model Existing Process 9,500 18 52,000 65.3 910 Biowin Model with MBR 9,600 20 48,000 65.3 840 2035 ADMM Flow (19.1 MGD) MBR Biowin Model with MBR Process 14,900 20 75,000 65.3 1,320 Buildout ADMM Flow (25.3 MGD) MBR Biowin Model with MBR Process 19,500 20 98,000 65.3 1,720 Buildout AAD Flow (21.1MGD) MBR Biowin Model with MBR Process 16,319 20 82,000 65.3 1,440 4. Biosolids Treatment Alternatives 4.1. No Pretreatment: Decommissioning of Primary Digesters The Primary Digestion facility at PCWRF dates to the 1970s and has multiple components slated for replacement. Anaerobic Digestion, which functions in part to produce Class B biosolids, also incurs significant O&M costs. For this section, we consider the value of avoiding these costs by simply removing the Anaerobic Digestion process and landfilling the undigested solids. The primary digesters currently destroy, on average, 60% of VS, which is approximately 50% of total solids (TS) from the thickened WAS and Primary Sludge. With over twice as much cake being produced absent primary digestion (from 2023 MOR data), a substantial increase would occur from landfill tipping fees. Furthermore, under buildout loading conditions a 39,000 lbs/d dry sludge load is anticipated absent any form of digestion. This exceeds the centrifuge capacity of the two existing centrifuges (15,500 lb/d each). With the three BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 14 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC centrifuges operating daily a 4th centrifuge will be required as a redundancy (Table 4-1). It should be noted that at Buildout, loading conditions, even with an Anaerobic Digestion Process, a third centrifuge will be required to process 19,500 lbs/day of dry sludge with process redundancy. This will also increase operational costs, from electricity usage as well as increased polymer requirements. A notable disadvantage of the No Pretreatment option is the potential for unpleasant odors and liabilities associated with the handling, hauling and disposal of undigested sludge when Advanced Treatment systems are offline. Given the relative novelty of these systems, downtime can be anticipated due to design challenges and other unforeseen issues. Table 4-1 Buildout Solids Production and Landfilling Costs with No Treatment Item With Anaerobic Digestion Without Anaerobic Digestion *Sludge tons/year 16,400 35,600 Centrifuge Parts Cost $14,668,000 $19,557,000 Digestion Parts Cost $67,547,000 $11,710,000 Maintenance Costs $864,000 $268,000 Polymer $222,000 $481,000 Pumping Electrical Costs $37,000 $80,000 Centrifuge Electrical Costs $22,000 $47,000 Labor $320,000 $320,000 Capital Costs $82,214,000 $31,267,000 O&M Costs $1,027,000 $1,049,000 **Landfilling Costs $655,000 $1,310,000 **Final Costs No Landfilling $67,428,000 $30,950,000 **Final Costs Landfilling $68,083,000 $32,260,000 20-Year NPV OP (No Land Filling) $100,800,000 $50,900,000 *From MOR data ** Disposal options were not considered in the final analysis due to negation by Advanced Treatment. Note: Anaerobic Digestion Costs include the replacement of the entire solids treatment train. Quotes: Boilers = Folsom, Mixers, Lids, and Heat exchangers = Alfa Laval. 4.2. Mesophilic Digestion Mesophilic Digestion, the anaerobic digestion process currently utilized at the Provo Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), facilitates the decomposition of organic matter into biogas and stabilized residues within a temperature range of approximately 20°C to 45°C (68°F to 113°F). This process yields Class B biosolids and is scheduled for replacement. For the further development of this process, it is assumed that the two existing Primary Digester facilities will be demolished and replaced with three digesters. The third digester is necessary to meet buildout capacity needs and as an operational redundancy. Design criteria for Mesophilic Digestion are provided in Table 4-2. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 15 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this system were developed based on modeled Buildout conditions and the total replacement of the existing solids train (Table 4-3, Table 4-4). Table 4-2 Design Criteria for Mesophilic Digestion Table 4-3 Estimated Capital Costs for Mesophilic Digestion Table 4-4 Estimated O&M Costs for Mesophilic Digestion 2024 Buildout 20-Year Cost mmBTU/year Mesophilic Digester 4,599 9,440 Natural Gas Cost / mmBtu $10.82 $10.82 Natural Gas Costs Meso (Biogas = *.5) $50,000 $102,000 Pump Electrical Costs $9,500 $19,500 Additional Class Monitoring and Reporting/y $4,000.00 $4,000.00 *Labor $320,000 $320,000 Total Annual O&M Cost 3x Mesophilic $504,433 $628,127 $37,500,000 Other elements of solids train not included in cost estimates *Labor assumes four full-time equivalents (FTE) at $80,000/year 4.3. Conversion of Existing Aerobic Basins into Aerobic Digesters This alternative involves utilizing one or two existing aeration basins for Aerobic Digestion in place of the Anaerobic Digestion process. Two aeration basins are being kept online for redundancy to the MBR Criteria (for 2 Digesters) ADMM 12.4 MGD 2023 MOR 19.1 MGD 2035 Biowin % Feed Solids (Primary 4.7 + WAS 3.6) 4.0 4.7 Wet Mass Flow (Primary + WAS), gal/d 61,000 100,000 Dry Mass Flow (Primary + WAS), lbs/day 18,000 39,000 Wet Mass Flow (Primary + WAS), lbs/day 510,000 827,000 Wet Mass Flow (Primary + WAS), lbs/h 21,000 34,000 Dry Mass Flow Rate, lbs/h 750 2,000 Total Volume of Digester, cf 7,700 7,700 Total Volume of Digester, m gallons 2 2 Heat load BTU/h required from 70F-95F Δ 25 525,000 850,000 Facility Mesophilic Digesters New Digesters $25,985,000 New DW $14,667,000 New DAFT $9,465,000 New GT $2,244,000 New Flare $19,511,000 Struvite $6,256,000 New RNG $12,745,000 Total $90,876,000 Quotes: Alfa Laval, Folsom BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 16 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC process until the third bioreactor can be constructed. One will be operated and the other is available for additional redundancy, however, both will become available for conversion to Aerobic Digesters upon completion of Bioreactor No. 3. Under this alternative, decommissioning the Primary Digesters will result in savings by eliminating the need to construct a new digester facility and replace digestion equipment. However, working Aerobic Digesters typically reduce VS by 35-50% 1, resulting in a significant increase in sludge entering the dewatering facility relative to the current condition. The advantages of Aerobic Digestion include short retention times relative to Anaerobic Digestion and lower capital costs. The disadvantages include increased energy costs from aeration, increased sludge production, and production of sludge with poorer dewatering characteristics2. Aerobic Digestion systems commonly require a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 10-30 days, with 40 days needed for Class B Biosolids Production. The volume of a single existing aeration basin is 1.68 million gallons, which is sufficient to process current solids production at a cell residence time of 27 days. While this is not sufficient to produce solids acceptable for immediate land application, the VS destruction is sufficient for dewatering and potential post-dewatering processes, such as Pyrolysis or Gasification. The inclusion of the second aeration basin results in a 54-day cell residence time capacity which is sufficient to partially meet EPS guidelines for Class B solids. The model suggests sufficient VS destruction to meet Vector Attraction Reduction requirements (>38%) however sufficient pathogen reduction would need to be confirmed through testing. A Biowin model was constructed that eliminates Anaerobic Digestion and struvite precipitation from the treatment train in favor of Aerobic Digestion. The model shows similar volumes of biosolids production to Phase 1 models that utilize Anaerobic Digestion, however at a substantial increase in cost of aeration. The model also indicates the necessity of supplemental alkalinity (lime) in the system to maintain a suitable pH range for microbial activity. This is a common feature of Aerobic Digestion where nitrification consumes alkalinity. The conversion will require the replacement of the existing ceramic fine bubble diffusers with course bubble diffusers, which typically incur about 50% higher cost of aeration. Other options include jet aeration which has shown efficiency at providing aeration under such conditions. It is also necessary to include a mechanism for controlling odor, which is a common source of complaint regarding Aerobic Digestion. A comparison of the Aerobic and Anaerobic Digestion system costs is provided in Table 4-5. It should be noted that the addition of lime to achieve pH = 12 or greater is sufficient to reduce pathogen load to EPA guidelines in a single basin. Higher temperatures can also reduce pathogen load and HRT requirements. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 17 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The aerobic digestion alternative thus exhibits considerable adaptability, contingent upon variables such as sludge pathogen content and WRF characteristics, (such as MBR). Assessing parameters like Specific Oxygen Utilization Rate of Bacteria (SOUR) can enhance predictive capacity regarding efficacy. EPA 40 CFR Part 503 guidelines for biosolids classification using Aerobic Digestion are summarized in Table 4-6. Table 4-5 Buildout Cost Evaluation for Aerobic Digestion v Anaerobic Digestion Item Anaerobic Digestion Aerobic Digestion Sludge tons/year 16,800 16,900 Diffusers & Odor Control $0 $15,780,000 Digester Parts Cost $66,400,000 $11,300,000 Maintenance Costs $426,312 $322,000 Aeration Costs (600hp/1000hp) $0 595,000 4x New Blowers $0 $820,000 Polymer $222,000 $218,000 Lime addition $0 $21,101 Pumping Costs (digestion) $37,004 $0 Centrifuge Electrical Costs $21,629 $21,000 Labor $320,000 $320,000 Capital $66,826,000 $27,900,000 Total O&M $1,027,000 $1,498,000 *Landfilling Costs $655,000 $642,000 *Final Costs (No Landfilling) $67,853,000 $29,398,000 *Final Costs (+ Landfilling) $68,508,000 $30,040,000 20-Year NPV OP (No Land Filling) $87,400,000 $57,900,000 *Disposal options not considered in the final analysis due to negation by Advanced Treatment. Note: Centrifugation costs of increased sludge production (2.05x). Capital cost includes replacements for 3 Blowers. Anaerobic Digestion Costs include the replacement of the entire solids treatment train. Quotes: Diffusers = EDI, Boilers = Folsom, Mixers, Lids, and Heat exchangers = Alfa Laval. Does not include disposal costs Table 4-6 Aerobic Digestion Solids Classification Criteria Options for Pathogen reduction EPA guidelines for Class B Increasing pH by lime addition 12 or higher for 2 hours, followed by 11.5 or higher for an additional 22 hours SOUR 1.5 mg oxygen per hour per gram of total solids at a temperature of 200C Increasing Temperature 400C or higher for 14 days Increasing Cell Residence Time 40 days at 200C and 60 days at 150C BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 18 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 5. Advanced Treatment (Biosolids Reduction) Alternatives Incorporation of additional, Advanced processes downstream of the described Pretreatment (digestion) alternatives, is warranted for reduction of biosolids mass, improvement of solids classification to EQ, and removal of PFAS. The two options evaluated include Pyrolysis and High-Temperature Gasification. The chosen process will be installed west of the surge Basins and adjacent to the Dewatering building (Appendix Figure 5 1A ) on the basis of area requirement and proximity to related processes (sludge sources, dewatering, etc.). Notes on incineration: A third process that was dismissed from this report, incineration, has been discouraged due to its high energy costs, strict regulatory requirements, and negative environmental impacts (carbon emission). Plants with aging incineration processes are looking to replace incineration with de-gasification technologies. It is worth noting that incineration is presently the only method recommended by the EPA to destroy PFAS in biosolids. However, recent studies do show complete PFAS destruction in high thermal Gasification products and some (but not all) Pyrolysis systems. 5.1. Pyrolysis-Based Drying/Biochar Pyrolysis involves the thermochemical breakdown of organic materials in the absence of oxygen, distinguishing it from processes like combustion or incineration Figure 5-1. This method prevents material from burning and instead initiates a chemical breakdown, leading to the production of biochar, bio-oil, and syngas. Biochar serves as a stable carbon form suitable for soil enhancement, while bio-oil and syngas can be harnessed for energy production. This also eliminates landfilling costs since providers (e.g. BioforceTech) may be contracted to pick up the produced biochar, which has monetary value, paying as much as $25/ton. Another reason to explore this technology is the growing concern about PFAS. Regulations regarding PFAS in land application of biosolids are not currently in place, but the potential for such regulations warrants serious consideration. Pyrolysis, operating within the temperature range of 600–1,800°F, can thermally destroy various PFAS components producing EQ, PFAS-free materials.3 The first biosolids pyrolysis system in the US was deployed by BioForceTech in Redwood City, California at Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW). Prior to pyrolysis, sludge cake must be dried to 40% solid, thus thermal dryers are integrated pyrolysis systems in a manner that reduces the energy demand for drying biosolids before pyrolysis. As exhaust gas from the syngas burner maintains the necessary temperatures for pyrolysis, additional thermal energy is recirculated to aid in biosolids drying. Once stable operation is achieved, pyrolysis can be self-sustaining, eliminating the need for electricity or natural gas. The modular nature of pyrolysis units allows for easy installation or expansion. Each unit quoted includes essential components like pyrolysis reactors, a flameless burner, a biochar discharge conveyor, heat exchangers, blowers, an electrical panel, safety systems, heat dissipation radiators, a wet scrubber for BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 19 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC SO2 removal, an activated carbon filter, cyclones, and a chimney with a sample port. Six BioForceTech Pyrolysis units, with a max capacity of 25,000 dry lbs/day can handle the current and Buildout ADMM biosolids production (9500 and 19,500 dry lbs/day, respectively) Table 5-1. Capital and O&M cost analysis are provided in Table 5-2, Table 5-3, and Table 5-5. The guaranteed purchase of the produced biochar (at $25/ton) offsets some of these costs over time. A summary of Capital, O&M costs minus revenue from selling Biochar is given in Table 5-4. The space requirements for 20x dryers and 6x pyrolysis units (as recommended by BioForceTech) is 220ft x 208ft, or 45,760 ft2 (Appendix Figure 8 1A), representing a significant investment in space. This effectively doubles if considering the No Pretreatment option for primary sludge. To reduce this footprint, compatible, higher capacity, low-temperature, belt dryers are available (e.g. from Centryisis) that can reduce this to 16,000 ft2 (specifications of dryer provided in Appendix Figure 9 2A). Table 5-1 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Unit Design Criteria Criteria P-Three Unit Value Reactor weight 68,500 lbs Total power 70 kW Operating temperature 660‐1,330 °F Min residence time 10 min Min inlet solid content 50% Maximum material size 2 inch Outlet solids content Above 90% Produced thermal energy 450 kW (1.5 MMBTU/hr) Reactor dimension (L x W x H) 40’ x 10’ x 10’ Electrical connection 120 Amp, 3 phase, 480V, 60Hz Max capacity (dry solids) 790 lb/hr (18,960 lb/day) Dry lbs/day 2023 (MOR) 9,500 Dry lbs/day Buildout 19,500 *based on current production and production of the current system and MBR system. Table 5-2 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Capital Costs 25,000 dry lbs/d Capacity (Buildout 195,000 dry lbs/day) BioDryers and Equipment 20 Pyrolysis System 6 System Costs (Parts Only) $19,000,000 Total Costs (Div# Included) $64,400,000 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 20 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 5-3 BioForceTech Pyrolysis Annual Operating Costs Annual Operating Costs 2023 Buildout Electrical $48,000 $99,000 Polymer $21,500 $44,000 Centrifugation $150,000 $150,000 Gas 0 $60,000 Spare parts and components replacement: 0 $18,000 Total Costs $220,000 $370,000 Table 5-4 Revenue from Selling Biochar 2023 Buildout OurCarbon produced tons/year 680 1,400 OurCarbon Sale Price $/ton $250 $250 City profit share $/ton $25 $25 City revenues $/year $17,000 $35,000 Table 5-5 Total Pyrolysis + Drying Costs Summary Annual Operating Costs Buildout 20 Year NPV Capital Costs $53,108,000 O&M Costs $513,000 Revenue From Biochar $35,000 Total $53,586,000 $62,700,000 Quotes: BioforceTech BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 21 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 5-1 Pyrolysis Process Flow Diagram 5.1.1. High-Temperature Gasification (Fluid Lift GasificationTM) High-temperature Gasification is a thermal process that breaks down biosolids at elevated temperatures without combustion. During this process, biosolids are heated in an oxygen-limited environment, causing the organic material to decompose into syngas, which consists primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane, along with solid residues known as Flexchar or Sand, depending on the operational settings. This process is sold as capable of effectively reducing the volume of biosolids, producing energy- rich gases that can be harnessed for power, and minimizing harmful emissions. Additionally, the final “Sand” product of this gasification system has been tested and shown to be free of contaminants like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), making it suitable for various beneficial uses. The process described is sold as a single unit, consisting of one or more trains that conduct drying, pyrolysis, and gasification (Figure 5-2, and Appendix Figure 5 4A). One advantage is its smaller footprint with options catering to larger plants. A single train system capable of processing Buildout sludge BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 22 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC production is 6,000 ft2 for digested sludge and 12,000 ft2 for un-digested sludge. This is compared with 45,000 ft2 for BioForceTech Pyrolysis. Another advantage is that the system is presently operating at full scale nationally, where its performance is subject to ongoing evaluation. This is not the case with BioforceTech systems, of which there is less information available. Design Criteria for the system alongside PCWRF loadings information are provided in Table 5-6. Capital and O&M costs are provided in Table 5-7 for Digested sludge and Undigested sludge. As with BioforceTech, an increase in sludge production results in a proportional increase in Advanced Treatment footprint. The resale value of Sand, Flexchar, and Syngas is given in Table 5-8. Figure 5-2 Ultralift Gasification Unit Table 5-6 Ultralift Gasification Design Criteria, PWRCF Loadings Design Criteria Capacity Dry /lbs/h 1,300 Capacity 25,000 wet tons/y 25,000 Dimensions, ft. 50w x 100l x 25h Feed flow rate, lbs/h 2,329 % TS Cake 23.62 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 23 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC PCWRF Process Specifics Trains 1 Buildout Trains 2 (No Treatment) Unit Footprint, ft2 6,000 12,000 Total Annual Dry Tons 3,500 7,000 % solids Cake 0.2 0.2 Total Annual Wet Tons 17,500 35,000 Operating Days 300 330 Dry Tons Per Day 12 21 Wet Tons Per Day 58 106 Hours Per Day 24 24 Dry Tons Per Hour 0.49 0.88 Wet Tons Per Hour 2.43 4.42 Dry LBS/HR 972 1,768 Wet LBS/HR 4,861 8,838 Dryer Solids % Exit Dryer 0.92 0.92 Table 5-7 Ultralift Gasification Capitol and O&M Costs Buildout (Digestion) Buildout (No Treatment) Total Annual Dry Tons 3,500 7,000 Capital Costs $42,423,000 $98,600,000 Labor $360,000 $720,000 Maintenance $100,000 $200,000 Equip Accrual $100,000 $200,000 Electricity $52,920 $105,840 Testing $12,000 $24,000 Total Capital $42,423,000 $98,600,000 Total Annual O&M $625,000 $1,250,000 Table 5-8 Resale Values of EQ/Class A solids and Syngas Buildout (Digestion) Buildout (No Treatment) EQ or Class A $/ton $60 $120 Sand $/ton $20 $40 Sand Tons Produced 1,000 1,400 SynGas $/mBTU $11 $11 Extra Syngas Produced $600 $1,300 Total $34,000 $67,000 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 24 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 5.2. Case Studies Edmonds, Washington 2023: This EcoRemedy Fluid LiftTM Gasification system has been operating, without digestion treatments, as of August 21, 2023. It is expected to be available for tours in July 2024. The manufacturer states that it is functioning as intended and is located near a dense apartment community without complaints regarding odor or noise. It has passed air emissions testing and PFAS- destruction has been confirmed for 6 months (no detection) in the final “Sand” product. Reports concerning the presence of PFAS in air emissions and final effluent are pending. It is noteworthy that the Fluid LiftTM Gasification system is, at present, subject to intermittent downtime due to design issues, specifically related to pump placement and capacity. This has resulted in the need to haul undigested sludge as these issues are resolved, resulting in complaints over odor, and hence, costly measures to mitigate it. Other companies presently offering similar systems include Blue Rock Energy and Heartland Water Technology. Redding California: This pyrolysis system from BioForceTech was the first in North America. It consists of 3 Biodryers and 1 Pyrolysis unit (presumably pilot-sized) and is fully operational. Data regarding its efficacy is pending. BioForceTech claims over 15 full-scale installations worldwide, all of which are dedicated to biosolids. 5.3. Advance Treatment and Compatibilities with Pretreatment Processes Various pyrolysis and high thermal gasification systems from different manufacturers are being introduced to the US market. Currently, the majority of these systems are sold as compatible with a No- Treatment approach. This is because the volatile solids (VS) in sludge provide fuel for pyrolysis and drying processes, hence, the removal of VS via digestion is potentially counterproductive. For this reason, many of these systems also employ low-temperature drying methods that preserve the calorific value of undigested sludge. Many US plants are thus opting to forgo the digestion process, not only because it can be counterproductive but also due to the high costs associated with replacing aging digestion systems. The No Pretreatment option also effectively doubles the volume of sludge produced at buildout, however. Consequently, the number of modular units, such as those from BioForceTech, scales linearly with sludge production, leading to a doubling of capital costs. This cost increase is also observed in higher capacity, less modular systems like those from EcoRemedy. In addition, the lack of any digestive processes leaves landfilling as the only option of disposal when the Advanced Treatment processes go offline, leading to odor issues and associated complaints, necessitating mitigation measures. This scenario should be anticipated during the early stages of implementing this newer technology. Vendors of Advanced Treatment processes, such as EcoRemedy, claim compatibility with digested sludge that has BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 25 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC a typical value of 6500 BTU/lb or more. While this does not save on cost, it may increase the flexibility and redundancy of sludge handling. Any specific digestion method, or the absence thereof, can be integrated with Advanced Treatment processes. Hybrid approaches that combine digestion and No Pretreatment have been proposed, where a smaller-footprint digester processes a portion of the sludge. This strategy allows for land application or landfilling of the digested sludge, thereby avoiding the need for additional, costly pyrolysis trains. 6. Results and Recommendations for Biosolids Management Options The cost estimates developed for the various combinations of alternatives include costs associated with various facilities and systems including digestion (aerobic or anaerobic), dewatering, and disposal. The table below outlines the elements that are included under each facility for these options. Capital costs reflect differences in associated equipment, for example, the Aerobic Digestion option does not require struvite control which is hence excluded from cost estimates. O&M values in the tables below include all relevant costs to reflect differences in chemical addition, electrical costs, and disposal costs. These inclusions are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Cost Items Included in Capital and O&M Cost Estimates Disposal Management Cent Upgrades *Solids Train (Complete) **Solids Train (No PD) Polymer Lime Odor Control Cap O&M Cap O&M Cap O&M Chem Cost Capital O&M Capital O&M No Treatment ✔ +✔ +✔ Mesophilic Dig ✔ ✔ ✔ Aerobic Dig +✔ ✔ ✔ +✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Aerobic + Pyro +✔ ✔ ✔ +✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Mesophilic + Pyro ✔ ✔ ✔ Aerobic + Degas +✔ ✔ ✔ +✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Mesophilic + Degas ✔ ✔ ✔ * Includes processes for Anaerobic Digestion, Dewatering, DAFT, Gravity thickening, Flares, Struvite control, and RNG. ** Includes only DAFT and Gravity thickening Note: Landfilling tipping fees are included in the final analysis. Costs are dependent on cake production. A summary of the quality of solids produced by the alternatives and their disposal requirements is given in Table 6-2. Green highlights denote processes (alone) that need inclusion with other processes for proper comparative analysis. Here, processes that include Anaerobic Digestion incur the highest costs, while “No-Pretreatment” and “Aerobic Digestion” incur the lowest costs. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 26 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Table 6-2 Alternative Management Cost Summary To assist in comparative analysis, each alternative will receive a qualitative score (1 to 4) based on weighted Influencing Factors, such as long-term reliability. These factors and their corresponding weights, from most important to least important (1-4), are defined below: • Long-Term Reliability (weighted score = 4): The most influential factor in determining the score for each alternative is high functional reliability. Moreover, the involvement of third-party entities, such as BioForceTech, is also considered, assessing their capacity to commit to long-term contracts. • Sludge Reduction (weighted score = 3): The disposal of biosolids represents a significant expense, ranking as the second most influential factor. Consequently, many described solid management alternatives focus on reducing sludge volumes to mitigate these costs. While Advanced Treatment options all produce a similar amount of end product, the O&M costs of will vary depending on the amount of sludge to be processed. • Beneficial Use (weighted score = 2): Beneficial biosolids utilization addresses waste management challenges in disposal and supports agricultural productivity. It is mostly determined by the quality of solids produced. Beneficial use expands options of disposal, potentially enabling disposal at no cost. Given the uncertainty of future regulations and the desirability of biosolids re-use, however, it ranks as the second lowest influential factor. • Public Perception (weighted score = 1): While wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operations typically remain inconspicuous to the public, public sentiment can nevertheless influence long- term decisions. Factors like unpleasant odors can trigger public disapproval, leading to a lower score. Conversely, solutions with favorable environmental impacts and opportunities for beneficial reuse are perceived positively by the public, receiving higher scores. Public perception, while important, is the lowest weighted non-cost factor relative to the others. Capital Costs O&M Costs 20-Year NPV Cost LandFilling Application No Treatment $29,900,000 $928,000 $69,900,000 NA No treatment + Pyro $158,700,000 $1,500,000 NA $182,700,000 No Treatment + Gas $128,500,000 $1,600,000 $182,700,000 Meso $88,600,000 $1,239,000 $120,600,000 $110,600,000 Meso + Pyro $153,000,000 $1,548,000 NA $178,500,000 Meso + Gas $131,000,000 $1,900,000 NA $163,000,000 Aerobic $41,800,000 $1,500,000 $77,800,000 $67,800,000 Aerobic + Pyro $106,200,000 $1,800,000 NA $136,200,000 Aerobic + Gas $84,200,000 $2,100,000 NA $120,200,000 Pyrolysis $64,400,000 $309,000 NA $70,400,000 Gasification $42,400,000 $600,000 $54,400,000 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 27 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC • Operations Staff Burden (weighted score = 3): Every alternative solids management option introduces modifications to existing processes and new operational burdens on staff. The objective is to enhance the City's management of biosolids, encompassing considerations such as operator time and labor. Solutions featuring higher levels of automation are prioritized, receiving higher scores, while those requiring more manual labor are rated lower. The degree of staff burden ranks as the second most influential factor. • Regulation Complexity (weighted score = 2): Costs of compliance with regulations, operational constraints, and permitting requirements may vary based on the solids management method chosen. Regulations have the potential to change meaningfully over time, incurring unknown changes, with associated costs, to existing treatment processes. Non-compliance with current and future regulatory requirements may lead to legal consequences and liabilities. Scores are determined based on the potential of regulatory complexity, such as potential PFAS presence, nuisance potential, and difficulty in permitting construction. This factor is rated as the second lowest. • Liability (weighted score = 4): Some alternatives for solids management entail potential liability risks, including nuisance claims related to odors, hazardous conditions stemming from flammable dust, and unforeseen liabilities associated with pathogens and contaminants such as PFAS, metals, and microplastics. Instances where there is greater potential for such liabilities warrant a lower score. Liability assumes the highest ranking in the hierarchy of influential factors. For raw scoring of alternative solids management processes against the defined influence factors, the criteria described in Table 6-3 is used. Table 6-3 Scoring Criteria for Influence Factors Long-term Reliability *Score Key Beneficial Use *Score Key Staff Burden *Score Key 1 - Process is emerging and short-term reliability of equipment is uncertain. 1 - Produces low-quality solids with no beneficial use 1 - Will require a high level of staff operational effort 2 - Process is operating, but with intermittent problems, leaving long-term equipment reliability uncertain 2 - Produces mid-quality Class B solids with limited beneficial uses. 2 - Will require an above-average level of City Staff operational effort 3 - Process is tested/proven short term, but long-term reliability of equipment is uncertain 3 - Produces high-quality Class A solids with multiple beneficial uses 3 - Will require an average level of City Staff operational Effort 4 - Process is tested/proven at full scale and without issue for years to show long- term reliability of equipment 4 - Produces highest-quality (PFAS-free) solids with multiple beneficial uses 4 - Will minimize City Staff operational effort BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 28 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Sludge Reduction *Score Key Public Perception *Score Key Regulation Complexity *Score Key 1 - Process significantly increases solids production at the end of the train 1 - May receive significant negative feedback and pushback from communities 1 - High levels of permitting consideration from the City and risks from regulatory environment 2 - The process produces similar solids production at the end of the train. 2 - Likely to receive neutral to negative feedback from communities 2 - Above-average permitting consideration from the City and risks from regulatory environment 3 - Process reduces solids production 3 - Likely to receive neutral to positive feedback and acceptance from communities 3 - Average levels of permitting consideration from the City and risks from regulatory environment 4 - The process greatly reduces solids production at the end of the train 4 - Likely to receive positive feedback and acceptance from the community 4 - Minimal permitting consideration from the City and risks from regulatory environment BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 29 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC The scored process alternatives for Pretreatment and Advanced Treatment, along with the scoring rationales, are provided below in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Determination Factor Scores No Treatment (NT) + Advance Treatment (AT) Mesophilic Digestion (MD) Advanced Treatment (AT) Conversion to Aerobic Digestion (AD) Advanced Treatment (AT) Long-Term Reliability Score PYR: 3 HTG: 3.5 NT: Reliability is established AT: Recent technologies in WWTPs but expected to become prevalent in the future. The long-term reliability of equipment is still uncertain NT+AT: Calorific sludge ensures long-term self-sustainment of the AT process Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4.5 MD: Reliability is established. Future useability of ANY solids (especially Class B) containing PFAS is uncertain AT: Recent technologies in WWTPs but expected to become prevalent in the future. The long-term reliability of equipment is still uncertain NT+AT: Digesting sludge is less calorific. May need supplemental gas or methane re-use for AT. Provides more flexibility/redundancy than NT Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 3 AD: Reliability is established; however use of Aeration Basins is novel. Reliability is not as certain. Less expensive to implement AT: Recent technologies in WWTPs but expected to become prevalent in the future. The long-term reliability of equipment is still uncertain NT+AT: Digesting sludge less calorific May need supplemental gas or methane re-use for AT Provides more flexibility/redundancy than NT Sludge Reduction And disposal Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 NT: Increases the amount of raw sludge to be processed AT: Greatly reduces the amount of cake to be offloaded Disposal is free Gasification potentially produces less volume as Sand NT+AT: Sludge is reduced equally regardless of Pretreatment Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 MD: Produces 60% VS reduction. Current condition AT: Greatly reduces the amount of cake to be offloaded Disposal is free Gasification potentially produces less volume as Sand NT+AT: Sludge is reduced equally regardless of Pretreatment Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 AD: VSS reduction is predicted at 30%-40%: half that of MD AT: Greatly reduces the amount of cake to be offloaded Disposal is free Gasification potentially produces less volume as Sand NT+AT: Sludge is reduced equally regardless of Pretreatment Beneficial Use Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 NT: Undigested sludge has no beneficial use and must be landfilled AT: Produces Syngas. Biochar or Sand produced by pyrolysis is PFAS- free and can be used as a soil amendment, filler, or absorbent NT+AT: Beneficial use of EQ regardless of Pretreatment Score PYR: 4.5 HTG: 4.5 MD: Class B solids are usable, but its use is complicated by uncertain future regulations. Methane reuse for AT processes AT: Produces Syngas. Biochar or Sand produced by pyrolysis is PFAS- free and can be used as a soil amendment, filler, or absorbent NT+AT: Beneficial use of EQ regardless of Pretreatment Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 AD: Class B production using two basins Future application uncertain AT: Produces Syngas. Biochar or Sand produced by pyrolysis is PFAS- free and can be used as a soil amendment, filler, or absorbent NT+AT: Beneficial use of EQ regardless of Pretreatment Public Perception Score PYR: 3 HTG: 3 NT: Lack of use, odor, and pathogenicity of undigested sludge and its transport may be poorly received AT: The beneficial use of without PFAS, microplastics, or other contaminates is likely to be well received by the public NT+AT: Odors from hauling/landfilling when the AT system goes down can result in complaints No savings from this option Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 MD: Limited benefits and high capital costs may receive a neutral reception AT: The beneficial use of without PFAS, microplastics, or other contaminates is likely to be well received by the public NT+AT: Despite high capital costs, should be better received due to stability and lack of odor Score PYR: 3.5 HTG: 3.5 AD: The odor may be poorly received but can be mitigated. AT: The beneficial use of without PFAS, microplastics, or other contaminates is likely to be well received by the public NT+AT: Potential for odor may result in complaints. Potentially mitigated by low-cost Staff Burden Score PYR: 4 HTG: 4 NT: Removal of the Anaerobic digester saves staff hours AT: Systems are large and complex, but highly automated. Not having to landfill, land apply, or compost reduces the management burden NT+AT: Staff hours saved from elimination of digestion Score PYR: 3 HTG: 3 MD: Operators are familiar with this process AT: Systems are large and complex, but highly automated. Not having to landfill, land apply, or compost reduces the management burden NT+AT: More hours spent operating/maintaining two processes Mitigated by staff familiarity Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 2.5 AD: Aerobic Digestion is considered less complex than MD AT: Systems are large and complex, but highly automated. Not having to landfill, land apply, or compost reduces the management burden NT+AT: More hours than NT spent operating/maintaining two processes Less staff familiarity process than MD Regulation Complexit y Score PYR: 3 HTG: 3 NT: No permits are required for landfilling Future regulations are a concern, however AT: Construction permits and permitting of EQ biosolids moderate. Impacts from future regulations (PFAS, Microplastics) minimal NT+AT: Subject to greater regulation complexity in the event of AT failure Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 2.5 MD: Since this is the current condition, there is moderate construction permitting and minimal regulatory complexity AT: Construction permits and permitting of EQ biosolids moderate. Impacts from future regulations (PFAS, Microplastics) minimal NT+AT: Minimal Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 2.5 AD: Permits for construction are less than MD Regulations for the disposal of low-quality sludge may evolve AT: Construction permits and permitting of EQ biosolids moderate. Impacts from future regulations (PFAS, Microplastics) minimal NT+AT: Minimal Liability Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 2.5 NT: Potential liabilities related to pathogen presence, odor, and risks associated with handling and hauling AT: Minimal to moderate liability from this emerging tech Air emissions result from AT pending NT+AT: Emerging process operating at high temperatures Subject to landfilling issues when offline Score PYR: 3 HTG: 3 MD: Liabilities are minimal with this established process Land application still faces uncertain future AT: Minimal to moderate liability from this emerging tech Air emissions result from AT pending NT+AT: Emerging process operating at high temperatures Score PYR: 2.5 HTG: 2.5 AD: Odor/pathogen presence of potentially poorly digested sludge with and associated hauling/handling risks AT: Minimal to moderate liability from this emerging tech Air emissions result from AT pending NT+AT: Emerging process operating at high temperatures BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 30 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Finally, the scores are multiplied by their weights to calculate a Total Weighted Score, which is then used to normalize Capital and O&M costs. This enables a comprehensive comparison of alternatives integrating both cost and non-cost factors. A summary of this data is provided in Table 6-5. Here the Capital costs, 1st-year O&M costs, and 20-year costs are given along with the 20-year costs/Weighted Score, which is used to determine the cost-effectiveness or value proposition of each alternative. Table 6-5 Scored Data Summary Thermal Conversion Initial Treatment Disposal Long Term Reliability (4) Sludge Reduction (3) Beneficial Use (2) Public Perception (1) Staff Burden (3) Regulation Complexity (2) Liability (4) Weighted Score Capital Costs Annual O&M 20 Year NPV Cost 20 Year NPV /Score Pyrolysis No Treatment Product 3 4 4 3 4 3 2.5 63 $158,700,000 $1,520,677 $188,700,000 3.00 Pyrolysis Mesophilic Dig Product 4 4 4.5 4 3 2.5 3 67 $153,000,000 $1,547,813 $184,000,000 2.81 Pyrolysis Aerobic Digestion Product 2.5 4 4 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 56 $106,200,000 $2,500,000 $142,200,000 2.83 Gasification No Treatment Product 3.5 4 4 3 4 3 2.5 65 $128,500,000 $1,600,000 $160,500,000 2.47 Gasification Mesophilic Dig Product 4.5 4 4.5 4 3 2.5 3 69 $131,000,000 $1,900,000 $169,000,000 2.50 Gasification Aerobic Digestion Product 3 4 4 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 58 $84,200,000 $2,700,000 $138,200,000 2.45 BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 31 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 6.1. Discussion and Recommendations 6.1.1. Discussion Solids produced by Advanced Treatments, (Biochar, FlexChar, or Sand) can be removed from the PCWRF at no cost or sold. Both Pyrolysis and Gasification produce similar amounts of sludge, 1,400 Dry tons annually, or an 80-85% reduction of the dry sludge processed. The estimates described include costs of all the associated processes in the solids stream, as described in Table 6-1. No Pretreatment, for example, still requires GT, DAFT, and additional Centrifugation for proper dewatering. A recurring theme in the above data is that capital costs overshadow operational costs substantially over 20-year NPVs, heavily affecting the overall score. As sludge production is increased, using No Pretreatment as an example, the costs of Advance Treatment scales likewise, roughly equaling the costs of Anaerobic Digestion. Options that include no Advanced Treatment are not considered, as it is presumed to be necessary for both sludge reduction and addressing future concerns and regulations pertaining to PFAS, microplastics, and other hazardous contaminates. Incineration was also not considered due to energy consumption, regulatory hurdles associated with emissions, and the lack of beneficial use. Nationality, wastewater treatment facilities are moving away and not toward incineration. The weighted scores, indicating positive non-monetary values, heavily influence the NPV/Score. These scores are theoretical and subject to change. Alternate determinations of value can also be made by isolating and sorting, for example, weighted scores, from highest to lowest rather than cost/score. 6.1.2. Conclusions The results based on the best (lowest) NPV/score suggest Aerobic Digestion with High Thermal Gasification. This option has the greatest advantage in raw cost due to the exploitation of existing Aeration Basins and savings from the elimination of Anaerobic Digestion processes. High High- temperature gasification is also the least expensive of the two Advance Treatment options, with the smallest footprint. The second-best scoring option is High Thermal Gasification with No Pretreatment, which reduces operational complexity and eliminates the costs of a new digestion process. However, this option necessitates doubling the footprint of the Advanced Treatment Process Facility due to the increased sludge volume that must be processed. While there is no cost advantage in the No Treatment option, the higher BTU values in untreated sludge provide better fuel to sustain Advanced Treatment processes. A significant, but perhaps temporary, drawback of the No Pretreatment option is the risk of unpleasant odors and associated liabilities from BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 32 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC transporting and landfilling undigested sludge during periods when Advanced Treatment systems are not operational. Since these systems are relatively new, it is likely that downtime will occur due to design flaws and other unexpected problems. Information in literature and from vendors regarding the benefits and drawbacks of Pretreatment of Biosolids ahead of Advanced Treatment is inconsistent. It may either enhance Advanced Treatment or make it less efficient, necessitating the addition of natural gas to compensate for VSS loss through digestion. Continuous advancements and refinements in these Advanced processes are ongoing. Notably, recent improvements in sludge drying have significantly reduced the energy demands of pyrolysis and gasification systems. Low-temperature sludge dehumidification systems, which have been utilized in industrial sludge drying for two decades, are now being adopted in the municipal wastewater sludge market. These systems present a viable alternative to the conventional drying technologies currently employed in pyrolysis and gasification processes. Selection of a specific Advanced Treatment platform may therefore be premature. 6.1.3. Recommendations Because the Advanced Treatment options are relatively new in wastewater treatment and are still being evaluated in situ, it is recommended to extend the life of existing mesophilic processes. The current solids management train will continue as Advanced Treatment options are observed, considered, and selected over 5 years. This will also allow familiarization with the new MBR configuration prior to major changes in solids handling. As PCWRF selects an Advanced Treatment option, it should reevaluate whether a Pretreatment option has proven advantageous and which option best fits the plant’s needs. The City should anticipate periods of downtime during the early stages of Advanced Treatment operation. Experience from other treatment plants implies that the existing mesophilic digestion process should remain in place as the operation of the advanced treatment is fine-tuned. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 33 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 7. References 1. Ghangrekar, M. M. & Behera, M., “Comprehensive Water Quality and Purification. Suspended Growth Treatment Processes,” pp. 74–89, Dec. 2014, doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-382182- 9.00087-6. 2. Arvanitoyannis L., “Waste Management for the Food Industries,” pp. 346, Nov. 2007. 3. Thoma, E. D. et al. Pyrolysis processing of PFAS-impacted biosolids, a pilot study. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc., vol. 72, pp. 309–318, Apr. 2022, doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2021.2009935. 4. Jenkins, C.J., “Anoxic-aerobic digestion of waste activated sludge a lab scale comparison to aerobic digestion with and without lime addition,” Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1988. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 34 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 8. Appendix Table 8-1A - 2022 Provo City Biosolids Metal Analysis Metal Table 3 Qt. 1 mg/k g Qt. 2 mg/k g Qt. 3 mg/k g Qt. 4 mg/k g Averag e Arsenic 41 8.7 5.2 9.5 0 5.84 Cadmium 39 5.4 1 1.9 0 2.11 Chromium n/a 36.9 25 39.7 34.9 34.1 Copper 1500 671 449 827 823 692.5 Lead 300 12.5 10.3 22.6 0 11.3 Mercury 17 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.46 Molybdenum 75 9.2 6.8 11.3 2.8 7.52 Nickel 420 24.0 27.9 36 31 29.73 Selenium 100 11.9 9.1 11.2 0 8.04 Silver n/a 2.7 1.8 3.8 0 2.09 Zinc 2800 848 659 1090 1240 959.2 There is no limit set for this material. BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 35 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 8-1A Footprint for complete pyrolysis system BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 36 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 8-2A Centysis Belt Dryer specifications Figure 8-3A High-Temperature Thermal Gasification (UltraliftTM) system layout BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 37 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 8-4A Layout figure for the plant. Location for Advanced Treatment designated as “Thermal Conversion Solids Process” BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 38 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 8-5A Existing plant model Figure 8-6A MBR 12.4 MGD plant model Figure 8-7A MBR 25.3 MGD Buildout plant model BIOSOLIDS MASTER PLAN 1/10/2025, Page 39 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Biosolids Advanced Treatment.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC Figure 8-8A Thermophilic digestion model Figure 8-9A Aerobic digestion model CAPITAL FACILITIES BUDGET AND PHASING PLAN 1/10/2025 https://waterworksengineers-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jennyc_wwengineers_com/Documents/____Quick/Provo Share Files/Capital Facilities Planning/Final Review Docs/FINAL WORD DOCS/Budgetary Planning 250108.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC 9. APPENDIX A 2023 WRF CONDITION ASSESSMENT 11. APPENDIX C 2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Provo City Public Works Department Provo WATRR Center Phase 1 2020 Construction | PROVO WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER PHASE 1 2020 CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Date: January 10, 2020 Prepared By: Water Works Engineers Arcadis US Reviewed By: Cory Christiansen, P.E. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 8 2. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Provo City ....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) ........................................................................... 11 2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 11 3. Public Participation Plan ................................................................................................................... 13 4. Existing and Future Conditions ......................................................................................................... 13 4.1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification ............................................................................. 14 4.2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area ................................................................................... 17 4.3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems ..................................................................... 17 4.4. Effluent Limits ................................................................................................................................ 21 4.5. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) ............................................................................................................. 21 4.5.1. Sewer Use Ordinance / Resolution and Sewer Maintenance Program .................................. 23 4.6. Future Condition ............................................................................................................................ 23 4.6.1. Population and Land Use Projections ..................................................................................... 23 4.6.2. Forecasts of Flows and Waste Loads ...................................................................................... 27 4.6.3. Flow Reduction ....................................................................................................................... 29 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 2 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 4.6.4. Waste Load Analysis ............................................................................................................... 29 5. Environmental Review ...................................................................................................................... 30 5.1. Environmental Information ........................................................................................................... 30 5.1.1. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology ..................................................................................... 31 5.1.2. Physiography, Topography, Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 31 5.1.3. Weather and Climate .............................................................................................................. 36 5.2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas ................................................................................................... 38 5.2.1. Historical & Archaeological ..................................................................................................... 38 5.2.2. Flood Plains ............................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3. Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 41 5.2.4. Agricultural .............................................................................................................................. 43 5.2.5. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................................ 43 5.2.6. Fish and Wildlife Protection: Flora, Fauna, and Natural Communities .................................. 44 5.2.7. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 45 5.3. Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................................... 47 5.4. Direct and Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................ 52 5.4.1. Public Health ........................................................................................................................... 52 5.5. Mitigating Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................................... 53 6. Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 53 6.1. Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 53 6.1.1. No Action ................................................................................................................................ 53 6.1.2. Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility ................................................................................. 54 6.1.3. Total Containment .................................................................................................................. 55 6.1.4. Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters .......................... 55 6.1.5. Land Application ..................................................................................................................... 56 6.1.6. Small Alternative Wastewater Systems .................................................................................. 57 6.1.7. Innovative and Alternative Treatment Processes .................................................................. 57 6.1.8. Sludge Handling and Disposal ................................................................................................. 57 6.2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities ...................................................................................... 59 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 3 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 6.3. Regionalization ............................................................................................................................... 59 6.4. Unsewered Areas ........................................................................................................................... 60 6.5. Conventional Collection System and Sewer Alignments ............................................................... 60 6.6. Wastewater Management Techniques ......................................................................................... 61 6.6.1. Conventional Technologies ..................................................................................................... 61 6.6.2. Alternative Technologies ........................................................................................................ 61 6.6.3. Innovative Technology ............................................................................................................ 61 6.6.4. Innovative and Alternative Cost Preference ........................................................................... 62 6.6.5. Staged Construction ................................................................................................................ 62 6.6.6. Multiple Purpose Projects ....................................................................................................... 63 7. Evaluation of Principal Alternatives and Plan Adoption ................................................................... 63 7.1. Alternative Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 64 7.2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs ........................................................................................................ 64 7.2.1. Sunk Costs ............................................................................................................................... 65 7.2.2. Cost Escalation Factors ........................................................................................................... 65 7.2.3. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects .................................................................. 65 7.2.4. Revenue Generation ............................................................................................................... 66 7.3. Demonstration of Financial Capability ........................................................................................... 66 7.4. Capital Financing Plan .................................................................................................................... 67 7.5. Environmental Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 68 7.6. Evaluation of Reliability ................................................................................................................. 69 7.7. Evaluation of Energy Requirements .............................................................................................. 70 7.8. Evaluation of Implementability ...................................................................................................... 71 7.8.1. Future Expansion .................................................................................................................... 71 7.9. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities ..................................................................................... 71 7.10. Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 71 7.10.1. Alternative 1: No Action ....................................................................................................... 72 7.10.2. Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility ........................................................ 73 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 4 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.10.3. Alternative 3: Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters: Membrane Bioreactor Option .......................................................................................................... 73 7.11. Views of Public and Concerned Interest Groups ......................................................................... 74 8. Recommended Alternative ............................................................................................................... 74 8.1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan ............................................................................... 74 8.2. Design of Selected Plan .................................................................................................................. 75 8.2.1. Preferred Project Advantages ................................................................................................. 75 8.2.2. Complete Liquid Stream Project (Preferred Project) .............................................................. 75 8.2.3. Phased Liquid Stream Project ................................................................................................. 77 8.3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan ............................................................................................. 86 8.4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan ................................................................................... 87 8.5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan ....................................................................................... 87 8.6. Arrangements for Implementation ................................................................................................ 87 8.6.1. Intermunicipal Service Agreements ........................................................................................ 87 8.6.2. Civil Rights Compliance ........................................................................................................... 88 8.6.3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................... 88 8.6.4. Pre-treatment Program .......................................................................................................... 88 8.7. Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................................. 88 List of Tables Table 1-1 – Total Net Present Value Estimate for Alternatives .................................................................. 9 Table 2-1 – Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 12 Table 4-1 - Risk Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 4-2 - Anticipated Future Nutrient Regulations for Treated Municipal Wastewater Discharge ...... 14 Table 4-3 – Industrial / Commercial Users with Onsite Pretreatment Facilties ....................................... 17 Table 4-4 – Current Provo City Effluent Limitations from UPDES Permit #UT0021717 ........................... 21 Table 4-5 – Wastewater Collection System Flow Projections through Buildout Population ................... 22 Table 4-6 – Population Projections for Key Years Based on MAG Projections ......................................... 24 Table 4-7 – Average Annual and Per Capita Flows 2011-2018 ................................................................. 27 Table 4-8 – Projected Flows for Key Design Years .................................................................................... 27 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 5 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 4-9 – Historical Loadings at Existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility .................................. 28 Table 4-10 – Summary of Wastewater Flows and Characteristics for Maximum Monthly Values .......... 29 Table 4-11 – Mill Race Receiving Stream Beneficial Use Designations1 ................................................... 30 Table 5-1 - Utah Prevailing Wind Direction .............................................................................................. 37 Table 5-2 – Threatened and Endangered Species in Provo City Planning Area ....................................... 44 Table 5-3 - Population Growth Rates Based on MAG Projections............................................................ 46 Table 5-4 – National Ambient Air Quiality Standards1 ............................................................................. 46 Table 5-5 - Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production .......... 49 Table 6-1 – Summary of Planned Improvements and Estimated Costs ................................................... 54 Table 6-2 – Capital Costs and 20-Year Net Present Value of Treatment Systems1 .................................. 56 Table 6-3 –Field Area Requirements for Typical Land Application Treatment Systems .......................... 56 Table 7-1 – Total Cost Associated with Each Alternative ......................................................................... 65 Table 7-2 – Evaluation of Improved Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ........................................... 68 Table 7-3 - EPA Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability Classes ................... 69 Table 8-1 – Total Estimated Cost for Proposed Construction Phasing Plan ............................................ 86 List of Figures Figure 4-1 - Provo City General Plan Map ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4-2 – Sewer System Service Area and Trunk Line Collection Areas (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan) ........................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 4-3 - Wastewater Collection Facilities (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan) 20 Figure 4-4 - Provo City Annexation Policy Map ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 5-1 – Physiographic Provivince Map .............................................................................................. 32 Figure 5-2 – Provo City Topographical Map ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 5-3 - Soil Types in Project Planning Area ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 5-4 – Seismic Map of the Provo City Service SArea ....................................................................... 35 Figure 5-5 - Monthly Climate Statistics, Provo Utah (1981-2018) ............................................................ 36 Figure 5-6 – Sites with Historic / Archaeological Significance .................................................................. 39 Figure 5-7 - Provo City Flood Plain Map ................................................................................................... 40 Figure 5-8 - Wetland Areas within Provo (left) and at the Provo WATRR Center Site (right) .................. 42 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 6 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-9 - Provo City Agricultural Lands................................................................................................. 43 Figure 5-10 - Utah Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................ 44 Figure 5-11 – Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production ...... 49 Figure 8-1 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Preferred Project .............................................................. 79 Figure 8-2 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Preferred Project .............................................................. 80 Figure 8-3 – Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Preferred Project .............................................. 81 Figure 8-4 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project .......................................... 82 Figure 8-5 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project .......................................... 83 Figure 8-6 - Proposed Site Layout – Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project ........................................... 84 Figure 8-7 - Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project............................ 85 Figure 8-8 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $120M Available Funds ......... 86 Figure 8-9 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $77.8M Available Funds ........ 87 Appendixes Public Participation Plan Project Drivers Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Report Siting Technical Memorandum Provo City General Plan, Adopted May 21, 2019 2019 Water Conservation Plan Utah Water Quality Board Meeting Packet, November 6, 2019 Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan 2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities Plan 2010 Water System Master Plan Flows and Loads Technical Memorandum National Register of Historic Places Listings for Utah County Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan Regional Water Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study (Draft) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 7 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Process Selection Technical Memorandum Provo Water Reclamation Algae Market Report Provo City Public Works 2018 Water Quality Report 2019 Provo City Storm Drain Master Plan List of Appendix Tables TABLE O-1 – Provo Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives TABLE O-2 – Springville Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives TABLE O-3 – Mapleton Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives TABLE O-4 – Spanish Fork Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 8 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 1. Executive Summary Provo City, Utah (the City) has a buildout population of 197,000, and according to current population growth projections, is not expected to reach this capacity until approximately 2136. Using influent flows and loads data from the plant for the period between 2010 and 2018, the projected influent average annual day flow rate at buildout is expected to be approximately 21 mgd, similar to the existing permitted monthly average flow capacity of 21 mgd. However, the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) will not meet future and anticipated regulatory requirements. The Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) of 1 mg/L effective in 2020 is the most pressing of these regulatory requirements. A variance granted to the City by the Department of Water Quality (DWQ) allows the PCWRF to discharge phosphorus at a maximum of 3.5 mg/L from January 1, 2020 until January 1, 2025. During this allotted time, the City will begin the phased implementation of a new water reclamation facility and complete the Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Phase 1 2020 Construction project to meet the TBPEL biologically. Other anticipated regulatory changes include a total Inorganic nitrogen (TIN) limit of 10 mg/L or less, and potentially stricter effluent phosphorus limits pending the results of the Utah Lake Study being conducted by the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The Provo WATRR Center design is the result of five years of planning. The plant will replace the existing PCWRF with a state-of-the-art treatment process capable of producing effluent quality that meets all present and anticipated regulatory requirements, and far exceeds the water quality produced by the current process. The Phase 1 2020 Construction Project will incorporate construction of new facilities, retirement of obsolete facilities, repairs, upgrades and refurbishments necessary to reduce pollutants in the wastewater to meet future and anticipated regulatory limits, address risk of failure of critical assets in poor condition and provide adequate capacity and redundancy. Several project alternatives were evaluated by the City over the course of the planning process, including three principle alternatives: • Alternative 1, taking no action; • Alternative 2, upgrading and rehabilitating the existing facility; and • Alternative 3, constructing a new biological treatment facility using either Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), or Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) secondary treatment technology. Alternatives 2 and 3 include biosolids aeration and centrate equalization following anaerobic digestion. These processes will support nutrient removal and biosolids stabilization and reduce return stream loadings to the headworks. The associated 20-year net present value (NPV) of each alternative serving the community’s buildout capacity can be seen in Table 1-1. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 9 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 1-1 – Total Net Present Value Estimate for Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Upgrade of Existing Facilities Alternative 3: New Biological Treatment Process (MBR) Capital Costs for All Upgrades through Buildout Capacity $0.00 $304M1 $289M2 Operations and Maintenance of Equipment $0.60M $0.65M $1.75M Chemical Costs $0.12M $0.13M $0.14M Energy $1.31M $1.83M $3.77M TOTAL Net Present Value3: $33.3M $346M $382M 1. From Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (APPENDIX N), April 2018 Draft: Estimated Capital Cost of $266.5M in 2017 dollars, escalated in accordance with current market conditions. 2. From Process Selection TM (APPENDIX P): Estimated Capital Costs in 2018 dollars have been escalated in accordance with current market conditions. 3. NPV calculated for a 20-year design life. The No Action alternative is not suitable for implementation. It will not allow the City to meet the new and anticipated regulations for nutrients and does not address the risk of failure associated with the aged infrastructure currently in use at the Provo WRF. Selection of the No Action alternative will result in violation of the City’s discharge permit, and failure of equipment and structures that will eliminate the facility’s ability to treat the wastewater and may create a significant risk to the health and safety of the public and plant operators. Alternative 2, the refurbishment and upgrade of the existing treatment process, relies heavily on the continued use of existing structures, equipment and buried infrastructure. As discussed above, the continued use of aged infrastructure creates a significant risk of failure and may result in a catastrophic failure. Although the 20-Year NPV of Alternative 3 exceed that of Alternative 2, the capital costs associated with this alternative exceed the cost of constructing a new facility (see Table 1-1). The refurbishment of the existing treatment process will allow for modifications to address new and anticipated regulations, but these modifications will not incorporate improvements in wastewater treatment processes that are associated with newer modern designs. This alternative is not recommended based on its inability to adequately address the risk of failure, and inability to utilize treatment processes identified as most advantageous to the City. Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new treatment process including MBR provides the City with a modern treatment process that will result in the highest water quality of the options evaluated. This will allow the City to utilize its treated effluent as a water resource and possibly develop this resource to create revenue in the future. The new treatment system will allow for the phased elimination CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 10 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. of aged infrastructure, significantly reducing the facility’s risk of failure. The capital cost associated with the recommended technology, MBR, is comparable to those estimated for competing processes, and the selection of MBR will result in the highest effluent water quality. This alternative is recommended as the highest value option for the City and will result in the highest long-term benefit. 2. Introduction and Background 2.1. Provo City Provo City, Utah (the City) is the third largest city in Utah with a population of approximately 120,000. The City is located east of Utah Lake (Northeast of the Provo Bay area) and is bordered on the east by the Wasatch Mountains and to the north and south by the Orem City and Springville City, respectively. The municipality is largely developed and generally land locked. Therefore, geographic expansion is limited. The City sewer collection system extends into and serves all developed areas of the City. Municipal ordinance requires that all new municipal developments connect to the City’s municipal sewer collection system. This requirement extends to all individual users that can reasonably be connected. A pretreatment ordinance is in place, allowing the City to regulate sewer system users who produce wastewater that is high in strength or in which toxic constituents are present. The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) services the area within existing City limits shown in Figure 4-1, and may expand to include the seven annexation areas shown in Figure 4-4. Municipal development plans include expanding development on the City’s West Side neighborhoods located west of I-15, expanding into annexation areas (if incorporated), and developing high-density housing. Many undeveloped lands within the City limits and the potential annexation areas are challenging to develop due to geographic features, constructability issues, or environmental sensitivity. Thus, many of these areas have limited growth potential. The City contains wetlands, 100-year flood plains, sites of historic significance, protected species, and is in a non-attainment area for particulate pollutions, PM2.5 and PM10, due largely to winter temperature inversions. The PCWRF is located in an area that has been zoned for public works facilities since the plant was constructed in 1956. The PCWRF site does not contain environmentally sensitive lands or protected species. The plant complies with all statutory and local emission limits, and overall effluent loadings to receiving surface waters are not anticipated to exceed current permit limits even as the community continues to develop. Continued use of the site is expected to have minimal harmful environmental impacts and will likely have positive impacts on receiving waters by contributing lower nutrient loadings to receiving waters with the completion of the Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Phase 1 2020 Construction Project. The City and existing PCWRF are largely located in a seismically active area where liquefaction is likely to result from seismic activity. A geotechnical analysis including development of a site ground improvements plan is critical to constructing adequate structural support. Geotechnical analysis has been performed and will continue as a site plan is developed prior to construction to prevent significant settling in the event of a seismic event that results in liquefaction. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 11 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 2.2. Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) Construction of the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) was initially completed in 1956. The original plant consisted of headworks, primary clarification, trickling filters and secondary clarification. The plant was expanded and upgraded as the community developed and regulatory changes went into effect. These expansions and upgrades included a major expansion in 1976 that added aeration basins for conventional activated sludge (CAS) in series with the trickling filters to meet effluent ammonia limits, and chlorine disinfection; 2014 upgrades that transitioned the plant to UV disinfection from chlorine disinfection; 2019 decommissioning of trickling filters resulting in a conventional CAS treatment process; and various other expansions, repairs, upgrades, and refurbishments to maintain equipment and structures. With the removal of the trickling filters from service, today’s plant has an average monthly capacity of approximately 16 mgd, and consists of headworks, primary clarification, secondary treatment CAS process, secondary clarification, gravity filters, and UV disinfection. Solids from primary and secondary clarification are anaerobically digested, dewatered and land applied to agricultural land approximately 35 miles from the plant. Aging plant assets, anticipated regulatory changes, and various other drivers have prompted the City to build the new Provo WATRR Center. This process began with the Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (WRF Master Plan), which evaluated the condition and criticality of plant assets, existing and projected flows and loads, anticipated regulatory nutrient limitations, and other related factors. The WRF Master Plan provided upgrade recommendations with a phased implementation plan and cost estimate to address anticipated community growth and regulatory changes. The WRF Master Plan found that approximately 80% of the PCWRF assets require immediate upgrades to meet permit requirements, safety standards, operability, and treatment capacity requirements. The WRF Master Plan and associated analyses showed that the cost to upgrade the existing facility are similar to the estimated cost of constructing a new facility. Given The WRF Master Plan’s findings, the City decided to construct an entirely new facility. The City considered multiple sites for the plant, including the existing PCWRF location and evaluated building a regional facility to serve Provo, Mapleton, Spanish Fork, and Springville. Various treatment technologies have been evaluated for their effectiveness, cost, operability, and cost-effectiveness in meeting the City’s treatment goals and regulatory requirements. This document summarizes the City’s planning efforts for constructing the Provo WATRR Center. It includes efforts to ascertain the project need, future capacity requirements, the project’s impact on the environment and on the public, evaluation of various treatment alternatives in terms of cost and other metrics. The document concludes with the selected alternative, the associated costs, and an implementation plan for the alternative including phasing and funding of the project, and arrangements that must be made. 2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations Table 2-1 provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations in the Capital Facilities Plan. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 12 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 2-1 – Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbreviation or Acronym Word or Phrase AAD Annual Average Daily Flow Rate CLEARAS ABNR CLEARAS Advanced Biological Nutrient Recovery ADMM Average Day Maximum Monthly Flow Rate AS Activated Sludge ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery BNR Biological Nutrient Removal BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DAF Dissolved Air Flotation DAFT Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener DEQ State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality DO Dissolved Oxygen DWQ State of Utah Division of Water Quality EBPR Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ERU Equivalent Residential Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease gpcd gallons per capita day HAB Harmful Algal Bloom I/I Inflow and Infiltration MAG Mountainland Association of Governments MBR Membrane Bioreactor mg/L Milligrams per Liter MGD Million Gallons per Day NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NdeN Nitrification / Denitrification NH3-N Ammonia as Nitrogen Ortho-P Orthophosphates PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PCWRF Provo City Water Reclamation Facility PDF Peak Daily Flow Rate PDR Preliminary Design Report PHF Peak Hourly Flow Rate RAS Return Activated Sludge RNG Renewable Natural Gas RO Reverse Osmosis CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 13 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Abbreviation or Acronym Word or Phrase SFR State Revolving Fund SRT Solids Retention Time TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen TBPEL Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit TDS Total Dissolved Solids TF Trickling Filter TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen TM Technical Memorandum TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TRC Total Residual Chlorine TSS Total Suspended Solids UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System UV Ultra-Violet WAS Waste Activated Sludge WRF Water Reclamation Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant 3. Public Participation Plan A public participation has been developed by the Langdon Group, Inc., and public outreach activities have commenced (APPENDIX A). The City is committed to working with the people within its community to select the best alternative and is poised to address any concerns and questions that the community may have with respect to the Provo WATRR Center. The final Public Participation Plan will incorporate City, State and Federal guidelines for wastewater treatment projects, as well as public participation plan guidelines under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program. Wastewater treatment projects are generally associated with low public approval based on public perception associated with nuisance odors and public health related concerns. However, public controversy with respect to the Provo WATRR Center project is expected to be minimal as it will be constructed at the existing site and designed to optimize appearance and air quality while minimizing noise and odors. The construction of the new facility is expected to minimally impact the community as it will occur within the existing property lines. 4. Existing and Future Conditions Section 4 and its subsections detail existing and future community conditions including the condition of the existing PCWRF, anticipated effluent limits and regulatory controls, current and projected population, flows and loads, zoning and land projections, and community economic and social profile. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 14 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 4.1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification The Project Drivers technical memorandum (TM), which is included herein as APPENDIX B, addresses the various drivers leading to the implementation of the Provo WATRR Center. These drivers include the City’s vision and sustainability goals as well as budgetary constraints. One key project driver is the WRF Master Plan’s risk assessment that identified approximately 80% of all plant assets being in imminent need of upgrade or replacement. The results of that assessment are summarized in Table 4-1. These upgrades are intended to address plant assets at high risk of failure and to prioritize the repairs and refurbishments according to how critical an asset is to the operability, safety, flexibility, redundancy, and permit compliance. Table 4-1 - Risk Assessment Results Ranking Category Category Definition Cost 1 Immediate Replacement High risk of failure and high-criticality $67.9M 2 High Priority Replacement High risk of failure and medium criticality or medium risk of failure and high criticality $27.8M 3 Schedule Replacement or Upgrades Medium risk of failure and medium criticality or high risk of failure and low criticality $23.4M Regulatory changes are another major project driver, as they affect permitted effluent limits that the existing facility is incapable of meeting. Current and anticipated DWQ nutrient limits and approximate promulgation timelines are shown in Table 4-2, and discussed in the following sections. Table 4-2 - Anticipated Future Nutrient Regulations for Treated Municipal Wastewater Discharge Nutrient Anticipated Limit Key Dates and Considerations Phosphorus (P) Phosphorus Rule 1 mg/L TP 0.1-0.5 mg/L TP Promulgated 2015; effective 2020 Lower limit possible dependent on the ongoing environmental evaluation of Utah Lake and Provo Bay Nitrogen (N) Ammonia Rule Max: 8 mg/L¹ Average: 3 mg/L² Match current UPDES permit Limit is dependent on pH, temperature and sensitive species in receiving waters Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) Max: 10 mg/L TIN rule is expected to go into effect by 2035 based on the ongoing environmental assessment of Utah Lake and Provo Bay 1. Daily maximum during Summer Months (July – September) 2. Monthly average during Summer Months (July – September) Meeting anticipated nutrient limits will require significant improvements to the current process including expanding bioreactor capacities and adding a biological process and/or chemical facility for phosphorus removal. Improvements to the hydraulic design and health and safety features are required CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 15 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. to address criticality and risk of failure, and a site security system is also recommended. See the Project Drivers TM in APPENDIX B for full details about project need. As part of the design of the new facility, a 2018 siting study was performed to determine the most advantageous site for a new facility. The siting study identified four potential sites and evaluated their suitability in terms of decision criteria developed with City staff. The study indicated there is no clear advantage to using the existing site over a site near the Provo airport, but it was recommended to relocate the plant to the new site to reduce the layout and constructability constraints on the design and construction teams. However, as more information came available with respect to site constraints, funding limitations and permitting impacts on schedule, this recommendation was reevaluated. Based on reevaluation, the recommendation is for the new facility to be constructed at the existing site. Considerations governing this final recommendation are further discussed in the Siting TM included herein as APPENDIX D. The City planning area is indicated in Figure 4-1 with City borders indicated in yellow, including land use designations applicable to the City’s general plan. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 16 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 4-1 - Provo City General Plan Map CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 17 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 4.2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area The following documents and records were reviewed to ascertain the existing environment of the City water sources and water reclamation facility receiving waters discussed in the following sections: • Water Quality Management Plans – The 2015 and 2019 (Draft) Water Conservation Plans are included herein as APPENDIX F • State Priority System and Project Priority Lists – From the 11/6/2019 Utah Water Quality Board Meeting Packet • Biennial Water Quality Report (305(b)) – Most recently EPA accepted report included in the Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report (APPENDIX H) • Quality Assurance – As verified from available municipal and state sources 4.3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems The existing PCWRF serves the City’s collection system, which collects wastewater flow from the entirety of the City except for a few older septic systems for residences that have not been brought online. The City is in the process of identifying these systems and connecting them to the collection system as described in Chapter 10.03 of the Provo City municipal code. Provo’s collection system also includes some residences that are in Orem and a handful of homes in Provo currently flow into Orem’s system pending some capital projects that will bring this flow back into Provo’s system. Additionally, there are specific industrial / commercial users that pretreat their wastewater in accordance with Chapter 10.04 of the Provo City municipal code. Pretreatment includes installation of under-sink grease traps used throughout the restaurant and hotel industry; storm water diversions; sand and oil traps used in auto body shops, parking areas, airport hangers, and other municipal users that may contribute high levels of motor oils and grit. In addition to these pretreatment installations, five industrial users have onsite treatment facilities summarized in Table 4-3. Duncan Aviation’s facility has an onsite zero-discharge permit for its paint shop. The facility uses evaporation basins to avoid discharge to the municipal collection system entirely. Domestic waste from the restrooms and floor drains in the maintenance area is collected by the municipal system. Table 4-3 – Industrial / Commercial Users with Onsite Pretreatment Facilties User Name Location Utah Railway 1221 Colorado Ave., Provo, UT 84606 Union Pacific Railroad 901 Colorado Ave., Provo, UT 84606 Industrial Plating / Alpine Creations / Peak Finishing 1773 S. East Bay Blvd, Provo, UT 84606 Powder River Livestock Handling Equipment 485 E. 1130 S., Provo, UT 84606 Duncan Aviation 262 South 3800 West, Provo, UT 84601 The City is subject to the following Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permits: • Major Municipal Permit #UT0021717 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 18 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. • Biosolids Permit #UTL021717 • Storm Water Permit #UTR000000 The current PCWRF has a monthly average capacity of 16 mgd (flows are discussed in more detail in Section 4.6). Wastewater treatment at the plant consists of initial screening and grit removal, primary sedimentation, aeration, final sedimentation, gravity filtration, and Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The CAS process is operated to provide nitrification to meet the PCWRF current discharge ammonia limits. Solids handling processes include WAS thickening via dissolved air flotation (DAF), primary and secondary anaerobic digestion and solids dewatering using centrifuges. Drying beds are utilized periodically for various operational support functions but are not typically used for solids dewatering. Dewatered solids are either land applied or composted. Ferric salts are added for odor control in the collection system (one location) upstream of the headworks facility. Ferric sulfate is also added to the digested biosolids upstream of the dewatering centrifuges to control struvite formation in the dewatering equipment and piping. The biosolids land application and compost sites are both located in the same area, approximately 35 miles Southwest of the PCWRF. The land application site is a farming enterprise in Southern Utah County operated by Farmland Reserve, Inc. (FRI). The composting facility is managed by the South Utah Valley Solids Waste District. These facilities have been used by PCWRF for land application and composting for many years. They are in full compliance with EPA guidelines and municipal and countywide ordinances that govern their use. The biosolids handling operation will not change significantly with the construction of the new Provo WATRR Center, and will similarly be designed to meet all regulatory and resource protection guidelines. With the exception of Inflow and Infiltration (I/I), which is discussed in Section 4.5, the municipal sewer collection system is completely separate from the storm sewer system, which channels stormwater to basins throughout the City to be detained until it can be safely discharged or retained and allowed to percolate into the groundwater system. The extents of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system are detailed in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 from the Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan (APPENDIX I). Improvements to the system have included reducing the number of lift stations to consolidate flows and improve system hydraulics, particularly in the City’s West Side (west of I-15). The facilities will serve undeveloped areas in the City’s West Side and will potentially serve undeveloped areas in the annexation areas shown in Figure 4-4. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 19 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 4-2 – Sewer System Service Area and Trunk Line Collection Areas (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 20 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 4-3 - Wastewater Collection Facilities (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 21 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 4.4. Effluent Limits Table 4-4 displays the City’s currently permitted effluent limits. Table 4-4 – Current Provo City Effluent Limitations from UPDES Permit #UT0021717 The DWQ is in the process of finalizing three rules related to nutrients in treated wastewater discharges. These will be imposed in addition to the existing UPDES permit requirements for the PCWRF. Current and anticipated DWQ nutrient limits and approximate promulgation timelines are shown in Table 4-2. The TBPEL discharge limit of 1 mg/L goes into effect in 2020. The City was granted a variance until January 1, 2025 to allow sufficient time to make improvements necessary to meet the TBPEL. 4.5. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) An I/I analysis was performed in 2000 and 2008 and was reported in the City’s Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan (APPENDIX I). The results were used to determine the collection system capacity required to serve community growth through its buildout population. Starting in fiscal year 2019, the City has allocated an annual $0.5M for collection system repairs and upgrades to reduce I/I flows. Upgrades to the sewer collection system flow monitoring and lift station SCADA systems allow CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 22 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. these projects to target areas most in need of improvements as system flow capacity is reached or age and damage related degradation occurs. The City’s 2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFA & IFFP) (APPENDIX J) estimates that these projects will result in a reduced growth in I/I flow rates. The ratio of the I/I growth rate to domestic wastewater production growth rate is estimated to be about 0.15:1 resulting in I/I flows being a diminishing portion of the total wastewater influent. Data from the IFA & IFPP are reproduced on the left side of Table 4-5 to illustrate this. Population estimates used for this report have been recently updated. Therefore, values from the report have been proportionally adjusted for current population and flow projections and are represented on the right side of Table 4-5. Table 4-5 – Wastewater Collection System Flow Projections through Buildout Population Year Service Area Projections Reproduced from 2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities Plan1 Service Area Projections Updated Based on Current Flow Projections2 Max Month Domestic Wastewater Production (mgd) Max Month Infiltration2 (mgd) Max Month, Average Daily Flow (mgd) Max Month Domestic Wastewater Production (mgd) Max Month Infiltration2 (mgd) Max Month, Average Daily Flow (mgd) 2019 9.56 9.84 19.4 7.64 7.86 15.5 2020 9.66 9.86 19.52 7.82 7.98 15.8 2021 9.76 9.87 19.63 7.96 8.04 16 2022 9.86 9.89 19.75 8.14 8.16 16.3 2023 9.96 9.9 19.86 8.27 8.23 16.5 2024 10.06 9.92 19.98 8.41 8.29 16.7 2025 10.16 9.93 20.09 8.60 8.40 17 2026 10.26 9.95 20.21 8.73 8.47 17.2 2027 10.36 9.96 20.32 8.92 8.58 17.5 2028 10.45 9.98 20.43 9.05 8.65 17.7 2029 10.55 9.99 20.55 9.24 8.76 18 2030 10.65 10.01 20.66 9.43 8.87 18.3 20353 11.153 10.083 21.233 10.03 9.07 19.1 2040 11.65 10.16 21.81 10.68 9.32 20 Buildout 15.11 10.68 25.79 14.82 10.48 25.3 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 23 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 1. Growth in infiltration is at a ratio of approximately 0.15:1 for future domestic production 2. Values are proportionally adjusted from values in the IFA & IFPP based on updated population and flow projections 3. 2035 Estimates were not included in the IFA & IFPP but were added as it is a key year in the Provo WATRR Center facilities plan. Max Month Domestic Wastewater production was linearly interpolated from previous and proximal values and Infiltration was estimated based on the 0.15:1 ratio assumed. 4.5.1. Sewer Use Ordinance / Resolution and Sewer Maintenance Program The Provo City Sewer Use Ordinance is documented in Chapter 10.03 of the City’s municipal code. This code requires that buildings used for residential occupancy within 300 feet of an available sewer line are connected to the centralized sewer collection system within three years of construction of the line. All new developments must include extension of sewer lines into the new development area at the developer’s expense. Privies, cesspools and septic tanks may not be constructed in City limits and use of small decentralized systems must be discontinued unless the Director of the Water Resources Department deems extension of the sewer mainline as unreasonable and if all public health standards can be met. The code prohibits routing stormwater into the sanitary sewer system and prohibits discharge of pollutants listed in Chapter 10.04. If a user produces prohibited pollutants, pretreatment is required under the provisions of municipal code Chapter 10.04. Chapter 10.03 also requires that the sewer use rates are based on culinary use rates and include a base charge plus a charge based on the flow discharged. It establishes surcharges for discharges with high concentrations of BOD, TSS, and Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG). 4.6. Future Condition The following sections describe community projections and planned development within the City. In keeping with the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, construction of the Provo WATRR Center is part of area wide improvements for responsible development, sustainable resource management, watershed protection, water rights and availability, and appropriate expansion of municipal services. Projections in this section include population, sewer flows, land use, and the effects of the new facility on household economics. 4.6.1. Population and Land Use Projections The population projections are based on those by the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), which were updated in 2018. The 2018 MAG report has not been finalized and published, but the population projections for 2017, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 were made available. Populations were estimated using calculated geometric growth rates for key years including 2018, 2022 when Phase 1 of the project is expected to be commissioned, 2035 when Phase 2 of the project is expected to be commissioned, and 2065 for the purpose of comparing to county-wide growth estimates. The buildout population for Provo is estimated to be 197,000 people based on community land use plans, available resources, and geographical limitations. These values are summarized in Table 4-6. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 24 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 4-6 – Population Projections for Key Years Based on MAG Projections Year (MAG / Census Bureau) Population (MAG / Census Bureau) 2017 MAG Projection 117,335 2018 Estimated1 119,184 2020 MAG Projection 122,971 2022 Estimated1 126,601 2030 MAG Projection 142,223 2035 Estimated1 148,664 2040 MAG Projection 155,397 2050 MAG Projection 159,265 2065 Estimated 165,248 Buildout, Estimated 2136 197,000 1. Key Year for Analysis According to 2017 Population Projections by County developed by the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy institute for the Utah State Governor’s office, Utah County’s population is expected to increase by 77% between 2015 and 2065. The population projections listed in Table 4-6 indicate a 44% increase in the City’s population during the same period. The City’s population is expected to increase at a lower rate than the rest of Utah County because it is an established and largely developed community with natural borders that limit its geographic expansion. The City is bordered on the north and south by Orem and Springville (respectively) and on the east and west by the Wasatch Mountains and Utah Lake (respectively). As a land-locked municipality, the efficient management of resources is becoming a significant focus of municipal improvement efforts. The City’s West Side and much of the areas in potential annexation areas (see Figure 4-4) are largely undeveloped and contain large swaths of developmentally sensitive lands. Therefore, land in the City has become a commodity and much of the anticipated growth in the existing City limits is expected to result from densification efforts within already developed portions of the community rather than expansion into undeveloped areas. Planning and development in the City is heavily dependent on feedback from residents of the City’s various neighborhoods, and in consideration of scarce resources and economic concerns. The Provo WATRR Center will not displace any homes or businesses as a result of construction because it will be constructed at the existing site. Similarly, construction will not significantly affect transportation patterns or environmentally sensitive areas. As the facility does not increase the current plant capacity, it will not change planned development as described in the Provo City General Plan (APPENDIX E). As such, the facility will not result in changes to recreational, industrial, or energy development, nor will it result in housing developments that create strains on utilities and public services. It is not expected to CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 25 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. have any impact on land values. It is a facility designed to improve the sustainability of the community while protecting the quality of downstream water bodies, groundwater, and environmentally sensitive lands. It will be constructed on the existing site, which has housed the facility since 1956. Nuisance sound and odors are well controlled at the existing facility and this practice will continue as part of the design of the new facility. Overall, minimal negative impact on the community is expected. Land use plans are shown on the general planning map in Figure 4-11, which indicates the site of the existing PCWRF as Public Facilities, whose lands are not considered environmentally or developmentally sensitive (as discussed in greater detail in Section 5). All developmentally sensitive lands identified by the City within current City limits (and potential annexation areas) are also indicated on this map. These areas have been identified as developmentally sensitive due to environmental sensitivity, geological hazards, or potential challenges associated with constructability and code requirements. Though many of these areas are planned for potential municipal development, further study is required to determine whether the land is suitable for development or whether the negative environmental impacts of development can be suitably mitigated. A few areas may be annexed into the City over the next several years as the community continues to grow and develop. Many of these areas are currently undeveloped and expected to be developed in the event of annexation. The potential annexation areas are shown in the annexation map in Figure 4-42. This map shows the intended uses for each annexation property, and the challenges associated with each. Many environmentally or developmentally sensitive areas are contained within the annexation areas, as indicated in Figure 4-1. Any development within these annexation areas will be served by the Provo WATRR Center, and will therefore result in improvement or expansion of the existing sewer collection system. However, a full analysis of the environmental impact of developing these areas has not been performed nor is future development in these areas assured. Environmentally sensitive areas within the City and adjacent annexation areas are discussed in Section 5.2. 1 Map from Provo City General Plan Section 1.2.9: https://provo.municipal.codes/GenPlan/1.2.9 2 Map from Provo City General Plan Section 1.2.10: https://provo.municipal.codes/GenPlan/1.2.10 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 26 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 4-4 - Provo City Annexation Policy Map CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 27 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 4.6.2. Forecasts of Flows and Waste Loads Population estimates from 2011 through 2018 were combined with daily flow data from corresponding years to determine average annual per capita flows. The average was determined for all eight years. These flows are summarized in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 – Average Annual and Per Capita Flows 2011-2018 Year Population1 AAD (mgd) AAD Per Capita (gpcd) 2011 115,218 15.5 134.5 2012 115,574 12.8 110.8 2013 116,395 12.6 108.3 2014 115,639 12.4 107.2 2015 114,862 10.9 94.9 2016 116,822 11.4 97.6 2017 117,335 12.4 105.7 2018 119,184 11 92.3 Eight-Year Average: 106.4 The eight-year average was rounded up to an AAD per capita loading of 107 gpcd. This per capita flow was used to project AAD flows through buildout. ADMM, PDF, and PHF flows were also projected through buildout using calculated factors for 2011 to 2018 for these flow conditions. The calculation of these factors is discussed in the Flows and Loads TM is included herein as APPENDIX L. Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) were calculated using the average per capita flow of 107 gpcd and the average household size of 3.2 per the U.S. Census3. Flows / ERUs for key years are shown in Table 4-8. Table 4-8 – Projected Flows for Key Design Years Parameter, Unit Design Flow Factor Projected 2022 Values Projected 2035 Values Buildout Values Population Estimates Based on MAG Projections 126,600 148,700 197,000 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU)2 342 39,688 46,563 61,563 AAD, mgd 1 13.6 15.9 21.1 ADMM, mgd 1.2 16.3 19.1 25.3 3 U.S. Census Bureau (2018), “Quick Facts, Provo City, Utah”. Access date August 29, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/provocityutah/PST045218 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 28 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Parameter, Unit Design Flow Factor Projected 2022 Values Projected 2035 Values Buildout Values PDF, mgd 1.8 24.5 28.7 37.9 PHF1, mgd 2.4 32.6 38.3 50.6 Hydraulic Design Flow, mgd - 16 16 24 1. The PHF used in the design of all facilities is the adjusted PHF as discussed in the Flows and Loads TM. 2. Estimates Based on Average Per Capita Flow of 107 gpcd and Calculated in Flows and Loads TM and 3.2 persons per household per U.S. Census Bureau data3. 342 gallons Wastewater Produced per Day per ERU was used for this calculation. Flow projections are extrapolated from current wastewater flows and population projections. They are inclusive of day use visitors and university student usage, which are assumed to increase proportionally with population. Municipal day use attractions are not projected to change significantly and are intrinsic to the calculation of projected flows, as are seasonal flow changes that are captured in average day maximum month (ADMM) flow calculations. Seasonal and diurnal flows are evaluated in the Flows and Loads TM (APPENDIX Land are incorporated into plant design accordingly. Historical loadings for key wastewater constituents are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 – Historical Loadings at Existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility Average Day Maximum Month - 92nd Percentile Loadings COD BOD5 TSS NH3-N TKN Ortho-P TP Year ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd 2011 55,699 24,431 24,321 411 685 2012 56,516 30,451 25,417 317 521 2013 58,831 31,263 25,903 410 680 2014 53,228 24,000 31,732 2,792 3,723 - - 2015 46,574 23,666 23,965 2,792 4,137 299 463 2016 49,338 20,152 25,736 2,689 4,137 310 516 2017 52,037 19,406 24,795 2,585 4,033 296 553 2018 47,207 20,258 19,928 2,896 4,343 285 541 These loadings were used to determine per capita loadings and to project loading rates to the plant for the design of the Provo WATRR Center as summarized in Table 4-10. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 29 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 4-10 – Summary of Wastewater Flows and Characteristics for Maximum Monthly Values Parameter Phase 1 Loading, ppd Buildout Loading, ppd Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 69,000 92,000 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 29,000 39,000 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 36,000 48,000 Ammonia (NH3) 3,700 4,900 Total Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN) 5,600 7,400 Orthophosphate (Ortho-P) 450 600 Total Phosphorus (TP) 780 1,000 Refer to the Flows and Loads TM attached herein as APPENDIX L for further details about population, flows, and loads. 4.6.3. Flow Reduction Flow reduction programs with respect to the sewer collection system include public education / outreach efforts. The Provo City Public Works 2018 Water Quality Report (APPENDIX R) includes suggestions for water conservation such as: • Using low-flow shower heads and reducing the length of time showering • Minimizing baths in favor of showers for more conservative water usage • Retrofitting toilets for lower flows or reducing tank capacity • Replacing appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers with lower flow counterparts • Adjusting clothes washing machine settings to the proper load size for optimal water usage • Using a dishwasher rather than handwashing dishes Additional wastewater flow reduction policies that the City employs include: • Maintaining and improving a stormwater drainage system separate from the wastewater collection system • Encouraging proper storm drainage / storm filtration systems for newly constructed commercial developments that include large parking areas • Monitoring the collection system for leaks that allow increased I/I flows • Allocation of $0.5M annually for I/I upgrades based on monitoring system results 4.6.4. Waste Load Analysis The most recent Waste Load Analysis was conducted in 2015 in connection with the permit renewal process. Another will be required in 2021 with the next upcoming permitting cycle. To maintain the beneficial use of receiving waters, the analysis is used to determine the allowable water quality point source discharges. Per the City’s UPDES permit, the PCWRF discharges to the Mill Race Canal, which has the beneficial uses shown in Table 4-11. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 30 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 4-11 – Mill Race Receiving Stream Beneficial Use Designations1 Stream Classification Description Class 2B Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for secondary contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of bodily contact with the water. Examples include, but are not limited to wading, hunting and fishing Class 3B Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain Class 4 Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering 1. Information from UPDES Permit No. UT0021717 ADDENDUM: 2015 Wasteload Analysis and Antidegradation Level I Review – Final At the time of the Waste Load Analysis, the Mill Race was not listed as impaired for any of these beneficial uses and the downstream water body, Utah Lake, was listed as impaired for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), TP and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue. Results of the Waste Load analysis identify TSS, DO, BOD, TP, TN, TAN, pH, and total residual chlorine (TRC) as parameters of concern for the UPDES permit writers. Combined with modeling efforts, this analysis was used to develop the effluent limitations discussed in Section 4.4. Since the Waste Load Analysis, pursuant to the findings of the 2016 Integrated report (APPENDIX H), the Provo Bay portion of Utah Lake was listed as impaired for its 3B classification due to pH and Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) but has been delisted for TDS. The remainder of Utah Lake remains impaired for its Class 3B and 4 Classifications due to TDS, PCBs in fish tissue, and TP. However, as of the 2016 Integrated Report, the lake was also listed as impaired for its Class 2B status due to Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB). 5. Environmental Review The Provo WATRR Center is to be constructed at the existing PCWRF site. Because the plant has been in operation since 1956, the extents of the plant’s environmental impacts are well understood. Furthermore, the discharge loadings to receiving waters are expected to be improved by community goals that will result in the selection of sophisticated treatment processes capable of producing a higher quality effluent. Future groundwater recharge or water reuse expansions may further reduce nutrient loadings to receiving waters. For these reasons, an analysis is currently being performed to determine the applicability of Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) from an environmental review. Pending the results of this analysis, a Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated. 5.1. Environmental Information The following sections detail the physical environment of the Provo City service area. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 31 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 5.1.1. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology The Utah Lake Basin describes the watersheds critical to the City, with the Provo River basin being the most significant. The City is located in the lower reach of the Provo River basin, which originates in the high Uintah Mountain range. Flow from the high Uintahs to Jordanelle Reservoir is considered the upper section of the Provo River. Flows between Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoir are considered the middle Provo River, and the lower portion of the Provo River flows from Deer Creek through the City to the Provo Bay area of Utah Lake. The Utah Lake Basin receives an annual average of 18 inches of precipitation, the majority of which flows by way of rivers and streams to Utah Lake. Over half of inflows to Utah Lake are discharged to the Jordan River, and 42% are lost to evaporation due to the shallowness and relatively large surface area of the lake. Approximately 7% of flows from Utah Lake infiltrate into the underlying aquifers. Utah Lake is not a major recharge source to confined aquifers in surrounding cities as the water level of the lake is below the water level of these aquifers. Instead, this 7% of groundwater flows is largely conveyed to unconfined aquifers that seep into the Jordan River or seep into Salt Lake Valley Aquifers. The main sources of drinking water for the City are groundwater springs in Provo Canyon and Rock Canyon. Additional groundwater is produced from deep water wells throughout the City as indicated in Section 5.3, which discusses water quality and quantity. Wetlands and floodplains exist around the Provo River and near the shores of Utah Lake (see Section 5.2). Utah Lake is the surface water discharge point for various wastewater treatment plants and stormwater systems in Utah County, including the existing PCWRF. An average of 308,000 acre-ft of water flows annually via Utah Lake to the Jordan River tributary that terminates at the Great Salt Lake. 5.1.2. Physiography, Topography, Geology and Soils The City is located at the border between two physiographic provinces: The Basin and Range Province and the Middle Rocky Mountains, as can be seen in Figure 5-1. The Basin and Range Province is characterized by north-south fault-tilted mountain ranges. The mountain ranges are separated by broad basins (typically 12-31 miles apart) and bounded on one or both sides by faults. The basins are lacustrine sediment filled, and rock formations within the province vary widely in age and composition. The mountains of this province typically have a steep slope on one side and a gentle slope on the other reflecting the tilted fault block. The Middle Rocky Mountains Province, by contrast, consists of a mountainous terrain with stream valleys and alluvial basins. The Wasatch range portion contains mostly sedimentary and silica plutonic rocks. The borders of the two physiographic regions are shown in the topographic map in Figure 5-2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 32 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-1 – Physiographic Provivince Map Figure 5-2 – Provo City Topographical Map CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 33 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. The Provo WATRR Center Project is located in Utah Valley, west of the Wasatch Mountain Front, and east of the Provo Bay of Utah Lake. A geotechnical survey performed at the site indicates the geology of the area was formed by numerous tectonic and volcanic events that caused thrusting, folding, and intrusion of rock layers, as well as glacial and fluvial scouring. The lifting event that formed the Wasatch Mountains occurred 12-17 million years ago. Seismic events, runoff from mountain streams into Utah Valley, and erosion and deposition from Lake Bonneville and two other large lake events have provided the wide variety of sediment deposits. Sediments near the mountain front are predominantly sand and gravel. Sediments toward the center of the valley contain clay, silt, and fine sand deposits. A map of the project planning area soil composition can be seen in Figure 5-3 from the geotechnical study performed for this project. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 34 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-3 - Soil Types in Project Planning Area The Provo City service area is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes are possible anywhere in Utah but are most likely to occur along the Wasatch Front, which includes the City. The map shown in Figure 5-4, developed by MAG, indicates areas of high landslide or liquefaction potential, as well as CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 35 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. nearby fault lines. The service area contains areas with high landslide potential in the Northern and Eastern parts of the City. Fault lines pass through this same area. The site of the wastewater treatment plant is relatively flat and free of impeding geological features. The City logo indicates the location of the PCWRF site, which is in an area of high liquefaction. A geotechnical study conducted at the site indicated that although liquefaction is likely during a seismic event, the lateral spreading typically associated with liquefaction is not likely to occur because the site is relatively flat and without free face features. However, significant settling may occur as a result of liquefaction during seismic events. Figure 5-4 – Seismic Map of the Provo City Service SArea Mitigation of these risk areas will require working closely with the project’s geotechnical team to develop a structural design and ground improvements plan that will prevent excessive settling in the event of seismic activity. A deep foundation system will improve seismic performance but may be costly. A shallow foundation plan will require ground improvements for improved seismic performance, including the use of stone columns or Rammed Aggregate Pier (RAP) systems, which may be a cost-effective option compared with a deep foundation system. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 36 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 5.1.3. Weather and Climate The City is in a semi-arid region with an annual rainfall of approximately 18 inches, based on data from the National Weather Service (NWS) over the period from 1981 to 2018. Monthly average high temperatures in summer are 82.5°F (daytime high temperature of 108°F), and monthly average winter low temperatures are 19.7°F (low temperature of -20°F) as shown in Figure 5-5. Figure 5-5 - Monthly Climate Statistics, Provo Utah (1981-2018) Prevailing winds are in the Northwest direction on an annual basis, but the direction varies slightly month to month as shown in Table 5-1. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 37 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 5-1 - Utah Prevailing Wind Direction Utah Prevailing Wind Direction Weather Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Bryce Canyon AP, UT (KBCE). W W W W W W W W W W W W W Canyonlands AP-Moab, UT (KCN) NW W W W W SW SE E W W W NW W Cedar City AP, UT (KCDC). SSW SW SSW SSW SSW SSW SW SSW SSW SW N SSW SSW Logan Airport, UT (KLGU). W N N N N N N N S N N N N N Milford Airport, UT (KMLF). S SSW S SSW S SSW SSW S S S S S S Ogden Airport, UT (KOGD). W SSE S SSE S S S S S S S S S S Ogden-Hill AFB, UT (KHIF). E E E E E E E E E E E E E Price-Carbon County AP, UT N N N N N N N N N N N N N Provo Muni AP, YT (KPVU). W NW NW NW NW NW NW SE SE SE SE SSE SSE NW Salt Lake City AP, UT (KSLC) S S SSE SSE SSE S SSE SSE SSE SE SE S SSE St. George Muni AP, UT (KSGU) E ENE ENE W W W W ENE ENE ENE E E ENE Vernal Airport, UT (KVEL). W W WNW W W W W W W W WNW W W Wendover AP, UT (KENV). WIN NW NW E NW E E E E E E E E E Data From The Western Regional Climate Center: https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 38 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan DRAFT 201223.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Several weather conditions that cause short-term water and air quality problems occur in the planning area for the Provo WATRR Center. These conditions include heavy winds, thunderstorms, heat waves and drought conditions that promote the spread of wildfire, cold waves that lead to temperature inversions, and heavy precipitation events that lead to urban runoff and flooding. These will not impair the feasibility of constructing the project. However, the design must incorporate features to address extreme weather events. Basins will be adequately designed to accommodate peak flow conditions. Odor and emissions control measures will be incorporated to reduce plant emissions. Facilities will be constructed to meet 2018 International Building Codes. In addition to the capture of biogas and nuisance odor, plant processes are designed to accommodate seasonal fluctuations in temperature and precipitation without exceeding permitted effluent limits. Equalization basins will moderate flow through the plant to minimize the impact of flow and load fluctuations on water quality and emissions. Construction of the project may have short-term effects on air quality that will be addressed during the permitting process. Once construction is complete, the project is not expected to have more significant impacts on air quality than the existing plant. 5.2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas The following sections detail environmentally sensitive areas within the City’s planning area. Because the existing PCWRF site is currently owned and operated as a wastewater treatment facility, the site is already zoned as public facilities land. Within the area of construction, there are minimal environmentally sensitive features. The proposed Provo WATRR Center does not modify or eliminate recreational open space, parks or areas of scenic or recreational value. It is therefore unnecessary to attempt to combine the project with parks and other recreational projects. Land use designations and areas designated by the City as environmentally sensitive can be seen in Figure 4-1. 5.2.1. Historical & Archaeological The map shown in Figure 5-6 from MAG shows the historic sites on the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, APPENDIX M lists all sites on the National Register of Historic Places that are located within Utah County. Most of the historic sites in the City are within the historic district outlined in red in Figure 5-6. None of the registered properties are near or in the site for the Provo WATRR Center, and construction of the plant will not impact existing historic places. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 39 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan DRAFT 201223.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-6 – Sites with Historic / Archaeological Significance 5.2.2. Flood Plains The City planning area contains 100-year flood plains, particularly near Utah Lake and along the Provo River. Figure 5-7 is a map of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains in and around the City as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The existing PCWRF site is indicated by the City logo, and an image in the top left-hand corner shows an enlarged view of the plant site with the floodplain areas superimposed. As this image indicates, the Provo WATRR Center site will not be constructed directly on a 100-year flood plain. However, the Southern and Western portions of the site are in a 100-year flood plain. No new processes will be constructed in this area. The current / future UV disinfection facility is constructed on this area of the site, but the elevation of the channel walls exceeds the 500-year floodplain elevation. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 40 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-7 - Provo City Flood Plain Map Provo City Floodplain map obtained from http://maps.provo.org/downloads/provo_flood_plain_map.pdf CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 41 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 5.2.3. Wetlands The City planning area contains wetlands as shown in Figure 5-8. These wetlands are predominantly along the shoreline of the Provo River and Utah Lake and the inland intrusion of the lake east and southeast of Provo Bay. The PCWRF site contains no natural wetlands. The image on the righthand side of Figure 5-8 indicates the site designations from the National Wetland Inventory. This site indicates each of the PCWRF treatment processes as Freshwater Ponds with a designation of PABKx. This designation indicates Palustrine (small, shallow, freshwater basin) Aquatic Beds Artificially Flooded and Excavated by humans. This designation of wetland is entirely dependent on an artificially provided water source, such as by siphons or pumps, and is not considered a reliable water regime. A Section 404 Permit is not anticipated as necessary, as all onsite designations by the National Wetland Inventory are associated with active treatment processes rather than natural or permanent wetlands. The project will not result in any direct or indirect expansion into natural or permanent wetland areas. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 42 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-8 - Wetland Areas within Provo (left) and at the Provo WATRR Center Site (right) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 43 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 5.2.4. Agricultural There are no protected agricultural lands within the current municipal borders of the City; although, some residential farmland of unique or statewide importance is contained within City limits. Scattered lands throughout the City, if cultivated and irrigated, may be suitable for prime agricultural land. The City has enacted municipal policies that protect land zoned as agricultural from being subdivided and converted from agricultural use and has designated applicable farmlands as developmentally sensitive (see Figure 4-1) and in need of further study before development may occur. However, none of these zoned areas are within the plant site. The Provo WATRR Center project will not result in direct or indirect impacts on agricultural lands, which are indicated in Figure 5-9 developed by MAG. Figure 5-9 - Provo City Agricultural Lands 5.2.5. Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has only one designation in Utah, the Virgin River, in Southwestern Utah. The Provo WATRR Center and the associated service area will not affect this area, CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 44 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. which is too distant from the planning area to be impacted and is not hydraulically connected to the effluent receiving waters of the Provo WATRR Center. Figure 5-10 - Utah Wild and Scenic Rivers 5.2.6. Fish and Wildlife Protection: Flora, Fauna, and Natural Communities According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a Total of nine (9) threatened and endangered species are found in the vicinity of Utah County. Of those, four (4) species are found within the City planning area. Most of the species do not have critical habitats within the City except for the June sucker, which has a critical habitat in the lower reach of the Provo River between Deer Creek Reservoir to Utah Lake. The threatened and endangered species that may be found in the City’s planning area are summarized in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 – Threatened and Endangered Species in Provo City Planning Area Group Common Name Scientific Name Population Status Critical Habitats Birds Yellow- billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Western U.S. DPS Threatened No critical habitats in planning area CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 45 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Group Common Name Scientific Name Population Status Critical Habitats Fishes June sucker Chasmistes liorus Wherever found Endangered (Pending Reclassification as Threatened) Lower reach of Provo River = Critical Habitat Flowering Plants Ute ladies'- tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Wherever found Threatened No published critical habitats Mammals Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. Threatened No Critical Habitats in planning area Information from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Threatened and Endangered Species by County Report (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=49049) The Provo WATRR Center facility is not expected to have any impact on threatened and endangered species, habitats of endangered species, or migratory routes, wintering, or calving areas. Because the site has already been developed for its intended use, the impacts from the facility have been realized. Although the planning area does contain one critical habitat (the lower reach of the Provo River), that habitat is not in an area where the construction of the Provo WATRR Center will take place and will not be impacted by construction of the plant. Though Provo Bay is not classified as a critical habitat for the June sucker, it has been identified as an important post-spawning habitat. Provo Bay is downstream of the Provo WATRR Center discharge point. The Provo WATRR Center design will result in a higher effluent quality that the current PCWRF effluent. It will not negatively impact the bay’s current water quality (See Section 4.6.2). 5.2.7. Air Quality The Provo WATRR Center planning area is in an area that the Utah State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) applies. The SIP estimates Utah population growth at an annual rate of 1.5%. Using the MAG population projections discussed in Section 4.6.1, the annual geometric growth rates (assuming a constant rate within each period) are shown in Table 5-3. Only one period slightly exceeds the SIP estimate: the period from 2017 to 2020, but this rate also precedes the period of growth relevant to construction of the Provo WATRR Center. Growth rates in each subsequent period are anticipated to decline. This is because the City is an area that is largely developed and expansion geographically limited by mountains, water bodies, and neighboring municipalities. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 46 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 5-3 - Population Growth Rates Based on MAG Projections Population at Beginning of Period Population at End of Period Number of Years Annual Growth Rate 2017 – 2020 117,335 122,971 3 1.58% 2020 – 2030 112,971 142,223 10 1.47% 2030 – 2040 142,223 155,397 10 0.89% 2040 – 2050 155,397 159,265 10 0.25% The construction of the Provo WATRR Center will not increase plant capacity, and odor control measures are intrinsic to the project’s design to prevent odor nuisance issues. A study performed in conjunction with the recent regionalization study (see APPENDIX O) found that nuisance odors are not problematic around the current plant and sludge disposal areas, and the Provo WATRR Center is expected to maintain or exceed current performance. As the City’s population grows, wastewater loads are expected to increase proportionally. This is correlated with an increase in plant emissions. However, a greater portion of the produced biogases are expected to be utilized for energy production in the future, reducing the portion of waste gas that is burned off. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that govern allowable emissions are listed in Table 5-4. The City is classified as a non-attainment area for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. As with the current plant, all direct emissions from the Provo WATRR Center will meet federal, state, and local emissions standards, and will not impede the City’s attainment of emissions standards. All emissions are localized and sufficiently distant from state borders that there is no reasonable expectation of negative impact on bordering states. Table 5-4 – National Ambient Air Quiality Standards1 Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level Form Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm Lead (Pb)2 Primary and Secondary Rolling 3 month average 0.15 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Primary 1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years Primary and Secondary3 1 year 53 ppb Annual Mean Ozone (O3) Primary and Secondary4 8 hours 0.070 ppm Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 47 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level Form Particle Pollution (PM) PM2.5 Primary 1 year 12.0 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years Secondary 1 year 15.0 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years Primary and Secondary 24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years PM10 Primary and Secondary 24 hours 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary5 1 hour 75 ppb5 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1. Table from https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. 2. In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. 3. The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level. 4. Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. 5. The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2)any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS. 5.3. Water Quality and Quantity Water Quality and Quantity data have been obtained from the City’s 2010 Water System Master Plan (APPENDIX K) and the 2019 Water Conservation Management Plan. The latter was adopted in late 2019, and a draft copy can be found in APPENDIX F. Figure 5-11 and Table 5-5 show the location of the seventeen existing wells in the City as indicated in the City’s 2010 Water System Master Plan, and the general location of Canyon Springs, a natural water source that the City uses to develop its culinary water supply. The Fort Utah well is drilled, but due to low water quality is not utilized for the City’s water supply. The City Center Well is currently used for CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 48 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. cooling purposes only. The fifteen remaining wells are used to supply culinary water to the City, including the BYU Well for Helaman Halls, which is owned by BYU and operated by the City. The 2010 Water System Master Plan indicates an additional eight wells that may be drilled and developed to service future community needs. In addition, municipal water originating from springs located in Provo Canyon and Rock Canyon are available, including water obtained by exchanges for Provo River water rights. Additional spring water development is planned at the Big Springs area in the South Fork of Provo Canyon to service future community development. The City owns rights to a portion of the storage capacity at Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs (located up Provo Canyon) and has a contract that allows them up to 1,800 acre-feet/year of Central Utah Project (CUP) water stored in Jordanelle Reservoir. As of 2010, the dry year production capacity of all the sources is 49,135 acre-feet/year, which is projected to be approximately 56,215 acre-feet/year once all projected water sources are developed to meet Buildout capacity. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 49 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 5-11 – Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production Table 5-5 - Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production Name Location Pumping Capacity (gpm) Notes Rock Canyon Well 2000 N. West Temple Dr. 3,400 Redrilled 2019, new equipment to be installed to put it back into service North Well 2230 North 350 West 5,000 Active CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 50 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Name Location Pumping Capacity (gpm) Notes Edgemont Well 3600 North 200 East 4,000 Active Brough Well 1300 Columbia Lane 1,200 Active 4800 North Well 4,800 North Approx. 350 West 2,300 Active 5600 North Well 5600 North 300 West 1,100 Active City Center Well City Center n/a Active, for cooling only 3700 North Well 3700 North 350 West 3,750 Active 88 Well 800 North 800 West 2,100 Active Utility Well 700 North 225 West 1,100 Active Slate Canyon Well 742 South Slate Canyon Drive 450 Active Fort Utah Fort Utah n/a Drilled; Not used due to Water Quality issues Riverwoods 4750 North University Ave. 1,300 Active Canyon Road 2737 North Canyon Road 2,500 Active Timpview 750 East 3280 North 900 Active BYU Well (Helaman Halls) 2100 North 3rd East 2,200 Active Thorn Well 754 South Slate Canyon 400 Active Intermediate TBD Drilling Halted Harmon Park 200 South 850 East Future Bicentennial Well 1600 E. 1440 S. Future Kiwanis 1019 N. 1100 E. Future Lion Park 950 W. 1280 N. Drilled. Not in Service Exchange Park 900 N. 700 W. Future Westridge 1720 W. 1460 N. Under Design North Intermediate TBD Future The discharge point for the PCWRF is the Mill Race Canal, which flows to Provo Bay and Utah Lake, discharges to the Jordan River and ultimately discharges into the Great Salt Lake. Utah Lake has long been the discharge point for treated and untreated municipal and industrial wastewater treatment CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 51 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. plants in surrounding areas, as well as for stormwater and nonpoint source urban runoff. This has caused eutrophic conditions in the lake resulting from high nutrient loadings. A current Utah Lake Water Quality Study is being conducted by Utah’s DWQ to determine appropriate nutrient loading limits that are protective of Utah Lake’s designated beneficial uses. For wastewater treatment facilities, the Utah Lake study may result in TP limits well below the current TBPEL limit of 1 mg/L and is anticipated to result in TIN limits of 10 mg/L or less. The new Provo WATRR Center has been designed to meet existing and anticipated effluent standards for the receiving waters and carries the operational flexibility and design modularity to address more stringent nutrient limits as they come about. The effluent discharged from the newly constructed facility is expected to be of higher quality than current PCWRF effluent and sufficient to reduce overall loadings to Provo Bay with respect to current permit limits. This is due to the addition of membrane filtration and a chemical dosing facility for phosphorus removal, which are intrinsic to the plant’s design. The addition of membrane filtration will not only promote higher quality effluent discharged to receiving waters but may also allow the future development of water reuse applications. This may further reduce the total loading to receiving waters in the future. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation that the receiving stream water quality will be changed or that groundwater supplies will be negatively impacted. The City’s public policy of responsible development includes policies and practices designed to protect and rehabilitate its water bodies. Sediment pollution and urban stormwater runoff are major nonpoint sources of water-body impairment, particularly in urban areas. Pollutants in undeveloped environments are absorbed and naturally filtered through soil before being discharged to surface water bodies. However, in highly developed urban areas, pollutants are concentrated on impervious surfaces such as parking lots and driveways and urban stormwater runoff then washes the pollutants, concentrated and unfiltered, to surface water bodies. The City’s stormwater system is separate from its sanitary sewage collection system. The City has developed and followed a Master Stormwater Facilities plan that provides specific recommendations for channeling direct urban runoff to detention basins until it can be safely discharged or retained and allowed to percolate into the shallow groundwater aquifer. Furthermore, the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan (APPENDIX S) calls for new development of large impervious surfaces such as parking lots to be designed to provide retention and filtration of stormwater runoff prior to discharge. The City employs a policy of providing public information and educational materials about the importance of proper disposal of chemicals and municipal participation in Household Hazardous Waste disposal programs. These programs are intended to reduce the negative impacts of nonpoint water quality problems as continued community development takes place. The City has adequate water rights to service the community through its buildout capacity assuming its conservation goals are met. Of greater concern is the availability of wet water for withdrawal from aquifers. The legal availability of water rights may be adversely affected by the practical availability of wet water to supply those rights. This is a guiding reason that a key project driver (see APPENDIX B) for the Provo WATRR Center is to produce reuse quality effluent that can be used as a resource to meet the community’s increasing water demand. Even with the incorporation of reuse measures, the City will not meet its projected water demand if it does not meet its conservation goal of reducing per capita water use by 25%. To that end, the City maintains an aggressive maintenance plan, investing $0.5M per year in replacement of its culinary water CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 52 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. system mainline to minimize water loss in aging and degrading pipelines. Acoustic sound equipment and an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) system are used to detect and identify leaks as well as provide feedback to users about their use habits. The SCADA system is also being updated to provide a higher degree of control and detection. Secondary water is currently being used for irrigation at five city parks, the BYU campus, around the existing PCWRF, and at the East Bay Golf Course. Future secondary uses are being considered as opportunities come available. Rain sensing equipment is used at City parks to detect rainfall and cycle off irrigation systems when sufficient rainfall is available. Seasonal rate structures, soon to be replaced with a tiered rate structure, and public awareness programs are used to discourage overuse of water. City ordinances forbid water wastage and allow water use restrictions to be placed in the event of water scarcity. Upcoming municipal water conservation projects may include xeriscaping of all city projects, tiered rate structures, continued metering and monitoring of the distribution system, and water reuse projects. The project is not expected to cause significant transfer of one watershed sub-basin to another, nor are negative impacts on downstream habitats expected as a result of flow changes. The plant’s capacity is not expected to exceed currently permitted flows until the community approaches its buildout capacity, which is not expected until after the year 2100. 5.4. Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Provo WATRR Center are discussed in each of the previous sections. In summary, environmental impacts are expected to be minimal. The site was originally developed as a wastewater treatment facility in 1956, and most of the environmental impact associated with the site is considered to have already taken place. The site contains no permanent wetlands, protected agricultural lands, wild and scenic rivers, critical habitats or historic sites. The existing UV facility is on a FEMA-defined 100-year floodplain, but the channel walls exceed the 500-year floodplain elevation. The facility is not planned for reconstruction as part of this project. The plant capacity will not be increased as a result of facility construction, and effluent quality is expected to improve with respect to the currently permitted effluent limits, especially with the implementation of treatment processes to meet new and anticipated effluent nutrient limits. Therefore, the impact on downstream surface and groundwater bodies is expected to be negligible or positive. 5.4.1. Public Health Construction of the Provo WATRR Center will include odor control facilities at the headworks, and fine screening facilities, where nuisance odors are likely to occur. The solids stream process will consist of anaerobic digesters for biosolids stabilization. Class B biosolids will continue to be produced, which have specific limitations associated with pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction that mitigate vector attraction at the plant and at the biosolids composting area. The composting area is also equipped with an odor control facility to further reduce the risk vector attraction. The solids handling facilities will be fully enclosed and covered to prevent release of fugitive odors and biogas. Biogas will be combusted or captured to supply heat energy to the plant. Odor control facilities will be expanded. No known public health problems associated with inadequate sewer services or disposal are known. There are no unique public health risks associated with the construction of the Provo WATRR Center, nor is there any reasonable expectation of increased risk to public health and safety. Furthermore, the improved and CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 53 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. updated system may increase the overall effectiveness of odor and vector attraction measures. In addition, any public health risk presented by recreational use of Provo Bay and Utah Lake due to poor water quality or harmful algal blooms will not be exacerbated by future plant operation. Utah County regulates noise for public works zones under the same classification as industrial. Areas zoned as industrial are permitted noise levels of up to 80 decibels (dB) at a distance of 25 feet from the source of the noise for 24 hours a day. The City’s noise ordinance limits the noise level for industrial zones to 85 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the source of the noise. This limitation applies to continuous noises that are a normal part of “business and commerce.” The existing PCWRF is currently in compliance with all city and county noise ordinances, and the sounds produced by the new Provo WATRR Center are not expected to change. Construction of the Provo WATRR Center may result in some temporary noise disturbance. However, all sound provisions will be addressed as part of the construction permitting process. 5.5. Mitigating Adverse Impacts Because the impacts of the Provo WATRR Center are expected to be minimal or positive, mitigation of adverse impacts will be limited to employing responsible construction practices, implementing effective and efficient equipment, and maintaining strict compliance with all building permits and environmental laws. 6. Development of Alternatives The alternatives analyzed for implementation of the Provo WATRR Center design are included in the following subsections. The service area is projected to grow and expand as detailed in Section 4.6. Effluent water quality, as dictated by anticipated regulatory changes, has been a key driver of the need for a new or upgraded facility. The City’s future water resource management will necessitate the eventual reuse of water resources in order to meet future demands. As such, the plant’s effluent water quality is a key consideration in each of the evaluated alternatives. In addition to water quality objectives, are the community’s water conservation objectives. Budgetary constraints are an important consideration of any municipal improvement project, as are permitting, maintenance of current operations, and constructability issues. The following sections detail all considered alternatives, including a discussion of the key advantages and disadvantages associated with them. 6.1. Development of Alternatives 6.1.1. No Action The No Action alternative involves making no efforts to replace, upgrade, and expand operations at the current plant, with the exception of ordinary repairs and maintenance necessary for continued operation. Anticipated regulatory changes, projected flows and loads, and a condition and risk assessment of the existing plant’s liquid- and solid-stream processes were the critical factors evaluated to determine the viability of a no action alternative. This alternative is evaluated in detail and discussed in Section 7.10.1. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 54 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 6.1.2. Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility The alternative to upgrade the existing PCWRF is an expansion of the No Action alternative. As with the No Action alternative, this alternative includes all maintenance and repairs necessary to allow continued plant operation and addresses the safety of existing processes and facilities, required plant capacity, the time and money spent on maintaining unreliable equipment, the availability of spare equipment for critical plant processes, and the ability of current processes to reasonably meet anticipated regulatory requirements and permitted effluent limitations. The WRF Master Plan (APPENDIX N) was prepared for Provo City in 2014. It identified future regulations, capacity needs, and risk of failure and criticality and provides planning documents with a proposed budget and process designed to meet key objectives and regulatory requirements. The finding of the WRF Master Plan was that significant upgrades to nearly every facility are required to meet current and anticipated discharge requirements and to mitigate the risk of failure of critical structures and equipment. The WRF Master Plan outlined a phased approach to performing the necessary upgrade and refurbishment project. A summary of each of the project drivers, planned phases, and recommended improvements is provided in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 – Summary of Planned Improvements and Estimated Costs Phase Anticipated Completion Date Phase 1 2020 Phase 2 2025 Buildout Approx. 2060 AAF (MGD) 16.0 18.0 21 ADMM (MGD) 17.4 19.4 22.7 PHF (MGD) 33.6 37.8 44.1 Primary Drivers • Phosphorus Rule • Capacity • Replace Trickling Filters • Operational Improvements • Equipment Maintenance and Refurbishment • Nitrogen Rule • Possible Modification to Phosphorus Rule • Capacity • Equipment Maintenance and Refurbishment • Capacity • Equipment and Facility Maintenance and Refurbishment Process Replacement, Upgrades & Expansion • Chemical Feed • Centrate Return Equalization • Aeration System Replacement • Use all existing ABs (4+0) • Add one Final Clarifier (4+1) • Use both anaerobic digesters (2+0) • Convert to MLE for Nitrogen Removal • Add one Aeration Basin (5+0) • Add on Final Clarifier (5+1) • Add one Anaerobic Digester (3+0) • Equipment Replacement • Optional Items • Add one Aeration Basin (6+0) • Add one Final Clarifier (6+1) • Equipment and Facility Replacement CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 55 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Phase Anticipated Completion Date Phase 1 2020 Phase 2 2025 Buildout Approx. 2060 • Equipment Replacement • Optional Items o Operations Building o Biogas Utilization o Trickling Filter Demolition o Add Anaerobic Zone for Enhanced Biological P Removal This alternative was evaluated in-depth as part of the WRF Master Plan, and a discussion evaluating the alternative in detail is in Section 7.10.2. 6.1.3. Total Containment Total containment basins, or evaporation basins, are used to contain all WWTP effluent for evaporation, and infrequent discharge as necessary, usually once or twice per year. This option was not considered as a viable solution for the City. The periodic discharges from the containment basins are meant to coincide with runoff events in order to absorb the loading shocks that will otherwise affect receiving waters. For a plant with inflows as large as Provo City’s (24 mgd expected when buildout capacity is reached), this approach is impractical. Insufficient land exists on the current site to construct a facility with a surface area sufficient to promote adequate evaporation. In Northern Utah, winter evaporation is limited due to cold ambient temperatures. With such large daily flows, collection and periodic discharge of wastewater, will overwhelm receiving waters and cause flooding. 6.1.4. Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters Three main liquid stream biological treatment processes were considered for the Provo WATRR Center: Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), and Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS). Their relative merits are discussed in the Process Selection TM, which is included in this document as APPENDIX P. In consideration of the project drivers and treatment goals, each of these options was evaluated including BNR processes for NdeN and biological phosphorus removal (with an ancillary chemical phosphorus removal facility for use during system upsets or if the TBPEL is reduced below 1 mg/L). Traditional coarse screening and grit removal technologies were included with primary clarifiers downstream of grit removal and followed by fine screening facilities and the bioreactors. Tertiary filtration was added to the CAS and AGS options to meet community treatment and sustainability goals and to promote future reuse of plant effluent. The addition of tertiary filtration is not required for the MBR system, that includes membrane filtration. UV disinfection was included because it was recently constructed and is typically the most effective disinfection process for systems with tertiary filtration. Effluent from the liquid stream process is assumed to be discharged to the Mill Race, which ultimately discharges to Utah Lake. This is consistent with the current PCWRF UPDES permitted effluent loadings. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 56 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. As evaluated, each of the three systems was designed as capable of achieving a similarly high-quality effluent and all three fit the available footprint. The MBR carries an overall lower capital cost and a lower overall 20-year NPV as shown in Table 6-2. An MBR liquid stream process was selected and is discussed further in Section 8. The costs associated with MBR are likewise discussed in further detail in Section 7.2. Table 6-2 – Capital Costs and 20-Year Net Present Value of Treatment Systems1 Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS) Process Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Process Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) Process Estimated Capital Costs $325M $265M $283M 20-Year Net Present Value of Project $382M $338M $355M 1. Information from Process Selection Technical Memorandum (APPENDIX P) Table 3-2 6.1.5. Land Application Land Application, as defined by EPA Manual 625/1-81-013, is a treatment method in which wastewater is land applied and the water is treated as it flows through the soil and root systems it passes through. Typical land treatment processes include Slow Rate processes, Rapid Infiltration Basins, and Overland Flow processes. Land application systems are limited by the hydraulic capacity of the land and the nitrogen removal capability of the treatment vegetation. This type of system is typically suitable for small service areas with relatively low flows and/or large undeveloped plots of land available in areas that are not environmentally sensitive. This is not applicable to the City, which is a land-locked municipality with its undeveloped lands predominantly in developmentally sensitive areas (refer to Sections 4 & 5). Land application was not considered as a viable treatment alternative for the City because the site of the existing plant has insufficient area (about 66 acres) to implement such a system (See Table 6-3). The City does not own land of sufficient size and environmental resilience to recommend such development. Additionally, while the City’s relatively shallow water table does not specifically preclude construction of a land application system, it does present challenges associated with installing undrains to promote adequate drainage of applied water. Table 6-3 –Field Area Requirements for Typical Land Application Treatment Systems Field Area Required Per EPA Guidance Slow Rate Rapid Infiltration Overland Flow Field Area Required per mgd, hectares1 23 – 280 3 – 23 7 – 44 Field Area Required per mgd, acres 57 – 692 7 – 57 16 – 109 Phase 1 (16 mgd) Field Area Required, acres 909 – 11,070 119 – 909 257 – 1,740 Buildout (24 mgd) Field Area Required, acres 1,364 – 16,605 178 – 1,364 385 – 2,609 1. From EPA Manual 625/1-81-013 Table 1-1 Comparison of Typical Design Features for Land Treatment Processes CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 57 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 6.1.6. Small Alternative Wastewater Systems Small Alternative Wastewater systems, such as septic systems, were not considered for the City. These systems are often well-suited to non-urban areas in which a centralized sewer collection and treatment system is not developed or is impractical. The City is a largely developed municipality, with a centralized collection and treatment system that reaches all developed areas. Furthermore, extension of the collection system is a requirement for new municipal developments. The City ordinance Chapter 10.03 specifically prohibits the construction of privies, cesspools and septic systems in all areas within City limits except those areas to which extension of the centralized collection system has been deemed unreasonable by the Director of the Water Resources Department. The space, infrastructure, and capital expenditure required to decentralize the established sewer service make it an impractical option for wastewater treatment. 6.1.7. Innovative and Alternative Treatment Processes Innovative and alternative treatment processes can provide solutions to many common and uncommon treatment problems. They may provide treatment for emerging contaminants, address new regulatory concerns, footprint limitations, and may even address budgetary concerns. However, selection of alternative treatment technologies can be challenging. They often have limited full-scale installations to gauge their effectiveness. Operational challenges with proprietary equipment may still exist and a cost- effective means of producing and distributing process equipment may not be fully developed. For these reasons, the use of innovative alternatives for treatment should be considered cautiously. At times, innovative approaches may be necessary to meet project goals, but typically the use of proven and well understood treatment technologies is preferred. The CLEARAS ABNR technology for nutrient removal using algal biomass was considered for the Provo WATRR Center. However, a full-scale cost analysis and piloting study were never performed. The ABNR technology is promising, but as an emerging technology, algal treatment technologies are not fully refined. There are limited pilot-scale studies and only a few full-scale applications exist to recommend process effectiveness. Moreover, these applications are fairly new as the technology was established in 2011. Demonstration installations of the CLEARAS system have not produced consistent results with respect to the reliable removal of phosphorus. Furthermore, the process carries high capital costs, high energy demand, and requires a large overall footprint (though its scalable and modular design may alleviate footprint constraints). The high capital and energy costs associated with the system are ostensibly offset by the sale of algal biomass produced during treatment. However, WaterWorks performed a market analysis to evaluate the viability of algal markets and found them to be young and volatile with uncertain future yields (see APPENDIX Q). For these reasons, consideration of the technology was abandoned in the short-term for nutrient removal. As the technology is further developed and refined, it may be reconsidered for future project phases as a polishing step for nutrient removal should nutrient limits be further reduced. 6.1.8. Sludge Handling and Disposal The existing solids stream process requires upgrades and refurbishment for continued operation during Phase 1 improvements. The solids stream process does not require expansion during the Phase 1 improvements even in consideration of the additional solids that will be produced by implementing CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 58 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. nutrient removal technologies. No testing has been done to determine the volume and characteristics of the sludge, but extensive process modeling has been performed using BioWin software for wastewater process modeling. Primary sludge fermentation within gravity thickeners is recommended for inclusion in the solids stream process to promote and control adequate carbon loading to downstream liquid stream processes and to thicken solids and reduce the hydraulic loading to solids stream processes. Continued use of anaerobic digestion is recommended for solids stabilization to allow the production of Class B biosolids for land application and to promote the utilization of methane-rich biogas to mitigate the plant’s energy demand. Land application and composting sites will remain the same as those currently used, and acquisition of additional lands is not anticipated as necessary. These sites are described in Section 4.3 and have been using soil amendments from PCWRF since 2012, when soil characteristics and environmental sensitivity were evaluated by site operators. The biosolids agreement was designed in consideration of minimum / maximum and optimal land application rates necessary to promote optimal agricultural operation without exceeding rates that will result in negative impact to the environment and groundwater aquifer. Accordingly, test/monitoring wells are not anticipated as necessary. The biosolids agreements, soil amendments, and land applications are in full compliance with EPA guidelines and federal, countywide, and municipal ordinances that govern their use, including limitations regarding Cadmium and other metals, PCBs, and impacts on groundwater aquifers. The biosolids handling operation will not change significantly with the construction of the new Provo WATRR Center, and will similarly be designed to meet all regulatory and resource protection guidelines. As the new facility is designed, all regulatory requirements will continue to be met. With the implementation of biological phosphorus removal technologies in the liquid stream process, additional biosolid stabilization may be required to address the potential for struvite formation, and to promote the effective removal of phosphorus from the plant. For this, a biosolids aeration system was considered and is described in Section 6.1.8.1. Also, to prevent nutrient-rich sidestream slug loadings at the headworks from interfering with the plant’s ability to meet effluent limits, centrate equalization has been considered and is discussed in Section 6.1.8.2. 6.1.8.1. Biosolids Aeration Biosolids aeration is a proven method of sequestering phosphate minerals (such as struvite) to the solid phase for removal and disposal or recovery. The process utilizes aeration to drive off carbon dioxide gas from digested solids thereby increasing system pH and promoting conditions favorable to the formation of struvite. Maximizing struvite formation during this process minimizes the potential for struvite scaling in downstream processes where operations may be impaired and plant equipment may be damaged. Magnesium is often the limiting factor in struvite formation, so a magnesium addition is typically required to sufficiently reduce phosphorus concentrations to support effective enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR). Biosolids aeration improves the effectiveness of dewatering efforts, reducing polymer dosing requirements. Furthermore, by promoting struvite formation in the biosolids, phosphorus is sequestered to the solids phase for removal rather than being recycled to the headworks with the centrate. The process can also be modified for phosphate recovery if a local market for phosphorus resale is developed. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 59 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 6.1.8.2. Centrate Equalization Anaerobic digestion produces a sidestream rick in ammonia and phosphorus. Biosolids aeration effectively limits sidestream phosphorous but has a limited effectiveness in the reduction of ammonia in the solids sidestream. Though some ammonia stripping occurs during aeration, and struvite formation consumes some ammonia, these mechanisms are not sufficient to significantly reduce the high concentration of soluble ammonia in the plant’s solids handling processes. Therefore, if the process is selected, equalization of return centrate stream may be required to reduce ammonia in the return stream. Centrate equalization is currently employed at the PCWRF to reduce the loading of ammonia and phosphorus to the headworks. Centrate equalization requires a centrate storage system with enough capacity to provide operational flexibility allowing centrate to be returned to the liquid stream when it will have the least impact on the treatment system performance. It is relatively simple to operate, if struvite control is included and can be incorporated at a relatively low cost. 6.2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities Optimal operation of existing facilities cannot meet current and pending regulatory changes with aging critical assets. While the current plant capacity is sufficient for projected community growth, meeting permitted effluent limits will require expansion of the existing bioreactor capacity and a chemical phosphorus removal facility. The plant lacks current safety and security features. Due to age, many of the facilities lack the reliability to offer adequate redundancy and operational flexibility. Current plant hydraulics require multiple pump stations for adequate flow, placing a higher than necessary energy demand if a new influent pump station were installed as well as increasing the risk of failure by increasing the number of potential points of failure. 6.3. Regionalization As the City has pursued its plans to construct the Provo WATRR Center, the Utah DWQ encouraged the City to consider participating in a regional facility evaluation to serve the cities of Provo, Spanish Fork, Springville, and Mapleton. A study was completed in 2019 evaluating the feasibility of a regional facility located at four potential locations versus upgrading and expanding the existing water reclamation facilities that serve each municipality (a draft copy of the report is included herein as APPENDIX O). Regional facility site location alternatives evaluated included: 1. The existing PCWRF site 2. A site on the west side of Provo near the airport 3. A site west of Springville 4. The site west of Springville serving the municipalities excluding Provo City The potential sites were evaluated for their feasibility based on the following criteria: • Conveyance System Hydraulics • Emerging Technologies • Sustainability • Environmental Issues CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 60 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. • Public Acceptability • Development Timing • Phased Construction • Constructability • Financial and Economic Considerations • Risks TABLE O-1 through TABLE O-4 in APPENDIX O show a comparison matrix of each alternative’s effect on each of the four municipalities. For each municipality, the alternative with the most positive and least negative comparative results was upgrading the existing water reclamation facilities that currently serve each municipality rather than constructing a regional facility to serve all four municipalities. Based on this, the final recommendation of the study was for the municipalities to upgrade / replace their current water reclamation facilities rather than to construct a regional facility. 6.4. Unsewered Areas There are no inhabited areas within the City that are not served by the municipal sanitary sewer collection system, except for a few individual users that may still use septic systems, particularly in the Canyon Road area on the City’s East Side (east of I-15). As discussed in Section 4.5.1 and 6.1.6, municipal ordinance Chapter 10.03 forbids the use of septic systems within city limits. Therefore, as individual users are identified, efforts are made to connect these users to the collection system. The West Side (west of I-15) is a largely undeveloped area of the City, but planned development in this area is driving capacity and hydraulic upgrades to accommodate future users. Other unsewered areas include areas that will potentially be annexed to the City (see Figure 4-4). Although these areas are being considered for annexation, development in these areas may be limited by environmental sensitivity and constructability issues as discussed in Section 5. 6.5. Conventional Collection System and Sewer Alignments Upgrades and improvements to the collection system are not included as part of the Provo WATRR Center project. A Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan (APPENDIX I) was competed on behalf of the City that recommended improvements and upgrades to be completed as the community expands, including installing infrastructure in the unsewered areas in the community (discussed in Section 6.4). The 2010 Master Plan was evaluated as part of the 2019 Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities Plan (APPENDIX J). This document describes the current ten-year plan for collection system upgrades based on the 2010 recommendations. The recommendations include upgrades for expanding capacity, improving hydraulics for gravity flow, reducing the number of lift stations (particularly west of I-15), improving the flow monitoring and SCADA systems, and using $0.5M for annual repairs to reduce I/I flows. The City’s West Side has the greatest development potential within current City limits. This area’s lift station and pipe capacity deficiencies are priority projects being addressed by the City over the next decade. Planned development may also take place up Provo Canyon. Installation of a 10-inch sewer line between 5000 and 5600 North on Canyon Road will help the City to accommodate development in this CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 61 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. area and will also bring sewer services to septic system users in the Canyon Road Area. There is the potential for growth in the annexation areas discussed in Section 4.6.1. 6.6. Wastewater Management Techniques Managing the development of the new Provo WATRR Center in the most cost-effective manner considering treatment goals and community growth is integral to the project. Selecting a technology involves evaluation of conventional, alternative and innovative technologies. Consideration of current and future community goals leads to projects that serve multiple purposes for the community. Selection of a path forward involves careful consideration of the most advantageous project implementation phasing plan. These topics are discussed in the following sections with respect to Section 6.1. 6.6.1. Conventional Technologies Conventional treatment technologies are well understood and proven methods for reliable systems. These technologies are often the most economical in terms of capital cost, annual costs, and operability. For these reasons, the use of conventional technologies is considered, and usually preferred for treatment of typical wastewater constituents. Examples of conventional treatment technologies include conventional activated sludge (CAS), discussed in APPENDIX P, Process Selection Technical Memorandum. As regulatory changes occur, they may include requirements, such as nutrient removal requirements, that are difficult to meet using conventional treatment processes. Alternative technologies or system modifications may then be required to meet effluent limits and treatment goals. 6.6.2. Alternative Technologies Alternatives to CAS technology are typically considered when wastewater constituent profiles are unusual or when regulatory changes reduce the effectiveness of conventional technology to meet permit limits, especially when site footprint is limited. Alternative technologies typically require greater capital expenditure than conventional technologies but may offer a more cost-effective approach overall, based on a facility’s unique goals. Alternatives to CAS technology may include a membrane bioreactor (MBR) process. MBR is a process that is well-understood and effective, produces a high-quality effluent, and reduces footprint relative to most other technologies. MBR is discussed briefly in detail in APPENDIX P Process Selection Technical Memorandum. 6.6.3. Innovative Technology Innovative treatment technologies include the aerobic granular sludge (AGS) process offered by Nereda. This type of system is not used extensively in the United States but is well proven in European applications. AGS offers an innovative approach with the advent of regulatory effluent nutrient limits. The technology uses granules with layered microbial films where aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic conditions develop and cultivate desired microbial communities to enhance nutrient removal. This allows the removal of nutrients without separate zones in bioreactors to promote these conditions thereby reducing the overall bioreactor footprint. AGS is discussed briefly in Section 6.1.4 and in greater detail in APPENDIX P Process Selection Technical Memorandum. Innovative technologies may also include new technologies that were developed to address emerging contaminants of concern. Examples include the CLEARAS ABNR system discussed in Section 6.1.7. New CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 62 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. technologies often carry the promise of an effective solution to new challenges, but also carry more risk as they are not yet well understood and operational challenges have not been addressed. The challenges and unknowns with the CLEARAS ABNR system include high overall costs, inconsistent results, and an unguaranteed revenue source (see APPENDIX Q). 6.6.4. Innovative and Alternative Cost Preference Alternatives to CAS and innovative technologies do not always carry a higher overall cost than conventional treatment. In Section 6.1.4, CAS, AGS, and MBR are compared and CAS was found to be the least cost-effective option. There are several reasons for this. First, the Provo WATRR Center site has poor soil quality that requires extensive site preparation for structural stability. The comparatively smaller footprints of MBR and AGS systems offer a cost advantage by reducing the overall cost of site preparation. The MBR offers the additional advantage of producing a very high-quality effluent as compared to CAS and AGS technologies as membrane filtration is an intrinsic feature of the system’s design. The City’s treatment goals include producing a high-quality effluent to potentially develop water recharge or reuse projects in the future to meet projected community water demands. When AGS and CAS systems are modified with tertiary systems to produce similarly high-quality effluent, they become less cost-effective. Therefore, MBR offers the best advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness. 6.6.5. Staged Construction Staged construction is typically employed to balance project need with available funds. Single phase construction may often result in lower overall costs by consolidating mobilizations. Sunk costs may also be reduced by limiting costs associated with the following items: • Construction of temporary facilities that will be decommissioned during future phases • Temporary connection of new facilities to existing facilities that will be decommissioned during future phases • Repairs and upgrades necessary for the continued use of existing facilities that are ultimately intended for replacement • Diminished ability to improve plant flow pathways and hydraulics due to constraints introduced by designing processes to operate with both existing process facilities and their future replacements Some of these challenges may be overcome with careful planning. Despite these challenges, staged construction is often preferred as it reduces the immediate capital expenditures. The financial resources needed for a project may require time to develop and some upgrades more urgent. Staging also allows the financial burden that is passed on to the system’s users to be applied more gradually if rates are used to pay for improvements. Finally, staged construction also maintains the plant’s continued operation by bringing new system processes online at different times and allowing their operation to be optimized with minimal interruption to plant operations. For the City, staged construction allows improvements to begin while additional funds are developed for upgrades during future phases. The capital cost associated with an updated liquid stream process was estimated at $120M to $150M. This exceeds the available funding for the first construction package. Staging allows the most critical processes to be upgraded first thereby promoting safety, operability, and CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 63 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. regulatory compliance, while allowing additional funds to be developed for future upgrades. Staging will be discussed further in Section 8. 6.6.6. Multiple Purpose Projects The Provo WATRR Center is a multiple purpose project. The City’s Water Conservation Management Plan discusses the importance of developing a water reuse plan. Providing enough water resources for community growth and development necessitates both the reduction of water use through water conservation and supplementation from wastewater effluent for reuse. In the interest of sustainability and responsible resource management, a key project driver for the City (see APPENDIX B) is producing a high quality effluent that may be used in the future to develop a water reuse program. The MBR system is the most cost-effective means of meeting the City’s treatment goals and providing functionality to the community, including: • Providing sanitary sewer service to municipal users, thus promoting public health • Resource Protection Projects o Reducing over loadings to impaired receiving waters through improved effluent quality o Potential groundwater recharge program o Reduced impact on groundwater quality • Water Conservation Projects o Mitigation of water demand by potentially supplying reuse water where potable water is not required o Potential groundwater recharge program While the current facility design does not include development of future reuse systems, it does provide a framework for their future development. The Provo WATRR Center, like the existing PCWRF, is designed for surface water discharge to the Mill Race that discharges into the Provo Bay area connected to Utah Lake. This is the intended discharge point for the Provo WATRR Center until all or a portion of the plant effluent can be diverted for reuse and/or groundwater recharge projects. Plant effluent quality will be improved both due to regulatory nutrient limitations and the City’s sustainability goals. This will reduce overall loadings to Utah Lake, which will contribute to Utah Lake remediation efforts and reduce negative impacts on downstream users (see Section 5.1.1 for information about pathway and fate of wastewater in the groundwater environment). The City’s ultimate intention is to divert all or a portion of its effluent for secondary reuse. 7. Evaluation of Principal Alternatives and Plan Adoption In this section, the various aspects of the plant upgrades are evaluated with respect to three principal alternatives that have been selected for further evaluation. This evaluation will assess solid and liquid stream treatment processes in terms of each alternative’s practicability, costs, phasing, funding, environmental impacts, future expansion capability, reliability, and other considerations. These factors have been used to guide the decision-making process and design. After the relative merits of each alternative is discussed, the recommended alternative will then be discussed in greater detail in Section 8. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 64 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.1. Alternative Evaluation Section 6 outlines various treatment technologies considered for evaluation for the construction of the Provo WATRR Center. Many of these alternatives were eliminated due to practicability and cost. Three liquid stream alternatives were selected for further evaluation and are evaluated in greater detail in the following sections: • Alternative 1, No Action; • Alternative 2, Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility; and • Alternative 3, New Biological Treatment Facility & Discharge to Surface Waters. In addition, the sludge handling and biosolids disposal techniques detailed in Section 6.1.8 include the following: • Anaerobic Digestion: This existing biosolids stabilization process is applied to Alternatives 1, 2, & 3; • Biosolids Aeration: This technology mitigates the risk of struvite scale damage in downstream piping and equipment as part of Alternatives 2 & 3; • Centrate Equalization: This technology is applied to Alternatives 2 & 3 and is used to equalize return sidestreams rich in ammonia and phosphorus from dewatering processes to minimize the impact of slug loadings of nutrients to the headworks and risk process destabilization or reduced effluent quality. 7.2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs The costs associated with the various options are listed in Table 7-1. Alternative 1 describes the current treatment process. Alternative 2 upgrades the existing process by expanding the bioreactors to include anaerobic and anoxic zones and includes biosolids aeration and centrate equalization. These carry added chemical and energy requirements. Alternative 2 involves upgrading equipment and processes to ensure the plant staff safety, plant operability, and permit compliance. The operating expenses are not expected to differ significantly between Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 assumes a new liquid stream process that includes fine screens and a membrane bioreactor with BNR. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 65 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Table 7-1 – Total Cost Associated with Each Alternative Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Upgrade of Existing Facilities Alternative 3: New Biological Treatment Process (MBR) Capital Costs for All Upgrades through Buildout Capacity $0.00 $304M1 $289M2 Operations and Maintenance of Equipment $0.60M $0.65M $1.75M Chemical Costs $0.12M $0.13M $0.14M Energy $1.31M $1.83M $3.77M TOTAL Net Present Value3: $33.3M $346M $382M 1. From Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (APPENDIX N), April 2018 Draft: Estimated Capital Cost of $266.5M in 2017 dollars, escalated in accordance with current market conditions. 2. From Process Selection TM (APPENDIX P): Estimated Capital Costs in 2018 dollars have been escalated in accordance with current market conditions. 3. NPV calculated for a 20-year design life. 7.2.1. Sunk Costs Sunk costs are any upgrade or maintenance costs associated with facilities or equipment that are intended for temporary reuse, rather than with facilities or equipment that will be utilized until the end of their useful life. Alternative 1, no action, carries no capital costs and no sunk costs. Alternatives 2 and 3 may include temporary facilities as a phasing plan is put into effect. The design will optimize available funding and constructability to minimize sunk costs. 7.2.2. Cost Escalation Factors The annual cost escalation factor for energy and other annual operations expenses of 3% is assumed. An annual discount rate of 2% is assumed. 7.2.3. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects Multiple purpose projects, as discussed in Section 6.6.6, are intended future projects that may be facilitated by current project design. The City’s Project Drivers (see APPENDIX B) and Water Conservation Management Plans (APPENDIX F) discuss the future community goals of using treated wastewater for reuse to mitigate water demand and accommodate future growth. The Provo WATRR Center project alternatives do not have features specific to future wastewater use for multiple purpose projects. Rather, the plant is to be designed to accommodate future expansion for potential reuse projects where possible. Alternative 1 lacks several key components necessary to meet this goal, including not meeting current and anticipated regulatory requirements. Alternative 2 produces a high-quality effluent capable of achieving reuse quality with the future addition of tertiary filtration. The alternative does not include CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 66 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. reuse features but is designed with the flexibility to expand for those purposes. Alternative 3 may be capable of producing reuse quality effluent without further modification. None of the design alternatives include features for multiple purpose projects in the Phase 1 2020 Construction project and there are no allocated costs for multiple purpose projects. 7.2.4. Revenue Generation Alternatives that incorporate the potential revenue generation were considered and are detailed in this section. 7.2.4.1. Phosphorus Recovery Phosphorus removal is necessary due to regulatory changes. As a scarce nutrient in the production of fertilizer, there are potential markets for the sale of recovered phosphorus. This is only possible with biological phosphorus removal, as metal coagulants render precipitated phosphorus in biosolids non- bioavailable for plants. The biosolids aeration system considered as part of the solids treatment process has the potential to be utilized as a phosphorus recovery mechanism should a local market develop but is not considered a viable revenue stream at present. 7.2.4.2. Biogas Utilization Another method of generating revenue is by capturing and utilizing biogas produced during anaerobic digestion. Biogas rich in methane can be captured and used to: • Mitigate the plant’s onsite natural gas demand; • Supply to a local utility provider for distribution through the common grid; or • Partially fuel the City fleet on an adjacent site. The existing PCWRF and future project will use biogas for the mitigation of its onsite energy demand. This does not represent a revenue stream but rather an opportunity to payback the initial investment. Biogas utilization may be expanded as part of future phases to include the sale of biogas to local utilities, or for utilization for the City fleet. Expanding biogas utilization will require the installation of an RNG facility in future project phases. 7.2.4.3. Water Reuse The City’s sustainability goals depend on water conservation and reuse efforts. The City’s goal is to produce a high-quality effluent that will promote the development of Type I secondary effluent distribution systems for reuse applications such as municipal, commercial, and agricultural irrigation. Reuse measures will reduce municipal demand on the potable water system and potentially provide a revenue source should the plant become capable of producing and selling surplus water to neighboring entities. 7.3. Demonstration of Financial Capability Provo City has recently been assigned an Aa1 rating by Moody’s Investors Service, indicating its strong financial standing and ability to obtain financing on planned expenditures. The Moody evaluation noted: “Since the 2000 census, the city's population increased nearly 14% to an estimated 119,775 (2009) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 67 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. residents. The second most populous city in the state, Provo also serves as the home to Brigham Young University (BYU), which provides some stability to the local economy with a large student population exceeding 30,500. In addition to BYU, large employers in the city include healthcare, technology-related entities and local government. From 2003 through 2008, full market values increased steadily at an average of 9.0% annually, including an above average 22.6% growth in 2007 due to a reassessment cycle. As a result of the national recession full market declined in 2009 (5.6%) and slightly in 2010 (1.2%). The 2010 full market value is still sizeable and above the national Aa1 city median at $6.9 billion and the largest taxpayers comprise 7.8% of 2010 assessed value.” Provo City has funded capital improvements at the Provo WRF for over 70 years using direct capital funds and bonding when necessary. 7.4. Capital Financing Plan Provo City has developed a funding plan that includes the funding of capital improvements through utility service sales, impact fees and when necessary, bond revenue. The City has initiated a series of annual rate increases of 19%, 15%, 25%, 10% and 9% that began to be implemented in fiscal year 2019. These rate increases will increase the City revenues to meet the funding requirements for capital expenditures and the debt service of the anticipated bonds. In October 2019, the City requested funding of $120M from the State Revolving Fund. Along with City Funds, this funding amount would allow the City to construct the necessary improvements identified by the project team as the Phase 1, Preferred Project (Figure 8-1) with an estimated cost of $149M. The Phase 1, Preferred Project would allow the City to eliminate at risk facilities as quickly as possible and create the ability for the City to meet both current and anticipated future regulations. Based on the funding and financing plan for this project, the City would contribute $23M of municipal capital funds and acquire an additional $6M in bonds from a source other than the SRF. This additional funding could be obtained through the City’s capital funds, or through additional financing in the form of a short-term loan. Due to higher than usual requests for funding to the Water Quality Board, there are not enough funds available in the SRF to meet the City’s request. The City secured funding of $77.8M from the SRF at an interest rate of 0.5% including $2M in grant funding. The City has adjusted the project scope to allow for the most critical portions of the project to be constructed in the current project, with other scope items delayed until the City can generate the necessary funds. The estimated capital cost for the first phase of the adjusted project is $117M. Based on the funding and financing plan for this project, the City will contribute $23M of municipal capital funds and acquire an additional $16M in bonds for completion of the initial phase of the project. Subsequent phases of the project will cost approximately $40M and will be funded with revenue from utility service sales and impact fees. It is anticipated that the second phase of the project will be delayed approximately 5 years and the project will cost an additional $5M due to the need for temporary facilities and cost escalation. The phasing of the projects as described above are further explained in Section 8.2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 68 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.5. Environmental Evaluation Alternative 1 carries the most negative environmental impacts of the three alternatives. Without upgrades and refurbishments, the plant will not meet permit effluent limits. The 1 mg/L TP limit goes into effect in January 1, 2020. The City has gained a variance to the TBPEL rule until 2025 to allow the City time to pursue and develop an upgrade plan to meet the limit. Besides the current TBPEL rule, even lower TP effluent limits may result from the DWQ’s current Utah Lake TMDL Study. Furthermore, implementation of a TIN limit of 10 mg/L or less is anticipated. Alternative 1 does not result in hydraulic improvements that may reduce plant pumping (energy) requirements and does not result in improved water quality that may contribute to the plant’s long-term sustainability and water conservation goals. Alternative 2, by contrast, addresses all current and anticipated effluent limitations by incorporating a BNR process. There is not a significant increase in overall energy demand, except for the additional biosolids aeration process and centrate equalization. Overall loadings to receiving waters will be decreased by meeting nutrient limitations but the water quality will not meet reuse standards without the addition of tertiary filtration. Therefore, Alternative 2 does not promote the City’s sustainability objectives, though it does not preclude their future development. Also, recommended improvements to the plant hydraulics are not included in Alternative 2. Therefore, energy demand is not decreased. Alternative 3 is the most beneficial option for environmental protection of the alternatives. Alternative 3 meets all current and future regulatory requirements, reduces overall loadings to receiving waters and groundwater, and improves plant hydraulics for reduced pumping energy, and optimizes the City’s position for meeting its sustainability goals. Alternative 3 will allow the City to produce high-quality effluent that may be reused in the future to mitigate its community water demand or sold to neighboring municipalities to gain additional revenue. The only negative environmental impact associated with this alternative is that compared to conventional treatment, MBR has a relatively high energy demand associated with membrane air scour and permeate pumping. A summary of the evaluation of improved environmental impacts of the principle alternatives is shown in Table 7-2. Table 7-2 – Evaluation of Improved Environmental Impacts of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Upgrade of Existing Facilities Alternative 3: New Treatment Process: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Meets Current / Anticipated Discharge Limits ✓ ✓ Improved Hydraulics for Reduced Pumping / Energy Demand ✓ High-Quality Effluent for Reduced Impact / Promotes Water Reuse ✓ CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 69 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Upgrade of Existing Facilities Alternative 3: New Treatment Process: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) No overall increase in Energy Demand ✓ Reduced Overall Loadings to Receiving Waters ✓ ✓ Reduced Overall Impact on Groundwater Supply ✓ ✓ 7.6. Evaluation of Reliability Reliability, as defined in EPA-430-99-74-001 Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability is “a measurement of the ability of a component or system to perform its designated function without failure.” This document includes three reliability classes (Class I, Class II, and Class III) based on the classification of the receiving waters. These are summarized in Table 7-3. Table 7-3 - EPA Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability Classes Reliability Class Classification of Receiving Waters Examples Class I Navigable Waters which could be permanently or unacceptably damaged by effluent which was degraded in quality for only a few hours. Near drinking water reservoirs; Into shellfish waters; Near areas used for water contact sports Class II Navigable waters which would not be permanently or unacceptably damaged by short-term effluent quality degradation but could be damaged by continued (on the order of several days) effluent quality degradation. Recreational waters Class III Works not otherwise classified as Class I or Class 2 The Mill Race serves as the current and anticipated PCWRF discharge point and is designated for beneficial use as a warm water fishery, for secondary contact recreation, and for agricultural use such as irrigation and livestock watering. As an impaired water body designated for recreational use, Class II reliability criteria must be met. The criteria are generally in place to protect the system against failure by providing a design with sufficient redundancy to achieve proper operation if a unit is in need of repair CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 70 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. or replacement, including; processes that can be isolated if they must be removed from service; sufficient spare space and access to equipment for adequate repair, maintenance, or replacement; a backup power source sufficient to operate vital system components during peak wastewater flow conditions including lighting and ventilation (except for “vital components used to support the secondary processes… [that] need not be included as long as treatment equivalent to sedimentation and disinfection is provided”4). Alternative 1 does not meet reliability requirements as it does not produce an effluent quality sufficient to meet the current TBPEL rule limiting effluent phosphorus to 1 mg/L. Furthermore, the nature of the aging infrastructure limits the plant’s ability to ensure that any repairs made will be adequate to protect receiving waters from degradation. Alternatives 2 and 3 both have adequate redundancy for continued operation if failure of a critical component occurs. Both designs include isolation capabilities to remove a critical component from service for repairs and maintenance. Access to equipment and facilities in need of repair and maintenance are design features. However, access for Alternative 2 is limited by the space constraints of existing facilities and their current locations. Alternative 3 has the added advantage of employing gravity flow to the largest extent possible by improving the plant’s hydraulic profile. This will reduce the plant’s reliance on pumping, improving its overall reliability with respect to hydraulic considerations. 7.7. Evaluation of Energy Requirements The estimated cost of power demand for each alternative is shown in Table 7-1. Alternatives 1 and 2 carry similar overall power demands except that Alternative 2 includes BNR, biosolids aeration system, and centrate equalization that increase the annual energy demand. Though Alternative 1 does not represent a notable increase in energy demand compared to current demand, this system is not capable of meeting anticipated regulatory requirements regarding nutrient removal. The additional energy demanded by Alternative 2, provides the effective removal of phosphorus in the system, and protects the downstream system components from nuisance struvite damage. Use of the biosolids aeration system may also allow the City to recover and sell phosphorus (as struvite) should a local market develop in the future. The energy costs associated with MBR Alternative 3 are significant including the biosolids aeration system, aeration requirements for membrane air scouring, and pumping energy required for flow through the membranes. The increased cost of the membrane system is offset by the production of reuse quality effluent that improves the environmental impact on surface and groundwater stores. It also positions the City for development of a water reuse system. In addition to helping the City meet its sustainability goals, this may also provide an additional revenue source from selling it to neighboring communities. 4EPA Technical Bulletin EPA-430-99-74-001 Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 71 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.8. Evaluation of Implementability All three alternatives represent an implementable approach for the existing PCWRF. Use of an existing site for its current intended purpose alleviates issues associated with permitting, land acquisition, zoning, and public acceptance. The City already has a pretreatment ordinance in place that benefits the alternative chosen (Provo City municipal code Chapter 10.04). The City has an excellent record for completion of projects and contracts, and adequate funding exists to implement any of the three alternatives, if properly phased. Because no action is required for Alternative 1, no implementability, constructability, or funding issues exist except that the alternative will not meet current and anticipated regulatory effluent limits. The City has secured funding as outlined in Section 7.3. The Phase 1 2020 Construction project associated with Alternative 3 are discussed in detail in the Preliminary Design Report (PDR, see APPENDIX C) and are estimated to cost between $105M - $128M depending on the extent of construction to be completed during the initial project phase. The new biological treatment process must be completed by the expiration of the City’s TBPEL variance in January 2025. In order to avoid exceeding available funding, the Phase 1 2020 Construction project will be divided into two or more packages to allow time for additional funds to be developed. Additional funds developed between 2020-2025 will be used offset current budgetary constraints. 7.8.1. Future Expansion Future expansion is included in the 20-year NPV estimates. Except for Alternative 1, the alternatives are designed with straightforward expansion capability through projected community buildout conditions. The PDR (APPENDIX C) focuses on the preliminary design of Alternative 3 and notes that all critical facilities will be designed to be easily expanded past the buildout capacity if additional capacity is ever needed. 7.9. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities The Provo WATRR Center is designed for the treatment of sewage and other human waste that enters the sewer collection system. Its construction is on the site of the existing PCWRF facility and does not result in the conversion of any existing recreational lands. As a wastewater treatment facility, the Provo WATRR Center is not conducive to opportunities for recreational use. The site treats toxic wastewater, houses dangerous chemicals, and contains high voltage facilities, among other risks that inhibit public recreation in addition to security issues. Use of the site for recreational development may pose potential public health, safety, and security risks. Operators who work on site are trained professionals with extensive training and experience with these facilities. Guided tours are sometimes given for educational purposes, but recreational use of the facility is not recommended. 7.10. Comparison of Alternatives Given the various factors detailed in Section 7.1 through Section 7.9, the following sections summarize the evaluation of Alternatives 1 through 3 for the new Provo WATRR Center project. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 72 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.10.1. Alternative 1: No Action The existing PCWRF has a monthly average hydraulic capacity of 21 mgd, which is approximately equal to the unadjusted capacity required for the buildout population as described in Section 4.6.1. With respect to hydraulic capacity, no expansion is required. However, the anticipated nutrient limitations discussed in Section 4.6.2 and summarized in Table 4-2 will interfere with the plant’s capability to meet permit requirements. Meeting the current TBPEL discharge limit will require the incorporation of either a chemical phosphorus removal system or of anaerobic basins for biological phosphorus removal in order to meet the TBPEL concentration of 1.0 mg/L or less, neither of which constitute a no action approach. The City has a variance that exempts the City from meeting the TBPEL limit until 2025. However, this variance was granted considering the City’s efforts to address nutrient standards and future water quality regulations, aging infrastructure, and risk and criticality of failure, none of which are addressed by a no action approach. The existing PCWRF treatment train includes aeration for ammonia reduction, and the plant is currently meeting regulatory limits for ammonia (See Table 4-4). However, the treatment process does not include anoxic zones for denitrification, which are necessary to meet the anticipated TIN limit. This limitation is anticipated pending the completion of the Utah Lake Study and it is therefore critical that for the City to plan accordingly. Biological nutrient removal and chemical phosphorus removal will increase total solids production. The evaluation of the existing PCWRF biosolids digestion and dewatering processes indicated that the facilities have sufficient capacity to meet the increased solids loading resulting from BNR. However, phosphorus release within the anaerobic digestion system was identified as a key limiting factor in the effectiveness of a biological phosphorus removal approach. Increased phosphorus uptake within the liquid stream will also increase in phosphorus released from sludge in the anaerobic digesters and promote nuisance struvite formation in dewatering equipment and piping. The current struvite control method of ferric sulfate addition is effective in addressing this issue in the absence of improved nutrient removal processes. However, there are no permanent ferric sulfate feed facilities and the process is burdensome on operators. The current practice of anaerobic digestion and dewatering for the production of Class B biosolids for land application has been extremely cost effective and the continued availability of the remote composting facility has been identified as an important long-term option for solids disposal and will be maintained. Another factor to consider in evaluating a No Action alternative is the risk assessment completed for the PCWRF in 2014, which revealed that approximately 57% of the plant’s assets are critical assets at imminent risk of failure. An additional 23% of the PCWRF assets are recommended for high-priority replacement in the next 1 to 3 years. Combined, approximately 80% of the PCWRF assets need immediate or near-term replacement, improvement, upgrade, or expansion. Both the risk assessment and regulatory drivers are discussed in Section 3, and in further detail in the Project Drivers TM in APPENDIX B. The PCWRF is able meet the hydraulic capacity required to meet 20-year population and flow projections CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 73 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. but it is not capable of meeting current and anticipated effluent limits. Significant modifications to the plant’s liquid stream process must be made to meet current and anticipated effluent limits. These changes are included in Alternative 2. Many of the existing at-risk assets are critical to plant operation and their failure will impact operator or public health and safety, ability to meet permit, or reliable plant operation. Therefore, it is impractical to employ a no action alternative. 7.10.2. Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility Alternative 2 addresses upgrades to critical assets necessary to ensure adequate safety, redundancy, and operability. The alternative does not include improvements recommended to improve hydraulics and gravity flow, which reduce pumping and energy requirements throughout the plant. This alternative adequately meets all anticipated regulatory requirements with respect to permitted effluent limits and improves the plant’s effluent quality. Alternative 2 reduces the negative environmental impacts on the environment caused by the plant compared to Alternative 1. The estimated capital cost of the upgrades recommended through 2025 do not exceed the funds that the City has available for the project. This option does not include tertiary filtration and does not progress the City’s sustainability goals. Because the City’s water conservation goals do not sufficiently mitigate demand to meet long water usage projections5, these goals must be met in the future and will require additional projects. Advances towards reuse objectives may be made in the future when funding becomes available. More funds, time, and infrastructure will be needed for this option to install future reuse facilities than Alternative 3. 7.10.3. Alternative 3: Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters: Membrane Bioreactor Option Alternative 3 meets all current and anticipated regulatory limits. The MBR removes essentially all suspended solids and significantly reduces effluent BOD concentrations with respect to the current PCWRF. This will result in a positive environmental impact on surface receiving waters and downstream groundwater quality. In addition, this alternative meets the City’s sustainability goals with respect to producing a secondary reuse quality effluent with minor or no future modifications to the treatment process. MBR carries a lower 20-year NPV (see Section 6.1.4 and 6.6.4) than CAS and AGS technology. This is partially due to the smaller footprint and associated site preparation costs and to the membrane filtration system. A membrane filtration system has substantially higher energy demand than Alternatives 1 and 2 associated with air scour and permeate pumping. The annual maintenance costs are also higher due to the membrane replacement costs expected about every 10 years or so. The capital investment is somewhat lower than Alternative 2. The overall 20-year NPV exceeds Alternative 2 by approximately $35M because of the higher O&M costs. However, the additional monies are correlated with a higher quality effluent, reduced environmental impacts, and result in improved operability associated with improved plant hydraulics. 5 From Provo City’s 2019 Water Conservation Plan (APPENDIX F), which was adopted in late 2019. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 74 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 7.11. Views of Public and Concerned Interest Groups Public Participation has been minimal at this stage of the design but is not expected to yield significantly negative feedback. All three alternatives include using the current PCWRF site. Public controversy over the existing site is expected to be minimal. The current site has been used for the City’s wastewater treatment since 1956, so much of the community impact has occurred over the past several decades. Odor control is in place, the plant is compliant with the City’s Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.06 and with all applicable air quality regulations. Alternative 1 will have no effect on neighboring businesses and residences due to construction, as it is a no action alternative. However, it is not a viable option as it will not meet current and future regulations. Alternatives 2 and 3 will not result in negative feedback from the public due to its environmental impact. Due to improved effluent quality, these alternatives are expected to positively impact receiving waters and downstream surface and groundwater bodies. The facility will not be constructed on or near environmentally sensitive lands nor negatively impact those lands. Construction may interfere with local commerce and traffic during construction, but the design will mitigate these effects to the greatest extent possible. 8. Recommended Alternative The recommended alternative for this project is Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new treatment process including membrane bioreactors (MBR). The justification and reasoning for this recommendation is included in the sections below. 8.1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan As discussed in previous sections, the No Action alternative is not suitable for implementation. It will not allow the City to meet the new and anticipated regulations for nutrients and does not address the risk of failure associated with the aged infrastructure currently in use at the Provo WRF. Selection of the No Action alternative will result in violation of the City’s discharge permit, and failure of equipment and structures that will eliminate the facility’s ability to treat the wastewater and may create a significant risk to the health and safety of the public and plant operators. Alternative 2, the refurbishment of the existing treatment process, relies heavily on the continued use of existing structures, equipment and buried infrastructure. As discussed above, the continued use of aged infrastructure creates a significant risk of failure and may result in a catastrophic failure. The capital costs associated with this alternative exceed the cost of constructing a new facility. The refurbishment of the existing treatment process will allow for modifications to address new and anticipated regulations, but these modifications will not incorporate improvements in wastewater treatment processes that are associated with newer modern designs. This alternative is not recommended based on its inability to adequately address the risk of failure, an inability to utilize treatment processes identified as most advantageous to the City. Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new treatment process including MBR provides the City with a modern treatment process that will result in the highest water quality of the options evaluated. This will allow the City to utilize its treated effluent as a water resource and possibly develop this CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 75 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. resource to create revenue in the future. The new treatment system will allow for the phased elimination of aged infrastructure, significantly reducing the facility’s risk of failure. The capital cost associated with the recommended technology, MBR, is comparable to those estimated for competing processes, but the selection of MBR will result in the highest effluent water quality. This alternative is recommended as the highest value option for the City and will result in the highest long-term benefit. 8.2. Design of Selected Plan The selected plan will be implemented in accordance with the City’s ability to obtain adequate funding. The preferred plan would require the acquisition of approximately $120M of bond revenue and would result in the replacement of the entire liquid stream of the facility in one single phase project. If the full funding is not obtained, the liquid stream will need to be replaced with new facilities using a phased approach. These two strategies for design and implementation of the project are outlined in the following sections. 8.2.1. Preferred Project Advantages As discussed in this report, one objective of this project is to eliminate existing facilities that present a risk of failure due to age and/or condition as early in the project as possible. This will help to ensure that the City is able to continue to meet water quality discharge standards, minimize upsets and improve reliability of the process. The Preferred Project will allow the entire liquid stream process to be decommissioned within the next four years as opposed to ten years in the Phased Liquid Stream Project approach. The earlier transition from existing to new facilities will also minimize the cost of refurbishment necessary to keep the existing facilities in operation as well as eliminate sunk costs into temporary facilities required to operate the new processes while utilizing the existing facilities. This reduction of risk and elimination of approximately $5M to $10M in sunk costs is preferred by the City and evaluations into options that will provide the necessary funds to pursue this option are in progress. 8.2.2. Complete Liquid Stream Project (Preferred Project) The site layouts associated with the preferred plan for the Provo WATRR Center can be seen in Figure 8-1 through Figure 8-3 8.2.2.1. Phase 1, Preferred Project The Phase 1 project shown in Figure 8-1, will include decommissioning and replacement of the existing influent junction structure, headworks, primary clarifiers, and primary sludge pumping station. A new operations building will be constructed and the old one abandoned. A new influent junction structure will be constructed, which will receive the sanitary sewer flow that was formerly received by the existing influent junction box. New coarse screens and grit removal facilities will be constructed. Piping will be installed to convey flow from the plant lift station and new influent junction structure to the new headworks facilities. The primary clarifiers will be replaced by a primary screening facility, or with new primary clarifiers. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 76 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. The Trickling Filters that were taken offline in April 2019 and the existing secondary clarifiers are to be demolished to make room for the new secondary treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building, and backwash tank are to be decommissioned. A new power distribution system will be added. A new in-plant lift station will be added to the facility to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the reclamation facility. Flow received at the new lift station will be pumped directly to the new headworks facility. The solids processing facilities are to be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary and secondary digesters, DAFT, and dewatering facility. To promote the removal of phosphorus from the plant, and to prevent struvite scaling, a biosolids aeration struvite control system will be added to the existing solids stream process. The major component of the Phase 1 project is the addition of the membrane bioreactor system. A fine screen facility is required upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The fine screen facility will be placed downstream of the new primary clarifiers or primary screen facility. A bypass line will allow the primary treatment process to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to the fine screen facility. Three bioreactors will be constructed downstream of the fine screen facility. Two valve vaults will control flow to each of the three bioreactors. The plant’s four existing aeration basins will be repurposed for use as equalization/surge basins to support the stable operation of the system. The flow control system will control the flow of primary effluent into the bioreactors to eliminate daily peaks. Flow exceeding that allowed to pass to the bioreactors will be directed to the equalization basin. When plant influent is low, primary effluent stored in the equalization basin will gravity flow back to the influent pump station to supplement influent rates and maintain a steady flow to the bioreactors. The bioreactors will consist of RAS fermentation, anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones that will promote the microbial removal of solids, organics, nutrients and other wastewater constituents. The plant’s existing blower building will be decommissioned, and a new blower building will be constructed to provide air for the biological process and membrane air scour. Effluent from the bioreactors will be conveyed to the membrane tanks. Permeate pumps will draw water through the membranes for discharge. A chemical storage and feed facility located near the membrane basins will house the chemicals required for membrane maintenance and recovery cleaning procedures. The chemical facility will also be used for the storage and feed of metal salts for chemical phosphorus removal, if necessary. Permeate from the membrane system will be conveyed to the existing UV disinfection facility for disinfection. Final effluent will continue to be discharged to the Mill Race. 8.2.2.2. Phase 2, Preferred Project The Phase 2 project, Figure 8-2, will include decommissioning the existing solids handling facilities. New solids handling facilities will include the addition of gravity sludge tanks (GST), DAF Thickener, Centrate Pump Station, GST and DAF Pump Station, Digesters and Digester Building, Solids Holding Tank and Sludge Transfer Station. 8.2.2.3. Facility Expansion, Preferred Project Future expansion of the facility, Figure 8-3, will be conducted as needed. It is anticipated that two additional bioreactors will be required to meet the estimated buildout capacity of the Provo City service CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 77 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. area. Space is provided for a sixth bioreactor that may be necessary to accommodate higher than expected growth in the City’s service area. 8.2.3. Phased Liquid Stream Project Based on the currently anticipated funding limitations, this project will require replacement of the liquid stream treatment process in two separate phases. The first phase will replace the secondary processes, but the existing headworks and primary treatment processes will remain in service for approximately 5 years before they are replaced in the second phase of the project. The phasing for the later phases of this project is similar to the phasing of the Preferred Project. The site layouts associated with the Phased Liquid Stream Project plan for the Provo WATRR Center can be seen in Figure 8-4 through Figure 8-7. 8.2.3.1. Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project In Phase 1 is shown in Figure 8-4. In this phase, the Trickling Filters that were taken offline in April 2019 and the existing secondary clarifiers will be demolished to make room for the new treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building, and backwash tank will be decommissioned, and a new power distribution system will be added. The majority of the plant’s influent will flow to the existing influent junction structure where flow will be directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new in-plant lift station will be added to the facility to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the reclamation facility. Flow received at the new lift station will be pumped directly to the existing headworks facility. The existing coarse screening, grit removal, and primary clarification facilities will continue to be used. The solids processing facilities are to be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary sludge pump station, primary and secondary digesters, DAFT, and dewatering facility. To promote the removal of phosphorus from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling, a biosolids aeration struvite control system will be added to the existing solids stream process. The major component of the Phase 1 project is the addition of the membrane bioreactor system. A fine screen facility is required upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The fine screen facility will be placed downstream of the existing primary clarifiers. A bypass line will allow the clarifiers to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to the fine screen facility. Three bioreactors will be constructed downstream of the fine screen facility. Two valve vaults will control flow to each of the three bioreactors. The plant’s four existing aeration basins will be repurposed for use as equalization/surge basins to support the stable operation of the system. The flow control system will control the flow of primary effluent into the bioreactors to eliminate daily peaks. Flow exceeding that allowed to pass to the bioreactors will be directed to the equalization basin. When plant influent is low, primary effluent stored in the equalization basin will gravity flow back to the influent pump station to supplement influent rates and maintain a steady flow to the bioreactors. The bioreactors will consist of RAS fermentation, anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones that will promote the microbial removal of solids, organics, nutrients and other wastewater constituents. The plant’s existing blower building will be decommissioned, and a new blower building will be constructed to provide air for the biological process and membrane air scour. Effluent from the bioreactors will be conveyed to the membrane tanks. Permeate pumps will draw water through the membranes for discharge. A chemical storage and feed facility located near the membrane basins will house the chemicals required for membrane maintenance CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 78 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. and recovery cleaning procedures. The chemical facility will also be used for the storage and feed of metal salts for chemical phosphorus removal, if necessary. Permeate from the membrane system will be conveyed to the existing UV disinfection facility for disinfection. Final effluent will continue to be discharged to the Mill Race. 8.2.3.2. Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project The Phase 2 project shown in will include decommissioning the existing influent junction structure, headworks, primary clarifiers, and primary sludge pumping station. A new operations building will be constructed and the old one abandoned. A new influent junction structure will be constructed, which will receive the sanitary sewer flow that was formerly received by the existing influent junction box. New coarse screens and grit removal facilities will be constructed. Piping will be installed to convey flow from the plant lift station and new influent junction structure to the new headworks facilities. The primary clarifiers will be replaced by a primary screening facility. Screened influent will flow to the bioreactors as before. 8.2.3.3. Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project The Phase 3 project, Figure 8-6, will include decommissioning the existing solids handling facilities. New solids handling facilities will include the addition of gravity sludge tanks (GST), DAF Thickener, Centrate Pump Station, GST and DAF Pump Station, Digesters and Digester Building, Solids Holding Tank and Sludge Transfer Station. 8.2.3.4. Facility Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project Future expansion of the facility, Figure 8-7, will be conducted as needed. It is anticipated that two additional bioreactors will be required to meet the estimated buildout capacity of the Provo City service area. Space is provided for a sixth bioreactor that may be necessary to accommodate higher than expected growth in the City’s service area. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 79 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-1 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Preferred Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 80 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-2 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Preferred Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING STRUVITE CONTROL SYSTEM POWER DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CENTRATE PUMP STATION FLARE VESSEL H2S VESSEL SHT GST AND DAF PUMP STATION FLOW SPLITTER BOX DAF SLUDGE TRANSFER STATION DIGESTERS THERMAL OXIDIZER DIGESTER BUILDING DEWATERING BUILDING GST RNG SKID CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 81 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-3 – Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Preferred Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING STRUVITE CONTROL SYSTEM POWER DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CENTRATE PUMP STATION FLARE VESSEL H2S VESSEL SHT GST AND DAF PUMP STATION FLOW SPLITTER BOX DAF SLUDGE TRANSFER STATION DIGESTERS THERMAL OXIDIZER DIGESTER BUILDING DEWATERING BUILDING GST RNG SKID CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 82 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-4 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 83 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-5 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 84 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-6 - Proposed Site Layout – Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING STRUVITE CONTROL SYSTEM POWER DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CENTRATE PUMP STATION FLARE VESSEL H2S VESSEL SHT GST AND DAF PUMP STATION FLOW SPLITTER BOX DAF SLUDGE TRANSFER STATION DIGESTERS THERMAL OXIDIZER DIGESTER BUILDING DEWATERING BUILDING GST RNG SKID CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 85 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-7 - Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project 24" EQR 24 " S P E LEGEND REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY REUSED EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED FROM SERVICE NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE FACILITY OUTSIDE PROJECT EXISTING PIPELINE NEW PIPELINE PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE FUTURE PIPELINE 60" ML FINE / PRIMARY SCREENS EXISTING AERATION BASINS REPURPOSED AS SURGE STORAGE / EQUALIZATION BASINS EXISTING OPERATIONS BUILDING STRUVITE CONTROL SYSTEM POWER DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CENTRATE PUMP STATION FLARE VESSEL H2S VESSEL SHT GST AND DAF PUMP STATION FLOW SPLITTER BOX DAF SLUDGE TRANSFER STATION DIGESTERS THERMAL OXIDIZER DIGESTER BUILDING DEWATERING BUILDING GST RNG SKID CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 86 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 8.3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan Table 8-1 shows the estimated construction and administrative costs associated with the proposed project for both the Preferred Project and the alternative Phased Liquid Stream Project. Table 8-1 – Total Estimated Cost for Proposed Construction Phasing Plan Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Future Expansion Preferred Project Construction Costs: $138.4M $74.3M NA $35.5M Administrative Costs: $10.8M $6.7M NA $8.1M Total Cost: $149.2M $81.0M NA $43.6M Preferred Project Construction Costs: $106.9M $33.9M $74.3M $35.5M Administrative Costs: $10.8M $3.1M $6.7M $8.1M Total Cost: $117.7M $37.0M $81.0M $43.6M The City’s fund balance associated with the proposed phasing and funding plan for the Preferred Project is shown in Figure 8-8. Figure 8-8 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $120M Available Funds The City’s fund balance associated with the proposed phasing and funding plan for the alternate project using phased replacement of the liquid stream is shown in Figure 8-9. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 87 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. Figure 8-9 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $77.8M Available Funds 8.4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan The energy requirements associated with this alternative are discussed in Section 7.2 and Table 7-1, and are estimated at $3.77M annually. The increased energy costs associated with the MBR system are permeate pumping costs and aeration costs associated with membrane scouring. Additional energy costs are also associated with the addition of a biosolids aeration system. 8.5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan As discussed previously in the evaluation of alternatives, the selected plan will be constructed on the site of the existing treatment facility. This site has been utilized as a wastewater treatment facility for nearly 70 years and no environmental impact is anticipated for its continued use. The water quality produced by the upgraded facility will be significantly higher than that currently produced by the facility. The treated effluent will be lower in solids and nutrients. The regulations promulgated by the Utah DWQ to reduce phosphorus in wastewater discharges is intended to improve the health of the receiving streams for wastewater effluent. Air quality is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by the facility since all new generators will incorporate modern emission controls. 8.6. Arrangements for Implementation The City has extensive experience in the implementation of plant improvements. Arrangements specific to this project are outlined in the following sections. 8.6.1. Intermunicipal Service Agreements The new facility will be constructed to serve the existing Provo City service area. No intermunicipal service agreements are necessary. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 88 L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc. 8.6.2. Civil Rights Compliance As discussed previously in this document, the construction of the new facility will be conducted in accordance with all civil rights requirements. 8.6.3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements The operation and maintenance of the new facility will be very similar to the requirements of the existing facility. The biological process utilized is fundamentally similar and is well understood by plant operations staff. The solids separation process is an improvement to the current use of sedimentation and granular media filtration and will result in improved operability. The maintenance requirements at the facility will be improved as aging equipment is replaced by new, modern equipment. The equipment used is similar to that currently employed at the facility. Membrane maintenance will be a key area for training and education of the operations staff. Accordingly, the membrane supplier will be required to assist with training in operation and maintenance of the new membranes. It is anticipated that operations staffing requirements will be very similar to those currently in use at the facility. 8.6.4. Pre-treatment Program As discussed previously, the City has implemented and operates an approved pre-treatment program. The selected alternative will have no impact on the established plan. 8.7. Land Acquisition The Provo WATRR Center is to be constructed on the existing PCWRF site. The site is wholly owned by Provo City, and expansion beyond the limits of the property is not required. Therefore, consideration of the availability and acquisition of property was not required. Land acquisition was considered insofar as the siting and regionalization studies (APPENDIX D and APPENDIX O, respectively).