carbonaceous oxygen tanks conversion to primary effluent

Memorandum 2525 Airpark Drive Redding, CA 96001-2443 United States T +1.530.243.5831 www.jacobs.com

BI0207191627RDD 1

Subject Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary

Design Memo

Project Name Primary Effluent Pumping Station

Attention Ken Abraham and Mark Hammer

From Michael Randall and Kerilyn Paris

Date April 30, 2019

This technical memorandum (TM) has been prepared to support the basis of design definition for the carbonaceous oxygen (CO) tanks’ future conversion to diurnal primary effluent (PE) equalization. This TM summarizes the hydraulic analysis, bifurcation of primary effluent flow to the CO tank system, and Primary Effluent Pumping Station (PEPS) operation concepts for this conversion. The project component alternatives considered during preliminary design and the preferred alternative to take to final design are discussed.

1. Background

In January 2018, Jacobs presented initial hydraulic analysis findings to the Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District (District) and Program Management Office at a preliminary design workshop. The workshop covered a high-level strategy for implementation of PE flow diversion from the existing PE channel into the existing CO tanks for diurnal flow (daily fluctuations for the inflow to the District plant) equalization from April to October.

The hydraulic analysis involved modifications to the discharge location of the existing Sump 404 to facilitate the District’s current needs and the future CO tank conversion for equalization. The evaluation also considered alternatives for managing hydraulic control of the equalization flows from the PE channel to the CO tanks. The workshop concluded that additional coordination and review of the flow equalization strategy were needed to determine the preferred alternative. The workshop also resulted in direction to modify the Sump 404 discharge piping to support the District’s immediate needs for other capital projects.

The Sump 404 discharge piping was modified in April 2018 based on the workshop recommendations. Design drawings of the Sump 404 modifications are included in Attachment 1.

A second design workshop was conducted in October 2018 to further develop the design of the hydraulic diversion of equalization flows to the CO tanks.

2. Hydraulic Analysis

Hydraulic analysis was conducted to establish the following:

• Minimum PEPS flow rate for equalization

• Maximum PEPS flow rate for equalization

Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization

Preliminary Design Memo

2 BI0207191627RDD

• Target flow rates for equalization

• Diversion flow rates to the CO tanks (PE flows are above the desired equalized flow rate)

• Pump-back flow rates from CO tanks back to the PE channel (PE flows are below the desired equalized flow rate)

• The hydraulic and pump performance of PEPS

– Under diurnal flow equalization scenarios

– Under future flows

2.1 Assumptions

The assumed flow constraints for flow equalization were as follows:

• Minimum design flow: 70 million gallons per day (mgd).

– The minimum PEPS design flow is 70 mgd; therefore, the minimum flow in the PE channel downstream of CO tanks and upstream of PEPS was determined to be 70 mgd.

• Maximum daily average flow (DAF) downstream of PEPS: 217 mgd.

– This was based on the tertiary filtration capacity downstream of PEPS (SRCSD, 2014).

– This flow was used as the basis for the maximum flow assumption in the PE channel downstream of the CO tanks and upstream of PEPS during flow equalization.

• For this hydraulic analysis, the existing Sump 404 pump-back capacity constraint of 27 mgd was not considered as the maximum flow.

It was assumed that diversions to the existing CO tanks would be through new weir gates installed in the oxidation influent (OI) North and South channels. It was assumed that the pump-back flow from the CO tanks would enter the PE channel at the end of the existing primary settling tanks.

2.2 Establishment of Equalization Flow Rates

The intent of establishing equalization flow rates is to determine the range of flows that PEPS will experience. The minimum and maximum flow equalization patterns were developed from the diurnal flow patterns.

The annual 152-mgd average dry-weather flow (ADWF) April through October pattern, from the SRCSD’s Diurnal Flow Equalization Business Case Evaluation (SRCSD, 2015), was used as the basis for establishing minimum and maximum diurnal flow patterns as shown on Figure 1 (figures are provided in Attachment 1).

The average diurnal influent flow without equalization curve for an ADWF of 152 mgd was used to find the minimum and maximum flow of 109 mgd and the maximum 176 mgd, respectively. According to the methodology described in Section 2.1.1 of the Diurnal Flow Equalization Business Case Evaluation, the ratios of the minimum and maximum flow to the ADWF is 109/152 mgd (0.72) and 176/152 mgd (1.16), respectively. These ratios were used to calculate the minimum and maximum diurnal flow patterns.

2.2.1 Establishment of Minimum Diurnal Flow Patterns

PEPS minimum design flow rate of 70 mgd was used as the minimum estimated flow during equalization. The minimum diurnal curve, shown in Figure 2, was shifted to a minimum flow of 70 mgd, from the original 109 mgd without equalization. The adjusted average and maximum flows for the diurnal flow pattern using the ratios was 98 mgd and 113 mgd, respectively. The maximum diversion is the difference between the peak flow of 113 mgd and the average flow of 98 mgd, resulting in 15 mgd. The maximum pump-back flow rate is the difference between the minimum of 70 mgd and the average of 98 mgd, resulting in 28 mgd.

Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo

BI0207191627RDD 3

2.2.2 Establishment of Maximum Diurnal Flow Patterns

PEPS maximum assumed daily average flow rate of 217 mgd (the tertiary filtration capacity downstream of PEPS) was used as the maximum flow during equalization. The diurnal curve shown in Figure 2 was shifted to a target flow rate for equalization (ADWF) of 217 mgd, from the 152 mgd without equalization. The adjusted average and maximum flows for the diurnal patterns using the ratios was 156 mgd and 251 mgd, respectively. The maximum diversion is the difference between the peak flow of 251 mgd and the average flow of 217 mgd, resulting in 34 mgd. The maximum pump-back flow rate is the difference between the minimum of 156 mgd and the average of 217 mgd, resulting in 61 mgd.

2.2.3 Establishment of Target Diurnal Flow Patterns

It was assumed that one to two PEPS pumps would be running under the flow equalization scenarios. The transition point from one pump to two pumps in operation was assumed to be 120 mgd and therefore used as the diurnal target flow pattern. The same method as discussed above was used to develop the minimum and maximum flows in the 120 mgd diurnal flow pattern.

2.2.4 Flow Rates for Analysis

Table 1 summarizes the equalization flow rates. For the 120-mgd diurnal flow patterns, the same flow rates were used for both conditions of one pump in operation and two pumps in operation.

Table 1. Flows Used in the Analysis

Summary of Flows A - One Pump

Low Flow B - One Pump

High Flow C - Two Pumps

Low Flow D - Two Pumps

High Flow

Target Flow Rate for Equalization (ADWF) (mgd)

98 120 120 217

Minimum (mgd) 70 86 86 156

Maximum (mgd) 113 139 139 251

Pump-back Flow (mgd) 28 34 34 61

Diversion Flow (mgd) 15 19 19 34

2.3 Pump Analysis

Eight equalization scenarios were analyzed using the established flows (A through D) to establish the PEPS pumps performance. The intent of the equalization scenarios was to develop the full range of operating points for the PEPS pumps over all equalization flows and friction conditions contributing to high and low total dynamic head (TDH) values. The operating points consist of flow and TDH at the pumps. The TDH for the pumps is the total amount of pressure, calculated using the water surface elevation (WSE) difference (from the PE channel to the PEPS distribution structure) and the friction loss. Therefore, to calculate low and high TDH values, low and high friction factors were used and the maximum and minimum WSEs in the PE channel were used.

The eight equalization scenarios are shown in Table 2.



4 BI0207191627RDD

Table 2. Equalization Scenarios Equalization Scenario No. Number of Pumps Flow

TDH and Friction Factor

WSE in PE Channel

1 One Low (Flow A) Low High

2 One Low (Flow A) High Low

3 One High (Flow B) Low High

4 One High (Flow B) High Low

5 Two Low (Flow C) Low High

6 Two Low (Flow C) High Low

7 Two High (Flow D) Low High

8 Two High (Flow D) High Low

Figure 3 shows Equalization Scenarios 1 through 4 for one pump operating at PEPS. Figure 4 shows Equalization Scenarios 5 through 8 for two pumps operating at PEPS.

The intent of the analysis was to find the PEPS pumps operating points for the range of expected inflows and TDH values. The flows were determined in Section 2.2. The TDH values were calculated by the model. As discussed above, TDH is calculated from two values: the WSE difference between pump inlet and outlet and the friction loss. The WSE upstream of the pumps was found for each of the equalization scenarios using the PE channel model used during PEPS design, WinHydro. The TDH was modeled with the same Fathom model developed during PEPS design, with the input of the upstream WSE from the WinHydro model.

The existing hydraulic profile for PEPS is shown on Figure 5. This hydraulic profile was used to model the WSEs in the PE channel. The assumed pump-back and diversion location is shown on the figure in red.

In the PE channel model (WinHydro), the upstream WSE at PEPS was calculated through iterations to match the target WSE (depending on the equalization scenario) downstream of the primary level control gate (locations are shown on Figure 5). Then, the upstream WSE at PEPS and the friction factor (depending on the scenario) were used as input for the Fathom model of the PEPS pumps to find the expected TDH of the PEPS pumps. The operating points (flow and TDH) for each pump under each scenario were determined. Figure 5 shows the WSEs calculated from the model for the Equalization Scenarios 1, 2, 7, and 8. These scenarios represent the range of operations points.

2.4 Pump Results

The results of the analysis established the operating points on the pump curves for the eight equalization scenarios. To interpret the results, the operating points were plotted on the system head-capacity curves for the PEPS pumps. The system head-capacity curve was developed based on the PEPS pump curve, shown on Figure 6.

Figure 7 shows the head-capacity curve for the PEPS pumps; the preferable operating range (POR) and the allowable operating range (AOR) for the PEPS pumps; and the eight operating points for the scenarios in this analysis. The POR and AOR are defined as 70 percent of best efficiency point to 120 percent of best efficiency point according to Hydraulic Institute standards. The pump manufacturer helped define the AOR and submitted PEPS pump curve.


BI0207191627RDD 5

2.5 Hydraulic Analysis Conclusion

As shown on Figure 7, the operating points for Equalization Scenarios 1 through 8 (denoted with “1” through “8”), are well within the POR for the PEPS pumps and are, therefore, compatible with the existing PEPS design. This means that the PEPS pumps will be able to operate within the preferred range for the full range of flows during flow equalization in the summer months. This hydraulic analysis concluded that the PEPS design is compatible with flow equalization up to 217 mgd, DAF.

3. Bifurcation of Primary Effluent Flow Alternative Analysis

An alternative analysis was conducted for the bifurcation of PE flow to PEPS and the future CO tank conversion. In the future, flow will need to split under controllable flow scenarios to the two facilities and be compatible with the current PEPS design control strategy. Four alternatives were evaluated, and a high-level cost estimate analysis was developed for each feasible alternative.

The CO tank system consists of two OI channels that divert water to the North and South oxidation structures. The North CO tanks contain five tanks, and the South CO tanks contain eight tanks.

The following alternatives (as shown on Figure 8) were presented for consideration at the workshop:

1) Modulate the existing 48-inch second stage butterfly valves in the CO tanks

2) Modulate the existing OI channel butterfly gates in the North and South OI channels

3) Construct new fixed weirs in the OI channel

4) Construct new modulating weir gates in the OI channel

3.1 Alternative 1: Modulating the Existing 48-inch Secondary Stage Butterfly Valves

Alternative 1 entails modulating the existing 48-inch secondary stage butterfly valves in each of the CO tanks to generate the required headloss to maintain and control WSE at the upstream end of the existing PE channel, where the PEPS pump design level control is defined. This operation requires the valves to maintain approximately 2.8 to 4.27 feet of headloss across all actively diverting valves during a flow diversion. Each of the existing CO tanks contains two 48-inch butterfly valves that currently provide isolation to each CO tank as shown on Figure 9. A total of twenty-six 48-inch butterfly valves would need to be retrofitted to provide modulation control to implement this alternative. Modulation of these valves is limited to a minimum of 10 percent open for reliable flow control and to limit the risk of cavitation. At 10 percent open, the valve generates the required minimum headloss of 4.27 feet to maintain the PEPS design water surface at a flow rate of 4.3 mgd. As stated in Table 1, required controlled flow diversions to the CO tanks are between 0 and 34 mgd. This flow range is not compatible with the existing 48-inch butterfly valves; if flow control were to cycle through each individual valve during a flow diversion, the valve would not be able to provide reliable level control below 4.3 mgd. Due to the poor turndown control of the butterfly valves, this alternative is fatally flawed and not feasible.

3.2 Alternative 2: Modulating the Existing Oxidation Influent Channel Butterfly Gates

Alternative 2 consists of providing modulating control of the two existing butterfly gates in each of the two OI channels. Each OI channel has a 14-foot 4-inch by 12-foot 4-inch butterfly gate that currently acts as isolation for each OI structure. Figure 8 shows the location of these two butterfly gates. Product data submittals of the two valves are needed to verify specific dimensions and to determine if these gates can be modulated. However, due to the size of these gates, the flow throttling ability would be less effective than the 48-inch butterfly valves evaluated in Alternative 1, and further investigations would be needed to determine the condition of these gates. Similar to Alternative 1, modulating these two gates does not provide reliable flow control; therefore, this alternative is fatally flawed and not considered.



6 BI0207191627RDD

3.3 Alternative 3: New Fixed Weirs in the Oxidation Influent Channel

Alternative 3 consists of installing a fixed overflow weir in each of the OI North and South channels behind the large butterfly gates identified in Alternative 2 and shown on Figure 8. This alternative would use the butterfly gates to isolate the fixed weir when diversions are not occurring. The addition of a new fixed concrete weir in each OI channel allows for flow control to the CO tanks by setting the PEPS PE pumps to “Flow Control Mode” and pumping the anticipated equalized flow described in Section 2 of this TM. The WSE in the PE and OI channels would be allowed to rise to spill flow above the PEPS PE pump flow rate to the CO tanks. Fixed weir diversions would be controlled with a fixed weir elevation of 116.30 feet and by allowing the PEPS PE pumps to pump a constant flow rate and spill the remaining flow to the CO tanks. The fixed crest weir length to divert 34 mgd to the CO tanks is 15 feet, which is the approximate width of the OI channel.

The class 5 cost estimate for this alternative is $41,250. A detailed report of the cost of Alternative 3 is included in Attachment 2.

3.4 Alternative 4: New Modulating Weir Gates in the Oxidation Influent Channel

Alternative 4 is similar to the fixed weirs discussed in Alternative 3, except the weir elevation is adjustable by using a downward-acting weir gate shown on Figure 10. This alternative allows for greater flow control in a smaller footprint than Alternative 3. This alternative requires the installation of a 6-foot modulating weir gate in each of the two OI channels. The modulating weir gates would require the construction of a concrete wall within the OI channel to facilitate mounting of the gate frame. The modulating weirs would divert flows between 0 and 34 mgd into each OI channel. The adjustable weir would allow for accurate flow diversions over the diversion flow rates and present less operational risk than the fixed weir alternative. Approximate weir dimensions are shown on Figure 10. The peak diversion flow of 34 mgd results in a flow depth of 2 feet over the weir.

This alternative does have additional maintenance concerns due to the required reliability of a submerged modulating weir within a PE flow stream application. The weirs would require additional operation and maintenance (O&M) attention over the fixed weir alternative.

The class 5 cost estimate for this alternative is $173,369. A detailed report of the cost of Alternative 4 is included in the Attachment 2.

3.5 Preferred Bifurcation of Flow Alternative

The preferred alternative for reliable flow equalization and bifurcation between the PEPS facility and the future CO tank equalization is Alternative 3. This alternative provides flow controllability, ensuring that flow diversions to the CO tanks can be diverted in a controlled manner with limited impact on the operations of the PEPS facility operations. The preferred fixed weir Alternative 3 is the least cost viable alternative and has fewer operational concerns when compared against the adjustable weir Alternative 4. Although the modulating weir gate, Alternative 4, gives more flow control, it is more expensive and needs more O&M attention then Alternative 3.

4. Operational Concepts

The control concepts for the fixed weir alternative with the PEPS pumps are preliminary and for discussion purposes only.

4.1 Build-out Case

The PEPS pumps could be placed in “Flow” mode where the pumps deliver a constant flow rate set at the current DAF, through the biologic nutrient removal (BNR) influent flowmeters. The mode could automatically be set to “Flow” mode either by time of day or when flow exceeds DAF setpoint rate at the beginning of each daily cycle. The DAF would need to be selected to maximize diversion effectiveness. Flow equalization would happen via the butterfly gates upstream of the fixed weir to maintain the WSE at


BI0207191627RDD 7

the redundant level transmitters installed under the PEPS/BNR Project in the upstream end of the existing PE channel immediately after the primary settling tanks.

The system could revert to PEPS “Level” mode whenever the diversion weir gates close. The diversion weir gates could close when the CO tanks are full or when pump-back from the CO tanks begins.

The “Flow” mode would also be functional during storage pump-back or during periods of no equalization. The pump-back rate would need to be added to the “Feed Forward” flow rate that PEPS uses to determine the number of pumps that are called to start. The number of pumps to be called to start should be coordinated with the actual pump curve and existing “Feed Forward” control logic.

The PEPS pump control for flow equalization remains unchanged from the original design. Control would be required to decide PEPS control mode (“Flow” mode or “Level” mode).

4.2 Sump 404 Pump-back (27 mgd) Case

If the system is limited to a pump-back flow of 27 mgd, then fully automatic flow equalization control is likely not feasible. The time of day for diversions and pump-back would need to be selected by an operator. The system would work with 12 hours of diverting flow at 20 mgd, approximately 10 hours of pump-back flow with a variable pumping rate from Sump 404, and 2 hours of idle time. In this case, the PEPS pumps would always be in “Level” mode. The diversion and pump-back rates would be flow controlled and would need to be developed through experience and operator input.

4.3 Challenges

Following are the expected challenges with controlling the flow equalization system:

• With the build-out case, the prediction of the DAF setpoint flow each day will constantly change, and it will be difficult to maximize the effectiveness of the equalization. This prediction/selection of the DAF is less of a challenge with the Sump 404 Pump-back Case because of the volume limitation in pump-back and lower pump-back and diversion flows.

• It will be challenging to determine the pump-back flow rate pattern and the associated control and timing to maintain equalized flow to the PEPS pumps.

• The system only works during dry-weather flows (April to October). Modified control provisions will be needed for use during higher flow equalization scenarios, if desired in the future.

• Before build-out capacity is provided, a scheme to determine diversion and pump-back flows is needed. Note that this operation may not be fully automated and will likely require operator control/ management.

5. Conclusion

Based on the alternative analysis, the preferred alternative for flow control of PE diversions to the CO tanks is Alternative 3, requiring the construction of a new fixed weir in each of the two OI channels. This option provides the best flow control for flow equalization, low O&M, and is more feasible. Alternatives 1 and 2 were determined to be fatally flawed and not considered. Alternative 4 is not as feasible and would cost more in O&M upkeep.

Before using the CO tanks for diversion and equalization, the District must upgrade Sump 404 to be Hydraulic Institute compliant or build a new pump system with a capacity of 60 mgd. According to Diurnal Flow Equalization BCE 10-15 2015, Sump 404 has a capacity of 27 mgd, but the operators estimate the flow from these pumps is less than 27 mgd, which would limit the pump-back capacity of the system and reduce the District’s ability to equalize flow.



8 BI0207191627RDD

6. References

Hydraulic Institute Standard. 2015. Pumps-General Guidelines.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). 2014. CO Tank Conversion v2 Business Case Evaluation. Preliminary for review only.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). 2015. Diurnal Flow Equalization Business Case Evaluation. Preliminary for review only.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). 2018. District Leadership Technical Memorandum Summary.

Attachment 1 Figures

Figure 1. 152-mgd ADWF Average Diurnal Flow Pattern April through OctoberCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo

Primary Effluent Pumping StationSacramento County, CA

BI0207191627RDD

Note:TTF = Tertiary Treatment FacilityAAF = Annual Average FlowEQ = Equalization

Figure 2. 152-mgd ADWF Average Diurnal Flow Pattern, with Approximations of Minimumand Maximum Flow Equalization Curves

Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design MemoPrimary Effluent Pumping Station

Sacramento County, CA

BI0207191627RDD

Note:TTF = Tertiary Treatment FacilityAAF = Annual Average FlowEQ = Equalization

-

-

Figure 3. Hydraulic Analysis – Equalization Scenarios for One Pump Operating at PEPS – 1 through 4Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

Figure 4. Hydraulic Analysis – Equalization Scenarios for Two Pumps Operating at PEPS – 5 through 8Carbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

Upstream WSE at PEPS Target WSE

Downstream of Primary Level Control Gates

Figure 5. Hydraulic Profile for PEPSCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

Note:PB = pump-back DIV = diversion PI = primary influentBNR = biologic nutrient removal

BI0207191627RDD

Figure 6. Pump Curve for the PEPS PumpsCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


Note:rpm = revolutions per minute

Figure 7. System Head-capacity Curves for the PEPS PumpsCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

Figure 8. Bifurcation Alternatives PlanCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

Figure 9. Plan View of 48-inch Butterfly Valve LocationCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


BI0207191627RDD

BI0207191627RDD

Figure 10. Modulating Weir GateCarbonaceous Oxygen Tanks Conversion to Primary Effluent Equalization Preliminary Design Memo


Attachment 2 Cost Estimates

Detail ReportProject type: Project Name: PEPS CO Tank Analysis Alternative 1 Rev 0 Estimator: Nick Cavalleri/RDD

Job Size: Project Number: 481226 Rev/Date: 0 / Jan. 16, 2019

Duration: Design Stage: Preliminary Estimate Class: 5

Area Facility Discipline CSI Div WorkActiv Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Cost/Unit Material Cost/Unit Sub Cost/Unit Equip Cost/Unit Total Cost/Unit Total Amount Grand Total PriceGrand Total

Amount

01 Alternative 1

04 Primary Effluent Pumping Station

A Prime Contractor

40 Process Integration

NJC-002 Install Electrical Actuators on Existing 48-Inch Butterfly Valves

Furnish and Install Electrical Actuators to Existing Valves 26.00 ea 1,828.61 /ea 3,000.00 /ea 200.00 /ea 5,028.61 /ea 130,744 8,490.59 /ea 220,755

NJC-002 Install Electrical Actuators on Existing 48-Inch Butterfly Valves 26.00 EA 1,828.61 /EA 3,000.00 /EA /EA 200.00 /EA 5,028.61 /EA 130,744 8,490.59 /EA 220,755

NJC-012 Valve Rehabilitation

48" Bolt & Gasket Kits, CS, 150# 52.00 ea 302.52 /ea 307.00 /ea - - 609.52 /ea 31,695 1,024.62 /ea 53,280

Remove Existing Valves, Assumes Shutdown of Half the Process System at a Time 26.00 ea 1,219.07 /ea 200.00 /ea 1,419.07 /ea 36,896 2,328.32 /ea 60,536

Package and Ship Valves for Rehabilitation 2.00 ea 1,674.37 /ea 5,000.00 /ea 400.00 /ea 7,074.37 /ea 14,149 12,007.14 /ea 24,014

Rehabilitation of Valves 26.00 ea 6,500.00 /ea 6,500.00 /ea 169,000 11,184.75 /ea 290,804

Return Ship Valves 2.00 ea 5,000.00 /ea 5,000.00 /ea 10,000 8,603.66 /ea 17,207

Install Rehabilitaed Valves 26.00 ea 1,219.07 /ea 200.00 /ea 1,419.07 /ea 36,896 2,328.32 /ea 60,536

NJC-012 Valve Rehabilitation 26.00 EA 3,171.98 /EA 7,883.23 /EA /EA 430.77 /EA 11,485.98 /EA 298,636 19,476.06 /EA 506,378

40 Process Integration 1.00 ls 130,015.33 /ls 282,964.00 /ls /ls 16,400.00 /ls 429,379.33 /ls 429,379 727,133.05 /ls 727,133

A Prime Contractor 1.00 ls 130,015.33 /ls 282,964.00 /ls /ls 16,400.00 /ls 429,379.33 /ls 429,379 727,133.05 /ls 727,133

B Sub-Contractor

26 Electrical

NJC-004 Electrical Conduits and Conductors

Wire, copper, stranded, 600 volt, #10, type THWN-THHN, in raceway 128.00 clf 54.55 /clf 16.10 /clf - - 70.65 /clf 9,043 124.26 /clf 15,906

Wire Connections/Terminations 156.00 ea 3.61 /ea 0.10 /ea 3.71 /ea 579 6.47 /ea 1,009

Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 4,300.00 /ls 4,300.00 /ls 8,600.00 /ls 8,600 15,314.28 /ls 15,314

Rigid galvanized steel plastic coated conduit, 40 mil. thick, 1" diameter, to 15' high, incl 2

terminations, 2 elbows & 11 beam clamps per 100 LF

4,060.00 lf 1.71 /lf 10.00 /lf - - 11.71 /lf 47,520 21.17 /lf 85,968

NJC-004 Electrical Conduits and Conductors 4,060.00 LF 4.62 /LF 11.57 /LF /LF /LF 16.19 /LF 65,742 29.11 /LF 118,198

26 Electrical 1.00 ls 18,765.84 /ls 46,976.40 /ls /ls /ls 65,742.24 /ls 65,742 118,197.64 /ls 118,198


NJC-010 I&C

I&C Allowance, Includes Integration 1.00 ls 17,339.52 /ls 15,000.00 /ls 3,600.00 /ls 35,939.52 /ls 35,940 63,761.04 /ls 63,761

NJC-010 I&C 1.00 ls 17,339.52 /ls 15,000.00 /ls /ls 3,600.00 /ls 35,939.52 /ls 35,940 63,761.04 /ls 63,761


B Sub-Contractor 1.00 ls 36,105.36 /ls 61,976.40 /ls /ls 3,600.00 /ls 101,681.76 /ls 101,682 181,958.68 /ls 181,959

04 Primary Effluent Pumping Station 1.00 LS 166,120.69 /LS 344,940.40 /LS /LS 20,000.00 /LS 531,061.09 /LS 531,061 909,091.73 /LS 909,092

01 Alternative 1 1.00 LS 166,120.69 /LS 344,940.40 /LS /LS 20,000.00 /LS 531,061.09 /LS 531,061 909,091.73 /LS 909,092

PEPS CO Tank Analysis Alternative 1 Rev 0 1/16/2019 2:07 PM

Page 1




Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals Hours RateLabor 166,121 2,179.700 hrs

Material 344,940

Subcontract

Construction Equipment 20,000 903.800 hrs

Other Costs

Direct Cost Sub-Total 531,061 531,061

Material Sales & Use Tax 27,595 8.000 %

Sub-Total 27,595 558,656

Home Office Overhead 16,760 3.000 %

Sub-Total 16,760 575,416

Sub-Contractor OH&P 10,168 10.000 %

Sub-Contractor Total 10,168 585,584

Project Office Overhead 58,558 10.000 %

Contractor Profit 38,649 6.000 %

Insurance 2,731 0.400 %

Permits 6,855 1.000 %

Bonds 6,924 1.000 %

Sub-Total 113,717 699,301

Contingency 209,790 30.000 %

Sub-Total 209,790 909,091

Construction Total 909,091


Page 2





Amount

02 Alternative 2


A Prime Contractor


NJC-002 Install Electrical Actuators on Existing 48-Inch Butterfly Valves

Furnish and Install Electrical Actuators to Existing Valves 2.00 ea 1,828.61 /ea 3,000.00 /ea 200.00 /ea 5,028.61 /ea 10,057 8,608.95 /ea 17,218

NJC-002 Install Electrical Actuators on Existing 48-Inch Butterfly Valves 2.00 EA 1,828.61 /EA 3,000.00 /EA /EA 200.00 /EA 5,028.61 /EA 10,057 8,608.95 /EA 17,218

40 Process Integration 1.00 ls 3,657.22 /ls 6,000.00 /ls /ls 400.00 /ls 10,057.22 /ls 10,057 17,217.90 /ls 17,218

A Prime Contractor 1.00 ls 3,657.22 /ls 6,000.00 /ls /ls 400.00 /ls 10,057.22 /ls 10,057 17,217.90 /ls 17,218

B Sub-Contractor

26 Electrical



Wire Connections/Terminations 12.00 ea 3.61 /ea 0.10 /ea 0.00 /ea 0.00 /ea 3.71 /ea 45 6.56 /ea 79

Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 800.00 /ls 800.00 /ls 0.00 /ls 0.00 /ls 1,600.00 /ls 1,600 2,886.81 /ls 2,887



735.00 lf 1.71 /lf 10.00 /lf - - 11.71 /lf 8,603 21.45 /lf 15,766

NJC-004 Electrical Conduits and Conductors 735.00 LF 4.57 /LF 11.60 /LF /LF /LF 16.17 /LF 11,884 29.45 /LF 21,648



NJC-010 I&C

I&C Allowance, Includes Integration 1.00 ls 2,889.92 /ls 3,000.00 /ls 600.00 /ls 6,489.92 /ls 6,490 11,689.94 /ls 11,690

NJC-010 I&C 1.00 ls 2,889.92 /ls 3,000.00 /ls /ls 600.00 /ls 6,489.92 /ls 6,490 11,689.94 /ls 11,690


B Sub-Contractor 1.00 ls 6,249.39 /ls 11,524.08 /ls /ls 600.00 /ls 18,373.47 /ls 18,373 33,337.64 /ls 33,338


02 Alternative 2 1.00 LS 9,906.61 /LS 17,524.08 /LS /LS 1,000.00 /LS 28,430.69 /LS 28,431 50,555.54 /LS 50,556


Page 1




Estimate Totals

Description Amount Totals Hours RateLabor 9,907 125.503 hrs

Material 17,524

Subcontract


Other Costs



Sub-Total 1,402 29,833

Home Office Overhead 895 3.000 %

Sub-Total 895 30,728





Insurance 152 0.400 %

Permits 381 1.000 %

Bonds 385 1.000 %

Sub-Total 6,323 38,888

Contingency 11,667 30.000 %

Sub-Total 11,667 50,555



Page 2





Amount

03 Alternative 3


A Prime Contractor

03 Concrete

NJC-006 Concrete Weirs

C.I.P. concrete forms, wall, job built, plywood, 8 to 16' high, 3 use, includes erecting, bracing,

stripping and cleaning

735.00 sfca 14.25 /sfca 1.10 /sfca - - 15.35 /sfca 11,282 24.79 /sfca 18,220

Form oil, coverage varies greatly, maximum, includes material only 1.96 gal - 21.50 /gal - - 21.50 /gal 42 36.32 /gal 71

Reinforcing Steel, in place, walls, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material

for accessories

1.25 ton 1,260.94 /ton 1,200.00 /ton - - 2,460.94 /ton 3,076 4,056.20 /ton 5,070

Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add - walls, cols, beams 1.25 ton 43.71 /ton - - 11.40 /ton 55.11 /ton 69 88.69 /ton 111

Drill and Epoxy Set Dowels 44.00 ea 7.48 /ea 15.00 /ea 1.79 /ea 24.26 /ea 1,067 40.24 /ea 1,771

Concrete, ready mix, regular weight, walls/cols/beams, 4000 psi 14.50 cy - 128.00 /cy - - 128.00 /cy 1,856 216.22 /cy 3,135

Structural concrete, placing, walls, pumped, 15" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes

material

14.00 cy 99.48 /cy - - 18.96 /cy 118.45 /cy 1,658 190.61 /cy 2,669

Concrete finishing, walls, burlap rub with grout, includes breaking ties and patching voids 735.00 sf 2.66 /sf 0.04 /sf - - 2.70 /sf 1,987 4.35 /sf 3,201

Clean and Prepare Existing Channel for New Concrete Weir 2.00 ea 1,674.37 /ea 250.00 /ea 240.00 /ea 2,164.37 /ea 4,329 3,502.95 /ea 7,006

NJC-006 Concrete Weirs 2.00 EA 9,566.34 /EA 2,698.02 /EA /EA 419.16 /EA 12,683.52 /EA 25,367 20,626.42 /EA 41,253

03 Concrete 1.00 ls 19,132.68 /ls 5,396.04 /ls /ls 838.32 /ls 25,367.04 /ls 25,367 41,252.85 /ls 41,253

A Prime Contractor 1.00 ls 19,132.68 /ls 5,396.04 /ls /ls 838.32 /ls 25,367.04 /ls 25,367 41,252.85 /ls 41,253

04 Primary Effluent Pumping Station 1.00 LS 19,132.68 /LS 5,396.04 /LS /LS 838.32 /LS 25,367.04 /LS 25,367 41,252.85 /LS 41,253

03 Alternative 3 30.00 LF 637.76 /LF 179.87 /LF /LF 27.94 /LF 845.57 /LF 25,367 1,375.10 /LF 41,253


Page 1




Estimate Totals


Material 5,396

Subcontract

Construction Equipment 838 43.242 hrs

Other Costs


Material Sales & Use Tax 432 8.000 %


Home Office Overhead 774 3.000 %


Sub-Contractor OH&P 10.000 %

Sub-Contractor Total 26,573




Permits 311 1.000 %

Bonds 314 1.000 %

Sub-Total 5,160 31,733


Sub-Total 9,520 41,253



Page 2





Amount

04 Alternative 4


A Prime Contractor

03 Concrete

NJC-006 Concrete Weirs

C.I.P. concrete forms, wall, box out for opening, to 16" thick, over 10 S.F. (use perimeter), includes

erecting, bracing, stripping and cleaning

22.00 lf 26.45 /lf 2.28 /lf - - 28.73 /lf 632 47.19 /lf 1,038

C.I.P. concrete forms, wall, job built, plywood, 8 to 16' high, 3 use, includes erecting, bracing,

stripping and cleaning

735.00 sfca 14.25 /sfca 1.10 /sfca - - 15.35 /sfca 11,282 25.21 /sfca 18,526

Form oil, coverage varies greatly, maximum, includes material only 1.96 gal - 21.50 /gal - - 21.50 /gal 42 36.89 /gal 72

Reinforcing Steel, in place, walls, #3 to #7, A615, grade 60, incl labor for accessories, excl material

for accessories

1.05 ton 1,260.94 /ton 1,200.00 /ton - - 2,460.94 /ton 2,584 4,123.05 /ton 4,329

Reinforcing in place, unloading & sorting, add - walls, cols, beams 1.05 ton 43.71 /ton - - 11.40 /ton 55.11 /ton 58 90.18 /ton 95

Drill and Epoxy Set Dowels 44.00 ea 7.48 /ea 15.00 /ea 1.79 /ea 24.26 /ea 1,067 40.90 /ea 1,800

Concrete, ready mix, regular weight, walls/cols/beams, 4000 psi 12.50 cy - 128.00 /cy - - 128.00 /cy 1,600 219.70 /cy 2,746

Structural concrete, placing, walls, pumped, 15" thick, includes strike off & consolidation, excludes

material

12.00 cy 99.48 /cy - - 18.96 /cy 118.45 /cy 1,421 193.83 /cy 2,326

Concrete finishing, walls, burlap rub with grout, includes breaking ties and patching voids 303.00 sf 2.66 /sf 0.04 /sf - - 2.70 /sf 819 4.43 /sf 1,342

Clean and Prepare Existing Channel for New Concrete Weir 2.00 ea 1,674.37 /ea 250.00 /ea 240.00 /ea 2,164.37 /ea 4,329 3,561.74 /ea 7,123

NJC-006 Concrete Weirs 2.00 EA 9,051.89 /EA 2,466.46 /EA /EA 399.06 /EA 11,917.41 /EA 23,835 19,698.72 /EA 39,397

03 Concrete 1.00 ls 18,103.78 /ls 4,932.92 /ls /ls 798.11 /ls 23,834.81 /ls 23,835 39,397.44 /ls 39,397


NJC-008 Diversion Weir Gates

Slide gates, hydraulic structures, self contained, 72" x 72", incl. anchor bolts & grout 2.00 ea 7,378.77 /ea 20,000.00 /ea - 2,006.59 /ea 29,385.36 /ea 58,771 49,685.62 /ea 99,371

NJC-008 Diversion Weir Gates 2.00 EA 7,378.77 /EA 20,000.00 /EA /EA 2,006.59 /EA 29,385.36 /EA 58,771 49,685.62 /EA 99,371


A Prime Contractor 1.00 ls 32,861.32 /ls 44,932.92 /ls /ls 4,811.29 /ls 82,605.53 /ls 82,606 138,768.68 /ls 138,769

B Sub-Contractor

26 Electrical



Wire Connections/Terminations 12.00 ea 3.61 /ea 0.10 /ea 3.71 /ea 45 6.45 /ea 77

Miscellaneous Items Allowance 1.00 ls 800.00 /ls 800.00 /ls 1,600.00 /ls 1,600 2,842.21 /ls 2,842



800.00 lf 1.71 /lf 10.00 /lf - - 11.71 /lf 9,364 21.12 /lf 16,899

NJC-004 Electrical Conduits and Conductors 800.00 LF 4.56 /LF 11.53 /LF /LF /LF 16.09 /LF 12,873 28.86 /LF 23,091



NJC-010 I&C

I&C Allowance, Includes Integration 1.00 ls 2,889.92 /ls 3,000.00 /ls 600.00 /ls 6,489.92 /ls 6,490 11,508.97 /ls 11,509

NJC-010 I&C 1.00 ls 2,889.92 /ls 3,000.00 /ls /ls 600.00 /ls 6,489.92 /ls 6,490 11,508.97 /ls 11,509


B Sub-Contractor 1.00 ls 6,536.91 /ls 12,226.24 /ls /ls 600.00 /ls 19,363.15 /ls 19,363 34,599.88 /ls 34,600


04 Alternative 4 2.00 EA 19,699.12 /EA 28,579.58 /EA /EA 2,705.65 /EA 50,984.34 /EA 101,969 86,684.28 /EA 173,369


Page 1




Estimate Totals


Material 57,159

Subcontract


Other Costs



Sub-Total 4,573 106,541

Home Office Overhead 3,196 3.000 %

Sub-Total 3,196 109,737






Permits 1,307 1.000 %

Bonds 1,320 1.000 %

Sub-Total 21,685 133,358


Sub-Total 40,008 173,366



Page 2

carbonaceous oxygen tanks conversion to primary effluent

Documents