14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19) FULL

WASTEWATER
GENERAL SEWER PLAN

AND FACILITY PLAN
ADDENDUM
February 8, 2019
WASTEWATER
GENERAL SEWER PLAN
AND FACILITY PLAN
ADDENDUM
February 8, 2019
2-08-2019
City of Leavenworth, WA Wastewater General Sewer Plan & Facility Plan (GSP/FP) Addendum
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
WASTEWATER GENERAL SEWER PLAN
AND FACILITY PLAN (GSP/FP) ADDENDUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE ............................................................................... 1

2.0 SUMMARY OF PRE-DESIGN REVISIONS .......................................................... 2
2.1 Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)..................................................................................... 2
2.2 Biological Phosphorus Removal ............................................................................................... 2
2.3 Clarifiers (C1 & C2) .................................................................................................................. 3
2.4 Tertiary Treatment.................................................................................................................... 3
2.4.1 Site Selection ................................................................................................................... 3
2.4.2 Tertiary Treatment Equipment .......................................................................................... 4
2.5 Ultraviolet Disinfection .............................................................................................................. 5
2.6 Biosolids Dewatering ................................................................................................................ 5
3.0 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 6
3.1 Updated Schematic and Hydraulic Profile ................................................................................. 6
3.2 Costs and Project Financing ..................................................................................................... 6
3.3 SEPA/NEPA Compliance ......................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic Flow Diagram

Figure 2: Hydraulic Profile
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)
Appendix B: Biological Phosphorus Removal
Appendix C: Small Clarifiers Upgrade
Appendix D: Tertiary Treatment
Appendix E: Ultraviolet Disinfection
Appendix F: Biosolids Dewatering
14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx i Varela & Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE

The City of Leavenworth completed their “Wastewater General Sewer Plan and Facility Plan
(GSP/FP)” in 2017. The final GSP/FP, dated 9/1/17, was submitted to Ecology (ECY), and ECY gave
their final approval on 10/16/17.
Design of wastewater treatment plant upgrades outlined in the GSP/FP commenced in 2018. In
conjunction with predesign, several design decisions and modifications have resulted, based on City
input and preferences. The revisions were discussed with ECY during a City/Engineer/ECY meeting
in Leavenworth on 12/6/18. ECY indicated that any design revisions must be documented in an
addendum to the facility plan to be submitted to ECY for review and approval.
This Addendum documents the revisions to the various plant processes and supplements the original
approved GSP/FP document. The planning data and projections, design criteria and other elements of
the original approved GSP/FP remain in effect and unchanged.
14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 1 Varela & Associates

2.0 SUMMARY OF PRE-DESIGN REVISIONS

2.1 Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)
The approved GSP/FP modifications included the following proposed headworks modifications:
• Installation of automatic bar-rack (3/8” openings)

• Replacement of the existing comminutor
• Replacement of the existing fine screen
During predesign, further City input and preferences resulted in the following revised upgrade plan:
• Install new single fine-screen unit (traveling element type screen w/ 3mm openings) in lieu of
new bar-rack, comminutor, fine screen:
o FSM Perforated Filter Screen Model FRSIII 550 x 3075/3
o FMS Screenings Wash Press Model SPW 200 x 700
• Remove and dispose comminutor
• Tilt existing fine screen out of the channel and retain as backup
• Upgrades to the existing PISTA Grit unit per manufacturer recommendations to address
existing equipment deficiencies and improve efficiencies during low influent flows:
o Optiflow 270 Baffle System (Low Flow Baffle and 270 B Exit Baffle)
o Drive unit upgrades / Add Grit Fluidizer
o Replace PISTA grit drive system / add self-priming pump (replace vacuum prime)
Regarding the last bullet pertaining to the PISTA Grit, the approved GSP/FP did not include grit system
upgrades. However, during predesign further investigation was done regarding poor efficiency of grit
removal and the overall equipment condition and deficiencies. This resulted in manufacturer
recommended equipment upgrades and channel baffling to improve efficiency adopted by the City.
Refer to Appendix A to this GSP/FP Addendum for further information regarding equipment and
components. The design phase and drawing development is currently underway based on the proposed
concept and equipment outlined.
2.2 Biological Phosphorus Removal

Biological phosphorus removal alternatives presented in the approved GSP/FP included significant
investments in odor capture and control, due to the possibility that anaerobic basins in the Bio-P process
could result in the generation of objectionable odors. The costs for this odor control infrastructure
contributed to it not being cost-competitive with strictly chemical phosphorus removal.
The potential for substantial operational costs savings using Bio-P (due to reduced chemical
consumption) motivated the City to re-evaluate and consider implementation options for biological
phosphorus removal in Leavenworth. The re-evaluation also included establishing the City’s tolerance
for odor risk, and a review of measures to include in the project that could allow the City to quickly
address odors if they became a problem.

The re-evaluation results are presented in the attachments to this GSP/FP Addendum. In summary, the
project now includes implementation of biological phosphorus removal utilizing existing tank volumes
and not including specific odor capture and treatment. The process includes on-line instrumentation
and a control system to maximize the use of available process volume and limit the potential for odors.
The project will still include a chemical feed system capable of adding metal salt coagulants at several
operator selectable locations within and after biological treatment. This chemical addition capability
will be available for operator use if the biological phosphorus removal is under-performing, or if odor
problems require the operator to temporarily change the process train to mitigate odors, resulting in
loss of Bio-P.
Refer to Appendix B to this GSP/FP Addendum for details regarding the biological process and the
associated upgrades, including estimates for operation and maintenance cost savings. A conceptual
schematic of this process train is shown in the figure below. The design phase and drawing
development is currently underway based on the proposed concept and equipment outlined.
Compromise Biological Phosphorus Removal Process Train
2.3 Clarifiers (C1 & C2)

The approved GSP/FP did not include upgrades to the existing older small clarifiers, referred to as C1
and C2. The two small clarifiers are old style peripheral feed clarifier mechanisms, installed during the
original clarifiers construction in 1980. During predesign further discussions with the City indicated
that the small clarifiers perform poorly, and the City made the decision to upgrade/retrofit the smaller
clarifiers with newer style center feed mechanisms. The newer large clarifier (C3) constructed in 2000
is the newer style center feed clarifier mechanism, and upgrades are not planned for C3.
Refer to Appendix C to this GSP/FP Addendum for further information regarding equipment and
2.4 Tertiary Treatment
2.4.1 Site Selection

The approved GSP/FP showed the tertiary treatment improvements sited on the upper bench area in
the location of the existing City Shop / Maintenance Building. The proposed location would necessitate

the City Shop to be demolished and relocated, to accommodate the tertiary treatment building. Upon
further consideration, the City indicated this option is undesirable at the current time.
Alternate locations for consideration included either moving the building further to east, in an effort to
avoid or reduce impacts to the City Shop or further north on the upper bench. However, a more
preferred option for the City, if feasible, is to site the new tertiary treatment facility on the existing
main treatment site, just below (south) of the existing lab/ops building and west of the existing
headworks building. The proposed area is currently a parking area.
A feasibility and desirability assessment was done and found the alternate site feasible. The evaluation
findings are included in Appendix D as TM-01: Tertiary Treatment Site Selection. The design phase
and drawing development is currently underway based on the proposed concept and equipment
outlined.
2.4.2 Tertiary Treatment Equipment

The approved GSP/FP showed package disk filters to be a viable tertiary filtration technology
alternative, at a cost only slightly higher than the granular media alternative described in the approved
plan.
The pre-design phase of the project included extensive additional evaluation into tertiary filtration
equipment alternatives, including both granular media and disc filters. The evaluation updated cost
comparisons using specific equipment models, and compared operation and maintenance demands for
the different equipment. Existing installations for the equipment alternatives were visited or called to
address specific concerns about operations. Following presentation of the comparison and evaluation
to the City, the woven fabric disc filter was selected as the preferred technology for this application.
The details of the comparison and evaluation are presented in the attachments to this GSP/FP
Addendum.
During pre-design, there was discussion with the City about practical design redundancy for this
equipment, in order to limit risk of exceeding effluent limits, and to balance the equipment and overall
project costs.
The project now includes multiple (two) filter units, each with a capacity of 1.35 MGD at full estimated
solids loading. This is sufficient to handle the projected maximum day flow (24-hour average) with a
single unit, with probable short-term bypass of a portion of the flow on maximum days when short-
term (hourly) peak flows occur. With both units in service, there would be no bypass during peak
flows. This design direction is consistent with the conclusions presented in TM-06 of Appendix
A in the approved GSP/FP and was determined to be a prudent level of redundancy by the City, to
balance risk with incremental costs of higher capacity equipment.
Supplemental equipment selection documentation and analysis is included in Appendix D of this

GSP/FP Addendum. The design phase and drawing development is currently underway based on the
proposed concept and equipment outlined.

2.5 Ultraviolet Disinfection

The approved GSP/FP planned for an equipment upgrade for the UV Disinfection System to include
replacement of the existing in-channel UV equipment with new similar UV equipment in the existing
channel. During the predesign phase the City reconsidered and requested evaluation into an alternate
UV configuration utilizing enclosed vessel (or “in-vessel”) UV equipment, and subsequently made the
decision to proceed with upgrades to the system to implement in-vessel UV design.
Contributing factors include the fact that the existing UV equipment is approaching 20-years old,
maintenance and parts replacement costs have begun to increase (due mainly to availability), and are
expected to continue to increase. UV equipment installed in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s have
typically seen useful service life of 15-20 year at other wastewater treatment plants, so the experience
in Leavenworth is not atypical. Newer UV equipment is available that can provide equal disinfection
capacity with less equipment, potentially saving on labor and maintenance costs. The newer equipment
is available in configurations that are compatible with the existing UV disinfection channels, to allow
replacement of equipment without extensive modifications to the UV building channel structure.
The revised upgrade plan will include the following:
• Remove and dispose of existing in-channel UV system

• Replace existing UV system with enclosed in-vessel system
• Selected equipment: (2) Evoqua ETS-UV Sys Model SW-635-14 or SW-835-14 units
• Remove existing concrete interior wall(s) and install enclosed units
An evaluation of the proposed in-vessel system was conducted. The evaluation findings are included
in Appendix E as TM-05: Enclosed Vessel UV Disinfection Feasibility. The design phase and drawing
development is currently underway based on the proposed concept and equipment outlined.
2.6 Biosolids Dewatering

The approved GSP/FP modifications included replacing the City’s existing belt filter press dewatering
equipment with a new screw-press dewatering equipment. During the predesign phase the City
researched other dewatering equipment options and indicated they prefer centrifuge dewatering
equipment technology in lieu of the screw-press equipment. Therefore, the proposed dewatering
equipment replacement selection will be:
As summary of improvements is as follows:
• Remove existing belt filter press.

• Install selected dewatering equipment: Centrisys Centrifuge Model CS18-4PH
• Replace existing polymer system and sludge feed pump with new polymer system and
progressive cavity sludge feed pump
Refer to Appendix F to this GSP/FP Addendum for further information regarding equipment and

3.0 IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Updated Schematic and Hydraulic Profile
The updated plant schematic flow diagram and hydraulic profile are included as Figure 9-1 and Figure
9-2 (numbering per the original approved GSP/FP document). The updated figures reflect the plant
upgrades as updated by this GSP/FP Addendum.
3.2 Costs and Project Financing

Some cost increases and decreases are anticipated as design progresses and as revisions from this
addendum are implemented. An updated overall project cost estimate will be completed at design
completion, in conjunction with the bid process. The project is fully funded by Rural Development and
the project funding package remains unaffected. In conjunction with the bid process the City will assess
overall funding status and adequacy of the current RD funding package.
3.3 SEPA/NEPA Compliance

All environmental clearances have been obtained in conjunction with obtaining the Rural Development
funding package. SEPA/NEPA compliance is unaffected by the design revisions outlined in this
addendum.

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)
Appendix B: Biological Phosphorus Removal
Appendix C: Small Clarifiers Upgrade
Appendix D: Tertiary Treatment
Appendix E: Ultraviolet Disinfection
Appendix F: Biosolids Dewatering
14-11-35 GSP-FP AppenDiv.docx Varela & Associates

Appendix A
Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)

City of Leavenworth Basis of Design: Headworks
Sept. 17, 2018
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
WWTP FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Basis of Design: Headworks
Headworks Improvements:
• The approved Facility Plan included the following headworks elements:
o New automatic/mechanical bar-rack (3/8” openings)
o Replace existing comminutor
o Replace existing fine screen
• Based on City input/preference proposed improvements have been revised to the following:
o Install new single fine-screen unit (traveling element type screen w/ 3mm openings) in lieu of
new bar-rack/comminutor/fine screen.
§ Equipment selection based on City preference:
• FSM Perforated Filter Screen Model FRSIII 550 x 3075/3
• FMS Screenings Wash Press Model SPW 200 x 700
§ See attached manufacturer’s product information.
o Implement upgrades to the existing Pista Grit unit recommended by the manufacturer
following the April 10, 2018 site visit. These improvements address deficiency in the grit
system due to age and lower than projected wastewater flows since the previous WWTP
upgrade. See attached S&L recommendations. Recommended improvements include:
§ Optiflow 270 Baffle System (Low Flow Baffle and 270 B Exit Baffle)
§ Drive unit upgrades / Add Grit Fluidizer
o Replace PISTA grit drive system / add self-priming pump (replace vacuum prime) Tilt the
existing fine screen out of the channel and retain as backup.
o Associated electrical improvements.
• Proposed Headworks Process Train:
• Layout:
o See attached.
o Screen to be position upstream of the grit chamber where the existing Muffin Monster
comminutor is located. Locating as far as practical upstream is desirable to allow grit system
new baffle to extend further upstream; the channel invert slope ends where the existing
comminutor is, so extending the grit baffle past this point would be most effective.
141106-Headworks Basis of Design (09-17-18--rev 02-02-19).docx

Varela & Associates
Esvelt Environmental Engineering
City of Leavenworth Basis of Design: Headworks
• Comments regarding the proposed equipment and layout:
o Screening Efficiency:
§ The proposed screen’s 3 MM circular perforated openings are expected to achiever
equivalent or better capture rates as the existing 2-mm paced wedged wire screen—
IE the 3mm perforated circular openings is not expected to result in degradation of
performance as compared to the existing screen.
o Hydraulics:
§ Headloss through the screen—Maximum headloss through the screen and upstream
water level condition are compatible with the existing influent channel structure and
hydraulic grade limitations. Note Enviro-Care’s updated proposal utilizes a double
angle screen (The lower section has a shallower incline than the upper section, to
provide more total screening at less depth.
§ Based on the manufactures literature, it is estimated the maximum upstream water
level will be in the 1114.0 to 1114.5 range at the last manhole prior the headworks.
§ Recommend field verification of sewer conditions in the segments upstream of the
treatment plant, particularly for sewer coming into the plant form the west. Confirm
that water levels in the last manhole (estimated at 1114.0 to 1114.5 at peak design
flow of 2.8 MGD) to not cause problems upstream.
§ Downstream water level at peak flow of 2.8 MGD would be 12-14” above the
channel bottom at this point. Calculations are based on water level control at the
headworks’ parshall flume. Some modifications will be required in the existing
selector tank to accommodate internal flow recirculation associated with the BNR
implementation, which could otherwise cause surcharging up to the parshall flue and
other headworks units. Modifications include:
• Widening the existing outlet overflow pipes in cell #2 and #3 from 24” to
36” by cutting off part of the pipe and welding on a 36” x 24” reducing cone
to the top of each pipe.
• Increasing opening size for the wall opening between selector cells (final
opening size still to be determined.
• Budget – The proposed headworks upgrade is compatible with the latest budget presented in the
approved facility plan for headworks improvements, including the revisions since the Facility Plan
was approved.
141106-Headworks Basis of Design (09-17-18--rev 02-02-19).docx

Varela & Associates
Project:
Leavenworth
Equipment:
FSM Perforated Filter Screen Model FRSIII 550 x 3075/3
FSM Screenings Wash Press Model SPW 200 x 700
Represented By:
Treatment Equipment Company
Dennis Gleason
Phone: 425-681-7015
Email: dennis@tec-nw.com
Regional Sales Manager:

Enviro-Care
Alan Spratt
Phone: 503-875-0235
Email: aspratt@enviro-care.com
Project No.: WEC216339

August 28, 2018
ITEM: "A" - One (1) FSM Perforated
Filter Screen
Model FRSIII 550 x 3075/3
BASIS OF DESIGN (EACH)

Application: Municipal Wastewater
Average Daily Flow: 0.5 MGD
Peak Flow: 2.8 MGD
Downstream Water Level: 12.0 inches @ peak flow
Headloss: 7.9 inches @PF with 0% blinding
10.9 inches @ PF with 30% blinding
Screen Perforated Opening: 3 mm
Angle of Screen: 30x75 degrees from horizontal
Channel Width: 2.5 feet
Channel Depth: 6.0 feet
Discharge Height: 10.0 feet (from channel invert)
Wash Water: 15 gpm at 40 – 60 psi
Screenings Capture Ratio 85% National Screen Evaluation Facility (UKWIR)
PERFORATED PANEL TRAVELING BELT SCREEN (EACH)

• Fully automatic self-cleaning FSM screen complete with all appurtenances from type
304L stainless steel.
• Main frame constructed from type 304L stainless steel.
• Flanged baseplate for mounting screen assembly to top of channel from type 304L
stainless steel.
• Screen support rails from UHMW-PE provided front and back on each side of frame.
• Replaceable UHMW-PE seals mounted to each side of frame.
• Replaceable bottom seals – UHMW-PE, Buna-N rubber, and triple layer polyester brush
with 304L stainless steel adjustable holder.
• Perforated filter screen elements with 3 mm perforations from 3 mm thick (12 gauge)
from type 304L stainless steel, bolted to drive chain with 304 stainless steel bolt ny-lock
nuts and washers.
• Screen drive roller chain from 304 stainless steel with specially hardened bushings, and
pins from stainless steel and rollers from PA6.
• Stainless steel chain and screen elements driven by two (2) drive shaft mounted stainless
steel sprockets with minimum thickness of 0.75 inches.
Project: Leavenworth Date: August 28, 2018

Project No.:WEC216339 Budget Proposal_Enviro-Care_Leavenworth_WEC216339_V1
• Drive tensioners –304L stainless steel.
• Drive system to include 1.0 HP, 1800 rpm, TEFC motor, Class 1, Division 1, Group D,
suitable for 460/3/60 electrical supply.
• Nylon screen cleaning brush, automatic self-adjusting, with stainless steel drive shaft and
2.0 HP 1760 rpm TEFC, Class 1, Division 1, Group D, geared motor suitable for 460/3/60
electrical supply.
• Rotary Deflector on back side of screen auxiliary driven by screen drive.
• Internal spray system to clean internal surfaces of screen panel from stainless steel with
brass nozzles; complete with manual ball valve and solenoid valve.
• Removable 304L stainless steel odor control enclosures/covers.
• Lower rotating guide sprockets from type 304 stainless steel with life seal bushings and a
stainless steel stub shaft.
• Screenings discharge chute with hinged inspection hatch – 304 stainless steel.
• Anchor bolts – 304 stainless steel.
• Fasteners – 304 stainless steel.
• Shop surface preparation, stainless steel full dip passivation and painting as required.
CONTROL PANEL AND INSTRUMENTATION (EACH)

• One (1) NEMA 4X type 304 stainless steel wall mount main control panel suitable for
460/3/60 electrical supply. Control panel shall contain the following control devices for
operation of the filter screen.
1. Main disconnect with through door interlock handle.
2. Control transformer 460/120.
3. Branch circuit protection.
4. Screen drive motor starter with overloads.
5. Brush drive motor starter with overloads.
6. Power monitor for screen motor overtorque/overload protection.
7. Emergency stop pushbutton.
8. HOA switch for each motor.
9. HOA switch for screen wash water solenoid valve.
10. Hour meter for each motor.
11. Run indicating lights.
12. Alarm lights indicating overcurrent and starter overload.
13. Alarm reset pushbutton.
14. Programmable control relay for screen control logic functions.
15. Run and alarm auxiliary contacts.
16. UL Label.
• One (1) NEMA 7 Emergency Stop pushbutton station.

• One (1) NEMA 7 brass body wash water solenoid valve.
• Ultrasonic Level Controller: A 120V differential level controller shall be provided in a
windowed NEMA 4X polycarbonate enclosure suitable for wall mounting, to receive and
interpret a 4-20mA scaled signal from an upstream and downstream transducer. The
controller shall have 5 internal relays and provide an LCD display.

• Two (2) ultrasonic level transducers shall be provided with type 316 stainless steel
mounting brackets and expansion anchors. Each sensor shall have an ETFE housing with
an integral sensor to provide compensation for acoustic variations due to temperature.
Each sensor shall have a range of 1-33 ft and be supplied with a 33 ft integral cable.
Sensor shall be suitable for installation in a Class 1, Division 1, Group D area.
SPARE PARTS (TOTAL)

• None.
FIELD SERVICE (TOTAL)

• Site service of one (1) trip for a total of two (2) days for installation inspection, startup
and operator training.
CLARIFICATIONS/COMMENTS
• For clarification, the main control panel is not rated NEMA 7 Explosion Prof Class 1,
Division 1, Group D. We advise to install the main control panel in a non-hazardous
location.
OPTIONAL ITEMS
• Item A-1: Adder for 316 Stainless Steel.
NOTE: ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ABOVE TO BE FURNISHED BY OTHERS.
EXCLUSIONS
Taxes, electrical wiring, conduit or electrical equipment, piping, valves, or fittings, shimming
material, lubricating oil or grease, shop or field painting, field welding, erection, hoist or lifting
apparatus, detail shop fabrication drawings, performance testing, unloading, storage, concrete
work, civil design, grating, platforms, stairs, hand railing, dumpster (except as specifically noted).
This proposal section has been reviewed for accuracy and is approved for issue:
By: Stephen Rioux Date: August 28, 2018

ITEM: “B” -One (1) FSM Screenings Wash
Press Model SPW 200 x 700
BASIS OF DESIGN (EACH)

Application: Municipal Headworks
Screenings Capacity: 70 ft3/hr
Inlet Opening: 28 inches
Screw Diameter: 7.9 inches
Discharged Material Dry Solids: >35 %
Volume Reduction: 60 – 85%
Weight Reduction: 60 – 85%
Fecal Reduction: 90% (<20 mg/g BOD5)
Wash Water: 11 gpm @ 20 - 40 psi
SCREENINGS COMPACTOR (EACH)

• Screenings washer and compactor from type 304L stainless steel.
• Discharge chute, inlet hopper and spray header from type 304L stainless steel.
• Screw auger with torque tube and nylon brushes fitted to screw flights to clean drainage
trough perforations – shaft from high tensile steel with flights from Hardox 400 steel.
• Axial thrust bearing with stainless steel body.
• Wear bars from Hardox 400 steel.
• 6 mm countersunk perforated curved drainage section from type 304L stainless steel.
• Drainage collection pan with 4 inch diameter outlet connection and 1 inch NPT flush
water connection –304L stainless steel.
• Wash water piping from type 304 stainless steel.
• Inlet and outlet flanges from type 304 stainless steel.
• Discharge piping from type 304 stainless steel.
• Washer/compactor electric drive motor 3.0 HP, TEFC, 1760 rpm, Class 1, Division 1,
Group D, suitable for 460/3/60 supply with gear reducer mounted directly onto auger
drive shaft.
• Support legs, stand and frame –304L stainless steel.

• Anchor bolts – 304L stainless steel.
• Fasteners –304 stainless steel.
• Shop surface preparation, stainless steel full dip passivation and painting as required.
CONTROL PANEL AND INSTRUMENTATION (EACH)

• The following control devices will be added to the associated screen control panel for
operation of the screenings wash press.
1. Branch circuit protection.
2. Compactor motor starter with overloads.
3. Load monitor for compactor motor overtorque/overload protection.
4. HOA switch for motor.
5. Open-Close-Auto switch for washer compactor wash water solenoid valve.
6. Hour meter for each motor.
7. Run indicating lights.
8. Alarm lights indicating overcurrent and starter overload.
9. Run and alarm auxiliary contacts.
• One (1) NEMA 7 emergency Stop Pushbutton Station.

• One (1) NEMA 7 brass body wash water solenoid valve.
SPARE PARTS (TOTAL)

• None.
FIELD SERVICE (TOTAL)

• Provided with screen start-up services.
CLARIFICATIONS/COMMENTS
• None.
OPTIONAL ITEMS
• Item B-1: Adder for 316 Stainless Steel (shafted screw remains as noted above).
NOTE: ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ABOVE TO BE FURNISHED BY OTHERS.
EXCLUSIONS
Taxes, electrical wiring, conduit or electrical equipment, piping, valves, or fittings, shimming
material, lubricating oil or grease, shop or field painting, field welding, erection, hoist or lifting
apparatus, detail shop fabrication drawings, performance testing, unloading, storage, concrete
work, civil design, grating, platforms, stairs, hand railing, dumpster (except as specifically noted).
This proposal section has been reviewed for accuracy and is approved for issue:
By: Stephen Rioux Date: August 28, 2018

BUDGETARY PRICING
Item Equipment Budget Pricing

A One (1) FSM Perforated Filter Screen Model FRSIII 550 x 3075/3 $ 169,900
A-1 Adder for 316 stainless steel. $ 15,500
B One (1) FSM Screenings Wash Press Model SPW 200 x 700 $ 59,900
B-1 Adder for 316 Stainless Steel (shafted screw remains as $ 8,700
noted above).
Validity:
Prices are valid for a period of 30 days from the date of this proposal. Beyond 30 days, delivery is subject
to prior sales.
Warranty Statement and Term:

Enviro-Care Company, Inc. warrants the supplied equipment to the original end user against defects in
workmanship or material under normal use and service in compliance with the original design
specifications and the maintenance requirements and instructions as found in the Operations &
Maintenance Manual. All Enviro-Care supplied equipment is warranted for 12 months from date of start-
up or 18 months from date of shipment, whichever occurs first.
Warranty Exclusions:
This warranty does not cover costs for standard and/or scheduled maintenance performed, nor does it
cover consumables and Enviro-Care parts that, by virtue of their operation, require replacement through
normal wear (aka: Wear Parts), unless a defect in material or workmanship can be determined by Enviro-
Care. Wear parts are defined as brushes, rollers, spray nozzles, drum seals and other items specifically
identified in the Operations & Maintenance Manual.
Warranty Coverage:
Enviro-Care’s liability is limited to the supply or repair of defective parts returned, freight prepaid by buyer
to a location specified by Enviro-Care. Repaired or replacement parts will be shipped to buyer prepaid via
standard ground freight. Express or expedited shipments will be at the expense of the buyer.
Exclusions and Exceptions:

This Warranty excludes damage or wear to equipment caused by misapplication of product, improper
maintenance, accident, abuse, unauthorized alteration or repair, Acts of God, or installation or operation
that is non-compliant with Enviro-Care installation and operations instructions.

Limited Liability:
Enviro-Care shall not under any circumstances be liable for any incidental or consequential damages
arising from loss, damage to property, personal injury or other damage or losses owing to the failure of
Enviro-Care’s equipment. The liability of Enviro-Care Company, Inc. is limited as set forth above within the
time period set forth above.
Term: 15% with Submittal Approval

80% Net 30 Days after Shipment
5% Net 30 days after Startup. Startup not to exceed 180 days from equipment delivery.
Taxes: No sales or use taxes have been included in our pricing.
Freight: Prices quoted are F.O. B. shipping point with freight allowed to a readily accessible location
nearest jobsite. Any claims for damage or loss in shipment to be initiated by purchaser.
Submittals: Full submittals will be supplied approximately 4 to 6 weeks after receipt and acceptance of
purchase order at the Enviro-Care offices.
Shipment: Shipment time is approximately 20 to 24 weeks after receipt of approved submittal is

received at the Enviro-Care offices. Under no circumstances will verbal approval be accepted.
Additional Field Service: This service may be scheduled at $1250 per day plus expenses or is available
through a yearly service contract.
Material of Construction: Enviro-Care is providing the equipment from the type of material specified for
this project. If from 304L stainless steel the concentration of chloride and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the
equipment operating environment shall be kept below the following values:
• Chloride <200 mg/L
• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) <6ppm
If not already done so, Enviro-Care can provide the equipment from 316L stainless steel for a price adder
for environments that exceed the values noted above.
Please issue Purchase Orders to:

Enviro-Care
1570 St Paul Avenue
Gurnee, IL 60031
Attn: Stephen Rioux

Phone: 224-302-0308
Email: srioux@enviro-care.com

Enviro-Care
1570 St. Paul Avenue
Gurnee, IL 60031
P: 815.636.8306 F: 847-672-7968
Web: www.enviro-care.com Email: ecsales@enviro-care.com
Q:\Opportunities-EC\2016\WEC216399 Leavenworth WWTP\Sales Drawings\WEC216399-D_dwg_FRSIII550X3075-3_SPW200-700_2018-08-28
BRUSH DRIVE
1" NPT WASH WATER CONNECTION

SCREEN DRIVE
1" NPT SPRAY WATER

CONNECTION
8'-8 3/16"
COMPACTOR
DRIVE
4'-0" 14'-8 3/16"
OVERALL
HEIGHT
75° 6'-0"
CHANNEL
DEPTH
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
30°
2'-6"
CHANNEL
9'-4 7/16" WIDTH
Status: INFORMATION ONLY

Title
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT: LEAVENWORTH
MODEL: FRSIII550X3075/3 FSM FILTER SCREEN
ELEVATION
PROCESS DESIGN INFORMATION (EACH SCREEN): SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SPW200-700 FSM SCREW WASH PRESS
APPLICATION: MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SCREENING
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW: 0.5 MGD D Designer Checker Date Sheet
PEAK DESIGN FLOW: 2.8 MGD C JW24 SR08 08-28-2018 1 of 2
CHANNEL WIDTH: 2.5 FEET
B Drawing Number Revision
CHANNEL DEPTH: 6.0 FEET
A
ANGLE OF INCLINATION: 75 DEGREES FROM HORIZONTAL PROPERTY OF ENVIRO-CARE COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS DRAWING MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY
FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ENVIRO-CARE. ENVIRO-CARE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER DATA
Third Angle WEC216399-D -
DISCHARGE HEIGHT: 4.0 FEET FROM TOP OF CHANNEL Rev Revision Description Date Rev By Approver OR THE DESIGN OF ITS EQUIPMENT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE AND WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER.
Projection
Q:\Opportunities-EC\2016\WEC216399 Leavenworth WWTP\Sales Drawings\WEC216399-D_dwg_FRSIII550X3075-3_SPW200-700_2018-08-28
FSM FILTER SCREEN
DIRECTION
OF FLOW 2'-6"
FSM SCREW WASH PRESS
Status: INFORMATION ONLY

Title
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT: LEAVENWORTH
MODEL: FRSIII550X3075/3 FSM FILTER SCREEN
PLAN
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" SPW200-700 FSM SCREW WASH PRESS
D Designer Checker Date Sheet

C JW24 SR08 08-28-2018 2 of 2
B Drawing Number Revision
A
PROPERTY OF ENVIRO-CARE COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS DRAWING MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY
FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ENVIRO-CARE. ENVIRO-CARE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER DATA
Third Angle WEC216399-D -
Rev Revision Description Date Rev By Approver OR THE DESIGN OF ITS EQUIPMENT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE AND WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER.
Projection
14040 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Lenexa, KS 66215-1284, USA
Phone: (913) 888-5201
Fax: (913) 748-0106
Date: April 10, 2018
To: City of Leavenworth

From: Levi Brunton
Subject: Leavenworth, WA PISTA® Upgrade (03-1551)
Site Location:
Waste Water Treatment Facility
Leavenworth, WA
Purpose of Visit:
Inspect one (1) S&L PISTA unit installed in 1999 for repairs and/or replacement. Interview the
City’s operations individuals regarding performance of units, document conditions and photograph
equipment. Following the S&L visit, provide the City of Leavenworth with a sales report,
recommendations and prepare quotation for parts, equipment and installation.
Contacts:
Meeting included individuals from the City of Leavenworth operations personnel, One (1)
representative From APSCO and One (1) individual from S&L.
Smith & Loveless, Inc.:
Levi Brunton
Project Development Engineer
APSCO:
Joe Buckman
Sales
CONFIDENTIAL information
Retrofit Sales Trip Report Page 2 of 8
Smith and Loveless, Inc.
Equipment inspected:
The inspected equipment included one (1) S&L PISTA® 270 unit installed around 1999. The serial
number is 03-1551. Along with inspecting the PISTA®, S&L inspected the condition of the existing
Model 15 PISTA® GRIT SCREW CONVEYOR™.
PISTA Unit #1 SCREW CONVEYOR
Operations and conditions:

• PISTA® Unit #1 (03-1551)
o System designed to handle maximum of 7MGD
o Average flow can get as low as 0.5 MGD
o Pinch Valve was leaking at the seal
o Pump wasn’t priming correctly when S&L arrived at the site
o Electrodes are still used in the station for priming
o Grit starts to accumulate in the inlet channel
▪ City flushes the grit down with a hose to clear the channel
o The unit as a whole looked like it could use some upgrading for the sheer fact it was
installed 19 years ago
• PISTA® GRIT SCREW CONVEYOR™ (Appendix A):

o Conveyor looked in really good shape and running fine
o Grit was getting built up in the last 90-degree elbow
o All in all, it was maintained extremely well for how old it is
Final Remarks:
After reviewing the equipment there are some changes I would recommend implementing in the
near future:
Drive Tube and GRIT FLUIDIZER™ (Appendix B)

• Extending the Drive Tube and adding a GRIT FLUIDIZER™ would benefit the most in
regard to grit efficiencies. Since the GRIT FLUIDIZER™ will be attached to the Drive Tube,
it will continuously stir up the grit at the bottom of the Hopper. Keeping this grit from settling
will insure that there is no grit hardening at the base of the Hopper.
Top Mounted Turbo Pump (Appendix C)

• When inspecting the existing pump there is noticeable wear and tear on the unit. A couple
of concerning areas are where it was field welded and near the pinch valve where there is
an air leak. I would also like for the City of Leavenworth to consider upgrading to the SONIC
START® STREAMLINE™ Probe instead of having the electrodes. S&L is really pushing
hard to have everyone upgrade to SONIC START® because of the functionality and ease
of cleaning since rags don’t get caught on the probe.
OPTIFLOW 270® LFB and B Baffles (Appendix D)

• Even though the City of Leavenworth is washing down the influent chamber to clear the
grit, S&L really recommends changing to the OPTIFLOW 270® unit. With adding the LFB
baffle to the influent chamber it will increase the flow velocity, which in turn creates a
optimum vortex in the chamber. After the vortex is created, the B baffle will then let the
water make a couple extra passes inside the chamber before exiting in the effluent channel.
APPENDIX A:
Model 15 PISTA® Grit Screw Conveyor

The second-stage PISTA® Grit Screw Conveyor is designed to work in concert with the complete
PISTA® Grit Removal System, providing superb dewatering and high retention of fine grit without
the burden of high maintenance. Dewatered grit discharges into a container for disposal while the
flow and residual organics are returned to the inlet channel prior to the grit chamber, typically 93%
of the flow and 95% of the organics.
The PISTA® Grit Screw Conveyor’s separate inlet zone, large Lamella parallel plate section that
acts as a high-rate settling device, and double-sided weir trough work in concert to capture silt and
ultra-fine grit. The inlet zone facilitates energy dissipation in order to reduce turbulence. This allows
easier settling in the plate.
APPENDIX B:
Drive unit
o PISTA® GRIT CHAMBER™ Mechanical

Drive Assembly
▪ S&L recommends replacement of the
mechanical drive assembly and drive
tube. This includes the totally enclosed
combination spur gear and turntable
bearing. Pinions and gears shall be
high quality steel, machined and
hardened for high strength and long
wear.
o Axial-Flow Propeller
▪ S&L also recommends replacement
of the axial-flow propeller when the
drive tube is replaced. The axial-flow
propeller lifts the organics up and into
the flow towards the WWTP. The
propeller helps sweep the grit along the
floor and into the grit hopper.
o PISTA® GRIT FLUIDIZER™
▪ To reduce grit compaction issues in the
hopper, S&L recommends adding the
PISTA® GRIT FLUIDIZER™ vanes
which continuously move keeping the
grit fluid in the hopper. The gentle
stirring or mixing action of the fluidizer
prevents grit from packing in the grit
hopper.
▪ Second, the upward pumping action of
the PISTA® GRIT FLUIDIZER™
vanes enhance the performance of
the propeller in keeping organics in
suspension. The heavier grit can fall
downward through the gently
circulating water, but the organics are
more readily swept away by the
currents induced by the PISTA®
propeller.
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
OPTIFLOW 270™ BAFFLE SYSTEM
An upgrade to your PISTA® 270™ Grit Chamber with the OPTIFLOW 270™ LFB paired with the
OPTIFLOW 270™ B can improve efficiency to 95% of grit removal down to 100 mesh particle size.
The OPTIFLOW 270™ LFB in the influent channel keeps the grit flowing towards the chamber at
1.67-3.5 fps. Meanwhile, the OPTIFLOW 270™ B is installed at the exit of the chamber to aid in
directing the flow back towards the floor, creating one additional pass for even more grit to move
to the chamber floor and move into the grit hopper.
Figure 1: OPTIFLOW 270™ LFB – GREEN. OPTIFLOW 270™ B - RED
Low Flow Baffle (LFB)

To manage flow conditions and attain optimum channel flow velocity at 1.67 to 3.5 ft./sec. during
low flow conditions, the addition of the Low Flow Baffle (LFB) in the influent keeps the grit moving
to the grit chamber even during lower flow conditions. The baffle would be custom engineered
based on the flow conditions for your site. This baffle system makes it possible for your existing
unit to handle a wide range of flows while maintaining optimum channel velocity for grit transport
with minimum turbulence into the PISTA®.
270™ B
The 270™B Exit Baffle is the essential component to every OPTIFLOW 270™. It increases grit
removal efficiency to 95% down to 100 mesh (150 micron) on 270 degree grit chambers from any
manufacturer. Each baffle is custom engineered based on flow rate to achieve 95% of 100 mesh
(150 micron). Installed within the chamber at the exit, the 270™B directs the flow toward the hopper
for an additional pass along the flat-bottomed chamber floor for even better grit removal.
APPENDIX D CONTINUED:
Figure 2: Grit Removal Efficiency
With more than 2,500 PISTA® Grit Chamber installations worldwide, Smith & Loveless continues
to advance the science of grit removal with the new OPTIFLOW 270™ Baffle System for any 270°
vortex unit. The OPTIFLOW 270™ Baffle System brings previously unachieved grit removal
efficiencies to any 270° vortex unit, improving grit removal to 95% of 100 mesh (150 micron) during
peak and low flows alike as demonstrated in Figure 2 above.
Appendix B
Biological Phosphorus Removal

City of Leavenworth TM-02 Bio-P Implementation
May 29, 2018

CITY OF LEAVENWORTH WWTP FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Predesign Phase City Review Meeting
Bio-P Implementation
• Background
o When designing for capture and treatment of odors, bio-P removal is not cost
competitive with chemical-P removal only.
o City and consultants consensus: implement bio-P removal with the following constraints
§ No odor capture/treatment (acknowledge risk)
§ No new major structures (process tanks)
• Pre-design alternatives
o “Minimum Bio-P” as presented in Facility Plan
o “Compromise Bio-P” based on Ovivo proposal
• Performance estimate comparison
“Minimum Bio-P”
Improvements for
Performance Estimated improvements, without
“Compromise Bio-P”
odor control
TP typical Range 1-2 mg/l 0.75-1.75

TP approximate median used to estimate chemical
1.5 mg/L 1.2 mg/L
costs
• “Compromise Bio-P” advantages

o Better performance results in less coagulant (alum) use downstream at tertiary
o Lower odor risk
o Better utilization of existing volumes
o Increased biological process stability
o Better response to fluctuating loads and flows, due to instrumentation and feed-back
control
• Construction Cost Comparison
“Minimum Bio-P” Improvements for
Improvement Component improvements, “Compromise
without odor control Bio-P”
Subtotal – construction** $92,000 $352,000

** Does not reflect indirect project cost differences including sales tax, administration, insurance, or
additional Engineering costs.
• Operations Cost Comparison

o Chemical savings, sludge processing savings, at the expense of higher power costs
and equipment maintenance costs
$ 2,000 +/- per year = “Compromise Bio-P” savings compared to “Minimum Bio-P”
Recommendation: “Compromise Bio-P”, collaborate with Ovivo as design progresses.

Figure 1 – Existing Facility Process Train
Figure 2 – Facility Plan “Minimum Bio-P” Removal Conceptual Process Train
Figure 3 – Facility Plan “Advanced Bio-P” Removal Conceptual Process Train

Figure 4 – Biological Phosphorus – Minimum with no odor control
Figure 5 – Compromise Biological Phosphorus Removal Process Train

Technical Memorandum TM-02
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE
Implementation Strategy for Biological Phosphorus Removal

-
May 29, 2018
1.0 Introduction
Design for the wastewater treatment plant upgrades for the City of Leavenworth is underway.
The upgrades are being done to meet new permit limits for effluent phosphorus discharge to the
Wenatchee River, based on the waste load allocations presented in the Wenatchee River
Dissolved Oxygen and pH Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study prepared by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
The City requested specific pre-design efforts to help inform the City’s decisions regarding
design direction for the treatment facility upgrades. This memo presents the results of an
evaluation to determine the preferred means of implementing biological phosphorus (Bio-P)
removal.
2.0 Background
A simplified schematic of the existing process train is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Existing Facility Process Train
The approved facility plan presented two biological phosphorus removal alternatives for
comparison with equivalent treatment using only chemical phosphorus removal. Both
alternatives included significant investments in odor capture and control, due to the possibility
that anaerobic basins in the bio-P process could result in the generation of objectionable odors.
The Facility’s proximity to residential and commercial neighbors make the facility particularly
sensitive to odors, and the widely fluctuating flows and loadings due to regular influxes of
visitors make operational control to reduce odor risk particularly challenging. Therefore, the
City acknowledged early in the planning process that there would be a low risk tolerance for
odors.
The two biological phosphorus removal options in the Facility Plan were “Minimum Bio-P”
improvements, which consisted of using existing tank volume, and “Advanced Bio-P”
phosphorus removal, which included the addition of process volume and internal recycle pumps
to improve performance.
Bio-P implementation TM.docx 1 Varela & Associates
The “Minimum Bio-P” process train from the Facility plan was modelled after older bio-P
facilities in Cheney and the first phase of Bio-P implementation in Post Falls. It was estimated to
be capable of achieving nominally 1-2 mg/L phosphorus, which would reduce the chemical
demand at the tertiary filtration stage. Figure 2 shows a simplified schematic of the “Minimum
Bio-P” option from the Facility Plan.
Figure 2 – Facility Plan “Minimum Bio-P” Removal Conceptual Process Train
The “Advanced” Bio-P option process train was modelled after exemplary facilities in Moscow,
Airway Heights, and Liberty Lake. This process train would feature new anoxic basins and
internal recycle (IR) pumping to reduce the return of nitrates (which interfere with Bio-P
performance). This configuration was estimated to be capable of achieving 0.6 – 1.5 mg/l
phosphorus, which would further reduce chemical demand, but not enough to offset the added
construction costs. Figure 3 shows a simplified schematic of the “Advanced Bio-P” process
from the Facility Plan.
Figure 3 – Facility Plan “Advanced Bio-P” Removal Conceptual Process Train

A pre-design scoping meeting was held in Leavenworth in January, 2018. Biological

phosphorus removal implementation, was one of the topics of discussion, and the consensus
coming out of the meeting was that Biological Phosphorus removal would be included in the
upgrade project. The following considerations made Bio-P implementation desirable:
• Any amount of biological phosphorus removal reduces the amount of chemicals
necessary to polish phosphorus (in tertiary filters) to the low-level concentrations
required to meet the new effluent permit limits.
• The risk of odor generation is difficult to predict. Most biological phosphorus removal
facilities do not generate odors the majority of the time. The risk in Leavenworth is
considered higher than others because of the fluctuating flows and loads, and because of
inherent limitations on operational flexibility when re-purposing existing structures to be
used as anaerobic basins.
• Implementing bio-P removal would not mean eliminating the capability to add chemical
precipitation from the project. Chemical precipitation capability at the secondary
clarifiers would be included in the project in any case (though not always used), in order
to bring down phosphorus loading during periods when bio-P removal is under-
performing. Under-performing Bio-P would be any time the effluent phosphorus from
the biological process was above about 2 mg/l, which is the approximate maximum
allowable phosphorus that can be removed in the filters, because the high chemical dose
results in exceeding the solids loading capacity of the tertiary filters.
Some level of Bio-P under-performance is common yearly or every two years even in
exemplary facilities. When it occurs in Leavenworth, under-performing Bio-P would
necessitate adding a nominal amount of coagulant within the secondary process (before
the clarifiers) to remove some of the phosphorus before it gets to the tertiary process, to
bring the final chemical dose down to levels that do not cause solids overloading of the
filters.
• The ability to add chemical (only when needed) would allow operators to make process
adjustments necessary to reduce odor generation, even though it could compromise
phosphorus removal. Thus, the City determined that the costly and complicated odor
capture and control elements of the bio-P options considered during facility planning
could be eliminated, resulting in significant savings, and the possibility the Bio-P could
be implemented for relatively low costs.

3.0 Pre-Design Task: Identify Bio-P Implementation Strategy

The task during pre-design was to develop the preferred method of implementing biological
phosphorus. Selection of the preferred method considers costs, potential chemical savings due to
P-removal performance, other operational costs, as well as features that could help to mitigate
odors. After the pre-design scoping meeting in January, the following constraints on the bio-P
options were agreed to:
• Odor control will not be part of the project.
• No new major structures – New structures were a major expense in the “advanced bio-P
option considered with the facility plan, and were not cost-effective even if odor control
was eliminated.
Given these constraints, the following two alternatives emerged for evaluation during pre-design:
1. Minimum Bio-P as presented in the FP, but with odor capture and control eliminated
(Figure 4). The process is relatively straight-forward operationally. The anaerobic basins
are easily large enough to prompt microorganisms to initiate phosphorus uptake and
release cycles, but there is limited adjustments the operators can make to optimize
performance or mitigate odors. The hydraulic residence time can only be adjusted by
taking full anaerobic compartment off-line or putting them back on-line. If odors arose,
operators could reduce residence time, but possibly at the expense of reduced phosphorus
removal performance, or even complete loss of bio-P removal.
Figure 4 – Biological Phosphorus – Minimum with no odor control
2. A compromise process train, incorporating the internal recycle (IR) to reduce nitrates, but
no new anoxic tanks. Instead of new tanks, the existing cells in the selector tank would
be dedicated to anaerobic or anoxic conditions, reducing the volume of both compared to
the alternative evaluated in the facility plan. The reduced anaerobic and anoxic volumes
result in less confidence in performance capability. However, by utilizing variable speed
drives for the IR pumps, automatically adjusted using feed-back loops from new on-line
instrumentation, this version of bio-P removal actually has substantially wider range of
operational adjustments that can be made to optimize P-removal, and these adjustments
can be largely automated using the more sophisticated instrumentation and control
systems available. Ovivo, the manufacturer of the original aeration system in the existing
oxidation ditch, has a control system that has been deployed at many installations. The
compromise alternative is based on a proposal from Ovivo. Figure 5.
Figure 5 – Compromise Biological Phosphorus Removal Process Train
4.0 Performance Expectations and Process Operational Distinctions

The comparison of these two alternative process trains (“Minimum Bio-P” and “Compromise
Bio-P”) involved more in-depth process parameter evaluation than was done for the facility plan,
in an attempt to better define realistic performance expectations and to determine if the internal
recycle pumps and additional instrumentation and controls sophistication of the compromise
Bio-P train would be cost effective compared to the minimum Bio-P alternative, by further
reducing chemical use at the downstream tertiary filtration process. The evaluation resulted in
the performance expectations summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 – Biological Phosphorus Removal Performance Estimates
“Minimum Bio-P”
Improvements for
Performance Estimated improvements, without odor
“Compromise Bio-P”
control
TP typical Range 1-2 mg/l 0.75-1.75
TP approximate median used to estimate chemical costs 1.5 mg/L 1.2 mg/L
It should be noted there is significant engineering judgement involved when estimating

expectations for phosphorus removal from biological systems, particularly when considering
risks associated with daily, weekly, and monthly peaking factors. One of the challenges in
estimating performance for Leavenworth is the limited amount of nitrogen and phosphorus data
available. Facility Plan loading estimates for nitrogen and phosphorus were based on only a few
samples from previous planning efforts. Concentrations for future projections were adjusted
based on past nutrient to BOD ratios and to account for gradual anticipated reductions in I/I.
The nominal median difference in performance shown in Table 1 is estimated to result in a

chemical savings of 10-15 mg/L alum, and an associated reduction in supplemental alkalinity of
6-9 mg/L NaOH equivalent. On an annual average basis, this is estimated to result in a savings
of approximately $6,000 per year.
In addition to estimates for performance, the process evaluation and comparison revealed
differences in how typical challenges to maintaining bio-P removal can be addressed with the
two implementation alternatives. These considerations are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 – Biological Phosphorus Removal Challenges for Leavenworth
Issue/Concern Mitigation
Odors (reducing risk)

Biological phosphorus removal • Covering anaerobic and anoxic tanks and treating the headspace exhaust
process increases the risk of can eliminate odors and was included in the Facility Plan as part of the Bio-
generating odors, because it P options, but the costs are prohibitive
requires a portion of the reactor
volume to be continuously in an • Careful control of the detention time in the anaerobic zones can greatly
anaerobic environment. The reduce odor risk.
anaerobic environment promotes - With “Minimum Bio-P”, longer anaerobic detention time is necessary to
the reactions that allow for deplete nitrates from the RAS. The longer detention time increases risk of
phosphorus removal, but it also is odors. Fluctuating influent flows result in changes to detention time, and
conducive for a number of other there is little the operator can do to adjust detention times in response to
reactions that tend to produce these influent flow fluctuations. The only control over anaerobic detention
odors. Discussions with the time is to take a cell off-line or put one back on-line. This only allows
Facility operator confirmed that adjustments of about 50%-100% one way or another, with no intermediate
past experiments running all volumes available. RAS rate could be adjusted to result in slight changes
three the anoxic selectors had to detention time, but this would interfere with the ability to adjust RAS in
indeed resulted in odors response to other operational objectives.
associated with septicity brought
on by too much detention time in - With the “Compromise Bio-P” process train, the anaerobic volume can be
an anaerobic state. smaller because nitrates are substantially removed (converted to N2 gas
and released) before they can recycle back through the anaerobic zone.
This reduces overall anaerobic detention time, reducing potential for odor
generation.
Oxygen in the raw sewage interferes with the ability to maintain anaerobic conditions in
anaerobic tanks
If oxygen is present in the • Normally O2 is consumed rapidly by the micro-organisms from the return
incoming wastewater, the sludge, in a non-aerated basin.
phosphorus uptake/release cycle
will not initiate or be maintained. - With “Minimum Bio-P”, multiple anaerobic basins and plenty of volume will
High peaking factor (flows) result in rapid consumption of incoming O2 and establishment of
increases the time it takes to anaerobic conditions. But if anaerobic cells are taken out of service to
consume excess incoming O2. reduce odor risk, then a rapid increase in inflows could flush O2 into the
anaerobic zones and disrupt the phosphorus uptake and release cycles,
resulting on loss of P-removal. Depending on duration, this may delay re-
establishment of bio-P removal.
- With the “Compromise Bio-P” process train, the smaller anaerobic zone
provides less safety factor for the consumption of oxygen in the raw
sewage. This is part of the reason Ovivo recommends construction of a
new baffle wall in the existing first cell of the selector tanks. This baffle
wall would improve volume efficiency to reduce the risk of raw sewage
oxygen interfering with the Bio-P process.

Nitrates in recycled sludge interferes with the ability to maintain anaerobic conditions in
anaerobic tanks
When no free O2 is available, • Micro-organisms use nitrates to consume substrates in the raw-sewage. A
micro-organisms use nitrates if portion of the “anaerobic volume” can be used to drive nitrates down, but
present. Nitrates are plentiful in this takes time and volume away from the anaerobic volume needed, and is
return sludge because they are limited by the amount of sludge recycled.
products of ammonia removal,
which occurs in the aeration - With “Minimum Bio-P”, excess anaerobic volume is needed, since the
basin. nitrates must be depleted in a portion of the volume before anaerobic
conditions can predominate, allowing the phosphorus uptake and release
Nitrates must be UN-available for cycle to occur.
bio-P initiation and
uptake/release cycle support - With the “Compromise Bio-P” process train, nitrification occurs by
recycling mixed liquor through the anoxic zones. Additionally, the
instrumentation upgrades with the “Compromise Bio-P” train will
encourage partial denitrification within the oxidation ditch by more
precisely controlling aerator speed during average flow conditions. There
is much less nitrates then to be returned in the RAS to the anaerobic
zone, so the anaerobic zone is more consistently anaerobic.
The process distinctions and mitigation measures for addressing biological phosphorus removal
as summed up in Table 2, contribute to the process comparison as follows:
• The “Compromise Bio-P” process train has an inherently lower risk of odor generation
than the “Minimum Bio-P” process train due to smaller anaerobic volume.
• The “Compromise Bio-P” process train is predicted to be more stable than the “Minimum
Bio-P” process train due to targeted reduction of nitrates in the mixed liquor.
• The “Compromise Bio-P” process train is expected to respond better to fluctuating loads
due to feed-back control from on-line instrumentation, and is less likely to experience
under-performance triggered by fluctuating flows and loading.
• The “Compromise Bio-P” process train is based on a proposal and further discussions
with Ovivo, the supplier of the original aeration equipment at the WWTP, and utilizes
well-established and widely implemented instrumentation and control programming
developed and refined for nutrient removal optimization.
These considerations are not reflected in cost comparisons in the next section, but are significant
operational factors that should be weighed when determining preferred direction of design.
5.0 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Facility plan level probable cost estimates were revived for the comparison of the two alternative
process trains (“Minimum Bio-P” and “Compromise Bio-P”). The format for the cost
comparison comes from the Facility Plan (TM-07, Phosphorus Approach and Strategy
Alternatives). Elements included in the Facility Plan evaluation (such as odor control) are
included in the comparison table, but have no associated cost for this evaluation.
Table 3 shows the comparison between the two options under consideration in this pre-design
phase.

Table 3 – Biological Phosphorus Removal Implementation
“Minimum Bio-P” Improvements for

Improvement Component improvements, without “Compromise Bio-
odor control P”
Cover existing selector tanks and convert to anaerobic operation,

- -
45’x95’ structure, new subm. Mixer, access modifications, etc
Odor Control for anaerobic covered tanks, packed-tower scrubber,
- -
blower, exhaust
New Anoxic tanks, 150,000 gallons, covered for traffic use - -
Control upgrades for “minimum”, per Facility plan $40,000 -
Internal mixed liquor pump station, submersible (1 x 1,750 gpm)
installed in Oxidation Ditch.
- $215,000
New control, instrumentation (2xORP probes), programming, Bio-P
specific. Per Ovivo proposal
Process piping, gates, flow control, etc., trenching, restoration - $15,000
New divider wall in Anaerobic basin - $21,000
New submersible mixer in anaerobic basin for new compartment - $15,000
Chemical handling and feed system for chemical addition to the
$40,000 $40,000
secondary process*
Electrical $12,000 $46,000
Subtotal – construction** $92,000 $352,000

* For both Bio-P options, this line item has been reduced from $155,000 presented in the facility plan, because it
would be down-sized and simplified since its use would be less frequent and intermittent.
** Does not reflect indirect project cost differences including sales tax, administration, insurance, or Engineering
costs.
The operation cost differences are presented below as the estimated savings, by category, if
implementing the “Compromise Bio-P” option compared to the “Minimum Bio-P” option. The
O&M cost summary is presented in Table 4. Overall, the “Compromise Bio-P” option is
expected to have lower O&M costs than the “Minimum Bio-P” option.

Table 4 – Operation and Maintenance Estimated Savings by Implementing “Compromise

Bio-P”
O&M Savings using
“Compromise Bio-P” instead of
“Minimum Bio-P”
Category (negative value means
compromise Bio-P costs are
higher than minimum Bio-P
costs)
Power – INCREASED cost for compromise Bio-P compared to minimum Bio-P:
IR pump and additional anaerobic mixer, partially off-set by savings in the - $3,000
oxidation ditch (denitrification credit)
Equipment Maintenance (replacement & repair) – INCREASED COST because
- $1,900
more instrumentation and equipment required
Chemicals – SAVINGS – less alum needed, less alkalinity supplement due to
+ $6,000
less alum use AND better alkalinity recovery due to denitrification
Operating Labor – Approximately Equivalent: Offsetting operations labor vs
-
maintenance labor
Sludge Processing - SAVINGS – less chemical sludge generated: polymer costs,
disposal, labor are all consequently lower. Assumes $600 per dry ton for sludge + $900
processing and disposal.
Total - O&M cost SAVINGS with “Compromise” Bio-P compared to “Minimum
+ $2,000
Bio-P” – Year of start-up dollars
Present Worth (5%, 20-years for inflation), also incorporates anticipated growth
+ $80,000
in chemical use* for SAVINGS of:
* Chemical use annual increase assumes same growth rate as population, assumes chemical product inflation of 5%.
2017 Dollars.
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

The capital cost comparison favors the “Minimum Bio-P” strategy. The O&M costs favor the
“Compromise Bio-P” and non-monetary factors favor the “Compromise Bio-P” implementation
method.
The “Compromise Bio-P” strategy would be expected to achieve higher performance
expectations, and better consistency of performance. This is particularly important given the
challenges in Leavenworth associated with variable flow and loading. The “Compromise Bio-P”
option also has a lower risk of odor generation. Because of long-term lower chemical usage, the
operational costs of the “Compromise Bio-P” option would be less impacted by high inflation
rates for coagulants.
The “Compromise Bio-P” process train is recommended for inclusion in the Leavenworth
Wastewater Facility upgrades. The lower operating costs, better performance, expected better
consistency and reduced potential for odors of the “Compromise Bio-P” strategy outweigh the
higher initial costs.

Appendix C
Small Clarifiers Upgrade

Leavenworth WWTP
Washington
Engineer Furnished by
Varela Engineering Adrian Williams
awilliams@westech-inc.com
Represented by
John Simon
Goble Sampson Associates
Issaquah, Washington
(425) 392-0491
jsimon@goblesampson.com
WesTech Opportunity Number: 1860691

Tuesday, October 02, 2018
QR-00-085B 1
Item C – Clarifier Mechanism, WesTech Model Number COPS4G
General Scope of Supply

Item Unit Value/Description
Number of Mechanisms Each 2
Application - Activated Sludge Secondary
Tank Diameter ft 32
Tank Side Wall Depth ft 12
Tank Side Water Depth ft 10
Detailed Scope of Supply

Item Unit Qty Size/Description Material
Walkway Bridge each 1 Beam type w/ half span walkway Steel
Walkway Handrail - - 2 Rail Component Aluminum
Walkway Flooring - - 1-1/4" Grating Aluminum
Platform Handrail - - 2 Rail Component Aluminum
Platform Flooring - - 1/4" Checker Plate Aluminum
Center Shaft Diameter in 1 6 Sch. 40 Steel
Feedwell Diameter ft 1 8 Steel
Feedwell Total Height ft - 5
Feedwell Supports - - Supported from the Shaft Steel
Feed Pipe in 1 10 Sch. 20 Steel
Rake Arms - 2 Box truss w/ spiral blades Steel
Squeegees - - Bolted to scraper blades 304 SS
Scum Skimmer each 2 Std. hinged skimmer assembly Aluminum
Scum Box/Trough each 1 Standard scum box Steel
Scum Flushing Valve each 1 Skimmer actuated Polymer/SS
Anchor Bolts & Fasteners - - - 304 SS
Effluent Launder and Supports - - - Steel
Drive Unit
Description Unit Value/Description
Drive Type D25 Shaft w/ Precision Bearing
Continuous Rated Torque ft∙lbs 4,100
Momentary Peak Torque ft∙lbs 8,200
Rake Tip Speed ft/min 8.5
Motor Size HP 0.5
Motor Speed/Voltage/Frequency/Phase RPM / V / Hz / Phase 1800 / 460 / 60 / 3
Torque Control Settings Alarm: ft∙lbs 100%: 4100
Motor Cutout: ft∙lbs 120%: 4920
Main Gear and Pinion Lubrication - Oil
Main Bearing and Reducer Lubrication - Grease
Proposal No. 1860691

Surface Preparation and Coating
Coating Area Surface Preparation Coating
Submerged None None
Non-Submerged None None
Drive Unit SSPC-SP6 One (1) coat Tnemec N140F-1255 Epoxy, 3-9 mils DFT, and
one (1) coat Tnemec 1074U-B5712 Polyurethane, 2-5 mils
DFT
On-site Services For inspection, observation of torque testing, startup, and

instruction of plant personnel. Additional on-site services may
Item Quantity
be purchased at standard WesTech daily rates plus travel and
Total Number of Trips 2
living expenses.
Total Number of Days 2
Items Not Included in WesTech’s Base Scope of Supply

• Electrical Controls and Wiring
• Piping, Valves, or Fittings
• Lubricants
• Unloading or Storage
• Erection or Assembly
• Weir, Scum Baffle, & Supports
• Concrete
Optional Items
Equipment Options
No. Item Description Material
C-1 9” Weir V-Notch FRP
12” Scum Baffle and Supports - FRP
This proposal has been reviewed and is approved for issue by Jim Olsen on October 2, 2018.

Budget Pricing
Proposal Name: Leavenworth WWTP
Proposal Number: 1860691
Tuesday, October 02, 2018
1. Bidder's Contact Information
Company Name WesTech Engineering, Inc.
Contact Name Adrian Williams
Phone 801.265.1000
Email awilliams@westech-inc.com
Address: Number/Street 3665 S West Temple
Address: City, State, Zip Salt Lake City, UT 84115
2. Pricing
Currency US Dollars
Scope of Supply
A (1) Vortex Grit Separator Model GVSP10 $85,000
B (1) Gritt Mitt Slim Line Shaftless Classifier Model GSS31 $45,000
C (2) 32’ Diameter Clarifier Mechanisms Model COPS4G $191,000
C-1 FRP Effluent Weirs & Baffles $14,100
Taxes (sales, use, VAT, IVA, IGV, duties, import fees, etc.) Not Included
Prices are for a period not to exceed 30 days from date of proposal.
Field Service
Daily Rate $1,200
Prices do not include field service unless noted, but it is available at the daily rate plus expenses. The customer will be charged for a minimum
of three days for time at the jobsite. Travel will be billed at the daily rate. Any canceled charges due to the customer's request will be added
to the invoice. The greater of visa procurement time or a two week notice is required prior to trip departure date.
3. Payment Terms
Submittals Approved 15%
Release for Fabrication 35%
Net 30 days from Shipment 50%
All payments are net 30 days. Partial shipments are allowed. Other terms per WesTech proforma invoice.
4. Schedule
Submittals, after PO receipt 6 to 8 Weeks
Customer Review Period 2 weeks
Ready to Ship, after Submittal Approval 18 to 20 weeks
Total Weeks from PO to Shipment 26 to 30 weeks

Terms & Conditions: This proposal, including all terms and conditions contained herein, shall become part of any resulting
contract or purchase order. Changes to any terms and conditions, including but not limited to submittal and shipment days,
payment terms, and escalation clause shall be negotiated at order placement, otherwise the proposal terms and conditions
contained herein shall apply.
Freight: Prices quoted are F.O.B. shipping point with freight allowed to a readily accessible location nearest to jobsite. All claims
for damage or loss in shipment shall be initiated by purchaser.
Paint: If your equipment has paint included in the price, please take note to the following. Primer paints are designed to
provide only a minimal protection from the time of application (usually for a period not to exceed 30 days). Therefore, it is
imperative that the finish coat be applied within 30 days of shipment on all shop primed surfaces. Without the protection of
the final coatings, primer degradation may occur after this period, which in turn may require renewed surface preparation and
coating. If it is impractical or impossible to coat primed surfaces within the suggested time frame, WesTech strongly
recommends the supply of bare metal, with surface preparation and coating performed in the field. All field surface
preparation, field paint, touch-up, and repair to shop painted surfaces are not by WesTech.

FRP Trough Systems
FRP Trough SystemS

Benefits Features
• Rugged laminate with 24 oz woven • Internal reinforcement in critical areas
roving throughout • Flange-by-flange or slip joint connections
• 30% stronger for longer lengths • FRP, HDG or stainless steel brackets
• Integrally molded lateral stiffening
flanges
The Clear Difference.

30% stronger fiberglass troughs for new
and retrofit applications
Spacer rods
Integral stiffening flange
Weirs
attach easily
Factory-drilled Mounting
for weirs & scum flange
baffles
Curved or
straight sides
Reinforced
Flat or round
construction
throughout
Configurations
bottom
Property Test Minimum Value

Tensile Strength ASTM D-638 25,000 psi
Flexural Strength ASTM D-790 34,000 psi
Flexural Modulus ASTM D-790 1.48 x 106 psi Flat Bottom Trough
Barcol Hardness ASTM D-2853 40
Notched Izod ASTM D-256 20 ft-lbs/in
Water Absorption ASTM D-570 0.1%
The Basics Round Bottom Trough

• Complete effluent trough systems
• Corrosion & UV resistant materials
• Flange-by-flange design
• Stainless steel hardware
• Wash, UV, filter troughs
• Easily retrofitted to existing systems
• Supplied with trough support systems
Reinforced Flat
mation visit our web site www.ne
For more infor fcoinnova
Bottom Trough
tions.co
m
NEFCONEFCO
4362 Northlake Blvd, Ste
4362 Northlake 213Ste 213
Blvd,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 775-9303
(561) 775-9303
www.nefcoinnovations.com
Appendix D
Tertiary Treatment

City of Leavenworth TM-01 Tertiary Trt Site Selection
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
WWTP FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Tertiary Treatment Site Selection
May 24, 2018
1.0 Tertiary Treatment Site Selection

The 2017 approved Wastewater General Sewer Plan and Facility Plan (GSP/FP) showed
proposed the tertiary treatment improvements sited on the upper bench area in the current
location of the City Shop / Maintenance Building. The proposed location would necessitate
the City Shop to be demolished and relocated, to accommodate the tertiary treatment building.
Upon further consideration, the City indicated this option is undesirable at the current time.
Alternate locations for consideration included either moving the building further to east, in an
effort to avoid or reduce impacts to the City Shop or further north on the upper bench.
However, a more preferred option the City wished to consider is the feasibility of fitting the
new tertiary treatment facility on the existing main treatment site, just below (south) of the
existing lab/ops building and west of the existing headworks building. The proposed area is
currently a parking area. See Figure 1, Location 2.
The purpose of this element of the predesign evaluation is to assess the feasibility of siting
tertiary treatment on the alternate lower site. The evaluation indicates it is feasible to site the
tertiary treatment on the alternate lower site. This technical memo documents the findings,
potential cost impacts and other issues and considerations. The upper and lower sites are
shown in the attached Figure 1 – Tertiary Treatment Building Location Options. The focus of
this evaluation is the feasibility of the lower location, referred to as Location 2.
2.0 Lower Site Configuration and Cost Impacts

Three tertiary treatment configurations were evaluated:
• Continuous Backwash Upflow Filter (CBUF)
• Downflow Filters
• Ceramic Membrane Filters
The CBUF alternative is the preferred alternative included in the 2017 approved GSP/FP. The
Downflow Filter option was evaluated in the GSP/FP but was not selected due to it being
higher cost than the CBUF. The Ceramic Membrane Filter option was added at the City’s
request.
Preliminary site layout, elevation views and cross section drawings for the alternatives are
included as attachments to this TM – see Figures 2 thru 6. The following table summarizes
estimated cost impacts for construction at the lower site as compared to the upper site:
141104-WWTP Impr--Trt Site Selection TM-01 (05-24-18).docx Varela & Associates
1 Esvelt Environmental Engineering
Table 1 –Estimated Construction Cost Impacts for Use of Lower Site (vs. Upper Site):
Description Increase/Decrease in Cost
Geotechnical and foundation requirements – soil nailing and shoring to protect
$75,000 to $90,000
adjacent buildings during excavation
Access road and site grading revisions $25,000
Demo existing retaining wall on the south portion of the site; tie east portion of wall
$10,000
to remain into existing building
Increase retaining wall height north of existing clarifiers $20,000 to $30,000
Relocate existing water line $10,000
Remove/relocate existing storm drain piping and tanks $10,000
Soil removal/disposal $15,000
Reduce site piping required (reduced site piping requirements) (-$20,000)
Storm drainage requirements (e.g. potential treatment requirements and/or other To be determined –
modular units) see Table 1
Sub-Total Construction (1) $145k to $170k (1)
(1)
Sub-Total construction does not include mobilization (10%), contingency (20%), S.T. (8.4%),
engr/admin (25%). Full load project estimate = $250k to $300k
Additional cost considerations:
• The lower site requires about 25’ less of hydraulic pumping head. This results in about
$1.0k to $1.5k annual lower electrical pumping costs over the upper site.
• Utilizing the upper site displaces the City Shop or a portion of the shop. The 2017
GSP/FP includes a $780k allowance for relocation of the building which indicates the
lower site has a net cost advantage of about $610k over the upper site (i.e. $780k -
$170k = $610k). Utilizing the lower site does not affect the existing City Shop, in the
short-term. Expansions beyond year 2040 will necessitate use of the shop site.
• The lower site may have higher risk of potential unknowns that could emerge during
detailed design. Potential additional cost risks are difficult to predict and will emerge
as design work progresses on the lower site. A portion of the potential risks may by
partially mitigated, depending on City building department and code requirements.
See Table 2 site considerations. However, it is also noted that the upper site $780k
cost allowance for building relocation offsets the cost impacts shown in Table 1 plus
provides a risk buffer for other unforeseen conditions potentially associated with the
lower site.
A summary of site issues and considerations associated with utilization of the lower site is
shown in Table 2 on the following page. Primary categories of consideration include
accessibility, expandability, and other issues and considerations. Many of these are qualitative
in nature and will be matters of operator and maintenance staff preference and opinion. It is
recommended the City review and discuss to consider the relative weight to be placed on each
area of concern.

Table 2 –Lower Site Issues and Considerations:
Accessibility:
Daily Operations The upper site is further from the operations building and the central core of
the existing treatment plant. For daily operations e.g. walkthrough, equipment
check, sampling, adjusting controls, etc. the lower site is closer and would
require less operator travel time. While this is favorable the additional travel
time would likely be minimal and thus no significant daily operational
difference between upper and lower site.
Conflicts with Other The upper site displaces existing City operations/maintenances facilities
City Operations requiring relocation of those facilities and some ongoing coordination with
City operations. The lower site does not have these conflicts.
Chemical Supply Filling bulk tanks and feed tanks. – Direct Access to the lower site will be
challenging than upper site. The current supplier of caustic soda also can
provide bulk alum solution. They have a limit of 100 foot hose length, and
they currently do not have trouble getting onto the site in all seasons to deliver
caustic soda solution. The supplier recommends a remote fill if it gets longer
than 100’. For this facility, a 1-1/2” PVC remote fill line to allow filling from
the North side of the existing operations building would be inexpensive and
functional. Additionally, remote telemetry to track alum use is available at no
cost for contract customers. Access to the remote telemetry data would be
available to the Facility operators as well as the supplier, to ensure deliveries
are timely. There are no minimum delivery requirements for the current
supplier, but if delivery is over 500 gallons, it is more cost effective for the
City. Preliminary sizing of the City’s bulk alum storage tank is nominally
1150 gallons.
Major Maintenance Equipment replacement, media supplementation, equipment re-coating (if
necessary). All major maintenance tasks would be considered equally
difficult for both sites. The possible exception is major equipment removals
and installation, where a crane or other high-capacity lifting is necessary. The
lower site will have maneuverability restrictions due to the driveway and
sloped approach to the building. This could limit the options for lifting
devices, requiring greater planning efforts for these major operations, and
possibly increasing costs and time out of service for major equipment
maintenance when equipment removal and installation is required.
Expandability:
Site Space The upper site has more room and flexibility in layout that would be
conducive to future expansion but would further displace existing City
operations. The lower site is constrained, but there is room to make
accommodations for some future expansion. Design is for year 2040
projected conditions.

Technology Expandability considerations at this time assume the same technology will be
used in the future (i.e. more units of same process). In reality, advances may
make other technologies more cost-effective in future, and switching to a
different process may make the expandability question moot.
NPDES Permit The technology installed with this process is appropriate and cost-effective for
Conditions meeting the permit limits anticipated to be consistent with the D.O. and pH
TMDL on the Wenatchee River – waste load allocations for total phosphorus.
It is possible, but unknown, whether by 2040, new or more stringent permit
limits could make this process inappropriate and a different technology could
be required.
Accommodating Additional concrete filter cells (6 units instead of 4), with the 5th and 6th cells
Expansion: CBUF empty (no internals), so expansion would entail installing equipment,
powering, upgrading distribution and controls, possibly ups-zing pumps, etc.
Approximate cost to add this to project = $70,000 - $100,000
OR add units on upper site in future, possibly re-locate internals to upper site
to consolidate tertiary filter operations.
Accommodating Oversize building by constructing with nominally 12’ extra width, to allow a
Expansion: Down third unit to be brought in, installed, connected in the future. Future
Flow Filter expansion project would include piping extensions, upgrades to pumping
systems, chemical feed systems to accommodate additional unit.
Approximate cost to add this to project = $80,000 - $90,000.
OR relocate to new, larger building on the upper site with an additional unit(s)
to increase capacity.
Accommodating Can construct the concrete for additional filter trains (4 trains instead of 3),
Expansion: Ceramic with the 4thth train’s cell empty (no internals) and isolated, so expansion
Membranes would entail installing equipment, powering, upgrading distribution and
controls, possibly ups-zing pumps, etc. Approximate cost to add this to
project = $90,000 - $120,000.
OR add units on upper site in future, possibly re-locate membranes and

ancillary support equipment to upper site to consolidate tertiary filter
operations.
Other Issues and Considerations:

Impacts to Future The lower site constricts space near existing facilities. Costs and options for
Plant Expansions future plant expansions could be impacted (e.g. clarifier upgrades).
Snow Removal Site slopes and proximity to other buildings could make snow removal
and/or Management difficult. Snow removal issues and requirements for the lower site need to be
considered and determined by the City.
Drainage The lower site has less room for drainage improvements compared to the
upper site. Additionally, proximity of the new building to existing buildings
could create drainage collection/conveyance challenges. The lower site has

minimal available space for stormwater treatment and limits options available
(if required).
Permitting It is assumed a City building permit will be required. Aspects of the lower site
configuration may not meet City permit requirements for setback distances,
driveway slopes, drainage requirements, etc. The City permit department
should review the layout and determine if the lower site configuration meets
City requirements or if an appropriate exemption can be provided.
Unknowns / higher The lower site requires special construction techniques (e.g. soil nailing and
risk construction shoring) and facilities previously existed at the lower site which have been
abandoned/demolished (i.e. demolished aeration basin—circa 1999). Because
of this and other unknowns the lower site likely has an increased potential for
unknown construction issues compared to the upper site.
3.0 Conclusions
• The lower site appears to be a viable option for the City. It appears the lower site is
feasible to accommodate any of the three tertiary configurations being considered
(i.e. CBUF, Downflow Filters, Ceramic Membrane Filters).
• Construction of the tertiary improvements at the lower site results in an estimated
cost impact of $145k to $170k (not including adders for full loaded project estimate),
over the upper site. However, this does not consider the impact and cost associated
with modifying or moving the current City Shop facilities. The 2017 approved
GSP/FP included a budget allowance of $780k which more than offsets the cost
impact at the lower site.
• The lower site has a probable higher risk of potential unknowns or unforeseen
problems that could emerge during detailed design. However, as indicated earlier,
the upper site $780k cost allowance for building relocation offsets the cost impacts
shown in Table 1 plus provides a risk buffer for other unforeseen conditions
potentially associated with the lower site.
• Access to the lower site is tight and more restrictive than the upper. Also, the steeper
site slopes on the lower further compound the accessibility, particularly in the
winter. City staff and operators should review and consider the potential limitations
in light of their daily and ongoing operation and maintenance duties and activities.
• Chemical supply will be more challenging but appears manageable.
• Expandability is limited at the lower site but could be mitigated by adding increased
capacity now (but may not be warranted—see expandability considerations).
• Potential drainage and/or permitting issues could be an issue and are unknowns
currently. The City should have their building and permitting departments review the
preliminary layout drawings for the site and identify any areas of concern or where
special requirements will be necessary.

City of Leavenworth TM-03 Tertiary Filter Evaluation
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
Tertiary Filtration Evaluation Including Ceramic Membrane Alternative

-
May 29, 2018 Draft – Ceramic Membrane Evaluation
June 12, 2018 Revised (added updated cost details, and downflow filter option)
1.0 Introduction
Design for the wastewater treatment plant upgrades for the City of Leavenworth is underway. The
upgrades are being done to meet new permit limits for effluent phosphorus discharge to the
Wenatchee River, based on the waste load allocations presented in the Wenatchee River Dissolved
Oxygen and pH Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study prepared by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
The City has requested some specific pre-design efforts to help inform the City’s direction
regarding the treatment facility upgrades. One of the pre-design tasks is to evaluate the potential
for using ceramic membrane filtration technology for tertiary filtration and phosphorus removal.
The evaluation specifically is to look into:
• Technology review to assess technical feasibility and technical readiness of the process
for this application,
• Development of the alternative enough to make comparisons to the tertiary treatment
technologies previously presented in the Facility Plan,
• Determine economic feasibility of the process in comparison to the processes described
in the approved Facility Plan
As part of this evaluation, updated proposals were requested and received for two configurations
of granular media filters: Continuous Backwash UpFlow (CBUF) filters (the configuration used
as the basis for the project budget present in the Facility Plan), and Downflow, Multi-media filters
(a viable granular media alternative utilizing a more conventional configuration).
Additionally, the pre-design work has included development of building and structure layouts for
these three tertiary filter alternatives (CBUF, Downflow multi-media, and ceramic membrane).
The layouts were used to develop improved cost estimates for these alternatives. The two granular
media alternatives and the ceramic membrane alternative are presented in side-by-side
comparisons in this technical memorandum.
2.0 Summary and Conclusions

Facility sizing and development of an Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs found ceramic
membrane filtration to be significantly more costly the CBUF configuration of granular media
EEE pre-design TM3 - tertiary filters.docx 1 Varela & Associates

filtration presented in the Facility Plan. The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs developed for
this analysis (for all three tertiary alternatives) is updated from the Facility Plan for the following
project estimating categories:
1. Filter Equipment. The equipment costs are based on new proposals, requested and received
during the pre-design phase.
2. Filter structure and building costs. As part of the pre-design effort, input was sought from
the structural engineers on the building and structure costs for the specific layouts
developed for these alternatives. The structural engineers provided estimating guidance on
these layouts, improving the estimating accuracy compared to the planning-level costs
developed for the Facility Plan.
The technology review and evaluation did not find compelling reasons to justify selection of the
higher cost, ceramic membrane alternative.
• The ceramic membrane system is estimated to cost approximately $1.1 million dollars
more than the CBUF configuration of granular media filter presented in the Facility Plan.
• The ceramic membrane filter would be expected to achieve better phosphorus removal
performance than the granular media alternatives, but granular media filters as outlined in
the facility plan are expected to meet effluent phosphorus requirements, so the better
performance would not benefit the City in terms of permit compliance at this time.
• Ceramic membranes are predicted to require less coagulant compared to granular media
filters to achieve equivalent effluent phosphorus. The potential operational cost savings
due to less coagulant chemical would be offset by higher operational costs for power
(additional pumping), the addition of cleaning chemical use, and a higher budget for
equipment maintenance due to increased mechanical complexity, including more
automated valves, programmed sequencing, instrumentation maintenance, etc.
o The ceramic membrane filters may need less coagulant dose compared to granular
media alternatives, but there is no available data to confirm this. The expectation
of less coagulant is based on data from other types of membrane filters being used
for phosphorus removal. The probable cost savings (in coagulant purchase) due to
going with ceramic membranes instead of granular media filters is approximately
$5,000 per year at current chemical prices and current flows.
o Lower coagulant use would result in less sludge production. If coagulant use
follows predictions, then yearly sludge production would be about 1.7 tons per year
less than granular media filter sludge production, resulting in about $1,100 per year
less sludge disposal expenses. (It is estimated the upgrade project with granular
media filters will increase total sludge by approximately 16% compared to current
operations. Ceramic membranes are projected to increase sludge production by
approximately 11% by comparison)
o Additional chemicals are needed for ceramic membrane filters that are not needed
for granular media filters: acid solution and hypochlorite solution for cleaning
cycles. Recycle and/or neutralization of cleaning solutions results in additional
costs.

o Ceramic membrane filters are predicted to have higher power costs compared to
granular media filters, mainly due to higher head pumping permeate through the
filter units, compared to relatively low head of passing through granular media by
gravity.
o Ceramic membrane filter systems are operationally more complex than granular
media filters.
• Ceramic filters and the associated building footprint requirement does not have any
advantage or reduction in space needed over granular media filters in terms of footprint or
expandability.
3.0 Evaluation and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost

Ceramic membrane technology assessment and discussion summary is presented in Table 1. The
discussion in the table compares ceramic membrane features and evaluation criteria to granular
media filters for context. The comparison applies to two specific configurations of granular media
filters: Continuous Backwash Up-Flow (CBUF), and conventional multi-media downflow.
Table 2 presents the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs for the Tertiary Treatment System
portion of the Leavenworth upgrade. The costs present CBUF, downflow multi-media and ceramic
membrane alternatives side-by-side. These costs have been updated from the Facility Plan using
new information developed during pre-design. Specifically, equipment costs have been updated
to reflect new proposals received from the manufacturers, and the structure and building costs have
been updated based on input from structural engineers during the pre-design phase.
The side-by-side comparison of operation and maintenance costs are presented in Table 3. The
operation and maintenance costs have been updated during pre-design to reflect additional
operational information gathered from existing CBUF facilities. The Table 3 costs are for the
tertiary filtration portion of the upgrade project, and do not reflect O&M costs associated with
existing facilities or the other (non-tertiary) upgrades in this project.
Table 4 presents the net present worth cost comparison for the two granular media filter options
and the ceramic membrane filter option, with updated project costs and updated operation and
maintenance costs discussed above used in the present worth calculation. Table 4 includes, for
each alternative, the present worth difference from the CBUF alternative, which was indicated in
the Facility Plan as the basis for developing the project financial plan.

Table 1 – Ceramic Membrane Evaluation Summary

Parameter Ceramic Membrane / comparison to granular media filtration
Technical The ceramic membranes have not been applied in a wastewater treatment effluent
Readiness application where polishing for phosphorus removal is required. The City would need to be
willing to accept this increased risk factor.
CBUF and downflow granular media technology is widely applied to a variety of wastewater
treatment plants for multiple purposes, including effluent phosphorus removal.
Performance Despite lack of installations, there is every reason to believe ceramic membrane would
Expectations (P- perform well in removing phosphorus. Nominal pore size is in the same order of magnitude
removal) as more widely used polymer-based membranes (PVDF is current industry standard). The
small pore size removes near 100% particulate phosphorus, and with rapid mix coagulation
and enhanced flocculation, it could be expected to easily and consistently achieve effluent
total phosphorus of less than 50 µg/L.
Granular media filtration can have break-through of particulate phosphorus due to less
efficient capture of solids, but should readily meet the expected effluent limitations for
Leavenworth.
Coagulating Despite lack of installations, lower chemical would likely be expected to be needed with
chemical use ceramic membranes, based on data from polymer-based membrane applications. The
estimated chemical savings compared to granular media filters is nominally $5,000 per year.
Other operational Pumping costs are higher for ceramic membranes: both systems pump up to the treatment
cost categories building, but ceramic membranes must pump again to draw the clean water through the
(relative to membranes.
granular
membrane Ceramic membrane replacement interval is unknown. Indications are that the ceramic
filtration membranes would be less impacted by chemical cleanings compared to polymer-based
technologies) membranes, which are achieving at least a ten-year life in tertiary applications, so ceramic
membranes are likely to last longer than PVDF membranes, but lack of history in wastewater
applications would place the risk burden on the City.
Granular media filters require periodic media replenishment to replace lost media (usually
less than 5% per year), but replacement media it is relatively inexpensive.
Operational Ceramic membrane treatment is a more complex system, utilizing more instrumentation and
complexity automatic actuators associated with more units, automated isolation of cells for cleaning,
energizing chemical pumps (cleaning chemicals acid and hypochlorite), additional chemical
handling for cleaning chemicals, including (possibly) neutralization of soak waters.
In comparison, backwash of CBUF filter is continuous, using a no-moving-parts air-lift pump
(driven by compressed air). The compressor must be maintained, and filter media must be
monitored for proper media circulation.
Conventional downflow multimedia filters utilize automated backwash sequencing (timer or
headloss initiated). Fewer sequences, fewer valves, and less instrumentation is needed,
however, compared to ceramic membranes.
Footprint No advantage. Tank sizing is on same order of magnitude as granular media filter options,
ancillary equipment footprint is similar or greater due to additional equipment (permeate
pumps and backpulse pumps, and piping/valve assemblies for automated operations), plus
cleaning needs (chemical storage and feed). Coagulation and flocculation are equal to
others (piloting could show reduced flocculation volume is needed compared to granular
media filters).
Refer to preliminary layouts of different tertiary options. See TM-01 regarding site selection.
Expandability No advantage – Same challenges as granular media filtration. Could construct concrete
basins for future “trains.”
See TM-01 site selection technical memorandum
Cost Significantly higher than granular media filter options.
See below for cost estimate – same level of estimating as in Facility Plan.

Table 2 –Opinion of Probable Costs, CBUF in concrete tanks Facility Plan estimate compared to Ceramic Membranes
Facility Plan Base System Submerged Ceramic

Granular Downflow Filter
(CBUF in Concrete Tanks) Membrane
Item Description / Quantity
Sub-item Sub-item
Item Cost Item Cost Sub-item cost Item Cost
cost cost
Chemical storage and feed,
Pretreatment $416,000 $416,000 $416,000 * $416,000 $187,000 † $187,000
coagulation and flocculation tanks
Filter Facilities $1,005,000 $2,015,000 $1,615,000
New Filter Equipment, Installed $227,000 $1,136,000 ** $671,000
Filter structure $275,000 $265,000 $350,000

Filter Building $306,000 $306,000 $306,000
Reject (Backwash) Handling (3x
$60,000 $72,000 $60,000
Gorman-Rupp pumps installed)
Included Included
Ancillary process equipment
$50,000 with filter with filter
(compressors, etc)
equip. equip.
Filter Building process piping $87,000 $298,000 $228,000
Electrical and Power and instrumentation wiring,

$221,000 $221,000 $303,000 $303,000 $266,000 $266,000
Instrumentation**** conduit, etc
Sub-total tertiary treatment*** $1,642,000 $2,734,000 $2,068,000

* Flocculation volumes for ceramic membrane system could potentially be down-sized, would need pilot data to confirm.
** Proposal from Ovivo was based on incorrect design flows. Proposal price was adjusted to reflect additional modules needed to accommodate design flows.
*** Tertiary portion of project only, does not include adders and markups for admin
**** Electrical and instrumentation work associated with tertiary treatment only.
† Rapid mix and flow distr. only. Flocculation volume and mixers included in downflow package unit

Table 3 – Estimated Additional O&M Costs Associated With Tertiary Treatment

Granular
Ceramic
CBUF Downflow
Category Basis (Assumptions) Membrane
Filter
$0.07 per KW-hr flat rate / no capacity charge included.
Power
Operation: estimated 243 days
Filter feed pumping 231 gpm (2020 average), 100 ft TDH to rapid mix tanks $3,300 $3,300 $3,300
Permeate pumping
(ceramic membrane 231 gpm (2020 average), est ave 8.5 psi - $600 -
alt)
Backwash/backpulse Ceramic membrane and downflow use backpulse/backwash. CBUF backwash is continuous, energy
$75 $400
pumping costs reflected below for Air compressor
De-sludge / backwash CBUF: "continuous" (small wetwell). Downflow pump from equalization. Ceramic membrane: waste
$100 $85 $100
return pumping from tanks periodically.
Ceramic membrane: assume during maintenance and recovery cleaning cycles. Downflow: assume 5
Air Scour blowers $1,000 $20
min. air scour per backwash cycle
Mixers and agitators Flash mix 4 hp ave (VFD) / Floc 3x 0.6 hp ave (VFD) $1,700 $1,700 $1,700
Air Compressor Manufacturer’s estimate, adjusted for flow and operational schedule $1,200 - -
Other process Chemical feed pumps, control, automatic valves, etc. $100 $100 $100
Building heat and light 9.24 kW ann ave heat (0-8 W/sf depending on month); 2.5 W/SF lighting $6,700 $6,700 $6,700
Equip Maintenance
Repair / Parts / Repl. Budgeting - 1.5% of new equip capital cost $8,400 $21,000 $13,800
(replac & repair)
For sand filtration alts: 60 mg/l as alum; no polymer for CBUF, 0.5 mg/l polymer for downflow; 90 lb/day
Coagulation and Alkalinity NaOH alkalinity
$17,000 $11,500 $18,000
Supplement Chemicals
For ceramic membrane alt: 40 mg/l alum ave.; no polymer; 60 lb/day NaOH alkalinity
Ceramic Membrane: Hypochlorite solution, citric acid solution, sodium bisulfite (neutralize) and caustic
Cleaning Chemicals - $2,200 -
soda (neutralize). Based on use estimates for PVDF membrane installs
2.5 hr/wk sampling and testing,
CBUF 4 hrs/ wk operations, DF and Ceramic 2 hr/wk
Operating Labor $10,000 $7,000(2) $7,000
.5 hrs per week records and reporting,
CBUF 40 hrs per year start-up and shut-down, $35/hr. DF and ceramic 24 hr/yr
Air lancing of CBUF filters for breaking up bridging - assume 1 time per week for 6 months at 1
Supplemental Labor hour/filter (4 filters) = 96 hours
$3,900 - -
Tasks (1)
Filter air-lift pump pipe replacement - assume 1 time per year at 4 hours per filter (4 filters) = 16 hours
Sludge Processing
(additional chemical Polymer costs, disposal, labor total assumed $600 per dry ton $3,200 $2,100 $3,200
sludge generated):
Total Ann. Estimated
$55,600 $57,360 $54,320
Increase to O&M
Pro Forma Assume +5% as estimate of 2019 cos ts (i.e. +2%/yr. for 2.5 years) $58,400 $60,300 $57,100
Estimated Additional O&M Cost Per ERU:

ERUs 1,950 1,950 1,950
Estimated Additional Monthly O&M Per ERU $2.50 $2.58 $2.44
(1) Supplemental costs for CBUF air lancing and air-lift pump replacement based on interviewing operators at Moscow, Plummer, Chambers Creek
(Tacoma).
(2) No costs are included for extended equipment and operational support contracts. Membrane installations typically include 1 to 3 year contracts with
the equipment supplier for ongoing support, including optimization.

Table 4 – Present Worth Comparison of CBUF, Ceramic Membrane & Granular Media
Downflow
Pre-Design
Alternatives
Summary of
Costs
Facility Plan Submerged
Granular
Description Based System - Ceramic
Downflow Filters
CBUF Membrane
Sub-Total Tertiary Treatment $1,642,000 $2,734,000 $2,068,000
Est. Adders (0.77) - Mobil., Contingency, S.T., Engr. $1,264,340 $2,105,180 $1,592,360
Total Project Capital Costs (rounded) $2,906,000 $4,839,000 $3,660,000
Estimated Annual O&M (tertiary only) $58,400 $60,300 $57,100
O&M Present Worth (rounded) $910,000 $940,000 $890,000
Total Salvage Value at year 2040 -$290,500 -$285,500 -$328,000
Net Present Worth (rounded)
$3,526,000 $5,494,000 $4,222,000
(2.5% for 20 years from 2020 - 2040)
Difference, from CBUF $0 $1,968,000 $696,000

Memo
September 27, 2018
By: Mark H. Esvelt, BCEE, P.E.
Subject: City of Leavenworth WWTP Upgrade Design

Tertiary filter Basis of Design
The approved facility plan for the Leavenworth WWTP upgrade included selection of granular
media, continuous backwash upflow filtration (CBUF) as the preferred alternative for tertiary
filtration. This configuration of effluent filtration was estimated to be the lowest cost alternative,
as detailed in the Facility Plan.
The Facility Plan also showed package disk filters to be a viable alternative, at a cost of
approximately $240,000 (total project costs) higher than the CBUF alternative.
Following site visit trips in August, the City communicated that they prefer the package disk filter
configuration, with the package units installed on an above-grade slab to reduce below-grade
construction costs and make equipment maintenance easier.
The City further requested engineer’s review of a specific product in this configuration to
determine if this is an appropriate application for this product. The product of interest is a Kruger
Hydrotech disk filter, which utilizes woven fabric panels in the disks as filtration media.
A proposal from the manufacturer was requested, and is attached for reference.
The engineer’s review found the following:
• The cost increase to go with the Hydrotech disc filter is consistent with the cost differences
presented in the facility plan, except due to the tertiary filter building re-location to the
lower site (South of the operations building), the difference could be larger (there will still
be a need for an equalization tank for backwash waste, which will be located below the
building slab. Therefore, it is recommended that for budgeting purposes, a (total project)
cost adder be presented as a range, with an additional factor of safety of 50%, so the cost
difference to go with the disk filter would be nominally $240,000 to $360,000.
• On the other hand, the general arrangement drawings provided by Kruger show that this
equipment may have a lower footprint and may therefore allow for a slightly smaller
building than was used in the recent assessment of the lower site (south of the operations
building).
• Kruger provided an extensive North American installation list (also attached), which
included 10 installation using the Hydrotech unit for tertiary phosphorus removal. I was
able to talk to 3 of these installations. A summary of the findings from these interviews is
as follows:
o Owners and operators of all three plants were satisfied with their equipment, and
said they would select the same equipment if they had the opportunity to re-select.
o All of these three installations feed alum for phosphorus removal. Two installations
could not provide actual alum dose ranges, but said it is probably closer to 10 mg/l
than 20 mg/l. The third installation provided the mass of alum they use, and it
works out to about 36 mg/l.
o Two of the three installation stated that keeping the disks clean was the only notable
maintenance issue. These installations were both put in service in 2011, so they are
7 years old, and neither of these installations has the “Automated Cleaning
System”, which we saw at the installation in Camas, and was included in the
proposal for Leavenworth. Therefore, their cleaning efforts require a little more
manual labor to prepare the cleaning solution (usually hypochlorite, diluted), feed,
recirculate, and other steps that are handled by the controller if the Automatic
cleaning system is available.
o The other installation did not report cleaning as a maintenance demand, and stated
they do a cleaning every 6-8 weeks.
o Kruger claims only 1.5%-2% of production water is returned with the backwash to
the treatment plant. None of the three had actual records on the amount of
backwash water generated to confirm the 1.5%-2%. One installation said 2%-3%
is probably about right and the other two guessed even that sounded optimistic, but
each said there are no impacts from returned sidestreams, including one of the
facilities that is using this equipment on biological nutrient removal effluent. From
these statements, along with the assurances from Kruger, it is safe to say the
Hydrotech will not produce more backwash waste than the other alternatives,
including CBUF, and may even produce less.
o One of the installations I talked to went out of their way to recommend the package
units on slab, as opposed to down in the concrete. Theirs is on-slab, and they like
the accessibility, as long as a cat-walk is provided to get up on top to lift the covers.
• Kruger proposes two units, each capable of handling the design (P-removal season) peak
flow of 1.78 MGD. This 100% redundancy is MORE than was used in the earlier
comparison of technologies, which all require increasing loading rates to above design
values during peak events if one unit is out of service.
• footprint
• The Kruger proposal includes some pre-treatment equipment that is accounted for
elsewhere in the cost comparisons presented earlier. The cost increase in bullet #1 reflects
an adjustment to account for this.
Conclusion:
The Kruger Hydrotech appears to be robust, and Tertiary Filtration at Leavenworth for phosphorus
removal appears to be an appropriate application for this equipment. Concerns about backwash
waste volumes and pre-filter protection have been addressed to my satisfaction by the
manufacturer. I am comfortable with this unit in this application if it is preferred by the City and
if the city is comfortable with the potential cost increase compared to the CBUF.
I recommend we proceed with detailed design using the Kruger Hydrotech as the Basis of Design
equipment as soon as we get a final OK from the City.
We Know Water
Hydrotech Discfilter
Pure Performance
WATER TECHNOLOGIES
filter Process
The Hydrotech Discfilter provides proven experience for As solids collect on the inside of the media the influent
today’s demanding wastewater treatment applications water level rises. Maximum head loss through the media
through an efficient, yet easy-to-operate design. Influent is <12 inches. The inlet water level is measured and the
flows by gravity into the center drum and then passes control system automatically initiates backwashing. The
through the filter media mounted on both sides of the discs. filtered effluent is pumped to the backwash spray nozzles,
The solids are retained on the media within the discs. Only washing solids into the sludge trough as the discs rotate.
purified water flows to the collection tank. The inside-out The backwash water is typically 1% to 2% of the total flow to
flow path prevents solids accumulation in the tank. the filter, while the sludge return is typically <1%. Filtration
is continuously maintained, even during backwash.
Hydrotech Advantages
σ Unmatched experience and performance

σ Innovation: patented designs offer real savings
σ Robust construction with 304 or 316 SSTL
σ Proven media: durable and chemically resistant
σ Meets or exceeds Title 22 requirements at hydraulic
loading rates up to and above 6 gpm/ft²
σ Consistently produces high quality effluent despite
high-solids loadings and upset conditions
σ Ideal for “retro-fit” projects in existing basins
σ Compact design requires far less space
σ Simplified control system and lower installation costs
than other filtration technologies
σ Improved backwash efficiency reduces operating costs
and carbon footprint
Progressive Innovation
The Hydrotech Discfilter utilizes many patented designs including the oscillating backwash spray header, which provides
efficient media cleaning while reducing water consumption by 20 percent. Ongoing research ensures the most cost effective
filtration methods available.
The Hydrotech Discfilter is available in a variety of models:
1700 series 2200 series 2600 series
σ Up to 8 discs σ Up to 24 discs σ Up to 30 discs for 15 MGD per

σ Up to 1 MGD per unit in σ Up to 9 MGD per unit in unit in effluent polishing
effluent polishing effluent polishing σ Provides highest filtration area
σ Ideal for small scale projects σ Excellent for a wide range of and most compact footprint
project sizes σ High flow rates maximize
treatment in a given footprint
σ Energy reduced 15% and
footprint by 25%
σ User-friendly design for
minimal maintenance
Options are offered to further reduce footprint, maintenance and cost.
σ Tank versions with reduced footprint, maintenance and cost

σ Flexibility for flange locations
σ Automated systems for supplemental chemical cleaning
Mobile automated cleaning system

Proven Performance
The compact Hydrotech Discfilter is used in a wide range of applications:
σ Effluent polishing of wastewater

σ Phosphorus removal
σ Water reuse (Title 22 approved)
σ Retrofit/replacement of existing systems
σ CSO, SSO, and primary treatment
σ Process water filtration
σ Membrane pre-treatment
The Hydrotech Discfilter is ideal for treating

effluent from a variety of processes
(e.g., activated sludge, fixed film, etc.).
Veolia offers full-scale pilots to demonstrate
performance.
Designed To Save
Hydrotech Discfilters provide a large filter area in a small footprint; up to 75%

smaller than sand filters and up to 20% smaller than other cloth filters.
The discfilter is delivered as an assembled unit, while other cloth filters require
more labor for site assembly. The discfilter eliminates these costs. Installation
is as simple as off-loading from a trailer, anchoring the unit, and completing
mechanical and electrical connections.
O&M is simple and reduces operating costs. Fabrication is in 304 or 316 SSTL for
trouble-free operation in the toughest conditions. Durable filter media provides
long life without frequent and costly replacement. The efficient backwash Hydrotech Discfilters are easy to inspect
process reduces energy costs. and maintain, saving time and money.
Advanced Treatment
The Hydrotech Discfilter enables facilities to meet stringent

performance requirements.
Veolia has pioneered use of the discfilter in combination

with coagulation/ flocculation as a cost effective means to
reduce effluent phosphorus to < 0.1 mg/L.
Experience You Can Trust
Today’s demanding applications require proven experience. Hydrotech Discfilters lead the market with over 400
installed units in the United States and over 1,900
, worldwide.
Oconomowoc, WI Fox Lake, IL

F
Retrofit of tertiary Retrofit of tertiary
R
sand filters ssand filters
12 MGD 330 MGD
Mesquite, TX
M Holly Springs, NC
H
Effluent polishing
E Water reclaim and
W
48 MGD
4 phosphorus removal
p
15 MGD
Veolia Water Technologies Communications - 2016 - © Veolia Photo Library
Veolia Water Technologies

Kruger Inc. / 4001 Weston Parkway / Cary, NC 27513
&-,#Brjr@opp@qljiFFax: 919.677.0082
usmunicipal@veolia@!-+Fwww.veoliawatertech.com
Hydrotech Discfilter Preliminary Proposal
Leavenworth, WA DFS
Kruger Project: 5700147801
CONFIDENTIAL: The information or data contained in this proposal is proprietary to Kruger and should not be copied,
reproduced, duplicated, or disclosed to any third party, in whole or part, without the prior written consent of Kruger. This
restriction will not apply to any information or data that is available to the public generally.
1. Design Summary and Scope of Supply
Kruger is pleased to propose the Hydrotech Discfilter system for this project. The system design is
based on the information listed in the following tables and will be supplied according to Kruger design
standards:
Design Criteria
Wastewater Characteristics
Secondary Clarification following Activated
Influent Source
Sludge
Peak Hourly Flow, MGD (gpm) 1.78 (1,236)
1,2
Peak Influent TSS, mg/L 35*
1,2
Average Influent TSS, mg/L 20*
1
Peak Influent TP, mg/L 1.5
Influent soluble non-reactive P, mg/L 0.02
Monthly Average Effluent TSS, mg/L 5
1
Monthly Average Effluent TP, mg/L 0.1
1) Co-precipitation may be necessary upstream to achieve the listed effluent P concentrations. Direct dosing of metal salt/and
or polymer into the piping preceding the filter is not recommended unless dosed in a location that provides adequate mixing
and retention time in coordination with Kruger recommended guidelines. The chemical addition must be both flow paced
and optimized to limit residual reactive chemical.
2) Peak TSS includes 15 mg/L solids generated from chemical addition and Average TSS includes 10 mg/L solids generated
from chemical addition.
Tertiary Coagulation/Flocculation Zone HP Retention Time (min)

Rapid Mix Zone 5 ~0.4
Coagulation Mix Zone 2 ~3.8
Flocculation Mix Zone 0.5 ~3.8
All values based on assumed 1.78 MGD Peak Hour Flow
Kruger Proposal Date: September 11, 2018

4001 Weston Parkway Revision: 0
Cary, NC 27513 Page 1
Leavenworth, WA DFS
Equipment Supply
Proposed Discfilter System

Discfilter Model Number HSF2208-1C
Total units (duty/standby) 2 (1/1)
Total filter area per unit, ft2 482
Submerged filter area per unit, ft2 313
Disc Diameter, m 2.2
Peak hydraulic loading rate, gpm/ft2 3.94*
Number of Discs per unit 8
Media Pore Size, µm 10
Chassis Material 304 SS
Cover Material GRP
Self-Enclosed Tank Material 304 SS
SEW drive motor, hp 1.5
Backwash water pump, hp 7.5
Backwash pump rated flow, gpm 55
Influent Flange ANSI 14"
Effluent Flange ANSI 12"
Ancillary Equipment Qty
Mobile Automated Cleaning System 1
Automatic Dry Polymer Batch System 1
Coagulant Feed Skid 1
Polymer Feed Skid 1
Rapid Mixer 1
Coagulant Mixer 1
Flocculation Mixer 1
Pre-fabricated Tank Assembly 1 (675M-0040)
* Hydraulic loading rate does not include standby unit.
A mobile Automated Cleaning System (ACS) is included as part of the equipment supply. The mobile
ACS consists of a polyethylene tank, mag drive centrifugal pump, and chemical resistant hose mounted
on movable trolley unit. The ACS unit is designed to connect via hose to the chemical spray header
within a Discfilter unit, and the ACS connects via 480V receptacle to the control system. The control
system will allow for operator initiation of the chemical clean process. Once initiated, the control system
provides automatic operation and control of the cleaning process.

Leavenworth, WA DFS
An instrumentation and control system will be included with the Kruger equipment. The control system
will be designed and supplied according to Kruger standards. It will include the following:
 NEMA4X local control panel for each Discfilter unit
 NEMA4X local control panel for Coagulation/Flocculation System
Process and Design Engineering

Kruger provides process engineering and design support for the system as follows:
 Equipment specifications for equipment supplied by Kruger

 Technical instructions for operation and start-up of the system
 Equipment location drawings and installation plans
 Project specific O&M manuals
Field Services
Kruger will furnish a Service Engineer as specified at the time of start-up to inspect the installation of
the completed system, place the system in initial operation, and to instruct operating personnel on the
proper use of the equipment. Specifically, Kruger will provide:
 Field Service Engineer/Technician – Four (4) days on site in not more than two (2) site visits to
assist with inspection check-out, start-up, optimization, and operator training.
 I&C Field Service Engineer/Technician – Four (4) days on site in not more than one (1) site visit to
assist with inspection and I/O check-out, start-up, and operator training.
Installation Requirements
The following items will be installed by the Contractor/Others:
 Control panel(s)
 Interconnecting wiring and/or conduit between the supplied control panel(s) and Discfilter
equipment
 Any junction or pull boxes or any other like device needed to supply the interconnecting wiring
 All field connections/terminations to the supplied control panels, the Discfilter equipment and
between the Discfilter and supplied control panels
 All supports and anchoring required to install the Discfilter unit
 Plumbing/interconnecting piping, electrical connections, access platforms, grating & handrails

Leavenworth, WA DFS
2. Pricing
The pricing for the Discfilter system, as defined herein, including process and design engineering, field
services, and equipment supply is as follows:
$670,000
Please note that the above pricing is expressly contingent upon the items in this proposal and
are subject to Kruger Standard Terms of Sale detailed herein. Due to current market conditions
for fabricated metal items (e.g. steel and aluminum) this price is subject to change based on
actual fabricated metal prices at time of order placement.
This pricing is FOB shipping point, with freight allowed to the job site. This pricing does not include any
sales or use taxes. In addition, pricing is valid for ninety (90) days from the date of issue.
3. Company Information
Kruger is a water and wastewater solutions provider specializing in advanced and differentiating
technologies. Kruger provides complete processes and systems ranging from biological nutrient
removal to mobile surface water treatment. The ACTIFLO® Microsand Ballasted Clarifier, AnoxKaldnes
MBBR, BIOCON® Dryer, BIOSTYR® Biological Aerated Filter (BAF), NEOSEP™ MBR and
HYDROTECH Discfilters are just a few of the innovative technologies offered by Kruger. Kruger is a
subsidiary of Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies (VWS), a world leader in engineering and
technological solutions in water treatment for industrial companies and municipal authorities.
4. Energy Focus
Kruger is dedicated to delivering sustainable and innovative technologies and solutions. Veolia’s
investments in R&D outpace that of our competition. Our focus is on delivering
 neutral or positive energy solutions
 migration towards green chemicals or zero chemical consumption
 water-footprint-efficient technologies with high recovery rates
Our carbon footprint reduction program drives innovation, accelerates adoption and development of
clean technologies, and offers our customers sustainable solutions. By committing to the innovative
development of clean and sustainable technologies and solutions worldwide, Kruger and VWS will
continue to maximize the financial benefits for every customer.

Leavenworth, WA DFS
5. Schedule and Payment Terms
Schedule
 Shop drawings: submitted within 6-8 weeks of receipt of an executed contract by all parties.
 Equipment: delivered within 18-20 weeks of receipt of written approval of the shop drawings.
 Operation & Maintenance Manuals: submitted within 90 days of receipt of approved shop
drawings.
Terms of Payment
The terms of payment are as follows: 10% on receipt of fully executed contract, 15% on submittal of
shop drawings, and 75% on the delivery of equipment to the site. Payment shall not be contingent upon
receipt of funds by the Contractor from the Owner, and there shall be no retention in payments due to
Kruger. All payment terms are net 30 days from the date of invoice. Final payment shall not exceed
120 days from delivery of equipment. All other terms are per the Kruger Standard Terms of Sale.
Revision Date Process Eng. Comments

0 9/7/2018 RP Initial, budgetary proposal.

Leavenworth, WA DFS
6. Kruger Standard Terms of Sale

1. Applicable Terms. These terms govern the purchase and sale of the equipment and related services, if any (collectively, "Equipment"),
referred to in Seller’s purchase order, quotation, proposal or acknowledgment, as the case may be ("Seller’s Documentation"). Whether these
terms are included in an offer or an acceptance by Seller, such offer or acceptance is conditioned on Buyer’s assent to these terms. Seller
rejects all additional or different terms in any of Buyer’s forms or documents.
2. Payment. Buyer shall pay Seller the full purchase price as set forth in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides
otherwise, freight, storage, insurance and all taxes, duties or other governmental charges relating to the Equipment shall be paid by Buyer. If
Seller is required to pay any such charges, Buyer shall immediately reimburse Seller. All payments are due within 30 days after receipt of
invoice. Buyer shall be charged the lower of 1 ½% interest per month or the maximum legal rate on all amounts not received by the due date
and shall pay all of Seller’s reasonable costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting amounts due but unpaid. All orders are subject to credit
approval.
3. Delivery. Delivery of the Equipment shall be in material compliance with the schedule in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s
Documentation provides otherwise, Delivery terms are F.O.B. Seller’s facility.
4. Ownership of Materials. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data and
other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Seller, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Seller’s property.
Seller grants Buyer a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer’s use of the Equipment. Buyer shall
not disclose any such material to third parties without Seller’s prior written consent.
5. Changes. Seller shall not implement any changes in the scope of work described in Seller’s Documentation unless Buyer and Seller
agree in writing to the details of the change and any resulting price, schedule or other contractual modifications. This includes any changes
necessitated by a change in applicable law occurring after the effective date of any contract including these terms.
6. Warranty. Subject to the following sentence, Seller warrants to Buyer that the Equipment shall materially conform to the description in
Seller’s Documentation and shall be free from defects in material and workmanship. The foregoing warranty shall not apply to any Equipment
that is specified or otherwise demanded by Buyer and is not manufactured or selected by Seller, as to which (i) Seller hereby assigns to Buyer,
to the extent assignable, any warranties made to Seller and (ii) Seller shall have no other liability to Buyer under warranty, tort or any other
legal theory. If Buyer gives Seller prompt written notice of breach of this warranty within 18 months from delivery or 1 year from beneficial
use, whichever occurs first (the "Warranty Period"), Seller shall, at its sole option and as Buyer’s sole remedy, repair or replace the subject
parts or refund the purchase price therefore. If Seller determines that any claimed breach is not, in fact, covered by this warranty, Buyer shall
pay Seller its then customary charges for any repair or replacement made by Seller. Seller’s warranty is conditioned on Buyer’s (a) operating
and maintaining the Equipment in accordance with Seller’s instructions, (b) not making any unauthorized repairs or alterations, and (c) not
being in default of any payment obligation to Seller. Seller’s warranty does not cover damage caused by chemical action or abrasive material,
misuse or improper installation (unless installed by Seller). THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION ARE SELLER’S SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION 10 BELOW. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE.
7. Indemnity. Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless from any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Buyer as a
result of third party claims for personal injury, death or damage to tangible property, to the extent caused by Seller's negligence. Seller shall
have the sole authority to direct the defense of and settle any indemnified claim. Seller’s indemnification is conditioned on Buyer (a) promptly,
within the Warranty Period, notifying Seller of any claim, and (b) providing reasonable cooperation in the defense of any claim.
8. Force Majeure. Neither Seller nor Buyer shall have any liability for any breach (except for breach of payment obligations) caused by
extreme weather or other act of God, strike or other labor shortage or disturbance, fire, accident, war or civil disturbance, delay of carriers,
failure of normal sources of supply, act of government or any other cause beyond such party's reasonable control.
9. Cancellation. If Buyer cancels or suspends its order for any reason other than Seller’s breach, Buyer shall promptly pay Seller for work
performed prior to cancellation or suspension and any other direct costs incurred by Seller as a result of such cancellation or suspension.
10. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CONTRARY, SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER INDIRECT DAMAGES, AND SELLER’S TOTAL LIABILITY
ARISING AT ANY TIME FROM THE SALE OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE
EQUIPMENT. THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY
OTHER THEORY.
11. Miscellaneous. If these terms are issued in connection with a government contract, they shall be deemed to include those federal
acquisition regulations that are required by law to be included. These terms, together with any quotation, purchase order or acknowledgement
issued or signed by the Seller, comprise the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”) and
supersede any terms contained in Buyer’s documents, unless separately signed by Seller. No part of the Agreement may be changed or
cancelled except by a written document signed by Seller and Buyer. No course of dealing or performance, usage of trade or failure to enforce
any term shall be used to modify the Agreement. If any of these terms is unenforceable, such term shall be limited only to the extent necessary
to make it enforceable, and all other terms shall remain in full force and effect. Buyer may not assign or permit any other transfer of the
Agreement without Seller’s prior written consent. The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina without regard
to its conflict of laws provisions.

1 1/2" THREADED ROD: ASTM F593 W/ B1.1 UNC THDS
2 1/2" FLAT WASHER: ASTM A240 304 SS. PLATE
3 1/2" LOCK WASHER
4 1/2" HEX NUT: ASTM F594 W/ B1.1 UNC THREADS
3 1
2 4
3-1/4"
EMBED (MIN)
LEVEL PROBE
JUNCTION BOX
11' 4-7/8"
[3476]
BACKWASH PUMP
SPRAY BAR w/PIPING & FITTINGS
FOR CHEMICAL CLEANSING PRESSURE SWITCH
4-1/8" AND GAUGE DRIVE MOTOR
[105]
6" [150]
14" BW WASTE
[349]
4' 4-7/8" INFLUENT
[1343] ANSI FLG
12" 8' 1/2" [2450]

7' 9-7/8"
[298]
[2385]
EFFLUENT
4' 8-1/8" 3' 6" ANSI FLG
[1425] 3' 2-3/16"
[970] [1067]
BYPASS SEE NOTE 3
WEIR EFFLUENT 2' 8-1/2" 10-1/16"
WEIR [825] [255]
8-1/16"
[205] ISOLATION VALVE 2" [54]
6-11/16" [170] 9-13/16" [250] NPT DRAIN
3' 9-7/8" 9' 4-1/16" [2846]
[1166]
ANCHOR DISTANCE 9' 8"
7' 6" [2286] [2946]
ANCHOR DISTANCE
NOTES :
1. ALL FLANGE CONNECTIONS:BOLT PATTERN ANSI B16.5. PLATE FLANGE: GALVANIZED, STUB END: AISI 304
2. DIMENSIONS IN [ ] ARE MM
3. RECOMMENDED PLATFORM ELEVATION. WORK PLATFORM TO BE SELF SUPPORTING. PLATFORMS MAY NOT BE ATTACHED TO
THE FILTER AND LOADS MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO FILTER. PLATFORMS DESIGNED/PROVIDED BY OTHERS.
4. RECOMMEND 24" MINIMUM MAINTENANCE ACCESS AROUND ENTIRE PERIMETER OF DISCFILTER.
5. FOLLOW ANCHOR MANUFACTURERS GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFIC INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING ANCHOR
EMBEDMENT AND EDGE DISTANCE. SEISMIC CODE REQUIREMENTS MAY AFFECT ANCHOR DETAIL SHOWN.
6. ALL ANCHORS AND FASTENERS TO BE STAINLESS STEEL. APPLY ANTI-SEIZE TO ALL CONNECTIONS.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF KRUGER AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. THE DESIGN
CONCEPTS AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROPRIETARY TO KRUGER AND ARE SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE. THEY
DISCFILTER
ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND MUST BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT IS EXPRESSLY SUBMITTED.
THEY MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED, LOANED OR USED IN ANY OTHER MANNER WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN
HSF2208-1C, UNIT DRAWING
CONSENT OF KRUGER. KRUGER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE DESIGN
CONCEPTS AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN FOR ANOTHER PROJECT OR IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE
KRUGER INC.
4001 WESTON PKWY CARY, NC 27513 | (919) 677-8310
MIXING BYPASS
FITNESS OR PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THIS DOCUMENT OR THE DESIGN CONCEPTS AND INFORMATION
- SCALE DRAWING NO SHEET REV
A PRELIMINARY RELEASE DSD CDP 06.28.18 CONTAINED HEREIN BE USED IN ANY MANNER DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF KRUGER. ALL PATENT RIGHTS ARE RESERVED
REV DESCRIPTION DRAWN APPR DATE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE DELIVERY OF THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. STANDARD PRODUCT 1:40 1C.2208.M.14.12 1 of 1 A
Hydrotech Filtration Installation List
CONFIDENTIAL: The information within this document should not be reproduced, distributed, etc. without the express written consent of Veolia.
Flowrate
Project Name Application Installed/Startup Required Effluent
(MGD)
There are more than 2000 Hydrotech filter installation sites and over 7000 filter units in service worldwide. This list
details Hydrotech filters provided by Kruger in North America.
Installations Under Construction:
Mesquite, TX 35.20 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Wheaton, IL 35.00 Tertiary Filtration 2018 ≤12 mg/L TSS
Wilson Creek, TX - Expansion 25.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Millville, NJ 9.20 Tertiary Filtration 2018 ≤10 mg/L TSS
Delran, NJ 9.00 Tertiary Filtration 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Winter Garden, FL 8.80 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Hamilton, NY 4.80 Tertiary Filtration 2018 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.5 mg/L TP
Frankfort, IL - Expansion 4.50 Tertiary Filtration 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Jackson, CA 4.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤2 NTU
Calls Creek, GA 3.75 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Winter Garden, FL 3.00 Stormwater Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Citrus County, FL 2.25 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Woodland Park, CO 1.60 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2018 ≤10 mg/L TSS, ≤3 NTU
Friday Harbor, WA 1.44 Tertiary Filtration 2018 <30 mg/L TSS
Installed Facilities:
Glenbard, IL 47.00 Tertiary Filtration 2017 ≤12 mg/L TSS
St. Petersburg, FL (Northwest WRF) 45.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS
St. Petersburg, FL (Southwest WRF) 45.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS
West Chicago, IL 20.30 Tertiary FIltration 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Davis, CA 18.30 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2017 ≤2 NTU
McHenry, IL 10.00 Tertiary Filtration 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Chisholm, MN 5.00 Tertiary Filtration 2017 ≤5 mg/L, ≤1.8 ng/L Hg
Trenton, IL 3.09 Post MBBR Filtration 2017 ≤12 mg/L TSS
Flowery Branch, GA 2.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS, ≤3 NTU
Odessa Southeast, MO 2.00 Tertiary Filtration 2017 ≤15 mg/L TSS
Wray, CO 1.10 Post MBBR Filtration 2017 ≤30 mg/L TSS
Woods Valley (Valley Center, CA) 0.30 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2017 ≤2 NTU
Veolia Water Technologies, Inc.
dba Kruger
4001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513 USA
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
www.veoliawatertech.com
November 2017 – Page 1 of 9
Flowrate
(MGD)
St. Tammany Parish, LA 0.10 Tertiary Filtration 2017 ≤5 mg/L TSS

El Paso Northwest, TX 36.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2016 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
HVUD (Nashville), TN 23.80 Membrane Pre-Treatment 2016 ≤1 NTU
Twelve Mile Creek Union County, NC 22.50 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Killian Creek Expansion, NC 8.40 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Loganville, GA 8.40 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Crown Point, IN 8.10 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Louisville, GA 5.00 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Alamogordo Expansion, NM 4.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS, <3 NTU
Hartwell, GA 3.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS, ≤3 NTU
Hartsville, TN 2.10 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Port Orange Reuse (Shunz Road), FL 2.00 Stormwater Filtration/Reuse 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Fluvanna Correctional, VA 0.70 Tertiary Filtration 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Taft Lake (Richfield , MN) 0.60 Lake Water Nutrient Removal 2016 ≤5 mg/L TSS
Egan (Schamburg, IL) 0.23 ANITATM Mox Pre-Treatment 2016 ~65% TSS Removal
Brookings, SD 11.00 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2015 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.5 mg/L TP
Cheshire, CT 11.00 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2015 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.1 mg/L TP
Monticello, NY 8.30 Tertiary Filtration 2015 ≤5 mg/L
Payson, AZ 7.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2015 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
Marengo, IL 4.80 Tertiary Filtration 2015 <10 mg/L
Odessa Northwest, MO 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2015 ≤5 mg/L
Newport, NC 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2015 ≤10 mg/L
Sanford, FL - Expansion 2.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2015 ≤5 mg/L
Florence, AZ 2.00 Tertiary Filtration 2015 ≤5 mg/L
Mechanicsburg, OH 0.23 Tertiary Filtration 2015 ≤12 mg/L
Western Wake, NC 47.30 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5 mg/L
North Olmsted, OH 15.00 Tertiary Filtration 2014 ≤5mg/L
Prescott, AZ 12.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
Volusia County (Debary), FL 7.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5mg/L
Park Creek (Horsham), PA 6.44 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2014 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.4 mg/L TP
Silver Springs Shores, FL 6.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5mg/L
Osprey (Titusville), FL 4.13 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5 mg/L
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Demorest, GA 2.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5 mg/L

Dickinson, ND Refinery 0.36 Process Water Pre-treatment 2014 ≤2 NTU
Tisbury, MA 0.14 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2014 ≤5 mg/L
North Attleborough, MA 17.00 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2013 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.1 mg/L TP
Salt Creek, IL 12.51 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5mg/L
West Deptford, NJ 7.35 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2013 ≤5mg/L
Black Hawk, CO 6.80 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2013 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.3 mg/L TP
Middle Big Creek, MO 6.75 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Camas, WA 6.00 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤10 mg/L
Williston, ND 6.00 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤10 mg/L
Millbrook, AL 5.75 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Franklin Hills, OH 5.00 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Jackson, WI 5.00 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5 mg/L
NE Brunswick, NC - Expansion 6.19 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Logan Township, NJ 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤10 mg/L
Goodyear – Corgett, AZ 1.92 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2013 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
Maybrook, NY 1.80 Tertiary Effluent 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Altamont, NY 0.93 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5mg/L
Geauga County, OH 0.58 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤10 mg/L
Crestview, FL 0.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Tallwood Estates, NC 0.13 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤5 mg/L
Marble Falls, AR 0.04 Tertiary Filtration 2013 ≤15 mg/L
Blue Springs, MO 36.00 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Wilson Creek, TX 24.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2012 ≤5 mg/L
New Century Town, IL 12.50 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Belvidere, IL 10.00 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Atlantic Beach, FL 10.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Brooksville, FL 8.10 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Lindenhurst, IL 5.70 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Palatka, FL Expansion 5.75 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Princeton, MN 3.92 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2012 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.3 mg/L TP
Troy-Jay, VT 1.60 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2012 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.2 mg/L TP
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Sawgrass, FL 1.50 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L

Maple Shade, NJ 1.44 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Baker Correctional, FL 1.28 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Leslie, MI 1.12 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2012 ≤5 mg/L, ≤1 mg/L TP
Meridian, TX 0.60 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤5 mg/L
Jasper, NY 0.06 Tertiary Filtration 2012 ≤10 mg/L
Mesquite, TX 48.00 Tertiary Filtration 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Carlisle, PA 18.20 Tertiary Filtration 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Panther Creek, TX 15.00 Tertiary Filtration 2011 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
York, SC 8.00 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2011 ≤15 mg/L, ≤1 mg/L TP
Fort MacLeod, AB Canada 4.70 Tertiary Filtration & P Removal 2011 ≤5 mg/L, ≤0.5 mg/L TP
Stuart, FL 4.20 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Erie, CO 3.60 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Selbyville, DE 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Ferndale, CA 1.56 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2011 ≤2 NTU
Woodridge, NY 0.80 Tertiary Filtration 2011 ≤5 mg/L
Meridian, ID 18.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2010 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
Live Oak, FL – Phase 2 10.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2010 ≤5 mg/L
Mount Holly, NJ 9.20 Tertiary Filtration 2010 ≤5 mg/L
Okotoks, AB – Expansion 6.45 Tertiary Filtration 2010 ≤5 mg/L
Mesquite, NV Expansion 8.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2010 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2 NTU
Galt, CA 6.00 Tertiary Filtration 2010 ≤2 NTU
Flemington, NJ 5.20 Wet Weather CSO 2010 ≤30 mg/L
Killian Creek, NC 4.20 Tertiary Filtration 2010 ≤5 mg/L
Okaloosa County, FL 2.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2010 ≤5 mg/L
Port Orange Reuse (Oak St.), FL 2.00 Stormwater Filtration/Reuse 2010 <5 mg/L
Cave Creek, AZ 1.20 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2010 < 5 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Allure/Genesis II 1.06 Tertiary Filtration 2010 <5 mg/L
Portage County, OH 0.17 Tertiary Filtration 2010 <5 mg/L
Westford, MA 0.10 Tertiary Filtration 2010 <5 mg/L
Fox Lake, IL 30.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Holly Springs, NC 15.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Santa Fe Paseo, NM 12.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L

West Brunswick, NC – Phase 2 15.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Lititz, PA 8.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Surf City, NC 3.75 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Elk Valley (Ozark), MO 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Mammoth, CA 2.90 Tertiary Filtration 2009 ≤2 NTU
Oak Run, FL 2.40 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
South Martin County, FL 1.60 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2009 <5 mg/L
White Sands Missile Range, NM 1.60 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Heyburn, ID 1.50 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Stonecrest, FL 1.50 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Las Cruces, NM 1.40 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Holly Hill, FL 1.20 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2009 <5 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Oasis/Genesis I 1.06 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Seneca Allegany, NY 0.79 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Pala, CA 0.60 Tertiary Filtration 2009 ≤2 NTU
Sunshine Village, AB 0.10 Tertiary Filtration 2009 <5 mg/L
Wildcat Hill – Flagstaff, AZ 13.40 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2008 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Oconomowoc, WI 12.00 Tertiary Filtration 2008 <5 mg/L
Simcoe, ON Canada 10.51 Tertiary Filtration 2008 <5 mg/L
Rio De Flag – Flagstaff, AZ 8.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2008 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Callahan, FL 1.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2008 <5 mg/L
Collinsville, OK 1.08 Tertiary Filtration 2008 <30 mg/L
Eloy, AZ 0.93 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2008 <5 mg/L
Colfax, CA 0.65 Tertiary Filtration 2008 ≤2 NTU
Waters Edge, TX 0.60 Tertiary Filtration 2008 <5 mg/L
Sandestin, FL 16.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2007 <5 mg/L
Thomasville, NC 15.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Cedar Creek, GA 10.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 3 NTU
Frankfort, IL 9.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Vega Baja, PR 8.20 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <10 mg/L
Watsonville, CA 7.70 Tertiary Filtration 2007 ≤2 NTU
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Whiteville, NC 7.50 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L

Pickaway, OH 6.30 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Minneola, FL 6.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Okeechobee, FL 4.74 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Live Oak, FL 4.70 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
St. Croix, USVI 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Groveland Sunshine, FL 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Las Vegas, NM 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Wildwood, FL 3.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2007 <5 mg/L
Cocoa Beach, FL 3.02 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Groveland Sampey, FL 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Verrado Expansion, AZ 2.75 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2007 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Hot Springs, AR 2.56 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Hertford, NC 2.50 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Lady Lake, FL 2.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Umatilla, FL 1.26 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
York Town Village, MO 1.08 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Hackberry, TX 1.68 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Railway Estates, IL 1.04 Tertiary Filtration 2007 -
Belleview, FL 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Rancho Viejo, NM 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <2 NTU
Aruba 0.63 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Isleta, NM 0.50 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <2 NTU
Miles Grant, FL 0.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2007 <5 mg/L
Whittier, NC 0.50 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Brilliance 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <15 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Constellation 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <15 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Jewel 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <15 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Millennium 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <15 mg/L
Westville, OK 0.30 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L
Sunset Hill, NM 0.20 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <2 NTU
Tuckaseigee, NC 0.20 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <10 mg/L
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Mimosa Bay, NC 0.12 Tertiary Filtration 2007 <5 mg/L

Gilbert Mesa, AZ 32.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Palm Coast, FL 16.80 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 <5 mg/L
Springboro, OH 12.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Ardmore, OK 9.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Cairo, GA 8.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <10 mg/L
Seacrest, FL 8.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 <5 mg/L
Kissimmee, FL 7.80 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 <5 mg/L
Olivehurst, CA 7.40 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 ≤2 NTU
Mankato, MN 6.20 Tertiary Filtration 2006 ≤2 NTU
Sanford, FL 5.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 <5 mg/L
South Fort Collins, CO 6.75 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Niceville, FL 4.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L, <5 NTU
Nevada City, CA 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 ≤2 NTU
Hudson, FL 2.40 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 ≤5 mg/L, ≤2.5 NTU
Wayne County, NY 1.75 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Festival Ranch, AZ 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <2 NTU
Twin Lakes, OH 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Saddlebrook, AZ 0.60 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <2 NTU
Entrada Del Oro, AZ 0.46 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2006 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Royal Caribbean – Celebrity 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <15 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Radiance 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <15 mg/L
Virgil, NY 0.24 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <5 mg/L
Wonder Lake, IL 0.20 Tertiary Filtration 2006 -
Lazy Oaks, MI 0.08 Tertiary Filtration 2006 <10 mg/L
Dorado, PR 10.00 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <10 mg/L
Smithfield, RI 9.90 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
West Brunswick, NC 7.50 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
Okotoks, Alberta, Canada 4.50 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
Marburg (Winder), GA 3.75 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2005 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Carrabelle, FL 3.60 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2005 <5 mg/L
Lewes, DE 1.20 Tertiary Filtration 2005 ≤15 mg/L
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
Desert Oasis, AZ 1.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2005 <5 mg/L

Eagle Ridge, FL 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
Pacific City, OR 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
Moncks Corner (Bard), SC 0.46 Latex facility (industrial WWTP) 2005 <10 mg/L
Royal Caribbean – Enchantment 0.32 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <15 mg/L
Lake Lanier, GA 0.25 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2005 <5 mg/L
Duanesburg, NY 0.20 Tertiary Filtration 2005 <5 mg/L
Alto Lakes, NM 0.07 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2005 ≤5 mg/L
Ravenna, OH 6.02 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <8 mg/L
Cassville, MO 4.30 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <5 mg/L
Huttonsville, WV 3.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2004 <20 mg/L
Kansas City, MO 3.00 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <10 mg/L
Amherst, VA 1.80 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <5 mg/L
Palatka, FL 1.75 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <5 mg/L
Rosemount, MN 1.41 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <5 mg/L
Verrado, AZ 1.04 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2004 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
Carey Station, GA 1.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2004 <10 mg/L
Laurie, MO 0.87 Effluent Filtration 2004 <10 mg/L
Baldwin, FL 0.80 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <5 mg/L
Holiday Homes, OH 0.36 Tertiary Filtration 2004 <10 mg/L
Bonita Park, NM 0.04 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2004 <5 mg/L, <2 NTU
NE Brunswick County, NC 4.13 Tertiary Filtration 2003 <10 mg/L
Ft. Myers, FL – Three Oaks WWTF 3.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2003 <5 mg/L
Williamson, NY 2.59 Tertiary Filtration 2003 ≤10 mg/L
Honeoye Falls, NY 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2003 ≤10 mg/L
Seymour, MO 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2003 <5 mg/L
Alamogordo, NM 4.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2002 <5 mg/L
City of Mesquite, NV 4.00 Tertiary Filtration/ Reuse 2002 <5 mg/L
Village of Marissa, IL 3.73 Tertiary Filtration 2002 <12 mg/L
Yreka, CA 1.50 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2002 18 µm particle removal
Oconee Crossings, GA 1.00 Tertiary Filtration/Reuse 2002 <5 mg/L
Hastings, FL 0.60 Tertiary Filtration 2002 <5 mg/L
dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
Flowrate
(MGD)
House Springs, MO 0.45 Tertiary Filtration 2002 <5 mg/L

Grand Bahamas Utilities 1.00 Tertiary Filtration 2001 -
Potlatch Corporation – Boardman, OR - Irrigation intake water 2000 -
Anniston, AL - Municipal surface water intake 1998 -
Please contact Kruger for further information about Hydrotech filter installations. www.veoliawatertech.com

dba Kruger
Tel: 919-677-8310 ● Fax: 919-677-0082
DF Capacity (MGD) at 4 DF Capacity (MGD) at
Type 1C gpm/sf Flange Size 6 gpm/sf Flange Size DF Dimensions (LxWxH, ft) Coag/Floc Dimensions(LxWxH, ft)* Coag/Floc Total HRT (min) Budgetary Pricing*
2202 0.45 Inf=8", eff= 8" 0.68 Inf=8", eff= 8" 7'4" x 7'6" x 8'- 1/2" 675M-0015: 19.2' x 8' x 7' 10.58 @ 0.67 MGD N/A
2204 0.90 Inf=10", eff= 8" 1.35 Inf=12", eff= 10" 8'8" x 7'6" x 8'- 1/2" 675M-0015: 19.2' x 8' x 7' 5.5 min @ 1.35 MGD ~$195,000
2206 1.35 Inf=12", eff= 10" 2.03 Inf=14", eff= 12" 10'1" x 7'6" x 8'- 1/2" 675M-0030: 19.2' x 8 x 10.5' 5.4 min @ 2.03 MGD ~$200,000
2208* 1.81 Inf=14", eff= 12" 2.71 Inf=16", eff= 14" 11'5" x 7'6" x 8'- 1/2" 675M-0040: 21.75' x 9' x 10.5' 5.32 min @ 2.7 MGD ~$213,000
2208* 1.78 MGD = 3.94 gpm/SF 675M-0040: 21.75' x 9' x 10.5' 8.06 min @ 1.78 MGD N/A
2208/6 ~$203,000
*Initial Proposal *Height does not include hand rails *Pricing is for single
discfilter unit with no
accessories (ACS,
coag/floc, etc)
Water Quality & Treatment / Wastewater Treatment studies, Design, Operation / Industrial Wastewater Management
ESVELT ENVIR ONMEN TA L ENG INEERING

8908 E. Dalt on Ave., Spokane, WA, 99212, Ph 509-926-3049 Fax 509-922-3073
Memorandum
Date: December 5, 2018
By: Mark H. Esvelt, P.E.
Subject: Peak flow projections review
This memorandum presents the derivation of the peak design flow developed and adopted by the City
for the design criteria for the City of Leavenworth. The peak design flow is the maximum flow of
wastewater that can be hydraulically handled by the wastewater treatment facility for a short duration,
normally defined as one hour, without resulting in process treatment problems. In other words, the
peak design flow can pass all bottlenecks as well as not result in any unit process upsets due to hydraulic
overload.
Some unit processes, particularly physical processes, are sized based primarily on peak flows. Pumping,
conduits, and physical unit operations such as grit chambers, sedimentation tanks, filters, and
disinfection are examples of units sized based primarily on maximum hydraulic throughput capability.
Other design criteria parameters (BOD or TSS loading, or average flows) have little impact on sizing of
those processes.
Estimating the peak flows can be based on actual data, when available. When data is not available, then
‘literature’ values are typically used, along with data from similarly sized facilities with similar
characteristics in the collection system, including age, wastewater sources (residential vs commercial,
significance of infiltration and inflows, etc.).
Peak hour is frequently described by the peak hour peaking factor, which is the ratio of peak hour flows
to the average daily flows (a multiplier), or the ratio of peak hour flows to maximum day flows.
Estimating the peak hour flow and applying projections to guide design had occurred over the years as
follows:
• 1995 Facility Plan preliminary assessment of then-current flows as reported in February 9, 1995
memo to the City of Leavenworth from Dana Cowger. Basis: 1991-1994 flow data, including
daily circular charts showing actual peak events. Peak flows were from a storm event on August
6, 1991.
ACTUAL DATA – FROM 1995 FACILITY PLANNING, FOR 1991-1994
Average Day Max. Mo. Ave. Max. Day Ave. Peak Hour Peaking Factor Peaking Factor
(24- (peak hour / (Peak hour /
hr totalizer) ave day) Max. day)
0.31 MGD 0.40 MGD 0.61 MGD 2.0 MGD 6.45 3.28
• 1996 Facility Plan Final, dated April 10, 1996 assessment of flow records de-emphasized records
before November 1991, when a new plant influent flow meter was installed, resulting in
reduction in the peak flow used for projections, apparently because it eliminated the August 6,
1991 event from consideration as a ‘valid’ peak event. Projections for wastewater increase due
to population growth (establishing year 2015 design flows) were proportional to population
growth projections for all flow categories.
ACTUAL DATA – FROM 1996 FINAL FACILITY PLAN, FOR 1991-1994, REVISED TO REMOVE ONE EVENT
0.312 MGD 0.4 MGD 0.612 MGD 1.2 MGD 3.8 2.0
• 1997 Design Technical Memoranda for the upgrade project included TM02 Dated July 15, 1997,
presenting a review of design criteria to verify criteria going into design. A new effluent flow
meter was installed in February, 1995, so data from 1995 and 1996 was analyzed to determine if
facility plan design criteria should be re-considered. It was recommended that design criteria
for flow not change, but it was also found that on March 17, 1997, a heavy rain event and snow
melt caused wastewater flows to exceed 1.4 MGD sustained for over 3-hours, and a totalized
one-day flow of 1.08 MGD. Despite this extreme high flow event, the technical memorandum
recommended no change to the design flows due to the infrequent nature of the event and
potential cost-impact. Projections were based on flows increasing proportionally to population
and peaking factors consistent with data (used 2.0 peaking factor on the maximum day for the
peak hour).
PROJECTIONS – FROM 1997 DESIGN, FOR YEAR 2015

0.65 MGD 0.84 MGD 1.28 MGD 2.6* 4.0 2.0
*
Peak hour was not listed in the final Facility Plan document, since it was not expected to impact effluent quality or have
an effect on effluent quality criteria or permitting. It was later included in the construction documents for the 1998-1999
plant upgrade, however.
• 2016 Facility Plan included analysis of 3-years of flow records from the City’s Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs), covering the period January 2013 – December 2015. Since these
records were from monthly reports, average daily flow and the maximum day flow (24-hour
totalizer for the day) were available to examine. The DMR’s indicate this data is from the flow
meter on the plant effluent. There was no hourly data available at the time this was analyzed.
The peak day / max. day peaking factor from the previous project (1998 plans) was carried
forward and used again for the peaking factor for the following reasons:
o There was no new data available to re-calculate updated peaking factors.
o The peaking factor used previously is consistent with published literature values
recommended by numerous agencies (including Washington Department of Ecology).
Two curves commonly used to estimate peak hourly flow in the absence of site specific
data are presented below. The first is from “Wastewater Engineering Treatment,
Disposal, and Reuse”, Third Edition, by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1991. The second curve
is from the “10-States Standards” (Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities,
Policies for the Design, Review, and Approval of Plans and Specifications for Wastewater
collection and Treatment Facilities, 2014 Edition, Great Lakes – Upper Mississippi River
Board of Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers).
Both of these curves show a typical hourly peaking factor (peak hour / ave day) of nominally 3.5
- 4.0 for facilities in the same size range as Leavenworth. The projections for Leavenworth in the
two P-removal seasons are based on retaining the peak hour / max. day multiplier of 2.0. The
resulting projection in terms of peak hour / average day flow peaking factors are 3.8 for the
March-May season, and 2.9 for the July-October season, consistent with the literature values.
PROJECTIONS – FROM 2017 FACILITY PLAN, FOR YEAR 2040

Season Seasonal Max. Mo. Max. Day Peak Hour Peaking Peaking
Average Ave. during Ave. Factor (peak Factor (Peak
Day season (24- hour / ave hour / Max.
hr totalizer) day) day)
Mar-May 0.47 MGD* 0.51 MGD 0.89 MGD 1.78 MGD 3.8 2.0
Jul-Oct 0.52 MGD* 0.56 MGD 0.76 MGD 1.52 MGD 2.9 2.0
*Data was split according to season. Seasonal average day flows listed here were not presented in the facility plan. Maximum
month average was presented in typical (average) flows between these seasons. Full seasonal average peak hour was not listed
in the final Facility Plan document, since it was not expected to impact
Hourly Peaking Factor – From Metcalf and Eddy

Hourly Peaking Factor – From 10-States Standards
Without additional data showing the hourly variability of flows, it is recommended the design flows
presented in the 2017 Facility Plan be retained, as is, including seasonal maximum day and peak hour
flows. At least two, preferably three years of data is necessary to determine if other peaking factors are
warranted.
Water Quality & Treatment / Wastewater Treatment studies, Design, Operation / Industrial Wastewater Management
ESVELT ENVIR ONMEN TA L ENG INEERING

8908 E. Dalt on Ave., Spokane, WA, 99212, Ph 509-926-3049 Fax 509-922-3073
Memorandum
Date: November 19, 2018
By: Mark H. Esvelt, P.E.
Subject: Phosphorus removal experience summary for woven fabric disc filters (Kruger
HydroTech Discfilter, Westech Superdisc)
This memorandum summarizes the follow-up information gathered on the application of woven-fabric
filter technology to tertiary phosphorus removal in wastewater treatment plants. The City of
Leavenworth has indicated this is the preferred technology for use in tertiary phosphorus removal in the
Leavenworth wastewater treatment plant.
This memo presents an independent assessment of a phosphorus removal pilot study conducted for the
City of Mankato, Minnesota (principally the applicability of the study conclusions to the Leavenworth
design). The pilot study looked at a range of tertiary phosphorus removal alternatives. One of the
treatment trains included the full-scale Kruger HydroTech discfilter as one step in a multiple-stage
approach to tertiary phosphorus removal.
Additionally, this memo presents a detailed summary of a second pilot study performed using the
WesTech Superdisc filter in Clinton, Massachusetts. The WesTech Superdisc filter is a direct competitor
of the Kruger Hydrotech Discfilter. The Clinton, Massachusetts study applied the woven fabric filter
technology as a tertiary phosphorus removal process downstream of activated sludge, very similar to
the proposed application in Leavenworth.
Studies
1. City of Mankato
Existing conventional activated sludge treatment plant with tertiary system in place.
Phosphorus limits will be coming to the plant. The study was an attempt to determine the
capability of the existing treatment train to be adapted to the new phosphorus removal
requirements, as well as compare it other technologies operated in parallel on the same effluent
on pilot and bench scales.
Existing tertiary treatment train:
Secondary Effluent -> Kruger Acti-flow ballasted sedimentation -> Kruger Hydrotech Discfilter
The facility produces reclaimed water using the above treatment train for industrial non-contact
cooling water and irrigation to public access areas (parks, greenspace).
Full scale as above. In addition to testing the existing train for phosphorus removal capabilities,
the facility did parallel piloting using FOUR different ultrafiltration membranes: Dow (PVDF),
Toray (PVDF), Inge (PVDF), Meiden (ceramic)
Normal at full scale: 76.3% TP removal through secondary down to 0.97 mg/L TP utilizing TWO
addition pts for FeCl3: the primary clarifier influent (precipitated FePO4 particles removed with
primary sludge) and the secondary clarifier influent (precipitating more FePO4 for settling the
secondary clarifiers). Historically, the facility added 5-10 mg/l as FeCl3 to the intercepter sewer
FOR ODOR CONTROL. 90-180 gallons of 37.4% ferric chloride solution per day. Now, they are
instead adding Ferric chloride at the entry to the primary clarifiers AND the entry to secondary
clarifiers. The residual (sludge) from the secondary clarifiers recycle back to interceptor, likely
serving the odor control purpose, as well as taking advantage of the additional phosphorus
adsorption capacity of the ferric sludge to minimize additional chemical addition.
For Acti-Flow / Discfilter combinations (tertiary treatment): FeCl3 normal dose (last stage only)
is about 20 mg/L as FeCl3 (in addition to the nominally 15 mg/L at the primary clarifier) and this
results in nominally 0.17 mg/L as TP in the Kruger Actiflo effluent. 20 mg/L works out to a mole-
ratio dose of 3.93 Fe/P. An equivalent Aluminum/P mole ratio would be expected to result in
the same removal, and would amount to an alum dose of about 55 mg/L.
The study report notes the Hydrotech Discfilter achieves virtually zero additional P-removal
AFTER the acti-flow. Recall there is NOT additional FeCL3 addition between Actiflo and Discfilter.
A review of the reults indicates P-removal at lower coagulant doses is limited by the chemical
dose, and the vast majority of the phosphorus escaping the Actiflo is soluble form (there was
never enough ferric to react with all the phosphorus, so some of it stayed in solution). The
soluble P that escaped the Actiflo would just as surely pass directly through the Discfilter in the
absence of another chemical addition/coagulation/flocculation stage. At higher doses of ferric
chloride, the total P is lower, but some of the P should be in particulate form that managed to
escape the Actiflo. If it escaped the Actiflo, it would necessarily be in very small, dispersed form,
because the Actiflo is generally very good at capturing solids that are flocculated. The dispersed
solids would also be the most likely solids to pass the Discfilter, particularly since no additional
coagulation/flocculation step was used ahead of the filter, and no additional polymer was
added.
It is not possible to determine the fraction of escaping P that is in particulate versus soluble form
from the data presented in the study report. It is not easy to guess the fraction, since no TSS
data was presented in the report. However, we have TSS data from operating an Actiflo at the
City of Spokane. The Actiflo in Spokane averaged less than 4 mg/L. During optimal operation,
with an extended period of effluent TSS of less than 4 mg/L, the total phosphorus during this
time at the Spokane pilot unit was approximately 0.05 mg/L. This was the best the Actiflo was
able to consistently perform in Spokane, and approximately matches the best performance
achieved in the Mankato study: during “stress testing” in Mankato, a total of 35 mg/L FeCl3 was
added, achieving less than 0.1 mg/L TP for all tertiary processs, including the actiflow. This is a
nominal mole ratio of 6.9 Fe:P. An equivalent alum dose would be approximately 100 mg/l as
alum (Al2(SO4)3•14H2O). TP effluent during the stress test was nominally 0.05 mg/l for the
Actiflo and DiscFilter. It should also be noted that the Mankato study indicated the phosphorus
detection limit during the experiments was 0.04 mg/L, so significant differences in performance
at levels near this limit are approximate.
In conclusion, without an additional chemical addition step after the Actiflo, including rapid
mixing, coagulation, and flocculation, the Kruger Hydrotech Discfilter would not be expected to
get additional phosphorus removal.
Some other observations from the Mankato Study report: Ultrafiltration membranes were able
to reduce TP after the Actiflo – from the 0.17 mg/L range to the 0.11-0.13 mg/L range for PVDF
membranes, demonstrating the absolute pore size of ultrafiltration membranes does indeed
capture dispersed solids that can escape both the Actiflo and the Discfilter, in the absence of an
additional chemical addition step. The flat-sheet ceramic membranes piloted on a bench scale
in Mankata performed even better with no additional chemical feed, but it was reported that
fouling of the ceramic membrane was very problematic, and required physical cleaning
(scrubbing), along with extended chemical soak and cleans to restore permeability.
2. Clinton, Massachusetts:
Equipment: Westech Superdisc. 12.0 MGD peak design flow.
The facility underwent an extensive study of phosphorus removal capabilities to prove the
capability of the Westech Superdisc in removing phosphorus. The facility treats primarily
domestic wastewater from several communities. Information on the study was provided
verbally by two of the WesTech employee investigators involved in the study.
The facility includes an activated sludge plant, with rapid mixing, coagulation, flocculation, and
disc filters after the secondary clarifiers, so a treatment train similar to the one proposed for
Leavenworth. During the study there was no upstream phosphorus removal (biological or
chemical) in the activated sludge system. After the study, the facility found it in their best
interests to implement chemical addition upstream of the secondary clarifiers to optimize
chemical addition.
The investigators reported that coagulation/flocculation was the BIGGEST challenge, reinforcing
the early conclusions that chemistry is key! The process in Clinton ran into problems due to
geometry: a 3 to 4 foot drop AFTER the flocculation tank caused FLOC BREAKUP. They
recommend avoiding a hydraulic drop that can break up carefully build floc. For Leavenworth,
this would mean utilizing a different method of flow splitting between the two discfilters
(modulating valves, for example would do less damage to floc than a distribution box complete
with weirs).
Anionic polymer worked best in this study as opposed to cationic polymer. With cationic
polymer, they began to run into blinding issues at doses of around 2 mg/L. With anionic
polymers, they could successfully use up to 5-7 mg/L polymer SUSTAINABLY. For a coagulant,
they were using Ferric Chloride to precipitate the phosphorus. The polymer is necessary to
create floc particles suitable for removal by the disc filter (just as with the Kruger product).
Ferric chloride was fed at doses of 30-50 mg/L. In terms of metal mole ratio, this is
approximately equivalent to 80 – 138 mg/L as alum. This dose was required to precipitate the
influent to the filters, which was: 0.5 mg/L as Total P, 0.38 as soluble P, and 0.352 as “soluble,
reactive P” (SRP).
Initial mixing (at the coagulant dosing location) was 30 seconds, followed by coagulation for 10
minutes, and flocculation for 10 minutes.
Performance: Effluent total P averaged 0.1 mg/L. The best they could do was 0.05 – 0.06 mg/L.
During the study, they dosed chemical AFTER the secondary clarifier only (single point of
coagulant addition). The total P leaving the secondary clarifiers during the study – feeding the
filters – was up as high as 5 mg/L, but typically around 1.25 – 1.5 mg/L. After completion of the
study, they are now in normal operation, and they are dosing at TWO LOCATIONS- before the
secondary clarifiers AND after the secondary clarifiers. The investigators recommend two points
of application, confirming what we have found in our studies. Now in normal operations,
because of the chemical addition before the secondary clarifiers, they are seeing TP loading to
the Filters of 0.45 mg/L – 0.83 mg/L, and the filter is bringing that down to 0.1 mg/L average.
Regarding cleaning, WesTech offers the Superdisc units with a mobile automatic cleaning cart,
like Kruger. All units are built with the chemical spray header installed weather you get the
automatic cleaning system or not. They indicate the spray header could also be used if grease
becomes a problem, allowing you to set up a hot water spray to come on with a timer.
Calls to Disk Filter Installations
A summary of information gathered from existing phosphorus removal facilities using woven fabric
discfilters is presented below.
Facility name: Park Creek
Location: Pennsylvania contact 215-672-8011
Treatment plant size: capacity and current flows: activated sludge WITH bio-P removal, design capacity
2.25 MGD average, peak 2.79 MGD. Current flows: 0.85 MGD, with peaks as high as 2.5-2.8 MGD short
duration.
Equipment: Kruger Hydrotech Discfilters. Installed 2015.
Primary purpose of disc filter: phosphorus polishing to guarantee permit limits when bio-P cannot make
permit. Filters are operated Year-round, as-needed to meet permit limit
Permitted total P: 0.6 mg/l summer, 1.2 mg/L winter
Chemical feed: when used, adds ALUM and POLYMER. Operational protocols: monitor effluent
phosphorus (polyphosphate as measured by on-line chemscan monitoring equipment). When P
approaches permit limits, they turn on polymer and alum at volumetric ratio of 1:10, starting at 0.1 gph
polymer and 1.0 gph alum. This volumetric dose works out to about 18 mg/l alum and approximately
1.5 mg/L polymer. Continue monitoring effluent P, increase dose if necessary in response to effluent P,
keeping Polymer:alum ratio constant, up the MAXIMUM doses of 0.4 gph polymer and 4.0 gph alum.
This only happens when there is a combination of “high” P coming in from the biological treatment and
high flows (runoff/storm event), equating to an estimated dose (depends on flows) of up to about 2-4
mg/l polymer and 25-40 mg/l alum.
Blinding – reported no blinding problems, maintenance includes running auto-clean cycles about once
per quarter, but once they had to do two cleans in a row with acid to restore permeability (they
measure using the bench-top panel permeability test recommended by Kruger.
Upstream treatment: Flash mixing, coagulation, flocculation similar to the recommendations for
Leavenworth. Hydraulic residence times for these three distinct mixing regimes are comparable to the
Leavenworth design.
Overall maintenance demands: cleaning (has only used the auto system), and greasing. Also: they
include cleaning strainers on their regular maintenance schedule (strainers on backwash pump
discharge and strainers on P-analyzers).
Take-aways: equipment is recommended, but cautions that is “is like all equipment” in that prepare to
install more than the listed capacity to give yourself flexibility (not tons of confidence it would really
meet the listed capacity, but has never had to test it)
Facility name: Princeton WWTP
Location: Princeton, MN Contact 763-389-3574
Treatment plant size: capacity and current flows: activated sludge (oxidation ditch configurations) WITH
bio-P removal, design capacity 1.6 MGD average, peak 3.9 MGD. Current flows: .35 – .42 MGD
Equipment: Kruger Hydrotech Discfilters, 10µm openings. Installed 2012. They currently run only one
of the two discfilters.
Primary purpose of disc filter: phosphorus polishing AND TSS limits. Bio-P in summer generally works
well, but the filter is there to assure permit is met when bio-P cannot. Filters are operated Year-round.
Permitted total P: 0.3 mg/l – also TSS limits <10 mg/L
Backwashing: It runs 17 seconds every half hour, so total volume is very low (likely less than 1% of feed
flow). COLDER WATER causes more frequent backwashing. This may be a combination of higher flows
when water is colder (seasonal flows), but the operator states that TEMPERATURE HAS THE HIGHEST
IMPACT ON OPERATIONS.
Chemical feed: adds ALUM but NO polymer. Typical dose: reported adds ‘about’ 5 mg/l alum at the
inlet to the secondary clarifiers. NO chemical addition after the secondary clarifiers. Result is typical 10
mg/L TSS (chem solids and biological solids) in feed to the filters.
Blinding – reported no blinding problems, and there is no problems with grease or oil (usually it is nearly
all removed before it gets as far as the filters).
Overall maintenance demands: They have the Kruger auto system, but they prefer to use a Hydrix
cleaning solution, which is not compatible with the auto-cleaning ‘cart’. So they mix the cleaning
solution and use a back-pack prayer to spray town the discs through the access hatches. Once per
month cleaning this way. Equipment has required only one replaced drive motor since installation (was
within warranty, so manufacturer replaced for no charge). Need to clean strainers on backwash pump.
Facility name: Black Hawk WWTP
Location: Black Hawk, CO
Contact: Kevin Cummins, 303-582-5923
6.8 MGD Peak Hydraulic design, current average flows, approximately 2 MGD.
Primary purpose of disc filter: Phosphorus polishing. TMDL on a downstream lake.
Permitted total P: Old permit was 1 mg/L. Recently adjudicated new permit to protect water quality
requiring <0.3 mg/l . Typical performance is <0.1 mg/l TP, about 2-3 months ago they had a biological
treatment upset, resulting in TP effluent of above 0.3 mg/L (it climbed to 0.32 mg/l).
Backwashing: It runs approximately 150 times per day for each filter unit, it increases as it gets dirtier
(closer to needing a cleaning cycle). They put it through a cleaning cycle every 6-8 weeks. (automatic
cleaning system).
Chemical feed: adds ALUM and polymer, with mixing, coagulation, and flocculation. Typical dose: could
not say.
Blinding – backwash frequency increases as cleaning time approaches. Backwash frequency restored to
baseline after cleaning cycle.
Upstream treatment: Biological P-removal, flash mixing, coagulation, flocculation similar to the
recommendations for Leavenworth.
Overall comments: They like the Kruger discfilter units, would recommend.
Facility name: York WWTP
Location: York, SC
8 MGD Peak Hydraulic design.
Primary purpose of disc filter: Phosphorus polishing and tertiary filtration.
Permitted total P: < 1 mg/L.
Backwashing: Not measured, not sure of timing. Top-of-the head guess is that it is more than 3%
volume.
Chemical feed: adds ALUM only at the secondary clarifier inlet, nothing after.
Maintenance: Operator considers the diskfilter to be high maintenance. When asked to elaborate, he
said it was the cleaning demands, no breakdowns. A few panels have had to be replaced in the 7 years it
has been on-line, but mainly, they think it takes a lot of cleaning.
Upstream treatment: Biological P-removal, alum added at secondary clarifiers
Overall comments: The diskfilters to a good job, but they don’t like to clean them. They looked at the
aqua-aerobics units, but liked these better. Their installation is all ON-SLAB – they like everything
exposed like this. They have an access catwalk, which they recommend as necessary, so they can access
the discs from above through the normal access hatches.
Facility name: Fort Macleod WWTP
Location: Fort Macleod, AB contact 403-331-9319
Treatment plant size: capacity and current flows: Sequencing batch reactors (SBR), design capacity 4.7
MGD Peak Hydraulic design, typical average 240,000 gallons per day.
Equipment: Kruger Hydrotech Discfilters. Installed 2010 (9-years old).
Primary purpose of disc filter: Phosphorus polishing and tertiary filtration.
Permitted total P: < .5 mg/L. Typical performance: SBR effluent 4 mg/l TSS. After filter 1 mg/L TSS
Backwashing: Timer set to BW every 12 minutes, therefor 5 per hour. Length of BW… ? again in the
range of 20 sec per BW? Guess is that 2%-3% is probably about right according to operators. Can also
go off level sensors, which are set to over-ride timer setting if it is getting dirty especially fast.
Chemical feed: adds ALUM AFTER SBRs (not sure of chemical coagulation and floc). Dose: estimated to
be 35-40 mg/L – similar to what is estimated to be needed in a single stage at Leavenworth.
Maintenance: They have had NO ISSUES. Cleaning is fine, using hypochlorite solution. They also can get
inorganic deposits – iron, etc. They address as it is noticed. Cleaning frequency: less frequently than
monthly. Biggest cleaning challenges were at start-up.
Overall comments: Good. No issues.
Facility name: Cheshire WWTP
Location: Cheshire, CT
Contact: Lab, John. Superintendent: Scott. Direct phone 203-272-9105
Treatment plant size: capacity and current flows: Conventional Activated Sludge, with primary clarifiers,
activated sludge, secondary clarifiers, upflow denitrification filter, then P-removal using mixing, coag.,
floc, and Kruger Hydrotech Discfilters. Design 4.0 MGD average, Maximum month 5.1 MGD, Peak hour
11.0 mgd. Filters: 5.5 MGD each is max design capacity.
Ferric chloride is added ahead of the primary clarifiers to remove most of the phosphorus.
Primary purpose of disc filter: Phosphorus polishing.
Permitted P: < .1 mg/L. Typical performance: The phosphorus before the filters is 0.6 -1.0 mg/l (ortho-
P). typical, leaving the filter is 0.06 – 0.09 mg/l (OP), estimated TP is 0.06 – 0.12 mg/l. TSS after filters is
less than 1 mg/l, always reports 1.0 mg/l.
Backwashing: During the season, they actually backwash continuously – this was done not because of
filters, but because it prevented the “surging” downstream that was messing with their UV level control
gates and UV flow-pacing controls (basically the same problem we saw at the Camas plant). Operator
commented about ease of backwash handling in comparison to sand filters. Have had no clogging or
blinding issues.
Chemical feed: Adds Ferric chloride ahead of primary filters. Adds ALUM AND POLYMER after the
denitrification filters. Ferric is used ahead of primaries because in their location, it is cheaper. But alum
is used at filters because they found it either works better or has another operational advantage specific
to the filters. Rapid mix, followed by coagulation (4.3-8.6 minutes HRT at average month design flows)
and flocculation (same volume as coagulation tanks). Dose: uses Molar ratio setpoint, feed-forward
loop of influent OP as measured by Chemscan Unit. Normal setting is 2.5 Al:P. this calculates out to 15
– 25 mg/l as alum
Maintenance: They have had no issues, except needed to replace the motor on one backwash pump.
Operator attributes this to high humidity in the filter room, best to keep it dry if possible. Cleaning is
fine, using hydrochloric acid solution. Cleaning frequency: Two per season: once around seasonal start-
up in March, then one more around July. Operating season is about 6 months. They do nothing special
for winterizing lay-up or seasonal start, except to dial-in the chemical feed before the seasonal P-limits
kick-in.
Overall comments: Good. Does what it is supposed to do. Also, Kruger has been very good with
technical support, very responsive.
Other P-removal Facilities
The following installations were contacted, but we were not able to connect to discuss details of their
installation and find out more about the technology application.
• North Attleborough, MA. 17 MGD, <0.1 mg/l TP. Left two voicemail messages at 508-695-7872
• Troy-Jay VT. 1.6 MGD, 0.2 mg/l TP. Left two voicemail messages at 802-988-2636
• Leslie, MI. 1.12 MGD, 1 mg/l TP. Left two voicemail messages at 517-589-5700
• Brookings, SD. 11 MGD, .5 mg/l TP. Left two voicemail messages with Eric Witt, 605-697-8410
Flow, gallons per minute
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1/13/2017
1/27/2017
2/10/2017
2/24/2017
3/10/2017
3/24/2017
4/7/2017
4/21/2017
season
5/5/2017
P‐removal
5/19/2017
6/2/2017
6/16/2017
6/30/2017
7/14/2017
7/28/2017
8/11/2017
8/25/2017
9/8/2017
season
9/22/2017
P‐removal
10/6/2017
10/20/2017
11/3/2017
11/17/2017
12/1/2017
12/15/2017
measurements:
12/29/2017
Date
1/12/2018
1/26/2018
Average of consecutive
Daily Totals
2/9/2018
Max. measurement of day
3‐hour......
2‐hour......
2/23/2018
3/9/2018
3/23/2018
4/6/2018
4/20/2018
season
5/4/2018
P‐removal
consecutive measurements (1 per hour for 3 hours)
5/18/2018
6/1/2018
6/15/2018
6/29/2018
7/13/2018
7/27/2018
8/10/2018
8/24/2018
9/7/2018
season
P‐removal
9/21/2018
10/5/2018
max. of 24 single measurements, 2 & 3 ‐ hour sustained peaks
10/19/2018
11/2/2018
(2 & 3 hours sustained peaks are actually average of 2 consecutive measurements (one per hour for 2 hours) and 3
11/16/2018
11/30/2018
12/14/2018
0
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
Flow, MGD
Peaking Factor (Day's max reading/Day's total)
6
5
Ratio [max reading/day total] (peak hour)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Daily Total Fow (MGD)
Appendix E
Ultraviolet Disinfection

City of Leavenworth TM-05 Enclosed Vessel UV Disinfection Feasibility
CITY OF LEAVENWORTH
Enclosed Vessel UV Disinfection Feasibility

(prepared by Mark H. Esvelt, BCEE, P.E.)
October 8, 2018
1.0 Introduction and Purpose

The approved facility plan for the Leavenworth WWTP upgrade included an equipment upgrade
for the UV Disinfection System:
 Replacement of the existing UV equipment with new UV equipment in the existing
channel.
The purpose of this equipment upgrade is summarized as follows:
1. The existing UV equipment is approaching 20-years old, maintenance and parts
replacement costs have already begun to increase (due mainly to availability), and are
expected to continue to increase.
2. UV equipment installed in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s are typically having useful lifes
of 15-20 year at other wastewater treatment plants, so the experience in Leavenworth is not
atypical.
3. Newer UV equipment is available that can provide equal disinfection capacity with less
equipment, potentially saving on labor and maintenance costs.
4. The newer equipment is available in configurations that are compatible with the existing
UV disinfection channels, to allow a simple replacement of equipment without requiring
extensive modifications to the UV building channel structure.
The City has requested additional evaluation into an alternate UV configuration, specifically
enclosed vessel (or “in-vessel”) UV. This memo addresses the technical feasibility of using
enclosed vessel UV instead of open channel UV disinfection, including identification of structure
modifications necessary to accommodate this alternate configuration, and hydraulic impacts of
utilizing enclosed vessel UV instead of open channel UV.
2.0 Enclosed Vessel Conceptual Layout
Conceptually, the enclosed vessel UV alternative would require demolition of the existing divider
wall between the two UV channels, connection to clarifier effluent piping where it currently enters
the existing channels, piping and valving to two parallel enclosed vessel UV modules, and
returning the disinfected effluent to open channel for metering at the existing parshall flume.
The concept is sketched out on the following page in plan view. Refer to the attached proposed
layouts provided by one of the in-vessel UV manufacturers, which also shows the elevation view
with stacked parallel reactors.
141106-WWTP Imp--Ecl Vessel UV Feas TM-05 (10-08-18).docx Varela & Associates


Note from the conceptual plan view and from the manufacturer’s proposed layouts:
 Vertical stacking is required to fit parallel reactors in the existing UV channels, even when
removing the center divider wall.
 Access stair has a total rise of 9 feet, resulting in nominally 14’ of run.
 There is sufficient length in the existing channels to position reactors where there is no
conflict with access stair.
 The existing second inlet pipe (18” clarifier effluent that can enter on the UV channel at
the east end of the channels) would either be abandoned or left in place for a complete
disinfection bypass. It currently is in place to allow the open channel UV modules to be
operated in series.
 Vertical separation shown on manufacturer’s elevation is required to allow clearance for
top access plate.
 Top reactor will have a centerline nominally 58.5 inches above the floor. Access to cover
plates for lamp removal and maintenance would require a moveable step or step-ladder.
3.0 Considerations
The following considerations were used to evaluate the feasibility of enclosed vessel UV
disinfection.
 Cost: Budget impacts compared to the Project budget established in the approved facility
plan.
 Hydraulic profile compatibility: headloss must be compatible with existing hydraulic
profile.
 Operator accessibility and access: for routine maintenance procedures and for major
maintenance procedures
 Constructability: Ability to transition to an alternative UV system while continuously
meeting permit limits during construction.
 Floodplain: Consequences of proximity to 100-year floodplain water level: Standard
operating procedures to continue to disinfect during flood events and standard operating
procedures to protect equipment from damage during flood events.
4.0 Cost
The cost-comparison at the feasibility level consisted of the following categories:
1. Equipment installation cost
2. Structure and piping modifications costs (includes demolition)
3. Access infrastructure costs
4. Electrical costs
The above categories were compared to the base equipment listed in the approved facility plan
(open channel, low-pressure, high-intensity vertical UV modules fitting in the existing channels),

as shown in the table below. For this “Feasibility comparison”, costs are estimated to be higher
for the in-vessel UV, mainly because an allowance was included in the installation and piping
modifications categories to account for difficulty in maintaining disinfection during construction.
Base Facility Plan Enclosed Vessel

Equipment $185,000 $170,000
Installation $19,000 $35,000
Demo/structure/piping modifications $75,000
Access improvements - $15,000
Electrical $10,000 $10,000
Total $214,000 $305,000
5.0 Hydraulic Profile Compatibility:

The hydraulic profile implications consider the headloss through the in-vessel equipment to
determine if this equipment can be accommodated within the existing hydraulic profile. The water
level in the effluent channel will need to be controlled to assure the upper in-vessel UV reactor
stays flooded. This raises the effluent water surface to minimum 1099.5’. With estimated headloss
through the reactors (in parallel), the new connecting piping, and the existing piping from the
clarifiers, the headloss is increased substantially, but is still compatible with the existing hydraulic
profile, as long as both UV reactors are in use during peak flow events, and more than just clarifier
#3 is in service (to distribute flows from the clarifiers to the UV). Under these conditions, the
maximum water surface at peak flows is estimated to be approximately 6” below the clarifier
effluent weirs. If one of the UV reactors is off-line or if only one clarifier is in service during a
peak flow event, then it is predicted effluent will back up to the clarifier effluent weirs and
surcharge them until flows recede. Given the short-term expectation of peak flow events, and the
infrequency of occurrence, this is not expected to adversely impact the performance of the plant
(leaving clarifier or UV units off line during peaks would more severely impact performance than
the hydraulics would).
6.0 Operator Accessibility and Access:

Operator accessibility is reduced for the in-vessel alternative. The conceptual plan view above
and the sketches provided by the manufacturer show access to the lamps may require a moveable
step ladder or work stand for removing and replacing UV lamps, which are accessed through a
side cover plate. A hand-hole access plate on the top of the in-vessel UV units is also difficult to
reach in the vertically-stacked parallel reactor configuration. The figure below shows access to
the lamps for a similar system installed in western Washington. The access port on top of the unit
is used to remove debris by hand when it becomes lodged in the unit. The operator at the facility
where this picture was taken indicates this is a normal maintenance procedure. The existing open
channel system accumulates debris in the channel upstream of the UV modules. With the in-vessel
system this debris would be partially forced through the reactors, but some would likely get hung-
up and accumulate in the reactor, to be removed by hand through the access port. With the open

channel system, installation of a surface scum trough has been mentioned as a possible means to
reduce the nuisance accumulation of floatable debris and floating grease. There is not an
opportunity to install this type of equipment with the in-vessel units.
7.0 Constructability:
Constructability may be the biggest concern for converting to in-vessel UV, since the open channel
UV system would need to be completely removed from service to allow demolition and installation
of the new system to take place. A temporary disinfection system would need to be put into service
while the modifications to the existing channel are made.
8.0 Flood Plain:

Flood Plain concerns are a consideration for the UV installation because the 100-year flood is at
1097.8 (on the treatment plant datum). At this river level, the parshall flume in the UV building
will be surcharged and effluent will back up into the parshall flume approach channel. However,
the new cut-off wall will prevent flooding of the UV pit (where the in-vessel units are located) as
long as the water does not over-top the walls, which are at an elevation of 1101.5’. In the flooded
condition, the drains in the UV pit could remain open, with continuous pumping (at the plant drain
pump station) to keep the pit dry. Note that the in-vessel units are not available with a flood-proof
(water-tight) construction. The manufacturer estimates flooding the units would result in $7,000

- $8,000 in damage, and the City would be without disinfection while the units are undergoing
repair.
9.0 Conclusions:
Conclusions are summarized below in the bullet-point list.
 The alternate configuration using in-vessel UV reactors is technically feasible and
compatible with the existing facilities.
 In-vessel UV is significantly more costly due to structural and mechanical reconfigurations
required and the complexity of the installation due to the need to maintain disinfection
capability during construction.
 Access to the equipment for maintenance and repair is more complicated with the in-vessel
equipment in comparison to the open-channel configuration.
 There are not overwhelming advantages to the in-vessel configuration to outweigh the
above dis-advantages:
o The in-vessel equipment utilizes medium-pressure lamps instead of low-pressure
lamps/ The medium pressure lamps are less efficient in the germicidal UV
wavelengths used to disinfect, so they are therefore less energy efficient than the
open-channel low-pressure high-intensity lamps outlined in the approved Facility
Plan.
o The In-vessel arrangement allows for fewer lamps than the open channel
arrangement: (6 lamps per in-vessel reactor x 2 reactors = 12 total lamps for the
in-vessel equipment, 40 lamps x 2 modules = 80 total lamps for the open channel
configuration). Note the existing system utilizes 160 total lamps, so there are fewer
lamps for both configurations.
Although retrofitting for in-vessel unit use appears to be technically feasible, it is not ideal and
results in higher costs. It is recommended we continue with design using vertical, low-pressure,
high-intensity UV equipment unless directed by the City to go with the enclosed vessel alternative,
with the acknowledgement that it will be more costly.

BUDGET PROPOSAL
ETS-UV SYSTEM
Project Name: Leavenworth ETS-UV
Project Location: Leavenworth, WA
Engineer: 0
Proposal No.: 18 UV 029 FV 1
Proposal Date: 14-Aug-2018
Applications Engineer: Flora Vinson

Sales Manager: Larry Graff
Manufacturer's Rep: TEC Treatment Equipment Company - Richland, WA
Contact: Dennis Gleason
Phone: 425-681-7015
SCOPE OF SUPPLY
DESIGN CONDITIONS
Maximum Monthly Flowrate = 0.57 MGD
Maximum Daily Flowrate = 1.41 MGD
Average Daily Flowrate = 0.51 MGD
Peak Flowrate = 2.8 MGD
UV Transmittance = 65 %
TSS = <30 mg/l
Influent Fecal Coliform/E. Coli = <63,000 / 100 ml
Effluent Fecal Coliform/E. coli = <200 / 100 ml geometric monthly, <400 / 100 ml
geometric weekly
Dose = >25 mJ/cm2
Option 1: $170,029
Qty Description
Configuration = 2 parallel SW-635-14 each treating 1.41 MGD
2 ETS-UV SW-635-14 UV system complete with:
14" ANSI flange connections, 316L SS
(6) 3.5 kW medium pressure UV lamps perpendicular to flow
(6) Quartz thimbles
Temperature sensor
Automatic/Mechanical cleaning
Access hatch
(1) UV intensity sensor
Operation and maintenance manual
2 Free standing power/control panel, epoxy coated painted steel, complete with:
Transformer and capacitor power supply
Dimensions: H 79 x W 40 x D 20-in
Power supply: 480V, 3-Ph, 60Hz
NEMA12 enclosure
Spares
6 UV lamps
6 Quartz thimbles
6 Thimble seal kits
6 Wiper rings
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC Colorado Springs, CO 80915 Fax: +719-380-9424
Option 2: $196,000
Qty Description
Configuration = 2 parallel SW-835-14 each treating 2.8 MGD (100% redundancy)
2 ETS-UV SW-835-14 UV system complete with:
14" ANSI flange connections, 316L SS
(8) 3.5 kW medium pressure UV lamps perpendicular to flow
(8) Quartz thimbles
Temperature sensor
Automatic/Mechanical cleaning
Access hatch
(1) UV intensity sensor
Operation and maintenance manual
2 Free standing power/control panel, epoxy coated painted steel, complete with:
Transformer and capacitor power supply
Dimensions: H 79 x W 56 x D 20-in
Power supply: 480V, 3-Ph, 60Hz
NEMA12 enclosure
Spares
8 UV lamps
8 Quartz thimbles
8 Thimble seal kits
8 Wiper rings
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

SCOPE OF ENGINEERING
The following documentation shall be provided by Evoqua:
- Shop Drawing Submittal
● Detailed Scope of Supply
● Comments & Clarifications
● Project Schedule
● Technical Information / Equipment / Drawings
Catalog Cutsheets
Dimensional Drawings / General Assembly Drawings
Functional Schematics / Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (when applicable)
Electrical Schematics (when applicable)
Control Panel Layouts, Ladder Logic Diagrams (when applicable)
● Receiving, Handling and Storage
● Warranty Statement
- Operation and Maintenance Manuals
● Ordering Information
● Warranty Statement
● Introduction
● Safety Precautions
● Preventive Maintenance General Information
● Maintenance Record Card
● Regional Offices
● Technical Data
● Installation
● Operation
● Service
● Illustrations
● Preventive Maintenance Kits and Spare Parts List
● Additional Literature
NOTE - In an effort to be environmentally responsible, one (1) hard copy of the submittal and O+M will be supplied
and up to eight (8) copies will be supplied on CD-ROM. Additional hardcopies of the submittal and O+M can be
supplied at a cost of $50.00 each.
CLARIFICATIONS & EXCEPTIONS

Section Part Description
The scope of supply and pricing are based on Evoqua’s standard equipment selection,
standard terms of sale and warranty terms. Any variations from these standards may
affect this budgetary quotation. Additionally, please note that this budgetary quotation
is for review and informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer for
NOTICE acceptance.
ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN SCOPE

- Mechanical and electrical installation labor
- Civil work including supply of anchor bolts
- Interconnecting piping
- Interconnecting wiring (unless detailed above)
- Valves, fittings, appurtenances not specifically listed above
- Installation supervision
- All taxes, fees, lien waivers, bonds and licenses
- Room ventilation, air conditioning, or lighting
- Videotaping (unless a videotape agreement is signed)
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

COMMERCIAL OFFERING
Payment Terms: 30% Due on Approval of Submittals
60% Due on Shipment of Equipment
10% Due on Startup (not to exceed 90 days after Equipment Shipment)
All payments are due 30 days from date of invoice and are not subject to retention.
FCA: Factory
Freight to Job Site: Included
Submittal: 6-8 weeks after receipt and approval of purchase order
Shipment: 8-12 weeks after receipt of full information and approved drawings (when required)
Startup: 3 days included over 2 trips
Training: concurrent with startup
Extended Warranty: Not Included
Price: Per Above Options
Other Conditions:
1) Evoqua Water Technolgies, LLC (Evoqua) proposes to furnish materials, and/or equipment for the
project identified at the beginning of this proposal. Any items not shown above as detailed under (i) 'SCOPE OF
SUPPLY', (ii) 'SCOPE OF ENGINEERING', or (iii) other attachments to this proposal, are EXCLUDED. In addition:
a. Evoqua' price will be held valid for a period of 90 days from the date of this proposal ("Proposal Date");
provided, however, in the event (A) Evoqua receives an order from Buyer within 90 days from the
Proposal Date and the percentage change in the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer's Price Index (all
items) (the "Index") as it existed two months prior to the Proposal Date and the Index as it existed two
months preceding the month in which Evoqua receives Buyer's order is greater than 10%, then
Evoqua shall have the right to reprice this proposal or (B) Buyer's order is received more than 90 days
beyond the Proposal Date, then Evoqua shall have the right to reprice this proposal.
b. Prices are in US Dollars.
c. Local or state taxes are not included in this proposal.
2) This proposal by Evoqua is contingent upon: (i) Evoqua' written acceptance of the purchase order or other
contractual document issued in response to this proposal; and (ii) Evoqua' satisfactory completion of an
anti-corruption due diligence review, as applicable; and (iii) the enclosed terms and conditions contained in the
following page(s) of this proposal, such terms to take precedence in the event of conflict with any other terms or
documents incorporated into the contract arising out of this proposal unless otherwise agreed in writing.
3) All of the information supplied by Evoqua in connection with this proposal (including drawings, designs and
specifications) (the "Information") is confidential and/or proprietary and has been prepared for your use solely in
evaluating the purchase of the equipment and/or services described herein. Transmission of all or any part of the
Information to others, or use by you for any purpose other than such evaluation, is expressly prohibited without
Evoqua' prior written consent.
4) Please address & send your purchase order to:
Evoqua Water Technolgies, LLC

725 Wooten Road
Colorado Springs, CO 80915
Attn: Flora Vinson
ph: 719.550.2026
fax: 719.380.9424
email: flora.vinson@evoqua.com
Thank you for your interest in Evoqua Water Technolgies, LLC. We are committed to meeting your expectations.
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

Standard Terms & Conditions of Sale 1-May-15
1. Applicable Terms. These terms govern the purchase and sale of equipment, products, related services, leased products, and media goods if any (collectively
herein "Work"), referred to in Seller’s proposal ("Seller’s Documentation"). Whether these terms are included in an offer or an acceptance by Seller, such offer or
acceptance is expressly conditioned on Buyer’s assent to these terms. Seller rejects all additional or different terms in any of Buyer’s forms or documents.
2. Payment. Buyer shall pay Seller the full purchase price as set forth in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation specifically provides otherwise,
freight, storage, insurance and all taxes, levies, duties, tariffs, permits or license fees or other governmental charges relating to the Work or any incremental increases
thereto shall be paid by Buyer. If Seller is required to pay any such charges, Buyer shall immediately reimburse Seller. If Buyer claims a tax or other exemption or
direct payment permit, it shall provide Seller with a valid exemption certificate or permit and indemnify, defend and hold Seller harmless from any taxes, costs and
penalties arising out of same. All payments are due within 30 days after receipt of invoice. Buyer shall be charged the lower of 1 ½% interest per month or the
maximum legal rate on all amounts not received by the due date and shall pay all of Seller’s reasonable costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting amounts due but
unpaid. All orders are subject to credit approval by Seller. Back charges without Seller’s prior written approval shall not be accepted.
3. Delivery. Delivery of the Work shall be in material compliance with the schedule in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides otherwise,
delivery terms are ExWorks Seller’s factory (Incoterms 2010). Title to all Work shall pass upon receipt of payment for the Work under the respective invoice. Unless
otherwise agreed to in writing by Seller, shipping dates are approximate only and Seller shall not be liable for any loss or expense (consequential or otherwise) incurred
by Buyer or Buyer’s customer if Seller fails to meet the specified delivery schedule.
4. Ownership of Materials and Licenses. All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data, software and
other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Seller, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Seller’s property. Seller grants Buyer a non-
exclusive, non-transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer’s use of the Work. Buyer shall not disclose any such material to third parties without
Seller’s prior written consent. Buyer grants Seller a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use Buyer’s name and logo for marketing purposes, including but not
limited to, press releases, marketing and promotional materials, and web site content.
5. Changes. Neither party shall implement any changes in the scope of Work described in Seller’s Documentation without a mutually agreed upon change order. Any
change to the scope of the Work, delivery schedule for the Work, any Force Majeure Event, any law, rule, regulation, order, code, standard or requirement which
requires any change hereunder shall entitle Seller to an equitable adjustment in the price and time of performance.
6. Force Majeure Event. Neither Buyer nor Seller shall have any liability for any breach or delay (except for breach of payment obligations) caused by a Force
Majeure Event. If a Force Majeure Event exceeds six (6) months in duration, the Seller shall have the right to terminate the Agreement without liability, upon fifteen
(15) days written notice to Buyer, and shall be entitled to payment for work performed prior to the date of termination. “Force Majeure Event” shall mean events or
circumstances that are beyond the affected party’s control and could not reasonably have been easily avoided or overcome by the affected party and are not
substantially attributable to the other party. Force Majeure Event may include, but is not limited to, the following circumstances or events: war, act of foreign enemies,
terrorism, riot, strike, or lockout by persons other than by Seller or its sub-suppliers, natural catastrophes or (with respect to on-site work), unusual weather conditions.
7. Warranty. Subject to the following sentence, Seller warrants to Buyer that the (i) Work shall materially conform to the description in Seller’s Documentation and shall
be free from defects in material and workmanship and (ii) the Services shall be performed in a timely and workmanlike manner. Determination of suitability of treated
water for any use by Buyer shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of Buyer. The foregoing warranty shall not apply to any Work that is specified or otherwise
demanded by Buyer and is not manufactured or selected by Seller, as to which (i) Seller hereby assigns to Buyer, to the extent assignable, any warranties made to
Seller and (ii) Seller shall have no other liability to Buyer under warranty, tort or any other legal theory. The Seller warrants the Work, or any components thereof,
through the earlier of (i) eighteen (18) months from delivery of the Work or (ii) twelve (12) months from initial operation of the Work or ninety (90) days from the
performance of services (the “Warranty Period”). If Buyer gives Seller prompt written notice of breach of this warranty within the Warranty Period, Seller shall, at its
sole option and as Buyer’s sole and exclusive remedy, repair or replace the subject parts, re-perform the Service or refund the purchase price. Unless otherwise
agreed to in writing by Seller, (i) Buyer shall be responsible for any labor required to gain access to the Work so that Seller can assess the available remedies and (ii)
Buyer shall be responsible for all costs of installation of repaired or replaced Work. If Seller determines that any claimed breach is not, in fact, covered by this warranty,
Buyer shall pay Seller its then customary charges for any repair or replacement made by Seller. Seller’s warranty is conditioned on Buyer’s (a) operating and
maintaining the Work in accordance with Seller’s instructions, (b) not making any unauthorized repairs or alterations, and (c) not being in default of any payment
obligation to Seller. Seller’s warranty does not cover (i) damage caused by chemical action or abrasive material, misuse or improper installation (unless installed by
Seller) and (ii) media goods (such as, but not limited to, resin, membranes, or granular activated carbon media) once media goods are installed. THE WARRANTIES
SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 7 ARE THE SELLER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
PROVISION BELOW. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE.
8. Indemnity. Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless from any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Buyer as a result of third party claims for
personal injury, death or damage to tangible property, to the extent caused by Seller's negligence. Seller shall have the sole authority to direct the defense of and
settle any indemnified claim. Seller’s indemnification is conditioned on Buyer (a) promptly, within the Warranty Period, notifying Seller of any claim, and (b) providing
reasonable cooperation in the defense of any claim.
9. Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, nor any rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other
party; provided, however, the Seller may assign its rights and obligations under these terms to its affiliates or in connection with the sale or transfer of the Seller’s
business and Seller may grant a security interest in the Agreement and/or assign proceeds of the agreement without Buyer’s consent.
10. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement, upon issuance of a written notice of breach and a thirty (30) day cure period, for a material breach
(including but not limited to, filing of bankruptcy, or failure to fulfill the material obligations of this agreement). If Buyer suspends an order without a change order for
ninety (90) or more days, Seller may thereafter terminate this Agreement without liability, upon fifteen (15) days written notice to Buyer, and shall be entitled to payment
for work performed, whether delivered or undelivered, prior to the date of termination.
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

11. Dispute Resolution. Seller and Buyer shall negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute relating hereto. If, despite good faith efforts, the parties are unable to
resolve a dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity, the parties will first seek to agree
on a forum for mediation to be held in a mutually agreeable site. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation, then any dispute, claim or
controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, including the determination of the
scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by arbitration in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania before three arbitrators who are lawyers experienced
in the discipline that is the subject of the dispute and shall be jointly selected by Seller and Buyer. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to its
Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The Arbitrators shall issue a reasoned decision of a majority of the arbitrators, which shall be the decision of the
panel. Judgment may be entered upon the arbitrators’ decision in any court of competent jurisdiction. The substantially prevailing party as determined by the arbitrators
shall be reimbursed by the other party for all costs, expenses and charges, including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in
connection with the arbitration. For any order shipped outside of the United States, any dispute shall be referred to and finally determined by the International Center for
Dispute Resolution in accordance with the provisions of its International Arbitration Rules, enforceable under the New York Convention (Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) and the governing language shall be English.
12. Export Compliance. Buyer acknowledges that Seller is required to comply with applicable export laws and regulations relating to the sale, exportation, transfer,
assignment, disposal and usage of the Work provided under this Agreement, including any export license requirements. Buyer agrees that such Work shall not at any
time directly or indirectly be used, exported, sold, transferred, assigned or otherwise disposed of in a manner which will result in non-compliance with such applicable
export laws and regulations. It shall be a condition of the continuing performance by Seller of its obligations hereunder that compliance with such export laws and
regulations be maintained at all times. BUYER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD SELLER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL COSTS, LIABILITIES,
PENALTIES, SANCTIONS AND FINES RELATED TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE EXPORT LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
13. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CONTRARY, SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER INDIRECT DAMAGES, AND SELLER’S TOTAL LIABILITY ARISING AT ANY TIME FROM THE SALE OR USE OF
THE WORK, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LIABILITY FOR MECHANICAL WARRANTY CLAIMS OR FOR ANY BREACH OR FAILURE TO PERFORM
ANY OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE WORK. THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY WHETHER
THE LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER THEORY.
14. Rental Equipment / Services. Any leased or rented equipment (“Leased Equipment”) provided by Seller shall at all times be the property of Seller with the
exception of certain miscellaneous installation materials purchased by the Buyer, and no right or property interest is transferred to the Buyer, except the right to use any
such Leased Equipment as provided herein. Buyer agrees that it shall not pledge, lend, or create a security interest in, part with possession of, or relocate the Leased
Equipment. Buyer shall be responsible to maintain the Leased Equipment in good and efficient working order. At the end of the initial term specified in the order, the
terms shall automatically renew for the identical period unless canceled in writing by Buyer or Seller not sooner than three (3) months nor later than one (1) month from
termination of the initial order or any renewal terms. Upon any renewal, Seller shall have the right to issue notice of increased pricing which shall be effective for any
renewed terms unless Buyer objects in writing within fifteen (15) days of issuance of said notice. If Buyer timely cancels service in writing prior to the end of the initial or
any renewal term this shall not relieve Buyer of its obligations under the order for the monthly rental service charge which shall continue to be due and owing. Upon the
expiration or termination of this Agreement, Buyer shall promptly make any Leased Equipment available to Seller for removal. Buyer hereby agrees that it shall grant
Seller access to the Leased Equipment location and shall permit Seller to take possession of and remove the Leased Equipment without resort to legal process and
hereby releases Seller from any claim or right of action for trespass or damages caused by reason of such entry and removal.
15. Miscellaneous. These terms, together with any Contract Documents issued or signed by the Seller, comprise the complete and exclusive statement of the
agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”) and supersede any terms contained in Buyer’s documents, unless separately signed by Seller. No part of the
Agreement may be changed or cancelled except by a written document signed by Seller and Buyer. No course of dealing or performance, usage of trade or failure to
enforce any term shall be used to modify the Agreement. To the extent the Agreement is considered a subcontract under Buyer’s prime contract with an agency of the
United States government, in case of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) flow down terms, Seller will be in compliance with Section 44.403 of the FAR relating to
commercial items and those additional clauses as specifically listed in 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (OCT 2014). If any of these terms is
unenforceable, such term shall be limited only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and all other terms shall remain in full force and effect. The Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. Both Buyer and Seller reject the applicability of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the international sales of goods to the relationship between the parties and to all transactions arising from said relationship.
725 Wooten Rd. Tel: +719-570-9600

ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION FOR WASTEWATER & REUSE
Product Summary
ETS-ECP ETS-SW ETS-UVLW
ETS-UV™
PRODUCTS
Lamp Type Medium pressure Medium pressure Low pressure, high output
Lamp Powers 1.3 kW 1.3 kW to 7.3 kW 800 W
Lamp Operating Levels 50% to 100% 50% to 100% 30% to 100%
Number of Lamps 1 2 to 18 6 to 45
Lamp Connections Double ended Single ended Single ended
Horizontal or vertical and parallel

Lamp Configuration Horizontal and perpendicular to flow Horizontal and perpendicular to flow to flow
Expected Lamp Life 8,000 hours 8,000 hours 14,000 hours
Expected Sleeve Life 5 years 5 years 10 years
Chamber Flange Size 3 inches 4 to 30 inches 8 to 20 inches
Access Hatch Not available Standard (>4” connection) Standard
Automatic Mechanical Wiper Standard Standard Standard
UV Intesity Monitor Relative Relative Absolute
Temperature Sensor Standard Standard Standard
Operating Pressure* 150 psi 150 psi 150 psi
Chamber Installation Horizontal or vertical Horizontal or vertical Horizontal or vertical
Flow Ranges* 10 gpm to 150 gpm 50 gpm to 20+ MGD 50 gpm to 15+ MGD
Cabinet Configuration Wall mounted Wall mounted or free standing Free standing
Cabinet Rating* NEMA 12 NEMA 12 NEMA 12
Choke/Thyristor or
Lamp Power Supply Choke/Thyristor Transformer/Capacitors Electronic ballasts
Expected Power Supply 10+ years 10+ years 3+ years
220V, single-phase, 60 Hz or
Incoming Power Supply* 220V, single-phase, 60 Hz 480V, three-phase, 60 Hz 480V, three-phase, 60 Hz
Operational Temperature 32°-113°F 32°-113°F 32°-113°F
*other may be available
238 Commercial Drive, PO Box 392, Beaver Dam, WI 53916
+1 (877) 885-4628 (toll-free) +1 (920) 885-4628 www.evoqua.com
ETS-UV is a trademark of Evoqua, its subsidiaries and affiliates in some countries.
All information presented herein is believed reliable and in accordance with accepted engineering practices. Evoqua makes
no warranties as to the completeness of this information. Users are responsible for evaluating individual product suitability
for specific applications. Evoqua assumes no liability whatsoever for any special, indirect or consequential damages arising
from the sale, resale or misuse of its products.
© 2016 Evoqua Water Technologies LLC Subject to change without notice ETS-UV-MUN-WW-PS-0117
SPECIFICATION SHEET
SW-635-14
Multi-lamp, medium
pressure UV systems for
wastewater applications
CHAMBER
316L SS
ANSI 150# flanged connections
Install inline horizontally or vertically
Features:
Twist lock lamp connections
Variable power lamps
# of Lamp Power Dimensions (inches) Dry UV intensity monitors
Model Connection High purity quartz sleeves
Lamps Per Lamp Low voltage automatic wiper
A B C D Access hatch
One piece wiper ring
SW-635-14 14 inches 6 3.5 kW 37 30 4 14 Temperature sensor
Drain and vent ports
CONTROL SYSTEM
NEMA 12 enclosure
Epoxy coated mild steel enclosure
Operational 32-113ºF, RH <90%
Features:
7” HMI touch screen
Microprocessor system for basic control to
full plant system integration
MODBUS over Ethernet communication
Internet monitoring capability
Data logging capability with remote access
Drawings for illustration purposes only, use specific GA drawings for accuracy Multiple warning and alarms
Additional Information: Spectra Touch spec
sheet
SPECTRA Touch
Control Panel SYSTEM OPTIONS
304 or 316 NEMA 4X enclosures
Height 79 in Certified explosion-proof design
Skid mounted
Width 40 in Containerized
Internal/external polish or electropolish
Depth 20 in
Voltage 480 V INSTALLATION NOTES

Provide necessary maintenance space
Frequency 60 Hz Intstall in a dry area
Provide floor dain or sump
Phase 3 Lamps submerged at all times
Minimum of two conduits required
Chamber must be grounded
neptunebenson.com • ets-uv.com • 238 Commercial Drive Beaver Dam, WI 53916 • 920.885.4628
14-08
SPECIFICATION SHEET
SPECTRA TOUCH
ETS UV Technology microprocessor control system offers multiple levels of operation from basic con-
trols to full plant system integration. Available on all UV systems. Existing systems can be upgraded to
include a TOUCH control panel.
SIMPLE CONTROLS AND DISPLAY INTERFACE CONTROLS

• 7” resistive touch screen human machine interface (HMI) • Ethernet connectivity/WiFi capability
• Glare free operation • Selectable custom input and outputs
• On screen trending • Local and remote operation
• STOP soft touch push buttons • Process interrupt (valves, flow meters or pressure switches)
• RESET soft touch push buttons • Low UV alarm and shutdown
• Simple operation for any level of technical experience and • Bleed temperature
expertise • Flow meter input
• All alarm functions have a simple text message display • Automatic restart
• Variable power dosing
• Duty/Standby automatic changeover
ADVANCED DISPLAY FEATURES ADVANCED DISPLAY FEATURES

• Improved noise resistance The Touch has a built in data logging facility (retrievable by users on
• Distributed I/O possible a standard PC or laptop). The parameters logged are:
• On/Off control
• Lamp running indication/lamp current • UV intensity required (set point)
• Power on indication • UV intensity measured
• Elapsed hours meter • Lamp current
• Lamp failed contact (volt free) • Temperature
• UV intensity & UV dose mJ/cm2 • Flow (if flow meter connected)
• Flow rate (accepts a 4-20ma signal from a flow meter) • Time and date
• Temperature, low UV alarm • Alarms generated: restrike timer, low intensity, low dose, high
• System spares listing temperature, PSU temperature, lamp fault and ground fault
• Ground fault
• Wiper fault
Municipal - Industrial 14-06

SPECIFICATION SHEET
SW-835-14
Multi-lamp, medium
pressure UV systems for
wastewater applications
CHAMBER
316L SS
ANSI 150# flanged connections
Install inline horizontally or vertically
Features:
Twist lock lamp connections
# of Lamp Power Dimensions (inches) Variable power lamps
Model Connection Dry UV intensity monitors
Lamps Per Lamp High purity quartz sleeves
A B C D Low voltage automatic wiper
Access hatch
SW-835-14 14 inches 8 3.5 kW 37 30 4 14 One piece wiper ring
Temperature sensor
Drain and vent ports
CONTROL SYSTEM
NEMA 12 enclosure
Epoxy coated mild steel enclosure
Operational 32-113ºF, RH <90%
Features:
7” HMI touch screen
Microprocessor system for basic control to
full plant system integration
MODBUS over Ethernet communication
Internet monitoring capability
Drawings for illustration purposes only, use specific GA drawings for accuracy Data logging capability with remote access
Multiple warning and alarms
Additional Information: Spectra Touch spec
SPECTRA Touch sheet
Control Panel
SYSTEM OPTIONS
Height 79 in 304 or 316 NEMA 4X enclosures
Certified explosion-proof design
Width 56 in Skid mounted
Containerized
Depth 20 in Internal/external polish or electropolish
Voltage 480 V
INSTALLATION NOTES
Frequency 60 Hz Provide necessary maintenance space
Intstall in a dry area
Phase 3 Provide floor dain or sump
Lamps submerged at all times
Minimum of two conduits required
Chamber must be grounded
14-08
SPECIFICATION SHEET
SPECTRA TOUCH
ETS UV Technology microprocessor control system offers multiple levels of operation from basic con-
trols to full plant system integration. Available on all UV systems. Existing systems can be upgraded to
include a TOUCH control panel.
SIMPLE CONTROLS AND DISPLAY INTERFACE CONTROLS

• 7” resistive touch screen human machine interface (HMI) • Ethernet connectivity/WiFi capability
• Glare free operation • Selectable custom input and outputs
• On screen trending • Local and remote operation
• STOP soft touch push buttons • Process interrupt (valves, flow meters or pressure switches)
• RESET soft touch push buttons • Low UV alarm and shutdown
• Simple operation for any level of technical experience and • Bleed temperature
expertise • Flow meter input
• All alarm functions have a simple text message display • Automatic restart
• Variable power dosing
• Duty/Standby automatic changeover
ADVANCED DISPLAY FEATURES ADVANCED DISPLAY FEATURES

• Improved noise resistance The Touch has a built in data logging facility (retrievable by users on
• Distributed I/O possible a standard PC or laptop). The parameters logged are:
• On/Off control
• Lamp running indication/lamp current • UV intensity required (set point)
• Power on indication • UV intensity measured
• Elapsed hours meter • Lamp current
• Lamp failed contact (volt free) • Temperature
• UV intensity & UV dose mJ/cm2 • Flow (if flow meter connected)
• Flow rate (accepts a 4-20ma signal from a flow meter) • Time and date
• Temperature, low UV alarm • Alarms generated: restrike timer, low intensity, low dose, high
• System spares listing temperature, PSU temperature, lamp fault and ground fault
• Ground fault
• Wiper fault
Municipal - Industrial 14-06

Appendix F
Biosolids Dewatering

NUMBER: 09262 DATE: 12/19/18
TO: Leavenworth WA WWTP REF.: Dewatering Centrifuge
700 Highway 2
Leavenworth, WA, 98826
Attn: Antonio Muro
Tel: 509-548-5994
Email : antoniom@cityofleavenworth.com
Proposal
Leavenworth, WA
Dewatering Centrifuge - CS18-4 2PH
HC
Centrisys Contact Centrisys Representative

Jerod Swanson Dennis Gleason
Regional Sales Manager Treatment Equipment Company
9586 58th place 3019 Duportail St. #221
Kenosha, WI 53144 Richland, WA99352
Ph: (262) 654 6006 Ph: 425.641.4306
Direct: (612) 401 2006 Direct: 425-681-7015
Email: Jerod.swanson@centrisys.us Email: dennis@tec-nw.com
Page 1 of 11 An ISO 9001:2015 Company

Table of Contents
Basis of design ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Equipment description ........................................................................................................................... 3
Materials of construction ........................................................................................................................ 6
Services ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Purchase Price ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Timetable ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Terms & Conditions of purchase ............................................................................................................ 9

Centrisys is pleased to provide this quotation for the following:
ITEM 1. ONE (1) DECANTER CENTRIFUGE UNIT, MODEL CS18-4 2PH COMPLETE WITH
AUTOMATIC HYDRAULIC BACKDRIVE
1.A Basis of Design – Sludge Feed Characteristics
Industry Type: Municipal
Application: Undigested activated sludge
Number of units: 1
Design Feed Flow rate/Unit: 50-100 gpm (depending on solids loading)
Max Dry Solids loading: 1,485 lbs/hr
Feed Concentration: 1-4 % (depending on hydraulic flow)
Organic/Volatile Content: TBD %
Operation time: 8 hrs/day; 5 days/week
Temperature: Ambient F
pH: 6-8 (assumed)
1.B Anticipated Performance*

Solids capture rate/recovery: 95 %
Cake dryness: 16-25 %
Max Polymer consumption: 15-30 lbs/Dry Ton
*- Lab sample testing is recommended to confirm
1.C Centrifuge specification

Model: CS18-4 2PH
Inside bowl diameter (in): 18
Bowl length (in): 70
Bowl length to diameter ratio: 4:1
Beach angle (deg): 15
Maximum Bowl speed (RPM): 3400
Type of lubrication: Grease
Main Motor HP: 40
Back Drive Motor HP: 10
G-Force (g): 3000
1.D Equipment description

1. Each unit will be provided based on the attached drawing CS18-4 2P Centrifuge
GA.pdf

2. Each unit consists of
A. Centrifuge Assembly with
a) Solid bowl - The bowl, consisting of a horizontal cylindrical-conical
assembly, shall have a minimum diameter and be supported by
spherical roller bearings mounted on pillow blocks.
b) Scroll conveyor - A horizontal cylindrical-conical scroll conveyor
supported by grease lubricated cylindrical roller bearings and
grease lubricated angular contact anti-thrust ball bearings.
c) Casing - 304 stainless steel lower casing and one piece upper
casing. The cake discharge area is protected by replaceable wear
liners.
d) Base/frame - Fabricated carbon steel base with 304 stainless
steel wetted parts. The base will be mounted on vibration
isolators.
3. Main Drive Motor with variable frequency drive to run the rotating assembly
A. Installed power: 40 HP
B. Rotation speed: 3550 rpm
C. Electrical requirements: 480V/60Hz/3Ph
D. Type of protection: TEFC
4. Hydraulic Back drive/Scroll drive System

A. Hydraulic Motor
a) Type: 1071D
b) Max Torque: 8,920 Nm
B. Hydraulic Pump
a) Installed power: 10HP
b) Rotation speed: 1800 rpm
c) Electrical requirements: 480V/60Hz/3Ph
d) Type of protection: TEFC
5. Flexible Connectors
Solid and liquid flexible connectors will be supplied to isolate the centrifuge from rigid
piping.
6. Thickened/Dewatered Sludge and Centrate Chutes/Hoppers
7. Control Panel
A. A complete 304SS NEMA 4X enclosure shall be furnished for each centrifuge
to include all controls, instrumentation and interlocks necessary for the
operation of the centrifuge and ancillary equipment
B. The control panel shall be equipped with the main circuit breaker, variable
frequency inverter for the main drive motor, motor starter for the hydraulic
drive system, pushbuttons and running lights for main and backdrive
motors, ammeters for main drive motor and malfunction indicators. Ethernet
communication for monitoring from SCADA and historical trending of key
parameters like bearing temperatures, vibration, hydraulic pressure, flow

rates etc., are included. Also includes Allen-Bradley PLC and valve amplifier
for the back drive system.
C. The control panel shall also be equipped with a 10’’ Allen-Bradley Panel View
touchscreen for operator control and system operation. All set points and
operating parameters will be accessible from the touchscreen.
D. Standard control panel design uses an air/water heat exchanger to regulate

internal panel temperature. Alternately, air conditioner, NEMA4X fan/filter, or
vortex cooler is available depending on the customer preference and site
conditions.
8. Instrumentation
A. One (1). Vibration sensor/s per unit
B. One (1) main bearing temperature sensor, type PT100 on each bearing
C. One (1) each Bowl/Scroll speed sensor/unit
D. One (1) Hydraulic oil level/temp. sensor/unit
E. One (1) Hydraulic pressure sensor/unit
9. Automatic Grease Lubrication System

A. One (1) low grease level sensor per unit
10. Seals
A. Scroll bearings: Mechanical seals
B. Main bearings & Housing: Labyrinth Seals
11. Sludge Feed Pump
1. One (1) progressive cavity pump/unit with capacity range of 0-100 gpm.
A. Body: Case iron ASTM A48 class 35
B. Base: Cast or fabricated steel
C. Seal: Mechanical
D. Motor: TEFC 460V, 60 Hz, 3Ø, 7.5 hp or manufacturers standard
as required to deliver the flow rates specified.
E. Control: Feed pump control from PLC & VFD integrated into
centrifuge control panel
12. Polymer Feed System

One (1) liquid polymer feed system/unit
(i) Control of polymer system shall be through the Centrifuge PLC Control System.
13. Cake transportation system
(i) Primary conveyor

A 20ft. fixed cake conveyor is provided. Supports included.
14. Spare parts & tools
15. Centrifuge platform, 4.5ft deck height, dual walkways & ship ladders, frame
mount monorail structure with manual hoist crane

ITEM 2 MATERIAL OF CONSTRUCTION
Duplex stainless steel
Bowl:
Scroll Hub/conveyor: Duplex stainless steel
Flight face Half Tiled - TC tiles from the feed chamber to solids discharge.
Flights 304 SS
Casing 304 SS
Base/Frame: Powder coated carbon steel
Fasteners: 304 SS
ITEM 3 SERVICES
3.A Drawings and Installation, Operation and Maintenance (IO&M) Manuals:
1. Submittal Drawings: One (1) electronic copy included; prints by request
2. Final Drawings: Two (2) prints & One (1) electronic copy included
3. O&M Manuals: Two (2) prints & One (1) electronic copy included
3.B Start-Up Assistance:
Centrisys will furnish one factory representative for 5 days during 1 trip to assist in
installation inspection, start-up supervision, and operator training. Dates of service to be
scheduled upon Buyer’s written request.
PURCHASE PRICE:
All of the above for ................................................................................... $480,700 USD
F.O.B. Job Site, freight included, taxes excluded.
VALIDITY:
Purchase Price is valid for thirty (30) calendar days from Quotation date, for shipment of
Equipment within the timetable stated below in ITEM 4.
PAYMENT TERMS:
30% with order; 60% upon shipment; 10% after startup not to exceed 90 days after
shipment.

ITEM 4 TIMETABLE
Submittal phase: 4-6 weeks after the order receipt

Approval phase: 2 weeks for the customer to approve the drawings
Shipment phase: 18-20 weeks following receipt of the Approval drawings
If the Submittal Phase is waived, the Shipment Phase will begin on receipt of all requested
additional Information if necessary, or if not necessary, on the eleventh (11th) business day following
receipt of a written Purchase Order in Centrisys offices.
Dates are subject to confirmation upon receipt of written Purchase Order.
ITEM 5 WARRANTY
One (1) year/s from the equipment start up or Eighteen (18) months from delivery.
ITEM 6 TERMS & CONDITIONS
All sales are subject to Centrisys’ Terms & Conditions of sale found at the end of this document.
BUYER/OWNER RESPONSIBILITY:
 Solenoid valves
 Feed pump VFD.
 Flow meter
 Polymer totes
 Anchor bolts.
 Building and building plans (Centrisys provides only the layout drawings without any
responsibility of updating any plans or building)
 Building modifications
 Structural and Civil engineering labor
 Sludge Grinder
 Cake Discharge Pump
 Wash water booster pump
 Centrate Discharge Pump
 All utilities that are required for operation
 Unloading, uncrating, installation and installation supervision. Installation will, at minimum,
require a forklift and possibly a crane/hoist.
 Readiness of the Equipment before requesting start-up service. Non-readiness may incur
additional charges.
 Compatibility of Equipment materials of construction with process environment.
 Piping connections, platforms, gratings and railings unless stated otherwise.
 Any other auxiliary equipment or service not detailed above.
 Wet testing is excluded as our facility does not have provisions to test such a high flow rate at
this time. This is usually done in the field during start up or performance testing.
 Harmonic testing is usually done on the overall plant and thus is not part of Centrisys scope
Issued by
Zach Mazur

Applications Engineer
Date: 12/19/18

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
These terms and conditions apply to all quotations, proposals, orders acknowledgements or confirmations and contracts of Centrisys
Corp. (hereinafter “Equipment”). As used in these terms and conditions of sale, the word “Equipment” includes all hardware, parts,
components, software and options.
1. ACCEPTANCE: Our sale to you is limited to and expressly made conditional on your assent to the terms and conditions of sale
herein and, if applicable, on the attendant quotation, both of which form a part of this order and which supersede and reject all prior
agreements, representations, discussions or negotiations, whether written or oral, with respect hereto and any conflicting or
additional terms and conditions of yours, or any statement therein, whether or not signed by you. We will furnish only the quantities
and Equipment specifically listed on our quotations, proposals, or order acknowledgements or confirmations. We assume no
responsibility for the terms or conditions of, or for furnishing other equipment or material shown in, any plans and/or specifications
for a project to which the equipment quoted or ordered herein pertain or refer.
2. PRICES: Unless otherwise specified in writing, all quoted prices are firm for thirty (30) days from the date of offer. Stenographic,
clerical and mathematical errors are subject to correction.
3. DELIVERY: Dates for the furnishing of services and/or delivery or shipment of equipment are subject to change. Quoted lead times
are figured from the date of receipt of complete technical data and approved drawings as such may be necessary. We shall not be
liable, directly or indirectly, for any delay in or failure to deliver caused by carriers or delays from labor difficulties, shortages, strikes
or stoppages of any sort failure or delay in obtaining materials from ordinary sources, fires, floods, storms, accidents, or other acts of
God or force majeure, by any statute, regulation, administrative order or decree or order or judgment of a court of law or other
causes beyond our reasonable control. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by us, in no event shall we be liable for any damages
or penalties whatsoever, or however designated, resulting from our failure to perform or delay in performing due to any of the
causes specified in this paragraph 3.
4. SHIPMENT, RISK OF LOSS, TAXES: Prices are in US Dollars, F.O.B. Centrisys shipping point, unless otherwise noted. Our prices
do not include federal, state, municipal or other government excise, sales, use, occupational, processing, transportation or like taxes
now in force or enacted in the future. You shall pay any taxes we may be required to collect or pay now or at any time in the future
(including interest and penalties imposed by any governmental authority), or any taxes you may be required to pay, that are
imposed on the sale, delivery or support of equipment purchased or licensed as a part of this order, or you shall provide us with a
tax exemption certificate acceptable to the appropriate taxing authority.
5. CREDIT AND PAYMENT: Unless otherwise noted on our quotation, proposal, or order acknowledgement or confirmation payment
for equipment shall be thirty (30) days net. Pro Rata payments shall become due with partial shipments. Any discount period which
may be granted by us begins on the invoice date and all payments are due thirty (30) days after the invoice date. All payments
should be made without deduction, deferment, set-off, lien, or counterclaim of any nature. All amounts due not paid within the thirty
(30) days after the date such amounts are due and payable shall bear interest at the lesser of 1.5 percent per month or the
maximum rate of interest allowed by law. We reserve the right at any time to suspend credit or to change credit terms provided
herein, when, in our sole opinion, your financial condition so warrants. Failure to pay invoices when such invoices are due and
payable, at our election, shall make all subsequent invoices immediately due and payable irrespective of terms, and we may
withhold all subsequent deliveries until the full account is settled. We shall not, in such event, be liable for delay of the performance
or nonperformance of contract in whole or in part subsequent to such event.
6. CANCELLATIONS AND CHANGES: Orders which have been accepted by us are not subject to cancellation or changes in
specification except upon prior written agreement by us and upon terms that will indemnify us against all losses resulting from or
arising out of such cancellation or change in specifications. In the absence of such indemnification, we shall be entitled to recover al
damages and costs of whatever nature permitted by the Uniform Commercial Code.
7. DEFFERED SHIPMENT: If shipment is deferred at your request, payment of the contract price shall become due when you are
notified that the equipment is ready for shipment. If you fail to make payment or furnish shipping instructions we may either extend
the time for doing so or cancel the contract. In case of deferred shipment at your request, storage and other reasonable expenses
attributable to such delay shall be payable by you.
8. EQUIPMENT WARRANTY AND REMEDY
a. For new equipment only, we warrant to you that the equipment that is the subject of this sale is free from defects in design
(provided that we have design responsibility), material and workmanship. The duration of this warranty is twelve (12) months
from startup or eighteen (18) months from notification of equipment being ready for shipment (“Warranty Period”). If you
discover within the Warranty Period a defect in design, material or workmanship, you must promptly notify us in writing,
preserving the equipment for our inspection. Within a reasonable time after such notification we will correct any such defect
with either new or used replacement parts, at our option. Such repair, including both parts and labor, is at our expense.
b. For repairs, parts and service provided by us, we warrant to you that the repairs, parts and service we provide to you will be
free from defects in material and workmanship. The duration of this warranty is ninety (90) days from as applicable (i) the date
which the machine required the repairs, parts or service is returned to you by us, (ii) the date or your receipt of the part, (iii) the
date of repair, if performed at your facility. If during this ninety (90) day period you discover a defect in the repairs, parts or
service you must promptly notify us in writing.
c. All warranty service is subject to our prior examination and approval and will be performed by us at your facility or at one of our
service centers designated by us. All transportation to and from the designated service center will be at our expense. If we are

unable to repair the equipment to conform to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, we will provide at our option,
one of the following: (i) a replacement for such equipment, or (ii) a full refund of the purchase price. These remedies are your
exclusive remedies for breach of warranty. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by us, our warranty extends only to you and is
not assignable to or assumable by any subsequent purchaser, in whole or in part, and any such attempted transfer shall render
all warranties provided hereunder null and void and of no other further force or effect.
d. We will use all reasonable efforts to obtain for you any manufacturer’s guarantees or warranties for any sub-assemblies
included in the equipment. To the extent such warranties are assignable; we hereby assign to you all warranties that are
granted to us by our suppliers of any sub-assemblies contained in the equipment.
e. The warranties set forth above are inapplicable to and exclude (i) any product, components or parts not manufactured by us or
covered by the warranty of another manufacturer, (ii) damage caused by accident or the negligence of you or any third party,
normal wear and tear, erosion, corrosion or by disasters such as fire, flood, wind and lightning, (iii) damage caused by your
failure to follow all installation and operation instructions or manuals or to provide normal maintenance, (iv) damage caused by
unauthorized or improper installation of attachments, repairs or modifications, (v) damages caused by a product or component
part which we did not design, manufacture, supply or repair, or (vi) any other abuse or misuse by you or any third party.
f. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (e) ABOVE, WE DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: In no event shall we be liable, and you hereby waive any claims against us and release us from liability
to you, for any indirect, special, punitive, incidental, or consequential damages whatsoever based upon breach of warranty, breach
of contract, strict tort, or any legal theory. Excluded damages include, but are not limited to, loss of profits, loss of savings or
revenue, loss of use of the equipment or any associated equipment, cost of capital, cost of any substitute equipment, facilities or
services, downtime, the claims of third parties including customers, and injury to property. This limitation does not apply to claims
for personal injury. Some states do not allow limits on warranties, or on remedies for breach of certain transactions. In such states,
certain of the limitations in this paragraph and subparagraph 8(c) do not apply.
10. OWNERSHIP: All drawings, designs, and specifications supplied by us have been prepared or assembled by us and is solely our
property. Such drawings, designs and specifications have been furnished in order to provide full documentation and on the
condition that they shall not be reproduced or copied in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, except for your internal use as
necessary, and upon further condition that, as our sole property, they shall not be used, in whole or in part, for furnishing information
to others or for any purpose not specifically authorized in writing signed by one of our corporate officers. These ownership
provisions shall not be superseded by any printed form used in connection with or arising out of a sale induced by a proposal or
otherwise.
11. PATENT INFRINGEMENT:
(a) We warrant that the equipment in the condition sold to you is free of the rightful claim of infringement of any apparatus claims
of any third party U.S. patent issued as of the date of our acknowledgement and acceptance of your order, and we will defend,
indemnify and hold you harmless from such claims, provided, however, we make no express or implied warranties of non-
infringement and undertake no indemnification in respect to third party rights where the alleged patent infringement is based
upon or related to (i) any method, process or product claims in third party U.S. patent, (ii) any combination of the equipment
with other equipment not supplied by us, (iii) any modifications of the equipment made by you and not approved by us.
(b) You shall notify us within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of an alleged third party patent infringement claim that would
entitle you to patent infringement indemnification pursuant to paragraph 11(a), and we shall thereupon assume defense of the
claim at our expense. We shall have the sole right to settle or otherwise compromise a third party claim, including but not
limited to the right to either (i) modify the equipment to avoid infringement if you are agreeable to the modification, (ii)
repurchase the equipment from you at a price equal to the then current fair market value of the equipment, (iii) secure rights by
the assignment or license to permit continued use of the equipment.
(c) If a third party charges us with patent infringement relating to equipment sold by us to you, we shall have the right to either (i)
modify the equipment to avoid infringement if you are agreeable to the modification, (ii) repurchase the equipment from you at
a price equal to the then current fair market value of the equipment, (iii) secure rights by the assignment or license to permit
continued use of the equipment. If a third party charges us with patent infringement on the basis set forth in paragraph 11
(a)(i), (ii) or (iii), you shall hold us harmless for all expenses and awards of damage against us, and we shall also have the right
to modify or repurchase the equipment or to secure rights for continued use by way of assignment or license set forth in this
paragraph.
12. SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS: The equipment described herein (or on specifications provided herewith) complies with
applicable safety and health standards issued pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) and in effect on
this date as such standards are interpreted and understood by us. These standards may be amended and/or their meaning may be
clarified prior to shipment or performance, and if such changes or clarification requires changes in the equipment described herein,
we shall make the necessary changes available to you. You shall pay for any and all changes at our prices therefore in effect at
time of shipment or performance, as the case may be. Because actual compliance by employers with the Act is beyond our control,
we cannot and do not represent that the use of the equipment described herein, nor the location, installation or maintenance thereof,
will comply with the Act or regulations and standards issued pursuant thereto. We make no representation of compliance with
safety and health standards contained in any statute, regulations or ordinance of any state or political subdivision thereof applicable
to the equipment described herein unless you have notified us of the existence and contents of such standards and we have agreed

in writing to the incorporation of such standards in the specifications relating to such equipment. Nothing in this provision shall
operate to modify or affect in any manner whatsoever our disclaimer of any liability for consequential damages contained elsewhere
in these terms and conditions of sale.
13. INSPECTION: Upon prior written notice, you may make reasonable inspections of equipment at our facility. We reserve the right to
determine the reasonableness of the request and to select an appropriate time and location for such inspection. You agree to
execute appropriate confidentiality provisions upon our request prior to visiting our facility. All costs of inspection shall be solely
determined by us and shall be payable by you. No inspection or expediting by you at the facilities of our suppliers is authorized.
14. SOFTWARE PROVISIONS: If software is provided hereunder, you are granted a nonexclusive, royalty free license only for your use
of the software provided with our equipment. Under this license you may: (i) use our software in machine readable code only and
only with the equipment provided, (ii) copy our software into any machine readable object code form for backup purposes in support
of your use of our software on the equipment provided, and (iii) create one additional copy of the software for archival purposes
only. This license may not be assigned, sublicensed or otherwise transferred by you with our prior written consent. You hereby
recognize and acknowledge that the software provided to you hereunder comprises valuable trade secret and/or copyright property
of Centrisys (or its licensor) and you covenant that you will take adequate precautions against access to the software by, or
disclosure of the software to, anyone not authorized hereunder to use or have access to the software.
15. TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING SUIT: Any action you file against us, whether for breach of contract, including but not limited to breach
of warranty, or for negligence or strict tort, must be commenced within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the Warranty
Period.
16. MODIFICATION OF TERMS: The terms and conditions set forth herein are an integral part of our quotation, proposal and/or order
acknowledgement or confirmation. These terms shall not be deemed altered, modified or added to by printed or other “standard”
terms in the purchase order, acceptance or similar document. Our confirmation or acknowledgement of any order is with the
express understanding that all printed or other “standard” language on any such documents submitted by you will be entirely
disregarded to the extent that it varies from the terms and conditions of this proposal/offer which may be modified only by typed or
handwritten language in the body of you order, acceptance or similar document, together with a written acknowledgement and
acceptance of such modification by us.
17. LIMITATION ON WARRANTIES: THE WARRANTES SET FORTH HEREIN ARE IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING AN IMPLIED WARRANTY IF MERCHANTABILITY, AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULARPURPOSE, AND AN IMPLIED WARRANTYOF NONINFRINGEMENT. WE HERBY EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE
FORM THIS CONTRACT THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF NONINFRINGEMENT, OUR WARRANTIES AND LIABILITIES
HEREUNDER ARE LIMITED AS STATED HEREIN.
18. APPLICABLE LAW: Any controversy or claim arising out of the contract or the breach thereof shall be finally decided with binding
effect on both parties by the courts of Wisconsin and in accordance with the laws of the State of Wisconsin, without giving effect to
the provisions thereof relating to conflict of laws. THE EQUIPMENT AND PARTS DESCRIBED IN THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIOINS OF SALE MAY CAUSE INJURY IF NOT OPERATED PROPERLY AND FOR THIS REASON ALL OPERATORS
SHOULD BECOME THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE OPERATING THE
EQUIPMENT.

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19) FULL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19) FULL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WASTEWATER

GENERAL SEWER PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE ............................................................................... 1

Figure 1: Schematic Flow Diagram

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx i Varela & Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 1 Varela & Associates

2.0 SUMMARY OF PRE-DESIGN REVISIONS

• Installation of automatic bar-rack (3/8” openings)

2.2 Biological Phosphorus Removal

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 2 Varela & Associates

Compromise Biological Phosphorus Removal Process Train

2.3 Clarifiers (C1 & C2)

2.4 Tertiary Treatment

2.4.1 Site Selection

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 3 Varela & Associates

2.4.2 Tertiary Treatment Equipment

Supplemental equipment selection documentation and analysis is included in Appendix D of this

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 4 Varela & Associates

2.5 Ultraviolet Disinfection

The revised upgrade plan will include the following:

• Remove and dispose of existing in-channel UV system

2.6 Biosolids Dewatering

As summary of improvements is as follows:

• Remove existing belt filter press.

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 5 Varela & Associates

3.2 Costs and Project Financing

3.3 SEPA/NEPA Compliance

14-11-35-GSP-FP Adden (02-08-19).docx 6 Varela & Associates

Appendix A: Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)

Appendix B: Biological Phosphorus Removal

Appendix C: Small Clarifiers Upgrade

Appendix D: Tertiary Treatment

Appendix E: Ultraviolet Disinfection

Appendix F: Biosolids Dewatering

14-11-35 GSP-FP AppenDiv.docx Varela & Associates

Headworks (Screen and Grit Removal)

14-11-35 GSP-FP AppenDiv.docx Varela & Associates

Sept. 17, 2018

• Proposed Headworks Process Train:

141106-Headworks Basis of Design (09-17-18--rev 02-02-19).docx

• Comments regarding the proposed equipment and layout:

141106-Headworks Basis of Design (09-17-18--rev 02-02-19).docx

Regional Sales Manager:

Project No.: WEC216339

BASIS OF DESIGN (EACH)

PERFORATED PANEL TRAVELING BELT SCREEN (EACH)

Project: Leavenworth Date: August 28, 2018

CONTROL PANEL AND INSTRUMENTATION (EACH)

• One (1) NEMA 7 Emergency Stop pushbutton station.

Project: Leavenworth Date: August 28, 2018

SPARE PARTS (TOTAL)

FIELD SERVICE (TOTAL)

NOTE: ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ABOVE TO BE FURNISHED BY OTHERS.

Project: Leavenworth Date: August 28, 2018

BASIS OF DESIGN (EACH)

SCREENINGS COMPACTOR (EACH)

Project: Leavenworth Date: August 28, 2018

CONTROL PANEL AND INSTRUMENTATION (EACH)

• One (1) NEMA 7 emergency Stop Pushbutton Station.

SPARE PARTS (TOTAL)

FIELD SERVICE (TOTAL)

NOTE: ANY ITEM NOT LISTED ABOVE TO BE FURNISHED BY OTHERS.