Conceptual Design Report - Biogas

Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution
Control Authority, Maine

Anaerobic Digestion and Energy Recovery
Project
October 2009
Conceptual
Design Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Section 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Section 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
Section 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Section 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
A
5816-72780
Introduction
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
Existing Biosolids Treatment .................................................................................. 1-2
Project Drivers, Goals and Objectives.................................................................... 1-3
Project Components ................................................................................................. 1-3
Facility Layout Options ........................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.1
Option 1: New Separate Facility ............................................................. 1-5
1.5.2
Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space .......................... 1-5
Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics

Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics ................................................... 2-1
Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics with DAF Replacement ......... 2-2
Basis of Design .......................................................................................................... 2-3
Waste Activate Sludge Thickening Improvements

Background and Existing Conditions .................................................................... 3-1
Thickening Design Criteria ..................................................................................... 3-2
Thickening Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1
Rotary Drum Thickeners .......................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2
Gravity Belt Thickeners ............................................................................ 3-4
3.3.3
Thickening Process Comparison and Recommendations ................... 3-5
Gravity Belt Thickener Design Criteria ................................................................. 3-8
3.4.1
WAS GBTS.................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.2
GBT Washwater / Drain System............................................................. 3-9
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Transfer Pumping ...................................... 3-9
Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) ........................................................ 3-11
Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements

General ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
Anaerobic Digestion Tanks ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1
Digester Sizing Criteria............................................................................. 4-1
4.2.2
Digester Tank Configuration Options .................................................... 4-2
Sludge Storage Tanks ............................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.1
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Storage .......................................... 4-3
4.3.2
Digested Sludge Storage........................................................................... 4-4
Digester Heating Requirements ............................................................................. 4-5
4.4.1
Heat Requirement for Incoming Sludge ................................................ 4-5
4.4.2
Digester Tank Heat Losses ....................................................................... 4-6
4.4.3
Heating Requirement Summary ............................................................. 4-7
Table of Contents
Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility
Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project
Draft Conceptual Design Report
4.5
4.6
4.7
Section 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Section 6
6.1
6.2
6.3
ii
Digester System Equipment .................................................................................... 4-8

4.5.1
Digester Heating ........................................................................................ 4-8
4.5.2
Digester Mixing ......................................................................................... 4-9
4.5.3
Digester Covers........................................................................................ 4-10
Facility Site Location Options ............................................................................... 4-12
4.6.1
Option 1: New Separate Facility ........................................................... 4-12
4.6.3
Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space ........................ 4-12
Anaerobic Digester Conceptual Design Summary ............................................ 4-13
Biogas Handling and Cogeneration Improvements

General ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
Digester Gas Production .......................................................................................... 5-1
Digester Gas Usage................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3.1
Cogeneration System Sizing .................................................................... 5-2
Recommended Cogeneration System .................................................................... 5-4
Biogas Conveyance and Storage ............................................................................. 5-4
5.5.1
Biogas Safety Equipment.......................................................................... 5-4
5.5.2
Moisture and Sediment Removal ............................................................ 5-5
5.5.3
Biogas Metering ......................................................................................... 5-5
5.5.4
Biogas Storage ............................................................................................ 5-5
Biogas Treatment ...................................................................................................... 5-6
5.6.1
Hydrogen Sulfide Biogas Treatment ...................................................... 5-6
5.6.2
Siloxane Removal ...................................................................................... 5-6
5.6.3
Biogas Pressure Boosting ......................................................................... 5-7
5.6.4
Recommended Biogas Treatment System.............................................. 5-7
Summary .................................................................................................................... 5-7
Architectural and Structural Considerations

Building Codes and Standards ............................................................................... 6-1
Architectural Considerations .................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.1
Option 1 Buildings and Structures..................................................... 6-2
6.2.2
Option 2 Buildings and Structures..................................................... 6-3
6.2.3
Building Systems ....................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.4
Building Materials and Finishes .............................................................. 6-4
6.2.5
Roofing Systems ........................................................................................ 6-5
6.2.6
Proposed Interior Finishes ....................................................................... 6-6
Structural Considerations ........................................................................................ 6-6
6.3.1
Design Loads and Serviceability ............................................................. 6-6
6.3.2
Serviceability ............................................................................................ 6-13
6.3.3
Foundation Design .................................................................................. 6-15
6.3.4
Concrete Design....................................................................................... 6-16
Table of Contents
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.3.9
Section 7
7.1
7.2
Section 8
8.1
8.2
Section 9
9.1
9.2
Masonry Design ....................................................................................... 6-18

General Design and Detailing ............................................................... 6-19
Structural Metal Design .......................................................................... 6-20
Modification of Existing Structures ...................................................... 6-22
Facility Specific Structural Design Considerations............................. 6-22
Electrical and Instrumentation Functions

Electrical Systems ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1
Electrical System Overview ..................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2
Existing Electrical System ........................................................................ 7-1
7.1.3
Electrical Observations and Vulnerability ............................................. 7-2
7.1.4
Recommendations and Improvements .................................................. 7-3
7.1.5
Hazardous Areas ....................................................................................... 7-7
Instrumentation and Control .................................................................................. 7-7
7.2.1
General ........................................................................................................ 7-7
7.2.2
Objectives.................................................................................................... 7-7
7.2.3
Control System Description ..................................................................... 7-9
7.2.4
Naming Convention ............................................................................... 7-12
7.2.5
Control Philosophy ................................................................................. 7-14
7.2.6
SCADA System Design .......................................................................... 7-15
7.2.7
Summary Recommendations................................................................. 7-15
HVAC and Plumbing Functions

HVAC ......................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1
General ........................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.2
Design Conditions ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3
Demolition .................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.4
New Work .................................................................................................. 8-2
Plumbing.................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.2.1
General ........................................................................................................ 8-4
8.2.2
Demolition .................................................................................................. 8-4
8.2.3
New Work .................................................................................................. 8-5
8.2.4
Fire Protection ............................................................................................ 8-6
Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Analysis and Design

Recommendations
General ....................................................................................................................... 9-1
Conceptual Geotechnical Recommendations ....................................................... 9-1
9.2.1
Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.2
Proposed Construction ............................................................................. 9-1
9.2.3
Purpose and Scope .................................................................................... 9-2
iii
Table of Contents
9.3
Section 10
10.1
10.2
10.3
Section 11
11.1
11.2
9.2.4
Subsurface Investigations......................................................................... 9-2
9.2.5
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ............................................................ 9-3
9.2.6
Conceptual-Level Geotechnical Evaluation........................................... 9-5
9.2.7
Conceptual-Level Foundation Recommendations ............................... 9-6
9.2.8
Recommended Phase 2 Exploration Program ....................................... 9-7
Site Design Considerations ..................................................................................... 9-7
9.3.1
Codes and Standards ................................................................................ 9-7
9.3.2
Site Preparation.......................................................................................... 9-8
9.3.3
Materials ..................................................................................................... 9-8
9.3.4
Grading and Drainage .............................................................................. 9-9
9.3.5
Erosion and Sedimentation Control ....................................................... 9-9
9.3.6
Landscape ................................................................................................... 9-9
9.3.7
Layout Specific Site Design Considerations ........................................ 9-10
Permitting
Purpose .................................................................................................................... 10-1
Local Permitting...................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.1 Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resource Conservation (RC) Zoning
Districts Provisions ................................................................................. 10-1
10.2.2 Local Flood Protection Provisions ........................................................ 10-1
10.2.3 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Permit ............................. 10-2
10.2.4 Stormwater Runoff and Flood Management Permitting ................... 10-2
10.2.5 Local Permit Application and Approval Schedule ............................. 10-2
Air Quality Permitting ........................................................................................... 10-3
Preliminary Cost Estimate

Project Cost Estimates: ........................................................................................... 11-1
Comparison of Options ......................................................................................... 11-2
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
iv
Historical Boring Logs

Recent Boring Logs
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Table of Contents
Tables
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
Plant Influent ............................................................................................................. 2-1

Thickened Primary Sludge ...................................................................................... 2-2
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge ....................................................................... 2-2
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, DAF Replacement ..................................... 2-2
Combined Thickened Sludge, WAS thickened to 5% ......................................... 2-3
Combined Thickened Sludge Feed to Digester .................................................... 2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
Estimated Loading Rates for WAS Thickening .................................................... 3-2

Non-Cost Comparison of Thickening Alternatives ............................................. 3-6
Performance Comparison for Thickening Alternatives ...................................... 3-7
Comparison Costs for Thickening Alternatives ................................................... 3-7
Design Criteria TWAS Transfer Pumps ......................................................... 3-10
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
Combined Thickened Sludge to Digester System, Basis of Design ................... 4-2

Digester System Configurations Summary .......................................................... 4-3
Sludge Heating Requirements ................................................................................ 4-6
Digester Tank Configuration .................................................................................. 4-7
Conductive Heat Loss .............................................................................................. 4-7
Digester Heating Requirements ............................................................................. 4-8
5-1
5-2
5-3
Biogas Production Rates and Energy Value of Biogas ........................................ 5-2

Utilizing Biogas in Engine Application ................................................................. 5-3
Digester and Facility Heating Needs vs. Heat from Engine............................... 5-3
7-1
LAWPCA Facility Area Classification Summary............................................ 7-8
9-1
9-2
Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................... 9-12

Summary of Subsurface Conditions .................................................................... 9-13
10-1
Summary of Maximum Annual Emissions ......................................................... 10-4
11-1
11-2
Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Based on 10% Level of Design ............ 11-1
Comparison of Facility Layout Options .............................................................. 11-2
Table of Contents
Figures
vi
1-1
1-2
1-3
Anaerobic Digestion System Process Flow Diagram .......................................... 1-7

Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Site Plan Option 1 ................................... 1-9
Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Site Plan Option 2 ................................. 1-11
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
Digester Plan and Section ...................................................................................... 4-15

Gas Storage Facility Plan, Section, Detail and Schematic ................................. 4-17
Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Digester Building Option 1................ 4-19
Existing Process Building Plan Option 2 ........................................................ 4-21
New Digesters Lower Level Option 2 ............................................................ 4-23
5-1
Waste Gas Burner, Gas Equipment Building, Gas Conditioning System,

and Cogen Units ...................................................................................................... 5-9
7-1
7-2
Electrical Overall One Line Diagram ................................................................... 7-17

Electrical One Line Diagram Sludge Digesters MCC-6..................................... 7-19
9-1
9-2
Boring Location Plan Option 1 ........................................................................ 9-13

Boring Location Plan Option 2 ........................................................................ 9-15
Section 1
Introduction
1.1
Purpose
The purpose of this Conceptual Design Report (CDR) is to expand on the

recommendations presented in the June 2009 Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery
Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) prepared for the Lewiston Auburn Water
Pollution Control Authority (LAWPCA) by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc (CDM). This
Conceptual Design is defined herein as approximately a 10-percent level of design
and is intended to be in accordance with Task 2A as outlined in the Agreement
between LAWPCA and CDM dated August 17, 2009. This CDR provides the baseline
for design of the proposed digestion improvements.
The June 2009 Feasibility Study presented two conceptual options for the layout of the
facilities required for the anaerobic digestion system. Option 1 involved new
separate tanks and adjacent support building located remote from the existing process
building while Option 2 attempted to modify existing process building space to
accommodate the bulk of the mechanical equipment and build new digesters south of
the existing gravity thickeners. In addition to providing criteria for the general basis
of design of the proposed systems, this CDR further evaluates and recommends one
of these two facility layout options based on analysis of cost and non-cost factors.
As presented in the Feasibility Study, replacement of the existing Waste Activated
Sludge (WAS) thickening system at the facility is included in the proposed digester
improvements in order to increase the solids percentage and decrease the total
volume of sludge being fed to the anaerobic digestion system. This CDR expands
upon the recommended WAS thickening improvements by comparing potential
thickening system equipment and providing a recommended selection. It should also
be noted that this thickening system replacement work is recommended irrespective
of the facility layout option selected and the cost for this work has been carried in
both options.
This CDR includes design criteria and concepts of operation for each unit process.
This basis of design has been supported herein through presentation of the following:
A
5816-72780
Conceptual site plans of the proposed facilities (both layout options);
Conceptual drawings of the new process areas as well as proposed modifications to

existing structures (both layout options);
Solids train process flow diagram;
Discussion of architectural and structural design considerations;
Evaluation of the existing and proposed power distribution system;
1-1
Section 1
Introduction
Discussion related to instrumentation and control concepts, including the desired

degree of automation;
Consideration of current and future plant operations include operations during

construction;
Consideration of ease of construction and associated risks during construction;
Heating, ventilating and plumbing improvements considerations;
Site access improvements evaluation;
Results of initial geotechnical investigations; and
An update of the estimated project costs and comparison of layout alternatives.
1.2 Existing Biosolids Treatment

The LAWPCA Facility is permitted to discharge an average daily flow of 14.2 million
gallons per day (MGD) and currently operates at an average daily flow of
approximately 12.7 MGD. The influent wastewater is a mixture of residential,
commercial and industrial wastewater, generated in the cities of Lewiston and
Auburn. Approximately half of the total organic load to the facility is generated by
the Cascades Auburn-Fiber deinking facility. The LAWPCA Facility has a secondary
level treatment process, with two primary sedimentation basins, two aeration basins
and two secondary clarifiers. Final effluent is disinfected with chlorine and then
dechlorinated with sodium bisulfate prior to discharge into the Androscoggin River.
The NPDES permit requires the facility to disinfect on a seasonal basis.
Current solids handling equipment at the LAWPCA Facility thickens and dewaters
solids removed in the primary and secondary treatment process. Primary sludge is
pumped from the primary clarifiers to two gravity thickeners, which thicken and
store primary solids. In the gravity thickeners, the primary sludge is thickened to
approximately 6% solids. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) from the Secondary Process
is pumped to two dissolved air floatation units for thickening, where WAS is
thickened to between 2.6% to 3.3% solids. Thickened Waste Activated Sludge
(TWAS) flows by gravity from the DAF units to four holding tanks. Facility operators
have reported that when both DAF units are operating, the TWAS should be
approximately 3% solids or less to allow it to easily flow by gravity to the TWAS
holding tanks.
The thickened sludge is mixed in-line prior to dewatering using BFPs. The dewatered
cake is then either transferred to a pug mill mixer for lime addition prior to land
application or is hauled in raw cake form to the remotely located LAWPCA
composting facility for in vessel composting or is directly transferred to disposal sites.
Composting is used primarily in the winter and early spring months to stabilize
1-2
Section 1
Introduction
biosolids while lime stabilization is used primarily in the late spring, summer and
early fall months.
1.3 Project Drivers, Goals and Objectives

The composting facility has served the LAWPCA well during its 15 years of
operation. However, composting operation costs have increased, especially the cost
of amendments (sawdust, shavings or horse bedding) that is mixed with the
dewatered sludge; and the facility is unable to manage peak seasonal biosolids
production, necessitating costly long distance disposal. Additionally, recent spikes in
power and fuel costs have increased the overall operations costs at the facility. This,
in addition to factors such as potential grant funding for the project, LAWPCAs debt
retirement schedule and sustainability considerations, has led the LAWPCA to
consider anaerobic digestion for biosolids stabilization and volume reduction.
As discussed in detail in the Feasibility Study, anaerobic digestion of biosolids before
dewatering and land applying or composting offers several advantages. These
potential advantages include:
Reduction of total solids by approximately 40%. This reduction in solids will

reduce subsequent costs for conditioning, dewatering, stabilization, trucking and
disposal.
Elimination of the cost to transport excess biosolids that currently exceed the
capacity of the composting facility. Associated tipping fees will also be eliminated.
Reduction of biosolids odors, thereby making the LAWPCAs existing Class B land
application program more acceptable to nearby property owners.
Biogas utilization from the anaerobic digestion process in a combined heat and
power (CHP) application to produce electricity and heat. The electricity produced
would offset a portion of power currently purchased and the heat would be used
for digester and building heating.
Increase of the overall solids handling capacity of the plant by reducing the volume
of sludge through anaerobic digestion. Currently the plant is limited by the
capacity of the existing dewatering and biosolids stabilization equipment.
Establish LAWPCA and the Cities of Lewiston and Auburn as environmental and
energy conservation leaders in the State of Maine with the first anaerobic digestion
facility in the state.
1.4 Project Components

As detailed in the Feasibility Study, it is estimated that two insulated concrete
digester tanks, will meet the needs of the LAWPCA facility. Irrespective of layout
1-3
Section 1
Introduction
option, additional facilities and equipment required to support the digesters would
include the following:
Waste activated sludge thickening equipment replacement and associated

modifications to the existing process building;
Digester tank covers;
Biogas and digested sludge storage tank;
Digester recirculation pumps;
Sludge heat exchangers;
Central dual-fuel boiler and hot water recirculation pumps;
Digester mixing system pumps;
Biogas cleaning system;
Anaerobic digester gas driven reciprocating engine generators;
Waste gas burner for burning any excess gas not utilized and to provide an outlet
for gas production should gas treatment and utilization be out of service.
Yard piping modifications for digester overflow, drain, sludge feed, sludge
recirculation, sludge mixing and other utilities as required; and
Site layout, roadways, grading and drainage modifications.
It should also be noted that, in the event that Option 2 is selected, the layout of this
equipment and associated space constraints will require modifications to the influent
screening systems. In this event, the following equipment upgrades will also likely be
required as part of the project:
Replacement/upgrade of influent screening mechanisms;
New screenings wash compactors; and
New screenings conveyor and transport system.
Modifications to the existing screening garage to provide an isolated space for new
equipment for the digestion process.
The solids process flow diagram associated with the proposed anaerobic digestion
and energy recovery system systems and equipment is presented in Figure 1-1.
1-4
Section 1
Introduction
1.5 Facility Layout Options

Though the remaining sections of this report detail the design, operational and cost
differences between the two conceptual facility layout options, a brief introduction to
the layouts is presented below.
1.5.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility

During the Feasibility Study process, due to the current active use in most areas of the
existing process building and immediate surrounding area, it was initially assumed
that the new digesters and required process area would be constructed as separate
from the existing facility. To keep space for future process expansion immediately
west of the existing clarifiers and aeration tanks, as well as, the potential need for CSO
pretreatment facilities on the east side of the site, the location selected for the
digestion improvements was south west of the existing chlorine contact tanks (north
of the active compost area). Figure 1-2 depicts the overall facility layout for
Option 1.
1.5.2 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space

During development of the Feasibility Study, a second potential location for the
digesters was identified in an attempt to retrofit a portion of the existing process
building. Per CDMs conversations with LAWPCA personnel, it may be possible to
modernize and relocate the existing screening equipment to the east side of the
Process Control Building and install the digester equipment in the southwest corner
of the building (currently housing the screenings garage). It was initially assumed
that the advantages to this option could include the following:
Reduce the amount of new interior process space by installing a portion of the
digestion equipment within the existing building;
Minimize yard piping and pumping by locating the new digestion facility as close
as physically possible to the existing thickening and dewatering areas; and
Create operational advantages by relocating and modernizing the screenings

handling systems.
As shown in Figure 1-3, the current configuration of the Option 2 layout attempted
to reuse the space as previously intended. It should be noted however that, due to
space limitations within the screenings garage and adjacent areas, a new (subsurface)
interior process space adjacent to the new digesters is still required. In addition, a
new screenings garage located to the east of the process building is also needed to
replace the existing garage.
The advantages, disadvantages and cost implications of each layout option are further
detailed in subsequent sections of this report.
1-5
Section 2
2.1 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to review the sludge quantities and characteristics used
as the preliminary basis of design for waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening and
anaerobic digestion improvements at the LAWPCA facility. Though a summary of
the biosolids design criteria is presented here, a detailed breakdown as to the
development of these values can be found in the Feasibility Study.
To establish current wastewater solids quantities and characteristics, LAWPCA
recommended that CDM utilize the results of the calibrated BioWin model, presented
in the 2008 Capacity Evaluation of the Water Pollution Control Facility for the Lewiston
Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority prepared by Wright-Pierce. Current flows
and loads to the primary clarifiers are summarized in Table 2-1. Approximately 96%
of the plant influent is raw wastewater from the cities of Lewiston and Auburn, 1.5%
from Cascade Auburn Fiber de-inking facility, 1.5% from solids handing recycle, and
less than 1% from septage received. The concentration of BOD in the wastewater from
Cascade Auburn Fiber is approximately 4,100 mg/l. As such, approximately 35% to
50% of the BOD load to the treatment facility comes from the de-inking facility.
Primary sludge is thickened by gravity and WAS is thickened using dissolved air
floatation (DAF). Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 summarize thickened primary sludge and
WAS quantities and characteristics. Currently, thickened primary sludge and WAS
are blended and dewatered using belt filter presses (BFPs). With anaerobic digestion
incorporated into the existing biosolids processing system, the primary sludge and
WAS will continue to be thickened separately, then blended, and digested and
dewatered using the existing BFPs.
9/2003 9/2007
Average Day
Max Month
Influent Flow (MGD)
13.2
20.1
Peak Day Flow (MGD)
32.0
32.0
BOD (lbs/day)
25,100
38,300
TSS (lbs/day)
23,300
32,500
Table 2-1
Plant Influent, 2003-2007
A
5816-72780
2-1
Section 2
Average Day
Max Month
MGD
0.024
0.035
Dry Solids, lbs/day
12,900
18,900
6.3
6.5
% Solids
Table 2-2
Thickened Primary Sludge, 2003-2007
Average Day
Max Month
MGD
0.051
0.066
Dry Solids, lbs/day
10,900
18,600
2.6
3.4
% Solids
Table 2-3
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, 2003-2007
2.2 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics with

DAF Replacement
Due to the age and thickening performance of the existing DAF units, the equipment
requires substantial rehabilitation or replacement in order to achieve TWAS
concentrations required for optimal sizing and performance of the proposed digestion
system. As a result, it is recommended that they be replaced by gravity belt
thickeners (GBTs) (as described in detail in Section 3), capable of thickening the WAS
to a minimum of 5%. By thickening the WAS to 5% instead of the current 23.5%, the
volume of the digester can be reduced, resulting in lower capital costs to construct the
digester system. The volume and characteristics of WAS thickened to 5% are given in
Table 2-4.
Average Day
Max Month
MGD
0.026
0.045
Dry Solids, lbs/day
10,900
18,600
5.0
5.0
% Solids
Table 2-4
Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, DAF Replacement
2-2
Section 2
According to plant staff, the existing gravity thickeners are operating well and no
improvements are necessary or planned outside of normal maintenance and periodic
rehabilitation. With new WAS thickening equipment and the existing primary
thickeners remaining, the combined thickened sludge will have the estimated
quantities and characteristics given in Table 2-5. Based on plant operating data, a
volatile suspended solids (VSS) to total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 0.75 is
used.
Average Day
Max Month
0.050
0.080
5.7
5.6
TSS (lbs/day)
23,800
37,500
VSS (lbs/day)
17,800
28,100
5,900
9,400
Sludge Volume (MGD)

Percent Solids
Inert Solids (lbs/day)
Table 2-5
Combined Thickened Sludge, WAS thickened to 5%
2.3 Basis of Design

There are several factors that may impact future flows and loads to the wastewater
treatment plant, including: residential, commercial and industrial growth or decline
in the cities of Lewiston and Auburn; operations of Cascade Auburn Fiber de-inking
facility; and ability of LAWPCA to accept outside wastes.
Because of the uncertainties in future additional flows and loads, the allowance in the
basis of design accounts for a 15% increase in pounds of dry solids per day being fed
to the digester. Table 2-5 summarizes the basis of design.
Current
Sludge to Digester (MGD)

Percent Solids
Current + 15%
Average Day
Max Month
Average Day
Max Month
0.050
0.080
0.058
0.092
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.6
TSS (lbs/day)
23,800
37,500
27,400
43,100
VSS (lbs/day)
17,800
28,100
20,500
32,300
5,900
9,400
6,900
10,800
Table 2-6
Combined Thickened Sludge Feed to Digester
2-3
Section 3
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening
Improvements
3.1 Background and Existing Conditions
As previously noted, currently at the LAWPCA Facility secondary sludge is pumped
directly from return activated sludge lines to two dissolved air floatation (DAF) units,
thickening the waste activated sludge (WAS) to between 2.63.3% solids. The two
existing DAF units were constructed along with the original Secondary Treatment
Facilities in 1971.
After the DAF thickening process, the thickened WAS (TWAS) flows by gravity from
the DAF units to one of four dedicated holding tanks. Facility operators have reported
that when both DAF units are operating, the TWAS solids concentration should be
approximately 3% solids or less to allow it to flow by gravity from the DAFs to the
TWAS holding tanks.
For thickened sludge concentrations exceeding 3% a pair of TWAS transfer pumps are
required to pump sludge to the holding tanks. According to plant operators, the
TWAS pumps are not operational and have not been operated since their original
installation nearly forty years ago. The current location of the TWAS pumps (DAF
room sub-basement crawl space) is a confined space and access to the pumps is
restricted due to numerous ducts and pipelines that block direct access to the pumps.
According to plant operators, The DAFs meet current process requirements, however,
the anaerobic digestion process being proposed will require WAS to be thickened to
over 5.5% in the future. As previously noted, the existing DAF equipment is original
to the plant and would required substantial rehabilitation or replacement in order to
achieve TWAS concentrations required for optimal performance of the proposed
digestion. Furthermore, operation and maintenance costs for the units have been
escalating recently as spare parts are difficult to locate or are no longer readily
available from the manufacturer or aftermarket suppliers.
Although the DAF thickeners are original to the plant and have reached the end of
their anticipated life expectancy, the main driver for replacing the units is to increase
the solids percentage of the sludge being fed to the anaerobic digester. By increasing
the solids percentage, the volume of the digester decreases and less tankage is
required. Furthermore, irrespective of the proposed digestion improvements,
replacement of the DAFs will provide for a more efficient, reliable, and cost effective
method for thickening waste activated sludge.
A
5816-72780
3-1
Section 3
Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements
3.2 Thickening Design Criteria

The design criteria for the thickening equipment include residuals feed (loading) rate,
sludge percent solids, desired thickened solids, duration of equipment operation,
redundancy, and available space. Influent sludge to the thickening equipment
includes secondary sludge (or waste activated) only. Primary sludge will continue to
be thickened independent of WAS via existing gravity thickener equipment.
The WAS thickening system will be designed for operating between 8.5 and 11 hours
per day and 7 days per week in order to provide continuous daily flow of TWAS to
the downstream anaerobic digester process. Plant operators have reported that
existing plant staffing and operating schedules currently a minimum of 10 hrs per
shift per day are adequate and will not require modification for the newly
proposed WAS thickening system operating schedule.
Full scale redundancy will be provided for WAS thickening and each unit will be
designed to handle maximum conditions. This is required to ensure that solids can be
treated on site in the event a unit is taken out of service during planned or unplanned
maintenance.
The following Table 3-1 provides the projected future characteristics of the sludge
conveyed to the WAS thickening equipment based on an 8.5 hour per day and 7 day
per week processing schedule which provides for up to 1.5 hours of startup/
shutdown time per shift. The percent solids are based on the anticipated performance
of solids removal in the secondary facilities.
Condition
Hydraulic
Loading
Hydraulic
Loading
Solids
Loading
Percent Solids
(wet - gpd)
(WET-GPM)
(dry lb/hr)
(%)
Average Day
208,000
408
1,500
0.71
Maximum Month
283,000
555
2,500
0.92
Table 3-1
Estimated Loading Rates for WAS Thickening
3.3
Thickening Alternatives Analysis
Current available technologies that were considered for sludge thickening include
gravity belt thickeners (GBTs), Rotary Drum Thickeners, and DAFs.
Continued use of the existing DAFs is not being considered as an alternative for
future thickening at the facility due to the limited and unreliable thickening
3-2
Section 3
performance, advanced age of the equipment, lack of availability of spare parts, and
higher operating costs associated with the DAF system.
Gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) and rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) are both evaluated
further as viable WAS thickening options. Both GBTs and RDTs are considered
relatively simple to operate, require minimal operator attention, and have a proven
track record for WAS thickening.
The following sections review the evaluation and comparison of Rotary Drum
Thickeners and Gravity Belt Thickeners.
3.3.1 Rotary Drum Thickeners

Rotary Drum thickeners (RDTs) are routinely used to thicken WAS at various
wastewater treatment facilities. RDTs require minimal operator attention to operate
and offer low operating and maintenance costs due to low power consumption and
automated operation of the equipment.
Process Description
A rotary drum thickener, similar to a gravity belt thickener, achieves solid-liquid
separation by coagulation and flocculation of solids and drainage of free water
through a rotating porous media. The porous media typically consists of a drum with
wedge wires, perforations, or stainless steel mesh screen.
The thickener consists of an internally fed rotary drum with an internal screw, which
is used to transport the thickened sludge out of the drum, The drum rotates on
trunnion wheels and is driven by a variable speed drive. Sludge is usually polymer
conditioned and mixed in a flocculation tank prior to thickening.
The conditioned sludge is then fed directly to the interior of the drum via piping to
one end of the drum. As the drum rotates free water passes through the drum
perforations into a collection trough, leaving thickened sludge inside the drum that is
discharged by the internal screw at the opposite end into a hopper. A continuous
fixed spray bar extends along the entire length of the drum to clean and prevent
blinding of the screen.
Process Assessment
Several equipment manufacturers were contacted for equipment consultation and
sizing assistance for RDT WAS thickening applications and provided the following
information:
Largest Rotary Drum Thickener Unit is rated for 400 gpm,
Manufacturers recommend a max hydraulic loading of 350gpm for WAS thickening
Solids loading rates range from 1,100 1,500 lbs/hr/unit
3-3
Section 3
Polymer consumption for WAS thickening ranges from 8 12 lbs / dry ton
Solids capture of 85% 95% is achievable for WAS thickening over 5%
Polymer optimization is essential for achieving higher solids capture.
A sludge conditioning tank is recommended prior to thickening for WAS

applications
Washwater requirement are 40 51 gpm @ 40 PSI min.
Odors are generated during thickening but can be contained by adding odor
control covers
A total of (3) RDT units each rated at 350 GPM are required to meet max month
conditions during an operating shift
Capital Costs per RDT range from $168,000 $200,000 each (equipment only)
3.3.2 Gravity Belt Thickeners

Gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) have become common practice for thickening sludge at
wastewater treatment facilities. Gravity belt thickening arose from the application of
belt presses for sludge dewatering due to the thickening that occurred in the gravity
drainage portion of the presses.
Process Description
GBTs operate on the principle of coagulation and flocculation of solids in dilute
sludge. The sludge is conditioned with polymer to coagulate and concentrate the
solids. The conditioned sludge is then fed to a distribution box, which evenly applies
the conditioned sludge to a fabric belt. As the conditioned sludge is conveyed along
the belt, plow blades create furrows that allow water to pass through the belt.
The thickened sludge is then discharged to a hopper and the belt passes through a
wash cycle to remove any trapped solids in the fabric mesh. GBTs can achieve a
solids capture of approximately 95 percent and can thicken sludge with initial
concentrations of 0.5% up to 4 to 8%. GBTs can be furnished with enclosures integral
to the GBT frame to contain odors and exhaust them to an odor control system. The
enclosures provide access to the top of the belt through hinged access panels while
the side panels are typically bolted on.
Process Assessment
Several equipment manufacturers were contacted for equipment consultation and
sizing assistance for GBT WAS thickening applications and provided the following
information:
3-4
Section 3
Gravity belt thickeners offer a higher degree of process performance flexibility than
RDTs due to their ability to be loaded at higher hydraulic and solids loading rates
than a comparable RDT.
Hydraulically loading rates for WAS thickening applications range between 250
300 gpm/meter.
Solids loading rates of up to 1,000 lbs/hr/meter belt width.
A 2-meter GBT would be capable of processing up to 2,000 lbs/hr of WAS at 600

GPM with a solids concentration of about 0.67%..
Solids capture of over 95% is achievable for WAS thickening applications.
Polymer consumption for WAS thickening ranges from 6-12 lbs/dry ton
Polymer conditioning of sludge is recommended
Odors are generated during thickening and increased ventilation of thickening area
is recommended.
Washwater requirements are 35 40 gpm @ 85 PSI min.
A total of two 2-meter GBT units each rated at 550 GPM are required to meet max
month conditions. (1 duty 1 standby)
Capital Costs per GBT range from $135,000 $168,000 each (equipment only)
3.3.3 Thickening Process Comparison and Recommendations

There are several advantages and disadvantages for each thickening option. The
following describes several criteria used to evaluate these options.
Non-Costs Comparison of Thickening Alternatives

Table 3-2 presents a comparison of advantages and disadvantages for each of the
thickening alternatives.
3-5
Section 3
Process
Rotary Drum
Thickeners
Advantages
Relatively low power consumption
Polymer Dependent
A very simple process
Floc Shear potential
Minimal ancillary equipment
Lower Hydraulic Throughput
Compact Footprint
Moderate Solids Capture at high

flows
Minimal operator attention
Gravity Belt
Thickening
Disadvantages
Odors generated
Control capability for process

performance are flexible
More housekeeping / Startup time
Relatively lower capital cost due to

higher throughput
Moderate operator attention

requirements
Relatively low power consumption

High solids capture
Higher thickened concentrations
are possible
A very simple process to operate
Polymer dependent
Odors generated
Building corrosion potential if not
ventilated adequately
Higher washwater pressure requiring
a booster pump
Moving parts are accessible

Minimal ancillary equipment
Table 3-2
Non-Cost Comparison of Thickening Alternatives
Performance Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-3 provides a side by side performance comparison of the two thickening
alternatives based on available operating performance information as provided by
manufacturers for WAS thickening applications.
3-6
Section 3
Parameter:
Gravity Belt Thickener
Rotary Drum Thickener
Komline Sanderson
Parkson Corporation
Charter Machine
Vulcan Industries
Ashbrook
BDP Industries
Size Unit:
2.0 Meter Model
400 GPM model
Hydraulic Loading Rate

(per unit):
500 to 600 gpm for WAS
350 gpm max (per manufacturer)

for WAS
Solids Loading Rate:
Up to 1,000 lbs/ hr / meter
1100 to 1500 lbs /hr/ unit
Solids Capture Efficiency:
< 95 %
Manufacturers Referenced:
Thickened Solids
< 95% @ 4.5% solids.

< 85 % @ 5.5% solids
3-5 %
Over 5.5 percent for WAS
Floc shear for WAS over 4.5%
Polymer Consumption
6 12 lbs/ dry ton
8 12 lbs / dry ton
Wash Water Required
35 40 gpm @ 85 PSI
40 51 pm @ 40 psi
Motor horsepower
(connected)
4.5 Hp w/ hydraulic belt

tension and booster
pump
8.5 Hp w/ booster pump
5.5 Hp w/ pneumatic belt

tension and booster
pump
No. of Units Required :
Avg. Day 1 Duty 1 Standby
Avg. Day 2 Duty 1 Standby
Max Month 1 Duty 1 Standby
Max Month 2 Duty 1 Standby
Table 3-3
Performance Comparison for Thickening Alternatives
Cost Comparison of Alternatives

The following Table 3-4 provides an equipment capital comparison of the two
thickening alternatives. For the purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that
installation, operating, polymer consumption, and maintenance costs for both options
were similar and can be neglected without impacting the cost analysis.
Capital Costs
Total Costs
Rotary Drum Thickener
Gravity Belt Thickener
$ 504,000 $600,000
$ 270,000 $330,000
Table 3-4
Comparison Costs for Thickening Alternatives
3-7
Section 3
Installation, annual labor, and maintenance costs were not evaluated in this analysis
because they were assumed to be relatively equal for both thickening options. As
presented above, thickening of secondary sludge utilizing two 2-meter GBTs is a
significantly less expensive option than thickening by RDTs by approximately
$174,000 or more.
Summary and Recommendations

The lower capital costs, better thickening performance, higher capacity, and low O&M
costs associated with a GBT based thickening system all indicate that GBTs would
represent a better long term investment for WAS thickening at the LAWPCA facility
than Rotary Drum thickeners. The recommended technology for replacement of the
DAF thickeners at the LAWPCA facility is thickening by gravity belt thickener.
3.4 Gravity Belt Thickener Design Criteria

The intent is for the new thickening equipment to operate on an average of 8.5 hours
per day and 7 days per week. The two WAS GBTs will be designed for one duty and
one standby operation. Typical GBT design criteria are a maximum hydraulic loading
rate of 300 gpm/meter and a maximum solids loading rate of 1,000 lb/hr/meter/unit.
Design criteria would require two, 2-meter units which could provide a maximum of
275 gpm/meter and 1,000 lb/hr/meter hydraulic and solids loadings respectively to
meet average day future conditions. During max month future conditions, the
maximum recommended solids loading rate (for a single 2-meter thickener ) could be
met by operating one unit for up to 8.5 hrs during single shift assuming the WAS
solids concentration was 0.92%. If the solids concentration drops, the hydraulic
loading would need to increase up to 600 gpm. There may be times when the
hydraulic or solids loading requires more than one shift to process the required
sludge using a single GBT. Alternatively, the second (standby) GBT could also be
used to reduce the total processing time.
The next GBT size available is a 3-meter wide unit which would exceed the hydraulic
and solids loading capacity to meet max month conditions in one shift, but would be
difficult to install in the existing thickening room available space. A second option for
addressing the max month loading issues on a 2-meter GBT is to extend sludge
thickening processing times from 8.5 hours to 11 hours per day thus reducing the
solids loading to less than 1,000 lbs/hr/meter. This would also be required should
loadings exceed the maximum month estimate.
By placing a second GBT into service during max month or higher conditions, the
solids loading to each thickener would be less than 625 lbs/hr/meter and all sludge
processing could be completed in a single 8.5-hour shift.
Both solids and worst case hydraulic loading rates are within an acceptable range for
sizing of two meters units with only the processing times required to be extended
during max month or higher conditions if one GBT is out of service.
3-8
Section 3
The GBTs will have the following design criteria:
3.4.1 WAS GBTS

Belt width
Operation
2 meters
8.5 hours per day, 7 days per week - Avg Day
11 hours per day, 7 days per week Max Month
Number of units
2 (1 duty and 1 standby)
Sludge feed concentration
0.7% 0.92%
Sludge feed flow range
208,000 283,000gpd (wet)
Sludge feed loading range
1,500 2,500 lb/hr (dry)
Thickened sludge range
5.0 6.0%
Minimum capture
95%
Polymer dose range
10 lbs/ton
Wash water flow & pressure
40 gpm and 90 psi
Several manufacturers were contacted for details on equipment which could meet the
design criteria provided above. GBT performance specifications, cost and other
information were provided by Komline-Sanderson, Charter Machine, and Ashbrook.
3.4.2 GBT Washwater / Drain System

The new GBTs will be provided with a plant water booster pump to increase the
pressure to 90 psi for effective belt cleaning. The existing plant water system pressure
is approximately 60 80 psi and this water will be obtained from the existing plant
water distribution piping in the building.
Two new floor drains will be required to remove the washwater and GBT underflow,
and convey this liquid to the plant influent channel. The new process drains will be
connected to the existing plant drain piping located beneath the thickening room in
the crawlspace level.
3.5 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Transfer

Pumping
Each DAF currently has a dedicated thickened sludge pump which was installed
concurrent with the DAF installation. As previously mentioned, these pumps are not
used as they are non-functional and will require relocation and replacement.
The TWAS transfer pumps will be relocated from their currently inaccessible location
(a crawl space). Each pump will be located in the thickening room adjacent to a
A
3-9
Section 3
thickened sludge hopper at the discharge end of each GBT. The pumps will draw
sludge directly from thickened sludge hoppers at each GBT and pump TWAS to one
of several holding tanks.
Progressive cavity pumps are being recommended for TWAS pumping due to the
wide pumping range high discharge pressure abilities. Each pump will be rated at
180 gpm at 40 psig and driven with a 15-HP variable speed motor.
The pumps will be controlled by level sensors in the thickened sludge hoppers. The
pump speed will be varied by a controller located in the local Operator Control Panels
to regulate sludge levels in the hopper during thickening operations.
The sludge pumps will also be equipped with instrumentation devices to protect the
pumps and piping. These include High/Low discharge pressure switches to stop the
pump on high or low discharge pressure and a Low seal water pressure switch which
will stop the pump on low seal water pressure. These pressure switches will be
interlocked with the sludge feed to the thickener such that the thickener system will
stop operating in the event of high discharge pressure or low seal water pressure. The
basis of design for the TWAS transfer pumps is presented in Table 3-5 below:
Description
Criteria
Quantity
2 total (1 duty 1 standby)
Pump type
Progressive cavity
Pump capacity
0 180 GPM
Discharge pressure
100 PSI
Total solids to pump
4% 6%
Motor type
Variable speed
Motor size
15 HP
Table 3-5
Design Criteria TWAS Transfer Pumps
3-10
Section 3
3.6
Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO)
To facilitate the installation of the new GBTs, construct the new electrical room, and
demolish the old DAF units, construction will require strict sequencing to maintain
WAS thickening capability at all times. A brief summary of the proposed construction
sequence is provided below:
1.
Provide temporary compressed air system (trailer mounted)/ Demo Existing

DAF Compressor system /
2.
Construct new electrical room and install new electrical equipment switchover
from old to new MCC.
3.
Demo DAF tank No.1
4.
Install GBT No.1
5.
Startup, Test and place into service GBT no.1
6.
Demo DAF No.2
7.
Install GBT No.2
8.
Construct Thickening Room partition walls
9.
Startup, Test and Place GBT No.2 into service.
3-11
Section 4
Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage
Improvements
4.1 General
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that stabilizes organic matter in the
absence of oxygen. During this process, organic matter is converted to methane (CH4)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) and the remaining solids are stabilized. The digested sludge
is less odorous, attracts fewer vectors, and contains fewer pathogens than undigested
sludge. The conversion of solids into gas, results in less mass and volume to process
downstream and dispose of or be beneficially used.
4.2 Anaerobic Digestion Tanks

4.2.1 Digester Sizing Criteria
Anaerobic digesters are sized based upon a solids retention time (SRT) and a
hydraulic retention time (HRT). Because the proposed high rate digester system at
LAWPCA facility does not include supernatant decant, the HRT is equivalent to the
SRT for this application. It is CDMs design practice to size the digester system for a
minimum SRT of 15 days for design year maximum month conditions and 20 days for
design year average day conditions, which is consistent with the Water Environment
Federations Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Manual of Practice 8
(MOP 8) and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commissions
Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment Works (TR 16).
LAWPCA facility digester sizing is based on a minimum SRT of 15 days at design
year maximum month conditions. As discussed in detail in Section 2 of this report,
Table 4-1 summarizes the recommended basis of design used to size the digester
system. Under the design conditions summarized in Table 4-1, the volume of sludge
pumped to the digester during average day and maximum month conditions is
estimated to be 58,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 92,000 gpd, respectively. Applying
the 15-day SRT size criteria at maximum month conditions, the required effective
digester volume is approximately 1,380,000 gallons (184,000 cubic feet).
The LAWPCA facility is served by a combined collection system and experiences grit
loading. Wastewater is screened using two mechanical screens having a -inch bar
spacing and pumped to aerated grit chambers. However, the aerated grit process
does not remove all the material and grit accumulation in the digesters will occur over
time.
A
5816-72780
4-1
Section 4
Average Day
Max Month
0.058
0.092
Percent Solids
5.7
5.6
TSS (lbs/day)
27,400
43,100
VSS (lbs/day)
20,500
32,300
6,900
10,800
Flow (MGD)
Table 4-1
Combined Thickened Sludge to Digester System, Basis of Design
The Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice #8 (MOP-8) recommends

sizing the digesters to include a 10% allowance for grit accumulation, in addition to
the digester bottom cone volume which is not considered part of the digester working
volume. As such, the recommended total volume of the digester system is
approximately 1,520,000 gallons (203,000 cubic feet). Two anaerobic digester tanks are
proposed, with each providing 50% of the total required volume that is estimated to
be 760,000 gallons (101,500 cubic feet).
4.2.2 Digester Tank Configuration Options

Based on the volume requirements of the digester system and due to site constraints
to be discussed later in this section, two digester configurations were considered. The
two options were considered due to the limited amount available space on site for the
digester system while maintaining space for liquid process train expansion and to
identify the most cost effective configuration.
Alternative A Standard Digesters: These traditionally shaped digesters have a

height to width ratio of less than one. For this configuration, each digester tank is
approximately 65 feet in diameter with a sidewall depth (SWD) of 30.5 feet.
Alternative B Cylindrical Digesters: have a height to width ratio greater than

one. For this configuration, each tank is approximately 50 feet in diameter with a
SWD of 52 feet.
Table 4-2 summarizes the digester configuration options while Figure 4-1 depicts the
general layout of the tanks.
4-2
Section 4
Alternative A
Standard Digesters
Parameter
Number of Digesters
Alternative B
Cylindrical Digesters
Diameter, feet
65
50
Sidewall Depth, feet
30.5
52
Sidewall Below Grade, feet
15
20
690,000
690,000
92,000
92,000
Gallons
760,000
760,000
Cubic Feet
101,500
101,500
1,520,000
1,520,000
203,000
203,000
Average
20
20
Maximum month
15
15
Tank Dimensions
Effective Tank Volume (each tank)

Gallons
Cubic Feet
Total Tank Volume
(each tank, 10% additional volume for grit)
Total Tank Volume
(2 Tanks)
Gallons
Cubic Feet
Design SRT
Table 4-2
Digester System Configurations Summary
4.3 Sludge Storage Tanks

Inconsistent organic solids loading and temperature variations within anaerobic
digestion systems are known to cause sudden gas production which, in turn, can
create foaming problems. As a result, standard industry practice, as recommended by
the USEPA, TR-16, MOP 8 and CDM, is to provide as continuous of a sludge feed as
possible. Due to the difference in organic content between TWAS and thickened
primary sludge, consistent feed rates of each sludge will assist in minimizing foaming
concerns.
4.3.1 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Storage

Since primary sludge is continuously thickened in gravity thickeners at the LAWPCA
facility, thickened primary sludge may be fed to the digesters on a continuous basis
without the need for additional thickened primary sludge storage. However, as noted
in Section 3, the WAS thickening systems at the LAWPCA facility are assumed to
4-3
Section 4
operate between 8.5 and 11 hours per day. As a result, storage volume is required to
contain and allow for continuous feed of TWAS to the digesters during the 13 to 15.5
hours per day during which the WAS thickening system is not in operation.
For the proposed digestion project, it is recommended that the existing TWAS storage
tanks, located west of the Process Building below grade, be used to feed TWAS to the
digesters continuously. The four tanks have a combined volume of approximately
40,000 gallons, not all of which is considered to be active due to pumping
considerations. At average day conditions, approximately 17,000 gallons of the tank
volume will be utilized during off hours while using a continuous feed rate to the
digesters of approximately 20 gallons per minute (gpm). At maximum month
conditions, 24,000 gallons of TWAS storage will likely be needed, which would be fed
continuously to the digesters at a rate of approximately 30 gpm. It should also be
noted that the TWAS storage volume required will vary depending on the actual
percent solids, flow rates and daily processing schedule.
4.3.2 Digested Sludge Storage

The dewatering system at the LAWPCA facility is typically operated on a similar
daily schedule as the WAS thickening system. When fed continuously, digested
sludge storage volume will be required during the 13 to 15.5 hours per day when the
dewatering system is not in operation. Because the dewatering system does not
operate continuously, digested sludge may be stored in the digester itself or in a
separate sludge storage tank. Typically, it is most cost effective to construct a separate
digested sludge storage tank instead of using the digester itself to store digested
sludge
At average day conditions, the digester will provide a continuous output of 40 gpm
which would equate to approximately 38,000 gallons of digested sludge tank volume
over 15.5 hours. At maximum month conditions, approximately 64 gpm would be
discharged over 11 hours, equating to a required storage volume of approximately
50,000 gallons. As these volumes are in excess of any potentially unused existing
TWAS storage tank volume, a new digested sludge storage tank is recommended.
The TWAS and digested sludge storage volumes above assume daily operation of all
thickening and dewatering equipment and provide for storage of max month solids
loadings. Due to the need for some equipment downtime and the likelihood that the
peak daily solids loading at the facility will be in excess of the max month values, it is
recommended that additional storage volume be built into the new digester system,
specifically within the new digested sludge storage tank. It is estimated that
approximately 180,000 gallons of digested sludge storage would provide
approximately 3 days of digested sludge at average day flow and approximately
2 days of storage at maximum month flow.
To accommodate this volume of storage, it is recommended that a digested sludge
storage tank 50 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep be constructed. Digested sludge,
4-4
Section 4
flowing by gravity to the digested sludge storage tank, would be stored within this
tank and then be pumped to the belt filter presses when in operation. It is also
recommended that a bypass from the digester sludge feed pipe be provided to this
storage tank. This bypass would allow thickened sludge flows and loads which
might exceed the design loading rates of the digester system to bypass the digesters
and be sent directly to dewatering.
Figure 4-2 depicts the general layout of the proposed sludge storage tank.
4.4 Digester Heating Requirements

Anaerobic digesters are heated to maintain an environment conducive to methane
forming microorganisms and to ensure that greases and fats within the digester
remain in an emulsified state so they can be broken down biologically.
For digestion, the heat requirements of the anaerobic digester include the amount of
heat needed to:
Raise the incoming sludge to the digestion temperature (approximately

95 degrees F);
Compensate for heat losses through walls, floor and digester roof; and
Make up the losses that may occur in the piping between the heat source and the
digester tank. Typically when the pipe length is limited, these losses are minimal
and are not included in the digester heating requirements calculations.
4.4.1 Heat Requirement for Incoming Sludge

To calculate the energy required to heat the incoming sludge to the temperature of the
digester, it is assumed that the specific heat of the sludge is close to that of water
(1 BTU/lb/F). To calculate the energy required to heat the sludge, the following
equation is used:
Q1 = W C p (T2 T1 )
where:
W = Sludge to Digester, lbs/hour
Q1 = Heating Required (BTU/hr)
Cp = Specific Heat of Water (BTU/lb/F)
T2 = Heated Sludge Temperature (F)
T1 = Cold Sludge temperature (F)
T1 can be estimated based on the geographical location of the digester as well as
historical plant data. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is estimated that the
4-5
Section 4
temperature of the sludge entering the digester is 45 F in the winter and 70 F in the
summer. Table 4-3 presents the estimated energy required to heat the sludge entering
the digester. Heating requirements are given in millions of British Thermal Units per
hour (MBTU/hr).
Average Day
Maximum Month
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
58,000
58,000
92,000
92,000
T2, Heated Sludge Temperature (F)
95
95
95
95
T1, Cold Sludge temperature (F)
45
70
45
70
Temperature Difference (F)
45
25
45
25
20,000
20,000
32,000
32,000
1.00
0.50
1.60
0.80
Sludge Volume to Both Digesters (gpd)
W, Flow to both digesters (lb sludge/hr)

Q1, Sludge Heating Required For Both Digesters
(MBTU/hr)
Table 4-3
Sludge Heating Requirements
4.4.2 Digester Tank Heat Losses

Heat losses resulting from conduction through the digester tank roof, walls and floor
are calculated using the following relationship:
Q2 = U A (T2 T1 )
Where:
Q2 = heat loss (BTU/hr)
U = heat transfer coefficient (BTU/ ft2/F/hr)
T2 = operating Temperature of Digester (F)
T1 = air temperature outside of tank (F)
A = Area of exposed surface (ft2)
The design outside temperatures used in the heat loss analysis are based on the 2009
Pluming Code for Portland, ME and are -1 F in winter and 72 F in summer. Though
the heat losses per digester, summarized in Table 4-4, were calculated based on the
standard digester tank configuration, it should be noted that similar calculations were
performed for the cylinder tank option and yielded similar heat loss results.
4-6
Section 4
Description
Configuration
Number of Digesters
Diameter
65 feet
Sidewater Depth
30.5 feet
Exposed digester concrete wall
17.5 feet above grade, concrete, insulated
Buried digester concrete wall
15 feet below grade, plain concrete,

surrounded by wet soil
Floor
Plain concrete, surrounded by wet soil
Digester Cover
Concrete, thick, insulated
Table 4-4
Digester Tank Configuration
Table 4-5 summarizes conductive heat losses based on the digester tank configuration
and the digester material U factors. U factors values are from the EPAs Process
Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 1979).
Winter
Summer
Roof Heat Loss (MBTU/hr)
0.09
0.02
Wall Heat Loss Above Ground (MBTU/hr)
0.05
0.01
Wall Heat Loss Below Ground (MBTU/hr)
0.07
0.02
Heat Lost Through Floor (MBTU/hr)
0.16
0.04
Total Heat Loss from Digester (MBtu/hr)
0.37
0.09
Total Heat Loss from Both Digesters (MBTU/hr)
0.74
0.018
Table 4-5
Conductive Heat Loss
4.4.3 Heating Requirement Summary

The estimated heating requirements needed to raise the incoming sludge to the
digester operating temperature and the amount of heat needed to compensate for heat
losses in both digesters are summarized in Table 4-6.
4-7
Section 4
Average Day
Maximum Month
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Q1, Heating Required to raise temperature of

incoming sludge (MBTU/hr)
1.00
0.50
1.60
0.80
Q2, Heat required to compensate for conduction

losses insulated roof and walls (MBTU/hr)
0.74
0.18
0.74
0.18
Total Heat Required

insulated roof and walls (MBTU/hr)
1.74
0.68
2.34
0.98
Table 4-6
Digester Heating Requirements
4.5 Digester System Equipment

Anaerobic digestion system equipment generally consists of the following three major
systems:
Heating system
Mixing system
Digester covers
4.5.1 Digester Heating

Maintaining a stable temperature within the digester is important, as the microbes
responsible for the digestion process are extremely sensitive to temperature
fluctuations. There are two primary types of digester heating systems: internal and
external.
With an internal arrangement, heat is applied to the sludge while it remains in the
digester tank. In older digesters, heating arrangements include circulating hot water
through pipes mounted to the inside of the digester tank wall or through draft tube
mixers equipped with hot water jackets.. In recent years, these arrangements have
become less popular due to operational issues, including the buildup of sludge on
heating surface and access restrictions. Because all internal heating systems rely on
the digester mixing system to circulate heat within the digester, the mixing system
must be operated on a continuous basis. Without continuous mixing, a heat gradient
will develop in the tank and create biologically inactive zones.
Recent digester designs typically use external heating systems that recirculate sludge
through external heat exchangers using a recirculation pump. Most external heating
systems incorporate means to heat the sludge before it enters the digester. The feed
sludge is typically interlocked with the sludge recirculation pumps, allowing the
4-8
Section 4
blending and preheating of the feed and active digester sludge before it enters the
digester.
External heat exchangers include combined boiler/heat exchangers and separate
tube-in-tube, spiral and water bath heat exchangers. In a combined boiler/heat
exchanger, the boiler heats a water bath in which tubes carrying sludge pass. Tube-intube heat exchangers consist of two concentric pipes, one carrying sludge and one
carrying hot water. The liquids flow in opposite directions. Spiral tubes have pairs of
passages wrapped to form spirals. One passage carries sludge; the other passage
carries water flowing in the opposite direction. In water-bath heat exchangers, sludge
pipes pass through a heated water bath.
Waste heat from the cogeneration system is typically reclaimed in the form of hot
water and circulated through a heat exchanger to provide heat for the digesters. In
the event that the cogeneration system is not operating or does not produce enough
waste heat, a boiler utilizing biogas or natural gas may be utilized.
For the LAWPCA facility, an external, tube in tube heat exchanger system is
recommended, as tube in tube heat exchangers are typically more efficient than other
types of heat exchangers. For the Option 1 location and layout, the boiler and two
heat exchangers (one operating per digester) are located on the first floor of the
digester equipment building. For Option 2, which utilizes existing space in the
Process Building for digester equipment, the boiler and heat exchangers are located in
the space that is currently being used to haul away influent screenings.
4.5.2 Digester Mixing

Mixing is one of the key processes to achieve optimum performance in anaerobic
digestion. Mixing distributes the digester feedstock to all parts of the digester,
inhibits temperature and solids stratification, and creates homogeneous conditions in
the digester. Less than adequate mixing can result in localized deadspots in the
digester. Currently, the most commonly used mixing systems include 1) pumped jet
mixing; 2) gas mixing; and 3) draft tube mixing.
Pumped Jet Mixing
The pumped recirculation system uses a chopper pump and a series of internal
digester mixing nozzles to continuously recirculate sludge within the digester tank.
Pumped recirculation pumps typically use single or double tree nozzles positioned
both in an inner radius and outer radius and orientated to point towards the center.
This pumping operation sets up a tangential swirling pattern around the digester.
Gas Mixing
The four major gas mixing systems are gas discharged lances, floor-mounted
diffusers, confined draft tubes, and bubble-gun gas mixers. On each of these
systems, the gas compressor and control valves are the major mechanical pieces of
4-9
Section 4
equipment. In each system, biogas is taken from the headspace of the digester tank,
compressed, and distributed to multiple mixing devices.
Draft Tube Mixing
Mechanical draft tube mixing systems consist of a propeller, drive shaft, and drive.
Most mechanical mixing systems are mounted in a draft tube to direct sludge flow
within the digester. Drives are typically reversible, allowing the sludge to discharge
at the top or bottom of the draft tube. Mixer/draft tube assemblies may be located at
the center of the digester tank, at the mid-radius point, or outside the digester tank.
Mixing System Recommendation
A pump recirculation mixing system is recommended for LAWPCA based primarily
on operation and maintenance considerations. With these systems, pumps are located
inside a building along with other equipment and are easily accessed. In addition,
plant operators are generally familiar with maintaining pumps of this nature and find
them more operator friendly. In comparison, mechanical draft tube motors are
located on top of the digester tanks creating a difficult maintenance environment
especially during winter conditions. In addition, due to the inability to grind the
recirculation flow with a draft tube mixer, rags and other fibrous materials could tend
to accumulate within the digesters and create a maintenance concern. Further, due to
the configuration of draft tube mixers, a crane would be required for any significant
maintenance procedures. Gas mixing systems were removed from consideration due
to cost and the historical maintenance concerns associated with the biogas compressor
systems and general safety concerns associated with biogas handing.
It should also be noted that a mixing system will also be required for the sludge
storage tank discussed in Section 4.2. The piping and jets associated with the digester
tank and sludge storage tank mixing systems are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2,
respectively. The locations of the pumps under the two alternative layout options
will be discussed later in this section.
4.5.3 Digester Covers

Digester tanks require covers to maintain anaerobic conditions in the tank, contain
and assist in collecting biogas produced during the digestion process, reduce odors,
retain heat to maintain internal temperatures, and support some types of mixing
equipment (e.g. internal draft tube mixers supported from fixed covers). There are
three basic types of digester covers: floating, fixed, and gas membrane.
Floating Covers
Floating covers have been widely used throughout the wastewater industry for years.
They have typically been used to provide for some liquid storage (conventional
floating covers), as well as some gas storage (gas holding covers). Conventional
floating covers float directly on the sludge surface, which provides for fluctuations of
the liquid sludge level with minimal change in biogas pressure.
4-10
Section 4
Fixed Covers
Fixed concrete and steel covers are also widely used throughout the wastewater
industry. They have historically been the option with the lowest cost and least
potential for operation and maintenance problems in comparison to floating covers.
However, fixed covers offer minimal biogas storage and limited flexibility with
regard to sludge liquid level. One variation on the fixed concrete cover design is the
submerged fixed cover (SFC). Compared to flat fixed cover designs, the submerged
fixed cover is effective at utilizing the upper portion of the tank volume by inhibiting
the buildup of floating foam and scum and directs mixing energy for better efficiency.
SFCs are similar in costs to flat roof digesters and less costly to construct than domed
roofs. The key to the submerged fixed cover digester is a sloped roof that leads to a
centrally located gas dome. In a SFC design, the liquid level is allowed to rise into the
gas dome above the side wall, submerging the underside of the cover. Submerging
the cover provides a gradual transition at the cover side wall connection, directing
mixing patterns more effectively. Operating the liquid level in the gas dome
minimizes the gas to liquid interface. By minimizing this interface, foam and scum
can be removed more effectively. With minimal gas storage volume, a fixed cover
system must either rely on storage spheres, piping, flares, vacuum and pressure relief
valves, or some other means of gas storage to keep the pressures consistent inside the
tank.
Gas Membrane Covers
Gas membrane covers are a relatively new product that was first used in the U.S. in
the early 1990s. They provide a large volume of digester gas storage using a doublemembrane design and may be installed on digester tanks or sludge storage tanks. The
outer membrane maintains a consistent dome shape, while the inner membrane
moves up or down depending upon gas storage requirements. Ambient air fans and
valves add or release air from the space between the inner and outer membranes to
maintain the consistent outer membrane shape and constant biogas pressure. This
also allows for substantial changes in the depth of sludge in the digester.
Cover Recommendation
SFCs are recommended for the digesters at LAWPA facility based on the following
considerations:
Fixed covers tend to be less costly than floating covers or gas holder membranes.
SFC minimize foaming, which is often expensive and difficult to control and
contain.
The digester tank configuration shown in Figure 4-1 depicts the general arrangement
of the recommended SFC.
It is further recommended that the digested sludge storage tank, as discussed in
Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-2, be installed with a gas membrane cover to store
4-11
Section 4
excess biogas before it is used in cogeneration. Biogas storage and use will be further
discussed in Section 5.
4.6 Facility Site Location Options

As noted earlier, due the previously perceived cost savings associated with the reuse
of some existing interior process equipment space, two options are currently being
considered for locating the proposed facilities and equipment. A discussion
pertaining to the location of digestion process equipment under each option is
included below.
4.6.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility

As discussed earlier and as shown in Figure 1-2, one potential location is southwest of
the existing chlorine contact chamber. This arrangement allows the two digester
tanks, the digested sludge storage tank, and the Digester Equipment Building to be in
close proximity to each other without requiring any substantial rehabilitation of the
existing process building beyond the thickening system upgrades discussed in
Section 3. This is important in order to reduce the energy required to pump sludge
long distances. Additionally, although the existing 42-in plant influent pipeline
would need to be relocated, this arrangement leaves space for a third digester to be
installed in the future should additional digestion capacity be necessary.
Under this option, the Digester Equipment Building would consist of an upper level
and a lower level. The upper level would be designed to support the majority of the
digestion heating equipment (boiler, heat exchangers, and hot water recirculation
pumps) while the lower level would contain the sludge mixing pumps and
recirculation pumps. The lower level would also house the sludge storage tank
mixing pumps along with the new belt filter press (BFP) feed pumps required to feed
digested sludge to the BFPs. This conceptual building arrangement is shown in
Figure 4-3.
It should be noted that due to seismic and other structural design considerations, the
taller (cylinder) tank alternative is more costly to construct that the lower sidewall
standard digester configuration alternative. For this reason, and because there is
available space in this area of the site, it was assumed that the 65-ft diameter tanks
would be used under Layout Option 1.
4.6.3 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space

A second potential location for the digestion equipment would consist of a
combination of reuse of existing space combined with a new sludge pumping area.
As shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5, this option attempts to locate the digestion
heating equipment (boiler, heat exchangers, and hot water recirculation pumps)
within the southwest corner of the existing process building while a new subgrade
pumping area adjacent to the new digesters would be required to support the digester
mix pumps, sludge storage mix pumps, and BFP feed pumps. Furthermore, due to
4-12
Section 4
the multiple pipes and conduits which would be required between the existing
process building and new sludge pumping area, a pipe tunnel has been provided
under this option between the new space and the existing process tunnel. The
existing piping connecting to TWAS tank No. 4 in the area of the proposed tunnel
would need to be relocated as part of this work.
As shown on Figure 4-4, this option does require a substantial retrofit of the existing
screenings area. The existing wall between the intake screening area and the existing
screenings garage would be relocated to the east while the existing bathroom, laundry
rooms and associated hallway would be removed to allow room for the new
equipment. In addition, to facilitate screenings removal, a new screenings handling
system (new wash presses and conveyor system) along with a new screenings garage
at the east end of the process building would be required. At the request of
LAWPCA, this alternative has also included the complete replacement of the existing
intake screens with new multi-rake style screens.
Due to the site constraints inherent with Layout Option 2 which are apparent in
Figure 1-3, the 65-ft diameter, less costly, standard tank was not a viable option. As a
result, the layout of this option has utilized the taller 50-ft diameter tanks that would
be installed as shown along with the 50-ft digested sludge/biogas storage tank.
4.7 Anaerobic Digester Conceptual Design Summary

The following is a list of tankage and equipment included in the conceptual design.
Digester tanks:
9 Layout Option 1 Separate Facility. Standard Tanks two, 65 foot diameter
concrete tanks with insulation; SWD of each tank is 30.5 feet
9 Layout Option 2 Retrofit. Cylinder Tanks two, 50 foot diameter concrete
tanks with insulation; SWD of each tank is 52 feet
Digester feed Utilize existing TWAS storage tanks to continuously feed TWAS to
digester system. Pump thickened primary sludge from gravity thickeners to
digesters continuously.
Digester Roof Submerged fixed cover
Digester Mixing Pumped mixing system
Digester Heating External heat exchangers. Typically, waste heat from the
cogeneration system provides hot water. In the event that the cogeneration system
is not operating or not producing enough heat to meet the digester heat needs, a
boiler utilizing biogas or natural gas may be used.
4-13
Section 4
Digested Sludge Storage One 50-foot diameter by 15-foot deep tank to store
digested sludge prior to dewatering and new belt filter press feed pumps.
Biogas Storage Gas storage membrane on digested sludge storage tank.
4-14
Section 5
Biogas Handling and Cogeneration
5.1 General
Gas generated by the anaerobic digestion of organic solids is often referred to as
biogas. This gas contains primarily methane and carbon dioxide and is an excellent
source of energy. The energy can be harnessed in a variety of ways, including boilers
for digester and building heating, and reciprocating engines and microturbines for
electricity production.
5.2 Digester Gas Production

The amount of biogas produced during the anaerobic digestion process depends upon
the amount volatile solids entering into and destroyed within the digester. Higher
amounts of volatile solid destruction will, in turn, result in higher biogas production.
For systems that digest municipal biosolids, feed stock to these systems typically
consists of combined (primary and secondary) thickened sludge which contains
approximately 75% volatile solids, 50% of which is generally able to be destroyed.
The addition of alternative feed stocks to the anaerobic digester, including fats, oils
and grease (FOG), should be considered, as they greatly enhance biogas production.
In a recent study performed by the EPA, it was shown that food waste has up to three
times the energy generation potential as municipal biosolids.
Though some alternative feed stocks may be fed to the LAWPCA digestion system,
the design of the biogas system was conservatively based on the following
assumptions and those listed in Table 5-1:
Volatile solids comprise 75% of the total dry solids fed to the digesters.
Volatile solids destruction in digester of 55% (average) and 50% (maximum month).
Digester gas production typically ranges from 1218 cubic feet per pound of
volatiles destroyed. For the purpose of the conceptual design, a value of 15 cubic
feet per pound of volatile solids destroyed is used.
Heating value of digester biogas typically ranges from 500 to 650 BTU/cubic foot.
To be conservative for the purpose of this conceptual design, a value of 550
BTU/cubic foot is used.
5.3 Digester Gas Usage

Digester biogas is typically used at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to heat the
digester. In recent years, as the cost of power has increased and there is greater focus
on renewable energy, biogas generated from digestion at WWTPs is often used in
cogeneration to produce heat and power. The power is typically used onsite to offset
the amount of power purchased from the utility, while the heat is used for digester
A
5816-72780
5-1
Section 5
and/or building heating. In cold climates, the amount of heat reclaimed from the
cogeneration system is not enough to meet the heat needs of the digester and a
supplemental boiler is required.
Average Day
Max Month
TSS to Digester (lbs/day)
27,300
43,100
VSS to Digester (lbs/day)
20,500
32,300
6,800
10,800
11,300
16,100
170,000
242,000
Inert Solids to Digester (lbs/day)

VSS Destroyed in Digester (lbs/day)
Biogas Produced (cubic feet/day)
Biogas Heating Value (MMBTU/day)
Biogas Heating Value (MMBTU/hr)
93
133
3.88
5.54
Table 5-1
Biogas Production Rates and Energy Value of Biogas
From the Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery Feasibility study, reciprocating
engines were the recommended technology for cogeneration. Engines were
recommended due to their high electrical efficiency, number of successful operating
installations, and lower capital and installation costs relative to other cogeneration
systems.
Reciprocating internal combustion engines are a widespread and established
technology. Reciprocating engines are available for power generation applications in
sizes ranging from a 70 kW to over 5 MW. Reciprocating engine technology has
improved over the past few decades, driven by economics, environmental
regulations, increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.
5.3.1 Cogeneration System Sizing

Typically, cogeneration systems are sized to operate on average daily biogas flow.
Additional units may be added for redundancy or to operate at maximum month or
peak conditions. For the purpose of this evaluation, cogen systems will be evaluated
at average daily biogas production. Average daily biogas production is based on
current solids loading, plus a 15% increase to account for future additional loadings to
the treatment plant.
Table 5-2 summarizes the amount of power and heat produced if the biogas is utilized
in a reciprocating engine. Waste heat from the engine may be used to heat the
digester. For the purpose of this evaluation, a parasitic load of 5% is assumed, to
provide energy for gas boosting on the gas conditioning skid.
5-2
Section 5
Average Daily
Biogas Produced
(MMBTU/hr)
Rated
Energy Input
Per Engine
(MMBTU/hr)
Number of
Units
Net
Electrical
Output
(Output
Parasitic
Load) (kW
Recoverable Heat
from Units
(MMBTU/hr)
374
2.01
384
1.97
399
1.95
140 kW
3.88
1.38
3 at 94% load
220 kW
3.88
2.11
2 at 92% load
280 kW
3.88
2.60
2 at 75% load
Table 5-2
Utilizing Biogas in Engine Application
Based on average daily flow, there is enough biogas produced to operate three
140-kW engines at 94% load, two 220-kW engines at 92% load, or two 270-kW engines
operating at 75% load.
The heating needs of the digester system versus the amount heat provided by the
engine system are summarized in Table 5-3. Based on this evaluation all three engine
systems produce enough recoverable heat to heat the digesters year-round at average
day conditions.
Average Day
Winter
Summer
Facility and Digester Required (MMBTU/hr)
1.74
0.68
Energy Available for Heating with 140 kW System

(MMBTU/hr)
2.01
2.01

(MMBTU/hr)
1.97
1.97

(MMBTU/hr)
1.95
1.95
Table 5-3
Digester and Facility Heating Needs vs. Heat from Engine
5-3
Section 5
5.4 Recommended Cogeneration System

The recommended technology for cogeneration at the treatment plant is two 220-kW
reciprocating engines. At average day flow, enough biogas is generated to operate
both engines at 90% load. It is recommended that the engines be sized to operate as
close to 100% load as possible, as engines operating at full load are the most efficient.
At maximum month flow, enough biogas is generated to operate both engines at full
load. Two 220-kW engines are recommended over three 140-kW engines to reduce
engine installation costs.
Accounting for estimated parasitic loads from biogas conditioning and compression,
the system will generate approximately 340 kW of electricity. With the recommended
digester configuration and material of construction, it is estimated that the reclaimed
heat from the 220-kW engine system can meet the thermal loads of the digesters year
round. Typically, heat in the form of hot water is recovered from the engine jacket
and exhaust gases. A hot water loop circulating between the cogeneration system and
the heat exchanges provides heat for the digesters.
5.5 Biogas Conveyance and Storage

The objective of the conveyance system is to convey biogas from the digester to the
place it is being consumed or stored. Anaerobic digestion does not produce biogas at
a constant rate, while biogas is typically used at a constant rate, especially in a
cogeneration system. As such, it is beneficial for biogas systems to include biogas
storage to balance production and use.
5.5.1 Biogas Safety Equipment

In biogas conveyance systems, biogas safety equipment is critical. As biogas is
explosive at low concentrations, it is crucial that the biogas handling system be fitted
with appropriate gas-safety equipment, to protect against the risk of ignition and
explosion. As there are significant electrical code classification issues associated with
biogas handling equipment, it is required that certain gas equipment be physically
separate from the remainder of the digestion equipment, but in close proximity to the
digester tanks.
Any source of ignition, such as waste gas burner, engines, or boilers must be
protected against flashback through the piping with a flame arrestor or flame traps. A
flame arrestor works to quench the flame by dissipating any heat from a potential
explosion in the piping. A flame trap is a combination of a flame arrestor and a
thermal shutoff valve. If a propagating flame is stopped by the arrestor but continues
to burn in the piping, a thermal element in the shutoff valve will melt and seal off the
remainder of the upstream piping from the biogas source.
Although the intention is to maximize utilization of the biogas in the cogeneration
engines, a waste gas burner system is necessary to safely combust all digester gas
produced at the facility in the event the engines and boiler are off-line. A waste gas
5-4
Section 5
burner safely flares excess biogas to the atmosphere and eliminates the potential for
hazardous accumulation of biogas within the conveyance and storage system. For
safety considerations a minimum of 50 feet is required between the waste gas burner
and the digester tanks.
See Figure 5-1 for the proposed layout of the gas safety and handling equipment.
5.5.2 Moisture and Sediment Removal

After leaving the digester, the biogas, at approximately 95 F, comes into contact with
cooler piping and condensate forms within the pipeline. The condensate saturates the
biogas and, as such, the biogas conveyance system must be designed to remove
condensate. The moisture formed within the gas conveyance system can deteriorate
gas handling equipment including check valves, relief valves, gas meters, and
regulators and affect their performance. Moisture can also combine with hydrogen
sulfide present in the biogas to form a sulfuric acid that will corrode piping if the
moisture is not removed.
To effectively remove moisture and sediment, the biogas piping must be sloped to
convey condensate to condensate and sediment traps. Condensate and sediment
traps consist of a sealed vessel that slows down the velocity of the biogas and allows
moisture and solids to settle out of the biogas flow stream. The first condensate and
sediment trap should be located as close to the digester as possible. As such, it is
recommended that a condensate/sediment trap be located in the biogas safety
equipment building, as indicated on Figure 5-1. Others will be located at low points
in the biogas piping as the design develops.
5.5.3 Biogas Metering

To measure the amount of digester gas produced by each digester, it is recommended
that thermal mass dispersion meters be installed. Similar to the moisture and
sediment removal systems, due to electrical code classification reasons, it is
recommended that these meters be installed within the biogas safety equipment
building.
5.5.4 Biogas Storage

As previously noted, because digesters do not produce biogas at a constant rate,
biogas storage is recommended. One common gas storage system is a floating gasholder digester cover which floats on the biogas produced in the tank. The cover
moves up and down to create variable volume and allow a constant biogas pressure
within the headspace of the cover. However, as submerged fixed covers are the
recommended option for the digester tanks, another means of biogas storage is
required.
As discussed in Section 4.3, because the volume of existing sludge storage onsite is
limited, it is recommended that a digested sludge storage tank be constructed. This
5-5
Section 5
tank will store sludge prior to dewatering in the existing belt filter presses. This
storage tank may be fitted with a double membrane gas membrane holder cover
(described in Section 4.5.3) fixed to the top of the tank, allowing for several hours of
biogas storage. The outer membrane maintains a consistent dome shape, while the
inner membrane moves up or down depending upon gas storage requirements.
Ambient air fans and valves add or release air from the space between the inner and
outer membranes to maintain the consistent outer membrane shape and constant
biogas pressure.
5.6 Biogas Treatment

Prior to being utilized in a cogeneration system, some level of biogas treatment is
typically required to remove contaminants. The level of treatment depends on the
concentrations of contaminants in the biogas and end use of the gas. For example,
biogas used in reciprocating engines typically requires less treatment than in
microturbine or fuel cell applications. Contaminants often found in municipal
wastewater digester gas include hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and siloxanes.
5.6.1 Hydrogen Sulfide Biogas Treatment

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in biogas is formed by the reduction of sulfates by anaerobic
bacteria within the digester. Sulfates occur naturally in wastewater from the
decomposition of urine and protein in the influent sludge. Utilization of biogas in
boilers or cogeneration equipment often requires that H2S be removed to reduce
corrosion of the equipment.
The most common methods to remove H2S from digester biogas include chemical
treatment such as the addition of ferric chloride to the digesters or flow through
systems that utilize iron-oxide impregnated wood chip media, known as an iron
sponge system.
Iron sponge technology has been used extensively in the wastewater industry to
reduce hydrogen sulfide in biogas and is considered a proven technology. When
biogas comes into contact with iron sponge media, a chemical reaction with the oxides
effectively removes the hydrogen sulfide from the biogas. After the biogas passes
through the media, stable iron sulfide compound remains on the wood chips. The
iron sponge media is housed in large corrosion resistant vessels such as stainless steel
or reinforced fiberglass tanks. Spent iron sponge media is non-hazardous and may be
disposed of in a landfill.
5.6.2 Siloxane Removal

Siloxanes are a family of man-made organic compounds that contain silicon, oxygen
and methyl groups. Siloxanes are often used in the manufacture of personal hygiene,
health care and industrial products and eventually end up in wastewater. Siloxanes
volatilize into the biogas during the digestion process and when this biogas is
5-6
Section 5
combusted, siloxanes are converted to silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is then deposited
in the combustion or exhaust stages of the equipment.
In reciprocating engines, evidence of siloxanes is found in the form of white powder
deposited on combustion surfaces. In boilers, siloxanes are often deposited in the fire
tubes of boilers utilizing biogas.
The most commonly used method to reduce siloxane levels is carbon adsorption of
the siloxane compounds. In these systems, biogas flows through vessels filled with a
carbon based media.
5.6.3 Biogas Pressure Boosting

The pressure of the biogas from the digested sludge storage tank is estimated to be
approximately 12"16" water column. Typically, this head space pressure is sufficient
to convey the biogas through the H2S removal vessels. Following H2S removal, biogas
is typically boosted before the inlet of siloxane removal media vessels. The pressure
of the biogas downstream of the siloxane removal vessels must match the inlet
pressure of the cogeneration system. The recommended cogeneration engines require
an inlet pressure of between 25 psi. The recommended biogas boosters are
hermetically sealed and sized to provide sufficient capacity to deliver the biogas to
the engines at the required inlet pressure.
5.6.4 Recommended Biogas Treatment System

For the conceptual design, it is recommended that hydrogen sulfide and biogas
pressure boosting be included in the biogas treatment system. A siloxane treatment
system is not currently recommended as the the presence of siloxanes in digester
biogas is difficult to predict without facility-specific biogas sampling. Based on
discussions with LAWPCA personnel during this conceptual design, no industries
were identified within the Lewiston and Auburn collection systems that are thought
to have significant potential to produce wastewater with high silica concentrations,
and in turn, siloxane within the biogas. This fact, combined with the significant cost
of siloxane removal systems, led to the decision not to include this in the planned
biogas treatment system. However, it should be noted that siloxane removal may be a
necessary addition to the biogas treatment system in the future if a high concentration
of siloxanes is detected in the digester biogas.
5.7 Summary
The recommended systems to handle and utilize the biogas at the LAWPCA include
the following components:
Biogas Conveyance and Storage: biogas safety equipment (flame trap, waste gas
burner), moisture and sediment removal, biogas metering, biogas storage in
digested sludge storage tank with gas membrane cover;
5-7
Section 5
Biogas Utilization: two 220-kW reciprocating engines, producing electricity and

hot water for use on-site; and
Biogas treatment: hydrogen sulfide removal and biogas pressure boosting.
5-8
Section 6
This section presents the major existing architectural and structural features of the
proposed digestion facilities to be installed at the LAWPCA wastewater treatment
plant.
6.1 Building Codes and Standards

In accordance with Maine Public Laws Chapter 1103, the Maine Model Building Code
and Maine Uniform Building and Energy Codes including any amendment to the
code adopted by the State Building Inspector and Codes and Standards Committee,
shall be the building code for all towns, cities and boroughs. Therefore, it has
interpreted that the Maine Model Building Code will govern the design of new and
renovated buildings on the project. To form the core requirements of the code, the
State of Maine adopted by reference, the following national codes:
2003 International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
2003 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC)
2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities
2005 National Electrical Code (NFPA-70)
2008 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection

Facilities (NFPA 820)
In addition, with P.L. 2007 Resolve 46, the Legislature recognized that Maine needs
more uniformity of building-related codes across the state. It directed the state to
develop a building and building rehabilitation code implementation plan. A
committee comprised of the departments of Economic and Community Development
and Professional and Financial Regulation, the Fire Marshals Office, Maine Historic
Preservation Commission, and State Planning Office presented their
recommendations report and implementation plan to the Business Research and
Economic Development (BRED) Committee on January 31, 2008. The BRED
Committee accepted the committees recommendations and enacted PL 2007, Chapter
699. On January 1, 2010, Maine will have a new statewide building and energy code.
A new board will streamline code administration and a uniform code will bring more
consistency to builders, developers, and towns. The final design will comply with the
provisions of this new statewide building and energy code.
A
5816-72780
6-1
Section 6
Where applicable, vehicular loads will be determined in accordance with:
AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges
6.2
Architectural Considerations
6.2.1 Option 1 Buildings and Structures

Functional areas which will be addressed as part of the plant upgrade with this
design approach are as follows ( indicates structures with architectural implications):
Existing Process Building There will be a New Gravity Belt Thickener Room
with an area of approximately 2,084 sq. ft., comprised of two zones open into each
other and without any interruptions: one measuring approximately 45'-9"x 36'-8"
and the other measuring approximately 14'-7" x 28'-0". The Room will be accessed
from the corridor through an air-lock vestibule with an area of 106 square feet and
through two sets of double doors equipped with pressure gaskets. The walls will
be 2-hr rated and five vision panels equipped with rated safety glass will also be
provided. Additionally, a New Electrical Room with an area of 356 square feet
will be provided with approximate dimensions of 45'-9" x 7'-10". The New
Electrical Room will be provided with an independent set of 90-min. rated double
doors. The two new rooms will be adjacent to each other and separated by a
2-hour rated 6-inch CMU wall and communicating through a 90-min. rated single
door.
Tanks There will be two new cast-in-place digester tanks with a 65-foot interior
diameter; provisions for the expansion to a future cast-inplace digester tank with
the same dimensions as the new proposed ones are also being made; additionally
there will be a cast-in-place sludge & gas holding tank with a 50-foot interior
diameter.
Tank Locations The four tanks are placed with their centers, each located on
one of four vertices of an imaginary square with a side measuring approximately
94 feet. The new digesters are located respectively on the West and South vertices,
the future digester on the North vertex and the storage/gas holding tank on the
East vertex of the square. Please refer to paragraph 6.3.9 for additional facility
specific structural design considerations.
New Digestion Building The building will have a square footprint with the
sides measuring approximately 45 feet, and located in the center amongst all three
proposed and one future tank. The building is oriented in such a way so that its
vertices are diagonally oriented in relation to the imaginary square whose vertices
are occupied by the centers of the tanks. The building vertices will be located
respectively at the North-South/West, and at the North-South East. The building
will have two levels. The lower level will be entirely occupied by a Sludge Pump
Room and by an enclosed Stairwell leading to the exterior through the upper level
at grade. The upper level will be occupied by the Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room,
6-2
Section 6
by the Electrical Room with its independent entrance opening directly to the
exterior, and by the enclosed Stairwell leading to the exterior.
New Gas Safety Equipment Building The small approximately 12' x 20'
enclosed structure will primarily house gas safety equipment. It will be
constructed with reinforced 8-inch CMU and with a precast concrete hollow core
planks and provided with an access door.
New Waste Gas Burner Exterior pad mounted flare system.
New Gas Treatment Skid The equipment will be installed on an exterior

concrete pad measuring approximately 26'-" x 42'-8" and covered with a
prefabricated steel canopy system measuring 24'-0" x 40'-0". The canopy will be
structured with steel tubes along 4 frames spaced at 13'-4" from each other and
shaped in a gable fashion with a central ridge to span the 24'-0" side of the canopy.
The roof will be built with corrugated metal deck and standing seam metal panels.
New Cogeneration Engines Two exterior Pad mounted generators with

vendors enclosures.
6.2.2 Option 2 Buildings and Structures

Functional areas which will be addressed as part of the plant upgrade with this
design approach are as follows ( indicates structures with architectural implications):
Existing Process Building Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above plus the
following additional changes:
a. New Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room The new room with an area of
approximately 1,516 square feet will be located in an area currently occupied
by the screening garage and by a portion of the headworks area. It will be
separated by 2-hr rated 8-inch reinforced CMU wall. One door will be used to
egress the room to the exterior.
b. New Headworks The new space will have an area of approximately 1,085
square feet, therefore reduced from the current size, and it will be separated
from the adjacent Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room by the new 2-hr rated
reinforced 8-inch CMU wall. The existing exterior door will have to be
relocated to the south to accommodate a new dumpster garage on the East
side.
c. New Screening Dumpster Garage The garage, with an approximate size of
16'-0"x 20'-0", will be structured with a separate frame of cast-in-place concrete
columns and beams and with reinforced 8-inch CMU infill walls. The roof will
be structured with precast concrete hollow core planks. The dumpster can be
6-3
Section 6
accessed by a truck through a 12-foot wide by 14-foot high aluminum coiling

roll-up door.
d. New Exterior Stair Due to the new screening dumpster garage the exterior
stair to the East side where the garage will be added, will need to be
demolished and rebuilt at its relocated position to the South of the current one.
Tanks There will be two new cast-in-place digester tanks with a 50-foot interior
diameter, and one cast-in-place sludge and gas holding tank with a 50-foot
interior diameter.
New Sub-grade Sludge Pump Room and Tunnel The new Pump room will be
entirely below grade between the two digester tanks, with an approximate area of
1,656 square feet. The sides of the room flanking the two digesters will have an
additional segmented separation wall to follow the curvature of the digesters and
it will be built with reinforced 8-inch CMU. A cast-in-place concrete tunnel will
connect this room to the existing building below grade and a cast-in-place
concrete egress stair will lead off the tunnel to the exterior above grade.
New Gas Safety Equipment Building Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1

above.
New Waste Gas Burner Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above.
New Gas Treatment Skid Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above.
New Cogeneration Engines Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above.
6.2.3 Building Systems

The existing plant buildings are constructed with reinforced concrete structural
systems. Galleries, basements and above grade buildings have poured concrete walls,
floors, columns and beams. Roofs are precast concrete double tees, except the
Digester and Sludge Thickener Buildings have poured concrete roofs. Exterior walls
are masonry consisting of face brick exterior with concrete masonry backup, without
insulation. Interior partitions are concrete masonry. Windows are aluminum and
doors and louvers either aluminum or steel painted. These buildings are in sound
condition and can be repaired and reroofed, if necessary, to extend their useful life.
6.2.4 Building Materials and Finishes

6.2.4.1 Existing Process Building (both Options)
The configuration, materials and finishes of the New Gravity Belt Thickener and
Electrical Rooms will be the same in both design approaches, as described in
paragraph 6.2.1 above. There is one additional element that needs to be taken into
consideration, which is relevant to the staging for the removal of the existing
A
6-4
Section 6
equipment, but much more critical to the installation of the new Gravity Thickeners,
and it is the temporary removal of the existing window system to allow the
installation of the Thickeners and re-installation of the same in place. This additional
consideration has been made with the assumption that the existing window system
can be, indeed, temporarily removed and reinstalled. During final design,
replacement of this with a new window or with a fully insulated wall should be
considered. A hazardous materials assessment survey will be required in the existing
buildings to determine the location and approximate quantities of hazardous
materials that are or might be present in areas subject to modifications.
6.2.4.2 New Digestion Building (Option 1)

The walls below grade will be reinforced bearing cast-in-place concrete walls.
Additional vertical loads within the building footprint will be handled by cast-inplace columns. Above grade, the building will be structured with reinforced 8-inch
bearing CMU wall at the perimeter and additional intermediate locations of vertical
load discharge will be handled by steel columns on top of the cast-in-place columns at
the lower level. The exterior walls will have a 4-inch cavity with rigid insulation and
will be faced with 4-inch ground face CMU, in a grey color to blend within the
complex of the cast-in-place tanks around it. The flat roof will be structured with
precast concrete hollow core planks, and tapered insulation will provide the needed
slope to direct the drainage of water to roof drainage inlets. The roof will be covered
with Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) roofing membrane. The enclosed stairwell will
be 2-hr rated, and structured similarly to the rest of the building with cast-in-place
concrete below grade and CMU above grade.
6.2.4.3 New Gas Safety Equipment Building (both Options)

In addition to the information provided at paragraph 6.2.1 above, the design will
consider the use of tapered insulation at a minimum, not for thermal reasons, but to
provide drainage slope to direct water to the proper outlets (i.e., two scuppers) and
the covering of the roof with TPO roofing membrane.
6.2.4.4 New Gas Treatment Skid (both Options)

In addition to the information provided at paragraph 6.2.1 above, the design will
consider specifying galvanizing and, for added long-term protection, painting all the
pre-engineered steel frames. Additionally, the system will require some braced bays
to be determined by the vendor and to be approved by the Engineer, in order to
provide lateral stability.
6.2.5 Roofing Systems

The proposed system for all new stand-alone structures or addition to existing
buildings is generally a TPO roofing membrane adhered to underlayment board over
tapered rigid polyisocyanurate insulation over a vapor retarder sheet. The assembly
will be adhesive or mechanically attached to the roof deck. Insulation will be of
6-5
Section 6
thickness necessary to meet energy code requirements (New Digestion Building only
in Option 1) and to provide drainage slopes.
6.2.6 Proposed Interior Finishes

Interior finishes should be appropriate to the use of the space, durable and facilitate
maintenance of clean and sanitary conditions. Spaces such as the headworks, where
wastewater is processed, and moisture is constantly present, should have finishes that
resist physical abuse and moisture damage, are readily washed down and inhibit
corrosion of building elements. Pipe galleries, pump rooms and the garage, where
condensation may occur, humidity may be high and occasional wash down is
required, should have finishes that protect building elements from corrosion, as well
as resistant to damage from the atmosphere and usual activities occurring in the
space. Finishes in rooms intended for employees should be suited to their particular
function, resistant to moisture and chemicals, readily cleanable and contribute to
good illumination and acoustics.
The following are proposed finishes intended to fulfill these objectives:
6.2.6.1 Floors
Subject to chemicals or regular wash down epoxy seamless flooring
Dry process areas, garage hardened concrete with sealer
6.2.6.2 Walls
Process, electrical and mechanical rooms, garage epoxy painted
6.2.6.3 Ceilings
Exposed structure, epoxy painted
6.2.6.4 Doors and Frames
Exterior Stainless Steel for long life, ease of maintenance and durability.
Interior FRP for better responsiveness to moist environment with or without

chemically aggressive conditions.
6.3 Structural Considerations

6.3.1 Design Loads and Serviceability
Applicable loads and load combinations will be determined as required by the
governing code, occupancy, site and environmental effects, equipment, and processes.
Appropriate load combinations will be established, as well as, appropriate allowable
stresses, load factors, and safety factors (as applicable). These criteria will be
confirmed at the beginning of final design.
6-6
Section 6
6.3.1.1 Dead Loads

Dead loads are those resulting from the weight of fixed construction such as walls,
partitions, floors, roofs, cladding, equipment bases, and permanent, non-removable,
stationary furnishings. Numerical values for the dead load of well-defined
components of a structure will be used as documented in the following publications:
ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
AISC Manual of Steel Construction
CRSI Handbook
Manufacturer's catalogs for fabricated components
6.3.1.2 Live Loads

Live loads will consist of loads due to occupancy, furnishings and equipment. Live
load reduction will not be employed for members of large influence area in the design
of environmental facilities, due to the relatively high probability of simultaneous
loads on all areas. Uniform live loads will be established in accordance with the
governing code. Values are listed below for purposes of preliminary design. Actual
usage and equipment will be considered during final design and higher loadings used
when appropriate.
General Administrative Buildings
Office areas
50 psf
Office file, record and mainframe computer areas
125 psf
Personnel assembly areas
100 psf
Stairways, corridors, lobbies
100 psf
Partitions (present or future)
30 psf
Roofs
20 psf
Storage areas
250 psf
Catwalks
100 psf
Garages, passenger cars only
100 psf
Garages, other vehicles
AASHTO load or design vehicle
Process Buildings and Structures
Office areas
150 psf
Office file, record and mainframe computer areas
150 psf
Personnel assembly areas
150 psf
Stairways, corridors, lobbies, catwalks
150 psf
6-7
Section 6
Storage areas
300 psf
Process areas (including hatches and gratings)
200 psf
Electrical rooms
300 psf
Control rooms
150 psf
Maintenance garages
Unrestricted vehicular areas
AASHTO loading or 300 psf

AASHTO HS20
Equipment Loads
Loads from equipment will be considered live loads. The maximum loads and
support details for each major piece of equipment will be provided by the
discipline designing or specifying it. Final weights of process-mechanical
equipment will be established during preliminary design. Preliminary weights of
building service equipment (HVAC, plumbing, and electrical) will be confirmed
during final design.
In addition to the mechanisms static dead load, design will be performed for
other effects, such as those due to operation, maintenance and malfunction.
Examples include, but are not limited to, the following.
9 Rotating agitator equipment (mixers, flocculators, and mechanical aerators)
Design will be performed for moment, torque, and lateral/vertical thrust.
9 Rotating clarifier mechanisms Design will be performed for stalling torque.
9 Vertical turbine pumps Design will be performed for suction load plus the
weight of the suspended water column in the riser.
9 Sluice gates, non-self-contained Design will be performed for a load equal
to the breaking strength of the operating stem, or the stalling torque of the
motorized operator, in the event the gate is frozen.
9 All equipment Design will be performed for required maintenance
procedures, such as the removal of a large component and the placing of it
temporarily on the adjacent structure.
Impact Loads
Static loads will be increased for the effects of impact by the following
percentages:
9 Vehicular loads In accordance with the AASHTO Specification

9 Bridge crane supports 25 percent of hoist capacity. 20 percent of the sum of
the hoist capacity, hoist weight, and trolley weight will be applied as a lateral
A
6-8
Section 6
load, and 10 percent of the sum of the hoist capacity and total crane weight
will be applied as a longitudinal load.
9 Monorail supports 25 percent of hoist capacity. 10 percent of the sum of the
hoist capacity and hoist weight will be applied as a longitudinal load.
9 Light machinery supports, shaft or motor driven 20 percent of the operating
weight (minimum) or manufacturer's recommendation.
9 Reciprocating machinery or power-driven unit supports 50 percent of the
operating weight (minimum) or manufacturer's recommendation.
9 Hangers supporting floors or balconies 33 percent of live load reaction
Construction Live Loads
When it is necessary to provide particular restrictions on construction sequencing,
special load conditions may result. This is particularly applicable to work involving
the modification of existing structures. These cases will be evaluated and appropriate
criteria established during final design. Such restrictions will be indicated in the
drawings or specifications.
6.3.1.3 Environmental Loads

Snow and Rainwater Loads
Snow loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the
governing code. Appropriate modification factors, drifting effects, and uneven
distributions will be considered for each structure.
Ground snow load:
Importance factor:
70 psf
Establish for each structure per governing code
based on occupancy
Roofs will be designed for retained water to its maximum depth (accounting for
deflection) assuming that the primary drainage system is blocked. Overflow scuppers
or other secondary drainage systems may be used to minimize this load. This
criterion will be coordinated with architectural and plumbing disciplines.
Wind Loads
Wind loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the
governing code. Appropriate shape modification factors, uneven distributions, and
orthogonal effects will be considered for each structure. Main wind force resisting
systems, as well as appropriate components and cladding, will be designed for
internal and external effects. Increased allowable stresses or reduced load factors will
be used, as appropriate.
6-9
Section 6
Basic wind speed:

Importance factor:
100 mph (3 sec gust)

based on occupancy
Internal loads due to positive or negative air pressure caused by mechanical or

process systems will not be considered wind loads. These loads will be considered in
the manner of a process liquid load.
Seismic Loads
Seismic loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the
governing code. Increased allowable stresses or reduced load factors will be used, as
appropriate.
MCE spectral acceleration Ss:
0.323
MCE spectral acceleration S1:
0.080
Seismic Design Category:

based on Seismic Use Group
Loads on the seismic resisting system will be developed in accordance with the
governing code for the particular system. The Site Class will be used as
recommended in the geotechnical report. Loads from mechanical and architectural
components not covered by the governing code will be developed in accordance with
IBC.
6.3.1.4 Process Liquid Loads

Design will be performed for liquid loads assuming liquid surface at the maximum
working level using normal allowable stresses, or the load factor for a live load, as
appropriate. In addition, design will be performed assuming the liquid surface at the
maximum possible level under surcharge conditions using an increase in allowable
stresses, or the load factor for a dead load, as appropriate.
Where cells of a tank communicate so that one cannot be isolated from an adjacent cell
(by valves, gates, stoplogs, or other normal operational means), the separating walls
will not be designed for liquid on one side only. However, design will be performed
for a 12-inch minimum water level differential on either side of the wall to account for
flow lag and minor dynamic effects, unless hydraulic analyses indicate a different
level.
Elements acting as or affected by screens (which remove trash or other solids from
flow) will be designed for liquid to its maximum level, assuming the screen is
completely blocked. Elements acting as flow baffles (at which blockage is unlikely)
6-10
Section 6
will be designed for a 12-inch minimum water level differential, unless hydraulic
analyses indicate a different level.
Closed liquid containing structures will, whenever possible, be vented to preclude
pressurization or depressurization. However, certain structures may experience
pressure or vacuum effects due to particular mechanical or process systems, or the
malfunction of systems or components. In such cases, design will be performed for
the maximum water, air or gas pressure as provided by the mechanical-process
discipline in preliminary design.
6.3.1.5 External Earth and Groundwater Loads

Earth and groundwater loads will be developed from the following criteria in
accordance with the project geotechnical report (Section 8) and the governing code.
Design Grade Elevation
Design will be performed for ground surface at finish grade. Substructures will be
designed to permit the external excavation to be backfilled after the construction of
the ground level slab. Should substantial economical advantages be realized by
altering this criterion, limits of backfill requirements will be indicated in the contract
documents.
Design Groundwater Elevation
Design will be performed for groundwater at the elevations indicated in the project
geotechnical report.
For liquid-containing structures with passive pressure relief systems which include
underdrains and valves designed to fill the structure when groundwater pressure
exceeds the interior water pressure, normal and flood design groundwater elevation
will be established at the valve centerline.
For liquid and non-liquid-containing structures with passive pressure relief systems
which include underdrain systems designed to permanently drain groundwater from
the structure, normal design groundwater elevation will be established at the
centerline of the underdrain high point.
When the project design groundwater level is below finish grade, design
groundwater elevation will be established at finish grade for relatively small belowgrade structures, such a manholes and vaults, to account for localized rises in
groundwater due to pipe breaks, leaking structures, etc.
Groundwater Pressures
Design will be performed for pressures generated by groundwater acting laterally,
downward and upward, as appropriate. Load factors appropriate for live loads will
be used. Design will be performed for groundwater at the normal elevation for
normal allowable stresses or load factors, as appropriate. Design will be performed
6-11
Section 6
for groundwater at the flood elevation for increased allowable stresses or reduced
load factors, as appropriate.
Lateral Soil and Groundwater Pressures
The following equivalent fluid pressures will be used in preliminary design for wellgraded, granular, mineral soils with a moist unit weight of 120 pcf. Soil pressures for
final design will be developed in accordance with the geotechnical report. Design for
cantilevered walls of environmental engineering structures will be performed for atrest soil pressures.
Pressure
Condition
Pressure
Coefficient
Equivalent Lateral Fluid Pressure

Above Groundwater
Below Groundwater
At Rest (minimum)
0.50
60 pcf
90 pcf
Active (minimum)
0.33
40 pcf
80 pcf
Passive (maximum)
3.00
360 pcf
170 pcf
Walls to which vehicles can reasonably be expected to approach within a distance

equal to half the wall height will be designed for a uniform surcharge equal to 2 feet
of soil.
6.3.1.6 Miscellaneous Loads

Design will be performed for other applicable loads as required by the project
circumstances. Appropriate acceptable allowable stresses and load factors will be
established.
6.3.1.7 Combination of Loads

General
Design will be performed for combinations of loads, along with appropriate load
factors or allowable stresses, in accordance with the governing code. In the absence of
specific direction by the code, the most severe distribution, concentration and
combination of design loads and forces will be used. These combinations may be
limited by practical considerations, such as the following:
Combination of certain loads will not be considered when the probability of their
simultaneous occurrence is negligible. Such loads include wind and seismic on
superstructures; and seismic, live load surcharge, and flood on substructures.
An increase in allowable stress of 33 percent, or a reduced load factor of 0.75, will

be applied to the entire load combination where such is permitted for any of the
loads considered in the combination.
6-12
Section 6
The effects of any load type (other than dead load) will not be used to reduce the
effects of another load type. A maximum of 90 percent of the dead load will be
used in any combination where it reduces the effects of another load type.
Liquid Containing or Below-grade Structures

Design will be performed for structures that contain liquids, extend below grade, or
both, for the following load combinations.
Liquid-containing compartments full, no backfill for liquid containing

compartments. No reduction will be made for any counteracting soil pressure on
the face remote from a contained liquid unless approved.
Backfill and groundwater with liquid-containing compartments empty and full.
Liquid containing compartments empty or full in any combination.
6.3.2 Serviceability
Additional requirements for serviceability will be considered as provided in
subsequent sections and referenced standards for specific materials.
6.3.2.1 Deflection
Design will be performed to limit deflections to the following. In cases indicated with
an asterisk (*), deflection limit will apply to live load effects only. For monorails and
cranes, impact need not be included.
Monorails, including the effects of differential support deflection
L/450
Bridge crane girders
L/1000
Floor plates and gratings*
L/360
Beams, lintels or slabs supporting masonry
L/720 (3/8 inch maximum at

windows)
Roofs without plastered ceilings*
L/240
Roofs with plastered ceilings*
L/360
Floors, steel framed*
L/360
Floors, concrete
In accordance with ACI 318
6.3.2.2 Ponding
Ponding refers to water retention due to the effects of deflection on a flat roof. For
flexible roof systems, sufficient stiffness will be provided to prevent successive water
retention and deflection leading to failure.
6-13
Section 6
6.3.2.3 Vibration
Design will be performed for the effects of vibration to provide appropriate protection
against structural deterioration, mechanical deterioration, and significant occupant
discomfort. Under normal circumstances, the guidelines below will generally be
followed. If deemed necessary by the supervising structural personnel, a dynamic
analysis of the system will be performed.
Mechanical Vibration
Concern for mechanical vibration is greatest for equipment such as blowers,
generators, compressors, steady bearings at pump shafts and centrifuges. Operating
frequencies, unbalanced loads, and specific design recommendations will be obtained
from the manufacturer by the discipline specifying the equipment.
To avoid resonant vibration, the ratio of the structures natural frequency to the
operating frequency of the equipment will be restricted to less than 0.50 or greater
than 1.50. Where practical, the latter will be used to avoid resonance during
equipment startup and shutdown. Consideration will be given to applicable modes
of vibration, including vertical, lateral, and rotational.
Design will be performed in accordance with the following guidelines for equipment
which produce significant vibrational effects, where possible and appropriate.
Equipment will be mounted on concrete foundations or supporting systems rather

than metal supporting systems.
A foundation mat will be provided with a mass equal to ten times the rotating
mass of the equipment or three times the gross mass of the equipment (minimum),
whichever is greater.
Major equipment foundations and supporting systems will be isolated by

expansion joints or independent supports from the remaining structure to
minimize vibrational transmission.
Vibration isolators, dampeners, and/or inertia blocks will be provided where

appropriate.
Anchorage to foundations will be provided by embedded anchor bolts. Drilled

anchors will not be used.
Transient Vibration
For elevated steel walkways or platforms, beams will be provided with a depth
greater than or equal to 1/20 of the span.
6-14
Section 6
6.3.3 Foundation Design

6.3.3.1 Scope
Criteria will be established for the design of structure foundations in coordination
with the geotechnical recommendations. Permanent structure foundation elements
will be designed to distribute loads to the supporting soil in accordance with their
allowable loads, and to accommodate predicted deformations of the structure caused
by settlement or movement of the supporting elements. Structure foundation
elements will be designed to resist effects of groundwater, including buoyancy.
6.3.3.2 Frost Protection

Protection will be provided for structures against excessive heave or settlement due to
the action of frost. In most cases, the bearing level of frost-susceptible foundation
elements will be established below the frost depth as provided in the geotechnical
report. For minor structures that are tolerant to some movement, bearing level may
be established above the frost depth, provided that frost formation can be inhibited in
the zone between the bearing level and frost depth by providing a layer of freedraining material.
6.3.3.3 Shallow Foundation Support

Design of shallow foundation elements (footings and mats), including excavation and
backfill limits and details, will be performed in accordance with the recommendations
of the geotechnical report.
To the extent possible, buried piping and ductbanks will be maintained outside the
influence zone of the foundation elements. Limits of this zone will be established
based on bearing materials characteristics as documented in the geotechnical report.
A reinforced concrete encasement or other appropriate protection will be provided for
any utilities extending into this zone.
6.3.3.4 Retaining Walls

The stability of retaining walls will be confirmed for appropriate lateral soil and
groundwater pressures, surcharges and other applicable loads. Passive pressures
from the soil in front of the wall or footing keys will not be used to reduce loads,
stresses, or overturning and sliding effects, unless measures are taken to ensure
against erosion or removal of the soil and approved. Design will be performed for the
following factors of safety.
Overturning:
2.0
Sliding:
1.5
For design of retaining walls with portions below the design groundwater level, the
effects of uplift pressures will be considered in stability analyses.
6-15
Section 6
6.3.3.5 Buoyancy
Buoyancy is defined as the condition of instability resulting when uplift forces due to
groundwater exceed resisting forces due to dead load and anchorage systems. Design
will be performed in accordance with the following.
Complete Structures
For groundwater at the design level, structures will be designed to resist buoyancy
considering only the structure dead load, soil directly above the structure and footing
extensions. The effects of live loads, liquid contents (unless relief valves are used),
vertical soil friction and soil cohesion will be neglected. When anchorage systems are
used, they will be designed to resist the net uplift force transmitted to the components
of the anchorage. Structures will be designed to provide a minimum factor of safety
of 1.15, calculated as the ratio of total resisting force to total buoyant force.
Partially Complete Structures
Since the contractor will normally be required to maintain a dewatered excavation, it
will be assumed that groundwater will be maintained, at any given time, at or below
the surface of the backfill currently in place. If the completed portion of the structure
has insufficient resistance against pressures generated in this condition, the
groundwater elevations at which the structure is stable will be provided in the
contract documents.
Buoyancy Prevention Systems
Pressure relief valves will usually be wall-mounted valves, designed to allow
groundwater to enter a liquid-containing cell when the groundwater pressure exceeds
the interior liquid pressure. Where possible, they will be installed at an elevation
above normal groundwater level to allow dewatering of the cell under most normal
conditions. The valves will normally be connected to an underdrain system, as
described below, to relieve pressure build-up at locations remote from the valves.
Where appropriate, design buoyant pressures will be reduced using an underdrain
system beneath the structure. The system will consist of a network of perforated
underdrain pipes, connected installed in a continuous layer of crushed stone. Filter
fabric will be provided between the crushed stone and surrounding soil to prevent
migration of fines into the stone voids.
6.3.4 Concrete Design

6.3.4.1 Scope
Design of cast-in-place, site-cast, and precast concrete structures will be performed,
except as indicated below. Member sizes, reinforcement, and details will be
determined in accordance with the governing code.
Design of site concrete work, such as paving, curbing, and sidewalks will be
performed by the civil discipline. Design of the following structures and elements
6-16
Section 6
will be performed by the fabricator or erector, in accordance with criteria provided in

the contract documents.
Precast site structures, including manholes, vaults, pipe, culverts, and headwalls
Precast, prestressed roof planks and tees
Precast architectural elements, including wall panels, copings, and sills
6.3.4.2 Codes and Standards

Concrete structures will be designed in accordance with the following, as appropriate.
General structures:
ACI 318
Environmental engineering structures:
ACI 350
Reinforcing steel, welding:
AWS D1.4
Structures that convey, store or treat liquid, are subjected to severe exposures, or have
restrictive leakage requirements will be designed as environmental engineering
structures.
Design of miscellaneous roadway structures, such as culverts and headwalls will be
performed in accordance with the state highway standards and the AASHTO
Specification.
6.3.4.3 Materials and Design Strengths

Design will be performed for concrete with the following minimum 28-day
compressive strengths (fc).
Structural concrete:
4,000 psi
Concrete topping:
4,000 psi
Precast concrete:
5,000 psi
Prestressed concrete:
5,000 psi
Design will be performed for the strengths and properties of the following materials.
Deformed reinforcing bars:
ASTM A615, Grade 60
Deformed reinforcing bars, welded or field bent:
ASTM A706
Welded wire fabric, plain:
ASTM A185
Welded wire fabric, deformed:
ASTM A497
6-17
Section 6
6.3.4.4 Design Methods

Environmental engineering structures will be designed by the Strength Design
Method (Ultimate Strength) with the modified allowable stresses, durability
coefficients and serviceability requirements recommended in ACI 350 for the
appropriate sanitary exposure. Structures other than environmental engineering
structures will be designed by the Strength Design Method.
6.3.5 Masonry Design

6.3.5.1 Scope
The size and layout of loadbearing masonry elements (exterior walls, bearing walls,
shearwalls, pilasters, columns, beams, and lintels) as designed by the architectural
discipline will be reviewed to ensure a continuous and stable loadbearing system.
Design of loadbearing and non-loadbearing elements (such as partition walls and
veneer) and their connections will be performed in accordance with applicable
criteria.

Design of masonry structures, elements, and details will be performed in accordance
with the following.
Concrete and clay masonry:
ACI 530 and ACI 530.1
6.3.5.3 Materials and Design Strengths

Design will be performed for the specified strengths and properties of the following
materials.
Masonry Units:
Concrete masonry units
ASTM C90, Type I (1900 psi)
Hollow brick units
ASTM C652, Grade SW, Type HBX
Face brick units
ASTM C216, Grade SW, Type FBS
Concrete brick units
ASTM C55, Grade N, Type 1
Ceramic glazed structural units
ASTM C126
Mortar and Grout:

Mortar
ASTM C270, Type S (1800 psi)
Grout
ASTM C476, Fine Grout (2500 psi)
6-18
Section 6
Reinforcement:
Deformed Bars
ASTM A615, Grade 60
Joint Reinforcing
ASTM A82
The specified compressive strength of masonry, fm, will be as follows.

Concrete masonry
1500 psi

Design will be performed for masonry elements and their components in accordance
with Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methods specified in the applicable codes and
standards. Where approved, elements may be designed using specified empirical
methods.
6.3.6 General Design and Detailing

6.3.6.1 Reinforcing
Deformed bar reinforcing will be provided in load-bearing and exterior masonry and
where necessary in interior partitions. All courses and cells containing bars will be
fully grouted.
In all masonry, horizontal joint reinforcing will be provided spaced at a maximum of
16 inches vertically to control cracking. Horizontal joint reinforcing will be
considered to be part of the total horizontal reinforcing where required. Joint
reinforcing will be hot-dip galvanized and consist of two parallel 9-gauge wires with
9-gauge connecting diagonal cross-rods or box ties welded to them at 16-inch
maximum spacing.
6.3.6.2 Below Grade and Submerged Applications

Masonry will not be used in either below ground or submerged applications unless
dictated by project requirements and approved. When required, solid or fully
grouted hollow units will be used with an appropriate coating for protection and leak
prevention.
6.3.6.3 Veneer
Non-structural masonry veneers will be selected, detailed and specified by the
architectural discipline. The structural adequacy of veneer attachments and the
weights used in dead load calculations will be verified.
6-19
Section 6
6.3.6.4 Control Joints

In general, the spacing of control joints in masonry walls will be controlled by other
building components and architectural requirements. The layout of control joints will
be reviewed for its effect on the structural design of the masonry, particularly in
regard to structural elements such as masonry lintels and bond beams functioning as
tension chords in box system buildings.
6.3.7 Structural Metal Design

6.3.7.1 Scope
Design of structural metal structures, systems, elements and details, will be
performed, except as indicated below, for the applicable criteria.
Design of the following structures and elements will be performed by the fabricator or
vendor, in accordance with criteria provided in the contract documents.
Access hatches
Pre-engineered buildings and stairways
Castings, such as manhole covers and trench grates
Storage tanks and silos
Stacks and chimneys
Piping, ductwork, and conduit hangers and supports
Flat and domed odor control covers
Patented track for monorails and underhung bridge cranes

Design of metal structures and elements will be performed in accordance with the
following.
Structural and miscellaneous steel:
AISC Specification ASD (unless otherwise noted)
Steel joists and joist girders:
SJI Specification
Steel deck, general:
SDI Manual
Steel deck, diaphragms:
SDI Diaphragm Manual
Aluminum:
AA Aluminum Design Manual
Stainless steel:
AISI
Welding, steel:
AWS D1.1
6-20
Section 6
Welding, aluminum:
AWS D1.2
Welding, stainless steel:
AWS D1.6
6.3.7.3 Design Strengths

Design will be performed for the specified strengths and properties of the following
materials
Steel:
Structural steel wide flange shapes:
ASTM A 992
Other structural steel shapes; plate; and bars:
ASTM A 36
Structural steel tubing:
ASTM A500, Grade B
Structural steel pipe:
ASTM A53
High strength steel bolts:
ASTM A 325-SC
Anchor bolts and threaded rods:
ASTM A 307
Welding electrodes:
AWS E70XX
Aluminum:
Aluminum extruded shapes:
ASTM B221, 6061-T6
Aluminum sheet and plate:
ASTM B209, 6061-T6
Aluminum extruded pipe:
ASTM B429, 6063-T6 or 6061-T6
Stainless Steel:
Stainless steel shapes:
ASTM A276, Type 316
Stainless steel plate and sheet:
ASTM A167, Type 304 or 316
Stainless steel bolts
ASTM A276, Type 316

General
Design of structural metals will be performed in accordance with Allowable Stress
Design (ASD) methods specified in the referenced codes and standards. Load Factor
and Resistance Design methods (LRFD) may be used with approval.
6-21
Section 6
Steel Deck
Deck sizes, profiles and connections will be selected from load tables in the referenced
standards.
Joists and Joist Girders
Sizes will be selected from load tables in the referenced standards. Design loads will
be provided in the contract documents. For loads other than uniform loads, a load
diagram will be provided.
Gratings
Sizes of metal gratings will be selected in accordance with the manufacturers load
tables for uniform loads and limited concentrated loads defined in the tables. For
other loads, design will be performed in accordance with ASD methods specified in
the appropriate material standards.
6.3.8 Modification of Existing Structures

6.3.8.1 Scope
The adequacy of existing structures, elements, and details will be verified for
modifications (alterations, repairs, and additions) as required by the governing code.
New structural elements will be designed as required by the proposed modifications
in accordance with applicable criteria.
6.3.8.2 General Design and Detailing

Design and detailing of modifications to existing structures will conform to the
criteria provided for the specific materials involved.
6.3.9 Facility Specific Structural Design Considerations

The following is a description of specific recommendations related to the structural
design of the improvements to the Lewiston-Auburn WPCF.
6.3.9.1 New Digesters

Two new digesters will be provided. It is assumed that the digesters will be
constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. However, during design, the benefits
of constructing the tanks out of precast concrete will be investigated. Details of
construction for the digesters are different for Option 1 and Option 2 as described
below.
Option 1
Two new digesters, approximately 65 feet in diameter, with a sidewater depth of
approximately 30.5 feet, will be provided. The digesters will be constructed out of
cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and they will be soil-supported. The base mat of the
digester will slope (at approximately 1V:6H) to a low point in the center of the
digester. A fixed cast-in-place concrete cover will be provided at the top of the
digester. Finished grade will be approximately 15 above the base mat high point.
6-22
Section 6
Option 2
Two new digesters, approximately 50 feet in diameter, with a sidewater depth of
approximately 52 feet, will be provided. The digesters will be constructed out of castin-place reinforced concrete, and they will be pile-supported. The base slab of the
digester will slope (at approximately 1V:6H) to a low point in the center of the
digester. A fixed cast-in-place concrete cover will be provided at the top of the
digester. Finished grade will be approximately 20 feet above the base mat high point.
6.3.9.2 New Digestion Building (OPTION 1 ONLY)

Under Option 1, a new building will be constructed near the two new digesters. The
building will have one level below ground, with the bottom slab at approximately the
same level as the high point of the digesters base mat. The lower level will house
recirculation pumps and mixing pumps. The main room of the upper level will have
one room for a boiler and heat exchangers and a separate electrical room. The roof
will be constructed out of precast concrete planks with steel beams supported by
interior steel columns and the exterior CMU bearing/shear walls. The ground floor
slab will be a cast-in-place concrete slab with concrete beams supported by interior
concrete columns and the exterior concrete walls. The foundation of the building will
be a soil-supported concrete mat.
6.3.9.3 Existing Process Building Modifications (OPTION 2 ONLY)

Under Option 2, the existing Process Building will be modified to house new process
and HVAC equipment. The portion of the Process Building where this work is being
done has two levels below ground and one level above ground. The lower level of the
building is constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls and base slab. The
ground floor and the roof are both constructed of cast-in-place reinforced slabs and
beams.
New HVAC equipment will be hung from the existing roof. New pumps, a boiler,
and heat exchangers will be supported on the existing floor slab. In the headworks
portion of the building, new mechanical bar screens, new screenings washers, and
new screening conveyors will be installed.
The existing structural elements will be analyzed for their ability to support the new
loads from the new equipment in accordance with the building code. If necessary,
reinforcement for the existing structural elements will be provided.
A new one-story screenings garage will be built to the east of the headworks portion
of the existing Process Building. The new garage will be approximately 16'x 25' x 16'
high. It will have a cast-in-place concrete roof, supported by concrete beams and
columns, and a soil-supported perimeter foundation wall with spread footings. The
ground floor will be a concrete slab-on-grade. The new garage structure will be
structurally independent from the existing structure so no loads will be transmitted to
the existing structure.
6-23
Section 6
6.3.9.4 New Pump Room and Pipe Tunnel (OPTION 2 ONLY)

Under Option 2, a cast-in-place reinforced concrete building will be constructed
between the two digesters. The building will have one level below ground, with the
bottom slab at approximately the same level as the high point of the digesters base
mat. The lower level will house recirculation pumps, mixing pumps and belt filter
press feed pumps. The top slab will be a cast-in-place concrete slab with concrete
beams supported by interior concrete columns and the exterior concrete walls. The
foundation of the building will be a concrete mat. The walls of the building cannot be
common with the digesters walls, so a double wall will be provided at the digesters.
The inner wall will be constructed of CMU. There will be a stairway from the top slab
down to the lower level, and an enclosure for the stairway shall be provided on the
top slab. The enclosure will be constructed of CMU bearing walls with a cast-in-place
concrete roof slab.
Also under Option 2, piping from the digester will run within a below-grade pipe
tunnel. The tunnel will run from the pump room to the existing Process Building and
will have interior dimensions of approximately 8-feet wide x 10-feet high. The new
tunnel will be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls, top slab, and
bottom slab, and will be soil supported. Where the new tunnel meets up with the
existing Process Building, a new opening will have to be created in the foundation
wall of the existing building, and a watertight connection from the new tunnel walls
to the existing building walls will be provided.
6.3.9.5 New Digester Gas Holder

A new digester gas holder will be provided in the yard. The digester gas holder will
consist of a membrane cover supported by cast-in-place concrete walls, with a soilsupported cast-in-place concrete base mat. The gas holder is anticipated to be
approximately 50 feet in diameter with 15-foot high concrete walls. The gas holder
will also provide storage for sludge.
6.3.9.6 New Gas Control Building

The new gas control building will be approximately 12-ft x 20-ft in plan. The
superstructure will consist of CMU bearing walls and a precast concrete roof. It shall
be supported by perimeter wall footings. The ground floor will be a concrete slab-ongrade.
6.3.9.7 New Waste Gas Burner Foundation

The waste gas burner and associated piping will be supported by a soil supported
cast-in-place concrete mat foundation.
6.3.9.8 New Gas Treatment Skid

The gas safety equipment will be located on an exterior soil-supported concrete mat
foundation. It will be covered by a pre-engineered steel canopy, which will be
6-24
Section 6
supported on the same mat foundation. The canopy dimensions will be

approximately 24-ft x 40-ft.
6.3.9.9 New Cogeneration Equipment Foundation

The cogeneration equipment will be supported by a soil supported cast-in-place
concrete mat foundation.
6-25
Section 7
This section describes the support functions and facilities including the sites electrical
distribution system. This section summarizes existing conditions, recommended
upgrades and improvements to these support functions.
7.1 Electrical Systems

7.1.1 Electrical System Overview
The existing wastewater treatment plant electrical distribution system was installed in
the early 1970s during the construction of the facility. In general the distribution
equipment appears to be in good working condition, however, it should be noted that
the average useful life of the electrical equipment including cables is approximately
2530 years and this useful life has been reached.
This section of the report details the existing electrical system, identifies areas of
vulnerability and presents recommendations for improvements and replacements.
Section 7.1.2 discusses the existing electrical distribution system configuration.
Section 7.1.3 indicates observed problems including common mode failure points,
reliability issues, NEC violations and capacity issues as well as observed areas of
vulnerabilities. Section 7.1.4 presents the recommended upgrades and improvements.
Lastly, Section 7.1.5 includes a discussion of area classifications throughout the plant
as defined by NFPA 820.
7.1.2 Existing Electrical System

Refer to Figure 7-1 for an overall one-line diagram of the existing electrical
distribution system. Note that Figure 7-1 includes a proposed layout for the new 480V
switchboard required in Task II.
7.1.2.1
Utility Service
Electrical service to the LAWPCA facility is provided by Central Maine Power Co.
(CMP). A 12kV primary feeder runs overhead along Lincoln Street to a service riser
pole located on the Northeast side of the Administration Building. The primary feeder
extends underground from this location to three utility-owned 500 kVA single phase
transformers located in an enclosed area on the South side of the Administration
Building.
The transformers are configured to provide 1500 kVA with a secondary voltage of
480/277V, 3-phase, 4-wire, 60Hz. The secondary conductors are run underground
from the transformers to a LAWPCA-owned 2000-amp switchboard located in the
Main Electrical Room. The CMP service has secondary meters on the 480V conductors
in the main switchboard.
A
5816-72780
7-1
Section 7
7.1.2.2
Existing Distribution System
The existing electrical distribution system at the WWTP has remained essentially
intact over the last 40 years since the original construction contract in 1970 with
upgrades as necessary to support upgraded process equipment.
As shown in Figure 7-1, the distribution system extends from the existing 480V main
switchboard to local motor control centers (MCC) located in various process areas
throughout the plant to serve the plant process and mechanical loads. The MCCs and
process loads are fed from a single bus in the 480V switchboard. This arrangement
does not meet the EPA Class II reliability requirements for the Anaerobic
Digestion/Energy Recovery project.
7.1.3 Electrical Observations and Vulnerability

7.1.3.1 General
This section addresses issues of vulnerability within the existing electrical distribution
system as it relates to age of the equipment, susceptibility to common mode failure
and overall level of reliability and redundancy.
7.1.3.2
Conditions
As mentioned above, the existing electrical distribution system has remained

essentially intact over the last approximately 40 years. It should be noted that the
average useful life of the electrical equipment including cables is approximately 2530
years. Therefore, many of the components (e.g., circuit breakers, contactors,
transformers, etc.) may be worn beyond the manufacturers recommended limits. It is
not unreasonable to expect an increase of failures above normal levels of maintenance
as the equipment is extended beyond its anticipated life cycle.
Most of the equipment was observed to be in fair physical condition. Motor Control
Centers were noted in process or mechanical areas subjected to moisture, excessive
heat and other environmental conditions that are detrimental to the equipment.
Additionally, several areas do not comply with the latest NFPA 820 requirements for
area classifications, placing general duty electrical equipment in hazardous locations.
7.1.3.3
Reliability and Redundancy
There are several points within the electrical distribution system that are susceptible
to common mode failures. Common mode failure is a point within the electrical
distribution system where a single failure results in the complete loss of critical
processes or pumping systems.
Areas of vulnerability are summarized below:
7-2
The 480V switchboard located in the main electrical room is approaching 40 years
old. The switchboard contains an automatic transfer switch without a bypass
mechanism. A failure or fault on the transfer switch would render the entire
Section 7
facility inoperable. Additionally the standby generator is located within the same
room as the switchboard. A failure resulting in significant damage (e.g., fire) to
the generator could be fatal to the switchboard. Again resulting in loss of
operability to the aforementioned equipment regardless of commercial power
availability.
The main switchboard supplies power to MCC-3 located in the Pump Room. A
single failure or fault on the MCC bus would render the plants influent pumping
capabilities inoperable.
The switchboard also supplies power to the balance of the MCCs located in
various process areas throughout the plant. A single failure or fault on any MCC
bus would render that area of the plant inoperable, including the Pump & Pipe
Gallery, Control Building, and the Solids Processing Area.
The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA), technical bulletin 430, Design

Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical, and Fluid System and Component Reliability
requires the electrical system be sufficient to operate all vital components, during
peak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting and ventilation
to maintain Class I or Class II reliability. As indicated above, the existing electrical
distribution system is configured with a single feeder to each of the critical process
areas of the treatment facility. This configuration does not meet the EPAs
requirements for reliability and redundancy in the electrical distribution system.
7.1.4 Recommendations and Improvements

7.1.4.1 General
Recommendations made in this report are tailored to meet the needs of the process
upgrades indicated in Task I: Thickening System and in Task II: Anaerobic Digestion
System and do not specifically address the reliability and redundancy issues related
to the existing distribution system.
The improvements to the electrical distribution system are recommended in order to
accomplish the following goals:
Provide sufficient capacity within the distribution system to accommodate the

plants identified process expansions and upgrades.
Correct identified code violations (NEC 2008 Edition).
It is desirable to have the electrical equipment especially solid state electronics such
as variable frequency drives installed inside climate controlled rooms due to heat
dissipation and the environment surrounding the facility. Therefore, the Sludge
Thickening Room and Digester Building are recommended to have dedicated
electrical rooms. Refer to Figure 7-2 for the proposed electrical one-line diagrams for
these areas.
7-3
Section 7
Life safety systems will be designed in accordance with all applicable codes. In
general life safety systems will consist of emergency egress lighting, fire alarm, and
combustible gas/ventilation failure alarm systems. The existing fire alarm system
will be extended as necessary in accordance with NFPA 72. Emergency egress
lighting will be provided in accordance with NFPA 101 and the Maine Uniform
Building and Energy Code to maintain required illumination of all emergency egress
paths affected by the upgraded facilities. Emergency lighting shall also be provided
near all new equipment (e.g., MCC, Switchboard, Generators, etc.) that need to be
accessed to restore normal power. Additional emergency lighting can be provided in
process critical areas as defined by the process engineers and directed by the owner.
The combustible gas detection and ventilation failure alarm systems shall be installed
in accordance with NFPA 820. It is important to note that the new cogen generators
installed at this facility will be suitable for stand-by power only and shall not be
considered to be life safety or emergency equipment.
Electrical conduits and underground raceway systems will be installed to
accommodate and support SCADA system modifications as necessary.
7.1.4.2 Sludge Thickening System Replacement

The Sludge Thickening Room shall be upgraded to include a new dedicated electrical
space to accommodate Motor Control Center MCC-2, as well as the variable
frequency drive units, process control PLC cabinets and other miscellaneous electrical
equipment. The new electrical room is to be located on the First Floor on the North
end of the existing Sludge Thickening Room and will house existing electrical
equipment currently located in that space as well as new and upgraded equipment.
Due to the age and reliability of existing MCC-2, the motor control center will be
replaced with a new MCC to serve the new gravity belt thickeners, TWAS pumps,
polymer systems, and HVAC equipment, as well as, miscellaneous existing process
and HVAC equipment scheduled to remain in operation.
In general the improvements will be a complete electrical renovation of the area and
include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
Demolition of the existing DAF units and associated mechanical equipment.
New conduit and wiring associated with the Task I process equipment referenced
above, including variable frequency drives specified for the Thickened WAS
pumps.
New lighting and small power systems will be installed in the upgraded process
areas and new electrical room.
Miscellaneous electrical upgrades including, HVAC, plumbing, instrumentation

and alarm systems will be made in the Sludge Thickening Room.
7-4
Section 7
7.1.4.3
Anaerobic Digestion Layout Option 1
Anaerobic Digester Option 1 includes a new Digester Building located between the
digester tanks. Under this option, a new motor control center (MCC-6) will be housed
in an electrical Room located on the buildings Upper Level with exterior access to
isolate the electrical equipment from the process areas. MCC-6 will serve the sludge
recirculation pumps, mixing pumps for the digesters and sludge storage tank, belt
filter press feed pumps, boiler, hot water pumps and HVAC equipment as shown in
Figure 7-2.
The Anaerobic Digester phase of this project includes a component for energy
recovery and cogeneration. As such, the incoming service requires modification as
referenced in Paragraph 7.1.4.5 to include a new 480 Volt Switchgear in an outdoor,
NEMA 3R, enclosure. Modifications to the existing electrical service to accommodate
the new switchgear are required under both Option 1 and Option 2.
Electrical work under this option includes:
New feeders via underground raceways from the new 480 Volt outdoor
switchgear to MCC-6 in the Digester Building Electrical Room.
Conduit and wiring associated with the process and HVAC equipment referenced
above to serve the new Anaerobic Digesters.
Conduit and wiring associated with lighting, small power and support systems
will be installed in the Digester Building.
Conduit and wiring for instrumentation and control, combustible gas detection,
ventilation failure alarm and fire alarm systems.
7.1.4.4
Anaerobic Digestion Layout Option 2
Anaerobic Digester Option 2 makes provisions for installing new process equipment
in the existing Screenings garage, as shown on Figure 4-4, and includes modifications
to the Screenings area. Under this option, a new motor control center (MCC-6) will be
housed in the Sludge Thickening Electrical Room referenced in Paragraph 6.1.4.4
above. New MCC-6 will serve the new digester recirculation pumps, digester and
storage tank mixing pumps, belt filter press feed pumps, boiler, hot water pumps and
HVAC equipment as shown in Figure 7-2.
Electrical work under this option includes:
New feeders via underground and overhead raceways from the new 480 Volt
outdoor switchgear to MCC-6 in the Sludge Thickening Electrical Room.
New conduit and wiring associated with the process and HVAC equipment
referenced above to serve the new Anaerobic Digesters.
7-5
Section 7
New Conduit and wiring to support modifications to the existing Screenings

removal areas. Modifications include but are not limited to new lighting and small
power systems, combustible gas detection and fire alarm systems and HVAC.
7.1.4.5
Utility Service, Main Switchgear and Cogeneration
To accommodate the cogeneration component of this project, as well as improve the

reliability of the electrical distribution system, a new main switchgear and two CHP
generators are to be provided to serve the existing wastewater treatment plant and
new Anaerobic Digesters.
The new main switchgear shall be a low-voltage (480-Volt), metal enclosed
construction in a NEMA 3R weatherproof walk-in enclosure and shall be located on
the South side of the Administration Building near the utility transformers. The
switchgear shall be arranged in a Main-Tie-Main configuration with the normal
power (i.e., utility feed) main and the tie breaker normally closed. The circuit breakers
supporting the new cogen generators will be normally closed when the generators are
in operation, paralleling with the utility power source. The switchgear shall be
furnished with auto-transfer controls configured for closed-transition between the
utility and cogen generator sources. The switchgear shall also include a breaker to
connect the facilitys existing standby generator for use during a loss of utility power.
During a power outage, the automatic transfer control will open the tie breaker to
isolate the bus between the standby generator and the new cogen generators, and
close the standby generator breaker to allow the standby generator to power the
existing plant load. Additionally, the transfer system controls shall be furnished with
Auto-Manual-Semi-Auto control select-ability. This provides the plant operators with
additional operating and maintenance flexibility within the system. The distribution
sections of the switchgear shall be individually mounted, draw-out type power
breakers. Refer to Figure 7-1 for the proposed switchgear one line diagram.
The existing generator located in the Main Electrical Room is a 750 kVA, 600 kW,
standby rated generator. Based on peak demand information received from the utility
company, the average monthly peak demand at the facility is approximately 650 kW
with a high monthly peak demand of 817 kW in August 2008. Under current
conditions the existing standby generator will not support a sustained power outage
under peak operating conditions.
Each new generator for cogeneration shall be a 480 volt, 220 kW unit factory mounted
within a weatherproof enclosure. The generators shall be located adjacent to the new
main switchgear to limit the distance of the 480 volt cables required for the
interconnection.
7.1.4.6
Electrical Distribution System Recommendations
Consistent with the double-ended (i.e., two electrical buses configured in a main-tiemain configuration) configuration of the main switchgear, the downstream feeders to
each new double-ended motor control centers shall be derived from the A and B
7-6
Section 7
Busses of the main switchgear respectively. The cables shall be sized to accommodate
the full demand load of a motor control center series (e.g., MCC-6A and 6B) under a
single ended condition.
7.1.5 Hazardous Areas

The classification of hazardous areas will be made in accordance with the latest
edition of NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection
Facilities. The process mechanical engineers will determine the types and levels of
vapors that could be present in each space. Table 7-1 indicates the Building and type
of area, the applicable NFPA table number, the design classification determination
and the applicable notes regarding extents of classifications and fire protection
measures required for process areas affected under the proposed upgrade. The
determinations included in Table 7-1 are based upon discussions and coordination
with the Process and HVAC engineers. Any modifications to the area classifications
will be coordinated between all disciplines involved during design.
It should be noted that the hazardous classifications indicated in Table 7-1 and shown
on Area Classification Drawing E-3 reflect current Code requirements and do not
reflect requirements in place at the time the facility was built.
7.2
Instrumentation and Control
7.2.1 General
This section establishes general concepts and the criteria necessary for the design
requirements of the proposed digestion and Cogen Control Panels and associated
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) into the plant-wide Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The modified SCADA system will allow
monitoring and control of the newly installed systems to be operated from the
existing control room in the Administration Building from a pair of redundant
SCADA Nodes.
7.2.2 Objectives
The goal of the instrumentation and control system is to provide effective monitoring
and control of the system processes and associated plant equipment. The system will
provide operations and maintenance as well as management the information
necessary to operate the thickening and Cogen systems in an efficient and effective
manner. The system will be flexible and easy for plant personnel to use.
7-7
Fire Detection System
FDS:
Ventilation Failure
VF:
Air Changes Per Hour
ACH:
NReq : Not Required
Combustible Gas Detection
CGD:
N/A
N/A
Unclassified
Unclassified
Class I, Division 1
Class I, Division 1
Unclassified
Unclassified
Class I, Division 2
Class I, Division 1
NReq
NReq
CGD
CGD
NReq
NReq
CGD
NReq
Gas
Detection/
Ventilation
Failure
N6
N5
N4
N3
N7
N1
Notes
Table 7-1
LAWPCA Facility Area Classification Summary
N1: Space hazardous classification extends 10 ft. above the highest point of the cover and 5 ft. from any wall.
N2: Space hazardous classification has been reduced with continuous ventilation rate as indicated and physical separation from the digesters.
Ventilation system monitoring is required.
N3: This space is not being declassified with ventilation. Equipment shall be rated for hazardous classification indicated.
N4: The corridors and space outside the New Sludge Thickening Room is classified Class 1, Div. 1 due to open access to the Influent Wetwell
and Screenings Room.
N5: Fire alarm system is required.
N6: The Electrical Room opens into the Sludge Thickening Room and the Loading dock, Ventilation rates are not set by NFPA 820.
N7: The upper level of the Digester Building is physically separated from the sludge pumping area below and is therefore unclassified.
N/A
NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a)

Row 12a
Existing Process Building Sludge Thickening Room
Existing Process Building - New

Electrical Room
NFPA 820 - Table 4.2

Row 16a, Table 5.2 Row 1a
Existing Process Building - First

Floor (excluding Sludge
Thickening Room)
None or less than 12 ACH

Row 16b
Gas Safety Equipment Building
Existing Process Building

Row 9a,16c
Digester Building Electrical

Room
N/A

Row 9a,16c
Digester Building Lower Level
Digester Building Upper Level
Not Enclosed - open to atmosphere
Design Ventilation

Row 15a
Code Reference
Anerobic Digesters
New Digestion Structures
Area
Elec.
Classification
Section 7
Section 7
The project design objective is to provide instrumentation and a monitoring and

control system that will:
Provide automation capability and flexibility to allow the plant to be operated

with current staff;
Provide enhance reliability;
Use existing SCADA infrastructure and current available technology efficiently;
Provide component standardization and modularity;
Provide a common operator interface for in-plant usage;
Provide a maintenance tool by analyzing trend data;
Provide the capability to minimize power consumption; and
Minimize operating and maintenance costs.
7.2.3 Control System Description

The digestion and Cogen systems will incorporate a PLC and operator interface
terminal (OIT) based control system that interfaces with the plants SCADA system.
The plants SCADA system architecture will be modified to accept the new control
panels and comply with industry standards that utilize standard operating and
communication systems used at the plant. The system design will provide a high
degree of flexibility and accommodate future expansion.
Vendor based systems include:
Thickening and Associated Pumping Systems;
Gas Cleaning Skid System;
Cogeneration Engines;
Heat Exchanging Systems;
Gas storage system; and
Waste gas burner system.
In this work, CDM will interface the Digestion and Cogen System with the plants
existing Belt Filter Press System in either a hardwired or networked configuration for
monitoring and control by SCADA.
7-9
Section 7
7.2.3.1
Field Instrumentation
Field instrumentation provides the SCADA system with the information to

continuously monitor and alarm various processes, control and protect equipment,
trend process parameters and provide information for reporting purposes. Addition
of new instrumentation and modification to existing system instruments will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. CDM recommends the following:
Field instruments that are no longer working should be replaced with new
instruments that will properly measure the process and are easy to maintain;
Instruments that seem to be working should also be replaced if the technology

used is obsolete or the instrument life expectancy has expired or will expire in the
near future;
Instruments that seem to be functional but only need recalibration should be

reused;
Instrumentation should be added to the process where it would help in

monitoring and controlling the process; and/or
New instrumentation will be added to new process equipment and pipelines

where required.
All motorized equipment will be designed with Hand/Off/Auto (HOA) or

Local/Off/Remote (LOR) switches so that the equipment can be operated manually
or remotely. Manual operation without the SCADA system or vendor PLC will be
possible provided that no hardwired interlocks are active.
7.2.3.2
Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and Operator Interface

Terminals (OITSs)
The Plants existing SCADA system will be modified to communicate with the Sludge
Thickening and Cogen Systems Control Panels and other vendor system control
panels that provide both automatic and manual control for each system. Each control
panel will incorporate a PLC that will monitor digester levels, digester gas pressure
and flow, thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS) tank levels, pumping equipment
status, heat exchange systems, boiler status, generator engine status, and other
process variables automatically to pre-set operator set points. The PLCs will be able
to start and stop equipment and monitor the status of that equipment based upon
control interlocks or operator intervention.
The PLCs will be located in NEMA-rated panels as required per the area
environmental requirements. Each PLC will consist of an Allen-Bradley SLC 5/05
central processing unit (CPU) equipped with the necessary communication modules,
input/output (I/O) modules and power supplies.
7-10
Section 7
OITs will be provided in for both the Thickening and Cogen Control Panels as a
means of controlling the system independently from SCADA in the event the SCADA
System goes down. The new OITs will meet or exceed the functionality of the OITs
currently installed at the plant and will likely be of the same manufacturer as the
newly installed PLCs. The OITs will provide alpha-numerical and graphical
monitoring and control of system set-points, operational modes, process variables,
and system equipment.
The PLCs will perform the data gathering and process control functions and
communicate the collected information to the OITs and OWSs / HMIs for display,
control, alarming, trending and printing (TBD). The PLCs will also respond to control
commands and set points from both local OITs and the redundant SCADA PCs.
7.2.3.3
OWS (Operator Workstation)
The operator will access the SCADA system via the existing Operator Workstations
OWSs located in the plants control room. The OWSs are a redundant pair of SCADA
Nodes designed to operate in a Microsoft Windows-type environment. Via window
displays, each OWS will allow plant operating personnel to view multiple windows
of information simultaneously on a single screen.
The operator will be provided with the same graphics at each OWS. The graphic
screens will allow the operator to control the process equipment associated with the
new Thickening and Cogen Systems as well as any pre-existing plant system. The
OWS will permit entry of operator set-points, selection of operational modes,
monitoring of process variables and equipment status, and alarm annunciation. The
OWS / HMI will manipulate and store all the data required for monitoring and report
generation in each of the redundant SCADA Nodes databases. The data will be used
for shift, daily, monthly, and annual reports, and gas usage reports.
The graphic displays will include detail for control and monitoring of every process
parameter and equipment in a manner that lends itself to the natural breaks of the
particular process. The graphic displays may include: index displays, single point
displays for variable and contact process inputs, process graphic displays, group
review displays, digital trend displays, analog trend displays, and alarm summary
displays. All displays will contain the date and time of day and list all process values
in engineering units. Index displays will be provided as a guide to the available
display options.
All graphic screen and displays will be available on all the OWSs. However, the
system will have the capability to limit control and/or viewing through security,
based on operator log-in. All the screens and displays will be password protected in
that only certain individuals can control equipment, change set points, etc. from the
display screens. The system will perform the following general functions:
Collect information from the Thickening and Cogen System PLCs;
7-11
Section 7
Maintain an updated database of all system data;
Check all process inputs against pre-set high, low, and deviation values;
Display the collected information in pre-configured displays;
Scan all status and alarm values and alert the operator to alarm conditions
through visual, audible, and printed messages (TBD);
Respond to operator commands for displays, printouts (TBD), data entry, and
alarm and control settings;
Store data for display on real-time or historical trends;
Send current and shift report data, system documentation, and alarm messages to
the printer (TBD);
Perform continuous internal error checking and diagnostics of all data transfer
and system operation; and
Provide process control for analog and logic functions.
7.2.3.4 Network and Supporting Systems

The PLCs, OWSs / HMIs and printers (TBD) will communicate using a fiber optic
Ethernet local area network (LAN) in a start configuration. All PLCs will be standalone units, so that process control can continue at the PLC level without interruption
due to network failure.
The Thickener and Cogen System Control Panels and other new vendor control
panels will be each provided with an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The UPS
systems will provide continuous power conditioning and battery back-up power in
case of normal power failure. Each UPS system will be equipped with an automatic
static switch which will switch to normal power in the event of a UPS failure. The
UPS will come equipped with an external maintenance bypass switch which will
allow the maintenance operator to switch to normal power if servicing the UPS is
required. Each UPS will communicate back to the PLC system certain status
conditions and alarms via discrete dry contact outputs at the UPS.
CDM will schedule a site visit to determine if there is any existing UPS providing
power to the redundant SCADA Nodes. If there is no UPS, CDM will include
SCADA UPS backup in its design. We will determine if there is a printer that serves
the SCADA Nodes for alarm, trending, and report printing.
7.2.4 Naming Convention

Prior to the start of the design, a naming convention for the new equipment will be
established for the Sludge Thickening, Cogen and other new systems. Instrument
7-12
Section 7
tagging will follow ISA standards as established in the International Society of

Automation (ISA) standard, Library for Measurement and Control: Volume I.
Existing plant equipment and instruments will not be assigned a new loop number
and tags if unless there is a conflict/duplication of a tag number.
7.2.4.1 New Loop Numbers

A meeting between CDM and LAWPCA shall take place before the 60 percent design
submittal in order to finalize loop numbers and designations for their assigned areas.
7.2.4.2 Instrument Tags

New loop numbers will be combined with an ISA instrumentation functional code to
make a tag. The ISA code shall be a prefix to the loop numbers. Examples are as
follows:
Instrument or Device
ISA Code
Combined Tag
Level Indicating Transmitter
LIT
LIT-1000
Hand Switch
HS
HS-1100
Flow Element
FE
FE-1200
When several similar instruments or devices are on, or related to the same piece of
equipment, an alpha loop suffix shall be added to the tag. Examples are as follows:
ISA Code
Combined Tag
High Temperature Switch
TSH
TSH-2000A
High Temperature Switch
TSH
TSH-2000B
7.2.4.3
Mechanical Equipment Tags
All mechanical equipment, tanks, motors, pumps, and VFDs shall have the same loop
number as the hand switches and instruments that are associated with that piece of
equipment. The process and mechanical engineers using CDM standards shall
determine the mechanical equipment abbreviations used in the equipment tag.
Examples are as follows:
ISA Code
Equipment
Equipment Tag
Hand Switch
HS-3000
Motor
M-3000
Level Transmitter
LT-3100
Tank
TK-3100
Hand Switch
HS-3200
Pump
P-3200
7-13
Section 7
7.2.4.4
Description Tags
The equipment and instrument descriptions associated with the equipment or

instrument tag shall be the same throughout all discipline drawings. The descriptions
will also be shown on the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) beneath the
equipment item. The process and mechanical engineers, using CDM standards, shall
determine the mechanical equipment abbreviations used in the descriptions.
Examples are as follows:
Full Name
7.2.4.5
Abbreviation
Returned Activated Sludge
RAS
Waste Activated Sludge
WAS
Control Panel Tags
All vendor panels, PLC panels, etc., shall be assigned a name tag. The name tag shall
be assigned by the proper discipline engineers and shall be used throughout all
discipline drawings. Once the panel name tag is assigned, it shall be used on all
drawings, lists and memoranda associated with that panel. Tag names for the new
Thickening and Cogen Control Panels are:
Thickening Control Panel
THKCP
Cogen Control Panel
COCP
7.2.5 Control Philosophy

Control will be done through a hierarchical layer concept. The following is an
example of the hierarchical control layers:
1. The lowest layer of control, local control, is at that piece of equipment or that
piece of equipments panel or drive. At the equipment, there will be an HOA
or LOR switch. When that switch is placed in the hand or local position, the
associated equipment can be controlled locally.
2. The next layer, if necessary, will be at a vendor supplied PLC panel. When the
HOA or LOR switch at the equipment is placed in auto or remote, control is
transferred to this panel. When control is placed in local at the vendors PLC,
via a touch screen or switches, control can be done at this panel.
3. The next layer, the highest layer of control, is by the SCADA system via its
associated OWS / HMI. When the lower layer is placed in auto or remote,
control is transferred to the PLC. Control of the equipment can now be done
via the OWS / HMI if the PLC program allows it.
7-14
Section 7
Most control will be designed for only two layers; at the piece of equipment and at the
PLC system. Process equipment supplied with vendor package control systems may
have multiple layers of control.
7.2.6 SCADA System Design

Once the naming convention has been established, P&IDs will be developed for the
process areas. The P&IDs will show process equipment and flow piping as well as
how the new process equipment is linked to both the Vendor Control Panels and the
Thickener and Cogen PLC-Based Control Panels.
An overall Control System Architecture (CSA) drawing will be developed showing
how the various SCADA equipment is connected. The drawing will show the existing
plant-wide fiber optic Ethernet star network modified to communicate with the
Thickener and Cogen PLC-Based Control Panels. The CSA will indicate the existing
redundant SCADA Nodes, and the existing PLC-Based control panels and OITs
located throughout the plant.
7.2.7 Summary Recommendations

The following summarizes the recommendations for improvements to the
instrumentation and control system at the Lewiston/Auburn WPCA:
Vendor Based Control Panels will be provided for the following systems:
9 Thickening and Associated Pumping Systems
9 Gas Cleaning Skid System
9 Generator Engines
9 Heat Exchanging Systems
9 Gas storage system
9 Waste gas burner
Modification of Plants high-speed, fiber optic, Ethernet star network will link the
PLC & OIT Based Thickener and Cogen Control Panels.
Process Control System Supplier Panels (PLC & OIT Based) that interface with
I/O from Vendor Panels and other associated instrumentation which
communicates with the modified Plant SCADA System:
One Thickener System Panel
One Cogen System Panel
7-15
Section 7
Existing plant instruments will be replaced on a case-by-case basis.

Instrumentation should be added to the process where there is a lack of
instrumentation and to any new process equipment/lines if required.
Details of the above SCADA system will be developed during final design.
7-16
Section 8
8.1 HVAC
8.1.1 General
CDM staff visited the LAWPCA facility and inspected the existing heating, ventilating
and air conditioning systems as related to the Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery
project. Based on these field observations, a review of the original facility design
documents and based on current codes and industrial standards, CDM has
established criteria for the project design. The criteria include the following standards
and codes:
International Mechanical Code;
2008 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection

Facilities (NFPA 820); and
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE).
8.1.2 Design Conditions

The HVAC design system should be based on winter outdoor temperature of -1F
(99.0 percent occurrence) and summer outdoor temperature of 83F dry bulb and 73F
wet bulb (1.0 percent occurrence). The proposed process areas associated with this
project should be ventilated in summer (no air conditioning) and heated in the winter
to 55F.
In areas where it is required to dissipate heat gains from the electric motors and other
equipment, ventilation should be provided to hold a difference of 10F above the
summer outdoor temperature.
All ventilation rate and gas monitoring used for process areas should conform to
NFPA 820. Containment should be provided to prevent escape of odorous air to nonodorous spaces, maintaining the odorous areas under negative pressure relative to
surrounding spaces.
8.1.3 Demolition
The sludge thickening system replacement work associated with both facility layout
options requires that the existing HVAC system ductwork supplying conditioned air
to the corridor and thickener area be relocated in order not to interfere with the
construction of new wall between the corridor and thickener area. Additionally,
under Layout Option 2, the following HVAC demolition work would be required:
A
5816-72780
Relocate exhaust fan EF-14 (exhaust from sludge holding tank area), reroute the
ductwork;
8-1
Section 8
Relocate HV-4 (supply to sludge holding tank area), relocate associated ductwork;
and
HV-5 in the Grit/Screening area should be removed and the associated supply air
ductwork demolished.
8.1.4 New Work

HVAC considerations associated with the new work required by the various
components of the project include the following:
8.1.4.1
Thickening System Replacement
Existing Process Building

As discussed earlier in this report, the sludge thickening system replacement work
associated with both facility layout options requires that the thickener area be isolated
from the remainder of the process areas due to electrical code classification reasons.
As such, this new isolated process area will need to be provided with new a HVAC
system consisting of a ceiling suspended air handling unit (HV-1) and associated
ductwork. The unit should be sized to hold a space temperature 10F above the
outdoor temperature during the summer months and at least to provide six air
changes per hour to the thickener area in the event this rate of air flow is required to
control interior odors. Under normal conditions the unit would be designed to utilize
approximately 25 percent of outside air. Despite this, the ductwork would be sized to
handle 100 percent outdoor air in the event this were deemed appropriate by
operations staff and/or a future odor control system is installed to control exterior
odors from this new space.
An air lock providing separation between the corridor and thickener areas should be
provided and supplied with air at a rate to assure its pressurization. The air lock
should be pressurized positively in relation to the thickener and corridor areas. The
operation of the unit HV-1 should be monitored remotely. A flow switch would
provide a signal to a remote monitoring unit.
The Electrical Room required for this new equipment should be heated and ventilated
by a separate unit HV-2 at a rate to hold the space temperature 10F above the
outdoor temperature.
During final design, heating capacity of the existing boilers would need to be
examined to determine whether they can provide for any additional heating loads
associated with these modifications.
8.1.4.2
Anaerobic Digestion Project Layout Option 1
New Digester Building

Due to code requirements, the lower level equipment room (sludge pump room) will
be isolated from the upper level rooms and will be ventilated by a separate air
handling unit to be located on the roof of the new structure. Winter heating would be
8-2
Section 8
provided and summer ventilation rates would be provided to hold a difference of

10F above the outdoor temperature. Based on a preliminary estimate, the lower level
space would likely be heated using three explosion proof wall mounted electric unit
heaters.
The upper level equipment room (boiler and heat exchanger area) should be heated
by three standard electric unit heaters and ventilated by a roof or ceiling mounted air
handling unit.
The upper level electrical room should be heated by a standard electric unit heater. A
wall exhaust fan would be used to ventilate the space while outside air would be
introduced into the Electrical Room through a wall louver.
New Gas Safety Equipment Building
As this space would be considered a Class 1 Division 1 area, the building should be
heated and ventilated by an explosion proof electric heater and wall exhaust fan. A
supply air louver would be installed in the exterior wall.
8.1.4.3
Existing Process Building Thickening Equipment Room

HVAC equipment should be the same as described under Section 8.1.4.1 with a few
exceptions. Supply ductwork and exterior louver shall be sized for six air changes per
hour, but with the assumption that 75 percent of the supplied air should be
recirculated.
Existing Process Building Digester Equipment Room
The new digester equipment area designed to house the heat exchangers and sludge
boiler should be provided with a new rooftop heating and ventilating unit and new
ductwork sized for summer ventilation rates sufficient to hold a difference of 10F
above the outdoor temperature. The unit heating coil would be heated by low
pressure steam from the existing boiler room. Steam condensate would flow by
gravity to a duplex condensate receiver and should be pumped to the boiler room. It
is also recommended that an exhaust air louver be installed in the exterior wall to
relieve excess air from the space.
Existing Process Building New Below Grade Digester Equipment Area
Under layout option 2, the new below grade sludge pumping area would be provided
with a penthouse to allow the introduction of outside air and to provide for the
exhaust. This area would be heated by approximately three explosion proof electric
unit heaters and ventilated by a ceiling mounted air handling unit. The unit should be
sized for six air changes per hour; under normal conditions 75 percent of the air
should be recirculated while the unit would also be designed to provide 100 percent
outside air as necessary. The unit heating coil should be supplied with low pressure
steam from the existing boilers. The condensate should be collected by a receiver and
pumped back into the boiler room. As previously noted, the heating capacity of the
8-3
Section 8
boilers should be examined during final design to determine whether they can
provide for additional heating loads.
Existing Process Building Intake Screening Area
This area should be provided with a new rooftop heating and ventilating unit and
new ductwork, sized to ventilate the space at the rate of 6 air changes per hour. An
exhaust air louver should be installed in the exterior wall to relieve the excess air from
the space. The unit heating coil should be heated by low pressure steam from the
existing boiler room. Steam condensate from the Equipment and Screening Areas
should be collected and pumped by the same condensate receiver to the boiler room.
Existing Process Building New Screenings Garage
The garage should be heated by approximately two unit heaters located adjacent to
the overhead door. The unit heaters should be electric, explosion proof type.
New Gas Safety Equipment Building
As this space would be considered a Class 1 Division 1 electrically, the building
should be heated and ventilated by an explosion proof electric heater and wall
exhaust fan. A supply air louver would be installed in the exterior wall.
8.2 Plumbing
This section describes support functions and facilities for plumbing and fire
protection. The section summarizes the status and recommended upgrades and
improvements to these support functions.
8.2.1 General
The design of the plumbing and fire protection systems should be based upon the
applicable codes and standards, including the following:
Uniform Plumbing Code 2000;
International Building Code;
International Fire Code; and
NFPA Requirements, latest adopted editions.
8.2.2 Demolition
Though Layout Option 1 would not require any significant plumbing demolition
work, in the event Option 2 were pursued, the following retrofit/demolition work
would be required to create room for the new digestion equipment area:
8-4
Remove plumbing fixtures (toilet, urinal, sink);
Section 8
Remove piping: 1/2-inch HW, 1-1/4-inch CW with risers from fixtures; remove
4-inch vent with the riser; and
Cap one floor cleanout and four sanitary pipe risers at the floor level.
8.2.3 New Work

8.2.3.1
New Digester Building

Domestic water service will be brought into the new building along with a new water
meter and back flow preventer. Plant water would also be distributed to upper and
lower level of the building.
Though it is expected that bathroom facilities will not be required for this new
building, sanitary waste and vent piping will be provided for plumbing fixtures, floor
and equipment drains. The upper and lower level equipment rooms would be
supplied with hose bibs, slop sink(s) and a seal water system if required for operation
of the sludge pumps. In addition, depending on the final elevations of the new
structure with respect to existing local sewer manholes, a sewage ejector station may
be required to pump out the waste water from the floor and equipment drains.
If tepid water is requested by LAWPCA for use at the slop sink(s), this domestic water
would likely be heated through the use of a small storage-type electric hot water
heater. This heater would be required to be located within the upper level due to
electrical code classification considerations.
Gas Safety Equipment Building
Plumbing fixtures and piping are not required for this building.
8.2.3.2
Existing Process Building Existing Spaces

The existing plumbing piping consisting of plant water supply to hose bibs should
remain and/or be expanded as necessary to serve the modified process spaces within
this building. It is also likely that the retrofitted process areas within this building
will be capable of utilizing the existing floor drain systems.
Existing Process Building New Below Grade Digester Equipment Area
Plant and domestic water should be extended to this new sludge pumping area for
the purpose of serving hose bibs and seal water systems. In addition, the area should
be provided with floor drains. Depending on final design elevations, a duplex
sewage ejector may also be required to pump out water collected from the drains.
Plumbing fixtures and piping are not required for new Gas Safety Equipment
Building or the New Screenings Garage.
8-5
Section 8
8.2.4 Fire Protection

An approved automatic sprinkler system would be required to be installed in the
windowless story heights (basements) of any new or substantially retrofitted space
according to the Existing Building Code. The fire protection system would consist of
a wet sprinkler system complete with alarm check valve and proper backflow
prevention device. The fire protection design would consist of a performance based
specification and a drawing depicting the areas where the fire protection system(s)
need be installed.
A meeting with the local fire department personnel and building department should
occur during final design so that any comments from the Authoritys Having
Jurisdiction (AHJ) over the installation and design of the fire protection system can be
incorporated into the project design. In addition, a fire flow test should be conducted
during final design to provide information as to the fire flow availability from the
public water system at the site.
8-6
Section 9
Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site
Design Recommendations
9.1 General
As part of the current preliminary design process, CDM has developed the following
discussion summarizing conceptual geotechnical, site improvements and site design
recommendations and standards associated with the LAWPCA Anaerobic
Digestion/Energy Recovery Project.
9.2 Conceptual Geotechnical Recommendations

9.2.1 Existing Conditions
The existing Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control (LAWPCA) Facility is located
at 535 Lincoln Street in Lewiston, Maine. The site is bounded to the west and
northwest by Androscoggin River, to the south by a wooded area, and to the east by
Lincoln Street. The gated access road on the north side of the plant connects the
facility to Lincoln Street. There are a few commercial buildings located immediately
to the east of the plant off Lincoln Street.
The existing site is relatively flat, sloping gently from El. 135 to El. 137 over a
horizontal distance of 120 feet. The facility mixes and stores compost on the west side
of the property. The compost is available for public purchase. Piles of compost were
not shown on the recent ground surface survey.
9.2.2 Proposed Construction

The proposed construction for the anaerobic digestion and energy recover project
includes two 0.8-million-gallon digester tanks, a combined digester gas holding and
sludge storage tank, a digester equipment building, above and below grade utilities
and several at-grade pads for equipment.
Two locations are being considered for the new structures. The first location
(Option 1) is outside the existing fence line to the south of the existing chlorine contact
chamber. The second location (Option 2) is within the existing facility to the
northwest of the existing clarifiers, between the existing chlorine contact chamber and
process building.
Two different configurations have been proposed for the proposed digester tanks.
The first option is a 50-foot diameter tank with side wall of 52 feet in height. This type
of tank will extend about 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the side wall and have
a foundation bearing load of approximately 5 kips per square foot (ksf). The second
option is a 65-foot diameter tank with side wall of 30.5 feet in height. This type of
tank is proposed to extend approximately 15 feet bgs at the side wall of the tank. We
understand that the second type of tank will have a foundation bearing load of about
2.5 ksf.
A
5816-72780
9-1
Section 9
Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and
Site Design Recommendations
The proposed combination digester gas and sludge storage tank has a diameter of
about 50 feet and will extend about 15 feet below grade.
We understand the new pump house building is a one story structure above grade
with one level below grade. The structure is about 40 feet by 50 feet in plan
dimensions
A new cogeneration equipment pad is also proposed. The proposed pad has plan
dimensions of 70 feet by 25 feet.
Existing conditions as well as approximate location of the new facilities for the two
options are shown on Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2.
9.2.3 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to investigate the subsurface conditions at the two
proposed areas for the digester tanks and to provide conceptual geotechnical
engineering recommendation for foundation design and construction considerations
as required for the project. Specifically, the scope of work included the following:
Review existing drawings and available subsurface information;
Conduct a subsurface exploration program (Phase 1) consisting of two test borings

(CDM-1 and CDM-3) to investigate subsurface conditions and obtain soil samples
for geotechnical laboratory testing;
Conduct laboratory tests on select soil samples to assist with classification of soils
encountered and determine engineering properties;
Develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction;
Present CDMs preliminary recommendations, including the data collected as part

of previous and recent subsurface investigations; and
Make recommendations for additional investigations (Phase 2).
9.2.4 Subsurface Investigations

Previous Test Boring Programs
Previously a geotechnical exploration program was conducted at the site for the initial
construction of the facility. Twelve test borings (L-1 through L-6, L-9, L-10, L-12, L-14,
L-15 and L-17), were drilled between April 21 and May 6, 1969 by Jon J. Boyle of
Milton, Massachusetts. The test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 15 to 64
feet below ground surface. The previous test boring locations in the vicinity of the
proposed structures are shown on Figure 9-1. Previous test boring logs are provided
in Appendix A.
9-2
Section 9
Recent Test Boring Program

Recent test borings were conducted at the two proposed locations for the digester
tanks. Two test borings, CDM-1 and CDM-3, were drilled by Maine Test Boring, Inc.
of Orrington, Maine between September 9 and 10, 2009. The test borings were
conducted with a truck-mounted drill rig using four-inch inside diameter flushjointed casing with drive and wash drilling techniques. Test borings, CDM-1 and
CDM-3, were drilled to depths of 59.7 and 65 feet below the existing ground surface,
respectively.
Split spoon sampling was typically conducted in soils at five-foot intervals in
accordance with ASTM D1586 (using a 2-inch-outside-diameter sampler driven
24 inches by blows from a 140-pound safety hammer falling freely for 30 inches). The
number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded
and the Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT) N-value was determined as the sum of
the blows over the middle 12 inches of penetration. Representative soil samples from
each split spoon were collected, logged and stored in jars from later review and
geotechnical laboratory testing. Undisturbed tube sampling of fine-grained (cohesive)
soils was conducted at select locations in general accordance with ASTM D-1587 using
a pushed Shelby tube sampler. The Shelby tube samples were trimmed and both ends
of the tube samples were sealed with plastic caps, tape and wax for subsequent
review and laboratory testing. A CDM representative visually classified the soil
samples recovered in the field using the modified Burmister classification system.
When possible, groundwater levels at the test boring locations were estimated from
the condition of the samples obtained and by the observed water levels within the
borehole at the time of drilling. However, with the drive and wash drilling method,
measured ground water level readings are not considered stable due to the
introduction of the drilling fluids in the borehole. Each borehole was backfilled with
drill cuttings upon completion.
The recent borings were located in the field by taping and line of sight from existing
site features. The as-drilled locations are shown on Figures 9-1 and 9-2.
Test boring logs prepared by CDM are included the Appendix B. The locations of the
test borings are shown on Figures 9-1 and 9-2.
9.2.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on select split spoon samples obtained
from the recent test borings. Gradation analyses were performed on six samples in
accordance with ASTM D422. Atterberg Limit tests were performed on two samples
in accordance with ASTM D-4318. The purpose of these tests was to assist with soil
classification, to assign soil parameters to use in engineering analyses and to assess
the reuse potential of the soils to be excavated.
Results of the geotechnical laboratory testing are summarized in Table 9-1. The
complete geotechnical laboratory test results are included as Appendix C.
9-3
Section 9
Subsurface Conditions
In general, subsurface conditions encounter during the recent test boring program
consisted of a sequence of silty sand, clay, silt and sand underlain by a sand layer.
Silty sand was encountered at both test boring locations. Typically, the silty sand
layer consisted of dry to wet, loose to medium dense, brown, gray, and orange, fine
SAND, with varying amounts of silt and occasionally trace gravel. The silty sand is
about 8 to 19 feet in thickness at CDM-1 and CDM-3 respectively. SPT N-values
ranged from 8 blows/foot (bl/ft) to 16 bl/ft at the recent exploration locations.
Below the silty sand, a layer of clay was encountered. The clay stratum consisted of
wet, soft to medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY with occasionally little to trace sand and
trace gravel. The clay layer was approximately 12.5 and 9 feet in thickness at CDM-1
and CDM-3, respectively. SPT N-values ranged from 3 bl/ft to 8 bl/ft.
Below the clay stratum, silt and sand was encountered at test boring CDM-3 with a
thickness of 35 feet. Typically, the silt and sand consisted of wet, loose to very dense,
gray, SILT with little fine sand. SPT N-values ranged from 6 bl/ft to 52 bl/ft at the
recent exploration location.
A sand layer was encountered below the clay layer at CDM-1 and below the silt and
sand layer at CDM-3. Typically, the sand layer consisted of wet, medium dense to
very dense, brown or gray, fine to coarse SAND, with some to trace gravel and trace
silt. This layer was not fully penetrated at either test boring location. SPT N-values
ranged from 11 bl/ft to 53 bl/ft at the recent exploration locations. Refusal was
encountered at 59.7 ft below ground surface at test boring CDM-1.
A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at our recent test boring
locations is presented in Table 9-2.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was observed in all of the recent test borings at the completion of
drilling. Groundwater levels measured in the boreholes ranged from 16.5 to 17 feet
below existing ground surface (approximately El. 118.4 to El. 118.8). However,
stabilized groundwater levels can be difficult to obtain in borings drilled using drive
and wash drilling methods due to the introduction of drilling fluid in the borehole. In
addition, due to the sites close proximity to the Androscoggin River, the
groundwater level is likely influenced by the river level.
Variation in Subsurface Conditions
Interpretation of general subsurface soil conditions presented herein is based on soil
and groundwater conditions observed in the recent test boring program and test
boring logs of previous explorations conducted by others. However, subsurface
conditions may vary between exploration locations. If conditions are found to be
different than assumed, recommendations contained in this report should be
reevaluated by CDM and confirmed in writing.
9-4
Section 9
Water levels measured in the explorations should not necessarily be considered to

represent stabilized groundwater levels. In addition, water levels are expected to
fluctuate with time, season, temperature, river level, climate, and construction in the
area, as well as other factors. Therefore, groundwater conditions at the time of
construction may be different from those observed at the time of the explorations.
9.2.6 Conceptual-Level Geotechnical Evaluation

Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Geotechnical engineering evaluations have been made related to the subject project.
In general, these evaluations have been based on results of subsurface investigations,
published correlations with soil properties and the minimum requirements of the
Maine Model Building Code (MMBC), which references to the International Building
Code. In addition, recommended design criteria are based on performance tolerances,
such as allowable settlement, as understood to relate to similar structures.
Primary Foundation Considerations
The primary foundation considerations related to the design and construction of the
proposed tanks and structure include (but are not limited to):
The presence and depth of the soft compressible clay layer:

Based on the recent test boring data, the soft clay layer extends to a depth of
approximately 21 feet bgs at the Option 1 location and 27 feet bgs at the Option 2
location.
The presence of loose silt and sand underlying the clay layer at the Option 2 location:
A loose silt and sand layer is underlying the soft clay layer at the Option 2 location
whereas a well graded and denser sand layer is below the soft clay layer at the
Option 1 location.
The depth and foundation bearing load of the proposed structure foundations:
The relatively large loads of the proposed 50-foot diameter sludge tanks (5 ksf) are
anticipated to induce larger settlements than are typical considered tolerable for
structures.
The distance from and potential impact on nearby existing structures at the Option 2
location.
The proposed structures at the Option 2 location are located within approximately
4 feet of the existing TWAS tank No. 4 and 13 feet off the existing sludge thickener
tanks. Since the existing structures are understood to be supported on mat
foundations on loose to medium dense silt and sand, those existing structures will
be susceptible to construction vibration-induced settlements. In addition, the
excavation for the 50-foot diameter digester tank extends at least 6 feet below the
adjacent TWAS tanks. The excavation will extend within the zone of influence of
the TWAS tank, potentially causing settlement/deformation of the existing tank.
9-5
Section 9
9.2.7 Conceptual-Level Foundation Recommendations

Layout Option 1
Based on our understanding of the proposed structures and the anticipated
foundation loads, the proposed digester tanks, gas holding/sludge storage tank and
pump house structure can potentially be supported on shallow foundation provided
the underlying soft compressible clay layer is overexcavated and replaced with
compacted structural fill. Based on conditions encountered at test boring CDM-1,
between 1 and 6 feet of additional overexcavation will be required for the proposed
tanks and pump house structure at this location.
For the 65-foot diameter tank alternative, preliminary settlement estimates indicate
total settlements of approximately 1 inch. However, total settlements are anticipated
to be up to 2 inches for the for the 50-foot diameter tank alternative. If these
anticipated settlements cannot be tolerated, deep foundations may be required.
Additional explorations and evaluations will need to be conducted to verify the
suitability of shallow foundation support for Option 1.
Layout Option 2
Due to the deeper extent of the soft clay layer and the presence of loose silt and fine
sand below the clay layer, deep foundations will likely be required for support of the
tanks and associated structures at the Option 2 location.
For the 50-ft diameter tank alternative, the proposed digester 2 will extend within the
zone of influence of the existing TWAS Tank No. 4. To minimize the risk of impacting
the TWAS tank during construction, a stiff excavation support system with braces will
be required for the construction of the new digester tank. In addition, underpinning
of the adjacent TWAS tank may be required to prevent excessive
settlement/deformation of the existing tanks.
Earthquake Considerations
For purposes of determining design earthquake forces for the structures in accordance
with the Code, Site Class should be considered as D, provided the soft clay layer is
over excavated and replaced with structural fill or the structures are founded on deep
foundations.
Based on previous and recent subsurface investigation, the soils encountered at the
site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction.
Ground Water Elevation
For the purpose of design, the groundwater level should be assumed to be at the 100year flood elevation, which we understand to be at El. 136.
9-6
Section 9
Deep Foundations
Based on the considerations discussed above, deep foundations may be required to
support some structures depending on the location, the type of structure selected and
settlement tolerances.
Option 1. Although a number of pile types are considered feasible, for the purpose of
conceptual design, we recommend that precast prestressed concrete (PCP) pile be
assumed for any structures requiring foundations at the Option 1 location. Typical
PCP piles sizes include 12- and 14-inch square piles with approximate structural
capacities of 99 and 134 tons, respectively.
Option 2. Due to the close proximity of the proposed structures to the existing
shallow-supported structures and the susceptibility of the existing structures to
vibration induced settlements, we recommend the structures at the Option 2 location
be supported on drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles.
Based on the limited deep boring information, the required pile lengths are not
known at this time. However, piles are anticipated to extend to a depth of at least of
65 to 70 feet bgs. Final design recommendations regarding foundation type and other
geotechnical design recommendations are pending additional test borings, final
facility layout and loading information for the tanks and structures.
9.2.8 Recommended Phase 2 Exploration Program

We recommend an additional five borings be drilled after the final selection of tank
and structure locations. The additional borings should be located at the proposed
tanks, structures and equipment pad locations. Depending on the final choice of
location and design of the tanks and structures, the borings should be drilled to a
depth from 30 to greater than 75 feet in order to facilitate design of the anticipated
foundation elements.
The borings should be conducted using drive and wash techniques. Sampling should
typically be conducted at 5-foot intervals using a standard split spoon sampler (SPT).
Split spoon sampling should be conducted in accordance with ASTM D1586.
Representative samples should be taken from each split spoon and stored in jars for
later review and laboratory testing. Up to ten feet of rock should be cored at selected
borings if encountered to confirm the competence of the rock and assist in
characterizing the engineering properties rock. A CDM geotechnical engineer or
geologist should monitor the borings in the field and classify the samples recovered
using the Burmister soil classification system.
9.3 Site Design Considerations

9.3.1 Codes and Standards
The site design will conform to the requirements outlined in the applicable national
and/or local standards and codes. Codes primarily outline design requirements and
construction details. It is not intended in the scope of this memo to list every code and
9-7
Section 9
standard. Proper recognition of the applicable standards for a project is essential to a

well-engineered, coordinated and constructed system. Listed below are those national
institutes and associations that publish the most widely accepted related U.S. codes
and standards.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
Maine Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highways and

Bridges (MHSSHB);
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM); and
Maine Dept of Environmental Protection, Maine Erosion and Sediment Control

Law.
New structures and roadways should be located using a coordinate system based on
Maine State Plane Coordinate System or dimensioned from existing structures.
Dimensions will be to column lines, outside face of building corner walls, or center of
circular tanks. New roadways will be established based on centerline dimensions.
Minimum width for new roadways will be 20 feet for two-way traffic with the
preferred width of 24 feet. Access driveways and one-way roadways will have a
minimum width of 15 feet. Minimum radii at roadway intersections will be 35 feet to
accommodate turning requirements of 30-foot fixed wheel or 55-foot semi-truck type
vehicles. New paved areas are anticipated around the proposed Digester Facility and
Gas Safety Equipment Buildings. Final dimensions will be determined based on
access requirements and anticipated vehicle type. New pedestrian walkways will
have a minimum dimension of 5 feet.
9.3.2 Site Preparation

In order to maintain access to existing facilities and minimize impacts on daily
activities construction routes will be identified. Limits of construction will be
established to protect existing structures and staging areas. Existing facilities and
natural resource areas/lawn areas will be protected in areas not impacted by
proposed improvements. Temporary construction access ways may be required to
protect existing paved roadways. A temporary construction fence may be installed
around new work during the various phases to protect existing facilities and
employees and visitors.
9.3.3 Materials
All new roadways and service areas will be bituminous concrete pavement composed
of a 12-inch gravel base layer over compacted subgrade. Above this will be installed a
primer coat, two and one half inch binder course, tack coat, and one and one half inch
top course. Areas being re-paved will have the same section depth, however the
hammer milled material and existing base material may be substituted for the 12-inch
gravel base. Pedestrian pathways will be a bituminous concrete pavement composed
9-8
Section 9
of an 8-inch processed gravel base layer over compacted subgrade. Above this will be
installed a primer coat and a two and one half inch wearing course.
Sidewalks adjacent to structures will be concrete with expansion joints placed at
30-foot intervals. Vehicle control if required will be accomplished by steel beam
guardrail or vertical granite curb. Post height will be thirty inches above grade, and
will be packed in six inches of tamped screened gravel on all sides. Curb height will
be 6 inches above finished grade. Concrete filled steel pipe bollards will be located
adjacent to structures. Manholes and catch basins will be precast concrete units with
cast iron frames and grates. Units must be designed for H20 loading. Precast concrete
units shall have cone tops. RCP drain pipe will be utilized for subsurface drainage.
Flared end with riprap apron consisting of stone six to eight inches in diameter.
9.3.4 Grading and Drainage

The work will conform to pertinent sections of Maine Department of Environmental
Protection Bureau of Land & Water Quality. Grading will attempt to keep similar
drainage patterns to those existing on the site. The site drainage currently consists of
open vegetated swales, catch basins, and paved swales. It is anticipated that post
construction runoff will be increased due to additional facilities and access drives. The
primary goal of the grading design will be to balance cut and fill.
9.3.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control

The down slope portions of the site work will be protected by sediment fence, hay
bales, or a combination of both. This will be installed prior to any excavation or
demolition on the site and will be required primarily along the south edge of the
existing compost area. All catch basins and drain inlets downstream of demolition or
new construction will be protected by a system of filter fabric installed over the grate
and overlain with a bed of gravel) (Drop Inlet Sediment Filter). If required based on a
drainage analysis temporary sediment basins may be installed. Existing swales and
storm drain pipe inlets will be protected with sediment fence/hay bale combination.
Erosion control blanket will be installed in all seeded swales and disturbed slopes
exceeding 4:1. A temporary vehicle wash station may be installed to prevent sediment
from being tracked from construction areas onto the facility entrance road. Dust will
be controlled by use of water trucks, and street sweepers to minimize impacts on the
surrounding area.
9.3.6 Landscape
All disturbed areas not covered with pavement or structures will receive loam and be
seeded. Some additional tree and shrub planting will be considered. Existing trees
will require protection. No construction activities will be permitted within twenty feet
of the trunks. These areas surrounding selected trees shall be fenced off with orange
safety fence. No materials shall be stockpiled, nor equipment allowed within this
area. Additional tree protection measures may be required based on evaluation of
trees to be protected. On site loam will be screened and reused on site. Additional
loam may be obtained from sources off site if necessary.
9-9
Section 9
Lawn areas (areas anticipated to be mowed/maintained on a regular basis)

Fescue
30%
Kentucky Bluegrass
50%
Perennial Ryegrass
20%
Natural areas (areas anticipated to be mowed twice per year)

Tall Fescue
40%
Perennial Ryegrass
15%
Chewings Fescue
10%
Hard Fescue
10%
Birdsfoot Trefoil
10%
Switchgrass
05%
White Clover
05%
Redtop
05%
9.3.7 Layout Specific Site Design Considerations

Layout Option 1
A new digester facility is proposed in an area southwest of the existing chlorine
contact chamber. The site is currently cleared of vegetation and utilized as a compost
area. The facility will be serviced by a new one way (15-foot wide) paved access drive
with an additional driveway to accommodate vehicle turning requirements. A new
Waste Gas Burner is proposed west of the digesters and a new Gas Safety Equipment
Building is proposed in an existing lawn area west of the proposed digesters. During
final design, an evaluation will be completed to determine additional access and
parking requirements for all new facilities.
Layout Option 2
A new digester facility is proposed in an existing paved area west of the existing
Process Building. It is anticipated that the existing pavement in this area will be
expanded to accommodate access and turning requirements for service vehicles and
staff. A new Gas Safety Equipment Building is proposed south of the existing
Chlorine Contact Chambers. A new Waste Gas Burner is proposed further west in the
existing compost area. A new 15-foot wide paved access drive with an additional
driveway to accommodate vehicle turning requirements is proposed from the existing
access drive north of Clarifier #1. It will service the Gas Safety Equipment Building
and Waste Gas Burner running to the south of both facilities. A new Screenings
Dumpster is proposed at the southeast corner of the existing Process Building. The
dumpster will be serviced by a new 15-foot wide paved driveway extending from the
existing access drive north of the existing clarifiers.
9-10
ML
26.4
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
30.1
3.0
30.8
89.6
26.0
38.0
LL
17.0
22.0
PL
Atterberg Limits
Non-plastic
NP
Table 9-1
Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Test not conducted

No value
NV
Lean clay
--
Sandy Silt
CL
9.0
16.0
PI
(3)
Poorly graded Sand with silt and gravel
Silty Sand
68.9
97.0
68.5
10.2
8.2
14.0
Fines
(%)
(2)
ML
SP-SM
Atterberg Limit tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D4318.
CDM-3
CL
Clay
Silt and Sand
28.9
0.2
57.2
65.4
3.
30-32
CDM-3
ML
Silty Sand
21.8
34.6
20.6
SM
20-22
CDM-3
SP-SM
Sand
9.5
8.7
Grain size analysis were conducted in accordance with ASTM D422.
10-12
CDM-1
SM
SP-SM
Sand
Sand (%)
2.
51-53
CDM-1
Gravel
(%)
Abbreviations:
40-42
CDM-1
CL
Sand
Clay
(1)
Grain Size Analysis
USCS classifications were conducted in accordance with ASTM D2488.
20-22
CDM-1
Strata
Moisture
Content
(%)
1.
15-17
Test Boring
Number
USCS
Classification
Notes:
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
Section 9
135.75
134.85
CDM-1
CDM-3
27.5
59.7
Exploration
Depth
(ft.)
19.0
8.0
Silty Sand
9.0
12.5
Clay
32.0
NE
Silt and Sand
Strata Thickness (ft)
>5
>39.2
Sand
16.5
17.0
Estimated
Groundwater
Depth
(ft.)
NE
>
Abbreviations:
Indicates strata not encountered

Indicates strata not fully penetrated
Table 9-2
Summary of Subsurface Conditions
1. Elevations are in feet and referenced to NGVD 1929.

2. Water levels were estimated from the moisture content of retrieved samples and/or were measured in the boreholes at the completion of drilling and
may not represent a static groundwater level.
Notes:
Ground Surface
Elevation
(ft.)
Exploration
Number
Section 9
Section 10
Permitting
10.1
Purpose
As part of the current conceptual design, an initial assessment was completed related
to the site development and environmental permitting requirements of the project.
The assessment included a review of the following issues:
Related ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of the City of Lewiston, Maine
(as confirmed through discussions with David Hediger, Lewiston City Planner);
Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) regulations;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations;
US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulations; and
Based on this review, we have determined that the following site development and
environmental permits will be needed for the project.
10.2
Local Permitting
10.2.1 Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resource Conservation (RC)

Zoning Districts Provisions
LAWPCA and this project are located within the Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resource
Conservation (RC) zoning districts. Within the UE this project is a permitted use and
has a height restriction of 80 feet. However, within the RC this project is a conditional
use and has a height restriction of 35 feet. The City of Lewiston Planning Board will
need to approve the conditional use and may grant up to a 50 percent modification to
the height restriction, potentially bringing the limit to 52.5 feet.
10.2.2 Local Flood Protection Provisions

The project is currently shown outside of the floodway, but within the 100-year
floodplain and will need approval by the City of Lewiston Planning Board. The City
Zoning Ordinance requires:
that all structures be designed to prevent flotation, that construction
materials be resistant to flooding, that construction practices will
minimize flood damage and that utilities be designed to prevent damage
during flooding
The 100-year flood elevation in this area is 136 feet.
A
5816-72780
10-1
Section 10
Permitting
10.2.3 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Permit

The Natural Resources Protection Act dictates that any disturbance within the 25-foot
Shoreland Zone setback requires a full NRPA permit from the MDEP. The NRPA
further dictates that if portions of the project are located outside the 25-foot setback,
but within 75 feet of the river, a Permit By Rule (PBR) from the MDEP and approval
by the local Planning Board is required. Though the exact locations of all ancillary
facilities would need to be determined during final design, it is likely that they would
be located outside the 25-foot setback, but within the 75-foot setback, thereby
necessitating a NRPA Permit By Rule and local Planning Board Approval.
10.2.4 Stormwater Runoff and Flood Management Permitting

The MDEP has a Stormwater Permitting Process that requires permits for disturbance
of one acre or more of area. If you disturb one acre or more, but less than 5 acres of
disturbance and have less than 40,000 square feet of new impervious then a
Construction General Permit is required. This is acquired by submitting a Permit by
Rule (PBR) with an attached Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the MDEP. If
the disturbance is over 5 acres or if there is more than 40,000 square feet of new
impervious surface then a Stormwater Permit and Construction General Permit are
required. However, the Stormwater Permit is reviewed by the City of Lewiston as
part of its delegated review authority from the MDEP. The Construction General
Permit still needs to be acquired from MDEP.
Based on the options being considered for the current project, it is expected that the
project will have a disturbance of less than 5 acres and will create less than 40,000
square feet of new impervious surface. As a result, it is estimated that only a
Construction General Permit PBR will be required from the MDEP.
As part of the City of Lewistons local development review permit process, the
applicant must submit information regarding the stormwater for the project. Because
the project will discharge all stormwater directly to the Androscoggin River and does
not require a Stormwater Permit, no flood control will be required. The City will
require a letter from the Engineer signed by a Professional Engineer indicating the
amount of disturbance, the amount of new impervious surface and that all
stormwater discharge from the project will be discharged directly to the
Androscoggin River.
10.2.5 Local Permit Application and Approval Schedule

During discussions with David Hediger, Lewiston City Planner, he indicated that the
City approvals could be obtained at one Planning Board meeting if all the criteria for
approval are met. The MDEP NRPA PBR consists of submitting an application, which
MDEP has 14 days to review and provide comments. If no comments are received
within the 14 days then the permit is approved.
10-2
Section 10
Permitting
The permitting on this project is very similar to the permitting required for the
Lewiston CSO Storage Facility on Water Street that received approvals from the
Planning Board in one meeting and a PBR approval from MDEP. Based on our
experience, we expect the permits described above for this project should be obtained
within 30 days after the applications are submitted.
10.3
Air Quality Permitting
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Air Quality Bureau

requires air emission licenses (also known as permits in other states) for emission
units unless they are insignificant or exempt from permitting by law. The MEDEP
specifically exempts from permitting the following specific equipment:
Fuel-burning equipment (or combinations thereof), whose total maximum design

heat input is less than 10.0 million British Thermal Units (mmBTUs) per hour; and
Stationary internal combustion engines (SICE) (or combination thereof) that are
less than 5.0 mmBtu/hr and are excluded from the applicability determination.
The equipment proposed to be installed at the project site includes two 220-kW
cogeneration engines, one boiler, and one waste gas burner. The engines and boilers
will both be constructed so that they will be capable of burning either digester gas or
natural gas; the waste gas burner will be used to burn any excess digester gas. Based
on the applicable rule definitions, the required licenses that must be obtained for the
project site are itemized below:
Based on the information provided for the equipment, the two engines are
estimated to have a rated capacity of 4.1 mmBtu/hr (total); therefore, the engines
would be excluded from the applicability threshold and are exempt from
permitting.
The only equipment that meets the definition of fuel-burning equipment, other
than the SICE, is the boiler. The maximum rated capacity of the boiler is
2.2 mmBtu/hr; therefore, since the total capacity is less than 10.0 mmBtu/hr, the
boiler is exempt from permitting.
The waste gas burner does not meet the definition of fuel-burning equipment
because its primary purpose is not to produce heat or power. As a result, no
exemption from permitting is applicable to the waste gas burner; therefore, the
waste gas burner is required to obtain an air emissions license.
Emissions of criteria pollutants from the equipment were estimated using emission
factors from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Assuming that
the equipment operates continuously (8,760 hours per year), the maximum potential
to emit (PTE) is provided in Table 10-1. Although the engines and boiler are exempt
from permitting, their emissions were still estimated for reference purposes only.
10-3
Section 10
Permitting
Annual Emissions (tons per year)

Pollutant
Engine
Boiler
Flare
Total
NOx
73.75
0.94
2.34
77.04
CO
6.87
0.79
0.09
7.75
SOx
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.19
VOC
2.34
0.05
0.59
2.98
PM10
0.83
0.07
0.58
1.49
Key
CO:
carbon monoxide
NOx: Oxides of nitrogen
VOC: volatile organic compounds

SOX:
oxides of sulfur
PM10: respirable particulate matter
Table 10-1
Summary of Maximum Annual Emissions
The Maine DEP classifies sources as either minor or major, with the latter being
federally enforceable, based on the sources PTE. Sources are classified as minor
sources if emissions are less than either 50 tons per year VOC or 100 tons per year of
any other regulated pollutant. Since the sources emissions (flare only) are less than
both of these thresholds, the source will be required to obtain a minor source license.
The source will be required to obtain an air emissions license prior to breaking
ground or commencing construction at the project location. The application process
involves filing necessary forms with the DEP, paying any necessary fees, and
providing information on equipment emissions and operation. A review of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) will also be required as part of the licensing
process.
10-4
Section 11
Preliminary Cost Estimate and
Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis
11.1
Project Cost Estimates:
The current estimated construction costs based on the recommendations made in this
Conceptual Design Report are shown in Table 11-1. The total project costs for Layout
Option 1 and Option 2 of this project are currently estimated to be $16.3M and
$21.0M, respectively
Project Component
Site Work
Option 1
New Separate
Facility
Option 2
Retrofit of
Existing Facility
$229,000
$337,000
$0
$2,730,000
Yard Piping
$515,000
$305,000
Thickening System Replacement
$873,000
$839,000
Intake Screening System Upgrade
$0
$1,249,000
Digestion Process Equipment

Modification to Existing Space
$0
$895,000
Digestion Process Equipment

New Space
$3,124,000
$1,796,000
Digestion Tanks
$2,824,000
$3,443,000
Biogas/Digested Sludge Holding Tank
$666,000
$697,000
Gas Safety and Treatment Equipment
$1,277,000
$1,230,000
Cogeneration System
$1,235,000
$1,240,000
Electrical
$1,944,000
$1,687,000
$363,000
$363,000
$13,049,000
$16,811,000
$3,262,000
$4,203,000
$16,311,000
$21,014,000
Deep Foundations and Excavation Support

Systems
Instrumentation and Controls
Estimated Construction Cost

Project Implementation Cost (25%)
Estimated Project Cost

Assumptions
1. Costs Include 25% Construction Contingency
2. Escalation for Option I is at 4% per year until midpoint of construction, September 2010
3. Escalation for Option II is at 4% per year until midpoint of construction, November 2010
4. Costs do not include mitigation of hazardous waste in existing soils, ledge removal or
legal/administrative costs
Table 11-1
Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Based on 10% Level of Design
A
5816-72780
11-1
Section 11
11.2
Comparison of Options
The two facility layout options discussed through this report each have distinct
advantages and disadvantages associated with them. Some of the more significant
points for consideration are noted in Table 11-2 below.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 1
Lower capital cost;
(New Separate
Facility)
Provides a consolidated digestion

equipment facility;
Minimal impact of Maintenance of
Plant Operations (MOPO) during
construction;
New facilities except the

cogeneration engines are
located remote from most
existing process systems.
Maintains space for future digestion

tank capacity expansion;
Geotechnical support likely to utilize
shallow foundation system; and
Available space for shorter, less-costly
digester tank configuration.
Option 2
( Retrofit of
Existing Interior
Process
Space)
Reuses existing building space
Higher capital cost;
Improved electrical code classification

compliance of existing building by
isolating the influent screening area
from remainder of process building;
and
Digestion equipment
distributed between multiple
process areas;
Digestion facilities located in closer

proximity to other existing process
systems.
Significant impact on
Maintenance of Plant
Operations (MOPO) during
construction;
Does not readily allow for
future digestion tank capacity
expansion;
Geotechnical support would
require deep foundation
system (drilled piles);
Limited space requires taller,
more costly digester tank
configuration; and
Limits vehicle access around
and into existing process
building.
Table 11-2
Comparison of Facility Layout Options
11-2
Section 11
Due to the significant cost and non-cost advantages associated with Option 1, it is
recommended that a separate new digestion facility be pursued in lieu of attempting
to retrofit the existing interior screenings handling area as included in Option 2. In
addition, listed below are several possibilities for screening handling improvements
(e.g., new intake screens, screenings wash compactors, and conveyors) :
Include in Option 1, the full intake screening modifications shown in Option 2, with
the exception of utilizing the existing screenings garage in lieu of constructing a
new one to the east;
Include in Option 1, the screenings handling systems (wash compactors and

conveyors) and continue to use the existing screens and screenings garage;
Include in Option 1, intake screen replacement while maintaining the existing

screenings handling systems; or
Pursue the screening improvements as a separate future project.
It should be also noted that, the cost estimate included in Table 11-1 assumes the
construction of a new screenings garage (as required by Option 2) and the reuse of the
existing screenings garage area would likely yield cost savings not reflected in the
current estimate for this work.
11.3
Financial Analysis
As the findings, recommendations and revised capitol cost estimate included in this
Conceptual Design affect the financial analysis which was produced in conjunction
with the Feasibility Study, the project costs have been revisited and updated as
detailed below.
11.3.1 Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs

Table 11-3 summarizes the estimates operations and maintenance costs for the current
biosolids management system and for a system utilizing anaerobic digestion.
11-3
Section 11
Annual Estimated Operating Costs
Current
Biosolids
Management
Biosolids
Management
With Anaerobic
Digestion
Savings
WAS Thickening and Dewatering

Polymer Usage 1
WAS Thickening Operation (Power Costs)
BFP Operation (Power Costs)
$34,000
$20,400
$13,600
$12,000
$12,000
$0
$3,840
$2,300
$1,540
$90,000
$0
$90,000
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$295,000
$177,000
$118,000
$18,600
$11,000
$7,600
$90,000
$63,000
$27,000
$113,000
$79,000
$34,000
($55,000)
($33,000)
($22,000)
Lime Stabilization
Lime Cost 4
Fertilizer Costs due to pH and calcium
5
saturation
Composting Facility
Amendment Cost 6
Vehicles (fuels, maintenance)
Electric Power Costs 8

Fuel Cost 8
Compost Revenue
Treatment Facility
Vehicles (fuel, maintenance) 10
$54,000
$32,400
$21,600
$445,000
$445,000
$0
$84,000
$84,000
$0
$291,000
$175,000
$116,000
$157,000
$0
$157,000
$0
$25,000
($25,000)
$0
$26,000
($26,000)
Digester Equipment Power Costs
$0
$75,000
($75,000)
Cogeneration System
Estimated Value of Power Production
18
($/year)
$0
($369,000)
$369,000
Hydrogen Sulfide Media Costs19
$0
$15,000
($15,000)
Estimated Annual Engine Maintenance Cost20
$0
$41,000
($41,000)
$1,662,000
$881,000
$781,000
Electric Power Costs 11

Fuel Cost
12
Residual Disposal
Biosolids Land Application Cost 13
Biosolids Landfilling Cost
14
Secondary Treatment System

Additional Aeration Cost17
Digestion System
Digester Equipment Maintenance Cost 15
16
Total Estimated Annual Biosolids

Management Costs (Current Dollars)
Table 11-3
Annual Estimated Operating Costs
1)
Polymer Usage is expected to decrease by 40% due to less biosolids for dewatering
2)
HP of existing DAF equipment is approximately equal to the HP required to operate the new GBT equipment
3)
Estimated BFP will operate 40% less due to reduction in sludge volume
4)
Lime stabilization will not be used when anaerobic digester is operational
5)
Regulatory fees for land applying lime stabilized biosolids
11-4
Section 11
6)
Assume a 40% reduction due to lower biosolids quantities
7)
Assumes 40% reduction
8)
Assumes 30% reduction in energy use
9)
Compost revue will decrease due to less biosolids available for composting
10) Assumes 40% reduction

11) Assumed that energy usage at the LAWPCA remains approximately the same
12) Assumes amount of natural gas or fuel oil used to heat the facility remains unchanged
13) Assumes 40% reduction
14) Assumes all biosolids will be beneficially reused
15) Assumes equipment O&M is 1% of equipment capital cost
16) Estimated that approximately 70 kW required to operate digester equipment; at $0.12 per kW-h, annual cost of
electricity is $75,000
17) An additional 770 SCFM or 40 HP will be required to treat the digester sidestreams in the secondary treatment
system
18) 2,200 kW engines operating at 90% capacity; 5% parasitic load; LAWPCA currently purchases power at
approximately $0.12 per kWh; assumes cogen system operates 8,000 hours/year
19) Estimated that hydrogen sulfide media will be replaced once per year, costing $15,000 for media and labor.
20) Estimated engine maintenance cost is $0.013/kWh; assumes cogen system operates 8,000 hours/year
11.3.2 Comparison of Capital Costs with Project Cost Savings

In order to determine the financial feasibility of the digestion/energy recovery
project, a simple comparison of costs and savings over a 20 year period was
conducted. Three scenarios were evaluated, which included the following:
Scenario 1: Without any grants or low interest loans;
Scenario 2: Without any grants or low interest loans, but with an increase in waste
collection revenues equivalent to ~$200,000 per year (current dollars); and
Scenario 3: With the equivalent of a 50 percent grant (e.g. Department of Energy

(DOE) grant).
Table 11-4 shows the results of the financial analysis. Capital costs were taken from
Table 11-1. Annual bond costs were based on a 20-year revenue bond of 3 percent
with equal monthly payments. The annual operating cost savings were based on the
average savings over a 20-year period and are approximate. The operating cost
savings includes both reduced operating costs due to lower quantities of biosolids as
well as the savings from avoided electricity costs. An escalation rate for electricity of
3 percent was used, although many economists expect that energy costs will escalate
faster than other costs. To include the effects of inflation, all operating costs were
escalated at 3 percent per year. A standard 20-year planning discount rate of 4.7
percent as recommended by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget was used.
Another factor in the financial analysis is the current LAWPCA debt service
payments. The Authority has three loans issued 1990, 1991 and 1992 that will be
completed by 2012. In 2009, the Authority incurred $790,000 in costs associated with
these loans which will decrease to zero in 2012.
11-5
Section 11
For the scenario with no grants, the net average annual cost to the Authority are
approximately $50,000 and are within the cost estimating accuracy of this feasibility
study. With a 50 percent grant equivalent, the average savings is significant at
approximately $4.4M.
Item
Estimated Capital Costs
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3:
No Grants
No Grants,
Increased
Revenue
50 Percent Grant
$16,300,000
$16,300,000
$8,150,000
Annual Bond Cost
$1,086,000
$1,086,000
$543,000
Average Annual Operating Savings
$1,036,000
$1,036,000
$1,036,000
$270,000
Average Annual Additional Revenue

Net Average Annual Savings
($50,000)
$320,000
$493,000
20-Year Net Present Value of

Savings
($1,300,000)
$2,000,000
$4,400,000
Table 11-4
Financial Analysis of Anaerobic Digester/Energy
Recovery Project
11-6
Appendix A
Historical Boring Logs
Appendix B
Recent Boring Logs
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Sheet 1 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-1
Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA
Project Location: Lewiston, ME
Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion

Project Number: 5816-72780
Surface Elevation (ft.): 135.8
Drilling Contractor/Driller: Maine Test Boring, Inc. / Tom Schafer

Drilling Method/Casing/Core Barrel Size: Drive and Wash / 4"/
Total Depth (ft.): 59.7
Hammer Type/Hammer Weight/Drop Height/Spoon Size:

Safety / 140 lbs. / 30 in. /2" in. O.D.
Depth to Initial Water Level (ft):

Depth
Date
Time
9/10/09
17
Bore Hole Location: See Boring Plan

N:
E:
Abandonment Method: Fill With Cuttings

Logged By: J. Morency
Strata
Plasticity
Index
Graphic Log
135.8
0
Sample
Recovery (in)
Blows per
6 inches
Sample
Length (in)
Sample
Number
Material Description
Remarks
Moist, very stiff, dark brown, peat. (Compost)
130.8
5
SS
S-1
24
5
6
6
5
24
1
1
2
2
24
24
1
2
2
3
24
125.8
10
S-2
24
Wet, medium dense, gray, fine SAND and

SILT, trace fine gravel
Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT
CLAY
SS
SILTY SAND
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type
Drilling Date: Start: 9/10/2009 End: 9/10/2009
120.8
15
BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09
SS
S-3
Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT
115.8
Sample Types
Consistency vs Blowcount/Foot
Granular (Sand):
AS - Auger/Grab Sample HP - Hydro Punch
CS - California Sampler SS - Split Spoon
V. Loose:
0-4 Dense:
ST
Shelby
Tube
BQ - 1.5" Rock Core
4-10 V. Dense:
WS - Wash Sample Loose:
NQ - 2" Rock Core
M. Dense: 10-30
GP - Geoprobe
Reviewed by: R. Howard
Burmister Classification
Fine Grained (Clay):

30-50
>50
V. Soft:
Soft:
M. Stiff:
Date: 9/28/2009
<2
2-4
4-8
Stiff:
V. Stiff:
Hard:
8-15
15-30
>30
and
35-50%
some
20-35%
little
10-20%
trace
<10%
moisture, density, color
Boring Number: CDM-1
Sheet 2 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-1
SS
S-4
SS
S-5
S-6
24
15
15
24
25
Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT, little fine to

coarse SAND, trace fine gravel
Wet, medium dense, gray, fine to coarse
SAND, little fine gravel, little clay and silt
14
Remarks
A: (0"-6")
B: (6"-14")
Wet, medium dense, gray, fine to coarse

SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt
10
Wet, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse

SAND, little fine gravel, trace silt
10
SAND
SS
Strata
24
7
9
10
11
105.8
30

Graphic Log
24
7
7
7
8
110.8
25
Plasticity
Index
Blows per
6 inches
24
2
11
9
8
115.8
20
Sample
Recovery (in)
Sample
Length (in)
Sample
Number
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type

100.8
35
95.8
40
SS
S-7
12
Wet, dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND,

some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt
90.8
45
Sheet 3 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-1
Strata

Graphic Log
Plasticity
Index
Blows per
6 inches
24
6
5
6
7
Sample
Recovery (in)
Sample
Length (in)
Sample
Number
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type

Remarks
85.8
50
S-8
8
SAND
SS
Wet, medium dense, brown, fine to medium

SAND, trace silt
80.8
55
75.8
60
100/0"
END OF BORING = 59.7'
SPT Refusal
Encountered
70.8
65
65.8
70
Sheet 1 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-3

Drilling Contractor/Driller: Maine Test Boring, Inc. / Tom Schafer
Surface Elevation (ft.): 134.9
Drilling Method/Casing/Core Barrel Size: Drive and Wash / 4"/
Total Depth (ft.): 65
Hammer Type/Hammer Weight/Drop Height/Spoon Size:

Safety / 140 lbs. / 30 in. /2" in. O.D.
Depth to Initial Water Level (ft):

Depth
Date
Time
16.5
9/10/09
Bore Hole Location: See Boring Plan

N:
E:
Abandonment Method: Fill With Cuttings

Logged By: J. Morency
S-1
SS
S-2
SS
S-3
24
2
2
5
13
119.9
15
S-4
Remarks
16
Dry, medium dense, yellowish orange, fine to

coarse SAND, little silt, trace fine gravel
14
10
Wet, loose, brown, SILT, some fine sand, trace

fine gravel
Wet, loose, gray, fine SAND and SILT

Wet, medium dense, orange with red staining,
fine to coarse SAND, trace silt
18
A: (0"-16")
B: (16"-18")
CLAY
SS
Strata
24
3
3
5
5
124.9
10
Graphic Log
24
7
7
7
5
129.9
5
Dry, medium dense, brown, fine SAND, some

silt
SILTY SAND
SS
Plasticity
Index
Blows per
6 inches
24
4
9
7
8
134.9
0
Sample
Recovery (in)
Sample
Length (in)
Sample
Number
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type
Drilling Date: Start: 9/9/2009 End: 9/10/2009
114.9
Sample Types
Consistency vs Blowcount/Foot
Granular (Sand):
AS - Auger/Grab Sample HP - Hydro Punch
CS - California Sampler SS - Split Spoon
V. Loose:
0-4 Dense:
ST
Shelby
Tube
BQ - 1.5" Rock Core
4-10 V. Dense:
WS - Wash Sample Loose:
NQ - 2" Rock Core
M. Dense: 10-30
GP - Geoprobe
Reviewed by: R. Howard
Burmister Classification
Fine Grained (Clay):

30-50
>50
V. Soft:
Soft:
M. Stiff:
Date: 9/28/2009
<2
2-4
4-8
Stiff:
V. Stiff:
Hard:
8-15
15-30
>30
and
35-50%
some
20-35%
little
10-20%
trace
<10%
moisture, density, color
Sheet 2 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-3
24
SS
S-6
SS
S-7
SS
S-8
24
2
2
4
5
24
4
4
5
5
24
4
6
8
11
24
6
8
10
13
94.9
40
SS
S-9
89.9
45
SS
S-10
Wet, medium stiff, gray, CLAY and SILT, trace

fine sand
24
CLAY
24
99.9
35
Remarks
21
2
3
5
5
104.9
30
14
Wet, medium stiff, gray, CLAY and SILT, little

fine sand
Wet, loose gray, SILT, little fine sand

16
Wet, loose, gray, SILT, little fine sand

10
SILT and SAND
109.9
25
Strata
U-1

Graphic Log
SS
Plasticity
Index
24
114.9
20
Sample
Recovery (in)
Blows per
6 inches
S-5
Sample
Number
SS
3
3
2
3
Sample
Type
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Length (in)

Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine sand

14

16
Sheet 3 of 3
Boring Number:
CDM-3
S-11
24
16
22
31
30
Strata
24
14
20
32
32
Graphic Log
24
7
8
11
17

Remarks

17
SILT and SAND
SS
Plasticity
Index
Blows per
6 inches
24
9
12
14
15
84.9
50
Sample
Recovery (in)
Sample
Length (in)
Sample
Number
Elev.
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type

79.9
55
SS
S-12
74.9
60
S-13
18
Wet, very dense, gray, fine SAND, little silt

15
SAND
SS
Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine

sand. 1/4" thick seams of black, fine SAND
SS
69.9
65
S-14
16
Wet, very dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND,

trace fine gravel, trace silt
END OF BORING = 65'
64.9
70
Appendix C
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

60
Dashed line indicates the approximate

upper limit boundary for natural soils
50
rO
PLASTICITY INDEX
40
30
20
rO
10
CL-ML
4
7
ML or OL
MH or OH
0
0
10
20
30
40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No. 5816-72780
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
70
LL
PL
PI
38
22
16
26
17
Client: Auburn Lewiston WPCA
80
90
%<#40
100
%<#200
Depth: 15-17
Depth: 20-22
99.5
97.0
Remarks:
Sample Number: S-3

Sample Number: S-5
CDM
Cambridge, Massachusetts
USCS
CL
Project: Anaerobic Digestors

Source of Sample: CDM-1
Source of Sample: CDM-3
110
Figure
CL
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.
Particle Size Distribution Report

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
6.9
Coarse
13.7
17.6
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
93.1
79.4
61.8
44.0
31.9
22.1
14.0
% Sand
Medium
29.9
% Fines
Fine
Silt
Clay
17.9
3.8
10.2
Soil Description
silty sand with gravel
PL= --
Atterberg Limits
LL= --
D85= 7.0675
D30= 0.3596
Cu=
USCS= SM
PI=
Coefficients
D60= 1.8393
D50= 1.1422
D15= 0.0869
D10=
Cc =
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
As received moisture content=8.7%
* (no specification provided)
Sample No.: S-4B
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-1
Test Date: 9/10/09

Elev./Depth: 20-22

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
23.4
Coarse
11.2
13.2
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
76.6
65.4
52.2
40.3
31.6
19.0
8.2
% Sand
Medium
20.6
% Fines
Fine
Silt
23.4
Clay
8.2
Soil Description
poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
PL= --
Atterberg Limits
LL= --
D85= 34.5434
D30= 0.3707
Cu= 38.83
USCS= SP-SM
PI=
Coefficients
D60= 3.2447
D50= 1.7324
D15= 0.1146
D10= 0.0836
Cc= 0.51
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: S-7
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-1
Test Date: 9/10/09

Elev./Depth: 40-42

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
0.0
Coarse
0.2
0.4
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.4
92.0
71.7
29.6
10.2
% Sand
Medium
27.7
% Fines
Fine
Silt
61.5
Clay
10.2
Soil Description
poorly graded sand with silt
PL= --
Atterberg Limits
LL= --
D85= 0.6330
D30= 0.1518
Cu=
USCS= SP-SM
PI=
Coefficients
D60= 0.3180
D50= 0.2514
D15= 0.0909
D10=
Cc =
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: S-8
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-1
Test Date: 9/10/09

Elev./Depth: 51-53

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
0.0
Coarse
0.7
0.2
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
99.3
99.1
99.0
98.9
92.9
68.5
% Sand
Medium
0.2
% Fines
Fine
Silt
30.4
Clay
68.5
Soil Description
sandy silt
PL= --
Atterberg Limits
LL= --
D85= 0.1144
D30=
Cu=
USCS= ML
PI=
Coefficients
D60=
D50=
D15=
D10=
Cc =
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: S-3
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-3
Test Date: 9/9/09

Elev./Depth: 10-12

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
0.0
Coarse
0.0
0.1
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.8
99.5
99.2
97.0
% Sand
Medium
% Fines
Fine
Silt
Clay
2.5
55.1
41.9
0.4
Soil Description
lean clay
PL= 17
Atterberg Limits
LL= 26
D85= 0.0565
D30=
Cu=
USCS= CL
PI= 9
Coefficients
D60= 0.0183
D50= 0.0089
D15=
D10=
Cc =
Classification
AASHTO= A-4(7)
Remarks
Sample No.: S-5
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-3
Test Date: 9/9/09

Elev./Depth: 20-22

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
in.
in.
1 in.
1 in.
2 in.
3 in.
6 in.

100
90
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel
Coarse
Fine
% +3"
0.0
0.0
Coarse
0.0
0.0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
3/4
#4
#10
#20
#40
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
97.6
68.9
% Sand
Medium
0.1
% Fines
Fine
Silt
31.0
Clay
68.9
Soil Description
sandy silt
PL= --
Atterberg Limits
LL= --
D85= 0.1051
D30=
Cu=
USCS= ML
PI=
Coefficients
D60=
D50=
D15=
D10=
Cc =
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: S-7
Location:
Source of Sample:
CDM
CDM-3
Test Date: 9/9/09

Elev./Depth: 30-32

Project No:
5816-72780
Figure

Conceptual Design Report - Biogas

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

Conceptual Design Report - Biogas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution

Control Authority, Maine

This page intentionally left blank.

Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics

Waste Activate Sludge Thickening Improvements

Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements

Digester System Equipment .................................................................................... 4-8

Biogas Handling and Cogeneration Improvements

Architectural and Structural Considerations

Masonry Design ....................................................................................... 6-18

Electrical and Instrumentation Functions

HVAC and Plumbing Functions

Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Analysis and Design

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Historical Boring Logs

Plant Influent ............................................................................................................. 2-1

Estimated Loading Rates for WAS Thickening .................................................... 3-2

Combined Thickened Sludge to Digester System, Basis of Design ................... 4-2

Biogas Production Rates and Energy Value of Biogas ........................................ 5-2

LAWPCA Facility Area Classification Summary............................................ 7-8

Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................................... 9-12

Summary of Maximum Annual Emissions ......................................................... 10-4

Anaerobic Digestion System Process Flow Diagram .......................................... 1-7

Digester Plan and Section ...................................................................................... 4-15

Waste Gas Burner, Gas Equipment Building, Gas Conditioning System,

Electrical Overall One Line Diagram ................................................................... 7-17

Boring Location Plan Option 1 ........................................................................ 9-13

The purpose of this Conceptual Design Report (CDR) is to expand on the

Conceptual site plans of the proposed facilities (both layout options);

Conceptual drawings of the new process areas as well as proposed modifications to

Solids train process flow diagram;

Discussion of architectural and structural design considerations;

Evaluation of the existing and proposed power distribution system;

Discussion related to instrumentation and control concepts, including the desired

Consideration of current and future plant operations include operations during

Consideration of ease of construction and associated risks during construction;

Heating, ventilating and plumbing improvements considerations;

Site access improvements evaluation;

Results of initial geotechnical investigations; and

An update of the estimated project costs and comparison of layout alternatives.

1.2 Existing Biosolids Treatment

1.3 Project Drivers, Goals and Objectives

Reduction of total solids by approximately 40%. This reduction in solids will

1.4 Project Components

Waste activated sludge thickening equipment replacement and associated

Digester tank covers;

Biogas and digested sludge storage tank;

Digester recirculation pumps;

Sludge heat exchangers;

Central dual-fuel boiler and hot water recirculation pumps;

Digester mixing system pumps;

Biogas cleaning system;

Anaerobic digester gas driven reciprocating engine generators;

Site layout, roadways, grading and drainage modifications.

Replacement/upgrade of influent screening mechanisms;

New screenings wash compactors; and

New screenings conveyor and transport system.

1.5 Facility Layout Options

1.5.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility

1.5.2 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space

Create operational advantages by relocating and modernizing the screenings

This page intentionally left blank.

Influent Flow (MGD)