UV?DISINFECTION?COST?STUDY

UV?DISINFECTION?COST?STUDY

Cost?Study?Report

FOR

METROPOLITAN?WATER?RECLAMATION

DISTRICT?OF?GREATER?CHICAGO

VOLUME?1?OF?2

NORTH?SIDE?WATER?RECLAMATION?PLANT

Januar y? 31, ? 200 8

Prepared?By

303?EAST?WACKER?DRIVE,?SUITE?600

CHICAGO,?ILLINOIS?60601

MWRDGC?Project?No.?07-026-2P

CTE?Project?No.?60026610

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

`TABLE?OF?CONTENTS

Volume?1?–?Report?and?Appendices

EXECUTIVE?SUMMARY.................................................................................................1

Introduction..................................................................................................................1

Objectives....................................................................................................................1

Proposed?Facilities ......................................................................................................1

Hydraulics....................................................................................................................2

Disinfection?Technology...............................................................................................2

Site?Constraints ...........................................................................................................3

Preliminary?Cost?Opinion .............................................................................................3

1.0

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 6

1.1

Background .....................................................................................................6

1.2

Objective..........................................................................................................6

1.3

General?Design?Standards...............................................................................6

1.4

Organization?of?this?Report ..............................................................................7

2.0

HYDRAULICS ..................................................................................................... 8

2.1?Recommended?Alternative?from?Disinfection?Cost?Study?Hydraulic?Evaluation ......8

2.2

Hydraulic?Analysis?of?the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities ..........................................8

2.3

Assumptions ....................................................................................................9

2.4

Results...........................................................................................................10

2.5

Conclusion.....................................................................................................11

3.0

NSWRP?DISINFECTION?PROCESS ................................................................. 14

3.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................14

3.2

UV?Disinfection?System .................................................................................14

3.3

Low?Lift?Pump?Station ....................................................................................19

4.0

NSWRP?CIVIL ................................................................................................... 22

4.1

Basis?of?Design..............................................................................................22

5.0

NSWRP?STRUCTURAL?AND?ARCHITECTURAL ............................................. 27

5.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................27

5.2

NSWRP?UV?FACILITY ...................................................................................31

5.3

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION...........................................................................31

6.0

NSWRP?ELECTRICAL ...................................................................................... 32

6.1

Codes/Standards ...........................................................................................32

6.2

Electric?Service ..............................................................................................32

6.2

System?Grounding .........................................................................................33

6.3

Conduit ..........................................................................................................33

6.4

Wire ...............................................................................................................33

6.5

Motors............................................................................................................33

6.6

Emergency?Systems ......................................................................................33

6.7

Lightning?Protection .......................................................................................34

6.8

Specific?Electrical?Equipment.........................................................................34

7.0

NSWRP?INSTRUMENTATION?SYSTEM........................................................... 38

7.1

Applicable?Codes?and?Standards ...................................................................38

8.0

NSWRP?MECHANICAL?AND?PLUMBING ......................................................... 39

8.1.

Mechanical?Codes .........................................................................................39

8.2

Basis?of?Design..............................................................................................39

8.3

Proposed?Mechanical?and?Plumbing?System .................................................40

9.0

NSWRP?AREAS?REQUIRING?FURTHER?ANALYSIS ....................................... 41

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

10.0

NSWRP?PRELIMINARY?COST?OPINION..........................................................41

10.1

Basis?of?Opinion?of?Capital?Cost.....................................................................42

10.2

Basis?of?Operation?and?Maintenance?Costs ...................................................43

10.3

Basis?of?Net?Present?Value?Calculation..........................................................44

10.4

Discussion?of?Cost?Estimate?Line?Items .........................................................44

11.0

NSWRP?SCHEDULE?OF?IMPLEMENTATION...................................................46

12.0

CALUMET?WRP?PRELIMINARY?COST?OPINION............................................. 46

LIST?OF?TABLES

Table?ES-1?–?NSWRP?&?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O

Costs...............................................................................................................................3

Table?2.4-1? –?Summary?of? Headloss?through? the?Unit?Processes?at?NSWRP? (Proposed)

......................................................................................................................................10

Table?2.4-2?–?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities .............11

Table?3.2-1?–?Design?Parameters?for?UV?Disinfection?Unit?at?NSWRP ..........................18

Table?3.3-1?–?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Basis?of?Design ....................................................20

Table?3.3-2?–?Examples?of?Pump?Operation ..................................................................21

Table?10.0-1?–?NSWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O?Costs . 42

Table?10.2-1?–?M&O?Labor?Requirements .....................................................................43

Table?10.4-1?–?OPCC?Selected?Line?Item?Description ...................................................45

Table?11.0-1?–?Projected?Schedule?of?Implementation ..................................................46

Table?12.0-1?–?Summary?of?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facility?Cost?Development ............47

Table?12.0-2?–?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O?Costs....47

LIST?OF?FIGURES

Figure?ES-1?–?Proposed?NSWRP?Site?Plan.....................................................................4

Figure?ES-21?–?Proposed?CWRP?Site?Plan .....................................................................5

Figure?2.1-1?–?Alternative?1 .............................................................................................8

Figures?2.4-1?and?2.4-2?–?Revised?Hydraulic?Profile?for?Disinfection?Cost?Study ......12/13

LIST?OF?APPENDICES

Appendix?A?

Hydraulic?Technical?Memorandum

Appendix?B?

UV?Technology?Technical?Memorandum

Appendix?C?

UV?Equipment?Technical?Information

Appendix?D?

Pump?Technical?Information

Appendix?E?

Historical?Soil?Boring?Information

Appendix?F?

Cost?Estimate?Breakdown?Tables

Volume?2?–?Conceptual?Design?Drawings

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

EXECUTIVE?SUMMARY

Introduction

The? Technical? Memorandum? 1WQ? Disinfection? Evaluation? (TM1-WQ)? was? completed? in

August? 2005? for? the? Metropolitan? Water? Reclamation? District? of? Greater? Chicago

(MW RDGC? or? District)? as? part? of? the? comprehensive? Infrastructure? and? Process? Needs

Feasibility? Study? (Master? Plan)? for? the? North? Side? Water? Reclamation? Plant? (NSWRP)

and?a?Water?Quality?(WQ)?Strategy?for?affected?Chicago?Area?Waterways.??The?TM1-WQ

reviewed?the?alternative?disinfection?technologies?available?for?use?at?the?District’s?North

Side,? Calumet? and? Stickney?Water? Reclamation? Plants? and? provided? an? initial? estimate

of? possible? construction? cost? for? the? facilities.? ? On? the? basis? of? that? report? the? District

requested?further?investigation?into?UV?disinfection.??The?findings?of?the?Preliminary?Cost

Opinion? for? Ultraviolet? (UV)? Disinfection? Facilities? Study? at? the? North? Side? Water

Reclamation?Plant?are?presented?in?this?Report.

Objectives

This?evaluation?is?based?upon?the?TM1-WQ,?the?comments?received?from?the?USEPA?as

part? of? the? Use? Attainability? Analysis? (UAA)? evaluations,? and? new? information? obtained

since? the? previous? work.? ? The? primary? objectives? of? the? evaluation? presented? in? this

report?are:

•

To?describe?the?conceptual?facilities?developed?as?part?of?this?study?including?their

basis?of?design?and?the?assumptions?used?for?their?development

•

To?develop?a?Level?3?Preliminary?Opinion?of?Probable?Construction?Cost?per?the

Association?for?the?Advancement?of?Cost?Engineering?recommended?practices?for

the?proposed?facilities?at?NSWRP

•

To?develop?annual?maintenance?and?operations?(M&O)?costs?for?the?facilities

•

To?use?the?costs?developed?for?NSWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?to?project?the?costs

for?similar?facilities?at?the?Calumet?Water?Reclamation?Plant?(CWRP)

Proposed?Facilities

The?study?reviewed?the?proposed?facilities?for?the?UV?Disinfection?Alternative?included?in

TM-1W Q? including? the? four? primary? components:? ? site? work,? a? low? lift? pump? station,

tertiary?filters,?and? UV? disinfection.? ? Through? that? review,? it? was?determined? that? the? low

lift?pump?station?and?the?tertiary?filters?required?re-evaluation.

At? the? time? TM-1WQ? was? developed,? very? little? information? was? available? regarding? the

water? quality? of? the? plant? effluent? as? it? related? to? ultraviolet? light? transmissivity,? and? the

that? data? was? available? indicated? low? transmissivity? levels.? ? Because? of? the? conceptual

nature? of? TM-1WQ,? tertiary? filters? were? included? in? initial? proposed? facilities? in? order? to

improve? disinfection? effectiveness? by? removing? water? components? that? would? inhibit? the

disinfection?process,?although?costs?were?also?provided?without?tertiary?filters.??Since?that

time,? additional? water? quality? data? has? been? collected? by? the? District? and? review? of? that

data? indicates? that? UV? transmissivity? is? within? the? minimum? range? necessary? for? UV

disinfection? without? filtration.? ? Therefore,? tertiary? filters? are? not? included? in? the? proposed

facilities? presented? in? this? report.? ? However,? the? exclusion? of? tertiary? filters? from? this

report? should? not?suggest? that? tertiary?filters? would? not?be? required? in? the? future? to? meet

stricter? suspended? solids? or? phosphorous?limits,?or? that?tertiary?filters?would?not?improve

the? effectiveness? of? a? UV? disinfection? process.? ? As? concluded? in? the? NSWRP? Master

Plan,?space?would?be?reserved?on?the?site?for?future?tertiary?filter?facilities.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Because? tertiary?filters?would? not?be? required?to?be? added? as?part?of?the? implementation

of? UV? disinfection,? the? need? for? a? low? lift? pump? station? was? questioned.? ? Additional

pumping? would? be? required? only? if? the? head? losses? added? by? the? UV? Disinfection

Facilities? and? associated?flow? conduits?and?flow? splitting? structures?exceed? the?available

head?at?the?plant.??To?determine?the?additional?head?losses,?a?hydraulics?evaluation?was

performed

Hydraulics

The? hydraulic? model? developed? for? the? Master? Plan? was? modified? to? include? the

additional?effluent?conduits,?gate?structures,?and? UV? channels/reactors.?? The?model?was

used? to? determine? the? actual? head? losses? expected? following? implementation? of? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities.? ? The?results?of? this?evaluation? showed? conclusively?that?projected

head? loss? through? the? plant? exceeded? the? available? head? at? the? plant? by? over? 1.5? feet

and,? therefore,? identified? the? need? for? a? Low? Lift? Pump? Station? (LLPS)? in? order? to? treat

peak?flows?at?the?100-year?flood?elevation?once?the?UV?disinfection?system?was?installed.

Disinfection?Technology

The? Trojan? UV4000™ Plus? system? was? used? to? develop? the? basis? of? design? for? the? UV

disinfection?system?at?the?NSWRP?due?to?the?lower?number?of?lamps?required?compared

to? other? systems? and? the? recommendations? of? a? team? of? disinfection? experts? that

evaluated?the?available?technologies?during?the?Master?Plan?effort.??During?this?study,?the

details? of? the? implementation? of? this? UV? technology? were? updated? by? consultation? with

the? manufacturer?and? incorporated? into? the? basis?of?design.? ? In?addition,?a?phone? survey

of? other? facilities? of? similar? size? and? source? water? quality? was? conducted.? ? This? survey

revealed?several?important?conclusions?including?the?following:

•

When?using?ferric?salt?addition?for?improved?settleability?of?solids?in?the?treatment

process? upstream? of? UV? disinfection? (similar? to? the? NSWRP? Master? Plan’s

recommendation?for?future?phosphorous?removal),?an?increase?in?the?fouling?rate

was?experienced.

•

The? level? of? maintenance? and? operations? efforts? was? highly? variable? and? site

specific,?even?with?plants?using?the?same?technology?and?source?water.

•

The? most? effective? method? of? power? control? for? the? UV? system? is? highly? site

specific? and? has?a? great? impact? on? the? disinfection? effectiveness? and? the? energy

effectiveness?of?the?system.

Due? to? the? size? of? the? proposed? NSWRP? UV? Disinfection? Facilities,? which? would? be

among? the? largest? continually-operating? UV? disinfection? systems? in? the? world,? CTE

recommends? the? District? undertake? an? extensive?design? program? which? includes? review

of? system? specific? independent? validation? studies,? collimated? beam? testing,? UV

transmittance? testing,? and? a? reasonably? sized? pilot? facility.? ? This? program? would

determine,?among?other?factors,?the?following?information?in-situ:

•

Appropriate?control?sequences?and?optimization?for?the?UV?disinfection

equipment,?including?appropriate?sensing?equipment?to?allow?advanced?power

management

•

In-situ?disinfection?performance?including?fouling?rates?or?the?lamps?with?and

without?ferric?salt?addition

•

Actual?M&O?requirements?in?terms?of?labor?and?consumables?as?well?as?space

requirements?to?complete?required?maintenance?activities

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Site?Constraints

As? part? of? the? study,? a? proposed? layout? of? the? disinfection? facilities? at? NSWRP? was

developed? including? the? Low? Lift? Pump? Station,? UV? Disinfection? Facilities,? related? gate

structures/effluent?conduits,?and?space?reserved?for?future?tertiary?filters?(

Figure?ES-

See

? and?Volume?2? of?this?report).?Due? to? existing? constraints?of?the? site,?several?significant

civil? improvements? would? be? required.? ? At? the? NSWRP,? the? proposed? facilities? would

extend?into?the?existing?CTA?railway?embankment?and?therefore,?temporary?sheeting?and

a? permanent? retaining? wall? would? be? required? to? support? the? railway? embankment.

These? works? would? need? to? be? coordinated? with? the? CTA? to? minimize? disruption.? ? In

addition,? due? to? existing? geotechnical? conditions? in? the? area? available? for? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities,? deep? foundations? would? be? required? for? the? proposed? structures.

These? required? civil? improvements? add? significant? complexity? and? cost? to? the? proposed

project.

Preliminary?Cost?Opinion

The? preliminary? opinion? of? probable? construction? cost? (OPCC)? for? NSWRP? and? CWRP

UV? Disinfection? Facilities? is? shown? in

Table? ES-1

? below.? ? As? shown,? the? projected

construction? cost? for? the? NSWRP? UV? Disinfection? facilities? is? $108.8? million? and? the

projected?construction?cost?for?the?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?facilities?is?$109.4?million.

Due? to? the? essential? similarities? between? the? proposed? disinfection? facilities? for? the? two

sites,? the? OPCC? was? developed? for? NSW RP? and? then? adjusted? for? the? CWRP.? ? To

estimate? the? costs? for? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? at? CWRP,? CTE? deducted? the? costs

for? the? deep? foundations? required? at? NSWRP,? multiplied? the? remaining? capital? cost

estimate? by?the? ratio? of? 480? MGD? to? 450? MGD,? and? added? the? cost?for? demolishing? the

existing? chlorine? contact? chambers.? ? The? details?of? the? basis? of? design? for? the? proposed

facilities? and? the? methods? of? developing? the? OPCC? are? presented? in? the? body? of? this

report.

Table?ES-1?–?NSWRP?&?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O?Costs

Capital?Cost?Estimates

North?Side?WRP? Calumet?WRP

Total

NSWRP?UV?Pilot?Plant

$2,200,000

ComEd?Service?Upgrade

$2,900,000

$130,000

$3,030,000

A.?General?Sitework

$27,200,000

$27,800,000

$55,000,000

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$27,000,000

$28,800,000

$55,800,000

C.?Disinfection?System

$49,500,000

$52,800,000?

$102,300,000

Total?Capital?Cost

$108,800,000

$109,530,000?

$218,330,000

Maintenance?&?Operations?Cost?Estimates

A.?General?Sitework

$130,000/yr

$260,000/yr

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$1,100,000/yr

$890,000/yr?

$1,980,000/yr

C.?Disinfection?System

$3,590,000/yr

$3,490,000/yr?

$7,090,000/yr

Total?Annual?M&O?Cost

$4,830,000/yr

$4,520,000/yr?

$9,330,000/yr

Total?Present?Worth?M&O?Cost

$111,900,000

$104,600,000?

$216,000,000

Total?Present?Worth

$220,700,000

$214,100,000?

$434,800,000

All? c osts?in?2007? dollars.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\Figures\Figure?ES-1.dwg,?10/22/2007?4:11:45?PM,?CockerillE,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

1.0?

INTRODUCTION

1.1?

Background

This? report? has? been? developed? to?present? the? findings? of? the? Preliminary? Cost? Opinion

for? Ultraviolet? (UV)? Disinfection? Facilities? Study? at? the? Metropolitan? Water? Reclamation

District? of? Greater? Chicago’s? (MWRDGC,? or? District)? North? Side? Water? Reclamation

Plant?(NSWRP)?in?Skokie,?Illinois.?This?memorandum?continues?the?work?began?in?TM1-

WQ,? which? was? developed? previously? as? part? of? the? comprehensive? Infrastructure? and

Process? Needs? Feasibility? Study? (Master? Plan)? for? the? NSWRP? and? a? Water? Quality

(WQ)?Strategy?for?affected?Chicago?Area?Waterways.

The?TM1-WQ?documented?the?results?of?a?CTE?study?of?effluent?disinfection?alternatives

for?the? District’s? North? Side,? Calumet?and? Stickney?WRPs.? In? that? study,? a? task?force? of

national? experts? (referred? to? as? the? Blue? Ribbon? Panel)? reviewed? available? disinfection

technologies? and? their? range? of? pathogen? destruction? efficiency,? disinfection? byproducts

and? impacts? upon? aquatic? life? and? human? health.? ? Their? investigation? also? included? an

examination? of? the? environmental? and? human? health? impacts? of? the? energy? required? for

the?operation?of? the?facility?and?for? the?processing? and? production? of?process? chemicals.

Based?on?economic?and?non-economic?evaluation?of?alternatives,?ozone?disinfection?and

UV? disinfection? were? selected? and? preliminary? design? and? cost? estimates? were

developed.? Based? on? the? results? of? that? subsequent? evaluation,? the? District? has

determined?that?UV?disinfection?is?the?most?cost-effective?alternative.

1.2?

Objective

Per?the?District’s?request,?further?evaluation?of?the?UV?disinfection?technology?is?required.

This? additional? evaluation? is? based? on? the? TM-1WQ,? the? comments? received? from? the

United? States? Environmental? Protection? Agency? (USEPA)? as? part? of? the? Illinois

Environmental? Protection? Agency’s?(IEPA)? Use? Attainability?Analysis?(UAA)? evaluations,

and? new? information? obtained? since? the? previous? work.? The? primary? objectives? of? the

evaluation?presented?in?this?report?are:

•

To? describe? the? conceptual? facilities? developed? as? part? of? this? study? including

their?basis?of?design?and?the?assumptions?used?for?their?development

•

To? develop? a? Level? 3? (per? the? Association? for? the? Advancement? of? Cost

Engineering)?Preliminary?Opinion?of?Probable?Construction?Cost?for?the?proposed

facilities?at?NSWRP?and?Calumet?WRP

•

To?develop?annual?maintenance?and?operations?(M&O)?costs?for?the?facilities

•

To? use? the? costs?developed? for? the? NSWRP? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? to? project

the?costs?for?similar?facilities?at?the?Calumet?Water?Reclamation?Plant?(CWRP)

1.3?

General?Design?Standards

Where? applicable,? the? latest? version? of? the? codes? and? standards? from? the? following

institutions/organizations?would?govern?the?design:

1.? State? of? Illinois,? Illinois? Recommended? Standards? for? Sewage? Works,? Title

35.C.II.370.

2.? Great? Lakes? –? Upper? Mississippi? River? Board? of? State? and? Provincial? Public

Health? and? Environmental? Managers,? Recommended? Standards? for? Wastewater

Facilities?(Ten?States?Standards)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

3.? National?Fire?Protection? Association? Standard? 820? –?Standard?for? Fire? Protection

in?Wastewater?Treatment?and?Collection?Facilities

4.? International?Building?Code,?2003

5.? Metropolitan? Water? Reclamation? District? of? Greater? Chicago? Standard

Specifications

1.4?

Organization?of?this?Report

The? Cost? Study? Report? is? divided? into? two? volumes.? ? Volume? 1? is? the? text? and? backup

materials? presenting? the? findings? of? the? additional? evaluation? of? the? cost? of

implementation?of?UV?disinfection?at?the?North?Side?WRP?and?Calumet?WRP.???Volume?2

is? the? conceptual? level? drawings? presenting? the? preliminary? layout? and? some? details? of

the? proposed? facilities? from? which? the? preliminary? opinion? of? construction? cost? was

developed.

The? basis? of? this? evaluation? is? the? proposed? facilities? necessary? for? UV? Disinfection

Facilities? and? related? ancillary?improvements?at? the? NSWRP.? ? The? sections?of? Volume?1

are?organized?as?follows:

Section?2

? –? Discussion? of? the? hydraulic? analysis?that? was? performed? based? on? updated

information? and? that?forms? the? basis? of? decisions?regarding? the? need? for? a? low? lift?pump

station?and?the?general?layout?of?the?facilities.

Sections?3?through?8

? –? Discussion? of? the? basis? of? design? for? the? proposed? facilities?by

design? discipline? and? the? assumptions? necessary? for? development? of? the? conceptual

design?presented?in?Volume?2.

Section? 9

? –? Discussion? of? areas? that? require? further? analysis? during? the? preliminary

design? of? the? proposed? facilities? due? either? to? their? critical? nature? regarding? design

decisions?or?their?large?impact?on?potential?construction?or?operating?costs.

Section? 10

? -? Summary? of? the? Preliminary? Opinion? of? Probable? Construction? Cost

(OPCC)? and? annual? operating? costs? as? well? as? discussion? of? the? assumptions? used? to

develop?those?costs.

Section? 11

? –? Presents? the? projected? schedule? of? implementation? of? the? proposed

facilities?if?the?decision?to?proceed?is?made?in?the?future.

The? final? section? –

Section? 12

? –? projects? the? capital? and? operating? costs? for

implementation? of? identical? facilities? at? the? Calumet? WRP.? ? Due? to? their? similar? size,? it

was? determined? that? the? detailed? evaluation? of? the? costs? for? implementation? at? North

Side? WRP? could? be? used? for? development? of? costs? for? the? Calumet? WRP.? ? To? develop

this? estimate,? the? costs? estimated? for? NSWRP? were? adjusted? for? site? specific? costs? at

each?site?and?multiplied?by?the?ratio?of?peak?design?capacities?at?the?two?plants.??Section

12?details?these?adjustments?and?presents?the?summary?of?the?costs?at?CWRP.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

2.0?

HYDRAULICS

2.1?Recommended?Alternative?from?Disinfection?Cost?Study?Hydraulic?Evaluation

Various? disinfection? layout? alternatives? were? considered? in? the? Disinfection? Cost? Study

Hydraulic? Evaluation.? ? All? alternatives? included? a? Low? Lift? Pump? Station? (LLPS)? and? UV

Disinfection?Building?(UV).??A?discussion?of?the?need?for?the?LLPS?is?included?later?in?this

section.? ? For? a? full? analysis? of? the? alternatives? considered? and? the? evaluation? process,

see? Appendix? A.? ? The? recommended? alternative? minimizes? the? number? of? pumping

facilities? required? and? is? the? most? easily? modified? to? accommodate? the? possible? future

addition?of? tertiary?filters? if? required? for? more? stringent? effluent? limitations? on? suspended

solids? or? phosphorous.? A? schematic? for? the? recommended? alternative? is? included? as

Figure?2.1-1.

2.2?

Hydraulic?Analysis?of?the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities

2.2.1? Objectives

For? this? study,? modifications? were? made? to? the? preliminary? hydraulic? model? created

under? the? Master? Plan? in? order? to? provide? a? more? detailed? hydraulic? analysis? of? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities.? ? These? modifications? included? adding? the? additional? effluent

conduits,? gate? structures,? UV? channels? and? reactors,? and? Low? Lift? Pump? Station? to

provide?a?more?comprehensive?hydraulic?evaluation?of?the?UV?disinfection?facilities.

2.2.2? Overview

The? hydraulic? analysis? was? completed? using? a? spreadsheet? utilizing? standard? open

channel? and? closed? conduit? flow? equations? to? represent? the? NSWRP.? ? The? hydraulics

evaluated? were? for? the? year? 2040? conditions,? including? both? infrastructure? and? permit-

related?improvements.A?peak?flow?of?450?mgd?was?used.??Flow?in?excess?of?450?mgd?is

diverted? to? the? TARP? system.? ? Return? activated? sludge? flows? were? added? to? the? influent

where? appropriate.? ? In? order? to? reflect? the? nutrient? removal? processes,? internal? mixed

liquor?recycled?flows?were?used?in?the?hydraulic?analysis?of?the?activated?sludge?aeration

tanks.

Similar? to?the?analysis?performed?previously? as? part?of?TM1-WQ,?critical?flow?paths? were

identified? as? those? which? would? result? in? the? greatest? total? headloss? through? the? facility.

Other? flow? paths? through? the? facility? experience? lower? headloss? and,? as? such,? further

ABCDF

345?MGD

450?MGD

LLPS

Figure?2.1-1?–?Recommended?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Arrangement

NorhtS

?hore

Channel

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

evaluation?of?these?flow?paths?is?not?warranted?because?changes?along?these?flow?paths

will? not? change? the? results? of? the? evaluation.? ? These? critical? flow? paths? were? modeled

from?the?North?Shore?Channel?Outfall?to?immediately?upstream?of?the?coarse?bar?screens

in? the? Pump? and? Blower? House.? ? The? two? flow? paths? identified? as? critical? flow? paths? for

this?study?are?as?follows:

1.? Critical?flow?path?through?Battery?A

2.? Critical?flow?path?through?Battery?E

2.3?

Assumptions

Due? to? the? preliminary? nature? of? the? selected? site? plan,? assumptions? were? made? in? the

development?of?the?hydraulic?model.??These?assumptions?are?as?follows:

1.? All? NSWRP? drawings? obtained? from? MW RDGC? are? on? the? same? datum,? known

as?the?Chicago?City?Datum?(CCD).

2.? The? CCD? has? not? changed? since? the? plant? was? originally? constructed? in? the

1920’s.

3.? Flow? through? future? Battery? E? is? 105? MGD? and? it? is? treated? as? a? base? loaded

plant.??Flow?through?existing?Batteries?A,?B,?C,?D,?and?F?is?the?remainder?and?will

be?345?MGD?at?peak?flow.??Flow?over?450?MGD?is?diverted?to?TARP.

4.? Return?flow?from?the?Grit?Dewatering?System?and?Scum?Concentration?Tanks?as

well?as?supernatant?from?the?Sludge?Concentration?Tanks?are?negligible.

5.? Flow?reduction?as?a?result?of?primary?sludge?removal?is?negligible.

6.? The? 100-year? flood? elevation? the? North? Shore? Channel? is? 12.30? CCD,? as

calculated? in? the? Chicago? Canal? System? Model,? UNET.? ? Appendix? A? provides

selected?pages?from?the?USACE’s?Chicago?Underflow?Plan?(CUP)?Design?Report

presenting? these? results.? ? Pre-Stage? 1? (Stage? 1? of? McCook? Reservoir

Construction)? values? are? used? since? the? USACE’s? current? estimate? for

completion?of?Stage?1?construction?is?2020?or?later.

7.? Hydraulics? through? the? existing? Meter? Building? will? control? flow? splits? among

Battery?A,?B,?C,?D,?and?future?F?proportional?to?the?battery?volumes.

8.? Flow?splits?evenly?based?on?aeration?tank?volume?within?each?battery.

9.? Flow?splits?evenly?among?the?aerated?grit?channels?located?in?the?Grit?Building.

10.?Return? Activated? Sludge? (RAS)? flows? were? calculated? to? be? 55%? of? total? influent

flow.

11.?Internal?recycle?flow?for?total?nitrogen?removal?was?calculated?to?be?150%?of?total

influent?flow?per?battery.

12.?Baffle? walls? (for? TN? removal)? were? assumed? to? be? mounted? where? mixed? liquor

flows?from?underneath?one?baffle?wall?to?the?top?of?the?next?baffle?wall,?creating?a

“up?and?down”?flow?pattern.

13.?The?longest?flow?path?through?each?treatment?process?was?used.

14.?Tank?geometry?downstream?of?the?aeration?tank?effluent?weirs?(Operating?Gallery

and? Final? Settling? Tanks)? in? Battery? A? was? assumed? to? be? similar? to? that? of

existing?Battery?D.

15.?Geometry? of? Batteries? E? and? F? were? assumed? to? be? similar? to? that? of? existing

Battery?D.

16.?Proposed?primary?settling?tank?geometry?was?assumed?to?be?similar?to?that?of?the

existing?circular?primary?settling?tanks.

17.?Velocity?in?Disinfection?Influent?and?Effluent?Distribution?Chamber?is?zero

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

18.?Battery? E? is? to?be? pumped? via? the? proposed? low-lift?pump? station? on? the? existing

(southern)?NSWRP?site.

19.?Battery? E? influent? flows? by? gravity? from? downstream? of? the? Grit? Building? to? the

north?site?resulting?in?the?facilities?being?lower?in?elevation?than?the?same?facilities

on?the?existing?site.

20.?Disinfection? channel? effluent? weir? gate? is? assumed? to? be? downstream? water

surface?elevation?(WSE)?+?0.5'.

21.?Tertiary? Filters? Are? excluded? from? the? model,? but? the? LLPS? pumps? can? be

modified?to?accommodate?the?additional?head?associated?with?this?process.

22.?The?following?modeling?equations?were?used:

a.? Pressure?Flow?–?Hazen?Williams?Equation

b.? Open-Channel?Flow?–?Manning’s?Equation

c.? Flow?junctions?–?Pressure?Momentum?Analysis

d.? Hydraulic?coefficients?used?in?developing?this?model?include:

1.? Hazen?W illiams,?C?–?110?(concrete)

2.? Manning’s,?n

i.? Regular?channel?–?0.013

ii.? Aerated?channel?–?0.035

2.4?

Results

After? calculation? of? head? losses? through? the? plant? by? evaluating? each? existing? and

proposed? unit? process,? the? preliminary? hydraulic? analysis? shows? that? over? 15.5? feet? of

headloss? is? required? to? convey? flow? through? the? NSWRP? given? the? existing? facilities? in

Battery?A?and?the?proposed?facilities?in?Battery?E.??Only?14.54?feet?of?head?is?available?to

convey?the?flow?entirely?by?gravity?through?the?same?flow?paths.

Table? 2.4-1

?presents?the? total? headloss?through? various? portions?of? the? plant?for?Battery

A? and? Battery? E? for? comparison.? ? ? ? Tertiary? filters? are? not? included? in? the? hydraulic

analysis.?? The? hydraulic?profiles? show? the? estimated?WSEs? at? the? maximum? flow?of? 450

mgd.??Flow?that?exceeds?450?mgd?is?diverted?into?the?TARP?system.

Table?2.4-1?–?Summary?of?Headloss?through?the?Unit?Processes?at?NSWRP?(Proposed)

Process/Flow?Area

Battery?A

Battery?E

Pump?and?Blower?House?Discharge?to?Aerated

Grit?Discharge?Chamber

2.03

Aerated?Grit?Discharge?Chamber?to?PSTs

1.03

2.39

Primary?Settling?Tanks

1.83

2.44

Aeration?Basins?and?Final?Settling?Tanks

5.98

2.72

Effluent?Conduit?to?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Wet

Well

0.67

1.96

LLPS?Discharge?to?UV?Disinfection?Effluent

Chamber

3.36

UV?Disinfection?Effluent?Chamber?to?Outfall

.66

Total

15.56

Notes:??

Values?i n ? f e e t ?of?he a dloss .

Does?not?include?head?dissipated?due?to?minimum?pump?head?requirements.

Table? 2.4-2

? presents? the? final? water? surface? elevations? (WSE’s)? through? the? plant

including? the? Low?Lift?Pump? Station? (LLPS)? and?UV? Disinfection? Building.? ? Note? that?the

WSE?provided?hear?take?into?account?the?headloss?summarized?in?Table?2.4-1?above?as

well?as?including?the?LLPS?and?the?head?gain?that?is?provided?by?that?facility.??Due?to?the

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

constraints? of? the? pumping? equipment,? the? head? gain? is? greater? than? the? minimum

required?to?convey?the?flow?through?the?remainder?of?the?process?train.

Table?2.4-2?–?Summary?of?Proposed?WSE?including?UV?Disinfection?Facilities

Location

Combined

Battery?A

Battery?E

North?Shore?Channel?100-yr?Flood

Elevation

12.30

D/S?WSE?@??New?Surge?Chamber*

12.96

U/S?WSE?@?New?Surge?Chamber*

15.96

WSE?@?Disinfection?Effl?Channel

16.52

WSE?just?U/S?of?Weir?Gate

18.03

WSE?just?D/S?UV?Reactor

18.08

WSE?just?U/S?UV?Reactor

18.83

WSE?just?D/S?of?influent?gate

18.87

WSE?in?LLPS?Discharge?Channel

19.88

LLPS?Wet?Well?High?Water?Level?(HWL)

16.00

Final?Settling?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

16.67

17.96

Aeration?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

20.39

18.88

Aeration?Tanks

20.69

19.62

Primary?Tank?Effluent?Chambers

22.65

20.68

Grit?Building?Effluent?Chamber

25.51

U/S?of?Fine?Screens

25.76

Aerated?Grit?Tank?Influent?Chamber

26.51

Siphon?Room

27.54

Notes:??

All?WSE?in?CCD.

*?Includes?approximately?2.5?of?head?dissipated?due?to?min?pumping?requirements.

WSE?–?Water?Surface?Elevation

D/S?–?Downstream

U/S?–?Upstream

Figure? 2.4-1? and? 2.4-

on? the? following? pages,? contain? hydraulic? profiles? of? the? two

critical? flow? paths? with? the? UV? disinfection? facilities? and? the? available? freeboard? at? the

locations? where? water? surface? elevations? (WSEs)? were? calculated? at? the? maximum? day

flow.

?2.5? Conclusion

Based? on? the? preliminary? hydraulic? analysis? performed? as? part? of? this? study,? the? total

head? required? to? convey? flow? through? the? Northside? WRP? with? the? proposed? UV

disinfection? process? is? 15.56? feet? at? the? peak? flow? rate? of? 450? mgd.? ? From? the? effluent

channels? of? Batteries? A? and? E,? 3.36? feet? of? total?head? is? required? to? convey? the? flow? to

the? surge? chamber.? ? The? pumping? station? is? required? to?provide? approximately? 1? foot? of

head? to? convey? the? flow? through? the? UV? disinfection? process.? ? Due? to? the? minimum

discharge? pressure? requirements?of? the? pumping? equipment,?approximately? 2.88? feet? of

head?is?actually?provided.??The?excess?head?would?be?dissipated?at?the?surge?chamber.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\Figures\Draft?Cost?Study?Report\Figure2_4-1&2_hyd.dwg,?10/23/2007?8:45:07?AM,?CockerillE,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

\\Uschg1fp207\p60026610\P60026610\Contracts\Figures\Draft?Cost?Study?Report\Figure2_4-1&2_hyd.dwg,?10/23/2007?8:47:06?AM,?CockerillE,?DWF6?ePlot.pc3

CTE

303?East?Wacker?Drive,?Suite?600,?Chicago,?Illinois?60601-5276

T?312.938.0300?F?312.938.1109?www.cte.aecom.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

3.0?

NSWRP?DISINFECTION?PROCESS

3.1?

Introduction

The? District? has? preliminarily? selected? the? medium-pressure? high-intensity? (MP-HI)? UV

disinfection? technology? for? disinfection? of? final? effluent? at? the? NSWRP.? ? This? section

presents?the?results?of?further?evaluation?of?the?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?technology?per?the

District’s? requirement.? ? In? the? following? discussion,? the? basis? of? design? of? the? MP-HI? UV

system? is? presented? and? a? preliminary? basis? of? design? of? the? UV? system? to? be? used? at

the? NSWRP? is? provided.? ? The? low-lift? pump? station’s? basis? of? design,? operation? and

layout?are?provided?later?in?this?section.

3.2?

UV?Disinfection?System

3.2.1? Background

The? Technical? Memorandum? on? the? UV? Disinfection? Technology,? included? in? Appendix

B,?incorporates?the?following:

•

Information? from? literature? including? technical? proceedings? from? the? Water

Environment? Federation? (WEF),? Water? Environment? Research? Foundation

(WERF),? proceedings? from? the? latest? Disinfection? conference? series? undertaken

by? WEF,? American? Water? Works? Association? (AWWA),? and? International? Water

Association? (IWA).? ? This? information? provided? the? latest? updates? in? the? UV

disinfection?technology.

•

Updated? recommendations? on? the? UV? system? from? four? manufacturers? –? Trojan

Technologies,? Aquionics,? Calgon? Carbon,? and? Severn? Trent? Services

(STS)/Quay.

•

Reference? information? on? experience? of? UV? disinfection? at?five? selected? facilities

–? Racine? WWTP? (Racine,? WI),? R.L.? Sutton? WRF? (Cobb? County,? GA),? Grand

Rapids? WWTP? (Grand? Rapids,? MI),? Jacksonville? WWTP? (Buckman,? FL),? and

Valley?Creek?WWTP?(Valley?Creek,?AL).??A?summary?of?the?information?collected

through? the? phone? survey? is? provided? in? Appendix? B,? and? important? inferences

from?the?phone?survey?are?as?follows.

1.? Fouling? due? to?iron? in?the? effluent?has?been? a? problem? at?the? Racine,?Sutton,

and? Grand? Rapids? facilities.? ? Fouling? results? in? lower? then? expected

disinfection? performance,? higher? operating? costs,? and? higher? M&O? efforts.

The? iron? in? the? effluent? at? all? three? plants? was? primarily? from? the? chemical

phosphorus? removal? using? Ferric? Chloride.? ? At? Grand? Rapids? WWTP,? the

chemical?addition?is?upstream?of?the?secondary?treatment?process;?staining?of

sleeves? was? found? only? when? the? chemical? addition? was? in? the? secondary

clarifiers.? ? At? the? Sutton? WRF,? fouling? of? lamps? due? to? iron? is? observed

although?chemical?addition?is?upstream?of?secondary?process?and?sand?filters

are? used? upstream? of? the? UV? disinfection? system.? ? At? the? Racine? WWTP,

fouling?may?be?due?to?ferric?chloride?addition?and/or?due?to?the?additional?iron

brought? by? the? ferric? sludge? from? another? water? treatment? plant,? although

operational? controls? are? used? to? prevent? both? sources? from? occurring

simultaneously.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

2.? Calcium? fouling? due? to? hardness? in? the? source? water? is? not? a? significant

problem? because? of?the?automatic?mechanical/chemical?cleaning?system? that

dissolves? and? wipes? away? any? scales.? ? The? lack? of? calcium? hardness? was

observed? in? all? five? plants? including? the? Racine? and? Grand? Rapids? utilities

which? have? Lake? Michigan? source? water? and? is? attributed? to? the? automatic

cleaning?system?performance.

3.? The?frequency?of?cleaning?and?changing?of?the?cleaning?solution?is?specific?to

the?utility?and?would?have?to?be?determined?only?by?experience.

4.? Labor? requirements? varied? amongst? facilities,? with? some? facilities? requiring

more?labor?to?handle?the?fouling?caused?by?iron?salt?addition.

5.? As? long? as? other? processes? in? the? plant? are? performing? as? desired,? all? five

facilities? were? satisfied? with? the? UV? disinfection? system? because? it? met? their

disinfection?goals.

In? conclusion,? the? phone? survey? had? revealed? that? fouling? of? the? quartz? sleeves? is? a

concern? for? this? application,?particularly? if? iron? salts? are? added? for? phosphorous? removal

in? the? future.? ? In? addition,? the? phone? survey? results? suggest? that? the? manufacturer’s

recommended? labor? assumptions? for? routine? maintenance? including? cleaning? and

inspection? of? the? lamps? is? too? low? for? this? application.? ? Using? this? information? and? the

updated? information? available? from? manufacturers,? a? preliminary? basis? of? design? of? the

MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system?has?been?developed?for?disinfection?of?the?final?effluent?at

the?NSWRP.

3.2.2? Basis?of?Design

The? MP-HI? system? involves? sending? the? secondary? or? tertiary?effluent? through? channels

containing?banks?of?MP-HI?UV?lamps.??Refer?to?the?process?drawings?included?in?Volume

2? of? this?report.? ? The? Trojan?UV4000™ Plus?system? is? used?here? to?develop? the? basis?of

design? for? the? UV? disinfection? system.? ? The? system? consists? of? a? power? supply,? an

electrical? system,?a? reactor,? MP-HI? lamps,? a? mechanical?and? chemical? cleaning? system,

and?a?control?system.??The?MP-HI?UV?lamps?are?enclosed?in?individual?quartz?sleeves?for

protection?against?dirt?and?breakage.??Reactor?chambers?(open?channels)?hold?the?lamps

in?a? horizontal?configuration.? ? The?effluent?weirs?and? level?sensors?are? used? to? keep? the

lamps? submerged? under? the? effluent? water.? ? This? submergence? ensures? that? the? lamps

do?not?overheat,?thereby?preventing?lamp?life?reduction?or?burnout.

The?UV? system? is? assumed? to?operate?from? March?to?November? each?year.? ? During?the

winter? months,? the? equipment? would? sit? idle? as? the? flow? is? bypassed? around? the? LLPS

and? UV? Disinfection? Building.? ? However,? due? to? the? size? of? the? facility? including? five

reactors?and?over?1600?lamps,?maintenance?activities?would?be?conducted?every?working

day?from?March?to?November?and?periodically?during?the?winter?months.??It?is?reasonable

to? expect? that? the? area? would? continue? to? experience? normal? weather? patterns? for? the

Chicago?area? including? extreme? weather? during?all?four? seasons.?? In?order?to?protect?the

safety? of? the? M&O? staff,? ensure? operational? and? maintenance-related? productivity,? and

protect?the? UV?equipment?from? adverse?weather?common? to? the? Chicago? area? including

high? winds,? rain,? lightning,? snow,? and? extreme? temperatures,? the? UV? system? would? be

enclosed?in?a?building.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

3.2.2.1?Influent?Characteristics

The? water? quality? characteristics? that? affect? UV? transmittance? include? iron,? hardness,

suspended?solids,?humic?materials?and?organic?dyes.??These?effluent?constituents?have?a

tendency? to? absorb? UV? light? and? thus? impact? the? disinfection? process.? ? The? UV

transmittance? generally? needs? to? be? above? 65%? for? effective? disinfection.? ? The? water

quality?testing?done?at?the?NSWRP?and?CW RP?as?part?of?the?UV?disinfection?technology

trials? conducted? by? the? District? during? 2006-2007? showed? an? average? transmittance

above? this? minimum? value.? ? Refer? to? Appendix? B? for? more? information? regarding? the

influent?characteristic?testing.??The?total?suspended?solids?limit?is?projected?to?be?15?mg/L

for?the?purposes?of?sizing?the?UV?system.

3.2.2.2?Reactor?Configuration?and?Hydraulics

An? open? channel? is? used? as? a? reactor.? ? Each? channel? has? one? reactor? with? two? banks

each.? ? Each? bank? includes? stainless? steel? UV? modules? with? the? MP-HI? lamps? mounted

on?them?and?arranged?in?a?linear?configuration?to?increase?intensity?along?the?linear?axis

by? avoiding? UV? emission? losses? due? to? self? absorption,? reflection? or? refraction? that? can

occur? if? a? UV? lamp? were? twisted? into? loops? or? spirals.? ? The? lamps? are? positioned

horizontally?and?parallel?to?the?flow.

The?optimum?hydraulic?scenario?for?this? system? involves? turbulent?flow? with? mixing? while

minimizing?head?loss.??Reactor?design,?including?inlet?and?outlet?flow?distribution?is?done

so?that?the?unit?operates?close? to? a? plug?flow.? ? Inlet?conditions?are? designed? to? distribute

the?flow?and?equalize?velocities.??Sufficient?length?is?provided?in?the?channel?upstream?of

the? reactor? to? allow? equalization? of? the? flow.? ? A? motorized? weir? gate? is? provided

downstream? of? each? reactor? to? control? the? water? level? at? a? constant? level? with? little

fluctuation?within?the?UV?disinfection?reactor.

3.2.2.3?Lamps?and?UV?Intensity?Control

The? MP-HI? lamps? produce? polychromatic? radiation,? which? is? concentrated? at? select

peaks? throughout? the? germicidal? wavelength? region.? ? The? IEPA? requires?a? minimum? UV

dose? of? 40? mW -s/c

? that? was? considered? during? the?design? of? the? UV? system.? ? It? may

be? possible? to? document? a? lower? required? dose? to? the? regulating? body? (IEPA)? during

design?development,?but?lacking?such?data,?this?study?does?not?deviate?from?the?required

minimum?dose.

Each? lamp? is? enclosed? in?a? quartz? sleeve?because? quartz? effectively?protects? the? lamps

while?minimizing?any?UV?transmission?losses.??Electronic?ballast?for?each?lamp?is?used?to

control? the? power? to? the? lamp.? ? If? the? UV? dose? is? to? be? reduced,? the? variable? output

electronic? ballast?regulates?the?power? to?the? lamp? from?100%?to? 30%.? ?Entire? banks? can

also?be?turned?off?if?there?is?no?flow.??This?allows?dose-pacing?based?on?the?secondary?or

tertiary?effluent?flow?and?quality,?which?helps?save?power?and?lamp?life?and?hence?reduce

costs.

3.2.2.4?Lamp?Fouling?and?Cleaning

The?MP-HI? lamps?operate? at?a? temperature? range? of? 600? to?900?degree? C.? These?warm

temperatures? promote? fouling? on? the? surface? of? the? quartz? sleeves? when? the? lamps? are

placed? directly? within? the? wastewater? stream.? ? Iron? is? the? most? abundant? metal? in? these

scales? along? with? other? mineral? salts? and? oil,? grease,? suspended? solids? deposits,? and

biofilms.??If?no?tertiary?treatment?is?provided,?physical?debris?may?contribute?to?fouling?as

well.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Since? lamp? fouling? significantly? reduces? the? effectiveness? of? UV? disinfection? by? blocking

the? UV? rays,? calculation? of? the? UV? dose? incorporates? a? term? called? the? “fouling? factor”,

which? allows? the? designer? to? estimate? the? effects? of? fouling? on? performance? of? the

disinfection? process.? ? To? combat?fouling,?a? chemical? and? mechanical?cleaning? system? is

proposed?for?the?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system.??The?latest?technology?uses?a?system?of

mechanical? wipers? and? sleeves? containing? cleaning? chemicals? surrounding? the? lamp.

The?cleaning? solution? contains? some? acidic? solution?that?prevents?fouling.? ? This? cleaning

system? can? be? programmed? to? clean? at? a? set? frequency? without? the? need? for? disrupting

the? disinfection? process.? ? The? cleaning? solution? needs? to? be? replaced? periodically

depending? on? the? type? of? solution? used? and? characteristics? of? the? effluent? water? quality.

Similar? facilities? using? Lake? Michigan? as? source? water? have? found? that? changing? the

cleaning?solution?on?a?monthly?basis?is?required?for?adequate?performance.

Due? to? the? mechanical? and? chemical? features? of? the? Trojan? automatic? cleaning? system,

the? IEPA? accepts? the? default? value? of? 100%? for? the? fouling? factor? in? th

?UVsoftware

package? (dosage? modeling? software)? for? sizing? the? equipment.? ? Based? on? the? phone

survey? results? that? indicated? a? higher? potential?for? fouling? in? the? event? of? Lake? Michigan

source? water? with? ferric? salt? addition,? the? District? has? elected? to? incorporate? a? safety

factor?of?10%?by?using?a?fouling?factor?of?90%.

3.2.3? Process?Control

An? automated? process? control? must? be? provided? to? facilitate? online? pacing? of? the? UV

dose? to? prevent? overdosing? that? wastes? electricity? and? to? avoid?under-dosing? that? would

not?meet?the?disinfection?regulatory?requirements?and?goals.??The?process?control?should

also? allow? the? dose-pacing? to? be? interfaced? with? the? plant’s? overall? supervisory? control

and? data?acquisition?(SCADA)? system.? ? The?flow,?lamp? output,?and?water? conditions?are

measured? in? pacing? of? the? dose,? and? an? algorithm? is? developed? based? on? long-term

measurements? to? predict? necessary? system? adjustments,? maintenance,? and? component

replacements.

Programmable? logic? control? (PLC)? technology? must? be? used? for? dose?pacing? in? the? MP-

HI? UV? disinfection? system.? ? The? PLC? interacts? with? the? ballasts,? sensors,? and? online

monitoring?technology?for?each?disinfection?unit.??The?PLC?then?interacts?with?the?plant’s

overall? control? system? to? allow? remote? monitoring? and? adjustment? of? the? system.? ? The

PLC?should?be?supplied?by?the?manufacturer?of?the?unit.

3.2.4? Safety

The? high? voltage? power? supplies? for? the? MP-HI? UV? disinfection? system? may? pose? an

issue? as? the? lamps? are? submerged? in? the? water? most? of? the? time? and? compliance? with

electrical? safety? codes? is? required.? ? In? addition,? UV? light? poses? a? risk? to? personnel? and

can?cause?damage?to?skin?or?eyes?upon?exposure.??Submerging?a?lamp?in?water,?even?if

it? is? just?a?few? inches?below?the? surface,?greatly?reduces? the? intensity.? ? During? operation

the? system? should? be? covered? by? hatches? and? should? be? designed? to? ensure? constant

water?levels?to?minimize?the?risk?of?UV?exposure.

3.2.5?? Proposed?Design?Criteria?for?UV?Disinfection?Equipment

Based? on? a? review?of? the? information?provided? by? the?UV?equipment?manufacturers?and

the? experience? of? five? other? facilities? (Appendix? B),? it? is? observed? that? Trojan

Technologies? provides? a? widely-used? low-maintenance? solution? for? final? effluent

disinfection.??The?design?of?the?MP-HI?UV?disinfection?system?for?the?North?Side?W RP?is

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

based? on? the? Trojan? UV4000™ Plus? equipment? provided? by? Trojan? Technologies.? ? The

basis?of?design?is?given?i

Tab

le?3.2-1

Table?3.2-1?–?Design?Parameters?for?UV?Disinfection?Unit?at?NSWRP

Parameter

Design?Value

Capacity?and?Water?Quality

Design?flow,?mgd

450

Average?flow,?mgd

333

Maximum?TSS

,?mg/L

Pre-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count

,?cfu/100?mL,?maximum

(Assumed)

200,000

Post-Disinfection?Effluent?E.Coli?Count?Target

,?cfu/100?mL

1030

Effluent?hardness

,?mg/L?as?CaCO

270

Dosage

UV?transmittance,?minimum,?%

UV?intensity

,?W/lamp

4,000

Lamp?Life,?hours

5,000

Fouling?factor,?%

Lamp?aging?factor,?%

UV?dose,?mW-s/cm

Physical?Characteristics

Channel?dimensions,?WxD

106”

?x?172”

Number?of?channels

5?(4?plus?1?standby)

Number?of?reactors?per?channel

Number?of?banks?per?reactor

Number?of?modules?per?bank

Number?of?lamps?per?module

Total?number?of?lamps

1680

Total?power?requirement,?kW

5376

Average?power?requirement,?kW

2903

Hydraulics

Headloss,?UV?reactor?only

9”

Velocity?in?each?channel,?V,?ft/s

1.74

adbce

?A?Futur

qui

100Mnnean?onth

d?l

%?iual?e?rvl

nty?palav

eqensu

erereuir

l?cont

agmititemy?e?liat?enm

1it?00?t?(

l?i

12?m

n?channel

honoursmthlg/L

y?ofg?leomamp?etusrice?average)

Motorized?Weir?Gate

The? above? design? criteria? are? assumed? based? on? available? information? and? the? current

state? of? ultraviolet? disinfection? technology.? ? A? more? extensive? technology? evaluation

should?be?conducted?prior?to?final?design?of?the?facility.?Due?to?the?extraordinary?scale?of

this? facility,? CTE? recommends? the? District? undertake? the? following? design? process? for

selection?and?design?of?the?UV?disinfection?equipment?if?final?design?is?initiated:

1.? Request? and? evaluate? independent,? full-scale? validation? data? (also? known? as

biodosimetry? data)? from? manufacturers? of? candidate? disinfection? systems? for

similarly? sized? units? or? the? largest? size? for? which? the? manufacturer? has? data

available.? ? This? evaluation? would? provide? an? initial? level-of-confidence? that? the

candidate? systems? can? achieve? the? target? disinfection? levels.? ? Data? should? be

from? systems? using? the? same? bulb,? ballast,? and? control? technology? as? proposed

for?the?full-scale?system.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

2.? Conduct? a? collimated? beam? testing? program.? ? This? program? would? use? site

specific? effluent? and? bacteria? to? determine? the? sensitivity? of? the? site? specific

bacteria? and? pathogens? to? UV? disinfection.? ? The?data? would? be? used? to? size? the

UV?lamps?and?reactors.

3.? Increase?frequency?of?UV?transmittance?testing?at?each?plant?to?at?least?once?per

day?for?a? period? of? one? year? or? more? to?collect?data?on? seasonal?variability,?daily

variability,? diurnal? variability,? and? to? capture? the? frequency? of? events? that? might

reduce?transmissivity?such?as?wet?weather?and?infrequent?industrial?discharges.

4.? Conduct? a? more? detailed? life? cycle? cost? analysis? of? the? candidate? disinfection

systems?based?on?the?data?collected?during?steps?1?through?3?above.

5.? Construct? a? pilot? testing? facility? (approximately? 20? MGD,? subject? to? change)

designed? to? match? lamp? spacing,?velocity?profile?and? other? design? parameters?of

the? proposed? full? scale? units.? ? The? pilot? testing? facility? would? be? used? to

determine:

a.? Appropriate? control? sequences? and? optimization? for? the? UV? disinfection

equipment,? including? appropriate? sensing? equipment? to? allow? advanced

power?management.

b.? In-situ? disinfection? performance? including? fouling? rates? of? the? lamps? with? and

without?ferric?salt?addition.

c.? Design?life?of?lamps?and?other?UV?system?parts.

d.? Actual? M&O? requirements? in? terms? of? labor? and? consumables? as? well? as

space?requirements?to?complete?required?maintenance?activities.

e.? Performance?of?alternate?equipment?manufacturers,?if?alternates?are?available

at?the?time?of?piloting.

f.? Accuracy? of? life? cycle? cost? analysis? prior? to? final? design? of? the? full-scale

system.

6.? Conduct? post-construction? full-scale? validation? testing? (biodosimetry? testing)? to

confirm?performance?and?determine?operating?parameters.

Using?a?program?as?described?above,?it?may?be?possible?to?demonstrate?the?effective?UV

dosages? to? the? regulators? and? optimize? the? equipment? sizing? criteria.? ? For? this? study,

reduction? in?the? Illinois?requirements?for? UV? system? sizing? is? not?assumed?based? on? the

lack?of?data?similar?to?that?described?above.

A? budgetary? cost? ($2,200,000)? for? a? 20? mgd? pilot? facility? has?been? included? in?the? costs

for? implementation? of? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities.? ? Costs? for? other? portions? of? the

design?program?are?assumed?to?be

3.3?

Low?Lift?Pump?Station

Based?on? the?analysis?of?hydraulics? of?the?proposed? improvements? described? in? Section

2? above,? it? is? estimated? that? the? low? lift? pumps? would? be? required? to? raise? the? water

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

approximately? 7? feet? (including? static? and? friction? losses)? to? the? UV? disinfection? system

influent,? including?estimated? head? to? allow?flow? through? the? UV? system.? ? Should? tertiary

filtration? become? necessary? in? the? future,? these? pumps? would? need? to? be? modified? to

enable?an?increased?head?to?approximately?11?feet?(TDH)?or?more.

3.3.1? Basis?of?Design

Table?3.3-1

?provides?a?summary?of?the?basis?of?design?for?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

Table?3.3-1?–?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?Basis?of?Design

Peak?Flow,?MGD

450

Average?Flow,?MGD

333

Minimum?Flow,?MGD

160

Pumps

Type

A x ial?Flow

Number

6?total?(N+1+1)

Pumping?Rates,?gpm/pump

78,000

Total?Dynamic?Head,?ft.

Motor,?hp

250

Submergence,?minimum,?ft

Peak?Power?Demand,?kW

515

Average?Power?Demand,?kW

375

Wet?Well

Length,?ft.

Width,?ft.

101

3.3.2? Pump?Type

Several? pump? types? were? considered? for? this? high? flow? (78,125? gpm)? low? head? (7? feet

TDH)? application.? ? Pump? types? considered? included? screw? pumps,? vertical? turbine

pumps,? centrifugal? pumps,? and? axial? flow? pumps.? ? Many? pump? manufacturers? found? it

difficult? to? recommend? a? pump? that? would? operate? efficiently? for? this? application? due

primarily? to? the? low? head.? ? Screw?pumps? and? axial?flow? pumps?appear? to?have? the? best

operating?performance?for?this?condition.

Initially? the? Low? Lift? Pump? Station? would? lift? 450? MGD? a? total? of? 4? feet? with? a? Total

Dynamic? Head? (including? station? losses)? of? approximately? 7? feet.? ? However,? if? tertiary

filtration? is? constructed? in? the? future,? the? TDH? would? increase? to? approximately? 11? feet

(flow? would? remain? the? same).? ? Screw? pumps? would? not? easily? accommodate? this

change? in? head,? without? significant? structural? modifications? to? the? pump? station.

However,? axial? pumps? can? be? modified? for? future? head? conditions.? ? Structural

modifications?to?the?pump?station?to?accommodate?these?changes,?if?required,?should?be

minimal.? Therefore,? axial? flow,? propeller? type? pumps? are? recommended.? ? Vertically

mounted?units?are?readily?available?from?manufacturers?and?were?used?for?station?layout.

Horizontal?units?are?also?available,?but?are?not?as?available?as?the?vertical?type.

3.3.3? Proposed?Operational?Description

The? pump? station? would? have? a? total? of? six? pumps,? with? four? duty? pumps,? one? standby

and?one?out?of?service?(N+1+1).??Four?pumps?would?be?driven?by?constant?speed?motors,

two? would?be? variable?speed? driven.? ? In? order? to?provide? operational?flexibility,?the?pump

station? would? be? divided? into? two? wet? wells,? each? containing? three? pumps.? ? Normal? wet

well?levels?would?be?14?to?16?feet?Chicago?City?Datum?(CCD).??Design?average?flow?(333

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

MGD)? can? be? handled? by? two? constant? speed? and? one? variable? speed? pumps,? leaving

three? pumps?on?standby.?? Peak?flow?(450? MGD)? can?be?handled?by?four?pumps,?leaving

two? on? standby.? ? Minimum? flow? (160? MGD)? would? be? handled? by? one? constant? speed

pump? and? one? variable? speed? pump? at? a? low? wet? well? level? (~12-13? feet? CCD)? or? two

variable? speed?pumps?at?a? normal?wet? well?level.?? Typically,?at?least?one? variable?speed

pump?would?operate?at?all?times,?to?handle?fluctuations?in?flow.

Table?3.3-2

?illustrates?an

example?of?pump?operation?at?minimum,?design?average?flow,?and?peak?flow:

Table?3.3-2?–?Examples?of?Pump?Operation

Flow,?MGD

Pump?Drive

Type

Pump?Flow,

gpm

TDH,?ft? Pump?Eff.? Power?Demand,

Constant?speed

74,000

160? (5-year

84%

126

m in i mu m)

Variable?speed

39,000

80%

Constant?speed

78,125

84%

126

Constant?speed

78,125

84%

126

333? (Design

Average)

Variable?speed

75,000

6.5

83%

119

450?(Peak)?

Constant?speed

78,125

84%

126

Constant?speed

78,125

84%

126

Constant?speed

78,125

84%

126

Variable?speed

78,125

84%

133

In? order? to? eliminate? vortices,? pumps? require? a? minimum? submergence? as? a? function? of

pump? suction? bell? diameter.? ? For? this? flow? condition,? a? 96-inch? suction? bell? is? required,

which? requires? a? minimum? submergence? of? 168? inches,? or? 14? feet.? ? Submergence

requirements?should?be?verified?by?the?pump?manufacturer?during?final?design.

Level? sensors? in? the? wet? well? would? relay? a? signal? to? turn? pumps? on? and? off.? ? Other

control? inputs? that? need? to? be? monitored? include? discharge? pipe? pressure,? flap? gate

position,?and?motor?alarms.

3.3.4? Proposed?Layout

Refer? to? Sheet? C-102? for? a? proposed? site? layout? of? the? LLPS? and? UV? Disinfection

Building.??The?space?available?for?the?construction?of?these?facilities?is?constrained?by?the

need? to? reserve? space? to? the? south? for? future? tertiary?filters? and? to? the? north? by? the? CTA

rail? embankment.? ? Flow? would? enter? the? pump? station? at? the? north? end? of? the? wet? well,

where? it? would? be?directed? perpendicularly? to?the?south?through?four? 96-inch? slide?gates.

Pumps? are? located? at? the? south? end? of? the? pump? station.? ? ? ? An? ideal? pump? intake

approach?per?Hydraulic?Institute?standards?was?not?possible?due?to?the?prohibitively?long

approach?length?required.

To? accommodate? the? non-ideal? pump? intake? approach,? design? features,? which? have

been? shown? to? be? effective? in? other? installations,? were? incorporated? in? this? design? in

order?to?meet?HI?standards.??For?example,?perforated?plates,?curtain?walls,?and?floor?and

back? wall? splitters? have? been? incorporated? into? the? conceptual? design.? ? (See? Volume? 2

for? a? plan? and? section? of? the? proposed? layout).? ? Sizing? and? details? of? these? types? of

features? are? normally? determined? by? physical? scale? modeling? during? detailed? design.

Furthermore,? based? on? the? total? flow? and? flow? per? pump,? the? Hydraulic? Institute

recommends?physical?scale?modeling.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

4.0?

NSWRP?CIVIL

Due?to?constraints?of?the?site?related?to?the?proposed?location?of?the?disinfection?facilities,

several? significant? civil? improvements? would? be? required.? ? Those? improvements? include

the?following:

1.? Temporary?sheeting?to?support?a?railroad?embankment

2.? Construction? of? a? permanent? concrete? retaining? wall? to? allow? locating? the

proposed?facilities?farther?to?the?north

3.? Construction? of? new? roadways? to? access? the? new? facilities? and? future? tertiary

filters

4.? Construction? of? three? gate?structures?and?effluent?conduits?connecting?the? LLPS,

UV?Disinfection?Building,?and?gate?structures

5.? Construction? of? associated? utilities? including? stormwater? collection,? city? water,

effluent?water,?plant?drain,?electrical?duct?bank,?and?steam/condensate?return.

In? addition,? available? soil? borings? from? previous? projects? indicate? areas? of? concern

related? to? the? structure? foundations.? ? A? discussion? of? the? findings? is? also? described

below.

4.1?

Basis?of?Design

Refer?to?the?civil?drawings?in?Volume?2?of?this?report?for?a?layout?of?the?proposed?facilities

on? the? site.? ? The? basis? of? design? of? each? of? the? civil? related? improvements? is? presented

below.

4.1.1? Temporary?Sheeting

In?order?to?support?the?existing?rail?embankment?during?construction?of?the?retaining?wall

and? connection? to? the? existing? effluent? conduit? upstream? of? Gate? Structure? #1,? sheeting

would? be? required? to? be? installed? along? the? embankment.? ? The? sheeting? would? be

approximately? 40-50?feet?deep? to?support?a? cut?into?the? embankment?with?a?depth? of? up

to? 15? feet.? ? It? is? assumed? sheeting? would? be? installed? by? vibratory? pile? drivers? on

weekends? to? minimize? disruption? to? the? CTA? operating? schedule.? ? Additional? shoring? is

assumed?to?be?required?to?prevent?movement?of?the?sheeting?and?potential?settlement?of

the?rail.??It?is?assumed?that?the?sheeting?would?be?abandoned?in?place.

4.1.2?? Retaining?Wall

In? order? to? fit? the? proposed? facilities? onto? the? site,? a? cut? would? be? required? into? the

embankment.? ? The? embankment? would? be? permanently? supported? by? a? 15? foot? high

concrete? retaining? wall.? ? Soil? anchors? are? likely? to? be? required? to? provide? additional

support.

4.1.3? Roadways?and?Other?Site?Improvements

Proposed? roadways? associated? with? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? are? intended? to

provide? access? to? the? structures? and? site? for? normal? operations? as? well? as? allow? access

to?heavy?construction?vehicles?and?delivery?vehicles.??The?roadway?would?be?constructed

in? accordance? with? District? guidelines.? ? It? would? be? designed? for? AASHTO? H-20? loading

with?an?assumed?reinforced?portland?cement?concrete?thickness?of?12?inches.??Curb?and

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

gutter? (standard? 12? inch? wide? gutter? with? 6? inch? curb)? would? be? provided? to? facilitate

maintenance?and?stormwater?collection.

The?existing?site?fence? along? the? rail?embankment? and? running? south?along? the?previous

railroad? right-of-way? would?be? demolished? to? facilitate? construction? activities.?? A? new?12’

high,? barbed? wire,? chain-link?fence? would?be? installed? along? McCormick? Boulevard? from

the?Pump?and?Blower?House?to?the?CTA?rail?abutment?to?enclose?the?new?facilities.

The? northern-most? radio? antenna? would? be? relocated? to? the? south? to? accommodate? the

new?facilities? and? construction? activities.? ? It? is? assume? that? the? cost?for? relocation? would

be?borne?by?others.

4.1.4? Gate?Structures/Effluent?Conduits

Final? effluent? conduits? connecting? the? various? facilities? associated? with? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities? would? be? constructed? along? with? the? primary? facilities.? ? For? the

purposes? of? this? study,? the? final?effluent? conduits?are? assumed? to?be? square? and? 8’

? x? 8’

for? the? Battery? E? effluent? to? the? LLPS? and? 11’

? x? 11’

? for? all? other? conduits.? ? All? effluent

conduits? would? be? cast-in-place? concrete? construction? designed? for? open? channel? flow.

Due? to? the? comparatively? low? weight? of? the? conduits? and? water? contained? therein

compared? to? the? soil? excavated,? no? deep? foundations? are? anticipated? at? this? time.? ? In

most?cases,?the?conduits?would?be?designed?for?2’?or?less?cover?and?to?handle?H20?traffic

loading? with? the? exception? of? the? conduit? downstream? of? proposed? Gate? Structure? #3,

which?is?between?10?and?15?feet?below?grade?to?match?the?existing?outfall?conduit?in?that

location.? ? Where? possible,? common? wall? construction? with? adjacent? structures? is

assumed?to?be?utilized.

It?should? be?noted? that?the?LLPS? Discharge? Conduit? would?initially? be?designed?for?open

channel? flow,? as? are? the? remaining? flow? conduits.? ? However,? in? the? future,? this? conduit

would? be? under? pressure? when? the? LLPS? pumps? are? replaced? to? allow? pumping? to? the

tertiary?filtration? facility? when? it? is? constructed.? ? As? such,?this?conduit? would? be? designed

for? pressure? of? approximately? 15? feet? of? head? above? the? top? slab.? ? In? addition,? two

bonneted? slide? gates? would? be? provided,? in? lieu? of? conventional? slide? gates,? to? account

for? this?future? change? to? the? system? operation.? ? One? would?be? on? the? conduit? to? the? UV

Disinfection? Building? and? the? other? would? be? on? the? stub? to? the? south? for? the? future

connection?to?the?tertiary?filtration?facility.

Construction? of? the? connection? to? the? existing? effluent? conduit? upstream? of? proposed

Gate? Structure? #1? is? assumed? to? require? hand? mining? and? extensive? sheeting? and

shoring? to?allow?exposure? of?the? existing? conduit.?? Underpinning?of? the?existing?and? new

conduits? would? be? completed? to? prevent? unexpected? strain? on? the? structure.? ? A? cast-in-

place? sleeve? would? be? constructed? around? the? existing? conduit.? ? The? final? connection

would?be? made? “in?the? wet”? by?removing?the? top?of? the?existing? concrete? and? inserting?a

pre? constructed? bulkhead? along? one? side? of? the? conduit.? ? A? water? tight? seal? around? the

bulkhead? is? not?likely?to? be? possible? and? dewatering?pumping? is? assumed? necessary.?? It

is? assumed? that? plant? flow? would? be? controlled? to? maintain? a? narrow? range? of? flows

during? this? construction? by? diverting? flows? in? excess? of? dry? weather? flow? to? TARP

temporarily.? ? The? final? connection? would? be? made? by? sawcutting? the? opening? and

repairing?the?exposed?surfaces?before?removal?of?the?bulkhead?and?completion?of?the?top

of? the? connecting? sleeve.? ? Backfill? would? be? structural? fill? and? flowable? fill? if? necessary.

During?this?work,?it?is?assumed?that?the?CTA?rail?operation?would?be?halted?for?a?period?of

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

two?weeks?and?alternate?means?of?public?transportation?(bus)?would?be?provided?for?that

period.??That?cost?is?not?included?in?this?study.

Three? gate? structures? would?be? constructed? to? permit? combining?flows?and?facilitate?flow

control?as?follows:

Gate?Structure?#1

Gate? Structure? #1? is? intended? to? combine? flow? from? Battery? A,? B,? C,? D,? and? F? on? the

existing? site? with?flow?from?Battery? E?on?the?north?site?and?direct?it? to? the?LLPS? wet? well.

Motorized? fabricated? stainless? steel? slide? gates? (one? on? each? flow? source)? would? be

provided? to? permit? isolation? of? either? flow? source? or? to? shut? down? the? wet? well.? ? No

aboveground?structure?would?be?associated?with?the?gate?structure,?though?its?top?would

be? 6? inches? above? grade.? ? ? Guard? rails? and/or? concrete? bollards? would? prevent? traffic

over?the?gate?structure?to?protect?the?motor?actuators.

During?the?disinfection?period?(March?to?November)?the?gates?would?be?normally?open?to

permit? flow? to? pass? through? the? LLPS? and? UV? Disinfection? Building.? ? During? the? winter

period? (November? to?April),? the? gates? would?be? normally? closed? to?allow?bypass? around

the? disinfection? facilities.? ? An? access? hatch? would? be? provided? to? allow? access? to? the

structure.

Construction?of?Gate?Structure?#1?would?be?cast-in-place?concrete.??Due?to?the?weight?of

the? concrete? and? gates,? pile? foundations? are? assumed? necessary.? ? Where? possible,

common?wall?construction?with?adjacent?structures?would?be?utilized.

Gate?Structure?#2

Gate? Structure? #2? is? intended? to? allow? Battery? E? flow? to? bypass? the? LLPS? and? UV

Disinfection? Building.? ? The?structure? is? divided?into? two? halves?with?a? bypass? connection

between?them;?the?north?half?directs?Battery?E?flow?from?the?east?to?Gate?Structure?#1?to

the?west?and?the?south?half?directs?UV?Disinfection?Building?effluent?to?Gate?Structure?#3

to? the? east.? ? Two? motorized? fabricated? stainless? steel? slide? gates,? one? on? the

downstream? side? of? the? Battery? E? conduit? and? one? on? the? bypass? connection,? would?be

provided?to?allow?bypass?operation.??No?aboveground?structure?would?be?associated?with

the? gate? structure,? though? its? top? would? be? 6? inches? above? grade.? ? ? Guard? rails? and/or

concrete? bollards? would? prevent? traffic? over? the? gate? structure? to? protect? the? motor

actuators.

During?the? disinfection? period? (March?to?November)? the?gate?on? the? downstream? side? of

the?Battery?E?conduit?would?be?normally?open?and?the?bypass?connection?gate?would?be

normally?closed.? ? During? the? winter? period?(November? to?April),?the?gate? positions?would

reverse? to? allow? bypass? around? the? disinfection? facilities.? ? Two? access? hatches,? one? on

each?half?of?the?structure,?would?be?provided?to?allow?access?to?the?structure.

Construction?of?Gate?Structure?#2?would?be?cast-in-place?concrete.??Due?to?the?weight?of

the?concrete?and?gates,?pile?foundations?are?assumed?necessary.

Gate?Structure?#3

Gate? Structure? #3? connects? the? new? UV? Disinfection? Building? effluent? conduit? to? the

existing? plant?outfall? conduit.? ? This? structure? would? also? be? used? to? convey?flow? through

the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?when?required.??A?motorized?fabricated?stainless?steel?slide

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

gate? on? the? upstream? side? of? the? existing? outfall? conduit? would? be? provided.? ? No

aboveground?structure?would?be?associated?with?the?gate?structure,?though?its?top?would

be? 6? inches? above? grade.? ? ? Guard? rails? and/or? concrete? bollards? would? prevent? traffic

over?the?gate?structure?to?protect?the?motor?actuator.

During?the?disinfection?period?(March?to?November)?the?gate?would?be?normally?closed?to

force? flow? from? the? existing? site? to? be? directed? into? the? LLPS? wet? well? through? Gate

Structure? #1.? ? During?the? winter? period? (November? to? April),? the? gate? would? be? normally

open? to? allow? bypass? of? existing? site? flow? around? the? disinfection? facilities.? ? An? access

hatch?would?be?provided?to?allow?access?to?the?structure.

Construction?of?Gate?Structure?#3?would?be?cast-in-place?concrete.??Due?to?the?weight?of

the?concrete?and?gates?and?the?soil?conditions,?pile?foundations?are?assumed?necessary.

The?base?of?the?structure?would?form?the?connection?to? the?existing?plant?outfall? conduit.

Underpinning? of? the? existing? and? new? conduits? would? be? completed? to? prevent

unexpected? strain? on? the? structures.? ? The? gate? structure? base? would? be? constructed

around? the? existing? conduit.? ? The? final? connection? would? be? made? “in? the? wet”? by

removing?the?top?of?the?existing?concrete?and?inserting?a?pre?constructed?bulkhead?along

one? side? of? the? conduit.? ? A? water? tight? seal? around? the? bulkhead? is? not? likely? to? be

possible? and? dewatering?pumping? is? assumed? necessary.? ? It? is? assumed? that? plant?flow

would? be? controlled? to? maintain? a? narrow? range? of? flows? during? this? construction? by

diverting?flows?in?excess?of? dry?weather?flow? to? TARP? temporarily.?? The?final?connection

would? be? made? by? sawcutting? the? opening? and? repairing? the? exposed? surfaces? before

removal?of?the?bulkhead.

Following? the? final? completion? of? the? connection,? a? second? and? third? full? pipe? diameter

bulkhead? would? be? constructed? upstream? and? downstream? of? the? proposed? gate? in? the

existing?plant?outfall?conduit?to?allow?its?installation.??Plant?flow?would?be?diverted?through

the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? during? this? work.? ? Underwater? construction? techniques

would? be? required? to? make? the? insertion? and? sealing? of? the? bulkheads.? ? Following

installation?of?the?gate,?the?bulkheads?would?be?removed?and?the?gate?structure?would?be

completed?to?grade.

Costs?for? the?gate?structures?and?special?connections?have?been? included? in? the?opinion

of?probable?construction?cost?included?in?Appendix?F.

4.1.5? Site?Utilities

Site? utilities? would? be? demolished,? rerouted,? and? constructed? to? support? the? new

facilities.?? The?following? utilities?would?be?demolished? or? rerouted?as?shown?on?Sheet?C-

103:

1.? Wash?Water?Supply?–?Rerouted

2.? Non-Potable?Water?Supply?–?Rerouted

3.? Plant?Effluent?–?Rerouted

4.? Site?Sprinkler?–?Demolished?and?Capped

5.? Miscellaneous?Site?Drainage?–?Demolished

The?following?site?utilities?would?be?added?to?support?various?functions?within?the?new?UV

Disinfection?Facilities:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

1.? Steam? and? Condensate? Return? Piping? –? Constructed? from? Battery? A? service

tunnel?to?head?of?LLPS?and?UV?Disinfection?Buildings

2.? City? Potable? Water? –? Routed? from? current? location? near? Process? Water? Building

to?LLPS?and?UV?Disinfection?Building?for?potable?water?use.

3.? Non-Potable?Water?–?Routed?from?existing?piping?(rerouted?to?accommodate?new

facilities)? to?LLPS?and? UV? Disinfection? Building? for? non-potable? water? use? (wash

down).

4.? Plant? Drain? –? New? plant? drain? installed? along? south? side? of? UV? Disinfection

Facilities? to? existing? 6’-6”? interceptor? along? eastern? side? of? existing? site? and

connected?to?LLPS?and?UV?Disinfection?System.

5.? Stormwater? Collection? –? Installed? to?collect?stormwater? runoff?from?new?buildings

and?roadway?and?routed?to?plant?drain.

6.? Electrical?Duct?Bank?–?Routed?from?new?power?substation?on?Battery?E?site?to?UV

Disinfection?Building?for?power?distribution.

4.1.6? Geotechnical?Information

The? project? team? has? reviewed? the? two? sets? of? boring? logs? (1969? and? 1977)? for? the

proposed? site? of? UV? Disinfection? Facilities.? These? logs? were? used? to? understand? the

general?subsurface?soil?conditions?at?the?proposed?site?and?provide?a?preliminary?opinion

on?suitable?foundation?type?for?the?proposed?facilities.??See?Appendix?E?for?copies?of?the

referenced?boring?logs.

The? quality? of? the? boring? logs? is? poor,? and? the? properties? of? soils? such? as? unit? weights

and? consolidation? are? not? reported.? Boring? logs? show? that? soil? conditions? are? highly

variable? across?the? proposed? site?(e.g.,?thickness?of? soft?silty?clay?layer? is? 19?feet?at? B-1

and? 40?feet?at?B-2;?both? B-1? and? B-2? are? close? to?each? other).?In? general,?fill?and? topsoil

are? encountered? near? the? ground? surface.? A? stiff? silty? clay? layer? underlies? the? fill/topsoil

layer.?Below?the? stiff?silty?clay?layer,? a?very?soft? silty?clay? layer? (with?very? low?unconfined

compressive? strength?and?high? moisture? content)?is? encountered?to?depths? ranging?from

30? to? 53? feet? below? the? ground? surface.? Inter-bedded? silt? and? sand? layers? and? hardpan

are? encountered? before? finally? experiencing? auger? refusal? (apparent? top? of? the? bedrock)

at?depths?ranging?from?55?to?58?feet.

The? proposed? structures? would? be? located? 15? to? 20? feet? below? the? existing? grade.? This

means? that? the? base? of? the? structures? would? be? located? within? the? soft? silty? clay? layer.

Approximately? 25? to? 35? feet? of? soft? clay? would?remain? below? the? base? of? the? proposed

structures.?If?a? slab?foundation? is? proposed,?a?detailed?analysis?for? bearing? capacity?and

settlement? is? warranted.?Since? the? thickness? of? soft?clay?and? underlying? soils?are? widely

varying,? a? detailed? assessment? of? differential? settlement? is? also? necessary.? Such

analysis? is? not? possible? now? based? on? very? limited? information? presented? on? the? boring

logs.

As? the? proposed? structures? are? large? and? heavy,? and? also? the? maximum? allowable

settlement? should? be? less? than? one? inch,? it? is? appropriate? at? this? level? of? design

development? to? assume? a? deep? foundation? system? extending? into? the? hardpan? or? to? the

top?of?the?bedrock.?Either?drilled?shafts?or?pile?foundations?are?suitable?to?use.?However,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

there?may?be?potential?squeeze-in?problems?in?the?soft?clay?layer?during?the?construction

of? drilled? shafts,?even? though? some?preventive? measures? (e.g.? use? of? casing)? may? be

taken? to? avoid? such? problems.? In? our? opinion,? a? pile? foundation? system? should? be

considered?for?cost?estimate?purposes.

It?is?assumed?for?this?analysis?that?the?effluent?flow?conduits?would?be?significantly?lighter

than?the?other?structures?and?approximate?the?weight?of?the?soil?to?be?removed.

A? detailed? subsurface? investigation? is? recommended? to? characterize? the? soft? silty? clay

layer?and?underlying?soil?layers.?Both?strength?and?consolidation?properties?of?these?soils

should?be?determined?by?field?and?laboratory?testing.?These?data?would?be?necessary?for

the?final?selection?and?design?of?the?foundation?system.

5.0?

NSWRP?STRUCTURAL?AND?ARCHITECTURAL

5.1?

Introduction

The? objective? of? this? Section? is? to? document? the? design? criteria? for? the? structural,

architectural?components?of?this?project,?including?recommendations,?allowable?stresses,

and? loadings? that? would? be? used? in? designing? the? new? project? structures? and? modifying

existing?structures.??Refer?to?the?structural?and?architectural?drawings?in?Volume?2?of?this

report.

5.1.1? Codes?and?Specifications

The?following? codes? would? be? used? in? addition? to? the? general?design? standards? listed? in

Section?1.2:

•

The?International?Building?Code?2003?(IBC)?–?Village?of?Skokie

•

The?International?Fire?Code?2003?(IFC)

•

NPFA?101,?Life?Safety?Code,?1997?Edition

•

OSHA,? United? States? Department? of? Labor,? Occupational? Safety? and? Health

Administration,?Latest?Edition

•

Building? Code? Requirements? for? Structural? Concrete,? (ACI? 318-02)? and

Commentary,?(ACI?318R-02).

•

Code? Requirements? for? Environmental? Engineering? Concrete? Structures,? ACI

350-01)?and?Commentary?(ACI?350R-01).

•

Seismic? Design? of? Liquid? Containing? Concrete? Structures,? (ACI? 350.3-01),? and

Commentary,?(ACI?350.3R-01).

•

ACI? “Manual? of? Concrete? Practice”,? 2005,? American? Concrete? Institute,? Detroit,

MI.

•

ACI? Committee?315,?“Details?and? Detailing?of? Concrete? Reinforcement,?ACI? 315-

99.

•

Specification?for?Structural?Steel?Buildings?–?Allowable?Stress?Design?and?Plastic

Design,?Ninth?Edition,?June?1,?1989

•

Manual?of?Steel?Construction?Allowable?Stress?Design,?Ninth?Edition,?1989

•

Building? Code? Requirements?for? Masonry?Structures?and? Commentary,?ACI? 530-

02,? ASCE? 5-02/TMS? 402-02? and? Specification? for? Masonry? Structures? and

Commentary,?ACI?530.1-02/ASCE?6-02/TMS602-02.

•

American? Society? of? Civil? Engineers,? Minimum? Design? Loads? for? Buildings? and

Other?Structures,?ASCE?7-02.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

•

American? Association? of? State? Highway? and? Transportation? Officials,? AASHTO,

Standard?Specifications?for?Highway?Bridges,?Seventeenth?Edition,?2002

•

Soil? Boring? Logs? in? Contract? 78-020-CP? For? Secondary? Treatment? Facilities? at

the?North?Side?Sewage?Treatment?Works.

•

The?Illinois?Accessibility?Code?2004.

•

The? Metropolitan? Water? Reclamation? District? of? Greater? Chicago? (MW RDGC)

“Standard?Specifications”.

•

The?MWRDGC?Design?and?Construction?Manual,?“Engineering?Standards”.

•

United? States? Naval? Facilities? Command? (NAVFAC),? September? 1986,? “Design

Manual?7.02,?Foundations?and?Earth?Structures”.

•

CFR?29?Parts?1900-1910.999?and?Part?1926,?OSHA

•

American?Society?for?Testing?Materials?(ASTM)?Standards.

•

American? Welding? Society,? ANSI/AWS? D1.1-98,? “Structural? Welding? Code? –

Steel”

5.1.2? Loads

The?following?design?loads?would?be?used?for?the?proposed?structures:

Tanks,?Channels?and?Structures?Below?Grade:

•

Hydrostatic?liquid?pressure-operating?water?level/flood?water?level?–?62.4?psf.

•

Lateral? earth? pressure? for? active,? at-rest? and? passive? conditions? –? Per

Geotechnical? Report? (lateral? load? due? to? surcharge? loading? of? H-20? truck? would

be?added).

•

Surcharge?Load?–?3?feet?of?soil.

•

Frost?depth?–?Minimum?3

′

-6”?below?finished?grade.

•

Design?high?ground?water?table?elevations.??All?new?structures?would?be?checked

for? buoyancy?for? the? case? of? high? ground? water? table?at?finished? grade? and?dead

load?of?the?structure?only?and?is?described?in?Part?6.1.4?below.

Roof?Slab?at?or?below?Grade:

•

DL:?

Weight?of?concrete?slabs

•

SDL:? Backfill?and?other?superimposed?dead?loads?including?underhung?ancillary

equipment?and?piping

•

LL:?

The?equivalent?of?3?feet?of?soil?or?H-20?truck?loading?whichever?governs

Buildings?and?Miscellaneous?Structures:

•

Loadings? for? design? of? the? building? would? be? obtained? from? appropriate? codes;

however,?certain?minimum?loads?would?be?used?as?shown?in?Part?6.1.2.3?below.

Minimum?Uniform?Live?Loads:

•

Checkered?Plate

150?psf

•

? Grating

100?psf

•

Stairs?and?catwalks?

100?psf

•

Electrical?control?rooms:

250? psf? -? Estimate? support? area? and? equipment

weights?and?assume?loads

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

•

applied?anywhere?in?area

•

Heavy?Equipment?rooms

300?psf

•

Dismantling?and?storage

•

Storage?areas:

150? psf? -? Determine? reasonable? stacking? height? and? type

of?stored?material

•

Shop?floors:?

150?psf

•

Garage?floors:?150?psi

•

Truck?wheel?loads?per?AASHTO?and?as?appropriate

•

All?other:

150?psf

•

Fastest?mile?wind?speed?(miles?per?hour):?

75?mph

•

? Snow?(minimum):

30? psf? -? Snow? drift? loads? would? be? checked? where

applicable? in? addition? to? all? top? supported? and? under? hung? ancillary? equipment

and?piping

•

Underhung?piping?and?equipment?in?addition?to?the?required:

psf

minimum?live?load

•

Equipment?live?load?plus?50?psf?on?adjacent?areas,?or?minimum?uniform?live?load,

whichever?is?greater

Seismic?Requirements?–?Cook?County:

???????

Buildings?and?Non-Liquid?Containing?Structures?(IBC):

•

Seismic?use?group?

Group?II

•

Seismic?design?category

•

Seismic?Importance?Factor?

1.25

•

Spectral?response?acceleration?for?short?period?(SDS) 0.192

•

Spectral?response?acceleration?for?1?second?period?(SD1)? 0.10

o

? Soil?profile?name

Stiff?soil?profile

o

? Site?class

Liquid?Containing?Structures?(ACI?350.3-01):

•

Seismic?zone?factor? 0

5.1.3? Design?Stresses

The?following?stresses?would?be?used?for?design?of?the?structures:

Concrete?and?Reinforcing?Steel:

Liquid?Containing?Structures:

•

Use? ACI? 350-01,? Code? Requirements? for? Environmental? Engineering

Structures? (ACI? 350-01)? and? Commentary? (ACI? 350R-01)? and? Seismic

Design? of? Liquid? Containing? Concrete? Structures? (ACI? 350.3-01)? and

Commentary?(ACI?350.3R-01).

•

Concrete?compressive?strength?at?28?days?:??????????????fc’?=??4,500?psi

•

Reinforcing?steel?(A?615,?Gr.?60)?flexural?stress:?

fy?=?60,000?psi

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Building?and?Non-Liquid?Containing?Structures:

•

Use? Strength? Design? Method? of? Building? Code? Requirements? for

Structural?Concrete?(ACI?318-02)?and?Commentary?(ACI?318R-02).

•

Concrete?compressive?strength?at?28?days:???????fc’

?=??4,500?psi

•

Reinforcing?steel?(A?615,?Gr.?60)?flexural?stress:?

fy?=?60,000?psi

Structural?Steel

•

Conform? to? the? AISC? Specification? for? Structural? Steel? Buildings? –? Allowable

Stress? Design? and? Plastic? Design,? Ninth? Edition,? 1989,? and? the? Manual? of? Steel

Construction,?Allowable?Stress?Design?utilizing?the?following?materials.

•

ASTM?A?992?for?W?shapes,?unless?otherwise?specified

•

ASTM?A?36?for?angles?plates?and?bars

•

ASTM?A?325?high?strength?bolts

•

ASTM?A?307?or?A?36?bar?stock?for?anchor?bolts

5.1.3? General?Design

The? following? reinforced? concrete? structures? would? contain? continuous? PVC? waterstops

at?all?vertical?and?horizontal?construction?and?expansion?joints?in?walls?and?slabs:

1.? All?fluid?containing?structures.

2.? All? basements? and? below? ground? structures? with?one? surface? in?contact? with? soil

or?water?and?the?opposite?surface?dry?and?exposed.

Fluid?applied?waterproofing?would?be?applied?to?the?exterior?surfaces?of?all?walls?with?one

surface?in?contact?with?soil?and?the?opposite?surface?dry?and?exposed.

All? structures? below? grade,? including,? but? not? limited? to,? basements,? tanks,? and? other

buried? structures,? would? be? designed? to? resist? buoyancy? for? a? groundwater? table? at

finished?grade.??Only?the?dead?weight?of?the?concrete?structure?below?ground?and?soil?on

the? foundation? footings? around? the? outside? of? buildings,? tanks,? and? other? buried

structures?would?be?relied?on?to?resist?buoyancy.??Pressure?relief?valves?and/or?perimeter

drains?and?sump?pits?with?pumps?would?not?be?used?to?resist?buoyancy.

All?access?hatches?would?be?stainless?steel.??Handrails?would?be?stainless?steel.

5.1.4? Foundation?Design

The?foundation?design?for?the?various?structures?was?based?on?existing?available?borings

and?interpretations?of?these?borings?by?an?independent?Geotechnical?Engineer?for?use?in

estimating? foundation? costs? for? this? preliminary? phase? of? work.? ? Based? on? this

information,? it? was? determined? that? a? pile? foundation? is? required? to? support? the? UV

Facility? and? the? Low? Lift? Pump? Station,? and? for? the? purposes? of? this? study,? it? would? be

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

assumed?that?40?ton?capacity,?concrete?filled?pipe?piles?would?be?required?for?the?support

of?the?UV?Facility?and?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station.

Prior? to? final? design,? a? detailed? subsurface? investigation? should? be? undertaken? to

characterize?the?soils,?including?soil?borings,?interpretation?of?the?borings?and?for?the?final

selection?of?the?type?of?foundation?that?would?be?required.

5.2? NSWRP?UV?FACILITY

The? new? UV? Facility? would? be? a? one? story? reinforced? concrete? building? with? five? (5)

channels?for?the?five?(5)?UV?Reactors,?an?electrical?room,?a?storage?room,?a?control?room

and? an? effluent? sampling? room.? ? The? exterior? wall? construction? would? be? a? non-load

bearing?composite?cavity?wall?composed? of?concrete?masonry?units,?airspace,?insulation

and?an?exterior?face?brick.?The?exterior?masonry?materials?and?detailing?would?be?similar

to?existing?onsite?masonry?structures.

The? roof? structure? would? be? constructed? using? one-way,? cast-in-place? reinforced

concrete?slabs?spanning?cast-in-place?reinforced?concrete?beams.??The?beams?would?be

supported? by? cast-in-place? reinforced? concrete? columns.? ? The? roofing? would? be

composed? of?fully? adhered? cold?applied? roofing? membrane? over? tapered? rigid? insulation.

The? roof? drainage? would? be? directed? to? scupper? boxes? at? the? perimeter? of? the? building.

The? scupper? boxes? would? connect? to? downspouts? leading? drainage? to?grade.?Aluminum

skylights?would?be?provided?over?each?reactor?to?permit?natural?light?into?work?areas.?An

aluminum?framed?window?would?be?provided?in?the?control?room?for?visual?access?to?the

UV?reactor?room.

Personnel? doors? would? be? stainless? steel? frames? and? doors.? The? double? doors? in? the

electrical?room? would? have? a? removable? transom?to?provide? access?for? large? equipment.

The?overhead?door?would?be?an?insulated?aluminum?coiling?door.?Specialty?floor?hatches

would? be? provided? to? accommodate? the? UV? equipment? maintenance.? The? interior? floor

finish? in? the? building? would? be? hardened? concrete? outside? of? the? control? room? and

effluent? sampling? room.? ? The? control? room? and? effluent? sampling? room? would? have

suspended? acoustic? ceilings? and? resilient? tile? flooring.? Interior? partitions? and? concrete

structure?would?be?painted.

The?entire? substructures,? including? channels?and?foundation?grade?beam/walls?would? be

constructed? of? cast-in-place? reinforced? concrete? supported? on? concrete? filled? pipe? piles.

Gratings? in? the? UV? Reactor? Room? would? be? galvanized? steel? with? galvanized? steel

perimeter?angles?and?supports.

5.3?

LOW?LIFT?PUMP?STATION

The? new? LLPS? would? be? a? 40’+? steel? supported? building? (one? story)? with? a? pump? room

and? an? electrical? room.? ? The? exterior? wall? construction? would? be? a? non-load? bearing

composite? cavity? wall? composed? of? concrete? masonry? units,?airspace,? insulation? and? an

exterior? face? brick.? The? exterior? masonry? materials? and? detailing? would? be? similar? to

existing?onsite?masonry?structures.

The? roof?structure? would? be?constructed?using? standard?galvanized? roof?decking? to? span

the?steel?support?beams.??The?beams?would?be?supported?by?steel?columns.??The?roofing

would? be? composed? of? fully? adhered? cold? applied? roofing? membrane? over? tapered? rigid

insulation.?The?roof?drainage?would?be?directed?to?scupper?boxes?at?the?perimeter?of?the

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

building.? The? scupper? boxes? would? connect? to? downspouts? leading? drainage? to? grade.

Removable,?double?hip-type,?aluminum,?structural?skylights?would?be?provided?over?each

pump? to? permit? natural? light? into? work? areas? and? removal? of? the? pumps? by? crane? in? the

future.

Personnel? doors? would? be? stainless? steel? frames? and? doors.? The? double? doors? in? the

electrical?room? would? have? a? removable? transom?to?provide? access?for? large? equipment.

The?overhead?door?would?be?an?insulated?aluminum?coiling?door.?The?interior?floor?finish

in? the?building? would? be? hardened? concrete.? Interior? walls? and? concrete? structure? would

be?painted.

The?entire?substructures,?including?channels?and?foundation?grade?beam/walls,?would?be

constructed?of?cast-in-place?reinforced?concrete?supported?on?concrete?filled?pipe?piles.

6.0?

NSWRP?ELECTRICAL

6.1??? Codes/Standards

The?following?codes?and?standards?are?required?for?this?project.

•

NFPA-70? National? Electrical? Code,? 2002? or? latest? adopted? by? the? Village? of

Skokie.

•

NFPA-820? Fire? Protection? in? Wastewater? Treatment? and? Collection? Facilities,

2003.

•

Institute?of?Electrical?and?Electronics?Engineers?(IEEE).

•

MWRDGC?GS,?February?1997.

•

? MWRDGC?GSE,?March?1994.

•

Underwriters?Laboratories?(UL).

•

National?Electrical?Manufacturer’s?Association?(NEMA).

•

Insulated?Power?Cable?Engineers?(IPCEA).

•

Illuminating?Engineering?Society?(IES).

6.2?

Electric?Service

A?redundant?electric?service?to?the?UV?Disinfection?Facility?and?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

would? be? provided.? A? new? electric? service? transformer? yard? is? planned? for? the? new

Battery? E? to? the? north? of? the? Chicago? Transit? Authority? right? of? way.? Facilities? would? be

provided?at?the?Battery?E?service?from?ComEd?for?service?to?UV?Disinfection?Facility.

A? medium? voltage? cable? in?underground?ductbank? would?be? provided?from? the? Battery?E

service?location?to?supply?the?UV?Disinfection?Facility.

In? addition,? per? ComEd? policy,? the? District? would? be? responsible? for? costs? to? upgrade

ComEd? transmission? system? improvements?required?to?provide?the?new?electrical?power

to?the?new?transformer?yard?near?Battery?E.??ComEd?improvements?would?include:

1.? Protective?device?adjustment?at?TSS-85?(substation?immediately?north?of?existing

WRP?site).

2.? Underground?conduit?and?cable?to?provide?service?to?the?new?District?transformer

yard?adjacent?to?the?proposed?location?for?Battery?E.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

3.? New? overhead? power? transmission? line? from? intersection? of? Skokie? Boulevard

and? Oakton?Street?to?provide? redundant?power? service?from? separate? substation

(TSS-88?located?in?Skokie,?Illinois?at?Church?Street?and?I-94).

4.? Protective?device?adjustment?at?TSS-88.

The? proportional? costs? for? UV? disinfection? for? the? ComEd? improvements? and? the? new

electrical? service? transformer? yard?are? included? in? the?overall? estimate?for? disinfection?as

shown?in?Section?10.??The?proportional?cost?would?be?70%?of?the?total?cost?based?on?the

UV? power? demand? of? 5? MVA? versus? the? total? power? demand? of? 7? MVA? (5? MVA? for? UV

disinfection?+?1?MVA?for?Battery?E?+?1?MVA?for?future?improvements).

6.2?

System?Grounding

Electrical? systems?shall? be? solidly?grounded.?Grounding? shall? be? in?accordance? with? the

National? Electrical? Code? and? the? Chicago? Electrical? Code? for? equipment? grounding? and

bonding?conductors?for?grounding?raceway?and?equipment.

6.3?

Conduit

Exposed? conduit? shall? be? PVC? coated? Rigid? Galvanized? Steel? Conduit.? Conduits? in

non-finished? areas? shall? be? installed? either? exposed? on? the? surface? of? the? structure? or

concealed? in? concrete?floor? slabs?or? below? grade.? ? Conduits? below? grade? outside? of? the

building?shall?be?rigid?steel?and?shall?be?encased?in?reinforced?concrete.?Ductbanks?shall

have?50?percent?spare?conduits.

Conduits? shall? conform? to? MWRDGC? General? Specifications:? Electrical? (GSE)? Table? 1

(Page?GSE-8).

Spacing?of?supports?for?exposed?conduit?shall?conform?to?MWRDGC?GSE?Table?3?(Page

GSE-10).

6.4?

Wire

600? volt? Insulated? copper? conductors? in? conduit? shall? be? provided? for? all? power,? control,

alarm,? instrumentation,? signal,? lighting? and? grounding? installations,? unless? otherwise

indicated.? ? The? insulation? shall? meet? ANSI/NFPA? 70.? ? The? wire? and? cable? shall? conform

to?the?MWRDGC?GSE?Table?4?(Page?GSE-10).

Medium? voltage? cable? shall? be? ethylene? propylene? rubber? (EPR)? insulated? cable,? U.L.

listed? and? labeled? MV-90,? 133%? insulation? level,? single? conductor? copper,? Class? B

strand.

6.5?

Motors

Motors? 1/2? horsepower? and? larger? shall? operate? on? 480? volt,? 3-phase,? AC? power

supplies,? and? motors? smaller? than? 1/2? horsepower? shall? operate? on? 120? volts,? single

phase,?AC?power?supplies.

6.6?

Emergency?Systems

The? emergency? system? for? new? areas? would? be? supplied? from? the? existing? emergency

supply.? Emergency? lights? would? have? unit? batteries? to? provided? final? reserve? source? of

current?supply.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Emergency? lighting? and? exit? signage? would? be? provided? as? per? code? requirements? to

illuminate? the? path? of? ingress/egress? in? emergency? situations.? ? Separate? emergency

lighting?panels?(EP)?would?be?provided?as?per?the?Village?of?Skokie?electrical?code.

6.7?

Lightning?Protection

New? structures?shall? be?protected? by?a? lightning? protection? system.?The? system? shall? be

a? conductor? system? protecting? the? entire? building? and? consisting? of? copper? air? terminals

on? the? building? roof? parapets;? grounding? electrodes;? and? copper? interconnecting

conductors.

The?system?shall?be?designed?in?accordance?with?ANSI/NFPA?780?-?Lightning?Protection

Code? and? shall? have? a? UL? Master? Label.? The? lightning? protection? system? components

shall?conform?to?ANSI/UL?96?-?Lightning?Protection?Components.

6.8?

Specific?Electrical?Equipment

The?basis?of?specific?design?equipment?is?described?below.

6.8.1? Medium?Voltage?Switchgear

Table? 6.8.1-1

? describes? medium? voltage? switchgear

Tabl

e? 6.8.1-2

describes? the

criteria?to?be?used?for?circuit?breakers.

Table?6.8.1-1

Medium?Voltage?Switchgear?Criteria

Item

Criteria

Type

Medium?

Voltage?

Metal-clad?

Draw-out

Switchgear

Standards

?NEMA?SG.5

?ANSI?C37.20.2

Rated?Voltage

13,200?Volts

Number?of?phases

Bus?Material

Tin?plated?copper

Rated?BIL

95,000? Volts,? to? be? coordinated? with? surge

arrester?rating

Minimum?Main?Bus?Rated?Ampacity

2,000?Amperes

Minimum?interrupting?capacity

500?MVA

?Cutler?Hammer.

?ABB?-?ASEA?Brown?Boveri.

?Siemens?Energy?and?Automation.

Manufacturer

?Approved?equal.

Metering?Type

Solid?State?Multifunction

Metering?Location

Main?circuit?breaker?and?other?critical?feeder

circuit?breakers

Relaying?Type

Solid?state?multifunction

Schweitzer?Engineering?Laboratories,?SEL

Areva?NP?Co.

Relaying?Manufacturer

Approved?equal

Enclosure?Rating

NEMA?1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Table?6.8.1-2

Circuit?Breaker?Ratings?and?Features?Criteria

Item

Criteria

? Draw-out? carriage? type? with? racking

mechanism.

Type

?Circuit?breakers?shall?be?vacuum?type.

Operator?Voltage

Electric,?125?Vac

Controls

Manually? operated? electric? controls? with

piston? grip? switches? and? indicator? lights.

Location? would? be? coordinated? with? Arc

Flash?analysis.

Minimum?circuit?breaker?frame?current

rating.

1,200?Amperes

Manufacturer

Same?as?Switchgear?manufacturer

6.8.2? Pad?Mounted?Transformers

Table?6.8.2-1

?provides?the?design?criteria?for?pad-mounted?transformers.

Table?6.8.2-1

Pad-Mounted?Transformer?Criteria

Item

Criteria

Type

Outdoor,?Oil-filled?Power?Transformer

Primary?connection?type

Elbow?Type?terminators

Primary?Voltage

13,200?Volts

Primary?Number?of?phases

Primary?wiring?configuration

Delta?connection,?3-wire

Secondary?Connection?type

Bolt-on?type?bushing

Secondary?Voltage

480/277?Volts

Secondary?Number?of?phases

Secondary?wiring?configuration

4-wire,?grounded

Efficiency

Peak? efficiency? point? of? pad? mounted

transformers? to? be? at? 50%? of? efficiency

rating.

Capacity

2,000?kVA?or?as?required

Primary?BIL

95,000? Volts,? to? be? coordinated? with

surge?protection?rating

Secondary?BIL

30,000? Volts,? to? be? coordinated? with

surge?protection?rating

Nominal?Impedance

5.75?percent

Temperature?Rise

55/65?Degrees?C

Transformer?insulating?oil

Non-flammable,? environmentally? safe

insulating ? fluid

?ABB?-?ASEA?Brown?Boveri

?Cooper?Power?Systems?(RTE)

?Square?D

?General?Electric

Manufacturers

?Approved?equal

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

6.8.3? Secondary?Unit?Substation

Table?6.8.3-1

?summarizes?the?design?criteria?for?secondary?unit?substatio

Tabl

e?6.8.3-

provides?the?criteria?to?be?used?for?the?low?voltage?distribution.

Table?6.2.3-1

Secondary?Unit?Substation

Item

Criteria

Type

Radial? Secondary? Unit? Substation? with

close?coupled?air?terminal? compartment

and? close? coupled? Secondary? Low

Voltage?Switchgear

Standards

NEMA?210

Transformer?Type

Dry?type

Transformer?insulation?system

Vacuum? pressure? impregnation? with

polyester?resin?(VPI)

Primary?equipment

Air?terminal?compartment

Primary?Voltage

13,200?Volts

Primary?Number?of?phases

Primary?wiring?configuration

Delta?connection,?3-wire

Secondary?Connection?type

Bolt-on?type?bushing

Secondary?Voltage

480/277?Volts

Secondary?Number?of?phases

Secondary?wiring?configuration

4-wire,?grounded

Efficiency

Peak?efficiency?point?of?transformers?to

be?at?50%?of?efficiency?rating.

Capacity

1,500-2,000?kVA?or?as?required

Primary?BIL

95,000? Volts,? to? be? coordinated? with

surge?protection?rating

Secondary?BIL

10,000? Volts,? to? be? coordinated? with

surge?protection?rating

Winding?Material

Copper

Nominal?Impedance

5.75?percent

Temperature?Rise

80?Degrees?C

Minimum?K?factor

A c c essibility

Front?and?rear

Enclosure?Rating

NEMA?1

Manufacturers

?Cutler-Hammer.

?ABB?-?ASEA?Brown?Boveri

?Square?D

?General?Electric

?Approved?equal

6.8.4?? Low?Voltage?Switchgear

Table?6.8.4-1

?provides?the?design?criteria?for?low?voltage?switchgear.

Table?6.8?.4-2

?lists

the?criteria?for?circuit?breakers.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Table?6.8.4-1

Low?Voltage?Switchgear?Criteria

Item

Criteria

Type

Type?DS,?Metal-Enclosed?Drawout?Switchgear

Enclosure?Rating

NEMA?1

NEMA?SG-5

ANSI?C37.20.1

Standards

UL?1558

Rated?Voltage

480?Volts

Number?of?phases

Bus?Material

Tin?plated?copper

Minimum?Main?Bus?Rated?Ampacity

3000?Amperes

Minimum?interrupting?capacity

100?kA

A c c essibility

Front?and?rear

Manufacturer

CueltrH

? ammer

Metering?Type

Digital?Solid?State?multifunction?meters

Metering?Location

Main? circuit? breaker? and? other? critical? feeder

circuit?breakers

Relaying?Type

Solid?state?multifunction

Schweitzer?Engineering?Laboratories,?SEL

Areva?NP

Relaying?Manufacturer

Approved?equal

Table?6.8.4-2

Circuit?Breaker?Ratings?and?Features?Criteria

Item

Specifications

Type

Draw-out? carriage? type? with? racking

mechanism.

NEMA?SG-3

ANSI?C37.13,?C37.16,?C37.17

Standards

UL?1066

Operators

Manual

Controls

Manual?with?position?indicator?lights.

Minimum?

circuit?

breaker?

frame

current?rating.

800?Amperes

Manufacturer

Same?as?Switchgear?manufacturer

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

6.8.5? Motor?Control?Centers

The?design?criteria?for?motor?control?centers?are?summarized

Tab

?in

le?6.8.5-1

Table?6.8.5-1

Motor?Control?Center?Criteria

Item

Criteria

Rated?Voltage

480?Volts

Number?of?phases

Main?bus?minimum?current?rating

600?Amperes

Bus?Material

Tin-plated?Copper

Minimum?short?circuit?rating

100,000?Amperes

A c c essibility

Front?only

Wiring?class

NEMA?Class?II-S,?Type?B.

Overload?Protection?type

Solid?State?Type.

Metering?type

Digital?Solid?State?multifunction?meters.

Enclosure?type

NEMA?12

?Cutler-Hammer.

?Allen?Bradley.

?Square?D?Corp.

?Siemens?Energy?and?Automation.

Manufacturer

?Approved?equal

7.0?

NSWRP?INSTRUMENTATION?SYSTEM

The? control? of? the? process? equipment? shall? be? integrated? into? the? existing? DCS? System

which?is?provided?by?ABB.

The?monitoring?and?control?of?the?Low?Lift?Pump?Station?and?the?UV?Disinfection?Facility

would? be? provided? via? the? plant? DCS? System.? Manual? local? control? of? the? equipment

would? be? provided.? ? See? Section? 4.0? for? a? description? of? the? control? philosophy? for? the

LLPS?pumps?and?the?UV?Disinfection?System.

7.1?

Applicable?Codes?and?Standards

Where? applicable,? the? latest? version? of? the? codes? and? standards? from? the? following

institutions/organizations?would?govern?the?design:

•

National?Electrical?Code?(NFPA?70)?–?with?Village?of?Skokie?local?amendments.

•

National?Fire?Protection?Association?(NFPA)?standards:

•

NFPA?820?Fire?Protection?in?Wastewater?Treatment?and?Collection?Facilities

•

Underwriter's?Laboratories?(UL)

•

Illuminating?Engineering?Society?of?North?America?(IESNA)

•

Institute?of?Electrical?and?Electronic?Engineers?(IEEE)

•

National?Electrical?Manufacturers?Association?(NEMA)

•

? National?Electrical?Contractors?Association?(NECA)

•

MW RDGC?Standard?Details?and?Specifications

•

Variable?Frequency?Drives?Reference?Standards

•

American?National?Standards?Institute?(ANSI)

•

ANSI/IEEE?519? –? IEEE? Guide?for? Harmonic? Control?and? Reactive? Compensation

of?Static?Power?Converters.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

•

ANSI/IEEE? 597? –? IEEE? Practices? and? Requirements? for? General? Purpose

Thyristor?DC?Drives.

•

National?Electrical?Manufacturers?Association?(NEMA)

•

NEMA? ICS? 3.1? -? Safety? Standards? for? Construction? and? Guide? for? Selection,

Installation?and?Operation?of?Adjustable-Speed?Drive?Systems.

•

NEMA?ICS?7?-?Industrial?Control?and?Systems:??Adjustable?Speed?Drives.

8.0?

NSWRP?MECHANICAL?AND?PLUMBING

8.1.?

Mechanical?Codes

Where? applicable,? the? latest? version? of? the? codes? and? standards? from? the? following

institutions/organizations?would?govern?the?design:

•

The?International?Mechanical?Code?2003

•

The?International?Plumbing?Code?2003

•

National?Fire?Protection?Codes?(NFPA),?Section?820,?2007

•

American?National?Standards?Institute?(ANSI)

•

American?Society?For?Testing?Materials?(ASTM)

•

American? Society? of? Heating,? Refrigerating? and? Air-Conditioning? Engineers

(ASHRAE)

•

SMACNA?–?HVAC?Duct?Construction?Standards

•

International?Building?Code?2003

8.2?

Basis?of?Design

The?UV?Disinfection?Building?and?the?LLPS?would?follow?the?International?Building?Codes

for?fire?protection?pending?future?direction?by?the?District.

8.2.1? Ventilation?Rates

The? ventilation? rates? are? selected? based? upon? the? need? to? conform? to? the? recognized

national? standards? applying? to? wastewater? treatment? plants.? ? Specifically,? NFPA? 820,

“Standard? for? Fire? Protection? in? Waste? Water? Treatment? and? Collection? Facilities”? and

the?“International?Fire?Code”?are?used?for?the?design.

8.2.2? Design?Temperatures

Design? temperatures? are? based? upon? local? climatic? data? found? in? the? latest? edition? of

ASHRAE?Handbook?of?Fundamentals

8.2.2.1?Heating

The? design? space? temperature? for? all? process? areas? would? be? 55ºF? with? an? outdoor? air

temperature?of?-10ºF.??The?design?space?temperature?for?occupied?areas?would?be?70ºF.

8.2.2.2?Air?Conditioning

The? design? space? temperature? and? humidity? conditions? for? areas? requiring? air

conditioning?would? be? 78ºF? DB,?50%? RH? with?an?outdoor? air? condition? of?91ºF? DB,?75ºF

WB.??Summer?ventilation?only?spaces?would?have?a?maximum?design?space?temperature

rise?of?15ºF.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

8.2.3? Plumbing

The?plumbing? systems?for? the? UV? Disinfection? Building?and? LLPS? would?be? designed? to

the?“International?Plumbing?Code”,?2003.

8.2.3.1?Potable?Water

Potable? water? would? be? supplied? to? the? wash? sink? in? the? UV? Disinfection? Building? from

plant?potable?water?distribution?system.

8.2.3.2?Effluent?Water?(aka?Plant?Service?Water)

Effluent? water? would? be? available? from? the? plant? effluent? water? distribution? system.

Effluent? water? would? be? provided? for? equipment? wash? down? in? the? UV? Disinfection

Building?and?the?LLPS.

8.2.3.3?Sanitary?Drainage

General?floor? drainage? would? be? provided? in? all? rooms? as? required? by? codes.? ? Drainage

from? the? wash? sink? and? the? effluent? water? sampling? sink? would? be? routed? to? the? plant

sanitary?drain.??Floor?traps?and?sink?traps?would?be?vented.

8.2.3.4?Fire?Protection

The?fire?protection? system? would? consist?of?portable?fire? extinguishers?and?fire?hydrants,

in?accordance?with?the?requirements?of?NFPA?820?and?local?code?requirements.

8.3?

Proposed?Mechanical?and?Plumbing?System

The?following?section?details?the?proposed?equipment?and?operation.

8.3.1? UV?Disinfection?Facility

Air-conditioning? would? be? provided? for? the? operator? control? room.? ? Heating? for? the

electrical? room? would? be? provided? by? electric? unit? heaters.? ? Heating? for? process? and

storage?rooms?would?be?provided?by?steam?unit?and?space?heaters.

Summer? ventilation? for? the? electrical? room? and? filter? room? would? be? designed? for? a

maximum? space? temperature? increase? of? +15ºF? over? ambient.? ? Temperature? control

would? consist? of? cycling? exhaust? fans? that? are? interlocked? with? outside? air? intake

dampers.? ? Summer? ventilation? for? the? effluent? sampling? room? and? storage? room? would

consist?of?4?air?changes?per?hour.??Exhaust?fans?for?the?electrical?room?would?consists?of

two?exhaust?fans?at?50%?design?capacity?and?one?standby?exhaust?fan.??Exhaust?fans?for

the?UV?disinfection?room?would?be?sized?for?2/3?design?capacity.

Effluent?hydrants?and? hose?reels? would?be? provided?for? wash? down?of? the? UV? system? at

the?north?and?west?doors.??Potable?water?would?be?provided?to?the?wash?sink?at?the?west

door.??An?inline?instant?water?heater?would?be?provided?for?domestic?hot?water.

8.3.2? Low?Lift?Pump?Station

Heating? for? the? electrical? room? would? be? provided? by? electric? unit? heaters.? ? Heating? for

the?pump?room?would?be?provided?by?steam?unit?heaters.

Summer? ventilation? rates?for? the? electrical?room? and? the? pump? room? would?be? designed

for?a?maximum?space?temperature?increase?of?+15ºF?over?ambient.??Temperature?control

would? consist? of? cycling? exhaust? fans? that? are? interlocked? with? outside? air? intake

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

dampers.??Exhaust?fans?for? the? electrical?and? pump? room? would? consists?of?two?exhaust

fans?at?50%?design?capacity?and?one?standby?exhaust?fan.

9.0?

NSWRP?AREAS?REQUIRING?FURTHER?ANALYSIS

The?following?areas?require?further?analysis?as?part?of ?a?preliminary?design?effort?prior?to

final?design?of?the?proposed?facilities.

1.? A? detailed? subsurface? investigation? is? recommended? to? characterize?the? soft?silty

clay? layer? and? underlying? soil? layers.? Both? strength? and? consolidation? properties

of? these? soils? should? be? determined? by? field? and? laboratory? testing.? This? data

would?be?necessary?for?the?final?selection?and?design?of?the?foundation?system?by

a?qualified?geotechnical?engineer.

2.? More? complete? investigation? of? rail? embankment? and? methods? required? for

construction? of? the? retaining? wall? and? connection? to? the? existing? plant? effluent

conduit? is? recommended.? ? Specifically,?depending? on? the?method? of? construction

and? fill? material? of? the? embankment,? dewatering? efforts? could? be? substantially

greater?than?those?assumed?for?this?report.

3.? A? more? detailed? evaluation? of? the? layout? and? location? of? the? gate? structures? and

flow? conduits? is? recommended.? ? A? more? optimal? arrangement? that? may

consolidate?several?functions?could?be?developed?during?preliminary?design.

4.? A? more? detailed? evaluation? of? potential? pump? types? and? arrangements? for? the

LLPS.??Historically,?horizontal?arrangements,?similar?to?the?existing?Wilmette?Lock

pumps,?have?been?used?in?flood?control?projects?that?might?be?applicable?here.

5.? A? more?detailed? evaluation? of?large-scale? M&O?requirements?for? the? selected? UV

technology? is? recommended? to? ensure? the? appropriate? equipment? spacing,

operations? rooms,? and? storage? space? is? provided? in? the? new? facilities.? ? Existing

large-scale? facilities? are? either? based? on? older? technology? or? are? operated

intermittently? as? wet? weather?facilities.? ?A?pilot?facility?is? recommended? to?provide

this? information.? ? Estimated? construction? cost? is? $2,200,000? not? including

operational?costs?or?performance?evaluation.

6.? Physical? scale? modeling? during? preliminary? design? of? the? LLPS? is? strongly

recommended? per? Hydraulic? Institute? Standards? for? a? pump? station? of? this? size

and?given?the?deviation?from?the?ideal?inlet?configuration.

7.? Costs?for? addition? of? a? ComEd? Substation? are? not? currently? included? in?the? costs

for?implementation?of?the?UV?Disinfection?Facilities,?although?a?new?substation?on

the?north?site?would?be?required.

10.0? NSWRP?PRELIMINARY?COST?OPINION

A? preliminary? opinion? of? probable? construction? (OPCC)? of? the? North? Side? WRP? UV

Disinfection? Facilities? is? estimated? at?approximately? $108.8?million? including? engineering

and? administrative? costs? as? shown? i

Tabl

e? 10.0-1

,? which? also? presents? annual

operating?costs?and?a?20-year?net?present?worth?value?for?the?project.???Annual?operating

costs? are? based? on? the? facilities? operating? from? March? to? November? each? year.

Appendix? F? provides? detailed? line? item? summary? tables? for? capital? and? M&O? estimates.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

The? estimated? construction? cost? is? based? on? June? 2007? dollars? represented? by? an

Engineering?News?Record?(ENR)?Construction?Cost?Index?(CCI)?of?7983.

Table?10.0-1?–?NSWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O?Costs

Capital?Cost?Estimates

NSWRP?UV?Pilot?Plant

$2,200,000

ComEd?Service?Upgrade?Charge

$2,900,000

A.?General?Sitework

$27,200,000

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$27,000,000

C.?Disinfection?System

$49,500,000

Total?Capital?Cost

$108,800,000

Maintenance?&?Operations?Cost?Estimates

A.?General?Sitework

$130,000/yr

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$1,100,000/yr

C.?Disinfection?System

$3,590,000/yr

Total?Annual?M&O?Cost

$4,830,000/yr

Total?Present?Worth?M&O?Cost

$111,900,000

Total?Present?Worth

$220,700,000

??????????All?costs?in?2007?dollars.

Per? District? guidelines,? this? opinion? is? categorized? as? a? Level? 3? as? defined? by? the

Association?for?the?Advancement?of?Cost?Engineering?Recommended?Practice?No.?18R-

97? and? represents? a? conceptual? estimate? with? an? expected? deviation? range? from? actual

cost?of?-15%?to?+30%?assuming? no? substantial?change? in?scope? or?extraordinary?events

and?not?including?escalation?from?the?date?of?this?report?to?the?start?of?construction.

10.1? Basis?of?Opinion?of?Capital?Cost

The? assumptions? made? used? to? develop? the? capital? costs?for? the? proposed? facilities?are

summarized?below?and/or?described?in?the?previous?sections:

•

Design?Flow:?Maximum?design?flow?was?used?(NSWRP?=?450?mgd).

•

Proposed? Effective? Disinfection? Limit? (E.? Coli,? cfu/100? ml):? ? 400? monthly? geo-

mean?for?North?Side.

•

? UV?Disinfection:

o

? UV?Transmission:?65%?minimum?per?IEPA?standard

o

? UV?Dosage:??40?mJ/cm

?per?UV

dis

?sizing?software

•

Each? plant? would? disinfect? effluent?from? March? 1? through? November? 15.? ? During

the? remaining? months,? the? disinfection? facilities,? including? LLPS,? would? be

bypassed.

•

Cost?opinions?were?divided?into?the?following?categories:

o

? Site?Work

o

? Low?Lift?Pump?Station

o

? UV?Disinfection?Building

•

Costs?for?major?equipment?were?obtained?from?the?following?vendors:

Technology/Process

Vendor

UV?Reactors

Trojan?Technologies,?Inc.

Axial?Flow?Pumps

Sulzer?Pump,?Morrison?Pump

Flap?Gates

Rodney?Hunt

Slide?Gates?(various?sizes)

Rodney?Hunt,?Whipps

•

UV?channels?were?enclosed?in?a?UV?building.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

•

Redundancy

o

? UV? –? multiple? channels? were? used? to? meet? the? effluent? limit? at? peak? flow

with?one?channel?out?of?service.

o

? Pumps? were? provided? with? N+1+1? redundancy? per? the? District’s? standard

guidelines.

10.2? Basis?of?Operation?and?Maintenance?Costs

The? assumptions? used? to? develop? the? maintenance? and? operating? costs? are? presented

below:

•

A? power? cost? of? $0.0684/kW -hr? was? used? as? a? composite? rate? based? on? the

District’s?2007?power?supply?contract.

•

Labor? rates? were? developed? based? on? the? results? of? the? phone? survey? of? similar

facilities,? discussions? with? the? manufacturer,? and? recommendations? by? the

District.

•

UV?Disinfection?Building?and?the?LLPS?would?operate?from?March?1?to?November

30?each?year.

•

Annual? UV? lamp? replacement? and? disposal? costs? were? based? on? the? following

replacement?schedule:

o

? Lamps?replaced?each?year?(100%?per?year)

o

? Ballasts?replaced?every?five?years?(20%?per?year)

o

? Quartz?sleeves?replaced?every?10?years?(10%?per?year)

o

? Wipers?replaced?every?3?years?(33%?per?year)

o

? Lamp?disposal?costs?are?included?in?the?costs?of?the?new?lamps

•

Miscellaneous? parts? and? supplies? assumed? to? be? 5%? of? equipment? costs

including?pumps,?valves,?piping,?HVAC?equipment,?electrical?equipment,?etc.??UV

equipment?not?included.

•

Labor?rates?were?developed?based?on?the?data?received?from?the?District.

•

? The? labor? requirements? presented?

Tabl

e? 10.2-1

? were? assumed? for? the? three

components?of?the?facilities.

Table?10.2-1?–?M&O?Labor?Requirements

Activity

Labor?Type?

Number? Hours?per?Week

per?Worker

Site?Work

Routine?Maintenance?(Gates,

Roads,?Conduit,?Utilities,

Landscaping)

Laborer

Low?Lift?Pump?Station

Routine?Maintenance?(Pumps,

Laborer

Valves,?Electrical?Equipment)

Electrician

Operations

Operator

UV?Disinfection?Building

Routine?Maintenance

E lec tr ician

Lamp?Replacement

E lec tr ician

Lamp?Inspection/Cleaning

E lec tr ician

Operations

Operator

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

10.3? Basis?of?Net?Present?Value?Calculation

In? order? to? develop? a? net? present? worth? valve? for? comparison? to? other? alternatives? with

differing? M&O? costs,? a? present? worth? factor? of? 23.17? was? used? for? all? present? worth

calculations,?based? on? a?nominal?4.875%?interest? rate?for? 20? years?with?a? 3.0%?inflation

factor.

The? interest? rate? is? the? 2007? nominal? discount? rate? published? by? authority? of? the? Water

Resources? Development? Act? of? 1974.? ? The? use? of? this? discount? rate? mirrors? the? United

States? Army? Corps? of? Engineers? policy? related? to? calculation? of? life? cycle? costs? for

comparative?analysis.??The?current?annual?rate?can?be?obtained?from?the?US?Department

of? Agriculture,? Natural? Resources? Conservation? Service? (http://www.economics.nrcs.

usda.gov/cost/priceindexes/rates.html).

The? inflation? rate? was? developed? by? comparison? of? three? common? inflation? indicators.

Those?indicators?are:

Gross?Domestic?Product?Deflator

Consumer?Price?Index?(CPI)

Producer’s?Price?Index?(PPI)

As? of? the? end? of? August? 2007? (most? recent? available? data),? the? three? indicators? have? a

10-year? rolling? average? inflation? of? 2.6%,? 2.9%,? and? 2.6%? respectively.? ? Data? for? the

GDP? Deflator? is? available? from? the? US? Department? of? Commerce,? Bureau? of? Economic

Analysis,? Table? 1.1.9? (

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp

).??Data?for

the? CPI? and? PPI? is? available? from? the? US? Department? of? Labor,? Bureau? of? Labor

Statistics? (http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

).? ? Therefore,? a? value? of? 3.0%? was? selected? to

provide?a?reasonable,?yet?conservative,?estimate?of?inflation.

10.4? Discussion?of?Cost?Estimate?Line?Items

The? preliminary? opinion? of? probable? construction? cost? was? developed? based? on? the

drawings? developed? as? part? of? this? study? (see? Volume? 2),? CTE’s? knowledge? of? local

construction? market,? CTE’s? experience? with? similar? projects,? specific? budgetary? quotes

from?equipment?suppliers,?and?industry?standard?practices.??The?quantities?for?each?item

included? in? the? cost? estimate? were? measured? from? the? drawings? or? estimated? based? on

CTE’s?understanding?of?probable?means?and?methods?of?construction.

In? general,? unit? costs? for? each? line? are? considered? assembly? costs? including? labor? and

materials? for? that? item? plus? ancillary? items? normally? associated? with? that? item? unless

included? elsewhere.? ? For? example,? concrete? costs? are? given? including? formwork,? rebar,

and? concrete,? but? not? including? excavation? and? backfilling,? which? are? included? as

separate?line?items.??While?an?explanation?of?all?line?items?included?in?the?estimate?is?not

provided,? specific? line? items? that? warrant? additional? information? are? described? below? in

Table?10.4-1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

Table?10.4-1?–?OPCC?Selected?Line?Item?Description

Line?Item

Description/Additional?Information

General?Requirements

General?requirements?include?project?specific?insurance?(such?as

payment?and?performance?bonds)?and?other?project?specific?overhead

costs?(i.e.?field?personnel?labor,?field?trailers,?field?office?supplies,

general?quality?control?testing,?shop?drawing?preparation,?O&M

manual?preparation,?and?permit?fees).?It?is?assumed?to?be?15%?of?the

total?project?direct?costs.

Sheengti /Shorngi ?(Site

Work)

Cost?for?installation?of?sheeting?for?work?on?rail?embankment?including

installation?by?vibratory?pile?driver?on?weekends?only.

Hand?Mining/Connection/

Bulkheading?at?U/S

Connection?to?Existing?Final

Effluent?Conduit

This?line?item?is?a?lump?sum?estimate?of?the?cost?to?make?the

connection?to?the?existing?final?effluent?conduit?upstream?of?Gate

Structure?#1?including?hand?mining,?shoring,?demolition,?bulkheading,

restoration,?and?backfilling?with?substantial?costs?for?overtime?due?to

the?critical?nature?of?the?connection?and?the?need?to?minimize

shutdown?of?the?CTA?rail?operation.??No?costs?for?alternate?CTA

transportation?are?included.

Bulkheading?and?Removal

at?Gate?Structure?#3

This?line?item?is?a?lump?sum?estimate?of?the?cost?to?make?the

connection?to?the?existing?final?effluent?conduit?at?Gate?Structure?#3

including?demolition,?dewatering,?bulkheading,?restoration,?and

backfilling.

Utility?Items?(Site?Work)

Assembly?costs?for?utility?line?items?include?trenching,?shoring,

materials,?installation,?backfilling?and?placement?of?topsoil?per?linear

foot ? of?the ? utility .

Conduits?(Site?Work)

Assembly?costs?for?conduit?line?items?include?excavation,?shoring,

formwork,?rebar,?concrete,?backfilling?and?placement?of?topsoil?per

linear?foot?of?the?conduit.

Pile?Mobilization,?Piles,?Pile

Load?Test

Costs?for?installation?of?12”?concrete?piles?to?support?LLPS,?UV

Disinfection?Building,?and?gate?structures.??Assumed?depth?of?piles?is

50?feet?to?reach?hardpan?or?bedrock.

Concrete?(Base?Slabs,

Walls,?and?Elevated?Slabs)

Assembly?costs?for?concrete?installation?including?rebar,?formwork,

and?concrete.??Does?not?include?excavation?or?backfill.

Interior?walls?(masonry)

Assembly?costs?for?construction?of?masonry?interior?wall?including

block,?mortar,?installation?and?ancillary?costs.??Does?not?include

coatings.

Exterior?walls?(masonry)

Assembly?costs?for?construction?of?masonry?exterior?wall?including

block,?insulation,?brick,?mortar,?installation?and?ancillary?costs.??Does

nonct?i udl e?coangti s.

Pumps

Budgetary?equipment?costs?from?suppliers?plus?25%?for?installation.

Includes?delivery,?startup,?and?training?services.

UV?Reactors

Budgetary?equipment?costs?from?supplier?plus?15%?for?installation.

Includes?delivery?and?installation?certification?services.??Startup?and

M&O?training?included?separately.

Escalation

Escalation?is?assumed?to?be?5%?per?year.??Construction?period?is

assumed?to?be?35?months.??Therefore,?escalation?to?the?mid-point?of

construction?is?7.5%.

Contractor’s?Markup?on

Subcontractors

Contractor’s?markup?on?subcontractors?is?assumed?to?be?5%.??This

markup?is?applied?to?all?direct?project?costs?except?the?general

conditions?line?item.

Contractor’s?Overhead?and

Profit

Contractor’s?overhead?of?5%?includes?general?contractor?overhead

including?front?office?costs?and?project?manager’s?time.???Profit?is

assumed?to?be?10%.

Contngi ency

Consistent?with?AACE?guidelines?and?District?policy,?a?contingency

factor?of?30%?has?been?added?to?the?OPCC?to?cover?unknown?costs

associated?with?the?project.??Contingency?does?not?include?escalation

from?the?point?of?time?of?estimate?to?beginning?of?construction,

extraordinary?events,?or?changes?to?the?scope?of?the?project.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

11.0? NSWRP?SCHEDULE?OF?IMPLEMENTATION

The? anticipated? schedule? for? implementation? of? the? design? of? North? Side? WRP? UV

Disinfection? Facilities? is? approximately? 8? years,? assuming? no? delay? between? activities

after? commencement? of? Preliminary? Desig

ble? 11.0-1

? provides? a? summary? of? the

anticipated?activities?and?their?durations.

Table?11.0-1?–?Projected?Schedule?of?Implementation

Activity

Duration

Design?of?Pilot?Facility?and?Concurrent?Collimated?Beam?Testing

Program

12?months

Regulatory?Review?of?Pilot?Facility?Design

6?months

Construction?of?Pilot?Facility

9?months

Operation?of?Pilot?Facility/Evaluation?of?Technology?and?Scale-up

18?months

Design?of?Full-Scale?Facility

12-18?months

Regulatory?Review?of?Full-Scale?Design

6?months

Construction?of?Full-Scale?Facility

24-30?months

Commissioning/Startup

3?months

TOTAL

90-102?months

12.0? CALUMET?WRP?PRELIMINARY?COST?OPINION

The?proposed?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?at?the?CWRP?are?essentially?equivalent?to?those

proposed?at?the?NSWRP.??While?an?evaluation?to?the?level?equivalent?to?the?evaluation?of

the? proposed? facilities? at? NSW RP? was? not? completed? as? part? of? this? study,? it? can? be

assumed? that? the? costs? for? implementation? of? UV? Disinfection? at? the? CWRP? would? be

largely? commiserate? with? the? costs? for? the? same? facilities? at? NSWRP.? ? The? facilities

would?be?generally?identical?to?the?NSWRP?facilites?with?the?following?exceptions:

1.? Existing?information?on?soils?in?the?CWRP?area?indicates?that?there?is?no?need?for

deep? foundations? to? support? the? proposed? structures,? nor? for? the? upstream? and

downstream? connections? to? the? existing? effluent? (assumed? to? reuse? existing

chlorine?contact?chamber?gates).

2.? The? arrangement? of? the? CWRP? facilities,? specifically? the? digesters,? chlorine

contact? chambers? (out-of-service),? and? final? effluent? conduits? create? a

constrained? site? with? no? space? available? to? locate? the? proposed? disinfection

facilities.? ? Therefore,? it? is? assumed? that? the? chlorine? contact? chambers? would? be

demolished? to? provide? space? for? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities.? ? However,? it? is

assumed? that? only? the? walls? would? be? demolished? and? the? void? filled? with

common?fill?or? structural?fill?as?appropriate.? ? The?existing? base? slab? would?be? left

in?place.

3.? The? ComEd? power? transmission? system? improvements? are? based? on? the

transmission? system? specific? to? CWRP.? ? Per? ComEd? representatives,? the? only

expected?improvements?would?be?adjustment?to?existing?protective?devices?at?the

ComEd?transformer?yard?at?CWRP.

4.? The? peak? design? flow? for? CWRP? is? 480? mgd? compared? to? 450? mgd? for? the

NSWRP.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

C:\Documents?and?Settings\cockerille\Desktop\505_Final

Cost?Study?Report\Final?Draft?cost?study?report_epc_013008.doc

It? should? also? be? noted? that? the? CWRP? is? currently? experiencing? restrictions? in? plant

capacity? during? wet? weather? events? due? to? backwater? effects? in? the? plant? outfall.

Therefore,?a?LLPS?is?assumed?necessary?at?the?CWRP.

To? estimate? the? costs? for? the? UV? Disinfection? Facilities? at? CWRP,? CTE? deducted? the

costs? for? the? deep? foundations? and? special? connections? to? effluent? conduits,? multiplied

the? remaining? capital? cost? estimate?by? the? ratio? of? 480? mgd? to?450? mgd,? and? added? the

cost? for? demolishing? the? existing? chlorine? contact? chamber

Tab

le? 12.0-1

? provides? a

summary?of?those?actions.

Table?12.0-1?–?Summary?of?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facility?Cost?Development

NSWRP?Site?Work

$27,170,000

DEDUCT?Deep?Foundations

$5,760,000

Subtotal

$21,410,000

MULTIPLY?by?Ratio?of?Flows

1.067

Subtotal

$22,840,000

ADD?Chlorine?Contact?Chamber?Demolition

$4,980,000

CWRP?Site?Work

$27,800,000

NSWRP?LLPS

$27,010,000

MULTIPLY?by?Ratio?of?Flows

1.067

CWRP?LLPS

$28,800,000

NSW RP ?UV?Disinf ec tion

$49,490,000

MULTIPLY?by?Ratio?of?Flows

1.067

CWRP?UV?Disinfection

$52,800,000

CWRP?Total

$109,400,000

Table? 12.0-2

? provides? the? preliminary? opinion? of? probable? construction? cost? for? the? UV

Disinfection? Facilities? at? the? Calumet?W ater? Reclamation? Plant.? ? Annual? M&O? costs? are

also? provided? assuming? the? same? labor? costs? as? NSW RP? but? increased? energy,? parts,

and?supplies?costs?per?the?same?ratio?as?used?for?the?capital?costs.

Table?12.0-2?–?CWRP?UV?Disinfection?Facilities?Preliminary?OPCC?and?M&O?Costs

Capital?Cost?Estimates

ComEd?Service?Upgrade?Charge

$130,000

A.?General?Sitework

$27,800,000

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$28,800,000

C.?Disinfection?System

$52,800,000

Total?Capital?Cost

$109,530,000

Maintenance?&?Operations?Cost?Estimates

A.?General?Sitework

$130,000/yr

B.?Low?Lift?Pump?Station

$890,000/yr

C.?Disinfection?System

$3,490,000/yr

Total?Annual?M&O?Cost

$4,520,000/yr

Total?Present?Worth?M&O?Cost

$104,600,000

Total?Present?Worth

$214,100,000

??????????All?costs?in?2007?dollars.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-101

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

GATE?STRUCTUR E?#1

SCALE:?1/8"=1'-0"

SECTION

S-101

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

GATE?STRUCTUR E?#3

SCALE:?1/8"=1'-0"

SECTION

S-101

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-101

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

GATE?STRUCTUR E?#2

SCALE:?1/8"=1'-0"

SECTION

SCALE:?1/8"=1'-0"

SECTION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-202

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-202

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

SECTION

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

SECTION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-302

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-302

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

S-302

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

A-202

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

A-202

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

A-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

A-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

A-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

P-202

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

SCALE:?3/16"=1'-0"

SECTION

SCALE:?1/4"=1'-0"

SECTION

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

P-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008

P-303

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 20, 2008