Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-29-03 workshop agenda — reading text

Liquid Chlorine System Chlorine Building 50. 000 25. 000 CCC Basin Rehabilitation 125, 000 ece Basin Rehabilitation 125, 000 fill i II. 200, 000 200, 000 Total 4, 118, 750 Total 4,793, 750 f:\ 2001/ 01.0387. / -4/ 041403 FINAUTable 5. 1 0 0IReportR HAl #01.0387. 000 5- 11 3 II These probable opinion of capital costs are based on unit prices obtained from recent bid I experience as well as infonnation obtained from manufacturers of the equipment to be supplied. As such, the prices indicated in these tables, reflect the anticipated costs if the project were I currently bid. 5. 13 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT AL TERNATIVES I A present value analysis was perfonned for both treatment alternatives which were discussed in I this section. This analysis includes the estimated construction cost and the present worth of O& M for the entire process associated with each of the two ( 2) secondary processes. This I subsection briefly describes the items included in the estimated construction and O& M costs and are presented herein for each system. Construction costs were estimated based upon vendor' s quotations, estimated installation costs, cost data for similar projects, and published cost data, as I previously discussed in Section 4. I The O& M costs utilized for this analysis included the cost of labor, power, and nonnal replacement parts. Inflated component replacement costs are added to the present value analysis I at the end of each components ASL. A residual value was added back to the present value for components with a useful life remaining after the 30- year analysis. These residual values were I based on an assumed ASL and straight- line depreciation over the ASL for each component. Based on the infonnation compiled, the total present value of the RBC and MLE processes are The estimated present worth costs and component I 7, 303, 808, and $ 7, 044, 410, respectively. residual values for each alternative is shown in Tables A- 12, and A- 13. II 5. 14 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this section of the report is to evaluate the entire wastewater treatment components associated with the RBC and MLE process utilizing a present value analysis. As I described previously, a 30- year perfonna analysis was based on projected capital and O& M costs for both alternatives. In summary, the following conclusions were developed: I 1. The resulting present value of the RBC process is $ 8, 816, 308. A residual value of 1, 512, 500 was assumed for equipment with a remaining service life and this value I filii' F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\041403 FINAL\ SEC 5. doc HAI#01- 387. 00 5- 12 041403 III II II I was applied to the present value. The total present value of the RBC process is 7, 303, 808 as shown in Table A- 12A- 12. I 2. The resulting present value of the MLE process was $ 8, 138, 160. A residual value of 1, 093, 750 was assumed for equipment with a remaining service life and this value I was applied to the present value. 7, 044, 410 as shown in Table A- B. The total present value of the MLE process is I The present value analysis for each of the wastewater treatment alternatives is summarized in Table 5- 2. The results of the present value analysis is relative only in conjunction with the I circumstances presented herein and made part of such projections, and no assurances are made pursuant to the results or outcome projected herein. However, based on the infonnation I presented in this report, the MLE process is the most cost effective alternative for the City to pursue. I I II I P- I.. III! III III III I'll l F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\SEC 5. doc HAI#01- 387. 00 5- 13 041403 III II!II TABLE 5- 2 CITY OF FORT W ALTON BEACH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT I PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY I Total Present Process Present Value Residual Value Value I RBC Process $ 8, 816, 308 ($ 1, 512, 500) $ 7, 303, 808 I MLE Oxidation Ditch Process $ 8, 138, 160 ( 1, 093, 750) $ 7, 044, 410 I 1.1..,.:\'. II II. filii' II!II ill ill II i. F:\2001 \ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\table 5- 2. doc HAI#01- 387. 00 5- 14 4/ 1412003  SECTION 6 filii CLASSIFICATION AND STAFFING l1li 6. 1 WWTP CLASSIFICATION AND STAFFING I The current WWTP utilizes the RBC' process to treat 4.5 MOD on an AADF basis of domestic wastewater. As defined by Chapter 62- 699, FAC, the City' s WWTP meets I Category IV and Class B wastewater treatment facility design criteria. The FDEP rules defined in Chapter 62- 699.310, F AC classify a Category IV WWTP as a facility utilizing I trickling filter or RBC process. This chapter also states that a WWTP designed for an ADF of 3. 0 to 10. 0 MGD is classified as a Class B facility. The City' s WWTP also I meets FDEP defined rules for a Category IV, Class B Wastewater Treatment Facility. i FDEP rules mandate that follows: a Category IV, Class B WWTP must include staffing as 1. Class C or higher operator: 16 hours/ day for 7 days/ week. III!II 2. The lead/chief operator must be Class B or higher. w'::~r III The WWTP' s " Class B" designation will not be affected utilizing the MLE oxidation 1M ditch alternative if treating the current ADF of 4.5 MGD. As defined by FDEP rules, the MLE oxidation ditch system meets Category III and Class B wastewater treatment The FDEP rules defined in Chapter 62- 699.310, FAC classify a iii facility design criteria. Category III WWTP as a facility utilizing extended aeration and oxidation ditches with or id without filters. This chapter also states that a WWTP designed for an ADF of 2. 0 to 8. 0 II MOD is classified as a Class B facility. The oxidation ditch proposed for replacement of the RBC system meets FDEP defined rules for a Category III, Class B Wastewater Treatment Facility. i , The FDEP rules mandate that a Category III, Class B WWTP must include staffing as follows: I 1. Class C or higher operator: 16 hours/ day for 7 days/ week. I 2. The lead/chief operator must be Class B or higher. iii fill F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\ 041403 FINAL\SEC 6.DOC HAI#01- 387. 00 6- 1 041403 i.. 6. 2 ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS r- Additional classification and staffing requirements are defined in Chapter 62- 699.311, F AC. The additional requirements for a Category III, Class C WWTP includes staffing I as follows: 1. Operator shall be on call during periods the plant is unattended. Daily I checks of all plants shall be performed by the permittee, or supplier, or his representative or agent 5 days per week for all Class C and D plants. I 2. A Class D operator shall not be the lead/chief operator of more than one I water and wastewater treatment plant at any time. I 3. For plants under an electronic surveillance system or plant with an automatic control system, daily staffing hours may be reduced upon written approval by the Department. I 4. In Class B plants, the second shift should cover the next highest influent I flow or peak water production period. I 5. In Class A, B, and C plants a certified operator shall be on- site and in charge of each required shift and for periods of required staffing time I when the lead or chief operator is not on- site. 6. Plant classification shall be determined upon permitted design flow or I treatment capacity, degree of risk to public health or the environmental and complexity of treatment plant operation. i. 7. Upon written approval by the Department, plants which use less than the f! i plant' s permitted design flow or treatment capacity may decrease the staffing requirement. However, the lead or chief operator must remain at t the same class as the plant. The plant must not be in violation of any Department rule for this paragraph to apply. Ii. II F:\2001\ 01.0387. 000\Report\ R-4\041403 FINAL\