Conceptual Design Report Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority, Maine Anaerobic Digestion and Energy Recovery

Project October 2009 This page intentionally left blank. A i 5816-72780 Contents Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose .................................................................... .................................................. 1-1 1.2 Existing Biosolids Treatment ............................................... ................................... 1-2 1.3 Project Drivers, Goals and Objectives ...................................... .............................. 1-3 1.4 Project Components ......................................................... ........................................ 1-3 1.5 Facility Layout Options .................................................... ....................................... 1-4 1.5.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility .......................................... ................... 1-5 1.5.2 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space .................... ...... 1-5 Section 2 Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics 2.1 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics ............................. ...................... 2-1 2.2 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics with DAF Replacement ........ . 2-2 2.3 Basis of Design ............................................................ .............................................. 2-3 Section 3 Waste Activate Sludge Thickening Improvements 3.1 Background and Existing Conditions ......................................... ........................... 3-1 3.2 Thickening Design Criteria ................................................. .................................... 3-2 3.3 Thickening Alternatives Analysis ........................................... ............................... 3-2 3.3.1 Rotary Drum Thickeners ................................................... ....................... 3-3 3.3.2 Gravity Belt Thickeners .................................................. .......................... 3-4 3.3.3 Thickening Process Comparison and Recommendations ................... 3-5 3.4 Gravity Belt Thickener Design Criteria ..................................... ............................ 3-8 3.4.1 WAS GBTS ................................................................. ................................. 3-9 3.4.2 GBT Washwater / Drain System ............................................. ................ 3-9 3.5 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Transfer Pumping .......................... ............ 3-9 3.6 Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) ..................................... ................... 3-11 Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4.1 General .................................................................... ................................................... 4-1 4.2 Anaerobic Digestion Tanks .................................................. ................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Digester Sizing Criteria.................................................. ........................... 4-1 4.2.2 Digester Tank Configuration Options ...................................... .............. 4-2 4.3 Sludge Storage Tanks ....................................................... ........................................ 4-3 4.3.1 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Storage ................................. ......... 4-3 4.3.2 Digested Sludge Storage .................................................. ......................... 4-4 4.4 Digester Heating Requirements .............................................. ............................... 4-5 4.4.1 Heat Requirement for Incoming Sludge ..................................... ........... 4-5 4.4.2 Digester Tank Heat Losses ................................................ ....................... 4-6 4.4.3 Heating Requirement Summary .............................................. ............... 4-7 Table of Contents Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project Draft Conceptual Design Report ii A 4.5 Digester System Equipment .................................................. .................................. 4-8 4.5.1 Digester Heating ......................................................... ............................... 4-8 4.5.2 Digester Mixing .......................................................... ............................... 4-9 4.5.3 Digester Covers........................................................... ............................. 4-10 4.6 Facility Site Location Options ............................................. .................................. 4-12 4.6.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility .......................................... ................. 4-12 4.6.3 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space .................... .... 4-12 4.7 Anaerobic Digester Conceptual Design Summary ............................... ............. 4-13 Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration Improvements 5.1 General .................................................................... ................................................... 5-1 5.2 Digester Gas Production .................................................... ...................................... 5-1 5.3 Digester Gas Usage ......................................................... .......................................... 5-1 5.3.1 Cogeneration System Sizing ............................................... ..................... 5-2 5.4 Recommended Cogeneration System ............................................ ........................ 5-4 5.5 Biogas Conveyance and Storage .............................................. ............................... 5-4 5.5.1 Biogas Safety Equipment .................................................. ........................ 5-4 5.5.2 Moisture and Sediment Removal ............................................ ................ 5-5 5.5.3 Biogas Metering .......................................................... ............................... 5-5 5.5.4 Biogas Storage ........................................................... ................................. 5-5

5.6 Biogas Treatment ........................................................... ........................................... 5-6 5.6.1 Hydrogen Sulfide Biogas Treatment ........................................ .............. 5-6 5.6.2 Siloxane Removal ......................................................... ............................. 5-6 5.6.3 Biogas Pressure Boosting ................................................. ........................ 5-7 5.6.4 Recommended Biogas Treatment System ...................................... ........ 5-7 5.7 Summary .................................................................... ................................................ 5-7 Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations 6.1 Building Codes and Standards ............................................... ................................ 6-1 6.2 Architectural Considerations ............................................... ................................... 6-2 6.2.1 Option 1 Buildings and Structures ........................................ ............. 6-2 6.2.2 Option 2 Buildings and Structures ........................................ ............. 6-3 6.2.3 Building Systems ......................................................... .............................. 6-4 6.2.4 Building Materials and Finishes .......................................... .................... 6-4 6.2.5 Roofing Systems .......................................................... .............................. 6-5 6.2.6 Proposed Interior Finishes ............................................... ........................ 6-6 6.3 Structural Considerations .................................................. ...................................... 6-6 6.3.1 Design Loads and Serviceability .......................................... ................... 6-6 6.3.2 Serviceability ........................................................... ................................. 6-13 6.3.3 Foundation Design ........................................................ .......................... 6-15 6.3.4 Concrete Design .......................................................... ............................. 6-16 Table of Contents Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project Draft Conceptual Design Report A iii 6.3.5 Masonry Design ........................................................... ............................ 6-18 6.3.6 General Design and Detailing ............................................. .................. 6-19 6.3.7 Structural Metal Design .................................................. ........................ 6-20 6.3.8 Modification of Existing Structures ...................................... ................ 6-22 6.3.9 Facility Specific Structural Design Considerations ....................... ...... 6-22 Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7.1 Electrical Systems ......................................................... ............................................ 7-1 7.1.1 Electrical System Overview ............................................... ...................... 7-1 7.1.2 Existing Electrical System ...............................................

......................... 7-1 7.1.3 Electrical Observations and Vulnerability ................................ ............. 7-2 7.1.4 Recommendations and Improvements ......................................... ......... 7-3 7.1.5 Hazardous Areas .......................................................... ............................. 7-7 7.2 Instrumentation and Control ................................................ .................................. 7-7 7.2.1 General .................................................................. ...................................... 7-7 7.2.2 Objectives................................................................ .................................... 7-7 7.2.3 Control System Description ............................................... ...................... 7-9 7.2.4 Naming Convention ........................................................ ....................... 7-12 7.2.5 Control Philosophy ....................................................... .......................... 7-14 7.2.6 SCADA System Design ...................................................... .................... 7-15 7.2.7 Summary Recommendations .................................................. ............... 7-15 Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions 8.1 HVAC ....................................................................... .................................................. 8-1 8.1.1 General .................................................................. ...................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Design Conditions ........................................................ ............................. 8-1 8.1.3 Demolition ............................................................... ................................... 8-1 8.1.4 New Work ................................................................. ................................. 8-2 8.2 Plumbing ................................................................... ................................................. 8-4 8.2.1 General .................................................................. ...................................... 8-4 8.2.2 Demolition ............................................................... ................................... 8-4 8.2.3 New Work ................................................................. ................................. 8-5 8.2.4 Fire Protection .......................................................... .................................. 8-6 Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Analysis and Design Recommendations 9.1 General .................................................................... ................................................... 9-1 9.2 Conceptual Geotechnical Recommendations .................................... ................... 9-1 9.2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................... ............................. 9-1 9.2.2 Proposed Construction .................................................... ......................... 9-1 9.2.3 Purpose and Scope ........................................................ ............................ 9-2 Table of Contents Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project Draft Conceptual Design Report

iv A 9.2.4 Subsurface Investigations ................................................ ......................... 9-2 9.2.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing .......................................... .................. 9-3 9.2.6 Conceptual-Level Geotechnical Evaluation.................................. ......... 9-5 9.2.7 Conceptual-Level Foundation Recommendations .............................. . 9-6 9.2.8 Recommended Phase 2 Exploration Program .................................. ..... 9-7 9.3 Site Design Considerations ................................................. .................................... 9-7 9.3.1 Codes and Standards ...................................................... .......................... 9-7 9.3.2 Site Preparation.......................................................... ................................ 9-8 9.3.3 Materials ................................................................ ..................................... 9-8 9.3.4 Grading and Drainage ..................................................... ......................... 9-9 9.3.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ........................................ ............... 9-9 9.3.6 Landscape ................................................................ ................................... 9-9 9.3.7 Layout Specific Site Design Considerations ............................... ......... 9-10 Section 10 Permitting 10.1 Purpose ................................................................... ................................................. 10-1 10.2 Local Permitting .......................................................... ............................................ 10-1 10.2.1 Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resource Conservation (RC) Zoning Districts Provisions ........................................................... ...................... 10-1 10.2.2 Local Flood Protection Provisions ....................................... ................. 10-1 10.2.3 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Permit .......................... ... 10-2 10.2.4 Stormwater Runoff and Flood Management Permitting ................... 102 10.2.5 Local Permit Application and Approval Schedule .......................... ... 10-2 10.3 Air Quality Permitting .................................................... ....................................... 10-3 Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate 11.1 Project Cost Estimates: ................................................... ........................................ 11-1 11.2 Comparison of Options ..................................................... .................................... 11-2 Appendices Appendix A: Historical Boring Logs Appendix B: Recent Boring Logs Appendix C: Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results Table of Contents Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project Draft Conceptual Design Report A v Tables

2-1 Plant Influent ............................................................. ................................................ 2-1 2-2 Thickened Primary Sludge ................................................... ................................... 2-2 2-3 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge ........................................... ............................ 2-2 2-4 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, DAF Replacement .......................... ........... 2-2 2-5 Combined Thickened Sludge, WAS thickened to 5% ............................. ............ 2-3 2-6 Combined Thickened Sludge Feed to Digester ................................. ................... 2-3 3-1 Estimated Loading Rates for WAS Thickening ................................. ................... 3-2 3-2 Non-Cost Comparison of Thickening Alternatives ............................. ................ 3-6 3-3 Performance Comparison for Thickening Alternatives ......................... ............. 3-7 3-4 Comparison Costs for Thickening Alternatives ............................... .................... 3-7 3-5 Design Criteria TWAS Transfer Pumps ........................................ ................. 3-10 4-1 Combined Thickened Sludge to Digester System, Basis of Design .............. ..... 4-2 4-2 Digester System Configurations Summary ..................................... ..................... 4-3 4-3 Sludge Heating Requirements ................................................ ................................ 4-6 4-4 Digester Tank Configuration ................................................ .................................. 4-7 4-5 Conductive Heat Loss ....................................................... ....................................... 4-7 4-6 Digester Heating Requirements .............................................. ............................... 4-8 5-1 Biogas Production Rates and Energy Value of Biogas ......................... ............... 5-2 5-2 Utilizing Biogas in Engine Application ..................................... ............................ 5-3 5-3 Digester and Facility Heating Needs vs. Heat from Engine ................... ............ 5-3 7-1 LAWPCA Facility Area Classification Summary ................................ ............ 7-8 9-1 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................. .................. 9-12 9-2 Summary of Subsurface Conditions ........................................... ......................... 9-13 10-1 Summary of Maximum Annual Emissions ....................................... .................. 10-4 11-1 Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Based on 10% Level of Design ......... ... 11-1 11-2 Comparison of Facility Layout Options ..................................... ......................... 11-2 Table of Contents Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Facility Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Recovery Project Draft Conceptual Design Report vi A Figures 1-1 Anaerobic Digestion System Process Flow Diagram ............................ .............. 1-7

1-2 Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Site Plan Option 1 ....................... ............ 1-9 1-3 Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Site Plan Option 2 ....................... .......... 1-11 4-1 Digester Plan and Section .................................................. .................................... 4-15 4-2 Gas Storage Facility Plan, Section, Detail and Schematic ................... .............. 4-17 4-3 Anaerobic Digester/Cogen Facility Digester Building Option 1 ............... . 4-19 4-4 Existing Process Building Plan Option 2 .................................... .................... 4-21 4-5 New Digesters Lower Level Option 2 ......................................... ................... 4-23 5-1 Waste Gas Burner, Gas Equipment Building, Gas Conditioning System, and Cogen Units ................................................................ ...................................... 5-9 7-1 Electrical Overall One Line Diagram ........................................ ........................... 7-17 7-2 Electrical One Line Diagram Sludge Digesters MCC-6 ......................... ............ 7-19 9-1 Boring Location Plan Option 1 .............................................. .......................... 9-13 9-2 Boring Location Plan Option 2 .............................................. .......................... 9-15 A 1-1 5816-72780 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Conceptual Design Report (CDR) is to expand on the recommendations presented in the June 2009 Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) prepared for the Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority (LAWPCA) by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc (CDM). This Conceptual Design is defined herein as approximately a 10-percent level of desig n and is intended to be in accordance with Task 2A as outlined in the Agreement between LAWPCA and CDM dated August 17, 2009. This CDR provides the baseline for design of the proposed digestion improvements. The June 2009 Feasibility Study presented two conceptual options for the layout of the facilities required for the anaerobic digestion system. Option 1 involved new separate tanks and adjacent support building located remote from the existing pr ocess building while Option 2 attempted to modify existing process building space to accommodate the bulk of the mechanical equipment and build new digesters south o f the existing gravity thickeners. In addition to providing criteria for the gener al basis of design of the proposed systems, this CDR further evaluates and recommends one of these two facility layout options based on analysis of cost and non-cost fact ors. As presented in the Feasibility Study, replacement of the existing Waste Activat ed Sludge (WAS) thickening system at the facility is included in the proposed diges ter improvements in order to increase the solids percentage and decrease the total volume of sludge being fed to the anaerobic digestion system. This CDR expands upon the recommended WAS thickening improvements by comparing potential thickening system equipment and providing a recommended selection. It should als

o be noted that this thickening system replacement work is recommended irrespectiv e of the facility layout option selected and the cost for this work has been carri ed in both options. This CDR includes design criteria and concepts of operation for each unit proces s. This basis of design has been supported herein through presentation of the follo wing: Conceptual site plans of the proposed facilities (both layout options); Conceptual drawings of the new process areas as well as proposed modifications t o existing structures (both layout options); Solids train process flow diagram; Discussion of architectural and structural design considerations; Evaluation of the existing and proposed power distribution system; Section 1 Introduction 1-2 A Discussion related to instrumentation and control concepts, including the desire d degree of automation; Consideration of current and future plant operations include operations during construction; Consideration of ease of construction and associated risks during construction; Heating, ventilating and plumbing improvements considerations; Site access improvements evaluation; Results of initial geotechnical investigations; and An update of the estimated project costs and comparison of layout alternatives. 1.2 Existing Biosolids Treatment The LAWPCA Facility is permitted to discharge an average daily flow of 14.2 mill ion gallons per day (MGD) and currently operates at an average daily flow of approximately 12.7 MGD. The influent wastewater is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial wastewater, generated in the cities of Lewiston and Auburn. Approximately half of the total organic load to the facility is generate d by the Cascades Auburn-Fiber deinking facility. The LAWPCA Facility has a secondary level treatment process, with two primary sedimentation basins, two aeration bas ins and two secondary clarifiers. Final effluent is disinfected with chlorine and th en dechlorinated with sodium bisulfate prior to discharge into the Androscoggin Riv er. The NPDES permit requires the facility to disinfect on a seasonal basis. Current solids handling equipment at the LAWPCA Facility thickens and dewaters solids removed in the primary and secondary treatment process. Primary sludge is pumped from the primary clarifiers to two gravity thickeners, which thicken and store primary solids. In the gravity thickeners, the primary sludge is thickened to approximately 6% solids. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) from the Secondary Process is pumped to two dissolved air floatation units for thickening, where WAS is thickened to between 2.6% to 3.3% solids. Thickened Waste Activated Sludge (TWAS) flows by gravity from the DAF units to four holding tanks. Facility opera tors have reported that when both DAF units are operating, the TWAS should be approximately 3% solids or less to allow it to easily flow by gravity to the TWA S holding tanks.

The thickened sludge is mixed in-line prior to dewatering using BFPs. The dewate red cake is then either transferred to a pug mill mixer for lime addition prior to l and application or is hauled in raw cake form to the remotely located LAWPCA composting facility for in vessel composting or is directly transferred to dispo sal sites. Composting is used primarily in the winter and early spring months to stabilize Section 1 Introduction A 1-3 biosolids while lime stabilization is used primarily in the late spring, summer and early fall months. 1.3 Project Drivers, Goals and Objectives The composting facility has served the LAWPCA well during its 15 years of operation. However, composting operation costs have increased, especially the co st of amendments (sawdust, shavings or horse bedding) that is mixed with the dewatered sludge; and the facility is unable to manage peak seasonal biosolids production, necessitating costly long distance disposal. Additionally, recent sp ikes in power and fuel costs have increased the overall operations costs at the facility . This, in addition to factors such as potential grant funding for the project, LAWPCAs d ebt retirement schedule and sustainability considerations, has led the LAWPCA to consider anaerobic digestion for biosolids stabilization and volume reduction. As discussed in detail in the Feasibility Study, anaerobic digestion of biosolid s before dewatering and land applying or composting offers several advantages. These potential advantages include: Reduction of total solids by approximately 40%. This reduction in solids will reduce subsequent costs for conditioning, dewatering, stabilization, trucking an d disposal. Elimination of the cost to transport excess biosolids that currently exceed the capacity of the composting facility. Associated tipping fees will also be elimin ated. Reduction of biosolids odors, thereby making the LAWPCAs existing Class B land application program more acceptable to nearby property owners. Biogas utilization from the anaerobic digestion process in a combined heat and power (CHP) application to produce electricity and heat. The electricity produce d would offset a portion of power currently purchased and the heat would be used for digester and building heating. Increase of the overall solids handling capacity of the plant by reducing the vo lume of sludge through anaerobic digestion. Currently the plant is limited by the capacity of the existing dewatering and biosolids stabilization equipment. Establish LAWPCA and the Cities of Lewiston and Auburn as environmental and energy conservation leaders in the State of Maine with the first anaerobic diges tion facility in the state. 1.4 Project Components As detailed in the Feasibility Study, it is estimated that two insulated concret e digester tanks, will meet the needs of the LAWPCA facility. Irrespective of layo ut Section 1

Introduction 1-4 A option, additional facilities and equipment required to support the digesters wo uld include the following: Waste activated sludge thickening equipment replacement and associated modifications to the existing process building; Digester tank covers; Biogas and digested sludge storage tank; Digester recirculation pumps; Sludge heat exchangers; Central dual-fuel boiler and hot water recirculation pumps; Digester mixing system pumps; Biogas cleaning system; Anaerobic digester gas driven reciprocating engine generators; Waste gas burner for burning any excess gas not utilized and to provide an outle t for gas production should gas treatment and utilization be out of service. Yard piping modifications for digester overflow, drain, sludge feed, sludge recirculation, sludge mixing and other utilities as required; and Site layout, roadways, grading and drainage modifications. It should also be noted that, in the event that Option 2 is selected, the layout of this equipment and associated space constraints will require modifications to the inf luent screening systems. In this event, the following equipment upgrades will also lik ely be required as part of the project: Replacement/upgrade of influent screening mechanisms; New screenings wash compactors; and New screenings conveyor and transport system. Modifications to the existing screening garage to provide an isolated space for new equipment for the digestion process. The solids process flow diagram associated with the proposed anaerobic digestion and energy recovery system systems and equipment is presented in Figure 1-1. Section 1 Introduction A 1-5 1.5 Facility Layout Options Though the remaining sections of this report detail the design, operational and cost differences between the two conceptual facility layout options, a brief introduc tion to the layouts is presented below. 1.5.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility During the Feasibility Study process, due to the current active use in most area s of the existing process building and immediate surrounding area, it was initially assum ed that the new digesters and required process area would be constructed as separat e from the existing facility. To keep space for future process expansion immediate ly west of the existing clarifiers and aeration tanks, as well as, the potential ne ed for CSO pretreatment facilities on the east side of the site, the location selected for the digestion improvements was south west of the existing chlorine contact tanks (no rth

of the active compost area). Figure 1-2 depicts the overall facility layout for Option 1. 1.5.2 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space During development of the Feasibility Study, a second potential location for the digesters was identified in an attempt to retrofit a portion of the existing pro cess building. Per CDMs conversations with LAWPCA personnel, it may be possible to modernize and relocate the existing screening equipment to the east side of the Process Control Building and install the digester equipment in the southwest cor ner of the building (currently housing the screenings garage). It was initially assu med that the advantages to this option could include the following: Reduce the amount of new interior process space by installing a portion of the digestion equipment within the existing building; Minimize yard piping and pumping by locating the new digestion facility as close as physically possible to the existing thickening and dewatering areas; and Create operational advantages by relocating and modernizing the screenings handling systems. As shown in Figure 1-3, the current configuration of the Option 2 layout attempted to reuse the space as previously intended. It should be noted however that, due to space limitations within the screenings garage and adjacent areas, a new (subsur face) interior process space adjacent to the new digesters is still required. In addit ion, a new screenings garage located to the east of the process building is also needed to replace the existing garage. The advantages, disadvantages and cost implications of each layout option are fu rther detailed in subsequent sections of this report. This page intentionally left blank.

A 2-1 5816-72780 Section 2 Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics 2.1 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics The purpose of this section is to review the sludge quantities and characteristi cs used as the preliminary basis of design for waste activated sludge (WAS) thickening a nd anaerobic digestion improvements at the LAWPCA facility. Though a summary of the biosolids design criteria is presented here, a detailed breakdown as to the development of these values can be found in the Feasibility Study. To establish current wastewater solids quantities and characteristics, LAWPCA recommended that CDM utilize the results of the calibrated BioWin model, present ed in the 2008 Capacity Evaluation of the Water Pollution Control Facility for the Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority prepared by Wright-Pierce. Current flow s and loads to the primary clarifiers are summarized in Table 2-1. Approximately 9 6%

of the plant influent is raw wastewater from the cities of Lewiston and Auburn, 1.5% from Cascade Auburn Fiber de-inking facility, 1.5% from solids handing recycle, and less than 1% from septage received. The concentration of BOD in the wastewater f rom Cascade Auburn Fiber is approximately 4,100 mg/l. As such, approximately 35% to 50% of the BOD load to the treatment facility comes from the de-inking facility. Primary sludge is thickened by gravity and WAS is thickened using dissolved air floatation (DAF). Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 summarize thickened primary sludge and WAS quantities and characteristics. Currently, thickened primary sludge and WAS are blended and dewatered using belt filter presses (BFPs). With anaerobic diges tion incorporated into the existing biosolids processing system, the primary sludge a nd WAS will continue to be thickened separately, then blended, and digested and dewatered using the existing BFPs. 9/2003 9/2007 Average Day Max Month Influent Flow (MGD) 13.2 20.1 Peak Day Flow (MGD) 32.0 32.0 BOD (lbs/day) 25,100 38,300 TSS (lbs/day) 23,300 32,500 Table 2-1 Plant Influent, 2003-2007 Section 2 Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics 2-2 A Average Day Max Month MGD 0.024 0.035 Dry Solids, lbs/day 12,900 18,900 % Solids 6.3 6.5 Table 2-2 Thickened Primary Sludge, 2003-2007 Average Day Max Month MGD 0.051 0.066 Dry Solids, lbs/day 10,900 18,600 % Solids 2.6 3.4 Table 2-3 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, 2003-2007 2.2 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics with DAF Replacement Due to the age and thickening performance of the existing DAF units, the equipme nt requires substantial rehabilitation or replacement in order to achieve TWAS concentrations required for optimal sizing and performance of the proposed diges tion system. As a result, it is recommended that they be replaced by gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) (as described in detail in Section 3), capable of thickening t he WAS to a minimum of 5%. By thickening the WAS to 5% instead of the current 23.5%, the volume of the digester can be reduced, resulting in lower capital costs to const ruct the digester system. The volume and characteristics of WAS thickened to 5% are given in Table 2-4. Average Day Max Month MGD 0.026 0.045 Dry Solids, lbs/day 10,900 18,600 % Solids 5.0 5.0 Table 2-4

Thickened Waste Activated Sludge, DAF Replacement Section 2 Biosolids Quantities and Characteristics A 2-3 According to plant staff, the existing gravity thickeners are operating well and no improvements are necessary or planned outside of normal maintenance and periodic rehabilitation. With new WAS thickening equipment and the existing primary thickeners remaining, the combined thickened sludge will have the estimated quantities and characteristics given in Table 2-5. Based on plant operating data , a volatile suspended solids (VSS) to total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 0.75 is used. Average Day Max Month Sludge Volume (MGD) 0.050 0.080 Percent Solids 5.7 5.6 TSS (lbs/day) 23,800 37,500 VSS (lbs/day) 17,800 28,100 Inert Solids (lbs/day) 5,900 9,400 Table 2-5 Combined Thickened Sludge, WAS thickened to 5% 2.3 Basis of Design There are several factors that may impact future flows and loads to the wastewat er treatment plant, including: residential, commercial and industrial growth or dec line in the cities of Lewiston and Auburn; operations of Cascade Auburn Fiber de-inki ng facility; and ability of LAWPCA to accept outside wastes. Because of the uncertainties in future additional flows and loads, the allowance in the basis of design accounts for a 15% increase in pounds of dry solids per day bein g fed to the digester. Table 2-5 summarizes the basis of design. Current Current + 15% Average Day Max Month Average Day Max Month Sludge to Digester (MGD) 0.050 0.080 0.058 0.092 Percent Solids 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.6 TSS (lbs/day) 23,800 37,500 27,400 43,100 VSS (lbs/day) 17,800 28,100 20,500 32,300 Inert Solids (lbs/day) 5,900 9,400 6,900 10,800 Table 2-6 Combined Thickened Sludge Feed to Digester This page intentionally left blank. A 3-1 5816-72780 Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3.1 Background and Existing Conditions As previously noted, currently at the LAWPCA Facility secondary sludge is pumped directly from return activated sludge lines to two dissolved air floatation (DAF ) units, thickening the waste activated sludge (WAS) to between 2.63.3% solids. The two existing DAF units were constructed along with the original Secondary Treatment Facilities in 1971. After the DAF thickening process, the thickened WAS (TWAS) flows by gravity from the DAF units to one of four dedicated holding tanks. Facility operators have re ported

that when both DAF units are operating, the TWAS solids concentration should be approximately 3% solids or less to allow it to flow by gravity from the DAFs to the TWAS holding tanks. For thickened sludge concentrations exceeding 3% a pair of TWAS transfer pumps a re required to pump sludge to the holding tanks. According to plant operators, the TWAS pumps are not operational and have not been operated since their original installation nearly forty years ago. The current location of the TWAS pumps (DAF room sub-basement crawl space) is a confined space and access to the pumps is restricted due to numerous ducts and pipelines that block direct access to the p umps. According to plant operators, The DAFs meet current process requirements, howeve r, the anaerobic digestion process being proposed will require WAS to be thickened to over 5.5% in the future. As previously noted, the existing DAF equipment is orig inal to the plant and would required substantial rehabilitation or replacement in ord er to achieve TWAS concentrations required for optimal performance of the proposed digestion. Furthermore, operation and maintenance costs for the units have been escalating recently as spare parts are difficult to locate or are no longer read ily available from the manufacturer or aftermarket suppliers. Although the DAF thickeners are original to the plant and have reached the end o f their anticipated life expectancy, the main driver for replacing the units is to increase the solids percentage of the sludge being fed to the anaerobic digester. By incr easing the solids percentage, the volume of the digester decreases and less tankage is required. Furthermore, irrespective of the proposed digestion improvements, replacement of the DAFs will provide for a more efficient, reliable, and cost ef fective method for thickening waste activated sludge. Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3-2 A 3.2 Thickening Design Criteria The design criteria for the thickening equipment include residuals feed (loading ) rate, sludge percent solids, desired thickened solids, duration of equipment operation , redundancy, and available space. Influent sludge to the thickening equipment includes secondary sludge (or waste activated) only. Primary sludge will continu e to be thickened independent of WAS via existing gravity thickener equipment. The WAS thickening system will be designed for operating between 8.5 and 11 hour s per day and 7 days per week in order to provide continuous daily flow of TWAS to the downstream anaerobic digester process. Plant operators have reported that existing plant staffing and operating schedules currently a minimum of 10 hrs pe r shift per day are adequate and will not require modification for the newly proposed WAS thickening system operating schedule. Full scale redundancy will be provided for WAS thickening and each unit will be designed to handle maximum conditions. This is required to ensure that solids ca n be treated on site in the event a unit is taken out of service during planned or un

planned maintenance. The following Table 3-1 provides the projected future characteristics of the slu dge conveyed to the WAS thickening equipment based on an 8.5 hour per day and 7 day per week processing schedule which provides for up to 1.5 hours of startup/ shutdown time per shift. The percent solids are based on the anticipated perform ance of solids removal in the secondary facilities. Condition Hydraulic Loading Hydraulic Loading Solids Loading Percent Solids (wet - gpd) (WET-GPM) (dry lb/hr) (%) Average Day 208,000 408 1,500 0.71 Maximum Month 283,000 555 2,500 0.92 Table 3-1 Estimated Loading Rates for WAS Thickening 3.3 Thickening Alternatives Analysis Current available technologies that were considered for sludge thickening includ e gravity belt thickeners (GBTs), Rotary Drum Thickeners, and DAFs. Continued use of the existing DAFs is not being considered as an alternative for future thickening at the facility due to the limited and unreliable thickening Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements A 3-3 performance, advanced age of the equipment, lack of availability of spare parts, and higher operating costs associated with the DAF system. Gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) and rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) are both evalua ted further as viable WAS thickening options. Both GBTs and RDTs are considered relatively simple to operate, require minimal operator attention, and have a pro ven track record for WAS thickening. The following sections review the evaluation and comparison of Rotary Drum Thickeners and Gravity Belt Thickeners. 3.3.1 Rotary Drum Thickeners Rotary Drum thickeners (RDTs) are routinely used to thicken WAS at various wastewater treatment facilities. RDTs require minimal operator attention to opera te and offer low operating and maintenance costs due to low power consumption and automated operation of the equipment. Process Description A rotary drum thickener, similar to a gravity belt thickener, achieves solid-liq uid separation by coagulation and flocculation of solids and drainage of free water through a rotating porous media. The porous media typically consists of a drum w ith wedge wires, perforations, or stainless steel mesh screen. The thickener consists of an internally fed rotary drum with an internal screw, which is used to transport the thickened sludge out of the drum, The drum rotates on trunnion wheels and is driven by a variable speed drive. Sludge is usually polym er

conditioned and mixed in a flocculation tank prior to thickening. The conditioned sludge is then fed directly to the interior of the drum via pipi ng to one end of the drum. As the drum rotates free water passes through the drum perforations into a collection trough, leaving thickened sludge inside the drum that is discharged by the internal screw at the opposite end into a hopper. A continuous fixed spray bar extends along the entire length of the drum to clean and prevent blinding of the screen. Process Assessment Several equipment manufacturers were contacted for equipment consultation and sizing assistance for RDT WAS thickening applications and provided the following information: Largest Rotary Drum Thickener Unit is rated for 400 gpm, Manufacturers recommend a max hydraulic loading of 350gpm for WAS thickening Solids loading rates range from 1,100 1,500 lbs/hr/unit Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3-4 A Polymer consumption for WAS thickening ranges from 8 12 lbs / dry ton Solids capture of 85% 95% is achievable for WAS thickening over 5% Polymer optimization is essential for achieving higher solids capture. A sludge conditioning tank is recommended prior to thickening for WAS applications Washwater requirement are 40 51 gpm @ 40 PSI min. Odors are generated during thickening but can be contained by adding odor control covers A total of (3) RDT units each rated at 350 GPM are required to meet max month conditions during an operating shift Capital Costs per RDT range from $168,000 $200,000 each (equipment only) 3.3.2 Gravity Belt Thickeners Gravity belt thickeners (GBTs) have become common practice for thickening sludge at wastewater treatment facilities. Gravity belt thickening arose from the applicat ion of belt presses for sludge dewatering due to the thickening that occurred in the gr avity drainage portion of the presses. Process Description GBTs operate on the principle of coagulation and flocculation of solids in dilut e sludge. The sludge is conditioned with polymer to coagulate and concentrate the solids. The conditioned sludge is then fed to a distribution box, which evenly a pplies the conditioned sludge to a fabric belt. As the conditioned sludge is conveyed a long the belt, plow blades create furrows that allow water to pass through the belt. The thickened sludge is then discharged to a hopper and the belt passes through a wash cycle to remove any trapped solids in the fabric mesh. GBTs can achieve a solids capture of approximately 95 percent and can thicken sludge with initial concentrations of 0.5% up to 4 to 8%. GBTs can be furnished with enclosures inte gral to the GBT frame to contain odors and exhaust them to an odor control system. Th e enclosures provide access to the top of the belt through hinged access panels wh ile the side panels are typically bolted on. Process Assessment Several equipment manufacturers were contacted for equipment consultation and

sizing assistance for GBT WAS thickening applications and provided the following information: Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements A 3-5 Gravity belt thickeners offer a higher degree of process performance flexibility than RDTs due to their ability to be loaded at higher hydraulic and solids loading rat es than a comparable RDT. Hydraulically loading rates for WAS thickening applications range between 250 300 gpm/meter. Solids loading rates of up to 1,000 lbs/hr/meter belt width. A 2-meter GBT would be capable of processing up to 2,000 lbs/hr of WAS at 600 GPM with a solids concentration of about 0.67%.. Solids capture of over 95% is achievable for WAS thickening applications. Polymer consumption for WAS thickening ranges from 6-12 lbs/dry ton Polymer conditioning of sludge is recommended Odors are generated during thickening and increased ventilation of thickening ar ea is recommended. Washwater requirements are 35 40 gpm @ 85 PSI min. A total of two 2-meter GBT units each rated at 550 GPM are required to meet max month conditions. (1 duty 1 standby) Capital Costs per GBT range from $135,000 $168,000 each (equipment only) 3.3.3 Thickening Process Comparison and Recommendations There are several advantages and disadvantages for each thickening option. The following describes several criteria used to evaluate these options. Non-Costs Comparison of Thickening Alternatives Table 3-2 presents a comparison of advantages and disadvantages for each of the thickening alternatives. Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3-6 A Process Advantages Disadvantages Rotary Drum Thickeners Relatively low power consumption A very simple process Minimal ancillary equipment Compact Footprint Minimal operator attention Polymer Dependent Floc Shear potential Lower Hydraulic Throughput Moderate Solids Capture at high flows Odors generated Gravity Belt Thickening Control capability for process performance are flexible Relatively lower capital cost due to higher throughput Relatively low power consumption High solids capture Higher thickened concentrations are possible A very simple process to operate Moving parts are accessible

 Minimal ancillary equipment More housekeeping / Startup time Polymer dependent Moderate operator attention requirements Odors generated Building corrosion potential if not ventilated adequately Higher washwater pressure requiring a booster pump Table 3-2 Non-Cost Comparison of Thickening Alternatives Performance Comparison of Alternatives Table 3-3 provides a side by side performance comparison of the two thickening alternatives based on available operating performance information as provided by manufacturers for WAS thickening applications. Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements A 3-7 Parameter: Gravity Belt Thickener Rotary Drum Thickener Manufacturers Referenced: Komline Sanderson Charter Machine Ashbrook Parkson Corporation Vulcan Industries BDP Industries Size Unit: 2.0 Meter Model 400 GPM model Hydraulic Loading Rate (per unit): 500 to 600 gpm for WAS 350 gpm max (per manufacturer) for WAS Solids Loading Rate: Up to 1,000 lbs/ hr / meter 1100 to 1500 lbs /hr/ unit Solids Capture Efficiency: < 95 % < 95% @ 4.5% solids. < 85 % @ 5.5% solids Thickened Solids Over 5.5 percent for WAS 3-5 % Floc shear for WAS over 4.5% Polymer Consumption 6 12 lbs/ dry ton 8 12 lbs / dry ton Wash Water Required 35 40 gpm @ 85 PSI 40 51 pm @ 40 psi Motor horsepower (connected) 4.5 Hp w/ hydraulic belt tension and booster pump 5.5 Hp w/ pneumatic belt tension and booster pump 8.5 Hp w/ booster pump No. of Units Required : Avg. Day 1 Duty 1 Standby Max Month 1 Duty 1 Standby Avg. Day 2 Duty 1 Standby Max Month 2 Duty 1 Standby Table 3-3 Performance Comparison for Thickening Alternatives Cost Comparison of Alternatives The following Table 3-4 provides an equipment capital comparison of the two thickening alternatives. For the purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that installation, operating, polymer consumption, and maintenance costs for both opt ions were similar and can be neglected without impacting the cost analysis.

Capital Costs Rotary Drum Thickener Gravity Belt Thickener Total Costs $ 504,000 $600,000 $ 270,000 $330,000 Table 3-4 Comparison Costs for Thickening Alternatives Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3-8 A Installation, annual labor, and maintenance costs were not evaluated in this ana lysis because they were assumed to be relatively equal for both thickening options. As presented above, thickening of secondary sludge utilizing two 2-meter GBTs is a significantly less expensive option than thickening by RDTs by approximately $174,000 or more. Summary and Recommendations The lower capital costs, better thickening performance, higher capacity, and low O&M costs associated with a GBT based thickening system all indicate that GBTs would represent a better long term investment for WAS thickening at the LAWPCA facilit y than Rotary Drum thickeners. The recommended technology for replacement of the DAF thickeners at the LAWPCA facility is thickening by gravity belt thickener. 3.4 Gravity Belt Thickener Design Criteria The intent is for the new thickening equipment to operate on an average of 8.5 h ours per day and 7 days per week. The two WAS GBTs will be designed for one duty and one standby operation. Typical GBT design criteria are a maximum hydraulic loadi ng rate of 300 gpm/meter and a maximum solids loading rate of 1,000 lb/hr/meter/uni t. Design criteria would require two, 2-meter units which could provide a maximum o f 275 gpm/meter and 1,000 lb/hr/meter hydraulic and solids loadings respectively t o meet average day future conditions. During max month future conditions, the maximum recommended solids loading rate (for a single 2-meter thickener ) could be met by operating one unit for up to 8.5 hrs during single shift assuming the WAS solids concentration was 0.92%. If the solids concentration drops, the hydraulic loading would need to increase up to 600 gpm. There may be times when the hydraulic or solids loading requires more than one shift to process the required sludge using a single GBT. Alternatively, the second (standby) GBT could also be used to reduce the total processing time. The next GBT size available is a 3-meter wide unit which would exceed the hydrau lic and solids loading capacity to meet max month conditions in one shift, but would be difficult to install in the existing thickening room available space. A second o ption for addressing the max month loading issues on a 2-meter GBT is to extend sludge thickening processing times from 8.5 hours to 11 hours per day thus reducing the solids loading to less than 1,000 lbs/hr/meter. This would also be required shou ld loadings exceed the maximum month estimate. By placing a second GBT into service during max month or higher conditions, the solids loading to each thickener would be less than 625 lbs/hr/meter and all slu dge processing could be completed in a single 8.5-hour shift. Both solids and worst case hydraulic loading rates are within an acceptable rang e for sizing of two meters units with only the processing times required to be extende

d during max month or higher conditions if one GBT is out of service. Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements A 3-9 The GBTs will have the following design criteria: 3.4.1 WAS GBTS Belt width 2 meters Operation 8.5 hours per day, 7 days per week - Avg Day 11 hours per day, 7 days per week Max Month Number of units 2 (1 duty and 1 standby) Sludge feed concentration 0.7% 0.92% Sludge feed flow range 208,000 283,000gpd (wet) Sludge feed loading range 1,500 2,500 lb/hr (dry) Thickened sludge range 5.0 6.0% Minimum capture 95% Polymer dose range 10 lbs/ton Wash water flow & pressure 40 gpm and 90 psi Several manufacturers were contacted for details on equipment which could meet t he design criteria provided above. GBT performance specifications, cost and other information were provided by Komline-Sanderson, Charter Machine, and Ashbrook. 3.4.2 GBT Washwater / Drain System The new GBTs will be provided with a plant water booster pump to increase the pressure to 90 psi for effective belt cleaning. The existing plant water system pressure is approximately 60 80 psi and this water will be obtained from the existing pla nt water distribution piping in the building. Two new floor drains will be required to remove the washwater and GBT underflow, and convey this liquid to the plant influent channel. The new process drains wil l be connected to the existing plant drain piping located beneath the thickening room in the crawlspace level. 3.5 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Transfer Pumping Each DAF currently has a dedicated thickened sludge pump which was installed concurrent with the DAF installation. As previously mentioned, these pumps are n ot used as they are non-functional and will require relocation and replacement. The TWAS transfer pumps will be relocated from their currently inaccessible loca tion (a crawl space). Each pump will be located in the thickening room adjacent to a Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements 3-10 A thickened sludge hopper at the discharge end of each GBT. The pumps will draw sludge directly from thickened sludge hoppers at each GBT and pump TWAS to one of several holding tanks. Progressive cavity pumps are being recommended for TWAS pumping due to the wide pumping range high discharge pressure abilities. Each pump will be rated at 180 gpm at 40 psig and driven with a 15-HP variable speed motor. The pumps will be controlled by level sensors in the thickened sludge hoppers. T he pump speed will be varied by a controller located in the local Operator Control Panels to regulate sludge levels in the hopper during thickening operations. The sludge pumps will also be equipped with instrumentation devices to protect t

he pumps and piping. These include High/Low discharge pressure switches to stop the pump on high or low discharge pressure and a Low seal water pressure switch whic h will stop the pump on low seal water pressure. These pressure switches will be interlocked with the sludge feed to the thickener such that the thickener system will stop operating in the event of high discharge pressure or low seal water pressur e. The basis of design for the TWAS transfer pumps is presented in Table 3-5 below: Description Criteria Quantity 2 total (1 duty 1 standby) Pump type Progressive cavity Pump capacity 0 180 GPM Discharge pressure 100 PSI Total solids to pump 4% 6% Motor type Variable speed Motor size 15 HP Table 3-5 Design Criteria TWAS Transfer Pumps Section 3 Waste Activated Sludge Thickening Improvements A 3-11 3.6 Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) To facilitate the installation of the new GBTs, construct the new electrical room , and demolish the old DAF units, construction will require strict sequencing to maint ain WAS thickening capability at all times. A brief summary of the proposed construc tion sequence is provided below: 1. Provide temporary compressed air system (trailer mounted)/ Demo Existing DAF Compressor system / 2. Construct new electrical room and install new electrical equipment switchover from old to new MCC. 3. Demo DAF tank No.1 4. Install GBT No.1 5. Startup, Test and place into service GBT no.1 6. Demo DAF No.2 7. Install GBT No.2 8. Construct Thickening Room partition walls 9. Startup, Test and Place GBT No.2 into service. This page intentionally left blank. A 4-1 5816-72780 Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4.1 General Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that stabilizes organic matter in th e absence of oxygen. During this process, organic matter is converted to methane ( CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and the remaining solids are stabilized. The digested s ludge is less odorous, attracts fewer vectors, and contains fewer pathogens than undig ested sludge. The conversion of solids into gas, results in less mass and volume to pr ocess downstream and dispose of or be beneficially used.

4.2 Anaerobic Digestion Tanks 4.2.1 Digester Sizing Criteria Anaerobic digesters are sized based upon a solids retention time (SRT) and a hydraulic retention time (HRT). Because the proposed high rate digester system a t LAWPCA facility does not include supernatant decant, the HRT is equivalent to th e SRT for this application. It is CDMs design practice to size the digester system for a minimum SRT of 15 days for design year maximum month conditions and 20 days for design year average day conditions, which is consistent with the Water Environme nt Federations Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Manual of Practice 8 (MOP 8) and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commissions Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment Works (TR 16). LAWPCA facility digester sizing is based on a minimum SRT of 15 days at design year maximum month conditions. As discussed in detail in Section 2 of this repor t, Table 4-1 summarizes the recommended basis of design used to size the digester system. Under the design conditions summarized in Table 4-1, the volume of sludg e pumped to the digester during average day and maximum month conditions is estimated to be 58,000 gallons per day (gpd) and 92,000 gpd, respectively. Apply ing the 15-day SRT size criteria at maximum month conditions, the required effective digester volume is approximately 1,380,000 gallons (184,000 cubic feet). The LAWPCA facility is served by a combined collection system and experiences gr it loading. Wastewater is screened using two mechanical screens having a -inch bar spacing and pumped to aerated grit chambers. However, the aerated grit process does not remove all the material and grit accumulation in the digesters will occ ur over time. Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-2 A Average Day Max Month Flow (MGD) 0.058 0.092 Percent Solids 5.7 5.6 TSS (lbs/day) 27,400 43,100 VSS (lbs/day) 20,500 32,300 Inert Solids (lbs/day) 6,900 10,800 Table 4-1 Combined Thickened Sludge to Digester System, Basis of Design The Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice #8 (MOP-8) recommends sizing the digesters to include a 10% allowance for grit accumulation, in additi on to the digester bottom cone volume which is not considered part of the digester wor king volume. As such, the recommended total volume of the digester system is approximately 1,520,000 gallons (203,000 cubic feet). Two anaerobic digester tan ks are proposed, with each providing 50% of the total required volume that is estimated to be 760,000 gallons (101,500 cubic feet). 4.2.2 Digester Tank Configuration Options Based on the volume requirements of the digester system and due to site constrai nts to be discussed later in this section, two digester configurations were consider ed. The

two options were considered due to the limited amount available space on site fo r the digester system while maintaining space for liquid process train expansion and t o identify the most cost effective configuration. Alternative A Standard Digesters: These traditionally shaped digesters have a height to width ratio of less than one. For this configuration, each digester ta nk is approximately 65 feet in diameter with a sidewall depth (SWD) of 30.5 feet. Alternative B Cylindrical Digesters: have a height to width ratio greater than one. For this configuration, each tank is approximately 50 feet in diameter with a SWD of 52 feet. Table 4-2 summarizes the digester configuration options while Figure 4-1 depicts the general layout of the tanks. Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-3 Parameter Alternative A Standard Digesters Alternative B Cylindrical Digesters Number of Digesters 2 2 Tank Dimensions Diameter, feet 65 50 Sidewall Depth, feet 30.5 52 Sidewall Below Grade, feet 15 20 Effective Tank Volume (each tank) Gallons 690,000 690,000 Cubic Feet 92,000 92,000 Total Tank Volume (each tank, 10% additional volume for grit) Gallons 760,000 760,000 Cubic Feet 101,500 101,500 Total Tank Volume (2 Tanks) Gallons 1,520,000 1,520,000 Cubic Feet 203,000 203,000 Design SRT Average 20 20 Maximum month 15 15 Table 4-2 Digester System Configurations Summary 4.3 Sludge Storage Tanks Inconsistent organic solids loading and temperature variations within anaerobic digestion systems are known to cause sudden gas production which, in turn, can create foaming problems. As a result, standard industry practice, as recommended by the USEPA, TR-16, MOP 8 and CDM, is to provide as continuous of a sludge feed as possible. Due to the difference in organic content between TWAS and thickened primary sludge, consistent feed rates of each sludge will assist in minimizing f oaming concerns. 4.3.1 Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Storage Since primary sludge is continuously thickened in gravity thickeners at the LAWP CA facility, thickened primary sludge may be fed to the digesters on a continuous b asis without the need for additional thickened primary sludge storage. However, as no ted

in Section 3, the WAS thickening systems at the LAWPCA facility are assumed to Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-4 A operate between 8.5 and 11 hours per day. As a result, storage volume is require d to contain and allow for continuous feed of TWAS to the digesters during the 13 to 15.5 hours per day during which the WAS thickening system is not in operation. For the proposed digestion project, it is recommended that the existing TWAS sto rage tanks, located west of the Process Building below grade, be used to feed TWAS to the digesters continuously. The four tanks have a combined volume of approximately 40,000 gallons, not all of which is considered to be active due to pumping considerations. At average day conditions, approximately 17,000 gallons of the t ank volume will be utilized during off hours while using a continuous feed rate to t he digesters of approximately 20 gallons per minute (gpm). At maximum month conditions, 24,000 gallons of TWAS storage will likely be needed, which would be fed continuously to the digesters at a rate of approximately 30 gpm. It should also be noted that the TWAS storage volume required will vary depending on the actual percent solids, flow rates and daily processing schedule. 4.3.2 Digested Sludge Storage The dewatering system at the LAWPCA facility is typically operated on a similar daily schedule as the WAS thickening system. When fed continuously, digested sludge storage volume will be required during the 13 to 15.5 hours per day when the dewatering system is not in operation. Because the dewatering system does not operate continuously, digested sludge may be stored in the digester itself or in a separate sludge storage tank. Typically, it is most cost effective to construct a separate digested sludge storage tank instead of using the digester itself to store diges ted sludge At average day conditions, the digester will provide a continuous output of 40 g pm which would equate to approximately 38,000 gallons of digested sludge tank volum e over 15.5 hours. At maximum month conditions, approximately 64 gpm would be discharged over 11 hours, equating to a required storage volume of approximately 50,000 gallons. As these volumes are in excess of any potentially unused existin g TWAS storage tank volume, a new digested sludge storage tank is recommended. The TWAS and digested sludge storage volumes above assume daily operation of all thickening and dewatering equipment and provide for storage of max month solids loadings. Due to the need for some equipment downtime and the likelihood that th e peak daily solids loading at the facility will be in excess of the max month val ues, it is recommended that additional storage volume be built into the new digester system , specifically within the new digested sludge storage tank. It is estimated that approximately 180,000 gallons of digested sludge storage would provide approximately 3 days of digested sludge at average day flow and approximately 2 days of storage at maximum month flow.

To accommodate this volume of storage, it is recommended that a digested sludge storage tank 50 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep be constructed. Digested sludg e, Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-5 flowing by gravity to the digested sludge storage tank, would be stored within t his tank and then be pumped to the belt filter presses when in operation. It is also recommended that a bypass from the digester sludge feed pipe be provided to this storage tank. This bypass would allow thickened sludge flows and loads which might exceed the design loading rates of the digester system to bypass the diges ters and be sent directly to dewatering. Figure 4-2 depicts the general layout of the proposed sludge storage tank. 4.4 Digester Heating Requirements Anaerobic digesters are heated to maintain an environment conducive to methane forming microorganisms and to ensure that greases and fats within the digester remain in an emulsified state so they can be broken down biologically. For digestion, the heat requirements of the anaerobic digester include the amoun t of heat needed to: Raise the incoming sludge to the digestion temperature (approximately 95 degrees F); Compensate for heat losses through walls, floor and digester roof; and Make up the losses that may occur in the piping between the heat source and the digester tank. Typically when the pipe length is limited, these losses are minim al and are not included in the digester heating requirements calculations. 4.4.1 Heat Requirement for Incoming Sludge To calculate the energy required to heat the incoming sludge to the temperature of the digester, it is assumed that the specific heat of the sludge is close to that of water (1 BTU/lb/F). To calculate the energy required to heat the sludge, the following equation is used: where: W = Sludge to Digester, lbs/hour Q1 = Heating Required (BTU/hr) Cp = Specific Heat of Water (BTU/lb/F) T2 = Heated Sludge Temperature (F) T1 = Cold Sludge temperature (F) T1 can be estimated based on the geographical location of the digester as well a s historical plant data. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is estimated that the 1 ( 2 1 ) Q W C T T p = Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-6 A temperature of the sludge entering the digester is 45 F in the winter and 70 F in the summer. Table 4-3 presents the estimated energy required to heat the sludge ente ring the digester. Heating requirements are given in millions of British Thermal Unit s per hour (MBTU/hr). Average Day Maximum Month Winter Summer Winter Summer Sludge Volume to Both Digesters (gpd) 58,000 58,000 92,000 92,000

T2, Heated Sludge Temperature (F) 95 95 95 95 T1, Cold Sludge temperature (F) 45 70 45 70 Temperature Difference (F) 45 25 45 25 W, Flow to both digesters (lb sludge/hr) 20,000 20,000 32,000 32,000 Q1, Sludge Heating Required For Both Digesters (MBTU/hr) 1.00 0.50 1.60 0.80 Table 4-3 Sludge Heating Requirements 4.4.2 Digester Tank Heat Losses Heat losses resulting from conduction through the digester tank roof, walls and floor are calculated using the following relationship: Where: Q2 = heat loss (BTU/hr) U = heat transfer coefficient (BTU/ ft2/F/hr) T2 = operating Temperature of Digester (F) T1 = air temperature outside of tank (F) A = Area of exposed surface (ft2) The design outside temperatures used in the heat loss analysis are based on the 2009 Pluming Code for Portland, ME and are -1 F in winter and 72 F in summer. Though the heat losses per digester, summarized in Table 4-4, were calculated based on the standard digester tank configuration, it should be noted that similar calculatio ns were performed for the cylinder tank option and yielded similar heat loss results. A T T 2 ( 2 1 ) Q =U Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-7 Description Configuration Number of Digesters 2 Diameter 65 feet Sidewater Depth 30.5 feet Exposed digester concrete wall 17.5 feet above grade, concrete, insulated Buried digester concrete wall 15 feet below grade, plain concrete, surrounded by wet soil Floor Plain concrete, surrounded by wet soil Digester Cover Concrete, thick, insulated Table 4-4 Digester Tank Configuration Table 4-5 summarizes conductive heat losses based on the digester tank configura tion and the digester material U factors. U factors values are from the EPAs Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1979). Winter Summer Roof Heat Loss (MBTU/hr) 0.09 0.02 Wall Heat Loss Above Ground (MBTU/hr) 0.05 0.01 Wall Heat Loss Below Ground (MBTU/hr) 0.07 0.02 Heat Lost Through Floor (MBTU/hr) 0.16 0.04 Total Heat Loss from Digester (MBtu/hr) 0.37 0.09 Total Heat Loss from Both Digesters (MBTU/hr) 0.74 0.018 Table 4-5 Conductive Heat Loss 4.4.3 Heating Requirement Summary The estimated heating requirements needed to raise the incoming sludge to the digester operating temperature and the amount of heat needed to compensate for h eat losses in both digesters are summarized in Table 4-6.

Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-8 A Average Day Maximum Month Winter Summer Winter Summer Q1, Heating Required to raise temperature of incoming sludge (MBTU/hr) 1.00 0.50 1.60 0.80 Q2, Heat required to compensate for conduction losses insulated roof and walls (MBTU/hr) 0.74 0.18 0.74 0.18 Total Heat Required insulated roof and walls (MBTU/hr) 1.74 0.68 2.34 0.98 Table 4-6 Digester Heating Requirements 4.5 Digester System Equipment Anaerobic digestion system equipment generally consists of the following three m ajor systems: Heating system Mixing system Digester covers 4.5.1 Digester Heating Maintaining a stable temperature within the digester is important, as the microb es responsible for the digestion process are extremely sensitive to temperature fluctuations. There are two primary types of digester heating systems: internal and external. With an internal arrangement, heat is applied to the sludge while it remains in the digester tank. In older digesters, heating arrangements include circulating hot water through pipes mounted to the inside of the digester tank wall or through draft t ube mixers equipped with hot water jackets.. In recent years, these arrangements hav e become less popular due to operational issues, including the buildup of sludge o n heating surface and access restrictions. Because all internal heating systems re ly on the digester mixing system to circulate heat within the digester, the mixing sys tem must be operated on a continuous basis. Without continuous mixing, a heat gradie nt will develop in the tank and create biologically inactive zones. Recent digester designs typically use external heating systems that recirculate sludge through external heat exchangers using a recirculation pump. Most external heati ng systems incorporate means to heat the sludge before it enters the digester. The feed sludge is typically interlocked with the sludge recirculation pumps, allowing th e Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-9 blending and preheating of the feed and active digester sludge before it enters the digester. External heat exchangers include combined boiler/heat exchangers and separate tube-in-tube, spiral and water bath heat exchangers. In a combined boiler/heat

exchanger, the boiler heats a water bath in which tubes carrying sludge pass. Tu be-intube heat exchangers consist of two concentric pipes, one carrying sludge and one carrying hot water. The liquids flow in opposite directions. Spiral tubes have p airs of passages wrapped to form spirals. One passage carries sludge; the other passage carries water flowing in the opposite direction. In water-bath heat exchangers, sludge pipes pass through a heated water bath. Waste heat from the cogeneration system is typically reclaimed in the form of ho t water and circulated through a heat exchanger to provide heat for the digesters. In the event that the cogeneration system is not operating or does not produce enou gh waste heat, a boiler utilizing biogas or natural gas may be utilized. For the LAWPCA facility, an external, tube in tube heat exchanger system is recommended, as tube in tube heat exchangers are typically more efficient than o ther types of heat exchangers. For the Option 1 location and layout, the boiler and t wo heat exchangers (one operating per digester) are located on the first floor of t he digester equipment building. For Option 2, which utilizes existing space in the Process Building for digester equipment, the boiler and heat exchangers are loca ted in the space that is currently being used to haul away influent screenings. 4.5.2 Digester Mixing Mixing is one of the key processes to achieve optimum performance in anaerobic digestion. Mixing distributes the digester feedstock to all parts of the digeste r, inhibits temperature and solids stratification, and creates homogeneous conditio ns in the digester. Less than adequate mixing can result in localized deadspots in the digester. Currently, the most commonly used mixing systems include 1) pumped jet mixing; 2) gas mixing; and 3) draft tube mixing. Pumped Jet Mixing The pumped recirculation system uses a chopper pump and a series of internal digester mixing nozzles to continuously recirculate sludge within the digester t ank. Pumped recirculation pumps typically use single or double tree nozzles positione d both in an inner radius and outer radius and orientated to point towards the cen ter. This pumping operation sets up a tangential swirling pattern around the digester . Gas Mixing The four major gas mixing systems are gas discharged lances, floor-mounted diffusers, confined draft tubes, and bubble-gun gas mixers. On each of these systems, the gas compressor and control valves are the major mechanical pieces o f Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-10 A equipment. In each system, biogas is taken from the headspace of the digester ta nk, compressed, and distributed to multiple mixing devices. Draft Tube Mixing Mechanical draft tube mixing systems consist of a propeller, drive shaft, and dr ive.

Most mechanical mixing systems are mounted in a draft tube to direct sludge flow within the digester. Drives are typically reversible, allowing the sludge to dis charge at the top or bottom of the draft tube. Mixer/draft tube assemblies may be locat ed at the center of the digester tank, at the mid-radius point, or outside the digeste r tank. Mixing System Recommendation A pump recirculation mixing system is recommended for LAWPCA based primarily on operation and maintenance considerations. With these systems, pumps are locat ed inside a building along with other equipment and are easily accessed. In additio n, plant operators are generally familiar with maintaining pumps of this nature and find them more operator friendly. In comparison, mechanical draft tube motors are located on top of the digester tanks creating a difficult maintenance environmen t especially during winter conditions. In addition, due to the inability to grind the recirculation flow with a draft tube mixer, rags and other fibrous materials cou ld tend to accumulate within the digesters and create a maintenance concern. Further, du e to the configuration of draft tube mixers, a crane would be required for any signif icant maintenance procedures. Gas mixing systems were removed from consideration due to cost and the historical maintenance concerns associated with the biogas compr essor systems and general safety concerns associated with biogas handing. It should also be noted that a mixing system will also be required for the sludg e storage tank discussed in Section 4.2. The piping and jets associated with the d igester tank and sludge storage tank mixing systems are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4 -2, respectively. The locations of the pumps under the two alternative layout option s will be discussed later in this section. 4.5.3 Digester Covers Digester tanks require covers to maintain anaerobic conditions in the tank, cont ain and assist in collecting biogas produced during the digestion process, reduce od ors, retain heat to maintain internal temperatures, and support some types of mixing equipment (e.g. internal draft tube mixers supported from fixed covers). There a re three basic types of digester covers: floating, fixed, and gas membrane. Floating Covers Floating covers have been widely used throughout the wastewater industry for yea rs. They have typically been used to provide for some liquid storage (conventional floating covers), as well as some gas storage (gas holding covers). Conventional floating covers float directly on the sludge surface, which provides for fluctua tions of the liquid sludge level with minimal change in biogas pressure. Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-11 Fixed Covers

Fixed concrete and steel covers are also widely used throughout the wastewater industry. They have historically been the option with the lowest cost and least potential for operation and maintenance problems in comparison to floating cover s. However, fixed covers offer minimal biogas storage and limited flexibility with regard to sludge liquid level. One variation on the fixed concrete cover design is the submerged fixed cover (SFC). Compared to flat fixed cover designs, the submerged fixed cover is effective at utilizing the upper portion of the tank volume by in hibiting the buildup of floating foam and scum and directs mixing energy for better effic iency. SFCs are similar in costs to flat roof digesters and less costly to construct th an domed roofs. The key to the submerged fixed cover digester is a sloped roof that leads to a centrally located gas dome. In a SFC design, the liquid level is allowed to rise into the gas dome above the side wall, submerging the underside of the cover. Submerging the cover provides a gradual transition at the cover side wall connection, direc ting mixing patterns more effectively. Operating the liquid level in the gas dome minimizes the gas to liquid interface. By minimizing this interface, foam and sc um can be removed more effectively. With minimal gas storage volume, a fixed cover system must either rely on storage spheres, piping, flares, vacuum and pressure relief valves, or some other means of gas storage to keep the pressures consistent insi de the tank. Gas Membrane Covers Gas membrane covers are a relatively new product that was first used in the U.S. in the early 1990s. They provide a large volume of digester gas storage using a dou blemembrane design and may be installed on digester tanks or sludge storage tanks. The outer membrane maintains a consistent dome shape, while the inner membrane moves up or down depending upon gas storage requirements. Ambient air fans and valves add or release air from the space between the inner and outer membranes t o maintain the consistent outer membrane shape and constant biogas pressure. This also allows for substantial changes in the depth of sludge in the digester. Cover Recommendation SFCs are recommended for the digesters at LAWPA facility based on the following considerations: Fixed covers tend to be less costly than floating covers or gas holder membranes . SFC minimize foaming, which is often expensive and difficult to control and contain. The digester tank configuration shown in Figure 4-1 depicts the general arrangem ent of the recommended SFC. It is further recommended that the digested sludge storage tank, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-2, be installed with a gas membrane cover to s tore Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-12 A excess biogas before it is used in cogeneration. Biogas storage and use will be further

discussed in Section 5. 4.6 Facility Site Location Options As noted earlier, due the previously perceived cost savings associated with the reuse of some existing interior process equipment space, two options are currently bei ng considered for locating the proposed facilities and equipment. A discussion pertaining to the location of digestion process equipment under each option is included below. 4.6.1 Option 1: New Separate Facility As discussed earlier and as shown in Figure 1-2, one potential location is south west of the existing chlorine contact chamber. This arrangement allows the two digester tanks, the digested sludge storage tank, and the Digester Equipment Building to be in close proximity to each other without requiring any substantial rehabilitation o f the existing process building beyond the thickening system upgrades discussed in Section 3. This is important in order to reduce the energy required to pump slud ge long distances. Additionally, although the existing 42-in plant influent pipelin e would need to be relocated, this arrangement leaves space for a third digester t o be installed in the future should additional digestion capacity be necessary. Under this option, the Digester Equipment Building would consist of an upper lev el and a lower level. The upper level would be designed to support the majority of the digestion heating equipment (boiler, heat exchangers, and hot water recirculatio n pumps) while the lower level would contain the sludge mixing pumps and recirculation pumps. The lower level would also house the sludge storage tank mixing pumps along with the new belt filter press (BFP) feed pumps required to f eed digested sludge to the BFPs. This conceptual building arrangement is shown in Figure 4-3. It should be noted that due to seismic and other structural design consideration s, the taller (cylinder) tank alternative is more costly to construct that the lower side wall standard digester configuration alternative. For this reason, and because there is available space in this area of the site, it was assumed that the 65-ft diameter tanks would be used under Layout Option 1. 4.6.3 Option 2: Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space A second potential location for the digestion equipment would consist of a combination of reuse of existing space combined with a new sludge pumping area. As shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5, this option attempts to locate the digest ion heating equipment (boiler, heat exchangers, and hot water recirculation pumps) within the southwest corner of the existing process building while a new subgrad e pumping area adjacent to the new digesters would be required to support the dige ster mix pumps, sludge storage mix pumps, and BFP feed pumps. Furthermore, due to Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements A 4-13

the multiple pipes and conduits which would be required between the existing process building and new sludge pumping area, a pipe tunnel has been provided under this option between the new space and the existing process tunnel. The existing piping connecting to TWAS tank No. 4 in the area of the proposed tunnel would need to be relocated as part of this work. As shown on Figure 4-4, this option does require a substantial retrofit of the e xisting screenings area. The existing wall between the intake screening area and the exi sting screenings garage would be relocated to the east while the existing bathroom, la undry rooms and associated hallway would be removed to allow room for the new equipment. In addition, to facilitate screenings removal, a new screenings handl ing system (new wash presses and conveyor system) along with a new screenings garage at the east end of the process building would be required. At the request of LAWPCA, this alternative has also included the complete replacement of the exist ing intake screens with new multi-rake style screens. Due to the site constraints inherent with Layout Option 2 which are apparent in Figure 1-3, the 65-ft diameter, less costly, standard tank was not a viable opti on. As a result, the layout of this option has utilized the taller 50-ft diameter tanks t hat would be installed as shown along with the 50-ft digested sludge/biogas storage tank. 4.7 Anaerobic Digester Conceptual Design Summary The following is a list of tankage and equipment included in the conceptual desi gn. Digester tanks: Layout Option 1 Separate Facility. Standard Tanks two, 65 foot diameter concrete tanks with insulation; SWD of each tank is 30.5 feet Layout Option 2 Retrofit. Cylinder Tanks two, 50 foot diameter concrete tanks with insulation; SWD of each tank is 52 feet Digester feed Utilize existing TWAS storage tanks to continuously feed TWAS to digester system. Pump thickened primary sludge from gravity thickeners to digesters continuously. Digester Roof Submerged fixed cover Digester Mixing Pumped mixing system Digester Heating External heat exchangers. Typically, waste heat from the cogeneration system provides hot water. In the event that the cogeneration syste m is not operating or not producing enough heat to meet the digester heat needs, a boiler utilizing biogas or natural gas may be used. Section 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Sludge Storage Improvements 4-14 Digested Sludge Storage One 50-foot diameter by 15-foot deep tank to store digested sludge prior to dewatering and new belt filter press feed pumps. Biogas Storage Gas storage membrane on digested sludge storage tank.

A 5-1

5816-72780 Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration 5.1 General Gas generated by the anaerobic digestion of organic solids is often referred to as biogas. This gas contains primarily methane and carbon dioxide and is an excelle nt source of energy. The energy can be harnessed in a variety of ways, including bo ilers for digester and building heating, and reciprocating engines and microturbines f or electricity production. 5.2 Digester Gas Production The amount of biogas produced during the anaerobic digestion process depends upo n the amount volatile solids entering into and destroyed within the digester. High er amounts of volatile solid destruction will, in turn, result in higher biogas pro duction. For systems that digest municipal biosolids, feed stock to these systems typical ly consists of combined (primary and secondary) thickened sludge which contains approximately 75% volatile solids, 50% of which is generally able to be destroye d. The addition of alternative feed stocks to the anaerobic digester, including fat s, oils and grease (FOG), should be considered, as they greatly enhance biogas productio n. In a recent study performed by the EPA, it was shown that food waste has up to t hree times the energy generation potential as municipal biosolids. Though some alternative feed stocks may be fed to the LAWPCA digestion system, the design of the biogas system was conservatively based on the following assumptions and those listed in Table 5-1: Volatile solids comprise 75% of the total dry solids fed to the digesters. Volatile solids destruction in digester of 55% (average) and 50% (maximum month) . Digester gas production typically ranges from 1218 cubic feet per pound of volatiles destroyed. For the purpose of the conceptual design, a value of 15 cub ic feet per pound of volatile solids destroyed is used. Heating value of digester biogas typically ranges from 500 to 650 BTU/cubic foot . To be conservative for the purpose of this conceptual design, a value of 550 BTU/cubic foot is used. 5.3 Digester Gas Usage Digester biogas is typically used at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to heat the digester. In recent years, as the cost of power has increased and there is great er focus on renewable energy, biogas generated from digestion at WWTPs is often used in cogeneration to produce heat and power. The power is typically used onsite to of fset the amount of power purchased from the utility, while the heat is used for diges ter Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration 5-2 A and/or building heating. In cold climates, the amount of heat reclaimed from the

cogeneration system is not enough to meet the heat needs of the digester and a supplemental boiler is required. Average Day Max Month TSS to Digester (lbs/day) 27,300 43,100 VSS to Digester (lbs/day) 20,500 32,300 Inert Solids to Digester (lbs/day) 6,800 10,800 VSS Destroyed in Digester (lbs/day) 11,300 16,100 Biogas Produced (cubic feet/day) 170,000 242,000 Biogas Heating Value (MMBTU/day) 93 133 Biogas Heating Value (MMBTU/hr) 3.88 5.54 Table 5-1 Biogas Production Rates and Energy Value of Biogas From the Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery Feasibility study, reciprocating engines were the recommended technology for cogeneration. Engines were recommended due to their high electrical efficiency, number of successful operat ing installations, and lower capital and installation costs relative to other cogene ration systems. Reciprocating internal combustion engines are a widespread and established technology. Reciprocating engines are available for power generation application s in sizes ranging from a 70 kW to over 5 MW. Reciprocating engine technology has improved over the past few decades, driven by economics, environmental regulations, increased fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. 5.3.1 Cogeneration System Sizing Typically, cogeneration systems are sized to operate on average daily biogas flo w. Additional units may be added for redundancy or to operate at maximum month or peak conditions. For the purpose of this evaluation, cogen systems will be evalu ated at average daily biogas production. Average daily biogas production is based on current solids loading, plus a 15% increase to account for future additional loa dings to the treatment plant. Table 5-2 summarizes the amount of power and heat produced if the biogas is util ized in a reciprocating engine. Waste heat from the engine may be used to heat the digester. For the purpose of this evaluation, a parasitic load of 5% is assumed, to provide energy for gas boosting on the gas conditioning skid. Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration A 5-3 Average Daily Biogas Produced (MMBTU/hr) Rated Energy Input Per Engine (MMBTU/hr) Number of Units Net Electrical Output (Output Parasitic Load) (kW Recoverable Heat

from Units (MMBTU/hr) 140 kW 3.88 1.38 3 at 94% load 374 2.01 220 kW 3.88 2.11 2 at 92% load 384 1.97 280 kW 3.88 2.60 2 at 75% load 399 1.95 Table 5-2 Utilizing Biogas in Engine Application Based on average daily flow, there is enough biogas produced to operate three 140-kW engines at 94% load, two 220-kW engines at 92% load, or two 270-kW engine s operating at 75% load. The heating needs of the digester system versus the amount heat provided by the engine system are summarized in Table 5-3. Based on this evaluation all three en gine systems produce enough recoverable heat to heat the digesters year-round at aver age day conditions. Average Day Winter Summer Facility and Digester Required (MMBTU/hr) 1.74 0.68 Energy Available for Heating with 140 kW System (MMBTU/hr) 2.01 2.01 Energy Available for Heating with 220 kW System (MMBTU/hr) 1.97 1.97 Energy Available for Heating with 280 kW System (MMBTU/hr) 1.95 1.95 Table 5-3 Digester and Facility Heating Needs vs. Heat from Engine Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration 5-4 A 5.4 Recommended Cogeneration System The recommended technology for cogeneration at the treatment plant is two 220-kW reciprocating engines. At average day flow, enough biogas is generated to operat e both engines at 90% load. It is recommended that the engines be sized to operate as close to 100% load as possible, as engines operating at full load are the most e fficient. At maximum month flow, enough biogas is generated to operate both engines at ful l load. Two 220-kW engines are recommended over three 140-kW engines to reduce engine installation costs. Accounting for estimated parasitic loads from biogas conditioning and compressio n, the system will generate approximately 340 kW of electricity. With the recommend ed digester configuration and material of construction, it is estimated that the re claimed heat from the 220-kW engine system can meet the thermal loads of the digesters y ear round. Typically, heat in the form of hot water is recovered from the engine jac ket and exhaust gases. A hot water loop circulating between the cogeneration system and the heat exchanges provides heat for the digesters. 5.5 Biogas Conveyance and Storage

The objective of the conveyance system is to convey biogas from the digester to the place it is being consumed or stored. Anaerobic digestion does not produce bioga s at a constant rate, while biogas is typically used at a constant rate, especially i n a cogeneration system. As such, it is beneficial for biogas systems to include bio gas storage to balance production and use. 5.5.1 Biogas Safety Equipment In biogas conveyance systems, biogas safety equipment is critical. As biogas is explosive at low concentrations, it is crucial that the biogas handling system b e fitted with appropriate gas-safety equipment, to protect against the risk of ignition a nd explosion. As there are significant electrical code classification issues associ ated with biogas handling equipment, it is required that certain gas equipment be physical ly separate from the remainder of the digestion equipment, but in close proximity t o the digester tanks. Any source of ignition, such as waste gas burner, engines, or boilers must be protected against flashback through the piping with a flame arrestor or flame tr aps. A flame arrestor works to quench the flame by dissipating any heat from a potentia l explosion in the piping. A flame trap is a combination of a flame arrestor and a thermal shutoff valve. If a propagating flame is stopped by the arrestor but con tinues to burn in the piping, a thermal element in the shutoff valve will melt and seal off the remainder of the upstream piping from the biogas source. Although the intention is to maximize utilization of the biogas in the cogenerat ion engines, a waste gas burner system is necessary to safely combust all digester g as produced at the facility in the event the engines and boiler are off-line. A was te gas Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration A 5-5 burner safely flares excess biogas to the atmosphere and eliminates the potentia l for hazardous accumulation of biogas within the conveyance and storage system. For safety considerations a minimum of 50 feet is required between the waste gas bur ner and the digester tanks. See Figure 5-1 for the proposed layout of the gas safety and handling equipment. 5.5.2 Moisture and Sediment Removal After leaving the digester, the biogas, at approximately 95 F, comes into contact with cooler piping and condensate forms within the pipeline. The condensate saturates the biogas and, as such, the biogas conveyance system must be designed to remove condensate. The moisture formed within the gas conveyance system can deteriorate gas handling equipment including check valves, relief valves, gas meters, and regulators and affect their performance. Moisture can also combine with hydrogen sulfide present in the biogas to form a sulfuric acid that will corrode piping i f the

moisture is not removed. To effectively remove moisture and sediment, the biogas piping must be sloped to convey condensate to condensate and sediment traps. Condensate and sediment traps consist of a sealed vessel that slows down the velocity of the biogas and allows moisture and solids to settle out of the biogas flow stream. The first condensat e and sediment trap should be located as close to the digester as possible. As such, i t is recommended that a condensate/sediment trap be located in the biogas safety equipment building, as indicated on Figure 5-1. Others will be located at low po ints in the biogas piping as the design develops. 5.5.3 Biogas Metering To measure the amount of digester gas produced by each digester, it is recommend ed that thermal mass dispersion meters be installed. Similar to the moisture and sediment removal systems, due to electrical code classification reasons, it is recommended that these meters be installed within the biogas safety equipment building. 5.5.4 Biogas Storage As previously noted, because digesters do not produce biogas at a constant rate, biogas storage is recommended. One common gas storage system is a floating gasho lder digester cover which floats on the biogas produced in the tank. The cover moves up and down to create variable volume and allow a constant biogas pressure within the headspace of the cover. However, as submerged fixed covers are the recommended option for the digester tanks, another means of biogas storage is required. As discussed in Section 4.3, because the volume of existing sludge storage onsit e is limited, it is recommended that a digested sludge storage tank be constructed. T his Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration 5-6 A tank will store sludge prior to dewatering in the existing belt filter presses. This storage tank may be fitted with a double membrane gas membrane holder cover (described in Section 4.5.3) fixed to the top of the tank, allowing for several hours of biogas storage. The outer membrane maintains a consistent dome shape, while the inner membrane moves up or down depending upon gas storage requirements. Ambient air fans and valves add or release air from the space between the inner and outer membranes to maintain the consistent outer membrane shape and constant biogas pressure. 5.6 Biogas Treatment Prior to being utilized in a cogeneration system, some level of biogas treatment is typically required to remove contaminants. The level of treatment depends on the concentrations of contaminants in the biogas and end use of the gas. For example , biogas used in reciprocating engines typically requires less treatment than in microturbine or fuel cell applications. Contaminants often found in municipal wastewater digester gas include hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and siloxanes. 5.6.1 Hydrogen Sulfide Biogas Treatment Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in biogas is formed by the reduction of sulfates by anaer obic bacteria within the digester. Sulfates occur naturally in wastewater from the

decomposition of urine and protein in the influent sludge. Utilization of biogas in boilers or cogeneration equipment often requires that H2S be removed to reduce corrosion of the equipment. The most common methods to remove H2S from digester biogas include chemical treatment such as the addition of ferric chloride to the digesters or flow throu gh systems that utilize iron-oxide impregnated wood chip media, known as an iron sponge system. Iron sponge technology has been used extensively in the wastewater industry to reduce hydrogen sulfide in biogas and is considered a proven technology. When biogas comes into contact with iron sponge media, a chemical reaction with the o xides effectively removes the hydrogen sulfide from the biogas. After the biogas passe s through the media, stable iron sulfide compound remains on the wood chips. The iron sponge media is housed in large corrosion resistant vessels such as stainle ss steel or reinforced fiberglass tanks. Spent iron sponge media is non-hazardous and may be disposed of in a landfill. 5.6.2 Siloxane Removal Siloxanes are a family of man-made organic compounds that contain silicon, oxyge n and methyl groups. Siloxanes are often used in the manufacture of personal hygie ne, health care and industrial products and eventually end up in wastewater. Siloxan es volatilize into the biogas during the digestion process and when this biogas is Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration A 5-7 combusted, siloxanes are converted to silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is then depo sited in the combustion or exhaust stages of the equipment. In reciprocating engines, evidence of siloxanes is found in the form of white po wder deposited on combustion surfaces. In boilers, siloxanes are often deposited in t he fire tubes of boilers utilizing biogas. The most commonly used method to reduce siloxane levels is carbon adsorption of the siloxane compounds. In these systems, biogas flows through vessels filled wi th a carbon based media. 5.6.3 Biogas Pressure Boosting The pressure of the biogas from the digested sludge storage tank is estimated to be approximately 12"16" water column. Typically, this head space pressure is suffici ent to convey the biogas through the H2S removal vessels. Following H2S removal, bio gas is typically boosted before the inlet of siloxane removal media vessels. The pre ssure of the biogas downstream of the siloxane removal vessels must match the inlet pressure of the cogeneration system. The recommended cogeneration engines requir e an inlet pressure of between 25 psi. The recommended biogas boosters are hermetically sealed and sized to provide sufficient capacity to deliver the biog as to the engines at the required inlet pressure.

5.6.4 Recommended Biogas Treatment System For the conceptual design, it is recommended that hydrogen sulfide and biogas pressure boosting be included in the biogas treatment system. A siloxane treatme nt system is not currently recommended as the the presence of siloxanes in digester biogas is difficult to predict without facility-specific biogas sampling. Based on discussions with LAWPCA personnel during this conceptual design, no industries were identified within the Lewiston and Auburn collection systems that are thoug ht to have significant potential to produce wastewater with high silica concentrati ons, and in turn, siloxane within the biogas. This fact, combined with the significan t cost of siloxane removal systems, led to the decision not to include this in the plan ned biogas treatment system. However, it should be noted that siloxane removal may b e a necessary addition to the biogas treatment system in the future if a high concen tration of siloxanes is detected in the digester biogas. 5.7 Summary The recommended systems to handle and utilize the biogas at the LAWPCA include the following components: Biogas Conveyance and Storage: biogas safety equipment (flame trap, waste gas burner), moisture and sediment removal, biogas metering, biogas storage in digested sludge storage tank with gas membrane cover; Section 5 Biogas Handling and Cogeneration 5-8 A Biogas Utilization: two 220-kW reciprocating engines, producing electricity and hot water for use on-site; and Biogas treatment: hydrogen sulfide removal and biogas pressure boosting. A 6-1 5816-72780 Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations This section presents the major existing architectural and structural features o f the proposed digestion facilities to be installed at the LAWPCA wastewater treatment plant. 6.1 Building Codes and Standards In accordance with Maine Public Laws Chapter 1103, the Maine Model Building Code and Maine Uniform Building and Energy Codes including any amendment to the code adopted by the State Building Inspector and Codes and Standards Committee, shall be the building code for all towns, cities and boroughs. Therefore, it has interpreted that the Maine Model Building Code will govern the design of new and renovated buildings on the project. To form the core requirements of the code, t he State of Maine adopted by reference, the following national codes: 2003 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) 2003 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC) 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities 2005 National Electrical Code (NFPA-70) 2008 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities (NFPA 820)

In addition, with P.L. 2007 Resolve 46, the Legislature recognized that Maine ne eds more uniformity of building-related codes across the state. It directed the stat e to develop a building and building rehabilitation code implementation plan. A committee comprised of the departments of Economic and Community Development and Professional and Financial Regulation, the Fire Marshals Office, Maine Histor ic Preservation Commission, and State Planning Office presented their recommendations report and implementation plan to the Business Research and Economic Development (BRED) Committee on January 31, 2008. The BRED Committee accepted the committees recommendations and enacted PL 2007, Chapter 699. On January 1, 2010, Maine will have a new statewide building and energy cod e. A new board will streamline code administration and a uniform code will bring mo re consistency to builders, developers, and towns. The final design will comply wit h the provisions of this new statewide building and energy code. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-2 Where applicable, vehicular loads will be determined in accordance with: AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges 6.2 Architectural Considerations 6.2.1 Option 1 Buildings and Structures Functional areas which will be addressed as part of the plant upgrade with this design approach are as follows ( indicates structures with architectural implicat ions): Existing Process Building There will be a New Gravity Belt Thickener Room with an area of approximately 2,084 sq. ft., comprised of two zones open into ea ch other and without any interruptions: one measuring approximately 45 -9"x 36 -8" and the other measuring approximately 14 -7" x 28 -0". The Room will be accessed from the corridor through an air-lock vestibule with an area of 106 square feet and through two sets of double doors equipped with pressure gaskets. The walls will be 2-hr rated and five vision panels equipped with rated safety glass will also be provided. Additionally, a New Electrical Room with an area of 356 square feet will be provided with approximate dimensions of 45 -9" x 7 -10". The New Electrical Room will be provided with an independent set of 90-min. rated double doors. The two new rooms will be adjacent to each other and separated by a 2-hour rated 6-inch CMU wall and communicating through a 90-min. rated single door. Tanks There will be two new cast-in-place digester tanks with a 65-foot interior diameter; provisions for the expansion to a future cast-inplace digester tank wit h the same dimensions as the new proposed ones are also being made; additionally there will be a cast-in-place sludge & gas holding tank with a 50-foot interior diameter. Tank Locations The four tanks are placed with their centers, each located on one of four vertices of an imaginary square with a side measuring approximately 94 feet. The new digesters are located respectively on the West and South vertic es, the future digester on the North vertex and the storage/gas holding tank on the East vertex of the square. Please refer to paragraph 6.3.9 for additional facili ty specific structural design considerations. New Digestion Building The building will have a square footprint with the

sides measuring approximately 45 feet, and located in the center amongst all thr ee proposed and one future tank. The building is oriented in such a way so that its vertices are diagonally oriented in relation to the imaginary square whose verti ces are occupied by the centers of the tanks. The building vertices will be located respectively at the North-South/West, and at the North-South East. The building will have two levels. The lower level will be entirely occupied by a Sludge Pump Room and by an enclosed Stairwell leading to the exterior through the upper leve l at grade. The upper level will be occupied by the Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room, Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-3 by the Electrical Room with its independent entrance opening directly to the exterior, and by the enclosed Stairwell leading to the exterior. New Gas Safety Equipment Building The small approximately 12 x 20 enclosed structure will primarily house gas safety equipment. It will be constructed with reinforced 8-inch CMU and with a precast concrete hollow core planks and provided with an access door. New Waste Gas Burner Exterior pad mounted flare system. New Gas Treatment Skid The equipment will be installed on an exterior concrete pad measuring approximately 26 -" x 42 -8" and covered with a prefabricated steel canopy system measuring 24 -0" x 40 -0". The canopy will be structured with steel tubes along 4 frames spaced at 13 -4" from each other and shaped in a gable fashion with a central ridge to span the 24 -0" side of the ca nopy. The roof will be built with corrugated metal deck and standing seam metal panels . New Cogeneration Engines Two exterior Pad mounted generators with vendors enclosures. 6.2.2 Option 2 Buildings and Structures Functional areas which will be addressed as part of the plant upgrade with this design approach are as follows ( indicates structures with architectural implicat ions): Existing Process Building Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above plus the following additional changes: a. New Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room The new room with an area of approximately 1,516 square feet will be located in an area currently occupied by the screening garage and by a portion of the headworks area. It will be separated by 2-hr rated 8-inch reinforced CMU wall. One door will be used to egress the room to the exterior. b. New Headworks The new space will have an area of approximately 1,085 square feet, therefore reduced from the current size, and it will be separated from the adjacent Boiler/Heat Exchanger Room by the new 2-hr rated reinforced 8-inch CMU wall. The existing exterior door will have to be relocated to the south to accommodate a new dumpster garage on the East side. c. New Screening Dumpster Garage The garage, with an approximate size of 16 -0"x 20 -0", will be structured with a separate frame of cast-in-place concre te columns and beams and with reinforced 8-inch CMU infill walls. The roof will be structured with precast concrete hollow core planks. The dumpster can be Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-4 accessed by a truck through a 12-foot wide by 14-foot high aluminum coiling roll-up door. d. New Exterior Stair Due to the new screening dumpster garage the exterior stair to the East side where the garage will be added, will need to be

demolished and rebuilt at its relocated position to the South of the current one . Tanks There will be two new cast-in-place digester tanks with a 50-foot interior diameter, and one cast-in-place sludge and gas holding tank with a 50-foot interior diameter. New Sub-grade Sludge Pump Room and Tunnel The new Pump room will be entirely below grade between the two digester tanks, with an approximate area of 1,656 square feet. The sides of the room flanking the two digesters will have an additional segmented separation wall to follow the curvature of the digesters an d it will be built with reinforced 8-inch CMU. A cast-in-place concrete tunnel wil l connect this room to the existing building below grade and a cast-in-place concrete egress stair will lead off the tunnel to the exterior above grade. New Gas Safety Equipment Building Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above. New Waste Gas Burner Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above. New Gas Treatment Skid Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above. New Cogeneration Engines Refer to Option 1 at paragraph 6.2.1 above. 6.2.3 Building Systems The existing plant buildings are constructed with reinforced concrete structural systems. Galleries, basements and above grade buildings have poured concrete wal ls, floors, columns and beams. Roofs are precast concrete double tees, except the Digester and Sludge Thickener Buildings have poured concrete roofs. Exterior wal ls are masonry consisting of face brick exterior with concrete masonry backup, with out insulation. Interior partitions are concrete masonry. Windows are aluminum and doors and louvers either aluminum or steel painted. These buildings are in sound condition and can be repaired and reroofed, if necessary, to extend their useful life. 6.2.4 Building Materials and Finishes 6.2.4.1 Existing Process Building (both Options) The configuration, materials and finishes of the New Gravity Belt Thickener and Electrical Rooms will be the same in both design approaches, as described in paragraph 6.2.1 above. There is one additional element that needs to be taken in to consideration, which is relevant to the staging for the removal of the existing Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-5 equipment, but much more critical to the installation of the new Gravity Thicken ers, and it is the temporary removal of the existing window system to allow the installation of the Thickeners and re-installation of the same in place. This ad ditional consideration has been made with the assumption that the existing window system can be, indeed, temporarily removed and reinstalled. During final design, replacement of this with a new window or with a fully insulated wall should be considered. A hazardous materials assessment survey will be required in the exis ting buildings to determine the location and approximate quantities of hazardous materials that are or might be present in areas subject to modifications. 6.2.4.2 New Digestion Building (Option 1) The walls below grade will be reinforced bearing cast-in-place concrete walls. Additional vertical loads within the building footprint will be handled by castinplace columns. Above grade, the building will be structured with reinforced 8-inch bearing CMU wall at the perimeter and additional intermediate locations of verti

cal load discharge will be handled by steel columns on top of the cast-in-place colu mns at the lower level. The exterior walls will have a 4-inch cavity with rigid insulat ion and will be faced with 4-inch ground face CMU, in a grey color to blend within the complex of the cast-in-place tanks around it. The flat roof will be structured w ith precast concrete hollow core planks, and tapered insulation will provide the nee ded slope to direct the drainage of water to roof drainage inlets. The roof will be covered with Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) roofing membrane. The enclosed stairwell wil l be 2-hr rated, and structured similarly to the rest of the building with cast-in -place concrete below grade and CMU above grade. 6.2.4.3 New Gas Safety Equipment Building (both Options) In addition to the information provided at paragraph 6.2.1 above, the design wil l consider the use of tapered insulation at a minimum, not for thermal reasons, bu t to provide drainage slope to direct water to the proper outlets (i.e., two scuppers ) and the covering of the roof with TPO roofing membrane. 6.2.4.4 New Gas Treatment Skid (both Options) In addition to the information provided at paragraph 6.2.1 above, the design wil l consider specifying galvanizing and, for added long-term protection, painting al l the pre-engineered steel frames. Additionally, the system will require some braced b ays to be determined by the vendor and to be approved by the Engineer, in order to provide lateral stability. 6.2.5 Roofing Systems The proposed system for all new stand-alone structures or addition to existing buildings is generally a TPO roofing membrane adhered to underlayment board over tapered rigid polyisocyanurate insulation over a vapor retarder sheet. The assem bly will be adhesive or mechanically attached to the roof deck. Insulation will be o f Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-6 thickness necessary to meet energy code requirements (New Digestion Building onl y in Option 1) and to provide drainage slopes. 6.2.6 Proposed Interior Finishes Interior finishes should be appropriate to the use of the space, durable and fac ilitate maintenance of clean and sanitary conditions. Spaces such as the headworks, wher e wastewater is processed, and moisture is constantly present, should have finishe s that resist physical abuse and moisture damage, are readily washed down and inhibit corrosion of building elements. Pipe galleries, pump rooms and the garage, where condensation may occur, humidity may be high and occasional wash down is required, should have finishes that protect building elements from corrosion, as well as resistant to damage from the atmosphere and usual activities occurring in the

space. Finishes in rooms intended for employees should be suited to their partic ular function, resistant to moisture and chemicals, readily cleanable and contribute to good illumination and acoustics. The following are proposed finishes intended to fulfill these objectives: 6.2.6.1 Floors Subject to chemicals or regular wash down epoxy seamless flooring Dry process areas, garage hardened concrete with sealer 6.2.6.2 Walls Process, electrical and mechanical rooms, garage epoxy painted 6.2.6.3 Ceilings Exposed structure, epoxy painted 6.2.6.4 Doors and Frames Exterior Stainless Steel for long life, ease of maintenance and durability. Interior FRP for better responsiveness to moist environment with or without chemically aggressive conditions. 6.3 Structural Considerations 6.3.1 Design Loads and Serviceability Applicable loads and load combinations will be determined as required by the governing code, occupancy, site and environmental effects, equipment, and proces ses. Appropriate load combinations will be established, as well as, appropriate allow able stresses, load factors, and safety factors (as applicable). These criteria will be confirmed at the beginning of final design. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-7 6.3.1.1 Dead Loads Dead loads are those resulting from the weight of fixed construction such as wal ls, partitions, floors, roofs, cladding, equipment bases, and permanent, non-removab le, stationary furnishings. Numerical values for the dead load of well-defined components of a structure will be used as documented in the following publicatio ns: ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures AISC Manual of Steel Construction CRSI Handbook Manufacturer s catalogs for fabricated components 6.3.1.2 Live Loads Live loads will consist of loads due to occupancy, furnishings and equipment. Li ve load reduction will not be employed for members of large influence area in the d esign of environmental facilities, due to the relatively high probability of simultane ous loads on all areas. Uniform live loads will be established in accordance with th e governing code. Values are listed below for purposes of preliminary design. Actu al usage and equipment will be considered during final design and higher loadings u sed when appropriate. General Administrative Buildings Office areas 50 psf Office file, record and mainframe computer areas 125 psf Personnel assembly areas 100 psf

Stairways, corridors, lobbies 100 psf Partitions (present or future) 30 psf Roofs 20 psf Storage areas 250 psf Catwalks 100 psf Garages, passenger cars only 100 psf Garages, other vehicles AASHTO load or design vehicle Process Buildings and Structures Office areas 150 psf Office file, record and mainframe computer areas 150 psf Personnel assembly areas 150 psf Stairways, corridors, lobbies, catwalks 150 psf Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-8 Storage areas 300 psf Process areas (including hatches and gratings) 200 psf Electrical rooms 300 psf Control rooms 150 psf Maintenance garages AASHTO loading or 300 psf Unrestricted vehicular areas AASHTO HS20 Equipment Loads Loads from equipment will be considered live loads. The maximum loads and support details for each major piece of equipment will be provided by the discipline designing or specifying it. Final weights of process-mechanical equipment will be established during preliminary design. Preliminary weights of building service equipment (HVAC, plumbing, and electrical) will be confirmed during final design. In addition to the mechanisms static dead load, design will be performed for other effects, such as those due to operation, maintenance and malfunction. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following. Rotating agitator equipment (mixers, flocculators, and mechanical aerators) Design will be performed for moment, torque, and lateral/vertical thrust. Rotating clarifier mechanisms Design will be performed for stalling torque. Vertical turbine pumps Design will be performed for suction load plus the weight of the suspended water column in the riser. Sluice gates, non-self-contained Design will be performed for a load equal to the breaking strength of the operating stem, or the stalling torque of the motorized operator, in the event the gate is frozen. All equipment Design will be performed for required maintenance procedures, such as the removal of a large component and the placing of it temporarily on the adjacent structure. Impact Loads Static loads will be increased for the effects of impact by the following percentages: Vehicular loads In accordance with the AASHTO Specification Bridge crane supports 25 percent of hoist capacity. 20 percent of the sum of the hoist capacity, hoist weight, and trolley weight will be applied as a latera l Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-9 load, and 10 percent of the sum of the hoist capacity and total crane weight will be applied as a longitudinal load. Monorail supports 25 percent of hoist capacity. 10 percent of the sum of the hoist capacity and hoist weight will be applied as a longitudinal load. Light machinery supports, shaft or motor driven 20 percent of the operating weight (minimum) or manufacturer s recommendation. Reciprocating machinery or power-driven unit supports 50 percent of the operating weight (minimum) or manufacturer s recommendation.

Hangers supporting floors or balconies 33 percent of live load reaction Construction Live Loads When it is necessary to provide particular restrictions on construction sequenci ng, special load conditions may result. This is particularly applicable to work invo lving the modification of existing structures. These cases will be evaluated and appro priate criteria established during final design. Such restrictions will be indicated in the drawings or specifications. 6.3.1.3 Environmental Loads Snow and Rainwater Loads Snow loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the governing code. Appropriate modification factors, drifting effects, and uneven distributions will be considered for each structure. Ground snow load: 70 psf Importance factor: Establish for each structure per governing code based on occupancy Roofs will be designed for retained water to its maximum depth (accounting for deflection) assuming that the primary drainage system is blocked. Overflow scupp ers or other secondary drainage systems may be used to minimize this load. This criterion will be coordinated with architectural and plumbing disciplines. Wind Loads Wind loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the governing code. Appropriate shape modification factors, uneven distributions, an d orthogonal effects will be considered for each structure. Main wind force resist ing systems, as well as appropriate components and cladding, will be designed for internal and external effects. Increased allowable stresses or reduced load fact ors will be used, as appropriate. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-10 Basic wind speed: 100 mph (3 sec gust) Importance factor: Establish for each structure per governing code based on occupancy Internal loads due to positive or negative air pressure caused by mechanical or process systems will not be considered wind loads. These loads will be considere d in the manner of a process liquid load. Seismic Loads Seismic loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with t he governing code. Increased allowable stresses or reduced load factors will be use d, as appropriate. MCE spectral acceleration Ss: 0.323 MCE spectral acceleration S1: 0.080 Seismic Design Category: Establish for each structure per governing code based on Seismic Use Group Loads on the seismic resisting system will be developed in accordance with the governing code for the particular system. The Site Class will be used as recommended in the geotechnical report. Loads from mechanical and architectural components not covered by the governing code will be developed in accordance wit h IBC.

6.3.1.4 Process Liquid Loads Design will be performed for liquid loads assuming liquid surface at the maximum working level using normal allowable stresses, or the load factor for a live loa d, as appropriate. In addition, design will be performed assuming the liquid surface a t the maximum possible level under surcharge conditions using an increase in allowable stresses, or the load factor for a dead load, as appropriate. Where cells of a tank communicate so that one cannot be isolated from an adjacen t cell (by valves, gates, stoplogs, or other normal operational means), the separating walls will not be designed for liquid on one side only. However, design will be perfor med for a 12-inch minimum water level differential on either side of the wall to acc ount for flow lag and minor dynamic effects, unless hydraulic analyses indicate a differe nt level. Elements acting as or affected by screens (which remove trash or other solids fr om flow) will be designed for liquid to its maximum level, assuming the screen is completely blocked. Elements acting as flow baffles (at which blockage is unlike ly) Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-11 will be designed for a 12-inch minimum water level differential, unless hydrauli c analyses indicate a different level. Closed liquid containing structures will, whenever possible, be vented to preclu de pressurization or depressurization. However, certain structures may experience pressure or vacuum effects due to particular mechanical or process systems, or t he malfunction of systems or components. In such cases, design will be performed fo r the maximum water, air or gas pressure as provided by the mechanical-process discipline in preliminary design. 6.3.1.5 External Earth and Groundwater Loads Earth and groundwater loads will be developed from the following criteria in accordance with the project geotechnical report (Section 8) and the governing co de. Design Grade Elevation Design will be performed for ground surface at finish grade. Substructures will be designed to permit the external excavation to be backfilled after the constructi on of the ground level slab. Should substantial economical advantages be realized by altering this criterion, limits of backfill requirements will be indicated in th e contract documents. Design Groundwater Elevation Design will be performed for groundwater at the elevations indicated in the proj ect geotechnical report. For liquid-containing structures with passive pressure relief systems which incl ude underdrains and valves designed to fill the structure when groundwater pressure exceeds the interior water pressure, normal and flood design groundwater elevati

on will be established at the valve centerline. For liquid and non-liquid-containing structures with passive pressure relief sys tems which include underdrain systems designed to permanently drain groundwater from the structure, normal design groundwater elevation will be established at the centerline of the underdrain high point. When the project design groundwater level is below finish grade, design groundwater elevation will be established at finish grade for relatively small b elowgrade structures, such a manholes and vaults, to account for localized rises in groundwater due to pipe breaks, leaking structures, etc. Groundwater Pressures Design will be performed for pressures generated by groundwater acting laterally , downward and upward, as appropriate. Load factors appropriate for live loads wil l be used. Design will be performed for groundwater at the normal elevation for normal allowable stresses or load factors, as appropriate. Design will be perfor med Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-12 for groundwater at the flood elevation for increased allowable stresses or reduc ed load factors, as appropriate. Lateral Soil and Groundwater Pressures The following equivalent fluid pressures will be used in preliminary design for wellgraded, granular, mineral soils with a moist unit weight of 120 pcf. Soil pressures for final design will be developed in accordance with the geotechnical report. Desig n for cantilevered walls of environmental engineering structures will be performed for atrest soil pressures. Pressure Condition Pressure Coefficient Equivalent Lateral Fluid Pressure Above Groundwater Below Groundwater At Rest (minimum) 0.50 60 pcf 90 pcf Active (minimum) 0.33 40 pcf 80 pcf Passive (maximum) 3.00 360 pcf 170 pcf Walls to which vehicles can reasonably be expected to approach within a distance equal to half the wall height will be designed for a uniform surcharge equal to 2 feet of soil. 6.3.1.6 Miscellaneous Loads Design will be performed for other applicable loads as required by the project circumstances. Appropriate acceptable allowable stresses and load factors will b e established. 6.3.1.7 Combination of Loads General Design will be performed for combinations of loads, along with appropriate load factors or allowable stresses, in accordance with the governing code. In the abs ence of specific direction by the code, the most severe distribution, concentration and combination of design loads and forces will be used. These combinations may be

limited by practical considerations, such as the following: Combination of certain loads will not be considered when the probability of thei r simultaneous occurrence is negligible. Such loads include wind and seismic on superstructures; and seismic, live load surcharge, and flood on substructures. An increase in allowable stress of 33 percent, or a reduced load factor of 0.75, will be applied to the entire load combination where such is permitted for any of the loads considered in the combination. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-13 The effects of any load type (other than dead load) will not be used to reduce t he effects of another load type. A maximum of 90 percent of the dead load will be used in any combination where it reduces the effects of another load type. Liquid Containing or Below-grade Structures Design will be performed for structures that contain liquids, extend below grade , or both, for the following load combinations. Liquid-containing compartments full, no backfill for liquid containing compartments. No reduction will be made for any counteracting soil pressure on the face remote from a contained liquid unless approved. Backfill and groundwater with liquid-containing compartments empty and full. Liquid containing compartments empty or full in any combination. 6.3.2 Serviceability Additional requirements for serviceability will be considered as provided in subsequent sections and referenced standards for specific materials. 6.3.2.1 Deflection Design will be performed to limit deflections to the following. In cases indicat ed with an asterisk (*), deflection limit will apply to live load effects only. For mono rails and cranes, impact need not be included. Monorails, including the effects of differential support deflection L/450 Bridge crane girders L/1000 Floor plates and gratings* L/360 Beams, lintels or slabs supporting masonry L/720 (3/8 inch maximum at windows) Roofs without plastered ceilings* L/240 Roofs with plastered ceilings* L/360 Floors, steel framed* L/360 Floors, concrete In accordance with ACI 318 6.3.2.2 Ponding Ponding refers to water retention due to the effects of deflection on a flat roo f. For flexible roof systems, sufficient stiffness will be provided to prevent successi ve water retention and deflection leading to failure. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-14 6.3.2.3 Vibration Design will be performed for the effects of vibration to provide appropriate pro tection against structural deterioration, mechanical deterioration, and significant occu pant discomfort. Under normal circumstances, the guidelines below will generally be followed. If deemed necessary by the supervising structural personnel, a dynamic analysis of the system will be performed.

Mechanical Vibration Concern for mechanical vibration is greatest for equipment such as blowers, generators, compressors, steady bearings at pump shafts and centrifuges. Operati ng frequencies, unbalanced loads, and specific design recommendations will be obtai ned from the manufacturer by the discipline specifying the equipment. To avoid resonant vibration, the ratio of the structures natural frequency to the operating frequency of the equipment will be restricted to less than 0.50 or gre ater than 1.50. Where practical, the latter will be used to avoid resonance during equipment startup and shutdown. Consideration will be given to applicable modes of vibration, including vertical, lateral, and rotational. Design will be performed in accordance with the following guidelines for equipme nt which produce significant vibrational effects, where possible and appropriate. Equipment will be mounted on concrete foundations or supporting systems rather than metal supporting systems. A foundation mat will be provided with a mass equal to ten times the rotating mass of the equipment or three times the gross mass of the equipment (minimum), whichever is greater. Major equipment foundations and supporting systems will be isolated by expansion joints or independent supports from the remaining structure to minimize vibrational transmission. Vibration isolators, dampeners, and/or inertia blocks will be provided where appropriate. Anchorage to foundations will be provided by embedded anchor bolts. Drilled anchors will not be used. Transient Vibration For elevated steel walkways or platforms, beams will be provided with a depth greater than or equal to 1/20 of the span. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-15 6.3.3 Foundation Design 6.3.3.1 Scope Criteria will be established for the design of structure foundations in coordina tion with the geotechnical recommendations. Permanent structure foundation elements will be designed to distribute loads to the supporting soil in accordance with t heir allowable loads, and to accommodate predicted deformations of the structure caus ed by settlement or movement of the supporting elements. Structure foundation elements will be designed to resist effects of groundwater, including buoyancy. 6.3.3.2 Frost Protection Protection will be provided for structures against excessive heave or settlement due to the action of frost. In most cases, the bearing level of frost-susceptible found ation elements will be established below the frost depth as provided in the geotechnic al report. For minor structures that are tolerant to some movement, bearing level m ay be established above the frost depth, provided that frost formation can be inhib ited in the zone between the bearing level and frost depth by providing a layer of freed raining material. 6.3.3.3 Shallow Foundation Support

Design of shallow foundation elements (footings and mats), including excavation and backfill limits and details, will be performed in accordance with the recommenda tions of the geotechnical report. To the extent possible, buried piping and ductbanks will be maintained outside t he influence zone of the foundation elements. Limits of this zone will be establish ed based on bearing materials characteristics as documented in the geotechnical repo rt. A reinforced concrete encasement or other appropriate protection will be provide d for any utilities extending into this zone. 6.3.3.4 Retaining Walls The stability of retaining walls will be confirmed for appropriate lateral soil and groundwater pressures, surcharges and other applicable loads. Passive pressures from the soil in front of the wall or footing keys will not be used to reduce lo ads, stresses, or overturning and sliding effects, unless measures are taken to ensur e against erosion or removal of the soil and approved. Design will be performed fo r the following factors of safety. Overturning: 2.0 Sliding: 1.5 For design of retaining walls with portions below the design groundwater level, the effects of uplift pressures will be considered in stability analyses. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-16 6.3.3.5 Buoyancy Buoyancy is defined as the condition of instability resulting when uplift forces due to groundwater exceed resisting forces due to dead load and anchorage systems. Desi gn will be performed in accordance with the following. Complete Structures For groundwater at the design level, structures will be designed to resist buoya ncy considering only the structure dead load, soil directly above the structure and footing extensions. The effects of live loads, liquid contents (unless relief valves are used), vertical soil friction and soil cohesion will be neglected. When anchorage syste ms are used, they will be designed to resist the net uplift force transmitted to the co mponents of the anchorage. Structures will be designed to provide a minimum factor of saf ety of 1.15, calculated as the ratio of total resisting force to total buoyant force . Partially Complete Structures Since the contractor will normally be required to maintain a dewatered excavatio n, it will be assumed that groundwater will be maintained, at any given time, at or be low the surface of the backfill currently in place. If the completed portion of the

structure has insufficient resistance against pressures generated in this condition, the groundwater elevations at which the structure is stable will be provided in the contract documents. Buoyancy Prevention Systems Pressure relief valves will usually be wall-mounted valves, designed to allow groundwater to enter a liquid-containing cell when the groundwater pressure exce eds the interior liquid pressure. Where possible, they will be installed at an eleva tion above normal groundwater level to allow dewatering of the cell under most normal conditions. The valves will normally be connected to an underdrain system, as described below, to relieve pressure build-up at locations remote from the valve s. Where appropriate, design buoyant pressures will be reduced using an underdrain system beneath the structure. The system will consist of a network of perforated underdrain pipes, connected installed in a continuous layer of crushed stone. Fi lter fabric will be provided between the crushed stone and surrounding soil to preven t migration of fines into the stone voids. 6.3.4 Concrete Design 6.3.4.1 Scope Design of cast-in-place, site-cast, and precast concrete structures will be perf ormed, except as indicated below. Member sizes, reinforcement, and details will be determined in accordance with the governing code. Design of site concrete work, such as paving, curbing, and sidewalks will be performed by the civil discipline. Design of the following structures and elemen ts Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-17 will be performed by the fabricator or erector, in accordance with criteria prov ided in the contract documents. Precast site structures, including manholes, vaults, pipe, culverts, and headwal ls Precast, prestressed roof planks and tees Precast architectural elements, including wall panels, copings, and sills 6.3.4.2 Codes and Standards Concrete structures will be designed in accordance with the following, as approp riate. General structures: ACI 318 Environmental engineering structures: ACI 350 Reinforcing steel, welding: AWS D1.4 Structures that convey, store or treat liquid, are subjected to severe exposures , or have restrictive leakage requirements will be designed as environmental engineering structures. Design of miscellaneous roadway structures, such as culverts and headwalls will be performed in accordance with the state highway standards and the AASHTO Specification. 6.3.4.3 Materials and Design Strengths Design will be performed for concrete with the following minimum 28-day compressive strengths (fc). Structural concrete: 4,000 psi Concrete topping: 4,000 psi Precast concrete: 5,000 psi

Prestressed concrete: 5,000 psi Design will be performed for the strengths and properties of the following mater ials. Deformed reinforcing bars: ASTM A615, Grade 60 Deformed reinforcing bars, welded or field bent: ASTM A706 Welded wire fabric, plain: ASTM A185 Welded wire fabric, deformed: ASTM A497 Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-18 6.3.4.4 Design Methods Environmental engineering structures will be designed by the Strength Design Method (Ultimate Strength) with the modified allowable stresses, durability coefficients and serviceability requirements recommended in ACI 350 for the appropriate sanitary exposure. Structures other than environmental engineering structures will be designed by the Strength Design Method. 6.3.5 Masonry Design 6.3.5.1 Scope The size and layout of loadbearing masonry elements (exterior walls, bearing wal ls, shearwalls, pilasters, columns, beams, and lintels) as designed by the architect ural discipline will be reviewed to ensure a continuous and stable loadbearing system . Design of loadbearing and non-loadbearing elements (such as partition walls and veneer) and their connections will be performed in accordance with applicable criteria. 6.3.5.2 Codes and Standards Design of masonry structures, elements, and details will be performed in accorda nce with the following. Concrete and clay masonry: ACI 530 and ACI 530.1 6.3.5.3 Materials and Design Strengths Design will be performed for the specified strengths and properties of the follo wing materials. Masonry Units: Concrete masonry units ASTM C90, Type I (1900 psi) Hollow brick units ASTM C652, Grade SW, Type HBX Face brick units ASTM C216, Grade SW, Type FBS Concrete brick units ASTM C55, Grade N, Type 1 Ceramic glazed structural units ASTM C126 Mortar and Grout: Mortar ASTM C270, Type S (1800 psi) Grout ASTM C476, Fine Grout (2500 psi) Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-19 Reinforcement: Deformed Bars ASTM A615, Grade 60 Joint Reinforcing ASTM A82 The specified compressive strength of masonry, fm, will be as follows. Concrete masonry 1500 psi 6.3.5.4 Design Methods Design will be performed for masonry elements and their components in accordance with Allowable Stress Design (ASD) methods specified in the applicable codes and standards. Where approved, elements may be designed using specified empirical methods. 6.3.6 General Design and Detailing 6.3.6.1 Reinforcing

Deformed bar reinforcing will be provided in load-bearing and exterior masonry a nd where necessary in interior partitions. All courses and cells containing bars wi ll be fully grouted. In all masonry, horizontal joint reinforcing will be provided spaced at a maximu m of 16 inches vertically to control cracking. Horizontal joint reinforcing will be considered to be part of the total horizontal reinforcing where required. Joint reinforcing will be hot-dip galvanized and consist of two parallel 9-gauge wires with 9-gauge connecting diagonal cross-rods or box ties welded to them at 16-inch maximum spacing. 6.3.6.2 Below Grade and Submerged Applications Masonry will not be used in either below ground or submerged applications unless dictated by project requirements and approved. When required, solid or fully grouted hollow units will be used with an appropriate coating for protection and leak prevention. 6.3.6.3 Veneer Non-structural masonry veneers will be selected, detailed and specified by the architectural discipline. The structural adequacy of veneer attachments and the weights used in dead load calculations will be verified. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-20 6.3.6.4 Control Joints In general, the spacing of control joints in masonry walls will be controlled by other building components and architectural requirements. The layout of control joints will be reviewed for its effect on the structural design of the masonry, particularly in regard to structural elements such as masonry lintels and bond beams functioning as tension chords in box system buildings. 6.3.7 Structural Metal Design 6.3.7.1 Scope Design of structural metal structures, systems, elements and details, will be performed, except as indicated below, for the applicable criteria. Design of the following structures and elements will be performed by the fabrica tor or vendor, in accordance with criteria provided in the contract documents. Access hatches Pre-engineered buildings and stairways Castings, such as manhole covers and trench grates Storage tanks and silos Stacks and chimneys Piping, ductwork, and conduit hangers and supports Flat and domed odor control covers Patented track for monorails and underhung bridge cranes 6.3.7.2 Codes and Standards Design of metal structures and elements will be performed in accordance with the following. Structural and miscellaneous steel: AISC Specification ASD (unless otherwise not ed) Steel joists and joist girders: SJI Specification Steel deck, general: SDI Manual Steel deck, diaphragms: SDI Diaphragm Manual Aluminum: AA Aluminum Design Manual

Stainless steel: AISI Welding, steel: AWS D1.1 Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-21 Welding, aluminum: AWS D1.2 Welding, stainless steel: AWS D1.6 6.3.7.3 Design Strengths Design will be performed for the specified strengths and properties of the follo wing materials Steel: Structural steel wide flange shapes: ASTM A 992 Other structural steel shapes; plate; and bars: ASTM A 36 Structural steel tubing: ASTM A500, Grade B Structural steel pipe: ASTM A53 High strength steel bolts: ASTM A 325-SC Anchor bolts and threaded rods: ASTM A 307 Welding electrodes: AWS E70XX Aluminum: Aluminum extruded shapes: ASTM B221, 6061-T6 Aluminum sheet and plate: ASTM B209, 6061-T6 Aluminum extruded pipe: ASTM B429, 6063-T6 or 6061-T6 Stainless Steel: Stainless steel shapes: ASTM A276, Type 316 Stainless steel plate and sheet: ASTM A167, Type 304 or 316 Stainless steel bolts ASTM A276, Type 316 6.3.7.4 Design Methods General Design of structural metals will be performed in accordance with Allowable Stres s Design (ASD) methods specified in the referenced codes and standards. Load Facto r and Resistance Design methods (LRFD) may be used with approval. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-22 Steel Deck Deck sizes, profiles and connections will be selected from load tables in the re ferenced standards. Joists and Joist Girders Sizes will be selected from load tables in the referenced standards. Design load s will be provided in the contract documents. For loads other than uniform loads, a loa d diagram will be provided. Gratings Sizes of metal gratings will be selected in accordance with the manufacturers loa d tables for uniform loads and limited concentrated loads defined in the tables. F or other loads, design will be performed in accordance with ASD methods specified i n the appropriate material standards. 6.3.8 Modification of Existing Structures 6.3.8.1 Scope The adequacy of existing structures, elements, and details will be verified for modifications (alterations, repairs, and additions) as required by the governing code.

New structural elements will be designed as required by the proposed modificatio ns in accordance with applicable criteria. 6.3.8.2 General Design and Detailing Design and detailing of modifications to existing structures will conform to the criteria provided for the specific materials involved. 6.3.9 Facility Specific Structural Design Considerations The following is a description of specific recommendations related to the struct ural design of the improvements to the Lewiston-Auburn WPCF. 6.3.9.1 New Digesters Two new digesters will be provided. It is assumed that the digesters will be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. However, during design, the be nefits of constructing the tanks out of precast concrete will be investigated. Details of construction for the digesters are different for Option 1 and Option 2 as descri bed below. Option 1 Two new digesters, approximately 65 feet in diameter, with a sidewater depth of approximately 30.5 feet, will be provided. The digesters will be constructed out of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, and they will be soil-supported. The base mat of the digester will slope (at approximately 1V:6H) to a low point in the center of the digester. A fixed cast-in-place concrete cover will be provided at the top of th e digester. Finished grade will be approximately 15 above the base mat high point. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-23 Option 2 Two new digesters, approximately 50 feet in diameter, with a sidewater depth of approximately 52 feet, will be provided. The digesters will be constructed out o f castinplace reinforced concrete, and they will be pile-supported. The base slab of the digester will slope (at approximately 1V:6H) to a low point in the center of the digester. A fixed cast-in-place concrete cover will be provided at the top of th e digester. Finished grade will be approximately 20 feet above the base mat high p oint. 6.3.9.2 New Digestion Building (OPTION 1 ONLY) Under Option 1, a new building will be constructed near the two new digesters. T he building will have one level below ground, with the bottom slab at approximately the same level as the high point of the digesters base mat. The lower level will hous e recirculation pumps and mixing pumps. The main room of the upper level will have one room for a boiler and heat exchangers and a separate electrical room. The ro of will be constructed out of precast concrete planks with steel beams supported by interior steel columns and the exterior CMU bearing/shear walls. The ground floo r slab will be a cast-in-place concrete slab with concrete beams supported by inte rior concrete columns and the exterior concrete walls. The foundation of the building will be a soil-supported concrete mat.

6.3.9.3 Existing Process Building Modifications (OPTION 2 ONLY) Under Option 2, the existing Process Building will be modified to house new proc ess and HVAC equipment. The portion of the Process Building where this work is being done has two levels below ground and one level above ground. The lower level of the building is constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls and base slab . The ground floor and the roof are both constructed of cast-in-place reinforced slabs and beams. New HVAC equipment will be hung from the existing roof. New pumps, a boiler, and heat exchangers will be supported on the existing floor slab. In the headwor ks portion of the building, new mechanical bar screens, new screenings washers, and new screening conveyors will be installed. The existing structural elements will be analyzed for their ability to support t he new loads from the new equipment in accordance with the building code. If necessary, reinforcement for the existing structural elements will be provided. A new one-story screenings garage will be built to the east of the headworks por tion of the existing Process Building. The new garage will be approximately 16 x 25 x 16 high. It will have a cast-in-place concrete roof, supported by concrete beams an d columns, and a soil-supported perimeter foundation wall with spread footings. Th e ground floor will be a concrete slab-on-grade. The new garage structure will be structurally independent from the existing structure so no loads will be transmi tted to the existing structure. Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-24 6.3.9.4 New Pump Room and Pipe Tunnel (OPTION 2 ONLY) Under Option 2, a cast-in-place reinforced concrete building will be constructed between the two digesters. The building will have one level below ground, with t he bottom slab at approximately the same level as the high point of the digesters ba se mat. The lower level will house recirculation pumps, mixing pumps and belt filte r press feed pumps. The top slab will be a cast-in-place concrete slab with concre te beams supported by interior concrete columns and the exterior concrete walls. Th e foundation of the building will be a concrete mat. The walls of the building can not be common with the digesters walls, so a double wall will be provided at the digeste rs. The inner wall will be constructed of CMU. There will be a stairway from the top slab down to the lower level, and an enclosure for the stairway shall be provided on the top slab. The enclosure will be constructed of CMU bearing walls with a cast-inplace concrete roof slab. Also under Option 2, piping from the digester will run within a below-grade pipe tunnel. The tunnel will run from the pump room to the existing Process Building

and will have interior dimensions of approximately 8-feet wide x 10-feet high. The n ew tunnel will be constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls, top slab, and bottom slab, and will be soil supported. Where the new tunnel meets up with the existing Process Building, a new opening will have to be created in the foundati on wall of the existing building, and a watertight connection from the new tunnel w alls to the existing building walls will be provided. 6.3.9.5 New Digester Gas Holder A new digester gas holder will be provided in the yard. The digester gas holder will consist of a membrane cover supported by cast-in-place concrete walls, with a so ilsupported cast-in-place concrete base mat. The gas holder is anticipated to be approximately 50 feet in diameter with 15-foot high concrete walls. The gas hold er will also provide storage for sludge. 6.3.9.6 New Gas Control Building The new gas control building will be approximately 12-ft x 20-ft in plan. The superstructure will consist of CMU bearing walls and a precast concrete roof. It shall be supported by perimeter wall footings. The ground floor will be a concrete sla b-ongrade. 6.3.9.7 New Waste Gas Burner Foundation The waste gas burner and associated piping will be supported by a soil supported cast-in-place concrete mat foundation. 6.3.9.8 New Gas Treatment Skid The gas safety equipment will be located on an exterior soil-supported concrete mat foundation. It will be covered by a pre-engineered steel canopy, which will be Section 6 Architectural and Structural Considerations A 6-25 supported on the same mat foundation. The canopy dimensions will be approximately 24-ft x 40-ft. 6.3.9.9 New Cogeneration Equipment Foundation The cogeneration equipment will be supported by a soil supported cast-in-place concrete mat foundation. This page intentionally left blank. A 7-1 5816-72780 Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions This section describes the support functions and facilities including the sites e lectrical distribution system. This section summarizes existing conditions, recommended upgrades and improvements to these support functions. 7.1 Electrical Systems 7.1.1 Electrical System Overview The existing wastewater treatment plant electrical distribution system was insta lled in the early 1970s during the construction of the facility. In general the distribu tion equipment appears to be in good working condition, however, it should be noted t hat the average useful life of the electrical equipment including cables is approxim ately

2530 years and this useful life has been reached. This section of the report details the existing electrical system, identifies ar eas of vulnerability and presents recommendations for improvements and replacements. Section 7.1.2 discusses the existing electrical distribution system configuratio n. Section 7.1.3 indicates observed problems including common mode failure points, reliability issues, NEC violations and capacity issues as well as observed areas of vulnerabilities. Section 7.1.4 presents the recommended upgrades and improvement s. Lastly, Section 7.1.5 includes a discussion of area classifications throughout t he plant as defined by NFPA 820. 7.1.2 Existing Electrical System Refer to Figure 7-1 for an overall one-line diagram of the existing electrical distribution system. Note that Figure 7-1 includes a proposed layout for the new 480V switchboard required in Task II. 7.1.2.1 Utility Service Electrical service to the LAWPCA facility is provided by Central Maine Power Co. (CMP). A 12kV primary feeder runs overhead along Lincoln Street to a service ris er pole located on the Northeast side of the Administration Building. The primary f eeder extends underground from this location to three utility-owned 500 kVA single pha se transformers located in an enclosed area on the South side of the Administration Building. The transformers are configured to provide 1500 kVA with a secondary voltage of 480/277V, 3-phase, 4-wire, 60Hz. The secondary conductors are run underground from the transformers to a LAWPCA-owned 2000-amp switchboard located in the Main Electrical Room. The CMP service has secondary meters on the 480V conductor s in the main switchboard. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-2 A 7.1.2.2 Existing Distribution System The existing electrical distribution system at the WWTP has remained essentially intact over the last 40 years since the original construction contract in 1970 w ith upgrades as necessary to support upgraded process equipment. As shown in Figure 7-1, the distribution system extends from the existing 480V m ain switchboard to local motor control centers (MCC) located in various process area s throughout the plant to serve the plant process and mechanical loads. The MCCs a nd process loads are fed from a single bus in the 480V switchboard. This arrangemen t does not meet the EPA Class II reliability requirements for the Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery project. 7.1.3 Electrical Observations and Vulnerability 7.1.3.1 General This section addresses issues of vulnerability within the existing electrical di stribution system as it relates to age of the equipment, susceptibility to common mode fail ure and overall level of reliability and redundancy.

7.1.3.2 Conditions As mentioned above, the existing electrical distribution system has remained essentially intact over the last approximately 40 years. It should be noted that the average useful life of the electrical equipment including cables is approximatel y 2530 years. Therefore, many of the components (e.g., circuit breakers, contactors, transformers, etc.) may be worn beyond the manufacturers recommended limits. It is not unreasonable to expect an increase of failures above normal levels of mainte nance as the equipment is extended beyond its anticipated life cycle. Most of the equipment was observed to be in fair physical condition. Motor Contr ol Centers were noted in process or mechanical areas subjected to moisture, excessi ve heat and other environmental conditions that are detrimental to the equipment. Additionally, several areas do not comply with the latest NFPA 820 requirements for area classifications, placing general duty electrical equipment in hazardous loc ations. 7.1.3.3 Reliability and Redundancy There are several points within the electrical distribution system that are susc eptible to common mode failures. Common mode failure is a point within the electrical distribution system where a single failure results in the complete loss of criti cal processes or pumping systems. Areas of vulnerability are summarized below: The 480V switchboard located in the main electrical room is approaching 40 years old. The switchboard contains an automatic transfer switch without a bypass mechanism. A failure or fault on the transfer switch would render the entire Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-3 facility inoperable. Additionally the standby generator is located within the sa me room as the switchboard. A failure resulting in significant damage (e.g., fire) to the generator could be fatal to the switchboard. Again resulting in loss of operability to the aforementioned equipment regardless of commercial power availability. The main switchboard supplies power to MCC-3 located in the Pump Room. A single failure or fault on the MCC bus would render the plants influent pumping capabilities inoperable. The switchboard also supplies power to the balance of the MCCs located in various process areas throughout the plant. A single failure or fault on any MCC bus would render that area of the plant inoperable, including the Pump & Pipe Gallery, Control Building, and the Solids Processing Area. The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA), technical bulletin 430, Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical, and Fluid System and Component Reliability requires the electrical system be sufficient to operate all vital components, dur ing peak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting and ventilation to maintain Class I or Class II reliability. As indicated above, the existing el ectrical distribution system is configured with a single feeder to each of the critical p rocess areas of the treatment facility. This configuration does not meet the EPAs requirements for reliability and redundancy in the electrical distribution syste

m. 7.1.4 Recommendations and Improvements 7.1.4.1 General Recommendations made in this report are tailored to meet the needs of the proces s upgrades indicated in Task I: Thickening System and in Task II: Anaerobic Digest ion System and do not specifically address the reliability and redundancy issues rel ated to the existing distribution system. The improvements to the electrical distribution system are recommended in order to accomplish the following goals: Provide sufficient capacity within the distribution system to accommodate the plants identified process expansions and upgrades. Correct identified code violations (NEC 2008 Edition). It is desirable to have the electrical equipment especially solid state electron ics such as variable frequency drives installed inside climate controlled rooms due to he at dissipation and the environment surrounding the facility. Therefore, the Sludge Thickening Room and Digester Building are recommended to have dedicated electrical rooms. Refer to Figure 7-2 for the proposed electrical one-line diagr ams for these areas. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-4 A Life safety systems will be designed in accordance with all applicable codes. In general life safety systems will consist of emergency egress lighting, fire alar m, and combustible gas/ventilation failure alarm systems. The existing fire alarm syste m will be extended as necessary in accordance with NFPA 72. Emergency egress lighting will be provided in accordance with NFPA 101 and the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code to maintain required illumination of all emergency egre ss paths affected by the upgraded facilities. Emergency lighting shall also be prov ided near all new equipment (e.g., MCC, Switchboard, Generators, etc.) that need to b e accessed to restore normal power. Additional emergency lighting can be provided in process critical areas as defined by the process engineers and directed by the o wner. The combustible gas detection and ventilation failure alarm systems shall be ins talled in accordance with NFPA 820. It is important to note that the new cogen generato rs installed at this facility will be suitable for stand-by power only and shall no t be considered to be life safety or emergency equipment. Electrical conduits and underground raceway systems will be installed to accommodate and support SCADA system modifications as necessary. 7.1.4.2 Sludge Thickening System Replacement The Sludge Thickening Room shall be upgraded to include a new dedicated electric al space to accommodate Motor Control Center MCC-2, as well as the variable frequency drive units, process control PLC cabinets and other miscellaneous elec trical

equipment. The new electrical room is to be located on the First Floor on the No rth end of the existing Sludge Thickening Room and will house existing electrical equipment currently located in that space as well as new and upgraded equipment. Due to the age and reliability of existing MCC-2, the motor control center will be replaced with a new MCC to serve the new gravity belt thickeners, TWAS pumps, polymer systems, and HVAC equipment, as well as, miscellaneous existing process and HVAC equipment scheduled to remain in operation. In general the improvements will be a complete electrical renovation of the area and include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Demolition of the existing DAF units and associated mechanical equipment. New conduit and wiring associated with the Task I process equipment referenced above, including variable frequency drives specified for the Thickened WAS pumps. New lighting and small power systems will be installed in the upgraded process areas and new electrical room. Miscellaneous electrical upgrades including, HVAC, plumbing, instrumentation and alarm systems will be made in the Sludge Thickening Room. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-5 7.1.4.3 Anaerobic Digestion Layout Option 1 Anaerobic Digester Option 1 includes a new Digester Building located between the digester tanks. Under this option, a new motor control center (MCC-6) will be ho used in an electrical Room located on the buildings Upper Level with exterior access t o isolate the electrical equipment from the process areas. MCC-6 will serve the sl udge recirculation pumps, mixing pumps for the digesters and sludge storage tank, bel t filter press feed pumps, boiler, hot water pumps and HVAC equipment as shown in Figure 7-2. The Anaerobic Digester phase of this project includes a component for energy recovery and cogeneration. As such, the incoming service requires modification a s referenced in Paragraph 7.1.4.5 to include a new 480 Volt Switchgear in an outdo or, NEMA 3R, enclosure. Modifications to the existing electrical service to accommod ate the new switchgear are required under both Option 1 and Option 2. Electrical work under this option includes: New feeders via underground raceways from the new 480 Volt outdoor switchgear to MCC-6 in the Digester Building Electrical Room. Conduit and wiring associated with the process and HVAC equipment referenced above to serve the new Anaerobic Digesters. Conduit and wiring associated with lighting, small power and support systems will be installed in the Digester Building. Conduit and wiring for instrumentation and control, combustible gas detection, ventilation failure alarm and fire alarm systems. 7.1.4.4 Anaerobic Digestion Layout Option 2 Anaerobic Digester Option 2 makes provisions for installing new process equipmen t in the existing Screenings garage, as shown on Figure 4-4, and includes modifica tions to the Screenings area. Under this option, a new motor control center (MCC-6) wi ll be housed in the Sludge Thickening Electrical Room referenced in Paragraph 6.1.4.4

above. New MCC-6 will serve the new digester recirculation pumps, digester and storage tank mixing pumps, belt filter press feed pumps, boiler, hot water pumps and HVAC equipment as shown in Figure 7-2. Electrical work under this option includes: New feeders via underground and overhead raceways from the new 480 Volt outdoor switchgear to MCC-6 in the Sludge Thickening Electrical Room. New conduit and wiring associated with the process and HVAC equipment referenced above to serve the new Anaerobic Digesters. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-6 A New Conduit and wiring to support modifications to the existing Screenings removal areas. Modifications include but are not limited to new lighting and sma ll power systems, combustible gas detection and fire alarm systems and HVAC. 7.1.4.5 Utility Service, Main Switchgear and Cogeneration To accommodate the cogeneration component of this project, as well as improve th e reliability of the electrical distribution system, a new main switchgear and two CHP generators are to be provided to serve the existing wastewater treatment plant a nd new Anaerobic Digesters. The new main switchgear shall be a low-voltage (480-Volt), metal enclosed construction in a NEMA 3R weatherproof walk-in enclosure and shall be located on the South side of the Administration Building near the utility transformers. The switchgear shall be arranged in a Main-Tie-Main configuration with the normal power (i.e., utility feed) main and the tie breaker normally closed. The circuit breakers supporting the new cogen generators will be normally closed when the generators are in operation, paralleling with the utility power source. The switchgear shall be furnished with auto-transfer controls configured for closed-transition between t he utility and cogen generator sources. The switchgear shall also include a breaker to connect the facilitys existing standby generator for use during a loss of utility power. During a power outage, the automatic transfer control will open the tie breaker to isolate the bus between the standby generator and the new cogen generators, and close the standby generator breaker to allow the standby generator to power the existing plant load. Additionally, the transfer system controls shall be furnish ed with Auto-Manual-Semi-Auto control select-ability. This provides the plant operators with additional operating and maintenance flexibility within the system. The distribu tion sections of the switchgear shall be individually mounted, draw-out type power breakers. Refer to Figure 7-1 for the proposed switchgear one line diagram. The existing generator located in the Main Electrical Room is a 750 kVA, 600 kW, standby rated generator. Based on peak demand information received from the util ity company, the average monthly peak demand at the facility is approximately 650 kW with a high monthly peak demand of 817 kW in August 2008. Under current conditions the existing standby generator will not support a sustained power out age under peak operating conditions. Each new generator for cogeneration shall be a 480 volt, 220 kW unit factory mou

nted within a weatherproof enclosure. The generators shall be located adjacent to the new main switchgear to limit the distance of the 480 volt cables required for the interconnection. 7.1.4.6 Electrical Distribution System Recommendations Consistent with the double-ended (i.e., two electrical buses configured in a mai n-tiemain configuration) configuration of the main switchgear, the downstream feeders to each new double-ended motor control centers shall be derived from the A and B Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-7 Busses of the main switchgear respectively. The cables shall be sized to accommo date the full demand load of a motor control center series (e.g., MCC-6A and 6B) unde r a single ended condition. 7.1.5 Hazardous Areas The classification of hazardous areas will be made in accordance with the latest edition of NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Co llection Facilities. The process mechanical engineers will determine the types and levels of vapors that could be present in each space. Table 7-1 indicates the Building and type of area, the applicable NFPA table number, the design classification determinati on and the applicable notes regarding extents of classifications and fire protectio n measures required for process areas affected under the proposed upgrade. The determinations included in Table 7-1 are based upon discussions and coordination with the Process and HVAC engineers. Any modifications to the area classificatio ns will be coordinated between all disciplines involved during design. It should be noted that the hazardous classifications indicated in Table 7-1 and shown on Area Classification Drawing E-3 reflect current Code requirements and do not reflect requirements in place at the time the facility was built. 7.2 Instrumentation and Control 7.2.1 General This section establishes general concepts and the criteria necessary for the des ign requirements of the proposed digestion and Cogen Control Panels and associated Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) into the plant-wide Supervisory Control an d Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The modified SCADA system will allow monitoring and control of the newly installed systems to be operated from the existing control room in the Administration Building from a pair of redundant SCADA Nodes. 7.2.2 Objectives The goal of the instrumentation and control system is to provide effective monit oring and control of the system processes and associated plant equipment. The system w ill provide operations and maintenance as well as management the information necessary to operate the thickening and Cogen systems in an efficient and effect ive manner. The system will be flexible and easy for plant personnel to use. Section 7

Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A Area Code Reference Design Ventilation Elec. Classification Gas Detection/ Ventilation Failure Notes New Digestion Structures Anerobic Digesters NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a) Row 15a Not Enclosed - open to atmosphere Class I, Division 1 NReq N1 Digester Building Lower Level NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a) Row 9a,16c None or less than 6 ACH Class I, Division 2 CGD Digester Building Upper Level N/A None or less than 6 ACH Unclassified NReq N7 Digester Building Electrical Room NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a) Row 9a,16c None or less than 6 ACH Unclassified NReq Gas Safety Equipment Building NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a) Row 16b None or less than 12 ACH Class I, Division 1 CGD N3 Existing Process Building Existing Process Building - First Floor (excluding Sludge Thickening Room) NFPA 820 - Table 4.2 Row 16a, Table 5.2 Row 1a None or less than 12 ACH Class I, Division 1 CGD N4 Existing Process Building Sludge Thickening Room NFPA 820 - Table 6.2(a) Row 12a N/A Unclassified NReq N5 Existing Process Building - New Electrical Room N/A N/A Unclassified NReq N6 CGD: Combustible Gas Detection FDS: Fire Detection System NReq : Not Required ACH: Air Changes Per Hour VF: Ventilation Failure N1: Space hazardous classification extends 10 ft. above the highest point of the cover and 5 ft. from any wall. N2: Space hazardous classification has been reduced with continuous ventilation rate as indicated and physical separation from the digesters. Ventilation system monitoring is required. N3: This space is not being declassified with ventilation. Equipment shall be ra ted for hazardous classification indicated. N4: The corridors and space outside the New Sludge Thickening Room is classified Class 1, Div. 1 due to open access to the Influent Wetwell and Screenings Room. N5: Fire alarm system is required. N6: The Electrical Room opens into the Sludge Thickening Room and the Loading do ck, Ventilation rates are not set by NFPA 820. N7: The upper level of the Digester Building is physically separated from the sl udge pumping area below and is therefore unclassified. Table 7-1 LAWPCA Facility Area Classification Summary Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-9 The project design objective is to provide instrumentation and a monitoring and control system that will:

Provide automation capability and flexibility to allow the plant to be operated with current staff; Provide enhance reliability; Use existing SCADA infrastructure and current available technology efficiently; Provide component standardization and modularity; Provide a common operator interface for in-plant usage; Provide a maintenance tool by analyzing trend data; Provide the capability to minimize power consumption; and Minimize operating and maintenance costs. 7.2.3 Control System Description The digestion and Cogen systems will incorporate a PLC and operator interface terminal (OIT) based control system that interfaces with the plants SCADA system. The plants SCADA system architecture will be modified to accept the new control panels and comply with industry standards that utilize standard operating and communication systems used at the plant. The system design will provide a high degree of flexibility and accommodate future expansion. Vendor based systems include: Thickening and Associated Pumping Systems; Gas Cleaning Skid System; Cogeneration Engines; Heat Exchanging Systems; Gas storage system; and Waste gas burner system. In this work, CDM will interface the Digestion and Cogen System with the plants existing Belt Filter Press System in either a hardwired or networked configurati on for monitoring and control by SCADA. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-10 A 7.2.3.1 Field Instrumentation Field instrumentation provides the SCADA system with the information to continuously monitor and alarm various processes, control and protect equipment, trend process parameters and provide information for reporting purposes. Additio n of new instrumentation and modification to existing system instruments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. CDM recommends the following: Field instruments that are no longer working should be replaced with new instruments that will properly measure the process and are easy to maintain; Instruments that seem to be working should also be replaced if the technology used is obsolete or the instrument life expectancy has expired or will expire in the near future; Instruments that seem to be functional but only need recalibration should be reused; Instrumentation should be added to the process where it would help in monitoring and controlling the process; and/or New instrumentation will be added to new process equipment and pipelines where required. All motorized equipment will be designed with Hand/Off/Auto (HOA) or Local/Off/Remote (LOR) switches so that the equipment can be operated manually or remotely. Manual operation without the SCADA system or vendor PLC will be possible provided that no hardwired interlocks are active. 7.2.3.2 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and Operator Interface Terminals (OITSs) The Plants existing SCADA system will be modified to communicate with the Sludge Thickening and Cogen Systems Control Panels and other vendor system control panels that provide both automatic and manual control for each system. Each cont rol panel will incorporate a PLC that will monitor digester levels, digester gas pre

ssure and flow, thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS) tank levels, pumping equipment status, heat exchange systems, boiler status, generator engine status, and other process variables automatically to pre-set operator set points. The PLCs will be able to start and stop equipment and monitor the status of that equipment based upon control interlocks or operator intervention. The PLCs will be located in NEMA-rated panels as required per the area environmental requirements. Each PLC will consist of an Allen-Bradley SLC 5/05 central processing unit (CPU) equipped with the necessary communication modules, input/output (I/O) modules and power supplies. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-11 OITs will be provided in for both the Thickening and Cogen Control Panels as a means of controlling the system independently from SCADA in the event the SCADA System goes down. The new OITs will meet or exceed the functionality of the OITs currently installed at the plant and will likely be of the same manufacturer as the newly installed PLCs. The OITs will provide alpha-numerical and graphical monitoring and control of system set-points, operational modes, process variable s, and system equipment. The PLCs will perform the data gathering and process control functions and communicate the collected information to the OITs and OWSs / HMIs for display, control, alarming, trending and printing (TBD). The PLCs will also respond to co ntrol commands and set points from both local OITs and the redundant SCADA PCs. 7.2.3.3 OWS (Operator Workstation) The operator will access the SCADA system via the existing Operator Workstations OWSs located in the plants control room. The OWSs are a redundant pair of SCADA Nodes designed to operate in a Microsoft Windows-type environment. Via window displays, each OWS will allow plant operating personnel to view multiple windows of information simultaneously on a single screen. The operator will be provided with the same graphics at each OWS. The graphic screens will allow the operator to control the process equipment associated with the new Thickening and Cogen Systems as well as any pre-existing plant system. The OWS will permit entry of operator set-points, selection of operational modes, monitoring of process variables and equipment status, and alarm annunciation. Th e OWS / HMI will manipulate and store all the data required for monitoring and rep ort generation in each of the redundant SCADA Nodes databases. The data will be used for shift, daily, monthly, and annual reports, and gas usage reports. The graphic displays will include detail for control and monitoring of every pro cess parameter and equipment in a manner that lends itself to the natural breaks of t he particular process. The graphic displays may include: index displays, single poi nt displays for variable and contact process inputs, process graphic displays, grou p review displays, digital trend displays, analog trend displays, and alarm summar y displays. All displays will contain the date and time of day and list all proces s values in engineering units. Index displays will be provided as a guide to the availabl e display options.

All graphic screen and displays will be available on all the OWSs. However, the system will have the capability to limit control and/or viewing through security , based on operator log-in. All the screens and displays will be password protecte d in that only certain individuals can control equipment, change set points, etc. fro m the display screens. The system will perform the following general functions: Collect information from the Thickening and Cogen System PLCs; Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-12 A Maintain an updated database of all system data; Check all process inputs against pre-set high, low, and deviation values; Display the collected information in pre-configured displays; Scan all status and alarm values and alert the operator to alarm conditions through visual, audible, and printed messages (TBD); Respond to operator commands for displays, printouts (TBD), data entry, and alarm and control settings; Store data for display on real-time or historical trends; Send current and shift report data, system documentation, and alarm messages to the printer (TBD); Perform continuous internal error checking and diagnostics of all data transfer and system operation; and Provide process control for analog and logic functions. 7.2.3.4 Network and Supporting Systems The PLCs, OWSs / HMIs and printers (TBD) will communicate using a fiber optic Ethernet local area network (LAN) in a start configuration. All PLCs will be sta ndalone units, so that process control can continue at the PLC level without interruptio n due to network failure. The Thickener and Cogen System Control Panels and other new vendor control panels will be each provided with an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). The UPS systems will provide continuous power conditioning and battery back-up power in case of normal power failure. Each UPS system will be equipped with an automatic static switch which will switch to normal power in the event of a UPS failure. T he UPS will come equipped with an external maintenance bypass switch which will allow the maintenance operator to switch to normal power if servicing the UPS is required. Each UPS will communicate back to the PLC system certain status conditions and alarms via discrete dry contact outputs at the UPS. CDM will schedule a site visit to determine if there is any existing UPS providi ng power to the redundant SCADA Nodes. If there is no UPS, CDM will include SCADA UPS backup in its design. We will determine if there is a printer that ser ves the SCADA Nodes for alarm, trending, and report printing. 7.2.4 Naming Convention Prior to the start of the design, a naming convention for the new equipment will be established for the Sludge Thickening, Cogen and other new systems. Instrument Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-13 tagging will follow ISA standards as established in the International Society of Automation (ISA) standard, Library for Measurement and Control: Volume I. Existing plant equipment and instruments will not be assigned a new loop number and tags if unless there is a conflict/duplication of a tag number. 7.2.4.1 New Loop Numbers

A meeting between CDM and LAWPCA shall take place before the 60 percent design submittal in order to finalize loop numbers and designations for their assigned areas. 7.2.4.2 Instrument Tags New loop numbers will be combined with an ISA instrumentation functional code to make a tag. The ISA code shall be a prefix to the loop numbers. Examples are as follows: Instrument or Device ISA Code Combined Tag Level Indicating Transmitter LIT LIT-1000 Hand Switch HS HS-1100 Flow Element FE FE-1200 When several similar instruments or devices are on, or related to the same piece of equipment, an alpha loop suffix shall be added to the tag. Examples are as follo ws: Instrument or Device ISA Code Combined Tag High Temperature Switch TSH TSH-2000A High Temperature Switch TSH TSH-2000B 7.2.4.3 Mechanical Equipment Tags All mechanical equipment, tanks, motors, pumps, and VFDs shall have the same loo p number as the hand switches and instruments that are associated with that piece of equipment. The process and mechanical engineers using CDM standards shall determine the mechanical equipment abbreviations used in the equipment tag. Examples are as follows: Instrument or Device ISA Code Equipment Equipment Tag Hand Switch HS-3000 Motor M-3000 Level Transmitter LT-3100 Tank TK-3100 Hand Switch HS-3200 Pump P-3200 Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-14 A 7.2.4.4 Description Tags The equipment and instrument descriptions associated with the equipment or instrument tag shall be the same throughout all discipline drawings. The descrip tions will also be shown on the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) beneath th e equipment item. The process and mechanical engineers, using CDM standards, shall determine the mechanical equipment abbreviations used in the descriptions. Examples are as follows: Full Name Abbreviation Returned Activated Sludge RAS Waste Activated Sludge WAS 7.2.4.5 Control Panel Tags All vendor panels, PLC panels, etc., shall be assigned a name tag. The name tag shall be assigned by the proper discipline engineers and shall be used throughout all discipline drawings. Once the panel name tag is assigned, it shall be used on al l drawings, lists and memoranda associated with that panel. Tag names for the new Thickening and Cogen Control Panels are: Thickening Control Panel THKCP Cogen Control Panel COCP 7.2.5 Control Philosophy Control will be done through a hierarchical layer concept. The following is an example of the hierarchical control layers: 1. The lowest layer of control, local control, is at that piece of equipment or that

piece of equipments panel or drive. At the equipment, there will be an HOA or LOR switch. When that switch is placed in the hand or local position, the associated equipment can be controlled locally. 2. The next layer, if necessary, will be at a vendor supplied PLC panel. When th e HOA or LOR switch at the equipment is placed in auto or remote, control is transferred to this panel. When control is placed in local at the vendors PLC, via a touch screen or switches, control can be done at this panel. 3. The next layer, the highest layer of control, is by the SCADA system via its associated OWS / HMI. When the lower layer is placed in auto or remote, control is transferred to the PLC. Control of the equipment can now be done via the OWS / HMI if the PLC program allows it. Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions A 7-15 Most control will be designed for only two layers; at the piece of equipment and at the PLC system. Process equipment supplied with vendor package control systems may have multiple layers of control. 7.2.6 SCADA System Design Once the naming convention has been established, P&IDs will be developed for the process areas. The P&IDs will show process equipment and flow piping as well as how the new process equipment is linked to both the Vendor Control Panels and th e Thickener and Cogen PLC-Based Control Panels. An overall Control System Architecture (CSA) drawing will be developed showing how the various SCADA equipment is connected. The drawing will show the existing plant-wide fiber optic Ethernet star network modified to communicate with the Thickener and Cogen PLC-Based Control Panels. The CSA will indicate the existing redundant SCADA Nodes, and the existing PLC-Based control panels and OITs located throughout the plant. 7.2.7 Summary Recommendations The following summarizes the recommendations for improvements to the instrumentation and control system at the Lewiston/Auburn WPCA: Vendor Based Control Panels will be provided for the following systems: Thickening and Associated Pumping Systems Gas Cleaning Skid System Generator Engines Heat Exchanging Systems Gas storage system Waste gas burner Modification of Plants high-speed, fiber optic, Ethernet star network will link t he PLC & OIT Based Thickener and Cogen Control Panels. Process Control System Supplier Panels (PLC & OIT Based) that interface with I/O from Vendor Panels and other associated instrumentation which communicates with the modified Plant SCADA System: One Thickener System Panel One Cogen System Panel Section 7 Electrical and Instrumentation Functions 7-16 A Existing plant instruments will be replaced on a case-by-case basis. Instrumentation should be added to the process where there is a lack of instrumentation and to any new process equipment/lines if required. Details of the above SCADA system will be developed during final design.

A 8-1 5816-72780 Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions 8.1 HVAC 8.1.1 General CDM staff visited the LAWPCA facility and inspected the existing heating, ventil ating and air conditioning systems as related to the Anaerobic Digestion / Energy Reco very project. Based on these field observations, a review of the original facility de sign documents and based on current codes and industrial standards, CDM has established criteria for the project design. The criteria include the following standards and codes: International Mechanical Code; 2008 Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities (NFPA 820); and American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (ASHRAE). 8.1.2 Design Conditions The HVAC design system should be based on winter outdoor temperature of -1F (99.0 percent occurrence) and summer outdoor temperature of 83F dry bulb and 73F wet bulb (1.0 percent occurrence). The proposed process areas associated with th is project should be ventilated in summer (no air conditioning) and heated in the w inter to 55F. In areas where it is required to dissipate heat gains from the electric motors a nd other equipment, ventilation should be provided to hold a difference of 10F above the summer outdoor temperature. All ventilation rate and gas monitoring used for process areas should conform to NFPA 820. Containment should be provided to prevent escape of odorous air to non odorous spaces, maintaining the odorous areas under negative pressure relative to surrounding spaces. 8.1.3 Demolition The sludge thickening system replacement work associated with both facility layo ut options requires that the existing HVAC system ductwork supplying conditioned ai r to the corridor and thickener area be relocated in order not to interfere with t he construction of new wall between the corridor and thickener area. Additionally, under Layout Option 2, the following HVAC demolition work would be required: Relocate exhaust fan EF-14 (exhaust from sludge holding tank area), reroute the ductwork; Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions 8-2 A Relocate HV-4 (supply to sludge holding tank area), relocate associated ductwork ; and HV-5 in the Grit/Screening area should be removed and the associated supply air ductwork demolished. 8.1.4 New Work HVAC considerations associated with the new work required by the various components of the project include the following: 8.1.4.1 Thickening System Replacement

Existing Process Building As discussed earlier in this report, the sludge thickening system replacement wo rk associated with both facility layout options requires that the thickener area be isolated from the remainder of the process areas due to electrical code classification re asons. As such, this new isolated process area will need to be provided with new a HVAC system consisting of a ceiling suspended air handling unit (HV-1) and associated ductwork. The unit should be sized to hold a space temperature 10F above the outdoor temperature during the summer months and at least to provide six air changes per hour to the thickener area in the event this rate of air flow is req uired to control interior odors. Under normal conditions the unit would be designed to ut ilize approximately 25 percent of outside air. Despite this, the ductwork would be siz ed to handle 100 percent outdoor air in the event this were deemed appropriate by operations staff and/or a future odor control system is installed to control ext erior odors from this new space. An air lock providing separation between the corridor and thickener areas should be provided and supplied with air at a rate to assure its pressurization. The air l ock should be pressurized positively in relation to the thickener and corridor areas . The operation of the unit HV-1 should be monitored remotely. A flow switch would provide a signal to a remote monitoring unit. The Electrical Room required for this new equipment should be heated and ventila ted by a separate unit HV-2 at a rate to hold the space temperature 10F above the outdoor temperature. During final design, heating capacity of the existing boilers would need to be examined to determine whether they can provide for any additional heating loads associated with these modifications. 8.1.4.2 Anaerobic Digestion Project Layout Option 1 New Digester Building Due to code requirements, the lower level equipment room (sludge pump room) will be isolated from the upper level rooms and will be ventilated by a separate air handling unit to be located on the roof of the new structure. Winter heating wou ld be Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions A 8-3 provided and summer ventilation rates would be provided to hold a difference of 10F above the outdoor temperature. Based on a preliminary estimate, the lower lev el space would likely be heated using three explosion proof wall mounted electric u nit heaters. The upper level equipment room (boiler and heat exchanger area) should be heated by three standard electric unit heaters and ventilated by a roof or ceiling moun ted air handling unit. The upper level electrical room should be heated by a standard electric unit hea ter. A wall exhaust fan would be used to ventilate the space while outside air would be introduced into the Electrical Room through a wall louver. New Gas Safety Equipment Building

As this space would be considered a Class 1 Division 1 area, the building should b e heated and ventilated by an explosion proof electric heater and wall exhaust fan . A supply air louver would be installed in the exterior wall. 8.1.4.3 Anaerobic Digestion Project Layout Option 2 Existing Process Building Thickening Equipment Room HVAC equipment should be the same as described under Section 8.1.4.1 with a few exceptions. Supply ductwork and exterior louver shall be sized for six air chang es per hour, but with the assumption that 75 percent of the supplied air should be recirculated. Existing Process Building Digester Equipment Room The new digester equipment area designed to house the heat exchangers and sludge boiler should be provided with a new rooftop heating and ventilating unit and ne w ductwork sized for summer ventilation rates sufficient to hold a difference of 1 0F above the outdoor temperature. The unit heating coil would be heated by low pressure steam from the existing boiler room. Steam condensate would flow by gravity to a duplex condensate receiver and should be pumped to the boiler room. It is also recommended that an exhaust air louver be installed in the exterior wall to relieve excess air from the space. Existing Process Building New Below Grade Digester Equipment Area Under layout option 2, the new below grade sludge pumping area would be provided with a penthouse to allow the introduction of outside air and to provide for the exhaust. This area would be heated by approximately three explosion proof electr ic unit heaters and ventilated by a ceiling mounted air handling unit. The unit sho uld be sized for six air changes per hour; under normal conditions 75 percent of the ai r should be recirculated while the unit would also be designed to provide 100 perc ent outside air as necessary. The unit heating coil should be supplied with low pres sure steam from the existing boilers. The condensate should be collected by a receive r and pumped back into the boiler room. As previously noted, the heating capacity of t he Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions 8-4 A boilers should be examined during final design to determine whether they can provide for additional heating loads. Existing Process Building Intake Screening Area This area should be provided with a new rooftop heating and ventilating unit and new ductwork, sized to ventilate the space at the rate of 6 air changes per hour . An exhaust air louver should be installed in the exterior wall to relieve the exces s air from the space. The unit heating coil should be heated by low pressure steam from the existing boiler room. Steam condensate from the Equipment and Screening Areas should be collected and pumped by the same condensate receiver to the boiler roo m. Existing Process Building New Screenings Garage The garage should be heated by approximately two unit heaters located adjacent t o

the overhead door. The unit heaters should be electric, explosion proof type. New Gas Safety Equipment Building As this space would be considered a Class 1 Division 1 electrically, the building should be heated and ventilated by an explosion proof electric heater and wall exhaust fan. A supply air louver would be installed in the exterior wall. 8.2 Plumbing This section describes support functions and facilities for plumbing and fire protection. The section summarizes the status and recommended upgrades and improvements to these support functions. 8.2.1 General The design of the plumbing and fire protection systems should be based upon the applicable codes and standards, including the following: Uniform Plumbing Code 2000; International Building Code; International Fire Code; and NFPA Requirements, latest adopted editions. 8.2.2 Demolition Though Layout Option 1 would not require any significant plumbing demolition work, in the event Option 2 were pursued, the following retrofit/demolition work would be required to create room for the new digestion equipment area: Remove plumbing fixtures (toilet, urinal, sink); Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions A 8-5 Remove piping: 1/2-inch HW, 1-1/4-inch CW with risers from fixtures; remove 4-inch vent with the riser; and Cap one floor cleanout and four sanitary pipe risers at the floor level. 8.2.3 New Work 8.2.3.1 Anaerobic Digestion Project Layout Option 1 New Digester Building Domestic water service will be brought into the new building along with a new wa ter meter and back flow preventer. Plant water would also be distributed to upper an d lower level of the building. Though it is expected that bathroom facilities will not be required for this new building, sanitary waste and vent piping will be provided for plumbing fixtures, floor and equipment drains. The upper and lower level equipment rooms would be supplied with hose bibs, slop sink(s) and a seal water system if required for op eration of the sludge pumps. In addition, depending on the final elevations of the new structure with respect to existing local sewer manholes, a sewage ejector statio n may be required to pump out the waste water from the floor and equipment drains. If tepid water is requested by LAWPCA for use at the slop sink(s), this domestic water would likely be heated through the use of a small storage-type electric hot wate r heater. This heater would be required to be located within the upper level due t o electrical code classification considerations. Gas Safety Equipment Building Plumbing fixtures and piping are not required for this building. 8.2.3.2 Anaerobic Digestion Project Layout Option 2 Existing Process Building Existing Spaces The existing plumbing piping consisting of plant water supply to hose bibs shoul d remain and/or be expanded as necessary to serve the modified process spaces with in

this building. It is also likely that the retrofitted process areas within this building will be capable of utilizing the existing floor drain systems. Existing Process Building New Below Grade Digester Equipment Area Plant and domestic water should be extended to this new sludge pumping area for the purpose of serving hose bibs and seal water systems. In addition, the area s hould be provided with floor drains. Depending on final design elevations, a duplex sewage ejector may also be required to pump out water collected from the drains. Plumbing fixtures and piping are not required for new Gas Safety Equipment Building or the New Screenings Garage. Section 8 HVAC and Plumbing Functions 8-6 A 8.2.4 Fire Protection An approved automatic sprinkler system would be required to be installed in the windowless story heights (basements) of any new or substantially retrofitted spa ce according to the Existing Building Code. The fire protection system would consis t of a wet sprinkler system complete with alarm check valve and proper backflow prevention device. The fire protection design would consist of a performance bas ed specification and a drawing depicting the areas where the fire protection system (s) need be installed. A meeting with the local fire department personnel and building department shoul d occur during final design so that any comments from the Authoritys Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) over the installation and design of the fire protection syste m can be incorporated into the project design. In addition, a fire flow test should be co nducted during final design to provide information as to the fire flow availability from the public water system at the site. A 9-1 5816-72780 Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9.1 General As part of the current preliminary design process, CDM has developed the followi ng discussion summarizing conceptual geotechnical, site improvements and site desig n recommendations and standards associated with the LAWPCA Anaerobic Digestion/Energy Recovery Project. 9.2 Conceptual Geotechnical Recommendations 9.2.1 Existing Conditions The existing Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control (LAWPCA) Facility is locate d at 535 Lincoln Street in Lewiston, Maine. The site is bounded to the west and northwest by Androscoggin River, to the south by a wooded area, and to the east by Lincoln Street. The gated access road on the north side of the plant connects th e facility to Lincoln Street. There are a few commercial buildings located immedia tely to the east of the plant off Lincoln Street.

The existing site is relatively flat, sloping gently from El. 135 to El. 137 ove r a horizontal distance of 120 feet. The facility mixes and stores compost on the we st side of the property. The compost is available for public purchase. Piles of compost were not shown on the recent ground surface survey. 9.2.2 Proposed Construction The proposed construction for the anaerobic digestion and energy recover project includes two 0.8-million-gallon digester tanks, a combined digester gas holding and sludge storage tank, a digester equipment building, above and below grade utilit ies and several at-grade pads for equipment. Two locations are being considered for the new structures. The first location (Option 1) is outside the existing fence line to the south of the existing chlor ine contact chamber. The second location (Option 2) is within the existing facility to the northwest of the existing clarifiers, between the existing chlorine contact cham ber and process building. Two different configurations have been proposed for the proposed digester tanks. The first option is a 50-foot diameter tank with side wall of 52 feet in height. This type of tank will extend about 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the side wall an d have a foundation bearing load of approximately 5 kips per square foot (ksf). The sec ond option is a 65-foot diameter tank with side wall of 30.5 feet in height. This ty pe of tank is proposed to extend approximately 15 feet bgs at the side wall of the tan k. We understand that the second type of tank will have a foundation bearing load of a bout 2.5 ksf. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9-2 A The proposed combination digester gas and sludge storage tank has a diameter of about 50 feet and will extend about 15 feet below grade. We understand the new pump house building is a one story structure above grade with one level below grade. The structure is about 40 feet by 50 feet in plan dimensions A new cogeneration equipment pad is also proposed. The proposed pad has plan dimensions of 70 feet by 25 feet. Existing conditions as well as approximate location of the new facilities for th e two options are shown on Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2. 9.2.3 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to investigate the subsurface conditions at the tw o proposed areas for the digester tanks and to provide conceptual geotechnical engineering recommendation for foundation design and construction considerations as required for the project. Specifically, the scope of work included the follow ing: Review existing drawings and available subsurface information; Conduct a subsurface exploration program (Phase 1) consisting of two test boring s (CDM-1 and CDM-3) to investigate subsurface conditions and obtain soil samples

for geotechnical laboratory testing; Conduct laboratory tests on select soil samples to assist with classification of soils encountered and determine engineering properties; Develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction; Present CDMs preliminary recommendations, including the data collected as part of previous and recent subsurface investigations; and Make recommendations for additional investigations (Phase 2). 9.2.4 Subsurface Investigations Previous Test Boring Programs Previously a geotechnical exploration program was conducted at the site for the initial construction of the facility. Twelve test borings (L-1 through L-6, L-9, L-10, L -12, L-14, L-15 and L-17), were drilled between April 21 and May 6, 1969 by Jon J. Boyle of Milton, Massachusetts. The test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 15 t o 64 feet below ground surface. The previous test boring locations in the vicinity of the proposed structures are shown on Figure 9-1. Previous test boring logs are provi ded in Appendix A. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations A 9-3 Recent Test Boring Program Recent test borings were conducted at the two proposed locations for the digeste r tanks. Two test borings, CDM-1 and CDM-3, were drilled by Maine Test Boring, Inc . of Orrington, Maine between September 9 and 10, 2009. The test borings were conducted with a truck-mounted drill rig using four-inch inside diameter flushjo inted casing with drive and wash drilling techniques. Test borings, CDM-1 and CDM-3, were drilled to depths of 59.7 and 65 feet below the existing ground surf ace, respectively. Split spoon sampling was typically conducted in soils at five-foot intervals in accordance with ASTM D1586 (using a 2-inch-outside-diameter sampler driven 24 inches by blows from a 140-pound safety hammer falling freely for 30 inches). The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment was recorded and the Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT) N-value was determined as the sum of the blows over the middle 12 inches of penetration. Representative soil samples from each split spoon were collected, logged and stored in jars from later review and geotechnical laboratory testing. Undisturbed tube sampling of fine-grained (cohe sive) soils was conducted at select locations in general accordance with ASTM D-1587 u sing a pushed Shelby tube sampler. The Shelby tube samples were trimmed and both ends of the tube samples were sealed with plastic caps, tape and wax for subsequent review and laboratory testing. A CDM representative visually classified the soil samples recovered in the field using the modified Burmister classification syste m. When possible, groundwater levels at the test boring locations were estimated fr om the condition of the samples obtained and by the observed water levels within th

e borehole at the time of drilling. However, with the drive and wash drilling meth od, measured ground water level readings are not considered stable due to the introduction of the drilling fluids in the borehole. Each borehole was backfille d with drill cuttings upon completion. The recent borings were located in the field by taping and line of sight from ex isting site features. The as-drilled locations are shown on Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Test boring logs prepared by CDM are included the Appendix B. The locations of t he test borings are shown on Figures 9-1 and 9-2. 9.2.5 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed on select split spoon samples obtai ned from the recent test borings. Gradation analyses were performed on six samples i n accordance with ASTM D422. Atterberg Limit tests were performed on two samples in accordance with ASTM D-4318. The purpose of these tests was to assist with so il classification, to assign soil parameters to use in engineering analyses and to assess the reuse potential of the soils to be excavated. Results of the geotechnical laboratory testing are summarized in Table 9-1. The complete geotechnical laboratory test results are included as Appendix C. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9-4 A Subsurface Conditions In general, subsurface conditions encounter during the recent test boring progra m consisted of a sequence of silty sand, clay, silt and sand underlain by a sand l ayer. Silty sand was encountered at both test boring locations. Typically, the silty s and layer consisted of dry to wet, loose to medium dense, brown, gray, and orange, f ine SAND, with varying amounts of silt and occasionally trace gravel. The silty sand is about 8 to 19 feet in thickness at CDM-1 and CDM-3 respectively. SPT N-values ranged from 8 blows/foot (bl/ft) to 16 bl/ft at the recent exploration locations . Below the silty sand, a layer of clay was encountered. The clay stratum consiste d of wet, soft to medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY with occasionally little to trace sa nd and trace gravel. The clay layer was approximately 12.5 and 9 feet in thickness at C DM-1 and CDM-3, respectively. SPT N-values ranged from 3 bl/ft to 8 bl/ft. Below the clay stratum, silt and sand was encountered at test boring CDM-3 with a thickness of 35 feet. Typically, the silt and sand consisted of wet, loose to ve ry dense, gray, SILT with little fine sand. SPT N-values ranged from 6 bl/ft to 52 bl/ft a t the recent exploration location. A sand layer was encountered below the clay layer at CDM-1 and below the silt an d

sand layer at CDM-3. Typically, the sand layer consisted of wet, medium dense to very dense, brown or gray, fine to coarse SAND, with some to trace gravel and tr ace silt. This layer was not fully penetrated at either test boring location. SPT Nvalues ranged from 11 bl/ft to 53 bl/ft at the recent exploration locations. Refusal wa s encountered at 59.7 ft below ground surface at test boring CDM-1. A summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at our recent test boring locations is presented in Table 9-2. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was observed in all of the recent test borings at the completion of drilling. Groundwater levels measured in the boreholes ranged from 16.5 to 17 fe et below existing ground surface (approximately El. 118.4 to El. 118.8). However, stabilized groundwater levels can be difficult to obtain in borings drilled usin g drive and wash drilling methods due to the introduction of drilling fluid in the boreh ole. In addition, due to the sites close proximity to the Androscoggin River, the groundwater level is likely influenced by the river level. Variation in Subsurface Conditions Interpretation of general subsurface soil conditions presented herein is based o n soil and groundwater conditions observed in the recent test boring program and test boring logs of previous explorations conducted by others. However, subsurface conditions may vary between exploration locations. If conditions are found to be different than assumed, recommendations contained in this report should be reevaluated by CDM and confirmed in writing. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations A 9-5 Water levels measured in the explorations should not necessarily be considered t o represent stabilized groundwater levels. In addition, water levels are expected to fluctuate with time, season, temperature, river level, climate, and construction in the area, as well as other factors. Therefore, groundwater conditions at the time of construction may be different from those observed at the time of the exploration s. 9.2.6 Conceptual-Level Geotechnical Evaluation Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Geotechnical engineering evaluations have been made related to the subject proje ct. In general, these evaluations have been based on results of subsurface investiga tions, published correlations with soil properties and the minimum requirements of the Maine Model Building Code (MMBC), which references to the International Building Code. In addition, recommended design criteria are based on performance toleranc es, such as allowable settlement, as understood to relate to similar structures. Primary Foundation Considerations The primary foundation considerations related to the design and construction of the proposed tanks and structure include (but are not limited to): The presence and depth of the soft compressible clay layer: Based on the recent test boring data, the soft clay layer extends to a depth of approximately 21 feet bgs at the Option 1 location and 27 feet bgs at the Option

2 location. The presence of loose silt and sand underlying the clay layer at the Option 2 lo cation: A loose silt and sand layer is underlying the soft clay layer at the Option 2 lo cation whereas a well graded and denser sand layer is below the soft clay layer at the Option 1 location. The depth and foundation bearing load of the proposed structure foundations: The relatively large loads of the proposed 50-foot diameter sludge tanks (5 ksf) are anticipated to induce larger settlements than are typical considered tolerable f or structures. The distance from and potential impact on nearby existing structures at the Opti on 2 location. The proposed structures at the Option 2 location are located within approximatel y 4 feet of the existing TWAS tank No. 4 and 13 feet off the existing sludge thick ener tanks. Since the existing structures are understood to be supported on mat foundations on loose to medium dense silt and sand, those existing structures wi ll be susceptible to construction vibration-induced settlements. In addition, the excavation for the 50-foot diameter digester tank extends at least 6 feet below the adjacent TWAS tanks. The excavation will extend within the zone of influence of the TWAS tank, potentially causing settlement/deformation of the existing tank. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9-6 A 9.2.7 Conceptual-Level Foundation Recommendations Layout Option 1 Based on our understanding of the proposed structures and the anticipated foundation loads, the proposed digester tanks, gas holding/sludge storage tank a nd pump house structure can potentially be supported on shallow foundation provided the underlying soft compressible clay layer is overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. Based on conditions encountered at test boring CDM-1, between 1 and 6 feet of additional overexcavation will be required for the propo sed tanks and pump house structure at this location. For the 65-foot diameter tank alternative, preliminary settlement estimates indi cate total settlements of approximately 1 inch. However, total settlements are antici pated to be up to 2 inches for the for the 50-foot diameter tank alternative. If these anticipated settlements cannot be tolerated, deep foundations may be required. Additional explorations and evaluations will need to be conducted to verify the suitability of shallow foundation support for Option 1. Layout Option 2 Due to the deeper extent of the soft clay layer and the presence of loose silt a nd fine sand below the clay layer, deep foundations will likely be required for support of the tanks and associated structures at the Option 2 location. For the 50-ft diameter tank alternative, the proposed digester 2 will extend wit hin the

zone of influence of the existing TWAS Tank No. 4. To minimize the risk of impac ting the TWAS tank during construction, a stiff excavation support system with braces will be required for the construction of the new digester tank. In addition, underpin ning of the adjacent TWAS tank may be required to prevent excessive settlement/deformation of the existing tanks. Earthquake Considerations For purposes of determining design earthquake forces for the structures in accor dance with the Code, Site Class should be considered as D, provided the soft clay layer is over excavated and replaced with structural fill or the structures are founded o n deep foundations. Based on previous and recent subsurface investigation, the soils encountered at the site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Ground Water Elevation For the purpose of design, the groundwater level should be assumed to be at the 100year flood elevation, which we understand to be at El. 136. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations A 9-7 Deep Foundations Based on the considerations discussed above, deep foundations may be required to support some structures depending on the location, the type of structure selecte d and settlement tolerances. Option 1. Although a number of pile types are considered feasible, for the purpo se of conceptual design, we recommend that precast prestressed concrete (PCP) pile be assumed for any structures requiring foundations at the Option 1 location. Typic al PCP piles sizes include 12- and 14-inch square piles with approximate structural capacities of 99 and 134 tons, respectively. Option 2. Due to the close proximity of the proposed structures to the existing shallow-supported structures and the susceptibility of the existing structures t o vibration induced settlements, we recommend the structures at the Option 2 locat ion be supported on drilled, cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles. Based on the limited deep boring information, the required pile lengths are not known at this time. However, piles are anticipated to extend to a depth of at le ast of 65 to 70 feet bgs. Final design recommendations regarding foundation type and ot her geotechnical design recommendations are pending additional test borings, final facility layout and loading information for the tanks and structures. 9.2.8 Recommended Phase 2 Exploration Program We recommend an additional five borings be drilled after the final selection of tank and structure locations. The additional borings should be located at the propose d tanks, structures and equipment pad locations. Depending on the final choice of location and design of the tanks and structures, the borings should be drilled t o a

depth from 30 to greater than 75 feet in order to facilitate design of the antic ipated foundation elements. The borings should be conducted using drive and wash techniques. Sampling should typically be conducted at 5-foot intervals using a standard split spoon sampler (SPT). Split spoon sampling should be conducted in accordance with ASTM D1586. Representative samples should be taken from each split spoon and stored in jars for later review and laboratory testing. Up to ten feet of rock should be cored at s elected borings if encountered to confirm the competence of the rock and assist in characterizing the engineering properties rock. A CDM geotechnical engineer or geologist should monitor the borings in the field and classify the samples recov ered using the Burmister soil classification system. 9.3 Site Design Considerations 9.3.1 Codes and Standards The site design will conform to the requirements outlined in the applicable nati onal and/or local standards and codes. Codes primarily outline design requirements an d construction details. It is not intended in the scope of this memo to list every code and Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9-8 A standard. Proper recognition of the applicable standards for a project is essent ial to a well-engineered, coordinated and constructed system. Listed below are those nati onal institutes and associations that publish the most widely accepted related U.S. c odes and standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Maine Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges (MHSSHB); American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM); and Maine Dept of Environmental Protection, Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Law. New structures and roadways should be located using a coordinate system based on Maine State Plane Coordinate System or dimensioned from existing structures. Dimensions will be to column lines, outside face of building corner walls, or ce nter of circular tanks. New roadways will be established based on centerline dimensions. Minimum width for new roadways will be 20 feet for two-way traffic with the preferred width of 24 feet. Access driveways and one-way roadways will have a minimum width of 15 feet. Minimum radii at roadway intersections will be 35 feet to accommodate turning requirements of 30-foot fixed wheel or 55-foot semi-truck ty pe vehicles. New paved areas are anticipated around the proposed Digester Facility and Gas Safety Equipment Buildings. Final dimensions will be determined based on access requirements and anticipated vehicle type. New pedestrian walkways will have a minimum dimension of 5 feet. 9.3.2 Site Preparation In order to maintain access to existing facilities and minimize impacts on daily activities construction routes will be identified. Limits of construction will b

e established to protect existing structures and staging areas. Existing facilitie s and natural resource areas/lawn areas will be protected in areas not impacted by proposed improvements. Temporary construction access ways may be required to protect existing paved roadways. A temporary construction fence may be installed around new work during the various phases to protect existing facilities and employees and visitors. 9.3.3 Materials All new roadways and service areas will be bituminous concrete pavement composed of a 12-inch gravel base layer over compacted subgrade. Above this will be insta lled a primer coat, two and one half inch binder course, tack coat, and one and one hal f inch top course. Areas being re-paved will have the same section depth, however the hammer milled material and existing base material may be substituted for the 12inch gravel base. Pedestrian pathways will be a bituminous concrete pavement composed Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations A 9-9 of an 8-inch processed gravel base layer over compacted subgrade. Above this wil l be installed a primer coat and a two and one half inch wearing course. Sidewalks adjacent to structures will be concrete with expansion joints placed a t 30-foot intervals. Vehicle control if required will be accomplished by steel bea m guardrail or vertical granite curb. Post height will be thirty inches above grad e, and will be packed in six inches of tamped screened gravel on all sides. Curb height will be 6 inches above finished grade. Concrete filled steel pipe bollards will be lo cated adjacent to structures. Manholes and catch basins will be precast concrete units with cast iron frames and grates. Units must be designed for H20 loading. Precast con crete units shall have cone tops. RCP drain pipe will be utilized for subsurface drain age. Flared end with riprap apron consisting of stone six to eight inches in diameter . 9.3.4 Grading and Drainage The work will conform to pertinent sections of Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Land & Water Quality. Grading will attempt to keep similar drainage patterns to those existing on the site. The site drainage currently con sists of open vegetated swales, catch basins, and paved swales. It is anticipated that po st construction runoff will be increased due to additional facilities and access dr ives. The primary goal of the grading design will be to balance cut and fill. 9.3.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control The down slope portions of the site work will be protected by sediment fence, ha y bales, or a combination of both. This will be installed prior to any excavation or demolition on the site and will be required primarily along the south edge of th e

existing compost area. All catch basins and drain inlets downstream of demolitio n or new construction will be protected by a system of filter fabric installed over t he grate and overlain with a bed of gravel) (Drop Inlet Sediment Filter). If required bas ed on a drainage analysis temporary sediment basins may be installed. Existing swales an d storm drain pipe inlets will be protected with sediment fence/hay bale combinati on. Erosion control blanket will be installed in all seeded swales and disturbed slo pes exceeding 4:1. A temporary vehicle wash station may be installed to prevent sedi ment from being tracked from construction areas onto the facility entrance road. Dust will be controlled by use of water trucks, and street sweepers to minimize impacts on the surrounding area. 9.3.6 Landscape All disturbed areas not covered with pavement or structures will receive loam an d be seeded. Some additional tree and shrub planting will be considered. Existing tre es will require protection. No construction activities will be permitted within twe nty feet of the trunks. These areas surrounding selected trees shall be fenced off with o range safety fence. No materials shall be stockpiled, nor equipment allowed within thi s area. Additional tree protection measures may be required based on evaluation of trees to be protected. On site loam will be screened and reused on site. Additio nal loam may be obtained from sources off site if necessary. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations 9-10 A Lawn areas (areas anticipated to be mowed/maintained on a regular basis) Fescue 30% Kentucky Bluegrass 50% Perennial Ryegrass 20% Natural areas (areas anticipated to be mowed twice per year) Tall Fescue 40% Perennial Ryegrass 15% Chewings Fescue 10% Hard Fescue 10% Birdsfoot Trefoil 10% Switchgrass 05% White Clover 05% Redtop 05% 9.3.7 Layout Specific Site Design Considerations Layout Option 1 A new digester facility is proposed in an area southwest of the existing chlorin e contact chamber. The site is currently cleared of vegetation and utilized as a c ompost area. The facility will be serviced by a new one way (15-foot wide) paved access drive with an additional driveway to accommodate vehicle turning requirements. A new

Waste Gas Burner is proposed west of the digesters and a new Gas Safety Equipmen t Building is proposed in an existing lawn area west of the proposed digesters. Du ring final design, an evaluation will be completed to determine additional access and parking requirements for all new facilities. Layout Option 2 A new digester facility is proposed in an existing paved area west of the existi ng Process Building. It is anticipated that the existing pavement in this area will be expanded to accommodate access and turning requirements for service vehicles and staff. A new Gas Safety Equipment Building is proposed south of the existing Chlorine Contact Chambers. A new Waste Gas Burner is proposed further west in th e existing compost area. A new 15-foot wide paved access drive with an additional driveway to accommodate vehicle turning requirements is proposed from the existi ng access drive north of Clarifier #1. It will service the Gas Safety Equipment Bui lding and Waste Gas Burner running to the south of both facilities. A new Screenings Dumpster is proposed at the southeast corner of the existing Process Building. T he dumpster will be serviced by a new 15-foot wide paved driveway extending from th e existing access drive north of the existing clarifiers. Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations CDM-1 15-17 Clay CL - - - - 38.0 22.0 16.0 CDM-1 20-22 Sand SM 8.7 20.6 65.4 14.0 - - CDM-1 40-42 Sand SP-SM 9.5 34.6 57.2 8.2 - - CDM-1 51-53 Sand SP-SM 21.8 0.2 89.6 10.2 - - CDM-3 10-12 Silty Sand ML 28.9 0.7 30.8 68.5 - - CDM-3 20-22 Clay CL 28.6 0.0 3.0 97.0 26.0 17.0 9.0 CDM-3 30-32 Silt and Sand ML 26.4 0.0 30.1 68.9 - - Notes: Abbreviations: 1. USCS classifications were conducted in accordance with ASTM D2488. SM Silty S and 2. Grain size analysis were conducted in accordance with ASTM D422. SP-SM Poorly graded Sand with silt and gravel 3. Atterberg Limit tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D4318. ML Sandy Silt CL Lean clay -- Test not conducted NV No value NP Non-plastic Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Grain Size Analysis (2) PL PI USCS Classification (1) LL Test Boring Number Sample Depth (ft.)

Strata Moisture Content (%) Atterberg Limits (3) A Table 9-1 Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Section 9 Preliminary Geotechnical, Civil and Site Design Recommendations CDM-1 135.75 59.7 8.0 12.5 NE >39.2 17.0 CDM-3 134.85 27.5 19.0 9.0 32.0 >5 16.5 Notes: 1. Elevations are in feet and referenced to NGVD 1929. Abbreviations: NE Indicates strata not encountered > Indicates strata not fully penetrated 2. Water levels were estimated from the moisture content of retrieved samples an d/or were measured in the boreholes at the completion of drilling and may not represent a static groundwater level. Exploration Number Exploration Depth (ft.) Silty Sand Estimated Groundwater Depth Silt and Sand (ft.) Strata Thickness (ft) Clay Sand Ground Surface Elevation (ft.) A Table 9-2 Summary of Subsurface Conditions

A 10-1 5816-72780 Section 10 Permitting 10.1 Purpose As part of the current conceptual design, an initial assessment was completed re lated to the site development and environmental permitting requirements of the project . The assessment included a review of the following issues: Related ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of the City of Lewiston, Maine (as confirmed through discussions with David Hediger, Lewiston City Planner); Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) regulations; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations; US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulations; and Based on this review, we have determined that the following site development and environmental permits will be needed for the project. 10.2 Local Permitting

10.2.1 Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resource Conservation (RC) Zoning Districts Provisions LAWPCA and this project are located within the Urban Enterprise (UE) and Resourc e Conservation (RC) zoning districts. Within the UE this project is a permitted us e and has a height restriction of 80 feet. However, within the RC this project is a co nditional use and has a height restriction of 35 feet. The City of Lewiston Planning Board will need to approve the conditional use and may grant up to a 50 percent modificatio n to the height restriction, potentially bringing the limit to 52.5 feet. 10.2.2 Local Flood Protection Provisions The project is currently shown outside of the floodway, but within the 100-year floodplain and will need approval by the City of Lewiston Planning Board. The Ci ty Zoning Ordinance requires: that all structures be designed to prevent flotation, that construction materials be resistant to flooding, that construction practices will minimize flood damage and that utilities be designed to prevent damage during flooding The 100-year flood elevation in this area is 136 feet. Section 10 Permitting 10-2 A 10.2.3 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Permit The Natural Resources Protection Act dictates that any disturbance within the 25 -foot Shoreland Zone setback requires a full NRPA permit from the MDEP. The NRPA further dictates that if portions of the project are located outside the 25-foot setback, but within 75 feet of the river, a Permit By Rule (PBR) from the MDEP and approv al by the local Planning Board is required. Though the exact locations of all ancil lary facilities would need to be determined during final design, it is likely that th ey would be located outside the 25-foot setback, but within the 75-foot setback, thereby necessitating a NRPA Permit By Rule and local Planning Board Approval. 10.2.4 Stormwater Runoff and Flood Management Permitting The MDEP has a Stormwater Permitting Process that requires permits for disturban ce of one acre or more of area. If you disturb one acre or more, but less than 5 ac res of disturbance and have less than 40,000 square feet of new impervious then a Construction General Permit is required. This is acquired by submitting a Permit by Rule (PBR) with an attached Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the MDEP. If the disturbance is over 5 acres or if there is more than 40,000 square feet of n ew impervious surface then a Stormwater Permit and Construction General Permit are required. However, the Stormwater Permit is reviewed by the City of Lewiston as part of its delegated review authority from the MDEP. The Construction General Permit still needs to be acquired from MDEP. Based on the options being considered for the current project, it is expected th at the project will have a disturbance of less than 5 acres and will create less than 4 0,000

square feet of new impervious surface. As a result, it is estimated that only a Construction General Permit PBR will be required from the MDEP. As part of the City of Lewistons local development review permit process, the applicant must submit information regarding the stormwater for the project. Beca use the project will discharge all stormwater directly to the Androscoggin River and does not require a Stormwater Permit, no flood control will be required. The City wil l require a letter from the Engineer signed by a Professional Engineer indicating the amount of disturbance, the amount of new impervious surface and that all stormwater discharge from the project will be discharged directly to the Androscoggin River. 10.2.5 Local Permit Application and Approval Schedule During discussions with David Hediger, Lewiston City Planner, he indicated that the City approvals could be obtained at one Planning Board meeting if all the criter ia for approval are met. The MDEP NRPA PBR consists of submitting an application, which MDEP has 14 days to review and provide comments. If no comments are received within the 14 days then the permit is approved. Section 10 Permitting A 10-3 The permitting on this project is very similar to the permitting required for th e Lewiston CSO Storage Facility on Water Street that received approvals from the Planning Board in one meeting and a PBR approval from MDEP. Based on our experience, we expect the permits described above for this project should be obt ained within 30 days after the applications are submitted. 10.3 Air Quality Permitting The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) Air Quality Bureau requires air emission licenses (also known as permits in other states) for emiss ion units unless they are insignificant or exempt from permitting by law. The MEDEP specifically exempts from permitting the following specific equipment: Fuel-burning equipment (or combinations thereof), whose total maximum design heat input is less than 10.0 million British Thermal Units (mmBTUs) per hour; an d Stationary internal combustion engines (SICE) (or combination thereof) that are less than 5.0 mmBtu/hr and are excluded from the applicability determination. The equipment proposed to be installed at the project site includes two 220-kW cogeneration engines, one boiler, and one waste gas burner. The engines and boil ers will both be constructed so that they will be capable of burning either digester gas or natural gas; the waste gas burner will be used to burn any excess digester gas. Based on the applicable rule definitions, the required licenses that must be obtained for the project site are itemized below: Based on the information provided for the equipment, the two engines are estimated to have a rated capacity of 4.1 mmBtu/hr (total); therefore, the engin es would be excluded from the applicability threshold and are exempt from permitting. The only equipment that meets the definition of fuel-burning equipment, other than the SICE, is the boiler. The maximum rated capacity of the boiler is

2.2 mmBtu/hr; therefore, since the total capacity is less than 10.0 mmBtu/hr, th e boiler is exempt from permitting. The waste gas burner does not meet the definition of fuel-burning equipment because its primary purpose is not to produce heat or power. As a result, no exemption from permitting is applicable to the waste gas burner; therefore, the waste gas burner is required to obtain an air emissions license. Emissions of criteria pollutants from the equipment were estimated using emissio n factors from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Assuming tha t the equipment operates continuously (8,760 hours per year), the maximum potentia l to emit (PTE) is provided in Table 10-1. Although the engines and boiler are exe mpt from permitting, their emissions were still estimated for reference purposes onl y. Section 10 Permitting 10-4 A Pollutant Annual Emissions (tons per year) Engine Boiler Flare Total NOx 73.75 0.94 2.34 77.04 CO 6.87 0.79 0.09 7.75 SOx 0.06 0.03 0.10 0.19 VOC 2.34 0.05 0.59 2.98 PM10 0.83 0.07 0.58 1.49 Key CO: carbon monoxide VOC: volatile organic compounds NOx: Oxides of nitrogen SOX: oxides of sulfur PM10: respirable particulate matter Table 10-1 Summary of Maximum Annual Emissions The Maine DEP classifies sources as either minor or major, with the latter being federally enforceable, based on the sources PTE. Sources are classified as minor sources if emissions are less than either 50 tons per year VOC or 100 tons per y ear of any other regulated pollutant. Since the sources emissions (flare only) are less than both of these thresholds, the source will be required to obtain a minor source l icense. The source will be required to obtain an air emissions license prior to breaking ground or commencing construction at the project location. The application proce ss involves filing necessary forms with the DEP, paying any necessary fees, and providing information on equipment emissions and operation. A review of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) will also be required as part of the licensi ng process. A 11-1 5816-72780 Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis 11.1 Project Cost Estimates: The current estimated construction costs based on the recommendations made in th is Conceptual Design Report are shown in Table 11-1. The total project costs for La yout

Option 1 and Option 2 of this project are currently estimated to be $16.3M and $21.0M, respectively Project Component Option 1 Option 2 New Separate Retrofit of Facility Existing Facility Site Work $229,000 $337,000 Deep Foundations and Excavation Support Systems $0 $2,730,000 Yard Piping $515,000 $305,000 Thickening System Replacement $873,000 $839,000 Intake Screening System Upgrade $0 $1,249,000 Digestion Process Equipment Modification to Existing Space $0 $895,000 Digestion Process Equipment New Space $3,124,000 $1,796,000 Digestion Tanks $2,824,000 $3,443,000 Biogas/Digested Sludge Holding Tank $666,000 $697,000 Gas Safety and Treatment Equipment $1,277,000 $1,230,000 Cogeneration System $1,235,000 $1,240,000 Electrical $1,944,000 $1,687,000 Instrumentation and Controls $363,000 $363,000 Estimated Construction Cost $13,049,000 $16,811,000 Project Implementation Cost (25%) $3,262,000 $4,203,000 Estimated Project Cost $16,311,000 $21,014,000 Assumptions 1. Costs Include 25% Construction Contingency 2. Escalation for Option I is at 4% per year until midpoint of construction, Sep tember 2010 3. Escalation for Option II is at 4% per year until midpoint of construction, No vember 2010 4. Costs do not include mitigation of hazardous waste in existing soils, ledge r emoval or legal/administrative costs Table 11-1 Conceptual Estimate of Project Costs Based on 10% Level of Design Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis A 11-2 11.2 Comparison of Options The two facility layout options discussed through this report each have distinct advantages and disadvantages associated with them. Some of the more significant points for consideration are noted in Table 11-2 below. Advantages Disadvantages Option 1 (New Separate Facility) Lower capital cost; Provides a consolidated digestion equipment facility; Minimal impact of Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) during construction; Maintains space for future digestion tank capacity expansion; Geotechnical support likely to utilize shallow foundation system; and Available space for shorter, less-costly digester tank configuration.

 New facilities except the cogeneration engines are located remote from most existing process systems. Option 2 ( Retrofit of Existing Interior Process Space) Reuses existing building space Improved electrical code classification compliance of existing building by isolating the influent screening area from remainder of process building; and Digestion facilities located in closer proximity to other existing process systems. Higher capital cost; Digestion equipment distributed between multiple process areas; Significant impact on Maintenance of Plant Operations (MOPO) during construction; Does not readily allow for future digestion tank capacity expansion; Geotechnical support would require deep foundation system (drilled piles); Limited space requires taller, more costly digester tank configuration; and Limits vehicle access around and into existing process building. Table 11-2 Comparison of Facility Layout Options Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis A 11-3 Due to the significant cost and non-cost advantages associated with Option 1, it is recommended that a separate new digestion facility be pursued in lieu of attempt ing to retrofit the existing interior screenings handling area as included in Option 2. In addition, listed below are several possibilities for screening handling improvem ents (e.g., new intake screens, screenings wash compactors, and conveyors) : Include in Option 1, the full intake screening modifications shown in Option 2, with the exception of utilizing the existing screenings garage in lieu of constructin g a new one to the east; Include in Option 1, the screenings handling systems (wash compactors and conveyors) and continue to use the existing screens and screenings garage;

Include in Option 1, intake screen replacement while maintaining the existing screenings handling systems; or Pursue the screening improvements as a separate future project. It should be also noted that, the cost estimate included in Table 11-1 assumes t he construction of a new screenings garage (as required by Option 2) and the reuse of the existing screenings garage area would likely yield cost savings not reflected in the current estimate for this work. 11.3 Financial Analysis As the findings, recommendations and revised capitol cost estimate included in t his Conceptual Design affect the financial analysis which was produced in conjunctio n with the Feasibility Study, the project costs have been revisited and updated as detailed below. 11.3.1 Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs Table 11-3 summarizes the estimates operations and maintenance costs for the cur rent biosolids management system and for a system utilizing anaerobic digestion. Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis A 11-4 Annual Estimated Operating Costs Current Biosolids Management Biosolids Management With Anaerobic Digestion Savings WAS Thickening and Dewatering Polymer Usage 1 $34,000 $20,400 $13,600 WAS Thickening Operation (Power Costs) 2 $12,000 $12,000 $0 BFP Operation (Power Costs) 3 $3,840 $2,300 $1,540 Lime Stabilization Lime Cost 4 $90,000 $0 $90,000 Fertilizer Costs due to pH and calcium saturation 5 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Composting Facility Amendment Cost 6 $295,000 $177,000 $118,000 Vehicles (fuels, maintenance) 7 $18,600 $11,000 $7,600 Electric Power Costs 8 $90,000 $63,000 $27,000 Fuel Cost 8 $113,000 $79,000 $34,000 Compost Revenue 9 ($55,000) ($33,000) ($22,000) Treatment Facility Vehicles (fuel, maintenance) 10 $54,000 $32,400 $21,600 Electric Power Costs 11 $445,000 $445,000 $0 Fuel Cost 12 $84,000 $84,000 $0 Residual Disposal Biosolids Land Application Cost 13 $291,000 $175,000 $116,000 Biosolids Landfilling Cost 14 $157,000 $0 $157,000 Secondary Treatment System Additional Aeration Cost17 $0 $25,000 ($25,000) Digestion System Digester Equipment Maintenance Cost 15 $0 $26,000 ($26,000) Digester Equipment Power Costs16 $0 $75,000 ($75,000)

Cogeneration System Estimated Value of Power Production ($/year)18 $0 ($369,000) $369,000 Hydrogen Sulfide Media Costs19 $0 $15,000 ($15,000) Estimated Annual Engine Maintenance Cost20 $0 $41,000 ($41,000) Total Estimated Annual Biosolids Management Costs (Current Dollars) $1,662,000 $881,000 $781,000 Table 11-3 Annual Estimated Operating Costs 1) Polymer Usage is expected to decrease by 40% due to less biosolids for dewate ring 2) HP of existing DAF equipment is approximately equal to the HP required to ope rate the new GBT equipment 3) Estimated BFP will operate 40% less due to reduction in sludge volume 4) Lime stabilization will not be used when anaerobic digester is operational 5) Regulatory fees for land applying lime stabilized biosolids Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis A 11-5 6) Assume a 40% reduction due to lower biosolids quantities 7) Assumes 40% reduction 8) Assumes 30% reduction in energy use 9) Compost revue will decrease due to less biosolids available for composting 10) Assumes 40% reduction 11) Assumed that energy usage at the LAWPCA remains approximately the same 12) Assumes amount of natural gas or fuel oil used to heat the facility remains unchanged 13) Assumes 40% reduction 14) Assumes all biosolids will be beneficially reused 15) Assumes equipment O&M is 1% of equipment capital cost 16) Estimated that approximately 70 kW required to operate digester equipment; a t $0.12 per kW-h, annual cost of electricity is $75,000 17) An additional 770 SCFM or 40 HP will be required to treat the digester sides treams in the secondary treatment system 18) 2,200 kW engines operating at 90% capacity; 5% parasitic load; LAWPCA curren tly purchases power at approximately $0.12 per kWh; assumes cogen system operates 8,000 hours/year 19) Estimated that hydrogen sulfide media will be replaced once per year, costin g $15,000 for media and labor. 20) Estimated engine maintenance cost is $0.013/kWh; assumes cogen system operat es 8,000 hours/year 11.3.2 Comparison of Capital Costs with Project Cost Savings In order to determine the financial feasibility of the digestion/energy recovery project, a simple comparison of costs and savings over a 20 year period was conducted. Three scenarios were evaluated, which included the following: Scenario 1: Without any grants or low interest loans; Scenario 2: Without any grants or low interest loans, but with an increase in wa ste collection revenues equivalent to ~$200,000 per year (current dollars); and Scenario 3: With the equivalent of a 50 percent grant (e.g. Department of Energy (DOE) grant). Table 11-4 shows the results of the financial analysis. Capital costs were taken from Table 11-1. Annual bond costs were based on a 20-year revenue bond of 3 percent with equal monthly payments. The annual operating cost savings were based on the average savings over a 20-year period and are approximate. The operating cost savings includes both reduced operating costs due to lower quantities of biosoli

ds as well as the savings from avoided electricity costs. An escalation rate for elect ricity of 3 percent was used, although many economists expect that energy costs will escal ate faster than other costs. To include the effects of inflation, all operating cost s were escalated at 3 percent per year. A standard 20-year planning discount rate of 4. 7 percent as recommended by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget was used. Another factor in the financial analysis is the current LAWPCA debt service payments. The Authority has three loans issued 1990, 1991 and 1992 that will be completed by 2012. In 2009, the Authority incurred $790,000 in costs associated with these loans which will decrease to zero in 2012. Section 11 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Revised Life Cycle Cost Analysis A 11-6 For the scenario with no grants, the net average annual cost to the Authority ar e approximately $50,000 and are within the cost estimating accuracy of this feasib ility study. With a 50 percent grant equivalent, the average savings is significant at approximately $4.4M. Item Scenario 1: No Grants Scenario 2: No Grants, Increased Revenue Scenario 3: 50 Percent Grant Estimated Capital Costs $16,300,000 $16,300,000 $8,150,000 Annual Bond Cost $1,086,000 $1,086,000 $543,000 Average Annual Operating Savings $1,036,000 $1,036,000 $1,036,000 Average Annual Additional Revenue - $270,000 Net Average Annual Savings ($50,000) $320,000 $493,000 20-Year Net Present Value of Savings ($1,300,000) $2,000,000 $4,400,000 Table 11-4 Financial Analysis of Anaerobic Digester/Energy Recovery Project A Appendix A Historical Boring Logs

A Appendix B

Recent Boring Logs 6 2 5 2 2 6 SILTY SAND 1 CLAY 1 1 2 Depth to Initial Water Level (ft): S-1 Logged By: J. Morency Abandonment Method: Fill With Cuttings 3 5 24 24 24 SS SS S-3 S-2 SS Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT Wet, medium dense, gray, fine SAND and SILT, trace fine gravel Moist, very stiff, dark brown, peat. (Compost) Drilling Method/Casing/Core Barrel Size: Drive and Wash / 4"/ 24 24 24 Elev. Depth (ft) HP - Hydro Punch SS - Split Spoon ST - Shelby Tube WS - Wash Sample GP - Geoprobe Plasticity Index Graphic Log Sample Length (in) Strata Sample Recovery (in) Blows per 6 inches Sample Type Material Description Remarks AS - Auger/Grab Sample CS - California Sampler

BQ - 1.5" Rock Core NQ - 2" Rock Core Surface Elevation (ft.): 135.8 Sample Number 135.8 130.8 125.8 120.8 115.8 0 5 10 15 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 Reviewed by: R. Howard Date: 9/28/2009 and 35-50% some 20-35% little 10-20% trace <10% moisture, density, color Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Sheet 1 of 3 Boring Number: CDM-1 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Boring Number: CDM-1 Hammer Type/Hammer Weight/Drop Height/Spoon Size: Safety / 140 lbs. / 30 in. /2" in. O.D. Time Drilling Contractor/Driller: Maine Test Boring, Inc. / Tom Schafer Bore Hole Location: See Boring Plan 17 N: E: Depth Date Total Depth (ft.): 59.7 Drilling Date: Start: 9/10/2009 End: 9/10/2009 9/10/09 Sample Types Stiff: 8-15 V. Stiff: 15-30 Hard: >30 V. Soft: <2 Soft: 2-4 M. Stiff: 4-8 V. Loose: 0-4 Loose: 4-10 M. Dense: 10-30 Dense: 30-50 V. Dense: >50 Granular (Sand): Fine Grained (Clay): Consistency vs Blowcount/Foot Burmister Classification 7 Wet, soft, gray, CLAY and SILT, little fine to coarse SAND, trace fine gravel Wet, medium dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, little fine gravel, little clay and silt Wet, medium dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt

Wet, medium dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND, little fine gravel, trace silt Wet, dense, brown, fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt S-4 7 15 11 7 9 15 9 7 10 2 SS S-5 S-6 S-7 SS SS 24 24 24 24 14 10 10 12 8 SS 24 Sample Type Sample Number Blows per 6 inches Sample Recovery (in) Strata Sample Length (in) Graphic Log Plasticity Index Material Description CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Remarks Boring Number: CDM-1 Sheet 2 of 3 Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME Boring Number: CDM-1 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 20 25

30 35 40 45 115.8 110.8 105.8 100.8 95.8 90.8 11 25 A: (0"-6") B: (6"-14") SAND Elev. Depth (ft) 8 5 6 7 SPT Refusal Encountered S-8 SAND SS 24 8 100/0" 6 Wet, medium dense, brown, fine to medium SAND, trace silt END OF BORING = 59.7 Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Boring Number: CDM-1 Sheet 3 of 3 Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Graphic Log Boring Number: CDM-1 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 50 55 60 65 70 85.8 80.8 75.8 70.8 65.8 Elev. Depth (ft) Material Description Remarks Plasticity Index Sample Type

Sample Number Blows per 6 inches Sample Recovery (in) Strata Sample Length (in) 4 9 2 Dry, medium dense, yellowish orange, fine to coarse SAND, little silt, trace fine gravel 7 2 Wet, medium dense, orange with red staining, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt Wet, loose, gray, fine SAND and SILT 3 13 S-1 CLAY SILTY SAND 7 A: (0"-16") 3 5 5 8 5 5 7 7 Dry, medium dense, brown, fine SAND, some silt B: (16"-18") 24 24 SS SS SS SS Wet, loose, brown, SILT, some fine sand, trace fine gravel S-4 S-3 S-2 18 24 24 10 14 16 Remarks Graphic Log Sample Length (in) Strata Sample Recovery (in) Blows per

6 inches Sample Number Sample Type V. Soft: <2 Soft: 2-4 M. Stiff: 4-8 Material Description AS - Auger/Grab Sample CS - California Sampler BQ - 1.5" Rock Core NQ - 2" Rock Core HP - Hydro Punch SS - Split Spoon ST - Shelby Tube WS - Wash Sample GP - Geoprobe and 35-50% some 20-35% little 10-20% trace <10% moisture, density, color Elev. Depth (ft) Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME 134.9 129.9 124.9 119.9 114.9 0 5 10 15 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 Reviewed by: R. Howard Date: 9/28/2009 Boring Number: CDM-3 Plasticity Index Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Sheet 1 of 3 Boring Number: CDM-3 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Drilling Method/Casing/Core Barrel Size: Drive and Wash / 4"/ Stiff: 8-15 V. Stiff: 15-30 Hard: >30 16.5 Hammer Type/Hammer Weight/Drop Height/Spoon Size: Safety / 140 lbs. / 30 in. /2" in. O.D. Bore Hole Location: See Boring Plan N: E: Depth Date Total Depth (ft.): 65 Time Drilling Contractor/Driller: Maine Test Boring, Inc. / Tom Schafer

Depth to Initial Water Level (ft): Surface Elevation (ft.): 134.9 Logged By: J. Morency Abandonment Method: Fill With Cuttings Drilling Date: Start: 9/9/2009 End: 9/10/2009 V. Loose: 0-4 Loose: 4-10 M. Dense: 10-30 Dense: 30-50 V. Dense: >50 Granular (Sand): Fine Grained (Clay): Sample Types Consistency vs Blowcount/Foot 9/10/09 Burmister Classification 16 14 10 16 14 21 24 Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine sand S-5 6 4 4 2 2 Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine sand Wet, loose, gray, SILT, little fine sand Wet, loose gray, SILT, little fine sand Wet, medium stiff, gray, CLAY and SILT, little fine sand Wet, medium stiff, gray, CLAY and SILT, trace fine sand 3 S-10 S-9 S-8 S-7 S-6 U-1 24 24 24 24 24 24 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 24 Remarks Sample Length (in) Strata

Sample Recovery (in) Blows per 6 inches Sample Number Sample Type Material Description Elev. Depth (ft) 114.9 109.9 104.9 99.9 94.9 89.9 20 25 30 35 40 45 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 Boring Number: CDM-3 Graphic Log Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Plasticity Index Sheet 2 of 3 Boring Number: CDM-3 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME 8 5 3 10 8 5 4 5 2 11 6 4 2 3 3 5 5 SILT and SAND CLAY 13 7 Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine sand Wet, medium dense, gray, SILT, little fine sand. 1/4" thick seams of black, fine SAND

Wet, very dense, gray, fine SAND, little silt Wet, very dense, gray, fine to coarse SAND, trace fine gravel, trace silt END OF BORING = 65 32 9 14 16 12 8 20 22 S-11 14 SS S-12 S-13 S-14 SS SS 24 24 24 24 17 18 15 31 16 SS Material Description Elev. Depth (ft) Sample Type Sample Number Blows per 6 inches Sample Recovery (in) Strata Sample Length (in) Graphic Log Plasticity Index 11 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE Boring Number: CDM-3 Sheet 3 of 3 Project Name: Anaerobic Digestion Project Number: 5816-72780 Client: Lewiston-Auburn WPCA Project Location: Lewiston, ME Boring Number: CDM-3 BL BORING LOGS.GPJ - 10/1/09 50 55 60

65 70 84.9 79.9 74.9 69.9 64.9 15 17 32 30 SAND SILT and SAND Remarks A Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results 38 22 16 CL 26 17 9 99.5 97.0 CL 5816-72780 Auburn Lewiston WPCA MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Project No. Client: Remarks: Project: CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts Figure Source of Sample: CDM-1 Depth: 15-17 Sample Number: S-3 Source of Sample: CDM-3 Depth: 20-22 Sample Number: S-5 PLASTICITY INDEX 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 CL-ML CL or OL CH or OH ML or OL MH or OH Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils 4 7 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Anaerobic Digestors CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/10/09 20-22 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * silty sand with gravel 3 3/4

#4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 93.1 79.4 61.8 44.0 31.9 22.1 14.0 -- -7.0675 1.8393 1.1422 0.3596 0.0869 SM As received moisture content=8.7% S-4B CDM-1 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date: Location: Elev./Depth: Client: Project: Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 6.9 13.7 17.6 29.9 17.9 3.8 10.2 6 in. 3 in.

2 in. 1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/10/09 40-42 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * poorly graded sand with silt and gravel 3 3/4 #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 76.6 65.4 52.2 40.3 31.6 19.0 8.2 -- -34.5434 3.2447 1.7324 0.3707 0.1146 0.0836 38.83 0.51 SP-SM As received moisture content=9.5% S-7 CDM-1 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date:

Location: Elev./Depth: Client: Project: Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 23.4 11.2 13.2 20.6 23.4 8.2 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/10/09 51-53 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * poorly graded sand with silt 3

3/4 #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 92.0 71.7 29.6 10.2 -- -0.6330 0.3180 0.2514 0.1518 0.0909 SP-SM As received moisture content=21.8% S-8 CDM-1 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date: Location: Elev./Depth: Client: Project: Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 27.7 61.5 10.2 6 in.

3 in. 2 in. 1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/9/09 10-12 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * sandy silt 3 3/4 #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.1 99.0 98.9 92.9 68.5 -- -0.1144 ML As received moisture content=28.9% S-3 CDM-3 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date: Location: Elev./Depth:

Client: Project: Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 30.4 68.5 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/9/09 20-22 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * lean clay 3 3/4

#4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.2 97.0 17 26 9 0.0565 0.0183 0.0089 CL A-4(7) As received moisture content=28.6% S-5 CDM-3 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date: Location: Elev./Depth: Client: Project: Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.5 55.1 41.9 6 in. 3 in. 2 in.

1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report CDM Cambridge, Massachusetts 9/9/09 30-32 (no specification provided) PL= LL= PI= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= USCS= AASHTO= * sandy silt 3 3/4 #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 97.6 68.9 -- -0.1051 ML As received moisture content=26.4% S-7 CDM-3 Auburn Lewiston WPCA Anaerobic Digestors 5816-72780 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample No.: Source of Sample: Test Date: Location: Elev./Depth: Client: Project:

Project No: Figure SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 31.0 68.9 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 1 in. 1 in. in. in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Particle Size Distribution Report