WWTFSP App.F6 Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Appendix F6: Flow Management Alternatives and
Recommendations
Version 2.0
December 2010
Prepared by:
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Registration No. F-882
Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
Basis of Alternatives................................................................................................5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 12
Alternative A1: CWWTP 55 Percent / SWWTP 45 Percent....................................... 12
Evaluation of Annual Average Flow Alternatives ........................................................ 19
Wet-Weather Flow Management Alternatives......................................................21

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.0
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 5
Current Flow Management............................................................................................ 5
Projected Flows............................................................................................................. 7
Recycled Water Plans................................................................................................... 9
Average Annual Flow Management Alternatives ................................................12

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
Objectives...................................................................................................................... 3
Average Annual Flow Recommendation....................................................................... 3
Wet-Weather Recommendation.................................................................................... 3
Estimated Cost .............................................................................................................. 4
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 21
Alternative W1 ............................................................................................................. 23
Alternative W2 ............................................................................................................. 27
Summary of Wet-Weather Alternatives....................................................................... 32
Recommended Alternatives ..................................................................................33

5.1
5.2
5.3
Recommended Average Annual Flow Split ................................................................ 33

Recommended Wet-Weather Alternative ................................................................... 34
Estimated Cost for Peak-Flow Storage and Flow Management ................................. 34
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................37
Appendix B
References..................................................................................................39
Appendix C
Flow Schematics ........................................................................................40
Appendix D
Peak-Flow Basins.......................................................................................42
Appendix E
Detailed Cost Estimates ............................................................................46
Record of Change ..............................................................................................................62
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 2 of 62
Section 1.0
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
Objectives
Executive Summary
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide analysis of the various flow alternatives available
to optimize existing process treatment capacity, comply with regulatory requirements, meet recycled flow
commitments, and to minimize cost. The following criteria were used to select recommended flow splits
between Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant (SWWTP) and Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
(CWWTP) for average annual flows (AAF) and wet-weather flows (WWF).
Require at least 69 million gallons per day (mgd) effluent at CWWTP (for Trinity Lakes, reuse, and
other)
Maintain minimum process flows at CWWTP
Dilute the filtrate at SWWTP
Defer expansion at both CWWTP and SWWTP
The Team also took into account biological phosphorus removal improvements needed at both plants
within the planning period. These improvements result in a decreased allowable process flow at
CWWTP.
1.2
Average Annual Flow Recommendation
The recommended AAF split that satisfies the criteria is treatment of approximately 50 percent of the AAF
at CWWTP and 50 percent at SWWTP. This results in a projected 2030 AAF of 99 mgd at CWWTP and
98 mgd at SWWTP.
1.3
Wet-Weather Recommendation
The recommended wet weather peak-flow basin volume at CWWTP is 440 million gallons (MG), and 660
MG at SWWTP. The 2030 total storage volume for a 10-year storage recurrence interval is 1,100 MG.
The total recommended storage volume assumes that Phase IV at SWWTP is not constructed during the
planning period. If Phase IV is constructed during the planning period then the total storage volume
should be reevaluated.
CWWTP improvements include the following:
Rehabilitating basins A, B and C to add a solids settling area
Constructing a new peak-flow basin D
Constructing a 72-inch (in.) diameter peak-flow pipe between the new Influent Pump Station (IPS)
and the peak-flow basins
Constructing Stage 2 IPS improvements
Constructing a new 96-inch interconnect pipe between the White Rock Gate Structure (WRGS) and
the IPS.
Improvements at SWWTP include the following:
Combining basins no. 2 and 3, and converting basin no.1 into a solids settling chamber,
Deepening basins no. 1, 2, and 3 to match the bottom elevation of basin no. 4,
Constructing new peak-flow basins no. 5, 6, and 7, along with
Constructing a new 75 mgd Peak-Flow Pump Station (PFPS).
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 3 of 62
Section 1.0
1.4
Executive Summary
Estimated Cost
The estimated construction costs of the combined AAF and WWF split is projected to be $149.8 million in
2010 dollars. This estimate includes improvements at the Sunbeam and Five-Mile diversion structures,
new Peak-Flow Pump Station (PFPS) at SWWTP and peak-flow basin and piping construction at both
CWWTP and SWWTP.
Table 1-1: Estimated Cost of Recommendations

Element
Cost
Peak-Flow Storage
CWWTP 84-Inch Horseshoe Interceptor Rehabilitation
SWWTP Basin No. 5
$13,700,000
$9,500,000
CWWTP Basin D
$23,400,000
CWWTP Existing Basins Rehabilitation
$5,200,000
SWWTP Basins No. 1, 2, and 3 Rehabilitation
$4,500,000
SWWTP Basin No. 6
$18,900,000
SWWTP Peak-Flow Pump Station
$21,600,000
SWWTP Basin No. 7
$24,000,000
CWWTP IPS Interconnect
$7,900,000
CWWTP Stage 2 IPS Improvements
$13,300,000
Flow Management
Sunbeam Junction Structure Replacement
$4,400,000
Five-Mile Diversion Structure Rehabilitation
$3,400,000
Total Construction Cost
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
$149,800,000
Page 4 of 62
Section 2.0
2.0
BASIS OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1
Introduction
Basis of Alternatives
This section discusses the various flow alternatives available to optimize existing process treatment
capacity, comply with regulatory requirements, meet recycled flow commitments, and to minimize cost.
The criteria used to select the recommended flow splits include the following:
Require at least 69 mgd effluent at CWWTP (for Trinity Lakes, reuse, and other)
Maintain minimum process flows at CWWTP
Dilute the filtrate at SWWTP
Defer expansion at both CWWTP and SWWTP
Current plans to replace the Sunbeam diversion structure and rehabilitate the Five-Mile diversion
structure were accounted for in each alternative. The Team also took into account biological nutrient
improvements for enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) needed at both plants within the
planning period. These improvements result in a decreased allowable process flow at CWWTP.
2.2
Current Flow Management
Table 2-1 presents the current and anticipated preferred maximum process flows at each wastewater
treatment plant. Currently, the total preferred maximum process flows at both plants is 260 mgd with a
preferred maximum peak-hourly flow (PHF) process flow of 455 mgd. By 2030 the projected total process
flow capacities will be an AAF of 260 mgd and PHF of 445 mgd. The reduction in interim preferred
maximum process flows, shown in Table 2-1, is a result of biological nutrient improvements for EBPR
occurring before 2030.
Table 2-1: Preferred Maximum Process Flows

Interim (1)
Current
2030 (2)
AAF (3)
(mgd)
PHF (3)
(mgd)
AAF (3)
(mgd)
PHF (3)
(mgd)
AAF (3)
(mgd)
PHF (3)
(mgd)
CWWTP
150
350
120
230
120
230
SWWTP
110
155
110
155
140
215
Total
260
455
230
385
260
445
Notes:
1
EBPR operation in effect. Peak-flow basin sizing based on interim/maximum process flows.
EBPR operation in effect with SWWTP Phase IV in service.
Flows are based on preferred maximum process flows as operated by plant staff with appropriate units
out of service. This is not reflective of the projected AAF. For permitted flows refer to Appendix F9,
Impact of TCEQ217 and Future Permit Considerations.
2.2.1
Average Annual Flow Management
The current AAF management scheme is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Multiple sources contribute to the total
flow reaching each plant. The two primary diversion structures, Sunbeam and Five-Mile can be operated
manually (with some limitations) to control flows reaching each plant. The current AAF flow split is 64
percent to CWWTP and 36 percent to SWWTP.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 5 of 62
Section 2.0
Figure 2-1: Current AAF Flow Management
2.2.2
Wet-Weather Flow Management
The current WWF split between CWWTP and SWWTP is managed using two diversion structures,
Sunbeam and Five-Mile. These diversion structures can be operated manually (with some limitation) to
control flows reaching each plant. However, during WWF events the ability to accurately shift flows with
the current diversion structures is very challenging. Figure 2-3 illustrates the existing peak-day flow
(PDF)/PHF flows from the sources and the current flow split at the two diversion structures.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 6 of 62
Section 2.0
Figure 2-2: Current Wet-Weather Flow Management
2.3
Projected Flows
The projected AAF, PDF, and PHF for the year 2030 are used to determine the flow split alternative for an
average annual and wet-weather condition that satisfies the criteria. Projected 2030 flows are based on
the analysis presented in, Appendix F1, Basis of Planning: Wastewater Flow Projections.
Figure 2-3 is a graphical timeline of the historical and projected flows up to 2030. Although recent history
depicts that flows are decreasing, possibly due to successful water conservation efforts, the expected
increases in population and inflow/infiltration (I/I) support the future increase in influent flows to the plant.
The diversion structures at Sunbeam and Five-Mile become crucial to maintaining influent flows at each
plant. Projected PHF require additional peak-flow basins at each WWTP to accommodate a 10-year
storage recurrence interval.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 7 of 62
Section 2.0
Figure 2-3: DWU Projected Flows

300
250
Annual Average Flow (mgd)
223
200
197
177
150
Historical AAF
Historical DWF
Strategic Plan - Wet Year AAF
Strategic Plan - Projected AAF
Strategic Plan - Dry Year AAF
100
50
0
2000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
2010
2020
December 2010
2030
Page 8 of 62
Section 2.0
2.4
Recycled Water Plans
In addition to meeting collection system demands, DWU has also committed to a recycled water (RW)
plan. Part or most of the effluent discharge from each of the WWTPs is committed to various users.
Table 2-2 summarizes the RW commitments for the planning period.
Table 2-2: Recycled Water Flow Commitments

2030 (1)
2010
Flow Commitment (mgd)
Location
Scenario 1
(102 mgd)
Scenario 2
(50 mgd)
Direct Non-Potable Reuse
CWWTP
Indirect Reuse to NTMWD
CWWTP or
SWWTP
35.5
35.5
DWU Indirect Reuse Through Lake

Ray Hubbard
CWWTP or
SWWTP
30.5
30.5
CWWTP
60
60
CWWTP or
SWWTP
102
42
-10 (2)
Total Flow Commitment
111
177
125
Projected DWU Dry-Year AAF
135
177
177
Excess Recycled Flow
24
52
Environmental Flows
Trinity Corridor Lakes
Other Environmental Flows
Notes:
1
Scenario 1 assumes environmental flows equal to 100 mgd.

Scenario 2 assumes environmental flows equal to 50 mgd.
Other environmental flows for Scenario 2 are a negative number because the total
Environmental Flows must equal 50 mgd. The negative number is therefore a surplus.
Due to pending new TCEQ regulation of environmental flows, two possible scenarios emerge as follows:
Scenario 1 assumes that the commitment to environmental flows cannot be less than 102 mgd, which
is the current TCEQ requirement.
Scenario 2 accounts for a pending TCEQ regulation, which once approved requires a 50 mgd
commitment to environmental flows.
Despite the two RW plan scenarios, CWWTP is required to discharge 69 mgd during a dry-year AAF
condition.
Table 2-2 indicates that the row labeled "Total Flow Commitments" is less than or equal to the row
labeled "Projected DWU Dry-Year AAF." This confirms that both RW plan scenarios meet the flow
commitments set by DWU in 2030. However, if all flow commitments are needed before the dry-year AAF
reaches 177 mgd, DWU will not be able to meet all commitments under Scenario 1.
Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 illustrate the RW plan for each scenario over the projected timeline to 2030.
The environmental flows are as follows:
Figure 2-4: Scenario 1 environmental flows are 102 mgd.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 9 of 62
Section 2.0
Figure 2-5: Scenario 2 environmental flows are 50 mgd.
Figure 2-4: Effluent Quantity Availability Scenario 1
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 10 of 62
Section 2.0
Figure 2-5: Effluent Quantity Availability Scenario 2
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 11 of 62
Section 3.0
Average Annual Flow Management Alternatives
3.0
AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOW MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
3.1
Introduction
The AAF for a wastewater system is an average of the total flow received from sanitary, groundwater
infiltration, and wet-weather events seen through the course of a year. The dry-weather flow (DWF) for a
wastewater system is an average of the total flow received from sanitary flows and groundwater infiltration
for dry-weather period not including flow resulting from a storm or rain event. For DWU, the DWF and
AAF values are close and for the purposes of this document, they are used interchangeably.
This section discusses the AAF projected flow split for 2030. Three flow split alternatives were developed
to optimize the flow split between CWWTP and SWWTP. See Table 3-1. Each scenario was evaluated
against the following criteria:
TCEQ 75/90 rule
RW plan commitments
Established goals
Table 3-1: Alternatives for AAF Management

2030 Flows (mgd %)
DWF Alternative
CWWTP
SWWTP
A1
108 (55%)
89 (45%)
A2
99 (50%)
98 (50%)
A3
89 (45%)
108 (55%)
Although all source flows remain the same, the three alternatives differ in the flow diverted from the
Sunbeam and Five-Mile Diversion Structures to each plant. The ability to accurately measure and divert
flow at Sunbeam and Five-Mile will be crucial in the implementation of any of the alternatives.
3.1.1
Application of TCEQ 75/90 Rule
The TCEQ has established the 75/90 rule as stated in Chapter 305.126, Additional Standard Permit
Conditions for Waste Discharge Permits (Ref. 58). The rule dictates that if a wastewater treatment plant
has an incoming average daily or AAF approaching 75 percent of the permitted average daily flow for
three consecutive months, then an engineering and financial plan must be initiated for the
expansion/upgrade of the plant.
Once the average daily or AAF approaches 90 percent of the permitted average daily flow for three
consecutive months, then the utility must obtain necessary authorization from TCEQ to commence
construction of expansion/upgrade of the plant.
However, if the AAF approaches the 75/90 requirement and the population served will not cause permit
non-compliance, then the 75/90 requirement may be waived. A 75/90 requirement waiver must be
reviewed by the TCEQ director.
Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 include figures that illustrate the timeline for each alternative as it relates to the
plant's compliance with the TCEQ 75/90 rule.
3.2
Alternative A1: CWWTP 55 Percent / SWWTP 45 Percent
Alternative A1 assumes that once the Sunbeam and Five-Mile diversion structures are improved, the
incoming flow to each plant will be proportioned to sending 55 percent of the total 2030 AAF to CWWTP
and 45 percent to SWWTP. .Figure 3-1 illustrates the flow schematic for Alternative A1.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 12 of 62
Section 3.0
Figure 3-1: Flow Schematic for Alternative A1
3.2.1
Trigger Timeline for A1
Figure 3-2 for CWWTP and Figure 3-3 for SWWTP provide a trigger timeline based on the A1 flow split.
Each trigger graph shows the relationship between the preferred maximum AAF and the projected AAF.
Improvements for EBPR are anticipated at both CWWTP and SWWTP sometime between 2015 and
2025; therefore, the preferred maximum AAF timeline at the CWWTP drops from 150 mgd to 120 mgd at
completion. The SWWTP preferred maximum AAF does not change as a result of EBPR implementation.
The projected AAF timeline depends on the improvements timeline of the Sunbeam and Five-Mile
diversion structures. Once replacement and/or rehabilitation are complete, the structures will reliably
divert more flow from CWWTP and to SWWTP.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 13 of 62
Section 3.0
Figure 3-2: CWWTP Trigger Timeline for Alternative A1
Figure 3-3: SWWTP Trigger Timeline for A1
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 14 of 62
Section 3.0
3.3
Alternative A2 evenly splits the flows between the two WWTPs. The flow schematic in Figure 3-4 shows
the flow contribution from each source and how much the diversion structures send to each plant.
3.3.1
The trigger timeline for Alternative A2 is illustrated in Figure 3-5 for CWWTP and Figure 3-6 for SWWTP.
The AAF for each plant is the same for all AAF alternatives at 2030. The percent of permitted AAF is at
83 percent for CWWTP and at 89 percent for SWWTP.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 15 of 62
Section 3.0
Figure 3-5: CWWTP Trigger Timeline for A2
Figure 3-6: SWWTP Trigger Timeline for A2
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 16 of 62
Section 3.0
3.4
Alternative A3 sends more flow to SWWTP than the previous two alternatives. With 45 percent of the
AAF diverted to CWWTP and the remainder to SWWTP, Figure 3-7 is the resulting flow schematic under
this alternative.
3.4.1
With the majority of the AAF diverted to SWWTP, the projected AAF approaches the 75/90 requirement
earlier than the other alternatives, which is a disadvantage. SWWTP approaches 75 percent of its
permitted AAF at 2019 and 90 percent at 2025 respectively requiring construction of SWWTP Phase IV.
The advantage of this alternative is that CWWTP will not reach 75 percent of its permitted AAF until after
2030. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 illustrate how CWWTP and SWWTP respectively operate over time
compared to the permitted AAF under alternative A3.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 17 of 62
Section 3.0
Figure 3-8: CWWTP Trigger Timeline for A3
Figure 3-9: SWWTP Trigger Timeline A3
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 18 of 62
Section 3.0
3.5
Evaluation of Annual Average Flow Alternatives
A summary of all the annual average flow alternatives is shown in Table 3-2 along with projected AAF
designated at each plant for 2030. The goals stated in the beginning of Section 2 are listed under the
criteria column. A next to the item indicates that the criteria are met under the AAF alternative.
Multiple check marks indicate that this alternative meets the criteria and provides additional benefit. A red
X indicates the criteria were not met.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 19 of 62
Section 3.0
Table 3-2: Evaluation of DWF Management Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria
Alternatives
A1
A2
A3
CWWTP
108
99
89
SWWTP
89
98
108
CWWTP
98
89
79
SWWTP
79
88
98
Meets 2030 Adequate RW

Commitments Scenario 1 (1)
CWWTP
SWWTP

Commitments Scenario 2
CWWTP
SWWTP
2010-2020
2020-2030
Minimum Flow at CWWTP to Maintain Process
Dilutes SWWTP Filtrate
2010-2020
2020-2030
2030 AAF (mgd)
2030 During Dry-Year AAF (mgd)
Defers CWWTP Process Expansion
Defers SWWTP Process Expansion Capacity

Note:
1
If all flow commitments are needed before the Dry-year AAF reaches 177 mgd, DWU will not
meet all commitments under Scenario 1.
The costs associated with all three alternatives are nearly identical, since all alternatives include
replacement of the Sunbeam Diversion Structure and rehabilitation of the Five-Mile Structure.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 20 of 62
Section 4.0
Wet-Weather Flow Management Alternatives
4.0
WET-WEATHER FLOW MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.1
Introduction
Both the CWWTP and SWWTP require peak-flow basin improvements to handle 2030 projected peak
wet-weather flows. This section identifies the different wet-weather management alternatives for the
planning period.
Historical storm event data collected for the last 70 years was used to generate a peak-flow basin volume
versus storage recurrence interval relationship. A peak-flow storage recurrence interval is different from a
storm recurrence interval, which is used in sizing sewers. A storage recurrence interval is the frequency
of basin usage after a storm event. The WWF management alternatives depend heavily on a chosen wet
weather peak-flow storage recurrence interval. For example a 10-year wet weather peak-flow storage
event is the peak-flow volume generated from particular rain events that, on the average, will fill or
exceed the peak-flow basin volume once every 10 years. It does not mean that the event occurred every
10 years. The probability that an event of a specific magnitude will be equal or exceeded in a given future
year is the inverse of the recurrence interval. Thus, a 10-year peak-flow storage event has a chance of
one in 10 (or 10 percent) chance of occurring in any specified year. The recurrence interval selected for
use in this WWF peak-flow storage analysis is a 10-year recurrence interval. This event would
theoretically generate 1,100 MG of volume based on the Long Term Flow Simulation (Ref. 231). Figure
4-1 illustrates the needed volume at CWWTP and Figure 4-2 illustrates the needed volume at SWWTP
based on the selected 10-year storage recurrence interval.
Figure 4-1: Volume of Basin vs. Recurrence Interval at CWWTP
Volume of Peak Flow Basins (MG)
1,000
900
Planned
Recurrence
Interval and
Storage Volume
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Storage Recurrence Interval (years)

2030 Conditions (future I/I, min interceptor bottlenecks, & 230 mgd process PHF)
2010 Conditions (current I/I, 450 mgd max thru interceptor, & 300 mgd process PHF)
Existing Volume of CWWTP Peak Flow Basins (Design + Emergency Volume = 264 MG)
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 21 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-2: Volume of Basin vs. Recurrence Interval at SWWTP

1,600
Volume of Peak Flow Basins (MG)
1,400
Planned
Recurrence
Interval and
Storage Volume
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Storage Recurrence Interval (years)

2030 Conditions (Future I/I, min interceptor bottlenecks, & 155 mgd process PHF)
2010 Conditions (Current I/I, 300 mgd max thru interceptor, & 155 mgd process PHF)
Existing Volume of Peak Flow Basins Size (Design Volume = 158 MG)
The current collection system bottlenecks are slated to be minimized by 2030, allowing better conveyance
of wet-weather flows to the plants. To accommodate these flows, the plant will require within this
planning period, additional peak-flow storage. A reduction in the preferred process maximum PHF (300
mgd to 230 mgd) capacity during the planning period will greatly affect the amount of storage necessary
at CWWTP. SWWTP preferred process maximum PHF will remain at 155 mgd until Phase IV is
constructed at the end of this planning period.
Another consideration for peak-flow basin storage is the influent pumping capacity at each plant. The
maximum rate that a plants influent pumps can pull out of the collection system is the maximum rate at
which the peak-flow basins can be filled. Inadequate influent pumping capacity results in collection
system temporary storage. This section includes the analysis of additional pumping capacity to handle
the larger projected flows and reduce collection system temporary storage.
CWWTP currently has four peak-flow basins A, B1, B2, and C totaling 185 MG when the water surface
elevation (WSE) reaches 402 ft. For additional emergency storage, the WSE can be increased to 407 ft
bringing the emergency storage volume at CWWTP to 264 MG (Ref. 230). SWWTP currently has four
basins no. 1, no. 2, no. 3, and no. 4 with a storage volume of 158 MG (Ref. 228).
The total storage volume (CWWTP and SWWTP) necessary for a 10-year storage recurrence interval in
2030 is 1,100 MG. Two alternatives (W1 and W2) were evaluated to achieve 1,100 MG of storage. A
more detailed analysis during the predesign phase will be necessary to select the most beneficial
alternative.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 22 of 62
Section 4.0
4.2
Alternative W1
4.2.1
CWWTP
Alternative W1 includes the option to excavate a new basin D. Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 illustrate the
proposed layout and profile for Alternative W1. These changes would bring the total storage at CWWTP
to 440 MG.
Basin D is located in CWWTP, adjacent to existing basin A, and includes excavation down to an elevation
that allows drainage by gravity into a new junction structure on the 84-inch Horseshoe Interceptor. Piping
layout, hydraulics, and available land surface dictate the size and depth of a peak-flow basin.
Basins B-2 and C will also have new solids settling chambers installed within the existing basins to allow
large solids to settle out. This will minimize the cleaning area after peak-flow events to a small basin as
opposed to the large basins.
Design includes installation of a new 72-inch diameter peak-flow pipe between the new IPS and basin B.
An additional 96-inch influent pipe between the White Rock Gate Structure and IPS is also planned to
convey flows from the Sunbeam and Five-Mile junction structures directly to the IPS. The pipeline is
planned to be constructed along the east side of the facility as shown in Figure 4-3.
4.2.2
SWWTP
Expansion at SWWTP includes combining basins no. 2 and 3, and converting basin no.1 to a solids
settling chamber. Basins no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 will also be excavated deeper to match the bottom
elevation of basin no. 4. In addition, basins no. 5, no. 6, and no. 7 will be constructed. These
improvements will provide 660 MG at SWWTP.
Basins no. 5, no. 6, and no. 7 at SWWTP will be sized as shown on the layout in Figure 4-5. The
proposed size and profile of the basins are shown on Figure 4-6. An existing stormwater basin lies in the
proposed area for basin no. 6, which will partially remain to accommodate the large surface area needed
for basins no. 6 and no. 7.
A new SWWTP PFPS with a total capacity of 75 mgd will be proposed to be located upstream of IPSC to
allow direct pumping to multiple peak-flow basins.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 23 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-3: 2030 CWWTP Peak-Flow Basin Layout for W1
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 24 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-4: 2030 CWWTP Peak-Flow Basin Profile for W1
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 25 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-5: 2030 SWWTP Peak-Flow Basin Layout
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 26 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-6: 2030 SWWTP Peak-Flow Basin Profile
4.3
Alternative W2
4.3.1
CWWTP
Alternative W2 includes the option to excavate basin E and basin D. Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 illustrate
the proposed layout and profile for Alternative W2. The total volume will be 440 MG.
Basins D and E are located in CWWTP, adjacent to existing basin A, and this option includes excavation
of the basins down to an elevation that allows drainage by gravity into basin A. Piping layout, hydraulics,
and available land surface dictate the size and depth of a peak-flow basin. The lowest possible point for
the bottom of basins D and E is at an elevation of 391 ft.
The proposed location of basin E at CWWTP consists of a rudimentary landfill with inert bio-solids
containing unleachable arsenic (Ref. 231). The arsenic levels are unknown at this time and disposal
methods were not investigated for this technical memorandum. Any future design with this alternative
would have to incorporate a detailed disposal plan for the inert bio-solids. Cost estimates did not include
disposal of contaminants, since level contamination was unknown.
Additional 72-inch diameter peak-flow pipe between the new IPS and Basin B will be constructed. A 96inch influent tunnel between the White Rock Gate structure and IPS is also required to allow an alternate
influent pipe to the 84-inch Horseshoe Interceptor. This new pipe will convey flows from the Sunbeam
and Five-Mile junction structures directly to the IPS. The pipeline will be tunneled along the east side of
the facility as shown in Figure 4-7.
4.3.2
SWWTP
Expansion at SWWTP includes combining basins no. 2 and 3, and converting basin no.1 to a solids
settling chamber. Basins no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 will also be excavated deeper to match the bottom
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 27 of 62
Section 4.0
elevation of basin no. 4. In addition, basins no. 5, no. 6, and no. 7 will be constructed. These
improvements will provide 660 MG at SWWTP.
Basins no. 5, no. 6, and no. 7 at SWWTP will be sized as shown on the layout in Figure 4-5. The
proposed size and profile of the basins are shown on Figure 4-6. An existing stormwater basin lies in the
proposed area for basin no. 6, requiring relocation to accommodate the large surface area needed for
basins no. 6 and no. 7.
A new SWWTP PFPS with a total capacity of 75 mgd will be located upstream of IPSC to allow direct
pumping to multiple peak-flow basins.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 28 of 62
Section 4.0
Draft WWTFSP_App.F6-1.0
December 2010
Page 29 of 62
Section 4.0
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 30 of 62
Section 4.0
Figure 4-9: 2030 Wet-Weather Flow Management
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 31 of 62
Section 4.0
4.4
Summary of Wet-Weather Alternatives
Table 4-2 is a summary of volumes sent to each plant based on each alternative. Both alternatives meet
the estimated 2030 basin event volume of 1,100 MG. Section 5.0 contains a detailed discussion of the
cost estimates for each alternative.
Table 4-1: Summary of Wet-Weather Alternatives
SWWTP Basin
Volumes
CWWTP Basin
Volumes
Scenario Description
Units
W1
W2
Existing
MG
MG
176
116
MG
N/A
60
Subtotal
MG
440
440
Existing
MG
Additional 1-2-3
MG
22
22
MG
90
90
MG
165
165
MG
225
225
Subtotal
MG
660
660
MG
1,100
1,100
Total Volume
264
158
The existing and required pumping capacities for both plants based on each wet-weather alternative are
summarized on Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Planned Pumping Capacity

CWWTP
SWWTP
Facility
Flow (mgd)
Facility
Flow (mgd)
IPS (Stage 2) (1)
425
IPSC (1)
348
WRRSPS
(1)
230
DPFPS
(1)
60
SDPFPS (1)
50
PFPS (2)
75
Total Capacity
705
Total Capacity
483
Notes:
1
Existing/Under Design/Construction
Planned/New
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 32 of 62
Section 5.0
5.0
Recommended Alternatives
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
The recommended AAF split is alternative A2 with a 50 percent CWWTP and 50 percent SWWTP flow
split. The recommended wet-weather alternative is A2 which include CWWTP improvements of
excavating basin D, and deepening basins A and D by 5 feet. Improvements at SWWTP include
constructing basins no. 5, no. 6, and no. 7, joining and deepening basins no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3, and
building a new PFPS to accept the additional peak flows.
5.1
Recommended Average Annual Flow Split
After thorough analysis of the three annual average flow split alternatives as presented in Section 3.0, the
recommended alternative that best meets all the goals is alternative A2, as shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Summary of Average Annual Flow Management Alternatives

Evaluation Criteria
Alternatives
A1
Recommended
Alternative
A3
A2
CWWTP
108
99
89
SWWTP
89
98
108
CWWTP
98
89
79
SWWTP
769
88
98

Commitments Scenario 1 (1)
CWWTP
SWWTP

Commitments Scenario 2
CWWTP
SWWTP
2010-2020
2020-2030
2010-2020
2020-2030
Minimum Flow at CWWTP to Maintain Process
Dilute SWWTP Filtrate
2030 AAF (mgd)
2030 During Dry-Year AAF (mgd)
Defers CWWTP Process Expansion

Defers SWWTP Process Expansion
Capacity
Note:
1
If all flow commitments are needed before the dry-year AAF reaches 177 mgd, DWU will not
meet all commitments under Scenario 1.
Alternative A2 recommends a 50 percent split of the total 2030 AAF between the two WWTPs.
Alternative A2 also provides for maximum dilution of the filtrate at SWWTP, while delaying improvements
at CWWTP and SWWTP beyond the planning period.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 33 of 62
Section 5.0
5.2
Recommended Wet-Weather Alternative
Based on the wet-weather peak-flow basin analysis in Section 4.0, alternative W1 is the recommended
alternative. Construction would be in two phases as described below:
Phase 1 (within 5 years)
Construct of basin no. 5 at SWWTP.
Replace Sunbeam Junction Structure.
Improve Five-Mile Diversion Structure.
Rehabilitate existing basins at CWWTP.
Rehabilitate basins no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 at SWWTP.
Construct new peak-flow basin D at CWWTP.
Construct 96-inch diameter peak-flow piping between IPS and peak-flow basins.
Phase 2 (within 5 - 20 years)
Construct peak-flow basin no. 6 at SWWTP.
Construct SWWTP 75 mgd peak-flow pump station.
Construct peak-flow basin no. 7 at SWWTP.
Construct 96-inch piping between IPS and WRGS.
Table 5-2 shows the risk analysis associated with potential overflow of the peak-flow basins considering
timing of the different alternatives for CWWTP peak-flow storage and when the enhanced biological
phosphorus removal projects go online. This analysis was done for CWWTP because of the particular
challenges it faces. Those challenges are the following:
Land-locked facility
Derated plant capacity
Increased peak flows
Table 5-2 shows both the surplus of peak-flow basins storage in million gallons for four storm events and
also the probability of exceeding basin storage in any given year and decade. The recommended
alternative of having basin D online before EBPR improvements are completed for both Complex A and
Complex B has the lowest risk, with the highest risk associated with the alternative of keeping the existing
storage as is and EBPR at both Complex A and B online, which decreases plant peak-flow capacity.
This analysis can help determine the order and timing of peak-flow basin project based on DWU's
willingness to accept associated risks.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 34 of 62
Section 5.0
Table 5-2: Peak Flow Storage Risk Analysis

CWWTP
Alternative
Scenario
Complex Complex New PFB
A Online? B Online?
D?
Deepen
PFB A?
Treatment Peak Flow

Capacity
Basin
(mgd)
Capacity (MG)
Existing
No
No
No
No
300
264
Recommended
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
230
440
DWU 1
No
Yes
No
Yes
270
320
DWU 2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
230
320
DWU 3
Yes
Yes
No
No
230
264
CWWTP
5.3
Storage Parameters
Surplus Peak Flow Basin Storage (MG)
Probability of
Exceeding Basin
Storage
Alternative
5 yr
Event
10 yr
Event
15 yr
Event
20 yr
Event
In any
given
year
In any given
decade
Existing
164
89
39
4.8%
39%
Recommended
265
85
-25
-100
7.1%
52%
DWU 1
180
60
-40
-120
9.1%
61%
DWU 2
145
-35
-145
-220
11.8%
71%
DWU 3
89
-91
-201
-276
14.3%
79%
Estimated Cost for Peak-Flow Storage and Flow Management
Implementation of any AAF or WWF alternative requires replacement of the Sunbeam diversion structure
and rehabilitation of the Five-Mile diversion structure. The Sunbeam diversion structure is recommended
to be replaced since it is nearing the end of its useful life and is not capable of accurately measuring and
diverting flow. The Five-Mile diversion structure is recommended to rehabilitated and modified to
accurately measure and divert flow. None of the AAF alternatives require improvements at the CWWTP
or SWWTP; however, additional peak-flow storage and pumping capacity are included to accommodate
the chosen wet-weather alternative W1. Estimated costs are presented in Table 5-3. Alternative cost
and detailed cost estimates are in Appendix E.
Table 5-3: Estimated Cost for Recommended Alternatives

Element
W1 Cost
Peak-Flow Storage
SWWTP Basin No. 5
$13,700,000
$9,500,000
CWWTP Basin D
$23,400,000
$5,200,000
$4,500,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 35 of 62
Section 5.0
Element
W1 Cost
SWWTP Basin No. 6
$18,900,000
$21,600,000
SWWTP Basin No. 7
$24,000,000
$7,900,000
$13,300,000
Flow Management
$4,400,000
$3,400,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
$149,800,000
Page 36 of 62
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Appendix A Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Acronym or Term
Definition
AAF
Average Annual Flow
AD
Alternative Disinfection
AGR
Aerated Grit Basins
ASCA
Activated Sludge Complex A
ASCB
Activated Sludge Complex B
ASCC
Activated Sludge Complex C
ASIPS
Activated Sludge Influent Plump Station
BCP1
Basin Complex Phase 1/2
BCP3
Basin Complex Phase 3
CCB
Chlorine Contact Basin
CP
Chemical Polishing Facilities
CWWTP
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
DIG
Digesters
DPH
Dallas Plant Headworks
DPPC
Dallas Plant Primary Clarifiers
DPSC
Dallas Plant Secondary Clarifiers
DWF
Dewatering Facilities
DWF
Dry-Weather Flow
DWU
EBPR
Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal
EPS
Effluent Pump Station
EPSA
Effluent Pump Station A
EPSB
Effluent Pump Station B
FC
Filter Complex
FDS
Flow Diversion Structure
FP1
Filter Phase 1/2
FP3
Filter Phase 3
ft
Foot or Feet
IPS
Influent Pump Station
IPSC
Influent Pump Station C
MG
Million Gallons
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
mgd
Million Gallons per Day
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 37 of 62
Appendix A
Acronym or Term
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Definition
N/A
Not Applicable
NIPS
New Influent Pump Station
No.
Number
NTMWD
North Texas Municipal Water District
OH&P
Contractor Overhead and Profit
PDF
Peak-Daily Flow
PFPS
Peak-Flow Pump Station
PHF
Peak-Hourly Flow
PS
Pump Station
RW
Recycled Water
SDPFPS
South Dallas Peak-Flow Pump Station
SSC
Sidestream Clarifier
SSPR
Sidestream Phosphorous Removal
SWWTP
Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant
TAC
Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TM
Technical Memorandum or Technical Memo
VGR
Vortex Grit Removal
WB
West Bank Interceptor
WRGP
White Rock Gate Structure
WRH
White Rock Headworks
WRP
White Rock Plant
WRPC
White Rock Primary Clarifiers
WRPFPS
White Rock Peak-Flow Pump Station
WRRSPS
White Rock Raw Sewage Pump Station
WRSC
White Rock Secondary Clarifiers
WSE
Water Surface Elevation
WWF
Wet-Weather Flow
WWTFSP
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 38 of 62
Appendix B
References
Appendix B References
Reference
Number
Reference Information
58
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Consolidated Permits, 30 TAC 305, July

2006.
87
Freese & Nichols, Inc. Central Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulic and Process
Modeling Project, Technical Memorandum No. 3 Process Alternative Scenarios and
Recommendations. Dallas: Freese and Nichols, July 2006.
135
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Strategic Plan, Technical

Memorandum, Wastewater Flow Projections. Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
139

Memorandum, Condition Assessment White Rock Raw Sewage Pump Station
(WRRSPS). Dallas: Carollo Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
211

Memorandum, Impact of TCEQ217 and Future Permit Considerations. Dallas: Carollo
Engineers, Inc., July 2010.
228
Henningson, Durham, and Richardson Inc (HDR). Southside Wastewater Treatment

Plant Peak Flow Basin Expansion Draft Technical Memorandum. Dallas: HDR,
December 2002.
229
Halff Associates Inc. Closure Plan Municipal Sludge Disposal Basin A. Dallas: Halff
Associates Inc.
230
Halff Associates Inc. Predesign Report Wastewater Plant Peak Flow & Process Control
Improvements. Dallas: Halff Associates Inc.
231
Carollo Engineers, Inc. Long Term Flow Simulation. Dallas: January 2009.
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 39 of 62
Appendix C
Flow Schematics
Appendix C Flow Schematics

Figure C-1: Flow Schematic Existing Conditions
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 40 of 62
Appendix C
Flow Schematics
Figure C-2: Flow Schematic - 2030 Conditions (W1 Alternative)
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 41 of 62
Appendix D
Peak-Flow Basins
Appendix D Peak-Flow Basins

Figure D-1: Current Wet-Weather Flow Handling at CWWTP for 10-year Storage Event
Figure D-2: Projected Wet-Weather Flow Handling at CWWTP for 10-year Storage Event
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 42 of 62
Appendix D
Peak-Flow Basins
Figure D-3: Current Wet-Weather Flow Handling at SWWTP for 10-Year Storage Event
Figure D-4: Projected Wet-Weather Flow Handling at SWWTP for 10-year Storage Event
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 43 of 62
Appendix D
Peak-Flow Basins
Figure D-5: Hydraulic Grade Lines for Future 72 in. and 96 in. Pipes from IPS
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 44 of 62
Appendix D
Peak-Flow Basins
Figure D-6: 2030 PF Schematic CWWTP
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 45 of 62
Appendix E
Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix E Detailed Cost Estimates

Table E-1: Estimated Cost for Alternatives
Element
Alternative W1
Alternative W2
Peak-Flow Storage
$13,700,000
$13,700,000
$9,500,000
$9,500,000
$23,400,000
N/A
N/A
$86,600,000
$5,200,000
N/A
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
SWWTP Basin No. 6
$18,900,000
$18,900,000
$21,600,000
$21,600,000
SWWTP Basin No. 7
$24,000,000
$24,000,000
$7,900,000
$7,900,000
$13,300,000
$13,300,000
$4,400,000
$4,400,000
$3,400,000
$3,400,000
$149,800,000
$213,000,000
SWWTP Basin No. 5

CWWTP Basin D
CWWTP Basin D and E

Flow Management
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 46 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-2: 84-Inch Interceptor Rehabilitation Detailed Cost Estimate (W1 & W2)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
84-Inch Horseshoe Interceptor Rehabilitation

Major Site Work
Utility Relocation and/or Flow Diversion
LS
Dewatering
LS
$300,000
$300,000
Site Restoration
LS
$300,000
$300,000
Cleaning Existing Pipe
4,300
LF
$90
$387,000
84-Inch Pipe
4,300
LF
$510 $2,193,000
Slip Lining and Grouting 84-Inch Pipe
4,300
LF
$420 $1,806,000
Sheet Piling
6,400
SF
$29
$185,600
10,667
CY
$14
$149,338
Backfill
$2,000,000 $2,000,000
Subtotal Major Site Work
$7,320,938
Subtotal Structure(s)
$0
Subtotal Major Equipment & Piping
$0
Subtotal All Major Cost
$7,320,938
Other Misc. Yard Piping and Utilities (0%)
$0
Other Site Work (10%)
$732,094
Other Electrical and Instrumentation (0%)
$0
Subtotal Direct Cost
$8,053,000
Total Direct Cost
$8,100,000
Contingencies (30%)
$2,400,000
Structure(s)
None
Major Equipment & Piping

None
Total Direct Cost + Contingencies $10,500,000

General Conditions (15%)
$1,600,000
Contractor OH & P (15%)
$1,600,000
Total Construction Cost $13,700,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 47 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-3: New Peak Flow Basin No. 5 (W1 & W2)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Cost
Subtotal
Total
New Peak Flow Basin No. 5

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
110
AC
Excavation
530,000
CY
$3 $1,590,000
Haul Excess Excavation
430,000
CY
$2
$860,000
LS
$100,000
$100,000
25,000
SF
$5
$125,000
New Perimeter Gravel Road

Bentonite Slurry Trench
$1,400
$154,000
$2,829,000
Structure(s)
6-Inch Concrete Basin Floor
6,667
CY
$295 $1,966,765
6-Inch Concrete Sloped Walls
4,167
CY
$306 $1,275,102
LS
Meter Vault
$100,000
$100,000
$3,341,867

48-Inch Pipe
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
610
LF
$230
$140,300
$140,300
$6,311,167
$315,558
$0
$0
$6,627,000
Total Direct Cost
$6,600,000
Contingencies (10%)
$700,000
Total Direct Cost + Contingencies
$7,300,000
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$9,500,000
December 2010
Page 48 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-4: Existing Peak Flow Basins Rehabilitation

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
$8
$900,640
Total
Existing Basin Rehabilitation

Major Site Work
Demolition
Berm Rehabilitation
112,580
SF
LS
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,900,640
Structure(s)
6-Inch Concrete Slab On Grade
2,167
CY
$295
$639,265
6-Inch Sloped Slab On Grade
1,333
CY
$306
$407,898
200
CY
$950
$190,000
2,000
CY
$75
$150,000
10-Inch Wide Concrete Settling Walls

Grouting
$1,387,163

None
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
$0
$0
$3,287,803
$164,390
$164,390
$0
$3,617,000
Total Direct Cost
$3,600,000
Contingencies (10%)
$400,000
$4,000,000
$600,000
$600,000
$5,200,000
December 2010
Page 49 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-5: New Peak Flow Basin D

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
New Basin D Construction

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
205
AC
$1,400
$287,000
147,000
SF
$5
$735,000
Excavation
829,156
CY
$3 $2,487,468
Embankment for Levee
136,889
CY
$3
672,711
CY
$2 $1,345,422
LS
$170,000
$170,000
2,685
CY
$150
$402,750
Vertical Shaft
120
LF
$3,000
$360,000
Tunneling and Temporary Support
895
LF
$1,200 $1,074,000

Cellular Grout for Annular Space
$410,667
$7,272,307
Structure(s)
Inlet Box Culvert
Outlet Control Structure
13,167
CY
$295 $3,884,265
8,148
CY
$306 $2,493,288
342
LF
$200
$68,400
LS
$190,000
$190,000
$6,635,953

66-Inch Pipe
1,765
LF
$320
$564,800
66-Inch Sluice Gate
EA
$20,000
$40,000
Junction Structure
EA
$50,000
$100,000
Existing Junction Structure
LS
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,704,800
Subtotal All Major Cost $15,613,060

$780,653
$0
$0
Subtotal Direct Cost $16,394,000

Total Direct Cost $16,400,000
Contingencies (10%)
$1,600,000
Total Direct Cost + Contingencies $18,000,000

$2,700,000
$2,700,000
Total Construction Cost $23,400,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 50 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-6: New Peak Flow Basin D and Rehabilitation of Existing Peak Flow Basins (W2)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
New Basin D Construction

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
180
AC
$1,400
$252,000
123,000
SF
$5
$615,000
Excavation
438,748
CY
$3
$1,316,244
115,000
CY
$3
$345,000
355,891
CY
$2
$711,782
LS
$170,000
$170,000
$3,410,026
Structure(s)
Inlet Box Culvert
13,940
CY
$295
$4,112,300
5,392
CY
$306
$1,649,952
290
LF
$200
$58,000
LS
$190,000
$190,000
$6,010,252

66-Inch Sluice Gate
EA
$20,000
$40,000
$40,000
$9,460,278
$473,014
$0
$0
$9,933,000
New Basin E Construction

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
Excavation
Disposal of Waste
70
AC
$1,400
$98,000
50,000
SF
$5
$250,000
403,000
CY
$3
$1,209,000
46,939
CY
$3
$140,817
403,000
CY
$100
$40,300,000
LS
$170,000
$170,000
$42,167,817
Structure(s)
4,490
CY
$295
$1,324,550
2,789
CY
$306
$853,434
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 51 of 62
Appendix E
Description
Inlet Box Culvert
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
290
LF
$200
$58,000
LS
$190,000
$190,000
Total
$2,425,984

66-Inch Sluice Gate
EA
$20,000
$40,000
$40,000
$44,633,801
$2,231,690
$0
$0
$46,865,000
Existing Basin Rehabilitation

Major Site Work
Berm Rehabilitation
LS
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Structure(s)
10-Inch Wide Concrete Settling Walls
Grouting
200
CY
$950
$190,000
2000
CY
$75
$150,000
$340,000

Existing Junction Structure
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
LS
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,340,000
$167,000
$167,000
$0
$3,674,000
Total Direct Cost
$60,500,000
Contingencies (10%)
$6,100,000
$66,600,000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$86,600,000
December 2010
Page 52 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-7: Existing Peak Flow Basins No. 1, 2, 3 Rehabilitation/Improvements (W1 & W2)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost Subtotal
Total
Existing Peak Flow Basins No. 1, 2, 3 Rehab/Improvements

Major Site Work
Demolition
89,000
SF
$8
$712,000
Excavation
130,000
CY
$3
$390,000
106,000
CY
$2
$212,000
$1,314,000
Structure(s)
1,667
CY
$295
$491,765
267
CY
$306
$81,702
Interior Walls, 24-Inch
667
CY
$600
$400,200
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Meter Vault
$1,073,667

48-Inch Pipe
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
590
LF
$230
$135,700
$135,700
$2,523,367
$252,337
$378,505
$0
$3,154,000
Total Direct Cost
$3,200,000
Contingencies (10%)
$300,000
$3,500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$4,500,000
December 2010
Page 53 of 62
Appendix E
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
New Basin No. 6 Construction

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
200
AC
$1,400
$280,000
Dewatering
LS
$80,000
$80,000
Excavation
972,000
CY
$3
$2,916,000
46,000
SF
$5
$230,000
789,000
CY
$2
$1,578,000
LS
$190,000
$190,000
$5,274,000
Structure(s)
12,333
CY
$295
$3,638,235
7,667
CY
$306
$2,346,102
Solids Settling Chamber Walls
950
CY
$650
$617,500
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Meter Vault
$6,701,837
$0
$11,975,837
$598,792
$0
$598,792
$13,173,000
Total Direct Cost
$13,200,000
Contingencies (10%)
$1,300,000
$14,500,000
$2,200,000
$2,200,000
$18,900,000

None
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
December 2010
Page 54 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-9: Peak Flow Pump Station (W1 & W2)

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
Peak Flow Pump Station

Major Site Work
Pump Station Structure
LS
$1,490,000
$1,490,000
$1,490,000
$0
Structure(s)
None

75 mgd Pump Equipment
LS
$4,630,000
$4,630,000
Coarse Screening Facility
LS
$3,680,000
$3,680,000
Odor Abatement Facility
LS
$1,360,000
$1,360,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
$9,670,000
$11,160,000
$558,000
$558,000
$558,000
$12,834,000
Total Direct Cost
$12,800,000
Contingencies (30%)
$3,800,000
$16,600,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$21,600,000
December 2010
Page 55 of 62
Appendix E
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
New Peak Flow Basin No. 7

Major Site Work
Clear & Grub
270
AC
$1,400
$378,000
LS
$100,000
$100,000
63,000
SF
$5
$315,000
Excavation
1,325,000
CY
$3
$3,975,000
1,075,000
CY
$2
$2,150,000
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Dewatering
$7,018,000
Structure(s)
16,667
CY
$295
$4,916,765
10,500
CY
$306
$3,213,000
$8,129,765

48-Inch Sluice Gate
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
EA
$15,000
$30,000
$30,000
$15,177,765
$758,888
$758,888
$0
$16,696,000
Total Direct Cost
$16,700,000
Contingencies (10%)
$1,700,000
$18,400,000
$2,800,000
$2,800,000
$24,000,000
December 2010
Page 56 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-11: IPS Interconnect (W1 & W2)

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
IPS Interconnect
Major Site Work
Dewatering
2800
LF
$150
$420,000
Temporary Trench Support
2800
LF
$240
$672,000
Trenching and Backfill
2800
LF
$480
$1,344,000
$2,436,000
Structure(s)
Junction Structure
LS
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000

96-Inch Pipe
96-Inch Sluice Gate
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
2800
LF
$460
$1,288,000
EA
$30,000
$30,000
$1,318,000
$3,954,000
$395,400
$395,400
$0
$4,745,000
Total Direct Cost
$4,700,000
Contingencies (30%)
$1,400,000
$6,100,000
$900,000
$900,000
$7,900,000
December 2010
Page 57 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-12: Stage 2 IPS Improvements (W1 & W2)

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
Stage 2 IPS Improvements

Major Site Work
Dewatering
3,700
LF
$75
$277,500
Temporary Trench Support
3,700
LF
$120
$444,000
Trenching and Backfill
3,700
LF
$240
$888,000
$1,609,500
Structure(s)
Junction Structures
EA
$250,000
$750,000
$750,000

72-Inch Pipe
3,700
LF
$345
$1,276,500
72-Inch Sluice Gate
EA
$23,000
$23,000
VTSH Pumps (50 mgd)
EA
$1,300,000
$2,600,000
Screen (150 mgd)
EA
$630,000
$630,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
$4,529,500
$6,889,000
$344,450
$344,450
$344,450
$7,922,000
Total Direct Cost
$7,900,000
Contingencies (30%)
$2,400,000
$10,300,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$13,300,000
December 2010
Page 58 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-13: Sunbeam Junction Structure Replacement (W1 & W2)

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total

Major Site Work
Temporary Bypass
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Dewatering
LS
$200,000
$200,000
Sheet Piling
9,000
SF
$29
$261,000
Excavation
2,000
CY
$10
$20,000
600
LF
$240
$144,000
32,000
SF
$10
$320,000
Demolition and Removal of Existing Structure
LS
$120,000
$120,000
Site Restoration
LS
$100,000
$100,000
Trenching at Backfill
Rehabilitate and Elevate Roadway
$1,215,000
Structure(s)
18-Inch Flat Non-Formed S.O.G.
130
CY
$340
$44,200
18-Inch Straight Wall, Greater than 8 ft High
500
CY
$650
$325,000
Flow Channels
150
CY
$340
$51,000
$420,200

60-Inch Pipe
300
LF
$290
$87,000
96-Inch Pipe
300
LF
$460
$138,000
60-Inch Sluice Gate and Electric Actuator
EA
$20,000
$20,000
EA
$30,000
$30,000
60-Inch Gravity Flow Meter
EA
$30,000
$30,000
EA
$40,000
$40,000
Flow Meter Transmitters
EA
$1,000
$2,000
Tie into SCADA
LS
$50,000
$50,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
$397,000
$2,032,200
$101,610
$203,220
$304,830
$2,642,000
Total Direct Cost
$2,600,000
Contingencies (30%)
$800,000
$3,400,000
$500,000
December 2010
Page 59 of 62
Appendix E
Description
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
Quantity
Unit
December 2010
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
$500,000
$4,400,000
Page 60 of 62
Appendix E
Table E-14: Five-Mile Diversion Structure Rehabilitation

Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Subtotal
Total
Five Mile Junction Structure Improvements

Major Site Work
Temporary Bypass
Rehabilitate and Elevate Roadway
Site Restoration
LS
$150,000
$150,000
24,000
SF
$10
$240,000
LS
$75,000
$75,000
$465,000
Structure(s)
Modify and Rehabilitate Existing Structure
LS
$900,000
$900,000
$900,000

EA
$15,000
$15,000
EA
$20,000
$20,000
EA
$20,000
$20,000
EA
$30,000
$30,000
Flow Meter Transmitters
EA
$1,000
$2,000
Tie into SCADA
LS
$50,000
$50,000
WWTFSP_App.F6-2.0
$137,000
$1,502,000
$75,100
$150,200
$225,300
$1,953,000
Total Direct Cost
$2,000,000
Contingencies (30%)
$600,000
$2,600,000
$400,000
$400,000
$3,400,000
December 2010
Page 61 of 62

Record of Change
Record of Change
Version 1.0
Date: July 2010
Location in Document
Description of Change
First Release
Version 2.0
Date: December 2010
Location in Document
Description of Change
Global
Figure Updates
Global
Text Updates
Table 1-1
Updated with new cost numbers
Table 5-3
Table E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5, E6, E-7,
Draft WWTFSP_App.F6-1.0
December 2010
Page 62 of 62

WWTFSP App.F6 Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WWTFSP App.F6 Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix F6: Flow Management Alternatives and

Dallas Water Utilities

Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

Wet-Weather Flow Management Alternatives......................................................21

Average Annual Flow Management Alternatives ................................................12

Recommended Alternatives ..................................................................................33

Recommended Average Annual Flow Split ................................................................ 33

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms............................................................37

Flow Schematics ........................................................................................40

Detailed Cost Estimates ............................................................................46

Record of Change ..............................................................................................................62

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Maintain minimum process flows at CWWTP

Dilute the filtrate at SWWTP

Defer expansion at both CWWTP and SWWTP

Average Annual Flow Recommendation

Rehabilitating basins A, B and C to add a solids settling area

Constructing a new peak-flow basin D

Constructing Stage 2 IPS improvements

Improvements at SWWTP include the following:

Constructing new peak-flow basins no. 5, 6, and 7, along with

Constructing a new 75 mgd Peak-Flow Pump Station (PFPS).

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Table 1-1: Estimated Cost of Recommendations

CWWTP Existing Basins Rehabilitation

SWWTP Basins No. 1, 2, and 3 Rehabilitation

SWWTP Basin No. 6

SWWTP Peak-Flow Pump Station

SWWTP Basin No. 7

CWWTP IPS Interconnect

CWWTP Stage 2 IPS Improvements

Five-Mile Diversion Structure Rehabilitation

Total Construction Cost

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Maintain minimum process flows at CWWTP

Dilute the filtrate at SWWTP

Defer expansion at both CWWTP and SWWTP

Current Flow Management

Table 2-1: Preferred Maximum Process Flows

EBPR operation in effect with SWWTP Phase IV in service.

Average Annual Flow Management

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Figure 2-1: Current AAF Flow Management

Wet-Weather Flow Management

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Figure 2-2: Current Wet-Weather Flow Management

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Figure 2-3: DWU Projected Flows

Annual Average Flow (mgd)

Dallas Water Utilities

Flow Management Alternatives and Recommendations

Recycled Water Plans

Table 2-2: Recycled Water Flow Commitments

Direct Non-Potable Reuse

Indirect Reuse to NTMWD

DWU Indirect Reuse Through Lake

Total Flow Commitment

Projected DWU Dry-Year AAF