1990 Wastewater StudyI
I ENGINEERING REPORT
I The City of Salina, Kansas
~ Wastewater Study
~ C'OMPANY
ENGINEERING REPORT
The City of Salina, Kansas
-. Wastewater Study
City Commissioners
Joseph A. Warner, Mayor
Carol Beggs
John Divine
Robert E. Frank
Stephen C. Ryan
City Manager
Dennis Kissinger
Acting Director of Engineering & Utilities
Don Hoff, P.E.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
George Pauls, Sewage System Superintendent
Address all communication
regarding this work to:
Wilson & Company
P.O. Box 1640
Salina, Kansas 67402-1640
.. &COMPANY (S9-003)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa~e,,No.
SECTION I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I-1
SECTION II - PURPOSE AND SCOPE II-1
SECTION III - WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Historical Data III-1
Plate III-1 - Pump Stations and Main Interceptors
-- Locations follows III-1
Table III-1 - Historical Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 1 III-2
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives III-3
Table III-2 - Historical Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 2 III-4
Figure III-1 - Plan iA & lB follows III-4
Figure III-2 - Plan 2A follows III-4
Figure III-3 - Plan 2B follows III-4
Figure III-4 - Plan 3 follows III-4
-- Table III-3 - Summary of Average Wastewater Flows
Generated in Sewer Subsystems III-5
Table III-4 - Summary of Average Wastewater Flows to
Treatment Plants (Year 2010) III-6
Projected Wastewater Flows and Characteristics III-7
Design Year III-7
Table III-5 - Projected Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant i, Plans lA and lB III-8
Table III-6 - Projected Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 1, Plans 2A and 2B III-9
-- Table III-7 - Projected Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 2, Plans 2A and 2B III-10
Table III-8 - Projected Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 1, Plan 3 III-11
Table III-9 - Projected Wastewater Flow and
Characteristics - Plant 2, Plan 3 III-12
-- SECTION IV - EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM REVIEW
General IV-i
Pump Stations IV-1
Table IV-1 - Salina Pump Stations Existing Capacity IV-2
Table IV-2 - Flow Comparison of Plant 1 to Contributing
_ Pump Stations IV-4
Table IV-3 - Service Area Wastewater Flow Data - 1987 IV-5
Table IV-4 - Flow Factor Comparison - 1987 IV-6
Pump Station Upgrading IV-6
-- Plate IV-1 - Pump Station 10, Temporary Gravity
Sewer follows IV-7
Interceptors IV-8
Table IV-5 - Interceptor Flow Data - 1987 IV-9
A
_ Page No.
SECTION V - EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES REVIEW
Introduction V-1
Existing Facilities V-1
Table V-1 - Plant 1, Design and Actual Waste Flows and
Loadings (Years 1983 - 1988) V-1
Plate V-1 - Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant 1 follows V-1
plate V-2 - Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 follows V-3
Table V-2 - Plant 2, Design and Actual Waste Flows
and Loadings (Years 1983 - 1988) V-4
SECTION VI - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES DISCHARGE
- LIMITATIONS
Existing Discharge Limitations VI-1
_ Table VI-1 - Existing Plant 1 and Plant 2 Discharge
Limitations VI-1
Current and Proposed Regulation Changes VI-1
Anticipated 1991 Discharge Limitations VI-2
Table VI-2 - Proposed Plant 1 Discharge Limitations VI-2
Table VI-3 - Proposed Plant 2 Discharge Limitations VI-3
-- SECTION VII - DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
General VII-1
Plate VII-1 - Plan IA follows VII-1
Plant 1 Rehabilitation - Plan iA VII-2
Plate VII-2 - Upgraded Treatment Plant 1 -
- Plan lA & lB follows VII-2
Table VII-1 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan iA -
Plant 1 Rehabilitation VII-4
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment - Plan iA VII-4
Table VII-2 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan IA -
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment VII-5
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation - Plan iA VII-5
Table VII-3 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan lA -
Exis.ting Collection System Rehabilitation VII-7
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plan iA VII-7
Table VII-4 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan iA -
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System VII-8
Table VII-5 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan lA -
. Total Project Cost VII-9
Plan lB VII-9
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plan lB VII-9
Plate VII-3 - Plan lB follows VII-9
Table VII-6 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan lB -
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System VII-10
Table VII-7 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan lB -
Total Project Cost VII-ii
Plan 2A VII-Ii
Table VII-8 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2A -
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment VII-12
.B
Page No.
Plant 2 Rehabilitation - Plan 2A VII-12
Plate VII-4 - Plan 2A & 2B follows VII-12
Plate VII-5 - Upgraded Treatment Plant 2 - Plan 2A -
Flow Schematic follows VII-12
Table VII-9 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2A -
Plant 2 Rehabilitation VII-14
Plant 2 Advanced Treatment - Plan 2A VII-14
Table VII-10 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2A -
Plant 2 Advanced Treatment VII-15
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plans 2A and 2B VII-15
Table VII-Ii - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plans 2A
and 2B - Proposed Interceptor Sewer System VII-16
- Table VII-12 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2A -
Total Project Cost VII-17
Plan 2B VII-17
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment - Plan 2B VII-18
Table VII-13 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2B -
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment VII-19
Secondary/Advanced Treatment - Plan 2B VII-19
Table VII-14 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 2B -
New Plant 2 Secondary/Advanced Treatment VII-19
Table VII-15 - Opinion of Probable Costs - Plan 2B -
Total Project Cost VII-20
Plan 3 VII-20
Plate VII-6 - Plan 3 follows VII-20
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment - Plan 3 VII-21
Table VII-16 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 3 -
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment VII-21
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment - Plan 3 VII-21
Plate VII-7 - New Plant 2 - Plan 2B & 2A -
Flow Schematic follows VII-21
Table VII-17 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 3 -
Proposed New Plant 2 - Primary Treatment VII-22
Plant 2 Secondary/Advanced Treatment - Plan 3 VII-22
Table VII-18 - Opinion of Probable Cost - New Plant 2
Secondary/Advanced Treatment VII-23
Proposed East Dry Creek Interceptor Sewer System -
Plan 3 VII-23
Table VII-19 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 3 -
Proposed East Dry Creek Interceptor Sewer System VII-24
Proposed Magnolia Force Main System - Plan 3 VII-25
Table VII-20 -Opinion of Probable Costs - Plan 3 -
Proposed Magnolia Force Main System VII-25
Table VII-21 - Opinion of Probable Cost - Plan 3 -
Total Project Cost VII-26
-- Summary of Project Costs VII-26
Discussion VII-27
SECTION VIII - SUMMARY
General VIII-1
Summary of Review Criteria VIII-1
-- Summary of Wastewater Treatment Requirements VIII-1
C
Page No.
Evaluation of Interceptor Sewers and Wastewater Treatment VIII-1
Additional Considerations VIII-2
APPENDIX A
D
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Salina is presently being served by a wastewater collection
system which consists of fifty pump stations, seven major interceptors
and numerous small collectors. The City currently utilizes two waste-
water treatment plants (WWTP) to treat wastewater. It has been 27 years
since the last interceptor was constructed and additional capacity pro-
vided at Treatment Plant 1. Treatment Plant 2, at Schilling Industrial
Area is the same facility as constructed in 1951.
Due to the age, obsolescence and loading conditions of some of the sewer-
age facilities, the City commissioned a study in 1983 to evaluate the
interceptor sewer system and the treatment facilities. A number of
improvements were recommended at that time, some of which have been
undertaken.
However, since 1983 there has been considerable and more stringent revi-
sions to stream water quality standards and sewage sludge disposal
standards. It is anticipated that a new discharge permit to be issued in
1991 will require a much higher standard of treatment, evaluation of
sludge disposal methods and increased monitoring of effluent(s).
Therefore, this current study was commissioned to evaluate the impact of
the additional environmental concerns on improvements to the sewage col-
lection system and the treatment plants serving the City. Of major con-
cern is the feasibility of operating two treatment plants versus
transporting all sewage to one plant for processing.
Design conditions were developed for anticipated growth of the community.
A summary of those conditions are
Existing
Parameter Year 1988 Year 20101 Year 20302
Population 43,000 56,000 65,000
Daily Sewage Flow, MGD 4.09 7.25 9.00
Additional Sewage Flows3
Residential MGD - 1.79 0.98
Industrial/Commercial, MGD - 1.37 0.77
1Conditions for treatment facilities evaluation
2Conditions for interceptor sewer evaluation
3Approximately 85% of growth in areas to the south and east of present
service areas
The most cost-effective plan as determined in this evaluation is abandon-
ing Plant 2 at Schilling and conveying all wastewater to Plant 1 for
advanced treatment to meet the new discharge requirements. Additional
rehabilitation and improvements are required within the existing inter-
ceptor sewer system and existing facilities at Plant 1.
I-1
The preliminary opinions of project cost include the following principal
items:
Type of Improvement Opinion of Proiect Cost
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation $ 585,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewers 6,500,000
Plant 1 Rehabilitation 3,600,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment 7,246,000
Total Estimated Project Costs $17,931,000
The proposed new interceptor sewers include a new sewer traversing the
East Dry Creek drainage basin from north to south. This drainage basin
is immediately east of the East Crawford Street Recreational Areas
Before the new interceptor and treatment facilities plans can be imple-
mented some additional concerns must be addressed.
i. A detailed engineering study to evaluate the specific treatment
process to be used to remove ammonia at Plant 1 and to develop strategies
to meet sludge management regulations.
2. A financial analysis to determine the impact of project costs on
sewer service charges.
3. Investigate the methods of financing the project including federal
grants and the State Revolving Loan Fund (interest rate at approximately
4.5 percent).
4. -Evaluate methods of assessing the growth portion of the costs of
interceptor sewers to benefited property. This is of particular concern
in the East Dry Creek drainage basin.
SECTION II
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Salina's existing wastewater treatment and collection facilities have
been serving the community's disposal needs for over 27 years without
major renovation. Portions of the facilities are loaded beyond their
actual capacity and some of the existing equipment requires replacement.
In 1983, the City commissioned an engineering study to evaluate the con-
dition of the City's system and to provide a plan for updating the system
to convey and treat the wastewater through the year 2020. The study
included the following principal tasks:
a. Review of existing wastewater flows and develop projected
wastewater flows for the designated service areas.
b. Study of eight pump stations and seven main interceptor sewers
to evaluate existing capacities, their ability to adequately convey
future flows.
c. Review of the wastewater treatment facilities and their ability
to adequately treat present and future waste loads.
d. Evaluation of wastewater alternatives for upgrading the
wastewater treatment facilities.
Since 1983, when the preliminary study was performed, a number of condi-
tions have changed including:
a. City operations staff have repaired or replaced some of the
deteriorated equipment at Plant 1.
b. The State of~ Kansas has revised the Water Quality Standards,
thereby establishing ammonia and dissolved oxygen limitations and
disinfection requirements for certain facilities. A new discharge permit
will be issued to Salina in 1991.
c. EPA published draft standards on February 6, 1989, for disposal
of sewage sludge, thereby establishing limitations for certain pollutants
which may be present in sludge.
d. EPA is implementing biomonitoring requirements in reissued dis-
charge permits.
e. The City's existing collection system has been modified to con-
nect new development such as Central Mall and the Airport Industrial
Subdivision. Additionally, some combined sewers have been separated
resulting in lower flows at Plant 1.
II-i
f. Population projections have changed.
This study has been prepared to update the 1983 study and to incorporate
the findings into this current evaluation. The principal tasks performed
for 'this study include:
a. Evaluation of current and proposed regulatory requirements for
the City's two treatment facilities.
b. An update of the improvements and related construction costs
required for Plant 1 to provide adequate treatment to the year 2010.
c. An update of the improvements and related construction costs
required fo~ Plant 2 to remain in service and provide adequate treatment
through the year 2010.
d. An update of the interceptor sewer system improvements and
related construction costs to abandon Plant 2 and pump all the flow to
Plant i for treatment.
e. An update of the interceptor sewer system improvements and
related construction costs to convey flows with Plants 1 and 2 treating
flows from their respective service areas.
f. An update of the interceptor sewer system improvements and
related construction costs to divert all flow south of Magnolia Street to
Plant 2 and construct a new Plant 2.
II-2
SECTION III
WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL
The City's current wastewater collection system consists of fifty pump
stations; seven main interceptors, 12-inch diameter through 36-inch dia-
meter; and numerous smaller collectors and service lines. The wastewater
treatment facilities consist of a two-stage trickling filter plant
referred to as Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 1, or Plant 1, which
treats the majority of Salina's wastewater and a single-stage trickling
filter plant referred to as Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) No. 2, or
Plant 2, which treats the wastewater from the Schilling area. Plate
III-1 indicates the locations of all the pump stations, the main inter-
ceptors and the treatment facilities.
HISTORICAL DATA
Table III-1 presents the available wastewater flow and characteristics
data for Plant 1 for the years 1973 through 1988. Average, maximum and
minimum daily flows in million gallons are given for each year. Waste-
water characteristics are presented in terms of average daily biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration (mg/1) and loading (pounds/day), and
average daily total suspended solids (TSS) concentration (mg/1) and load-
ing (pounds/day) for each year.
In 1983, the wastewater flow at Plant 1 declined. At this time the City
had disconnected most of the remaining storm sewers which discharged into
sanitary sewers. A new magnetic flow transmitter and recorder were
installed, and the output flow meter was recalibrated in September 1983.
The average daily flows have remained consistent for the years 1984
through 1988.
Table III-1 indicates the average wastewater flow at Plant 1 ranged from
5.736 MGD in 1973 to 3.629 MGD in 1988. Maximum daily sewage flow ranged
from 19.300 MGD in 1979 to 6.024 MGD in 1988. Average influent BOD5
loading ranged from 12,749 pounds/day in 1982 to 6,037 pounds/day in
1986. Average effluent BOD5 concentrations ranged from 20.7 mg/1 in 1984
to 12.1 mg/1 in 1977. Average influent TSS loading ranged from
19,949 pounds/day in 1973 to 6,855 pounds per day in 1988. Average
effluent TSS concentrations ranged from 13.1 mg/1 in 1985 and 1988 to
7.8 mg/1 in 1977.
Because of the recent decrease in sewage flows, an average daily flow and
gallon per capita flow were determined from wastewater flows occurring
from January 1984 to December 1984. During that one year period a total
of 1,450,145,000 gallons of wastewater were received at Plant 1, or an
average daily flow of 3.973 MGD. Based on the average wastewater flow
and the population of 41,710, the average flow contribution per person
was 95.25 gallons per day (gpcd).
The 95.25 gpcd is approximately 80 percent of the winter metered water
consumption of 115 gpcd.
SALINA KANSAS
COMPILED FROM OFFICIAL RECORDS
' LEGEND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Revised1983 ~,¢ @e PUUP STATION
~I ~ S'rA'r,ON
STUDIED
~ MAIN INTERCEPTOR
NOT TO SCALE
FRONT STREET
INTERCEPTO~
N ORT H
:E EoT.,~E AST
ASH STR ET WES1
~'~:~'~; '~]~-'-J Ini t ....'
I~/I " I
'
' SOUTHEAST "~ '~,
", TREATMENT
":~. ~ . :. PLANT NO. 2
i ..-
"- SCHILLING ~J .
....
~:. .'_
--~ e~ -, ....~ /
~ ~; ;.t---~- ,
/
~; ~ SALINA, KANSAS
~ WASTEWATER STUDY
.... ~ ~ PUMP STATIONS ~ MAIN INTERCEPTORS LOCATIONS
~ ,~ PLATE ~- m
Average Maxim~ Minim~ Average BOD5 Average BOD5 Average TSS Average TSS
Daily Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow Loadin~ (lbs./day) , Loading (m~Jl) Loading (lbs./day) Loading (rog/l)
Year Population2 (MG) (1~) (M~) Inf. Elf. Inf. Eff. Inf. E ff. Inf. Elf.
19731 36,010 5.736 14.300 1.537 6,138 718 128.3 15.0 19 949 498 417.0 10.4
1974 36,220 4.703 9.360 2.625 7,268 647 185.3 16.5 11,386 463 290.3 11.8
1975 37,230 5.016 9.691 2.390 10~ 902 531 260.6 12.7 12. 207 368 291.8 8.8
1976 38,530 4.965 11.619 1.536 9 209 629 222.4 15.2 11 507 344 277.9 8.3
19771 39,420 5.280 15.660 3.128 8 420 535 191.2 12.1 9 121 344 207.1 7.8
1978 39,360 5.401 12.040 3.013 10. 736 632 238.3 14.0 16,413 426 363.6 9.5
1979 39,760 5.413 19.300 3.108 10.862 693 236.6 15.4 16,204 362 358.9 8.0
19801 40,250 5.338 10.859 3.286 10.892 580 244.7 13.0 16 017 370 359.8 8.3
19811 40,750 5.194 18.962 2.837 11 356 688 262.2 15.9 17 819 372 411.4 8.6
19821 41,250 5.348 13.144 2.981 12,749 784 285.8 17.6 18 125 418 406.4 9.4
19833 41,510 4.079 7.523 1.764 10 891 636 320.1 18.7 13 609 306 400.0 9.0
1984 41,710 3.973 7.658 2.018 10 998 673 339.0 20.7 13 791 352 427.0 10.6
1985 42,110 3.738 8.350 2.768 7 904 532 255.0 17,3 8 557 455 268.0 13.1
1986 42,500 3.741 6.718 2.360 6 037 437 210.0 14.0 7,029 283 236.0 9.5
1987 42,810 3.842 8.174 2.614 6 896 530 215.0 16.6 6,928 289 215.0 9.1
1988 43,025 3.629 6.024 2.073 7 771 599 258.0 20.0 6,855 389 229.0 13.1
1Data not available for ali months of the year.
2The population contributing to Plant I was estimated for years 1973 through 1982.
3The mag flo~m~eter was replaced and the storm sewer separation project was completed.
Table III-2 presents the available wastewater flow and characteristics
data from Plant 2 for the years 1973 through 1988. Average, maximum and
minimum daily flow in million gallons are given for each year. Waste-
water characteristics are presented in terms of average daily biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration (mg/1) and loading (pounds/day) and
average daily total suspended solids (TSS) concentration (mg/1) and load-
ing (pounds/day) for each year.
Average wastewater flow at Plant 2 ranged from 0.747 MGD in 1976 to
0.218 MGD in 1978. Maximum daily sewage flow ranged from 1.930 MGD in
1987 to 0.403 MGD in 1978. Average influent BOD5 loading at Plant 2
ranged from 1,339 pounds/day in 1981 to 380 pounds/day in 1978. Average
effluent BOD5 concentrations ranged from 122.5 mg/1 in 1984 to 18 mg/1 in
1973. Average influent TSS loading ranged from 1,755 pounds/day in 1979
to 309 pounds/day in 1973. Average effluent TSS concentrations ranged
from 49.2 mg/1 in 1984 to 12 mg/1 in 1976.
For study purposes the same one year period (January 1984 to
December 1984) was utilized for Plant 2 as for Plant 1. During this
period, 167,535,000 gallons of wastewater were received. This results in
an average daily flow of 0.459 MGD. Because industry contributes nearly
one-half of the total flow at Plant 2, a gallon per capita flow was not
figured.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Several wastewater treatment alternatives are to be evaluated to deter-
mine the most economical and environmentally feasible treatment system.
Each phase of the respective improvement is a specific part of the over-
all wastewater plan and should not be interchanged with the other
alternatives. The improvement plans considered fall into three treatment
schemes. They are: 1) change to a one-treatment plant system by aban-
doning Plant 2, transport all flows to Plant 1 and upgrade Plant 1;
2) maintain the two-treatment plant concept, either upgrade Plant 2 or
build a new Plant 2 and upgrade Plant 1; 3) maintain the two-treatment
plant concept, divert all flows south of Magnolia Road to Plant 2 and
build a new Plant 2 and upgrade Plant 1. Figures III-i through III-4
indicate the different wastewater treatment alternatives.
Table III-3 summarizes the average wastewater flows generated in individ-
ual sewer subsystems. Table III-4 summarizes the average wastewater
flows to the Treatment Plants.
III-3
TABLE 111-2
HISTORICAL WAS1EWATER FLOW AND (MARACIERISTICS - PIANr 2
Average Maximum Minimum Average B(])5 Average BOD5 Average TSS Average TSS
Daily Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow L~ading (lbs./dm/) Loading (m~/l) Loading (lbs./dm/) Loading (rog/l)
Year Population2 (MG) (1~;) (MO) Inf. Elf. Inf. Eff. Inf. Elf. Inf. Elf.
1973 1 150 0.431 N/A N/A 500 65 139 18 309 54 86 15
1974 1 150 0.428 N/A N/A 717 93 201 26 507 79 142 22
1975 I 150 0.581 N/A N/A 1,168 102 241 21 548 82 113 17
1976 I 150 0.747 N/A N/A 1,333 118 214 19 1,377 75 221 12
1977 1 150 0.380 N/A N/A 932 63 294 20 602 48 190 15
1978 1 150 0.218 0./~}3 0.059 380 38 209 21 360 25 198 14
1979 I 150 0.333 1.838 0.040 769 100 277 36 1,755 58 632 21
19801 I 150 0.385 0.962 0.216 844 83 263 26 642 67 200 21
1981 I 150 0.384 0.982 0.157 1,339 115 418 36 1,034 106 323 33
1982 I 150 0.410 1.151 0.148 1,135 144 332 42 841 130 246 38
1983 I 190 0.457 0.995 0.163 1,159 271 304 71 816 160 214 42
1984 I 290 0.459 1.074 0.202 1,191 433 309 122.5 1,425 188 343 49.2
1985 I 390 0.543 1.452 0.209 1,036 242 234 58.5 881 188 198 45.2
1986 I 500 0.495 0.887 0.168 1,104 169 275 32.2 856 133 210 33.3
1987 1,690 0.521 1.930 0.253 1,156 86 267 19.9 799 88 183 19.7
1988 1,975 0.426 1.039 0.222 883 75 249 19.8 708 61 202 16.9
IData not available for all months of the year.
2The population contributing to Plant 2 was estimated for years 1973 through 1982.
N/A - Not Available
PLAN IA AND IS.- ALL FLOW TO PLANT I
(ABANDON PLANT 2)
PLANT I
. PROPOSED
(IA-I AND'lB-I)
PROPOSED
EXISTING SERVICE AREA EAST
__ NORTH OF MAGNOLIA STREET SERVICE ·
:- WITH INTERNAL GROWTH AREA
_ _ EXISTING SERVICE AREA PROPOSED
SOUTH OF MAGNOLIA STREET .-~ ~j
WITH INTERNAL GROW~ AND .~( :/ PUMP STATION
PROPOSED SOUTH SERVICE AREA (IA-2 AND lB-2)
.PROPOSED
PUMP STATION
(IA-3 AND lB-3)
(AT PLANT 2)
PROVI'SIONS FOR
EHERGENCY~SPILLS
EXISTING SCHILLING SERVICEI
AIRPORT ~ AREA WITH INTERNAL GROWTHI
INDUSTRIAL - ~ ' AND pRoPOSED ADdACENT
SUBDIVISION SERVICE AREA
I
SEE TABLE 111-5
FOR PROJECTED FLOWS
AND CHARACTER I STICS SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATEE STUDY
I/l/Jr~~ PLAN IA & lB
&COMPANY FIGURE TTr- I
PLAN 2A - UPGRADE PLANT I AND PLANT 2
PLANT ! PLANT 2
PROPOSED PUMP
STATION (2A-I)
EXISTING SERVICE AREA PROPOSED EXISTING SCHILLING SERVICE
NORTH OF MAGNOLIA STREET EAST AREA WITH INTERNAL GROWTH
WITH INTERNAL GROWTH SERVICE AND PROPOSED ADdACENT
AREA SERVICE AREA
EXISTING SERVICE AREA
SOUTH. OF MAGNOLIA STREET ~ PROPOSED PUMP
WITH INTERNAL GROWTH AND STATION:':(2A-2~
~ROPOSEb SOUTH SERVICE AREA
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
SUBDIVISION
SEE TABLE'I-rT-6 FOR SEE TABLE'r'I~I';7 FOR
PROdECTED FLOWS AND PROdECTED FLOWS AND
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
l/~/~,,~J~ PLAN 2A
&COMPANY FIGURE 2
PLAN 2B - UPGRADE PLANT I,AND.CONSTRUCT A NEW PLANT 2
J PLANT i j PLANT 2
STATION (2B-I)
EXISTING SERVICE AREA PROPOSED EXISTING SCHILLING SERVICE
NORTH OF MAGNOLIA STREET EAST AREA WITH INTERNAL GROWTH
WITH INTERNAL GROWTH SERVICE AND PROPOSED ADJACENT
AREA SERV I CE AREA
EXISTING SERVICE AREA PROPOSED PUMP
SO. UTH. OF MAGNOLIA STREET ~ STATION':(2B-2~'
WITH INTERHAL GROWTH AND
-PROPOSED SOUTH SERVICE' AREA
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
SUBDIVISION '
SEE TABLE T'T"rm6 FOR- SEE TABLE TTT. 7 FOR
PROJECTED FLOWS AND PROJECTED FLOWS AND
CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
i/I/J[S~,~J~/ PLAN 2B
&COMPANY FIGURE TrT
PLAN 3 - UPGRADE PLANT I AND CONSTRUCT A NEW PLANT 2
(-DIVERT ALL FLOW SOUTH OF MAGNOLIA STREET
TO PLANT 2)
STATION (3A-I) EXISTIN~ SCHILLII~ SERVICE
AREA WITH INTERNAL' GROI~H
AND PROPOSED ADdACENT
PROPOSED PUHP SERVICE AREA
STATION (3A-2)T
I
EXIST'lNG 'SERVICE AREA PROPOSED EXISTING SERVICE AREA
NORTH~ OF;MAGNOLIA EAST SOUTH OF MA~OLIA STREET
STREET-WITH INTERNAL SERVICE
: WITH INTERNAL GROWTH AND
'GROWTH AREA PROPOSED SOUTH SERVICE AREAI
AIRPORT
INDUSTRIAL
'SUBDIVISION
SEE TABLE TI-r. 8 FOR SEE TABLE TTT-g*FOR
PROJECTED FLOWS AND PROJECTED FLOWS AND
CHARACTERISTICS LOADING CHARACTERISTICS
SALINA , KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
&COMPANY FIGURE ]:!:[- 4
TABLE 111-3
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS
GENERATED IN SEWER SUBSYSTEMS
Existing Service Existing Service Schilling
Area North of Area South of Industrial East Service
Magnolia Street Magnolia Street Area Area (New) Total
Existing1 3.15 MGD 0.50 MGD 0.43 MGD 0.01MGD 4.09 MGD
Growth to
Year 2010
Residential 0.50 MGD 0.35 MGD 0.28 MGD 0.66 MGD 1.79 MGD
Indus./Commer. 0.10 MGD 0.60 MGD 0.64 MGD 0.03 MGD 1.37 MGD
Design Year 2010 3.75 MGD 1.45 MGD 1.35 MGD 0.70 MGD 7.25 MGD
Growth to
Year 2030
Residential 0 20 MGD 0.05 MGD 0.18 MGD 0.55 MGD 0.98 MGD
'
Indus./Commer. 0.05 MGD 0.30 MGD 0.32 MGD 0.10 MGD 0.77 MGD
Design Year 2030 4.00 MGD 1.80 MGD 1.85 MGD 1.35 MGD 9.00 MGD
lIncludes all flows, i.e., residential, commercial and industrial to treatment plants.
TABLE III-4
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE
WASTEWATER FLOWS
TO TREATMENT PLANTS
(YEAR 2010)
Plant 1 Plant 2
EXISTING 3.66 MGD 0.43 MGD
PLAN 1 7.25 MGD -
PLAN 2 ~ 5.90 MGD 1.35 MGD
PLAN 3 4.45 MGD 2.80 MGD
III-6
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewater flows and characteristics are projected for the different
wastewater treatment alternatives by population and commercial/industrial
acreage. Tables III-5 through III-9 present the projected population and
wastewater flows and characteristics for the different wastewater treat-
ment alternatives.
The population figures given in these tables were projected in the Salina
Water Study (November, 1984). The Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) has minimum accepatable design flows for sizing
wastewater systems for undeveloped areas. These acceptable design flows
are i00 gpcd for residential, 5,000 gpd/acre for commercial and
i0,000 gpd/acre for industrial wastewater flows. The present per capita
flow of 95.25 gpcd was rounded to 100 gpcd for forecasting future domes-
tic sewage flow. The Salina Pretreatment Study indicated industrial
flows of approximately 0.31MGD at Plant 1 and 0.12 MGD at Plant 2. A
present industrial flow factor of 1,000 gallons per acre per day
(gpd/acre) was determined and was based upon the reported industrial flow
in the pretreatment study and the industrial acreage shown in the
"Comprehensive Plan for Salina, Kansas," completed in 1980 by Bucher &
Willis. The KDHE minimum design flow of 10,000 gpcd appears to be exces-
sive for this area. KDHE approved a design value of 4,000 gpd/acre for
the Airport Industrial Center Subdivision (WCEA File: 88-015). To fore-
cast future commercial/ industrial flows a factor of 4,000 gpd/acre was
used.
DESIGN YEAR
Treatment technologies and discharge requirements change dramatically
over lengthy periods of time. For this reason the treatment facilities
will have a design year of 2010 (approximately 20 years). The sewer sys-
tem will have a design year of 2030 (approximately 40 years); however,
the interceptor that serves the east service area has been sized to have
the capacity to serve the entire East Dry Creek drainage basin.
111-7
TABLE 111-5
P~ ~KSTE~ATER FLD~ AN) C~[~ISTICS - PLANT 11
PLANS IA AN) lB
Average2 Maxim~ Minim~ Average BOD5 Average B0053 Average Teas Average TSS3
Daily Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow Loading (lbs./day) Loading (m~l) Loading (lbs./day) Loading (rog/l)
Year Population (M~) (MO) (MO) Influent Influent Influent Influent
1990 47 000 4.80 9.95 2.70 11,010 275 11,210 280
1995 49. 200 5.45 11.30 3.05 12,500 275 12,725 280
2000 51. 500 6.05 12.50 3.40 13,875 275 14,130 280
2005 53. 700 6.65 13.75 3.70 15,250 275 15,530 280
2010 56. 000 7.25 15.00 4.05 16,625 275 16,930 280
2015 58. 200 7.75 16.05 4.35 17,775 275 18,100 280
2020 60.500 8.20 17.00 4.60 18,810 275 19,150 280
2025 62 700 8.60 17.80 4.80 19,725 275 20,085 280
2030 65 000 9.00 18.65 5.05 20,640 275 21,015 280
1B~-~ed on ~pulation and c~rcial/ind~trial areas send by Plant 1 and Plant 2.
2Bemed on 100 gpcd for future residential and 4,000 gpd/acre for future industrial/cannercial acreage.
3B~ed on the a~rage of years 1983 through 1988 and by combining the values of Plant I and Plant 2.
TABLE 111-6
PROJECIED WAST~ATER ~ AN) (MARACIERISTICS - PLANT I1
PLANS 2A A~ 2B
Average2 ~ Minimm~ Average BOD5 Average BOD53 Average TSS Average TSS3
Daily Flow Daily Flow Da/ly Flow Loadint (lbs./day) Loading (rog/l) Loadint (lbs./day) .Loading (n~/l)
Year Population (MG) (MG) (MG) Influent Influent Influent Influent
Actual3 - 3.83 7.41 2.27 8,625 270 9,425 295
1990 44,885 4.10 7.95 2.40 9,235 270 10,090 295
1995 46,100 4.55 8.83 2.70 10,245 270 11,195 295
2000 48,070 5.00 9.70 2.95 11,260 270 ' 12,300 295
2005 49,930 5.45 10.50 3.20 12,275 270 13,410 295
2010 51,870 5.90 11.45 3.50 13,285 270 14,515 295
2015 53,700 6.25 12.15 3.70 14,075 270 15,375 295
2020 55,620 6.55 12.70 3.90 14,750 270 16,115 295
2025 57,430 6.85 13.30 4.05 15,425 270 16,855 295
2030 59,330 7.15 13.90 4.25 16,100 270 17,590 295
IBased on population and commercial/industrial area served by Plant 1.
2Based on 100 gpcd for future residential and 4,000 gpd/acre for future ccm~nercial/industrial acreage.
3Based on the average of years 1983 through 1988.
TABLE III-7
PROJECIED WASTB4AIER FIG4 AND C~ARACIERISTICS - PtANT 21
PLANS 2A AN) 2B
Average2 Maxir~u Minimua Average BOD5 Average ~0D53 Average TSS Average TSS3
Daily Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow Loadin~ (lbs./day) Loading (rog/l) Loading (lbs./day) Loading (mg/l)
Year Population (MG) (MG) (MO) Influent Influent Influent Influent
Actual3 - 0.48 1.23 O. 20 1,100 275 900 225
1990 2,115 O. 70 1.80 0.30 1,605 275 1,315 225
1995 3,100 0.90 2.30 0.40 2,065 275 1,690 225
2000 3,430 1.05 2.70 0.45 2,410 275 1,970 225
2005 3,770 1.20 3.10 0.50 2,750 275 2,250 225
2010 4,130 1.35 3.45 0.60 3,100 275 2,535 225
2015 4,500 1.50 3.85 0.65 3,440 275 2,815 225
2020 4,880 1.65 4.25 O. 70 3,785 275 3,100 225
2025 5,270 1.75 4.50 O. 75 4, O15 275 3,285 225
20 30 5,670 1.85 4.75 O. 80 4,240 275 3,470 225
1Based on population and ccamercial/industrial area served by Plant 2.
2Based on 100 gpcd for future residential and 4,000 gpd/acre for future caunercial/industrial acreage.
3Based on the average of years 1983 through 1988.~
TABLE 111-8
PR~ ~ASIE~ATER FL~ AN) (~]ARA~STICS - PLANT 11
PlAN 3
Average2 Maximu~ Minim~ Average BOO5 Average BO053 Average TSS Average TSS3
Daily Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow Loading (lbs./day) Loading (mg/1) Loading (lbs./day) Loading (mg/1)
Year Populatio~ (MG) (MG) (M~) Influent Influent Influent Influent
1990 41,635 3.40 6.60 2.00 7,655 270 8,365 295
1995 42,450 3.65 7.10 2.15 8,220 270 8,980 295
2000 44,020 3.90 7.55 2.30 8,780 270 9,595 295
2005 45,480 4.15 8.05 2.45 9,345 270 10,210 295
2010 47,020 4.45 8.65 2.60 10,020 270 10,950 295
2015 48,350 4.65 9.00 2.75 10,470 270 11,440 295
2020 49,770 4.80 9.30 2.85 10,810 270 11,810 295
2025 51,080 5.00 9.70 2.95 11,260 270 12,300 295
2030 52,480 5.20 10.10 3.10 11,710 270 12,795 295
1Based on population and cammrcial/industrial area served by Plant I - north of Magnolia Road.
2Based om 100 gpcd for future residential and 4,000 gpd/acre for future cmmercial/industrial acreage.
3Based on the average of years 1983 through 1988 and by cembining the values of Plant 1 and Plant 2.
~ 111-9
PR~ RASTI~RTER FLOd R~) ~R~STICS - PLANT 21
Average2 ldaximum ~n~ A~ra~ ~5 A~rage ~53 Average ~S A~ra~ ~S3
Dally FI~ Daily FI~ D~ly FI~ ~din~ (lbs./d~) ~ding (~1) ..~ding (lbs./da~) ~ding (m~l)
Y~r P~ulation (~) (~) (~) Influenk Influen~ InfluenC Influ~
19~ 5,~5 1.~ 3.15 0.70 3,~0 275 3,035 ~
1995 6,7~ 1.~ 4.05 0.~ 4,130 275 3,~5 ~0
~ 7,~ 2.15 4.85 1.10 4,9~ 275 4,~ ~
2~5 8, ~ 2.50 5.65 1. ~ 5,735 275 5,420 ~
~10 8,9~ 2.80 6.~ 1.45 6,420 275 6,070 ~
2015 9,8~ 3.10 7.~ 1 .~ 7,110 275 6,720 ~
20~ 10,7~ 3.~ 7.65 1.75 7,~ 275 7,375 ~
~ 11,6~ 3.~ 8.10 1.85 8,~5 275 7,~5 ~
~ 12,520 3.~ 8.55 1.95 8,715 275 8,2~ ~
IB~ ~ ~ula~ion ~ c~rcial/i~trial area ~ ~ Plan~ 2 ~ ~ea ~u~h of ~olia ~d.
2Bas~ ~ 1~ ~d for residential ~ 4,~ ~/acre for ~ture c~rcial/ind~trial acr~ge.
3~s~ ~ the a~ra~ of ~ars 1983 thro~h 19~ ~ by cmbining the values of Plant 1 ~ Plan~ 2.
SECTION IV
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM REVIEW
GENERAL
An evaluation of the collection system was performed by identifying and
studying main interceptors (12" and larger), main pump stations and prob-
lem pump stations. Refer to Plate III-1 in Section III.
The pump stations and interceptors studied are as follows:
PUMP STATIONS
No. Location
1 Third & Ash
2 Ash & Smoky Hill River
8 S. Ohio & Magnolia
9 Belmont & Magnolia
101 Broadway & Leslie
13 Sunset Plaza on W. Crawford
17 Eastborough & North Street
19 E. Crawford & Smoky Hill River
1Suspected Infiltration/Inflow Problems.
INTERCEPTORS
Receiving
Name Size Range Pump Station No.
East Side Interceptor 18" - 21" 17
Ash Street Interceptor 14" - 36" 1 & 2
Southeast Interceptor 24" - 27" 19
Front Street Interceptor 12" - 24" 1
North Street Interceptor 21" - 24" 1
Ohio Street Interceptor 15" - 24" 2
Schilling Interceptor 12" - 18" Plant 2
The studies consisted principally of flow monitoring at the pump sta-
tions. Dry and wet weather flows were compared for infiltration/inflow
(I/I) and I/I flows were prorated for the respective service area and
interceptor sewer.
PUMP STATIONS
Flow was monitored by installing ultrasonic Doppler flowmeters and strip
charts in the variable speed Pump Station Nos. i, 2 and 17 and by
installing time clocks in the constant speed Pump Station Nos. 8, 9, i0,
13 and 19.
IV-1
City personnel and Wilson & Company staff members conducted field tests
consisting of wet well drawdown tests for calibrating Nos. 1, 2 and 17
flowmeters, wet well drawdown tests for determining pump capacities at
Nos. 8 and 13, and weir and Palmer-Bowlus flume flow measurements for
determining pump capacities at Nos. 9, 10 and 19. Table IV-1 indicates
the results found from the field tests. Each individual pump at Nos. 8,
9, 10, 13 and 19 was manually operated so that the maximum flow from each
pump and each set of pumps could be recorded. Maximum flows for Nos. 1
and 17 were taken from the strip charts during the heavy rainfall
(3.21 inches) that occurred on 21 August 1984. Maximum flows for No. 2
are estimated and are to be verified by City staff by filling the wet
well and manually operating the pumps.
TABLE IV-1
SALINA PUMP STATIONS' '
EXISTING CAPACITY
Pump Station
Rated Measured Maximum
Pump Pump Capacity Capacity Capacity
Station Number (GPM) (GPM) (MGD)
1 1 2,200 1,122
2 2,200 726
3 2,200 1,452
1 & 2 - 1,584
1 & 3 - 1,419
2 & 3 - 1,848
1, 2 & 3 - 2,050 2.95
2 1 Abandoned
2 1,800 1,575
3 2,000
2 & 3 - 3,060 4.41
8 1 300 691
2 300 633
1 & 2 - 1,120 1.61
9 1 300 240
2 300 278
1
& 2 - 318
1 & 2 - 339 0.49
10 1 200 313
2 200 326
1
& 2 - 396
1 & 2 - 413 0.59
IV-2
TABLE IV-1 (Continued)
Rated Measured Maximum
Pump Pump Capacity Capacity Capacity
Station Number (GPM) (GPM) (MGD)
13 1 900 807
2 900 813
1 & 2 - 1,243 1.79
1 & 2 - 1,137
17 1 2,350 1,275
2 2,350 1,375
1 & 2 - 2,350 3.38
19 1 1,370 1,139
2 1,370 1,201
3 1,370 1,139
1 & 2 - 2,097
1 & 3 - 2,049
2 & 3 - 2,049
1, 2 & 3 - 2,972 4.28
Pump Station Nos. 1 and 17 are pumping well below their rated capacities.
The remaining pump stations studied were found to be pumping near or
above their rated capacities.
Wastewater flows at Plant 1 are received from Pump Station Nos. 1, 2, 17,
27 and 37. The following Table IV-2 was developed to compare the total
combined flow of Pump Station Nos. 1, 2 and 17 to the recorded influent
flow of Plant 1. Pump Station Nos. 27 and 37 pump directly into the
force main between Pump Station No. 1 and Plant 1. The combined flows of
Pump Station Nos. 27 and 37 are approximately 60,000 gpd (0.06 MGD).
This is a small percentage of the overall flow and therefore is not con-
sidered in Table IV-2.
IV-3
TABLE IV-2
FLOW COMPARISON OF PLANT i TO CONTRIBUTING PUMP STATIONS
Pump Stations
No. 1 No. 2 No. 17 Total of Plant 1
Average Average Average Pump Stations Average
Day DaM Day Average Day Day
1987 Jan. 0.760 1.821 .921 3.502 3.620
Feb. 0.774 1.886 .919 3.579 3.608
Mar. 0.841 2.080 1.065 3.986 4.122
Apr. 0.805 2.028 1.047 3.880 3.956
May 0.885 2.036 1.077 3.998 4.096
June 0.920 2.017 0.970 3.907 4.045
July 0.975 1.993 0.976 3.944 4.184
Aug. 0.984 2.037 0.940 3.961 4.142
Sept. 0.905 1.901 1.026 3.832 3.905
Oct. 0.843 1.780 0.974 3.597 3.673
Nov. 0.810 1.701 0.900 3.411 3.404
Dec. 0.818 1.741 0.868 3.427 3.341
Pump Stations
No. 1 No. 2 No. 17 Total of Plant 1
Average Average Average Pump Stations Average
DaM Day Day Average Day DaM
1988 Jan. 0.826 1.758 0.967 3.551 3.514
Feb. 0.825 1.758 0.906 3.489 3.337
Mar. 0.797 1.747 0.886 3.430 3.274
Apr. 0.825 1.748 0.869 3.442 3.233
May 0.872 1.835 0.923 3.630 3.562
June 0.923 1.847 1.011 3.781 3.902
July 0.921 1.867 0.997 3.785 4.125
Aug. 0.958 1.867 0.988 3.813 4.161
Sept. 0.916 1.879 1.022 3.817 3.863
Oct. 0.843 1.835 0.977 3.655 3.571
Nov. 0.812 1.801 0.997 3.610 3.467
Dec. 0.781 1.813 0.997 3.591 3.436
Note: All flows are million gallons.
The total combined flows of Pump Station Nos. i, 2 and 17 are within
5 percent of the recorded influent flow of Plant 1. This condition
implies that the pump stations and plant flow recording devices are cali-
brated and are accurately recording the flows. This verifies that these
pump stations are pumping below their rated capacities as shown in
Table IV-1.
The values shown in Table IV-3 are existing wastewater flows based on
data collected by the City'from the metering devices. The flow data and
population are based on the year 1987, which had the highest flows fol-
lowing the completion of the storm sewer disconnection project. Flows
IV-4
for Pump Station Nos. 1, 2 and 17 are actual wastewater volumes pumped.
Flows from the other five remaining pump stations were calculated from
time meter readings on each individual pump. Flow equations were devel-
oped from these meter readings using actual pumping capacities gathered
from the earlier field tests. Maximum daily flows for Pump Station
Nos. i, 2 and 17 were recorded on 3 March 1987, during a heavy rainfall
(3 inches in two days).
TABLE IV-3
SERVICE AREA WASTEWATER FLOW DATA - 1987
Total Average Maximum Pump Station
Service Daily Daily Maximum
Pump Area Flow Flow Capacity
Station Population (MG) (MG) (MGD)1
1 9,810 0.860 1.646 2.95
2 21,885 1.918 2.927 4.41
8 2,204 0.194 0.369 1.61
9 1,727 0.152 0.270 0.49
10 1,716 0.151 0.363 0.59
13 6,966 0.613 0.962 1.79
17 11,115 0.974 1.897 3.38
19 12,784 1.1251 1.690 4.28
Plant 2 1,690 0.521 1.930 -
1From Table IV-1.
The total combined average daily flow for Pump Station Nos. 1, 2, 17, 27
and 37 is 3.812 MG and the average daily flow for Plant 1 is 3.842 MG.
This again confirms the accuracy of the flow recording devices at these
pump stations. Pump Station No. 19 discharges to Pump Station No. 17 and
the average daily flow for Pump Station No. 19 is larger than that of
Pump Station No. 17. This is possibly due to the method of calculating
the flow for Pump Station No. 19. The actual pump capacity (gpm) is
probably somewhat less than the figure used in the calculations.
Additional field tests should be performed on this pump station to deter-
mine the actual pumping capacities. The maximum daily flows are well
below the maximum capacity at all of the studied pump stations.
Table IV-4 presents a comparison of the average daily flow and the maxi-
mum daily flow and provides a comparison of actual flow factors (a ratio
of peak daily to average flow) to expected values taken from curve B on
Figure 4 of the Water Pollution Control Federation Manual of Practice
No. 9 (MOP No. 9).
The MOP No. 9 expected maximum flow factors are based on population and
are generally used for estimating peak flows in collection systems. They
are presented in this table for comparison to the actual conditions in
the Salina system.
IV-5
TABLE IV-4
FLOW FACTOR COMPARISON - 1987
Average Maximum Maximum Expected
Total Daily Daily Daily Maximum
Pump Population Flow Flow Flow Flow
Station Served (MG) (MG) Factors1 Factors1
1 9,810 0.860 1.646 1.91 2.95
2 21,885 1.918 2.927 1.53 2.65
8 2,204 0.194 0.369 1.90 4.20
9 1,727 0.152 .270 1.78 4.40
10 1,716 0.151 .363 2.40 4.40
13 6,966 0.613 .962 1.60 3.30
17 11,115 0.974 1.897 1.95 2.90
19 8,620 0.7502 1.4162 1.952 3.00
Plant 1 42,810 3.842 8.174 2.128 2.30
Plant 2 1,690 0.521 1.930 3.704 3.80
1Flow Factor = Ratio of Peak Day Flow to Average Flow.
2Estimated.
All of the maximum daily flow factors were below the expected maximum
flow factors. These pump stations do not appear to have excessive infil-
tration and inflow problems.
PUMP STATION UPGRADING
1. Pump Station No. 1 is equipped with two constant speed pumps and one
variable speed pump. This pump station has sufficient capacity, but is
currently operating well below maximum efficiency. The actual flow from
each pump ranged from 33 to 66 percent of their rated capacities. This
low reading may be attributed to badly worn impellers or increases in
head conditions. The three pumps should be inspected by the pump manu-
facturer and any defective equipment should be replaced. The removal and
replacement of equipment is very difficult and improved access for equip-
ment removal should be provided.
2. Pump Station No. 2 is equipped with three pumps and has been in
service since 1937 with only minor modifications. Pump No. i has been
abandoned and Pump No. 2 is in poor condition. In 1989 Pump No. 3 was
replaced with a new 2,000 gpm pump. Pump Nos. 1 and 2 should be replaced
with new pumps with similar characteristics.
3. Pump Station No. 8 is equipped with two pumps. The pumps are oper-
ating at much higher capacities than they are rated. This may be occur-
ring because the pumps are pumping at lower head conditions than those
given for the rated capacity.
4. Pump Station No. 9 is equipped with two pumps. The pumps are oper-
ating near their rated capacity.
IV-6
5. Pump Station No. 10 is equipped with two pumps. The pumps are oper-
ating at much higher capacities than they are rated. This may be occur-
ring because the pumps are pumping at lower head conditions than those
given for the rated capacity. These pumps are worn badly and should be
replaced with new pumps with appropriate characteristics.
6. Pump Station No. 13 is equipped with two pumps. The pumps are oper-
ating near their rated capacity. These pumps are worn badly and should
be replaced with new pumps with appropriate characteristics.
7. Pump Station No. 17 is equipped with two pumps. This pump station
has sufficient capacity, but is currently operating well below maximum
efficiency. The actual flow for each pump is 60 percent of their rated
capacities. This low reading may be attributed to badly worn impellers
or increases in head conditions. The two pumps should be inspected by
the pump manufacturer and any defective equipment should be replaced.
8. Pump Station No. 19 is equipped with three pumps. The pumps are
operating near their rated capacities.
All of the studied pump stations are at least 25 years old and if pumping
capacities drop, the City should consider installing new impellers or new
pumps to regain original pumping capacities.
For some time the City has received complaints of basement flooding from
the residents living along Broadway Street adjacent to Pump Station
No. 10. Plate IV-1 indicates the location of the flooded basements and
presents an enlarged view of the sewers and manholes in the vicinity of
Pump Station No. 10. According to the City, the problem occurs when both
pumps are operating. With both pumps operating, residents' basements
begin to flood and the City must send personnel to manually shut off one
of the pumps. The wet weather flows to this pump station do not appear
excessive. The expected maximum flow factor for Pump Station No. 10 is
4.40. A maximum sewage flow of 0.66 MGD could be expected based on this
flow factor. The actual maximum wastewater flow for Pump Station No. 10
is 0.36 MGD. Inspection of the pump station's sewage flow during the
3.21 inches of rain on 21 August 1984 indicates the flow only increased
by 0.12 MG. Because of the low increase in flow due to the heavy rain-
fall and the actual maximum sewage flow being less than the expected max-
imum flow, it is believed that Pump Station No. i0 does not receive
excessive infiltration/inflow. Those houses that receive sewage in their
basements lie south of the pump station, downstream of the force main
discharge and parallel to the gravity sewer that conveys the wastewater
further south. Based on the invert elevations and pipe sizes given on
the City sewer maps, the receiving interceptor is flowing three quarters
full with two pumps on. However, the City staff have observed wastewater
standing in the manholes from the Pump Station No. 10 discharge manhole
south to Wayne Street. Assuming the flooded basements are full basements
with floor drains, their elevation would be approximately eight feet
below ground. The elevation of the wastewater flow with both pumps dis-
charging is above the flooded basements' floor drains.
IV-7
PUMP ~
STATION STATION
NO. I0 NO, G ~
PUMP --
STATION _ _
NO. lO
YALE AVE. ~ ~ STATION
NO. 25
28
NOT TO SCALE
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
PUMP STATION I0
~/~'J'~OJ~/' TEMPORARY GRAVITY SEWER
&COMPANY
PLATE ']'9'-I
Pump Station No. i0 discharges to an interceptor which also collects the
Pump Station No. 6 service area flows. Pump Station No. 6 then pumps the
-- flow to the Pump Station No. 19 service area. The interceptor which col-
lects the No. 10 discharge and the No. 6 discharge is a 10-inch diameter
except for a short section under Broadway which is 12-inch. If
-- wastewater is standing in the upstream manholes, the following two prob-
lems might be occurring:
1. The 10-inch sewer line could be of insufficient size to convey the
volume and the sewer is surcharging.
2. Pump Station No. 6 may not have adequate capacity to pump the flow
-- received from Pump Station No. 10 and the Pump Station No. 6 service
area. The wet well level would then continue to rise, surcharging
the 10-inch line.
Pump Station No. 6 was not included in this study so data were not col-
lected to compare its actual capacity to Pump Station No. 10. In
_ September of 1986 the City installed new motors and impellers in this
pump station. The rated capacity of each pump is 500 gpm. Based on the
City sewer map invert elevations, the 10-inch sewer which discharges into
Pump Station No. 6 can convey 1.1 cfs flowing full. Utilizing the popu-
-- lation tributary to the Pump Station No. 6 service area, an average daily
flow of 0.22 MGD discharges into No. 6. This flow plus the peak flow of
0.36 MGD discharged from Pump Station No. 10 gives a total flow in the
sewer of 0.58 MGD or .90 cfs. It appears that the existing 10-inch grav-
ity sewer from Pump Station No. 10 to Pump Station No. 6 is not hydrauli-
cally overloaded. An additional study of the flows and service area of
Pump Station No. 6 is recommended, including wet well drawdown tests on
Pump Station No. 6 to determine its actual capacity, flow monitoring on
Pump Station No. 6 to determine maximum I/I flows from its service area,
and surveying the line between Pump Station No. 10 and Pump Station No. 6
to determine its actual capacity. City staff have suggested a temporary
solution at Pump Station No. 10 consisting of installing a new sewer line
below the elevation of the floor drains to collect wastewater from those
-. basements that flood and discharge the sewage back to the wet well at
Pump Station No. 10. Following the additional study, modifications of
Pump Station No. 6 and/or the construction of a relief sewer may be
required.
INTERCEPTORS
The wastewater flows of the studied interceptors are all conveyed to spe-
cific receiving pump stations. The maximum daily flow of the
interceptor, in the large sections near the discharge, would be equal to
that of the receiving pump station. Table IV-5 presents the receiving
pump station maximum daily flow and the current maximum daily flow of the
contributing interceptor.
-- IV-8
TABLE IV-5
INTERCEPTOR FLOW DATA - 1987
Receiving
Current Pump Station Receiving
Max. Daily Max. Daily Pump Station
Interceptor Flow (MGD) Flow No.
East Side 1.90 1.90 17
Ash St. (West) 1.05 1.65 1
(East) 2.95 2.95 2
-- Southeast 1.70 1.70 19
Front St.2 0.60 1.65 1
North1 0.40 1.65 1
-- Ohio St.3 2.45 2.95 2
Schilling 1.45 - Plant No. 2
1North Int. discharges into Ash St. Int. (West)
-- 2Front St. Int. discharges into Ash St. Int. (West)
3Ohio St. Int. discharges into Ash St. Int. (East)
-- The City's future growth is expected to be in the eastern and southern
sections of Salina. The wastewater flows from the southern section are
transported through the existing Southeast Interceptor. The Southeast
Interceptor consists of approximately 5,400 L.F. of 24-inch and
5,400 L.F. of 27-inch line, which discharges into Pump Station No. 19.
The design capacity in the 27-inch line near Pump Station No. 19 is esti-
mated to be 6.2 MGD. The average daily flow for Pump Station No. 19 is
0.75 MGD, and therefore, the estimated peak flow in the 27-inch line pre-
ceding Pump Station No. 19 would be 2.75 MGD. City staff have indicated
that the Southeast Interceptor operates in excess of half full at several
-- times during the day. The 27-inch line at one-half full would have
capacity of 3.00 MGD. It is estimated that the 27-inch line has a
remaining capacity of 3.20 MGD or .approximately an additional 1.00 MGD
average daily flow. The projected average daily flow south of Magnolia
Road is 1.30 MGD in the year 2010 and 1.80 MGD in the year 2030. This
additional flow would require improvements to both the interceptor and
the pump station. City staff have suggested diverting all the existing
and proposed flow south of Magnolia Road into a new interceptor which
would then be transported to either Plant 1 or Plant 2, depending upon
which alternative is being evaluated. The diversion of this flow out of
-- the existing wastewater system eliminates any need for increasing the
capacity of the studied pump stations and interceptors that transport
wastewater flow to Plant 1.
Interceptor/Up~radin~
1. East Side Interceptor. This interceptor extends south from North
Street and Eastborough to Crawford Avenue. It continues west on Crawford
to Marymount Road. It conveys wastewater from Pump Station No. 19 to
Pump Station No. 17. No improvements are required.
IV-9
2. Ash Street Interceptor. This interceptor follows Ash Street east
from College Street to Riverside Drive. The west reach of this intercep-
tor receives flow from the North Street Interceptor and discharges it to
Pump Station No. i. The east reach of the interceptor receives flow from
the Ohio Street Interceptor and discharges it to Pump Station No. 2. No
improvements are required.
3. Southeast Interceptor. The Southeast Interceptor extends south from
Crawford Avenue and the Smoky Hill Channel to Magnolia Road. This inter-
ceptor discharges flow into Pump Station No. 19. No improvements are
required.
4. Front Street Interceptor. The Front Street Interceptor follows
Front Street from Ash Street to Pacific and west on Pacific to Ninth
Street. The flow discharges into Pump Station No. 1. The last
1,800 L.F. of this sewer is 12-inch. This should be increased to
24 inches to match the upstream size.
5. North Interceptor. The North Interceptor extends north and east
from Ash Street and an alley east of Fifth Street to the intersection of
Ninth and North. It discharges flow to the west reach of the Ash Street
Interceptor and is transported to Pump Station No. 1. No improvements
are required.
6. Ohio Street Interceptor. The Ohio Street Interceptor follows Ohio
Street south from Ash Street to Crawford Avenue and then west on Crawford
to Pump Station No. 13 at the Sunset Plaza. This interceptor discharges
into the east reach of the Ash Street Interceptor. No improvements are
required.
7. Schilling Interceptor. The Schilling Interceptor extends south from
Plant 2 adjacent to Centennial Road to Jumper Street. It conveys the
flows from the southern section of the Schilling area to Plant 2. The
maximum daily flows will exceed the capacity of the interceptor as the
New Airport Industrial Subdivision is developed. The installation of a
parallel interceptor would be required to handle the additional flow.
IV-10
SECTION V
EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES REVIEW
-- INTRODUCTION
Plant 1 was constructed as a primary plant in 1927. The plant was modi-
_. fled to a secondary treatment process by adding trickling filters in
1950. In 1962, Plant 1 was upgraded to a two-stage trickling filter
plant. The average daily design flow is 7.8 MGD with a maximum wet
weather design flow (including stormwater) of 18.0 MGD.
Plant 2 was constructed in 1942 to handle the wastewater flow from the
Schilling Air Force Base. The Air Force Base closed in 1964, but Plant 2
-- still treats the domestic and industrial flows of the Schilling area.
The average daily design flow is 0.50 MGD with a maximum wet weather
design flow of 1.44 MGD.
EXISTING FACILITIES
General. Table V-1 indicates the design and actual waste loadings for
Plant 1. Plate V-1 illustrates the existing layout of Plant 1. With the
disconnection of the storm sewers, only the peak sewage flows are close
-- to the average design capacity of 7.8 MGD. In the past, Plant 1 has
hydraulically conveyed sewage flows of 19.30 MGD.
TABLE V-1
PLANT 1
DESIGN AND ACTUAL WASTE FLOWS AND LOADINGS
(YEARS 1983 - 1988)
BOD5 Suspended
Flow (MGD) Organic Loading Solids Loading
-- Av~. Peak (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Design 7.80 18.00 17,090 21,100
Actual 3.83 8.35 8,625 9,425
Remaining Capacity 3.97 9.65 8,465 11,675
Plant 1 - The folloWing discussion reviews the current condition of
Plant 1:
1. Headworks. Flow is measured by a magnetic flow meter. A mechanical
barscreen with 1-inch openings is used to collect rags, sticks and other
_ debris. The barscreen is in poor condition. There are two grit chan-
nels. The grit chains and grit augers have been replaced and the grit
chamber and augers have been painted. The splitter box concrete was
restored in 1982. Odor problems in the vicinity of the grit works are
common. However, a complete analysis of the location of the odor sources
o ~ J.B.#5
· SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NOT TO SCALE
~ ~ i'----~-~ STRuC TU RE
INTERMEDIATE ........ ~. ' *'::: '. ::'.~' ROADWAY
PUMP HOUSE ':~ JB~e$' ' .... SECONDARY
PUMP HOUSE
TRICKLING TRIO(LING~ ~ ~ OUTFALL
FILTER , NO.2 FILTER NO. I ' S~..RUCTURE
] J8#2 Jell
--X /, /
RAW ADMIN. ] ~'
PUMP HOUSE :' '
LOADING PAD o ]
UNIT -BOILER HOUSE .
PRIMARY DIGEST/
x CONTROL HOUSE ~
- SECONDARY OUTFA L L
sL~AI)MIN' ~. !.!.!· DIGESTERS SLUDGE BEDS
:" *"' ":"*'": v';" · ~' '*':' :: ":* :"'"" ' '.'* :'" :' ": "*
;::: IIII MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD
Illl
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
EXISTING WASTEWATER
~/~J[SOJt/ TREATMENT PLANT I
&COMPANY
PLATE ~-I
and control of the odor has not been performed for this study. In
-- general, the headworks facility is in poor condition and City staff would
like to replace it.
_ 2. Primary Clarifiers No. 3 and No. 4 were installed in 1950 and are
65 foot diameter with an 8.5 foot side water depth (SWD). The weirs have
been replaced and new bridge decks were installed in 1983. The mecha-
nisms should be replaced.
3. ~rimary Clarifiers No. 5 and No. 6 were installed in 1962 and are
80 foot diameter with an 8 foot SWD. The weirs have been replaced and
-- the bridge decks were replaced in 1983. The mechanisms should be
replaced.
4. Intermediate Pump House was installed in 1962. There are 'two 5,400
gallon per minute (gpm) constant speed centrifugal pumps used for first
stage trickling filter recirculation, and two 250 gpm centrifugal primary
sludge pumps. These were installed in 1962 and all pumps should be
replaced. Grit or snails are a problem for the sludge pumps and valves.
The valves should also be replaced.
5. Trickling Filters No. 1 and No. 2 are first stage trickling filters,
Each filter is 120 foot diameter with a 6 foot rock depth. These units
were installed in 1962. The rotating distributor arms and mechanisms
have recently been replaced.
6. Intermediate Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 were installed in 1962 and
are 100 foot diameter with a 9 foot SWD. The weirs and effluent launder
-- are wrought iron and are in poor condition. These should be replaced.
The mechanism is also in poor condition and should be replaced.
-, 7. Secondary Pump House was installed in 1950. There are two 5,400 gpm
constant speed centrifugal pumps used for second stage trickling filter
recirculation and two 250 gpm centrifugal intermediate sludge pumps.
_ Similar grit problems exist in this pump station. Both recirculation and
sludge pumps should be replaced and the valves on the sludge lines should
be replaced.
8. Second Stage Trickling Filters No. i and No. 2 were installed in
1950 and are 116.5 feet in diameter with a 7 foot rock depth. The rotat-
ing distributor arms for these trickling filters were also recently
-- replaced.
9. ~econdary Clarifiers No. i and No. 2 were installed in 1950 and are
_ 115.5 foot diameter with an 8.5 foot SWD. The mechanism, bridge and
deck, and effluent launders and weirs should be replaced,
10, Primary Digesters No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 are primary anaerobic
digesters, each being 45 foot diameter with a 30 foot depth. All ~hree
of the digesters were added in 1962. Each digester is equipped with a
fixed steel cover. The mixers have recently been rebuilt and the boiler
-- was replaced in 1983. The heat sensors on the spiral heat exchangers do
not work and City staff must manually control the temperature in the
digesters. The cover on Digester. No. 3 should be replaced, the digester
should be cleaned, and the interior walls sandblasted and repainted. The
heat exchanger temperature sensors do not work and should be replaced.
The sludge flow meter indicators have been relocated from the lab
building, calibrated and serviced. The digester control house roof and
walls abutting the digesters leak and should be repaired.
11. Secondary Digesters No. 1 and No. 2 are secondary anaerobic
digesters, both having fixed concrete covers. Secondary Digester No. 1
_ is 57 foot diameter with a 22 foot depth. Secondary Digester No. 2 is
45 foot diameter with a 22 foot depth. City staff reports they have suf-
ficient storage capabilities to leave one secondary digester empty for
storage use during periods when they cannot land apply sludge.
12. Laboratory. The existing laboratory does.not have sufficient space
and equipment to perform all of the tests which may be required to moni-
-- tor the new facilities installed for current and proposed discharge
regulations.
13. General Plant Work. City staff have been installing additional area
lighting in the past three years. The available area lighting should be
analyzed and supplemented as required. The plant does not have a backup
power supply source and provisions should be made for a second power
-- source or an emergency generator. Backflow preventers should be provided
on seal water lines. The overhead wiring should be inspected and
replaced. The plant is not connected to the City's potable water system
-- and City staff are drinking bottled water. Provisions should be made for
connection to the City's system.
Plant 2 - The following discussion reviews the current condition of
Plant 2:
1. General. Table V-2 indicates the design and actual waste loadings
-- for Plant 2. Plate V-2 illustrates the existing layout of Plant 2.
Plant 2 frequently does not meet the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) effluent requirements because of the strength
of the industrial loading. The industries in the Schilling area have
started their pretreatment processes. Plant 2 is frequently overloaded
both hydraulically and organically. If the flow is not diverted to
Plant 1, it is in immediate need of grit and screenings removal facili-
ties, additional primary and secondary clarifier capacity, a larger and
more permanent trickling filter recirculation line, new sludge pipelines
and digester heating and mixing capabilities.
,~ ~ x-----~
OUTFALL
LEGEND = ~TRUCTURE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION FLOW --/
METERING
FLUME
~ STRUCTURE
~ ABANDONED STRUCTURE
'~ PROCESS LINE CHLORINATION--
TRICKLING TANK
----~'"-- SLUDGE LINE FILTER NO. 2
,'( FENCE
'.; .'~ ". '-'" '. "- ROADWAY
SLUDGE
ORYING
MH BEDS
-- /-
I FINAL
CLARIFIER NO. I /+
PRIMARY
D,GESTE. //
TRICKLING
SECONDARY
DIGESTER
PUMP STATION
METER
· PIT ' ' ' ' ' _.,~ NOT TO SCALE
" ....
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWAT E R STU DY
~/'~OJ~ ~ EXISTING WASTE WATER
&COMPANY _ TREATMENT PLANT 2
PLATE ~-2
TABLE V-2
PLANT 2
DESIGN AND ACTUAL WASTE FLOWS AND LOADINGS
(YEARS 1983 - 1988)
Flow (MGD) Organic Loading Solids Loading
Avg. Peak (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Design 0.50 1.44 1,000 720
Actual 0'481 1.93 1,i00 900
Remaining Capacity 0.02 (0.49) (100) (180)
1Does not include recirculation flow.
2. Influent Pump Station. Two new 500 gpm centrifugal raw sewage pumps
were installed in 1983. A third pump is in storage and has not been
-- installed because two pumps sufficiently handle the existing flows.
There are also two 70 gpm sludge pumps located in the influent pump sta-
tion. They are original equipment and should be replaced. Plant 2 does
not have a grit removal facility. It does have a comminutor which fre-
quently plugs. Currently, all flow passes through a manual barscreen.
City staff report that Tony's pretreatment facility has greatly reduced
the grease and food material received at Plant 2, however, a complete
headworks facility should be installed. The motor control center is
housed in the influent pump station. It is obsolete and should be
replaced.
3. Primary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 are 26 foot diameter with an 8.75
foot SWD. The center feedwells are submerged. The City is also recir-
culating 0.396 MGD through one of the clarifiers for trickling filter
recirculation. New mechanisms, weirs and baffles should be installed.
4. Trickling Filters No. 1 and No. 2 are single stage standard rate
trickling filters. Each filter is 100 foot diameter with 6 foot rock
depth. Currently, the City is recirculating 275 gpm or 0.396 MGD from
the chlorine contact basin back to one of the primary clarifiers to
achieve greater treatment capabilities. This is a 0.9 to I ratio of
recirculation flow to raw wastewater flow. Permanent recirculation
facilities, including a pump station, piping and splitter boxes should be
_ installed. The rotating distributor arms were replaced with aluminum
arms in 1983.
5. Secondary Clarifier. There is one secondary clarifier with a
40 foot diameter and a 7 foot SWD. The mechanisms, bridge and deck,
weirs and scum equipment should be replaced.
-- 6. Anaerobic Digestion. The plant has one primary and one secondary
digester, each being 30 foot diameter and 20 foot depth. Each is
equipped with a fixed concrete cover. The primary digester is not
heated. Both digesters can be mixed by gas recirculation. City staff do
not because they believe it increases the solids content of the return
supernatant. Current operation is from primary to secondary with only
settlement for treatment. The sludge is then land applied. The use of
the sludge beds has been discontinued except during periods of inclement
weather. Sufficient digester storage capacity exists at Plant 2, but
heating capabilities must be provided to properly treat and stabilize the
sludge and the mixing systems should be replaced. The digesters should
also be cleaned and the walls sandblasted and repainted. The concrete
covers should be sandblasted, repaired and repainted.
7. Yard Piping. City staff report that they have had to repair under-
ground sludge pipelines and have found the pipe to be severely
deteriorated. These pipelines should be replaced.
8. Administrative and Lab Building. Additional floor space will be
necessary to provide room for a laboratory and an administrative office
since these facilities are not currently available at the plant.
9. General Plant Work. A secondary power source does not exist for
Plant 2 and should be provided.
V-5
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
EXISTING DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Plant 1 and Plant 2 have existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits effective from 17 April 1987, to
27 May 1991. Plant 1 discharges to the Smoky Hill River and Plant 2 dis-
charges to an intermittent, unclassified stream referred to as Dry Creek.
Both plants are currently required to meet the same discharge
limitations. The existing permit limitations are summarized in Table
VI-1. The permits require both plants to implement and administer
pretreatment programs in accordance with 40 CFR Part 403.
TABLE VI-1
EXISTING PLANT 1 AND PLANT 2
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Sample Sample
Characteristic Limitations Frequency Type
5 Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand1
Weekly Average (mg/1) 45 Twice/Week2 24-Hour Composite
Monthly Average (mg/1) 30
Total Suspended Solids1
Weekly Average (mg/1) 45 Twice/Week2 24-Hour Composite
Monthly Average (mg/1) 30
pH 6-9 Twice/Week Grab
Lead (mg/1) TOTAL - Once/Week2 24-Hour Composite
Sulfate (mg/1) - Once/Week2 24-Hour Composite
Ammonia (as N, mg/1) - Twice/Week Grab
Cadmium (mg/1) - Once/Month 24-Hour Composite
CoppeK (mg/1) - Once/Month2 24-Hour Composite
~Mercury (mg/1) - Once/Month2 24-Hour Composite
Zinc (mg/1) - Once/Month2 24-Hour Composite
Phenols (mg/1) - Once/Month2 24-Hour Composite
Flow (MGD) - Daily -
i Minimum removal of 85% of the influent BOD5 and TSS required.
2 Influent and Effluent Samples are required. Only effluent samples are
required on other characteristics.
CURRENT AND PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES
A number of changes have occurred in the regulations which govern waste-
water treatment facilities. These changes include:
VI-1
(1) Revisions to the Water Quality Standards which have required
some facilities to remove ammonia, disinfect, and/or reaerate. The
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) revises these stan-
dards every three years;
(2) Draft standards for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge were pub-
lished Monday, 6 February 1989. These standards establish cumulative
pollutant loading rates for various sludge disposal techniques;
(3) The EPA is implementing effluent toxicity control by
biomonitorimg testing on WWTF discharges. These changes have impacted
the requirements for Salina's discharges. It is anticipated that in 1991
when the new NPDES permits are issued that they will include ammonia lim-
its for the Plant 1 and Plant 2 discharges, pollutant loading rates for
the disposal of sludge from both plants, and effluent bio'monitoring
requirements for Plant 1.
ANTICIPATED 1991 DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Correspondence with Mr. Rod Geisler of the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) have provided anticipated discharge limitations
for Plant 1 and Plant 2. A copy of this correspondence is included in
Appendix A. These limitations are presented in Tables VI-2 and VI-3.
TABLE VI-2
PROPOSED PLANT 1
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Flow = 7.25 MGD (Plan lA and lB)
Flow = 5.90 MGD (Plan 2A and 2B)
Flow = 4.45 MGD (Plan 3)
Limitation Time of Year
i. CBOD5 30 Day Average 25 mg/1 November through April
20 mg/1 May through October
2. Total Suspended
Solids 30 Day Average 30 mg/1 All Year
3. Ammonia Weekly Average2 No Limit November through March
15.5 mg/1 April
10.0 mg/1 May
7.5 mg/1 June
5.5 mg/1 July
7.0 mg/1 August
9.0 mg/1 September
13.5 mg/1 October
lIf the dissolved oxygen is >9.0, then 20 mg/1 is acceptable.
2The maximum is not to exceed 1.5 times the weekly average.
VI-2
TABLE VI-3
PROPOSED PLANT 2
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
Flow = 1.35 MGD (Plan 2A & 2B)
Flow = 2.8 MGD (Plan 3)
Plan 2 Plan 3
Time of Time of
Limitation Year Limitation Year
1. CBOD5 30 Day Average 25 mg/1 Oct. - April 25 mg/1 Nov. - April
15 mg/1 May - Sept. 15 mg/1 May, June,
Sept., Oct.
10 mg/1 July - Aug.
2. Total
Suspended
Solids 30 Day Average 30 mg/1 Ail Year 30 mg/1 Ail Year
3. Ammonia Weekly Average1 12 mg/1 Dec. - Feb. 10 mg/1 Dec. - Feb.
8 mg/1 Oct., Nov., 7 mg/1 Nov. & Mar.
March, Apr. 4 mg/1 April
3 mg/1 May - Sept. 4 mg/1 October
2 mg/1 May - Sept.
1The maximum is not to exceed 1.5 times the weekly average.
Ammonia removal will be required for both plant discharges. Neither of
the plants have treatment processes capable of ammonia removal.
In addition to the discharge requirements, the new NPDES permits for both
plants will require the City's sludge disposal practices to conform to
regulations which are to be adopted in 1990 or 1991. The proposed
regulations, 40 CFR Parts 257 and 503 were published 6 February 1989 for
public comment.
The City currently applies sludge to agricultural land (wheat fields) and
will be required to conform to Part 503, Subpart B. Proposed Subpart B
establishes the following requirements:
VI-3
1. Annual Priority Pollutant Loading Rates:
Maximum Pollutant
Priorit~ Pollutant Loading Rate
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.016 Kilograms/Hectare (Kg/Ha)
Benzo(a) Pyrene 0.130 Kg/Ha
Chlordane 1.200 Kg/Ha
DDT/DDE/DDD(Total) 0.006 Kg/Ha
Dimethyl Nitrosamine 0.039 Kg/Ha
Heptachlor 0.073 Kg/Ha
Hexachlorobenzene 0.039 Kg/Ha
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.340 Kg/Ha
Lindane 4.600 Kg/Ha
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.0056 Kg/Ha
Toxaphene 0.048 Kg/Ha
Trichloroethylene 0.013 Kg/Ha
2. Cumulative Metal Pollutant Loading Rates:
Maximum Pollutant
Metal Pollutant Loading Rate
Arsenic 14 Kg/Ha
Cadmium 18 Kg/Ha
Chromium 530 Kg/Ha
Copper 46 Kg/Ha
Lead 125 Kg/Ha
Mercury 15 Kg/Ha
Molybdenum 5 Kg/Ha
Nickel 78 Kg/Ha
Selenium 32 Kg/Ha
Zinc 170 Kg/Ha
3. Management Practices including:
a. A maximum annual whole sludge application rate of 50 metric
tons/hectare (18.35 tons/acre).
b. Sludge shall not be applied at rates which exceed the nitrogen
requirements of the plants being grown.
c. Sludge shall not be applied to land that is 10 meters (30') or
less from a surface water.
4. Three classes of pathogen reduction requirements were established,
Classes A, B and C, Salina's sludge may be designated as a Class B or C
disposal. The standards for reduction of pathogenic organisms from the
level in the plant influent to the level in the final processed sludge
shall be:
VI-4
Class B Class C
a. Salmonelli sp. per gram
of volatile suspended solids (VSS) 2 logl0 1.5 logl0
b. Viruses per gram of
volatile suspended solids 2 logl0 1.5 logl0
Density of indicator organisms in sludge shall be:
Class B Class C
a. Fecal coliform per gram of VSS 6 logl0 6.3 logl0
b. Fecal Strepotococci (enterococci)
per gram of VSS 6 logl0 6.7 logl0
Additionally, the following practices shall be adhered to for pathogen
control:
a. Food crops with harvested parts that touch the sludge-soil mix-
ture and that are totally above ground shall not be grown for a period of
18 consecutive months after the last application of sludge. Thi~ applies
to both Class B and C.
b. Food crops with harvested parts that are below the surface of
the ground shall not be grown for a period of 5 consecutive years after
the last application of sludge. If there are no ova present, this period
is decreased to 18 months. This applies to Class B and C.
c. Feed crops shall not be harvested for a period of 30 consecutive
days after application of sludge for Class B and 60 consecutive days for
Class C.
d. Animals shall not be allowed to graze for a Period of 30 consec-
utive days after sludge is applied for Class B and 60 consecutive days
for Class C.
e. Access to agricultural land shall be r~stricted for a period of
12 consecutive months after the last application of sludge.
5. Vector attraction reduction approaches have been established. The
City will be required to meet one of the following:
a. The mass of volatile suspended solids (VSS) shall be reduced
38 percent when the sludge has been aerobically or anaerobically
digested.
b. The mass of VSS is reduced less than 15 percent when the sludge
is anaerobically processed for 40 additional days at 30~ C+.
c. The specific oxygen uptake rate of aerobically digested sludge
is 1 mg of 02 per hour per gram or less immediately prior to disposal.
VI-5
d. The sludge pH is to be 12 or above by alkali addition and
remains at 12 or above for 2 hours without the addition of more alkali
and then remains at 12 or above for an additional 22 hours.
e. The percent solids of the sludge is 75 percent or greater.
f. The sludge is injected below the surface with no evidence of the
sludge on the land surface within 1 hour after injection.
The City is not currently monitoring the plant influent or the digested
sludge for pathogens or the sludge for priority pollutants and nitrogen.
It is unknown whether these proposed standards can be met. The City
should begin sampling for these requirements to determine what, if any,
measures may be required to meet these proposed standards.
The City has performed limited metals testing on both plants' sludges and
City staff report they are applying 1,800 gallons/100 yards/year
(approximately 6.4 tons/acre/year or 17.4 metric tons/Ha/yr.). Based on
this loading rate and the City's limited metals data, the cumulative
loading rates would be met. However, the City should begin testing the
sludge to determine actual application rates and begin keeping a record
of how much is applied to each site.
City staff report they are achieving 50 percent VSS reduction through the
anaerobic digestion process. The City should monitor VSS reduction to
determine if the vector attraction reduction requirement of 38 percent
VSS reduction can be met.
If priority pollutants or metals concentrations limit the application of
sludge, the City can take steps to isolate and regulate the discharger
through the industrial pretreatment program. If VSS reduction of
38 percent cannot be met by the digesters, it will be necessary to modify
the digesters or revise the disposal procedures by injecting the sludge
or raising the sludge pH. Additionally, it will be necessary to enter
into agreement with the landowner to ensure the management practices for
pathogen control are met.
VI-6
SECTION VII
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
GENERAL
-- Refer to SECTION III, Paragraph - Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for
-- the different wastewater treatment alternatives that are being evaluated.
The rehabilitation of the collection system and Plant 1 are required in
the near future regardless of which future wastewater improvement plan is
selected and implemented. The rehabilitation of Plant 2 will be depen-
dent upon which future wastewater improvement plan is selected and imple-
mented.
PLAN lA
Plan lA contains a proposal to abandon Plant 2 and direct its flow to
Plant 1. The route of the wastewater flow and the location of pump sta-
tions are indicated on Plate VII-1. Three new pump stations and approxi-
mately 10.0 miles of force mains and gravity sewers would be installed to
convey all the flow to Plant 1. With this plan, future growth areas to
the south and east of the City would be served as well as the existing
and future service area of Plant 2.
Table III-5 in Section III indicates the projected average loading con-
ditions for Plant 1 with Plant 2 abandoned. The following is a com-
parison of the projected design capacities versus existing capacity.
Flow BOD5 Loading TSS Loading
Year (MGD) (lbs./day) (lbs./daM)
1990 4.80 11,010 11,210
2010 7.25 16,625 16,930
2020 8.20 18,810 19,150
Plant Design
Capacity 7.80 17,090 21,100
In terms of flow, BOD5 and TSS, Plant 1 will reach capacity between the
years of 2015 and 2020.
It appears that Plant 1 will provide adequate capacity for the next 25 to
-- 30 years. However, the original treatment facility was designed to meet
secondary treatment requirements, not advanced treatment requirements
such as ammonia removal.
Since it appears that ammonia removal may be required by the City's next
NPDES permit in 1991, the modification of Plant 1 to achieve ammonia
removal has been considered. Detailed studies and investigations of this
process are beyond the scope of this project, so this study includes only
VII-1
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
.... FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
~/~/'~OJ~ ,A, ® ~ SALINA, KANSAS
&COMPANY ~ ~ WASTEWATER STUDY
~ ~ ~ ) ~ ~. PLAN IA
PLATE ~- I
a generic analysis based on cost curves from E?A's "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual" and recent experience at the
McPherson, Hutchinson and Wichita treatment facilities. More detailed
studies should be performed during the design to establish:
1) The type of process required.
2) The size of the facility, i.e., treatment of the entire plant
flow versus treatment of ammonia-laden side streams such as digester
supernatant.
3) Possible industrial pretreatment requirements for ammonia and
subsequent reduction at the plant.
4) Detailed construction costs.
5) Pumping requirements.
6) Additional plant site requirements.
7) Additional requirements for sludge thickening and treatment
facilities.
Plate VII-2 presents an example of how the Plant 1 flow schematic could
be modified for ammonia removal.
Plant 1 Rehabilitation - Plan IA
Various plant improvements are required to rehabilitate the existing
facilities. These improvements were based upon discussions with City
staff for both existing wastewater treatment facilities. A majority of
the improvements should be completed by 1991 for treatment through 2010.
The rehabilitation for Plant 1 will be designed for a flow of 7.80 MGD.
Table VII-1 is an opinion of probable cost for the existing Plant 1 reha-
bilitation improvements. The proposed improvements are required for all
the treatment alternatives evaluated in this report. The following is a
discussion of the required improvements:
1. New Headworks and Odor Control. The cost for the new headworks is
based on one climber-type barscreen, one manual barscreen, aerated grit
removal, grit classifier and cyclone, and a block and brick building to
prevent freezing. A detailed odor control study has not been performed,
however, budget estimate costs have been included to enclose influent
channels and grit basins and scrub the off-gas.
2. ?rimar¥ Clarifiers No. 3 and No. 4. The cost is based on removing
and replacing two 65 foot diameter, 8.5 foot SWD mechanisms and reusing
the weirs and baffles.
3. primary Clarifiers No. 5 and No. 6. The cost is based on removing
and replacing two 80 foot diameter, 8 foot SWD mechanisms and reusing the
weirs and baffles.
VII-2
/ Tmcm. J~ FILTER \ A
~ ~ ~ PROCESS FLOW
NEW INTF_J~EDiATE
.... I~CIRC.
~..1~./~'~'-~ ~ BOX I~O' ~' ----. BYPASS
Ct. ARS=~.R ~ .VALVE
NO. 6
8OX NO.
..,Dy'~:~° 7.~ .~' F~N~L SLUOC~
WASTE / ! '""-----"'"'3,-'--" SCU~
J~4CTION TREATMENT / ./i,-~w~ /~ PUN~ ~TATION
CLAR~IER
I,IO. 5
TO
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
Iill[~O~l~ TO ta,~,cr UPGRADED TREATMENT PLANT I
RD/ER
&COMPAIXIY PLAN IA 8,
PLATE
4. Intermediate Pump House. The cost includes removing and replacing
two 5,400 gpm centrifugal pumps, two 250 gpm centrifugal pumps and the
sludge valves.
5. Intermediate Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2. The cost includes removing
and replacing two i00 foot diameter, 9 foot SWD mechanisms with weirs,
launders, baffles and scum equipment.
6. Secondary Pump House. The cost includes removing and replacing two
5,400 gpm centrifugal pumps, two 250 gpm sludge pumps and sludge valves.
7. Secondary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2. The cost includes removing
and replacing two 115.5 foot diameter, 9 foot SWD mechanisms with weirs,
launders, baffles, and scum equipment.
8. Laboratory. New laboratory equipment and additional laboratory
floor space are included in the cost.
9. Primary Digester No. 3 and the Control House. All the following
items have been included in the cost:
~. Remove and replace the fixed digester cover for Digester No. 3.
k. Re-roof control house. The digesters have settled away from the
control house allowing the roof to leak.
~. Seal walls and roof of control house. The settling of the
digesters created gaps between the digester walls and building.
~. Remove sludge from digesters. To repair the digester interior
and apply protective coating, the sludge must be removed and the digesters
cleaned.
Sandblast digester walls.
Apply protective coating to vertical walls.
Replace sensors on spiral heat exchangers.
i0. General Improvements. The cost includes a standby power source from
either a second line source or acquisition of an emergency generator
capable of operating essential equipment during primary power failures,
replacement of substandard overhead wiring, installation of backflow
preventers on the seal water system, and provisions to allow Plant 1 to
receive potable water from the City.
VII-3
TABLE VII-1
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN lA
PLANT 1 REHABILITATION
Item Probable Cost
New Headworks and Odor Control $1,350,000
Primary Clarifier Nos. 3 and 4, Repair
and Replacement 128,000
Primary Clarifier Nos. 5 and 6, Repair
and Replacement 185,500
Intermediate Pump House 54,000
Intermediate Clarifier Nos. 1 and 2,
Repair and Replacement 240,000
Secondary Pump House 54,000
Secondary Clarifier Nos. 1 and 2,
Repair and Replacement 240,000
Laboratory 45,000
Primary Digester No. 3 and Control
House Repair and Rehabilitation 209,500
General Improvements 120,000
Electrical 263~000
Total Construction Cost $2,889,000
Plant ! Advanced Treatment - Plan lA
Ammonia removal may be accomplished by a number of processes including
biological process such as activated sludge and physical chemical proc-
esses such as breakpoint chlorination or stripping towers. The process
evaluations for other treatment facilities in Kansas considering ammonia
removal have primarily selected activated sludge. The costs included in
this study are generic and are provided to give the City an estimate of
the costs'of these systems. More detailed costs should be developed in
later investigations. It is anticipated that ammonia removal will be
required by the new permit to be issued in 1991 therefore evaluation of
these facilities should begin immediately. The advanced treatment for
Plant 1 will be designed for a flow of 7.25 MGD. Table VII-2 is opinion
of probable cost for advanced treatment.
VII-4
TABLE VII-2
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN lA
PLANT 1 ADVANCED TREATMENT
Item Probable Cost
Advanced Treatment $5,775,000
Total Construction Cost $5,775,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation - Plan lA
Various improvements are required to rehabilitate the existing collection
system. The City's future growth is expected to be in the eastern and
southern sections of Salina. Therefore, these areas are expected to
receive the majority of the future population growth. The wastewater
flows from this area would either be pumped or by gravity flow to the
existing Southeast Interceptor. City staff have indicated that the
Southeast Interceptor is operating in excess of half full. This condi-
tion has been observed to occur at several different times during the
day. The future growth would require improvements to both the intercep-
tors and pump stations to handle the projected flow. City staff have
suggested diverting all the existing and proposed flow south of Magnolia
Street into a new interceptor which then would be transported to either
Plant 1 or Plant 2, depending upon the alternative being evaluated. The
diversion of this flow out of the existing wastewater system eliminates
any need for increasing the capacity of the studied pump stations and
-- interceptors that convey flow to Plant 1. (A preliminary investigation
indicated this would be feasible.) The studied interceptors and pump
stations have remaining capacity left for future internal growth within
their respective existing service areas. The proposed improvements are
to provide reliability and should be completed by 1991 to provide relia-
ble service through 2010. The capital costs will be based on the follow-
ing improvements.
Existing Pump Station Rehabilitation
1. Pump Station No. 1. Remove the existing variable speed pump and
replace with a new pump with mechanical seals. Provide improved access
for equipment removal.
2. Pump Station No. 2. Remove the existing Pump Nos. 1 and 2 and
replace with new pumps with appropriate characteristics.
3. Pump Station No. 8. No modification required.
4. Pump Station No. 9. No modification required.
5. Pump Station No. 10. Remove the existing two pumps and replace with
new pumps with mechanical seals.
6. Pump Station No. 13. Remove the existing two pumps and replace with
new pumps with mechanical seals.
VII-5
7. ~.~mp Station No. 17. Abandon and salvage this pump station and
divert the flow to a new proposed pump station.
8. Pump Station No. 19. No modification required.
A majority of the City's pump stations are manufactured by Smith and
Loveless. If the pumping capacities drop, the City should have the pump
stations inspected by the pump manufacturer's representative and replace
the defective equipment.
Existin~ Interceptor Rehabilitation
i. East Side Interceptor. No modifications required.
2. Ash Street West and East Interceptor. No modifications required.
3. Southeast Interceptor. No modifications required.
4. Front Street Interceptor. Replace the last 1800 L.F. of 12-inch
gravity sewer with 24-inch to match the up-stream size.
5. North Street Interceptor. No modifications required.
6. Ohio Street Interceptor. No modifications required.
7. Schilling Interceptor. This interceptor will receive the forecasted
1.0 MGD from the new Airport Industrial Subdivision. Additional inter-
ceptor capacity will be required to convey future wastewater flows to
Plant 2. Installation of the additional interceptor should be considered
in conjunction with future plans for Plant 2. The length, size and exact
location of the interceptor will depend on what improvements are to be
completed at Plant 2. For the purpose of this cost estimate, the instal-
lation of 3,900 L.F. of 18-inch interceptor parallel to the existing
Schilling Interceptor is considered.
Table VII-3 is an opinion of probable cost for rehabilitating the pump
stations and interceptors. The proposed improvements are required for
all the treatment alternatives evaluated in this report.
VII-6
TABLE VII-3
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN iA
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATION
Item Probable Cost
-- Pump Stations
Pump Station No. 1 $ 57,000
Pump Station No. 2 30,000
_ Pump Station No. 10 25,000
Pump Station No. 13 11,500
Pump Station No. 10 - Temporary Gravity Sewer 11,500
Interceptors
Front Street Interceptor 135,000
Schilling Interceptor 200,000
Total Construction Cost $470,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plan iA
The wastewater flow from the existing service and future growth area for
Plant 2 are to be transported to Plant 1. Plant 2 will then be
abandoned. Table VII-4 indicates the opinion of probable cost for the
proposed interceptor sewer system.
VII-7
TABLE VII-4
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN lA
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
Price/
Item Unit Unit Quantity Probable Cost
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (0-8') L.F. $ 11 18,400 $202,400
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (8-10') L.F. 12 850 10,200
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (10-12') L.F. 14 7,400 103,600
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (12-14') L.F. 17 10,565 179,605
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (14-16') L.F. 19 4,475 85,025
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (16-18') L.F. 22 ~.3,850 84,700
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (18-20') L.F. 25 2,500 62,500
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (>20')
L.F. 30 4,110 123,300
16-inch Force Main L.F. 17 8,100 137 700
20-inch Force Main L.F. 22 5,650 124,300
24-inch Force Main L.F. 27 3,200 86,400
18-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 18 1,100 19,800
21-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 22 2,700 59 400
24-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 29 6,500 188,500
27-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 35 16,300 570 '500
30-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 43 2,000 86,000
36-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 55 7,600 418 000
Bore and Jack Including
Steel Casing L.F. 200 1,000 200,000
Remove and Replace
Pavement S.Y. 16 4,500 72,000
Gravel Surfacing S.Y. 6 5,000 30,000
Select Backfill L.F. 9 5,000 45,000
Rock Excavation L.F. 10 2,000 20,000
Dewatering L.F. 10 5,000 50,000
Manhole, 4-foot Diameter Each 1,500 46 69,000
Manhole, 5-foot Diameter Each 2,000 13 26,000
Trench Stabilization L.F. 6 8,000 48,000
Smoky Hill River Crossing L.S. 50,000 2 100,000
Pump Station lA-1 L.S. 1 900,000
Pump Station lA-2 L.S. 1 800 000
Pump Station lA-3 L.S. 1 225 000
Construction Staking L.S. 1 20,070
Total Construction Cost $5,147,000
VII-8
Table VII-5 indicates the opinion of probable cost for Plan iA. These
costs are based on cur~rent prices.
-- TABLE VII-5
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PLAN lA - TOTAL PROJECT COST
A. Construction Cost
Item Probable Cost
Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-i) $ 2,889,000
-- Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-2) $ 5,775,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation (Table VII-3) 470,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System (Table VII-4) 5,147,000
Total Construction Cost $14,281,000
B. Project Cost
Total Construction Cost $14,281,000
5% Contingency 714,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 2,856,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 80~000
Total Project Cost $17,931,000
PLAN lB
Plan lB proposes the same improvements for Plant 1 as Plan iA. Plan lB
also proposes to abandon Plant 2 and transport the wastewater flow from
the Schilling area to Plant 1. The only difference in Plan iA from Plan
lB is the direction and method of transporting the wastewater to Plant i.
The route of the wastewater flow and the location of pump stations are
indicated on Plate VII-3. Three new pump stations and approximately
11.0 miles of force mains and gravity sewers would be installed to convey
all the flow to Plant 1. The same rehabilitation for Plant 1 and the
existing collection system discussed in Plan lA are proposed for this
plan.
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plan lB
Table VII-6 indicates the opinion of probable cost for the proposed
interceptor sewer system.
VII-9
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
SALINA,
KANSAS
m~,SOJ~ ~ %L ~ WASTEWATER STUDY
&COMPANY
½ "~ PLAN lB
PLATE '~Tr-
TABLE VII-6
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN lB
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
Price/
Item Unit Unit Quantity Probable Cost
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (0-8') L.F. $ 11 18,600 $204,600
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (8-10') L.F. 12 750 9,000
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (10-12') L.F. 14 7,050 98,700
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (12-14') L.F. 17 9,215 156,655
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (14-16') L.F. 19 7,385 140,315
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (16-18') L.F. 22 7,450 163,900
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (18-20') L.F. 25 3,400 85,000
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (>20') L.F. 30 4,000 120,000
16-inch Force Main L.F. 17 8,400 142,800
20-inch Force Main L.F. 22 5,650 124,300
24-inch Force Main L.F. 27 3,200 86,400
18-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 18 1,i00 19,800
21-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 22 2,700 59,400
24-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 29 2,600 75,400
27-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 35 18,900 661,500
30-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 43 8,800 378,400
36-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 55 7,600 418,000
Bore and Jack Including
_- Steel Casing L.F. 200 1,100 220,000
Remove and Replace
Pavement S.Y. 16 4,500 72,000
-- Gravel Surfacing S.Y. 6 5,000 30,000
Select Backfill L.F. 9 5,000 45,000
Rock Excavation L.F. 10 2,000 20,000
Dewatering L.F. 10 5,500 55,000
Manhole, 4-foot Diameter Each 1,500 55 82,500
Manhole, 5-foot Diameter Each 2,000 13 26,000
Trench Stabilization L.F. 6 8,500 51,000
Smoky Hill River Crossing L.S. 50,000 2 100,000
Pump Station lA-1 L.S. i 900,000
Pump Station iA-2 L.S. 1 800,000
Pump Station lA-3 L.S. 1 225,000
-- Construction Staking L.S. 1 21,330
Total Construction Cost $5,592,000
VII-10
Table VII-7 indicates the opinion of probable cost for Plan lB. These
costs are based on current prices.
TABLE VII-7
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PLAN lB - TOTAL PROJECT COST
A. Construction Cost
Item Probable Cost
Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-i) $ 2,889,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-2) 5,775,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation (Table VII-3) 470,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System (Table VII-6) 5~592,000
Total Construction Cost $14,726,000
B. Project Cost
Total Construction Cost $14,726,000
5% Contingency 736,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 2,945,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 90,000
Total Project Cost $18,497,000
PLAN 2A
Plan 2A proposes to retain the two-treatment plant concept and upgrade
both Plant 1 and Plant 2. The same rehabilitation proposed for Plant 1
under Plan IA is proposed for this plan. The advanced treatment for
Plant 1 will be designed for a flow of 5.90 MGD. Table VII-8 indicates
the opinion of probable cost for the advanced treatment.
VII-ii
TABLE VII-8
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 2A
PLANT 1 ADVANCED TREATMENT
Item Probable Cost
Advanced Treatment $5,170,000
Total Construction Cost $5,170,000
Plan 2A also contains a proposal to install two new pump stations and
approximately 7.5 miles of force mains and gravity sewers. Plate VII-4
shows the approximate location of the proposed pump stations and sewer
lines. The same rehabilitation for the existing collection system, dis-
cussed in Plan iA, is proposed for this plan.
The design flow characteristics for Plant 2, Plan 2A are shown in
Table III-7. The following is a summary of the required future capacity.
Flow BOD5 Loading TSS Loading
Year (MGD) (lbs./day) (lbs./day)
1990 0.70 1,605 1,315
2010 1.35 3,100 2,535
2020 1.65 3,785 3,100
In 1988 Plant 2 had an average daily flow of 426,000 gpd with an aver-
age influent BOD5 concentration of 249 mg/1 and an average influent TSS
concentration of 202 mg/1. Under these conditions, the plant has had
difficulties consistently meeting effluent requirements. The existing
plant will require improvements to meet the effluent requirements in
.addition to the rehabilitation of the existing equipment discussed in
Section V. Plate VII-5 provides a flow schematic of the existing plant
with the required improvements shown. Table VII-8 is an opinion of prob-
able cost for the existing Plant 2 rehabilitation. The following is a
discussion of all the required improvements:
Plant 2 Rehabilitation - Plan 2A
1. New Headworks. The cost includes a mechanical and manual barscreen,
an aerated grit chamber, grit screw conveyor, grit pump, classifier,
cyclone and a measuring flume.
2. Administration and Lab Building. The cost provides for an addi-
tional 400 square feet of floor space to the existing influent pump
station.
3. Influent Pump House. The cost includes replacing two 70 gpm pumps,
the motor control center and installing additional pumping capacity.
VII-12
NOT TO SCALE
C-
LEGEND
.... FORCE MAIN
: GRAVITY SEWER
(~ ® SA LINA, KANSAS
~SO/t/ ~
&COMPAI'qY ~ ,/ ~ WASTEWATER STUDY
, ~' PLAN 2A 8~ 2B
PLATE ]ZII- 4
LEGEND
EXISTING NEW DESCRIPTION
MAIN ~ FLOW
¥:: . RECIRC.
..: /~'VANCED WASTE J
TRF-A'TMENT J ~PASS
~ ~ STR~T~S
~W T~ ~V~ WASTE %
T~7~ T~ . ~ ~.-.~ ~ VALVE
~ 8TA~ .-:'
NEW ~.~ TO DRY
TRICIO..I~G INTERMEDIATE. C:Rt~K
:: :~ FILTER CJ. ARIFIER - '
~ ::!: : HO. 2
& SCUM
PUMP STATION
_..~.~.- , ~
NO. 4 ' ~:~ . -
~A~
P~
~ T~ ~L
~- ~TER C~ERT TO
' ~E~TE ~A~
~R
S~TER
~.1
~TER ~ ~ ~
~T TO ~
SALINA, KANSAS
'WASTEWATER STUDY
UPGRADED TREATMENT PLANT 2
PLAN 2A
&t/~[SO~ FLOW SCHEMATIC
&COMPANY
PLATE ~ - 5
4. Primary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2. The cost includes replacing
both existing mechanisms, the weirs and the scum baffles.
5. New Primary Clarifier No. 3 would have a 35 foot diameter and a
10 foot SWD and would be installed to provide capacity in addition to the
two existing primary clarifiers.
6. New Splitter Box No. 1 is required to discharge the wastewater to
each of the three primary clarifiers.
7. Trickling Filters No. 1 and No. 2. The cost includes modifying the
trickling filter influent lines for a permanent recirculation system.
8. Final Clarifier No. 1 will be converted to an intermediate
clarifier. The cost includes replacing the mechanism, weirs and install-
ing scum equipment.
9. New Intermediate Clarifier No. 2 would have a 40 foot diameter and a
12 foot SWD and would be installed to handle future flows and relieve the
current load on the existing final clarifier.
10. New Recirculation Pump Station. The cost includes a larger perma-
nent recirculation line and pump station to recirculate trickling filter
effluent directly back to the trickling filters.
11. New Manhole No. 4 has been included in the costs to receive the
recirculation flow and the flow from the three primary clarifiers before
discharging to the trickling filters.
12. New Di~ester Heater Building. The cost includes a new building
which would provide sludge heating capabilities.
13. Di~ester Complex. Current operation of the digesters is in series
from the primary digester to the secondary digester with only s.ettlement
for treatment. The primary digester is not heated and neither digester is
mixed. The following are immediate needs of the digester complex:
a. Install mixing equipment for the primary digester..
b. Remove all abandoned existing equipment.
c. Remove sludge from the digesters.
d. Sandblast digester walls and cone floor.
e. Repair concrete digester covers.
f. Apply coal tar epoxy to vertical walls and cone floor.
14. Yard Piping. This includes all process and sludge piping, manholes,
valves, sludge piping replacement, and a temporary bypass for upgrading
Plant 2. Future revisions include removing the chlorination building,
installing a larger effluent line and replacing the outfall structure.
15. General. Plant 2 does not have a back-up power supply system. The
cost includes installation of an emergency generator system capable of
operating essential equipment during primary power failures or adding a
connection that would enable Plant 2 to receive power from a second line
-- source.
TABLE VII-9
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 2A
PLANT 2 REHABILITATION
Item Probable Cost
Headworks $250,000
-- Administration and Lab Building 80,000
Influent Pump House -
Replace Primary Sludge Pumps and Motor Control Center 16,000
Additional Pump Capacity 100,000
Remove and Replace Primary Clarifier Nos. 1 and 2 120,000
New Primary Clarifier No. 3 185,000
Splitter Box No. 1 20,000
-- Trickling Filter Nos. 1 and 2 - Influent Lines 20,000
Convert Final Clarifier No. 1 70,000
New Intermediate Clarifier No. 2 185,000
New Recirculation Pump Station 75,000
New Manhole No. 4 10,000
New Digester Heater Building 165,000
_ Digester Complex
Mixing Equipment 120 000
Remove Abandoned Existing Equipment 20 000
Remove Sludge and Clean Digesters 6 000
Sandblast and Apply Coating to Walls 12 000
Repair Concrete Digester Covers 20 000
Yard Piping 75 000
General Improvements 60 000
Electrical 160 000
__ Total Construction Cost $1,769,000
Plant 2 Advanced Treatment - Plan 2A
Since KDHE has established ammonia limitations on the Plant 2 discharge,
it will be necessary to provide an ammonia removal treatment process as
discussed for Plant 1. The costs presented in the opinion of probable
cost include a pump station, advanced waste treatment facilities, final
clarifiers, sludge thickening and additional digester capacity. The
costs are generic in nature and are based on the EPA's "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual", cost curves and recent experi-
ence in Kansas. Further investigations will be required during the
design phase to select the actual process. Table VII-10 indicates the
opinion of probable cost for the advanced treatment.
VII-14
TABLE VII-10
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 2A
PLANT 2 ADVANCED TREATMENT
-- Item Probable Cost
Advanced Treatment $2,090,000
Total Construction Cost $2,090,000
_ Proposed Interceptor Sewer System - Plans 2A and 2B
Table VII-Il indicates the opinion of probable costs for the proposed
interceptor sewer ~system.
VII-15
TABLE VII-ii
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLANS 2A AND 2B
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
Price/
Item Unit Unit Quantity Probable Cost
-- Trenching, Backfill ') ,
and Compaction (0-8 L.F. $ 11 10 850 $119 350
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (8-10') L.F. 12 9,355 112,260
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction ~10-12') L.F. 14 7,110 99 540
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (12-14') L.F. 17 2,125 36 125
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction ~14-16') L.F. 19 1,765 33 535
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction ~16-18') L.F. 22 1,590 34 980
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (18-20') L.F. 25 1,240 31,000
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (>20') L.F. 30 3,815 114,450
16-inch Force Main L.F. 17 5,500 93,500
20-inch Force Main L.F. 22 3,200 70,400
18-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 18 3,900 70,200
21-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 22 11,450 251,900
24-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 27 i0,100 272,700
30-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 43 4,500 193,500
Bore and Jack Including
Steel Casing L.F. 200 800 160,000
Remove and Replace
Pavement S.Y. 16 4,000 64,000
Gravel Surfacing S.Y. 6 4,000 24,000
Select Backfill L.F. 9 3,000 27,000
Rock Excavation L.F. 10 2,000 20,000
Dewatering L.F. 10 4,500 45,000
Manhole, 4-foot Diameter Each 1,500 43 64,500
Manhole, 5-foot Diameter Each 2,000 8 16,000
Trench Stabilization L.F. 6 7,000 42,000
Smoky Hill River Crossing L.S. 50,000 2 100,000
Pump Station 2A-1 and 2B-1 L.S. 1 800,000
Pump Station 2A-2 and 2B-2 L.S. ! 700,000
Construction Staking L.S. 1 18~060
Total Construction Cost $3,614,000
VII-16
Table VII-12 indicates the opinion of probable cost for Plan 2A. These
costs are based on current prices.
TABLE VII-12
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PLAN 2A - TOTAL PROJECT COST
A. Construction Cost
Item Probable Cost
Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-I) $ 2,889,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-8) 5,170,000
Plant 2 Rehabilitation (Table VII-9) 1,769,000
Plant 2 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-10) 2,090,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation (Table VII-3) 470,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System (Table VII-ii) 3,614,000
Total Construction Cost $16,002,000
B. Project Cost
Total Construction Cost $16,002,000
5% Contingency 800,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administration 3,200,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 80,000
Total Project Cost $20,082,000
PLAN 2B
Plan 2B proposes to retain the two-treatment plant concept by construct-
ing a new Plant 2 north of existing Plant 2. Existing Plant 2 would be
abandoned and a new interceptor would be installed to connect it with the
new Plant 2. The new Plant 2 and advanced treatment will be designed for
a flow of 1.35 MGD. The proposed interceptor sewer system, existing col-
lection system rehabilitation, Plant i rehabilitation and Plant 1
advanced treatment are the same for Plan 2B as they are for Plan 2A.
Plate VII-4 shows the approximate location of the proposed pump stations
and sewer lines. The design flow and characteristics are the same as
those discussed for Plan 2A.
VII-17
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment - Plan 2B
Plate VII-5 would be a similar layout of the new Plant 2. The following
is a brief discussion of the major components that would be installed for
the plant:
1. Headworks. The cost includes a mechanical and manual barscreen, an
aerated grit chamber, grit screw conveyor, grit pump, cyclone,
classifier, Parshall measuring flume and new interceptor lin% would be
installed from existing Plant 2 to the new Plant 2.
2. Administration and Lab Building would provide adequate space for a
laboratory, an office, records storage and administration activities. It
would also provide locker and shower facilities for City personnel. The
cost provides for this building are based on 360 square feet of labora-
tory space and 820 square feet of administration area.
3. Influent Pump Station. The cost includes an enclosed type screw
pump station to pump the wastewater through the treatment facility.
4. Primary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 are 35 foot in diameter and a
10 foot SWD. Each clarifier would have a volume of 117,500 gallons.
5. Primary Sludge and Scum Pump Station would house the primary sludge
and scum pumps that pump the raw primary sludge to the digester complex.
6. Final Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 are 35 foot in diameter and a
10 foot SWD. Each clarifier has a volume of 71,967 gallons. Final
effluent would exit over the weirs to the outfall structure.
7. Final Sludge and Scum Pump Station could pump sludge from the final
clarifiers to the sludge thickening facility and/or digester complex.
8. Di~ester Complex. The main components of this complex consist of a
primary digester, a secondary digester, sludge heaters, mechanical sludge
mixers and a sludge loading pad.
9. Sludge Thickening. The cost includes sludge thickening facilities
to thicken the WAS prior to anaerobic digestion.
Major items of the new Plant 2 and the opinion of probable cost are
presented in Table VII-10. These costs are based on current prices.
VII-18
TABLE VII-13
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 2B
PROPOSED NEW PLANT 2 PRIMARY TREATMENT
Item Probable Cost
Headworks $250,000
Administration and Lab Building 80,000
Influent Pump Station 370,000
Primary Clarifiers 360,000
Primary Sludge and Scum Pump Station 91,000
Final Sludge and Scum Pump Station 91,000
Electrical 124,000
Total Construction Cost $1,366,000
Secondary/Advanced Treatment - Plan 2B
Secondary treatment, as well as ammonia removal, will be required to meet
discharge limitations. Since the facility is a remote facility, the
costs have been based on extended aeration activated sludge which is
capable of ammonia removal but will also be a more stable process for
remote operation. More detailed study would be required during design
for process selection.
Table VII-14 indicates the opinion of probable cost for the
Secondary/Advanced Treatment.
TABLE VII-14
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 2B
NEW PLANT 2 SECONDARY/ADVANCED TREATMENT
Item Probable Cost
Secondary/Advanced Treatment $2,970,000
Total Construction Cost $2,970,000
Table VII-15 indicates the opinion of probable cost for Plan 2B. These
costs are based on current prices.
VII-19
TABLE VII-15
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
PLAN 2B - TOTAL PROJECT COST
A. Construction Cost
Item Probable Cost
Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-i) $ 2,889,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-8) 5,170,000
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment
(Table VII-13) 1,366,000
New Plant 2 Secondary/Advanced Treatment
(Table VII-14) 2,970,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation
(Table VII-2) 470,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewer System (Table VII-ii) 3,614,000
Total Construction Cost $16,479,000
B. Project Cost
Total Construction Cost $16,479,000
5% Contingency 824,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 3,296,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 807000
Total Project Cost $20,679,000
PLAN 3
Plan 3 proposes to retain the two-treatment plant concept by abandoning
existing Plant 2 and replacing it with a new treatment facility which
will provide treatment capacity for the existing Plant 2 service area,
the existing Plant 1 service area south of Magnolia Road, and the pro-
posed south service growth area. Plan 3 also contains a proposal to
install two new pump stations and approximately 7.0 miles of force mains
and gravity sewers to transport flow to Plants 1 and 2. This plan would
convey projected future flow from the east part of the City to Plant 1
and would convey flow from the existing service area south of Magnolia
Road and the proposed service area in the south part of the City to a new
Plant 2. Plate VII-6 indicates the approximate location of the proposed
pump stations and interceptor sewer system. The upgrade to the existing
collection system is the same as Plan IA.
VII-20
NOT TO SCALE
MAIN -
~~' LEGEND
r .... FORCE MAIN
GRAVITY SEWER
S.~[:LINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
PLAN 3
PLATE '~-r- 6
The wastewater flow and characteristics projections for this plan were
developed and presented in Table III-9. The following is a summary of
the required future capacity:
Flow BOD5 Loading TSS Loading
Year (MGD) (lbs./daM) (lbs./day)
1990 1.40 3,210 3,035
2010 2.80 6,420 6,070
2020 3.40 7,800 7,375
The same rehabilitation proposed for Plant 1 under Plan lA is proposed
for this plan.
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment - Plan 3
The advanced treatment for Plant 1 will be designed for a flow of
4.45 MGD. The estimated construction cost for Plant 1 advanced treatment
is shown in Table VII-16. Plate VII-7 is a preliminary layout of the new
Plant 2 for this plan. The following is a brief discussion of the major
components that would be installed.
TABLE VII-16
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 3
PLANT 1 ADVANCED TREATMENT
Item Probable Cost
Advanced Treatment $4,400,000
Total Construction Cost $4,400,000
Proposed New Plant 2 Primary Treatment - Plan 3
The primary treatment for the new Plant 2 will be designed for a flow of
2.80 MGD.
1. Headworks. The cost includes a mechanical barscreen, a manual
barscreen, an aerated grit chamber, grit conveyor, cyclone, classifier,
grit pump, influent flow meter, and a new interceptor line from existing
-- Plant 2 to the new Plant 2.
2. Administration and Lab Building. Identical to Plan 2B.
3. Influent Pump Station. The cost includes an influent screw pump
station to pump wastewater through the facility.
4. Primary Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 are 50 foot diameter and a
9.5 foot SWD. Each clarifier will have a volume of 139,525 gallons.
VII-21
-- EFFLUENT /--- NEW SLUDGE
- --n~/ THICKENER
NEW FINAL SLUDGE--~ [ .....
AND SCUM PUMP \ I
- STATION \ ~
-- ~-NEW FINAL IGESTER
COMPLEX
CLARIFIERS
SECONDARY ADVANCED
-- WASTE TREATMENT
NEW PRIMARY LEGEND
CLARIFIERS
'~ PROCESS i~LOW
m ~ ' - RECIRCULATION
~--NEW PRIMARY SLUDGE
NEW PRIMARY AND SCUM PUMP
CLARIFIERS STATION
NEW INFLUEI INFLUENT
PUMP STATION
-- NEW HEADWORKS
SALINA, KANSAS
WASTEWATER STUDY
- NEW PLANT 2
PLAN 2B 8~ 2A
FLOW SCHEMATIC
&COMPA /Y PLATE 7
5. Primary Sludge and Scum Pump Station would house the primary sludge
and scum pumps that pump the raw primary sludge to the digester complex.
6. Final Clarifiers No. 1 and No. 2 are 50 foot diameter and a
9.5 foot SWD. Each clarifier would have a volume of 139,525 gallons.
7. Digester Complex. The costs include a primary digester, secondary
digester, sludge heaters, sludge mixers and a sludge loading pad.
8. Sludge Thickening. The cost includes sludge thickening facilities
to thicken the WAS prior to anaerobic digestion.
9. Final Sludge and Scum Pump Station could pump sludge from the final
clarifiers to the sludge thickening facility and/or digester complex.
Major items of the new Plant 2 and the opinion of probable cost are pre-
sented in Table VII-17. These costs are based on current prices.
TABLE VII-17
_ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 3
PROPOSED NEW PLANT 2
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Item Probable Costs
Headworks $400,000
-- Administration and Lab Building 80,000
Influent Pump Station 650,000
Primary Clarifiers 460,000
Primary Sludge and Scum Pump Station 110,000
Digesters Complex 1,000,000
Final Sludge and Scum Pump Station 110,000
Electrical 281~000
Total Construction Cost $3,091,000
Plant 2 Secondary/Advanced Treatment - Plan 3.
Secondary treatment, as well as ammonia removal, will be required to meet
_ discharge limitations. Since the facility is a remote facility, the
costs have been based on extended aeration activated sludge which is
capable of ammonia removal but will also be a more stable process for
remote operation. More detailed study would be required during design
for process selection. Table VII-18 indicates the opinion of probable
cost for the secondary/advanced treatment. The secondary/advanced treat-
ment for the new Plant 2 will be designed for a flow of 2.80 MGD.
VII-22
TABLE VII-18
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
NEW PLANT 2 SECONDARY/ADVANCED TREATMENT
Item Probable Costs
Secondary/Advanced Treatment $3~630~000
Total Construction Cost $3,630,000
Proposed East Dry Creek Interceptor Sewer System - Plan 3
Table VII-19 indicates the opinion of probable cost for the proposed East
Dry Creek interceptor sewer system.
VII-23
TABLE VII-19
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - PLAN 3
PROPOSED EAST DRY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
Price/
Item Unit Unit Quantity Probable Cost
-- Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (0-8') L.F. $ 11 5,760 $ 63,360
Trenching, Backfill
_ and Compaction (8-10') L.F. 12 2,185 26,220
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (10-12') L.F. 14 10,695 149,730
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction ~12-14') L.F. 17 2,990 50,830
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (14-16') L.F. 19 960 18,240
Trenching~ Backfill
and Compaction (16-18') L.F. 22 340 7,480
-- Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction ~18-20') L.F. 25 1,470 36,750
Trenching, Backfill
and Compaction (>20') L.F. 30 1,900 57,000
16-inch Force Main L.F. 17 3 200 54,400
12-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 13 4,600 59,800
15-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 17 2,100 35,700
18-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 18 1 100 19,800
21-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 22 9,900 217,800
27-inch Gravity Sewer L.F. 35 5,900 206,500
Bore and Jack Including
Steel Casing L.F. 200 500 100,000
Select Backfill L.F. 9 2,500 22,500
Rock Excavation L.F. 10 1,000 10,000
Dewatering L.F. 10 3,500 35,000
Manhole, 4-foot Diameter Each 1,500 38 57,000
Trench Stabilization L.F. 6 4,500 27,000
-- Smoky Hill River Crossing L.S. 50,000 1 50,000
Pump Station 3A-i L.S. 1 600,000
_ Construction Staking L.S. 1 12,890
Total Construction Cost $1,918,000
VII-24
Proposed Magnolia Force Main System - Plan 3
Table VII-20 indicates the opinion of probable cost for the proposed
Magnolia Force Main system.
TABLE VII-20
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS - PLAN 3
PROPOSED MAGNOLIA FORCE MAIN SYSTEM
Price/
Item Uni____~t Unit Quantity Probable Cost
Trenching, Backfill
-- and Compaction (0-8') L.F. $ 11 $13,100 $144,100
14-inch Force Main L.F. 14 13,100 183,400
Bore and Jack Including
Steel Casing L.F. 200 300 60,000
Remove and Replace
Pavement S.Y. 16 3,800 60,800
Gravel Surfacing S.Y. 6 4,000 24,000
Select Backfill L.F. 9 500 4,500
Dewatering L.F. 10 500 5,000
Trench Stabilization L.F. 6 500 3,000
Pump Station 3A-2 L.S. 1 800,000
Construction Staking L.S. 1 2,200
Total Construction Cost $1,287,000
Table VII-21 indicates the opinion of probable cost for Plan 3. These
costs are based on current prices.
VII-25
TABLE VII-21
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
PLAN 3 - TOTAL PROJECT COST
A. Construction Cost
Item Probable Cost
Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-i) $2,889,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-16) 4,400,000
New Plant 2 Primary Treatment (Table VII-17) 3,091,000
New Plant 2 Secondary/Advanced Treatment
(Table VII-18) 3,630,000
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation
(Table VII-3) 470,000
Proposed East Dry Creek Interceptor Sewer System
(Table VII-19) 1,918,000
Proposed Magnolia Force Main System
(Table VII-20) 1~287,000
Total Construction Cost $17,685,000
B. ~rq~ect Cost
Total Construction Cost $17,685,000
5% Contingency 884,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 3,537,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 70,000
Total Project Cost $22,176,000
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Three basic plans have been evaluated to convey and treat existing was-
- tewater flows and to provide for future growth of the City. Plan 1 pro-
vides for the abandonment of Plant 2 at the Schilling Industrial Area and
conveys all wastewater to Plant 1 for treatment. Variations of Plan 1
_ involve different routings of the interceptor sewers. Plan 2 provides
for maintaining the two treatment plants in operation and providing only
moderate growth capacity for the southern portion of the City.
Variations in Plan 2 involve expanding the existing plant or providing a
new plant. Plan 3 provides for maintaining the two treatment plants in
VII-26
operation, diversion of all wastewater flows south of Magnolia Road to
Plant 2 and constructing a new Plant 2. The following cost summary com-
pares the estimated total project costs for each Plan and the alternates
considered.
Plan lA $17,931,000
Plan lB $18,497,000
Plan 2A $20,082,000
Plan 2B $20,679,000
Plan 3 $22,176,000
Included in all of the above project estimates of cost is the capacity
for development of the East Dry Creek drainage basin. The interceptor
sewer system as shown for Plan 3 in the East Dry Creek basin serves only
that basin. The East Dry Creek interceptor is included in the Plan 3
estimate to provide equality in the plan comparisons. In event Plan 3
was selected for implementation the East Dry Creek interceptor could be
deferred until development within the basin created the need for all or a
portion of the interceptor. In any event the property served within the
basin would ultimately .pay for the interceptor system. For Plan 1 and
Plan 2, therefore, the property in East Dry Creek basin served by the
interceptor could be assessed the equivalent of the Plan 3 East Dry Creek
interceptor cost. The method of assessing and recovering such costs will
need to be developed. The cost comparisons of each plan excluding the
cost or cost equivalent of the East Dry Creek interceptor is as follows.
TOTAL EAST DRY CREEK REMAINING
PLAN PROJECT COST INTER. COST (1) PROJECT COST
lA 17,931,000 2,448,000 15,483,000
lB 18,497,000 2,448,000 16,049,000
2A 20,082,000 2,448,000 17,634,000
2B 20,697,000 2,448,000 18,249,000
3 22,176,000 2,385,000 19,791,000
-- (1) The difference for Plan 3 assumes that Pump Station No. 17 will be
rehabilitated rather than abandoned as in Plans 1 and 2.
-- DISCUSSION
Plan IA is approximately two million dollars less expensive in project
costs tham the most economical alternatives of Plans 2 or 3. There are
additional factors which could influence the decision of which alternate
(option) to pursue. These include operation and maintenance costs, pro-
ject construction timing, critical utilization of capacities provided,
and, in the case of Plan 1, the possible recovery of costs for providing
service in the East Dry Creek drainage basin.
VII-27
1. Operation and Maintenance Costs.
a. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Plan 1 provides for one plant
treating all wastewater collected in the City. Plans 2 and 3 provide two
treatment facilities, the main plant, Plant I, northeast of the City dis-
charging into the Smoky Hill River and a second plant, Plant 2, located
in the Schilling Industrial Area serving the southern portion of the City
and discharging into Dry Creek. The proposed effluent requirements for
Plant 2 are considerably more stringent than for Plant 1, therefore, the
costs of treating a volume of waste at Plant 2 .will be greater than
treating the same volume of waste at Plant 1. Also the more stringent
requirements are in effect a longer period of the year at Plant 2 than at
Plant 1. Plant 2 currently has very minimal staffing, but under the
improvement plans would require permanent full-time staffing.
The total costs of operating the two treatment plants will be considera-
bly greater than operating Plant 1 treating all wastewater flows.
2. Project Construction Timing. It is anticipated that a new discharge
permit issued in 1991 will require advanced waste treatment for Plant 1
and Plant 2 discharges. The permit will allow some time period for com-
ing into compliance, but probably not more than two years. The estimated
construction period for plant rehabilitation and upgrading is approxi-
mately one and one-half years. The construction period for the intercep-
tor sewers would be approximately one year. The rehabilitation of the
existing collection system could be on a separate time schedule from
remaining sewer system projects. In event Plan 3 is selected, the East
Dry Creek Interceptor would be constructed as needed. For Plans 1, 2 and
3 Plant 1 and/or Plant 2 projects should be complete projects but could
be built under separate contracts, undertaken concurrently. The inter-
ceptor sewer projects could be divided into multiple contracts as long as
they are compatible to and completed in conjunction with the treatment
work. Plans 2 and 3 provide more flexibility in project timing.
3. Utilization of Capacity Provided. When providing for growth over an
extended period of time, some facilities have little or small loadings
initially and may incur operational and maintenance problems. This is
particularly the case for interceptor sewers in relatively undeveloped
areas. In each of the plans considered herein, there is a diversion of
existing flows which will tend to alleviate this type of problem. The
most notable differential of capacity provided versus initial loading is
the northern portion of the East Dry Creek Interceptor for Plans 1 and 2.
VII-28
Capacity-Loading Comparison
Northern Portion
East Dry Creek Interceptor
(Year 2030)
Capacity Provided Initial Flows
Avg. Flow Peak Flow Avg. Flow Peak Flow
Plan MGD Rate MGD Rate MGD Rate MGD Rate
1 5.00 MGD 10.00 MGD 0.93 MGD 2.79 MGD
2 3.15 MGD 6.90 MGD 0.50 MGD 1.50 MGD
The initial flow rates are approximately 20 percent of the capacity
provided. This could result in some deposition of solids within the sew-
ers and establish conditions, which may result in formation of odors.
Additional operation and maintenance may be required to control these
conditions. The other interceptors and the treatment plants will be
utilizing provided capacity to a greater degree and should not provide
extraordinary operational and maintenance conditions.
4. Recovery of Costs for Capacity Provided in East Dry Creek Drainage
Basin Sewage Collection System. The traditional method of payment for
sanitary sewer mains and interceptors would be to establish a benefit
district for the property served and assess the costs of providing the
service, in an equitable manner, over a period of years. However, in the
case where the area served is largely undeveloped, this may place an unu-
sual financial burden on property that may not be developed in the near
future. An alternative method that may be considered is the establish-
ment of a benefit district but defer the costs to be assessed until the
property is subdivided for development. The payment could be one-time
amount for the subdivided land or could be incorporated into the City's
current policy for assessing costs of improvements against property
benefited.
5. Project Costs for Principal Items.
a. Existing Collection System Rehabilitation (Table VII-3)
Total Construction Cost $ 470,000
5% Contingency 22,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative ...93~000
Total Project Cost $ 585,000
VII-29
b. New Interceptor Sewers (Table VII-4)
Total Construction Cost $5,147,000
5% Contingency 250,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 1,023,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition 80,000
_ Total Project Cost $6,500,000
c. Plant 1 Rehabilitation (Table VII-i)
-- Total Construction Cost $2,889,000
5% Contingency 139,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 572~000
_ Total Project Cost $3,600,000
d. Plant 1 Advanced Treatment (Table VII-2)
Total Construction Cost $5,775,000
5% Contingency 300,000
20% Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative 1~171~000
_ Total Project Cost $7,246,000
VII-30
SECTION VIII
SUMMARY
-- GENERAL
The City of Salina wastewater collection and treatment facilities have
-- been evaluated in relation to estimated growth patterns and anticipated
regulatory requirements regarding the quality of the discharge from the
treatment facilities.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW CRITERIA
Existing
-- Parameter Year 1988 20101 20302
Population 43,000 56,000 65,000
Sewage Flows
Daily Average., MGD 4.09 7.25 9.00
-- Additional Sewage Flows3
Residential, MGD - 1.79 0.98
Industrial/Commercial, MGD - 1.37 0.77
1Conditions for treatment facilities evaluations
2Conditions for interceptor sewer evaluations
3Approximately 85% of growth in areas to the south and east of present
service areas
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
New discharge permits will be issued for the existing treatment facili-
ties in 1991. It is anticipated that the new requirements will be much
-- more stringent than current limits. The principal new requirement will
be for ammonia removal. Removing ammonia will require extensive addi-
tions to and/or redesign of existing treatment facilities. Existing
-- facilities provide a degree of treatment known as secondary, the new dis-
charge requirements will require treatment known as advanced. The new
criteria for Plant 2 is more stringent than that for Plant 1.
Disinfection of the discharge has not been proposed but could be required
sometime in the design period of the facilities.
EVALUATION OF INTERCEPTOR SEWERS AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Three basic plans were developed for evaluation:
Plan 1 considered only one treatment facility located at the present
Plant 1 site. All wastewater would be conveyed to Plant 1. Plant 2 at
Schilling would be abandoned.
Plan 2 continued the use of the two existing treatment facilities,
Plant 1 and Plant 2. Growth capacity would be provided in each facility
and a portion of existing flows from the southern portion of the City
currently conveyed in existing interceptors would be rerouted through a
new interceptor also serving a new area east of the present City, the
East Dry Creek drainage basin.
Plan 3 also continued the use of the two existing treatment facilities,
Plant 1 and Plant 2. However, the existing flows from the southern por-
tion of the City were rerouted to Plant 2.
The evaluation of each complete plan of treatment and interceptors indi-
cates that Plan 1 is the most cost-effective. The opinion of project
cost indicates a total cost of $17,931,000.
The evaluation of the existing interceptor sewer system indicates most
portions of the system are adequate for planned growth after considering
diversion of flows from the southern area. However, several of the older
pumping stations are in need of rehabilitation, one of the older
interceptors, Front Street, requires some pipeline replacement and an
additional interceptor is required in the Schilling area to provide for
growth in the new industrial area to the south.
Plant 1 requires rehabilitation of a number of existing facilities to
replace obsolete equipment, replace the existing headworks structure,
make needed repairs and initiate an odor control program.
The total project costs include the following principal items:
Existing Collection System Rehabilitation $ 585,000
Proposed Interceptor Sewers1 6,500,000
Plant 1 Rehabilitation 3,600,000
Plant 1 Advanced Treatment 7,246~000
TOTAL $17,931,000
1The estimated project cost of an interceptor sewer system serving only
the East Dry Creek drainage basin is $2,448,000. This amount could be
assessed to property to be served within the drainage basin.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. A detailed engineering analysis and cost-effective analysis should
be conducted to determine the process to be used to remove ammonia at
Plant 1 and to develop strategies to meet proposed sludge management
regulations.
2. A financial analysis should be conducted to determine the impact of
the project on the sewer service charges.
3. The City may desire to file a request to the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment ~o place the project on the priority list for
VIII-2
funding for a Federal Grant and/or the State Revolving Loan Fund. State
loans may be available at an interest rate of approximately 4.5 percent.
4. The City may desire to establish a method of assessing interceptor
sewer costs to property served in the East Dry Creek drainage basin.
VIII-3
APPENDIX A
STATE OF KANSAS
DEPABTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIItONMENT
Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620-0(X)1
Phone (91,3) 296-1500
Mike Hayden, Governor Sta,~ley C. Grant, Ph.D., Seeretar!!
Gary K. lhdett, Ph.D., Under Secretar!!
June 6, 1989
Beth Huning
Wilson & Company
9831S. 51st Street, Suite C-119
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
Re: Salina, Kansas Sewage Treatment Facilities
Effluent Limitations
Dear Ms. Hurting:
This follows our conversation of April 28, 1989 on the issue of effluent
ammonia criteria to comply with present KDHE Water Quality Standards for the
Main Plant and Schilling Plant discharges. As requested and as discussed, we
have developed effluent limitations criteria for three different scenarios
being considered by the City in the City-wide study of wastewater facilities
needs. The effluent limitations for each of these three scenario's would be
as follows:
Scenario No. 1 - Main Plant (No. 1) at 7.Smgd
Time of Year CBOD
November through April 25
May through October 20
The CBOD requirements are presented as monthly averages. As discussed in
our phone conversation we believe 20 CBOD is adequate for the period May
through October, however this results in an in-stream dissolved oxygen
violation in the month of July. 20 CBOD is acceptable in July if a
minimum DO concentration in the effluent of 9.0 can be obtained. If not,
a 15 mg/1 CBOD limit within July would result in compliance with the 5.0
mg/1 dissolved oxygen water quality standard.
A-1
-- Beth Huning, Wilson & Co.
June 6, 1989
Page 2
Time of Year Effluent Ammonia
November through March No Limit
April 15.5
-- May 10
June 7.5
July 5.5
-- August 7
September 9
October 13.5
As we discussed, the determination there would be "nolimit" from
November through March is based on the water quality analysis computer
model that sewage treatment plant effluent ammonia would not exceed 20
-- mg/1. ' These numbers are presented as weekly averages with a not-to-
exceed concentration of 1 1/2 times the weekly average. Past monitoring
data for the main plant in Salina have resulted in effluent ammonia
-- values in excess of 30 mg/1 (1.5 times 20) and if the resulting
recommended design can not assure instantaneous effluent ammonia
concentrations will not exceed 30 mg/1, we should discuss this particular
issue further.
Disinfection of the effluent is not required.
Scenario No. 2 Salina - Schilling Plant (No. 2) at 1.65 mgd
-- Time of Year CBOD
October through April 25
May through September 15
Time of Year Effluent Ammonia
December through February 12
March - April and October - November 8
May through September 3
Disinfection is not required.
Scenario No. 3 Salina - Schilling Plant (No. 2) at 3.4 mgd
Time of Year CBOD
November through April 25
May - June and September - October 15
July through August 10
A-2
Beth Huning, Wilson & Co.
June 6, 1989
Page 3
Time of Year Effluent Ammonia
December through February 10
Ma~ch and November 7
April and October 4
May through September 2
Disinfection is not required.
During our telephone conversation we were very interested to learn the City
may be experiencing high influent ammonia concentrations due to a very high
ammonia discharge from a industrial facility into the City's collection
system. This issue must be fully investigated to assess the cost-
effectiveness of pre-treatment as an alternative to result in compliance with
water quality standards.
We hope the above information is helpful and if you have any questions, please
contact me at 913-296-5527.
Sincerely yours,
Ro~~er, P.E., Chief
Municipal ~rograms Section
Bureau of Water Protection
Enclosures
RRG:eam
pc: City of Salina
North Central District
Rod Geisler
Salina 2.1 File